The Instigator
Chuckles
Pro (for)
Winning
38 Points
The Contender
rougeagent21
Con (against)
Losing
34 Points

The use of cannabis by adults should be legalized in the United States.

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  
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: 3/12/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,714 times Debate No: 7224
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (22)
Votes (12)

 

Chuckles

Pro

OK, rogueagent21 failed to post an argument in time for the first round, so it ended the debate. We've agreed to go again, even tho this will be the third time! Good luck!

To clarify the resolution: simply, use of marijuana (both medicinal and recreational) be completely legalized in the US. Use of marijuana would thus no longer be against the law and would be allowed for adults over a certain age (Yet to be determined).

My arguments:
The use of marijuana has been prohibited and demonized by the federal government (as well as state governments) since about 1914. Many people assume that marijuana was outlawed in a very careful process that went something like this:
Scientific proof of danger in use
+
Congress
=
Reasonable Law protecting constituents

They assume that there were extensive studies, hearings by the government, as well as experts in the fields of Science and Medicine. In truth, none of this happened.
Marijuana was outlawed for many reasons, few of them legitimate. Here are some of them:
Racism
Fear
A young government officer looking to further his career
Money and greed.
Government officials actually thought (or at least told their constituents) that marijuana made Hispanic and African-American people go crazy, having fits of violence. Here's an actual quote:
"I wish I could show you what a small marihuana cigarette can do to one of our degenerate Spanish-speaking residents. That's why our problem is so great; the greatest percentage of our population is composed of Spanish-speaking persons, most of who are low mentally, because of social and racial conditions."

Harry J. Aslinger, who was the Director of the Bureau of Narcotics, used marijuana as a scapegoat to further his career.

I don't want to go that in depth into the prohibition of marijuana in the first round, but keep in mind that it was banned essentially because some white government officials didn't like Mexicans, African Americans, and (of all things) jazz music.
http://legalizepot.wordpress.com...
http://civilliberty.about.com...
http://www.encod.org...
http://www.drugtext.org...

Now I'd like to point out benefits of marijuana and its legalization.
First, marijuana has medical benefits.
Marijuana and its active chemical, THC, have been shown to help patients suffering from glaucoma, eating disorders, nausea, loss of appetite due to AIDS or chemotherapy, Multiple Sclerosis, Epilepsy, and pain.

Second, legalizing marijuana not only provides tax revenue, but decreases danger associated with its use.
If marijuana was legalized and taxed similarly to alcohol and tobacco, it would create billions of dollars in revenue for state and federal government. This would be especially appreciated in our economy's current poor condition. Not only would it stimulate government revenue, but it would create jobs.
Legalization would also allow for safer use of marijuana. If moved into the realm of legal commodities to be bought and sold, government could then regulate it (similar to alcohol, tobacco, or any food!). This means marijuana would be safer for users. This means you don't get bags of weed laced with more dangerous and addictive drugs like PCP. Furthermore this means that a user no longer has to associate with criminals. You would not have to go near a drug dealer who most likely deals with harder drugs, as well as other crimes, to get marijuana. You could get it in 7-11, or in a more regulated environment like dispensaries.

Third, prohibition and the "War on Drugs" have not, and will not work.
Millions, even billions of taxpayer dollars go to the war on drugs. Your money is spent to put small time users in jails and prisons, to prosecute people for a victimless crime. And for what?
Marijuana is still the most common illicit drug in America. 40% of Americans have used it. The President of the United States used it! Millions use marijuana. Prohibition has not worked. If the government wants any control over use of cannabis, then it needs to legalize and regulate it. At least when it is regulated the government can keep an eye on things to maintain safety! In its current state of prohibition, as long as you can get the goods, anything goes!

Those will be my points for now, I await with eagerness my opponent's arguments.
And good luck to whomever that opponent may be!
rougeagent21

Con

Alright, lets get started. I will address what my opponent has said, while at the same time building my own case. Please note that as the affirmative, the burden of proof falls on my opponent. Lets begin.

So my opponent starts out by saying that cannabis was only prohibited due to dislike of "Mexicans, African Americans, and (of all things) jazz music." Really? This is not the case. There were in fact studies done to show how cannabis is dangerous. Why is it still not legalized? Is it because we are STILL prejudice? While some radical groups are, the government is obliged to not be racist. If this were the only reason that marijuana is banned, then certainly it would not be banned anymore. Here is why marijuana is ACTUALLY banned. Smoking any drug is unhealthy. Cannabis is no exception. The smoke actually contains higher concentrations of carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) than tobacco smoke. Cannabis smokers generally inhale more smoke for longer depositing more than 4 times as much tar on their lungs as cigarette smokers.
http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com...
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu...
http://www.marijuana-detox.com...

