Decline In Teenage Smoking

A recent article in the New York Times discusses the decline of teenage smoking. It was reported to have been a significant one in that the article attributes this change to the harsher enforcement of laws with policies being more strict regarding the age of purchasing cigarettes and the fines that would be affiliated with any obstruction of said laws.

The article specifically references a federal law known as the Synar Amendment which went into effect in 1996. Over a decade later, a study conducted in the University of Mass. shows that the amendment proved to have significant effects on the number of minors who smoke and the store owners who sell cigarettes to minors. The amendment was cited as having severe penalties within state law if an operating store was caught selling to minors, hence the decline in the average teenager who smokes and begins at a fairly early age.

While the article was rather short and remained more of an informative one not alluding to any particular or even possible implications for say tobacco companies or even individuals who do smoke, it is interesting enough to explore. For instance, one can could argue that this new trend of increasingly stringent enforcement of laws banning solicitation to minors could eventually rub tobacco companies the wrong way, in that most of their customers are smokes who began the habit at an early age (being a minor.) On the other hand, this should be good. For example, educational programs like D.A.R.E, which begin early as middle school, more or less have a solid foundation to fall back on when their students reach high school. Most advocates who are anti-smoking or are in favor of continual enforcement in limiting the amount of people who smoke would applaud the results of this amendment.

Additionally, what was most interesting about this article, is that the issue of how successful or being able to judge the success of a policy of initiative is identified. After a semester of learning about the various characteristics of public policy and the process, essentially the ins and outs of it, this article best emulated a policy gone right. Most importantly and note worthy, is that the results were not fully noticeable until over a decade had gone by. With most policy agenda, one reason that usually prevents any real action from being taken is the inability to determine effectiveness in a short amount of time. People want to see results as soon as possible, although not at all pragmatic or realistic, it unfortunately deters real work going into a project or halts work in progress. Whether you are in favor or opposed to the findings of the research study conducted, it should at the very least, represent what is possible when real policy and dedication (enforcement of said law) takes place.

Higher Education for all!

The American Association of State Colleges and Universitys' main legislative priorities are higher education issues at the Federal and state levels. AASCU has a strong commitment towards every student has an opportunity to receive a higher education. They, as well as I, believe that higher education benefits society, as well as the individuals themselves and truly represents democratic ideals. Providing higher education for its citizens is just something a democracy should do. Most importantly, the AASCU fights for those who are held back from getting a higher education because of their financial situtation. Of course there are loans, but one takes a chance on graduating into debt and paying it back. Many Americans consider the cost of college as one of their major worries.
America was founded on the belief that one has an opporntunity to go from rags to riches. However, with the high cost of college tuition, that is becoming more and more difficult for Americans. Any type of government assistance is beneficial and has become a God send in the past year and a half because of this current global recession. School attendence always seems to rise during recessionsand it truly has become more evident today. Many people who have made a career on Wall St. but have lost their job in the past year, have been re-enrolling in colleges, in the hopes of beginning a new career. In order to recover from this recession, new jobs need to be created and what's a better way to do that than putting people in schools to teach them new technologies and more.
One of the major priorities this agency has is to amend the Higher Education Act to augment the maximum Pell award to benefit the lowest income students and revamp the current student financial aid model. The agency is also pushing for accountability on public colleges and universities to make sure students are learning and that these schools are regulated by what they charge for tuition.

Connecticut Allows Gay Marriage

After ten years, the General Assembly legalizes gay marriage in Connecticut. The Governor of Connecticut, M. Jodi Rell should be signing the bill in to law on Wednesday, even though she believes marriage should remain between a man and a woman. Connecticut's previous law accepted gay marriage as a civil union and gave them the same rights as a man and a woman, but this new law will recognize gay marriage. The state law in Connecticut now defines marriage as the union between two people.
Connecticut is the fourth state to allow gay marriage, along with Iowa, Massachusetts, and Vermont. Now, Connecticut must make sure that gay couples also follow the same laws as straight couples.
To make religious followers happy the government has made it legal to deny any service to gay couples such as goods, receptions, and other religious services to gay couples. The government wanted to not only ensure the rights of the Constitution for gay couples, but they also wanted to make sure that they maintain the free exercise of religion as well. An executive director at the Family Institute of Connecticut is happy that this addition has been made to the bill because it does not only address one group of pepople on ne side of the problem. This bill also changed the language of a 1991 anti- discrimination law from not condoning any homosexual, bisexual, or any other related activity, to the teaching of and establishing a quota for gay individuals.
Although I do not agree with gay marriage and I think that it is against the intended purposes of marriage and most religions, the government and other individual who are only mere human beings as well, should never have the right to determine what someone can and cannot do in their life, especially if it makes them happy. There are some people who do not believe in religion and think that Christianity is a man made religion. Why should someone else suffer because another human being has made a rule that gay marriage is not right. I think that on matters like gay marriage, abortion, and death, the government has no right to tell someone what they can and cannot do. The major issue with gay marriage is that it goes against most religions, well I think that the consequences of someones actions should be left up to them, because it is their life, and they are the ones who will have to deal with the consequences in the present and after life.
I also think the Perez Hilton's response to Miss California's

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Should Illegal Immigrants Pay In-state tuition

Immigration issues have been on the public policy agenda over the last few years. In the Nytimes.com article, “In New Jersey, Bills Offering In-State Tuition to Illegal Immigrants Face a Fight,” the recent bills that would provide in-state tuition at public colleges for illegal immigrants who attended at least 3 years of high school within the state. This bill as brought much controversy from opposing sides, and is unlikely to pass in an election year. However, there is still hope, because it has the backing of Governor Corzine and other states including New York have passed similar legislation. It will be a tough battle though because the Governor and entire Assembly is up for reelection this year and the recession has the public more focused on helping the middle class and a negative feeling towards illegal immigrants.
Both sides have well rounded arguments and should make a good debate. Proponents of the bill stress that it will lead to a more educated workforce that New Jersey will need to boost our economy. It is not these children’s fault for being here illegally, and they should not be punished for what their parents have done. If they excel and push themselves in high school, we should give them the same chance to succeed in college. Most illegal immigrants drop out of high school because they know how little their chances are at affording college, this bill would help foster a more determined and educated work force to take on the challenges of tomorrow in the state. Those on the other side claim that we should be focusing our energy on the middle class during this recession. By giving illegal immigrants the same rights as state citizens we would be taking away spots in our college for actual residents and loosing valuable income. They feel we do not owe anything to these people and that exceptions should not be made since they are illegal immigrants.
In all, I believe legislation like this is important. Yes, we are in a recession but we can’t forget about all other public policy issues. There are an estimated 28,000 illegal immigrants in the New Jersey public schools and New Jersey has one of the top foreign-born populations. We need to help these kids become better students and help them succeed. By giving them the right tools and the right outlets they could be the future doctors, scientists and lawyers that help create and shape a better New Jersey.

