UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN editorials
Unsigned editorials represent the opinion of the Kansas editorial staff. Signed columns represent the views of writers.
February 19, 1979
Politics stifles pot bill
Here we go again.
The marijuana merry-go-round has begun once again in Topeka, but according to the sponsor of the latest bill to reduce the penalties for marijuana possession, State Rep. Mike Glover, D-Lawrence, this year's version has a much better chance of becoming law.
Of course, Glover qualifies as something of an expert in the matter. This is his fifth attempt at convincing the Legislature to ease the state restrictions on marijuana. His previous bills have achieved varying degrees of success, but all of them have had the same fate - defeat.
DESPITE THE frustrations inherent in the chore, Glover must be commended for his determination to bring enlightened marijuana laws to the state of Kansas.
That determination has earned Glover a good deal of criticism, and has prompted testimony such as that delivered by one researcher, who told a Kansas Senate committee last year that marijuana decriminalization would invite a generation of social misfits and genetically defective babies.
When faced with that kind of emotional opposition, a bill must have a large degree of careful, considered support behind it. Unfortunately, legislators worry about the possible effect that support of a marijuana bill might have on their chances for reelection; those worries prevented them from backing Gluer's previous bills.
BUT THAT IS why there is hope for the new bill. If passed, the bill would
While it is fortunate that such semantic histrionics are necessary, that is the nature of the political game. It's not what you do, it's how you do it.
BUT THE cosmetic changes are worth it if the new bill means that Kansas might finally adopt more realistic marijuana laws. Glover has realized this and has continually attempted to draft compromise bills that might be acceptable to the Legislature.
make possession of less than an ounce of marjuanja a class D misdemeanor, which would require a fine of up to $100. Glover's previous bills would have made possession an unclassified misdemeanor. Under the present law, possession carries a penalty of a fine of up to $2,500 or one year in jail or both.
Glover called the difference between his new bill and his past ones "cosmetic," and said the new bill would avoid the stigma of decriminalization. He said supporters of the new bill could simply say they favored lower penalties for possession, not decriminalization.
Perhaps this time he has finally succeeded.
If he has, it will mean that Kansas is finally coming to its senses on the issue of marijuana laws. Undoubtedly the estimated savings to the state of the $600,000 normally spent on enforcing the current laws will be a motivating factor in support of the bill.
But the sheer unreasonableness of the current laws should be motivation enough for change. "It (the bill) will pass sometime," Glover said.
The Legislature must realize that now is the time.
American melting pot shuns bilingual students
The clamor over the influx of illegal immigrants from Mexico into the United States has, unfortunately, included disdaon for a vital educational program. There is a disturbing association made between the death of bilateral education programs in our public schools.
While one may condemn the illegal immigration of Mexicans, to denounce bilingual education in the same breath is ignorant and pitifully right-eightous.
This short-sighted attitude, which deters the availability of a program for Mexican children in our schools, borders on the notion of supremacy. This presumptuous view has the "native-born American" student taking away from it and play with students from a foreign country who speak a strange and funny language.
BUT TO believe that Mexicans, Mexican- Americans and Spanish are synonymous with bilingual education is a narrow view of what bilingual education is and why it
Furthermore, a three-year study from 1975-77 in Nebraska showed that there were more than 1,000 students in elementary and secondary schools who were primarily skilled in one of 30 languages other than English.
Bilingual education serves those students who are skillful in a language other than English. Most of those served by bilingual education programs are native-born Americans who speak Spanish more skillfully than their American counterparts. States and in Kansas, the majority of students designated as skillful in a second language are Mexican-Americans.
A 1974 Supreme Court decision stated that the educational rights of a child with Down syndrome should be based on a school system that does not provide special programs to remedy the situation. The ruling was on behalf of 1,200 Chinese students who were not being educated in their language.
