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

UK government should legalize weed

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,070 times Debate No: 21473
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




To who ever may except this debate, I would like to inform you that this is my first, and that I personally haven't used the drug due to it's legal status, however I know many people who do, this is where I draw my knowledge of the subject.

My first point is of course finance, as we all know the UK, along with the rest of the world, is still in a recession, the legalization of the drug would create a new, taxable market for the UK giving the economy a much needed boost, as well as saving the government money and the police forces time that is wasted in the prosecutions of users.

Second is health, people often think of weed as a 'gateway drug' that will lead to the use of stronger substances such as cocaine, and heroin, however if it where legalized it is likely that either the cigarette or alcohol company's would dominate the market leading to licensed vender's or bars/caf�s where the substances could be regulated (much like in Amsterdam)

Thirdly, if you look at the drug rates for weed in Amsterdam, less people use it there then they do here (in comparison to size) and most of these are tourists,
the thing is, is that weed is just a normal thing there, it's not considered cool, or rebellious; it is my belief that after a few years of high use due to excitement would soon drop creating a similar effect to that of Amsterdam.

Four social effect, there is none. they did an experiment in London a few years ago where in a small part of the city people where told that they wouldn't be hassled by the police for it (to see hoe it would effect the community's) and the only thing that happened was people where a little more open about using it, that was all.

that's all I can think of at this hour, so I would invite anyone to join, I would love to see what other arguments people can think of.


- 1 - Taxing Marijuana
Yes it is possible that England could tax marijuana for a profit, however there are several factors you must look into first to see that taxing marijuana will bring in barely any profit at all. England has a very small population compared to other nations, and this is mostly due to the very small size of the country.

England is only the 80th largest country in the world in terms of land area, and their land area makes them only about the size of Florida. England is also ranked 22nd overall for largest population in the world, at about 62 million people.

So that being said we have a decent sized population living on a ridiculously small area of land to support all of them meaning that conservation of available land, conservation of resources, and utilizing land carefully are all massive issues to the British peoples. Using what little open land England has to grow Marijuana to sell it to a population that only a fraction of which would even be interested in consuming would not be a very wise investment for this island nation.

The small size of the country would limit how much Marijuana the government could grow, the number of people who would consume it would only be a fraction of the population, but think about the agencies, bureaucracies, laws, officials, and workers that would be required to ensure this potential industry is kept in code. All that would suck out any profits that the government could make from this already limited product, potentially even costing the government money.

- 2 - Health
The Pro only says how Marijuana will not be a gateway drug because alcohol and tobacco companies would control it, and we all know how safe the products that alcohol and tobacco companies sell to people are (sarcasm).

The only aspect of health the Pro looked at this through is the that Marijuana would not be a gateway drug. However that is simply not true and there are many many more health complications caused by Marijuana then simply being a gateway drug.

Marijuana is a gateway drug due to the dependency affect it has on people from chemicals within the marijuana itself, not the people handling the marijuana. Marijuana sold by a drug dealer would have the same effects as marijuana sold by a tobacco company so marijuana would still be an easy gateway drug to other drugs. Health wise Marijuana is a proven carcinogen that has over 400 chemicals, it ravages teenagers who are most susceptible to becoming addicted/dependent on the drug, and the second hand smoke from Marijuana much like second hand smoke from cigarettes is just as intoxicating as the marijuana itself. This means that people who dont smoke Marijuana could be harmed by it just by standing close to someone who has recently used it.

So to summarize legalizing marijuana would not be a good idea if you want to believe it will not cause harm, because it puts millions of youth in dependency and addiction clinics while causing cancer in the long term. Short term wise marijuana is related to car accident deaths too since marijuana affects how the brain processes information which has caused people to not be able to react in time and end up dying in a car accident. Marijuana if legalized would be very unsafe to a good number of Britons.

- 3 - Comparison to Amsterdam
The Pro tries to say that less people use it there proportionally then other countries even though its legal, and that the Pro thinks Britain would be no different. He offers no evidence to suggest why and only offers his opinion since he himself said that " it is my belief that after a few years of high use due to excitement would soon drop creating a similar effect to that of Amsterdam."

