The Instigator
gabbsmcswaggin
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Stonewall
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

marijuanal should be legailized

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 1 vote the winner is...
Stonewall
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/21/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 880 times Debate No: 39254
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

gabbsmcswaggin

Pro

This debate challenge is open to the first member that accepts it. I will post my responce next round.
Stonewall

Con

I accept. After you.
Debate Round No. 1
gabbsmcswaggin

Pro

The drug generally isn't more harmful than alcohol or tobacco if used in moderation.
Limiting the use of the drug intrudes on personal freedom. There are medical benefits such as the those for cancer patients. Police and court resources would be freed up for more serious crimes.Aside from recreational drug use, Cannabis has several industrial and commercial uses, as over 25,000 products can be made from the crop. Drug busts often trap young people in a flawed system that turns them into lifelong criminals. Studys show healthy men who have smoked the equivalent of one joint daily for seven years have a lung capacity that is 1.6 percent higher than that of otherwise healthy non-marijuana-smoking men.
Stonewall

Con

"The drug generally isn't more harmful than alcohol or tobacco if used in moderation."

Exactly, so why should any be legal? All three of those things produce little to no positive effects. Marijuana can be used medically, and I will address this later on.

"Limiting the use of the drug intrudes on personal freedom."

Limiting the use of mind-altering and potentially dangerous (1) substances infringes personal freedom? I mean, I guess technically, but that seems absolutely ridiculous to fight for.

"There are medical benefits such as the those for cancer patients."

From a LiveScience article, (2) "Marijuana also suppresses the immune system, which can be damaging to many people, but useful for others with certain health conditions. Although marijuana has been known to decrease pressure within the eyes, a symptom of the condition glaucoma, research has shown that other drugs may be more effective." The article goes on to say that it "is difficult to test for efficacy and safety because the proportions of active chemicals can range greatly from plant to plant." These don't even mention how marijuana affects judgment, rational decisions, attention, and other aspects of thought in general.

"Police and court resources would be freed up for more serious crimes."

This argument would make more sense if there were more serious crimes in the first place. This argument has never made any sense. What, you think that police just focus solely on pot users instead of solving murders? That's ridiculous. But smoking pot is, as of right now, a crime in most states. We should treat it as such. Just making something legal doesn't make the situation better. "Let's just make illegal immigration legal, so there's less crime. Let's legalize marijuana so there's less crime." This could, essentially, be carried to the nth degree. "If we make murder legal, there will be less crime." This is, of course, an out-there example, but the basic premise of legalizing something for there to be less crime is absolutely ludicrous.

"Drug busts often trap young people in a flawed system that turns them into lifelong criminals."

First, saying that it's a "flawed system" begs the question of how it's a flawed system to begin with. Second, do you have any backing for this data that it leads to lifelong crime? If so, that just supports the idea that marijuana is a "gateway drug", leading to a slippery slope of lifelong crime. Furthermore, it's common knowledge that if you commit a crime, you go to prison. Any four-year-old could tell you this. "So let's make it legal so there's less crime!" Refer to my point made two responses ago.

"Studys [sic] show healthy men who have smoked the equivalent of one joint daily for seven years have a lung capacity that is 1.6 percent higher than that of otherwise healthy non-marijuana-smoking men."

That is a blip as far as bodily functions go. What if my stomach could hold 1.6 percent more food after taking this pill for seven years? What if my hair grew 1.6 percent more after I used this hair gel for seven years? In any other part of the body, 1.6 percent is practically nothing, not to mention the cost of using these products far outweighs any potential for a 1.6 percent growth. This point is useless.

"Aside from recreational drug use, Cannabis has several industrial and commercial uses, as over 25,000 products can be made from the crop."

(3, 4) No, no, no. This debate is about marijuana, not hemp and cannabis. Hemp and marijuana are both strains of the plant known as cannabis. Hemp and marijuana, on this note, couldn't be further apart.

First of all, hemp has a tenth of the THC level as marijuana; that is, you'd have to smoke almost a dozen hemp joints to get about the same affect as one of marijuana. There are plenty of plants that have that same potential, and are not used for that purpose.

Second, the reason that hemp (not marijuana) is used for so many purposes... paper, fuel, dynamite, fabric, rope, and so on... is because of its phenomenal durability. Of the earth's natural fibers, hemp is the strongest, even moreso than cotton and pine. Hemp can also be grown up to fifteen feet, with up to four times as much fiber produced than pine. Hemp can also be grown in almost any conditions, requires no pesticides or other chemicals, and can be recycled up to seven times. On the other hand, marijuana is incredibly weak and easily tearable, thus making it a poor fabric to use. Marijuana can only grow up to five feet and only in humid and moist conditions, thus making it even less cultivable than hemp.

