Volume 94, Issue 85

Friday, March 2, 2001


Letters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor

Mounties not on the ball

Re: Crime linked to abuse: study, Feb. 28.

To the Editor:

I'm writing in response to the story linking alcohol and drug abuse to crimes. I would just like to point out that correlation should not be confused with causation. Just because the Royal Canadian Mounted Police study indicates that 50 per cent of crimes are caused by individuals under the influence of drugs or alcohol, it doesn't mean crimes are a result of drug and alcohol use.

Although there is an apparent link between the two variables, I would like to suggest that there are other factors involved.

I think societal problems such as poverty, peer pressure or the decline of a strong nuclear family, seem to be stronger influences on behaviour.

It is very plausible that individuals growing up in poverty aren't able to spend as much time with their parents and do not have the opportunity to be taught the same family values that individuals living in a nuclear family are taught. Perhaps single parents are unable to discipline their children effectively due to a larger commitment to work in order to pay the bills. It could be rich kids are so spoiled that they think they can get away with everything, including using drugs and stealing for fun.

All of these are just possible examples that could cause individuals to both use drugs and commit crimes. I'm afraid that by simply addressing the drug issue, the RCMP is seeking to put a societal Band-aid for a much larger problem.

They are seeking to treat the symptoms instead of the disease that is plaguing our society. Perhaps when they come up with a plan to help eliminate poverty, strengthen the family unit and instill discipline in our future generations, their story will be worthy of a front page article.

Raf Bartosiak
Biology IV

Sin: What's the deal?

Re: Living Together, Feb. 27.

Why was the phrase "living in sin" used to point readers to the article "Living Together" on page eight of the Feb. 27 Gazette?

Is it because the author doesn't know what "living in sin" means? Or perhaps is it that the author does know and has hit on the irony of the situation by purposely leaving the word "love" out of the article. What kind of love is it that expects one's beloved to become totally vulnerable without providing them with a real pledge of commitment?

If it isn't love, then it must be selfishness (sin).

Michael Rodgers
Mechanical Engineering IV

Rules not overlooked

Re: Affiliates could have avoided the mess, March 1.

To the Editor:

I recognize your attention to the devotion that any member of a students' council has. However, your ignorance involving the procedures that they must follow is deplorable.

Allow me to take your comment about the "the minutiae of procedure" out of context. To me, being a member of the Brescia College Students' Council, means our constitution and rules surrounding elections are not to be overlooked.

The two presidential candidates were given a contract to sign that stated all posters had to be down by 6 p.m. on that particular day.

To me, if that contract is broken, by having posters up past 6 p.m., the candidate must deal with the consequence: Disqualification from the race.

As well, the members of the BCSC, in my opinion, did all that was possible to distance themselves from the presidential candidates, who are both members of the BCSC.

What has come to my attention is that there are issues within our constitution that need to be changed so that this problem does not reoccur.

In closing, my question to you is: What would happen if The Gazette did not pay attention to the "minutiae of procedure?" Please allow me to propose an answer: You have a front page story filled with errors and misinformation.

Julienne Spence
BCSC VP-communications
Brescia College

A prescription for "reality"

Re: Girl question stays political, Feb. 27.

To the Editor:

Before this issue is drilled out ad nauseam to the point of tedium and drags itself into yet another gender conflict issue, I would like to offer the "warring parties" a dose of reality.

First off, this issue regarding University Students' Council candidates and just who should be nominated is probably the last thing that Western students care about right now.

Most Western students don't even know anything about the USC, let alone the election process. Perhaps instead of trying to "order" more females to be nominated for candidacy, it would be more pertinent if the USC actually tried to make itself relevant to students first.

Secondly, I don't care if you're a male, female, both or neither; that's hardly an issue. All I really care about is whether you are capable for the position. If you're a good leader, and adequately demonstrate your capability to lead, then you have my vote.

Lawrence Loh
Honours Biochem/Chem II

To Contact The Opinions Department:

Copyright The Gazette 2000