cannabisnews.com: Ganja Debate Draws Crowd 





Ganja Debate Draws Crowd 
Posted by CN Staff on October 11, 2002 at 08:49:24 PT
By Vanessa Hoo 
Source: Vanderbilt Hustler 
Marijuana was a hot topic Tuesday night as two experts debated legalization of the widely used college drug.Steve Hager, former editor-in-chief of High Times magazine, said the U.S. government should legalize marijuana for five reasons, including its medicinal purpose and the variety of uses for hemp. In addition, he pointed out how the decriminalization of marijuana would lessen the crowding of prisons.
The drug, he said, is a part of a counter-culture, and carries religious value."This criminal cartel around drugs, the reason they exist and are so powerful is because drugs are illegal and they can charge so much money for them," Hager said. "If marijuana was legal, we're talking about a crop like corn or soybeans; we're not talking about $300 an ounce; we're talking about $1 or $2 a pound."But Robert Stutman, a former Drug Enforcement Administration agent, said if marijuana was legalized, the United States would have more drug users than it currently does. In addition, he said marijuana causes physical and psychological dependence and interferes with people's ability to think. He said recent studies show that smoking marijuana is a major contributor to lung, mouth and esophageal cancers. "I think within 10 years the U.S. will have some form of decriminalization of marijuana, but it will never be legalized," Stutman said. "Most countries that do legalize it tend to make it illegal again because of the dramatic increase in its usage."Hager offered to fund a trip for Stutman to Santa Cruz, Jamaica, in order to let him experience marijuana firsthand. Stutman said he respectfully declined.Some students said they agree with Hager's position on the legalization of marijuana, but acknowledged that Stutman's articulation was better in the debate."I am pro-legalization, but I thought that Hager's style of debate was not as effective as Stutman's," said sophomore Allie Archer. "It seemed as if Stutman was more appealing to the dynamics of campus."Other students said they agree with Stutman."I feel like the legalization of marijuana would lead to more severe drug addictions that would cause more problems," said freshmen Melissa Kemper.Hager said Vanderbilt should form a student organization supporting the legalization of marijuana, and several students said they liked the idea.The Office of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug Prevention organized the debate, with the support of the Interfraternity Council and alcohol management groups GAMMA and CHEERS.Jeanine Atkinson, director of the Office of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug Prevention, said the event cost around $11,000, half of the office's budget."I think the debate was a success," she said. "I didn't take a head count, but I think 600 people or more attended. The debate lasted from 8 p.m. until about 9:40 p.m., and afterwards people were able to have discussions with the speakers."Source: Vanderbilt Hustler (TN)Author: Vanessa Hoo Published: Friday, October 11, 2002Copyright: 2002 Vanderbilt HustlerWebsite: http://www.vanderbilthustler.com/Related Articles & Web Site:High Timeshttp://www.hightimes.com/Experts Debate High Times and Crimeshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14288.shtmlEx-Drug Agent Debates Marijuana Legalization http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12557.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #23 posted by afterburner on October 11, 2002 at 21:02:37 PT:
"War is good business" is a popular fallacy.
"For example, to say that annual international and national arms sales are worth some $900 billion has no impact. First, the figure is obviously inaccurate. Accuracy at such levels is impossible. It does, however, offer an approximation. It indicates that arms sales are large, enormous, unimaginably big....Most consumer price index food lists are based on an assemblage of staples which hardly represent what people actually eat. The price of these staples moves far slower than the majority of foods, partly because they are staples and are not a growth area in consumption; and partly because the cost of staples is often indirectly controlled by general government programs, precisely because these areas do involve staples. Dairy, grain and egg production are typical of this phenomenon. Or, again, barometers such as the GDP deflator measure the price of output produced entirely inside the country. They don't deal with imports. Even the illicit drug trade must be seen as an integral part of this swirling inflation. Estimates put it at $300 billion a year. Enough, the Japanese deputy Finance Minister says to 'undermine the credibility of the financial system.' What, then, is one to think of the equally artificial arms market, three times larger than the drug market, with the added advantage of being both legal and secret? It appears nowhere in our monthly or annual inflation figures....The flowering of weaponry is the full expression of the genuine loss of purpose among the military, the administrators and the industrial elites of the West, all driven as much by their own confusion as by their unity of method. It is not surprising, therefore, that the politicians and the press, who feed off the elites in their search for subject matter, should have been able to make more of the Iran affair that a trivial game of individual wrongdoing. They could have used this minute arms deal as an opportunity to lay bare the way American and most Western economies work on a day-to-day basis. Irangate was not an exception. It was a common transaction. One of thousands. But in order to take such an approach, people would have to accept that the selling of arms, is no longer a marginal business....The United States, given its great natural strength, was able again and again to shift its problems over its borders. The 1961 launch of international arms consumption, largely in order to balance the trade deficit; the 1973 encouragement of a first oil price rise to help Iranians pay for their pro-Western armament program; and the subsequent attempt to wipe out the enormous oil price increases through the use of general inflation were all the insane acts of rational men who had come to the end of their tether....In practical terms the 1973 decision destroyed the unity of the industrialized nations. By playing national problems ruthlessly against those of allies, Washington created three rival blocs. This meant that Japan was freed to play its own game. [Look what happened to them.] As for the European Community, its members abruptly realized that their only real option was to succeed as a community....The international monetary disorder did eventually force the creation of the Group of Five (G5), which subsequently became the G7 [and now the G8]. This committee of the seven leading industrial powers was a desperate attempt to limit the damage caused by the multilateral roller coaster and to forge at least minimum economic links among them."Figures from 1992 as reported in Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West by John Ralston Saul.Obviously, some things have changed in 10 years of deflation, enforced by globalization, but the distortions remain in hidden markets. "War is good business" is a popular fallacy. Now we have a never-ending War on Terrorism woven together by U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft with the War on Drugs. Hmmmm...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by John Tyler on October 11, 2002 at 20:13:08 PT
Keep Voting
76% YES
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by p4me on October 11, 2002 at 19:51:33 PT
Busch is going to be politicing for 2 weeks
Well it was Busch that made AttackIraq more important than all other things combined, but now that Congress has done their thing before they adjourn for the year and shift everything to the puppet's department, Busch thinks getting ahold of money and getting Republicans in Congress to pass a permanent tax cut for the rich is the top priority for the 14 days before the election: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9561-2002Oct10.html The title of the article is, "Bush Plans Two-Week Campaign Tour:Democrats Complain of Taxpayer Dollars Used to Foot the Bill" and is by Mike Allen and published Friday, October 11, 2002 on Page A02.http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1011-05.htm - This would have to be the article I recommend for today. The Jefferson quote about corporations has already been presented. But in this article that says that the war is about profits for the rich it raises a very important issue about corporations and this article is by a student of law and should be consulted directly. But the issue used to be that corporations were not individuals and could not give money to political causes until a landmark case where a clerk wrote something the judges never said, meaning we are living a lie. It is really awesome and I hope some journalist carries the thought to further detail. But here are a few paragraphs:But a government whose policies have been captured by big oil, big auto, and big agriculture – just a few dozen corporations that are each richer than the majority of nations on earth – refuses to consider such rational alternatives. Because these corporations have claimed the constitutional human right of free speech – which includes the right to influence legislation, to influence politicians, and give money to political parties – we, the people, who would benefit from a shift in direction away from oil industry and toward local human values are left out of the decision making loop. It wasn’t always this way. Before 1886, most states had laws that prevented corporations from meddling in politics. They can’t vote, the logic went, so what are they doing talking to politicians? Wisconsin, for example, had a law stating: “No corporation doing business in this state shall pay or contribute, or offer consent or agree to pay or contribute, directly or indirectly, any money, property, free service of its officers or employees or thing of value to any political party, organization, committee or individual for any political purpose whatsoever, or for the purpose of influencing legislation of any kind, or to promote or defeat the candidacy of any person for nomination, appointment or election to any political office.” The penalty for any corporate official violating the law and getting cozy with politicians on behalf of the corporation was five years in prison and a substantial fine. Humans had the right of free speech, and an individual – representing himself and his own opinions – was free to say and do what he wanted. Free speech is a human right. But corporations didn’t have rights – they had privileges. Brought into being by authority of the state in which they’re incorporated, that state determined the privileges its corporations could have and how they could be used. But, they teach in law school, in 1886 the U.S. Supreme Court changed all that – a decision which leads us directly to today’s war with Iraq. The Court, the textbooks say, in the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad case, recognized corporations as persons under the Fourteenth Amendment, and thus handed them the huge club of human rights that our Founders had given us humans to beat back government should it ever become repressive. Armed with this mighty weapon, corporations claimed free speech, privacy, the right not to speak, and used anti-discrimination statues originally passed to free slaves to throw out “bad boy” laws that favored local businesses over large corporations or companies that had been convicted of felonies. I recently discovered that in 1886 the Supreme Court ruled no such thing. The “corporations are persons” was a fiction created by the Court’s reporter. He simply wrote it into the headnote of the decision. In fact, it contradicts what the Court itself said. And we’ve found in the National Archives a note in the hand of the Supreme Court Chief Justice of the time to the court’s reporter saying, explicitly, that the Court had not ruled on corporate personhood in the Santa Clara case. Nonetheless, corporations have claimed the human rights the Founders fought and often died to bequeath to living, breathing humans. And, using those rights, they’ve usurped our government to the point where our domestic policies are now based on what’s best for the corporations with the largest campaign contributions, and our foreign policy has become a necessary extension of that. DAD-D,1,2
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by FoM on October 11, 2002 at 16:20:19 PT
Just a Comment
I agree with what you all said. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by mayan on October 11, 2002 at 15:58:28 PT
War...
It's good for the rich & bad for everyone else.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by p4me on October 11, 2002 at 15:24:38 PT
No, war is not good for the economy
I remember the last Gulf War by its economic consequences on me. I was making furniture of all stupid things to do when it came. As soon as the price of gas went up, people stopped spending money. Well, the rich have got the price of gas up which if you are Busch&Friends, but it is bad for everyone else. I am sure spending is down but we will have to wait on the numbers, if you can trust them when they are released.And if I were sympathic to the dead peasants that will fall in Iraq, I would not retailiate today. I would wait until I was an old man or contracted a terminal illness and I would retailate then after 15 or 20 years of planning. Sadam is contained and if an Iraqi would step over the border with pepper spray he would be killed. They have been bombed all along and how would we know how many bombs fell last month or last year? It is all staged. Why didn't Clinton's views get more coverage. Why doesn't the world's views get more coverage? Everyone is being brainwashed by an American Press with the Fascist message of get Sadam Now. Ignore the election debate, that is too depressing and revealing.It is just a rich man's fight at the poor man's expense now that we have a de-facto tax-free upper 1%.DAD-D,1,2
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by DdC on October 11, 2002 at 15:17:11 PT
Do you think marjuana should be legalized? Poll
Do you think marjuana should be legalized for all uses in the United States? http://www.vanderbilthustler.com75.7% yes20.0% no4.3% not suretotal votes: 70 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by IDBSNE1 on October 11, 2002 at 15:09:38 PT
War is good for....
the rich, affluent, power abusing bastards. Sure, there might be a job increase in the Defense Contracts sector, but these "contracts" are really helping who? Yup, the rich, corrupt politicians who make policy to make themselves richer and more powerful... all in the guise of "patriotism" or "national security".....send our poor boys and girls to fight for "freedom"...when it's actually for oil or other natural resources.....I wish ALL Americans would see this.....idbsne1
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by FoM on October 11, 2002 at 14:37:51 PT
canaman
Bush Sr.'s war was very short lived. I don't think this one will be if we start bombing. I really don't know much about war. I am far from an expert. This is just what I think and would love to be wrong.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by canaman on October 11, 2002 at 14:24:50 PT
Is war good for the economy in general?
