query: Should recreational marijuana be legal?

positive: Marijuana should be legal Whilst many use marijuana as a recreational drug or as a pain killer it depends on how you use it and why especially if its a young adult such as a 18 year old who's front cortex hasn't even developed yet

positive: Medical as well as recreational marijuana should be legal in all US states The matter of legalizing medical marijuana is an important issue for several reasons. From the data observed in the link below [1] there are currently 23 states with laws legalizing marijuana, some still more restrictive than others. This of course is a significant step in the right direction. However, I believe that all states should follow the examples of Alaska, Colorado, Washington and Oregon to legalize not only cannabis for medicinal usage but also for recreational consumption. I will list my reasons further below. Before doing so I would like to specifically define the meanings of marijuana itself and respectively medical and recreational cannabis to avoid any confusions or misunderstandings. Marijuana is defined as "a commonly used illegal drug made from dried leaves of the hemp plant" and "a strong-smelling plant from whose dried leaves a number of euphoriant and hallucinogenic drugs are prepared." Marijuana goes by many other names such as cannabis, hemp, weed etc. [2] Medical marijuana is defined as the usage of marijuana for medical or medicinal purposes. [3] [4] Recreational marijuana is defined as any other recreational drug which is described as "a drug (as cocaine, marijuana, or methamphetamine) used without medical justification for its psychoactive effects often in the belief that occasional use of such a substance is not habit-forming or addictive." [6] I acknowledge the many different types of marijuana that exists for different purposes, most, I understand, are hybrids made for different specific medical needs. However I do not know enough on the subject of them, their effects and upsides as well as downsides. I would therefore appreciate if this debate could be exclusively on the matters of the aforementioned descriptions of cannabis, medical and recreational. Now I will present my arguments as to why I believe medical and recreational marijuana should be legalized in all US states.R32;R32;First of all I would like to point out that there is no scientific background with evidence as to exactly why marijuana was classified as a Schedule I drug in the first place. The definition of a Schedule 1 drug from the Drug Enforcement Administration itself clearly states, that "Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse."[6] This definition leaves no room for doubt that no Schedule 1 drug has any medical use. However it has been a known fact for centuries that cannabis has been used for medical purposes with positive effects. This can easily be found true when looking at many different sources. Here I have merely linked one. [7]R32;The National Institute on Drug Abuse also states that there are medical benefits from marijuana. [8] R32;There can be many reasons as to why marijuana was classified the way it was and still has not been re-classified but that is a completely different debate. Here are links with possible explanations that no matter what do not justify why it was classified so harshly. [9] [10] R32;All in all, there can be no doubts that this classification of marijuana is deeply illogical and misleading. Second, I would like to stress that America would merit tremendously from the economic profits caused by legalizing marijuana. It can be no surprise to any logical thinking creature that America spends enormous sums of money on dealing with and prohibiting crime related to illegal marijuana sales and consumptions. All of this money would of course not be spent if marijuana was legalized. In stead I propose that all states start off like Oregon, Alaska, Washington and Colorado by legalizing recreational marijuana as well. These states all have different laws that specifically suits them and I believe this is a good way to start. R32;R32;The legalization of medical as well as recreational marijuana would be the only solution to properly profit economically from the marijuana businesses that are currently not legal. This is because these businesses will probably still exist if only medicinal marijuana was legalized. [11] [12] Third and last I believe, as mentioned, that marijuana should be legalised for recreational use. This is because I believe in every individual"s right to care for him or herself"s own health and decide what is best. Especially when it comes to smoking tobacco or marijuana for pleasure. I am aware of the fact that marijuana has other effects than regular tobacco smoking. However tobacco smoking is the leading cause of preventable death here in America and I do not see how it in any aspect is justifiable, that tobacco smoking has no legal restrictions when a harmless plant such as cannabis is classified as a schedule 1 drug and illegal in most states. [13] I believe that cannabis should be legalized for medical and recreational use. Of course all sale should be done by an approved salesperson to ensure and uphold a certain safety. This will still leave room for illegal sales but not in the same measure as it is now. I am not trying to say that tobacco smoking should be classified as a schedule 1 drug as well. I am saying that the laws making marijuana illegal are so illogical that I am astonished this can happen in a well educated country in the 21st century. http://www.governing.com... https://www.vocabulary.com... http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com... https://www.leafly.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.dea.gov... http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... https://www.drugabuse.gov... http://www.ibtimes.com... http://www.drugwarrant.com... http://www.dailydot.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.cdc.gov...

positive: Medical Marijuana should be a legal option I challenge my opponent to debate the merits or lack thereof of medical marijuana. I believe that Medical Marijuana should be legal because it has been proven to have medical benefits and relieve pain. It is less addictive and has less severe side effects than many of the opiates currently prescribed for pain. Making medical marijuana illegal could therefore be detrimental to therapy fro people suffering from sever diseases. I await your response and f

positive: Marijuana Marijuana actually does effect the brain and although you brought up the fact that alcohol does more damage the debate isn't stating which substance is worse. http://dictionary.reference.com... Under the science definition you will see the function of the hippocampus which has to do with memory. The reason for this definition is for the purpose that marijuana effects this exact location in which the mind will not be able to store new memory and will be difficult for doing tasks in the future. http://www.drugabuse.gov... A huge sentence that stood out in the article was "Such short-term psychotic reactions to high concentrations of THC are distinct from longer-lasting, schizophrenia-like disorders that have been associated with the use of cannabis in vulnerable individuals." This is in your relation to using marijuana for medical purposes. If you give medical marijuana to a cancer patient they are weak and their immune system is weak so they will as the article states be vulnerable and likely get a mental disorder. So on top of that I see no reason to give a cancer patient marijuana if it means it is possible to get a mental disorder, we have access to the top medicine why use something recreational illegal. Many people while smoking weed experience negative affects while using marijuana one major effect is having a panic or anxiety attack which can mess with a persons head for a long time. http://www.healthyplace.com... The article also states that, "Marijuana smoking or ingestion of THC increases the heart rate by 20-50% within a few minutes to a quarter-of-an-hour; this effect lasts for up to 3 hours. Blood pressure is increased while the person is sitting, and decreased while standing." If these are the negative effects of marijuana the panic attacks, hard to form memories, and raised heart and blood rate why would someone enjoy this? If marijuana did not cause all these harmful effects there would be nothing wrong with the drug, but I feel that too many people are too busy trying to smoke weed than doing important things such as school work in order to get their grades up and that will help the United States raise their scores in multiple aspects. Also it will get people to put their minds to good use to help what is in store for us in the future. My final point for this round will be the amount of money spent on weed. The average person smokes once a day and they usually smoke a dime. If the average person spends 10$ per day he is looking at 70$ a week which is a huge amount of money spent on such pointless things. It should be spent to better uses or even healthier uses such as a gym or something to be active. Also this money that the average person is putting into is going into funds that express an illegal fund which could cause jail time for both the seller and abuser.

positive: All drugs should be legalized C1: The marginal drug user "While legalization would increase drug users" Thank you. Proceeding: My opponents main argument here is legalization would make non violent users. I cant tell if he is hinting that prohibition is the problem, which is likely the case, but I would like to note the argument of marginal drug usage is mainly an opinionated argument which I see no logic in. When drugs where fully legal in the early 1900s, addiction rates where very high. In 1880, for example, opium and cocaine where legal for use and did not need doctors advice/oversight. Addiction was at very high rates. The UK has had other problems with more liberal laws, (allowing doctors to prescribe heroin), which have all lead to increased addiction rates.[1] Before cocaine was banned in 1915 cocaine usage [and addiction] was very high; so high that it was a major argument for its criminalization.[2] As we can see there is no "marginal drug usage" involved with legalization. The facts are clear: It increases addition rates, getting addicted is not marginal. I would also like to note marijuana, the least addictive of illegal drugs, is still highly addictive. Even moderate long term use can lead to many health problems and addictions.[3] Even if we assume there is "marginal" drug usage it can still lead to addiction, and an addiction to marijuana has been linked to violence.[3]My opponent then argues that the reason drug usage is falling is the same as tobacco and alcohol. But my opponents sources for tobacco argue 20% decreases in tobacco usage, and alcohol decreases of 50%. Current drug decreases are much larger, closer to 70% decreases in cocaine usage.[4] It is also a fact when you have higher costs people are less likely to engage in the activity/buy that product. For example if the price of Macintosh apples rose and the cost of red delicious apples fell the sales of Macintosh would decrease and purchases of the red delicious apples would increase. The drug war makes drugs substantially higher, as stated last round up too 4 times higher.[5] As this is a large factor we MUST assume that the drug war has some impact on the amount of users. Also with the strong data that legalization increases users,[1] we can assume the drug war deters those users (until the war ended). My opponent then cites the famous Portuguese drug decriminalization (started in 2001). The funny thing is that it was a failure. There was a 30% increase in drug overdose deaths (the marginal user!!) and the number of people tested positive for drug consumption rose 45%. I would also like to note Portugal has the second highest heroin usage rate of Europe. There was a 215% increase in cocaine usage.[6] I would also like to note alcohol and tobacco is still a much more common drug then illegal drugs. My opponent then argues drugs do not cause crime, arguing there is no linkage. But when California decriminalized marijuana usage, DWI arrests soared. But it is a fact that most sexual abuse cases involve drug usage. And it is also important to note most inmates have history of drug usage.[2] 24% of attacks on police officers happened when the attacker where under the influence of illegal drugs.[7] It is also important to note Portugal had an increase in drug related crime after its decriminalization.[6] C2: Drugs are fun My opponent first argues that legalization would lower prison population. FALSE. only 700 inmates are in jail for only drug usage, usually they have a violent crime then the drug usage stamp thrown on for extra jail time. So in reality you would have barely a dent in prison populations after legalization.[2] The DEA found the same conclusions.[8] My opponent then cites many "experiences" which scare me to read the links. But from what I read it argued drugs where "fun". Binge drinking for some people is great and makes them feel like studs. But does this mean it is good for them? Here's a debate.org example, the new user platypus enjoys smoking marijuana. Marijuana, however, has many health effects. Most notably the toll it takes on your lungs, and the effect it has on the T-cells. It disables T-cells so they cannot fight infection properly.[3] It also has been shown to make it harder to learn information and practice certain activities.[3] Cocaine, for example, has stimulants that pleasure the brain and make you "have fun". Cocaine ruins normal brain-to-body communication[s]. Their first exposure, and many others, are considered "pleasurable". Cocaine also increases risk of heart attack as well as other complications and long term problems.[9] What I am saying is drugs might be "fun", but their effects are negative in the long run and are sometimes secret and non see able until they strike. C3: Current usersHis case is actually correct, prohibition makes drugs less safe. There is no way to rebut this. Although drugs are harmful regardless, it is true prohibition does increase its potency. But what I am saying is legalization makes the problem worse (though not potency wise.) Legalization of any drug leads to increase in demand, and therefore leads to exacerbate the problem. And again my opponent argues the jail card, refuted above as most drug usage arrests the inmates are arrested for violent crimes then drug usage. It would not lower jail populations. My point being yes, it makes drugs more potent. But legalization increases violence and users which hurts society through ER costs, violence costs, etc.[3] Back to prison: Michigan only has 15 simple possession inmates, Wisconsin has 10. There is a total of 700,[2] and that is 2.7% of drug related crimes.[8] I would also like to note the DEA is also moving many of these inmates more towards treatment centers over jail.[8] C4: Gangs This is the point that is always argued, legalization would not end gang violence. I would like to first point out the government would likely limit drugs to 18 (or 21) as a minimum age, meaning everyone under 18 it would still be illegal to use drugs. People under the age of 21 consume the majority of the illegal drugs (age would likely be 21 for drugs -- like alcohol). So the gang and cartels would still be fairly large as the majority of drug consumption is for the under 21 crowd. In other words, the black market would still exist and thrive.[7] Also high taxes/regulation of these drugs, like we see with tobacco, could lead to higher gang violence rates. In NYC we see a high tobacco tax, and a large black market.[10] Legalization may or may not fix the problem. Also many groups and states argue huge revenues from marijuana legalization, the revenues they say it would rake in would require a 50$ to the ounce tax, that's a 100% tax.[3] So in reality a black market would love the high taxes and the 21 age. C5: Morality of prohibition Not allowing someone to buy something is not immoral. I would also like to ask under what philosophical umbrella is it immoral? Religiously? Utilitarian? I also dont see any immoral aspect to not allowing someone to buy a harmful product. The only immoral aspect I see is it causes gangs to kill people, but my analysis above shows legalization would do little to curb gang violence. CONCLUSION:Remember, my opponent has the BOP. He is a great debater, but has failed to meet his burden. That's it. Vote CON. Sources: (some shortened due to 8000 character limit)[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...[6] Francke, D., and S. W. Varcoe. "Evidence Based Data and the Failed Portuguese Experiment." Dalgarno Institute (2010)[7] http://tinyurl.com...[8] http://www.justice.gov...[9] http://www.drugabuse.gov...[10] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

positive: Marijuana Legalization My position: 1- Marijuana should not be legal in ANY quantity for ANYONE to do ANYTHING with. 2- Marijuana should not be considered for medicinal purposes...medical professionals are not witch doctors. 3- Since marijuana shouldn't be legal, there's no reason to discuss taxing it. 4- The growth of marijuana for personal use should be considered a crime. 5- Since marijuana shouldn't be legal, there's no reason to discuss the acquisition of it.

