On March 19, The Huffington Post hosted the Great Marijuana Debate and asked readers if marijuana should be legalized for recreational use.
On the legalization side we had Robert Corry, a Colorado-based attorney specializing in criminal defense and civil rights. He has defended more medical marijuana criminal cases than any other attorney in Colorado and is the only attorney to win multiple acquittals for defendants facing medical marijuana charges.
On the anti-legalization side we had Bob Enyart, a talk radio host on Colorado-based KGOV radio and a pastor at Denver Bible Church who is outspoken about his belief that marijuana should remain illegal with exception for prescription-based medical use.
(SCROLL DOWN FOR ROUND TWO OF THE GREAT DEBATE)
You read their original statements and voted overwhelmingly for Corry's legalization position with 96% of readers agreeing with Corry before the debate and 97% agreeing with him after reading both statements.
So, we invited both men back to give them each a chance to respond to their original statements and try to sway your opinion on the issue one more time. Now, we present: The Great Marijuana Debate, Round Two--Corry's and Enyart's rebuttals.
Read Corry and Enyart's original statements, their new rebuttals to one another below and then vote on who makes a better argument about the topic. And as always, let us know your thoughts in the comments section.Let round two of great debate begin!
Tell us your opinion before the debate starts to set the starting line
Marijuana Should Be Legalized For Recreational Use: Round Two
Agree - Thanks for voting! Please proceed to read the debate below
Please vote to proceed to the debate
Who makes the better argument?
It is 5:00 a.m. on a cold dark Colorado morning. Twenty-five SWAT team officers, clad in black helmets, body armor, wielding assault weapons, large clear shields, and heavy iron battering rams, surround a quiet residential home, shatter the front door, and throw flash-bang grenades and tear gas inside.
The team of 25 militarized cops stream into the house, screaming obscenities, shattering the terrified childrens' sleep and jarring the scared parents awake. The SWAT team then literally destroys the home and the furniture within, slashing couches, overturning bookcases, throwing possessions all over the floor, carting the crying children off to Social Services or foster care, and throwing the parents to the ground at gunpoint, handcuffing them painfully before carting them off to the police station.
The SWAT team then locates its target: a couple dozen three-foot high cannabis plants in a modest indoor basement garden, and a pound or so of dried plant matter, some lights, some fertilizer, and a few books on how to grow marijuana.
This is not an extreme example. This scene literally happens every day in America, a nation that loudly professes that it is a "free" country, but that leads the globe in per capita incarceration of its own people, a rate that exceeds those of human rights leaders such as North Korea, China, and Iran, due mostly to the war on drugs.
And this scene embodies America's war on marijuana. A government this large, this powerful, this intrusive, this belligerent, is necessary to fight this modern-day prohibition against a simple herb that approximately half of the American adult population has consumed at some point in their lives. There are so many reasons this must change:
The war on marijuana costs us money. The direct costs to local, state, and federal governments are staggering and exceed a trillion dollars. Police, prosecutors, probation officers, judges, courts, jailers, prison guards, and defense lawyers form a massive prison-industrial complex that distracts limited resources away from our failing economy and other more important priorities. The indirect costs to the economy, though more difficult to quantify, are probably higher in the form of people removed from their families and their jobs, the opportunity costs of distracted police and jammed courts too busy to adjudicate important criminal and civil cases. We also lose out on the benefits of industrial hemp, which has no recreational effect but which could be an extremely useful crop for American farmers and industry.
And all of this money has been wasted -- accomplishing, like so many other heavy-handed government programs, the precise opposite result of that which was intended. Even the U.S. government's drug czar (it is appropriate that this government position is named after an imperial Russian tyrant), Gil Kerlikowski, admits that the 40-year experiment with drug prohibition has been an abject failure.
Decades of drug prohibition has not accomplished a single of its goals. Albert Einstein's definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." As our governments at all levels pour more lawyers, guns, and money into this militarized marijuana prohibition, people still obtain it -- easily -- and supply and demand is totally uninterrupted on a macro scale; one dealer falls, another pops up. Under Einstein's definition, our government is literally insane.
