query: Should marijuana be a medical option?

positive: Medical Marijuana Now let's move on to my final rebuttal and conclusion. R1: Terrible Health DefectsThis seems to be what my opponent's case essentially revolves around. It should be noted that while marijuana does have side effects and a potential for harm, almost every drug does as well. The only sources that my opponent has nonchalantly thrown out that are actually against marijuana don't even discuss medical use. The credible sources that he provides actually advocate for medical marijuana which my opponent does not even realize. My opponent fails to establish why morphine or novocaine should be legal in that case as well. As I stated earlier, numerous medical programs recognize marijuana as relatively safe for medical use. Let's go in depth and see what they say. According to an approved statement from the US Department of Justice in 1988, "Nearly all medicines have toxic, potentially lethal effects. But marijuana is not such a substance. There is no record in the extensive medical literature describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality. In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity. " [1] From January 1997 to June 2005, the U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported zero deaths caused by the primary use of marijuana. Through that time period, 279 deaths were reported where marijuana was a possible "concomitant" drug used in conjunction with other drugs at the time of death. In contrast, common FDA-approved drugs which are often prescribed in lieu of marijuana (such as anti-emetics and anti-psychotics), were the primary cause of 10,008 deaths. [2]R2: FDA Statement? ?So yes apparently the FDA did issue a blanket statement disregarding all medicinal values of medical marijuana. This does not by any means mean it should be illegal. In fact many medical institutions have been negatively stigmatizing the FDA for making such lavish claims. To help prove the ridiculousness of this claim, I refer to Stephen Sidney, MD, Associate Director for Clinical Research for Kaiser Permanente. The FDA's pronouncement tells us little about medical marijuana, but it says much about how politics appears to be trumping science at the agency we all depend on to protect our health. .. .The federal government has not only refused to fund medical marijuana research, it has put in place a set of legal and bureaucratic obstacles that have kept the flow of even privately funded medical marijuana studies to a trickle. So with one hand, our government tells us 'there's no data,' while with the other hand it works to ensure there will never be enough data. So why did the FDA issue this questionable document, containing no new information whatever, at this particular moment? The only apparent explanation is politics. .. . Science, it appears, took a back seat. For the FDA to do its job as protector of our nation's health, it must be free from commercial or political pressure. When politics trumps science at the FDA, we are all in danger. " [3] Let's now have a look at to what NY Times had to say about this: "The Bush administration's habit of politicizing its scientific agencies was on display again this week when the Food and Drug Administration, for no compelling reason, unexpectedly issued a brief, poorly documented statement disputing the therapeutic value of marijuana. The statement was described as a response to numerous inquiries from Capitol Hill, but its likely intent was to buttress a crackdown on people who smoke marijuana for medical purposes and to counteract state efforts to legalize the practice. Ordinarily, when the F. D. A. addresses a thorny issue, it convenes a panel of experts who wade through the latest evidence and then render an opinion as to whether a substance is safe and effective to use. This time the agency simply issued a skimpy one-page statement asserting that 'no sound scientific studies' supported the medical use of marijuana. ." [4] Thus it is not at all a valid scientifical standpoint but rather a whimsical attempt by politicians to attack the marijuana user party. R3: Schizophrenia and Testicular CancerThere is really no solidification of this contention as he agrees so this has successfully been shot down because marijuana never causes Schizophrenia. Con then goes on to helplessly try to justify this by bringing up some "Pro marijuana legilizaation dude" (nobody knows what legilizaation is) and states how he believes it is true. This is bad conduct because there is no explanation, no source, and no credibility. I think it is clear to the readers and will move on. As far as the testicular cancer issue goes, I have significantly shot this down yet again and Con just spews out another source but I have proven that this is just another confusion of correlation and causation so we shall move on now. R4: Withdrawal and AggressionHe states that there is a possibility for one to be aggressive but there is no evidence that this has caused aggression but there is some relation. It is generally considered that marijuana has soothed and calmed people, not made them aggressive. "When the system is hyper-aroused, as in today’s lifestyle, marijuana calms. The significance of this fact cannot be ignored. It explains the increased creativity reported as a part of the marijuana experience, because when both sides of brain processes are heightened, both types of brain activity are greater. The left brain notices more, while the right brain receives more. This is the unification of logic and intuition. The term “expansion of consciousness” is explained physiologically as a “shifting of brain emphasis from one-sidedness to balance” (Sugarmena and Tarter, 1978), which fits precisely with the feeling called “high. " [5] Here's another statement: "At low doses, most marijuana users report a sense of calm, well-being and relaxation—the exact opposite of anxiety. Recent scientific investigation reveals that in addition to a sense of calm, low doses of marijuana produce a loss of temporal awareness (time), slight mental confusion, a slowing of the thought processes, impairment of short-term memory and sometimes an awareness of attaining special insights or knowledge. " [6] We can not come to the conclusion that it will increase aggression but perhaps if you smoke extensively it will. Even so, many other drugs cause far more aggression and they should be illegal as well. R5: AIDS/HIVThis rebuttal is going to be rather brief for I have already shot it down and he simply restated the same thing. I urge readers to refer back to my last rebuttal. He states there is a possibility of T-cells to fight off infections but there is simply no definite cause while I have provided that there is a definite benefit on HIV/AIDSR6: Alzheimer'sThis ongoing project is only working towards achieving tangible results but has not even came close. With his evidence we can not come to any conclusions but only a rather possibility of there being side-effects, no definite harm here and can be completely disregarded. NO WARRANT! R7: Addiction and AlternativesI am begginning to run out of space but first off addiction can simply be solved with less prescription and I have already proven that it is not addictive and it is never considered addictive anymore. It is a myth that has been disproven time after time. Con fails to justify any alternatives whatsoever and just posts links. .this is not debate but a link competition. Conclusion: Con fails to justify how Marijuana should be illegal (arguments), uses unreliable sources such as his Dad (sources), and spells things terribly such as 'rubuttal' and 'legilizaation' (spelling). With his logic many drugs should be illegal and he never really refutes the benefits but rather spews out sources. To end this I refer to Carl Sagan's video and vote PRO. . http://www.youtube.com...

positive: Medical Marijuana We agree on all definitions so let's now move onto the case. C1: Medical Marijuana has been medically proven to have numerous benefits. If need be, I could potentially use all my space going on about the medical benefits of marijuana and how marijuana can benefit us however I'll provide three different benefits today. Sub-Point A: Alzheimer's Disease (Thanks Danielle! ) Lisa M. Eubanks, PhD, Staff Scientist at the Scripps Research Institute and the Skaggs Institute for Chemical Biology notes, "THC and its analogues may provide an improved therapeutic for Alzheimer's disease [by] simultaneously treating both the symptoms and progression of Alzheimer's disease" [1] Since the characterization of the Cannabis sativa produced cannabinoid, tetrahydrocannabinol in the 1960s, this natural product has been widely explored as an antiemetic, anticonvulsive, anti-inflammatory, and analdebilitating disease are critical as Alzheimer's disease afflicts over 20 million people worldwide, with the number of diagnosed cases continuing to rise at an exponential rate [2]. These studies have demonstrated the ability of cannabinoids to provide neuroprotection against amyloid peptide toxicity. [3] Thus we see that medical marijuana provides plausible assistance with a prevalent disease, Alzheimer's Disease. Sub-Point B- HIV/AIDS Numerous studies have shown that medical marijuana has benefited AIDS. While I urge the readers to do some research on their own, I'll summarize some of the results of experimentation. “The study, conducted at San Francisco General Hospital from 2003 to 2005 and published Monday in the journal Neurology, involved 50 patients suffering from HIV-related foot pain known as peripheral neuropathy. There are no drugs specifically approved to treat that kind of pain. Three times daily for nearly a week, the patients smoked marijuana cigarettes machine-rolled at the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the only legal source for the drug recognized by the federal government. Half the patients received marijuana, while the other 25 received placebo cigarettes that lacked the drug's active ingredient, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Scientists said the study was the first one published that used a comparison group, which is generally considered the gold standard for scientific research. Thirteen patients who received marijuana told doctors their pain eased by at least a third after smoking pot, while only six of those smoking placebos said likewise. The marijuana smokers reported an average pain reduction of 34 percent, double the drop reported by the placebo smokers as measured with a widely accepted pain scale. ” [4] Investigators at Columbia University published clinical trial data in 2007 showing that HIV/AIDS patients who inhaled cannabis four times daily experienced substantial increases in food intake with little evidence of discomfort and no impairment of cognitive performance. They concluded that smoked marijuana has a clear medical benefit in HIV-positive patients. [5] In another study in 2008, researchers at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine found that marijuana significantly reduces HIV-related neuropathic pain when added to a patient's already-prescribed pain management regimen and may be an "effective option for pain relief" in those whose pain is not controlled with current medications. Mood disturbance, physical disability, and quality of life all improved significantly during study treatment. [6]Medical Marijuana also has numerous ways to help treat HIV/AIDS, yet another epidemic in today's society. Sub-Point C: Cancer According to a 2007 study at the California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, cannabidiol (CBD) may stop breast cancer from spreading throughout the body. [7] A study by Complutense University of Madrid found the chemicals in marijuana promotes the death of brain cancer cells by essentially helping them feed upon themselves in a process called autophagy. The research team discovered that cannabinoids such as THC had anticancer effects in mice with human brain cancer cells and in people with brain tumors. When mice with the human brain cancer cells received the THC, the tumor shrank. Usingelectron microscopes to analyze brain tissue taken both before and after a 26- to 30-day THC treatment regimen, the researchers found that THC eliminated cancer cells while leaving healthy cells intact. [8] Cannabis has been found to help cancer patients with pain and nausea, and recent research indicates it has tumor-reducing and anti-carcinogenic properties properties as well. It has proven highly effective at controlling the nausea associated with chemotherapy, and its appetite-stimulation properties help combat wasting. Cannabis can also help control the pain associated with some cancers, as well as that resulting from radiation and chemotherapy treatment. [9]Finally, we can come to the conclusion that Medical Marijuana can help cure cancer. When we look back, I have provided three benefits for three prevalent diseases: Alzheimer's Disease, HIV/AIDS, as well as cancer. I could go on and on discussing mental disorder benefits as well as Glaucoma, but I don't want to bore the readers and I urge them to do some of their own research. C2: The government should not decide whether medical marijuana should be illegal or not, let the competent doctors decide. This whole issue comes down to simply whether or not medical marijuana should be prescribed by doctors. The federal government should not have its say in determining whether or not the doctors can prescribe the marijuana or not. We should allow the experienced doctors to determine whether or not a patient should receive marijuana, not the federal government. Thus, when we look onto the doctor's opinions we see doctors believe it should be prescribed. According to the Wall Street Journal's Health Blog: The American College of Physicians, 124,000 members strong, has issued a 13-page position paper asking the federal government to drop marijuana from its classification as a substance considered to have no medicinal value and a high chance of abuse . . . "They've said essentially that the federal government has it all wrong," Bruce Mirken, spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project, [says]. [10] Along with this association, numerous doctors and individuals believe that medical marijuana should be prescribed. At the point at which the competent individuals and the ones who spend their whole entire lives working in the field of medicine believe it should be prescribed, why would the federal government have any say? I can provide more sources and more examples but I think when you look at what I have provided throughout all the sources (most from doctors) you can come to the conclusion that doctors believe it is a necessity and obligatory to legalize medical marijuana. Conclusion: Medical marijuana has been empirically proven to benefit diseases such as cancer and HIV/AIDS. Many doctors want to legalize marijuana and the experienced doctors should decide whether medical marijuana should be legal or not, not a governing body. Let the decision rest upon the individuals who spend their lives working in the field of medicine, not those who do not have enough knowledge on the topic. By letting this occur, we see many doctors are in favor of legalizing medical marijuana and it would have enormous positive impacts on today's society and well-being. For these reasons, I urge a PRO vote. See . http://www.debate.org... sources.

