Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Nov. 3, 2000)
THE BATTALION rate applies ditional 5 jto qualify fr IEOUS 'CLE lust, tires, |8U^ 3, 268-8632. . Dogs. Mr) ;es, rabbits is ich. 364-2991 jpion shelter a! ages for eto Head, vacclnalet FES I semester 68H 3th. on bus r wster lor ebdrrj ). n/lbth aparw.j ymo. +1/26*1 S o bills. 2t3dnV^ er. Nice apart 1 3bdrm/2btti > paid for. Cal^ ester in 31x1*4 route. Nicolef jblease, $2751 rw duplex, d»P -w.lwr’* '. Get out of jail Arizona law should imprison nonviolent drug offenders T he overcrowding of America’s prison system is a problem that faces every state in the country. The Washington Post estimates that Americans spend $40 billion each year to maintain a system that accommodates roughly 2 million inmates. While many Americans support tougher consequences designed to deter the amount of arrestable &wh"e,jfc| crimes committed, the people of Arizona have a different idea. In 1996, Arizona passed Proposition 200, a law that prevents the incarceration of nonviolent drug offenders. Instead, vio lators are sentenced to drug-treatment classes and probation. Though it might seem like a good idea, lawmakers and citizens of Arizona need to rethink the devastating consequences of such a law. States should punish all drug offenders in ways that would deter usage. According to a study conducted by the U.S. Justice Department, some 1,231,900 people were arrested in 1999 on posses sion charges. The high legal fees required to pros ecute so many offenders have prompted many special interest groups, like Com mon Sense for Drug Policy, to lobby the government to end the domestic war on drugs. The new Arizona law would return such offenders, even those with repeat offenses, to the streets with a prover bial "slap on the wrists." Critics of America’s stance on drug control feel that substance-abuse laws, pertaining to nonviolent offenders, are too harsh and punish individuals whose ac tions affect only themselves. Though Ari- zoniansconsidered that point of view when (hey voted Proposition 200 into law, the guaranteed fiscal benefits and creation of much-needed prison space certainly helped taxpayers justify the law’s “catch and release” solution. Nearly 80 percent of all drug offenders are arrested on possession charges. The new Arizona law would return such of fenders, even those with repeat offenses, to the streets with a “slap on the wrists.” The $22,000 spent annually on each prisoner is certainly a strong motivator for probation. Arizona’s law saved the state S2.5 million in 1998 alone, according to the records from the Arizona Supreme Court. However, laws should be enforced to help dissuade crime, not save money. Ari zona’s law undermines the fact that using substances like cocaine, heroin and mari juana is still illegal in the United States. Instead of supporting that belief, Arizona does more to encourage illegal drug use than control it. Proposition 2CX) was an attempt to stem the influx of offenders into the prison system. Arizona’s law may succeed on this level. However, with no legislation estab lished to actively pursue and punish all drug offenders, Arizona cannot halt the in flux of drug users into the state. Richard Romely, the top prosecutor in Phoenix, Ariz., believes that an increase in the number of ding users in Arizona is inevitable. According to The Washington Post, Romely believes crime and drug use will continue to grow because Arizona courts “don’t have the ability to hold jail over their heads.” Probation is only effective when offend ers understand that additional mistakes will earn them stiffen consequences. Arizona ef fectively removed any power that proba tion once had by prohibiting prison sen tencing until after the third offense. Until the United States makes a radical decision to legalize many controlled sub stances, drug use will remain a secret kept in back alleys and basements. Many ad dicts will continue to defile themselves and others to pay the steep prices their ad dictions demand. The only way to avoid a full-scale war on drug importers and pushers is to take steps to eliminate their consumer base. Stronger laws against nonviolent drug of fenders do so by dissuading would-be drug users with harsh and quick punish ment; laws like the one in Arizona do not. The entire nation is made vulnerable by freeing drug users to compensate for prison overcrowding and higher taxes. America needs to find ways to control its prison population without softening its stand on something as important and dam aging as modern-day drug culture. homa game ize 4 or 6. C* 1 <, go to Student 19-2000 3 Reed _ Cash, 3d. Marcus White is a sophomore general studies major. Screen Actors Guild strike a joke; conclusion long overdue M ds could be look ing bet ter soon, after the real talent in the industry goes back to work. The end of the longest actor strike in Holly wood’s history means that actors can return to work this week and begin making