Marijuana laws a bipartisan issue
As a retired superior court judge who was tasked with doling out penalties under California’s marijuana prohibition laws, I read with great interest Jake Greenberg’s article (“California to vote on marijuana bill, both parties divided on legalization,” April 26).
Andrew Kreitz said that many Republicans “see marijuana as so bad … that the laws that exist should be heavily enforced.” I wonder what qualifies as heavy enforcement if arresting more than 800,000 people last year ““ one every 43 seconds ““ and spending tens of billions of dollars does not. Furthermore, the marijuana itself is made much worse because controls like strength, purity and age restrictions are left up solely to the illegal dealers.
Kreitz’s statement that voters need to “consider the social cost (of legalizing marijuana)” suggests the need to consider the social costs of prohibition, which include the easy availability of marijuana to young people; huge, tax-free profits to drug cartels; and the diversion of limited police resources away from violent crime and other real threats.
As many criminal justice professionals have come to understand, District Attorney Steve Cooley’s description of the ballot measure depicts the reality of the current marijuana prohibition laws, which “create tremendous harm and no good at all” except for cartels. They were estimated by a director of the Drug Enforcement Agency to gather in 60 percent of their gross revenues from the sale of marijuana. Thus, marijuana prohibition is a bipartisan disaster.
Jim Gray
UCLA class of ’66
Admissions is more than GPA and tests
I read Jessica Lee’s column (“College admissions system stifles creativity, limits academic freedom,” April 27) the other day and while I agree on some points, I disagree on the main message. It’s true that people think that GPA, test scores, etc., are the only things that matter to colleges.
There’s an undeniable correlation between higher GPAs and better ranked colleges and since it’s much harder to quantify other activities applicants participate in, the public idolizes one’s GPA. While this we agree on, I disagree with the notion that UCLA is similarly hypnotized. I may not have statistics or rhetoric, but I do have my personal experience.
I was accepted to the Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science at UCLA in 2007 and I was far from paper-perfect. My GPA was a baffling low of 3.55. I almost failed two classes in high school. My second cousin’s GPA of 4.2 didn’t get her in. How did I get into not only UCLA, but the engineering department as well? UCLA looks past what’s on top. They saw that I had a passion, and that I excelled at it. I participated in high school bands, made honor bands, and had and kept a music related job.
My interest in computers got my other foot in the door. A couple key A’s in all my computer related classes is what really mattered. They could care less about my C’s in English and history; I had A’s in math and computer science ““ where it mattered. I’d argue that the spike in GPA is related more to the fact that the highest achieving students are also looking to us as a viable alternative to Ivy Leagues and other highly exclusive schools. People are proud to be a part of UCLA, and why shouldn’t they?
Most of her points I agree with, I just feel it was a bit out of line to title the article “Admissions system stifles creativity” as if everything is the fault of admissions officers. I believe admissions is functioning just fine and that it’s the fault of the public for hyping these less than important factors.
Also, I wanted to mention that even if this were all true, would admissions be so wrong to do so? The world is built so that in order to succeed, you must achieve.
A degree from UCLA is more so a testament to the fact that you have the ability to succeed and accomplish goals than a reward for having learned so much. You’re at least a certain level of competence. Of course you’re smarter than you were coming in, but the main thing a college degree is, is an assurance to future employers. This person has achieved before and therefore will be likely to achieve again. That’s the way the system is built and it’s certainly flawed, but it’s not about to change.
Ryan Baker
Computer Science, class of ’08