It has to be said that I fully support the growing, cultivation, and use of hemp. A simple Google search can show how many products hemp can make at a more affordable, safer, more useful, and environmentally friendly rate. Marijuana, on the other hand, is almost a polar opposite for various reasons. The two cannot be treated as one and the same.

__


The majority of my opponent's points don't show support of the legalization of marijuana, are irrelevant, or are easily argued to show both sides. In fact, many of the points are incredibly self-refuting, like the hemp thing and the "lifelong criminal" argument. I don't have more to say in the way of saying why it shouldn't be legalized that I haven't already said. I will, instead, wait for my opponent's responses, and I do look forward to them.

1. http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org...
2. http://www.livescience.com...
3. http://www.marijuanalibrary.org...
4. http://hempethics.weebly.com...
Debate Round No. 2
gabbsmcswaggin

Pro

The drug generally isn't more harmful than alcohol or tobacco if used in moderation."

Exactly, so why should any be legal? All three of those things produce little to no positive effects. Marijuana can be used medically, and I will address this later on."
Because the prohibition of alcohol caused a rise in crime by funding criminal organizations much like the prohibition of marijuana.

"Limiting the use of mind-altering and potentially dangerous (1) substances infringes personal freedom? I mean, I guess technically, but that seems absolutely ridiculous to fight for."
Prohibition denies our most basic human right. Prohibition takes away our right of sovereignty over our own bodies and gives this power to government.

"This argument would make more sense if there were more serious crimes in the first place. This argument has never made any sense. What, you think that police just focus solely on pot users instead of solving murders?"
No but the dea would be able to focus more resources on more hardcore drugs.

"Second, do you have any backing for this data that it leads to lifelong crime?"
What my point meant was that it gives young people a criminal record which could hurt their chances for a job. The government arrests over 700,000 Americans, more than the population of Wyoming, for marijuana possession every year. These new "convicts" are driven from their jobs and families, and pushed into a prison system that turns first-time offenders into hardened criminals.

Prohibition diverts billions from the needy. More than 50 government agencies feed at the drug war trough. Food stamps and other social programs are being slashed while billions are spent trying to stop adults from using marijuana
Stonewall

Con

"Because the prohibition of alcohol caused a rise in crime by funding criminal organizations much like the prohibition of marijuana."

So if enough people break the law, we should just make it legal? To quote the film Seven, "We see a deadly sin on every street corner, in every home, and we tolerate it. We tolerate it because it's common; it's trivial." If something becomes commonplace, we should not just tolerate it, we should enforce the law.

"Prohibition denies our most basic human right. Prohibition takes away our right of sovereignty over our own bodies and gives this power to government."

This still does not change the point that you're fighting for the right to harm your body. Like I said, it is technically your right to harm yourself, but why is this one of your strongest points? Our government should help its people protect themselves.

"No but the dea would be able to focus more resources on more hardcore drugs."

My concept remains:

"This argument would make more sense if there were more serious crimes in the first place... What, you think that police just focus solely on pot users instead of solving murders? That's ridiculous. But smoking pot is, as of right now, a crime in most states. We should treat it as such."

The resources are still being used in different areas, whether that's murder or hardcore drugs.

"What my point meant was that it gives young people a criminal record which could hurt their chances for a job... These new 'convicts' are driven from their jobs and families, and pushed into a prison system that turns first-time offenders into hardened criminals."

You ignored my question if you have any solid evidence for this. Even if it were true (which is a questionable premise at best), this simply reiterates the idea that marijuana is a gateway drug.

"Prohibition diverts billions from the needy. More than 50 government agencies feed at the drug war trough. Food stamps and other social programs are being slashed while billions are spent trying to stop adults from using marijuana"

The overall cost of marijuana prohibition is about 20 billion a year (1), which is a ratio of 1:852 to our overall national debt of 17.04 trillion. (2, 3) Welfare, on the other hand, takes about one trillion from tax payers (4), which is a much more substantial ratio of 1:17. It's obvious that welfare needs to be fixed much more quickly than our prohibition costs do.

___

Overall, my opponent made a few mediocre points that were quickly refuted, proved to be meaningless, or at the very least easily shown to be two-sided. The opponent never provided sources and the points themselves didn't seem to be very thought out, and only four of my seven rebuttals were addressed.

Thanks for reading, voters. Vote for whoever made the better argument.
___

1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

2. https://www.google.com...

3. http://www.usdebtclock.org...

4. http://www.foxbusiness.com...
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by theHomelessPanda 3 years ago
theHomelessPanda
I also enjoyed the Con's Se7en reference. Great damn movie.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by theHomelessPanda 3 years ago
theHomelessPanda
gabbsmcswagginStonewallTied
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: Despite still being pro legalization myself, Con had much more substantial and thorough arguments. Con was able to develop ideas, and effectively refute every one of the Pro's points without much resistance. Pretty one sided. Congrats to the con.