positive: Marijuana should be legalized Marijuana should be legalized for medical purposes. 15 of 50 US States and DC have legalized the medical use of marijuana. It can be a safe and effective treatment for the symptoms of cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, pain, glaucoma, epilepsy, and other conditions. Scientific studies show that for many years marijuana has pointed to medicinal help. Six of these studies sponsored by U.S. states in the 1970s and 1980s, demonstrate that smoking marijuana reduces nausea and reduces pain for many patients, especially those facing cancer chemotherapy and glaucoma. Plus thousands of patients and their families and doctors have experienced and witnessed the medical benefits of marijuana. They have testified at public hearings and appeared in the media with these findings. Too many people are suffering from these diseases and if marijuana can help them, we should legalize it so they can get better.

positive: Marijuana should become legalised Sorry for the wait, and here are my arguments. A) Marijuana affects one of your most important organs—the brain. Studies have shown that this drug affects the blood flow to the brain, which may explain why cannabis users have trouble with memory or thinking [1] [2]. Researches studied the blood flow in brain arteries of 54 marijuana users and 18 nonusers. "The marijuana users volunteered to participate in an inpatient program and abstained from marijuana use for a month." "Blood flow in the brain was analyzed at the beginning of the study and at the end of the month for the marijuana users. Researchers found blood flow was significantly higher in marijuana users than in nonusers, both at the beginning and at the end of the study." Thus, it is evident from the study that marijuana not only negatively affects your brain; these negative effects linger within your brain even after a month (this is not that all surprising, considering cannabis has nearly 400 chemicals inside it). In other words, even after you have stopped using marijuana, your blood flow is still altered, which can lead to trouble thinking or remembering things. Furthermore, this study also revealed that cannabis causes high levels of pulsatility index (PI). "The marijuana users had PI values that were somewhat higher than those of people with chronic high blood pressure and diabetes," says researcher Ronald Herning. B) Marijuana also causes several detrimental medical effects to one's health (both short-term and long-term). This includes slowed reaction time, distorted sense of time, anxiety, depression, and lower levels of sperm count and quality (in men). Other symptoms include weakening of the immune system, limiting the brain's capacity to retrieve and store information, damage to the brain's memory functions (including math and verbal skills), increased blood pressure and risk of heart attack, and loss of motivation and/or interest in everyday activities [3] [4]. These side affects in turn lead to things such as car accidents (if driving after having smoked marijuana), trouble learning, lowered grades, shoddy work, and possibly even a heart attack. In addition, cannabis is addictive, despite what pot smokers may tell you. I do not mean physically addictive, but rather psychologically addictive [3]. However, it is also possible that marijuana is physically addictive. Some symptoms of withdrawal from pot may include aggression, anxiety, and a depressed mood. C) Cannabis is even more dangerous when used by the young population, whose minds are still developing. Studies have shown that various risky behaviors such as gambling, drinking, fighting, steroid use, and smoking cigarettes were all associated with higher risk for marijuana [5]. Self-harm behaviors were also associated with marijuana use. By legalizing marijuana, the government would be exposing our young population (this includes students, children, etc.) even more than before to this drug. D) Now, marijuana alone is obviously detrimental to one's health (as shown above); however, it gets even worse when mixed with other drugs. For example, if I were to mix marijuana with cocaine and smoke it, then the effects on my health would be much worse than before. By legalizing this drug, the government would be allowing the people to mix marijuana with other drugs, causing the danger upon one's health to increase significantly. Pro's Case- Marijuana is dangerous My opponent: "So, quite simply, if Marijuana is less dangerous than other legalised products, then it should be legalised." This statement is not true. Simply because another drug that is legalized does not make it okay to legalize another less dangerous drug. Marijuana, as I have shown, is clearly detrimental to one's health (especially mixed with other drugs); thus, all the government would be doing is exposing the people to even more harmful drugs, and their justification would be that it is less harmful when compared to some of the most dangerous drugs on the planet (alcohol, tobacco, cocaine, etc.). They should be more focused on getting rid of alcohol and tobacco instead of simply increasing the danger to society. It is never wise to fight fire with fire, or in this case, add fire to even more fire. Furthermore, my opponent's source [4] simply leads to a page stating, "Lead Poisoning Due to Adulterated Marijuana," which simply supports me as it shows the dangers of marijuana. It is because of this that I would like to ask where my opponent has gotten the following information he put in R2: "But looking at residents of Los Angeles County, the scientists found that even those who smoked more than 20,000 joints in their life did not have an increased risk of lung cancer." Moreover, while cannabis may not increase the risk of lung cancer, it may increase the risk of testicular cancer. "The risk was particularly elevated (about twice that of those who never smoked marijuana) for those who used marijuana at least weekly and/or who had long-term exposure to the substance beginning in adolescence." [6] Therefore, it is evident that cannabis may also cause testicular cancer, which is another health risk (out of many) that this drug causes. Is there any danger at all? My opponent: "The legalisation of pure marijuana is what I am advocating." Actually, my opponent is advocating the legislation of marijuana and not just pure marijuana, as was agreed upon in the first round. In addition, pure marijuana is still harmful (as I have previously shown). Afterward, my opponent posts more arguments in my favor. Please note that my opponent is advocating cannabis with lead in it, and that lead is extremely harmful to one's health as Pro has proved for me. Is this really something that you want to be smoking? Do you wish to smoke something that has detrimental effects that are (as Pro puts it), "life long and irreversible?" If it ain't broke, don't fix it Here my opponent attempts to show that legalizing marijuana we will increase our own economic situation; however, I can just as easily show examples where legalization did not work. For example, the Netherlands was having second thoughts on legalizing marijuana. [7] [8] "After allowing marijuana to be sold in certain cafes, the Government of the Netherlands reconsidered its legalization policy. Consumption of marijuana had nearly tripled from 15 to 44% among 18-20 year olds." [7] "Mayor Gerd Leers is reacting to growing concerns among residents who "complain of traffic problems, petty crime, loitering and public urination. There have been shootings between Balkan gangs. Maastricht's small police force…is already spending one-third of its time on drug-related problems." [7] As you can see, while Panama may have been successful in their legalization, the Netherlands certainly were not. This is most likely due to different variables that are changing throughout the country. In other words, the legalization of marijuana alone is not enough to help or hurt a country, because other variables could affect the outcome (after all, it took Panama five years to get positive results, and many different things can change in five years). Conclusion- From the evidence that I have provided, it is clear that marijuana is harmful to human health due to a plethora of detrimental side affects and is even more dangerous when mixed with drugs already legalized; thus, it should stay banned. [1] http://alcoholism.about.com... [2] http://www.webmd.com... [3] http://www.webmd.com... [4] http://www.cesar.umd.edu... [5] http://well.blogs.nytimes.com... [6] http://www.news-medical.net... [7] http://www.justthinktwice.com... [8] http://alcoholism.about.com....

positive: Medical Marijuana My opponent provides no source for the bold claim that up to forty percent of persons with BP disorder cannot tolerate standard treatment medications, or any suggestion of logic or evidence that cannaboids would be an exception. Even if my opponent's doubtful claims are true, the minimal impact of medical marijuana is easily negated by the 400+ toxins found in the substance. Additionally, THC has never been used as a controlled substance in the study of BP disorder, directly contradicting my opponents assumption that cannaboids could be used to combat the disease. Furthermore, marijuana has been proven to heighten the risk and intensity of the depressive states of bipolar disorder. My opponent's second main point is completely irrelevant. Unnecessary and harmful freedoms are not handed out to the terminally ill simply to ensure that they have a pleasant trip out of life. Doing such sets an unneeded and negative precedent to the rest of society. Honestly, "happiness" isn't an idea that falls under the umbrella of medicine, and the Affirmative plan draws no line if happiness was an acceptable use for medical marijuana. If I had a bad day at work, would I be justified in using harmful drugs as an escapism? The use of medical marijuana as a means to achieve happiness by escaping from life's problems is neither a just reason for assuming that societal harms achieved by legalizing marijuana, nor does it even fall under the concept of medical marijuana in the first place. In my opponent's final main point, he affirms that marijuana could be used as a method of pain relief. While this may be true, my opponent makes no claim or provides any evidence to suggest that medical marijuana would be a preferable option to pain relief medications already available, including Marinol. He asserts that experts could control the use of the drug, completely ignoring the already controlled substances already on the market. My opponent's claim that the legalization of medical marijuana would encourage research of the substance is irrelevant as the research of cannaboids is not prohibited by the negation of the resolution. What we must see is that current treatment options are far superior to the suggested use of medical marijuana, and any minuscule benefits are far outweighed by the harms of making marijuana easily available. Per the New York Times: "In this environment, it was worrisome to read a first-person report in The Times on June 12, that the writer, a 31-year-old marathon runner, found it "shockingly easy" to obtain marijuana in San Francisco. Although she was in peak health, she sought medical marijuana on the grounds that she suffered a migraine headache every month or so. After her own health plan turned her down, she got a recommendation from a clinic doctor who never asked to see her medical records. His say-so was enough to get her an identification card from the city's health department, along with cards for two friends she had designated as "primary caregivers" so that they could pick up her marijuana if she felt too ill to fetch it herself. That laissez-faire transaction sounds like an easy target for anyone seeking to denigrate the whole program." It's obvious that the legalization of medical marijuana has been abused on a widespread basis. Taking the action suggested by Pro provides little to no benefit to those actually sick, while simultaneously harming society as a whole. Note that my opponent has failed to refute any portion of my case, and as of now it remains untouched. REQUEST: My opponent needs to provide evidence that says that a large portion of BP patients cannot tolerate Marinol but CAN tolerate natural cannaboids. He also must prove that marijuana would be a preferable option of pain relief when compared to current approved medications. Sources (not including those previously used): http://www.pendulum.org... http://www.nytimes.com...

positive: Drugs are bad We believe that in order to win the debate any side should prove that drugs are harmful / not harmful and that the state could / could not restrict individual liberties. So our burden of proof is to prove that drugs are bad (otherwise, there would be no reason for banning them) and that the state is a legitimate actor to ban them (i.e. restrict personal freedom of choice). We will do this by two arguments and here comes the first one proving that drugs are bad in general. On the side of opposition we believe that drugs are inherently evil. They have tremendous negative consequences for the health of a person using them and for society, since a person could commit crazy actions under the influence of drugs. Moreover, part of taxes paid by residents of a country are spent on treating drug users from their addiction, which results in a loss for the welfare of the state. The argument is structured in a manner to point out harmful health effects from the usage of different drugs, and explain how work the mechanisms causing lose for society overall. 1. Negative effects on health. a. Heroin Among all drugs, heroin sometimes is encountered as the most evil. Scientific research shows that people using heroin suffer from serious health problems and have a higher mortality rate than others of the same age who do not use drugs. The increased number of injections plays as a catalyst in developing some infections like endocarditis, cellulitis and abscesses. It has a clear positive correlation with the usage of heroin, since this drug is usually consumed by injections [[http://www.santepub-mtl.qc.ca/Publication/pdfppm/ppmapril2005-2.pdf]]. Also heroin causes serious mental disorders like anxiety and personality disorders. [[http://www.santepub-mtl.qc.ca/Publication/pdfppm/ppmapril2005-2.pdf]] Drug addicts also have a higher rate of suicides, which is proven by some recent studies [[http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/175/3/277]]. Some research suggests that heroin addicts are 14 times more likely to commit a suicide than their peers who do not use this drug [[http://www.med.unsw.edu.au/NDARCWeb.nsf/resources/DI_ResearchProject/$file/Methadone+Project+sheet.pdf]]. The most popular way of committing the suicide is by deliberate drug overdose. We could propose a mechanism to describe this phenomena. A person, whose mental and physical health were undermined by heroin, who is completely desegregated from society and has no sufficient stimulus for living, under the influence of depression caused by the end of heroin "high" decides to commit a suicide. There are numerous examples of such people. There is also a high rate of non deliberate deaths from overdose among heroin users. Tolerance towards this drug develops very fast, which requires an addict to use the substance more frequently and at higher doses. About 10-20% of users develop such a significant dependence and tolerance that they have to use heroin every 3-4 hours [[http://www.santepub-mtl.qc.ca/Publication/pdfppm/ppmapril2005-2.pdf]]. This makes overdose very likely to occur. Moreover, overdose could occur because of inability of the user to calculate the optimum dose for him while he is "high". We have shown at least some serious problems connected to heroin. We believe that there are much more, but we need to move on to our next points. b. Cocaine, crack cocaine. Cocaine also causes several harmful effects. It damages brain by taking control over the cells in the "pleasure center" of brain and thus causing high biological addiction towards the drug. It significantly increases blood pressure, heart rate. Could cause strokes, brain seizures, respiratory failure, heart attack, convulsions and death. It also diminishes the desire for sleep and food, thus leading to malnutrition, significant weight loss and the devastation of the user. It also has negative effects on liver, reproductive system, lungs, throat and basically every single organ of the user. Moreover, it causes several mental disorders like increased irritability and anxiety, panic attacks, confusion, depression, non-stop babbling, sleeplessness, chronic fatigue, short tempers, bizarre, aggressiveness, violence, suicidal behavior, delusions, paranoia and hallucinations. [[http://www.drugaddictiontreatment.ca/news.php?include=133996]] We believe that all these symptoms are enough to regard cocaine as totally unacceptable. c. Marijuana. There are some people stating that marijuana in general is not harmful. May be it is the least harmful among all the drugs, but there is still evidence in favor of its harmfulness. The immediate effect from the usage of marijuana involves increased heartbeat, which leads to heart problems in the future. Intensive usage of marijuana makes a person dull, slow moving and inattentive. It harms memory, reduces concentration, swift reaction, coordination and alters the sense of time. [[http://www.drugaddictiontreatment.ca/marijuana-addiction.html]] Some studies showed that smoking marijuana is especially harmful for pregnant or breast feeding women, since it could affect their fetus. [[http://www.mydr.com.au/babies-pregnancy/cannabis-pregnancy-and-breast-feeding]] But the most crucial argument against even such "light" drug as marijuana is that the usage of marijuana leads to the usage of other drugs. It is hard to find a heroin addict who has never smoked weed in his life. Since under the plan all drugs will be legalized there will be no deterring effect to prevent people who started to use less harmful drugs from moving to more harmful ones. Under the status quo less harmful drugs such as marijuana are more available than those like heroin. It is much harder to buy heroin from drug dealer, because it involves more restrictions. This prevents people who tried marijuana from trying other, more harmful, drugs. If we legalize all drugs, this prevention will disappear. By the way the arguments of the government about no harm of marijuana fails here once again, since the usage of marijuana leads to the usage of other drugs, which under the plan will be legal. 2. Harms to society. a. Crazy behavior of drug addicts. There were many crimes committed under the influence of drugs, since the usage of drugs puts a person into "another reality", it makes it impossible for him to behave adequately in the real world. The Office of National Drug Control Policy states several facts supporting the positive correlation between the usage of drugs and committing crimes. In the US the drug test of arrested showed that from 43% in Anchorage to 79% in Philadelphia of male arrestees showed a positive result on the test of the usage of any drugs. [[http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/crime/index.html]] After the plan is implemented and drugs become legal, the significant increase in the crime rates could follow. There are already some states putting restrictions on the sale of alcohol (like Sweden or Latvia), because they find it easier to restrict such substances rather than deal with the evil consequences. The only reason we can't put restrictions on all alcohol is because of traditions. Traditionally people got used to alcohol and tobacco so much that the ban of these substances will cause a huge response in public. Fortunately, there is no such traditional dependence on drugs, that's why it is great that we can ban them. There was an argument from the proposition that such laws allowing alcohol and restricting drugs are "unfair". We believe that there is no such thing as "fair" or "unfair" relating to drugs and alcohol, and we believe that we should try our best to protect our citizens. If we can't ban alcohol because of traditions, it doesn't mean that we should allow also drugs. We believe that we should protect people from as many harmful things as we can. b. Economic loss. The social costs of drug use are estimated at 0.2% of Gross National Product in the US. The costs to society of a person with opioid dependency are 45,000$ per year. This includes costs of him not working, but living on social benefits; costs of crimes he commits; and costs of medical treatment he needs when he is under the overdose. [[http://www.santepub-mtl.qc.ca/Publication/pdfppm/ppmapril2005-2.pdf]] It is clear that economically it is much more beneficial to ban drugs and avoid this loss.

positive: Legalization of Marijuana Legalizing Marijuana will cause the United States to have its own war on Drug crisis in our own backyeard. Its bad enough we have a war on Drugs with Mexico. Does this Country really want another war on drugs, except this time in its own backyard? I know for a fact that I don't. Unless the CDC and the FDA publishes proof that Marijuana can cure Medical issues, this country will remain split on the issue of legalizing it. Legalizing Marijuana would lead to more drug related crimes and arrest. Its bad enough that some states like California, are having to release most of its inmates because of how crowded it has become, if we allow marijuana to be legal, all prison populations will grow because people will begin to abuse Marijuana. Now a days millions of teens and adults are abusing all sorts of drugs. Can you imaging what would happen if we legalized Marijuana? Think about the questions before responding

positive: Marijuana Should NOT Be Legalized Valor has fallen victim to "Reefer Madness!" :) Marinol is not as effective as marijuana. Steve Kubby has survived for over twenty-five years a form of cancer expected to cause his death as a young man. He credits medical marijuana for prolonging his life. In 2006, despite the legalization of medical marijuana in California, Kubby and his wife were arrested on unconstitutional anti-drug laws that violated the sovereignty of California. Here is how Marinol worked out for him: "With Marinol, Steve is only partly protected. Because Marinol uses only the THC active portion of the cannabis plant, his tumors are now free to grow again. This type of tumor is particularly apt to grow into the spinal cord, brain and organs." http://en.wikipedia.org... You cite the FDA as if it is some kind of authority. The FDA is a political bureaucracy that, like all bureaucracies, exists in order to expand its scope, budget, and power. There are thousands of medical doctors who support the use of medical marijuana, and several states have enacted laws to legalize it. Maybe they are right and maybe they are wrong -- why do you think there has to be one solution for everyone? Do you want to put dying AIDS and cancer patients in jail for using the medicine that they think works best for them? For using a medicine that might be more affordable, particularly if homegrown? You are shilling for the corporate drug companies in the medical-industrial complex (what a surprise, the AMA is against legalization!), and you are arguing for continued human suffering, death, and financial poverty brought on by high drug prices. As for the government studies you cite: I could cite non-government counter-studies -- anyone can just Google it. There is difference of opinion and impure motives on both sides. Why does there have to be just one solution? If medical marijuana were legal, then individuals and doctors could choose whether to use or prescribe it. If a doctor thought it was not effective, he could prescribe something else. You then demonstrate there are negative side effects to marijuana usage -- this just makes it like every other drug on the planet. Of course, there are negative side effects! Watch TV and you'll see plenty of ads for government-approved drugs that can cause everything from increased blood pressure to an urge to gamble! The negative side effects, as well as the health risks for personal/recreational use make a great argument for not using it -- but no argument for making it illegal. I don't smoke marijuana because of the negative health effects. I don't smoke cigarettes either. But I do eat Big Macs and drink beer, both of which are unhealthy. Should they be banned too? Obesity and alcoholism are much greater problems in America than marijuana "addiction." By the way: Marijuana is not physically addictive. It is only mentally addictive. There are people who are officially categorized as sex addicts. The consequences of sex can be far more harmful than marijuana (unwanted pregnancy and AIDS come to mind). So should sex be banned, or at least regulated? Even though sex can be "addictive" and harmful, the vast majority of people make responsible choices with sex. Just as the vast majority of Americans currently make responsible choices with marijuana. Marijuana is addictive like MySpace or Nintendo (or Debate.org), not like alcohol or cocaine. Marijuana a gateway drug? Sure. The type of people who are prone to use heroin are going to use marijuana first because it is more widely available. But they probably drink alcohol before that. And they probably drink soda before that. If the fact that heroin users first use marijuana can be blamed on marijuana, then obviously, marijuana usage should be blamed on soda, and by your logic, soda should be made illegal, too. In fact, breast milk could be cited as the "gateway" to all drugs and crimes and other horrors in the world. You truly are a victim of government propaganda and Reefer Madness. Look, ladies and gentlemen, my opponent is saying that marijuana makes people violent -- even the government hasn't made such outlandish claims since the 1930s. We all know people who use marijuana and aren't violent. In fact, we probably know people who are specifically not violent because they use marijuana! You are against health freedom. You are for bureaucrats and central governments dictating the healthcare choices of sick people, and I find that morally offensive. There are thousands of people who use medical marijuana in the U.S., and the reasons they do so are none of your business. Recreational use is none of your business, either. As cited in the previous round, alcohol consumption increased during Prohibition, but it did not go up appreciably following the end of Prohibition. There's no reason to believe marijuana would be any different (although use certainly is higher now than when it was legal -- Prohibition creates higher prices, which in term create profits for drug dealers, which create an incentive to market the product, etc. -- FACT). You mostly ignored my arguments and focused in on marinol, and the government studies that suggest it is an effective alternative. I will ask you once again to answer the following questions: 1. Do you admit that marijuana has medicinal benefit beyond its application as a pain killer (stimulating appetite being one such benefit)? 2. Should there only be one pain killer on the market, and should all others be banned? 3. Do you concede that marijuana, if abused, is less harmful than cocaine? 4. Do you admit that prohibition of drugs is unconstitutional, and if not, why was a constitutional amendment needed to prohibit alcohol? 5. Do you think that the Drug War has been worth the fiscal and social costs, especially given the fact that people still want and use drugs? NEW QUESTION #6: Should alcohol and cigarettes be banned, and if not, why not? Please answer my questions in Round 3. If you do not answer the questions, I can only assume that you concede the points, and that's a lot of points to concede.

positive: Medical Marijuana should be a legal option 1. Proven Medical Benefits There are many who say that there are many proven medical benefits to smoking or otherwise ingesting marijuana. First off, I would like to ask my opponent to cite a source saying, and proving, the medical benefits of medical marijuana. I have a source that says the following, "There is plenty of evidence to show that marijuana can help people cope with a variety of diseases," Of course it can help people cope with diseases. If I took cocaine, the same effect would happen, in fact I might forget that I even had a disease. Being able to help people cope is no reason to legalize marijuana for medical use. The same source goes on to say, "That said, medical marijuana is not right for every patient. Nor is it even the first drug of choice,". Not even the first choice. Medical marijuana would not replace current medical practices, it would only supplement them. The legalization of medical marijuana is bad for many reasons, which brings me to my next point. . http://www.post-gazette.com... 2. Ill Effects of Ingesting Marijuana The Office of Drug Control Policy says the following, "Marijuana use is associated with dependence, respiratory and mental illness, poor motor performance, and impaired cognitive and immune system functioning, among other negative effects. Marijuana intoxication can cause distorted perceptions, difficulty in thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory. Studies have shown an association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and schizophrenia. Other research has shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. Marijuana smoke, in fact, contains 50‐70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke," This goes to show why any use of marijuana, even for medical uses, is a bad thing for the health of any users. If marijuana for medical purposes was legalized, it would harm many more people than it would help. Is forgetting about your pain through smoking a joint worth it if you can get schizophrenia from smoking it? Or any other medical complication? No, its not worth it, and that is why medical marijuana should not be a legal option. . http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov... In conclusion, I have yet to see a source that legitimately proves the benefits of medical marijuana. Not only is there a lack of health benefits from ingesting it, but there are serious medical issues that could result from ingesting the drug.

