Commentary
Oregon Daily Emerald
T\iesday, July 12, 2005
Bret Furtwangler | Graphic artist
NEWS STAFF
__ (541)346-5511
StIADRA BF.ESLF.Y
EDITOR IN CHIEF
cabe bradley
NEWS EDITOR
NICHOLAS WILBUR
NEWS REPORTER
SHAWN MILLER
SPORTS EDITOR
RYAN NYBURG
PULSE EDITOR
AILEE SLATER
COMMENTARY EDITOR
HM BOBOSKY
PHOTO AND ONLINE EDITOR
WENDY KIEFFF.R
DESIGN EDITOR
JENNY CERWICK
COPY CHIEF
BRET FURTWANGLER
GRAPHIC ARTIST
BUSINESS
(541)346-5511
JUDYRIEDL
GENERAL MANAGER
KATHY CARBONE
BUSINESS MANAGER
ALEX CORBIN
ALAN FULLERTON
RYAN JOHNSON
DISTRIBUTION
ADVERTISING
(541)346-3712_
MELISSA GUST
ADVERTISING DIRECTOR
MIA LEIDELMEYER
SALES MANAGER
KEU.EE kauftheil
STEPHEN MILLER
KATIE STRINGER
CODY WILSON
SALES REPRESENTATIVES
CLASSIFIED
(541)3464343
TRINA SHANAMAN
CLASSIFIED MANAGER
KORALYNN BASHAM
KATY GAGNON
KER1 SPANGLER
CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING
ASSOCIATES
PRODUCTION
(541) 3464381
MICHELE ROSS
PRODUCTION MANAGER
KIRA PARK
PRODUCTION COORDINATOR
The Oregon Daily Emerald is pub
lished daily Monday through Fri
day during the school year by the
Oregon Daily Emerald Publishing
Co. Inc., at the University of Ore
gon, Eugene, Ore. The Emerald
operates independently of the
University with offices in Suite
300 of the Erb Memorial Union.
The Emerald is private property.
Unlawful removal or use of
papers is prosecutable by law.
A pot policy that WORKS
Sometimes you have to see it to be
lieve it. Hippies of the United States
have rallied around the idea of decrimi
nalized marijuana for decades, but few
have the experience to say whether
such a policy would actually work. Tak
ing a trip to Vancouver, B.C., was proof
enough for me: The United Sates’ cur
rent laws on marijuana need to be
seriously reevaluated.
During sightseeing expeditions in
Canada, my friends and I decided to
visit Vancouver’s New Amsterdam
Cafe, an establishment whose logo has
a giant pot leaf in the middle of it. Like
a few other Vancouver locations, New
Amsterdam has a policy of “tolerating”
marijuana smoking. This, coupled with
Vancouver’s notarized statement that
local police should not waste their time
prosecuting small amounts of marijua
na, creates a certain atmosphere within
the cafe.
In brief, New Amsterdam is like
none other; standing in the cafe door
way alone was enough to become
pleasantly buzzed.
The cafe was warm, dark and ulti
mately an experience in comfort. Pa
trons chatted, sipped coffee and smiled
freely as they passed joints and glass
pipes around the tables. The music was
loud, but the atmosphere was laid
back. No one got on top of the counters
and did body shots; no one puked all
over the floor. The scary, exciting de
pravity of the bars from our previous
night of vacation had been replaced
with low-key enjoyment in a slightly
unusual situation.
Vancouver police stay true to their
unspoken agreement not to bother
marijuana users within the cafe. The
best part of this agreement is that it is
perfectly possible for New Amsterdam
to run without police intervention.
Imagine a similar situation wherein
cops promised to avoid prosecuting mi
nors at a bar. It would be impossible to
do so, because even those legal users at
AILEE SLATER
FURTHER FROM PERFECTION
a bar create situations (drunken fights,
sexual harassment) wherein police in
tervention is necessary. Not so at a pot
cafe. The mood is friendly and relaxed
rather than uproarious and violent.
The relations between genders is
likewise remarkably different when
comparing New Amsterdam to any
other place where substances and so
cial interaction are the main purpose of
the establishment. At bars, the women
in our group were continuously privy
to the sexual advances of men. Some
times these advances were appreciated
and reciprocated; more often, they
were not. We found ourselves leaving
dance floors and clubs simply to escape
the man who would not leave us alone,
refused to let go during a song or trailed
one of us around demanding to buy us
a drink. These kinds of advances were
relentless and only created uncomfort
able situations and ruined nights
of merriment.
At New Amsterdam, however, there
was no such sexual tension. When a
girlfriend and I approached two men
and introduced ourselves, they shook
our hands immediately and engaged in
cordial conversation. The four of us dis
cussed our homes, our schools, our
lives, without once turning the conver
sation sexual. Whereas the dynamics of
alcohol caused men to befriend women
only to rub against them, the dynamics
of marijuana created a social situation
that truly was social rather than sexu
al. The smoke clouding up the cafe was
a breath of fresh air.
