So people could get psychotic illness in the public eye.
So the government could earn more money on outrageous taxes.
My argument is I see no relevant reason to legalize it
I humbly accept this argument.
For the sake of clarity, I offer a more apt resolution: "Resolved: Cannabis should be legalized."
Before any argumentation is to take place, I offer these definitions (the accordance of these definitions is to be determined by my opponent):
Cannabis: A tall annual dioecious plant (Cannabis sativa), native to central Asia and having alternate, palmately divided leaves and tough bast fibers.
Legalize: The act of making lawful
I will present my argument in three contentions:
Contention 1: The recreational drug use of cannabis is safer than the use of tobacco products and alcohol (both of which are legal) and does not bear any signficant long-term effects for users that do not have pre-existing mental illness.
Contention 2: Cannabis has many medical properties and can be used as an herbal alternative to pharmaceutical drugs.
Contention 3: Cannabis in its industrious form, hemp, can be used to make a variety of products including paper, construction material, clothing, rope, fabrics, protein powders, and much more.
I suggest the next round's use should be to provide elaboration of the contentions/arguments, and for the initial rebuttals.
Does my opponent also want to make the argument that the only real problem with cannabis is the long term health effects of the drug .I wont debate even whether this statement is true as it is irrelevant to the facts. I personally was a regular user of cannabis for a number of years and I found it was a highly addictive drug it gave me problems with motivation so much so I missed day's of work I failed my college exams due to the fact I just couldn't be bothered with the course work, it dulled me mentally so when I eventually came to do my driving test I forgot numerous functions of the car .Financially it also put a strain on me.
So the point I'm making is it goes far beyond long lasting mental health effects . However let's also assume that my opponents statement is correct in that it has no long term effects except in those with pre-existing mental conditions , by legalizing it and making it more readily available to people, these ones with these underlying problems have access to it where they wouldn't necessarily have before therefore increasing the number of people that cannabis would affect in the long term.
I have no real problem with it being used for medicinal purposes assuming there is no decent alternative and it's distributed under STRICT guidelines . Medicinal use is not really up for debate at this time as I don't have enough facts to go on . In as much as I'm not aware what cannabis does that other medications cannot.
No problem with the use of hemp either for industrial purposes.
To make clear the issue . Cannabis should not be readily available in corner shops or stores for use by the general public. If my opponent believes it should be can he give a solid reason for legalizing cannabis in this way? As this is the issue of the debate.
I will begin by addressing my opponents arguments.
In this statement, my opponent is making the bare assertion that legalization will result in higher access rates to cannabis. This is not always true; in the current status quo, high school students are saying that cannabis (illegal) is easier to get than alcohol (legal.) High access of a certain substance is more related to its strong presence in the black market rather than its presence in 'corner shops'. By legalizing cannabis, you essentially destroy most of its presence in the black market and replace it within a strict, regulated institution that doesn't sell to children or those who do not mentally qualify. The legalization policy of cannabis is not as loose as my opponent believes it to be. People do not want to go to the dark side of society for cannabis, they would rather jump through a few regulatory hoops by purchasing legally than suffer jail time. By legalizing it, we have more control over WHO gets the substance (due to that if one wants a drug, they'll probably get it regardless) and have more preventative methods of keeping it away from the mentally sick and our youth.
I will now summarize the progress of the debate:
I have fully defended my position towards the topic at hand due to that my opponent agrees with my 2nd and 3rd contentions, even though his accordance with my 3rd contention contradicts his position toward the topic at hand.
In light of my opponent agreeing with my 2nd and 3rd contentions, I offer the following resolution:
“Resolved: The recreational use of cannabis should be legalized”
Due to my opponent's apathy towards the illegal status of cannabis in contrasts to alcohol and tobacco, I would now like to offer a new contention:
Contention (revised, summation of previous purposes presented): Cannabis should be legalized for its fiscal benefits, crime-related societal benefits and its public funding benefits.
So lets go through the points one by one unfortunately due to word limit I cannot copy and paste the part of his argument I'm referring to.
My opponents first point:
This is a highly ridiculous assumption that legalizing cannabis will stop it coming in illegally. The facts are the more tax goes up the more call for cheaper goods bootleg alcohol and cigarettes increase in demand absolutely no reason to make an assumption that the same will not be true of cannabis.