So, I hope that cleared up why marijuana is ACTUALLY banned. Now to address his "benefits."

He says that marijuana has medicinal benefits. This is rash and not completely thought out. Obviously, it can relieve some pain due to its numbing effects. However, there is a great cost to these benefits that can be achieved JUST AS WELL IF NOT BETTER by alternative medicines. Please read or at least skim this article by a MD Physician. It is very eye-opening. http://www.alexarends.com... This should have addressed the medicinal benefits. Now on to the revenue.

He also says that it would provide revenue and increase the safety of the drug. I will address each. First, the fact that any industry brings revenue is obvious. Yes, money would be coming in. However, we would be harming the general populace by doing so. Do we really want to sell this toxin to our citizens? Should we actively be poisoning them just for money? I think not.
In the same paragraph, he says that legalizing marijuana increases its safety. "OK, so its legalized now. I am going to take it in "safer" doses now, right? I will obey all instructions on the side, right? I will do all of these things just because the government said so, right?" Here is the thing: Obviously people disobeyed the government by getting illegal marijuana. Why would they all of a sudden obey the government, just because what they are doing now is legal? "OK, well, I am going to smoke this the way the government says so." What? Ya, because that worked so well before. Right.
On top of all this, even government controlled doses ARE STILL UNSAFE. Please look even further into all of the detriments of cannabis. EVEN IN SMALL DOSES, MARIJUANA HURTS THE USER. PERIOD.

Lastly, he says that prohibition didn't work, so neither will the war on drugs. While this is somewhat true, should we not try? Think about it this way. The war on terror will never be won, so lets not try. What? OK, the terrorists slam a plane into our buildings. Oh well, we can never beat them. Is that the kind of thinking we should be taking as Americans? Absolutely not. We need to take a proactive stance to let the population know that THIS IS WRONG.

I would like to now pose a question for my opponent. Why should marijuana be legalized for adults, but not children? (Assuming it were to be legalized)

In attacking my opponent's case, I hope you saw the structure of my own case. Marijuana is harmful, and has no medicinal benefits that cannot be achieved by safer options. (If my opponent contends this, I will post several proven medications) Because of these reasons I can only oppose the resolution. Thank you.

The use of cannabis by adults should be legalized in the United States.
Negated.
Debate Round No. 1
Chuckles

Pro

Okay, i will try to address all the points he makes, but as he did not roadmap them out as i did, i apologize if i miss one, and i hope the voters would not penalize me.

My opponent says that my version of how cannabis was outlawed was not the case. If so, I'd appreciate his version of how it all went down, unless this is his version: "There were in fact studies done to show how cannabis is dangerous."

If this is indeed his version, i suggest he look into the matter more. Perhaps read the links i provided, yes yes?

I did paraphrase the whole matter, but it is essentially correct. Anyone interested should read those links and do some more research on there own. There was in fact very little to no research on the matter at the time of it's banning.

But, as he also points out, research has been conducted that has shown that smoking marijuana is bad for you.

The problem is, the research leaves out some important words and emphasis. It should probably read more like this:
Research has been conducted concluding that SMOKING marijuana all day, every day, for years, is bad for you.

Studies and research have been arranged by the government for years to show that marijuana is bad. They've also been carefully and conveniently edited to leave out the parts where it is beneficial, and not as bad as thought.

Furthermore, your links and sources and that man's testimony all ignore the fact that smoking is not the only way (or most efficient way) to use marijuana. Vaporizers are the most efficient for using marijuana, and you avoid smoke. You can also ingest marijuana (or other THC products) by way of mouth, in brownies, baked goods, any recipe that uses butter, all sorts of things. There are many safer ways to use cannabis, the only reason smoking is so popular is it is more portable, and easier to hide. A vaporizer won't fit in your pocket, and generally baked goods don't belong in your pocket either. A pipe will easily fit in your pocket and is easily stashed in case of POLICE (AGGH!) Smoking is just easier to get away with as it takes less time and preparation.

He says that weed smokers inhale more smoke for a longer time. They also smoke less, and less often.

