The Instigator
DylanFromSC
Pro (for)
Winning
34 Points
The Contender
redbrave70
Con (against)
Losing
25 Points

The legalization of Marijuana in the United States would promote a strong economy.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 10 votes the winner is...
DylanFromSC
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/2/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,142 times Debate No: 11301
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (30)
Votes (10)

 

DylanFromSC

Pro

Nobody has been able to disprove me thus far, and apparently redbrave70 thinks he can assert all kinds of assumptions. Well unlike him, here's my FACTUAL assertion..

The legalization of Marijuana in the United States would promote a strong economy.

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.
redbrave70

Con

First off I'd like to thank my opponent, even though he believes me incompetent, I will not be asserting assumptions but instead statements based on facts and my own knowledge of this topic. I hope the pro arguer good luck and would like to thank the readers now for any of there comments and logically placed votes at the end of this debate.

Topic: The legalization of Marijuana in the United States would a strong economy.

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

In 2005 alone, Border Patrol Agents encountered 773 attacks from smugglers trying to breach the U.S. border. In 2008 that number rose t 1,097, over 41%. Within the United States violence is encountered throughout all 50 states dealing with the distribution of Marijuana (I will be focusing on New York due to the amount of time it would take to collect all the information from each state). Marijuana distributors, particularly Jamaican posses, engage in violent crimes to protect their turf. Law enforcement agencies in Rochester, Buffalo, and Syracuse have reported an increase in drug-related violence resulting from an influx of Jamaican criminals who are challenging drug distribution areas long controlled by local marijuana distributors. Cannabis cultivation occasionally is associated with violent crime in New York. Typically, growers cultivate cannabis outdoors with booby traps situated among and around the plants. Reports indicate that traps closer to the cultivation site are more dangerous and sophisticated and target those who might steal the cannabis. Last time I checked, Anheuser Bush hasn't taken any shots at Marlboro.

http://www.fas.org... figure 11.
http://www.justice.gov...

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

Dutch sales of cannabis alone totaled 1.2 billion euros ($1.86 billion) in 2001, according to the most recent figures available from the nation's statistics bureau. While in 2003 annual alcohol sales were $115.9 billion and tobacco sales were $333.4 million in 2001. I'm no mathematician but a combined sales of $449.3 billion compared to $1.86 billion is just a little bit higher, in fact its over 242% more in sales. Considering we've spent $1.05 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to date, $1.86 billion isn't going to exactly make or break us as a nation.

http://www.dutchamsterdam.nl...
http://www.libraryindex.com...

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

Simply because it is being distributed illegally, how many drug dealers do you think are gonna pay there taxes for there marijuana sales. Excuse me kid, that will be $10.00 for the dime bag and oh, .70 cents for sales tax, have a nice day! Yea not happening sorry.

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.

Gang violence related to the distribution of marijuana as I stated in #1.

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. Hell McDonald's annual sales in 2008 was $28 billion.

As stated in #2, sales cant even begin to touch Alcohol or Tobacco alone, let alone added together. Hell McDonald's annual sales in 2008 was $28 billion.

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......)

Can't say this is exactly a factual assertion considering it is speculation based upon the Tobacco industry. As far as my standing on this, to say that there will be 200 Americans employed will be just as good as your "factual assertion" due to the fact that it is only speculation.

All and all as you can tell through actual facts and numbers Marijuana sales taken from a country where it is actually legal and the sales are recorded, this would not "strongly" promote our economy or promote it anymore than Mcdonald's does. The legalization of Marijuana in the United States will have no strong or near strong promotion in our economy.

Till next time, this is your Con argument host saying, thanks for playing, "Who Wants to Challenge Facts Against Speculation!"
Debate Round No. 1
DylanFromSC

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent once again for accepting this debate and realizing that this is not so much of an attack on him as it is a challenge.

1. "In 2005 alone, Border Patrol Agents encountered 773 attacks from smugglers trying to breach the U.S. border. In 2008 that number rose t 1,097, over 41%. Within the United States violence is encountered throughout all 50 states dealing with the distribution of Marijuana (I will be focusing on New York due to the amount of time it would take to collect all the information from each state). Marijuana distributors, particularly Jamaican posses, engage in violent crimes to protect their turf. Law enforcement agencies in Rochester, Buffalo, and Syracuse have reported an increase in drug-related violence resulting from an influx of Jamaican criminals who are challenging drug distribution areas long controlled by local marijuana distributors. Cannabis cultivation occasionally is associated with violent crime in New York. Typically, growers cultivate cannabis outdoors with booby traps situated among and around the plants. Reports indicate that traps closer to the cultivation site are more dangerous and sophisticated and target those who might steal the cannabis. Last time I checked, Anheuser Bush hasn't taken any shots at Marlboro."

Here, I'm quoting the whole argument because first I would like to point out something about the sources cited. In the first source where you claim that "figure 11" has relevance to your argument, I can't find anything beneficial to your case or anything relevant. However, what I DO see is this: "CIR data (Figure 8) show that deaths decreased steadily from a high of 344 in 1988 to a low of 171 in 1994." What I see this to be is an admittance of the deaths on the border decreasing by somewheres near 50% over a course of 6 years. **Also, all of these crimes that you refer to are crimes based upon the fact that Marijuana is illegal. For example, "Typically, growers cultivate cannabis outdoors with booby traps situated among and around the plants." They wouldn't have to booby trap their crops if it was legal.

2. "Dutch sales of cannabis alone totaled 1.2 billion euros ($1.86 billion) in 2001, according to the most recent figures available from the nation's statistics bureau. While in 2003 annual alcohol sales were $115.9 billion and tobacco sales were $333.4 million in 2001. I'm no mathematician but a combined sales of $449.3 billion compared to $1.86 billion is just a little bit higher, in fact its over 242% more in sales. "

I'm afraid your numbers are either old, wrong, or the fact that it was the Dutch sales makes it irrelevant. The fact is, that in California, "A bill to tax and regulate marijuana in California like alcohol would generate nearly $1.4 billion in revenue for the cash-strapped state, according to an official analysis released Wednesday by tax officials." Marijuana on the streets isn't being taxed, therefore the revenue WOULD be considerably less. Keep in mind that this 1.4 billion dollars is only for the state of California, imagine the whole United States. [1]

3. "Simply because it is being distributed illegally, how many drug dealers do you think are gonna pay there taxes for there marijuana sales. Excuse me kid, that will be $10.00 for the dime bag and oh, .70 cents for sales tax, have a nice day! Yea not happening sorry."

I think the correct term you were looking for is THEIR Marijuana sales. In any case, there wouldn't be drug dealers selling Marijuana. It would be distributed mainly through stores. The sales tax would work just like buying cigarettes.

4. "Gang violence related to the distribution of marijuana as I stated in #1."

Gang's aren't the only people affiliated with Marijuana. The big gang raids and things of that nature tend to follow more important drugs, Cocaine in particular. Give me some facts of how gang violence is a factor in the distribution of Marijuana please.

5. "As stated in #2, sales cant even begin to touch Alcohol or Tobacco alone, let alone added together. Hell McDonald's annual sales in 2008 was $28 billion."

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. And I didn't say "Hell McDonald's annual..." I don't think you meant to include that as a part of my quoted argument, but you did. Voters, don't be confused.

6. "Can't say this is exactly a factual assertion considering it is speculation based upon the Tobacco industry. As far as my standing on this, to say that there will be 200 Americans employed will be just as good as your "factual assertion" due to the fact that it is only speculation."

"All and all as you can tell through actual facts and numbers Marijuana sales taken from a country where it is actually legal and the sales are recorded, this would not "strongly" promote our economy or promote it anymore than Mcdonald's does. The legalization of Marijuana in the United States will have no strong or near strong promotion in our economy."

I'm running short on time. Restate this in the next round and I will reply on my next argument. Thank you.

[1] - http://www.cbsnews.com...
redbrave70

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for his response and hope he can finish the last round to wrap up this debate.

Here, I'm quoting the whole argument because first I would like to point out something about the sources cited. In the first source where you claim that "figure 11" has relevance to your argument, I can't find anything beneficial to your case or anything relevant. However, what I DO see is this: "CIR data (Figure 8) show that deaths decreased steadily from a high of 344 in 1988 to a low of 171 in 1994." What I see this to be is an admittance of the deaths on the border decreasing by somewheres near 50% over a course of 6 years. **Also, all of these crimes that you refer to are crimes based upon the fact that Marijuana is illegal. For example, "Typically, growers cultivate cannabis outdoors with booby traps situated among and around the plants." They wouldn't have to booby trap their crops if it was legal.

Figure 11 is simple to read, how you managed not to see anything beneficial is beyond me. Above the graph in big bold letters states "ATTACKS ON BORDER PATROL AGENTS", and above that is a detailed explanation if you still cant read the graph. As you stated about figure 8, this is "migrant deaths", not smugglers. Smugglers make these runs on a daily basis with great success by using children as smugglers, tunnels, hidden cargo traps in vehicles, and have set safe houses for there cargo on the U.S. side of the border when they get across. To put it simply, there methods work, migrants die due to extreme heat, poor planning or by simply being lost, this does not occur with the smugglers. **On the contrary, these crimes are not based upon the fact that they are legal but because of violence towards rival gangs, growers, distributors etc. They do not booby trap cannabis plants because they are illegal but for the same reason why you would put up a fence or traps for a home garden full of fruit and vegetables to keep out pests, in this case humans.

I'm afraid your numbers are either old, wrong, or the fact that it was the Dutch sales makes it irrelevant. The fact is, that in California, "A bill to tax and regulate marijuana in California like alcohol would generate nearly $1.4 billion in revenue for the cash-strapped state, according to an official analysis released Wednesday by tax officials." Marijuana on the streets isn't being taxed, therefore the revenue WOULD be considerably less. Keep in mind that this 1.4 billion dollars is only for the state of California, imagine the whole United States. [1]

No, these numbers are correct and also relevant due to the fact that these are real numbers recorded by a country where marijuana is legal for consumers and not just medical. Do you have a source available for the information above? Because once again this is just speculation and estimates, i provide actual numbers from a country where it is actually legal. $1.4 billion in a hugely populated state, what about Montana? North and South Dakota? Alaska? There numbers would not come near to California's due to there population. And if marijuana was legalized then more people would simply grow there own just like the countless numbers of people who own small/large gardens in there backyards, sorry cant tax that. Also keep in mind of states rights. Just because the federal government say its legal doesn't mean other states must or will follow.

I think the correct term you were looking for is THEIR Marijuana sales. In any case, there wouldn't be drug dealers selling Marijuana. It would be distributed mainly through stores. The sales tax would work just like buying cigarettes.

Buying cigarettes and buying marijuana are two totally different things. People buy and smoke multiple packs of cigarettes each day, while marijuana users only smoke marijuana cigarettes in much less quantities and very much less often. Also, you are able to buy almost anything over the internet, ebay, amazon, etc. If you do not live in the state where you are buying from, there is no sales tax, there would be no profit for the government.

http://www.cigoutlet.net... (you can buy cigarettes online in case you were wondering)

Gang's aren't the only people affiliated with Marijuana. The big gang raids and things of that nature tend to follow more important drugs, Cocaine in particular. Give me some facts of how gang violence is a factor in the distribution of Marijuana please.

As far as I know you are only able to obtain marijuana from drug dealers, but please enlighten me on who else is affiliated with it. Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug among youth in the United States (This is based on fact, and my source below) We can all agree that the majority of marijuana users are between the ages of 16-24, if the U.S. legalizes it they would regulate it, like you said, like tobacco or even alcohol because of its affects on the human body. In this case this would cut out 16, 17, and 18 year old's if the tobacco regulation is used and the ages 16-20 would be cut out if the alcohol approach is taken, cutting profits by more than half for the government making this NOWHERE near a strong promotion towards the economy. Current marijuana use decreased from 27% in 1999 to 20% in 2007. This now cuts even more profits with the lack of buyers, not looking so good for your case concerning profits, no buyers, no sales, no tax revenue. Drug trafficking is ran by drug cartels who are usually based out of Mexico and extremely violent. Once the marijuana reaches the U.S. distributors must then sell the drugs, creating "turf wars" and violence between gangs selling the same drug. I don't know what else you want me to say? Maybe I should be asking you the same thing, where are the facts, not the assumptions and speculations.

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. And I didn't say "Hell McDonald's annual..." I don't think you meant to include that as a part of my quoted argument, but you did. Voters, don't be confused.

I posted a comment explaining that I had accidentally started to write my statements directly after yours and must have forgotten to deleted it. You claimed that marijuana sales would flourish like tobacco and alcohol sales. This is false as I said before, because Marijuana sales can not touch the sales of tobacco or alcohol alone, even if your speculation of $1.4 billion per state is true, which also depends on population, popularity and if states even pass the law to legalize it. My argument stands while you have not made any attempt to discredit my point or at least try to support your own point from round 1.

6. "Can't say this is exactly a factual assertion considering it is speculation based upon the Tobacco industry. As far as my standing on this, to say that there will be 200 Americans employed will be just as good as your "factual assertion" due to the fact that it is only speculation."

"All and all as you can tell through actual facts and numbers Marijuana sales taken from a country where it is actually legal and the sales are recorded, this would not "strongly" promote our economy or promote it anymore than Mcdonald's does. The legalization of Marijuana in the United States will have no strong or near strong promotion in our economy."

Hopefully my opponent will be able to finish the last round and also post actual more support for his argument or something new, until then vote con.
Debate Round No. 2
DylanFromSC

Pro

1. Okay. I see what you mean by figure 11 now. In the table of contents, "figure 11" is basically like chapter 11. The figure 11 in the table of contents contains figure 8. This is kind of oddly set up. ANYWAYS, these attacks have increased, BUT this is only true due to the fact that Marijuana is illegal. If Marijuana was legal, there would be no "smugglers"; there would be no reason to attack border patrol officers for they would not fear being caught. ANYHOW, this debate is on how Marijuana would promote a strong economy, not how dangerous it is while it is illegal.

2. "No, these numbers are correct and also relevant due to the fact that these are real numbers recorded by a country where marijuana is legal for consumers and not just medical. Do you have a source available for the information above? Because once again this is just speculation and estimates, i provide actual numbers from a country where it is actually legal. "

I provided the source? Maybe you skipped over it. It's at the end. That's what the [1] corresponds to.

3. "http://www.cigoutlet.net...... (you can buy cigarettes online in case you were wondering)"

Exactly. You can buy cigarettes online, and you would be able to buy Marijuana online. They would STILL be taxed in the same manner..

4. "As far as I know you are only able to obtain marijuana from drug dealers, but please enlighten me on who else is affiliated with it."

You didn't say DRUG DEALERS, you said GANG MEMBERS. Here is what you stated.. "Gang violence related to the distribution of marijuana as I stated in #1."

5. "Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug among youth in the United States"

AH, now this can be VERY misleading... What it says is that Marijuana is THE MOST COMMONLY USED ILLICIT DRUG among youth in the United States. What is DOESN'T say is that Marijuana is most commonly used among the youth in the United States. So this has not relevance. If it IS the most commonly used drug among the youth, it has no relevance to how it would affect the economy. **Because of this "setup statement", if you will, being totally misread, the rest of this argument is void.

6. "You claimed that marijuana sales would flourish like tobacco and alcohol sales. This is false as I said before, because Marijuana sales can not touch the sales of tobacco or alcohol alone, even if your speculation of $1.4 billion per state is true, which also depends on population, popularity and if states even pass the law to legalize it. My argument stands while you have not made any attempt to discredit my point or at least try to support your own point from round 1."

I would just like to say that I said, " 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." The Marijuana industry may or may not be as successful as either of the industries, but it's still raking in A LOT of extra money, therefore promoting a strong economy.

7. "Can't say this is exactly a factual assertion considering it is speculation based upon the Tobacco industry. As far as my standing on this, to say that there will be 200 Americans employed will be just as good as your "factual assertion" due to the fact that it is only speculation."

"Advocates and opponents do agree that California is by far the country's top pot-producing state. Last year law enforcement agencies in California seized nearly 5.3 million plants."[1] - This is ILLEGALLY JUST in the state of California. Just to run these plants, represent the Marijuana corporations, farm the crops, etc. would require at LEAST 200 employees, more than likely a lot more. Keep in mind that this is JUST California. Just to run Tobacco plants, represent Tobacco corporations, farm Tobacco crops, etc. requires 200,000 employees. [2] The trend would be VERY similar in the Marijuana industry considering that they require the same representation, amount of farming, and employees running the production facilities..

"All and all as you can tell through actual facts and numbers Marijuana sales taken from a country where it is actually legal and the sales are recorded, this would not "strongly" promote our economy or promote it anymore than Mcdonald's does. The legalization of Marijuana in the United States will have no strong or near strong promotion in our economy."

Amsterdam is CONSIDERABLY smaller than we, comparing the two is like comparing Texas and Massachusetts for the number of people living in either.

As this is the last round, I STRONGLY urge a Pro vote. The facts stand out. PRO.
*I would like to thank my opponent for this interesting debate.. Let the best man win?

[1] - http://www.cbsnews.com...
[2] - http://www.corpwatch.org...
redbrave70

Con

1. Okay. I see what you mean by figure 11 now. In the table of contents, "figure 11" is basically like chapter 11. The figure 11 in the table of contents contains figure 8. This is kind of oddly set up. ANYWAYS, these attacks have increased, BUT this is only true due to the fact that Marijuana is illegal. If Marijuana was legal, there would be no "smugglers"; there would be no reason to attack border patrol officers for they would not fear being caught. ANYHOW, this debate is on how Marijuana would promote a strong economy, not how dangerous it is while it is illegal.

Once again pro has made the assumption that because it is legal, there are no guidelines to how its controlled, sold, or distributed. You claim that marijuana would be regulated like alcohol and tobacco. To transport alcohol or tobacco from one state to another without the proper licensing and permits is ILLEGAL and punishable by fines and jail time. For smugglers to bring marijuana into the country from an outside source other than the U.S. would be ILLEGAL. If it is brought into the country illegally then there is no way to track that amount of marijuana and anyone could sell it without having to pay the tax on it, once again no tax revenue. Con, I do not believe you know what you are talking about and I do not believe you understand fully this topic enough to dispute it properly but I will continue on.

I provided the source? Maybe you skipped over it. It's at the end. That's what the [1] corresponds to.

You have not provided an argument in favor of pro for this round, as I stated before you are using estimations, I provided facts and actual numbers of sales by a country where it is legal. My opponent failed to counter my argument properly in round two and not at all in round three, I will claim victor of this point in the matter.

3. "http://www.cigoutlet.net......... (you can buy cigarettes online in case you were wondering)"

Exactly. You can buy cigarettes online, and you would be able to buy Marijuana online. They would STILL be taxed in the same manner..

Because my opponent has chopped my argument I will restate my point as so the readers are not confused. "Buying cigarettes and buying marijuana are two totally different things. People buy and smoke multiple packs of cigarettes each day, while marijuana users only smoke marijuana cigarettes in much less quantities and very much less often. Also, you are able to buy almost anything over the internet, ebay, amazon, etc. If you do not live in the state where you are buying from, there is no sales tax, there would be no profit for the government." With this said, there is NO sales tax on online goods which are bought from other states = no tax revenue for that product. Also my opponent also did not take the time to read the source I provided due to the fact that it clearly states that, "All orders are processed and shipped from out of the US. Therefore We don't report tax or customer information to any government agency or other entity." No taxes mean no revenue which means no promotion in the economy.

You didn't say DRUG DEALERS, you said GANG MEMBERS. Here is what you stated.. "Gang violence related to the distribution of marijuana as I stated in #1."

My opponent has once again not provided an argument for me to counter rather he has quoted my own argument.

5. "Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug among youth in the United States"

AH, now this can be VERY misleading... What it says is that Marijuana is THE MOST COMMONLY USED ILLICIT DRUG among youth in the United States. What is DOESN'T say is that Marijuana is most commonly used among the youth in the United States. So this has not relevance. If it IS the most commonly used drug among the youth, it has no relevance to how it would affect the economy. **Because of this "setup statement", if you will, being totally misread, the rest of this argument is void.

At this point in round 3 I am in complete aw at your intelligence, you have once again cut down my statement to one sentence that explains that marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug among youth in the U.S. I also provided numbers that explained that the use of marijuana has gone down 7% which would cut profits. I have no idea where my opponent is going with this argument but in his argument he stated, "AH, now this can be VERY misleading... What it says is that Marijuana is THE MOST COMMONLY USED ILLICIT DRUG among youth in the United States. What is DOESN'T say is that Marijuana is most commonly used among the youth in the United States. So this has not relevance. If it IS the most commonly used drug among the youth, it has no relevance to how it would affect the economy." In sentences one and two you stated the same thing twice and claimed the first sentence to be "misleading" when both sentences are exactly the same. The last two sentences claiming there is no relevance? What are you talking about? I am so confused of where you are getting all of this, if youths pay for it then it would affect the economy just as if youth buy food, school clothes etc. To say that it makes no relevance is to say myself buying a vehicle has no relevance to the economy. Dylan, you baffle me with your stupidity.

I would just like to say that I said, " 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." The Marijuana industry may or may not be as successful as either of the industries, but it's still raking in A LOT of extra money, therefore promoting a strong economy.

Once again con has not provided an argument for me to counter, but instead claimed that, "The Marijuana industry may or may not be as successful as either of the industries, but it's still raking in A LOT of extra money, therefore promoting a strong economy." What money? What amount? Con has failed to give any type of numbers, I have provided numbers and facts based on ACTUAL numbers while my opponent has continued to claim, assume and assert with no source of reference. Marijuana will not rake i "A LOT" of extra money as I have stated several times throughout this argument.

"Advocates and opponents ....

This entire argument makes no except for the last part about the employment. You have said yourself "The Marijuana industry may or may not be as successful as either of the industries", so how would it compare to an industry that has been around for hundreds of years in the U.S.? The trend would not be at all similar and to compare a extremely successful corporation to that of a illegal trade is irrelevant. To give any number as to how many would be employed is anyone's guess.

Amsterdam is CONSIDERABLY smaller than we, comparing the two is like comparing Texas and Massachusetts for the number of people living in either.

The total population does not matter, as stated before marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug used by YOUTHS, you must take the population of youth to get your number. People do not smoke marijuana nearly as often as people that smoke tobacco. Tobacco unlike marijuana doesn't affect the state of mind and you are able to function properly, marijuana on the other hand makes you very lazy, tired and laid back. If as many people that smoke cigarettes smoke marijuana as often as they smoke cigarettes it would actually hurt the economy due to the fact that no one would properly do there job, or anything for that matter.

Throughout the entire debate I have given numbers, facts and statistics and time and time again disproved my opponents arguments, if he even made one. I urge the readers to vote con based on the facts that I have given in relation that the legalization of marijuana WILL NOT promote a strong economy. The facts stand out for Con, Vote Con :)
Debate Round No. 3
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by redbrave70 7 years ago
redbrave70
Actually he became my friend after the fact, and yes I will argue about anything if you'd like to start another debate
Posted by DylanFromSC 7 years ago
DylanFromSC
Uhhh, considering that RoyLatham is your friend and voted you 5 points, and my friend only gave me 4, you don't have any room to talk.. Good try though. You just argue about anything don't you?
Posted by redbrave70 7 years ago
redbrave70
now were getting are friends to vote for each other lol?
Posted by redbrave70 7 years ago
redbrave70
prove to me the fact that matters the actual debate, someones record does not mean a thing in debates except for how many times they have been in one, calm one you have none so why are you even saying anything?
Posted by TheCalmOne 7 years ago
TheCalmOne
I'm off put by the fact that you said that he can't prove a point, when he just proved that he has a better record than you.
Posted by redbrave70 7 years ago
redbrave70
And again, cant prove a argument, your a joke
Posted by DylanFromSC 7 years ago
DylanFromSC
I won considering that I have a 75% win ratio and an 88.87 percentile and I'm listed in the Top Debaters EVERY day. The win I was referring to is the when I said compare our records, because you insist on calling me a "hood rat" and putting lol after everything like somethings funny. It's really funny that you think I'm just a "hood rat high school student" that's SO much younger than you. But whatever, I said what I deemed necessary. I'm gonna be the "bigger" man here, even though I AM just a high school student.. I'm done. I guess we'll see in 2 days 3 hours 20 minutes and 50 seconds..
Posted by redbrave70 7 years ago
redbrave70
TheCalmOne, dont you have a 1 round debate to argue or something?
Posted by TheCalmOne 7 years ago
TheCalmOne
That is precisely what I was referring to DylanFromSC.
Posted by redbrave70 7 years ago
redbrave70
How did you win? please tell me how you won, regardless of the votes, tell me...by the way I had gone against TheLWord and lost by 1 point also!! how awesome
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by cjkeys 7 years ago
cjkeys
DylanFromSCredbrave70Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Vote Placed by FrenchAbortion 7 years ago
FrenchAbortion
DylanFromSCredbrave70Tied
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 mpthemaster 7 years ago
mpthemaster
DylanFromSCredbrave70Tied
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 CrysisPillar 7 years ago
CrysisPillar
DylanFromSCredbrave70Tied
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:43 
Vote Placed by omgshkelbyposton 7 years ago
omgshkelbyposton
DylanFromSCredbrave70Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by popculturepooka 7 years ago
popculturepooka
DylanFromSCredbrave70Tied
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:40 
Vote Placed by TheCalmOne 7 years ago
TheCalmOne
DylanFromSCredbrave70Tied
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 DylanFromSC 7 years ago
DylanFromSC
DylanFromSCredbrave70Tied
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 RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
DylanFromSCredbrave70Tied
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 
Vote Placed by redbrave70 7 years ago
redbrave70
DylanFromSCredbrave70Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06