The Instigator
DucoNihilum
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
vohne
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points

The use of cannabis for recreational use by those over 18 should be disallowed by the USG*

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
DucoNihilum
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/1/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,944 times Debate No: 5218
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (27)
Votes (5)

 

DucoNihilum

Con

I negate- The USG has no right to limit the use of cannabis for consenting adults using cannabis in a recreational manner... given the following conditions

* Resolution does not apply to government employees

* Resolution does not apply to those who are in the act of driving motor vehicles while under the influence of the drug. While alcohol has already been made legal, there are still some minor restrictions on it's use (such as driving) without an outright ban.

* Resolution implies that the person

A. Is an adult

and

B. Has informed consent

* USG is understood to mean "United States Government" referring to the United States Government on any meaningful level (EG: Federal, State, and Local)
vohne

Pro

Hi, I like what I see so far, so here goes, good luck ;)

I propose that the United States legalize the use of cannabis, with the fore said restrictions, for recreational use. I understand your argument is not for the legalization of cannabis per se, or for any other uses, like medicinal, so I will not be discussing those.

Firstly, I'd like to narrow the scope of the term "adult". I'd like to interpret the term "adult" to the more accepted legal term "age of majority", in the United States, generally, it is 18. It is the age, where not just in the US but most parts of the world, you are allow to drink, vote, drive, marry and die for your country.

Secondly, informed consent, meaning that the actor knows that he is taking a drug, and knows some of its side effects.

My first argument will have to be one of comparison. I think it is wise to examine cannabis without the negative connotations associated with the word, like it being a subclass to drugs, and from a objective point of view realize that cannabis can merely be another form of vice that is harmful if not used in moderation. Alcohol, tobacco and gambling are all harmful if used in excesses, and so are most things we do in life (e.g. working, socializing and eating), so does that mean we (god forbid) ban all these? I do concede that the rate that the harmful effects of cannabis set in, if used in excesses is not as quick as that of working, drinking, smoking and eating, although one could argue that they all eventually could lead to death (heart attacks from clogged arteries or stress from overworking, binge drinking leading to liver failure then to death, and smoking leading to lung cancer then to death). This of course does not mean we should allow cannabis because you will die from other things anyway, but this goes to show that cannabis is not one bridge to far from other vices of today, therefore what makes it any different that it deserves an outright ban?

The United States is one of the most democratic countries in the world, and with that being said, the ban placed on cannabis intrudes on personal freedom, the basic right of humans to choose. It is legal in countries such as Belgium, Peru, Russia and the Netherlands. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) If the USG allows citizens the right to bear arms, vote for the country's leader and fight for the nation, then why can't it allow people to take cannabis. It is a direct violation of personal freedom, as this argument is for cannabis to be used in a recreational manner and not for business or distribution. Even if cannabis can cause personal harm, what right does the government have to decide whether what people do or take is harmful to themselves.

So far I can't see why cannabis should be banned from personal use for recreational purposes.
Debate Round No. 1
DucoNihilum

Con

My opponent and I would like everybody to know that you should ignore his posted R1 and simply rely on the R1 he posted in the comments, thank you.

I would like to thank my opponent, vohne, for accepting this debate and I would also like to wish him the best of luck in his arguments.

My opponent starts off his first round with the argument that the use of cannabis will be a stepping stone to harder drugs. I challenge him to find a modern, legitimate study proving this effect. While the layman may have the idea that there is a logical connection, that logical connection is not likely casual. The layman might look at those addicted to "hard" drugs, such as heroin. Users of heroin have a strong chance of using pot at some time, perhaps even starting their drug history with pot. Does this mean that pot use will lead to heroin use? Logically, no. If pot use would lead to heroin use, using this line of thought, then so would other things that the drug user might have "started out with". For some examples, the drug Caffeine, tobacco or perhaps Alcohol. Is there really a connection between Caffeine, Alcohol, Cannabis, and heroin? The best way to examine if there really is a connection, we can look at some statistics. Research shows that at least 41.8% of people in the US have at least tried pot. This is a high number, yet the real number might be even higher given the nature of the subject. The users who have tried Alcohol, Tobacco, and Caffeine are likely higher than that. Whereas, the users of heroin (given the same statistical analysis as with pot) are much lower, only about 1.5% of the US population. Now, even given a 10, 15, 20, 30% error in accuracy, there is still no possible casual link. If it is truly a gateway drug, then why would so few people do harder drugs? Why would most of the nation not be on hard drugs? The burden is on you to prove the casual link.

