philosophy paper second assignment (how to start the discussion, 4 paragraphs)

This second assignment takes care of four paragraphs.
The first two paragraphs are the most important in your paper.  
These are theses paragraphs. These two paragraphs are YOUR PROGRAM. Thesis and a counter-thesis: Each thesis and counter-thesis contains two points. You present the point and explain it. When you explain, you give reasons for holding the point.

whatever is in this color are thesis and counter,
whatever is in this color is the first point, with explanation,
whatever is in this color is the second point with explanation,
_______________________________________


                  In this paper I argue against the prohibition of marijuana. First, marijuana prohibition must be weighed against the loss of personal freedom. The point is that our laws should take into account cuitizens' right to self-determination. Second, the The War on Drugs has only served the immediate interests of politicians. By taking a moral stand against recreational drugs, or fighting the evils caused by the illegal drug trade they have only increased their popularity among constituents.

                 Prohibitionists disagree. They believe that marijuana is an addictive drug, which increases consumption and dependency. Addiction is a result of marijuana's power to induce dependency.  In addition, marijuana is a gate way to other illicit and more harmful substances, thus increasing the possibility of committing crimes. It is a fact that addiction is generally sustained within a social network linked to organized crime. 

_______

Now, comes the discussion. Paragraph 3, you go back to your thesis. Take the first point and flesh it out. Bring outside experts and relevant data. Paragraph 4 you take the counter thesis and do the same thing you did in paragraph 3. 
_______ 

                  Abolitionists believe that prohibition must be weighed against our loss of personal freedoms. They argue that citizens should be able to choose what they want with their bodies, including the recreational use of drugs, as long as they do not harm others. Such arguments often cite British philosopher John Stuart Mill's harm principle, which states that "the state had no right to intervene to prevent individuals from doing something that harmed them, if no harm was thereby done to the rest of society." (Mill, Liberty, 75). Mill's harm principle is designed to restrict the scope of government restrictions of personal liberty. Legal theorist Ronald Dworkin states that social disapproval or dislike for a person's actions isn't enough to justify intervention by government unless they actually harm someone (New York Times, 2013).

                 Prohibitionists reject this idea. They bring relevant statistics: According to recent data, marijuana remains an addictive, with 25% of recurrence among people ages 16 to 25 (Buck-Norris, 17). Marijuana remains intractable not because it's more addictive than other drugs, but because addicts are more reluctant to let it go (Casas & Weimer, 33). Marijuana happens to be affordable and available in our inner cities. Dr. John Samaras, a professor of psychology at Penn Sate University, argues that parental substance dependence and abuse can have profound effects on children, including child abuse and neglect. (Samaras, Drug Addiction in America, 44).