Opinion The University Daily Kansan Laura Roddy, Editor Shauntae Blue, Business manager Sarah Hale, Managing editor Brad Bolyard, Retail sales manager Kristi Elliott, Managing editor Matt Fisher, Sales and marketing adviser Tom Eblen, General manager, news adviser Scott Valler, Technology coordinator 4A Monday, March 27, 2000 Clay McCuistion / KANSAN Editorials Coalition's message of apathy puts student elections into perspective Some University of Kansas students don't care about Student Senate elections. This is made obvious by the embarrassingly low number of students who actually vote in the annual elections. But a few KU students care so little about Senate that they are running for office. While some may doubt the dedication of the Resume Builders coalition, they cannot deny its message The message that the coalition is spreading is one of complete and abject apathy toward Senate. From bike lanes to campus safety, from legislative lobbying to student fees, the coalition interjects a common theme: Who cares? The sad, or perhaps not surprising, fact Many students can identify with the Resume Builders' mocking of Student Senate is that a clear majority of students agree with the mocking message of the Resume Builders. How many times have students been witness to a Wescoe beach political event, something akin to a big tent revival, waiting for Senate candidates to admit that they are just kidding? Sometimes Senate elections can get out of hand with the amount of pompous grandstanding and heated discussions concerning issues most students deem irrelevant. And so we have Resume Builders. With four coalitions promising to shake up at least the division of votes, we gladly are given one coalition that puts it all into perspective. With Resume Builders, we will not have to worry about another pathetic instance of "outside consulting." We will not have to worry about dozens of political science majors trying to perfect their trades. Instead, we will get a few hardy laughs. For this, we wholeheartedly welcome Resume Builders into the political fray. Jeff Engstrom for the editorial board Feedback Film vouchers same as buying books In reference to the March 16 editorial, while I appreciate the annoyance of having to pay $25 for a film voucher, the University of Kansas is ultimately justified in doing so. I would assume the $25 fee is levied because the cost of the film course is disproportionately high in comparison to general class fees. Students in the "preferred" engineering department often have to buy books that cost much more than $100, with no financial help from the University. The film voucher cost is for something discussed in class, similar to the books that every student purchases without the aid of the University. Also, the "photocopying passes" nightmare you envision is already a reality. I have taken classes in English, history and American studies in which significant portions of the reading comes from photocopied handouts rather than books I am required to purchase. I always thought it was a fair trade-off for not having to spend money on books. So while I'm sure students are bothered by this film voucher, the burden does not fall "unfairly" on to the students anymore than it does when students are required to buy books. Chris Eckert Towaco, N.J., junior University enriched by many groups So Eric Chenowith, you would like to be a member of Student Senate. Good luck to you, but let us give you one bit of advice for future references: Justify your comments. In a March 14 article in the Kansan, you claim that, "Other than athletes, [you] don't know who spends more time working for this school," but we know that there are many other organizations that do a great deal for this institution. We're not saying that student athletes do not contribute greatly to the University of Kansas, but by saying that, you overlook the many contributions of the wide array of groups on campus. Let's take for example the Young Democrats, who were instrumental in the drive to save the Jebowl, or the resident assistants, who communicate daily with students on a one-to-one basis. What about the Student Union Activities, which brings numerous educational speakers and entertainment to the University, and even Senate, which you are longing to join, which provides support for the other numerous student groups? You have provided no support for your claims about the so-called superior contributions of student athletes. As voters, we would look for a candidate who is concerned with all the organizations on campus, as opposed to one elite group. Jim Scherer Hiawatha sophomore Brett Norman Overland park sophomore Kansan staff Advertising managers Seth Hoffman . . . Editorial Nadia Mustafa . . . Editorial Melody Ard . . . News/Special sections Chris Fickett . . . News Julie Wood . . . News Juan H. Heath . . Online Mike Miller . . Sports Matt James . . Associate sports Katie Hollar . . Campus Nathan Willis . . Campus Heather Woodward . Features Chris Borniger . Associate features T.J. Johnson . Photo imaging Christina Neff . Photo Jason Pearce . Design, graphics Clay McCuistion . Wire News editors Advertising Becky LaBranch . . . Special sections Krista Lindemann . . . Campus Ryan Riggin . . . Regional Jason Hannah . . . National Will Baxter . . . Online sales Patrick Rupe . . . Online creative Seth Schwimmer . . . Marketing Jenny Weaver . . . Creative layout Matt Thomas . . . Assistant creative Kenna Crone . . . Assistant creative Trent Guyer . . . Classifieds Jon Schlitt . . . Zone Thad Crane . . . Zone Cecily Curran . . Zone Christy Davies . . Zone Broaden your mind: Today's quote "I used to say that politics is the second oldest profession, but I've come to realize that it bears a gross similarity to the first." — Ronald Reagan Letters: Should be double-spaced typed and fewer than 200 words. Letters must include the author's signature, name, address and telephone number plus class and hometown if a University student. Faculty or staff must identify their positions. How to submit letters and guest columns Guest columns: Should be double- spaced typed with fewer than 700 words. The writer must be willing to be photo- graphered for the column to run. All letters and guest columns should be e-mailed to opinion@kansan.com or submitted to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Stauffer-Flint Hall. The Kansan reserves the right to edit, cut to length or reject all submissions. For any questions, call Nadia Mustafa or Seth Hoffman at 864-4924. If you have general questions or comments, e-mail the page staff (opinion@kansan.com) or call 864-4924 Perspective In the eighth democratic elections since Francisco Franco died in 1975, the Popular Party candidate, Jose Maria Aznar, won his Spanish more involved in elections, politics Matt Merkel-Hess columnist oonion@ansan.com Elections in Spain were conducted March 12. You probably didn't notice. bid for re-election and will serve another four years as president. The pro-business, conservative Popular Party also won big in the congress, marking the first time a conservative party has held an outright majority in Spain. The conservative government here differs from other European countries where center-left parties have won recent elections. Many Spaniards still lean to the left more than half of the electorate was alive during Franco's 40-year dictatorship. Before Aznar, Spain was governed by the Socialist party for 14 years. In 1996, the Popular Party barely squeaked by the Socialists and had to form a coalition government for a majority. Then many people moved to a nearby plaza where there was a stage with speakers and a food stand with typical Spanish snacks, chocolate and churros, all complimentes of the Popular Party. As we stood in line, an impromptu dance party started booming to the club music. It was hard not to feel the excitement that capped the election night. I didn't have a particular favorite in the elections, but Spanish politicians know how to party. The previous Friday, I had watched a salsa band and drank free sangria in another plaza, complimentes of the United Left Party. The rise in support for the Popular Party is being attributed to Spain's booming economy. In the last four years, unemployment has dropped from 23 to 15 percent. In the elections March 12, almost 70 percent of Spain voted, a number that would have the United States giddy with excitement. However, it was more than 7 percent lower than the 1996 elections and 10 percent lower than Spain's highest voter turnout in 1982. So what does this all mean to you? Probably not much. My host family was surprised to learn that I thought most Americans wouldn't know anything about Spanish politics — any Spaniard who pays attention to the news knows about Bush and Gore and is following the U.S. presidential campaigns with some interest. The American president, whether liked or not, plays a huge role in international politics and is our main representative and ambassador. On Sunday night, while watching the elections results on TV, I realized I had never been closer to the center of politics on election day. My roommate and I decided to see things for ourselves, as a short metro ride took us to the middle of a crowded street near the Popular Party headquarters. Thousands of people crushed together, whipping party signs and Spanish flags in rhythm to techno music blaring from loudspeakers. The crowd seemed to be an even mix of young and old. Just before midnight, the president and his wife came out, and he gave a short speech that everyone eagerly cheered on. For example, last month the Spanish king and queen visited the Clintons in Washington, D.C. The Spanish king mostly is a figurehead at this point, but the newspapers devoted plenty of text and pictures to the trip. I even saw a photo of the queen after she tripped on some stairs with Clinton reaching down to help her up. The news from the White House — the good, the bad and the scandalous — is reported around the world. So remember, when you vote in November, the world is watching. I just hope by then some club music and a little chocolate and churros can be injected into the mix of American politics. Merkel-Hess is an Iowa City, Iowa, junior in journalism and environmental studies. He is studying in Madrid, Spain, this semester. Lawmakers are fighting drug war on wrong front A recent example is the $1.7 billion in anti-drug funds destined for Colombia that Congress is about to approve. Those sort of funds might very well do more to perpetuate the war than to end it by potentially raising revenues of drug lords. All the while, this does nothing to reduce the long-term supply of drugs. The drug war is costing the U.S. government billions of dollars every year, and a good deal of that money is wasted or benefits drug lords more than the Americans who are adversely affected by drugs. Phil Cauthon columnist opinier@kansan.com It certainly is worth taxpayer dollars to educate people about the perils of drug use and help those who want to get off drugs. Social messages that drugs are dangerous should be stronger than those glamorizing drugs. Adequately equipped rehabilitation clinics should be no less available than the drugs themselves. Law enforcement should continue to minimize the immediate drug supply on the open streets and crossing the U.S. borders. Yet, as any college student with his or her eyes open knows, clamping down any more on the supply of drugs will do little to deter those that want them. vention and rehabilitation. That is, financing education and publicity that tell people drugs are bad, as well as financing programs to help those who find this out the hard way. From an economic standpoint, the United States can fight the war on drugs on two fronts: the supply side and the demand side. The supply side includes everything from international eradication and interdiction battles down to the Lawrence police, who occasionally skirmish with dealers, hapless users in Hashinger Hall and the like. Similarly, the U.S. drug war should not wage an international battle on the world supply of drugs. The reason boils down to basic economics. Where there is demand, suppliers will meet that demand. The government can affect the drug market's equilibrium price by restricting supply. The fewer drugs there are on the market, the higher the price. Fighting drugs on the demand side entails pre- Intuitively, that may seem to be a good strategy — the higher the price, the fewer people there are who can afford them. But many people addicted to crack, heroin and even alcohol simply forgo all other costs to pay for the drugs. And high prices — especially compounded with few or under-financed rehabilitation clinics — can drive desperate addicts to crime. More fundamentally, the higher the price, the higher the number of suppliers who enter the market. Even if $1.7 billion would wipe out all of Colombia's drug supply (raising the For example, beyond "Just Say No" campaigns, government could give private media producers more economic incentives to portray drug use negatively. Rehabilitation centers also need market-based incentives to do their jobs effectively. Taking a cue from the success of American universities compared to public schools, we could try a voucher system that rewards clinics that find a way to wean their patients off drugs successfully. The sensible means to fight the war on drugs, then, is by reducing demand. Lawmakers realize this as well and spent between $1 billion and $7 billion (depending on which financing one counts) last year on domestic demand reduction. Certainly more work could be done in prevention and rehabilitation. Offering incentives to the private sector is the best way to improve on the public sector's job. The tragic situation in Colombia most certainly calls for our help. However, Colombia's problems run deeper than drug production. If we are to help them, we should do so acknowledging the full scope of the chaos that reigns there, not under the guise of protecting Americans from Colombian drug suppliers. But there are no illusions in the Clinton administration or in Congress that this $1.7 billion is a one-time expenditure. That amount will cover just two years. There's open discussion in Congress about the billions more that will be needed during the next six to 10 years. And those are conservative estimates of how long it will take to eliminate the drug supply in Colombia alone. equilibrium price), suppliers would crop up elsewhere in a balloon effect. This is exactly how drug production arrived in Colombia after being driven out of Bolivia and Peru in the '90s. But neither Clinton nor Congress took the balloon effect to its logical end. That is, so long as there is demand for drugs anywhere, even if just among the wealthy, drugs will be supplied somewhere — if only by impoverished nations with few other means to raise capital. Of course, Congress acknowledges the balloon effect and has committed to coupling Colombian financing with regional financing. In fact, while Congress considered the Colombian financing, ambassadors from Peru and Bolivia showed up to point out that, without more U.S. funds in those countries, the drug supply surely would rise to its former levels. Why, with the threat of producing drugs, the whole world could get handouts from the United States. The only way to begin winning the war on drugs is to channel our anti-drug resources to those harmed by drugs. Otherwise, we'll just be chasing the problem instead of seeking the solution. Cauthon is a North Richland Hills, Texas, graduate student in journalism. He is an intern at the Washington, D.C., bureau of the Houston Chronicle this semester.