The UC system prides itself on providing quality higher education for residents of California. However, it currently lacks the ability to meet this goal because it is not responsive enough to its customers: the students. Intellectuals and pundits have argued over the reasons for California’s sagging educational performance for the better part of a decade, but they tend to ignore input from the students for whom the educational system exists.

If the self-pronounced education experts consulted with students, they would find solutions to the real issues that need be addressed. The flaws range from complex national issues like book prices, to institutional shortcomings like tenure policies that prioritize research over teaching ability, and often lead to vague, standardized lectures and over-reliance on Power Point presentations.

In the case of the college textbook market, supply and demand are controlled by professors and major publishing companies, not the actual customers. The publishing companies have a natural interest in selling as many new books as possible. Professors, who can earn hundreds of thousands of dollars per contract, have an incentive to continue renewing with the publishing companies. In order to prevent resale, the companies and professors collaborate to make minor adjustments to the old edition, forcing students to buy the newest version each year or else risk compatibility issues with the lesson plan. The result is a never ending cycle. It’s what many economists have dubbed a “broken market”. Sadly, the “broken” theme isn’t restricted to textbooks.

Tenure policies at many institutions of higher education can be a good way to retain professors who might not be very well paid. However, many schools have prioritized the standing research of their faculty over the ability of professors to efficiently pass on knowledge to students. This prompts the question: What does it mean to be a high ranking university? Unfortunately, intellectual accomplishments and groundbreaking research bolster the perceived prestige of an institution and garner more attention than world-class instructors. After all, it’s much flashier for a university to claim to be home to the professor who discovered time-travel than it is to claim that your professors did the best job of educating students on the discovery. Again, the students’ interests are not adequately addressed by a policy that seeks to protect entrenched interests in education.

The issue of declining quality of education boils down to conflicts of interest like these. Administrators, politicians and countless education boards have convinced the public that the problem lies in the underfunding of education. There is enough money to maintain a system of quality education, but only if the students hold universities accountable.

Many incoming freshmen to the University of California were made aware of the issue by a series of angry riots throughout the 2009-2010 school year. However, the protesters inaccurately characterized the situation as a stark “good guy, bad guy” conflict between the students and the administration, and gave incoming freshmen a false view of an important issue: their tuition. Students should know the facts of the matter, which were generally absent from the shouts and signs of the protesting masses.

Of course, nobody likes to pay more, but the plan approved by the Regents came about due to state spending cuts made necessary by a bad economy and plummeting revenues. Consequently, the University of California is expected to encounter a $1.2 billion budget gap this year. In order to bridge that gap, the administration has had to make several difficult but necessary choices. This has meant furlough days, increases in out-of-state enrollment, and program cuts. Despite these efforts, the University still could not sustain its prestige without making further adjustments. The recent student fee increase will generate an additional $913 million in order to prevent additional cuts that would adversely affect the quality of education. As UC President Mark Yudof stated, “We’re being forced to impose a user tax on our students and their families.” Although it is painful for a student to see his tuition increased by 32% from the previous year, this change is vital for our underfunded university.

Protesters often claim that poorer students will be hit hardest by this new development and will no longer be able to continue their education. This argument is a result of an apparent lack of research and knowledge on the part of the protesters, who hear the words “fee increase” and immediately raise their signs, interrupt classes, take over university buildings, and block streets and highways. In fact, a new financial aid program known as the Blue and Gold Opportunity Plan will offset the cost of the fee increase for resident students whose family income is less than $70,000. Additionally, half of the fee increase will be covered for resident students with a family income below $120,000. This is made possible by an additional $175 million budgeted towards financial aid.

Despite the widespread protests against the tuition increase, students at UC Berkeley voted in favor of the expensive “B.E.A.R.S. Initiative” 70-30 during the 2010 student elections. According to the initiative’s website, the $220 million project aims to “revitalize Lower Sproul, emphasize sustainability, and promote student interests,” and will retrofit Eshleman Hall, renovate the Student Union building, and create a meditation space, among other unnecessary additions and modifications. Roughly half of the project will be funded by the University, with the remaining $110 million supported by new student fees in the next few decades. The approval of the B.E.A.R.S. Initiative reflects an inconsistency among the vast number of students who were protesting tuition increases throughout last year. It shows how quickly many students at UC Berkeley turn against their own alleged opinions and it reveals a lack of realism concerning the financial issues facing students.

Students are free to believe what they want, but when large numbers of protesters misrepresent the issue of tuition increases, it significantly skews the views of other students who haven’t had the time to research the matter. The incoming freshman class at UC Berkeley should explore all the facts before constructing an opinion. An informed opinion is the best immunity against the ignorant groupthink of a protesting mob.

Land for peace has never worked in history except for one exception: Israel’s relinquishing of the Sinai to Egypt in 1979. However, the peace with Egypt was more of an exception to the rule rather than the norm, as other Arab states have not made any attempts for peace such as Jordan and Egypt. In 1993, when Israel yielded sovereignty over the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority, the Palestinians never followed through with their promise to end propaganda attacks and recognize Israel’s right to exist. The Palestinian National Charter still calls for Israel’s destruction.

History does not need another Neville Chamberlain. In 2005, Israel removed all Jews from the Gaza Strip without condition except for one: Gilad Shalit, an Israeli held by the terrorist organization Hamas. In return, Israel received an onslaught of terrorist attacks with over 8,000 rocket attacks launched from evacuated Jewish communities. We cannot allow the Arabs to call for more of Israel to be declared a Judenrein. We also cannot afford sacrificing another six million Jews at the hand of present-day dictators who preach hatred for the Jewish people and the Jewish State.

The truth is that the Arabs have not done enough to seek peace. The PA continues to glorify terrorists by naming town squares after “martyrs” and spreading propaganda in school textbooks. Israel recognizes all Arab countries but they have yet to do the same with Israel as a Jewish State. Israel has continuously sought direct talks rather than indirect proximity talks. The Palestinians continue to demand preconditions for direct negotiations, however these stipulations should be agreed upon by both parties.

Meanwhile, Israel has constantly shown its commitment. For the first time, a right-wing government has accepted and is determined to negotiate a two-state solution. Prime Minister Netanyahu has put in a place a moratorium on new construction in the West Bank and has removed approximately 409 checkpoints and roadblocks since April 2008. Within the month of June 2010, Israel dismantled 52 alone. The Arabs and Palestinians are reversing the progress made in the past, as neither Yasir Arafat nor Mahmoud Abbas have ever made preconditions about settlements, Jerusalem, or borders before their direct negotiations.

Pressure on Israel impedes progress, as Israel will not negotiate when it feels like it is endangered. Israel has sought the security and peace of both its people and its neighbors since its founding in 1948. Campaigns to delegitimize Israel, a lack of normalization and diplomacy, and unreasonable preconditions only serve to continue the conflict. Israel has shown it is ready to make peace. When will the Arabs and Palestinians do the same?

First, it is important to recognize exactly what is being proposed. First of all, the online UC will essentially function as a separate, virtual campus. Any degrees earned will not be from a specific campus. For example, I could not move back to Sacramento and earn my UC Berkeley political science degree from my couch. Furthermore, contrary to what some seem to think, the classes will still be taught by full rank professors and supplemented with GSI contact, exactly as they are now.

So let’s look of the claim by the faculty and graduate student unions, that the quality of a UC degree will be cheapened by the online campus. Upon examination, this argument is ludicrous and those who are promoting it probably shouldn’t be teaching at any UC, online or otherwise, if they actually believe it. The University of California currently has ten campuses and each issues its own degrees. A degree from UC Berkeley is different from a degree from UC Riverside and any employer or graduate school knows it. The online campus presumably would also have its own degrees. The quality of a UC Berkeley or UCLA degree won’t be hampered by the opening of an online university any more than it was diminished by the opening of UC Merced.

The real reason that faculty and graduate students oppose the online university is that they fear it would make them less needed. This may be true – it would seem likely that an online university would need less instructors since a lecture could be viewed by an infinite number of students (though Edley disagrees with this, nothing that instructors would still be needed for grading and answering student questions). While instructors losing jobs certainly is not a good thing, it is important to note that the argument is based on self interest, not concern for students or the institution as a whole.

The other group that has been screaming and howling about the “cyber UC” has been the left wing activist contingent. They claim that it is a furthering of the “privatization” of the UC, the label attached to just about anything they disagree with. The logic behind this claim is a mystery. I suppose the argument might be that they believe the university should demand more money from the legislature instead of looking for other creative sources of revenue. This of course is absurd – even if the legislature was prepared to give more money to the UC system (earth to protesters, they aren’t – that’s supposedly why you are in the streets, remember?) that would be no excuse for the university to not look at other sources of revenue and for ways to cut back.

