Controversy at Hamline University, Marijuana, The Debt Ceiling, a Free Lunch, And Physics!

Hamline University strayed into territory they definitely don’t want to be exploring by taking positions on which religions and religious practices are more valuable, true, or worthy of enforcement than others in an effort to avoid what some students may have called religious intolerance or discrimination (and in President Fayneese Miller’s overwrought follow-up statement).

It would be equivalent to banning the consumption of meat on Fridays during Lent out of respect for Christian students to effectively forbid images of the prophet. For starters, by implementing such a policy they prefer one form of Christianity (Catholicism) above another, even though not all Christians hold to those doctrines or practices.

What kind of message is Hamline making about their Shiite counterparts by adopting such a prohibition in accordance with Sunni doctrine, which differs between Sunni and Shiite practitioners of Islam in their views on portrayals of the prophet? The very purpose of the image was to demonstrate that variation and nuance exist within communities and that treating cultures as monoliths is not reflective of reality.

By assuming that depictions of the prophet are sacrilegious to all Muslims, Hamline undermined this goal, which is exactly the kind of liberal value you’d want to instill in your students at a self-described liberal arts college, and one for which the offending professor was disciplined for atte

MARIJUANA

For that reason, you would also have to put off drinking alcohol and smoking. Regarding William Nicholson‘s editorial post from the January 10 newspaper, “Minn. doctors: limit harm from legal cannabis,” I don’t remember the Minnesota Medical Association advocating for a 25-year-old legal drinking and smoking age because the brain doesn’t fully develop until then. In actuality, every danger he says pertains to those other recreational drugs ten times as much, plus the additional risks of lung cancer and driving while intoxicated.

There may be harm reduction in the form of fewer fatalities if some people switch from using these more dangerous chemicals to THC as a result of its legalization. I implore the MMA to reconsider how to present a more nuanced argument for the legalization of marijuana. Bipartisan support exists in the state of Minnesota for the full legalization of marijuana for adult usage.

The local autonomy of local governments like Stillwater is significantly hampered by this bill (“Who would regulate nascent cannabis industry?” Jan. 12). The bill limits zoning and provides little in the way of municipal supervision or control, but Minnesota communities will bear the brunt of its enforcement. Cannabis is often compared to alcohol and is said to be equally harmless, if not safer.

then handle it accordingly. Stillwater has the authority to revoke the license of a liquor store that sells to minors in violation of the law if the owner does not take their obligation seriously. I worry that the Office of Cannabis Management won’t be able to resolve problems as quickly as we can. Cities are well-equipped to license cannabis and are outstanding at licensing alcohol and cigarettes.

The idea limits our capacity to carefully zone the areas around cannabis sales. It’s not a good idea to locate the store close to an elementary school, much like with liquor. What functions in one city might not function in others. The authorities in that city should be in charge of thoughtful zoning.

Finally, the legislation must acknowledge that enforcement will be the responsibility of local law enforcement and make sure that a portion of cannabis sales proceeds goes to paying local governments back for their expenses. According to wisdom, it’s crucial for local governments to have some authority over cannabis in order to make sure that the law is applied in a way that is secure and advantageous for their community.

CONGRESS

Remove the Debt Ceiling Entirely. In this day of media showmanship and posturing, the Star Tribune Editorial Board is right to be concerned about political scheming surrounding the federal government’s debt ceiling (“Debt ceiling looms as McCarthy test,” editorial, Jan. 10). The real problem is whether or not there is a debt ceiling, not how much it is. The fact that the debt ceiling law is unnecessary allows for the antics.

Other rules, such as tax laws, are used by the government to determine how much revenue it will collect. It determines how much it will spend in relation to its tax collections each time it approves spending legislation. It has set a debt cap or added to an existing debt if it decides to spend more than the amount of money it has legislated. It is required by law to pay off any debts it has incurred.

The political trouble starts when the Treasury gets close to the statutory debt ceiling; some members of Congress or the president threaten to block an increase, putting the Treasury at risk of default. However, the Treasury must levy taxes in accordance with the tax rules, make expenditures in accordance with the spending regulations, and pay its debts as required by law.

Those who oppose raising the debt ceiling invariably propose cutting expenditure, usually by “shutting down the government,” that is, by forbidding the Treasury from making payments for already-enacted laws like running the national parks or disbursing Social Security benefits. They never mention the simple but equally effective solution of raising taxes.

They never suggest that the Treasury should go into default. Opposition to raising the debt ceiling is a sneaky way to cut funding for laws that have already been passed. I urge the members of Congress to start the process of repealing the century-old debt ceiling law since it is the greatest way to end our ongoing debt difficulties.

GRATIS LUNCH

The Needy Should Receive It. While I wholeheartedly support efforts to alleviate student hunger, after carefully examining the data in the article “DFL tackles second priority: free student lunch” (Jan. 12), I think there may be a better method. According to Hunger Solutions, one in six students experience food insecurity, and of them, 25% reside in homes that do not qualify for free or reduced lunch (the remaining 75% already do).

Therefore, it appears that aiding 1 in 24 pupils, or 4%, is the objective. Why should the vast majority of people, who do not require assistance, be fed by us taxpayers? That works out to about $1 million every school day at an anticipated yearly cost of $180 million. Couldn’t that money be used more effectively to assist the fewer people who require it?

The notion that we have more money and must use it in this way is not at all frugal. In terms of lunch prices, our family has been on both sides. Our three kids used to receive free lunches, but eventually, we moved to a situation where we had to pay for their meals. We do not require government-paid lunches, and I think that goes for most families with students.

Free lunches are nothing more than a handout to the family. During COVID, lots of money was distributed; Minnesota doesn’t need to do that any more often. Instead of giving money to everyone, concentrate on the real, smaller problem—those who are on the periphery—as the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Sydney Jordan, indicated she wished to do.

AUCTION ROOM OF NORTHROP

That Is How It Operates. The fact that a portion of the roof of the Northrop auditorium at the University of Minnesota collapsed on Wednesday evening (“Northrop closed by roof’s collapse,” Jan. 12) is undoubtedly alarming, but it is also ironic that the collapse resulted in the cancellation of Physics Force, a program that “brings together a group of high school teachers and U professors to perform science demonstrations.” The roof collapse appears to have been a superb physics presentation.