Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Suite 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
Email: editor@dailyemerald.com
Online Edition:
www.dailyemerald.com
Friday, November, 15,2002
-Oregon Daily Emerald
Commentary
Editor in Chief:
Michael J. Kleckner
Managing Editor
Jessica Richelderfer
Editorial Editors:
Salena De La Cruz, Pat Payne
Editorial
Go give blood,
but beware of
discrimination
The University has teamed up with Oregon State Uni
versity to sponsor a Civil War Blood Drive this year, and
blood collection is happening in the EMU Taylor Lounge
today. The University’s Alumni Association Web page
states that “all alumni, students, faculty, staff, and fans of
both universities are invited” to participate.
Blood donation is important, and we would also like to
encourage the entire community to give. Unfortunately,
we can’t.
See, many students, faculty, staff, alumni and fans
aren’t allowed to give blood, and we feel they should be
warned in advance that they will be discriminated
against if they try. The University isn’t offering this warn
ing — although they certainly should — so we will.
According to Food and Drug Administration guide
lines, if you are a male and admit to having sex with a
male any time since 1977, you won’t be able to give
blood. If you have piercings or tattoos (and the blood
bank staff notice), you may not be able to give blood.
Other groups also are singled out as having a high risk
for diseased blood and are not allowed to donate: people
from many African countries, people who spent more
than six months in some European countries, people
who recently snorted coke, and the list goes on.
Some situations may increase the likelihood of dis
eased blood, and the country certainly needs to protect
its blood supply. But there are significant problems with
the male-male sex factor and the piercing factor, and
these regulations need to change — or at least, be en
forced fairly.
Men who have had sex with men since 1977 are not
a monolithic group. Their sexual behaviors are not all
of one type, and to group them together and consider
them “more likely to be diseased” is prejudice, plain
and simple.
First on the list of major concerns is that people are
likely to lie when asked such personal questions. What
good does it do, then, except to discriminate? The ques
tionnaire does not attempt to determine the riskiness of
the donor. Was the sex oral, anal or other? Was it safe sex
or not? Was it one monogamous partner or not?
Of even more concern is that these questions are not
asked of heterosexuals. There is a percentage of students
who pass sexually transmitted diseases around like notes
for a midterm. Why are we taking these students’ blood?
Maybe we should only take blood from virgins, because in
addition to the ritualistic appeal of such a rule, that’s the
only way to nearly guarantee STD-free blood.
The piercing rule, in the editorial board’s experience, is
applied based solely on appearance — another gross dis
crimination. Women with pierced ears are not regularly
asked about their piercings, even though these may have
be done in unsanitary conditions or in other states. But
people with “weird” piercings are asked when the pierc
ing was done and are told that it must have been done in
Oregon and they must know the name of their piercer.
Why isn’t this asked of everyone with piercings?
There is an easy answer to all of this prejudice: Test
the blood. But wait: They already do. So if the country
really does have a blood shortage, why are blood banks
discriminating, and why isn’t all blood from any willing
donor taken, tested and used if it’s clean?
We don’t have an easy answer, but community mem
bers should know that the University is asking them to
participate in an event where they may encounter dis
crimination. With that said, give blood. If you can.
are encouraged. Letters are limited to 250
y words and guest commentaries to 5 $0 words.
7 Authors are limited to one submission per
I calendar month. Submission must include
phone number and address for verification,
ffte Cmerald reserves the right to edit
for space, grammar and style.
DREAMING- OF THE LAS VEGAS Bowl,
Peter Utsey Emerald
Letters to the editor
Medical marijuana laws
are not justified
Your article on federal efforts to under
mine Oregon’s voter-approved medical
marijuana law (“Search and Seizure,” ODE,
Nov. 8) underscored the need for a state dis
tribution system free from federal intrusion.
The first marijuana laws were enacted
in response to Mexican migration during
the early 1900s, despite opposition from
the American Medical Association. White
Americans did not even begin to smoke
marijuana until a soon-to-be entrenched
government bureaucracy began funding
“reefer madness” propaganda.
Dire warnings that marijuana inspires
homicidal rages have been counterproduc
tive at best. An estimated 38 percent of
Americans have now smoked pot. The
reefer madness myths have long been dis
credited, forcing the drug war gravy train
to spend millions of tax dollars on politi
cized research, trying to find harm in a rela
tively harmless plant.
