The Instigator
Pro (for)
8 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

This house would legalize the use of marijuana

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/31/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,850 times Debate No: 28619
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)




I await for an opponent to challenge me.

This motion is not discussing the medical use of marijuana.

I think the definition is narrow enough.

The follwing is the rule for each round:

R1: Acceptance
R2: Arguments from both sides (Only arguments)
R3: Rebuttals
R4: Counter-attacks
R5: Final Argument (no Rebuttals)

I suggest having a shared BOP.

I look forward for a great debate.


I accept, even though I know this is a pretty unpopular position, haha. In the following round, I'd like to request that my opponent answer the following questions about legalization:

To what extent are advertisements for marijuana allowed?
To what extent are packaging warnings for marijuana required?
Is there going to be an age requirement for smoking marijuana? If so, what would it be?
Will there be any situation where using marijuana is illegal (smoking and driving, smoking in the presence of children)?
How will this be enforced?
Will there be controls on the amount of THC allowed within marijuana?

I'm also going to assume (unless stated otherwise by my opponent) that this debate is dealing with the average, developed first world nation.

Well, good luck!
Debate Round No. 1



In this debate, I firmly stand for legalization of cannabis. As a Pro, I will carry the burden of proof to show why legalization of marijuana is justifiable and will offer few benefits that follow. I will answer some questions regarding the regulation of marijuana that my opponent made. The term “legalization” in this debate would be appropriate to define as “to legalize but regulate in the similar manner with alcohol and tobacco”, meaning no driving under influence, smoking in specific zones, taxation, ban for underage etc. For the sake of keeping this debate simple, it would be appropriate to only debate for marijuana for smoking. But if my opponent has objection, I expect a justification.

ARGUMENT 1: Irony of the ban

Many sources point (including studies and statistics) that marijuana is far less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco which are legal substances being widely used. Research by British Medical Association showed that nicotine is more addictive. More deaths are caused by alcohol and tobacco. Nevertheless, marijuana that causes less harm is forbidden. By harm, there are two types: harm to user and harm to others. I will split this argument into two sub-points and explain how marijuana is not so harmful to user and others.

Sub-Point 1: Harms to users

It is beyond doubt that overuse of marijuana, just like any other things can result in undesirable result. However, reasonable dose of marijuana do not cause so much of addiction [1], increased risk of cancer [2] and long-term cognitive impairment [3, 4]. It is undeniable that marijuana is completely harmless. So by saying marijuana is “not so harmful” I am not arguing marijuana is harm-free but I mean that the harm level of marijuana is not bad enough for it to be banned. In England and Wales in the year of 2006, cannabis caused 17 deaths when alcohol and tobacco each caused 6,627 and 86,500. Aspirin which is a completely legal headache medicine caused 22 deaths. The fact that marijuana usage is lower than alcohol and tobacco usage does partially contribute in such a low rate of marijuana death. However, taking the fact that 7 million people in UK are estimated to smoke marijuana, marijuana’s danger is significantly lower than alcohol and tobacco.

Sub-Point 2: Harms to others

Before anything, I would like everyone to take a look at this grpah from Lancet.


From the graph already, we can see that cannabis has such a low rate of harm on others. Even considering the fact that cannabis figure can be shaken due to its illegality, the figures are still very overwhelming, along with other figures I have given previously. Again, 22 deaths were caused due to aspirin, which is a perfectly legal headache pill when 17 died from marijuana in the UK and Wales.

The major way that a substance can harm others is through driving under influence. However, marijuana does not impair driving ability but in some cases make drivers more cautious since marijuana causes nerve to be more sensitive [5]. But as stated in the introduction, driving under influence of marijuana will be restricted just like driving intoxicated is illegal. Accidents caused due to marijuana-influenced driving are not a massive problem currently as well. If my opponent wants to argue on this point, he has to show what makes marijuana's danger a bigger problem than current problems that legal drugs cause.

ARGUMENT 2: Benefits of legalization

There are three main benefits of legalizing marijuana: economic, individual and social.