Next, he claims my argument is rash and not well thought out. Thanks.
he points out that cannabis can relieve pain, obviously. He then ignores the rest of the benefits, but says that they can all be achieved by other medicines. This may be true, i'm not sure about all of them to be honest, but adding one more option, one more arrow in the quiver can't hurt. Some patients are allergic to one treatment or are otherwise unable to use that treatment, then another can step in. Diversifying the medicines and treatments for an illness does not hurt.
Then he provides a link to testimony by a doctor during hearings when medical marijuana was considered in connecticut. First off, i would ask that if he expects me to reply to those points made (and the voters to vote on them), my opponent should make them. He simply provides a link to a doctor's opinion. The testimony provides little to no actual research or links to research, just the typical "studies have shown" phrases. If you want me to reply to the points, make them yourself and i would suggest bulk them up instead of have a doctor make them, because we can both find many doctors testimonies and opinions regarding the matter on both sides. What my side has that his does not is patient testimony. It works, it helps.
And if you do get high by it too, who cares?

Next, he claims that we would be harming the general populace by legalizing marijuana. I ask how so? We would not force marijuana on anyone. Marijuana is not a toxin. It is a plant with psychoactive and medicinal properties. Medicines have side effects, and so does cannabis. When considered carefully, cannabis used in ways other than smoking is much safer than many drugs on the market. Some would say even if smoked. You can't overdose on it. How many drugs on the market can you overdose on? Many! How many are potentially habit-forming? Many. Marijuana is not physically addicting. You may become psychologically addicted to it, but you may also become psychologically addicted to: sex, video games, eating, TV, and many other things. You may potentially become psychologically addicted to virtually anything. Marijuana is not physically addicting and has no potential for overdose, two worries that many legal drugs can bring (especially things like sleep-aids). We are not poisoning citizens for money by legalizing. Marijuana is not poison.

Next he misunderstands or mischaracterizes my argument about safety.
Cannabis will not be safer when legalized because citizens suddenly obey directions on the label. The point is not about controlled doses, an idea my opponent seems to have pulled out of thin air. It is about quality and purity.

Let me explain. The better quality of cannabis (the more potent it is), the less a user has to inhale to get high. The less he uses, the less health risks he runs, especially if he chooses to smoke his weed. With legalization, yields and crops would gradually increase in quality until we had more of what stoners call "headies", which is just good weed.
It is not common, but not unheard of to obtain a bag of laced marijuana. This means that the marijuana is laced with a more harmful or addictive drug. If the government regulated weed, there is no risk of getting laced weed.

Safety would not increase because someone uses it the way the government says so, like my opponent says, that is ridiculous. It would increase because of quality and purity increases.

Then he says government controlled doses are still unsafe (although he likes to use all caps for that). This is part of his misunderstanding of my argument. He asks you to look further into the detriments of cannabis. I fully encourage this, especially if you are considering using. But look at the benefits as well. Don't be afraid to ask why not, but don't be afraid to ask why either. Fully consider this decision.

Next he writes (in all caps): MARIJUANA HURTS THE USER. PERIOD.
First, (comma) I must protest the writing out of punctuation.(Period) It is unnecessary and frivolous. (Just kidding, I had to say that though).

Marijuana indeed hurts the user. Tobacco hurts the user. Alcohol hurts the user. Many prescription drugs hurt the user. Food can hurt the "user". Many fun or tasty or exciting things in this world hurt the user. Moderation, responsible use, and education are the keys to wisely and safely enjoying any activity, especially drugs. Marijuana, especially if not smoked, hurts the user at such a minimal rate that it is not much of a concern (especially when contrasted with alcohol and tobacco).

Next my opponent says that my attitude about the war on drugs is wrong, and un-American. He compares the War on Terror with the War on Drugs. He essentially says this: that no matter how futile a fight may be, we, as Americans, should continue the fight. Fighting against terrorists is fruitless i would agree, as is fighting against drugs. So why keep it up?
The war on terror is a completely different subject that i don't want to talk about, but in my modest opinion, i think we should shore up our defenses and should have stayed the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan. You can't win a war on terror and there is nothing honorable or right about occupying countries for years on end in search of a terrorist leader. If you want to take out a terrorist leader, use a smart-bomb, a black-ops team, whatever, but don't occupy a country for years. It doesn't work.

