Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Jan. 27, 1997)
Paj y • January 27, Opinion Page 11 Monday • January 27, 1997 . . •> The Battalion Established in 1893 [torials appearing in The Battalion reflect the vs of the editorials board members. They do not Jcessarily reflect the opinions of other Battalion Iff members, the Texas A&M student body, re nts, administration, faculty or staff. Columns, bst columns, cartoons and letters express the (nions of the authors. ntact the opinion editor for information on sub- Iting guest columns. Editorials Board Rachel Barry Editor in Chief Michael Landauer Executive Editor Tiffany Moore Managing Editor Alex Walters Opinion Editor Judicial two-step le Judicial board fails to step up and faithfully represent students K'inthelasiufd, s A&M Men's to Since the students voted last „ (wrinetohaverun-otfelectionsfor w Milne, The Be*.. . 6 , . 0j . , ■11 leaders, no entity in Student k in his 2O0-m* ovemmen t has sought a way for ast weekend Enoffs to be implemented. The Ju- “ting on boards*^ Boaic ^ was * ast branch to ) familiar, the issue Thursday night Naftanel neetff 1611 rulecl ibe Student Senate ixation in pra | in P lace oxymoronic “nonbind- e environmerf'S re f eren dums on the ballot for eetsareallalJ“S nt ^“ tions - e ” Wriehl Chris Williams, a senior political lessons areharfr 161106 anci s P eech communica- lons major, brought the issue to the j-board, arguing Student Govern- jry . nent was bound by the referen- IlOUStOi lum. The j-board looked toward the /• *7i onstitution and found a technical- t'llfilDlt ] y. in referendums initiated by the enate, no one is bound to imple- Rk Reports nent the results unless it is specifi- ally stated. In other words, the Sen- Ite can use the ballot as a public Ipinionpoll. - -gj--- Although the j-board’s decision ^^^ can be supported by the exact ivordsofthe constitution, in princi- pie, the system has failed. A releren H dum by definition is binding. f The Senate, when it voted to rsend this issue to referendum lasl Bj [spring, did so because it did not H7 ; want to decide. In Thursday’s hear- YIRl ing, speaker Chris Reed said, “We Housto {were afraid.” I However, Reed joined Jason Her- unds a garnet rick and Matt Mayfield, two other i in three-pd senators at the time, in arguing the ing81.3perce jreferendum was never meant to be Itnything more than a public-opin- ;son for Stevie ion poll. Repeatedly, Mayfield, who e is a fine yout presented the arguments for Stu- eet the challeiis dent Government, told the j-board mically squ»veiyone knew it was merely a poll, next season.” This argument is nothing more —— J than a silly attempt to keep the Sen- (.atefrom looking inept. If the refer- .jendum was considered by everyone to be nonbinding, then surely a few W senators would have mentioned this during the amendment process on the Senate floor. But the meet ing’s minutes show that no senator ever referred to it as a poll or as feed back. Several senators did, howev er, say things like “Let’s let the stu dents decide’’ and “Let’s put it in their hands.’’ But despite such weak argu ments, Mayfield still had the con stitution on his side. When it comes down to it, the j-board can not be blamed for finding excuses within the constitution to prevent them from implementing the re sults of the referendum. But the third branch — the Senate — has no excuse. Last semester, when the Senate voted to not even consider a bill that would have implemented runoffs, it went beyond the political game of hot potato. It specifically told stu dents it chose not to act even though it was the only entity which could have done what voters ex pected Student Government to do. No referendum has ever received more support from the electorate. In fact, no Student Government of ficial has ever received as many votes as the referendum. Even if it was nothing more than a poll, it was a plea from the student body to act, and all three branches of Student Government have ignored the plea. Every two years ^he constitution must be approved by voters. Per haps next spring when the consti tution is placed on the ballot for ap proval, students will . not automatically support its passage. This constitution and the people who have hidden behind it have failed the students. As a result, the students would be justified next spring in asking for a new system — one where things will still get done even when the Student Govern ment leadership is “afraid.” Vocal Majority Students should sign referendum petition to protect student rights At most universities, an oppressive dministration may stand in the way f the will of the students, but at Texas &M, the Student Senate has filled at role. The Senate has earned this putation by voting last semester not to consider a bill which would force RRACpell-leader runoffs despite overwhelm- TESlpng support for the measure by the stu dent body. Theconstitu- |ion says stu- lents can by ass the Senate iy getting a ref- rendum on the ballot by means Of a petition dri- |e. If a referen- um initiated in s manner asses, the stu- jBent-body