Last year, juvenile crime in North Carolina fell to a 10-year low, which reflects the many different departments and agencies working together with delinquent minors.
“The number of commitments to our youth development centers has dropped from 1,300 back in 1998 down to 400,” said North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Communications Director William Lassiter. “From 2006 to today, we’re down almost 20 percent in juvenile crime overall.”
The juvenile system collects information on juveniles under 16 years old, according to Lassiter.
“We collect data on every single crime that comes in because any time a crime is committed, a juvenile-delinquent offense is committed, a juvenile complaint is filed with our office,” he said. “We collected over 40,000 complaints last year.”
Of those received complaints, almost 90 percent were delinquent complaints with the remaining complaints being classified as undisciplined, according to the department’s 2009 annual report.
The top offense last year was simple assault with slightly more than 4,100 delinquent complaints, according to the report. Misdemeanor larceny and simple affray (fighting) followed as the next two most frequent offenses.
“And there are what are considered level one, level two or level three dispositions, with three being the most severe or the most intense form of consequences and supervision that would be provided to a child,” Lassiter said. “For a child to end up going to a youth development center, they have to be at a level three disposition option.”
The 1998 Juvenile Justice Reform Act states a juvenile cannot go to a development center for just committing a misdemeanor, which contributed to the lower populations in the centers, according to Lassiter.
The largest drop with commitments came between 2000 and 2001, when the juvenile-commitment numbers fell from 975 to 660.
Locally, the Swannanoa Youth Development Center remains the only development center in Buncombe County working with juveniles, according to the report.
“We have a core curriculum that we work on,” said Swannanoa Youth Development Center Director James Pronko. “We teach them new social skills and how to react to situations so that if they’re faced with a similar situation, (they know) how they can better handle themselves in more appropriate ways.”
The Swannanoa center currently works with 48 juveniles, with the average stay hovering between six months to a year, according to Pronko.
“These kids are just kids. They need a second chance,” he said. “We have kids here who are getting their GEDs, off-campus employment. We’ve got a dog adoption program here.”
The development centers teach kids basic life skills and good behaviors so they can go on to successful lives, according to Lassiter.
“The difference between a juvenile-justice system and the adult system is that the juvenile-justice system is set up specifically for the purpose of rehabilitation,” he said. “We often say ‘habituation.’ And the difference there is when you’re focusing on rehabilitation, you’re saying that they actually knew those good habits at one time in their life and you’re trying to get them back to that point.”
The Juvenile Crime Prevention Council located in Asheville assesses available programs and funding for juveniles, but does this process on the local level, according to Cynthia Barcklow, chairperson of the council.
“And that’s one good thing about the JCPC is it’s not a bunch of people sitting on a committee who actually don’t do their work,” she said. “We have about 20 to 25 members and we meet every other month.”
The council’s membership includes the Asheville Police Department, the Buncombe County Sheriff’s Department, the chief court counselor and a member from the district attorney’s office, according to Barcklow.
“The reason the JCPC formed is that we’re charged with looking at options that are available to the youth that have been adjudicated or youth that are at risk of being adjudicated,” she said.
Last fiscal year, which runs from July to June, the prevention group worked with 511 juveniles, according to Barcklow.
Although the JCPC helps juveniles turn their lives around, the council could still improve, she said.
“But we could always use more money and there could always be more agencies in the community to help juveniles,” she said. “Each community is responsible for assessing what they need. So that’s a really good part of the legislation.”
At the Swannanoa center, the staff makes every opportunity with the juveniles an educational one, Pronko said.
“But we just kicked it up a notch here in Swannanoa where we’re teaching them basic social skills. We encourage outside speakers to come in and talk to these kids who have been incarcerated and tell them the real story,” he said. “We have changed mindsets here in Swannanoa. It’s not three hots and a cot.”
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Monday, April 12, 2010
Inflated grades sink education
Students want the highest grades in school, but when students receive high grades without earning them, everyone loses.
Grade inflation, as the name implies, results when professors inflate students' grades for work not measuring up to standards.
Data exists for private and public universities and their respective GPAs. Since the mid-1980s, a steady increase in GPAs exists in both types of schools, according to Stuart Rojstaczer, retired professor of Duke University and grade-inflation recorder.
The main problem with grade inflation is that, while the student may receive high marks, they lack an actual education.
A good education structures the mind in such a way that it can think critically, objectively and with purpose. College places the responsibility of education on the student rather than the instructor, so the student develops into a self-directed learner.
If a student receives a higher grade than they deserved for their work, they certainly didn't achieve their full potential. Higher grades motivate some students while others embrace complacency.
Universities benefit from grade inflation because it makes the school appear more competitive than other schools.
The higher grade places the student into a graduate school of their choice or lands the student a decent job. Do students attend college just for employment? If college represents nothing more than a requirement to earn a salary higher than a high-school graduate, then perhaps universities should continue grade inflation. But grade inflation must rise slowly so no one catches on.
Grade inflation not only hurts students getting an education, but it also covers up the best students.
When grade inflation occurs, grades lump together on one side of the bell curve, according to Harvey C. Mansfield, professor at Harvard University. Exceptional students cannot be differentiated from poor students.
Another problem with grade inflation centers on professors, according to Mansfield. Instead of having criteria for student performance, Mansfield argues professors care more about student evaluations. Some professors approach teaching from what students expect rather than having their own standards for the class.
Grade inflation rests on more than one person's shoulders. It resides in the collective consciousness of a people reaching for success in a difficult world.
Economist E.F. Schumacher called education "the greatest resource." If we arbitrarily inflate our resources, we are not using them efficiently. Truly excellent talent will go unutilized.
A C grade represents average work. Because of our challenging world, students avoid a C at all costs. Let's not forget about the dreadful D and F as well. Students avoid these grades because they limit options for graduate school and careers.
Below-average grades sometimes bring out the best in students. A little failure goes a long way in showing students what they can accomplish, what they cannot and how much work a decent grade requires. If a student fails one assignment and passes the next, surely they learned something along the way.
Instead of inflating a C to a B and a B to an A, which promotes complacency, giving a student the grade earned pushes students into learning the material.
Because grade inflation detracts from everyone's education, recommendations exist for combating grade inflation.
One way to fight grade inflation involves the faculty raising current standards for courses so students try harder in class, according to Consolacion L. Fajardo, professor of accounting at National University in California. Fajardo completed a study on grade inflation in 2004.
Certainly this recommendation pushes students toward the goal of striving for education.
Ending grade inflation also includes more communication between professors and departments, according to Fajardo. This open communication should include discussion about raising standards and grading policies.
By looking at both grades and raised standards, professors see what separates excellence from average, which creates a fair grading system. With a fair grading system, students see their true potential.
In deflating grades at National University, faculty met once a month for meetings and focused on standards in the classroom, according to Fajardo. The school also focused on higher standards by creating smaller class sizes.
Employers can see who measures up best for a job by looking at a student's actual grades, creating a stronger workforce. Students striving for success with professors who challenge them increase everyone's potential.
Everyone appreciates receiving an A for course work. But if we didn't learn as much as possible or really earn the grade, then what's the point? Maybe we want recognition for hard work, but we must remember true education never needs validation with a grade.
Originally published in The Blue Banner, Spring 2009
Grade inflation, as the name implies, results when professors inflate students' grades for work not measuring up to standards.
Data exists for private and public universities and their respective GPAs. Since the mid-1980s, a steady increase in GPAs exists in both types of schools, according to Stuart Rojstaczer, retired professor of Duke University and grade-inflation recorder.
The main problem with grade inflation is that, while the student may receive high marks, they lack an actual education.
A good education structures the mind in such a way that it can think critically, objectively and with purpose. College places the responsibility of education on the student rather than the instructor, so the student develops into a self-directed learner.
If a student receives a higher grade than they deserved for their work, they certainly didn't achieve their full potential. Higher grades motivate some students while others embrace complacency.
Universities benefit from grade inflation because it makes the school appear more competitive than other schools.
The higher grade places the student into a graduate school of their choice or lands the student a decent job. Do students attend college just for employment? If college represents nothing more than a requirement to earn a salary higher than a high-school graduate, then perhaps universities should continue grade inflation. But grade inflation must rise slowly so no one catches on.
Grade inflation not only hurts students getting an education, but it also covers up the best students.
When grade inflation occurs, grades lump together on one side of the bell curve, according to Harvey C. Mansfield, professor at Harvard University. Exceptional students cannot be differentiated from poor students.
Another problem with grade inflation centers on professors, according to Mansfield. Instead of having criteria for student performance, Mansfield argues professors care more about student evaluations. Some professors approach teaching from what students expect rather than having their own standards for the class.
Grade inflation rests on more than one person's shoulders. It resides in the collective consciousness of a people reaching for success in a difficult world.
Economist E.F. Schumacher called education "the greatest resource." If we arbitrarily inflate our resources, we are not using them efficiently. Truly excellent talent will go unutilized.
A C grade represents average work. Because of our challenging world, students avoid a C at all costs. Let's not forget about the dreadful D and F as well. Students avoid these grades because they limit options for graduate school and careers.
Below-average grades sometimes bring out the best in students. A little failure goes a long way in showing students what they can accomplish, what they cannot and how much work a decent grade requires. If a student fails one assignment and passes the next, surely they learned something along the way.
Instead of inflating a C to a B and a B to an A, which promotes complacency, giving a student the grade earned pushes students into learning the material.
Because grade inflation detracts from everyone's education, recommendations exist for combating grade inflation.
One way to fight grade inflation involves the faculty raising current standards for courses so students try harder in class, according to Consolacion L. Fajardo, professor of accounting at National University in California. Fajardo completed a study on grade inflation in 2004.
Certainly this recommendation pushes students toward the goal of striving for education.
Ending grade inflation also includes more communication between professors and departments, according to Fajardo. This open communication should include discussion about raising standards and grading policies.
By looking at both grades and raised standards, professors see what separates excellence from average, which creates a fair grading system. With a fair grading system, students see their true potential.
In deflating grades at National University, faculty met once a month for meetings and focused on standards in the classroom, according to Fajardo. The school also focused on higher standards by creating smaller class sizes.
Employers can see who measures up best for a job by looking at a student's actual grades, creating a stronger workforce. Students striving for success with professors who challenge them increase everyone's potential.
Everyone appreciates receiving an A for course work. But if we didn't learn as much as possible or really earn the grade, then what's the point? Maybe we want recognition for hard work, but we must remember true education never needs validation with a grade.
Originally published in The Blue Banner, Spring 2009
Social interaction 2.0: Technology changes learning and friendship
You might read this article line by line, but the odds say most people scan through written material. Ever stop and ask why?
In the early 21st century, more people began a digital existence, creating profiles on social networks via the Web, according to Amanda Lenhart, senior research specialist at the Pew Internet & American Life Project.
In 2005, 8 percent of adult Internet users owned a network profile compared to 35 percent in 2008, according to Lenhart.
Certainly these social networking sites keep users in touch with one another, but they change the way users live their lives because social interaction takes place electronically rather than in real life.
Eighty-nine percent of adults use the Internet for staying in contact with friends, while 91 percent of teens do as well, according to Lenhart. If people keep up with friends through social networks, logically they spend less time together offline.
By creating an online identity, people may not develop a personal self, according to Sherry Turkle, professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Social networks make keeping up with people easier, but networks don't resemble real life.
This leaves a person little experience in developing real relationships in the world, according to Turkle. For example, in a conversation, people get instant feedback from each other. People also pick up on the body language of others which helps a person learn social rules and etiquette.
While the Internet keeps people in touch through social networks, we must question the purpose of social networking.
Social networks give people the option of posting information about themselves. Most of the information looks like something from a job application except users can include hobbies and interests as well. However, this information stands only as information without any purpose except what other users make out of it.
While social networks maintain loads of information about people, Microsoft PowerPoint brings condensed information to people. It focuses itself on the presentation of information, according to Turkle. Bullets and bar graphs constitute presentations. As students become more accustomed with this way of thinking, it changes how they understand the world, according to Turkle. Rather than discussing material, students passively observe presentations.
PowerPoint dominates the classroom by bringing summarized information to students. Professors elaborate on the material, but if the presentation contains too much content, little separates it from social networks where content runs wild. The Internet remains the king of information.
The Internet allows for access to unlimited information. Anyone can access this information. Social networks hold information. Blogs contain information.
While this online content contains more information than PowerPoint, and entertainment as well, PowerPoint remains a reflection of how people interpret information from the Internet.
Internet users consume information by scanning a page, according to Mark Bauerlein, English professor at Emory University. Sixteen percent of users read a Web page like a book while 84 percent look for visuals and keywords, according to a study cited by Bauerlein.
Since most people no longer read from one line to the next, they lose the ability of reading longer works, according to Bauerlein. Between 1982 and 2002, the number of people reading books dropped by 20 million people, according to Bauerlein's own study.
People spend more time chatting, blogging, watching videos, looking at pictures and downloading music, which leaves less time for reading, according to Bauerlein.
Instead of people focusing on one book or topic, people focus on several things at once. Such a switch changes the way people process information.
In the classroom, because PowerPoint helps present information in a clear, organized way, it doesn't allow for deep thinking or discussion, according to Turkle. If students never get into a deep discussion or reflect back on material other than studying for a test, they become an echo of the material presented to them.
When users look for information online through keywords, they also lose the ability of deep thought. Social networks keep people from going into deep understanding as well because of similar presentations like PowerPoint.
Rarely do people question the validity of information on a social network. No rules exist for keeping a person from presenting their self however they wish online. Such ability hinders our society because people process information without deep reflection which means they accept others at face value. By having less time for developing relationships through live interaction, people now have shallow and artificial relationships.
Does society value a population of shallow thinkers who multitask? Or instead does society value deep thinkers focused on one subject? No right answer exists, but people should remember what technology they use also changes their interpretation of the world. Not recognizing this point reveals quite an error in thinking.
Originally published in The Blue Banner, Spring 2009
In the early 21st century, more people began a digital existence, creating profiles on social networks via the Web, according to Amanda Lenhart, senior research specialist at the Pew Internet & American Life Project.
In 2005, 8 percent of adult Internet users owned a network profile compared to 35 percent in 2008, according to Lenhart.
Certainly these social networking sites keep users in touch with one another, but they change the way users live their lives because social interaction takes place electronically rather than in real life.
Eighty-nine percent of adults use the Internet for staying in contact with friends, while 91 percent of teens do as well, according to Lenhart. If people keep up with friends through social networks, logically they spend less time together offline.
By creating an online identity, people may not develop a personal self, according to Sherry Turkle, professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Social networks make keeping up with people easier, but networks don't resemble real life.
This leaves a person little experience in developing real relationships in the world, according to Turkle. For example, in a conversation, people get instant feedback from each other. People also pick up on the body language of others which helps a person learn social rules and etiquette.
While the Internet keeps people in touch through social networks, we must question the purpose of social networking.
Social networks give people the option of posting information about themselves. Most of the information looks like something from a job application except users can include hobbies and interests as well. However, this information stands only as information without any purpose except what other users make out of it.
While social networks maintain loads of information about people, Microsoft PowerPoint brings condensed information to people. It focuses itself on the presentation of information, according to Turkle. Bullets and bar graphs constitute presentations. As students become more accustomed with this way of thinking, it changes how they understand the world, according to Turkle. Rather than discussing material, students passively observe presentations.
PowerPoint dominates the classroom by bringing summarized information to students. Professors elaborate on the material, but if the presentation contains too much content, little separates it from social networks where content runs wild. The Internet remains the king of information.
The Internet allows for access to unlimited information. Anyone can access this information. Social networks hold information. Blogs contain information.
While this online content contains more information than PowerPoint, and entertainment as well, PowerPoint remains a reflection of how people interpret information from the Internet.
Internet users consume information by scanning a page, according to Mark Bauerlein, English professor at Emory University. Sixteen percent of users read a Web page like a book while 84 percent look for visuals and keywords, according to a study cited by Bauerlein.
Since most people no longer read from one line to the next, they lose the ability of reading longer works, according to Bauerlein. Between 1982 and 2002, the number of people reading books dropped by 20 million people, according to Bauerlein's own study.
