We must ban the blood ban UK’s new blood donation policy isn’t progressive enough - By Camille Chacra — The Link (Concordia University) MONTREAL (CUP) — On Sept. 8, the United Kingdom’s Health Department announced that, as of November, gay men will be allowed to give blood — if they refrain from any form of sexual contact for an entire year. Although deemed progressive by some, this newly established concession is actually more ignorant than it is groundbreaking. In light of the UK’s new stance, Canada may reconsider its own policy, as it is currently one of many countries that forbid gay men from donating blood at all. It’s great that Canada wants to be “progressive” and “tolerant,” but hopefully our country can realize that the UK’s recent announcement is neither of the above. On the contrary, this “lightened” ban is more of a colossal slap in the face than a step in . the right direction. “Blood donation eligibility criteria should be based on individual behaviour, backed by advanced screening, not on sexuality,” wrote Nursing Times reporter Steve Ford. Although it is crucial that blood donation agencies follow strict protocol that requires their donors to be tested for any medical, sexual or drug-related blips, they shouldn’t assume that HIV is exclusively a homosexual disease. Best Health magazine recently reported that in a 2010 issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal, Dr. Mark Wainberg, a prominent researcher in the field of HIV/AIDS, argued that the ban is illegitimate. He wrote that “the risk of a false negative on an HIV test has been nearly eliminated since Canada’s blood system began using a highly sensitive nucleic acid test to screen blood.” If health systems are able to thoroughly screen blood, why must gay men kiss their libidos goodbye for an entire year in the UK? More importantly, with the technological advances the world has seen, why hasn’t this ban been abolished sooner? The only real reason for these full or partial bans must be called what it is — flagrant discrimination. Partially lifting the ban in the UK just isn’t good enough. The gay community is asking for complete equality — something it deserves. It is nonsensical to stereotype a group based on sexual orientation, depriving them of the fundamental right to donate clean blood. Shame on the members of the UK Health Department. They shouldn’t be patting themselves on the back: what they’ve done wasn’t progressive. It was discriminatory. If they want to earn their kudos, they should abolish the ban, use the technology available to effectively screen blood and stop hiding behind dated stereotypes. As for Canada, we should learn from the mistakes made across the pond, and make a change that actually moves us forward. Can all cowboys please holster their smoking guns? Let the smokers be jokers and the critics be cynics By Jacey Gibb, Opinions Editor ago, one of the first things the hostess would ask you when you entered a restaurant was: “smoking or non-smoking?” Our society has changed exponentially since the days where the city was a smoker’s sandbox; with anti-smoking bylaws piling on top of each other like Big Mac patties, it’s reaching the point where I’ve almost started to feel sympathy for these tobacco tokers. My apartment complex has recently become a non-smoking building, meaning tenants are no longer allowed to smoke even within their own homes. If they want to indulge in some nicotine nourishment, they have to peel their lazy butts off of their La-Z-Boys and take it outside. But not on their balconies. And not within six metres of the building’s entrance (a notice in the elevator suggests 10 metres for “imperial measures”). Honestly, I’m surprised at the amount of people in my building that do smoke despite all these deterrents. Now I’ve never smoked a cigarette in my life (personal choice, no biggie) and I refuse to identify myself as a “smoker” — choosing to ignore the fact that I’m an 14 le hard to believe that only three years occasional partaker in shisha. I tell myself that it’s like comparing apples and Oregon (shisha is primarily tobacco and flavoured molasses with only a fraction of the chemicals found in cigarettes), but it might not be the health risks that concern me, rather the idea of being labelled a smoker. When I think of the term “smoker,” my mind immediately conjures up an image of the quintessential graveyard shift Denny’s waitress, on the prowl with her coffee pot and continuously inquiring with a raspy voice “more coffee hun?” I know all smokers can’t possibly be graveyard shift Denny’s disciples, but it’s just what comes to mind. I’m not a fan of smoking, nor of the aroma that holds hands with it, nor the bitter tobacco-infused flavour that comes with Camel-coated kisses— but some people are. And I think more people need to start acknowledging that. One of the most memorable parts from 2004’s Super Size Me was the scene where a man uses the example of everyone ridiculing someone for smoking on their break but not addressing the heavily obese woman also in the board meeting. Our culture has been trained to be sympathetic and understanding to overweight people and to ostracize smokers with constant preaching about the obvious negative side effects. Is smoking not just as much of an addiction as overeating? I am not encouraging people to pick up a pack of menthols on the way home from work today and “see what all the rage is about,” nor am I'saying that taking safety measures, like not smoking in vehicles with anyone under the age of 16 in it, are unnecessary. I just think that before you start belittling someone else’s life choices, you need to acknowledge that those choices are in fact theirs to make. Otherwise your whole argument goes up in flames.