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.