I think it is irresponsible for a school to disregard a changing social environment. It’s archaic and close-minded. It’s also extremely shortsighted to even consider an ‘increase in marijuana use’ based upon the passage of Question 2 (‘BUPD, ORL disagree on change in BU pot presence,’ March 3). As such a highly esteemed university, this shortsightedness comes off as extreme stupidity. Look at the facts: Question 2 decriminalized the possession of an ounce or less of marijuana. Marijuana is the most common drug being used aside from alcohol and caffeine. Wouldn’t it seem logical that Question 2 simply took a lot of stress off the backs of marijuana users? There hasn’t been a rise in use, as stated by the Office of Residence Life. Incorrect as usual. There has only been a rise in less conspicuous marijuana use. Without the threat of police action, why bother sneaking around? It is unbelievable that anyone would even consider saying that. In all, laws adapt to a changing environment. If there was any rise in marijuana use in this case, it was the entire state of Massachusetts leading up to the passage of the law. Otherwise, the law wouldn’t have even passed or been introduced in the first place. Just because same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts a few years ago doesn’t mean that there was a rise in the gay population. Either of those laws was passed in response to a different world and a demand for laws to accommodate that.
Richard Su
CAS ’11
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
