From the moment Indianapolis attorney Stephen Dillon announced boldly, “Let's legalize pot!” his fist raised high in the air, he knew he had a captive audience.
The resounding whoops, hollers and applause from the packed audience at the Red Skelton Performing Arts Center made it pretty clear the majority was there Tuesday morning to show support for the legalization of marijuana.
But Dillon didn't stop there.
In his opening statement in the debate, sponsored by VU's Center for Research and Learning, he compared current marijuana laws to prohibition, a “failed experiment” that is “destroying our country and darkening our spirits.” He even likened laws prohibiting the use of marijuana to “the new Jim Crow” because they are arguably more discriminatory toward blacks and Hispanics.
“Most of us know it's time to end this madness,” he said, to which the audience of mostly Vincennes University students erupted into applause once again. “No one should go to jail for [using] marijuana.”
The debate on the legalization of marijuana was the first of several being hosted this year by VU's new Center for Research and Learning. On the pro side were Dillon and Michael Mullen, a 25-year professor of English, journalism and history at VU.
Dillon is also an active member of the National Organization for the Reformation of Marijuana Laws and the former director of its Indiana chapter.
Speaking against the legalization of marijuana were VU professor of sociology Rob Evans and Knox County Sheriff Mike Morris.
The foundation of Dillon and Mullen's argument was that marijuana is a “safe” substance that can be used by “responsible adults” for both medical and recreational use and that money — millions each year — is being wasted by both prosecuting and incarcerating those on relatively minor possession charges.
More than 22 million people have been arrested on marijuana charges since 1965, Dillon said, and of those an overwhelming 88 percent only had “a small amount” of marijuana on them at the time.
“That's one every 37 seconds, people,” he told the audience. “That means 16 of us will be arrested while Mike and I make our presentation today.”
Dillon went on to say blacks are “four times more likely” than those of other races to be arrested on marijuana charges, which comes at a “tremendous human and financial cost.” The negative effects of having a criminal record, Dillon said, “linger for years if not a lifetime.”
And Indiana, Dillon said, is “No. 1” when it comes to the discovery of meth labs and arrests, “and yet we continue to focus our resources on marijuana offenses.”
Dillon and Mullen went on to suggest that claims that marijuana is harmful are unfounded and that crime has actually decreased in states that have chosen to legalize it.
Laws against its use, Dillon said, “have driven millions of law-abiding citizens to crime.”
Opponents of legalizing marijuana, he said, argue that crime will skyrocket, traffic fatalities will go up, but he says “that's not the case.” States that have legalized marijuana have actually seen a reduction in crime, he said, and no increase in traffic fatalities.
“Prohibition is a failure,” he said. “Prohibition is illogical.
“I don't buy into any of it,” Dillon said. “I don't buy into the violence problem. I don't buy into the [public] safety problem. And I don't buy into the argument that jail populations won't reduce either.
“Because, perhaps, police can use those resources to arrest real criminals.”
“And we know so much more about the safety of marijuana now,” Mullen said. “Yet we haven't paid much attention to it. I think it's time to do that.”
According to a quick pole taken during the debate — where those in attendance texted “for, against or undecided” to a number set up by the Center for Research and Learning, about 62 percent of those who participated were for the legalization of marijuana. Twenty-seven were against and just 10 percent were undecided.
VU student Makala Stockberger of Sullivan had her mind made up as she left the auditorium.
“I just think, if they legalize it, fewer people do it,” she said. “I think people just like to rebel.
“But I also support it because people need it for medical uses,” she said. “People should be able to benefit from it, but it was interesting seeing both sides today. There are both negatives and positives.”
And Kellie Belmedioni of Vincennes, and a freshman at VU, said she wasn't impressed by the con argument.
“They didn't have anything,” she said. “They say it [negatively affects] public safety, but they say they can't measure it. Their arguments aren't solid because the research is lacking.
“They were just defending their position rather than offering any actual evidence or facts.”
And Mullen agreed, although he stopped just short of saying he and Dillon won the debate.
“I'm not sure there needed to be a winner,” he said as the auditorium cleared. “But I'd say it went really well. I was glad to see so many people here. It's good to start a dialogue about these things.
“A lot of state's already have, so let's keep talking about it.”