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.