issue 1 - drugs and alcohol

Horace Mann reviewTHe

HeadingHorace Mann Review, voL Xvii

Page 1

Horace Mann reviewThe

Issue I, Vol. XVII

3 Fumigating Plan ColombiaBy Nick Herzeca

4 The Cigarette ParadoxBy Belle Yoeli

5 Keeping the War on Drugs AliveBy Michael Davis

9 A Coin Toss Judicial SystemBy Spencer Penn

13 Born DrunkBy Eliza Harkins

14 Ninety-Nine Bottles of Beer on the WallBy Nancy DaSilva

15 21st Century Prohibition? By Katie Dubbs

16 Drugs in Litera-ture: An Interview with Don WinslowBy Review Staff

15 Pills, Thrills: A Pharmaceutical HighBy Will Dubbs

17 Commercial Drugs: Advertising Prescription DrugsBy Jarett Bienenstock

29 The Cure within the CloudBy Katie Dubbs

31 Transatlantic Drug DiscrepanciesBy Oscar Warwick-Thompson

36 21st CenturyProhibition?By Katie Dubbs

37 Gender Policy at Horace MannBy Kunal Malkani and Mr. Richard Somma

Table of ContentsAnnika Ahn, Staff Artist

7 Battle of the Plans: An Inside Look at the 2008 Healthcare Plans

By Will Dubbs

19 Cracked Streets: The Drug Gangs

By Rumur Dowling

26 Perpetuating Ad-diction: Needle Ex-change

By Spencer Penn

33 Lower the Drinking Age?The Review Inter-views Dr. John Mc-Cardell Jr.

11 The Truth About Jena

By Dan Temel

23 Made in China: Reforming Faulty Products

By Thomas Hwang

The Horace Mann Reviewissue 1-

The horace Mann review

voluMe Xvii , issue 1

A Journal of Opinion on Current Events, Politics, Public Policy, and Culture

Associate EditorsWill Dubbs, Katie Dubbs, Spencer Penn, Rumur Dowling, Nancy DaSilva, Nick Herzeca, Joseph Pomp, Daniel Temel

Contributing WritersNick Herzeca, Belle Yoeli, Michael Davis, Eliza Harkins,

Nancy DaSilva, Will Dubbs, Dan Temel, Rumur Dowling, Spencer Penn, Katie Dubbs, Jarett Bienenstock, Oscar Warwick-Thompson

Faculty Advisors Mr. Gregory Donadio and

Dr. Barbara Tischler

[email protected]

The Horace Mann Review is printed throughout the academic year. The Review is a member of the Columbia Scholastic Press Associa-tion, the American Scholastic Press Association, and the National Scholastic Press Association. Please contact The Horace Mann Review for information on advertisements at [email protected]. Editorials represent the majority opinion of the Editorial Board. Opinions expressed in articles or illustrations are not neces-sarily those of the Editorial Board or of the Horace Mann School.

Interested in subscribing? The Editorial Board is please to offer mailed subscriptions this volume. Email us at [email protected] for information. Thank you for your support.

© 2007, The Horace Mann Review

Page 2

Thomas HwangVenkat Kausik

Alice KissilenkoZach MalterBen Mishkin

Senior Editor

Dear Reader,

On behalf of the entire staff, welcome to the first issue of The Review. The past two years have seen great strides in the quality of the publication, and we aim to continue and expand these efforts in this volume. In particu-lar, the Editorial Directors have identified two focal points for these efforts. First we aim to produce pages that are more inviting and visually pleasing, and to think about incorporating layout that both highlights and complements our articles. Second, and perhaps most importantly, we strive to work more closely with our writers to produce articles that are informative, interesting to our audience, and opinionated. All of our efforts are with one goal in mind: to make The Review as unique and valuable as possible for you, the reader.

These aforementioned initiatives are the goals of the Editorial Directors, who have already proved to be invaluable assets to the publication. I urge you to take a closer look at the names on the masthead and acknowledge these individuals. Additionally, these efforts are only possible because of the dedication and talent that our entire staff brings to the table, from writers and production staff to editors.

Most of all, however, we are relying on you to make the publication a suc-cess. We urge you to take a look through the publication and let us know what you think. One of our primary goals this year is to make what we do unique, accessible, and interesting: some of the time this means tackling national or international topics from a local perspective, while other times it may means providing bold analysis of neglected issues. If you like what you see, please consider subscribing.

The central topic of this first issue is Restricted: Drugs and Alco-hol. We felt this topic was relevant not only to political events on the na-tional level, but also to those in our community. We are inundated with warnings about the dangers of alcohol and illicit drug use; articles in this issue examine trends in drug popularity, the rationale behind marijua-na’s illegality, and the rankings in severity of illicit drugs. Other articles cover issues such as the Food and Drug Administration, access to pre-scription drugs, and the use of advertisements to sell prescription drugs.

Outside of the central topic, the issue also includes articles on other issues of domestic and international importance, from the quality of Chi-nese products to the foundation of our justice system. Additionally, the is-sue features two articles that directly relate to Horace Mann. We look at the Horace Mann Jena Six protests and examine how they fit into demonstra-tions on the national level. In addition, Mr. Somma explains and defends the policies designed to achieve gender balance on stage at Horace Mann.

I urge you to take a look through the issue. We are looking forward to a great year.

Sincerely,

Kunal Malkani

Letter From the Editor

Neal PooleDirector of Technology

Dexter RichardWebmaster

Ted SumersPhotography Editor

Ben JacobsonKimya ZahediSenior Columnist

William KimProduction Assistant

Gopal DasBusiness Director

Charles StamAnoushka VaswaniChairpeople of the Board

Tal ShacharProduction Manager

Lindsay GellmanEditorial Director

Jake SloaneManaging Director

Rachel SiegelCopy Chief

Kunal MalkaniEditor-in-Chief

issue 1- dRugs and aLcoHoL


Page 3

The United States Drug Enforcement Agency re-cently reported a steep drop in the amount of co-caine in every region of the United States except for the Pacific Northwest and a 24% increase in the price of cocaine between

January and June 2007. In New York, the price of a kilo of cocaine doubled from $17,000 to $34,000. Does this mean that the $4.7 billion Plan Colombia has succeeded in reducing Colombia’s cocaine produc-tion? A close examination of the facts reveals

otherwise. The war on drugs in C o l o m b i a has not been

a success. The reduction in the cocaine supply in the United States has actually resulted from strong drug en-forcement actions by the Mexican government. The only solu-tion for Colombia may be the legalization of cocaine production.

Plan Colombia, conceived by the Colombian government and supported by American legislation, is an effort to eliminate Colombia’s coca plants through both “eradication” of the plants and military action before they are made into cocaine. Despite the implementation of Plan Colombia, as of last May, coca cul-tivation in Colombia has increased by 8%, according to Colom-bian President Alvaro Uribe. In fact, Colombia has produced 231 more metric tons of cocaine in 2006 than it did in 2005 enough to supply nearly 80% of the world market. The United Nations recently identified coca plantations in 24 of Colombia’s 32 prov-inces, while there had been only six before fumigation began.

Why has Plan Colombia failed to eradicate coca produc-tion? Methods of producing cocaine have improved over the years, and farmers in some areas of Colombia are now able to harvest the coca leaf 50% more efficiently than in previous years. Aerial fumiga-tion, the government policy of coca plant eradication, has pushed farmers to smaller, more isolated plots of land deeper in the coun-tryside, where spraying operations are more difficult. For every step forward that the U.S. and Colombian governments take in the war on drugs, the drug lords have taken two steps. 70% of the money allotted to Plan Colombia hasn’t even left the U.S. and the remaining money has been used to buy helicopters for unsuccess-

ful aerial fumigation. Moreover, critics of Plan Colombia claim that fumigation causes health problems and destroys agricultural land.

Although the President of Colombia Alvaro Uribe is George Bush’s closest ally in South America, some question Uribe’s commitment to eradicating cocaine production. A 1991 Penta-gon intelligence report alleged that Uribe was a “close personal friend” of the infamous drug kingpin Pablo Escobar and that the president had worked for Escobar’s drug cartel. There are con-cerns that some of his supporters are linked to paramilitary death squads involved in the drug trade. How can the Bush adminis-tration trust a man who is allegedly involved in the drug trade? The only reason the Bush administration has poured billions of

dollars into Plan Colombia is Bush’s relationship with Uribe. Instead of wasting more taxpayers’ money on Plan Co-

lombia, the U.S. should put its money into Mexico’s more suc-cessful war on drugs. Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon has

made stopping the illegal drug trade a key priority, and the Bush administration has made a smart decision in assisting him. Calderon has deployed a large military force to fight the

drug lords and this has led to record numbers of arrests and seizures of cocaine. The Bush administration is planning on providing $1 billion dollars to help support Calderon in his

fight. This aid package should go a long way because the United States’ cocaine comes from Colombia and is shipped through Mexico. Joining forces with Mexico to stop the drug trade is the best way to continue to decrease the supply of cocaine in the U.S.

As opposed to Mexico’s recent success in fighting the drug trade, military action and fumigation have failed to effectively re-duce the drug problem plaguing Colombia. The only realistic op-tion the Colombian government has is the legalization of cocaine. By legalizing cocaine, the Colombian government can regulate its

sales and tax it exorbitantly, increasing its price and therefore leading to a decrease in cocaine purchases. This would also rid Colombia of the violence that accompanies the drug trade because legitimate businessmen would eventually control cocaine production. The le-galization of cocaine wouldn’t increase usage because it is already easily accessible to anyone who wants to purchase it. By legalizing cocaine, Colombia would boost its floundering economy. Legaliz-ing cocaine is the most sensible option Colombia has to combat the violence and economic instability that the drug trade has produced.

By Nick Herzeca

Fumigating Plan Colombia

“Instead of wasting more taxpayers’ money on Plan Colombia, the U.S. should put its

money where the war on drugs seems to be working: Mexico.”

narconews


Page 4

The Cigarette ParadoxWhy Marijuana Remains Illegal

The United States government’s policies are constantly challenged and debated in to-day’s news. The government has been try-ing to hide some of its hypocritical policies for decades in order to conceal the notion

that the government’s policies contradict themselves. One of the most debated legal policies today is the fact that marijuana is ille-gal and cigarettes are legal. These combined ideas stand for one of the largest hypocrisies existing in governmental policy today.

The first and foremost responsibility of the govern-ment is to protect its citizens. The Unites States government makes an effort to create laws that protect people such the laws mandating seat belt use or preventing suicide. In some cases, however, this responsibility is completely overlooked.

In the United States cigarettes are legal although they are the leading cause of lung cancer. Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer-related death in men and the second most common in women, and is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Cigarettes are also the leading cause of preventable death in the United States.

Even though marijuana has not been shown to cause death due to overdose, or death at all for that matter, it is ille-gal. Some scientists say that marijuana may play a role in can-cer and problems with the respiratory and immune systems, and that 5 joints might be equivalent to 1 pack of cigarettes a day in terms of cancer causing materials. The possible negative effects are nowhere near as serious as the damage that cigarettes cause.

Many Americans have one main question on their minds: why should it be legal for people to smoke cigarettes and not marijuana? If you think about it, it really makes no sense. Both substances are harmful to some extent, yet marijuana, which has certain health benefits, is illegal, while cigarettes, which are known to cause cancer and have zero health benefits, are legal. The only reason the govern-ment continues to allow these “death sticks” to be legal is money.

The Government makes a large amount of its revenue from cigarette taxes. Cigarettes are one of the most highly taxed consumer

products in the United States. In fact, the government’s monopoly on cigarette sales collects more than everyone involved in the process makes combined, including the retailers, wholesalers, farmers and manufacturers. Smokers pay about 4 billion dollars more in the tax sys-tem than they end up costing the government in health care. Recent-ly, the US Senate Finance Committee created a bill to raise the tobac-co tax in order to finance an expansion in child healthcare. Although these intentions seem honorable, the government is simply solving one problem by worsening another. Statistics also show that health care would not be as much of an issue if there were fewer smokers.

Some people say that the government’s high taxing of ciga-rettes shows an effort to reduce the amount of smokers by increasing the prices of cigarettes and thereby making them more difficult to purchase. This cannot be considered a good defense. Taxing ciga-rettes does not help to decrease the amount of cigarettes used; it merely takes advantage of addicted smokers. The fact that the taxes are so high on cigarettes simply shows that the government is aware of and is completely taking advantage of the national problem of cigarette addiction. The government is not protecting it citizens but rather, is unjustly using them to finance other projects. This system is a crucial flaw in the function of the United States government. Although marijuana is illegal in the United States, doctors can still prescribe it for medicinal purposes. It is true that marijuana affects brain function and destroys brain cells, but it does not directly cause death. Although there is speculation that marijuana may play a role in lung cancer, the evidence does not even compare to the over-whelming evidence detailing the detrimental effects of cigarettes.

The truth is that the government would not profit as much from the sale of marijuana as it does from the sale of cigarettes. It is very easy to tax cigarettes because tobacco is a difficult crop to grow. It can only be grown on certain soils and in certain places. Marijuana, on the other hand, can be easily grown indicating that the government will risk health benefits if it can retrieve a large profit. If cigarettes are legal, then there is no justification for keeping marijuana illegal other than the fact that it would not produce much revenue for the government.

If consumption of cigarettes remains legal, then consump-tion of marijuana should be made legal because the choice to use cigarettes is just as dangerous as the choice to use mari-juana. Government profit should not be the only reason to keep a product legal. If the United States government will only protect its citizens when it is convenient and profitable, then the government is manipulating free will for unjust reasons.

Andrei Tchernov

By Belle Yoeli

“These combined ideas stand for one of the largest hypocrisies existing in governmental

policy today.”

issue 1- featuRe


Keeping the War on Drugs Alive

By Michael Davis

President Richard Nixon first declared the “War on Drugs” in 1971, when he put forward a new set of initiatives to combat the secret industry of nar-cotics. These initiatives included making stricter laws to dissuade people from taking drugs, influ-

encing the creation of anti-drug campaigns through the private sec-tor, and creating offices within the presidential cabinet to deal with the problem. In 2005, the total cost of these efforts including the various crackdowns and incarceration of offenders by the police reached a pricey $45.1 billion. Suffice it to say, the money has virtu-ally gone down the drain, for our country is losing the war on drugs.

Following Nixon’s speech, the country saw the continuous rise of the trade in marijuana and heroin use in the 1970’s. The 1980’s were even worse, and brought years of bad fashion, medio-cre music and an abundance of cocaine. The up and coming drugs

of the nineties and the new millennium included ecstasy and meth-amphetamines, with no disappearance of the drugs from other eras. Today, 37% of youth uses or has used marijuana, and the use of co-caine has increased drastically (five-fold increase between 1972 and 1989) and ecstasy and meth have grown as well in similar figures.

The reason America is losing the war on drugs to the narcotraf-fickers is not completely due to a lack of capital, but rather we are taking the wrong steps to fight them. We seem to underestimate our foreign drug peddling foes, for they have created an elaborate crimi-nal network which manages to create a multi- billion dollar industry, which in the past has controlled the way that some countries work.

The drug trade’s journey begins in the steamy jungles of South America, often in Colombia. The coca, which will soon be made into cocaine, is grown by farmers and is sold to the smuggling groups called cartels. These groups are powerful and have an effect on the lives of thousands of people. Unlike the rings in the past, such as the Cali Cartel, the Norte del Valle Cartel and the Medel-lin Cartel, the drug rings are not as strong as they used to be. The Medellin Cartel was the most famous due to its highly publicized leader, Pablo Escobar and the reign of terror released upon the Co-lombian people in the 1970s, 80s and 90s. In an interview with a former Colombian resident, Carlos Benitez, Benitez tells that Es-cobar bribed and killed numerous politicians including a presiden-tial candidate, car bombed multiple federal and police buildings,

and had a large private security force that would protect him and do his bidding. Benitez further goes on to say that the death toll in Colombia due to Escobarís attacks could go into the thousands.

The cartels send the drugs through two possible routes: a smuggling train between the islands of the Caribbean to American ports, or through dealers coming into America from Mexico. Co-caine from Colombia is taken to the United States through a trail of small plane drops in the West Indies. The old route used by the cartels was through Hispaniola, the Bahamas and Florida. Since then, an array of different routes have been used often letting new smugglers from new islands become prosperous by throwing in some of their own cannabis with the cocaine. It has been said that the profits from the sale of Jamaican marijuana have funded the political gangs that ravage Jamaica’s inner cities with crime. An in-terview with journalist and writer Amba Trott reveals that the trad-ers on his home island of Nevis are often well known and at some times are friends of politicians. He claims that cannabis is grown in many places on the island and is smoked frequently by Rastafar-ians. Trott claims that the violence caused by the drug smugglers are prevalent but minimal in comparison to that of Jamaica and Colombia. He also says that the police and government have been cracking down on drug users and traders, which he firmly supports.

Meanwhile, across the Caribbean Sea in Mexico, similar measures are being taken to get the drugs across to the United States. The United Nations estimates that 90% of the cocaine

The drug trade thrives in the shadowy underworld.

Peeter Viisimaa

“Suffice it to say, the money has virtually gone down the drain, for our country is los-

ing the war on drugs.”

Page 5


from Colombia is smuggled into the United States through traf-fickers in Mexico. The drugs are generally taken by boat to either the pacific coast cities or the Yucatan, and then up north to the border. Along the way, other drugs are smuggled into the Unit-ed States including an abundance of marijuana and heroin. The United Nations goes on to report that Mexico is America’s larg-est foreign supplier of marijuana and the second largest supplier of opiates. Drugs, even more so then they are in America and as much as they are in Colombia, are a massive problem in Mexico.