I am guessing the real motivation behind the activist wing is that they are concerned about the jobs that might be lostand are sticking up for their union buddies. Ultimately however, the university is not a jobs program. Like any other institution, it cannot give people jobs just for the sake of them having jobs. That’s the quickest path to bankruptcy (or actual instead of imagined privatization).

While there are still a lot of details left to be revealed, plans for an online UC should not be derailed by the concerns brought forward so far. Almost exclusively, they seem to show more of a concern for union jobs then the overall health of the institution.

It’s a Cal football tradition. After the band concludes playing its traditional pump up pregame show, it leads the stadium, Cal and visiting fans alike, in a rendition of the national anthem: “And the rockets’ BLUE glare, …, For the land of the freeeeee, and the home of the BEARS!!!” Okay, not quite what Francis Scott Key intended. But it is what many Cal fans, the student section in particular, recite when the Golden Bears prepare to take the field. It is also a feature at basketball games, volleyball, rugby, and any other event where a critical mass of Cal fans are on hand for a rendition of the national anthem.

As an avid Cal fan, this is one tradition that has troubled me ever since I arrived on campus two years ago. It just doesn’t seem right to change the words to the national anthem. My sentiments are not shared by most of my fellow rabid Cal fans, however. They inform me that the alterations are in good taste, and indeed quite patriotic. The fact that we care enough to change the words means that we still care enough about the song to pay attention to it, one said. Another said that it is better to sing an altered version than none at all. Yet another, a pyrotechnic fanatic, informed me that it is likely the rockets Francis Scott Key saw on that fateful September 1814 night in Baltimore were actually blue, not red. Apparently he was colorblind.

I agree that there is no intent to disrespect the nation, the flag, or those who serve it. It’s simply Cal students’ way to have a little fun. However, intending to cause no disrespect doesn’t mean that others may not perceive it as such. I have heard from numerous opposing fans, casual Cal fans, and even some Old Blues who are shocked and offended upon hearing the Cal anthem for the first time. Consider this comment posted on a UCLA message board after last year’s Cal-UCLA game at the Rose Bowl: “I used to actually respect that university [Cal] but after seeing their fans chanting or whatever they were doing that was not singing the national anthem while the rest of the stadium was I have lost most if not all the respect I had for them,” wrote Bruin fan “Ed.”

Keep in mind that this was following a game in which the Bears spanked UCLA 45-26, which included an epic 93 yard touchdown run by Javid Best. It was no surprise that Bruin fans were annoyed. Yet instead of simply being peeved at the Bears for being so much better than his beloved team, Cal fans gave this fan a legitimate reason to attack our university.

But more than that, the alterations ignore the true purpose of the national anthem. It is sung or played at sporting events to remind players, coaches, and spectators of the reason they can play the game in a safe andfree country – our brave men and women in uniform. It is a time for unity, a time for both sides to come together and celebrate our nation and our freedom. It’s a subtle reminder that sporting events are merely entertaining distractions – the truly meaningful competition takes place on battlefields around the world, with much more than a trophy (or an Axe) at stake.

The Star Spangled Banner should never be a Cal spirit song. While seemingly creative and harmless, doing so undermines the one moment of unity among the crowd (unless it is the annual rugby game against the University of British Columbia, in which case all bets are off). The rest of the game will pit the teams and fans against one another – surely the competition can pause for just a minute to honor our country.

On September 11, the ninth anniversary of that terrible day, the Cal Bears will take the field against the Colorado Buffalos. How special would it be if 70,000 Cal and Colorado fans alike could join in a stirring rendition of our nation’s greatest song on that tragic day.

Last semester seemed to be a particularly momentous one for identity politics on campus. With the Compton Cookout scandal at UC San Diego, the ASUC’s attempted passage of the Israeli divestment bill, and Arizona’s new immigration reforms, it seemed like every ethnic organization had something to protest.

Various cultural groups protesting some angle of these three events regularly blocked Sather Gate. The streets of Berkeley ran wild with students claiming to be victims of hatred because of some distant conflict or law. While these students have every right to freedom of expression under the First Amendment, the justifications behind many of their racial protests are questionable. In other words, just because these groups have the right to protest does not mean that the reasoning behind their activism is right.

These ethnic organizations’ protests are not objectionable because their views on current events are “incorrect.” On the contrary, many of the events that stimulated their protests were concerning and justified activism. However, the protests were not simply reactions to controversial news. Many of the groups’ demonstrations made broad accusations of rampant racism right here at UC Berkeley.

For example, when members of Cal’s African-American community staged their “Blackout” protest in early March, they also passed out flyers that alleged the existence of “a deeper issue that plagues the University of California as a whole — a continued marginalization of the Black student body.” The flyers also contained a list of “racist incidents” that occurred around campus. Although some of the grievances listed on the flyer were of serious concern, most of the claims were greatly exaggerated, such as the UC Police Department’s routine walking of a canine unit through campus, which happened to coincide with a black protest. The flyer also listed the Daily Californian’s factual reporting of the higher murder rate among African-Americans than among whites. This exaggerated discourse only foments hatred and paints a false portrait of racism at Berkeley. While it would be ridiculous to assert that racism is nonexistent at Cal, it would be equally absurd to claim, as the Blackout’s flyer and similar racial protests do, that it is omnipresent.

Ironically, by making such a big deal about non-existent racial issues, these ethnic organizatiorganizations do not diminish racism but rather promote it.

Perhaps the best example of this de facto promotion of racism was the swastika incident at the Clark Kerr Campus. In April of last year, a swastika was found drawn in pen on a wall in a Clark Kerr dormitory hall. The administration promptly emailed all residents of Clark Kerr about the incident and eventually emailed the entire campus. Subsequently, a large group of Jewish students protested the swastika in a demonstration that blocked Sather Gate. Not surprisingly, three more swastikas were found on the campus following the protest. Apparently, some ignoramus seized upon the publicity to make the scandal appear like an epidemic.

Although the act of vandalism was clearly unjustified, it isn’t surprising that an immature student would exploit the hypersensitivity of the time to make Berkeley’s administration go berserk.

Of course, the parties responsible for the vandalism should, if caught, be charged with damaging university property. However, by inflating the situation, the administration and the ethnic community invited further similar acts. By creating a witch-hunt atmosphere on campus, these groups were allowing students to exploit it.

Instead of promoting division on campus through hypersensitivity, as these recent protests have done, we should ignore isolated incidents such as the swastika at Clark Kerr. Instead of segregating students by race, as these ethnic organizations do, we should view race as an irrelevant factor in our interactions with other people. Wouldn’t a racist be pleased to see that the voluntary segregation on display in Sproul Plaza? Until Berkeley’s ethnic organizations understand the unintended consequences of their race-baiting, racial tension on campus will continue to be manufactured by the very people who claim to be fighting against it.

With the ASUC elections over, students can finally walk through campus without being hassled by persistent campaigners looking to preach their party’s agenda to anyone willing to listen. While every student group has a right to be heard, one party’s agenda defies logical sense and threatens UC Berkeley’s status as a prestigious university.

The Defend Affirmative Action Party, or DAAP, supports policies that would significantly damage the reputation of our school. As their name suggests, DAAP seeks to increase the role that affirmative action plays in admissions. These affirmative action advocates argue that their proposed policy modifications would create a more diverse student body. In reality, affirmative action fosters racism, discrimination, and segregation, since admissions officers would be forced to base their decisions on irrelevant racial and socio-economic criteria. These policies would undermine the most important aspect of the admissions decision making process: merit.

Much of the Defend Affirmative Action Party platform is in lockstep with modern left-wing ideals. However, two of their goals go beyond typical liberal foolishness and cross into the realm of the absurd. They call for the removal of standardized tests as a factor in college admissions and for equal treatment of illegal immigrants – including taxpayer subsidies and financial aid – by the University.

According to their Facebook page, DAAP will attempt to “mobilize to eliminate the SAT I and II requirement for UC admissions”. They justify this stance on the grounds that the SATs are “discriminatory high stakes standardized tests that unfairly denies [sic] opportunities and stigmatizes minority students, women, rural students, and poor and middle-class students of all races”. Although high school students of all backgrounds would love to see the SAT eliminated, the use of standardized testing across high schools is a necessary tool for evaluating prospective students. Judging academic ability on GPA alone is a highly imperfect process because of discrepancies in academic standards among high schools. Some high schools weigh GPAs differently than others, and teachers’ grading styles can vary a great deal. For example, one school might offer honors courses that translate to a non-honors level of difficulty by another school’s standards.

DAAP also argues that the SAT promotes discrimination. They say that the SAT is biased towards students that are more familiar with American culture. For example, a reading and comprehension section of the test that includes a passage about baseball could seem foreign to a recent immigrant to the United States. Although cultural and regional biases might prove difficult for some students to overcome, succeeding at an American university requires some familiarity with American culture. Furthermore, questions of that nature rarely rely on detailed knowledge of the particulars of our culture. Therefore, it is fair game for SATs to contain some particularly “American” subject matter.

Similarly, DAAP argues that performance on the SATs is based on socioeconomic status; those with a wealthy or upper middle class background can afford extravagant preparatory classes, review materials, and can take the test more than once. Lower income classes, which contain a disproportional number of immigrants, minorities, and rural folk, do not enjoy these luxuries. This argument does not stand because of the variety of standardized test resources available at low or no cost whatsoever. Students can use free online test preparation guides and can obtain ample practice test materials from bookstores and public libraries.

Another DAAP proposal is what they call “full and equal rights for all immigrants”. DAAP hopes to make UC Berkeley a sanctuary campus, and believes that “with and without papers, we are ALL Californians”. This ignores the fact that illegal immigrants acquire social welfare and medical aid without paying taxes. Freeloading illegal immigrants pose a threat to the sustainability of our social service programs. Standards of living are much higher in the United States and our social services are generous compared with many developing nations. It would be a mistake to provide additional incentives to come to the United States illegally by expanding the number of services available to the children of illegal immigrants, especially when doing so compromises the financial solvency of the “social safety net”. By encouraging even more relaxed enforcement of illegal immigration, DAAP reveals how irrational and ideological their party’s platform is.

The Defend Affirmative Action Party reflects poorly upon the University of California. Their extreme ideas, such as eliminating the SAT as a college admission factor and encouraging additional entitlements for illegal immigrants, are illogical even by Berkeley standards. For now, The DAAP agenda is politically unfeasible and will probably not come to pass. Fortunately, they represent a fringe group that enjoys neither popular nor electoral support.

The UC system has had autonomous control over its operations since 1879. Yee claims is that the UC system’s autonomy is at the root of the compensation controversy and the impenetrable disclosure practices that have recently come under fire. He cited “questionable conduct” as the key problem of the UC Board of Regents, particularly their decision to use tobacco industry funding to support research programs. Should the bill be passed, the state legislature would be granted the ability to make administrative decisions concerning matters such as executive pay and the distribution of research funds. The process used for electing regents would change also. Currently, UC regents are elected through a majority vote by the state senate, while CSU administrators are appointed by the governor and then approved by a two-thirds vote from the state senate.

Critics of Yee’s proposal argue that the main issues facing the UC system are a result of the poor distribution of funds within the state, a problem that is best addressed by modifications to the budget. Many have cited the state’s current budget crisis as proof that the legislature is not sufficiently competent to take on the administration of the UC system, which remains one of the state’s more fortuitous enterprises. Furthermore, many top UC officials are concerned that the legislature might be tempted to encroach upon the academic freedom of our universities. In response, Yee’s communications director Adam Keigwin claimed that the state rarely interferes with the academic policies of the CSU system. He explained, “All we are saying is that there should be some accountability here. [Under the present system], if you don’t like something that happens at UC, too bad. We can pass statutes and it applies to CSU but our hands are tied with UC.” However, skeptics point to the excessive burdens imposed on CSU by the legislature. The state interferes with decisions ranging from the purchase of police vehicles to the institution of new academic programs.

Representatives of the UC system have vocalized disapproval of the bill, citing the lack of familiarity that legislators have with various educational institutions. Karen Zamarripa, CSU’s assistant vice chancellor for advocacy and state relations, claims that the UC governing boards are better equipped to handle internal policies such as the establishment of salary rates. She explained further that giving the legislature more control is unnecessary, since the UC system almost always cooperates with legislative requests.

The state’s share of the UC budget has been reduced to 15% of the original $19 billion budget, but the UC’s are still dependent on the state funds that are approved by the legislature. As a result, legislators currently enjoy some control over the regent’s decisions by using monetary incentives. Zamarripa says, “What they really want to do is get into the micromanagement of the organization, and that has not been helpful for us. I’m not sure what they get here except to interfere in areas that are not appropriate. They have control of UC’s budget and they can publicly pressure them.”

Furthermore, concerns have arisen over how the added control over the UC’s could be used to advance ulterior motives. Legislative control over the institution may cause the UC system to become a tool of political or cultural ideology for the State’s administration, as has been the case for the CSU system, according to its Board of Trustees.

Should the bill and a subsequent amendment be passed, the legislature will gain significant power over everything from the general budget to the curriculum. However, a clause was added to the bill prohibiting the Legislature from “enacting any law that restrains academic freedom, as defined, or imposes educational or curricular requirements on students enrolled at the University of California.” Although the UC Regents have made administrative mistakes in the past, it remains to be seen whether SCA 21 would improve the processes by which the UC’s are governed.

This November, Californians will decide whether or not to become the first state to go against federal drugs laws and legalize recreational use of marijuana for adults over the age of 21. Practical people of all ideological stripes will raise valid arguments for and against the ballot initiative, which proposes the taxation and regulation of all cannabis products within state borders. However, thoughtful analysis is likely to be mixed with misinformation and exaggeration of the costs and benefits of the act.

Most existing statutes regarding marijuana would be unchanged by the law. Driving while under the influence would remain illegal, although there is currently no effective method for testing drivers suspected of intoxication on the spot. Selling to minors would still be punished by a stiff prison sentence of three to seven years, depending on the age of the buyer. Also, smoking cannabis products in public would remain a misdemeanor accompanied by a $100 fine, akin to the punishment for drinking alcohol in public. To the extent that our laws currently deter these activities, they would continue to do so under the proposed new law.

The bill would legalize private consumption and possession of up to one ounce of bud, the smoke-able part of the cannabis plant. It would also allow individuals to cultivate the plant on a twenty-five square foot parcel, but only on private property and for personal usage. The terms of legal buying and selling would be set by local governments, who already oversee medical marijuana dispensaries in cities like Oakland, Berkeley and Los Angeles. All transactions would be subject to the 8.25% state sales tax, as well as federal, income, and additional excise taxes which many local governments would inevitably impose, as they do with alcohol and cigarettes.

The immediate fiscal impact of legalization would be unambiguously positive. Countless resources are spent each year enforcing laws that most police officers agree are draconian and unjust. In addition to creating thousands of new jobs in the burgeoning pot industry, new tax revenue would help local governments that allow dispensaries to operate to make up for budget shortfalls. Incarceration rates will fall as well, saving the State money on prison administration. Allowing recreational marijuana users to generate wealth instead of languishing in prison would also improve the long term economic prospects of the state.

At this point, accurate estimates of the total additional revenue from the taxation of marijuana are impossible to calculate since we cannot predict how the market for marijuana will respond to a change in its legal status. If additional taxes are set too high, people might choose to continue buying marijuana on the black market, or grow it themselves. Revenue figures that are presented as fact should be taken lightly. Also, a potential new stream of revenue could represent a danger for state government, which has a reputation for spending beyond its means based on unrealistic forecasts of future revenues.

Taxing marijuana does not represent a solution to the state’s insolvent fiscal path. Debates over the long-term mental and physical health effects of marijuana have proved inconclusive. Unfortunately, rigorous laboratory studies will remain difficult to conduct until the drug is legalized due to prohibitions on testing the effects of illegal drugs such as pot. It is widely accepted, however, that marijuana is far less addictive than tobacco, and less carcinogenic at typical levels of consumption. Plus, unlike alcohol, marijuana is not linked to violent or erratic behavior.

Concerns that the proposed changes in the law could make marijuana more accessible to children seem unfounded. Already, eighty-five percent of high school seniors nationwide say that marijuana is “easy to get.” Under the new law, street dealers would be crowded out by legitimate cannabis clubs in cities that allowed them, and adults caught furnishing minors with marijuana would bear the full brunt of the law. Minors would undoubtedly still have access to marijuana, but a change in the law would shift responsibility from our overburdened justice system back to where it belongs: parents of teenagers.

Opponents argue that a change in the law could result in a cultural shift towards greater acceptability of drug use in general. The ever-popular “gateway drug” theory suggests that marijuana is frequently just the first step for many youth before moving on to harder drugs like ecstasy, cocaine and LSD. This kind of causal chain is difficult to identify empirically, but experience in European countries such as the Netherlands, which liberalized its marijuana policy more than twenty years ago, indicates that laxer drug policies do not necessarily lead to higher rates of hard drug use among children or adults.

