Pot a drinking alternative

Students at two Colorado college campuses rocked by alcohol-related deaths last year are pressing school officials to lighten up on marijuana users.
Claiming that marijuana is safer then alcohol, activist at the University of Colorado in Boulder and Colorado State University, want sanctions for the use and possession of marijuana to be no greater then those imposed for underage drinking.
Students signed petitions last week to have the measure put on the ballots during student elections next month. The initiatives also ask administrators to conduct a study to determine the effect of making marijuana use non-punishable for student older then 18.
The vote will be non-binding at CU and CSU.
But if the measures pass, they will send a message that students think a few puffs from a joint are a lot safer then a several mugs of beer, said Mason Tvert, executive director for SAFER (Safer Alternatives for Enjoyable Recreation).
“If a fraternity told a freshman to go into the woods and smoke a pound of pot, he is not going to die from that,” said Tvert, a recent University of Virginia graduate. “He’ll fall asleep before that happens.”
Tvert claims that too much police time and money are spent on marijuana enforcement, while it is alcohol that claims lives. At least 1,400 college student deaths each year are linked to alcohol, according to the National Institute of Health.
But, Tvert said, there has never been a reported case of a student dying from a marijuana overdose.
“Our stance is that alcohol is more acceptable in our society and that is just bad public policy,” he said.
Marijuana is an illegal substance, use of which can draw fines and jail time. Students caught with pot can be suspended from school.
Both CU and CSU had a student die last year from alcohol poisoning. Their deaths led to several changes aimed at curtailing alcohol abuse and to proposals in the Colorado legislature to tighten penalties for underage drinking
Marijuana should we legalize it? Cast your vote in the comments.

Should guns be outlawed? Vote below

The setting in which the Second Amendment was proposed and adopted demonstrates that the right to bear arms is a collective one, existing only in the collective population of each state for the purpose of maintaining aneffective state militia.
The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms.
Nor does the ACLU believe that there is a significant civil liberties value apart from the Second Amendment in an individual right to own or use firearms. Interests of privacy and self-expression may be involved in any individual's choice of activities or possessions, but these interests are attenuated where the activity, or the object sought to be possessed, is inherently dangerous to others. With respect to firearms, the ACLU believes that this quality of dangerousness justifies legal regulation which substantially restricts the individual's interest in freedom of choice.

Should guns be removed from society?
please cast your vote in the comments