How Marijuana Saved My Life – Part III

Posted on by

Debate

Intro

Now that we have some understanding of the history of drugs, we can get into the debate on marijuana. As a basis to get some points for the pro-legalisation and anti-legalisation arguments, I’ve noted in tables below points from two ‘debates’ on CNN.

For any sources that I use in outlining the debate, I’m also going to comment on their bias because if it exists, it will help put the person’s perspective into context.

Regardless of what your opinion is on the marijuana debate or what happens in regards to legalization, everyone should educate themselves. In many cases, people’s opinions are formed either from the perspective of certain media outlets or based on taboo. We live in the internet age, so it is very easy to get informed and do some independent research.

A good example of this in the media, is Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN’s chief medical correspondent. Dr. Gupta has created two mini documentaries on the topic of medical marijuana for CNN, which are used in my write-up. However, Dr. Gupta also admits that he came to his conclusion on marijuana years ago by just accepting some opinions in the media and considering that it must be bad based on it being a Schedule 1 drug. Along with his mini-documentaries, he has publicly apologized for being wrong in his opinions on marijuana, as when he did his own independent research, it opened his eyes on the topic and completely changed his opinion. This is a doctor in the media, so it is equally important for him to do the research, but it just shows the power of mainstream opinion in neglecting what can be found through independent research.

Arguments

The first ‘debate’ on CNN was on the Piers Morgan show in 2013. In the debate, Piers and Dr. Gupta discuss/debate marijuana with Dr. Howard Samuel (who is the CEO of Hills Treatment Center). Hills Treatment Center is one of the leading residential substance abuse treatment centers in Los Angeles. From the debate their doesn’t seem to be any obvious bias for Piers Morgan and Dr. Gupta is speaking from the perspective of his medical research on medical marijuana. Dr. Samuel though would have a large bias as he is the CEO (head) of a treatment center. Marijuana is a high volume criminal offense in the US and a lot of the drug possession policy requires many offenders to enter rehab. His bias is that he thinks that addiction is a big issue, a serious disease and legalisation would likely significantly reduce the number of his patients (no more mandatory treatment convictions).

The debate starts at around 4:35 in the video.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta vs. Dr. Howard Samuel[i]
Piers Morgan/Dr. Gupta’s arguments Dr. Samuel’s arguments
  1. Marijuana is less harmful than alcohol and alcohol is legal, why is marijuana illegal?
  2. Accidental prescription overdose is a much bigger and deadly issue in the US than marijuana (which is illegal). Vicodin for example is much stronger than marijuana.
  3. If we are banning drugs, shouldn’t we ban the drugs alcohol and tobacco which are more widely used and abused than marijuana.
  4. In the context of drugs, marijuana is the least addictive and yet is illegal.
  1. People must also look at the other drugs, marijuana is a gateway to harder drug abuse.
  2. Legalizing marijuana will just provide another substance for the nation’s youth to abuse and numb their feelings.
  3. Addicts have intense emotional side effects.
  4. If it’s legalized we will have commercials promoting its use.

The main points that I took away from the debate are: that inconsistencies exist between legal and illegal drugs and the harm they cause. Marijuana is the least addictive out of the common recreational drugs and accidental prescription overdose is a much bigger issue. On the anti-legalization side, it’s a gateway drug, it will give people another drug to abuse, and addiction is a big issue. I’m going to leave out commercials because they aren’t a serious deterrent to legalising marijuana.

The next debate from 2009 involves Ron Paul a former presidential nominee and senator who is a libertarian. He believes that liberty and the constitution should be the main basis for government policy and that many of the ways the US government is currently run, not only violates personal liberties, but the constitution. Mr. Paul’s bias seems to be general common sense but also granting people their liberty. He debates on CNN with actor Stephen Baldwin who is anti-legalisation and a born again Christian minister. His bias (which he alludes to in the video) is that Christianity sees marijuana as immoral and prohibited since it’s a stimulant/drug. Also, before becoming a born again Christian, Mr. Baldwin was addicted to cocaine.

Ron Paul vs Stephen Baldwin[ii]
Ron Paul’s arguments Stephen Baldwin’s arguments
  1. It’s really a question of who should regulate danger. He doesn’t believe in the nanny State but, if it should be regulated, it should be the regulated by the State.
  2. We didn’t have laws on marijuana until 1937 and have unsuccessfully spent tons of money on policing it. He cites an example of DEA agents cracking down on a person with cancer who was arrested for using marijuana medically in California.
  3. Tobacco and alcohol are two very addictive drugs, if government should be regulating personal behaviour, then make it consistent.
  4. Alcohol prohibition created the Al Capone’s, there is violence today over drugs only because they are illegal. Cartels win the most by keeping drugs illegal.
  5. We don’t need to endorse the behaviour of using drugs, but it doesn’t mean they should be illegal.
  6. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a driver being impaired for marijuana use.
  7. The laws are putting tons of people in prison and if you get 3 drug offenses then you are there for life. This is an unnecessary incarceration cost.
  8. The government won’t allow the growing of hemp but, it grew fields of it to support the WWII efforts.
  9. The best approach is to regulate marijuana at the State level (like alcohol) and through families and communities. The worst approach is to use a federal thug with a gun.
  10. In its illegal state, kids have more access to marijuana now.
  1. He has been in two marijuana based movies and therefore he knows about marijuana.
  2. He is coming from a faith based conservative opinion that marijuana is a gateway drug. He says this is a fact and he doesn’t care what anyone else says.
  3. He says there isn’t a lot of research on medical marijuana but people should try to use something else. If nothing else is available then marijuana is fine. It’s important to note that by 2009, 13 States had legalized medical marijuana and in 2010, 81% of American’s polled believed that medical marijuana should be legalized in the US.
  4. If marijuana is made legal, the number of impaired driving deaths will increase.
  5. After all of Ron Paul’s other points, Mr. Baldwin’s last big question in a large jest was – Do you think there are a lot of marijuana smokers that are Ron Paul supporters?

I want to try and avoid slamming someone in my blog posts but, seriously Stephen Baldwin, screw you dude, all of your points are absolutely ludicrous and you have this fucking big joke at the end. This is a serious fucking topic as hundreds of thousands of people each year are going to prison in the US and their lives are being ruined because of marijuana’s illegal status.

The main points from the debate are that again inconsistencies exist between legal and illegal drugs and the harm they cause. There are many benefits to the cultivation of hemp and kids have more access to pot when its illegal. Other points include, the government shouldn’t outlaw personal behaviour, keeping drugs illegal creates and benefits organized crime, and people are needlessly going to prison. On the anti-legalization side, again it’s the fact that marijuana is a gateway drug, you should avoid using it medically as there isn’t a lot of research and if marijuana is legal, the number of impaired driving deaths will increase.

I found that in both debates on the side of legalization, people are really looking to eliminate the aspects of crime, grant people their liberty and make drugs safer. Whereas on the anti-legalization side, people are trying to enforce that marijuana is this big immoral menace and people who use it are criminals. In the sections below, I go into detail on the pro and con arguments, taking points from multiple sources.

 

[i] Video Source – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86udSl5Kr3c

[ii] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPuJQaIgJeg

Leave a comment