cannabisnews.com: Debate Over Legalization of MJ Piques Interest Debate Over Legalization of MJ Piques Interest Posted by FoM on February 15, 2001 at 06:59:49 PT By Dustin Dow Source: Daily Kent Stater Marijuana brought the Kent State Student Center to life last night as more than 900 listeners crowded the Ballroom to watch a debate on the legalization of the drug sponsored by the All-Campus Programming Board.The heavily pro-legalization audience cheered often and loudly for High Times magazine editor Steve Hager, who argued his belief that marijuana is connected to his spirituality. "They can't argue against my right to have my own spirituality," Hager said. "And cannabis happens to be a part of that spirituality. They can't take that away."Robert Stutman, a 25-year veteran of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), argued the side of anti-legalization and repeatedly challenged Hager to name a medical group that supported marijuana use. Stutman cited several medical journals that discouraged the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. While Hager failed to cite a single doctor or group of physicians that supported his cause, he did comment on Stutman's challenges after the debate."Dr. Lester Grinspoon," Hager said. "He graduated from Harvard medical school, and he supports the medicinal use of cannabis. I could give you a hundred doctors that would say marijuana is the best medicine you can take, but for every study I have, he could have another that disagrees with it. You have to look past that propaganda bull shit. It's about spirituality."Stutman said the High Times editor was full of half-truths and used people's emotional attachment to the drug to support his cause."Emotionalism should never be a component of policy in the U.S.," Stutman said. "That's what happened with Japanese concentration camps."Moderator Joe Dangelo, undergraduate student senator for academic affairs, opened the debate up to audience questions after each man gave a 10-minute opening argument.Former president of the Kent State Neo-Pagan coalition, Zon Mundhenk, asked Stutman how he could justify the use of pharmaceutical drugs like Marynol but not marijuana. Marynol is a synthetic form of marijuana that is sold as a pharmaceutical."The label on Marynol cautions users that this drug causes addiction and long term psychotic behavior," Stutman said. "If marijuana was used as a medicine, it should face the same standards that all medicines have to go through. It should go through the FDA process."Hager responded that synthetic drugs are dangerous, marijuana should be freely available and anyone who wants to cultivate the plants for medicinal reasons should have the right to do so. The majority of Americans are opposed to the legalization of marijuana because they have been told it is bad for so many years, he said.Addressing Stutman, Hager said, "If you hadn't created a propaganda campaign over the years, there wouldn't be such a negative reaction against the counter-culture."Most students in attendance thought each debater made his point, but few were swayed by Stutman's statistics on the dangers of marijuana."It was a very factual debate," said psychology major P.J. Lukasewski. "They both presented their cases well, but I'm more on the pro-legalize side. Neither of them misled anybody, but the crowd went with (Hager)."Brad Smith, a psychology and criminal justice major, stood out in the minority."Everything (Hager's) saying about legalization is total bull shit," he said. "It's all just an excuse to use marijuana. I have an open mind, and I can't believe what he says."Complete Title: Debate Over Legalization of Marijuana Piques Student Interest Source: Daily Kent Stater (OH)Author: Dustin Dow Published: February 15, 2001 Address: 101 Taylor Hall KSU, Kent, Ohio (USA) 44242Copyright: 2001 The Daily Kent StaterWebsite: http://www.stater.kent.edu/Contact: http://www.stater.kent.edu/contact/Marijuana The Forbidden Medicinehttp://www.rxmarihuana.com/High Times Magazinehttp://www.hightimes.comCannabisNews Cannabis Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #15 posted by kaptinemo on February 16, 2001 at 04:40:55 PT: What we need is a debater's 'boot camp'. Part of the reason the antis are successful in continuing to lie and get away with it is that they have such enormous resources backing them.Of course, we all knew that. But they also have the experience of arguing in court; not merely legal court, but the court of public opinion. And they spend a lot of time preparing for it.Many years ago, I came across an interesting 60 Minutes episode where it had been discovered that a company was offering courses...on how to defend yourself successfully during an interview with 60 Minutes journalists. Talk about the creation of a economic niche where none had existed before! (Rather like what the antis did when they managed to criminalize what was once a perfectly legal transaction between consenting adults, no?)What we need is something similar: a 'college' where aspiring debaters can be exposed to both the 'content' of the antis dreck in a confrontational manner, and their delivery. In short, a course in how to throw their lies back in their teeth. Needless to say, you have to come prepared, first; no one should expect to survive a battle - and that's precisely the way the antis see it - without sufficient ammo. If you want one of the best sources of information to refute anti bilge, go here:Arguments and Answers - page 1by Clifford Scafferhttp://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/activist/args1.htmand take it from there.But evidently, that didn't cross the mind of Mr. Hager.That someone from High Times - of all publications! - would show up so woefully unprepared to deal with such classic (free translation: old as dirt, and therefore can be expected to be used becuase of it's familiarty) and easily refuted arguments as this anti presented does not