Legalize Drugs Now!

In 1971 President Nixon declared a war on drugs, identifying drug abuse as "public enemy No.1".  Forty years later we can say that the war on drugs is a terrible failure.  There has been at least 5,000 drug related deaths in Mexico in the last year.  According to Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), "Prohibition costs tax payers tens of billions of dollars every year, yet 40 years and some 40 million arrests later, drugs are cheaper, more potent and far more widely used than at the beginning of this futile crusade.".  The war on drugs has made our communities dangerous, encouraged the youth that drugs is a way to get rich fast, corrupted police, and encouraged the sale and distribution of guns.  This is a war that we will never win and it is now time to legalize all drugs.

     There are still many people in the United States who are afraid of even discussing the issue of legalizing drugs.  John Hawkins wrote an article, "In Defense of the Drug War" stated;"... do we really want the federal government to take over the role of a pusher and get our kids hooked on drugs to make a profit?".  It seems to me that this argument doesn't make much sense.  The U.S. has regulated both alcohol and cigarettes sales to minors.  The law is not always perfect but it works better than the war on  drugs.  In fact the use of cigarettes have declined dramatically because of education and laws regulating the smoking of cigarettes.

    One of the tragic unintentional consequences of the war on drugs has been the violence in Mexico.  The drug cartels have used Mexico as a transportation center to bring drugs to the United States.  There are estimates that the cartels make $8 billion to $23 billion a year from drug smuggling.  Just imagine if this source of income was no longer to available to these criminals if drugs were legalized.  I'm in favor of legazing drugs.  My grandfather grew up in Las Cruces, New Mexico, one hour north of Cuidad Juarez, Mexico.  My mother visited Mexico many times, and the family enjoyed their trips around Mexico.  However, drug violence today has made Juarez the most dangerous city in the world.  It is impossible for honest policemen or newspaper reporters to survive long in Juarez.  The ordinary people face horrible violence every day and it related to the huge amounts on money that are made from the illegal sale of drugs.  If the U.S. government was to legalize the distribution and sale of drugs then these drug lords would loose  all of their profits.

 Facts:
1. LEAP " Why Leagize Drugs"
2. "In Defense of the Drug War"
3  The War on Drugs is a Failure
4.  Timeline: America's War on Drugs
                

           

Afghanistan will never be conquered

 From Alexander the Great to the Soviet Union, Afghanistan has never been conquered.  On October 7th, 2001, the United States began it's invasion of Afghanistan.  They quickly ousted the Tailban in a couple of weeks.  The U.S. invaded Afghanistan because of the September 11th terrorist attacks, which were planned by al-Qaeda which had bases in Afghanistan.  Ten years later the question that comes up is why are we still there and what is the role of the U.S. government in Afghanistan?

     In June 2011, President Obama announced that the U.S. will begin a gradual withdrawal from Afghanistan.  "Our mission will change from combat to support. By 2014, this process of transition will be complete, and the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security".  What was our mission in Afghanistan?  Was it to go after al-Queda and the Tailban or was it to create a stable democratic government?  Noah Feldman wrote in a Bloomberg.com article titled "Obama Plan Makes Victory in Afghanistan a Reality" states that "Obama is acting creatively and wisely in trying to recast our decade of involvement in Afghanistan as though it had been about bin Laden all this time.  It will certainly be bad for US interests if the Taliban re-emerge as the government of Afghanistan.  It will be very bad for Afghans too".  It seemed to me that the war in Afghanistan was never about setting up a stable democratic government.

     This pass year we have seen many uprisings against totalitarian governments in the Middle East.  These events seem to catch many in the West by surprise.  These movements came from ordinary people, not from foreign troops invading a country.  When has history shown us that invading a country to "help" set up a democratic government has ever succeeded?  The one thing that I wonder is whether the ten year occupation of Afghanistan has made it harder for the Afghan people to develop a democracy.

 Facts:
Alexander the Great invades Afghanistan in 330 BC.
Soviet Russia invades Afghanistan in 1979.
September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers.
U.S. invades Afghanistan on October 7th, 2001.
June 22, 2011 Obama gives a speech on Afghanistan.                                    

                 

The Other Wes Moore

1.  The author grew up without his father, who died from a horrible hospital mistreatment.  After his father died, his mother  moved the family to her parents house the Bronx.  The author describes the Bronx as "the Bronx was in it's post apocalyptic phase, crack-fuelled declining devastation"(p.43).   He didn't do well in school because he was more focused on hanging out with his friends. 

