One controversial topic that has risen to the top over the last decade has been the whether or not marijuana should be legalized. Over the last few years we have witnessed the legalization of medical marijuana and we have seen all of the wonders that it has done. Recently, Colorado has legalized the recreational use of marijuana and its economy is already reaping from its benefits. Should New York follow in Colorado's footsteps? I believe so, the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.
In your claim of "we have seen all of the wonders that it has done" in legalizing marijuana, who are you referring to has seen "all these wonders" you lack of elaborating on? because surely not everyone has seen these wonders. Also, what economical "benefits" did Colorado "reap" from legalizing recreational use of marijuana? because the economy had significant losses worth mentioning about as well. Since you failed to elaborate and state clearly on these "benefits" for legalizing marijuana use, I don't understand how New York should follow "Colorado's footsteps" and why New York should even legalize the use of marijuana.
I was referring to the individuals who have benefited from the use of medical marijuana. Medical marijuana has helped those with glaucoma, asthma, tumor, epilepsy, and arthritis deal with their illnesses. The reason why not everyone has seen the wonders of marijuana is simply because it has yet to be legalized. Marijuana should not only be legalized medically but as a recreational use as well. New York should follow in Colorado's footsteps because Colorado has gained an enormous profit ever since it became legal in that state. It has been estimated that Colorado will draw about 70 million dollars in revenue just from marijuana alone, with the first 40 million going into education. , this is just one ,of the many benefits!
First of all,FDA approved THC,the main psychoactive component of the marijuana plant to treat certain symptoms for patients but,only after showing therapeutic benefits through careful controlled clinical trials was it approved. With insufficient clinical trials to show the plant's benefits outweighing the risks entirely for patients with the symptoms meant to treat, FDA cannot approve it. Not to mention,the plant already contains various amount of different risky substances difficult to consider for medical use and by the way people intake (smoking) the plant incapacitates health in such ways by worsening the respiratory system,impairing short term memory,motor coordination declination,psychosis effects ,and not to mention the addiction!
Everything has its own risks (food, smoking,drinking), you cannot escape that. You stated that their have not been enough trials for the benefits outweighing the risks, well their have also not been enough studies for people to say that theirs a direct correlation between marijuana and health issues ( short term memory,psychosis effects).As for marijuana worsening our respiratory system, that's not necessarily true. It has also been stated that marijuana actually helps increase lung capacity. Their are also ways to prevent memory loss, THC also increases the Cox-2, which decreases memory loss.Marijuana isn't an addictive drug, people can easily get on and off it without any withdrawal symptoms unlike other substances.
According what sources are you stating that marijuana is not addictive?because according to the national institute on drug abuse,marijuana has a psychoactive component,that leads to substance abuse easily than non-psychoactive drugs,especially to those who started using(more like abusing)it since younger age. As you stated everything has its risks,therefore,the government has the authority to set the criteria to prevent any harm done to its citizens. Due to the plant containing various risky components it simply cannot be used for any purposes without a careful examinations,especially for medical and even more so for recreational use. Patients using THC for medical reasons have withdrawal symptoms,so to use it for recreation is preposterous!
You stated that the government should have the authority to regulate marijuana because you consider that i's a harmful substance, if that's so then why is it that they don't thoroughly regulate things like the things they put on the food we eat, alcohol or nicotine? They don't regulate these extremely harmful substances but yet they you want them to regular something so minor as marijuana? These things bring harm to us but nothing is done about it.The patients who use it for medical reasons do experience effects because of the THC, but they're very Minor. Would you rather it be illegal and have the patients suffer from the pain? would you rather not let it help our economy and our education? call me crazy, but isn't that what we want?
Reasons for voting decision: Generally, Pro seems to stress economic benefits, whilst Con emphasises risk to human life, the latter of which is more convincing. Pro's counter-response of "everything has risks" is not sufficient, nor is Con's almost somewhat ignoring of Pro's arguments (he/she simply harps on about the psychoactive substance). Pro begins to address Con's arguments near the end, and meets no counter-response, which takes the form of a round forfeit. I think Con may have been more convincing had he/she seen the debate through. There were several instances of poor S/G on both sides, thus points tied on that front. No sources were used; you guys both need to use them if you want your arguments to become stronger. Overall, some strong points mentioned, but they all needed to be sources and fleshed-out.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.