Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (Sept. 22, 1988)
Editorial iViim uni ■ .. mi nil II inII■■ in irn t mmiri in:HT:riiiniiiTiT~[iiiri 'iii "iniimiiir •':irirVr ^riT"-"riir':-rrTnf-r"-' |~v _ • Curt Wagner, Editor, 472-1766 _ _ <m Mike Reilley, Editorial Page Editor \ I I t-t-m-mm. Diana Johnson, Managing Editor I PDTaSKdll Lee Rood, Associate News Editor m. Bob Nelson, Wire Pige Editor University of Nebraska-Lincoln Andy Pollock, Columnist Craig Heckman, Columnist Can Nebraska afford Karnes? Sen. Dave Karnes has proven in his brief 18 months in office that he has no intention of adhering to the so called federal spending cuts that he claims he supports. In his brief term he has spent more money on travel expenses than all but three other members of the U.S. Sen ate, including those senators from Alaska and Hawaii. Fie has also spent more per capita on senate mailings than any other senator and has the highest per capita payroll in the sen ate. Can we as Nebraskans afford any more of Karnes’ frugal spending? McGraw Milhaven senior arts and sciences Editorials do not necessarily reflect the views of the university, its employees, the students or the NU Board of Regents. The Daily Nebraskan ’s publishers are the regents, who established the UNL Publications Board to supervise the daily production of the paper. According to policy set by the regents, responsibility for the editorial content of the newspaper lies solely in tire hands of its student editors. W't.'Y MUSK**, HEY...We SiVdldmt fcE Were. ...X'tA VtoT GCNtA PUW VJlTW W\ iEAM , tAt \ tArmt-R \^J Teen-ager restrictions discussed Should licenses be suspended for drug or aloe hoi violators? Recently proposed legislation that would require suspension of teen-agers’ drivers licenses for alcohol or drug violations needs some rethinking. The legislation, sponsored by senators Withem, Hefner and Landis, is well-researched and based on good intentions, but says a little too much. At first, I was skeptical of the idea of singling out a specific segment of the population on the basis of age. I wondered if it’s even constitutional? It is, according to the Nebraska Attorney General Robert Spire. Last December, Withem re quested the attorney general’s opin ion on whether a legislative bill, similar to this year’s proposal, was constitutional. Spire responded that it was, citing a U.S. Supreme Court decision. ‘“It (equal protection of the law) does not foreclose government from classifying persons or from differen tiating one class from another when enacting legislation,’” the attorney general quotes. But why is this certain segment of the population, those ages 13 to 19, the group to be singled out? Information received from Withem’s office and the Nebraska ■w. ■•■■V vuimnuoiuil VUIIV 1IIVV/U IIIV that it might be good to focus on this particular segment. An article entitled “Teen age Drinking,” from Withem’s office, cites evidence that the adolescent is more vulnerable to the mental and physical effects of alcohol and drugs. For instance, the peak brain growth occurs during middle and late adolescence. Drinking may disrupt this growth, causing “volatile mood swings,” anxiety, confusion and ag gression, the article states. Alcohol consumption also damages the liver, stomach and intestines, especially in young people. The article, published by the Na tional Parent’s Resource Institute for Drug Education Inc., also reports that adolescents become alcoholics more quickly than adults. Teens may be come alcoholic in six months to three years; adults usually become alco holic in lOto 15 years. Over one-third of the nation’s alcoholics are minors, the report adds. Information from the Nebraska Crime Commission shows that in the last 10 years teens, ages 13 through 19, committed 25 percent of the state’s drug violations. More than 21 percent of the state ’s alcohol viola lions were committed by people in the same age range. Evidently, teen-agers are respon sible for a disproportionate number of alcohol and drug crimes. They are also the hardest nit by the effects of these intoxicants. Okay, I was wrong, the proposal correctly focuses on a segment of society that needs some guidance. But it still needs some work. Michelle Waite, a legislative aide in Wilhem ’ s off ce, said the proposal, which is similar to proposals that failed during the past two legislative sessions, is fashioned after a 1984 Oregon Law. In the first year follow ing the enactment of the law, teen liquor violations in Oregon decreased 12 percent and drug violations by teens dropped 22 percent. The law worked. Or did it? Chris Eskridge, an asso ciate professor of criminal justice at UNL, didn’t think so. ___I _' 1_ • .wiiiviivva uiiu ^uiilalr ments,” Eskridge said, “increase the reluctance to arrest and hand down sentences. And when the sentences are handed down, they lend to be made in a more biased fashion.” Take, for example, the death pen alty. This year’s proposal requires mandatory suspension (past Ne braska proposals have only attempted to aulhori/.e suspension) of drivers licenses. Won’t that make it tougher to avoid or reduce sentencing? “No,” said Eskridge. “There is no such thing as mandatory sentencing. Legislators can say what they want, but it won’t happen.” He said negotiations between prosecuting and defense attorneys inevitably arise, and sentences are reduced or dropped. Again, bias sneaks into the picture, where poorer people will be less capable of hiring these crafty attor neys. Eskridge, however, doesn’t think we should let the drinking problem run rampant — not when 25,()00 people are killed on America’s high ways each year. He suggested grass roots pressure, like what’s been done to combat cigarette smoking and its harm la 1 effects. But extensive “Just Say No” cam paigns are at full steam across the country . And still, the problems per sist. Joel Lundak, the substance-abuse evaluator for the Lincoln Council on Alcoholism and Drugs, suggested a possible and appealing solution. Lundak is in favor of the proposal, but not as written. He doesn’t agree that suspension of the license should be mandatory. But, he said, if teens don’t lose their licenses, they should be required to take a drug and alcohol evaluation and comply with its rec ommendations. Lundak has hit the nail on the head. Presently, teens must choose be tween a usually meager fine, plus court costs, or the latter choice men tioned above. “Whoopee!” they say and sneak some money from their savings ac count, and mom and dad never know. And the problems still persist. But not with Lundak’s suggestion. Facing such a tough decision — no car, or a drug and alcohol evaluation wouki undeniably make them think twice about what they’re doing U«V II^Al umt Mlvj tUIIMUVI UIIII*«"£| )r drugging. Lundak said the importance of the harsher punishment rests in its suc cess not as simple punishment, but as a tool in changing dangerous behav ior. Again, I agree. But one problem lurks in my mind. Not so long ago the “they” was “we.” I still know the me I was be tween four and nine years ago. What will teen-agers think of this? They will be affected. Their voice must be heard. I’ll do my best, briefly. If I knew then what I know now about what alcohol could do to my brain and body, I would have cut way back. That’s if I had consumed alcohol as a miner, of course. The proposal makes sense. It needs some work, but it’s worth a try. Society needs to attempt to protect its young people from the harmful effects of alcohol and drugs. Mote importantly, society must explain these effects and why it is protecting teen-agers, not merely that the law requires doing so. Pollock is a senior news-editorial amjor and a Daily Nebraskan editorial columnist