NEWS
THE BATTAlJ
Opinion
The Battalion
11 • Tuesday, October 21, 2003
opinion
Louis DeLuca • KRT CAMPUS
n Epinions.com. 'You me
bout profit."
tatter the motivation of
wer, consumers seekii
ion have to learn wha
•s best match tte
'n Epinions and seven!
iview sites, the Wei
allows users to weisfei
ons of those they trust,
consumer reviewers ait
ly to write about a prod-
rvice they really likeoi
le in the middle are less
say anything," Gershof
nd if you've evaluated
g like a toaster aftei
>ught and used it, you'te
ely to post a positive
bu've already make tie
ent. You've jumped,
resn't represent a tmt
of all toasters out there
is calls review sis
)ol in an expanding ®-
enal.
k it's one more infoma-
•ce," he said. "1 don't
can rely on themexclu-
don't think that a con-
view is necessarily as
critical review by some-
> does it professionally,
a critical perspective."
>ut while the system is
ilso very tough onpeo-
ohol related accidents.”
thousand fatalities
ie per year are attrib-
rinking while driving,
as leading the nation
Thurmond said
related accidents ait
/ prevalent among 18-
ilds with driving whilt
;d listed as the numbei
r of college-age indi-
'eardon said,
now college kids driiil
shere’s a price to pay’
1 said. “Is it worth iff
year-old woman were
i wounded. Two mis-
)ded on a street crowd-
hoolchildren.
three years of vio-
leli airstrikes in G®
ed dozens of civilian
In April, an air attack
lamas leader Said
nd eight other people
002, 15 people went
uding nine children,®
e that targeted anotha
der, Salah Shehadeh,
)0 a.m.
or
rch Hospital
www.aggietrideltas.com
High Judgement
lower court's decision to protect doctors ensures the best treatment for patients
jENELLE
WILSON
L ast Tuesday, the U.S Supreme Court
denied the federal government’s appeal
of the October 2002 Conant v. Walters
decision by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals to uphold a permanent injunction
against federal officials prosecuting doctors
for recommending marijuana as a treatment
option to ill patients. The injunction, original
ly granted in April 1997, was in response to
threats by federal officials against voter refer-
endums in California and Arizona to allow the
use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, according to the Drug
Policy Alliance.
The Supreme Court was correct in letting the 9th Circuit deci
sion stand. Not only does the decision protect against unneces
sary federal encroachments into state affairs, the decision goes a
long way in protecting the right of doctors to speak candidly
with patients and to give advice in the patients’ best interests.
In November 1996, California voters passed Proposition 215,
the Compassionate Use Act, allowing sick and dying patients to
use marijuana to relieve their suffering. Doctors were immu
nized from prosecution for recommending the drug in state
courts. The federal government, however, was quick to warn
doctors that they would not be impervious to federal action.
On Jan. 14, 1997, a group of seriously ill patients, doctors
who treat seriously ill patients, a patients’ organization and a
physician’s organization filed suit against high-ranking officials
in the Clinton administration, including then-White House
Office of the National Drug Control Policy Director Barry
McCaffrey, the original lead defendant in the case. A temporary
injunction was granted four months later, which prevented fed
eral officials from taking action against doctors recommending
the drug to patients unless there was evidence the doctor was
actively helping patients acquire it.
Federal District Judge William Alsup made this injunction
permanent on Sept. 7, 2000, according to the Drug Policy
Alliance. The government appealed the decision to the 9th
Circuit, and John P. Walters, McCaffrey’s counterpart in the
Bush administration, was substituted for his predecessor.
The federal government has no right to interfere with the
medical advice of a patient if a doctor is sincerely acting with
that patient’s best interests in mind. The government is prohib
ited from regulating the content of speech because it
disagrees with it by the Constitution.
However, the government’s actions
in this case go beyond simply try
ing to regulate the content of
speech. The government is
trying to ban a particular
viewpoint, one that con
flicts with its own.
Doctors are ethi
cally required to
give patients the
best medical
advice they can,
and if a doctor
reasonably
believes that a
patient may ben
efit from mari
juana, then they
are obligated to
recommend it.