Even given the logical leap that cannabis use will lead to the user of harder drugs, I would still argue that that the use of harder drugs should not be limited. While I would highly recommend against using harder drugs, for the most part it will be the users choice whether or not they should do the drug. Given this choice, they thus take responsibility for all of the physical, psychological, or other damages that it causes. Just as one takes the responsibility for poor choices in careers, in spending money, and in their sex life they should also be able make decisions, including poor ones, about what they put into their bodies. There is certainly potential for consequences, however, those are limited to the user of the drug. Given this, unless the government is to regulate any possible negative thing that might go wrong with a person, including their sex life, financial life, and their life as a whole, the government has no part in restricting the use of harder drugs, despite negative consequences for users.

The use of cannabis is a personal choice made by individuals who own their bodies. This choice should not be limited by the government for any reasons that the government might find negative. The duty of the government is to protect you from others, not yourself.
vohne

Pro

Thank you for that interesting answer.

Firstly, I'd like to construct this argument so it follows a structure. One, I will outline evidence that suggest why statistics show that "41.8% of the people might have tried cannabis" but only "1.5% of the US population" have tried heroin. That argument will be based on the fact that cannabis is much easier to obtain, and much cheaper too. Secondly, I will give a response to your argument that the government has no right to control the physical, psychological or other damages that we inflict upon ourselves. Lastly, my argument will focus on the gateway theory, or how cannabis has the PROBABILITY to lead to harder drugs, and how we should just avoid the risk altogether.

In a study done by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) in 2002, "on 68,126 persons aged 12 or older, including 23,645 youths aged 12 to 17", they found that a startling 55% of the youths reported that obtaining marijuana/cannabis was easier, compared to the average 30% of crack and cocaine, and only 18% for heroin. (http://www.oas.samhsa.gov...). This suggests that the availability of cannabis, and its perceived ease of obtaining, may lead to skewed statistics like the one above. That same reasoning can also be applied to tobacco, caffeine and alcohol. Another reason why the statistics that you have obtained maybe skewed is that the costs of cannabis are relatively cheaper, to the point that even if people want to turn to harder drugs, they can't because of the financial constraints. Lets take a look at the evidence provided by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). In the table found in their website (http://stats06.emcdda.europa.eu...), the details of the retail value of cannabis in 2004 for a whole list of European countries are shown. In comparison, the retail value of heroin for the same countries, in the same period of time, can be seen here (http://stats06.emcdda.europa.eu...). Finally, for the sake of thoroughness, the same list except for cocaine can be seen here (http://stats06.emcdda.europa.eu...). The tables show, that heroin and cocaine are significantly more expensive than cannabis. Lets take Hungary for example, 1 gram of cannabis retails at 7.5 - 11.5 Euros, while 1 gram of heroin retails at 38.6 to 56.7 Euros, while 1 gram of cocaine retails at 51.7 - 71 Euros. The averages are: cannabis = 9.6 Euros, heroin = 47.1 Euros and cocaine 60.9 Euros. From this we can see why most people will find it relatively easier to not only purchase, but to access cannabis, thereby increasing its popularity in use.

