Instigator / Con
15
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
won
Topic
#4204
Marijuana Legalization vs Prohibition
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
9
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
3
After 3 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
Mps1213
Judges
whiteflame
27 debates /
196 votes
Voted
Melcharaz
6 debates /
45 votes
Voted
AustinL0926
33 debates /
25 votes
No vote
AleutianTexan
4 debates /
27 votes
Voted
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Judges
Contender / Pro
21
1538
rating
11
debates
81.82%
won
Description
BOP is shared.
Pro argues marijuana should be legalized in all 50 states of the US, Con argues that it should be illegal.
Rules:
1. Winner is determined by whoever does the better job arguing and supporting their side.
2. BOP is shared.
3. Evidence can be used citing research from other countries.
4. One forfeit is the loss of a conduct point. Two are a concession.
Round 1
Con
#1
Preamble:
I shall aim to prove that, on balance, Marijuana Prohibition is better than Marijuana Legalization. I will be arguing in favor of banning marijuana/cannabis in the United States and make my case with seven constructive arguments.:
- Violence & Aggression.
- Car Crashes & Fatalities.
- Addiction.
- Teens & Drug Use.
- Racism.
- Insanity Plea.
- Too expensive.
BOP:
BOP is shared, so this pretty much goes without saying.
Contentions:
l. Marijuana Causes Violence and Aggression.
- “Marijuana use causes violent behavior through increased aggressiveness, paranoia, and personality changes (more suspicious, aggressive, and anger).”
- “According to research studies, marijuana use causes aggressive behavior, causes or exacerbates psychosis, and produces paranoia. These effects have been illustrated through case studies of highly publicized incidents and heightened political profiles.”
Medical Marijuana has not been explored enough.
- The irrational optimism surrounding medical marijuana purports it to be an outlier and a breakthrough in the medical community.
- There are a lot intrigued by it, concerning its benefits. And it is earning a huge supporterbase, despite its mysterious.
Possible side effects have been included.:
- “Recent illicit and “medical marijuana” (especially grown by care givers for medical marijuana) is of much high potency and more likely to cause violent behavior.
- Marijuana use and its adverse effects should be considered in cases of acts of violence as its role is properly assigned to its high association.
- Recognize that high potency marijuana is a predictable and preventable cause of tragic violent consequences.”
ll. Marijuana Causes Automobile Accidents.
In a recent study, it was concluded that the use of marijuana was directly contributing to car crashes and deaths. Specifically in the areas where the substance was legalized.: Where Pot Became Legal, Car Crash Deaths Rose: Study (usnews.com)
It also came to be found that marijuana impairs your coordination and motor ability and this impacts your ability to function properly or drive.
- “It can impair coordination, distort perception, and lead to memory loss and difficulty in problem-solving. Specific to driving, THC can slow reaction times and reduce the ability to make decisions. Studies have shown that the risk of being involved in a crash increases after marijuana use.”
- “Marijuana is the illicit drug most frequently found in the blood of drivers who have been involved in vehicle crashes, including fatal ones.”
Given these findings, it seems not only illogical, but irresponsible to legalize this drug despite knowing exactly what dangers it prevents.
lll. Legalized Marijuana increases addiction.
The CDC reports that the use of marijuana in some people will lead to an addiction called, “Marijuana Use Disorder.” Addiction | Health Effects | Marijuana | CDC
- “One study estimated that approximately 3 in 10 people who use marijuana have marijuana use disorder.1”
- “Another study estimated that people who use cannabis have about a 10% likelihood of becoming addicted.2”
- “12-month prevalence of an addiction among U.S. adults varies from 15% to 61%.”
Addiction is already a concern in the US. Much of society looks down on drug addicts with disdain, contempt, and indifference. Legalizing marijuana only increases the means by which addicts can use it to fuel their addiction. This is bad for several reasons.
- Addiction creates a dysfunctional society.
- Cultural views in the US along with the stigmatization of addiction makes it more difficult for addicts to get treatment.
- Legalizing marijuana both causes and amplifies addiction.
lV. Adolescent Drug Use.
Legalizing marijuana for recreational use makes it more likely for minors and children to get access to this substance. And abusing marijuana at an early age sets you up for worse things.
- “People who begin using marijuana before the age of 18 are four to seven times more likely to develop a marijuana use disorder than adults.19”
- “By 1977, sales of pipes, bongs, rolling papers and drug-oriented magazines and toys were generating $250 million a year (equivalent to $1 billion today). There was little to no regulation or oversight on this booming new industry, however. Products that seemed directly targeted to kids — including Frisbees with pipes on them and bongs shaped like spaceships — were sold openly, often in corner shops and music stores.”
- “Before long, a counterrevolution unfolded, as an army of concerned parents tied paraphernalia’s availability to rising rates of adolescent marijuana use. By 1978, nine percent of high school seniors reported smoking pot every day, and children as young as 13 reported that the drug was easy to get. The “parent movement” sought to close “head shops” and rescind decriminalization laws, while organizing local groups to prevent adolescent drug use in their communities.”
V. Marijuana causes and amplifies racism.
- Marijuana’s history has a reputation of being associated with Mexicans and African Americans.
- Legalizing marijuana reinforces racial stereotypes that lead to more stigmatization against immigrants.
If we prohibit marijuana and keep it illegalized, then it will become so insignificant overtime that we can finally move on from its evil past. The fear of marijuana was what people used as an excuse to force immigrants back over the border. ED108098.pdf (Mexican-Americans and Marijuana: 1930-1937)
Vl. Marijuana lets people get away with murder.
Con could always argue that we could legalize marijuana and keep murder a crime, but very rarely do people consider hypothetical situations where premeditated murders occur.
- A killer could decide to get high on marijuana as part of his plan and strangle his intended victim, then get a free pass in the eyes of the law because he was high on marijuana.
- “Dr. Munch also supported the testimony of one murder defendant who claimed insanity because he had been in the same room with a bag of marijuana. The defendant was acquitted by reason of marijuana-induced insanity.(2,3)”
But if marijuana was forbidden, then the criminal could still be convicted for illegal possession and manslaughter. If it were allowed however, the criminal would get a free pass in the eyes of society and get away with it.
Vll. Marijuana Regulations are expensive.
Legalizing marijuana oftentimes means the government has to put regulations in place just to ensure the substance is being used safely and not being abused. This usually requires taxation of some sort to maintain, and these prices can get very expensive for civilians.
- “June 1, 2018 to June 1, 2019, or $100,000, whichever is less, to the Cannabis Business Development Fund.”
- Illinois’ half-baked marijuana legalization costs state $600M (illinoispolicy.org)
Why force people to PAY more when we could reduce unnecessary expenses by simply making it illegal to own? That means less time and effort to manage and moderate something that isn’t a basic need for survival when all these funds could be going into something useful like Education or Healthcare.
Sources: https://www.marijuana&violence.com
Pro
#2
I’m going to take Pros arguments one at a time.
The first point he makes is this: l. Marijuana Causes Violence and Aggression.
His evidence for this is not very good in my opinion. He cites a study that only used 14 cases. This doesn’t show anything at all about cannabis causing violence. How do we know these people weren’t already violent in nature, and they happen to also smoke cannabis?
The correct way to approach this problem is to look at how many people smoke cannabis that don’t end up engaging in any violent acts and divide it by the people who are. If there was a direct correlation between cannabis use and violence there should be a very high number of violent offenders who use cannabis. However that isn’t the case. He also mentions something later on about racism i will address because I don’t think he understands what he’s saying.
He says something about legalizing cannabis will lead to more racism and stereotypes about people of color. Even though the majority of cannabis users are white, which destroys that part of his argument. But the other thing I don’t think he’s considering is that the reason this drug was criminalized in the first place is because of the myth he is currently pushing. white people claimed that cannabis was causing blacks and Hispanics to become violent against white women. So him pushing this myth about the correlation of violence and cannabis is exactly the myth that was being pushed that caused these racist stereotypes to form in the first place.
“Harry Anslinger took the scientifically unsupported idea of marijuana as a violence-inducing drug, connected it to black and Hispanic people, and created a perfect package of terror to sell to the American media and public. By emphasizing the Spanish word marihuana instead of cannabis, he created a strong association between the drug and the newly arrived Mexican immigrants who helped popularize it in the States. He also created a narrative around the idea that cannabis made black people forget their place in society. He pushed the idea that jazz was evil music created by people under the influence of marijuana.”
His argument about violence and racist stereotypes collapses on itself because the idea he is pushing is mainly what caused them to form
Back to the violence correlation. This is a mechanistic study on the brain and tracking aggression responses while THC is active in the brain.
“Four studies from the literature search suggest that cannabis use influences aggressive responding; some also revealed a dose-response relationship between cannabis intoxication and aggression. Taylor et al.34 administered a low versus high dose of alcohol (0.5 oz or 1.5 oz per 40 lbs of body weight) or 9Δ-THC (1.82 mg or 5.44 mg per 40 lbs of body weight) to 40 male undergraduate students. Subjects were provoked in an electric shock paradigm whereby aggression was measured by the intensity of the shock the subject set for his opponent to receive. The results revealed that, whereas subjects in the high-dose alcohol condition set significantly higher shocks for their opponents than subjects in the low-dose alcohol condition, high-dose 9Δ-THC did not elicit aggressive responding and, in fact, suppressed such responding. Another study by Myerscough and Taylor30 replicated these data using a similar electric shock paradigm, where low-dose 9Δ-THC facilitated more aggressive responding compared with moderate- and high-dose 9Δ-THC. These data paradoxically suggest that a dose-response relationship may exist, where aggressive behavior may be facilitated by low but not by high doses of cannabis. High doses of cannabis may actually suppress aggression.”
This is a lot more convincing than a study that only uses 14 cases and somehow extrapolates that to cannabis making people more violent. Its not as simple as saying “these people had cannabis in their system and were violent. This also establishes a mechanism for my claim that it does not increase aggressive responses.
My biggest issue with this aspect of his argument is that safety and negative benefits are not the point in my opinion. Freedom is the point. We are free to drink alcohol, smoke tobacco, take caffeine, take Tianeptine, drive cars, sky dive, etc. all of these things have inherent risks to them but our government allows people to do them because we are a free country.
Another point that I am making, that has nothing to do with his argument is the “pursuit of happiness” clause in the US constitution. That clause is essentially saying I am able to pursue what I consider happiness, in any way I see fit, as long as I am not preventing others from doing so. Also there are already laws protecting people from violence whether cannabis is illegal or not. There is no need to add an extra layer of governing to this situation. Assault is assault, doesn’t matter if there were drugs in the system or not.
His next point on the violence is this: “According to research studies, marijuana use causes aggressive behavior, causes or exacerbates psychosis, and produces paranoia. These effects have been illustrated through case studies of highly publicized incidents and heightened political profiles.”
I agree that cannabis can exacerbate psychosis, that is not arguable. The problem with using that as an argument for criminalization is that most people don’t seem to really know what psychosis is or how it forms. Psychosis isn’t a disorder, it is a symptom. It can be brought on by stress, genetics, mental illnesses like depression or schizophrenia, alcohol, smoking, trauma, working too much, staying up too late, etc. there are many things that can exacerbate psychosis, but we don’t make those other things illegal. It also produces paranoia, which is just a fancy word for severe anxiety and suspicion. That is an unwanted side effect of cannabis use for some people. However that shouldn’t stop people who can handle cannabis fine, which is the vast majority of cannabis users, to not have access to this drug. That also should make them run the risk of going to prison for possessing, using, or selling it.
Spent a lot of time on that specific argument so I’m going to shortly address the rest.
He brings up the car crash statistics, which are true. However it isn’t legal to drive high, even in the states that cannabis is legal to purchase. My point is that those are irresponsible people who are breaking the law whether it is legal or not. Irresponsible people should not make responsible people risk their freedom and livelihood because they can’t get their stuff together. Just like people who shoot uo schools shouldn’t cause other people, who don’t do that,to lose their right to guns.
He then moves onto the addiction statistics. Addiction is prevalent with all drugs. Including cannabis, cannabis has a less harmful addiction than most drugs but the addiction potential still exists. I think it’s important to look at other statistics regarding addiction to other drugs. In states where cannabis has become legal, opioid and amphetamine addiction and use in general have dropped significantly.
This isn’t to say cannabis legalization will fix opioid issues as a whole, but I feel everyone would agree we would rather see cannabis addicts than heroin addicts. I would personally not like to see any addiction to anything, but that isn’t realistic. People become addicted to porn, sex, nicotine, food, sugar, and anything else that changes the chemistry of a persons brain. That alone is not enough reason to make something illegal. Again, i don’t think my opponent realizes how many things we are allowed to do in the US that are inherently dangerous and carry risks. We assume that adults who are embarking on these tasks are aware of the risks, and they are ok with still going forward. That is how cannabis should be handled as well.
He then moves to young people using the drug. “People who begin using marijuana before the age of 18 are four to seven times more likely to develop a marijuana use disorder than adults.19””
That is true of every drug in the world, including alcohol nicotine and caffeine, which are all legal. Would you like to see those drugs made illegal as well? If not why?
Also Im not sure if my opponent is aware but the use of cannabis among high school seniors in the US has dropped since the 70’s. By about ten percent. There is evidence from other countries, that decriminalization actually causes drug use to drop in the age group of 15-64. I will cite the Biden e from portugal who has decriminalized all drugs.
So I’m not sure what path my opponent is planning on taking with this because evidence shows that decriminalized drugs lowers the use of drugs in the age group he is worried about.
He then moves to expensive aspect of legalization. I hope my opponent understands what an investment is. Usually people lose money at the beginning and investment, and if it goes well (which it has in every state who made this investment) they will make a lot more money than they lost. In fact Illinois has already made 1.4 Billion dollars from cannabis. With a B. More than double than the money they lost.
I deconstructed all of his points. I have very little characters left. So I will make my point clearly and concisely. Drug use should be covered by the pursuit of happiness clause. And is a freedom that has risks, as all freedom does, there’s no reason to stop with drugs.
Round 2
Con
#3
Pro’s Case)
- The Marijuana-Violence study has 14 cases. Correlation is not causation.
- Marijuana can’t increase racism because most Cannabis users are white.
- Marijuana was criminalized because white people lied about marijuana causing Hispanic and Black men to be violent to women.
- Study shows low doses of THC cause aggression, but high doses lower it.
- The Right to Freedom overrides safety risks of marijuana because of dangerous substances like nicotine, alcohol, caffeine.
- There are Cannabis laws that protect people from harm. Cannabis is how I stay happy. Assault is assault, regardless of drugs.
- Cannabis exacerbates psychosis, but nobody understands it in depth. Cannabis affects everyone differently.
- Car statistics are true, but irresponsible people will always be irresponsible which shouldn’t jeopardize others’ freedom.
- Addiction is not unique to Cannabis. Cannabis addiction isn’t as bad as heroin addiction.
- Cannabis use amongst high school seniors dropped 10%.
- Illinois was more than compensated for lost money.
Rebuttals
l) There is various information concluding the same thing about marijuana causing violence.
“Because cannabis use can result in irritability, disinhibition, and altered cognition, it is plausible that its use increases the risk of violence and aggression and that this association is exacerbated in psychiatric illness.”
- Medical professionals can observe the neurological changes brought on by THC and marijuana use, the results are conclusive.
- Pro concedes that low doses of THC cause aggression, it is impossible to expect everyone to have access to this information.
- The effects caused by withdrawal include, “Anger, irritability, and aggression.”
Another study with 300,000 people concluded the same thing.:
“These results demonstrate a moderate association between cannabis use and physical violence, which remained significant regardless of study design and adjustment for confounding factors (i.e., socioeconomic factors, other substance use). Cannabis use in this population is a risk factor for violence.”
ll) Regardless of the origins, marijuana is still associated with african american and latina thugs. Legalizing it will only make it impossible for these stereotypes to go away.
lll) The nicotine, caffeine, alcohol, and automobile examples.:
- Nicotine has only shown to be self-destructive, not to cause harm to anyone else.
- Caffeine has overall positive impacts on alertness and nowhere near as dangerous as marijuana.
- There has been alcohol prohibition in the 20th century. I currently do not drink alcohol and can see how alcohol has harmed people. I don’t object to outlawing it.
- Banning automobiles is not feasible. People need them for transportation. They also save lives because of ambulances and police vehicles. Marijuana also contributes to automobile accidents, as Pro also concedes.
Fundamentally, I do not see a need to ban any of these things but if Pro can convince me otherwise, then we can work to outlaw these things. However, proving a need to abolish all four of these would not prove that marijuana should be legalized. Pro has yet to draw a valid or accurate comparison.
lV) Cannabis regulations/laws require money to maintain. Since Pro concedes this very important point about how they contribute to deaths, it is clear that the high volume of irresponsible people poses too much of a risk to innocent lives that ultimately outweighs a person’s freedom to use weed.
- Since Pro yields this point, that means banning cannabis would lower deaths caused by automobile crashes. Therefore, saving lives.
It is a selfish belief to assume your satisfaction means more than the lives of other people. When the rate of irresponsible users decreases, maybe then we can reconsider this point.
V) In admitting that marijuana causes and increases psychosis, we now have more incentive than ever to try and get rid of it. Consider this quote an extension of my first contention about violence and aggression.:
“People with psychosis may behave in confusing and unpredictable ways and may become threatening or violent.”
Vl) Just because cannabis addiction may not be as terrible as heroin addiction doesn’t mean it isn’t bad. A False Dilemma fallacy is suggesting we must choose one or the other, as if those are the only two options.
Vll) Cannabis use amongst teenagers tend to fluctuate based on the inconsistent state laws monitoring cannabis use. This drop would easily be reversed by legalizing marijuana.
Pro
#4
I’ll make short points regarding his argument and try to spell out my points. Last argument I focused solely on his argument and I don’t want to do that this time because I will then be on the back foot the whole debate.
“Medical professionals can observe the neurological changes brought on by THC and marijuana use, the results are conclusive.” I am not denying that we can observe these changes, what I’m asking is what makes those changes cause aggressive behavior. Also there are many variables that cause aggression, how are we able to rule all of those variables out, and blame it solely on weed for these cases you are speaking of? You’re source also said “it’s plausible…” not “we know this is the case” there’s a difference.
“Nicotine has only shown to be self-destructive, not to cause harm to anyone else.” are you really saying that watching someone in your family or friend group wither away and die from lung cancer isn’t harmful to them? Also second hand smoke isn’t harmful either?
“Cannabis regulations/laws require money to maintain. Since Pro concedes this very important point about how they contribute to deaths, it is clear that the high volume of irresponsible people poses too much of a risk to innocent lives that ultimately outweighs a person’s freedom to use weed.” This cleverly worded, however, people die from texting and driving, and kill other people all the time. By your logic texting should no longer be legal because it poses too much of a risk to innocent lives that ultimately outweigh peoples right to text. It’s also very important to consider that it is hard to prove cannabis caused the car crash. How many of these crashes were the fault of the person with cannabis in their system? How would you even prove cannabis was active at the time of the crash. It stays in your blood for over a week, in your hair for months, in your urine for weeks. Can you prove cannabis is the cause?
“Banning automobiles is not feasible. People need them for transportation. They also save lives because of ambulances and police vehicles. Marijuana also contributes to automobile accidents, as Pro also concedes.” ok fair enough, what about motorcycles and mopeds then? Should they be legal, they’re much more risky to use than a car or truck, why should people have the right to do that? And guess what? Drugs also save many lives per year, cannabis included.
“In admitting that marijuana causes and increases psychosis, we now have more incentive than ever to try and get rid of it. Consider this quote an extension of my first contention about violence and aggression.” You are now nit-picking what I’m saying. I also pointed out the many other things that exacerbate psychosis and cause if, you didn’t address any of that. Should it be illegal to lose sleep? Should it be illegal to work long hours? Should it be illegal to smoke? All of those things cause and exacerbate psychosis as well.
“Cannabis use amongst teenagers tend to fluctuate based on the inconsistent state laws monitoring cannabis use. This drop would easily be reversed by legalizing marijuana. ” this is simply false, because I showed you that teenage use of cannabis was higher when it was illegal everywhere, so how do you figure that makes sense? We’ve already conducted that experiment and got the results. They don’t support this claim.
“It is a selfish belief to assume your satisfaction means more than the lives of other people. When the rate of irresponsible users decreases, maybe then we can reconsider this point.” the irresponsible users are already the vast, vast minority. You never addressed my point about guns, outlawing guns completely would’ve saved hundreds of lives, many of them children, just in past decade. Is it not selfish for people who want guns to not drop them and agree to ban them all because of this?
Freedom Carries inherent risks, and in my opinion, freedom is more important than safety. If we were only concerned about safety, cars wouldn’t be able to go cover 60 mph, no one would be able to camp in the back country, no one could ski or snowboard, no one could race cars, no one could do anything that is dangerous. So yes I think freedom is generally more important than safety.
“Regardless of the origins, marijuana is still associated with african american and latina thugs. Legalizing it will only make it impossible for these stereotypes to go away. ” this is simply false. This is you projecting your racism onto everyone else. I have not talked to a single person who associates cannabis only with that type of person. I know doctors, lawyers, professors, scientists, etc who all smoke cannabis. Legalizing it will make these stereotypes go away (which I’m not even sure exist to be honest) because everyone will see people they admire and look up to, smoking cannabis. This argument makes no sense to me. Keeping it illegal causes these stereotypes to stay around because everyone who smokes it is technically a criminal and they are treated as such.
“Just because cannabis addiction may not be as terrible as heroin addiction doesn’t mean it isn’t bad. A False Dilemma fallacy is suggesting we must choose one or the other, as if those are the only two options.” I’m not saying they’re the only two options, alcohol addiction rates dropped as well. There will always be addicts, no matter what the legal landscape is. Which is why people being addicted to cannabis over alcohol or opioids is beneficial to their health and the society they live in, in comparison.
one thing I don’t think you’re considering is that you don’t lose anything if cannabis is legalized. You still have the option to not use it. Cannabis users on the other hand, risk losing their freedom, children, jobs, etc. who are you, or anyone else, to tell me I deserve to go to prison and get separated from my children because I enjoy cannabis. Why do you think you’re in a position to argue for people losing freedoms and arguably rights, because you think it’s too risky?
Now I will move onto my points for making it legal. It will revolve around 3 major aspects for this argument.
Logical and political reasons
Imprisonment
Scientific progress
Drugs are inanimate objects. Cannabis has never hurt anyone, ever. People have hurt themselves with cannabis, people have also helped themselves with cannabis. Cannabis isn’t grinding itself up, jumping into a pipe, and lighting itself on fire and forcing its way into our lungs. Just like guns aren’t forcing people to pick them up, load them, and shoot children in a class room. Like sugar Should we ban sugar because it causes obesity? Which is the leading cause of death in the US. Why does that get a pass? It’s much riskier and deadly.
Things like addiction don’t exist simply because the existence of a particular molecule. They exist because of a plethora of issues going on in a persons life. Besides the fact they’re inanimate objects that have never hurt anyone. The pursuit of happiness clause should legally allow me to pursue what I consider happiness as long as I am not preventing others from doing so. Even if that means using cannabis.
The most important part in my opinion is imprisonment. However, people on your side of this argument seem to ignore the impact on entire families of people going to prison. 45% of people in prison are there for simple possession. Over 40,000 people are incarcerated for cannabis charges. People who’s parents go to prison or jail are 5x more likely to end up there themselves than children who don’t go through that. Is that not harmful to society? People not able to contribute to society because they’re in a cage for possessing or selling a substance? There is absolutely no reason to throw people in a cage for possessing cannabis, or any other drug. If someone is high and kills someone driving, fine throw them in a cage, but if they’re not high and get caught driving with weed in the car, they should be able to go home. Your father going to prison, or even you going to prison, will destroy your life just as quickly, if not quicker than a cannabis addiction. The thing is, people who are not addicts will also go to prison and face that life ruining aspect of prohibition when they shouldn’t have to.
The last thing I’ll talk about is rarely discussed. Scientific progress surrounding drugs is greatly inhibited by prohibition. As one of the judges know, I am not a fan of pounding the drum cannabis benefits, although they do exist, that isn’t the point. The point is the freedom to do what you please as long as you arent affecting other people. However that’s not the point right now. The first point is we aren’t able to fully understand the benefits. The reason this is the case is because scientists are usually not willing to jump through the endless bureaucratic red tape they would have to, to study a schedule 1 substance. Studies have been conducted but theyre not as common as one would think. We know more about methamphetamine (because it is in schedule 2) than we do cannabis. More importantly, I think my opponent can agree with me here, is that we are also not able to adequately study and understand the risks of using a schedule 1 drug because not many studies have been conducted on humans. I don’t believe the risks of any drug that isn’t directly toxic to the user, should cause the drugs to be illegal. Before you go on a rant about the toxicity issues of cannabis, which I am well aware of, I’m talking about the type of toxicity that is seen with a drug like MPTP which causes the permanent onset of Parkinson’s symptoms after one dose. That type of drug should be illegal.
However, if we are not able to fully understand the risks of a certain drug, it is impossible to use it as safely as it could be used.
Round 3
Con
#5
this is simply false. This is you projecting your racism onto everyone else. I have not talked to a single person who associates cannabis only with that type of person. I know doctors, lawyers, professors, scientists, etc who all smoke cannabis. Legalizing it will make these stereotypes go away (which I’m not even sure exist to be honest) because everyone will see people they admire and look up to, smoking cannabis. This argument makes no sense to me. Keeping it illegal causes these stereotypes to stay around because everyone who smokes it is technically a criminal and they are treated as such.
My racism??
Okay, Pro.
I want you to tell me what race you think I am.
As for your retort, anecdotal evidence simply isn’t going to cut it when I showed you a link outlining the history of marijuana and its negative associations with african and latina-american communities.
Extend.
I am not denying that we can observe these changes, what I’m asking is what makes those changes cause aggressive behavior. Also there are many variables that cause aggression, how are we able to rule all of those variables out, and blame it solely on weed for these cases you are speaking of? You’re source also said “it’s plausible…” not “we know this is the case” there’s a difference.
Pro accused me of nit-picking in his argument, but is trying to use semantic technicalities. Since the source confirms it’s a fact, it will have to remain unless Pro has evidence to contest mine.
Pro asks what the source for the aggression is, so I’ll respond with several quotes.:
- “It is proposed that alterations in the endocannabinoid system may be the cause of these symptoms."
- “Researchers from Yale University School of Medicine and the Pennsylvania State University found a correlation between marijuana use and feelings of anger based on a sample of 43 recreational users. The 2015 study asked participants to journal angry feelings and outbursts, showing a 20% increase in hostility on days when subjects used cannabis.“
are you really saying that watching someone in your family or friend group wither away and die from lung cancer isn’t harmful to them? Also second hand smoke isn’t harmful either?
No. I’m saying nicotine is more self-destructive than anything and doesn’t contribute to violence, roadside accidents.
It’s not similar or comparable to cannabis.
This cleverly worded, however, people die from texting and driving, and kill other people all the time. By your logic texting should no longer be legal because it poses too much of a risk to innocent lives that ultimately outweigh peoples right to text. It’s also very important to consider that it is hard to prove cannabis caused the car crash. How many of these crashes were the fault of the person with cannabis in their system? How would you even prove cannabis was active at the time of the crash. It stays in your blood for over a week, in your hair for months, in your urine for weeks. Can you prove cannabis is the cause?
I’ve already showed the study and Pro is backpedaling this point after he already conceded it.
Extend.
ok fair enough, what about motorcycles and mopeds then? Should they be legal, they’re much more risky to use than a car or truck, why should people have the right to do that? And guess what? Drugs also save many lives per year, cannabis included.
If Pro is going to accuse me of nit-picking, the least he could do is show some consistency and stay on-topic.
Exploring the prohibition of vehicles should be mentioned in a separate debate, but we’ve come here to discuss marijuana.
Extend my Round 1 quotes of the side-effects of Medical Marijuana.
You are now nit-picking what I’m saying. I also pointed out the many other things that exacerbate psychosis and cause if, you didn’t address any of that. Should it be illegal to lose sleep? Should it be illegal to work long hours? Should it be illegal to smoke? All of those things cause and exacerbate psychosis as well.
....Aaaaand there it is.
I’m nit-picking, but Pro has brought forth several False Equivalencies and tried desperately to make each of these points land.
None of these things exacerbate psychosis to the dangerous degree that cannabis does and my articles and research from earlier corroborate this.
Extend.
” this is simply false, because I showed you that teenage use of cannabis was higher when it was illegal everywhere, so how do you figure that makes sense? We’ve already conducted that experiment and got the results. They don’t support this claim.
You said earlier that correlation is not causation.
I want to see peer-reviewed research back up your claim.
the irresponsible users are already the vast, vast minority. You never addressed my point about guns, outlawing guns completely would’ve saved hundreds of lives, many of them children, just in past decade. Is it not selfish for people who want guns to not drop them and agree to ban them all because of this?
If you want to talk Gun Control, create a separate thread for it.
We’ve come here to discuss marijuana. I’m not entertaining any more irrelevancies.
Freedom Carries inherent risks, and in my opinion, freedom is more important than safety. If we were only concerned about safety, cars wouldn’t be able to go cover 60 mph, no one would be able to camp in the back country, no one could ski or snowboard, no one could race cars, no one could do anything that is dangerous. So yes I think freedom is generally more important than safety.
That is just your opinion.
What is your justification for it?
Safety is always the #1 priority when participating in all these other activities.
Why should Pro’s desire to do what he wants be taken into account while disregarding everyone else’s preference to feel safe?
I’m not saying they’re the only two options, alcohol addiction rates dropped as well. There will always be addicts, no matter what the legal landscape is. Which is why people being addicted to cannabis over alcohol or opioids is beneficial to their health and the society they live in, in comparison.
Extend rebuttal from earlier and my comments about addiction making society dysfunctional.
This point still remains uncontested.
Saying one is worse than the other doesn’t mean one is good.
one thing I don’t think you’re considering is that you don’t lose anything if cannabis is legalized. You still have the option to not use it. Cannabis users on the other hand, risk losing their freedom, children, jobs, etc. who are you, or anyone else, to tell me I deserve to go to prison and get separated from my children because I enjoy cannabis. Why do you think you’re in a position to argue for people losing freedoms and arguably rights, because you think it’s too risky?
This is a strawman.
While I believe certain laws are unfair, this isn’t a reason to not illegalize Marijuana. The law in the past was pretty generous on its citizens who were busted for possessing cannabis and they weren’t imprisoned for owning small doses.
Obviously, long-term incarceration for such a small offense is ridiculous but there should still be penalties for breaking the law, so it doesn’t become normalized.
It sounds like Pro wants to live in a lawless, anarchical society.
Drugs are inanimate objects. Cannabis has never hurt anyone, ever. People have hurt themselves with cannabis, people have also helped themselves with cannabis. Cannabis isn’t grinding itself up, jumping into a pipe, and lighting itself on fire and forcing its way into our lungs. Just like guns aren’t forcing people to pick them up, load them, and shoot children in a class room. Like sugar Should we ban sugar because it causes obesity? Which is the leading cause of death in the US. Why does that get a pass? It’s much riskier and deadly.Things like addiction don’t exist simply because the existence of a particular molecule. They exist because of a plethora of issues going on in a persons life. Besides the fact they’re inanimate objects that have never hurt anyone. The pursuit of happiness clause should legally allow me to pursue what I consider happiness as long as I am not preventing others from doing so. Even if that means using cannabis.
Let’s acknowledge cannabis for what it really is. A deadly substance.
Calling it an inanimate object and comparing it to sugar is vastly undermining the research and concrete evidence I posted earlier.
Sugar, like nicotine is self-destructive. Cannabis has the capacity and potential to affect everyone else.
Pro
#6
My opponent is beginning to lose me.
“My racism??” yea, your racism, you are the only one stating people only associate cannabis with Latin American and African American thugs. When I don’t see any evidence that most people associate cannabis with that, you are projecting. I do not care at all what your race is, it is you who is pushing these racist stereotypes, and also pushing the myths that caused them to form, you are projecting.
“I’ve already showed the study and Pro is backpedaling this point after he already conceded it.” I am not back pedaling, the stats show that there has been an increase in accidents involving cannabis. I’m asking how you know cannabis is causing these accidents. More adults are smoking cannabis now than ever, so of course you’re going to see an increase in car accidents that had cannabis involved. That doesn’t mean cannabis is causing the accidents. Which is why I asked you to provide the number of accidents caused by the person who had cannabis in their system. You failed to do so.
“Exploring the prohibition of vehicles should be mentioned in a separate debate, but we’ve come here to discuss marijuana.
Extend my Round 1 quotes of the side-effects of Medical Marijuana. ” I am not saying we need to ban motorcycles, I’m asking you to be philosophically consistent, if cannabis causes more dangerous accidents and it should be banned, by your logic, motorcycles should be banned as well. I’m bringing this up to show Americans are free to do risky things, and that should be extended to cannabis use. Which is why I brought up all of the risky things that we are allowed to do. You’re missing the point man.
“None of these things exacerbate psychosis to the dangerous degree that cannabis does and my articles and research from earlier corroborate this.”
What is your evidence for this? Do you have any at all? Or are you just making a claim. not getting proper sleep will cause psychosis as consistently as anything. What is your evidence that cannabis more consistently causes psychosis than the other things I listed? Not what is the evidence that cannabis can exacerbate psychosis, but what is your evidence that it exacerbates it worse than the things I listed?
“want to see peer-reviewed research back up your claim” Lancelot, if you would read my argument, you would see that I did provide peer reviewed research form my claim.
“If you want to talk Gun Control, create a separate thread for it.
We’ve come here to discuss marijuana. I’m not entertaining any more irrelevancies. ” again you are completely missing the point. It isn’t irrelevant in the slightest. The philosophical approach to both of these topics is identical. They are both risky to allow people to posses and use freely, that doesn’t mean that should be illegal. I’m not understanding how you’re having a hard time grasping that. Just because guns and cannabis aren’t the same thing, does not mean they can’t be approached in the same way when it comes to the freedom to own, use, and posses them.
“Safety is always the #1 priority when participating in all these other activities.” no, it really isn’t. Or they wouldn’t make cars that can go over 200 mph. They wouldn’t make motorcycles that can go 0-60 in under 2 seconds. That’s not safe. If safety was the top priority neither of those things would be true. If we were worried about safety it would be illegal to do the other things I mentioned. For example no ski resort forces people to wear a helmet even though the statistics are very clear that it prevents injury and death more. It’s a freedom that we are given to make those decisions. It’s not enforced in the name of safety, and it shouldn’t be.
“Saying one is worse than the other doesn’t mean one is good.” not once have I said cannabis addiction is good, not sure why you’re saying that. All I have said is that I would rather people be addicted to cannabis than just about any other drug. Because then withdrawal and the risk of death from cannabis is very minimal, the risk of death is essentially nonexistent.
“It sounds like Pro wants to live in a lawless, anarchical society. ” this is possibly the most insane jump I’ve ever seen on this website. Because I don’t want people going to prison for drug possession, I advocate for living in a lawless society? Come on man.
“Let’s acknowledge cannabis for what it really is. A deadly substance.
Calling it an inanimate object and comparing it to sugar is vastly undermining the research and concrete evidence I posted earlier.”
No it really isn’t at all. Everything in the world will find its way into a human death, that doesn’t mKe something a deadly substance. Sugar is also an inanimate object, but it has a direct cause to obesity, which is the leading cause of death in the US, how is that an unfair comparison? When you’re talking about the safety risks?
Sodium can kill you, water can kill you, oxygen can kill you, serotonin can kill you, nitrogen can kill you, everything on earth can find its way into a human death. That doesn’t mean we call them deadly substances that should be banned. That makes no sense.
The freedom of the American people should be stopped at drug use. Whether that’s cannabis or heroin. We can point out risks of things endlessly and find a million reasons to ban them, however banning these drugs also comes with a lot risks that you are not considering that I have tried to point out to you. I accept the risks of cannabis use, but it is my place to tell someone not to do something if it isn’t affecting other people, nor is it yours. Just because you can find certain levels of risks, like you can with literally anything, does not mean we need make things illegal, and throw people in cages for possessing, using, or distributing the substances or engaging in the activities. What matters is the freedom to make decisions regarding one’s own consciousness, if we are not free to change our state of mind, we are not free in a meaningful sense. Something as intimate and personal as changing one’s consciousness should be be frowned upon or looked down on. I have never claimed cannabis is risk free, I even had a debate with one of the judges where that was the central aspect of the debate. I believe cannabis advocates are guilty of never talking about the risks. I don’t blame them though, because people like you will use that as ammunition to keep it illegal, when that isn’t the point. It also changes the nature of the cannabis experience if you believe there are little risks and large medical benefits. That’s another discussion though. I agree there are risks, I simply disagree risks are a reason to keep it illegal, because as I have said many times, we are perfectly free to engage in many, many dangerous activities that carry risks. Like own guns, sky dove, ride motorcycles, etc. you can say that’s irrelevant, but it’s not. There’s a freedom we are given that allows us to engage in these activities, we just assume that adults are aware of the risks. if they aren’t that’s an education issue, and the bad education around drugs is solely due to prohibition, we mainly preach abstinence which is not an effective form of education, as you have seen with the history of sex education. Sex education has changed dramatically and we have seen mass improvements. If we want people to be more responsible and safe with cannabis use we have to adequately educate them, that will lower the amount of irresponsible and uneducated users. You should be advocating for that as well. I simply disagree with you philosophically that’s risks are cause to ban activities, I think freedom is more Important.
Round 4
Con
#7
I realize I’ve indirectly contributed to the derailing of the thread. As it is only round 4, I am getting back on track before the final round.
Earlier, Pro states that the confusion of the drug is because of illegalization preventing scientists from being able to experiment with it and develop a deeper understanding. He states here.:
“Scientific progress surrounding drugs is greatly inhibited by prohibition. As one of the judges know, I am not a fan of pounding the drum cannabis benefits, although they do exist, that isn’t the point. The point is the freedom to do what you please as long as you arent affecting other people. However that’s not the point right now. The first point is we aren’t able to fully understand the benefits. The reason this is the case is because scientists are usually not willing to jump through the endless bureaucratic red tape they would have to, to study a schedule 1 substance. Studies have been conducted but theyre not as common as one would think. We know more about methamphetamine (because it is in schedule 2) than we do cannabis. More importantly, I think my opponent can agree with me here, is that we are also not able to adequately study and understand the risks of using a schedule 1 drug because not many studies have been conducted on humans. I don’t believe the risks of any drug that isn’t directly toxic to the user, should cause the drugs to be illegal. Before you go on a rant about the toxicity issues of cannabis, which I am well aware of, I’m talking about the type of toxicity that is seen with a drug like MPTP which causes the permanent onset of Parkinson’s symptoms after one dose. That type of drug should be illegal.”
Now I believe my opponent and I can agree that there have been studies on the drug. There have been 3 studies conducted.
- Marijuana and the Workplace (Robert P. O’Brien)
- Marijuana and Violence (James Munch)
- The Effects of Marijuana on Consciousness and Behavior (Harris Isbell)
There is enough of an understanding and knowledge to realize that this drug poses too much of a threat and must be forbidden. A general consensus endorses legalization, but we must postpone this for now or seek for it to never happen.
“When I don’t see any evidence that most people associate cannabis with that, you are projecting. I do not care at all what your race is, it is you who is pushing these racist stereotypes, and also pushing the myths that caused them to form, you are projecting.”
I certainly understand Pro’s reluctance for venturing into said territory because it is a silly claim.
So here is me extending my Round 1 research.: ED108098.pdf (Mexican-Americans and Marijuana: 1930-1937)
This outlines the history of the stereotype.
Now I shall post more current examples.
Despite drug use being relatively equal between blacks and whites, new regulations will still disproportionately target people of color and make them unable to participate.
- “Despite Marijuana Legalization Black People Still Almost Four Times More Likely to Get Arrested”
Legalizing marijuana does nothing aside from perpetuating old beliefs about certain races.
“I am not back pedaling, the stats show that there has been an increase in accidents involving cannabis. I’m asking how you know cannabis is causing these accidents. More adults are smoking cannabis now than ever, so of course you’re going to see an increase in car accidents that had cannabis involved. That doesn’t mean cannabis is causing the accidents. Which is why I asked you to provide the number of accidents caused by the person who had cannabis in their system. You failed to do so.”
Notice the contradiction.
Extend.
“again you are completely missing the point. It isn’t irrelevant in the slightest. The philosophical approach to both of these topics is identical. They are both risky to allow people to posses and use freely, that doesn’t mean that should be illegal. I’m not understanding how you’re having a hard time grasping that. Just because guns and cannabis aren’t the same thing, does not mean they can’t be approached in the same way when it comes to the freedom to own, use, and posses them.”
The comparisons Pro brought forth are completely irrelevant. This is an on-balance debate and none of these arguments constitute the legalization of marijuana. Even if these arguments were significant, it would only be a reason to ban these other things to remain philosophically consistent.
“The freedom of the American people should be stopped at drug use. Whether that’s cannabis or heroin. We can point out risks of things endlessly and find a million reasons to ban them, however banning these drugs also comes with a lot risks that you are not considering that I have tried to point out to you. I accept the risks of cannabis use, but it is my place to tell someone not to do something if it isn’t affecting other people, nor is it yours. Just because you can find certain levels of risks, like you can with literally anything, does not mean we need make things illegal, and throw people in cages for possessing, using, or distributing the substances or engaging in the activities. What matters is the freedom to make decisions regarding one’s own consciousness, if we are not free to change our state of mind, we are not free in a meaningful sense. Something as intimate and personal as changing one’s consciousness should be be frowned upon or looked down on. I have never claimed cannabis is risk free, I even had a debate with one of the judges where that was the central aspect of the debate. I believe cannabis advocates are guilty of never talking about the risks. I don’t blame them though, because people like you will use that as ammunition to keep it illegal, when that isn’t the point. It also changes the nature of the cannabis experience if you believe there are little risks and large medical benefits. That’s another discussion though. I agree there are risks, I simply disagree risks are a reason to keep it illegal, because as I have said many times, we are perfectly free to engage in many, many dangerous activities that carry risks."
When said freedom comes at the cost of the safety of others, it is only societally imperative that we reverse this prioritization to preserve human life. Pro has compared way too many unlike things and said that a ban on marijuana constitutes a ban on these other things as well.
So far,
- Pro has conceded my 2nd contention about car crashes.
- He has challenged me on my first argument about Violence & Aggression, but I have maintained it with evidence. This also includes the part about Racism.
- The insanity plea and addiction remain unchallenged, so before it is too late I want to give Pro a chance to contest these. Extend.
Pro offered pushback on the expenses of regulations and adolescent drug use. I’m going to defend both of these before they’re considered dropped by the final round.
Adolescent Drug Use
- “In 2019, 37% of US high school students reported lifetime use of marijuana and 22% reported use in the past 30 days.1 Past-year vaping of marijuana also remained steady in 2020 following large increases in 2018 and 2019. However, large percentages of middle and high school students reported past-year marijuana vaping—8% of eighth graders, 19% of 10th graders, and 22% of 12th graders.2”
Pro’s earlier statements are that teen drug decreased since the 20th century. He has not proven that, so dismiss it as an unsubstantiated claim.
This quote here confirms that adolescent drug use is a problem and legalizing marijuana in all 50 states would reverse this drop, if Pro’s claim is true.
Tax Expenses of Cannabis
- “Illinois’ consumer-facing taxes on marijuana are even higher than California’s.”
While Pro wisely points out that Illinois won back the money, this is rarely a guarantee most of the time. These potential investments risk back-firing and taxations are what is inhibiting sales.
- “For every dollar gained in tax revenue, Coloradans spent approximately $4.50 to mitigate the effects of legalization.
- Costs related to the healthcare system and from high school drop-outs are the largest cost contributors.
- Research shows a connection between marijuana use and the use of alcohol and other substances.
- Calls to Poison Control related to marijuana increased dramatically since legalization of medical marijuana and legalization of recreational marijuana.
- 69% of marijuana users say they have driven under the influence of marijuana at least once, and 27% admit to driving under the influence on a daily basis.
- The estimated costs of DUIs for people who tested positive for marijuana only in 2016 approaches $25 million.”
So I have maintained and defended each of my 7 contentions. I look forward to the final round.
Pro
#8
“I realize I’ve indirectly contributed to the derailing of the thread. As it is only round 4, I am getting back on track before the final round.”
I think that was both of our faults, no worries.
“There is enough of an understanding and knowledge to realize that this drug poses too much of a threat and must be forbidden. A general consensus endorses legalization, but we must postpone this for now or seek for it to never happen.”
This right here is the fundamental aspect of our disagreement. There obviously have been studies conducted, but not near as many for drugs like methamphetamine, cocaine, ketamine, etc. because of cannabis being placed in schedule 1. Now here is something I’d like to bring up. Could my opponent at least concede that cannabis should be removed from schedule 1? As schedule one is made for drugs with no medical applicability and high risk for abuse. Could you concede that?
Secondly, since there is a general consensus, who are you to tell these people they have to wait? There’s a general consensus on alcohol as well and tobacco, should the minority be able to overthrow that? If so, why?
“Legalizing marijuana does nothing aside from perpetuating old beliefs about certain races.” This an absolutely absurd claim. It does literally nothing but that? Really? That’s the only thing that legalizing cannabis does? It doesn’t keep people from going to prison for distribution? It doesn’t keep people from running into contaminated cannabis? It doesn’t make the government and cities money? The only thing it does is what you claim? That’s just absurd.
“Despite drug use being relatively equal between blacks and whites, new regulations will still disproportionately target people of color and make them unable to participate.”
This is a much different topic, I don’t think this has to due with the laws surrounding cannabis as much as you believe it does. I’m not a “systemic racism” guy, although it does exist in some aspects. I think this has to do with less tolerance from police officers, and people who are willing to call the police on minorities. That’s a personal racism issue, and I think that is very much real. However we should allow the legal system to give people the ability to lower the risks of going to jail, paying fines, etc for possessing cannabis. Especially people who are historically more harshly charged than others.
I don’t believe I contradicted myself at all when talking about the car crash statistics. I’ll try to say it more clearly and make an analogy. I’m not saying the analogy is perfectly relevant, I’m just saying the way of thinking is the same. More people are using cannabis than ever, so of course the statistics of people who had cannabis in their system at the time of a crash will increase. That doesn’t mean that the cannabis was active in their system, and post mortem blood concentrations are largely useless for determining this. Mainly because there is no blood circulating to filter the substance out, and most people lose blood during death.
“Quantitative analysis is subject to error in itself, and because post-mortem concentrations vary in largely unpredictable ways with the site and time of sampling, as a result of the phenomenon of post-mortem redistribution. Consequently, compilations of ‘lethal concentrations’ are misleading. There is a lack of adequate studies of the true relationship between fatal events and the concentrations that can be measured subsequently, but without such studies, clinical pharmacologists and others should be wary of interpreting post-mortem measurements.”
The analogy I would like to make is this. If car companies began pumping out more red cars than any other color, of course you are going to see a rise in the percentage of accidents involving red cars. That doesn’t mean the red cars are causing the accidents.
The other thing that is important to consider here is that not all fatal accidents, or accidents in general are the fault of the cannabis user, that would be a major stretch to try and claim that.
“The comparisons Pro brought forth are completely irrelevant. This is an on-balance debate and none of these arguments constitute the legalization of marijuana. Even if these arguments were significant, it would only be a reason to ban these other things to remain philosophically consistent.”
Again, I thought I spelled this out clearly. I’m not trying to compare the specific activities or freedoms to one another. I am trying to compare the way we approach these freedoms, the way we think about these freedoms, and the say we regulate these freedoms. That is absolutely relevant.
There is also another example of simple philosophical disagreement here. I say that to remain philosophically consistent we need to legalize all drugs, including cannabis, because we allow people to freely engage in risky activities. My opponent is saying we need to ban the other activities, and I disagree with him there. Mainly because of the pursuit of happiness clause, which is an argument he is yet to engage with besides saying safety is more important than freedom. Which is another statement I absolutely disagree with, I spelled out why very clearly. I also spelled out all of the things that would have to change if we took that approach to everything.
“When said freedom comes at the cost of the safety of others, it is only societally imperative that we reverse this prioritization to preserve human life. Pro has compared way too many unlike things and said that a ban on marijuana constitutes a ban on these other things as well. ”
There are dozens of freedoms we allow that can potentially effect the safety of others. Building nuclear energy plants, using vehicles that release CO2, the freedom to sell tobacco, the freedom to sell sugar, the freedom to advertise addictive pharmaceuticals, the freedom to own guns, the freedom to build large bonfires, etc. There are so many freedoms we are allowed that can potentially have negative effects in other people, that doesn’t mean we need to ban all of those activities, it means we need to be philosophically consistent in our approach in our freedom to take risks.
Also, I don’t think there’s any evidence that the majority of people who smoke cannabis end up endangering other people. Sure you can find some small percentage of those cases, but the majority do not. That is very important to consider.
“A killer could decide to get high on marijuana as part of his plan and strangle his intended victim, then get a free pass in the eyes of the law because he was high on marijuana.” this makes no sense. People who get the insanity plea are not only extremely rare, but almost are never given a pass due to drug use. In fact there are many, many more cases of people using the fact people used drugs to convict them of a crime. A perfect example is the murder case that involved Jeffrey McDonald. This Green Beret, military doctor, claimed three people broke into his house, 1 female 2 men, and were chanting “kill the pigs, acid is groovy” and brutally massacred his entire family. Stabbed his wife over 40 times, broke both of her arms, bludgeoned his 5 year old daughter to death, and stabbed his two year old 40+ times. He survived the attack, he was also stabbed, had a punctured lung, And was bruised all over. It’s no surprise a green beret, the deadliest special unit in our military, survived the attack of three hippies and likely beat them to the point they ran away. However he was convicted of the murder, still sits in prison today, because the prosecuting attorneys claimed he suffered an “amphetamine induced range” and killed his entire family. Even though the mother died first, so who would’ve stabbed him, punctured his lungs, and bloodied him up, the kids? Even worse a few months after he was convicted the prosecuting attorneys got a confession from a woman who fit his description. He still sits in prison simply because of his amphetamine prescription. There are dozens of cases like this.
Also people who do ge the insanity plea, do not get off, they are sent to draconian mental health hospitals for the duration of what their sentence would have been if not longer. So this doesn’t add up to me.
“Research shows a connection between marijuana use and the use of alcohol and other substances.”
I hope my opponent realizes that this is true of alcohol and other substances it just depends on what substance you have your focus on. You could easily reverse this sentence and say “research shows a connection between alcohol use and the use of marijuana and other substances”
Again that doesn’t mean the other substances need to be banned, it just means that this is pointless in my opinion. It shouldn’t be a surprise that people who use drugs… use drugs.
“In 2019, 37% of US high school students reported lifetime use of marijuana and 22% reported use in the past 30 days.”
This is true, however the statistics were higher in 1970’s especially for the 30 days number. In 1997 over 40% of high school seniors answered yes to that question, when the drug was still illegal. There’s no evidence to support the claim that legalizing it will increase considering it has been slowly dropping as more states have legalized it.
Also we can look at portugal, I already stated the stats, that you didn’t engage with.
Running out of characters again. I believe as Americans, we should have the freedom to do risky things that can potentially harm others. We already do, there’s no point in drawing a line at cannabis. Nothing you have said has convinced me otherwise.
Round 5
Con
#9
Pro once again tries to counter that marijuana may not be the cause of car-crashes. The evidence seems to suggest otherwise, but before I get into that. Let's review everything that occurred so far.
Con's Case (Me)
- Violence and Brutality- Maintained. Extend.
- Car Crashes & Fatalities- Pro keeps challenging the data and evidence I've put forth after conceding once.
- Addiction- Uncontested. Extend.
- Teens & Drug Use- Conceded. Extend.
- Racism- Pro tries multiple times to refute this, but my peer-reviewed evidence is too overwhelming to counter. Maintained. Extend.
- Insanity Plea- Refuted.
- Expenses & Regulations- Dropped. Extend.
Pro is arguing that the car-related crashes are not due to marijuana after having offered evidence to the contrary. Since his persistence keeps demanding a reply, I'll provide two more quotes to demonstrate that the car accidents are caused by marijuana use.
- "Marijuana use affects reaction time, road tracking, lane keeping and attention, all of which can make a crash more likely."
- "Car crashes and deaths are on the rise in U.S. states that have legalized recreational marijuana, a new study finds."
Conclusion
I have successfully proven my case that Marijuana should be illegalized in all 50 states because of the rise in deaths where it was legalized, the symptoms of violence & aggression, addiction, the rates of adolescent drug use, and the expenses required to make and keep regulations take too much of a toll.
Having demonstrated the negative effects of Cannabis firsthand, I thank voters for having read this and I thank Pro for this debate.
It's settled.
Vote Con.
Pro
#10
My opponent is over confident that he has won this debate.
He has yet to prove that the majority of cannabis users become more aggressive or violent, which is important.
He is saying I did not contest his opinion on cannabis addiction and that is not true. I clearly stated that cannabis addiction is real, well documented, and well understood. However, it is not the most harmful addiction that could occur, and that I would prefer no one be addicted to anything, but that isn’t realistic. I also stated that addiction doesn’t occur simply because of the existence of a certain molecule. It exists because of a plethora of issues in someone’s life that leads to them becoming an addict to anything. Whether that is porn, alcohol, sex, drinking hand sanitizer, or cannabis. That doesn’t mean those things should be illegal, instead it means addiction should be be a reason to ban something.
