The Instigator
Mangani
Pro (for)
Winning
37 Points
The Contender
THEmanlyDEBATER3
Con (against)
Losing
33 Points

The legalization of Marijuana is likely to have a more favorable impact than current policy

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: 4/13/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,344 times Debate No: 3618
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (15)

 

Mangani

Pro

My premise is simple: The legalization of marijuana would have a more favorable impact on our country than the current policy.

I present the following arguments:

1. Legalization allows for better regulation, improvement of quality, reduction in street prices, and would alienate street dealers.

2. Regulation rather than criminalization provides a better medium for control of access to minors, including stiffer punishments for providers and dealers who contribute to the delinquency of minors.

3. Legalization would allow law enforcement to concentrate on hard drugs and violent crime (this includes DEA, ATF, FBI, Coast Guard, Customs, INS, and local law enforcement).

4. Legalization would provide safer environments for recreational users as well as pharmaceutical users.

5. Legalization would allow for an improved hemp industry which is currently hampered by a ban on all "cannabis" strains for fear that higher THC strains will be grown amongst the lower THC "hemp" strains.

6. Legalization and regulation would provide a bountiful source for new taxes- industrial, recreational, and medical.

7. Legalization would allow for more efficient studies which would lead to strains that can be disease specific.

8. Legalization would eat away at the monopoly pharmaceuticals have on harder prescription drugs that are actually less effective and more harmful than marijuana when used to treat certain diseases, ie. Fentanyl (a form of morphine) vs. MJ for fibromaelgia, scoliosis, and other painful diseases; Xanax vs. MJ for anxiety; Purcocet (another opioid like Fentanyl and often used in conjuntcion with), Vicodin, and others vs. MJ for pain.

9. Legalization would allow for lower pharmaceutical prices making it easier for patients to medicate and justify the expense which is sometimes smoked up by non-patient family members (like any other pharmaceutical).

10. Legalization would free up about 60,000 jail cells reserved annually for non-violent recreational users of marijuana.

I await my opponent's response...
THEmanlyDEBATER3

Con

I present the following rebuttals (Mangani's points in allcaps):

"BETTER" (more) REGULATION
-This is bad. Unregulated is working fine. We don't need regulation. It would be frivolous.

"IMPROVEMENT" OF QUALITY
-This is probably not true. When things become mass produced, they lose that special touch. Home grown gets my vote. It's your burden now to prove why mass production would yield "improved" quality.

REDUCTION IN STREET PRICES
-This is bad for dealers. Bad for dealers means people will be less willing to sell their own, home-grown weed. So all the buyers can buy after this is some lame factory made weed. Bad for buyers, bad for sellers, bad overall.

ALIENATE STREET DEALERS
-Explain how this is good. If I was supporting something, I wouldn't use "makes people lose their jobs" as a point.

"BETTER" CONTROL OF ACCESS TO MINORS
-Minors have a good level of access as is. It is your burden to prove that minors need less access to weed. Are you a bad enough dude to support that?

STIFFER PUNISHMENTS TO THOSE WHO CONTRIBUTE TO MINORS' USAGE
-As above, I contend that there is nothing wrong with minors using weed.

LAW ENFORCEMENT COULD CONCENTRATE ON OTHER THINGS
-Law enforcement currently focuses on drugs only because drugs often precede other illegal activity. If you're looking for a fire, you might as well move towards that smoke in the distance. Cops would not shift their focus, and if they did, they would be less effective.

SAFER ENVIRONMENTS FOR USERS
-That would take all the fun out of using it. Thus, it would become less useful as a recreational drug.
As a prescription drug used for pharmaceutical use, most states already allow it to be used. Regardless, that is not the type of legalization we're talking about, and you know it.

MORE SUCCESSFUL HEMP INDUSTRY
-A more successful hemp industry means less success for other industries. Thus, this is not just a positive point.

MORE TAXES
-Tax from recreational users would probably provide less income than what is made by courts as of now.
Tax from industrial production would increase just as much because of Marijuana as it would lower for Marijuana's competitors.
Tax from medicinal use would be very low, since it is rarely required. Also, it is already legal medicinally many places, so this is not new tax your proposition brings to the table.

MORE RESEARCH
-It would not be more researched. It can already be easily researched, and there are groups of scientists who do studies on its medicinal benefits. Thus, your proposition does not bring this ability to the table, it already has a seat right next to medicinal use.

