Page 2/The BattalionThursday, March 26, 1987
>
Opinion
Indulging In drugs follows American ideology
What happened
to the War on
Drugs?
Did we win? Did
we lose? Did we
pull a Vietnam
number and pull
out because we
didn’t stand a
chance of winning
and the people
were getting tired
of all the waste?
Like the Vietnam War, the War on
Drugs lacked a clear-cut objective. No
one was sure of its purpose. Was it a hu
manitarian effort to save people from
the damaging effects of drugs? Was it a
law enforcement effort to rid the coun
try of organized crime involved in drug
trade? Was it a parental effort to gain
tighter control over children? Was it a
business effort on the part of the alcohol
and tobacco industry to remove the
competition? Was it a religious effort to
force a set of morals on the country?
Was it a legislative effort to gain tighter
control over the lives of employees? Was
it a political effort to gain office?
Many of these objectives were won.
Many of the anti-drug candidates Were
elected or re-elected and forgot their
promises soon after tak
ing office. Many compa
nies and bureaucratic of
fices require drug tests
from their employees,
making certain aspects
of employees’ private
lives no longer private.
Many churches and
religious organizations
are growing in power
and are forcing their be
liefs on larger numbers
of people. Many alcohol
distributors are happy to
see that certain drugs, namely XTC,
have been made illegal forcing bars to
quit selling drugs and concentrate on
selling alcohol. Many parents are able to
buy home drug-testing kits so they can
find out what their children have been
doing during the evening. Many states
have increased spending to cut down on
the drug business, money that had been
earmarked for education.
But there hasn’t been much done to
save people from the damaging effects
of drugs. No one seems to care because
all the other battles have been won. In
Vietnam, we won the battles but lost the
war. In the War on Drugs, we lost the
war because we won the battles.
Drug testing does nothing to stop
drug abuse. Any drug-using employee
will find a way to beat the system. Al
though companies claim they will main
tain secrecy and will try to help any em
ployee with a drug problem, those
claims are lost on anyone who feels that
their job may be threatened, or that they
will be held up to ridicule if their prob
lem is discovered. If a company doesn’t
trust employees to come to work
straight, why should employees trust a
company with their private lives? Any
drug-using child will leave home at the
mere suggestion that they take a leak in
a can so the parents can try out a drug
testing kit purchased at K Mart.
If drug testing does anything, it de
stroys the self-esteem of non-drug using
employees or children. The trust be
tween bosses and employees and, more
importantly, the trust between parents
and children is destroyed when one is
asked to prove sobriety.
Since low self-esteem is
a sign of drug abuse, why
support programs that
destroy self-esteem in the
name of stopping drug
abuse?
'The public service an
nouncements and com
mercials condemning
drug abuse are mostly
failures.
Most of the commer
cials are so badly done
that the only people
scared by the images of drug abuse are
those who have never used a substance
stonger than sugar-free bubble gum.
Seasoned drug- users and even the cas
ual experimenter laugh at those com
mercials.
The comtfiercials that have rock stars
telling kids not to use drugs have no
Reagan's working
harder than ever
Aides to Presi-
dent Reagan
wasted little time
in making certain
changes in the
president’s sched
ule and work hab
its in order to
make him a
“hands-on” presi
dent. Reagan
promised the na
tion during his TV
address last week he would get more in
volved in order to avoid another embar
rassing mess like the Iran arms sale af
fair.
“The first thing we’re going to do,” a
White House source told me, Y ‘is change
the president’s sleeping habits.”
“Previously,” the source explained,
“the president has arisen at 11 a.m. in
time to watch ‘The Price Is Right,’ his fa
vorite game show, as he drinks his cof
fee and eats his daily ration of prunes.”
“So,” I asked, “the president has been
going to work when ‘The Price Is Right’
is over?”
“Not the very moment the show is
over,” explained my source. “He has to
give the prunes a fair amount of time to
do their job. ”So what time has the presi
dent previously begun his work day?
“Around 1:30 p.m.,” I was told.
“That’s when he reviews the daily
press.”
“That obviously takes him a lot of
time,” I said. “He’s got to read the
limes, the Washington Post, and The
Wall Street Journal."