People spend more time chatting, blogging, watching videos, looking at pictures and downloading music, which leaves less time for reading, according to Bauerlein.
Instead of people focusing on one book or topic, people focus on several things at once. Such a switch changes the way people process information.
In the classroom, because PowerPoint helps present information in a clear, organized way, it doesn't allow for deep thinking or discussion, according to Turkle. If students never get into a deep discussion or reflect back on material other than studying for a test, they become an echo of the material presented to them.
When users look for information online through keywords, they also lose the ability of deep thought. Social networks keep people from going into deep understanding as well because of similar presentations like PowerPoint.
Rarely do people question the validity of information on a social network. No rules exist for keeping a person from presenting their self however they wish online. Such ability hinders our society because people process information without deep reflection which means they accept others at face value. By having less time for developing relationships through live interaction, people now have shallow and artificial relationships.
Does society value a population of shallow thinkers who multitask? Or instead does society value deep thinkers focused on one subject? No right answer exists, but people should remember what technology they use also changes their interpretation of the world. Not recognizing this point reveals quite an error in thinking.
Originally published in The Blue Banner, Spring 2009
A roadside wake-up call: Safety behind the wheel is the driver's responsibility
Everywhere you look you see people talking on cell phones while driving, and while this may distract you, a nationwide ban won't stop it.
Recently, the National Safety Council, a group focused on preventing accidental injuries and deaths, called on legislators across the country to ban cell phone use and text messaging while driving.
While the NSC certainly watches out for the livelihood of America's citizens, such a ban runs contrary to our country's ideal of freedom.
America prides itself on freedom. We pay for this freedom by being responsible for our actions. If a person uses a cell phone while driving and causes an accident, the responsibility falls on that person.
If legislators pass such a law, this assumes people can't make decisions for themselves. Unlike a drinking law, which makes it illegal for people to have their blood-alcohol content above a certain level, a complete ban on cell phone use has no middle ground. Cell phones can be turned off in an instant while alcohol must run its course before a person can focus again.
A person who drinks a beer or two can drive home legally, so a person getting home late should be allowed to call from the road. Legislation should focus on moderation rather than a total ban for all because of a few extreme cases.
In North Carolina, the current law prohibits cell phone use for bus drivers and anyone under 18 years old while driving, according to the Governor's Highway Safety Association.
In addition to the law above, a text ban also exists for the same group of drivers.
Naturally, teenagers listen and abide by these laws.
Well, not quite.
A few years after the law passed for teenagers, a study in North Carolina found little change in cell phone use in cars before and after lawmakers crafted the law, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Roughly 11 percent used cell phones before the law, compared to 12 percent after the law, according to a study cited by the IIHS.
Laws try to change behavior, but the teens in the study didn't stop using cell phones. And if the laws didn't change teens, then what makes the NSC sure it will work for adults?
The kind of law the NSC wants to pass anticipates car wrecks caused by cell phone use while driving, incorrectly assuming cell phones are most distracting to a driver. Would it make sense to outlaw all other behaviors in a car just because something might happen?
No one could justify the passing of such laws and feel right about doing so. Because we do enjoy our freedom and responsibility in this country, we don't need groups pressuring lawmakers into regulating our behavior. If we want legislators to be our parents, we'll let them know.
"There's a host of other things that cause people to be distracted," said Chief Bill Hogan of the Asheville Police Department.
People eat, fix their hair and change radio stations while driving, adding to the distractions on the road.
"I've seen on numerous occasions, at a traffic light, people reading newspapers," said Hogan.
These arguments against the ban don't sit well with the NSC or anyone else pushing for a nationwide ban. The big push for the ban results from the distraction cell phones cause while driving, according to the NSC.
Rubbernecking and tailgating distract drivers today just like yesterday. Nowhere on the highways of America does a distraction-free zone exist. So then why all the angst about cell phone use in cars?
Cell phones only entered mainstream society in the last decade or so. They still remain a novelty and because so many people use cell phones while driving, they receive the attention.
Other distractions, although problematic when first noticed, remain an accepted part of American-driving culture.
Make no mistake, using a cell phone while driving remains dangerous and risky. We can only learn and educate others if someone becomes hurt from using a cell phone in a car.
If drivers want to use cell phones, they need to understand their driving abilities. A 16-year-old does not have the experience of a 50-year-old, and younger drivers should realize this. Similarly, if an older driver starts using a phone while driving, they should take the time to learn the new habit.
If the ban passes, the enforcement of the law becomes more important than the law itself. And if enforcement reduces the number of accidents caused by cell phone use while driving, then maybe other bans on distractions might not hurt.
Bans on other distractions must always take the middle ground. It's ridiculous to think a ban works with every person in every situation every time, and by focusing on the middle ground, legislators keep things in balance.
As it stands, the ban doesn't exist. Since the NSC cares about driver safety, they might consider focusing more of their effort on educating drivers on the dangers of cell phone use in cars. If they think laws stop all behavior, the group needs to take a look around.
Every American should decide on their own whether or not to use a cell phone while driving. By making up our own minds about the issue, we become more responsible citizens.
Originally published in The Blue Banner, Spring 2009
Recently, the National Safety Council, a group focused on preventing accidental injuries and deaths, called on legislators across the country to ban cell phone use and text messaging while driving.
While the NSC certainly watches out for the livelihood of America's citizens, such a ban runs contrary to our country's ideal of freedom.
America prides itself on freedom. We pay for this freedom by being responsible for our actions. If a person uses a cell phone while driving and causes an accident, the responsibility falls on that person.
If legislators pass such a law, this assumes people can't make decisions for themselves. Unlike a drinking law, which makes it illegal for people to have their blood-alcohol content above a certain level, a complete ban on cell phone use has no middle ground. Cell phones can be turned off in an instant while alcohol must run its course before a person can focus again.
A person who drinks a beer or two can drive home legally, so a person getting home late should be allowed to call from the road. Legislation should focus on moderation rather than a total ban for all because of a few extreme cases.
In North Carolina, the current law prohibits cell phone use for bus drivers and anyone under 18 years old while driving, according to the Governor's Highway Safety Association.
In addition to the law above, a text ban also exists for the same group of drivers.
Naturally, teenagers listen and abide by these laws.
Well, not quite.
A few years after the law passed for teenagers, a study in North Carolina found little change in cell phone use in cars before and after lawmakers crafted the law, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Roughly 11 percent used cell phones before the law, compared to 12 percent after the law, according to a study cited by the IIHS.
Laws try to change behavior, but the teens in the study didn't stop using cell phones. And if the laws didn't change teens, then what makes the NSC sure it will work for adults?
The kind of law the NSC wants to pass anticipates car wrecks caused by cell phone use while driving, incorrectly assuming cell phones are most distracting to a driver. Would it make sense to outlaw all other behaviors in a car just because something might happen?
No one could justify the passing of such laws and feel right about doing so. Because we do enjoy our freedom and responsibility in this country, we don't need groups pressuring lawmakers into regulating our behavior. If we want legislators to be our parents, we'll let them know.
"There's a host of other things that cause people to be distracted," said Chief Bill Hogan of the Asheville Police Department.
People eat, fix their hair and change radio stations while driving, adding to the distractions on the road.
"I've seen on numerous occasions, at a traffic light, people reading newspapers," said Hogan.
These arguments against the ban don't sit well with the NSC or anyone else pushing for a nationwide ban. The big push for the ban results from the distraction cell phones cause while driving, according to the NSC.
Rubbernecking and tailgating distract drivers today just like yesterday. Nowhere on the highways of America does a distraction-free zone exist. So then why all the angst about cell phone use in cars?
Cell phones only entered mainstream society in the last decade or so. They still remain a novelty and because so many people use cell phones while driving, they receive the attention.
Other distractions, although problematic when first noticed, remain an accepted part of American-driving culture.
Make no mistake, using a cell phone while driving remains dangerous and risky. We can only learn and educate others if someone becomes hurt from using a cell phone in a car.
If drivers want to use cell phones, they need to understand their driving abilities. A 16-year-old does not have the experience of a 50-year-old, and younger drivers should realize this. Similarly, if an older driver starts using a phone while driving, they should take the time to learn the new habit.
If the ban passes, the enforcement of the law becomes more important than the law itself. And if enforcement reduces the number of accidents caused by cell phone use while driving, then maybe other bans on distractions might not hurt.
Bans on other distractions must always take the middle ground. It's ridiculous to think a ban works with every person in every situation every time, and by focusing on the middle ground, legislators keep things in balance.
As it stands, the ban doesn't exist. Since the NSC cares about driver safety, they might consider focusing more of their effort on educating drivers on the dangers of cell phone use in cars. If they think laws stop all behavior, the group needs to take a look around.
Every American should decide on their own whether or not to use a cell phone while driving. By making up our own minds about the issue, we become more responsible citizens.
Originally published in The Blue Banner, Spring 2009
A full tank leaves empty promises: Corn-based ethanol is not the fuel of the future
People often cite corn-based ethanol as an alternative fuel. We can use corn grown in our own country as we decrease our dependence on fossil fuels. It's a sweet dream, but an ugly reality exists.
In order to make ethanol, the country needs plenty of cornfields. In a recent publication titled The Rush to Ethanol: Not All BioFuels Are Created Equal, the Food and Water Watch organization, Network for New Energy Choices and the Institute for Energy and Environment at Vermont Law School report that if all the corn crops in America produced corn just for ethanol, it would displace less than 15 percent of national gas use. So we should just grow more corn, right?
Sure, farmers can grow more corn, but we live in a finite world capable of producing a limited amount, which means every corn crop must produce ethanol otherwise farmers waste time and energy. But growing corn year after year in the same fields kills the planet.
"Huge mono-cropping doesn't make sense," said Brian Winslett, community relations director of Blue Ridge Biofuels and UNC Asheville alumnus. "Small, community-scale projects are the best where you're transporting short distances."
By rotating crops, the soil replenishes certain nutrients because of the time off from producing a certain crop. But if farmers only grow corn, they lose the rotation. Since corn requires plenty of nutrients, this only adds to the use of fertilizers so farmers can maintain high yields, according to The Rush to Ethanol.
Fertilizers hurt the water system, according to the publication. Corn takes 40 percent of the fertilizers used in the United States. Of that, 98 percent receive commercial nitrogen, according to The Rush to Ethanol. By using these fertilizers, the runoff contaminates the water supply while also hurting the soil. Ethanol plants use nearly 1 gallons of water to make 1 gallon of ethanol, according to The Rush to Ethanol.
Let's not forget about gasoline. Of course gasoline use hurts the environment, and by looking at the realities of corn ethanol, we should not forget about the costs of gasoline.
In a recent study published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a group of professors from different fields researched the effects of gasoline and different kinds of ethanol.
For gasoline, the group found the health and climate-change costs running at $469 million for every billion gallons made and used. Corn ethanol, depending on how producers make the fuel, costs from $472 million to $952 million, according to the PNAS.
Initially, corn ethanol made by using natural gas puts out less greenhouse gases than traditional gasoline, according to the PNAS. The study further points out that once farmers convert grasslands into cornfields, the gain from the natural-gas production runs into the red because of carbon emissions.
When gasoline or ethanol burns, not only does the fuel produce greenhouse gases, but also something called fine-particulate matter, according to the PNAS.
Fine-particulate matter stays in the atmosphere as microscopic solids or liquid droplets. The particles measure 2.5 micrometers or less, according to the EPA. Although these particles remain small, they affect health.
Some health effects include difficulty breathing, lowered use of lungs, non-fatal heart attacks and increased asthma, according to the EPA. For different kinds of fuel, different particle costs exist.
The fine-particulate matter health costs ran at 34 cents a gallon for gasoline and 93 cents a gallon for corn ethanol made by use of coal, according to the PNAS. So not only does corn ethanol hurt the environment, but the air you breathe as well.
Instead of abandoning alternative fuels we need an understanding of the fuels.
"We have tons of opportunities in just about every community in the United States," Winslett said.
In making any fuel, we must remember producers use the means available now for production. So the issue becomes a matter of overcoming the impact of fossil fuels for the benefits of the new fuel in hopes of greenhouse gas reduction and lower fuel prices.
Society could focus more of its efforts on sunlight. With sunlight, energy converts from light to electricity. If cars ran off of electricity, then certainly sunlight changes things around. Plug your car into your house and then wait for the conversion of energy so the car fills up. This remains a theory, but certainly requires less energy than other fuels. The point is, society must focus its attention on alternative fuels and creative ways to decrease greenhouse gases and emissions.
"We can't get around the global warming issue," Winslett said. "The more we diversify energy sources and transportation, the better off we are."
Products such as gasoline and ethanol don't exist naturally. Refiners produce these products from raw material, increasing greenhouse gases and depleting limited resources. This vicious cycle continues until no raw materials remain for harvest. No matter what fuel people use, costs always factor in the fuel production.
Think globally about the products you use the next time you fill up. Costs not only come from your pocket, but everywhere else. By focusing on every aspect of how nature gets converted into a product, we can see what serves as a reasonable alternative and what hurts us all in the long run.
Originally published in The Blue Banner, Spring 2009
In order to make ethanol, the country needs plenty of cornfields. In a recent publication titled The Rush to Ethanol: Not All BioFuels Are Created Equal, the Food and Water Watch organization, Network for New Energy Choices and the Institute for Energy and Environment at Vermont Law School report that if all the corn crops in America produced corn just for ethanol, it would displace less than 15 percent of national gas use. So we should just grow more corn, right?
Sure, farmers can grow more corn, but we live in a finite world capable of producing a limited amount, which means every corn crop must produce ethanol otherwise farmers waste time and energy. But growing corn year after year in the same fields kills the planet.
"Huge mono-cropping doesn't make sense," said Brian Winslett, community relations director of Blue Ridge Biofuels and UNC Asheville alumnus. "Small, community-scale projects are the best where you're transporting short distances."
By rotating crops, the soil replenishes certain nutrients because of the time off from producing a certain crop. But if farmers only grow corn, they lose the rotation. Since corn requires plenty of nutrients, this only adds to the use of fertilizers so farmers can maintain high yields, according to The Rush to Ethanol.
Fertilizers hurt the water system, according to the publication. Corn takes 40 percent of the fertilizers used in the United States. Of that, 98 percent receive commercial nitrogen, according to The Rush to Ethanol. By using these fertilizers, the runoff contaminates the water supply while also hurting the soil. Ethanol plants use nearly 1 gallons of water to make 1 gallon of ethanol, according to The Rush to Ethanol.
Let's not forget about gasoline. Of course gasoline use hurts the environment, and by looking at the realities of corn ethanol, we should not forget about the costs of gasoline.
In a recent study published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a group of professors from different fields researched the effects of gasoline and different kinds of ethanol.
For gasoline, the group found the health and climate-change costs running at $469 million for every billion gallons made and used. Corn ethanol, depending on how producers make the fuel, costs from $472 million to $952 million, according to the PNAS.
Initially, corn ethanol made by using natural gas puts out less greenhouse gases than traditional gasoline, according to the PNAS. The study further points out that once farmers convert grasslands into cornfields, the gain from the natural-gas production runs into the red because of carbon emissions.
When gasoline or ethanol burns, not only does the fuel produce greenhouse gases, but also something called fine-particulate matter, according to the PNAS.
Fine-particulate matter stays in the atmosphere as microscopic solids or liquid droplets. The particles measure 2.5 micrometers or less, according to the EPA. Although these particles remain small, they affect health.
Some health effects include difficulty breathing, lowered use of lungs, non-fatal heart attacks and increased asthma, according to the EPA. For different kinds of fuel, different particle costs exist.
The fine-particulate matter health costs ran at 34 cents a gallon for gasoline and 93 cents a gallon for corn ethanol made by use of coal, according to the PNAS. So not only does corn ethanol hurt the environment, but the air you breathe as well.
Instead of abandoning alternative fuels we need an understanding of the fuels.
"We have tons of opportunities in just about every community in the United States," Winslett said.
In making any fuel, we must remember producers use the means available now for production. So the issue becomes a matter of overcoming the impact of fossil fuels for the benefits of the new fuel in hopes of greenhouse gas reduction and lower fuel prices.