The war on marijuana is alien to the principles of a free nation founded on the principles of limited government and personal responsibility. The negative impact of marijuana prohibition laws far outstrip the negative impact of the substance itself, which is one of the few things on Earth that has no practical lethal dose, it is basically harmless.
Humans in all cultures have used the cannabis plant since the dawn of history for medicinal, spiritual, industrial, and recreational purposes; only in the 20th century did it occur to any government to prohibit it. Thomas Jefferson and other founders grew cannabis on their plantations. The Declaration of Independence is written on hemp paper. Even Genesis 1:29 confirms that God gave man every seed-bearing plant on the Earth. God giveth, government taketh.
The history of American marijuana prohibition and "reefer madness" shows that its practical and legal basis is a house of cards. An outgrowth of alcohol prohibition which arose in roughly the same era, marijuana prohibition was born out of racially-charged fears of Mexicans and blacks.
For the American government to prohibit the cannabis plant, that government must declare war on its own principles. Such a prohibition then contributes to overall erosion in the general population's respect for the rule of law, because the aggressive enforcement of this law touches so many people and makes the law itself -- not just marijuana laws, but all laws and law enforcement officials -- a joke.
The body armor-clad government stormtroopers are necessary to prosecute the war on marijuana. That level of expensive and intrusive force is necessary if cannabis, widely used and widely accepted, is to be prohibited from our private homes and lives. But perhaps the best brief against prohibition is the fact that marijuana is widely available to prisoners in America's prisons and jails. Prisons and jails are the most tightly regulated, highly government-controlled locations in the world. If the government cannot keep marijuana outside of these places, can anyone seriously argue prohibition is enforceable in the general population?
The war on marijuana, like alcohol prohibition before it, creates and fuels the criminal underclass, organized crime, and domestic and foreign drug cartels. It is basic Economics 101: where there is a demand, a supply will be created to meet it, period. Human demand for marijuana, like alcohol, has lasted thousands of years, and will never go away. Leading economists like Milton Friedman have long seen the drug war as an economically-bankrupt policy.
If marijuana were legalized and taxed, violent drug cartels would lose the principal source of their income. Marijuana ought to be treated like a more dangerous substance: alcohol, available at the corner liquor store, and taxed and regulated. How many Mexican drug cartels smuggle beer over the border? Ban it, and you would see many. Create a regulated legal market for it, and the drug cartels are not involved.
It is literally easier for American schoolchildren to obtain marijuana than beer.
That is because the government has created the black market in marijuana, making it more accessible to children. There is no black market in beer. It is relatively cheap and easy to obtain, for adults, but difficult for children. Prohibition increases childrens' attraction to marijuana; the "forbidden fruit" is always sweeter.
For all of these reasons and many more, Americans have now passed the critical 50 percent threshold in support for legalization of marijuana. (These polls typically understate support, as many Americans are understandably reluctant to admit to using or supporting marijuana to an anonymous telephone surveyor.) Even conservative televangelist Pat Robertson recently acknowledged that marijuana ought to be legal.
It is long past time for politicians at all levels to end this bankrupt policy of Prohibition, and stop breaking down the doors of Americans who only want to possess a harmless plant in the comfort of their own homes.
"Disagree" responds to Robert Corry
Yes, long-term pot use leads to disorganized thinking. But can't at least one person out of the thousand commenting here on HuffPo recognize how arbitrary they all are? Hundreds of angry comments hit one side for mentioning God. But not a peep is heard against the pro-pot lawyer for quoting the Bible.
My opponent Robert Corry and the "HuffPot" readers posting comments are making arguments that have nothing to do with right and wrong.
So the sum total of everything they've said cannot possibly determine whether it is wrong to decriminalize marijuana. All who claim that right and wrong are irrelevant can no longer argue that the anti-pot side is wrong.