“Not exactly,” said my source. “U-
sually he takes about 15 minutes to
glance through USA Today. The arti
cles are short enough so he can read
them and not doze off.”
What, then, I wanted to know, will be
the president’s new schedule?
“We’re planning to have him dress by
10 a.m., get the prune business out of
the way as soon as possible, and have
him actually functioning by 11 a.m.
“He can watch ‘The Price Is Right’ in
the Oval Office while he returns phone
calls from people who want to know if
he will introduce them to Fawn Hall.”
“But when will the president actually
get involved in taking care of the na
tion’s business?” I persisted.
“Not until around 2:30 p.m.,” my
source said. “That’s when he will be get
ting up from his afternoon nap. Before
we didn’t dare rouse him until 4 p.m., in
time to watch ‘The Dating Game.’ ”
“There’s a reason,” said my White
House insider. “The president doesn’t
stay up late enough to watch ‘Wheel of
Fortune,’ and he likes to look at the
bachelorettes to make up for not getting
to see Vanna White.”
“You mentioned something about
changing the president’s work habits,” I
went on.
“Lots of changes,” the source an
swered. “We are going to insist the pres
ident keep notes and not doodle on his
pad during Cabinet meetings. We are
also going to ask that he no longer allow
his wife to make tough decisions for
him.”
“The first lady has been making the
president’s tough decisions?”
“Six years of it,” said my source. “The
president gets in a tight spot and you
can hear him screaming from the Oval
Office all over the White House.”
“Screaming what?”
“Nancy Reagan . . . COME ON
DOWN!”
Copyright 1986, Cowles Syndicate
Lewis
Grizzard
The Battalion
(USPS 045 360)
Member of
Texas Press Association
Southwestjournalism Conference
The Battalion Editorial Board
Loren Steffy, Editor
Marybeth Rohsner, Managing Editor
Mike Sullivan, Opinion Page Editor
Jens Koepke, City Editor
Jeanne Isenberg, Sue Krenek, News Editors
Homer Jacobs, Sports Editor
Tom Ownbey, Photo Editor
Editorial Policy
The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting newspaper oper
ated as a community service to Texas A&M and Bryan-College 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, Department of Journalism, Texas
A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-4111.
Second class postage paid at College Station, TX 77843.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Battalion, De
partment of Journalism, Texas A&M University, College Station
TX 77843-4111.
credibility because the rock stars have
made the commericials to get a lighter
sentence for a drug-related 'Crime.
Commericials telling people not to
give in to peer pressure and use drugs
are useless, thanks to every other com
mercial that has ever been made.
It’s hard to believe in a commercial
that says: “Don’t be like everyone else —
don’t use drugs,” when every other
commercial says: “Be like everyone else
— use this soap,” or that mouthwash, or
this beer, or that feminine hygiene
product, or whatever else you don’t
need.
Actually, the War on Drugs was not a
war on drugs, it was an attempt to gain
power. Thanks to the War on Drugs,
more politicians and businessmen and
religious figures are able to pry into the
private lives of a larger number of peo
ple. The War on Drugs has becot-
new brand of McCarthy ism for the)
To do away with drug abuse
would have to restructure the w;
Americans think. All Americans
more. Some Americans want
drugs. It’s hard for a country to
demn overindulgence when overt:
gence is the American Way.
Karl Pallmeyer is a journalism^
uate and a columnist for The Ba
“No, I haven’t told Ronnie yet... Why ?...
Mail Call
Foul play
EDITOR:
Yes, I agree with the idea that it is possible to do the right
thing in the wrong way, but I personally feel that someof
the intentions of the United States concerning Nicaragua
are selfish.
Stress is undoubtedly a fundamental part of any
election process, but the campaign workers of a certain
student body presidential candidate are being subjected to
a bit more than their fair share this week. Dozens of the
fliers encouraging fellowstudents to vote for their
candidate have been mysteriously disappearing. Needless
to say, these workers spent many hours putting the fliers
up in buildings throughout campus. This “unfortunate”
incident means that the victimized candidate has to order
several hundred more fliers. He will lose at least one
valuable day of campaign time while he waits for the
printer to prepare them. The worst part of this sad
situation, though, is knowing that it might happen again
since it would be impractical to try to guard the fliers on a
24-hour basis.