The war on drugs (and in the context of this debate i mean the war on Pot) is fruitless, and fights not against an enemy wishing to annihilate us, but a plant, and personal freedom. Pot smoking doesn't hurt anyone but the user, and it doesn't hurt the user much either. I would comment more on this but i am running out of charac
rougeagent21

Con

Alright, this is turning out to be an interesting debate. As I am sure you can see, it is also a lengthy one. I will keep this round short, and to the point. In this round, I will sum up the essence of this debate. What does all of this mean, and how does it apply to me? For the answers, please read on.

==POINT 1==
Why was it banned in the first place?

Both my opponent and I posted many sources explaining why marijuana was banned. No matter which you believe, it matters not. We are not talking about the past, but why or why not marijuana "should be legalized."

==POINT 2==
Benefits of marijuana

My opponent points out medicinal benefits of marijuana, relieving pain. However, he goes on to say later in the debate that he agrees that marijuana indeed hurts the user. So, we have a pain killer that has poor side effects. Do we use it? In my opinion, absolutely not. We have numerous pain killers with, get this, no side effects. Having researched this topic in the past, I have come across numerous medications that achieve the benefits of marijuana, but WITHOUT the harmful side-effects. (Namely, filling your lungs with tar)

==POINT 3==
War on Drugs

Now here is where you decide for yourself whether or not you even want to fight drugs. Here are the facts:
-Marijuana is harmful.
-Marijuana has some medicinal benefits.

Do you want this circulating America? The choice is yours, please decide for yourself. That being said, I would urge a negative ballot. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
Chuckles

Pro

Alright, first off i'd like to apologize for providing such a lengthy argument, and not getting to all of my opponent's and my own points. I'll try to keep this shorter for all of you.

So, first off I'll get right down to his points in his most recent argument.
Point 1:
---"Both my opponent and I posted many sources explaining why marijuana was banned."
This is false. My opponent's sources explain how smoking marijuana can be harmful. They did not explain how it was outlawed, or why it was outlawed. I can guarantee you that this information was not available in the years from 1914 to the 1920s, when it was banned. The surgeon general's warning for cigarettes did not even come out until 1954. There was no research or evidence to conclude that smoking (anything, not just cigarettes or weed) was as harmful as it can be. Marijuana was not banned because evidence pointed to it being bad for you. I urge voters to read the links i provided in my first argument on this topic, and conduct research outside of the links my opponent and I have provided.
But, as my opponent also pointed out, this is not as important as why it should be legalized now. The purpose in issuing this argument was to dispel myths in people's heads that marijuana was banned on a medical and scientific basis. But, onward! To the modern day!

Point 2:
He points out that I stated that marijuana has medical properties, but is harmful when smoked.
He misconstrues these to mean this:
---"So, we have a pain killer that has poor side effects."
I say he "misconstrues" for two reasons:
a) First, he makes it sound like the sole purpose of marijuana is to kill pain. There are many other uses, including medical, religious, and recreational.
b) Second, he says marijuana has poor side effects. SMOKING marijuana has poor side effects, as I stated earlier, and as he and his sources ignore. I'll say it again: smoking is only one way to use marijuana, and it is not the best way. Vaporizers will allow more THC content to reach you, and eliminates the smoke. Eating it (often in baked goods, or almost any recipe with butter) also eliminates smoke. There are many ways to use weed, and smoking is not the best. The reason it is so popular is because of marijuana's illegality. It is easier to hide and takes less time and preparation.

He then again raised the point that there are numerous pain killers with no side effects. Please, do tell. I have yet to hear of many medicines that have NO side effects. When he raises this point, however, he again fails to recognize that marijuana has more purposes than killing pain, and that you do NOT have to smoke marijuana to benefit from it.
As i have stated, marijuana can be used for many purposes. Here are a few:
--------
The following applications for marijuana have all been at least once, if not more, been deemed legitimate by one or more legislatures, courts, and/or government agencies:

