The Instigator
heyitsjay
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
leet4A1
Pro (for)
Winning
32 Points

legalization of marijuana

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 4/28/2009 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,966 times Debate No: 8022
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (5)

 

heyitsjay

Con

Evidence will show and who ever is to argue with me will hear that making marijuana a legal drug will be one of the most critical mistakes this country shall make. Marijuana has been one of the most commonly illegal drugs to be consumed by people through out the world. Statistics show that the death toll of marijuana consumers is at a very low state compared to the deaths of cocaine and tobacco consumers. Despite the fact it may not cause death, marijuana has been proved to have had many medical effects on people. For the United Sates to make a drug that has had many negative effects on our society an accepted product for our people is quite frankly, one of the worst mistakes our country has made.
leet4A1

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for starting this debate. I am arguing for the legalization of marijuana in the U.S.A., and my opponent will argue CON.

I will start by rebutting my opponent's opening arguments, then provide a few of my own:

"Statistics show that the death toll of marijuana consumers is at a very low state compared to the deaths of cocaine and tobacco consumers. Despite the fact it may not cause death, marijuana has been proved to have had many medical effects on people."

This is partially correct; the death toll of marijuana consumers as a primary cause of death is not low, it's zero. This is because it is extremely non-toxic. All drugs are toxic to some degree, their toxicity being dependent upon their 'therapeutic ratio', also known as the 'effect-to-death ratio' or 'therapeutic index'. Put simply, if a particular drug, say alcohol, has a therapeutic ratio of 8, then 8 times the quantity necessary to give you a buzz is required to kill you. [1] Cannabis (regardless its consumption method, though smoked marijuana is the weakest) has an indeterminate therapeutic index, as it is just too high to measure. It does exist to be sure, but it is in the order of thousands. This is a nice scientific way of saying "you can not die from marijuana". [2]
My opponent's assertion that marijuana causes adverse medical effects in those who consume it cannot be denied, and I'd be a fool to try. But this is not a reason in and of itself to make something illegal, as I'll explain below.

"For the United Sates to make a drug that has had many negative effects on our society an accepted product for our people is quite frankly, one of the worst mistakes our country has made."

When considering the legality of something, the Government takes a large number of factors into consideration, but no more than harm to society. We've seen alcohol made illegal in many countries in the past, and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM reversed the decision after a short period of time. [3] Nobody would be silly enough to suggest that alcohol is good for individual consumption, as the list of diseases and personal problems which may arise from alcohol use is undeniable. Is that to say that the Governments who reversed prohibition law were not looking out for the best interests of society? Of course not. Prohibition was repealed more often than not because it didn't work; that is, alcohol consumption didn't drop a bit, and in fact increased in America.
Now let's take a look at Cannabis. You said yourself that "Marijuana has been one of the most commonly illegal drugs to be consumed by people through out the world", and this is despite its illegality. This is despite the fact that hard-working fathers are imprisoned for smoking a plant, possibly turning them into ACTUAL criminals, i.e. criminals who actually negatively impact on society. Despite the fact that billions are spent every year on a war on drugs, which is being won by a bunch of drug-addicts, showing how ineffective the 'war' really is.
My point here is that although smoking marijuana may negatively effect the individual, it has no negative bearing upon society, which is where the Government's interests lay.
====
I will now provide a few arguments of my own:

1. Legalizing marijuana for purchase in stores would ease the recession immensely. My opponent is presumably arguing in the best interests of society, yet nobody could deny the recession as the biggest threat to our society at present. Even if we presume only a quarter of Americans smoke weed daily, and only a gram a day. These are very conservative estimates. Let's pretend the Government wants to charge $10 a gram (making for a $280 ounce). With 300,000,000 Americans, we've got 75,000,000 smokers spending $10 a day, with a large majority of the profit going to the Government. Conversely, every day marijuana remains illegal, that immense amount of money goes to drug dealers and gangs.

