The Instigator
rtony_a
Pro (for)
Losing
23 Points
The Contender
Sam_Lowry
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

legalization of cannabis and hemp

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/19/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,397 times Debate No: 12091
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (10)

 

rtony_a

Pro

My position on this incredibly volatile and subjective topic is pro, the reasons being many and varied but mostly i am for because most arguments i have assessed in regards to this topic have been very well cited by the pro side, as well as having the classic arguments with speculative citations being used against the legalization. The numerous scientific facts simply point out the irrationality of our current state and federal laws concerning cannabis which the supporters of its illegality brush aside as having to little serious scientific proof, and also claiming to have evidence confirming to the contrary. As previously and numerously stated, this topic is constantly a theater and subjective environment and is quite difficult to debate, as compared to religion and other closely held beliefs which when contradicted have built in self defense mechanisms such as, "the devil made it happen that way." This is the way many of the arguments i have analyzed tend to wind up going and i am trying to find a well cited argument against the legalization of something that is constantly being proven to be something that both sides need to take a much closer look at.
Sam_Lowry

Con

My opponent is correct in his assessment of the general positions held by each side. In order to satisfy my opponent's request, I will acknowledge many of the myths and lies that tend to be propagated by both sides of this argument in order to demonstrate the whole truth. While it may appear as if I am hurting my own argument, I belief that a complete and thorough understanding of the issue is necessary in order to understand that the evidence weighs in favor of the con.

Unfortunately, The anti Marijuana coalition is cursed with a history or deceitful propaganda, lies, and coercive policy. This tends to lend much more credit than is due to the pro side of this argument, much like how a proponent of the Confederate flag would be instantly associated with racists and other hysteria. The fact that there is so much propaganda on the con side of this argument makes it difficult to assess the true risks and dangers of cannabis. As my opponent may suspect, the proponents of legalization and medical cannabis are not above releasing their own propaganda and misinformation campaigns. The difficulty with their style of propaganda is that it often appeals to compassion and respect for civil liberties as apposed to "protectionism" and public responsibility as the con does.

For example, one of the primary heralding of medical cannabis is that it is effective for treating glaucoma. In almost all cases, cannabis is not an appropriate treatment for glaucoma. While it does reduce pressure of the eye, it also increases heart rate and adversely effects blood pressure, often exasperating the condition more than helping it. The most obvious drawback is that cannabis must be taken up to eight times in one day in order to sustain a therapeutic effect of the useful kind. Essentially, one must be completely stoned every waking hour of the day to realistically treat most forms of glaucoma effectively.

http://www.eyecareamerica.org...

I'm aware that my opponent is arguing for the legalization of cannabis, rather than for medical use. However, I find it important to point out that the strategy behind the medical cannabis campaign uses many of the same strategies as the legalization campaign. It is factually correct to state that Cannabis relieves pain and pressure from glaucoma. Most studies done on the subject will show this. However, looking at the whole picture rather than one small fact reveals that medical cannabis is not a realistic treatment option for this ailment. Despite this, the majority of people will simply see opponents of medical cannabis simply refusing to "acknowledge" scientific data. In reality, many proponents of medical cannabis are guilty of the very accusation they make. It's unfortunate that medical cannabis has become so politicized, as there are genuine, even valuable uses for medical cannabis. In fact, I think all medical prohibition is an atrocity. The concept that lawmakers are more versed on medical literature to the effect that they "know" that cannabis will never ever be the optimal drug for a patient in any conceivable situation is absurd. They same can be said for almost all illicit drugs. Despite the fact that they should be kept illegal for recreational use, drugs such as cocaine, LSD, and even methamphetamine have valid medical uses. Unfortunately, the legalization campaign has spewed enough misinformation that it understandable for politicians to be wary of legalizing medical marijuana at all. As clich´┐Ż as it sounds, the medical marijuana movement is largely a backdoor approach to legalization.

Now, on to the legalization of cannabis itself. There are many schools of thought when it comes to the legalization of cannabis. The most mainstream are that it is less harmful than alcohol, and that it can help the economy, with other arguments including civil liberty and freedom. I will address the mainstream arguments first, and come back to the liberty issue in a bit.

Proponents of cannabis legalization most commonly argue that cannabis is less dangerous than alcohol. The most apparent flaw in this argument is that it is essentially comparing apples to oranges. Alcohol is a depressant, while Cannabis is a cocktail of drugs that can be considered a depressant, stimulant, and hallucinogen all at once. The two drugs both cause a host of problems to both the individual and to society as a whole. Cannabis is well known to increase heart rates and increase the likelihood of stroke or heart attack. It may also cause lung infections, bronchitis, and other respiratory issues. It's been linked to many social issues such as anti-social behavior, violence, and cognitive impairment, especially among the youth. Depression and psychosis have also been linked to the drug, although these conditions are less conclusive. My point is not to prove that cannabis is less dangerous than alcohol. Rather, my point is that Cannabis does cause harm to both the individual and to society as a whole, just like alcohol.

http://health.usnews.com...
http://health.usnews.com...
http://www.sciencedaily.com...
http://www.sciencedaily.com...
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

This of course, leads to the inevitable argument of "If alcohol is legal, cannabis should also be legal". This argument is a perfect example of a non sequiter. The idea that since one damaging substance is legal, all others should also be legal is silly. The most pragmatic solution would, in fact, be to reinstate prohibition. Alcohol Prohibition has been subject to endless inaccurate revisionism and downright lies; campaign of propaganda no better than the federal government's own "Reefer Madness" campaign. Prohibition did work, Prohibition does work, and Prohibition will continue to work for whatever substance it is applied to. During prohibition, alcohol use decreased an estimated 30-50%. Hospital admittances for cirrhosis, arrests for drunkenness, and suicide all decreased by roughly 50%. Organised crime became more visible for obvious reasons, but it did not within itself become more widespread or severe. These facts are all in the face of the fact that many states refused to enact or enforce local alcohol laws, leaving only 250 federal agents to enforce the law. Despite this ridiculous lack of executive power, Prohibition was a tremendous public health policy success. This phenomenon can be seen even today, in which countries who have de-facto legalized cannabis (such as the Netherlands and Canada) have seen cannabis use triple among young people.

http://www.nytimes.com...
http://www.druglibrary.org...
http://alcoholism.about.com...

