The Instigator
waterskier
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Goooodstuff
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

cannabis should be legalized.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/29/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,387 times Debate No: 24502
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

waterskier

Pro

I believe that cannabis should be legal.
resolved:cannabis should be legal
definitions:
legal-permitted by law
cannabis-A plant used to produce hemp fiber and as a mildly psychotropic drug.
rules:
1.no insults
2.must go by the organization
3.no trolling
4.don't put sources unless opponent specifically asks for one in the comments.
organization:
5.don't accept if you will have any problems participating
R1-acceptance,no arguments
R2-opening statements, and arguments
R3-Rebuttals, and new arguments
R4-closing statements, Rebuttals, no new arguments
Goooodstuff

Con

I Accept.
Debate Round No. 1
waterskier

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for accepting this debate.

I have many reasons why cannabis should be legal, so I guess I'll start with
#1 Prohibition has failed
The government has tried to use the prospect of prison to stop people for smoking cannabis for over 75 years and yet: cannabis is now used by over 25 million people every year. It is also the biggest cash crop in the U.S. So saying that prohibition has worked in completely ridiculous.

#2 If regulated, legalization/regulation would keep it out of the hands of teenagers.
As a teenager, I can say first hand that I can get cannabis whenever I want, but getting alcohol/tobacco would be a serious challenge. Also if cannabis is a gateway drug like most anti-cannabis activists say it is, decreasing the use of cannabis in teenagers would also decrease the use of other drugs.

#3 legalization would take power away from criminal organizations.
cannabis being a big source of profit for gangs and cartels, making cannabis legal would take away alot of power from those organizations.

#4 cannabis is non-lethal and is safer than alcohol and tabaco.
Overdosing on cannabis is nearly impossible, and it is established scientifically that cannabis is non-toxic to humans. Tabaco smoke unlike cannabis smoke causes alot of harm to the body, and alcohol kills brain cells every time you use it. While cannabis has been shown to stimulate brain cell activity.

#5 cannabis does not make people want to commit violent crimes
Being a casual cannabis user, I can say from first hand experience that cannabis does not cause you to commit crimes. The only thing it causes you to do is literally nothing.

#6 there has never been even one death from cannabis use
In order for a human to consume enough cannabis to be fatal, they would have to consume nearly 40,000 times the amount of THC required to intoxicate them. If it takes you 3 'hits' of marijuana to intoxicate you, it would require 120,000 hits to kill you. Therefore, it is virtually impossible to die of a marijuana overdose.
Goooodstuff

Con

I thank my opponent for replying.

To debate whether cannabis should be legalized, we must first discover the purpose of laws and the type of government that we are currently addressing. I will assume that we are debating the legalization of cannabis in the representative democratic government of the United States. So let us figure out the purpose of laws in a representative democratic society. A democracy is defined as a "government by the people," and a representative democracy is defined as a government by people elected by people. The power of a representative democracy comes from the people and is used to benefit the people. And as it seems, the purpose of laws in a representative democracy is to benefit the people while keeping harm away. So if it turns out that keeping cannabis illegal will benefit the people more than harm them, then it would be logical to assume that the law that forbids cannabis is a good law and, therefore, should stay. Also, let's keep in mind that not everyone has the same opinions in a free society. So if keeping cannabis illegal benefits most (51%) of the population more than harm it, then cannabis should stay illegal. In summary, if cannabis does more harm than good to the people of a representative democracy then it should stay illegal.

The Negative Effects of Cannabis:
1. Using marijuana is known to cause hallucinations, delusions, impaired memory, disorientation, and paranoia. So far, none of these would benefit anybody.
2. If marijuana is smoked, it heavily increased the chance of getting cancer. Marijuana smokers tend to hold in the smoke longer than cigarette smokers, so users have an increased chance of getting cancer in the areas around the lung and neck. Basically put, non-marijuana users will be healthier than marijuana users.
3. As a past marijuana user, I have noticed that smoking marijuana made me less motivated in school and in other academic areas. For what it worth, after quitting marijuana my high school G.P.A increased from a 2.7 to a 4.5. It is obvious to see how performing well in school would benefit a person. The person does well in school is more likely to get accepted to a better university than the person who did poorly in school. Ideally, the person who did well in school would end up with a better occupation than the person who did worse in school. Better occupation means more money, and more money means a more comfortable life. And of course, let us not forget that the person who did well in school would excel in what makes humans humans, reasoning and knowledge.
4. Although marijuana does not cause physical addiction, it is well known to cause mental addiction. As the number of marijuana users grow, more and more people are going into marijuana rehabilitation. And addictions do more harm than good because they enslave the people against their will.
5."A number of studies have shown an association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, and schizophrenia." If marijuana was not present, people would not have to risk being diagnosed with these mental disorders. Why purposely take this risk? If marijuana did not exist, this risk would not even be present. Therefore, it benefits the people of society more to keep marijuana illegal.

From what I have stated, it clearly seems like the people of a representative democracy would benefit more if marijuana was illegal than if marijuana was legal. I take this upon the fact that if marijuana was illegal, people would use it less. Although it may seem like people should be left alone to use marijuana because they want to and it makes them happy, this is not so. What someone thinks is the best for them might actually not be best for them. For example, a mad man may think that a gun would be best for his current situation, however, this does not mean that you give him the gun. Remember, laws are made to benefit the majority, and not to make everyone happy. Also, just because one is benefited does not mean that he is happy. A cigarette addict who is benefiting from quitting may not be so happy. Would society benefit more with or without marijuana? Having said all this, it is clear that marijuana will harm more than benefit the majority of a representative democracy.

I look forward to my opponent's reply.

Sources:
http://www.drugabuse.gov...
http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://alcoholism.about.com...

Debate Round No. 2
waterskier

Pro

Although some of my opponents points are valid, they (in my opinion) are not sufficient to prove that cannabis should stay illegal.

I have no comment on #1 other than "paranoia" is likely because of the legal status of the drug. Robbing a bank does not cause paranoia, the paranoia is caused by the possibility of getting caught.

#2 is completely false.
First:"Marijuana smokers tend to hold in the smoke longer than cigarette smokers" this is true, but you will later see that that is not a bad thing. My problem with this is that even if cannabis had the exact same effect as tobacco, the risks are far outweighed by the fact that on average cigarette users smoke about 9 cigarettes daily, while average cannabis use was only a joint or two a few times a month.
second:obviously cannabis is not only ingested through smoke. You are able to bake it into common things like cookies, brownies, and cupcakes.
third:"If marijuana is smoked, it heavily increased the chance of getting cancer" and "users have an increased chance of getting cancer in the areas around the lung and neck" completely false. studies by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, and the University of Alabama at Birmingham say that while cannabis contains some of the same chemicals as tobacco, it does not carry the same risks for lung disease. So refer to this for any further claims of lung disease. Onto lung cancer, Pulmonary research on use of cannabis and interaction with the lungs was funded by the Federal Government to prove that lung cancer is caused by smoking cannabis, however the results proved cannabis does not cause lung cancer.
And on the second quote, how about you put the whole f*** thing, it says after that "that study could not be confirmed by further analysis."

#3 one personal experience does not prove anything. But if that is the angle we are taking here, first, I don't believe you. Am I actually to believe that once you stopped smoking weed, you went from a 82 to a 100? Were you going to class high or something? My personal experience was that before I started smoking weed I had about a 95 in freshman calculus ab. This is a very advanced class for a 9th grader so I would come home with a headache every day. Then I tried weed. It had no effect on my grades, but I stopped having headaches. Also, you didn't need to explain to me what having good grades does for your future.

#4 I agree that it can cause mental addiction, but that is extremely common. Almost anything can cause a mental addiction. Just to name a few, any medicine, food, drinks, drugs, and sex. Mental addiction is not controlling, mental addiction is liking a feeling, then seeking that feeling again. This is not something that you will have to go to rehab for. The addiction that people go to rehab for is physical addiction (being dependent on a particular substance, and unable to stop taking it without incurring adverse effects)
"more and more people are going into marijuana rehabilitation."
Come on!!! Do some research before you make claims like this. When someone gets arrested for cannabis, they get a choice sometimes. Rehab, or jail. Hmmmmmm... hard choice right... Get raped in the a** every night... Or talk about your non-existent addiction... Idk they both sound pretty awesome. 85% of people in rehab for cannabis got in there because of a court order. (they consider any cannabis use cannabis abuse)

#5 "A number of studies have shown an association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, and schizophrenia" I don't have enough time to fact check all of these, so I will assume that you aren't misinformed or lying
"If marijuana was not present, people would not have to risk being diagnosed with these mental disorders." I'm sorry but this is f*** ridiculous. Do you even know what these are?
Anxiety: causes include phobias, depression, and stress.
Depression: I could go on for hours listing causes.
Schizophrenia:not enough research to support any claims yet, but there are children with schizophrenia that have never tried cannabis so again, false.
"Therefore, it benefits the people of society more to keep marijuana illegal." no. You can't just say ibuprofen makes people choke sometimes. Therefore no ibuprofen=no choking. Therefore, it benefits the people of society more to make ibuprofen illegal. Because you don't just say there are negatives so it's bad, you weigh the bad against the good and see if overall it would be beneficial.

Beginning:
"I will assume that we are debating the legalization of cannabis in the representative democratic government of the United States"yes thank you for clarifying, I realize now I did not specify that.
"So if keeping cannabis illegal benefits most (51%) of the population more than harm it, then cannabis should stay illegal" in some cases yes, but be open to majority is not always right. If it was then slavery would still be legal. But for this debate, I think majority rules would not be a fair way to look at it. If that's the way you want to look at it though then fine. 81% of americans have tried cannabis. And I think it would benefit people to not be in jail. I think a better way would be if the positive effects outway the negative effects, then it is beneficial overall and vice-versa.

Ending:
"From what I have stated, it clearly seems like the people of a representative democracy would benefit more if marijuana was illegal than if marijuana was legal." I guess we will have to leave that up to the voters
"I take this upon the fact that if marijuana was illegal, people would use it less" false.
U.S. (cannabis is illegal)
Lifetime prevalence of marijuana use (ages 12+)
36.9%
Past month prevalence of marijuana use (ages 12+)
5.4%
Amsterdam (cannabis is legal)
Lifetime prevalence of marijuana use (ages 12+)
17%
Past month prevalence of marijuana use (ages 12+)
3%
"Although it may seem like people should be left alone to use marijuana because they want to and it makes them happy, this is not so. What someone thinks is the best for them might actually not be best for them. For example, a mad man may think that a gun would be best for his current situation, however, this does not mean that you give him the gun"
flawed analogy from the ground up. Sorry to use an analogy on an analogy but this is like if I said
"giving you a sofa is like giving John Wayne Gacy a knife"
A better analogy for you would be you saying
"giving someone weed is like giving someone a knife in a room made of rubber with no door, and also there is alot of controversy on weather this knife actually can harm anyone"
you implied that if you give people weed then they will kill people (false). Like I said, there would be no way to even kill themselves unless you gave them 120,000 joints and forced them to smoke them right there in 15 min.
"Remember, laws are made to benefit the majority, and not to make everyone happy." no. some are, but some need to be made because it is wrong to keep/make whatever it is legal or illegal.
"Also, just because one is benefited does not mean that he is happy. A cigarette addict who is benefiting from quitting may not be so happy." again, can't get addicted to weed, and with this we can both benefit and be happy.
"Would society benefit more with or without marijuana?" just to answer your question, with.
"Having said all this, it is clear that marijuana will harm more than benefit the majority of a representative democracy. "
That isn't clear to me. Post in the comments if you think it is clear, and if I'm alone on this one, but it doesn't seem clear at all to me.