speak well of the supposed premier voice of stoners in the US.Or, as one of my instructors used to say, "If you want to p*** with the big dogs, you have to lift your leg high enough." Mr. Hager didn't...and we all got wet shoes because of it. [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by Dan B on February 16, 2001 at 00:03:43 PT: Thanks, nl5x . . . and it's good to see you here again! We can all benefit from a reminder of those important facts you offer in your posting. Now, if we can just copy your post and take it with us to these debates . . . !Thanks for the link to Drug War Facts, too. Dan B [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by nl5x on February 15, 2001 at 22:40:39 PT steve please take notes Steve, please have high times buy you a laptop with the money they stole from the normal/forcade trust.http://www.cannabisculture.com/library/hparchive/HighTimesshake-up.htmlRobert Stutman, a 25-year veteran of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), argued the side of anti-legalization and repeatedly challenged Hager to name a medical group that supported marijuana use.Robert, I am not sure if your agency count’s as a medical group but it seems like a good place to start.On September 6, 1988, the Drug Enforcement Administration's Chief Administrative Law Judge, Francis L. Young, ruled: "Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known. ...[T]he provisions of the [Controlled Substances] Act permit and require the transfer of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II. It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for the DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance." The DEA's Administrative Law Judge, Francis Young concluded: "In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For example, eating 10 raw potatoes can result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death. Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within the supervised routine of medical care." Source: US Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Agency, "In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition," [Docket #86-22], (September 6, 1988), p. 57. Marijuana has been, in fact, never proven to have directly caused any death, according to Drug Enforcement Administration's Administrative Law Judge Francis L. Young. Young's report said one would have to smoke 1,500 pounds of marijuana (20,000 to 40,000 joints) within about 15 minutes to overdose on the drug.Next: I.O.M.The Institute of Medicine's 1999 report on medical marijuana stated, "The accumulated data indicate a potential therapeutic value for cannabinoid drugs, particularly for symptoms such as pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation."NEXT:Organizations that have endorsed medical access to marijuana include: the Institute of Medicine, the American Academy of Family Physicians; American Public Health Association; American Society of Addiction Medicine; AIDS Action Council; British Medical Association; California Academy of Family Physicians; California Medical Association; California Nurses Association; California Pharmacists Association; California Society of Addiction Medicine; Colorado Nurses Association; Kaiser Permanente; Lymphoma Foundation of America; Multiple Sclerosis California Action Network; National Association of People with AIDS; National Nurses Society on Addictions; New Mexico Nurses Association; New York State Nurses Association; New England Journal of Medicine; and Virginia Nurses Association.http://www.drugwarfacts.org/medicalm.htmThe Journal of the American Pharmaceutical Association concluded, marijuana should be available to those patients who ''do not adequately respond to current available therapies.'' [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by CongressmanSuet on February 15, 2001 at 20:57:10 PT: Once again Kap,... a well thought out excellent analysis. This is something I can never understand. Why do we "freeze" so badly when given at times, a perfect forumn with which to espouse our views? Is it just such a "charged" subject and we lose coherency? I will never forget a "Washington Journal" I viewed last spring I believe, that had as its featured guest Barry McPinnochio. One caller after another "screwed up", either by being too emotional, or letting the Weasel play them like cheap harmonicas. It was sickening. And now I read of another excellent chance blown? If you plan to be in a position of influence, than you need to borrow some "tricks" from their arsenal, and fight fire with fire. BE PREPARED! [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by dankhank on February 15, 2001 at 20:21:50 PT: steve o ... I have met Steve Hager, and gave him a ride from Shadow Convention to Liberty Bell Legalize Hemp Rally in Philly last year. He seemed like a pretty nice fellow. I am a bit disappointed in his forgetting the IOM report.Hard to say what we would really do when our time came.I do think that I held my own the afternoon I went mano-a-mano with JC Watts. everyone should try it ... good for the soul ... :-)Peace ... and better luck next time, Steve ... HEMP n STUFF [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by mungojelly on February 15, 2001 at 18:52:09 PT: debating tactics I agree that we should have all of our facts lined up when we debate. Certainly we should be able to list the numerous medical studies and government commissions that support our case. But OTOH I do see where Hager is coming from. We should not NEED to justify ourselves with those facts and figures. So what if marijuana is relatively harmless? So what if it has medical uses? If it was harmful and medically useless, still we would have the moral right to use it. It is a sacrament of a great many people, and no amount of statistics should be allowed to overwhelm that point. "Facts" can always be manufactured by whoever has an interest in manufacturing them, but it is inarguably true that cannabis is a sacrament. If we demand legalization of cannabis on the basis of studies showing that it is safe, we have not left ourselves on very solid ground. Facts can be misinterpreted -- or just flat out lied about (Holland's murder rate is twice ours, etc). Furthermore, if we argue that cannabis should be legal ONLY because it is one of the safest drugs that exists, we indirectly and unintentionally will be condemning (or at least failing to help) the users of other slightly more dangerous drugs -- for instance MDMA, which (while still quite safe relative to many OTC drugs) does have some dangerous side-effects. I think in the long-term the point we should push hardest is not that cannabis is amazingly safe (although it certainly wouldn't hurt to mention that), but that J-A-I-L is (to put it mildly) more harmful on the whole. Let's make sure that the way we present cannabis legalization is also simultaneously making a strong case for harm reduction as a policy for all drugs. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by kaptinemo on February 15, 2001 at 12:46:25 PT: Explaining the Great Disconnect Greenfox, I am always leery of trying to explain the motives of antis; like the behavioral psych guys at the FBI will tell you, getting inside the mind of sick pervs can be dangerous to the explorer.But here goes: aside from the obvious fact that the anti realized he was facing a hostile crowd and decided that a bromide like agreeing with them might ameliorate them, he also pulled a standard anti trick.That is, talking out of both sides of his mouth. About what I call the Great Disconnect.Here's how it works. Sound like the voice of sweet reason. Agree that people shouldn't be locked up for consumption of a relatively harmless weed. But under no circumstances allow the connection to be made that your stance is in direct contravention of the reality that potheads are languishing in prison.Why? Because the vast majority of the people he speaks to are ignorant of that same reality. You think the Rotary Clubs types he pontificates to, the types who think the Reader's Digest is second only to the Burning Bush, have any understanding of how rotten this DrugWar that he's a part of is? Nope, they're clueless...until their own Johnnie or Suzy gets picked up for possession. And only then are they made aware of the awful monstrosity that is opening its jaws to receive their children. As our own Observer has pointed out time and again, the antis commit the 'sin of omission'; they are always conveniently forgetting to tell their audience about the one little detail that gives the lie to all their claims of having 'compassion' for drug users...prison.Such selective memories on the part of government officials can be quite handy. It is the 'elephant in the living room' that I always go on about; the one thing antis never say. And therefore, his often-benighted audience never picks up on.Unless one of us is in the room and asks. And then watch the anti pull out all the stops and try to counter with bluster and out right lies.With regards to who represented us in the debate: I do not know anyone at High Times. But I would think that if they were going to travel to the camp of the enemy, they would have at least learned of some of their shibboleths.What I mean is this: antis will never respect the idea that we have a religious right to cannabis. Never. Because it is not in their belief systems. We here can accept a Rasta's claim to The Herb as being a sacrament; I happen to hold similar views. But when dealing with such people as antis, you have to recognize that the words that mean so much to you have no correlating value to them. Indeed, antis see all such professations as empty and devoid of meaning. Like a child's babbling, it presents itself as incoherency. which is then used against us. This was clearly a case of sending someone who speaks only Gaelic to Russia to teach a language without learning some paw Russki first.I hope that this has helped. Now excuse me while I wash my cortex free of the rotten mental energy that is the result of trying to rummage around in an antis' brainpan (bubbleubbleubble). [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by observer on February 15, 2001 at 11:42:15 PT DEA Doublethink "Emotionalism should never be a component of policy in the U.S.," Stutman said. "That's what happened with Japanese concentration camps."Wow. Now there's a glowing example of doublethink. This man, who has an extremely heavy emotional attachment to justifying his actions over his 25-year DEA "lock-up-the-dopers to save-the-children" career, is citing the travesty of scapegoating and "concentration camps" for US Japanese citizens during WWII as support for his lust to continue to scapegoat and jail other peaceful citizens, this time for the "crime" of using marijuana? That's just too much. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by greenfox on February 15, 2001 at 11:21:01 PT Regarding Dan B's comments Dan B said:I'm glad to have heard from at least one person who was there. Notice that none of the questions raised by the group of "mostly legalizers" were allowe dspace in this article. This kind of reporting disgusts me. Well one thing that is important to keep in mind is that the newspaper that is reporting on this (The Kent Stater) is run by students. HOWEVER they have very strict "guidelines" about what they can and cannot promote. So in THIS instance, it's more the university's fault than that of the student reporters. (If I was in their shoes, and it meant my grade, I would also have done the same thing). It's mixed up, considering colleges are supposed to HARNESS intellectual thinking, rather than stifling it...sly in green and FOXY in kind-gf [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by Dan B on February 15, 2001 at 10:21:44 PT: Thanks for Posting, Greenfox! I'm glad to have heard from at least one person who was there. Notice