Help needed: Debate AGAINST legalisation of cannabis

[Laudenum]

Ok lads.

I have to participate in a debate on Tuesday for college, and I have been placed against legalising marajuana.

The problem?
Despite the fact that I tend to argue against the self-righteous legalisation-is-the-modern-slavery group, I am actually in favour of legalisation.

So I need your help to come up with respectable arguments AGAINST legalisation.


Oh, and thread rule: No "There is no respectable argument" posts. If you have nothing to contribute, please go away, I know you have drums to bang - here isn't the place.

[etv78]

2 arguments I can think of:

1. The "gateway drug" argument. (I agree with this argument BTW)
2. What we should be doing is researching ways to make more effective THC pills, so people with cancer, AIDS, glaucoma, etc, can take pills.

[moejoe]

I'm concerned that decriminalizing marijuana won't necessarily end the criminality that currently surrounds it.

For instance it still probably won't be legal to bring large quantities across international boarders, and I can't imagine South American drug dealers will just bow out and assume that legalization means we can take care of ourselves and don't need them anymore.

That's all I have for now.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I argued in favor of genocide once in a debate class in high school. Me and and one other guy (another arrogant know-it-all like me) against the rest of the class just to prove we could do it. We won. I can usually argue for anything. I also argued in favor of slavery in that class. I was a smartass that would conceive the most ridiculous sides to take just for the challenge of it.

And yet, I can't come up with any really good arguments for criminalization of marijuana. I think the best you could do would be ill health effects, and the measurable effects of developmental retardation on adolescents. I'd stay away from "gateway" arguments, they're bogus and too easy to refute. Arguments about medical effects are at least defensible as factually true, even if they aren't very persuasive in the long run.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

I'd also focus on the effects on the lungs, heart and brain from chronic abuse. Pot is very carcinogenic, moreso than cigarettes.

[Zjestika]

I read this as "legalisation of cannibals" at first. Reading is hard.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Originally Posted by Zjestika

I read this as "legalisation of cannibals" at first. Reading is hard.

Also fundamental. RIF.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by Zjestika

I read this as "legalisation of cannibals" at first. Reading is hard.

Now that's exactly the kind of side I would have wanted to take in high school just for the sport of it.

[emmaliminal]

Maybe secondhand smoke?

[emmaliminal]

This is maybe not strong enough to be a leading argument, but -- complications with legitimate job-based drug testing, for example for forklift drivers? Since THC lasts so much longer in detection results than in actual highness, it might be (tough? impossible?) to tell whether someone had indulged on the job or on their own, legitimate time.

[twickster]

I'm going to move this to Great Debates, and let them decide whether it counts as homework help or brainstorming.

twickster, MPSIMS moderator

[Laudenum]

Originally Posted by twickster

I'm going to move this to Great Debates, and let them decide whether it counts as homework help or brainstorming.

twickster, MPSIMS moderator

Surely it's a little of both?

[cuauhtemoc]

Try this: Smoking pot is totally rad and badass, but only because it's against the law. If they legalize it, it will become lame like cigarettes or alcohol.

[History, Mystery and the Wolf]

University debater checking in. The neg/op to legalised pot is very difficult, but here are my brief thoughts on what I'd run for a case. I'm sure others could add to it, but I think it would be enough for an OO or a decent CO extension at WUDC, or a neg case in Australia-Asian style.




----- Third party harm. Role of the government is to prevent harms to others.
Third party harms associated with legal pot:

- Social costs in lost productivity, health costs, costs associated with impaired reasoning (compare, harms due to alcohol consumption). Poor parenting, lots of shattered homes. The neg/op need to scaremonger about pot.

- Black market will continue to exist: infrastructure is in place, can undercut a liberalised market on strength/additives/cost.

- Black market will move into other areas, but this will destabilise it, resulting in large amounts of violence in fragile urban centres.

-Signalling/Message: government repudiates its own message that drugs are bad (DARE, whatever) this causes a mass loss of faith in government proclamations about other hard drugs, spiking their uptake as young people decide the government is probably also wrong about those



---- Personal harm. Paternal harm of the government to protect people from themselves:

- Drug taking is not a rational decision making nexus: cannot accurately predict risk of addiction, each step along the chain will further erode decision making.
---------------Also, gateway drug analysis.

