The Instigator
DylanRobles
Pro (for)
Winning
26 Points
The Contender
regebro
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

The legalization of Marijuana would strongly promote a healthy economy.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 8/1/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,983 times Debate No: 9108
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (33)
Votes (6)

 

DylanRobles

Pro

The legalization of Marijuana would strongly promote a healthy economy. Personally, I've never even tried Marijuana, but I know that the distribution of Marijuana is FAR less dangerous than the distribution of alcohol. Marijuana leaves you at a state more focused. People claim that they focus better and can even play video games when they're under the influence of Marijuana. I'm not saying that everybody should smoke Marijuana everyday and party non-stop. I'm just saying that:

1. Being under the influence of Marijuana is FAR less dangerous than being under the influence of alcohol.

2. The distribution of Marijuana is already worldwide, and it being illegal only promotes crime.

3. The Marijuana industry would be just as profitable as the tobacco industry, therefore promoting a strong economy, and it would ideally bring crime rates to an all-time low.

Just because tobacco is legal, not everybody does it. The same would go for Marijuana, not everybody would have to participate to make the industry flourish.
regebro

Con

Thanks you for bringing this topic to the table.

The question of marijuana legalization is a complex topic, but I will here try to show that, although there may be many good arguments for legalization, promoting a healthy economy is not one of those.

My opponent made several assertions. I will here try to counter them one by one.

0. Marijuana makes you more focused.

This assertion seems based on hearsay from marijuana users. The first thing to know about this is that you can never trust what a mind altering drug user says about the effects of a drug, simply because the drug alters the mind. You will find that any drug will be raised high (pun intended) by its users, who will claim that drugs are bad for you, with the exception of their preferred drug, be it marijuana, ecstasy or anything else. According to an ex-addict I talked to this is probably simple a side effect of the drug addition itself. As Marijuana has a wide-spread usage, second only to alcohol amongst mind-altering drugs, you will of course find a lot of people affected by this. Therefore, when we talk about the effects of drugs, we can't trust hearsay from the users, but we have to look towards scientific studies. And there I can't find any studies claiming that Marijuana makes you focus better. In fact, studies show that even at low doses you can get a mild confusion. (http://www.druglibrary.org...)

1. Being under the influence of Marijuana is FAR less dangerous than being under the influence of alcohol.

Although it is true that Marijuana is less toxic than alcohol and is safer for that reason, saying that is is less dangerous to be under the influence is another thing. Both Alcohol and Marijuana will alter your state of mind, and make you prone to doing things you would not have done otherwise, including taking risks, and placing yourself in dangerous situations.

2. The distribution of Marijuana is already worldwide, and it being illegal only promotes crime.

Saying that making something illegal promotes crime is in some way a tautology. The same thing can be said about anything. Murder and rape happens all around the world, and are illegal all around the world, and we could obviously lower the rate of crime by making this legal. But it would also increase the amount of rape an murder, and we don't want that. If our only goal was to lower criminality, then we should simply make everything legal. So this is a nonsensical meta-argument.

3. The Marijuana industry would be just as profitable as the tobacco industry, therefore promoting a strong economy, and it would ideally bring crime rates to an all-time low.

The last part of the argument is just argument 2 again. The rest is however finally the statement of the economy. But economy doesn't work like that. Yes, the marijuana industry would be as profitable as the tobacco industry. But peoples incomes does not increase because you make an industry legal. They still have the same incomes as before, they would just spending more money on marijuana than on other things. So as the marijuana industry would rise, other industries would fall. A better economy is only something you get if you can increase the efficiency of the economy. Many new products do that by helping somebodys job go faster, like computers or better robots, etc. Other ways of improving the economy is to create these tools cheaper, so that you can get more productivity enhancing tools.

But Marijuana is not a productivity enhancing tool. It's a recreational (or medical) drug. And it's well known to have negative effects on personal productivity. It makes you passive and relaxed, not more active or energetic. Used occasionally this will of course not effect how you do your job, that only happens when you get to be an addict, just like with any other drug. But legalisation is if anything going to increase the number of users, and thereby the number of addicts (the relationship between this has been shown in many studies). It is possible that this would be countered by lowering the amounts of addicts for other drugs, but at best, the economic effects of legalising marijuana would be unnoticeable. At worst they would be negative.