positive: Soft Drugs and Prostitution should be legalized. First off my examples about McDonalds are not invalid, the examples I mentioned above are good examples because they are things that can kill, are known to kill when taken in excess or improperly, but people still eat McDonalds and drive recklessly. A victim is, "One who is harmed or killed by another" If drug users that OD are victims, then so are people who have heart attacks from eating bad, or people with cancer from smoking, or liver disease from drinking. We don't refer t these people as victims, why do we refer to users of drugs as victims? Rebuttal: "In 1999, DAWN data reported by medical examiners show that out of 664 marijuana-related deaths, there were 187 deaths where marijuana was the only drug reported." If you had read the full report you would see this quote "… total deaths involving only marijuana, 35 were suicides, 53 were accidental/unexpected (not overdose), and 69 fell into the all other category." The report specifically indicates that the term "death" is used in relation to not only direct causes but also contributing causes. So as you can see, marijuana never "directly" caused a death. Source: http://www.drugwatch.org... It was later shown in another study that "Animal tests have revealed that extremely high doses of cannabinoids are needed to have lethal effect. This has led scientists to conclude that the ratio of the amount of cannabinoids necessary to get a person intoxicated relative to the amount necessary to kill them is 1 to 40,000. In other words, to overdose, you would have to consume 40,000 times as much marijuana as you needed to get stoned. In contrast, the ratio for alcohol varies between 1 to 4 and 1 to 10. It is easy to see how upwards of 5000 people die from alcohol overdoses every year and no one EVER dies of marijuana overdoses." Source: http://www.drugtext.org... "Marijuana use is frequently mentioned in hospital emergency room drug overdose visits." Did you know they send you to a hospital emergency room if you are a minor who consumed alcohol, even non-lethal amounts? The same for all people found intoxicated from marijuana, they are sent to the emergency room as a precaution, not because they are dying. Second, you do not specify that these visits are directly a result from the actual "use" of the drug or drugs in question. "We've tried working with [marijuana smoke], and it's so toxic, you just get it near the immune system and it [the immune system] dies." "Like the studies claiming to show damage to the reproductive system, this myth is based on studies where animals were given extremely high-in many cases, near-lethal-doses of cannabinoids. These results have never been duplicated in human beings. Interestingly, two studies done in 1978 and one done in 1988 showed that hashish and marijuana may have actually stimulated the immune system in the people studied." Source: http://www.drugtext.org... "Marijuana users have been shown to have an increase in neurotic and psychopathic behavior" "The most celebrated study that claims to show brain damage is the rhesus monkey study of Dr. Robert Heath, done in the late 1970s. This study was reviewed by a distinguished panel of scientists sponsored by the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences. Their results were published under the title, Marijuana and Health in 1982. Heath's work was sharply criticized for its insufficient sample size (only four monkeys), its failure to control experimental bias, and the misidentification of normal monkey brain structure as "damaged". Actual studies of human populations of marijuana users have shown no evidence of brain damage. For example, two studies from 1977, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) showed no evidence of brain damage in heavy users of marijuana. That same year, the American Medical Association (AMA) officially came out in favor of decriminalizing marijuana. That's not the sort of thing you'd expect if the AMA thought marijuana damaged the brain." Source: http://www.drugtext.org... "Women who smoke marijuana produce children who are 11 times as susceptible to leukemia than non-drug users." Yeah, during PREGNANCY. According to you – "California decriminalized marijuana in 1976, and, within the first six months, arrests for driving under the influence of drugs rose 46 percent for adults and 71.4 percent for juveniles.[33] Decriminalizing marijuana in Alaska and Oregon in the 1970s resulted in the doubling of use.[34] Patrick Murphy, a court-appointed lawyer for 31,000 abused and neglected children in Chicago, says that more than 80 percent of the cases of physical and sexual abuse of children now involve drugs. There is no evidence that legalizing drugs will reduce these crimes, and there is evidence that suggests it would worsen the problem." Well in Amsterdam- usage for legalized drugs was cut in half. The "drug use" in child abuse cases overwhelmingly involve alcohol, not heroine or cocaine and the like. For DUI "However, a closer examination of the victims revealed that around 85% of the people intoxicated on marijuana WERE ALSO INTOXICATED ON ALCOHOL. For people only intoxicated on marijuana, the rate was much lower than for alcohol alone. This finding has been supported by other research using completely different methods. For example, an economic analysis of the effects of decriminalization on marijuana usage found that states that had reduced penalties for marijuana possession experienced a rise in marijuana use and a decline in alcohol use with the result that fatal highway accidents decreased. This would suggest that, far from causing "carnage", legal marijuana might actually save lives." As mentioned before, profit is to be made from legalizing drugs. More money as been spent on the drug war just last year than the figures you give on lost productivity, also hospitalization will decrease because with legalization comes regulation. If someone is going to get intoxicated, they have a choice about what they would be intoxicated on. Its not like there are people out their who only smoke pot or only drink alcohol and drive. They will take whatever they have access to, legal or illegal. Crime rate would also decrease from legalization. It is unclear in any data but I can say personally that I work with a lawyer and although I can't give to many specifics, the vast majority of the people that come in for property crime, such as theft or shop lifting, were stealing to pay for drugs. The high cost of drugs would be cut if they became legal because the black market inflates everything. Sources: http://www.drugtext.org... You claim that prostitutes are exposed to violence, STDs, and make little money because of pimps. Legalization again means regulation – there will be no more pimp, pimps profit from the illegality. Places were you can "purchase" the services can require the use of condoms and screen all employees. A safe place in the brothel with security can also minimize risk of violence. Most of the problems with prostitution are directly related to its illegality, if it is legal then most of these problems will be fixed. Moreover, this is still a victimless crime, you have cited cases when prostitutes are victimized by violence, pimps, and other people not involved (in the bedroom anyway) with the actual prostitution. Most times these people conduct their business safely and few have problems. None of the problems you mentioned above occur at the Moonlite Bunny Ranch in Nevada were prostitution is legal. The girls are safe, the customers are happy, and everybody gets paid. HBO did a special documentary with interviews with the girls, and none of them complained about their job and many say they have "no regrets." I am almost out of room so I have to cut it short, your turn.

positive: Resolved: The Federal Government can legalize medical marijuana and/or industrialized hemp I will begin this round by clarifying the resolution, as my opponent has attempted to restate it in his favor. The resolution clearly states that the Federal Government (US Federal Government) can (not should) legalize medical marijuana and/or industrialized hemp. The and/or part of the resolution is stated as such because the DEA has lumped both together under their prohibition of marijuana (. http://www.usdoj.gov...). The DEA does not recognize industrialized hemp, which uses a non-euphoric strain of cannabis with less than 1% THC, the psychoactive substance in marijuana (. http://naihc.org...), as a separately scheduled substance. The and/or is also presented because the two, medical marijuana and industrialized hemp, can be dealt with separately through the DEA and FDA. The PAC's that advocate legalization of industrialized hemp are concerned with the hemp industry, and the advocates of medical marijuana are concerned with it's use as a medicine. There are PAC's (political action committees) lobbying for both, but they are generally treated as separate issues with benefits for different individuals throughout society (patients vs. farmers). Therefore, my resolution stands as originally stated. To respond to my opponents first three contentions would be to deviate from my own resolution. My premise for this debate does not advocate the legalization of medical marijuana, rather my resolution is regarding the power the US Federal Government possesses to legalize either medical marijuana, industrialized hemp, or both. My opponent claims that it is the duty of the government to serve and protect it's citizens, and implies that it is the duty of the government to protect it's citizens from harming their own health. This is not a valid contention against the power of the Federal Government to legalize medical marijuana because the government has legalized harmful substances in the past (alcohol, cigarettes, the medical use of morphine, morphinol, and other opiates, the medical use of amphetamines, methamphetamines, etc. , etc. , etc. ). (. http://www.usdoj.gov...). Even cocaine and powdered opium are Schedule II drugs, which means they have an accepted medical use and can be prescribed by a doctor. My opponent claims that marijuana has a high potential for abuse. I contend that nearly any medicine has the potential for abuse, and I will define drug abuse as taking a psychoactive drug or performance enhancing drug for a non-therapeutic or non-medical effect. Indeed alcohol has a much higher potential for abuse, it is a drug, and does not have nearly the accepted medical use as marijuana. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...)(I could not find a source for the medical use of alcohol)(. http://en.wikipedia.org...). Though I will not argue the issue of high potential for abuse, I will argue his contention that medical marijuana has an "enormous lack of accepted safety for use of the drug". Rescheduling requires that it be accepted for medical use, and I will list what a few medical agencies say about the issue: "The American Academy of Family Physicians [supports] the use of marijuana . .. under medical supervision and control for specific medical indications. " Reference: 1996-1997 AAFP Reference Manual - Selected Policies on Health Issues "The American Medical Student Association strongly urges the United States Government . .. to meet the treatment needs of currently ill Americans by restoring the Compassionate IND program for medical marijuana, and . .. reschedul[ing] marijuana to Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act, and . .. end[ing] the medical prohibition against marijuana. " Reference: AMSA House of Delegates Resolution #12 : adopted March 1993 "The American Nurses Association will: . .. Support the right of patients to have safe access to therapeutic marijuana/cannabis under appropriate prescriber supervision. Support the ability of health care providers to discuss and/or recommend the medicinal use of marijuana without the threat of intimidation or penalization. Support legislation to remove criminal penalties including arrest and imprisonment for bona fide patients and prescribers of therapeutic marijuana/cannabis. " Reference: ANA Resolution: June 2003 American Preventive Medical Association "Marijuana should be available for appropriate medicinal purposes, when such use is in accordance with state law, and that physicians who recommend and prescribe marijuana for medicinal purposes in states where such use is legal, should not be censured, harassed, prosecuted or otherwise penalized by the federal government. " Reference: "Medicinal Use of Marijuana" policy statement: December 8, 1997 Belgian Ministry of Health "[R]esearch has shown that cannabis can be of medicinal use. . .. This is an area where public health must prevail. " Reference: Statement of the Health Ministry, as quoted in Expatica. com (Brussels), September 4, 2003. British Medical Association "Present evidence indicates that [cannabinoids] are remarkably safe drugs, with a side-effects profile superior to many drugs used for the same indications. . .. [The BMA] will urge the government to consider changing the Misuse of Drugs Act to allow the prescription of cannabinoids to patients with certain conditions causing distress that are not adequately controlled by existing treatments. " Reference: BMA report: "Therapeutic Uses of Cannabis:" November 1997 So not only is marijuana widely accepted in the medical community as medically beneficial, the side effects are far less harmful than those of other drugs, including many Schedule II drugs like cocaine, morphine, and methamphetamines. Multiple petitions for rescheduling marijuana have been submitted by reform advocates over the last 30 years. Rescheduling marijuana to Schedule II would protect patients and physicians from current Federal Laws that undermine state medical marijuana laws. Rescheduling marijuana to Schedule II would legalize marijuana because Federal prohibition of marijuana falls under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (please see R1 for argument and sources). House Resolution 5843, titled the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2008, would express support for "a very small number of individuals" suffering from chronic pain or illness to smoke marijuana with impunity. If HR 5843 were passed, the House would support marijuana smokers possessing up to 100 grams -- about 3ï¿½ ounces -- of cannabis without being arrested. It would also give its blessing to the "nonprofit transfer" of up to an ounce of marijuana. The resolution would not address laws forbidding growing, importing or exporting marijuana, or selling it for profit. The resolution also would not speak to state laws regarding marijuana use. (. http://www.cnn.com...) Legalization is the process of removing a legal prohibition against something which is currently not legal. Legalization is a process often applied to what are now regarded as victimless crimes, such as the consumption of illegal drugs. It should be contrasted with decriminalization, which removes criminal charges from an action, but leaves intact associated laws and regulations. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) Because the US Federal Government has the power- in various forms, ie. House bills, rescheduling, or a Supreme Court ruling against the constitutionality of drug prohibition- to "eliminate Federal penalties prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana" as stated in House Res. 5843, and legalization is the process of removing a legal prohibition against something which is currently not legal, I affirm that the US Federal Government CAN legalize medical marijuana and/or industrialized hemp. Thank you.

positive: let it be resolved that all drugs should be legal All drugs should be legalized. If the state can tell me what I can and cannot put in my own body it means the state owns my body and I am a slave to the government. Drug use is a personal decision. A lot of different drugs have various uses - for recreation, for medicine or as a sacrament. The war on drugs has been extremely harmful; it costs a ridiculous amount of taxpayer money, has ruined the lives of countless families, and completely failed to put an end to drug use. Nor should an individual who wants to do drugs be prevented from doing so. People should be able to decide how they want to run their own lives, so long as they are not hurting others or their property.