The Medellin of Mexico is Sinaloa, a state whose scenic mountains contains ample regions of poppy growing and whose beautiful shoreline contains hundreds of boats from Colombia. The former Federal Police Commander Guillermo Gonzales refers to the region as “the cradle of the biggest traffickers Mexico has ever known.” The police are often bribed by dealers, and accept this pay-ment over their miniscule $500 per month salary. The police are of-ten paid to protect the dealers’ interest in Tijuana, the last stop off before entering California. In 2004, there were 355 murders in win-ter alone. Police say 1/5th of the murders are drug related. Situations like Tijuana are prevalent in certain regions of Mexico City, the larg-est city in Mexico and the home to the most drug users in Mexico.

The drugs finally cross the border into the United States and are given to American dealers. Teens buy drugs and get hooked on them; turf wars break out between inner city gangs over coke and pot sales. Furthermore people soon become junkies and waste the nation’s welfare when they quit their jobs and just get high all day.

So what is our government doing wrong? We apprehend thousands of drug dealers and users each year, seize as many ship-ments as we can, and often visit countries to push our anti drug campaign. In 1989, we destroyed the drug passage in Panama by overthrowing the president in a coup d’etat. Our CIA has even succeeded in aiding the Colombian government in killing drug lords, including Pablo Escobar and various members of his cartel.

The first major step we have to take is to continue support-ing governments that crack down on drug dealers and pressure governments that allow the smuggling. The United States must continue to give more support to the Colombian Government for the president, Alvaro Uribe and the new Mexican president, Felipe Calderon. Both are beginning to make strides in captur-ing narcotraffickers. In Calderon’s first year he has overseen the capture of over 1,100 drug dealers and the seizure of cocaine and heroin that could intoxicate 647 million people. However, since these countries are quite poor, they need to be properly funded. Our government should loan them money or send them military equipment with which to fight the security forces of the drug lords, who are very heavily armed. When the leader of a nation is not taking action, letting drugs prosper and allowing dealers to have a strong trade, then it is the job of our diplomats to tell the leader that they have to clean up their act. If they do not adhere to what our government wants, then we must find a rival who will fight drugs, give him money to run a campaign and if absolutely necessary, hit the people of that nation with propaganda to vote for him. If the man ends up dead, we know that the current lead-er of that nation is responsible, and must be stopped at all costs.

Aside from aiding the nations that fight drug production, we must turn other nations in the world against the traffickers. This begins by showing the horrors that drugs can bring, mainly by

showing clips and interviews with addicts, bloodshed caused by the cartels and people who have died or gone insane from drugs, to the general assembly of the United Nations. After hours of these horrific film slides, we will then stake our plan, to declare an all na-tion war against drug dealers. In order to quench opposition in the United Nations, our American diplomats will have to strike at first world countries who have legalized marijuana in order to have the rest of the assembly riding against them and with us. Such countries include France and the Netherlands, and to a lesser extent the Ca-nadian province of Ontario. Also it is important to blast nations that legalize cocaine in any form such as Australia and the Netherlands. Once America has a new “coalition of the willing” in the war against drugs, international capital can be used to fund the breaking down of the narcotic empires. At certain periods of time a real interna-tional anti-drug force should be used, particularly if it is the agenda of the coalition to make a large attack against a big time drug lord.

Finally, this coalition, alongside the United States Army will enter coca and poppy growing regions and take control. It is impor-tant that if soldiers dismantle crop fields, they offer to replace the coca plants with another valuable crop, such as sugar to make etha-nol or tobacco to make cigarettes. Keeping in mind that cigarettes are bad for people, one must note that one cigarette can’t kill you or make you addicted, while a single use of cocaine can do both. This army will go where the growing regions are hunting for treat-ment labs and any peddler, middleman or boss in the drug ring.

It is certainly not enough that we continue to fight drugs at home. The Ad Council, though important, can only save so many lives. Waging an international war on drugs and drug traf-fickers is important for regaining America’s place of respect in the world. Since we have been criticized for going into Iraq to search for weapons of mass destruction, America has lost a great deal of support from its allies in Europe and Asia. In order to rebuild our image, we can lead the world in a crusade against illegal substances. Winning a war on drugs could not only regain America’s popular-ity but might be able to garner support for our war on terrorism.

“In order to rebuild our image, we can lead the world in a crusade against illegal sub-

stances.”

Plan Colombia’s popularity in Colombia is failing quickly.

Luis Acosta

issue 1- featuRe

Page 6


Page 7

The 2008 election cycle presents health-care as one of the more heated topics for Americans because of the escalating 45 mil-lion uninsured Americans. A partisan split becomes apparent as we compare the top

three candidates for each party, with the Democrats’ plausible and detailed solutions rising above those of the Republicans.

Since 2000 when President George Bush was elected, low-ering the number of uninsured children has been a top prior-ity. Existing programs such as Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) have helped low-income families and children receive proper medical treatment. Medic-aid, created under the Social Security Act in 1965, is a program for Americans who cannot afford to pay for medical care. SCHIP was created under Bill Clinton’s administration in 1997 in order to help families who do not qualify for Medicaid but still can-not afford healthcare. SCHIP now covers children and pregnant women but, because of its success, Congress is trying to expand SCHIP to other adults. President Bush, however, has vetoed ex-panding SCHIP five times to prevent “federalized” medicine. Medicaid and SCHIP have helped reduce the number of unin-sured children in the United States by a third from 1997- 2005. That number has been slowly increasing since 2005 and now 12% of Americans under 18 now lack insurance. Most recently, Congress passed a bill that called for $35 billion in increased spending over the next five years, to bring the total to $60 billion. This bill would also extend SCHIP to families at up to 300% of the federal poverty level. The funds would come from an extra 61-cent tax on cigarette packets. Nevertheless, President Bush vetoed the bill arguing that the cost expansion would be too ex-

pensive. The House Democrats were short 13 votes to override his veto. Clearly, a new President will need to create a plan that insures Americans while remaining mindful of economic costs.

On the Republican side, the three leading candidates: Mitt Romney, Rudolph Giuliani and Fred Thompson all have solutions that do not require raising taxes. Romney, as governor of Mas-

sachusetts, has created a “personal responsibility system” where everyone in his state must have a healthcare plan. He funded it by spending $1 billion of Massachusetts money matched by $1

billion from the Bush administration. Although he has advocated against universal government mandated healthcare plans because he feels “socialized” medicine will result in the country becoming more like Europe, with a “slow growing economy,” he promotes universal healthcare on an individual state-by-state basis, provid-ing financial incentives to states that create plans similar to the one in Massachusetts. Critics of Romney’s plan point out the paradox that he claims opposition to national universal health-care but advocates state universal healthcare. Romney, however, claims no similarity to “Hillarycare.” Although his plan is one of the more detailed plans of the Republican candidates, it still has gaps. Romney never lays out a plan to fund his healthcare plan nor does he state how much the plan will cost. He fails to address the fact that he is not requiring states to create healthcare plans, merely providing incentives. States may choose not to provide healthcare plans at all. These weaknesses show that Romney’s plan may be somewhat detailed but there are still problems with it.

Rudy Giuliani’s plan consists of making national gov-ernment healthcare reforms but still letting states create plans to fit specific needs. Citizens would not be penalized for not having access to healthcare, and states would be rewarded for what he calls “innovative solutions.” Giuliani claims he will cre-ate incentives in insurance markets but refrains from detailing what these incentives will be. While Giuliani’s plan avoids uni-versal socialized medicine and government controlled health-care, it does not provide a detailed process or expected cost. Giuliani has, so far, only stated what his plan will not be. He promises an “American” healthcare plan without government controlled healthcare, socialized medicine, and single-payer coverage. However, his plan cannot be considered one of the top Republican healthcare plans, as it lacks substantive detail.

Like Giuliani’s plan, Fred Thompson’s is not very specific.

By Will Dubbs

His main goal is to get every American into the healthcare sys-tem, rather than to improve cur-rent healthcare options. Thomp-son believes that simply informing consumers and patients about affordable health care options will help them meet the needs of their families. He hopes to improve the individual health of all Americans by changing to a healthcare system that “promotes cost-effective preven-tion, chronic-care management and personal responsibil-ity.” He neglects to say how much this system will cost, however. Although he has stated that he will increase competition and consumer choice through free-market solutions, he has not expanded as to what these solutions are and precisely how they benefit Americans by provid-ing superior care. Neither Giuliani nor Thompson provides enough specificity or foresight to com-pete with Romney and his healthcare plan.

On the Democratic side, Hil-lary Clinton has created the American Health Choices Plan, which mandates that everyone be insured by one of a variety o f healthcare options to choose from. Clinton states that “individuals will be required to get and keep insurance in a system where insurance is affordable and acces-sible.” Under her plan, Americans can keep their existing coverage or access the same options that members of Congress receive. The plans will consist of public plan options as well as private options. Americans who already have health coverage will benefit from lower costs as well as increased security. Clinton has also outlined the cost of her healthcare plan, as well as a way to fund it. She projects that it will cost $110 billion, half of which will come from the existing health-care system and the other half from rolling back George Bush’s tax break for the top 2% of income earners. Although critics from both sides have recalled her failure in 1993, Clinton has said she now has experience with insurance companies and requires them to cover everyone who applies and pays the premium.

Barack Obama’s healthcare plan is similar to Clinton’s in that he will make healthcare cheaper and more affordable. What sets his plan apart, however, is that he mandates that children are the only group that must be insured. Obama believes that the reason Americans do not have health coverage is that costs are too high. He will work for affordable and portable health cover-age for all Americans, coverage that can move with an individual

from one job to another. He says he will cre-

ate options similar to those available to federal employees, ensure that no one

will be turned away from insurance pro-

grams, and advocate that employers will have

to make a “meaningful” con-tribution to healthcare for their em-

ployees. This plan is projected to cost between $50-65 billion. Criticisms, such as those in a re-

cent Time magazine article, state that a third of uninsured Americans do not want healthcare insurance, not because they cannot afford it as Obama stipulates, but for other reasons. The as-

sumptions in Obama’s plan make it the weakest of those of the top three Democratic candidates.

John Edwards’ healthcare plan, like that of Sen-ator Clinton’s and Obama’s, consists of creating more op-

tions for Americans to choose from. Unlike Obama, Edwards seeks to achieve universal coverage by requiring business and

other employers to cover their employees by creating Health Care markets and making insurance affordable. While Edward’s

plan is similar to Clinton’s, Edwards has the support of Sena-tor Ted Kennedy, a long time advocate for universal health care, and New York Times columnist and economist Paul Krugman.

This year, the Democratic Party candidates have presented more appealing and specific healthcare plans than the Republi-

cans. There could be any number of reasons for the lack of detail and foresight in Republican initiatives, however.

Their lack of detail could be a response to re-cent polls conducted by national polling groups such as

the Terrance Group, suggesting that voters believe that the war in Iraq is a more important issue. In a poll con-

ducted in August of 2007, 29% of those polled believe that the war in Iraq is the most important issue while only

11% believe that healthcare is the most important is-sue. The war on terror received 37%, coming before

economic concerns (20%) and immigration (14%). Another reason for the Republican failure to

clearly state a healthcare plan could be the fact that Republicans are waiting to see

what kind of criticism more detailed plans such as Hillary Clinton’s will receive. Then, using that criticism, the Repub-lican candidates could refine their own

plans to what poll dating suggests that Americans feel is the ‘best’ healthcare plan.

The Republicans could, on the other hand, decline to present their own plans and sim-

ply critique the Democrats’ plans themselves. As the race and the search for “quality affordable

healthcare in America” continue, we can expect more details and much-needed debate on this critical issue affecting all Americans.

“This year, the Democratic Party candidates have presented more appealing and specific

healthcare plans.”

“Recent polls conducted by the Terrance Group suggest that healthcare lags behind

issues such as the war in Iraq, immigration, and the economy.”

Battle of the PlansAn Inside Look at 2oo8 Healthcare Plans

AMSA

Ted Sumers

geoffconet


Page 8

The 2008 election cycle presents health-care as one of the more heated topics for Americans because of the escalating 45 mil-lion uninsured Americans. A partisan split becomes apparent as we compare the top

three candidates for each party, with the Democrats’ plausible and detailed solutions rising above those of the Republicans.

Since 2000 when President George Bush was elected, low-ering the number of uninsured children has been a top prior-ity. Existing programs such as Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) have helped low-income families and children receive proper medical treatment. Medic-aid, created under the Social Security Act in 1965, is a program for Americans who cannot afford to pay for medical care. SCHIP was created under Bill Clinton’s administration in 1997 in order to help families who do not qualify for Medicaid but still can-not afford healthcare. SCHIP now covers children and pregnant women but, because of its success, Congress is trying to expand SCHIP to other adults. President Bush, however, has vetoed ex-panding SCHIP five times to prevent “federalized” medicine. Medicaid and SCHIP have helped reduce the number of unin-sured children in the United States by a third from 1997- 2005. That number has been slowly increasing since 2005 and now 12% of Americans under 18 now lack insurance. Most recently, Congress passed a bill that called for $35 billion in increased spending over the next five years, to bring the total to $60 billion. This bill would also extend SCHIP to families at up to 300% of the federal poverty level. The funds would come from an extra 61-cent tax on cigarette packets. Nevertheless, President Bush vetoed the bill arguing that the cost expansion would be too ex-

pensive. The House Democrats were short 13 votes to override his veto. Clearly, a new President will need to create a plan that insures Americans while remaining mindful of economic costs.

On the Republican side, the three leading candidates: Mitt Romney, Rudolph Giuliani and Fred Thompson all have solutions that do not require raising taxes. Romney, as governor of Mas-

sachusetts, has created a “personal responsibility system” where everyone in his state must have a healthcare plan. He funded it by spending $1 billion of Massachusetts money matched by $1

billion from the Bush administration. Although he has advocated against universal government mandated healthcare plans because he feels “socialized” medicine will result in the country becoming more like Europe, with a “slow growing economy,” he promotes universal healthcare on an individual state-by-state basis, provid-ing financial incentives to states that create plans similar to the one in Massachusetts. Critics of Romney’s plan point out the paradox that he claims opposition to national universal health-care but advocates state universal healthcare. Romney, however, claims no similarity to “Hillarycare.” Although his plan is one of the more detailed plans of the Republican candidates, it still has gaps. Romney never lays out a plan to fund his healthcare plan nor does he state how much the plan will cost. He fails to address the fact that he is not requiring states to create healthcare plans, merely providing incentives. States may choose not to provide healthcare plans at all. These weaknesses show that Romney’s plan may be somewhat detailed but there are still problems with it.

Rudy Giuliani’s plan consists of making national gov-ernment healthcare reforms but still letting states create plans to fit specific needs. Citizens would not be penalized for not having access to healthcare, and states would be rewarded for what he calls “innovative solutions.” Giuliani claims he will cre-ate incentives in insurance markets but refrains from detailing what these incentives will be. While Giuliani’s plan avoids uni-versal socialized medicine and government controlled health-care, it does not provide a detailed process or expected cost. Giuliani has, so far, only stated what his plan will not be. He promises an “American” healthcare plan without government controlled healthcare, socialized medicine, and single-payer coverage. However, his plan cannot be considered one of the top Republican healthcare plans, as it lacks substantive detail.

Like Giuliani’s plan, Fred Thompson’s is not very specific.

By Will Dubbs

His main goal is to get every American into the healthcare sys-tem, rather than to improve cur-rent healthcare options. Thomp-son believes that simply informing consumers and patients about affordable health care options will help them meet the needs of their families. He hopes to improve the individual health of all Americans by changing to a healthcare system that “promotes cost-effective preven-tion, chronic-care management and personal responsibil-ity.” He neglects to say how much this system will cost, however. Although he has stated that he will increase competition and consumer choice through free-market solutions, he has not expanded as to what these solutions are and precisely how they benefit Americans by provid-ing superior care. Neither Giuliani nor Thompson provides enough specificity or foresight to com-pete with Romney and his healthcare plan.

On the Democratic side, Hil-lary Clinton has created the American Health Choices Plan, which mandates that everyone be insured by one of a variety o f healthcare options to choose from. Clinton states that “individuals will be required to get and keep insurance in a system where insurance is affordable and acces-sible.” Under her plan, Americans can keep their existing coverage or access the same options that members of Congress receive. The plans will consist of public plan options as well as private options. Americans who already have health coverage will benefit from lower costs as well as increased security. Clinton has also outlined the cost of her healthcare plan, as well as a way to fund it. She projects that it will cost $110 billion, half of which will come from the existing health-care system and the other half from rolling back George Bush’s tax break for the top 2% of income earners. Although critics from both sides have recalled her failure in 1993, Clinton has said she now has experience with insurance companies and requires them to cover everyone who applies and pays the premium.

Barack Obama’s healthcare plan is similar to Clinton’s in that he will make healthcare cheaper and more affordable. What sets his plan apart, however, is that he mandates that children are the only group that must be insured. Obama believes that the reason Americans do not have health coverage is that costs are too high. He will work for affordable and portable health cover-age for all Americans, coverage that can move with an individual

from one job to another. He says he will cre-

ate options similar to those available to federal employees, ensure that no one

will be turned away from insurance pro-

grams, and advocate that employers will have

to make a “meaningful” con-tribution to healthcare for their em-

ployees. This plan is projected to cost between $50-65 billion. Criticisms, such as those in a re-

cent Time magazine article, state that a third of uninsured Americans do not want healthcare insurance, not because they cannot afford it as Obama stipulates, but for other reasons. The as-

sumptions in Obama’s plan make it the weakest of those of the top three Democratic candidates.