Sources:
Lot's of sources used, tell me if you need the location of something specific
Goooodstuff

Con


Purpose of Laws in a representative democracy.
Pro has agreed that we are discussing the legalization of cannabis in a representative democratic government. However, he seems to be confused about the purpose of laws in this type of government. In this type of government, the populace elects a person who represents their beliefs and the elected person would make decisions for the populace. The founders of the constitution thought this was best because they knew that the common people are not virtuous nor smart enough to rule over themselves. They kept in mind that most of the population will rule based on what gives them pleasure, and not what benefits them. They feared the so called "mobocracy." In a representative government, a person is elected if the majority of the population vote for him or her. And it is these elected person that determine what laws would be best in the United States. So if pro believes that "majority rules would not be a fair way to look at it", ("it" meaning the legalization of marijuana) then he is in fact not talking about legalization in a representative democracy. However, fact is fact, and the United States is a representative democracy. So, my argument that Marijuana should stay illegal if it harms more than benefits the majority of the people stands.

Before I go any further, I want to note my opponent's concessions.
Concessions
1. He does not deny that "Using marijuana is known to cause hallucinations, delusions, impaired memory, disorientation."
2. He agrees that using marijuana can cause mental addiction.
3. He does not deny that "A number of studies have shown an association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, and schizophrenia." (I will address the problem he had with this premise later.)

Most people would agree that hallucinations, delusions, impaired memory, disorientation, mental addiction, increased rates of anxiety, increased rates of depression, and increased rates of schizophrenia are harmful.

Rebuttals
1. If prohibition has failed, this does not mean that the government should stop all efforts to prohibit something they believe is harmful. If a child causes havoc no matter how many times he is punished, does this mean that the parent should stop punishing him altogether? No. The smart parent would increase the severity of the punishment. According to my opponent, something harmful should be left alone because it is too difficult to stop it.
2. Here, my opponent makes a contradiction. First, my opponent admits that he is a teenager and also a "casual cannabis user". He also says that marijuana smokers "can both benefit and be happy." Then why does he believe that marijuana should be legalized because it would "keep it out of the hands of teenagers." So, he, as a teenager, is saying that teenagers should stay away from marijuana. Now, why would he say such a thing? Unless, of course, he has found harm in using marijuana himself. And if he believes users will "benefit and be happy", why does he believe it a benefit to keep marijuana away from teenagers?
4. My opponent believes that marijuana should be legalized because "cannabis is non-lethal and is safer than alcohol and tabaco." And I assume that my opponent believes it is safer than the other two because the numerous harms of marijuana are not as severe as the harms from alcohol and tobacco. And I agree with this. I agree that marijuana is safer to use than alcohol or tobacco. However, my opponent has agreed that there are indeed harms to using marijuana. So according to my opponent's logic, since there are already two harms legal in the U.S., the U.S. might as well add a lesser harm to the mix. Since there are already harm present, what is the harm in adding more harm? Is it just me or does this logic seem a little off?
6. Just because something does not kill people does not mean it will benefit society. Therefore, this premise is irrelevant.

Counter Arguments
1. My opponent agrees with my first argument except the paranoia part. A person who is under the influence of marijuana is likely to become more paranoid than a sober person under the same conditions.
2. "Nonetheless, marijuana smokers can have many of the same respiratory problems as tobacco smokers, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illness, and a heightened risk of lung infections. A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than non smokers."
It seems our information contradicts each other. I am not an expert on this subject so I get all my information off the internet. I would like to see my opponent's sources to compare the validity of both sources.
3. I wrote argument three knowing that personal opinions and experiences do not mean anything in debates. However, the account I told my opponent is true. Anyways, that does not matter.
4. My opponent agrees that marijuana can cause mental addiction. My opponent notes that mental addiction is extremely common. However, just because something is common does not mean that it is not harmful. So the question becomes, is mental addiction harmful or beneficial? First, what is addiction? According to dictionary.com, addiction is "the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming." My opponent may not agree with this definition, but let us emphasize two phrased from this definition. The first is "psychologically." This definition does not only apply to physical addictions. The second is "the state of being enslaved." I cannot see how in any situation, being enslaved would not be harmful. Just because mental addiction is common among people, this does not mean that mental addiction is not harmful. I disagree with my opponent's claim that " Mental addiction is not controlling." If it was not controlling, it would not be called an addiction.
5. I apologize to readers and my opponent for poorly wording my fifth argument. What I meant was that if marijuana was not present, people would not have to risk the increased rate of being diagnosed with anxiety, depression, and schizophrenia. Why make the risk present for people to take? I again apologize for my poor wording.

