 Hey everybody, tonight we're debating whether or not POT should be legal and we're starting right now. With Cider Import's opening statement, thanks so much for being with us, Cider Import, the floor is all yours. Thank you so much for having me, James. I would be remiss, I know it is very off topic, right off the bat, but I would be remiss if I did not start my opening statement with my utmost call of support to the people of Ukraine at this moment in time. With that being said, that other politics stuff out of the way, I have changed some of my positions policy-wise over the years. You might have to go back a little while, but you'll find statements from me arguing for trickle-down economics. I was very wrong in the past and I'd be very wrong again. This however is just not one of those things that I've ever changed my mind on. I've always been in favour of weed being legal. That was just a gut reaction, but then looking into it, you find that weed has been known to help fight cancer cells, weed helps with pain, it helps with anxiety or stress, it's been shown to help with Parkinson's, it's been shown to help with seizures, it's been known to help with ADHD, BPD and some other disorders. It would bring significant opportunities in an employment and an economic sense. We would get to help people get off harder drugs as well if you look at the Portugal model and I think it's the Swedish model, although I might be wrong on that. Dave has huge results when they legalise the softer drugs that it helps them get off harder ones. It doesn't give you things like liver failure or the various cancers, etc. It's kind of weird to me that people have no issue with alcohol or cigarettes being completely legal when we know that these things can give you various cancers from long throats, etc. We know that alcohol causes liver failure and you can possibly die from it. Yet nobody really talks about the fact that nobody has ever overdosed from weed. Nobody has ever gotten liver failure or cancer or anything else like that from weed and yet that's the thing that's illegal. It's just kind of strange to me. Those are more than enough reasons to be in favour of the legalisation of weed and that's not just because I'm a stoner but it's because I'm in favour of the most freedom possible without negatively affecting others. Because I am a stoner, for years I have absolutely hated the argument that weed is a gateway drug to stronger drugs. The only thing weed is a gateway drug to is happiness, the munchies, cartoons, enjoying the company of the elderly, aquariums and the realisation that we live in a simulation. Thanks again James for having me. That is the end of my opening. You got it. Thank you very much for that opening statement and we're going to kick it over to Grisa for her opening statement as well. I want to let you know folks, if it's your first time here at Modern Day Debate, we are a neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion and politics. We hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you were from. And with that, Grisa, thanks so much to the floor. Is all yours for your opening as well? Thank you so much James. I am so excited about this conversation and I am very happy to be here. Thank you for having me. So I have something that I prepared that I'll read. Marijuana is commonly thought of as a harmless drug. Difficult to get addicted to and impossible to die from and unlikely to produce aggressive behaviour in the user. As of 2021, 49% of the American adult population has tried marijuana. There are rarely any news article regarding it with an exception of a far-right pundit raging out at states individually legalising it. Which is in stark contrast to the plethora of negative anecdotes and studies surrounding really any other drug close to weed's popularity. Many stoners are ready to hit you with two good-to-be-true facts about weed anywhere from its many benefits for mental health, its lack of harm to your lungs. I've even heard some people say that improves your lung function to even saying that it reduces one's risk of catching COVID. On the other side of things, we have the federal government which categorizes marijuana as a schedule one drug accompanied by the likes of heroin and bath salts, greatly limiting the ability for controlled medical studies and any in-depth understanding of the risks of marijuana usage. And they quote, in a recent review of research, the Department of Health and Human Services found that scientists do not understand marijuana's chemistry and haven't conducted adequate safety and efficacy studies. And quote, many medical researchers have been pushing the DEA to reschedule marijuana as a schedule two drug for this reason, which would allow for the possibility of medicinal purpose along with the understanding of how the drug interacts with the human bodily systems through controlled studies. Meth, cocaine and fentanyl are all categorized as schedule two drugs, which, while similarly addictive, are recognized to have potential medical use and are able to be thoroughly researched. So here we have the pillars of our bimodal distribution of polarization, the laymen who are quickly quick to die on the green hill of cannabis and the beds who are willing to lock up anyone who does so regardless of their death. So who is right, reality, as it often does fall somewhere in the middle? As I have come to observe with many topics, those who you find at the extremes of most topics tend to be the ones that are least educated on said topic. I believe that we should listen to the experts in the field of rescheduling marijuana for research purposes. I also believe that we should decriminalize marijuana, along with all other currently criminalized drugs without making them legal. This is the approach Portugal took to ameliorate their drug abuse problem and it has worked incredibly well. While I'm open to marijuana being made legal in the future, similar to cigarettes, alcohol or other addictive substances potentially were side effects. I believe that in order for this to be done ethically, we must allow people to give informed consent. As I quoted earlier, the Department of Health and Human Services readily admit that they have not conducted enough studies on marijuana to adequately understand its safety risks. We know the risks of alcohol, of nicotine and of other drugs people frequently use and those risks are very transparent. That is not the case with weed. I understand that on a day-to-day level, we do not see direct harm that we can link back to weed as we do with other drugs mentioned. The limited research we do have, however, suggests that the negative effects of marijuana abuse can be much more pernicious, such as gradual yet substantial cognitive decline or poor mental health. On top of this, many of the stereotypes surrounding weed create a false sense of security surrounding addiction, which is physical and comes with a lengthy period of painful withdrawal. With approximately 10% of those who try weed developing independence, weed is slightly less of a less addictive than alcohol, which comes in about 15% of those who try it, explaining why weed is the second most abused drug in America. In closing, while I believe marijuana needs to be rescheduled to allow for further research into the potential positive and negative effects, I do not believe that the drug should be legalized until this has been done. People deserve to know potential harms associated with marijuana, and if the experts are saying that they cannot give an adequate explanation of those harms, we should trust them. Legalization should potentially be in the future, but now is not the time. Thank you. Thank you very much, Carissa for that opening statement, and want to let you know, folks, if it's your first time here, we have many more juicy debates coming up in the future. Want to let you know, for example, about this one at the bottom right of your screen, two doctors collide on whether or not there is evidence for God from cosmology. You don't want to miss it, as well as other juicy debates coming up, so hit that subscribe button. And with that, thanks so much. Carissa and Cider in port, the floor is all yours for open discussion. Yeah, I mean, I took down a few things there. You're like very, very, very opening points. I mean, like they were just true. Improving your lung capacity or your breathing ability. Yeah, that's just flat wrong. I mean, you are still, you know what I mean? You're still taking in smoking into your lungs. That's going to damage it in some way. It doesn't matter if it's like better than cigarettes, I guess, but it's still damaging it because you're still putting smoke in your lungs. But I guess it's just kind of like, I'm so in favor of weed being legalized because from my point of view, there just isn't enough reasons to arrive at the conclusion that it should be illegal. Like there's not enough reason to justifying it not being legal. That's from my standpoint, anyway. So I understand what you're saying. Does it concern you that like 10% of those who use weed or have ever tried it do become addicted? Is that something that's concerning to you? I mean, it's as equally as concerning as people who get addicted to alcohol or people who get addicted to gambling or people who get addicted to sex. Addiction is sort of like everything in moderation. I guess a little bit of drinking is okay. Too much drinking is bad. A little bit of gambling is fun. Too much gambling is a problem. If you have some amount of self-control over it, I'm not dismissing the people who do get addicted, but I kind of see them as like a separate but related point. So I understand what you're saying. I see what you're saying. The fact that the concerns surrounding marijuana are more pernicious, such as cognitive decline and also combined with the fact that when those are happening, the user tends to not actually even realize that that's the case. Do you think that that's something to like consider, especially considering all of the misinformation surrounding weed, such as the fact like so many people say you can't get physically addicted to weed, but that's just like untrue. Yeah, no, I mean, it's a low percentage as I think you kind of agreed with. Yeah, I don't know. I guess I'm just kind of thinking like, okay, so you would say that now wasn't the time that it might be some point in the future. But I mean, when is that time then, I guess? Because is it at a point where we've kind of genetically kind of caught out addiction? When is the time to make it legal? So I completely agree with you that anything that has any property of like doing something to your brain can be addictive. And so you can't just be like, oh, anything that's addicted needs to be made illegal. I understand that. I would say the point of making it legal would be if we are able to understand like the chemical makeup of weed, which is something that I was surprised that they haven't done yet, how it affects your systems, doing further research into it, I would say would be really important to be able to have a reasonable like risk assessment and being like, okay, so let's actually nail down what are the risks here? Have controlled studies, which has been done pretty much on all of the other common drugs, alcohol, all of these other drugs have had controlled studies that are able to prove causation that's not as much the case with weed. Just because we cannot, we really just, we can't do those controlled studies and we can't prove causation with just observational studies. So my position is that I'm not against long term the legalization of weed provided that we understand