I propose that the Young Republicans get in a tight little circle and toke
up a fat bong. The morning after, I want them to go do some research and
prove that people who smoke pot would be a health-cost burden on
taxpayers.

The debate of several days ago on "dope" lacked proof. The author argued
that I, as a taxpayer, have agreed to pay for the costs of alcoholics and
heart attack victims, that we as a society have accepted the costs of the
risks of eating fatty foods and legally drinking alcohol. So sorry, but I
don't pay taxes with the understanding that I'm volunteering to help
people who can't eat and drink in moderation. More importantly, I also
consider alcohol and nicotine arbitrarily legalized drugs with heavier
health repercussions and a much higher risk of addiction, especially since
pot is not addictive.

The author wrote, "The State's Primary Health Care program lists substance
abuse as one of its valid ailments." Is this saying we would be paying for
POT SMOKERS to sit in detox? I hope not, because that would be insulting
to the intelligence of all pot smokers. Pot is a much more peaceful drug
than alcohol; that is, pot smokers don't run into other cars, jump from
frat windows, get in fist fights or try to molest women. Young
Republicans, try again -- I'm not convinced it's the financial burden of
marijuana you're concerned about. Let's hear a less smoky argument.

Leah Branford
Junior, pre-major