Page 4 University Daily Kansan, March 9, 1981
Opinion
'No' to legalization
"Scientists make it, teachers take it, why can't we? Why can't we?"
"Marijuana, marijuana, LSD, LSD!"
You might have heard that little song (to the tune of "Freres Jacques") chanted by grade-schoolers on a playground in the late '80s. Most of the kids had probably never tried marijuana or LSD; they were simply reflecting what they saw as "adult" society.
Time hasn't changed society's views on LSD. It is still condemned as the destructive drug that it is, Marijuana, on the other hand, isn't like LD. Years after kids sang that little ditty, some of them were smoking pot. Marijuana's image has changed enough to allow a successful decriminalization effort in many states, with the seemingly logical next step being legalization. That step is debated on this page today.
But after years of testing, particularly in the last decade, questions do still remain about the long-term effects of marijuana use. The short-term effects have been generally agreed to be negligible; long-term ones have been only hinted at. It seems that for every study proving a particular side of the marijuana controversy, there's a study to contradict it.
The decriminalization movement makes sense. Mere possession or use of marijuana shouldn't be equated with violent crimes. The questions surrounding marijuana use certainly don't warrant a user spending time in prison over it.
Indisputable results about marijuana's long-time effects probably won't come for some time. They may indeed vindicate the use of marijuana as a harmless intoxicant. But there's also the chance that pot may prove harmful if used for long periods of time—in which case, governmental sanctioning of pot use through the process of legalization would be viewed as a very unwise move.
Keeping marijuana a minor offense won't necessarily deter its use, but on the grounds of potential hazard alone, legalization is a questionable step, and certainly one that won't come until conclusive results are in.
Decriminalization, yes. Legalization, no.
America's view of Russia often more fiction than fact
By GEORGE F. KEENAN New York Times Special Features
These deeply perceptive words by Shakespeare have their relevance to a sizable section of U.S. opinion, official and private, on the Soviet Union.
PRINCTON, N.J.—"Take but degree away, untrue that string, and, hark! What discorff follows."—"Trollus and Cressida"
It is not that there is no truth in many of the things that people say and believe about the Russians; it is rather that what they say and believe involves a great deal of exaggeration and oversimplification. And this is because, because of their generation, use of simplification, being harder than falsehood to spot, can be fully as pernicious.
We are told that the official Soviet outlook is one of total cynicism and power-hungry opportunism. Is this view wrong? Not entirely. But it is overdrawn. The way in which the outlooks of the present Soviet leaders, tempered as these outlooks are by the discipline of long political experience and responsibility, relate to the sanguine ruthlessness of a generation ago 60 years ago in the heat of the revolutionary struggle is complicated. There is traditional lip service to established doctrine; there is also considerable inner detachment.
The Soviet leadership, we are told, is fanatically devoted to the early achievement of world revolution. Is this allegation wrong? Partly, and it is certainly misleading. It ignores the fact that communists think would be ideally desirable and what they see as necessary or possible to try achieve at the present moment. It also ignores the distinction between what they claim they will ultimately occur and what they intend to bring about by their own actions.
We hear much about the menacing scale of Soviet military programs and the resulting tilting of the arms balance in our disfavor. Wrong? Again, not entirely, but often exaggerated. Part of this view rests on "worst-case" calculations, particularly regarding conventional armaments. Often, it ignores our own contribution to the adversely developing balance, by our unrestrained inflation and by the various unnecessary deficiencies of our conventional forces. Much of it is corrupted by the fundamental weakness of our weapon, against another country's armaments instead of against one's own needs, as though the needs of any two great countries were identical and any statistical disparity between their arsenals was a mark of somebody's superiority of inferior.
We hear of the menace of Soviet expansionism or “adventures” in the Third World. Is this all wrong? No, not all. The Soviet presence in Cuba, in which we should never have tacitly acquiesced in the first place, is not indefinitely compatible with our vital interests. Soviet collaboration with, and support for, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, the Libyan leader, is a signal disservice to the stability of the Near East. The occupation of Afghanistan has created serious international complications.
