Category: Opinion

By Josh Haywood

Contributing Writer

Marijuana is–and should remain–illegal for all Americans, except for those who use it medicinally. I stand firmly behind this belief, as I just do not feel that we, as a society, need another drug on our retail shelves. Tobacco and alcohol are bad enough; I do not see the purpose in legalizing marijuana. I recognize that it has never killed anyone or promoted cancer growth, but people are just going to keep on using and growing the plant anyway, no matter the legality. What is the point in changing its legal status? The only thing I would change is to decriminalize the substance so if you are caught with possession, all you face is confiscation and a fine based upon the amount you have. This punishment would save tax dollars when it comes to enforcement.

To those who believe marijuana will stimulate the economy: you are wrong. Any tax revenue will be counteracted by the cost of industry regulation. Marijuana will have to meet certain quality standards. Any plant that does not meet these standards is a waste of money in terms of water, food, land, workers, electricity, screening the plant for contaminants and the technology needed to check for certain standards, such as THC concentration. The list goes on and on because you are going to need to add the cost to regulate the substance either through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or the Food and Drug Administration, which means opening up a new division in one of the organizations and paying each agent’s salary. On top of this is the cost to revolutionize laws: making sure underage sales do not occur and establishing drug influenced driving laws and technology to enforce that law. Employers are still going to have to pay for pre-employment drug tests, as I suspect a majority would still do drug screens. This will counteract legalization from the economic standpoint because people who would otherwise buy it will choose not to out of fear of employer-mandated drug tests.

As for medical marijuana, I believe the drug should be rescheduled to a Schedule II substance so it can be researched and used medicinally. Medical marijuana proves beneficial in cancer patients going through chemotherapy not only by counteracting nausea, but also stimulating their suppressed appetite and thus, extending their lives. It also serves as a better means to suppress pain without as many side effects in individuals with debilitating injuries. If the United States were to allow for medicinal marijuana, I would want a tighter set of restrictions on who can receive it and how easy it would be to get the prescription. I feel as if the situation in California is out of control as people continuously fake symptoms just to get a medicinal card. This needs to be stopped because all it does is make it harder for people who are actually ill to be aided.

There is a time and place for everything, and that place is college. We are all going to be entering the job market soon and need to be focusing on our careers and life goals. Marijuana gets in the way of this by clouding the mind. Marijuana legalization provides nothing for this country other than furthering the perception that the United States is a nation of drug users.

By Jasmine King

Contributing Writer

For the past few years, there has been much controversy surrounding the Supreme Court and the policy of replacing a Justice who has retired from the position or died. In this respect, if a Justice is in need of replacement, the replacement should have the same political, social and economic values as the person she or he is replacing. Right now the Supreme Court has four liberals (Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer), four conservatives (Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas) and one who is the “swing vote” (Kennedy). There is currently a sense of balance between liberals and conservatives that the United States did not have in previous years.

The next Justice foreseen to retire is Ginsberg, the Court’s most liberal member, and the President in office during her retirement must replace her with another liberal. Keeping the balance that our Court has had for the past few years has worked well. The diverse natures of the Justices allow them to bring their own unique experiences and values to the Court. With this balance, Americans may not be happy about every verdict, but they will not be able to say that our court system favors one side over the other. I believe that the Supreme Court does well at keeping to the law and recognizing both sides of the spectrum.

In previous years conservatives have undoubtedly overruled the Court. This may not have posed a problem in the past, but American society is changing in the way that we view issues; conservative is not always better now. In the recent case Maples v. Thomas, it was decided 7-2 that death row inmate Cory R. Maples, convicted of murder, should get a new hearing in Alabama. This ruling was overwhelmingly liberal-based. The two Justices who opposed this ruling, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, dissented, maintaining that “Maples did have some form of representation from the N.Y. firm and from a local Alabama attorney retained solely for procedural reasons” (Death Penalty Information Center). The fact that Scalia and Thomas voted against this verdict makes sense in that conservatives tend to favor the death penalty.

If the Court was full of raging conservatives like Scalia and Thomas, our justice system would not give second chances. The Supreme Court would be unforgiving and be one-sided, and so would our entire country. But then, conservatives could say the same thing about liberals–the key to a successful Court is balance.

By Molly Brown

Contributing Writer

When a student hears something about downtown Lewisburg, the first thought that most likely pops into his or her head is probably related to a party at one of the houses on Sixth or Seventh Street. It only takes a stroll down Market Street on an early Saturday afternoon to see a different relationship between students and downtown. The bookstore’s downtown relocation has acted as a catalyst to lure students downtown, and now their support of the local businesses is strong and steady.

Obviously the University bookstore’s placement, which moved to the corner of Market Street and Fourth Street last year, was an initial drawing force to bring students downtown. Even if students order their textbooks from other online vendors, the allure of this season’s spirit wear and perhaps a notebook or two necessitate the pilgrimage. The University makes it easy for students to do so with the regular campus shuttle service. It should be noted, though, that students are extending beyond the gleaming tables of the Barnes & Noble paperbacks and Starbucks-fueled caffeine source to the smaller, independently owned stores of downtown Lewisburg.

As someone who grew up with an independent bookshop that was taken away from me by a big-box chain store, I was delighted beyond measure to see a large group of students walk right by the new Subway and head instead into Pronto. Coincidentally on the way there myself, I opened the door to Pronto and saw that not only was every table full, but also every table held students, happily laughing and sharing a nice Saturday lunch away from the Bison for a change. It was wonderful. I began to observe Market Street a bit more closely. I saw students with bags walking out of thrift stores, two friends deliberating underneath the Campus Theatre marquee about which times worked better for their schedules and a group of three turning the corner with coffee, doubtless coming from the charming Cherry Alley. After I returned to my dorm later that day, I asked my friends if they shopped downtown often, aside from the bookstore. My artist friends told me they stop in Brushstrokes often, and other friends head to Bull Run whenever there’s a big game on the weekend.

As a first-year student, I cannot assert if this is a recent phenomenon. Every student goes through “Welcome to the Neighborhood: Lewisburg Day” during Orientation, so students are aware of the local businesses. I do not think that the downtown survives solely on the patronage of University students. On the contrary, I see the same people sitting in Cherry Alley on Saturday mornings, the same people waiting in line at the Campus Theatre on Sunday afternoons, the same faces at CVS and the same people carrying pizza out of Pizza Phi. I do think the decision to move the bookstore has ultimately proved beneficial to the local economy because more foot traffic, no matter who’s doing the walking, means more business. So for those of you who have yet to make it downtown, the next time you want to spice up your normal Bostwick Marketplace routine or need to find a birthday gift, take a stroll down Market Street and see what you can discover.

By Jen Mok

Contributing Writer

When President John Bravman first initiated the Campus Climate Task Force, he received positive and enthusiastic feedback. The University community had openly embraced the need for change in the social environment. This plan evidently entailed new regulations on Greek Life, but recent actions against Greek Life have begun to worry students, including myself.

A month ago the Interfraternity Council (IFC) released a proposal for a “Greek Orientation” to educate first-year students on the purposes of Greek Life and to emphasize the wide range of opportunities Greek organizations provide besides social ones. This additional four-week program was proposed in hopes of enhancing both the recruitment process and the image of Greek Life.

It is true that many first-years are less informed and many are led to form inaccurate and unfair judgments about the Greek system. Does this necessitate a potential class for incoming Greek members? I think not.

The integration of an official class is, in theory, a great suggestion. It will provide those interested and those in doubt a greater understanding of what is required and expected of a Greek member. The class could also potentially improve the overall outlook of the Greek system for both those in favor of and opposed to sororities and fraternities. Despite the conceivable positive outcomes, such an approach could tarnish the school’s image and voice quite contradicting and differing campus opinions and lifestyles.

It is no secret that our school is heavily dominated by Greek Life. A class designed for first-years would, however, imply a staggeringly high percentage of the student body involved in the systems. There are plenty of students not involved and this class would unjustly not reflect that there are students not engaged in Greek Life. The Greek system is already so heavily emphasized that other activities are often overlooked. Having a class dedicated to the Greek system would only solidify such an unreasonable and prejudiced perspective of our campus.

Not only does this provide an inaccurate image of the school, but it also voices a contradicting concern of the school board and faculty. I leave you with two final questions:  What exactly does the administration want from Greeks, and is a simple class going to provide the necessary satisfaction?

When it comes to navigating the complicated role of being a good roommate, the conflict of “sexiling”—being exiled from your room due to a roommate’s rendezvous— inevitably comes up. To me, it generally seems that girls tend to be less accepting victims of a sexile than guys, but just as there are a variety of roommate relationships there are as many varied feeling towards sexiling. Overall, the general rules seem to be as such:

No school night sexiling. As someone who likes to do late night work in my room, my roommate’s hookup should not get in the way of my studies.  Similarly, if I have a big test or presentation the next day, I want to be able to get the good night’s rest that only sleeping in my own bed provides. One of the most annoying parts of being sexiled is not being able to get back into the room to get my things without having to see my roommate spooning or doing the nasty with some guy. Trust me, having to interrupt to get something you need from the room can be extremely uncomfortable for both you and your roommate.

Forewarning must be given. I really don’t want to see anything of the hookup nature; it is best if I don’t know what’s going on in my room. Late warning is more acceptable on the weekends when I don’t really have anything to do until the afternoon, but 12 a.m. on a Wednesday night tends to be rude. It is also nice to get some warning so that I can leave before the partner returns, as the awkward small talk with my roommate’s hookup is just plain painful—we both know what is about to go down in my room. The roommate relationship is one based upon open communication and awareness of each other, so a long as my roommate asks for the room and we have open dialogue on what is and is not acceptable when it comes to sexiling, I say get your sex on.

The hookup better be worth it. It has always struck me how I tend to be more accepting of being sexiled if I know the guy is cute and not an ass. If I am going to be kicked out of my room, I would rather it be for something that is going to be good. I am more readily accepting of my roommate’s boyfriend staying the night than a random hookup, but to an extent. I could never handle having that roommate whose boyfriend sleeps over, sans fooling around, almost every night. Something about sleeping a couple of feet away from them cuddling is just plain uncomfortable.

But overall, my biggest rule is I just don’t want to see, and preferably hear, anything.

By Ben Kaufman

Sports Layout Editor

To be blunt, being sexiled is a part of college. It is something that either everybody does or something that happens to you.

Personally, I have not been sexiled frequently. It has only happened a few times to me, and only once has it actually affected me. This was due to the fact that my roommate’s partner stayed the weekend and did not leave until Monday and I had to be in a physics lab at 8 a.m. that morning. To put it frankly, that sucked. When it comes to being sexiled, as long as it does not affect my schoolwork during the week, then I honestly do not care.

I grew up sharing a room with my older brother, who had a girlfriend until my junior year of high school. That was the first time I was actually sexiled. I did not mind the situation, as I am close with my brother, and the circumstances surrounding the relationship were different: he was in a long-distance relationship and therefore did not see his girlfriend often. So in this case, I did not really care about being sexiled, especially since my parents had a rule that our girlfriends were not allowed to sleep over if they were home. 

Here is the thing: as long as it does not affect my schoolwork then I really could not care less. It is what is known as “Bro-Code.” It is an unspoken rule in which you try to help out your friend, or “bro,” as often as possible. If that means sleeping on a couch or on a floor for one night, then so be it, life will go on. If my roommate at school decides to bring someone back to our room, I would have no issue sleeping on my friend’s floor for the night, or on a couch in my fraternity. As long as the person who is sexiling people does not take advantage of their roommate, then it is really not a big deal.

It frustrates me when people get so annoyed about being sexiled since it is usually just for one night every once in a while. Your life will go on if you sleep on the floor for one night, so be civil and accepting.

Joshua Haywood

Contributing Writer

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is overreaching its authority as a regulatory organization when it comes to students’ conduct off the field, specifically in the realm of social media. Two recent suspensions handed down by the organization acted as a response to two players’ posts on Twitter and have started a controversy over what role, if any, the NCAA should play in monitoring player conduct in the social media arena.

It played out similar to a case of states’ rights versus federal authority in which each individual university represents a state in the union who has established their own unique set of rules. The NCAA acts as the federal government, which can place sanctions on organizations, as well as individual players who break rules set forth by the organization’s by-laws. Recently, Lehigh wide receiver Ryan Spadola and Stony Brook linebacker Matt Faiella were suspended over a tweet that Faiella, whose account at the time was set to private, posted that Spadola subsequently retweeted and happened to contain a racial epithet. The tweet was not directed at anyone in particular but was rather a response to Faiella’s friend, in regard to an opposing player supposedly talking trash. The NCAA determined this comment to be inappropriate, thus suspending the involved students.

“This was a very unfortunate incident, but racially insensitive characterizations are unacceptable and will not be tolerated. The offensive language of this nature by Mr. Spadola, whether intentional or not, was unsportsmanlike and discredited the championship overall,” the NCAA said.

Monitoring this behavior does not seem to be appropriate. The issue should have been left up to the school. I agree with the NCAA that the content of the tweet was inappropriate, but disagree with the suspensions because I feel as if the organization overextended its control into a player’s life off the field. There seems to be a lack of personal privacy on behalf of the NCAA, as the punishment should have ultimately fallen in the schools’ hands. Interesting enough, the NCAA does not have any official policy that establishes rules for social media use and has stated that it does not plan on establishing such rules any time soon. This being said, nothing could have changed the outcome other than the NCAA reversing its decision as the organization’s power supersedes any university’s set of rules.

The NCAA is setting a dangerous precedent as the ruling monarch of college athletics. It seemingly opens Pandora’s Box as to how much power the organization has over college athletics and a player’s right to freedom of expression, as well as defining what level of personal privacy is to be expected. The ruling in this case was not based upon a set guideline, but rather on the organization’s discretion. The NCAA is trampling over a university’s right to control their own students and is totally unwarranted in their suspension of the two players, leaving more questions than answers. What if people in the situation changed and the players involved had been of the other race? Would the event’s final outcome been different? Who is the NCAA to even define what players can and cannot say off the field, and what is their justification behind it? What will this mean for future student athletes who are active social media users?

When all the dust settles and the smoke clears, the precedent set by the NCAA is too overpowering and takes away the ability to determine proper conduct from the university. I am not condoning what was tweeted in any way, but I do believe that the right to free speech and privacy greatly outweighs the NCAA’s control over player expression.