All they have left then is raw force. So if there are fewer level heads than potheads (and their supporters), then by majority rule they just might be able to decriminalize marijuana.
And speaking of majority rule, while reading Mr. Corry and the many comments, I see that marijuana advocates are familiar with our founding fathers. So they'll recall that the majority once approved of laws allowing men to own other men as property. Those quoting leaders from back then tell of the antebellum expectation that hemp could have saved the world, and would have except for cruel prejudice. Today, all those who think majority rule should replace absolute right and wrong therefore reject that smoking pot can even theoretically be "wrong." But then they sure can't claim that slavery was "wrong" either (unless they're smoking).
I appeal to those who know, and to those who are still open to the possibility, that right and wrong actually exist. I think Mr. Corry would agree with me that "Thou shall not murder," is not just a good idea; it's the law. And it "was" the law, even before any constitution or king said so, as per the book my opponent quoted from. For those who oppose legislating morality, please be inconsistent when it comes to rape, kidnapping, stealing, and murder. For God's enduring commands include: "Thou shall not steal" and "Thou shall not bear false witness," which we call perjury, and also from Exodus: "Thou shall not kidnap," which alone if enforced would have prevented America's slave trade.
MONEY: Apparently conceding the higher ground of right and wrong to the anti-pot side, Mr. Corry's argument to decriminalize pot is arbitrary: money. He wrote, "The war on marijuana costs us money." Yes. So do our efforts to prevent murder. And the government does a lousy job deterring that too. But that's not a reason to decriminalize murder. And for those currently smoking, I am NOT comparing smoking pot to murder. I'm testing the form of Robert's argument: It costs a lot; it's not working; we should give up.
FREEDOM: In his next section, Mr. Corry tells us that, "marijuana prohibition was born out of racially-charged fears of Mexicans and blacks." But he forgets to add that therefore cocaine law must be targeting attorneys since cocaine is the lawyers' drug of choice. And I appreciate Mr. Corry quoting from Genesis 1 (although his references get a different response; when I mention God it burns the eyes of our readers, like tossing holy water at a vampire). "God gave man every seed-bearing plant;" they were good, and the Lord gave them to man for food. But don't stop there. Keep reading just till chapter 3. Man's rebellion destroyed the original paradise. The ground was cursed. That's why today the Earth has many dangerous plants.
Reading a bit further explains why it is wrong to offer hemlock, or intoxicants, to our friends. Then, again arbitrarily, Mr. Corry fails to test his own argument with other illicit behaviors, like sexual assault in prison. He argues: "If the government cannot keep marijuana [out of jail] can anyone seriously argue prohibition is enforceable in the general population?" The same could be said for rape. And again, stoners, I'm not comparing getting high to rape -- I'm exposing Mr. Corry's reasoning as arbitrary.
SAFETY: And here too, of course Mr. Corry would not apply many of his own arguments to other behaviors, like trafficking in children or killing the innocent. "Human demand for marijuana [innocent blood, sex trafficking] has lasted thousands of years, and will never go away." So what. The arguments, not being based on right and wrong, are meaningless.
CHILDREN: "It is literally easier for American schoolchildren to obtain marijuana than beer." What does that have to do with anything? It's easier for students to steal cars than buy them, to cheat rather than earn an A; and to get pregnant rather than buy pornography. So what? These are arbitrary observations that obscure the underlying issues of right and wrong.
Ending the pot prohibition will affect kids as consumption increases. Pot propaganda and studies alleging that during prohibition cirrhosis of the liver and crime didn't decrease all that much, claim that that "prohibition doesn't work anyway." No one would get noticed reporting that it gets darker after dusk, nor that prohibition reduced alcohol consumption. And add to that the decades of pro-pot bias on universities and it's amazing that any studies admit any increase in alcohol-related problems since prohibition ended.
Uniform crime statistics leave much to be desired today, and in the 1920s and '30s such data was nonexistent and has to be recreated by secondary indicators. But regardless, of course for the average person alcohol consumption significantly decreased during prohibition, and with that decrease, there would be fewer child victims from alcohol-related crimes.