Society could focus more of its efforts on sunlight. With sunlight, energy converts from light to electricity. If cars ran off of electricity, then certainly sunlight changes things around. Plug your car into your house and then wait for the conversion of energy so the car fills up. This remains a theory, but certainly requires less energy than other fuels. The point is, society must focus its attention on alternative fuels and creative ways to decrease greenhouse gases and emissions.
"We can't get around the global warming issue," Winslett said. "The more we diversify energy sources and transportation, the better off we are."
Products such as gasoline and ethanol don't exist naturally. Refiners produce these products from raw material, increasing greenhouse gases and depleting limited resources. This vicious cycle continues until no raw materials remain for harvest. No matter what fuel people use, costs always factor in the fuel production.
Think globally about the products you use the next time you fill up. Costs not only come from your pocket, but everywhere else. By focusing on every aspect of how nature gets converted into a product, we can see what serves as a reasonable alternative and what hurts us all in the long run.
Originally published in The Blue Banner, Spring 2009
Hard time: Reconsidering the costs of prisons
Ever question whether or not you'd go to prison? Well, statistics show more people serve time than you might think.
Last year, the Pew Center on the States and the Public Safety Performance Project released data showing more than one out of 100 adults sit behind bars in America. Although a high number, it reflects a growing trend across the United States, taxing society almost to its breaking point.
Prison populations nearly tripled between 1987 and 2007, according to the Pew study. With the increase of inmates, states must spend more money to keep prisoners locked up.
"For this detention facility alone, my budget to run this facility is $12 million dollars annually," said Major Glen Matayabas, operator of Asheville's Detention Facility.
In 2007, all money spent on corrections across the 50 states hit $49 billion, according to the Pew study. They expect this money to increase by $25 billion in 2011.
This amount of money does little in reforming prisoners, which means we need change in our prison policy.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, of 15 states releasing a total of 272,111 inmates in 1994, roughly two-thirds went back to prison within three years. The department lists this as the latest national figure on former inmates returning to prison.
"You just can't be a revolving door," said Matayabas.
Keeping people locked up doesn't necessarily keep crime down. Many inmates commit crimes after release, sending them back to prison and keeping costs high.
Even though society may say we need to lock up every criminal, prison remains expensive. Figures showed the average cost of keeping an inmate locked up ran around $23,876 in 2005, according to Pew.
This cost affects you.
States spend money on a number of things, such as transportation, health services and higher education.
Between 1987 and 2007, states increased spending on higher education by 21 percent, according to Pew. During the same time, states increased spending on prison correction by 127 percent. Well, if two-thirds of released prisoners return within three years, then the states really don't get their money's worth. These numbers also say something about our society. Do we care more about locking people up than education? What do we value?
Also, many prisoners have families. When parents divorce, someone must pay child support. And while the responsibility of child support sits on an inmate's shoulders in prison, many find they cannot make the payments.
For example, Pew cites a 2001 Massachusetts study that reported more than three-quarters of the state's inmates failed to pay child support during the previous year. Massachusetts might only be one example, but the point remains that others suffer while prisoners serve time.
So we have states spending huge amounts of money on something that doesn't work well. We have former prisoners committing crimes after release, showing prisons don't change behavior as expected. And we have families struggling because of lack of child-support payments. We need a change in this system. Interestingly, this change could start before a person ever commits a crime.
The Pew cites a study following children into adulthood and found the children attending pre-kindergarten classes committed less crime in childhood and adulthood, while also increasing high school graduation rates, employment and salary. The benefit-cost ratio ran at 16 to 1, according to the study. This solution demonstrates a preventive example of dealing with crime.
A publication titled Confronting Confinement: A Report of The Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons discusses violence in prison. The publication discusses how some prisons contain more inmates than they can handle, causing stress that almost guarantees violence in prison.
Confronting Confinement recommends rehabilitation and productivity programs which reduce violence and change behavior. The publication also recommends programs where criminals learn why they commit crimes and the consequences of their actions, which could lower recidivism rates by an estimated 10 percent.
"The answer is not always just building a new facility," said Matayabas. "Some of that money needs to go effectively for substance abuse and drug rehabilitation."
Also, prisons can focus on community and family bonds in order to reduce violence, according to Confronting Confinement. These good suggestions get to the core of the problem. Instead of throwing money at it and hoping for the best, we need prison reform to focus on changing behavior not only for the prisoner's sake, but for society as well. We must remember behavior learned in prison can potentially spill into the streets.
If this doesn't seem like enough to change policy, then society can also focus on the health costs. Every year, a released 1.5 million inmates carry some kind of life-threatening disease, according to Confronting Confinement. In addition, the publication estimates some 350,000 inmates suffer from mental illness.
Aside from the medical costs of treating these conditions, these medical conditions affect public safety as well because inmates return to society. Even though they may be criminals, don't we have a responsibility to maintain their health in order to rehabilitate them for return to society as well as for our own health?
"We use an acronym. It's called SSQC," said Matayabas. "And what that means is, to run a safe facility, it just has to be safe, it has to be secure, it has to be quiet and it has to be clean."
The publication recommends screening and testing inmates at every prison and jail across America in order to find and treat these high rates. Prisons should also focus on the mentally ill for the same reasons, according to Confronting Confinement.
But if we don't think we have a responsibility to our prisoners, then let's keep throwing money at them. Let's keep running high-population prisons so they can spread disease. And let's keep up the overcrowding so violence rates remain high. You see, when one of every 100 adults sits in lockup, we have a problem on our hands. And while prison might not directly affect you, it certainly affects the society around you.
Originally published in The Blue Banner, Spring 2009
Last year, the Pew Center on the States and the Public Safety Performance Project released data showing more than one out of 100 adults sit behind bars in America. Although a high number, it reflects a growing trend across the United States, taxing society almost to its breaking point.
Prison populations nearly tripled between 1987 and 2007, according to the Pew study. With the increase of inmates, states must spend more money to keep prisoners locked up.
"For this detention facility alone, my budget to run this facility is $12 million dollars annually," said Major Glen Matayabas, operator of Asheville's Detention Facility.
In 2007, all money spent on corrections across the 50 states hit $49 billion, according to the Pew study. They expect this money to increase by $25 billion in 2011.
This amount of money does little in reforming prisoners, which means we need change in our prison policy.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, of 15 states releasing a total of 272,111 inmates in 1994, roughly two-thirds went back to prison within three years. The department lists this as the latest national figure on former inmates returning to prison.
"You just can't be a revolving door," said Matayabas.
Keeping people locked up doesn't necessarily keep crime down. Many inmates commit crimes after release, sending them back to prison and keeping costs high.
Even though society may say we need to lock up every criminal, prison remains expensive. Figures showed the average cost of keeping an inmate locked up ran around $23,876 in 2005, according to Pew.
This cost affects you.
States spend money on a number of things, such as transportation, health services and higher education.
Between 1987 and 2007, states increased spending on higher education by 21 percent, according to Pew. During the same time, states increased spending on prison correction by 127 percent. Well, if two-thirds of released prisoners return within three years, then the states really don't get their money's worth. These numbers also say something about our society. Do we care more about locking people up than education? What do we value?
Also, many prisoners have families. When parents divorce, someone must pay child support. And while the responsibility of child support sits on an inmate's shoulders in prison, many find they cannot make the payments.
For example, Pew cites a 2001 Massachusetts study that reported more than three-quarters of the state's inmates failed to pay child support during the previous year. Massachusetts might only be one example, but the point remains that others suffer while prisoners serve time.
So we have states spending huge amounts of money on something that doesn't work well. We have former prisoners committing crimes after release, showing prisons don't change behavior as expected. And we have families struggling because of lack of child-support payments. We need a change in this system. Interestingly, this change could start before a person ever commits a crime.
The Pew cites a study following children into adulthood and found the children attending pre-kindergarten classes committed less crime in childhood and adulthood, while also increasing high school graduation rates, employment and salary. The benefit-cost ratio ran at 16 to 1, according to the study. This solution demonstrates a preventive example of dealing with crime.
A publication titled Confronting Confinement: A Report of The Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons discusses violence in prison. The publication discusses how some prisons contain more inmates than they can handle, causing stress that almost guarantees violence in prison.
Confronting Confinement recommends rehabilitation and productivity programs which reduce violence and change behavior. The publication also recommends programs where criminals learn why they commit crimes and the consequences of their actions, which could lower recidivism rates by an estimated 10 percent.
"The answer is not always just building a new facility," said Matayabas. "Some of that money needs to go effectively for substance abuse and drug rehabilitation."
Also, prisons can focus on community and family bonds in order to reduce violence, according to Confronting Confinement. These good suggestions get to the core of the problem. Instead of throwing money at it and hoping for the best, we need prison reform to focus on changing behavior not only for the prisoner's sake, but for society as well. We must remember behavior learned in prison can potentially spill into the streets.
If this doesn't seem like enough to change policy, then society can also focus on the health costs. Every year, a released 1.5 million inmates carry some kind of life-threatening disease, according to Confronting Confinement. In addition, the publication estimates some 350,000 inmates suffer from mental illness.
Aside from the medical costs of treating these conditions, these medical conditions affect public safety as well because inmates return to society. Even though they may be criminals, don't we have a responsibility to maintain their health in order to rehabilitate them for return to society as well as for our own health?
"We use an acronym. It's called SSQC," said Matayabas. "And what that means is, to run a safe facility, it just has to be safe, it has to be secure, it has to be quiet and it has to be clean."
The publication recommends screening and testing inmates at every prison and jail across America in order to find and treat these high rates. Prisons should also focus on the mentally ill for the same reasons, according to Confronting Confinement.
But if we don't think we have a responsibility to our prisoners, then let's keep throwing money at them. Let's keep running high-population prisons so they can spread disease. And let's keep up the overcrowding so violence rates remain high. You see, when one of every 100 adults sits in lockup, we have a problem on our hands. And while prison might not directly affect you, it certainly affects the society around you.
Originally published in The Blue Banner, Spring 2009
Binge drinking shows immaturity of some students
With spring break behind us, some students might remember a nice vacation while others simply won't remember the break at all.
In 2005, two-thirds of students said they drank in the last month, while around 40 percent binge drank, according to Wasting the Best and Brightest: Substance Abuse at America's Colleges and Universities.
Binge drinking means drinking enough alcohol to raise the blood-alcohol concentration to 0.08 percent or more within two hours, according to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.
They define binge drinking as a type of drinking behavior averaging four or more drinks for women and five or more drinks for men within the time frame.
Wasting the Best further reported the rates of students frequently binge drinking increased by nearly 16 percent.
Sure, people drink on campus and obviously people binge drink, too, but just because something may be commonplace doesn't excuse it. We need to know why people binge drink in order to address it.
Wasting the Best reported that nearly half of all students drinking on campus drank for relaxation and to forget about their problems. The publication also said students want social acceptance.
But wait a minute. You already know this stuff. You know people binge drink, you know the reasons why and you know the dangers.
"Binge drinking is deadly," said Jackie McHargue, dean of students, in an e-mail interview. "Across the country, more than 1,000 students die every year in alcohol related deaths."
But if students know this, then why talk about it? For one thing, binge drinking sits high on the list of idiotic behaviors. Just think about the next morning. If you're cringing right now, then you know how the story goes.
There might be a reason for such a high prevalence on college campuses. We know most parents don't hover around students at college, but if students wait until they get to college and out of their sight, then binge drinking takes on a childish aura. Of course, students justify their juvenile behavior.
Wasting the Best listed several occasions when students engage in heavy drinking. These include freshman year, spring break and the 21st birthday. In other words, college made drinking a rite of passage. Right, and maybe we should make the first STD or failed course a rite of passage also.
However inane binge drinking may be, serious consequences exist when the drinking goes too far.
"Binge drinking can cause blackouts and place a student in a dangerous situation which can lead to sexual assault and other acts of violence," McHargue said. "Binge drinking also has a cumulative effect on the body - and mixing alcohol with other drugs (both prescribed and illegal) can be a deadly combination."
So while we know this information, and students know the risks involved, many continue to engage in the behavior.
Certainly colleges have an interest in curbing binge drinking. Students' safety remains one of the top priorities. However, this problem doesn't resolve itself easily.
Increasing the alcohol tax might be a way to end binge drinking. The Task Force on Community Preventive Services expects that if the price of beer increased by 1 percent, then consumption would drop by 0.5 percent. Wine consumption would drop 0.64 percent for the same increase.
In reality, more taxes do little to curb drinking. Binge drinking involves quite a bit of alcohol, so to stop it prices must rise significantly. However, that's not really fair to the rest of society. People who want a six-pack at the end of the day shouldn't pay exorbitant prices just because of college students. And let's not forget Prohibition and all the drinking it didn't stop.
The Task Force also discusses decreasing the number of days alcohol can be sold. They cite a study which found a correlation between alcohol consumption and the number of days it can be sold.
So if we decrease the number of days alcohol may be sold, then we'll see a decrease in consumption. This might work, but students could stock up for the weekend party, and this also keeps the regular drinker from getting alcohol because of college students.
These options do little to nothing to stop binge drinking and potentially upset the rest of society. However, one solution exists, and it looks promising.
Wasting the Best reported on a survey which showed some college professors holding exams or classes on Saturday morning.
This looks like a good deterrent to binge drinking because it forces students to choose between staying up late partying or studying for exams. This keeps society out of the picture because this only affects college campuses. This solution even shows the selfishness and immaturity of binge drinking.
By choosing to attend college, students must understand college as a privilege. Many people want to get a higher education, but find they cannot because they lack the means, background or grades. Such a privilege remains a luxury in our society.
When students binge drink, they not only violate this privilege, but also slap others in the face who cannot attend college.
Sure, plenty of students justify binge drinking as a part of the college experience, but this complacency removes the irresponsibility of binge drinking, which shows the immaturity of some. By having exams on Saturday morning professors put responsibility on their students to choose between studying and partying.
"Education on responsible decision-making occurs inside and outside the classroom," McHargue said. "We need to continue to hold students accountable when they violate our alcohol policies and utilize those opportunities to truly engage students in authentic conversation about their behavior."
Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. And just because binge drinking remains commonplace on campus doesn't make it a justifiable act. Until students get their priorities straight about why they came to college, binge drinking remains a childish and selfish act that lowers and hurts the value of college.
Originally published in The Blue Banner, Spring 2009
In 2005, two-thirds of students said they drank in the last month, while around 40 percent binge drank, according to Wasting the Best and Brightest: Substance Abuse at America's Colleges and Universities.
Binge drinking means drinking enough alcohol to raise the blood-alcohol concentration to 0.08 percent or more within two hours, according to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.
They define binge drinking as a type of drinking behavior averaging four or more drinks for women and five or more drinks for men within the time frame.
Wasting the Best further reported the rates of students frequently binge drinking increased by nearly 16 percent.
Sure, people drink on campus and obviously people binge drink, too, but just because something may be commonplace doesn't excuse it. We need to know why people binge drink in order to address it.
Wasting the Best reported that nearly half of all students drinking on campus drank for relaxation and to forget about their problems. The publication also said students want social acceptance.
But wait a minute. You already know this stuff. You know people binge drink, you know the reasons why and you know the dangers.
"Binge drinking is deadly," said Jackie McHargue, dean of students, in an e-mail interview. "Across the country, more than 1,000 students die every year in alcohol related deaths."
But if students know this, then why talk about it? For one thing, binge drinking sits high on the list of idiotic behaviors. Just think about the next morning. If you're cringing right now, then you know how the story goes.
There might be a reason for such a high prevalence on college campuses. We know most parents don't hover around students at college, but if students wait until they get to college and out of their sight, then binge drinking takes on a childish aura. Of course, students justify their juvenile behavior.
Wasting the Best listed several occasions when students engage in heavy drinking. These include freshman year, spring break and the 21st birthday. In other words, college made drinking a rite of passage. Right, and maybe we should make the first STD or failed course a rite of passage also.
However inane binge drinking may be, serious consequences exist when the drinking goes too far.
"Binge drinking can cause blackouts and place a student in a dangerous situation which can lead to sexual assault and other acts of violence," McHargue said. "Binge drinking also has a cumulative effect on the body - and mixing alcohol with other drugs (both prescribed and illegal) can be a deadly combination."
