Medical marijuana law

needs expansion
We already know that Oregonians overwhelmingly support the right of seriously ill people to use marijuana for medical purposes, but a recent poll shows that support has grown since Oregon’s medical marijuana initiative passed in 1998.
According to the poll, administered to over 1,000 adults by the Lucas Organization, 76.5 percent of Oregon voters “strongly support” or “somewhat support” the state law allowing “seriously ill patients to use and grow their own medical marijuana with the approval of their physicians.” This is a big jump over the 55 percent of voters who supported the initiative in 1998. The poll was conducted in three other states with medical marijuana laws, and also shows increased levels of support since their laws were passed.
The poll results also indicate that Oregon voters would favor expanding the law to allow medical marijuana distribution by nonprofit medical clinics (69.1 percent) or the state government (64.4 percent).
An initiative to enhance the distribution of medical marijuana to the seriously ill could be on the ballot in 2004. Oregonians have already taken the first step by providing legal protection to people suffering from cancer, multiple sclerosis, AIDS, and other terrible illnesses. Making sure sick people can easily obtain their medicine is the next logical step.

Kristin Oechslin

Marijuana Policy Project

Washington, D.C.

Seniors have

the right to pledge
I was disappointed that the Emerald is opposed to offering graduating seniors the opportunity to take a pledge to make environmentally and socially aware career choices (“University shouldn’t hop onto pledge bandwagon,” ODE, April 9). I was also confused about the reasoning behind this opposition.
I don’t understand how offering seniors information about organizations they may encounter in the post-graduation job market undermines the University’s promotion of diverse and varied perspectives. I’m also confused about the Emerald’s suggestion that such a pledge, which will be offered by concerned students to graduating seniors before their ceremonies begin, is something that should be addressed “on their own time.” After putting so much effort into a college education, if graduation isn’t a senior’s “own time,” I don’t know what is!
Graduation should be a time of pride, and about the celebration of accomplishment. If, in acknowledging the work that has gone into reaching this point, individuals choose to further their commitment to themselves and their communities by taking such a pledge, they have the right to do so.
It seems to me that the elimination of this option, rather than the option itself, would interfere with the role of any University to encourage free thought and to respect individual choices and options.

Lea Goodrich

junior

environmental science

Safety measures should

be tempered with caution
In the aftermath of Sept. 11, and with all the publicity concerning an alleged increase in campus crime, there has been much demand for greater security at the University (with the Emerald’s editors in the forefront).
I would urge caution here, and remind the community of what Benjamin Franklin once said: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
The Founding Fathers knew the dangers inherent in submitting to the dubious protective instincts of authority. We, too, should be aware that the goal of any governmental power structure is not so much to protect its citizenry as it is to maintain its position at the apex of the status quo.

Bill Smee

University staff