that none of the questions raised by the group of "mostly legalizers" were allowe dspace in this article. This kind of reporting disgusts me. Dan B [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by FoM on February 15, 2001 at 10:16:23 PT It must have been great to be there Way to go Greenfox! [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by greenfox on February 15, 2001 at 09:43:37 PT Funny, I was here..... To anyone interested in this article, take it from someone who was there.....ME!Heya guys, it's me again, (the seldom serious but always present poster,) and let me tell you it was a great debate! We had the narks on the run. I attend KSU (it's a great school for stoners,) and I also attended this "debate" (at 8:pm on that fateful Tuesday evening). First and foremost, it was a lot of fun. I even got to ask a question! There were problems, of course, and the "tone" got a little crazy towards the end, but all and all, the stoners were polite. (NOT THAT THE NARKS DESERVE IT!) But, we kept our manners. A few outbursts, here and there, but it was nice. However, the biggest problem was that (unfort.) Steve was not at all prepared. The DEA narc came with (literally) a briefcase filled with right-wing propoganda and "factual" information, but Steve came with nothing. Also, Steve took a VERY emotional tone with the crowd which, although spoken from the heart, was not very good debate-wise. He told the crowd that we should "grow, grow, grow" and opened his side of the debate with a story about the rainbow gathering. The narc opened his side of the debate with "information" about how stoners were more likely to get in accidents, etc, etc. INTERESTING STUFF:* The narc OPENLY STATED that "We should not throw casual cannabis users in jail," and that he thought "it was wrong to do so". (Why is this? KAPTINEMO/OBSERVER- would you comment on this tactic for me? Please? :)* The question I asked (Why is the Dutch use rate lower even though it's legal?) was responded to by the narc saying that the dutch "lie about their figures".* The stoners were more polite (and more numerous) durring questioning than the antis were* The stoners had facts to back their questions/comments, (unlike poor steve)* The thing that upset me the most was when steve couldn't answer the narc's "challange" which went something like this:"Steve! I dare you to show me ONE *ACCEPTED* medical study that shows cannabis has medical use"Steve couldn't answer this question, despite the fact that such studies existed. Steve, please be more PREPARED! :)Peace all.Sly in green, and god d mn it, FOXY in KIND!!!!!!!-gr-fx. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by Dan B on February 15, 2001 at 08:11:35 PT: Consider the Source "Emotionalism should never be a component of policy in the U.S.," Stutman said. "That's what happened with Japanese concentration camps."Yes. And it is also what has driven out the industrial hemp industry, keeps medicine from sick and dying medical patients, arrests, fines and incarcerates Americans by the millions, and generally causes the kind of decay supported by the DEA.It sounds to me like they coupled a poor debater (Steve Hager) with a moderately well-informed debater, and the result was catastrophic for the anti-prohibition crowd. The fact is that the DEA cannot support its own data, as is evidenced by their flip-flopping on the increase / decrease of drug use rates among high school students. Notice, too, how heavily slanted toward Stutman the article is. Either Hager did a miserable job of making his case, or the reporter has deliberately biased this article in favor of Stutman.Dutz is absolutely right; most of us in this forum could have made quick work of this man. I recall posting a very long list of medical organizations in this forum in response to the accusation made by a prohibitionist group in Colorado that no medical groups supported marijuana legalization. I would have challenged Stutman to name the researchers / studies to which he referred (undoubtedly Nahas would come to mind), and I would counter his arguments with statements by Dr. Les Grinspoon, Dr. Donald Abrams, Dr. Ethan Russo, and others. Of course, Dr. Russo would make a much better case than I since he has the medical background to diffuse any statements made by the DEA.To sum: Hager represented us poorly, Stutman represented marijuana poorly, even I could have done better, Dr. Ethan Russo could have done better than I, just say "know," a thousand points of light, boldly go where no man has gone before, please pass the Doritos, and I'm outta here!Dan B [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on February 15, 2001 at 07:58:50 PT: Repeating Previous Comments Last March in NYC, there was a forum on "Does Our Drug Policy Work? Are There Alternatives?" 46 of the 48 speakers were against the status quo. The organizers were only able to find two speakers to support it. Ed Jurith, interim temporary czar, was one of them. I did not agree with much of anything he said, but he had the fortitude to appear. Most apologists for the government do not, and would likely wither when confronted with the facts. It is easy to claim victory when no true dialogue occurs. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Duzt on February 15, 2001 at 07:27:19 PT Debate It's unfortunate that when these opportunities present themselves, the debaters don't know their facts. I'm amazed that the editor of High Times would be so uninformed. Just about everybody who posts on this site could have buried this guy in a debate. When are they going to go on the national stage and debate with the doctors and scientists who have researched cannabis and it's medicinal value. The editor of High Times shouldn't be debating medicinal values, a doctor should, with sound scientific facts. So how do we go about publicly challanging the DEA to a debate on their policies? [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: