It’s no secret that Wilmington Friends School is a place where current and controversial topics are discussed openly, and our recent debate on the legalization of marijuana was no exception.  This debate comes a week after an equally controversial and successful debate about 2016 presidential candidate Donald Trump.  Alex Trudel ’16, clerk of the World Affairs club and participant in this past debate, explained, “We had a great showing on the first debate and wanted to keep the numbers going, so we tried to think about a great topic that the student body would be interested in. One that we had on our agenda is marijuana, so we’re doing complete legalization versus complete criminalization. On this topic, people have strong views on either side, and there is plenty of evidence supporting both sides.” The topic of the legalization and criminalization of the usage of marijuana  has come to light in recent years after Colorado and Washington became the first states to allow recreational use of the drug in 2012.  Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia currently have some form of legislation that decriminalizes marijuana to a degree, either for medical or recreational usage.  More recently, the topic has come up in 2016 presidential candidate debates, which has brought up the ultimate question: Should the recreational use of cannabis be completely legal in the United States as opposed to completely illegal?  This past Friday, debaters Maddie Ireland ’16 and Jack Prendergast ’16 argued for total legalization, while Nolan Delaney ’16 and Trudel argued for total criminalization.

The World Affairs Club and its members have worked hard to educate the student body on these and other current events in the form of debates.  Both the Trump and Marijuana debates have been as entertaining as they are educational, which perhaps speak to the nature of our school. “This year’s World Affairs club had been the most successful ever, with over 100 people attending our most recent debate,” says Josh Pincus ’16, co-clerk of World Affairs, a debater in the Trump debate, and the mediator in the recent cannabis debate. “I am so thankful to my co-clerks Nolan and Alex for their commitment to the club, and to the school in general; without the high school expressing such interest in our debates, World Affairs would not be possible.”

In the minds of many students, nation-wide marijuana legalization and decriminalization seem to be merely a matter of time.  Nick Gauthier ’17 commented, “Once it’s legalized, it’s going to become less of a symbol of rebellion and people won’t be attracted to it just because they aren’t ‘supposed to’ do so.”  Gauthier brings up an excellent point that has been echoed in recent studies out of Colorado, which found that the share of Coloradan high school students reporting past-month marijuana use fell by 11 percent between 2009 and 2011, while nationwide that same number rose by 11 percent during the same period. “As for the safety aspect, once weed is legal, there will probably be more research done on the effects,” Gauthier speculated.

Before the debate, pro-criminalization debater Delaney expressed,  “The students are absolutely on the side of decriminalization. It’s a very liberal school.”  Trudel, Delaney’s debating partner, agreed, stating, “I think that a lot of people would go legalization because as young adults, we tend to go towards a more liberal standpoint, but I’m hoping to change their minds. That just make our job that much more interesting.”  

During the debate, several aspects of this issue were addressed.  The pro-marijuana side started off the debate by comparing the extremely negative effects of smoking cigarettes to the relatively harmless effects of “kicking back after a long day and smoking a joint,” as Ireland put it.  The anti-marijuana side countered by pointing out the culture surrounding marijuana, or the “youth assasinator,” as Delaney put it, is deceptive as it makes smoking marijuana seem like it’s safe when in reality very little is known about the long-term effects of the substance.  Trudel added that legalization would not only solidify the social acceptability of marijuana usage, making usage more common, but would also lead to a long and complicated legal process in order to pass the required legislation.  Ireland contradicted this statement, arguing that the process would not be a long waste of time; rather, this ongoing discussion is the waste of time.  As Ireland later pointed out, “Is something not worth doing because it might be difficult?”

The debaters continued to deliberate, discussing topics varying from the fallen homicide rate in Colorado since 2012 to the near unanimous agreement among the scientific community that repeated cannabis usage lowers a person’s IQ.  The anti-marijuana side closed their argument by pointing out that legalization would in effect be handing the public a substance with unknown effects, and that more research needs to be done before any form of legalization is even considered.  Pro-marijuana ended by explaining that complete legalization and decriminalization would cause organized crime to dissipate and help reduce the prevalent gang culture in this country, closing with the statement, “Give the people what they want!”

And the people chose legalization!  After closing statements, debaters were asked to face away from the audience as those in attendance voted on who they believed represented the stronger argument, and an overwhelming majority appeared: Ireland and Prendergast won the debate in favor of the legalization of marijuana.  This victory could have been influenced by student bias, but Myla Brilliant ’17 believes the outcome would not be any different without the bias.  She comments, “Since we go to an extremely liberal school, it’s hard to say how much of a role bias played, but based on this specific debate, I think that the legalization side would have won solely based on their evidence of the direct economic benefit of decriminalizing marijuana anyway.”

Whether we will all soon experience the freedom to smoke a joint is yet to be determined, but one thing is certain: World Affairs will continue to educate the student body on topical issues such as this, and WFS community members will continue to feel free to express their thoughts and opinions on controversial topics.