Page 2/The Battalion/Wednesday, September 17, 1986 The Battalion (USPS 045 360) Member of Texas Press Association Southwest Journalism Conference Th£ Battalion Editorial Board Cathie Anderson, Editor Kirsten Dietz, Managing Editor Loren Steffy, Opinion Page Editor Frank Smith, City Editor Sue Krenek, News Editor Ken Sury, Sports Editor Editorial Policy The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting newspaper oper ated as a community service to Texas A&M and Bryan-Gollege Sta tion. Opinions expressed in The Battalion are those of the editorial board or the author, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Texas A&M administrators, faculty or the Board of Regents. The Battalion also serves as a laboratory newspaper for students in reporting, editing and photography classes within the Depart ment of Journalism. The Battalion is published Monday through Friday during Texas A&M regular semesters, except for holiday and examination periods. Mail subscriptions are $17.44 per semester, $34.62 per school year and $36.44 per full year. Advertising rates furnished on re quest. Our address: The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald Building, T exas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843. Second class postage paid at College Station, TX 77843. POST MASTER: Send address changes to The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald, Texas A&M University, College Station TX 77843. Lottery not a winner Like pari-mutuel betting, a state lottery is being lauded as a mira cle cure for Texas’ financial ills. Also like pari-mutuel betting, the lottery is nothing more than a legislative placebo. A state lottery would be a timely solution to the budget shortfall — Comptroller Bob Bullock says he could begin selling tickets by March 1, 1987 — but it is a costly one. Government costs generally absorb from one to two cents of ev ery dollar collected in taxes. For money brought in by a lottery, those costs rise to between seven and 25 cents on the dollar. In addition, the state must put up “seed money” to get the prizes started. While the lottery is less inviting to organized crime than horse racing (forged tickets are the most common illegal activity), other ethical considerations are not as easily dismissed. It is unsettling that Texas would support a gambling practice in which participants must lose so the state can “win.” Although some psychologists have found that lotteries are unattractive to compulsive gamblers, Gamblers Anonymous says all gambling is potentially ad dictive. The lottery’s impact on low-income families also is questionable. Texans for the Lottery claim the average ticket-buyer is in the $15,000 to $30,000 income bracket. But other studies have found that at least one-third of lottery participants are under the $15,000 bracket. The danger is that families may buy tickets before they buy food. The most disturbing aspect of a state lottery as a cure-all revenue is its inconsistent income. Texas needs a stable financial savior, which can best be found through belt-tightening and tax hikes, as unap pealing as those solutions might seem. Placing all our eggs in one financial basket — oil — got Texas into its current jam, and only practical solutions can get it out. It’s time for the Legislature to stop chasing rainbows and get to work. A lottery may bring in additional revenues and might even lessen the inevitable tax increase, but it is financially uncertain and morally unstable. Texas needs dependable solutions to its fiscal troubles. A state lottery is not the ticket. Aggies’ loss to LSU We have met the enemy, and they are us I was up in As pen, Colo., this weekend, showing my newly acquired senior ring the sights. I had taken it to the movies last week (and yes, “Top Gun” is just as good the third time). So, for the cultural benefit of my ring, I decided to give it a glimpse of the Rocky Moun tains, the pine trees and the snow. Of course, Saturday afternoon the Aggies were playing, so I made it a point to find a bar which had decent prices and a TV tuned to ESPN. Ski resorts have a common desire to rob tourists blind, so my hopes were not high. The best I could find was Dutch beer for $1.50, so I settled back for what I thought would be a most enjoyable eve ning. I enjoyed the scores of other games. Texas Tech was being overrun by Mi ami, and the University of Texas was losing to Stanford. Even the Baylor stats were to be expected. Unfortunately, LSU was not going to be as cooperative. Now don’t get me wrong. Not only do I bleed maroon, but I consider myself a staunch Aggie who does not falter at the first sign of problems. This is my fifth football season with the Twelfth Man, and I intend to make it our best. But the sad showing of our football team against the Tigers made me wonder. The game started off well enough, but our defense was not the same quality defense that saved our fair behinds last year. The number of interceptions was another shock. If we insist on giving the other team the football, why can’t we at least score with it first? Why? What did we do or not do to de serve such a game? I tried to think of what I, as a good Ag, had neglected to do during the past year since the Cotton Bowl. Perhaps I didn’t teach last year’s freshmen the right things. Or worse, maybe I didn’t say “howdy” to enough Aggies. That I was the only reason the team had fared