But since they are not a tool to increase productivity, legalizing marijuana will not make the economy go any better.
Debate Round No. 1
DylanRobles

Pro

DylanRobles forfeited this round.
regebro

Con

As my opponent forfeited his round, all I can do is to again point out that this discussion in not for or against marijuana, or for or against legalization. It's only if legalization would benefit the economy, which it clearly will not. Legalization should be done for good reasons, and not for bad reasons.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
DylanRobles

Pro

I apologize for forfeiting the previous round, I realize that I have a bit of catching up to do.

I will simply try to counter all of my opponents previous counters, starting in reverse order with these statements:

1. They still have the same incomes as before, they would just spending more money on marijuana than on other things. So as the marijuana industry would rise, other industries would fall.

Peoples incomes would not remain the same due to the fact that an industry composed of many factories would bring countless jobs to the table. As you will see here (http://www.corpwatch.org...), the tobacco industry alone employs almost 200,000 American citizens. The same increase would occur inevitably within the marijuana industry. As the demand for marijuana rises, the suppliers would look to expand, giving more jobs to the American people.

2. Murder and rape happens all around the world, and are illegal all around the world, and we could obviously lower the rate of crime by making this legal. But it would also increase the amount of rape an murder, and we don't want that.

Making something as violent as murder and rape legal would be foolish. Murder and rape are WAY too serious of crimes to be associated with the legalization of marijuana. Marijuana doesn't hurt anyone except for the people that choose to do it. On the contrary, rape and murder are harmful to those not choosing to do it. Therefore, trying to associate murder and rape with the legalization of marijuana would be like comparing apples and oranges.

3. Although it is true that Marijuana is less toxic than alcohol and is safer for that reason, saying that is is less dangerous to be under the influence is another thing.

My opponent agrees that marijuana is safer than alcohol and says it right here. He said that it is less toxic than alcohol and IS SAFER FOR THAT REASON. Then he tries to debate his own argument by saying that it is LESS DANGEROUS. Safe - secure from liability to harm, injury, danger, or risk. In the definition, safe means to be secure from DANGER. Therefore making safe and dangerous antonyms.

4. The first thing to know about this is that you can never trust what a mind altering drug user says about the effects of a drug, simply because the drug alters the mind.

I never intended to debate on the issue of how marijuana users are effected by the drug, because it is irrelevant to my argument.

As it is the last round, I would like to thank my opponent for his time in this debate.
regebro

Con

Thank you for answering. Unfortunately, your arguments in this round were all countered already in my first round. I will therefore make quick summaries here. For longer explanations, see my first round. Anything longer than quick summaries would just be copies of what I said first anyway.

1. As mentioned, the economy will only increase when you improve the efficiency. Marijuana will not improve efficiency. Hence, the economy will not become bigger. Therefore, the rise of the marijuana industry will be followed by a similar decline in other industries.

2. Of course it would be foolish to legalize those things. That's my whole point; you can't use the argument "it would lower crime" to make something legal.

3. Again, although marijuana is less dangerous from toxicity, it is not less dangerous from other kinds of danger, and those dangers are prevalent. When people die or hurt themselves from alcohol, it's rarely from the toxicity of alcohol itself, but because drug use impairs their judgment. Marijuana also impairs judgment.

4. You used marijuana users opinions of marijuana as a basis for an argument, despite you now claiming that it is irrelevant to your argumentation. My point is that those opinions are not trustworthy. You can't base arguments on them, you need to base them on scientific research.

Thanks for this debate, and again remember: This is not for or against legalization, but for or against the economic effects of legalization. Legalization will have no significant positive economic effects, as I showed in the first round. There are other, good, reason for legalization, though.
Debate Round No. 3
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by regebro 7 years ago
regebro
"It is hard for me to grasp how you can say that the argument of "Using drugs is a victimiless crime, that would serve the people better if it regulated and controled" Can be equally applied to crimes that CLEARLY have a victim.."

I can't say that, which explains why I never said it.

"I am TRYING to listen to you, but you're you keep on repeating the same thing OVER AND OVER, without elaborating on it."

If you think something needs elaboration, maybe you could say what would need elaboration? That would probably help, you see. It's pretty damn hard to know what you didn't get if you don't tell me.
Posted by thereal_yeti 7 years ago
thereal_yeti
"Is it completely impossible for you to grasp the concept that somebody can agree with you about the political standpoint but STILL explain to you why your arguments fail? Don't you think, if you had something in the head, you should LISTEN to that person?"

It is hard for me to grasp how you can say that the argument of "Using drugs is a victimiless crime, that would serve the people better if it regulated and controled" Can be equally applied to crimes that CLEARLY have a victim..

Calling me stupid, and acting like a big meany poopy head and not ELABORATING on your point, is not HELPING at all!

