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/

"Just Say No"?

As a nation comes together to mourn the passing of former first lady Nancy Reagan, we also reflect on the impact she and her husband, Ronald Reagan, left on society. Recently, California lawmakers have raised the smoking age from 18 to 21, reminding us of her most well know campaign, “Just Say No” aimed at fighting drug use amongst youth. The idea seems logical. A raised smoking age would mean less teen smokers. However, on March 11, 2016, sociologist Mike Males wrote an article for the “Los Angeles Times”, explaining why this seemingly obvious approach doesn’t actually work. 

A sociologist, author, and former teacher at the University of California, Santa Cruz, Mike Males currently serves as senior researcher for San Francisco's Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice with an emphasis on antismoking efforts. In this particular article, he refers to a number of studies, all of which claim no evidence supporting the idea that raising the smoking age prevents teens from smoking. Beyond ineffective, he also makes a strong case that raising the smoking age can even be harmful under some circumstances.

Males begins his article by describing a two year study done by medical researchers in the 1990s. In this instance, several communities in Massachusetts implemented a campaign that would make under age tobacco sales more difficult with the hopes that teen smoking rates would fall. However, a survey of high school students in the communities revealed no drop in teen smoking rates. Males notes that similar patterns have played out across the country, with teens being punished at high rates for status offenses. 

An important key to this research is the difference between short term and long term effects. Males notes that California's 1998 Teen Driver Safety Act was successful in reducing fatalities among 16 year olds, but long-term research showed the act interrupted a previous decline and instead increased deaths among older teens and adults. In 1996, Monrovia passed a day time curfew that was meant to cut crime, but it was eventually found that crime was cut more during non-curfew hours. The smoking age is California is similar to these cases. Between 2000 and 2012, teen smoking rates were cut in half with no government assistance, and raising the age for buying tobacco would risk interfering with this trend.

Males makes a convincing argument that raising the smoking age from 18 to 21 could have unintentional consequences. However, he omits some possibly valuable information. If the smoking age is indeed declining, what is causing this trend if not statutory efforts? How might we possibly continue this trend despite the recent vote? He notes that raising taxes on tobacco products has proven effective, but provides no evidence to back this claim up.

Despite minor points, Males does a fine job of defending his belief that lawmakers should know when to leave young people alone. His evidence and research also suggest that Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” campaign may have not been so effective after all, leaving us with the tough question of how to adequately handle drug use among America’s youth.

The role of Islam in Terrorism

     In light of recent global terrorist attacks, a debate is being centered around the question of Islam and political correctness among national leaders. In particular, President Barack Obama has been criticized for refusing to define the attacks for what they largely appear to be: examples of radical Islamic terrorism. In fact, he has even been quoted as defending the opposite belief, saying that “ISIL is not ‘Islamic.’ No religion condones the killing of innocents”. On January 13, 2015, CNN national security analyst, Peter Bergen, wrote an article that reflects on the Charlie Hebdo attacks and explains why Islam does indeed fuel terrorism. He bases his argument on the use of violent verses in the Quran and looks at a type of religious ideology termed, “Binladenism”.

Beyond his role as security analyst at CNN, Peter Bergen is a journalist, author, and documentary producer. A professor of practice at Arizona State University, he has also held teaching positions at other universities including Harvard. He specializes in security and has written numerous books on the subject. Perhaps most impressive, Bergen produced the first television interview with Osama Bin Laden. This notable background is significant when analyzing his article on whether Islam fuels terrorism. The answer to his question is simple. Yes, Islam does fuel terrorism, and we as American citizens are doing ourselves no favors by denying this uncomfortable truth.  

Bergen begins by considering the terrorist’s targets. One target was a magazine that had insulted the prophet Muhammad, and the other was a kosher store serving Jews. Anti-Semitism a basic militant Islamist belief, and the Quran verse, “O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends” gives leverage to this. Bergen notes that one reason Islamic militants fight against “enemies of Islam” is because the Quran gives sufficient ammunition to do so. He points to a well known verse from the Quran that plainly states “fight and slay the nonbelievers wherever you find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them”, a verse that Osama Bin Laden cited when formally declaring war against the “Jews and the Crusaders” in the late 90’s.

Bergen refers to Bin Laden again when speaking of “Binladenism” , an idea laid out by Bin Laden himself before his death in 2011. Bergen compares this ideology to Marxism and Nazism, noting that all ideologies, religious or otherwise, typically believe that history has a direction and will eventually become a utopia. In the case of Binladensim, the world will be perfect after the restoration of a “Taliban-style Caliphate”, and that those who stand in the way of this must be destroyed. Bergen sums up his article by claiming that this ideology is the belief of many followers of Islam and would explain the Paris attacks and even 9/11.

Although Bergen repeatedly refers to the Islamic holy text for evidence, he remains aware that not every Muslim is an extremist and the Old Testament itself has many violent scriptures. He acknowledges this while furthering his claim with the statement, “assertions that Islamist terrorism has nothing to do with Islam are as nonsensical as claims that the Crusades had nothing to do with Christian beliefs”. With this honesty, he is able to uncover truths that perhaps many politicians today are too afraid to make note of, including our current Commander-in-chief. Of course, with the current presidential election unfolding, many Republican candidates are quick to jump on the bandwagon, attacking and criticizing the current president. As the general election nears, we can only hope that at least one of the nominees takes into consideration the knowledge of Peter Bergen. 

Cruz Mocks Opponents

     There's certainly no denying that politics is a very serious thing. At any given point in human history, civilizations have been plagued by evil and injustice, and during these dark times, we look to our strong leaders to help us reach a resolution. But let’s be honest… Politics can be also be pretty funny. As it turns out, Saturday Night Live may have some competition in sketch comedy. On February 12, 2016, Nick Corasaniti of The New York Times published an article examining Ted Cruz’s satirical humor and increasingly comical political ads as tensions run high for presidential candidates in South Carolina.
     The article begins by referencing a few of the recent attack ads Cruz has released before noting Cruz’s personal humor and upcoming spoofs. Attached to the article is one of Cruz’s recent videos aimed at Hillary Clinton’s ongoing email scandal titled, “It Feels Good to be a Clinton”, an obvious nod to the popular 90’s tune, “Damn it Feels Good to be a Gangster”. But just in case you were beginning to think Cruz and his team were comedic masterminds, the article reminds you that everyone goofs sometimes, and one’s of Cruz’s own ads was pulled after discovery that it featured the star of a soft-core pornographic film.
     Yes, it is true that politics is something to be taken very seriously and we should learn everything we can about the matter before deciding who will become the leader of one of the most powerful nations in the world. Yet, the reason shows like SNL have managed to remain popular for over 4 decades is because everyone needs a laugh if they hope to avoid becoming emotionless robots. When Trump makes an insulting comment about one of his opponents or Cruz releases a satirical attack ad, we’re quick to become shocked or offended, but only because we have told ourselves that it’s unprofessional or tacky, not necessarily because it so.
     When stress level becomes too high or the weight of usual politics has got you down, I highly recommend readers of this post take a look at the aforementioned article. We may not all be politicians or lawyers, but humor is something that people across the globe can identify with. Corasaniti does an excellent job of examining Cruz’s humorous strategy, in a time when our nation is riding a wave of change.

Greetings classmates!