Thursday, September 18, 2008
On Sept. 15, students, concerned citizens and a smattering of graying hippies (stragglers from the Greatest Generation of substance abuse) assembled in the Union ballroom to witness a debate about the legalization of marijuana between Steve Hager, the editor-in-chief of High Times Magazine, and Robert Stutman, a retired DEA bigwig. The auditorium betrayed only the slightest hint of the weed’s musty funk as Bob Dylan’s “Rainy Day Woman #12 & 35” rattled through the overhead speakers, suggesting that everybody must get stoned. Much of the audience had obliged. Heavy-lidded potheads, their eyes glazed over like Krispy Kreme Donuts, fussed with hemp bracelets and prepared to summon their lung-full of indignation at the prohibition of marijuana.
I showed up expecting the typical bloviation from both camps in the debate. “Drugs are bad, mmmkay,” versus the half-baked litany of conspiracy theories and sophomoric outrage that you’ll encounter in any freshman dormitory. I wasn’t disappointed. It was a hell of a good show. These two guys have been at it for seven years, traveling from campus to campus like two mountebanks selling their nostrums from the rostrums of student union auditoriums. The debate seemed to be something like a traveling road show, complete with well-practiced lines, gags and pitfalls. Student Union Activities certainly got its money’s worth.
But our government’s drug policy is broken. Our country builds prisons instead of hospitals and schools. We legislate unjust mandatory minimum sentences that condemn minor drug offenders to incarceration. This is a huge problem and instead Steve Hager is raving about the peace circles, the Bhagavad Gita and conspiracies of the military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex. He won over the crowd, but he wouldn’t convince a sober American voter of a damn thing, and that’s the problem.
The best argument for pot’s prohibition is the people who smoke it. It is the stoned kids who lined up at the end of the debate and mumble incoherent questions into the microphone like: “Doesn’t the government just sell us back all the marijuana that they take from us?” Many students in the queue simply rambled about their own love affair with marijuana, and one sorry stoner had to be dragged from the microphone because he wouldn’t shut up. He flipped the audience the bird in a brilliant au revoir, muttering threats of vengeance as two SUA volunteers kindly helped him back to his seat.
Stutman wasn’t much better. He ignored the practical problems of U.S. drug policy, focusing instead on the intangible harms of marijuana use. He offered the same tired anecdotes that have been regurgitated for a generation in anti-drug ad campaigns. This is your brain on drugs. Thanks, Nancy Reagan! I’m sold.
The argument for keeping pot illegal because it is harmful is predicated upon the notion that legalization, even of merely possessing the drug, will lead to more use. “My principle argument,” Stutman said, “is that we will have far more users if we legalize marijuana.” Unfortunately for Stutman, the empirical evidence doesn’t seem to bear this out. And even if it did, the harm caused by more people getting high would have to outweigh the costs of enforcement, the costs of the black market that prohibition engenders, and the tremendous opportunity costs that our government incurs for every dollar it spends trying to stop people from smoking pot.
Thompson is a Topeka senior in economics and political science.
Debate over marijuana tries to clear the ...
Four hundred and forty people attend SUA’s debate between the editor-in-chief of ...
Thompson: Marijuana’s legal substitute
K2 gives us a glimpse of the benefits and the drawbacks of ...
English: But hemp and weed aren’t the ...
Proposed bill would legalize medical marijuana
New bill poses another attempt for a cannabis-friendly Kansas.
Doctor speaks to students about medical marijuana
Proposed bill strikes up discussion of the benefits of medical marijuana.
Drug remains legal despite concerns
K2 mimics the high of marijuana and is available in Lawrence stores.
Letter to the editor: Green
Yesterday, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) became the latest ...
Carmichael: Case against the legalization of pot ...
Oddities takes a look at legalization.
Loving: Drug trafficking abroad issue for US
The effects of drug trafficking in other countries has large effects on ...
Campus club touts benefits of marijuana
NORML wrapped up the semester with a film screening about medicinal marijuana.
