Instigator / Pro
Points: 7

Marijuana is better for you than alcohol

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
RationalMadman
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Health
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
Points: 14
Description
No information
Round 1
Published:
Published:
The title of this debate actually reads that marijuana is better for you than marijuana is for alcohol. The reason I won't tie Pro's hands here and tether him to that resolution is that it ultimately benefits neither of us as that resolution becomes 'it can't harm alcohol but it can't help it either' so it revolves around what makes something 'better' and the concept of opportunity cost which would leave voters in limbo as to who actually won.

Therefore, I agree with Pro's notion (read the contents of his links and you'll see) that the Resolution of this debate is that Pro believes marijuana is better for 'you' (the reader) than alcohol is for you (the reader). The correct way to write this is 'Marijuana is better than alcohol for you.' and a variant that would be grammatically correct is 'For you, Marijuana is better than alcohol." Con agrees to Pro's interpretation of their resolution because it helps us both to keep the dynamic that way so I won't troll semantics here.


Contention 1: It is legally worse for you and this is psychologically worse for you.
Just so you know, even in the US states that legalised a strict amount of recreational Marijuana, it's illegal in the US under technicalities of Federal Law and its relationship with State Law [https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/8/20/17938372/marijuana-legalization-federal-prohibition-drug-scheduling-system].


If you break the law, you will experience anxiety and it can lead to chronic stress, even culminating into depression and this will make you very unhappy. The stress also will come from being torn between snitching on your dealer (or snitching on your higher ranking dealer/supplier if you're on that end of things) or facing a longer sentence meaning you're sandwiched between feeling guilty or being in prison, which has a whole lot of psychological drawbacks to it that I'll go into in the next Round if challenged on this by Pro.


Contention 2: It is morally worse for your Karmic-Debt / Guilt-Free Mind / Spiritual Quality to damage your brain and/or lungs in the long run.

Damaging your own body and mind, such a precious gift of nature and/or God (if there is one) to you is very bad to do, you ungrateful sinner. Jesus drank wine and alcohol is alright but Marijuana is a big no-no with the only Religion encouraging it (Rastafari) being completely illegal even in its founding nations of Jamaica and Trinidad & Tobago.

Marijuana, if smoked is going to lead you to develop severe lung damage (potentially cancer) [https://www.thoracic.org/patients/patient-resources/resources/marijuana.pdf] and if you get lung transplants, that's going to mean someone had to die for you to get that (no matter how unlikely the chance of survival, lungs are taken from someone who technically could live):

The major impetus for medical, community, and legal acceptance of brain death is the need for organ donation from “beating heart” donors. A declaration of brain death is only used for this purpose, and is not a prerequisite for treatment withdrawal for other reasons. As Professor Lovell, a pioneer of renal transplantation in Australia, remarked: “The law did enter in a specific way . . . as the transplantation programme developed, because of the desire for a legal definition of death that was relevant to obtaining kidneys from cadavers”.10 In 1968 a Japanese surgeon conducted the first heart transplant operation in that country and was charged with unlawfully killing both the donor and the recipient. Since that time clinicians and policy makers have responded to the possibility of such events by insisting that donors of vital organs first be declared dead. This became known as the “dead donor rule”.

The dead donor rule solved the problem that organ donation appeared to involve a form of murder, and the redefinition of death as “brain death” allowed organ transplantation to continue.

Livers can be donated without killing the person with the liver[https://nhsbtdbe.blob.core.windows.net/umbraco-assets-corp/11356/27709-234mv-could-i-be-a-living-liver-donor.pdf], it also grows back over time meaning you haven't even reduced their permanent quality of life (just temporary)[https://www.mayo.edu/research/centers-programs/center-regenerative-medicine/focus-areas/liver-regeneration] and even on top of that (or rather linked directly to it) there's ways to trigger the non-healing liver of the alcohol-destroyed liver patient into healing itself without transplants, which may become mainstream in the foreseeable future[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/with-liver-donors-in-short-supply-cell-transplants-offer-new-options/].

Aside from the guilt of killing someone, there's the added fact that smoking Marijuana guarantees your lung damage, the more you have of it with its effects being permanent almost when, on the other hand, alcohol's damaging of the liver is reversible and one can have an optimal-health liver while regularly (not too regularly) drinking if the rest of their diet and lifestyle are healthy enough. A habit of drinking when you eat (and not drinking on an empty-stomach) is a huge support to a healthy lifestyle in achieving what I just said is possible.[https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-06/ace-ldi060704.php]

So, what's the brain damage associated with Marijuana? What is it that I will do to handle the 'you can eat it, not smoke it' lines? Well, if you're underage, alcohol and Marijuana both affect you badly but what is true is that no matter what quantity of Marijuana you have, it damages the developing brain permanently in a way that alcohol won't do to you even if you have it while younger than the legal age. What also happens is that it's very likely that this is happening to adults who have Marijuana over time but because the 'bad' is literally what the 'good' parts of Marijuana are, in adults, it won't be enough to stop the places that have begun to legalise it to necessarily stop.

Everything that's 'good' about Marijuana is linked to the permanent brain hampering it does to you. The 'feel good' vibe? That's you ignoring consequences of your actions. The 'relaxed' emotional state? That's you ignoring consequences of your actions. The 'increased focus on pleasure and experiencing more intense orgasm' aspect? That's your brain not focusing on other things, it's also a complete lie. See, you can have just as powerful a psychological orgasm while having a physical orgasm if you train your brain to focus and conclude that your mind shouldn't worry or think about anything else. Women have squirted many a time being totally sober or slightly inebriated (with alcohol) but what's unique about Marijuana is it forces the brain to not be smart and alert enough to focus on anything but that orgasm while having it, including ignoring the pleasure (or lack thereof) of the partner. The reason you feel so great and chilled while having Marijuana is that your brain is losing neural connections (or at least having them brutally slowed) so that it can basically work like a retard's brain (and you should NEVER give clinically retarded people Marijuana but you can give them alcohol). It makes you idiotic, less focused on the consequences of your actions and in underage people permanently reduces IQ for their adult brain.[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3600466/]


Contention 3: If you're with a cunning person who wants to date-rape you (or who ends up date-raping you, whether or not they planned it ahead of time) it's much easier on you, psychologically and psychosomatically, to both know it was rape and prove it was rape if you were drunk as opposed to high.

