Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 5, 1998)
Nic fit j Tobacco is more addictive than Twinkies after all MARK ZMARZLY is a senior English and speech communications major and a Daily Nebraskan columnist. Last year, 420,000 people died from the consumption of Twinkies. Twinkies, the silent killer. Of course, 420,000 people didn’t die from Twinkies last year, they died from smoking cigarettes. The con nection between cigarettes and Twinkies might not be an obvious one, but I will attempt to explain. Four years ago, the chairmen of the Five largest tobacco makers declared, under oath, that “nicotine is no more addictive than Twinkles or a cup of tea.” These are the same peo ple whose successors are now bar gaining for immunity from further class-action lawsuits in exchange for a $368.5 billion settlement over the next 25 years. The question is simple enough - do these gentlemen believe that nico tine is addictive? In four years of debates and congressional testimony, the tobacco executives have gone from the above mentioned Twinkle statement to, “Yes, under certain def initions of the word, addictive.” That quote by RJR’s Steven Goldstone is hardly a declaration of truth and wrongdoing, but it was a big step. I wonder if in another four years nico tine might be, say, “habit forming.” As a smoker of five years, I was appalled to find out that nicotine was addictive. I was in the dark. I decided I would have to do some research on this topic to get to the bottom of this hidden data. I found a wealth of information over the Internet con cerning nicotine and its addictive properties. I read of health studies done by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health that equated nicotine to heroin in terms of addictive properties. While I was reading all this material I began to experience a nicotine craving - what we smokers affectionately call a “nic fit.” Well, I’ll be damned; I’m addict ed to nicotine. This led me to believe that these tobacco executives have either never smoked a cigarette in their lives or they are afraid of further sanctions and fines. Are they scared that they will have to pay more than $368.5 billion? Removal of cartoons in advertising? Wait, that already hap pened. God forbid, lower profits? These gentlemen are business men. The goal of their work is to cre ate as large a profit as possible through advertising and product enhancement. They have accom plished that in the past and will con tinue to do so in the future. I’m really sorry if they will make less of a prof it than last year, but please just admit what everyone in the free world knows: Nicotine is addictive. Not only was it apparent to looacco maxers uiai mcoune is addictive, but they’ve been studying these addictive properties for the last 20 years attempting to make a more addictive cigarette. Dr. Richard Hurt, a Mayo Clinic expert said, “(Cigarette makers) experimented with the addition of ammonia to cig arettes to create an enhanced ‘free nicotine,’ which the body absorbs more quickly than ordinary nico tine.” If nicotine is not addictive, why try to get more of it at a faster rate to the consumer? Flavor-enhanc ing properties? Let’s examine this situation in a little different setting. Let’s say I invented the first handgun. Before I made it available for purchase, I did testing for 20 years on the effects of bullets on the human body. Soon after the purchase of the first hand gun, it was used in a murder. When asked if I thought that bullets would kill, how would I respond? “Yes, under certain definitions of the word, kill.” I don’t believe these tobacco executives are the devil’s foot sol diers. As I said earlier, they are just humans out to make a dollar. I would like to extend an invitation to them that all other humans know v exists: the invitation to admit a mistake. I don’t hold any one responsible for the fact that I smoke. I’m sure 99.9 percent of the smokers out there knew that nicotine was addic tive and that cig arette smok ing can kill when they started. The 0.1 per cent of smokers who didn’t know that probably have a Chevy Citation with a lift kit and flames on the side, and thus, deserve to die from smoking. There will always be idiots like myself out there who feel that smoking has a benefit in their lives despite the health risk. As long as these idiots walk the earth and have money, cigarette companies will make money. So I ask these tobacco executives to ANTHONY COLMAN is a sophomore architecture major and a Daily Nebraskan columnist Has Barnes & Noble been pan dering kiddy pom? Some of our resi dents expressed their concern over the presence of books of pho tographs by Jock Sturges on the shelves of our intrepid booksellers. It seems some of Sturges’ photographs were of (gasp) nude children! While some learned individuals might contend that Sturges is a high ly skilled artist whose photographs are among die most profoundly insightful and captivating of their genre (and less erotic than a Georgia O’Keefe watercolor), other vigilant citizens have declared Sturges’ work to be nothing more than masturba tion fodder for pedophiles. Is Sturges’ work merely some admit that they are just as stupid as the people who buy their products. To err is human; to admit it is just plain right. / AmyMartin/DN Pom panic State should protect children, not go on a witch hunt nice photographs of a few naked people, or is it pornography? Is it art, or is it obscene? Our legislators are working to deem it obscene. The Nebraska Legislature is presently working to revise LB 1349, known as the Child Pornography Prevention Act, so that it would more rigorously define the bounds of child pornography. Under the revised law, any compilations of visual depic tions of nude children could be defined as pornographic and cen surable. Violators would be guilty of a Class IV felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and a $50,000 fine for each offense. One can fully appreciate efforts to protect children and teen-agers. We must be committed to providing for them a safe and healthy environ ment There is no doubt that sexual abuse of young people is a serious problem. For some children, the effects of such abuse are devastating. But is there no other way of approaching the problems of child sexual abuse and its prevention? Is the only solution to the problem of child abuse to raise the age of con sent and increase the penalties for die manufacture and distribution of child pornography? The laws regard ing the sexual exploitation of chil dren and teen-agers are already clearly outlined and severely punish able. Have we managed to stem the tide of violence of young people? Are our children and teen-agers safe yet? This has become a classic instance of censorship and infringe ment of our First Amendment rights. The poor judgment of a minority of individuals with a hyperactive sense of decency has left die rest of us impoverished. Jesse Helms could not have done so well. If the books in question were obviously obscene in any manner, if it were apparent that persons depict ed in Sturges’ photographs were actually exploited, this uproar might be remotely justifiable. But we have nothing more here than some pic tures of kids who,, in a few instances, happen to be naked. Under whose definition does that constitute kiddy pom? It is easy to pin blame on the evil specter of kiddy pom, make a few and believe that you’ve done some thing good for young citizens. Unfortunately, this sort of legislation does very little, if anything, to address the real dangers present to the young people of our society. Child pornography is a panic button issue that incites hysterics rather than rational, critical thought. In our flurry of panic and public out rage over the amoral dangers of child molesters, we’ve overlooked the very real dangers. The sexual victimiza tion of children by strangers is a scary thought; however, the simple fact is that far more children are ‘affected by the consequences of domestic violence and abuse than are exploited by strangers. Domestic violence, battering, mental and ver bal abuse and neglect constitute very real and pervasive problems for the young people of our society. According to the National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse, morO than 1 million children me con firmed each year as victims of abuse t And while the overall incidence rate of child sexu al abuse remains unknown, less than 5 percent of those child sexual abuse cases reported to Child Protective Service agencies occurred outside the home. Focusing on kiddy pom does lit tle to diminish the brutal treatment of young people. Children and teen agers are still being sexually abused, beaten and sometimes put to death by their adult custodians. Everyone is appalled at the thought of children or teen-agers being sexually exploited or forced to perform sexual acts in front of a camera. However, could our elected representatives’ titne not be better spent addressing these issues in a more adequate and cogent manner than going on a witch hunt? If we are sincere about wanting to tackle child abuse, then we need to be more resourceful and willing to more closely examine what issues our children face. We should work to create a more comprehensive plan for dealing with these issues. Abuse takes many forms, and it is difficult to imagine a single act of legislation that could adequately encompass t] every real problem children and teen-agers face. It would help if we could better educate parents and young people. As it is, we’re afraid to give children j and teen-agers die information, power and support they need to be safe and to control their own bodies. , j* Our fear degenerates into attitudes of sexual repression, leaving our young people ignorant of the dangers they may face. A child has the right to be ■ - safe from fear of violence and sexual j abuse, and we need to be alert to the \ real dangers our young people may face. j