Indiana Daily Student
4
OPINION
Monday, Feb. 25, 2019 idsnews.com
Editor Evan Carnes opinion@idsnews.com
NARROWING IN WITH NISHANT
THOUGHT POCKET
Sen. Mike Braun is selling Hoosiers false hope
Stopping safe injection sites won’t stop the opioid crisis
Nishant Mohile is a junior in international studies and economics.
The 2018 election propelled a lot of new faces into the halls of Congress. One of these new faces is Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., who ousted then-Sen. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind. Since his swearing in, he’s been hard at work. A recently introduced bill, one he co-sponsored with Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., and eleven others is one that seeks to eliminate Congressional pensions. For someone who ran on the platform of small government conservatism, this makes sense. If one believes that people ought to be paid what they’re worth, then these measures should be popular since most Americans polled by Gallup in recent years think Congress isn’t doing its job well. This is a major misstep. Voters often denounce the degree of influence special interest groups and lobbyists yield in politics. A 2011 Gallup poll found that 71 percent thought so. These policies make that situation much worse. Few run for office for the salary. However, a high salary and pension are justified for a position with such power. Additionally, you should choose to pay your politicians, even your former ones, well. Policies like decent pen-
MATT BEGALA | IDS
Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., points to the crowd after winning the senate race Nov. 6 in the JW Marriott in Indianapolis.
sions are good in that they can marginally reduce former members of Congress from becoming lobbyists. Without the need to consider a career in lobbying post-Congress, politicians may even become more likely to cooperate. This is where we must consider who is proposing this bill. Braun has an estimated net worth of somewhere above $35 million. Scott, alone, is worth $232 million, and if you add in his wife’s fortune, the Scott family may be worth over $500 million. They are rich, even among their generally wealthy colleagues. This is not by accident. Braun is a man for whom a salary and pension would barely register as a drop in the bucket. Isn’t it odd to hear from him that he should earn
less? It’s almost as if this proposal would affect his life in no tangible way at all. This is on par for Braun. The first bill he sponsored in the Senate was one to halt the payment of salaries to members of Congressional if they didn’t pass a budget and all appropriations by Oct. 1. This is another move which does little to fix anything. Cutting Congressional salaries in case of a shutdown will only make Congress more of a playground for the rich who don’t have to rely on those salaries. Shutdowns are a problem but also a rarity. The issue is they are caused by the increased political polarization and gridlock in Congress today. Braun’s ideas would make this worse. He has signed on to a con-
stitutional amendment to institute term limits. This is a fix which seems to make sense but doesn’t. Some suggest term limits make politicians more accountable to the people but research shows that they don’t. Instead, they increase the power of party organizations causing increased polarization. Braun wants to convince voters that in supporting these actions he will be their champion. But these bills are hardly the way to do it. Voters should refuse to accept cosmetic tweaks in place of structural reform. Braun’s views of public policy seem to stem from a belief that a crippled, shrunken government is a good deal for the country. The truth is it is only good for people like Braun. His ideas made manifest would tear apart the very fabric of democracy. It would transform government from a body “of the people” to one that is “of the wealthy”. The fight for representation in Congress for those not uber-wealthy was a hardfought one. In fact, it remains a hard fight today. Bills like the ones Mike Braun is proposing do nothing but impede the little progress that has been made. Don’t let their faux-populism entice you, because odds are, your democracy won’t be able to take it. nmohile@iu.edu
ASKING ALVARO
Indiana can be the next hub of space research Alvaro Michael is a senior in comuter science.
You’ve all heard about it by now. Opportunity, the NASA Mars rover designed to last a mere 90 Mars days, was officially pronounced dead after 15 Earth years of crawling across the Red Planet. As we honor this fallen hero, we should consider the potential our corn and soybean state of Indiana possesses when it comes to the future of space travel and research. If we set our minds to it, Indiana could make a name for itself as another hub of space exploration in America. If you think that the Midwest has nothing to offer with regard to space research, think again. For example, it was the Big Ear radio telescope at Ohio State that heard the famous Wow! signal in 1977. This was a mysterious 72-second radio burst from an unknown source in the galaxy that generated excitement it could be an alien communication. In addition, the Glenn Research Center in Cleveland
is one of 10 major centers of NASA. Its 3,000 personnel work on projects “in propulsion, aeronautics, materials and structures, communications, power and energy storage, and biomedical sciences.” If Ohio can do it, Indiana can too, especially since we have a high-ranking School of Aeronautics and Astronautics at Purdue University. And right now, the Hoosier economy is strong enough to support the bold endeavor of attracting new jobs in a variety of fields of space technology. Manufacturing alone in Indiana has seen a significant bounce-back since the Great Recession. In January of 2018, the state held 532,900 manufacturing jobs, up by almost 100,000 from eight years before. According to a panel of IU economists, 2019 will continue to be an economically successful year for the state, and they do not foresee automation replacing a lot of jobs in the near future. With things going so well, Indiana can dream bigger.