I think it's possible that Pro will counter this with 'yeah and if you want to do the date-raping, then weed is better' but my first contention counters that as does basic morality and the fact that this is a putrid and stupid notion to make/take as most 'you's' do not want to rape someone but everyone can be conned into becoming a date-rape victim and while raping has negative and positive aspects to the experience and aftermath, being raped has only negative ones.

If you're date-raped and were high, you firstly must think of my first contention. Aside from needing to plead guilty to having Marijuana recreationally, it is also very hard to explain in court (and an extreme grey area, legally, in all places where Marijuana is legal even when it's medical) that you being high reduced your brain's self control and ability to analyse the situation and stop the rape happening. You also will struggle to even know within yourself if you really wanted it or not as Marijuana makes you open to new experiences automatically. It forces optimism onto you and reduces your capacity to think ahead or focus on anything but the immediate. If you’re drunk enough, it’s a clear cut case to others and you that you blatantly had too little self-control and ability to process the situation to have consented to the sex as alcohol brutally reduces reaction time and reasoning enabling increased pleasure at the price of decreased rationality.

The additional thing is that the effect on your body of being high while being raped and what that does to your brain chemistry afterwards is you begin to associate severe terror and being trapped with the feeling of being relaxed; meaning you begin to crave high-risk adrenaline rush as your only way to feel any pleasure at all. This is beyond PTSD, this is a trap you set for yourself by being high while being raped. Being high in any high-risk scenario is terrible for your brain's subconscious because it begins to completely ignore worry and you forget that fear is a good thing when it keeps you alive and/or safe from terror and being raped.



Round 2
Published:
Contention 1: It is legally worse for you and this is psychologically worse for you.
None of this is inherently relevant to marijuana. If none of these laws and conditions were in place then the problems would disappear, thus in all the cases you mentioned it is society doing the harm rather than weed itself. The same exact shit can be said about alcohol under the prohibition. Furthermore, I personally do not give a fuck, so on another level it your own mentality that causes the psychologically negative affects you mentioned. For those who don't give a flying ass biscuit about the law or what people think there is no problem.

Contention 2: It is morally worse for your Karmic-Debt / Guilt-Free Mind / Spiritual Quality to damage your brain and/or lungs in the long run.
This is just crap. What the fuck is any of this, it has no basis in reality. I don't believe in or care about karma or spirituality, and even if what you are saying WAS valid alcohol is more damaging to your body so it is also worse in the ways you mentioned.

Jesus drank wine and alcohol is alright but Marijuana is a big no-no with the only Religion encouraging it (Rastafari) being completely illegal even in its founding nations of Jamaica and Trinidad & Tobago.
No religion whatsoever expressly forbids marijuana unless it vaguely forbids intoxication which includes alcohol. Rastafarianism is just as valid as any other retarded superstition and according to some rastafarians Jesus LITERALLY IS A METAPHOR FOR MARIJUANA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lNv5-kBBi8

Marijuana both affect you badly but what is true is that no matter what quantity of Marijuana you have, it damages the developing brain permanently in a way that alcohol won't do to you even if you have it while younger than the legal age.
Alcohol is worse for a developing brain than weed. There is nothing to suggest that marijuana has a more "permanent" affect. Alcohol can cause permanent brain damage in both children and adults.
 Marijuana CAN be worse if you have certain mental illnesses, but in most cases weed is harmless to the brain. I am literally lighting a joint right now, see if it makes me more stupid. I was drunk last night and you could tell, but you can't tell when I'm just high.

Contention 3: If you're with a cunning person who wants to date-rape you (or who ends up date-raping you, whether or not they planned it ahead of time) it's much easier on you, psychologically and psychosomatically, to both know it was rape and prove it was rape if you were drunk as opposed to high.
This is genuinely hilarious. If you are drunk you can get much more impaired then when you're high if you are like most people, especially if you have a tolerance to marijuana. The things you bring up are a stretch, but what is direct and tangible is the fact that alcohol can genuinely make you retarded and unaware of what's going on.

If you're date-raped and were high, you firstly must think of my first contention. Aside from needing to plead guilty to having Marijuana recreationally,
a problem created by society, not weed.

it is also very hard to explain in court (and an extreme grey area, legally, in all places where Marijuana is legal even when it's medical) that you being high reduced your brain's self control and ability to analyse the situation and stop the rape happening. 
That's the thing though, marijuana DOESN'T impair you to that extent unless your brain was already fucked up before hand. Give me one example of that happening and I'll give you a free Xbox.
You also will struggle to even know within yourself if you really wanted it or not as Marijuana makes you open to new experiences automatically. It forces optimism onto you and reduces your capacity to think ahead or focus on anything but the immediate.
Only if you exaggerate it's affects or only look at people who are sensitive to it. Alcohol generally impairs your brain worse in ways that make molesting you much easier.
The additional thing is that the effect on your body of being high while being raped and what that does to your brain chemistry afterwards is you begin to associate severe terror and being trapped with the feeling of being relaxed; meaning you begin to crave high-risk adrenaline rush as your only way to feel any pleasure at all. This is beyond PTSD, this is a trap you set for yourself by being high while being raped. Being high in any high-risk scenario is terrible for your brain's subconscious because it begins to completely ignore worry and you forget that fear is a good thing when it keeps you alive and/or safe from terror and being raped.

