Ticket discrepancies
After reading David Clifford’s letter, “Attacking the fans,” Nov. 15, I am left wondering if he even looked at the schedule. While it is true that the tickets for the game said 5 p.m., the schedule clearly listed Tulsa vs. Hampton at 5 p.m. and Maryland vs. North Florida at 8 p.m. I can understand why the time on Sunday’s ticket might have thrown people off, but Clifford uses that to explain Monday night’s poor attendance, which does not make sense. If fans arrived at Sunday’s game early and chose to leave rather than wait hours for the game, they should have known to double check Monday’s game time before going to Comcast Center. I attended Monday night’s game in its entirety and earned one loyalty point. The fact that I earned one point and not two means that demand for student tickets was higher than supply. If so many students requested tickets, why weren’t they at the game? I can’t believe that the hundreds of students with tickets who were not at the game all showed up at the wrong time.
Even for Maryland Madness, students were taking “scanning and leaving” to a new level by scanning, getting free T-shirts and leaving. Where is our school spirit? Why are we not supporting our team? When I go to games and see the number of people “scanning and leaving,” I’m embarrassed to be part of this student community. You should go to the game. If you have a conflict, don’t get a ticket. You can cancel your ticket up to the day before the game. If you scan and leave, you are preventing someone who would actually attend the game from getting a ticket.
I have friends who missed poorly attended games simply because they could not get tickets. Poor attendance at games should not be an issue anymore. I’ll see you at the next game. I’ll be there the whole time, cheering my team.
Ann Rose Chefitz SeniorCommunication
Good Samaritan policy a remedy
After reading the “Good cop, bad cop” column by James Reikel, Nov. 13, I was infuriated by another instance of how, in practice, the legal system works against the very ethics that it exists to uphold. When there is a rule, it’s inherent that it will be broken. When substance abuse is the offense, things can go too far. If some kid drinks too much one night, and his buddies don’t call for help because they are afraid of the consequences, this kid’s life is at stake. Doesn’t it seem a little twisted that the law is working against protecting its citizens? Yes, the problem would have been completely avoided if they weren’t drinking in the first place.
But given that people will inevitably engage in drug use and that prohibition is intended to protect individuals from the harms of illicit substances, it does not follow that the law would increase that risk by punishing those who seek help.
The good Samaritan policy is an attempt to remedy this inconsistency. Students for Sensible Drug Policy are working to raise awareness of this crucial inequity. Instead of just telling yourself these are just some bad kids goofing off, ask yourself if you really think that they should die for their actions.
Amanda Simmons Freshman Psychology
Air Yours ViewsThe Diamondback welcomes your comments. Address your letters or guest columns to the Opinion Desk at opinion@dbk.umd.edu. All letters and guest columns must be signed. Include your full name, year, major and day- and night-time phone numbers. Please limit letters to 300 words. Please limit guest columns to between 550 and 700 words.
Submission of a letter or guest column constitutes an exclusive, worldwide, transferable license to The Diamondback of the copyright in the material in any media. The Diamondback retains the right to edit submissions for content and length.
POLICY: The signed letters, columns and cartoon represent only the opinions of the authors. The staff editorial represents the opinion of The Diamondback’s editorial board and is the responsibility of the editor in chief.
