To the editor:
The degree of welcome and ease that I felt stepping onto this campus was thoroughly disappointing. The team behind Dog Days made a goodhearted effort at introducing incoming freshmen to their new environment, but they breezed over a few vital components. Our lack of familiarity with the campus made it very difficult to find our new classes. Furthermore, I’m frustrated that there weren’t prescheduled appointments for each new student to meet with their counselor. With Fresno State’s distinguished reputation, it’s disturbing that these issues haven’t already been addressed.
To the editor:
Fresno State has great teachers, incredible students and a beautiful campus; however, a negative aspect to Fresno State are students smoking in non-smoking areas. It is incredibly irritating when you are walking to your class enjoying the fresh, non-nicotine air and suddenly inhale a huge cloud of contaminated smoke from a student smoking on their way to class, outside a designated smoking area.
Secondhand smoke for a non-smoker is just as harmful as smoking by choice. Secondhand smoke consists of dangerous poisons and carcinogens. Secondhand smoke is composed with about 200 compounds of which are known to be poisonous, of which 70 have been recognized as capable of causing cancer.
To prevent such a problem between smokers and non-smokers, Fresno State gladly set up around 25 designated smoking areas. These areas are distributed evenly throughout the campus and are the only place where smoking is allowed. All other areas are prohibited. It is difficult to understand how numerous students do not smoke in the areas that are designed for them, and are able to get away with smoking outside of the smoking areas. This behavior is affecting other students who have chosen not to smoke. I strongly believe that smoking outside the designated smoking areas should come with a punishment. Keeping smokers in smoking areas will increase the air quality of Fresno State’s campus, and keep our nonsmokers from breathing in the harmful secondhand smoke.
To the editor:
California’s Three Strikes Law is supposed to deter violent crime, and supporters might argue it does its job since violent crime has gone down. This would be an example of a Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy, which generally means, “after this, therefore because of this.” It is also important to note reduction in crime began occurring before Three Strikes was signed into law.
Serious violent crime is committed by individuals aged 15-24 and peaks at age 17; for the most part, the Three Strikes Law puts offenders behind bars in the “twilight of their criminal careers.”
A major problem with the Three Strikes Law is racial disparity. Many prior drug offenses count as previous strikes; minorities are more likely to have prior strikes due to drug possession laws not in their favor, which means they are at a disadvantage and likely to be sentenced for extended periods of time, far more frequently too.
If it is not enough that the Three Strikes Law does not deter crime, or that it is racially biased, the law actually happens to be very costly to the state of California and its taxpayers. According to the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, the estimated cost per individual for a 25-year sentence is $1.1 million.
There is a Three Strikes Reform Initiative for the 2012 ballot to require the third strike to be serious and violent. It is crucial California voters vote on the issue and rid the law of its defects.