Protesters say pot is safer alternative
Campus alcohol abuse stirs nationwide debate, arguing marijuana use shouldn’t be penalized.
Alcohol worse than marijuana
Thompson: Conservative rhetoric proves harmful to health ...
'The Lawrencian' rebuffs the GOP's rhetoric.
Former Attorney General Bob Stephan advocates medicinal ...
Stephan, who is diagnosed with stage four lymphocytic lymphoma, wants to allow ...
Pair protests pot-puffing prohibition
Debaters look for a repeat national title
Three teams from KU compete at the National Debate Tournament
Free: Jail not appropriate response to pot
A focus on punishment, rather than harm reduction, education, and rehabilitation, causes ...
Pot violations increasing on campus
Statistics show that marijuana use in the dorms has steadily increased over ...
Counterculture at KU
A look at the University's countercultures
Carmichael: Arguments against gays prove to be ...
There is just no strong argument against two guys or two chicks ...
Debate team worth the work
KU debate has qualified for the national debate tournament 39 years in ...
Groups fights for marijuana rights
A club on campus advocates for lesser punishments for marijuana consumption.
Extinguishing the Gaslight's last flame
The Gaslight Tavern, a hippie hangout in the 1960s and a popular ...
Debate duo wins title at Harvard
Two members of the KU team take first place in the national ...
Jayhawks' national championship hopes cut short
Michigan State against Kansas on final day of debate tournament.
A family of debaters
With the support of its head and assistant coaches, the debate team ...
Gay rights debate rages on
This election could mean a new direction for gay rights
Marijuana decriminalization in Lawrence is a myth
Despite reformed laws, marijuana possession in Lawrence is still a crime.
From left: Kimberlee Hinkle, Libby Johnson and Hannah ...
1 comment
Kansas Jayhawk fans hold aloft a reproduction of ...
2 comments
Erin Saupe, a Ph.D. student from St. Cloud, ...
1 comment
0 comments
Armed robbers continue to threaten.
3 comments
Lecture from Greg Mortenson, co-author of New York ...
0 comments
Comments
Thompson: Marijuana debate fails to discuss important issues
Let me add that I mean no disrespect, sir. I really enjoyed your talk and the fact that you are going across the country trying to advocate this cause.
Thompson: Marijuana debate fails to discuss important issues
Can you feel this writer's cultural racism just dripping off the page? Hippies are not a legitimate cultural movement, just a bunch of stoned-out substance abusers? If that's the case, why did they create the environmental movement and bring many innovations to North America, like vegan lifestyles and the midwife movement? The line about "building prisons instead of schools" came right out of my speech, so did the statement about mandatory minimum sentences, yet according to this writer, I never brought up these points?? I did not read from the Bhagavad Gita, I read from the Rig Veda, which is a much older document; I did that to demonstrate that cannabis has an over-5,000-year documented history of medical and spiritual uses. The fact that the pharmaceutical companies are running our drug policy for profit is not some crazy conspiracy theory, it's a fact. I hope this writer can get past his cultural biases someday and realize that hippies are actual human beings who deserve to be treated with respect.
Thompson: Marijuana debate fails to discuss important issues
Steve, I enjoyed your talk. I'm glad that you and Mr. Stutman are making this effort to get Americans engaged in this debate.
Having said that, I think you're jumping on the writer a bit too quickly. From what I just read, I get the idea that Dan agrees with you on this issue. Why accuse him of "cultural racism" (whatever that is?)
I doubt that you can convince the majority of Americans that marijuana should be legal if you are going to stand up on a podium and talk about conspiracy theories. You sounded so angry that it was hard to take you seriously. Any rational adult would be tuned off by that type of rhetoric.
Thompson: Marijuana debate fails to discuss important issues
"Raving about Peace Circles" is how he describes my attempt to educate the audience about the sixties counterculture. I was not "raving," I was simply attempting to describe why my culture has a legitimate right to exist. Try getting up in front of hundreds of people and baring your soul, only to be told you are "raving." Yes, I think this writer is a cultural bigot with no sensitivity to the contributions of the counterculture. Yes, I expressed some anger, mostly about the over prescription of dangerous drugs to children, but I also have a sense of humor. Saying that "I failed to address issues like prisons, mandatory minimums, when, in fact, those very issues were cornerstones of my opening statement is a cheap shot to say the least.