Tech is already making big strides in the state. Remember that Indianapolis was a top 20 finalist for Amazon HQ2, after 250 cities applied. So we’re obviously doing something right. As government and commercial space enterprises become more feasible, our state has an opportunity to establish itself as an innovator in space development. Here’s one possible path: Indiana could incentivize space start-ups to form partnerships with Purdue University, and in this way the companies and university would help one another. These companies could be involved in a whole range of relevant fields, such as propulsion, aeronautics, satellite design and lifesupport systems. As these companies grow, they can be contracted to do work for NASA, placing themselves at the center of U.S. space technology. With Ohio’s Glenn Research Center right next door, forming connections with NASA is logistically quite convenient. I’m being rather vague
about what exact fields of space research and development Indiana could command, because this will all depend on what is important at a given time. But one field that looks especially enticing, although bold, is that of asteroid mining. Asteroid mining, while not yet achieved, has been forecast to generate hundreds of billions of dollars given that many asteroids are rich in resources such as iron, gold and platinum. There’s no reason why Indiana couldn’t get in on this, or even why we couldn’t pioneer the endeavor. Imagine Hoosiers designing the circuits of robotic mining equipment and calculating the best trajectories to the asteroid belt. Picture them building the necessary drills and excavators to grind away the asteroids’ surface and testing new solutions in enormous vacuum chambers. Imagine all of that happening here. Isn’t it tempting? Let’s get started. alvmicha@iu.edu
NOBODY ASKED ME, BUT...
Your spring cleaning isn’t all that clean Anne Anderson is a senior in international law.
As February — and hopefully winter — draws to a close, it is about that time when your closet might be looking a bit full. In order to make room for all those cute spring break ensembles, you have to let go of some things, right? Just make sure you’re letting go of old things in a way that’s gentle to our environment. Spring cleaning often takes place this time of year, describing not only disinfecting your counters and mopping your floors, but clearing out your life of objects — clothes, books, miscellaneous — in order to start fresh for the warmer months. I personally love a good cleaning reset, and so if spring is a valid excuse to have one, I am all in favor. But after such a hectic winter, it begs the questions: How clean is your spring cleaning actually? Is it really so bad to just throw out your clothes? The answer is a firm yes. Last summer, Newsweek published a story detailing how some designer companies such as Burberry destroy excess items instead of giving them to discount or outlet stores . Companies claim multiple reasons for burning excess
ILLUSTRATION BY ANNE ANDERSON | IDS
merchandise. One of them is to discourage counterfeit reproductions. Others say it is to keep high-end merchandise out of the hands of bargain shoppers or “unworthy owners.” Whatever the reason, the irresponsible disposal of textiles by both large and small scale entities is not doing the planet any favors. Not only is fast fashion responsible for 92 million tons of waste dumped in landfills each year, it exploits the planet, people and consumers alike. When we dispose of our clothes by just throwing them out, it goes to a landfill where cheap, common fabrics found in huge retail stores take hundreds of years to break down, if they break down completely at all. Fast fashion and the decluttering of it in our closets are directly hurting our ecosystem. This is the same outcome
whether it is Burberry disposing of its last summer’s inventory or your neighbors clearing out their wardrobes — it could not hurt to start being a more conscious of how our cleaning habits might not be so clean for the environment. When it comes time to think about changing up your wardrobe, giving it that old “out with the old, in with the new,” consider where your clothes may end up after you decide to part ways. Instead of throwing out old undergarments, wash them and cut them into flat pieces to use as cleaning cloths around the house. When getting rid of clothing, either take it to a textile recycling facility or check to see if shelters in your community are accepting donations. When you donate or recycle textiles it cuts down on the palm oil used in manufacturing. It creates demand
for one less article of harmful clothing, not to mention your old sweater is doing a lot more good for someone who is less fortunate than sitting in the bottom of a landfill. When it comes time to fill all the new drawer space you just cleared out, instead of heading to a fast fashion store like H&M or Forever 21, check out local thrift shops or Goodwill. Plato’s Closet is another secondhand store chain that has quality clothing at a fraction of the original price. By reducing how much you shop at big retailers, you are reducing demand for products that jeopardize our ecosystem, the human rights of workers and, most of all, the industries that are responsible for the latter. There is absolutely nothing wrong with moving clothes in and out of your fashion cycle. Taste changes, temperature changes, trends change. How you impact those changes is incredibly important to helping mitigate damages of climate change. Cutting down on fast fashion clothing you buy, along with properly recycling old clothes, is a great first step. After all, if your cleaning habits are not clean for the planet, are they really clean at all? anneande@iu.edu
Tiffany Xie is a junior in biology and English.