the risks to a good extent and we can tell those people risks. Like for example, if you go, I don't know, it's the way in Ireland, but if you go to like the drug store and pick up cigarettes, you're gonna have warning labels all over them. Similarly with like prescribed drugs, you're gonna have like a whole sheet that they'll give you that says this could do A, B, and C and be aware of this, this and this and if this is happening to you then you need to call so and so. That's what I would be looking for with weed. Yeah, I mean, like look at like trying to make weed like the, you know, safer and by kind of like doing more studies and stuff like that on it, like in kind of like, you know, figuring out what the pros and cons and stuff like that are I'm all for that. But it's sort of like, so right now because dealers kind of like have to kind of make it so quickly, like they're putting a lot of like chemicals and they're putting a lot of additives into it to kind of get like more quicker so they can make more money. And it's sort of like, if you take into account like all of the countries that don't have it legalized, that it is operating that way and all of the states in the US who don't have it legalized, who are also operating it that way. Like the amount of people that have smoked this stuff and they don't have like nearly the kind of negative side effects as you would kind of think that they would have, it's sort of almost kind of makes it an argument of if we make it safer than like virtually no side effects. I mean, like there's kind of, you know, to kind of get what I'm getting at. Yeah, no, I understand. So I would say that there could be side effects we wouldn't realize. So for example, negative mental health, they have found, they have actually done, there are some limited studies that you can do that are controlled with marijuana if you are able to get through like a ton of loopholes. This one study did, and they actually did find association between or actually a causation for negative emotional, it says, I'm sorry, marijuana abusers show lower scores on positive emotionality and higher scores on negative emotionality than controls consistent on the other hand with lower reward sensitivity. This is a study that I can link if you would like me to, it's from, but my concern is like for a very, very, very long time we couldn't necessarily pin that down and just because we wouldn't know like okay, from observation are just more people who are mentally ill doing weed or is weed making people more mentally ill, right? So like it's hard, like I feel like with alcohol you brought up like the liver issue and yes, that's like very clear, it's a very direct issue. I don't see that being the case with weed but I don't know if that necessarily means that weed is less harmful just because the effects of it aren't as direct. Yeah, I mean, I kind of get what you're saying about like weed making you more depressed and stuff like that and it kind of causes this like cycle because obviously after you smoke weed and you get stoned you don't feel depressed, you feel happy as whatever so it kind of develops a dependency and therefore somewhat of an addiction so I get that it's kind of cyclical in that way but I mean like it's just like, it's less than 10% of people who smoke weed as you would kind of set it to start who get addicted so like it's not that I'm dismissing it, it's just that it is just such a very, very small number and when you kind of look at the other substances that people can get addicted to who are so obviously like worse for you I'm just, I just don't feel like I kind of just think that like if it's any substance kind of no matter what the substance is or like what the coping mechanism is like you can become dependent and therefore addicted in a sense to it I just don't think that for right now that's kind of like a good enough reason to make it illegal. Well, so I wouldn't say we should make it illegal I think we should decriminalize it since it's already illegal I think we need to take a step into the direction of let's consider this for medical use and therefore do research on it I do think, I also want to clarify I do think there are some instances potentially medically where we could be used like obviously if you're dealing with like a cancer patient I'm less concerned about mental decline than I am about their pain right especially their terminal so like obviously I would say hey I think that's a fair medical use and that's like right off of that I don't understand why we would categorize it as a schedule and drug I think that's insane my concern though and I think your logic there would fully apply where it's like it doesn't really matter if there are like long-term negative consequences when someone literally has cancer and is in pain etc etc I am just concerned because like for the broader population wheat is the second most abused drug in America like a lot of people abuse it it is very much of a myth that people rarely anyone abuses it many people do and they do not realize it they're in denial which I understand because they're not seeing those negative effects and typically people will say oh you know you have to have like all these like physical symptoms if you're abusing something that's like also a misconception but they are addicted and we don't know what effects are happening just because no one has researched it to the extent and there's also a ton of misinformation that's spread so I would say that it's ethical to I would say it's more ethical to give someone cigarettes and say hey this is like really bad for you but you have the option of doing it and then giving someone weed and saying like hey we don't know if this is really bad for you it could be really bad for you down the road 10, 20 years we don't 100% know but they give this to you and you can choose I understand what you're saying and I don't know who you've kind of talked to that people said that like you can't abuse weed because I mean like they're just stupid because yes of course you can you can abuse it the same as you can abuse anything my only kind of like main concern is I mean like where is the like what's the criteria for like abusing something it's the only reason that I ask is because I mean the US will define if you have like more than like two drinks of alcohol with dinner then you're like you're classified as an alcoholic if you have that here you're the designated driver so I'm not really kind of sure on where the kind of metric is yeah I know I understand so I believe it goes into the DSM-5 cannabis use disorder and that's how it's defined I'm reading it here I believe yes as according to the DSM-5 the criteria for cannabis use disorder is as follows use of cannabis for at least a one year period with a presence of at least two or the at least two of the following symptoms accompanied by significant impairment of functioning in distress difficulty containing use of cannabis the drug is used in larger amounts and over a longer period of time than intended repeat failed efforts to discontinue or reduce the amount of cannabis that is used in an inordinate amount of time in occupying acquiring using or recovering from effects of cannabis craving or desires to use cannabis this can include intrusive thoughts and images dreams about cannabis or olifactory perceptions of the smell of cannabis due to preoccupation continued use of cannabis despite adverse consequences from its use such as criminal charges ultimatums of abandonment from spouse slash partner slash friend and poor productivity other important activities in life such as school work hygiene responsibility to family and friends are superseded by a desire to use cannabis cannabis is used in contexts that are potentially dangerous such as operating a motor vehicle use of cannabis can continues despite awareness of physical or psychological problems tolerance of cannabis as defined by progressively larger amounts of cannabis are needed to obtain the psychoactive effect experienced when first commenced or noticeably reduced effect of use of the same amount of cannabis withdrawal defined as the typical withdrawal symptom associated with cannabis or cannabis have a similar or a similar substance is used to prevent withdrawal symptoms so that's like the whole thing I know it took a little longer to read out yeah I was just going to say well yeah a little bit longer than I had first anticipated but I mean like that and I feel personally attacked but okay you're scalloping yeah I don't know like it's yeah I don't like not all of them obviously Jesus Christ I'd be like that'd be a massive problem but yeah no there was definitely like I don't know I just still I understand that there are negatives to doing it but I mean if the criteria is that the negatives to doing something outweigh the positives of doing something then I think that we should be kind of join shoulder to shoulder in trying to get alcohol and cigarettes outlawed rather than keeping weed illegal or you know like not making it like fully legal like whatever the kind of metric is like I just think that the fight is not placed in the right direction I just think that the like consequences of smoking weed of potentially getting addicted etc etc it's lesser than all of the other things that have much worse side effects much worse long-term effects yeah I just I just don't see this as much of as big of a problem when you kind of compare it to exactly some other substances that people can use and abuse right so I so I would agree with what you said earlier about freedom and I think that's really important when I don't I'm not saying that we should like make it illegal because of the how bad it is I think we need to give the individual enough enough information for them to you know decide on their own in way the benefits compared to the detriments for themselves if they want to have like a chill time a chill Nate and they're like hey I know I'm not going to abuse this I know this is risk so I'm going to avoid this at all costs I think that's fair I think that should be allowed but we're not there now we're not able to give all those negatives so someone can make an informed decision that's where I'm concerned I'm also concerned because I feel like this same DSM five criteria that is what is used for these studies I feel like a lot of these people have a lot of people who smoke weed don't know they're addicted they are addicted and they don't know that they're an increased risk of the negative effects that are even higher related to addiction of weed such as cognitive decline or mental health issues yeah I just wanted to point out just in case I mean like anybody was even remotely confused I'm not in favour of banning smoking and I mean hey I'm Irish I'm definitely not in favour of banning drinking but I just think that if you have informed enthusiastic consent so that's what we ask for when people are buying stuff like drink and stuff like cigarettes we put those like little like the gross picture of a lung on the packet of cigarettes so you know that this might happen or whatever right but if you still if you are informed of that if you are informed of all of the side effects and you are still enthusiastically going into a shop or going into a drug store liquor store whatever and picking up this substance that you know might have those effects I think and you are still consenting to doing that I think that like even if you know the worst possible scenario we did all these tests on weed like after it was after they kind of the lab restrictions were kind of removed even if we found out that there was all of these like massively like unheard of side effects and it was I don't know what gave you tumors or something right I still think that if that was known and if people are still enthusiastic about consenting to it even knowing that that's the risk I mean I still think that even if it was kind of proven to be like bad beyond belief I still think if you haven't informed enthusiastic consent you can't really stop people I think at that point I would say should be legal I think my concern again my concern isn't with the negative consequences to of like legalizing the drugs like across the board like my concern is more legalizing it when we don't know enough information about it and we cannot give that informed that informed consent I don't like the government being involved in like what I can and cannot put in my body I think that's not okay some most of the time but I also see the benefit of saying hey like if we are we want to give you that freedom we're going to give you that freedom but we want to be able to inform you so that you are going to make the best decision for you and that's where I am hoping for I would say if we were able to get it a schedule to drugs and test it for a good amount of time and we got you know good information on it I would say that we should 100% legalize it at that point I just do not think that's that's where we are I mean okay I just kind of want to just kind of pick up on something that like was your kind of overall point I guess if you're in favor of it being legal if we find out that you know it gives you brain tumors this was my example if you're in favor of making it legal then then why can't we just make it legal right now say we don't know what the long term side effects are you know what I mean give like that potential warning say like we're still kind of looking into this stuff so we're not really sure so you know user discretion is advised or whatever I mean like why can't we just do that because if people like know that there's a possibility that there might be some long term effects you're still kind of giving that informed enthusiastic consent if you know there's a possibility of some side effects and yet you still want to do it that's where I come back to yeah no I can understand that I think that would be in my opinion less than ideal to give specifics rather than just like a vague there could be issues with this and also there could be things that we don't know what we would be expecting at that point so like we already know for we know for sure that it causes cognitive decline heavy use does we also know for sure that it causes mental issues we're not like fully 100% sure about some stuff with like psychosis it looks like it causes it can cause that too what the risk is there is like a little iffy but there we don't know other potential effects and I think that's key I feel like people should have like so like for example if you're um if you are working in a situation where everything's like super boring if you're if you just want to be at like one location working for the rest of your life and you don't want to like it's not important for you that you are like on top of your your game cognitively then yeah you're probably not going to care but if someone's going to like once they go to Harvard but they still want to have fun with their friends that specific thing that that can cause lowering you know cognitive decline it's going to be significant for them and I think just a statement of this could cause issues isn't specific enough for individuals to make that decision um yeah okay so I can yeah I can see where you're coming from um and look would I be happier kind of knowing okay well if I you know what I mean like the next joint that I smoke is going to get me one step closer to whatever it ends up being would I like to know what that specific is yeah absolutely but I mean yeah it's sort of in the same as I mean I've been vaping throughout this debate like what like five ten maximum years um like you know in order to like around for like we don't know what the long-term effects of this I mean it's probably worse because it's just water vapor sort of water going into my lungs you know like it's it's it's still so like I don't know it's just kind of like I think we have a lot of these things in kind of effect already like we don't know what the long-term effects of this is and yet nobody is talking about banning it yes we might not know about the what the long-term negative effects of smoking weed is but yeah a lot of places of banda it just doesn't really make much sense to me like I just my main kind of crux of why I'm so in favor of it is because if you have informed enthusiastic consent I don't see what possible reason anybody could have to be like well no you still can't do it it's like if somebody told you that they wanted to jump off of their you know roof and you're like yeah dude like you can do that but you're gonna break your legs but like yeah I know I'm gonna break my legs but I still want to do it yeah you can try and talk them out of it but I mean if they really want to do it then they're gonna do it anyway so it's kind of you know like and then when you look at I mean there's like what how many tens of thousands of prisoners in your country who are there for nonviolent drug offenses the vast majority of them having to do with weed like they were nonviolent and yet they're in there for like 10 years like this is stupid you know and like then if you have you know somebody who is even underage and like I'm not in favor of anybody say like under the age of 18 smoking it because like the younger that you smoke at the more kind of cognitive decline I think that like there's early studies kind of showing that so I'm not in favor of that but I mean even if there was like a 16 year old kid who was like smoking a joint and a police officer you know like finds them forever and like you know if that police officer wants to book him for that and potentially ruin like his career aspirations if he wants to travel if he wants to join the military if he wants to join the police force if he wants to do any of these things they're now done what because he wanted to get a little high after he was finished with his homework it's like it's just all of those stuff that I just kind of like now yeah no I agree and that's where I would be in favor of decriminalization because that would make that situation it would make it so that you're not going to go to jail it would be a misdemeanor essentially so it seems like a parking the traffic ticket or something it goes off of your it's not like a huge deal it's not anything like that also anyone who would be in jail from it would be released which I think would be very important I think for any drug usage of that is important I would I still believe so I agree with you I think you brought up Portugal at the beginning and that's what they did is they they didn't fully legalize they actually hasn't they haven't legalized weed it's only decriminalized along with all their other drugs they decriminalized it they still are focusing on because I know that they've gotten a lot better but they're still focusing on trying to make their situation better before legalizing anything which is like it's their country but they found like it really that it really worked really well and made it so that people can could actually go and get help without being concerned that they were going to get turned in while still maintaining the distribution or the production of the substance as being illegal which I think I feel like that's fair my biggest also my biggest I think you said one other thing earlier that I wanted to touch on I think one difference between and I might be a little wrong on this because I haven't like vaped I'm not in the vape culture I might be wrong I have I used to smoke a lot I used to smoke weed a lot but I never really heard any arguments there wasn't much information misinformation about weed I feel like I think the most that you get about vapes is that yeah you still have nicotine in it it's still bad for you on that front but you don't have the smoke going into your lungs or maybe some of the other additives from my understanding that's usually correct but there's not that level of misinformation that there is around weed in my opinion weed a lot of what I hear is that is only psychologically addictive it's not physically addictive which is just wrong also people will say that that like it's not that bad for your lungs where it is there's just so many things or that you can't get addicted to it that's my concern is that people think that you can't get addicted to it and they keep on doing it or it's hard to get addicted to it and it's not incredibly hard so that's where I feel like the enthusiastic consent is important especially when you have a substance where there's so much misinformation surrounding it yeah no I mean I know that people can get addicted to it and I know that there's some people there's at least one person in the live chat that are going to say that I am but I don't personally view myself as addicted to weed like I could stop smoking weed tomorrow like I'm probably not going to but I know that I could if I had to like if it came down to you know paying my rent or paying for weed I mean I'm paying my rent you know like it's a no brainer it's an obvious yeah it's like not even a discussion so it's just like I don't know but I mean kind of in the same sense when you know you have someone who's like 16, 17, 18 like who's just starting to drink for the first time that might be slightly older because the state is 21 but anyway if you have someone who's just starting to drink like you can still say to them hey dude like you can get addicted to drinking like you can become dependent on it I know I keep kind of coming back to it but it's like as I said like the main kind of crux of why I'm so in favour of it is because of the form of enthusiastic consent if you say that you know that you might get addicted to it and yet you still want to do it if that turns into a problem later yeah absolutely and we can like work on that problem now I do think that the rehab system needs to be vastly improved but you know just to kind of mention I'm pretty sure it's the same for NA as well but with AA they don't count you if you read if you read admiss administer go in if you go into AA again they count you as someone new they don't count you as like having failed and gone back so I think that those kind of systems need to be improved and stuff but like by and large I'm just still kind of like if you want to smoke it you smoke it you know just do it responsibly and I don't want to see like young people smoke it but right yeah so that's where I guess that's where I feel like the decriminalization would help where you I mean obviously if you want it then you get it like again if you're going to jump off a building then you're going to jump off a building like you can take steps to resolve that but I feel like the decriminalization is kind of like hey if this is something that you really want I we're not going to try to penalize you for it I kind of view it the fact that it's illegal is more of a preventative measure like I'm not sure if you heard of like econometrics it's like the statistical of putting statistics within econ and figuring out how people make decisions based on their environment and the probability of them making a certain decision I feel like with something still being illegal with something still being kind of like yeah you probably don't want to do this I think that within itself discourages is it which is important and I think as long as you don't have like a