The Instigator
DylanFromSC
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
abard124
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points

The legalization of Marijuana in the United States would benefit all Americans.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 7 votes the winner is...
DylanFromSC
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/8/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,586 times Debate No: 11123
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (7)

 

DylanFromSC

Pro

"I would like to debate this topic again. This is one of my favorite topics, and in my last debate over this topic, my opponent only posted one round."

The legalization of Marijuana in the United States would benefit all Americans.

1. The distribution/use of alcohol is FAR more dangerous than the distribution/use of Marijuana.

2. The alcohol industries and tobacco industries have both flourished in any economy, why wouldn't the Marijuana industry flourish?

3. Marijuana is already being distributed all over the United States, why not use it to help the economy?

4. There are an average of 0 Marijuana related deaths in the United States every year, however, there are 435,000 tobacco related deaths each year plus and additional 85,000 alcohol related deaths each year. This is 520,000 more deaths, on average, a year than deaths resulting from the use of Marijuana.

5. Not everybody would have to use Marijuana or buy Marijuana related products for the industry to flourish. The tobacco and alcohol industries flourish, and neither can boast 100% of American's behind them.

6. The Marijuana industry would employ at least 200,000 Americans. I know this because we have already seen this trend in the tobacco industry. (http://www.corpwatch.org...)

These are just some of my main points. I would like to thank everybody for taking the time to read this, and hopefully my opponent for accepting my challenge.
abard124

Con

First of all, I would like to thank my opponent for starting this debate.

Now, the resolution is that the legalization of Marijuana would benefit ALL Americans. Now, I do support legalizing cannabis because I feel that the benefits outweigh the risks. But saying that it would benefit every single American seems like a stretch to me.

I feel like Marijuana would benefit people with Glaucoma and people who want to smoke Marijuana for recreation. I am neither. It might soothe my conscience if Marijuana was legalized, but that's about it.

I feel like it's comparable to tobacco being legal, although tobacco is more dangerous than cannabis. I would consider myself to be worse off since tobacco is legal. I don't smoke (I would be MUCH worse off if I did, though), but I don't really appreciate second-hand smoke either. It is hurting the air quality, and so I am not benefited from tobacco being legal.

I am looking forward to your next argument!
Debate Round No. 1
DylanFromSC

Pro

First off, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

I shouldn't need to make this very long.

Next would be, "Now, the resolution is that the legalization of Marijuana would benefit ALL Americans. Now, I do support legalizing cannabis because I feel that the benefits outweigh the risks. But saying that it would benefit every single American seems like a stretch to me."

How the legalization of Marijuana would benefit all Americans is mainly by opening somewhere close to 200,000 new jobs (factory workers, farmers, cooperate jobs, etc.), and it would promote a strong economy. It WOULD also benefit people with Glaucoma though.
abard124

Con

Thank you for your very quick response! Sorry it took me so long to get back, I had some things to finish up.

I see what you're trying to say, but I feel like that's a big claim. It will help people with glaucoma, people who want to use marijuana for recreation, and people who would get a job. But to say that legalizing a drug would save the economy is a bit far-fetched. Once again, I'm not arguing that it won't benefit a lot of people, I'm arguing that it won't benefit EVERYONE. That means I only need to find one American who it won't benefit.

Bill is a small business owner. He owns a real estate business in Kansas. Now, he's having trouble, because people aren't moving to Kansas. People are moving away from the mid-west. Now, as people get jobs to grow Marijuana, they will most likely move out towards the bigger cities, as there will be a bigger market, and they will have the money to go there. That will lead to a lot of empty houses in Kansas, driving the property value way down. Not so good for Bill. There you go. Resolution negated. Vote CON.

I am looking forward to your response!
Debate Round No. 2
DylanFromSC

Pro

"Bill is a small business owner. He owns a real estate business in Kansas. Now, he's having trouble, because people aren't moving to Kansas. People are moving away from the mid-west. Now, as people get jobs to grow Marijuana, they will most likely move out towards the bigger cities, as there will be a bigger market, and they will have the money to go there. That will lead to a lot of empty houses in Kansas, driving the property value way down. Not so good for Bill."

Don't worry voters, Bill will be fine. People are actually moving to the mid-west to grow Marijuana. Saying that "as people get jobs to grow Marijuana, they will most likely move out towards the bigger cities" is completely far fetched. Nobody would grow Marijuana in a big city for the lack of soil, fertile or dry, period. There would not be enough soil in the cities to grow Marijuana. People would move to Kansas to start in the Marijuana business, and they would ultimately buy land from Bill, therefore promoting the real estate business.

And you say that they will move towards the bigger cities, but Kansas has big cities also. Just consider Wichita. Over 355,000 people live in Wichita. Big enough to call it a bigGER city? I think so.

Lastly, I would like to thank my opponent for this interesting debate and the voters for viewing. VOTE PRO!
abard124

Con

Thank you for your response!

