From my understanding, not really. What I think is best to do in these cases is to come here, archive MANY, MANY articles, and print links or the entire articles and present them to the individuals in question. Then, ask them to come up with scientific studies, including ones not funded by the government, that directly contradict the information compiled by you. The more recent, the better.


And if they pull out a partial report from the 70's, then you can chuckle at the propaganda and wave your 20+ reports in their faces.

To effectively debate, you must destroy the basis of your opponents point. If you meet someone who supports criminalization, ask them why. If it's based on anything but personal choice, show them alot of evidence that proves otherwise. Eventually, they have nothing else to say, so no more reasons to support prohibition.


Of course, this method is extremely destructive in a class setting. I used to do this type of shit, because I'm an asshole. But, if one is so inclined, they could potentially take one for the team and wave our flag of Hemp. = D