LESS SUCCESS FOR COMPETITIVE DRUGS
-Marijuana can already be used medically in many places. Not only that, but even if it did deal some major blow to other companies, this is not good. These "pharmaceutical monopolies," as you call them, control the market for an array of drugs (I assume, based on your wording). This means that if they get hurt by Marijuana, the entire market for other drugs will suffer. to make up for the profit, they will have to increase the price of the other drugs, something they can do if they are monopolies. Thus, not an overall positive effect here.

LOWER PHARMACEUTICAL COST OF MARIJUANA
-Marijuana is already legal as medicine in many states.
Not only that, but so few people have to use it medically that it would be insignificant. Insurance usually pays for the majority of a person's medical expenses anyway.

MORE FREE JAIL CELLS
-So we'd have a bunch of free space in jails? This doesn't sound like that great of a thing. Not only that, but people who get caught by the cops for smoking Marijuana tend to be idiots. Thus, law abiding citizens get to enjoy a more idiot-free life, which is priceless.

4 rounds, so I'll leave it at that.
Debate Round No. 1
Mangani

Pro

I present the following rebuttals to my opponent's rebuttals:

On Regulation- "This is bad. Unregulated is working fine. We don't need regulation. It would be frivolous."

-No argument was presented as to how regulation is "bad". We obviously need some regulation of marijuana and marijuana products, otherwise we wouldn't even be having this debate. The premise of this debate provides for "better" regulation in the sense that many of the problems associated with the decision to make it illegal can be controlled better if it is regulated, rather than prohibited. Take alcohol, for example. Prohibition facilitated the rise of various criminal organizations who provided a simple yet more harmful "controlled substance" (http://www.albany.edu... , http://www.crimelibrary.com...).

The illegalization of marjuana has had a similar affect bringing rise to international crime lords (along with other products) like the Tijuana and Sonora Mafias or cartels (now known as the Tijuana-Gulf Cartel).

Regulation and taxation of marijuana will help keep it out of the hands of children, much like the prohibition of the sale of alcohol to minors. It will take the money out of the hands of the cartels and drug dealers, and into tax revenue for the individual states. Regulation would provide a safe environment for medical users to aquire their prescriptions, as well as allow for the control of strains for specific maladies. These are just a few examples of how regulation would be "better". There is no indication regulation would be "frivolous" as the current regulation policy is an almost complete ban on the already "controlled" substance.

On Quality-"This is probably not true. When things become mass produced, they lose that special touch. Home grown gets my vote. It's your burden now to prove why mass production would yield "improved" quality."

-How is it my burden to prove something I never claimed? (prove why mass production would yield "improved" quality). This is what I DID say about quality besides saying regulation would lead to improved quality-"Legalization would allow for more efficient studies which would lead to strains that can be disease specific." This has already been proven true with the examples of California, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Hawai'i, Alaska, Canada, Jamaica, Mexico, and Holland (though not completely legal in any of these places). These locations currently hold a monopoly (and probably always will) on the high quality market for various reasons including decriminalization, university studies, and a tolerant society which leads to more tolerant law enforcement.

Legalization and regulation also supports the "home grown gets my vote" argument because it would be legal for law abiding adults and medical marijuana patients to grow in their own homes (which would have a major impact on street crime).

Reduction in Street Prices-"This is bad for dealers...people will be less willing to sell their own, home-grown weed. So all the buyers can buy after this is some lame factory made weed. Bad for buyers, bad for sellers, bad overall."

-There is no such thing as "factory made corn" now is there? What makes you think farmers will be growing marijuana in "factories" when it is cheaper to grow out in the open, like any other crop?

The reduction in street prices will be due in major part to legalization and the lack of needing to buy from a street dealer. Street prices are currently controlled by risk and availability. With legalization, risk will be reduced, and availability (to law abiding citizens) will increase. The quality will be dictated by the market, and the user's ability to grow their own strains will force the industry to follow the trend of maintaining quality. Note- the industry will consist of users who have dedicated themselves to the growth and sale of quality strains... due to marijuana counterculture it is a matter of pride to grow quality marijuana.

"ALIENATE STREET DEALERS-Explain how this is good."

-Legalization would force dealers to deal honestly and fairly, and law enforcement would not be on their backs. The street dealers (many of which sell just because they smoke) would have the same choices as anyone else- start a legal growing and distributing operation, dispensery, etc. or just stay out of the game. This will not affect your every day American as it will affect criminals. Indeed, the majority of marijuana related offenses are charges against non-violent USERS. Legalization is for the benefit of the user, not the dealer.

