Response to "Mary Jane art thou Savior?"

Today, tens of thousands of people gathered around the nation to enjoy a leafy green plant  that is still illegal in many parts of the United States. Many believe the laws on this substance should change, and that not decriminalizing it would be one dopey idea. Schira Spears is one of these people and in her commentary, she compares the harmful effects of several items we consume daily to the seemly harmless use of marijuana. In honor of 4/20, I have considered her argument and found the evidence to be highly interesting. 

Spears begins by asking us to consider the both toxic and legal things we ingest regularly. She specifically makes note of the synthetic trans fat in many of the snacks and packaged foods we enjoy, as well as the harmful  and often lethal side effects of smoking cigarettes. She then poses the philosophical question that weed-to-know. Why are these substances are deemed fit for consumption while others are not?

Spears makes a bold statement: “Marijuana on the other hand, doesn't have any harmful effects.” This is debatable. While smoking weed won’t likely have the same effect on you as alcohol or other mind-altering substances, it is still just that… a mind-altering substance. It is well known that hallucinations, increased appetite, and decreased coordination are all effects of this drug. However, studies have also shown that marijuana can increase your heart rate by 20 to 100 percent shortly after ingesting the drug, and this effect could last for hours. While an increased risk in lung cancer has not been linked to marijuana smoking, it can cause similar respiratory problems to tobacco smokers such as greater chance of lung infections, increased cough and mucus production, and more frequent chest illnesses. Several other studies have also found that heavy marijuana use can lower the body’s ability to fight infection, and alter men’s sperm production as well as altering a woman’s menstrual cycle (1).

But don’t blow smoke yet. Nevertheless, Spears is correct when she writes that chemicals in the drug can also have helpful effects on people suffering from illness or depression, and it is indeed used medically in some areas for this very purpose. Unlike drinking alcohol or tobacco, marijuana has the potential to be a highly useful substance, especially when compared to many other legal substances.

Spears’ point is clear. Pretty much everything we do or have is bad for us on some level, and marijuana, while deemed dangerous, ins’t nearly as bad as it seems. I have to agree with her on this. While the drug does produce some questionable effects, it is no worse than the junk we inhale every time we drive through a fast food line or the legal tobacco products that so many people are addicted to today. As Spears writes, “There are so many ways it can help people today, but yet it is marked as something dangerous, unlike the other legal substances whom been proven to lead to those illnesses that Marijuana helps.” I agree with Spears, but the true question is if we can get American lawmakers to realize the same thing. The answer… is yes we cannabis. Blaze it, America.

Sources:

1. http://www.livescience.com/24558-marijuana-effects.html

Over and Under and Through, Oh My!

As the 2016 presidential race continues, candidates from both parties are feeling the heat on issues such as immigration. America has long been known as a “melting pot” where people of  all ethnicities and backgrounds can gather together and integrate in the land of the free. Recent studies have estimated that today 11.3 million unauthorized immigrants mingle among the pot, 5.6 million of which hail from Mexico. Yet, rather than embracing and accepting these immigrants for the cultural aspects that they contribute to the United States, politicians have spent recent decades working towards a kind of immigration reform. Republican frontrunner, Donald Trump, has proposed the building of a giant wall which would span the length of the Mexican-American border. Such ideas have been thought over in the past and as a result of the Secure Fence Act of 2006, nearly 700 miles of fence are currently in place. Trump wants to fill in these gaps and make Mexico pay for it. But is this reasonable? Is it even possible? History has shown us that walls can be brought down. Due to money restraints, security, topography, and the sheer nature of walls, I do not believe a giant wall is the answer to our immigration crisis.

Over and under and through, oh my! First and foremost, there are plenty of ways to get to the other side of a wall. According to an article by the Huffington Post, nearly 70 tunnels were found between 2008 and 2013, some of which were half a mile long and included elaborate drainage and lighting systems and even rail tracks and elevators. Some immigrants have simply gone around the wall, either by sea or plane. The waters off San Diego have seen a dramatic increase in undocumented immigrants and drug seizures. Ladders exist. Panels have been removed and replaced. Smugglers have found creative methods of hiding children. By 2009, there had already been 3,000 breaches in the wall which cost $4.4 million to repair. This number is staggering considering there are 1,284 miles of wall currently left unbuilt, making it easy for some smugglers to simply walk right past the wall. The higher and tougher we build, the more inventive people will get in crossing.

Equally as important is the cost of building such a wall. At one point, Trump estimated his wall would cost $8 billion, but he later upped that number to $10 or 12 billion. Finding a way to make Mexico pay for it by any complicated business means seems unlikely, so how much would such massive wall cost? Since the 2006 act, the United States has spent $2.4 billion constructing what is currently standing. The Washington Post estimated that in “easy” metropolitan areas, the wall would cost between $2.8 to 3.9 million per mile, and in desert areas, the wall would cost as much as $16 million a mile coming out to a final total of $3 billion for 1,000 miles. Yet, this does not include the cost of maintenance which the Corps of Engineers claimed could reach as high as $70 million per mile in a 25 year life cycle. Is this reasonable? Governments have certainly spent more money that in other areas. But for a wall that is most certainly penetrable, it does seem like a waste of tax money.

Perhaps more personal, building a border wall would mean cutting through the private property of homeowners. An article in the Austin American-Statesmen noted that wealthy landowners have demanded higher compensation, if they even allowed construction at all. Simply to build the current wall, hundreds of property owners were sued, costing the government at least $15 million. For some, the land they’re being forced to give up has been in their family for generations and they are willing to fight for what they believe is rightfully theirs. 

     Beyond cost or other statistics, building a wall to keep out other human beings could arguably be considered morally wrong. People put up walls for protection or privacy. What are we trying to hide? Do we really feel that attacked? Looking closely at cost and other statistics, the evidence seems to largely support the argument against a giant border wall. It’s expensive, it’s a pain in the ass, and it’s proved unsuccessful thousands of times. If politicians such as Trump do not wish to invite immigrants into the melting pot of America, I at least highly suggest finding an alternate means to a physical barrier.

Sources:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-dear/why-walls-wont-work-repai_b_2902953.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/11/trumps-dubious-claim-that-his-border-wall-would-cost-8-billion/

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/state-regional/completing-texas-mexico-border-wall-would-be-daunt/npwQb/