Nuclear Free Cambridge Pro:

To the Editors of The Crimson:

As one of the attorneys who helped draft the Nuclear Free Cambridge measure. I was admonished to learn of the Find Amendment objections that have been raised by same opponents of this law.

All a person needs to do is real the text of the measure to conclude that the opponents assertions as to possibly unconstitutional applications of this law are pure fantasy. Section 6 specifically provides as follows: "in this Act shall be continued to prohibit or regulate...basic research the primary purpose of which is to work toward the development of nuclear weapons." Thus, the Act explicitly protects all research other than that directed toward the building of nuclear weapons. In the face of such clear language in the proposed law, how anyone can imagine that a person's freedom of explosion would be curtailed it nothing short of preposterous. In effect, the opponents are asserting the untenable notion that a person has a First Amendment right to build nuclear weapons.

The arguments raised by the opponents of the Nuclear Free Cambridge measures are so specious that must see them for what they art: desperate, had faith attempts to deter the voters of Cambridge from addressing the true issues. If the opponents want to develop nuclear weapons in Cambridge, let them say so, and cant their arguments in phony First Amendment or academic freedom language.

I am confident that Cambridge voters will not be footed by any make screen raised by the opponents of Ballot Measure 2. Mark C. Cogan   Chair, Litigation Committee   Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy