DRUG LAWS AFFECTING EDUCATION STIR CONTROVERSY

Unfortunately, Mr. Jahedi's article misses an opportunity to inform readers
about the complex issue of drug use because he generalizes in a very
superficial manner ("A Drug-Free Berkeley," July 5).

For example, he states that "an individual who knows that his financial aid
will be cut off if he is caught smoking and decides to smoke anyway is not
the most studious of students." There is some empirical evidence suggesting
the contrary.

A study at the University of Texas Health Science Center, sponsored by the
National Institute on Drug Abuse, found that at low and moderate doses of
marijuana, people competed more vigorously to earn money than people who
did not smoke. At high doses, people competed less vigorously.

As with most psychoactive substances (whether marijuana, alcohol or
ecstasy) the amount and frequency of the drug used is critical in
determining physiological and behavioral effects. All drugs pose dangers,
but some also have benefits. An effective and humane drug policy must take
into account a wide range of costs and benefits of drug use among its citizens.

Robert Gable

Claremont Graduate University professor
------------------------------------
I wonder how many of these folks who oppose the "fascist" prohibition on
drugs, where one group of people gets to tell another group of people what
kind of chemicals they can smoke, inject, eat and inhale, are big fans of
the "Fair Trade Coffee" movement, where one group of people gets to tell
another group of people what kind of coffee they can and can't sell, buy,
make or grow.

Justin Azadivar

UC Berkeley student
-------------------------------------------------------
In the October 1999 edition of "High Times," Jello Biafra says that Drug
Enforcement Agency's drug war is ethnic cleansing American style.

If The Daily Californian's readers doubt this, they should ask themselves
why white drug users disproportionately outnumber non-white drug users, but
a majority of those dying, doing time, losing voting rights and losing
college aid for non-violent drug crimes are people of color.
African-Americans make up 12 percent of the population but it is estimated
that they make up 38 percent of those arrested for drug offenses and 58
percent of those convicted of drug offenses. It seems the government has no
problem giving college aid to convicted rapists and murderers but not to a
convicted possessor of one joint. Now, to use a favorite ploy of the
paranoid, propaganda-peddling prohibitionists: What kind of message are we
sending to the children?

Maybe the corrupt politicians and media are required to adhere to the party
line of prohibition because law enforcement, customs, the prison and
military industrial complex, the drug testing industry, the "drug
treatment" industry, the INS, the CIA, the FBI, the DEA and the politicians
themselves can't live without the budget justification, not to mention the
invisible profits, bribery, corruption and forfeiture benefits that
prohibition affords them. The drug war also promotes, justifies and
perpetuates racist enforcement policies and is diminishing many freedoms
and liberties that are supposed to be inalienable according to the
Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Myron Von Hollingsworth

Fort Worth, TX
-------------------------------------------------
"While only 13 percent of minorities are known to smoke weed, 67 percent of
the drug arrests are minorities ("A Drug-Free Berkeley," July 5)."

Just like a quote I like to use, "Cigarette smoking is a leading cause of
statistics," this sentence is a good example of "statistics," which tend to
say and mean little in and of themselves, being verbally manipulated to
prove something which they in no way imply. How are the facts that 13
percent of minorities smoke marijuana and the fact that 67 percent of drug
arrests related? Would they be any more related if I said that a good
percentage of Berkeley students have tried smoking marijuana and that a
good percentage of marijuana smokers are academic underachievers? If I
can't use that fact to prove that most UC Berkeley students are dumb (which
I think most of us can agree isn't true), then Jahedi's statement similarly
holds absolutely no water.

Aside from being bogged down in details, I would like to offer an opposing
view to Jahedi's argument. First of all, not all Berkeley students smoke
marijuana. Although I am not in any way violently opposed to marijuana
smoking, I have chosen not to partake in the popular Berkeley pastime. But
I'm sure we all know more than one academically talented, extracurricularly
involved and genuinely friendly person who has been known to light up every
once in a while.

Does choosing not to participate in a recreational activity (even if it
happens to be illegal) make me more deserving of government aid than
somebody who partakes in it occasionally, even if he or she is a better
student and an asset to the community? My answer is no. By the same
argument you could deny financial aid to every minor who drinks alcohol.
Pretty soon our universities would be devoid of most students under the age
of 21, not to mention of a social life. Is that the solution to crime we're
looking for, or should we perhaps spend the government funding that we're
spending going after people who are relatively innocently (mostly without
harm to anyone outside themselves) using a recreational drug on catching
rapists and murderers?

Adelina Ratner

UC Berkeley student