John Edwards’ healthcare plan, like that of Sen-ator Clinton’s and Obama’s, consists of creating more op-

tions for Americans to choose from. Unlike Obama, Edwards seeks to achieve universal coverage by requiring business and

other employers to cover their employees by creating Health Care markets and making insurance affordable. While Edward’s

plan is similar to Clinton’s, Edwards has the support of Sena-tor Ted Kennedy, a long time advocate for universal health care, and New York Times columnist and economist Paul Krugman.

This year, the Democratic Party candidates have presented more appealing and specific healthcare plans than the Republi-

cans. There could be any number of reasons for the lack of detail and foresight in Republican initiatives, however.

Their lack of detail could be a response to re-cent polls conducted by national polling groups such as

the Terrance Group, suggesting that voters believe that the war in Iraq is a more important issue. In a poll con-

ducted in August of 2007, 29% of those polled believe that the war in Iraq is the most important issue while only

11% believe that healthcare is the most important is-sue. The war on terror received 37%, coming before

economic concerns (20%) and immigration (14%). Another reason for the Republican failure to

clearly state a healthcare plan could be the fact that Republicans are waiting to see

what kind of criticism more detailed plans such as Hillary Clinton’s will receive. Then, using that criticism, the Repub-lican candidates could refine their own

plans to what poll dating suggests that Americans feel is the ‘best’ healthcare plan.

The Republicans could, on the other hand, decline to present their own plans and sim-

ply critique the Democrats’ plans themselves. As the race and the search for “quality affordable

healthcare in America” continue, we can expect more details and much-needed debate on this critical issue affecting all Americans.

“This year, the Democratic Party candidates have presented more appealing and specific

healthcare plans.”

“Recent polls conducted by the Terrance Group suggest that healthcare lags behind

issues such as the war in Iraq, immigration, and the economy.”

Battle of the PlansAn Inside Look at 2oo8 Healthcare Plans

AMSA

Ted Sumers

geoffconet

issue 1- featuRe


Page 9

J ury duty is the faltering cornerstone of our cur-rent judicial system. This process allows for the layman to play a legal role, giving power to the wrong people. Our judicial system is now plagued by erroneous verdicts rendered

by unqualified jurors. The flawed jury duty system needs to be replaced by a system of elected professional jurors.

Jury duty can be divided into three distinct parts: sum-mons, voir dire, and residence over a case. In summons, a number of people are asked by the court clerk to appear at a certain time. The number of potential jurors in the jury pool depends on the court as well as the charges, but is often well over 50. Ultimately, a jury of 12 is selected to appear in court and preside over a trial.

In order to know what sort of people are actually serving on juries, it is important that we understand who wants to serve. The New York State Unified Court System website states that ju-rors “must be paid by their employer, at least $40 of their regular daily wage,” and if “their regular wage is less than $40, the state will pay the difference between the juror’s wage and the $40 fee.” If you are unemployed, under-employed, or elderly and retired, you receive $40 a day; if you make more than that, your wage may be reduced to $40 a day for the duration of your service. According to the US Census Bureau, the average person with a Bachelor’s degree earns $52,200 a year, approximately $143 a day. Thus the majority of people who complete college are, in all likelihood, unsatisfied with the juror fee. Therefore, the cur-rent system appeals to juries of uneducated, unqualified people.

Once the potential jurors appear, the time consuming and costly process of voir dire, or whittling down of the jury, com-mences. Attorneys ask a series of questions to determine whether the potential jurors would be fit to weigh case evidence fairly and objectively. In a malpractice lawsuit, for example, the attorneys may ask if any of the jurors frequently donate money to hospitals or if they have ever had an unsuccessful operation. If a juror gives an answer that hints at bias, the attorney makes a cause challenge in which the judge investigates the claim of bias and decides whether or not the person is to be dismissed from jury duty. Oth-er causes for rejection include having a considerable knowledge or understanding of the law and having a pre-existing relationship with any person involved in the case. The cause challenges make it extremely easy for a person to get out of jury duty. All one must do is claim that they have a bias and would not be able to render a ver-dict without taking into consideration their preconceived notions.

There also exists another brand of jurist expulsion in the voir dire called “peremptory” challenges. These arbitrary but limited dismissals allow attorneys to reject a certain number of people for no particular reason whatsoever. Lawyers often take advantage of this system to sculpt a jury sympathetic to their cli-ent’s case, rather than strive for an unbiased and impartial jury.

Often times the voir dire creates juries that are more con-

vinced by theatrics and showmanship than they are by evidence. Perhaps the case that most exhibited these faults was the 1994 OJ Simpson case in which the professional football player was tried for the murder of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown, and her friend, Ronald Goldman. Simpson’s team of lawyers (F. Lee Bailey, Bar-ry Scheck, Robert Shapiro, Robert Kardashian, Alan Dershowitz, and Johnnie Cochran) manipulated the voir dire. Of the 12 jurors who presided over Simpson’s case, only 2 were college graduates, 9 were high school graduates, and 1 was without a diploma, form-ing a minimally educated jury. During the trial, his lawyers em-ployed theatrics to convince the jury to acquit Simpson despite the overwhelming scientific and forensic evidence proving his guilt.

It is very likely that the jurors did not even understand the evidence presented. They acquitted him even though his blood and hair were found all over the murder scene and vic-tims and he had been involved in a slow-speed car chase to evade capture. A set of his ex-wife’s keys was found in his house. The list continues. There was a wealth of evidence that should have undoubtedly convinced any reasonable person of Simp-son’s guilt, but the jurors were subservient to their emotions and the court drama. This fact, coupled with the aforemen-tioned overt theatrics, convinced the jury to acquit Simpson.

The infamous “Twinkie Defense” provides another exam-ple of a verdict based on emotion rather than facts. Daniel James White, a San Francisco City Supervisor in 1978, killed Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk after being denied re-appointment. Although he faced life in prison or the death penalty for first-degree murder, he was ultimately sentenced for manslaughter to seven years (serving little more than 5 for

A Coin Toss Judicial System“If you are accused of a crime, you have the right to a trial before a jury of people too stupid to get out of jury duty.”

Dave Barry, Bestselling author and Pulitzer-Prize winner

By Spencer Penn

“Lawyers take advantage of the system to sculpt a jury sympathetic to their case, rather

than an unbiased and impartial one.”


Page 10

good behavior). His argument, supported by psychiatrist Mar-tin Blinder, was that his chemical balance was upset by the sugar surge caused by eating Twinkies and Coca-Cola. By appealing to the jury’s emotions and talking of his overwhelming “depression,” White was able to decrease his sentence exponentially. White pre-sented the jury with the story of a sad man unable to control his anger because of his consumption of sugar-filled foods. Because he fed the jury tragedy and the jury based their verdict on emo-

tion, they decreased his sentence from life in prison to 7 years.The flaws of the jury duty system continue to burden

us with false verdicts, making it imperative that reform to the US judicial system is adopted. While modifications could be made to the current jury duty system, the implementa-tion of a new system of professional jurors would be optimal.

Those who take up a career in professional “jurism” would be on a government payroll but elected by the people, prevent-ing pro-government bias or corruption. They would also have to meet certain educational standards, such as the possession of Bachelor’s Degrees along with degrees in law, forensic science, and any other fields that have been deemed pertinent. This would solve the issue of jurors not understanding scientific or other dif-ficult evidence and would encourage them to apply law knowl-edge to the facts presented. Because making objective decisions is their job, they would become accustomed to lawyers’ tricks and less easily swayed by personal emotions or courtroom theatrics.

Both the names and addresses of the professional jurors would remain confidential. Bribery would further be prevented by random appointments of certain jurors to certain cases and a large pool of professional jurors to choose from in each area.

This system would cost significantly less than the current jury duty system. The costly voir dire process could be cut out of the judicial system all together, as professional jurors would take an oath to make unbiased decisions. If a juror consistently makes poor decisions, he or she simply won’t be reelected by the people.

Although the proposition of professional jurors has arisen multiple times, it has never become a mainstream issue. People usually do not have strong stances on the issue, causing politi-cians to exclude it from their platforms. The initial skepticism in public opinion towards advantageous reforms of political in-frastructures is due to the general lack of information about the flaws and benefits of the current system and suggested changes. The idea of the average layman playing a direct role in the judicial system is appealing, but fails to recognize the number of unjust verdicts. A system of professional jurors would allow the public to play an indirect role while correcting current flaws. This grave impartiality is delaying the correction of the jury duty system.

Steve Forbes, editor-in-chief of Forbes Magazine, pre-cisely portrayed our current system when he said, “Too often, frivolous lawsuits succeed with juries that are un-versed.” A new jury system of educated, informed, and intel-ligent professional jurors should replace current jury duty, which has proven to render unjust verdicts in high profile cases. A new and improved infrastructure is a necessary step in the bettering our judicial branch and country as a whole.

“The flaws of the jury system continue to burden us with false verdicts”

mosseby

issue 1- doMestic


Page 11

As the specter of technology claims more influence over the daily lives of Americans, the medium by which people read their news has greatly changed. The rise of personal blogs written by anyone

with an opinion and access to a computer has been a growing trend in the packaging of news from facts to opinion. Segments of the populace have even come to prefer unofficial sources to what they deem as commer-cialized news. The shift toward grassroots and unencumbered blogs as a means for information collection comes with costs, however: data is not vetted, facts are not checked and the resulting news has very little credibil-ity. The consequences may be even more severe, as with the recent Jena Six issue, where blogs got to the root of the story before the mainstream newspapers, distorting the facts and causing an exaggerated outcry.

The situation began on the morning of August 31, 2006 with the terrifying sight of two empty nooses hanging from a tree in the school courtyard. Three white students had placed these nooses after an as-sembly in which an African-American student asked if he could sit un-der that tree in the school courtyard. The question was clearly a joke, as both white and African-American students frequented the tree without segregation. Nevertheless, Assistant Principle Gawen Burgess sternly re-plied that students could sit anywhere they wanted, as per official policy. Although the school claimed to be very well integrated, with African-American, Hispanic and Caucasian students socializing and mixing every day, those three white students did not take kindly to this policy.

When discovered, the nooses were removed immediately and an FBI investigation quickly revealed the culprits. Interestingly enough, the three unnamed students responsible for the hanging “claimed they did not have any idea” of the negative racial connotations of a noose in the South and showed great remorse for their actions when they were told. Although Principal Scott Windham placed the white students be-fore an expulsion committee, the board decided not to expel them but rather to let them off with a nine day out-of-school suspension, a two week in-school suspension, Sunday detentions, and time at a family cri-sis center. The punishment did not go past this level, as the local, state and federal hate crime laws did not cover this sort of incident. LaSalle School Superintendant Roy Breithaupt believed that the punishment was fair, elaborating that “saying that these students were simply ‘slapped

on the wrist’ is a grave misconception of what punishment actually took place.”

Although most students in the school did not know of the incident even after the suspensions, they soon found out as local newspapers and African-American com-

munity leaders popularized the event. As the story spread and was pub-lished, controversy and racial tension ripped the small town of Jena apart. Rallies organized by the local Baptist church protested the incident, and a local paper described the incident as “racial” even though the investiga-tors deemed that it was not. Local and regional television stations, blogs, and freelance writers began to cover the story, adding their own opinions and passing them as fact. While community leaders seemed determined to spread the outrage of the events in Jena, not every citizen followed their words. In an interview with the Associated Press, longtime African-American Jena resident and member of the LaSalle parish council Ben Reid stated, “You have good people here and bad people here, on both sides. This thing has been blown out of proportion. What we ought to do is sit down and talk this thing out, ‘cause once all is said and done and you media folks leave, we’re the ones who’re going to have to live here.”

The story began to be warped and personal opinions of racism and outrage became more apparent in the community. Fights between students occurred during the month of September, which eventually culminated in a school wide assembly where Windham, Breithaupt and LaSalle Parish District Attorney Reed Walters lectured the students on tolerance and ordered the fighting to cease. The Friday after the assem-bly, the school was placed in “lock-down” mode after a student allegedly brought a gun to school. The situation was handled swiftly and efficient-ly, and no racially motivated crimes occurred for another two months.

This peace was broken in late September when LaSalle Sheriff De-tective Paul Smith contacted Walters urging him to come and pacify a student throwing a fit. The student allegedly attempted to punch Smith, clearly disturbed by the old noose incident. In response, Walters came to the school and spoke of the consequences of fights, declaring that he could make the lives of the students miserable with the “stroke of his pen” and that students should call him before they do something brash. Members of the African-American community mistakenly took offense to this statement, claiming that it was aimed at them. This was false, however, as students were seated by racially mixed homerooms, prevent-ing Walters from looking solely at a contingent of African-Americans.

A month later, racial conflicts were stirred once again

The Truth About JenaBy Dan Temel

Michael David Murphy

Joseph Pomp

Cyber Source


Page 12

due to the burning of a section of Jena High School. The arson-ists were never caught and speculations of their identities were never clear, but a fight at a local barn party managed to spark the full blown problem the district had been trying to avoid.

African-American student Robert Bailey Jr. was assaulted by white student Justin Sloan, allegedly with a beer bottle (though this was later proven to be untrue) outside the barn. While Bailey did not fight back at this time, racially motivated fights between Bailey’s friends and other members of the white community occurred during December 1 and 3 of 2006. On December 4, Jena High School student Mychal Bell and ten other African-American boys assaulted white student Justin Barker on his way out to lunch. Barker was knocked unconscious while the boys kicked and stomped on him. Bell, Bailey, Theodore Shaw, Carwin Jones and Bryant Purvis were all arrested. Walters charged the individuals with conspiracy to commit second degree murder and attempted second de-gree murder. The charges were lessened for everyone except Bell, who was described as the “ringleader” of the group. His jailing became the focus of the outcry on Jena, as many lobbied for his release and dropped charges.

Public reaction to the Jena situation has been somewhat warped by the lack of a centralized organization of protests. Information has been passed individually through blogs and radical community lead-ers such as Rev. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. It consists mostly of rumors and personal opinions with little emphasis on the facts, how-ever. Claims of an all white jury, for example, were grossly exaggerated; although they were called, no African-American chose to show for jury duty. The perceived lack of “race-neutral” punishment is also unjusti-fied, as rumors stated that the white students who hung the noose re-ceived no reprimands. In addition, Justin Sloan, the white student who attacked Bailey, was tried and convicted in court for battery. As part of his settlement, he apologized to Bailey. Claims that Bell was an in-nocent minor who happened to get into a schoolyard fight were also negated by his criminal record of four previous offenses. Finally, the US Attorney’s Office agreed with the decisions of the Louisiana jus-tice system, discrediting claims that the courts were racist and hateful.

This case has also exposed many other flaws in the LaSalle Parish justice system, as many residents have complained of a lack of fair police protection in their neighborhoods. The members of the predominantly African-American neighborhood “The Country” who frequently phoned police because Bell and his friends had been “breaking windows of cars and spray painting private property” rarely received an immediate response. Huey Crockett, resident of “The Country,” complained that “as soon as [Bell] had a run-in with a white boy, they [the police] came down on him like a hammer. That’s not right. If I call the police for an incident here, it may take them an hour, an hour and half to get out here. But they’ll be right out in an instant if a white person calls them.” Jena Six has reopened tense racial relations in a community previously plagued by white supremacy, and blogs and rumors have arisen as channels for emotions and protest.

On September 27, 2007 Bell was released from prison af-ter 10 months, but the issue in Jena was far from over. Debate still continued through blogs, Facebook, schools and community ad-vocacy groups. The issue in Jena could have remained a local situa-tion had the facts not been warped into a racial conflict. While this outcry was mostly a grassroots campaign, leaders such as Sharpton and Jackson could have checked their facts before storming into the situation and declaring racism as a primary motivation for all of the events. The Jena Six outcry presents a grave indication of future news sources if debate is based on blogs and racial relations are not mended.

...at HM

As with many other domestic hot button issues, members of the Horace Mann community have been quick to enter the debate and form their own opinions. Students have organized protests, shown their solidarity on the matter, and written peti-tions. Jacqueline Perkins (12) organized the protests at Horace Mann after hearing about the incident on the radio. She said that it was important to take action because “racism is an issue that affects everybody, and since there are so many minorities in the school, we tried to show that everyone can be affected.” Many students had formed opinions prior to the speech given at the SBP assembly, but felt that awareness needed to be spread more broadly. “Personally I was aware of the issue in Jena prior to the announcement; however, I thought the magnitude of the situa-tion could have been emphasized more,” said Dan Shapiro (10). While many students at the school followed the issue through news and blogs, turnout for the protests was surprisingly low.

Discussion of the issue in Jena reached the classrooms too, as many classes engaged in spirited debate. Shapiro said that the debate in his Ethics class was short, but participa-tion was strong and it was evident that students had their own views on the matter. Teachers participated in the debates as well, adding their own opinions and moderating the debates.

Unfortunately, logistical issues hampered participation in the protests, as many students claimed that they did not receive any email about the issue. “Many people wore maroon for the football game that day, so I think many more people would have worn black if there wasn’t a conflict,” stated Annie Cicco (10). “The protests weren’t planned far enough in advance, so not ev-eryone knew how to react,” she continued. Some felt strongly on the issue, but did not choose to participate. Shapiro stated that he was unsure if “wearing black was the most appropriate way to show solidarity while also magnifying the seriousness of the issue.”

The Horace Mann community reacted in a very ratio-nal manner, as any matter concerning racism can set off explo-sive opinions. Since awareness of racism was spread through the community, the protest can be considered a success. If any other racial issues occur, Perkins reaffirmed her belief of the importance of showing solidarity. “Racism is a con-stant struggle, and it is important to fight back,” said Perkins.

Iyanla Vanzant

issue 1- doMestic


Alcohol kills. This is an undisputed fact. Howev-er, alcohol can ruin lives before they even begin. When pregnant women drink, they run the risk of destroying their child’s life by giving him or her what is known as Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, or FAS.

