Yes I know this is a controversial issue, especially in a state like Texas, but the legalization of marijuana is inevitable. I'm not talking about the near future, but the fact is support for legalization is high among young people who will be a large chunk of voters in twenty to thirty years.
When considering this type of legislation, one must take into account the pros and cons. The first, most important pro, is the fact that the government could make considerable profits by growing, selling, and taxing marijuana. In a state and nation grappling with budget shortfalls any type of revenue generator should be considered. We've already applied sin taxes to strip club patrons and tobacco users, the same principles are at play in this case.
Secondly, think about the amount of time and resources wasted in our pursuit of marijuana users. It's mind-boggling that someones personal use of a drug less dangerous than alcohol occupies so much of our police force and courts time. Some of the sentences against users of this drug are insane and downright criminal. In my opinion, users should be spared the brunt of the law. If legalized, the city does have the incentive to locate and bust dealers of large quantities to impose fines to recoup some losses. The prosecution of marijuana offenses would be solely directed towards those trying to make a profit off the trade.
A common complaint against the legalization of marijuana is the idea that it will make it more readily available to minors. If you've been around a high school or even a middle school lately, you'd realize that it's easy to obtain, legal or not. The idea that keeping something illegal deters its use, is outdated and clearly lacks evidence.
Another argument against legalization involves public safety, specifically drivers under the influence. The fact is alcohol kills many more people than marijuana ever will and there will be strict laws against driving under the influence. Because there's not accurate test to determine the amount of THC in a person's body, there will be zero tolerance with driving under the influence of marijuana. A road side test needs to be developed to gauge the reaction time of one accused of DUI.
With full legalization, and a few guidelines, such as the driving ban of people under the influence, the state and the nation can save money, generate revenue, and increase the morale of their citizens by allowing more person liberty.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
Conceal and Carry Comment
I have posted a comment on my classmates blog regarding the proposed legislation to allow students to carry handguns on campus. I will post the comment below:
This has been the hottest political issue I've heard discussed on campus. To me the bill is extremely short- sighted. Throwing guns at guns doesn't sound like well drawn up legislation to me. While reasonable arguments can be made (stopping campus shootings and introducing responsible gun owners to campuses) they are only beneficial hypothetically. Imagining the same scenario the pro conceal and carry folks offer up, let us imagine a shooter lighting up our campus. The response of a young student who has a concealed gun will most likely be to freeze or to misfire due to pressure. Not only that, once the police respond, the young man may be confused for the assailant or simply slow down the retention of the guilty party. As a police officer having received word of a school shooting, how would you be able to decipher a well intentioned shooter from afar. I imagine this would be quite difficult. While shootings happen every so often they are quite rare by society's standards and college campuses remain a relatively safe place to live. Another concern of mine is the fact that theft is the number one crime on campus, so a gun that isn't properly put away could end up as a future tool for a student who broke into a gun carriers room. The only positives to passing this piece of legislation are all speculative, those who live in reality realize the grave mistake of such a reckless policy. That's my two cents. I enjoyed reading your article, it's a great starting point of an important discussion.
This has been the hottest political issue I've heard discussed on campus. To me the bill is extremely short- sighted. Throwing guns at guns doesn't sound like well drawn up legislation to me. While reasonable arguments can be made (stopping campus shootings and introducing responsible gun owners to campuses) they are only beneficial hypothetically. Imagining the same scenario the pro conceal and carry folks offer up, let us imagine a shooter lighting up our campus. The response of a young student who has a concealed gun will most likely be to freeze or to misfire due to pressure. Not only that, once the police respond, the young man may be confused for the assailant or simply slow down the retention of the guilty party. As a police officer having received word of a school shooting, how would you be able to decipher a well intentioned shooter from afar. I imagine this would be quite difficult. While shootings happen every so often they are quite rare by society's standards and college campuses remain a relatively safe place to live. Another concern of mine is the fact that theft is the number one crime on campus, so a gun that isn't properly put away could end up as a future tool for a student who broke into a gun carriers room. The only positives to passing this piece of legislation are all speculative, those who live in reality realize the grave mistake of such a reckless policy. That's my two cents. I enjoyed reading your article, it's a great starting point of an important discussion.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Show Me the Taxes!
We don't raise taxes in the great state of Texas! We have magically created an oasis for big business and the common citizen to live without the fear of big nasty government interfering in our lives. Does this sound too good to be true? Well it is, just don't tell Rick Perry.
