Lower pot penalties
Response to "Herb or Hops" Opinion front, Sept. 13. \nI can see it now -- All the conservative writers around Ernie Pyle Hall running their eyes over this letter. "Oh, great. Another pothead doing the whole mindless 'Legalize it!' rant..." Think what you will, but all I'm asking for are some facts.\nThe recent Opinion piece, "Herb or Hops?" while a great idea, was not nearly as publicized as it should have been. Marijuana use on college campuses may be an extremely taboo subject -- another one of those 'unspoken topics' that go along with religion and politics - but regardless, people care about it. I hope you hear more concerning continuing the coverage of this topic, because smoker or not, everyone is interested.\nI'm not here to degrade anyone as journalists, but the "Point:Counterpoint" theme of this piece seemed rather weak to say the least. First off -- Ms. Avon, where's the backup? I'm assuming your editor(s) cut down your piece for length, but your counterpoint fit some numbers on to his side of the page. You claim to know what smoking pot does to people. Neato! Please elaborate. For example, I know, as well as one of the most-respected medical journals in the world knows, that even long-term exposure to pot is not harmful to health. I also know, thanks to your counterpoint Jacob Stewart, that when we step back and look at the numbers, marijuana is a lot safer than alcohol (1,400 deaths, 500,000 injuries, 70,000 sexual assaults every year ... Ring a bell?).\nI hope to see a continuation of the discussion on lessening marijuana punishment. Think about it -- For a majority of this campus, both alcohol and marijuana are illegal (exceptions being those over 21 and those with medicinal allowances, respectively.) Would you rather have a campus full of stumbling, vomiting drunkards raping and pillaging every weekend, or a campus full of happy, hungry hippies? The latter would do wonders for the local restaurant and convenience store economy.
Ryan Dorgan\nFreshman
\nRaise penalties to match pot
Response to "Herb or Hops" Opinion front, Sept. 13. \nLet us not forget that it is illegal to possess cannabis, therefore people shouldn't have any amount of THC in their body from cannabis. Maybe a better solution to the issue would be to increase the penalties related to alcohol. Less alcohol related injuries and fatalities, while still cracking down on cannabis. The government just cares about the money so this would be a big plus.\nLowering the penalties related to cannabis isn't the answer.
Chris Martin\nIU Student
\nGo to class, meet people
Response to "Note Swapping Service Comes to IU" by Julie Mahomed, Sept. 12.\nDoes anybody remember the day when going to class actually meant going to class? Remember when the lazy students who didn't go to class, failed? What, you don't remember? Figures. Before Facebook, we had to actually go outside to meet other students, but now all we have to do is browse random names and befriend them online. Now, with NoteSwap.com, we don't even have to go to class. We can get all of our notes online. Have we become that lazy or just that stupid? I am an out-of-stater paying just about $29,000 to come to IU each year, and I can get my degree by not going to class? Sounds pretty good, right?\nBut then I checked my e-mail yesterday, as I do everyday, and I stumbled along a message that I have been getting once every week for the past 7 or 8 years now. I know every student has received this e-mail from the University of Phoenix. Yes, the online school that attacks your inbox. Looking at their Web site, that doesn't give much information, it states that tuition is much lower than $20,000 per year and can finish much earlier than 4 years. \nNow what makes me want to attend IU or any other college? Come on, do you really think it's because of a fast online connection? Well, maybe, but not the major reason. I came here to have a great time with great people. When I want to make friends, they are usually with the people in my classes or in the same place I live. That's right, human interaction. I love to see the face of my classmate, who skipped class to sleep, when I tell him that I want to see him fail because the class is graded on the curve. With NoteSwap.com coming to IU, I say the students who actually go to class rise up and tell them to go screw themselves.