We don't really need the link it's common sense
My opponents second point:
Firstly. See above argument.
Secondly. My opponent wants to spend money on things like addiction clinics and drug awareness , by increasing the number of people who are very likely to get addicted and need to be aware of the addiction dangers of cannabis.
So not only do we still have to pay the same (possibly more) amount of money on the war on drugs as mentioned previously,we now have to spend even more money on things that we're increasing the need for
My opponents third point(copy and pasted this)
"Last but not least, the legalization of cannabis could result in tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of jobs in the private sector economy"
This again is an assumption although a fairly reasonable one. However to suggest the number into the tens of thousands I believe to be an over exaggeration , but that's not really the point here. The main point is really that it will also put a number of people out of work because more people will be smoking the stuff and a percentage of them won't be able to be bothered to do things like go to work, because they are addicted to the drug. We're all sensible people here and to try and claim that cannabis does not have this affect on people fools no one with any experience of the drug
However this is a half reasonable argument for legalizing it ,but certainly not enough to outweigh the cons.
"as well as a huge influx of tax revenue"
Yes which we're now wasting on the addiction centres that we increased the need for in the first place. We are also now assuming that the governments are going to spend this money wisely rather than the common practice of being wasteful with tax payers money.
"Moreover, this extra tax revenue could be used to make a surplus on the national debt as well as fund much needed social programs that were previously not feasible to fund."
I don't want to start another debate just yet ,however asking taxpayers to pay the government's debt , really is a poor reason for legalization. It also makes my opponents whole tax point irrelevant. Reason being you're giving figures of $100 billion, yet you're losing a large chunk maybe all of it on lowering income tax as he say's here " lower the income tax marginal rates." So there is entirely no tax benefits whatsoever, in fact it could cost us in the long run (see above reasons)
"In this statement, my opponent is making the bare assertion that legalization will result in higher access rates to cannabis. This is not always true; in the current status quo, high school students are saying that cannabis (illegal) is easier to get than alcohol (legal.)"
There's many, many more people in the world than high school students. What about people in villages towns and areas that don't have a drug dealer whatsoever and have entirely no access to drugs? What about people who say I've always wanted to try it so here's my opportunity?
It's totally foolish to say that making cannabis available in stores won't increase access to it.
In fact my opponent say's it here
"This is not ALWAYS true"
He even said it here in this statement that would be totally irrelevant if it wasn't for the fact my opponent here contradicts his own argument.
"People do not want to go to the dark side of society for cannabis, they would rather jump through a few regulatory hoops by purchasing legally than suffer jail time."
So it is more available then isn't it?
""By legalizing it, we have more control over WHO gets the substance (due to that if one wants a drug, they'll probably get it regardless) and have more preventative methods of keeping it away from the mentally sick and our youth."
Again it will do nothing of the sort as you say if people want to get it they will get we're just making it easier for these people to get it as it can be purchased legally by a third party and sold on to others.
The rest has been covered I believe.
So after all that we have an argument it will create a few jobs and it will make a few people happy.
So let's legalize all drugs then? That will create a few jobs and it will make a few people happy.
Yes they have worse side effects , however the real point is based on the reasons my opponent gave why argue for one and not the others based on the reasons my opponent gave
My opponents argument boils down to this
"let's legalize cannabis but no other drugs for the reason it's side effects are not as bad as the others"
So again we still see no REAL reason to legalize cannabis
I will begin by addressing my opponent's rebuttals.
My opponent fails to realize that he's contradicting nearly every argument that he brings to the table , he's going against pure common sense and then contradicting that and he doesn't seem to realize it. He is using a number of words in a number of different ways and still coming back to exactly the same point that he's already contradicted.
I claim there are negative effects of cannabis, my opponent says no there isn't any whatsoever,then he contradicts it,by saying this "Serious addiction of cannabis only accounts for 9% of said". Now if I had said there was negative effects for everyone that smokes it then my opponent has an argument .I however never said that just that there are negative effects involved , my opponent agrees with this , so why does he still argue the same point??
I then say that by making it freely available to the general public by legalizing it ,it exposes it to more people.My opponent says it doesn't , then again contradicts his own argument by saying this "This is not ALWAYS true" and this "People do not want to go to the dark side of society for cannabis, they would rather jump through a few regulatory hoops by purchasing legally than suffer jail time." Then I give two further examples of people who would smoke it here, "What about people in villages towns and areas that don't have a drug dealer whatsoever and have entirely no access to drugs?" and here "What about people who say I've always wanted to try it so here's my opportunity?" and my opponent mocks my two examples .Making the claim that in every country where cannabis is available it's also available in every single village or town. He would have a point if I had used the word "City" however I'm not stupid enough to believe that it's not available in every city.He also seems to brush over the point that these type of people "What about people who say I've always wanted to try it so here's my opportunity?" Do not exist" . So I've given two examples of the type of people who would try cannabis if it became legal ,he's given one himself , yet he doesn't even realize it.
So my opponent brings to the table two contradictory arguments one argument is that "there is entirely no negative affects of cannabis and by legalizing cannabis no one extra would be exposed to it"
Then without realizing it he then argues "that nearly one in ten people who use cannabis suffer serious addiction and by legalizing it more people will use it"
I agree with my opponents second argument and I will add that this clearly means that by increasing the number of users we are increasing the number of people who will suffer serious cannabis addiction.
Then my opponent say's it would bring greater tax revenue,but he wants to use that tax revenue on lowering income tax ,which again lowers the amount of tax revenue over all,he also want's to use that tax payers money to pay of government debt and also use it to fund things "like addiction centres" that we are increasing the need for in the first place.
As this point I would like to provide a link regarding cannabis addiction
Then my opponent argues that by legalizing cannabis we are stopping it getting in illegally. When the precedent shows with regard things such as alcohol and cigarettes that the more taxes increase on these things the more demand there is for these things illegally.
He then also argues that by legalizing cannabis we are stopping people from being addicted to the highly addictive drugs that they're already addicted too. This is a contradictory argument in the very same sentence
"However, it logically follows that if cannabis were to be legalized, people would be subject less to hard, addictive drugs like heroine/cocaine/meth"
Again not only is it a contradictory argument ,it's exactly the same as arguing that if we only made lager legal it would stop people wanting spirits.
Then he contradicts himself again by using the fact that I showed how government waste money ,particularly in using taxpayers to pay of government debt, when that's what he wants the cannabis tax to do in the first place, "this extra tax revenue could be used to make a surplus on the national debt"
However seeing as he doesn't like one out of the TWO links I posted here's a further one.
What my opponent seems to be oblivious too is that the judges of this debate don't live in a little bubble like my opponent and most of them do actually realize that the governments cannot be trusted to spend taxpayers money wisely.
My opponents tax argument fails on the facts that firstly the governments cannot be trusted to spend that money wisely Secondly by his own admission that he want's the governments to waste that money , Thirdly, it's not even that much in the first place all things considered and fourthly it could even end up costing us more money, as previously argued by myself.
He also argues the governments will keep tax low on it when again precedent says different.
As I mentioned he brings one half reasonable argument to the table the fact that it will create jobs,however as I argued the number of job's is in dispute and regardless if we're using this argument we may as well argue for the legalization of all drugs and completely ignore the negative effects of them as my opponent is attempting to do with regard cannabis.
At this point I would further like to add another argument to the equation. Having cannabis in shops will certainly increase the number of robberies as criminals would steal the drug and sell it on street corners or whatever the case may be also people have some extra valuable thing to steal to fund any addiction they may suffer with,again we have precedent for this fact
In summary on the two side's we have this.
PRO: It will create job's and make some people happy.
CON'S It will expose more people to addiction
It will expose further people to mental health conditions.
It could end up costing us in the long run
It could leave the possibility for the government's to have more money to abuse
It will likely increase the demand for more illegal drugs to be brought in as tax increases
It will certainly increase the number of robberies.
There are a couple of "coulds" in my argument I agree ,however there is precedent for my "coulds" as we see in the pattern of the same areas (government spending) etc
My opponent's "coulds" I have eliminated from the pros for the very reason he has entirely no reason to state them ,no precedent whatsoever and he contradicts them anyway.
My opponent's argument would gain more credibility if he would freely admit things rather than contradicting himself at every turn. If he would freely admit the negative effects of cannabis and counter that with a positive . Rather than trying to sweep the negatives under the carpet and end up contradicting himself. Plus if he would not make light of my personal experience on the subject and recognize that personal experience is an important factor in this case.
For the judges to this debate the issue is not whether you WANT to see cannabis legalized the issue is whether you decide that there's any REAL reason to legalize it. Even if you want it legalized, if see no real reason to do vote Con.
I will begin my addressing my opponent's rebuttals.
' he's going against pure common sense and then contradicting that and he doesn't seem to realize it'
My opponent above statement is nonsensical due to that his position is not common nor is it sensible so it should be not regarded as 'common sense'.
'my opponent says no there isn't any whatsoever,then he contradicts it,by saying this "Serious addiction of cannabis only accounts for 9% of said"
My opponent, once again, is putting words into my mouth. If he had read my previous arguments, he would've seen that I said there are no noticeable long term health effects for people without mental illness, and the "9% addiction" figure does not even meet the clinic definitio of substance addiction but rather serves as a figure for substance abuse.
'My opponent says it doesn't , then again contradicts his own argument by saying this "This is not ALWAYS true" and this "People do not want to go to the dark side of society for cannabis, they would rather jump through a few regulatory hoops by purchasing legally than suffer jail time." '
This is by no means a contradiction on my part. There is no evidence suggesting that legalization increases usage rates significantly, so my point was more related that RATHER than people funding illegal drug cartels and the black market, there money can go to a legal institution which helps the economy and helps stop ou illicit drug culture that was formed from the black market.
'.Making the claim that in every country where cannabis is available it's also available in every single village or town.'
I never made this claim, I said it exists virtually in ever corner of the Earth. I would like for the judges to take note that where cannabis is produced (South America, primarily), usage rates of cannabis are extremely high. However, where cannabis is illegal is typically where usage rates are the highest on the grid (United States, many parts of Europe, ect.)
'So my opponent brings to the table two contradictory arguments one argument is that "there is entirely no negative affects of cannabis and by legalizing cannabis no one extra would be exposed to it"
My opponent dumbfounds his own position in this claim. He completely forgets that the prohibition of cannabis exposes cannabis and other illegal drugs to our youth.
'As this point I would like to provide a link regarding cannabis addiction
My opponent's source 'cannabisaddiction.co.uk' bears no studies (let alone credible studies) or content giving reason to the unfounded assertion that cannabis is 'addicting' in the same sense that drugs like cocaine, nicotine, and heroine are 'addicting'. My opponent is exhibiting poor critical thinking skills by not even being able to make the basic distinction between physical addiction and habit-forming.
'When the precedent shows with regard things such as alcohol and cigarettes that the more taxes increase on these things the more demand there is for these things illegally.'
This seems to contradict my opponent's previous position that my position is contradictory, but his position here contradicts himself in regards to him being the self-claimed arbiter of 'common sense'. It's common sense that the illegal market of legal substances like tobacco and alcohol is almst nonexisent when taking into account the illegal market of illegal drugs. Here in the United States, the only noticeable accounts of illegal alcohol activity comes from the brewing of moonshine which mainly doesn't come out of a demand for illegal whiskey but rather it became a part of Southern tradition due to the Prohibition of Alcohol in previous years. My opponent fails to see that almost all of the harmful aspects of drugs like cannabis comes from the prohibited aspect of it.
'it's exactly the same as arguing that if we only made lager legal it would stop people wanting spirits.'
My opponent's above statement is not only a strawman argument but also a faulty syllogism.
'Then he contradicts himself again by using the fact that I showed how government waste money ,particularly in using taxpayers to pay of government debt'
My opponent is leaving himself blind to reason in this statement. I beg the question, then what is the government to do with its money? Is there no feasible means of fiscal policy? My opponent's skepticism of smart government only further cripple his principle argument, and it leaves me dubious to if my opponent's is a minarchist of some sort for his source's headline 'The only news you can profit from' leaves me to believe my opponent's position lacks any sort of altruism.
'that the governments cannot be trusted to spend taxpayers money wisely.'
Than what is the government to do, I beg? Is the central government to sit around, doing nothing?
'Secondly by his own admission that he want's the governments to waste that money '
This claim was never made.
I would like to point out that I have well established by now that my opponent is arguing merely on principle and not practicality.
I will make a summation of the debate thus far:
My opponent has failed to make a distinctive contention showing his position to the topic.
My opponent's arguments are still founded on faulty syllogisms, strawman arguments and bare assertions.
My opponent's sources contain minarcho bias, and his cannabis addiction source has no content regarding facts of addiction.
My opponent exults in 'common sense' but then later abandons it in regards to government fiscal policy.
My opponent has not made a single founded argument based on peer-reviewed studies, statistics, intellectual speculation, or factually sound reasoning for that matter.
My opponent's position says that medical cannabis is OK as long as it is regulated and strict, which contradicts his rebuttal that 'government is not responsible' in such matters.
My opponent's arguments seem to be merely formulated based off his own experiences with the drug, rather than jointly experience and facts from studies abroad. (No pun intended)
My opponent has failed to address my contention regarding the drop of violent crime rate after legalization.
I highly advise the audience of this debate to vote in an affirmative manner for I have bought and defended my main value of this debate, practcality, and my criterion being either completely ignored by my opponent or misrepresented by my opponent.
As demonstrated cannabis brings with it lot's of negative effects this is just one link I produced
This is people's personal experience of the drug these people are treated in clinics every day for the affects of cannabis addiction.My opponent argues this is unfounded and is not physical addiction.
My opponent speaks pure nonsense this is peoples experience of the drug thousands of people have had cannabis ruin there lives, of course it's founded!! Just because some person paid thousands of pounds and is probably pro cannabis anyway hasn't mentioned it in a study doesn't make it unfounded. These people don't care whether it's through physical addiction or not, all they care about is the fact it ruined there lives. My opponent is arguing a point that isn't even valid he's arguing that the only negative affect is physical addiction that's not even the issue in the first place.
I also claim that by legalizing it more people would be able to get hold of it , it would be further exposed to people who are not exposed to it now, this is absolute pure common sense that if you're selling something in shops that it get's more exposure than being sold illegally on street corners or out of someone's house. Let's use Britain as a casing point in Britain 9% of people smoke cannabis
Does my opponent seriously expect people to believe that it will stay at 9% when being sold in shops??
When we look at cigarette smokers it's around 20%
These are the alcohol figures that stand significantly higher
So the issue is , is there a REAL reason to expose more people to the negative affects of Cannabis. My opponent has failed to show that there is. Instead he's just argued against precedent, fact's,personal experience and complete common sense and instead tried to issue an argument based on some studies and ended up contradicting himself anyway.
When I started the debate the issue was always Cannabis carries with it negative effects is there enough pros to counter the negative and the answer(at least with regard to what my opponent has presented in this debate) has to be NO. All my opponent has done throughout the whole thing is try to argue that there are no negative affects whatsoever.No more people will be exposed to cannabis and Instead of countering the negatives with the positives, which was the whole point in the first place. He prefers to just say it's all positive and sweep the negatives under the carpet.In the process insulting everybody who has had there life ruined by cannabis.
So let's review some of the positives my opponent presented.
He argued Cannabis sales will increase tax, revenue.
I countered with well firstly how can we trust the governments to spend that wisely , precedent tells us different.
However my opponent want's to argue that every single government on the planet can be trusted to spend tax money wisely, with no reason to say this whatsoever and defies precedent and common sense.
Secondly according to my opponent he wanted that money spent on reducing income tax,which immediately makes that extra tax revenue lower anyway, which would then be hardly worth it.
Even If this was the only problem again it's still not enough to counter the cons
Third He want's to use it for paying off government debt, and building things like addiction centres , which is the most ridiculous one of all , because by legalizing cannabis we're adding to the need for addiction centre's in the first place, So my opponent is now arguing we should waste the taxpayers money.
Fourth. It could even end up costing us money in the long run.
With regard the tax argument It would certainly be wise to go with precedent and err on the side of caution and not legalize cannabis. Rather than going with my opponent's view that we should take the massive gamble that the governments will spend that money wisely, it won't cost us in the long run , it's gonna be enough money to counter the negative aspects of cannabis and we're not just gonna throw it down the drain.
His next argument was that it would stop drugs coming in illegally again this is a totally naive viewpoint and goes against precedent despite his baseless claims to the contrary. He seems to believe that just because he hasn't seen bootleg beer or cigarrettes that the industry doesn't exist. When the facts are clear.