Of course, alcohol prohibition would be nearly impossible to legislate today, because almost everyone uses alcohol. This does not mean that modern alcohol prohibition would not work, and would not improve public health. If the majority of Americans were Pedophiles, we would have the same problem with Pedophilia laws. Ultimately, keeping all damaging substances illegal will improve public health and safety. Thus, the only argument left would be one of civil liberties. I am nearly out of space, so I will end this round and let my opponent choose whether to challenge the notion that cannabis use is damaging to public health, and that prohibition works, or make the argument of civil liberties.
Debate Round No. 1
rtony_a

Pro

First of all, i would like to point out your interpretation of the "cocktail of drugs." Cannabis is not a cocktail of drugs, although it is known to have more than 66 other cannabinoids, which are a group of terpenophenolic compounds present in Cannabis (Cannabis sativa L) and occur naturally in the nervous and immune systems of animals. At the present time, there are three general types of cannabinoids: phytocannabinoids occur uniquely in the cannabis plant; endogenous cannabinoids are produced in the bodies of humans and other animals; and synthetic cannabinoids are similar compounds produced in a laboratory. Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), cannabidiol (CBD) and cannabinol (CBN) are the most prevalent natural cannabinoids and have received the most study. Other than that, we simply don't know much more about the other 66 cannabinoids due to the lack of or improper research. Also the idea that cannabis can be considered both a depressant and a stimulant as well as a hallucinogen is absurd. It is classified as a psychoactive drug, which means it is a chemical substance that crosses the blood-brain barrier and acts primarily upon the central nervous system where it alters brain function, resulting in changes in perception, mood, consciousness, cognition, and behavior. The misconception that you and numerous other people have that cannabis can be all these different things can be related to the fact that not every person is the same and all chemicals ingested by any one person act in an abundance of ways, some I'm sure are still unknown or only guessed at. Saying that, i could say that alcohol does the same, more or less, depending on the individual and how certain chemicals react to the individual.
"CHAPTER 1 Alcohol and Other Drugs". ISBN 0724533613. http://www.nt.gov.au....
It is also not well known to increase the risks of stroke or heart attack solely due to the increase in heart rate. Also, all of your cited sites state that these are incomplete and subjective studies, such as the teen depression link, which says, "The report, entitled "Teen Marijuana Use Worsens Depression: An Analysis of Recent Data Shows 'Self-Medicating' Could Actually Make Thing Worse," cites statistics to support its warning message, but experts are quick to note that it should be interpreted with caution. For example, the report's statement, "One 16-year study showed that individuals who were not depressed and then used marijuana were four times more likely to be depressed at follow-up," suggests marijuana MIGHT cause depression. That data from a 2001 study in the American Journal of Psychiatry was only statistically meaningful AFTER the researchers adjusted for variables including age, gender, and antisocial symptoms, suggesting a weaker relationship between depression and marijuana before adjustments were made. The study also showed that those who were not depressed when first surveyed and then used opioids were 228 times more likely to be depressed at follow-up—without any adjustments. That statistic was not mentioned in the Drug Control Policy's report today. "Adolescent marijuana use MAY be a factor that triggers psychosis, depression, and other mental illness," says Walters, acknowledging that "research about causality is still ongoing." In other words, in order for any of these findings to be truly informational, one must conduct a test of the use of tobacco and alcohol in such incidents as well.
Another of your citations states that "The researchers caution that the study is preliminary and does not demonstrate that marijuana use causes the brain abnormalities."
http://www.sciencedaily.com...
And another piece of important information found in this site is the fact that this study was conducted on heavy users, in other words, abusers. This means that like all things abused, it can be very detrimental to your health. Don't make it illegal, let people know how to use it responsibly.
I know that my opponent does not point out that either one is worse than the other, but wishes to be clear that both are a problem in society. The issue I have with that statement is that this is just an easy way out of ones problems. Saying that these are the reason society is messed up or are the cause of any social issues is simply saying that one is not able to say no to either substance. The problem in society is not these meager issues but a matter of a persons decision making. I may choose to become intoxicated, either by alcohol or cannabis, however how i choose to and when and where is why people get into any trouble using either one. We as a society don't hear about the people who responsibly utilize either substance to dull the pain of everyday life, instead we are bludgeoned by all the people who drink and drive and kill someone, or go to work impaired and lose their jobs because of it. If people were taught better early on they would make much better decisions in these situations, and know that it is not the substances that are to blame but ourselves for misusing them.
Along these guidelines, one could argue that fast food and cars should be under prohibition. However, who will actually vote to abolish McDonald's or Taco Bell, or to take away everyone's car and force everyone to take public transportation with a healthy meal that they don't like on the basis that it is in society's best interest? I for one would not do that. Who can say what is good or bad for you better than yourself? Although I may not know everything, I want to learn as much as I can, to make my own decision and not rely on another persons opinion on what i should or should not do.
I am not saying that we should legalize cannabis on the grounds that it is less toxic or less of a societal burden than alcohol or fast food or anything else that has the potential to be abused, I am saying that because it is able to intoxicate you and, once again, like many things has a potential for abuse, it should not be prohibited, but regulated. Yes prohibition brought alcohol consumption down and when it was gone it increased, that is only natural. But it was voted back in by the people in a democratic society who only want the liberty to chose to become intoxicated. And there are consequences to abusing alcohol, fines, jail time, loss of the driving privileges, etc. The same should be true of cannabis. I would say the same with all drugs, and maybe it should be, but we fight for cannabis because it IS known to have lower toxicity and levels of addiction compared to both the legal and other illegal substances, and because of this it should be the right and the responsibility of the individual to make the correct decisions regarding what they want to put in their body and when, not the governments.
Sam_Lowry

Con

I will begin with my opponents claim that "the idea that cannabis can be considered both a depressant and a stimulant as well as a hallucinogen is absurd." In a nutshell, no, it is not. My opponents seems to struggle with the concept of "psychoactive". Psychoactive is not a classification of drug in the sense that we are talking about. Caffeine, for example, is a psychoactive stimulant. Alcohol is considered a psychoactive depressant.

"Saying that, I could say that alcohol does the same, more or less, depending on the individual and how certain chemicals react to the individual."

This is one of the great problems when discussing pharmacological effects of any drug. Like I stated , the effects of most drugs can be subjective, leaving room open for interpretation. General classifications exists for the sake of simplicity and relative accuracy. Alcohol is primarily considered a depressant, but in small doses, for certain people, it does act a stimulant. This is different from cannabis in that the effects of administration can generally be classified in all three fields at once, due to the exhibition of different types of psychoactive properties at one time. My opponent is quick to dismiss the concept of cannabis being a cocktail of drugs. The fact remains that there are a plethora of active psychoactive compounds in cannabis that have unique effects depending on concentration. I am unsure of why my opponent was so defensive of this remark, as it does not imply anything about the inherent harms that Cannabis can cause. Rather, it simply examines a key difference between cannabis and alcohol.

http://www.a1b2c3.com...

