Pubdate: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 Source: Colorado Daily (UC Edu, CO) Copyright: 2005 Colorado Daily Contact: http://www.coloradodaily.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1557 Author: Kara Noel Cited: SAFER ( www.saferchoice.org ) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Cannabis) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion) SAFER'S GOAL AS HAZY AS SWIRLING SMOKE Recently, SAFER has proposed a referendum to advocate lessening the punishment for those who use marijuana. Their goal, however, is unclear. The first goal they explicitly state is simply to poll the student population for opinions on marijuana safety. The second, to lessen the severity of punishment for those who are caught using marijuana on campus, and also to request that the University use funds to research and study the impacts of marijuana usage and penalties. However, aside from the obvious question of whether any meaningful information on the safety of marijuana can be gleaned from student opinions, the motivation for the first two goals assumes that the determination of a penalty is linked directly and solely to safety of the offense. Undoubtedly, safety is a consideration when assessing penalties. However, since the use of marijuana is a federal offense and they give no reason for the special legal status of CU's campus in relation to that offense, it is questionable why they should presume that safety should be the only consideration for penalties for marijuana usage. They do however point to the special circumstances of alcohol related deaths at CU. So perhaps their goal is somehow related to alcohol usage. This is where their referendum becomes the most befuddling. Is the point that establishing the safety of marijuana and spending money on researching and changing penalties will in some way reduce the alcohol related accidents deaths? This seems highly unlikely. Why assume that if students felt freer to use marijuana that they would simultaneously reduce their use of alcohol? They have no evidence at all that this would be true. Most likely the alcohol usage would remain the same and marijuana usage would rise. If we think alcohol is a problem for the campus, why add a controlled substance into the mix? One possible explanation for this confused belief stated above is that if punishments were less severe for marijuana usage than for alcohol usage that students would be motivated to use marijuana and not use alcohol. But in the case of crimes and deaths related to alcohol, it is not clear that any forward looking considerations regarding punishment or risk were present. Students who engage in risky and illegal behavior do not seem to be deterred by the possibility that they will be punished. In fact, there are a number of alternate recreations that do not present possible punishment AT ALL,and that one can engage in RATHER than drink alcohol. Yet SAFER does not seem motivated to advocate for these forms of legal recreation. So is the assumption that students MUST use SOME illegal substances, and that relaxing the punishment for one that is viewed "safer" will benefit campus? The idea that students must engage in some illegal behavior hardly seems a compelling reason for this referendum to be taken seriously. The referendum appears to claim a number of things as its goal, but when examined, it is grossly misguided. The University has no good reason to spend funds researching its own penalties for a federal offense committed on campus. The motivation behind their referendum is merely abusing the justified and widespread concern over alcohol abuse and safety to allow them to smoke pot on campus. In any case, it is a meaningless referendum, because thankfully, the University is has no obligation to promote illegal activities on campus. Kara Noel lives in Boulder. The views expressed here are her own, and not necessarily those of the Colorado Daily management and staff. - --- MAP posted-by: Larry Seguin