The Instigator
Sharpie
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
bigtree
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

marijuana should not be considered an illicit drug.

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
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/22/2010 Category: Health
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,465 times Debate No: 10928
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (24)
Votes (4)

 

Sharpie

Pro

Many people think that marijuana is an illicit drug. In my debate I would like to argue that it is not but instead it is helpful in many ways.
1. People are led to believe that marijuana is more potent then it used to be. A U.S. government statistic that may influence beliefs on this states: "Today's marijuana is more potent and more harmful than it was many years ago." Though there is no medical evidence that shows high-potency marijuana is more harmful than low-potency marijuana. Marijuana is actually one of the least toxic substances known to man. High-potency marijuana is actually preferred because less of it is consumed to obtain the desired effect, thus reducing the amount of smoke entered into the lungs.

2. Marijuana contains over 400 chemicals, thus proving that marijuana is dangerous. This is completely absurd and untrue. I say this because coffee alone contains 1,500 chemicals. Rat poison contains only 30 chemicals. Many vegetables contain cancer-causing chemicals. There is no correlation between the number of chemicals a substance contains and its toxicity. Prohibitionists often cite this misleading statistic to make marijuana appear dangerous.

3. Many people are also led to believe that Marijuana is a gateway drug. They believe that it leads to harder drugs. When in fact the U.S. government's own statistics show that over 75 percent of all Americans who use marijuana never use harder drugs. The gateway-drug theory is derived by using blatantly-flawed logic. Using such blatantly-flawed logic, alcohol should be considered the gateway drug because most cocaine and heroin addicts began their drug use with beer or wine, not marijuana.

I could continue with many more valid arguments, but the fact is that I would be typing all night. So I am concluding my argument with these few topics. sources that i have used to back up my argument include http://legalizationofmarijuana.com...
bigtree

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate. I would like to commence by pointing out that the terms of the resolution have not yet been declared. Therefore, before starting my arguments, I feel it necessary to define them. Here they are:

Marijuana: the dried leaves and flowers of the hemp plant, used for its euphoric effects, esp in the form of cigarettes [1]
Should: Used to express probability or expectation [2]
Not: In no way; to no degree. Used to express negation, denial, refusal, or prohibition [3]
Considered: Highly regarded; esteemed [4]
Illicit: Illegal [5]
Drug: A chemical substance, such as a narcotic or hallucinogen, that affects the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and often addiction [6]

I would like to now rephrase the resolution to "Marijuana probably or expectedly should not be esteemed as an illegal chemical", which has the exact same meaning.

I would now like to argue my opponent's arguments:

1. People are led to believe that marijuana is more potent then it used to be.
Whether or not this is true, this does not tell me why marijuana should be esteemed as an illegal drug. It doesn't say why it is highly regarded as an illegal substance. This point is void.

2. Marijuana contains over 400 chemicals, thus proving that marijuana is dangerous.
Exactly. Dangerous things aren't esteemed by most people. Therefore it is not probable to be esteemed by a person. Leaving that aside, though, if rat poison has 30 chemicals and marijuana has over 400, that instills me with a lot of fear. Anyways, marijuana has an active ingredient of THC, which is very dangerous and harms the brain tissue [6] It has also been proven to increase the risk of cancer, due to the high amounts of cancerinogens. [7] So, the chemicals in marijuana are clearly very harmful.

3. Many people are also led to believe that Marijuana is a gateway drug.
This again does not show why marijuana should not be esteemed as an illegal drug. Just because it doesn't necessarily lead to harder drugs doesn't mean that it shouldn't be illegal. Robbing stores doesn't necessarily lead to murder, but just because it doesn't necessarily do that doesn't mean its not bad. That makes no sense!

I'm running out of time, so I'm gonna go straight to my arguments. I'll keep them short for now and expand on them later.

1. Marijuana is very dangerous. It contains THC and carcinogens. Based on that alone, it should be illegalized, because it is a danger to the public.

2. Marijuana is, by most people's standards, not esteemed as an illegal drug at all. If it is esteemed, it's not esteemed because it's illegal.

3. Marijuana is actually addictive for many. [8] An addictive substance is very dangerous to the person who is addicted, and a dependency due to addiction, which is common with marijuana addiction, can lead to violent acts and self-harm i order to obtain some of the substance. That includes theft.

[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[2]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[3]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[4]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[5]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[6]http://www.homedrugtestingkit.com...
[7]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[8]http://addiction-dirkh.blogspot.com...

