In response to “What’s the worst that could happen: Marijuana is legalized,” by Jackson Rohrbaugh. May 28:

Shouldn’t adult citizens have the freedom to choose what goes into their own bodies in the privacy of their own homes? Why are alcohol and cigarettes the only legal intoxicant?

Imagine if the United States was once again the “Land of the Free” instead of the most incarcerated nation in the history of human civilization.

Imagine if the American people could feel safe and secure in their own homes and on the streets of our cities and towns throughout the United States.

Imagine if we had no “drug-related crime.” Imagine if our overall crime rate was a small fraction of our current crime rate.

We once had such a situation here in the United States. Prior to the passage of the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914, the term “drug-related crime” didn’t exist. And drug lords, drug cartels or even drug dealers as we know them today didn’t exist either.

Back then, all types of recreational drugs were legally sold to anybody with no questions asked, for pennies per dose in grocery stores and pharmacies.

Did we have a lot more drug addicts then, compared to now? No.

We had about the same percentage of our population addicted to drugs according to U.S. Federal Judge John L. Kane of Colorado.

For the sake of our children, can we re-legalize our now-illegal drugs and sell them through licensed business establishments? This would put the drug dealers and drug lords out of business overnight.

Darral Good

Seattle, Wash.

If health outcomes determined drug laws instead of cultural norms, marijuana would be legal. Unlike alcohol, marijuana has never been shown to cause an overdose death, nor does it share the addictive properties of tobacco. Like any drug, marijuana can be harmful if abused, but jail cells are inappropriate as health interventions and ineffective as deterrents.

The first marijuana laws were enacted in response to Mexican immigration during the early 1900s, despite opposition from the American Medical Association. Dire warnings that marijuana inspires homicidal rages have been counterproductive at best. White Americans did not even begin to smoke pot until a soon-to-be entrenched federal bureaucracy began funding reefer madness propaganda.

Marijuana prohibition has failed miserably as a deterrent. The United States has higher rates of marijuana use than the Netherlands, where marijuana is legally available to adults over 18. Students who want to help end the inter-generational culture war otherwise known as the “war on some drugs” should contact Students for Sensible Drug Policy at Schoolsnotprisons.com.

Robert Sharpe

Policy analyst, Common Sense for Drug Policy

Another reason to re-legalize the relatively safe, socially acceptable, God-given plant cannabis that doesn’t get mentioned is that it will lower hard-drug addiction rates.

How many citizens try cannabis and realize it’s not nearly as harmful as taught in DARE-type government environments? Then they think other substances must not be so bad either, only to become addicted to deadly drugs. The old lessons make cannabis out to be among the worst substances in the world, even though it’s less addictive than coffee and never killed a single person, while cigarettes kill more than 1,000 Americans daily.

The federal government even classifies cannabis as a Schedule I substance along with heroin, while methamphetamine and cocaine are only Schedule II substances. For the health and welfare of the United States’ children and adults, that dangerous, irresponsible and inaccurate message absolutely must change.

Further, DARE instructors teach that cannabis is bad and should be prohibited, yet unregulated sales of cannabis force buyers into contact with people who often sell harder drugs.

Stan White

Dillon, Colo.

In response to “Tent City III not such a bad idea,” by Chris Jordan, May 20:

In reading Chris Jordan’s article, I was glad to see some researched information regarding Tent City III (TC3). Regardless of the facts however, I still feel TC3 should not be hosted at the University of Washington. Jordan omits one of the primary factors in hosting TC3: the safety and comfort of TC3’s residents.

With such overt discontent with the proposal from many UW students, it would not come as a surprise if some students opposed to it would treat the residents poorly or take action to make them feel uncomfortable or unwanted. Even if students treat the residents with respect, I don’t feel that studying them and walking through their camp on “educational visits” is appropriate. These are people, not animals in a zoo to be pitied or become the topics of our research projects.

Furthermore, although crime rates have not increased near TC3, as an orientation leader last summer, the number-one concern I heard from parents of incoming students was safety. Convincing them that their son or daughter will not be negatively affected by the residents in any way is a near impossibility. TC3 not only hurts the scenic appeal of the UW, it could also affect enrollment and retention due to parental control.

Lastly, I pay thousands of dollars out of my own pocket each year for an unperturbed educational experience. Call me selfish, but I’d rather not have homeless people living on campus. UW is not a charity. It’s an educational institution. There are better places to host TC3.

Jason Barber

Junior, political economy

I know I’ve already commented on this subject before, but I find this situation so frustrating! What is the purpose of hosting a tent city on campus? Jordan tries to explain in his story that students and faculty can observe homelessness more closely, but that seems ludicrous to me. All of Seattle sees homelessness every day downtown, on the corners of major intersections, and even outside grocery stores asking for donations as you’re trying to buy food for your family. This sounds almost like a petting zoo! “Let’s put this camp of homeless people on campus so we can watch their everyday lives, thanking God that we aren’t them and feeling sorry for their situations.”

Thankfully, Jordan does provide some insight as to the numerous questions I’ve had since the proposal. But, there’s still the question as to the economic impact that we are making by hosting a tent city. What happens when Seattle’s homeless hear that we would love to have them living on campus?

Sure, supporters might like to guarantee that the 100 individuals in the camp might not bother students for donations or pose a security risk. Can they also vouch for the numerous homeless people who will wander on campus to partake in our free-giving amenities?

Also, how does the UW hosting a tent city help those 100 individuals get out of homelessness? The answer isn’t hosting a tent city so we can feel good about ourselves while watching others in distress. The answer is students and faculty lobbying for city and state intervention in providing a comprehensive system that helps homeless people receive the mental, physical and economic help that they need.

Finally, I find it distressing that all of these senates (GPSS, ASUW, UW Faculty) had these meetings to discuss and vote on this topic, yet myself and many others never heard anything about when and where these meetings were to happen! Even The Daily failed to inform us; the paper only reported after the fact. With a Facebook group against this proposal at much more than 2,000 strong, this really sounds like an agenda being pushed under the table without student input or knowledge.

David Richards

Senior, biology

Though I am a member of the Health Services 573 class working to bring Tent City III to campus, I write as a member of the university community and as someone who worked in homeless services for three years.

The backlash against our class’s proposal to bring Tent City III to campus provides rich examples of precisely why it is so important to do so. Many of our experiences with the homeless have been limited to volunteering at a soup kitchen or being asked for money on the street. In these situations, we alternatively see the homeless as “unfortunate individuals” who should be helped by charity and philanthropy, or we ignore them entirely and pretend not to see. It is important to recognize that these limited interactions help us compartmentalize the problem of homelessness and dehumanize those experiencing it.

As much as we hate to imagine it, homelessness is something that could happen to you, to me or to our loved ones. And as much as it’s uncomfortable to think about, homelessness has its roots in fundamental structural problems of our society. If we continue to say we are “not against helping” the poor or the homeless while maintaining a “not-in-my-backyard” attitude, we will never learn enough or be motivated enough to promote meaningful change.

Bringing Tent City III to the UW will be safe and virtually cost-free. It will give students a chance to sit and talk to individuals experiencing homelessness, human being to human being, and to discuss the issue of homelessness in classes and understand the broader context.

Let us engage in meaningful conversation and discuss the ways that hosting Tent City III could not only provide shelter for 100 Seattleites in need, but also promote the educational mission of our wonderful institution.

Natalie Stahl

Junior, MPH, School of Public Health

I implore you to take a look at the argument surrounding the implementation of Tent City III on campus. Many of the articles that have been submitted seem to be in support. However, please take a look into the opposition as well. You may not agree with us, but if the numbers from competing Facebook groups tell you anything about the ratio of support vs. opposition, there is a stark difference. Currently, the numbers stand at about 4-1 in opposition: about 2,268 to 1,112. The opposition is real, and ignoring that would be a grave mistake.

All in all, I mean no offense, and thank you for the hard work that you are putting in to give UW students their daily campus paper.

Brittany Becker

Junior, international economics

In response to “Groups plan to protest Gates as commencement speaker,” by Rachel Solomon, June 2:

It recently printed in Rachel Solomon’s article, “Groups plan to protest Gates as commencement speaker,” that the Muslim Students Association (MSA) at the UW was going to protest the commencement speaker, Robert Gates. This is patently not true.

The MSA is purely a religious organization, and we strive to be apolitical. Our goals are to educate the UW community about Islam and provide for our diverse membership. Endorsing political rallies is not in our mandate.

I understand this is a student newspaper, but accurate reporting is appreciated. I request that The Daily print a retraction because this reckless coverage has negatively affected our reputation.

Zakariya Dehlawi

MSA senior adviser

Senior, computer engineering

UW president’s lack of response

Last Tuesday, the Demilitarize UW Coalition presented UW President Mark Emmert with a list of demands. The document we presented outlined the history of the CIA and its role in destroying democratic movements around the world.

We demanded that the UW kick CIA agent and visiting professor Tim Thomas off of campus and end the Institute for National Security Education and Research (INSER) program, which teaches students to spy on one another and makes them report to intelligence services during exchange programs abroad. The program has faced opposition from students, faculty and numerous departments, while the UW tries keeping the program as secretive as possible.

We have yet to receive a response from Emmert on this issue that has very important implications for students and the university community as a whole. Democracy Insurgent, one member of the Demilitarize UW Coalition, believes that open debate on such programs should be allowed and made public and that Emmert and the UW administrators have consistently and undemocratically kept this dialogue from taking place.

The UW should be transparent. What the UW funds and supports should be left to the students, faculty and workers. Supporting a program that has a history tainted by gross human-rights violations, and which has actively engaged in supporting undemocratic practices both here and abroad, goes against those ideals.

Adam James

Senior, political science

Democracy Insurgent

Free speech and our tuition

Freedom of speech implies equality between those of all viewpoints. Before the First Amendment, we all stand as equals. This equality engenders open dialogue, and that dialogue in turn, sharpens our intellects and provides opportunities for social change.

Freedom of speech is the inalienable right to assent or dissent. With freedom of association, it is the right to collaborate with others to express shared ideals or, for that matter, to refuse to collaborate. It is this last right which I believe the UW has failed to uphold.

Each full-time student at our university is required to pay a $108 Services and Activities Fee along with their tuition, a part of which goes to the student government. It doesn’t matter whether you are a graduate or undergraduate student or whether you choose to be a member of ASUW or not. You are required to pay the same fee. Those who participate in student government are then allowed to vote on what ideas your money will be spent to support.

This wrongs students in two ways: First, it requires them to support the views of an organization they may strongly disagree with; and second, it deprives them of the richness that a viewpoint-neutral distribution system would provide. Furthermore, it violates a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling (University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth) which requires that mandatory fee programs being used for student speech activities must be distributed in a viewpoint-neutral (and not merely majority-rule) fashion.

I do not mean to suggest that those involved in student government are deliberately harming the students at large; most of the student leaders I’ve interacted with (both undergraduate and graduate) seem intent on sincerely trying to serve students. But, I am suggesting that the Services and Activities Fee distribution system we use at this university compromises the legal rights of some students and the best interests of all students.

I have brought this issue to the attention of ASUW, but after considering my arguments, they chose to dismiss my complaint. I also discussed this issue in person with several GPSS officers.

I also submitted a statement to the GPSS expressing my objection to their use of my fees on constitutional grounds and offering them a final opportunity to respond, if they wished, before I would submit a complaint to the administration regarding their organization. In response, I received a very curt, dismissive e-mail from the GPSS president. Therefore, I have submitted a request to the administration for a refund of the part of my Services and Activities Fees that goes to such entities.

I realize that the amount of money involved per student per quarter is small. The monetary value of any refund I may receive pales still further before the cost of obtaining it. I have already spent hours upon hours, and some money, in seeking redress. But I simply will not turn my eyes any longer while my speech rights are violated. I have determined that I will do what I can to change the system at this school and, even if I fail at that, to make a bold statement for my beliefs, my freedom. For me, it is a fight for principle.

Rebecca Faust

Senior, linguistics