Here's a very interesting debate about the legalisation of Cannabis in the UK. Peter Reynolds (the leader of CLEAR, one of the biggest movements for legalising Cannabis) VS Peter Hitchens (a writer for the Mail of Sunday). [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrtKKCntSA8]YouTube - Cannabis debate[/ame]
im bookmarking this for future viewing. dont have the time now to watch it. However looks very interesting. Thank you for sharing!
I just finished watching the debate. It was actually very amusing and both speakers had a good sense of humor. I think that Hitchens' argument against marijuana was overall very weak, being that he focused almost entirely on the *possibility* (he considers it fact) that cannabis causes psychosis. He believes that it can never be considered ethical to legalize cannabis simply because cannabis causes psychosis, despite the mountain of evidence the disagrees with that assertion. With that said, I also felt as though Reynolds' argument was similarly weak simply because he did not go into very much detail at all regarding any of his main points. He only referred to two common medical used for cannabis, without even bothering to mention the incredible effect that THC has on tumor growth. He also failed to go into much detail at all about why regulation keeps cannabis out of the hands of children (I personally understand why he is right, but many viewers may not). Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed watching the debate and definitely recommend that anyone even vaguely interested should take the time to check it out.
I totally agree with you, I think that given more time to present there points (especially Reynolds) the message could have been put across better and in more detail. Hitchens seem's to be a pretty intelligent guy but quite ignorant towards the Cannabis argument in general and didn't seem to know much on the subject. It is definitely worth the watch though.