And by the way, your source is blocked due to Conficker and Spyware threats ;). Just wanted to let you know.
Debate Round No. 1
Sharpie

Pro

I would like to begin by saying thanks to my opponent for accepting this debate. I will now point out the flaws in my opponents arguments and further quarrel with the debate.

in his second section, he states: " if rat poison has 30 chemicals and marijuana has over 400, that instills me with a lot of fear." My opponent leaves out the fact that coffee contains 1,500 chemicals. Therefore one cannot say that the amount of chemicals a substance contains justifies its toxicity. It would be like saying wine is more toxic than beer. Con also states: "It has also been proven to increase the risk of cancer, due to the high amounts of cancerinogens. [7] So, the chemicals in marijuana are clearly very harmful." But if you click on the link the con has provided, the website proclaims this: "Cannabis smoke contains numerous carcinogens.[72][73][74] Surprisingly, an extensive study published in 2006 by Donald Tashkin of the University of California, Los Angeles found that there is no significant link between smoking cannabis and lung cancer." If you look at this website it will go into a more detailed description about the case study.

In the cons first set of arguments he declares this: "Marijuana is very dangerous. It contains THC and carcinogens. Based on that alone, it should be illegalized, because it is a danger to the public." But what I have found is that cannabis smoke is not as carcinogenic as tobacco smoke. In a review article published in Harm Reduction Journal, Dr. Melamede from the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, USA, writes that although cannabis smoke and tobacco smoke are chemically very similar, evidence suggests that their effects are very different and that cannabis smoke is less carcinogenic than tobacco smoke. The pharmacological effects of tobacco and cannabis smoke differ in many ways, mainly because tobacco smoke contains nicotine while cannabis smoke contains tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). The cancer-promoting effects of smoke are increased by nicotine, while they are reduced by THC.

In con's second argument, I find it rather confusing. The argument practically says that by most peoples standards marijuana is not considered as an illegal drug. my opponent then says if it is, it is not valued because it is illegal. everybody I know recognizes and considers marijuana to be illegal. If this is not what you meant in your argument then please explain your argument a little better.

The third argument is inapt. The fact that marijuana is not physically addicting proves that there is no dependency on cannabis. Medical studies rank marijuana as less habit forming than caffeine. The legal drugs of tobacco (nicotine) and alcohol can be as addicting as heroin or cocaine, but marijuana is one of the least habit forming substances known.

once more I have used the same website for my research and sources. which by the way, is not blocked on any other computers I have access to. this includes my other home computers and my friends computers.
bigtree

Con

bigtree forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Sharpie

Pro

since my opponent has failed and forfeited his last argument, I will make some new topics.

1. A smart reason why marijuana should be legal is that it would save our government lots of money. In the United States, all levels of government (federal, state, and local authorities) participate in the "War on Drugs." We currently spend billions of dollars every year to chase peaceful people who happen to like to get high. These people get locked up in prison and the taxpayers have to foot the bill. We have to pay for food, housing, health care, attorney fees, court costs, and other expenses to lock these people up. This is extremely expensive! We could save billions of dollars every year as a nation if we stop wasting money locking people up for having marijuana. In addition, if marijuana were legal, the government would be able to collect taxes on it, and would have a lot more money to pay for effective drug education programs and other important causes.

2.The hemp plant is a valuable natural resource. Legalizing marijuana would eliminate the confusion surrounding hemp and allow us to take advantage of hemp's agricultural and industrial uses. Uses of hemp are, but not limited to, the following. multiple kinds of paper, clothing, rope, other materials related too fabrics, and everyday items such as wallets and blankets.

3. Another major reason that marijuana should be legal is because prohibition does not help the country in any way, and causes a lot of problems. There is no good evidence that prohibition decreases drug use, and there are several theories that suggest prohibition might actually increase drug use (i.e. the "forbidden fruit" effect, and easier accessibility for youth). One unintended effect of marijuana prohibition is that marijuana is very popular in American high schools. Why? Because it is available. You don't have to be 21 to buy marijuana -- marijuana dealers usually don't care how old you are as long as you have money. It is actually easier for many high school students to obtain marijuana than it is for them to obtain alcohol, because alcohol is legal and therefore regulated to keep it away from kids. If our goal is to reduce drug consumption, then we should focus on open and honest programs to educate youth, regulation to keep drugs away from kids, and treatment programs for people with drug problems. But the current prohibition scheme does not allow such reasonable approaches to marijuana; instead we are stuck with 'DARE' police officers spreading lies about drugs in schools, and policies that result in jail time rather than treatment for people with drug problems. We tried prohibition with alcohol, and that failed miserably. We should be able to learn our lesson and stop repeating the same mistake.

This concludes my arguments and I look forward to my opponents arguments... that is if he doesn't forfeit again.

http://www.mjlegal.org...
bigtree

Con

bigtree forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mangani 7 years ago
Mangani
Given that the judgment regarding sources says "reliable sources", a claim against a source would imply it is "unreliable".

I don't think too much of myself- only what I have accomplished. You, on the other hand, are so full of yourself you think you deserve "leniency" in a debate you not only had no factual grounds for arguing in, but you forfeited. You have insulted me, called me names (like some little kindergartner), and justified your unjustifiable actions, claims, and statements. You're either completely retarded, completely full of yourself, bipolar, or all of the above.
Posted by bigtree 7 years ago
bigtree
Hm? When did I ever say the source was unreliable? I didn't. I just said I couldn't access it. Liar. And it is truly you who thinks to much of himself.
Posted by Mangani 7 years ago
Mangani
What's that got to do with the reliability of the source? The point is you accused him of something that was affected by your network monitoring software, not a general lack of availability of the source.

