Students debate ethics of legalizing marijuana

By Lauren Tsugawa

Students and faculty members alike gathered in Benson parlors last Thursday to hear the student debate on Proposition 19, the "Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010." The event was hosted by senior Justin Gillio, current Student Body Chief Justice of the Associated Student Government of Santa Clara, as part of his fellowship with the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. "I'm trying to choose issues that are relevant to college students," said Gillio. "Here at Santa Clara, we're sort of in this little bubble, and sometimes we get so caught up in studying and partying that we don't think about these big legal and ethical issues that we are going to have to face in the world." The panel consisted of four student debaters, as well as a jury of two students and one faculty member. Arguing for the legalization of marijuana was sophomore Chloe Wilson and senior Arthur Kao; arguing against the legalization was sophomore Vitalis Obidi and junior Armand Domalewski. The judging panel consisted of seniors Jessica Cassella and Justin Gillio, and philosophy Professor Brian Buckley.Each team was given five minutes to present their opening arguments, then five minutes to present a rebuttal, after which they were subject to a fifteen-minute questioning by the judges and a ten-minute questioning by the audience. The debate opened with Wilson and Kao discussing the medical and economic benefits of marijuana, as well as the ethical issue of the government's infringement on citizens' personal freedom. Obidi and Domalewski followed, expounding upon the speculation of marijuana as a gateway drug, the economic downfalls of legalization, and the personal safety ramifications that legalization would present to the community. Before the judges made their final decision, Obidi took an audience poll on the issue. The result was a nearly 50:50 split. "I didn't know a lot of the factual issues, so [the debate] was a huge help for me," said audience member sophomore David Bibee, during the deliberation. "It was good food for thought." Though many valid arguments were made for both sides, the judges unanimously declared Obidi and Domalewski the winners of the debate based on the pro side's inability to explain the ways in which Prop 19 would be enforced and regulated in schools and in the workplace. After the completion of the debate, the air buzzed as students and faculty enthusiastically discussed the issue. "As Santa Clara students, we're going to be leaders," said Domalewski. "When we approach the community, people will listen to what we say, so it's important for us to make sure our ideas are well founded." As part of his fellowship, Gillio will be holding several more debates on current ethical issues. The next debate will focus on the legalization of gay marriage. "I'm running these debates to bring attention to these issues," continued Gillio. "They're student-run and student-executed to show that we, as students, can take ownership of these issues." Contact Lauren at ltsugawa@scu.edu or at (408) 551-1918.