The Instigator
Willdavisfilms
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
tkubok
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

The continued prohibition of marijuana is far more harmful than the drug itself.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/11/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,765 times Debate No: 9664
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (5)

 

Willdavisfilms

Pro

My position is that there are many extremely detrimental aspects of marijuana prohibition, and that these override the limited negative effects of legalization.

To start, I will dispel the more common arguments against legalization. I will go into greater detail on any topic if requested.

One, the "Gateway Drug" theory. That is, smoking marijuana tends to lead to the use of "harder", more addicting drugs. Studies have shown that statistically this is not the case.(1) Logically, as that study in particular states, a persons predisposition toward harder drugs is a FAR larger impetus to their use than any one particular soft drug.

Second, the "What about the children?" argument. The idea that legalization would be detrimental to our youth is entirely false. 83.9 percent of 12th graders surveyed said that cannabis is "easy to get". (2) The point being, drug dealers aren't checking IDs. If we had a legal and age regulated cannabis industry, it would in fact make it more difficult for youth to obtain the drug, and also protect them from getting involved with the desultory aspects of the black market.

Thirdly, the "Marijuana is a public health risk" argument. I've heard people say marijuana causes everything from cancer to loss of brain cells to insanity. In reality, as DEA administrative law judge Francis Young put it "Marijuana is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man." The brain cell death study most people refer to was a farce where researchers essentially deprived monkeys of oxygen. More accurate studies on marijuana's effect on brain cells have shown that it in fact does not kill brain cells. (3) The cancerous effects people most often bring up, particularly the "smoking 1 joint equals 20 cigarettes" myth, are based on faulty reporting. The largest studies done on the matter have shown no increased chance for lung cancer (4) and because of the anti-cancer properties of THC, and actual protective effect against head and neck cancers (5)

Now to the harmful aspects of prohibition. The sale of marijuana accounts for over 60% of Mexican drug cartel's profits. (6). Why are we giving billions of dollars to violent criminal gangs when we could instead turn that all into taxable income for American businesses. Beyond just Mexican cartels, the existence of inner city street gangs relies on profits from drugs. While marijuana legalization wouldn't eradicate them, it would still strike a huge blow to crime.

There have been over 20 million marijuana related arrests in the US to date. About 90% of these arrests are for simple possession only. These arrests cost us tax payers 7.6 billion dollars annually. (7) Besides monetary costs, the victims of these arrests are hamstrung for the rest of their lives with limited access to loans, loss of custody of children, difficulty applying for a job. Do you really think it helps our teens to deny them of student loans if their caught with weed? If someone chooses the safer alternative to alcohol for their relaxation, is it really productive to deny them employment?

So to conclude, we are paying insane amounts of money and hurting innocent peoples lives to keep gangs and cartels in business while simultaneously giving our children easier access to a drug kept illegal over far more harmful alcohol and cigarettes. Why?

(1) (http://www.rand.org...)

(2) (http://ornorml.org...)

(3) (http://www.soop.ca...)

(4) (http://www.webmd.com...)

(5) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...)

(6) (http://www.boston.com...)

(7) http://www.doctordeluca.com...
tkubok

Con

Thank you for this debate. As I am a hard proponent of Drug legislation, I will be happy to accept this debate.

First, I shall address my opponents arguments, and then move onto my own.

C01:
The study does not disprove the "Gateway drug" theory. In fact, when you read the followup results(1), you see that the scientists agree that the "Gateway drug" theory does in fact exist. The article only decreases the statistical number of instances of taking Marijuana which lead to harder drugs, that previously existed. Under "Policy implications", the following is stated:
"The results of the DPRC model of drug initiation do not disprove the gateway effect; they merely show that another explanation is plausible. In fact, the researchers note that something like a gateway effect probably does exist, if only because marijuana purchases bring users into contact with a black market that increases access to hard drugs."

As I am content with removing any such cause that results to Drug Abuse, I would actively use the "Gateway drug" theory as an argument to prohibit Marijuana usage.