2. It is hypocritical of the Government to allow (even endorse) alcohol consumption, yet imprison pot smokers. Alcohol kills, pot doesn't. Alcohol causes fights, pot diffuses them. Indeed, we could set up a table of all negative effects a drug may produce for the consumer's life (socially, mentally, physically), and compare alcohol and marijuana for each effect. Alcohol would, hands-down, come out worse than marijuana in every one. This is as bad as a Government who allows and endorses stabbing yourself with a knife, but not with a pin. It's ridiculous and embarrassing, and our grandchildren will look back in awe at the stupidity with which we handled this drug's interaction with society.

3. Marijuana being illegal ruins more lives than it saves. As with alcohol, those who enjoy a smoke every now and then run the gammit of society from the homeless to doctors to Presidents (Clinton, Bush Jr. and Obama having all admitted smoking in the past). There is no section of society to victimize for marijuana use, so everybody is victimized. Prison has the ability to TURN people into criminals, whether they were criminals beforehand or not. Imagine if Barrack Obama had been caught and arrested for pot possession, and imprisoned. Where do you think his life would be now? Certainly not leader of the country, and we can parallel this down to the doctors, lawyers and teachers who like a smoke every now and then. Smoking pot won't ruin their lives, but being imprisoned for smoking pot will. Hence, major law fail.

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] - http://www.fcda.org...
[3] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
heyitsjay

Con

1.) My opponent has stated that legalizing marijuana will contribute to our economic position or the recession. He stated that marijuana profits going to the government and not to the drug lords will make a large difference than if we were to ban it. This might be true in some cases. Then again we need to consider what effects it will have on our society. Now put it in these terms. Like my opponent said, the US has about a total of 75 million smokers a day. Legalizing marijuana will only increase the number of consumers. That may seem good if the drug is charged 10 dollars a gram. When you do the math it comes out to look like a great idea. Then again it is a very risky plan to pursue.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu...
http://www.nida.nih.gov...
http://web4health.info...

-Marijuana is known to cause disorientation, laziness, and lack of mental capability.
If that 75 million were to increase to about between 100 to 150 million, think of how many people will be effected by it. Out of the people who are effected, many will go under the influence and simply turn to be degenerates of our society. That leads to unemployment. That means that more and more people will be unemployed not for the fact they do not posses the capability of getting a job, but for the simple fact they do not want to get one. Now consider out that 100 million, 90 million do not want to work. Out of a total of about 300 million people in the US, almost a third of the population will be employed. The drug money will not make even the slightest difference in the crisis the economy faces.

2.) Many people besides my opponent have stated the same situation that many marijuana consumers face today. The buyers face criminal charges and are put in prison. If those people were parents, that will put the children in a very unfortunate situation. Now if those people were to not face "unnecessary crimes", it will be more beneficial for the family. That to can be argued.

What makes our people think that a child of a marijuana consumer would be anymore safe with the parent rather then being put in a foster home? Because of the lack of mental capability marijuana has to offer, that father or mother will highly expose even a 1 year old to the drug. That puts the child/infant in a very dangerous environment. Therefore the parents lack responsibility.

3.) In some countries around the world, they allow marijuana in certain parts of their cities. Like in Germany, they have "Red Light Districts" where they allow certain activities that they wouldn't normally allow in the open such as marijuana. Like my own father has stated, the US has considered that action of allowing the drug but to only be allowed in some parts of our cities.

If the consumers are willing to break the law in order to buy the drug, what makes anyone think that they aren't going to do the same with that idea. I and many others have witnessed consumers in public like for instance. One day I was with my family at the mall. Now please keep in mind that I have a little sister around the age of 10. Just as I am walking outside one of the stores, we noticed two marijuana consumers walking about the mall. That just there put me and my family in a very dangerous situation due to the exposure of the drug. If they have the capability to break the law with consuming it, there is now question that they are going to do the same with the "Red Light District" idea.

4.) As many other of my colleagues have mentioned, just because it might be legal doesn't mean everybody is going to consume the product. For the people who already have a good idea what it can cause, just because the US makes it legal doesn't mean their idea will change. I do have a counter argument for that case.

Now please who ever is to view this, ALL people have their own opinions and ALL people have different mind sets. Now, the people who are already against it, the chances of them turning to it maybe slim. Then again, people might only not consume marijuana just simply because the government makes it illegal. If the government were to make it a legal product, that person's mindset will change and they will consume the product. That is only an example of what can happen to somebody. But regardless, people definitely have their own opinions of things.
leet4A1

Pro

"1.) My opponent has stated that legalizing marijuana will contribute to our economic position or the recession. He stated that marijuana profits going to the government and not to the drug lords will make a large difference than if we were to ban it. This might be true in some cases."

Please name one case where billions of dollars taken from drug dealers and given to the Government will be bad for society, or you'll have to concede this point.

"Then again we need to consider what effects it will have on our society. Now put it in these terms. Like my opponent said, the US has about a total of 75 million smokers a day. Legalizing marijuana will only increase the number of consumers."

This is simply not true, or at least not necessarily so. The Netherlands decriminalized cannabis in the 1980s, and cannabis use there is around the same as its been for 30 years. [1] Also of interesting note in that article is that in 1976, the Dutch authorities started tolerating so-called 'house dealers', who were essentially legal marijuana dealers who sold at youth centres and so-forth, to stop kids going to back alleys to score. With this, the first stage of decriminalization in the Netherlands, marijuana use DROPPED, as though the ease of acquisition of pot actually made users want to smoke less.
Note also that pot usage for EVERY age demographic is higher, per capita, in England, France and Ireland than in the Netherlands, despite heavy penalties in the former three countries and no penalities in the Netherlands. This quashes your argument completely.

"If that 75 million were to increase to about between 100 to 150 million, think of how many people will be effected by it. Out of the people who are effected, many will go under the influence and simply turn to be degenerates of our society. That leads to unemployment. That means that more and more people will be unemployed not for the fact they do not posses the capability of getting a job, but for the simple fact they do not want to get one. Now consider out that 100 million, 90 million do not want to work. Out of a total of about 300 million people in the US, almost a third of the population will be employed. The drug money will not make even the slightest difference in the crisis the economy faces."

First, as I've shown, the number of steady smokers needn't, and probably wouldn't, increase with legalization.
Second, this is pure stereotypical garbage. In my personal experience (which trumps your conjecture, until you provide evidence), pot smokers are, on the whole, a group of people who are self-motivated, creative, funny, nice, hard-working, eager to please, good listeners, good talkers, knowledgable, in a constant state of self-betterment. The perfect employee. This 'pot-smoking = unemployment' crap really gets on my nerves, because it is a stereotype borne entirely from the media (Left [Cheech and Chong] AND Right [THIS is your brain...]) that all stoners sit around and stare at shiny things all day. It's just not true.

"What makes our people think that a child of a marijuana consumer would be anymore safe with the parent rather then being put in a foster home?"

Are you saying that a child is better off in a foster home than with parents who love and care for them, feed them, read them stories, teach them things, buy them things, take them to school, help with their homework, provide a home and a warm bed.... and just so happen to smoke a joint before bed every now and then? It's not as though dope-smokers sit there blowing their blunt hit into their child's face. Most children never find out their parents smoke, let alone get affected by it.

"If the consumers are willing to break the law in order to buy the drug, what makes anyone think that they aren't going to do the same with that idea. I and many others have witnessed consumers in public like for instance. One day I was with my family at the mall. Now please keep in mind that I have a little sister around the age of 10. Just as I am walking outside one of the stores, we noticed two marijuana consumers walking about the mall. That just there put me and my family in a very dangerous situation due to the exposure of the drug. If they have the capability to break the law with consuming it, there is now question that they are going to do the same with the "Red Light District" idea."

What do you mean you noticed two marijuana consumers in the mall? They were smoking pot in the middle of the mall? Ballsy guys!
Seriously though, I never suggested a Red-Light District area, and I don't believe smoking pot should be legal in public. Just like alcohol, someone should be able to possess pot on the street, but not consume it. What they do in their own home, though, is fair game.

"Now please who ever is to view this, ALL people have their own opinions and ALL people have different mind sets. Now, the people who are already against it, the chances of them turning to it maybe slim. Then again, people might only not consume marijuana just simply because the government makes it illegal. If the government were to make it a legal product, that person's mindset will change and they will consume the product. That is only an example of what can happen to somebody. But regardless, people definitely have their own opinions of things."

I think my opponent's own admission in the comments section that, were marijuana completely legalized, he would still never smoke it says a lot here. My opponent has stated the possibility that legalizing it will turn non-smokers into smokers, but I see no reason for this. If you currently don't smoke pot but wish to, you will smoke that pot whether its legal or not. If you currently don't smoke pot and don't wish to, the law-change will not affect you at all.
Note also that I've provided evidence above to show no direct correlation between marijuana's legality and its prevalance of use.

Thanks to my opponent.

[1] - http://www.parl.gc.ca...
Debate Round No. 2
heyitsjay

Con

My opponent has made it clear to the viewers that marijuana is not as negative as it appears. May I state that marijuana is a DRUG, I repeat it is a DRUG! Due to the help of drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, people and families are effected by it everyday. Whether a child is being beat by their drunk father or being exposed to second hand smoking (which kills more people than first hand smoking) by the mother. If all three of these drugs cause corruption, why would we want to add to the problem?

Problems with tobacco:
-nicotine which causes addiction
-narrowing of arteries
-carbon monoxide which causes the oxygen amount in blood to decrease
-killing of brain cells
-weakening of bones

http://www.drugfree.org...

Problems of alcohol:
-addiction
-killing of brain cells
-birth of mentally challenged children(caused by mother drinking while pregnant)
-increase of aggressive behavior

http://www.drugfree.org...

Problems of marijuana
-distortion of perception(sight, smell, hearing, etc.)
-decreased memory and learning capability
-loss of coordination
-trouble with thinking and problem solving

http://alcoholism.about.com...

Do any of these seem beneficial for people?
My opponent has stated in the comments box that marijuana creates the "perfect employee". First let me define key terms.

Perfect: without flaw

Obviously since marijuana consumers experience the problems above, it does NOT create the perfect employee. Nobody is perfect which make humanity so superior. He also stated that people who consume marijuana are nice, funny, well focused and many other characteristics, he stated apply. People should be like this without the chemical regardless. Now, let us take an understanding that not only marijuana, but many other drugs that are legalized cause health issues. These health issues lead to criminal activity. Does making another potentially bad drug legal justify the behavior people experience caused by it? No...it simply does not. If the nation experiences enough problems with alcohol and tobacco, why add another bad product to the list of legal substances?

It has come to an understanding that people already smoke it. Well there is a number for people who smoke it out of the total amount of Americans in the US. And every single person has a different mind. Who ever is to disagree with the fact that the number of consumers will increase due to individual opinion, clearly they do not posses the capability for thinking outside their mind. Clearly if marijuana makes people feel positive, like my opponent made very clear, will they give up that good feeling? No, as long as they want to consume it, they made it clear they will keep consuming it.

It is very true that drug consumers are willing to break the law. Now, I did not say my opponent stated the "Red Light District" idea. I stated that my FATHER and as well as many other associates conceived that thought. Like I made very clear before, if they are willing to consume it, then they will consume it when ever and where ever. My opponent did state that it is not right for people to smoke marijuana out in public, but it is acceptable to posses it. For as long as they posses it, they will consume it. He said that it is only reasonable if they do it in their home because they should be able to do what ever and when ever in their own home. Well, what if killing people made somebody happy and that person murdered civilians in their home. Does it make it okay for that person to do it in their home and not in public? No! There are laws that apply to being out in public like for example, obviously it is against the law to walk about in public naked. But besides those specific laws, everything else should apply. That murderer for example would still be charged for murder crimes.

My opponent has stated that he is infact a marijuana consumer himself. He said that he is offended by society stereotyping consumers as stoned bugs. Do people really think that if marijuana is legal then it will change people's view points of marijuana consumers? Our nation even stereotypes alcohol and tobacco consumers. Frankly, I do not agree with stereotyping people. But that is a non controllable problem and nothing can be done about that. So, the answer to my question is NO. People will still stereotype marijuana and drug consumers and that is just the way some people think.

