Legalization of Marijuana

My classmate BLindsey wrote an article titled The Money Plant which is basically about how marijuana should be legalized in order to help with the deficit of Texas. “Aside from its agricultural uses, marijuana also serves as a medical aid, helping people with conditions like anorexia, asthma, nausea, pain, alcoholism, glaucoma, epilepsy, depression, hypertension, and cancer. Imagine being able to replace expensive, lab-made chemicals with a cheaply grown natural plant?” Now, although my classmate does point out some possible positives with the legalization of marijuana, I believe there are a lot more negatives associated with this.

I believe that the greatest costs of marijuana come from the actual use of it rather than the prohibition of it. Marijuana is already one of the leading causes of substance abuse and by legalizing it; it would only further increase the amount of addiction. Some people do not use it for the simple fact that it is illegal and they do not want to suffer the consequences associated with getting caught. This would also be opening more doors for our youth to become addicted early and begin using. Rapid accumulating research shows that marijuana is associated with serious mental and physical problems. Marijuana is also seen as a gateway drug leading to harder drugs such as cocaine and heroin.

As far as closing some of the deficit gap, I am not actually sure how much it would actually close. It has shown that even the legalization of alcohol and tobacco is a disastrous trade off financially already. "Alcohol related costs total over $185 billion while federal and states collected an estimated $14.5 billion in tax revenue; similarly, tobacco use costs over $200 billion but only $25 billion is collected in taxes."

Drug impaired driving would also increase. Marijuana is already a significant casual factor in highway crashes, injuries, and deaths. “In a recent national roadside survey of weekend nighttime drivers, 8.6 percent tested positive for marijuana or its metabolites, nearly four times the percentage of drivers with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08 g/dL (2.2 percent)."

When looking at the negative things associated with the legalization of marijuana, it only further makes me believe that only more harm than good can come from it. If we are trying to improve the nation’s education, health, and productivity then legalization is definitely not the way to go. No money is worth destroying more lives both in the youth and adult community.

If (when) He Runs, Can He Win?

It says a lot about your political leverage and viability on a national scale when you’re polling in second place for your party’s nomination. The fact that Perry has not even officially entered the race and in polling in a not so distant second place behind party nominee front runner Mitt Romney (according to the most recent preliminary polls) speaks volumes about his influence and clout in the Republican Party.

Rick Perry has a few things working to his advantage and the following may result in Perry, as soon as he officially declares his candidacy, facing President Barack Obama for the highest executive office in 2012. The first and perhaps most significant weapon working in Perry’s favor has been his attitude and (political) actions towards the Federal government, particularly as of recent. His rejection of stimulus funding from the Federal government was, in the eyes of fiscal conservatives in the state of Texas and across the nation, a bold courageous affront to “big, overbearing government” in Washington. The faux pas immunity from the national recession the state of Texas seemed to be enjoying up until 2009 only further justified Perry’s decision to decline Federal funding and to verbally critique the Obama administration.

Furthermore, Rick Perry has balanced his conservative persona. The election of current President Barack Obama produced the polarizing political faction the “Tea Party”, a group that advocates for fiscal responsibility, limited government spending/intervention and strict adherence to the constitution. This faction of conservatives and their increasingly growing presence has split the Republican Party in two, between the former and moderate conservatives. As a result, candidates vying for the Republican nomination in 2012 have had to walk the tightrope of appeasing both groups, moderates and tea party activist, to gain as much consolidated support as possible. Because Rick Perry is able to appeal to the fiscal hawks of the tea party, the religious part of his base and to the moderates who may be under the impression that Rick Perry has been good for Texas, at least economically, the current governor is in the driver’s seat of a Republican race that is aimed straight for the Whitehouse. Rick Perry can certainly win the Republican nomination and maybe even the presidency in 2012. Whether or not he’s capable of running this country is yet to be seen.

Death Penalty

My classmate Lauren wrote a very good commentary on The End of Death Row. One very important point she hit on was, “While I understand the financial strain of keeping criminals alive in our prison system, I think there are other ways we can cut back on the mass amounts of spending that occur toward our prisons. However, the financial issue is hard for me to grasp, as the death penalty itself brings extra costs upon our prisons.” This I believe is so very, very true. The death penalty is much more expensive then it’s alternative, life in prison. Texas is spending an estimated total of $2.3 million on each case. This is about three times more than imprisoning someone at the maximum security level for forty years. The trial themselves cost more than just a regular murder trial. Yes, people believe it is needed to help lower the population in overcrowded prisons. However, I believe there are other things to resort to. Texas is known for being especially tough on inmates and tends to punish inmates harshly and has one of the highest rates of incarceration in the country. An alternative to reduce the population is possibly reducing the minimum sentencing and mandatory time served guidelines. The no-tolerance for drug related crimes could also be fixed. I honestly do not agree with people receiving huge sentences for drug related charges. Of course I agree with punishment but sometimes I think the punishments are too extreme. This huge incarceration rate is doing nothing but costing tax payers more money. These are some very important things that politicians leave out about the death penalty.

