In a joint collaboration with students from a variety of majors and backgrounds, students spoke Thursday night to give their audience the blunt truth about the best ways to smoke marijuana.
Debaters from Rhetoric 354: Argumentative Theory argued for joints, blunts, pipes, bongs and vaporizers in front of a lecture hall packed with over 100 students.
Early in the debate, Jeffrey Aberman, a senior majoring in history, said that the stakes were high.
“If the Constitution is the supreme law of the United States, then the joint is the supreme law of marijuana,” he said. “In peace rallies for change, a common device was shared among groups. ”
Aberman rolled out famous American examples, like James Franco, Seth Rogen, Snoop Dogg and Arnold Schwarzenegger, to illustrate his point.
“That’s [Rogen and Franco] live at the MTV Awards smoking a J. Snoop revolutionized music in the ’90s,” he said as he presented a slideshow of celebrities. “Even Arnold, smoking a J with no problem.”
Aberman’s popular culture references lit up the competition as the other debaters responded and presented their own arguments.
“How many people here have a piece?” asked Richard Correa, a senior majoring in economics, referring to bongs. “Everybody has to give theirs a name.”
One student admitted that he, in fact, owns a bong named Chubs.
“See, Chubs is a dope name,” Correa said to that student. “There is a distinct and beautiful bong culture.”
Students held their breath as Jesse Tolentino, a senior majoring in philosophy, pitched an argument in favor of blunts.
“When you roll a blunt, it’s like you’re in control, you’re making something,” he said. “Everyone gives you pats on the back, and everyone is coming to you to roll their blunts.”
Minutes later, Tolentino presented an image of 10 hands protecting a blunt as it was lit in windy weather.
“The picture is just the experience in a nutshell,” he said. “Black, white, all races, everyone was just trying to get it lit.”
While cannabis brought the presenters together, their preferences proved divisive at times.
“You said you took a bowl that fell out of a man’s pocket,” said Megan Durkin, a junior majoring in psychology. “Do bowls cause theft?”
Although Aberman shared many common arguments with Tolentino, he expressed concern for younger students influenced by blunts.
“You say there is a strong culture,” Aberman said. “But do you think this is a negative influence on kids, all this talk about blunts?”
Other arguments about pipes and vaporizers focused on health and cost efficiency.
“The primary concern of marijuana is inhaling marijuana smoke,” said Kayla Starmer, a junior majoring in integrative neuroscience. “A vaporizer might cost a bit, but how many hundreds of thousands of dollars would you be willing to hand over to an oncologist?”
Based on student cheers after the debate, however, joints and blunts smoked the competition.
“Some people care more about health factors, but some people care about enjoyment and culture,” Correa said. “Who here smokes? Does anything do it like a bong, people?”
Even though presenters disagreed about some of their peers’ recreational choices, organizers said they were blown away by the turnout.
“We thought it was something that would appeal to a lot of people and a lot came through. It was clearly fun, we got a lot of laughs and good points all around,” said Zach Rosenberg, presenter for pipes and a sophomore majoring in actuarial science.