permanent record I don't see it as being a huge deal to discourage it I think it's important to just discourage it as long as you are doing what you can or the you know give the giving the researcher the ability to actually figure out exactly the negatives I also wanted to kind of I know you brought up the if they're going to do it they're going to do it I think I wonder if this is different in Ireland but like a situation that we just ran into because Hunter my husband used to be really addicted to weed and he's like coming out of it currently but what I found very interesting was his doctor his primary care position he actually encouraged him to continue using it when Hunter came he's like I feel like I'm using this too much I'm a little worried about it but I'm using it for my anxiety I'm using it for mental health issues the doctor was like no any medication you're going to have some effects and stuff so just keep on going it's fine and to me that's like when you have like doctors that are giving misinformation I feel like that's that's like a whole new level of misinformation when in reality there's no proof at all that it improves mental health it can maybe a couple of hours after you take it but overall you long term it goes down your mental health goes down and on top of that like he was saying that he was exhibiting signs of abuse and the doctor was like kind of show of it um I don't know it's just it's I feel like it's a different level where you're having so much misinformation um it's just insane I don't know yeah I mean I would just kind of okay so I know that even though we don't know too much about we do know enough to kind of say some things for certain about it um but I would just kind of wonder where like your criteria I guess I don't think that's the right word there's only one that's coming to mind at the minute um of where you kind of say that we don't we haven't done the studies like long term instead like the effects of we but we know that such and such is misinformation I'm kind of I get I get where you're coming from with certain things like some doctor for whatever reason was to say that yeah like it helps your I don't know it helps your breathing ability or whatever yeah he's just flat out wrong like we know that some things are but it's just kind of where is the line I guess so I would say is that like you would have to look at the studies right and the only studies that can really tell you causal situations are controlled um the rest are observational and the rest are correlational and I think that's like very vital um there are not a ton of causational causational studies surrounding weed there are some where the people who have done the studies were able to get around kind of like the federal restrictions by um I don't know there's loopholes um but many people I don't I don't think they're exploited very frequently um from what it seems but there is a study that I am looking at here from PNAS um and it says um it's titled decreased dopamine brain activity and marijuana abusers is associated with negative emotion emotionality and addiction severity and what this did is that it had a control group and um they were able to isolate factors um and they found that the people who used weed more heavily um had a much worse um like mental health I guess situation um and on top of that they found that weed actually made it so that stimulants or other medication for stuff like ADHD because of weed abuse those stimulants wouldn't work nearly as well and they don't even know how long that's the case so they like they found that's like a side thing that they found within the study um so I would say that like there are some things that we have been able to establish um and that are just commonly accepted um there's this one article from NCBI um which is like pretty standard um and it kind of like goes through like cannabis and psychosis and it's like okay well this is established this isn't established um but so we have established a few things we have been able to establish a few things my issue is that like we haven't done enough research to figure out situations like oh will this affect something like um ADHD medication if this person has ADHD stimulant you know whatever or like what is the severity of psychosis or like a lot of like even more detailed situations it's hard to really flesh out given the um scheduling of the drug um then that's just that's like what they've said um that's what the experts have even said they just can't give adequate safety and disease studies um they can't get the results for them enough of them I feel like I'm not making sense I'm sorry no no you're fine you're fine you're fine I don't know I would just kind of say like how can you kind of so if I was to say that um you know weed gives you tumors right I said it earlier it's just yeah it's just in my head um if I was to say that right and weed like did that technically speaking that would be misinformation right but what I'm saying is like how do we know if I say that we cause his brain tumors is misinformation unless we do the studies on it and because we haven't I'm just kind of wondering like how you can be like so sure I guess that like that these really negative side effects like are there it's just because we don't know I'm not saying that you're wrong I'm just saying that like it's almost like it's almost like you can't know that you're right. You know what I mean? So, right, so I would say that like, for example, with the doctor specifically saying that it can improve anxiety. It just, there's number one, there's no proof of that. And that's a very largely accepted within the medical community. There's no proof that, or at least it's kind of up in there for like depression and stuff. It's been proven to make it worse. So that is already established. That part is established that it's proven to make it worse. Hunter also like had depression. So it's like the fact that he had depression and he was still saying to use weed and continue it when he was addicted was concerning. So it's just like, I don't know, it's just a little odd. So I would say that like there are individual studies that can prove things. And there's consensus on many of these issues, like the psychosis situation there's like consensus on. But I just would say that like not everything we don't know for sure, definitely. And they want to do more research because they know they cannot give adequate warnings or understand the safety risks fully. Yeah, I would just kind of say, this is the kind of circle back to something that I said and I think by opening, I don't think I've mentioned it since then. But I mean, I would just kind of say that like, okay, so if we were to find out that like right now, like if we were to like to, you know, study the groups of people who are smoking weed regularly like now as it currently exists in a state where it's not yet legal. I don't know how accurate that data could be because people are putting like chemicals and additives into it. I think that if you regulate it, if you make it, you know, like pass like a certain amount of standards, like I don't know like a food safety check, like that level of like strictness. If that was to go into it to make sure that the weed is like pure and that there's nothing added to it, that it is a hundred percent safe. I think that you would need to kind of do that first before kind of doing the studies to kind of test about what the long-term effects are because if you were to do the tests now and then make it clean later, I don't know how reliable the data would be at that point because it would be including those chemicals and those additives. No, I think that's fair. I would say that from what I remember, it was medical marijuana. So that has standards. Yeah, yeah. That's my understanding. I can try to find it here. I'm looking at the study here, but yeah, I believe it was medical marijuana. I would be very surprised if an academic study decided to use street weed. I don't know, I feel like that would be a little sad. Just because I feel like a lot of these studies are trying to be very like pinpointing what are we trying to study and controlling for that, exactly. I don't know. A good time to go into the Q&A unless any of you have closing thoughts from what you've discussed so far. No, I mean, like one and only kind of closing is just that like, yeah, just if informed enthusiastic consent is there, you do you. That's it, that's, yep. I would say, I would say I completely agree with that. I would say that people need to be better informed when the experts, when the researchers are saying that they don't have enough information to give people for them to be informed. I think that's something that we need to consider. And I also, I feel like it is ridiculous that people are like behind bars for any type of drug use. This is absolutely terrible. And I think that needs to stop and it needs to be decriminalized for that specific reason. But that's pretty much all I have. You got it? Go ahead, sorry. We'll jump into the Q&A. And I wanna say thanks for your questions folks. We're gonna try to move through these fast so we can get through as many as possible as well as both of our guests are linked in the description in case you wanna hear more. And let me unscramble those pictures just a second. Let's see. So in case the pictures on the screen are swapped, that's just because sometimes if a guest turns off their camera that does that. But we do wanna say, no worries, not a big deal. Mr. Montra, thanks for your question. Says I have ulcerative colitis and my doctor recommended marijuana to help reduce inflammation in my colon. Why should marijuana be illegal if it helps? I don't think, so I'm not saying that it never helps. And I think that it could potentially help. And I'd like to know exactly how it helps. And I'd like people to be able to figure out with their doctors if those risks are something that they would like to or is worth taking for the benefits that it provides. You got it. And this question coming in from, do appreciate it. And then Sider, I wanna ask you, I know this is picky but just because we have some, a small percent out there, 1% are like audio nerds and pretentious bastards about the audio. If you could do me a favor, is that 1% will come down on me in the comments. If you're able to mute when you're taking a puff, it helps a little bit. This one coming in from Raymond C.G.T.C. says we need to legalize it and let adults decide, Carissa. I think ultimately I think you're right and I don't think people can decide unless they're well informed. You got it. Mango T says Sider, I had marijuana and have not been the same since it is an evil drug and destroyed my life. I had a psychosis and viewed others as artificial intelligence beings. No, no. I mean, that to me sounds like it did something other than just weed. But I mean, yeah, look at like I can't like necessarily discount your personal experience if that's what happened to it, you know, I'm very sorry. That's obviously not what's ever happened to me or to anyone else that I know. I know that that's not necessarily the best of arguments. But I mean, I don't know if there's any studies on it. So I don't really know what else to reference. Yeah, no, sorry that happened. But yeah, I don't think that that's, I think that that's the exception to the rule. You got it. I can just, I've been really, really quick. I'm sorry. This is a little off topic. I just wanted to get this thing because I thought it was hilarious when you were saying that weed made you feel like everything was a simulation. I had the exact same thing happen to me and I still believe we're in a simulation. I kind of, I kind of onironically think we see it was funny. Juicy, the sun coming in from. Do appreciate your question. Guola May, Paradis says, why should pot be illegal when cigarettes are legal and contain much more toxic components and can also lead to addiction? Carissa. Because we know the effects of cigarettes and there are warnings around cigarettes and there's no misinformation about cigarettes. So once we get to that point with weed, I think it should be legal. If we know everything about weed that is important to know and we are able to warn people regarding that. I think it should also be legal. You got it. And Mingo T. Thanks for your super chat question says, I had marijuana and it's resulted in noticeable cognitive decline. I experienced a period of retardation and continue to do so. I think they're being sincere that it's not a troll just for the record. No, they're a troll for sure. Let's see. Stupid whore energy says which weed dispensaries were forced to stay open during the pandemic in parentheses unlike liquor stores. Avalone. Were they, most of them did stay open, I believe. They were asking which ones were forced to stay open. I have no idea. Ozzie and Tox, thanks for your question says, sex is legal even with possible negative outcomes. Would you advocate for decriminalizing sex instead of making it legal? Why should pot be illegal? Just due to potential misuse and bad outcomes. I believe that everyone knows or if they had sex education. So maybe not all homeschoolers because I was a homeschooler. Everyone knows or should know the potential issues with sex and they shouldn't have sex without knowing that. You got it and thank you very much for your question. This one coming in from Ryan says, recent study show 22% of adult Americans regularly use marijuana. How can you say we don't know the effects long and short term? Avalone. So the issue there is because we have to isolate certain variables. So like for example for a very long time we couldn't tell whether or not weed affected mental health because we didn't know if people who smoked weed were more likely to have mental health issues prior to smoking weed and that's why they were smoking weed or if weed actually caused those mental health issues. Even if they were substantial it would be very difficult to figure that out just because a lot of people are doing it and just because we can even collect data on those people does not allow us to control for one specific factor and prove a causal relationship. You got it and thank you very much for this question. The host says, can I get an oh yeah, oh yeah and ghost says high pitched by the way. Are you saying for me or from the guest? I just want to know before I give you my high pitched oh yeah. Ghost says also have cider give a quick dab. Shit, how much is this a super chat for? What was it? That one was a $50 super chat. I mean I have to now. Take a talk. Take a talk. Thank you. I mean I have to now. Mac, the human says legalize spinning around until you're dizzy. I think they mean make it illegal and I think it's a parody argument Karissa. I mean I'm guessing, did I get that right Mac? Let me know. Karissa laughs at your question. Next one is coming up. This one coming up from, if there's someone, actually screwy Scott Taguerra has the next one says for Karissa. What does she mean? There are many people that don't know why. Forgive me. What does she mean that there are many people that don't know they're addicted? Does she mean we can't tell we're ruining our lives even if we've lived well for years? I think some people can 100%. I think it's very, very possible to tell that you're addicted. And I think there's a stark distinction between that and saying that some people know that they're addicted but a lot don't. Of course it's possible to know you're addicted and that's wonderful to do. But many people do not know that they're addicted just because they don't have some of the more blatant effects from addiction that you would see with other types of drugs. You got it. And Oliver Katwell, thanks for your channel membership support. We really do appreciate it. Just sent in a question. Says if legalization over decriminalization allows enforcing an age limit as well as tax revenue dedicated to rehab slash education, is that worth it? I think for the future, for sure. I love the fact that I believe they do something to that extent with cigarettes. They have taxes on them. And I think that should 100% be done with weed. Age limits? I don't know about age limits in general if someone's an adult. But I mean it's something to consider, I guess. You got it. This one coming in from Ghost, a follow-up says he hasn't dabbed. Are they meaning like that? Like the dab thing? You guys have to teach me. I don't know what these things mean. I don't know of any other. What did I dab? Like with a Q-tip. What is this? I have no idea. Is this slang? I'm getting help as well. I don't know. People in the chat, they talk about Cleveland steamers and taking grandma to Applebee's and all these innuendos. I don't know. But that is it. As far as questions, I think I've gotten all of them. Let me know, folks, if I did miss any. I do want to just give a couple of quick notes before anybody puts in any last questions. One, our guest or link to the description. That includes at the podcast. I didn't mention that before. We do have a podcast. We upload every single debate within about 24 hours to the podcast so you can listen to it right away. You can save on your data. Just download it to your phone. Convenient. And we also put our guest links there. Carissa and Cider and Port will be linked in the description there. Next, if there's someone that you think folks might be persuaded by this debate such that they may have a more open mind. They may kind of see the light more. They may kind of get a more well-rounded opinion on this topic that you've talked to before. Consider sharing this debate with them. Click that share button and it can give you a link that you can share with them on Facebook, Twitter, text messaging. And you can say, hey, this is a good debate on this topic. I know we've talked about it before. I thought you might get a kick out of hearing both sides on this. Highly recommend it. And then let me check the chat for any final questions that have come in. Let's see. I've just been reading the live chat there. The dab is like when you get a lot of weed and you basically get what is essentially a concrete press and you just compact it so much that this wax falls out. And it's like 75% THC or something like that. Something ridiculous like that. If you smoke a tiny bit of that, you are ridiculously high. We don't have weed legal here anywhere. So kind of getting that much weed in is just not... It just doesn't happen. There's just not enough of it coming in for people to be able to make wax out of it. So no, it's not really a thing here. I haven't tried it. I'd like to. I tried it one time. How the table is doing, but yeah, I tried it once. How the tables turned indeed. Sorry, I didn't mean to talk over you. What were you saying? No, it was... I tried it one time and I thought I got offended by the fact that my neighbor's house was faced the other direction because I thought they didn't like me. That's quite based in Red Pill, Carissa. And the girl coming in last minute from Matteo Trujellos says a single drug conviction bars you from applying for financial aid for one year. Second defense is two years and the third, you're permanently barred from applying for federal financial aid. I think they're saying, this is my guess, Carissa, come on, this is kind of brutal on people. You sure? I completely agree. That would be fixed with decriminalization. Decriminalize it. Don't make it legal, but decriminalize it. Ah, I see. And Oliver Cowell, society are important. Carissa, thank you for all... thank you all for the great debate. And hey, all credit to our speakers. They are the lifeblood of the channel. This one coming in from Smoke Lots of Weed 420. I wonder who said they were wrong. Just how can one actually justify putting others in jail for smoking marijuana? It's Jeff Sessions. Next up, that's I think it for our questions. Oh, Brooks Barrow says the link for Carissa is not working. Thanks for letting me know about that, Brooke. I'll fix that right now. And yes, our guests are linked in the description. I'm fixing Carissa's right now. That way you guys got the real deal and that'll be in the podcast as well. But yes, we are thankful for our guests. I want to say a huge thank you to Carissa and to Cider and Port. It is been a true pleasure to have you with us tonight. Thank you both very much. Thank you very much for having me, James. Yeah, thank you. Absolutely. And I got to tell you, folks, it's late for our dearest friends. Well, last question just came in. Matteo Trujillo says no, that is for misdemeanor level offenses. Carissa, they were the one that had asked about in terms of, you know, financial aid being taken away for one year. If you have a drug conviction, they said no, that is for misdemeanor level offenses. So decriminalization wouldn't work. Hopefully then that could be changed. I don't know. It just seems generally speaking, I feel like even in our current system, it's bad. So that should be changed too. Juicy. And so what we're going to do is I will be right back, you guys. And I want to say thank you to our guests once again, though. We really do appreciate them. One is because they jumped in last minute, which we appreciate so much because we want to put, for sure, at least one debate on this week. Because as you know, folks, sad, we had somebody that didn't make it. He slept in during the debate yesterday, we're rescheduling that. So we are extra thankful, not only for a quality debate, but also on a week in which it was one where I'm like, just especially thankful, Carissa and Sider and Port. And also I've got to tell you folks, Sider and Port is in Ireland. He is, what time is it there right now, Sider and Port, you're staying up with us till? It's a little after 3 a.m. Wow. Okay. Well, thank you so much for being willing to stay up that late debating. We want to let our guests go, but thank you guys for real. I really do appreciate it. We all do. Thanks so much, James. Thank you. My pleasure. I'll be right back, folks. So stick around for this post-credits scene. I'm going to do all sorts of weird stuff, like juggle, take my clothes off. I'll be right back. I just want to say thank you so much for your support. It is a true pleasure to be with you, get to say hi to you there in the old live chat, to hang out with you. As I said, you know, I was just kidding about the juggling part earlier, but I am pumped with you guys. I've got to tell you, free naturalist, good to see you. Daven Good, happy to have you with us. Sora and Alexander, happy to have you with us. And Omega Genesis, glad you're here. Chuck Pike and beautifully berserk. I see you there in the old live chat as well. Brooks Barrow, thanks for your support. Says please hit that like button. And it's true. It helps us in terms of our discoverability. YouTube does give us increased impressions. Impressions just means they recommend our debates to more people. And that is, frankly, how we've grown. Modern day debate has grown so much because of YouTube, who we are thankful for. We do follow the terms of service, not because we're just a bunch of Johnny Pencil pushers, but because we're practical. YouTube has helped us grow immensely by recommending our videos. The impressions on our videos are great. For example, one video, I've told you this a thousand times, one video has been recommended four million times, no joke. And the click-through rate is only like 5% or so. And so, not everybody's going to click on it, obviously, like a tiny, a very small percent to actually clicks on it. And then, even then, a small percent subscribes. But nonetheless, YouTube does recommend our videos, and we are thankful. And that's why we follow terms of service. And it's also why it does help. If you click that like button, we appreciate that. We already just hit 103 likes. Thank you for that support, you guys. We really do appreciate it. And I've got to tell you, cool stuff coming up. I am excited. We have got a lot of juicy debates coming up. Next month should be a blast. It should be just a monster type of month in terms of all of the crazy stuff going down debate-wise. We are working on, you could almost call it a new series. And I think you guys are going to like this. It's going to be controversial. It's going to trigger a lot of people. It really will. We're excited about that. And so we try to offend everybody equally, my dear friends. So keep that in mind. You know, we try to spread it out. But I want to say, we're big on offensive redistribution of offense, offensive-ness. But I want to say, ghost, thank you for your generous super chat. Seriously, we really do appreciate that. That means a lot. And as you know, we did our first in-person conference last month. It was a huge success. It was fun to meet the speakers. We had some top-level speakers there. And some of those debates have gotten mad views. People really enjoyed them. It was a blast. It was a fun time. And I've got to tell you, being there in person, it was a blast. So we are looking to do more in-person debates this summer. That fast, really. We really are hoping to go almost on tour. We do plan on doing a number of them this summer. A lot of them in Texas. We do love Texas. But other places as well, we've done them in Los Angeles. We've done them in... Is it just Los Angeles and Texas? I think that might be true. We've done them in Wisconsin, my home state. We did one in Appleton, Wisconsin. And that was a blast. Travis Worth. That was a huge... His church hosted it for free, which is super generous because venues are usually the most expensive part. And so we're grateful. And that was a blast. But Andrew Tuttle says, Is the moon real? Presented by Modern Day Debate. Hey, that could be. You never know. I think we did. Didn't we do one on, Is the sun real? I'm not joking. I think we... No, we didn't. It was on whether or not there's a third sun. Wait, what? Is there a second one? I don't... But anyway, that was fun. And I got to say, Don, with those things for being with us, there's weird stuff, like fingerless gloves in your bedroom in Ireland, while getting high and debating. Oh, that's funny. I didn't notice he has fingerless gloves. I love you, Cider. I like that. I like your style. You know, I've got to tell you, I am... Just... You're right. He was wearing fingerless gloves. But I've got to say, I am so thankful for real. I'm so thankful because our guests, Cider and Port and Carissa, have been longtime friends of the channel. They've been with us for years. They've been a real joke. Literally years. We've been around for about three years. They've both been, I think, helping us for about two years, probably. And they've also been super available to where, like, last night, it was last night or the day before, I had to confirm it. And I was like, Uh... I basically, we had to confirm it where... Hold on. Let me reorganize my brain. We confirmed it really late because I was waiting on another debate that didn't fall... That didn't work out. Brooke Sparrow says, I'm not getting the Patreon notifications. Didn't you post about the upcoming meeting on the Patreon page? I did. Although... Like, email me. Let me, uh... Like, uh... Let me just put this. Let's see. The reason is it might be... Depending on the Patreon level, you signed up at. I don't know. Is that it's... It works such that... There's, like, there's three tiers. There's the nosebleeds, which gets a person into all of our, like, pay-per-view events. And... That's, like, $2 a month, I think. That's our Patreon, which is linked in the description, folks. We... I always forget to tell people that we have a Patreon, but we do have a Patreon. Uh... There's that. Then there's also... Uh... Brain... Let me work on this. Gosh. I look like Joe Biden up here. It's gonna come. Let me get this. In addition to the nosebleeds, there is the general seating. So it's kind of, like, it's like the stadium theme, or, like, it's like a sporting event. Is that is for your name and the ticker, which I do have to update the ticker, Brooke, because I do appreciate you becoming a Patreon patron. Again, Brooke. And then the first... I think it's, like, first-row seats is the one where it's, like, instead of $5 a month, it jumps to $10 a month, and that's for the Patreon meetings. If you're in the front-row seating category or tier, you definitely should have seen it, and there's some sort of, like, something is wrong or I've got to fix it. In the other tiers, it's basically the two different perks that I had mentioned, and I'm trying to think, and then, obviously, with each perk, you get all of the perks from the lower level. So, like, anyway, I want to say thank you guys for your support. No offense. No offense. If you're... I'm not trying to take a political stance on that regarding Biden. Like, it's, so anyway. Believe me. And I've got to tell you, come on, man, you know the thing. Jack McKnight says, big shout out from Denver, Colorado. Thanks, Jack, for your support. I do appreciate that. We all do. Thank you very much. And I'm up here, as you know, you've probably heard. I'm up here in good old Fort Collins. It's pretty... It's warming up, which is nice. Holy smokes, Jack. I'm sure in Denver it was just as bad. The last few days, like, Monday through Thursday. Monday through Friday were pretty cold, but especially, like, Tuesday through Thursday. Oh, man. I felt like I was in Wisconsin again. It was, like, single digits here in Colorado, folks. And I'm happy today, though, it was, like, I think 35 was the high. And tomorrow, it's supposed to be 50. Amazing. So I'm excited about that. Matt, he says, I'm triggered. I feel you, man. I, too, am triggered by the cold and cymbal slasher 2X is smoking on some purple punch. I don't know what that means. Is that, like, one of those innuendos you guys taught me? Like, hot coral and Cleveland steamers and taking grandma to Applebee's and the Tokyo Sand Blaster. All your guys is nasty innuendos of all the weird stuff you do. But I got to tell you, Draven, 1985, or 1895, we're glad you were here, as well as Andrew Tuttle and Syju Nav, longtime supporter of the channel. And I got to tell you, Syju Nav has poured his heart and soul, no joke, into making this channel better. So I really do appreciate that. I am, like, super thankful. And another person who has is Let's Farm. Let's Farm runs the Discord. It is linked in the description. I highly encourage you to check out the modern day debate Discord. It's an additional community to be a part of. And Let's Farm has done a fantastic job, as well as some of the other mods, or the other mods, of which have helped assist Let's Farm. And Twitch is, you could say, mainly led, primarily, really solely led by Brooke, who has done a fantastic job just keeping people in line over there. As we said, you know, Twitch and YouTube are the biggest streaming platforms, right? Like they are, in case you didn't know. We want to follow terms of service, not because we're a bunch of Johnny Pencil pushers, but because, like we said, they help us grow to the biggest platforms. And before we go, if we ever do someday go to an independent platform and say, to heck with you, YouTube, we have to have a big following first before we would do that. And frankly, I don't really see any good reason for us to do that. I mean, 66,000 subscribers is something that we're excited about. We're thankful about thank you guys for supporting Modern Day Debate. And we really are, like tonight's debate, we are wanting to get more into the news and political topics. The reason being, a lot of people feel like, hey, the mainstream media, I just feel like it's so overly produced and it's always driven by a narrative, whether it's Fox or CNN or MSNBC, every news station company, whatever you want to call it, is a for-profit who is trying to push their ideas, their views, their ideology. And I think that's true. It doesn't mean I would say never watch it. I think you can get value from watching a little bit of everything. However, I think people want something more than those where they're saying, hey, I want something nonetheless that is authentic and that doesn't have some sort of narrative drive that they're trying to push on people. I want something authentic like the Joe Rogan experience. That's what we are working on doing is being a truly neutral platform that's authentic. It's not overly produced. We let the chips fall where they may. We let 1,000 flowers bloom. We let people say what they want and it's completely unedited. If it's live, you know it's unedited. And that's why we say, hey, if it's within terms of service, frankly, sometimes people even break terms of service a little bit and we're like, hey, we're going to let it be authentic. We're going to let it be organic. Because even if it gets fiery sometimes, even if it gets a little bit passionate, it's at least authentic. Because there are some debate channels out there that are like, we pride ourselves on being boring. I mean, on making sure it's always civil. We don't want that. We don't want boring and we don't want always civil. If it's civil because the speakers are themselves civil, tremendous, it's authentic. But in some cases, they might be passionate and it might be a little bit more blood sporty and we're not going to over control it and over produce it and be like, no, you guys have to act this way because we want it to be authentic. So I want to say thank you guys for your support and I've got to tell you, we are excited though to cross swords with CNN, to cross swords with MSNBC, to cross swords with Fox News and to be a genuine platform and you're thinking James, come on, you only got 66,000 subscribers. That's small potatoes compared to CNN and the rest of them. It took Joe Rogan 13 years. I used to say 12. It's actually, it was 13 years. It took Joe Rogan to get where he is. We are only in, I mean, technically, if you say that we actually started in 2019, like when we changed the name of the channel to modern day debate and we strictly started hosting only debates. Technically, that was about 2019. The very start of 2019. And so we are only on our third, 2019, 2020, 2021. We're on our fourth year of the channel that we had just started. We've only got three years under our belt. We've already gotten to 66,000 subscribers. Believe me, the more people hear about modern day debate we are going to continue growing because people are dying for something real. They want something where people can say what they want. So I've got to tell you, we are excited to take on the mainstream media or you could say the scripted media because we want something authentic and that's what other people want as well as we strive to fulfill the vision of providing a neutral platform so that everybody, everybody has their case to make their case on a level playing field as we get different people from different walks of life talking about the big questions