*HIV/AIDS: Marijuana can reduce the nausea, vomiting, and loss of appetite caused by the ailment itself and by
various AIDS medications
*Glaucoma: Marijuana can reduce interlobular pressure, thereby alleviating the pain and slowing -- and sometimes
stopping -- the progress of the condition. (Glaucoma is the leading cause of blindness in the United
States. It damages vision by increasing eye pressure over time.)
*Cancer: Marijuana can stimulate the appetite and alleviate nausea and vomiting, which are common side effects of
chemotherapy treatment.
*Multiple Sclerosis: Marijuana can limit the muscle pain and spasticity caused by the disease, as well as relieving
tremor and unsteadiness of gait. (Multiple sclerosis is the leading cause of neurological disability
among young and middle-aged adults in the United States.)
*Epilepsy: Marijuana can prevent epileptic seizures in some patients.
*(and now my opponent's favorite) Chronic Pain: Marijuana can alleviate the chronic, often debilitating pain caused
by myriad disorders and injuries.
________
Many patients also report that marijuana is useful for treating arthritis, migraine, insomnia, menstrual cramps, alcohol and opiate addiction, and depression and other debilitating mood disorders.
* Some religions use marijuana and/or other drugs in services and rituals
* Recreational use

I urge the reader, voter, and my opponent to take a look at these:
http://www.letfreedomgrow.com...
http://www.letfreedomgrow.com...
http://www.letfreedomgrow.com...

Also, I would like to point out that many pain-killers that are commonly prescribed are highly addictive and can be highly dangerous and harmful (i.e. opiates especially). They are also reported in many cases to have negative effects on the patients' regular daily routines in life. You don't need to worry about these things using marijuana. You can overdose on many of these prescription medicines. You can become physically addicted to these medicines. Marijuana is not physically addicting and you cannot overdose on it.
Marijuana has tremendous potential for medical use, among other purposes. Do not allow rhetoric and lies to get in the way of the facts. Marijuana is safer than many medicines commonly used. It is safer than legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco. It has its detrimental qualities, but its benefits far outweigh them.

Point 3:
The war on drugs is a downright failure. The war on pot is a war on personal freedom. Using marijuana does not infringe on anyone else's rights. It harms no one else. If the government wants to save lives, it would do better to regulate what people eat than keep them from using weed.

Marijuana is harmful. But it is harmful to such a small extent that risk is minimal, especially if not smoked. Use it responsibly, and it is perfectly okay.
Marijuana has medicinal benefits. Do not keep others from using medicine because you believe one should not be intoxicated, high, drunk, baked, booming, rolling, cheesing, stoned, or whatever. Whose rights are infringed on here? (the responsible user, that's who)

The war on drugs is an expensive failure too. Billions of dollars have been spent on it fruitlessly. If weed was legalized, we would push money lost into money gained, through tax revenue, and through new jobs.

Now, i would like to address his question posed in his first argument.
---"Why should marijuana be legalized for adults, but not children?"
Because children should not be making this major decision early in life, and any negative effects can be expanded through use in early life, while still developing. For the same reasons alcohol and tobacco are outlawed. Risk of irresponsible use and harm is diminished when used after fully developing mentally and physically.

______________________________________Bottom Line:_________________________________________________
Legalizing marijuana pushes taxpayer money being spent on fighting it into tax revenue and profit. Legalizing marijuana creates a safer way and environment to use it. Legalizing marijuana affords users and patient the much-deserved rights to medication, religious practice, and personal freedom.
Marijuana is safer than legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco, as well as an excellent alternative to other medicines, like potentially addictive and fatal painkillers. It is a tremendous show of hypocrisy on the government's part to allow tobacco and alcohol use to continue, yet it demonizes marijuana. It ain't poison. It ain't a miracle drug. It's a drug that deserves to be legalized.

Legalize it!
/Chuckles

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
PS: technically, this is the bottom line of my argument^^^
rougeagent21

Con

Hmm, that still seemed just a bit lengthy. As I am sure you have seen, the three main points are debated back and forth. You can decide for yourself what you believe on these points, as there is a large amount of evidence for both sides. I will address his "second to last" line.

"Legalizing marijuana pushes taxpayer money being spent on fighting it into tax revenue and profit. "
The "tax-payer" money is spent on funding the police force. One of the jobs of the police is to stop trafficing of illegal substances. There is no money being spent specifically on fighting the drug, rather on the police.

"Legalizing marijuana creates a safer way and environment to use it."
Safer? Sure, now that the government sponsers it, its safe. Go figure.

"Legalizing marijuana affords users and patient the much-deserved rights to medication, religious practice, and personal freedom."
Well, the only reasons listed here that were actually addressed by my opponent are the medical and personal freedom issues. Medical has already been addressed. If you would like to look into it further, please see my sources. Personal freedom: Here is the thing. My right to swing my fist ends where Chuckle's nose begins. Marijuana has been the cause of crime, and infringement of others rights due to the numbing of senses. Is legalizing this really protecting personal freedom?

