Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Feb. 17, 1981)
opinion_ Pot proposal deserves legislative approval The House Judiciary Committee will be hard-' pressed to find reasons for voting against House Bill 2422, which would legalize personal cultiva tion of up to three marijuana plants. In addition to the strengths Ballot Measure 9 carried in November, HB 2422 has at least one major advantage: it has a good chance of passing in Oregon's Legislature. The bill, sponsored by Oregonians Cooperating to Reduce Drug Abuse and People Effectively Appealing for Cannabis Equality (PEACE), has been at the honing stone for a year now, and the sharpened version before the judiciary subcommittee Wednesday is clear, con cise and workable, a combination the bill's two predecessors have lacked. It makes possession of up to three marijuana plants and less than one ounce of pot lawful in the home when licensed by the Oregon Liquor Control Commission. License fees would be $20. The bill also makes the sale of drug paraphernalia to minors a crime punishable by up to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine. Supporters of the bill have wisely seen the need to compromise their initial efforts, and the diplomacy is bound to pay off. Realizing a paraphernalia bill is going to pass in the Legislature this term (two others are in the works), the bill's sponsors propose making sales to minors illegal. The distinction between this and the other two paraphernalia bills is important, and offers two advantages. First, outlawing the sale of pot apparatus to minors while simultaneously implementing a vigorous education program may help ease the ever-increasing level of drug abuse by teenagers. Second, the proposal keeps the paraphernalia industry afloat while ensuring adults the right to use the apparatus in their own homes. The licensing clause of the bill also is a compromise move, and it too should appease some legislators who wince on first wink at the bill. In a state where alcohol sales are so monopolis tically controlled, lawmakers in Salem would find it hard to pass a marijuana measure that provides for no bureaucratic overseer. The $20 licensing fee not only rings well in conservative ears, but its proceeds will be used to fund drug and alcohol abuse programs, a liberal legislator’s dream And in addition to the new bill’s plusses, legislators must consider the strengths of November’s Ballot Measure 9, a rougher, local version of HB 2422. At that time PEACE members pointed out the similarities between current pot laws and alcohol laws during the prohibition period. Both are filled with inconsistencies and both are virtually anach ronistic when viewed in light of popular use of the drug in question. The bill also will remove pot sales from the black market, where prices are unrealistic, pot is sometimes impure and large drug rings easily can infiltrate otherwise "clean” Oregon cities and towns. Legal cultivation allows persons who receive chemotherapy for cancer or who suffer from glaucoma to use marijuana medicinally without fear of prosecution, as well. With all of that mind, the seven-member judiciary subcommittee has no choice but to recommend that the full nine-member committee approve the bill. When that happens, HB 2422 will make it to the house and senate floors. And the capitol floor in Salem is where the marijuana issue should be decided. Ballot Measure 9, for all of its advantages, failed because it would have required local law enforcement officials to ignore state laws in upholding the voter-approved measure. With the bill now on the state level, that legitimate worry is no longer necessary. Oregonians Cooperating to Reduce Drug Abuse and PEACE are laid firmly on the right track in their approach to the issue, and if Oregon’s legislators listen to reason, beginning Wednes day, the two groups should find success in Salem. vars Quit griping In response to Doug Stutz’ letter Wed nesday, in which he refers to the "mis management of the so-called basketball courts . . " Mr Stutz remarks “the con dition of the floors has been unfortuna tely predictably lousy throughout the school year." I would like to preface my remarks in the following manner: • Mr. Stutz should be aware of the bud get cuts that have affected all depart ments, resulting in the fact that many vitally needed maintenance services cannot be performed • That he is the utilizer of the basketball facilities and therefore should take par tial responsibility in seeing that they are not damaged, misused or neglected. • That he and other students of this university should perhaps donate their time in service to the University in trade for the privilege to use the university facilities In other words, Mr. Stutz, I suggest that r instead of just bitching about adverse conditions, you should get up off your basketball shoes and get to work! After all, change is not made in this world by individuals that just sit around and bitch and moan. Barbara Powell Senior, CSPA RCYB, go home This letter is being written concerning the actions of a group of communist people on campus who call themselves the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade. If these people really believe in their prinicples of communism, I would like to challenge them to go practice those principles in some communist country. These people are always spout ing off about how bad our country's principals are, but it is these same prin ciples that allow them to voice their opinion. In a communist country, they wouldn’t have the rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press. I happen to be very proud of living in the United States of America, and like most other students, wouldn't want to live anywhere else. I agree that the Unit ed States has some problems, but I also believe that we Americans can work out these problems. Let the RCYB take its communism back home, and the Univer sity will have a better chance of main taining a little peace and quiet, an at mosphere conducive to studying. Karl Ronacher Freshman, business ‘Daniel’ dating An Inter-varsity staff person has re sponded to an earlier exchange of letters in this column with the view that the second century B.C. era dating of the Book of Daniel arose in the "quasi Hegelian" Tuebingen School of the last century, and with the information that more and more scholars are beginning to reject this dating. Both statements are totally in error. 1 The leading light of the Tuebingen School was the New Testament scholar F.C. Baur who, as were most of his followers, was an out-and-out Hegelian. (I don’t know what a “quasi-Hegelian” is. Feuerbach? Marx? He was kind of a quasi.) There was only one Old Tes tament scholar of prominence in that movement, H. F. A. Ewald, and he didn’t especially concern himself with the Book of Daniel. The truth is that the first person who realized the book of Daniel was written during the reign of Antichus Epi phanes was the ancient scholar Proph ryry, in the third century of this era. But I have profited greatly from this exchange, in that I have now learned who the new whipping-boy (Baur) of the Evangelicals is. Two years ago it was Graf and Well hausen, and before that it was Bultmann. All the “scholars” cited by the Inter varsity correspondent have published in Inter-varsity or related conservative Pro testant publishing houses. There is not a single Bible scholar of academic stand ing in North America or western Europe who thinks that all of Daniel was written in the Babylonian or Persian period. The major view is that the martyr tales with happy endings of the first six chapters come from that time, but that the “pro phecies” of the second chapters are from the second century. A few, myself included, realize that even the stories in the first part of the book belong also to the second century. One might consult the article on Daniel in the “Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible” in the library reference room. J. T. Sanders Professor, reiigous studies letters policy The Emerald will accept and try to print all letters containing fair comment on ideas and topics of interest to the Univer sity community. Letters must be typewritten and no longer than 250 words. Letters must be signed, the author’s field of study or faculty status noted and must include address and phone number for verification.