positive: Marijuana should be legal Marijuana is used almost like alcohol, but has been used in a more abusive way. Marijuana was used as a medicine until we abused it and perverted it into a gateway drug. just because liquor is legal doesn't mean we should use and abuse it extensively, like we have with Marijuana. and that's why Marijuana should remain illegal. Furthermore i would like to thank lightningbolt50 for the debate opportunity, and you for reading. vote for whoever you think did the best. Thank you

positive: Marijuana Legalization Introduction:Though many have deviated from past standards opposing marijuana legalization, I still stand firm in my belief that marijuana should not be legalized. As I will show in the continuation of this round, there are both moral and pragmatic reasons as to why this illegal drug should not be legalized.C1) Marijuana is a harmful drug.No matter what camouflage or disguise is plastered onto it, the substance remains the same: a drug. A drug, is a drug, is a drug, is a drug. Essentially, all drugs have harmful effects. This holds true in regards to marijuana. The University of Washington documents its respiratory effects. “A 2011 systematic review of the research concluded that long-term marijuana smoking is associated with an increased risk of some respiratory problems, including an increase in cough, sputum production, airway inflammation, and wheeze – similar to that of tobacco smoking (Howden & Naughton, 2011).” [1]But the problem doesn’t stop there. The same article explains, “Additionally, many marijuana smokers also smoke tobacco, which further increases the harm. Numerous studies have found that the harmful effects of smoking marijuana and tobacco appear to be additive, with more respiratory problems in those who smoke both substances than in those who only smoke one or the other (Wu et al, 1988).” [1] Because the use of marijuana is directly linked to cigarette usage, these statistics are relevant as well.Beyond that, other health problems come from marijuana, including cancer. This is once again detailed by the University of Washington. “Marijuana smoke contains about 50% more benzopyrene and nearly 75% more benzanthracene [than cigarettes], both known carcinogens (Tashkin, 2013). Lung biopsies from habitual marijuana-only users have revealed widespread alterations to the tissue, some of which are recognized as precursors to the subsequent development of cancer (Tashkin, 2013).” Cancer is also a problem when considering the legalization of marijuana. With so many individuals already affected by cancer, increasing its prevalence is an obvious detriment.Statistically, the potency of the drug is increasing as well. Live Science supports this notion by quoting, “According to research from the Potency Monitoring Project, the average THC content of marijuana has soared from less than 1 percent in 1972, to 3 to 4 percent in the 1990s, to nearly 13 percent today.” [2] THC is the intoxicating chemical in marijuana. The increase in this is causing a more powerful and harmful substance.C2) Marijuana legalization would result in an increase of marijuana use.Legalizing a substance, even for strictly medical purposes, is bound to increase use. In fact, the Office of National Drug Control Policy supports this notion. “A recent report from the RAND Corporation, “Altered State,” discusses how legalization would cause the price of marijuana to plummet, triggering increases in use of the drug.” [3] Essentially, the illegal nature of marijuana keeps the prices high. Lower prices would inevitably allow, and even encourage, more people to use the drug. More use encourages more abuse, thereby causing more people to be affected by the aforementioned concerns and health complications.Although alcohol use is vastly more than marijuana use, legalization would close the gap. Moreover, previous experience with attempts to legalize other drugs (such as Oxycontin) have proven faulty and unsuccessful. Even if controlling methods were implemented, they weren’t effective in regulating even legal use.C3) Legalization of marijuana reverses moral values.Although many claim that marijuana is beneficial in medical fields, there is not strong support for this notion. In fact, the Buffalo News points this out. “There is not an adequate base of research that shows marijuana is effective for treating any serious medical condition. Therefore, no major group of medical experts supports the use of smoked marijuana for treatment of health problems.” [4] This shows medical marijuana ineffective. If this is true, marijuana is left to only harm individuals. Thus, legalizing marijuana would promote the harm of individuals rather than the assistance.If marijuana is legalized to increase revenue, and fabricate a better economy, it serves to value economics above humanity. Morality, however, values humanity inexplicably and irrefutably above the economy. Rhetorically, if humanity is being devalued solely to value economy, what is the need for an economy if humanity is being harmed? In reality, there isn’t a need for economy in this scenario.Since legalization of this drug does devalue humanity, any economic benefits are equally countered by the subsequent devalue of humanity.C4) Previous legalizations have had adverse effects.Perhaps the most popular legalization to date, in the US, is Colorado. While many share success stories of the legalization, we find that more relevant are the detrimental effects that are widespread and prevailing. The Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area published a report titled “The Legalization of Marijuana in Colorado: the Impact” that detailed few important consequences of the legislation. Among others, key findings included: “The majority of DUI drug arrests were marijuana related and 25 to 40 percent were marijuana alone... the percent of hospitalizations related to marijuana have increased 82% since 2008… In 2012, 10.47 percent of youth ages 12 to 17 were considered current marijuana users compared to 7.55 percent nationally.” [5] These drastic and dire statistics show that the supposed “benefits” of legalizing marijuana fall without merit, when compared to the detriments and harms.Furthermore, the governor of Colorado regrets the decision to legalize marijuana. The Daily Mail documents this phenomenon, “Speaking on CBNC, the 62-year-old Democrat said: 'If I could've waved a wand the day after the election, I would've reversed the election and said, "This was a bad idea".'” [6] As the governor realizes the fault with legalizing marijuana, and we understand the consequences that have arisen from the legalization, we must negate the resolution and oppose legalizing marijuana.Rebuttals:My opponent first speaks of Colorado, but I have already effectively shown, with evidence (something my opponent lacked) that this claim does not hold water. He next brings up the fact that people should have the freedom to smoke. However, when economy is valued before humanity, and the preservation of citizens (which is a governments foremost duty), we find that morality is twisted. Instead, humanity should be valued before economy.His next argument assumes that we should trust his claims rather than credible sources. He has not shown evidence to back up his claims, thus, they fall without merit. Furthermore, even if not as severe, marijuana does have “buzz” and is detrimental (as shown in C1).He claims that marijuana has medical benefits, but as I showed in C3, this is not scientifically sound. The support for this notion is weak. Besides, I have also brought up multiple arguments detailing and proving that marijuana is a health hazard.Conclusion:Conclusively, we find that legalizing marijuana would be an inferior option to the popular status quo. Thus, from a moral and pragmatic standpoint, we are fully obligated to negate the resolution, and keep marijuana illegal in the US.Sources: [1] http://adai.uw.edu...[2] http://www.livescience.com...[3] http://www.iowa.gov...[4] http://www.buffalonews.com...[5] http://www.rmhidta.org...[6] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

positive: Marijuana Legalization That's why it will be regulated and tax the hell out of and college kids can get it as easy as alcohol now anyways. You can go to and street next to a college campus and find pot. In my small town of 400 there are about 10 dealers. If you are trying to. say that its bad for you I agree with the cancer causing effect when it is smoked because anything inhales that's not oxygen is dangerous to the lung and can cause cancer because it is foreign to the body. but its health benefits outweigh the negatives. I use it for the constant pain i have in my knee and to help me sleep became i have insomnia. I'm glad you agree with me with medical marijuana but displeased you don't think it should be allowed for recreational usage.

positive: Marijuana should be legalized Thank you for your timely opening round. In this round, I will refute my opponents arguments. Legalization of a substance My opponent states that legalizing something will result in higher usage; we agree on this point. Society will deem it more appropriate to follow the law, as is apparent. However, when Con states that Great Britain had a 15% increase in deaths from all drug once marijuana penalties were downgraded, we must look at the facts. The numbers used in this source are miniscule, nothing that can actually be substantial enough to show a link between marijuana and harder drugs (gateway effect). Deaths from Ecstasy increased from 33 in 2003 and 48 in 2004; cocaine increased from 113 to 147 in this time span; heroin 591 to 744. There are a multitude of variables that most likely change the number of deaths per year from these drugs. Citing the fact that they lessened marijuana penalties as reason why more are dead isn't logical. On top of this, these numbers are far too small to look into. Medicine My opponent states that he can point to another drug that accomplishes the same effects as marijuana with less harm. If we take a look at the statistics, which I will greatly expand on later, marijuana has caused zero deaths [1]. Over-the-counter-medicines and prescription medicines have killed thousands [2]. "According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics, unintentional overdose deaths involving prescription opioids increased 114 percent from 2001 (3,994) to 2005 (8,541), the most recent nationwide data available..." [2] I would love for my opponent to point to something that can alleviate anxiety, anorexia, pain, vomiting, and many others, while having MINIMUM side effects. I will happily go find statistic on how many have overdosed on that drug, because they most definitely exist. In accordance to my opponent's statement's about carcinogens in marijuana being more abundant then in tobacco, I can agree. Marijuana does indeed contain a high amount of carcinogens. However, marijuana also contains THC, which actually helps deter cancer. "...marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which [Tashkin] said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous." [3] He states that marijuana contains 20 times the risk of lung cancer, but again, there is not a single case of lung cancer from marijuana alone [1]. On top of this, the study actually doesn't include hard evidence that links marijuana to lung cancer, but has "hypothetical" and "could" used in it, words that are not definite. The lowering of the immune system is not validly represented by my opponent. According to my opponent's source, marijuana weakens the immune system in those who already have immune system deficiencies, which is solely due to the smoke. "Smoking marijuana regularly (a joint a day) can damage the cells in the bronchial passages which protect the body against inhaled microorganisms and decrease the ability of the immune cells in the lungs to fight off fungi, bacteria, and tumor cells." [4] Again, it states this in accordance to those with immune deficiencies. To administer this medicine to these patients with deficiencies in their immune systems, marijuana should be ingested. This eliminates the smoke factor and eliminates all chance of infection in these people, while leaving the medicinal calming effect. What my opponent advocates is more pills and more artificial drugs, which end up killing a fair amount of people yearly. For example, take Vioxx. It was created to alleviate pain for arthritis, yet also created more than double the chance of heart attacks and strokes in users [5]. Marijuana, however, would not increase either of these risks, yet will alleviate that pain. Individual harms It must be made clear that 30,000 people do not die every year in Britain smoking cannabis. This is a misrepresentation of evidence by my opponent. Every reader here can look over the source. It does not state that 30K a year die, but that 30K a year could die. Here is the exact quote: "Cannabis may be responsible for the deaths of 30,000 people a year if the ill-effects of smoking the drug are comparable to those of smoking tobacco, researchers say." This is not the same as my opponent's statement. The article goes on to make hypothetical comparisons, all of which are unsubstantiated. Con's 64,000 deaths stat was not found on the link he provided, nor could I find it on some other anti-cannabis sites. Con then states that you can become mentally retarded by smoking weed and says your lungs will be annihilated. While the latter of these two has already been refuted (no lung cancer, no deaths, and actual prevention of cancer in the lungs), the former has not. Again, however, the evidence was construed from the original source. The source actually targets those under the age of 15 who have smoke cannabis. 10% of them developed schizophrenia by age 26. Obviously, just as with tobacco and alcohol, there would be age limits along with legalization. Nowhere did I advocate for no age limits. 15 is a young age where the brain is still developing. Still, the number is again a very small one (1 out of 10). Addictive- My opponent's source for this dates back to 1984, something I would consider a little too old to be using in a debate on current data and trends. Also, my sources point to the other direction. A chart was put together, comprised of a variety of drugs, in an attempt to rate them addiction wise, 1-6, 6 being highest/ very dependent. Categories were established to evaluate all facets of the drug. In dependence, marijuana got a 1, lower than coffee. It also got a one in withdrawal and tolerance [6]. This shows marijuana not to be addictive. Even if marijuana was addictive, it's irrelevant, for a user has the right to get addicted if they so wish. Why is tobacco legal? Nicotine achieved a 6 on the chart, yet it's sold in every gas station in America. "Fail at education" Again, marijuana won't be administered to kids, though the source yet again is taken out of context. 15% of car accidents in teens involve marijuana- "...often in combination with alcohol or other drugs." [7] is the other part of that article. Even so, studies suggest that those who drive after smoking are capable [1]. Family Con states marijuana users are sick more often than not. His source doesn't state this. Marijuana users don't steal money. Property damage wasn't linked in the source, which was from 1999. For characters sake, I must not elaborate too much on the remainder of the points. I will state that if marijuana were to be legalized, legitimate traders would benefit more then illegitimate. Growing on your own would obviously be prohibited, and the quality of the marijuana shops would be supreme to the shady drug dealer who lives in the dark alley who has brick weed and coke he likes to mix in....Come on, which would you pick? Political lobbying and lawsuits comes with every company. That's not sufficient reason to not legalize something. |Conclusion| I've refuted Con's points. We can all see marijuana to be harmless, beneficial to the economy, and beneficial to the patient. Thank You. Sources 1. http://www.drugwarfacts.org... 2. http://www.drugwarfacts.org... 3. http://www.washingtonpost.com... 4. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu... 5. Owen, David G., "Dangers in Prescription Drugs: Filling a Private Law Gap in the Healthcare Debate," Connecticut Law Review (Hartford, CT: University of Connecticut School of Law, February 2010) Volume 42, Number 3, p. 737 6. http://www.drugwarfacts.org... 7. http://www.drugabuse.gov...