I will also bring up other statistics that show the majority of cannabis, and all drug users, are not addicts, and that the minority should not determine the rights (that should be afforded) to the responsible users. At most 30% of users are addicts. I am highly skeptical of that number, most studies show that a maximum of 10% of users are addicts. That should not determine the freedom of the other 70-90% of responsible users.
That is applicable to all drugs, but I understand that isn’t the argument we are having right now.
Teen drug use was not conceded by myself in any way shape or form. I repeatedly showed evidence that cannabis use among youngsters was higher during prohibition than it has ever been during the legalization era. I won’t post the links again because I have done so three times now. I have also shown the evidence from another country that decriminalized everything, and drug use of every kind has dropped in the age group of 15-64 since the reform took place. I also linked the studies and cited the statistics on that in previous arguments.
My opponent is a little too confident that he has proven his point in my opinion, but it’s a debate he’s trying to win and is trying to leave an impression on the judges, fair game.
I don’t believe the racism point is founded in reality at all. Not all peer reviewed studies are created equally, not all studies in general are created equally. The quantity should not over rule the quality. If you look up “modern cannabis stereotypes” not a single one is related to race at all. Those stereotypes died long ago, and have been dying since legalization at a faster rate.
People know that Obama, Trump, Bush, bill gates, Elon musk, etc have smoked cannabis so just looking outside will prove that idea wrong completely. If there are some old people who still hold those beliefs that’s one thing. To say that legalization will cause these racist stereotypes to live on is not based in reality. Old people also believe atheists are devil worshippers. Just because you have some lingering propaganda in the past generations does not mean legal changes to the stature of cannabis will reinforce those beliefs into the younger generations.
I don’t believe my opponent has convinced me at the very least that cannabis should remain illegal. He claims I brought up irrelevant points, when I wasn’t. I think my opponent knows what I was trying to do but was intentionally misunderstanding them, again free game it’s a debate he’s trying to win. However they are irrelevant on a skin deep level, but on an intellectual and philosophical level they are very relevant. They are relevant because it is evident how many risky things people are free to do, and that we shouldn’t stop at something like cannabis. Even though cannabis carries risks, it also has benefits, it also saves lives, as it can indirectly take lives, everything is a double edged sword. The mere existence of the second edge should not be reason to throw the entire sword in the trash can. It should be reason to educate people on how to adequately use the drug, so they don’t hurt themselves with it and can make the most of the befits and enjoyable aspects. My opponent hasn’t convinced me that I’m wrong about that point. That is where the main argument lies, freedom to do risky things that can endanger other people and themselves. I won’t lost out all of those things again. I hope the judges have the recollection to remember what those things were, and why they are philosophically relevant to this debate.
This was a fantastic debate, i hope to have more with Lancelot in the future, albeit my area of expertise is very niche, pharmacology and climate change, I’m hoping we can have more discussions in the future. Thank you guys for reading all of this and being supportive, thank you Lancelot for the fun and challenging debate.
My opponent put all of the links he used throughout the debate in the final paragraph. I think as a way to win the sources points, however, judges please consider quality of quantity. Consider the quality of my sources and what they mean to the argument.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Notes in comments
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
i apologize, it has been a very busy week for me and i havent looked over the debate as i have promised.
i looked in depth to one of the links mps1213 and i determined it to be of higher scientific quality than the rest, it had a pround affect on my judgement of this debate, not so much the arguements, but on the topic of legalization. https://jaapl.org/content/early/2021/12/10/JAAPL.210034-21
its my opinion that neither sides read this article in depth by HBSc rafiei and doctor kolla. I advise both parties to read it all the way.
however, this one source as indepth as it is, doesnt determine the debate.
here are my general thoughts and weighing of the arguements.
there is enough evidence that weed needs to be moderated in at least 5 of the 7 applications lancelot mentioned.
the insanity plea is intresting, and as a prescedent in court i am very concerned about the future rulings until the supreme court can make its judgement... but there seems to be no scientific backing that weed causes people to be insane. insanity in a legal setting simply means "unable to determine right from wrong" and the links provided give no clear evidence that weed in high or low dosage directly affects that.
and expenses.
im sorry i just cant justify if a substances legality can be determined by cost and production. meth and cocaine were mentioned by mps1213 and i feel he missed and opportunity to "capitalize" on this (yes, i laughed at that, dont judge me!)
racism is independent of the drugs affects, now it is true that racism is involved WITH the usage of drugs and society's response to media and reports on this are... not very encouraging.
as you may have noticed, im not weighing arguements as well as i should. i simply didnt invest in the debate as i should have. for that, i beg your pardon. if either of you feel my vote is wrong, by all means i give you and mods free reign to remove it.
i know it is irrelevant to this debate, but i feel that legalization is slowed by 2 things. 1: money acquired from getting it from outside the country. 2: ignorance and fear by many people due to broad brushes and stereotypes by the media.
it is likely that within 5 years cannabis will become completely legal.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mCu0_bi1kemyqjwZ-GNKKimzKlxnUHvsBuZdLvodzik/edit?usp=sharing
Good debate, guys. Close one.
Thanks for the vote!
Overall, this was a great debate. I apologize for voting late – it wouldn’t have changed anything, but still, it’s on me for not planning it into my after-school schedule.
Arguments:
This debate was definitely tricky to judge, since there were a lot of arguments, but the majority of them had little to no impact. I assumed roughly equal burdens for both sides, as they were arguing for the merits of opposing plans.
For CON, I wasn’t convinced by most of the arguments by the end of the debate. In particular, the racism and insanity plea arguments seemed to be particularly weak, as if they were just tacked on at the end for some extra fluff. His arguments about cost got turned around by the cost of current enforcement, while he failed to demonstrate any substantial, or concrete harms, for LEGALIZATION in particular – it's important to note that legalization won’t magically cause linearly increased harms, while prohibition won’t cause marijuana to disappear.
His first and second contentions were good, and I definitely weighed them substantially, as I buy that they go up linearly as marijuana use increases. The third and fourth go together, but were less convincing – people who are already addicted don’t care about whether marijuana is legal or not.
Meanwhile, PRO had some good sources and contentions, but he suffered from a lack of a focused structure. His contention about reducing overdoses from opioids was poorly supported and went nowhere. I did like some nice reversals and source contesting, it definitely mitigated CON’s case. On the other hand, the substantial whataboutism about other drugs, as well as some less relevant points, had little impact. However, there was an excellent contention about imprisonment, which was successful in mitigating CON’s societal harms.
In terms of rebuttals, CON did better in addressing all points, but did so in less depth. PRO dropped a few points, but he had strong rebuttals to many of CON’s main points. So both sides did decent here.
If both sides had fully proven their case was directly linked to the legalization (or prohibition) of marijuana, their impacts would be equal and I would probably leave it tied. However, there’s a crucial distinction here: PRO managed to use concrete data from the real world to demonstrate the effects of prohibition, while CON didn’t - all he did was cite harms of marijuana, and try to directly link them to legalization. However, without some sort of concrete number, or a case that the harms would be direct, and proportionate to the harms of not legalization marijuana, I don’t give it as much weight.
So all in all, arguments go to PRO, but it was a close one.
Sources:
Both sides did their due diligence with sources, and I saw no glaring gaps or inaccuracies in terms of what the sources said, and what it was claimed to say.
S/G:
Good by both sides.
Conduct:
Good by both sides – glad to see a minimum of ad hominems. Great sportsmanship by CON, offering to waive the “no forfeitures” rule, BTW.
Oh fuq, I had the Rfd written, but I forgot to post it. Very sorry and will post ASAP. It's good to see it didn't affect the result of the debate tho.
You seemed to reread it, but so it's more understandable, the tldr version is that if legalization makes people smoke less, then all the reasons marijuana is bad is reasons we should legalize it, that way less people actually smoke it.
In regard to the aggression thing, you should be playing terminal defense. In the wise words of Ray Liotta's character from Marriage Story, "If we start from a place of reasonable and they start from a place of crazy, when we settle we'll be somewhere between reasonable and crazy!"
Edit: Good example of this is me saying that gun control is good because all governments are good and citizens should never resist them.
You only have 12 hours left for your vote are you gonna be able to do it?
This was a very good debate, prolly the most interesting one I’ve had so far. As you can prolly tell cannabis is the one I’m used to debating the least, I’m usually discussing the “hard drugs” and their legalization and their pharmacology. Mainly because cannabis doesn’t interest me much, and it’s a pretty simple drug. I think it should be legalized but I also think the cannabis crowd is as annoying as the hippie psychedelic crowd so I try to engage in many discussions about because people only want to talk about how “healthy” it is. I still had a fun debate regardless.
You didn’t lol I’m joking
My bad, I didn’t mean it to come off that way.
I never had a problem with necessarily claiming that cannabis causes some people to be more aggressive. The claim I was trying to make is that the majority of cannabis users do not experience that. That is evident by the 20% statistic you cited.
Don’t patronize me lmao
Good job!
