Pubdate: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 Source: Reno Gazette-Journal (NV) Copyright: 2004 Reno Gazette-Journal Contact: http://www.rgj.com/helpdesk/news/letter_to_editor.php Website: http://www.rgj.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/363 Author: Terri Choate Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Cannabis) TAKING A LOOK AT MARIJUANA & IMMIGRATION My TMCC classes are presenting their final argument papers in class. So far they have split on whether or not to add an extra year of science and math in Washoe County high schools, have supported embryonic stem cell research, and have supported legalization of marijuana. Indeed the most entertaining presentation came from a self-proclaimed "pot head," who, through the course of the semester, has waxed from barely coherent to sharply insightful. He had done some "street research" for his paper and found that the price of pot in Reno is very close to the price of gold: $280 an ounce. (I am taking his word for it, but gold has risen to around $450 an ounce.) Of course the fine for misdemeanor marijuana possession (under an ounce) is also quite high: $300. He thought his point was that he is tired of paying $300 fines. A more calculating presentation in another section proposed taxing legal sales of marijuana to enrich government coffers, rather like cigarettes. Oddly, one young woman who has written a couple of papers strongly condemning smoking cigarettes, supported this scenario. I asked her, tongue in cheek ,of course, if I would then be able to smoke a joint in a restaurant. She returned a wry grin, but no comment. My curiosity is aroused, however. I wonder what the cost of an ounce of tobacco is with the government taxes figured in? Does it approach $280 an ounce? If marijuana were legal and taxed, would usage fall as tobacco usage has fallen under the relentless assault of the nanny society? Would legalizing pot actually reduce usage? I do find myself more and more likely to support legalization of marijuana. It's not that I suggest anyone smoke it--and I don't--but it seems more and more hypocritical to me to allow the other intoxicant, alcohol, and forbid marijuana. I am aware of the slippery slope argument that opening the door to pot will open the door to cocaine and heroin and ecstasy, etc., but I don't see a similarity between these rapidly addictive and dangerous drugs and marijuana. Legalizing marijuana does not mean no line can be drawn, but drawing the line at a more logical point of risk. And then, instead of being alluringly illegal, marijuana could receive some of the same shunning and health warnings cigarettes do: it is bad for lungs (maybe worse than cigarettes), it does induce torpor, and it may have an inverse relation to coherent thought. I'm not sure my students believe this. They assure me no one has ever died from smoking pot, but they are all convinced many have died from smoking cigarettes (rather than health problems cigarettes may have contributed to). However, this should not daunt the nannies among us. Who would have thought 25 years ago when I was still smoking cigarettes that one day people would be shivering on street corners to catch a drag? Times change. Another way our country has changed over the past couple of generations is in our attitude to newcomers, to immigrants. Two of my students argued in support of immigration, particularly immigration from Mexico. Like me, both had grandparents who came to this country with little but the clothes they wore. My grandmother came from Germany at 18, dirt poor, traveling in steerage, and in New York City married a man she met on the boat. My father's family had arrived from England and Ireland a generation earlier. Dale's family has a longer history here: an ancestor was placed in stocks in Massachusetts for stealing a neighbor's apples in the 17th century. But at some point they came, too, making a perilous voyage to get here. My student's grandmother came to the United States at age 9, smuggled in with her parents and two siblings by "coyotes." Her grandmother remembers wading across the Rio Grande and being given "American" clothes to wear so she and her sisters could sit in the back seat of a car, pretending to be native born, while their parents rode through Texas in the trunk. It's remarkable that after almost 400 years, people are still coming to America to latch on to the opportunity this particularly blessed nation offers; yet many Americans, forgetting who we are, turn a cold shoulder. Of course, the cold shoulder is not something entirely new ; Boston didn't exactly welcome the Irish. And post 9/11there is logic to scrutinizing carefully those who come to our shores. Unlike my grandmother's day, most of those who enter our country today bear the tag "illegal" as well as "immigrant," as did my student's grandmother. Most come from or through Mexico. Most come for the same reason our predecessors did: to improve their lives and their families' lives. Most are cheerful hard workers; it's hard to condemn these people unless you are an Arizona rancher whose land is invaded nightly by hordes of illegal border crossers or a hopelessly outnumbered border patrol officer unable to make a dent in the illegal flow. As with pot smoking, making something illegal attracts criminal activity. By definition anyone helping others to break our laws is a criminal. The normally honest, hard-working immigrant becomes by definition a criminal as well. Hopefully he or she finds work here and isn't sucked into further criminal activity. I think the only answer to the problem of our porous southern border is to make limited immigration from Mexico legal. We would need the support of the Mexican government to help us police the border. We should offer incentives. I've heard we don't give Mexico any foreign aid and Mexico gives us a significant break on its oil. Mexico relies significantly on the U.S. dollars illegal immigrants send to families back home. Might Mexico be cooperative with aid and with assurance that legal immigrants or legal "guest workers" would continue to send dollars home? We have a diversity lottery system to admit 100,000 people to the U.S. each year from countries with low immigration rates. We even give these guys a free ticket to come. Some of the countries with the largest number of winners for 2005 are Algeria, Egypt, Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Morocco, Sudan, Togo, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bulgaria, Germany, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Turkey, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, and Peru. Some of these countries aren't great friends, and none are our near neighbor. Mexicans cannot participate in this lottery. I think we'd do better to have a more open and cooperative arrangement with Mexico. Many Mexican immigrants would join family members here. Although there is a difference in language, they'd have a head start in learning English. Hopefully the stress wouldn't be "diversity" but integration into an already diverse American culture. Hopefully cooperation would increase prosperity in Mexico itself, and we would see many "guest workers" happy to return home. That's what my students hope to see: substantial legal immigration from Mexico and integration into American culture. They don't like the onus of "illegal" attaching to family members and friends; they hope for a way to make coming to the U.S. from Mexico legal. I'd like to see that happen, too. I listen to people calling for troops along our mutual border with horror. The best way to keep our southern border free of terrorist infiltration is to have genuine cooperation with those on the other side. I hope we will warm our cold shoulders with confidence that an expanding American economy has room for people to come and work and improve themselves. However, I'm all for having the courage to boot out those who come to cause trouble or live off the largesse of others' work. I think that cheerful hardworking Mexican guy would agree. - --- MAP posted-by: Jo-D