Government intervention in the world of performance enhancers seemed not to be a question of if but when, after President Bush made the peculiar point of devoting a portion of his State of the Union Address to steroid use. It is no shock then that the Food and Drug Administration recently has banned the herbal stimulant ephedra. Beginning April 12, sale of dietary supplements containing ephedra will be illegal. This ban and the surrounding circumstances beg for a reorganization of the herbal-supplement industry, which ideally would allow for the FDA to monitor supplements without having to resort to the drastic measure of removing them entirely from drug and supplement stores across the country.
The current system fosters fallacies for consumers. These come both from the supplement providers who attempt to push their products as well as from the FDA, which ostensibly is trying to protect the consumer. Because the FDA has no jurisdiction over herbal supplements, companies are allowed to make boisterous claims of performance that really cannot be substantiated. Most supplement bottles have a small message stating that they lack FDA approval. On the flip side, by having no control over supplements, the FDA does not have the power to warn people of potential dangers without forcing suppliers to jettison their entire product. Instead of being able to print warnings on supplements containing ephedra, warning of their dangers to people with heart conditions or high blood pressure, the FDA had no choice but to outlaw substances utilizing the controversial substance.
It is easy for the FDA simply to write ephedra off, but this does consumers a disservice by limiting their options and keeping them in the dark as to the dangers or benefits of other supplements. It is almost laughable and at the very least hypocritical for the FDA to use evidence showing more than 150 deaths linked to ephedra when it allows tobacco, linked to thousands of deaths each year, to remain on the market. Some compromise must be reached in order to give the FDA regulatory power over herbal supplements before they reach the market. How this is achieved is best left up to lawyers and legislators, but the final result for consumers must be the freedom to use what supplements they feel are best for them while armed with the medical knowledge only the FDA can accurately provide.
Voting should stay for ages 18 and up
If California State Sen. John Vasconcellos has his way, high school students will be voting for more than just prom queen. The senator was one of four lawmakers who proposed Monday an amendment that would grant 16-year-olds a half-vote and 14-year-olds a quarter-vote in state elections. The right to vote has been extended to different genders, classes and races but now is not the time to put the ballot in children's hands.
Of course, it is realistic to prepare teens for upcoming elections. Education about local and state government begins in the early years and continues throughout high school. It is not absurd to think that teenagers are well informed and educated, but it is fair to say they are naive and easily swayed. Many have a hard enough time deciding whom to elect to Student Council without even putting thought into who should serve as state representative for the federal government. Being bombarded with student speeches and everyday high school issues is one thing, but listening to a senator campaign about Social Security and tax reform is a whole other issue.
When registered voters actually are able to vote on national issues, their vote should count, not as a half or a quarter, but as one vote. Having a 14-year-old's vote only equal a quarter-vote harkens back to the days when a black person was allowed to vote only if he or she passed a literacy test. A vote should count equally, no matter your age, race or class. Existing voting policies have been put in place to ensure fairness. The proposed amendment only would undermine a principle of equality that Americans have worked so hard to achieve.
The real question is for whom, not how much, the vote will count. For teenagers living with their parents, the vote most likely will go to whomever the parents endorse. An 18-year-old voter more likely lives out of the house and has more independence. Young, uninformed voters only will reinforce the feelings of the household. In the end, this proposal does nothing for the betterment of society.
17 Archives