pres ident is obligat- d to implement results. A group of Btudents has initiated a peti- ort'tiiM: P°n drive p r oi§vhich could t ^ ie C ° II eft 0rce a re f eren dum to consider im- i the Co* e ? i jplementing yell-leader runoffs. Un- Bike the referendum supported by 'Snore than 60 percent of the voters last spring, the results of a student- initiated referendum would auto- fnatically be implemented by the ftudent-body president. Signing the petition does not mean student supports yell-leader runoffs, stead, students who sign the peti- on are merely saying students have i right to decide on the issue. Because he Senate has decided not to consid er the question, it is up to students to ] 'Peak once and for all about runoffs. There are three types of students vho should sign the editorial. The first ype is the student who is sick of not )eing represented by Student Gov ernment. Students who fit this de- As of January 26,1997, 1,300 students have signed a petition calling for a referendum on yell leader run-offs. If 10 percent of all students sign the petition, the results of the referendum would be binding — possibly forcing run-off elections for yell leaders this spring. SOURCE: Elliot Keriin I lule. A minl ' : d. for full Time 3n nt at: Speak Freely Freedom of speech" inspires hypocracy Columnist // N ext time you have a minute, ask one of your fellow “Ag- mericans” how they feel about freedom of speech. The typical response will in clude words like “Absolutely” and “I” and “do.” The response likely will be deliv ered with a rippling American flag re flecting from their glazed-over eyes. But these warm feelings may dis appear if you talk about “freedom of expression.” It is a vague term. It’s even more ambiguous than my re sume (1989-present: did some stuff). But specifics often test people’s ideas about freedom of speech more than ambiguity. For instance, should we control the speech of hate mongers like neo-Nazi’s and Pat Robertson? What about placing limits on pornography, especially the hard-core explicitness not found on late-night Cinemax? The answer to both of these questions is no, but lately it seems Americans have been saying yes. Publishers have been saying yes to school boards who in turn have been saying yes to over-protective, mis guided parents and religious fanat ics who want textbooks altered. Apparently, not only is the evolution theory a hoax, but if kids don’t learn about con doms in health class, they won’t have sex. The television industry has said yes to pres sure from legislators and instituted both a ratings system and the v-chip. Mason Jackson Senior Marketing major M?OBUSHERS mtsm uui The v-chip will allow a person to block out programs with certain levels of violence, sex or salty language. The ratings system has already been imple mented. When a show first comes on, a small box containing its rating appear s in the upper-right comer of the screen. The ratings (G,TV14) are similar- to those used in movie theaters. Unfortunately, these legislators seem to be speaking accurately for a surprisingly large portion of our presently prude population. What has happened? Why are the same people who wax poetic (or at least grunt positively) about freedom, so eager to see it in fringed upon in certain circumstances? I smell something that rhymes with hypocrite. ?i When many people If think about freedom of speech, they envision an individual bold enough to stand up and say, “Hey, you know what? I think the old U. S. of A. is a pretty darn good country, and if those commie, pinko, long-haired hippies don’t like it, tire At lantic Ocean runs both ways.” But the First Amendment was not created to defend popular senti ment, which by definition needs no defense. It was meant to protect people with unpopu lar views, like the Aggies United to Extend Slocum’s Contract. This should include those whose ideas serve no apparent purpose, or even an un worthy purpose. Why? Because if exceptions to the rule are made, before long, there will be no rule. In a speech, A. Whitney Griswold said, “Books won’t stay banned. Ideas won’t go to jail. The only sure weapon against bad ideas is better ideas.” But what about pornography? Doesn’t it morally cormpt our youth and hence deserve censorship? No. Rather it might be the Judeo- Cfiristian view of sex, in art and literature as taboo, that formed a repressed society which reacts bizarrely to erotic stimuli. Therefore, supermarkets refuse to carry “dirty” magazines. Wal-Mart even pulled Cosmopolitan from its shelves, apparently concerned its “35 Ways to Please Your Lover without Messing up Your Hair” article would cor rupt the youth. Yet, as was stated in the film The People vs. Larry Flynt, we ap plaud the artistic merit of pic tures of war, murder and mutila tion — pictures which have graced the covers of America’s more prominent magazines, such as Time and Newsweek. It appears hypocrisy is deeply implanted in our cultural psyche. We should recognize this weakness and come to the understanding that we cannot always tell the good from the bad, at least not immediately. If we want to protect the good ideas, we’re going to have to protect all ideas. Marijuana laws leave room for improvment scription want to see a true major ity speak on the issue rather than leaving things up to a Senate proven to be inattentive to the wishes of its constituency. The second type of student thinks the system works well and the Senate is justified in its inac tion. However, these students should sign the petition because it’s simply anoth er way to get something done in the system. It is not a means of protest, just a means of action. The third type of student who should sign the pe tition is apathetic. Although a record setting 10,000 stu dents showed up to the polls in the last major election, over 30,000 stu dents decided not to vote. These stu dents say nothing Student Government does could af fect their lives. Therefore, voting is pointless. But these students should sign the petition because it puts the power in the hands of those who ac tively try to be heard. The only students who will not sign the petition are those so afraid of change that they think the only way to preserve the status quo is to avoid the possibility of changing it at all. These people are doing a great disservice to A&M, a dynamic school rich in tradi tion but willing to question change. The Battalion supports this peti tion drive, not because it supports runoffs, but because it supports a healthy debate and the ability of students to decide if they want to af fect change without relying on its Student Senate. G ive me a dime bag. Better yet, make it a quarter. Well, now that I think about it, give me a pound. I would be saying these things often if I was suffering from cancer, AIDS, glaucoma, Multi ple Sclerosis, epilepisy or chronic pain. Millions of Americans infected with these ail ments are denied access to marijuana which has beep medically proven to benefit people suffering from these dis eases according to the National Academy of Sciences, the California Medical Association, the Federation of American Scientists, and the American Public Health Association to name a few. If psychiatrists can prescribe Ri talin, a methamphetamine, to people diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder, then oncologists (physicians specializing in treating cancer patients) should have the option of treating their patients with marijuana. Marijuana can treat four signifi cant medical conditions: nausea and increase of appetite, inPaocular pressure, muscle spasms, and mild to moderate chronic pain. Cancer patients can gain from marijuana because it alleviates nau sea, vomiting, and loss of appetite caused by chemotherapy. Marijuana benefits AIDS pa tients in the same way, relieving symptoms caused by the disease and the side effects caused by AZT, Columnist Brandon Hausenfluck Senior Journalism major a medicine used to treat AIDS. Glaucoma, which damages vision by gradually increasing eye pressure over time, is the leading cause of blindness in the United States. Marijuana re lieves the pain by re ducing inner eye pres sure. It also slows and can stop the progress of the disease. Marijuana reduces muscle pain and spasms caused by Multiple Sclerosis, the leading cause of neurological disability among young and middle-aged adults in the United States. It can also relieve tremors and unsteadiness of gait, and it has been proven to help some patients with bladder control. In some cases, marijuana can prevent epileptic seizures. Studies also have shown mari juana is an effective treatment for arthritis, migraine headaches, men strual cramps, alcohol and opiate addiction and depression. At one time, all of these uses have been recognized as beneficial by government organizations, courts, and scientific agencies throughout the United States. In 1937, the Marijuana Tax Act established the federal prohibition of marijuana, putting an end to the production of marijuana for indus trial, recreational and medicinal purposes in the United States. It was argued by Dr. William Woodward of the American Medical Association that the prohibition of the drug would prevent any medicinal use of marijuana, thereby debili tating physicians’ ability to treat certain sicknesses. The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 created five “schedules” into which all pre scription and ille gal drugs are cate gorized. Marijuana was placed in Schedule I, label ing it as a sub stance “having a high potential for abuse, no current ly accepted med ical use in treat ment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety • for use under med ical supervision.” It’s ironic how in a nation plagued with alcoholism and drug abuse, our governing body is stub born enough not to realize where the problems exist. Obviously, abusing any drug can adversely affect one’s health. But people should realize that someone fighting cancer or AIDS is not going to spend their days getting stoned to watch Apocalypse Now or Cheech and Chong movies. One would be crazy to think marijuana cannot be bought easily on the street. But the problem