Response to Should Marijuana be legalized

In Tatiana Vik’s blog should Marijuana Be Legalized, she discusses how legalizing marijuana would bring revenue to our state and cut down on crime and drug wars.  While Tatiana did a great job in presenting one side of the argument, I wish to present the other side of the argument, which I am in favor of.  There are a couple of reasons why I think that Marijuana should not be legalized.

While Tatiana describes the benefits that the state would gain on taxes in the sale of marijuana.  There is a bigger issue that one must consider, are we willing to negotiate the well-being of citizens in order to make a profit.  Isn’t the government supposed to look out for its citizens and provide them with the best possible welfare?

First, marijuana is terrible for a person’s mental health.  A recent Northwestern University study revealed that marijuana affected a person’s brain structure.  In other words, frequent marijuana users will have memory problems in the future.  Furthermore, chronic marijuana abuse can lead to something that resembles schizophrenia.  The study also revealed that the younger a person starts using marijuana, the worse the effects become.  The American Medical Association reported that when adolescence use marijuana heavily it causes persistent impairments in neurocognitive performance and IQ.  Use of marijuana is also associated with increased rates of anxiety, mood, and psychotic disorders.

Furthermore, a study conducted on 129 college students found that those who engaged in smoking marijuana twenty-seven days before being surveyed were discovered to have serious problems in regards to critical skills.  The study also revealed that students who used marijuana had lower grades and were less likely to finish college.  These students simply do not have the same abilities to remember and organize information compared to those who did not use marijuana.

It is bad enough that we are already losing many Americans to cigarettes and alcohol.  Is it really worth it to endorse the loss of millions more due to marijuana?  Hence, the next question would be if we legalize marijuana why not legalize all the other illegal drugs like crack, heroin, and meth? I guess the ultimate question is whether legalizing marijuana will make this a better country or a worse one. 

Another research revealed that those who smoke marijuana under the age of 25 will have cognitive decline.  It is possible for someone to become brain damage in over use.  A study done by the University of Wisconsin revealed that marijuana has high levels of THC, which affects cognitive thinking.  To be honest the study also reveals that after 23 most people decrease the use of the drug.

Second, marijuana is bad for one’s physical health.  Recent research has revealed that marijuana can cause lung problems 20 years earlier than cigarette smokers can.  This study has also revealed that seven percent of drivers involved in accidents tested positive for THC.  Marijuana impairs motor skills and increases the risk of car crashes.  Hence, if marijuana use is legalized, we need to be concerned about an increased number of driving under the influence. 

Moreover, doctors have said that smoking marijuana makes sperm less fertile-even if the women is the one who smokes it.  Even small amounts of marijuana can cause temporary sterility.  Thus, when a person gets high their sperms get high as well.  Obviously, men who smoke marijuana do get women pregnant but smoking marijuana reduces the chances for some.

Third, as Americans have learned with alcohol, taxes do not begin to cover the costs of the damages done to society.  More, importantly while pro-marijuana people argue that with the legalization of marijuana the state can better regulate how it is used and distributed.  However, with alcohol regulators still have not succeeded in keeping alcohol from underage drinkers.  The government has tried to use penalties to prevent the use of marijuana but it is still used by number of people.  Marijuana use would be very detrimental to those under 25 because their brains have not fully developed yet.  Thus, using the drug would

To Tatiana’s benefit, marijuana has positive attributes such as its medical value.  There are those who use marijuana because marijuana provides relief from pain, nausea, and other symptoms that many have.  Nevertheless, one must remember that the prescribed drug is used with moderation and the risk of using it relatively low.

Titiana also argues that if marijuana was legalized it would increase the number of tourist coming to Texas and as a result boost the economy.  While this argument is logical, I think that Tatiana failed to realize that tourist only go to Colorado because it is one of two places that legalized the drug.  Thus, they do not go there to visit the sights of the state but to get a piece of legalize marijuana.

 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/09/marijuana-teens-brains/13802545/

http://www.webmd.com/men/news/20031013/smoking-marijuana-lowers-fertility

GOP Lawmakers Make Case for Upholding Gay Marriage Ban

Gay marriage is a very controversial subject and the debate has attracted many.  In our society, some (myself included) people believe that homosexuality is immoral while gay advocates believe that everyone have their preferences.  Thus, it is important to put into consideration the sexual preferences of everyone in our society. 

The article GopLawmakers Make Case for Upholding Gay Marriage Ban by Eli Okun and Terri Langford describes a brief that Greg Abbott’s office filed arguing that Texas’ ban on same-sex marriage is constitutionally sound and that this matter is to be decided by the voters not the courts.  The brief was filed in the 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals, where the state is appealing the ruling that same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. 