IN THAT STUDY, the number of students with limited English skill increased from 27 in 1975 to 34 in 1976; languages identified increased from 27 in 1975 to 29 in 1977. Among the languages
identified were Vietnamese, Norwegian,
Nigerian Arabic, Sloux, Turkish and of
any other origin.
A recent study by the Kansas state department of education said that there were 1,915 students designated as language minority students in need of bilingual instruction. The majority of the students were Mexican-American, with some Vietnamese.
In Garden City alone, 382 students have a definite need for bilingual education but only about 40 percent are in a lack of funds and personnel. Although there is proposed legislation to fund bilingual programs, to date the state has not funded any bilingual education programs.
And that is what is most objectionable: that the idea of the 20th-century American melting pot, which demanded that Southern and Eastern European ethnic groups abandon their language—a major part of their culture—still exists today.
THAT MIGHT be attributed to a sentiment that those who attend schools in America should be taught only in English. There is no doubt about all the concern for a second language.
In 1934, one observer wrote that the Southern and Eastern Europes were "largely illiterate, often lauded in law and science," Anglo-Saxon conceptions of righteousness, liberty, law, order, public decency and government, and they did not our nation's stock...
That attitude is still displayed toward groups that have retained their ethnicity. The group that most opposes anti-American villain that promotes ethnicity and seeks the demise of American society through the perpetuation of diversity, thus straying from the security of the nation.
More than 40 years ago, the first Gallup poll questioning Americans' feelings about handguns found that 84 percent of the citizen wanted gun control. That was a major shift in annual output of handguns did not begin to approach the 2.5 million figure of today.
BILINGUAL EDUCATION is an attempt to teach a student who is more skillful in a language other than English. One method of achieving this goal is to teach the student only in the home language, while gradually increasing the student's student can master the material in English.
Bilingual education does not teach monolingual students another language. It is important to ensure that more importantly, to students who have different backgrounds. Moreover, bilingual education provides the means for students to acquire English and French skills to integrate fully into American society.
A second technique is to teach the student equally in the home language and English.
Myths surround gun control laws
Cynics who scoff at bilingual education and the resulting interaction fail to realize that language cannot be separated from culture. And to deny another's culture is an insult to the beauty of America's diverse personality.
And recent polls show similar to those of the first Gallup poll—that 70 to 80 percent of the American citizenry want reform of federal gun control legislation.
However, that majority has remained surprisingly, and distressingly, silent. The fact that about 25,000 Americans are killed each year by handguns, which are easily accessible to the public, has not stirred many to action.
It took the slaying of a promising and youthful president, the gunning-down of a political leader, the brutal assassination of a presidential hopeful and the crippling of another, the violence of a discouraged student, the anger of students to make them take notice.
But there have only been a few. Although some 70 percent of the population said they favored gun control, it is still an unfortunate 200 belong to gun control lobbying groups.
THE DECADE of the 1960s, for all the violence it contained, did spur a few individuals in the 1970s to do something abbreviated instrument of violence – be hardpan.
In contrast, the pro-gun lobby, led by the National Rifle Association, is the most powerful lobby in Washington and has the authority to impose new gun porters. And those one million supporters translate into one million voters to Congressmen, who claim they must vote against gun control bills so that they can have their gun rights restored to Kentucky to accomplish more important tasks.
So powerful is the gun lobby that it can generate more than one hundred thousand telegrams, letters and phone calls every time a gun control bill comes up for a vote.
BUT IT IS more than the $2 million that the NRA puts on lobbying each year that buys them. The NRA's myths and twisting of the facts about gun control that that lobby perpetuates, in its effort to keep intact a system that allows guns, so-called deadly weapon, that are really disturbing.
And those myths have been bolstered by an entertainment industry that seems to want to make the handgun not only the weapon of choice for invasion, but also the hero of U.S. urban life.
The gun lobby also has sought to make gun control laws synonymous with a war on gun ownership, guaranteeing the right to bear arms. However, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that in no way do such laws violate constitutional rights and not difficult to see why they have ruled so.