Wow. If all that happens to you just because you're high you must have had a very fragile mind to start with.
Published:
I'm going to make this very clear; I can't highlight how Marijuana has been gradually depleting your brain inside of a formal debate because it will lose me the conduct mark. Let's just say there's a reason that your stats are what they are and my stats are what they are. There's a reason you structure your debates like you have in this debate and I structure both my attack angles and representation of my debates as I do. 

Marijuana does permanently damage the brain if you have it underage whereas alcohol either kills you, is so bad it has damaged the liver past the point where it can regenerate as fast as it is being chemically deformed and/or destroyed or it ends up reversible in its damage. Marijuana is basically always smoked and if you have the food variant this is worse in the sense that it affects you slowly but surely and you can't suddenly 'snap into gear' by stopping eating it (it's already eaten) to kill the high to be able to drive well or work well so the smoking has a benefit in dealing with daily life that is not there with the eating method. Unlike the liver damage that well-controlled drinking does, there is no possible way to regularly intake marijuana other than by the edibles method (which is severely unpopular for the reasons just stated and I will get to that later) that doesn't gradually hurt the lungs more and more until you're a wheezing mess but let's just stop saying what we 'think' and deal with the facts, yeah?

Notice how everything in my Round 1 other than the marijuana vs alcohol effect on children is basically untouched by Pro? The very fact it's illegal or that you have to hide your usage of it if you go over the legal quantity makes Marijuana automatically have 2 aspects to it that are detrimental which alcohol does not. The other aspect was compounding with the date-rape scenario.

Let's start with brain damage and marijuana. The reason I like this one as a first point for my Round 2 is that it directly deals with all forms of Marijuana intake (meaning even non-lunch-damaging ones) and helps me severely in explaining how subtly toxic this drug is.

Underage brains and the permanence of the damage:
Indeed, a number of studies have found evidence of brain changes in teens and young adults who smoke marijuana. In 2013, Rocío Martín-Santos, MD, PhD, at the University of Barcelona, and colleagues reviewed 43 studies of chronic cannabis use and the brain. They found consistent evidence of both structural brain abnormalities and altered neural activity in marijuana users. Only eight of those studies focused on adolescents, but the findings from those studies suggested that both structural and functional brain changes emerge soon after adolescents start using the drug. Those changes may still be evident after a month of abstaining from the drug, the researchers reported (PLOS ONE, 2013).

Some of those brain abnormalities have been linked to cognitive differences. Gruber found that regular, heavy marijuana users — those who reported smoking five of the last seven days, and more than 2,500 times in their lives — had damage to their brains' white matter, which helps enable communication among neurons. Those white matter changes were correlated with higher impulsivity, she found, particularly in people who began smoking before age 16 (Psychopharmacology, 2013).

Much of Gruber's work compares heavy, regular marijuana users who began before and after age 16. Her results suggest there's greater risk in starting young. Compared with users who began after 16, early-onset smokers made twice as many mistakes on tests of executive function, which included planning, flexibility, abstract thinking and inhibition of inappropriate responses. As adults, those who started using before 16 reported smoking nearly 25 times per week, while those who started later smoked half as often, about 12 times per week. The early-onset smokers also reported smoking an average of nearly 15 grams each week, versus about 6 grams for their late-onset counterparts (Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 2012).

Gruber's participants had reported using marijuana at least five times in the past week. But other labs have found structural differences in the brains of less frequent users. Jodi Gilman, PhD, at Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Center for Addiction Medicine, and colleagues used MRI to look for brain changes in 18- to 25-year-olds who smoked marijuana at least once per week, but were not dependent on the drug.

Compared with nonusers, the smokers had changes in the shape, volume and gray matter density of two brain regions associated with addiction: the nucleus accumbens (which plays a role in motivation, pleasure and reward processing) and the amygdala (a region involved in memory, emotion and decision-making). Participants who smoked more often had more significant differences (Journal of Neuroscience, 2014).

Conrod said her team took a “big data” approach to the study. They looked at 3,826 teens starting from seventh grade from 31 Montreal-area schools over the course of four years. The students who participated sent back annual reports that documented their level of alcohol and marijuana use. The researchers also gave the teens cognitive tests to gauge the teens’ working memory, perceptual reasoning, recall memory, and inhibition.

To make sure they got the most honest responses from the students, these reports were confidential. Parents and teachers, not allowed.

The study authors reported that teens who used cannabis more often than others had cognitive function changes that appeared “to be more pronounced than those observed for alcohol.”

Conrod said the results should be a cautionary tale to teens as they contemplate marijuana use at a young age.

“Our findings suggest young people should do everything they can to delay the onset of their cannabis use, if not avoid it entirely,” she added. “I do not recommend it; clearly there are health risks associated with cannabis.”

It’s certainly not the first study to look at what cannabis could do to cognitive development. In June, JAMA Psychiatry published a review that looked at 69 past studies on cannabis use among young people. The authors found that some past studies might have actually overstated “the magnitude and persistence of cognitive deficits” tied to cannabis use. They found in their review that abstaining from cannabis for 72 hours or longer could also diminish some of the negative impact of cannabis on a young person’s brain.

This new research is larger than a lot of these older studies. Danielle Ramo, PhD, associate professor in residence and licensed psychologist in the department of psychiatry and the Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), told Healthline that making a direct comparison between alcohol and cannabis use made this study unique. She said most studies of this kind usually just look at one substance.

“This study presents stronger evidence that alcohol and cannabis both affect the teen brain by impacting memory and executive functioning,” said Ramo. “However, it went further to suggest that if cannabis use persists throughout adolescence, the impacts on cognitive functioning are greater over time, and this effect was stronger among those who started using earlier.”