C02:
According to the same site, 90% of 12th and 10th graders have also claimed that it is very easy to get Alchohol, 76.5% of 10th graders claimed that Cigarrettes were easy to get(3), yet both of these are things that have regulations, age limits, and are supposedly supposed to be checked with IDs. Clearly, even with such regulations, it is extremely easy for children under 18 to get their hands on these substances. Therefore, the argument of "It will make it harder for youth to obtain the drug" has no basis.

C03:
This is the problem with these medical studies. It is still a very open debate as to what health benefits and/or detriments each drug has. Articles such as these(4) show that when studied, the cancer rate rose(BTW, this article was written in 2008, whereas the article that my opponent provided, was written in 2006). Cannabis has seen a strong correlation between different mental health problems(5)(6), however, it is still a debate within the scientific community as to what the cause of this mental health problem is. Other studies have shown that Marijuana is linked with other cancers such as a very aggressive form of testicular cancer(12).

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with any of these studies. As a scientist, I know how complicated correlation studies can be. However, when evidence for both sides exist, and neither can be corroborated, it is best to hold off on a decision until further studies and a more definite conclusion can be made.

C04:
...And over 1/3 of Afghanistan's GDP comes from Heroine production, much of it supporting the Taliban. However, this is no reason to legalize Heroine and Morphine for public use. The fact of the matter is, legalizing one drug, will only lead to the cartels and gangs to concentrate on other drugs.

C05:
Although i will be discussing this in my own arguments, i will be happy to address them here.

Do you really think it helps our teens to deny them of student loans, if they were(yes, not "their") caught with Crystal Meth? Probably not. Is this an argument that supports the legalization of Crystal Meth? No.
If someone chooses the safer alternative to alcohol for their relaxation, is it really productive to deny them employment? Probably not. Is Marijuana safer than alcohol? We shall see.

C06:
So in conclusion, we are paying insane amounts of money and hurting innocent peoples lives to keep gangs and cartels in business while simultaneously giving our children easier access to a drug kept illegal over far more harmful drugs such as alcohol and cigarrettes. Why?

Well, first off, in the arguments above, i have shown why all your evidence that suggest that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, is inconclusive at best, an, for the most part, blatantly wrong. Secondly, that argument can be made for any drug that is currently illegal.

Do we spend an insane amount of money and are we hurting peoples lives to keep gangs and cartels in business, by prohibiting Methamphetamine/LSD/Ecstasy/Heroine? Yes.
Is this an argument for legalizing said drugs? No.

Now, for my own arguments.

A01.
Recent studies have shown that people who abstain from marijuana completely were more likely to graduate from college and abstain from behavioral problems such as stealing or selling drugs(7). Even those who were only experimenting, did worse than those who abstained from Marijuana completely, and those who abstained from Marijuana completely were not at all maladjusted(8).

A02.
Medicinal Marijuana is legal, and should be, but public use of Marijuana should not. This is the same with Morphine. I am not against the medicinal usage of morphine, but i am against the public use of morphine as this leads to drug addiction. In this study, 42% of people who used Marijuana became lifelong users, which show the addictive qualities of Marijuana(9). Clearly Marijuana has the ability to become a long term drug abuse problem.

A03.
Legalization of Marijuana will infact increase the percentage of kids who experiment with Marijuana. My opponent has brought up the fact that Marijuana is safer than Alcohol. In the studies done, 70% of 12th graders disapproved of Alcohol use(10), while 80% of 12th graders disapproved of Marijuana use(11). The obvious reason for this, is because Marijuana is Illegal, while Alcohol is legal. However, if Marijuana were to be legalized, the disapproval trend would inevitably drop in all 8-12 grades, thus increasing the chances of Marijuana usage.

Furthermore, the legalization of Marijuana will also inevitably lead to a decrease in cost of Marijuana as the drug becomes legal. This will only make it easier for people to get their hands on Marijuana, further increasing both the risk to adolescents, as well as the chances of abuse with Marijuana.

I look forward to continuing this debate. Thank you.

