GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T DETERMINE POLICY BASED ON 'MORALITY'

I am very concerned about pre-physiology freshman Zach M. Weinstein's
Tuesday mailbag letter because I fear that many people share his
opinions on marijuana policy ("'Medical Marijuana' an ironic cliche").

Even if it were true that marijuana cigarettes contain more
carcinogens than their tobacco counterparts (a 2006 UCLA School of
Medicine study found that they do not), there are many ways other than
smoking the herb to ingest it, such as preparing it with food, which
can prevent many of the harms usually associated with marijuana smoking.

More troubling is the assertion that marijuana legalization would be
"immoral." According to a 2005 Gallup poll, support for legalization
has steadily increased threefold in the last 40 years. But even if
this were not the case, it should not be the government's job to
decide for its citizens what is and is not a moral activity.

Many Arizonans feel that alcohol use is immoral, yet it would clearly
be a violation of individual civil liberties for the government to
outlaw drinking. Nor is it the government's job to decide for the
people what is or is not healthy, unless opponents to marijuana
legalization also think that the government should outlaw Big Macs.

In short, I find that many of the arguments for marijuana prohibition
are based upon government-mandated and government-decided "morality,"
or upon the unfair and undemocratic principle that personal health is
not up to the individual but up to the State.

Zac Finger

Art senior