"NJ tags new drivers with decal"

This piece of public policy that I read about on Yahoo News via AP was very interesting and intriguing. New Jersey will require new drivers who are under the age of 21 to display special decals on their cars identifying their vehicles. Governor John Corzine signed the law and it will go into effect next year so that the police can enforce restrictions on younger drivers who can not drive in certain circumstances. There is support for the law across the state because it could make the roads safer.

Personally, I think that this is a good idea because in my hometown on Long Island, kids who just got their driving permit drive all the time alone and with friends when by law they are required to have a parent or someone 21 years or older with them while they still have their permit. I understand that it is the parent's responsibility to not give the 16 year old a car to drive but sometimes parents aren't always there or they just don't care. The decals might make some cops less hesitant to pull the car over but that may not be the case all the time. I wouldn't mind getting a $20 ticket instead of crashing and possibly people dying. There are ways around this, some kids don't have their own car and they drive their parents' cars which would not have the decal. A student was killed while she was in the car with a teenage driver and that tragedy spurred the law to be passed.

There is only so much regulating that a state can do and this is a simple start to making sure that kids don't drive when they're not allowed to do so. Hopefully there will be less accidents and a sharp decline in teenage car accident deaths. The whole idea might fail but the state needs to make sure that the sticker is on every car that a teenager can drive because it only takes one person to crash a car.

Rice, Cheny OK'd CIA use of waterboarding

- High ranking officals of the Bush Administrationin including vice president Dick Cheney, secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, attorney general John Ashcroft, and their legal advisors provided thier executive apporval as early as July of 2002 regarding interrogation policies that according to their official report, "the principals reaffirmed that the CIA program was lawful and reflected administration policy". In reality, top U.S. government officals gave the CIA permission to legally preform toturious methods on accused terrorist prisoners . The most controversial method of torture made permissable was "waterboarding", a method in which the victim is laid flat on thier back starpped to a board which is inclined so that thier feet are raised above thier head. Water is then poured onto the victim which unevitably streams down into the nose and breathing passages. This stops breathing and causes choking along with the intense sensation of being drowned.

President Obama declared the waterboarding interregation technique as 'torture' and has banned this method under his administraion. The Senate intelligence report released a series of memos on interrogation tactics from the Bush administration era. One memo provided classified information exposing that CIA interrogators had used waterboarding at least 266 times on Zubaydah and Mohammed, al-Qaeda terrorists involved in the bombing of the USS Cole and the September 11th attacks. Condoleezza Rice who was the national security adviser, and who later became secretary of state, said the CIA could proceed with "alternative interrogation methods," including waterboarding, when questiong suspected al Qaeda terrorists. According to the report, Attorney General John Ashcroft had determined the "proposed interrogation techniques were lawful,". The same torture methods were again endorsed by the Bush administration in spring 2003 when the CIA asked for a "reaffirmation of the policies and practices in the interrogation program."

Dick Cheney has been quoted defending the controversial technique, stating, "Did it produce the desired results? I think it did,". Cheney also said that the Obama administration are withholding memo's which provide information proving the waterboarding technique had succesful results, and provided information that prevented more terrorist attacks. Cheney stated, ""They didn't put out the memos that show the success of the effort, and there are reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity.. They have not been declassified".

Rising expectations of Cuba

President Raul Castro of Cuba was the only president and country not invited to the fifth Summit of the Americas held in Trinidad and Tobago on Saturday. Obama and Castro exchanged dialogue and are now playing who’s going to make the next move. Obama and his staff have made up a list of things that Cuba can do in order to amend their relationship with the United States and open the doors to the country. In doing so, Obama has stated that he is working to reverse Bush’s restrictions and allow remittances by relatives of Cuban-Americans in Cuba. America is eager to trade with Cuba especially with the way the economy is in the United States right now but with Castro still holding strong to the embargo it is impossible. A radio host in Miami, Ninoska Pérez Castellón, blames the Latin-American leaders for the embargo with the United States and not Cuban government against its people. During the Summit of the Americas meeting, it was hard for Obama to talk about other issues except for the embargo with Cuba due to allied countries bringing up the topic. On the other hand of the meeting, the United States had Mexico, Brazil, and the Organization of Caribbean Nations set up and provide their services as to be intermediaries between the United States and Cuba.



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/world/americas/19diplo.html?ref=politics

FBI: DNA analasyt

For many years the Federal Bureau of Investigations would collect DNA samples from people who were convicted of homicides or sexual offences in the United States. The DNA was usually stored in a database for the FBI to keep on file in case it was needed again. Starting this month the Federal Bureau of Investigations will be collecting and cataloging DNA from people who have been arrested and awaiting trial and also detained immigrants. This is being done to help solve more crimes but at the same time many concerns are surfacing about the privacy of people who have committed minor offences and people who are alleged innocent. The DNA database currently contains about 6.7 million profiles and with this new procedure in effect there will be an estimated 80,000 new entries a year and by 2012 will increase to an estimated 1.2 million new entries. Collecting DNA from every person who has been arrested will help convict guilty criminals and rule out the innocent ones because DNA is stronger than any physical evidence. Law enforcement officials are saying that taking a DNA sample is no different than being finger printed upon arrest because no two people are alike. Rock Harmon, a former prosecutor for Alameda County, Calif., and an adviser to crime laboratories, said “DNA demographics reflected the criminal population. Even if an innocent man’s DNA was included in a genetic database it would come to nothing without a crime scene sample to match it.”

