Legalization of marijuana wouldn't drive prices up

I'm only going to concern myself with one aspect of David Shultz's poorly reasoned column ("Blame drug suppliers, not users"), and that concerns his assertion that the price of Cannabis would "skyrocket" if legalized. This is completely absurd. It is quite obvious that David has done no research concerning the ease in which the plant is grown.

Cannabis' relatively high price - $50 for one-eighth of an ounce - is a reflection of what the market can currently bear under the current prohibition system. During alcohol prohibition, the price of alcohol rose in relation to the risks involved in its production, sale, and distribution.

The same is true of cannabis. It costs pennies to grow, much less than other plants now legally sold, in fact.

The last time I checked, my father was not feeding his cattle $350/ounce hay. However, certain sin taxes and other fees would undoubtedly be placed on his sale, but such costs would not drive the price up to current levels. The market would not bear it. Absolutely no way. Besides, if it were legal, many would grow it themselves, because, like I said earlier, it is extremely easy to do.

C. A. Mason

Texas A&M University

Columnist doesn't delve deep enough into Vatican policy

I read Ella Peterson's column ("A witch hunt among men of the cloth") with some amusement. Why the amusement? I had to laugh because the "opinions" column that you contributed had nothing to do with reality.

For instance, I notice that you included no direct citations from Vatican sources. In fact, the reason for not allowing homosexual priests in the priesthood has little to do with any individual not being able to maintain celibacy (which you suggested), as it has to do with the sacramental significance of gender. The maleness of the priest is an image of the maleness of Christ and of Christ's love for the Church, which is understood as feminine (this is biblical).

The notion of spiritual fatherhood is another key issue in the Church. As I have already stated, the priest stands in the place of Christ, who chose to be masculine from all eternity (Is this because males are better than females? No, it is because the masculinity has a meaning that expressed something definite, and this shows forth what Christ will actually do in his mission), he chose to be male in his humanity. Because priests stand in the place of Christ, because they must be images of Christ's fatherhood, they must be sound of emotion and be caring, giving and compassionate, but also firm, good protectors of their flock and good representatives of Christ.

If there is something in their background or their psychological make-up that prevents them from being good father images, then they are probably not good candidates for the priesthood.

Your facts on the abuse matter were, in general, somewhat out of skew. The studies that have been conducted to assess the real scope of the priestly abuse scandal point out more and more clearly that it has been a "homosexual issue." For instance, out of more than 10,000 abused-by-priest victims known in the United States from 1950-2002, 81 percent were males. That is not even close to your opinion estimate that most abusers were heterosexuals. I challenge you to look into the actual numbers and see whether any valid study of the matter supports your "opinion."

William Pemberton

Ontario, Canada

Marijuana not as harmless as many think

I'm going to have to disagree with Scott Patterson in his column, "Legalization long overdue." Though marijuana has medical benefits, it can have harmful effects as well. It can damage nerve cells in the brain and impair memory. Marijuana affects the heart and lung and promotes lung cancer. Marijuana usage can also affect the body's immunization system by reducing its ability to fight off diseases. Because of these negative effects, marijuana should stay illegal for everyone's safety.

Allison Villa

pre-pharmacy freshman

Legalization wouldn't change Latin America situation

I found interesting arguments from David Shultz, who said that legalization of marijuana would impact Latin America ("Blame drug suppliers, not users"). The question comes down to this: Would the "horrifically bloody civil war in Latin America," as Shultz claims, get worse than it already is because of legalization?

Lets consider the Latin American impact, and take in the consideration that legitimate businesses would not survive with legalization because Latin America could control prices, which I do not agree with, but to remain consistent with the article. If that were the case, how would legalization increase the funding to the Latin American civil war from what it already is?

Shultz catches himself because even with legalization, and marijuana being bought from Latin American drug cartels, the amount of money paid for marijuana would go down, it would only be a "fraction of the price," hence the amount of money that the drug lords could take in would only be a fraction of what they get right now. 