Ramos explained that teens who start to use these substances earlier in life may face greater consequences as they age.

“Earlier use that persists throughout adolescence is associated with greater burden on teens’ ability to process new information and to ‘stop and think’ in the face of complex stimuli,” Ramo said. “These effects may even be greater than the effects of alcohol on the teen brain.”

She said the study’s findings are particularly timely as marijuana enters more of the mainstream.

“In an era in which cannabis laws are becoming more permissive, the message to teens should still be that cannabis use is detrimental to the teen brain, and use should be avoided to ensure healthy brain development,” Ramo added.

Adults and underage both (includes mental illness here and explores white matter and grey matter damage)
Substantial evidence from animal research and a growing number of studies in humans indicate that marijuana exposure during development can cause long-term or possibly permanent adverse changes in the brain. Rats exposed to THC before birth, soon after birth, or during adolescence show notable problems with specific learning and memory tasks later in life.32–34 Cognitive impairments in adult rats exposed to THC during adolescence are associated with structural and functional changes in the hippocampus.35–37 Studies in rats also show that adolescent exposure to THC is associated with an altered reward system, increasing the likelihood that an animal will self-administer other drugs (e.g., heroin) when given an opportunity.

Imaging studies of marijuana’s impact on brain structure in humans have shown conflicting results. Some studies suggest regular marijuana use in adolescence is associated with altered connectivity and reduced volume of specific brain regions involved in a broad range of executive functions such as memory, learning, and impulse control compared to people who do not use.38,39 Other studies have not found significant structural differences between the brains of people who do and do not use the drug.40

Several studies, including two large longitudinal studies, suggest that marijuana use can cause functional impairment in cognitive abilities but that the degree and/or duration of the impairment depends on the age when a person began using and how much and how long he or she used.41

Among nearly 4,000 young adults in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults study tracked over a 25-year period until mid-adulthood, cumulative lifetime exposure to marijuana was associated with lower scores on a test of verbal memory but did not affect other cognitive abilities such as processing speed or executive function. The effect was sizeable and significant even after eliminating those involved with current use and after adjusting for confounding factors such as demographic factors, other drug and alcohol use, and other psychiatric conditions such as depression.42

A large longitudinal study in New Zealand found that persistent marijuana use disorder with frequent use starting in adolescence was associated with a loss of an average of 6 or up to 8 IQ points measured in mid-adulthood.43 Significantly, in that study, those who used marijuana heavily as teenagers and quit using as adults did not recover the lost IQ points. People who only began using marijuana heavily in adulthood did not lose IQ points. These results suggest that marijuana has its strongest long-term impact on young people whose brains are still busy building new connections and maturing in other ways. The endocannabinoid system is known to play an important role in the proper formation of synapses (the connections between neurons) during early brain development, and a similar role has been proposed for the refinement of neural connections during adolescence. If the long-term effects of marijuana use on cognitive functioning or IQ are upheld by future research, this may be one avenue by which marijuana use during adolescence produces its long-term effects.44

There is one of two things possible; either dumb people both enjoy and are less capable of stopping Marijuana use (and the degree to which it's more idiots than smart people is much more severe in underage users of the drug) or the correlation is not purely due to that and there really is brain damage. Look into my sources and figure it out for yourself. There's a reason they'll never know; it would never be considered ethical to give underage people Marijuana for the sake of a science test. Therefore, the data always can be brushed off with 'na, it's just that dumber people tend to use Marijuana at an earlier age and more frequently on top of that so of course the worse brains intellectually and in terms of verbal output end up being the ones who get high.' but this is frankly still relevant to this debate on the side of Con as it implies if you like Marijuana you're both stupid and verbally hindered in your development and that you need to improve on those things; which Marijuana is proven at the very least to not help with improving at all but make worse on top of that.

Let's look more into the lung damage that happens with the non-edible eaters of Marijuana and non-intellectual brain damage (or how it makes mental illnesses worse basically):

Countering the validity of medical marijuana (especially in treating bronchitis; oh Lord, how foolish must you be to do this?)
Smoking Marijuana

When marijuana is traditionally consumed through smoking, it spreads at least 33 known carcinogens, 300 additional chemicals, and deposits 4 times as much tar into the lungs as cigarette smoke. Due to the method in which marijuana is smoked–typically deeper than cigarettes with a tendency to hold the smoke in the lungs longer– these variations only contribute to making the inherent negative effects of smoking worse.

Due to the mixed legality of medical marijuana, there are few studies available showing or disproving the effectiveness of medical marijuana as a form of treatment. As the topic of medical marijuana is explored further as a form of treatment for lung disease, the question remains: how does marijuana affect someone who struggles with chronic bronchitis? Some tests indicate the positive effects of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) on opening the airways, while others point to negative outcomes from marijuana smoke inhalation.

Chronic bronchitis flare-ups can occur whether instigated or not.  Adding smoke of any kind can cause symptoms of chronic bronchitis to become severe, especially coughing, sputum (phlegm), wheezing and shortness of breath. Although studies have shown that a low rate of marijuana use (1-2 joints a month) can be beneficial for those with chronic lung disease, while habitual marijuana use (25 joints a month) can weaken immunostimulatory cytokines and in turn, weaken the immune system. Smoking marijuana, coupled with chronic bronchitis, can lead to a higher probability of developing a lung infection as well.


THC and Chronic Bronchitis

There have been some conflicting studies that have produced results that THC, the main psychoactive component of marijuana, is actually good for your lungs. The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) has approved THC as a drug, which means that THC’s benefits outweigh its risks. Studies have also shown that THC can act as a bronchodilator, increasing airflow to the lungs. In turn, this could increase lung functioning and efficiency. However, although THC is an approved drug and has some beneficial attributes to lung disease symptoms, consuming THC products does not necessarily constitute a safe form of treatment for people diagnosed with chronic bronchitis.