positive: Regulated/taxed recreational marijuana legal over the age of 25 & any age for validated medical use I am for the legalization of recreational & medical marijuana ONLY under strict & enforced regulations and laws. I am looking for an opponent that can lay an opposite view based on science & statistics, though I understand some may use religious views and I am happy to debate those as well. I will lay out some ideas of laws/policies pertaining to regulating, taxing, and criminal/civil consequences of violations of both recreational & medical marijuana. I will cite sources in my comments. I will first address legal age & recreational use. 1) The legal minimum age for recreational marijuana set at 25 ; there is no minimum age for medical marijuana as prescribed and supervised by a licensed and registered medical doctor after recommendations from 3 separate licensed and registered doctors. Why ? The human brain has been scientifically proven using brain scans that it has not fully formed until between the age of 20-25. Specifically, the prefrontal cortex is not yet fully developed. It's the part of the brain that helps you to inhibit impulses and to plan and organize your behavior to reach a goal. It also helps you understand the future consequences of present and past actions. Another part of the brain that is still forming is the brain's reward system that becomes highly active right around the time of puberty & then gradually levels out about it reaches around age 25. That makes adolescents/teens more inclined to engage in uncertain situations & actions in order to seek out and try to find whether there might be a possibility of gaining something from those situations/actions, whether pleasurable, monetary, or socially. As that MEDICAL marijuana use is prescribed by a licensed and registered medical doctor under recommendation from 3 other doctors & own medical knowledge after extensive testing and evaluation of the patient in question, the ramifications & possible side effects of marijuana use by a person under the age of 25 has been evaluated by knowledgeable ADULTS & judged that the benefits to the patients health & general wellbeing out ways the cons of its use. 2) Private homegrown marijuana - A: must be registered in the county of residence with the marijuana regulatory county office B: can not grow from seeds (a) must buy transplants from licensed retailer (b) strains must have low THC and high CBD C: limit of 4 plants total at any time per household D: homes with minors and/or those under the age of 25 are excluded from home growing E: growing outside a lockable & secure structure ( ex -homes, greenhouses, sheds, shipping containers) is illegal F: must commit and be open to both bi-monthly and random testing and inspection by licensed and regulated inspectors for violations & health/safety laws G: required to have 24hr video surveillance w/ daily downloads to a marijuana regulatory office - minimum number of cameras upon discretion of registrar and/or inspector 3) Commercial growers - A: must be licensed in the county of business, subject to all state and federal taxes, deductions, and benefits with the county marijuana regulatory office B: Must grow inventory in a lockable and secure structure (ex-warehouse, commercial greenhouse) C: limit of 6 flowering/budding plants & 10 transplants per registered resident within 20 miles D: those between the age 16- 25 are excluded from growing/manufacturing/sales area & all employees are subjected to random drug tests E: growing outside a lockable & secure structure ( ex -warehouse, commercial greenhouse) is illegal F: must commit and be open to both bi-monthly and random testing and inspection by licensed & regulated inspectors for violations and health/safety laws G: required to have 24hr video surveillance w/daily downloads to a marijuana regulatory office - minimum # of cameras upon discretion of registrar and/or inspector G: strains must have high CBD and low THC H: commercial growers are prohibited from private recreational selling & are limited to selling to licensed recreational facilities, supplying an attached licensed recreational facility in a joint business venture, & supplying transplants for private growers Why ? Cannabidiol"CBD"is a cannabis compound that does not make the majority of first time users & regular users feel "stoned" and lethargic to the point of incapacitating. Investigators at Kings College in London assessed the physiological & behavioral effects of CBD and THC versus placebo in 16 healthy volunteers in a randomized, double-blind, crossover trial. It was reported that the oral administration of 10 mg of THC was associated with various physiological and behavioral effects"such as increased heart rate and sedation"whereas the oral administration of 600 mg of CBD did not. Strains that have high THC and low CBD creates bad behavior, physiological and psychological side effects and can put the user and those around them at risk. Recreation is intended to relieve stress and promote feelings of wellbeing, which low THC and high CBD strains create, therefore strains with higher levels of THC are not needed. A .5oz daily use is large enough for a single person and the average plant under good growing conditions can produce between 1-2oz - a plant limit for home growing minimizes overuse yet allow for a leeway for underproduction & registered growers can legally sell overproduction to licensed recreational use facilities they have a contract with. Limiting commercial plant numbers minimizes over saturating the market, helps inventory control, and minimizes chances of robbery/theft. Limiting numbers in conjunction to the # of registered citizens within a 20 miles radius makes sure there is enough available to local registered customers, promoting local economies and businesses, yet opens the option of extra for visiting tourists (registered users of course) as having competing businesses will fluctuate the market depending on promotions & prices of the recreational facilities. Private growers prohibited from growing from seeds & obtaining transplants from licensed commercial growers promotes local business, makes sure that private growers can not grow high THC strains & helps in accounting for household plant limits. A regulatory system & inspectors creates jobs and taxable income in a stagnant & slowing economy and low employment rates. If all 50 states legalized cannabis today, they'd be collectively raking in more than $3 billion a year in taxes according to NerdWallet, a personal finance site. The site's estimate assumed a flat, 15 percent excise tax on marijuana -- the same as Colorado's excise tax on recreational marijuana sales, adding 2010 state and local sales taxes to that figure. The site didn't subtract medical marijuana tax revenues in the 23 states at the time that allow medicinal use of cannabis also. The post-prohibition forecast also failed to calculate reduced government spending on law enforcements never ending drug war nor the loss of revenue to private security firms running jails & prisons. In 2010, Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron estimated more than $8 billion in annual savings in law enforcement costs if marijuana were legalized. To estimate each states marijuana sales, NerdWallet used the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's National Surveys on Drug Use and Health to find the number of marijuana consumers aged 25 and older. NerdWallet calculated the approximate number of pot users in each state, & applied the percentage to the U.S. population. It estimated the total U.S. marijuana market at $14 billion. 4) Recreational facilities - A: must be licensed by the registrar of the marijuana regulatory office in the county of the business location B: subject to all state, city, federal taxes, health and safety laws, retail/recreational licenses & permits & their benefits, deductions C: can not operate within 300 ft of a school, elementary, middle, and high school (private/public included and excludes homeschooling locations), licensed childcare facility, or within 150ft of a church with more then 200 regular attending members D: must obtain inventory from a licensed commercial grower or registered private grower within 100miles E: customers under the age of 25 are prohibited on site of the business at any time F: smoking is prohibited in outdoor seating (a) outdoor seating must be enclosed with a fence/wall with minimum 10ft height and preventive security measures G: smoking products and inventory are taxed at a higher rate (3times) then edibles, oils, tinctures, body and bath products H: indoor smoking is only to be in enclosed rooms with scrubbing ventilation, size and number determined by the fire marshal & marijuana regulatory office I: the facilities are required to have scrubbing ventilation in open space areas, size and number determined by marijuana regulatory office J: establishments that sell edibles, oils, tinctures, body & bath products, and not liable for its use once it has left the sales premises and are the responsibility of the purchaser K: facilities are required to have a production area on-site that is video monitored and secured for smoking buds and products, edibles, oils, tinctures, body and bath products L: facilities are to require that all their staff be CPR/ first aid certified & a RN be on staff during business hours M: facilities are required to hooked into the national register system that monitors registered users amount and purchases N: all purchasers are required to use their register cards during purchases O: Facilities are limited to 10mg of THC per serving size of any edibles/product and must properly label ingredients, nutrition, and quantity, strain of marijuana contained P: purchasers are limited to .5oz a month total from all purchases from all licensed recreational facilities in all 50 states (medical quantities excluded from total) Q: medical users are prohibited from recreational purchases

positive: Resolved: The possession, use, and sale of recreational marijuana should be legalized in the U.S. I would like to begin by defining a couple of terms. If my opponent disagrees with my definitions, then he/she can suggest and justify alternative definitions, however terminology should be agreed upon within the first half of the debate. I will not use dictionary definitions; let us just keep it simple. Possession means owning something. Use means smoking/inhaling/eating/vaporizing/etc. marijuan. Recreational marijuana means that adults ABOVE THE AGE OF 21 YEARS OLD are allowed to purchase up to SEVEN GRAMS of marijuana for any reason, with no medical conditions required. Legalized means that we remove the penalties from marijuana activities and that we regulate marijuana in dispensaries at which consumers of age can purchase it. The U. S. refers to all fifty states of the United States of America; the resolution seeks to essentially overturn the national ban on cannabis. The framework for this round should be net benefits. Unless my opponent is able to demonstrate that the costs of legalizing marijuana in the U. S. overwhelmingly outweigh the benefits, the Pro should win the round. Contention 1: Economic Benefits. Legalizing pot allows the United States to allow a wealth of economic benefits in the form of tax revenue and also in the form of liberating costly prisoners from incarceration. We have already seen examples of collecting revenue. According to the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), between January 2014 and October 2014, Colorado accrued 40 million dollars of tax revenue by legalizing marijuana and allowing 21+ citizens to purchase it. Suppose that we extrapolated legalization to the whole country. According to the Huffington Post, this would result in $8.7 billion per year in the form of state and federal taxes. Taxing any good or service allows the economy to grow, because it provides money that is uesd for other programs. In the case of marijuana legalization, these programs translate to education, health care, and drug addiction treatment, valuable impacts in our society. Furthermore, legalizing marijuana prevents costs that are associated with incarcerating individuals. According to the DPA, approximately 750 thousand citizens are arrested for an infraction of marijuana law each year. Furthermore, the cost of incarceration is $47,000 per prisoner per year. This translates to 7 to 10 billion dollars per year that are wasted on locking up stoners (rather than rapists or murderers). Clearly, not only does legalizing marijuana create money; keeping it illegal costs money. This 35 billion dollars could be used to reduce the national deficit, solve other crimes, or perhaps reduce taxes on American citizens. Contention 2: Legalizing marijuana reduces crime. Legalizing marijuana prevents police officers from wasting their time arresting harmless stoners, when they could be spending these efforts and resources fighting actually dangerous crimes, such as murder, theft, or rape. According to RollingStone Magazine, marijuana arrests are no longer real "police work"; law enforcement would rather spend their time tackling other crimes such as murder and rape. This argument is intuitive rather than logical; less time wasted on activity X (stopping pot smoke) leads to more time available for activity Y (stopping murder). LearnLiberty echoes this message: "legalizing marijuana frees up resources to solve other crimes". The impact is clear: a reduction in violent crimes that hurt American citizens, if the U. S. is smart enough to legalize pot. Contention 3: Legalizing marijuana reduces or eliminates racial discrimination in law enforcement. It should be clear to the layperson that most marijuana arrests are against racial minorities, particularly blacks. A black individual is no more likely to use pot than a white person but, in Washington D. C. , is over 8 times more likely to be arrested for it. This is what one could refer to as a Jim Crowe system; blacks suffer from mass incarceration much more than whites do, but they do not commit any more wrongdoings than whites. In order to provide for an American system of equality of opportunity and justice without regard to skin color, marijuana should be legalized. This will prevent irrationally suspicious police officers from locking up "dangerous blacks" (who, in truth, are not the least bit dangerous; they are just minding their own business); this racist enforcement is unethical, discriminatory, and clearly non-beneficial. Contention 4: Regulated marijuana is healthier marijuana. When alcohol was prohibited (i. e. before the 1920's), this led to an extensive black market whereby Americans still found ways to produce, purchase, and enjoy alcoholic beverages such as rum and beer. The same phenomenon occurs with marijuana. Even if marijuana is perceived to be dangerous, keeping it illegal does not deter its use. In fact, the criminal nature of cannabis provides a compelling reason for drug cartels to enter the country and sell cannabis, with no regard to whether the weed is tainted with dangerous chemicals like PCP. Since the illegality of marijuana fails to have any deterrent effect, legalizing pot will allow the government to closely control and regulate it. This allows for high-quality marijuana, meaning that consumers will enjoy marijuana that has no dangerous chemicals in it and that achieves standards of safety and health. This makes it a safer option. The influx of drug cartels is associated with the trade of weapons and also with violence, coercion, and sometimes murder. It is easier for a teenager to obtain a joint than it is for him to obtain a can of beer. Since Americans smoke pot regardless of whether or not it is legal, we should legalize it so that citizens purchase it from trusted, regulated dispensaries rather than untrustworthy, sketchy black-market dealers. Contention 5: Americans have freedom of choice. An American citizen should be able to do whatever she want, so long as her actions do not infringe upon the rights of others. Even if skeptics were successfully able to argue that smoking pot is harmful (which I would disagree with), Americans can choose to engage in harmful activities, as long as the others in society do not feel the effects of these choices. People are allowed to eat candy, drink beer, watch TV all day, and smoke cigarettes. Why should we limit the behavior of an individual simply due to archaic notions without any substantial evidence? Marijuana is used for a wide variety of medicinal and leisure purposes, and its effects have been described as uplifting, stress-relieving, and relaxing. To keep marijuana illegal is at variance with the pursuit of happiness that Thomas Jefferson had in mind when America was established as an independent nation. If individuals want to smoke pot, they should be able to do so, particularly in the privacy of their own homes. For many citizens, occasional marijuana use improves the quality of their lives and has medicinal benefits. Some who need it for medical use are too impoverished to afford to obtain a medical recommendation from their doctors, making their medicinal options severely limited. Keeping marijuana illegal is an invasion of privacy. In short, to legalize pot is to provide Americans with the freedoms of choice and discretion and the liberty that they deserve. I have posted evidence below that substantiates my claim. In short, the legalization of marijuana leads to benefits that address the economy, other crimes, racism, national safety, and the freedom of choice. These are all significant benefits that contribute to my proposed framework of "net benefits". A reason why keeping marijuana illegal is disadvantageous is equivalent to a reason why making marijuana legal is advantageous. Too many dollars are wasted in prohibition. Too many lives are locked up in prohibition. To many blacks and Hispanics are unfairly arrested in prohibition. Too many drug cartels enter the U. S. in prohibition. Finally, too many freedoms and basic liberties are violated in prohibition. For these reasons, the possession, use, and sale of recreational marijuana should be legalized in the U. S. Please vote Pro. I await Con's contentions. . https://www.drugpolicy.org... . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... . http://www.drugpolicy.org... . http://www.rawstory.com... . http://www.rollingstone.com... . http://www.learnliberty.org... . https://www.washingtonpost.com... . http://www.collegiatetimes.com...

positive: Marijuana should be legal for recreational use Contention 1: Marijuana should not be legal for recreational use because the side effects that are brought by it can be life endangering. One statistic suggests that smoking marijuana can increase one's heart rate by as much as two times for up to three hours.[1] The recreational use of marijuana could endanger the lives of those who may have heart conditions. Another side effect found in marijuana would be from the aspect of smoking the drug. The smoke will cause the lungs to be irritated and may lead to respiratory issues in the future.[2] It can be claimed that marijuana may lower pain of certain cancers and diseases, or even to be used as a medical substance, however I ask that this claim is not brought in as a contention due to the fact that this debate's main focus is regarding the recreation use rather than the medical use. If a doctor feels marijuana can be a healthy medicinal supplement, then that would be a different story. The claim that marijuana can be taxed and help our country make some much needed capital is also invalid given the fact that the health risks behind marijuana are by far much more important to worry about rather than allowing the focus to be upon tax revenue.

positive: Marijuana should be outlawed nationwide So I'll just be rebutting Pro's arguments since he needs to prove why every state in the U.S should outlaw marijuana.Major problem in schools (?)Pro didn't provide any examples of these so called problems related to marijuana in school, not to mention the lack of sources to back up his claim. He says that marijuana is causing major problems, but fails to outline what those problems are, and how they are related to marijuana. Tax RevenuePro pretty much negates his own resolution here, by conceding that significant and necessary amounts of tax revenue are able to be generated through the legalization of marijuana. By conceding that some area(s) do generate most, or all of their tax revenue from marijuana, he also concedes that those areas would not be able to collect the necessary taxes if the substance was illegal. Then, he goes on to say 'This is disgraceful." Which is pretty weird given that the fact that the tax revenue generated would be an argument for the legalization of marijuana, not against it. Pro's entire argument is based on the argumentum ad lapidem fallacy, where he simply rejects a proposition based on how absurd it sounds, without really providing any reasons as to why it is absurd.