Freed Captain

Captain Richard Phillip who last week was recued by the U.S. Navy when he was held hostage by Somali pirates last week off the coast of Africa. He arrived back in the states reassuring everyone that he is fine and the hostage situation as indescribable. He also wants to make clear that he should not be recognized as the hero but the military should receive these accolades for the swift action and proficient rescue tactics.
Since his ship the Maersk Alabama had been boarded by pirates the brave captain had offered himself to ensure his crews safety. After being held captive for seven days in a confrontation with the U.S. Navy a sharpshooter killed four pirates and the fourth was taken into custody. Since both the Captain and the military had both executed there duties flawlessly there was no civilians harmed.
As a result from these events I am starting to take these pirates very seriously. They are increasing in numbers and they work together quite well. This is becoming organized and more aggressive. We as a nation must allow these seaman to carry weapons and be properly trained for this growing issue. The enemy is well equipped with automatic weapons and we must be able to defend ourselves because next time we wont be as lucky.

Afgani Law allows Men to Rape Wives

Women in Afghanistan face daily discrimination and violence. However, President Hamid Karzai has taken it to another level by signing a law that allows men to rape their wives. Recently, President Hamid Karzai put into place a kind of Muslim personal law for the shiat of Afghanistan. This is a law that many regard as quite reactionary. This law requires that wives ask their husbands permission before leaving the house. This law, as stated before, also allows the husband to forcibly rape their wives without any consequence. President Obama, just like most Americans who read this story, is appalled and disgusted with this so called 'law.' President Karzai has let it be known that he does not want any westerners interfering with this issue and could care less as to what President Obama has to say. However, Afghan women are now marching in opposition to this law. When asked why he passed such a law Karzai responded saying, "This law was signed without the knowledge of the articles in it. This law has so many articles. No one knew that this law had these details. I have asked that any article in this law be devised and any article that is not within Afghan constitution must be removed. My country is aware of this and we will deal with it appropriately." As a president of a country how do you sign a law that you dont fully understand? And if the Afghan people are 'aware' of this, as he stated, why are Afghan women protesting all around the country? Why are other countries voicing thier disgust to this law?

President Karzai also talks about his disagreements with the Obama administration.


link http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2009/04/19/gps.fareed.intv.afghan.kazai.cnn?iref=24hours

Obama to take aim at credit card abuses

Credit cards are as much a part of American culture as apple pie. Unfortunately, many of these companies’ deceptive and often predatory practices have left many Americans dependent on these small pieces of plastic and in more debt than they can afford. Credit cards are mini quick loans by the provider, in most cases they receive payments in the form of installments at the end of the month. Some cards like many American Express cards require payment in full every month. Many of these cards start with a great introductory rate then after six months or a year depending on the period they often jump up to over 20%. If a payment is missed or late these rates often increase further to loan shark like rates. Many times these rate increases occur without warning or disclosure to the holder of the card. At this point making the interest payments alone can become difficult if the balance on the card is high enough. Taken directly from the article, “Summers, director of the White House National Economic Council, said the administration is concerned about practices that result in consumers being "deceived into paying extraordinarily high rates that they wouldn't have paid if they knew they were getting themselves into…We need to do things to stop the marketing of credit in ways that addict people to it." President Obama has begun to take steps to crack down on these types of practices that hurt American consumers and the economy as a whole. Most of these lending associations are the same companies that are receiving bailout money so they have a responsibility to stop causing direct harm to the consumers. Credit card terms are often worded in a way that the average person will not be able to decipher what they are reading, these are said to be done on purpose. The House of Representatives and the United States Senate are considering enacting a credit card “Bill of Rights” which would make a set of rules that must be followed by credit card companies. Just as recently as December the rules around credit cards were tightened by the Federal Reserve and if it is passed this will further the scope of the regulations, and hopefully protect some future users from crippling debt that credit cards can bring.

No Child Left Behind

In 2001 No Child Left Behind was passed by congress in hopes of bringing American public schools to the standards of other countries. It has a number of holes in it as the law originally had in 1964 when it was passed and was altered in 2001 to provide for, among other things, the testing of teachers prior to hiring. This is one area I focus on when looking at the issue as one that is self defeating because the law reinforces teaching to the test as students learning to become teachers know that the only thing that really matters at the end of their college career is passing the Praxis exam because it means that a job will likely be available.
The other big issue is the state testing requirement. The government determined that requiring states to make their own qualifications for students was a good idea. Each state now has to have testing for each grade level that determines the skill level of their students. These tests allow for teachers to teach to the test along with the state core curriculum content standards. Teachers are given little leeway and so are the students affected by the lessons built using the content standards. In order to make the system better the state should mandate interaction between students and teachers and test these teachers on their abilities to make the classroom a warm and comfortable environment. Instead the test of knowledge tests solely knowledge.
The Praxis can also serve as a deterrent to some and a saving grace to others as people looking into the education field may realize that the only thing that truly matters in the end is passing the test. It does not mean that the best teachers get the job as the best teachers may have backed out in fear of the Praxis or decided that since their scores on the Praxis are lower they will not pursue a teaching career. It is not a good idea to let one test determine anyone’s life whether they are an educator or not. It is especially hypocritical in the teaching profession as teachers are supposed to keep giving extra chances to students who do not test well. The idea of No Child Left Behind is to provide better teachers to make better students. It is a good intent but the way the government mandates that is not a good idea.

Response to Legalization of Marijuana

This entry is in response to the multitude of postings in favor of the legalization of marijuana to provide some issues and concerns for thought and response. I have yet to be convinced that the legalization of such a negatively portrayed substance by the federal government is "actually not that bad for society and can be beneficial." However, I am open to hearing sound arguments that can put forth factual information to prove this true.


To start, I find that the argument to legalize marijuana on the foundation that it might stimulate the economy to be hilarious. Not only the defining of marijuana as "a stimulant" of any kind, but the basis for resorting to allowing illegal substances as a way of saving our economy. If this is the route that is to be taken, then I am positive that we should add prostitution and human trafficking to the list. Although morally wrong, ethically unjust, and detrimental to a society on the whole, they surely would be taxable industries and create federal funds. I'd be interested to see the reaction of the international community to such a proposition.


Anyway, in terms of the argument for the legalization of marijuana, I would like to present a few thoughts for consideration. Although marijuana brings in a large amount of funding and potentially taxable industry into the United States each year, it is still considered an illegal substance on the federal level and has been documented as being detrimental to a society. This argument can be historically compared to the British empires trafficking of opium for the past two centuries until the early 1900s. Over 1/4 of India's total revenues were steadily based on the growth and sale of opium. However, as repeatedly shown, for example during the multiple Opium Wars in China where at one point 4 out of every 5 adult males were addicted to the substance in Southeast China, it completely devastated the society and its economic system.

Similarly in the United States in the past century, and arguably still occurring today, Southeastern states such as Florida, were experiencing large illegal operations of cocaine and similar drugs. Although these drugs can me biologically argued to be at a higher degree of reaction and detriment to society than marijuana, in legal terms it becomes a slippery slope.

If marijuana, a currently federal banned substance is allowed to be grown, sold, and used for even medical purposes to alleviate pain related symptoms, then legally so could cocaine, ecstasy, etc. Stare decisis would need to be completely altered and a can of worms would be opened for individual interpretation until it reached the Supreme Court Level. However, individual differences in cases would eventually overwhelm the Supreme Court to a level in which Congress would have to officially pass some sort of blanket legislation on the issue.

Furthermore, this blanket issue would need to be defined by agencies to individualize certain drugs, etc. This is the exact process that occurs today. So in essence, the battle would come completely round circle with the hope that marijuana would become legal without the implications that other similar affecting drugs would not be included. Therefore, the argument to allow marijuana to be legal just because it "has the potential to raise taxes" is one that I feel is extremely limited and falls flat without the bases of support by additional arguments on why the growth and distribution is beneficial to the community as a whole.

This is not only an economic battle, but a legal and philosophical battle as well. It is not simpler than allowing for gay marriages to occur. However, arguably the allowing of gay marriages does not carry the same detrimental possibilities to society as the legalization of marijuana. However, that is a completely different arena for contemplation.

The legalization of marijuana is a topic that is thrown around by many without a large amount of support outside of the realm of gaining popular support. I find that many times, the argument for legalization of such as substance is not fully supported by factual information but rather personal desires. In instances when the legalization of marijuana is compared with the overturning of prohibition, I find myself asking individuals whether they realize that one of the largest factors in overturning prohibition was because of the lack of federal funding and popular support to fight a domestic battle against a substance that is ingrained in the countries heritage. The same argument can directly be applied in the response to why tobacco is shown to be detrimental to society but is not made illegal.

However, marijuana cannot be factually argued to be ingrained in the roots of this country and has for the most part successfully been banned for several decades. Additionally, in response to the argument that there still is a "war on drugs" to demonstrate that it is not beneficial to continue to classify marijuana as a legal substance, I put forth this statement. There is also currently a "war" against gang violence, racism, etc. occurring within this country. To allow such things to be legal simply because they are present in society, is an argument that lacks both logic and justification.

In conclusion, I find there is more responses to arguments against the legalization for marijuana than there is in favor. Of course, I sympathize with those in pain from terminal diseases. However to allow them to detriment the overall population of society, I feel that I cannot allow to happen without proper justification. I have yet to find the means of factual contention to allow for this justification. However, I look forward to the opinion of those who claim to be able to provide it.

direct opposition to banning the teaching of evolution in schools

In my search of public policies that I feel strongly about, I came across the debated issue of whether or not it should be allowed for schools to teach the theory of evolution. The American Institute of Biological Sciences did a report that really fueled this debate for me. The issue is whether or not teaching evolution should be legal or not. In my opinion, this should not even be a question, but many other people do not agree with me. States all over the country have been trying to have bills passed that ban the teaching of evolution and instill the teaching of creationism as the theory of life. In 2006, anti-evolution bills failed to be passed in Alabama, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Utah. Still to this day, states are trying to pass legislation to ban the teaching of evolution and replace it with the teaching of creationism in schools. The problem with this is that creationism is purely religious and there is supposed to be a separation of church and state in this country. It makes no sense how the pledge of allegiance could not be recited in schools because it mentioned God, but making it illegal to teach students the origin of life was anything different than creationism is ok. That is like saying it is illegal to smoke marijuana but smoking crack is required. Obviously it is two different extremes but the values are the same. On the opposite side of the spectrum, there are states that are trying to ban the teaching of creationism as well. In 2006 Wisconsin tried to pass anti-creationism bills and in 2003 West Virginia endorsed evolution education. Why can they both be legal? There are people in this world who believe in God and there are people in this world who believe in science and no law should dictate which one is correct. Let people decide for themselves what they want to believe. Charles Darwin is not a famous scientist because he had an idea that he made up and Jesus Christ is not an international savior because some guy said he was. There is empirical evidence to support both claims and I feel that both theories should be taught. There are different theories for how the universe started and different people believe God to be different in all religions so there is no absolute truth as to which theories are correct. Maybe everyone who is religious is just being led on by a persuasive force and what they believe is completely wrong. Maybe evolution makes sense due to some coincidence that a scientist discovered. There is no way to prove either claim which is why they are theories, not truths. I feel that it is unconstitutional to try and dictate which of these theories is correct and will be taught because teaching only evolution and banning creationism is violating the freedom of religion and vice a verso is violating the separation of church and state. people have dedicated their lives to discovering evolution and complexities of life and to have a bill be passed that states that it was all a waste of their time because they are wrong is completely, well, wrong. I was taught both theories and I believe that evolution is how life started and evolved, but that doesn’t make me right, it just means that that is what I believe. There is no harm to anyone or myself for believing it so there is nothing that justifies banning its teaching. The religious want to ban the teaching of evolution and the realists want to ban the teaching of creationism, but religious people exist as well as realists, so let both theories exist. People are smart and are fully capable of deciding things for themselves, so I say let them. Let them believe what they want to believe because in the end it hurts no one whether they are wrong or right and making one side be wrong or right hurts many.

New NJ Drivers May Get Decals

NJ Drive Decals

New Jersey law makers are considering adding new security measures to warn police and other drivers about new drivers on the road. The proposal is to have drivers under 21 years of age to have a small decal somewhere on the car indicating they are a new driver. Decals may be place by velcro so other drivers who use the car can remove them. They are not sure yet what type of deacal will be used yet. There are many differing opinions on the issue at hand. Many people believe it is a necessary precaution and it also helps police enforce the passenger laws and curfews that are placed on teen drivers. Others believe it will let police target teenage drivers just because they will know. Teens already feel harassed by the police and feel it will add to it even more. Other people also believe the decals will be distracting to other drivers. Authorities said they will not use the decals to target young drivers.

