4A the university daily kansan opinion tuesday, february 10,2004 EDITORIAL BOARD Inconvenient convenience;beer law outdated Kansas' liquor laws have a history of initiating change slowly. In 1948, Kansas was one of the last states to approve the constitutional amendment that lifted prohibition. And today, Kansas is one of OURVIEW The Kansas law that prohibits the sale of 5 percent alcohol by volume beer in convenience stores is outdated. only a handful of states, including Utah and Colorado, that enforces the post-Prohibition law, allowing the sale of only 3.2 percent alcohol by weight cereal malt beverages in convenience stores and grocery stores. We know that cereal malt beverages have the same effect as any The idea of weak beer was an initiative from post-Prohibition regulations. In order to regulate the consumption of intoxicating liquors, lawmakers allowed the sale of cereal malt beverages. Though this regulation has gone through numerous changes today it doesn't fit. alcohol: They get you drunk There is little difference between beer sold in a liquor store and beer sold in a convenience store. But the perceptions that 3.2 percent beer is weaker, watered down and lacks flavor still exist. The law serves no benefit to Kansans. It is an inconvenience for people older than 21, who may have to make multiple stops to fulfill their drinking needs. If Kansans wants to buy alcohol after 10:30 p.m., but they doesn't want weak beer, he will go across the state line and make their purchase in Missouri, allowing Missourians to enjoy the tax money. The law keeps Kansas from joining the majority of states that use a standard system. By using one system of measuring the alcohol content of certain beverages, Kansas lawmakers would eliminate the guessing game. There is no need for the double system. Beer labeled 3.2 percent provides only a minimal difference from the standard 5 percent alcohol by volume beer. One system should be implemented and used. Zach Newton for The University Daily Kansan Free for All Call 864-0500 Free for All callers have 20 seconds to speak about any topic they wish. Kansan editors reserve the right to omit comments. Slanderous and obscene statements will not be printed. Phone numbers of all incoming calls are recorded. For more comments, go to www.kansan.com --copying their answer sheets. "Seriously," you think, "what's the big deal about cheating on one math test? I will never use algebra again in my life after this." Can anyone tell me where my hub cap is? I have seemed to have lost it. Joan Rivers is to fashion as Quin Snyder is to basketball. Stupid, crusty, bad taste, and most of all, what is up with their hair? Oliver, are you ever going to fix the water machine? copying their answer sheets. "Seriously," you think, "what's the big deal about cheating on one math test? I will never use algebra again in my life after this." I need to find me a man critter for Valentine's Day. To the jerk in the McCollum parking lot: Anytime, anywhere, boys. I was just wondering where all of these Jewish articles are that they are speaking of. copying their answer sheets. "Seriously," you think, "what's the big deal about cheating on one math test? I will never use algebra again in my life after this." To the girl wearing a sports bra over your long-sleeved shirt: What are you thinking? Why are the '80s coming back? Seriously, didn't we learn our lesson the first time? I would like to remind everybody not to eat the yellow snow. copying their answer sheets. "Seriously," you think, "what's the big deal about cheating on one math test? I will never use algebra again in my life after this." It is like high-speed chess with explosives. To the cute blonde in my persuasive speaking class: I want to have your children. My 97 cent shampoo smalls like coconut and supermodels. I so want to eat that. PERSPECTIVE Student majority won't honor code Don't lie, you've been there. We all have. At 9:30 on a Friday morning, sitting in your Math 105 class, the teaching assistants get up and start passing out the exams. You're there, but not really because the eight triple gin and tonics you drank at The Hawk last night are still running through your bloodstream. "Why," you think to yourself through a hungover haze. "Why did I do this? It's the last test of the semester and it's worth 30 percent of the final grade. Why, why, why?" Needless to say, you're in no shape to take this test right now, let alone pass it. COMMENTARY Kevin Kampwirth opinion@kansan.com It just so happens that there is a perfectly positioned gap between the two girls sitting in front of you that allows an ideal angle to see one of their answer sheets. As you receive your exam, which more accurately resembles a novella than a math test, you spot an opportunity. Let's not forget, of course, that these are the two smartest girls in the class. Your Machiavellian instincts begin to overcome you as you are poised to start But wait! Didn't the University just pass that new school-wide honor code? Alas, whatever should you do? What a personal and moral dilemma! All right, sarcasm aside, how many of you would stop and consider this? Well, the University Senate Executive Committee hopes that all of you would Last week, SenEx decided that Student Senate would conduct research that would lead to the creation of a University-wide honor code. Ideally, the code would address specific policies on academic integrity — in other words, cheating. The code would also be structured and created with and around students. Lloyd Sponholtz, president of the University Council, said that this aspect of the code was the most important. "For an honor code like this to be effective, students need to be directly involved." Sponholtz said. So, students, back to my