Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Oct. 25, 1999)
i Battalion O PINION Page 11 • Monday, October 25, 1999 ntenci elicoi several times with ashaip ictions that caused i >heinbein, whowasl7a!ij| hen dismembered thebii m electric saw and buraei Aaron Needle, a fedi horities also believe wai: n the murder, killed hi© n detention in Maryland. Such “shockingactsol ion to the deceased’s!) hat are too horrendoustc .. show us to what depth endant sank and how ini >ecame at the time,” Gore n his sentencing. Sheinbein fled tolsradi lays of the discovery oil nains inagaragenearSta lome in Aspen Hill.Md. Sheinbein successful)'! efuge undera lawthatptf he extradition oflsraelit o foreign courts. Sheinlt nly passing contact will ut his father, Saul, wasl :ie country. isit to Cul g the service, attended ig Ryan, the state’s first lai ci Huddleston, chief of tki ivana. :ese Auxiliary' BishopJcstt the Mass with Pagtia,s the U.S. church was slip! irvel at what has beenpt ie two countries and A lid. ewriting the drug laws? legalizing drugs allows for a more regulated, safer system ew Mexico Gover- Gary nson has [en widely iticized for ip recent tements locating legalization of drugs, but ideas should not be dis- ssed as too extreme until the ue of drug legalization has jen investigated, discussed d re-evaluated. Although Johnson has been [ferred to by his opponents as ;oofy,” “freak” and the “two- aded calf” of the Republican irty, his theories are not the ational ravings of a lunatic, (hnson does not expect a mplete reform of current S. drug policy. He has repeatedly stated |s intention is to cause peo- eto think rationally about je long-neglected issue. The first part of Johnson’s ug policy proposal argues [at the enormous amount of [tjoney spent annually on the vernment’s “War on Drugs” ineffective, considering the oblem shows no intentions of ing away. j I According to ABC “Night- IpeNews,” the federal gov- $iiment spends $17 billion Inually on the drug war. But Icording to the 1998 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 6.2 percent of the Unit ed States population were drug users (persons who had used drugs at least once in the 30 days prior to the survey). In comparison, 6.3 percent of the population were classi fied as drug users in 1997. Con sidering the amount of money spent, this drop hardly seems significant. On the other hand, the U.S. National Association for Public Health estimates the illicit drug trade has net profits of $500 bil lion annually. The illegal drug traders are obviously the ones benefiting from the situation. But if drugs were legalized, heavily regulated and taxed (much like cigarettes and alco hol), then at least the United States as a whole would benefit from the drug trade instead of a few clever criminals. The regulation and taxation of illegal drugs plays a large part in the second part of John son’s proposal. Johnson recom mends that upon the legaliza tion of drugs, the government “control, regulate, tax, educate and prevent.” He is not advo cating an aisle dedicated to marijuana, ecstasy and heroin at the local grocery store. Instead, according to the San Jose Mercury News in Cali fornia, he wants to implement “a whole new set of laws to regulate its sale, maybe giving it by prescription at a clinic, maybe by making the user take it right there on the spot. ” There are benefits to imple menting Johnson’s policy. Ac cording to the U.S. National As sociation for Public Health, the majority of new cases of HIV in the United States are due to us ing non-sterile hypodermic nee dles or having sexual contact with intravenous drug users. If drugs were legalized and heavily regulated, the amount of new HIV cases could be re duced. Heavy regulations would mean drug users would have better access to sterile hypodermic needles, thereby cutting down on total disease transmission. All benefits aside, there are valid concerns about drug le galization that Johnson’s op ponents have pointed out. “There’s always going to be a black market for drugs, whether they are legal or not,” Bob Weiner, aide to drug czar Barry McCaffrey, said in a San Jose Mercury News article. Although he is probably correct, his statement is also true for items that can be ob tained legally. There were black markets during prohibi tion in the ’20s. Although it has not ended since then, it is not commonly used to pur chase the now legal substance of alcohol. The same theory can be ap plied to drug sales — if drugs are available legally, fewer people will resort to illegal methods to obtain them. Weiner also expressed con cern that people who are not currently taking drugs would begin using drugs if they were legalized. He then hypothe sized that this course of action would “quintuple the car crashes, the deaths, the prob lems in the workplace.” But even if his worst case scenario — the quintupling of drug-re lated deaths — actually hap pened, the number would still not equal the annual number of alcohol related deaths. According to the Annual Medical Examiner, the number of drug-related deaths in 1995 were about 9,000. The number of annual alcohol related deaths are approximately 100,000 according to the American Medical Association. Alcohol is legal and socially acceptable. Drugs are not. The hypocrisy of this set of values is evident. Johnson should not be con sidered a radical, but a man with reasonable — albeit dif ferent — ideas. His proposals can be statistically and logical ly supported. Although a complete re form of the nation’s drug laws is unlikely, the gradual implementation of many of Johnson’s ideas should be seriously considered. Jessica Crutcher is a sophomore journalism major. ERIC ANDRAOS/Thf. Battalion rofessors now allowed lower standards ouble standards are never pretty, espe cially when created [d condoned by the pow- that be at a school sup- sedly dedicated to acade- c integrity. Unfortunately, Texas is a school where [ere is blatant hypocrisy in rules and regulations. After an investiga- fcn of plagiarism charges between two A&M lofessors in the sociology department, ]e Faculty Senate and Academic Pro- Jam Council voted to change the Uni versity's definition of plagiarism. Now, to find a faculty member guilty of plagiarism, one must prove there was an intent to plagiarize. The problem lies in that this change ffects only the definition of plagiarism iy a faculty member, not by a student. To convict a student of plagiarism, the old rule of providing evidence of copied aterials applies. This discrepancy is a dangerous one ith a bad impression of the University's hical standards toward students and culty members. In an Oct. 14 article in The Battalion, olin Allen, associate professor of phi- sophy, said with the rule change, "It ems like the University is saying, 'We on't want to hold our faculty members countable for plagiarism.” A&M's contradictory plagiarism rules also ork to damage the credibility of everyone at ie University. Any doubt about A&M's ethics or commit- lent to academic honesty cannot be allowed, obody wants A&M to be known as a school lat is soft on plagiarists. It ruins the reputation of the University and diminishes the accomplishments of its students and faculty members. One would hope that the double standard created by this rule change was an accident, but in all reality, it was the goal. Later in the same Battalion article, Robert Kennedy, vice president for research and as sociate provost for graduate studies explained that the change in the definition of faculty plagiarism will protect professors from false accusations stemming from honest mistakes. JEFF SMITH/The Battalion But is a rule change needed to establish this protection? Is it too old fashioned to be lieve that the truth will prevail and that any professor falsely accused would be exonerat ed, not because of a higher burden of evi dence, but because of their own innocence? The University does not need to protect its faculty members from false accusations with new rules any more than it needs to for its undergraduate students. Every student learns how to avoid plagia rism by attributing quotes and citing sources. This lesson, obviously, should not be forgot ten by professors. They are the role models and leaders of this University, and it is ridicu lous to conceive that there needs to be a more lax plagiarism definition to compensate for any accidental copying that may occur. If A&M's students cannot trust that the University is serious about the academic in tegrity of its professors, then that belief will bring more harm to the school than any false accusation of plagiarism ever could. With this double standard, profes sors are given more leeway than stu dents in matters of plagiarism, which is counter-intuitive. Common sense would dictate that the scope and conse quences of plagiarism by undergradu ates on class assignments would be less substantial than plagiarism committed by a professor and published in a na tional journal of academic research. If one group is to be held to a higher standard than the other, it should be the faculty, not the students. But in truth, plagiarism by students and their profes sors cannot be tolerated and both should be held to the same standards. Professors know what is apd is not cheating. They should not be given a more liberal inter pretation of plagiarism than the students they teach. The rule change for proving facul ty plagiarism is unnecessary and creates a level of protection that fosters plagiarism, rather than preventing it. Eric Dickens is a junior English major. rr » • ober ilcet to friend s.com nd. MAIL CALL npartiality for all sgoal of state law In response to Jessica Crutcher’s ot. 18 column. Is violent crime the same thing sdiscrimination? According to sssica Crutcher, the Gay Lesbian isexual and Transsexual Aggies jLBTA) and other homosexual ghts activists, it is. However, ac- ordingto federal and state law it >not. Violent crime is illegal, re- ardless of the victim. Those who ngage in a homosexual lifestyle 'ave the same legal protection igainst violent crime as everyone ilse, because the law applies dually, impartially, to all. What ^ activists really want, though, 5 special protection — in other kirds, a law that discriminates "for a certain group of people. That is both unnecessary and un constitutional. After Columbine and similar events, do we need to pass special violent crime legisla tion to protect public school chil dren? After the Wedgwood shoot ing and the myriad of church burnings, do we need to pass special laws protecting Christians from violent crimes and arson? No. Instead of trying to pass more laws, we simply need to en force existing laws. Jon L. Gardner TAMU Dept, of Food Service Policy decisions product of advisors In response to Caleb McDaniel’s Oct. 21 column. Throughout history, the