FAS is a developmental disorder that results from the mother’s drink-ing alcohol while she is pregnant. Al-cohol passes very easily through the placenta to the fetus, where it stays in the fetus’ system longer because the fetus does not have a well developed liver. It has devastating effects on the brain, as it prevents neurologi-cal connections from being made. The brain does not join together properly, so the neurological signals are unable to travel. The results are serious metal and physical disabili-ties. Some common effects of FAS or other alcohol related prenatal dis-eases are stunted growth, organ dys-function, epilepsy, retardation, and many more. Other related diseases are alcohol-related neuro-develop-mental disorder (ARND), a disease which results in purely neurologi-cal symptoms, and alcohol-related birth defects (ARBD), which causes the more physical symptoms. Either way, the child is doomed to an abnor-mal life and usually a shorter life span.

FAS is the leading preventable cause of mental retarda-tion. Despite what some may think, FAS is not genetic. The only cause for FAS is if the mother drinks while pregnant. Those who are born with FAS never outgrow either the mental or physi-cal symptoms. FAS children require almost constant attention. While they are eligible for health care, their medical bills can add up to $800,000 in their lifetime. The US spent around 5.4 bil-lion dollars on FAS cases last year alone. Apart from the financial toll, the emotional toll of a permanently retarded child can never be properly expressed in words. Fortunately, FAS, in addition to being one of the most horrible prenatal afflictions is also one of the most preventable: simply do not drink during pregnancy.

Many women drink before they even realize they are preg-nant, during the crucial first three months. It is during this time that FAS children display the worst symptoms. Women tend to drink

only occasionally, or binge drink once. This is more than enough to give a child FAS. Since there is no set amount of alcohol that is considered “safe” to consume, and since every stage of preg-nancy is different, there is never a time to excuse drinking. In ad-dition to the obvious symptoms of FAS, many are subtle and may

not be noticed by a doctor right away or even for several years after birth. Since the child is likely to have learn-ing disabilities, they will probably do poorly in school. Also, without the proper care, FAS children are liable to become abusive or display criminal behavior. Allowing such negligence makes these children a threat to society rather than the victims that they are.

This disease raises many ques-tions. One in every 750 babies born in the US has some form of FAS, and yet there is almost nothing being done to prevent it. True, there are aware-ness clinics, such as the Advisory on Alcohol Use in Pregnancy set up by the Surgeon General, but this is not enough. The good news is that FAS is 100% preventable. All that has to be done is to prevent the woman from drinking while she is pregnant or attempting to become pregnant. But how strict should legislation be on this? Should it have a say at all?

Pregnant women must be pre-vented from consuming alcohol. The

government should do everything in its power to protect chil-dren from a disease that is 100% preventable. 40,000 children were diagnosed with FAS last year alone. This is far too many in-nocent children to overlook. Some regulation must be instated, whether it be in the form of Breathalyzers or trips to the clinic is uncertain, but there is no way that the government should allow this to continue. Why should we let even one more life be ruined permanently from someone else’s destructive habits? Despite the fact that people are legally allowed to drink, pregnant women are an exception because they are acting not only for themselves but for their child. The mother must take responsibility for the child while it is in the womb and that includes sacrificing drinking for the health of her child. Sadly, many women are unable to real-ize this and therefore it is up to government to make FAS history.

Born DrunkThe Horrors of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome

By Eliza Harkins

A few too many...The effects of a Fetal Alcohol Syndrome appear right from birth in many cases.

Page 13


www.cavalierdaily.com

99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall...

Youth Drinking By the NumbersBy Nancy DaSilva

The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 says that all states must raise the mini-mum age to purchase and possess alcohol age to 21 years of age. This was the first time that the drinking age was mandated by the fed-

eral government. Before this Act was passed, the drinking age was determined by each individual state’s discretion. Since 1984, the drinking age has been standardized. Many people in the US have argued that if the drinking age were lowered to 18, but kept stan-dard throughout the entire country, the underage drinking statistics would present lower results. There are many organizations, however, such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), that beg to differ.

In the US alone, alcohol abuse statistics have increased since the rise in drinking age, According to National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAA). The number of alcohol related deaths rose from 103,945 in 1984 to 110,640 in 1996, to-taling a 6,695 death per year increase. Although this number may seem to be only a slight increase, the fact of the matter is that this statistic must be taken into consideration. The Center on Addic-tion and Substance Abuse (CASA) reported that the number of women “drinking to get drunk” nearly tripled from 1977 to 1993.

In the early 1960s, when drug and alcohol abuse was a large part of popular culture and teenage society, there were, on aver-age, 2.08 gallons of alcohol being consumed per capita. It is inter-esting to note that since the early 1990s, the average amount of alcohol being consumed increased to only 2.22 gallons per capita, according to the NIAA Per Capital Alcohol Consumption data.

Studies have been conducted in countries that have a lower drinking age, such as the United Kingdom and France. Results show the positive results a low drinking age can have on a population of teenagers and young adults. More often than not, young adults do not abuse the right to drink and binge drinking is not as promi-nent in these cultures. We can infer that if the United States were to adhere to the same alcohol standards, alcohol abuse and alcohol related deaths would decrease. This is not a definite fact because of factors including the current national attitude towards alco-hol, namely one that views it as part of leading a social existence.

It is important to observe how a low drinking age has affect-ed the teenage and young adult age group in the United Kingdom. There, with adult supervision, a child can consume alcohol at the

age of five. The legal age of purchase without parental consent is 18 years. Some British health officials, including John Ashton, the direc-tor at the National Health Services Primary Care Trust in England advocate decreasing the drinking age to 16. He believes that treating teenagers and young adults as if they were fully-grown adults could teach these children responsibility when it comes to drinking. Ac-cording to the Office for National Statistics in the United Kingdom, the number of alcohol related deaths in 1996 was 18,000, which is over 108,000 fewer alcohol related deaths than in the US in 1996.

When the standardized drinking age was first introduced to congress, one of the principal arguments in favor of elevat-ing the drinking age was that the number of drunk driving acci-dents had skyrocketed. Statistics compiled from 1982–2004 do show a decrease in traffic accidents due to drunk driving. On the other hand, it can be argued that if drunk driving is the only fac-tor in deciding the drinking age, there are other measures that can be taken. Better drivers’ education programs can be instated in all schools across America. In addition, upholding law enforce-ment for DUI for people of all ages, especially young adults, is an extremely effective measure. Finally, a mandatory driving test can be instated for drivers of seventy five years of age or older.

Another argument that frequently surfaces is the discrepancy between the age of allowed enlistment in the armed services and the legal age of alcohol consumption. A US citizen must be at least 18 years of age before he or she can join the army; he or she can die in Iraq before taking his or her first legal sips of alcohol. The question that is constantly asked by adults aged 18-21 is why is an “underage” Ameri-can old enough to fight for his or her country but too young to drink?”

The same argument can be made for voting. The basis of the United States of America is democracy. The most sacred responsi-bility an American has is the right to vote. It is completely unrea-sonable that the American public can trust this group of “underage children” to elect its leaders and make decisions that will shape their country before their eyes, but the public does not have enough trust in these “children” to be responsible in the presence of alcohol.

These statistics alone are reason enough to lower the drinking age to 18 years of age. It is imperative that the American public accepts the citizens of 18 years of age as fully functioning adult members of so-ciety. Without this level of trust, the existing alcohol abuse problems facing this country will continue to worsen and spiral out of control.

issue 1- featuRe

Page 14


Page 15

When discussing abused drugs among teens, society most often brings up marijuana, cocaine, and alcohol, but recent studies have shown a new trend in drug popu-

larity. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) 2007 survey, more teens are choosing legal drugs over illegal ones. Over-the-counter drugs, such as cough

syrup, and prescription drugs, such as OxyContin and Vicodin, are slowly dethroning marijuana as the most com-monly abused drug. While the drugs are sold in pharma-cies, their effects can be just as harmful if they are abused.

Although marijuana still remains the most popular drug, according to a survey done by the NIDA in 2007, marijuana use is declining as a whole. In the three grades tested in the study, eighth, tenth and twelfth, marijuana use declined significantly. Since 2001, the percentage of 8th, 10th and 12th graders who used marijuana during the month that the survey was taken decreased by almost 25 percent, from 16.6 in 2006, to 12.5 percent in 2007. This re-cent change also reflects a pattern of the last 15 years as well. According to the NIDA director Nora D. Volkow, marijuana use has fallen by 36 percent among eighth graders, 28 per-

cent among tenth graders, and 18 percent among twelfth grad-ers since its peak abuse years in the early 1990’s.

Prescription and over the counter drug abuse is increas-ing rapidly. While there was a 1.2 percent drop among twelfth graders abusing prescription painkillers such as OxyContin, there was no decline among eighth and tenth graders. In fact, the rate of prescription and over-the-counter drug abuse has increased since it was first included in the survey in 2002. In the first year of its inclusion in the NIDA survey, 4.2 percent of eighth graders, 5.3 percent of 10th graders and 6.9 percent of 12th graders reported taking cold medicines with destrometho-rphan, DXM, to get high.

The availability and potency of pharmaceutical drugs have been the primary factor in their increase in popularity. OxyContin, an opioid prescribed for chronic, severe pain, is a frequently abused drug among teens. One of the primary rea-sons is its time-release function, which means that one dose can work up to twelve hours. This time-release function is the primary reason why approximately 1 in 5 teenagers, in a study done by the Office of the National Drug Policy, have abused a prescription painkiller to get high.

“Over-the-counter and prescription drugs are slowly dethroning marijuana

as the most commonly abused drug.”

While marijuana must be purchased illegally, stocks of pharmaceutical drugs are readily available to be abused.

As the pharmaceutical industry booms, teens are abusing over-the-counter and prescription drugs under the impres-sion that they’re getting a “legal high.” However, the repercussions of abusing pharmaceutical drugs are often lethal:

valuelabels.com

By Will Dubbs


Page 16

According to another report prepared by the Office of Nation-al Drug Control Policy, there are for the first time, just as many new abusers of prescription drugs as there are new abusers of marijuana. In addition, marijuana users are switching to over the counter drugs primarily because of the increased availability of over the counter drugs such as cough syrup. The analysis states that teens are turning

to prescription drugs because they believe they provide a “medically safe” high. This widely held notion is actually false; the high from pre-scription drugs, just like the high from any other drug, can be lethal. The most dangerous trend in the study was that teens are admitting to abusing prescription drugs for reasons other than getting high; teens cited relieving pain or anxiety, sleeping better, experimenting, increasing alertness, and helping with concentration as motivations. 1 in 11 drug users, according to the study, abused OTC drugs such as cough medicine in order to ‘fit in’ with friends.

The availability of these drugs has been in part due to negli-gence of some medical officials. Dr. William Hurwitz, a New Jersey doctor recently stripped of his license, prescribed excessive amounts of Oxycodone and other dangerous narcotics to addicts or to dealers for a price. While the exact number is not known, Dr. Hurwitz once prescribed over 1,600 pills a day. Also, illegal internet pharmacies are selling potent drugs such as Ritalin and Oxycontin without proof of prescription. Cough syrup, which has a high DXM content, is easily purchased at a local pharmacy.

The government has implemented initiatives to combat the il-legal sale of prescription drugs, but it has met little success. The Food

and Drug Association (FDA) currently recommends the use of Ra-dio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags on bottles of potent drugs. RFID tags can be used to track, trace and authenticate the chain of custody of specific drug bottles. This new system has worked in small-scale tests using shipments of OxyContin., and this year is the first year that the FDA has demanded all bottles of lethal painkillers to have RFID tags.

There are, however, many problems with the current anti-pre-scription drug abuse initiative. Since RFID tags are not on individual pills, nothing can stop a dealer from removing the contents of the drug and selling individual pills. Concerted action by drug manufac-turers and retailers is needed, along with the work of the FDA.

John Walters, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, has stated that combating the rise in popular-ity of over-the-counter drugs will be one of his primary focuses, but the American government as a whole has not taken decisive action against the abuse of pharmaceutical drugs. Part of the reason is un-doubtedly that the manufacturers of the drugs and the sellers of the drugs do not intend for it to be abused; because the abused drugs

can be therapeutic and legal, the government has a much harder time regulating who is allowed to use pharmaceutical drugs.

In a press release in December of 2006, NIDA director Dr. Nora D. Volkow summarized the situation: “We know that the job is not done yet.” Despite even the efforts of congress, more and more teens are choosing to abuse prescription drugs. If the government does not quickly take action to prevent the abuse of pharmaceuti-cal drugs, then we will have a new drug crisis on our hands, with millions of teenagers believing that lethal medication can provide a “medically safe” high.

“Teens are turning to prescription drugs be-cause they believe they provide a “medically safe” high. This widely held notion is false;

the high from prescription drugs, just like the high from any other drug, can be lethal.”

“If the government does not take action to prevent pharmaceutical drug abuse, then we

will have a new drug crisis on our hands.”

blogs.abcnews.com theseniorsenior.files.wordpress.com

Oxycontin

Joe Raedle www.drug-rehabs.org

Painkillers Oxycontin, left, and Vicodin are two of the most commonly abused prescription drugs and are increasing in popularity.

issue 1- featuRe


Page 17

What do butterflies, bouncing white rocks, and the “Purple Pill” have in common? They’re all marketing hooks used by pharmaceuti-cal companies trying to sell prescription drugs. Previously, pharmaceutical compa-

nies had to follow strict guidelines as to how prescription drugs could be advertised. However, after being given the OK to distribute more appealing advertisements, the pharmaceutical companies are in-creasingly advertising prescription drugs directly to consumers. The pharmaceutical companies state the advertisements actually have a positive effect; critics, on the other hand, say that pharmaceutical com-panies are exploiting advertisements in order to earn money. How-ever, regardless of the nature of the effect, it is clear that prescription drug advertising has greatly influenced the behavior of consumers.

Prior to 1997, there were strict rules on what could be placed in advertisements, including on television. The advertisements needed to contain specific technical information about a drug. This significantly diluted the impact of an advertisement and greatly

increased the cost because of the time needed to put all of the in-formation into a commercial. After 1997, the rules changed so that drug companies only had to mention the most common side ef-fects in an advertisement; as long as they included a way for con-sumers to learn more about the specific drug online, by a toll free telephone number, or through printed readily available material, the advertisement was perfectly legal. With the requirements de-creased, drug companies increased their advertising significantly.

The extent of pharmaceutical companies’ expenditures on ad-vertisements directed at consumers is enormous. The Government Ac-countability Office reported that in 1997, only $1.1 billion was spent in advertising directly to the consumer. According to TNS Media Intel-ligence, from 2005-2006 pharmaceutical advertising increased from $4.65 to $5.29 billion dollars, a 13.8% increase between those two years and a 381% increase from 1997 to 2006. In addition, on average, each American watches 16 hours of drug advertisements every year.

The drug companies argue that advertisements help open a discussion between patients and their doctors. Many of the ads are for products which help deal with symptoms of diseases which people were previously embarrassed to talk about. Det-rol and Vesicare, for example, are drugs that did not exist in 1997 that help deal with the symptoms of an overactive bladder. “You are not alone,” state Vesicare advertisements; 17 million men and women have an overactive bladder (another advertising slogan is, “It’s not just a pipedream.”) By pointing out that so many people have the same problem, pharmaceutical companies claim, the ad-vertisements encourage consumers to talk to their doctors. In a sur-

“According to TNS Media Intelligence, from 2005-2006 pharmaceutical advertising in-creased from $4.65 to $5.29 billion dollars.”

As consumers become more familiarized with prescription drug advertisements such as the Zoloft one above, critics contend that

their judgement is becoming clouded by emotional appeals.

In 1997, Congress allowed pharmaceutical com-panies to market prescription drugs directly to consumers. The result has been a tidal wave of marketing and enormous profits for the phar-maceutical companies...but at what price?

Commercial Drugs

The Prescription Drug TV-Takeoverdeepintro.typepad.com.jpegTV: PJ Rego

Smiling H

eart

By Jarett Bienenstock


Page 18

vey by Prevention Magazine, 33% of respondents stated that they spoke to their doctors as a direct result of consumer advertising.

The drug companies also argue that the consumer has a right to know all the different choices that exist in medicine. The adver-tisements, they argue, help to educate the consumer about all of the different options or drugs that exist to treat certain symptoms or diseases; when a doctor suggests one medication, a patient should

be able to ask about other drugs that he or she may have heard of.Critics, however, disagree with both of these arguments. Yes,

they say, the patient should be educated, but they are not trained physicians. After seeing the advertisements, many patients walk into a doctor’s office knowing the symptoms they need to de-scribe in order to get a particular drug. In this instance the doc-tor could prescribe unnecessary or even harmful medication.

In addition, many feel most ads are more “emotional” then fact based. Dominick Frosch, an assistant professor of medicine at UCLA, completed a study regarding drug advertisements. “The ads really use emotion instead of information to promote drugs,” he says. “The question we have to ask ourselves is: (Should buy-ing) prescription drugs be the same as buying soap?” The depen-dence on emotion, critics argue, is meant to deceive consumers.

Critics also note that drug companies need to advertise for financial reasons. Years of effort and hundreds of millions of dollars go into creating a single drug; pharmaceutical compa-nies need to recover the cost of research and development of the drugs. If, as in the case of insomnia drugs, there are at least four different drugs which can help a person sleep better, drug com-panies have great incentive to make their drug used most often.

