Everyone knows they are illegal. The issue is what are the short and long term consequences, and what policies should be adopted in response, and why, and what are the consequences of those. A few anecdotes simply is not persuasive except to those already diehards who simply want a bit more red meat for their larder.
I agree with Torie. I heard the whole interview and while I agree 110% with what she said and what she was trying to say, she did poorly in her exchanges with Hugh. Hugh was focused on only one one and a half topics but that wasn't the point. Its his show and he can ask anything he wants. Michelle on the other hand answered most every question, including the quantitative one, with an anecdotal story. Whiles those stories are true and hit emotional buttons (at least mine) she failed completely in presenting a calm rational analysis of the problem. Instead, of answering a specific question she repeatedly would obfiscate and change the topic back to another anecdote.
Again, I agree with her 110% and I am sure she knows her stuff but to me she came across the way a lefty does, she operated on feelings and emotional forces rather than cold hearted logic. I do agree that the anecdotes are necessary to activate the uninformed, but Hugh was trying to go past that and raise the discussion to a more rational, intellectual level. In this one and only time I have heard her, she sounded very smooth and practiced while at the same time failing completely.