Although the use of medical marijuana can serve as a temporary method of treatment, the inability to avoid the side effects (being ‘high’) and its mixed legality leaves its use as a future form of medication uncertain. Although COPD currently has no cure, new discoveries are being made every day in the field of cellular research. As the scientific community continues to put their best minds to the task of solving the problems and complications of the human body, the Lung Institute will continue to bring these advancements to the public with the hope of bettering quality of life for those who need it most.

The Lung Institute has helped hundreds of people seeking an alternative treatment for COPD by using the cells in their own body to promote healing. If you’re looking to make a profound change in your life or the life of someone you love, the time is now. If you or a loved one suffers from COPD, or another lung disease, the Lung Institute may be able to help with a variety of cellular treatment options. Contact us at 888-745-6697 today to find out if you qualify for cellular therapy.

The point is, it's neither good or bad for the disease when compared to other medications that are undeniably better for a lung disease.

Let's look more into what Marijuana is like for the lungs and into just how bad it is physically and in terms of psychiatry.

Don’t Let Medicine in Missouri Go to Pot: Oppose Sham Medical Marijuana Referenda on November 2018 Ballot


Docs, listen up. Keep Missouri voters from passing legal but ‘sham’ non-needed, medical marijuana laws. Vigorously oppose all three referenda1 on the Missouri November general election ballot that would legalize medical marijuana (‘pot, weed, cannabis’) in the Show Me state.

We don’t need more social/medical nightmares like tobacco and opioids, both of which physicians initially aided and abetted. (Figure 1) Physician colleagues and medical professionals, “Show Me’ some responsibility this time! Commit to educating your patients, contributing your time, your money, and your vote to defeating sham medical pot. Every state, notably well documented in Colorado,2 that has enacted medical cannabis has created a tsunami of medical, social, educational, judicial, law enforcement, and business crises. Medical marijuana cards are available to practically anyone and diversion to recreational use and under-aged youth is the inevitable default setting. We don’t need these problems in Missouri.

Physicians, dentists and nurses were used to promote and sell cigarettes. Many prescribed smoking for throat irritation, nervousness and anxiety. Physician and medical professionals must avoid these mistakes and oppose sham medical marijuana in Missouri.

“Big Weed” is the termed coined for the coalition of businesses, corporations, individuals that is profiting enormously from state by state passing ‘medical’ and/or ‘recreational’ marijuana into law by referenda. Millions of Big Weed dollars are flowing into Missouri to open a new market of cannabis dependent customers, much the same as Big Tobacco abetted habituating millions to their nicotine laced, health destroying products. Big Weed is contemptuously, but effectively, emulating the marketing plan of “Big Tobacco.” Big Weed’s resources far surpass the responsible ‘weed-killing’ opposition. Big Weed’s high-power advocates have cleverly ‘sweetened’ their noxious products by allocating a tiny 2-15% tax to be used for the likes of military veterans, cancer research, childhood education, and drug addiction. What, not widows, orphans, and homeless animals? Clever? Yes. But this is the equivalent of ‘hiding behind hostages.” There are no limits on the greed, duplicity and ‘total war’ tactics of Big Tobacco, Big Opioids and now Big Weed, the latest member of the Health Apocalypse Henchmen.

In Canada, which has virtually anything goes cannabis, several large brewing companies are spooling up to sell cannabis infused drinks3 to offset the fall in beer sales. Idiotically, their industry refers to this as “the logical fourth leg” of commercialization: beer, wine, liquor and cannabis. Obviously, they imbibe a lot of their own products. I have unsolicited received about a half dozen offers to invest in limited partnerships that will profit from distributing sham medical marijuana of unknown composition. Medical weed is not even remotely a proper medicine of known composition, known quantity, and approved by FDA testing/approval process. Substantial monies are promised to investors and a growing, eventually nation-wide pot market. Medical marijuana laws are Big Weed’s Trojan Horse to create astronomical profit from dependent non-medical customers and pave the way for eventual recreational ‘anything goes’ cannabis.

Much to their regret and shame, Colorado physicians and medical groups did not actively oppose medical and later recreational cannabis. The Colorado Medical Society4 is urging other state medical organizations not to make the same mistake: “Other states facing legislative efforts to legalize marijuana should consider Colorado’s experience as a cautionary tale. Approving medical treatments by ballot initiatives sets a dangerous precedent for public health. This will be one of the great social experiments of the century.” (emphasis added)

Responsible Missouri physician organizations are officially on board opposing the three sham medical marijuana referenda include: Missouri State Medical Association, AMA, Kansas City Medical Society, Greene County Medical Society, St. Louis Metropolitan Medical Society, Missouri Society of Eye Physicians & Surgeons (we ophthalmologists don’t need marijuana to treat glaucoma, makes treatment worse). Missouri Medicine regular readers will note many articles outlining scientifically the case against using true medical problems of patients as a straw man/woman for passing medical marijuana. 5 Many of these cannabis articles are from a writing group from Colorado coordinated by Ken P. Finn, MD, a widely known and respected pain-management specialist. This issue of Missouri Medicine presents other vital information for physicians beginning on the next page.

