HTTP/1.0 200 OK Content-Type: text/html
Pubdate: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 Source: Student Life, The (CA Edu) Copyright: 2010 Associated Students of Pomona College Contact: http://www.tsl.pomona.edu/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/4294 Author: Leslie Carter STUDENTS RESPOND TO ELECTION RESULTS Passage Of Prop. 19 Would Have Caused Little Change On Campus For those of you who missed the propaganda advertisements on TV, the older women in visors with plastic picket signs, and the rampant listserv e-mails, Tuesday was Election Day. But even if you already knew that, you might have been aware of only a couple of the propositions that were on the ballot. Propositions 19 and 23 drew most of the attention around campus. So it's no wonder that, while the environmentalists among us are celebrating, some students who do not hold medical marijuana cards have been cursing the backwards-thinking traditionalists who defeated Prop. 19. However, according to the Deans of Students from both Pitzer and Pomona Colleges, Prop. 19 would have had very little, if any, effect on college life as we know it. One of the things that enables the colleges to function is federal funding for programs like financial aid and work-study employment. Receiving federal funding entails that the federal government have the final say in what is, and what is not, allowed on the schools' campuses. Pomona Dean of Campus Life Ric Townes explained that the federal government has the power to withdraw its funding from the colleges. While the passage of Prop. 19 would have legalized marijuana in California, it would not have changed federal law, under which the drug would have remained illegal. Given the choice between allowing students to smoke pot on campus and government funding, colleges would have certainly chosen the latter. Proponents of Prop. 19 argued that taxing and regulating the sale of marijuana would help with state budget issues, while the opposition implied that it would be detrimental to society if the state allowed its residents to get high whenever they chose to. However, it seems that we will have to wait and see if this controversial issue will come to a conclusion in the near or far future. Many students insist that California's rejection of Prop. 19 was foolish. "I don't know why California would turn down an opportunity to get more money when they're so poor already," Keith McHugh PO '12 said. Bob Lutz PO '13, though also disappointed by Prop. 19's failure, was optimistic about the possibility of legalizing marijuana in the near future. "Prop. 19 didn't have a chance [this year], but they're going to bring it up in 2012 and it's going to pass, because people are getting more and more liberal by the day in California," he said. Many 5C students did get some measure of satisfaction after the elections, however, as Prop. 23 was decisively voted down. In case you haven't seen the posters around campus, Prop. 23 called for the suspension of AB 32, California's air pollution control law. If Prop. 23 passed, companies and businesses would not have been held to the standards ratified by the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. What was hailed as the country's most comprehensive emissions reduction act would have been put on hold until unemployment, now at about 12.4 percent, was reduced to 5.5 percent. In other words, had the proposition passed, our days of being able to see Mount Baldy from campus might have been numbered. "I'm really glad about 23 not passing," said Scott Humbarger PO '12, who considered the measure a potentially grave blow to the environment. "I think a lot of the economic arguments for it were fairly spurious." By voting "no" on the suspension of air pollution laws, voters have chosen to maintain the state's commitment to reduced environmental impact, a goal that the 5Cs take very seriously. If Prop. 23 had passed, it probably would have done little to change the way the 5Cs approach sustainability. - --- MAP posted-by: Jo-D