I don't get the correlation, don't see how the argument is poor, please enlighten me.

The ONLY way both correlate, is both are ILLEGAL, thats it.

And I have the feeling, that the majority of people reading this have the same qualm about your argument, I am trying to understand what the hell your point is.

I am TRYING to listen to you, but you're you keep on repeating the same thing OVER AND OVER, without elaborating on it

You just keep on saying "Well... the points you use for marijuana legalization can be used for rape, murder and human trafficking"

HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW
Posted by regebro 7 years ago
regebro
"you're questioning my intillegence.."

No, I wasn't. This is what I said:

"Are you honestly debating by straw man and moral hysterics? If that is what you're doing, I have to seriously question your intelligence, sir."

So now you are admitting you are debating by straw men and moral hysterics. OK. Yeah well *admitting* to discussion like that and not actually have any arguments....well, that's pretty stupid. So I have to question your intelligence now, even though I didn't before.

It's also rather daft not to realize I was sarcastic about your quote:
"Are you honestly comparing someone that is smoking a joint in the privacy of their own home, to someone who kidnaps people with the intent to RAPE and kill them? If that is what you're doing, I have to seriously question your morality, sir."

You didn't catch that? Geez...

"When YOU'RE the one that says that the moral arguments for legalization of drugs, can equally be applied to rape, murder, and human trafficking..."

No. I'm saying that YOUR argument (which is not a moral argument in any reasonable definition) can be equally applied to anything. Yes, including these things. And I have explained why. Multiple times. And you almost agreed, but have presented no counter arguments.

In the rest of the comments you now completely change argument, and now argues that drug use is a victimless crime, and therefore marijuana should be legalized.

I will therefore yet again point out that I AM FOR THE LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA IN THE US. I'm only explaining that your previous argument for it doesn't hold water.

Is that really so bloody complicated to understand? Or are you just a little bit stupid? Is it completely impossible for you to grasp the concept that somebody can agree with you about the political standpoint but STILL explain to you why your arguments fail? Don't you think, if you had something in the head, you should LISTEN to that person?
Posted by thereal_yeti 7 years ago
thereal_yeti
okay, at first I was willing to put it to the side..

But it finally struck a nerve..

you're questioning my intillegence..

When YOU'RE the one that says that the moral arguments for legalization of drugs, can equally be applied to rape, murder, and human trafficking..

I think it would be best to look back at what the INTENT of the laws were..'

When it comes to rape and murder, the intent was NOT to end rape and murder. The intent was, here is a action that creates a victim, the victim deserves justice. Ie. there is a COMPLAINTANT.

As with drugs, it's "Here is a action we do not agree with, therefore it should end", the only complaintant is the state.

And if you read up on the treaties (I will try to find it) that is PRECISELY the stated goal of the war on drugs. To eradicate the coa-coa plant, opium, and marijuana. I say, we are failing that goal, therefore we should rethink our policies.

Though drugs MIGHT cause people to rob, even if they WERE legal. How about for people who can afford drugs? Should they be punished along with those who rob for there drugs?

Or should we only punish those crimes that have a ACTUAL complaintant?

Oh and btw, this was orginally about MARIJUANA. Who robs and steals over a marijuana addiction? Does anyone ACTUALLY lose their jobs because of MARIJUANA?
Posted by thereal_yeti 7 years ago
thereal_yeti
I am willing to put everything else to the side now, the human trafficking, the cause of crime due to drugs etc etc. However this sentence striked me as odd.. and the whole "debate" spins off of this one sentiment.

"Besides it's highly unlikely that drug prices actually will drop because the become legal" Please, site some economists that agree with this.
Posted by regebro 7 years ago
regebro
"Drugs, the person is chemically addicted to it, therefore they see the risk of getting caught robbing someone, low compared to the the reward of scoring their next fix"

True. And addiction will rise as drugs get more common, which is well established in research, and therefore legalizing drugs is likely to increase violent crime.

"Because of the low production costs, but high price.."

This is still valid for all illegal products, not just drugs.
Besides it's highly unlikely that drug prices actually will drop because the become legal. The price of a fix of most drugs, enough to keep you high the rest of the evening, is often not higher than what it would cost you to get drunk.

The idea that crime comes out of drugs being expensive is mistaken. It comes out of a drug habit making it impossible to keep a job, so you can't make money legally and has to turn to crime. Legalizing drugs does not change that.

"Are you honestly comparing someone that is smoking a joint in the privacy of their own home, to someone who kidnaps people with the intent to RAPE and kill them?"