Sub-Point 1: Economic

Due to sizable market of marijuana, legalization of marijuana in Washington State is already expected to generate enormous amount of tax revenue. Economists predict if marijuana is taxed similarly to tobacco and alcohol, the US government can have about $6.2 billion of tax revenue each year [6]. Budget used on War on Drugs can be reduced significantly as well. In the year of 2010, The US federal government spent over $15 billion dealing War on Drugs. That is about $500 a second. The fact that out of all drug arrests in the US, marijuana arrests comprise 52% should be considered [7]. This means when marijuana becomes legal, the budget dealing illegal drugs can be decreased to about half and be concentrated on the rest half of arrests.

Sub-Point 2: Individual

About 7 million people in the UK are estimated to smoke marijuana when 23% of Canadian population admits having smoked marijuana. In the year of 2007, it has been surveyed that about 100 million US citizen have used marijuana. Viewing from the fact that this figure is around 5~6 years old, there is a good reason to assume that the number is higher currently. When marijuana is such a widely used and loved substance for recreational purpose, people should benefit themselves with legalized marijuana without fearing arrest. Just like cigarette and alcohol are also unhealthy substances but people have the freedom to opt to take these substances for recreational purpose, marijuana that is less harmful should be legalized. Apart from this, by legalizing something that is ironic to be illegal in the first place, we can save about 750,000 individuals being arrested each year in the US just for marijuana possession [7].

Sub-Point 3: Social

10,000 lives are killed in the US each year due to territory feud between drug dealers. Gang organizations including Mexican Cartels fight over their business territory in the US soil. Among 10,000 lives, the vast majority is innocent citizen caught in a cross-fire between these aggressive “warfare” of gangs [8]. When marijuana, which is the most widely used drug, becomes legal, better marijuana will be available for sale legally in a cheaper price which will likely to bankrupt many crime organizations and the residual criminal groups could be handled more efficiently and effectively since legalization of marijuana will undermine their business greatly. As I have mentioned previously, around half of labor force on War on Drugs is used on marijuana. As soon as marijuana becomes legal, the labor force can be concentrated into capturing minority of gang groups that survived bankruptcy but is already debilitated economically.

When legalization of marijuana can solve so many problems, bring benefits to the society and the individuals but is not as nearly as harmful as alcohol and tobacco, legalization must happen.



[2] Tan WC, Lo C, Jong A, et al.; for the Vancouver Burden of Obstructive Lung Disease (BOLD) Research Group. Marijuana and chronic obstructive lung disease: a population-based study. Canadian Medical Association Journal 2009;180:814–20.


[4] Block, R.I. et al., “Acute Effects of Marijuana on Cognition: Relationships to Chronic Effects and Smoking Techniques.” Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior 43: 907-917.

[5] Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. “Legalization: Panacea or Pandora’s Box”. New York. (1995):36.






Thanks pro.

I’d just like to make some observations before I get into my arguments.

  • My opponent advocates a shared burden of proof in round 1 and then goes on to say that he’ll carry the BOP in round 2. I believe we should stick with the latter unless any objection is raised as pro is arguing against status quo.

  • Two of my opponent’s sources do not open for me [ &]. I ask that he correct this in the following round.

I’d like to open my arguments by pointing out that the government has a vested interest in the well being of its people, and this means occasionally restricting the freedom of its citizens. My opponent’s belief that marijuana should have a minimum age requirement is an example of one such limit. In order to decide whether a limit is reasonable or not, I would like to turn to the Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for guidance, which states that rights are subjects to limits that are “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. Even though the onus is on my opponent to prove why cannabis should be legalized, I will attempt to show in my arguments that the banning of marijuana is a reasonable limit to our rights and freedoms.

Marijuana is Harmful –

Obviously, this is a very controversial area and many sources hold bias and contradicting opinions. When presented with conflicting information, I wish to simply put it to the voters to decide which side’s sources are more reliable (However half of my opponent’s sources on this subject do not open! Hopefully that’ll be fixed in a later round).

Anyhow, here is a list of ways marijuana is harmful health-wise –

  • Recreational cannabis is proven to cause developmental delay in youth under 18 – leading in IRREVERSIBLE damage to intelligence, attention, and memory. Additionally, 1 in 10 underage users develop schizophrenia over 11 years of usage [1]. This information is relevant because I believe legalizing marijuana will increase usage in underage youth.

  • Although many sources suggest that marijuana is less physically addicting than alcohol or tobacco, surveys done on marijuana users seem to imply that there is a large psychological factor in marijuana addiction. Studies show that 1 in 10 people who EVER try cannabis will become dependent at some point. For those who’ve used cannabis multiple times the chances increase to about 1 in 3 [2].

  • Usage results in impairment, sluggishness, and decreased motivation.

  • Marijuana use has also been associated with lung damage, anxiety, depression, short term memory loss and brain impairment, and a weakened immune system. There are an increased chance of birth complications and defects as well [3].

  • Studies suggest that cannabis is a gateway drug and the high leads to usage of harder drugs [4].

  • Marijuana also passes these negative health impacts around through second hand smoke [3].

Legalization Results in Increased Usage –

Legalization undermines all the effort placed into warning children not to get involved with drugs, and without the threat of legal repercussions + easier accessibility, usage rates will go up. This has historically proven true with teen marijuana use in Alaska skyrocketing to TWICE the national average after legalizing pot. Usage rates in the Netherlands also went up nearly 30% in the Netherlands. Finally, the drop in marijuana usage after several US states recriminalized marijuana averaged 57% [5].

Legalization Results in Increased Marijuana Related Arrests –

Despite being legal, in 2009 alcohol related arrests for impaired driving, selling to minors and bootlegging totaled nearly 2 million [6]. In comparison, my opponent’s own sources state that marijuana related arrests peaked in the 800 000s. If the sources my opponent posits about marijuana usage rates and the projected increase after legalization is true, these figures suggest that any savings made will be offset by the increased enforcement spent on regulation of marijuana after legalization.

Legalization Causes Gangs/Drug Dealers to Simply Move to a More Harmful Market –

It is every bit as naïve to believe that legalizing marijuana will eliminate gangs as it is to believe that prohibition will stop alcohol from circulating. If pro is operating under the assumption that gang members will simply disband, get an education, and become contributing members of society after legalization, he is mistaken.

First and foremost, it’s a fallacy to assume that gangs are formed because of a large demand for any particular drug. In other words, I doubt that most gangsters or dealers are in the trade because its profitable (many dealers are actually quite poor). Additionally, what my opponent has to realize is that very few members of the drug trade are actually directly involved in the cultivation of marijuana and are directly affected by this change; over 90% of the gang members involved in the business are actually distributors and pushers. The majority of the gang population will not be equipped to handle a drastic change to their lifestyle, they can only move to a different market, such as pushing harder drugs. Because of this, my opponent’s projected savings on enforcement are flawed.

The underground marijuana market won’t disband either as long as it’s regulated in any way; 51% of the market for drugs is youth under 18, so drug pushers and organizations will simply sell cannabis to minors [7]. On top of that, you also have to consider bootleggers who try to evade taxes by selling contraband goods, such as the bootlegging you see with cigarettes today [8]. With these two factors in mind, it’s likely that the police enforcement and the jail population will actually go up and not decrease after legalization.

Other financial ramifications –

Marijuana users are liabilities in the workforce. Users show a 75% increase in absenteeism and are also 5 times more likely to cause workplace related injuries to themselves and to others [9]. Firing them would simply result in shelling out welfare for users, a further strain on the economy. The increased mental health problems that result from marijuana use also burden countries with public healthcare.

Final Notes –

I have a few more observations to make before concluding the debate –

  • Not legalizing marijuana does not equal the WOD. Numerous countries like England and Wales have instigated effective drug policies that have led to a drop in marijuana use [10].

  • When the US senate recently moved to ban smoking, the tobacco industry easily dropped tens of millions of dollars in advertisements into preventing the ban. If the marijuana industry starts up, it’s easy to foresee a similar situation where banning cannabis would be nigh impossible. Do we really need another tobacco industry (a drug industry famous for its deep-seated political lobbying and corruption)?

In summation, cannabis is a harmful substance that can cause irreversible damage on brain development. Legalizing marijuana is clearly correlated with increased usage, especially teen usage. On top of that, any foreseeable financial gains would be offset by the increased need for regulating the product, increased enforcement + prison space for impaired driving, and decreased work efficiency. Because of the reasons I have stated and the reasons I will state, the government is justified in limiting our right to use recreational marijuana and this resolution must and will fall.