Governor Perry, in accordance with the state's Republicans, has created an illusion in terms of how the state creates revenue. He touts the fact that Texas has no income tax, which has created a haven for businesses moving in from other states creating a surplus of jobs. This is a bold statement considering we have no proof of how many jiobs this has actually created. Not only that, the businesses that do come over don't give the state aduquate income in tax money, because the state has slashed those taxes enourmously.
To add insult to injury, the lack of funds created through corporate and income taxation, the amount of money and support given to local governments is appauling. City and local governments are now surviving by raising property rates (taxation), raising fees and fines (taxation), and even setting up speed traps to create any kind of financial support (taxation). The lack of revenue at the state level has forced local governments to act out of desparation and possible turn more to the private sector for help, which could be a goal of the wealthier Texans, who fund Perry's campaign. So while pandering to the Republican base of the state, who covet economic freedeom, he has actually created more of a burden on the taxpayers themselves.
The simple fact in this fast growing and signifigantly underfunded state is that we must raise taxes and the longer we wait, the more we'll have to pay in the future. If we don't, the form of government closest to us, will also be the one in the most disrepair.
Governor Perry, in accordance with the state's Republicans, has created an illusion in terms of how the state creates revenue. He touts the fact that Texas has no income tax, which has created a haven for businesses moving in from other states creating a surplus of jobs. This is a bold statement considering we have no proof of how many jiobs this has actually created. Not only that, the businesses that do come over don't give the state aduquate income in tax money, because the state has slashed those taxes enourmously.
To add insult to injury, the lack of funds created through corporate and income taxation, the amount of money and support given to local governments is appauling. City and local governments are now surviving by raising property rates (taxation), raising fees and fines (taxation), and even setting up speed traps to create any kind of financial support (taxation). The lack of revenue at the state level has forced local governments to act out of desparation and possible turn more to the private sector for help, which could be a goal of the wealthier Texans, who fund Perry's campaign. So while pandering to the Republican base of the state, who covet economic freedeom, he has actually created more of a burden on the taxpayers themselves.
The simple fact in this fast growing and signifigantly underfunded state is that we must raise taxes and the longer we wait, the more we'll have to pay in the future. If we don't, the form of government closest to us, will also be the one in the most disrepair.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Proposed Cuts to the Windham School District's Funds
Grits for Breakfast has posted a response to Jill Labbe's article that was a sharp critique of the Senate Finance Committee's proposal to cut some funds to the Windham School District, which serves prisoners in 112 statewide prisons. This school offers many two-year vocational programs for offenders.
The content of this article was quite a surprise considering the blog is typically seen as a left-leaning one. The blogger takes the side of the fiscal conservatives, with some exeptions, and presents a common sense case for his audience. I think that this was a great way of displaying to his readers that we can't fully sustain all the social programs we want, there must be sacrifices. I'm sure this ruffled the feathers of some of the more liberal readers.
The main argument that is used in the article is the fact that we can't sustain all of the funds to this program, so there must be cuts. With that said the cuts can't be off the top and must be done after adequate resarch has highlighted the weaker and ineffective aspects of the program. Labbe, the subject of the blogger's response, is adament that no cuts should be made to this program because of it's great effectiveness, but the state does not yet have solid numbers on the recidivism rates of offenders who have enrolled in the school. At this moment the Senate Finance Committee seems to be content with broad cuts to most if not all sections of the district instead of the smarter strategy of purging useless ones. This is where the two journalists and I agree. No cuts should be made until there is an effort to seek out the fat and trim down the offerings. Unfortunetely this is not the time to research considering our budget shortfall, so unfortunetly the cuts will happen without the neccessary research. We can only hope the program isn't cut beyond recognition and is sustainable until it can be fine tailored when new data and information comes to light. My fear however, is that the conservatives don't want to responsibly cut the program, but kill it.
The content of this article was quite a surprise considering the blog is typically seen as a left-leaning one. The blogger takes the side of the fiscal conservatives, with some exeptions, and presents a common sense case for his audience. I think that this was a great way of displaying to his readers that we can't fully sustain all the social programs we want, there must be sacrifices. I'm sure this ruffled the feathers of some of the more liberal readers.