Yet, in general, such Soviet efforts have not been very successful. The Soviet Union's position in the Third World is actually weaker than it was years ago, before the disruption of Moscow's relationships with Peking, Cairo and Jakarta. And the methods used to maintain a balance gain influence in the Third World, primarily the dispatch of arms and military advisers, resemble too closely our own for us to indulge gracefully in transports of moral indignation.
It is alleged that the Soviet leaders never respect international agreements. Right? Mainly not. Their record in the fulfillment of clear and specific written obligations, especially those that avoid questions of motivation and simply state precisely what each side will do and when, has not been bad at all. Vague assurances of high-mindedness have been used to exclude those embedded in the Helsinki agreements, are viewed by them with the same cynicism they attribute to the other party who signs such documents.
It is asserted that no useful collaboration with the Soviet Union is possible. True? Not really. There is indeed an extensive area within which what we would consider normal and intimate relations are not possible, their being precluded by Soviet ideological commitments, procedural轧验 and other old ways of seeing the face of war there is another area, admittedly limited, involving certain forms of travel, trade, scholarly exchange and collaboration in cultural and other non-political fields, where things are different. And it is important that this area not be neglected, for interaction of this sort, in addition to increasing our knowledge and understanding of Soviet society, absorbing some of the shock of the misunderstandings and conflicts that may occur in other fields.
Soviet society is made up of human beings like ourselves. Because it is human, it is complex. It is not, as many of the oversimplifications would suggest, a static unchanging phenomenon. It too evolves; and the direction in which it evolves is influenced to some degree by our vision of it and our treatment of it.
In a relationship of such immense importance as the Soviet-American one, there should be no room for such extremisms and oversimplifications. Not only do they produce their counterparts on the other side, but they also contribute to the unsolvable a problem that is only partly so.
What is needed on our part is not an effort to prove our own virtue by dramatizing Soviet iniquities, but rather a serious effort to study Soviet society in all its complexity and to form realistic, sophisticated judgments about the nature and dimensions of the problem it presents for us. If we do this, there is no reason to suppose that the conflicts of interest and tensions between different nations are different in geography, in history and in tradition, should lead to the sort of disastrous climax that modern weapons, most tragically, now make possible.
(George F. Keenan, historian and former ambassador to the Soviet Union, is professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton.)
The University Daily KANSAN
(BUPS 696-840) Published at the University of Kansas daily August through May and Monday and Thursday; during June and July except Saturday, Sunday and holidays. Second-class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas or $35 outside the county. Students subscribes are a $25 fee, but $85 outside the county. Student subscriptions are a $25 fee, passed during the student activity. Postmaster: Send changes of address to the University Daily Klamath. Flint Hall, The University of Kansas.
Editor David Lewis
Managing Editor . . . . .
Business Manager
Terel Fry
( 1407192 ) Retail Sales Manager (Midtown) Larry Leibschmidt
National Sales Manager John Litton
General Manager and News Adviser Rick Manzer
General Manager Christian Gustafson
Although marijuana does not lead to physical dependence and cannot therefore be considered addictive, the federal government was convinced enough that chronic (daily) users do become psychologically dependent upon its use. Psychological dependence has that a fact that a drug is not addictive however, has little relationship to its harmfulness, because dependence—whether psychological or physical—is a serious matter. And the belief that medical research has not proved marijuana to be harmful is a myth. Marijuana's 61 cannabinoids are soluble in fat; they are attracted to the body's fatty organs—especially the brain. Marijuana has also been shown to psychactive cannabinoid is delta-9 THC, and it takes five to eight days for just half the THC in one joint to clear from the body.
In 1974, Gabriel Nails, of Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, and a
"Drug addict!"