The govern
ment contends
that marijuana has
no medicinal value
Deputy director of
the National Drug
Control Policy Andrea
Barthwell told CNN,
“There is a difference
between feeling better and actu
ally getting better.” However, pro
ponents of the use of marijuana for
medical purposes are not claiming that it
cures these illnesses. If marijuana, like other pain
relievers, makes them easier to live with, takes away
some of the suffering, then patients have every right to know
that option is available to them.
A concurring opinion in the case cites a 1999 report from
tony Piedra • THE BATTALION
National Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of
Sciences, which found that marijuana does have a poten
tial therapeutic value for pain relief, nausea,
vomiting and appetite stimulation. The
report also found that marijuana, par
ticularly the chemical THC, provid
ed relief to patients with certain
illnesses and diseases, includ
ing metastic cancer,
HIV/AIDS, multiple scle
rosis, spinal cord injuries
and epilepsy.
The patients who are
party to the suit suffer
from severe medical
conditions, including
epileptic seizures. If
marijuana is able to
relieve some of that
suffering, then doc
tors must be allowed
to tell patients. More
importantly, a patient
has the right to have
access to receive all
information a doctor
believes to be relevant to
case in order to make
the best decisions regarding
his own health.
It is not the federal govern
ment’s place to take this right
away from rational adults, especial
ly when it knows nothing about a par
ticular patient’s case.
The decision of what is best for a patient lies
with those closest to him.
Jenelle Wilson is a senior
political science major.
Syrian terrorist camp deserved Israeli bombing
O n Oct. 5, Israeli planes
bombed what they
claimed was an
Islamic Jihad terrorist training
camp inside Syrian borders.
This attack, Israel says, was
in response to the suicide
bomber who killed 19 people
at a restaurant in Haifa,
Israel, a few days before. On
Oct. 6, Syria called an emer
gency U.N. Security Council meeting to dis
cuss the hostile actions Israel had taken the
day before, according to Fox News.
Syria needs to get with the program. Syria
claims to be on the America’s side, along with
Israel and other countries that fight against ter
rorism, yet the nation exhibits questionable
behavior.
If Syria was serious about the war against ter
rorism, it would be glad Israel took out a terror
ist camp for Syrians inside their country’s bor
ders. This would mean less work for Syria.
However, Syria argued that the training camp
that was bombed had been abandoned for seven
years, according to The Houston Chronicle. But
this doesn’t make sense. If it was abandoned,
then why does Syria care about an old camp sit
ting in the desert? This camp would have always
had the potential for serving as a training ground
for terrorists until it was destroyed or taken over
by regular citizens.
Syria should be concerned
that Israel is striking at locations
inside its borders. But, Syria
has no right to be angry for
Israel striking at a terrorist
camp inside its borders, even if
it is abandoned. If Syria is
against terrorism, it would wipe
out any terrorist establishments
itself, including old abandoned
ones.
Furthermore, the United
States revealed on Oct. 9 that
American spy satellites show
the camp Israel bombed was
under recent construction and
used by militant groups, accord
ing to The New York Times. American officials
said the camp in Syria had been used as recent
ly as six months ago by at least one of two sep
arate factions of the Popular Front for the
Liberation of Palestine, but the new construc
tion additions suggested that it was being
repaired for another terrorist group to use such
as Islamic Jihad, a major militant Palestinian
group.
Recently, Syria has a poor record when it
comes to making peace and fighting terrorism.
According to CNN, U.S.
Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld said equipment such
as night vision goggles came
across the Syrian-Iraqi border
to aid Saddam Hussein’s forces
in fighting the Coalition troops
during the war in March. In
reference to the resistance dur
ing the aftermath of the war,
Rumsfeld also told an ABC
News journalist in August that
Jihadists have come from Syria
to Iraq. These Islamic militants
came across the border to fight
the U.S. forces.
Islamic Jihad denied on Oct.
5 that it maintains any military or training bases
in Syria, according to Fox News. Whether or not
a terrorist group’s statement is believable is
something to question. Ironically however,
Islamic Jihad “has long maintained a political
office in Syria,” according to The Times. How
can any nation allow an organization that carries
out terrorist attacks such as suicide bombings to
maintain an office inside its own borders? One
should wonder what side Syria is actually on.
It is no wonder that on Oct. 15 the U.S.
House of Representatives voted 398-4 to impose
sanctions on Syria. The Senate also passed a bill
similar in nature. According to MSNBC News,
these sanctions limit U.S. trade with Syria, and
give President George W. Bush “authority to
impose other trade and diplomatic sanctions.”
Syria is labeled by some Washington officials
as a nation that harbors and supports terrorists,
and with good reason. Actions such as the few
mentioned above as well as the events in the
past few weeks only serve to hurt its insecure
credibility with the United States.
Israel was justified in its attack on the camp
in Syria, Americans need to be aware of the
events that occur in the world’s hotspots, and
Syria should not lash out when someone else
takes care of business that they should have
already taken care of. That is, if they are actually
on the side that fights terrorism.
David Ege is a junior
computer engineering major.
DAVID
EGE
a
How can any nation
allow an organization
that carries out terrorist
attacks such as suicide
bombings to maintain
an office inside its own
borders?
MAIL CALL
Just say no' program
hasn't been proven
In response to an Oct. 20 mail
call:
While it is true that many teenagers
may not be equipped to make such
an important decision such as
whether or not to have sex, many are
making this decision themselves.
Mr. Shaw stated in his mail call that
comprehensive sex education pro
grams fail to address the problems of
condom failure and other risks of
sexual activity. On the contrary, most
comprehensive sex education pro
grams educate students not only
about the types of contraception, but
the failure rates of each, and the
other modes of disease transmis
sion. Abstinence is not only taught in
these programs, but is actually pro
moted as the only guaranteed
method of preventing pregnancy, dis
ease transmission or other conse
quences of sexual activity.
Finally, no studies have effectively
proven that abstinence-only educa
tion programs deter teens from
engaging in sexual activities, nor that
comprehensive programs increase
sexual activity in teens. Most
teenagers have formed the basis for
their ideas by high school, and a
short program telling them “just say
no” is not likely to have a major effect
on them. Studies have shown that
teens who are provided with a com
prehensive education are more likely
to use contraception than those with
an abstinence-only education.
Mike Rice
Class of 2003
Legacy students are
a small population
In response to Midhat Farooqi’s
Oct. 20 column:
Throughout the column’s entirety I
saw mention of four statistics having
anything to do with legacy admis
sions, and none of these pertained
to A&M. Of the statistics mentioned,
none told how many of these stu
dents would not have been admitted
were it not for the legacy admissions
policy.
Generally speaking, parents who
have attended college have children
who will perform at a higher level
then those whose parents did not
attend college, which may account
for higher legacy admissions.
In the fall of 2000 when I was
applying for admission to Texas
A&M, I was told that the previous
year only eight students out of
10,500 were admitted who didn’t
qualify without legacy. So that means
that .0008 percent of students got in
on legacy. The percentages are not
that low with affirmative action.
Robert Dover
Class of 2004
In Response to an Oct. 17 Mail
Many Bible verses
contradict judgement
Call:
James 4:11 says “Brothers do not
slander one another,” and James
4:12 continues: “But you — who are
you to judge your neighbor?” All of
these Christian Bible verses are ref
erences to how it is not anyone’s
right to judge and slander people for
any reason, even if it is written in the
Bible as a sin, yet Christians of today
feel that it is off-limits to judge every
one except gays. GLBT seems to be
fair game. And Christians wonder
why they are often called hypocrites.
Secondly, scientific evidence now
shows that homosexual men are
born with a larger than normal (for
men) hippocampus, which gives
them sexual attractions toward men.
The opposite is true for homosexual
women. I, as an individual who hap
pens to also be Christian, cannot
fathom the idea of a ‘loving’ God who
predestines people to the fiery pit of
hell. That being said, theologians
agree that there are many places in
the Bible that are flat out mis-trans-
lated in that there can be many
English words for any one Hebrew
word. For instance, Leviticus 18:22 is
completely taken out of context; It
was meant to stop men from molest
ing young boys. Those of you bash
ing gays and citing the Bible for ethi
cal and moral high ground might
want to re-evaluate your position.
Patrick Paschall
Class of 2007