The other Wes Moore grew up with out a father.  The last time that he saw his father, his father didn't even know who he was.  His older brother Tony was like a father figure to him.  Tony tried to keep him out of drugs but that didn't help because Tony was also into drugs.  The other Wes Moore also grew up in a crime driven area.  He dropped out of high school and started to sell drugs on the streets.

2.  The author's turning point was military school.  He went to military school after he was receiving bad grades.  Military taught him to respect adults and how to do better  in society.  If he hadn't gone to military school he would've still be on the streets playing with his friends and he wouldn't be the person that he is today.

The turning point for the other Wes Moore was a program that helped disadvantaged teenagers change their lives.  He heard about this program from a friend who had stopped doing the drug business.  He was amazed at how much the teachers at this program cared for teenagers like him.  He didn't see this point of view on the streets.  The teachers respect for people like him made him feel like he was a different person who was taking a new life.  He stopped selling drugs for a while.

3.  The author's mother helped him to become the person that he is today by being strict on him.  Education was very important to her.  Both his parents and his grandparents went to college.  If he got in trouble she would yell at him.  When he wasn't doing well in school she had enough and decided to send him to military school.  She thought that military school would toughen him up and help him to succeed in life.  She helped him become the person that he is today.

The other Wes Moore's mother wasn't as strict the author's mother.  She couldn't control her son's drug problem.  When she found out about the drugs she flushed them down the toilet and hopped that that would stop Wes from selling drugs.  Unfortunately that didn't stop Wes from selling drugs.  She also gave up on him when he dropped out of high school,  she just didn't have the same strength as the author's mother to help her son.

4. It seemed clear to me that from the story that young people need support and guidance of the whole community to be able to overcome the difficulties in their lives.  The author himself said "it was difficult to find the exact moment that made a difference in their two lives"(P.181).  He did point out the importance and power of stories to change young people's lives.  It might be easy to say that the other Wes Moore's fate would be prison because of his environment.  I like to believe that people can overcome their difficulty.  Society needs to help young people reach their potential.  I wonder how different the story would've been if the other Wes Moore's mother hadn't had her PELL grant cut and she had been able to finish college.  Both boys got into trouble when they were young, and   they both dropped out of high school.  The author's family was able to gather resources to give him the opportunity to succeed.  The other Wes Moore's mother didn't have the resources or the ability to change her son's life.

5.  There are some parts of the book that I liked and some parts that I didn't like.  I enjoyed the other Wes Moore's story more than the author's because his story dealt with violence and the trouble of living in a drug infested neighbourhood.  I didn't like the fact that the author used too much description.  When he was describing someone with lots of detail I would skip over that part.  I just don't like it when authors use too much description in general.  However I thought that this book was influential because he teaches us why the kids in dangerous neighbourhoods wind up in jail or drop out of high school.                                           

                  

Corporations are not people

Last year the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that business corporations have the same free speech rights as a human being.  This decision is a dramatic change in the financing of campaigns.  There has been rising concern over the past decade about the influence of corporations and their political contributions.  The McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law was an attempt to control the influence of money in election campaigns.  I don't think that corporations should have the same right as a human being because they have a unfair advantage over our democratic government, compared to a regular human being.

People who are supporters of the decision like Mitt Romney say " Corporations are people, my friend... of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to the people. Where do you think it goes? Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People's pockets. Human beings my friend".  Ken Klukowski wrote an opinion article on Foxnews.com saying that "The Supreme Court's action in striking down the worst censorship provision of McCain-Feingold restores vital free speech protection in America... The First Amendment does not allow the government to silence its critics, and Thursday’s decision would make our Founding Fathers applaud -- they built this country out of a revolution founded upon a critique of oppressive government. But fast forward to 2010, this week, instead of applauding the Supreme Court’s ruling, America’s current president is responding by issuing an ominous threat against our highest court".  It seems to me that both conservatives are missing a vital point, that this Supreme Court decision allows corporations to put unlimited amounts of money into political campaigns.

President Obama said at his State of the Union Address in 2010, that "I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.”  I think that Obama's right on this issue.  I feel that this decision makes it harder for ordinary people's voices to be heard in today's politics.  In a Washington Post nationwide poll, 80% of Americans reject the Court's conclusion.  There seems to be a growing concern across the country about the role of money in political campaigns.  I can't help but feel that the Occupiers are an expression of people's frustration with a political system that is controlled by money.

