Editor,
In response to Jeremy Reynalds' column "Pro-pot song should be banned" from the Aug. 30 Daily Lobo, I can't help but laugh at the absurdity and hypocrisy of his article. I find it rather curious that a guy who writes a column for a newspaper and ex-sometimes-radio-show-host would argue for censorship.
It's funny that almost in the same breath, he whines about how censorship was unfairly applied to him. But that's the problem with people like Reynalds - they can't seem to distinguish between law and policies and their application.
He seems to be quite comfortable with throwing the First Amendment to the wind as long as it runs along lines that he finds morally palatable. It is precisely those ideas we do not like that are worthy of protection and it is in our own interest to do so.
The problem with giving up your liberties is that once they are gone, it generally takes a bloody revolution to get them back.
As for Afroman's song, I wouldn't worry too much about what it is doing to America's supposedly "fast fading collective morality." Those that can think and reason for themselves and have their own moral fiber will probably come to more or less the same conclusion that Reynalds did - it's just an obnoxious, potty-mouthed rap.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
The wise might even consider taking ganja man at his word: "I messed up my entire life because I got high / I lost my kids and wife because I got high / ... / Now I'm sleepin' on the sidewalk and I know why/..."
Those that can't think or have little to no moral fiber of their own generally end up in one of two camps - they either do exactly as they please or find someone else to dictate their morality to them.
You can't do much with the first lot and Afroman's song isn't likely to affect the big picture much anyway.
As for the second, I think Reynalds is quite eager to give you his version of morality. Be afraid; be very afraid.
It seems to me that the homosexuals had their hearts in the right place when they went to the trouble to raise $1,200 and donate it to his cause, which, as Reynalds seems to have lost sight of, was the homeless.
So some drag queens got all dolled up and strutted their stuff around to raise the dough. Big Whoop! Do you think Jesus would have spit in their face as they held out the cash? Reynalds is apparently quite willing to do the symbolic equivalent. The fact that the philanthropists didn't meet Reynalds' personal moral muster should be a personal issue of no consequence.
I'm disappointed he wasn't big enough to simply accept the cash respectfully, and with a heart-felt "thank you."
If the mission of Joy Junction is to help the homeless, then it would do well to appoint a director whose ego and personal righteousness don't get in the way of the needs and benefit of the homeless.
And Mr. Reynalds, you would do well to respect the First Amendment!
Erik Johnson,
Undergraduate Computer Science Major