But here is the thing, 1, Amsterdam is a city not a country, and 2 England and Amsterdam have two totally different peoples, cultures, traditions, lifestyles, opinions, politics, standards, morals, philosophy's, languages, etc. One cannot just assume what happens in Amsterdam will happen in all of England because the two are immensely different from each other.

- 4 - Social effect
The Pro uses a possibly made up study to indicate that if the police did not crack down on marijuana use, a few more people would use it. According to this study though they asked a very small part of one city to an unknown number of people, and even then some of them agreed they would use it. Now if you take that extremely small study (that the Pro did not care to source) and multiply it to all of England's population, than what you have is a very large number of people who would only CONSIDER using it. However this study does not take into account that the cost of buying weed would be high causing people to stay agaisnt it, even scare others away, or maybe cause users to quit sicne prices are so high.

Point is, this un-sourced study does not take into account several factors and was only used on a ridiculously small number of people to imply Marijuana legalization would have no effect, but in reality it would have a very large social impact.
Debate Round No. 1


wxdanwx forfeited this round.


I extend my arguments
Debate Round No. 2


i would first like to apologies for missing round two, i didn't realize that i even had an opponent yet.

you talked about how unwise it would be to waste space in the U.K. to grow marijuana, however what you haven't thought about is the possibility of importing it from other country, and i live in a small country city where the use of marijuana i very common, so i think we can move on from this.

you went on to talk about my use of the term "gateway drug" i was using this to refer to the common belief that by going through a dealer you are more likely to progress to "hard drugs" due to the easy availability.
you have also talked about an increased risk of cancer, this however is still to be conclusively proven.
and as for second hand smoke, it has been proven that marijuana does less damage to the lungs then egrets.
and obviously much like alcohol the government would create a limit on the amount that you could use before driveling, the government may be incompetent, but there not idiots.

Amsterdam isn't the only place that have legalized marijuana, the other places have had a similar effect, and i only used Amsterdam as a comparison because it is the best know of these places.

the study wasn't made up, i didn't read it online and don't know where to find it but it is real, i find the fact that you think that i would make it up to be very insulting, and i never said that more people where using it, just that people where more open about there use of it, and if you are against it then why would you put about it putting people off, isn't that what you want.

look, I'm just going to summarise what I'm saying, it would add to the British economy, not just through people living here, but from tourism (allot of the marijuana use in places like Amsterdam is from tourists), it would put an end to anyone having to go to back street dealers who would try to convince them to buy other products swell, and once it is legalized it would loss the rebellious, bad boy image that is has gained over the years, meaning that less people would use it, but the government would still be making money of off what is being sold, swell as saving money that is wasted on catching, processing, and punishing thouse who do use it.


1) Land use
The Pro says that the UK could simply import it from elsewhere to conserve land. If that does happen then the profit that could even be made off of the weed would take quite a hit. To supplement the loss the UK could just jack up the price of the weed BUT WAIT. They're not selling the weed under the Pro's plan, Tobacco and Alcohol companies are. So then THEY would jack up the price of it since the government cant control the price and now we have a scenario where you have normal drug dealers selling the same product for the same price on the streets and then you have companies selling the same thing at a much higher price with the government taking a fraction of the profit through taxes of any buyers dumb enough to buy the expensive weed run by the government instead of the people selling it for a much lower price on the streets.

So even if it is grown on land or imported, the government loses out on valuable land that could be used to grow other things, or they lose out on even more of the "profit" they would (allegedly) make sine it now has to be imported from overseas.

2) Gateway drug
Marijuana isnt a gateway drug because the drug dealers carry other products, its because Marijuana can be tolerated by the body after a while so that it takes more and more of it to reach the same high. For some people wanting to get that high back or simply top what they get off of Marijuana is what leads them to other really hard core drugs.