commercials again. The Screen Actors Guild (SAG) and the American Fed eration of Television and Radio Actors (AFTRA) called off their six-month strike against the adver tising industry after leaders in both or ganizations voted Saturday to end the standoff. Whether actors need to feel more important or feel like they are • fighting some kind of injustice, or if they are sincerely convinced they deserve more money than they are receiving, this whole strike has been a joke in labor relations. The strike came about after the indus try began moving toward abolishing residual payments in network television advertising, meaning that actors would no longer receive payment each time a com mercial airs. The unions swiftly reacted by de manding the industry extend residual payments to cable television. Both sides eventually dropped those demands and negotiated on other issues. Actors in both organizations are now again free to work in the industry. This whole fiasco is like something out of the “Twilight Zone,” but then again, that came from Hollywood, too. An actors’ strike is almost as silly as a professional basketball or baseball strike. The rich and influential advertising in dustry against a combined total of 135,000 professional actors makes for an expensive, but uninspiring, battle. Both sides are making their stand over nothing more than who gets a little more money. The real fight is over who will get the bigger slice of the profit pie. Devoid of ide alistic appeal, actors threw themselves into a retaliatory ? U® strike at the suggestion of a new payment scheme. Despite the fact that the new payment scheme appears to be motivated purely by the ad industry’s greed, striking actors’ sense of self-importance is laughable in light of their counterdemand. It is impossible to argue with actors’ as sertions that getting rid of residual pay ments would cost them a lot of money. Be ing paid a flat fee for unlimited use of a commercial yields less money than pay ment every time an ad is aired. Still, to make a little more money, the advertising industry proposed eliminating royalties for commercial play. Rather than disagree and fight the change, the actors’ unions made a counter demand to extend residual payments to ca ble television as well. When neither side would give in, the union launched a lengthy strike to force the industry into acceptance. That situation is bad enough, but it is ANGELIQUE FORD/The Battalion only the beginning of the sto ry. To secure their position of impor tance to advertisers, union members or ganized efforts to purposely halt non-union production. James Bates with the Los Angeles Times wrote Monday in “Company Town: Behind the Scenes of SAG Strike; For Ac tors, No Reluctance in Resorting to Sub terfuge,” that union interference was the primary reason for producers fleeing the Los Angeles area, costing Southern Cali fornia an estimated $125 million in lost production revenue. Bates records how actors posed as Texaco officials, sculptors or Vietnam vets in attempts to find out where com mercial shoots would be and who should be picketed. Actors made ridiculous efforts to try and stop advertising shoots when they could. As a result, advertising production fled to places like Canada and Europe. Actors stooped to petty interference like blocking camera views with a bubble-mak ing machine, covering a shoot area with birdseed to disrupt filming with hundreds of birds, and ruining commercial shoots by covering the windows of a train to be in a commercial with union signs. With a mindset de manding “whatever it takes to win,” the actors’ guilds set out to block commercial production un til the industry would give up and let them win. Unions even enlisted the aid of numerous celebrities to give to a strike-relief fund. Big names such as Harrison Ford, Bruce Willis, Nicholas Cage, Britney Spears, ‘NSync, Kevin Spacey, John Travolta and others donated thousands of dollars to ease the suffering of those engaged in the strike. The whole event was a tantrum thrown over money. Working conditions, oppression or work demands were not is sues in this war of attrition. The only thing strikers were occupied with in this labor dispute was the vain be lief that they deserved more money than they were receiving. The irony of the situation is that the unions eventually dropped their demands for residual payments in cable advertising, as the industry dropped its demand that residual payments be discontinued in net work advertising. Both sides conceded their main points after the fight. The only real issue the entire dispute changed was unions’jurisdiction over Internet advertising in the future. Rather than fight out a new solution to an issue, both strikers and industry negotia tors dropped their main grievances. Even if this whole fight was over mon ey, there is no real achievement when both sides forget their main issues and then de clare victory. It looks more like a desperate attempt to feel important