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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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:
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:
and:
(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.