So while we know this information, and students know the risks involved, many continue to engage in the behavior.
Certainly colleges have an interest in curbing binge drinking. Students' safety remains one of the top priorities. However, this problem doesn't resolve itself easily.
Increasing the alcohol tax might be a way to end binge drinking. The Task Force on Community Preventive Services expects that if the price of beer increased by 1 percent, then consumption would drop by 0.5 percent. Wine consumption would drop 0.64 percent for the same increase.
In reality, more taxes do little to curb drinking. Binge drinking involves quite a bit of alcohol, so to stop it prices must rise significantly. However, that's not really fair to the rest of society. People who want a six-pack at the end of the day shouldn't pay exorbitant prices just because of college students. And let's not forget Prohibition and all the drinking it didn't stop.
The Task Force also discusses decreasing the number of days alcohol can be sold. They cite a study which found a correlation between alcohol consumption and the number of days it can be sold.
So if we decrease the number of days alcohol may be sold, then we'll see a decrease in consumption. This might work, but students could stock up for the weekend party, and this also keeps the regular drinker from getting alcohol because of college students.
These options do little to nothing to stop binge drinking and potentially upset the rest of society. However, one solution exists, and it looks promising.
Wasting the Best reported on a survey which showed some college professors holding exams or classes on Saturday morning.
This looks like a good deterrent to binge drinking because it forces students to choose between staying up late partying or studying for exams. This keeps society out of the picture because this only affects college campuses. This solution even shows the selfishness and immaturity of binge drinking.
By choosing to attend college, students must understand college as a privilege. Many people want to get a higher education, but find they cannot because they lack the means, background or grades. Such a privilege remains a luxury in our society.
When students binge drink, they not only violate this privilege, but also slap others in the face who cannot attend college.
Sure, plenty of students justify binge drinking as a part of the college experience, but this complacency removes the irresponsibility of binge drinking, which shows the immaturity of some. By having exams on Saturday morning professors put responsibility on their students to choose between studying and partying.
"Education on responsible decision-making occurs inside and outside the classroom," McHargue said. "We need to continue to hold students accountable when they violate our alcohol policies and utilize those opportunities to truly engage students in authentic conversation about their behavior."
Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. And just because binge drinking remains commonplace on campus doesn't make it a justifiable act. Until students get their priorities straight about why they came to college, binge drinking remains a childish and selfish act that lowers and hurts the value of college.
Originally published in The Blue Banner, Spring 2009
CDs continue steep decline as listeners adjust habits
While the release of the new iPod Shuffle continues a trend in music, it also signals the death of another format and a way of business.
A comparison of the third quarters of 2007 and 2008 reveals CD sales fell dramatically, according to the NPD Group, who conducts market research for all kinds of businesses.
The NPD reports the number of CDs sold during the above timeframe fell 19 percent. While CD sales fell, and continue to fall, the group reports younger listeners obtain more of their music from the Internet.
For example, in 2004, users downloaded approximately 140 million songs off the Internet. By 2007, this number grew to 810 million, according to the Recording Industry Association of America.
During those same years, CD sales fell from 767 million to roughly 512 million, according to the RIAA.
"CD sales have been down since MP3s have been booming online," said Mel Vail, an employee of F.Y.E. at the Asheville Mall. "We do more DVD sales than we do CD."
As this trend continues over time, it could mean death for CDs. And if CD sales continue to drop, then music stores will shut their doors. An unprecedented and depressing event, the closing of record stores shows the power of continually growing MP3 technology.
"Because we offer the used program here, that helps out with CD sales a lot," Vail said.
If you think about all the format changes for music, they not only changed the quality of music delivered, but the medium in which people played them. For example, when the music industry went from cassettes to CDs, the change kept music stores alive because people still bought a tangible item. With digital downloads, the transaction occurs electronically.
According to the NPD, 15 percent of Internet users got their music from stores like iTunes and AmazonMP3 during the 2008 third quarter. The iPod can carry so many songs because of the MP3 format's small file size.
While most of the online downloads are MP3, listeners lose quality in exchange for having so many songs on their players.
"MP3s are horrible. The sound quality is bad," Vail said. "It just doesn't sound the same to me."
MP3 works by compressing the audio information from a track by throwing out redundant information, according to Walt Crawford, a well-known author and speaker on technologies and media, in addition to other topics.
Crawford ran his own informal tests comparing MP3 quality to CDs. He acknowledged his audio system as mediocre and found most of the MP3 music acceptable, but not of CD quality.
Of course, we can go into the quality at which he played the MP3s and what's available today, but such a topic wastes time.
If today's music listeners cared more about quality over portability, which MP3 players champion themselves on, then the huge amounts of digital downloads simply wouldn't occur.
This concern of portability over quality might be a generational thing because the NPD reports more young people embrace this compared to older people.
The Group reports that last year, teens bought 34 percent more digital music than in 2007 during the third quarter. And with peer-to-peer file sharing, fewer teens burned shared files to CDs, which the group attributes to teens preferring digital music.
Also, many young users might not be concerned with quality at all. For example, do you know the difference between analog and digital signals in music? What about high-fidelity systems? And do you know why vinyl music still reaches a market?
You might not know any of the technical aspects; in fact, the questions really only concern those who truly care about audio quality. So, most people, while they may enjoy music and portability, certainly don't appreciate good quality audio.
If MP3 technology eventually becomes the main way for people to get their music, this not only affects music stores closing, but bands as well.
Consider how bands must promote themselves. Realistically, they must go on the road and push an album in order to get a following. The sale of music directly online undercuts lesser-known bands because they can't get as much exposure.
"I'm very, very supportive whenever I listen to music," Vail said. "I usually buy it directly from bands to keep them going."
The direct purchase of music from bands not only keeps them alive and able to cut more albums, but also maintains a standard in the music industry.
If people continue to use MP3s, an entire generation may never know what quality music sounds like. If people keep this low standard of quality, then our society loses a unique form of expression. And if you think an MP3 is good quality, check out a vinyl on a decent system; it might surprise you.
Of course, technologies change over time, and products fall by the wayside as they become obsolete. But we value music quite a bit in this country. Certain parts of society exist simply because of their music. By turning to compressed music, we not only lose quality, but also a part of ourselves.
We can only expect the trend of MP3s to continue over time. But if you want portability, don't worry. As time goes on, we'll start to compress MP3s. And then we'll compress that, too. So keep it up, and enjoy the noise. Most won't know the difference anyway.
Originally published in The Blue Banner, Spring 2009
A comparison of the third quarters of 2007 and 2008 reveals CD sales fell dramatically, according to the NPD Group, who conducts market research for all kinds of businesses.
The NPD reports the number of CDs sold during the above timeframe fell 19 percent. While CD sales fell, and continue to fall, the group reports younger listeners obtain more of their music from the Internet.
For example, in 2004, users downloaded approximately 140 million songs off the Internet. By 2007, this number grew to 810 million, according to the Recording Industry Association of America.
During those same years, CD sales fell from 767 million to roughly 512 million, according to the RIAA.
"CD sales have been down since MP3s have been booming online," said Mel Vail, an employee of F.Y.E. at the Asheville Mall. "We do more DVD sales than we do CD."
As this trend continues over time, it could mean death for CDs. And if CD sales continue to drop, then music stores will shut their doors. An unprecedented and depressing event, the closing of record stores shows the power of continually growing MP3 technology.
"Because we offer the used program here, that helps out with CD sales a lot," Vail said.
If you think about all the format changes for music, they not only changed the quality of music delivered, but the medium in which people played them. For example, when the music industry went from cassettes to CDs, the change kept music stores alive because people still bought a tangible item. With digital downloads, the transaction occurs electronically.
According to the NPD, 15 percent of Internet users got their music from stores like iTunes and AmazonMP3 during the 2008 third quarter. The iPod can carry so many songs because of the MP3 format's small file size.
While most of the online downloads are MP3, listeners lose quality in exchange for having so many songs on their players.
"MP3s are horrible. The sound quality is bad," Vail said. "It just doesn't sound the same to me."
MP3 works by compressing the audio information from a track by throwing out redundant information, according to Walt Crawford, a well-known author and speaker on technologies and media, in addition to other topics.
Crawford ran his own informal tests comparing MP3 quality to CDs. He acknowledged his audio system as mediocre and found most of the MP3 music acceptable, but not of CD quality.
Of course, we can go into the quality at which he played the MP3s and what's available today, but such a topic wastes time.
If today's music listeners cared more about quality over portability, which MP3 players champion themselves on, then the huge amounts of digital downloads simply wouldn't occur.
This concern of portability over quality might be a generational thing because the NPD reports more young people embrace this compared to older people.
The Group reports that last year, teens bought 34 percent more digital music than in 2007 during the third quarter. And with peer-to-peer file sharing, fewer teens burned shared files to CDs, which the group attributes to teens preferring digital music.
Also, many young users might not be concerned with quality at all. For example, do you know the difference between analog and digital signals in music? What about high-fidelity systems? And do you know why vinyl music still reaches a market?
You might not know any of the technical aspects; in fact, the questions really only concern those who truly care about audio quality. So, most people, while they may enjoy music and portability, certainly don't appreciate good quality audio.
If MP3 technology eventually becomes the main way for people to get their music, this not only affects music stores closing, but bands as well.
Consider how bands must promote themselves. Realistically, they must go on the road and push an album in order to get a following. The sale of music directly online undercuts lesser-known bands because they can't get as much exposure.
"I'm very, very supportive whenever I listen to music," Vail said. "I usually buy it directly from bands to keep them going."
The direct purchase of music from bands not only keeps them alive and able to cut more albums, but also maintains a standard in the music industry.
If people continue to use MP3s, an entire generation may never know what quality music sounds like. If people keep this low standard of quality, then our society loses a unique form of expression. And if you think an MP3 is good quality, check out a vinyl on a decent system; it might surprise you.
Of course, technologies change over time, and products fall by the wayside as they become obsolete. But we value music quite a bit in this country. Certain parts of society exist simply because of their music. By turning to compressed music, we not only lose quality, but also a part of ourselves.
We can only expect the trend of MP3s to continue over time. But if you want portability, don't worry. As time goes on, we'll start to compress MP3s. And then we'll compress that, too. So keep it up, and enjoy the noise. Most won't know the difference anyway.
Originally published in The Blue Banner, Spring 2009
Copyright violations lessen value of creative work
So who should be responsible? YouTube, its users, society or do we blame everyone for the current copyright mess?
The New York Times recently reported on people having their YouTube videos removed because they violated copyright laws. The article specifically focused on people playing copyrighted music in their videos and copyright holders not receiving compensation from YouTube on pages with the work.
"I wouldn't think that my singing somebody else's song would hurt their sales," said Jim Kuhlman, UNC Asheville librarian and chief information officer. "It's not like you're making a recording and then selling it and making a fortune and therefore the vendor's losing a lot."
While copyright violations remain a hot topic in society, the violations show how little people know about what they can and cannot legally put online.
Whenever someone wishes to use a copyrighted work legally without the permission of the copyright holder, they do so by using the fair use doctrine, according to the U.S. Copyright Office.
In school, fair use allows students to use published and copyrighted works for educational purposes. In fact, the U.S. Copyright Office lists several reasons when a use may be considered fair use. These include comment and criticism, news reporting and teaching. In addition, the use must pass a four-part test to determine fair use, and the U.S. Copyright Office points out that the test doesn't always clearly distinguish between fair use and infringement in cases. In other words, it's a complicated mess.
Whenever someone puts a video up on YouTube in which they included copyrighted music, or any other commercial copyright, we need to ask why. Why put up a video of yourself using or playing another person's work?
"You know I think you could make a reasonable argument that what was really going on was that 'I am using this particular song as a means of self-expression,'" Kuhlman said. "And that's the primary focus of it; therefore, my recording this song is fair use because it's really for self-expression."
Of course with self-expression, people need to keep the recording as original as possible. By staying original, people don't compete with the artist who wrote the song.
"It's my self-expression and that's got nothing to do with affecting the sales of the song," Kuhlman said.
But people using copyrighted work illegally didn't start with YouTube. It started a little over a decade ago with Napster.
When Napster first came around, people used it to the point of overkill in getting music for free. Record labels and musicians began to lose money, which eventually forced us into the iTunes era where we pay a small fee per song. And whether or not you like it, such a business practice maintains integrity and standards.
"It's the same violation of copyright to take a program off the air or a song off the air," Kuhlman said in reference to years ago when people recorded on video and cassettes. "And one of the ways that they dealt with it was that some part of what you pay for a blank video tape or cassette tape went to a general copyright fund."
Maybe YouTube and copyright holders could set up a similar system. For instance, people could, through YouTube, pay a small fee in order to use a song in a video. And so that copyright holders will still make money, maybe the small fee only lasts for a year before the user must pay again.
If musicians never received compensation for their work they would simply stop playing. Yes, these people make millions of dollars, but that shouldn't be justification to break the law.
"I would think a fairly nominal fee should take care of it," Kuhlman said.
Fair use can get exceptionally confusing when users post clips of movies and television shows. For example, professors on campus show videos on YouTube every now and then. This certainly falls under fair use because it's an educational purpose. But the people posting them online don't seem to do it for educational purposes. They don't seem to have much purpose at all except to post a video, which, as The New York Times article discussed, creates a problem because YouTube gets advertising dollars on pages where copyrighted work appears.
People need to figure out their priorities for putting something online. Because the Internet brings us closer together, we must take into account the different responsibilities. It would have been acceptable for someone to make a VHS recording from a television show 10 or 15 years ago because it would not appear online.
"Of course, back in that time and in that sort of format, even though it may have been infringement, people who owned it didn't really know that you infringed. And when you infringed, it wouldn't go to everybody on earth," Kuhlman said.
We no longer live in those days and so we must understand why posting something wouldn't be acceptable. But it's not a bad thing.
If people stop posting copyrighted music online, it forces them to become more creative. And if they become more creative and successful on YouTube, maybe a label will pick the person up. Imagine: Someone using their own copyrighted, creative work to make money.
Almost a foreign idea these days, when people do something original they deserve the credit. Covers of songs might be a form of self-expression, but if people never go beyond that, they start to look like a karaoke singer. And think back over the course of history. Aside from the few exceptions, the truly original people line the halls of fame.
Originally published in The Blue Banner, Spring 2009
The New York Times recently reported on people having their YouTube videos removed because they violated copyright laws. The article specifically focused on people playing copyrighted music in their videos and copyright holders not receiving compensation from YouTube on pages with the work.
"I wouldn't think that my singing somebody else's song would hurt their sales," said Jim Kuhlman, UNC Asheville librarian and chief information officer. "It's not like you're making a recording and then selling it and making a fortune and therefore the vendor's losing a lot."
While copyright violations remain a hot topic in society, the violations show how little people know about what they can and cannot legally put online.
Whenever someone wishes to use a copyrighted work legally without the permission of the copyright holder, they do so by using the fair use doctrine, according to the U.S. Copyright Office.
In school, fair use allows students to use published and copyrighted works for educational purposes. In fact, the U.S. Copyright Office lists several reasons when a use may be considered fair use. These include comment and criticism, news reporting and teaching. In addition, the use must pass a four-part test to determine fair use, and the U.S. Copyright Office points out that the test doesn't always clearly distinguish between fair use and infringement in cases. In other words, it's a complicated mess.
Whenever someone puts a video up on YouTube in which they included copyrighted music, or any other commercial copyright, we need to ask why. Why put up a video of yourself using or playing another person's work?
"You know I think you could make a reasonable argument that what was really going on was that 'I am using this particular song as a means of self-expression,'" Kuhlman said. "And that's the primary focus of it; therefore, my recording this song is fair use because it's really for self-expression."
Of course with self-expression, people need to keep the recording as original as possible. By staying original, people don't compete with the artist who wrote the song.
"It's my self-expression and that's got nothing to do with affecting the sales of the song," Kuhlman said.
But people using copyrighted work illegally didn't start with YouTube. It started a little over a decade ago with Napster.
When Napster first came around, people used it to the point of overkill in getting music for free. Record labels and musicians began to lose money, which eventually forced us into the iTunes era where we pay a small fee per song. And whether or not you like it, such a business practice maintains integrity and standards.