The mindset of laws
I would like to address an important issue regarding laws. Why do governments pass laws? Governments pass laws with the hope that people will obey them. If people do not obey the laws, and if the laws are indeed beneficial, then the government should better enforce the laws.

Marijuana usage in U.S and Amsterdam chart.
I found this piece of data very interesting. Lets remember that one of the argument that my opponent made for legalizing marijuana was that legalizing marijuana "would keep it out of the hands of teenagers." If my opponent is a marijuana using teenager, it would be logical to assume that he knows of harms that marijuana has. If not, why would he believe it a benefit to keep marijuana away from teenagers. So regarding this data, the U.S. government illegalized marijuana in hopes that less people, and ideally zero people, will use it. But this data shows that the U.S. should actually legalize marijuana to have the effect that banning marijuana should have. Should the U.S. legalize murder in hopes of reducing murder? Don't be ridiculous. The government is doing what it is suppose to do, it is the people who are not.

It seems my opponent has taken my analogies too literally. My two analogies were introduced not to prove that marijuana users will kill people (as my opponent believes), but to prove two points.
1. What someone thinks is best for him might not actually be best for him.
2. What is beneficial to a person will not always make him happy.
And my analogies have sufficiently proved these points.

Sources Please & I look forward to your reply. My sources are in the comments.

Debate Round No. 3
waterskier

Pro

Purpose of Laws in a representative democracy:
I guess we will just agree to disagree on the fact that majority should always rule.

"He does not deny that "Using marijuana is known to cause hallucinations, delusions, impaired memory, disorientation.""
No, I do not deny that, but you word these strangely. Mainly hallucinations, because they are very mild. You act like you will go on a trip after smoking weed. I could not find an reports, or websites saying that cannabis cause actual hallucinations. It can cause slight hallucinations in some people.
Couldn't find anything on delusions on either side.
Impaired memory is temporary.
Again couldn't find anything on disorientation on either side.

"He does not deny that "A number of studies have shown an association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, and schizophrenia""
No. At the time I did not have enough time to research all of those. I will now deny a definite link between schizophrenia and cannabis. some studies show a link, but the link may be that schizophrenia patients like cannabis. Not that cannabis users are more likely to develop schizophrenia. Also CBD (Cannabidiol) is effective in the treatment of schizophrenia.[3][1]
Again, lot's of discussion over anxiety. Craig Reinarman did a study, and it showed that "It was used to relieve pain, muscle spasms, headaches, anxiety" and many others.[2]
Depression is false. "moderately effective in the treatment of depression" "Other studies state that cannabis or cannabinoids are useful in treating...depression"[2]

"Most people would agree that hallucinations, delusions, impaired memory, disorientation, mental addiction, increased rates of anxiety, increased rates of depression, and increased rates of schizophrenia are harmful."
yes but most would agree that cannabis does not cause most of these.

"If a child causes havoc no matter how many times he is punished, does this mean that the parent should stop punishing him altogether? No. The smart parent would increase the severity of the punishment. According to my opponent, something harmful should be left alone because it is too difficult to stop it."
Again flawed analogy from the ground up.
A better analogy would have been
"if a child likes to play call of duty, and then you lock him in a closet for a couple hours. Then he decides to play call of duty again later after every time you lock him in the closet, should you stop locking him in the closet for a couple hours?" I would say yes, or try a different approach to stopping him from playing. (not saying this is his position, but in this analogy this would be) my opponent would say to take a more severe approach to trying to stop the child.