The United States Department of Justice moved to stop the opening of a safe injection site in Philadelphia this month, which would have allowed people to use illicit drugs under medical supervision. The nonprofit behind the project, Safehouse, opened last year and had planned to open a site as soon as next month. William McSwain, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, justified these actions by claiming that the site would normalize and encourage illicit drug use. But in the midst of an opioid crisis that has taken more American lives in a single year than the entire Vietnam War, we need evidence-based solutions to prevent overdoses, save lives and guide people to recovery. That is exactly what safe injection sites offer. These spaces provide users with clean needles, wound care and connections to addiction treatment and legal services. They do not provide drugs or assist in injection. Preventing these sites from operating would be a step backward in the American response to the opioid epidemic. Research shows that these sites work. In Vancouver, Canada, safe injection site utilization reduced overdose mortality by 35 percent and increased access to drug addiction treatment. Safe injection sites have operated in other countries such as Canada and Denmark for years, where they have saved lives and improved health. In Indiana, the opioid epidemic hits close to home. From 2016 to 2017, there was a 22.5 percent increase in drug overdose death rates in Indiana, one of the highest in the nation. Hoosiers need better responses to this crisis, and part of that could be a safe injection site. Support for safe injection sites has grown in many U.S. cities, including New York, San Francisco, Seattle and even Bloomington. The Indiana Recovery Alliance, a Bloomingtonbased nonprofit that serves active and former drug users, addresses the opioid epidemic through education, advocacy and a syringe exchange. Christopher Abert, the executive director of the IRA, commented on the potential benefits of safe injection sites. “If people are interested in saving lives and making a robust plan to respond to the opioid epidemic, this is the next logical step,” Abert said. “Safe consumption sites do not endorse or enable drug use. They face the reality of drug use and say: ‘We care about you. We care about your health and want you to stay connected.’” Critics say safe injection sites normalize the use of deadly drugs and fail to help people quit. But safe injection sites provide connections to addiction treatment and legal services. The premise is not to force people into abstinence, but to meet them where they are. Like clean needle exchanges, safe injection sites operate under the principle of “harm reduction,” or public health strategies that
aim to reduce the negative consequences of drug use. The opposition to safe injection sites is not unlike the resistance to clean needle exchanges just a few years ago. In Indiana, syringe exchanges initially faced stiff opposition from then-Governor Mike Pence, and communities had to improvise to implement syringe exchanges even after legalization. But after implementation, syringe exchanges worked and slowed the HIV outbreak in Indiana. Of course they worked: The U.S. has known syringe exchanges are effective since the 1980s, when they prevented HIV transmission between people who inject drugs in the midst of the AIDS crisis. Syringe exchanges reduce harm. The same goes for safe injection sites, which have been endorsed by both the Massachusetts Medical Society and the American Medical Association. Safe injection sites also have economic benefits. One study found that Vancouver’s supervised injection facility was associated with $18 million in net savings over 10 years. In the U.S., theoretical cost-benefit analyses in San Francisco and Maryland found that operating safe injection sites would save millions of dollars. Stopping safe injection sites will do more harm than good, but not everyone sees it that way. In Philadelphia, safe injection sites have been the topic of many debates. Moreover, new research reveals that only 29 percent of Americans support legalizing safe injection sites and 39 percent support legalizing syringe services programs. The same study found that individuals who have negative attitudes toward people who use opioids are less likely to support legalization of safe injection sites and syringe exchanges. This reveals that stigma reduction is a key part of gaining public support for harm reduction programs and combating the opioid epidemic. The law and politics of safe injection sites are complicated. Opponents to safe injection sites argue maintaining any location that facilitates illicit drug use is illegal. The implication of that argument is that users are criminals. As a result, the Department of Justice criminalizes addiction rather than supporting real solutions. A recent study found that the HIV outbreak in Scott County, Indiana, could have been prevented with an earlier public health response and greater access to harm-reduction interventions. The opioid epidemic is a public health crisis that cannot be solved solely through litigation and policing. Instead, we need to humanize individuals and face reality. Abert commented on the need for realistic solutions for Monroe County and the entire nation. “Fifty years of the war on drugs haven’t worked. Maybe we should give it rest and focus on evidencebased compassionate responses,” he said. “The truth is that everyone suffers when we just leave people to die from the opioid epidemic.” tifxie@iu.edu
LETTER TO THE EDITOR POLICY The IDS encourages and accepts letters to be printed from IU students, faculty and staff and the public. Letters should not exceed 350 words and may be edited for length and style. Submissions must include the person’s name, address and telephone number for verification.
Letters without those requirements will not be considered for publication. Letters can be mailed or dropped off at the IDS, 601 E. Kirkwood Ave. Bloomington, IN 47405. Send submissions via e-mail to letters@idsnews. com. Call the IDS with questions at 812-855-0760.