"Minors have a good level of access as is. It is your burden to prove that minors need less access to weed. Are you a bad enough dude to support that?"

-In order to justify legalization we must provide sensible legislation that will appease those who would otherwise oppose it. Though I am not against the use of marijuana by SOME minors, that is a parental choice. Children should not be able to go to the store and buy marijuana, just as they shouldn't be able to go buy a six pack. Current policy provides very little- if any- barrier between adults and children in the drug trade.

Preventing children under 21 from being able to legally aquire marijuana, focusing on dealers who sell to minors, and protecting our children from access is sensible and logical.

"As above, I contend that there is nothing wrong with minors using weed."

-The debate is about legalization. If you are not against minors using weed, then you forfeit "con" in it's entirety.

"Law enforcement currently focuses on drugs only because drugs often precede other illegal activity."

-Drug related violence is drug related because drugs are where the money comes from. Illegal activity follows the drug trade because it is a criminal enterprise. Law enforcement focuses on drugs because they are run by criminal enterprises. Legalization of marijuana will take at least one more product our of their hands and into the hands of law abiding citizens.

Upon further reading I realize your argument is a joke. You are not serious, and your arguments are not from a "con" point of view. You make arguments that are in favor of using while illegal... ridiculous... obviously if you are for the legalization of marijuana it is because you think using shouldn't be a crime. If you don't think "minor use" is a crime, then you can't possibly think adult use is a crime, and therefore you support my premise, though maybe not in the exact same way. You still do not hold a position contrary to my premise "The legalization of Marijuana is likely to have a more favorable impact than current policy".
THEmanlyDEBATER3

Con

THEmanlyDEBATER3 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Mangani

Pro

New York
decriminalized
Details About this report
Possession Incarceration Fine
25 g or less (first offense) civil citation none $100
25 g or less (second offense) civil citation none $200
25 g or less (3rd offense) misdemeanor 5 days and/or fine $250
25 g to 2 oz* misdemeanor 3 months $500
2 to 8 oz class A misdemeanor 1 year and/or fine $1,000
8 to 16 oz (first felony) class E felony 1-4 years and/or fine,
if second offense- 3-4 years (mandatory � jail sentence) $5,000
16 oz to 10 lbs (first felony) class D felony 1 - 15 years and/or fine,
if 2nd offense mandatory � jail sentence $5,000
More than 10 lbs (first felony) class C felony 1 - 15 years and/or fine,
if 2nd offense mandatory � jail sentence $5,000
*Includes any amount in public where marijuana is burning or open to public view.
Sale or Cultivation
2 oz or less gift class B misdemeanor 3 months and/or fine $500
24 g sale class A misdemeanor 1 year and/or fine $1,000
25 g to 4 oz (first felony) class E felony 1 - 4 years,
if second felony 3-4 years (mandatory � jail sentence) $5,000
4 to 16 oz (first felony) class D felony 1-7 years
(probation if no prior felony) $5,000
16 oz to 10 lbs (first felony) class C felony 1-5 years and/or fine,
if second felony 4-7 years (mandatory � jail sentence)
$5,000
10 lbs or more (first felony) class C felony 1-15 years and/or fine
if second felony 6-15 years (mandatory � jail sentence)

Sale to a minor (first felony) class D felony 1 - 7 years $5,000
Miscellaneous (paraphernalia, license suspensions, drug tax stamps, etc...)
Paraphernalia possession (must be dirty paraphernalia) misdemeanor 1 year $1,000
Details

Possession of 25 grams or less of marijuana is punishable by a fine of $100 for the first offense. For the second offense, the penalty increases to a $200 fine and for subsequent offenses the fine increases to $250 and a maximum of 15 days in jail time may be imposed.

Possession of greater than 25 grams or possession of any amount in public where the marijuana is burning or open to public view, is a class B misdemeanor and is punishable by up to three months in jail and a fine up to $500.

For possession of greater than two ounces, the penalty increases to a possible one year in jail and a fine up to $1,000.

Possession of greater than eight ounces increases the penalties to a possible one to one and a half years in prison and a fine up to $5,000. The penalties for possession of greater than 16 ounces are one to two and a half years in prison and a fine up to $5,000. For possession of any amount greater than 10 pounds, the penalty is one to five and half years in prison and a fine up to $5,000.

