To the Indy:

Hi, I'd like to address two issues in your paper this week. First, "The Irrational War On Drugs." You claim that "...marijuana... has not even led to one single death." Well that's a load of crap to start with. I can't say for certain, but I'm fairly sure that in that large number you have for alcohol is included drunk driving deaths, well how about fatalities while under the influence?

Aside from that, I just find that to be a very difficult stat to believe since even breakfast cereals kill a small number of people annually. Besides, what about lung cancer, emphysema, and other smoke related diseases that I'm sure where included along with tobacco use?

If we stop fighting drugs, then they will thrive... "Evil flourishes when good men do nothing." Am I standing up for tobacco and alcohol? Hell no, but why add to the crap that we already have to deal with? Besides, is it possible that the reason that those numbers are so low is BECAUSE the war on drugs is actually working to an extent?

Second, an article was written (Indy Trashed!) addressing that so many Indy papers were trashed on campus. I can understand why your writer may be upset, but isn't that just the students' way of voicing their opinion and using their freedom of expression? No, I don't want the campus being trashed all the time by litter like that, but I don't like a lot of things that are all different people's way of expressing themselves.

It just seems somewhat hypocritical of a paper that stands up for freedom of belief and expression to be so upset when someone uses their own expression against your paper.

Anonymous

Yes, the marijuana death figure is a suspect one given by advocates; all drugs kill people, including caffeine and aspirin. Our chart came from drugwarfacts.org; following its sources, the government's Drug Abuse Warning Network only specifies drug-related deaths in urban areas. According to the US government, marijuana-linked deaths have a "much lower frequency" than alcohol, cocaine, or heroin. For example, in Chicago in 2000, there were 869 drug-related deaths. Five were accidents or suicides linked to marijuana alone, and no deaths were "directly caused" by marijuana. So, while there are almost no marijuana overdose deaths, there are a small number of accidental deaths linked to marijuana; if we knew that number, we would use it.

We have no way to know how many smoking-related deaths may be caused by marijuana. A single marijuana cigarette, because it is illegal, tends to be more hazardous than a single tobacco cigarette with filters. However, there are few marijuana chain smokers. It's not clear that problems would get worse if marijuana was legalized, since regulation would make it safer. Many current users of more hazardous drugs such as tobacco, alcohol, cocaine, heroin, etc. might switch to marijuana, thereby saving lives. And the enormous social cost of arresting and imprisoning hundreds of thousands of marijuana smokers would be substantially reduced. Remember, evil also flourishes when liberty is suppressed, even with good intentions.

Speaking of liberty, your defense of censorship-by-theft is particularly disturbing. Suppose someone sitting next to you in class decides to "speak" by screaming whenever you try to talk, making it impossible for anyone to hear you. When "expression" has the sole purpose of silencing other voices, it ceases to be expression at all. Why is "expression" by theft of the Indy acceptable to you, but "expression" by stealing cars parked on a public street wrong? If someone slashes the tires on every SUV in town, they are expressing an idea-should we allow it? Clearly, some forms of expression are legitimate and some are not. Those who hate the Indy are free to write us letters, start up their own newspaper to condemn us, or even stand by our racks telling people not to read it. What they are not "free" to do is prevent others from reading it by cowardly acts of vandalism. That's not expression; that's suppression.

I am writing this letter in response to both your "Impeach Bush" article and your "Indy Trashed" article. I would like to say that I too am appalled, dismayed, and disgusted by the blatant un-Americanism seen in relation to your articles. However, the relation that I speak of is that of the behaviors brought about by your articles, not the articles themselves. While I must admit that I was at first very concerned by your "Impeach Bush" article (which will now be referred to as, simply, "the article"), I did not feel quite as uneasy about it after reading it. To be brutally honest, the article made me laugh at first, especially the "Bushisms" sidebar. After reading it, though, I did find myself thinking more and more about it and how insightful it actually is. Until quite recently, I had thought it was so funny just because it was so ridiculous, but I take it that showing just how ridiculous our President is was the ultimate point of its authors (forgive me for forgetting your names; my roommate and I have disposed of the article and its issue to make room for the "Indy Trashed" issue on our coffeetable), which made me think of it in a totally different and more understanding light. After making this change, I accept and defend your article, simply because what it says needed to be said because it so deeply concerns our nation's leader, a man we must question at all times now, given the situation our country is in. However, while my response came after truthfully reading the article, I think many of the people who had resorted to destroying your newspaper after seeing the headline on the front page did so without reading the article. This is highly unfortunate because it shows that not only do our fellow students so easily trample the rights of others, both to freely write and freely read, but also that most of our fellow students are too narrow-minded to read the "offensive stuff" before destroying it. When I first saw the article's headline, I did not think to myself, "Oh God, the Indy is trying to destroy the country, let's destroy the Indy instead." Instead, I said to myself, "What could possibly make someone want to say that?" And sure enough, I found out why. It is deeply unfortunate that many people do not respond to challenging viewpoints in this way and instead choose to destroy them. Therefore, on behalf of the guilty parties involved in this travesty of freedom (whether they want it or not), I apologize to you and your staff and commend your hard work and effort, and I implore you to continue to freely express your views. Also, I would like to take this opportunity to challenge everyone, whether they read your paper or not, to stand up and defend the rights of others by protecting all freedoms, especially those found in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution: freedom of religion, association, press, petition, and speech. Sincerely,