positive: Marijuana should not be legalized. Thank you, Con.REBUTTALS:"It is a common fact that Marijuana has less harmful effects than alcohol, cigarettes, and guns."This statement has been proven false. Marijuana can affect your lungs just as much as tobacco. In fact, Marijuana can cause lung cancer and can blacken the lungs just like tobacco. In fact, Marijuana causes even more health risks to the lungs than tobacco. So saying it is tobacco are more harmful is false, and it can been proven by the picture below. You can see the difference between the two.My opponent also states that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, but alcohol and marijuana do basically the same things in different ways. They make you sometimes hallucinate, but one makes you "high" and the other does it in a "drunk" form that both affect the brain. My opponent states that guns are less deadly than Marijuana, but there's a difference, they aren't used for the same purpose. You don't use a gun to get "high." In fact, shooting yourself in the chest would kill you faster than over dosing on Marijuana.My opponent then goes on to say how people will still smoke it if it is illegal. Same thing happened with alcohol, and deaths from alcohol have gotten worse since it was legalized, so if they both are legalized, Marijuana will do the same, most likely."Marijuana is NOT addictive."This statement is bewildering. Not only is this false, it has facts to prove it is. About 9% of users who try Marijuana the first time will be dependent on it. [1] This raises to 17% among teens, and for daily users they will become dependent 25-50%. These rates are not only shocking but they prove this statement is false.Crime has increased with Marijuana, yes, but however only 12% of crime in the USA is linked to drug possession, so it is not that bad."Marijuana is NOT illegal to smoke."I'm pretty sure it is."It's also true that Marijuana can also benefit someone who's facing a mental illness." Now, I never said I was against medical Marijuana, so this argument does not matter. Marijuana can be used for medical purposes. This doesn't mean it is necessarily legal, however.ARGUMENTS:Marijuana can affect your mental health immenselyAccording to the American Medical Association: "Heavy cannabis use in adolescence causes persistent impairments in neurocognitive performance and IQ, and use is associated with increased rates of anxiety, mood and psychotic thought disorders." It causes you to lose focus on what you are doing, and can raise any other thoughts besides schoolwork. In fact, cigarettes don't do this as much as cannabis does. According to WebMD it can cause a number of other symptoms when smoked like [2]:-Random thinking-A distorted sense of time-Paranoia-Anxiety-Forgetfulness-DEPRESSIONMany Marijuana legalists believe it does not cause depression, in fact, it does. Marijuana does lower depression WHEN SMOKED. After smoked, however, withdraw can cause serious side-effects that can make the user crave it so much that they will actually commit to suicide. [3]Marijuana can affect your physical health immenselyMarijuana has been proven to affect your nerve system critically to the point where it could be shattered. [4] Your heart rate will go up two times than before. It can affect your blood pressure and blood sugar, which can lead to heart-attacks, which can lead to death. Marijuana can irritate your lungs to the point where they blacken, like the picture above, and cause bronchitis and coughing. According to WebMD it can cause a number of other physical symptoms like:-Dizziness-Shallow breathing-Red eyes-Drymouth-Increased appetite (munchies)-Slow reaction time (can lead to numbers of accidents)In fact, your chance of have a car accident doubles when you smoke Marijuana.Marijuana can affect your fetus babyA study has been shown that the brain of a pregnant women's baby can be affected from smoking Marijuana. The study highlights that consuming Marijuana during pregnancy clearly results in defective development of nerve cells of the cerebral cortex, the part of the brain that orchestrates higher cognitive functions and drives memory formation. It can also cut off key protein supplements to the baby, which can affect the baby hugely. It will eventually affect the body if the mother overdoses, or uses too much.ConclusionI believe I have proven that Marijuana should not be legalized, there should be no exception due to the physical and mental affects that it does to the human body. Not only this, but it can actually affect the fetus of a baby, shown by a study. Next I will cover economics, in the next round. I believe I have rebutted Con very well.Your turn, Con.Cites:[1]- http://www.drugabuse.gov...[2]- http://www.webmd.com...[3]- http://adai.uw.edu...[4]- http://www.sciencedaily.com...

positive: Drug Legalization I thank con for their arguments, as now I would like to present by rebuttal to debunk his arguments on why drugs should not be legalized.A. War on drugsThe enourmous cost on America's War on Drugs is pretty bad. We are throwing too many prisnors in jail for non-violent drug crimes. Most prisnors are in jail due to drugs, and overdose deaths are at an all time high. Also, making drugs legal does not mean more people are going to use them. Many people are aware that some drugs (cocaine, meth, opiates, ect.) are bad and they won't use them even if they are legal. Illicit drugs are very easy to get thanks to dealers. Drug dealers are drug dealers due to the insane amoutn of money they get. Having something illegal does not simply cause it to decrease. If drug use has decreased over the years, it was due to education about drugs, not the legal status. Drug use in the US is higher than in any other country and USA criminalizes drugs more than any other country.War on drugs is simply not working, people are just thrown in jail and very few actually receive drug treatment. We should not be throwing non-violent drug users in jail. Mexico has decriminalized possession of drugs, you can legally possess small-medium quantities of drugs as a Mexican citizen. Yet, drug use still remains lower in Mexico."I would like to remind my opponent that he is advocating for drug legalization, not drug treatment over punishment."Legalization would mean treatment is easier and there's no punishment. sourceshttp://pastebin.com...B. HeroinWhile Jzonda's argument for heroin possibly going the same way as tobacco, there can be laws passed to prevent this. Laws can be passed to maintain the purity of heroin. Many heroin users are thrown in jail for non-violent drug offenses and the criminalization of heroin may scare them from finding drug treatment. Only around 15% of heroin addicts actually receive treatment, so finding treatment may not be as easy as you think."Neither of Pro’s last two paragraphs in this section justify heroin being legalized. One talks about medical marijuana and ibogaine lowering addiction rates for heroin. This does not make a case for heroin being legalized."I apologize for that as I should have retitled them "A better way to prevent heroin addiction." A junkie can easily live a normal life if they can easily get enough heroin easily to support their addiction. If a junkie can use heroin without harming anybody, why should they be criminalized? C. PsychedelicsOne of jzonda's first arguments was that psychedelics require higher doses for the same effects when tolerance builds up. This may be true, however psychedelics can still be used in moderation, just a higher hit every time. Drug tollerance only builds up with prolonged and constant usage of drugs. Some of my sources have supported the claim that psychedelics can positively impact someone's life. 2 examples are the study that magic mushrooms can expand your mind and Steve Jobs implying that dropping acid has enhanced his creativity. I don't know but expanding your mind and enhanced creativity sounds like a positive impact on life. I have also given some sources giving first hand accounts of people who claim psychedelics positively impacted them. Another point Con has mentioned is that some people use hallucinogens to escape reality. Computers and video games can also be used to escape reality and many people use them for a quick escape from reality. Should these drugs really be outlawed just because some people can't use them properly? Many people if not the majority of psychedelic users use it properly. Hallucinogens can be used to enhance reality aswell, not just to escape it. Many things (food, video games, computers, phones, television, partying ect.) can be abused. Con's point that usage may increase from legalization of psychedelics, I may actually agree on this. However, there is nothing wrong with increased usage because if used properly, psychedelics can be good for you. If people are well educated about harm reduction and properly using psychedelics, then I do not personally see the issue. One way to avoid abuse is if people must be properly educated about harm reduction before being able to legally buy hallucinogenic drugs. There are negative properties to psychedelic abuse but flashbacks are very rare. Remember that psychedelics also have many positive effects which can outweigh the flashbacks to some people. Sourceshttp://pastebin.com...D. Medical Marijuana Jzonda has mentioned alternative cancer treatments without hemp oil. However, a lot of these treatments if not all are very harmful or they do much more harm then hemp oil. The 2 main cancer treatments are chemotherapy and radiation therapy which both can be severly harmful. The cancer treatments you mentioned are not effective because they target everything, not just tumour cells. Hemp has an anti-tumoral effect in which it only targets cancerous cells leaving the healthy cells alone. Marijuana is not that harmful at all, it's safer than many legal drugs such as caffiene, alcohol or nicotine. The negative effects are commonly exaggerated by anti-drug people. CBD (cannabidol) rich strains of cannabis reduce the negative effects of THC (tetrahydracannabinol). CBD can also halt seizures and is approved as a safe and effective medicine for childhood epilepsy.Hemp can also be used for chronic pain management. Currently, opiates are used to kill pain. Opiate drugs have very high abuse potention and are far more dangerous than hemp, prescripion opiate painkillers are just weaker forms of heroin. Opiate abuse often leads to heroin addiction. Hemp is not only safer, but is also more effective at fighting chronic pain than opiates ever could. When pain becomes really serious, high doses of opiates can easily lead to abuse. You can also look up other medical properties of cannabis, it has a lot of medical uses. Abuse with marijuana does exist but caffiene abuse is a much bigger issue. Caffiene is more addictive and possibly more harmful than marijuana. Just because some people abuse marijuana does not mean everybody does. Most people use marijuana responsibly and it shouldn't be outlawed just because of a few irresponsible people. sourceshttp://pastebin.com...http://news.distractify.com...Con's CaseLegalization ProblemsI have debunked most of Con's cases about drug legalization causing increase in usage, crime and potency. Drug usage is highest in US when it is most criminalized in USA as opposed to other countires such as Mexico where possesion of drugs is legal.A lower cost of drugs from legalization can be a good thing because addicts have a better chance of living a normal life. An addict will go mad and insane if they don't have their fix and participate in violent crimes to get their next fix. However, an addict will not do that much crazy things if they have enough drugs. Cheaper drugs mean addicts can afford them without doing some crazy shiz. Synthetic DrugsNote that synthetic drugs just mean drugs that are produced in labs instead of found in nature. LSD and MDMA are both synthetic but many people can use them in moderation. There are some synthetic drugs that are bad, yes but we shouldn't just throw users of these drugs in jail like that. Legalization will not cause increase in use if people know it's bad for them, dealers make drugs as easy to get as something that's legal. Other DrugsYou have also mentioned that I did not give reasons for meth, cocaine or other drugs to be legalized which I will give now. Legalization of other hard drugs can be seen the same way as my reasons with heroin legalization. A legal and cheaper drug market will mean addicts are safer.additional sourceshttp://pastebin.com...

positive: Medical Marijuana Medical Marijuana has been clearly demonstrated by many studies to be a safe non-toxic medicine, useful in the treatment of some of our most disabling medical conditions including multiple AIDS, cancer, chronic pain, glaucoma, etc.

positive: Medical Marijuana Nevertheless, there are aspects I would like to note: 1: Con has failed to address any of my supports up to the conclusion thus conceding to each and every single point of mine. 2: Con has repeatedly ignored the point made that it is up to users to decide on what to do with marijuana. He has only reiterated his point on how harmful marijuana CAN be, never addressing the user's decision nor defending any rebuttals by Pro (me). 3. Recall the phrase issued by Con "damages brain, repertory. .. " This is completely absurd. Repertory refers to a theatrical presentation which is completely deviating from this debate.