New Amsterdam was the equivalent
of an upscale lounge. Yes, most cus
tomers were using mind-altering sub
stances. But like a 40-something exec
utive entertaining a gin and tonic with
lunch, the cafe smokers were commit
ting a basically innocuous act.
After New Amsterdam, it is mind
boggling that the U.S. government can
sleep at night having criminalized mar
ijuana to the nth degree. How alcohol
is legal and marijuana illegal is ques
tion enough, to say nothing of the fact
that other drugs such as cocaine are
regulated even less than marijuana.
Perhaps it is the image of the business
man who sips liquor versus the image
of the hippie who pokes smot and
doesn’t ever get a job. The government
seems to defer to that image every time
a marijuana debate emerges, and ap
parently our society has not grown past
its goal to protect capitalism based on
mental pictures regarding which drug
hurts society the most.
I don’t envy the government’s re
sponsibility to create law. It is often
hard to know what will work and what
will not, so creating regulations without
an empirical example of utopia is cer
tainly a difficult task. Vancouver, B.C.,
took a chance on de-regulating mari
juana, and it worked. Police have more
time and money to prosecute rapists
and murderers, and young people look
ing for a fun night out (topped off with
a little bit of mind alteration) can
choose a cafe over a bar. If it worked
there, it can work here.
How about it Oregon? I’d say we’ie
ready for a revolutionary stand on mar
ijuana, but the truth is this: Because we
already know de-regulation worked in
Canada, de-regulation of marijuana in
the United States would not be revolu
tionary at all. It would just be the
implementation of a policy that has
already proven itself to be a damn
good idea.
aileeslaler@ daily emerald, com
■ Editorial
Bill puts gay
couples one
step closer to
ecjual rights
Last Friday, the Oregon Senate voted 19-10
to approve SB 1000. This Senate Bill would
outlaw forms of sexual discrimination and al
low gay couples to engage in civil unions, giv
ing these couples similar rights to married,
heterosexual couples.
A statement about SB 1000 summarizes that
it “prohibits discrimination against persons in
specified areas of law based on sexual orienta
tion.” It is upsetting that there was not already a
law in place to assure that a person’s civil rights
are not reduced based on who they are sexually
attracted to. SB1000 speaks well of the State of
Oregon because it proves that at least some of
our lawmakers truly abide by the idea of liberty
and justice for all.
Unfortunately, SB1000 must still pass in the
Oregon House of Representatives (where the
majority is Republican) before it can become
law. Although two Republicans joined Democ
rats in the Senate to favor SB 1000, most Senate
Republicans voted against the bill. According to
an Oregonian article, most of those dissenting
Senators promoted the argument that SB 1000
was against the will of Oregonians, because
state voters had already prohibited gay mar
riage. It is likely that House Republicans will
make their decision in that same manner.
The reasoning of naysaying Republicans in
the Senate was flawed, and House Republi
cans will hopefully evaluate that point before
coming to their own conclusion about
SB 1000. The Oregon constitution may define
marriage as one man and one woman, Dut
that amendment would in no way conflict
with prohibiting employment discrimination
based on sexual orientation. As far as most of
us are aware, the will of Oregon has never
been to overtly treat non-straight Oregonians
as though they are second class citizens. It is
unfair for Senate Republicans to cite the will
of the people as a reason to deny SB 1000.
Even if the majority of Oregonians do not
want gay marriage legalized (a sentiment
which we hope will prove malleab'e), many of
those same people remain in favor of civil
unions, such as those made famous in Ver
mont. Surely the religious right can agree that
civil unions (which ensure fair benefits for cer
tain types of life partners) are the best way to
create functioning couples and families for
which marriage is not an option.
The call to action for our House of Represen
tatives is this: Surprise us. The young liberals
who make up a majority of the University are
increasingly frustrated with Republicans who
vote with their bibles instead of their brains.
House Republicans must put their partisan
views aside and see that to deny SB1000 is to
deny the humanity of numerous U.S. citizens.
The call to action for the rest of Oregon is
this: Create a bond of solidarity with all of your
fellow Oregonians. This means heterosexual
Oregonians lobbying for SB1000, or even refus
ing to get married until true marriage is avail
able to all. If even a portion of us do not have
equal rights, equality for all is impossible.
OREGON DAILY EMERALD
LETTERS POLICY
Letters to the editor and guest commentanes are encouraged, and should
be sent to letters@dailyemerald.com or submitted at the
Oregon Daily Emerald office, EMU Suite 300. Electronic
submissions are preferred. Letters are limited to 250 wonts, and guest com
mentaries to 550 words. Autos are limited to one submission per calen
dar month. Submissions should include phone number and address for
verification. The Emerald reserves the n^it to edit for space, grammar and
style. Guest submissions are published at the discretion of fire Emerald.