For the next part, I want to tackle the argument you made regarding user's choice in what they take. It is in my humble opinion, a mistake to compare the government's ignorance to how one spends their money, enters a career and their sex life, to the seriousness of drugs. It is a logical fallacy, called hasty generalization, to say that "unless the government is to regulate ... sex life, financial life and their life as a whole... the government has no part in restricting the use of harder drugs", and even more to claim that "the government's duty is to protect you from others, not yourself. The latter statement is flawed off the bat if mentally unstable people are discussed (whom the government could control via parens patriae), but even if mentally capable people are the subject , the government has the right to ensure the safety of the citizens of its nation. You may say: yes from terrorists, yes from other people and yes from enemies of the USA; but how can it even take care of its own citizens without enforcing the laws that will protect themselves from themselves. Drugs are made illicit also with the purpose of protecting oneself from others too, either from an increase of hit and run deaths, or an increase in random acts of violence. By preventing people around you from taking drugs, you yourself are protected from those kinds of consequences that may occur from others. True they are caused by alcohol too, but does that suggest we should add more catalysts of violence in our society, or less? You cannot apply that argument for coffee and tobacco, the government realizes that you can take in as much garbage as you want, as long as you do not harm others, that is why people are not free to smoke in most public places now a days, and coffee is still sold in every Starbucks you can find. If you go so far as suggesting harder drugs be made legal, I will be as hardlined on the opposite end and say, keep the ban on all drugs, and put one on alcohol, lets go back to the prohibition era. To sum that up, I believe that the use of cannabis for recreational use, will not only increase the instances of driving under the influence and random acts of violence, it will also increase the strain on the national budget due to a potential increase in medical spending by the government to treat these victims and users of drugs, and aside from that, there will be more second hand smoke around.

While there are studies out there disproving that cannabis has a link to harder drugs, there are equal numbers saying that they do, see: (http://www.telegraph.co.uk...) (http://www.timesonline.co.uk...). Therefore, with the confusion and uncertainty that is within the scientific community, why should we take the risk at this uncertain time, to plunge the community into an experiment. What if they do lead to harder drugs you say, I then say that it is obvious what will happen. The population who take marijuana according to the US Department of Health and Human Services, is "14.6 million current users (6.2 percent of the population), with marijuana being marijuana continues to be the most commonly used illicit drug. The study shows that there were an estimated 2.6 million new marijuana users in 2002".
(http://www.hhs.gov...) What this means is that even if 50 percent turn to harder drugs, we will have 7.3 million users of harder drugs. If 20 percent turn, we will have 2.92 million harder drugs users. I don't know what number will be deemed acceptable, that is 2.92 million people. We know the costs of these harder drugs, according to the US Department of Justice, "In 2004, 17% of state prisoners and 18% of federal inmates said they committed their current offense to obtain money for drugs." (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov...). I hope you can foresee the consequences if the gateway theory proves to be true, I think the risks are definitely not feasible.

Some last minute points that you might want to tackle:
1.) Legalizing cannabis will lead to more people taking it, thus being associated with the drug subculture, not excluding the illicit drug market. (meaning they most probably will be in contact with people who take harder drugs, or even feel like they are part of the culture that takes illegal drugs, given they experience the same high)

2.) "Even without the effects of the marijuana gateway, relaxing marijuana prohibitions could affect the incidence of hard drug use by diminishing the stigma of drug use generally, thereby increasing adolescents' willingness to try hard drugs."

3.) Legalization will increase the chances of drugs falling into the hands of kids, such as alcohol being purchased by an adult, leaving it in the refrigerator, and a kid drinking from it. The cannabis, being more casual and legal, can just be left lying around. Hopefully, we stick to the argument of consenting adults.

4.) Ethical issues - (http://en.wikipedia.org...) - Islam, Judaism and Christianity all refer to it as morally wrong, with Judaism saying that God owns our bodies and we shouldn't jepordize it, and Islam prohibiting al
Debate Round No. 2
DucoNihilum

Con

DucoNihilum forfeited this round.
vohne

Pro

Would like to remind everyone that DucoNihilum's response for the previous round is in the comments section.

Well argued DucoNihilum!

The first point in your response is true. That regardless of cannabis being legal or not, "harder drugs" will still be harder to obtain. One thing that will happen as a result of legalization is more people will start taking it. Do you not think sir that when this is made legal, the people who were hesitant about taking cannabis for fear of getting caught will still be hesitant. Aside from that, if made legal, the prices would drop as business are sure to move in and commercialize the product, an increase in supply lowers the prices, thus making it more available to everyone. There will definitely be an increase in cannabis takers, I am not saying by how much, just that there will be. Given that, I would like to say that if this were true, my following arguments would hold up:

1.) That if the gateway theory proved correct, the increase in cannabis takers will lead to an increase in takers of "harder drugs". The removal of the ban will lead to more people taking it, and perhaps even affluent people taking it, who can afford the other more expensive drugs. Even if it is just a presumption, it stands to reason that there is still a risk, a risk that we might not be willing to take given the negative consequences of the harder drugs, not only to ourselves but to others as outline in point 2.

2.) Cannabis, and drugs in general, do not just cause harm to ourselves, they also cause harm to others. These come in the forms of physical harm like, more dangerous influenced drivers on the road, and people who commit random acts of violence due to being influenced. Your statement, "As not every single person who does cannabis will go out and kill somebody, it is necessary that you would arrest multiple innocent people in the process of trying to prevent criminal action. ", is flawed because at the moment, cannabis is illegal, so there are not innocent people being arrested, just those who posses this illicit drug. If it is made legal, then these people will not be arrested. At the moment, their arrest isn't on the presumption that they will kill somebody else, it is just because they have this drug. That being said, I still stand by my statement that more drugs equals more dangers to the society, and I have only spoken about the physical dangers. What about the psychological dangers? Do we not hurt our relatives and family when we take drugs. Emotionally? Does this kind of hurt even count? Families have broken apart because of drugs, is this something the government should fuel with a legalization of cannabis?

3.) You said: "It is very possible for a government to protect people from each other without protecting them from themselves. This can be accomplished by protecting people from each other, but not themselves. " it is easier said and done I think, we really should be extra careful, this year's federal budget is even tighter, and the police force, even more strained. (as seen here: http://www.columbusdispatch.com...) and here (http://www.ajc.com...).

4.) You also said: "The government's duty is not to protect one from all possible harm. If it were, we might be living in tubes, as if we were from the matrix.". I think this statement is flawed. The government should try its best to protect each and everyone of us from as much harm from each other as possible. Meaning, the legalization of cannabis is just like putting more catalysts of violence into society, or perhaps a more apt analogy, fanning the flames. I hope its clear that people do not need to die for anymore needless deaths. Drunk drivers hitting people each year, statistically? 9526 people, (http://www.alcoholalert.com...), and it goes up every day! I dont think we need it to start going up faster. If we legalize cannabis, I think people will voluntarily jump into tubes. :)

5.) Yes you are right, another leading cause of death is heart disease, and subsequently the government should control our eating. They are on that already, (http://www.msnbc.msn.com...), NY just passed a transfat bill banning transfat. But you see, the government didnt ban coffee, you can take as much of that drug (caffeine) as you want, cause it doesn't lead you to harm other people. Smoking does (secondhand smoke), that is why that too is banned in all restaurants in NY, and in a lot of states in the US, but you aren't stopped from smoking at home. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

6.) You sure have the right to break religious laws, but do we want more friction in society?

7.) Im referring to both accidental use and conscious use of marijuana by kids. If they see it lying around in the house, they can take it and use it. You may argue that it is the parent's responsibility then, and what you argue for is for adults to use the drug. What I say is, the legalization of cannabis will mean that using the drug is more casual, like alcohol. Not all people lock up their alcohol in locked cabinets, in fact most people like it chilled in a refrigerator. Kids can gain access out of curiosity too.

8.) To show a little evidence towards the "gateway theory", let me end with a series of quotes: "Prof Yasmin Hurd, Dr Sabrina Spano and Dr Maria Ellgren, working at the Karolinksa Institute, in Sweden, have demonstrated that cannabis can enhance future sensitivity to heroin."

"Studying events in the brain of adolescent rats after cannabis exposure, they found that the drug affects the brain's natural chemicals, called endogenous opioids. The chemicals are known to play a role in heightening positive emotions and creating a sense of reward.
That is the same system that is stimulated by hard drugs and is also present in humans."

"The Swedish team's results show that the brain may "remember" previous cannabis usage and make users vulnerable to harder drugs later in life, specifically opioids such as heroin and morphine."

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk...)

"The results of a new study have bolstered the theory that marijuana is a "gateway" drug with evidence showing that those who use marijuana before age 17 are two to five times more likely to use, abuse, or become dependent on other drugs."

"They may also have had "safe" experiences—that is, their parents or law enforcement officials did not discover the youngster's marijuana use. This "may reduce the perceived risk of, and therefore barriers to, the use of other drugs," according to the report."

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org...
Debate Round No. 3
DucoNihilum

Con

You have failed to prove that the legalization of cannabis would make it's use more prevalent. While it might seem like common sense, I have not seen any evidence that long term use of cannabis would increase with it's legalization. I suggest it might even go down after an initial surge, as it is no longer restricted, so, the 'danger' goes away.

Cannabis users are indeed innocent. This is a primary part where your argument fails. You suggest they are guilty and they should go to jail because they have the drug, but what should the justification for this be? Earlier, you listed an increase in crime as one of your reasons, however, there are already crimes against other crimes. Not all cannabis users have committed violent crime, most of them in fact have just done the drug and nothing else. Should those users be thrown in jail for just taking a drug when the "tight" federal budget and police force could be used elsewhere, against violent offenders?

You show no reason as to why we should be extra careful. This 'extra careful' behaivor is no reason to limit personal freedom. In your world, personal freedom would not exist- we would be far less productive as we would be slaves to the government, as with the USSR- which happen to collapse.

As far as religious laws go, we have alot of tension already. The personal freedoms that would be gained would be acceptable as compared to the slight tension we would get.

Kids can get into alot of things, the parents should be responsible for cannabis as they should be knives, outlets, and alcohol.

Sex also stimulates some of the same parts of the brain as cannabis and other opiates. Are you to suggest sex is also a gatway drug?

Cannabis should be legalized, there is no evidence that use would rise upon the legalization, and the personal freedom benefit, added onto less strain for our justice system would be far worth any risk we might acquire.
vohne

Pro

You know what, you are actually right - that I have not pointed out whether legalizing, or decriminalizing marijuana use will lead to its increase. So therefore I'll focus a substantiative part of this to that. According to the US Drug Enforcement Administration (http://www.usdoj.gov...)

"During the 19th Century, morphine was legally refined from opium and hailed as a miracle drug. Many soldiers on both sides of the Civil War who were given morphine for their wounds became addicted to it, and this increased level of addiction continued throughout the nineteenth century and into the twentieth. In 1880, many drugs, including opium and cocaine, were legal — and, like some drugs today, seen as benign medicine not requiring a doctor's care and oversight. Addiction skyrocketed. There were over 400,000 opium addicts in the U.S. That is twice as many per capita as there are today"

So from the extract above, we can see one example of when legalization led to higher numbers of addicts. Check out what prohibition does:

"Specific federal drug legislation and oversight began with the 1914 Harrison Act, the first broad anti-drug law in the United States. Enforcement of this law contributed to a significant decline in narcotic addiction in the United States. Addiction in the United States eventually fell to its lowest level during World War II, when the number of addicts is estimated to have been somewhere between 20,000 and 40,000. Many addicts, faced with disappearing supplies, were forced to give up their drug habits."

Alright, so now we see that the anti-drug law, and the subsequent enforcement led to a massive drop of drug addicts.

Not surprisingly again, during the Alaska experiment when marijuana was legalized is shown below:

"The consequences of legalization became evident when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in 1975 that the state could not interfere with an adult's possession of marijuana for personal consumption in the home. The court's ruling became a green light for marijuana use. Although the ruling was limited to persons 19 and over, teens were among those increasingly using marijuana. According to a 1988 University of Alaska study, the state's 12 to 17-year-olds used marijuana at more than twice the national average for their age group. Alaska's residents voted in 1990 to recriminalize possession of marijuana, demonstrating their belief that increased use was too high a price to pay."

To highlight, it said "Although the ruling was limited to persons 19 and over (ADULTS), teens were among those increasingly using marijuana... the state's 12 to 17-year-olds used marijuana more than twice the national average"!!!

That statistic in itself is shocking! An actual failed social experiment that ruined a lot of people's lives. Do we seriously, seriously want that again?! This time for the entire nation?! more crackpot children, and more crackpots in general.

Ladies and gentlemen, history is already telling us, can we listen to it, legalizing marijuana will lead to more pot addicts, it is a fact.

Here are more historical failed social experiments on legalizing marijuana.

'By 1979, after 11 states decriminalized marijuana and the Carter administration had considered federal decriminalization, marijuana use shot up among teenagers. That year, almost 51 percent of 12th graders reported they used marijuana in the last 12 months. By 1992, with tougher laws and increased attention to the risks of drug abuse, that figure had been reduced to 22 percent, a 57 percent decline."

Again, its the kids that had an increase in taking these drugs.

"The Netherlands is not alone. Switzerland, with some of the most liberal drug policies in Europe, experimented with what became known as Needle Park. Needle Park became the Mecca for drug addicts throughout Europe, an area where addicts could come to openly purchase drugs and inject heroin without police intervention or control. The rapid decline in the neighborhood surrounding Needle Park, with increased crime and violence, led authorities to finally close Needle Park in 1992."

To quote from above, the neighborhoods surrounding the legalized drug area experienced "increase crime and violence". No surprise again.

"The British have also had their own failed experiments with liberalizing drug laws. England's experience shows that use and addiction increase with "harm reduction" policy. Great Britain allowed doctors to prescribe heroin to addicts, resulting in an explosion of heroin use, and by the mid-1980s, known addiction rates were increasing by about 30 percent a year."

Even the English have tried, same results, increase in users post-legalization.

"It's clear from history that periods of lax controls are accompanied by more drug abuse and that periods of tight controls are accompanied by less drug abuse."

You are right, not all cannabis users have committed violent crime. But on the other hand, not all cannabis users have not committed violent crime. As the "Needle Point" study pointed above, and as common sense dictates that there will be people who will drive after smoking up (its unavoidable) and there will be people who might react more violently because they have just smoked pot (you can't say this number is zero either), therefore, do we really want this in our society.

Another thing is, we know through the evidence that history (see above) and science (with the opiates) provide, that legalization will lead to an increase in use, meaning more pot smoking citizens. Lets look at the effect as quoted from the US Drug Enforcement Agency (http://www.usdoj.gov...)

'Those are the long-term effects of marijuana. The short-term effects are also harmful. They include: memory loss, distorted perception, trouble with thinking and problem solving, loss of motor skills, decrease in muscle strength, increased heart rate, and anxiety. Marijuana impacts young people's mental development, their ability to concentrate in school, and their motivation and initiative to reach goals. And marijuana affects people of all ages: Harvard University researchers report that the risk of a heart attack is five times higher than usual in the hour after smoking marijuana."

Do we want our youths, or adults; whether they are our business partners, relatives, neighbors and celebrity idols, to suffer "memory loss, distorted perception, trouble with thinking and problem solving, loss of motor skills.. " Honestly? A society littered with people like this? Should we regress? I feel we should take a stand against people who believe in making cannabis legal. Let us not undo the progress humanity has made. It is an illicit drug for a reason.

In regards to religion, which isn't where we really clashed a lot, but just for the sake of thoroughness, saying that "As far as religious laws go, we have alot of tension already. The personal freedoms that would be gained would be acceptable as compared to the slight tension we would get.", I don't think cuts it. The personal freedom we might get, at the expense of a more broken up world, is not worth it. Besides, its personal freedom to ruin our lives and the community's, why should we fight so hard for something so detrimental.

It's not something subjective. You cannot simply state, it is not the government's decision, because it is already when it harms the society as a whole, and I think it shouldn't even stop there, the world must take a stand against illicit drugs for the sake of society.

You say: "Kids can get into alot of things, the parents should be responsible for cannabis as they should be knives, outlets, and alcohol."

I say: why add more dangerous things for them to get their hands on? As a government, we should not provide society with the tools for their own undoing!

As a whole, based on my extensive research and evidence provided, it is the worst decision the USG will make if
Debate Round No. 4
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vohne 8 years ago
vohne
nope, I was talking to that person.
Posted by DucoNihilum 8 years ago
DucoNihilum
Are you talking to me? I didn't vote 4 hours ago, that was somebody else. I was sleeping 4 hours ago.
Posted by vohne 8 years ago
vohne
whoa buddy, did you even read what I posted? haha that was quick voting by you.
Posted by vohne 8 years ago
vohne
its finally done pal!

Best of luck to you!

It was such a great match and I look forward to debating with you again in the future. I withhold my vote on this one, lets have the public take this one!

cheers!
Posted by DucoNihilum 8 years ago
DucoNihilum
IF cannabis is so much easier to obtain than harder drugs right now, then can we assume that when cannabis is legalized, people will suddenly have much easier access to these hard drugs? You yourself drew arguments as to why it is so difficult to obtain these drugs, I suggest that obtaining hard drugs will still be more difficult, even if cannabis were legalized.

Without a casual link, you can not prove that cannabis lead to harder drugs in any real capacity. Studies may show that many hard drug users started out with cannabis, however, that is not a link. There is a relation, but no more of a relation than drinking water and hard drugs.

The government has little right to control the mentally handicapped unless they are clearly a threat to others. The same premise applies with the rest of governmental actions. It is very possible for a government to protect people from each other without protecting them from themselves. This can be accomplished by protecting people from each other, but not themselves. The government's duty is not to protect one from all possible harm. If it were, we might be living in tubes, as if we were from the matrix. While this sounds radical, everything around us is to some extent dangerous, should the government protect us from all of these things?
Posted by DucoNihilum 8 years ago
DucoNihilum
The use of drugs, even if they may increase the risk of violence, should not be limited. As not every single person who does cannabis will go out and kill somebody, it is necessary that you would arrest multiple innocent people in the process of trying to prevent criminal action. In doing so, the government would arrest more people than would be saved by their own actions.

Later you say "In 2004, 17% of state prisoners and 18% of federal inmates said they committed their current offense to obtain money for drugs."

However, does this not mean that several drug users have been arrested having committed no other crime other than using drugs? I am in favor of putting violent offenders in prison, but should somebody be put in prison simply for being in a group that happens to have a higher risk of committing violent crime than others? In this case, we should create a law preventing poor black people from living, or even just poor people. The poor tend to commit more crimes than others, so should we arrest them without reason to believe they are even violent? I say no.
Posted by DucoNihilum 8 years ago
DucoNihilum
You admit damage is caused by alcohol as well, but you forgot a few other things too. For example, a leading cause of death is heart disease and other related eating issues. The government should thus control our eating, to protect us from ourselves. Furthermore, many people are bad drivers- as evidence to this, look at another leading cause of death.... auto accidents. We should also ban automobiles in order to avoid all of these pesky deaths.

"the government realizes that you can take in as much garbage as you want, as long as you do not harm others, "

And those who use cannabis do not inherently harm others. They may harm others if they happen to commit a crime, however, we already have laws regarding those crimes.

1.) "Legalizing cannabis will lead to more people taking it"

This is not proven.

2.) Then why did people not start (and continue) using hard drugs as soon as alcohol became legalized?

3.) Are you referring to accidental use, or use on purpose by older kids?

4.) It's a personal choice for those in each religion whether or not to break religious laws, as with other issues such as coveting your neighbors wife.
Posted by vohne 8 years ago
vohne
absolutely :)
Posted by DucoNihilum 8 years ago
DucoNihilum
I am going to be running VERY tight with posting on my next round, if I don't make it in time could you allow a few extra hours for me to post it in comments?
Posted by vohne 8 years ago
vohne
Thanks for that ;) best of luck to you!
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by GeneralIvan 8 years ago
GeneralIvan
DucoNihilumvohneTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 DucoNihilum 8 years ago
DucoNihilum
DucoNihilumvohneTied
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 bfitz1307 8 years ago
bfitz1307
DucoNihilumvohneTied
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 Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
DucoNihilumvohneTied
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 8 years ago
s0m31john
DucoNihilumvohneTied
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