Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Jan. 22, 2004)
Page 5B • Thursday, January 22, 2004 ALIO! ed ted," I* tor oft!( titute it ^nsumep ' idead it’s beinj v-proof: Jems lib y wron£. >roblem; researct 's a mud 1 that yet id feedii i’t meari ce. Cw : Lie sai; i cloniii ^ agoi 're abot protein, types d iat cause formall. angifon: can wifr ionizin; temper: tfectanu >ugh th: t nom. them i her pit ting tiir he brai: able an: le tiunu- also lot ITer free ' gel BSt contair ?al maa feed vt icientiv get th: sease b produr. nervoui a BSE Opinion The Battalion losing the war at' As costs of fighting the drug war rise, treatment options should he considered n October 1982, President Ronald Reagan unveiled his strategy for fighting drug addiction in the United States. Known as the War on Drugs, the policy — adopt ed to varying extents by Reagan’s successors — stressed criminalization over treatment. Proponents of the costly policy succeeded in spinning the issue of illegal drug use into a political who-is-tougher-on-crime contest, sweeping ideas of substance treatment instead of incarceration from both major parties’ platforms. However, statistics have consistently shown that this policy, while well-intentioned, is ineffective. Addiction is a disease, as defined by the American Medical Association, and it should be solved by profes sionals, not prison terms. According to a study recently released by the Center for Court Innovation, nonvio lent drug offenders who com plete supervised treatment are significantly less likely to become repeat offenders than those who serve prison time. In his State of the Union address Tuesday, President George W. Bush spoke of the need for government funds to help released prisoners adjust to their return into society. If rehabilitation is the goal of our legal system and the government intends to pre vent the number of second- i and third-time offenders, treatment must be given to those addicted to illegal substances. Currently, two-thirds of drug control appropriations are spent on law enforcement, and only one-third on treatment and preven tion, according to PBS.org. A significant amount of these funds should be diverted • from use in criminal punishment, where mil lions of dollars are spent and few addictions are overcome, and invested in practical treatment, such as those seen in state-run drug courts. The first drug court was established in Florida in 1989 as a welcome middle ground between the con servative tough-on-crime facade of the drug war and the rash call of some liberals for legalization of some con trolled substances. There are approximately l.(KK) drug courts nationwide, located in 49 states; Judges and pro bation officers refer nonviolent offenders with a history of drug use to a drug court where their criminal records JOHN DAVID BLAKLEY ... statistics have consistentiy shown that the War on Drugs, while well-intentioned, is ineffective. Addiction is a disease, and it should be solved by professionals, not prison terms. and substance abuse background is reviewed. Contrary to what is seen in traditional court set tings, the defense as well as the prosecution work with the judge to determine the appropriate treat ment. Probation officers monitor each offender’s progress with frequent drug testing and weekly meetings with the judges. The offender attends individual and group counseling and can graduate from the program after one year of full compli ance. Failure to meet the judge’s guidelines can result in jail time, fines, inpatient treatment or community service. Drug courts provide what Judge Peter Anderson, who presides over two drug courts in Massachusetts, calls “treatment with teeth.” According to Anderson, complete decriminalization of illegal substances would not be in the best interest of the nation or the addicts, considering that about 80 to 90 percent of those who enter voluntary treatment leave before the end of the year. With prison time being the alter native, treatment coordinated and monitored by drug courts may appear much more attractive to addicts. As far as funding the treatment provided by drug courts, the numbers speak for themselves. Treatment for drug addiction costs $ 1,8(H) to $6,800 per year per person, depending on the need of each addict, compared to an average of $25,900 per year spent on the incarceration of one person. Despite the cost-effectiveness as well as the reduction of recidivism seen in drug courts, lack of funding around the nation has obstructed the opening of additional drug courts. The Texas legislature has mandated counties w ith a population of more than 550.000 to open drug courts, but did not earmark the mandate with funds to foot the bill, according to The Houston Chronicle. Considering the unfunded mandates states have received from the national government, it is not surpris ing to see Texas following the trend by handing out one of its Qwn to several counties. There is a common axiom that states. “When solving problems, dig at the roots instead of just hacking at the leaves." To get to the root of the drug addiction problem in our country, America must attack it at its roots. Treatment solves addiction, while locking up nonviolent drug offenders does not. It is time for this country to look past traditional tough-on-crime rhetoric and put forth real solutions. John David BLtkley is a sophomore political science major. m 21 New band would bring many welcome changes T he hardest Aggie tradition to appreciate is the attempt to create other traditions. Unfortunately, those members of the Aggie community who try to infuse this campus with new and viable tra ditions may face accusations of try ing to unnecessarily alter the Aggie way of life. This is why the news that A&M Athletic Director Bill Byrne is seek ing to fomi an alternative to the Aggie Band that would perform exclusively at basketball and volleyball games will not be received well by everyone. In fact, reaction has been decidedly mixed among former members of the Aggie Band, according to an article that appeared earlier this month in The Eagle. But the formation of this band is an excellent idea that will not take away any of the majesty and magnificence of the original Fightin’Texas Aggie Band. It should be noted that the formation of this new Aggie band was due in part to con cerns about members of the Aggie Band. In a statement released Dec. 17 on the Aggie Daily Web site, Byrne and Aggie Band Director Maj. Timothy Rhea agreed that it was difficult for members of the Aggie Band to perform at almost 50 men's and women's basketball and women's volleyball games and still maintain their responsibilities both as an A&M student and a member of the Corps of Cadets. The Aggie Band will, of course, con tinue to perform at home and at away foot ball games. It will also