Many patients, and some physicians, believe that legitimate FDA approved medical research is not being done and would be facilitated by passing these sham medical marijuana referenda. Not so! The FDA has approved cannabis-based medicines via legitimate pure drug pathway: canabidiol (Epidolex) for the treatment for certain rare seizure disorders but with potential to help other more common types of childhood seizures; dronabinol (Marinol) for nausea and vomiting of chemotherapy and weight loss/poor appetite in HIV patients; and nabilone (Cesamet) for nausea and vomiting of chemotherapy when other drugs fail. Some restrictions on legitimate research on pure cannabis chemicals as real drugs might certainly be considered at the FDA level. Nor should we confuse this vote with the issue of decriminalization of small amounts of pot for personal use. Twenty-four states and over 50 large municipalities have passed decriminalization law more are in the process. This is not the issue we are voting on, nor is alcohol caused social/medical/judicial problems. Conflating tobacco, alcohol, and opioid problems to make cannabis appear a minor vice is a debating trope used by Big Weed to misdirect and misinform voters. This issue is sham medical marijuana.

It is worth stating again that all state legalization of cannabis for sham medical and recreational use is in violation of Federal Law, a fact all Presidents to date have chosen not to enforce and whom two, Clinton and Obama, have admitted to recreational pot use.

Most physicians look back with incredulity and disgust on some of our forebears: physicians, dentists, nurses in the 1940s and 50s who recommended and were used in commercial advertisements (Figure 1) for tobacco products; late 1990s to mid 2000s opioid industry compensated physicians like Russell Portenoy, MD,6 and the Kansas City Center for Practical Bioethics/Myra Christopher, RN, who shilled for the pain pill industry7 We must not make the same mistakes. We physicians, and hopefully a broad coalition of healthcare professionals, institutions, educators, law enforcement, children and public welfare advocates and all informed citizens must band together and defeat the three harmful sham medical marijuana referenda on the Missouri November General Election Ballot (Figure 2).
- Look at this source for the figures and the references: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6205287/
- Hagan J. C. (2018). Don't Let Medicine in Missouri Go to Pot: Oppose Sham Medical Marijuana Referenda on November 2018 Ballot. Missouri medicine115(5), 392-393.

Using cannabis triggers mental health problems in people who seemed to be well before, or it can worsen any mental health problems you already have.

Research has shown that people who are already at risk of developing mental health problems are more likely to start showing symptoms of mental illness if they use cannabis regularly. For example if someone in your family has depression or schizophrenia, you are at higher risk of getting these illness when you use cannabis.

The younger you are when you start using it, the more you may be at risk. This is because your brain is still developing and can be more easily damaged by the active chemicals in cannabis.

If you stop using cannabis once you have started to show symptoms of mental illness, such as depression, paranoia or hearing voices, these symptoms may go away. However, not everyone will get better just by stopping smoking.

If you go on using cannabis, the symptoms can get worse. It can also make any treatment that your doctor might prescribe for you, work less well. Your illness may come back more quickly, and more often if you continue to use cannabis once you get well again.

Some people with mental health problems find that using cannabis makes them feel a bit better for a while. Unfortunately this does not last, and it does nothing to treat the illness. In fact, it may delay you from getting help you need and the illness may get worse in the longer term.

Adverse Consequences of Marijuana Use

Acute (present during intoxication)
  • Impaired short-term memory
  • Impaired attention, judgment, and other cognitive functions
  • Impaired coordination and balance
  • Increased heart rate
  • Anxiety, paranoia
  • Psychosis (uncommon)

Persistent (lasting longer than intoxication, but may not be permanent)
  • Impaired learning and coordination
  • Sleep problems

Long-term (cumulative effects of repeated use)
  • Potential for marijuana addiction
  • Impairments in learning and memory with potential loss of IQ*
  • Increased risk of chronic cough, bronchitis
  • Increased risk of other drug and alcohol use disorders
  • Increased risk of schizophrenia in people with genetic vulnerability**
*Loss of IQ among individuals with persistent marijuana use disorder who began using heavily during adolescence

**These are often reported co-occurring symptoms/disorders with chronic marijuana use. However, research has not yet determined whether marijuana is causal or just associated with these mental problems.
- PLEASE LOOK AT THE LINK FOR THE RESEARCH BEHIND THESE BULLET POINTED CONCLUSIONS

Now let's end off with the date-rape point.

What we know:
• Sexual assault is underreported, and substance use during sexual assault is further underreported.
• Marijuana is the most common drug reported (other than alcohol) when drugs are present in sexual assault.
• Marijuana is often used together with alcohol in sexual assault.
• Marijuana and alcohol combined may have a greater effect on cognitive functioning than either substance
alone. Cognitive functioning includes a person’s ability to recognize and react to risky situations.

Where there are gaps in research knowledge:
• College students have been well studied in large surveys, but sexual assault among other groups has much
less evidence.
• Many studies combine marijuana with other drugs which makes the impact of marijuana alone unclear.
• Studies that do include data on marijuana use tend to describe past use history of use, but often exclude
recent use, or use at the time of the sexual assault.
• Research using objective methods, like blood testing, have been inconsistent in the way the tests are
conducted and do not always test for the presence of marijuana in the time period, making it difficult to tell
the difference between past use and current use.
• Research related to marijuana’s potency and the effect on cognitive function needs to be updated in light of
the higher potency products now available in states with legalized marijuana.

The real problem with marijuana and date-rape is that people will ridicule you for it. An ad that even suggested this could happen with medical marijuana (not even recreational) and trying to show how easy it will be to implant marijuana in cookies to loosen people up for intercourse and foreplay that otherwise wouldn't want it or consent has been mocked by a lot of media:

This shows that even mainstream Media will mock the most commonly claimed means of date-rape as being 'hilarious' and 'pfft, that doesn't happen shut up' attitudes. Is it good to then have it and have it reduce your capacity to not consent? People will mock you and juries barely ever will accept it.
Round 3
Published:
I'm going to make this very clear; I can't highlight how Marijuana has been gradually depleting your brain inside of a formal debate because it will lose me the conduct mark. Let's just say there's a reason that your stats are what they are and my stats are what they are. There's a reason you structure your debates like you have in this debate and I structure both my attack angles and representation of my debates as I do. 
I'm going to make this very clear, even with all your sources you haven't managed to prove that alcohol is less hazardous to your health than marijuana or equal to it.The way you structure your debates is to copy and paste articles and barely come up with arguments. You just attack semantics and try to control definitions then proceed to cite a bunch of sources until you have a giant wall of text with only 5% of it being your own argument.
On top of this what are you trying to prove, that marijuana can be bad for you? Everyone already know that, how have you even attempted to dispute the actual point of this debate other than by bringing in factors which are caused by society on top of the actual effects of marijuana itself?

