Reasons to keep MJ ILLEGAL - persuassive speech advice needed

[finchrock24]

Hey all. Its that time for our speech class to give our persuasive speeches/refutations. Of course, my speech is on LEGALIZING pot, however after my speech, a girl will have to go up and basically pick apart my argument. It isn't quite a debate but there is a chance for me to respond.

What I ask of you guys is why you think pot should be kept illegal. I want to get an idea of what people may think of besides me. I want to be prepared for anything that this girl can throw at me (I have no idea how much she knows...she is just a name in the class to me). I have done some research on why pot should be legal and most of the things I get are the sterotypical gateway drug/addiction, makes you stupid, has no real medical value, etc.

Also, I'd like to here what 1 or 2 MAIN points you'd argue if you were only given 6-7 minutes to persuade someone to legalize herb. I am having a hard time picking my main 3 points because I don't have too much time to give the speech. As of right now, I am planning on going with the actual medicinal benefits/safe nature of MJ, the cost of the war on MJ/the effect it could have on our economy, as well has comparing it to other more harmful and more serious illicit drugs.

I look forward to reading peoples opinions!

Thanks!

Joey

 

[OO]

a few good topics to argue on the side that favors legalization are that your body is your own, you should be the one in control of what goes in it.

the medical aspect is good, but only from the standpoint that you should be able to decide what route of treatment.

it's the #1 cash crop of california, and if taxed, there stands to be large revenue due to its sales.

the list goes on and on, but those should get you started.

as far as reasons to keep it illegal, you are giving bullies jobs (wardens, DEA agents, and the like), and you're furthering an outdated mentality. i really don't see any benefit.

 

[finchrock24]

Thanks OO...those were basically the same thoughts I had as far as keeping it illigal. I'm a little excited to see where my classmate goes with her rebuttal. I will get 2-3 minutes after her rebuttal, so its important that I have an idea of what she might say. No offense to her, but I want her to feel stupid for even trying to argue her point. No, I don't love pot that much, I am just a very big competitor and I see her as my compition.

Total annihilation! lol

 

[Vicki]

I'm sure she will say things like cannabis is a gateway drug, and that it has no real medical uses because there have been no studies to support such findings, etc. etc. She may even mention that if a person uses cannabis, they are supporting the drug war.

 

[finchrock24]

The first two points I can handle.

Caffine, sugar, and nicotine as well as alcohol are could all be considered more relavent 'gateway drugs'. I had all those substances long before my first MJ hit.

Medical use is almost a no argument now...I will have plenty to knock that down...

The last point is interesting though, Vicki. I suppose one could make an argument there. I guess the only way I could fight it is by saying that if the person grew their on pot, then no money/aid is being given to fun 'drug cartels' and terrorists (or whatever the gov't is telling people abouyt where the money from pot goes.)

I was also hopping to incorporate this story into my speech. http://www.fuckcombustion.com/viewtopic.php?id=5432

 

[lwien]

Reasons for keeping it illegal:

Gateway drug

Using cannabis for medical purposes is counter productive due to the carcinogenic compounds that are present in smoke, and being that people who smoke MJ hold their hits deeper and longer in their lungs than even cigarette smokers, it presents a considerable risk.

Causes loss of motivation and short term memory loss.

Society doesn't need another mind altering substance that could very well be abused.

Reasons for legalization:

Use the exact same reasons why liquor prohibition did not work.

The cost associated with investigating, prosecuting and incarcerating cannibis users and dealers.

The war on drugs is being lost. It will NEVER be won as long as there is a desire to consume, and there will always be as desire to consume. It's in our nature since the beginning of time............so why spend enormous amounts of dollars and resources on a war that is impossible to win.

Use Portugal as an example. They have legalized all drugs, and their drug use has not increased nor has there been any negative affects for doing so.

If ANY dollars and resources are to be spent in trying to control the abuse of drugs, use it to prosecute doctors and other sources that provide a much more dangerous situation, and that is the situation of the abuse and addiction to legal prescription drugs which is a far more pervasive and dangerous situation. With the limited amount of resources that we have, ESPECIALLY considering the current economic situation, one has to pick where to spend those dollars and where it will do the most good.

 

[finchrock24]

That's perfect, lwien. I was hoping you'd jump in on this. That last little paragraph about using the money to track drs. that abuse the privilege to prescribe drugs is great. I will try and use that point if you don't mind!

 

[Vicki]

The first two points I can handle.

Caffine, sugar, and nicotine as well as alcohol are could all be considered more relavent 'gateway drugs'. I had all those substances long before my first MJ hit.

Medical use is almost a no argument now...I will have plenty to knock that down...

The last point is interesting though, Vicki. I suppose one could make an argument there. I guess the only way I could fight it is by saying that if the person grew their on pot, then no money/aid is being given to fun 'drug cartels' and terrorists (or whatever the gov't is telling people abouyt where the money from pot goes.)