The economical side of this topic is the question whether taking drug money will help the US get out of this recession. No, it will absolutely not. Marijuana will absolutely cause more problems if it is to be legalized. Does the money from alcohol and tobacco make that much of a difference in our economy? No, it does not. So how exactly is it suppose to contribute to our needs financially? And may I add that my opponent also mentioned that in some parts of the world, because of the legalization of marijuana, the consumption rate went down. That is because people felt ease with it being legal. Now, if I was wrong about the increase of consumers, that means less money for the government if they were to tax it. Therefore, it was an "all for nothing" action to take.

Why should people be able to eat McDonald's, ski and many other things?...My opponent has mentioned in the comment box. Well there is a difference between smoking pot and other things people do. These things do not cause as many health problems (except for legal drug consumers and those who eat fast food everyday). They are not harmful to the people as much. Drugs on the other hand have caused violence, dropping out of school, riots, gangs and many other criminal activities. So, people should be able to do what ever they please as long as they are not violating the law by doing it. We ban certain things only for people's safety. Although, many drugs that are legalized, cause problems. Then again like I simply questioned above, why add another bad chemical to the list of legal substances?

Drugs like marijuana are a health issue and a social issue. For those who have read my side, you have now a better understanding of why it is wrong. By legalizing marijuana, you only get more problems. My resolution is simple...do not legalize it. Avoid these problems and the ones that are already active from getting any worse. For those who are currently in possession of it, I only recommend that you talk to somebody as to why you take it. From there, you should find another way of making yourself happy that isn't harmful towards your health. We have been taught in school many times to avoid drugs and simply those who consume it, I think it is safe to say they did not pay attention in school, were ignorant, thought it was cool, but overall just simply were unaware of the dangers of drugs. Smoking pot reflects a lack of character and individual internalized issues.

Vote CON....
leet4A1

Pro

"My opponent has made it clear to the viewers that marijuana is not as negative as it appears. May I state that marijuana is a DRUG, I repeat it is a DRUG! Due to the help of drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, people and families are effected by it everyday."

I couldn't be bothered looking up the name of the fallacy my opponent is committing here, but he is taking the focus off marijuana and placing it on DRUGS, I repeat DRUGS!!1! He then posts a bunch of negative side-effects of alcohol, tobacco and marijuana, which actually shows the stupidity of marijuana being illegal.
Say an alien race, far superior to our own, came to Earth. They're presented with the side-effects of alcohol, tobacco and marijuana, and told to choose which one they believe is illegal here on Earth. Do you think they'd choose one of the two murderous ones, or the one that temporarily distorts memory and coordination? Think about it.

"He also stated that people who consume marijuana are nice, funny, well focused and many other characteristics, he stated apply. People should be like this without the chemical regardless."

I didn't mean that those people are like that because they are high, I mean they are like that either because smoking dope attracts that type of person, or smoking dope turns them into that type of person. Either way, my point was that the unemployed stoner stereotype is completely wrong and should not be used as an argument without evidence, which you have not provided.

"Now, let us take an understanding that not only marijuana, but many other drugs that are legalized cause health issues. These health issues lead to criminal activity."

Health issues leading to criminal activity? That's a new one.

"Does making another potentially bad drug legal justify the behavior people experience caused by it? No...it simply does not. If the nation experiences enough problems with alcohol and tobacco, why add another bad product to the list of legal substances?"

For the many points I've made that you seem to be ignoring.
1. The illegality of a drug has little or no bearing on its use, as shown with references last round.
2. Pot being illegal causes more harm to society than were it legal. I have argued this by showing the tremendous amount of money that goes to dealers and gangs every day which could instead be easing the economy.
3. Smoking pot will very, very rarely be responsible for ruining a life compared to being imprisoned for pot. When we can say this of a law, we know we have an epic law fail on our hands.

"Who ever is to disagree with the fact that the number of consumers will increase due to individual opinion, clearly they do not posses the capability for thinking outside their mind."