is most people are not willing to go above the law to try something la beled with a high potential for abuse. Obtaining marijuana illegally has its drawbacks. If an AIDS patient is convinced Marijuana, in it's natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known. marijuana will make his or her life a little easier then he or she can buy marijuana on the street. But it could be impure, contaminated, or chem ically altered. The person could also be arrested, fined, or thrown in jail for making the pur chase. Sep. 6, 1988, Judge Francis Young, DEA chief administrative law judge ruled that “Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest thera peutically active sub stances known. It would be unreason able, arbitrary and capricious for DEA to continue to stand between those suf ferers and the benefits of this sub stance,” Young said. Judge Young has his head on straight, but unfortunately the DEA refused his request to make mari juana a Schedule II drug, which would allow doctors to prescribe it. The only thing preventing mari juana from becoming available as a medicine is ignorance on the part of American policy makers. Granted, marijuana can be abused but so can tobacco and alcohol. I have seen loved ones suffer from cancer. If marijuana can re lieve an ounce of the pain they ex perienced then, by God, it should be legal for them to use it. Since it is evident that marijuana has multiple positive effects on the human body, there should be no barriers preventing doctors from prescribing it. Changes in tax laws could benefit Texas N ew York. The city that never sleeps. In fact, it even keeps other people awake: those who shop and those who work for the New York State Treasurer. Last week, New York City re pealed its 4-percent sales tax and local tax on clothing — but only for a week. The repeal was designed to keep shoppers in New York and prevent them from spending mon ey in New Jersey, where there’s no sales tax. The price tag for this experiment is about $20 million. Bloomingdales general manager David Fish er says it has been a success. “For the two days combined, Saturday and Sunday, we ended up doing almost double the amount of business that we did last year,” Fish er said in a CNN report. Early in the week, shoppers swarmed New York City stores to cash in on the bargain. Hailed as a success from both business and po litical standpoints, the question of whether oth er states will follow suit has arisen. This experiment has shown that lowering taxes provides a huge economic stimulus. Some states have their heart in the right place by charging no sales tax, but their income Columnist Stephen Llano Senior History major tax is staggering. To provide for the operation of government and com mon defense, taxes are good when is sued in modest and fair amounts. In an age where Washington, D.C., is seen as the place to solve everyone’s problems, people have lost touch with the idea of how the money they’ve earned is for themselves, not the government’s. In Austin, Gov. George Bush, Jr. has the right idea about taxes. His charge to the legislature to lower property taxes would be beneficial. Lowering the property tax would help the state economy in the realm of property safes, lifting the burden for property holders. But money from property taxes supports our pub lic schools. It seems there is no way to run a state in a financially responsible way, while al lowing the people to enjoy hard-earned mon ey and provide a system of public needs. According to the State Sales and Use Tax Analysis Reports for the second quarter of 1996, Bryan-College Station had about $247.9 million in taxable sales. The state rate for sales tax, still at 6.25 percent, means about $15.4 million will flow into the state coffers from the twin cities. That $15 million doesn’t sound too signifi cant as far as state economics go. It’s really only $1 million away from being David Letterman’s pay- check. But on a statewide scale, the economic im pact of a sales-tax reduction could be enor mous. Without a sales tax, people would spend more money on goods and services, that’s $15 million more going into Bryan-College Station businesses would mean more business. More business, on a state scale, means more jobs. Still, the traditional method of funding state public services would suffer. The first step would be to re-assign lottery revenues to pay for only public education and lottery administration. It’s also about time Texas enacted a modest, flat income tax. An income tax is indeed terrifying to Texans. But if enacted as a flat tax, it could mean a re duction in sales tax, and Bush’s property-tax re duction. The lost revenue from sales tax would be replaced with the income tax from all the new jobs. And reducing two regressive taxes that hurt the economy and install one flat, fair progressive tax is a good tax reduction, no mat ter how you slice it. Texas voters should leam from the economic experiment of New York. Re-assessing the lottery, coupled with an income tax, could mean econom ic growth and success for the people of Texas.