"It's the same violation of copyright to take a program off the air or a song off the air," Kuhlman said in reference to years ago when people recorded on video and cassettes. "And one of the ways that they dealt with it was that some part of what you pay for a blank video tape or cassette tape went to a general copyright fund."
Maybe YouTube and copyright holders could set up a similar system. For instance, people could, through YouTube, pay a small fee in order to use a song in a video. And so that copyright holders will still make money, maybe the small fee only lasts for a year before the user must pay again.
If musicians never received compensation for their work they would simply stop playing. Yes, these people make millions of dollars, but that shouldn't be justification to break the law.
"I would think a fairly nominal fee should take care of it," Kuhlman said.
Fair use can get exceptionally confusing when users post clips of movies and television shows. For example, professors on campus show videos on YouTube every now and then. This certainly falls under fair use because it's an educational purpose. But the people posting them online don't seem to do it for educational purposes. They don't seem to have much purpose at all except to post a video, which, as The New York Times article discussed, creates a problem because YouTube gets advertising dollars on pages where copyrighted work appears.
People need to figure out their priorities for putting something online. Because the Internet brings us closer together, we must take into account the different responsibilities. It would have been acceptable for someone to make a VHS recording from a television show 10 or 15 years ago because it would not appear online.
"Of course, back in that time and in that sort of format, even though it may have been infringement, people who owned it didn't really know that you infringed. And when you infringed, it wouldn't go to everybody on earth," Kuhlman said.
We no longer live in those days and so we must understand why posting something wouldn't be acceptable. But it's not a bad thing.
If people stop posting copyrighted music online, it forces them to become more creative. And if they become more creative and successful on YouTube, maybe a label will pick the person up. Imagine: Someone using their own copyrighted, creative work to make money.
Almost a foreign idea these days, when people do something original they deserve the credit. Covers of songs might be a form of self-expression, but if people never go beyond that, they start to look like a karaoke singer. And think back over the course of history. Aside from the few exceptions, the truly original people line the halls of fame.
Originally published in The Blue Banner, Spring 2009
Legislators consider repealing outdated liquor laws
Hang out in front of a liquor store in Asheville on a Saturday night and watch the mad rush of people, because they know they won't get anything at an ABC store on Sunday.
At the end of March, lawmakers finally put forth legislation about letting ABC stores open on Sunday, according to the North Carolina General Assembly. This bill would give ABC stores the option of selling liquor on Sunday.
Blue laws stretch all the way back to the beginning of the country, and these laws restricted activities on Sunday, according to Jonathan Gruber of MIT and the National Bureau of Economic Research, as well as Daniel M. Hungerman of Notre Dame. Not only did these laws restrict alcohol sales, but retail activities as well.
Around the middle of the 20th century and onward, many state governments repealed blue laws because of a Supreme Court ruling, and by 2005 only eight states had blue laws restricting retail activity on Sunday, according to Gruber and Hungerman.
In N.C., the state government still carries blue laws regulating when alcohol may be sold. ABC stores remain closed for the usual holidays like Christmas and Thanksgiving, but also stay closed on Sunday, according to current state law. People can purchase beer and wine, but only after 12 p.m.
"We do not feel that there would be a significant increase in sales. Most consumers shop for their spirituous liquor before Sunday, and I do not see those patterns changing," said Curtis Canty, chief executive officer of the Asheville ABC Board.
But in the 21st century, we must recognize the antiquity of the blue laws for the state. What purpose do they serve in this day and time? Sure, people might not want others to buy liquor on a Sunday, but it's a bit ironic.
It's ironic because people wanting to buy liquor on a Sunday might not care about religious observances. Some might, but if people cared more about religious services than buying liquor, this would be a non-issue.
"It varies across the state with some in favor, but most do not want the law to change," Canty said.
In their research, Gruber and Hungerman set up experimental models to find out what would happen if states repealed blue laws. They found increased drug use and drinking among religious individuals after the repeal of blue laws when compared against other people. Some might argue such findings warrant us to keep blue laws, but it brings up another problem.
We can't forget about the separation between church and state. Lawmakers should consider repealing blue laws because they show favoritism toward religion, specifically Christianity.
Since no blue laws exist for Saturday, which other religions keep for their Sabbath, current blue laws clearly tie one specific religion to law, which is unconstitutional.
In recognizing the ridiculousness of blue laws, we can't blame Christianity or lawmakers. We must understand the time in which these people lived and what they valued. Of course, values change over time.
If the state repeals the blue laws, they don't force anybody to buy alcohol. They simply give people the choice. And people wanting to observe the Sabbath can continue to do so as well. Choice in anything almost always wins over not being allowed to choose.
So saying the repeal of blue laws makes religious people drink more really strips away that person's ability to choose for themselves. Sure they drink more, but didn't they choose it?
"The current bill before the legislature leaves the decision as a 'local option,' meaning a system could decide to not be open on Sunday," Canty said.
Some communities throughout the state may wish to continue the blue laws in their area. Others might want to sell alcohol within normal business hours. And some places might come up with totally different ideas on how to handle alcohol sales.
"Each system in N.C. would set their own hours if they choose to open," Canty said.
If we let the local ABCs set up the hours for liquor sales, then we see a more direct representation of the community. With more input from the people the laws will affect, lawmakers can understand the community's values easier while also addressing issues that matter.
Because tourism makes up a big chunk of Asheville's economy, the city could profit from increased sales on Sunday.
But to be fair to blue laws, they do more than keep people from buying liquor.
Sunday remains a day of rest across most of the country. Many retail businesses open later and close sooner and the day brings the end of the weekend. In any community where people recognize this rest, we can be sure they will put reasonable restrictions on alcohol.
And although Gruber and Hungerman note it's possible for people to choose work and leisure over religious activities after the repeal of blue laws, people shouldn't use this as firepower to keep the law alive, either.
Because people can already buy beer and wine on Sunday, the inclusion of liquor won't necessarily drive people from church. Also, most retail businesses and restaurants operate on Sunday, which means people pursue these things already.
So what's the problem with letting ABC stores open on Sunday?
Perhaps ABC stores, like stores that sell beer and wine, could open at noon but close at five or six. This reinforces the day of rest, but also allows people to buy liquor. Moderation remains the key.
As with any kind of law, society needs a balance. One of the best balances comes from letting people choose. When people choose what they want over laws telling them what to do, they find their own moderation, which only brings out the best in communities.
Originally published in The Blue Banner, Spring 2009
At the end of March, lawmakers finally put forth legislation about letting ABC stores open on Sunday, according to the North Carolina General Assembly. This bill would give ABC stores the option of selling liquor on Sunday.
Blue laws stretch all the way back to the beginning of the country, and these laws restricted activities on Sunday, according to Jonathan Gruber of MIT and the National Bureau of Economic Research, as well as Daniel M. Hungerman of Notre Dame. Not only did these laws restrict alcohol sales, but retail activities as well.
Around the middle of the 20th century and onward, many state governments repealed blue laws because of a Supreme Court ruling, and by 2005 only eight states had blue laws restricting retail activity on Sunday, according to Gruber and Hungerman.
In N.C., the state government still carries blue laws regulating when alcohol may be sold. ABC stores remain closed for the usual holidays like Christmas and Thanksgiving, but also stay closed on Sunday, according to current state law. People can purchase beer and wine, but only after 12 p.m.
"We do not feel that there would be a significant increase in sales. Most consumers shop for their spirituous liquor before Sunday, and I do not see those patterns changing," said Curtis Canty, chief executive officer of the Asheville ABC Board.
But in the 21st century, we must recognize the antiquity of the blue laws for the state. What purpose do they serve in this day and time? Sure, people might not want others to buy liquor on a Sunday, but it's a bit ironic.
It's ironic because people wanting to buy liquor on a Sunday might not care about religious observances. Some might, but if people cared more about religious services than buying liquor, this would be a non-issue.
"It varies across the state with some in favor, but most do not want the law to change," Canty said.
In their research, Gruber and Hungerman set up experimental models to find out what would happen if states repealed blue laws. They found increased drug use and drinking among religious individuals after the repeal of blue laws when compared against other people. Some might argue such findings warrant us to keep blue laws, but it brings up another problem.
We can't forget about the separation between church and state. Lawmakers should consider repealing blue laws because they show favoritism toward religion, specifically Christianity.
Since no blue laws exist for Saturday, which other religions keep for their Sabbath, current blue laws clearly tie one specific religion to law, which is unconstitutional.
In recognizing the ridiculousness of blue laws, we can't blame Christianity or lawmakers. We must understand the time in which these people lived and what they valued. Of course, values change over time.
If the state repeals the blue laws, they don't force anybody to buy alcohol. They simply give people the choice. And people wanting to observe the Sabbath can continue to do so as well. Choice in anything almost always wins over not being allowed to choose.
So saying the repeal of blue laws makes religious people drink more really strips away that person's ability to choose for themselves. Sure they drink more, but didn't they choose it?
"The current bill before the legislature leaves the decision as a 'local option,' meaning a system could decide to not be open on Sunday," Canty said.
Some communities throughout the state may wish to continue the blue laws in their area. Others might want to sell alcohol within normal business hours. And some places might come up with totally different ideas on how to handle alcohol sales.
"Each system in N.C. would set their own hours if they choose to open," Canty said.
If we let the local ABCs set up the hours for liquor sales, then we see a more direct representation of the community. With more input from the people the laws will affect, lawmakers can understand the community's values easier while also addressing issues that matter.
Because tourism makes up a big chunk of Asheville's economy, the city could profit from increased sales on Sunday.
But to be fair to blue laws, they do more than keep people from buying liquor.
Sunday remains a day of rest across most of the country. Many retail businesses open later and close sooner and the day brings the end of the weekend. In any community where people recognize this rest, we can be sure they will put reasonable restrictions on alcohol.
And although Gruber and Hungerman note it's possible for people to choose work and leisure over religious activities after the repeal of blue laws, people shouldn't use this as firepower to keep the law alive, either.
Because people can already buy beer and wine on Sunday, the inclusion of liquor won't necessarily drive people from church. Also, most retail businesses and restaurants operate on Sunday, which means people pursue these things already.
So what's the problem with letting ABC stores open on Sunday?
Perhaps ABC stores, like stores that sell beer and wine, could open at noon but close at five or six. This reinforces the day of rest, but also allows people to buy liquor. Moderation remains the key.
As with any kind of law, society needs a balance. One of the best balances comes from letting people choose. When people choose what they want over laws telling them what to do, they find their own moderation, which only brings out the best in communities.
Originally published in The Blue Banner, Spring 2009
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Organic food stimulates the health, economy
While organic food might conjure up images of good wholesome foods, in some situations organic might not be the way to go, either because of minimal health benefits or economic reasons.
Perhaps the biggest difference between organic food and regular food is the way farmers produce the food.
With regular or conventional farming, fertilizers, insecticides and herbicides are used to grow food, according to a report by the Mayo Clinic titled "Organic Foods: Are They Safer?"
Organic farmers use natural fertilizers, crop rotations and hand weeding to produce food. People might want to avoid the chemicals, and can do so by buying organic, but it brings up a dilemma.
Nutritionally speaking, no finalized data exists showing organic food to be better for you, according to the Mayo Clinic. Additionally, the Mayo Clinic reports the USDA doesn't claim organic to be better for you either.
"If you get your organic food locally, it's more likely to have been ripened on the plant and will probably taste better," said Amy Lanou, assistant professor of health and wellness. "If you get one of the large produce companies in California, for example, and it's picked two weeks before you eat it, it's going to taste different."
Lanou further discussed the relationship between produce and nutrients.
"On the nutritional end, it matters how live and rich the soil is," she said.
So why does the organic market continue to grow in grocery stores and markets?
For one thing, marketers love the term organic. If you imagine eating rich foods while sitting in the green field and under the blue sky the food was made in, then the marketers probably reached you. But just because organics don't necessarily bring better nutrition doesn't mean you should cut out organics.
Definitely the way organic farmers produce their crops helps the environment. Organic farming preserves the environment while conserving resources, according to the Mayo Clinic.
As far as pesticides matter, experts say they contain negligible health risks, according to the Mayo Clinic.
But Consumer Reports takes issue with this.
They list several fruits and vegetables like apples, cherries, spinach and potatoes as produce people should always buy organically because even after washing, pesticides stick around, according to USAD research.
However, they don't say whether or not these foods are safe to eat. They simply have higher levels of pesticides after washing compared to other fruits and vegetables.
"The safe level of pesticides is zero," Lanou said. "If there's something that older individuals shouldn't consume and babies shouldn't consume, then probably adults shouldn't consume it either."
So by buying these foods organically, people will avoid the ill effects of chemicals. True, but avoiding pesticides costs money.
On average, buying the above produce organically costs around 50 percent more, according to Consumer Reports. If you want to eat organic, you'll have to pay a premium, and such a premium remains a luxury. They also discuss buying seasonally and locally, but we'll get to that in a minute.
In our current economic situation, most people cannot afford to buy organic food. They simply lack the means. And there doesn't seem to be much of a push to get organic foods to poor people. When people can't afford organic produce, they must buy the cheaper fruits and vegetables. And no intelligent person would make the argument of totally avoiding conventional produce if people cannot buy organic.
"A very, very important part of maintaining health is increasing the fresh, whole-plant food consumption and the issues related to the way foods are grown are secondary to that," Lanou said.
Clearly, if the Mayo Clinic reports pesticides having minimal health risks while Consumer Reports says some fruits and vegetables should always be bought organically, then it's a cloudy debate even the experts can't agree on, which brings us to buying locally and seasonally.
People can often find good deals on food by going to tailgate markets when food is in season, according to Lanou.
Also, buying locally helps the local economy and also reduces greenhouse gases. For example, Lanou discussed buying apples from Hendersonville rather than Washington state because the purchase would be local.
Buying seasonally reduces the cost of produce because the stuff you buy generally came off a farm or out of garden just days ago. This also means less time from plant to plate, which means better tasting food.
But meat and dairy remain foods people really should try to eat organically as often as possible.
For one thing, buying organic meat means you avoid toxins in non-organic feed and the added hormones and antibiotics, which hinders human immune systems, according to Consumer Reports.
Also, non-organic dairy cows receive bovine growth hormones, which get into the milk, according to Lanou.
Unlike produce where you can peel away the skin to avoid pesticides, meat contains whatever chemicals used throughout the body, so people should heed this advice.
People don't always need to buy organic just because of the label. Sometimes the best stuff comes from an area's local farms. Of course you can still spend money on organic food, but the next time you do, think about where it comes from and think about other options.
Originally published in The Blue Banner, Spring 2009
Perhaps the biggest difference between organic food and regular food is the way farmers produce the food.
With regular or conventional farming, fertilizers, insecticides and herbicides are used to grow food, according to a report by the Mayo Clinic titled "Organic Foods: Are They Safer?"
Organic farmers use natural fertilizers, crop rotations and hand weeding to produce food. People might want to avoid the chemicals, and can do so by buying organic, but it brings up a dilemma.
Nutritionally speaking, no finalized data exists showing organic food to be better for you, according to the Mayo Clinic. Additionally, the Mayo Clinic reports the USDA doesn't claim organic to be better for you either.
"If you get your organic food locally, it's more likely to have been ripened on the plant and will probably taste better," said Amy Lanou, assistant professor of health and wellness. "If you get one of the large produce companies in California, for example, and it's picked two weeks before you eat it, it's going to taste different."
Lanou further discussed the relationship between produce and nutrients.
"On the nutritional end, it matters how live and rich the soil is," she said.
So why does the organic market continue to grow in grocery stores and markets?
For one thing, marketers love the term organic. If you imagine eating rich foods while sitting in the green field and under the blue sky the food was made in, then the marketers probably reached you. But just because organics don't necessarily bring better nutrition doesn't mean you should cut out organics.
Definitely the way organic farmers produce their crops helps the environment. Organic farming preserves the environment while conserving resources, according to the Mayo Clinic.
As far as pesticides matter, experts say they contain negligible health risks, according to the Mayo Clinic.
But Consumer Reports takes issue with this.