I believe that this idea is basically ridiculous. Having a small decal on the back of someones car is not going to make them drive safer. Bad driving is bad driving, no decal will stop that problem. What would be a better idea is to have longer more mandatory driver training that will teach the correct way to drive. Even though authorities say they will not target teens I believe that they will, it makes them easier to be identified and as it is people get pulled over for no reason this may just increase this. The idea that the decals will be placed on with velcro also makes no sense. These kids will just get down the street and take the decals off its just that simple. Why would they leave it on identifying that they are younger. Placing a permanent decal will not work either because parents or relatives may also use the car as well. In short i believe this is a terrible idea that will do nothing short of fail. New jersey law makers should look into using the tax payers money for something more constructive and effective.

Drugs have played a major role in shaping society in the United States since its beginnings to present day. Drugs utilized in the medical and pharmaceutical fields have extremely wide range of positive effects and are an everyday part of American life. As many different kinds of drugs as there are that benefit life, there are also many drugs that can be harmful and are extremely dangerous. In the United States the government enforces strict laws and regulations concerning all different kinds of drugs. In 1937 the United States passed the Marijuana Tax Act, and in 1970 passed the Controlled Substance Act, which officially made criminalized the recreational and medicinal use of marijuana. Under this act marijuana is classified a schedule one drug, the highest penalty and most restrictive class of drugs. Despite the law, marijuana is the third most popular recreational used drug in the U.S with nearly 80 million Americans who have admitted to trying it and 11 million using it regularly. Recent efforts have forced the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to take a second look at the effects of Marijuana.
Some of the latest studies show marijuana has highly useful effects for the treatment of serious life-threatening illnesses such as glaucoma, MS, HIV/AIDS, and cancer. Marijuana alleviates many of the painful and uncomfortable symptoms of these illnesses, such as vomiting, nausea, muscle spasms, migraine headaches, depression, and insomnia. Also stimulating appetite and promoting weight gain. Many states have already made the step forward toward the decriminalization of marijuana and its legal use for medicinal purposes. The passage of Bill A-804 by New Jersey legislative committee will grant victims of serious illnesses the legal permission to smoke marijuana in order to ease pain or symptoms of their illness. I believe New Jersey is taking the initiative toward the decriminalization of marijuana that soon the rest of the country will follow. New Jersey is the fourteenth and most recent state to make this progress. President Obama told Rolling Stone Magizine in July 2008 his plan of policy on marijuana would begin with a “public-health approach”, and described the current U.S. policy on marijuana as “expensive, counterproductive, it doesn’t make sense”. As his presidency unfolds this country will hopefully experience a change in its view of marijuana, and take a positive approach towards the beneficial properties of marijuana.

15 Year Old Girl May Have to Register as Sex Offender for 20 Years

A 15 year old girl from Licking Valley High School may have to register as a sex offender because she sent nude pictures of herself to her classmates. She is being charged with the "illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material, a second-degree felony; and possession of criminal tools, a fifth-degree felony." Her "criminal tool" was obviously her cell phone. The judge can decide if he wants her to register as a Sex Offender for the next 20 years. The teenagers who received the photos be charged as well. The fifteen year old was in jail for a week awaiting her arraignment and bond hearing.
Many teenagers are guilty of this action and the question has been why she is the only one being charged. Some people think that since she is a foster child with no parents and resources for good defense, the prosecuting lawyer can make a good exmaple out of this girl and can earn a name off of this case.
I do not think that a 15 year old girl should b charged or get in trouble for sending pictures of herself to other people her age. Although it may not be right, many teenagers do this. For minors, who have neither harmed nor taken advantage of someone that is not younger than they are, it does not make sense that they may have to register as a sex offender. I also do not think that it should be up to the judge's discretion, whether or not they have to register as a sex offender, especially if the law is not the same for everybody. It also does not make sense that the recipients of these messages have to be charged, especially if they did not ask for the pictures in the first place. A minor that makes such a mindless act and to not know the consequences should not have to suffer for the rest of their lives. We could say that it was the child's fault, if there was a strict law with its actions and punishments defined, and then child knowingly "broke the law."

OBAMA ON NORTH KOREA and IRAN

The time for celebration for our new president comes to a close and the fear of nuclear threats becomes a harsh reality. President Obama had stated many times that North Korea had violated international rules when the allowed testing of long range missiles. President Obama has lost tolerance in North Korea’s misbehavior in building these weapons of mass destruction. He called upon the U.N. to take action on North Korea. He demands the Security Council is going to put an end to North Korea who has been flirting with the idea of acquiring more arms. Iran on the other hands has no intentions of using a smoke and mirrors technique that North Korea has been doing. Iran has been trying to acquire nuclear weapons to attain leverage over neighboring states and the United Stated as well. President Obama and his administration have devised a plan to locate a defense shield in Poland and radar system in the Czech Republic. This idea has been strongly opposed by the Russian President Dmitri Medvedev who believes if we can successfully disarm Iran and keep it from acquiring nuclear weapons there would be no need for these defensives in Eastern Europe. Obama respectively disagreed and felt it was vital to have these defenses up and ready in fear of Iran’s next move. Obama states “Let me be clear: Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran’s neighbors and our allies,” Mr. Obama said. “The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven.” (NYTimes)
Obama has traveled to Prague where he proposed his idea to the Czech president and the public. He received a greater welcome than the Czech president Klaus. This was great for our president since he received a lot of support in his plan and was able to prove himself in front of Czech president who had doubted his policies. In fact many people had been pleasantly surprised in President Obama’s understanding and urgency in foreign affairs where many thought he was inexperienced and naive. The movement for change has spread beyond our country’s borders and has become infectious throughout the world.

New Jersey High School to Use Drug-Sniffing Dogs

In an article written in the New York Times, Tina Kelley reported on the new wave of alcohol and drug use prevention among New Jersey schools concerning their students.

The conflict here lies between the student’s rights versus the overall safety on the school campus. In an effort to promote security and assurance to its students, Millburn High school along with the superintendent have enlisted the help of county and local police along with police canine presence on their school campus regarding alleged alcohol and drug usage among students.

“We seek to discourage illegal substances from being brought into school and to show unequivocal support for those students who do ‘just say no,’ ” the principal of Millburn High, William S. Miron, and the district superintendent, Richard Brodow, wrote in an e-mail message to parents and students Friday afternoon. “I willingly risk student trust if it saves a single life."

