de criminalize marijuana
Debate Rounds (3)
There are some negatives to smoking marijuana regularly.
Physically, lung damage does occur over time after years of smoking. Some sites have said that marijuana is less toxic for your lungs than tobacco; others have said that it is more. There haven't been many tests done because the government restricts funding for research because it is Schedule I. I haven't heard of reports of lung cancer caused by marijuana, but lung damage is a risk. Brain scans of lifetime users show a 12% shrink in the hippocampus of the brain compared to non-users. However, it is also shown that abstinence will reverse the shrinkage without problems.
Psychologically, there are risks as well. Marijuana is addictive and many people who smoke experience psychological withdrawal when stopping after using for long periods of time (depression, anger, etc.). Many people who smoke marijuana over time report a loss of interest in things that were once important to them. Many potheads admit this. Also, smoking heavily for many years causes what pot smokers call "burnout". Many pot smokers are less attentive and less responsive to other people around them.
Are these deadly? No. But should a drug be legal simply because it is not?
Accidental deaths are also common to people that smoked pot.
And are you aware of hemp? Hemp is a all in one amazing cheap product that will nearly save our economy. Hemp can be grown anywhere, and has thousands of uses. It is the strongest rope, it can be easly turned into fuel, and can be made into paper, the first document of the deceleration of Independence was made on hemp paper, its just stupid to keep cannabis illleagle.
And cannabis, i do not consider a drug, its a herb.
And by people saying people do stupid stuff when their high on pot is completely true, but not to the existent of injury, when people are high on pot they are not on high speed chases or running around with guns like drunks or hard drugs do to you, when your high on pot, you just want to relax, people dont get angry when they are high and they dont get sad, they just relax and let it take its curse, its almost impossible to explain.
No one can ever give the country a straight answer on why it is illeagle, in the early 19th century it was illeagle because it was said that all the tribal people and African Americans smoked it making them violent, then during Vietnam it was made illeagle for the complete opposite reason, it was said to make people nicer and that our enemies will use it against us. I mean its proven to be non threatening to your life, there is little to no withdraw, thousands of things we can do with it other then getting high.
I dont have to get into the medical uses of it cause those are already in use and not one problem has occurred yet.
Im not a hippie, im a 26 year old collage graduate making 114,000 a year with a beautiful wife and 2 kids i love to death.............and i smoke pot.
I just dont see why we keep on pushing this law, we spend millions in law enforcement to stop a drug that has caused no problems to people but the law against it, in my opinion we just drop it and go after the real drugs, like crack PCP ect, and maybe start thinking what people are doing, keeping the two most toxic addicting substances (tobacco, liq) leagle, and the most effective, non threatning herb on the other side of the law. The only thing that makes scence is that it makes no scene at all.
And P.S. I typed this high
Zak9 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Relatively weak arguments from both sides. However, the forfeit in the last round effectively made Con concede arguments. I wish this debate had revolved more around the de-criminalize part of the resolution then the marijuana part. The facts being argued in the debate didn't exactly seem relevant. How do either arrive at their respective conclusions from whether or not pot causes lung damage? Regardless, Pro wins on concession. Conduct also goes to Pro for forfeit.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.