You are truly immature and ignorant. Especially for someone who thinks so highly of themselves...
Posted by bigtree 7 years ago
bigtree
My parents don't know how to block websites. We all use the same account. If you want to check out what DynDNS (the blacker) is, google it. Until then, I'll tell you that it locks website automatically like an internet security software.

Maybe you should shut the hell up.
Posted by Mangani 7 years ago
Mangani
"Mangani, you're starting to piss me off."
-And who the hell are you for me to give a damn?

"I've already said I forfeited because my internet was down."
-"Why" doesn't matter, only that you did. Besides, as I said, the argument you DID provide is based on self-righteous opinion, not facts.

"I was very nice and clean up till now but I just can't stand it if you're going to make biased false accusations."
-You call being a self-righteous provider of misinformation clean???

"I've had enough."
-So quit responding. I gave my RFD, you complained about it. Your bad.

"And it as blocked cause of 2 reasons: illegal drugs and SPYWARE. READ YOUR GODDAMN STUFF BEFORE ACTING LIKE AN IDIOT!"
-It's blocked by YOUR program. And the page you showed said it could be blocked for either reason. Obviously the site cites info on what self-righteous ignoramuses consider "illicit drugs," so that's why your parents blocked it. Maybe you should log on as an adult next time.
Posted by bigtree 7 years ago
bigtree
Mangani, you're starting to piss me off. I've already said I forfeited because my internet was down. Piss off. I was very nice and clean up till now but I just can't stand it if you're going to make biased false accusations. So piss off. Now. I've had enough. You're saying the same thing I already argued with and I don't have the time to ague with you.

Sharpie, thank you for the chance to redo this debate. I will start a new one soon. :)
Posted by Sharpie 7 years ago
Sharpie
Thank you Bigtree for accepting this debate and if it is true that your enternet was down, then please create a new debate so that we may continue our arguments fairly.
Posted by Mangani 7 years ago
Mangani
I didn't find any spelling/grammar errors by Pro. Please point them out, and please explain how that excuses you from forfeiting two rounds. You might be new to this site, but it is customary to award all 7 points to one debater when the other forfeits, unless there is a substantial argument made in the rounds not forfeited. Your one argument is baseless, and false.
Posted by Mangani 7 years ago
Mangani
Therefore my comment stands.

"Yet you're being self righteous in saying you're not harsh."
-Not at all. "Harsh" is your interpretation of my honesty. Those accused by the truth, of course, will not like it. However my claim of your self-righteousness is based on the FACT that you are making BASELESS moral arguments and accusations. If my "harshness" were baseless, then you might have a point, however, my harshness is not baseless at all. Your moral argument is baseless, and self-righteous. Because you believe your statements to be true and moral, you believe you don't require as much evidence as the affirmative.
Posted by Mangani 7 years ago
Mangani
"the whole point is to show that I like to make sure there is no definition confusion, not that I'm being condenscending."
-You made an assumption that your opponent meant something that wasn't evident in his straight forward and literal premise. You even went as far as to define every word in the statement, and re-word it according to your interpretation. This is very condescending.

"Yes, I meant cancerinogens, and if you check my source, its true. I admit I added an extra R. I'm sorry. But PRO had his share of spelling errors too, so it should be a tie."

-Really? First of all, as I stated, "cancerinogens" is "used", but erratically. Please provide a source which lists the word's definition, and it's acceptance in the scientific community as an alternative for carcinogen or cancerogen.

Furthermore, this is what your source says:
"Surprisingly, an extensive study published in 2006 by Donald Tashkin of the University of California, Los Angeles found that there is no significant link between smoking cannabis and lung cancer"

It does not support your implication that the presence of carcinogens in marijuana is "dangerous".

"You're pulling crap out of everything I say and treating PRO like a god! What's not biased about that?"
-I haven't criticized Pro because his statements were supported with evidence. Yours were not. That is hardly "treating Pro like a god". Furthermore, whether I am biased is besides the point. As I stated in my last post- you have given no reason for any response not to be biased. If I were judging your reliable sources as "unreliable" for no reason other than my opinion, then that would be unreasonably biased. However, you have provided no evidence whatsoever for your argument... therefore bias is irrelevant

"Okay, you want evidece? here:"
-That link shows you have monitored browsing that blocks links which contain words like "illicit drugs". This is not a universal blockage, rather something you or your parents put in plac
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
SharpiebigtreeTied
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:52 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
SharpiebigtreeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by True2GaGa 7 years ago
True2GaGa
SharpiebigtreeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Mangani 7 years ago
Mangani
SharpiebigtreeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70