Sources:
1. http://www.rand.org...
2. http://www.monitoringthefuture.org...
3. http://www.monitoringthefuture.org...
4. http://www.reuters.com...
5. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...
6. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...
7. http://www.rand.org...
8. http://www.rand.org...
9. http://www.monitoringthefuture.org...
10. http://www.monitoringthefuture.org...
11. http://www.monitoringthefuture.org...
12. http://www.reuters.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Willdavisfilms

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate. I think this will be a good one. Offhandedly, I would like to ask, do you think the prohibition of alcohol was a positive point in American history, and that it was a bad idea to re-legalize it?

Here are some counter counter arguments.

CC01:
Whether or not the gateway drug theory does exist in concept, there is no evidence that links marijuana in particular to this gateway over alcohol. In fact as this study shows,(1) previous alcohol use is heavily associated with those who marijuana. The only aspect of marijuana that differentiates it from alcohol in the gateway effect is the access to a black market that deals in harder drugs. This black market access would be eradicated if marijuana could be purchased legally.

CC02:
While these student's may describe alcohol and cigarettes as easy to get, there are still legal impediments to doing so. If someone under 21 does not have access to someone over 21 to purchase them alcohol, they simply can't. The difference between this legal impediment and the legal impediment to the purchase of marijuana is that an age limit drives under age consumers to older friends or family, while prohibition drives them (and their money) to criminals.

CC03:
It is true that we essentially find reputable sources that both confirm and deny marijuana's link to cancers. While it may be questionable as to the true negative health effects of cannabis, it is not questionable that it is safer than alcohol. Simply put, 0 people die from excessive marijuana use per year, while 75,000 people die each year from alcohol related deaths. (2) That makes it the third leading cause of preventable death in America, right behind that other legal drug, tobacco. It is near impossible to overdose on marijuana, something that can't even be said of aspirin.

CC04:
Marijuana legalization is an entirely different issue than full scale drug legalization. I am not taking the position that you shouldn't be denied employment for smoking meth or doing heroin. These are drugs with an addiction potential far higher than marijuana with far wider societal consequences. While some users of marijuana become addicted, the majority have control over their use, and simply smoke the amount they want. (3) This can not be said of meth or Heroin. Gangs may begin to focus their efforts on harder drugs, but so will our police force.

CC05:
Again, I am not saying hard drugs should be legal. My main point is that the negative effects of marijuana are limited compared to the negative effects of its prohibition. The negative effects of hard drugs are well known and far more pronounced, so comparing them is pointless.

Now to the counter arguments.

C01:
You must keep in mind the cultural aspects of marijuana use when analyzing any performance based study on it's users. Is it a direct effect of marijuana use that causes it's users to not graduate from college, or are those that do not graduate from college typically more attracted to intoxicants? Or the reverse, that those that stay in school and get good grades would be less likely to risk an illegal behavior. Not only that, but lowered performance in school is a thin argument to prohibit the responsible use of a substance. Television hurts kids' performance as well(4), but it would be a stretch to suggest that should be prohibited. Not to mention, stealing and selling drugs pales in comparison to the violent actions taken by alcohol users. In one study of interpersonal violence, men had been drinking in an estimated 45 percent of cases and women had been drinking in 20 percent of cases. (5) And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

I am in no way suggesting those maladjusted actions are justified or acceptable, but a maladjusted minority is not grounds for criminalizing an innocent majority.

C02:
I agree that medical marijuana should be legal. It is a safe alternative to the much more addictive and dangerous prescription painkillers prescribed today. You state that 42% of people who use marijuana become lifetime users, but use does not equal abuse. More than half of everyone over the age of 12 describes themselves as drinkers, (5) but you wouldn't call 50% of America alcoholics. The only reason lifelong marijuana use is considered abuse while lifetime drinking is not is because of marijuana's stigmatization. In fact 6 percent of people between 50 and 59 reported marijuana use in the past year (6), while 19 percent of men and 13 percent of women in a similar age group drink 2 or more drinks per day. (7)

C03:
The evidence to suggest an increase in adolescent use after legalization is sketchy at best. In the one city that marijuana is quasi-legal, Amsterdam, only 20% of teens had reported using marijuana(8), compared to 32% of American teens (9). In all of the states that have legalized medicinal marijuana, there has been no increase in teen use, and in most cases a significant decrease.(10) This includes the oft maligned California, where marijuana is as close to legal as it gets in America.

