4
University Daily Kansan / Tuesday, April 28, 1992
OPINION
Legalize drugs and take away dealers' incentive
Right now, ask yourself this question. "Is the United States winning the drug war?" And think how much of a burden illegal drugs have put on our society. I, someone who has never even experimented with illegal drugs, have taken a hard, objective look at this problem and the effects of legalizing drugs. What it all boils down to is weighing the pros and cons or concluding which stance, legal or illegal, brings less harm to the people of America in general.
Countless police officers are working night and day to catch and jail people who possess drugs. And we the taxpayers are paying them huge sums of money to do that. If the law said one could possess and use drugs at one's own risk, then those police officers could work on more important things
like crimes such as child abuse or rape that directly harm innocent indi-
I won't tell you down to the penny how much the federal government pumps into the Drug Enforcement Agency and how many very competent law-enforcers are utilizing their lives to fight the drug war. But know it's a great deal for both. Think of how much money would be saved on this end — money that instead could be spent on schools that adequately educate our children for the future. It make me sick to think that teachers get paid so little, yet so much money is given to drug pushers.
I wouldn't listen to anyone who told me that gangs were not a problem. If drugs were legal, most gangs would practically lose their reason to exist. We could save cities from the drive-by shootings, the crack houses, the knife machines, the robberies, the ripped-up neighborhoods and the thrown-away lives.
Impoverished teenagers, who have to decide between selling drugs for $800 a day and working at McDonald's for minimum wage, would not be
David Caruso II Staff columnist
forced on such a decision because legal drug prices would be far less that illegal drug prices. Selling drugs would no longer be nearly as profitable, and would-be drug dealers might actually consider getting a real job — an employment that would definitely benefit them and their community.
If drugs were never illegal, then the prison population would be about half the number it is now — half. And prisons are overflowing with inmates. I'm sick of watching legislators spend money to expand prisons or build new ones to accommodate people who break current drug laws. KU is losing faculty, and the value of our education is going down, yet last year, the Kansas government bought a new penitentiary for $50 million to house mostly drug offenders.
Remember back in the 1920s, when they tried to make alcohol illegal? Alcohol has the same effects as drugs, just to a lesser degree. It impairs your senses, makes you lose control and destroys brain cells. And don't forget drunken-driving and how many people are hurt or killed by that every day. Despite Prohibition, the 1920s were the biggest party decade of the century, yet alcohol was illegal? So why the contradiction? Why is alcohol legal, but drugs are illegal? And cigarettes, don't they cause cancer?
Of course, I am a sensible person and would never suggest drugs be completely uncontrolled. Just like cigarettes and alcohol, there should be specific limitation on things such as
advertising. And revenue earned from the "sin tax" could definitely use a bolster from the sale of drugs.
Everyone knows drugs are destructive to the individual who uses them. But maybe it's time we start letting the people take more responsibility for their own actions. In other words, if they want to do drugs, let's not pay for it. Think about it. If almost anyone who wants to get their hands on drugs can, whether they're illegal or not, why should we as law-abiding citizens have to pay for their lawlessness? We pay for the cops that catch them, the courts that prosecute them and the jails that house and feed them. All this because possessing drugs is against the law.
I'm not saying that legalizing drugs would cure all of our problems. What I am doing here is simply weighing the good and the bad and deciding which fate has less of the bad. Legalizing drugs is more important for porphyrurous upsure in drug use, followed by a greater need for rehabilitation programs at least.
Yet, despite our drug war, drugs will undoubtedly continue to be a problem. In this instance, let's consider the good of the most people. Are we not sick of being victimized by drug dealers and gangs who ravage society with their crimes? Let's take away their incentive. Let's not give them a reason to exist. And let's give people the right to think for themselves and make their own decision about what they choose to put into their bodies. And if their drug-induced actions interfere with the lives of others, we should severely stiffen the penalty.
Consider it. Until people have the guts to come forward and make a fundamental change, nothing will improve.
David Caruso II is a Lake Walton sophomore majoring in creative writing.
THE UNIVERSITYDAILY KANSAN
Enrollment process stilted
Attempts by three KU students to enroll with altered permits should
be a heeded message
On April 6, three KU students attempted to enroll with altered enrollment permits. One offender explained that he went to drastic measures because he was fed up with not getting classes he needed. Though most would not condone cheating, the motivation which led these three students is understandable. Too many students trying to get into too few classes has made KU enrollment an exercise in frustration.
The ideal solution would be for KU to receive enough money to build more classrooms and to pay more professors. Although this solution does not appear achievable at this time, there are other measures the University of Kansas could take to ease the problem.
The present system requires students to enroll at specific dates and times. Anyone who has enrolled after the first few days probably did not get all their choices. Those enrolling after the first week may not have gotten any. Students are advised to seek out instructors and obtain class-openers, but some professors are not willing to give out any until the new semester has begun and they know how many students will be in the class. So students register for classes they don't want and hope to get others during add/drop. Meanwhile, the class spaces those students are holding are not available to the students who really need them.
Since much of the back-up involves classes required for everyone, opening more alternate classes to satisfy some of those requirements could enable more students to complete the programs without overloading one department. For instance, the Western Civilization program could be supplemented with more philosophy and history courses. The non-Western Civilization requirement could be met by allowing more of the African and Asian literature classes into the offering.
Enrollment procedures could be altered to benefit students who are in need of major-specific requirements. All students are identified in the computer by an identification number, and a major code could be added to the number. During the initial enrollment, only those students with the major code would be allowed into the major-specific classes. During the make-up enrollment, any seats still available could be opened on a first-come, first-serve basis.
These ideas will not solve every enrollment problem, but they could help to alleviate many. With the ever-increasing cost of tuition, books and the cost of living, most students simply cannot afford more than four years of college. The University needs to do whatever it can to accommodate as many students as possible as they attempt to satisfy those requirements the University itself imposed.
High Court too conservative
Kate Kelley for the editorial board
Bush and Reagan have created a right-wing court that will affect citizens for years
The Reagan and Bush administrations have given the United States a legacy that will survive long after they have left office — the Supreme Court. Since both Reagan and Bush have been in office, they have appointed five justices: Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter and Clarence Thomas. Reagan also elevated William Renquist to the position of Chief Justice. This represents two-thirds of the court which has shown increasing hostility toward individual rights and the protection of them.
The Supreme Court has actively trounced on the individual rights of citizens while claiming to be interpreting the Constitution in a strict fashion. However, in doing so, this court has eroded many rights which should and must be guaranteed to the people. Some of the rights that have been weakened by this hostile court include active promotion of the desegregation of public schools, the rights of minorities to seek redress for discrimination, close examination of court procedure in
death penalty cases and a weakening of Roe vs. Wade which federally legalized abortion.
The majority of U.S. citizens do not share the hostility toward many of these rights. When the Supreme Court weakens the rights of accused criminal suspects, it has the possibility of affecting each and every U.S. citizen. And in every case where the Supreme Court has already destroyed rights, or seems bent on destroying rights, it has or will affect someone else. Minorities, women and the accused deserve these rights just as much as anyone else. It is called equal protection under the law, and currently, this Supreme Court has no regard for it.
During the years of the Warren Court and other courts oriented toward individual rights, critics claimed that justices made policy from the bench. However, what is occurring now is no different. This Supreme Court has made attempts to diminish the most basic and cherished rights of all U.S. citizens.
No one agrees with all the decisions any Supreme Court is going to make. However, if one is to err, we should hope that it does so on the side of increased individual rights and protecting the people from a bureaucratic government.
Stephen Martino for the editorial board
Spelling not important
I fully support the Womyn Take Back the Night march, however, I don't see the need to change the word women to womyn. Is the reason behind the change to exclude completely the word men, or is it myn, from our vocabulary?
What a ridiculous idea; it goes against everything that the women before us tried to establish.
The feminist idea is to give women more control in this male-dominated world. By creating this controversy over a new spelling of the
word women, you are only enhancing the separation between men and women. It turns the emphasis away from the issues at hand and it turns toward a frivolous issue of the spelling and origin of a similar word. You are hurting the feminist cause by doing this and turning it into a letter war when it should be a war about the serious issues facing women today. I don't think the leaders of the past feminist movements had changing the word women in mind when they were speaking of changes for women's equality.
Jennifer Nitcher Lawrence junior
Letters to the editor
Events are shallow
Wednesday morning, I stopped by Wescoe Beach to listen to a reading of Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass. I had only come to give support to a friend, but what I heard made me glad I was there. I heard a message of democracy, unity and a love for humanity based on respect and understanding. As I was contemplating the quiet message of Whitman, a hubbub behind me broke my concentration. I discovered that people were preparing for the "Hands Across Campus" demonstration.
I left before I saw "Hands Across Campus"
accomplished. I couldn't help but compare the
two activities. I found it ironic that while both activities had different purposes, they were ultimately conveying a similar message: respect for humanity. However, one would make the 60'clock news, and one would merely capture the interest of poetry devotees and pass-byers.
The advertisements for "Hands Across Campus" described its purpose as an effort to raise cultural awareness. There have been enough activities on campus lately to elevate the awareness of the student body to an all-time high. But are we doing anything with our awareness? Holding hands with a stranger for a few minutes or sitting in a box for a few hours
before returning safely home seem like shallow publicity stumps. Those activities are not supported by a lasting change in attitude and action on the part of the participants. Changing social attitudes begins on an individual level, which means examining your beliefs and how your life reflects those beliefs. Achieving unity and respect for diversity is about understanding, respect, friendship — things that one is more likely to get from contemplation on the message of a person such as Whitman than from a staged public event.
KANSANSTAFF
Lisa Embry Wichita senior
TIFFANYHARNESS
Editor
VANESSA FUHRMANS Managing editor
TOM EBLEN General manager, news adviser
Editors
News...Mike Andrews
Editorial...Beth Randolph
Planning...Lara Gold
Campus...Eric Gorski/Rochale Oleon
Mission...Nelson
Photo...Jule Jacobson
Features...Debbie Myers
Graphics...Almee Brainard/J Jeffeees
Editors
JENNIFER CLAXTON Business manager
Campus sales mgr . Bill Leibengood
Regional sales mgr . Rich Harbarger
National sales mgr . Scott Hanna
Co-op sales mgr . Arne Johnson
Production mgrs . Kim Wallace
Director . Lia Keeler
Marketing director . Kristen Kramer
Creative director . Leanne Bryant
Classified mgr . Chip Chin
JEANNE HINES Sales and marketing adviser Business Staff
JAYSTEINER Retail sales manager
Letters should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 200 words. They must include the writer's signature, name, address and telephone number. Writers affiliated with the University of Kansas must include class and hometown, or faculty or staff position. Letters columns should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words. The writer will be photographed. The Kansan reserves the right to reject or edit letters, guest questions and cartoons. They can be mailed or brought to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Staffer-Flint Hall.
Loco Locals
bv Tom Michaud