The Instigator
W33DALLDAY
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
dasamster
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Weed should be legal

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 1 vote the winner is...
dasamster
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/9/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,254 times Debate No: 10394
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

W33DALLDAY

Pro

I stand on the pro side that weed should be legal for the following reasons 1. raise our economy 2. people will do it anyways and 3. get rid of crimes and cigs

first if we legalize weed the economy will see a huge boom . As the government can tax the crap out of weed like they do in califorina one company that sells weed pays 300,000 dollars in taxes to the state of california . therefore if we tax weed it will raise the economy from taxes but also the food, when you get high you get what is called munchies or very very hungry therefore we will have buy food!

Second people will still do weed as they are right now all over people do weed because its illgeal but if it were legal it wouldnt be so bad

Thrid, the selling of illegal drugs would stop if weed was okay and many people would stop smoking cigs because then could smoke weed,
dasamster

Con

I would first like to thank the affirmative for creating this debate, which will sure be an interesting one.
I will build up my arguments and then refute what the negative stated. There is one point I would like to bring up... the affirmative didn't state for "what" the marijuana would be legalized for, public use, or private use, for medicinal purposes. So I will just assume, that he/she means that it would be public.

My first contention is that if marijuana was legalized, crime would increase. Marijuana, also called Cannabis has psychoactive and physiological effects when consumed. This would do nothing but increase crime because if people commit crimes when they are not under the influence of any alcohol or drugs, imagine the mentality of those that do. We aren't talking about drug sales/busts that the affirmative stated, but more crimes than those would happen in effect of the users. What is the difference between smoking cannabis and drinking a large consumption of alcohol? You are under the influence of something that effects the way a person thinks or asks. Things can, and will happen in effect.

My second contention is that if marijuana was legalized the health and welfare of the community will be in jeopardy. The smoking of cannabis is the most harmful method of consumption, as the inhalation of smoke from organic materials can cause various health problems. Studies have shown, that people who consume cannabis are more than 5 times as likely to get lung cancer. Smoking and consuming cannabis causes an increased risk in the development of psychotic disorders, including schizophrenia. Imagine if something happened and the state, or the federal government approved cannabis; there would need to be some liability by the state/federal government is something does happen. Why? Because they allowed it to happen.

I will not refute what the affirmative stated. He/She states that it will raise the economy. How? There was no way given that it would improve the economy form its current state. My opponent also states that people will do it anyways. This is an example of the status quo, therefore, that point is invalid. Also stated was that it would get rid of crimes and "cigs". Refer to my first contention.

The affirmative states that currently in the State of California, cannabis is legalized... however, it is for medicinal purposes only! ... Not just because people are bored and want to get high. If the economy did increase for just a little bit, okay, fine, it increased. However, it will not be increased for long. As stated earlier in my argument, marijuana causes the mind to change and people do things that they are influenced to because they are under the influence of a narcotic. The government would need liability if they enacted this. If people get into car accidents, people sue one for killing another because they weren't thinking straight, etc. People would sue the government, therefore the government would need to "pay up" and then where does that increased economy go? Down the toilet with winning the lawsuits.

I look forward to continuing in this debate.

Sources:
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2) http://www.chrisconrad.com...
Debate Round No. 1
W33DALLDAY

Pro

W33DALLDAY forfeited this round.
dasamster

Con

My opponent has forfeited this round therefore not having any arguments or refutations against my arguments. So, I shall take this time ro restate my points...

My first contention is that if marijuana was legalized, crime would increase. Marijuana, also called Cannabis has psychoactive and physiological effects when consumed. This would do nothing but increase crime because if people commit crimes when they are not under the influence of any alcohol or drugs, imagine the mentality of those that do. We aren't talking about drug sales/busts that the affirmative stated, but more crimes than those would happen in effect of the users. What is the difference between smoking cannabis and drinking a large consumption of alcohol? You are under the influence of something that effects the way a person thinks or asks. Things can, and will happen in effect.

My second contention is that if marijuana was legalized the health and welfare of the community will be in jeopardy. The smoking of cannabis is the most harmful method of consumption, as the inhalation of smoke from organic materials can cause various health problems. Studies have shown, that people who consume cannabis are more than 5 times as likely to get lung cancer. Smoking and consuming cannabis causes an increased risk in the development of psychotic disorders, including schizophrenia. Imagine if something happened and the state, or the federal government approved cannabis; there would need to be some liability by the state/federal government is something does happen. Why? Because they allowed it to happen.

I will not refute what the affirmative stated. He/She states that it will raise the economy. How? There was no way given that it would improve the economy form its current state. My opponent also states that people will do it anyways. This is an example of the status quo, therefore, that point is invalid. Also stated was that it would get rid of crimes and "cigs". Refer to my first contention.

The affirmative states that currently in the State of California, cannabis is legalized... however, it is for medicinal purposes only! ... Not just because people are bored and want to get high. If the economy did increase for just a little bit, okay, fine, it increased. However, it will not be increased for long. As stated earlier in my argument, marijuana causes the mind to change and people do things that they are influenced to because they are under the influence of a narcotic. The government would need liability if they enacted this. If people get into car accidents, people sue one for killing another because they weren't thinking straight, etc. People would sue the government, therefore the government would need to "pay up" and then where does that increased economy go? Down the toilet with winning the lawsuits.
Debate Round No. 2
W33DALLDAY

Pro

weed alll day!
dasamster

Con

My arguments still stand... all my opponent can say is "WEED ALL DAY".. I completely diagreee, as marijuana shall continute to be illegal.

Please vote Aff!
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Well, we shouldn't have weed for the general populus, but autistic kids should clearly smoke weed: http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
you can win anti weed debates, they are easy if you do it right.
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by desiflavour 7 years ago
desiflavour
ok lemme rephrase that - i 'wouldn't' want to debate that.
Posted by dasamster 7 years ago
dasamster
this isnt a hard debate... xD
Posted by desiflavour 7 years ago
desiflavour
haha, i can't argue againt this :p
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dasamster 7 years ago
dasamster
W33DALLDAYdasamsterTied
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