Debate Pits ‘Heads’ vs. ‘Feds’ on Marijuana Use

Mark Herrerros, Staff Writer

Published: Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Updated: Wednesday, March 25, 2009

On Thursday, March 12, the Alcohol and Other Drug Education program hosted “The Great Debate” on the legalization of marijuana. Packed to near-capacity in the McGinley Ballroom, the debate was between Robert Stutman, a former Drug Enforcement Administration special agent, and Steve Hager, the editor-in-chief of High Times magazine.

The two did not meet for the first time at this event, as they debated together at Fordham two years ago and at colleges around the country in a speaking series headed by Wolfman Productions. After a video introduction of both men, the two began their debate with Hager speaking first. Hager argued that marijuana’s benefits justified the risks behind legalization.

“Marijuana is good medicine,” Hager said. “I know people who can walk because of it, and the chemicals in marijuana are no different than drugs you can pick up at the Health Center.”

Hager also felt that money is wasted on enforcing drug policies, and such policies are creating an “industrial” prison system.

“Substance abuse should be an issue for the hospitals instead of law enforcement,” Hager said. “The consequences of putting someone in jail for smoking weed are a lot worse than smoking a joint itself.”

Hager said that marijuana was rooted in both America’s culture and that of his own, and therefore should be defended.

“George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were weed farmers,” Hager said. “The first American flag was made on hemp, and the constitution was written on hemp. We brought vegan and environmental campaigns to America. Marijuana should be no different.”

Stutman then began and proceeded to talk about the misconceptions about marijuana and current policy.

“If marijuana is a natural product, it must be good,” Stutman said. “But arsenic flows into the riverbed into our water supply, and it’s natural too. In fact there are only two products in marijuana that are beneficial, while 433 are extraneous.”

Stutman also addressed the disappearance of hemp from many American products like clothing and paper.

“Hemp products just aren’t cost effective,” Stutman said. “Canada has legal hemp, but there are only a couple of hemp shops left in Canada because most of them went bankrupt.”

While Stutman agreed with Hager regarding enforcement, he felt it was better than legalization.

“It’s a stupid policy to put people into prison for drug use, but if we legalize it, we will end up with far more irresponsible users,” he said.

However, Stutman felt that research should continue, and the American public should ultimately decide for itself whether or not to legalize marijuana.

“The day the majority of the American public votes for [marijuana], legalize it,” he said. “Yet so far, only 27 percent of Americans support it. Still, no one died from too much research, so continue researching it.”

After the debaters offered their opening statements, the floor was open to student questions. Many questions dealt with the different attitudes on other drugs, particularly alcohol and pharmaceuticals. Hager agreed that there was a double standard, but Stutman referred back to popularity and the findings of scientific studies.  Hager argued that there was a crisis of representation in the media.

“People believe those ‘studies,’ which are made public for free, while pro-weed ads are limited,” Hager said. “The real problem here is abusive pharmaceuticals.”     

Stutman countered that the rise of the marijuana campaign was in itself suspect.  

“Marijuana has never been a significant political issue until the Bush years, and even now the majority of the public doesn’t support marijuana,” Stutman said. “It’s because people want to party that marijuana will never become legal. If everyone were like Steve, a responsible user who has researched marijuana and its effects, I’d feel differently.”

Nonetheless, both admitted that there has been a recent focus on the dangers of pharmaceuticals that did not exist before. The two also agreed that smoking anything is bad for your health, and that a boundary must exist between use and abuse.
The audience seemed evenly split, with some favoring Stutman’s approach, while others were in favor of legalization and passionate about changing drug policy.

“Mr. Stutman had the most compelling arguments,” Alan Zakka, FCRH ’12, said. “I myself have never realized that marijuana had more tar than cigarettes. I consider Mr. Hager too much of a crowd pleaser and celebrity to be taken seriously. ”

“I find drug policy to be stupid, and a lot of it is redundant,” Seamus Campell, FCRH ’11, said. “Why are drugs like marijuana used for research purposes when they don’t really show any benefits?”

Tom Leonard, FCRH ’10, got up during the open floor and asked Hager for support in starting a chapter at Fordham for people interested in reforming drug laws.

“I’m currently trying to set up a chapter at Fordham for groups that support the legalization of marijuana and the reform of current marijuana laws,” Leonard said. “I found a lawyer in the city who is friendly to interpreting laws and reforming those laws [regarding marijuana], making them more fair. I’m going to be in touch with Steve and get advice from him.”

After the meeting, Hager spoke with Leonard directly. A sign-up list was posted in the front for those who wanted to sign up for the chapter, and over 50 signatures were recorded. Overall, Stutman and Hager said they were impressed by the intellectual curiosity and openness of Fordham University and its students.

“The crowd was respectful and asked good, challenging questions,” Stutman said. “Some may disagree with me, but many students approached me afterwards, and they tell me I made them think. I think it’s good for any school to allow people to intellectually argue complex positions. There were several colleges we tried going to, but they thought our issue was too controversial, so I’m pleased that Fordham welcomed us here.”

Hager, a close friend of Stutman in spite of their contrasting viewpoints, invited his debate partner to try some weed for himself at the High Times Cannabis Cup held annually in Amsterdam, even offering to cover his hotel and airfare costs. Stutman kindly rejected the offer, in spite of the promise of “the best weed you’ll ever have in your life.”