I hand the podium back to my opponent.

Sources -

Debate Round No. 2


I apologize. Due to my personal schedule and sickness, I was not able to complete this round.

I will post my counters to my opponent's second round in my next round.

Again, I apologize for my unwise time management and I hope to finish this debate successfully agasint my engaged opponent.

I suggest making Round 5 serve as a purpose for Round 4. That way the debate would still be what it is meant to be.



I have conferred with Pro and in order to retain the fairness of this debate, I will refrain from posting an argument this round.
Debate Round No. 3


I thank Con for his patience and understanding.

I confused BOP with my other debate. I agree with Con. I will begin my case now.

Counter 1: Marijuana is harmful

I remember I never did argue that marijuana causes no harm at all but I have advocated the idea that the “harm” of marijuana is not baleful enough for it to be categorized as illegal. So I ask voters to not decide based on validity of a source since it is undeniable that marijuana is not helpful to human body. But the essence here is if the harm is so harmful to be illegal and my opponent failed to prove that. I for my part successfully negated the premise that marijuana is unquestionably detrimental to human health in any form and any way taken. I have shown valid that marijuana not that dangerous. The fact that there are so many studies that show otherwise already undermines the danger severity of marijuana. I will refute few individual points under this first argument by Con.

My opponent pointed out that legalization of cannabis will increase use among underage and pointed out statistics regarding adversary effects of underage usage of marijuana. While I would like to point out that the fact that marijuana is illegal can give stronger incentive and curiosity for teenagers to try marijuana, I would also like to mention the case of Netherland that legalized marijuana for two decades and yet has a lower rate of underage marijuana usage [1] than the US. The same source also explains that there is no evidence to support the claim that depenalization increased levels of cannabis use.

My opponent highlighted addiction. As he himself admitted, there are legal drugs that are proven to have stronger addiction than marijuana. Additionally, we really need to examine the term “addiction”. Due to the fact that marijuana affects dopamine, it is understandable how some users feel strong craving when the usage is ceased. Nevertheless, there are many sources that view these cravings as only psychological desire, not physical addiction [2]. I also have a whole list [List] of sources that directly refutes the idea of marijuana addiction. Bottom line, marijuana could be un-addictive and even if it is, addiction would not be as severe as addiction of legal drugs. Just about anything can cause addiction, depending on what “addiction” here means.

My opponent also mentioned some physical effects of marijuana. I have a source from Washington Post [3] that refutes marijuana and lung cancer correlation. Here is another source that disproves theory that pot causes brain damage [4]. If marijuana causes depression, why would anyone smoke marijuana? But again, I am not saying that marijuana is healthy to human body. But the essence is that the harm being discussed surely is not reasonable enough to make marijuana illegal for any longer.

This is the graph on The Economist link that did not function.

This graph, from a reliable medical journal, is enough to neutralize argument on health aspect of marijuana since marijuana is obviously not helpful but the harm is marginal. Please keep in mind that marijuana caused 17 lives in England and Wales where 7 million people are estimated to have taken marijuana. At the same year, 22 lives were lost by headache medicine, Aspirin and countless died from perfectly legal drugs, alcohol and cigarette. One’s freedom can be sacrificed for greater good. But facts and figures explain that marijuana’s harm cannot serve as reason for illegality of marijuana.

Counter 2: Gateway Theory

The gateway argument was touched by Con. Gateway theory is inaccurate. The link from Con already refutes gateway effect. While Yale claims the theory, government authority publicly denounces this theory and calls it “…just another propaganda study that tries to turn a casual relationship into a causal relationship”. There is no strong evidence to prove the theory, but there is list of experiments [5, 6, 7 and 8] that disprove link between marijuana usage and usage of harder drugs.

However, the same government authority that denounced the gateway theory publicly admitted a positive correlation between cigarette and use of cocaine [9, 10]. Surgeon General’s Report also reported that smoking led to tripling the likelihood to drink alcohol, increasing likelihood to smoke pot by eight times and 22 times to use cocaine. At the end of the day, marijuana does not cause gateway effect but legal drugs are in fact proven to have gateway effects.

The only way how marijuana might cause its users abusing other drug is if underground dealer selling weed recommends the harder drugs. However, this problem would be eliminated once marijuana is legalized. Then, users would stop trading with underground dealers.

Counter 3: Increasing Usage

Firstly, I will refute examples given by Con. The Alaska example is in favor to my side of the argument. Marijuana arrest in Alaska in fact decreased about -6% yearly when there was a national increase of 2.19% annually, from 2003~2007 [11]. As my previous source indicates, marijuana usage in Netherland is about half of US. In the year of 2005, lifetime prevalence of marijuana use in the US was 40.6% when the rate was 22.6% in Netherlands. Legalization does not cause more usage. Increase in usage can be positive result since it creates higher tax revenue.

Secondly, it is not necessarily bad for cannabis usage to increase speaking under assumption that the usage will increase. My opponent only introduced the idea of increase in usage when he failed to land that on the motion. There is nothing so baleful about high rate of marijuana usage. In fact countries with the highest usage rates include thriving nations of the world like Canada, Australia and New Zealand. As long as marijuana users can be responsible just like they have been, legalization would not be any problem.

Counter 4: Increasing Arrest

It is impossible for legalization to increase arrests because most arrests are regarding possession. Moreover, Netherland has incarceration rate of 100 per 100,000 when US has a figure that is 75.6 times higher. The case of Alaska also supports my case. Legalization cannot correlate with higher marijuana arrest logically and factually. Please counter this contention directly.

Counter 5: Gang

Marijuana constitutes about 50% of total drug market. Con misinterpreted my case, saying legalization would educate drug dealers. The argument was that legalization will halve the total drug market since marijuana that formed half of the market will be legal. Marijuana users will be able to purchase safer, cheaper and better pot legally, without buying it underground. With drug market undermined, it would be easier for yearly budget of $15 billion battling illegal drug to combat rest half of the market. Legalization would not solve every part of illegal drug market. However, it can be greatly helpful.

Counter 6: Financial Aspect

The concern my opponent raised regarding marijuana’s harm to others is not only rebutted with graph from The Lancet posted above but also from just one simple answer: that marijuana will obviously have restrictions as well. As said in definition of motion, marijuana will be regulated. Employers can simply enforce one simple rule of “no marijuana during work” to defeat the danger Con suggested.

But in return, US government can at least have $6.2 billion as tax revenue in return. Con also raised point with healthcare. But public healthcare is also enforced with tax of the nation and it is not completely free. Moreover, it is individuals who pay the price of their health deterioration in the end. We should leave it to the nation.

Overall, harm of marijuana can be debated. But marijuana is not worse than legal drugs and their legalization will bring benefits from social, individual and economical aspects. Individuals are willing to take responsibility and consequence of marijuana. It is high time to legalize.

References or;



Unfortunately, I cannot complete this round due to personal time constraints. I apologize.

Because of all the forfeitures, I hope we can restart this debate afterwards. I will still be posting for the final round.
Debate Round No. 4


I have discussed the current situation with my opponent and decided I will post some support of my arguments before debate ends with Con attacking my arguments in the end. However, I came to believe that it would not be fair.

I await for Con's ending round.


Thanks Pro.

Because I’ve unfortunately caused a round to be missed, I’ll just start summarizing the major points in the debate.


Throughout his arguments, my opponent seems to imply that Tobacco and Alcohol are legal because the government does not deem it harmful enough to be considered an offence, and this is the reason why these products are legal. However, no evidence has been presented in favour of this. I would argue that the reason why the government allows tobacco and alcohol to be legal is instead because the substances are too ingrained in our history to be pragmatically outlawed (as evidenced by the way the Tobacco industry spends millions of dollars battling against anti smoking campaigns). Unless my opponent proves otherwise, the health effects of tobacco and alcohol should not be used as a standard for what should be made legal.

I would argue that it is reasonable to ban cannabis because it is harmful and not a deep part of our history, therefore, laws made against the substance is enforceable (as evidenced by declining usage rates in countries that have implemented anti-marijuana policies successfully). This is why marijuana is illegal, and alcohol and tobacco are not - it's not a question of exactly how harmful marijuana is, as my opponent seems to suggest.