The main argument that is used in the article is the fact that we can't sustain all of the funds to this program, so there must be cuts. With that said the cuts can't be off the top and must be done after adequate resarch has highlighted the weaker and ineffective aspects of the program. Labbe, the subject of the blogger's response, is adament that no cuts should be made to this program because of it's great effectiveness, but the state does not yet have solid numbers on the recidivism rates of offenders who have enrolled in the school. At this moment the Senate Finance Committee seems to be content with broad cuts to most if not all sections of the district instead of the smarter strategy of purging useless ones. This is where the two journalists and I agree. No cuts should be made until there is an effort to seek out the fat and trim down the offerings. Unfortunetely this is not the time to research considering our budget shortfall, so unfortunetly the cuts will happen without the neccessary research. We can only hope the program isn't cut beyond recognition and is sustainable until it can be fine tailored when new data and information comes to light. My fear however, is that the conservatives don't want to responsibly cut the program, but kill it.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Much Needed, Yet Relatively Weak Opposition to a Bill Assisted "By the Hand of God"
The editorial board at the Dallas Morning News has published an article in opposition of the abortion bill being fast-tracked through the state's houses.
The article is obviously intended at those in the state frustrated by the state's intrusion into the lives of many citizens, who are in the process of making such a tough decision. These folks are most likely women, Democrats, and a small group of true Libertarians.
The Morning News mentions their support of a woman's right to an abortion, only as a last resort and after all options have been examined. A brief look into their archives proves this to be true as they have supported adoption among other alternatives in the past.
Getting to the meat of their argument, the editorial board is fairly soft and conservative with their opposition to the bill. They really only cite Roe vs. Wade as a reason to oppose the new restrictions. I can see how they feel this might be a necessity to maintain their readership in a conservative state. In my opinion, just citing a court case doesn't do enough to support or oppose a new law or procedure. It might satisfy a stance, but it doesn't personalize an issue and create interesting dialogue.While I support everything they say in the article, they don't go far enough. The rest of this critique will contain a couple arguments that would have been refreshing to read.
The more pressing issue behind this bill, in my opinion, is the fact that the people who are opposed to aborting a single baby are the ones who are also denying their mother's and eventually the children themselves any government assistance. Promoting life in every instance creates an unsustainable growth rate. Not only that, many of the fetuses that would have been aborted, now will grow up in poverty, with an unprepared mother, and will naturally demand more state funds, when the state could have supported an informed decision to abort.
Although abortion can have positive effects on welfare reform and population control, it is a mentally and emotionally draining decision to make. This bill tries to guilt trip a woman already burdened with the trauma of letting go of another life inside her. Making a woman listen to a heart beat and having a doctor describe body parts as a means to save an unprepared for life is morally corrupt and government interference at its worst. Guilt tripping an overwhelmed and under prepared mother into keeping a child is a great way to create a stable mother for a child. It's nauseating to see this government interference based solely on a religious view. If we took god away from the argument, greater moral arguments can be made for the woman's right to choose and even abortion itself, than bringing children into this world that cannot be supported.
While I'm encouraged to see a paper stand up against this interference, I sorely wish there were newspapers willing to stand up against the religious zealots who influence all of our state's decisions.
The article is obviously intended at those in the state frustrated by the state's intrusion into the lives of many citizens, who are in the process of making such a tough decision. These folks are most likely women, Democrats, and a small group of true Libertarians.
The Morning News mentions their support of a woman's right to an abortion, only as a last resort and after all options have been examined. A brief look into their archives proves this to be true as they have supported adoption among other alternatives in the past.
Getting to the meat of their argument, the editorial board is fairly soft and conservative with their opposition to the bill. They really only cite Roe vs. Wade as a reason to oppose the new restrictions. I can see how they feel this might be a necessity to maintain their readership in a conservative state. In my opinion, just citing a court case doesn't do enough to support or oppose a new law or procedure. It might satisfy a stance, but it doesn't personalize an issue and create interesting dialogue.While I support everything they say in the article, they don't go far enough. The rest of this critique will contain a couple arguments that would have been refreshing to read.
The more pressing issue behind this bill, in my opinion, is the fact that the people who are opposed to aborting a single baby are the ones who are also denying their mother's and eventually the children themselves any government assistance. Promoting life in every instance creates an unsustainable growth rate. Not only that, many of the fetuses that would have been aborted, now will grow up in poverty, with an unprepared mother, and will naturally demand more state funds, when the state could have supported an informed decision to abort.
Although abortion can have positive effects on welfare reform and population control, it is a mentally and emotionally draining decision to make. This bill tries to guilt trip a woman already burdened with the trauma of letting go of another life inside her. Making a woman listen to a heart beat and having a doctor describe body parts as a means to save an unprepared for life is morally corrupt and government interference at its worst. Guilt tripping an overwhelmed and under prepared mother into keeping a child is a great way to create a stable mother for a child. It's nauseating to see this government interference based solely on a religious view. If we took god away from the argument, greater moral arguments can be made for the woman's right to choose and even abortion itself, than bringing children into this world that cannot be supported.
