The Instigator
dhasher
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Emilrose
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

Should marijuana be illegal?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Emilrose
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/13/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 588 times Debate No: 68293
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

dhasher

Con

I don't even really need to make an argument of my own. This site, called "Why Pot Should Be Illegal" explains everything you will ever need to know.

www.whypotshouldbeillegal.com

I dare anyone to say otherwise.
Emilrose

Pro

Accepted.

I'd remind Con that in order to debate any topic he is required to provide an actual argument instead of one single link. Sources can be used as references, but not as arguments. Con has thus failed to meet his boP as the instigator and demonstrate exactly why marijuana should be legal.

Argument


Firstly, marijuana is officially "addictive" under the Control Substances Act, thus placing it under the same category as other harmful substances. In the U.K for instance marijuana is classified as a "class B" drug, meaning it carries more serious dangers than a "class C" and could potentially lead to a maximum five year jail sentence.

Numerous studies have also shown that regular users of cannabis are at increased risk of suffering mental health issues and severe reduction of cognitive abilities, which includes IQ and the capacity to memorise. University studies have also concluded that marijuana can be even more damaging to the physical health of a person that cigarette smoke, and that regular users experience lung problems as much as 20 years earlier than your average smokers.

Another study on postal workers found that employees who tested positive for marijuana had 55% more accidents, and 85% more injuries as well a 75% increase in being absent from work. In Australia, a study found that cannabis intoxication was responsible for 4.3% of driver fatalities. Other research has shown that students who use marijuana are less likely to enter college than non smokers.

The examples of detrimental health effects and driver fatalities provide valid reasons in as to why marijuana should not be legal. If legality was introduced across the U.S it would be more available and would thus likely lead to further use, which then increases the chances of such things (I.E accidents, etc.) It should be noted that marijuana is dangerous to other people bar the user.

[1.] http://townhall.com...
Debate Round No. 1
dhasher

Con

I'm not sure posting a link to a partisan website does you any favors, nor does quoting phantom "studies" that you cannot link to. The point of this debate is to acknowledge that it is over. The information out there is overwhelmingly in favour of legalization, like much of the rest of the first world. Making arguments siting why it's marginally poor for health is as weak a point as ever. Especially when it exists in the same country that allows rampant gun ownership, weak alcohol control boards (if any at all... in the US you can buy booze in any corner store...), rampant obesity, and... well... the list could go on and on of things that are perfectly legal but still a threat to health. The debate isn't even about whether or not it should be accessible to minors (as if alcohol and tobacco aren't). It's about whether or not your typical adult can use it responsibly.

If we believe adults can drink, smoke, and whatever else responsibly in a way that does not cause destroy society, much like it hasn't destroyed Canada and other first world countries, then it should be allowed with the appropriate checks and balances in place to go along with it... Let's not pretend there aren't societal benefits, much like what is seen by the Colorado government.

And I haven't smoked a single joint my entire life! I'm just reasonable and unafraid of fantasy and phantom studies.
Emilrose

Pro

The studies are directly quoted in the article so they are not "phantom". Bare in mind there is a 2000 character limit so I cannot link every single study as referenced in the article.

I'd also address that the link you used did not refer to any information and simply said: (when inquiring why pot should be illegal) "it f*cking shouldn't be!". So Con is not exactly in a position to offer a critique of sources. Unlike Con, I have cited an article which has quoted studies conducted by universities and other fields.

So far Con has outlined no valid reasons as to why marijuana should be illegal or met his BoP, something he's required to do.

The fact that adults can drink and smoke is not a credible argument in why marijuana should be legal. As stated in round one, in the U.K marijuana is classified as a "Class B" drug, making it more dangerous than those that are "Class C" and carrying with it a five year jail term. While neither cigarettes or alcohol are officially categorized as drugs under the "Class" system, so that particular argument is negated.

Con claims that there are "societal benefits" to legalization of marijuana but fails to actually list them, therefore not proving anything. In my own argument I demonstrated reasons why marijuana should not be legalised and referred to actual studies. Such as the damaging impact on physical/mental health, car fatality rates, the detrimental effects on students, etc. I'd note to Con that my argument is neither based on "fantasy" or "phantom studies". Unlike his/her own, which is based exclusively on personal opinion. I will source further information on the negative effects of marijuana (thus points why it should not be legal) below.

Sources:

[2.] http://www.talktofrank.com...

[3.] http://www.health.harvard.edu...

[4.] http://www.sane.org...

[5.] http://drugaware.com.au...
Debate Round No. 2
dhasher

Con

dhasher forfeited this round.
Emilrose

Pro

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by dhasher 2 years ago
dhasher
XVIII18, I'm referring to you.
Posted by dhasher 2 years ago
dhasher
I think you didn't look at the website.
Posted by Emilrose 2 years ago
Emilrose
Seriously, this is all the link states: http://www.whypotshouldbeillegal.com...
Posted by XVIII18 2 years ago
XVIII18
*debate
Posted by XVIII18 2 years ago
XVIII18
I think the instigator of this site put himself on the wrong side of what he wants to be arguing for.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 2 years ago
Paleophyte
dhasherEmilroseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con failed to support the resolution. Never made a real argument, cited a single source and forfeited the final round.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
dhasherEmilroseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's non-arguments are thrashed by Pro's actual arguments. Con's claim that there is no debate, or that the site he/she linked is more than enough to win the debate are essentially non-arguments. Meanwhile, Pro's contentions and (eventual) sources weren't matched, so arguments and sources go to Pro. Conduct goes to Pro for Con's round forfeit.
Vote Placed by o0jeannie0o 2 years ago
o0jeannie0o
dhasherEmilroseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro wins by a landslide! sources are clearly pro (just click cons). Conduct, due to forfeiture and source, pros argument was clearly written (grammar), Con did not refute studies (argument)