First of all, it is rather unlikely that huge farms and plantations will become the main production method of Cannabis. It is a summer crop, and it doesn't grow well much south of Northern California (sorry if my locations are biased towards the west coast, I suppose that would be like Maryland or Virginia on the east), being grown as far north as Canada, as it needs long days in the summer. Cannabis is one of the easiest crops to grow indoors. Now, indoor growing is a bit more expensive, but it provides for quality control, higher volume, and year round growth. So, it would end up being a better and less expensive (especially in the winter). So people would move that to the cities so they don't have to ship as much. Granted, there are cities in Kansas (I'm terribly sorry, when I said big cities, I meant the ones that people are generally moving to. That was completely my fault. Sorry), but Bill lives in a smaller town which wants to turn into a not-so-small city (hence the financial woes), so it wouldn't be near him anyway. It would drive people from his town to the city, where Marijuana will inevitably be cheaper because it won't have to be shipped. Even then, the Marijuana business would still focus on larger cities and cities like Portland (AKA Pot-land).

You still don't like my example with Bill? Fair enough.

If cannabis is legalized, it will be much easier to create a fiber that has been catching on quite a bit recently. Some cannabis plants are cultivated not for the drug, but for Hemp. Hemp is a very nice fiber which, many say, would be more popular than cotton, had it not been so regulated because of the associated drug. Hemp is much less expensive than cotton, but it is of comparable or even better quality. It used to be used quite a bit, the word "Canvas" even deriving from the word "Cannabis."

You might be thinking, "Alex, you are one of the worst debaters ever! You don't argue against something and then talk about how wonderful it is. That's just stupid." Well, maybe I am a bit stupid, but I'm not dumb. That hemp really sounds like a great fiber. Now go tell that to the cotton industry. When people are seeing T-shirts that are half as expensive as they used to be because it's made with hemp, of course they're going to buy it. The cotton industry would not be feeling so good. Incidentally, hemp can also be used in paper. The paper is much more expensive than regular wood-pulp paper, but it's also much higher quality. Once again, the paper industry would certainly not benefit from the legalization of Marijuana.

By the way, it is already legal to grow cannabis for hemp, but it isn't widely done, because it's regulated so it doesn't turn into a marijuana plantation, and there is also a negative thought when it's associated with Marijuana. Legalizing it would change that.

My opponent has raised a very interesting and thought provoking debate. I came in thinking it would be really easy to negate the resolution, and I was proven wrong. I would like to take this conclusion as an opportunity to thank my opponent for making this debate so much more enjoyable than it could have been. However well my opponent may have argued, though, I still showed more than one instance which negates the resolution. Therefore, there is no reason not to vote CON. Thank you.

Sources--
Wikipedia-Cannabis
Wikipedia-Cannabis Cultivation
Wikipedia-Hemp
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
abard, Sorry, you indeed did not concede -- I misread. The resolution ought to be defeated, but the Con case presented was very weak. Industrial hemp could be legalized or kept prohibited independent of marijuana. "Strains of Cannabis approved for industrial hemp production produce only minute amounts of this psychoactive drug, not enough for any physical or psychological effects." http://en.wikipedia.org... so that argument was non-responsive. I think stoned drivers getting into accidents is the best argument. However, on this site denying that marijuana doubles IQ will lose votes.
Posted by DylanFromSC 6 years ago
DylanFromSC
Thank you.
Ha. We'll see.
Posted by abard124 6 years ago
abard124
Congratulations. You did very well. Now on to gun control :-)
Posted by DylanFromSC 6 years ago
DylanFromSC
I'm kind of confused as to what you're trying to say as well..
Posted by abard124 6 years ago
abard124
Wait... What???

I never conceded. I'm not sure what made you think I did. And what was wrong with my argument about hemp? The cotton industry would be hurt, thus the resolution was negated.

But wow... It sure took me by surprise that I apparently conceded... That was sure nice of me. I never would have guessed…
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Con made no convincing arguments and ultimately conceded, so arguments go to Pro. Among those not benefiting from legalization would be illegal pot growers, who know they could not compete with agribusiness and consequently are opposed to legalization -- find a local newspaper for Humboldt County, California. Also, Pro assumes legalization would vastly increased use, thereby creating all those jobs, etc. Increased use means that some additional people are going to kill themselves going 70 on a 45 mph freeway exist ramp. Legalization would not benefit those people. One might compare it to legalization of alcohol. Consumption dropped by about two-thirds during Prohibition. Clearly legalization of alcohol did not benefit everyone.
Posted by DylanFromSC 6 years ago
DylanFromSC
So I take it that I have your vote, Kinesis?
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
Should have been an easy win for Con, but poorly presented argument.
Posted by Loserboi 6 years ago
Loserboi
I HOPE SO MAN I HOPE SO
The U.S needs to legalize this
Posted by Itsallovernow 6 years ago
Itsallovernow
I would if it was titled something like: "The benifets of legalizing marijuanna outweigh the negative" whatever. Of course there are going to be SOME benifiets, and the resolution only states that you prove one. Eh, I might take it if the resolution changes.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by sherlockmethod 6 years ago
sherlockmethod
DylanFromSCabard124Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:30 
Vote Placed by Cloudburst2000 6 years ago
Cloudburst2000
DylanFromSCabard124Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by infam0us 6 years ago
infam0us
DylanFromSCabard124Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
DylanFromSCabard124Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by atheistman 6 years ago
atheistman
DylanFromSCabard124Tied
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 abard124 6 years ago
abard124
DylanFromSCabard124Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by DylanFromSC 6 years ago
DylanFromSC
DylanFromSCabard124Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60