This article hit home for several reasons. One Seton Hall, while a college university not a high school, is within Essex County that I currently attend. Secondly, Millburn is only a few miles away from our campus. It asks the question, if Millburn cops find it necessary to carry out such practices or implement changes in the name of public safety, what about neighboring towns also within Essex County? Will the new school policy adopted by Millburn and West Essex have a domino effect on other towns within Essex County? Moreover, will it affect colleges and universities also within the county, such as Seton Hall or Rutgers?

I for one am a New Jersey native and attended high school in Bergen County. Like most high schools, there were both a drug and alcohol presence on campus, but if anyone was suspected of doing or participating in that sort of activity they were simply ushered across the street, essentially off school property/campus and therefore were no longer subject to the school’s authority. Suffice to say, much, if any alcohol or drug use, was more or less practiced outside of school or off school grounds. While the idea or intention may be in good heart, in theory; however, in practice, the idea of having large police canines trotting up and down school hallways, around lockers or in and out of rooms is rather obnoxious distracting. School is suppose to be an academic atmosphere and place setting; to have such ‘props’ if you will, parade around a campus, is to alter the overall atmosphere: it is no longer comfortable grounds for learning, but rather, a scene which attracts attention and not the good kind.

According to the article, since the 2002 Supreme Court ruling, other New Jersey schools have taking such safety measures just as seriously utilizing random drug testing, especially if students participated in sport related activities.

The argument can be understood two-fold: while there should be a strong sense of awareness regarding drug and alcohol activity, awareness should at one point materialize into action essentially forming a solution towards said problem. However, at what expense? As stated before, the environment in which a student learns in and pretty much spends most of their day, their week and practically their year should not be compromised by the presence of large police canines (which are almost always associated with a problem and therefore will be greeted with tension, paranoia and anxiousness) that is not a comfortable environment or learning atmosphere, especially, if such activity occurs mostly off of school property or is just ‘ushered’ off of school property anyways. The problem still exists but in this capacity it is no longer a matter of just school policy or enlisting harsh school policy, rather an issue that the town and/or county needs to look at it.

Obama Sets out Plans for Nuclear Free World

In response to a recently launched missile in North Korea, President Obama spoke with urgency regarding the matter of nuclear proliferation. Even though it was just a test it shows the North Koreans devotion to getting a weapons system fully functional. He urged the United Nations to punish North Korea and Pyongyang for violating the laws with their missile launch. The matter will be discussed by the United Nations Security Council later this week. This is said to be president Obama’s biggest national security or foreign policy since entering office earlier this year. President Obama gave a speech in the Czech Republic capital Prague, on the current state of nuclear weapons in the world. Obama states, “The United States will take concrete steps toward a world without nuclear weapons," and "To put an end to Cold War thinking, we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy and urge others to do the same" in the speech which was given in front of 20,000 onlookers in the city symbolic of the Cold War era. The United States is taking steps to encourage the world to end the nuclear arms race and stand down. President Obama is encouraging the world to get past cold world thinking of stockpiling nuclear weapons. Also Obama states that the United States of America have a moral responsibility to lead the effort to rid the world of nuclear weapons because we are the only ones that have ever actually deployed one on an enemy. Currently the amount of nuclear missiles in existence has enough firepower to wipe out every major city in existence. Should such a conflict ever arise where their use is needed the results could be catastrophic. They also announced that if Iran would not cooperate that a missile defense system would be put up in Europe, either in the Czech Republic or Poland. These locations have been criticized from their close proximity to Russia and are viewed as acts of aggression towards the country which could be counterproductive to the plan issued today. The Obama administration recognizes removing all nuclear weapons could take longer than a lifetime and may never be met. To reduce arms he plans to introduce a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia who has the second largest stockpile of warheads next to the United States.

They're back: Representatives reveal their earmarks

In the convoluted world of politics one thing that has been drawing a lot of attention lately is earmarks. As policy makers make their decisions they include "earmarks" a way of creating projects in their home districts and bringing money to their home districts. As this process evolved it became more and more transparent as the public began to demand information on what their taxpayer money was funding. The most recent step in this was President Obama requiring policymakers to post the earmarks they are requestion money for on their indivual websites and a House Appropriations commitee website where the information will be openly available to the public. The issue that continues to nag at earmarks is that policymakers to not choose their earmarks on project merit but instead choose to flex their respective political muscles to push earmarks into being signed into play. It is interesting to note that many of the policymakers that ranked in the highest amount asked for last years earmarks also rank among the ones that are asking for the most money this year.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/03/congress.earmarks/index.html

Can Congress Produce Answers to Real Public Policy Issues?

Instead of choosing to focus this post on a specific public policy issue, I choose to focus on national public policy in general after reading an article in the New York Times. Over the last several years through the Bush Administration the legislature did not much produce substantial legislation about important national issues. There were the bills that scratched the surface of issues such as health care, education, energy and the environment but a serious effort to address and solve the issues did not happen.
In the article “Policy Agenda Poses Test for Rusty Legislative Machinery,” it addresses the question if Congress is up to the challenge of producing legislation that will begin to address the major issues our nation is facing and that the Obama Administration is asking them to address. Before Congress was more focuses on national security and narrow majorities in divided government, but now legislators need to remember how to politic and gain support from within to pass legislation across partisan lines. In the past year, Congress could not even pass a budget on time, so now it will take a true leader to step up to the ranks in the legislature. Among the issues needing to be addresses health care reform is at the forefront and Nancy Pelosi and making sure committees and Democrats and Republicans are working together from the beginning so legislation does not just die on the floor of the legislature like the immigration bill from 2007.
I’m not sure is Congress is ready to step up to the plate and actually do their job and solve important issues for our nation. They have gotten to use to sitting back and watching the process happen and be more concerned about reelection and moving up the ranks within their own parties. Now, citizens must push their legislators to achieve greatness, but also I believe leaders need to emerge from within Congress that are not afraid of crossing partisan lines and that will stand up for the good of the whole nation and not just themselves or their constituency. Issues regarding health care reform, education, energy and the environment can not be left unanswered and I think it will be the Obama Administration who pushes and persuades Congress to begin taking serious steps at addressing these concerns with serious legislation.

The American Criminal Justice System: In Need of Reformation?