All of this being the case, one of the most important reasons for legalization is for personal freedom. As human beings, we should have the right to hurt ourselves in any way we see fit as long as it doesn't impede on the rights of others. Regulation can be set up similar to cigarettes to disallow smoking in public, and of course drugged driving laws can be implemented. Unlike alcohol, marijuana won't cause you to be aggressive, and unlike hard drugs, children aren't being driven into poverty by their parents soul crushing addiction. The responsible use of marijuana is very possible and is the norm with most users. Why inhibit people from doing something they enjoy that is no more dangerous than drinking, eating fast food, or driving a car when we could be reaping tax dollars, putting age limits, and focusing our police force on harder more dangerous drugs.

(1) http://clearinghouse.missouriwestern.edu...

(2) http://www.msnbc.msn.com...

(3)http://alcoholism.about.com...

(4) http://www.revolutionhealth.com...

(5) http://alcoholism.about.com...

(6) http://www.alternet.org...

(7) http://www.northjersey.com...

(8)http://sensiblecolorado.org...

(9)http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov...

(10)http://www.mpp.org...
tkubok

Con

Although WJelements has already made his mind up, I hope everyone else will at least stop and think about the points i made, regardless of what they decide to vote.

I think that Alcohol does more harm than good. That being said, prohibition of Alcohol didnt work out too well, partly because of the times, as this was during the great depression and the War, and partly because the public wasn't aware of the harm of Alcohol.

CC01.
I agree that Alcohol and Marijuana can both be gateway drugs. Which is why i am against both drugs being used by minors.

As for the black market claim, i shall tie that in with Argument C06, later.

CC02.
Your original argument here, is that legalization of marijuana makes it harder for under-aged youth to get their hands on it. However, the statistics show that the same drug laws that are on Alcohol and Tobacco, make it easier for kids to get their hands on those drugs, than it is for kids to get their hands on Marijuana. This alone destroys your argument in CC02.

However, I shall address each statement you have made in this argument.

"someone under 21 does not have access to someone over 21 to purchase them alcohol, they simply can't"
Actually, no. Rarely do places such as Restaurants, ask for ID(Believe me, i know). However, this seems to rely on ignoring the fact that every child has a parent, and that parent is (hopefully) over the age of 21.

I shall address the second part of your statement later, as it ties in with the argument C06.

CC03.
This is where i get confused.

The topic of this argument is "Prohibition of marijuana is more harmful than marijuana itself". In this statement, you appear to be making the argument of "Marijuana is not as harmful as alcohol, so we should legalize it." The above arguments that use Alcohol, is a comparison between current legalization laws of various drugs, compared to prohibition of Marijuana. However, here, you are trying to make the argument that since Marijuana is safer than (insert legal drug here), it should be legalized.

However, I find it very humorous that my opponent decided to use the word "Excessive marijuana use", as compared to "Alcohol related death". When you actually go and find marijuana related deaths, and instances where marijuana was the only drug found in the system, the figures actually increase beyond 0(1). I agree that it is extremely hard to die of an overdose of Marijuana. But the number of deaths that were caused by an alcohol overdose, are fairly small, as well(2). However, as the topic of this debate is "continued prohibition of Marijuana is more harmful than the drug itself", removing the prohibition of Marijuana, will increase the number of people who use it(Young OR Old), and therefore this number will undoubtedly increase as well.

CC04.
The specific argument you used here, is that "prohibiting Marijuana supports the Drug cartels". Youve now changed your argument in CC04 to "Marijuana isnt as dangerous as (insert more dangerous drug here)". Quite frankly, Marijuana legalization is the same as any other drug legalization. Why? Because both drugs are ILLEGAL as of October 2009. It doesnt matter that Heroine is less lethal than Methadone.

"I am not taking the position that you shouldn't be denied employment for smoking meth or doing heroin. "
Neither am I. What does this have to do with our discussion?

