▼ EDITORIAL
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF:
StevenAsbury
MANAGING EDITOR:
Thom Schoenbom
NIGHT EDITOR:
Jennifer Schmitt
EDITORIAL EDITORS:
Ashley Bach & Brian Diamond
editorials, letters, commentary and perspective
NEWSROOM:
(541)346-5511
DISPLAY ADVERTISING:
(541)346-3712
BUSINESS OFFICE:
(541) 346-5512
CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING:
(541) 346-4343
Americas Dmg Hypocrisy
Laura
Daniel
Efforts by the
Oregon House
to criminalize
marijuana
reflect society’s
ignorance
toward the
effects of both
legal and illegal
drugs
There is something special
about illicit drugs. As Lester
Grinspoon noted in his 1991
book, “If they don’t always
make the user behave irrationally,
they certainly cause many nonusers
to behave that way.” Unfortunately,
the irrational not only pervade the
federal government; they have now
shown themselves as members of the
Oregon House of Representatives.
The bill passed on April 29 by the
Oregon House, which recriminalizes
possession of even small amounts of
pot, is just another demonstration of
politicians’ uncanny ability to justify
wasting time and money with false
information.
In the April 30 issue of The
Register-Guard, Rep. John Minnis
said the THC levels of today’s pot is
up to 20 percent, where just twenty
years ago, the THC content of
marijuana was merely 2 percent.
This fact is just not true. The average
THC content of marijuana today is up
to 4-5 percent according to William
A McKim’s book Drugs and
Behavior, four times less than Minnis
claims.
Why do people feel they must go to
such great lengths (lying) in order to
recriminalize marijuana? What is it
about pot that has so many people
acting so irrationally? Why doesn’t
anyone notice that the effects of
certain legalized drugs are far more
severe than the effects of marijuana?
Alcohol is the most socially
acceptable recreational drug in
America, yet the dangers of chronic
consumption and high doses far
outweigh the dangers of marijuana.
When consumed in large amounts,
alcohol is extremely hard on the
body, causing dehydration, nausea,
vomiting, aggression, hangovers and
possible death by overdose.
When consumed on a regular basis
over a long period of time, alcohol
destroys important organs including
the liver and the brain. Alcohol has
also been connected with cancer of
the mouth, throat and liver.
Marijuana, on the other hand, has
relatively mild effects on the body.
Prolonged usage can cause sleep
pattern disturbance and respiratory
problems such as asthma and lung
cancer — problems which should
not be taken lightly. However, not
one single case of marijuana
overdose has been documented.
For some reason, alcohol is
America’s drug of choice. But
America is so anti-drug that most
citizens won’t even admit that
alcohol itself is a drug. Instead of
overdose, we use the word alcohol
poisoning. Instead of being addicted
to alcohol, one suffers from
alcoholism.
Why are the dangers of alcohol
passed over when marijuana is so
stigmatized that people are afraid
that if medically beneficial
properties are found, people will
want to utilize it?
Could it be that the alcohol
companies lobby politicians to keep
a contending drug off the market?
Could it be that the government is
afraid of the people doing what they
want, especially if it means taking
drugs that might open their eyes to
the limits government imposes on
our freedoms?
What is the problem with
marijuana? Used in moderation,
marijuana means recreation. Why is
this bad? Because marijuana is a
“gateway drug?” Though my
experience is not all-encompassing, I
have never met a person who used
marijuana who had not first
experimented with alcohol.
Understanding the risks of any
action is important when deciding
what to do. Being aware of the risks
of marijuana and alcohol is
important when choosing whether or
not to experiment with drugs.
But once informed, every adult
should have the right to choose to get
high or drunk or not to do anything at
all. The war on drugs (except alcohol
and tobacco) is nothing more than a
war against people. It’s a silly,
irrational waste of time and billions
of dollars.
Oregon’s latest attempt at anti-drug
legislation will fill the jails, stain the
records of many harmless people and
cost nearly $1 million every two
years for defense attorneys alone.
Why fight against the people instead
of educating the people so they can
make informed choices?
The hypocrisy of the U.S. drug
policy is astounding. I find it difficult
to believe that Americans are so
blind. The Constitution promises
separation of church and state, yet
Catholics are granted the freedom to
drink wine. But Rastafarians cannot
perform the sacramental smoking of
marijuana, nor can Native Americans
use hallucinogenic drugs such as
peyote and mushrooms.
