Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Room 300, Erb Memorial Union
EO.Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: ode@oregon.uoregon.edu
Online Edition:
www.dailyemerald.com
Editor in Chief:
Andrew Adams
Associate Editors:
Peter Hockaday
Jeremy Lang
Thursday, August 9,2001
Editorial
UO makes good step
to end credit misuse
Like a freshman under
graduate who reck
lessly uses that “emer
gency” credit card for
pizza, CDs and other frivo
lous purchases, some here on
campus also need to learn
how to use their University
credit cards.
Following a state audit that
essentially scolded the Uni
versity for misuse of credit
cards, including purchases of
airline tickets, food, flowers
and even alcohol (unlike the
freshmen who cannot buy
beer with their parents’ credit
cards), University Vice Presi
dent for Administration Dan
Williams said there was a
need to “evaluate and im
prove business practices.”
Fortunately, the University
administration decided to ad
mit that some misuse of cred
it cards occurred and will ad
dress the situation. But rather
than an enraged phone call
from parents when they re
ceive a credit-card bill, Uni
versity faculty members will
receive a “buddy” card that
lists what they can and can
not purchase with their Uni
versity credit cards.
So now when they get
those itchy fingers to do some
shopping, faculty members
and administrators will ide
ally take a breather and check
to see whether they can actu
ally go ahead and make that
purchase. Not only will there
be handy aids to guide folks
through departmental pur
chases, but the University is
also planning to hold work
shops to further elaborate on
how University funds can be
used.
While this all seems a little
ridiculous, it will provide a
foundation to give the Uni
versity’s academic depart
ments a better sense of ac
countability for what they do
with their funds. The audit
showed that this was neces
sary, and it is good to see that
the University is stepping up
and taking responsibility for
past mistakes.
Exclusion law an insult
The powers-that-be here in
Eugene have been trying for
some time to turn the down
town mall into some type of
small city shopping utopia.
This effort has, for the most
part, failed. One frequently
sees “For Rent” signs in
storefront windows rather
than “open for business.”
And while it is commend
able to see the City Council
and others trying to fan the
flames of a downtown re
vival, it is disheartening, to
say the least, to see them try
ing to do it by excluding
some residents from even be
ing in the mall. On Monday
thejcouncil voted to expand
the area under the city exclu
sion law that allows police
officers to remove any person
who has been cited for a
crime within the exclusion
zone. That zone will now
grow to the area between
Eighth and 10th avenues and
Oak and Lincoln streets.
While it is troubling to
give the Eugene Police De
partment more control over
individual rights, it is more
concerning to witness the
council’s disregard for basic
respect for the citizens it
tries to represent. This ex
clusion law will further
alienate those people in the
mall who already feel mar
ginalized, and it does not
combat the real source of
crime but only pushes it to
other areas of the city.
Essentially, the city is try
ing to change the look of the
downtown mall by keeping
folks it deems undesirable
away from the area. But that
is just an insult to civil liber
ty. If people commit serious
enough crimes, they should
be incarcerated. But if it’s just
a citation, they should not
lose their basic right to be
wherever they choose.
Liability ruling
makes sense
In a rare move from a state
that has taken almost every
opportunity to infringe upon
an individual’s right to own a
firearm, the California
Supreme Court ruled recent
ly that a firearm manufactur
er cannot be held liable for a
mentally unbalanced man’s
shooting rampage in a San
Francisco office building.
For some time, trying to
make the makers of firearms
responsible for the actions of
criminals has been a tool for
many anti-firearm zealots.
This line of logic is both
faulty and dangerous. If one
follows this reasoning, then
the crimes of the individual
lose'any meaning because a
third party can be held ac
countable for what that crim
inal did.
The shooting spree in San
Francisco was indeed a
tragedy, and defending a
firearm manufacturer does
not defend the actions of the
man who left children with
out parents and husbands
and wives without their
spouses. Instead of trying to
attack the legality of
firearms, individuals should
instead focus on keeping ri
fles and handguns out of the
hands of criminals or insane
people. Suing a firearm
manufacturer does not work
to achieve that goal.
This editorial represents the views of the
Emerald’s editor in chief and does not
necessarily represent the views of the
Oregon Daily Emerald.
Jabbering and driving don't mix
It should be illegal for one to si
multaneously drive a motor vehi
cle and gab on a cellular tele
phone. I arrived at this
conclusion after I was forced to ven
ture to an Ikea store outside Seattle.
After spending several days perusing
the home decor aisles of Eugene
stores, I came to the conclusion that
this city has a complete and utter lack
of high-quality
modular storage
solutions for my
contemporary
lifestyle, forcing
me to traverse to
greener pastures.
This required
a road trip along
the straight and
wide expanse
that is Interstate
5, whose
Weller panoramic
views of pas
tures, grass-seed
farms and
rolling hills are about as interesting
as this column. But take heart, for al
though the drive took four-and-a
half hours, this article probably
won’t be any longer than 20 inches.
For those of you who have never
experienced Ikea, it is truly some
thing to behold. An entire ware
house showroom separated off into
little mock-living areas filled with
furniture, decorations and acces
sories that no one could possibly
know how to pronounce, such as
Tromsnes, Poang and Jonglor.
As the afternoon wore on and my
Graphics Guru
shopping cart filled with more and
more fabulous knick-knacks, my
thoughts turned to the splendor and
beauty of Jack’s apartment in the
movie “Fight Club,” prior to the ex
plosion that either blasted all the fur
niture into a thousand pieces or fused
it all together into one giant, smolder
ing Swedish lump. Sure, the entire
purpose of the apartment scene was
to expose the way that material pos
sessions define the life of their owner,
but didn’t you marvel at the simplici
ty of the clean lines, modular designs
and contemporary style?
