Opinion
U.S. exporting death
Food, not tobacco can be sold overseas
In the last week, two interesting facts have been re
vealed about the tobacco industry in the United
States.
First, the majority of research done by the industry has *
been reported falsely. Second, the federal government will
spend $3.5 million dollars this year to promote the U.S.
tobacco industry overseas.
A judge in New Jersey has said that over the past 40
years, the tobacco industry deliberately mislead the
American public into believing that smoking was safe.
Now, the United States Department of Agriculture is
giving that same industry money to advertise overseas.
U.S. District Court Judge H. Lee Sarokin went so far as
to call the industry’s vow to disclose its research findings
“nothing but a public relations ploy — a fraud — to
deflect the growing evidence against the industry.”
That lie now is being marketed overseas through
agriculture department grants.
Representatives of the tobacco industry claim that
promoting the export of tobacco is just like promoting the
export of any other agricultural product.
But exporting tobacco creates health problems, while
exporting other farm commodities can solve health prob
lems.
Spending $3.5 million to promote a deadly habit world
wide is ridiculous. America must feed the world instead
of kill it.
Smoking in the United States has dropped 32 percent in
the last 22 years, and many communities are enacting
strict anti-smoking laws. Yet the U.S. government tinds
no shame in spending millions to get foreigners hooked.
Tobacco is a killer. Money spent on its promotion
could be much better spent, for example, subsidizing
other farm products to export to countries that cannot
afford to buy the food they need.
With all the problems in the world, the last thing other
countries need are American products that create more.
Rep. Peter H. Kostmayer, D-Pa., said of the tobacco
advertising program: “I think it is exporting death. It’s not
a wasteful program, it’s a deadly program.”
Death is not something the world needs more of,
especially from a country that knows better.
Nations slow to share power
1 am writing in response to the
column published in the DN on Feb. 3
(“Bush’s military cuts not enough”).
The United Stales, the Soviet
(dis)Union, Britain, France and Ger
many can build nuclear weapons — a
serious threat to world peace! But if
Islamic nations build or become ca
pable of developing nuclear weap
ons, that is not digested by super
powers. This stinks.
I am sure Israel, the largest recipi
ent of US aid, had nuclear weapons a
long time ago. That’s why the Lon
don Times wrote that Israel iscapable
of building as many as 200 nuclear
weapons.
There is no doubt that the main
stream ultra-conservative right wing“
countries have already started to flex
their muscles to capitalize on Soviet
weakness. Why shouldn’t they. Isn’t
it the survival of the fittest? The thing
is these superpowers arc so used to
deciding the fate of Third World na
tions that they couldn’t swallow the
rise or any major achievement of ci
ther Islamic or non-Islamic nations.
Arshad Altaf Shaikh
junior
pre-pharmacy
Whites not necessarily racist
In response to Chris Halligan (“Half
truths form white identity,” DN, Feb.
7), I’m white and proud of it. I have to
be proud of it because there’s nothing
I can do about it.
Also, I’m sick and tired of people
trying to make me feel guilty for
being white. Or feel guilty of being a
racist just because I’m white.
I’m not a racist. I never held a
slave, killed an Indian or put down
the women’s movement.
I’ve traced my family history back
lo when ihcy came to the United
Slates in 1870. None of my ancestors
ever held slaves, killed Indians or put
down the women’s movement.
So if you, Chris, want to let some
one tell you you’re a racist just be
cause you’re white, fine. But don’t
try to convince me— I’m not guilty,
and proud.
Scott Ruff
sophomore
geology
-LETTER POLICY
The Daily Nebraskan welcomes
brief letters to the editor from all read
ers and interested others.
Letters will be selected for publi
cation on the basis of clarity, original
ity, timeliness and space available.
The Daily Nebraskan retains the right
to edit or reject all material submitted.
Readers also arc welcome to sub
mit material as guest opinions.
Whether material should run as a let
ter or guest opinion is left to the edi
tor’s discretion. -
Letters and guest opinions sent to
:he newspaper become the property
r-f the Daily Nebraskan and cannot be
r turned.
\nonymous submissions will not
t> onsidered for publication. Lct
tc s should include the author’s
na:nc, year in school, major and
group affiliation, if any. Requests to
withhold names will not be granted.
Submit material to the Daily Ne
braskan, 34 Nebraska Union, 14(X) R
St., Lincoln, Neb. 68588-0448.
1
BRIAN ALLEN
Legal drinking age hypocritical
On June 4, 1988,1 was uncere
moniously kicked out of a
Lincoln bar while attempting
to celebrate my 18th birthday with a
little underage drinking.
My older brother had assured me
that anyone could drink in this par
ticular establishment. Either I didn’t
fit into the broad category of anyone
or he was wrong.
1 was in Lincoln with my brother
instead of at home with my parents,
as most recent high school graduates
would have been. Two days later, I
was to report to the Military Entrance
Processing Facility in Omaha, prior
to my departure to Fort Jackson, S.C.,
for Army basic training.
The 21-year-old drinking age is
hypocritical and bogus. I was kicked
out of the bar because the citizens of
this country, through their represen
tative government, had decided that
as an 18-ycar-old 1 was not yet mature
enough to make intelligent decisions
about my consumption of alcohol.
Yet this same body of citizens has
decided that 18-year-olds arc mature
enough to defend their country in the
armed forces, cither voluntarily or
through the draft.
The same people who arc not
considered responsible or competent
enough to control their consumption
of alcohol, evidently arc competent
and responsible enough to vote, be
tried as adults, enter into legal con
tracts and be sent into battle.
Thousands of 18-, 19- and 20-ycar
olds were sent to Saudi Arabia and
Kuwait for operations Desert Shield
and Storm to kill or be killed for a
government and its citizens who don’t
even trust them to have a beer.
These soldiers liberated an entire
country and defeated the fourth-larg
est standing army in the world, and
when they came home, they still
couldn’t even get into a bar.
While these people all enlisted in
the armed services voluntarily and
arc personally responsible for ending
up in combat, it also is true that most
of them (the men) could have been
drafted. Every U.S. male citizen must
register for the draft by his 18th birth
day, yet he can’t legally drink for
three more years.
As part of my job in the Army
Right now, anyone
between the ages of
18 and 21 is subject
to all the liabilities of
adulthood, and, uons.
of the benefits.
National Guard, 1 inspect mortar and
cannon tubes for faults that could
cause them to burst. It is inconceiv
able to me that, as a minor, I was
trusted to find faults that could cause
the deaths of an entire mortar or tank
crew and yet 1 was not trusted enough
to be allowed to purchase alcohol.
As far as I know, qualified people
under age 21 in this country can drive
buses and taxi cabs, fight fires, drive
ambulances, help build skyscrapers,
bridges and dams and fly aircraft. But
a beer at the corner bar? Sorry, not yet
responsible enough.
I freely admit that many 18-ycar
olds arc not mature enough to know
when they have had enough, but
maturity is not necessarily a function
of age. 1 know just as many 21 -, 31 -
and 41-year-olds who have not learned
to set reasonable limits for themselves.
It doesn't matter where you set the
limit — people will abuse alcohol.
Dropping the drinking age to 18 would
not produce any more alcoholics than
are being produced now. For fairness,
that is exactly what we must do.
Suppose, after being turned down
at the bar, I had been responsible for
a fatal traffic accident on the way
home. 1 would have been tried as an
adult, although I hadn’t been treated
as one only minutes before. Suppose
I had broken my contract with the
Army and failed lo report for basic
training. Again, I would have been
given the harsher adult treatment.
Right now, anyone between the
ages of 18 and 21 is subject to all the
liabilities of adulthood and none of
the benefits.
Few minors arc stopped from drink
ing by the 21 -year-ol. drinking age. I
know it never put mu h of a strain on
my consumption bac • in my untamed
youth. Buyers always were plentiful,
and I usually could f nd a party with a
®if no party could be found, my
buddies and I would do what minors
still are doing everywhere. We’d gel
a trunk full of beer and go cruising —
definitely a dangerous proposition.
Other than adding a sense of ad
venture to drinking and thereby en
couraging me to drink more often, the
only thing the 21-year-old drinking
age did was prevent from drinking
in a bar, which w*s probably the
safest place I could have been.
At least in a bar, the bartender may
cutoff heavy drinkers eventually, and
someone at least semi-sober usually
is willing to drive the drunkest pa
trons home. This was not the ease at
most of the underage parties I went
to.
Some people ma think it would
be equally fair to rai‘ the draft age to
21 and not drop the drinking age, and
they would be parti ' > right. But to
achieve true fairness in the system,
we would also have to raise the age of
legal adulthood to 21
Because most pee pie begin to live
their own lives on .bout their 18th
birthday, it would be very difficult
and countcrproduc c to raise the
age of legal adulthood. Thousands ol
people would not be able to take out
loans without co-signers or engage in
business dealings, would be tried as
minors instead of adults and would
not be able to vote.
As a matter of equity, it would not
matter if the ages of legal adulthood,
draft and drinking were 18,21 or even
31 — as long as they were the same.
As a matter of praciicality, 18 is the
only age which will suffice.
Allen is a senior me*. .nical engineering
major and a Daily Nebr*«kan columnist.
-EDITORIAL POLICY
Stall editorials represent the offi
cial policy of the Spring 1992 Daily
Nebraskan. Policy is set by the Daily
Nebraskan Editorial Board. Its mem
bers arc: Jana Pedersen, editor; Alan
Phelps, opinion page editor; Kara
Wells, managing editor; Roger Price,
wire editor; Wendy Navratil, copy
desk chief; Brian Shellito, cartoon
ist; Jeremy Fitzpatrick, senior re
porter.
Editorials do not necessarily re
flect the views of the university, its
employees, the students or the NU
Board of Regents.
Editorial columns represent the
opinion of the author.
The Daily Nebrask an’s publishers
are the regents, who established the
UNL Publications p>>ard to super
vise the daily production of the pa
per.
According to poh. y set by the re
gents, responsibility for the editorial
content of the newspaper lies solely
in the hands of its students.