Shultz is saying that it would become a problem because people would only buy illegally, but isn't that what they do now with it being illegal?

I believe this is where the confusion lies.  Shultz writes, "The price of legal marijuana would then skyrocket compared to its illegal counterpart," but it would be an illusion.  It would look like the United States would be charging high prices when the reality is it would remain the same. The change would be the drop in prices the illegal drug traders have to accomplish to meet the supply and demand of the United States and stay in business. Let's be realistic, if both sold pot for what it's sold for today, users would choose to buy legally to avoid the risk and ensure quality.

I find it hypocritical of Schultz to claim that the reason marijuana should be illegal is because of the detrimental effects to Latin America, when the truth is this situation really would be improved with legalization, whether it was purchased from the cartels or from legal sources within the United States.

Tim O'Hair

Sacramento State University

Taxpayers the big losers in war on drugs

The drug war is in large part a war on marijuana, by far the most popular illicit drug.

Marijuana prohibition has done little other than burden millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens with criminal records. The University of Michigan's Monitoring the Future Study reports that lifetime use of marijuana is higher in the United States than any European country, yet America is one of the few Western countries that uses its criminal justice system to punish citizens who prefer marijuana to martinis.

The short-term health effects of marijuana are inconsequential compared to the long-term effects of criminal records. Unfortunately, marijuana represents the counterculture to many Americans. In subsidizing the prejudices of culture warriors, government is subsidizing organized crime. The drug war's distortion of immutable laws of supply and demand make an easily grown weed literally worth its weight in gold.

The only clear winners in the war on marijuana are drug cartels and shameless tough-on-drugs politicians, who've built careers on confusing drug prohibition's collateral damage with a relatively harmless plant. The big losers in this battle are the American taxpayers, who have been deluded into believing big government is the appropriate response to non-traditional consensual vices.

Robert Sharpe

policy analyst

Common Sense for Drug Policy

Cannabis scientifically proven to be a 'gateway drug'

This letter is in response to Scott Patterson's column "The legalization of marijuana is long overdue." He states that since there is no reason to keep the drug illegal it should be legalized; however, I disagree. There are most definitely reasons to keep it illegal.

First, he argues that it is ridiculous to call marijuana a gateway drug, yet a scientific study of twins showed "individuals who used cannabis by age 17 years had odds of other drug use, alcohol dependence, and drug abuse/dependence that were 2.1 to 5.2 times higher than those of their co-twin, who did not use cannabis before age 17 years."

Second, the writer argues that because tobacco and alcohol are legal, then marijuana should be as well, but it is hard to argue that those two substances do not have negative effects. True, alcohol is a longstanding element of western society and when used responsibly is not very dangerous, but when one becomes a full-blown alcoholic or tobacco addict, it is very detrimental to both their physical and sometimes mental health.

Regardless of whether marijuana is more or less dangerous then tobacco and alcohol, cannabis is a drug, and while the adverse effects of marijuana use are within the range tolerated for other medications, one only takes such medication if the great positive effects on one's health outweigh these negative effects. You do not take these drugs if you do not need them. Besides potential medical purposes, marijuana isn't needed and should not be legalized.

As far as the potential economic benefits of a new (legalized) marijuana industry, they are minimal and not worth the "adverse effects," as the writer calls them.

Blake Rebling

political science and economics

sophomore

Marijuana debate should consider black market forces

I celebrate the courageous effort of columnists David Schultz and Scott Patterson in facing the discussion about drug legalization in their recent column "The burning question: legalize marijuana?" I just want to mention some flaws in their arguments in hope of promoting a more focused discussion on the topic.

The first flaw deals with the last statement made by Mr. Schultz, encouraging an open "war" against the "enemies down south" instead of continuing the "futile war" against the drug consumers. There is an unfortunate use of the terms "war" and "enemies" instead of "law enforcement" and "criminals," which would be more proper of issues concerning black markets and such illegal drugs. It is important to consider that black markets involve both sides of the cyclic economic spectrum of supply-demand, and that both sides of the process share responsibilities.

