The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Weed legalization

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/1/2016 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 592 times Debate No: 90486
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




Why marijuana should be legalized you ask me?

Well I want to tell anyone who is against me, get some research done.
Did you do some research? Let's assume you did and if you are still reading this and still against it, then I guess I have someone to debate with (Cheers). I live in Canada, a beautiful place with a lot of forests and wildlife. Justin Trudeau, our Prime Minister, won the federal elections primarily because he said that he was going to fix our economy and that marijuana will be legal.Also, he just stated not so long ago that cannabis will be legal and taxed in July of 2017. Economy will go up, crime rates will go down and medical marijuana patients will no longer need a doctor's prescription. Just that by itself adds up to the fact that tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol kills cancer cells, helps glaucoma, is anti inflammatory, slows down the progression of Alzheimer's disease, lessens the side effects of hepatitis C and AIDS, keeps your metabolism strong and protects your brain from having a stroke and after having one.

Many reasearchers have proved that pot is extremely less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes (If not harmful at all...).

Now, I know your next argument is going to be about addiction and teens with developping brains and stuff like that.
Only about 9% of people who smoke weed for the first time develop addiction. Furthermore, a research in Pittsburgh
said that teen marijuana use does not lead to depression or cancer or brain cells not developping.


I do not see any sources. For all I know, he is pulling this all out of his rectal region. However, I will address the one argument in which he decided to provide a source.

This case helps my argument. If a person smokes marijuana once, note only once, 9% of them will develop an addiction. This is a huge number for just one use of the drug.

Short Term Effects Of Marijuana:
"Three experienced marijuana smokers participated in four 2-day experimental sessions in which they smoked either 0, 1, or 2 marijuana cigarettes containing 2.57% Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) at two different times on the first day. A battery of physiological, subjective, and performance measures was repeated throughout day 1 to assess acute effects and on day 2 to measure any residual effects of marijuana. Blood samples were also repeatedly collected to examine the relationship between plasma levels and pharmacological effects of THC. Acutely, marijuana increased heart rate and subjective ratings of drug effects and slightly impaired performance on a circular lights task in all subjects. Performance was also impaired (decreased accuracy and increased response time) on serial addition/subtraction and digit recall tasks on day 1 in two subjects. On day 2, tachycardia and subjective effects of marijuana were not observed. Performance remained impaired on the arithmetic and recall tasks on day 2, although the decrements were not as large as those observed on day 1. In general, plasma THC levels covaried with the other measures. These preliminary results suggest that marijuana can adversely affect complex human performance up to 24 hours after smoking." (1)

"Very heavy use of marijuana is associated with persistent decrements in neurocognitive performance even after 28 days of abstinence. It is unclear if these decrements will resolve with continued abstinence or become progressively worse with continued heavy marijuana use." (3)

Long Term Effects of Marijuana:
"Despite these limitations, this review should alert primary care physicians to the potential adverse health outcomes associated with the widespread use and abuse of and dependence on marijuana. Large prospective studies should be designed that carefully account for potential confounding factors (including detailed assessments of tobacco, substance abuse, and occupational and environmental exposures) that can affect lung health. Such studies should use standard exposure and outcome criteria to accurately measure potential associations. The present findings should be considered in conjunction with a recent review42 that showed an association between marijuana smoking and premalignant changes in the lung. On the basis of currently available information, health care professionals should consider marijuana smoking in their patients who present with respiratory complications and advise their patients regarding the potential impact of this behavior on their health." (2)

"Frequent cannabis use in teenage girls predicts later depression and anxiety, with daily users carrying the highest risk. Given recent increasing levels of cannabis use, measures to reduce frequent and heavy recreational use seem warranted." (4)

I find it funny how my opponent claims marijuana helps strokes. However, a study I found has shown the opposite. Marijuana use may actually be the cause for some strokes.
"We present the case of a 15-year-old with a cerebellar infarct that involved multiple arterial territories. It was temporally related to, and probably caused by, heavy marijuana use. While the mechanism of marijuana-associated stroke is unclear, the drug is known to cause hypotension and to impair peripheral vasomotor reflexes. We suspect that the child had diminished cerebral autoregulatory capacity and developed the stroke during a period of hypotension." (5)

The legalization of marijuana will not help the economy.

"The argument that we can tax and regulate marijuana and derive income from it is false. The increased use will increase the multitude of costs that come with marijuana use. The costs from health and mental wellness problems, accidents, and damage to our economic productivity will far out strip any tax obtained. Our economy is suffering. The last thing we need is the burden that legalization will put on us." (6)

In Conclusion:
Marijuana causes short term health affects.
Marijuana causes long term health affects.
Marijuana does not help the economy.

For anyone reading this, if you are considering smoking weed, DON'T DO IT!

Debate Round No. 1
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by DoNotEvenTry 2 years ago
Cooldudebro only copied the sources and if I wanted I could give you guys all the sources but this debate does not matter to me at all. I just wanted to have some fun on a rainy day but some plagiaristic fucktards here just fucked my point up by copying some parents against drugs websites.


And 9% was people who after smoked had psychotic effects like paranoia and anxiety. I read something a long time ago and do not remember where that only 0.5% of people had a psychosis after.
Posted by EndarkenedRationalist 2 years ago
Cooldudebro, I'll debate this with you if you ever feel like doing it again.
Posted by EndarkenedRationalist 2 years ago
Well...I would have liked to see this debate extend beyond one round. I think a few rebuttals could have easily turned this in favor of PRO. PRO mainly made blanket assertions to support his legalization of weed. He pointed out the weed is less harmful than alcohol or cigarettes, that it has health benefits, and that only 9% of first-time users get addicted.

CON tries to turn the 9% figure, saying it is large, but without comparisons to general first time addiction stats, I have no way of knowing which is true. Since both only asserted and never argued this point, it is tied. CON sourced a study showing how weed can impair human performance. If CON had any BoP, this would be insufficient on its own, particularly since CON drops the contention about weed being less harmful than alcohol, which impairs judgment and performance far more than weed. But CON has no BoP in this debate, as it is PRO who argues for changing the status quo. CON's most persuasive point comes in linking a correlation between lung damage and smoking weed. PRO never responds to this, so the point stands. CON's final point, about the economy, is similarly never challenged.

All in all, this debate just needed more rounds. Without them, CON wins.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by EndarkenedRationalist 2 years ago
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: Comments