"These are drugs with an addiction potential far higher than marijuana with far wider societal consequences."
Uh, no. First off, if youre going to compare Marijuana, or more specifically, the smoking kind of Marijuana, to drugs like Heroin or Meth, you cannot, because Heroin is a semi-synthetic compound, while Marijuana is a galenical product. In other words, Heroin has been refined to produce the effect with smaller doses, while Marijuana is in its original natural form, without any refinement. If one were to use, say, Hash oil, which contains up to 30-40 times more THC than Marijuana(3). That would be a fair comparison with Heroin. The galenical form of Heroin, which is simply opium, can be compared to Marijuana, and is generally impossible to die of an overdose. Yet, even opium in its unrefined form is still illegal.

The article is very careful to state that the article is only talking about people who "Smoke" marijuana. Most people do not refine Marijuana into Hash oil or Hashish, because this takes not only alot of time, but also alot of money, and an amateur attempt will only produce about 15% of THC within the hash oil.

The conclusion being, in regards to addiction potential, it is unfair to compare Marijuana to Heroin. As seen here, the more concentrated the form of Marijuana is, the more addictive it becomes(4). Therefore, id argue that the addiction potential is the same, if you compare the drugs fairly. The problem here, of course, is with the legalization of Marijuana, undoubtedly the increase in refinement of Marijuana will also come, as the drug is now cheaper and therefore allow people to afford to refine it for a better high.

CC05,
Then do you think LSD or MDMA(ecstasy) should be legalized as well? Both are categorized as a soft drugs.

CC06,
This is a very important point that a lot of people seem to miss. I have no problem using LSD instead of Cocaine or Heroin, as your main problem with this argument seems to stem around the fact that i keep mentioning Hard drugs. However, most of your arguments seem to apply to any drug, soft or hard. Im against LSD as well. And i dont find any reason to legalize LSD either. Yet, you cannot overdose with LSD. There are numerous deaths associated with it, but it isnt as high as alcohol.

Now onto the counter arguments of my arguments.

AA01.
"a maladjusted minority is not grounds for criminalizing an innocent majority."
This is the most ridiculous argument ever.

What percent of drunk drivers are caught in accidents? Its clearly a minority(5). Yet, its illegal! Why should we criminalize the innocent majority when the small minority is to blame?

AA02.
Medicinal Marijuana isnt used as a painkiller. That was the most useless comment ever, as Marijuana is as safe an alternative to painkillers, as Sugar is to Cancer drugs.
I never said that 42% of people who use marijuana are marijuana abusers. I refuted your absurd claim that barely anyone becomes addicted to Marijuana. I would call people who were lifelong drinkers of alcohol, as people who are addicted to alcohol. I dont understand why you brought this up, but i think you misunderstood what i wrote.

AA03.
That statistic is a little old. In 2007, the number of youths who are trying cannabis in the Netherlands has increased to up to 28%, and that is only for kids between the ages of 15 and 17, with an additional 6% for children under 14(6), with the government concerned about an even more prevalent increase in the near future.
As i have never stated that Medicinal marijuana increases usage in youth demographics, i have no idea why this was brought up.

The same argument that my opponent has made in his final closing statement, can be applied to the other softer drugs like LSD or Ecstasy. In fact, they can be made for any drug that has a low addictive tolerance, including Magic mushrooms. However, most of these drugs are banned, and infact, even Amsterdam has started to ban magic mushrooms which were once legal(6). Why inhibit people from taking drugs like LSD or Ecstasy, when we could be reaping tax dollars, putting age limits, and focusing our police force on harder more dangerous drugs?

Sources.
1. http://www.drugwatch.org...
2. http://lizditz.typepad.com...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://alcoholism.about.com...
5. http://www.alcoholalert.com...
6. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Willdavisfilms

Pro

I apologize to not be able to put as much effort in to this posts as previous, you and the voters can go ahead and hold this against me, but I'm on a bit of a time crunch in real life.

You say the prohibition of alcohol "didn't work out too well", but how do you see the prohibition of marijuana as working out any better? You say the statistics show it's easier for kids to get beer and cigarettes than marijuana, but the point is it's easy to get all 3. Prohibition has not significantly curbed it's usage or availability.

I brought up my comparison to alcohol not to assert the original argument, but to counter your statement that "I have shown why all your evidence that suggest that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, is inconclusive at best, an, for the most part, blatantly wrong." As I showed in my last argument, marijuana is far far less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco. Even the source you sited put the annual death toll at 667, 187 when marijuana was the only drug reported. A far cry from 75,000.

Marijuana as a painkiller is the most useless comment ever? Are you serious? Chronic pain is one of the most common uses of medical marijuana.(1)(2)(3) And I mentioned that medical marijuana doesn't increase youth usage to point out that California, where marijuana is a just about as easy for adults to get as beer, that this didn't increase youth usage.

You still have yet to give a convincing argument for why it SHOULD be illegal, and have simply tried to say my statements apply to drugs that they are not being applied to.

That "most ridiculous argument ever" is already applied to about every dangerous legal activity. There's plenty activities that aren't criminalized even though a small minority can have negative societal consequences. We should keep driving illegal because a minority get in car accidents? We should make junk food illegal because a small minority eat themselves to death? We should make guns illegal because a small minority goes on shooting sprees? You counter my arguments saying they can apply to anything, but I am weighing the consequences of marijuana alone.

Any law regarding the misuse of something has to weigh the negative with the positive. The only negative you still have come up with is the conflicting evidence on health risks, a connection to lower academic performance, and a higher adolescent use rate. The first two are no grounds to criminalize things, as the first applies to meat, fast food, playing football, alcohol, and driving cars, and the second applies to television, and video games.(5) The adolescent use rate of 28% is still lower, and it's been semi-legal since the 70s. With no conclusive evidence to suggest a significant spike in use, all of those arguments are pointless.

The fact still remains that huge tax revenue, thousands of jobs, more focus on hardER drugs, less tax dollars fighting an impossible war, less responsible users denied basic rights, less money funneled to crime, and less access to a black market outweigh those few negatives. While these things apply do harder drugs, they do not outweigh their much heavily costs to both the user and those around him.

(1)http://www.disabled-world.com...
(2)http://www.drugpolicy.org...
(3)http://backandneck.about.com...
(4)http://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz...
(5)http://media.www.westerncourier.com...
tkubok

Con

"You say the prohibition of alcohol "didn't work out too well", but how do you see the prohibition of marijuana as working out any better?"

The penalties for both handling and using marijuana are much harsher than the handling and usage of Alcohol. Children have a stronger negative feeling against Marijuana, than they do with Alcohol. I think its working out better than if we legalized Marijuana.

"Prohibition has not significantly curbed it's usage or availability."

Actually, it has. As per my previous statistic(1), children tend to have a negative feeling against Marijuana. The reason being, its illegal. If its as safe as you claim it is, then clearly this negative feeling amongst children, will decrease, much like it has decreased with Alcohol(2)

"but to counter your statement that "I have shown why all your evidence that suggest that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, is inconclusive at best, an, for the most part, blatantly wrong.""

The point being, the topic of this debate is not "Marijuana is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco", but "Prohibition of marijuana is more harmful than the drug itself". Congrats, you have shown that Marijuana is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco. If only the topic of this discussion were different, could your argument have any merit to our current discussion.

"Chronic pain is one of the most common uses of medical marijuana."

Marijuana is far less useful than chronic painkillers such as Oxycontin.

"And I mentioned that medical marijuana doesn't increase youth usage to point out that California, where marijuana is a just about as easy for adults to get as beer, that this didn't increase youth usage."

Are you kidding me? California made medicinal marijuana, legal.This makes marijuana, as easy for adults to get, as Morphine.

"You still have yet to give a convincing argument for why it SHOULD be illegal, and have simply tried to say my statements apply to drugs that they are not being applied to."

Youre kidding me, right?

Apart from the fact that ive given multiple arguments that show the negative effects of Marijuana(To which your counter argument, was "But its not as harmful as alcohol!!!111"), the current laws in the USA state that Marijuana is illegal. The burden of proof is on you to show why this law should be changed.

"There's plenty activities that aren't criminalized even though a small minority can have negative societal consequences."