Critics of prescription drug advertising often cite Vioxx as an example of how drug advertising can be detrimental. Vioxx, a

painkiller, was taken off the market after studies showed it greatly increased the risk of heart attacks or stokes. Merck, the manufacturer of Vioxx, advertised the drug extensively before Vioxx’s safety record had been established. “From the beginning, everyone, including the company, agreed that not everybody ought to be getting Vioxx,” said president of the National Business Group on Health, Helen Darling. “But the ads implied there was a widespread need for it.”

In response to Vioxx, a committee of experts for the Insti-tute of Medicine suggested that Congress allow the FDA to ban advertisement of a drug if there were any safety concerns. The measure was incorporated into a bill and introduced to Congress, but the measure was taken out of the bill before the bill’s passage.

Now, the bill only allows the FDA to look at advertisements be-fore they are implemented and recommend changes; the FDA can-not ban the ad if the changes aren’t made. The bill does, however, allow the FDA to fine a company if an ad is false and misleading.

The United States is one of two developed countries to al-low marketing of prescription medication directly to consumers; the only other is New Zealand. The pharmaceutical companies’ reasons behind advertisements may not always be clear, and crit-ics and pharmaceutical companies will always argue. However, as reported by TNS Media Intelligence, an estimated $4.20 is made per $1.00 that pharmaceutical companies invest in consumer ad-vertising. With enormous profits to be made as consumers con-tinue to buy heavily advertised brands, it is certain that you won’t have seen the glow-in-the-dark butterfly of Lunesta, bouncing white rock of Zoloft, and Purple Pill of Nexium for the last time.

“In a Prevention Magazine survey, 33% of respondents stated that they spoke to their doctors as result of consumer advertising.”

“Given the years of effort and hundreds of millions of dollars that go into creating a

single drug, drug companies have great in-centive to make their drugs used most often.”

Prescription Drug Marketing HooksCommercial Drugs

Butterfly

Lunesta

www.smartmeds.com

ww

w.frankdelano.biz

Rock

Zoloft

www.liloia.com

Purple Pill

ww

w.current.org

www.nexiumonlinepharmacy.com

Nexium

issue 1- featuRe


CRACKED STREETS

Everyone knows about the Bloods and the Crips: the Bloods wear red; the Crips wear blue. The two Los Angeles street gangs have entered popular culture through depic-tions in music, television, and film. Beyond

gang shootouts and turf warfare, these and other drug-dealing gangs often operate on highly organized levels, and their in-volvement in drug-trafficking has been a major factor in the deterioration of neighborhoods across the United States.

Gangs became heavily involved in the drug trade around the time of the discovery of crack cocaine in the 1980s. Co-

caine dealers mixed cocaine in a saucepan with baking soda and water, creating smokeable “rocks” of cocaine. This dis-covery, coinciding with a boom in cocaine imports from Co-lombia, led to crack cocaine’s availability for the masses at an inexpensive price. Gangs were enormously successful in drug dealing and large gangs, such as the Los Angeles based Bloods, expanded throughout the country and increased membership to well over 30,000. Around the end of the 1980’s, drug-deal-ing gangs were becoming a major concern in the United States.

To combat gangs, police educated parents and schools about gang members’ behaviors. Starting in 1978 with the State

By Rumur Dowling

The Bloods, the Crips: How Drug Gangs continue to spread violence and danger across America

Azarabe

Page 19


and Local Task Forces program, federal institutions implemented numerous anti-gang policies, ending with the Anti-Violent Crime Initiative in 1994 (see sidebar). In general, these programs dealt with gangs on an increasingly national level and promoted unity between local and federal forces. In the 1990s, the federal government’s re-taliation against gangs was at its strongest, and gang popularity was on its way down.

Although the anti-gang activities in the 1990s lead to moderate success, gangs continue to be a very powerful and influen-tial force resisting governmental regulation. While some gangs have not increased mem-bership levels in the last few years, gangs are still the primary distributors of illicit drugs in the United States. As of 2006, the Depart-ment of Justice (DOJ), reports that there are over 21,000 gangs and 731,000 gang mem-bers in the United States. Gangs’ presence in schools only exacerbates the problem they pose: a 2001 DOJ survey found that nearly 20% of students reported gangs present at their schools looking to recruit new members.

Additionally, gangs have made their way into suburban environments as well as cities. The same DOJ survey revealed that

13% of students in rural environments re-ported feeling a gang presence. The police have attributed this shift as an attempt to expand drug sales into previously untapped markets with less law enforcement regula-tion. The increased presence of gangs is bringing violence into rural areas, and just as gangs have taken over parts of cities, gangs are starting to claim rural area as well.

Unfortunately, gangs have had suc-cess in adapting to police strategies. For ex-ample, police once had success in arresting Mara Salvatrucha 13 (MS 13) gang mem-bers based on their uniquely colored blue and white bandanas and tendency to wear the number 13. Gang members have since changed the colors of their bandanas as well as the numbers to inhibit police efforts. Similarly, some branches of the Crips have stopped wearing blue and instead use tattoos as their primary method of identification.

Gangs have used violence and threats to stay in power. Large drug-dealing gangs, such as the Bloods and the Crips, use vio-lence in gang wars to receive tribute from competing drug dealers. Gangs also use violence to keep members in check. In one instance reported by the NDIC, “a 19-year-

Program: State and Local Task Forces (1978), sponsored by the Drug Enforcement Ad-ministration. Effect: Used local forces to combat drug trafficking in cities.

Program: Safe Streets Violent Crime Initiative (1992), spon-sored by the FBI.Effect: Utilized the capital of FBI officials and the resources of local law enforcement agen-cies to specifically combat drug-gang development.

Program: Anti-Violent Crime Initiative (1994), sponsored by the Department of Justice.Effect: Unified attorneys, state and local law enforcement agen-cies, and the FBI in combating crime.

Anti-Drug Government Programs:

“As of 2006, the Department of Justice reports that there are

over 21,000 gangs and 731,000 gang members in the U.S.”

Left; gang markings left by the gang “ADA.” Gangs often claim land in which they conduct business. The area pictured was the site of a police-gang battle. Right; an example of gang tattoos. Gangs are increasingly using tattoos instead of clothing or gang signs as methods of identification. The Bloods and the Crips, two of the largest U.S. gangs , are at the forefront of this trend, shying away from wearing red or blue clothes respectively.

“Some branches of the Crips have stopped wearing blue and instead use tattoos as the pri-

mary method of identification.”

BooRadley3 Alex Masi

issue 1- featuRe

Page 20


old gang member in Fort Worth, Texas, was sentenced to 30 years in prison for fatally shooting a childhood friend who wanted to leave their local street gang.”

While factors such as intimidation can be combated through anti-crime pro-grams, one striking motivation for joining a gang is the enormous amount of poten-tial profit that comes from leading a gang. Despite the dangerous conditions and low pay, dealing drugs for a gang is seen by some kids as a path to eventual suc-cess. Until kids can get legitimate jobs that pay a decent wage, they will continue to join gangs for economic reasons. Dr. Su-

dhir Venkatesh, a University of Chicago graduate, was able to study this phenom-enon through observing a branch of the Black Gangster Disciple Nation, a crack gang on Chicago’s south side. His find-ings were later published in Freakonom-ics, a book co-written by economist Ste-ven Levitt and New York Times writer Stephen Dubner. Levitt concluded that the lavish salaries earned by the gang leaders motivated loyalty from the lower-level members of the gang (see page 7).

Today, the prevalence of drug-dealing gangs continues to be a seri-ous problem. Although many gangs have resorted to other illicit activities to keep profits high after the bursting of the crack bubble in the 1980s, drugs still remain a lucrative business venture.

A major solution to the problem of drug-dealing gangs lies in the public school system. Students who drop out of school have an increased chance of join-ing a gang. Programs meant to tutor kids, such as the Tutor/Mentor Connection in Chicago, should be centralized and receive an increase in funding. Schools should be expanded to lower class size and teachers should receive more ex-tensive training. After-school programs should be mandated to keep kids in safe educational environments longer.

Another possible solution to fight-ing gangs is simply increasing the num-

ber of police on the street in both urban and suburban areas. A proposal similar to this is being advocated by Philadelphia’s police chief Sylvester Johnson. Johnson

supports a program that will put 10,000 men on the streets. The men will not be armed but will be accompanied by an armed police officer. Many are praising the program as one that will bring hope to the crime-ridden city of Philadelphia, which has about 1.5 million residents and in 2006 had more than 85,000 cases of murder, rape, aggravated assault, robbery, burglary, theft, or motor vehicle theft. Al-though some detractors state that the vol-unteers would be subject to great danger, if the program is adopted it may represent a turning point in the way U.S. law enforce-ment officials deal with inner-city crime.

Enforcing harsher penalties for con-victed drug dealers who are part of gangs may also lead to a decrease in gang popular-ity. These harsher penalties could come in the form of much longer prison sentences; if kids see drug dealers sitting in jail for a great portion of their lives, the drug dealing

profession will seem a lot less glamorous.In 2001, the Project Safe Neigh-

borhoods program was established by the Department of Justice. It was the first major federal anti-crime program since the 1994 Anti-Violent Crime Initiative. The program’s goals are to utilize U.S. Attorneys and local forces in reducing gun violence. Through increased imple-mentation of existing laws and programs, the United States might soon be able to decrease the influence of drug-dealing gangs. To make such initiatives work, an increased police presence is essential.

Crips vs. Bloods

“Despite the dangerous con-ditions and low pay, many

kids see dealing drugs for a gang as a path to success.”

“If kids see drug dealers sit-ting in jail for a great portion of their lives, the profession will

seem a lot less glamorous.”

“In 2006, Philadelphia had about 85,000 cases of murder, rape, aggravated assault, rob-bery, burglary, theft, and motor

vehicle theft.”

The Crips:

The Bloods:

Above: Crips cofounder Raymond Wash-ington.

Above: red bandanas traditionally worn by members of the Bloods.

The Crips and the Bloods are two of the largest gangs in the United States and are involved in a well-documented rivalry.

Members: 30,000 membersFounded: 1969Based In: Los Angeles

The Crips were originally a social change organization based on the Black Panthers, but lack of leadership led them to become one of the pre-mier American gang organizations.

Members: 40,000 membersFounded: 1972Based In: Los Angeles

The Bloods were originally a collec-tion of different gangs including the Bishops and the Athen Park Boys. The gangs united to fight the grow-ing influence of the Crips and sparked a rivalry that has lasted for decades.

Hampton Roads

Mad Max

Page 21


In their book FREAKONOMICS, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner detail the workings of a gang on Chicago’s South Side. The gang was structured in a similar fashion to the organizational chart of McDonald’s Corporation and was a part of a larger organization called the Black Gangster Disciple Nation.

The leader of this particular franchise, named J.T., reported to a twenty-mem-ber board of directors. In return for the rights to sell drugs in a designated twelve-square-block radius, J.T. paid the board 20% of the franchise’s profit. The rest would be his to distribute to the rest of the hierarchy, supply the gang, and pay his own salary.

Directly under J.T. in the gang’s chain of command were three of-ficers, aptly named the enforcer, the treasurer, and the runner. The enforc-er was charged with the responsibility of protection for the gang, the trea-surer kept track of the gang’s assets, and the runner transported drugs and money between the supplier and the gang. Below the officers a number of foot soldiers were on payroll, with the responsibility of selling drugs on the streets. And finally, over two hundred non employees, called rank-and-file members, paid dues to the gang for protection and the hope to earn a spot as a foot soldier.

According to the gang’s records, published in Levitt’s book, the gang

brought in $32,000 per month. Drug sales accounted for a little over two-thirds of this revenue, and the rest was accumulated from dues paid by the rank-and-file members and businesses that paid a tax for working on the gang’s turf.

The gang’s non-wage costs totaled $14,000 a month. Seventy per-cent of that figure was attributed to the cost of the drugs and the board of directors fee. The rest was used to pay for weapons, to hire nonmem-bers to assist in “gang wars,” and to pay for the funerals of fallen members.

The remaining $18,000 of profit went to the members. The three officers averaged about $700 a month, and $7,400 would be split among the twenty-five to fifty foot soldiers (the number of foot soldiers depending on turf size and time of the year). That meant most gang members were making less than the minimum wage.

In addition to the terrible wages, foot soldiers were subjected to ad-

verse job conditions, according to the book. The soldiers were faced with risk of arrest and violence from a different gang on a daily basis. Venkatesh and Levitt calculated that a typical foot solider would be arrested 5.9 times, in-jured 2.4 times, and stand a 25% of being killed in a four year period. In com-parison, the Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates that timber cutting is the most dangerous job in America, with a .005% chance of being killed in four years.

From the Inside: HOW A DRUG GANG WORKS

Hierarchy

In that case, why would anyone in his or her right mind join a crack gang? Levitt’s conclusion was the lower level members aspired to the higher paying, leadership roles. J.T. made $8,500 a month, tax-free and not including any off-the-books prof-it he took in, including profit from heroin sales. J.T.’s monthly wages translated to a yearly salary of over $100,000. When he later made his way onto the board of directors, his salary increased to $500,000 a year. The potential for wealth is very high in a gang, and for many, the position of gang boss is one of few accessible, well-paying jobs.

Unfortunately, when there is a large sup-ply of workers and few open positions, wages tend to be low for most. While J.T. had a col-lege degree, 56% of the kids growing up in JT’s neighborhood lived below the poverty line, and fewer than 5% of the adults had a college degree.

J.T’s success as a gang boss did not result in a good ending, however, as the Black Gangster Disciple Nation was indicted and J.T. went to jail. Nevertheless, gangs across America still function in much the same way that the Black Gangster Disci-ple Nation, and the incentive of someday becoming a franchise leader or even a member of the board of directors was a strong motivation for kids to enter the gang.

Revenue and Costs

Foot Soldiers

Incentives

By Rumur Dowling

The Tragedy of the Drug Gang

Pekaje

issue 1- featuRe

Page 22


Unfortunately for its three hundred million plus consumers, the United States has pe-riodically suffered from lapses in product safety. From the pesticides Alar and DDT to grain fumigant and the weed killer amin-

otriazole, attention to the fine print of ingredients has waxed and waned, even when the chemicals used near our food supply con-tinue to increase in potency. Now, our (and much of the globe’s) attention has been completely redirected to the parallel discrep-ancies in food and product safety controls in one of our larg-est trading partners. From the use of carcinogenic Sudan I Red Dye and toxin-filled toothpaste to lead-tainted children’s toys, Chinese producers and consequently, the Chinese government, have come under fire for substandard product quality. Though it is uncertain if the depressed confidence in Chinese brands will rein in galloping Chinese short-term economic growth, the rising number of product recalls – whether justified or not – has made a dent in China’s long-term reputation both at home and abroad.

In the largest pet food recall in history, more than sixty million cans of pet food produced by Menu Foods in Chi-nese factories and sold at popular retail chains such as Wal-Mart, were found to contain wheat gluten contaminated with melamine, a chemical that is now linked to kidney failure in cats. Similarly, in Latin America, diethylene glycol (DEG), the less expensive relative of glycerin used in antifreeze, was mixed into a wide variety of products. In Panama, Chinese suppliers mixed diethylene glycol into cold syrups and in the Domini-can Republic, approximately 36,000 tubes of Mr. Cool Junior toothpaste (originally marketed for children) were tainted with the chemical. DEG killed at least one hundred people in the two countries before the respective governments rushed to stop the manufacturing of DEG containing products.

To complicate matters, the era of globalization has rendered

playing the game of “who’s to blame?” nearly impossible. Con-trary to popular belief, faulty products cannot be linked with an evil supplier bent on killing foreigners. In fact, trade with China and other developing countries often involves negotiating with long supply chains, which include foreign export companies, contractors, subcontractors and a plethora of third party mer-chants. When Mattel, the world’s largest toy maker and owner of the popular Barbie, Fisher-Price, and Hot Wheels brands, an-nounced three successive recalls (involving lead paint, thought to be carcinogenic, on toys intended for children), blame was origi-nally assigned to contractor Lee Der Industrial. But the blame shifted when it was discovered that a subcontractor might have supplied the lead paint to Lee Der who merely passed it on to the next link in the chain. For Cheung Shu-hung, owner of the com-pany, the news came slightly too late: he had committed suicide shortly after Mattel blamed his company for the product recalls.

Mattel’s saga took a dramatic turn recently when it apolo-gized to China at a conference with the country’s chief of prod-uct safety. According to a copy of the remarks released by Mattel, many of the products that had been recalled were removed from the shelves because of a design mistake by Mattel rather than the incompetence of Chinese manufacturers. Moreover, Mattel ad-mitted that it had been conservative and recalled more products than needed. Characteristic of the complexities of global trade, company representatives said that Mattel needed to maintain re-lationships with suppliers, customers, investors and governments simultaneously. The company had to ensure that statements made to a single party did not contradict those made to other parties and were not misunderstood or incorrectly translated.

The difficulties of ensuring products are safe are com-pounded by the murky Chinese bureaucracy supposed to oversee these measures. In the national government alone, ten departments share the responsibility for food, drug and prod-

How The Spread of Faulty Products was Accompanied by Reform

Made in China

By Thomas Hwang

Alex Van Oech

Page 23


Page 24

uct safety, including the State Food and Drug Administration (SFDA), the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Agriculture and the National Institute of Nutrition and Food Safety. Yet, none of these bodies or their local counterparts have the authority to enforce safety laws, which are in themselves vague and filled with loopholes. Designed for an era of subsistence and collec-tive ownership of farms and produce, these regulatory agencies have been unable to adjust to the nature of twenty-first century commerce. Emphasis is now placed on quality and specialized crop production as opposed to the pesticide drenched, hap-hazardly inspected output (a feed-the-urban-workers mental-ity) characteristic of the Mao era. In 2003, the SFDA was cre-ated for the sole purpose of consolidating the process of safety regulation enforcement but has been, for the most part, unable to prevent the continued interference from the other depart-ments. The cliché “divided we fall” sums up the state of China’s monitoring system. Dangerous products pass or fall through the thin web of China’s numerous competing oversight bodies .

The image of enraged customers demanding economic embargoes on China, though slightly exaggerated, has lingered in the minds of worried Chinese economic officials and bureau-crats. In a country that traditionally has down played the impor-tance of foreigners’ opinions, the central government has taken uncharacteristic steps to reassure buyers at home and abroad. The General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspec-

tion and Quarantine (GAQSIQ) proposed a national system for handling and preventing the spread of poor-quality products. Incidents which will be reported by the public are to be rated on a color scale (blue to red) based on seriousness. Moreover, the government has tightened punishments for those caught producing substandard goods or delaying the reporting of these incidents. In a high profile case, Zheng Xiaoyu, the former chief of the Food and Drug Administration, was tried and executed for charges of high corruption and accepting bribes in exchange for drug approvals not long after pet food and toothpaste re-calls sent the West into a panic. Over two hundred factories that mixed industrial chemicals placed into the food supply were immediately shut down, and the government unveiled black-listing procedures for companies that do not abide by the rules.

Vice Premier Wu Yi, also called China’s “Iron Lady,” has stepped into the crisis, leading China’s effort in “stamping out tainted, toxic and dangerous food and exports [by] clos-ing problem producers and strengthening regulations,” ac-cording to a speech published by International Business Daily. Famed for her successful handling of China’s SARS crisis a few years ago, Wu declared a war on dangerous products and foods (in other words, a public relations offensive) - which a senior official noted was helping shift governmental opinion in China’s favor. Meanwhile, China has taken on unusual inter-est in coordinating its safety regulations with those of other

inteRnationaL

Vice Premier Wu Yi, who led the fight against SARS, has spearheaded China’s campaign to overhaul the product inspection process.

Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China


nations and non-governmental organizations. In late Au-gust, a team of state experts and lobbyists traveled to Washing-ton to conduct research on product and corporate inspections.

The state media, of which Xinhua is the official agency, has undergone a noticeable transformation as a result of the na-tional crisis. State sanctioned slogans of a harmonious society (the One Child policy, for instance) have been replaced by an-nouncements of new safety measures and product recalls, though the majority of these focus on the recalling of foreign products (microbe-filled bottles of Evian, seafood from Australia and beef from the United States, for example). Chinese diplomats and of-ficials held press conferences soon after recalls were announced in an effort to protect “Chinese pride and integrity,” while also implying that China was the innocent victim of the sensational-ist Western media. Regardless of the defensive crouch, according to Xinhua, President Hu declared that China will “try to change its foreign trade structure, exporting and importing more qual-ity products rather than pursuing [an] increase in quantity.”

The flurry of government activity in China has affected the United States and the European Union. At a hearing be-fore a Congressional subcommittee, senators proposed leg-islation parallel to that of China that would fill any remain-ing loopholes– and prevent faulty products from entering the country. More stringent punishments for selling or failing to report dangerous goods, prohibitions on the sale of recalled products, and an overhaul of the Consumer Product Safety Commission granting them the power to ban certain products, station inspectors at ports and other entries into the country and require safety tests at independent laboratories. The Eu-ropean Union has reviewed its RAPEX rapid alert system for non-food dangerous products which provides a mechanism for news of a recall in one country to be immediately translated and distributed to thirty other European countries. Meglena Kuneva, the EU Commissioner for Consumer Protection, en-couraged China to take a more active role in the RAPEX sys-tem, considering that the EU is China’s largest trading partner.

As Kuneva hinted in her speech, with every subsequent

recall or outcry over substandard exports, China loses much more than the value of the goods recalled. The falling reputa-tion of Chinese products gives ammunition to protectionist forces and directly correlates with lowered export flows. Not long after the recall of pet foods in the United States, newspa-per articles ran under the banner of “Buy American!” Refrain-ing from foreign brands is no longer the weapon of the hyper-conservative bloc. Consumers from all sides of the political spectrum have been seriously rethinking their purchases. For a successful counterattack, it is imperative that the current mo-mentum of reform in China’s bureaucracy, especially in regards to product safety and quality controls, is not lost once media coverage and outrage subsides. It has been proven that the vi-cious open market system provides incentive to ensure high quality. Perhaps it is time to seriously rethink the benefits of a centrally planned system of market organization and review the duties and responsibilities of the multiple regulatory bodies.

Chinese domestic politics have, in addition, shifted against the cost-cutting practices of producers. Assisted by the Internet and other forms of mass communication, concerned members of China’s new urban middle class have placed pressure on suppli-ers to increase the quality of their products. It remains uncertain, however, whether the use of guanxi, a complex system of social and public networking that connects individuals regardless of social, economic or political ranking, or market forces will cause produc-ers to heed customers’ concerns. Nonetheless, public discontent could be disastrous to the ruling party’s control over the country.

China has an enormous potential to become a leader on a global level: a human capital unmatched by any other nation, centralized authority and a favorable currency exchange rate that has flooded the country with foreign investment. The dra-matic volte-face in the Chinese state media and concrete mea-sures by the government are positive steps towards correcting the hiccup in China’s accelerating growth. But to protect the billions of dollars of exports on the line, China has to continue its stride forward, defending its people, workers, manufacturers, reputation and, certainly not least, its “Made in China” label.

Mattel recalled a variety of tainted products such as Cars lunchboxes and stuffed animals that were produced in China.

Chang W. LeeChip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Page 25


Syringes are being distributed to heroin addicts across the nation, enabling drug users to main-tain their destructive habits. These malignant operations have spread without regulation and are contributing to an increase in intravenous

drug use. Although originally designed to inhibit the trans-mission of blood-borne diseases, needle exchange programs (NEPs) have been counterproductive and must be outlawed.

Operated by non-governmental organizations, needle ex-change programs are located in churches, community centers,

Perpetuating AddictionHow Needle Exchange Programs

Exacerbate Drug AbuseBy Spencer Penn

“The underlying philosophy is, ‘We accept drug addiction, we ac-cept the state of affairs as accept-able... This is a form of giving up.”

- Bertha Madras, deputy director of demand re-duction for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy

Keith Brown

issue 1- featuRe

Page 26


special vans, or street corners. An intravenous drug user can bring his or her dirty needle to one of these cen-ters and exchange it for a sterile syringe. By providing intravenous drug users with clean needles, these NEPs hope to prevent needle sharing and lessen the spread of dangerous diseases such as HIV and hepatitis.

The first needle exchange programs originated in Amsterdam in the early 1980s and were introduced

in the United States soon after. In 1988, a lack of evi-dence that needle exchange programs were effective prompted the United States Congress to enact sev-eral statues that banned the use of federal funding for NEPs. Some congressmen argued that federal funding of needle exchange programs would be tantamount to promotion of intravenous drug use and that it was a foot-in-the-door for drug legalization. In addition, it was believed that the implementation of needle ex-change programs would detract from other, more use-ful drug abuse treatments such as rehabilitation clin-ics. These federal prohibitions failed to disband needle exchange programs altogether because NEPs contin-ued to receive funding from non-profit organizations. Currently, needle exchange programs can be found in 46 different countries spanning the globe. In the United States, there are 130 needle exchange centers in 38 states, including roughly fifteen in New York City.

Although needle exchange programs are popu-lar, they are not a viable solution to prevent drug use. These centers only exacerbate the problems of drug abuse and disease transmission. Drug addiction is a progression, which often originates with starter drugs, such as marijuana, and intensifies to harder drugs, such as heroin. The decision to become an intravenous drug user is a conscious evaluation of pros verses cons, or rather pros verses risks. Eventually there is a point where the benefits of using a substance outweigh the risks. By reducing the risks of intravenous drugs, needle exchange programs simultaneously increase the desir-ability of the drugs, prompting increased substance use. Potential heroin users are more inclined to use the substance when they know that the risks are lower.

Statistics have shown that the reduction of the risks associated with heroin led to its greater usage particularly among younger people. According to Nar-conon Drug Rehab for Abuse and Addiction, a South-ern Californian drug rehabilitation clinic, the mean age for first use of heroin declined from 26 in 1992 to 21.3 in 1998. In addition, it has been estimated that 80 percent of the 149,000 new heroin users in 1998 were under the age of 26. This disturbing trend began dur-

ing a period when NEPs were becoming more prevalent. Needle exchange programs are most likely increas-

ing the number of intravenous drug users with HIV. Ad-vocates of the needle exchange programs will claim that they effectively reduce the percentage of HIV transmis-sions among intravenous drug users. This is undeniable; in fact, the National Institutes of Health and the Institute of Medicine demonstrated that needle exchange programs have yielded a 30 percent reduction of HIV transmissions in recent years. But unfortunately, from 1993 to 1999, the number of heroin addicts in the United States tripled.

If you account for the fact that the number of heroin users has increased exponentially, it is evident that NEPs have not lowered the spread of blood-borne diseases. While needle exchange programs have re-duced the percentage of HIV transmissions among in-travenous drug users by 30 percent, the number of users tripled during the same time period, which is equivalent to a 200 percent increase in number of HIV transmis-sions. In other words, following that model the number of drug users who contracted HIV doubled during the time period. Although other factors may have contrib-uted to the rise in disease transmission, the increase was so substantial that needle exchange programs must have played some role. In sum, despite the fact that needle exchange programs lessen the percentage of HIV infections, the number of transmissions is increased due to the increase in the number of heroin addicts.

In other countries, more draconian programs based on the same ideals are used in conjunction with the needle exchange programs. For example, since 2001, Australia has been implementing a series of “in-jecting rooms” in order to prevent the spread of dis-ease. Injecting rooms, also known as “shooting galler-ies,” are federally funded havens where addicts can go to use intravenous drugs. The theory is that it is better to have addicts “shooting-up” in the sanitary inject-

ing rooms, where sterile syringes are also distributed, rather than sharing needles in the gutter. This strategy has not yielded the desired outcome. It is estimated that currently 0.3 percent of 16 and 17 year olds (a rela-tively high number) in Australia regularly use heroin.

The injecting rooms are essentially exagger-ated needle exchange programs. Both systems make it easier for heroin addicts to use drugs without the risk of disease transmission. Injecting rooms, like needle exchange programs, lower the risks associ-ated with heroin use and in turn encourage potential

“Injecting rooms, like needle exchange programs, lower the risks associated with heroin use and in turn encour-age potential heroin abusers to begin

using the substance.”

“In the United States, there are 130 needle exchange centers in 38 states,

including roughly fifteen in New York City.”

Wells Johnson C

ompany

Page 27


Page 28

heroin abusers to begin using the substance. Moreover, in many cases the injecting rooms have become epicenters of drug cul-ture, places where drug dealers can target drug addicted clientele.

In contrast, countries such as Sweden take a “zero toler-ance” stance on drugs. In Sweden the drug laws are significantly stricter than those of most other nations. Intensive drug edu-cation occurs in Swedish schools, and harm-reduction centers such as needle exchange programs are scarce. Sweden has ap-proximately only 14,000 drug users, less than 1 percent of its population. Because of the zero tolerance policy, the number of drug users is vastly lower than that of any another nation.

These two countries, Australia and Sweden, exemplify two harm-reduction extremes. Injecting rooms draw from the same phi-losophy as needle exchange and tend to yield a negative effect. Con-versely, since Sweden took its “zero tolerance” stance it has witnessed very little drug use within its boarders. Sweden and Australia are on opposite ends of the spectrum while the United States is somewhere in the middle. Looking at this spectrum makes it clear that the US should be gravitating towards zero tolerance if it wants to reduce the number of intravenous drug users, with and without HIV. If needle exchange programs continue to spread, the United States runs the risk of leaning closer to injecting rooms which would be disastrous. It would be most desirable to completely abandon the operation of needle exchange programs and seek more viable alternatives.

When looking for a solution to the rising number of heroin addicts, it is important that we strive to eliminate factors that make drug use easier. Making sterile needles only available through pre-scription is a simple, logical solution. Doing this would prevent needle exchange programs from being able to operate legally and

make it more difficult for intravenous drug users to continue their habits. This solution would not, however, impede people’s ability to obtain needles if they require them for medical purposes, nor is it suggesting that all forms of drug-related programs should be disbanded. It is critical that more treatment options such as reha-bilitation clinics be introduced in the place of detrimental NEPs.

The city health officials of San Francisco are now frivolously considering allowing for the creation of an injecting room. They recently organized a day long forum in which the subject of es-tablishing an injecting room will be discussed. The deputy direc-tor for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, Bertha Madras, called San Francisco’s consideration of such a fa-cility “disconcerting” and “poor public policy.” It is clear that the need to eliminate both needle exchange programs and injecting rooms is more pressing than ever. The development of injecting rooms in America is a real threat. Nathan Ballard, the San Fran-ciscan Mayor’s spokesman agrees that he “is not inclined to sup-port this program because, quite frankly, it may create more prob-lems than it supposedly addresses.” It is more important than ever that syringes are made available only through prescription.

Needle exchange programs are burdening us with ever in-creasing numbers of intravenous drug users. They have been un-able to satisfy their original purpose, lessening the number of intravenous drug users with blood-borne diseases, and instead have created an increase in the number of intravenous drug us-ers. The simplest alternative is making needles available solely through prescription. But regardless of what alternatives are ad-opted, needle exchange programs, which have plagued our coun-try with an increasing number of drug addicts, must be stopped.

The government’s refusal to fund needle exchange programs has incited protests like this Minnesota rally.

Teysah

issue 1- featuRe


The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), with the support of President George W. Bush, has been taking strong action against research into medical marijuana. But at the same time, legalization for medicinal purpos-

es is becoming increasingly popular. The debate has even reached the 2008 presidential candidates; the Democrats, especially Bill Richardson, have the most logical approach−supporting research that will pave the way for the legalization of medical marijuana.

Medical marijuana refers to either the use of the chemicals found in marijuana or cannabis to develop non-toxic medicines or the smoking of the drug in its full form for medicinal purposes. While according to federal law it is illegal nationwide, twelve states−New Mexico, Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Ne-vada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington–have ratified bills legalizing its usage for medicinal purposes. However the DEA enforces the federal anti-drug laws, not state laws, causing issues of jurisdiction. The federal government is adverse to the idea of medical marijuana research despite signs that it could yield positive results.

Few people know of the legal, FDA-approved cannabis based pill on the market, Marinol. The pill treats nausea and vomiting dur-ing chemotherapy as well as loss of appetite in AIDS patients when all other conventional medications fail. Although Marinol may have side effects, such as dizziness and drowsiness, it also helps prevent AIDS wasting syndrome, a disease in which AIDS patients invol-untarily lose ten percent of their body weight. This may not be the same as the relaxant form of marijuana or the wholesale legaliza-tion that advocates desire, but it demonstrates the effectiveness of marijuana as a medicinal substance if it were to be legalized further.

The Republican and Democratic presidential candidates differ greatly on the issue of medical marijuana. Republican candidates gener-ally oppose medical marijuana with the exception of Ron Paul (R-TX) and Tom Tancredo (R-CO). Some have tried to shy away from this issue such as John McCain; when asked about his position, McCain replied “nothing.” But most Republicans share the view of Rudolph Giuliani who has been arguably the most outspoken Republican. “Marijuana is a very dangerous substance,” said Giuliani in a New Hampshire campaign speech. “In an era in which we’re really worried about clean air, clean forests, and clean atmosphere, why people want to pollute their bodies with things that are really, really damaging, I don’t get it.”

What Giuliani and other Republicans do not realize is that most of the medical marijuana is not the smoked drug, but instead the ex-traction of non-toxic chemicals from the substance for harmless, med-ical stimulants. Giuliani added, “Marijuana adds nothing to the array of legal medications and prescription medications that are available

for pain relief.” At present, Marinol has been effective for chemother-apy and AIDS patients. It is not known whether the synthetic forms of marijuana can add to the pre-existing medications, but Giuliani and the other candidates should be willing to permit the research, which will give doctors a better understanding of its purpose. The DEA prohibits research of drugs that have proven to be addictive or have detrimental side effects. However, marijuana typically is neither addictive nor pain inducing; the Republicans tend to exaggerate the negative side effects.

There is good reason to believe that medical marijuana could be useful. According to Dr. Lester Grinspoon, a Profes-sor Emeritus of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and co-author of Marihuana, the Forbidden Medicine, marijuana can soft-en the pain of peripheral neuropathy, caused by diseases such as diabetes, HIV, and multiple sclerosis. His research confirmed the notion that legalization of medical marijuana would be necessary to deal with problems that current drugs are unable to address.

On the other hand, Democrats take a more practical stand on medical marijuana, being more reasonable in their support for research and experimentation. Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-DE), Chris Dodd (D-CT), and former Senator John Ed-wards have each promised to end federal raids on state medical mari-juana facilities. Clinton voted against an amendment which would per-mit federal law to trump existing state laws on medical marijuana and Dodd has said, “I’m satisfied enough that it can be a source of signifi-cant pain relief for people and therefore under medication, a doctor’s support, I don’t have the difficulty with that at all.” But Senator Biden disagrees stating that there has “got to be a better answer than mari-juana.” Although these candidates have been more sensible than the Republicans, they still discuss medical marijuana sparingly. The idea of legalizing a drug, even for medicinal purposes, sounds undesirable and unsafe to many Americans, so it is not the most attractive position.

Only Democratic candidate Bill Richardson has been a strong

Marinol is an FDA-approved cannabis based pill to treat nausea.

The Cure Within the CloudThe PoliTics of Medical Marijuana

By Katie Dubbs

Solvay Pharmaceutical

Page 29


advocate of medical marijuana, recently signing a bill as governor to make New Mexico the twelfth state to legalize the substance. “So what if it is risky?” asked Richardson. “It is the right thing to do.” Richardson understands that the substance has the fewest unmanageable side ef-fects of any illicit drug and that the risk of addiction is low. He has seen the successfulness of legalization in other states and is willing to support an idea that might be politically risky but would benefit thousands of Americans. In fact, supporting medical marijuana might not be such a huge political risk considering that a 1999 Gallup Poll showed that 73% of Americans would support medicinal marijuana if proven effective.

California has been one of the key battleground states for this issue. In March 2007, Angel Raich, a California woman suffering from scoliosis, a brain tumor, and nausea, used marijuana as a medicine on the recommendation of her doctor when other medicines failed to work; it ended up being highly effective. However, the Supreme Court ruled against both Raich and her doctor saying that people who are either supplying or taking the substance can be prosecuted since they are vio-lating federal law, even if they are following the state law of California. The ruling sparked furor among legalization advocates who felt that the Supreme Court was penalizing Raich for trying to improve her health.

Despite this setback, California residents have continued to fight for medical marijuana. The state has proposed Senate Bill 420 demanding that the Department of State Health Services in California establish a voluntary registration program for medical marijuana, cre-ating identification cards for appropriate patients. Additionally, more than fifty patients at Hopenet Cooperative, a medical cannabis center in San Francisco, protested when the DEA attempted to raid the facil-ity. The protesters deterred the DEA from receiving the warrant they needed to enter the vicinity. The popularity of legalization in California illustrates the dire need for the federal government to honor state laws that allow sick individuals to reap the medicinal benefits of marijuana.

Organizations such as Americans for Safe Access (ASA) have been leading advocates for medical marijuana. ASA works to inform Capitol Hill about the positive medicinal uses of marijuana and the im-portance of protecting patients’ rights. According to ASA, eighty percent of the nation approves of medical marijuana supervised by “licensed medical professionals,” which is why the government must start acting.

Proponents of nation-wide legalization of medicinal mari-juana still have much to accomplish before achieving their goal. In

2000, the United States Supreme Court unanimously decided in the case of United States vs. Oakland Cannabis Club, “[M]arijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception outside the confines of a government-approved research project.” The Court invoked the Controlled Substances Act, which states that any substance that has the potential for abuse when there is no known medical use may be controlled by the government and that the DEA may search laboratories when notified by state authorities. This law was reenacted in May 2002. The Supreme Court and White House’s un-favorable view of medical marijuana has created a roadblock for le-galization advocates, making the next presidential election crucial. President George W. Bush’s successor will not only get to take an important stand on the issue, but also potentially appoint Supreme Court justices who will determine the nation’s future drug policy.

Congress has pursued the issue of medical marijuana but has yet to make substantial progress. Earlier this year the mem-bers of the House of Representatives voted on halting the arrests of medical marijuana patients and forbidding the U.S. Justice De-partment, including the DEA, from using tax money on raids of medical marijuana facilities in the twelve states where the drug is legal. However, the amendment introduced by Representatives Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) failed 165-262, although it did receive two more votes than when pre-sented last year. Additionally, the Arizona and Maryland legislators are in the process of legalizing medical marijuana in their states.

Overall, the United States is lagging behind the rest of the world on legalization. In Canada, citizens can use medical mari-juana if they get government approval by proving that there is a legitimate need for it. In Portugal marijuana is legal for personal use with restrictions. Additionally, in England, GW Pharma-ceuticals is sponsoring a marijuana site for medicinal research.

Scientists are unable to know the possibilities for marijuana based medications and cures unless they are free to conduct research. Suppressing research is indirectly preventing sick Americans from re-ceiving the medicine that they are entitled to use. Past research shows that medical marijuana has been useful in some situations. The re-maining thirty-eight states would benefit from following the example of Governor Richardson and supporting legalization to send a mes-sage to the federal government that medical marijuana can be effective.

Medical Marijuana was legal in eleven states before Governor Bill Richardson signed the bill to legalize it in New Mexico.

States with legal medi-cal cannabis

States with decrimi-nalized cannabis pos-session laws

States with legal medi-cal cannabis

issue 1- featuRe

Page 30


Any discussion regarding the classification of drugs tends to arouse considerable controversy. Al-though the categorization systems vary between the United States and the United Kingdom, both systems have faced substantial backlash. Their

unpopularity reflects the fact that the current laws in both nations are simply not working effectively, and overhaul is long overdue.

The UK has the highest level of dependent drug users in Eu-rope; the number has worsened considerably since the 1970s. Ad-ditionally, in 2006, The Science Select Committee reported that the current A-C drug classification system is ineffective in deterring use and sends out the wrong signals to people. The report stated, “It’s time to bring in a more systematic and scientific approach to classification.” Specifically, the committee advocated for the inclu-sion of alcohol and tobacco into the current classification system.

Classification problems have also plagued the United States where, despite the White House’s proclaiming a “historic break-through” in the war on drugs, there has been a 1,110 percent increase in the number of people jailed for drug offenses since the 1980s. The upward trend in the number of drug-related prisoners illus-trates that the anti-drug campaign has failed miserably in the US.

New York provides an instructive example of the War on Drugs’ effectiveness. The state’s laws are known to be par-ticularly stiff, largely as a consequence of the Rockefeller Drug Laws, enacted in 1973, which increased the penalties given for trafficking and possession of all substances. The law states that the possession of more than 4 oz. of Schedule I or II drugs (see Table B) or selling of 2 oz of the drug results in a sentence equivalent to the punishment for second-degree murder: 15-25 years in prison. These laws seem appropriate for the most dan-gerous drugs, such as heroin and cocaine, but rather harsh for less serious drugs, such as marijuana. Given that many young adults caught with marijuana are simply injudicious, foolish, or just curious, an individual possessing marijuana should be merely warned or fined and not punished with severe jail time.

To better understand the drug laws of the UK and US, it is necessary to look closely at the fine print of the classifi-

cation models and the effect the systems have had in their re-spective countries. The UK places drugs into three categories, classes A through C, according to the outdated 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act. In the US, policy is dictated by the Controlled Sub-stances Act (CSA) of 1970, which gives a general drug clas-sification ranging from Schedule I, including the most serious drugs such as heroin and marijuana, to Schedule V, including less harmful drugs such as cough medicines containing codeine.

The most notable difference between the US and the UK is the classification of marijuana. In the United Kingdom the substance is graded as the least serious; however, in the United States marijuana is treated as one of the most serious. Another difference is the US’s generally stricter drug laws, which include harsher prison sentences. In the United Kingdom is it more com-mon to see people in possession of marijuana being reprimanded by the police with a warning but not given a fine or jail sentence.

In this sense the United Kingdom policy is more logical because it gives violators another opportunity to correct their bad habits, instead of spending time in prison, where drug use is prevalent and habits are often worsened. In the US, where prisons are already overcrowded, it would be sensible to have a downgrade in jail sentencing for marijuana possession so that there can be more space for traffickers and more serious crimi-nals. In United States prisons 40% of inmates are known to be users. Also, despite the US’s tough drug laws, 41% of Americans have tried marijuana at least once, according to a study done in 1999. This is relatively high compared to the U.K., where de-spite less strict laws, 35% have admitted to trying marijuana.

The seemingly harsh laws, specifically the classification of marijuana in New York State, have come under scrutiny, with many claiming the Rockefeller Laws are too draconian. The libertarian organization, The Cato Institute, has been par-ticularly vocal against the harsh classification of marijuana, which it believes should be placed in the least serious category of substances, Schedule V. This was in response to the Gonza-les vs. Raich case in which marijuana was banned from usage even when states approved it for medical purposes. Other crit-

Transatlantic Drug Discrepancies

United KingdomUnited StateSBy Oscar Warwick-Thompson

VS.

Page 31


ics of the Rockefeller laws include conservative novelist and politician, William F. Buckley, who claims that it is egregious to punish drug traffickers in the same manner as second-degree murderers. Due to this opposition, the Rockefeller Drug laws were slightly altered. In 2004, New York Governor George Pa-taki reduced the sentence for non-violent offenders with the Drug Law Reform Act (DLRA). Despite this reform, the New York State drug laws, in particular the penalties still remain very severe compared to those of many European countries.

The severity of the United States drug laws reflects the government’s backlash to the counterculture movement of the 1960s. The War on Drugs was launched back in the 1969 un-der President Nixon and reached a peak in the mid 1980s under President Reagan. The “Just Say No” advertising campaign, pio-neered by first lady Nancy Reagan, exemplified the marked rise in the efforts of the US government to tackle drugs in society. Following this period of anti-drug sentiment, the government made a concerted effort to punish drug traffickers and possessors.

Ironically, the UK system has been criticized for being too lenient on marijuana, and some would like to see the drug reclassified from Class C to Class B. The current classification can be accredited to former Home Secretary David Blunkett, who in 2004 made the decision to downgrade the drug from Class B. Blunkett stated that the downgrade “would allow po-lice to concentrate on tackling the use and distribution of more serious drugs.” Although this view does have some popularity, especially among UK’s youth, many politicians are vehemently opposed to the 2004 decision. Arguably the fiercest opponent is the UK’s Conservative Party Home Secretary, David Davis, who believes marijuana is the “gateway to hard drugs.” Davis believes that regular users of marijuana will in some cases become ha-bituated and “bored,” and move on to more potent substances, like cocaine or heroin. In his view, a reclassification of marijua-na would ensure tougher sentences for dealers and deter users.

The UK government’s current classification of mari-juana does not dissuade enough people from engaging in its usage. Its increasing prevalence cannot be stopped unless im-mediate action is taken to reclassify marijuana into the Class B category. Apart from this one incorrect categorization other substances are appropriately classified. It is sensible that the most serious substances, cocaine and heroin, are Class A drugs.

The United Kingdom should also consider moving to-wards a zero tolerance policy for those selling marijuana, similar to that of the US where traffickers are punished severely. Dealers caught circulating any drugs, regardless of the drug’s seriousness, should be placed in maximum-security areas where they are un-able to conduct their business. This would reduce the prevalence of drugs and diminish the power dealers’ hold in UK society.

Both the US and the UK governments need to make a more concerted effort to revamp the ineffective drug classification systems and the current penalty laws. A recategorization, spe-cifically of marijuana, would go far in tackling the current drug problems. Additionally, an upgrade of the penalties for traffick-ers would ensure that drugs become less rampant. The existing classification and penalty laws are clearly outdated and require an overhaul to properly reflect the potency of each substance.

United StateS

United Kingdom

Cocaine, Ecstasy, Heroin, Methadone

Class APossession - Up to 7

Years, Dealing - Up to Life Sentence

Class BPossession - Up to 5

Years, Dealing - Up to 14 years

Class CPossession - Up 2

Years, Dealing - Up to 14 years

Amphetamines, Barbiturates, Co-

deine

Anabolic Ste-roids, Marijuana, Minor tranquil-

izers

Based on New York - Varies from State to State

SchedUle i

SchedUle ii

SchedUle V

Marijuana, Heroin

Cocaine, Morphine

Anabolic Steroids, LSD

Sedatives, Mild Tranquilizers

Cough Medicines, Containing Codeine

Up To Life Sentence

Up to Life Sentence

Up to 25 Years (D)

Up to 15 Years (D)

Up to 7 Years (D)

SchedUle iii

SchedUle iV

issue 1- featuRe

Page 32


Lower The Drinking Age?The review inTerviews Dr. John MccarDell Jr.,

PresidenT eMeriTus of Middlebury college and founder of choose resPonsibiliTy, who is The naTion’s foreMosT

advocaTe for lowering The drinking age

You waited until after ending your 13-year tenure as President of Middlebury College to come out against the drinking age of 21. Why did you not speak up while you served

as president, and do you think that your beliefs would have been more influential

had you taken a stand earlier?

I think there is a reason why you don’t see college pres-idents speaking out on this question. It isn’t because they don’t have strong views about it. In fact, many of

their views would be close to my own, but this is a con-troversial issue, and when you’re serving in a position of a college presidency, you have enough to do to keep folks supportive in the general realm of academic af-

fairs without venturing into others controversial realms. Somebody might define what I just said as cowardice, but I prefer to view it as prudent in recognizing that there are only so many issues you can take on at one

time. With that said, I might have thought my influence would have been stronger had I spoken out while I was

in office. But I think that I’ve been disabused of that notion by my experience over the past four, five months.

I can’t believe this issue has and, and my role in it could possibly have gotten any more attention or any

more media coverage if I were still in office. If anything maybe I am more influential (now).

What experiences impelled you to become a proponent of lowering the drinking age

and do you have any unique insight, as a college president, that brought you to

where you are now?

I am a parent of two boys who are now 20 and 25, so I lived through this as parents. And serving as a col-

lege president I saw how the law worked. It posed two impossible choices: you either look the other way and condone what is clearly a violation of the law. And that is not a very responsible message to send as a parent or a college president. Or you could enforce the law and

you say it applies the same as it does everywhere else in which case you may feel good but you know perfectly well that all you’re doing is uprooting and transplant-

ing a problem and probably to a much more risky environment. As I thought about that and particularly the increased amount of drinking that was taking place behind closed doors and off campus and read nation-ally about the issue of binge drinking as a very serious public health issue, I said to myself that if a time ever came to say something I would. But I never thought

that it would turn out to be this big.

In your opinion what are the most com-pelling reasons for why the drinking age should be changed, from a public policy

perspective?

What’s the first standard of measurement of the success of a policy? Is it working? Is it being observed? Here we have a law that says it’s illegal to drink before you turn

21. And yet we have data that shows that the vast major-ity of the population of young adults has already con-

sumed alcohol before they turn 21. There seems to be a basic disconnect between the law on one hand and the social reality on the other. So, people who make public policy that they expect to be observed would have to

explain why this one is almost universally not-observed. More to the point, I think public policies are enacted

Page 33


Lower The Drinking Age?with an eye toward particular outcomes. And in this particular case, in 1984 the outcome was a reduction

in alcohol related traffic fatalities. To some degree this has been achieved, but the downward trend in alcohol related fatalities began before the law was passed. If we were to start measuring in 1995 we would be saying this law has no effect whatsoever because (traffic fatalities)

haven’t gone up, but they haven’t gone down.

We are looking at lives lost to alcohol other than on the roadway; this isn’t just about drunken driving. The real-ly scary statistic here is that more than a thousand lives a year are being lost by 18-24 year olds off the roadways. And that rate in increasing at a very alarming pace. We need to ask ourselves where those deaths are occurring.

And I suspect that they are not occurring at bars and restaurants and large public gatherings, and at home

you just don’t see people drinking themselves to death in those settings. But they are drinking themselves to death somewhere and that takes us back to this epi-

demic of binge drinking which is taking place clandes-tinely. A very unintended outcome of this policy is the posing of a much more serious health risk for young

adults in unmonitored, unsupervised, and increasingly risky and veriticious drinking environment.

Never mind the fact that the law says in every other respect you’re an adult when you turn 18 except for one

exception. Any time a public policy makes an excep-tion that exception better be warranted, defensible, and observed. And this exception is none of those things. In the great many states, this law effectively disenfranchis-es parents from introducing their sons and daughters to alcohol in the privacy of their own home. If I serve a beer to my 20-year-old son when he comes home for

Christmas break, I am breaking the law, and I can be ar-rested. I think this is a classic case of a well intentioned,

but in my view, misguided law.

I think the issue of government control and privacy is directly linked to this de-

bate, which is why your view has received support from libertarian organizations. How do you think this debate connects

to the greater question of “to what extent should government intervene in the lives of

the people”?

If I weren’t comfortable with the notion of minimal government interference, I would probably be less sym-pathetic to this cause. James Madison, in general, had it right, and the federal principle, while untidy, has gener-ally suited this country pretty well. And this is a classic case of a law that pretty effectively eliminates the work-

ings of that federal principle. Because what the law says is that the states may continue to set the drinking age.

However, if they set it lower than 21, they forfeit 10% of their federal highway funds. The kindly interpretation

it is to call it an incentive; the less-kindly interpretation is to call it a bribe or an interference, a federal power at

the expense of the state

My point is that we are more likely to see creative think-ing locally, on the state level, than we are inside the

federal bureaucracy. That is why technically our organi-zational goal is not to lower the drinking age age, but to remove this 10% federal highway funding condition and

turn back to the states the right and ability to deter-mine what is best for them. Our opponents would say that this will create 50 different laws, and simply will be unworkable because every state will have different

ages, and that overlooks two things: the first is that...it is the federal principle equivalent to James Madison and the second is that in every other respect we have such

system whether it involves taxes or speed limits and we seem to be able to manage it pretty well. A nationalized

speed limit…didn’t work; we overturned it, and our tax policy varies from state to state. In my view, James Madison had it right, and federalism manages to pro-

duce better outcomes than unilateralism.

When asked at the recent Democratic Presidential Debate only two candidates,

Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, fa-vored lowering the drinking age. And also a recent Gallup polls showed that 77% of

Americans would oppose lowering the drinking age. Why do you think that it

hasn’t become a popular position among politicians or part of the mainstream po-

litical discourse?

First of all, I saw that debate and just about all of the candidates taken completely by surprise by the posing of the question. And most candidates, when facing a question that they are not expecting, are not likely to attack the status quo. Why should they, when gener-

ally uniformed? I also think two of the most informed answers came from Kucinich and Gravel. Now yes they are kind of eccentric candidates, but their answers were

well thought out and to the point. Most of the rest of them, besides Senator Dodd, just nod their heads in support the status quo. So I wouldn’t take that ex-

change as indicative of anything other than the fact that we need to educate the candidates about this issue,

which our organization has preceded to do. We sent, the morning after the debate, briefing packets to every

campaign, both democratic and republican. Several

issue 1- featuRe

Page 34


days later, Senator McCain was asked the same question in South Carolina and he gave a much more measured and informed response. So our hope is that this ques-tion will keep popping up in the debates and the more

often it does the better we’ll be able to discern what the candidates really do think about it.

