VOL. LIV, NO. 39
California State University, Long Beach November 5, 2003
.
ADVERTISEMENT


     
 
 
 


Editorial Staff

Rachelle Youngman
Editor in Chief

Miguel A. Lopez
Managing Editor

Tina Page
News Editor

Jamie Oye
Assistant News Editor

Sonya Smith
City Editor

Jack Scheneider
Assistant City Editor

Monica L. Pardee
Opinion Editor

Monica L. Clark
Diversions Editor

Karl Peterson
Sports Editor

Jennifer Camacho
Photo Editor

Beverly Munson
Advertising/Business Manager

Janet Gutierrez-Tostado
Floria Myung

Advertising Representatives

Marcela Juarez
Esther Song

Business Staff

J. M. Eggleston
Production Manager

Kari Schneider
Assistant Production Manager

Lego Hartanto
Production Staff

Carlo Dayrit
Justin Smith

Circulation Staff

 

. News  
 

Letters to the editor

Illegal differences

New Immigration Propaganda Misses the Point" [Oct. 30] is nothing more than a propaganda piece itself. Daniel Frias consistently accuses California of being anti-immigrant, which is a complete distortion of the viewpoint that many Californians hold. Legislation such as Prop. 187 is not anti-immigrant. Rather, it is anti-illegal immigrant. Frias accuses the "right wing republicans" of being anti-immigrants, while completely ignoring the fact that they are fighting illegal immigration.

Frias refuses to use the term illegal once in his piece, and simply groups all immigrants, be they legal or illegal, into one category. This is an insult to all the people who took the time to come to the United States under legal circumstances. No one is stopping immigrants from "searching for the American Dream," provided they are here legally. Until people like Frias learn to admit the difference between legal and illegal immigration, the state will continue to have serious problems.
-- Matthew Wallin

 
 
 

More for research

When I read this article I was utterly disgusted. The author(s) openly declared that drug companies should never do research again. This is completely absurd. If it weren't for the research done by drug companies, the vast majority of these drugs wouldn't exist. Granted the elderly wouldn't be complaining about drug prices, but that's because they wouldn't have anything to help them period.

I understand that drugs can be expensive, but almost all of their profits go back towards research. It's good business practice for them to do so. If they invest more into research, they will discover new drugs and make more money as well as advance pharmaceutical science. Nowadays we have drugs to treat illnesses that would have meant either permanent disability, or certain death, and we have drug companies to thank for that.

If we want to make drug prices go down there is a way. We must urge the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to extend the maximum length of patents for these drugs which currently stand at a meager seven years. Basically these drug companies have seven years before the generic companies can legally rip off their drug and sell it as their own. This means that drug companies only have seven years to make up the average cost of $800 million to break even on their investment (Pfizer). This can become extremely hard because many of these drugs are used by a very small percentage of the population. By extending the length of the patents these companies don't have to make as much money per dose to make the profits they need to survive.
-- Scott Abling, chemistry major

 

 


Calendar

Display Ads

Front Page

univmag

 

ADVERTISEMENT


.
©2003 Daily Forty-Niner. All rights reserved