Back to the Weekly Home Page

Classifieds

Palo Alto Online

News digest

Two recent graduates of Stanford law who penned a report describing how the Patriot Act has affected Palo Alto found it hard to learn how influential the law has been.

"So much of the Patriot Act is secret," complained Shirin Sinnar, one of the two authors of the report.

The Patriot Act, passed six weeks after Sept. 11, granted the federal government sweeping new powers to enforce antiterrorism laws. Civil libertarians have complained about a provision giving federal and local authorities the right to conduct searches without a warrant, and without alerting the suspect of the search, even afterward.

The new report was written to help convince the Palo Alto City Council to pass a resolution "in support of civil liberties" and in opposition to laws such as the Patriot Act.

"The Palo Alto resolution ... would ensure that the City respects the constitutional rights of its residents, and require it to determine how federal antiterrorism laws are being applied locally," stated the report, written by Sinnar and fellow 2003 Stanford Law graduate Luke Platzer.

Last Thursday night, Police Chief Lynne Johnson met with the city's Human Relations Commission, the author of the anti-Patriot Act resolution, to discuss the chief's concerns about the resolution's language.

"The way it was written was very offensive to police staff," Johnson said, emphasizing that she agreed with the resolution's basic tenant that civil liberties should be protected. "It sounds like ... we're doing all these things all the time right now, which is definitely not the case."

During the meeting, a compromise was reached about the resolution's language, according to Eve Agiewich, the chair of the commission.

"We had a relatively lively discussion with her," Agiewich offered. Instead of demanding that the police not violate the first amendment when they perform surveillance of suspects, for instance, the resolution will now ask the police to continue not to do so.

The resolution is being forwarded to the council for its consideration. More than 100 cities have passed similar resolutions, as have the states of Alaska and Hawaii. --Bill D'Agostino
Study finds pharmaceuticals are well-pitched

A study by Stanford researchers has found that the big drug companies do a good job of promoting their products to consumers and physicians - so good that people who need prescriptions should maybe ask some questions.

The study, from the Stanford Center for Research in Disease Prevention, found that the pharmaceutical industry spent an estimated $12.7 billion promoting its products in 1998.

"We doubt that many physicians and consumers realize how extensive these promotion efforts are and how big an influence they can have" on which drugs are prescribed, said Dr. Jun Ma, a researcher at the center and first author of the study. "Knowing that drug promotion is done primarily for marketing - not education - physicians and the public need to analyze this information more objectively and be more proactive in seeking out information."

Among the promotions in 1998, pharmaceutical companies donated $6.6 billion of free drug samples to physicians. The companies also spent $1.3 billion in consumer-targeted marketing. --Don Kazak
New bill aims to improve food safety

A bill co-authored by Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, that would give more muscle to the Department of Agriculture on food safety was introduced in Congress last week. The bill, if enacted, would give the federal agency more ability to enforce food safety and sanitation standards for meat and poultry.

"It's shocking but true that the American people are still unprotected against fatal foodborne illnesses like e.coli and salmonella," Eshoo said. "This legislation will help ensure that the government has the authority it needs to prevent contaminated meat and poultry from entering our food supply."

The bill is co-authored by Sen. Tom Harkin, D-IA, and Reps. Phil English, R-PA, and Rosa DeLauro, D-CT. --Don Kazak