EDITOR
Josh Funk
OPINION
EDITOR
Mark Baldridge
EDITORIAL
BOARD
Lindsay Young
Jessica Fargen
Samuel McKewon
Cliff Hicks
Kimberly Sweet
I
Our
VIEW
Smoke
and mirrors
Tobacco suit displays
government’s hypocrisy
In a landmark action, the U.S. government
has filed a mammoth civil lawsuit against the
major tobacco companies.
Inspired by similar states’ lawsuits, this
case represents an attempt to recover billions
of federal dollars that have been used to cover
the health costs of smokers.
The lawsuit charges that cigarette smok
ing causes cancer (well, duh) and other dis
eases that have resulted in $25 billion annual
ly in health claims paid to veterans, military
personnel, federal employees and the elderly
through Medicare payments.
Nothing frivolous about those numbers,
but one wonders where a government that has
failed to regulate an industry responsible for
$25 billion in health costs gets off suing the
companies involved.
nm - •_11 . - -
i lieu cigdicucb
do irreparable
damage to the
health of
Americans has
been known for
years, neverthe
less tobacco com
panies (along
with, for some rea- 1
son, beer makers -
makes you wonder
what’s in that stuff)
have been exempt
ed from placing
content labels on
their products.
Formaldehyde,
as an ingredient in
the modern ciga
rette, might have
44
The industry;
with its
powerful and
wealthy lobby,
bought special
treatment in
smoke-filled
rooms - talk
about the
dangers of
smoking!
looked a little too shocking on a product
meant to be ingested, don’t you think?
So cigarette-makers simply didn’t men
tion it.
The industry, with its powerful and
wealthy lobby, bought special treatment in
smoke-filled rooms - talk about the dangers
of smoking! It was fat cigars that sealed the
deals, and the tobacco industry has reason to
cry, “Foul! An honest senator stays bought!”
Only after evidence began to appear that
the industry had suppressed scientific infor
mation, rigged experiments, bought scientists
and lied to the public about smoking risks did
the tide turn, forcing Congress to abandon its
favorite bed partner.
Complaints about advertisements target
ing minors, rising medical costs and research
demonstrating mild risks to “second-hand
smokers” ended in the states’ lawsuits with
which our papers have been reverberating for
the last few years.
If the government can win such a suit,
more power to it, we suppose, but would it be
too idealistic to prefer a government that did
not sell out the health of its citizens and then
sue to recoup its losses?
Editorial Policy
Unsigned editorials are the opinions of
the Fall 1999 Daily Nebraskan. They do
not necessarily reflect the views of the
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, its
employees, its student body or the
University of Nebraska Board of Regents.
A column is solely the opinion of its author.
•> The Board of Regents serves as publisher
of the Daily Nebraskan; policy is set by
the Daily Nebraskan Editorial Board. The
UNL Publications Board, established by
the regents, supervises the production
of the paper. According to policy set by
the regents, responsibility for the editorial
content of the newspaper lies solely in
the hands of its student employees.
letter Policy
The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief
letters to the editor and guest columns,
but does not guarantee their publication.
The Daily Nebraskan retains the right to
edit or reject any material submitted.
Submitted material becomes property of
the Daily Nebraskan and cannot be
returned. Anonymous submissions will
not be published. Those who submit
letters must identify themselves by name,
year in school, major and/or group
affiliation, if any.
Submit material to: Daily Nebraskan, 20
Nebraska Union, 1400 R St. Lincoln,
NE. 68588-0448. E-mail:
letters@unlinfo.unl.edu.
Obermeyer’s
VIEW
/ ML RIGHT PEOPLE, HERE’S 5KINNY. \
I UP1 eg RUNNING- out op room UPSTAIRS AND
Jr SUPPLY °F MAGICAUY APPEARING- SPEVP ANP FISH
' 1 m most GONE) SO X NEED YOU TO Go AftxwP to /
\ rrtuag CAP1PU56S TELLlHG-£V£0WE HOWGRBST j
\ Tr AM AND HOW JJ« /OUR ffilPNb Aw/-——- .
\ s^j TO everything por w£— and /mmm, r aon»r\
V°t-1mewJ shove itpowm THSR V understand How your
V3 'JSTcv.a-F^— ’ \ 50LV00N WILL SOLVH /
\ the meLEM.T^y
\v Vm ", /trustaieJxU
/■<^ITUHI0W)
DN
LETTERS
Latin Lesson
Amen, J. J. (DN, Wednesday) When
will we learn to tell the government
how to work for us instead of the other
way around?
Maintaining the status quo (Latin
for “the mess we’ve gotten ourselves
into”) means big bucks for insurance
companies, HMOs and trial lawyers.
Passing a “patients’ Bill of Rights”
is simply double talk for the right to sue
the very insurance companies that
insure us.
I’ve never heard of a business that is
willing to take a cut in its profit margin
just to help a lower class family get bet
ter health care.
Steve Forbes’ Medical Savings
Accounts prove yet again that the best
ideas in this country have been bom in
the private sector.
Andrew M. Stmad
UNL alumnus
Milwaukee
Dung, On The Other Hand
I ask Mr. Gaskill (DN, Wednesday)
where he would stand on the elephant
dung-on-Mary exhibit if, instead, it
were pasted on a bust of Mohammed or
caked around the beltline of Buddha or
in mounds on the multiple hands of
Shiva?
What if a representation of Gaia
had its continents painted in elephant
dung? What sort of outcry would come
from the Jewish community if its tax
dollars were paying for a Star of David
molded with kiln-baked elephant
dung?
Yet that’s beside the point. If, as
Gaskill states, we support the arts so
much, why must its binding be drawn
involuntarily from our pay? If we sup
port something, shouldn’t we pay for it
voluntarily?
This circumstance cannot by a rea
sonable mind be construed as censor
ship.
Censorship is when the government
says, “No, you can’t do that.” The issue
here is a government saying, “No, my
taxpayers won’t pay for that” There is a
I
difference.
I can sell Gutenberg presses all I
want, but if nobody buys them, I don’t
have the right to beg the government for
help. Unless Mr. Gaskill wants to pay
for them himself.
Bryan Gordon
visiting student
Outta My Way, Slowpoke!
Hey Jessica Eckstein, (DN,
Wednesday) we, as “ozone-depleting
hate machine” drivers don’t want to run
you off the road and kill you, we just
don’t want you there at all.
It’s two-wheelers like you who, I
swear, bike in the middle of die lane just
because you “can.”
I don’t want to hear all that “I have
every legal right to be there” crap. You
do. I know that. It doesn’t make me
want you to get out of my way any less.
You don’t like the way I drive? Bike
path, babe.
Or better yet, ever hear of a side
walk? It seems to me that that would be
a lot safer than the 20 cars backed up
behind you, all trying to make lane
changes during 5 o’clock traffic while
you’re scooting along at .05 miles an
hour.
Hey, I own a bike, too. Love to ride
it. I’m just not trying to overcompen
sate my lack of acceleration by holding
up the rest of the world.
I actually have consideration for
others.
Brian O’Grady
interlibrary loan
Love Library
Crumbling Graham’s
Cracker
Graham Johnson (DN, Sept. 10)
believes that the American farmer
should switch to organic production
methods and return to the “methods of
his ancestors.”
I have compiled some numbers on
what actual output might be with the
technology of our ancestors.
I used data from the Nebraska
Department of Agriculture to arrive at
these numbers.
I used the yield data from 1920 and
1997 and acreage from 1997. Using
this data, corn production would
decrease by 75 percent per acre, wheat
by 55 percent, oats by 50 percent, bar
ley by 51 percent, potatoes by 86 per
cent and dry beans by 76 percent.
Taken on a nation-wide basis, this
drop in production would be astronom
ical.
One other area that must be consid
ered is the amount of labor that would
have to be reinvested in agriculture if
organic methods are used. Currently,
about 2 percent of the United States
labor force is involved in production
agriculture.
According to U.S. Department of
Labor statistics, about 13.2 percent of
the U.S. labor force was involved in
agriculture in 1947.1 suspect that if a
person could find data farther back, this
percentage would continue to grow.
Admittedly, if the United States
were to go to organic production meth
ods with modern implements, this
number would not go as high as in the
past, but it would still grow.
Labor would probably have to be
taken away from other industries, and I
will not even hazard a guess at what this
would do to the economy. But it would
most likely reduce output.
One closing note: there is the matter
of money. Currently the U.S. consumer
spends very little of his or her dispos
able income on food. Basic economics
teaches us that as supplies decrease,
prices will generally increase.
I will go out on a limb now and say
that, when faced with higher food
prices, the U.S. consumer in general
will choose the cheap, mass produced,
chemically treated, genetically modi
fied, but still high quality food item
over a much more expensive and prob
ably lower quality organic product.
Phillip Anthony
senior
agricultural business
P.S. Write Back
Send letters to: Daily Nebraskan, 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 "R" St., Lincoln,
NE 68588, or fax to (402) 472-1761, or e-mail <letters@unlinfo.unl.edu.
Letters must be signed and include a phone number for verification