Kyle B. Bush, Music Education Major, ISU

Thank you for your thoughtful letter. It's good to see that people are open to unconventional views. We should clarify, though, our critique is not just a critique of George W. Bush. While his actions are criminal, I do not see them as out of the ordinary in the context of the American political system. One can make an argument, as I often have, that every president after World War II could be impeached for criminal activity. The real problem is the institutional system that allows for American politicians to prioritize "profits over people." So in the case of Iraq, securing oil from the Middle East is important enough in the minds of our "leaders" to kill millions of innocent Iraqis. And no one should be under any delusions that many having nothing to do with Saddam won't be killed. Millions of innocent people have died in American wars. Simply look at the Gulf War for proof. As a result of U.S. bombing and sanctions, up to 1.5 million Iraqis have died. I think in some cases, one could make an argument that war needs to be fought (revolutionary war, WWII). But most of the time, the pretexts for war are as fraudulent as the presidents themselves. It's just a shame that so many Americans can't see that it's impossible to claim the high road and claim we fight wars like the Gulf War for freedom and democracy when we are killing millions of innocent people. Take Vietnam or the Gulf (3 million and 1.5 million killed). Those figures are on par with any genocide in world history. But they don't count as real deaths in the minds of our "leaders" because it's us doing the killing.

This letter is in reference to the sentiments of a previous letter to the editor written by Sean Davis (Nov. 6). Though there may be some displaced anger within the words of Mr. Davis, I am truly troubled by his opinions. Among which his statements alleging that "You people (I'm assuming he refers to the Indy and its supporters) that call the war on terrorism a war for oil have no idea what it takes to really run this country or to protect it" (Davis Letter). Hidden within this statement are two assumptions. The first of which argues that the "war on terrorism" is directly perceived as an economic issue by those whom the reader would call "those democrats." I believe that Mr. Davis does not understand where this understanding stems.

So if Mr. Davis would allow one of "those democrats" a retort I would be obliged. This perception of the war on terrorism has been skewed by the Bush Administration's placation of U.N. veto nations Russia and France.

After fevered discussion these two nations have opposed unilateral action from the United States because of their vested oil interests within Iraq.

The hard-line rhetoric issued by the present administration was oddly eased after the midterm elections and has been earmarked by the new United Nations resolution that avoids first strike capabilities by the United States. This compromise is furthered through the lack of attention given to Korea, capabilities by the United States. This compromise is furthered through the lack of attention given to Korea, which is Nuclear and has direct ties to terrorist activities. Outstanding information of Korea's capabilities are clearly documented however, Bush is still questionably focused on Iraq a country posing far less a danger (i.e. Nuclear Launch capabilities) to the United States. So Mr. Davis you could understand where some of "those democrats" might be lending a skeptical eye towards the foreign policies of the current administration.

The second issue implied within Mr. Davis' comments is that those who disagree with these policies have no idea how to run or protect the country. At this point I will refrain from discussing the best way to "run" this country and choose to focus on the protection reference. Being one who has never picked up a weapon and acted in a way as to harm another human, I can never understand the personal resolve an action of this magnitude would take. Under this train of thought I concede to a lack of understanding and ignorant bliss of which I hope to never veer. However, I do not know what it is to lose someone close to me. The loss and hurt I carry because of this instance prepares me to question the quickness at which the present administration is willing to commit troops to Iraq implicitly killing my fellow citizens.

So to Mr. Davis and Indy Staff, please understand that most international issues have multiple layers that take years to clearly understand. The passion of this debate is commendable especially in a time where voter turnout is lucky to be at forty percent. To Mr. Davis, name-calling does not sway votes or minds. Indy Staff you are exceptional at providing a worthy forum for debate despite your often questionably placed reporting.

Thanks for hearing my ramble, Phil Massie

I did not elaborate on Davis' argument that "You people have no idea what it takes to really run this country or to protect it" because I thought most people would just laugh him off.

I didn't want to give too much attention to some nut rambling and name calling, who didn't even have any real facts. But I can now see that some were deeply troubled by his ill-informed statements. So allow me to answer.

Mr. Davis could obviously not disprove our charge that the war on Iraq is really a war for oil. If he could, he would have submitted us a piece or at least mentioned why we were wrong in his letter.

Naturally, since he cannot compete on an intellectual level, the only way he feels he can compete with us is by name-calling. But he still has not refuted any of our arguments. This leads me to understand that Mr. Davis is arguing that "what it really takes to run this country" is to destroy innocent Iraqis, so that rich yuppie Americans can continue to drive overpriced, gas-guzzling SUVs.

If "what it takes" to run America is violating international law (invading Iraq is a flagrant violation of the UN charter), killing millions of innocent people, and subscribing to no higher principles than greed and an obsession with power, than I am glad I don't know "what it takes" to run this country.

Mr. Davis is free to subscribe to this realpolitik philosophy, but that does not mean that anyone else is required to agree with his views.

What he may not understand is that invading a sovereign country like Iraq, while illegal under international law and the U.N. charter, is also illegal according to national law. The Constitution states that any treaty made with other countries or through international institutions is the law of the land.

What Mr. Davis does not know, apparently, is that a violation of international treaties is illegal. When Bush violates national and international law, threatens to kill innocent people, and only wants to do it so he can play with his toys in the sand and steal a sovereign nation's oil for U.S. consumption, he opens himself up to impeachment.

Regarding your statements about the problem of committing "troops to Iraq implicitly killing my fellow citizens," I would agree and disagree. While it would be terrible to lose Americans just so Bush's friends can steal more oil from the Middle East, this "war" will cost many more innocent lives in Iraq (people having nothing to do with Saddam).

We should not forget that this will not be a war, it will be a slaughter. There will be some Americans who die, which is unacceptable, but the toll will be paid overwhelmingly by innocent Iraqis. Some say this is the price we have to pay for "freedom" (they never mention that it will be innocent Iraqis paying the price for what we call "freedom"), but I never understood how we could claim the moral ground of freedom and human rights while killing millions of innocent people. It is rather hard to "save" a country like Iraq by destroying it, but if anyone can argue a way this is possible, feel free to try.