Again this is just Britain.
Common sense and precedent say's the more tax goes up the more demand for illegal goods
He had another argument that it would stop the hard drug trade , this is naivety of the highest order as i mentioned before it's the same as saying if we just legalized beer it would mean no one would want spirits. He said that argument is a straw man but I noticed he never told anyone why. Let me tell you how it's not. A person addicted to coke isn't going to stop being addicted to coke just because cannabis is legal. The same as lager is not enough for an alcoholic an alcoholic craves stronger drink, such as vodka and whisky, lager is not enough in any quantity for a genuine alcoholic the principle is the same.
He said it would create jobs I agree however I also make the point that so would legalizing so called harder drugs so this argument fails.
He also argued "basically" that it would make some people happy, this is a poor argument as it would also ruin some people's lives.
This is really all the argument he brought to the table.
If you actually look through my opponent's argument you will notice it's largely contradictory based a lot on sweeping statements and studies that hold no real relevance, not least because we don't actually know the bias of these studies.
On the contrary I have preferred to base my argument on official figures,precedent, facts and people's experience which I truly believe is an important factor.
I would just like to present two more links before closing.
This one backs up most of my argument and I do urge you all to read this it also shows how my opponents addiction figures are way off beam
This final one shows the big problems that occurred in Britain when we downgraded Cannabis to a class C a few years ago.
So in conclusion.
There are lot's of negative effects involved with cannabis, there is no real reason to legalize the drug . To legalize cannabis would be taking a very large gamble and it's best to err on the side of caution.
What I ask of the judges is that you vote this debate on it's merits even if you want cannabis legalized don't just vote pro, as the issue is not what is wanted by us as individuals but rather is there any real reason to legalize . The other thing I ask Is if you do believe there is a real reason to legalize and it hasn't been brought up in this debate , don't just vote pro for that reason, rather vote on the argument presented in the debate.
Thank you everyone for reading and voting. I've really enjoyed my first debate and to Aaronroy I thank you also it's been fun.
After all this I still hold my original thought that it is best to Err on the side of caution. VOTE CON.
I'd like to start off by stating that I have never seen this many misrepresentations made in a debate during my time here on DDO.
'This is people's personal experience of the drug these people are treated in clinics every day for the affects of cannabis addiction.My opponent argues this is unfounded and is not physical addiction.'
I'd like to highlight a false premise that was constructed by my opponent.
His premise follows as so:
1) Many people go to addiction clinics for cannabis addiction
2) These peope are all seeking genuine treatment for their problem
3) Thus, Cannabis must be addictive
My opponent's premise is faulty due to that the vast majority of people at addiction clinics for cannabis are there UNWILLINGLY.
"Marijuana addiction numbers are hard to come by, and often inflated, since many small-time pot offenders end up in mandatory treatment programs, where they tend to be classified as marijuana addicts, whether or not that is objectively the case."
'These people don't care whether it's through physical addiction or not, all they care about is the fact it ruined there lives.'
My opponent here contradicts his previous position that it is physically addictive by endorsing the position of people who are open to the statement that cannabis "may or may not" be addictive.
'Just because some person paid thousands of pounds and is probably pro cannabis anyway hasn't mentioned it in a study doesn't make it unfounded.'
What a disgusting claim. I highly regard the judges to discount this for its bigoted connotation. I am within the power to list a gamut of intellectual studies regarding cannabis, most of which are conducted by Universities which are required to, by Federal law, be free of political perversion. This is a worthless attempt by my opponent to disregard all of the scientific studies I have provided. My opponent, however, has done nothing but to list sources (in regards to clinical addiction) citing nothing more than the potentially exaggerated claims by lofty, concerned family members who probably know cannabis as nothing more than the "Devil's Weed."
My opponent is merely doing nothing other than appealing to those without inductive reasoning.
'My opponent is arguing a point that isn't even valid he's arguing that the only negative affect is physical addiction that's not even the issue in the first place.'
My opponent has once again taken my position out of context. I have never made the claim that cannabis is physically addicting due to that there exists no evidence showing that cannabis can cause what we know as clinical addiction. It is habit-forming at most, and habitual use only makes for 9% of its users.
'this is absolute pure common sense that if you're selling something in shops that it get's more exposure than being sold illegally on street corners or out of someone's house.'
My opponent, once again, exults in common sense yet his position is not common nor sensible. I live in Virginia (a state in the USA) and cannabis is illegal here. Everyone here will generally say that people (especially CHILDREN
My opponent is indirectly supporting drug cartels due to there have been wired recordings of Mexican drug lords stating that they wish to keep cannabis illegal due to it allows them dominate the market. Thus, they will slowly increase the range of their operations and
My opponent also blatantly ignores the fact that when ALCOHOL was ILLEGAL, usage rates were HIGHER than it is now. He contradicts himself in his own position when he forgets the fact that the legalization and regulated of ALCOHOL has lowered usage rates when compared to usage rates during prohibition.
'I countered with well firstly how can we trust the governments to spend that wisely , precedent tells us different.'
My opponent's obvious conservative-driven rhetoric contradicts himself with its own distrust of central government. How does Her Majesty's government to 'wisely' carry out a drug war against cannabis if it cannot spend funds 'wisely'?
'However my opponent want's to argue that every single government on the planet can be trusted to spend tax money wisely'
The above position was never made by me. My opponent is oblivious to the virtue of the fact that a government without funding is a government without means. How will the government provide for the common defense (military) without tax revenue? How about general welfare? How about diplomatic duties? Social programs? Infastructure? How are they to defend peace and prosperity? Our civil liberties, what of those?
My opponent has some sort of delusional mentality that the government can perform all of these tasks without proper funding. The falsity of his positions are manifest.
'Secondly according to my opponent he wanted that money spent on reducing income tax'
More misrepresentation, take attention! I never said I wanted income tax marginal brackets to be lowered, but rather the influx of sales tax leaves the option of that happening. My opponent is arguing on the premise that the government would only take in a fixed rate rather than a surplus, which does not logically follow in fiscal policy.
'by legalizing cannabis we're adding to the need for addiction centre's in the first place'
The above claim made by my opponent is false due to that I have thoroughly proven that cannabis is not physically addictive and the vast majority of people in treatment for cannabis addiction are not addicts but rather are required to go through rehab because they were forced to by the judicial system.
'So my opponent is now arguing we should waste the taxpayers money.'
My opponent's only tool of rhetoric in his arsenal is 'waste of taxpayer money' yet he has not provided a criteria in which the judges could weigh against as to what is a proper use of taxpayer money
' He seems to believe that just because he hasn't seen bootleg beer or cigarrettes that the industry doesn't exist.'
My opponent is still forgeting that the modern bootlegging of alcohol and tobacco is completely TRIVIAL when compared to the amount of bootlegging that happened during the Prohibition of Alcohol in the United States. This trend of social behavior is applicable to almost every developed nation.
' it's the same as saying if we just legalized beer it would mean no one would want spirits.'
This IS a strawman due to that it is misrepresenting
'A person addicted to coke isn't going to stop being addicted to coke just because cannabis is legal. '
My opponent seems to forget the trends of social behavior in that coke addicts originally start with cannabis, and if cannabis was not illegal, then the coke addict would have never been exposed to illegal dealers WHOM OF WHICH also sell cocaine.
'Common sense and precedent say's the more tax goes up the more demand for illegal goods'
This is irrelevant due to my position does not ensue heavy taxes on cannnabis, and cannabis would remain at street price or cheaper.
'I also make the point that so would legalizing so called harder drugs so this argument fails.'
Apples to oranges. You can't compare to two due to that harder drugs KILL the user; right then and there. There are 0 recorded deaths directly related to cannabis consumption.
My opponent obviously has no knowledge of the history of cannabis. It was not made illegal because of its ostensible 'harmful effects'. It was made illegal through smear campaigns in the USA by the timber industry, the tobacco industry, the alcohol industry, the pharmaceutical industry. The prohibiton of cannabis is filled with racism, greed, special interests, yellow journalism and propaganda.
Despite my opponent's nonsensical attempts, I have proven that cannabis legalization is the PRACTICAL side of this debate by means of peer-reviewed studies and social behavior trends. I ask the judges only to vote honestly. Thanks to my opponent for the debate. Vote PRO.