I provided evidence in Round 2 to show that in 1976 in the Netherlands, marijuana began being sold by the Government at Youth Centres, and that marijuana use subsequently dropped. My opponent has ignored this evidence (the only case-study of a nation decriminalizing pot we've got), and simply restated his opinion that the number of consumers will increase. No evidence was provided for his claim.

"My opponent did state that it is not right for people to smoke marijuana out in public, but it is acceptable to posses it. For as long as they posses it, they will consume it."

You know how you're not allowed to just walk into a shop with a bottle of whiskey and drink it in public and stuff? That. I'm not suggesting we all start taking bongs to work and sitting around the lunch table smoking. Just stop arresting hard-working fathers for relaxing, minding their own business and not harming a soul. That's all.

"He said that it is only reasonable if they do it in their home because they should be able to do what ever and when ever in their own home. Well, what if killing people made somebody happy and that person murdered civilians in their home. Does it make it okay for that person to do it in their home and not in public? No! There are laws that apply to being out in public like for example, obviously it is against the law to walk about in public naked. But besides those specific laws, everything else should apply. That murderer for example would still be charged for murder crimes."

I'm sure my opponent realizes the problem with his own argument here.
Q: What is the difference between a) smoking pot and b) murder, rape, extortion, terrorism, assault, dangerous driving, hijack, break-and-enter, torture, manslaughter, and every other law my opponent could have used in this silly example?
A: Smoking pot doesn't infringe upon anyone else's rights or otherwise bring them harm.

""My opponent has stated that he is infact a marijuana consumer himself. He said that he is offended by society stereotyping consumers as stoned bugs. Do people really think that if marijuana is legal then it will change people's view points of marijuana consumers? Our nation even stereotypes alcohol and tobacco consumers. Frankly, I do not agree with stereotyping people. But that is a non controllable problem and nothing can be done about that. So, the answer to my question is NO. People will still stereotype marijuana and drug consumers and that is just the way some people think."

Boy, talk about going off on a tangent. I never said legalizing marijuana would stop ignorant people stereotyping dope-smokers. All I said was that I was sick of people who do it, as you did in the earlier rounds of this debate.

"The economical side of this topic is the question whether taking drug money will help the US get out of this recession. No, it will absolutely not. Marijuana will absolutely cause more problems if it is to be legalized."

Hmm... let's see. Usage remains steady and therefore effect to society's well-being is unphased. Government makes bulk money. It really is that black and white, and I'm not seeing a downside.

"So how exactly is it suppose to contribute to our needs financially?"

Remember the whole "$10/gram with 75,000,000 daily users @ 1 gram/day" thing before? That.

"Why should people be able to eat McDonald's, ski and many other things?...My opponent has mentioned in the comment box."

No I didn't. My opponent asked why people feel the NEED to smoke marijuana, and I said that the answer is pleasure. I then asked a bunch of hypothetical questions such as why people feel the NEED to ski, eat McDonalds, etc. The obvious implication was that just because somebody doesn't physically need something to live, doesn't mean they should be deprived of it.

"For those who have read my side, you have now a better understanding of why it is wrong. By legalizing marijuana, you only get more problems."

I really don't understand how my opponent has made this conclusion from participating in this debate. In this debate, I have established, and gone unchallenged with, the following:
1. Legalizing pot won't necessarily increase or decrease usage.
2. Billions of dollars a year taken from gangs and dealers, and given to the Government.
3. Less non-violent offenders having their lives ruined and clogging prisons.