Nvm I read your vote more carefully.
Also post mortem blood tests are almost never useful which is why they’re usually pushed by people trying to push a certain rhetoric about drugs.
Hey, I may be misreading your vote, or misunderstanding, it seems you disagree with me. Is that is the case I just wanted to make sure you know I am Pro and Lancelot is Con. I disagree with some of what your vote said, however if you think Lancelot deserved your vote, which is what im getting from your reasoning, I wanted you to know that he is Con and I am pro so you can make sure you voted for the right person.
If you meant to give me the nod, maybe I misunderstood your vote or didn’t read it carefully enough.
Will be voting by end of today
Thanks for the vote!
Notes for Pro,
1. All the freedom stuff I said above.
2. Make sure to check your sources. The violence and aggression one sold you out, so read through an entire thing before you put it in.
3. Make sure you're answering the warrant Con says. If Con says that drivers self report, you need to talk about the unreliability of self-reporting, not post mortem analysis.
Notes for Con,
1. You get lost in the weeds of all the little points and missed the big picture. The legalization decreases use debate should have been a major place, not just you half-hearted questioning a source. There are certain arguments that are lynchpins and you have to check for that.
2. On the driving arguments, answer their post-mortem stuff, either by calling out the self-reporting for the judge or get in the mud about why post-mortem analysis good.
3. I don't really understand the racism argument. I think you need to flesh it way out for me to understand what exactly is going on here.
Really good job, if either side has any questions, feel free to reach out.
Very good debate, I vote Pro and here's why
1. I buy that mariujuana makes people more violent. The argument about endocannabinoid systems and a 20% increase in hostility through a study of 300k people won me over. The counter study that shows high doses suppress aggression even admit low doses increase aggression.
2. I buy that marijuana is a cause of psychosis. Even if there are other causes, this doesn't contest that marijuana is a cause.
3. I buy that marijuana causes higher accidents. Even if I whole heartedly buy Pro's argument about post-mortem being impossible to fully tell, Con sites 69% self-reporting to driving high.
4. In regard to the idea about motorcycles, nicotine, alcohol, etc. and other risky activities, I see this as a warrant for Pro's freedom claims. With that, I don't weigh this argument for three reasons.
A. I think Con makes the right argument when he says that freedom in a way that harms others is bad. Since they're winning aggression and driving, I think that they win freedom in this instance is bad.
B. Pro is not making freedom win anything. For example, should I have the freedom to murder people? We would say no because freedom in a vacuum isn't worth anything. Pro needs to be saying freedom, especially in this instance, is crucial to personal autonomy or quality of life and say that the negligible amount of deaths don't stack up to that. Freedom in a vacuum is less of a concern for me than deaths.
C. The other way Pro could have used this is ditch all the freedom stuff and say "alcohol, nicotine, and motorcycles make deaths on the road and through health issues and through aggression inevitable, even without marijuana. Since these are inevitable, it is only a question of the benefits from tax revenue" This means that, the idea of marijuana illegalization in a vacuum can't solve for the impacts of Con, but legalization lets you get your benefits. You didn't do any of this work, so I don't evaluate it.
5. I buy that cannabis is better than heroin and that heroin rates of addiction go down when cannabis rates go up. Con says that we shouldn't have addiction, but this doesn't seem responsive to Pro's argument.
6. I believe adolescent drug use and drug use goes down writ large with legalization. Con never answers when Pro says this. Simply restating statistics that show kids in the status quo use drugs doesn't prove anything if it is still less than 50 years ago. While the question of how "legal" drugs are due to state bans would have been a good answer, this is not brought up.
7. For the racism argument, Con falls into the trap of posting links but not doing the work in round. Outside of that, however, I buy that regulations make it hard for POC to get into the industry. Pro does bring up in the fourth round, that policing and jailing negatively affects them worse, as was jailing brought up earlier in the debate, so I feel ok evaluating this for Pro. If systemic racism impacts POC either way, it is better for them to be unable to own a business than go to jail.
8. I take the drug crime stuff as a wash. Both of yall gave one example of drugs getting someone off and drugs getting someone charged. Seems equal.
9. On the costs, I buy that legalization is expensive because of all the supporting costs.
10. People go to jail for simple possession.
11. Children of people in jail are more likely to go to jail.
In conclusion, either side could win the debate from the facts that have been set out before me. The issue is that neither side is saying "car accident deaths are worse than jail time" or vice versa in a way that can give me an easy out. However, my go to is to first way safety versus freedom, and I think I did that evaluation above with a notes. I prioritize safety because those are lives and I'm not given a reason to prefer freedom. With that, I then ask, does legalization decrease drug use, which I find it does. With that, not only does legalization stop jail time, but in a roundabout way, solves all of the violence of drugs.
Thx, whiteflame!
i will respond once ive looked over the sources and weighed the arguements. Got a week to vote.
ill probably respond tomorrow or friday
What are your personal thoughts on marijuana?
will be praying for you and the company and yalls families.
Wow… you have my condolences, that sounds awful. Generally, when the reason is good, I tend not to factor forfeits, even when it comes to conduct.
I’ll waive the forfeit rule. This will not count against you, given the circumstances.
You have my condolences.
Hey guys, i don’t want any sympathy votes or anything, so please stil vote objectively. I don’t know if I’ll be able to do the argument today, I’ll try not to forfeit. My company’s private plane went down and killed everyone on board today and I lost a buddy, and some other people I knew. So if I end up forfeiting that’s why, but I will try not to.
Thanks mate, I look forward to the final round.
Good response.
AleutianTexan, AustinL, and whiteflame will read through everything. I know that from previous votes.
I will be thoroughly impressed if the judges read all of this. I wouldn’t blame you if you guys closed your eyes and pressed random buttons lol
Well that’s good, your arguments are philosophically sound and coherent I just simply disagree with your stance. I also think your evidence leaves a lot to be desired most of it is assumptions based off of other assumptions
Hey guys, I’ll be at work until about 8:00 tonight. I may have time to respond during work but most likely not.
You have good arguments. I feel like the biggest issue here is simple philosophical disagreements. And that’s fine, I respect you for at least being educated and using evidence to support your beliefs. This next round will solely be dedicated to combatting your points, the final round will be solely dedicated to putting my points forward regardless of yours.
Good debate. I know we talk shit but I respect you more than most anti-drug advocates.
Ran out of characters again, 10,000 isn’t enough to discuss a topic this intricate. I have some sources for you guys
MPTP toxicity: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK27974/
Cannabis use among high schooler trends: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4629476/
Thanks for doing this debate honestly. I think you’re taking the wrong approach to it as a whole, but you seem to be well versed enough to st least give some reasons for your beliefs. I just think your beliefs on this topic are constructed by looking at these risks you put forward in the wrong way. You’re not uneducated on this topic. I just think you’re maybe using a little bit of confirmation bias at the least. I also think you’re seeing these issues as something solely brought on by cannabis, and not the social aspects of being a cannabis user, bad science surrounding cannabis use, and the lack of education surrounding the use of drugs in general. There is such thing as bad science, studies can be poorly conducted, data can be misinterpreted, etc. which is what I think you seem to be doing or at less the sources you are citing seem to be doing. Which is why the study i published presented an actual mechanism for aggression responses in cannabis users, where yours was based off of cases that could have many more variables integrated into the situation besides just cannabis use. That is where the issues of most social studies interpreting drug risks start to fail. They aren’t establishing a mechanism for their claim, for example, what exactly is happening in the brain to make people more aggressive? Or was cannabis the only factor in these cases of violence where cannabis was in the system? If not how did we rule out these other factors as possible causes for these 14 cases your study mentioned? It’s much more complicated than just looking at violent offenders who use cannabis and saying cannabis caused it.
I had a lot more to say, but I ran out of characters, my next argument will be less focused on your points and trying to convince the judges of my points.
You said a lot of good stuff, however I just think you approaching this issue and these statistics in the wrong way. I will show the judges and you, the way I approach the issues and risks of drug use, cannabis specifically in this debate, and see if I can convince people.
Good debate.
This seems like a good debate along with good judges.
I'm glad to be spectating.
That was just a practice debate for me. 😂
I spent too many debates defending socialism, so I needed to switch it up.
I have a strong opinion on this one, however, I seem to vote against my opinions all the time, so no bias. As a socialist, I just voted free market capitalism good, lol.
It's all good. Looking forward to a good debate. I do have an opinion on this one, but it's not a strong one and I think there are good cases to be made for both sides.
Glad to hear that.
As long as you get your response in before the 3-day round deadline, it doesn't affect things.
Just wanna let the judges know, I’m working 15 hours a day at an oil spill. I’m usually very good about responding quickly but I may be responding late at night for this entire debate.
Although I do have some personal bias, I promise that my vote will be fair and objective to the debate.
AleutianTexan and Whiteflame are the most objective voters I know.
Zero risk of bias corruption.
I accepted at the very least.
Gotcha, never done a debate like this.
What happens if the judges don’t accept here.
Bet, if I have time while I’m at work, which is doubtful I’ll try to get an argument done early. If not it’ll be a in about 8-10 hours from now.