4 - Tuesday, October 25, 2011
The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com
4 - uesay, ctoer 2, 211 Te Mchign Dily mihigadaiyco
t idlian 4 ali
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
MICHELLE DEWITT
STEPHANIE STEINBERG and EMILY ORLEY NICK SPAR
EDITOR IN CHIEF EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS MANAGING EDITOR
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily's editorial board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
Imran Syed is the public editor. He can be reached at publiceditor@michigandaily.com.
<FROM THE DAILY
Public aproval for pot
Gov. should respond to support for legalization
While a stigma aboutlegalizingmarijuana still exists, public
opinion is slowly shifting in favor of legalization. Accord-
ing to a recent Gallup poll, 50 percent of the American
public supports the legalization of marijuana. The poll indicates that
half of Americans are concerned about the country's harsh marijuana
laws. The federal government should take American opinions on this
issue seriously and make a shift toward legalizing marijuana.
HANNAH DOW
E-MAIL HANNAH AT HDOW@UMICH.EDU
The best thing about studying
for midterms:
you're never done.
Cantor comes to campus
4
The Gallup poll marks the first split of pub-
lic opinion since polling on the issue began in
1969. The number of legalization supporters
will hopefully continue to rise since younger
generations seem to be more accepting of
marijuana use - 62 percent of people polled
between the ages 18-29 supported legaliza-
tion.
A primary reason for the push for marijua-
na legalization is the appalling and costly war
on drugs. In 2008, the United States had more
people in prisons than any other nation in the
world, according to a New York Times article,
and 500,000 prisoners are in jail for drug
crimes - roughly 20 percent of all prisoners.
Enforcing the nation's marijuana laws
costs the taxpayers money. The government
employs the police force and prosecutors,
covers administrative costs of the legal sys-
tem.and pays to keep offenders in jails. Many
offenses are nonviolent and can be as trivial
as a first-time possession charge. The legaliza-
tion of marijuana would reduce government
spending and keep people who do not pose a
threat to societyout of prisons.
Marijuana legalization also has the poten-
tial to increase government revenue, by allow-
ing the.government to tax marijuana sales. A
2008 study by Harvard University economist
Jeffrey Miron estimated that legalizing and
taxing marijuana would save approximately
$7.7 billion in law enforcement costs and bring
in about $6.7 billion in tax revenue. These are
financial impacts that could have a profound
effect on rebuilding the U.S. economy.
In spite of its rising popularity, complete
legalization may still be far away. But much
can be done in the immediate future to
improve the state's medical marijuana law.
Michigan legalized medicinal marijuana in
2008, yet patients still face legal obstacles in
obtaining their prescriptions.
Across the state, medical marijuana dis-
pensaries have been closing. The current law
is challenging to understand, and the line
between legal and illegal is in many cases
extremely difficult to interpret. Michigan
lawmakers should make substantial efforts to
revise the law to reflect the will of Michigan
voters and to allow patients access to their
medigine. California has passed and imple-
mented laws that grant marijuana dispen-
saries and patients with medical marijuana
prescriptions access to marijuana. Michigan
should follow its model.
Legalizing marijuana on a federal level
would be beneficial on numerous fronts, and
the consistently increasing public support
shows that 50 percent of the American popu-
lation agrees. Enforcing marijuana laws is a
waste of taxpayer money and legalizing the
substance would, in contrast, make the nation
money. The federal government should move
to legalize possession, usage, purchase, sale
and cultivation of marijuana to make ita legal,
government regulated substance.
ook who's comingto campus!
After canceling a visit
scheduled for last March due
to severe weath-
er conditions,
House Majority
Leader Eric Can-
tor (R-Va) is set
to give a lecture
at the Michigan
League on Mon-
day. The event,
sponsored by DANIEL
the Ford School CHARDELL
of Public Policy,
will be free and
open to the public.
Cantor was planning to make a
similar visit to the Wharton School
of Business at the University of Penn-
sylvania last Friday. According to
the school's newspaper The Daily
Pennsylvanian, Cantor was slated to
deliver a much-anticipated speech on
American income inequality titled "A
Fair Shot at the American Dream &
Economic Growth," the text of which
can be found on the newspaper's
website. Given recent reports on the
widening gap between the rich and
poor in the United States, such a
speech would have been timely.
But Cantor never got around to
delivering thatspeech.
The Daily Pennsylvanian reports
that Cantor's office was under the
impression that only those affiliated
with Penn - namely, students and
faculty - were invited to attend. But
after learning that the event would
in fact be open to the general public
(the first 300 people in line would
gain entrance) Cantor called off his
appearance, apparently fearing that
protesters from Occupy Philadel-
phia - an extension of Occupy Wall
Street - would fill all the seats in the
lecture hall.
The abrupt cancellation has
sparked debate at Penn and in the
media. Charles Gray, a student at
Wharton and president of Penn Col-
lege Republicans, accused Occupy
Philly demonstrators of "hijacking
this event and making it into some-
thing that's a bit hostile." Politico
writes, "the cancellation in the face
of protests is the most recent exam-
ple of how Cantor... has emerged as
the chief object of ire for the left."
One unidentified Penn student is
quoted saying, "I think it's a little too
much to bring the protest to a college
campus." And on Twitter, the liberal
political blog Think Progress dryly
wrote, "Eric Cantor is eager to speak
on income inequality as soon as he
can find a venue that can guarantee
no poor people willbe admitted."
Where some have deemed Cantor
a coward, others place blame on the
protesters. That much was inevitable.
Accordingto Mike Morill, director of
the liberal advocacy group Keystone
Progress and one of the protesters at
Penn, demonstrators had no inten-
tion of disrupting Cantor's remarks
- they were simply there to protest
outside the building.
We'll never know, of course, what
would have happened had things
gone as planned. But I find it unfor-
tunate that Cantor didn't give pro-
testers the opportunity to prove
their civility. Rather than face them,
he disengaged altogether. Cantor
canceled because he presumed that
Occupy Philly demonstrators in the
audience would disrupt his speech
and/or ask him questions for which
he was unprepared - in any case, he
comes out looking like an out of touch
politician, and rightfully so
What does this mean for his visit
to Ann Arbor, then? Quite a lot, actu-
ally. Here's my take.
First, we should consider Can-
tor's visit to the University of
Michigan a privilege. That means
respecting him, his beliefs and his
opportunity to address our commu-
nity this Monday afternoon. This is
particularly important for those of
us who oppose Cantor's conserva-
tive ideology. No matter how much
you might disagree with him - and
trust me, I do disagree with him -
this lecture marks a rare opportu-
nity for students to hear firsthand
from one of our country's most
prominent political figures.
Students should
be respectful of
all speakers.
E
If I'm fortunate enoughto be in his
audience on Monday, I'll be there to
listen. I have no intention of infring-
ing on Cantor's ability to deliver his
lecture in its entirety - no heckling,
chanting or interruptions of any
kind - and I'd hope my peers feel
the same. We would win no sympa-
thy and make no gains if we resort
to insolence. I don't want to be can-
non fodder for the likes of Fox News.
We're better than that.
So let's make Cantor live up to
his word and tell us how Republi-
cans plan to address inequality in
America. Let's defy his expectations
of us and be civil. Let's give him no
excuse to cancel his visit to another
college campus. I hope to see Cantor
face down a respectful, level-headed,
informed audience capable of calling
into question his extremist rheto-
ric and flawed economic policies -
policies that have contributed to the
growing inequality of wealth and
opportunity in this country and the
perversion of the so-called Ameri-
can Dream.
- Daniel Chardell can be
reached at chardell@umich.edu.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS:
Aida Ali, Michelle DeWitt, Ashley Griesshammer, Nirbhay Jain, Patrick Maillet,
Erika Mayer, Harsha Nahata, Emily Orley, Teddy Papes, Timothy Rabb,
Vanessa Rychlinski, Caroline Sims, Seth Soderborg, Andrew Weiner
DHRUV MADEKA | 'W
The various sides of Occupy'
Change anti-bullying attitudes
Whether or not you believe that Occupy
Wall Street heralds the proverbial Arab
Spring of the American nation, you cannot
ignore the impact it has had on our society's
thinking. The Occupy movement has spread
like wildfire from its nascent New York home
and is shaping the expression of the growing
frustrations of people across the world.
Occupy is a difficult movement to take a
stance on. On one side of the argument, its
protesters have put forth no definite policy
agenda. This leaves a substantial fraction of
people tethering on a decision of whether to
support it while they wait for an articula-
tion of its purpose. The scope of this move-
ment shows widespread agitation, but lacks
the depth that will see reform. Despite the
absence of a coherent agenda, protesters
continue to see millions of dollars spent by
the New York Police Department to protect
both sides of this movement. And no one
can say with certainty that the movement
does not have people with a class-warfare
agenda.
These thoughts, however, don't take away
the fact that Occupy has begun to frame and
direct the discontent of our generation with
a system that has failed us. It truly is an
expression of the anger that we feel toward
the establishments that structure our world.
When I visited Zuccotti Park and then
Times Square over Fall Break, I made sure to
consider the on-goings with a skeptical eye.
On first glance, OWS seems like a hippie con-
gregation in the middle of Manhattan, with
variegated hair colors lining the crowd and
scattered tents and mattresses.
Of course, this prompted the initial reac-
tion that the media has slowly been instilling
in us - the movement is essentially aimless
and reeks of class-warfare. But after a closer
look, that perception slowly changed. Here's
what came to mind.
The protesters aren't just a bunch of out-
of-work hippies looking to complain because
other people are in a better situation than
them. When I stood near the press listening
to them speak and gazing at their signs, the
intellect of the crowd began surfacing. These
people are far from bums and leeches, they're
an organized entity trying to frame a genera-
tion's mindset around their own egalitarian
beliefs. They've also made a conscious effort
to humanize their proverbial enemy, never
blaming a single person, but rather attacking
an idea and a corporation.
The movement is far from violent. Even
though the Times Square clash has been well
recorded, I saw police officers who seemed
to agree with the people they were trying
to keep under control. They weren't there
to suppress freewill, but rather to protect it
- for both sides. This wasn't lost on the pro-
testers, who bore signs saying, "The NYPD
are still heroes." Chants of "All day, all week,
Occupy Wall Street" were interspersed with
cries of thanks to the police officers, who
smiled at the acknowledgement.
The movement is by no means perfect. The
absence of a concrete philosophy and news
of protesters attacking the police certainly
add a sour note. But the true movement,
at its heart, is not caused by boredom or a
sense of injustice at the growing disparity of
wealth. Whether you believe it's a cry of the
have-nots against the haves, or an incipient
thought that will guide us, you must be glad
that it's drawn our attention away from the
trivial things that we pass our day with to
issues whose exigency is paramount.
Dhruv Madeka is an LSA junior.
found a very refreshing head-
line on The Huffington Post last
week, "5 Reasons Why Current
Anti-Bullying
Initiatives Don't
Work."
I was pulled
into this article
because too
much of the con-
tent on the bul-
lying problem is JEREMY
about rhetoric
rather than con- LEVY
tent. Consider
last Thursday,
when the White House website
went purple for Spirit Day. Created
in October 2010, Spirit Day is a day
in which supporters wear purple in
an act of solidarity against anti-gay
bullying. President Barack Obama
spoke out against bullying in a
video that was posted on the page.
He was calm and spoke with per-
fect diction - trademark Obama.
Without a doubt, presidential sup-
port sends a strong signal that the
movement against bullying is gain-
ing ground.
Before I go on, let me be perfectly
clear that the recent surge in support
of anti-bullying measures is a great
thing. I find the "It Gets Better" web-
site very powerful. But even the most
heart-throbbing issues have a wonk-
ish side. Looking beyond the zero-
tolerance mindset of anti-bullying
speeches, there is much less discus-
sion of the real conflicts that public
figures - including teachers, school
boards, local, state and federal office
holders - will grapple with sur-
rounding the bullying issue.
So what are those issues? Let's
turn to The Huffington Post article,
written by Urban Education expert
Christopher Emdin, to find out. His
points largely show that the solu-
tions conjured in public imagina-
tion do not necessarily work on the
ground, and finding real solutions
requires more in-depth discussion
from those with experience on the
issue. Here is a brief summary of his
points:
1) "Zero-tolerance theory
backfires"
Many -anti-bullying initiatives
impose severe punishments that only
demonize bullies and do not remedy
the cause of their behavior.
2) "Avoiding social media is not
a solution"
Bullying is rampant on social
media because children view it as
separate from reality. The solution is
to teach them that their behavior on
the Internet is just as real as in the
classroom.
3) "We address bullying with
celebrity, not expertise"
While celebrities bring attention
to the issue, they cannot offer much
advice in terms of effective policies
and programs.
4) "We forget that the bullied
and the bully are both children"
By punishing children as if they
are adults, we do little to changetheir
behavior.
5) "We turn a blind eye to adult
bullying"
Adults engage in name-calling
and other bullying tactics all the
time. The author uses politicians and
sports casters as prominent figures
who publicly bully.
My main comment is in regard to
the fifth point, and to some degree,
the second. Bullying - among both
adults and children - is an inher-
ently vague concept.
As a kid, I was always perplexed
when adults told me that it wasn't
ok to make jokes at other peoples'
expense. Because wherever you look,
most people do make jokes at the
expense of others. Roommates chide
each other about everything, while
stand-up comedy ranges from teas-
ing to outrageously offensive. Among
adults, I simply don't think this is
going to change. Ending "adult-bul-
lying" would require altering humor
as weknowit(andifyouthink"adult-
bullying" is new, read Aristophanes).
The question with kids is where
to draw the line between teasing and
bullying. On one extreme, we can
all agree that slurs - homophobic,
racist or otherwise - are complete-
ly unacceptable. Similarly, we can
probably all remember high school
peers who were blatantly singled out
and bullied. But beyond such cases,
defining what constitutes bullying
is not easy. In my mind, this is a key
reason why zero-tolerance punish-
ments are impractical.
Even emotional
issues have a
wonkish side.
0
Overall, I think my biggest point
aligns with Emdin's third point.
Addressing bullying with celebrity
and not expertise is similar to talk-
ing with rhetoric but no substance.
Public figures make it sound like
society knows exactly how to solve
the bullying problem when, really,
there are lots of issues to talk about.
Anti-bullying campaigns are doing
a fantastic job raising awareness.
But will the campaigns ultimately
be effective? I've read several opin-
ion pieces in The Michigan Daily
saying that Michigan's state gov-
ernment is irresponsible for not
passing legislation on the issue.
They didn't say anything about the
legislation's quality.
- Jeremy Levy can be reached
at jeremlev@umich.edu.
4 1