is Marijuana Bad?
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
Contra
| Started: | 6/14/2012 | Category: | Health |
| Updated: | 11 months ago | Status: | Post Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 699 times | Debate No: | 24278 |
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (5)
Votes (7)
|
Its not bad because its a good Stress Relief.
Marijuna may make someone get "good stress relief" due to the chemicals in cannabis, but it is a drug. Clear and simple. Meth is also a drug, and it makes people "feel good", that is why people use it. But is meth good? A person here; before and after meth usage (long term):
![]() Yeah I don't notice any difference at all. Back to the case though, marijuana is not good. It may make a person temporarily feel good, but the real health side effects? - Unsafe for Pregnancy and breast-feeding, associated with childhood leukemia - Heart Disease: One's heart beat can increase by 20 to 50 beats per minute, and a marijuana smoker is three times more at a risk of heart attack. [2] - A weaker immune system: Marijuana weakens the immune system, which will make the body more susceptable to infections. - Seizure disorders: Marijuana can exacerbate the seizure disorders of people who have them. - Lung Diseases: Long term use of marijuana can make lung problems even worse. Regular long term use is associated commonly with emphysema a lung disease. http://www.webmd.com... - Other Short term effects: problems with memory, learning, proper coordination, problem solving, increases heart rate and effected blood pressure (reduced) and other effects are associated with the usage of marijuana. - Negative Effects on the Brain: Marijuana can cause hallucinations, delusions, imparied memory and disorientation.
- Effects on the Lungs: Respiratory problems including the induction of emphysema, daily cough and phlegm production, acute chest illness, increased risk of lung infections and obstructed airways. Marijuana users are three times as likely to develop head and neck cancer than non smokers. http://lifestyle.iloveindia.com... Conclusion: Marijuana causes numerous negative effects on the body. Yes I do favor drug decriminalization, but I favor drug decriminalization because I think that people should be free to live their life, regardless of they wanted to smoke marijuana, which is nasty. Marijuana may make someone feel good, but marijuana for one's health is overall bad. |
![]() |
|
Okay Well if Weed is bad how come they put the chemicals into Prescription medicines and We only Hear cases about lung cancer but its bucause of Cigarrets but Not Weed so its really not Bad for a persons Health
I had no clue that they put marijuana chemicals in pharmaceutical medications..., and you gave no empirical evidence of this even being true. Furthermore, lung cancer is caused in one way by marijuana, in fact, my Michigan Driver's Training book said that when using marijuana, you are 3 times more likely to get in a car accident and 3 times more likely to get lung disease. And in addition to all my other points about the negative effects of marijuana, it is really not a smart thing to smoke. Not that it is smart to smoke anything, besides a roast. Extend all other arguments, and vote PRO! |
![]() |
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by AnalyticArizonan 11 months ago
| MarylinMonroe | Contra | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 0 | 7 |
Reasons for voting decision:
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 11 months ago
| MarylinMonroe | Contra | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 0 | 3 |
Reasons for voting decision: MarylinMonroe is a superhawt retard.
Vote Placed by waterskier 11 months ago
| MarylinMonroe | Contra | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 0 | 7 |
Reasons for voting decision: Damn con did awful in this.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 11 months ago
| MarylinMonroe | Contra | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 0 | 6 |
Reasons for voting decision: Unfortunately Con never defined the value measure which would be used to decide what is or is not bad. Therefore Pro's measuring stick of health effects was conceded without argument. Given the standard of health, marijuana was shown to clearly be bad with Pro sourcing all negative effects of the drug. Con would have done well to at least challenge the standard of measurement to attempt to win. S/g to Pro as well. MarilynMonroe couldn't communicate a coherent sentence like....Marilyn Monroe.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 11 months ago
| MarylinMonroe | Contra | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 0 | 5 |
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not present any case and so there is not really anything that can be measured for them. Thus arguments and sources must fall to Pro.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 11 months ago
| MarylinMonroe | Contra | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 0 | 7 |
Reasons for voting decision: This is not a votebomb. Conduct went to Pro because Con issued one short statement that had nothing to do with the case presented to the Con. Arguments went to Pro for the same reason. S/G went to Pro because... well, just check out Con's only statement. Sources went to Pro because he actually used them while Con used none and based her arguments off of idle speculation alone.
Vote Placed by Doulos1202 11 months ago
| MarylinMonroe | Contra | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | 0 | 6 |
Reasons for voting decision: Not a strong debate. Con offered nothing substantial for Pro to combat. Arguments, sources, and grammar go to pro.



















Unfortunately The Contender has used a series of quotes and links that are based on nothing but statistics. Due to prohibition, these statistics are not based on real-world numbers, as most consumers of cannabis are not counted due to them being 'underground'. Also using meth as a comparative and asking if it is 'good' too because it has been defined as a 'drug' is so weak that I'm actually laughing. Alcohol is a drug too. Everyone who has one too many - in fact anyone who gets drunk - is abusing drugs. Meth is such a terrible, terrible substance to try and draw comparisons from. It's not even in the same league!
Granted the advocate has asked a very silly question - asking if something is 'good' or 'bad' is completely irrelevant as there are almost always grey areas. However, The Contender has provided the same old unsubstantiated statistic-based references that only serve to enforce my perception of him as someone who is naive and really lacks the first-hand experience that would actually grant him a valid opinion. I don't think someone who has such an ignorant, 3rd party information fuelled point of view can sanction the legalisation of drugs either, as that discussion requires people who actually understand what narcotics are and understand the fact that statistics are no basis for lawmaking.