I never claimed that cannabis caused depression, I simply stated that there is a link. I am unsure of what my opponent means by conducting similar tests with tobacco and alcohol. As I stated before, I am not looking to compare the drugs, rather I am simply showing that there are health risks. Admittedly, I believe I may have misspoken about risk of stroke being widely accepted. I had grouped it together with heart attacks, which are in a well known risk of cannabis use. There is compelling evidence that usage can cause strokes, but it is not conclusive.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
http://news.bbc.co.uk...

My opponent makes the assertion that cars should be banned using my logic. I disagree. Cars are a utilitarian mode of transpiration that represent a beneficial asset to humanity. Cars unarguably provide a net benefit to society.

Thankfully, my opponent finally made the fast food analogy. My opponent makes the assertion that using my logic, fast food should be banned. I completely agree. Fast food is the perfect example of what happens to society when individuals are allowed to make choices that are very unhealthy and self destructive. Fast food is arguably more addictive than most illegal drugs, and in many cases more damaging. While it's nice to think that people are able to make sane, rational choices and self indulge in unhealthy foods responsible, this is simply not connected to reality. As a result of fast food and junk food being legal, we have approximately 127 million adults in the U.S. being overweight, 60 million obese, and 9 million severely obese. The libertarian utopia in which all human beings are rational and capable of self regulation does not exist. A very, very small minority of people are able to self regulate, just as a very small minority of people are able to use Crack Cocaine without becoming addicted.

http://www.thatsfit.com...

"But it was voted back in by the people in a democratic society who only want the liberty to chose to become intoxicated."

The fact that the majority want a liberty to do something does not make it the best course of action. The fact that the majority of people want or do not want something to be legal is not logical grounds for making it so. Otherwise, my opponent would have instantly defeated himself, seeing as the majority of Americans do not want cannabis legalized.

"I am saying that because it is able to intoxicate you and, once again, like many things has a potential for abuse, it should not be prohibited, but regulated"

This statement does not make logical sense. Regulation will allow for more damage to be done to society and individuals than prohibition. My opponent further elaborates on his stance with this statement:

"...and because of this it should be the right and the responsibility of the individual to make the correct decisions regarding what they want to put in their body and when, not the governments."

Finally, my opponent explains his true feelings logic behind wanting legalization. Despite acknowledging that there would be potential for abuse and harm to society, my opponent claims that legalization is still the best course of action. The only way to reconcile this fact is to believe that "liberty" and "freedom" outweigh the tangible negative effects of legalization. This is clearly a false premise.

The entire concept of civil liberties is a false premise. It is essentially one that would state, people should be allowed to participate in actions that inevitability harm themselves and others because there is some type of "god given" or natural authority that gives them the ability to do so. Thus, it is on the same level of validity as say, appealing to the Bible. While obviously this premise cannot be proved to be untrue, assuming that it is true is simply faulty logic. There is no reason to believe that people have the unalienable right to harm themselves, especially when such harms cause damage to society as well. Any attempt to justify this position will essentially boil down to an appeal to authority or other type of logical fallacy.

That is not to say that all freedom is bad. Rather, it is to say that freedom cannot be used to justification for freedom. Freedom, when contributing to the well being and health of society, is a good thing. A general example of this would be free enterprise. Liberties need to be considered on a case by case basis in order to be considered logically beneficial and good, rather than using the false premise that liberty is some type of natural right. Like I said before, humans are not rational creatures, thus it does not make sense to entrust with them the legal right to participate in activities that can cause harm to themselves and others, when such a right will inevitably result in pain and suffering.

To put the argument of drug usage and civil liberties in context, I will use a simple theoretical situation. Say theoretically, cannabis is legalized next year. The following year, fatalities caused by cannabis usage increase by 50% (for arguments sake). My opponent argument would argue that, despite these negative consequences, that society is somehow better off than an alternative scenario in which cannabis was kept illegal and the negative consequences did not occur. Here it becomes clear that one would be unable to logically reason that scenario one is better than scenario two by any set of logical criteria. Rather, the reasoning that scenario one is better than scenario two requires one to accept that freedom itself somehow makes up for the pain and suffering that freedom brings.
Debate Round No. 2
rtony_a

