SPEAKERS: DRUG USE ABOUT RESPONSIBILITY

If there is one thing Steve Hager, former editor of High Times
magazine, and Bob Stutman, a former Drug Enforcement Administration
agent, can agree on, it's that smoking marijuana might not be the
right choice for college students, but it's about responsibility.

"Make sure you make getting that education the most important
priority while you're at this institution," Hager said Tuesday night
in Memorial Hall at "Heads vs. Feds," a legalization debate hosted by
the Student Activities Board. "If you don't, you are not part of the
solution, you are part of the problem." After Stutman was introduced
as "the most famous narc in America" and Hager as "the most famous
pothead in America," each was given 15 minutes to argue his case for
or against the legalization of marijuana.

Hager outlined five reasons why he thought marijuana should be legal,
including using it as cheap medication and to stop funding drug
corruption in America.

Stutman argued against legalization by outlining four reasons the
drug is bad for people's health, including leading to dependence and
its interference with the ability to concentrate and learn.

While both men come from different backgrounds and hold different
views, Stutman stressed that the debate was to share information with
students, allowing them to make their own decision while respecting
someone else's opinions.

"You will never see Steve and I disrespect each other. You can
disagree with someone without being personally disagreeable," Stutman
said about Hager, who he called "a friend."

After Stutman and Hager had time to discuss their stances on the
legalization of marijuana, the audience had the opportunity to ask
both speakers questions, which included whether the war on drugs was
succeeding and what their definition of "liberty" was.

Sydney Taylor, an education freshman, attended the event because she
was interested in what each side had to say and found she was
surprised by the arguments of both sides.

"I was really impressed with Stutman. I thought he would be
close-minded and he wasn't," she said. "I was disappointed in Hager.
I thought he contradicted himself a lot."

Other students thought Hager gave the better argument.

Rob Monteleone, a psychology senior, thought Hager presented an
intelligent argument on an issue that doesn't get exposure often.
Hager used passion and personal experience, while Stutman focused on
facts and numbers, Monteleone said.

Whichever side of the issue students fell on, both Monteleone and
Taylor said they were glad to hear both sides of the argument
presented as a debate.

"It was a good event with an intelligent discussion without any
hostility," Monteleone said.