presi dent has relied on and set U.S. policy based on the advice of for eign policy advisers. I would be much more concerned if Mr. Bush was determined to conduct for eign affairs without consulting ex perts. McDaniel is obviously aware of the complexities that dealing with foreign nations en tails. It is nearly impossible for one person to be fully informed on all the various countries and cultures the president of the Unit ed States must deal with. Second, men like Brent Scow- croft and Dick Cheney are hardly holdovers from the Cold War. These are the leaders who were instrumental in the transition from the Cold War. Who better to advise the President in the Post Cold War than the architects of the transition from the Cold War? How quickly we forget how little foreign affairs experience the for mer Governor of Arkansas and his administration had when they took office, but given our current lack of a consistent, coherent for eign policy, maybe this isn't such a good point. David Kandolha Class of ’89 The Battalion encourages letters to the ed itor. Letters must be 300 words or less and in clude the author’s name, class and phone number. The opinion editor reserves the right to edit letters for length, style, and accuracy. Letters may be submitted in person at 013 Reed Mc Donald with a valid student ID. Letters may also be mailed to: The Battalion - Mail Call 013 Reed McDonald Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-1111 E-mail: battletters@hotmail.com Mandatory testing limits illegal drug use C urrently, the state of Michi gan might be using tax dol lars to fund an unemployed citizen’s drug habit, and some lawmak ers want this corrected. State law makers realized the possibility of some welfare recipients spending their cash on “getting their fix” instead of buying formula for their infants. Recently, they also decided that Illicit drug use war rants a system to make sure wards of the state are “clean.” On Oct. 1, the state mandated that all welfare recipients and applicants be subjected to drug testing. Anyone testing positive may lose benefits unless they en roll in a state- funded drug treatment program. While some of the citizens on welfare are protesting the new measure, stating they are being singled out simply because they are part of the lower-income class, the state of Michigan has the right to call for these drug tests. Testing will make sure state money is not going toward drug abusers who are not only breaking the law, but further damaging their ability to get off state aid, and continuing to be involved in a lifestyle of low- employment. A 1996 federal law gave indi vidual states the power to decide for themselves whether or not to have drug tests for all welfare re cipients or simply those individu als suspected of drug use by wel fare administrators. Louisiana and Florida have laws geared to ward suspected drug users, but Michigan is the first to require all welfare recipients to take drug tests. The state of Michigan has taken a huge step in the right di rection. The mandate treats the causes of the problems of unem ployment instead of its symp toms. It is hard enough to get some welfare recipients out of the program and into a job, let alone allow drugs to compound the problem. Providing addiction treatment also works toward government’s interests by reduc ing the number of addicts in the population, instead of forcing those who test positive out of the program and onto the crime- driven streets. However, the American Civil Liberties Union says these positives do not out weigh the possible slippery slope mandatory drug testing seems to present. According to the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Consti tution, citizens are protected from unreasonable search and seizure. Some citizens are volun teering to play “devil’s advocate” against the mandate by rejecting the drug testing all together. Tanya Marchwinski, a di vorced mother of three, gets by with a minimum-wage job at a convenience store along with a welfare stipend and food stamps. She claims the drug tests make her feel like she is be ing watched. Mandatory drug tests are intrusive. These people are losing some of their privacy by submit ting to the tests. However, that does not make the test a violation of the Fourth Amendment. State workers, such as postal employ ees in Louisiana, wait each week to hear their number called for random, employee drug testing, but no unkind words are heard about those tests. There is no dif ference between state workers and welfare recipients; the former receive money from the state for services rendered, and the latter simply receives money because they are poverty stricken. States should not have a dou ble standard for their employees and wards. After all, the govern ment simply wants proof that the people taking their money are not committing crimes. The citi zens have nothing to fear as long as they obey a simple law. Michigan has already subject ed about 50 welfare recipients to drug tests, and according to a state spokesperson, the testees were all in favor of the tests. It seems the ACLU suit has been the only objection. Perhaps it is time for the ACLU to focus on ac tual assaults on civil liberties and worry less about ways to prevent the government from enforcing sensible laws. Jeff Webb is a senior journalism major. States should not have double standards for their employees and their wards.