The U.S. Census Bureau today counts more than 4,000 alcoholic beverage wholesalers with 178,000 employees, and more than 43,000 bars with a third-of-a-million employees with alcohol also sold at more than 31,000 liquor stores by 147,000 employees and in a hundred thousand grocery stores, hotels, casinos, airplanes, and restaurants with a mature industry distribution channel employing a fleet of tens of thousands of modern 18-wheelers. Adjust for population all you want, and even if we had no evidence of a decrease in crime or cirrhosis, the very laws of physics falsify the misconception that prohibition didn't decrease alcohol consumption. For there is no way that America's massive Budweiser, Coors, Bacardi, Gallo, etc., alcohol distribution system could be compressed into a secret criminal endeavor supplying speakeasies in the wee hours of the night.
So consumption of pot would increase with decriminalization, just as medical marijuana has already lead to Colorado's "stoned driving epidemic." Then, as parents get high (as with pot, alcohol, or any substance), they become a threat to their own children (and to neighbors, emergency workers, etc.) and as a result more kids will suffer.
The argument is not that alcohol should therefore be recriminalized. Rather, it should be criminal to get drunk (which it's not) or to possess a substance the normal use of which gets the average person high. Of the many comments I've read not a single one even attempted to refute the main point from my first round. I couldn't find one showing the point was even understood.
Here's the main point. There's a difference in the normal, proscribed use of alcohol, versus the normal use of recreational drugs, whether crack, or ecstasy, or pot. The normal use of hash gets people high. (But no one would learn that by reading Wikipedia's Hashish entry as of March 22, for with the culture's godless bias, there's NOT A SINGLE REFERENCE in the whole article to "drug," "intoxicant," nor even the possibility of getting "high," as though they were reviewing coffee beans.) On the other hand, millions of people drink a beer or a glass of wine every night (many, even for decades) and don't get drunk (nor slow and stupid). But millions of people cannot smoke a joint and not get high. I first observed pot smokers getting high in the 1970s on just a few puffs. And hosting a talk radio show for twenty years has kept me up to speed on the constantly increasing potency of marijuana that makes it much easier to get wasted today than it was decades ago.
Extrapolating from my firsthand observations, from the former potheads who've said as much on my talk show, and from increasing potency, it is obvious that for many millions of people, even a single drag, or two, or three, on a marijuana cigarette, will get them high. I also allege that the culture's continued mocking of potheads (Why do you think they call it dope?) is an indication that countless millions intuitively know that prolonged pot smoking makes people dopes.
Demonstrably, unless a pothead goes through detox for a week to a month, he's slower mentally. And we all still call it dope. Even the aforementioned biased Wikipedia admits that the long-term effects of cannabis have "been correlated with the development of various mental disorders in multiple studies." And of course it's addicting, for there is often compulsive use even among those who acknowledge harmful effects on relationships, work, etc.
Drunk and stoned people present an increased risk to their neighbors and society at large, a risk we shouldn't have to tolerate. A marksman can shoot a gun in a park and not hit anyone but we don't put up with the unnecessary risk and it really doesn't matter that we're killing his buzz. As argued above we have increased alcohol consumption as compared to prohibition and it follows that we have more negative effects from alcohol abuse today than during prohibition. But laziness causes trouble, so negative consequences alone are insufficient grounds to criminalize behavior.
The "normal" use of pot makes millions of users high. That's a risk that God (I know, their eyes are burning) doesn't require that we put up with. So, other than by prescription from a pharmacy, that's why pot should be illegal. And besides, as above, long-term use makes you stupid.
Robert Corry responds to "Disagree"
POST DEBATE POLL
Did one of the arguments change your mind?
Marijuana Should Be Legalized For Recreational Use: Round Two
VIEW DEBATE ROUND 1 RESULTS
Agree - Thanks for voting again! Here are the results:
Robert Corry"Disagree"Neither argumenthas changed the most minds