So is the United States committed
to true freedom or only the freedom
of those who practice white
European culture? By continuing this
biased drug war, the government is
only wasting time and money.
A victor will never come out of the
drug war. Consuming marijuana does
not infringe on anyone's rights, but
keeping pot illegal, especially from
patients who might benefit from it,
and recriminalizing it does.
Laura Daniel, a junior majoring in
biology, is a columnist for the
Emerald. Her views do not
necessarily reflect those of the paper.
E-mail:
moonpie@gladstone.uoregon.edu
le
Drawing
Board
Physic*!.
Complaints
or
Twt
EtDERl.'f...
HlP
REPWWJMtHT
K\ON£i
$TD*3~
ARTMRltiy
i
MOftMtfvlfa
SiCtwt$s
o*~^~
STAND BACK?'
TMAmiNS
* OANfcEHOUS ^
rmrJ|
Yf£MPQM|
LETTERS
No faith
It seems so often during our national elec
tions that we must choose between candi
dates that no one really wants to see elected.
I hear so many people complaining about
having to choose the lesser of two evils that
it’s really no wonder that voter turnout is so
pathetic. People no longer have any faith in
our government. This is understandable,
since it seems our government no longer re
ally represents us.
The problem with politics is that a person
must become a politician to become in
volved with them, and a person doesn’t be
come a politician through any measure of in
tellect or compassion, but rather through
wealth and the ability to appeal to the lowest
common denominator.
In our current political system, everything
comes down to who can get their message
out the most. Often it doesn’t even matter
what that message is. More and more it
seems as though campaigns are consisting
entirely of attacking other candidates.
There are many different ways that candi
dates get their messages out, but they all
have one thing in common: They all require
some amount of money. In general, the more
money a candidate is willing to spend, the
more visible the message will be. A success
ful campaign can be expensive. Nationwide,
there was over $6 billion spent in the 1996
elections.
The real question is where politicians
come up with this kind of money. Sadly,
they can’t effectively raise enough money to
be competitive from small contributions that
regular citizens would be able to afford.
Instead, they must seek out large contri
butions from wealthy individuals and cor
porations. Unfortunately, this makes our
elected officials indebted to these private in
terests, and often the concerns of this gross
minority are vastly different from the regular
public.
There are no easy answers to this problem.
In order to solve it, there must be some pub
licly funded medium available to all candi
dates. While I doubt there are many people
who would be willing to pay for this, the
question remains: What is it worth to have a
government that actually represents its citi
zens?
Brian Rowe
Undeclared
Frustrated thoughts
I am usually too overwhelmed by frustra
tion to write in reaction to the opinion pieces
in the Emerald, but Amanda Erickson’s slam
on Lane Transit District (April 30, ODE) was
so ludicrous I had to respond.
She calls the free bus passes for students
an instance of “corruption.” I am baffled.
Corruption means that someone is exer
cising an illegal or unethical influence over
the decision-making process. After reading
her paragraph on LTD several times, I fail to
see where she even makes a claim that this is
occurring, let alone substantiates it.
She claims, “LTD makes bucks on people
that never use its system.” So does the high
way department, to a far, far greater degree
than LTD. I do not own a car, but my tuition
money goes to support University-area park
ing for people who do.
“Corporate influence is lurking in the
ASUO; after all, OSPLRG wins the incidental
fee lottery every year just by showing up.”
Are you implying that money should go to
groups that don't show up? The fact that vo
cal groups with lots of committed students
get the goods isn’t corruption; it’s the way
things are supposed to work.
“One individual felt that all students
should be required to pay the bus fee...be
cause it helped out all students. Commu
nism is alive.” All right, I’ll ask Ms. Erickson
the question they should’ve asked Joe Mc
Carthy: Please define what you mean by the
word “communism” before throwing it
around with such abandon. Is it the forma
tion of a Soviet-style totalitarian state? I see
no connection between LTD and such an un
likely trend.
Finally, by encouraging use of the bus
rather than personal cars, the free bus passes
do benefit all students. The air is a little
cleaner and the streets are a little less traffic
ridden.
With this program, the University is mak
ing a positive, socially responsible move to
ward improving the quality of life in Eugene.
I find it depressing and frightening that any
one would consider this a “ludicrous cause. ”
That is all.
Erica Stephan
Environmental Studies