The Economist has been holding a week-long debate on the question of “Should Cannabis be Legal Everywhere” between Ethan Nadelmann and Neil McKeganey, moderated by Josie Delap.
There’s certainly no doubt among the internet community as to who is winning this particular debate, as the vote has been consistently 93% to 7% in favor of Nadelmann each day.
The usual character has shown up to make his scare argument about marijuana big business, use non-sequiturs about alcohol, and promote his book.
There’s still an opportunity to go over there and add your 2 cents to the discussion.
you retards! cannabis should be legal!!!!!! EVERYWHERE!!!!!!!
cannabis chills! you goofs!
I really appreciate Ethan Nadelmann’s eternal reasonableness as part of contemporary reform discourse.
But sometimes you just want to scream, dontcha?
Nothing pisses the opposition off more than reasonableness. It is hard to point at Ethan and shout that he’s a madman, you know? That is a tried and true tactic of the antidrug zealot: paint the opponent as a crazy.
Sad how that is working less and less over time. That is why I will always insist that we be reasonable, keep to sound logic, and stick to facts when able. We can win the argument so long as we keep with the original sense of the word “argument”, I think.
“marijuana big business”
OT: They’ve been running a series of pro-union commercials in my area recently, and one spot is specifically about drugs (thought it was an anti-drug PSA at first). The union guy talks about how great it is to be able to work with people that are “drug free” (don’t get me started on the hypocrisy of that statement). The take home message that I got from the commercial: Sure you have to pee in a cup while somebody watches if you want to join a union, but all the cool kids are doing it.
Our buddy, kevin is a featured guest at the above debate.. there is a poster mz007 that is a kevin wanabe.. please go post comments..
Josie Delap October 11, 2013
Readers have been overwhelming in their support of the motion from the beginning of our debate. Neil McKeganey argued valiantly but Ethan Nadelmann carried the day. It would be interesting to know whether voters would have agreed with him so strongly had the motion been to legalise all drugs, rather than just cannabis.
The debate between Mr McKeganey and Mr Nadelmann has drawn out two key points: should the decision whether or not to legalise cannabis be based on how much harm it causes? Or should it be a question of individuals’ right to consume such substances if they choose to do so? Those questions will undoubtedly be ones to which The Economist and governments around the world will return.
Many thanks to our debaters, our expert guests and to all our commenters who weighed in with their opinions.
Do you agree with the motion?
Your vote will help determine the winner of this debate. You have only one vote, but you may change it as many times as you like before the debate closes.
92% voted yes
8% voted no
This debate has finished. Voting is now closed.