The very fact it's illegal or that you have to hide your usage of it if you go over the legal quantity makes Marijuana automatically have 2 aspects to it that are detrimental which alcohol does not. The other aspect was compounding with the date-rape scenario.
These arguments are pointless because they are caused by the legal system, not marijuana. You have clearly lost this debate and if I am voted as the loser it only proves that the voters are mentally impaired, not me.

new study from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration finds that drivers who use marijuana are at a significantly lower risk for a crash than drivers who use alcohol. And after adjusting for age, gender, race and alcohol use, drivers who tested positive for marijuana  were no more likely to crash than who had not used any drugs or alcohol prior to driving.
Marijuana has both good and bad effects (the bad effects are not even universal and very rarely severe) But alcohol is just pure crap for the most part, with no actual health benefit unless used as an antiseptic or to dull pain.


Published:
Alright so let me explain something. This debate is usually won by the marijuana side because they know alcohol will misplay and make it solely about direct, blatant impacts and that the alcohol-defender will try to defend the fact that marijuana is illegal as their sole angle and BoP-manoeuvring strategy.

When it came to medical marijuana I quoted a source that worded things better than I ever could and was more valid than me typing it on my own. If you go to most of my sources and compare it to what I quoted, you'll see I edit things somewhat to cut down on the part(s) of the source that apply directly to the debate. I don't just blindly c+p I spend 1-2 hours of research to come up with the sources you see. It's not some quick and effortless gig.

I have come up with the angles that seem troll but are pure indispensable and irrefutable to the alcohol-defender's arsenal in this debate. From the legality of marijuana, to the taboo of it through to how little people care if you were high when molested, if you don't have alcohol in your system, marijuana proves to be a very suboptimal drug to even consider in the first place due to guaranteed drawbacks regardless of direct physical impact. Psychological impact isn't remotely to laugh off and Pro didn't even remotely touch on the points because Pro knew they didn't stand a chance against them, they are that blatant and irrefutable. Pro's only comeback was 'well change the law', but that hasn't happened and this isn't about 'will be better for you' this is 'is better for you'.

The health angles prove that Pro's sole comeback to everything I say is 'alcohol is as bad'. Well if alcohol is as bad in all the ways Pro can come up with and I have te legality and date-rape-aftermath points in my favour then what exactly is it that Pro has left? (Note regarding the 'alcohol is as bad' defence: Pro never proves in any sufficient way other than maybe 5% making an attempt at proving by pasting some links that he can't even c+p into a quote to highlight what in the link applies to the debate)