"According to my opponent, something harmful should be left alone because it is too difficult to stop it."
no, stop putting words in my mouth. My position on the matter is that if you are trying to keep something illegal that is doing no harm to anyone else other than the person (possibly) then you might want to at least try to make it legal.

"Here, my opponent makes a contradiction. First, my opponent admits that he is a teenager and also a "casual cannabis user". He also says that marijuana smokers "can both benefit and be happy." Then why does he believe that marijuana should be legalized because it would "keep it out of the hands of teenagers." So, he, as a teenager, is saying that teenagers should stay away from marijuana. Now, why would he say such a thing? Unless, of course, he has found harm in using marijuana himself. And if he believes users will "benefit and be happy", why does he believe it a benefit to keep marijuana away from teenagers?"
I see how you could think that, but we have not discussed the effects of cannabis on children and teenagers. Just like driving is good for adults because they have easy transportation, but bad for kids for obvious reasons. I believe that cannabis should stay illegal for minors until further studies are preformed to see if cannabis has effects on development.

"My opponent agrees with my first argument except the paranoia part."
not anymore obviously

sources:
[1]http://www.time.com...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...

Remember, no new arguments this round, because I can't rebut them.
Goooodstuff

Con

I thank my opponent for a thought-provoking debate. I feel I have personally learned numerous facts about cannabis and its effects throughout this debate.

Before the final round, I asked my opponent to cite the sources of his information because the information from our sources seemed to be conflicting. My opponent was rebutting all my arguments with information from his sources. He made me believe that he must have some extraordinary collection of sources that relates to marijuana. As the rules of this particular debate states, I asked my opponent to cite the sources in the comments section. As a result, he cited three sources. The first source is an online news article that explains the complex link between marijuana and schizophrenia. The second and third sources are wikipedia articles. I do not think I have to explain the unreliability of information attained from wikipedia. The information from his sources have no advantage over the information from my sources.

Rebuttals
"I guess we will just agree to disagree on the fact that majority should always rule."

If my opponent disagrees with this, then he is disagreeing about the type of government that we are currently addressing. In a representative democracy, such as the United States, the majority DOES always rule, whether they should or not. It is irrelevent what my opponent believes should rule. The fact is that in the United States, the majority rules. I explained how this is so in the previous round.

My opponent seemed to have difficulty finding evidence that supports my claims. However, just because he did not find evidence does not make them false. Oddly enough, I did cite the sources behind my information. Anyhow, I will do my opponent a favor and find other evidence for him.

"I could not find an reports, or websites saying that cannabis cause actual hallucinations."
Here you go: "Stronger doses prompt more intense and often disturbing reactions including
paranoia and hallucinations." [1]

"Couldn't find anything on delusions on either side."
Not a problem: "It has been suggested that marijuana is at the root of many mental disorders,
including acute toxic psychosis, panic attacks (one of the very conditions it is
being used experimentally to treat), flashbacks, delusions, depersonalization,
hallucinations, paranoia, depression, and uncontrollable aggressiveness" [2]

"Again couldn't find anything on disorientation on either side."
Sure: " High doses of marijuana, when consumed through food, can cause hallucinations, delusions, impaired memory and disorientation."[3]

Also:
" It depresses brain activity, making thoughts seem disconnected and uncontrolled. Colors, time, and spatial relations may be distorted during the dreamy state that ensues. Users can feel high or a sense of excitement, often depending on expectations and where and with whom the drug is used. Severe anxiety, panic attacks, disorientation, depression, and auditory hallucinations can occur" [4]

I find it odd that my opponent was unable to find such conspicuous information.