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: 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: 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: THW Require the Provision of Cannabis in Any State Funded Medical Program For governments to refuse treatment on the basis of an unreasonable assertion is cruel and blindly ideological

positive: In most countries where there is an acceptance of the medical value of cannabis it is fairly easily available, this would simply condone its recreational use At a time when governments, along with health professionals, are trying to restrict the use of legal drugs such as alcohol and nicotine, giving the use of cannabis the sanction of government approval would take health policy in a direction that most people do not wish to contemplate. Effectively, such a change in policy would announce, ‘We’d rather you didn’t drink or smoke but it’s okay to get high’. In most nations where this discussion is even happening the personal use of mild narcotics is ignored by law enforcement. However, legalizing the use of drugs in any way says to the world at large, ‘this isn’t a problem, do what you like’. The production of drugs ruins lives and communities. Any attempt to fully legalise marijuana for medical use would only be effective in western liberal democracies. There is a high probability that it would incentivise increased production of the drug in states where it remains illegal. For the reasons given above, legitimatizing cannabis’ use as a medicine would increase or entrench its use as a recreational drug Restrictions on cannabis production would place the market under the control of criminal gangs. As a result, cannabis growing would continue to be defined by organized violence, corruption, smuggling and adulteration of the drug itself. Legitimatising cannabis use via state legislation ignores and conceals the human suffering caused by the production of drugs in both developed and developing states. . Moreover, many organized crime networks prefer to grow and sell cannabis over other, more strictly regulated drugs. It remains highly likely that the legal market for cannabis that the state proposes to create would become a target for organisations attempting to launder the proceeds of crime, or pass off tainted marijuana as medical grade forms of the drug.

positive: Medical Marijuana Marijuana should be legal for medical purposes, because it has been shown to be an effective pain reliever, and is less harmful to the liver than most other prescription painkillers. Especially in the case of those who are terminally ill, the negative effects of the drug are insignificant when compared to the improved quality of life it provides to suffering patients. It can likewise reduce the anxiety of the patient during severe medical procedures, and again this is further the case in terminal patients. Severe anxiety has been shown to have immediate detrimental affects on the body, and can complicate some medical procedures. Having yet another option that a doctor may, but need not necessarily prescribe or utilize, only adds more options for the medical system to serve patients. This is not to say that it necessarily should be available for the general public, but certainly for medical usage, as prescribed by licensed doctors, it has a utility that outweighs any possible negatives in many situations.

positive: Medical Marijuana Medical Marijuana is the future of medicine. Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I substance meaning it has the greatest potential for abuse with no medical value, according to the FDA. While the FDA doesn"t consider marijuana a medicine, 76 percent of doctors approve of medical marijuana use to help diagnose over 25 different conditions. Medical Marijuana is already legalized in 24 out of the 50 states in the US and the number is currently growing. For example, in Colorado, a state where Medical Marijuana is legalized, 1 in every 30 people are Medical Marijuana patients meaning they have a Medical Marijuana card allowing them to purchase their medicine from dispensaries. These are just a few numbers to prove the increase of Medical Marijuana use in America. Almost thirty percent of people suffer from pain or pain related symptoms every day. Physicians that can prescribe medical marijuana have found that they have prescribed about 1,826 fewer doses of drugs, such as opioids. As this topic grows and affects American culture, we have to decide what the right choice will be to help cure our loved ones. Medical Marijuana is also a short-term cure for cancer and is used for patients with autism. The family"s that have to go through these problems would do and try anything to help the pain and suffering of their loved ones. Doctor"s and families rely on Medical Marijuana to help alleviate pain, so why does the FDA want to stop the sales and distribution of Medical Marijuana?

positive: Legalising weed Thanks for letting me fulfill my position.Here is my stance in this debate."1) It's extremely addictive for some people: If you don't want to take my word for it, listen to Dr. Drew Pinsky who has been working with addicts for decades. It would be malpractice to say that cannabis isn't addictive. Anybody who's experienced it, actually been addicted to it, knows how profound that addiction is.... The difficult thing about marijuana addiction is some people, even though they're addicted can do fine with it for many many years before they start to have difficultly, but eventually the high starts wearing off, people start smoking a lot more to try to get that high back and that's when they descend into difficulties. ...I've been treating cannabis addiction for 20 years. When people are addicted to cannabis, cocaine and alcohol the drug they have the most difficult time giving up is the cannabis. It is extremely addictive...for some people. I think that's where people get confused. It's not very addictive for many people. It's a small subset of people with a genetic potential for addiction. But for them it is really tough. You only need talk to them, they'll tell you how tough it is. Additionally, that "small subset" Dr. Drew is talking about isn't so small in a big country like America. "Of the 7.3 million persons aged 12 or older classified with illicit drug dependence or abuse in 2012, 4.3 million persons had marijuana dependence or abuse." It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the more legal and available marijuana becomes, the higher those numbers are going to go. 2) This experiment hasn't worked out so well for Amsterdam: Humans being what they are, just about any stupid idea we can come up with has already been tried somewhere else. Amsterdam is the most famous place across the world that has effectively legalized pot. It has even turned into a tourist destination for potheads. Legalizing weed has been a huge success there, right? Actually, not so much... Its citizens are now alarmed that their children are increasingly being exposed to it. Amsterdam today became the first city in the Netherlands to ban students from smoking marijuana at school. The city's mayor Eberhard van der Laan introduced the law after school chiefs complained about pupils turning up to classes high after rolling up outside the grounds. Marijuana is widely available in Holland as, although it is technically illegal, police can't prosecute people for possession of small amounts. But it has also had the unwanted side effect that Dutch children are frequently exposed to the drug in public areas. Additionally, contrary to the claims that legalizing it will reduce crime, in Amsterdam it’s been found that crime is now centering around the coffeehouses where marijuana is sold. …Certainly the outlook for coffee shops is bleak. Among the few policies that the three parties in the new coalition government agree on is the need to reduce their numbers. The governing agreement released last week laid out plans that will force them to become members-only clubs and shut down those shops located near schools. The coalition is also advancing the idea of prohibiting the sale of cannabis to non-Dutch residents, which amounts to a death knell for many coffee shops. ...The circumstances that led to the tolerance policies have changed in the past decade, as large-scale crime around coffee shops and the legal sex trade became more visible. In particular, the absence of legal means for coffee shops to obtain cannabis has highlighted their association with organized crime. But the open-minded instincts that helped foster the policies are also being questioned. And it is not just the far-right opposing coffee shops. The traditional parties of power on the center-right, the Christian Democrats and the Liberal VVD, have also moved against the policies they once promoted. That doesn't exactly sound like a success story, does it? 3) Marijuana is terrible for your mental health: Marijuana may even be WORSE than cigarettes. At least cigarettes don't peel points off of your IQ. A recent Northwestern University study found that marijuana users have abnormal brain structure and poor memory and that chronic marijuana abuse may lead to brain changes resembling schizophrenia. The study also reported that the younger the person starts using marijuana, the worse the effects become. In its own report arguing against marijuana legalization, the American Medical Association said: "Heavy cannabis use in adolescence causes persistent impairments in neurocognitive performance and IQ, and use is associated with increased rates of anxiety, mood and psychotic thought disorders." So, there's a good reason most habitual marijuana users come off as stupid. The drug is making them stupider, even when they're not high. You really want your kids on that? 4) Marijuana is terrible for your physical health: How bad is marijuana for you? It's even more toxic than cigarette smoke. Regular users are hit with devastating lung problems as much as 20 years earlier than smokers. Even small amounts of marijuana can cause temporary sterility and it has a terrible impact on the babies of women who smoke including "birth defects, mental abnormalities and increased risk of leukemia in children." If your standard is, "Well, it's better for you than Meth or Crack," that's true, but you're deluding yourself if you think pot is anything other than absolutely horrible for your health. 5) The drug decimates many people's lives: Movies portray potheads as harmless, fun-loving people who spend their time giggling and munching Cheetos, but they don't show these people when they're flunking out of school, losing their jobs, frustrated because they can't concentrate or losing the love of their lives because they just don't want to be with a pot smoking loser anymore. Even in the limited number of studies that are out there, the numbers are stark. A study of 129 college students found that, among those who smoked the drug at least twenty-seven of the thirty days before being surveyed, critical skills related to attention, memory and learning were seriously diminished. A study of postal workers found that employees who tested positive for marijuana had 55% more accidents, 85% more injuries and a 75% increase in being absent from work. In Australia, a study found that cannabis intoxication was responsible for 4.3% of driver fatalities. ...Students who use marijuana have lower grades and are less likely to get into college than nonsmokers. They simply do not have the same abilities to remember and organize information compared to those who do not use these substances. It's bad enough that we already lose so many Americans to cigarettes, alcoholism, and drunken driving. Do we really want to endorse the loss of millions more potentially productive Americans via Marijuana? Do we move on from there to Crack, Heroin or Meth? Some people would say, “If they want to do it, great, then it's no business of ours.” But, you can also bet that those same people will be complaining about all the junkies and welfare cases that will be created by the policy they endorsed. So, ask yourself a few key questions. Is legalizing Marijuana going to make this a better country or a worse one? Would you want to live in a neighborhood filled with people who regularly smoke marijuana? Would you want your kids regularly smoking pot? Now is the time to think about it because although it's easy to thoughtlessly legalize a drug like marijuana, when things go predictably wrong down the road, it will be a lot harder to put the genie back in the bottle than people seem to think." [1]Sources:[1] https://calmusa.org...;[2] http://www.celebstoner.com...;(Just to cite a couple of the many examples that this article cited).

negative: Medical Marijuana I would ask to change thie debate to is marijuana healthy? I ask you to tweak the topic slightly because I thik right now it is too lopsided

negative: Medical Marijuana In the next round please define Medical Marijuana. Checking if you thing the same definition as I do :D

negative: Medical Marijuana Full resolution: Medical Marijuana should be legalized in the United States of America. I will be affirming that medical marijuana should be legalized in the United States of America. This debate only pertains to medical marijuana, not marijuana in general.STRUCTURE:Round 1-AcceptanceRound 2-Cases/CON rebuttalRound 3-RebuttalRound 4-Conclusion/Summary Definitions:medical-curative; medicinal; therapeutic [1]marijuana-the most commonly used illicit drug; considered a soft drug, it consists of the dried leaves of the hemp plant; smoked or chewed for euphoric effect [2]I would like to thank 16kadams for agreeing to debate this topic. This should be a very fun and informative debate!Sources:1. http://dictionary.reference.com......2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

negative: Marajuana should be legalized Marajuana should be legalized for medicinal purposes.

negative: Legalization of medical marijuana I will then ask one question. How many people have historically died from the direct effects of marijuana?

negative: Legalization of marijuana Even though some people think that marijuana is bad for health and should be illegal, still for the society it is more beneficial to legalize it rather than waste money on ineffective war against it. Prohibition does not help in any way it causes problems and costs big money, that U.S. government currently spend billions of dollars every year to chase peaceful people who use marijuana, and that taxpayers have to pay for food, housing, health care, attorney fees, court costs, and other expenses to lock these people up

negative: Legalization of Marijuana Your general debate. I will argue the legalization of Marijuana.

negative: Marijuana Should be Legalized in the United States of America. I believe that Marijuana should remain illegal in the United States because I believe it does have many harmful effects. I also believe that the government does not over dramatize the effects, they only try to emphasize the dangers of smoking marijuana. Pro may state their argument and good luck to ya :)

negative: Recreational cannabis should be illegal. My stance is I believe recreational cannabis should be illegal.

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: 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.

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

negative: Medical Marijuana My condolences to my opponent for whatever has rendered him unable to post an argument. However, thus far, my opponent has provided absolutely no evidence, has failed to validly defend my attacks upon his case, and has made no attacks on my case. He has failed to prove that the pros of legalizing marijuana outweigh the benefits of the status quo, which works to solve virtually all problems posed by my opponent while additionally keeping society free from the dangers of increased distribution of marijuana for recreational purposes. Taking this into account, the only logical vote is a vote for Con. Thank you.

negative: Medical marijuana should be legal Sorry. I had been too far busy. To make a debate against you. I am sorry

negative: Medical Marijuana However, I wish to lay out one additional rule:In the event of a forfeiture, the voter will award the opposing opponent a 7-point victory. I also accept my opponent's statement about opinions. They shall only be used when supported by factual evidence. I look forward to this debate with WilliamsP and hope is turns out well.

negative: Medical Marijuana I have already debated jamccartney on this very issue. However, my defeat was justified. I was on vacation, had horrible internet, and thus my argument was horrible. I am now ready to try again. I challenge my good friend jamccartney to this debate. This debate will follow a judge voting system. Each debater has 72 hours to present his argument. There will be four total rounds. In the first round, my opponent will simply accept this debate. In the second round, my opponent and I will present our main arguments. There will be no rebuttals in this round. In the third round, my opponent and I will offer rebuttals and any final arguments. In the fourth and final round, we will offer final rebuttals and write conclusions, which will summarize the debate. All sources will be cited using the MLA format. Proper spelling, grammar, punctuation, and capitalization will be used. There will be no forfeiture or concession. This debate will be rational, mature, logical, and factual. Opinions will only be stated when supported by facts. I look forward to this debate and await my opponent's acceptance.

negative: Raise The Minimum Wage Alright, so I am going to go through the reasons I believe increasing minimum wage would be beneficial to society.1. As productivity has climbed marginal compensation has rise very slowly with it. As we can see from this graph, in the past few decades we have increased our production capacity by a stunning amount yet hourly compensation has risen very slowly with it and has even stagnated and decreased. Meanwhile, CEO pay has greatly increased only dropping significantly during the 08 crash If productivity increased by this much you would think not only the ceo, but the average worker's pay would go up by similar margins but that is not evident. A rise in minimum wage would help this gap close. 2. Increased aggregate purchasing powerWith an increase in minimum wage those living on minimum wage would have the ability to purchase more. As we can see from this graph, the average purchasing power has gone down significantly and while that has happened we have been unable to fully compensate through an increase in wages. And it is very difficult, to live if at all on a minimum wage at 7.25 an hour.[1]3. It will not increase unemployment.Contrary to popular belief among Austrian economists, raising minimum wage does not increase unemployment. Why? mainly because there are only around 1.3 million people (in the United States) who work for minimum wage.[2] So a slight addition to the cost of labour to a certain group does not significantly shift the aggregate supply curve for the labour market. Here is some evidence for my claim. NELP (National Employment Law Project) conducted a study[3] and found that for the 22 times the federal minimum wage was raised from 1938 to 2010, the majority of the time employment went up and the times it went down can easily be attributed to the natural business cycle.This itself should prove that increasing minimum wage has little effect on unemployment and if anything, brings it down.Here is a piece of modern empirical evidence for my claim. Seattle not too long ago increased their minimum wage to $15 an hour and we can already see that unemployment has actually been low and today it hovers at a measly 4% [4]For these reasons, I believe minimum wage should be increased gradually.I shall await for you to present your reasons and why it should not be raised.sources: http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [1]http://poverty.ucdavis.edu... [1]http://www.nelp.org...;[3]https://ycharts.com... [4]

negative: Legalization of Marijuana Marijuana has many CONFIRMED medicinal uses.

negative: Medical Marijuana Although marijuana has been proven as a alternative to treating cancer, it is still a dangerous drug. There are other medical options that have the same effect on cancer patients without being as dangerous. Different medicines can diminish pain and cause relief without having as dangerous side effects.

negative: Marijuana Legalization I do agree with marijuana being used for medical purposes, but making it 100% legal is just an awful idea. Can you imagine college kids being able to obtain marijuana as easily as alcohol? Marijuana should not be legal, for very obvious reasons. It should ONLY be used for medical purposes, and quite honestly, there are few medical purposes for it anyway.

negative: Autistic children should not be allowed to smoke marijuana. I'll just go right ahead and start making my arguments; I don't have to wait for Con to begin :) 1. For legal purposes, I am in favor of marijuana legalization (buying) for those over the age of 18. Autistic "children" do not fit within these parameters. 2. Similarly, children presumably live with their parents. Therefore, they must typically abide by their parents rules (especially since they have a mental deficiency). As such, if their parents have decided for any number of reasons (including medical or practical as well as moral) that they don't want their autistic children smoking pot, then said children should not be allowed to. 3. Parents with autistic children have been known to give their kids pot for two reasons: to increase appetite, and for social purposes (such as calming anxiety). However, there are healthier alternatives to increasing appetite and calming anxiety, including medical options (other medications) and non-drug induced ways, including meditation, therapy, etc. Additionally, because being autistic involves other complications and medications that may interfere or have a bigger negative affect on people with autism (including the paranoia aspect of marijuana, and the schizophrenic tendencies that tend to emerge after some people smoke), then it's preferable to seek other options. 4. Although the law isn't always a good indicator of what "should" be permissible or legal, the fact remains that recreational marijuana is outlawed in all 50 states. As such, for parents to condone their children consuming illegal drugs would be irresponsible in regard to their impressionable children. 5. Con's only argument has been that there is a low representation of autistic kids in gangs (which is a good thing), and as such they should be given access to buy, sell, and use. However, Con has not yet offered any contentions in favor of these ideals. He has the burden of establishing why this would overall be the best idea. If his points will be based on legalities, I'm prepared to combat it. If the perks he plans to mention are medical, he must show that it's the most useful, practical and overall best medical decision in terms of the problems and effects. If the supposed benefits are economic, then his points should only be considered if I can't offer viable and preferable alternatives. So with that said, I challenge my opponent to put his game face on and come back at me in R2. Good luck, Nails -- this should be fun:)

negative: Medical Marijuana ====== Rebuttal ====== [QUOTE] 1) Beneficial in health. As noted by my own opponent, medical marijuana can help alleviate symptoms of pain, discomfort, and lack of appetite caused by many common disease, including AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, etc. This can go uncontested, as my opponent has already agreed that medical marijuana has these properties. Of course, there are even more benefits of marijuana, such as a prevention of the symptoms of Alzheimer's disease and its progression. (1)(2) A legalization of medical marijuana would aid those who are in pain from said diseases and symptoms. [/QUOTE] The main chemical used in "medical marijuana" that helps to manage disease is Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, more commonly known as THC. While THC can be helpful in the treatment of certain diseases, the parts of the cannabis plant used to make "medical marijuana" contain only 3% THC. In order to intake this measly amount of THC, the patient must also assume the numerous harms of taking marijuana itself, including the intake over 400 hazardous chemicals and numerous psychological and physiological hazards. Not only that but the few good things that marijuana brings to the medical industry have already been isolated and incorporated into a FDA-approved pharmaceutical drug called Marinol. Marinol preserves the benefits of THC while lessening or eliminating the harms brought about by Marijuana consumption. Medical professionals have noticed the notable effects of certain narcotics in the suppression of pain. Does that mean that they legalize opium or heroin? Obviously no because pharmacists can isolate the positive effects of pain suppression and reduce the rather negative effects of extreme addiction and potential for homicidal rage. Why, then, legalize medical marijuana, when the aforementioned pharmaceutical drugs are superior in every regard to marijuana? [QUOTE] 2) Reduce number of those in prison. The current amount of arrests of marijuana-related crimes totals over 700,000 thousand a year, and that was back in 2005! (3) Of these, a whopping 88% were just for simple possession, while the rest were only for sale or manufacture. (3) These inmates who have done nothing morally wrong or reprehensible are now spending years and years in prison, just for possessing or growing marijuana. 3) Help cut our spending. We currently spend more than 15.5 billion dollars a year on marijuana arrests. (4) If legalized and taxed, not only would we eliminate that spending, but we would also have a major source of revenue that would help pull us out of this recession, as marijuana is our best cash crop, pulling in $35 billion dollars per year. (5)(6) [/QUOTE] Instead of sending those people to prison, we could just make them pay a citation and the citation would depend on how much marijuana the person possesses. This would also help the recession while keeping marijuana illegal. [QUOTE] 4) Little to no side effects. Marijuana causes a very small amount of, if at all, side effects, which are negligible at best. (7)(8) 5) It doesn't make any sense to render it illegal. And that's the crux of the matter, isn't it? It is not overly harmful, if at all, and it doesn't have any second-hand smoke effects. There is simply no logical/moral reason to keep it illegal. No one should have a right to tell you what you can and cannot ingest. You don't violate the rights of others in any way, shape or form, so why should it be illegal? There is not convincing argument as to why. [/QUOTE] This is obviously false. Depending on the user Marijuana usually causes the user to become hungry, lazy, paranoid, etc... Marijuana could cause obesity from hunger and that's if the user can get food. If the user can't get food in time, they will die of starvation. Marijuana could cause people to be lazy and therefore if marijuana was legal, The recession would actually be worse. Marijuana could cause people to be paranoid and lose trust in others causing them to go insane and crime rate may possibly go up and thus, this would do harm to others. ======= Arguments ======= 1)People say that marijuana can make the user "happy." Unnecessary and harmful freedoms are not handed out to the terminally ill simply to ensure that they have a pleasant trip out of life. Doing such sets an unneeded and negative precedent to the rest of society. Honestly, "happiness" isn't an idea that falls under the umbrella of medicine, and the Affirmative plan draws no line if happiness was an acceptable use for medical marijuana. If I had a bad day at work, would I be justified in using harmful drugs as an escapism? The use of medical marijuana as a means to achieve happiness by escaping from life's problems is neither a just reason for assuming that societal harms achieved by legalizing marijuana, nor does it even fall under the concept of medical marijuana in the first place. 2)What we must see is that current treatment options are far superior to the suggested use of medical marijuana, and any minuscule benefits are far outweighed by the harms of making marijuana easily available. 3)It's obvious that the legalization of medical marijuana has been abused on a widespread basis. Taking the action suggested by Pro provides little to no benefit to those actually sick, while simultaneously harming society as a whole. 4) Marinol is a better alternative to medical marijuana. ===== Sources ===== http://www.homedrugtestingkit.com... http://www.drugs.com... http://www.justice.gov...

negative: Marijuana should be legalized Here is just one of my thoughts: If something is currently not legal, then there is good reason for that. I know exactly what you drug legalization enthusiasts think. You think that these drugs could be used for medical reasons. I know some people believe that these drugs could be great help, but I know that there are better options. There are many different medicines that ARE legalized and why can't we just use those? If we already have a solution there is no need to legalize these drugs. Why legalize something that is already being illegally used and sold? If people are already illegally smoking marijuana what is the point? What would stop them anyway?

negative: Medical Marijuana Medical Marijuana is Marijuana and would therefore be considered as a potential drug which can not only cause addiction but also create unwanted side effects. As my opponent previously stated, Medical Marijuana can be used as a treatment for cancer and neurological disorders. However, the way in which Marijuana actually treats these symptoms should be considered. Marijuana, according to most websites, stimulate and then muffle the nervous system in such a way that the human body is no longer concerned with the disorder but rather feel the need for more Marijuana. This its self is addiction. Therefore, we can conclude that although Marijuana can treat symptoms, it does so in a dangerous way which creates more side-effects than results.

negative: Autistic children should not be allowed to smoke marijuana. Con opens the final round beginning with the contention that some people say that marijuana helps autism, and as such it should be legalized for those parents who want to test it out. I'd like to point out that this doesn't refute any of my arguments (which I will relay once more later on in my rebuttal). Further, marijuana is already legal for this purpose in the form of medical marijuana. And, there are special licenses that doctors can obtain to do medical experiments, so this is irrelevant. So now onto his rebuttal of my 5 arguments... 1. I have no idea what Con's "rebuttal" is trying to state. What I said was that the resolution in question was regarding children, i.e. those 18 and under. Extend my arguments until Pro refutes them. 2. Con says that he's not trying to get autistic children to break their parents rules; however, he states this after a round in which he wrote, "We need to do the next best thing and provide autistic children with an alternate source of marijuana which they can consume, sell, cut for profit." Because we can assume that the parents of autistic children would not want this for their kids, we must assume that Con believes the autistic children should be able to go against their parents. 3. My point here was that there are alternatives to marijuana that we should be encouraging for those who use it for medical purposes. He said that science doesn't need pin point accuracy. Uh... okay? My point hasn't been negated. 4. Con says that the legal status of marijuana doesn't matter; however, the resolution didn't say anything about changing the law or assuming that the laws were different (or that they should be different). 5. Con still maintains that an all-autistic gang is the best option; however, fails to mention why. I believe such a thing would not only be unethical but unfeasible. Moreover, he still didn't refute any argument from my 5th point. So basically, extend all of my arguments until I get a sufficient rebuttal :)

negative: Marijuana should be legal all across the world I have read and fully understand your argument and u along with many others seem to be alluded by propaganda of the bad things that are seen to be surrounding marijuana but infact this is all due to the fact that marijuana as it is at the moment is not regulated by most of the world and yes the main argument is that if marijuana is legalised it shall free up police for more serious crimes and cracking down on harder drugs but not only this the average tax payer would benefit as we would pay less tax towards policing and as it is the government are all ready cutting the police and this could be the little relief on the police needed to maintain the harder sections of the law this is not the only thing that would benefit the average tax payer if legalised or even decriminalised for medical purposes the government would et tax on top of the selling of it and in total would equal 67 million dollars (my source was American) a year and that's just in tax revenue. Money is not the only benefiting factor while debating the legalisation of marijuana there is of course the medical benefits as there are many rare conditions that are able to be tamed or even cured with the use of marijuana there has also been studies and evidence of marijuana helping people with cancer enter remission. As you where saying we don't want to be known as the generation of stoners so to speak but that does not have to happen as there are two main chemicals in marijuana one called THC the one that gets you high and one called CBD and this chemical can cure or suppress certain illnesses such as a rare illness called Draft Syndrome. There is a news article about an American girl aged 5 hat had this disease she had got up to 300 fits a week and the parents were running out of options and although their whole life the were con marijuana it seemed Rio be the only option left this left them no choice but to hunt for a marijuana that was low in THC but high in CBD in order to help there daughter to which they succeeded as they found some registered growers that had cross bread to make such a strain the family bought some to try it and asked a friend to extract the essence and put it into a syringe for them to which she did the parents tried it and to there amazement it had worked their daughter had gone from 300 fits to just 1, without that marijuana she would have died and at a very young age. What I'm trying to say is that we do not need to use it recreational and et high but we can use it medically in order to help people and family's such as the figis. I trust that after I have truly explained marijuana behind the deluded misconception that most people see that you will realise marijuana isn't just there to get high from and it is not all bad infact the good of it outways the bad as yes smoking it gives you bronchitis but eating the essence with food does not so alb you feel I am talking about just getting high I am not I am talking about something much much more and it is not necessarily just there for people to get high from. SOURCES http://edition.cnn.com... http://www.policymic.com...

negative: Marijuana should be legal for adults. (Debate sponsored by King La Ding Enterprises). For my opening case I shall just ask questions that I require to be answered for no information was required in the opening case of the affirming. What is stopping children from accessing the drug and becoming addicted? What is stopping drug people from faking illnesses in order to get drugs legally? What is stopping people from growing the drug and selling it? e.g. what rules are you going to in place because in your setup you have told me nothing? If patients have it for medical purposes what stopping them from smoking it? Smoking it has life-threatening effects on your respiratory system. Marijuana has effects on your mental stability and health, you will have to influence laws for driving under marijuana? like will it be legal all of a sudden to drive while under influence of marijuana? So if people were to start smoking it for medical purposes will they have to do it in a special air tight room? Because we wouldn't want to hurt children's health. Also where would all this money come from? If it is released medically won't it eventually become available for public use? Do the negatives not outweigh the positives? Imagine if marijuana was legalised, everyone suddenly would think that it's some GOD drug and everyone will want to use it for their health even when there are better options available. Unfortunately marijuana has effects on health lots, life making men infertile. Will there be a system in place to prevent these problems? Do you not believe the release of marijuana will make us forget about trying to find other cures. It helps cure epileptic fits, so all of a sudden if you release this cure won't it prevent others from being developed. Others that would be less damaging to your health? Also where are you going to get millions of dollars for all of the costs for this medical marijuana. It will cause lots of problems with infertile men etc which will lead to the need of more money to fix these problems. It like alcohol. When you get drunk and fall over money is spent in getting you to safety via ambulance etc. Where will the money come for these extra facilities? Therefore I can conclude by asking you ladies and gentlemen to please look deeply into this case and realise that the negatives of legalising marijuana do outweigh the positives. Ladies and Gentlemen, I believe if this idea was to be brought forward in somewhat way the affirming team would struggle with the costs and the health of the people.

negative: TBD: To Be decided by Con. I'm going to refute all the statements made by opponent and then mention all the points he failed to refute that I offered. I extend all those arguments. I am going to go line by line. I know this makes it larger and more likely to unread, but I don't want to miss any points. PRO said: Marijuana-Cannabis is not FDA approved because its so spasmodic with it's results. That's why Marinol is used instead. However, since Marijuana-Cannabis is illegal NOW, then my previous attack stands. My opponents central thesis is falwed. CON rebuts: Two points on this issue: a.The issue of this debate is /should/, meaning that the burden here is to show that the FDA shouldn't allow this form of medication. Using the fact that they don't to justify that they /shouldn't/ is illogical. b.My opponent has not shown any evidence of the ‘spasmodic' qualities of marijuana, simply making the statement that it is thus does not make it so PRO said: My opponent gives an example where you can buy Marinol for like $1,000. However, this site is if your buying DIRECTLY through that company. The 3 factors I have given brought the cost down to about $200 (According to the US Health Department) Thus you can drop her cost argument. CON rebuts: I refuted each of his arguments which were insurance- not all Americans have insurance, governmental assistance- most adults between 19-65 don't qualify, and type of disease already quantified as cancer in the resolution. My argument stands. PRO said: She wants to stop the nausea of a cancer patient. However, I believe there is a bigger issue. The PAIN a cancer patient goes through. My opponent says my 2 alternatives: A)Pill (Marinol) and B) Liquid for Marijuana should not be used because it doesn't treat nausea entirely. This is important to note. I provided the link to Marinol's website proving that the intended PUPROSE of the medication was to relieve nausea. It doesn't really matter what my opponent or I would LIKE to see relieved, smoked cannabis does the job Marinol is SUPPOSED to do better. Because of this fact the rest of his statement does not matter. PRO said (re: Marinol does a poorer job of relieving nausea than does inhaled cannabis): This may be true. CON rebuts: that, in my opinion counts as a concession. PRO said: Cannabis does have some medical benefits. However, it's extremely spasmodic. That's why the FDA won't approve of it. The FDA can't approve the use of Marijuana because the DEA has it listed as a schedule 1 drug with no medicinal uses. The AMA strongly fought against this classification in 1937 http://blogs.salon.com.... The FDA can not allow medical trials of the drug because of this classification. Due to the fact that PRO has conceded that there is in fact medical value to marijuana and that the lack of inclusion by the FDA is more related to the ‘war on drugs' than on competent testing that resulted in proof of ‘spasmodic' properties. The fact is that the FDA has absolutely no say in this issue until congress repeals the law classifying marijuana as a schedule 1 drug. PRO said: Making an artificial version would be much more effective. I.e. Pills and Liquid form. Also, expanding artificial marijuana use would open more jobs. =) Just wanted to through that in there. CON rebuts: it provides jobs at the expense of the patients receiving necessary medication. PRO's contention I: Marinol Pills, (a)Reduces pain and suffering, (b)Lasts longer, (c)Approved by the FDA CON rebuts A) irrelevant as that is not it's purpose (B) countered by the length of time it takes to take effect, basically this is one not a point for either side as it depends on what one would prefer, quick or long lasting (C) Irrelevant in a /should/ debate. In other words everything is a non issue. PRO's contention II: Liquid Form Marijuana A) Reduces pain and suffering B) Lasts longer C) Approved in Britain D) Cost effective CON rebuts: A) does nothing for nausea; b)see Ib c)irrelevant D) unproven. I asked PRO to provide a price list whereby we could determine the actual cost of the product. He did not do so; therefore his claim of reduced price is unsubstantiated and can not be counted. Points for CON that have gone unrefuted: I.The US government has provided cannabis to those in need in the past, and only stopped when the requests became so large as to be unsustainable for the government. II.My cost analysis of actually ordering the product stands as PRO was unable to prove there were lower cost options available to ALL cancer patients. III.Allowing marijuana to be available by prescription to cancer patients would not increase crime, nor is that a just consideration in determining the benefits of a medication. IV.Sativex does nothing to relieve the nausea and vomiting of cancer patients. Ladies and Gentlemen I would refer you back to the resolution: Cancer patients should not be allowed to smoke marijuana to relieve their symptoms I have shown 2 related symptoms, nausea and vomiting, which PRO admits CAN be relieved by the smoking of marijuana. I have also shown that these patients SHOULD have inhalation as an option of delivery method for 3 reasons: 1.it is more effective 2.It costs less 3.it acts faster My opponent has failed to rebut several of my points, and has failed to provide the evidence needed to make his case (ie cost of savitex, lower cost of marinol). In light of PRO's inability to defend his case with proof, and CON's ability to provide source information on every contention made, a CON vote is clearly the logical choice.

negative: Barack Obama a Good President First, He is not allowing cartel members to get guns that kill law enforcement. He is making gun laws to protect the American people. By keeping guns away from people with past criminal records or people who are mentally insane, you protect innocent citizens. Second, why would someone not want to have healthcare. With healthcare, the provider will pay about half of any medical costs. Without healthcare, you have to pay for the entire medical bill by yourself. So before Obamacare, poor citizens were living life too carefully, because they knew that if they got injured or sick, they would go bankrupt. Third, Obama is promoting the use of MEDICAL marijuana. Medical marijuana is used only for extreme medical problems. Anyone who needs medical marijuana at least has the option of using it. Forth, he is acting peacefully in foreign affairs unlike George Bush who, in my opinion, WASTED $10 TRILLION in two wars. Obama has kept countries in line, but also has not gotten our country in expensive wars. Fifth, Obama is fixing our economy. He has made 4.7 Million new jobs for unemployed workers and doesn't intend to stop now. He also making the debt fall faster than any time since the end of World War II.

negative: Marijuana should be legal in the United States I agree with you on how alcohol is a worse drug than Marijuana, but that is a totally different topic. Let's focus on Marijuana. Though cigarettes are very harmful and dangerous, it is not considered a drug. Marijuana is considered a drug. Like I said, let's stick to the Marijuana topic. You say that you are not going to smoke Marijuana and not worry about the long term effects, but have you thought about second-hand smoke? Many people die a year from second-hand smoke from cigarettes. You could get the long-term effects (possibly) and the short-term effects from second-hand smoke from Marijuana. What a growing kid gets second-hand smoke from Marijuana? Also, you say Marijuana has a lot of medical purposes. You are right, but they should not be smoking Marijuana. They should be taking Medical Marijuana pills because it still helps you in many ways such as treating pain and helping with seizures. Another reason why you should use Medical Marijuana instead of straight Marijuana is that it does not get you high. It will also not result in as many of the long-term or short-term effects as straight Marijuana. Lastly, what good is a world with a bunch of dumb police officers and dumb firefighters trying to keep our country safe? Firefighters are not even allowed to smoke anything! You do not want a dumb police officer dealing with your situation and getting him/herself killed.

negative: Marijuana should be legal for medical purposes. It will not be an issue. Secondly, I would like to begin with stating my arguments and reasons. Because this is not the round for rebuttals, I will not talk about Pro's main argument until round 3. Arguments Facts about medical marijuana: Medical marijuana can be used to reduce nausea and vomiting, treating HIV/AIDS, and reducing muscle pain (Wikipedia). It can also prevent epilepsy. However, it works "by binding to specific sites in the brain and on the nerves (WEBMD). " All chemicals that bind to the brain are dangerous. Here are it's uses: Improving appetite for people with AIDS Glaucoma Multiple Sclerosis Why it should not be used: According to webmd. com, "cannabinoids in marijuana can weaken the immune system", "long-term use of marijuana can make lung problems worse", "marijuana might make seizure disorders worse in some people [(in other people it might help to control seizures)]", and "it might slow the central nervous system too much when combined with anesthesia and other medications during and after surgery (WEBMD). " Here are some other common side effects of using marijuana for medicinal purposes: Drowsiness, dry mouth, giddiness, hunger, insomnia, red eyes, respiratory issues, short-term memory loss, and uneasiness or anxiety (Southwest Medical Evaluation Center). As you can see, it can be used to help people, but the effects are not always the same. For some people, medical marijuana can cure seizures, while it may make the disorder worse for other people. Currently, marijuana has not been fully tested, which means it should not be used. Unstable drugs should not be used in people. One could argue that it is human experimentation, which is not legal. Other treatments: Anyone who knows as much as I do about biology knows that there are plenty of other ways to cure illnesses. I am sure Pro is aware of this as well. For certain diseases, such as diabetes, people need insulin. Getting insulin used to be difficult. Now, however, we genetically altered a certain bacteria to generate it. Using that knowledge, one can assume that there are other cures to epilepsy, glaucoma, and sclerosis. Conclusion In this round, I have stated the pros and cons to medical marijuana. As Pro, as well as the viewers can see, there are more downsides to it that upsides. The list of cons is longer and the alternative cures are obvious. Here is my conclusion: Using marijuana for medicinal use is unnecessary and should not be done. I patiently await Pro's rebuttals. Thank you. MLA Citations "Medical Cannabis. " Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 03 Dec. 2014. Web. 13 Mar. 2014. <. http://en.wikipedia.org...;. "MARIJUANA: Uses, Side Effects, Interactions and Warnings - WebMD. " WebMD. WebMD. Web. 13 Mar. 2014. <. http://www.webmd.com...;. "Medical Marijuana Side Effects - Effects of Medical Marijuana. " Medical Marijuana Side Effects - Effects of Medical Marijuana. Web. 14 Mar. 2014. <. http://www.evaluationtoday.com...;.