The Instigator
jacksonbowen0202
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
drewdy1990
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

The Nationwide Legalization of Marijuana

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
drewdy1990
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/12/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 402 times Debate No: 89539
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

jacksonbowen0202

Con

The legalization of marijuana is an increasing topic in today's society. There are multiple different topics that are associated with it. Should the Federal government decriminalize marijuana completely? should the federal government only legalize medicinal marijuana? Should the use of marijuana continue to be criminalized at the federal and (majority) state level?

I am looking for someone to convince me why the government should completely decriminalize marijuana use entirely. Please provide examples backing up your claims so that i may clearly see your viewpoints and relate them to my own opinion on the matter.

I believe that it is unsafe for the citizens on the United States to have the complete freedom to use a drug whenever they choose. This is why I am against the federal government ENTIRELY decriminalizing the use of this drug.
drewdy1990

Pro

First off, let me start by saying the decriminalization of marijuana would be beneficial to our country in many ways. Marijuana has been proven to be virtually harmless for the majority of the population. In my opinion, the legalization of marijuana would have the largest effect on crime. In states where marijuana has already been legalized, such as Washington and Colorado, crime rates have been cut by over 10%. The legalization has cut down on violent crime due to the fact that people do not have to get their weed from drug dealers, making the transaction for acquiring pot much safer. Another way in which this would help our society is the abolition of mandatory minimums due to pot related crimes. There have been cases in which defendants have been sentenced to 20+ years in prison for the possession of minimal amounts of marijuana largely based on mandatory minimum sentencing. This is morally and ethically wrong and something must be changed.
Debate Round No. 1
jacksonbowen0202

Con

Thank you for responding to my post!

You have brought some good points to the table. i am a little weary of some of your facts. in order for me to better understand your evidence, can you please provide citations from where you obtained your data. My reason for this is because there could be a plethora of reasons for why the crime rate has gone down. I like your point of taking drug dealers out of the mix, i agree this would take a lot of the harm of illegal drug use. But do you not believe that the governments stance on marijuana at the moment keeps a lot of people from getting involved with it? meaning, it keeps a lot of potentially violent people from entering the industry, and if they were to legalize marijuana, do you not think this would open the door for violent people to enter the industry because of the end fear with the law? these large sentences may be why certain violent criminals stay out of the industry.
drewdy1990

Pro

Here's my evidence http://www.thecannabist.co... . Making pot legal would mean that dispensaries like the ones in colorado and Washington could sell weed to pot-smokers and it would take away from the violent criminals making the incentive to deal drugs less. If there were an industry nationwide of selling drugs in a legal way then why would anyone purchase drugs in an illegal way. This is like what happened to alcohol after the prohibition. In my opinion, I do not see why legalization would make more violent people want to enter the industry. People want to feel safe, so why would they buy drugs from someone who makes them feel unsafe?
Debate Round No. 2
jacksonbowen0202

Con

I see that your evidence is from a source called "The Cannabist", this makes me a little skeptical of its unbiased views on the issue at hand. I actually reside in colorado, and when you state that dispensaries get rid of criminals, I have to disagree. I know first hand that even though dispensaries do provide a safe purchasing platform for the end user, there are still illegal dealers on the streets selling to people. i will relate this to your point about how legalization will be like "what happened to alcohol after the prohibition". Have you ever heard of the term "moon-shiner"? this is an illegal alcohol producer and seller (like a "weed dealer"). Although alcohol is sold in alcohol dispensaries, there are still illegal and dangerous acts happening in the alcohol community. This is my evidence on that stance http://www.slate.com... .
drewdy1990

Pro

The article was actually very unbiased. Here's another one http://www.washingtontimes.com... . I am not saying that crime will be gone totally, but I am saying that overall crime will lessen. It's impossible for me to say that there will be no crime. Yes there will be crime, but much less. Aside from crime, what about all of the tax revenue from pot?? think of all the money that is lost because the government cannot get there hands on it. You live in colorado, so you probably know that Colorado had over 70 million dollars in tax revenue last year because of pot. How can you say that this is not good? America could get so much done with that amount of money.
Debate Round No. 3
jacksonbowen0202

Con

Thank you for posting another article!

I understand where you say the you believe crime will lessen but not be totally gone. I agree with your statement as well, and with this statement I am better able to look into my own view on the issue pertaining to crime with legalization.

I am glad that you brought up the topic of monetary incentive when discussing why national legalization of marijuana would be good. my only issue with what you brought to the table is the amount of money. Yes, in theory 70 million dollars sounds like a lot of money. But even if every one of the 50 states, produced 100 million dollars from marijuana tax revenue, this would only be 5 billion dollars. The national Debt is 19 trillion dollars. that means that it would take nearly 400 years to produce that much money from marijuana. So although we would get money from marijuana, it wouldn't be any better than every citizen donating 100 dollars, so why doesn't everyone do that?
drewdy1990

Pro

I can't believe that you think $5,000,000,000 wouldn't do anything for our country! thats enough money to feed the homeless (2+ million) in this country every year at just $3 a day. So do you really think it would not help that much? its cool if you don't want to end hunger but i think that you are not seeing all that that money could do. The legalization of pot has so many benefits for this country that it would be ignorant for the US to not legalize a harmless plant like pot.
Debate Round No. 4
jacksonbowen0202

Con

hey thanks for the interesting debate. I thought that you brought a lot of good points to the table. you have definitely effected my stance on legalization. I can not say that you have changed my mind but you have molded into a different form.

I guess i will end by saying that I think their are benefits to marijuana (in the medical sense), but I do not think that recreational use would ever be beneficial enough to justify legalizing a mind altering substance.
drewdy1990

Pro

drewdy1990 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by mmurph123 1 year ago
mmurph123
jacksonbowen0202drewdy1990Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gets the conduct point for not forfeiting any rounds. 3 things that went into my arguments decision. First, Con never presents any actual arguments against it besides it will be unsafe. They don't develop this point so it ultimately washes. They do refute Pro's points, but not in a manner that actually defeats the argument. Then I look to economy. Con concedes that the government would profit, and that is enough to justify the points. Neither side gets source point because I dropped the first price of evidence presented by Pro because of the bias Con touches upon in his R3. So it comes down to the Slate and WP cards on Con and Pro respectively. In an effort to remain non-interventionist. I don't do any personal evaluations on either of these cards and they don't display any inherent bias that would corrupt them. S+G had errors on both sides, but not glaring to the point that I could justify giving one side points.
Vote Placed by SirMaximus 1 year ago
SirMaximus
jacksonbowen0202drewdy1990Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited 1 round, but Con forfeited no rounds. Therefore, Con wins for conduct.