"Marijuana is safer than legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco, as well as an excellent alternative to other medicines, like potentially addictive and fatal painkillers. It is a tremendous show of hypocrisy on the government's part to allow tobacco and alcohol use to continue, yet it demonizes marijuana."
Do you still not realize that marijuana is one of those "fatal painkillers?" THIS is hypocrisy! Again, please see my sources.

"It ain't poison."
Well, that is contraversial.

" It ain't a miracle drug."
Affirmed.

"It's a drug that deserves to be legalized."
Well, I would beg to differ. Given all of the reasons I have presented you with, I would urge a negative ballot. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
Chuckles

Pro

I apologize if it was lengthy. I'm only attempting to fully explore and explain all points and arguments. I believe debate is better when more than simply tag lines and catch phrases are exchanged; so I'm only trying to make the debate as fun and stimulating as possible for you and I as well as the readers. As you say, there is a large amount of evidence for both sides, and plenty of room for debate.
This will be my last arguments, and then we're on to the voting period. Good luck to Con! First I'll rebut his most recent arguments.
He starts by addressing my point that legalization of cannabis would create revenue for the government.
_____________"There is no money being spent specifically on fighting the drug, rather on the police."______________
The taxpayer money is allocated to police forces and law enforcement, correct. But they spend much of that money fighting drugs (and the bulk of this goes to fighting marijuana, as it is the most popular illicit drug). In fact, they spend billions of dollars (up to and beyond $50 billion).
http://www.mapinc.org...
http://www.drugpolicy.org...
If it was legalized and taxed similarly to alcohol or tobacco, cannabis would create great revenue for the government as well as move and create legitimate jobs. Cannabis is California's #1 cash crop, and has been reported to be the #1 cash crop in America, at least in the top three. If the government taxed these billions of dollars changing hands, it would make estimated billions more. Thus legalization would move money from poorly spent budgets to increased revenue and economic growth.

__________"Sure, now that the government sponsers it, its safe. Go figure."_______________
Once again, this point has been misunderstood or deliberately misconstrued by my opponent. The fact that it would be safer lies not in its legal status, but in how it is traded and in terms of purity.
As I stated ALREADY, marijuana has been reported to sometimes be laced with more harmful drugs. If the government regulated marijuana as it does tobacco and alcohol, purity, and yes, SAFETY would be ensured. Also, you would not have to associate with drug dealers and criminals in dangerous parts of town to get drugs, they would be in a safe environment much like a liquor store. Thus acquiring and using the drug would be a safer and easier matter.

Next he rebuts my points that legalization would afford users the rights to medication, religious practice, and personal freedom. He says that I only address the medical and personal freedom points. What more is there to say about religious practice? Some religions use marijuana in sacraments and rituals and whatnot. The government denies them the right to practice their religion by using this substance! Yes, medical marijuana was already discussed, but there are four rounds, and I think it appropriate to continue debate and conversation beyond the initial "my sources say this". My opponent has not done so. He only claims to have addressed it. That he hardly did. He showed sources that say SMOKING marijuana is bad for you. Even the MD's testimony only refers to SMOKING marijuana, not other use. When will my opponent, and the rest of the world, stop ignoring that you can use marijuana by means other than smoking! I have already stated this. Before i jump to personal freedom, i will move on to the next point he addresses, as they can easily be lumped together.
"Do you still not realize that marijuana is one of those "fatal painkillers?" THIS is hypocrisy! Again, please see my sources."
Do you still not realize that marijuana ISN'T fatal? It is physically impossible to overdose on marijuana! Once again, the most dangerous aspect of cannabis is smoking it, and YOU DO NOT HAVE TO SMOKE TO ENJOY WEED'S EFFECTS. Other LEGAL painkillers and medicines have more serious side effects, greater potential for addiction, and actually HAVE potential for overdose. How often are Percocet, Loratab, Oxycontin, Oxycodone, and other dangerous substances prescribed? Every single day. Marijuana would NOT be near the top of the list of dangerous medicines. Also, as several patients whose links I referenced last round confirm, many for varying reasons cannot or should not use other medicines.

