Daily
Nebraskan
University of Nebraska-Uncoln
Eric Pfanner, Editor, 472-1766
Bob Neison, Editorial Page Editor
Victoria Ayotte, Managing Editor
Jana Pedersen, Associate. News Editor
Emily Rosenbaum, Associate News Editor
Diane Brayton, Copy Desk Chief
Brian Shellito, Art Director
Inhale reality
Smokers should accept responsibility
In 40 years as a tobacco user, Rose Cipollone must have
noticed that the cigarettes she smoked caused her to cough
and gasp for breath a few times.
It should have been no shock when the New Jersey woman
■ contracted lung cancer in 1981. And yet, in a lawsuit filed by
Gpollone and her husband in 1983, she maintained that the
fatal diagnosis was just that — a surprise because of her
assumption that cigarettes were safe to use.
Cipollone and her husband are both dead, but their son is
; continuing to press die case. And the Supreme Court has
agreed to hear it.
The ramifications of the lawsuit go beyond the family
} tragedy, however. Lung cancer could become profitable for the
victims, deadly to the manufacturers.
If the Supreme Court agreed with Cipollone that tobacco
' companies are liable for the cancer their products caused, it
I could start a rash of copycat lawsuits. The price of cigarettes
° could more than double if the industry sought to protect itself
against cancer claims.
I The Daily Nebraskan has no interest in keeping the price ot
cigarettes low, but Cipollone’s lawsuit — and the chain
reaction it could start — are ridiculous.
The only way a smoker possibly could be unaware of the
dangers of lighting up is if he or she chose to blow smoke in
the face of coastant warnings and studies revealing the dangers
of tobacco.
What more can be done to inform smokers?
Cigarette packages already contain warnings. And if smok
ers don’t believe the surgeon general, they can always listen to
the nagging and needling of parents, spouses and friends. Or
even to their own lungs.
Consumers in a free society are bombarded with all sorts of
false claims and advertising. The government plays a limited
role in policing those claims. In the case of cigarettes, its hand
has been fairly heavy: The warning labels are not exactly
Prohibition, but they arc a caution.
If the high court agreed with Cipollone, it would be duty
bound to do similarly for other dangerous items of consump
tion. That would mean more litigation and more labels. For
example:
“The surgeon general has determined that this cheeseburger
will make you fat and will clog your arteries.”
And those who ate the cheeseburgers despite the w arning
could sue.
Consumers should be made aware of the risks of using prod
ucts. But the court must not let bad habits be an excuse for
-LETTERS tTh°e EDITOR
Letter misrepresented homophobia
In response to Rodney Bell’s letter
regarding homophobia on campus, I
would like to question some of the
points he made, as well as make one
or two of my own, and perhaps view
the subject from a different perspec
tive.
First of all, there is the way
“homophobic” has become a catchall
word for anybody who does not agree
that homosexuality is a normal and
legitimate expression of human sexu
ality. Mr. Bell has taken this even
further to suggest tha> Paul Domcier’s
article (which never claimed to “rep
resent the entire view of the gay/
lesbian community”) was homopho
bic simply because it acknowledged
that one person’s experience was
something short of sunshine and rain
bows.
Let me point out that disagree
ment and hatred are not the same
thing and just because someone doesn’t
happen to agree doesn’t necessarily
mean that the person either hates or
fears homosexuals. It could simply
mean that they have come to a differ
ent conclusion, and it would seem to
be the height of arrogance to suggest
that the only way a person could come
to this different conclusion is if they
suffer from a phobia of some son
Secondly, there are in fact people
who have turned away from homo
sexuality, and there arc in fact minis
tries that have assisted them. These
are facts, not “incredulous desecra
tions of truth.” I can understand why
Mr. Bell would be troubled by this.
After all, if people have been able to
go from being gay or lesbian to being
heterosexual, that would take away
from the credibility of his claim that
they arc “inherently created the way
they arc — gay or lesbian.” The fact
remains, however, that people DO in
fact choose to make that change. (Note:
Mr. Bell clearly seems to disagree
with the University Lutheran Chapel,
which seems to indicate that he is
allowed to disagree with a position
without suffering from any phobias.
One wonders why this applies to Mr.
Bell and not to those with whom he
disagrees).
Finally, I am sure that Mr. Bell’s
convictions are sincere and his inten
tions honorable. Assuming that this is
the case, is it unreasonable to ask Mr.
Bell to get rid of the emotionally
charged rhetoric and replace it with a
rational, intelligent defense of his
position? If his views are as valid as
he claims them to be, surely they do
not need the support of needlessly
inflammatory phrases such as “spewed
forth buckets of venom,” “incredu
lous desecrations of the truth” and
“the ugly little head and venomous
buckets of homophobia.” Perhaps one
who is so ready to accuse others ol
hatred should be a bit more thought
ful in his own writings.