3) Cancer and other side effects
The Pro dismisses this claim simply by stating it is not yet proven that weed causes cancer. Marijuana not only causes cancer but it causes paranoia, emotional disorders, addiction, dependency, nausea, insomnia, impaired memory, weaker coordination skills, lung problems etc. I refer you to this other debate of mine showing all the links to the scientific proof showing how Marijuana is very detrimental to ones health.
(round 2)

4) Other places with legalized Marijuana
Pro claims that other places have legalized Marijuana besides Amsterdam, allow me to list them for you.

- 1 - Bangladesh
- 2 - Peru
- 3 - Thats it, its only those two countries and Bangladesh, everywhere else there are restrictions or laws preventing open consumption of Marijuana. Bangladesh and Peru do not have any statistics anywhere showing that proportionally populations use weed less than countries where weed is illegal.

Basically, Amsterdam is the only example the Pro CAN use as an example, and since there arent any studies showing how trends in Amsterdam are similar in the two other countries where weed is completely legal, then there is no conclusive evidence that legalization of Marijuana leads to lower use. That means it is quite possible that the UK would not follow the same trend as Amsterdam would regarding popular consumption of Marijuana among the population.

5) Social effect
" i didn't read it online and don't know where to find it but it is real, i find the fact that you think that i would make it up to be very insulting"
You cite a study that cannot be found or located anywhere which means we can only take you on your word, and thats not good enough on here.

BREAKING NEWS, I found a study not on the internet and I cant find it anywhere else but a scientist proved that Marijuana causes people to convert to radical Islam. I didnt read it online but its real and if you think I made it up then I am insulted.

For the record I also only said it was possible that the study was made up, I still made arguments against it as if it were real and those arguments were that it was only used on a very very small test group and that the study only had one parameter. Tat parameter was would you consider using weed it the police cracked down on it less. It did not say anything about using weed or letting your kids use weed if it was completely legal but sold at a very high cost.

6) Tourism
The Pro claims that pot will increase tourism to the UK since it did to Amsterdam, funny story though since Amsterdam has laws banning tourists from buying weed, so any growth in tourism is attributed to other factors not related to the legality of weed. Since this means that weed legalization isnt tied to tourism, that means that legalization of weed in the UK wont guarantee increased tourism.

Pro's summaries
- It would add to the British economy...... Not proven
- Tourism....... Unsupported claim
- It would put an end to anyone having to go to back street dealers...... Unless they were selling it for a low price which they probably would
- Once it is legalized it would loss the rebellious, bad boy image that is has gained over the years........ Opinion
- Government would still be making money of off what is being sold........ By taxing corporations that sell it, IF they profit from it meaning that if they do profit from it, the government would only profit from it by a small fraction
- Government will be saving money that is wasted on catching, processing, and punishing thouse who do use it....... They would still be around for catching people abusing other heavy drugs, and legalizing marijuana would require a new agency to be installed to regulate the quality of the marijuana being sold, to monitor that each person gets a safe small amount, that those buying it dont give it to their kids, etc etc

Marijuana is a very dangerous and unhealthy drug, legalizing it in the UK would cause a whole lot of problems to be handled and addressed before the government could even begin to reap the profits, and even then the cost for buying or growing the weed, giving it to tobacco and alcohol companies to sell, and taxing their profits may not yield a very large amount of money.

That being said, since it would be the alcohol and tobacco companies setting the price, street dealers could still be out selling other drugs and cheaper weed for sale, so the drug problem would only continue wile undermining the UK's efforts to try to tax the sale of weed. The agency that catches pot abusers is the same one that also handles meth, heroin, crack, etc so legalizing weed doesnt mean that agency could simply be shut down since they wage war against other illegal narcotics, not just weed.

Meanwhile the government will need even more people to regulate the quality of the weed being sold, where it is being grown and imported, regulate how much people can buy, regulate penalties for giving it to children, penalties for selling it to others, etc etc

Point is, legalizing Marijuana will certainly not be a moneymaker for the UK, and it arguably wont provide any profit at all, therefore the UK should not legalize weed since it is harmful to people's health, difficult to regulate, and wont guarantee any profit

I thank the Pro for a good debate and I thank the voters for reading :D
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Rebutted Pro, causing Pro not to meet the burden of proof.