marijuana legalized

Alright this is my first debate. I know you may not think I am a good debater since no one has seen mine.

Marijuana shouldn't be legalized due to the reasons that the high is too powerful for most people to control. I understand it is used for medical purposes as a painkiller, but there are other ways to relieve someone's pain.

Given that con has not stated for which country, we can assume that this is discussing the law in a general sense. Therefore, as some country's have legalized marijuana whilst others haven't, the burden of proof is shared, as neither of us are arguing for the status quo. I will be arguing that on balance it is beneficial for a country to not have a law preventing the ownership or use of marijuana, whilst my opponent will be arguing that on balance having the law would be beneficial.

I shall first provide my arguments and then address my opponents.
In this first round I shall be brief in outlining my arguments.

1. Prohibition increases crime rates
By prohibiting marijuana it eliminates legal supply without affecting demand, thus creating a black market. This means that criminal activity can be funded by the sale of marijuana, thus allowing for the expansion of drug cartels into other areas, increasing crime.
"If you look at the drug war from a purely economic point of view, the role of the government is to protect the drug cartel. That's literally true."

—Milton Friedman

By making marijuana illegal, we make smuggling profitable.
Making marijuana illegal also leads to police corruption [http://www.ichrp.org...] and causes people to commit crime in order to aquire the finances to illegally purchase the drugs [Duke, Steven B (21 Dec 1993). How Legalization Would Cut Crime.]

[Trebach, Arnold S.; Kevin B. Zeese, Milton Friedman (1992). Friedman and Szasz on Liberty and Drugs: Essays on the Free Market and Prohibition]

2. Prohibition is incredibly expensive
The cost of enforcing such a law is very expensive. As an example the US has spends 44 billion dollars on enforceing this law. Furthermore the oportunity cost of being unable to tax the drugs is costing somewhere around 7 billion more.
[http://blogs.reuters.com...]

3. It is not the role of government to prevent someone from harming oneself through marijuana use
The government's role is not to make us make healthy choices, otherwise they would ban fast-food, which is far more ruinous to one's health. The use of law in government is to protect individuals being harmed by others. Given that the only one harmed by the useage of marijuana used sensibly (the government can't legalize against stupidity - just because I can endanger other road users by wearing a tv on my head whilst driving doesn't mean the govt. should make tvs illegal) is one's self, a law restricting use is unjustified.

4. Marijuana is actually a very safe drug comparitively
Many studies have shown that the risks of marijuana are very low, even when compared to legal drugs such as alcohol, tobacco, or caffiene [http://www.guardian.co.uk...]

Con's arguments.
1. The high is too powerful for most people to control.
This is an assertion without warrent. As I have already demonstrated [argument 4] the harm to one's self is minimal. However, even granting that the harm was severe, so what? Does that mean governments should interfere with civil liberties? Why should a government prevent one from harming one's self if it does not harm others?

2. Medical alternatives
It is true there are other ways to relieve pain, though seeing as I support non-medical usuage of marijuana, this is irrelevent.

I await your response.

My opponent has made a good point and that i should have specified which country I was referring to. My opponent brings up the "economy" aspect of this drug being banned in the US. Marijuana has been known to make people do things that they would not be doing if they werent under the influence. Some of my friends smoke weed and I have seen the effects of it. The thought process of someone that is under the influence is unbelieveably diffrent from that of someone that is drunk.
"Con's arguments.
1. The high is too powerful for most people to control.
This is an assertion without warrent. As I have already demonstrated [argument 4] the harm to one's self is minimal. However, even granting that the harm was severe, so what? Does that mean governments should interfere with civil liberties? Why should a government prevent one from harming one's self if it does not harm others?"
It is the objective of the government to ensure the safety of an individual and the people around that individual. Imagine if someone that were high were driving home. That person could become easily distracted and not only put themselves in danger, but other people that are nearby or on the road.
Drug cartels, i understand, cause a black market because of marijuana. Even if Marijuana were leagalized, drug cartels would still continue with selling other illegal drugs. Are you suggesting that we make all illegal drugs legal?

I am pleased with my oppenents arguements.