In this article entitled, "Inmate Count in U.S. Dwarfs Other Nations," it talks about how the United States had the most amount of prisoners in the world. Each day, there are Americans that are being imprisoned for things, such as illegal drug use and other minor crimes. The United States has about 2.3 million people in prison, as opposed to China, which has 1.6 million prisoners. But the difference between the U.S. and China is that China has four times more people than the United States. There are approximately 751 people in prison for every 100,000 in the population. One of the reasons why there are so many people in prison is the fact that American prison sentences are generally lengthier than those of other countries. For example, in the United States, burglars are given a sentence of 16 months in prison, while those in Canada serve 5 months and 7 months for those in England. Sentences are often out of proportion to the seriousness of the offense. It is clear that the United States has quite a different approach to crime and punishment. A researcher at the prison studies center in London said that the incarceration rate has made the U.S. "a rogue state, a country that has made a decision not to follow what is a normal Western approach." Many people question if incarcerating people for longer periods of time actually affects the crime rate. Specialists have noted that, "Rises and falls in Canada's crime rate have closely paralleled America's for 40 years. But its imprisonment rate has remained stable." Therefore, the article comes to a conclusion that the cause of the high incarceration rate in the U.S. is democracy. In the United States, most state court judges and prosecutors are elected. This means that there is a lot of political pressure put on them by the public that is "generally in favor of tough crime policies," according to several opinion polls.

The second article, "Reviewing Criminal Justice," discusses how Senator Jim Webb of Virginia has introduced a bill in March regarding the need for a national commission to review the criminal justice system from top to bottom. The commission will be responsible for examining policies and recommending reforms. The bill has strong bipartisan support.

I agree with the second article that by keeping people in prison for longer than they need to be there is unjust. It is also extremely expensive. Money that could be used for other needs, like unemployment, education, and hospitals, are going to prison costs instead. A Pew Charitable Trusts report says, "state corrections spending soared 127 percent, while spending on higher education increased only 21 percent." There is currently no bill in the HOuse, but the article states that since there is bipartisan support in the Senate, there is a national consensus that the criminal justice system is broken and is in need of reform. Hopefully, the criminal justice system will be reformed.

Guns should be banned by states in the USA

While in class I thought that this topic was very interesting, and I had a lot to say about it. When my Pro analyzed the 2^nd Amendment it caught my attention because he was right in what he said. In the 2^nd Amendment it says,

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.

There are three commas in this statement, each either being a pause or maybe even a mistake. When I say mistake I don’t mean a fault in text, but instead a, not too sure agreement. The founding father of this Amendment was uncomfortable with his proposal to the first congress. He was also uncomfortable with giving power to the militia back to the congress. The entire Amendment was to strip congress of power over the militia and give it to the states, where people can bear arms.

That was back then, when crime was not an issue in the USA. But today where most of your killings are due to guns; why should we still be able to bear arms? In a society were guns are easily purchased, and then I can totally see why people would feel it is necessary to be armed. If gun control was more strict having personal weapons banned and severe penalties imposed for illegal possession, I think it would create a society with less of a siege mentality. You will never stop gun crime, but you can reduce it greatly. I know you will find more murders with knives etc, but these will still be less because it’s harder to kill someone when it’s up close and personal. Guns make it too easy. Even suicides among the young in particular will decrease because yet again it is less convenient and does not require much effort, and with a gun there is less thinking time needed.

Impact of NYC's Cigarette Tax

NYC calls to 311 to quit smoking triples
NYC Cigarette Tax climbs to highest in the nation

In June 2008 the cigarette tax in New York City became the highest in the nation, over taking New Jersey. New York City is allowed to levy their own taxes that are separate from the state. Im June 2008 the tax went from $1.25 a pack up to $2.75 a pack. This is expected to bring in $265 million dollars a year into the budget. As expected many people in the metro area are outraged at the idea of a pack of cigarettes costing about $10. Store owners are afraid they are going to lose business because of the tax increase. NYC smokers are also outraged that they have to pay the highest amount of money in the nation for a pack of cigarettes. The part of the issue that goes unnoticed the most is the amount of people that are quitting because they simply can not afford the amount that they cost. According to the ABC News article it is estimated that 140,000 people will quit smoking and even more astonishing it will keep 243,000 minors from smoking because of the price. Even more astonishing was that within in a month of the tax being raised the calls into 311 to quit smoking tripled. About 2,700 people called in to quit that is up from 850 from the previous year. So the price is forcing people to give up smoking.
This issue brings two different schools of thought to my mind. The first is that I am against smoking in the first especially in public areas where other people are now forced to withstand others cigarette smoke and its health hazards. I applaud the ban of smoking in restaurants and bars and I beleive that was a very big step to help decresase health hazards to the public. This tax also helps decrease the health hazards even more by reducing the amount of people smoking. On the other hand it seems like it is an infringement on peoples rights. It should be someones right to smoke if they please but when tax is rasied so high and people are forced to quit it is an infringment. The tax seems to not only be used for revenue purposes but also so make people quit. This just does not seem right, people should still have a choice.

Cut in Federal and State Funding for Zoos

In a comical video created by the New York Environmental Society, an appointed public official announces that there will be a cut in funding and in response a need to create necessary layoffs to stay “afloat.” However as the personal conversation between the elected official and the “individual being laid off” continues, it becomes clear that the cut will be handed to a porcupine and subsequently the amphibians. Although meant to be humorous, the message clearly portrays that the lack of funding granted to these zoos are not necessarily affecting the population in a majority, but rather the attempt to provide adequate habitations for the wildlife within them.
One of the largest struggles in the contemporary “green” society is that of protecting the world’s wildlife from harm and extinction. Although there is internal debate among the environmental groups over the “morality” of zoos, the position stands that in a society where natural habitats are disappearing due to population growth, there needs to be a safe haven to protect the endangered species. Zoological efforts have time and time again proven to be extremely beneficial in preventing the extinction of species. For example, the rehabilitation of the bald eagle, which is the symbol of freedom in the United States, or the timberland wolf that was recently successfully repopulated into the Yellowstone National Park.
Between the Bronx Zoo and the New York Aquarium, there will be a cut in funding during 2009 that will total over 3 million dollars. This lack of funding translates into a cut in over 30 staff positions at both locations. According to John Calvelli, director of external affairs at the Bronx Zoo, "We thought they'd use a scalpel to cut, not an ax…Where exactly are we supposed to go?" Additionally, according to Time Magazine in 2009, over 80% of the United States population currently lives in urbanized areas. These zoos provide a prime opportunity to allow for children and adults alike to visit an animal sanctuary to find a glimpse of the worlds plethora of wildlife that they would otherwise not have the chance to see. As Calvelli states, "This is where you go to learn about the natural world…We're living museums." “"You can't cut back on the food an elephant eats," says Jane Ballentine, the director of marketing at the Maryland Zoo, which has been forced to close for four additional weeks this winter. "If something needs to be fed, it's going to be fed."”

