Tuesday, May 3, 2011 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com Investment woes Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@umich.edu BETHANY BIRON EDITOR IN CHIEF MARK BURNS MANAGING EDITOR TEDDY PAPES EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily's editorial hoard. All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors. Medicinal discrimation Marijuana should be considered a legitimate medication In 2008, Joseph Casias won an award from a Walmart in Battle Creek, Michigan for being its Associate of the Year. In 2009, they fired him. A medical marijuana patient with sinus cancer and an inoperable brain tumor the size of a softball, Casias was drug tested fol- lowing a knee injury at work. After testing positive for - you guessed it - marijuana, he was let go. He never used the drug at work nor was he ever under its influence while working. The American Civil Liberties Union subsequently filed a lawsuit against Walmart in support of Casias, but a federal judge dismissed the case in February. Last week, however, the ACLU petitioned an appellate court to review it. If the federal appeals court has any investment in the laws of Michigan, which it most cer- tainly should, it must reexamine this case. I've generally considered myself an innocent bystander as corpo- rate policies wreak havoc around the world. I haven't been out on the, street protest- ing everyday, but by no means have I thought that I've been JONATHAN supporting vio- AYLWARD lence or immor-_ al corporations, even indirectly. I haven't actively supported weap- ons contractors, big oil, corporate farming or voted for war-mon- gering business. Sadly, it turns out that by just attending the University of Micbigan I've been supporting exactly tbe kinds of companies and products to which I am morally opposed. Two weeks ago I went home and had one of those slightly uncom- fortable conversations in which I was forced to try to defend an ideal against my family. My parents are progressive and extremely liberal in almost every sense, but when I started talking to my dad about potentially investing in the stock market, I uncovered something that made me uneasy: my parents invest their money in bonds and mutual funds, a practice as com- mon as owning a car. As my dad explained what each of these were, he described how mutual funds diversified his money in a variety of companies for enhanced safety. It turns out that some of his money was invested in companies that he knew hardly anything about. I'm not chastising my dad; he's a great man. Along with my mom, he has helped send all three of his kids to school, as well as provided abun- dant love and a comfortable life for our family. I was just a little disap- pointed to hear that he was poten- tially investing money in companies that could be doing anything from killing people to harming our envi- ronment. This hands-off investing practice is so common thathe didn't tbink twice about it. The campus community needs to examine what the University is investing in. There isn't space to discuss these companies in any great detail, but I encourage you to research them. The products and practices of Monsanto - the agricultural biotechnology com- pany - bave caused an incredible amount of controversy. Here's one outrageous tidbit: the company patents its genetically engineered seeds, surveys surrounding farms and then sues the farmers who may unknowingly have had their crop contaminated by Monsanto seeds. And the harm done to society by Monsanto doesn't end there -btheir health and environmental record is questionable, to put it charitably. British Petroleum's actions and global impact probably don't need to be introduced. Tbe problem witb tbe Univer- sity's investment in Northrop Grumman also seems obvious and is perhaps the most troubling. Northrop Grumman makes weap- ons. Weapons kill people. The debate on this investment, as with many-issues here on campus, has been bogged down by bickering about Israel and Palestine. Who is killing whom is irrelevant. Some- thing about benefitting from the eventual death of human beings in any way is inexcusable. 'U' needs to consider divestment. Schools should be places that drive societies forward. If posi- tions of dissent and outrage aren't fostered here, where will they materialize? Who will fight corpo- rate farming, hold oil companies responsible and protest wars? Most adults are too busy investing in these processes to question them. An essential part of this Univer- sity's identity over the past fifty years has been to advocate justice in the face of wrongdoing. What these investments mean is that not only is this institution neglecting to foster resistance to global atrocities, it's perpetuating them. It is our duty as paying students to hold the Univer- sity accountable for its actions. By investing in these corpora- tions, our administration supports the actions of Monsanto, BP and Northrop Grumman - a horrify- ing prospect to me. If we get to the heart of the matter, the University's motives and mindset are most like- ly the same as my dad - to turn a profit while ignoring the negative implications of the investments. I can understand (but don't support) an individual owning a potentially questionable mutual fund, but for such a prosperous school with a stronghistory of advocacy to know- ingly invest in such companies is absolutely unacceptable. The only reasonable course of action for the University is to immediately divest from these companies. Jonathan Aylward can be reached at jatlward@umich.edu. U U 4 I 4 Michigan has laws that shield workers who use medicinal marijuana from facing certain legal repercussions. Accord- ing to an April 27 article on the ACLU website, Proposal 1, passed by the state's voters in 2008, protects medical marijua- na patients from "disciplinary action by a business." A person who uses marijuana obtained with a medicinal card cannot be discriminated against - and yet that is exactly what Walmart has done to Joseph Casias. This case is clearly a symptom of the prevailing negative perception of marijuana, and Casias is pay- ing the price for it. In no other situation would Casias be fired for using doctor- prescribed medication. He was using his medicine at home and not at the workplace. If Casias had back pains and was pre- scribed painkillers to help him sleep easier, a drug test reveal- ing the presence of the drugs in his bloodstream would give Walmart no legal right to fire him. In this case, the only dif- ference is the medicine. The stigma against marijuana should not prevent those receiving appropriate medical care from employment. Marijuana has been proven time and time again to relieve various ailments and symptoms such as glaucoma, pain and nau- sea. Its legal evolution is going to be complicated, but Casias's case is clear. Applying any other standard of doctor-prescribed druguse would show that Casias is in the right. Though a negative social attitude towards marijua- na exists, it should not interfere with the treatment of patients. Michigan has been a leader in pushing for the legalization of marijuana for medicinal use, and if it fills in the legal pot- holes it will thoroughly expand individual rights and medicinal treatment. Joseph Casias was prescribed legal treatment and is being punished for it. The state could save everyone a lot of time and grief if it were to forgo this wishy-washy legal- ity and completely legalize the drug. This would be a true accomplishment for the rights of individuals. In the meantime, Michigan must fix its ambiguous marijuana laws to prevent situa- tions like this from arising in the future.