Following are two sets of scrambled claims for cases opposing legalization of marijuana.

The first is a direct refutation opposing the needs-analysis case included in Exercise 3 from Chapter 8. The second set of statements develops a counterproposal. Unscramble the claims in each case, and construct an outline from them.

Direct Refutation 1. The plan to legalize marijuana won’t work.

2. Two-thirds of high school seniors oppose marijuana use.

3. Reallocating present enforcement funds will not provide sufficient revenue to support the plan.

4. There is no need to change marijuana laws.

5. Young people who wish to experiment with marijuana will still be able to obtain it after it has been legalized.

6. Use among young people is decreasing.

7. Because marijuana is not physically or psychologically harmful or addictive, regulating its use will provide no benefits.

8. Funds spent on marijuana enforcement are insignificant; only 4 percent of drug arrests are for marijuana violations.

9. No benefits will result from the plan.

10. Paraquat is no longer used to destroy marijuana plants.

11. Personnel and funding to regulate and control marijuana distribution are unavailable.

Counterproposal 1. The counterproposal is a better proposal than legalization of marijuana.

2. It is true that there is a significant need to change marijuana laws.

3. Revenue collected from these fines will be given to law enforcement agencies for control of hard drugs.

4. Under decriminalization, we no longer need to use resources and time prosecuting people for a minor, victimless offense.

5. People found to possess marijuana in small amounts for personal use will be subject to minimal fines.

6. Decriminalization allows redirection of funds to areas in which enforcement is most needed.

7. Decriminalizing marijuana continues to indicate society’s disapproval of substance abuse.

8. Instead of legalizing marijuana, we should decriminalize its use through following proposal.