Pro

Very well, i concede in the fact that cannabis can be construed as both stimulant and depressant, and that it can be considered as having a "plethora" of psychoactive compounds, although they are all cannabinoids.
What i meant by requiring similar tests of both tobacco and alcohol is the fact that you are using the statement that there is a link between cannabis and teen depression to condone its prohibition, therefore I attempted to refute it.
Saying that cars are an unarguably beneficial to society is true, without transportation as it exists in today's society, today's society would not exist as it does today. However, saying that your logic does not account for the banning of these vehicles is flawed. You say that you agree that fast food should be banned as well stating that it is a perfect example of society making an improper choice.
First i would like to ask you something. Are you saying that the government has the right to intervene in everyone's day to day lives using your rationale that they could be doing something detrimental to society or themselves? I feel i should go to the government now and request to begin a new agency, call it the Central Goodness Agency. Task said agents to violate the peoples constitutional rights on the grounds that they deem certain acts harmful to them and to be intervening in their best interest, be able to take away tv, all unhealthy food in the establishment, confiscate anything that can be used in any bad way. What i am saying may sound asinine, extreme and completely out of what you had in mind, or maybe its not. This scenario is portrayed in many dystopian novels, such as the novel Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley, We, by Yevgeny Zamyatin, and Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron. They point out the inherent evil in the procuring of power, it simply corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
What I am saying is that yes, you are correct in your statement that certain individuals cannot make good decisions. That certain people simply aren't equipped with the common sense that most of us are. But you are saying that we can't be trusted with our own well being and sound like you would rather alleviate yourself of the need to worry about your own life.
All I am trying to say is that you are being irrational in your arguments, saying basically that someone like god should come down and keep us all from ourselves. And yes it is impossible to expect everyone to do what they are supposed to, even with all the restrictions on alcohol and tobacco, young people are still able to get it and despite the illegality of many things, they are still being done in record numbers and its not going to get better because we restrict people. The same people you declare as incapable of making proper decisions are still doing so despite the restrictions of the godfigure who says he knows better for you.
But i digress. You say that making cannabis legal and regulating it in the same manner as alcohol will cause more harm and not justify the having of freedom. I never said that there was no potential for abuse, quite to the opposite I stated that along with television, candy and cellphones, cannabis has the infinite ability to be abused. The capacity for abuse does not pertain to the object or substance, rather the individual. What you are suggesting is a complete revamp of our constitutional rights which our forefathers found to be self evident and the GOD GIVEN RIGHT of all people. Your line of reasoning has been used by such groups as the KKK by saying that some people are made to be subjects to others, not equals, that segregation, not of race but perhaps by IQ points or some such method, is a good idea.
Also, saying that the "tangible negative effects of legalization" outweigh our constitutional liberties and freedoms means that you must have conducted several studies of controlled civilizations and you know that if it were legalized that it would be outrageously bad on society and therefore should remain illegal. You say things such as civil liberties are all false premises. I do not totally contest this note because I personally believe that the government uses many means to control us by using our own morals and beliefs against us. However, once again i digress.
You equate the facts of the harm cannabis causes with the Bible being true. I am not saying that it isn't harmful at all, only that along with all other legal and harmful things the prohibition of this substance is out of line.
So how does one deduce when a freedom contributes to the well being and health of society?
And how are we to take each case and judge it to be beneficial and good? Are we to revert to a feudal system and have a king with the "god given right" to lead us because we don't know how to take care of ourselves? Ok.
People are naturally inclined to cause themselves pain and suffering. It is an integral part of life as a whole, without it there would be no meaning to good and love and happy.
I would not, as indicated, argue that society has been better served, except to say that using the system the way it was intended, having all facts presented with no bias and no greed to taint it, that the people made an educated choice in regards to change, which is inherent in society as we know it, and decide to make it legal. And should it do so come November in both Oregon and California, and should such a situation occur, it would show that it was in fact illegal for a very good reason. However, it is not illegal due to such facts, but a severe misleading of the people as to the correct facts of cannabis and the lack of firm truths in defense of either side only shows further evidence that it is so unknown as to keep people from making their decisions based on truth.
You close by saying that freedom can only bring pain and suffering. So what did we have before democracy? Did we fight for our independence on a false notion that we were right and should be free? Or has freedom become so misused by the few in true power as to cause us to argue over the legality of a plant that even George Washington supposedly grew cannabis himself, and even Thomas Jefferson, however I cannot say for sure because like many things that i have to use to authenticate my point, I wasn't there and didn't see for myself so I cannot say for certain. But that is applicable to all points in this argument, I haven't seen it with my own two eyes so therefore it is going to be a matter of debate until we take the appropriate steps to find out. I cannot say with total confidence that my reasons and sources are totally valid to legalize it, but i do know that why it is illegal today is not based on truth, and it needs to be adjusted.
Sam_Lowry

Con

"First i would like to ask you something. Are you saying that the government has the right to intervene in everyone's day to day lives using your rationale that they could be doing something detrimental to society or themselves?"

If these actions cause a net negative effect on society, and the remedy to these actions can be demonstrated to have a net positive effect on society, then the government should have this right.

"I feel i should go to the government now and request to begin a new agency, call it the Central Goodness Agency. Task said agents to violate the peoples constitutional rights on the grounds that they deem certain acts harmful to them and to be intervening in their best interest, be able to take away tv, all unhealthy food in the establishment, confiscate anything that can be used in any bad way."

My opponent misconstrues my argument as one that will take away anything that can be used in a bad way. This is not true. I would not argue that firearms should be blanket banned or confiscated, because there is compelling evidence that firearms deter crime from happening in many states. However, if it could be convincingly demonstrated that this was not in fact true, and that confiscating firearms would not within itself result in a larger problem than the solution set out to correct, then I would be in favor of banning firearms. My argument is one of pure pragmatism, not blind statism.

My opponent goes on to point out several fictional stories emphasizing the evil of government. I am not sure why he does this. I can just as easily point out the films Gabriel Over the White House and Men in Black.

"The same people you declare as incapable of making proper decisions are still doing so despite the restrictions of the godfigure who says he knows better for you."

But they do it less than if it was legal. The Netherlands is a prime example of this, like I stated before. Use nearly tripled among the youth.

"What you are suggesting is a complete revamp of our constitutional rights which our forefathers found to be self evident and the GOD GIVEN RIGHT of all people."

I'm glad you're finally catching on.

"Also, saying that the "tangible negative effects of legalization" outweigh our constitutional liberties and freedoms means that you must have conducted several studies of controlled civilizations and you know that if it were legalized that it would be outrageously bad on society and therefore should remain illegal."

Constitutional rights and freedoms have no value in a purely logical assessment of the situation. Like I mentioned before, any attempt to justify an apparently "self evident" freedom draws upon an appeal to authority or false premise. The fact that something is in the Constitution or espoused by the founding fathers does not give it any intrinsic utilitarian value. Furthermore, the term "outrageously bad" is subjective, and I do not claim this to be the case. My assessment of the situation is the result of a very simple set of premises.

1. Cannabis is an abusable drug that can cause harm to society.
2. Prohibition of cannabis causes fewer people to use it.
3. Therefore, cannabis should remain illegal.

"So how does one deduce when a freedom contributes to the well being and health of society?
And how are we to take each case and judge it to be beneficial and good?"

Through scientific and logical assessments of each individual situation without using logical fallacies such as civil liberties or God given rights. For example, one can hardly argue that the freedom to espouse Holocaust denial and hatred for minorities is beneficial for society, and as a result many countries have banned both of these things. However, freedom to express one's political opinion of, say, a presidential candidate is of the utmost value to a healthy society.

"People are naturally inclined to cause themselves pain and suffering."

Which is why we need to protect them from themselves. Is it not cruel to allow a mentally ill person to mutilate themselves? Is it then not cruel to fail to prevent people from participating in potentially self destructive behavior? Is there even a difference?

"You close by saying that freedom can only bring pain and suffering. So what did we have before democracy? Did we fight for our independence on a false notion that we were right and should be free?"

I would like my opponent to take a step back and realize the irony of this statement. Democracy is a far cry from freedom. Democracy allows for the majority to enact tyranny over the minority. We flirted with the concept of extreme freedoms under the Articles of Confederations, which failed miserably. Furthermore, I did not state that freedom brings only suffering. Freedom entails the ability to choose. This implies that in most cases, there will be a right choice, and a wrong choice. In some cases, this is a necessary function in that the benefits of having freedom of choice outweigh the negatives. Drug abuse is not such a scenario.

"but i do know that why it is illegal today is not based on truth, and it needs to be adjusted."

Cannabis was originally banned because of racist fears against Mexicans. We have already adjusted our reasoning as to why it is to remain illegal to be that it causes harm to society. While the levels of danger are not entirely well agreed upon, you do not dispute that danger exists, and you do not dispute that prohibition works.

In summary, we both agree that prohibition inhibits the harms caused by cannabis on society. Your entire argument rests on the premise that there is some type of reasoning that transcends logic for which cannabis should be legalized.
Debate Round No. 3
rtony_a

Pro

"Which is why we need to protect them from themselves."
Should you sit in judgment of all and decide who is capable of self-governance and who needs a guiding light from above? Your statement here suggests that somehow you know what is good for me better than I do for myself.
"Is it not cruel to allow a mentally ill person to mutilate themselves?"
Yes, of course it is. This is due to the fact that they cannot physically function because of a mental disability. You are comparing the mentally disabled to normal and properly functioning human beings. No, not everyone makes the right decision all the time, this is only natural, for none of us are "God" and failure has been the stepping stone for success since the dawn of time. But to rationalize control over what a person can do by comparing normally functioning persons to the mentally handicapped is ludicrous. There is absolutely a difference between preventing a handicapped person from harm they are absolutely unable to do themselves and preventing a totally rational person from making the choice based on facts and their own knowledge to participate in something that is potentially harmful to them.
Of course democracy is a far cry from true freedom. It is yet another system of control that allows for misuse. I had brought up the point of the dystopian novels to demonstrate the fact that the government is in more control than people give them credit for. Say that this proposition to legalize cannabis is put on November's ballot and it is more than likely going to be voted into law. Who doesn't believe that certain parties would not bribe, threaten and otherwise coerce the governor to veto the new bill? This is the real reason that it is illegal today. The first laws against the cannabis drugs were passed with little public attention. Concern about marijuana was related primarily to the fear that marijuana use would spread, even among whites, as a substitute for the opiates. In 1925 United States supported regulation of Indian hemp, Cannabis for use as a drug, in the International Opium Convention.

W.W. WILLOUGHBY: OPIUM AS AN INTERNATIONAL PROBLEM, BALTIMORE, THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS, 1925

Indeed, Anslinger did not himself consider marijuana a serious threat to American society until in the fourth year of his tenure (1934), at which point an anti-marijuana campaign, aimed at alarming the public, became his primary focus as part of the government's broader push to outlaw all drugs.

ROOSEVELT ASKS NARCOTIC WAR AID, 1935

By using the mass media as his forum (receiving much support from William Randolph Hearst), Anslinger propelled the anti-marijuana sentiment from the state level to a national movement. Writing for The American Magazine, the best examples were contained in his "Gore File", a collection of quotes from police reports, by later opponents described as police-blotter-type narratives of heinous cases, most with no substantiation, linking graphically depicted offenses with the drug. Anslinger used sometimes the very brief and concise language in many police reports when he wrote about drug crimes:

"An entire family was murdered by a youthful addict in Florida. When officers arrived at the home, they found the youth staggering about in a human slaughterhouse. With an axe he had killed his father, mother, two brothers, and a sister. He seemed to be in a daze… He had no recollection of having committed the multiple crime. The officers knew him ordinarily as a sane, rather quiet young man; now he was pitifully crazed. They sought the reason. The boy said that he had been in the habit of smoking something which youthful friends called "muggles," a childish name for marijuana."

Victor Licata Research by Uncle Mike

Anslinger has been accused responsible for racial themes in articles against marijuana in the 1930s.
"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others."

"Colored students at the Univ. of Minn. partying with (white) female students, smoking [marijuana] and getting their sympathy with stories of racial persecution. Result: pregnancy"
Gray, Michael (1998). Drug Crazy: How We Got Into this Mess and How We Can Get Out. Random House.

Inciardi, James A. (1986). The War on Drugs: Heroin, cocaine, crime, and public policy. Palo Alto: Mayfield Publishing Company. pp. 231.

The decision of the United States Congress to pass the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was based on hearings, reports and in part on testimony derived from articles in newspapers owned by William Randolph Hearst, who had significant financial interests in the timber industry, which manufactured his newsprint.

"Additional Statement of H.J. Anslinger, Commissioner of Narcotics"

The La Guardia Committee was the first in depth study into the effects of smoking marijuana. It systematically contradicted claims made by the U.S. Treasury Department that smoking marijuana results in insanity, deteriorates physical and mental health, assists in criminal behavior and juvenile deliquency, is physically addictive, and is a "gateway" drug to more dangerous drugs. The report was prepared by the New York Academy of Medicine, on behalf of a commission appointed in 1939 by New York Mayor Fiorello La Guardia who was a strong opponent of the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act . Released in 1944, the report infuriated Harry Anslinger who was campaigning against marijuana and he condemned it as unscientific. Anslinger went on an offensive against what he saw as a "degenerate Hollywood" that was promoting marijuana use.

HARRY J. ANSLINGER: The Murderers THE STORY OF THE NARCOTIC GANGS, 1962

These are the findings of the La Guardia Committee:

* 1 Marijuana is used extensively in the Borough of Manhattan but the problem is not as acute as it is reported to be in other sections of the United States.
* 2 The introduction of marijuana into this area is recent as compared to other localities.
* 3 The cost of marijuana is low and therefore within the purchasing power of most persons.
* 4 The distribution and use of marijuana is centered in Harlem.
* 5 The majority of marijuana smokers are Blacks and Latin-Americans.
* 6 The consensus among marijuana smokers is that the use of the drug creates a definite feeling of adequacy.
* 7 The practice of smoking marijuana does not lead to addiction in the medical sense of the word.
* 8 The sale and distribution of marijuana is not under the control of any single organized group.
* 9 The use of marijuana does not lead to morphine or heroin or cocaine addiction and no effort is made to create a market for these narcotics by stimulating the practice of marijuana smoking.
* 10 Marijuana is not the determining factor in the commission of major crimes.
* 11 Marijuana smoking is not widespread among school children.
* 12 Juvenile delinquency is not associated with the practice of smoking marijuana.
* 13 The publicity concerning the catastrophic effects of marijuana smoking in New York City is unfounded.
No I do not dispute the fact that there is a danger, as there is inherent danger in leaving one's bed in the morning. No I do not dispute that prohibition will naturally reduce the consumers of a substance. What I do dispute is the legitimacy of the government to continue the unfair prohibition of a substance proved to be less detrimental than legal substances. It always boils down to the fact that a plethora of unhealthy and harmful substances are legal and this one should not be illegal based on the current reasoning which is based not on truth. If you would like your revamp of society and our constitution, take it up with congress and let me know how it goes.
Sam_Lowry

Con

Should you sit in judgment of all and decide who is capable of self-governance and who needs a guiding light from above?"

