Marijuana bill does not regard morality
The Daily Bruin editorial “California marijuana act ignores morality” (Feb. 26) demonstrates a disturbing ignorance of the issue on the part of its authors. For starters, of course the proposed bill ignores morality ““ the government’s job is not to apply a specific set of morals to its people but rather to protect and serve their interests. This country is founded on the principle that individuals are free to make their own choices in life, as long as they do not infringe upon the life or liberty of their fellow citizens. If you expect your government to tell you what is right and wrong, then there are plenty of authoritarian regimes in the world that would be more than happy to tell you how to live your life.
Secondly, the authors imply that the recreational use of marijuana is inherently immoral. I would argue that it is no more immoral than the consumption of alcohol, a drug which was also once prohibited on the basis of its “immorality.” There is a large literature comparing the long-term health effects of both drugs, and the results of every credible study have shown that alcohol use is far more detrimental to people’s health than marijuana. The comparison of it to the legalization of prostitution borders on the absurd.
Given these facts, it makes perfect sense to legalize marijuana and subject it to the same stringent regulations that are now imposed on alcohol. The government benefits from the increased revenue that regulation and the reduced costs of law enforcement will bring; citizens are left free to exercise their freedom of choice, and the drug traffickers are out of jobs. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.
Matthew Hofer
Second-year political science student
Advertisement misrepresents abortion
As UCLA alumni and staff, we are very disappointed in the Daily Bruin’s acceptance of advertising money from the Human Life Alliance to include an advertising insert with misleading and manipulative information about abortion and contraception.
Contraceptive utilization and responsible sexual decision-making can only be done in an open and nonjudgmental environment, with both sides of the argument presented. By giving credence to outlandish claims that birth control hormones are abortifacients, the Daily Bruin is supporting ideas that are antiscience. A woman is not considered to be medically pregnant until a fertilized egg is implanted into the endometrium of her uterus. Any birth control hormone that is taken after this time will neither harm nor disrupt an established pregnancy.
All efforts to reduce access to or information about safe, effective contraceptives ““ especially among a college population ““ are criminal.
If anything, actions by this organization border on hypocritical; by denying contraception, they are creating the need for more abortions.
I trust that the UCLA student population is intelligent enough to discount the advertisement, and its members will use their critical thinking and research skills to examine all aspects of the debate and come to their own conclusions. Judging by the numerous copies of the ads I noticed in garbage cans around campus, I think they have.
Megan Grimm
Title X Program Manager
UCLA OB/GYN Department
Katie Siedel
Clinic Manager
UCLA OB/GYN Department