Facts
1. Foxnews.com article "Founding Fathers Smiling After Supreme Court Campaign Finance Ruling"
2. State of  The Union Address 2010
3.  Washington Post Poll         

             

 

The Death Penalty

In 1972 the US Supreme Court ruled that the federal and state death penalty laws were "arbitrary and capricious" and they constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.  Historically there has always been problems with the use of the death penalty.  For example, you are more likely to be executed if you are a black person and killed a white person. There is always the possibility that innocent people are executed, however I do believe that the death penalty should not be abolished because there are people out there that deserve to be killed like murderers,rapists, and child molesters.  It is sad that these kind of people get a life sentence while innocent people get executed.  There needs to be a change in this system so that innocent people don't die.

      Executions started again in 1977 and as of 2011, 1271 inmates have been executed in the U.S, according to Death Penalty Information Center.  The Death Penalty Information Center has some disturbing facts that question several of the pro death penalty advocates main beliefs.  " Since  1973, over 130 people have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence".  I find it disturbing that many people spent years on death row only to find out that years latter that they were released.  Another pro-death penalty belief is that the death penalty is a deterrence to crime.  However the facts don't seem to prove this idea. "The 2010  FBI Uniform Crime Report showed that the South had the highest murder rate.  The South accounts for over 80%  of executions.  The Northeast, which has less  than 1% of all executions, tied with the West for the lowest murder rate".  These facts make me concerned whether the Death Penalty can ever be fair.

     From my research I found out that rapists and child molesters are exempt from the death penalty.  I was surprised and it made me question my ideas about punishment.  I had a neighbour whose twenty-six year-old son was murdered over a argument about a girl.  She's a very religious person and she and her family have not sought vengeance.  I hope that there are more people like her who do not want to have vengeance for their family member.



   Facts:
 All of the facts were from deathpeanaltyinfo.org
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf
                             

Climate Change isn't a big issue for Americans

  Our planet may be getting warmer and the weather becoming more extreme but it seems that the issue of climate change is not a big concern to many Americans at this time.  According to a gallup.com poll in 2008 global warming was second to last among concerns of American voters, while the economy was first.  While I agree that it's a big issue  it is not something I feel that I can do much about.  Maybe that's what other Americans are feeling too.

       There are people out there that strongly believe that the science behind climate change is flawed and not credible.  Repbulican presidential candidate Rick Perry told his voters that "I don't believe man-made global warming is settled in science enough."  There is a website called gloabalwarminghoax.com which carries many articles and news stories that global warming isn't real.  Bryan Walsh for Time Magazine said "That's deeply troubling. It's one thing when people disagree on the effectiveness of different approaches to fix a problem; it's worse when they refuse even to believe that a problem exists."

     Americans are dealing with an economic crisis right now and they don't have time right now to think about what they can do to save the planet.  They are worrying about jobs, taxes and if they can keep a roof under their head.  The government would have to take a leading role to start these issues of climate change so that Americans would be more focused on it.
  
 Facts: 
1.A gallup.com poll was done in 2008.
2.Globalwarminghoax.com is a website that doesn't believe in global warming.
3. Bryan Walsh is a writer for Time Magazine. 
      
   

           

Stop whining and pay your fair share!

Where's the evidence that tax cuts for the wealthy will fuel the economy?  This is a big issue that is being debated in Congress and in the media.  President Obama introduced the "Buffet Plan" on September 19th,2011 which would prevent millionaires from taking advantage of lower tax rates on investment earnings than what middle-income tax payers pay on their wages.  Warren Buffett is the chairman and chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway INC.  He wrote  in a New York Times Sunday article that "While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega- rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks".  Joel Slemrod a professor of Stephen Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan  said that "there is no compelling evidence that high taxes impede economic growth".

           
   
     Republicans will always argue that if you tax the "job creators" then they wouldn't be able to create more jobs.  Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis, chairman of the House Budget Committee told Fox News on September 18th, 2011,"If you tax something more you get less of it.  If you tax job creators more you get less job creation.  If you tax their investment more, you get less investment."  However when you try to look into this statement, it is hard to find the evidence that tax cuts for the wealthy create jobs.  Ronald Regan was the first Republican president to say that tax cuts for the rich would "trickle down" economic benefits to the rest of the country.  Some of the  increases in the federal deficit can be traced to Republican presidents who reduced taxes.