- Will trickle down to minors, those who shouldn't have it (Schizophrenics). Look at alcohol: the availability swamps regulation.

- It gives you cancer, and no one should be able to profit from that. Hey, the argument works against cigarettes!



---- Cultural harm. Nation-state analysis: role of the state in enforcing a collective moral standard/identity of the State (compare, French language). Systemic drug taking degenerates the culture of the nation, legitimate for the state to intervene to stop it.

[Mijin]

Arguments for legalisation often revolve around "In many ways cannabis is not as bad as tobacco or alcohol. If they're legal, cannabis should be too".
But this is kinda wonky reasoning, and you should take it on.

e.g. One of the key reasons that tobacco is legal is simply because we are unable at this time to make it illegal. If there were no smokers currently, tobacco would almost certainly be a controlled substance.
And if you open the door for cannabis why not ecstacy or LSD -- both of which are less harmful than alcohol, say, based on many measures. Note that this is also a wonky argument...if they're less harmful, why not make them legal? But most people find such a scenario unpleasant.

[Laudenum]

Originally Posted by History, Mystery and the Wolf

University debater checking in. The neg/op to legalised pot is very difficult, but here are my brief thoughts on what I'd run for a case. I'm sure others could add to it, but I think it would be enough for an OO or a decent CO extension at WUDC, or a neg case in Australia-Asian style.

*Blinks*


Otherwise thank you for the post.

[Musicat]

Originally Posted by moejoe

I'm concerned that decriminalizing marijuana won't necessarily end the criminality that currently surrounds it.

Yep, the moonshine bootleggers and rumrunners are all over the place now that prohibition is over. And the Chicago whiskey turf wars are so bad you can't go to work without getting caught in crossfire. Bring back prohibition so we can be safe!

[Typo Knig]

The Washington Post just did a couple of articles about legalizing cannabis just before the Prop 19 vote in California. This article speculated on what DC would be like with legalized pot in 10 years:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102205573.html

There's some good material for you there. The article points out that when other drugs were legalized the economic benefits did not accrue, or not nearly to the degree advocates expected. There were also problems with every day use.

There is another second hand issue - pets:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101205691.html

and:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090703359.html

(Search for Molly in the Weingarten chat)

Pot is nasty stuff. I don't think that's a strong argument for jail time for cannabis, but it isn't made of sunshine and rainbows.

Another argument: doped driving is a problem, and would likely be worse with legal cannabis. Proving that someone was driving while high might be problematic, unless there's a breathalyzer for weed.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

And yet, I can't come up with any really good arguments for criminalization of marijuana.

To argue against legalization does not mean an argument for criminalization.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by The Flying Dutchman

To argue against legalization does not mean an argument for criminalization.

I don't see a distinction, but if it matters, I see no good reason not to legalize marijuana.

[History, Mystery and the Wolf]

Originally Posted by Laudenum

*Blinks*


Otherwise thank you for the post.

Haha, I know that was rather arcane. I was hoping another University debater might take the bait and decide to wade in, since the SDMB seems like their natural habitat.

[hansel]

Marijuana is typically smoked, and we are, societally, in the process of banning smoking. It's no longer allowed in public indoor spaces, it's being banned in some public outdoor spaces (playgrounds, around doorways), and even some private indoor spaces (e.g., charges filed against parents for smoking around newborns). Legalizing pot 1) has all the problems of smoking in general, and 2) works against legitimate efforts to limit/eliminate tobacco smoking.

Make your opponent defend marijuana by defending cigarettes. Insta-win.

[kushiel]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I argued in favor of genocide once in a debate class in high school. Me and and one other guy (another arrogant know-it-all like me) against the rest of the class just to prove we could do it. We won. I can usually argue for anything. I also argued in favor of slavery in that class. I was a smartass that would conceive the most ridiculous sides to take just for the challenge of it.

And yet, I can't come up with any really good arguments for criminalization of marijuana. I think the best you could do would be ill health effects, and the measurable effects of developmental retardation on adolescents. I'd stay away from "gateway" arguments, they're bogus and too easy to refute. Arguments about medical effects are at least defensible as factually true, even if they aren't very persuasive in the long run.

