Fluorescent tie-dye hoodies, hemp-necklaces, and uncombed hairs peeking out from knit hats. Mouths babbling gleefully. Friends waving arms that stem from shirts growing cannabis leaves. Not too much flannel to see, only a lad who spells patriotism with his American flag leather jacket. Baja sweatshirts cover curvy bellies that have suffered through many nights of the munchies.

This is a zoom-in of the hundreds of U students who gathered in the Willey Auditorium on Wednesday, March 4, all eager to witness the debate presented by guest speakers Robert Stutman and Steve Hager. Leaders of polar-opposite movements, they intellectualized and sugar-coated their debate over the legalization of marijuana.

Hager, editor of High Times magazine, has been referred to as “the most famous pothead in America.” He began the discussion, passionately phrasing his reasons while Stutman sat grimly as all eyes watched his opponent.

Hager propelled the pro-pot audience with an inspiring rant about the plant’s medicinal promises for cancer. “People can walk, see, feel, because of marijuana,” he says. The health care system “is broken”. The actual care is in decline” while insurance and pharmaceutical companies gain more profit. According to Hager, they fear that marijuana will serve as free medicine that’ll sustain millions of uninsured Americans, but the prevalent prescription drugs alter minds as well. If marijuana were legal, hemp could be used as a green, non-toxic alternative to many petrochemicals that are major contributors to pollution. “It is the easiest commodity on the face of the Earth to produce.”

Imprisonment is another problem. The justice system holds mandatory minimums for possession offenses, while no such requirements are held for assault, theft or rape charges. The “overflowing jails” do little in terms of rehabilitation, Hager vented, and marijuana prisoners “come out with destroyed souls.” As he exited the platform amidst howls of adoration, Bob Stutman was already standing, ready to refute.

Stutman has dealt with New York drug lords since the 1970s. “Nothing is as simple as it sounds,” he began. Attacking the air in front of him with wild hand gestures, he fired his rebuttals: “Most in favor [of the legalization of marijuana] don’t care about its [medicinal] benefits, they only want to be left alone for their recreational use… only two of the 435 chemicals in pot are known to be good, and any doctor that tells you to smoke anything is a fool.” He argued the benefits of a hemp industry by using Canada as an example. After the country legalized hemp in 1999, most production companies went bankrupt within just a few years.

“No one should go to jail for being a drug user,” Stutman articulated. “We have many stupid laws, and terrible public health decisions. How do you justify another legal chemical?” In addition, side effects such as dependence and increased risk of lung disease are long term risks that take years, even decades to come into play. “I think marijuana use should be a non-jailable crime… but people shouldn’t receive medicine based on what the public votes on.”

Questions followed, and each debater was given a chance to answer. Disagreements over factual information created awkward bickering and blatant yells from members of the audience, who were angrily shushed. And after 90 minutes of enthusiastically intense debating, the heated public dismantled with no clear-cut resolution.