HEADS vs. FEDS

Recently I had the opportunity to attend the Heads vs. Feds debate held at York College of Pennsylvania. It is a debate that has been running for over ten years, between a retired DEA agent Robert Stutman (left) and High Times Editor Steve Hager. They even began the debate stating that they had been very close personal friends for ten years. 


Both sides started off strong and listed their points well, however; the principles behind both positions were never discussed. Mr. Hager, gave his five points why marijuana should be legalized: because it's good medicine, hemp is good for the environment, prison-industrial complex, to stop funding corruption, and because it's part of the culture. While Hager was able to focus on most points fairly well, I think the point that would have given him the most backing and support was that of the prison-industrial complex.


In touching on the prison-industrial complex it would have been a great segway into the PRINCIPLES behind his position. Legislation and changing the political approach was the main topic of the night, and while those issues must be discussed. I'm sure it would have benefitted the audience to see the common thread between the reasons to legalize, why they are consistent, and why it must be done now. 


Mr. Stutman gave one reason why it should not be legalized, he insisted that there would be "far more users." Under that point he said there would be consequences, two to three times more users behind the wheel and that it "may cause dependence."


While overall it was a great debate and an event that I'm glad a conservative private college, like York held. I still wish that the speakers would have focused on the underlying principles which ultimately determine an individuals stance on legislation and issues like drug policy.