The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current, April 25, 2002, Image 15

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

    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.