A fact-checked debate about legal weed

2 opposing perspectives and 6 true facts about cannabis legalization.

Chapters:
00:00 Introduction to format
1:04 Fact #1: Public opinion
2:11 Will's Introduction
2:41 Fact #2: Road safety
4:03 Paul's Introduction
4:24 Fact #3: Marijuana arrests
5:41 Fact #4: Cannabis business owners
7:14 Fact #5: Illicit market
9:15 Fact #6: Corporate interest
10:10 Closing statements

There are few places in the world where you can walk into a licensed shop and buy marijuana for recreational use. Uruguay is one (sold in pharmacies). Canada is another. They’re joined by 21 US states, representing 48 percent of the American population, up from zero states in 2013.

That means that in Idaho, people caught growing or selling weed face mandatory jail time and tens of thousands of dollars in fines while their counterparts next door in Washington can enroll in a state-funded mentor-ship program for cannabis business planning and development. And states like Washington are violating both US federal law which prohibits any use of marijuana, and also international law, which prohibits non-medical uses.

That’s messy. But it reflects that although large majorities agree that the criminalization of cannabis use was a mistake, there’s less consensus about how exactly to move forward.

Will Jones III, the Director of Community Engagement & Outreach at Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), maintains that the commercialization of weed would lead to more harm than good. He prefers decriminalization instead, which removes criminal penalties, treating marijuana possession more like a traffic ticket. (Six US states have decriminalized recreational cannabis without legalizing.) However, SAM prioritizes fighting legalization and reducing drug use over promoting decriminalization.

SAM co-drafted the Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act which makes it easier to study marijuana and develop marijuana-derived drugs but without descheduling marijuana as a schedule I illicit substance. President Biden signed it into law in December of 2022.

Paul Armentano, the Deputy Director of NORML, has spent decades advocating for legalization of marijuana and says decriminalization doesn’t go far enough. NORML represents the interests of cannabis consumers and has been advocating for the removal of criminal penalties for recreational marijuana since 1970.

We thought both of their perspectives were worth hearing but didn’t want to stage a traditional debate where viewers so often come away confused about what to believe. So we created a format that would help establish a shared foundation of facts while still communicating what each of these advocates believe is the most important information to know.

In this new take on a debate, we asked both participants to identify facts that their opponent would have to concede are true. They were given an opportunity to review their adversary’s facts in advance and in a video call agreed on a set of six. In the video, you’ll see those facts presented, with each participant given the opportunity to add a “footnote” to their opponent’s facts.

Sources:

[Vox]

What are other topics you’d like to see in this format? Let us know in a comment below 👇

[meprivate]

I liked this for two reasons:
1) They both agreed on the facts ahead of time.
2) They both agree that weed shouldn't be criminalized, they just disagree on how to go about it.

[SydonX]

Holy... the designer of the set should get an oscar or something. Two people, each in their own room, but discussing at the same table. I love it.

[will]

In an age where people don't just have different views but live in different realities with their own facts, this is a fantastic format. Would love to see more of this.

[OneAgileMoose]

The "fact checked debate" format should be standard in the age of information. Glad to see a news outlet actually using the the free flow of information (and citing the degree of substantiation) for an informative, critical and civil discourse on a topic. A longer form of this would be great to see. Awesome work Vox team.

[DaniloSilva-plsq]

All politics-related debates should be fact-checked.

[MooMooTheWolf]

This is exactly I want the world to have. MORE FACT CHECKED DEBATES!!! I hope this becomes a huge series

[finnh.krannich]

This was an INCREDIBLE format. Please please please — make this an ongoing series for all tough topics. This is leagues better than the more popular “debate” or “other sides” that are out on YouTube right now.

[smokingarmadillo]

Focussing on consensus rather than polarising the talking points produces a far more interesting and informative debate. Look forward to seeing more of these.

[DrDoomsDaughter]

Their body language was great. Both leaning in towards each other and showing genuine engagement. I love debates and discussions like this when the two people on opposite sides are actually interested in what the other is saying

[clarabrandi]

Loved the perspective this gave, because the debate wasn't about right or wrong. It became about how facts and statistics were interpreted and what consequences the individual then prioritizes. The format gave space to recognize that even if all facts are correct opposing opinions are based on fundamental moral and ethic.

[ASJerrell]

This is a wonderful format—fights misinformation, personalizes & professionalizes the information, and is simply entertaining.

[obiomachukwuocha]

So we need to:
1) decriminalize possession
2) prevent big alcohol, tobacco, etc. companies from getting too much/any market share
2a) prevent addiction-for-profit business models
2b) allow the most harmed communities from to receive the most benefit (harm can be based on the number of possession arrests made per capita) [benefit could be tax revenue and reserved licenses for people from the community or arrested for possession]
3) prevent societal impacts such as addiction, drug driving, and adolescent use

[sirsluginston]

2 dudes having a fact-filled, civil debate. Well done.

[michaeltanner]

Incredible format. I hope that this channel continues to promote de-polarizing formats like this. There was no anger or hatred, no blatant falsehoods or rhetorical fallacies. This was a video where two mature adults disagreed on a topic and advocated for separate policy directions based on clear interpretations of facts.

[GTaichou]

This is an excellent format. I love a discussion that can respectfully get past the emotionally-charged taglines and really get down to the catches on solutions. Unfortunately, there is never one solution that can satisfy all needs, so hearing these detailed concerns is important.

[meattoboggan]

I find when I watch debate videos I tend to never drift too far from my original viewpoint. But this actually got seriously thinking about the other side of the debate, well done!

[kinnyboy]

As a daily weed smoker for the past 7 years I think this is the best debate vid on YouTube on this topic. Props to the channel for getting an anti weed guy who’s not just some super religious old dude who thinks weed is a gateway drug and that the legalization will just turn everyone into lazy drug addicts. He actually doesn’t seem to mind the use of weed, but is more concerned about how big corporations will use it to further profit and keep his community down. I can respect that

[demetrialeung]

this is highkey genius, the format should be an ongoing series- it's a game changer.

[raftermanDK]

This is like a cold, refreshing drink of water in the middle of a vast and barren desert of misinformation, agendas and lies. Thank you so much for bringing some nuances to the debate format. Would love to work for you as a producer. Super talented team!