Are you honestly debating by straw man and moral hysterics? If that is what you're doing, I have to seriously question your intelligence, sir.

"But you continousily ignore the point! The point is it promotes violence!"

No, I continuously explain why that argument is mistaken.

"But you act like a automatic response machine, acting as though YOU honestly believe I mean that it promotes a illegal activity, therefore we should flat out legalize the activity"

How about you actually read what I say before you answer this time?

The argument is valid for ANYTHING that is illegal, not just drugs. The result of accepting the argument must therefore be that there should be no laws. Since nobody seriously claims there should be no laws at all, that makes the argument invalid.

Did you get it NOW!?
Posted by thereal_yeti 7 years ago
thereal_yeti
"Which is true for EVERYTHING you make illegal. Prostitution, pornography, drugs, alcohol, and yes, it would do the same for computers and books of you made them illegal. It's not a property of drugs, but a property of the illegality."

I agree, and disagree with this..

Drugs, the person is chemically addicted to it, therefore they see the risk of getting caught robbing someone, low compared to the the reward of scoring their next fix (At a artificially high price)..

A book, once you buy that book, you can reread it, you can re-use that computer. Porno, wouldn't be that expensive even if it were criminalized.. it certaintly wouldn't make people rob in order to get there fix..

But that is on the BUYERS end..

On the SELLERS end, it would be very much like the war on drugs..
Posted by thereal_yeti 7 years ago
thereal_yeti
"How does making drugs illegal reward drugs?"

Because of the low production costs, but high price..

Basic economics.

is it worth our time to sought after these people?

"Funny, because your argument works exactly as well for that as for drugs." Are you honestly comparing someone that is smoking a joint in the privacy of their own home, to someone who kidnaps people with the intent to RAPE and kill them?

If that is what you're doing, I have to seriously question your morality, sir

"Since people reiterate the same nonsense over and over, I'm answer it over and over."

But you continousily ignore the point! The point is it promotes violence! That is the crime I am referring to. But you act like a automatic response machine, acting as though YOU honestly believe I mean that it promotes a illegal activity, therefore we should flat out legalize the activity, NO that is not what I am saying.

Because guess what, if it were legalized, there would be more grows. So if the goal is to decrease the activity, of COURSE it would be silly to legalize it under that logic!

Please refute my actual point!
Posted by regebro 7 years ago
regebro
"Okay someone is starting to sound like a broken record."

Since people reiterate the same nonsense over and over, I'm answer it over and over.

"How does making murder against the law, REWARD murder?
How does making rape against the law, REWARD rape?"

How does making drugs illegal reward drugs?

"Making mairjuana illegal, precisely rewards violence because they cannot go to court in order to settle their disputes. How often do see on the news that beer venders shoot at each other, over turf?"

Which is true for EVERYTHING you make illegal. Prostitution, pornography, drugs, alcohol, and yes, it would do the same for computers and books of you made them illegal. It's not a property of drugs, but a property of the illegality.

"If you could make a moral convincing argument on how it would be a good thing, to legalize human trafficking and tax it, I would be for it. BUT YOU CAN'T"

Funny, because your argument works exactly as well for that as for drugs.

Yes. I know I sound like a broken record, and I will do that until your penny drops.
Posted by thereal_yeti 7 years ago
thereal_yeti
(sorry, there doesn't seem to be a edit comment button, I think this is worded better)

saying that theres nothing "special with drugs and only drugs that creates more crime when it's illegal.", is pure ignorance.

How does making murder against the law, REWARD murder?

How does making rape against the law, REWARD rape?

Making mairjuana illegal, precisely rewards violence because they cannot go to court in order to settle their disputes. How often do see on the news that beer venders shoot at each other, over turf?

Now, some people may turn around and say "Well.. they will simply start to traffic humans"

1. This isn't NEARLY as profitable as growing some plants and selling the byproducts of it.

2. If you could make a moral convincing argument on how it would be a good thing, to legalize human trafficking and tax it, I would be for it. BUT YOU CAN'T
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by DylanFromSC 6 years ago
DylanFromSC
DylanRoblesregebroTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by comoncents 7 years ago
comoncents
DylanRoblesregebroTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
DylanRoblesregebroTied
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:04 
Vote Placed by Neferiel 7 years ago
Neferiel
DylanRoblesregebroTied
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:23 
Vote Placed by Jeanne 7 years ago
Jeanne
DylanRoblesregebroTied
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 DylanRobles 7 years ago
DylanRobles
DylanRoblesregebroTied
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