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.