Delivery or manufacture of two grams or less of marijuana for no remuneration is punishable by up to three months in jail and a fine up to $500. For delivery or manufacture of 25 grams or less, the penalty is up to one year in jail and a fine up to $1,000. For amounts greater than 25 grams, the penalty increases to one to one and a half years in jail and a fine up to $5,000. Delivery or manufacture of greater than four ounces is punishable by one to two and a half years in prison and a fine up to $5,000. For any amount greater than 16 ounces, the penalty increases to one to five and a half years in prison and a fine up to $5,000.

Any sale or delivery to a minor is punishable by one to two and a half years in prison and a fine up to $5,000.

Possession or sale of paraphernalia is punishable by up to one year in jail or a fine up to $1,000.

Decriminalization: The state has decriminalized marijuana to some degree. Typically, decriminalization means no prison time or criminal record for first-time possession of a small amount for personal consumption. The conduct is treated like a minor traffic violation.
THEmanlyDEBATER3

Con

THEmanlyDEBATER3 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Mangani

Pro

My premise is simple: The legalization of marijuana would have a more favorable impact on our country than the current policy.

I present the following arguments:

1. Legalization allows for better regulation, improvement of quality, reduction in street prices, and would alienate street dealers.

2. Regulation rather than criminalization provides a better medium for control of access to minors, including stiffer punishments for providers and dealers who contribute to the delinquency of minors.

3. Legalization would allow law enforcement to concentrate on hard drugs and violent crime (this includes DEA, ATF, FBI, Coast Guard, Customs, INS, and local law enforcement).

4. Legalization would provide safer environments for recreational users as well as pharmaceutical users.

5. Legalization would allow for an improved hemp industry which is currently hampered by a ban on all "cannabis" strains for fear that higher THC strains will be grown amongst the lower THC "hemp" strains.

6. Legalization and regulation would provide a bountiful source for new taxes- industrial, recreational, and medical.

7. Legalization would allow for more efficient studies which would lead to strains that can be disease specific.

8. Legalization would eat away at the monopoly pharmaceuticals have on harder prescription drugs that are actually less effective and more harmful than marijuana when used to treat certain diseases, ie. Fentanyl (a form of morphine) vs. MJ for fibromaelgia, scoliosis, and other painful diseases; Xanax vs. MJ for anxiety; Purcocet (another opioid like Fentanyl and often used in conjuntcion with), Vicodin, and others vs. MJ for pain.

9. Legalization would allow for lower pharmaceutical prices making it easier for patients to medicate and justify the expense which is sometimes smoked up by non-patient family members (like any other pharmaceutical).

10. Legalization would free up about 60,000 jail cells reserved annually for non-violent recreational users of marijuana
THEmanlyDEBATER3

Con

THEmanlyDEBATER3 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by whyugottabelikedat32 8 years ago
whyugottabelikedat32
Just tax it, legalize it, put an age limit, and have the government tax it. With all the people who would buy it, it would help our financial deficit. Then for people who want to sell it, i they should have to have a liscence. It's not half as dangerous as the already legal in this same way alchohol.
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
Your profile says you are against legalization of drugs... was this because of the broad term "drugs", or do you oppose legalization of marijuana???
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
Well, I haven't seen any good debates lately and I am dying to debate this topic. You want to debate anything?
Posted by Paradigm_Lost 8 years ago
Paradigm_Lost
You may have a tough time finding an opponent because most people will likely agree with you.
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
I reposted this debate because I don't think my opponent will respond in time...
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
ManganiTHEmanlyDEBATER3Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Clear win for Pro, simple forfeit from Con.
Vote Placed by m93samman 5 years ago
m93samman
ManganiTHEmanlyDEBATER3Tied
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 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 BellumQuodPacis 6 years ago
BellumQuodPacis
ManganiTHEmanlyDEBATER3Tied
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 NYCDiesel 6 years ago
NYCDiesel
ManganiTHEmanlyDEBATER3Tied
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 TxsRngr 6 years ago
TxsRngr
ManganiTHEmanlyDEBATER3Tied
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 Xer 6 years ago
Xer
ManganiTHEmanlyDEBATER3Tied
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 Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
ManganiTHEmanlyDEBATER3Tied
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 beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
ManganiTHEmanlyDEBATER3Tied
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 scorpionclone 8 years ago
scorpionclone
ManganiTHEmanlyDEBATER3Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Blown2Bits4ever 8 years ago
Blown2Bits4ever
ManganiTHEmanlyDEBATER3Tied
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