Hurricane Katrina

STAFF EDITORIAL

CHARLIE CORRIEA / GUARDSMAN

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina and the devastating floods in New Orleans that followed, the Gulf Coast has suffered another catastrophe: the response.

Haunting images of hungry, poverty-stricken hurricane victims with no one to help them raises ugly questions about problems of race and class in America.

Hundreds of thousands of refugees are now scattered across Louisiana and neighboring states, while state and federal officials continue to bicker over what to do with them.

But whether you call them evacuees or refugees, they won't be able to go back home for months, if not years.

Where will these people go? Why wasn't there a plan?

We have an administration, which has since Sept. 11 been warning the American public that a calculated terrorist attack on a major city is inevitable.

While it was not a terrorist attack that devastated New Orleans, the possibility that the levees could break was far from unforeseen. Homeland Security should have had a major evacuation plan prepared.

President Bush told us time and time again that our cities are vulnerable. Therefore, there should have been a plan in place to rescue these people.

e-mail: editorial@theguardsman.com

The Supreme Court and Abortion

BY DAN POWELL
Editor

President Bush’s rare opportunity to nominate two Supreme Court justices has made the overturning of Roe v. Wade a distinct possibility.

While many abortion-rights advocates regard this scenario like they would a nail bomb ripping through a health clinic, in the end it may be just what is needed to secure abortion rights even more strongly.

With Roe struck down, the issue would be forced away from the Supreme Court, and back to the individual states.

There, the legality of abortion would be decided in the court of public opinion, rather than being an edict handed down from on high by judges who are not elected by the will of the people. And poll after poll conducted in this country shows that the majority of Americans still favor a woman’s right to choose.

Politicians who built electorate's by railing against Roe would, in its absence, be held accountable for their beliefs in a way that they never have been.

Forced to pursue hard-line polices, they would risk alienating their moderate and female base. Such actions would only galvanize the abortion-rights movement into unprecedented levels of activity.

If Roe is reversed, the case for safe, legal abortions will be voiced much more loudly, clearly and convincingly than ever before.

e-mail: citynewseditor@theguardsman.com

A Need for Marijuana Clubs

BY ELIZABETH PFEFFER
Editor

A pot club located on Haight Street in San Francisco. ALEX HYDE / GUARDSMAN

In America, where special interest groups run rampant and everyday politicians unrepentantly squander reasonable propositions to protect other measures that satisfy their personal agendas, it’s nothing short of a miracle the medicinal marijuana debate has stayed on the table so long.

The federal government is nowhere near legalizing weed for any purpose, yet its willingness to look the other way means one day another administration will.

In June, the Supreme Court ruled that federal authorities can crack down on state marijuana laws, but many Proposition 215 proponents believe it’s the only way they could act without action.

“On paper they want to appear ferociously against marijuana, but most of the conservative right doesn’t want to be bothered by people smoking pot,” said one downtown cannabis club worker, who requested his name be withheld. He also said the Drug Enforcement Administration’s seizure of three San Francisco pot clubs after the ruling was really about money laundering, not marijuana.

Most legitimate pot clubs consider themselves caregivers, worrying on their own time about the elderly cancer patients being evicted from federally funded housing and kicked off welfare for smoking joints that are specifically tailored to cut their chemo-induced nausea.

Most of this country’s “taboos” are predicated on outdated, pre-WWII propaganda that somehow manifested into contemporary doctrines. The pot-for-pain argument lost its shock value a long time ago. And the irony is, it’s the cancer and glaucoma-plagued Reefer Madness generation who need weed now more than ever.

e-mail: metronewseditor@theguardsman.com

COMING IN

Faculty Poll

Do you believe military recruiters should be banned on campus?

Yes: 50% (10 out of 20)

No: 50% (10 out of 20)

“I’m ethically opposed to what our military is doing now, but if businesses can recruit on campus the military should be allowed to.”
Paul Herrmann, chemistry

“I do not believe they should be allowed on campus. With constant TV and Internet advertisements, students with interest have ample opportunity to contact the military without personal coercive pressure from in-person recruiters.”
Jessica Williams, political science

ON THE RECORD

Are marijuana clinics a benefit to the community?

Paola Cro

“Marijuana is good for the soul ... and PMS.”

Giovanni Sqadirito

“I’m for them. What’s happening now with marijuana is what happened to alcohol in the 1920s. Legalize it so you can control it, so it doesn’t feed into a higher crime rate.”

Martin McGrath

“I think so. They remove certain medical barriers and allow greater access to pain relief. Marijuana clinics seem more in tune with community needs.”

Saba Alemu

“They’re good, in general. Marijuana is good for your health.”

Jennine White

If you’re in a small city, it’s harder to avoid the clinics if you don’t agree with what they do. But if you need them, it’s also difficult to stay anonymous as a client.”

Ernesto Gonzales

“Yeah, I guess some need weed to relax. You should be able to get some if you need some.”