It is not a matter of selectively choosing who is "capable" of self governance. This statement is a false dichotomy in that it it is assumed that the government would judge who is capable of total self restraint and who must be completely controlled. This is untrue for several reasons. First and foremost, one or more restrictions on self governance is not equivalent to total restriction of self governance. Secondly, it is undeniable that the dilemma of rationality vs. morality exists, otherwise government would be almost entirely unnecessary. From a purely rational perspective, one need not apply basic moral code to the treatment of others if it will not effect one's self interest. Thus, the government's "guiding light" is in fact necessary in at least some cases. While this does not directly apply to your current argument, I am presenting it now, preemptively.

"Your statement here suggests that somehow you know what is good for me better than I do for myself."

This accusation attempts to provoke an emotional response to an issue I have already debunked. It can be empirically proved that there are net negative consequences to marijuana use. Therefore, one who chooses to partake in this unhealthy activity obviously does not understand what is "good for them" as well as those who understand even a fraction of the empirical evidence regarding the topic. Obviously people cannot be experts on every single subject. If they were, consumer rights laws and commercial regulations would not be necessary. These laws protect people from making poor choices they are not qualified make. It is easy to hide behind the false premise of "freedom", but in reality, there is no intrinsic value to society in allowing people to make choices they are not qualified to make. By my opponents logic, consumer safety regulations regarding automobile safety standards should be repealed. People should be allowed to drive the cheapest, most dangerous car they can find, even if it lacks basic safety features such as airbags (which DO exist in the global market, but cannot be imported due to said safety standards). The reality is that most people are not qualified to calculate the risk vs. reward ratio that entails such a choice. Forcing the standardization of consumer safety saved thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of lives. Clearly freedom was not working in this case. Clearly, the philosophy of having the freedom to make unqualified choices does not work, and has no intrinsic value to society. Sometimes (A.K.A. virtually all of the time) experts DO know what's better for people they they themselves do. This is why government policy should be based on secular, rational, scientific consensus that will provide the greatest net value to society.

I say secular because blind belief in freedom is not a rational position to take. It rivals that of outright religion in it's self presumed requirements to be upheld despite concrete negative consequences. You mention that the founders believed that certain freedoms were self evidence as backing for your blind support of unlimited personal freedom. The founders attempted to justify the institution of unconditional freedom by claiming that these freedoms are self evident. I cannot fathom how anyone can look at that type of reasoning and conclude it to be logical. I can just as easily claim that the accuracy of the Bible is self evident, or that a nonspecific governmental authority is self evident, or that the right to complete and total freedom from any type of government at all is self evident.

"But to rationalize control over what a person can do by comparing normally functioning persons to the mentally handicapped is ludicrous. There is absolutely a difference between preventing a handicapped person from harm they are absolutely unable to do themselves and preventing a totally rational person from making the choice based on facts and their own knowledge to participate in something that is potentially harmful to them."

Not at all. My opponent once again presents a false dichotomy by implying that one is either rational or not rational. To be human is to be somewhat inherently irrational. People are not robots, and contain emotions and beliefs that are not rational, which lead to irrational and damaging choices. While the average person can usually be said to have more rationality than a person who is mentally or emotionally ill, rationality is measured on a sliding scale, not by a simple yes/no checkmark. The human mind is simply incapable of choosing the most rational and least destructive choice 100% of the time. Taking this into account, it makes logical sense to reduce the number of opportunities a person may make that are self destructive by nature, just as we reduce the destructive opportunities of the mentally ill.

"I had brought up the point of the dystopian novels to demonstrate the fact that the government is in more control than people give them credit for."

My opponent appears to take dystopian novels as historical or factual references. He also claims that the government is more in control than people give them credit for. This statement is misleading. Government has only as as much control as the people allow it too. This goes for every for of government, not simply democracy. Government cannot survive long term without the support or toleration of "the people".

"The decision of the United States Congress to pass the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was based on hearings, reports and in part on testimony derived from articles in newspapers owned by William Randolph Hearst, who had significant financial interests in the timber industry, which manufactured his newsprint."

This is a wildly inaccurate portrayal of William Randolph Hearst. He almost fell into bankruptcy due to price hikes on paper (of which his newspaper chain was one of the countries largest consumers). He would have only served to gain from the supposed benefits of cheap hemp paper. It is an tragic circumstance, where one of the only American whistle-blowers of the rising atrocities of Nazism is slanderously accused of conspiring to conceal he truth for profit.

http://www.alternet.org...

My opponent references the La Gaurdia report, which I am familiar with. The La Gaurdia report is generally outdated, as it attempted to isolate social issues within a very limited area and time period. Points 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, and 12 can be said to have been either debunked or have evolved well beyond the scope of he initial conclusion. Regardless, The La Gaurdia report does not even condone legalization.

The rest of my opponent's citations are based on the testimony of Harry Anslinger, who was undoubtedly racist and irrational in his claims. However, it is a blatant red herring to use this as an argument for legalization. While the original rational may have been flawed, there are compelling reasons to keep cannabis illegal. The sum of these reasons is that cannabis use is inherently unhealthy. Getting out of bed entails risk, but is not inherently healthy. Getting out of bed is a required action in order to provide a net benefit to one-self's well being and to society. Cannabis usage is not. The idea that even if majority of people believe that cannabis was illegal for the wrong reasons does not make the position of cannabis prohibition wrong.

"If you would like your revamp of society and our constitution, take it up with congress and let me know how it goes."

