SAFER'S GOAL AS HAZY AS SWIRLING SMOKE

Recently, SAFER has proposed a referendum to advocate lessening the
punishment for those who use marijuana.

Their goal, however, is unclear.

The first goal they explicitly state is simply to poll the student
population for opinions on marijuana safety. The second, to lessen the
severity of punishment for those who are caught using marijuana on
campus, and also to request that the University use funds to research
and study the impacts of marijuana usage and penalties.

However, aside from the obvious question of whether any meaningful
information on the safety of marijuana can be gleaned from student
opinions, the motivation for the first two goals assumes that the
determination of a penalty is linked directly and solely to safety of
the offense.

Undoubtedly, safety is a consideration when assessing penalties.
However, since the use of marijuana is a federal offense and they give
no reason for the special legal status of CU's campus in relation to
that offense, it is questionable why they should presume that safety
should be the only consideration for penalties for marijuana usage.

They do however point to the special circumstances of alcohol related
deaths at CU. So perhaps their goal is somehow related to alcohol
usage. This is where their referendum becomes the most befuddling. Is
the point that establishing the safety of marijuana and spending money
on researching and changing penalties will in some way reduce the
alcohol related accidents deaths?

This seems highly unlikely.

Why assume that if students felt freer to use marijuana that they
would simultaneously reduce their use of alcohol?

They have no evidence at all that this would be true. Most likely the
alcohol usage would remain the same and marijuana usage would rise. If
we think alcohol is a problem for the campus, why add a controlled
substance into the mix?

One possible explanation for this confused belief stated above is that
if punishments were less severe for marijuana usage than for alcohol
usage that students would be motivated to use marijuana and not use
alcohol. But in the case of crimes and deaths related to alcohol, it
is not clear that any forward looking considerations regarding
punishment or risk were present.

Students who engage in risky and illegal behavior do not seem to be
deterred by the possibility that they will be punished. In fact, there
are a number of alternate recreations that do not present possible
punishment AT ALL,and that one can engage in RATHER than drink alcohol.

Yet SAFER does not seem motivated to advocate for these forms of legal
recreation. So is the assumption that students MUST use SOME illegal
substances, and that relaxing the punishment for one that is viewed
"safer" will benefit campus?

The idea that students must engage in some illegal behavior hardly
seems a compelling reason for this referendum to be taken seriously.

The referendum appears to claim a number of things as its goal, but
when examined, it is grossly misguided.

The University has no good reason to spend funds researching its own
penalties for a federal offense committed on campus.

The motivation behind their referendum is merely abusing the justified
and widespread concern over alcohol abuse and safety to allow them to
smoke pot on campus.

In any case, it is a meaningless referendum, because thankfully, the
University is has no obligation to promote illegal activities on campus.

Kara Noel lives in Boulder. The views expressed here are her own, and
not necessarily those of the Colorado Daily management and staff.