positive: Marijuana legalization My opponent is arguing that there is no reason why marijuana should be legal. Marijuana is the most popular drug in America. Many people, especially the younger generation, believe the lie that marijuana has very little health problems. This is not true. Some of the short term effects are: 1. Distorted perception (sights, sounds, time, touch). 2. Problems with memory and learning. 3. Loss of coordination. 4. Trouble with thinking and problem-solving. 5. Increased heart rate, reduced blood pressure. This list alone is enough to show why marijuana was made illegal, though I will say something more. My opponent says "Have you ever heard of crimes, accidents, or violence involving marijuana" Yes, I have indeed. Taking marijuana is illegal, so therefore it is a crime in itself. There have been accidents from people drinking and smoking marijuana, and there has been violence when police try to arrest people with marijuana in their possession. I will continue my argument in round two. Thank you. Sources: (1). . http://faculty.washington.edu...

positive: marijuana i beleive that the marijuana drug is completely acceptable when it is used for personal use.

positive: Marijuana should not be legalized. Jeffrey Miron is senior lecturer and director of undergraduate studies in the economics department at Harvard University. He is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of "Libertarianism, from A to Z." The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. (CNN) -- Following the liberal footsteps of Colorado and Washington, Alaska, Oregon and the District of Columbia passed ballot initiatives to legalize marijuana this month. Florida's medical marijuana law failed, but only because as a constitutional amendment it needed 60% support; 58% voted in favor of it. In 2016, another five to 10 states will likely consider legalization -- possibly Arizona, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont. It's not surprising. Opinion polls show that marijuana legalization now commands majority support across the country. Do these developments mean that full legalization is inevitable? Jeffrey Miron Jeffrey Miron Not necessarily, but one would hope so. Marijuana legalization is a policy no-brainer. Any society that professes to value liberty should leave adults free to consume marijuana. Moreover, the evidence from states and countries that have decriminalized or medicalized marijuana suggests that policy plays a modest role in limiting use. And while marijuana can harm the user or others when consumed inappropriately, the same applies to many legal goods such as alcohol, tobacco, excessive eating or driving a car. Recent evidence from Colorado confirms that marijuana's legal status has minimal impact on marijuana use or the harms allegedly caused by use. Since commercialization of medical marijuana in 2009, and since legalization in 2012, marijuana use, crime, traffic accidents, education and health outcomes have all followed their pre-existing trends rather than increasing or decreasing after policy liberalized. Ricki Lake: Pot can treat cancer in kids Investors betting on marijuana in U.S. This is your body on weed The strong claims made by legalization critics are not borne out in the data. Likewise, some strong claims by legalization advocates -- e.g., that marijuana tourism would be a major boom to the economy -- have also not materialized. The main impact of Colorado's legalization has been that marijuana users can now purchase and use with less worry about harsh legal ramifications. Yet despite the compelling case for legalization, and progress toward legalization at the state level, ultimate success is not assured. Federal law still prohibits marijuana, and existing jurisprudence (Gonzales v. Raich 2005) holds that federal law trumps state law when it comes to marijuana prohibition. So far, the federal government has mostly taken a hands-off approach to state medicalizations and legalizations, but in January 2017, the country will have a new president. That person could order the attorney general to enforce federal prohibition regardless of state law. Whether that will happen is hard to forecast. If more states legalize marijuana and public opinion continues its support, Washington may hesitate to push back. But federal prohibition creates problems even if enforcement is nominal: Marijuana business cannot easily use standard financial institutions and transactions technologies such as credit cards; physicians may still hesitate to prescribe marijuana; and medical researchers will still face difficulty in studying marijuana. To realize the full potential of legalization, therefore, federal law must change. The best approach is to remove marijuana from the list of drugs regulated by the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the federal law that governs prohibition. Standard regulatory and tax policies would still apply to legalized marijuana, and states would probably adopt marijuana-specific regulations similar to those for alcohol (e.g., minimum purchase ages). State and federal governments might also impose "sin taxes," as for alcohol. But otherwise marijuana would be just another commodity, as it was before the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. A more cautious approach would have Congress reschedule marijuana under the CSA. Currently, marijuana is in Schedule I, which is reserved for drugs such as heroin and LSD that, according to the CSA, have "a high potential for abuse ... no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States ... [and] a lack of accepted safety for use." Hardly anyone believes these conditions apply to marijuana. If marijuana were in Schedule II, which states it as "a high potential for abuse ... [but a] currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States," doctors could legally prescribe it under federal law, as with other Schedule II drugs such as cocaine, methadone and morphine. Given the broad range of conditions for which marijuana may be useful, including muscle spasms caused by multiple sclerosis, nausea from cancer chemotherapy, poor appetite and weight loss caused by chronic illness such as HIV, chronic pain, stress, seizure disorders and Crohn's disease, doctors would have wide reign to prescribe, making marijuana all but legal as occurs under the broadest state medical marijuana laws, such as California and Colorado. Medical science would also face fewer regulatory hurdles to marijuana research. This "medicalization" approach, while perhaps politically more feasible than full legalization, has serious drawbacks. Federal authorities such as the Drug Enforcement Administration could interfere with marijuana prescribing -- as sometimes occurs with opiate prescribing. Taxing medical marijuana may be harder than taxing recreational marijuana. And the medical approach risks a charge of hypocrisy, since it is backdoor legalization. But medicalization is still better than full prohibition, since it eliminates the black market. For 77 years, the United States has outlawed marijuana, with tragic repercussions and unintended consequences. The public and their state governments are on track to rectify this terrible policy. Here's hoping Congress catches up. Shut up Gabe

positive: The United States Should Legalize Marijuana for Recreational Use Racism & Poverty: Nothing for me to rebut here, any concerns Con raises here would be solved through legalization as well. Why Legalization Won’t Work:Crime: Con begins by focussing on stats coming out of California. However, there is a large problem doing this. Marijuana for recreational use is not legal in California. In fact, California’s marijuana laws are closer to Con’s plan than mine. In California, marijuana (for recreational use) is often considered a “misdemeanor” and punishment is done via fines, not jail time. (1) This is much like (if not exactly like), “The United States...should eliminate its mandatory minimum sentencing reduce the crime of possession of Marijuana from a felony to a misdemeanor.” So for this reason, any arguments Con made based on statistics from California should be ignored. However, it still is worth rebutting the point with stats from areas where marijuana for recreational use is legal. Con starts off saying that legal marijuana would only drop 4.4% in price from the black market. First of all, that alone should end illegal drug use, since it’s cheaper and safer, so no rational person would still try to buy illegal marijuana. Second, Con’s source (http://www.rand.org...) never even states that there would be a 4.4% drop in the price of legal marijuana. Another problem with this assertion, is that marijuana on the black market doesn’t have a typically agreed upon rate. It highly depends on the dealer, the situation, quality, etc. What we can be certain of though, is that with legalization in Colorado, price of marijuana has only been getting lower and lower, despite still growing as an industry, which would further kill any remaining black market. (2) Overall though, Con’s main point is that crime will increase if marijuana is legal. However, the facts from Colorado and Washington dispute this. Both states have seen a drop in violent crime, since legalization (on top of the obvious decrease in marijuana related arrests). (3, 4) That is the complete opposite of Con’s claim that legal marijuana will increase violent crime, which as mentioned above was dependent on stats from a state where marijuana isn’t even legal for recreational use. Seeing as I have shown data from states where marijuana is legal to disprove Con’s claims, which relied on data from a state where marijuana isn’t legal for recreational use, I have successfully disproved Con’s claims regarding crime. Schooling: Con essentially argues here that marijuana use will increase if marijuana is legal, specifically among younger people. First off, Washington hasn’t seen an increase in marijuana usage among youth, since it has become legal. (5) One of the main reasons is that marijuana would still be illegal for those under 18 years of age. There are also some problems with the medical marijuana related study Con cited from the NBER. They (http://www.nber.org...) claim they got their information from the 2004-2011 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. However, if you actually look at that, it tells a different story (see the below graphs). (6) This data suggests very little difference in usage, over the time period. On top of that, another study regarding medical marijuana legalization and teen usage from experts from various universities, also shows little change in teen marijuana usage. (7) However, marijuana use has been for the most part increasing in the country since the War on Drugs among teens (as shown in my argument last round, Education is Superior to Bans), even though the opposite has been shown in alcohol and tobacco. Same argument here, it would be better to raise awareness about the dangers of marijuana and help those who abused it, than expect that simply banning it will be the best way to solve high usage. The money for that can even be found from taxes from marijuana sales (from my argument Taxation). Sources: 1- http://www.canorml.org... 2- http://time.com... 3- http://www.drugpolicy.org... 4- https://www.drugpolicy.org... 5- http://www.drugpolicy.org... 6- https://www.whitehouse.gov... 7- http://blogs.chicagotribune.com...

positive: Marijuana should be legalized in the United States I would like to begin the argument with the simple fact that the cannabis plant should be legalized in the U.S. for its many useful qualities. For example: from the cannabis comes the root hemp which is an economic friendly and cheaper way to make paper, rope, and clothing. While illegal it is nearly impossible for anyone to manufacture hemp in the U.S. If legalized hemp would not only help to minimize our economic foot print, it would also save money. Marijuana has also been scientifically proven to be less harmful than tobacco and alcohol. So why are they both legal while marijuana remains one of the most politically debated topics in the U.S. Well no one seems to be able to provide a valid answer accept for that it is a drug and should stay illegal. Which is a useless argument considering the fact that many drugs are illegal and helping people, which marijuana could be doing if legalized

positive: Marijuana should be made legal in the U.S. Marijuana law enforcement is costing the U.S. an estimated $7.7 billion per year (Edwards, 2012). The drug is less harmful than tobacco (which has no health benefit, and is addictive) and alcohol (on which abusers can become physically dependant). Furthermore, tax revenue around $6 billion a year can be produced if taxed like alcohol and tobacco. Marijuana has proved to be effective at treat several medical conditions, and legalization will make it available for use at a reduced cost. An added benefit is the product that is removed from smugglers and drug dealers.

positive: Marijuana should be legalized for both Medicinal and Recreational use Hello, and thanks to Pro for giving me the opportunity to debate this important issue. I will begin by stating my contention. Growing marijuana, possessing marijuana, and using marijuana for recreational use (medical marijuana should be legal) should remain illegal, but the penalties for each of these violations should be altered drastically. This is a much more reasonable policy than full legalization. I would like to begin by stating that I agree entirely and will not attempt to refute many of the claims I anticipate that my opponent will make. I agree that marijuana has been proven to be an effective treatment for pain, that THC has been adequately proven not to have a direct adverse effect on the human body, and that the United States' policy on drugs is completely ineffective and has made no progress whatsoever towards their goal. If my opponent would like to present any other traditional arguments against the illegality of marijuana, chances are quite high that I will agree with them. However, Pro should not be disinclined to present them - just know that we are probably on the same page on 90% of issues concerning marijuana. I will now give overviews of how laws concerning marijuana should be changed, and the reasoning behind why it should not be fully legalized. I will not extensively cite sources, as this is an overview of my position - I will use hard data more extensively in later rounds, after I see what my parts of my argument my opponent chooses to combat. First, the so-called "War on Drugs" has been proven to be completely ineffective by both marijuana advocacy groups and neutral government research. Those who still agree with our current policies, which incarcerate thousands of people each year on non-violent offenses and cost the tax-payer absurd sums of money, are very few and far between. Instead, fines and other violation level punishments should be enacted to control and discourage the recreational use of marijuana. Why should marijuana not be fully legalized? There are several reasons. 1. The fact of the matter is, while THC itself is not a harmful substance, there are still negative health effects associated with the smoking of marijuana. It is reasonable to assume that if marijuana were legalized, marijuana cigarettes would begin to be sold in stores. As such, people would purchase and smoke these cigarettes. Some studies have found that, while 'joints' do not directly cause lung cancer or emphysema, they do have some negative effects on both the lungs and the brain. 2. Additionally, THC is an intoxicant. Anecdotal arguments are made quite often to suggest that marijuana use does not effect driving ability. However, this is absurd, as marijuana is a psychoactive chemical which has numerous effects on the brain and has drastically different effects which depend entirely on the user. Drunk driving is currently responsible for a great number of car accidents in the United States. While it is a fact that people use marijuana regardless of whether or not it is legal, and drive under the influence, I do not believe that legalizing it would have any positive effect in terms of curbing 'high driving'. Instead, methods for road-testing suspected drivers under the influence of marijuana should be developed, testing technology should be implemented by police departments, and laws should be changed to punish high drivers in the same way that drunk drivers are punished. 3. If legalized, marijuana would being to be mass-produced and large companies would soon dominate the market. Today's massive tobacco companies are very rich, and as such, have powerful lobbyists that make it very difficult to change laws concerning the distribution and marketing of cigarettes. It took years just to legally force tobacco companies to display warnings on their packets, and to change advertising methods to stop targeting children. There is no reason to assume that marijuana companies would enter the market with the public's good intentions at heart. Instead, the same types of money-mongers who capitalize on the public's urge to drink and smoke would presumably take control of the market and gain similar deceitful legal power. There is currently little control over the dangerous pesticides and chemical additives in tobacco cigarettes - again, there is no reason to assume these large marijuana companies would treat their crops and products with a similar disregard for their consumers' safety due to mass-production and distribution. 4. While it is true that marijuana smuggling is responsible for a great number of unnecessary casualties of drug wars in Mexico, marijuana is by no means the only drug these black market cartels are responsible for. While legalizing marijuana would certainly decrease gang activity dealing with that particular drug, it would simply shift their focus to other drugs or illicit activities. It would take full across-the-board legalization of all drugs to effectively end these deadly battles, and that is not the resolution. 5. The culture of intoxicant use in America has a long history, and while views have shifted over the years, there is still a general attitude of reverence towards legal intoxicants, especially alcohol. The simple fact is that legalizing marijuana would cast it in a more favorable light. While alcohol is known to have detrimental effects on the human body, the fact that this is generally recognized does not diminish the drinking culture that is promoted in films and on college campuses nationwide. The fact that alcohol is legal means it is generally permitted, and endorsing yet another intoxicant does not seem productive. 6. Legalizing marijuana would mean that it would be easier to obtain. While those that seek it are able to find it, it is still more difficult and risky than simply walking into a store and purchasing it. This would mean that underage (if, as should be presumed, there was an age law associated with marijuana) people would also be able to obtain it more easily, and marijuana IS proven to have a negative effect on the developing brain. Combining the above reasons, among others, I do not support the legalization of recreational marijuana use. A pre-negation: the argument that marijuana should be illegal because alcohol is illegal is not valid. If brought, I will explain why. If not contested my opponent excepts the validity of this statement. I look forward to my opponent's argument! I have a feeling we are going to agree on a lot, but there are going to be key differences. Thanks again for allowing me the opportunity to debate this issue, and I look forward to a productive, illuminating debate.