I wish we had debate class in my school system. I would have absolutely loved it! The closest I got was the yearly Mock Trial competition, where I generally refused to be a witness because I wanted to be prosecution which was much more fun.

[Peremensoe]

Part of the debate exercise involves anticipating the opponent's arguments. Surely the opponents here will be prepared to counter old arguments like "gateway drug." I think you really need to come at them from a different angle than all the mainstream arguments. After all, as far as I could tell, the most widely agreed upon public arguments offered against Prop. 19 were that this approach wasn't the right way to go about legalization.

[BrainGlutton]

The best argument you could make is to show up stoned.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Originally Posted by cuauhtemoc

Try this: Smoking pot is totally rad and badass, but only because it's against the law. If they legalize it, it will become lame like cigarettes or alcohol.

There could be something to that. In California where it's practically legal for anyone that really wants it, it almost seems to have reached a level of toleration by the mainstream. Not that the mainstream supports its use enthusiastically (it's still technically illegal), but that the interest in enforcing the law seems to have diminished considerably. I generally follow this issue fairly closely, and the impression I get, as cannabis moves towards greater acceptability, is that it doesn't merely get lumped in with all the other illegal drugs to the extent that it used to be.

[GreasyJack]

Another sort of "out there" argument is that actually legalizing it would lead to a marijuana industry, perhaps not unlike the tobacco industry, who would proceed to spend zillions on advertising. Right now in places where it's decriminalized (i.e. only civil penalties for use), people are relatively free to actually use it if they so chose, but there's no companies trying to shove it down their throats.

If you wanted to get a little bombastic about it, you could point out that tobacco used to be something not unlike marijuana that was generally enjoyed infrequently and in moderation. Only when tobacco companies industrialized and started mass-producing cheap cigarettes did you get large numbers of honest-to-goodnes tobacco addicts (and lung cancer became a common ailment). Legalizing marijuana might have a similar effects, since I'm sure if you could probably mass-produce a joint for close to as little as a cigarette.

Obviously this is a bit of a weak argument since pot isn't addictive like tobacco and is probably more analagous to alcohol which most of us don't constantly consume. But I certainly know some folks who would be pack-a-day at least smokers if joints were as cheap as cigarettes. Perhaps a more likely situation would be tobacco companies start selling blended cigarettes, which would also encourage people to use marijuana on a more constant basis than they do now. Not to mention they might use more tobacco too.

[Krokodil]

Not sure how well this argument would work outside of California, but...

If your state--and your state alone--legalizes, you will be a magnet for stoners and the social baggage they tend to carry (i.e. more serious drug problems, inability to hold jobs, tedious conversations, lax grooming, etc.). This has been a serious problem for Amsterdam, which reappraised its dope policies recently. If it were legalized across the country, this would not be a big deal.

[BrainGlutton]

If you want to form an argument against legalizing cannabis, I think you need to start by looking at the reasons why the majority of public opinion seems to be against legalization. Why did the legalization initiative fail in California, really? You'd think that would be the one state of the Union where it would be a sure thing.

[BigT]

Despite what I've heard here, there are studies that say that it is addictive--whether they are valid or not. You also need to look at the social impact. Marijuana, when used chronically, does seem to limit ambition. People who actually stay on the drug do seem to not do a lot of other things--this is an argument used in many ads.

[Princhester]

When all else fails...

Originally Posted by Cartman

Drugs are bad because if you do drugs you're a hippie and hippies suck...

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by BigT

Marijuana, when used chronically, does seem to limit ambition.

"Not if your ambition is to get high and watch TV."

-- Melanie, Jackie Brown

[sisu]

Cancer from smoking
Cannaboid Schizoprenia, this is a big issue specially with youth suicide rates on the increase
Kills braincells
Rise in car accidents are all reasons.

[etv78]

If it's not a "gateway drug" where did that idea come from? Did DARE pull it out their ass?

[emmaliminal]

Originally Posted by etv78

If it's not a "gateway drug" where did that idea come from? Did DARE pull it out their ass?

