ANDY FREDERICK
Drug cure partial legalization
In the frantic and desperate
search for a solution to our
nation’s drug problem, most
people seem to lose the ability to
reason sensibly.
Just look at virtually the only two
proposed solutions: an all-out war,
which supposedly is going on right
now, or legalization. Some choice.
Most people find only those solu
tions because they see drugs as a
single problem that should be given
in to or fought to the death.
But drugs are really based on two
problems: die dealers (and producers
and smugglers) and the users.
Dealers sell drugs because they
are profitable. The addictive powers
of drugs keep demand high, while the
war on drugs keeps supply low. De
spite the possibility of being caught
and sent to prison, the rewards more
than make up for the risk.
Users enjoy getting high, and once
they’re addicted, they must keep us
ing drugs to avoid the agony of with
drawal.
Two problems require two solu
tions. But right now we only have the
war. The opposition wants to scrap
that solution in favor of another single
solution.
But neither will work because
neither recognizes that there are two
drug problems, not one. We must
deal with both separately if we are to
be successful.
Let’s start with the dealers.
Under current policy, a small
number of dealers are found, prose
cuted and, if there is enough evi
dence, put into overcrowded prisons
where they will serve very short terms.
Dealers who aren’t arrested merely
are driven from comer to comer by
frustrated citizens.
We also attack drug dealers by
intercepting a whopping 15 percent
of drug shipments, thus lowering the
supply and making dealing an even
more profitable business.
The result is rich drug dealers who
will do anything to protect their busi
nesses. Gang wars arc waged daily in
our streets against other dealers and
police. Frequently, children get caught
in the crossfire.
We arc not dealing well with us
ers, either. Many of us don ’ t acknowl
I ** . _I
The addictive powers
of drufs keep de
mand high, while the
war on drugs keeps
supply ton’.
edge their existence. We tend to for
get that we are not unwilling victims
of drugs. It is not merely us decent
folk against the evil drug dealers.
We think that if we can just pre
vent drugs from coming into this
country, we can end our drug prob
lem. But the only reason drugs exist is
because people use them. As long as
there is a demand, drugs will continue
to be supplied.
The drug users who are caught are
arrested and put in jail. There, they
learn how to be really keen criminals.
Their low esteem, which was proba
bly one of the reasons they started
using drugs in the first place, sinks
even lower. And enough drugs man
age to find their way into prisons that
the users can still satisfy their habit.
Some solution.
Complete legalization of drugs is
not the answer, either. Dealers would
be free to sell all the drugs they wanted
and users to use all the drugs they
wanted. In exchange for less crime,
our hospitals and morgues would be
flooded with crack babies and users
who’ve overdosed and people who’ve
been hurt or killed by drivers on drugs.
Nothing really could be done about
drug abusers until they committed
crimes.
So the war isn’t working and le
galization wouldn’t work, but han
dling each problem separately proba
bly would.
Dealers deal drugs because they
are profitable. Dealers are willing to
kill to protect their business because
it’s profitable. And it’s impossible to
stop the flow of drugs into our coun
try. So, we need to find some way to
take the profit out of drug dealing.
Here, the legalization people have
the answer. We need to make it to
tally legal to make, ship, own, sell
and buy drugs. After all, when you
get right down to it, absolutely no one
suffers if I hand $10 to a drug dealer
and he hands me some drugs.
The only time anyone is hurt is
when the dealer tries to protect his
business or when the user gets high or
commits a crime to support a habit.
Just as car dealers are not put in prison
for selling cars to alcoholics who later
get drunk and kill four people on the
way home from a bar, dealers should
not be put in prison for selling drugs.
The result would be that drugs
would come flooding into our coun
try — initially. But then there would
be so great a supply that the price of
drugs would drop like a stone.
Drug dealing would become about
as profitable as selling newspapers.
Gangs would no longer wage war to
protect their drug businesses — they
wouldn’t be worth protecting. And
drugs would be cheap enough that
users wouldn’t need to steal to sup
port their habits.
So what would we do to prevent
everyone from becoming drug users?
Easy. Continue to make drug use
illegal. One of the biggest arguments
against complete legalization of drugs
is that many people who don’t use
them now because they’re illegal would
turn to them the second drugs became
legal.
Keeping drug use illegal would
prevent it from becoming socially
acceptable. So even if the supply of
drugs increased, the stigma of drug
use as a crime would deter just as
many potential users as are deterred
today.
The rest of the solution is just
composed of little safeguards. There
are problems that would need to be
worked out. It wouldn’t be easy. But
it is necessary. We’re losing the war.
Frederick is a senior news-editorial ma
jor and a Daily Nebraskan columnist.
JAMES ZANK
Nuclear power not worth cost
Arguments about nuclear power
crop up in the oddest places.
Magazine advertisements by
the U.S. Council of Energy Aware
ness depicted cute cartoon animals
with signs thanking humans for nu
clear power, which does not release
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
The ad suggested that nuclear power
is better than conventional energy
sources. But who wants to trust the in
tellectual capacity of Bambi in choices
about energy use?
Nuclear power will not alleviate
our dependence on foreign oil en
tirely. We need to find multiple alter
natives.
Two-thirds of U.S. oil consump
tion is for transportation, and nuclear
power now doesn’t provide any ap
plication for this use. In a few years,
if electric vehicles became a conven
tional mode of transportation, it might
have an indirect effect, but not now.
Detractors of alternative energy
sources say they are not feasible be
cause they aren’t yet cost-effective
and that the technology to support
them isn’t fully developed.
If this sort of argument had been
used in the past, we might never have
seen the introduction of electricity.
Moreover, there are functioning wind
farms on the West Coast that provide
electricity at a fraction of the cost that
nuclear plants and coal-burning plants
do.
Fields of solar collectors in the
Southwest already are providing
energy. Solar power has the unique
potential advantage of allowing indi
vidual households to provide their
own energy. But laws and regulatory
restrictions, supported by the large
power companies, make this nearly
impossible in practice.
Wind and solar energy could be
ready for mass use if they had been
given the same fiscal assistance that
Nuclear power mil
Bid alleviate out
dependence gg fall
eign oil entirely.
the nuclear industry has been given.
Improved conservation, efficiency,
research and development programs
for alternative energy and increased
domestic production of oil were
implemented after the 1973 oil em
bargo to try to avert an energy crisis.
They led to a slight drop in oil imports
by the early 1980s.
Then came the monster called the
Reagan administration. Under Presi
dent Reagan, the United States aban
doned its goal of reduced depend
ence, thus culling research programs
thatcould haveprovided us with more
energy alternatives. By the end of the
decade, the United States was again
dependent on foreign sources for almost
half of its oil.
Another major concern in dealing
with nuclear power is safety. Despite
the assurances of the industry, sig
nificant questions concerning danger
to the population around nuclear power
plants are not resolved.
Nuclear power plants are designed
to operate for 40 years, but many
plants are forced to close before their
licenses expire. Instruments malfunc
lion, and pipes become thin and crack
after they arc exposed to higher levels
of radiation, humidity and tempera
ture than expected.
In case of major nuclear accidents,
plants are designed with containment
structures that are supposed to pre
vent the release of radioactivity.
Unfortunately, such containment
measures are not foolproof.
The accident of the reactor at Three
Mile Island in Pennsylvania and other
near-misses of U.S. reactors all make
the parody of the nuclear industry in
“The Simpsons” all too plausible.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commis
sion has estimated a 45 percent chance
that a meltdown will occur at a U.S.
reactor in the next 20 years.
Supporters of nuclear power also
argue, without good reason, that it is
cost-effective.
The typical nuclear plant costs from
$2 billion to $5 billion. The average
output of these plants is about 60
percent of design capacity, because
of frequent shutdowns for repairs and
maintenance. For the purposes of
contrast, coal-burning plants run at
about 80 percent of design capacity.
The General Accounting Office
has estimated that beyond the loss of
human lives, the cost of a nuclear
accident would range from $67 mil
lion at a small rural power plant to
$15.5 billion at a plant in an urban
environment.
This says nothing of the cost of
disposing of spent fuel rods and other
radioactive waste.
We need to examine many more
possibilities before we continue to
invest money, time and resources in
any form of energy.
Zank is a Junior art and English major
and a Dally Nebraskan columnist.
■.—enj-1
The Computing Resource Center is offering free microcomputers
seminars to UNL faculty, staff, and students. The seminars will feature
an introduction to Microsoft Word for the Macintosh and WordPerfect
for IBM machines. Each session will last for about an hour.
Advanced Microsoft Word for Macintosh
Lab Location Dates Times
Andrews Tuesday, September 24 3:00 to 4:30
Advanced WordPerfect 5.1 on IBM
Sandoz(IBM) Thursday, September 26 3:00 to 4:30
^1: -";r \r- a
Coming Soon!!
Classified Envelope
Order Forms
Now you can send all your classified ads right
from your dorm or house! Just place your ad tent
and payment in the new dasssified envelopes
and send it through campus mail free!
For details call 472*1767
____ J
Red 1 >t I
Chili Peppers
Listening Party
Monday, Sept. 23, at P.O. Pears
Begins at 9:00 P.M. |
