The Analysis

HAGER'S ARGUMENT

“Marijuana is good medicine.”
That may be so, but we need to address the larger issue of legalization for recreational purposes. Just because a substance has a medicinal benefit doesn’t mean we need to make it available for recreational purposes.

“Hemp is good for the environment.”
This point may hold more weight than the previous argument. If there are this many uses for hemp, then an argument could be made for growing it for commercial purposes. But getting from this point to arguing for legalization of marijuana that you can smoke is tough.

“Marijuana legalization is good for our overloaded criminal justice system.”
At first, this seems like a good point. Taking those people out of prison who are there for marijuana-related offenses would save the court and penal systems a considerable amount of money.
But we would have to already assume that marijuana should be decriminalized for this point to hold. We don’t talk about legalizing cocaine, which would also get people out of prison.
This could be a nice benefit for legalization of marijuana, but by itself, this argument won’t work.

“The only way to end drug gangs is by legalization.”
I don’t know which drugs facilitate gang violence, but I would be extremely surprised if legalizing marijuana had much of an effect at all on gang presence.
There are plenty of other more profitable drugs to sell out there. One point I could see being made here is that by buying marijuana illegally, one is exposed to, essentially, drug dealers. While I don’t buy the argument that marijuana is a “gateway drug,” already knowing a dealer makes it far easier to get into the “hard” drugs.

“Finally, it’s a central part of my culture.”
There is a lot to this point, and the marijuana culture in general. While it’s more an emotional appeal than an actual argument, there’s still a lot of intuitive force behind this reasoning. Although, if you’re already committed to the illegality of marijuana, this argument won’t have much appeal at all.

STUTMAN'S ARGUMENT

“... do so by using facts, not wishful thinking.”
This point is absolutely key to this debate. But this is also a societal issue and if there is enough “wishful thinking,” then that should warrant consideration.

“Facts are facts.”
True, but it is our interpretation of these facts that is really key. Statistics, for example, are just a series of numbers. It’s when we interpret these numbers, try to determine causes, and extrapolate them to the rest of society that we can get into trouble.
Odds are, you can find certain facts to support almost any claim. It’s the task of looking at all the facts as a whole that make this debate so challenging.

“... for the simple reason that we will have far more users.”
This is what’s known as question begging. Even if Stutman is correct in this assessment, we would have to already assume that marijuana is a bad thing to accept this line of argument.
Why would more people using marijuana be a bad thing? This is ultimately what we want to establish.

“Of course not, they both grow.”
This is an example of a statistic that is open to different interpretations. What does this claim amount to? We absolutely can’t say that marijuana use causes binge drinking.
This statistic shows a correlation, but not causation. There are just too many factors involved in parties on college campuses to link these two factors as anything other than circumstantial.

“Because of the societal acceptance of beer that does not yet exist for marijuana.”
I’m just not sure this is the case, but even if it is, this point only furthers the argument that by legalizing marijuana more people would use it. And just like before, this is question begging.

“You can disagree without being personal. “
This is an excellent point for anyone reading this column or planning on attending the debate to keep in mind. We are concerned with the arguments on both sides and nothing more. I have a great deal of respect for these gentlemen and their willingness to carry on this debate for our, and society’s, benefit.