Thompson: Marijuana debate fails to discuss important issues
I didn't say that you failed to address these issues, I'm saying that if you made these the core of your argument and simply focused on these issues in debate, you would be difficult to defeat and more people would listen to your message.
Think of it this way:
You're a taxpayer living in suburbia. For example's sake, you don't care at all about the counterculture, you don't care at all about pot, you don't care about whether the laws are being enforced or not, really (after all, it doesn't directly affect you.) Then you find out how much of YOUR money is being wasted on these stupid policies every year, how many people are unjustly incarcerated for marijuana-related crimes in America, and how much money is being used every year to enforce these laws. All this is against the backdrop of the potential benefits of medical marijuana and the lack of evidence that recreational use is any more harmful than alcohol when people are responsible with it.
Do you feel like you have a stake in legalizing marijuana now? Hell yeah you do. Your tax dollars are being wasted on ridiculous policies.
Adding all the conspiracy theory stuff to your argument may sound good in your mind and the minds of the left-wingers in the audience, but from the average middle class American's perspective it is just noise that drowns out the message that might be appealing. If you stick to the basics and give people a tangible vested interest in changing this policy, you are more likely to get average Americans to listen.
Thompson: Marijuana debate fails to discuss important issues
Mr Hager,
First of all let me say that I am on your side of the legalization debate. I thought your talk was very entertaining, and it certainly won over the attendees. But the attendees are not the ones who need to be won over.
The way to end the war on drugs is convincing the majority of America that it's harmful in a language they understand. That language involves money and it involves organized crime. You brought up these points, but the arguments about peace circles, conspiracy theories, and world peace sidetracks the debate (not because those aren't necessarily valid points, but because the people who accept those arguments most easily are the ones who are already on our side).
Connerm and I are conservatives who support legalization for reasons you pointed out such as the amount of money and resources the government wastes as well as the billions of dollars funneled into organized crime through the drug black market.
Those reasons are fact, they are indisputable, and they are effects most reasonable people would agree are unwanted.
I do appreciate you sharing your culture and pouring out your soul so passionately. It was certainly interesting and inspiring. But if we want to win, we need to have a winning strategy with universally appealing arguments.
Thompson: Marijuana debate fails to discuss important issues
What "conspiracy theories" did I present? My five arguments were that 1) cannabis is good medicine; 2) hemp can replace petroleum products; 3) we've built the biggest prison system in the world, and that's a problem not a solution; 4) prohibition funds corruption and 5) cannabis is a legitimate sacrament of the counterculture. Where is there a conspiracy theory in any of this? Perhaps you are confusing my speech with my most recent book, "Octopus Conspiracy?" Yes, "conspiracy theory" is a buzz word used to discredit any attempt to peer into deep politics. Every major criminal investigation in history involves a conspiracy. So, petty criminals engage in conspiracies every day, but the super rich never engage in this sort of behavior, eh? My point was that the writer characterized long-haired people as substance abusers (a vicious stereotype), accused me of not addressing the core issues (when I actually did address them), attacked my spirituality and accused me of using "conspiracy theories" (when I made no reference to any such theories).
Thompson: Marijuana debate fails to discuss important issues
When I mention conspiracy theories that you talked about, I am referring to the idea that pharmaceutical companies are attempting to keep pot illegal. This is a commonly held opinion among liberal legalization activists but is certainly disputable given the fact that pharmaceutical companies are behind a great deal of scientific research in the field advocating medical marijuana and that they are rushing to patent potential marijuana therapies.
Though marijuana is not a cure-all or treat-all, it certainly has pharmaceutical value far beyond what the average American has been informed about. I would encourage you to continue your discussion without hostility towards these entities which have brought us a great deal of the therapies and treatments we see today.