I was also hopping to incorporate this story into my speech. http://www.fuckcombustion.com/viewtopic.php?id=5432

She might say that the father was irresponsible giving it to his child. That there was no way he could have known the outcome, thus putting his own child in harm's way.

 

[lwien]

I will try and use that point if you don't mind!

Don't mind at all. Have fun........

 

[finchrock24]

The first two points I can handle.

Caffine, sugar, and nicotine as well as alcohol are could all be considered more relavent 'gateway drugs'. I had all those substances long before my first MJ hit.

Medical use is almost a no argument now...I will have plenty to knock that down...

The last point is interesting though, Vicki. I suppose one could make an argument there. I guess the only way I could fight it is by saying that if the person grew their on pot, then no money/aid is being given to fun 'drug cartels' and terrorists (or whatever the gov't is telling people abouyt where the money from pot goes.)

I was also hopping to incorporate this story into my speech. http://www.fuckcombustion.com/viewtopic.php?id=5432

She might say that the father was irresponsible giving it to his child. That there was no way he could have known the outcome, thus putting his own child in harm's way.

Definitely a valid argument I may have to deal with. However, it was essentally try an experimental medicine (which we all know MJ isn't really experimental at this point, been in use for 3000+ years.) type of scenario. Had it been experimental prescription X from the lead doc, it probably wouldn't be a problem. It was either watch his 2 year old litter ally waste away or try an alternative solution. That is how I would market it, anyway.

 

[Purple-Days]

Because all the advertising would be aimed at children, of course.

 

[finchrock24]

Lol...I think I may have seen those at a dispensary!

 

[tdavie]

Pot should be kept illegal because;

1) According to a study in 'X' some of the components it contains mimic developmental hormones and is therefore deleterious to our youth.

2) It lowers inhibitions, promotes promiscuity and therefore spreads disease and causes unwanted pregnancies.

3) It is a gateway to harder drugs.

4) It causes crime.

5) It causes people to be lazy and apathetic.

6) It causes short term memory loss.

7) It will cause traffic fatalities because people will drive under the influence.

8) It will cause accidents in the workplace because people will smoke before coming to work, or while on break.

9) It will cause parents to neglect their young.

10) It will cause you to be unable to perform sexually (I know, in conflict with #2).

I've heard or read of all of these. I can even invent a few.

The best one, according to a staffer from my local member of parliament, Stephen Fletcher, is 'The Taliban and Al-Qaeda sell illegal drugs'.

Good luck debating.

Tom

 

[VWFringe]

8 Toasty Pastries

Civil Order - I think that's the nut of it. People have felt united for a long time about this issue, and in America if you've watched television for very long you have an autonomous response when you hear a politician say they're going to get tough on drugs.

Noam Chomsky wrote this about sports, but i think it fits here...possibly, about what i said about civil order above:

But the point is, it does make sense: it's a way of building up irrational attitudes of submission to authority, and group cohesion behind leadership elements -- in fact, it's training in irrational jingoism. That's also a feature of competitive sports. I think if you look closely at these things, I think, typically, they do have functions, and that's why energy is devoted to supporting them and creating a basis for them and advertisers are willing to pay for them and so on."

-----------------------------------------
and for legalization - my main reason

it belongs in The Commons, or the public domain
as a right, historically
villified only by the puritanical

return to the public what was brazenly stolen, what we were lied to about, what we continue to be lied to about, continues to exemplify the most aggregious forms of control through popular media, relying on lies and dis-information to prop up an out of date punitive system, and ignores what works...better information at the right time of life.

if you're having trouble with my concept of the public domain, i got it from a documentary about the commons, or the corporate enclosure of the commons in so many ways, and...well, remember the people of South America used the coca leaf for a long time with no societal problems, then in walks the United States, and get the UN and the rest of the world to make it illegal for them to use it anymore. they're not happy, they have a right to use it, same as us. let the government go after...what do they call it, precursors, and synthetics, but leave the rights of the indiginous peoples of the planet alone.

isht i could keep re-writing this all night and not be happy, just gonna post what i got so fur'

 

[finchrock24]

Well I got a chance to observe the person that will be refuting my speech. She wasn't very strong at all and her speech and rebuttle were far too short. Also, her speech was on why the legal drinking age should be lowered to 18 (topics were by choice of persuader)...ironic she chose to debate mine. Anyway, I'm not too worried about what she can throw at me. I plan to just read up (already building upon my current knowledge of the subject) on the issue and watch a few video clips.

Now I just have to organize all my thoughts...thats the hardest part!

 

[lwien]

^^ Sounds like fun, finch.

 

[djonkoman]

I'm pretty sure she will use the scizophrenia-argument

 

[Nycdeisel]

Most points have already been mentioned and explained, there is just one that Im going to speak on, and that is the fact that cannabis, however it may be consumed, it still safer then tobacco and alcohol.
This one is pretty easy to find information on, as you can just take regular textbook information and compare and maybe expand on it.

Since your 'opponent' does not seem to well versed in what you are talking about in particular, I dont understand exactly why you would give points to keep it illegal, unless that is just a strong opinion you have and in that case you should have enough evidence if you want to send that message

 

[finchrock24]

The reason I want points to keep it illegal is because she will have to rebuttal mine then i will go up after her and basically refute her rebuttal. Therefore, when she says things like "MJ should remain illegal beacause of its addictive nature" I can anticipate that and answer it when I go back up. I'm essentially trying to figure out what she can throw at me...which is why I want to here the reasons on why she might say it should remain illegal. Its a little confusing but I'm trying to anticipate the opponents move. Although I think she isn't the strongest speaker, I still like to be 100% prepared to my assignments, so I'm looking at this as if she wants to tear my topic apart. Always be prepared!

Scizophrenia argument was one of the ones that worries me because it seems, on the surface, to be a very solid argument. However, I can also argue that there is no proof of Mj causing the schizophrenia. Also, it has been suggested that people with schizophrenia are more likely to use MJ because it helps control their condition, which is why patients with schizophrenia have higher numbers of MJ use (I still need to look this info up to be certain though).

Thanks all...keep em coming. I plan to post my outline up once it gets underway in the next day or two.

 

[wilf789]

Gateway drug is usually one that they'll throw at you.

I've done a few debates on this myself and anticipating the other side's argument to prepare your answers beforehand is a very smart idea, you should do well!

To answer the gateway drug theory you can make the case that it's the illegality of cannabis that creates such problems. There's nothing in cannabis itself which causes one to try other narcotics, and in a black market system children are forced to purchase their bud from dealers who may well offer them other drugs at the same time. Its illegality shoves it into the same category as drugs which are entirely more unsafe or more powerful. If it was regulated and sold like alcohol, it would be much harder to obtain. Having recently finished my adolescent years myself, I can say for sure that even in an alcohol-liberal country like England it is easier for an 11-16 year old to obtain narcotics (mainly cannabis, but doesn't take much effort for most others too) than it is for them to buy Vodka or something from a liquor store. Sure there are always those dodgy shops/bars that kids will know about, and sure you can just get someone else to buy it for you, but it's still a hell of a lot harder than getting hooked up with a dealer - especially if you grew up in an urban area, but even if you didn't (my school was a boarding school deep in the countryside) it's still easy.

People always argue that weed usage would skyrocket after legalisation too, but AFAIK less teenagers use marijuana in Portugal and the Netherlands than in the UK and the US. Its illegality contributes to its appeal for young people to a certain degree. Make it legal and there'd be a bump for a few years before settling down to lower than previous levels, having used a lot of the money from taxing cannabis to fund education and public health programs into discouraging its abuse.

- Watch The Union if you have time. Some very cogent arguments put forward by some clever people, as well as some rather one-sided ones by some very stoned people haha but it's still useful!

 

[OO]

if the schizophrenia argument comes up, turn it around and use it to support your argument.

if MJ were legal, there would be more money dedicated to researching it's effects, but as it currently stands it's safer than a large amount of prescription drugs.

with more people coming to accept those that do use the drug itself, there will be more people inclined to spending money researching its side effects.

 

[djonkoman]

recently there was an article all over the news that a new study proved the relationship between weed and schizophrenia, so I think she will use that aticle to support the schizophreniaclaim
but that study is still only a statistics study, they did find(or looked for) a reason why weed would cause or trigger schiophrenia, and so the relatiosnhip still isn't proved IMO
because the argument that people with schizophrenic tendencies are atracted to weed, even when they don't know it themselves(subconscieusly) still isn't disproved by this study
they only dosproved that schizophrenia patients conscieusly selfmedicate because the weedusage became before the first real symptoms
but that doesn't mean the process wasn't already going on and subconscieusly they got atracted to weed to selfmedicate the first stages

 

[Egzoset]

The fear of foreing, potentially toxic substances added by unscrupulous resellers to cheat about content and mass.

In the end all drugs can be poison, etc.

 

[finchrock24]

Great reply Wilf...I appreciate it. I have watched The Union ( along with most other recent MJ docs) and I plan to watch it again this weekend sometime before my speech. Ultimatley, I think my argument for 'the gateway' theory will be easy to understand. I heard someone tell me that they think MJ is a gateway drug and that I cannot prove the heroin addicted didn't start with MJ as a teen. I then replied "And you can prove they DID start with MJ". The conversation quickly turned course....

OO and dj, thanks for the advice the schizophrenia study. To be honest, I needed some more ammo to fight that one.

 

[djonkoman]

another argument for the schziphrenia-discussion:
there was a study in the UK, also just a statistics study, and the result was that if the relationship is there, you would need to stop so much people smoking weed to prevent one case of schizophrenia(I don't know the numbers anymore, but I think it was a few thousand to stop 1 case or so)
and if you have dormant schziphrenia, any mindaltering substance could trigger it, alcohol too, and that's also legal