I know this is premature seeing as the Obama vs GOP nominee debates are like 10 months away, but I was thinking about the YouTube clips that CNN used in 2008 in their debates.
CNN asked people to submit YouTube video showing people asking questions and the ones with the most votes were shown on national tv and presented to Obama and McCain (IIRC).
Either way, last time around there was a cannabis-related question and it was given the usually runaround (Cannabis is deemed dangerous by the Feds, therefore it's illegal). The guy that asked the question set up the question very formally and cited modern evidence that contradicted the government's stance and he was basically ignored.
This time around I was wondering that rather than ask like that guy from 2008, we could form the question a bit more aggressively.
Here's my take:
The video starts with building up wikipedia. How wikipedia is basically where everyone gets their information (especially younger people) and how accurate wikipedia is. 1
Then we use wikipedia to cite info that support marijuana legalization.
1. Other countries have legalized small amounts and they haven't experience a social deterioration in their society
2. Many countries successfully use cannabis as medicine, including states in the US.
3. Artificial THC and pills using ingredients from the cannabis plant are used in medicine throughout the USA, yet the plant itself is seen as wrong.2
4. There is no concrete evidence to suggest that cannabis leads to harder drugs
This is just brainstorming. More could be added or some taken off.
Then the candidates are asked whether we should be led by wikipedia, which relies on the latest unbiased evidence to corroborate their articles and is relatively objective, or the federal government, which uses legislation based on racism and cultural xenophobia from the 1970s and who is run by people heavily financed by big pharma, when it comes to cannabis?
Edited by SlipperyPete, 22 January 2012 - 12:30 AM.