Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!americast.com!americast.com!usa-post Newsgroups: usa-today.issues,americast.usa-today.issues From: usa-post@AmeriCast.Com Organization: American Cybercasting Approved: usa-post@AmeriCast.com Subject: issues Tue, Sep 22 1992 Date: Tue, 22 Sep 92 04:55:02 EDT Message-ID: 09-22 0000 DECISIONLINE: Issues & Debate USA TODAY Update Sept. 22, 1992 Source: USA TODAY:Gannett National Information Network Here are some of the issues and topics being debated across the nation Tuesday morning in USA TODAY: Military, Marijuana. TODAY'S DEBATE - GAYS IN MILITARY: USA TODAY'S OPINION: If you're gay and in the military, honesty will cost you your job. No matter how distinguished your service or discreet your private life, if you admit to so much as a desire to engage in homosexual behavior, you're out. This archaic policy - underscored Monday in an Air Force hearing on Sgt. Tom Paniccia's discharge for homosexuality - is as costly as it is cruel. Expelling 16,919 homosexuals between 1980 and 1990 cost $493 million for recruiting and retraining replacements, according to a General Accounting Office study. No figures exist for the added expense of investigations, training and paying ousted personnel or processing them on their way out. That's a waste of money and the talents of some capable, dedicated people. ... Once named "Non-commissioned Officer of the Year," (Paniccia) may be forced out for saying he was gay on "Good Morning America" in July. ... The military's anti-gay policy rests on prejudice, not facts. It assumes they pose a security risk, despite two Defense Department studies concluding the opposite. It assumes they undermine "discipline, good order and morale" and the "military mission," although there's no evidence to back this up. Similar unexamined hunches once led the military to exclude blacks and women, policies now wisely abandoned. ... thousands of gays and lesbians serve honorably and undetected, as Defense Secretary Dick Cheney admits. And during the Persian Gulf War, the policy was suspended, though many were prosecuted when they got back. The military should abandon its anti-gay policy. Challenging prejudice ought to be part of the military mission. OTHER VIEW: WILLIAM HAMILTON, a syndicated columnist who served two combat tours in Vietnam, one as an infantry company commander: Even civilians (or politicians) whose only military experience is watching "M*A*S*H" know gaping wounds require fresh, whole blood. Plasma won't suffice. That's why GIs must wear ID tags showing their blood type. The battlefield GI's supply of fresh, whole blood comes from other GIs. Knowing that, and setting aside moral, religious and security concerns, let's imagine tomorrow's battlefield if Congress forces the military to accept homosexuals. The soldier next to you is hit and gushing blood. Only a quick transfusion with fresh, whole blood can save him. His ID shows his blood type. While a medic tries to stop the bleeding, you seek out a soldier with the matching type. Back when the Army's purpose was war fighting and not social engineering, you simply grabbed the first soldier with the matching blood type and a medic did a transfusion. ... Only now you have to sort through your soldiers to make sure you don't pick one who's at high risk for AIDS and hook him up to your wounded soldier, who may die while you are searching. What if you are pinned down by enemy fire and the only soldier of the required blood type within reach is homosexual? Now what do you do? But what if privacy laws prevent you from knowing who's homosexual and who's not? Isn't combat tough enough? Must combat leaders be saddled with this unnecessary complication? We have plenty of manpower to meet military needs without inducting homosexuals - the primary high-risk group for AIDS. VOICES ACROSS THE NATION ON LEGALIZING MARIJUANA FOR MEDICINE: MAHANOY CITY, Pa., Mark Bernardyn, 31, banking officer: No. There is enough medicine that something else can be used to ease the pain of a victim of a fatal illness. Authorities are doing an excellent job in my area of preventing drug use; if they legalized it, more doors would be opened. It would make their job a lot more difficult. LOUISVILLE, Ky., Stephanie Dumeyer, 43, account executive: Yes, it should be, as long as it's controlled. It's been proved that it can be helpful. There isn't much we can do to help the AIDS and cancer patients. They should be top priority. BLOOMINGTON, Ind., Howard Hill, 50, professor, program dir.: This is 1992 - no. If you would ask me this in 2000, the answer might be different. Use of it depends on the user and how discreet he or she may be. If a person has need of it and has medical consent, this could be considered acceptable, not legal. It's still against the law. GUADALUPE, Ariz., Angelina Valencia, 26, health promoter: No. A lot of people think marijuana isn't that dangerous, but it does a lot of harm. Things are out of control now; if it's legalized, it will get worse. When police aren't around, people smoke it like it's cigarettes. ALAMO, Texas, Arnoldo Mata, 37, development specialist: Most certainly. As long as doctors and pharmacists keep control of who uses it and for what purposes, I don't think the abuse of it would be much of a problem. Abuse of illegal drugs dwarfs abuse of prescribed drugs. Issues & Debate Editor: Kate Coughlin. (1-919-855-3491) Making copies of USA TODAY Update (Copyright, 1992) for further distribution violates federal law. This article is copyright 1992 Gannett News Service. Redistribution to other sites is not permitted except by arrangement with American Cybercasting Corporation. For more information, send-email to usa@AmeriCast.COM