cannabisnews.com: Experts Debate The Legalization of Marijuana





Experts Debate The Legalization of Marijuana
Posted by CN Staff on April 11, 2003 at 08:17:53 PT
By Kayley Mendenhall, Chronicle Staff Writer
Source: Bozeman Daily Chronicle 
Smoking marijuana is quite possibly unhealthy. That's why in a debate Wednesday night between Steve Hager, editor and chief of High Times magazine, and Robert Stutman, a former Drug Enforcement Administration agent, Hager told audience members they shouldn't smoke it."If you don't smoke it, every health risk he mentioned is gone," he said, responding to statistics from Stutman about increased cancer risks from inhalation of marijuana. "So I'm going to tell you, don't smoke it. Make tea or make brownies."
The debate about legalizing marijuana, held at the Montana State University, drew a crowd of more than 700 people. The speakers discussed medical uses of marijuana, health and side effects, spiritual ceremonies and jail time."I understand that most of you are on Steve's side," Stutman said to the mostly 18- to 25-year-old crowd. "I wouldn't know what to do with an audience that agreed with me."The debate, sponsored by ASMSU Lively Arts and Lectures, was definitely the most "lively" of the events this year, said organizer Elizabeth Schwartz. The club paid $7,000 to bring the duo here and the event started a half-hour late as organizers scrambled to make room for hundreds more people than they expected.The rambunctious crowd cheered often and was scolded by the moderator more than once for being disrespectful.Each speaker had 15 minutes to present his side of the argument. Then audience members, many clad in clothing decorated with marijuana leaves, posed questions to either side.Hager began with five reasons marijuana should be legal. It's good medicine, hemp is good for the environment, the United States has the biggest prison system in the world, illegal drug use funds corruption and marijuana is part of his culture, he said."I discovered the counter-culture. I went to Woodstock and the Rainbow gatherings," he said. "It is a good culture. But we are tremendously persecuted because of our belief in the spiritual aspects of this plant."Stutman said that 20 guys passing a joint around, getting stoned on a Saturday night does not constitute a religious ceremony.As for medical uses of marijuana, Stutman said he agrees with the use of cannabis for medical reasons if the Food and Drug Administration finds it scientifically worthwhile."Cannabis in marijuana may be good medicine, but smoking marijuana will never be good medicine," he said. "I do not believe marijuana should be made legal because first and foremost we will have more users."More users means more accidents on highways, Stutman said. But Hager disagreed, saying alcohol causes many more car accidents than marijuana use. He also said anyone who gets high and drives is abusing the drug."If you don't know the difference between use and abuse, better step aside until you can figure out where those lines are," he said. "The people who have a really stupid attitude about marijuana, doing breakfast bong hits before going off to a chemistry exam, you're not doing anything for the environment, you're not doing anything for legalization -- you're the reason it's illegal."Kayley Mendenhall is at: kmendenhall dailychronicle.comSource: Bozeman Daily Chronicle (MT)Author: Kayley Mendenhall, Chronicle Staff WriterPublished: Friday, April 11, 2003 Copyright: 2003 The Bozeman Daily ChronicleContact: citydesk gomontana.comWebsite: http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/Related Articles & Web Site:High Times Magazinehttp://www.hightimes.com/Head, Fed Debate Marijuana's Merits http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15867.shtmlDebate To Legalize Marijuana Attracts Crowd http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15863.shtmlFormer DEA Agent, Journalist To Square Offhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14536.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #8 posted by FoM on April 14, 2003 at 22:15:10 PT
freedom fighter 
My that is a lot of money. I missed that but sometimes I do miss some of the content when I'm posting articles. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by freedom fighter on April 14, 2003 at 22:06:42 PT
And they call
themselves experts! I must admit the experts are expert in raking the 7 grand. Heck, for one night of BSiiing for couple of hours seem a easy money there.. And now, do'nt get this funny idea in your brain and try to copy the idea, I alreay have patented the idea long time ago. You see, I am an expert!It's funny to note that none of the "experts" ever lived in time when cannabis was truly legal.. It's truly funny to note that none of the "experts" know what it's like to be arrested and thrown into a cage for smoking a joint. spit!spit!pazff
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by freedom fighter on April 14, 2003 at 21:41:39 PT
NoOne! Not Even your God!
