The Instigator
Marineboy21
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Thaddeus
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points

marijuana legalized

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Thaddeus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/3/2011 Category: Health
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,069 times Debate No: 16268
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)

 

Marineboy21

Con

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.
Thaddeus

Pro

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.
Debate Round No. 1
Marineboy21

Con

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.
Thaddeus

Pro

Con has failed to address nearly all of my arguments. I extend 2 to 4.
I shall first defend argument one.
"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?"
Con falsely states that it is the cartels themselves creating the black-market. This is untrue. Even without cartels, considering there is sufficient demand, black markets would be formed by individuals.
With regards to question whether we make drugs legal, the answer is that this argument does support making all drugs legal (I do as well!), but it is not relevent to the debate. Con fails to address the rest of my arguments concerning crime.

Con defends his assertion that the high is too powerful. He does this without sources to back it up and inspite of the evidence provided.
He also asserts that "It is the objective of the government to ensure the safety of an individual and the people around that individual."
This is evidently false if one looks at the amount of legal unhealthy foods and non-mandated exercise.

My opponent proposes the following scenario;
" 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."
Though I have already countered this argument (seemingly ignored by con), I shall reiterate it. If I were to hollow out a water-melon and place it upon my head whilst driving, due to my lack of vision I would find exceedingly difficult to drive safely. Even accounting for the possibility that I might strike a few gingers or justin Bieber fans down in my blinded state, the consequences would likely be disastrous.
Now my opponent suggests that because one can blind oneself with a watermelon used as a helmet, creating a dangerous situation when in a vehicle, that we should ban the possesion and use of watermelons everywhere.
Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that this is ridiculous, and rather we ought to just ban the wearing of watermelons on ones head whilst driving a vehicle.
Similarly, becuase one can drive under influence of drugs, does not mean that drugs in general should be illegal.
I hope that con provides better arguments in the next round.
Debate Round No. 2
Marineboy21

Con

Marineboy21 forfeited this round.
Thaddeus

Pro

Con forfeited.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Marineboy21 6 years ago
Marineboy21
Actually you have me beat, it is impssible for me to win this debate for i do not presently have the sources and information to counter most of your arguments. I give you props my good sir for in real life I am hardly ever beat in a debate. For this I must thank you.
Posted by Thaddeus 6 years ago
Thaddeus
That's cool. I should give you fair warning as this is your first debate; unless you fully address my arguments in the last round, it is quite unlikely you will be able to win.
Posted by Marineboy21 6 years ago
Marineboy21
Ive seen many people dude stupid things because of Marijuana. Also Thaddeus I too am going to be busier than anticipated to please forgive me for a few days of delay.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 6 years ago
GeoLaureate8
"the high is too powerful for most people to control." - Con

Dude, it's marijuana, not acid. It doesn't make you do anything. In fact, even acid trips are controllable.
Posted by Thaddeus 6 years ago
Thaddeus
I will. I've just been a bit busier than anticipated.
Posted by Marineboy21 6 years ago
Marineboy21
Well if you want to argue then go ahead, I'm waiting.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 6 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Ravenous hound... Ravenous kitten painted to look like Pikachu... Same thing, I suppose.
Posted by Thaddeus 6 years ago
Thaddeus
I mean; I look forward to an excellent debate.
Posted by Thaddeus 6 years ago
Thaddeus
Mwahahahahahaha.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 6 years ago
Cody_Franklin
As tempted as I am to snipe this guy, I believe I shall leave this one to the other ravenous hounds.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
Marineboy21ThaddeusTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited, Thaddeus had better sources and strong arguments
Vote Placed by boredinclass 6 years ago
boredinclass
Marineboy21ThaddeusTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: con forfeit