They list several fruits and vegetables like apples, cherries, spinach and potatoes as produce people should always buy organically because even after washing, pesticides stick around, according to USAD research.
However, they don't say whether or not these foods are safe to eat. They simply have higher levels of pesticides after washing compared to other fruits and vegetables.
"The safe level of pesticides is zero," Lanou said. "If there's something that older individuals shouldn't consume and babies shouldn't consume, then probably adults shouldn't consume it either."
So by buying these foods organically, people will avoid the ill effects of chemicals. True, but avoiding pesticides costs money.
On average, buying the above produce organically costs around 50 percent more, according to Consumer Reports. If you want to eat organic, you'll have to pay a premium, and such a premium remains a luxury. They also discuss buying seasonally and locally, but we'll get to that in a minute.
In our current economic situation, most people cannot afford to buy organic food. They simply lack the means. And there doesn't seem to be much of a push to get organic foods to poor people. When people can't afford organic produce, they must buy the cheaper fruits and vegetables. And no intelligent person would make the argument of totally avoiding conventional produce if people cannot buy organic.
"A very, very important part of maintaining health is increasing the fresh, whole-plant food consumption and the issues related to the way foods are grown are secondary to that," Lanou said.
Clearly, if the Mayo Clinic reports pesticides having minimal health risks while Consumer Reports says some fruits and vegetables should always be bought organically, then it's a cloudy debate even the experts can't agree on, which brings us to buying locally and seasonally.
People can often find good deals on food by going to tailgate markets when food is in season, according to Lanou.
Also, buying locally helps the local economy and also reduces greenhouse gases. For example, Lanou discussed buying apples from Hendersonville rather than Washington state because the purchase would be local.
Buying seasonally reduces the cost of produce because the stuff you buy generally came off a farm or out of garden just days ago. This also means less time from plant to plate, which means better tasting food.
But meat and dairy remain foods people really should try to eat organically as often as possible.
For one thing, buying organic meat means you avoid toxins in non-organic feed and the added hormones and antibiotics, which hinders human immune systems, according to Consumer Reports.
Also, non-organic dairy cows receive bovine growth hormones, which get into the milk, according to Lanou.
Unlike produce where you can peel away the skin to avoid pesticides, meat contains whatever chemicals used throughout the body, so people should heed this advice.
People don't always need to buy organic just because of the label. Sometimes the best stuff comes from an area's local farms. Of course you can still spend money on organic food, but the next time you do, think about where it comes from and think about other options.
Originally published in The Blue Banner, Spring 2009
New cigarette tax lowers smoking rate, revenue
Even though smoking remains one of the worst choices a person can make for their health, the new federal and North Carolina tax increase does little to help address the problem.
At the start of the month, the federal government increased the tax on cigarettes by roughly 60 cents, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Lawmakers passed it to raise money for children's health insurance.
The NCSL also reports some of the reasons states want to raise the tax rate include increasing available money and deterring smoking.
While certainly laudable goals, the tax hike doesn't make much sense.
If the purpose of raising taxes is to both deter smokers and to help health programs, then won't one affect the other?
If more smokers quit because of the tax increase, then less money will be available to fund health projects. However, the NCSL states the federal budget will increase by an estimated $33 billion over the next five years with this new tax. Maybe or maybe not.
By targeting smokers, lawmakers obviously want to get what looks like easy money. But the federal government might not be aware of who does the smoking, which affects available tax money.
People with a GED or less education have higher levels of smoking than those with undergraduate degrees or more, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Additionally, more people who smoke live below the poverty line than those above or at the line, according to the CDC.
Because we know more education correlates with higher income levels, the federal tobacco tax really goes after poor people because they make up the largest amount of smokers.
Sure, advocates for the tax increase can argue raising the tobacco tax deters people from smoking, and for some it does. But the advocates fail to see they tax themselves out of money because tax levels will eventually reach a point where no one will smoke. And then where will the money come from?
Advocates need to stop citing health reasons for people to stop smoking as well. One group called the Tax Foundation says anti-smoking groups seek higher taxes to reduce the health hazards of smoking. The foundation says the groups should seek prohibition of cigarettes, not higher taxes, if they really care about harmful effects.
Of course, prohibition will throw tobacco onto the black market which will increase crime. But with nearly half a million people dying each year from smoking, according to the CDC, prohibition might not be a bad thing. But that will never happen. Lawmakers would rather have the money.
And North Carolina would like a piece of the cake, too.
At the beginning of the year, lawmakers put forth a draft to the General Assembly which would increase cigarette tax from 1.75 cents a cigarette to 5.95 cents, or roughly 80 cents a pack, according to the North Carolina General Assembly. If the draft eventually gets submitted as a bill, the combined federal and state taxes will increase the cost of a pack of cigarettes by $1.40.
Additionally, the state recently called for a smoking ban in public places with minors present, according to the N.C. General Assembly. This looks like a logical solution to stop the health concerns of cigarettes, but falls flat on its face.
A ban on public places with minors means a smoking ban in restaurants, as several media outlets recently reported. And with lawmakers protecting minors from smoking, they should also ban the bad foods.
With the obesity rates across the country, it seems a ban of bad food in restaurants will help curb this problem. But with a ban, the state won't see money.
Perhaps that's why we saw lawmakers discussing a tax on soft drinks a few weeks ago in the media. Rather than ban the product or educate people on what happens with too much soda, government would rather get more green out of it.
Lawmakers might also cite personal choice as a reason they can't ban a product. Leave it up to the consumer and let the chips fall where they may. But if consumers get taxed to the point of not being able to afford a product, then they really don't have much of a choice.
This point brings us back to poor people. With the CDC reporting so many less educated people smoking, and less education meaning less money, no reasonable person can deny the government exploits the poor by increasing these taxes.
Lawmakers might also hide behind this tax by calling it a sin tax. If they want to tax sins, they can do a lot more than just single out smokers.
With the current raise in cigarette tax, the federal government wants to raise money for health programs. The Tax Foundation wants to know why smokers should be the focus of the tax.
They question why not tax other things in society as well, while also discussing how programs needing funding shouldn't be supported by one group of people. This point makes sense.
If government uses smokers to fund health programs, specifically children's health insurance, then taxes should be spread out across the board to fund the program.
Government can raise food or clothing taxes or could hold back a little more on paychecks. These broader taxes would be less since they spread out across different areas and more people, as opposed to the one big tax on cigarettes.
The point being, no single tax should discriminate against a group of people. And by heavily taxing cigarettes, the government targets the poor.
Smoking remains a harmful activity, but until some changes come around, people can't deny the exploitation of the government's tax.
Originally published in The Blue Banner, Spring 2009
At the start of the month, the federal government increased the tax on cigarettes by roughly 60 cents, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Lawmakers passed it to raise money for children's health insurance.
The NCSL also reports some of the reasons states want to raise the tax rate include increasing available money and deterring smoking.
While certainly laudable goals, the tax hike doesn't make much sense.
If the purpose of raising taxes is to both deter smokers and to help health programs, then won't one affect the other?
If more smokers quit because of the tax increase, then less money will be available to fund health projects. However, the NCSL states the federal budget will increase by an estimated $33 billion over the next five years with this new tax. Maybe or maybe not.
By targeting smokers, lawmakers obviously want to get what looks like easy money. But the federal government might not be aware of who does the smoking, which affects available tax money.
People with a GED or less education have higher levels of smoking than those with undergraduate degrees or more, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Additionally, more people who smoke live below the poverty line than those above or at the line, according to the CDC.
Because we know more education correlates with higher income levels, the federal tobacco tax really goes after poor people because they make up the largest amount of smokers.
Sure, advocates for the tax increase can argue raising the tobacco tax deters people from smoking, and for some it does. But the advocates fail to see they tax themselves out of money because tax levels will eventually reach a point where no one will smoke. And then where will the money come from?
Advocates need to stop citing health reasons for people to stop smoking as well. One group called the Tax Foundation says anti-smoking groups seek higher taxes to reduce the health hazards of smoking. The foundation says the groups should seek prohibition of cigarettes, not higher taxes, if they really care about harmful effects.
Of course, prohibition will throw tobacco onto the black market which will increase crime. But with nearly half a million people dying each year from smoking, according to the CDC, prohibition might not be a bad thing. But that will never happen. Lawmakers would rather have the money.
And North Carolina would like a piece of the cake, too.
At the beginning of the year, lawmakers put forth a draft to the General Assembly which would increase cigarette tax from 1.75 cents a cigarette to 5.95 cents, or roughly 80 cents a pack, according to the North Carolina General Assembly. If the draft eventually gets submitted as a bill, the combined federal and state taxes will increase the cost of a pack of cigarettes by $1.40.
Additionally, the state recently called for a smoking ban in public places with minors present, according to the N.C. General Assembly. This looks like a logical solution to stop the health concerns of cigarettes, but falls flat on its face.
A ban on public places with minors means a smoking ban in restaurants, as several media outlets recently reported. And with lawmakers protecting minors from smoking, they should also ban the bad foods.
With the obesity rates across the country, it seems a ban of bad food in restaurants will help curb this problem. But with a ban, the state won't see money.
Perhaps that's why we saw lawmakers discussing a tax on soft drinks a few weeks ago in the media. Rather than ban the product or educate people on what happens with too much soda, government would rather get more green out of it.
Lawmakers might also cite personal choice as a reason they can't ban a product. Leave it up to the consumer and let the chips fall where they may. But if consumers get taxed to the point of not being able to afford a product, then they really don't have much of a choice.
This point brings us back to poor people. With the CDC reporting so many less educated people smoking, and less education meaning less money, no reasonable person can deny the government exploits the poor by increasing these taxes.
Lawmakers might also hide behind this tax by calling it a sin tax. If they want to tax sins, they can do a lot more than just single out smokers.
With the current raise in cigarette tax, the federal government wants to raise money for health programs. The Tax Foundation wants to know why smokers should be the focus of the tax.
They question why not tax other things in society as well, while also discussing how programs needing funding shouldn't be supported by one group of people. This point makes sense.
If government uses smokers to fund health programs, specifically children's health insurance, then taxes should be spread out across the board to fund the program.
Government can raise food or clothing taxes or could hold back a little more on paychecks. These broader taxes would be less since they spread out across different areas and more people, as opposed to the one big tax on cigarettes.
The point being, no single tax should discriminate against a group of people. And by heavily taxing cigarettes, the government targets the poor.
Smoking remains a harmful activity, but until some changes come around, people can't deny the exploitation of the government's tax.
Originally published in The Blue Banner, Spring 2009
Ineffective anti-plastic bag policies damage environment
While San Francisco's plastic bag ban looks like it helps the environment, the lower energy costs and recycling ability of plastic prove otherwise.
San Francisco's legislature passed an ordinance in 2007 banning plastic bags from grocery stores and pharmacies.
By doing so, they remain the exception and not the rule, according to the American Chemistry Council.
The ban prohibits stores with more than $2 million in sales or pharmacies with five or more locations from offering traditional plastic bags to customers. Affected stores can only use compostable plastic bags, recyclable paper or reusable bags, according to the San Francisco ordinance.
Robert Lilienfeld, editor of the Use Less Stuff Report, visited San Francisco after the legislators passed the ban. He went to several different chains affected by the ban including Kroger, Whole Foods and Walgreens.
Lilienfeld found several retailers went back to using paper bags, which if recyclable, the ordinance allows. Additionally, he found customers didn't bring their own bags regularly.
Further, he reported plastic recycling bins were almost nonexistent or the employees of some stores were unaware of the bins.
Asheville grocery stores are embracing this idea. Earthfare allows customers to bring in their own bags or use store boxes to pack groceries. If customers still want plastic, they pay 5 cents per bag.
"We are trying to do our part to go green," said Kipp McDermott, assistant store manager of Earthfare.
Paper bags require more energy to produce. The ACC reports recyclable plastic bags use 70 percent less energy to make than paper bags. Additionally, they report plastic bags require 91 percent less energy to recycle than paper bags.
So San Francisco doesn't help the environment by banning plastic bags and allowing paper bags, and this runs against the national trend.
Most cities across the nation, including Los Angeles and Chicago, promote plastic bag recycling because they see the value it holds, according to the ACC.
From recycled plastic we get construction materials, fencing and more
bags, according to the ACC. But this also presents a problem.
"They take over 1,000 years to breakdown in the landfill, and only 1 to 3 percent of plastic bags actually get recycled," McDermott said.
Even though plastic bags require less energy to produce than paper bags, people might want to argue plastic bags hurt the environment.
Actually, the impact doesn't hurt quite as much as people might think.
Plastic bags make up a small part of the waste included in the U.S. municipal solid waste stream, according to the ACC.
The EPA reports the waste stream to be collected garbage, and what doesn't get recycled, like paper and yard waste ends up in the landfill.
The ACC reported grocery store and retail plastic bags make up less than .5 percent of the total waste stream. The group also reports more than 90 percent of Americans reuse their plastic bags, which is a form of recycling.
The San Francisco ordinance lists compostable plastic bags as one type of plastic bag grocery stores can use.
"They'll breakdown if you put them in an industrial size landfill," McDermott said.
So reusable bags, which must be made of certain materials, remain the final kind of bag people can use.
The ordinance defines a reusable bag as one made of cloth or other washable fabric or plastic that is at least 2.25 mm thick.
Realistically, this benefits the environment the most. Once people start using a cloth bag to carry their groceries in, they can be used for quite a while.
Also, Earthfare allows customers to use leftover boxes from grocery shipments to pack groceries, or they can bring their own bag, according to McDermott.
"We've had a really high success rate with the way we're doing it," McDermott said. "And we have cloth bags."
On the local level, you can do the same thing as well if you want to cut down on the number of bags you use. But you have to remember to take them into the store.
With Lilienfeld reporting fewer people taking in their own bags, perhaps people need an incentive.
Although Earthfare charges for plastic bags, the environment can still benefit.
"We do offer them. There is a 5 cent charge per plastic bag," McDermott said, adding the store donates this revenue to a nonprofit, which customers may choose. "We have one for clean energy, one for environmental and one for animal and wildlife."
In terms of the environment, cities need to go ahead and start banning paper bags. They require a lot of energy to create, and even though they might be recyclable, as the ordinance requires, people can do a lot better through plastic or their own bags.
We need to continue the national trend of recycling plastic bags and the promotion of cloth bags. Start making a difference by asking retailers about incentives for such an action.
By thinking about the environment, and by looking at the actual numbers, we not only educate ourselves on how we can improve ourselves, we also see what fails.
"We're not really doing it to compete with anyone," McDermott said. "We're just doing it because it's the right thing to do. And hopefully other businesses will see it's the right thing to do and will follow suit."
Originally published in The Blue Banner, Spring 2009
San Francisco's legislature passed an ordinance in 2007 banning plastic bags from grocery stores and pharmacies.
By doing so, they remain the exception and not the rule, according to the American Chemistry Council.
The ban prohibits stores with more than $2 million in sales or pharmacies with five or more locations from offering traditional plastic bags to customers. Affected stores can only use compostable plastic bags, recyclable paper or reusable bags, according to the San Francisco ordinance.
Robert Lilienfeld, editor of the Use Less Stuff Report, visited San Francisco after the legislators passed the ban. He went to several different chains affected by the ban including Kroger, Whole Foods and Walgreens.
Lilienfeld found several retailers went back to using paper bags, which if recyclable, the ordinance allows. Additionally, he found customers didn't bring their own bags regularly.
Further, he reported plastic recycling bins were almost nonexistent or the employees of some stores were unaware of the bins.
Asheville grocery stores are embracing this idea. Earthfare allows customers to bring in their own bags or use store boxes to pack groceries. If customers still want plastic, they pay 5 cents per bag.
"We are trying to do our part to go green," said Kipp McDermott, assistant store manager of Earthfare.
Paper bags require more energy to produce. The ACC reports recyclable plastic bags use 70 percent less energy to make than paper bags. Additionally, they report plastic bags require 91 percent less energy to recycle than paper bags.
So San Francisco doesn't help the environment by banning plastic bags and allowing paper bags, and this runs against the national trend.
Most cities across the nation, including Los Angeles and Chicago, promote plastic bag recycling because they see the value it holds, according to the ACC.
From recycled plastic we get construction materials, fencing and more
bags, according to the ACC. But this also presents a problem.
"They take over 1,000 years to breakdown in the landfill, and only 1 to 3 percent of plastic bags actually get recycled," McDermott said.
Even though plastic bags require less energy to produce than paper bags, people might want to argue plastic bags hurt the environment.
Actually, the impact doesn't hurt quite as much as people might think.
Plastic bags make up a small part of the waste included in the U.S. municipal solid waste stream, according to the ACC.
The EPA reports the waste stream to be collected garbage, and what doesn't get recycled, like paper and yard waste ends up in the landfill.
The ACC reported grocery store and retail plastic bags make up less than .5 percent of the total waste stream. The group also reports more than 90 percent of Americans reuse their plastic bags, which is a form of recycling.
The San Francisco ordinance lists compostable plastic bags as one type of plastic bag grocery stores can use.
"They'll breakdown if you put them in an industrial size landfill," McDermott said.
So reusable bags, which must be made of certain materials, remain the final kind of bag people can use.
The ordinance defines a reusable bag as one made of cloth or other washable fabric or plastic that is at least 2.25 mm thick.
Realistically, this benefits the environment the most. Once people start using a cloth bag to carry their groceries in, they can be used for quite a while.
Also, Earthfare allows customers to use leftover boxes from grocery shipments to pack groceries, or they can bring their own bag, according to McDermott.
"We've had a really high success rate with the way we're doing it," McDermott said. "And we have cloth bags."
On the local level, you can do the same thing as well if you want to cut down on the number of bags you use. But you have to remember to take them into the store.
With Lilienfeld reporting fewer people taking in their own bags, perhaps people need an incentive.
Although Earthfare charges for plastic bags, the environment can still benefit.
"We do offer them. There is a 5 cent charge per plastic bag," McDermott said, adding the store donates this revenue to a nonprofit, which customers may choose. "We have one for clean energy, one for environmental and one for animal and wildlife."
In terms of the environment, cities need to go ahead and start banning paper bags. They require a lot of energy to create, and even though they might be recyclable, as the ordinance requires, people can do a lot better through plastic or their own bags.
We need to continue the national trend of recycling plastic bags and the promotion of cloth bags. Start making a difference by asking retailers about incentives for such an action.
By thinking about the environment, and by looking at the actual numbers, we not only educate ourselves on how we can improve ourselves, we also see what fails.
"We're not really doing it to compete with anyone," McDermott said. "We're just doing it because it's the right thing to do. And hopefully other businesses will see it's the right thing to do and will follow suit."
Originally published in The Blue Banner, Spring 2009
Workplace drug tests are part of a faulty system
Even though drug testing at work can weed out potential problems for employers, it is still a misguided and ill-principled notion.
Of course, when we talk about drug testing, there are several different kinds acknowledged by officials.
There are pre-employment, post-accident and random drug tests, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.
The group identifies several reasons why employers drug test.
Namely, employers want to keep employees from taking drugs and alcohol. Employers also want to keep the workplace safe for other employees.
But these concerns and tests raise important questions.
First and foremost, what business is it of an employer what employees do during their free time? Sure, employers can argue they want clean employees, but to hold the personal choices of a worker in check for fear of a job violates personal space and assumes an employee is not competent enough to be responsible for their own well-being.
Further, if an employer sits down with an applicant, ready to hire the person, the conversation should revolve around how the applicant will be an asset to the company, not how a drug test is the final step before employment.
Ideally, the person who hires employees should know what to look for when interviewing applicants.
Meaning, after two or three interviews, it should be pretty easy, if not blatantly obvious, to tell if the person has a substance abuse problem, in which case they probably wouldn’t make it against the 50 or 100 other sober candidates.
The above two scenarios, holding personal choice in check and hiring an applicant, represent random and pre-employment screenings. That brings us to post-accident testing.
Post-accident testing is perhaps the most asinine of attempts to catch somebody on dope to fire them and not pay medical bills.
For example, the American Civil Liberties Union provides a scenario where a person goes out and smokes a joint on Saturday night, and when the person comes in Wednesday, the weekend’s THC won’t affect job performance, according to one of their briefing papers.
But a drug test might show positive for marijuana, points out the ACLU.
See the problem?
If the employee has an accident on Wednesday, clean and sober, they’ll probably test positive, which means job loss and a potentially weakened reputation.
Of course, the insurance companies backing the employer will throw high-fives all around while they wait for the next slip up.
Interestingly, a recent study entitled “Does Post-Accident Drug Testing Reduce Injuries? Evidence from a Large Retail Chain,” found accident-related claims in a retail chain fell off within more than a year of the unnamed Fortune 500 company implementing the post-accidental drug testing.
The authors of the study recognized two things. Either people stop taking drugs and alcohol, or people stop reporting accidents.
In the first case, if people quit taking drugs and alcohol, it’s their choice. It’s a shame that a drug test pushes a person to quit when quitting drugs or alcohol should come from a person’s decision for their own well-being.
But if people quit reporting accidents this creates a new problem in the workplace.
Failing to report an accident not only hurts an employee’s job performance, but also their own health.
For example, if a construction worker hurt their knee on the job, but was able to keep working and didn’t file a report, what’s to say that knee injury won’t turn into a lifelong condition?
True, that’s a hypothetical situation, but it points out that drug testing in the workplace potentially hurts employees.
Ideally, there shouldn’t be any drug testing. It should be noted this is not to encourage drugs and alcohol at the workplace, but to allow people to be responsible for themselves.
Rather, employers should start keeping a closer eye on their employees.
If an employee comes in with glazed, red eyes and doesn’t move too fast, perhaps the manager should test the employee then to see if they’re on drugs.
Instead of firing the employee on the spot, the employer should send the worker home and require them to go to a substance-abuse class.
Other than giving the employee a second chance, attending a class will motivate an employee to think more about their responsibility to their job and not to come in under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Americans are not going to stop taking drugs, and both employers and insurance companies know this.
Sure, the other side can argue drug testing keeps employees safe, but that’s not what drug testing is about.
Companies are able to save money on their insurance premiums by drug testing, which makes the practice a matter of money and not the employee’s health.
If insurance companies and businesses cared about worker’s health, they would encourage employees to take responsibility with their lives rather than to keep them in fear of losing their job.
Originally published in The Blue Banner, Fall 2009
Of course, when we talk about drug testing, there are several different kinds acknowledged by officials.
There are pre-employment, post-accident and random drug tests, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.
The group identifies several reasons why employers drug test.
Namely, employers want to keep employees from taking drugs and alcohol. Employers also want to keep the workplace safe for other employees.
But these concerns and tests raise important questions.
First and foremost, what business is it of an employer what employees do during their free time? Sure, employers can argue they want clean employees, but to hold the personal choices of a worker in check for fear of a job violates personal space and assumes an employee is not competent enough to be responsible for their own well-being.
Further, if an employer sits down with an applicant, ready to hire the person, the conversation should revolve around how the applicant will be an asset to the company, not how a drug test is the final step before employment.
Ideally, the person who hires employees should know what to look for when interviewing applicants.
Meaning, after two or three interviews, it should be pretty easy, if not blatantly obvious, to tell if the person has a substance abuse problem, in which case they probably wouldn’t make it against the 50 or 100 other sober candidates.
The above two scenarios, holding personal choice in check and hiring an applicant, represent random and pre-employment screenings. That brings us to post-accident testing.
Post-accident testing is perhaps the most asinine of attempts to catch somebody on dope to fire them and not pay medical bills.
For example, the American Civil Liberties Union provides a scenario where a person goes out and smokes a joint on Saturday night, and when the person comes in Wednesday, the weekend’s THC won’t affect job performance, according to one of their briefing papers.
But a drug test might show positive for marijuana, points out the ACLU.
See the problem?
If the employee has an accident on Wednesday, clean and sober, they’ll probably test positive, which means job loss and a potentially weakened reputation.
Of course, the insurance companies backing the employer will throw high-fives all around while they wait for the next slip up.
Interestingly, a recent study entitled “Does Post-Accident Drug Testing Reduce Injuries? Evidence from a Large Retail Chain,” found accident-related claims in a retail chain fell off within more than a year of the unnamed Fortune 500 company implementing the post-accidental drug testing.
The authors of the study recognized two things. Either people stop taking drugs and alcohol, or people stop reporting accidents.
In the first case, if people quit taking drugs and alcohol, it’s their choice. It’s a shame that a drug test pushes a person to quit when quitting drugs or alcohol should come from a person’s decision for their own well-being.
But if people quit reporting accidents this creates a new problem in the workplace.
Failing to report an accident not only hurts an employee’s job performance, but also their own health.
For example, if a construction worker hurt their knee on the job, but was able to keep working and didn’t file a report, what’s to say that knee injury won’t turn into a lifelong condition?
True, that’s a hypothetical situation, but it points out that drug testing in the workplace potentially hurts employees.
Ideally, there shouldn’t be any drug testing. It should be noted this is not to encourage drugs and alcohol at the workplace, but to allow people to be responsible for themselves.
Rather, employers should start keeping a closer eye on their employees.
If an employee comes in with glazed, red eyes and doesn’t move too fast, perhaps the manager should test the employee then to see if they’re on drugs.
Instead of firing the employee on the spot, the employer should send the worker home and require them to go to a substance-abuse class.
Other than giving the employee a second chance, attending a class will motivate an employee to think more about their responsibility to their job and not to come in under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Americans are not going to stop taking drugs, and both employers and insurance companies know this.
Sure, the other side can argue drug testing keeps employees safe, but that’s not what drug testing is about.
Companies are able to save money on their insurance premiums by drug testing, which makes the practice a matter of money and not the employee’s health.
If insurance companies and businesses cared about worker’s health, they would encourage employees to take responsibility with their lives rather than to keep them in fear of losing their job.
Originally published in The Blue Banner, Fall 2009
Collecting DNA during arrests assumes guilt rather than innocence
Despite the good intentions of the government to fight crime, collecting DNA from every Tom, Dick and Harry who the police arrest hinders our society more than it helps it.
A recent New York Times article reported the Federal Bureau of Investigations would join 15 states in collecting the DNA of arrested people or those being detained.
The article further reported the FBI plans to expand its DNA database by 80,000 a year to its already 6.7 million profiles.
Perhaps what the FBI, government and advocates of this move fail to remember is people have assumed innocence until proven guilty within the framework of the Constitution.
Sure, we’ll hear all about the crimes this will help solve and the wrongfully accused this plan will save, but such action only creates problems for everybody else.
This is not to say the convicted innocents and the unsolved crimes are worthless endeavors.
Quite the opposite of that, because maybe what police need are more accurate ways to collect and test DNA. This new procedure, however, takes things to a paranoid level.
Think about it.
It’s certainly possible that you could be out late one night and get picked up as a suspect in a felony crime. It’s a matter of being at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Maybe all you were doing was walking home from the bar one night, which is something millions of people have done.
Except you got arrested and, despite what we’ll all probably hear, you’ll be a suspect by default. Sound like something else in history?
Of course, the defense against this is to tell people to not commit crimes.
However, telling people to not commit crime is like telling a kid to never make a mistake.
This is not an avocation to commit crimes, but rather an attempt to highlight that making errors is part of being a human. Yes, even good and wholesome people can be around crime.
That’s not to say being around crime makes people guilty, but it certainly doesn’t look good in the eyes of the law. And remember, DNA is permanent.
Without ever making a mistake, people don’t learn right from wrong, good from bad or many of life’s lessons.
But let’s not forget who does the arresting, either.
When police make arrests, it’s because someone broke the law. But with law enforcement agencies collecting DNA, it’s certainly possible these same people protecting us could use such a procedure as leverage against civilians.
Not in a cruel sense, but just something which develops as collecting DNA becomes the norm. Such behavior, however, assumes people should not be allowed to make mistakes.
So why can’t the government learn this lesson? Perhaps it requires too much on their end.
As stated earlier, maybe police need better DNA collecting and testing of convicted criminals and of crime scenes. This will help ensure the wrongfully accused stay out of prison.
However, this brings up an interesting point with the wrongfully accused sitting behind bars. It means, somewhere on the pipeline, the government made a mistake. At some point between arresting people and hearing the gavel seal their fate, the government made a mistake.
Hard to imagine the government making a mistake, this point only highlights the need for a margin of error for civilians.
Making room for errors and understanding people make mistakes always works better than collecting the spit and blood of every suspect felon riding in a squad car wearing handcuffs. Only a government that thinks its citizens are criminals would believe otherwise.
This is not an avocation to commit crimes, but rather an attempt to highlight that making errors is part of being a human.
Yes, even good and wholesome people can be around crime.
That’s not to say being around crime makes people guilty, but it certainly doesn’t look good in the eyes of the law. And remember, DNA is permanent.
Without ever making a mistake, people don’t learn right from wrong, good from bad or many of life’s lessons.
But let’s not forget who does the arresting, either.
When police make arrests, it’s because someone broke the law.
But with law enforcement agencies collecting DNA, it’s certainly possible these same people protecting us could use such a procedure as leverage against civilians.
Not in a cruel sense, but just something that develops as collecting DNA becomes the norm.
Such behavior, however, assumes people should not be allowed to make mistakes.
So why can’t the government learn this lesson? Perhaps it requires too much on their end.
As stated earlier, maybe police need better DNA collecting and testing of convicted criminals and of crime scenes.
This will help ensure the wrongfully accused stay out of prison.
However, this brings up an interesting point with the wrongfully accused sitting behind bars.
It means, somewhere on the pipeline, something went wrong. At some point between arresting people and hearing the gavel seal their fate, the government made a mistake.
Hard to imagine the government making a mistake, this point only highlights the need for a margin of error for civilians.
Making room for errors and understanding people make mistakes always works better than collecting the spit and blood of every suspect felon riding in a squad car wearing handcuffs.
Only a government that thinks its citizens are criminals would believe otherwise.
Originally published in The Blue Banner, Spring 2010
A recent New York Times article reported the Federal Bureau of Investigations would join 15 states in collecting the DNA of arrested people or those being detained.
The article further reported the FBI plans to expand its DNA database by 80,000 a year to its already 6.7 million profiles.
Perhaps what the FBI, government and advocates of this move fail to remember is people have assumed innocence until proven guilty within the framework of the Constitution.
Sure, we’ll hear all about the crimes this will help solve and the wrongfully accused this plan will save, but such action only creates problems for everybody else.
This is not to say the convicted innocents and the unsolved crimes are worthless endeavors.
Quite the opposite of that, because maybe what police need are more accurate ways to collect and test DNA. This new procedure, however, takes things to a paranoid level.
Think about it.
It’s certainly possible that you could be out late one night and get picked up as a suspect in a felony crime. It’s a matter of being at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Maybe all you were doing was walking home from the bar one night, which is something millions of people have done.
Except you got arrested and, despite what we’ll all probably hear, you’ll be a suspect by default. Sound like something else in history?
Of course, the defense against this is to tell people to not commit crimes.
However, telling people to not commit crime is like telling a kid to never make a mistake.
This is not an avocation to commit crimes, but rather an attempt to highlight that making errors is part of being a human. Yes, even good and wholesome people can be around crime.
That’s not to say being around crime makes people guilty, but it certainly doesn’t look good in the eyes of the law. And remember, DNA is permanent.
Without ever making a mistake, people don’t learn right from wrong, good from bad or many of life’s lessons.
But let’s not forget who does the arresting, either.
When police make arrests, it’s because someone broke the law. But with law enforcement agencies collecting DNA, it’s certainly possible these same people protecting us could use such a procedure as leverage against civilians.
Not in a cruel sense, but just something which develops as collecting DNA becomes the norm. Such behavior, however, assumes people should not be allowed to make mistakes.
So why can’t the government learn this lesson? Perhaps it requires too much on their end.
As stated earlier, maybe police need better DNA collecting and testing of convicted criminals and of crime scenes. This will help ensure the wrongfully accused stay out of prison.
However, this brings up an interesting point with the wrongfully accused sitting behind bars. It means, somewhere on the pipeline, the government made a mistake. At some point between arresting people and hearing the gavel seal their fate, the government made a mistake.
Hard to imagine the government making a mistake, this point only highlights the need for a margin of error for civilians.
