EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
3189

Cannabis Legalization

(PRO)
WINNER!
30 points
(CON)
0 points
FREEDOFREEDO (PRO)
Greetings UltimateFighter! A pleasure to be sharing my first edeb8 with you!

ARGUMENTS

1) Civil liberties are a value of modern society and should be respected.
a. People are generally happier when they have more freedom.
b. We should strive for a happier society.
c. It is a common ethical and political understanding, effective in practice, that people should not be arbitrarily deprived of acting on their own volition unless their actions are recognized as harmful.
d. I expect Con to concede these points, as they are pretty basic to setting the context of the debate. Arguing them is a waste of time, but they are up for debate if necessary.

2. Cannabis is NOT harmful.
a. If cannabis is to be banned for public health reasons, one must also argue either that tobacco and alcohol should be illegal as well, or otherwise prove that cannabis poses a worse public health risk.
b. About 80,000 people die from alcohol poisoning every year, in the United States alone. [1]
c. For tobacco, the number is 443,000. [2]
d. Yet, cannabis has never resulted in death. [3] Well, maybe just one time: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/10/04/newser-marijuana-death/2922011/
e. Cannabis is also non-biologically addictive, unlike alcohol, tobacco and caffeine. Of those forced to undergo treatment for cannabis, 36% hadn't even used cannabis within the last 30 days of their admission. [4]
f. Here, you can a see a graph comparing lethal dose ratio and addiction potential: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Drug_danger_and_dependence.png
g. Cannabis may potentially be the single most medically important substance known to humankind. I will expand on this later.


3. Prohibition is harmful.
a. Cartels exist because prohibition puts good business-people out of the market, allowing them to monopolize, feeding billions of dollars in the black market and promoting violence and harder drug use.
b. In the US, where the drug-war is highly aggressive, the prison system has become a national atrocity. About 6.7 MILLION Americans, or 1 in every 32, are either in prison or on parole. 24% of them are there for drug violations. [5]
c. It costs billions of dollars to keep these people locked up, on top of the billions of dollars it costs to wage the drug-war itself. This is money that could be spent on helping people, targeting hard drugs and cartels, or that could simply be left in the taxpayers pocket.

CONCLUSION

Laws are meant to be put into effect for the purpose of improving the general welfare, prosperity, stability and safety of society. A law which denies a person the right to consume a natural substance which is scientifically and historically verified to be harmless, whether for recreational or medical purposes, locks them in cages for doing so, takes money out of your own pocket to pay for them to stay there, and has the aftermath of allowing drug empires to monopolize the market and further hurt innocent people, is no law at all--it's disgrace to human dignity and our idea of living in a society based on a code of civil standards.


SOURCES

1. http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm
2. http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/aag/osh.htm
3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/13/alcohol-pot-use_n_3914511.html
4. http://www.alternet.org/story/80408/calling_b.s._on_the_idea_of_%27marijuana_addiction%27
5. http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/censusstatistic/a/aainjail.htm
Return To Top | Posted:
2013-11-16 07:14:38
| Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
JV-StalinJV-Stalin
Nice arguments Freedo. Really looking forward to voting on this.
Posted 2013-11-18 04:49:37
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2014-03-20 02:00:21
adminJudge: admin    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: FREEDO
2014-03-20 03:03:58
nzlockieJudge: nzlockie    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: FREEDO
Reasoning:
Finally! I've been waiting for ages to vote on this one!

I was REALLY impressed with Pro's points in the first round and it's a shame we never got to see them developed or contested.


Feedback:
Boo for the Forfeit.
1 user rated this judgement as biased
2 users rated this judgement as good
1 user rated this judgement as exceptional
0 comments on this judgement
2014-03-20 14:02:09
draftermanJudge: drafterman
Win awarded to: FREEDO
Reasoning:
Pro's starting argument was simple, yet comprehensive. He laid the primary foundation in establishing a goal of happiness and maximal freedom, limited only when said freedoms cause harm. He then demonstrated that not only is weed not harmful (or at least less harmful than other drugs which are considered acceptable) but its prohibition would be harmful.

His concise points of reasoning were easy to follow and well sourced.

And con forfeited, providing no refutation or counter points.

Feedback:
There isn't much to say on this point, as there was no potential for arguments to be expanded. The only advice that can be given is for participants to be better aware of the debates they are involved in so they can participate.
1 user rated this judgement as biased
1 user rated this judgement as good
2 users rated this judgement as exceptional
0 comments on this judgement
2014-03-20 15:19:27
JonbonbonJudge: Jonbonbon
Win awarded to: FREEDO
2014-03-21 05:33:46
DTinfinityJudge: DTinfinity
Win awarded to: FREEDO
2014-03-22 19:10:26
JustAnotherGuyJudge: JustAnotherGuy
Win awarded to: FREEDO
2014-03-27 15:36:55
EndarkenedRationalist Judge: EndarkenedRationalist
Win awarded to: FREEDO
Reasoning:
I think PRO raised a ton of really interesting points in the first round. Comparing cannabis to tobacco and alcohol proved a strong argument, especially with all of the data and statistics PRO provided to support his arguments. I think it's such a shame that the forfeits happened after that. I would have loved to see responses from CON and even from PRO again. It seems like a lot of effort went into that first round. Well, tragic though it was, the win has to go to PRO for his excellent argumentation!
1 user rated this judgement as biased
2 users rated this judgement as exceptional
0 comments on this judgement
2014-03-28 03:32:06
JDSFDSFfsaJudge: JDSFDSFfsa
Win awarded to: FREEDO
Reasoning:
Freedo presented arguments based on reliable sources (points 2 and 3) as well as reasonable assumptions that are hard to refute (point 1). TheUltimateFighter, however, did not respond due to forfeiting. Freedo also used reliable, third party sources instead of sources biased towards marijuana legalization. Due to the forfeits, I can only give a point to Freedo as he was the only one who included an argument. His argument was pretty strong, as well.
2 users rated this judgement as exceptional
0 comments on this judgement
2014-03-29 08:40:54
AglardiaJudge: Aglardia
Win awarded to: FREEDO
2014-03-29 12:49:58
RomaniiiJudge: Romaniii
Win awarded to: FREEDO
Reasoning:
FREEDO was the only one to post an argument.
2 users rated this judgement as good
0 comments on this judgement
2014-04-01 21:53:09
JV-StalinJudge: JV-Stalin
Win awarded to: FREEDO
Reasoning:
Soooo much potential.
2 users rated this judgement as good
0 comments on this judgement
2014-04-03 15:37:00
PinkieJudge: Pinkie    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: FREEDO
2014-04-08 13:27:32
WyltedJudge: Wylted
Win awarded to: FREEDO
2014-04-11 12:33:11
SteveHawkinsJudge: SteveHawkins
Win awarded to: FREEDO
2014-04-19 20:35:17
JMGraberJrJudge: JMGraberJr
Win awarded to: FREEDO
Reasoning:
First vote on Edeb8!
0 comments on this judgement
2014-05-17 17:13:17
BlackflagJudge: Blackflag
Win awarded to: FREEDO
Reasoning:
Pro's starting argument was simple, yet comprehensive. He laid the primary foundation in establishing a goal of happiness and maximal freedom, limited only when said freedoms cause harm. He then demonstrated that not only is weed not harmful (or at least less harmful than other drugs which are considered acceptable) but its prohibition would be harmful.

His concise points of reasoning were easy to follow and well sourced.

And con forfeited, providing no refutation or counter points.

Feedback:
I think PRO raised a ton of really interesting points in the first round. Comparing cannabis to tobacco and alcohol proved a strong argument, especially with all of the data and statistics PRO provided to support his arguments. I think it's such a shame that the forfeits happened after that. I would have loved to see responses from CON and even from PRO again. It seems like a lot of effort went into that first round. Well, tragic though it was, the win has to go to PRO for his excellent argumentation!
1 user rated this judgement as constructive
0 comments on this judgement
2014-06-18 20:46:07
RomaniiJudge: Romanii
Win awarded to: FREEDO
Reasoning:
No argument from Con.
1 user rated this judgement as good
1 user rated this judgement as exceptional
0 comments on this judgement
2014-07-27 09:02:23
MikalJudge: Mikal
Win awarded to: FREEDO
Reasoning:
Obvious reasons. Pros points went uncontested. This would have been a great debate
1 user rated this judgement as biased
1 user rated this judgement as exceptional
0 comments on this judgement
2014-07-29 14:01:20
9spacekingJudge: 9spaceking
Win awarded to: FREEDO
2014-08-04 15:53:51
NiamJudge: Niam
Win awarded to: FREEDO
Reasoning:
Con forfeited first. Pro had presented an argument.

Feedback:
Dont forfeit.. pftt
2 users rated this judgement as good
0 comments on this judgement
2014-08-11 23:39:05
zschmollJudge: zschmoll
Win awarded to: FREEDO

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 3 rounds
  • No length restrictions
  • No reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 1 month
  • Time to vote: 3 months
  • Time to prepare: None