I have provided much evidence to show that if marijuana was legalized, it would be a good thing for society. My opponent has failed to rebut most of my arguments while I have firmly rebutted his. Vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by heyitsjay 5 years ago
heyitsjay
I do hate it when they have to send you a TEXT message. My phone, I haven't activated the texting on it simply because I think texting is a waste of time. I dont know about you guys, but thats my opinion.
Posted by Rob1Billion 5 years ago
Rob1Billion
oh... yes. You need more than a mobile phone, man. You need premium text messaging activated, I believe. I took a year off because my phone service didn't use those things (those messages that come from 5-6 digit phone numbers, like american Idol voting and the like). It wasn't till I just switched to verizon that I came back
Posted by leet4A1 5 years ago
leet4A1
I don't have a mobile phone Rob, so I can't verify my existence or some crap, and hence can't vote.
Posted by Rob1Billion 5 years ago
Rob1Billion
Jay, based on what your saying it is fairly obvious that you are missing the main point of this issue (your debate aside). You have a mind-set of "smoking marijuana is a negative thing, so banning it is a good idea so that less people do this negative thing". This is a TERRIBLE attitude when it comes to making laws. First of all, we can just assume that it is completely negative. It is very easily arguable that it is not, especially in relation to other things, but we can assume it is for this discussion. Even if it is completely negative, it's still a BAD idea to make a law to ban it. Lawmakers aren't supposed to be in the business of directing us around like cattle. Illegal not to brush your teeth (much worse than smoking weed), illegal not to go to college, illegal to cheat on your wife, illegal to lie to your mother... the list goes on and on. You ask why people have to smoke it at all. That point is moot. Liberty means being able to do what you want, especially when it doesn't harm others.
Posted by Rob1Billion 5 years ago
Rob1Billion
why can't you vote? I haven't been on this site for over a year so I am especially ignorant about the policies...
Posted by leet4A1 5 years ago
leet4A1
Hey Jay, I can't vote dude so any chance you could refrain to keep it fair?

Thanks for the hard-fought by the way, I enjoyed it.
Posted by leet4A1 5 years ago
leet4A1
Done, Jay. :)
Posted by heyitsjay 5 years ago
heyitsjay
I will answer to that question if my opponent were to proceed with round 2 of this debate....
Posted by leet4A1 5 years ago
leet4A1
"If it is not addictive, then why do some people smoke it everyday? Why do people feel they need to smoke it at all?"

Who said it wasn't addictive? I know a lot of smokers like to repeat that same garbage over and over, but I'm not convinced. I know for a fact that I'm addicted to it (if only mentally), so how can I buy into that "it's not addictive" crap? It reminds me of a classic Richard Pryor joke: "You can't get hooked on Cocaine. I've got friends who've been doing it all day every day for 15 years, and they ain't hooked!"

But for those who do smoke quite often but are not addicted (my girlfriend for one), the reason is because it is enjoyable. Is that such a bad thing to admit, that people do something for one reason and one reason only, the devil that is *GASP* pleasure!!!

Why do so many people drink coffee, or alcohol, or eat chocolate or McDonalds, or go watch a movie or go sky-diving or hang with friends or go on picnics or play with their dog or hang with their girlfriend every day? They must be addictive activities, and should therefore be banned, right? No, people do these things (and smoke dope) because it is enjoyable. Some people need no more than a newspaper and a coffee to enjoy themselves, and all the power to them. But if your idea of a good time is smoking 9 bongs and watching South Park, you shouldn't have to go to prison for it, as you've hurt nobody.

Now that I mention it, is there any other law you can think of where you can get arrested and imprisoned without hurting or negatively affecting a single person except yourself? I certainly can't think of one.
Posted by heyitsjay 5 years ago
heyitsjay
I am only showing what is possible. Like my opponent stated, already a total of 75 million people smoke it everyday. Now, the majority of those are usually unemployed and yes that is the truth. Imagine what would happen to that number if the consumer ratio were to increase. And as for democracy and people making thier own decsions, there has to be some sort of law. Quite frankly, people abuse that right for their own selfish wants and desires. Sometimes what people want is not exactly what is best for them. Alcholol and tobacco are already legal and we cannot to anything about it. But why on earth would anybody want another harmful drug to be legal? If it is not addictive, then why do some people smoke it everyday? Why do people feel they need to smoke it at all?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by underhyped 3 years ago
underhyped
heyitsjayleet4A1Tied
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 ThoughtCriminal 4 years ago
ThoughtCriminal
heyitsjayleet4A1Tied
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 Catieb 5 years ago
Catieb
heyitsjayleet4A1Tied
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 animea 5 years ago
animea
heyitsjayleet4A1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 dobsondebator 5 years ago
dobsondebator
heyitsjayleet4A1Tied
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:34