Taking into account the whole dimension of this illegal market, we may observe that high demands will make the business even more lucrative, encouraging new criminal groups to participate to ensure the supply. That means that a "law enforcement against suppliers" would be in fact more futile that the "law enforcement against consumers," if both sides could really be treated apart of each other.

The second comment is more about a misleading statement rather than a flaw in the last paragraph of Mr. Patterson's column. In an eventual international legalization process, producers should not be considered "illegal," not here nor abroad, and the black market would eventually be substituted be a legal open market of such products. Therefore the international production of marijuana should not be a threat for the domestic markets but instead a favorable condition for a legal, internationally recognized market.

Julio Canon Barriga

hydrology and water resources graduate student

U.S. drug habits support South American brutality

I read the two sides of the legalization of marijuana, and I was a little upset ("The burning question: legalize marijuana?"). First, in David Schultz's column, he misspells the country Colombia as "Columbia," which is not a country but rather a university or a district in the eastern United States.

The other portion that disturbed me was the apparent lack of knowledge of the drug problem in Colombia (the country). The FARC is not the only group that dabbles into drugs, but so do the right-winged Paramilitaries, a group that was originally organized to combat the gross tactics of the FARC. Realizing that selling drugs was a way to make money, the Paramilitaries also began producing.

The FARC and the Paramilitaries do not only produce marijuana but also cocaine. They raise money for their organizations through the selling of cocaine to their largest consumer, the United States. So in reality anyone who does cocaine (or smokes marijuana) is supporting organizations who terrorize and brutalize an otherwise peaceful country, Colombia, and also support the same organizations who kidnap visitors from the United States.

The idea that legalizing marijuana is going to solve the problem is ludicrous because these terror organizations produce mostly cocaine. If you want to make a change and support one of our strongest allies (Colombia), stop consuming marijuana and cocaine. It's all about supply and demand.

Laura E. McCormick

musicology graduate student

Students haven't given up on ailing football team

Do not let frustrated exclamations of "We Suck!" lead you to believe that we students have given up on our struggling football team ("Fans need to cut Cats some slack"). It is commonly understood that we actually do suck; but the majority understands that the easier part of our schedule begins with the Stanford game next week, allowing our team to improve on its performance and record; not to mention four of the last six games are at home.

Our student body is aware of what lies ahead, and because of this, we will pack the stands for all of the remaining games. Consider this: Cal has been a Pacific 10 title contender for three years in a row, but for some reason their fans are rather lackluster. This has prompted Cal head coach, Jeff Tedford, to issue an email to the entire student body urging them to turn out in larger numbers and be louder during games.

In contrast, it is already evident that our student section loves watching our team play (over 12,000 students attended a D-1AA home game after a loss). It seems as if we don't need a winning season to generate supreme school spirit. We will continue to show up in record numbers, and we will continue to do so year after year and be rewarded for our faith with forthcoming championship seasons.

Justin Thomas

senior majoring in English

Offended students should look to Constitution, Bill of Rights

It's too bad that some have been "offended" by numerous article and editorials in the Arizona Daily Wildcat ("Wildcat offensive to broad swaths of students"). I say feel free to ignore the Wildcat and read something else. I'd suggest you start with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Nowhere in that document does it give you the right to not be offended. Instead, it gives me, you, the Wildcat and anyone else the right to use unpopular words, expressions and ideas to our hearts content. You can view Cohen v. California (1971) and Lewis v. City of New Orleans (1974) for details.

In America we live simultaneously in the worst and the best possible worlds. We hold our freedom of speech sacred. This freedom of ideas means some people will be offended no matter what you say -- guaranteed!

If you want to be offended at something -- let's start with overblown "PC" speech.

Michael Badowski

microbiology and immunology graduate student