Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (April 25, 2002)
THE Opinion THE BATTALION 7B Thursday, April 25, 2002 uifl EDITORIAL esident Injustice Aliew housing ordinance passed by the Bryan City Council that the number of unrelated people who live together is dis- inatory against Texas A&M and Blinn College students, who may no longer be able to live in Bryan. : decision came as a result of Bryan residents' complaints t college students' rowdy behavior, parking problems and jnsightly front yards. This careless decision will negatively affect •jnw; :he students and community. College students are a large portion of the Bryan-College gMon community and have an inherent right to live in residen- T,eot:e jal areas. In the past, students have opted to live in a four bed room residence with more than four roommates to make costs nore affordable. The ordinance represents one more financial ase obstacle for many students to overcome. Granted, rowdy behavior, not maintaining the property and 11 ii committing parking violations are not desirable ways for stu- dents to conduct themselves. However, the City of Bryan already has the ability to issue noise violations, lawn care ordinance and jarking citations. There is no need to create an ordinance that jlatantly attacks college students to solve problems that already lave a solution — better enforcement of existing regulations. ICollege students contribute an incredible amount of money to iiedveu the Bryan-College Station area, therefore the community should '>M>rbni be more accepting of students in all areas of the community. In from la ;addition, students need to take interest in topics such as local Rice' politics that affect their living standards. Policymakers generally is kmm' assume that college students are not going to react harshly, if at reveni ii all, to their decisions simply because they are young. In the mere future, Texas A&M and Blinn students should be more aware of ifficullti These decisions and play an active role in a community that they : have every right to take part in. n and acred rtim THE BATTALION nanaging Editor Opinion Editor g. News Editor News Editor EDITORIAL BOARD Editor in Chief Mariano Castillo Melissa Bedsole Jonathan Jones Brian Ruff Cayla Carr Sommer Bunce Brandie Liffick Member Member Member Member Jennifer Lozano Kelln Zimmer aurses m nish, he Battalion encourages letters to the editor. Letters must be 200 words or less include the author's name, class and phone number. The opinion editor reserves ight to edit letters for length, style and accuracy. Letters may be submitted in per il! at 014 Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Letters also may be mailed to: 014 McDonald, MS 1111, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-1111. Fax: 979) 845-2647 Email: mailcall@thebatt.com MAIL CALL |p. Brady speaks ^ fisponse to April 19 editorial: understandable that Aggies upset at the recent com- its by Congressman Tom fy- but the paper is in error in that I defended his com ets. Instead, I stated that |S A&M is a great University — fb it is. I observed that Tom 'Y has been a good friend to I s A&M — which he continues . e - In my experience repre ss the University and its |y ^search and service initia- J' Delay has been an invalu- ally. | also noted that secret- “Ping someone without his lowledge is underhanded, jKn | believe most Aggies N agree with. |! , exas A&M’s reputation as a | Pervative, moral institution is 'k-l renown - Its reputation, w” needs no defense, has II If 1 ' 0r ged for 125 years and has 'jBstood many organized and justified attacks. This ^iMtation has remained intact ihn° n ly because Aggies espouse 1 & 0l | anC * P r ' nc ‘pl e ' but because pV lead and live by example. ar >d I certainly hope our boys will choose to become While I don't agree with i defend Delay's comments, ftontinues to be instrumental , e and others in helping A&M. an off-the-cuff com- t 'or which he immediately |!| profusely apologized, both J' c| y ar, d privately. Let's take it a t and move forward. U.S. Congressman Kevin Brady 8th District of Texas Being frugal is not sinful, regardless In response to George Deutsch's column April 24: Since an opinion article is inher ently biased toward one side of a story, I have no problem with Deutsch's comments criticizing televangelists. When Deutsch states at the end of his article that "These evangelists love to attack abortion, homosexuality and fru gality, which can all understand ably be classified as sins," he crosses way over the line. While Deutsch has every right to convey his personal opinions, provided, he expresses them as such, his use of the word "under standably" implies some sort of factual basis for his assertions. Furthermore, even if Deutsch claims to have religious justifica tion for denouncing abortion and homosexuality, I find it hard to believe that being frugal would be committing a sin. Merriam- Webster defines frugal as "charac terized by or reflecting economy in the use of resources," which is a quality that is anything but sin ful, regardless of religion. Roberto Gasparini Class of 2000 Food for thought Fast food restaurants are not at fault for obesity I n another ridiculous lack of judgment, people now plan to sue fast food companies for causing obesity in adults and children. It is the contention of these peo ple that fast food marketing techniques and products have caused America to become one of the most obese countries in the industrial world. These people are not saying that fast food is healthy however, they are claiming that they have unknowingly eaten these fatty foods and have become overweight. Yet, what they fail to acknowledge is that fast food companies never have claimed to be serving healthy food, and it is wrong to sue a company because either the consumers lack self-control or they have not read the nutritional facts readily accessible from these fast food companies. In the book Fast Food Nation, Eric Schlosser, recom mends that “Congress should ban all fast food advertising to children under the age of 9,” according to a CBSNEWS.com article. While Schlosser may have the children’s best interest at heart, he does not acknowledge the real prob lem: the necessity of parents educating their children on proper eating habits and exercising control by not allowing children to eat such unhealthy foods. Instead, Schlosser