Like Ed Norton’s character, I don’t
want to be defined by my Omar stor
age unit, but that doesn’t mean that I
won’t put my damned clothes in it. It
does fit perfectly in my room and
complements my existing theme
quite well, after all.
For those of you who started read
ing this article because you are inter
ested in cell-phone usage, I am getting
there, so bear with me. On the drive
home, the back of my car stuffed with
ready-to-assemble furniture and
white plastic bags printed with the
blue-and-yellow Ikea logo, I was near
ly run off the road, not once, but twice,
by inconsiderate motorists who de
cided their telephone conversations
were obviously more important than,
say, paying attention to the road or the
car (mine) in the lane next to them.
The first person who nearly killed
me was a man who looked to be in
his mid-40s. I tried to justify his
rudeness by telling myself things
such as: “It’s probably his sick child
calling from the hospital,” or “It’s his
wife, asking for a divorce.”
The second person who nearly ran
me off the road was a teenage girl. I
didn’t even try to justify her rudeness.
She was so immersed in her conversa
tion that she was using her arms to ges
ture about wildly instead of using
them to maintain control of her car.
Now, this is not the first time that
such events have nearly cost me my
life, but it was the first time that said
events had threatened to turn my Ikea
products into a smoldering Swedish
lump a la “Fight Club” (just kidding).
These events merely stick in my mind *
because they are the most recent.
Now, I don’t mean to generalize, but
I can say from personal experience that
I have difficulty carrying on a tele
phone conversation and doing any
thing else. I can accuse many of my
friends of this same incompetence. I
can also attest to my sister’s inability to
speak and function, as she nearly
burned our house down while gabbing
with a friend during her teen years.
It just seems to me that something
as potentially dangerous as driving,
especially when you factor in the
momentum of modern sport utility
vehicles, should require the full at
tention of the driver. Gabbing on a
cell phone creates an unnecessary
distraction that could result in a fatal
accident for the driver, the driver’s
passengers or any number of inno
cent bystanders such as myself.
Russell Weller is the design editorforthe Oregon
Daily Emerald. He is not paid by Ikea, Inc. or any
of its subsidiaries. He can be reached at
rweller@dailyemerald.com.
Marijuana is safer than legal drugs
Guest Commentary
Richard
Alevizos
The editorial written by An
drew Adams entitled
"Glamorization of marijua
na poses risks for society"
is quite wrong.
First, Mr. Adams would like to set
himself up as a knowledgeable source
for marijuana information, though he
cites no credible sources he draws
from, except maybe his own brain. He
states that “using marijuana in this
fashion makes it no nobler than beer. ”
First, we are supposed to assume beer
is noble, when it is not. Second, we
are asked to make a comparison be
tween one drug which is legal, and
another that is not. And even though
it is legal, beer is more harmful to the
human body than marijuana, which
is not legal. Sometimes life is not logi
cal, and more importantly, sometimes
the laws of this country aren’t either.
Second, he says, “Any study on drug
use in this country will show marijua
na is the most pervasive narcotic, and
more young people are learning how to
use it than any other drug. ” I would like
to know what studies show this. It
sounds like Mr. Adams has read plenty
of them; can't he cite at least one to back
up his shoddy opinion? And the asser
tion that more young people are learn
ing how to use it than any other drug is
not a reliable assertion either. Alcohol
is still far more attainable and other
drugs such as diet pills, Prozac, Ritalin
and a whole host of other over-the
counter narcotics are more frequently
used than marijuana. So once again he
has missed the mark.
I do agree with him, however, when
he says any drug is dangerous to a per
son with an addiction problem.
Maybe on this point he is speaking
from personal knowledge. How many
people in this country take Valium,
Xanax, Prozac, etc. just to maintain an
"even keel?” How many are hopeless
alcoholics? How many have died
from being an alcoholic?
Nobody is proclaiming marijuana a
wonder drug and nobody is underesti
mating its threats. People have, howev
er, underestimated its benefits, deliber
ately stopped funding of research and
studies to prove the benefits and have
made an all-out effort since the 1950s to
portray marijuana users as communist
freaks capable of killing your baby.
These efforts are as ridiculous as Mr.
Adams’ current attempt at modem
damnation.
Let me remind you, Mr. Adams, of
some statistical facts: First, 300,000
people a year die under the direct care
of a physician. _
An equal
amount die
each year from
alcohol and to
bacco. I still
have yet to hear
of a man dying
from smoking
too much mari
juana in the
more than
5,000years it
has been used.
Also, Ifiave yet
to hear of a man
telling his wife
or girlfriend;
“Sorry I hit you
honey, I smoked too much pot today. ”
But with alcohol (and sometimes to
bacco—the ever-pervasive nic-fit) you
hear plenty of lame excuses for bad be
havior. I just don't buy your epidemic
theory, Mr. Adams, and nobody else
should either.
And just for the record, I do not
smoke marijuana. I also do not believe
people should be smoking it every five
minutes. I do believe that if the law is
not applied equally to all substances,
e.g. alcohol and tobacco being more
harmful but legal, and marijuana not,
then there is no point to following, nor
upholding, those laws. Laws can, have
been and are often not ethical and not
logical, and when the establishment
refuses to change the law, then the peo
ple have to do so on their own. It is my
sincere hope that one of these days we
can actually get a good, qualified
leader to do something right for once.
Richard Alevizos is a University student major
ing in French.
Wayne Stayskal Trimbune Media Services