Stutman said that 20 guys passing a joint around, getting stoned on a Saturday night does not constitute a religious ceremony.Is he saying that 20 guys passing a bible around, getting stoned on a Sunday night does constitute a religious ceremony?what's up with these "DUOS", traveling and raking the money??? 7 grand is alot of money... to be preaching about what you can or cannot put in your mouth. Especially about your "God".What does that has to do to a human being in a cage for smoking a joint?pazff
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by SoberStoner on April 11, 2003 at 18:38:02 PT
Gah..i'm gonna have an aneurysm
"I understand that most of you are on Steve's side," Stutman said to the mostly 18- to 25-year-old crowd. "I wouldn't know what to do with an audience that agreed with me."THEN WHY IS IT STILL ILLEGAL?!?!??!
If the public doesnt want the law, then the law should become null and void, pretty basic concept.Stutman said that 20 guys passing a joint around, getting stoned on a Saturday night does not constitute a religious ceremony.Two words come to mind when I read this, unfortunately, I dont want to disrespect the site and say them, however, I am outraged that someone could have this little respect for religious practices that have used cannabis for thousands of years, including christianity..of course, i dont know why i'm surprised by his arrogance and ignorance.As for medical uses of marijuana, Stutman said he agrees with the use of cannabis for medical reasons if the Food and Drug Administration finds it scientifically worthwhile.They already did..it's called marinol"you're not doing anything for legalization -- you're the reason it's illegal."I have to respectfully disagree with this statement..if it were legal, noone would care that you smoked before a test. In fact i often smoked before philosophy exams, as cannabis enabled me to view the world from a more spiritual and philosophical state of mind. There is a time and place for everything, but it is never the right time to divide amongst ourselves like what happened in the late 70's when everyone started fighting amongst ourselves trying to take credit for who would be responsible for legalizing, when all it did was help the movement fall apart.SS
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Virgil on April 11, 2003 at 14:45:00 PT
Oh, what would they do?
"If you don't smoke it, every health risk he mentioned is gone," he saidI wonder how the system handles the weights, say when brownies are concerned. In North Carolina 14 grams will get you a fine and 15 grams may well get you jail now that everyone is so rabid about cannabis. If you bought you a half ounce and the wolves catch you, you better hope they don't spit on it. That spit could make all the difference.Anyway with weights being of such concern to our control freaks as they mortar in their police state, I really do wonder how they would deal with brownies or even pizza for that matter.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by afterburner on April 11, 2003 at 10:12:45 PT:
Thanks, JSM and Max Flowers
Well said. I noticed that passage too, but I'm saving my rage for other issues later. My day is just starting. I would like to add one thing to the debate -- First Amendment.Amendment ICongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. -U.S. Constitution - Bill of Rights http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html Thanks again.ego destruction or ego transcendence, that is the question.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Max Flowers on April 11, 2003 at 09:55:29 PT
I really get angry
...when I read things like this:~~Stutman said that 20 guys passing a joint around, getting stoned on a Saturday night does not constitute a religious ceremony.~~The arrogance of that attitude is way too much! It is the entire problem in crystal form. NO-ONE---senator, congressman, policeman, president, DEA goon, I repeat NO-ONE has the right to define for me what a religious/spiritual experience is and how I achieve it!! This is such a basic constitutional freedom that we're supposed to have here that I am beside myself every time I see another jerk (who knows damn well that is outside of their actual right to oppress) who thinks he can decide that basic right for me!Is it just me, or is that just the most infuriating thing??!! Grrr! I want to throttle the guy and shove a copy of the bill of rights and constitution down his throat so he can get better acquainted with it!MF
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by JSM on April 11, 2003 at 09:48:50 PT
Spiritual Use
For heaven's sake, why doesn't someone ask this DEA guy what gives him or the government the right to tell anyone what is spiritual/religious and what isn't. I am sick and tired of reading about these debates and hearing the BS about "getting stoned on a Saturday night does not constitute a religious ceremony." Does partaking wine as part of a Sunday morning sacrement with even more than 20 guys qualify as religious? And if so, where is the difference? We simply have to call these jokers on these outrageous remarks. 
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment