STUDENTS RESPOND TO ELECTION RESULTS

Passage Of Prop. 19 Would Have Caused Little Change On Campus

For those of you who missed the propaganda advertisements on TV, the
older women in visors with plastic picket signs, and the rampant
listserv e-mails, Tuesday was Election Day. But even if you already
knew that, you might have been aware of only a couple of the
propositions that were on the ballot.

Propositions 19 and 23 drew most of the attention around campus. So
it's no wonder that, while the environmentalists among us are
celebrating, some students who do not hold medical marijuana cards
have been cursing the backwards-thinking traditionalists who defeated
Prop. 19.

However, according to the Deans of Students from both Pitzer and
Pomona Colleges, Prop. 19 would have had very little, if any, effect
on college life as we know it.

One of the things that enables the colleges to function is federal
funding for programs like financial aid and work-study employment.
Receiving federal funding entails that the federal government have the
final say in what is, and what is not, allowed on the schools' campuses.

Pomona Dean of Campus Life Ric Townes explained that the federal
government has the power to withdraw its funding from the colleges.
While the passage of Prop. 19 would have legalized marijuana in
California, it would not have changed federal law, under which the
drug would have remained illegal. Given the choice between allowing
students to smoke pot on campus and government funding, colleges would
have certainly chosen the latter.

Proponents of Prop. 19 argued that taxing and regulating the sale of
marijuana would help with state budget issues, while the opposition
implied that it would be detrimental to society if the state allowed
its residents to get high whenever they chose to. However, it seems
that we will have to wait and see if this controversial issue will
come to a conclusion in the near or far future.

Many students insist that California's rejection of Prop. 19 was
foolish.

"I don't know why California would turn down an opportunity to get
more money when they're so poor already," Keith McHugh PO '12 said.

Bob Lutz PO '13, though also disappointed by Prop. 19's failure, was
optimistic about the possibility of legalizing marijuana in the near
future.

"Prop. 19 didn't have a chance [this year], but they're going to bring
it up in 2012 and it's going to pass, because people are getting more
and more liberal by the day in California," he said.

Many 5C students did get some measure of satisfaction after the
elections, however, as Prop. 23 was decisively voted down. In case you
haven't seen the posters around campus, Prop. 23 called for the
suspension of AB 32, California's air pollution control law. If Prop.
23 passed, companies and businesses would not have been held to the
standards ratified by the California Global Warming Solutions Act of
2006. What was hailed as the country's most comprehensive emissions
reduction act would have been put on hold until unemployment, now at
about 12.4 percent, was reduced to 5.5 percent.

In other words, had the proposition passed, our days of being able to
see Mount Baldy from campus might have been numbered.

"I'm really glad about 23 not passing," said Scott Humbarger PO '12,
who considered the measure a potentially grave blow to the
environment. "I think a lot of the economic arguments for it were
fairly spurious."

By voting "no" on the suspension of air pollution laws, voters have
chosen to maintain the state's commitment to reduced environmental
impact, a goal that the 5Cs take very seriously. If Prop. 23 had
passed, it probably would have done little to change the way the 5Cs
approach sustainability.