Marijuana has lost its connotations of long-haired radicalism and become accepted by a wide cross section of the community—from high-school teenagers to well-to-do businessmen, and it is this broadening of the social base of users that has been an element in moves to legalize marijuana's possession and use. Nevertheless, the state has also taken steps to "stance" under federal statutes. This classifies it as having no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.
People's views on marjaina are bound up in the way they feel about permissiveness, the role of politics and of pleasure. These views change as people grow older. I can see no reason why regular users of marjaina should be eager to supply them so long as their source of supply isn't disrupted.
The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 substantially lessened federal penalties for marijuana usage, and a 1972 federal commission report recommended that state laws be changed so as not to make possession a crime. By 1974, most states had followed this sensible lead in criminal penalties. But criminalization is one thing; legalization of marijuana is another matter.
Laws banning marijuana are justified
40c3a+0c 81
pioneer in marijuana research, discovered that THC inhibition formation of DNA in cells, resulting in cellular death and abnormality. As well, some 50 researchers from 14 countries at the International Symposium on Marijuana held in Reims, France, in 1978 presented new studies on marijuana's injurious effects on reproduction, lungs, cellular metabolism and the brain.
The experience of California, which decriminalized marijuana in 1974, does not bear witness to the high costs and risks associated with it.
PETER
SOMERVILLE
legally available, only a minority would remain users. California law enforcement officials found that seizures of marjuna skroekyted by 539 percent the first year under the new law. It seems that when pot is readily available its use increases; this was the experience of U.S. ser-ius officers Germany and Vietnam where supplies of marjuna and other drugs were plentiful and chean.
Law has many functions in society. It is partly a control mechanism, and also serves to uphold what is productive and acceptable in society as well as the general welfare of the people it serves. To say that current penalties for wrongdoing are ineffective ignores the point that just because a law isn't perfectly kept does not mean that it's ineffectual.
Some would argue that the continued illegality of marijuana infringes upon the personal "rights" of Americans. Already three legal addictive substances are available to the American public—caffine, nicotine and alcohol. The remaining two are tobacco and alcohol are accountable for 100,000 to 300,000 deaths annually. It would seem more logical to deal with our thousands of alcohols and lung
cancer patients than to add another legal chemical to our existing problem.
The International Narcotics Enforcement Officers Association and the International Association of Chiefs of Police absolutely oppose the legalization of marijuana. Is anyone naive enough to believe that the sophisticated in international criminal organizations hauling it out? I don't think so. The government disband just because one of the drugs they deal in-marijuana-is legalized?
Although it is true that we have always taken intoxicants—humanity has snorted and sniffed, smoked and drunk its way through them, we do not know what knowledge about marijuana's harmful effect does not mean that we should be changing law to legalize and condone its use. Early testing of radiation, tobacco and saccharin showed no increase either; 30 years later we find that there are.
If we want to enrich the coffers of the bi tobacco companies when they take over distribution, if we want to disregard the health and welfare of America, then let's legalize marijuana. Then we'll really see this country go to pot.
In all of history, no generation of young people have ever before used marijuana regularly on a mass scale. Therefore, the legalization of marijuana is only serving to exacerbate people into becoming human guinea pigs in what could quite possibly be a tragic experiment. So far medical research suggests we may be in for some real problem. We should indictment of our affluent society that we should even need to debate the issue of marijuana legalization.
Besides, America is party to an agreement that was ratified by the United Nations Singh Convention of 1961, which included cannabi among the stupifying drugs to be controlled Just what would be the international implications. America must ban marijuana? I argue it doesn't have to Mexico and other producing countries that the United States is no serious about marijuana—or any other drug
Legalization of marjana is no longer a pipe dream. Pot has shed its scary pretence in today's society; reefer madness has gone up in smoke. The more we learn that the marjana have been legitimized in some communities for those 18 and older. Public consumption of marjana, once a paranoidiac nightmare, is now acceptable in the more liberal and relaxed of locales. The more legalization is eradication of all marjanta restrictions.
'Reefer Madness' myths cloud real issues
Lawmakers would say that the law is designed to protect society. But exactly who is being protected from what is uncertain. Marjuriana does not produce violent, lewd or unpatriotic behavior. Any harmful side effects have yet to be identified. When an individual that pot is harmful, there is an opposing study that says it's not. In fact, marjuriana's potential as a medical aid has only recently been realized. Glaucoma victims can gain relief from the pressure of fluids that accumulate in their eyes by smoking or ingesting pot. There also is evidence of glaucoma in children and children with cerebrovascular patients, and can treat symptoms of multiple sclerosis, arthritis, asthma and spinal cord injuries.
Despite the victimless nature of marijuana "crimes," legislators—operating on antiquated morals, political fears or misguided benevolence—have refused to cast their imprimatur on innocuous tokens. Smoking marijuana for relaxation or recreation is legally tantamount to committing a violent crime in some states.
individual in some manner, that does not obviate the individual's right to decide whether he wants to take the risk. Obvious legal parallels are the laws regulating liquor and tobacco. Both liquor and tobacco produce known physical drawbacks in both cases the discretion is left to each individual.
Just as Prohibition failed to deter alcoholic consumption, so do marijuana laws prove that the law is ineffective.
Medically speaking, the bottom line is that marijuana is not physically addictive, does not harm the lungs irrepairable, and is not harmful to "drug" users. Even if it is incontrovertably true that marijuana harms an incestrator
KEVIN MILLS
California's School of Public Health indicates that marijuana laws fail to deter even those caught红-handed. Out of 5,000 people who were arrested for possession of pot, use of marijuana or drug use, 38 percent did not decline thereafter. People smoke marijuana for social considerations and not legal ones.
Prohibition of marijuana also give rise to a black market, which is noted for its violence and underworld ties. Florida has suffered a wave of violence in recent years because of the influx of marijuana and cocaine from Colombia. The illicit drug business is one of the mob's large operations, and reaps incredible sums of money by providing an equalization of power that would eliminate the extent of underworld involvement. It also would ensure quality control, meaning that marijuana smokers could breathe easier without worrying about things like paraguat and PCP.
Legalization also would eliminate the outlandish expenditure of tax money that is use to enforce the archaic laws. Police and the FE will be charged for the crimes that who have committed crimes involving victims The tax money given to narcisses could be transferred to programs for the poor. Additional mony would be accrued from the taxation or sales and taxation of marijuana.
Transition to a legalized marjuriana stat would be quick and painless. The major tobacco companies already have the facilities, desire an plans to market marjuriana, right down to the registration of various trademark names. Law regulating the sales and consumption c marijuana are a simple matter as well. Liquor stores in Mexico sold liquor 'laws'. Liquor or tobacco stores could sell jarjuriana to the public. All that is needed is little legislative effort.
Legalization would not foster a widespread increase in the use of marijuana. Those who are not smoking it now are abstaining for moral or personal reasons, not legal ones. Despite recent decriminalization push in some states, nationwide扮 high school seniors indicate they want to be declining, demonstrating that marjuana use i contingent on social values and not legal ones.
As Aldous Huxley suggested in "The Doors or Perception," people always have turned the chemical means of escape or entertainment. T this think will change is to deny an inherent drive in human beings. Instead of denying human feelings, they would be worr on improving the rest of reality itself. Perhaps then marijuana would be irrelevant to the human condition.
IS
ISA r and cult
DAVI Saturda during t
Var I
allegati
would b
had rec
them fo
Accor request who was determined been use
"I'm g that they in good the assu when th purpose
"When their co Student
"I can he said.
VAN treasure keeping to police
Lorem
mittee c
an invest
I was work elimin Kansa trastatase Federda disturhe Shiber belief Comm and re unsup,提 tw
"All th he said.
being ne matter w
XXX
im, session, i subcar provider bandw ceptio
The or in the Sof the
Watson
importa
Mr. Ro
"Ol g
quadr
spectr
95 KH₂
with us
There a willren