The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MonetaryOffset
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

most states should not yet legalize pot

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 4 votes the winner is...
MonetaryOffset
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/3/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 521 times Debate No: 62595
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

pot can cause problems such as mental health issues. they've done studies on this. this just causes disability and welfare spending to increase a lot more. most states should be monitoring colorado and washington to see how much the bad effects arise in those states.
MonetaryOffset

Con

I accept. With a normative resolution, we obviously have a shared burden of proof.

Rebuttals

Pro says, "pot can cause problems such as mental health issues." Pro provides zero evidence for this claim, and fails to explain why, even if this were the case, states shouldn't legalize pot.

Pro says, "they've done studies on this. this just causes disability and welfare spending to increase a lot more." If they have done studies on this subject, why hasn't Pro provided any? She is doing nothing more than making baseless assertions, and fails to connect her points to why states shouldn't legalize pot.

Pro says, "most states should be monitoring colorado and washington to see how much the bad effects arise in those states." Note that she does nothing more than assume that there will be negative effects in Washington and Colorado, but provides no evidence that there is or will be. Monitoring these states is not a bad idea; it would allow states to effectively come to a consensus on the proper implementation of policy and what regulations would be effective at curbing any potential negative impact. But that is far different than maintaining current restrictive laws prohibiting pot.


My Case

C1) Bodily Autonomy

Via Murray Rothbard:

"The right to self-ownership asserts the absolute right of each man, by virtue of his (or her) being a human being, to “own” his or her own body; that is, to control that body free of coercive interference. Since each individual must think, learn, value, and choose his or her ends and means in order to survive and flourish, the right to self-ownership gives man the right to perform these vital activities without being hampered and restricted by coercive molestation" [1].

This principle, which asserts a natural right to dominion over our own bodies, is important for several reasons. First, if we rightfully own ourselves, meaning that we are free from the coercion which would result from someone else owning or exercising constraint on us, we have the liberty to choose what goes into our bodies. Second, it treats people as fundamentally, intrinsicly valuable individuals capable of deciding for themselves whether it is best to engage in potentially harmful activites, such as using marijuana. Therefore, the government has no business in prohibiting substances in spite of whether or not it deems them to be dangerous.

C2) Black Market

The core problem with Pro's proposal, and the primary reason that you should vote negative, is that it only deals with legality. Keeping pot illegal has had much the same effect that illegalizing alcohol did: it drives people to black markets. It doesn't erase the demand for these substances, so necessarily people are going to look for other, more dangerous ways to sell and obtain pot, but it's even more dangerous in this way because the government isn't able to regulate it and prevent whoever sells it from spiking it with more dangerous drugs.

C3) Victimless Crime

Pro's proposal is, at its core, fundamentally unjust because it seeks to place people in jail for a victimless crime. Smoking marijuana does not in any way harm another person or impinge on their freedom. The government cannot and should not seek to protect people from themselves, as this would be a blatant disregard for the self-ownership principle.

C4) Medicinal Value

Pro's proposal suggests that states should not at all legalize pot, which fails to account for the fact that pot has medicinal value, particularly for cancer patients or people with severe pain.

"Modern research suggests that cannabis is a valuable aid in the treatment of a wide range of clinical applications. These include pain relief -- particularly of a neuropathic pain (pain for nerve damage) -- nausea, spasticity, glaucoma, and movement disorders. Marijuana is also a powerful appetitte stimulant, specifically for patients suffering from HIV, the AIDS wasting syndrome, or dementia. Emerging research suggests that marijuana's medicinal properties may protect the body against some types of malignant tumors and are neuroprotective. Currently, more than 60 U.S. and international health organizations support granting patients immediate legal access to medicinal marijuana under a physician's supervision. [2]."

C5) Economic Value of Legalization

Dr. Miron from Harvard, in his paper entitled "The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition," found the following [3]:

-Replacing prohibition of pot with regulation would save a total of $7.7 billion on enforcement costs, $2.4 of which at the federal level and $5.3 at the state and local level.

-It would generate a significant amount of revenue -- $2.4 billion if taxed like a regular consumer good, or $6.2 billion if it were taxed like alcohol or tobacco.



