Legalizing marijuana will not affect crime

In response to “Legalizing pot may cause rise in crime” (Oct. 6).
In 1996, California legalized medical marijuana despite prohibitionists’ warnings of certain doom.

Now, they are making the exact same claims about Proposition 19.
Does anyone literally believe that there is an army of sober, law-abiding citizens ready to get stoned and run amok as soon as they can go out and buy a legal ounce of marijuana at the store?
People who want to smoke marijuana already do.

Proposition 19 simply means that they will no longer have to fund criminal organizations to do so.
It’s time for law enforcement to quit blowing smoke.
_
Anders Froehlich
San Rafael, Calif._

Future of green jobs in jeopardy

Like so many of my fellow environmental studies or science students, I plan on making a career out of my dedication to the environment by entering California’s green workforce.

However, even though clean energy businesses and jobs have grown by 45 percent and 36 percent, respectively, from 1995 to 2008, by the time I graduate there may not be a green workforce for me to enter.

At least that is what will happen if the Texas oil and coal companies bankrolling Proposition 23 have their way.

This “Dirty Energy Prop” would suspend AB 32, California’s landmark act that would put California’s greenhouse gas emissions at or below 1990 levels by 2020.

Without AB 32’s support for California’s clean energy economy, California’s air quality will be further diminished (more than 91 percent of Californians live in counties that failed the American Lung Association’s 2010 State of the Air report).

Additionally, the future of green businesses will be jeopardized, along with the future of thousands of students like me across California.

However, UCLA students can take a stand against this by voting no on Proposition 23 and attending UCLA’s rally against the proposition on Friday, Oct. 15 outside Kerckhoff Hall!

Joanna Wheaton is a second-year environmental studies student and web chair for E3.

Royce Hall’s rental fee justified

In response to Avni Nijhawan’s article, “Groups face obstacle in usage fees” (Oct. 7) the reason fees are more expensive in Royce Hall and the Intramural Field is because professionalism comes at a cost.

Yes, the Ackerman Grand Ballroom might be free, but have you been in Ackerman lately?

Royce Hall’s history and beauty blows Ackerman out of the water.
Ackerman’s curtains are old, the stage lacks simple amenities for basic operations, and the people who are in charge of the facilities are unprofessional.

Royce Hall costs $17,000, but you are getting a complex and expensive sound and lighting system, as well as people who know how to run it.

When you rent Ackerman, the sound and lighting systems cost less than $10,000, have not been maintained well, and the people who run your event are not properly trained on how to use the gear, thus their performance is poor.

Are there any student groups who have performed in Ackerman and been 100 percent satisfied with their experience?

I bet groups performing in Royce Hall are much happier with their event because of the professionalism concerning the technical aspects of the space as well as the management.

You get what you pay for.
If a group wants a professional, polished venue to show off their work, Royce Hall is the key to their success.

Royce Hall brings in many touring acts, professional musicians and theatrical shows, which require employees to learn about the different gear used for every possible situation.

This is simply not the same for the Associated Students UCLA.
Ackerman has owned the same gear for years; it is extremely difficult for the right equipment to be brought in (if a group chooses to have this done, it’s really expensive); and its employees lack professional experience.

If you hired Royce’s professionals to manage your show and hired their technicians to run their state-of-the-art audio and visual equipment in Ackerman, your price tag would be a lot more than $17,000.

David Crawford is a fourth-year theater, film and television student.

Lab safety is a necessity

It is good to hear in “Inspections held to ensure lab safety” (Oct. 6) that UCLA’s Environment, Health and Safety Office is continuing its assertive program of inspection in 3,500 labs on campus.

This program includes some surprise inspections for compliance with the personal protection equipment policy and general safety.

However, I disagree that lab safety is a “personal choice.” UCLA as the employer (and educator) has the majority responsibility, by law, to provide safety training (including training on the responsibilities in the workplace), hazard communication and information, a safe workplace, safety equipment, and recourse if necessary.

Workers and students need to follow the safety rules and guidelines taught by Environment, Health and Safety and faculty for their good and that of their coworkers.

Doing so helps prevent injuries, could save lives, and creates a culture of safety in the labs.

Rita Kern is a staff research associate at the department of medicine