passes the blame to fast food companies by saying it is their job to provide healthy foods for children. Schlosser is naive, it is not their job. Companies are in business to make a profit, and if fatty foods are in demand, then companies have every right to provide the public with what it demands. Columnist Susan Ager provides an example in her article about Nicole Volta Avery, who compared fast food companies to BRIEANNE PORTER tobacco companies. Her theo ry is that people are able to sue the tobacco companies because smoking causes health problems, so they should be able to sue Tie fast food companies as well. While overconsumption of fast food may be to blame for many serious health oroblems such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease and serious gallbladder problems, the difference between the tobacco companies and the fast food companies is that the fast food companies have never claimed their product is healthy. The tobacco companies withheld vital information about the health risks associated with smoking from the public ind therefore are subject to lawsuits by the public. It has never been said that a hamburger from a certain fast food chain has any good health benefits, and it has never been withheld from the public that the hamburger is unhealthy. Many of these fast food restaurants have healthy items marked on their menus, but they never claim all their food is healthy. The reason many Americans are overweight is not because of “evil” fast food companies. Instead, the reason is that Americans are always rushed for time. While many Americans are coming home from work late at night or taking a quick lunch break, in place of a healthy meal, they grab a bite to eat from the local fast food restaurant. It is the American lifestyle that has caused the epidemic of overweight people. It is a shame that people would rather blame others for their problems. The real problem is lack of self-control and lack of proper eating time, not the fast food corporations. Brieanne Porter is a senior political science major. angelique ford- the battalion Legalization is realistic T he United States has conducted an expen sive and largely futile war against illegal drugs for decades. Yet these sub stances, despite a massive effort to combat them on the streets and along the borders, still are read ily available. There is simply too much demand in this lucrative market. Some drugs, such as cocaine and heroin, are probably too dangerous for the government to indirectly endorse through legalization. However, a smoke of hypocrisy surrounds the continued criminalization of marijuana. It should be legalized and regulated just like another harmful substance to society and the individual: alcohol. The U.S. government again would have to prohibit alcohol to maintain any shred of consistency. This realization finally is getting to the mainstream of America’s politicians. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg now promi nently is featured in an ad by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws because of a quote he said last sum mer as a candidate. Asked if he had ever smoked pot, Bloomberg replied, “You bet 1 did. And 1 liked it.” In his city alone, more than 52,000 people were arrested for possession last year, up from 720 peo ple 10 years ago. Nationwide, 735,000 people were arrested for breaking mari juana laws in 2000. That is a lot of arrests for non-violent offenders who pose little or no harm to others. There are, of course, millions of more casual users who do not get caught or are JONATHAN JONES not prosecuted. The vast majority of these individu als has no difficulty fully functioning from day to day. “Just Say No” may have a nice ring to it, but a drug-free America is unat tainable and wholly unrealistic. As such, it is long past time for an intellectually honest debate about the impact of America’s drug laws. The robust marijua na black market is at the root of at least one long-time and avoidable crisis. Prison overcrowding is a problem in America. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice statistics, 40 states were under court order to end overcrowding in 1994. Two years later, the federal prison system was operating at 25 percent over capacity, while state prisons were running at 16 to 24 percent over capacity. Overcrowding strains budgets, which negatively impacts job training, education and drug treatment. The result, unfortunately, is high recidi vism. The Bureau of Justice calculated that 37,500 federal, state and local inmates were imprisoned for cannabis violations in 1998, a majority for possession alone’ At an average cost of $20,000 a year, the gov ernment spent $750 million to incarcerate these offenders. The effort to stop individ uals from using a product hardly any more harmful than alcohol costs taxpayers bil lions annually. An individual inclined to escape reality through substance abuse will find a way to do so. Alcohol addiction, all too common in the United States and elsewhere, is par ticularly dangerous because it often leads to aggressive behavior where individuals ignore their altered states and attempt to perform tasks as if sober. Generally, this is simply not the case with marijuana. It is a shame that ignorance or fear of political consequences hinder a national debate about the merits of regulating marijuana. A 1999 Gallup Poll found that 73 percent of Americans favored legalization for medici nal purposes. The Marijuana Policy Project estimates that the war on marijuana costs taxpayers $9.2 billion annually. Even the government can find better ways to spend that money. The policy of policing adults at leisure if they who are not driving or operating heavy machinery, is as barren of results as it is rich in irony. The same government that permits Americans to soften the edges of modern life through alcohol, cig arettes and a variety of prescription drugs, most of which are more harmful and addictive than marijuana, should end this double standard. At the same time, legali ty should not imply approval. The use of drugs usually leads to serious negative consequences. But as long as humans continue to be imperfect creatures, there will be drugs. A little time- and money saving consistency, however, is a good start to honestly addressing the massive failure of America’s war on drugs. Jonathan Jones is a senior political science major.