question. Who of you would stop, think about this honor code and, instead of cheating, take an F on the test? I don't think I would see that many hands, kids. In fact, I'd be willing to wager all the money in my wallet that at least three out of five of you wouldn't think twice about stealing a few answers from little Miss A+. Disagree? Let's test it out. With my 60 percent theory in mind, I took to campus and asked 10 random students this very same question. The results are in. Seven out of the 10 said that they would indeed cheat on the test regardless of an honor code. That's 70 percent, and I'm still a bit suspicious of the three people who said they wouldn't. The overriding consensus seemed to be that a University mandated honor code would provide little-to-no aversion to cheating. "Honor and morals come from within a person," said Ryan Moulder, St. Louis senior. "These are things that can't be enforced or dictated. If a person wants to cheat, they're going to cheat." Do we all agree with Moulder? Or are ethics something that could be swayed because there is a honor system on the books? Undoubtedly, there are those who think that a University-wide honor system would act to curb cheating and other forms of academic dishonesty. I mean, there is still some good in this world, isn't there? I'm convinced that there are still those 30 percent who are good-hearted, honest students who would just sit there in that spinning classroom, put their liquor-induced, pounding head on the desk and take an F. Well, good for you. You're a better person than I am. Kampwirth in a Chicago senior in journalism. ON POLITICS Racism, classism still part of punishment; students rally against unjust death penalty On Thursday, a group of KU students will join students from around the state to lobby Kansas legislators for a moratorium on the death penalty. Kansas has had the death penalty since 1994. The reinstatement came after a more than 22-year break from the death penalty in Kansas as mandated by the U.S. Supreme Court's 1972 Furman v. Georgia decision. The decision said that the death penalty was "cruel and unusual punishment" and in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Supreme Court reversed that decision in 1976 with Gregg v. Georgia, claiming that the problems with the death penalty had been resolved. As history has shown, the problems with the death penalty are anything but resolved. Racism and classism still persist. The location of a trial still has as much to do with sentencing as does the crime itself. And no matter how many safeguards are put in place to ensure the just implementation of the death Anna D. Gregory opinion@hansan.com COMMENTARY Amnesty International reports that even though African Americans and whites are murder victims in nearly equal numbers of crimes, 80 percent of the people executed since the death penalty was reinstated have been executed for murders involving white victims. A person is more likely to be sentenced to death for killing a white person than for killing a person of any other race. penalty, it remains a non-correctable form of punishment. The classist nature of the death penalty can be seen in a comparison between Wyandotte and Sedgwick counties. The difference between the two counties, is that Sedgwick County has more money to support the trial and the following appeals. As of January 2003, 15 cases have involved capital charges in Wyandotte county, home of Kansas City, Kan. since the reinstatement of the death penalty. During the same amount of time, eight cases have been charged capital in Sedgwick county, home of Wichita. Of the 15 cases in Wyandotte County, only two went to trial and none ended with a death penalty sentence. Of the eight cases in Sedgwick County, six have gone to trial and five have ended with a death sentence. If two people commit the same crime one in Sedgwick County and the other in Wyandotte County, the person in Sedgwick County would be more likely to get the death sentence. Join your fellow students on Thursday in Topeka. Let our leaders know that the death penalty is not something we support and it should be stopped. If we don't participate in democracy, what's the point in having one? It is our responsibility to stop the unjust and inhumane practice of the death penalty. We can do this by communicating with our elected leaders. Though lobbying is not as common as voting, it is as essential a part of democracy. Our leaders will not know what we think unless we tell them. Andrew Vaupel managing editor 884-4854 or vaupel@kansan.com Michelle Rombeck editor 864-4854 or mburhenn@kansan.com For more information contact Travis Weller at weller@ku.edu. Meghan Brune and Johanna M. Maska opinion editors 864-4924 or opinion@kansan.com KANSAN These are very practical reasons why the death penalty should be ended, but the most basic reason is a human one. We should not kill people. Our government should not have the power to kill. Danielle Boe business manager 864-4358 or adddirector@kansan.com Stephanie Graham retail sales manager 864-4358 or adaleskansan.com Gregory is a Topeka senior in political science and history. Malcool Gibson general manager and news adviser 864-7667 or mgibson@kansan.com Matt Fisher salos and marketing adviser 864-7666 or mfisher@kansan.com Editorial Board Members Kendall Dix Amanda Flatt Lynzee Ford Laura Francoviglia Anna Gregory Amy Hammontree Kely Hollowley Teresa Lo Stephanie Lovett * Mindy Oborne Greg Holmquist Ryan Scarwant Sara Behkumke Kevin Flaherty Brandon Gayn Zack Hemneyam Alex Hoffman Kevin Garpwirk Amly Kelly Cameron Koelling Courtney Kuhen Brandi Mathiesen Travis Metcalf Mike Norrie Jonathan Reeder Erin Riffey Meghan Southall Keri Tjimmer Horns Jonathan Neubel Cinnamom Alea Smith Kari Zimmerman --- }