The Banning of Junk Food

Ban on Junk Foods in New Jersey

My blog is about the controversial topic of schools banning “junk foods” for their students. I read an article on this very touchy subject titled, “New Jersey first state to ban junk food in schools so kids may live long and prosper” that I found on the Bnet network. New Jersey became the first state to ban junk foods from their schools on September 1, 2007.
But what exactly is considered a junk food that falls under this ban? Junk food is anything that has sugar as its primary or main ingredient. Eliminating these foods from the schools would not be enough of an effort. Schools have also put a heath education program that will educate all students on how to be healthy and how to make good eating choices. This health program will affect students for grades K-12; during those crucial years eating habits are formed for the majority and have a great influence on the rest of their lives.
The major reason for all this health frenzy is because the numbers for obese and children with diabetes are just too high. One study was taking on 6th graders in a school in NJ and 20% were obese and 18% were overweight. Schools are also banning vending machines, snack bars, and school fundraisers that sell candy.
There are pros to the banning of junk food in schools. The health education is a good thing that teaches children really early on to make healthy eating choices. Also by banning these foods in schools, there is no temptation for students to eat the junk foods while they are in school. Students are in school for several hours during their day. The schools are also help with childhood obesity and diabetes. The intention behind all this is very good.
Just as there are pros there are also cons to this matter. Many feel that healthy eating habits should lie on the shoulders on the student’s parents and not in the school’s hands. Fundraisers also took a hard blow when selling candy was banned. But the major con on the matter is the past standing tradition of bringing in cupcakes for your birthday to school. The whole class would enjoy a treat on anyone’s birthday.
I personally am for the ban on junk foods. Even though I have many great memories of bring in treats for my class in elementary school for my birthday, I am siding with the ban. The numbers on the other side are just too dangerously high. The ban will help get kids at an early age to think healthy. Making healthy choices is a life time of choosing healthy and helping kids get into the habit of eating healthy young will help them have a long life.

Colleges should allow for Genderblind Housing

Allow 8 seconds for video to show after pressing play

Due to this video, and an article i read on Genderblind Housing in the Daily Pensylvanian Newspaper, I am addressing the issue of whether colleges should allow students to room with whomever they choose, gender being a non-issue. It has always been the policy of colleges to forbid a male and a female from rooming together, unless the students were married. This point of view is supported by many claims. People feel that allowing a male and a female to room together may increase the amount of rapes on campus. It is no secret that college students drink alcohol and a male is much more likely to rape under the influence. In accordance with this claim, people also feel that co-ed dorm rooms would increase the chances of promiscuity on campus. That is a logical claim since promiscuity is significantly more likely among co-eds than among same gender rooming, unless the roommates were gay. The homosexual roommate issue brings up a valid point for the argument for co-ed housing. If the idea behind making the same gender room together is to reduce promiscuity and sexual tension in the rooms, than it should be the policy for homosexuals to have co-ed rooms. There is obviously no sexual tension between two straight men so logically there is no sexual tension between a gay man and a woman or a gay woman and a man. However this is not the case, since it does not matter if the students are gay or straight, they have to room with the same gender. Seton Hall University is a good example for this kind of housing policy. No only are the opposite sex not allowed to room together, but the opposite sex is not even allowed to stay overnight, visitors of the opposite sex have to be off campus by 12:00am. Most schools at least allow for the opposite gender to sleep over if signed in, but not Seton Hall.
The National Student Genderblind Campaign originated in Yale University and now has members and activists nation wide. This is a movement to call for colleges to allow students to room with whomever they choose, regardless of gender. The movement is spreading, and it is not just the NSGBC who is fighting the issue. There is a lot of support coming from the National Association of Research and Therapy for Homosexuals. The NARTH has joined in the fight due to the extreme call for genderblind housing from Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender students. These students face ridicule and even possible abuse from their same sex room mates, and from the straight roommates perspective, they may feel uncomfortable living with a gay or transgender student. Wesleyan, Swarthmore and Haverford colleges and Columbia University all offer co-ed housing as an option in their schools and it looks like a plethora of other universities are leaning that way. The argument is supported by the claim that whoever a student lives with should be up to the student, not the parents. Parents are against the co-ed housing mainly if they are a parent of a college female student. Most parents do not want their little girl to live with a college male unsupervised. It kind of relates to the idea that if a man has sex with ten women he is considered to be “the man” and if a woman has sex with ten men she is considered to be a slut. The parental worry in co-ed dorms comes mainly from parents of college females.
I feel that genderblind housing should at least be an option at colleges and universities in order to avoid all claims of a heterosexual bias, unfair treatment of gays and transgenders and to give the students one less reason to protest their school policies. The NSGBC found that schools that have genderblind housing as an option rarely have students pick a student of the opposite sex as their roommate. So far, out of the schools that do offer it as a choice, the administrators report that only 2-3% of students choose to live with a student of the opposite sex. With a number so low, there is no harm in giving them the choice. I feel that this country is constantly evolving from historical views into a more modern society. Think about it. 100 years ago women could not vote, 160 years ago slavery was legal, and as little as 55 years ago it was legal to separate black citizens facilities from white citizens facilities and even the schools for their children. As the country evolves, so do it’s beliefs. It is only a matter of time before co-ed housing is an available option at all universities. I feel that it should be an option because all of the opposing reasons have not been shown in the schools that currently have it. Currently there are roughly 91,000-95,000 forcible rapes per year in this country and until that number goes up due to college rapes at the schools that allow co-ed housing, there is no logical argument that increased rape would be a result of co-ed housing. Maybe rape and violence would result in co-ed housing if it was made mandatory and your co-ed roommate was chosen randomly just as the same sex roommates are chosen today, but the policy proposal simply calls for allowing co-ed roommates to be an option, not a necessity. Those that do not want to live with a student of the opposite sex are not forced to like they are forced to live with the same sex in contemporary university policies. I say allow the option and have hundreds of social scientists do research like they love to do to find out if it makes college life for students more pleasant or if it is in fact much more dangerous. Until the latter is proven, the universities should give the students the choice.