Another excellent point that Lauren made was the fact that, “there is no hope in death, no turning back, no room for mistakes. And as a people who are defined by continually making mistake after mistake, I cannot believe I would ever be certain enough in my own decision, much less someone else’s to take such a permanent action.” This procedure is mainly used for retribution and to make the victim’s families and friends feel better but at the same time there is a fine line between those who receive the death penalty and those who receive life in prison. That line is blurred. However, there have been people who were convicted with the death penalty, executed, and then later found to be innocent. Texas has such a huge rate of people receiving the death penalty, how many of those people were and are innocent? I can understand there are horrible crimes and everyone wants a person to pay for it but there needs to be absolute proof, no questions, and a solid, solid case in order to support the death penalty and actually execute someone.

The death penalty is harming the tax payers and the innocents. Even after the person is executed, depression and devastation still live on in the families who lost the loved ones. So who really is paying for the death penalty? To me, it seems like politicians, prosecutors, presidents, people etc. are choosing the death penalty for symbolic reasons and positions on toughness rather than substance and effectiveness.  Our criminal justice system definitely needs work.

Rick Perry

 If it the age old saying is true, that “everything is bigger in Texas”, then so too is Texas’ governor Rick Perry and his controversial political decisions that have thrust him into the national spotlight, for better or worse.

           

In particular, Rick Perry’s attempts to distance himself from what he (and many other small government proponents) considers an overgrown central government in Washington have produced for him two moments of controversy. For perspective, let’s start with the second controversial incident, a gaffe occurring in April of 2009 when Governor Perry, at an anti-tax tea party rally at Austin City Hall declared "We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that.” (Huffington Post Politics, April 15^th, 2009) with the insulation being that Texas could, in fact, secede from the Union. Strangely enough, the aforementioned gaffe came immediately after Perry declared plans to reject nearly 600 billion dollars in stimulus funding from the federal government (Dallas Business Journal, March, 2009), claiming “accepting the funds would lead to additional taxing of Texas employers at a time when job creation is a top priority”.

           

 Fast forward to 2011: Texas is currently facing a 27 billion dollar budget shortfall, a problem Perry intends on “fixing” at the expense of higher education, (The Economist, March 23, 2011) never mind that this problem could have been remedied by the same federal funding Perry rejected. In addition, Texas’ unemployment rate, once faring much better than the national rate, has nearly caught up to the nation’s 9.1 percent. (The Economist, March 23^rd, 2011) Ironically, the same stimulus funding rejected by Governor Perry was specifically designated to assist the state’s unemployment benefits.

The two controversial moves by Governor Perry seem to be calculated if not related in motif as well. These political gestures will come under more intense scrutiny as Perry moves closer to a presidential bid in 2012. But as long as he’s governor of Texas, if Perry continues to make bold moves at the expense of the state’s economic vitality, whatever his motifs may be, he may as well do the rest of the nation a favor and make good on his threats of secession.

Your Nobody Called Today

The person making this argument is a Texan who is a Democrat, hence the name In The Pink Texas (By Eileen Smith). I believe this blog is directed towards other Texas citizens. This article definitely showed a lot of opinions. Opinions that are definitely more liberal than conservative. This definitely affects the audience because I doubt that a lot of republicans would be interested in reading this blog. 

The basic argument of this blog boils down to the fact that this person believes that Governor Rick Perry should not run for president. The author believes that mainstream Republicans would not vote for Perry and also that America is not ready for another Texan because basically Perry is the same as Bush.  

This article is not supported by any evidence at all; it is just opinion based and the author’s own biased thoughts and beliefs. This short statement shows it all “I have faith that mainstream Republicans are not going to vote for a fringe candidate who advocates for prayer and fasting over actual policy solutions, calls himself a prophet, hints at secession, hangs out with evangelical haters, and executes innocent people for fun. (Fine, maybe they’d be OK with that last one.)” 

This article is successful in the fact that it clearly states the author’s opinions and this author is successful at staying true to their opinion. However, as far as evidence goes, it is not successful since it does not show any evidence for that matter that supports their opinions. It also makes huge (offensive in some people’s eyes) statements towards Perry. 

I personally do not have a huge view on this topic so I would not agree nor disagree at this point. This article did not sway my opinion in any way or persuade me to side with them or not side with them. I can appreciate the strong minded opinions however. 

As far as political significance goes, I do really believe it has any. This article also does not make a difference in my understanding of how the political world works. This also has no effect on who wins and who loses in the political process. All it is, is a Texan citizen who is using their constitutional right to speak about their own opinions and beliefs when it comes to politics, and there is nothing wrong with that.