The Instigator
MaddenHarris
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Christinahenry
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Is it constitutional for the federal government to regulate marijuana, even over state objection?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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...
MaddenHarris
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/29/2018 Category: Health
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 759 times Debate No: 107246
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

MaddenHarris

Pro

There is not a constitutional right to legalize recreational marijuana. There have been clashing reports as to what marijuana does to the human body. Although, states where marijuana is legal have seen an increase in car accidents. The number of accident insurance claims that have been filed in Washington, Oregon, and Colorado are 3% higher than what was expected had they not legalized recreational use of marijuana. There is an increased crash risk in states where marijuana is legal. Colorado's is the highest, being that recreational use of the drug has been around for longest time. This is not just an issue of what people are doing to themselves, they are endangering the people around them.
Christinahenry

Con

Yes, marijuana is a major benefit in the health field. It has been proven to help with a range of many conditions including epilepsy, crohn's disease, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and many other conditions. States and local governments are looking for ways to increase money revenue for roads, schools, buildings and the community's needs. These states and local governments believe that legalizing marijuana would help with this revenue boost. Marijuana legalization can also decrease criminals. If Marijuana is legalized then the cost of its substance would decrease causing the criminals to lose money and they would be out of business.
Debate Round No. 1
MaddenHarris

Pro

I agree that medical marijuana is a major benefit. My point is that it is completely constitutional for the federal government to regulate marijuana usage. For instance the government could allow medical marijuana and keep recreational use illegal. High amounts of marijuana can be very dangerous. 1 in 10 people who use marijuana will become addicted. For those who began smoking before age 18 that number rises to 1 in 6. Marijuana directly affects the parts of the brain dealing with memory, attention, and learning. Overtime these functions may become impaired. Compounds in marijuana affect the circulatory system. This could put users at risk for heart attacks and strokes. Also smoking marijuana is extremely dangerous to the health of the lungs. Most of the time marijuana can be very toxic and dangerous. Such a dangerous drug should be prohibited from using for recreational purposes.

The numbers and risks that I cited I obtained from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
https://www.cdc.gov...
Christinahenry

Con

Public health and planning agencies have come up with a plan to stop addictive overuse of recreational marijuana. Adopting local ordinances will prevent overconcentration of cannabis retail. Permits can be made to prevent overpopulated dispensaries. Buffer zones can also be created around schools, libraries, and parks. Like I said in my last opposing argument recreational marijuana will increase revenue boost tremendously. In 2010, California committed 10 million $ in marijuana revenues to communities (this sum will ride to 50 million$ in 2022 and beyond). Marijuana Tax Fun commits 60% of revenues to youth programs. Increasing access investments are being put towards parks, facilities, and towards expanding hours at public facilities.

California's data based off of revenue was cited from http://rinf.com...
Debate Round No. 2
MaddenHarris

Pro

If organizations are having to go through so much to try to prevent overuse and addiction, maybe it should not be legalized in the first place. There are many different ways to boost government revenue other than legalizing a dangerous gateway drug. Should cocaine also be made legal if it boosts state revenue? What about heroine? I think that just because something might boost state revenue does not make it a good idea. Aren't there other steps we could take before legalizing recreational drug use. What about updating tax policies and cutting useless government spending?
Christinahenry

Con

Marijuana is not like heroin or cocaine. Those two drugs are both prostecic and man made. Marijuana is a self grown natured plant that is not like heroine or cocaine which are called "harder" drugs. "Harder" drugs are highly addictive, marijuana is not. 16,000 jobs were created due to the marijuana industry in Colorado. This has caused there unemployment rate to drop majorly. Marijuana is a safe gateway drug proven to help with people's disabilities. This drug is easy to sell and will increase revenue much quicker rather than updating tax policies or making the government make more spending cutts. The government already cutts spendings and they are on the edge with the cutts they have already made. If the government makes any more cutts then the unemployment rate will increase more than it already has. Marijuana Recreational legalization will get people back in business and give them jobs to be employed with, more disabilities will be treated, and there will be less criminals in our community, therefore recreational marijuana should be legalized.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by annacraton 8 months ago
annacraton
I have been having issues with the voting part, but I think that the con side won the argument based on the content of their responses and the points made during the debate.
Posted by Hailyellis 8 months ago
Hailyellis
I think both sides put up a good argument but I have to agree more with the con side. I think marijuana can be useful sometimes like in medical situations and it should be the states job whether to have it or not. Also i do agree that marijuana is not as bad as people make it out to be. I think the states should be able to put age restrictions and stuff on the law to make it even less dangerous. I want to vote for the con side and have tried the past few days but it would not let me so i'm hoping this works.
Posted by MichaelLevette 8 months ago
MichaelLevette
I vote for The Contender. I agree that the government should legalize certain drugs. Why not make some money off of it in the process? Also drugs will be bad only because people abuse them and get addicted to them. It"s not different than tobacco. We have addictive personalities. So with all this I think The Contender wins. I tried to vote but it wouldn"t let me.
Posted by katherinesebastian 8 months ago
katherinesebastian
I believe that the federal government shouldn't regulate marijuana, because recreational marijuana has the capacity to help many illnesses that cannot otherwise be treated well with medicines we have now. Recreational marijuana is also no more harmful than alcohol is, yet we allow alcohol. I feel like with some laws placed on it such as an age restraint, etc., then it should be allowed and regulated by states only.
Posted by melross1971 8 months ago
melross1971
I think both Madden and Christina had some good points to make. Though I don't feel the federal government should be allowed to regulate marijuana. Both pros and cons were definitely interesting.
Posted by fccorder 8 months ago
fccorder
I would have to say Con did win this argument but the con side did bring in last minute info about the jobs in the last speech and that's kinda a no no. But over all both sides did go bringing their arguments.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by asande27 8 months ago
asande27
MaddenHarrisChristinahenryTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: They both had good arguments, but the Pro side offered more reasoning.