The Supreme Court has already effectively dismissed most of the relevant parts of the Constitution that could theoretically be applied to alleged consumer freedoms. Even fast food prohibition could be justified through current legal precedent, and such an act is not unlikely.
Debate Round No. 4
rtony_a

Pro

First, the "wildly inaccurate portrayal" of William Randolph Hearst. Yes he almost went bankrupt and yes it would appear that he would have only benefited from cheaper hemp paper. It also states in the paragraph following yours that: "In any case, the Hearst papers never needed hidden self-interest to trumpet fiendish menaces. The expression "yellow journalism" comes from Hearst's campaign for a war against Spain in 1898. And from the 1930s on, his papers were finding RED SUBVERSIVES and PINKO FELLOW-TRAVELERS under every bed. In 1935, a University of Chicago professor accused of being a Communist by the Hearst-owned Herald-Examiner told the Nation that the reporter covering him had admitted, "We do just what the Old Man orders. One week he orders a campaign against rats. The next week he orders a campaign against dope peddlers. Pretty soon he's going to campaign against college professors. It's all the bunk, but orders are orders." "
Orders are orders. Because some people just know better.
How does the idea that even if a majority of people believe that cannabis was made illegal for the wrong reasons make my position on cannabis prohibition wrong? The fact that it was made illegal due to untruths and half conceived notions that it is terribly unhealthy is exactly the point that many cannabis activists are pointing out. It is because of these irrationalities as to the toxicity and harm cannabis causes that has decreased its public awareness as far as actual knowledge of its health effects is concerned, as well as it being misconstrued as an awful substance that turns people into addicts who will do anything to get their fix because it is grouped improperly with cocaine and heroin.
Despite cannabis being the most widely used illicit drug in the Western world, controlled trials for cannabis use disorder have only been reported in literature in the last 15 years. Though controversial (many clinicians continue to conclude that the relatively mild withdrawal syndrome associated with cannabis indicates that dependence is unlikely and treatment unnecessary), research has shown a substantial percentage of cannabis users develop cannabis-related problems, including dependency. Overall, the addiction potential for cannabis is significantly less than that for tobacco, alcohol, cocaine or heroin, but slightly higher than that for psilocybin, mescaline, LSD, and MDMA.

Anthony, J., Warner, L. & Kessler, R. (1994). Comparative epidemiology of dependence on tobacco, alcohol, controlled substance and inhalants: Basic findings from the National Comorbidity Survey. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology 2, 244-268
Swift, W., Hall, W. & Teesson, M. (2001). Cannabis use and dependence among Australian adults: Results from the National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing. Addiction 96, 737-748
Anthony, J.C. & Helzer, J.E. (1991). Syndromes of drug abuse and dependence. In. L.N. Robins & D.A. Regier. (Eds.). Psychiatric disorders in America: The Epidemiological Catchment Area Study, pp. 116-154. New York: The Free Press.
http://www.druglibrary.org...
http://www.drugrehabtreatment.com... The Most Addictive Drugs

The point here, once again, is that the socially accepted drugs of today alcohol and tobacco are inherently more toxic and harmful. Also, neither of these substances have the medicinal properties cannabis is known to have. This is the reason that it has been made medically legal in 14 states. The fact that most people, even though they may not have all the knowledge on how cannabis may be harmful to the user still find that it is not a big deal, which is shown by the fact that 13 states have decriminalized it.
As to another of the empirically proved net negative consequences of cannabis consumption, the largest longitudinal study examining the link between cannabis and psychosis was undertaken by Andreasson and colleagues and followed 45,570 male Swedish Army conscripts for 15 years. After controlling for other factors such as parental mental illness or a pre-existing psychotic illness at conscription, the study found that the odds of developing schizophrenia later in life were "1.5 times higher for those who had used cannabis 1-10 times and 2.3 times more likely for those who had used cannabis 10 times or more". Further to criticism that the study did not control for the use of other potentially psychotogenic substances such as amphetamines, a follow-up study re-analyzed the data and ruled out this argument, finding that cannabis use remained predictive of schizophrenia in a dose-dependent manner even after accounting for other substance use and pre-morbid social integration.

Andreasson, S., Allebeck, P. and Rydberg, U. (1989). Schizophrenia in users and nonusers of cannabis: a longitudinal study in Stockholm County.

However, a 2005 meta analysis of available data which evaluated several hypotheses regarding the correlation of cannabis and psychosis found that there is no support for the hypothesis that cannabis can cause cases of psychosis which would not have occurred otherwise, however further study is needed to explore the correlation between cannabis and other types of psychosis patients. Studies have shown that a risk does exist in some individuals with a predisposition to mental illness to develop symptoms of psychosis. The risk was found to be directly related to high dosage and frequency of use, early age of introduction to the drug, and was especially pronounced for those with a predisposition for mental illness. These results have been questioned as being biased by failing to account for medicinal versus recreational usage — critics contend it could be a causal relationship, or it could be that people who are susceptible to mental problems tend to smoke cannabis, or it could be connected to the criminalization of cannabis. Another important question is whether the observed symptoms of mental illness are actually connected to development of a permanent mental disorder; cannabis may trigger latent conditions, or be part of a complex coordination of causes of mental illness, referred to in psychology as the diathesis-stress model. People with developed psychological disorders are known to self-medicate their symptoms with cannabis as well, although one study has claimed that those with a predisposition for psychosis did not show a statistically significant increase in likelihood of cannabis use four years later.

Degenhardt L, Hall W, Lynskey M (2001). Comorbidity between cannabis use and psychosis: Modelling some possible relationships. Technical Report No. 121. Sydney: National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre. http://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au.... Retrieved 19.18.2006.
T.F. Denson, M. Earleywine (June 20, 2005). "Decreased depression in marijuana users". Addictive Behaviors.

Once again, it boils down to the fact that there is an equal and opposite argument for almost every scientific claim made about cannabis on both sides of this debate. This tells me two things, that there needs to be irrefutable scientific evidence pointing one way or the other, and that people should be properly educated rather than prohibited. There needs to be once and for all a truly unbiased test pointing out the very real facts of both sides of cannabis consumption, good and bad. And, just like tobacco and alcohol, have a government controlled warning telling people the toxicity, potency and risks of use. For the government to alleviate some of people's natural destructive choices, regulation not prohibition should be utilized. All you are saying in your logic is that cannabis should be regulated by the government instead of prohibited, because the government can control it better than the people who need protection from themselves. Because, being prohibited, people will still choose to use this substance and should be properly informed and regulated instea
Sam_Lowry

Con

It also states in the paragraph following yours that: "In any case, the Hearst papers never needed hidden self-interest to trumpet fiendish menaces"

I never claimed that his stories were based on reality. I simply stated that his motives were not of greed or maliciousness. He faked news stories because he believed it would benefit the country, and probably because he in one way in another believed that those stories could have or were happening even if he had no proof. Inaccurate Journalism, while ethically wrong, is a far, far cry from lieing to the country for direct monetary gain.

"How does the idea that even if a majority of people believe that cannabis was made illegal for the wrong reasons make my position on cannabis prohibition wrong?"