Wikipedia says one theory is that:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia re cannabis

The idea [that cannabis is a gateway drug] is, in fact, a complete falsehood, made up by Harry J. Anslinger, then head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. ... Marijuana was originally outlawed for two major reasons. The first was racial prejudice against Mexican immigrants. The second was the fear that heroin addiction would lead to the use of marijuana - exactly the opposite of the modern "gateway" idea. During the hearings for the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, Harry Anslinger was asked specifically if there was any connection between marijuana and heroin. He replied that there was no connection at all. ... In 1951... Anslinger was up before Congress again, requesting more money for enforcement of the marijuana laws. Unfortunately for Anslinger, just before he testified, the head of the Federal addiction research program testified that they knew for certain that all of the reasons that had been given to outlaw marijuana were completely wrong. Anslinger was left with no justification for his request for more money. Indeed, he was left with no justification for the marijuana laws at all. In response, he made up the idea that marijuana was the certain stepping-stone to heroin. In doing so, he contradicted all the research, as well as his own testimony in 1937. Regardless, it became the major justification for marijuana prohibition. ...

[iamnotbatman]

Originally Posted by sisu

Cancer from smoking
Cannaboid Schizoprenia, this is a big issue specially with youth suicide rates on the increase
Kills braincells
Rise in car accidents are all reasons.

I don't think "kills braincells" has any scientific backing whatsoever

I'm skeptical rise in car accidents has in any way been correlated with marijuana use, but maybe I'm wrong

[Rhythmdvl]

Originally Posted by History, Mystery and the Wolf

Haha, I know that was rather arcane. I was hoping another University debater might take the bait and decide to wade in, since the SDMB seems like their natural habitat.

Opening and Closing Opp!

Did Parli in college (the main style in the northeast); broke at Worlds in '97 (South Africa). Great fun.

Actually had the same role as the OP--but in World's style you get the case and your position ten minutes before the round (so this would have been a Need Help Fast) question. As a Deadhead, you can imagine I wasn't exactly happy opping the topic. My solution was to case-shift slightly and attack the legalization aspect of the gov's proposition and argue why decriminalization was the much better option.

This helped take the round, because we were still arguing against legalization--yet it subsumed the gov's strongest points. No one is going to jail for growing some for themselves, no one's individual rights are being stepped on, etc. But at the same time, you're not turning drug sales over to Phillip Morris. This is where the gateway drug arguments are actually much stronger. Trying to tell people that pot = the road to heroin is a tough sell, but saying that corporate pot profits will lead to increased marketing of pot (from product placement and beyond) and corporate interest in legalizing other drugs is a strong and viable line.

There're more points to be made, but the general tack should give you an unexpected direction (always great to make gov sweat), a strong deconstruction of their case, and several independent points to leave out there. In effect, you can put the gov on the spot of arguing not why pot shouldn't be a crime, but for giant agribusiness and corporate control/influence.

[GreasyJack]

Originally Posted by etv78

If it's not a "gateway drug" where did that idea come from? Did DARE pull it out their ass?

Partly, yes. For one thing, the trouble with this argument is you could say the same thing about alcohol, tobacco or even caffiene, in that people who use "harder" drugs almost without exception used those first.

But another important point is that the only reason why marijuana appears to be more of a gateway drug than any of the above is that you have to buy it from a drug dealer. Obviously this means you now know a drug dealer who can get you those harder drugs (and may encourage you in this direction), but also you have to cross the moral threshold of buying an illegal drug. If MJ were perfectly legal and you bought it at the corner store, those effects would be gone.

[iamnotbatman]

Originally Posted by hansel

Marijuana is typically smoked, and we are, societally, in the process of banning smoking. It's no longer allowed in public indoor spaces, it's being banned in some public outdoor spaces (playgrounds, around doorways), and even some private indoor spaces (e.g., charges filed against parents for smoking around newborns). Legalizing pot 1) has all the problems of smoking in general, and 2) works against legitimate efforts to limit/eliminate tobacco smoking.

Make your opponent defend marijuana by defending cigarettes. Insta-win.

Not true in my experience. Before being aware of medical marijuana dispensaries I would only think of smoking. But with a wide variety of consumable product made available with predictable and trustworthy dosage guidelines, I find it now becoming preferable to take one of the many convenient consumables.

[iamnotbatman]

Originally Posted by moejoe

I'm concerned that decriminalizing marijuana won't necessarily end the criminality that currently surrounds it.

For instance it still probably won't be legal to bring large quantities across international boarders, and I can't imagine South American drug dealers will just bow out and assume that legalization means we can take care of ourselves and don't need them anymore.

That's all I have for now.

Legalization will easily mean we can take care of ourselves and don't need them anymore. Marijuana grows easily and naturally all over the place in the US, in your small garden for instance, you could lazily find yourself with enough plants to take care of the years needs of dozens of casual pot smokers.

[Measure for Measure]

Piece of cake. California debated legalization this fall, so the election forum has about 4 threads on the topic.

I oppose the legalization of marijuana. In the absence of meaningful campaign finance reform, I don't want industrial scale growers and distributors running advertising and marketing campaigns on behalf of weed. American business is very good at what they do. Sure, cigarettes and alcohol are worse and marijuana prohibition sucks. But legalization will increase substance abuse and more intense varieties of weed, as it will be backed by a multibillion dollar industry.

Decriminalization is another matter. I'm all for that. Note that Holland has not in fact legalized marijuana: there is a lot of harm reduction that can be done short of industrial scale legalization.

Anyway, the debate plan is to note that smart decriminalization can capture all the benefits of legalization without the costs.

[Rucksinator]

Not an argument, but only a lead towards a possible counter-argument: I seem to recall a doctor on this board (Quadgop?) saying that the glaucoma argument is BS, because there are commercially-available drugs that deal with glaucoma far better than marijuana.
Might be good to have in your pocket.

[foolsguinea]

1. Like alcohol, & unlike nicotine, THC is an intoxicant. Nicotine addicts suffer some diminished capacity while in withdrawal. THC users suffer diminished capacity while high.

2. Legalization would tend to lead to normalization. Cannabis use would be out in public; obnoxious potheads would smoke in public with impunity--everywhere. The incidence of driving under the influence would go up. The incidence of persons secretly putting cannabis in their cooking that they serve to guests, "because it's the best medicine," would go up. Remember, many potheads are fanatical about the object of their addiction, & this would only justify them.

3. It takes a remarkably concentrated amount of pot smoke to get someone high off secondhand smoke. But cars would turn into full-immersion bongs pretty fast. After all, it was legalized, it must be safe, right?
_ _ _ _

Ergo, legalization would lead to an increase in dangerous behavior, particularly traffic fatalities. And then people would ask, "Why did you give us freedom to do this if it was unsafe?"

Better to leave it an "illegal drug" & just drop the penalties dramatically. I'm for decriminalization, or rather defelonization, of pot, because punishments should fit crimes. I'm not really for normalization, so I'm leery of legalization as such. Let it be a controlled substance, let its use & sale be an infraction, let police go after those who drive under the influence with all necessary deterrent power; but don't make simple possession or use a felony, don't have a war on it. That's my actual position, use of that what you will.

[filling_pages]

I wouldn't lean too hard on "pot causes cancer". It seems that the opposite could be true - THC may actually cause cell death in cancer cells.

[Laudenum]

Through to the next round, thanks in no small part to the Dopers.

Next debate: Why paying people for organs is bad.

[Krokodil]

Originally Posted by Laudenum

Through to the next round, thanks in no small part to the Dopers.

Next debate: Why paying people for organs is bad.

Well, that's easy. The guy you just paid for an organ will just blow it all on marijuana!

[Laudenum]

Originally Posted by Krokodil

Well, that's easy. The guy you just paid for an organ will just blow it all on marijuana!

I'm the first opposition speaker, so I can just use the "they are poor, they can't decide for themselves" line.

[Cat Fight]

Originally Posted by Typo Knig

There is another second hand issue - pets:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101205691.html

Careful. You might end up arguing for making chocolate (poisonous to dogs) illegal.

[Typo Knig]

Originally Posted by Cat Fight

Careful. You might end up arguing for making chocolate (poisonous to dogs) illegal.

Aaaaaaaarrrrggggg!!!!!! Shoot me now! Shoot me now! Go ahead - it's Typo Season, you have to shoot me now!

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Laudenum

Next debate: Why paying people for organs is bad.

Good question. Usually I have to pay people to take mine . . .