positive: Legalization of recreational marijuana in the U.S. would benefit the economy Contention 1: Employment When looking at the debate at face value, we obvious harms in employment when legalizing marijuana. We are considering the effect of drugs on one’s ability to succeed in school, as well as prospects in the job market diminishing. The St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank states in 2011, we can see clear signs of drugs being highly correlated with unemployment. The article utilizes a graph showing that the most popular drug of choice for those unemployed is marijuana. The article goes on to explain that the unemployed are more likely to report having consumed some form of illegal substance within the previous month. My opponent may ask, what if the user is a casual one who does not abuse the drug and simply consumes it recreationally for the desired effect without an addiction. This idea is optimistic and deeply flawed. If we were to observe Al Jazeera in 2013, we would see that 1/6 unemployed Americans are abusers of drugs and alcohol. Given the popularity of marijuana, as shown from my last statistic, among the unemployed we can assume that is the main issue. What needs to be realized is that the working class is the backbone of our economy which creates products and services for consumers to buy. This is the basis of the economy, and with higher rates of marijuana use, we can see less productivity in the workplace, which will inevitably affect the GDP and the amount of revenue that is generated from income tax. Not only this, but there would also be another detrimental economic factor in today’s debate. The factor would be the dependence on welfare. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, there has been a recent study conducted in the Netherlands that shows that drugs in that region actually led to less scholastic achievement for those with the addiction to marijuana. Less scholastic achievement means fewer people entering the workforce and more people dependent on welfare to live. Welfare is costly, considering the fact that the government is basically paying for someone to live off of. According to the Cato Institute, the amount of money spent on welfare is over 600 billion dollars. With people becoming more dependent on the drug, this number could easily rise to a huge figure. However, I do understand that my argument at this point depends on whether marijuana rates will increase by affirming the resolution, which it clearly will. Let us look at CNBC in 2010 where we see an article that describes the legalization of marijuana in a specific state, which was Alaska. What occurred next was that marijuana use jumped to twice the national average. This is a problem because if we were to see a jump like this in use nationwide, we would see mass unemployment and less productivity nationwide, which produces a sour effect on the economy. Because of the many problems associated with the employment rate, vote con. https://www.stlouisfed.org... https://www.stlouisfed.org... https://www.stlouisfed.org... http://america.aljazeera.com... https://www.drugabuse.gov... http://www.cato.org... http://www.cnbc.com... Contention 2: Health Care Health care today is a heavy price. However, if we were to legalize marijuana, we would be seeing heavier prices on the system as well. Remember, marijuana is illegal for a reason. That reason specifically being that the danger of marijuana is high. In fact, if we were to look at a USA Today article published in 2014, we would see some disturbing results. The statistics show marijuana to have nearly three times the THC in the status quo than in the 70s. This leads to complications within the body. In fact, if we look at the other graph in the article we would clearly see that the number of emergency visits has increased till today, where there have been nearly half of a million marijuana-related emergency visits to the hospital. Not only this but according to the same article cited, there are also increased chances of heart disease when one ingests marijuana. Why does this matter? Well, I will get to that quite soon. But first, I am going to guess my opponent has a clear counter-plan already. You want to regulate drugs, don’t you? If not, then pretend you do. This is because it is easier to see the cost to society estimated if we were to tax marijuana. I will directly quote it as well. “Increased consumption leads to higher public health and financial costs for society. Addictive substances like alcohol and tobacco, which are legal and taxed, already result in much higher social costs than the revenue they generate. The cost to society of alcohol alone is estimated to be more than 15 times the revenue gained by their taxation.” This quote is directly from the White House and shows exactly the amount of public costs that go into the health care system that targets drugs. If we are going to look at the debate with understanding, then we have to know exactly the costs to our government, and how harmful they will be to the everyday American. When the amount of health care needed goes up, so does the price of health care, leading to an already large price for health care to grow even bigger for the consumer. If my opponent would recall, we nationalized the health insurance industry partly with Obamacare. The reason for this was to give people health care who were unable to afford it. However, the program is paid through taxes which cover all of the costs for people who do not have health insurance, as according to CNS News in 2015. What we see by this is that increasing the amount of people who need health care for actions such as using marijuana would mean that everyday Americans are paying more for the medicine and care of others through taxes and premiums. To prevent this, we have to incentivize the private health sector, yet leave enough of a social safety net for those who cannot make it on their own. After all, according to the Keynesian system of economics, more taxes mean less money in our consumers pocket to buy things with, decreasing the purchasing power of the American citizen with unneeded taxes. Negate. http://www.usatoday.com... https://www.whitehouse.gov... http://cnsnews.com... Rebuttal 1: Taxes I have already used a statistic directly refuting that notion in my second contention where I sight the White House stating the following: “Increased consumption leads to higher public health and financial costs for society. Addictive substances like alcohol and tobacco, which are legal and taxed, already result in much higher social costs than the revenue they generate. The cost to society of alcohol alone is estimated to be more than 15 times the revenue gained by their taxation.” Even if we were to accept my opponent’s plan for taxing and regulating marijuana, there would be harms. Rebuttal 2: Incarceration This is where my counter plan comes into play. Why don’t we decriminalize the use of marijuana instead and try to prevent use through education and therapy for those who need it? We would decrease incarceration this way while still not having the poor effects on other things I have mentioned. Rebuttal 3: Crime/ Corp. My opponent is under the assumption that there are no other ways to decrease drug crime. We could end it with my counter plan by making drugs seem less attractive to people. Post your sources.

positive: should we have to be 21 to smoke recreational weed Hello Con! I accept your debate. Since you didn't specify the requirements for the debate I will make them. Con is arguing that 21 should not be the required age and that rather 18 should be the legal age for smoking recreational marijuana. As pro I will argue that 18 should not be the legal age for smoking recreational marijuana. If pro will have it I will go as far to say that there should not be a legal age because smoking marijuana should be illegal. My stance as Pro is that marijuana's legal age for recreational activities should be much higher than 18 to the point of making it illegal to smoke marijuana. Here are some definitions. smoke: emit smoke or visible vapor. recreational: relating to or denoting activity done for enjoyment when one is not working. Marijuana: cannabis, especially as smoked in cigarettes. Since Con did not assume rules for this debate I will start my arguments and also take the liberty of using points from one of my other debates. If Con can rebut these points then I will delve farther and be more creative with my points but as of every other debate on cannabis these points are always the backbone. With that I present my arguments for my stance which is: 18 should not be the legal age, the age should be at least 21 but preferably marijuana should be illegal. My points are as follow: 1. Marijuana is harmful and addictive. 2. Marijuana can be abused and thus reduces the usefulness of the individuals who take it. (This argument sounds really mean. What I mean to say is that while someone is addicted to this drug they have a noticeable decline in productivity and it takes away from their quality of life.) 3. It damages developing minds. Let me start with my first argument. Marijuana is indeed harmful, addictive and known to be a gateway drug. "Consumption of marijuana impairs the immune system and short-term memory, elevates the risk of heart attack, and causes respiratory and brain damage." http://www.heritage.org...... That seems to pretty much wrap up that argument but for me this isn't enough! So I did some more research and went to http://www.drugabuse.gov....... Long term effects include breathing problems, increased heart rate, problems with child development, hallucinations, paranoia, depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts and worsening symptoms from individuals that have schizophrenia. The site also points out that marijuana is addictive. Now to put a personal spin on this I will provide examples from my personal life to back up how harmful this drug is. I am in grade 13 of my high school and I can honestly say individuals who have used marijuana have most likely used other drugs such as speed, heroin and meth. These are 9th to 12th graders I am talking about, just imagine what it would be like if this drug was accessible because it was legal? Obviously there would be an age limit but that does not stop youth at all. Now to tie in my second argument, these individuals are the lowest of the low at my school, we are talking drop outs and some cannot even hold a conversation with me because they are so high. Now to add facts into this "Teens who abuse drugs have lower grades, a higher rate of absence from school and other activities, and an increased potential for dropping out of school. " http://www.justthinktwice.com...... This makes sense, I observed how many were acting at my school, the drop outs, the low grades and then compared it to research. They match! This makes it a pretty concrete point. Now for my third argument. If you go back to the same site as my last post it states "...your brain develops until the age of 25? Anything that you do to disrupt this process"including substance"will affect how your brain develops. " and that "When you use drugs, it interferes with the normal traffic patterns that the neurotransmitters use." To me this makes sense as well. To add my closing notes to this round that I took the stance of a student (since I am one) on this topic but marijuana is harmful to adults as well. All of these symptoms apply to minds that have developed and adults who use marijuana show decreased levels of productivity at work as seen on this site. http://learnaboutmarijuanawa.org...... I hope putting my personal experiences in this debate didn't ruined it in any form. Also if you are struggling with drug abuse you may want to go over here http://www.drugandalcoholhelpline.ca...... or here if you are under the age of 18 https://www.kidshelpphone.ca... These points prove that the legal age should be higher (or illegal) as it is harmful at younger ages (and all ages!) With these points I will switch this over to Con, good luck! (Definitions are from a simple google search.)

positive: Debate Topic - Recreational Marijuana ought to be legalized nationwide That is indeed unfortunate. Get well soon! PS : Maybe some marijuana might be good medicine for you at this time. Heuheuheh.

positive: Debate Topic - Recreational Marijuana ought to be legalized nationwide I shall now present my case. Case One - The problem with illegalized marijuana In many countries across the world we can see that marijuana usage (not just in a recreational sense) is illegal and anyone caught utilizing marijuana can be punished by local law. Now the nature of this law is mainly to prevent the abuse of a psychoactive drug which is shown to be addictive and harmful if used excessively and in the wrong conditions. However this often doesn't happen. If we look at the facts (see source one) the five most powerful drug cartels in the world operate in Mexico and Colombia. Two countries where the usage of recreational marijuana is illegal but unenforced by local law. This law paving way for drug cartels to take control presents a number of problems I will illustrate as follows - One - This has a rapid and dangerous butterfly effect on the governement and public service departments in the country. Mexico's cartel problem has paved way for massive drug rings to form. The money generated from drug rings allows for the financing of other criminal activities. Notably some of these examples include human trafficking, Bribery and corruption in the police force and the government (which allows them to cover up murders and gang-related attacks) and international smuggling. And these figures are on the rise. In Mexico crime rates have soared over the past three years. 28. 5% increase in violent robberies. 14. 3% increase in intentional homicide and 13. % increase in business robberies. The report has also attributed this increase due to the increasingly militarized tactics used by the perpertrators, A trait commonly associated for thugs under the payroll of drug lords. Two - The youth will be more exposed to drug usage more than if it was legalized. The simple fact is that drug dealers and drug lords do not care about the market they are supplying to. Their goal is simplistic and very focused. And that is to simply maximize profit and maintain discretion while doing so. It's very clear that in many developing countries across the world (notably India) enforcability of drug laws is extremely difficult and many members of the youth find themselves exposed to the influence of the widely accessible black market. Three - As hinted in problem one, The strength of the drug cartels in some countries will present incredible problems in another country. Because of the financing behind smuggling rings other countries that have also illegalized marijuana laws will find themselves at risk of massive influxes from the black market. This presents in itself a serious problem for the economy and social welfare. Almost all the negative externalties will be passed on and there will be widespread social chaos caused as a result for no tangible benefit for anyone other than a third party supplying illegal marijuana. Hence, By legalizing marijuana it allows a number of remedies to follow suit. It weakens the power of drug cartels and allows the government to have a stronger grip in tackling internal problems such as corruption and external problems such as the crime rate. While drug cartels specialize in the supplying of drugs other than recreational marijuana, That particular drug itself generates a bulk of the revenue for cartels as its widespread popularity and psychoactive effects are a huge selling point for the drug. Second, It allows the government to properly monitor the process in which legal recreational marijuana is distributed amongst the populace. This allows the government to prevent it from falling into the hands of the youth (as drug dealers will be considerably less inclined to partake in the business due to the fall in the profit margin) and better safeguard them from the psychoactive effects at a young age. Case Two - The similarities of alcohol and tobacco usage Now we're all well aware of the fact that recreational marijuana is only but one of the many things that alter behaviour and cause addiction upon consumption. Alcohol and tobacco are among these. The only difference being that alcohol and tobacco are legal in most parts of the world while marijuana is not. Not only that, But alcohol and tobacco have actually been seen as comparitvely more dangerous in case studies. One such case study (source three) has shown that alcohol and tobacco exposure was proven to be a higher risk factor than marijuana. One such example out of this is the fact that overconsumption of alcohol can potentially be fatal. Howver on the flipside, Overconsumption of marijuana is not known to be fatal on its own. The smoking of pure tobacco cigarettes on the other hand has been shown to be a greater factor to influence the growth of cancer cells and risk other diseaes catching on in comparison to marijuana. The hemp plant in itself has medical benefits. And smoking unfiltered marijuana is not known to cause any notable health effects that can compare to the effects brought on by tobacco usage. Thus we enter a legal loophole. Given that the effects of alcohol and tobacco are perceivably more harmful, It should be only natural that if it was so bad that marijuana had to be illegalized then alcohol and tobacco ought to follow suit. But given that's not the case and probably never will be in most countries, It should only be expected that marijuana is not made the exception simply because of its classification as a 'psychoactive drug'. Case Three - The economical benefits of legalization As most of us are already aware our governments love to tax us every day of our natural lives. They tax us on housing. They tax us for infrastructure development. They tax us to maintain the judicial system and public services. They tax us to finance their annual budget and to appreciate the currency. And of course, They also tax us on the products we buy. The money the government already makes from alcohol and tobacco taxes is quite notable to say the least. In the United States (see source four) $18 billion dollars was collected from tobacco taxes in 2015 and $16 billion was collected from alcohol taxes in that same year. This money goes into the annual budget. It goes into schools, Infrastructure, Hospitals, The works. And the reason is this possible is because the government monitors the sales of alcohol and tobacco through legal vendors. This does not happen with recreational marijuana due to the fact that it's illegal. And all the revenue generated from it goes into the black market and not into the economy at all. Hence the equation is simple. There are incredible economical benefits that can be derived from legalizing recreational marijuana but there are absolutely no economical benefits derived from keeping it illegal. If anything, We're spending more money simply trying to enforce the law by keeping it illegal which often does not work at all in stopping the spread of the drug. Instead of allowing the black market the power of selling the drug, Keep it in the hands of the government. At the bare minimum, The profit margin from legal sales will be incredibly useful in many other aspects of society. Summary In my argument I've laid forward three main principles to support my case that recreational marijuana should be legalized - One) Drug cartels profit immensely of illegalization laws which negatively impact society and the crime rate. Two) Alcohol and Tobacco (both legal utilities) have evidentely been showed to be a great deal more harmful on personal health and yet their status has not been changed simply because they are not labelled as 'drugs'. (This has mainly been the case why many medical practioners have suggested that marijuana isn't really a 'drug' because there are no known effects of usage that cause serious problems on health) Three) The economical benefits of a taxation scheme will not only help rack up revenue for the government to use on society but also help the government monitor the flow of marijuana sales in their own country. It's hard to argue that it would rather be better that we leave the hands of the drug to be sold by black market forces than the government. With that, I hand my floor open to my opponent to present his own case. Thank you. Sources - . https://deserthopetreatment. Com/drug-abuse/cartels/ . https://www. Garda. Com/crisis24/news-alerts/113791/mexico-gang-violence-escalates-in-mexico-city . https://www. Ncbi. Nlm. Nih. Gov/pmc/articles/PMC4311234/ . https://www. Urban. Org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/cigarette-and-alcohol-taxes

positive: Legalization of marijuana I will now give my opening arguments.1. Marijuana is a GatewayAccording to a study by the Yale University School of Medicine marijuana is linked with an increased likelihood of prescription drug abuse. [1] The US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration also have written that "Among lifetime marijuana users reporting their onset after age 20, an estimated 1.1 percent used heroin, 16.4 percent used cocaine, and 20.6 percent used any psychotherapeutics nonmedically in their lifetime. Among persons who had never used marijuana, less than 1 percent had ever used cocaine or heroin, but 5.1 percent had used psychotherapeutics nonmedically. " [2] "One study found that youth (12 to 17 years old) who use marijuana are 85 times more likely to use cocaine than kids who do not use pot, and that 60% of the kids who smoke pot before the age of 15 move on to cocaine. " [3] This shows there is a strong correlation between marijuana use and harder drugs, but this doesn't mean causation; however, "Because a tolerance builds up, marijuana can lead users to consume stronger drugs to achieve the same high. When the effects start to wear off, the person may turn to more potent drugs to rid himself of the unwanted conditions that caused him to take marijuana in the first place. " [3] This does prove causation; therefore, marijuana is a gateway to other drugs and should remain illegal.2. Marijuana has bad health effectsSome of the short term effects include distorted perception, loss of coordination, trouble with thinking and problem-solving, and increased heart rate. [4] Some of these effects like distorted perception, and loss of coordination will lead to increased accidents harming more citizens. "A study by the French National Institute for Transport and Safety Research published in theBritish Medical Journal found that seven percent of drivers involved in a fatal highway crash used marijuana. The researchers estimated that at least 2.5 percent of the 10,748 fatal crashes studied were directly caused by the use of marijuana. " [5] "In Australia, a study found that cannabis intoxication was responsible for 4.3% of driver fatalities. " [6] The government classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug, meaning it no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. [7] The government also protects its citizens with immunization mandates, fluoridation of water, iodization of salt, pollution restrictions, and banning of hard drugs. The long term effects include lung problems, Cancer, weak immune system, birth problems. "Smoking marijuana, even infrequently, can cause burning and stinging of the mouth and throat, and cause heavy coughing. Scientists have found that regular marijuana smokers can experience the same respiratory problems as tobacco smokers do" [4] Also, "Long-time joint smokers often suffer from bronchitis, an inflammation of the respiratory tract. " [8] Second, it can cause cancer "Because marijuana smoke contains three times the amount of tar found in tobacco smoke and 50 percent more carcinogens, it would seem logical to deduce that there is an increased risk of lung cancer for marijuana smokers. However, researchers have not been able to definitively prove such a link because their studies have not been able to adjust for tobacco smoking and other factors that might also increase the risk. " [4] "Marijuana smoke contains 50% to 70% more cancer-causing substances than tobacco smoke. One major research study reported that a single cannabis joint could cause as much damage to the lungs as up to five regular cigarettes smoked one after another. " [8] Further, it effects the immune system "Research indicates that THC impairs the body's immune system from fighting disease, which can cause a wide variety of health problems. One study found that marijuana actually inhibited the disease-preventing actions of key immune cells. Another study found that THC increased the risk of developing bacterial infections and tumors. " [4] Finally, it causes birth problems "Several studies have found that children born to mothers who used marijuana during pregnancy exhibit some problems with neurological development. " [4]3. Use of Marijuana is ImmoralUnder the two major schools of ethics, Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics, both consider it immoral. Utilitarianism is "The ethical theory proposed by Jeremy Bentham and James Mill that all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. " [9] As a Utilitarian would say "paternalistic intervention may preserve worthwhile lives. " [10] Kant uses what he called the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is "In the ethical system of Immanuel Kant, an unconditional moral law that applies to all rational beings and is independent of any personal motive or desire. " [11] In Kantian ethics you must think if everyone had to do this action all the time. Smoking of marijuana would impair normal functioning and every had to smoke marijuana then the world would be a world in which no one would want to live; therefore, it is immoral and should not be legalized. It could also be said by a person who follows kant ethics "when people act irrationally, they are not acting autonomously. " [10]4. Legalization would increase the number of children having access to itDeveloping brains and bodies can be dealt serious blows by the use of marijuana. [12] Anytime you make something legal, you increase the accessibility to children. When something is legalized more people consume it, and when more people have it, it increase the likelihood of children getting it simply because there is more of it. All too often kids and teenagers get their hands on alcohol or cigarettes. [13] We shouldn't let the same thing happen with marijuana. How many kids can get access to cigarette or alcohol, a lot more than can get access to marijuana. So, legalization would only give kids more access to it not less like some claim.5. Drug related arrest benefit societySomeone who illegally buys/sell/uses marijuana has already established themselves as someone who does not follow the law, and could lead to more crimes in the future; however, if they are in jail on drug charges they cannot commit more crimes. Also, they would get a lighter sentence than others crimes. [14]"Marijuana is the drug most often linked to crime in the United States" [15] "In a study of 10,441 secondary students in New South Wales, Australia, students who were frequent cannabis users were two times more likely to participate in assault and malicious damage of property than students who did not use cannabis. " [16] We can focus on rehabilitation on why they turned to drugs instead waiting for them to do more crimes, and incarcerating them for longer times. By addressing the source of the problems we can make a better society or we could legalize marijuana and pretend the problems don't exist.6. Legalization of marijuana will lead to the legalization of other drugsMany arguments made for the legalization of marijuana can be used to argue the legalization of harder drugs like heroin. As an example, many say marijuana should be legal because it is less harmful than alcohol; however, so are many other drugs including crack, meth, and heroin. [17] Also, saying things like "it is my choice" which could be said about any drug. I look forward to my opponent's response. Sources[1] . http://www.ctpost.com...[2] . http://www.samhsa.gov...[3] . http://www.drugfreeworld.org...[4] . http://alcoholism.about.com...[5] . http://alcoholism.about.com...[6] . http://www.drugfreeworld.org...[7] . http://www.justice.gov...[8] . http://www.drugfreeworld.org...[9] . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[10] . http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk...[11] . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[12] . http://www.csam-asam.org...[13] . http://www.centurycouncil.org...[14] . http://norml.org...[15] . http://www.mcclatchydc.com...[16] . http://www.nber.org...[17] . http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org...

positive: Marijuana should be legalized The "Drug war" is costing billions of dollars and yet, is it all worth it? Is it worth the billions of dollars? IS it worth the invasion of individual civil liberties? Is it worth the wasted effort? First of all, prohibition does not help and may be increasing drug use in itself: Here is a scenario. A group of kids from high school want to host a party and want to get completely drunk in it. But they find out that it is extremely difficult to obtain alcohol, since it is regulated to keep it away from people under 21.But, they know a dealer who willl happily sell them weed. "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." http://www.mjlegal.org...Prohibition as a weapon to prevent drug abuse has not proven or has any provided evidence, to be a deterrent in drug abuse.When Alcohol was prohibited, it certaintly did not work eitherMarijuana has been proven to be less dangerous than cigarettes and alcohol. "Safer for the Consumer Many people die from alcohol use. Nobody dies from marijuana use.The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that more than 37,000 annual U.S. deaths, including more than 1,400 in Colorado, are attributed to alcohol use alone (i.e. this figure does not include accidental deaths). On the other hand, the CDC does not even have a category for deaths caused by the use of marijuana. People die from alcohol overdoses. There has never been a fatal marijuana overdose. The official publication of the Scientific Research Society,American Scientist, reported that alcohol is one of the most toxic drugs and using just 10 times what one would use to get the desired effect could lead to death. Marijuana is one of – if not the – least toxic drugs, requiring thousands of times the dose one would use to get the desired effect to lead to death. This “thousands of times” is actually theoretical, since there has never been a case of an individual dying from a marijuana overdose. Meanwhile,according to the CDC, hundreds of alcohol overdose deaths occur the United States each year. The health-related costs associated with alcohol use far exceed those for marijuana use. Health-related costs for alcohol consumers are eight times greater than those for marijuana consumers, according to an assessment recently published in theBritish Columbia Mental Health and Addictions Journal. More specifically, the annual cost of alcohol consumption is $165 per user, compared to just $20 per user for marijuana. This should not come as a surprise given the vast amount of research that shows alcohol poses far more – and more significant – health problems than marijuana. Alcohol use damages the brain. Marijuana use does not. Despite the myths we've heard throughout our lives about marijuana killing brain cells, it turns out that a growing number of studies seem to indicate that marijuana actually has neuroprotective properties. This means that it works to protect brain cells from harm. For example, one recent study found that teens who used marijuana as well as alcohol suffered significantly less damage to the white matter in their brains. Of course, what is beyond question is that alcohol damages brain cells. Alcohol use is linked to cancer. Marijuana use is not. Alcohol use is associated with a wide variety of cancers, including cancers of the esophagus, stomach, colon, lungs, pancreas, liver and prostate. Marijuana use has not been conclusively associated with any form of cancer. In fact, one study recently contradicted the long-time government claim that marijuana use is associated with head and neck cancers. It found that marijuana use actually reduced the likelihood of head and neck cancers. If you are concerned about marijuana being associated with lung cancer, you may be interested in the results of the largest case-controlled study ever conducted to investigate the respiratory effects of marijuana smoking and cigarette smoking. Released in 2006, the study, conducted by Dr. Donald Tashkin at the University of California at Los Angeles, found that marijuana smoking was not associated with an increased risk of developing lung cancer. Surprisingly, the researchers found that people who smoked marijuana actually had lowerincidences of cancer compared to non-users of the drug. Alcohol is more addictive than marijuana. Addiction researchers have consistently reported that marijuana is far less addictive than alcohol based on a number of factors. In particular, alcohol use can result in significant and potentially fatal physical withdrawal, whereas marijuana has not been found to produce any symptoms of physical withdrawal. Those who use alcohol are also much more likely to develop dependence and build tolerance. Alcohol use increases the risk of injury to the consumer. Marijuana use does not. Many people who have consumed alcohol or know others who have consumed alcohol would not be surprised to hear that it greatly increases the risk of serious injury. Research published this year in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, found that 36 percent of hospitalized assaults and 21 percent of all injuries are attributable to alcohol use by the injured person. Meanwhile, the American Journal of Emergency Medicine reported that lifetime use of marijuana is rarely associated with emergency room visits. According to the British Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, this is because: "Cannabis differs from alcohol … in one major respect. It does not seem to increase risk-taking behavior. This means that cannabis rarely contributes to violence either to others or to oneself, whereas alcohol use is a major factor in deliberate self-harm, domestic accidents and violence." Interestingly enough, some research has even shown that marijuana use has been associated with a decreased risk of injury. http://www.saferchoice.org...The drug war costs too much money for it's own good:The drug war is costing taxpayers billions of dollars just to have weed smoker imprisoned. The money could be used for more useful, important things that would improve out society or pay for even education about drug use that would prove to be more effective than "prohibition"Drug prohibition also invades civil liberties as it invades the "Fourth Amendment" in "searches and seizures"Why should marijuana be illegal?Why? Don't individuals have the right to choose to smoke weed or not? Just as individuals have the right to use alcohol and cigarrettes? People deserve the freedom to smoke weed as the please whether or not the government agrees with their decisions. Why should the government force their beliefs down people throats and jail people for simply doing something that they do not agree with but has no huge, harmful consequences towards society?There are also many other reasons Marijuana should be legal "Medicinal use: Marijuana can be used as medicine because it helps to stimulate apetite and relieve nausea in cancer and AIDS patients. Hemp: 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. Religious Use:Some religions instruct their followers to use marijuana. Just like Christianity and Judaism instruct their followers to drink wine on certain occaisions, some Hindus, Buddhists, Rastafarians, and members of other religions use marijuana as part of their spiritual and religious ceremonies. These people deserve the freedom to practice their religion as they see fit. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that the government cannot 'prohibit the free exercise' of religion, and so marijuana should be legal." http://www.mjlegal.org...

negative: Legal Marijuana WOW... that is scary.. I expected you to say Heil Hitler at the end but anyways. thanks for trolling my debate.. Smoke weed everyday!

negative: Marijuana should be legal for recreational use This is a debate about whether or not marijuana should be legal for recreational use. My stance is against the use of recreational use. This first round is for acceptance so please post something like "I accept your debate" for round 1. The remaining three rounds are for contention and debate. Legitimate debaters only.

negative: Legalization of Recreational Marijuana Should marijuana become legalized for recreational use? In this debate, I am taking the Pro stance, meaning I support the legalization. 1st round - State your stance. 2nd round - Evidence to support stance. 3rd round - Counter the opponent's stance. 4th round - Closing statement/Final evidence and/or opinion. I will not stand rude or childish responses. I'm looking for a fun, cordial debate between people who can handle the topic. Thanks in advance, and I look forward to debating!

negative: Legalization of Recreational Marijuana My opponent has chosen to not respond this round. I was hoping to further our discussion over the issue, but I will stay hopeful that my opponent responds in the next round.

negative: Marijuana should be legal I have accepted this debate and shall be arguing the con side, saying that recreational marijuana, as I assume we are talking about recreational and not medical, should not be legal. My opponent will be arguing that recreational marijuana should indeed be legal.Because my opponent has neglected to lay out some rules, I feel obligated to do so. Proper grammar and spelling should be used at all time. All sources, if any, must be cited. All arguments must be sophisticated. Because that is all I wish to say, I await Pro's arguments for the legalization of recreational marijuana.

negative: The United States should legalize all drugs Full Resolution: The United States should legalize all drugs for recreational use. This is for the Winter Tournament. First round is for acceptance. No new arguments in the final round. "Recreational use" is "any non-medical use."

negative: Recreational Marijuana Should Be Legal Recreational use of Marijuana is an ever-present issue in our time. With the recent voting in this election for the use of it in various states, this has resurfaced as an important issue. This debate is short, and will center on facts rather than fluff.

negative: cannabis should be legalized. I believe that cannabis should be legal. resolved:cannabis should be legal definitions: legal-permitted by law cannabis-A plant used to produce hemp fiber and as a mildly psychotropic drug. rules: 1. no insults 2. must go by the organization 3. no trolling 4. don't put sources unless opponent specifically asks for one in the comments.

negative: Marijuana should be legal for recreational use I'd like to apologize to my opponent, but I am unable to submit my arguments at this time.

negative: Marijuana should be legal Round 1 is stricly for acceptance and please no rebuttal in Round 2 , Round 2 is for explaining your views, Don't accept if you joined a day or a few days ago because than i cannot be sure that you don't forget about this debate.

negative: Recreational Marijuana Legalization My opponent has forfeited so I will accept the victory.

negative: Cocaine should be made legal in the United States We should make cociane legal, but make it illegal to ingest. [1] there would be no black market [2] it will still be illegal to use to get high. This will send a clear message to everyone that the drug is still bad. this is a win win situation.

negative: Weed should be decriminalised Weed should decriminalised do you agree?

negative: Making marijuana legal in the U.S I accept! I will be negating the resolved in that marijuana should be legal for recreational use in the United States.

negative: alcohol Should alcohol be banned? and people who drink automatically be sent to jail?

negative: Decriminalizing recreational marijuana. Therefore, I fully urge voters of this debate to award him the 'Conduct' points.

negative: Recreational Marijuana Recreational marijuana has recently become legal for recreational use in 8 states and the District of Columbia, under Proposition 64, of those 8 states being California. There is a great amount of controversy surrounding the passing of recreational marijuana. Legalized marijuana is regulated for customer safety. Before recreational marijuana was legalized and dispensaries started to be created people were buying it off of the street. This meant that it was being grown by the person selling it or they got it from someone who may have gotten it from another person. This meant that the consumer didn't know if there were harmful drugs or chemicals mixed in the product they were buying. According to The American Public Health Association (APHA), who wrote and article called "Regulating Commercially Legalized Marijuana as a Public Health Priority" on November 18. 2014, with recreational marijuana being legalized it will allow the government to enforce laboratory testing and regulations to make sure that the marijuana being sold is free of toxins. This means that the consumer will no longer have to buy off of the street but will be able to go into a dispensary where the marijuana has been tested for toxins in a laboratory. On January 8th, 2018 a Washington State Legislator posted and article called "WAC 314-55-105: Packaging and Labeling Requirements" which by law requires Washington state to produce health warnings, quality assurance, THC content and concentration, as well as other important information for the consumer. This allows the consumer to know exactly what is in their product its just like food labels that provide the consumer with information about what is inside weather is be vitamins, fat, or sugars. Legalizing marijuana allows for the consumer to read exactly what they are buying and know that it complies with the government regulations. The Bureau of Cannabis Control states that with recreational marijuana being legalized it allows the government to set age restrictions and the people buying it as well as license and regulate the entire supply chain of marijuana including growers, distributors, retailers, and testing labs. This means that the government will be able to control how much and who is selling the marijuana and it will decrease the amount of dealers on the streets selling and importing illegally. Brooke Staggs, a reporter of cannabis, wrote in and article titled " "Here Are the Rules for Legal Marijuana in California Once Law Goes into Effect Jan. 1," in November of 2017, that in California alone the legalizing of recreational marijuana will requires regulations that include limitations on the serving sizes for edible marijuana products, seed-to-sale testing and tracking, and 24-hour video surveillance at retail stores. The Government will now be able to monitor what is being sold to each consumer making shops close at 10 P.M every night. They will also be able to regulate where shops are located which requires them to be 600 ft away from any school according to The Bureau of Cannabis Control Regulations.

negative: Decriminalizing recreational marijuana. Critical Notice of My Opponent’s Arguments My opponent’s entire 3rd round argument was based on the claim that legalizing economic marijuana is bad for the economy. However, the resolution of the debate was that: “Decriminalizing recreational marijuana is wrong.” The fact that he was arguing that legalizing marijuana was bad when the topic was about decriminalizing marijuana makes his entire 3rd round erroneous.Nonetheless, I shall make some notes about my opponent’s arguments. He claims decriminalizing (or was it legalizing?) recreational marijuana has shown to be detrimental to the economy of Amsterdam. His only justification for this was based on a quote from Yahoo. He has not shown how such evidence supports his position. I certainly don’t see how this supports his argument at all! He also claims that legalizing (or was it decriminalizing?) marijuana would cause its price to drop considerably. He cites an article from the website ‘Daily Paul’ to support this. Ironically however, it would appear that the original article supports my position! At the end of the article, the author, ‘OFallonBrent’ writes: “Let's keep the prices high to send more money to criminal organizations, destabilize our borders, and put financial burdens on both sick and healthy users. [new paragraph] Yeah! That’s the ticket!” Surely, this doesn’t support my opponent’s argument! The only justification for this is the fact that ‘marijuana is bad for health.’ [1] I have already shown that decriminalizing marijuana does not increase its usage. My opponent ignores this. I address the claim that ‘marijuana is bad for health ergo recreational marijuana should not be decriminalized’ argument next in the next round, after my opponent has had a change to clarify himself [1] http://www.dailypaul.com...

negative: Should Marijuana Be Legalized Pro"s arguments in favor of legalizing recreational marijuana greatly overstate the case. First, pro claims that marijuana is not addictive. According to Psychology Today* the most that we can say is that marijuana is not as addictive as some other substances. Between 10 to 30% of regular marijuana users develop dependency. 9% develop a serious addiction. Comparatively, only 23% of heroin users develop an addiction. While it is true that marijuana is not as addictive a heroin, that is not the same as saying that it is not addictive. Second, it is true that since marijuana was legalized in Colorado crime in Denver, the state"s largest city, has decreased by roughly 10%**. However, a large part of that drop can be attributed to the fact that an activity which was once illegal has been legalized. If theft were legalized we would also see a decrease in illegal activity because an action which was once a crime would no longer be considered illegal. Beyond this, it is difficult to give the legalization of marijuana full credit for the decrease in crime. For instance, homicide in Denver has decreased by almost 50%. It would be an extremely difficult to make a case that a full 50% of homicides in Denver were marijuana related. Third, anorexia has nothing to do with appetite. It usually centers around body issues in which a person feels hungry but chooses not to eat. Increased appetite through drug use or medication is not considered a valid treatment for anorexia.*** Beyond all this, there are some strong reasons for keep marijuana illegal for the time being. First, legalization is likely to increase overall marijuana use. This is bad for the country. Even if we ignore the negative effects of marijuana, I think that we can all agree that recreational marijuana has little to no positive effects on a person. Increased availability of marijuana would not benefit the country overall. Second, we have yet to have a long-term test of the societal effect of legalizing marijuana. Yes, crime has decreased in Denver. However, the legalization is less than a year old. Before we should even consider the success or failure of this experiment, more time needs to pass. To base any action on the results we have seen thus far would be exceedingly premature. Finally - I grant that I am going out on a limb with this last one but I think that there is some truth here - it is unlikely the marijuana sellers will suddenly become model citizens. Selling marijuana is not a crime of convenience. To sell marijuana regularly requires a consistent choice. However, small time dealers will not be able to compete in the long run with major corporations that see the money making potential of selling marijuana. When these small time dealers find that they cannot compete it is unlikely that they will find honest work. They will more likely move on to a different form of illegal activity. There will always be people out there willing to ignore the law to make a quick buck. I want that person selling marijuana. While they are harming society, if they were not selling marijuana then they will most likely be doing something that is even worse. While recreation marijuana use might not be as destructive as some other kinds of illegal activities, on the whole legalizing recreational marijuana at this point in time would be the wrong choice for our country. *Source: http://www.psychologytoday.com... **Source: http://rt.com... ***Source: https://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org...

negative: Resolved: The Use of Marijuana for Recreational Purposes Should Be Prohibited I will begin my first argument by discussing the negative effects of cannabis on its users. With this being said, I wish the best of luck to my opponent and am glad to actually be doing this debate. The Dangers of Marijuana on Its Users Marijuana has a variety harmful effects on its users. In this part of my argument, I will discuss the short- and long-term effects of using this drug. Some of the short-term effects of using marijuana include, but are not limited to, the "high" feeling, altered senses (e. g. seeing brighter colors), an altered sense of time, mood-swings, impaired body movement, difficulty with thinking and solving problems, and impaired memory. [1] Also, let it be known that hallucinations and anxiety/panic attacks can occur with short-term usage of marijuana if the dosage is high enough. [2] Some of the long-term effects of using marijuana include, but are not limited to, suppression of the immune system, reduction of male sex hormones, destruction of lung fibers and permanent brain damage, reduced sexual capacity, and severe mood-swings. [3] Clearly marijuana is too dangerous of a drug to be legalized for recreational purposes. Its effects can be long-lasting and severe. The Dangers of Marijuana on Others According to researchers at Columbia University, marijuana has contributed to 12% of traffic deaths in 2010. [4] In addition to this, according to Russia Today, marijuana-related deaths, school suspensions, traffic incidents, and poisonings have spiked in Colorado (a state which legalized the drug back in 2012). [5] Once again, we clearly should not legalized cannabis. It has been shown that legalizing marijuana for recreational purposes causes a spike in crime, traffic incidents, school suspensions, and more. Legalizing Marijuana for Recreational Purposes Has Failed in the Past I believe, the marijuana debate all boils down to one city: Amsterdam, Netherlands. This city is a popular tourist attraction (especially for marijuana-users), but has definitely seen better days before legalizing the drug. According to the Daily Mail, schools have been forced to ban smoking pot because there have been a significant number of students showing up to school high. [6] In addition, Amsterdam has seen higher crime near the coffeehouses which sell pot. [7] Conclusion I conclude in this first argument that marijuana is too dangerous for recreational purposes for three main reasons: it is harmful to its users, it's harmful to others, and legalizing it has not worked in the past. Footnotes 1. "Marijuana. " DrugFacts:. N. p. , n. d. Web. 09 Feb. 2016. 2. "Short and Long Term Effects. " Of Marijuana. N. p. , n. d. Web. 10 Feb. 2016. 3. "Short- & Long-Term Effects of Marijuana - Negative Side Effects of Weed - Drug-Free World. " Short- & Long-Term Effects of Marijuana - Negative Side Effects of Weed - Drug-Free World. N. p. , n. d. Web. 11 Feb. 2016. 4. Schmitz, Matt, Cars. com Chris Woodyard, and Usa Today. "Marijuana Playing Larger Role in Fatal Crashes. " USA Today. Gannett, 09 June 2014. Web. 11 Feb. 2016. 5. "Marijuana-related Deaths, Suspensions & Problems Spike in Colorado – Report. " RT International. N. p. , n. d. Web. 11 Feb. 2016. 6. . http://www.dailymail.co.uk... 7. . http://rightwingnews.com...