Never have I said this. I simple stated that the fact that the initial premise for criminalization being false does not make your proposal valid. It neither validates or invalidates your proposal. It just is. Many of the public tobacco smoking bans were based on faulty information. We now know without a doubt that second hand smoke is dangerous. The idea that since the facts that the initial premise was based in were flawed, the initial premise must be false is not a logically sound argument. A better example would be the War in Iraq. It's generally accepted that the facts used to justify the war were false. Despite this, many people still support the war for entirely different reasons than they initially did. This does not validate or disprove the argument of people who are against the war.

"All you are saying in your logic is that cannabis should be regulated by the government instead of prohibited, because the government can control it better than the people who need protection from themselves."

Prohibition is a form of regulation, but I can't even fathom how one could use my logic to propose legalization.

"Because, being prohibited, people will still choose to use this substance and should be properly informed and regulated instea"

Yes, but fewer people will choose to use it when it is illegal. The less drug use there is, the more healthy and productive society is. That is my entire argument condensed into two sentences. You argue that cannabis is less damaging than tobacco or Alcohol. Regardless of whether or not this is a true statement, it does not refute my argument. Since my argument is that all dangerous substances should be outlawed, you haven't even cast doubt as to the validity of my argument.

Let's say that a new type of designer drug is developed. It is more addictive than Heroin, and more dangerous than Crystal Meth. Since it is an entirely new drug, it does not fall under any law regarding narcotics. By your logic, since there exists a legal drug that is less dangerous and addictive than any drug known to the earth, all drugs should be legal. It's a complete non sequiter that appeals to an inherent flaw in our legal system.

My opponent lists scientific studies in order to highlight uncertainty in regards to specific negative effects of cannabis. He then attempts to formulate, from this contrast, the idea that cannabis should be legalized due to the uncertainty. My argument aside, this is a very reckless and dangerous way of dealing with any type of problem. Certainty is paramount to consumer rights and safety. However, all of this is besides the point. Many of the harms of cannabis are well documented and undisputed. It can cause lung infections, bronchitis, and other respiratory problems. These few, well known, and virtually undisputed effects of cannabis are enough to warrant it's criminalization. These effects cause a negative net loss to society in both public health costs and workplace productivity. Therefore, cannabis should be kept illegal. The ONLY justification for legalization rests in an abstract and illogical concept total freedom. My opponent has repeatedly failed to refute my assertions that using freedom as an argument is a false premise. Rather, he has been forced to make appeals to authority and make red herrings in order to draw attention away from this fact. It does not surprise me that my opponent has resorting to once again discussing the health effects of cannabis, as he likely knows that he has no way to justify his foundational assertion of freedom as a value.

There is nothing wrong with believing in freedom. But that is all freedom really is. A belief. A belief based on faith, which has no place in a logical debate. My opponent would argue that, despite the costs to society, despite the costs to the individual, and despite the fact that the there would be an overall net negative effect, cannabis should still be made legal. This is not because of any logical assertion. It is because he believes that the concept of freedom outweighs the cost to society. I've pointed out that he has no logical rational for believing this, and he has been unable to defend himself.

I'm aware that the audience is likely to inherently favor pro. I'd like to encourage the audience to vote based purely on the logical content and substance of each argument rather than based on preconceived beliefs. One can still believe in freedom and recognize the inherent lack of logic in its belief.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by rtony_a 7 years ago
rtony_a
lol sorry about that, it seemed to cut off the very last of it, it logged me out, then once i had logged back in, it posted it incomplete. it was supposed to say regulated instead of prohibited, prohibited being the final word in my post.
Posted by Sam_Lowry 7 years ago
Sam_Lowry
I didn't say try, I said use. I can see why you would interpret it that way, and maybe I could have worded it better. Freebase Cocaine is associated with an extremley high rate of dependence for regular users, unlike that of alcohol, marijuana, etc...

IMO, crack is extremley hard to judge as far as addiction goes, at least compared to most other drugs. Animal studies show that it is 100% addictive, as in every single case the specimen will eventually become addicted. But it has few if any symptoms involving physical withdrawal, and your correct in saying that most people who try it once won't become addicts.
Posted by Ecweiss6041 7 years ago
Ecweiss6041
One thing that should be mentioned:
the anti-legalization advocate is mistaken when he says the vast majority of people who try crack become addicted to it. In fact it's not even close to the majority. The same goes with all drugs (though a higher percentage of people do become addicted to crack than coffee)
Posted by rtony_a 7 years ago
rtony_a
so be it
Posted by Sam_Lowry 7 years ago
Sam_Lowry
I'll wait for the end of debate to explain my actual philosophy.
Posted by rtony_a 7 years ago
rtony_a
lol no problem, it almost just did that to me, but it auto saved it so i managed to post it. Are you actually against this or are you just trying to see every side of the situation? i did this to sharpen my understanding of both sides. i feel it is really only a matter of time before it gets legalized, too many people dont feel that bad about it and so many people have used it. its the number one cash crop in at least three states and the top three in more than a dozen.
Posted by Sam_Lowry 7 years ago
Sam_Lowry
Sorry that took so long. I wrote the whole thing up and tried to submit, but I had been logged out and most of what I had written was deleted.
Posted by rtony_a 7 years ago
rtony_a
The legalization of marijuana would entail the retail sale at such establishments as liquor stores and perhaps even head shops where consenting adults of age 21 and over can present their identification and purchase the amount of cannabis desired, adults will be allowed to grow their own personal supply and with proper stamps and paperwork produce hemp and cannabis for retail sale through the state government thereby increasing state funds. In this way we can more easily control the consumption by underage and irresponsible people. I say more easily because like alcohol and tobacco, minors will always be able to get a hold of substances not intended for their use, making it illegal does not stop someone who really wants something.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Define "legalization". What does that entail, specifially?
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by jgkobza 6 years ago
jgkobza
rtony_aSam_LowryTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Vote Placed by Harman 6 years ago
Harman
rtony_aSam_LowryTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Vote Placed by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
rtony_aSam_LowryTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Vote Placed by casimirpulaski 6 years ago
casimirpulaski
rtony_aSam_LowryTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by 11rwegan 7 years ago
11rwegan
rtony_aSam_LowryTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Sam_Lowry 7 years ago
Sam_Lowry
rtony_aSam_LowryTied
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 
Vote Placed by SukiWater 7 years ago
SukiWater
rtony_aSam_LowryTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by Cpotts 7 years ago
Cpotts
rtony_aSam_LowryTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by sqr47 7 years ago
sqr47
rtony_aSam_LowryTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by rtony_a 7 years ago
rtony_a
rtony_aSam_LowryTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50