Brad Pardee
staff membei
Love Library
XT IS THE , „ 20$ ^
PROSTATE ^'S weadache
COMRAt>£S K^S tfef'WE.P x xtuu
V,
--T*-,
SAE IS
PRtGNfcNT
uttle
BEARS
JANA PEDERSEN
Anti-crime answers complex
While the Bush administration
pushed Congress to pass anti
crime legislation dealing
mainly with spying and treason last
week, the Justice Department made
its own announcements about crime.
Although the overall crime rate in
America fell 3 percent last year, vio
lent crime rose 3.4 percent, according
to the Justice Department. There were
2.3 million violentcrimes in America
last year, and 11.2 of every 1,000
citizens aged 12 and older were vic
tims of violent crime.
But none of the anti-crime bills
currently in Congress propose effec
tive means of combatting violent crime.
Ironically, the best of the bad anti
crime bills before Congress is one
that Bush doesn’t support.
The bill, which would require a
seven-day waiting period for gun
purchases, did receive support last
week from former President Ronald
Reagan, a National Rifle Association
member.
During his administration, Reagan
was opposed to such legislation, but
he changed hts mind to back this
year’s “Brady Bill,” named after his
former press secretary, who was per
manently disabled during an assassi
nation attempt in March 1981.
NRA officials claim that the only
reason Reagan supports the bill is
because of loyally to James Brady.
But because Reagan isn’t the one who
would sign the bill, the reasons for his
support don’t really matter much unless
he can use them to influence his for
mer vice president.
Although Reagan promised that
he’s trying to convince Bush to sign
the waiting-period bill, the Bush
administration said the bill’s only
chance is if Congress approves other
anti-crime proposals sponsored by the
president, whose main anti-crime goal
calls for the death penally for spying
and treason.
The White House maintains that
the best way to combat criminal use
of guns is tougher sentencing, not a
wailing period.
Yet John Hinckley Jr., the man
who shot Reagan 10 years ago, said
in a 1989 court document that a wait
ing period—not tougher penalties —
might have kept him from going
through with the assassination attempt.
Hinckley, who still is incarcerated
in a menial hospital near Washing
ton, D.C., hasn’t said considerations
of stilf penalties made him think twice
about his actions.
The wailing period would give law
enforcement officials time to do a
background check on prospective
buyers. The NRA prefers an immedi
ate background check by phone,
through technology that hasn’t even
become available yet.
The waiting period also would give
prospective criminals extra time to
consider the tougher sentences the
Bush administration wants. And it
would not, as the NRA claims, deny
honest, decent Americans their Sec
ond Amendment right to bear arms; it
would just make them wait a little
while to do so.
Both the Brady Bill and the Bush
bills may pass. Both may affect crime.
But none of the anti-crime bills cur
rcntly before Congress address the
most important issue behind violent
crime — its unnatural relauon to young
black men.
The National Center for Health
Statistics also released a study re
cently that found that in 1988 Amer
ica, 48 percent of young black men
who died between 15 and 19 were
killed by guns. That was an increase
from 35 percent in 1987 and 24 per
cent in 1984 and was three times the
number of white American men the
same age killed by guns in 1988.
Tougher penalties and waiting
periods aren’t going to change that
statistic. What would change it is
comprehensive education and hous
ing development programs for inner
cities to give young African Ameri
cans attractive alternatives to crime.
The one thing about young, male
African Americans that makes them
different from young, male Cauca
sian Americans is ?hat a greater per
centage of them li •' in poor, urban
areas with lypic. ly substandard
housing and cducai» »n systems.
Unfortunately, Housing develop
ment and education arc items the
federal government has increasingly i
left to states. And states can’t afford j
to pick up the giant lab needed to
change inner-city school and housing
systems.
The Bush crime plan doesn’t pro
pose anything to combat violent crime
realistically in inner cities. Spying
and treason aren’t big crimes there.
Instead, Bush and Congress should
be more concerned wilh what’s going
on in their own backyard. Washing
ton is one of the nation’s violent
crime hotbeds.
Members of Congress, who earn
six-digit incomes, should not forget
those less fortunate when talk of anti
crime bills come up. And they should
not forget which crimes deserve the
most attention.
At this time of high patriotism,
spying and treason can easily appear
the worst crimes in America. But
everyday violent crime is much more
terrible. And the worst crime of all
would be if Congress couldn’t even
find the best solution for dealing with
it.
Pedersen is a junior news-editorial and
advertising major and a Daily Nebraskan as
sociate news editor and columnist.
Members of Con-.
eress. who earn six
digit_mgjmei*
shouM not forest
those less fortunate
when talk of anti
crime bills come up.
And thox should not
forget which crimes
deserve the most at
tention.