In January and February of 1981, I travelled in
Nicaragua and saw firsthand some of the problems 18
months after the Sandanista revolution. I also livedonthe
east coast of Honduras from 1983 to 1986 and worked
with Miskito Indians, of which some 20,000 were political
refugees from Nicaragua. During my three years in
Honduras, I had several encounters with the U.S. trained
and backed counter-revolutionary forces (Contras).
Following are a few questions that I would liketoshart
with Simmons, all Aggies, concerned citizens of the United
States, and especially Reagan and members of Congress
1. Were our intentions good when we helped set uptlie
Somosa family as dictators in Nicaragua in the late 1920s:
Hopefully, this letter will bring greater attention to the
problem and will at least prevent any further hindrance to
a fair election on April 1.
Tim Stephenson ’88
accompanied by 10 signatures
Africa is our friend
EDITOR:
2. Were our intentions good when we allowed the
Somosa family (father and two sons) and a very few other
families exploit their fellow Nicaraguans until the peasant 1
had very little left to live for?
3. Were our intentions good as we exploited the
resources (human and natural) of Nicaragua and other
Central American countries during the last century
through the combined efforts of private business and the
CIA?
Most of the 20th century has witnessed country after
country going under Communist domination. The same
dreary story of betrayal and deceit is being replayed by
parts of the U.S. media and the U.S. Department of State.
T he Congress had to have its share of “glory” in the
destruction of South Africa and sanctioned this country
noted for its friendship to the United States, a proven,
loyal ally and supplier of vital strategic minerals.
South Africa has never told the United States how to
take care of its racial problems, and one is hard put to find
any Constitutional excuse for Americans to destroy a
friendly nation. Not one penny of the national budget is
needed to protect America from South Africa, yet
Congress calls for another communist overthrow in order
to satisfy its desire for power over anti-communists in
South Africa.
The African National Congress has not renounced
violence and “necklacing” in South Africa and will
continue to kill blacks in South Africa. As a Soviet Union
surrogate, the ANC should not be supported by American
tax dollars and American prestige.
If we as Americans permit destruction of a good
friend, we deserve whatever happens to us as a nation. On
the other hand, there is still time to withdraw sanctions
and act like a decent nation again. It depends on each of us
speaking up and loud enough to be heard.
R. Priess
Good intentions?
EDITOR:
In response to the letter “Good Intentions” by Mr.
Markel L. Simmons in Mail Ca//March 24,1 question just
who is the benefactor of the good intentions of President
Reagan and the U.S. foreign policy in Central America.
4. Were our intentions good as the Somosa family
butchered (“Butcherer” is the nickname given to the
Somosa family by the Nicaraguan people) thousands who
opposed them up until the Sandanista revolution of 197§'
5. Are our intentions still good as thousands of young
people die fighting in the counter-revolution when they
have very little chance of winning (as the congressional
report stated recently)?
6. Are our intentions also good in El Salvador where
we presently support a very oppressive government
against another group of “Freedom Fighters”?
As for the use of the word communist in the above
mentioned letter, Daniel Ortega has repeatedly statedM
the Sandanista government is not communist nor doesit
wish to be. Neither do they want to align with the type of
democracy that has been shown to Nicaragua over thepa* 1
60 years. I agree that the Sandanista government is
oppressive, but our press and politicians are sometimes
guilty of pulling these sensational facts out of context.
Somosa (whom we supported) was also oppressive.
To make my stand clear, I am not pro-Sandanistabut
neither am I pro-Contra. If one of my friends is managing
his money poorly, does that give me the right to play
policeman and take his checkbook away and manage his
money for him because I think I can do better? Please
don’t accept my opinions without investigating more
deeply the history of Nicaragua and Central America for
at least the past 100 years.
Again, what are our real intentions in Nicaragua? Arf
there maybe not better ways to encourage freedom?
Ray H. Griggs ’81
Letters to the editor should not exceed 300 words in length. The editorial $
reserves the right to edit letters for style and length, but will make ever)
maintain the author’s intent. Each letter must be signed and must inclwh " J |
classification, address and telephone number of the writer.