Report this Argument Con Cancer argument: For starters, there's a reason as to why my opponent's evidence says the exact opposite as to what my evidence is saying: While my evidence is looking toward the incidence of prostate and cervical cancer in asssociation with marijuana use, my opponent's study from WebMD is only focusing on cancer in the brain, neck, and lungs, meaning that my opponent is using a blanket statement that marijuana will not cause cancer at all whatsoever. The same goes for his second source, which focuses on the similar kinds of cancer.
It refers to governmental programs intended to suppress the consumption of certain recreational drugs. The War on Drugs utilizes several techniques to achieve its goal of eliminating recreational drug use: Drugs deemed socially, religiously, medically or politically unfit for recreational use are frequently banned.
From a blanket prohibition suppressing all use, to permitting certain amounts for personal use, the legalization of marijuana fights different fights in different countries. It required sellers to obtain a license. Blanket prohibition was not the intention. The law passed quickly and with little debate.
There was some legal wrangling over the issue after it was passed. The people who were allowed to issue the licenses did not do so, effectively banning the drugs. The judicial system did not accept, at first, that being arrested in possession of drugs was a tax violation because it must have come from an unlicensed source because there were no licensesthereby avoiding taxes.
Thus, the federal government did have the right to regulate the ingestion of drugs. Prohibition must be weighed against the loss of personal freedom. Countries have a responsibility to respect individual free will and the right of self-determination.
The immorality of marijuana use can only be based on one set of moral beliefs. For example, it is discriminatory to claim that Judeo-Christian abstinence from intoxication is the correct set of moral beliefs. The War on Drugs serves the immediate interests of politicians.
Legal prohibition does not stop consumers from consuming drugs, it does not stop trafficants from producing and selling it. The price of the final product increases to abnormally high values because of the black market status, which together with the powerful effects of drug addiction causes users to commit crimes in order to fund their addiction.
Critics of the War on Drugs advocate the partial or complete decriminalization of illegal drugs, combined with a system of regulation, as happens with alcohol and prescription drugs.
By providing legal supplies of currently illegal drugs the price will fall, leading to a collapse in the illegal drug industry, and a reduction in crimes committed by both drug suppliers and users.
They also argue that the reduction in the price will lead to little, if any, growth in drug addiction, due to the inelasticity of demand. Some even state that in a strictly regulated market, drug use may fall overall, by removing the marketing activities of the illegal drug industry.
It is not worthwhile for a law to forbid people from willingly exposing their own bodies to harm by using drugs, any more than by overeating or bungee-jumping. Obesity is a national epidemic, killing millions every year, but the government has no right to regulate how much citizens eat.
Drug users exercise free will when they chose to use drugs; a person has the right to give up his or her own freedom. A Government does not have the right to dictate them.Follow Us. Get Your Weekly Digest.
Though one in eight U.S. adults say they smoke marijuana and the support for legal here are the four most common arguments against making your hobby. Common Arguments Against Decriminalization With the increased push for marijuana law reform it is expected there would also be an increase in those speaking out against marijuana.
AN ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF DECRIMINALIZATION Kurt L. Schmoke* [The addict] is denied the medical care he urgently needs; open, above-board sources. There's a lot of confusion and misinformation about marijuana legalization and decriminalization.
The two concepts are not the same, and understanding the law in your state and states you travel in can help you avoid accidentally getting ticketed or arrested for possession of marijuana.
However arguments FOR and AGAINST the legalization of marijuana remain the same. The Roots of Marijuana Law in the US The Marijuana Tax Act was introduced in In this post I will cover Husak's arguments for the second claim, that is, the positive reasons Husak gives us for drug decriminalization.
The reason for this focus is primarily because responses to common prohibitionist claims (things like “ Marijuana should be illegal because it's a 'gateway drug '”) are much more common than positive.