To begin advocates for same sex marriage argue that denying a couple the rights to marry any person of their choice regardless of their sexes is not right since it denies them of their basic human rights.  In fact, there are certain rights (health care, social security, and joint tax benefits) that un-married people cannot enjoy. 

In the brief, the state argues that same-sex marriage cannot encourage the birth of children in the context of stable and lasting relationships.  Research done by Krause depicted that only natural marriage between a man and a woman can consistently provide a stable and nurturing environment for the growth of the next generation. 

Furthermore, the brief indicates that the court should not overrule the voters’ decision to define marriage in the state constitution as solely the union of one man and one woman.  Opponents of the ban insist that with the rapid increase in single-parent family and the outrageous divorce rates over the decade, the true meaning of marriage is weaken.  I have to disagree with opponents of the ban here because the traditional definition of marriage has always been the union between a man and a woman.  Changing the definition now could lead to confusion in the society where others might claim it is within their rights to have multiple wives.

The attorney general argues that the state does not need to prove that same-sex marriage is detrimental to the state interests, but simply that heterosexual marriages are more beneficial.  One must remember that children raised in homosexual homes are continually exposed to homosexuality.  In fact, they are at a high risk of becoming homosexuals themselves because their environment will affect their behavior.  On the other hand, if these children are raised in a traditional home they have more of a chance to turn out normal.

They counter the argument that they cannot provide a stable home by saying that there are many children around the world who are living in stable gay households.  The only issue with this claim is that they have no solid evidence to back it up.  It is pure speculations. 

Opponents of gay marriage ban contend that gays would be of benefit to the society.  They claim that since gays cannot procreate if allowed to wed would have no choice but to adopt.  In essence, there would be less children needing to be adopted.  Consequently, the state would need to spend less to provide for all the children currently in foster care agencies.

It is my opinion that same sex marriage violates the sacred institution of marriage.  Almost all of the religions around the world, condemn homosexuality.  The Bible serves as a guide for a lost humanity.  I am just afraid of the aftermath of same-sex marriage. 

Opponents of the brief say that the constitution says that they have a right to the pursuit of happiness and if a person of the same sex makes him/her, happy he/she should be allowed to pursue that.  My only problem with this mentality is how far will we stretch the line?  What if someone else declared that they found happiness with a non-human, would they be allowed to marry it?  There must be a point where we draw the line not because we are trying to hurt anyone but because we have morals to follow.

 

 

Response to Tuition cost

I read an article about Tuition Costs critique by Aaron Taylor Bonnette.  This article describes how tuition has increased over the years.  While there is an increase in tuition and fees, there is a decline in college enrollment.  According to recent studies, most people out of college with a bachelor’s degree only make about $45,000 a year.  Due to low paying careers and student debts most students feel overwhelmed upon graduation.  Some cannot even find a job upon completing their degree.  Thus, some people wonder whether pursuing a degree is even worthy all the hassle.  All they are left with in the end is a low paying job and a high student debt.

The article argues that one reason for the increase in tuition is due to an increase in hired faculty and staff at the universities.  With an increase in faculty size, the universities must increase tuition in order to compensate their faculty.  Bonnette recommends that the state and national government provide more funding to universities and provide more scholarships and grants for perspective students in order to give everyone a chance to get the education they deserve. 

While Bonnette’s argument is good, I think that there are other reasons for the decline in enrollment.  Jennifer Ma, a policy research scientist for the College Board stated that lower enrollments mostly reflect a better economy, which lured students into the workforce and away from colleges and universities. 

It must be stated that a large majority of students in college are not those in the traditional age group of 18 to 24.  In fact, a large majority of learners are made of older people.  An article by the American council on education indicated that traditional age students are now the minority and older people are no the majority.  Thus, it is not surprising that these older people are choosing to go back to the work force instead of school since the economy is getting better again.

In addition, a study done in 2008 by academic treatises analyzed the relationship between tuition and enrollment.  They concluded that tuition increases had little impact on enrollment.  They noted that there was a connection between enrollment and unemployment rates.  In fact, credit hour enrollment grew slightly as the unemployment rate increased; it looks like students seek education when jobs are scarce.

The national student clearinghouse research center agrees that it is a natural trend for college enrollment to increase when the economy is not doing well.  In other words being unemployed pushed people to return to school, but now that the economy is showing encouraging signs, enrollment is decreasing as people return to the job market.

http://college.lovetoknow.com/High_Cost_of_Tuition_Causing_Decreased_College_Enrollment