Ironically, I did not misinterpret my opponent's argument, rather, he misinterpreted my rebuttal. My opponent claims that the drug market will be halved after the legalization of marijuana simply because marijuana constitutes 50% of the total illegal drug market. This is an overly simplified and short sighted assumption. The point I was trying to make is that it is unrealistic and my opponent has given us no good reason to believe that marijuana dealers and pushers would simply stop participating in illegal trading after cannabis is legalized. As I have stated before, 90% of the people involved in the drug trade are not actually involved in cultivating marijuana. Because cultivators now don’t need pushers because weed is legal, the remaining 90% of criminals involved in the marijuana trade now are left unemployed, and I would argue that it is more realistic to assume that these people will simply make up for the lost income by committing other crimes or pushing other drugs than to assume that they will, as my opponent suggests, simply get educated and become contributing members of society. My opponent says that this is not logical but does not substantiate his claim with a source. Therefore, I’ll leave it up to the voters to decide which situation is more realistic.

Additionally, my opponent has not addressed the fact that over 50% of the illegal drug market will still exist under my opponents laws because 50% of the drug market is under 18. Therefore, money saved on enforcing marijuana the marijuana ban will have to be diverted into enforcing the increasing market for other illegal drugs.

My opponent also did not research Alaska's history very thoroughly. My opponents statistics for crime rates and drug usage for marijuana deal will rates post year 2000, and what he fails to realize is that Alaska recriminalized marijuana after it's disastrous attempt to legalize it. Therefore, the declining crime and usage rates that my opponent talks about occured after marijuana was made illegal.

My opponent also claims that I did not show why increased marijuana usage rates are bad. This is false, because I have talked about the permanent brain damage marijuana causes in minors (1 in 10 develop schizophrenia) [1], the decreased work productivity marijuana causes and increased bootlegging. My opponent does not refute any of these arguments.


I feel like I offer a very logical/straightforward argument –

- Marijuana is harmful, especially for minors (backed by studies and statistics)
- Legalizing marijuana will result in increased usage, especially increased teen usage (conceded by my opponent)
- Legalizing marijuana means that people involved in the marijuana trade will probably be forced to deal other drugs
- Legalizing marijuana also results in bootlegging and decreased work efficiency (also conceded by my opponent)
- The increased teen usage results in mental impairment and decreased intelligence and means that more people will become reliant on our countries public healthcare, further offsetting any money gained through legalization.

Because legalizing marijuana will not provide returns and results in a generation of sick, mentally impaired, and unproductive workers, the government is justified in keeping the substance illegal.

I thank Pro for the engaging debate. I hope we can do this again some time due to all the forfeitures.

Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Noumena 3 years ago
Someone should counter the current vote.
Posted by Noumena 3 years ago
I'll post an RFD in a day when I've completed three debates.
Posted by Ike-Jin-Park 3 years ago
I am re-posting URL for psychology today here.

It worked fine for me when I copied and pasted URL directly to a new tab.
Posted by Ike-Jin-Park 3 years ago
The size of graph is too small. Please view this URL for bigger picture.
Posted by OneElephant 3 years ago
I forgot to ask if legalizing marijuana would also necessitate the legalization of it's derivatives (hash, hash oil, etc). If you could include that as well that'd be fantastic.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Noumena 3 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: The "irony" point was insufficiently defeated by Con. For instance in the last round, he not only brings a new argument (that tobacco/alcohol are just too ingrained in our history) which Pro never had the chance to respond to, but his point doesn't actually address Pro's point. The point being that "harm" can't be used as a justification (one that Con focused almost exclusively on) while simultaniously ignoring the more detrimental effects of tobacco and alcohol. Furthermore, Con's point that the drug trade would not be significantly hurt (a claim which I thought needed further support) missed the point of Pro's argument entirely. The argument was that money that *was* spent on the penalization of marijuana could instead be used for more productive/socially optimal purposes, purposes that Con did a good job of highlighting in his last round. Con's other minor points on bad effects on underage users and decreases in worker productivity were refuted by Pro's insistence on regulation.
Vote Placed by Wishing4Winter 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had better sources and was able to better articulate his arguments.