poorly in Louisiana ate at my mind. My lack of effort that prevented a win also meant that maybe I wasn’t the good Ag I thought I was. But as I pondered it, I decided per haps it wasn’t my fault —- or anyone else’s. The dreaded tradition of the in surmountable TV jinx could have been the source of our demise. While many may not remember, the score of a football game had a nasty ten dency to swing in the opposition’s favor whenever the game was televised. The locations didn’t matter, even Kyle Field was not sacred enough to be spared the consequences. But the jinx had disap peared a few years back, wonderfully dispelled by the arrival of Jackie Sher rill. Which brings us to the real reason we Aggies did not do as well as hoped. While everybody had visions of another Southwest Conference victory, we lost sight of prior experience — specifically, the first game of last year, against Ala bama. The lesson learned in both the ’bama game and the game with LSU is clear: “We have met the enemy, and they are us.” Why is it that Texas A&M must start the season with a game against a rated team? Why do the Aggies play that rated team in a foreign state? The con sequences of such actions always will outweigh any penalties from being a bad Ag and not saying “Howdy.” Mark Ude is a senior geography major and a columnist for The Battalion. Mark Ude Opinion <^5 th* K615 - A He doesn’t h e and can ol sses Austin cM doctoral )hy, doesn’t i iture-seekinj I expeditk talks like one lographer i," says f la who, a lix-membi [ting No\ for mete ike Indiana ivel to exotic citing, dange in this expei ional Sciem If about $ News media primary cataly in spread of ‘drug epidemic Articles in isted incorrei iming Dana iirs. The the conc< riday and an flshe wouk If the news me dia, especially tele vision, should ever find itself in an in trospective mood, it might examine its performance when it comes to the drug crisis. It could ask what ever happened to skepticism, to its obligation to ask and that things are getting Richard Cohen hard questions and put news into per spective. If by any chance it had the guts to do that, it would have to go back to one of those storied press bars for a ca thartic drunk. Its performance has been shameful. Without exception, all the major net works and news magazines, not to men tion oodles of newspapers, have re ported on a drug epidemic. The current issue of Time magazine has a cover story on the subject. After some grip ping examples of drug use and citizen outrage, Time mentions that the prob lem is abating. The magazine says that the National Institute on Drug Abuse will soon report “rather suprisingly that the current cocaine epidemic has al ready peaked, and the use of other drugs is declining significantly.” “Rather surprising?” To whom? Not to experts who have been saying this all along. And not to careful readers of some newspapers and magazines who — if they have the patience to wade into lengthy stories — would discover the same fact. It is safe to say, however, that the news would be surprising to a public that has the impression that we are in the midst of an unprecedented drug ep idemic worse. In fact, the Time story is an example of how American journalism has pack aged the truth about the so-called drug epidemic as protectively as a pearl within an oyster. The statistics are not allowed to intrude on its message that there is a worsening crisis. The par agraph that follows the one saying that drug use is abating, begins, “Even so. the fear that has seized the nation is hardly unwarranted.” Hogwash. Fear certainly is unwarranted. Concern, though, is a different matter. Unfortunately, we are not talking about concern. Fear is the right word — a panic so great that Americans seem willing to surrender cherished civil lib erties to fight a battle they already are winning. They will line up, bottles in hand, for ui ine tests, voice no outrage when a child turns in a parent to the po lice for possessing marijuana and sup port opportunistic politicians who pro pose programs that are proven failures — such as life sentences or death penal ties for dealers. For evidence of the panic, just look at the numbers. This year a Washington Post poll found that 17 percent of its respondents volun teered drugs as the greatest health problem facing the nation. A year be fore, they never even brought the sub ject up. Of course there is a drug problem. And of course, drugs are addictive and, occasionally, lethal. The public’s con cern is justified. But it would have been more justified two years ago when the problem was worse. It might even have questioned the Reagan administration, which talked a hard line against drugs few of her sot but. in fact, reduced funds tot»^ ll(; j ( j er ] ment centers (S200 million in Wh the no< > 1 L’b million in 1985). Allacrostif the 8 p. lion, addicts, if they seek treatnr. being told to wait. In the mtaa they are buying, selling and: drugs. As for the press, whatever poliuM assert, it too often uncritkally8ii[^JsTiN (AI If politicians, like the Romanemdoved a bill Tr of old. want the circus of a drugaiftludget fui ink: to distract voters, the mediaiiiB' sno1 ' n s< to oblige. It has become a sojJP 16111 to sa ' i | t j i • iMnor and , - Li,,, right exaggerations, so that dnig4j 0rit y. crowded out other important jjThc shift of important Whatcvei happened to the def ave blocked t trade imbalance Ol ev