"I will now deny a definite link between schizophrenia and cannabis"
Yes, no definite link, but a very strong one:
"Repeatedly, studies have found that people with schizophrenia are about twice as likely to smoke pot as those who are unaffected. Conversely, data suggest that those who smoke cannabis are twice as likely to develop schizophrenia as nonsmokers" (Taken from opponent's source [1])

"Depression is false. "moderately effective in the treatment of depression" "Other studies state that cannabis or cannabinoids are useful in treating...depression"
Really? "smoking cannabis leads to an increased risk of developing depressive symptoms" [5]

" most would agree that cannabis does not cause most of these." (These meaning hallucinations, delusions, impaired memory, disorientation, mental addiction, increased rates of anxiety, increased rates of depression, and increased rates of schizophrenia)
My opponent makes an unsubstantiated claim. From the evidence given, most would agree that cannabis DOES cause most of these.

"I believe that cannabis should stay illegal for minors until further studies are preformed to see if cannabis has effects on development."
I agree. But since the person who believes this is a minor and is a user of marijuana, would this be a sign of an addiction? Just a thought.

"My position on the matter is that if you are trying to keep something illegal that is doing no harm to anyone else other than the person (possibly) then you might want to at least try to make it legal."

I have sufficiently proved using various sources that the "possibly" is a "certainly." So if something that causes harm only to the user is already illegal, the U.S. government should put in the effort to legalize it? Why would the government legalize anything that causes harm to anybody? To make certain people happy? Again, what is beneficial will not always make a person happy. An obese man will benefit from a diet but might not be happy.

Regarding my analogies, my opponent calls them flawed but does not explain how or why they are so.

At this point, I believe that there is enough evidence to conclude that marijuana is harmful. Now, lets address the benefits that my opponent believes will come from legalizing marijuana. If it turns out that keeping marijuana illegal would do more good than harm to the majority of the people of the U.S., marijuana should stay illegal. In the previous round, I rebutted four out of six benefits that my opponent believed would come from legalizing marijuana. For some reason, my opponent has not denied nor argued against these rebuttals. Because my opponent has not done otherwise when he was in the position and power to do so, I will assume that he agrees with my rebuttals. Now then, there are two arguments left.
1. "legalization would take power away from criminal organizations."
Yes, if marijuana was legalized, illegal organizations would lose profit that they would have acquired from selling illegal marijuana. However, do criminals stop being criminals just because they lose one source of their profit? It is probable, that criminal organizations would continue to sell other illegal products.
2. "cannabis does not make people want to commit violent crimes"
I agree with this, however, this is irrelevent. Just because something does not make people want to commit violent crimes, it does not mean that it is beneficial. A lack of harm is not benefit.

Conclusion
Now what are the results? I have rebutted all six of my opponent's initial arguments and he has not denied my rebuttals. I have provided extra evidence to override my opponent's rebuttals of my initial arguments. The six benefits that my opponent believed would come from legalizing marijuana turned out not to be benefits. And my numerous sources confirmed the harms that I believed were caused by marijuana. And as my opponent and I have agreed, we are debating the legalization of marijuana in a representative democracy. And I have proved that in this type of government, laws are passed to benefit the majority of the people while keeping harm away from majority of the people. We have not discovered any true benefits to legalizing marijuana while we found numerous harms of using marjiuana. I think now, it is safe to say that in a representative democracy, such as the United States, marijuana should be illegal.

Again, I thank my opponent for a wonderful debate. I especially appreciated the hasteness of his replies.

Sources

[1] http://www.acde.org...;
[2] http://cyber.law.harvard.edu...
[3]http://lifestyle.iloveindia.com...;
[4]http://www.pdrhealth.com...;
[5]http://www.sciencedaily.com...;

Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Goooodstuff 4 years ago
Goooodstuff
Hello waterskier, I would like you to list the sources from where you got ALL your information. I am sorry I am asking for so much, but I would like to check for the validity of all your statements. Thank you.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
No
Posted by Numidious 4 years ago
Numidious
Great topic. I'd debate it only there is really no reason why it shouldn't be, and I'm pretty solidly on your side here.
No votes have been placed for this debate.