Making room for errors and understanding people make mistakes always works better than collecting the spit and blood of every suspect felon riding in a squad car wearing handcuffs. Only a government that thinks its citizens are criminals would believe otherwise.
This is not an avocation to commit crimes, but rather an attempt to highlight that making errors is part of being a human.
Yes, even good and wholesome people can be around crime.
That’s not to say being around crime makes people guilty, but it certainly doesn’t look good in the eyes of the law. And remember, DNA is permanent.
Without ever making a mistake, people don’t learn right from wrong, good from bad or many of life’s lessons.
But let’s not forget who does the arresting, either.
When police make arrests, it’s because someone broke the law.
But with law enforcement agencies collecting DNA, it’s certainly possible these same people protecting us could use such a procedure as leverage against civilians.
Not in a cruel sense, but just something that develops as collecting DNA becomes the norm.
Such behavior, however, assumes people should not be allowed to make mistakes.
So why can’t the government learn this lesson? Perhaps it requires too much on their end.
As stated earlier, maybe police need better DNA collecting and testing of convicted criminals and of crime scenes.
This will help ensure the wrongfully accused stay out of prison.
However, this brings up an interesting point with the wrongfully accused sitting behind bars.
It means, somewhere on the pipeline, something went wrong. At some point between arresting people and hearing the gavel seal their fate, the government made a mistake.
Hard to imagine the government making a mistake, this point only highlights the need for a margin of error for civilians.
Making room for errors and understanding people make mistakes always works better than collecting the spit and blood of every suspect felon riding in a squad car wearing handcuffs.
Only a government that thinks its citizens are criminals would believe otherwise.
Originally published in The Blue Banner, Spring 2010
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Police cut budget in weakened economy
With the weakened economy, the Asheville Police Department cut some items and personnel from their budget while staying focused on public safety.
“From a people perspective, I think police has more personnel than any other department in the city,” said Asheville Budget Director Tony McDowell. “Now, unfortunately, like I say, we’ve been in bad times lately so what’s happened is we’ve had to talk about ways to cut back on the budget.”
For the fiscal year 2005-06, the capital outlay for police was $82,257, according to the department. In 2008-09, that number fell to $17,090.
“What’s there, that $82,000 and what’s now down to $17,000, is they have small capital items they may need through the year,” McDowell said. “For them, maybe it’s some kind of tactical gear or something like that that’s going to cost over $5,000, but less than $20,000.”
The reduced budget reflects the crippled economy, according to Capt. Wade Wood, who works with the police budget.
“I know there were some years where we had a million dollars to purchase vehicles, and then we went down to $300,000 last year, or this current fiscal year. So that makes an impact,” he said.
Even though police had $300,000 in their fleet budget for the current fiscal year, they didn’t replace any of their vehicles, according to Asheville Police Chief Bill Hogan.
“Last year we did not replace any vehicles, and we eliminated four positions,” he said. “Citywide we were unable to give any raises to our employees, while their cost to live in Asheville continued to rise.”
The police used the $300,000 to offset the city deficit, according to Wood.
“It just went back to balance the city’s budget,” he said.
Additionally, the budget cuts affect community service, according to Hogan.
“We are also planning to reduce police overtime this year, and that will have a direct impact on service to the community,” he said. “At this point, throughout the city departments, all of our cuts will reduce to some degree the direct services we provide to our citizens and visitors.”
Money increased in the miscellaneous portion of the police budget, according to the department.
For the fiscal year 2005-06, miscellaneous revenue was a little more than $60,000. For 2008-09, the figure hit just slightly less than $110,000.
“One reason is they got money from the court fees,” McDowell said. “That’s about $40,000 in court fees. And the other big revenue in that category is about $50,000, and they have a false alarm fee.”
Police charge money if businesses continually have their alarm systems going off without a threat, McDowell said. The city implemented a false alarm fee when police continued to use their time responding to false alarms.
“We have a lot of items, but it all goes back to (the) general fund for noise-ordinance violations, animal violations, (and) false-alarm responses,” Wood said.
In the fiscal year 2005-06, the support bureau division had a little more than $1.8 million available, according to the department. For 2008-09, the division had slightly more than $3.6 million.
The support bureau division contains such divisions as police/fire communications, property control, court liaison, crime analysis and building maintenance, according to the department.
“I know they pay a lot of our larger contracts for our computer system, CIJI (Criminal Justice Information System), as well as our animal shelter fees,” Wood said. “I think we might’ve increased the personnel by a couple within that division we absorbed with the animal services around 2004-2005.”
The Information Technology budget originally funded the CIJI system, which Buncombe County administers, but the system eventually moved over to the support bureau division, according to McDowell.
Despite money increases in some areas and decreases in others, police stay vigilant with their mission, according to Hogan.
“We are a public safety operation, and we need sufficient personnel and equipment to respond to emergencies such as in-progress crimes and traffic crashes,” Hogan said. “We are the peace keepers of the community, and we need sufficient resources to protect our citizens, to maintain order in the city and (to) protect the constitutional freedoms of all citizens.”
“From a people perspective, I think police has more personnel than any other department in the city,” said Asheville Budget Director Tony McDowell. “Now, unfortunately, like I say, we’ve been in bad times lately so what’s happened is we’ve had to talk about ways to cut back on the budget.”
For the fiscal year 2005-06, the capital outlay for police was $82,257, according to the department. In 2008-09, that number fell to $17,090.
“What’s there, that $82,000 and what’s now down to $17,000, is they have small capital items they may need through the year,” McDowell said. “For them, maybe it’s some kind of tactical gear or something like that that’s going to cost over $5,000, but less than $20,000.”
The reduced budget reflects the crippled economy, according to Capt. Wade Wood, who works with the police budget.
“I know there were some years where we had a million dollars to purchase vehicles, and then we went down to $300,000 last year, or this current fiscal year. So that makes an impact,” he said.
Even though police had $300,000 in their fleet budget for the current fiscal year, they didn’t replace any of their vehicles, according to Asheville Police Chief Bill Hogan.
“Last year we did not replace any vehicles, and we eliminated four positions,” he said. “Citywide we were unable to give any raises to our employees, while their cost to live in Asheville continued to rise.”
The police used the $300,000 to offset the city deficit, according to Wood.
“It just went back to balance the city’s budget,” he said.
Additionally, the budget cuts affect community service, according to Hogan.
“We are also planning to reduce police overtime this year, and that will have a direct impact on service to the community,” he said. “At this point, throughout the city departments, all of our cuts will reduce to some degree the direct services we provide to our citizens and visitors.”
Money increased in the miscellaneous portion of the police budget, according to the department.
For the fiscal year 2005-06, miscellaneous revenue was a little more than $60,000. For 2008-09, the figure hit just slightly less than $110,000.
“One reason is they got money from the court fees,” McDowell said. “That’s about $40,000 in court fees. And the other big revenue in that category is about $50,000, and they have a false alarm fee.”
Police charge money if businesses continually have their alarm systems going off without a threat, McDowell said. The city implemented a false alarm fee when police continued to use their time responding to false alarms.
“We have a lot of items, but it all goes back to (the) general fund for noise-ordinance violations, animal violations, (and) false-alarm responses,” Wood said.
In the fiscal year 2005-06, the support bureau division had a little more than $1.8 million available, according to the department. For 2008-09, the division had slightly more than $3.6 million.
The support bureau division contains such divisions as police/fire communications, property control, court liaison, crime analysis and building maintenance, according to the department.
“I know they pay a lot of our larger contracts for our computer system, CIJI (Criminal Justice Information System), as well as our animal shelter fees,” Wood said. “I think we might’ve increased the personnel by a couple within that division we absorbed with the animal services around 2004-2005.”
The Information Technology budget originally funded the CIJI system, which Buncombe County administers, but the system eventually moved over to the support bureau division, according to McDowell.
Despite money increases in some areas and decreases in others, police stay vigilant with their mission, according to Hogan.
“We are a public safety operation, and we need sufficient personnel and equipment to respond to emergencies such as in-progress crimes and traffic crashes,” Hogan said. “We are the peace keepers of the community, and we need sufficient resources to protect our citizens, to maintain order in the city and (to) protect the constitutional freedoms of all citizens.”
National and local crime rates decrease in 2008
While both national and local crime rates decreased in 2008, more than routine police work helped bring the numbers down.
“What we’ve found over the years is when you reduce the amount of little disorder-type crime and nuisance-type crime throughout a community, it generally has an impact that’s felt all the way across the criminal spectrum where even violent crime is reduced,” said Criminal Investigations Division Capt. Tim Splain of the Asheville Police Department.
Nationwide, the number of violent crimes reported for 2008 decreased by almost 2 percent from 2007, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The violent crime rate dropped from roughly 467 per 100,000 inhabitants to about 455 per 100,000 inhabitants.
Asheville had 30 more violent crimes during the same time period, but had a decrease in the number of murders, down from 10 to two, according to the State Bureau of Investigation.
The Asheville police focus on violent crimes and gun-related crimes in an effort to keep people from using guns or shooting them in public, according to Splain.
“The other part of that is more jurisdictions do community policing and concentrate more widely on quality of life issues and minor kind of nuisance-type crimes,” he said. “And a lot of arrest work and investigation in there and our end result is we’re seeing anywhere from 20 percent to a 40 percent reduction in firearm-related calls for service which then also connects to a reduction in people being shot, people being killed, and on down the line.”
To further help fight crime, the police department’s crime analyst gathers data on reported crime and then the department addresses which areas need more attention, according to Splain.
“You’re going to find some differences here and there, but generally crime has come down and so I think we’re just part of that national trend,” said Ed Eads, the department’s crime analyst. “So people are going out less and there’s less opportunity for criminals to steal a pocketbook or that kind of thing.”
Unemployment benefits might also contribute to the downturn in crime, according to Eads.
“So there’s still a cushion going on, and that’s that people, yeah, they’re out of work, they’re probably staying home more, but they’re also getting funded in some way with the extended benefits.”
In addition to the downturn with the violent crime rate, the property crime rate also decreased by 1.6 percent nationally, according to the FBI. Even though the rate decreased, certain property crime types increased.
Nationally, burglary increased by 2 percent and larceny by 0.3 percent from 2007 to 2008, according to the FBI.
For Asheville’s reported larcenies, the city had 133 more between the two years, according to the SBI. Burglaries dropped from just over a thousand in 2007 to right above 900 in 2008.
“I think the property crimes are the things we really struggle with and that’s so hard to keep a handle on because some of that is, I mean, some of it’s probably symptomatic of the economy, although I wouldn’t paint that with a broad brush,” Splain said.
Police also arrest the same members of the homeless community for property crimes too, according to Splain, but that’s only a small segment of Asheville’s homeless population.
“And then we just, you know, there’s that other section of our population that are an addict population that are addicted to drugs that have resorted to, you know, break-ins and larcenies to further their drug habits, and that, we find, is always, you know, at the root of most property crimes,” he said.
Eads said another thing which sends up flags is spikes of crime.
“But if all of a sudden you have a real big spike, that kind of suggests you have one person or a group of persons involved in more than one breaking and entering,” he said. “And so I’ll look at those trends and just kind of see if something catches my eye.”
One person causing a lot of break-ins is another part of property crime that further makes it difficult to keep down, according to Splain.
“The other part of it is, you know, a person can break in and be successful at breaking in and stealing stuff from 20 places before we actually catch them and if they don’t admit to doing the break-ins and if there isn’t some other forensic evidence or underlying evidence we have, you know, a lot of these cases go unsolved.”
The police also meet every two weeks or so to discuss any new trends developing, whether the crime rises or falls, in an effort to stop crime before it gets out of hand, according to Eads.
“They can make sure they’re covering their patrol areas where those (crime upswings) are happening,” he said. “I think what we’re doing is helping, so I think what we’re doing is in the right direction, but I don’t see it accounting for the big drop, you know, that we’re seeing. I think that’s the national trend.”
Locally, aggressive efforts of the police contributed to the decrease in crime rates, according to Splain.
“At least locally, I credit our patrol officers and our drug suppression officers and our detectives who are out here aggressively working these violent crimes and violent crime activity, and also doing the community policing at the same time and gaining more trust, especially our low-income communities, and I think we’re seeing the benefit of that now,” he said.
“What we’ve found over the years is when you reduce the amount of little disorder-type crime and nuisance-type crime throughout a community, it generally has an impact that’s felt all the way across the criminal spectrum where even violent crime is reduced,” said Criminal Investigations Division Capt. Tim Splain of the Asheville Police Department.
Nationwide, the number of violent crimes reported for 2008 decreased by almost 2 percent from 2007, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The violent crime rate dropped from roughly 467 per 100,000 inhabitants to about 455 per 100,000 inhabitants.
Asheville had 30 more violent crimes during the same time period, but had a decrease in the number of murders, down from 10 to two, according to the State Bureau of Investigation.
The Asheville police focus on violent crimes and gun-related crimes in an effort to keep people from using guns or shooting them in public, according to Splain.
“The other part of that is more jurisdictions do community policing and concentrate more widely on quality of life issues and minor kind of nuisance-type crimes,” he said. “And a lot of arrest work and investigation in there and our end result is we’re seeing anywhere from 20 percent to a 40 percent reduction in firearm-related calls for service which then also connects to a reduction in people being shot, people being killed, and on down the line.”
To further help fight crime, the police department’s crime analyst gathers data on reported crime and then the department addresses which areas need more attention, according to Splain.
“You’re going to find some differences here and there, but generally crime has come down and so I think we’re just part of that national trend,” said Ed Eads, the department’s crime analyst. “So people are going out less and there’s less opportunity for criminals to steal a pocketbook or that kind of thing.”
Unemployment benefits might also contribute to the downturn in crime, according to Eads.
“So there’s still a cushion going on, and that’s that people, yeah, they’re out of work, they’re probably staying home more, but they’re also getting funded in some way with the extended benefits.”
In addition to the downturn with the violent crime rate, the property crime rate also decreased by 1.6 percent nationally, according to the FBI. Even though the rate decreased, certain property crime types increased.
Nationally, burglary increased by 2 percent and larceny by 0.3 percent from 2007 to 2008, according to the FBI.
For Asheville’s reported larcenies, the city had 133 more between the two years, according to the SBI. Burglaries dropped from just over a thousand in 2007 to right above 900 in 2008.
“I think the property crimes are the things we really struggle with and that’s so hard to keep a handle on because some of that is, I mean, some of it’s probably symptomatic of the economy, although I wouldn’t paint that with a broad brush,” Splain said.
Police also arrest the same members of the homeless community for property crimes too, according to Splain, but that’s only a small segment of Asheville’s homeless population.
“And then we just, you know, there’s that other section of our population that are an addict population that are addicted to drugs that have resorted to, you know, break-ins and larcenies to further their drug habits, and that, we find, is always, you know, at the root of most property crimes,” he said.
Eads said another thing which sends up flags is spikes of crime.
“But if all of a sudden you have a real big spike, that kind of suggests you have one person or a group of persons involved in more than one breaking and entering,” he said. “And so I’ll look at those trends and just kind of see if something catches my eye.”
One person causing a lot of break-ins is another part of property crime that further makes it difficult to keep down, according to Splain.
“The other part of it is, you know, a person can break in and be successful at breaking in and stealing stuff from 20 places before we actually catch them and if they don’t admit to doing the break-ins and if there isn’t some other forensic evidence or underlying evidence we have, you know, a lot of these cases go unsolved.”
The police also meet every two weeks or so to discuss any new trends developing, whether the crime rises or falls, in an effort to stop crime before it gets out of hand, according to Eads.
“They can make sure they’re covering their patrol areas where those (crime upswings) are happening,” he said. “I think what we’re doing is helping, so I think what we’re doing is in the right direction, but I don’t see it accounting for the big drop, you know, that we’re seeing. I think that’s the national trend.”
Locally, aggressive efforts of the police contributed to the decrease in crime rates, according to Splain.
“At least locally, I credit our patrol officers and our drug suppression officers and our detectives who are out here aggressively working these violent crimes and violent crime activity, and also doing the community policing at the same time and gaining more trust, especially our low-income communities, and I think we’re seeing the benefit of that now,” he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)