Salmon: My comments aired on religious TV were appropriate

Recently, at a National Prayer Breakfast, Senator Joseph Lieberman said, "We are men and women of faith linked by a bond that transcends all other descriptors and dividers ÷ our shared love of God and acceptance of His sovereignty over us, and our common commitment to try to live according to the universal moral laws of the Lord."

Although some criticized Senator Lieberman, I believe that it is entirely appropriate for Senator Lieberman to stand up proudly for his convictions. I will not apologize for standing up for mine.

One of the most fundamental rights of any human being is the right to worship according to the dictates of one's own conscience. As a Congressman, a member of the Helsinki commission for human rights in Eastern Europe, and the Vice Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Human Rights, I have been a tireless advocate for religious freedom across the planet.

In Stockholm, I introduced international resolutions calling for more tolerance of all religious beliefs. I met with the Dalai Lama to try to help resolve the persecution of Tibetan Buddhist monks. Later, I led a delegation to China and personally met with the President of China to promote religious freedom in China and helped secure the release of a political prisoner.

My faith is rooted in tolerance and acceptance. I have spoken many times in churches, synagogues and Mosques, and I have thoroughly enjoyed those opportunities to talk about my beliefs and learn about others.

I made my statements on the religious television program shortly after a court voted to eliminate "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. I believe that such efforts to eliminate all mentions of religion from public life are divisive and destructive, not unifying and constructive. As a public servant, I will defend the right of any American to believe or not believe as they see fit, but let us not forget that freedom to express religious beliefs is an important part of our tradition as well.

Matt Salmon
Republican gubernatorial candidate

Other health risks legal, so marijuana should be as well

I cannot believe that anyone can be as shortsighted as Mr. Baran in his position that marijuana should remain an illegal substance. His primary argument seems to be that it is "bad for you." Well, duh.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell you that breathing in smoke instead of oxygen isn't good for you. But what other pastimes that we Americans love to indulge in aren't good for us? Alcohol is legal, but it is terrible on the body and one can easily become addicted.

The same can be said for cigarettes. Living in Tucson is bad for you ÷ breathing in smog from the thousands of cars that travel our streets isn't very good for you either. Watching TV for hours at a time is bad for you. Everything is bad for you, to some degree. But all the things I've listed above are legal ÷ so why isn't marijuana? The double standard being set is clear.

As long as drugs like alcohol and nicotine remain legal, there can be no rational argument for keeping marijuana illegal.

Andrew Wagner
theatre arts junior

Baran column's facts flawed; legalization would save lives

Mr. Baran, in his recent column arguing against the legalization of marijuana, begins by making several factual mistakes, and then proceeds to compound his error by drawing faulty inferences from these alleged "facts."

First, Mr. Baran states that "a marijuana user is every bit as dangerous behind the wheel of a car as a drunk driver." This is false. A 1993 study sponsored by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that marijuana users, unlike alcohol users, tend to "retain insight in their performance and will compensate where they can, for example, by slowing down or increasing effort." As a result, the report concludes, "THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small." Indeed, as a study reported by the New Scientist in March 2002 suggests, it is precisely this compensation that makes it such that drivers who are under the influence of marijuana and alcohol may actually be less dangerous than drivers under the influence of alcohol alone.

The most serious error made by Mr. Baran, however, is to assume that the case for the legalization of marijuana depends on the claim that marijuana lacks any adverse effects on personal health or public safety. It does not.

Alcohol is far worse than marijuana in both these categories, yet it is legal, and ought to remain so. Why? For the simple reason that the costs of prohibition outweigh the public health costs of legalization. Prohibition creates a black market that increases the price of drugs, leading to a massive increase in violence on the part of those who wish to control this artificially-created profit.

Prohibition increases the danger of drugs, by preventing the implementation of any above-the-table system to control the purity and safety of drugs.

And finally, contrary to Mr. Baran's assertion that marijuana actually is a gateway drug: This is largely due to prohibition itself, a policy which requires marijuana users to obtain their drugs from black market elements who would be happy to supply them with other, more potent (and hence, more cost-effective) illegal drugs, rather than simply obtaining their marijuana from a state-licensed vendor.

In sum, marijuana is not as dangerous as Mr. Baran and many of the other critics of legalization suggest. But even if it were, these negative health effects would be more than outweighed by the violence and death caused by drug prohibition itself.

When we add to this the mountains of other problems created by prohibition, the case for legalization becomes simply overwhelming.

Matt Zwolinski
philosophy graduate student

Happy hour means alcohol consumption is promoted

Alumnus Craig Mayhew seems to have missed the point of my response to Jessica Lee's article of Aug. 26, "Athletic department intercepts happy hour."

The issue is not whether or not happy hours include alcohol.

The fact that one can have a non-alcoholic drink at a happy hour does not mean that alcohol is not available for others to consume

Nowhere did I state that everyone at a happy hour is consuming alcoholic beverages, or that happy hours consist of alcohol alone. What is important is the association between happy hours and alcoholic drinks, not what one individual chooses to do at a happy hour.

The point of my initial response was that UA should not be promoting an event that typically includes alcohol.

I repeat my initial request to the UA athletic marketing department: Rephrase the advertisement, or take it down.

Alexandra Clinton
nutritional sciences senior