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.