James Davis\nSenior
\nWar uncivilized
Response to "Hostilities Exist" by Brian Stewart, Sept. 11:\nWhen I read Brian Stewart's latest column on his feelings on September 11, his argument concerned me greatly. I could go at length questioning his arguments, as others doubtless have, but for brevity's sake I will focus on one theme recurrent in Mr. Stewart's article, namely barbarianism and civilization.\nThroughout his article, he proscribes those who attacked the United States that day as barbarians and reactionary nihilists, and that we, as the civilized power, are obligated to battle it. Ignoring the never-ending moral debates about what exactly this obligation entails, what concerns me most is how he described this struggle.\nHe writes that "for civilized peoples it is an overwhelming duty, as well as an exceptional pleasure, to wage an unsentimental war" against our enemies, and it is here I come across a contradiction: that it is civilized to eagerly fight an unsentimental war.\nTo happily fight an unsentimental war is to, in fact, make it sentimental. They are the true civilizations that do not romanticize war with talk of good or evil, but remember the reality of war and fight out of need. The civilized do not war with a sense of an inevitable clash of peoples and ideas, but rather out of justice.\nIt is also the mark of civilization not to rush to war in eagerness and euphoria but to debate openly, question openly, and act on truth. To extract pleasure from war is to misunderstand it, for war is hell for all those involved.\nIt is the mark of those who attacked us, dying with smiles on their faces, to take pleasure in conflict. That is barbarism, and for us to feel exhilarated at the approaching conflict is to destroy what makes us a civilization.\nA great civilization must not fear war, nor must it revel in war. Five years ago we were introduced to a conflict we never knew before. We must not cheer what has ensued since, but with determination we must work until we have brought some justice out of the ashes of September 11.
Jeff Weimer\nSenior
\nResponding to terror
Response to "Hostilities Exist" by Brian Stewart, Sept. 11:\nScared. Sad. Angry. Violated. These are the feelings most normal humans felt as we watched the events of September 11, 2001, unfold on that blue-skied Tuesday morning. These are the same feelings we held onto for weeks and months afterwards. But not Brian Stewart. Allowing himself "to be candid," Stewart tells us that the main feeling he took away from that day was none other than "exhilaration."\nThe statement is callous at best, but disgusting probably describes it better. Stewart admits that he was "spoiling for a fight" with the perpetrators. A response to such a puerile look at world politics probably requires a much longer rebuttal, but I will instead use a short analogy from James Fallows of The Atlantic: One hundred years ago European anarchists did not pose an existential threat to the continent, killing only perhaps 2,000 people. But one of the people they killed was Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and the unthinking response of European governments in effect started World War I. "It is not the people al-Qaeda might kill that is the threat. Our reaction is what can cause the damage. It's al-Qaeda plus our response that creates the existential danger." At this critical moment in history, the world needs to make better decisions on how to respond to the threat of terrorism and fewer Brian Stewarts.
Bryan Schmidt\nSenior
\nNo, Hill good, Sodrel bad
In response to David White, the political director for the College Republicans and his letter in support of Mike Sodrel saying that he is a better candidate than Baron Hill (Sept. 7), I think it's important to point some things out. I didn't really see where the reasons for Mr. White's claim were listed, so I want to get to the real reasons why Baron Hill is a better man for his old job.\nMr. White made a point of bringing out the old conservative mantra in his letter saying that "one candidate says government is the answer, and the other says that government is the problem." Obviously Sodrel believes that government is the problem, just like any good Republican would.\nSo I have some questions for the College Republicans, or Representative Sodrel, or President Bush or any Republican for that matter. \nIs government really the problem when, in terms of healthcare, the number of uninsured Americans has increased by 6 million with a 73 percent premium increase under the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress? Or is it the lack of Government action against an overbearing insurance industry that is the problem? \nIs ethics and lobbying reform in Congress too much government involvement in the year of Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff? Well it must be, because I know the Republicans haven't done much about it. In fact, they've done nothing at all. \nIt was apparently too intrusive for President Bush and Rep. Sodrel's congress to take action after Hurricane Katrina also, because we all saw how hands-off they were with that.\nDoesn't government exist to help and protect its people? Shouldn't a government be compassionate (I know that's the big conservative buzzword) towards the people it governs? Government can't always be the problem.\nThe point is that Mike Sodrel is not a better candidate than Baron Hill, and the reason why is simple. A vote for Mike Sodrel is a vote of confidence in the second coming of the "Do Nothing Congress." As Mr. White said though, don't pass this race off. Get out and show the Republicans how awfully they've performed. Vote for Baron Hill.
A.J. Rodriguez \nSophomore
\nTibbs tossed
An open letter to Baron Hill:\nI observed in the Indiana Daily Student that you would be speaking to the Indiana University College Democrats Wednesday night. Given that you are a three-term former Congressman and a current candidate for Congress, I decided that I wanted to hear what you had to say tonight.\nI never got the opportunity. As I walked toward the room in Jordan Hall where the College Democrats were holding their meeting, I was recognized by a College Democrat volunteer. "Are you Scott Tibbs?", she asked.\nI replied that I am indeed Scott Tibbs. I was asked if I was a student at IU, and when I said "no" I was told I was not allowed to attend the meeting.\nI find it unfortunate that you, as a former Congressman and Congressional candidate, would allow the meeting where you are speaking to be closed to the public, especially on a public university campus. I am forced vaaato wonder exactly what you are trying to hide by excluding taxpayers and citizens of this state and your district from a public speech.\nAs a candidate for public office myself, I would not speak at a student group's meeting that is "closed". I am the same person since filing for elective office that I was before I registered as a candidate. I have no fear that people would disagree with what I say and positions I take. Anyone who does not agree with me is free to vote against me and even volunteer for and donate to my opponents.\nI find tonight's "closed meeting" especially ironic given your repeated calls for several debates with your opponent. It would seem that if you were truly committed to informing the public about the issues and where you stand on said issues that you would make sure that your speech was open to everyone who wished to attend. Once again I am left with a simple question: "Where is Baron?"
Scott Tibbs\nAlumnus
\nFacebook changes hold lesson
According to the article "Facebook updates 'creepy'" (by Eamonn Brennan), appearing in the September 6 edition of the IDS, people have argued that the new Facebook changes are creepy and unnecessary. While this might be true, I think there's a lesson to be learned.\nBy nature, we are curious about people. Combine that with boredom and a cool interface, and you have Facebook. Facebook is successful because we have common desires to broadcast parts of our identities in exchange for parts of other people's identities. At the least it makes for harmless interaction, ideally it makes for some really meaningful connections.\nThe change to Facebook shows us what's really going on. It tells us what we're saying to other people and what they're saying to us. It tells us who's invited where and who's not. More than just categorizing the daily gossip, the new format forces us to look at the ways people are interacting, good and bad. We often want to know what people are doing or saying that might involve us, but at the same time, we don't always want people knowing what we're saying and doing regarding them or others.\nWhat I've seen over the last two days is an inequality between how people treat each other. Sometimes we treat people better than they treat us; sometimes it's the other way around. As creepy or unnecessary as the features might be, they have put in front of our faces that a discrepancy is occurring. People see who gets invited and who doesn't easier than ever before. People see what their friends are saying and who they're saying it to and vice versa. The ability to get an aerial view of the interaction of the people in our networks is incredible.\nWe're suddenly accountable to everyone who sees our profile, and if that's motivation to treat people differently, so be it. Hopefully the new features have made us more aware that the way we interact with people does mean something. Hopefully we honestly value closing that gap between how we treat others and how we hope to be treated.
Anthony Catalino\nSenior
\nTry walking
Response to "Buses have record setting week" by Zachary Osterman, Sept. 5.\nI am unsure as to whether record numbers for bus riders is something of which to be proud, especially considering the number of students who don't even ride off campus.\nIt disturbs me that the Briscoe and McNutt area bus stops are so crowded every morning. Residents of those dorms are hardly so far from their classes that they cannot walk.\nEven worse, some students are taking campus buses from one hall to another. There is no excuse for riding a bus from Jordan Hall to Swain, or any other buildings for that matter.\nThis campus is beautiful. Try walking through it once in a while.
Erica Given\nJunior