negative: Marijuana Legalization First off, as you say "a lot of people use this drug everyday." This is bound to remain the same, whether or not marijuana is legalized. A lot of people use it now, and will continue to do so. If it were legalized, those that do not use marijuana would not suddenly become marijuana users. It may be viewed as stress relief to some, but it is much more than that. It is a safer recreational drug than alcohol. It is a drug that no one has ever overdosed on, and it doesn't have the hangover effects that people get from alcohol. The period of prohibition was considered a mistake. It was decided by many that alcohol should be kept legal. From this, it only follows that marijuana should also be legal. Something less dangerous than a LEGAL drug, should also be legal. There are other benefits as well that I will discuss in the next round, due to the 1,000 character limit restraint.

negative: Decriminalizing recreational marijuana. Economic effects of legalizing recreational marijuana According to sources, the decriminalization of medial marijuana has negative economic effects. "Legalizing marijuana can make or break an economy, as witnessed by Amsterdam, an area that legalizes many drugs and allows tourists to enjoy these types of drugs in certain locations. With tourists flooding into Amsterdam strictly to enjoy the high grade of marijuana products in the area, it becomes readily apparent that there is all manner of money to be spent on the average popular mind altering substance." [1] I recognize that this piece of evidence supports your argument, but it supports mine as well. I will now list another piece of evidence: "A ballot measure to legalize marijuana in California would so upend supply and demand that pot prices could plummet by as much as 90 percent and possibly undercut the tax windfall that supporters have touted to sell the initiative, a study published Wednesday found. The study by the nonpartisan RAND Drug Policy Research Center forecasts some interesting scenarios if California in November becomes the second state, after Alaska, to legalize pot for recreational use by adults and the first to tax commercial cannabis sales. Pot prices could drop from $375 an ounce under the state's current medical marijuana law to as little as $38 per ounce before taxes as legal pot suddenly becomes available to the public, RAND researchers concluded." [2] I have already spoken about the health aspect of marijuana. Now, given this new information, I do not believe anyone can support the decriminalization of recreational marijuana. It can deeply wound our economy as well as causing health issues for uncountable people. [1] http://voices.yahoo.com... [2] http://www.dailypaul.com...

negative: Legalization of recreational marijuana in the U.S. would benefit the economy Thanks to blamonkey for accepting the challenge. Let's jump right in.Legalization of recreational marijuana in the U.S. would benefit the economy in the following regards.Taxes:The legalization of recrational marijuana would generate billions of dollars in taxes for the government to spend on other beneficiary programs that might also benefit the economy. Legalization would generate tax revenue of an estimated $46.7 billion annually [1].The cost of incarceration:The cost to keep a prisoner incarcerated is an absolutely enourmous burden on taxpayers. It is estimated that it costs taxpayers a whopping $15,921,896,814 to house marijuana related inmates [2]. Although my own research shows that it may be even more, because source [2] bases this on the assumption that it costs $21,006 to house one inmate for a year, I hvae found other sources that state the value closer to $30,000 [3].Decline of Organized Crime / Corporation and trading benefits:Similar to the decline of organized crime following the repeal of alcohol prohibition in 1933, legalization of recreational marijuana would cause the marijuana trade to cease in America entirely, causing gangs and other organizations to disband. This branches off into my next point.The commercial availability of marijuana would cause business boom, employing countless citizens, getting people to spend money (always good for the economy), and generating a massive amount of revenue. Also since America is most definitly a world power, America's decision to legalize recrational marijuana has a good chance of causing a domino effect, making other nations see the benefits of legalization (employment and revenue) and legalizing it themselves. This would cause an international market to be crerated, opening up the U.S. to export it's recreational marijuana to other legalized nations, further increasing government profit and corporation revenue. With tons of foreign money being paid to the United States, we would inevitably see a increase in value for the dollar, which is good for everyone in the U.S.************************************************************************************************* I turn the argument to con.

negative: Resolved: Recreational marijuana use should be prohibited I will begin my first argument by discussing the negative effects of cannabis on its users. With this being said, I wish the best of luck to my opponent and am glad to finally be doing this debate. The Dangers of Marijuana on Its Users Marijuana has a variety harmful effects on its users. In this part of my argument, I will discuss the short- and long-term effects of using this drug. Some of the short-term effects of using marijuana include, but are not limited to, the "high" feeling, altered senses (e. g. seeing brighter colors), an altered sense of time, mood-swings, impaired body movement, difficulty with thinking and solving problems, and impaired memory.1 Also, let it be known that hallucinations and anxiety/panic attacks can occur with short-term usage of marijuana if the dosage is high enough.2 Some of the long-term effects of using marijuana include, but are not limited to, suppression of the immune system, reduction of male sex hormones, destruction of lung fibers and permanent brain damage, reduced sexual capacity, and severe mood-swings.3 Clearly marijuana is too dangerous of a drug to be legalized for recreational purposes. Its effects can be long-lasting and severe. The Dangers of Marijuana on Others According to researchers at Columbia University, marijuana has contributed to 12% of traffic deaths in 2010.4 In addition to this, according to Russia Today, marijuana-related deaths, school suspensions, traffic incidents, and poisonings have spiked in Colorado (a state which legalized the drug back in 2012).5 Once again, we clearly should not legalized cannabis. It has been shown that legalizing marijuana for recreational purposes causes a spike in crime, traffic incidents, school suspensions, and more. Conclusion I conclude in this first argument that marijuana is too dangerous for recreational purposes for two main reasons: it is harmful to its users and to others. Sources 1. "Marijuana. " DrugFacts:. N. p. , n. d. Web. 09 Feb. 2016. 2. "Short and Long Term Effects. " Of Marijuana. N. p. , n. d. Web. 10 Feb. 2016. 3. "Short- & Long-Term Effects of Marijuana - Negative Side Effects of Weed - Drug-Free World. " Short- & Long-Term Effects of Marijuana - Negative Side Effects of Weed - Drug-Free World. N. p. , n. d. Web. 11 Feb. 2016. 4. Schmitz, Matt, Cars. com Chris Woodyard, and Usa Today. "Marijuana Playing Larger Role in Fatal Crashes. " USA Today. Gannett, 09 June 2014. Web. 11 Feb. 2016. 5. "Marijuana-related Deaths, Suspensions & Problems Spike in Colorado – Report. " RT International. N. p. , n. d. Web. 11 Feb. 2016.

negative: Cannabis Legalization in the United States (Medical and Recreational Uses) I was wondering when I would get a response. I find this topic very important and enjoy debating it. As per your request, I will focus on medical as well as recreational purposes this round. To begin with, marijuana used medically has proven very useful for a medication. Your fact that marijuana has some negative side effects is true; smoking anything in general can harmful for your lungs. However, the panic attacks, paranoia, etc., are effected by the environment and you mood when smoking. To go along with that, what strain of marijuana smoked does matter. Certain strains will make you more tired and sluggish or active and energetic. A main use for medical marijuana is that it reduces pain. Medical marijuana advocates in other states have said that when diagnosed, they have tried pills or other "big pharma" recommendations. When these do not work, many turned to alcohol. Once medical marijuana was allowed, they reported that they had finally found a medication that worked and had less side effects along with the fact that they worked better for them. As for the recreational reasons, the U.S. has an incredibly high incarceration rate; the highest in the world. Between 2001 and 2010, there were 8.2 million marijuana related arrests, 88% of those were for simply possessing marijuana. If marijuana was decriminalized and legalized recreationally, the arrest rate would in turn drop. Another use of recreational marijuana would be that it would reduce the number of deaths from other, much more harmful drugs. In states with recreational use, especially with Colorado, deaths related to Opium, which can be made into pills or drugs such has heroine, have decreased dramatically. If we were to instate proper laws, like those in states with medical and recreation use, (age requirements, laws against smoking in public, issuing proper medical use licenses) along with creating proper laws making driving while under the influence illegal, medical and recreational uses will prove useful and helpful, as well as fun. If it is alright with you, may we discuss the economic effects of legalization next?

negative: The United States Should Legalize Marijuana for Recreational Use I accept.

negative: Legalize marijuana in all 50 states So first off I would not like this to be a nationwide bill, I believe in the tenth amendment, and that we should leave it up to the individual states to decide for themselves, such as Colorado where marijuana is legal for recreational use. You say it is a gateway drug, but if Minnesota made marijuana legal most people would still not use the drug, therefore making it legal wouldn't make it any more of a gateway drug than it already is.

negative: Marijuana should be legalized for recreational use Thank you as well - I am fully aware that this is a debate about recreational marijuana. You make some very good points as well.Rebuttals:(Rebuttal for your first paragraph): I am fully aware of that. According to this map: https://en.wikipedia.org...Washington, Oregon, Colorado, and Hawaii are the only four states so far to legalize recreational marijuana. Pennyslvania, which is the state currently pending for legalization - used to not have it allowed at all. States such as: New York, Nevada, California, Minnesota, Mississippi, Maine, Vermont, Maryland, Deleware, Conneticut, Rhode Island, and Massachussetts; all have marijuana decriminalized. Most other states have marijuana legal in some form or for a certain purpose. The only states who outright ban marijuana completely are: Idaho, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Wyoming, Kansas, Indiana, West Virginia, and Pennyslvania. That means that only 11/50 states are in SUPPORT of marijuana in some way, shape, or form. And many more states in 2015 are pending for legalization such as California and Pennsylvania (as mentioned). The point I am trying to make is that most states are in suppport of marijuana, and it is not just a random group of people who support it somewhere in the united states. "As Gallup shows, support for legalization is at 62 percent among adults under 30, 56 percent among those aged 30 to 49." This piece of evidence means that a majority of adults beliebe marijuana should be legalized.(Rebuttal for second paragraph): While that may be true - over the counter drugs actually cause more fatalities then (more dangerous) drugs you have mentioned. I understand that this debate souly focuses on marijuana but take a look at this statistic: CAUSE OF DEATHS FROM DRUGS PrescriptionDrugs Street DrugsCombined: 39% 45% (Amphetamine + Heroin + Methamphetamine + Cocaine) ~http://www.drugfreeworld.org...This statistic shows how perscription drugs kill more people then a drug like marijuana would (you cannot overdose on marijuana, but it does kill like any other drug, when hollucinating and driving especially). Making marijuana legal would give people an OPTION to use it very often or not so, THE SAME CHOICE people make with prescription drugs. So what are we going to do? Ban over the counter drugs now? No, we cannot do that, and neither can we keep this from people as a choice (you stated how this argument was not for medical purposes, but this paragraph you mentioned was on that topic - I am becoming confused).(Rebuttal for "responce to second rebuttal"): "In 2014, Colorado retailers sold $386 million of medical marijuana and $313 million for purely recreational purposes. The two segments of the market generated $63 million in tax revenue, with an additional $13 million collected in licenses and fees." ` so far from Colorado's legalization of the drug, they already made MILLIONS of dollars in sales of the drug - a tax profit of $76 million total. THAT IS ONE STATE ALONE. For theoretical purposes, lets pretend that all 50 states had it legalized and all made a $76 million dollar profit. That would generate a three billion eight hundred million dollar tax revenue to go towards drug rebab etc. This would COMPLETELY outweigh the cost needed for drug rehab - and the government will still make a profit in the end. While that may be true, as you have mention, nuclear weapons are illegal because they can KILL soo many people if given to the wrong hands. They can affect INNOCENT BYSTANDERS. But marijuana cannot do that, it only effects the person consuming the drug and IN RARE CASES some of their peers - not killing hundreds of people at once for someone else's mistake. That is why the government has banned those kinds of weapons. As you have mentioned, the USA IS A FREE COUNTRY; and with freedom, comes freedom of choice. Think of ammendments such as 1, 11, etc. with freedom laws;(http://constitution.findlaw.com...).(Rebuttal for final paragraph): Only 9% of people who try marijuana become addicted - that is a SMALL percentage compared to the 91% who do not get hooked. Making marijuana legal for recreational use will NOT INFLUENCE the statistics of the drug as they are right now. That is because the goverment is not going around making commertials saying; "Marijuana is soo cool, you should try it!" etc. The government would simply be dicriminalizing the drug and making it legal and NOT PROMOTING it in ANY WAY. Even though the government wants to protect us the best they can, we all know they cannot protect us from EVERYTHING, that is just common sense and logic. But giving people freedom of choice in another form (because there are so many in this country already), in my opinon, would be something to be thankful, happy, grateful, and supportive of (as you have mentioned yourself).Citations:http://prospect.org...;http://www.drugfreeworld.org...;http://www.washingtonpost.com...;http://constitution.findlaw.com...;

negative: Marijuana Legalization Gateway drug?There is really no such thing. Plenty of people use marijuana and nothing else. Use of marijuana does not imply that those users will move on to harder drugs.Addiction?Marijuana is not physically addictive. As far as mental addiction goes, this can happen with ANYTHING. This includes things that aren't drugs (e.g. gambling). Mental addiction of anything is not an argument, since it would eliminate too many things from society.Benefits of legalizing marijuanaIf marijuana were legalized for recreational use, this means there would no longer be any restrictions on growing hemp. There are many products that can be formed from hemp. One of which is paper. By legalizing pot, we legalize hemp. Then using it to make paper, we actually help the environment.Furthermore, we don't have to worry about ethics with medical marijuana if it is legal for recreational use. Cancer patients IN ANY STATE can freely use weed to alleviate nausea, and gain an appetite. The pros outweigh the cons.

negative: Marijuana should be legal for recreational use Arguments extended.

negative: Medical marijuana dispensaries Legalizing medical marijuana is not legalizing recreational use

negative: Marijuana Legalization "There is a lot of solid proof that marijuana is a gateway drug."First off, the evidence of there even being such a thing as a gateway drug is scant at best. Secondly, a study from the University of Pittsburgh found that marijuana is NOT a gateway drug. http://scienceblog.com..."They are going to start out stealing from a small store and gradually stepping up from there"This is the point. A lot of people have shoplifted small items. Hardly any have gone on to rob banks. Just because lower level precedes higher level, it doesn't mean that one causes another."medical marijuana isn't what this debate is about. Were focusing on recreational use." Read my argument again. I focused on benefits of legalizing for RECREATIONAL use. One benefit is that there would be no more issue with those using it as medicine. Legalizing marijuana leads to legalizing hemp which leads to helping the environment. This and recycling are not mutually exclusive.