Thompson: Marijuana debate fails to discuss important issues
From Wikipedia: "Conspiracy theory A conspiracy theory attributes the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social or historical events), or the concealment of such causes from public knowledge, to a secret and often deceptive plot by a group of powerful or influential people or organizations."
Your assertion that pharmaceutical companies are the ones behind the criminalization of marijuana is a conspiracy theory. No one can deny that special interests have long played an unfortunate role in American politics. But your theory that the pharmaceutical corporations are behind the drug war isn't gong to convince mainstream America to legalize marijuana.
Thompson: Marijuana debate fails to discuss important issues
The only company to attempting to manufacture a medical cannabis product is GW Pharmaceuticals, located in England. Sativex, their only product (legal in Canada and England), remains illegal in the US. The corporate pharmaceutical companies are major contributors to the Partnership for a Drug-Free America and their extensive lobbying apparatus in Washington D.C. is well-known for its influence and power in the Beltway. The PDFA never discusses the major youth drug problems (legal pharmaceuticals, alcohol), and instead focusses most campaigns against cannabis. What evidence can you provide that an American drug company is investing significant resources into cannabis research? I know of no such companies.
PDFA donors include: The National Association of Chain Drug Stores Foundation, Consumer Healthcare Products Association, Purdue Pharma L.P., The Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, Inc., The Procter & Gamble Fund, Bayer Corporation, GlaxoSmithKline, Kimberly-Clark, Pfizer Inc., Wyeth Consumer Healthcare Division, Endo Pharmaceuticals, Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., Merck & Co. and Walgreens. What's in it for the donors? PDFA says that corporate cashgivers become "strategic partners" who benefit commercially by working to spread PDFA's message.
Wouldn't funding the anti-cannabis movement be an example of the drug companies attempting to keep pot illegal?
Thompson: Marijuana debate fails to discuss important issues
http://www.drugfree.org/
The PDFA main page has more links about abuse of legal pharmaceuticals than anything else. How can you say they never talk about it?
Anyway, that's not even the point. Regardless of how you feel about the pharmaceutical conspiracy, all connerm and I are saying is that it isn't an effective argument and detracts from better arguments.
Thompson: Marijuana debate fails to discuss important issues
This is off topic. I will send you a private message with my response to what you just said about PDFA (www.drugfree.org is the web site for those interested in seeing whether they talk about pharmaceutical abuse or not)
Here's my point: I want your message to appeal to the masses. If you talk about the obvious, undisputable facts that we mentioned before and make that your message, you will win over average Americans. You are a great spokesman and you really have the power to get out there and get people motivated.
If you craft a message that average people will listen to and not tune out, there is no way you can be beaten.
Thompson: Marijuana debate fails to discuss important issues
I said most PDRA commercials are aimed at cannabis. Isn't that obvious to anyone who watches TV? The primary focus of the current Drug Czar's propaganda campaigns have been against cannabis. Cannabis arrests have been on the rise every year for a decade, far more than any other "crime." Eventually, all the reefer madness propaganda campaigns have been linked to racism, gutter science and/or outright lies, usually within a few years of their creation.
Thompson: Marijuana debate fails to discuss important issues
Mr. Hager,
Fine, whatever, the pharmaceutical companies are running the government.
The question is, do you think that is a more effective argument than talking about the cost of the drug war and the money it funnels into organized crime?
I do not. I think it detracts from it as most of the people you need to convince think about things too simplistically and have too short of attention spans to follow your reasoning.
I think you need to stick to fact and not theory in the marijuana debate.
Thompson: Marijuana debate fails to discuss important issues
Well, I hadn't visited the PDFA site in a while, and, yes, they are launching a major campaign against prescription drug abuse, which is the biggest drug problem in America. Now that 50 million Americans are being dosed, teen suicide is up ten percent, and school shootings (all involving legal drugs) commonplace, the PDFA is finally being forced to address this issue.
Sign in to comment
Or login with:
OpenID