_____"Marijuana has been the cause of crime, and infringement of others rights due to the numbing of senses."______
Marijuana is associated with crime simply because of its illegal status. Users often must associate with criminals and other dangerous people to get the drug. If it was legal, you would not need to visit criminals to get weed.
Marijuana is not the cause of infringement of others' rights. If it is, as my opponent claims, how?
And if it is, so what? So is alcohol. Alcohol is associated with much worse impairment of judgment and senses than weed. Cops will attest, many a drunk person resist arrest or worse due to poor judgment from being drunk. They get in more fights and struggles arresting drunks than potheads. Even think of the stereotypical stoner compared to the drunk. The stoner is lazy and laid-back, and not violent. The drunk is rambunctious and often violent, and only calms down when he's passed out. Marijuana is less dangerous and unhealthy than both alcohol and tobacco, no matter how you view it.

As I close, I would like to state that my opponent seems to only reference his first points and sources rather than seriously argue my points. He misconstrued or misunderstood one or more points twice, even after i made it abundantly clear what was meant. He failed to show that marijuana is dangerous when not smoked. He failed to show why marijuana, a safer and healthier substance than alcohol or tobacco, should be illegal while booze and smokes are legal, and kill thousands of Americans annually. Marijuana kills no one. The US Government itself acknowledges this:
ANNUAL AMERICAN DEATHS CAUSED BY DRUGS

TOBACCO ........................ 400,000
ALCOHOL ........................ 100,000
ALL LEGAL DRUGS .............20,000
ALL ILLEGAL DRUGS ..........15,000
CAFFEINE .........................2,000
ASPIRIN ...........................500
MARIJUANA ...................... 0
----------------------------------------
Source: United States government...
National Institute on Drug Abuse,
Bureau of Mortality Statistics

Marijuana is safer than other legal recreational drugs like alcohol and tobacco. It is a safe alternative to other medicines and painkillers. Its legalization would result in safer means of use and acquisition. Its legalization would result in a move of taxpayer money supporting law enforcement toward more serious crime prevention and punishment. It would result in a huge increase in government tax revenue and more jobs.

It is pure hypocrisy to continue the demonization of marijuana, while alcohol and tobacco take much heavier tolls on American lives. Many legal drugs, both recreational and medicinal, have far more negative impacts on Americans.
LEGALIZE IT!
rougeagent21

Con

rougeagent21 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by rougeagent21 5 years ago
rougeagent21
rcalmus?
Posted by rougeagent21 5 years ago
rougeagent21
rcalmus.
Posted by Chuckles 5 years ago
Chuckles
you talking to me or rcalmus?
Posted by rougeagent21 5 years ago
rougeagent21
Hmm, you still there dude?
Posted by rougeagent21 5 years ago
rougeagent21
Well, I was going to let him answer for himself. His video was saying that black people are being prosecuted more than white people. I think he meant the black criminals, eh?

OK, so lets say that some entity does infringe upon more rights. Does that justify the infringement of smaller or fewer rights?
Posted by Chuckles 5 years ago
Chuckles
he means that government and many people inside of it do worse thing and infringe on rights more so than any kid smoking a joint. Government is arguably the one entity that infringes on more rights than any other, but it is supposed to protect those rights. hmm...
Posted by rougeagent21 5 years ago
rougeagent21
What do you mean? Where are we talking about criminals?
Posted by rcalmus 5 years ago
rcalmus
which "criminals" should we worry about?
Posted by Chuckles 5 years ago
Chuckles
umm i didn't realize i had...i guess i mis-clicked. it was supposed to stay at 3, so we could have opening, intermediate, and closing arguments. Oh well...
Posted by rougeagent21 5 years ago
rougeagent21
Just curious, why did you put four rounds? After about 2.5-3, we kind of just debate the same thing over and over.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Volkov 5 years ago
Volkov
Chucklesrougeagent21Tied
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:33 
Vote Placed by Cronodaman 5 years ago
Cronodaman
Chucklesrougeagent21Tied
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 resolutionsmasher 5 years ago
resolutionsmasher
Chucklesrougeagent21Tied
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 Riley09 5 years ago
Riley09
Chucklesrougeagent21Tied
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:50 
Vote Placed by JBlake 5 years ago
JBlake
Chucklesrougeagent21Tied
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 Kleptin 5 years ago
Kleptin
Chucklesrougeagent21Tied
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 TFranklin62 5 years ago
TFranklin62
Chucklesrougeagent21Tied
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 dragonfire1414 5 years ago
dragonfire1414
Chucklesrougeagent21Tied
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 s0m31john 5 years ago
s0m31john
Chucklesrougeagent21Tied
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 philosphical 5 years ago
philosphical
Chucklesrougeagent21Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33