 

     The richest one percent of Americans now earn almost a quarter of the country's income and control 40 percent of its wealth,said Michael Keegan of the Huffington Post.  Americans are fed up that the rich aren't paying their fair share.  When most Americans are facing cut backs in services, higher payments for health insurance and job lay-offs, it's hard to feel sorry for the top one percent who don't pay taxes.  According to a CBS news/New York Times poll 56 percent of Americans said that wealthier Americans should pitch in and pay higher taxes to help reduce the deficit.  Tax cut will never create jobs and they don't help the economy.

Facts:
1. President Obama introduced the " Buffet Plan on September 19th, 2011.
2. Joel Slemrod was quoted in a MinnPost.com article by Myles Splicer.
3. Paul Ryan was on Fox News September 18th, 2011
4. Michael Keegan does opinion articles on the  Huffington Post.
   
      

I can buy whatever I want!

Personally it is hard for me to get really excited over the question of what the government can or cannot tell us what to buy.  It does not damage my personal liberty when the government restricted cigarette smoking in public places or requires nutrition labels on food packaging.  It seems that many times that the government is forced to act on a safety or health issue only after years of research and debate.  The government has a responsibility to protect the health and safety of it's citizens.

      In July, the Republicans in congress and Rupert Murdock's Wall Street Journal  tried to draw a line in the sand over the "government nanny state".  The BULB Act became a rally call in the conservatives battle against government intrusion on personal liberty.  Representative Joe Barton, Texas Republican, said "The 2010 elections demonstrated that Americans are fed up with government intrusion.  The federal government has crept so deep into our lives that federal agencies now determine what kind of light bulb the American people are allowed to purchase".
       It is interesting that the Republicans and Fox News have picked this issue.  The 2007 Energy Bill(Passed under George W. Bush) raised energy efficiency standards for light bulbs that go into effect in 2014.  However from the hysteria I can almost picture light bulb police knocking on my door.  It seems that the Republicans are more interested in raising the fear of "socialist" government than in discussing issues facing our country.

Facts:

1. BULB Act failed to get two-third majority in the Republican- controlled house, in July 2011.
2.  Joe Barton quoted in Enviome Magazine, September 2011.
3.  Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 was under George W. Bush.
4.  Light bulbs must be 25 to 30% more efficient by 2014. 
     

     

9/11 : The Propaganda Machine

It's been 10 years now.  We still remember the Two Towers collapsing and people screaming in terror.  We also remember the First Responders who risked their own lives to save a thousand others.  However, this tragedy has bought upon us two of the longest wars in American history.  The First Responders have also been fighting medical issues after the 9/11 attack. I was 9 years old when it happened.  I grew up with George Bush and the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I have now come to realised that all of this remember 9/11 is mainly propaganda.  I'm concerned that they're using this anniversary to encourage people to sympathise with the wars.

On 9/11/11 Jeff Jacoby wrote on the Boston Sunday Globe an opinion piece entitled After 10 years, it's still a Fight for Freedom.  Jacoby wrote "That as part of George W. Bush's war against terrorism, Bush had a "Freedom Agenda" that was a campaign to democratise the Middle East".  Jacoby states "That this "Freedom agenda's" goal was based on the idea that dictatorships and theocracies breed terrorism".  While I agree that freedom and democracy are what is needed in the Middle East, I am confused as to why some of our strongest allies are dictators and theocracies.  In Michael Moore's documentary Fahrenheit 911 he describes in detail that the Bush family were long time friends of the Saudi royal family.

      In December 2010 Jon Stewart, host of The Daily Show had four First Responders as his guests to talk about the 9/11 First Responders bill.  He was frustrated that the Republican Party that was using  9/11 as a "catchphrase" was turning it's back on it's heroes.  The First Responders talked about how they now have cancer, heart disease, and brain damage because of 9/11.  After this show he shamed congress so much that they had to pass the bill.  I find it disgusting that it took a comedian to help pass a bill.  I sympathise with the dead family members of millions of Americans but 9/11 did not have to bring us ten years of two wars.

 

      

   

Factbox: *On 9/11/11 Jeff Jacoby  wrote an article in the Boston Sunday Globe called After Ten Years it's still a fight for freedom.

* In Michael Moore's documentary: Fahrenheit 911 he talked about how Bush had good connections with the Saudis and how he used 9/11 to start the war in Iraq.
* In December 2010 Jon Stewart had four First Responders come on his show.