You’re quite right about the public opinion. Gallup polls do shows that is 77% to 23%, running against us

right now. If it were 77 to 23 in favor of us, I would be saying the same thing. It all depends on how the questionnaire is structured. If I walk up to someone on the street and say “Do you think that the drink-

ing age should stay the same or be lowered?” I think I could predict with certainty that 3 out of 4 people think would think it should stay the same. But this also means that 23 % public thinks that it is should be lowered; and that’s not insignificant. If MADD is correct that the vast majority of the public supports leaving the drinking age at 21, they should have no reason to oppose lifting the 10% highway funding incentive because the law will

stay at 21…All we are saying is let’s have a division and let’s not have a highway incentive condition hanging over that debate and shaping it in an irregular way.

Opponents of lowering the drinking age would say that because studies have shown that drinking under the age of 21 can cause irreversible brain damage even drinking moderately below 21 is danger-ous. Additionally, lowering the drinking

age might create a new population of high-school illicit drinkers because 18 year-olds

will have access to alcohol. How do you address these counter arguments?

The age of offset, the age at which a young person reportedly had his or her first exposure to alcohol, was 13 at the time the drinking age was 18. In the 23 years

since the age was raised from 18 to 21 that number hasn’t budged. So it is a hard to argue that a legal age

of 21 in regard to that particular statistic has had much of an impact on who’s drinking underage. Secondly, It’s hard to look around to most high schools and say with any credibility “thank goodness that we have legaliza-

tion at 21 because there is no underage drinking going on now.” So lets look at what we might do to address that problem. My organization believes in education

and mandatory education, which is virtually non-exis-tent now. We believe in licensing young adults to drink, after they complete this education. And we believe that this incentive will do more to reduce both the supply-ing of underage drinkers by those over 18 and thinking to be an underage drinker under 18 because of that risk

of forfeiting that adult privilege if one demonstrates that one is incapable of acting like an adult.

When it comes to the other health aspects, particularly brain development, there’s evidence all around to tell us whether these concerns are genuine or are simply part of the scare tactics being forced upon the public by people who simply will stoop to anything to de-

fend legal age 21. Most of the world has an age lower than 21. And I don’t think that any scientist would

ever seriously argue that there is evidence of severe or massive brain impairment. in any of those populations where the age has been lowered to 21. Nor is there any

evidence of that affliction among that course of the population in this country when the drinking age was

18. Scare tactics need to be grounded in reality, and the reality we have doesn’t give much weight to the prob-ability of that outcome. Abusing drinking at any age

can pose a problem. Your brain does not become more vulnerable at any particular age to the effects of abusive drinking, nor does your body. The problem is not posed

by moderate consumption of alcohol, the problem is posed by reckless use of alcohol. And if anything, legal age of 21 is promoting the abuse of alcohol. So if we’re worried about brain damage, as a result of alcohol, it

seems to me that we need to worry a lot more about the binge drinking that is taking place behind closed doors, than the glass of wine that is being consumed. Anybody

who believes that a glass of wine could cause brain damage ought not to be listened to seriously.

I know you spoke a little about education as a solution to alcohol abuse. But how ef-fective do you think education really is?

We don’t know because now it ranges from poor to non-existent. And in many schools, alcohol education is simply showing some scary videos and preaching about the evils of alcohol, such as “it hurts your brain.” And that’s not alcohol education; that’s not based on re-

sponsible science or scholarship. It’s scare tactics. And your generation just tunes out when people start down that road. Our nation’s education is mandatory, only af-ter you’ve been convicted of a DUI which doesn’t seem like a great act of genius, but that seems to be the only

place where it is required right now. There is some evidence that alcohol education does

work. There’s an organization called Alcohol EDU, and they offer alcohol education as part of freshman ori-

entation programs at an increasing number of colleges and universities. They have evidence to show that in

fact their education program has worked to reduce in-toxication, to reduce alcohol related incidents, assaults,

and date rates. And in fact, the more we know about alcohol and its effects, the better.

Page 35


The 18th amendment of the United States Consti-tution was put into effect in January, 1920, to ban the shipping, selling, importing, and consump-tion of illegal alcohol. This drastic change was intended to fix a host of other problems in the

country: poverty, high mortality rates, poor hygiene, high crime rates, loss of tax revenue from people consigned to poorhouses and peni-tentiaries, domestic violence, and disrupted family lives. The 1920’s was an era of change, with the advent of the automobile, religious de-velopments, women’s rights, and flapper girls. Alcohol prohibition seemed to be a way to return to traditional values and it was thought to be a successful plan since most brewers were German, and anti-Ger-man sentiment ran high among Americans following World War I. By lowering the quantity of alcohol consumed, prohibitionists thought that American society would return to its pristine, polished old ways.

The amendment, however, was barely enforced. There were not enough police officials to enforce prohibition, and when organized crime began to control the liquor business, like gangster Al Capone and his associates, they had more power than the authorities. “Speak-easies” or secret clubs, served alcohol and legal beverages like “Worts,” less than 0.5 percent alcohol, could be added to yeast to make beer. Alcohol was also legal as a medicine prescribed by doctors and in reli-gious functions such as performing the Eucharist and in various Jew-ish ceremonies. Only about five percent of the alcohol smuggled into the country was actually stopped from entering the US in the 1920’s.

As for crime, the number of federal convictions increased 561 percent from the period before Prohibition. Although at the begin-ning of Prohibition the crime rate dropped, it eventually soared to almost double the original rate. The homicide rate in large cities in-creased by about seventy-seven percent. Assault and battery went up by thirteen percent, and other crimes in cities increased nine percent. Although supporters of Prohibition claimed that the crime rate decreased, it was only petty crimes, which actually decreased.

The overall quantity of alcohol consumed did decrease as planned. However, since smuggling had to be in secret and beer had to be imported in large quantities and was expensive to import in bar-rels, people drank more hard liquor, which became cheaper and easi-er to transport. Thus, people became just as inebriated with a smaller quantity of alcohol. Since alcohol was illegal, there were no qual-ity standards, and so there were more deaths from poisoned liquor.

The repeal of prohibition dramatically reduced crime and cre-ated jobs. Organizations to help alcoholics were established such as “Alcoholics Anonymous,” which started in 1934, a year after the repeal.

Today, state and local laws, which vary widely, control the sale and distribution of alcohol throughout the country. From county

to county and state to state, regulations vary. In one state the sale of alcohol may be prohibited on Sundays, but a few miles away in a neighboring state, people may cross state lines to buy alcohol.

The most common comparison to alcohol prohibition today is the War on Drugs, known to be a 75-year failure. Prohibition’s failure is an example of the theory known as “The Iron Law of Prohibition” by Richard Cowan, which says that when Prohibition is enforced, more people will break the law as a result. Some people view the War on Drugs the same way. However, Republican presidential can-didate Senator John McCain says, “Drug prohibition is not identical to alcohol prohibition. It’s a pretty big difference that drug prohi-bition threatens American citizens with arrest and incarceration for simply possessing a banned substance.” Americans during the pe-riod of Prohibition were threatened with imprisonment for owning alcohol for non-medicinal purposes, but the law was never enforced.

Surprisingly, some people still support alcohol prohibition today despite its clear failure. “This country cannot afford what alco-hol costs us,” said Gene Amondson, 2004 presidential nominee for the Prohibition Party. “Many of this country’s problems are tied up

with alcohol. But if you stop alcohol, you solve many things, lower prison rates, less cancer, fewer accidents.” This way of thinking was similar to what prohibition supporters thought before the eigh-teenth amendment was ratified. However, few people agree with Mr. Amondson, who received less than one percent of the votes.

Prohibition as it was known in the ‘20’s is unlikely to become law again. Legalization of some categories of con-trolled substances, on the other hand, may be open to debate.

21st Century Prohibition?

By Katie Dubbs

Authorities pour beer into a sewer during the Prohibition Era. Could such an era ever return? Some say yes.

Some Call for a Return to National Abstinence

Page 36

issue 1- featuRe


Page 37

www.old-picture.com

Richard Somma:I must congratulate you and Samson for a superb job organizing

our last assembly. I was pleased with our rapport but we did have a bone of contention that was over my insistence on allowing gender balance to play a significant role in who debated on stage and who ushered. You have asked me to make transparent the policy that led to this insistence. Before I state the policy let me say that I am not speaking for the admin-istration. I am merely going to state my sense of the policy and how and when it applies.

The policy is this: That over the course of the year the students who participate in the assembly, both on stage and in the audience, should mirror the student body in all its diversity.

You have told me that you have problems with this policy and I’d like you to articulate them.

Kunal Malkani:Before I discuss my opinion of the policy, I want to make sure that

it is clearly defined. If my understanding is correct, the policy is not just that assemblies should mirror the student body’s diversity, but that they must mirror this diversity, at least within certain ranges. The difference would then be that the selection of student participants must include the factors of diversity under consideration— which could potentially include gender, race, and ethnicity.

Richard Somma:The reason that I didn’t write “must” is that “should” bestows more

respect on the other goals of the assembly program. In other words, there are many competing goals that inform an assembly program. “Should” as opposed to “must” allows for the possibility that “diversity” in a par-ticular instance would take a backseat to some other goal. But generally speaking it is relatively easy to achieve our diversity goals and so “must” is also appropriate.

Kunal Malkani:Let me first say that I would agree that we should strive to achieve

participation from all students, extending to all groups. I think it’s a wor-thy goal to encourage people to feel comfortable on stage, and to par-ticipate in school assemblies. If the school feels that we have inadequate representation from a specific cross-section of the student body, the goal should be to encourage members of this group to volunteer in as-semblies. It’s my opinion that once we encourage their participation, the problem will resolve itself.

If you accept the proposition that individuals are not inherently better or worse simply because they are or are not a member of a specific subgroup, such as race, ethnicity, or gender, one we achieve adequate participation, the problem of representation on stage will cease to be an

issue. Our representation on stage will be a cross section of people who want to be on stage, not all the people in the audience.

Richard SommaYour last sentence would allow you to conclude the following:

If we limit ourselves to the people who “want” to be on stage then we can’t also necessarily get a mirror of the audience on stage. Let us just say, for the sake of argument, that the culture of the school is dominated by white-male-11th/12th-graders. If this were true then a 10th grade girl declaring that she did not “want” to go on stage could be a manifestation of a message that the dominant culture is sending. So she says “I don’t want to go on stage” and the reason could be that she doesn’t see herself as fitting the proper image.

I agree with you when you write that we need to encourage stu-dents who are otherwise predisposed to “not want” to go on stage. A key way to genuinely encourage this wanting to be on stage is to make what and who is on stage inviting to all.

Kunal Malkani:I understand your most recent point to mean that an individual’s

decision about whether or not to participate on stage can be influenced by the makeup of prior assemblies. Even if this is true, in order to force representation from the various subgroups of the school on stage, there are really only two options. First is to force individuals of these subgroups who do not want to be on stage to go on stage. I assume that this is not what the policy suggests. Second is to, once individuals have volunteered to go on stage, select individuals from a particular ethnicity, nationality, or gender over those who do not share these characteristics. I’ll hold off on my objections until you confirm this understanding of the policy.

Richard Somma:No one is talking about forcing anyone to be on-stage. But to your

second point. Let me respond with a specific example in the process of choosing eight students for a political debate in an assembly. Would I choose a girl over a boy simply because she was a girl? The answer is no because the number one reason to choose a student should be that the person be qualified. However, for purposes of gender equity I would pick a girl over a boy if a) their qualifications are in the same ball-park and b) the pool of people we have already chosen is lop-sided with boys. And I would apply the same principle in the vice-versa.

Kunal Malkani:I believe that now we have reached the main point of contention:

whether or not it is good policy to consider gender in the selection pro-cess for who goes on stage. There are a number of problems with this policy: first, it is obviously unfair to those who are not selected simply

Gender Policy at Horace MannKunal Malkani Discusses Gender Balance with

Assembly Committee Chair Richard Somma


Page 38

issue 1- Horace Mann

because they do not fit the required ethnicity, race, or gender. These fac-tors should be celebrated and accepted, not resented, as they may be if they are used as a selection factor. How can you justify not selecting a qualified candidate on account of being the ‘wrong’ gender or race? This sounds a lot like something we should avoid.

Second, the policy would make the, let’s say, females selected doubt their own qualifications. If they feel like they are selected simply as token representatives of their gender, it discounts their sense of indi-vidual worth. The audience may likewise have doubts about the qualifi-cations the females on stage have, especially if they feel there were more suitable candidates passed over solely on the account of gender. Even if gender played no role in the selection of an individual on stage, that is even if the individual would have been selected regardless, there will al-ways be doubt so long as the policy is in place.

Third, the assemblies will necessarily be impacted by the imple-mentation of this policy. If, without this policy, we were to choose one set of people to go on stage and this set changes with the policy, then we necessarily have less qualified individuals on stage and would be sac-rificing the quality of our assemblies. We would also be placing people less qualified than their peers on stage, and this could lead to inaccurate and dangerous comparisons- namely comparisons between subgroups of Horace Mann.

Even in the area of achieving equal female participation, this pol-icy would be counter-productive. Instead, we should encourage all stu-dents to participate in assemblies and should select from that pool based on individual merit, not factors inherited from birth.

Richard Somma:I keep the focus on females and males because the school-wide

ratio of boys to girls is roughly one to one and it is easier to apply the principle. When one comes up with a fair method of choosing and the pool of girls is as large as that of the boys then the laws of mathematical probability should apply. If we pick the best qualified 8 and intellectual prowess is a key qualification then a fair method of choosing students should produce a ratio closer to one to one than one to seven—boys to girls or girls to boys. No one is saying that it has to be exactly one to one. If the ratio we come up with is say two to six (either way) then I say it calls the method of choosing into question. A most likely explanation could be that we didn’t ask enough of the people of the lower number or that the people of the lower number have a skewed view of who should be on stage and are opting out. Your first point: it is unfair to pick a boy sim-ply because he is not a girl. I am not saying that. If there are not enough girls chosen then we keep looking until we do get more qualified girls. If qualified girls are opting out then we try to rectify the situation, if it is possible, by seeing if we can’t talk to these girls and address possible mis-conceptions of who belongs on stage. This addresses your second point because we are putting no one on stage who isn’t qualified. And your third point—if we have a fair method of choosing and a level playing field then we will not “be sacrificing the quality of our assemblies.”

Am I reducing people to numbers? To some (and only some) ex-tent I am but it is only temporarily and I am justified because the bad is outweighed by the good. The good is that the people on stage should mirror the student body in all its diversity. Once the assembly happens it is people, not numbers, that rule.

Kunal Malkani:I take what you just said to mean the policy is in effect only in the

area of encouraging female participation, and not in the selection within

the group of those who want to be on stage. Yet earlier you said you would choose a girl over a boy if their qualifications were “in the same ballpark”: this is clearly discrimination, with gender as the discriminating factor.

You also said if we don’t have a ratio of at least 3:5, we must find more qualified girls in order to have an assembly. My objection arises if the policy stops an assembly from happening unless more individuals of a particular gender are found. There may be, for whatever reason, a dif-ference in the numbers of females and males who want to participate in the assembly. In this case, I don’t believe it should be policy to artificially engineer a ‘balance’ where one does not exist. If you accept that there is no discrimination in seeking participation from girls and that when both genders volunteer there is no inherent difference between them, discrimination is counter-productive and unnecessary.

Why does each assembly have to “mirror” the student body? I’m not sure that is even desirable. An assembly should highlight the student body best suited towards a particular topic- whether that is the most ar-tistic, debate oriented, athletic, or entertaining.

Richard Somma:Each assembly does not have to mirror the student body. The

mirroring should happen over the course of the year. But when there are so many girls in the school, coming in at 50%, then if there is a signifi-cant gender imbalance then something must have been wrong with the choosing process. My wanting to search for a girl when a preponderance of boys has already been chosen is not discrimination, but rather a cor-rective to a discrimination that is already in place.

Recall that I said in the beginning that gender equity is a “should” and that we must respect other goals of the assembly. So I would agree with the following theoretical argument--if after searching with due dili-gence we still came up with an imbalance then to me it is clear that we should live with that imbalance rather than attempt to correct that im-balance with people who are not qualified. In practical terms, if we take the debating assembly as typical, it is hard to imagine a good thorough process coming up with a significant imbalance when there is such an abundance of girls.

Kunal Malkani:If there is indeed a major discrepancy between the number of

males and females on stage, the only explanation is not discrimination in the selection process. My point is that the difference most likely comes from a difference in the students who are volunteering. The people who go on stage are drawn from the group of people who want to go on stage; therefore the laws of probability (which are applicable because we accept that there is no inherent difference based on race or gender) say that we will get a reflection of the people who volunteer. Therefore, the policy will be counterproductive to the goal of achieving true diversity on stage while also running contrary to the principle of accepting individuals for their individual characteristics, differences, and values.

True diversity is in the form of ideas and beliefs, not gender or ethnicity. At Horace Mann, our policy should strive to ensure that, as de-scribed in our core values, a “diversity of ideas and approaches” is always accepted regardless of their messenger.

Thank you, Mr. Somma, for so frankly and completely outlining your sense of the policy on this issue. My hope is that this discussion will help frame a more open discussion in the school about our policies regarding diversity and balance on stage.


The Horace M

ann Review

231 West 246th Street

Riverdale, N

Y, 10471

Asian Real Estate and Hotel Investment Funds

[email protected]

issue 1 - drugs and alcohol

Documents