I win because of the creative angles I brought to the table that irrefutably leave Marijuana as the one that is not better for you, when compared with how good vs. bad Alcohol is for you. I am also noting that Pro never brought up cost or difficult to get hold of and all the things attached to that, there is a reason for that linked to my karma point in R1. Marijuana involves far more guilt and indirect repercussions from having it than alcohol does.
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
Anytime my friend
#16
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
tyvm
Contender
#15
Added:
--> @Bazza97125
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Bazza97125 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments and 2 points to con for sources
>RFD: The reason I voted for pro having more convincing arguments he rebutted all cons arguments, but con has way more evidence to back up what he was saying.
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote fails to adhear to the standards set forth in the code of conduct found here https://www.debateart.com/rules.
(1) In order to award the argument point, the voter must do the following: (a) Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate; (b) Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself); and (c) Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points. The voter does neither of these things.
(2) In order to award the source point, the voter must: (a) Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate; (b) Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support; and (c) Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's. The voter does none of these things
**********************************************************************
#14
Added:
--> @Bazza97125
Your current vote is scheduled for deletion. You may of course vote again, but back up your decision with information from the debate. It need not even be a long and detailed vote, usually just proving you read the debate is enough.
#13
Added:
--> @Ragnar, @whiteflame
Would appreciate a vote, if possible.
Contender
#12
Added:
--> @Bazza97125
https://www.debateart.com/debates/538
Contender
#11
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
If you are a true master debater, than you can manipulate people into believing the truth.
Instigator
#10
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
Will vote on this tommorow.
#9
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
3 days to vote, heir judge.
Contender
#8
Added:
--> @Type1
There is a reason why you are where you are on the leaderboard. Until you understand the difference between debating and actually finding truth, you'll remain what you are.
Debating is a sport; it somewhat resembles pure reason but it's so much more. There's tact, cunning and voter manipulation. I have been a victim of this and lost a few debates here that I objectively won.
I would never ever debate pro flat-earth or pro-Fiora because I know the difference between debating and knowing the actual truth. Some shit can't be definitively proven, some shit can't dare be said legally. Some shit is meant to be quietly known and simply let the fools who doubt it, doubt it. I don't debate to express truth, I debate to paint the truth and win. This is what Debating is, always has been and always will be. Until you learn that, you will stay where you are skill-wise as a debater and I will either stay where I am or improve; I won't get worse.
Contender
#7
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
It is stupid and intellectually dishonest to pretend that Marijuana itself is worse for you because of things that have nothing to do with marijuana itself. It is a cheap way to argue that it worse when you know very well that marijuana is better in reality and your only arguments are things imposed by society. If I make breathing air illegal does that suddenly make breathing bad for you? What if there is a big social stigma about breathing air?
Honestly, fuck off.
Instigator
#6
Added:
I am smoking a massive, fat blunt of that purp right now.
Instigator
#5
Added:
--> @Alec
You'll find out soon enough.
Instigator
#4
Added:
I wonder what RM would say to this.
#3
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
Great, I just love it when people play word games instead of debating my actual point.
Instigator
#2
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
ARGUMENTS (con): In summary, BoP unmet.
SOURCES (tied): See C2.
S&G (tied): I could make a joke about how off topic both were, when the resolution was about marijuana's effects on alcohol...
CONDUCT (tied): Both got a little ugly by the end (pro's usual, con's R2 opening).
C1 (con): Legality
This should have been the equivalent of a warning shot from con, but the counter made it a winner. ... The laws are going away, really rapidly, when speaking of long term effects it's practically a non-issue. Instead of that basic information, the debate presented the hypothetical that problems can just go away (this could equally be applied to health problems from drinking tap water in Flint), with some additional profanity about how much pro doesn't care.
C2 (con): Karma
Pro gets some credit here for making effective use of a source showing alcohol as worse. This should have been his key thing, showing alcohol is worse throughout the debate, rather than in isolation on one small point. While this should not stand up to the onslaught of good sources from con, as a reward for such massive improvement I am leaving sources tied.
Too little of this point was challenged, so while it isn't high impact (pun not intended), it still shifts the argument points a little more toward con.
C3 (con): Date-rape
Pro right away concedes this (and for largely repeats the concession throughout), by pointing out how messed up alcohol gets a person, which supports con's central claim of proving a crime was committed.
Conclusion: As con points out, these debates massively favor pro. Throw some pictures of liver damage, and we're shocked into a vote against alcohol. I feel like con admitting to the work he went into for the trickery was wasted, as this debate never rose to the level where it was needed. If pro were to successfully disprove each of con's contentions, he would still have not introduced his affirmative argument (ok, some ways of disproving could have done it), leaving his BoP unmet.
...
Notes to debaters:
Type: Regarding your R1 opening, sources are supposed to be employed to prove a point. If you don't reference their content, they do you no good. It is the difference between a passionate make-out session, and just placing your un-moving tongue in someone's mouth.
RM: Nice catch on the grammar mistake in the resolution. I once had a debate about if Rap for women was bad... To be fair, I tried to warn the person, but they insisted their own words didn't matter...
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
This argument is which is better for you, Alcohol or Marajuana. It isn’t whether Marajuana is bad, or alcohol is bad, so for me the winner is the person who clearly contrasts the impacts from the drugs in questions. Saying one has a negative impact on its own is irrelevant.
Importantly, I as I think con will have a much tougher time proving this, I’m not going to assume that the burden of proof leans a little towards pro here - especially as he’s the instigator.
1.) Contention 1: Con argues that Marajuana is legally worse for you. While this is a legal consequence, I would have accepted this as a weak harm. Pro counters this is an effect of the law not marijuana - and con doesn’t appear to reply. Con even appears to argue pro didn’t touch it. As a result, I have to give this point to pro.
2.) Contention 2: buried under a seemingly irrelevant title is some points here.
A lung transplant kills the donor, a liver transplant may not, and the liver can recover much easier than Lungs.
Pro drops both these points. Imo while they are comparative - con (or pro for that matter) does not do very well in the contrast he could have pointed out incidence rates of lung and liver diseases, or more specific data on transplants. But as he doesn’t, it weakens his position a little. Nonetheless con mostly establishes a minor contrasting point here.
Harms underage brain development more than alcohol, and harms IQ. Pro doesn’t contrast with alcohol here other than saying it’s better - and pro additionally points out that alcohol can cause brain damage in young people too.
Both sides claim the other harms the brain of the the young, but neither side really provides any decent contrast between the two: by this means comparing and contrasting the relative effects.
3.) Contention 3.
I can’t even figure out what this means.
“it's much easier on you, psychologically and psychosomatically, to both know it was rape and prove it was rape if you were drunk as opposed to high”
What is this supposed to mean? That it’s easier to know and prove it was rape if you’re drunk? I think that’s what you mean - it’s another example of pro getting in his own way.
The first paragraph appears irrelevant and unnecessary.
The second appears to assert that if you’re high it’s harder to prove that you were rapes because of the effects whereas if you’re drunk - it’s clear.
This seems a prima facia absurd argument. Pro points this out, and asks for just one example. Cons response was basically to cite a link that basically states the links are unclear.
I can’t accept this argument as a result on its face. It’s too tenuous and con provides no warrant - even in the face of pro challenging it.
Pro didn’t offer any argument to affirm his position. He simply relied on trying to refute con.
In both pros opening round - and cons second round, both sides rely mostly on quotes from sources. I am going to summarily dismiss ALL of pros arguments where he just posts a long quote and no argument. This is a debate, not “see who can post the best quote”. If you use a quote, you have to explain its relevance, how it applies and what it means.
So after this, con tentatively establishes a single point. A couple of points have little in the way of actual comparisons - the mental health impact is particularly hard - as neither side provides a definitive way of contrasting the two drugs.
So out of this, if BoP was on Con - I Would award this to pro, if shared, or slightly on pro, it goes to con.
Arguments to con.
Sources: both sides use sources poorly in places, well in others. So this is a tie.
Conduct: pro degenerates into name calling, which normally gets pinged with Conduct. However, cons wall of quotes in round two was particularly egregious, and quite frankly lazy. If con did this over two rounds - I would have awarded pro conduct - instead I have decided to award this as a tie.