In the city of Berkeley, marijuana laws are given the lowest possible priority by local law enforcement. Look no further than Memorial Glade on the stoner holiday “4/20” for proof that our current marijuana laws are neither respected nor enforced. Each year, on April 20th, dozens of students gather to light up in celebration of the city’s free-spirited ethos and relaxed enforcement policies. The perception that the rule of law is not enforced damages public respect even for legitimate laws regarding substance use. In all likelihood, legalization of marijuana would further diminish whatever remaining stigma is still associated with getting high in certain parts of California. Some will claim that legalizing marijuana is synonymous with endorsing it. These social critics of mind altering drug-use are entitled to voice their opinions in any number of forums, including the democratic process. However, the broad charge of social cost is subject to a strong burden of proof when it is used to deny responsible adults the right to engage in a private activity. New temptations mean that individuals must take on more responsibility for their actions. Personal responsibility means that individuals reap the rewards and suffer the losses of their decisions. This is a central value of a free society.

Two years after supporters of Alaskan and coastal oil drilling responded to peaking gas prices with the mantra, “drill, baby, drill”, Obama finally got the message – that opening up US oil resources would be necessary to help the country pull out of its weak economy and into stronger growth.

Obama’s proposal would open up parts of the Atlantic coast, Alaska, and the Gulf of Mexico to oil and natural gas exploration, with enormous potential for fueling economic growth. Even though those oil supplies would take years to get on the market, merely having prohibitions lifted signals to markets that future supplies will not be as scarce, which will likely lower prices for oil futures contracts. This may have immediate effects on the short term price even though new oil is not brought to market in the short term. As oil does hit markets in future years, we can expect it to be used to generate vast amounts of wealth.

Currently, the amount of coastal oil resources at our disposal is largely unknown. Oil exploration is only done by those who have an interest in it: oil companies. Because of the longstanding prohibition on drilling, there was very little incentive to find untapped oil sources. Current estimates, based on thirty year old seismic data, predict about 3 years worth of fuel, which is no small amount. When exploration begins in earnest, and with the aid of modern technology, chances are fair we’ll have far more domestic oil supply than this. Unfortunately, that would only be the case if Obama’s plan actually involved starting drilling operations.

Obama’s plan begins with the Interior Department conducting extensive surveys along the coast to determine environmental and geologic suitability for development, and that may be where it ends. Since the ultimate decision on whether or not to allow drilling will come from either Obama’s successor, an unelected bureaucrat, or (a likely-Democrat controlled) Congress, actual drilling operations can be stalled or blocked, despite today’s promises. A likely avenue might lay in citation of environmentalist concerns that oil will cause damage to ocean wildlife, either as part of the drilling/development or due to potential spills. Let us also bear in mind that high energy prices are a stated goal of the environmental movement, so the “greens” have no ideological reason to weigh human economic needs against real – or perceived – environmental problems. There does exist enormous potential to obstruct drilling, and politicians or bureaucrats will likely find it in their interests to impede oil harvesting. Skeptics of this prediction need only look at the Central American Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA, which was negotiated years ago and never ratified due to union, agriculture, and other interest groups’ lobbying and recalcitrant Democrats in the Senate.

Granted, Obama did suggest during his campaign that he might support domestic oil production, so it may be disingenuous to be so skeptical about the prospects of its implementation. On the other hand, many of his other promises have been broken in the face of backlash from other prominent Democrats. Obama is probably aware of the political risks he’s taking, and it’s very possible he will reconsider his commitment to human economic needs if it endangers his assumption of power in other areas.

The fascinating part about Obama’s proposal lies mostly in his impeccable timing. Since the recently-passed health insurance regulations have not been phased in yet, the interest groups that would support them have not rallied together to create a powerful voter-bloc. That means the time to roll back the most pernicious of these regulations (e.g. the individual mandate) is now. By giving oil drilling the national limelight now, he distracts the country from the recent health insurance regulation laws. Whether this is a deliberate attempt to channel the rage of limited-government grassroots activists and right wing fixtures such as Coulter and Limbaugh away from some of the biggest powergrabs of modern memory remains to be seen, but it certainly has the potential to distract attention-deficit media and the rank-and-file voter. No matter how much energy (or associated wealth) we get by drilling, it will never be worth the damage caused by both those insurance regulations and the precedent of nearly limitless Federal power they set.