Page 4-Wednesday, May 30, 1979-The Michigan Daily N Michigan Daily Eighty-nine Years of Editorial Freedom 420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, M. 48109 Vol. LXXXIX, No. 20-S News Phone: 764-0552 Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan Dopers get relief THE STATE SENATE was confined to its chambers last week until it passed a bill which would ease penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana. The diluted version finally passed by a 20-14 vote and would make possession of 30 grams (one ounce) or less a civil offense punishable by a maximum $100 fine. The bill's supporters unfortunately had to dispense with decriminalization efforts in order to gain support for the more conservative legislation. While compromising on legislation is a laudable political practice, it is unfortunate that the bill sent to the House still proposes stiffer penalties than necessary. It is sad to see such heated debate and compromising occur in 1979, when the myths of marijuana's effects should long since have been dispelled. It has taken reduced penalty proponents two years and three bills to get this far, and this inadequate draft still holds an uncer- tain future in the state House. Use of marijuana is widespread and increasing. Most reports state that it poses less serious or equivalent health hazards to those of alcohol and tobacco. Yet both those substances carry less stringent penalties and are widely accepted by society and politicians. Minors who consume alcoholic beverages are subject to a first violation fine of not more than $25; second and third offenses carry $50 and $100 fines respectively along with participation in a substabce abuse prevention program. Tobacco users have to contend only with a perfunctory warning on the side of the cigarette package - the effeet of which is insignificant at best. Politicians must deal with marijuana as the permanent fixture in today's society that it is, not as a fad that maturity eliminates. Ann Arbor is a case exhibiting the lack of grounds for fears of reducing pot penalties. City voters approved a $5 marijuana fine six years ago, and no drastic changes have resulted from it. Fears that the town's reputation as dope capital of the midwest would lead to its demise have dissolved as use of the substance has been taken in stride. Enforcing the law is no longer a police priority since the fine does not cover the expense of issuing the ticket. Police view the fine's propor- tions as a guide to enforcement emphasis and have accordingly dwelled on crimes of greater consequence. Despite widespread pot use, crime has diminished in Ann Arbor in recent years, while drug trafficking has not noticeably increased. While there may be no correlation between crime reduction and marijuana smoking,. at least the mild fine has not led to less law and order. The fears of Ann Arbor residents have been allayed by the results of reduced penalties, and a similar impact would be witnessed - statewide-state House permitting. To maintain unrealistic penalties for this victimless crime is unfair to the millions of otherwise non-criminal citizens. Wall St. bucks nukes SAN FRANCISCO- Although official conclusions have yet to be drawn from the Three Mile Island nuclear accident, the plant's shut cooling valves may have permanently stunted the growth of the struggling nuclear power industry worldwide. "You're talking about finan- cing a lot of nukes that may be postponed or cancelled," one utility analyst said. "Everybody's going to take a good hard look at what's going to happen in Pennsylvania." In the United States, investors have withdrawn from the stocks of companies whose revenues depend on nuclear power, while abroad countries that once looked to a nuclear future are having second thoughts. WEST GERMANY has in- definitely postponed construction of a huge nuclear reprocessing plant at Gorleben, near the East German border, which was to have been the key to maintaining its atomic fuel supply. At the same time, Switzerland has voted in a national referendum to make the licensing of any new nuclear plant dependent on a vote of parliament -a vote that is likely to be "no" in the climate of fear created by the Three Mile Island accident. But while signs of resistance to nuclear power are multiplying among investors and the public alike, they only accentuate a trend away from nuclear which has been growing for the past five years in all but some in- dustrializing countries like Brazil, Taiwan and South Korea. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, new or- ders for nuclear generating stations around the world peaked at 52 in 1974. Only 15 new plants were ordered last year. "The nuclear industry is in serious trouble. It is a business no one in his right mind would enter today," said John Minzinga, vice president of General Atomic, a nuclear equipment manufacturer owned by Shell and Gulf Oil. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., the largest nuclear equipment supplier in the United States, was losing $20 million to $25 million a year on reactors even before Three Mile Island. By Mark Blackburn And although many American utilities, including Consolidated Edison in Illinois and Pacific Gas & Electric in California, have financial commitments to nuclear running into the millions if not billions of dollars, the signs of a slowdown have long been evident. One indication of a new public mood is that the United States, and much of the rest of the world, is backing away from nuclear power in the midst of an oil crisis that once provided nuclear with its raison d'etre. Spokesmen for the nation's electric utilities are clearly worried at the change in- public attitude. "We faced a specter of spot shortages of power long before Three Mile Island," said Walter Bron of the National Electric Reliability Council, a Princeton, N.J., research organization. "But now we're talking about much more serious widespread problems by the early to mid- 1980s if those nuclear plants don't come in on schedule," he added, referring to 24 U.S. atomic power reactors planned to come on line by 1981. BROWN'S ARGUMENT is not new, but what is different is that few politicans now suggest that the world oil shortfall should in- crease the nuclear priority. Even Clifton Garvin, Jr., chairman of Exxon Corp., the world's biggest oil company, is dubious about a nuclear future he himself. favors, "I believe we'll have to find a way to handle these things safely," he said, referring to commercial reactors. "A lot of people don't agree." While predictions remain un- changed that world oil supplies will be exhausted in 60 to 80 years, the probable alternative for generation of electric power is seen as coal, not nuclear. This is a trend that has kept pace with dwindling nuclear orders over the past five years even though coal too faces objections-mainly from environmentalists. "If anything is ordered these days," said a student of the nuclear industry, "it's coal- fired." IN THE MEANTIME, finan- cing for nuclear power in this country is beginning to dry up. The Bank of America, the world's, largest commercial bank, recently threw a fresh scare into an already tottering industry by announcing that until an investigation of Three Mile Island is complete, it will make no new loans for construction of atomic power plants. At the same time, bank sources indicated that the B of A is making no new investments in nuclear industry stocks and may be selling some off. And some U.S. utilities with long-standing nucler expansion plans have found money in- creasingly expensive. Last mon- th investors not only forced Virginia Electric & Power Co. to pay increased interest on a $100 million nuclear construction bond issue, but underwriters charged the company $1 million-a third more than usual-to market them. One of the facts of life seen clearly in the investment com- munity is the ever-increasing cost of new atomic plants. "I for one don't see how we'll get along without sizeable nuclear power in this country," said a San Francisco investment analyst. "But every time you turn around, your capital costs ate going up." "This will eventually make nuclear plants economically disadvantageous at some point," he added. Charles Komanoff, a New York energy consultant who opposes nuclear power, believes that by 1990 nuclear power plants will cost twice as much to build as coal-fired plants, while the elec- tricity they produce will be a third again as expensive as the coal-fired competition. A sign of the times may be the behavior of the stock- of Com- bustion Engineering, Inc., the only one of the four major U.S. makers of nuclear equipment whose shares have risen since Three Mile Island. Combustion is number four in nuclear but num- ber one as a supplier of coal-fired plants. Mark Blackburn, a former Reuters correspondent, wrote this piece for Pacific News Service.