The direct experience of millions of
Americans contradicts the sensationalis
tic myths used to justify marijuana pro
hibition. Illegal drug use is the only public
health issue wherein key stakeholders are
not only ignored, but actively persecuted
and incarcerated. In terms of medical
marijuana, those stakeholders happen to
be cancer and AIDS patients. Oregon pa
tients may be protected, but medical mar
ijuana providers aren’t.
The Drug Enforcement Administration
has conducted numerous paramilitary
raids on providers in California and Ore
gon. The very same DEA that claims illicit
drug use funds terrorism is forcing sick
patients into the hands of street dealers.
Apparently federal marijuana laws are
more important than protecting the
country from terrorism. Students inter
ested in helping reform harmful drug laws
should contact Students for Sensible
Drug Policy at www.ssdp.org.
Robert Sharpe
program officer
Drug Policy Alliance
Washington, D.C.
It’s their money
I was outraged to read your editorial
suggesting that Bill Gates and other “ul
tra-rich” be forced to pay a special tax to
eliminate homelessness, (“Communities
should pressure richest citizens to help
homeless,” ODE, Nov. 5).
It is unclear from your piece at what
time Gates starts living his life for the sake
of your opinion. Is it as soon as you made
your demand for his money? The fact
that you have put your claim to Gates’
money above Gates’ claim to his own
money should be morally offensive to all
of your readers. And before responding
with some comment about need, remem
ber what happens when capital is distrib
uted based on need.
Scott Parker
senior
general science
Don’t grade opinions
It utterly and thoroughly sickened me
to read the so-called “advice” from
Natasha Chilingerian in her Pulse col
umn, “Ask Nat” (“Don’t let politics get in
the way of grades,” Nov. 12, ODE).
It pertained to a student who received
an F on his/her paper. Professors that are
willing to flunk students because of their
political views, and then themselves
stand on their ivory towers of Ph.Ds and
prestige in order to pontificate their po
litical beliefs upon impressionable stu
dents, are nothing more that petty tyrants
who do not deserve to be teaching stu
dents, much less receiving tenure.
A university is a place to learn—and this
is achieved by hearing all sides of the de
bate. Here is a bit of advice to the student:
Be proud of your beliefs, and never let a pro
fessor bully you into thinking that their way
is the only way toward receiving an A.
Jarrett White
junior, business
chairman
College Republicans
Thanks for the support
I want to thank the residents of Ore
gon’s Congressional District 4 for a strong
vote of support in the election. It is a
tremendous opportunity and honor to
once again be chosen to represent South
west Oregon in Congress.
I will continue to do my best to actively
represent concerns and unique Oregon
perspectives in Congress.
As always, please write, e-mail, call or
visit one of my three district offices to
express your opinions and concerns on
federal issues or to ask for help with
problems you are having with the feder
al agency or program.
Peter DeFazio
member of Congress
Measure 23’s failure
will cause crisis
Measure 23 volunteers were terrific,
breaking signature-gathering records and
educating their friends. As the medical
crisis becomes more evident, voters will
recognize their missed opportunity.
More than $20 billion will be spent in
2005 for health care in Oregon, and 25 to
40 percent will go to corporate insurance
related charges. The same amount of mon
ey under Measure 23 would have paid for
every Oregonian’s medically necessary
health care. I do anguish for all the million
individuals without coverage or not
enough coverage, especially seniors with
no dental, prescription or long term care.
Premiums in 2005 are predicted to be 50
percent higher, and fewer and fewer citi
zens will afford insurance. Measure 23
would have been cheaper except for the
richest 10 percent.
Hundreds of rural communities today
have no health care, and by 2005 there will
also be fewer medical centers. There will be
an increase in bankruptcies, now 45 per
cent because of health costs. More Oregon
companies will become self-insured for
their healthy working population, and the
rest of us will pay for the sick, disabled and
the elderly.
Everyone must become better in
formed about health care, work for cam
paign finance reform and contact their
elected officials about the importance of
having a single payer plan for Oregon.
Ruth Duemler
Eugene