page 4
daily nebraskan
monday, january 29, 1979
ODD
Students may lose more than liquor license holders
The most visible opponent of
Ralph Kelly's drinking age bills has
been the Committee to Defeat LBs
221 and 350, a lobbying organiza
tion led by Robert Cole Jr, owner of
two Lincoln bars.
A full-page ad, purchased by Cole,
appeared in the Jan. 4 edition of the
Daily Nebraskan.
It is safe to assume that most bar
owners oppose Kelly's bills. They
have a vested interest in seeing them
killed. Cole's two bars, Horsefeathers
and the Waterhole, are patronized
mainly by college students most of
whom are 19 and 20.
When bar owners spearhead
drives to keep drinking ages down,
often the real arguments supporting
these drives are lost. Many people
simply don't read past the names of
the organizers of the drive. The
common opinion seems to be, "Of
course they don't want the drinking
age raised. They'd lose money."
What gets lost is the fact that
there are a lot of responsible 19-and
20-year-olds who are going to lose
their drinking privileges if Kelly's bill
bills pass. It can be argued that these
people have more to lose than the li
quor license holders.
It would be wise of these people,
who make up the biggest part of the
student population in Lincoln, to
take some action themselves, instead
of letting Lincoln's bar owners carry
the full load. It's quite possible their
voices will carry a bit more credibil
ity than a group of people who stand
to lose a few points in the profit column.
Smokers, your vice is out of vogue
By Arthur Hoppe
The Surgeon General keeps coming out with reports
saying cigarettes will kill you. At the same time, more and
more Americans each year knock off smoking. There is,
however, no direct relationship whatsoever between these
two phenomena.
The sole reason that Americans smoked two billion
fewer cigarettes last year is that smoking is no longer
fashionable.
It has taken several decades for smoking to go out of
vogue. The transmogrification was so gradual, few were
aware it was taking place. I would thus like to record for
posterity as best I can exactly how it all happened.
0GfflG)G bystander
When I was a lad, Smoking was de rigumr. Humphrey
Bogart smoked, Betty Grable smoked, F.D.R. smoked,
Mrs. Grundy smoked. Everybody who was anybody
puffed away like locomotives. And when Lucky Strike
green went to war, our hearts swelled with pride at the
patriotic sacrifices being made to lick the Axis menace.
Few nonsmokers
Oh, there were always a few around who didn't smoke
hypochondriacs, health nuts, cowards-not the sort
you'd invite to fun parties. And when you offered these
lackluster souls a cigarette, they would invariably say,
"I'm sorry; I don't smoke." They knew their failing was
something to apologize for. Rightly so.
It's difficult to date with precision when renouncing
smoking became socially tolerated, if not approved. I
recall a lady I knew quitting in 1957 because she was too
thin and wished to gain weight. This excuse was generally
accepted as an extenuating circumstance.
The first Surgeon General's report in January of 1964
was, of course, a turning point. But it should be remem
bered that only a very few highly intelligent, extremely
rational people quit at that time. The rest of us displayed
that fierce American independence of spirit, our common
cry being, "If I want to kill myself, that's my business!"
And hostesses continued to place little vases of cigarettes
on the table so their guests could kill themselves.
On the defensive
Those disappeared by 1971. What had happened was
that more people had quit to prove they were highly in
telligent and extremely rational. Those of us who were
left had gone on the defensive. "I'm no quitter," we'd
say with a little burst of hollow laughter.
By 1974, ashtrays had vanished as well. If you were
bold enough, you could request one from your hostess
sotto voce. It was like asking her where the bathroom
was-not impolite exactly, just somewhat embarrassing.
The following year, the hordes from GASP and a host
of other anti-smoking organizations were in full cry, com
plaining that we were not only killing ourselves (and good
riddance), but we were killing them, too. By now, buses
had banned us, airlines had segregated us and not hostess
could find a match in the house.
Reformed
"You mean YOU are still smoking?" they would say
with incredulity, indicating they hadn't realized until
that moment what an idiot you were.
That's when I quit.
In certain circles, smoking may still be stylish-among
ghetto teen-agers, for example, Hell's Angels or numbers
runners. But in the middle class, it most definitely is not.
Pity the poor addict who deviously lights up in any
group. We reformed sinners contemptuously look down
upon him as stupid, irrational, weak-willed, anti-social
slob -absolutely the last sort of person with whom you'd
wish your children to associate.
And that's the sole reason more and more people are
quitting cigarettes. For the truth of the matter is that we
proud, free, independent-minded Americans don't give a
damn if we kill ourselves-just as long as we look good
doing it.
Copyright Chronicle Publishing Co. 1979
ft fife loftIr
This a note of correspondence designed to spur action,
not simply to express a complaint or make mention of a
problem area. It has been my observation that the wide
number of letters to the editor printed in the Daily Ne
askan have only identified problem areas, not suggested
methods to eliminate these problems.
I will in this letter identify problem areas and suggest a
possible route of correcting these issues.
1 . The recent NU Board of Regents decision to ex
pand the Cornhusker stadium by 900 seats at the cost of
$575 a seat is ridiculous. The decision to raise Osborne's
salary in the proportion it was raised is ludicrous. The dis
regard of student opinion is inexcusable. Immediate ac
tion should be taken in order that further regent legisla
tion will not be so inane.
2. State Senator Kelly's recently proposed legislation
in the Unicameral to raise the drinking age from 19 to 21
has no statistical or logical foundation to support it. The
proposed legislation is only a ploy designed to regiment
the youngest members of the voting Nebraska into the
mainstream of conservative ideology. In place of this bill.
Senator Kelly should have proposed the complete legaliza
tion of the sale of, the possession of and the use of
marijuana.
3. The Lincoln Police Department has a policy
towards university students that is one of an animalistic,
aggressive nature. It has been my examination that
officers of the Lincoln City Police are fast-tempered,
ill-mannered suppressors of freedom. Through personal
contact with various officers of the Lincoln police, I
can state confidently that this police force is not an en
forcer of Nebraska laws but an instigator of chaos.
Continued on Page 5
Dear Sen. Kelly,
why stop at 21?
By Michael Gibson
Dear State Sen. Kelly:
I don't drink. I don't smoke. I don't even fool
around with women (although if you know anyone in
terested in solving that problem for me, have her give
me a call). But that's not why I want to thank you for
introducing a bill that would raise Nebraska's drinking
age from 19 to 21 .
You see, I just don't understand why normally
sane students go to wild parties and bars and proceed
to kill all those brain cells by getting roaring drunk.
Don't they know only adults are supposed to do that?
And believe me, senator, UNL students are not
adults. The NU Board of Regents (our parents away
from home) have declared that to be true, literally and
figuratively. We can't endanger our innocent minds
with political speakers, can't control our own tax dol
lars, a la student fees, and we don't even merit a single
vote on the board which totally controls our
education.
Children
So let my fellow students point out that we're old
enough to drink because we're old enough to vote, sign
contracts, and die for our country. Actually, we don't
even have the power to bring our mothers up to our
rooms in Harper before 10 o'clock in the morning.
But even more fascinating than your perception of
students' maturity is your analysis of alcohol consump
tion statistics. You contend that since 1972, when the
drinking age was lowered, per capita consumption of
liquor in Nebraska went from 32 gallons a year to 139
gallons.
I know you're right, senator, in blaming that
increase solely on the thousands of 17- and 18-year-olds
in our state, for who else could be responsible?
Certainly not the hundreds of thousands of Nebraskans
over 21.
Advantages
And look at the advantages your bill provides. By
theoretically reducing consumption, it would reduce
the brewers' revenue, and thus the amount of money
they have for media blitzes. Perhaps then you and your
colleagues would get around to approving a bottle bill.
Furthemiore, the bill would get all those 20-year-olds
who want to drink out of the bars and into their
cars, reducing the number of bar fights, if not alcohol
related auto accidents.
It would also save a lot of students' time. Those
UNL students now working as waiters and Waitresses
in restaurants serving alcohol would no longer have to
work, but could rely on unemployment insurance.
But most importantly, you contend that raising the
drinking age would make it easier to enforce UNL's
alcohol policies, which you thus apparently support.
A modest proposal
May I make a suggestion, sir? Why not raise Ne
braska's drinking age to what it is on the UNL campus
-roughly 150. I make my proposal in all seriousness,
for its advantages far outshine those of your bill.
First, not only would it prevent 19-year-olds from
buying liquor for minors, it would stop everyone else
from buying for them, too. Of course, all those people
who don't buy beer for minors would suffer, but that
didn't bother you for your bill offers that punishment
for 19 and 20-year-olds.
Just as dead
More importantly, if you're concerned about re
ducing drunken driving deaths for teen-agers, this bill
would reduce alcohol-related accidents for everyone.
And believe it or not, senator, if I get hit by a 45 -year-old
drunk driver, I'll be just as dead as if I had been
hit by a 20-year-old.
So if you're interested in my novel idea, sir, don't
hesitate to give me a call and we can talk about it over
lunch.
And, if it's still legal, I might even buy you a drink.