Yes, and there are plenty of activities that ARE criminalized, even though a small minority are the perpetrators. Should we make Drinking and Driving illegal, because a minority gets into car accidents? Clearly not! Oh wait.

"You counter my arguments saying they can apply to anything, but I am weighing the consequences of marijuana alone."

This is because when your arguments are applied to the other drugs, they fail, miserably. Yet for some reason, you think you can apply them to Marijuana and let it pass.

"The first two are no grounds to criminalize things, as the first applies to meat, fast food, playing football, alcohol, and driving cars, and the second applies to television, and video games."

Thats interesting. I never knew that all these things such as Video Games and Alcohol, have a chance to cause cancer.

"The adolescent use rate of 28% is still lower, and it's been semi-legal since the 70s."

And steadily rising. Magic mushrooms were also legal in the netherlands since the 70s, but only recently has it become a problem. Why? Because, as you said above, the culture has begun to change. Its become such a problem, in fact, that the netherlands are banning Magic Mushrooms.

"With no conclusive evidence to suggest a significant spike in use"

Ive just provided evidence. Its increased since your statistics which was printed in 2002. Sure, 8% may not be much to you. But it is.

"more focus on hardER drugs,"-You

Great, now you change the word to "HardER". How convenient. I just listed why LSD is just as safe as Marijuana. Yet youve failed to comment on it at all.

Furthermore, places like the Netherlands had legalized drugs like Magic Mushrooms since the 70s, and takes a very weak stance against soft drugs. So, how are you differentiating between Marijuana and, say, Magic mushrooms, or LSD?

"less tax dollars fighting an impossible war,"-You

Are you kidding me?

Do you seriously think that our tax dollars spent on the war on ANY drug, is possible? Do you think we can truly eliminate Heroin? Cocaine? Every war on any drug is impossible. Not trying, however, will increase the number of people who use it.

"less responsible users denied basic rights,"-You

Im guessing you mean "More responsible users", but no. I mean, answer me this. Does it matter if im a responsible Heroin user?

"less money funneled to crime,"-You

Again, please address my comments at face value. Legalizing any drug will decrease the monetary income of any crime lord or cartel, including the "SoftER" drugs like LSD.

Sources:
1. http://www.monitoringthefuture.org...
2. http://www.monitoringthefuture.org...
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by sunset-parade 7 years ago
sunset-parade
that the negative affects of marijuana are less than the negative affects of prohibition*
Posted by sunset-parade 7 years ago
sunset-parade
I agree with PRO. CON often attacks PRO verbally and malignantly for his/her statements.

For the exact reason CON stated PRO was wrong, CON is just as wrong in saying that the legalization of LSD should be legal for the same reasons PRO is debating that the negative affects of the prohibition of Marijuana are less than the negative affects of prohibition. We are talking about Marijuana and it's affects, not the possibility of less natural drugs such as LSD. MDMA is derived from a tree, Marijuana is derived from flowers. It is "blatantly wrong" to suggest that a drug other than the drug it is could be compared to another.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro did not make a convincing case that the harm done by the illegality is greater. If we legalized child molesting, the cost of arresting child molesters could be saved too. There is much more to it than that.
Posted by dazmo 7 years ago
dazmo
i agree with pro. . . and i think that "marijuana is less harmful than alcohol" is a valid point to this debate.
an even more valid point would be "marijuana is less harmful than asprin" or "marijuana is less harmful that quarter-pounders"
smoke inhalation aside of course.
Posted by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
I do agree with pro but she did little to affirm the resolution
Posted by Freeman 7 years ago
Freeman
Agree with PRO.
Posted by tkubok 7 years ago
tkubok
Do you want me to hold off posting my own argument for a couple days too?
Posted by tkubok 7 years ago
tkubok
Ran outta words AGAIN >_>
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Agree with PRO.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by dazmo 7 years ago
dazmo
WilldavisfilmstkubokTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Vote Placed by wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
WilldavisfilmstkubokTied
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 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
WilldavisfilmstkubokTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
WilldavisfilmstkubokTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Vote Placed by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
WilldavisfilmstkubokTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03