I don't know for sure. Was it good during George the firsts reign. I don't recall a boom during the first gulf war? I just don't know. I didn't mean to imply you thought it was good for anything else. I'd like to believe...War what is it good for? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by FoM on October 11, 2002 at 14:13:19 PT
canaman
I don't believe war is good for anything but is is good for the economy. I'd rather deal with a poor economy then go to war. In the end warring countries have to sit down and talk to come to an agreement but many innocent people die until that time comes and that can be years. It will create jobs because war needs guns, bullets, tanks, helicopters etc. Anything that has to do with making the army stronger will make jobs. It's sad but true I think.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by canaman on October 11, 2002 at 14:06:01 PT
It was more of a question FoM
I think it's more of a myth these days. In WWII it may have been good for business when the nation was mobilized for war. But how many americans make a living building like you said "implements of destruction"? I don't mean to sound disagreeable, I just think too many people think it's good for the economy. The stock market included, if war is what we need to make a robust economy, God help us all! Peace 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by FoM on October 11, 2002 at 13:57:01 PT
BGreen
Maybe because all in all cannabis people are non violent and easier to push around. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by BGreen on October 11, 2002 at 13:52:03 PT
They stifled the voice of the voters in DC
but they can't stop ONE IDIOT with a GUN who has thousands of people terrorized and several dead.WHO'S THE REAL THREAT? Not cannabis OR the cannabis user!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by FoM on October 11, 2002 at 13:42:18 PT
canaman 
You're very correct. War is good for the economy. War also can draw attention away from other very important issues. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by canaman on October 11, 2002 at 13:36:53 PT
War!...what is it good for? The economy?
Well at least the cops are working today in SF.46 arrested :
http://www.bayinsider.com/partners/ktvu/news/2002/10/11_sfprotests.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by FoM on October 11, 2002 at 13:20:21 PT
Hi Nuevo Mexican 
Glad to see the poll is up. I'm watching the news and it is about the shooter. Crazy times we live in. I think that our type news is going to slow up for the weekend. It sure has been an interesting week for news. The stock market is up. I thought it would go up once they agreed to war. Implements of destruction always spur the economy.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by Nuevo Mexican on October 11, 2002 at 13:06:02 PT
Up to 74 % now!
The poll that is!
Here's some opinions on the shooter/distraction scenario, seems to have knocked Iraq off the front page, maybe shrub will call off Iraq Attack and focus his brutality on the American people, who knows! It could happen!CIA, Mossad likely behind D.C. sniper attacks http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=208531&group=webcastMore on U.S. trained snipers:
MORE US SPECIAL FORCES ARRIVING IN COLOMBIAhttp://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=208489&group=webcastWhy are we always right and first to say it?U.S. Has a Plan to Occupy Iraq, Officials Report 
http://commondreams.org/headlines02/1011-08.htmYou're doing a great job FOM, thank you for you consistency and choice of callings! You're custom made for the role you are playing in the lifting of the consciousness of the people on this planet! Peace! NM
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by afterburner on October 11, 2002 at 12:03:37 PT:
Too bad the students find this man charismatic, 
maybe they recognize his arguments more because they have heard the lies and scare stories all their lives."I think within 10 years the U.S. will have some form of decriminalization of marijuana, but it will never be legalized," Stutman said. "Most countries that do legalize it tend to make it illegal again because of the dramatic increase in its usage."Say what? Please provide a list of these so-called countries that legalized it. U.S.A. prohibited it in 1937, Canada in 1923; pressure on the rest of the world led to U.N. treaties, which effectively made it illegal world-wide. Where are these countries that made it legal? What are we talking here: ancient history or fantasy?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Toker00 on October 11, 2002 at 10:47:09 PT
astronomical
73.1% - yes.Peace. Realize, then Legalize.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by John Tyler on October 11, 2002 at 09:47:38 PT
Voting
The vote is now:
YES    56.7%
NO     39.4%
Undecided  3%Total votes 33
Keep voting.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Dark Star on October 11, 2002 at 09:24:37 PT
Debaters
It might be more illuminating to have debates with politico vs. politico, e.g., Chris Giunchigliani vs. John Walters, or pundit vs. pundit, e.g., Bob Novak vs. Ethan Nadelmann, or scientist vs. scientist, e.g., Gabriel Nahas vs. John Morgan.This would be a true public service.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by FoM on October 11, 2002 at 08:54:23 PT
Marijuana Legalization Poll
http://www.vanderbilthustler.com/Do you think marjuana should be legalized for all uses in the United States?
 Current Results:  40.9% -- yes  
  54.5% -- no  
  4.5% -- not sure  
 total votes: 22 
Contact info bottom of this page
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment