Ritalin’s dangers cannot be dismissed
Reading Ilana Fried’s column “Moderate use of
Ritalin probably OK” (10/28) shocked me.
First and foremost, there seems to be little, if any, research
done into the harmful effects of stimulants upon the body. Ritalin
and its analogs are not “similar to caffeine pills”
““ they affect the brain in entirely different ways and have a
whole host of dangerous side effects.
These drugs are also schedule II drugs, meaning that possession
of them without a prescription is a federal felony ““ with the
same penalties as possession of PCP, opium and cocaine.
There are reasons psychiatrists perform multiple interviews
before prescribing these drugs ““ they are extremely
habit-forming and must be taken in minute doses until the body can
adjust to them. Those with ADHD have a deficit of the
neurochemicals that handle focus and concentration ““
it’s foolish to suggest that any layman can decide that
it’s OK just for this midterm.
Does that mean I should take a Zoloft whenever I’m feeling
down to pep myself up?
Rizwan Kassim Fifth-year, electrical
engineering
Prop. 69 will protect, not invade rights of innocent
Ramona Ripston’s submission (“Proposition 69:
Privacy or safety?”) in the Oct. 25 Viewpoint page was quite
possibly the most absurd analysis of a piece of legislation I have
read to date.
She alleges that collecting samples of genetic information from
those accused of a crime invades their personal privacy and
inherent rights. The DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and Innocence
Protection Act in fact provides for the opposite.
The proposition calls for a DNA sample to be taken from those
charged with a crime, and the sample is far from invasive ““ a
mouth swab is all that is needed (blood, hair and skin work well
also).
The FBI’s Combined DNA Index System is currently being
used by 34 states with some 460,000 samples already being stored.
There have been hundreds of hits since the system started.
DNA is the single best identification of a human being: one in
10 trillion people will have the same non-coding DNA (the so-called
“junk DNA” that has no real purpose in the genome).
Also, junk DNA does not provide “intimate details”
because the type of genetic material that gives researchers clues
to possible diseases or somatic disorders are in a completely
different part of the genome.
Those who are arrested but not charged with a crime have the
peace of heart in knowing that their DNA can prove them innocent of
any crime that they may be unfairly accused of committing. This
legislation does not invade the rights of the innocent; rather, it
protects them against unfair prosecution.
Stephanie Casey Fourth-year, microbiology, immunology
and molecular genetics
Prop. 63 editorial has wrong priorities
I was very surprised and disappointed to see The Bruin’s
editorial recommending a no on Proposition 63 (“Prop. 63
funds unfair to taxpayers,” 10/18). The Bruin dismisses the
mental health care services the proposition would provide.
Almost four decades ago, California got rid of its mental
hospitals and promised to fund community mental health services.
That promise is still unfulfilled, and California has hundreds of
thousands of children and adults who suffer from mental illnesses
and cannot get the treatment they need. Mentally ill children fail
in school, while adults end up on the streets or in jail.
The proposition would impose a trivial 1 percent tax, and only
the portion of income that exceeds more than $1 million a year. (I
didn’t realize the Daily Bruin Editorial staff had so many
millionaires on it.)
What disappointed me the most, though, was the reason the
editorial gave, calling this an arbitrary tax by the voters on the
voters. But who better to impose a tax on the voters but the voters
themselves? I cannot think of a better case of taxation with
representation.
Tom Berger Fourth-year, aerospace
engineering
Bruin Republicans need to support tolerance
Yesterday I noticed the following quote on the Bruin
Republicans’ advertising up on Bruin Walk: “Tolerance
is the virtue of the man without convictions.” The last time
I checked, tolerance was a virtue championed by our great moral
leaders ““ Jesus Christ, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther
King, Jr. come to mind immediately.
These men viewed tolerance for others as a way to heal conflict
and division within their societies and as a way to create and
maintain peace. Intolerance, in turn, has been and continues to be
the driving force behind some of the most destructive chapters in
our history.
When I walked by that sign, I actually turned around and read it
a few more times to make sure it actually said what it said. What
made it even scarier was that the Bruin Republicans placed the
quote just below the ad for Monday’s “Coming Out
Day.” Is this a joke or is it really how the Bruin
Republicans feel about respecting the beliefs and practices of
others?
Michelle Comeau UCLA School of Law, Class of
2006