support the basketball program for the remainder of this season. There are, however, more practical rea sons why this new band is a good idea. According to the Aggie Daily statement, Byrne is seeking as many as 90 students to play for the new Aggie band, which would emphasize brass and percussion instruments. The goal is to have a band that can play what the statement describes as “basketball music.” Although the original Aggie Band plays music that is appropriate for Aggie football games, the same music doesn’t nec essarily translate well to a basketball envi ronment, which is more fast-paced. It should not be overlooked that the formation of this new band speaks to a larger issue. It is com mendable that the Aggie Band and the yell leaders are willing to per- fonn at Aggie sporting events other than football, but other Aggie sports need to form strong traditions of their own. Basketball and volleyball games should not be seen as poor substitutes for attending Aggie football games. Some sports, such as baseball, which some Aggies describe as even more fun to attend than Aggie football games, have suc ceeded at this. But basketball specifically does not enjoy as much support from the Aggie faithful as it should. But when and if this new Aggie band comes to fruition, it will give at least a few Aggies — those who may not have attended Aggie basketball or volleyball games before — a compelling reason to attend. Indeed, Aggie basketball has already given rise to unique traditions such as the Reed Rowdies and the Aggie Dance Team. Having a basket ball-specific band would only strengthen the basketball game day experience. Because the current student body seems willing to incorporate new traditions into the Aggie way of life, this is probably the most appropriate time to introduce traditions into the A&M community. For example, the vast majority of current students has had no involvement with on-campus Bonfire and is getting used to the idea of producing an off- campus version each fall semester. While some may try to deny any alter ation to the A&M universe, Aggieland is ripe and eager for new traditions to form. While the practical implications alone are probably reason enough to embrace a new band, fos tering the formation of new traditions unique to this generation of Aggies is a compelling argument for change that cannot be ignored. Collins Ezeanyim is a senior computer engineering major. COLLINS EZEANYIM MAIL CALL Commercializing space not realistic In response to a Jan. 21 column: While Mike Walters has a valid point, he is a few years ahead of his time. It is true that commercializing space is the best way to conquer it; however, the technology does not exist to do so now. The X Prize’s pur pose is to do just that. It is a $10 million reward for any per son or group who launches a vehicle into orbit, returns it and its crew safely, and repeats the process two weeks later to prove that it is a reusable vehi cle. However, no one has been able to claim it yet. Using Russian-based technology, China took ten years just to put a man into orbit. So to claim that the govern ment has a monopoly on space is incorrect. NASA’s budget is $15 billion a year, which Bush wants to increase by 10 per cent. Now hypothetically, if one were to allocate the majority of the budget to other NASA pro grams such as astronomy and climatology, the Moon and Mars program would roughly have $5 billion. What person, group of people, or company has that kind of money to fund the development of base on the moon? Given the time for the correct technology to develop, lunar vacations and even homes will become a reality. Scott Bourgeois Class of 2007 Gates' decision a result of pressure In response to Jan. 20 mail calls: I believe Tessa Howington from the Class of 2003 and Ron Layer from the Class of 1971 have it right about President Gates. It seems that lately he is giving into outside pressure regarding Texas A&M. I recently chose to join the Aggie family because of the unique atmosphere A&M has to offer. I have three older siblings who attend A&M, but A&M's legacy option isn't what got me in. I got in by being in the top 10 percent of my graduating high school class. However, I think terminating the legacy option will hurt the morale of the Sprit of Aggieland. I believe President Gates felt the need to “give” the people that see A&M as a “non-diversi- fied school” something since A&M did not adopt the affirma tive action plan. This was actual ly smart, since affirmative action is racism and there is more diversity within people than the color of their skin. I hope A&M doesn't start to become like other schools and feel the need for change because of criticism which comes from people that are not well acquainted with the University. I am anticipating my future time in Aggieland. I hope A&M will stay the same unique school that it has always been for years to come. For this to be the case, we need a president that can stand up for A&M and its traditions. Time will only show if this happens. Jarred Sulak Class of 2008 Legacy admissions a form of racism In response to Jan. 20 columns and mail call: After reading the editorials and the several mail call responses regarding the end of legacy admissions at A&M, it seemed to me that the obvious flaw with a system that gives an advan tage to legacies was being over looked. For those with a short memory, the admissions system in place here until the spring of 1964 (40 years ago this semester) was one of legal discrimination. One hundred percent of all black stu dents who might have attended were not admitted. A legacy admission policy essentially continues that system of racial discrimination because the chil dren and grandchildren of those who were legally discriminated against by A&M prior to 1964 can not benefit. Likewise, a sys tem of gender discrimination existed in Texas A&M's admis sion policies until the 1960s. Dr. Gates should be saluted for ending this system that, howev er indirectly, preserves at least a small piece of an era of legal discrimination and hate that needs to die. The unkind words being direct ed toward Dr. Gates by some people are missing the point. The idea of legacy preference is not wrong on its surface. Unfortunately, the racist admin istrators at A&M many years prior to Dr. Gates make that the wrong thing to do. To keep lega cy admissions alive would be to preserve their legacy. Nicholas Franklin Class of 2003 The Battalion encourages let ters to the editor. 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. Letters may be submitted in person at 014 Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Letters also may be mailed to: 014 Reed McDonald, MS 1111, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-1111. Fax: (979) 845-2647 Email: mailcall@thebattalion.net