Mary Ernst
THE WORDING of the Second Amendment provides that, "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The right to maintain a militia, the Court has said, does not the same as the right of individual to bear arms. Yet, the myth continues.
And so do others. Perhaps the most convincing, and most repeated, argument is that you always find a way to obtain guns and, thus, controls would only disarm those who obey the law. It is a convincing argument, until you realize that gun control regulations would actually do.
Enforcement of licensing and
registration laws will isolate precisely those citizens who flaunt the law, because such legislation makes it a crime merely to possess an unregistered firearm. In fact, gun control laws would reduce the misuse of firearms and at the same time protect the right of individuals to safely pursue recreational activities that require firearms.
ANOTHER MYTH that is rampant in anti-gun-control literature is the idea that restricts the purchase of handguns or guns because "runs don't kill people, people do."
But the fact of the matter is that guns kill = kill 250, times each year in this country alone. The fatality rate of a knife wound is about one-fifth that of a gun wound.
Guns are deadly. They have an accuracy and range that no other weapon easily accessible to the public has. Murder is often committed in a moment of rage and frustration. Guns are quick and easy to hand, all too often, easily accessible.
In fact, two-thirds of all killings involve a family dispute or a quarrel among
acquaintances. And the family handgun is six times more likely to be used against a family member or an acquaintance than against a criminal intruder.
SENATOR EDWARD Kennedy, D-Mass, and a leading gun-control controller, the problem has become one of "a vicious cycle: more and more people buy guns to protect themselves from more and more people who have guns."
The solution, then, is to limit the accessibility of handguns and therefore reduce the threat. But to achieve that solution, the American public needs to reject the myths surrounding the handgun. And congressmen need to reject the notion that a vast majority of the NRA will they be re-elected to do "something more important."
What needs to be done is to arouse that majority of Americans who support gun control, and are disturbed by the violent crimes committed there. We also make their presence known in Washington.
Gun control would serve the American interest and would, more importantly, reduce the 25,000 needless deaths that occur each year.
Oil companies' dealings need inquirv
By TAMI HULTMAN and REED KRAMER
N. X. TIPER. Featuring
DURHAM, N.C.-For 2½ years, five Western oil companies have been named in a series of charges and disclosures as the direct and indirect suppliers of almost all of Rhododea's petroleum products during the nuclear war in defiance of a United Nations embargo.
They are British Petroleum; Shell International Petroleum Co., based in London; Mobil, Caltrex and the Compagnie Francaise des Petrolires, the French government oil concern. Now, the Treasury Department has confirmed the reopening of the pipeline, which it called inconclusive, into possible sanctions violations by American firms.
The decision, made last fall, has pointed up the inability of United States officials to agree on a southern Africa policy that would be perceived by the Africans it is meant to influence.
IN FACT, the Treasury move surprised the State Department, which was still debating what sort of new investigation might be needed in light of recent Shell and British Petroleum admissions that they are not complying with the scheme to insure Rhodian summits.
An official commission, headed by attorney Thomas Bingham, has verified large-scale violations of the sanctions, and in December England's Prime Minister Marianne Williamson underwent an important investigation into why government leaders did nothing to prevent them.
The roles of B.P., with 51 percent British government ownership and Shell, privately owned companies, have been through the research of two English writers, Bernard Rivers and Martin Bailey, whose articles have provoked a corporate and scandal, and more disclosures are expected.
RIVERS, currently research director for the Council on Economic Priorities in New York, is convinced that a serious issue of climate change confront United States companies involvement.
"I have no doubt," he says, "that Mobile South Africa and Caltarew are full partners with Shell and B.P. in this affair. And I really can't believe that company is capable of doing anything about their denials, if indeed they believe them at all. At the very least, the evidence shows that the parent companies have lost control of their South African subsidiaries. And certainly it raises questions about what kind of States government may have known."
Caltrex refuses requests for interviews, saying only that it "has not violated any U.S. laws or regulations" nor "made sales to Rhodesian entities."
BUT IN A recent interview, George A. Birrell, mobil general counsel, responded to charges against the company. He said that Mobil's South African management "continues to assure us that they not supplying products to Rhodesia. . . In our company I don't think people lie to each other."
Nevertheless, Birrell admits concern about the published accounts and frustration with his attempts to get information from Mobil South Africa's canes. Has he ever refused to comment on such things as customs statistics that allegedly show Mobil's supplied 20 percent of rhodesia's oil between 1968 and 1976, and says that "frankly, we have no explanation" for their reluctance to report that and Mobil chief executives in South Africa reportedly told South Africa's secretary of commerce about oil industry concern that
political developments would close the Mozambique route.
IT WAS THEN, according to a company memo that Shell provided to Bingham, that Shell and Mobil first proposed the "swap" of their computer after Mozambique gained independence.
Birrell's primary defense is that Mobil is "caught between the official policy of the United States and our own government"—in other words, between South Africa's Official Secrets Act, which forbids any inquiries into oil matters, and United States prohibitions on trade with besides
"We have pressed our people as far as we fairly can," he argues. "I wonder how you would feel if you lived in South Africa and faced the possibility of 15 years in jail from a government that has made no bones about its attitude on this subject?"
THEERE the matter stands, with no explanation why Shell and B.P.—which are subject to the same South African laws—have ignored dangers of prosecution under the Official Secrets Act, act weeks in South Africa collecting information on their subsidiaries' operations, or have delayed petroleum supplies to South Africa until information demanded from the subsidiary was forthcoming.
The difference seems to be government pressure.
Certainly, Britain has more reason to act. As the internationally recognized legal authority for Rhodesia, the British government is under greater public pressure to put its own house in order. And the British government is also issue in a way the American press has not.
"I don't mean to depreciate the importance of maintaining sanctions, but I do believe that M Moong is correct."
secretary of state for African affairs, said in a recent interview, voicing the prevailing administration attitude. "But I think a decision in this case is to try and find a peaceful solution."<sup>15</sup>
A LOOK BACK, however, suggests that at attitude may itself have doomed the diplomatic efforts to failure. Last year when a U.S. official being drafted in final form, London informed Washington of the pressure it was exerting on Shell and B.P., suggested similar action. The Department considered but reected, according to department sources:
"The South Africans were watching us very closely for any signs of toughness," the time was an African specialist on the State Department's policy planning staff.
"If we had threatened South Africa's oil supply to any extent, I am sure Mr Worley would have leamed on (Prime Minister Ian) Kerr. A constant negotiations would have resulted."
INSTEAD, SOUTH Africa continues its profitable oil shipments to Rhodesia, backed up by the promise of the five internationally-owned subsidiaries to meet any domestic shortfalls. This agreement now faces a critical test, with South Africa owning more than 90 percent of the cutoff of more than 90 percent of the crude oil, supplied by Iran.
In that context, critics of administration policy view the Treasury's reinvestigation less as an overdue search for the truth than as an attempt to pre-empt what could be an embarrassing inquiry by an independent panel.
Tami Hultman and Reed Kramer are reporters and editors for the Africa News Service, which produces a weekly newsletter and radio news on Africa.
Letters Policy
The University Daily Kansan welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should be typewritten, double-spaced and not exceed 500 words. They should include the writer's name, address and telephone number. If the writer is afresh, they should include the writer's class and home or town faculty or staff position. The Kansan reserves the right to edit letters for publication.
STATE U.
THE STUDENTS ARE UP IN ARMS BECAUSE I CANCELLED THE FERTILITY FETISH EXHIBIT.
IT'S TRUE I GAVE IN TO THE COMPLAINTS OF A RICH ALUM . . .
BUT, IT'S ALL THE BASKETBALL TEAMIS FAULT!
BY T. M. ASLA
WHEN THEY'RE
LOOSING, THE ALUMS
LOOK FOR THINGS
TO COMPLAIN ABOUT.