of life. So my dear friends, if you like that vision join us and believe me, we will find a way and I will lead the way. If you have any doubt about it, we're going to find a way to continue growing. We are determined to hit 100,000 subscribers before the end of the year as we are excited, my dear friends, to continue having a positive impact and we're not ashamed of wanting to grow. We really aren't. We want to grow. Why? Because unlike the mainstream media, we're doing something authentic. We're doing something that offers value where it's actually fair and that's what people want right now. They're dying for it because so much of it is so partisan and I've even seen it, I've even seen it on YouTube debate channels. Not all of them, but some of them. One, the reason I started modern day debate, no joke, was because I used to go on debate channels and the moderator would jump into the debate and take sides and it was always the same side. It was only if one side was, you know, like where they would like find disagreements with it. That's one example where it's like, get real. Those channels suck. The second thing is, maybe they don't do that. Maybe they do a great job or the moderator is totally fair. Good for them. I give them kudos. But maybe afterward, for example, they say, oh, hey, we're going to put out our own videos and it's going to trash one side of the debate or this particular debater or their position, whatever it is. How neutral of a channel? Wow. As you can tell, I'm being sarcastic. The reason is it's like, gosh, that's not, I mean, really, that's supposed to be neutral and fair. I mean, then they just, they always take, for example, let's say modern day debate was cringe and this alternate universe, modern day debate after a debate would put out videos that were like, oh yeah, Carissa and Sider and Port had their debate. Well, we want to show how all of Sider and Port's, all of his arguments are just unsound and dumb. It's like, wow, that would be neutral or vice versa. It could be, we say that we want to do that to Carissa, whatever it is. Obviously, people are like, what? How is this? This just sounds like CNN. We are going to let the chips fall where they may because we are only putting out debates. That's all we ever put out. With the occasional, like maybe we'll do an occasional thank you video where we're like, hey, this just happened. This is your support. And so we want to say, in my opinion, I've got to check actually, well, we could check this out together. Let me look into this. I've seen, I mean, and they'll admit it. I've got to be fair. Do I have to name channels? There are channels out there where they will put out videos afterwards that will, you know, or even in the after show of the same video, the debaters will leave and then the guests will be like, Oh, man. So and so their argument was just an argument from fear where it's like that. That's not what it was. Like that's not being charitable at all. It's not fair. It's not realistic. Like you're being dumb. Is I got to tell you, those channels are out there. There are some Atheist channels that do it. There are some Christian channels that will put out their own Christian arguments. And I'm not saying that that's like immoral on either case. So that'd be the Atheist or the Christians. Different people want different things, but if you want truly authentic in terms of like truly, you could say truly nonpartisan in the sense that we don't put out those after videos. We don't have the moderator jump into the debate. Like it is truly where we are trying our very hardest to only let positions be put forward in the actual debate where a person has a chance to refute them. That's moderated debate. Now let me find this. I'm going to look for intelligence squared. So this is, I kind of see it as another debate channel that I've got to give them credit. They do a great job. They've got a great, I think it's Donovan is the name of the main moderator. Intelligence squared debates. They do a great job. And Donovan is, if I remember the name right, does a fantastic job. My hat's off too. So I've got to give credit where it's due. But let's, I mean, let's look, I mean, let's be some voyeuristic perverts and look at another channel. And let's even do this together. We've never done this before because OBS has this capability, but we've never even used it. So I'm going to show you, you guys might be wondering, you're like James, what else is out there? Well, I'm going to show you. So right now I'm loading up on OBS I'm going to do a quick screen capture. And what I'm going to screen capture is, let's see here, two seconds. Window capture. I'm going to just take one of Chrome. And I'm going to show you guys what I'm seeing. I don't know if that's a, or are you new? Chrome one. I'm going to show you guys what I see on Chrome, which is right now we're going to jump into this. And let me, look at that right. We'll look at intelligence square together because, hey, let's, let's keep them on. It's like, let's be real. If they're honest, good for them. Then, you know, more credit to them. But I've got it and hopefully they are because maybe they, maybe it's going to be like, wow, they actually really do only have debates. They don't have any sort of videos where they take a position. And like I said, I don't think it's a moral to take a position. Like it's not like it's inherently wrong or anything. It's more that for me, I'm like, well, are they saying that they're neutral though and trying to be like, oh, we're so neutral because for me, I'm like, oh, let's see, it's going to be a little bit hard to see. Let me pull this. Oh, that's right. I can put my little, a happy little face below this. So let me pull this down. I, I, I, two seconds. Very embarrassing. It's my first time. You get that. And then we can click out of the overlay and then we can click out of housekeeping. And there we go. And you're probably thinking, James, I, it's hard for me to see, but I'm going to pull it up. Okay. So we have intelligence square debates. Now you can see it on the screen and we're going to look at this together. And I'm going to like it. So let me show you this. So you're kind of like James, like, do they, do they have other chance? Like, so you can see like pretty cool. Yeah. Here's their last recent debate, agreed to disagree our booster shots on ethical. Good for them. Like that sounds like a fun topic. Now you have up for debate, most watched and good for them, you know, they on her CLE there. You can see her debate. Then you see a Dinesh debate. And those are pretty big ones. Monstrous views. Let's see the podcast. He's agreed to disagree. Good. So far I'm saying, I got to be honest, you got to give credit where it's due. It's just debates from what I'm seeing so far. More recent debates, student debt, wealth, space, deficits. Then we've got Biden nominees. Get to know the Biden administration. Hmm. Uh, this doesn't impress me. I don't mind being a critic when it's deserved. Intelligence. So blame big pharma for out of control healthcare costs. Even if you agree with it, does that sound like fair? Wait, but here, maybe it's a debate because it doesn't say debate on it, but maybe it is a debate. It's, let me see. Does it say it says healthcare costs in the U.S. blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, for the motion. Okay, to be fair, this is a debate. So I was wrong. That's an actual debate. I like this. You got to give them, you got to give them like hands off, like give them the street cred that they deserve. If they're really only hosting debates, I've got to say, hey, this is the only other channel that I know of that only hosts debates. Like I've got to give them credit. Like I like that. That's something that resonates with me, obviously. Let me look through here because I'm desperate to find something to throw them under the bus for. Let me see if I can find. If it really is all debates, I'm going to say, wow, good for them. Like, and you can see like they've had success. They've had 181,000 subscribers. Good for them. Let's see. This one's clearly a debate. Heritable gene editing is on. It's wildly unsafe. Let's see if this is a debate. So you've got Marcy Darnofsky and blah, blah, blah. The full use of gene editing to make better babies debate will release. Oh, okay. So this looks like maybe it's a preview or something of a debate. So, hey, I like got to give them credit. I'm not going to slander them. Like you can't slander them. Like you got credit where it's due. Let's see. We've got... I think what... So what they do sometimes, and this is something that I don't... I'm not like super triggered by. So they say that the system is broken. I think that... So this is tomorrow talking. My guess is that tomorrow, like they might give like a video where... see blah, blah, blah. It says check out the full debate when it premieres Thursday, September 30th. I see. So what this is just a clip from a debate. I personally, I don't really... I'm not going to indict them for that. Even if it is just a clip of just one side. It's kind of like, well, if you give... I think it would be... You got to be really fair. You got to give it to both sides. And technically that... I am kind of wondering if they do that. Because if you do clip only one side, I'm like, that's... That actually does seem a little bit. If you're using it for short form content and you're only... But it might be just by random. Sort of like, well, sometimes we, you know, go with a political left person. Sometimes we clip the political right person. I wouldn't blame them for that. Let's see here. Do you like surfing the web like this together? We could find it. We can finally put into Google define Cleveland steamer. And we can find out what it means once and for all. Oh, I've got, you know, so I've got Bill Nye here. This is pretty sad. Bill Nye clip only has 6,000 views. Whether they're all their subscribers or zombies. They're sleeping. And that's one thing in my opinion. I think that we put on a more engaging and a more lively, stimulating, high-energy show. I think that counts for something. But let me pull this up. Because, my dear friends, we are excited about the future. I've got it. This is a pretty good job. I, like I said, I'm a little bit unsure about the clips that we'd have to check back in on. But I owe that reminds me. I do have to say thank you to all of our members. We have channel memberships. Amazing. If you didn't know that, we are super grateful for our channel members. And so they do mean a lot. We are thankful for their support. And then Felix Rodriguez says, I can't get access to the Discord. Can you appeal that to management for me? I don't seem to be able to do it. Oh, man. Sorry, Felix. Let me please ask SideshowNav. I just gave you the info. And SideshowNav will give you his info basically on how to figure that out what the problem is there. Thanks for your kind words, Karissa. I see you there in the old live chat. I appreciate your support. And I've got to tell you, though, you guys, we are excited. Here's something else that we're excited about. The podcast continues to grow, which is super encouraging. I am absolutely pumped. The podcast, we hope, is going to be kind of like a major platform for us in the future. And it is growing fast, which is encouraging. And then, let's see. I'm reading you guys' stuff in chat. Like a pervert. I like sitting and watching. Let's see. Not like that. You guys are sick. Let's see. Oh, is that channel displayed under this video? Or is the YouTube recommending intelligence-squared debates under our videos? I don't know. But let's see here. Thanks for your kind words, Seren Alexander. He says, this is a really great channel. That means a lot. We really do appreciate your support. You guys, we appreciate all the love. We appreciate all your guys' support. And we are excited to cross swords with mainstream media as we really do feel like they need to be challenged. And hey, it's going to take time, my dear friends. As we had said, it took Joe Rogan 13 years. It might take us a while, but we are going to stick with it. Consistency is the key, believe me. I've had, I've got experience in different domains. I played college football as an example. I've seen what it takes in terms of, you could say as well as the value of consistency, how much it really has a positive impact. And so that's something for me that I am really excited about is that we really know that with our consistency we're going to see big results. And thank you to our amazing members, Don Fulman, Ozzie and Tux, and Scott Mitchell. If you're listening, you guys are amazing. And we thank you for your amazing channel memberships. Your support really does mean a lot. And yeah, we're pumped though, you guys. We really do want to do more in-person debates, stuff like that. And so we're excited about that. But want to say thank you guys for your love and support. You guys, it's always fun. I'm excited to see you on the next one. And thanks for your last minute super chat. The happy DA says, hey, James, did you ever eat that burger? My uncle made you in Dallas during the debate conference. And so did you enjoy it as well as the Mexican Coke? I did. I appreciated that more than you know. In fact, what it was, Sideshow Nav, I honestly, I couldn't bring the Coke on the plane. So Sideshow Nav got to enjoy it. You have to ask him. I'm so sorry. He's in the live chat right now. I'm so sorry. I saved it and I brought it with me until I realized it was like, okay, I actually won't be able to bring this on the plane. So I actually gave that to Bob who's in the live chat right now and who helped put on the conference. So it was a blessing to Bob. I ate the burger and the tacos. They were seriously fantastic. I couldn't eat the orange like cream or sauce. It is too spicy for me. I'm a softy. But I've got to tell you, I seriously appreciated that so much. Marco, right? But to Happy DA, thank you so much for that burger and the tacos as well. And then thank you too. That's right. Sideshow Nav did get the Coke. And so we really do appreciate it. Thank you for your support. That seriously meant a lot to me. I just appreciated it so much that you were looking out for me and that you did that for me because that conference was so intense. So yeah, that burger was fantastic. And that really, I got to eat that during the conference and it was amazing. And then the tacos were amazing as well. So thank you for that. And then Dr. says, what's the sitch with the neuroscience progress? Come on, man. We need more in the community. I don't know what you're talking about. What does sitch mean? What's that? You mean like what's the info? I don't know if that, what's the Cleveland steamer? What does that sitch mean? But yeah, I can tell you this. I do. So my type of psychology isn't neuroscience. If you're referring to like my doctorate that I'm working on right now, it's technically, I don't, you probably aren't, but it's, it's more like work psychology, like motivating workers and preventing burnout, things like that. Rick James says, what qualifications does one need to debate to debate on this channel? So if you email me at moderndatabate at gmail.com, that's where we have, you could say our, what's the word I'm looking for? That's where we have our vetting process. Like you can learn more about it. And that's something that we do take seriously. We want to get high quality debaters on the channel as much as we can. And then in some cases, depending on the topic, there are some risky topics. And by risky, I don't mean controversial. I mean, risky as in where it's like, well, we've already done that topic 10,000 times. And so sometimes we say to people, hey, would you be willing to help us get like a person to come on and be a part of that debate to change or kind of shake things up? Because for example, if we do a debate on the resurrection, we've done it 10,000 times, like we've done it many times. It's a great debate, but the audience likes novelty. And so for us, if you can get someone big to join in on the debate, that helps shake things up. And people are like, well, James, why don't you do it? Why don't you get the big person? And it's like, I've got so many requests right now. Like I got to tell you guys is that I've got more people asking me for stuff in terms of especially like, hey, will you host me for this debate? Then I can keep up with. And so that's the only reason why we ask if they can help us by emailing like, you know, destiny would be an obvious example. And many people have gotten big. So for example, Cider and Port, the guy who's on tonight, he got Creationist Cat to come on and debate him. Or actually technically there were tag team partners. And Creationist Cat has 100,000 subscribers. And it was because it was a topic where I was like, I don't know, man, I don't know if we can do that. We might lose subscribers because we do sometimes lose subscribers. And so I've got to tell you, if you're willing to help us, that helps us be able to like platform new people. But the happy DA says, yes, Marcos. Sorry, Marcos instead of Marcos. Sorry about that, Marcos. Thank you so much. He says, you're remembering is such a joy. And I got you next time. So I chose now, or I chose Bob. It was, it was honestly, I really appreciate that like hit me in the heart in a good way where I was just like, oh, Marcos, like, seriously, thank you. Like that just meant a lot that you were thinking of me, man. And that support seriously, especially during the conference, the conference was intense, 14 debates in two days. That's what we did for real. We had, in some cases, we had two debates going on at the same time, one in one room and one in the other. And Marcos, I know you know all this because you were there, but for those of you who weren't there, it was intense. So I just appreciate you, Marcos. Thanks for that help. And Rick James, my pleasure says, thanks James, my pleasure. Absolutely. But yeah, I love you guys. Thank you guys for your support. Let me just take a sip. I'm a little parched. I like that. Let's see. Doc Floroma, did you respond? I like hanging out with you guys. You guys make this fun. That's right. That's my sweet green screen. And that is my other blazer. Do you see it there? My finger is pointing to it. That is my navy blazer. And I like wearing that with black sometimes. Tonight, I felt very metrosexual. I wanted to wear this blazer and white T underneath. But sometimes I do wear that other one. Stupid War Energy says that Ayesha debate was amazing. That was. That one was like, that one boiled over a little bit to where, oh man, it was David Wood and Kenny. That was a lively, passionate debate. That one was seriously a blast. But let's see. Stupid War Energy says, say, water was bussin'. Is that how you say it? Like that, what is it you taught me? Taking grandma to Applebee's and the Tokyo Sand Blaster? Such a nasty lady. But yeah, thank you guys for your support. I love you guys. Thanks, Sajonav, for your support. Speaking of subscribers, have you hit that subscribe button yet? I highly encourage it. That way you don't miss out on any live debates, especially. You can hit that little bell notification and that helps a lot. And then Rick Jamesons says, when is the next debate con? Thanks for asking. I appreciate that. Probably in the fall of 2023. The reason is we were thinking we would maybe do it. And thanks for that super chat support by the way, Rick James, is we were thinking we might do it earlier. Like we even thought about maybe doing a conference in May. And now we're like, ah, that's just too soon. We got to spread these out and we want to do a tour instead this summer. However, we also recognize that fall is a better time to do it. So we did it in January, which meant we were kind of competing with holiday shopping because we were doing a lot of fundraising during December with the crowd fund and stuff like that. And so I would say, you know, we've got to, what's the word of Blinky Four? We've got to make sure that we do it at the right time. So Dr. Veromas, a serious question. Have any of these debates moved your personal needle at all on theism? Nah. To be honest, like overall, nah. I would say certain arguments, yes, but it like balances out to where there are some arguments for theism or atheism, whatever it might be. Whereas like, okay, I thought that was more sound earlier, but now I'm changing my mind on that. But in terms of the big one, you could say like all equals out. And one thing I told Saishonab about this the other day and I think it's true, I would not look at the debates that are, in terms of like, you can count, almost like vote counting. You could say like, well, this is how many debates have been won by Christians or atheists or Muslims, whatever. I wouldn't recommend that because oftentimes like, people might be losing in a debate because it's just like, well, they have a really low skill level and they went against somebody who has a medium skill level. And it's like, that's not really that informative because it's like, it might just be their debate skills that made the moves, for example. I would say one thing to especially pay attention to or wait more heavily are the debates between the best debaters because if they're presumably at the same skill level, well, then that's at least held constant because there are cases in which you have people who might lose a debate, like I said, where it's like, well, it's not because their arguments were, well, I mean, maybe their arguments were worse, but it's also maybe that their debate skills weren't as good. And so you could say it's almost like an experiment. You can't necessarily say it's because the arguments of one side are better than another. It's kind of like, well, it's also maybe because one person is just better at debating than another. So to hold that constant, you should look at the people that have the top skills because that's probably going to be where you see the best debates or the best arguments put forth. And you give disproportionate weight to those. In fact, I would say honestly, it's kind of like, imagine you had two people out there that were just terrible debaters and one of them was just slightly worse than the other though. And that's why the opposite one won. It's like, well, but the other thing is I'd highly recommend don't get me wrong. I still learn things from these debates. Debates are good as a start, but I think it is true that the peer-reviewed literature is like the goal that we should try to push ourselves to reading. And if you wanted, I could recommend like the top atheists, at least in the English-speaking world, like the best atheist philosophers as well as the best Christian ones. And, you know, I don't really know much about Muslim philosophers. I know Shabir Ali is considered like a reputable scholar, that's for sure. But anyway, I want to say I love you guys. I appreciate you guys. And I want to say thanks for all of your guys' support. You guys mean a lot. Seriously, you guys make this fun. And thanks, Brooks. I will check that email right now. Thanks for letting me know that. But I want to say I'll see you guys next time. Keep submitting all the reasonable from the unreasonable. Amazing.