While I'm encouraged to see a paper stand up against this interference, I sorely wish there were newspapers willing to stand up against the religious zealots who influence all of our state's decisions.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Gov. Perry's Quizical Proposal of a $10,000 Bachelor's Degree
In the midst of a massive budget cut in every government program imaginable, Governor Rick Perry has proposed that every public university in the state provide a Bachelor's degree, with textbooks, for 10,000 dollars a year. Ralph Haurwitz at the Austin American Statesman has published an article putting Perry's loose proposal into a clearer prospective.
Currently, the average tuition, fees, and book costs for a Bachelor's degree at a public four-year state university are approximately 32,000 dollars. The cheapest four-year school, Sul Ross State Rio Grande College, is over 17,000 dollars in cost to receive a bachelor's. So not only does the cheapest school in the state have to bring down its costs by over 7,000 dollars, but the average university in Texas must do so by nearly 22,000 dollars, or about 70 percent.
The clear solution to making college more affordable lies in the power of the community college. If students choose to get their basics taken care of at these institutions, they will save a lot of money in the long run. Three community colleges were cited for the cheapest Bachelor's degrees at 10,000 dollars for tuition and fees, and 3,000 to 5,000 dollars for books. Although they only offer a Bachelor in applied technology, they are by far the closest to Perry's goal. The problem is that due to the budget shortfall, this Bachelor's program is going to get cut out entirely in this next session. So the one program within striking distance of Perry's goal is going to be nixed, this seems a tad bit counterproductive. This brings us to the real problem or even hypocrisy in the governor's statement. While he is proposing a very idealistic state supported and funded initiative, his government is cutting almost everything down to nothing. how can a school be expected to provide a substantially cheaper education when it can't even afford to run smoothly with its current tuition and fees. In times of economic crisis this proposal is almost laughable.
I want to leave you with the most striking numbers in the story. The University of Texas at Austin, the flagship university of the state, as well as the largest, provides a bachelor's degree at the cost of a whopping 96,664 dollars when room and board, transportation, and personal fees are added to tuition and books. That is more than double the tuition and fees of the school. This shows just how infeasible Perry's number really is. Even if he could cut all tuition and fees in the state to 10,000 dollars, additional costs at a place like the University of Texas would bring this number up to 65,000 dollars. So even if we got the 10,000 dollar price tag on a bachelor's, most students will end up paying much more than that number when all is said and done.
Currently, the average tuition, fees, and book costs for a Bachelor's degree at a public four-year state university are approximately 32,000 dollars. The cheapest four-year school, Sul Ross State Rio Grande College, is over 17,000 dollars in cost to receive a bachelor's. So not only does the cheapest school in the state have to bring down its costs by over 7,000 dollars, but the average university in Texas must do so by nearly 22,000 dollars, or about 70 percent.
The clear solution to making college more affordable lies in the power of the community college. If students choose to get their basics taken care of at these institutions, they will save a lot of money in the long run. Three community colleges were cited for the cheapest Bachelor's degrees at 10,000 dollars for tuition and fees, and 3,000 to 5,000 dollars for books. Although they only offer a Bachelor in applied technology, they are by far the closest to Perry's goal. The problem is that due to the budget shortfall, this Bachelor's program is going to get cut out entirely in this next session. So the one program within striking distance of Perry's goal is going to be nixed, this seems a tad bit counterproductive. This brings us to the real problem or even hypocrisy in the governor's statement. While he is proposing a very idealistic state supported and funded initiative, his government is cutting almost everything down to nothing. how can a school be expected to provide a substantially cheaper education when it can't even afford to run smoothly with its current tuition and fees. In times of economic crisis this proposal is almost laughable.
I want to leave you with the most striking numbers in the story. The University of Texas at Austin, the flagship university of the state, as well as the largest, provides a bachelor's degree at the cost of a whopping 96,664 dollars when room and board, transportation, and personal fees are added to tuition and books. That is more than double the tuition and fees of the school. This shows just how infeasible Perry's number really is. Even if he could cut all tuition and fees in the state to 10,000 dollars, additional costs at a place like the University of Texas would bring this number up to 65,000 dollars. So even if we got the 10,000 dollar price tag on a bachelor's, most students will end up paying much more than that number when all is said and done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)