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