Sources

[1] http://utahliberty.org...;
[2] http://norml.org...;
[3] http://www.in.gov...;
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

for more on the mental health effects...
http://www.health.harvard.edu...
http://www.justice.gov...

when people are mentally ill, they can start drawing on social security. this is welfare, causing the government dole to be spent.

if con wants to insist bodily autonomy he must state what he thinks of government welfare going to people because of pot. is it just part of life, a good thing a bad thing etc.
con probably just views autonomy so high that it doesn't matter. in which case we could be having this debate about cigarettes and alcohol and other drugs too.... there's nothing special about pot.
MonetaryOffset

Con

Pro begins by linking to two papers. However, these papers cannot make the arguments for her; she cannot say "Pot leads to mental health effects" and expect the papers to do the talking for her. She must herself elucidate the findings of these studies. If she were simply able to throw links around, it would be a battle of my links versus her links instead of a debate. At this point, we should discard this point until she properly evidences this point.

The key point I want to stress, though, is that even IF marijuana can have such effects -- and surely too much of anything can have some negative effects -- this is utterly irrelevant, because (1) people have a right to make decisions for themselves and (2) putting people away for victimless crimes is unjust and economically inefficient and (3) people are going to be able to access these substances regardless of legality.

Pro states, "when people are mentally ill, they can start drawing on social security. this is welfare, causing the government dole to be spent." There are several problems with this argument. First, Pro's connection between Pot (A), Mental Illness (B), and Social Security (C) is a casual relationship at best. She hasn't demonstrated that Pot necessarily leads to mental illnesses, and the papers she cites only suggest that it COULD lead to such an effect. She wants to assert that A causes C, when in reality the relationship is much more complex: A could cause B, and B would entail C.

Second, Pro has absolutely no conception of what Social Security is. It is NOT a welfare program. People pay a percentage of their paycheck toward Social Security for the entirety of their working lives. She is painting a highly deceptive, counter-factual image that people are leeching off the government dole, when in fact that is far from the case -- they are merely taking the benefits they are entitled to, and have earned after years of hard work. Moreover, the Social Security trust fund has a $2.7 trillion surplus [1]. Social Security expenditures are completely separate from the general budget, and SS doesn't add a dime to the deficit. In fact, there's currently a surplus in payroll tax revenue, so that money is transferred into Treasury bonds and garnering interest, so SS is actually a boon for the US government: one of the most successful programs ever implemented which kept seniors off the street, and even has a substantial fiscal multiplier and supports a vast amount of jobs.

"A new report from AARP, in fact, shows that every $1 paid out to Social Security generates, in turn, about $2 of total output for the U.S. economy -- or nearly $1.4 trillion in 2012. Economists call this the "multiplier effect." Simply put, that's when one person's spending (in this case, spending generated by Social Security benefits) becomes a second person's income, then the second person's income is spent and becomes a third person's income, and so on. The report also shows that the $762 billion in Social Security benefits paid out in 2012 supported more than 9 million jobs -- full -- and part-time. It's important to remember, too, that Social Security kept more than 22 million Americans out of poverty last year, including 15 million adults 65 and older." [2]

Moreover, Pro is villifying with her remarks people with mental illnesses. Whether or not those illnesses were in any way caused or influenced by Pot use is utterly irrelevant at this point, as she is painting an image of mentally ill people as moochers when I've demonstrated that this far from the case. They are victims of circumstance and they need help. The issue of how to best assist mentally ill patients, of course, is far beyond the parameters of this debate, but we are not going to be doing anyone any favors by simply illegalizing Pot, especially in light of all the benefits of Pot I've provided in my last round, most of which Pro has dropped.

Pro states, "if con wants to insist bodily autonomy he must state what he thinks of government welfare going to people because of pot. is it just part of life, a good thing a bad thing etc." First of all, Pro hasn't at all demonstrated that government welfare arises as a result of Pot. She brought up Social Security, but this is far from a welfare program. Second, this is not at all a refutation to bodily autonomy. We could even examine this question philosophically in an anarchist framework without a government and pose the question of whether you have a right to bodily autonomy. The answer of course is independent of and far supersedes government welfare programs, even if Pro could demonstrate any sort of causal connections. Therefore, I simply reject Pro's premise that people would receive welfare "because of Pot," because she hasn't at all demonstrated that this is the case. If it were the case that people with mental illnesses were receiving "welfare" -- and I'd love for Pro to define this welfare -- then I don't see that at all as a bad thing: it's simply government acting not only to care for the neediest and most vulnerable amongst us, but also more broadly helping the general populace via the muliplier effect, as I demonstrated earlier. Any form of government expenditures of this kind has an exceptionally high multiplier, and just by virtue of that everyone benefits.

