Court’s ruling against religious marijuana use correct

I was disappointed in the column published on Thursday, Sept. 17, 2009, “”Pot use has place in spirituality.”” The author of the article is of the opinion that marijuana has a place in spirituality, derides the Supreme Court for failing to see why, and then presents an argument on why marijuana should be allowed anytime, anywhere. She is able to show some history of peyote being used for spiritual purposes; however, where is the evidence that marijuana was and is used for such reasons?

The only historical support offered seems to be her own personal usage and anecdotal usage of her acquaintances. This does not qualify as historical usage for spirituality. She also argues that the restriction of marijuana protects the public from nothing more than hungry persons wandering the streets for a snack. I fail to see how this factually incorrect red herring supports the argument for spiritual use.

Finally, her argument that marijuana is nothing more than a healing herb has little to do with the case at hand. Tobacco has been used as a poultice and an entheogen for hundreds of years, yet restrictions exist for this herb. The Arizona Supreme Courts deemed the claim ‘to use marijuana whenever’ for spiritual purposes to be a danger, the same as many can agree that smoking whenever can be a danger. The dangers may be cited differently, but the resulting restrictions are similar.

The courts made the right choice considering the arguments presented. Perhaps a columnist could comment on how the Supreme Court did its job to make sure previous rulings followed the rule of law, and overstepping its bounds to expand the use of recreational or spiritual drugs among the public.

Robert Rosinski

undeclared freshman

Columnist’s gun argument ignores constitutional rights

The Second Amendment reads: “”A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.””

There is an invisible line around campus that apparently is exempt from the Second Amendment and certain rights are being infringed upon — an amendment in a Constitution many brave men and women have died defending. I carried a firearm in a foreign land to defend this great nation; my constitutional rights should be honored, and not infringed upon, especially by a state board of regents.

What about the response time of campus police, what is the average from first contact to arrival, four minutes, eight, 10, 20, 30? I have a constitutional right to bear arms and protect myself. The concealed carry permit requires extensive classroom, range training and background checks. Also go back only a few years; try a crisp autumn in the year 2002 on the UA campus. A certain name has meaning to the unfortunate and preventable events that unfolded Oct. 28, 2002: Robert Flores Jr. What was the response time as he murdered three people, on two different floors of that building?

— Scott Morong

undeclared sophomore