When UA President Ann Weaver Hart unveiled a new strategic plan last year to the Arizona Board of Regents, she and other administrators made it clear this was about transforming Tucson’s land-grant university into a grant-producing super-research center of higher learning ready to grow economies and minds.
The strategic plan—titled “Never Settle”—was first communicated through a video that announced the plan’s manifesto with images of desert, scientists and dreamers: “… We’re a land-grant university that’s transforming science fiction into scientific fact, rising from the sands of the Sonoran Desert … For those who demand an unrelenting approach to teaching, research, and service, we say: NEVER SETTLE.”
At the ABOR presentation, Hart reportedly explained, “We mean it when we say ‘Never Settle.’ It captures the spirit of the future that we believe is strong. … Those who demand an unrelenting approach to teaching, research and service will love Never Settle, and that’s our future.”
However, to the only academic in the United States to receive federal approval to do cannabis research, as well as veterans who support her work, those words Never Settle ring hollow right now. Early this month, UA assistant professor Sue Sisley was terminated and told her contract, which expires September 26, would not be renewed.
The frenzy of media attention that followed hasn’t exactly dissipated—making it difficult for the university to prove that everything in Never Settle land is fine.
Although Sisley’s research on the use of marijuana to treat post-traumatic stress disorder on veterans hasn’t begun, it’s been declared groundbreaking, yet its been years for the Phoenix-based psychiatrist to get the necessary approvals and win needed support, including that at the UA. However, with most obstacles cleared and the April federal approval to test marijuana on veterans, it seemed like the doctor was getting closer to the work she intended to do.
Some media reports have declared that Sisley’s latest challenge—her termination—surely must mean defeat. Talking from Atlanta, where she’s taping several interviews at CNN, in particular with medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta, Sisley told the Tucson Weekly there’s no sitting back, hand-wringing or tears right now.
Instead, the doctors is focused on talking to as many people as she can about what’s taken place, particularly the national media, such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, Vice, The Daily Beast and others. No, she said, this is a fight for scientific freedom and veterans—a group of patients she’s treated in her telemedicine practice for years.
“I’m talking because this is a giant blow to scientific freedom and every story and report helps us shine a national spotlight to this injustice,” she said. “I’ve been fighting this battle for four years and suddenly something like this happens.”
Sisley said the tragedy is that her dismissal isn’t based on job performance, but political pressure from the state’s conservative Senate President Andy Biggs. In early April, Sisley said she received a call from Skip Garcia, senior vice president for health sciences at the UA Arizona Health Sciences Center, who told her Biggs called Hart and demanded the doctor provide all records of her texts, emails and communications, accusing her of being engaged in what he considered inappropriate political activity.
Perhaps what put Sisley in front of Biggs’ purview, prompting the state senator to call Hart’s office with his demands, was when she and others worked to get the state Department of Health Services to place PTSD on the list of qualifying conditions for medical marijuana patients. It was approved by an administrative law judge last month, it was approved by an administrative law judge last month, and on Wednesday, July 9 Arizona Department of Health Services Director Will Humble authorized the use of marijuana for PTSD as long as patients are currently undergoing conventional treatment for a PTSD diagnosis.
Although Sisley’s research wouldn’t have used state general fund monies, early in the year Biggs did introduce an amendment to a budget bill that would have prohibited universities from using those general funds from going toward marijuana research. The amendment was a small footnote in the budget proposal, but once word got out, Biggs pulled it, saying he just didn’t think state general funds should go toward marijuana.
Then there’s GOP darling and state Senator Kimberly Yee, who blocked a bill Sisley supported that would have allowed the state Department of Health Services to allocate money to research from the medical marijuana patient processing fee fund surplus now at more than $9 million. In response to Yee blocking the bill, a recall effort was started against the legislator.
What’s obvious to Sisley and others is that the budget for all state universities is controlled by the state legislature and in Arizona, that’s a right-wing legislature that hasn’t exactly been friendly when it comes to medical marijuana or public education.
“Sometimes we’ve been lucky enough to have a president with the courage to defend research that is known to be adverse to certain legislators,” she said. But not this time. This time, in a climate of recovery from the state’s disastrous cuts to public education spending, it’s easier to terminate someone rather than fight.
In the latest state budget rounds, the UA asked for more than $30 million in additional funding—$11.8 million for performance funding, $8 million for a new veterinary school and $15 million for discovery and innovation. But only $5.5 million was allocated to the UA—$2 million for research infrastructure and $3.5 million for the UA’s Cooperative Extension. Attempts by the UA to recover from the economic recession that began six years ago and the deep state cuts to education that followed has failed, with state funding down close to 8 percent for the general education fund. Two-thirds of the university’s general education funding came from the state and now it’s less than one-third.
Funding and ideology may be responsible for Sisley’s termination, but she said the fight now is about science and veterans. This isn’t a strategy to promote marijuana legalization as conservative lawmakers want the public to believe, but about showing that this plant can offer valuable medicine—especially to our veterans suffering from PTSD who desperately need relief from the symptoms they experience once home—insomnia, anger, frustration, depression, difficulty being out in public, among others.
“The eyes of the world are on us now—not just Arizona. It’s unreal. My inbox is so full of thousands of messages from scientists and veterans,” she said.
“It is sad, but I have not lost my devotion to the UA. I’m an alum. I graduated from the med school there. But what’s obvious is that the administration has created a culture of fear. This firing has had a chilling effect on research in general. No one is going to embark on highly controversial work. It could be a career-ending decision. But isn’t that part of the reason we paid taxes—we always thought of a university as sanctuary for what is sometimes perceived as controversial work.”
If Sisley broke any advocacy rules that led to her termination, no one is talking. We called Biggs for comment, but did not here from him or anyone from his office by press time. In response to a message and email we sent to the UA’s Skip Garcia, George Humphrey, assistant vice president of the Arizona Health Sciences Center’s office of public affairs, confirmed in an email that Garcia’s office is unable to comment on why Sisley was terminated as it is a personnel matter.
“However, in regard to marijuana-related research, the University of Arizona is committed to ensuring the medical marijuana research gets done. We’ve been in contact with the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, the organization that is sponsoring the study, and we are working with them to bring the clinical trial to fruition,” Humphrey wrote.
“In regard to marijuana research in general: In 2013, the UA championed state legislation to ensure that Arizona universities could perform medical marijuana research on campus. (For your reference that was SB1443: Marijuana; postsecondary education; medical research. It was signed by the Governor on 5/07/13.).”
Humphrey added that to his knowledge the UA has not received political pressure to terminate any employee, or any research “we do, or who does it, as it has been suggested in some reports.” Humphrey included a link to a Tucson Citizen story that included Paul Consroe, a now retired UA pharmacology professor, who was studying the effect of marijuana on muscle spasticity back in the 1990s.
Sisley said that’s not true. She doesn’t agree with how the UA is now trying to frame her termination. Every turn with the UA has been difficult at times. What Humphrey is referring to is when the UA told Sisley her research wasn’t allowed on campus because of a state law that prohibited marijuana on university campuses passed in response to medical marijuana. She found herself in the position of explaining that because her research had federal approval it trumped state law. Nonetheless, in 2013 the school lobbied for legislation that made exceptions to the law for research purposes—the legislation was approved without much fanfare or controversy.
“Not much of a fight there,” she said.
Perhaps Biggs thought Sisley was behind the recall effort against Yee. “Not me. Veterans were rampaging. They blamed her because she pretty much single handedly killed the bill. … I was definitely not shy about calling her out, but I never lobbied and I wasn’t involved in the recall.”
Sisley was stripped of three positions she held at the UA, including her work at the Arizona Telemedicine Program at the UA medical school in Phoenix. She said she wasn’t given a reason for the nonrenewal of her contract. “I was told that neither of my bosses wanted to fire me, that this came from up on high, which proves that this is pure political retaliation for daring to be front and center of the most controversial research at the UA and fearless in trying to overcome every barrier.”
Sisley has 15 days to appeal, in which she is allowed to write an appeal to the same people who terminated her. “We are going to exhaust every administrative appeal that is available. They’ve taken all my work away and refused to give me a fair hearing. No due process,” she said. “The legal team I have is planning to file an injunction against violation of my due process rights. They are examining breach of contract.”
What helps Sisley through these next steps is also the continued backing of her research sponsor, the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies. The California nonprofit has even had to make that clear to the UA more than once since Sisley’s termination went public.
According to Sisley, MAPS communicated to the UA that if the PTSD research was to stay at the UA the principal investigator needed to remain Sisley or the research would go elsewhere. However, that didn’t stop the UA from trying to reframe what was taking place, at least according to emails shared with the Weekly.
On Friday, July 11, by email, MAPS executive director Rick Doblin responded to an email from Caroline M. Garcia, UA associate vice president for research, who thanked Doblin for his response, “I have shared your response with our senior leadership. We will move forward as we discussed yesterday to propose a new University of Arizona Principal Investigator for this research study.”
Doblin wrote back: “I thought my prior response was clear, perhaps not. Dr. Sisley would make an ideal Principal Investigator. If Dr. Sisley’s appeal to the University of Arizona to be reinstated is not successful, MAPS will not replace her as the PI but will move the study elsewhere. Your replacing Dr. Sisley may constitute a breach of our contract and we will be seeking advice of counsel regarding that issue.”
MAPS and Sisley are will to wait the appeal and legal process out—after all she has until September and right now the last part of her research waiting game is really up to the National Institute on Drug Abuse—the federal organization responsible for the production of marijuana used for federal studies and research. Despite all those greenhouses out there supplying medical marijuana and legal marijuana for states like Colorado, it can’t be used for Sisley’s research. The marijuana has to be grown and provided by NIDA according to federal regulations. NIDA communicated to MAPS and Sisley that marijuana may not be available until after January 2015.
“Frustratingly, NIDA is by law required to have an adequate and uninterrupted supply of marijuana for research, which it has failed to do. As a result, we can’t start for another half year until NIDA can provide the marijuana that it claimed in writing over three years ago (January 14, 2011) that it could make available for an approved protocol. While we are waiting on NIDA, there is time for Dr. Sisley’s appeal process to run its course without delaying the start of our study,” Doblin wrote to Garcia.
“We hope Dr. Sisley’s appeal process resolves successfully with the reversal of her termination. Dr. Sisley has devoted a great deal of her time over many years to bring this project to this point of FDA, IRB and PHS/NIDA approval. If there is anything I can do to assist in the review of Dr. Sisley’s appeal, please let me know.”
Veterans—including those she worked with previously who inspired her when they came out of the shadows to explain how marijuana eased their PTSD symptoms—remain in her corner, too. They helped organize her current legal team. “They are standing by me like the true warriors they are and they are going to make sure the UA does the right thing.”
According to her New Mexico-based attorney Jason Flores-Williams, the support is there because Sisley has been a tireless advocate for veterans and the research. “But for the efforts of my client, this grant and research would not even exist.”
The support and backing feels great, but unlike other research academics at the UA who work in fear or worry about speaking out, Sisley said she’s in a good place. She’s not beholden to the UA for her living and maintains a private practice. And she hopes another Arizona university is willing to take in her research project—if that’s what it comes down to.
“I have received numerous inquiries around the country … but this is where my heart is and the veterans. There are 530,000 veterans living in Arizona and many have participated with me day by day in the work to help stop stone-walling this study. I won’t turn my back on them if the UA refuses to do the right thing,” she said.
But Sisley said she wonders if the UA realizes the problem at hand—veterans will not forget what’s taken place. They won’t forget that the UA was willing to sacrifice them to the state’s right wing legislature. Those who return to the states and plan to attend school using their GI bill cash may consider going elsewhere now. “Veterans may vote with their feet.”
Ricardo Pereyda, a Tucson native, veteran and steadfast Wildcat, said he grew up in the shadow of the UA on the south side of Tucson. He never thought a college education would be part of his future, which is why he joined the U.S. Army and served from 2003-2009 in the military police corp. He received an honorable discharge in 2009 and has used his GI bill to help pay for school at the UA where he first became aware of Sisley and her research.
“I was president of the Student Veterans of America chapter, and I was approached by some media about her proposed research,” he said. “At that time I didn’t feel comfortable coming out and saying ‘Yes, I use cannabis,’ because of my position at the university acting as the head of a chartered organization. I could only profess my support without the details.”
However, Pereyda said he’s in a good position now to put those details out there, after all he’s only shy a few classes to finish his public management and policy degree with an emphasis on criminal justice. He walked last year and took a sabbatical to complete two fellowships with the Arizona Center for Civic Leadership and the other with Mission Continues. He hopes to do a master’s degree in public health.
As a fellow with the leadership academy, he found out through Daniel Hernandez that Sisley had completed the academy, and that’s when he decided it was time to reach out to her and let her know he would do anything to help her further her research. She needed veterans to publicly state they in fact used cannabis and that it helped.
There are two worlds when deployed in Iraq—when you are running missions and when you are “in the rears with your unit,” he said. When he’d return from running missions that’s when he realized something was wrong and what he’d realize later were the first symptoms of PTSD.
“The last couple of months I was there I was terrified,” he recalled. When first deployed there is a period of time of going from being a naïve soldier to getting used to your surroundings and the situation on the ground. But as he got closer to the end of his own deployments, he’d hear stories of people getting killed their last day, their last hours.
“When we started running hazardous missions towards the end of my deployment I kept thinking ‘My number is going to come up soon.” Back with the unit, he found himself in what he described as a different space that made it difficult for him to follow the rules or respect the chain of command. “I had trouble respecting people who hadn’t been down range who had to teach me about being down range.”
While he probably wasn’t alone in what he was experiencing, Pereyda said he sure felt alone. “You don’t talk about it. When I started realizing I was having these issues, I didn’t know what to do with it.”
When he returned home it was his then-wife who pointed out the change in Pereyda. He said he was unable to get a good night sleep and feel comfortable in crowds. He had to identify safe places.
“I didn’t want chain of command in Iraq to know because I knew I’d get flagged and then be fully stigmatized as being a shit bag,” he said. Once stateside he worked to get it addressed and what he worried would happen in Iraq, happened at home.
“I went to find answers—why is this happening? Why am I having difficulty showing up to work, difficulty controlling my emotions and shit and what can I do to address the situation so I can perform my job and continue being essential personal,” he said.
“When I related this to the counselor, I didn’t know about PTSD, all I knew I was going through some issues and needed help resolving those issues. I went and talked to a counselor and I was told I was suffering from PTSD and it was relayed back to my command. … All of a sudden I was ostracized and (given a) no-weapons profile and shuffled to other positions that for lack of a better term is called bitch detail.”
He said he was labeled damaged goods and he felt like a weight to his command which had to figure out what to do with him. He no longer had warrior status. He was put on narcotics and eventually received an honorable discharge, but at 23, he felt like he was kicked out of a career he had once hoped to make life-long.
When prescribed medications, Pereyda said he had placed faith in the U.S. Army and VA that they knew best, but after a couple of years on prescription narcotics, it dawned on him that he wasn’t feeling better and he continued to “spiral down rather than rise above what I was facing.” At the UA he met other veterans who used cannabis to relieve symptoms and urged him to try it. He slowly went off his medications in 2009 and on the black market that exists in Tucson, he bought $60 worth of marijuana, which would last him a month or two and made a difference.
“I could be productive. In fact I was able to be more productive,” he said.
“My record at the UA speaks to that. I went from being afraid to leave my house to conducting numerous service projects and events at the UA. The proof is in the pudding in my mind. Before, I had a very hard time even just interacting with my wife, parents, friends, siblings.”
Sisley’s research could potentially help relieve PTSD symptoms without subscription narcotics, but to Pereyda it’s about saving lives—those 22 veterans a day who commit suicide because the PTSD is unbearable and the treatment some veterans receive just doesn’t help.
“While her research has been delayed, veterans are dying. You need to analyze your action closely,” Pereyda said, as if talking to Biggs and the UA administration. “She’s advocating saving lives. Why would you rebuke her for that advocacy?”
Is it that big pharma is worried that Sisley’s research will show that this plant is medicine that can’t be effectively reproduced? Is it that the UA and right-wing legislators don’t want to think about veterans using marijuana on campus as part of the research? Would they rather that veterans become addicted to oxycontins or Xanax?
“If I can grow 12 plants in my yard that would give me enough medicinal properties to relieve my symptoms,” he said, “well that’s a big hurt on the pharmaceutical companies and others who stand to lose a lot of money, I suppose.”
This article appears in Jul 17-23, 2014.
Sue Sisley sounds like a passionate and highly dedicated advocate for veterans. That’s been highlighted quite thoroughly in this article.
When someone has that much conviction that a drug is safe and effective BEFORE THE RESEARCH IS EVEN DONE, then that person should not be allowed anywhere near the planned research study. They certainly should NEVER be allowed to run the research study.
She has the backing of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies. This is like having the backing of a pharmaceutical company who wants their drug approved. Such backing does not remove the taint of bias in research — it increases it.
The best path for marijuana research is to get a very unbiased and very expert researcher in charge of the study — someone who will even-handedly report both the favorable and the unfavorable results from the study.
It may be that the best outcome for both Sue Sisley and for veterans is that she continue her passionate and highly dedicated advocacy of causes that benefit veterans. I hope she does that!!! Veterans deserve all our support!!!!!! And the world needs passionate people like Sue Sisley as advocates. But I would not trust ANY researcher to do research on a drug that they have already decided is safe and effective.
This whole issue is not about Sue Sisley at UA. It is about who can be trusted to do unbiased research at any university, especially on a controversial drug.
(Career researcher for more than 30 years, name withheld)
Excellent work Ms. Herreras, but I beg to differ, Big Pharma bought our senators and the UofA for the reasons stated, they can’t make profits from plants. The fact that our state legislature is populated by wack-jobs is just a smokescreen, this is not about Red vs. Blue, its about green and I don’t mean plants either.
In regards to marijuana everyone has a bias.
When I first heard of this decision as well as Hart’s drastic funding slash of AZPM and other recent questionable choices, I have to wonder what Hart’s Strategic Plan really is.
To the brave Career Researcher who wouldn’t leave their name: you are a liar. Putting aside the fact that you aren’t ethical enough to sign your name to the claims made and the overwhelming anecdotal evidence which exists, your omission of the fact that there have been dozens of studies made to date of the link between marijuana and relief of PTSD symptoms (which can be found by simply Googling: Marijuana PTSD studies) places you firmly in the prevaricator column. Go sell your lies to those still uneducated enough to believe them.
Career Researcher… it was going to be a randomized, triple blind study. No matter what she or anyone else might WANT the results to be, they would simply be working with data. And although I am NOT a career researcher I believe in the world of science we would all agree that Tylenol is “safe,” yet Tylenol poisoning has caused more than 1,500 accidental deaths. Can Career Researcher perhaps tell me how many people in history have died from cannabis poisoning? Since there is no FDA approval for cannabis yet I will defer to the doctors, who take the oath of “first do no harm,” along with the historical data to agree with any person who deems cannabis safe.
Career Researcher…. its called a hypothesis. The purpose of research and the scientific method is to test hypothesis put forth at the start of a study. I have confidence that an FDA-approved, triple-blind study would be more about collecting and interpreting data, not drawing conclusions that are not supported by that data.
In addition, wouldn’t the study be peer reviewed so that it is not merely Dr. Sisley’s conclusions, but a consensus of the scientific community?
Career Researcher, although its not clear what a “career researcher” is or does, at least not to me; I suspect a quick check of your IP address will show this spin-doctoring came from the senate or the University
Um, is it just me or does it seem like this was written using the MicroSoft Windows Phone’s “Voice to Text” function? I’m curious now to get the paper addition and find all the same typos. Reminds me of the time I contacted CNN about the rampant simple errors in stories. The response I got was that they get stories off the “wire” and just run them. I suggested they run stories through some kind of MicroSoft Word grammar/spellcheck before posting.
Other than that this was a fascinating read. I’m looking forward to hearing more.
Print version misidentifies the woman (Sisley) featured in the page 11 photo as UA President Hart … how does this happen? Smoke on the water, fire in the sky?
Senator Kimberly Yee runs Arizona and marijuana is her #1 target…..she had the UA researcher fired
It sounds like there are two main responses to my comments: those that defend Sue Sisley as a person, and those that defend the marijuana study’s design.
I agree that Sue Sisley should be highly praised for her advocacy activities. She is a very valuable person in the world, and I salute her. I wish there were more people who cared as much as she does for those who suffer. I hope she continues to receive both recognition and financial support for her advocacy.
I also think this marijuana study should be done. However, the public’s passions do run very high regarding this drug (Some of those comments above are really caustic! Mellow out!). For the sake of keeping the study as far as possible above reproach, it is important that the PI of the study not have invested herself either for or against the drug. Don’t we all want to see the most reliable outcomes that can possibly be obtained, knowing that any study already has enough faults?
Why are the PI’s opinions relevant? Doesn’t this study’s design safeguard the integrity of the results? I wish it could, but my own experience has taught me that:
(1) We never have perfect knowledge and control. The research team’s understanding and “control” in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is always partial, never complete. To be honest, they should be called randomized partially-controlled trials. To make matters worse, the more controls we try to impose then the less the experiment conforms to real drug use. So we strike a compromise: we try to impose enough controls to reduce the worst of the confounding factors but not so many controls that the situation becomes both unbearable for the participants and too far removed from ordinary living situations. By the way, the controls we do implement are not perfect either.
(2) There are always ways in which the researchers are consciously or unconsciously affecting the details of how the study is designed and performed. Incomplete understanding among the researchers about the nature of the drug and how it is used in real life when all the research controls are removed, and assumptions and details — these are often hidden behind brief statements of great experimental designs as researchers try to convince funding, administrative and regulatory agencies that their study is the best that can be done and deserves to be approved!
When people believe that RCT designs including blinding are some kind of magic immunization against mistaken or misleading results, they are being very naive. I am sorry. We researchers do not do perfect research, we just do our best effort. In the final analysis, it become a matter of trust. That is why the opinions of the PI are of great importance.
If real change regarding marijuana use is going to take place, it can only happen on the basis of trust among a variety of individuals and organizations. How is that trust going to be built where there is currently much distrust?
Career Researcher…. when someone devotes 4 years of their life to get the necessary Federal agency approvals to perform the research, they own the study – plain and simple. MAPS stands behind Dr. Sisley, and has communicated their intentions to UofA.
I think that you would be better off debating the results of the study and identifying any bias in the resulting data, than to continue to advocate for Dr. Sisley’s replacement.
You choose to hide behind the anonymity of the internet, as is your right. However, everyone reading your comments will begin to question your own intentions and bias. Do you wish for Dr. Sisley to be replaced by someone more aligned with your own beliefs?
Jonathan, we may be approaching this challenge differently.
Here’s a first-hand story about “who owns the grant.” I was a researcher at a company when I conceived a new project and wrote a NIH SBIR grant to get funding. It was entirely my baby, and it was the project I dreamed about. Just when the NIH funded it, fate intervened. The top management at the company changed and the new management had no interest in my research. By NIH rules, the grant was not mine — grants are only awarded to organizations, not to PIs. The company couldn’t give it to me even if they cared to, but I did convince them to give it back to the NIH. Then I went to a new company, submitted the same project again, and won it a second time. In the end, I was in a better situation than in the beginning.
Even Steve Jobs got booted out of his own company, Apple Computer. It was very painful, but he said in hindsight it was good for him. He didn’t sue, get into a big public fight, etc. Instead, he put his energy into exploring new possibilities that he otherwise would not have explored, and those became critically important. I can understand that. I hope you and Dr. Sisley do, too.
The lesser point is: the grant does not belong to the PI even when the PI has put their whole heart into the project.
The bigger point is: if you can keep your head on straight even when things blow up in your face then you could still end up well — maybe even better than you dreamed. But metaphorically, you have to stop pounding on the door that has closed and decide to look for another door that is open.
You may deeply appreciate how Dr. Sisley has fought to take this project from idea to reality. So why not see if she can continue to be the one who fights for it, but in a different role? Be creative! Or you could just keep pounding on the door that is closed, because you feel a “great injustice” is being done when in reality that university is solidly within their rights.
On a different topic: you asked if I wish for Dr. Sisley to be replaced by someone more aligned with my own beliefs. I wouldn’t want this research project to be about my beliefs, your beliefs, Dr. Sisley’s beliefs, or anyone’s beliefs. The whole basis of science is to dispense with beliefs and just observe impartially. That helps make a study’s results more trustworthy.
Especially when a project is so controversial, it needs two things: (a) an impartial research team including PI, and (b) an administrative team that will vigorously fight the project’s battles.
CR
Unbiased science is both rare and commendable but requires zero interference from AZ polls and U of A molls, which is what this story is really about, not about impartial science.
If we were talking about a private company with closely held religious beliefs, like say Hobby Lobby, then you are absolutely right CR, best move along.
But this is a taxpayer funded land grant university. If a hack in Phoenix took money from a Pharma PAC, called the sea-hag and told her to kill it and she complied, that’s a public matter that needs the light of day shone on it brightly. Senators can resign, be impeached or recalled. University presidents serve at the behest of the Board of Regents, and can be fired, albeit with a hefty golden parachute, smaller used parachutes for her cronies; we can split hairs about Dr. Sisley after the actors in this play about the arrogance of power are replaced with public servants not beholden to dark money
Vets, no one on here is talking about you;do not let this one go, when Uncle Sugar sang “Johnny get your gun”, you got your gun and fought, fight for this: Let no brother-in-arms suffer a day longer, broach no interference from any quarter, the public is behind you
A modern example of that grand old American tradition “railroading” to get rid of someone who is liable to do a scientific study and come up with the truth. In a Gaussian distribution of people half of the distribution is below average, sadly in Arizona many of them seem to become Republican legislators.
As a veteran, I would like to see the VA do a scientific study on the high incidence of suicide among American military back from the war. Do you think that many of these people have realized and are filled with disgust at the con job that the government did to convince them that they were protecting their nation when that reality is dubious at best.
Just asking.
After Vietnam, the pentagon and the military/industrial/congressional lobby figured out that if you tied the warriors to the war, then any dissenters could be branded “not supporting our troops”. This was very prevalent in the Iraq debacle.
We betrayed our veterans by asking them to lay down their lives and well-being so that some old white men could feel powerful, so some oil people could feel wealthier, and defense contractors could show some big quarterly profits to the stockholders. The idea that after destroying Iraq’s infrastructure we would somehow be welcomed as liberators and democracy would flourish was ludicrous at best. Oddly George H.W.Bush was a pragmatist who knew an invasion of Iraq would be a disaster and he avoided it. Now we all suffer with our vets as the echo chamber spins what a great idea it all was in spite of the results, everything bad being attributed to the succeeding president.
War and recession have defined our country since 1789 when we had a recession following the revolutionary war.
We wouldn’t be squabbling about healthcare, education and employment today if we could break this cycle. The beginning of this debate is what I hope comes from all this, for our vets and future generations
It took a long while before we could say Vietnam was a colossal mistake, I wonder how long this one will take.
I attended a psychology class at U.A. and then asked the question of a homeless man in Tucson, how may of the homeless are victims of PTSD. He replied about 75%. I asked why don’t the use the shelters? He replied “they are using drugs or alcohol” to cope and theses are not allowed in the shelters. Psychological treatments help but, most psychologist talk in circles going back the the original causes. While the standard medications help (lorazapan and citalopran help they make users sleepy and lethogic. Twenty Two PTSD victims create suiscide per year, they have just given up trying to cope with the tramatic incidences they experienced. Not just the military vetarans have PTSD but, civilians too for the trageties they have encountered. If small doses of majaruna helps, good. If it’s controlled.’
I am a vicitim of PTSD and no one knows the hurt and depresession one feels, with this unknown caused and uncured disease causes and yes, suicide is common.
First gut AZPM, then go after marijuana research. President Hart and her army of well-paid assistants-to-the-president-in charge-of-feather bedding- and-ass-kissing are a disgrace. Fire Hart, ignore Biggs, bring back Sissley.