Pro states, "con probably just views autonomy so high that it doesn't matter. in which case we could be having this debate about cigarettes and alcohol and other drugs too.... there's nothing special about pot." This isn't really an argument, but instead a de-facto concession that Pot isn't much different than alcohol or other drugs. We've already had Prohibiton of alcohol in the past, and it was a complete and utter disaster -- organized crime shot through the roof. Would Pro like to return to that? If there isn't much of a difference between Pot and alcohol, surely Pro must be able to provide a case for us in favor of alcohol prohibition, and explain away the ramifications of that failed experiment.

How "highly I value bodily autonomy," at this point, is really utterly irrelevant because this is a point that Pro hasn't at all even attempted to refute. As I stated in my last round, I don't see this through an absolutist lens: I want people to be able to do as they wish so long as they don't harm another, meaning that I want to follow Murray Rothbard's self-ownership principle. The existence of a government, in some sense, violates bodily autonomy, at least indirectly by way of taxation. My point, though, is that a further, egregious and completely unwarranted action of government -- in this case, illegalizing Pot -- is completely ludicrous and should be brutally condemned.


Dropped Arguments

-Pro completely drops that states could monitor Colorado and Washington to develop proper regulation to curbe any potential negative impact of Pot legalization.
-Pro fails to refute the bodily autonomy point, and only responds to it tangentially
-Pro drops my points on the black market
-Pro drops my argument on Pot use being a victimless crime
-Pro drops the evidence I provided showing the medicinal value of Pot
-Pro drops my arguments on the economy value of legalization

Since convention states that no new arguments are allowed in the last round, it would be unfair for Pro to attempt to respond to these dropped points.

Conclusion

I have refuted every single one of Pro's arguments, and she has failed to make a proper argument or address adequately any of my points.


[1] http://blogs.reuters.com...
[2] http://blog.aarp.org...
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

your arguments are basic in essence, but you debate them formidably.

all i can really do is reiterate my last points.
MonetaryOffset

Con

There isn't anythingelse I can even say. All of my points remain completely uncontested, and Pro has not even attempted to rebut my arguments.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
I smoke Pot. habitually, casually, spiritually.

I am 100% on Dairygirls side.

an idiot would legalize Dope to an atheist nation that is diligently fighting to legalize adultery and homosexuality while liberating the world from religious doctrine. Atheists without the law to not rape and kill would in fact rape and kill without that law. That law has a clear origin. Doctrine.
Posted by Taramarie 2 years ago
Taramarie
I would have to say pro on this one. For those of you who think that it should be up to an individual whether or not they smoke weed because it only harms themselves are clearly ignorant. doesnt the very fact that we have people who think its okay to murder other human beings show you that we should not be allowed to make our own decisions? the government has to protect us because there is so many people without intelligence that are not capable of making good decisions. should the government legalize murder because it should be up to the individual? obviously not. I know marijuana does have some medical value, but so does medicine. the marijuana doesn't provide any additional healing that medicine cannot. Also to say that we should legalize marijuana because it will bring money in, is so unbelievably ridiculous Im not even gonna waste my time arguing against it because anyone with a reasonable mind sees the problem with that. and to those who say that marijuana hasn't killed anyone, id like to know where you are getting your information? even if it doesn't directly cause death(which im farely certain it does) it does cause people to have an unclear mindset that causes them to do things that can/do cause death. that is all.
Posted by MonetaryOffset 2 years ago
MonetaryOffset
Sigh.....Liz, you're turning into the best argument AGAINST legalizing pot. Gosh. Save your stoner music for after the voting period ends.
Posted by debatability 2 years ago
debatability
legalize weed !!

some call it da weed
some call it marajuana
some call it ganja

nevamind you gotta legalize it
dnt even criticize it
legalize it
yeah dummy

good for asthma
good for tuburculosis
Posted by DylanLang 2 years ago
DylanLang
This time i am for pro, so no argument with me bro. Sorry.
Posted by DylanLang 2 years ago
DylanLang
This time i am for pro, so no argument with me bro. Sorry.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
dairygirl4u2cMonetaryOffsetTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Pro did not fully respond to Con arguments.
Vote Placed by induced 2 years ago
induced
dairygirl4u2cMonetaryOffsetTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con refuted pros arguments well and pro didn't attempt to answer.
Vote Placed by republicofdhar 2 years ago
republicofdhar
dairygirl4u2cMonetaryOffsetTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro basically conceded the debate.
Vote Placed by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
ESocialBookworm
dairygirl4u2cMonetaryOffsetTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF disguised as a non-FF, unrefuted args