Blackwater Resort problems overstated
As a Cambridge local, I am familiar with the Blackwater Resort debate. It has caused great division in the Cambridge community, and the planned development is still a hot topic even though the city council approved the project. However, the council did not “[overlook] many aspects of the project and [move] forward without having the necessary information,” as David Daddio mentioned in his Aug. 31 editorial “Blackwater boondoggle.”
The council delayed its decision numerous times because it didn’t feel it had enough information. The developer has hired environmental experts to ensure the environmental soundness of its plan. In fact, farm runoff has been proven to be a major contributor of pollution in the Chesapeake Bay and coastal waterways. In comparison, the Blackwater Resort will be a minuscule blip on the environmental radar compared with other sources of pollution. And although the editorialist mentioned the developer’s “commendable concessions”, he goes on to say “it is clear the project’s environmental risks are too great.” I am unsure how one can be clear on this subject without having attended the meetings or viewed the presentations. The Blackwater Resort will bring much-needed funds to a struggling community without paying a risky environmental price. Perhaps a little more specific, first-hand information should be gathered before taking a strong stance on a subject.
Shannon McDonnell
Freshman
Marketing
Marijuana lobby’s goals should not be dismissed
Megan Maizel’s Sept. 5 column “Marijuana lobby aims off target” contributed yet another opinion to the ongoing, hotly contested marijuana debate, and though the column provided several insightful points, it lacked sufficient arguments that should change anyone’s mind about this issue.
First and foremost, the author’s belief that last year’s referendum, in which students overwhelmingly showed their support to decrease punishment for marijuana-related offenses on the campus, should represent only a symbolic victory is false. NORML and SSDP clearly do not have the clout to alter our country’s national policy on illegal drugs. As such, working to amend policy at the university level is a goal not only worth working toward, but one within reasonable reach.
Furthermore, why does the author describe the aims of the two groups to be “ludicrous”? Whatever happened to “where there’s a will, there’s a way”? For years, groups have advocated revolutionizing laws and policies they saw to be unjust, and have they had any success? The Civil Rights Movement, women’s suffrage and the fight for free public education are examples of movements that few would have ever thought possible, but through hard work and determination were not only achieved, but have also become so ingrained in our culture that few can imagine life without the goals they worked toward. Not to draw a comparison between the significance of altering the university marijuana policy and changes brought by these movements, but to say it cannot be done diminishes the value of steadfast dedication to influence policy, a notion so essential and fundamental to our country.
More importantly, the author of the editorial overlooks another important fact when asserting our university policy should reflect the national illegal status of marijuana.
Granted, marijuana is illegal, a fact everyone needs to take into account before challenging the law, but the goal of NORML and SSDP – as reflected by the referendum – only asserts how our administration should look at the offense, not the police. Our university policy should reflect our own ideals and values, which as the marijuana lobby on the campus as well as the majority of the student body affirm, should be more progressive. The referendum makes no mention of how the police should treat offenders. Therefore, it is unreasonable to say that changing the status of marijuana on campus “would create a mockery out of our state and national laws.” Complacency to such ridiculous and outlandish drug policies without raising our voices and trying to make a difference would, in fact, make a mockery of everything this country stands for.
Scott Ratner
Sophomore
Letters and sciences
