OCR Text |
Show Your Opinion PAGEA4 MONDAY, APRIL 4, 2005 John Stossel's visit raises questions about the role of government in a free market Should the federal government maintain a laissez faire stance and cease the war on drugs? Ikwo Ibiam Opinion Writer John Stossel, famous for his work on the ABC news show "20/20," spoke in the Grand Ballroom last month. He believes (as do most people) that human beings are rational and that we learn from our experiences. Because of this fact, he feels that the government should not control that which can be determined by individuals. He confirmed that he is not an anarchist, but a liberal with strong opinions about the need to reduce the power of the government over the free market. The topic that Stossel dwelt on was the legalization of addictive drugs. Stossel stated that governmental regulations interfering with the market cause side effects that backfire worse than the initial problem, blaming 99.9 percent of drug crime on drug laws. His reasoning is, "If illegal drugs can't be kept out of our prisons, how can they be kept out of America?" He went on to say, "Police officers that make $25,000 a year don't always turn down $25,000 bribes. Why work full time at McDonald's when your little brother makes more money than you working as a lookout for drug dealers?" These points expose glaring flaws in our criminal justice system, but legalizing drugs is not the best alternative to the problem. While implementing this plan would destroy the illegal drug trafficking trade, the potential for even more people to experiment with drugs would significantly increase. Some people will avoid abusive substances at all costs, however, others are not disciplined enough to fully protect themselves from themselves. This is why so many people die from alcohol related incidents such as over consumption, even though alcohol is a legal "drug." If people could control their intake of liquor, no one would ever be injured in alcohol related car accidents, which have been a much bigger problem than they need to be. Laws held in place by the government protect the vast majority of people from illegal substances who otherwise would fall victim to their own lack of selfcontrol. I am a father and I'm grateful that my son will hopefully never be able to legally buy cocaine at any convenience store. Free markets need governmental regulation, otherwise the market is corrupted very quickly. Business regards money first and people second. There must be a third party involved which protects the welfare of consumers. This is where the government steps in. The ban on Ephedra is a quintessential example of this process. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration noted that in recent years Ephedra products have been extensively promoted for aiding weight control and boosting sports performance and energy. I work for a company that produces dietary supplements for weight loss. We used to market a weight management product that contained Ephedra. Later, the FDA discovered that dietary supplements containing Ephedra present an unreasonable risk of illness or injury, and should not be consumed. Their conclusion was based on the fact that test data showed little evidence of Ephedra's effectiveness except for short-term weight loss, while confirming that the substance raises blood pressure and otherwise stresses the circulatory system. These reactions have been conclusively linked to significant adverse health outcomes, including heart ailments and strokes. In order to protect consumers, the FDA published a final rule on April 12,2004, that bans the sale of dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids. The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine said, 'The increased risk of heart problems and strokes negates any benefits of weight loss." After Ephedra was banned, my employer produced a replacement weight control supplement that is Ephedra free. On many occasions I have informed customers of this change and I have spoken to many that were willing to risk their health in the future for the benefits of immediate weight loss by using the product with Ephedra. You don't need to take classes in the BU building to realize that the hinge upon which all business turns is money. No company would stoop^lling a product that consumers 'vVit, even if it is detrimental to the health of the public, unless the government intervenes and bans the product. In an attempt to solidify his theories, Stossel said, "Patrick Henry didn't say, 'Give me protection or give me death,' he said 'liberty." In reality, protection from things that cause harm that are foreign and domestic is one of the main Andy Hunt/NetXNews ABC news correspondent John Stossel believes the economy works best when government keeps its hands off. For Stossel, this includes the government's policies towards drugs. purposes of our government. This philosophy is even one of the directives of the armed forces. For police officers and fire fighters within each community, their primary objective is to serve and protect. Overall, I enjoyed Stossel's visit to UVSC. His remarks made me ana- lyze my own views and question the reasons why I agreed and disagreed with the different points he advocated. Terry Schiavo case raises appreciation for human life while casting doubts on legal system A recap of the case's history reveals dubious interests Caleb Van Bloem Opinion Writer Few cases have been more difficult to sift through than the recent Terri Shiavo case with its opposing sides of rhetoric and demagoguery. The implications and roots of passion in the debate are of great import and meaning to many Americans. Most of us have heard about Terri's situation, but the flurry of information is confusing, so a review of the facts is in order. Terri Shiavo was a human being, and her physical situation was in dispute. Her parents loved and cared for her and wished to see her continue to live. Terri's husband once loved her, and may have still loved her, but he nonetheless took another women into his life and fathered two children with her. It was his responsibility under Florida law, where he and Terri resided, to be Terri's guardian. Florida courts found that she was incapacitated and beyond recovery. Doctors declared Terri to be in a "persistent vegetative state," but other doctors disputed this diagnosis. Terri's husband, Michael Shiavo, stated that his wife told him she would never want to be kept alive in such a state. The courts have agreed with him and according to Florida law she can legally have her life ter- minated. Legally, Terri had no right to live. As all but the most naive will agree, what is legal is not always what is just, nor is it always what is sensible and reasoned. If it were so, John Grisham would have nothing to write about, and "Law and Order" would have run out of material after one season. Florida's governor and congress agreed that there was enough evidence of injustice in Terri's case to pass a law granting the governor power to order Terri's feeding tube reinserted. Further, the United States Congress, Senate, and President also felt that her case merited further review. What evidence is there for questioning over a decade of legal wrangling in Florida? Do you want to go to this real estate meeting with me, it Is only $50? Why would i go to a class that wastes my money and I will probably never use the knowledge ever again? Besides, I have a student success class and then PE 101 during your so called meeting. Bradford Smith/NetXNews A look at the timeline is interesting. locked in court battles between her In February of 1990, Terri collapsed parents and husband. and received brain damage from a The inconsistencies on Mr. Shialack of oxygen. Two years later (af- vo's part are just a few of the reater no improvement) sons I have my doubts Mr. Shiavo won on the valid$300,000 for himity of the litiself and $750,000 As all but the most naive gation profor Terri's care in a lawsuit against doc- will agree, what is legal is cess. But the endless comtors he accused of not always what is just, plexity of misdiagnosing his nor is it always what is the case, the wife. During this case, her husband sensible and reasoned. If ambiguity of the evidence, presented testimony from medical it were so, John Grisham and the conflicting tesexperts advocating timony only her ability to be re- would have nothing to serves to habilitated. A year write about, and "Law highlight the later, Terri's parents true nature of filed a petition and Order" would have the national to have Terri's run out of material after debate. guardianship transferred to one season. Who them, which should get to was later disdecide when missed. This someone petition was likely motivated by dies? Are such decisions in the Mr. Shiavo's failure not only to hands of a Creator or the State? Are pursue all the means necessary they in the hand of fate or a judge's for her rehabilitation, but also gavel? I ask, when the definitive by reported medical neglect. will of the person in question is not Despite his eagerness to ad- known how can we as mere humans vocate for Terri's treatment and presume to decide who is worthy recovery in his previous law- of life? Sadly, when we in our arrosuit, Mr. Shiavo apparently re- gance begin to think we possess that membered that she didn't want power, then, instead of something to live like that, and filed a peti- sacred, human life becomes nothing tion to have Terri's feeding tube more than a tool for the healthy or removed allowing her to starve powerful to discard at the whim of and dehydrate. This was granted convenience. and since then Terri's life was |