and get paid more. Whether actors simply need a greater sense of purpose or are sincerely convinced they deserve more money, the rest of the country would like to be spared the spectacle. Matt Loftis is a sophomore journalism and French major. Clarification of Student Senate passage of Bonfire resolution The Texas A&M Student Senate has in the near past discussed and passed a resolution concerning student opinion on the future of Texas Aggie Bonfire. Since its passage, there has been much criticism and discussion of the Texas Aggie Bonfire Resolution, chiefly due, in my opinion, to misconceptions and confu sion of the resolution, the Student Senate, and their roles respectively. The Senate prides itself in being the official voice of the student body. Student senators represent students in all areas of student life, from academics to student services to all aspects of the A&M community. However, we must consider every decision we make, in that we are not only expressing student opinion, but also preserving student character and looking out for the future and well-being of not only the students, but the University itself. The authors of this resolution and myself had spoken to numerous students on the issue of Bonfire. This was done through constituency relations of the authors and “Constituency Day”—the day of the Sen ate meeting where the resolution was presented which all students had the opportunity to express opinions to senators. More than 20 student leaders and student organiza tions were presented with the resolution itself in order to receive concerns and opinions on this issue. Mail Call Their voice, along with those of the families’, stands stronger than any of ours alone. Each student organization presented the resolution to its members and its own constituents and decided as representatives its position on the issue before giv ing its support to the Resolution. Some have expressed that Student Senate does not have the knowledge or experience to have h say about Bonfire or what Bonfire is about. As stated, the authors set a primary focus on the opinions of Bonfire participants and former Bonfire lead ers first. Also, many senators have participated greatly in all aspects of Bonfire, and some served as witnesses to Bonfire’s most tragic moment. The vote on the resolution was 38 in favor to eight opposed. This results that 82.6 percent voiced their support while 17.4 percent felt they could not. I truly feel that this is an accurate representation of student opinion on this issue. As students and as Aggies, we must work together to accomplish anything for the good of Bonfire and the good of A&M. This includes working with the administra tion, not against it. We might not all agree, but we must continually ex press these beliefs to aid in reaching a consensus with in the decision and to understand the reasoning of the decision. This is why the Senate could not support any extra initiatives that could endanger any Aggies’ lives or dam age the unity that is present across this campus and created by Bonfire itself. Such initiatives did not present the unity and spirit of Bonfire we have known. We have been left with a decision. We must start from there and work as an Aggie family to create an ex perience deserving of the title of Texas Aggie Bonfire. In light of recent events, we must now stand united in the true spirit of Bonfire as Aggies and come together to work to see the future of Bonfire become a reality. Please remember that Student Senate and student government are here to work for all students of all view points to provide a unified campus, a strong spirit and a preservation of tradition. Chad Wagner Class of ’02 The Battalion encourages letters to the editor. Letters must be 300 words or less and include 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 014 Reed McDon ald with a valid student ID. Letters may also be mailed to: The Battalion - Mail Call 014 Reed McDonald Texas A&M University 1111TAMU College Station, Texas 77843 Campus Mail: 1111 Fax: (979) 845-2647 E-mall: battletters@hotmail.com Columns and letters appearing in The Battalion express the opinion of the authors only. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of other Battalion staff members, the Texas A&M student body, regents, administrators, faculty or staff. Al or Dubya ... Maybe Ralph or Pat... Could care less... Have your voice heard. In conjunction with next Tuesday’s general election, The Battalion invites the Texas A&M student body to share its views on the race for president. Students are urged to submit letters to the editor outlining who they are voting for and for what reasons. In this case, letters must be 200 words or less and Include the author’s name, class and phone number. The opinion editor reserves the right to edit letters for length, style and accuracy. Considering length constraints, it is recommended that the author focus his or her letter on one or two primary campaign issues.