Medicinal Marijuana Public Policy

Medical marijuana legalization has taken a front page position recently with the postponement of the sentencing of a Los Angeles man convicted of running a medical marijuana dispensary. The owner of the medical marijuana shop, Charles Lynch, was arrested at his Morro Bay, California shop in 2007 and was charged on 5 counts including a charge for selling medical marijuana to customers who were under the age of 21. Federal law forbids the sale of marijuana and other narcotics to minors under 21 years of age. The Federal court that was trying Lynch postponed the hearing until April 30th so that there can be clarification on the laws since Attorney General Eric Holder said that medical marijuana dispensaries should not be convicted under federal law if state and local laws were being adhered to.

There have been debates and arguments on the subject of marijuana for recreational and medical uses for decades after its prohibition in the early 20th century. There have been so many discussions that in Barack Obama's internet town hall meeting on March 25th, he was asked many questions regarding marijuana and the topic took over the spotlight of the internet question session.

My personal opinions on the subject are slightly liberal but there are capitalist ideals behind it. I believe that marijuana should be legalized but highly and strictly regulated and sold by the government. The government would open "marijuana shops" or "cafes" and have the marijuana sold there at highly taxed prices. Whoever that wishes to purchase marijuana for recreational use must be of a certain age and must apply and go through a strict process to obtain a license/card allowing the person to purchase recreational marijuana. The user must use the card to purchase the marijuana and they are allowed to purchase only a certain set amount per month. This way, the amount of "legal" marijuana that is out in the world would be monitored and there would be a great revenue for the government. The other parts of the cannabis plant can be used for other things as well such as paper or rope.

The Obama administration seems to be taking a less conservative stance on the legalization of marijuana. I am not sure how Obama feels about completely legalizing marijuana but there have been talks of the taxation idea given the state of the economy. I don't think that we should do the legalization and sale at a time when we are tight for money because it can't be thought of as a way for the government to make a few extra bucks. It needs to happen at a time when everything is going smoothly for the plan to be able to develop well.

Is California's legalization of recreational marijuana inevitable?

In the recent past the California state assembly has put forth a bill that would allow distributors to sell marijuana legally. If this bill is passed it would mean that anyone above the age of 21 in California could purchase and use marijuana for recreational purposes. The argument in favor of it, for the state’s purposes, is that there is money to be made in times of a financial crisis. If the state is willing to do this the bill allows for distributors to be charged, by the state, a start up cost of $5000 with an annual re-licensing fee of $2500. Marijuana would then be taxed to a large degree which would make the cost about $50 an ounce.
The bill forbids the use of marijuana in public parks and school zones and also disallows the practice of cultivating it in public; no one would be allowed to grow it in a vegetable garden in their back yard. The arguments for are mainly focused on what this will mean for non-smokers. Those who disagree with the bill say it will still be allowed in public places. If this is true than it seems like bars and restaurants would allow the use of marijuana.
The arguments for it focus on the lack of harm marijuana seems to cause. It will ease the state through the financial crisis and make things easier over-all for increasing the state’s funds. Also, it is believed that local law enforcement will be able to focus their attention on more severe crimes in California rather than trying to arrest “potheads.”
The health risks again come into play. The problem though is that the health risks are not too high, it seems, for users of marijuana. Often times there are no critical health problems stemming from marijuana; and due to the likelihood of it being smoked in some kind of bong cuts out the idea of throat cancer. Mouth and throat cancers with the use of marijuana seem unlikely. People also claim that alcohol is more dangerous to both one’s own health and the people around a user. Alcohol can cause aggressive behavior much more so than is seen with marijuana.

$250,000 Families get taxed 90% on bonuses

There are multiple issues I can find with this legislation, but I will only discuss three of them. This is an unfair taxation of a large portion of Americans, this tax increase is not directed specifically at misallocation of resources by executives, and lastly this is another example of fear allowing government officials to have a free hand to collect more money.

The legislation that was passed is designed to make a tax of 90% on any bonus that a family receives in a year if that family’s combined income is more than $250,000. It is very difficult to believe that many of the targeted executives are making $250,000 combined earnings after bonuses. This impacts a much larger portion of American than seems to be indicated by an arbitrary number. Not only does this legislation apply to companies who receive more than $5b in bailout money, but it also applies to any company who does business with that company!

Any legislation specifically targeting executives; CEO’s, CFO’s, Chairmen, etc, would not be designed starting at such a low salary. Americans are not upset with Mr. John Smith Vice President who makes $150,000 a year, they are concerned about AIG executives and other executives with low moral standing like that of the Enron scandal. Because some top executives agreed to take pay cuts in order to gain bailout money does not mean all managers and lower ranked executives should. Executives have much more riding on the line than the average worker, as one can see by the heat that is being drawn by them currently. They are responsible for the decisions of the companies, divisions, regions, and teams. Without good leadership not much gets done in this world. It is appalling how in times of chaos leadership is the first to be attacked no matter what position it may be.

The fear that is being pumped into the American public each and every day has been ripening. For government officials to take the eyes off of themselves they use Wall Street as a scapegoat. Fear is an amazing tool to accomplish policy, but it is not the proper tool. The use of fear is very Machiavellian, and from an administration that is supposed to be for change and hope there is not much hope I see for change. The Obama administration needs to help quell the fear first before Americans can feel safe again. When Americans feel safe again they will start to function like regular consumers which will hasten market stabilization. This is the ultimate goal, stabilization. The current administration is doing this country great and perhaps irreprible harm by instilling fear into the hearts and minds of the average citizen. The only possible goal of the Obama administration in using this tactic is to solidify his political power and to gain more tax revinue to pay for stimulus spending, graft, and social projects.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/washington/stories/031909dnnataigtax.4e6f99cc.html

Can America's Pot Industry, if legalized at the federal level, help stimlulate the economy?

Absolutely!

America's pot industry is thriving like never before and ranking in what is estimated to be billions of dollars nationwide. CNBC went "behind the scenes" to see how the industry works. The major focus was in the marijuana capital of the U.S., which is Northern California's "Emerald Triangle" or Mendocino County to be exact. In California, with 12 other states, marijuana is legal in most of its county for medical purposes, along with laws that state that it is not a crime to own small amounts of the drug. The website has a poll that asks whether marijuana should be decriminalized or not (97% yes, 3.3%no). It is not a scientific survey but it is interesting none the less.

This CNBC documentary reported by Trish Regan took us into a "one-stop-pot-shop." Here is where owner, Richard Lee, sells a wide menu of all sorts of marijuana products (things like brownies, plants, and a binder full of bagged budds). However, Lee pays about $500,000 in taxes to the federal government. If the government legalizes pot, they could make billions of dollars in tax revenues, which would ultimately effect the economy is a positive way, even if they only put one pot shop in every state.

Richard Lee's Coffeeshop Blue Sky pot shop is extraordinary. For example, as a "patient" walks in, they enter into a modern cool cafe with snacks and drinks for children or any one else would wait fo the patient. The patients proceed into hallway with numerous rooms (much like a regular doctor's office) to visit the shop's "bartender." LOL ... He will serve you as long as you have a doctor's note. After all, marijuana helps people with cancer, gluocoma, anerexia, nautiousness, the list goes on...

I did notice, however, their were moments, more often than not, that the documentary had a negative bias view on marijuana. Ms. Regan interviewed a couple that had moved into their "dreamhouse" nine years ago in Mendocino County and are getting ready to move out. They blame the marijuana business that surrounds them and their children.

The pot industry in Mendocino County accounts for 2/3 of their local economy, bringing in billions of dollars. Almost all the citizens in the county grow pot and sell it. This activity is legal at the state level, but not at the federal level.

The website offers slides, pictures, and more info...youtube also has more videos.

Food Stamps in Hard Times

Mayor Bloomberg food-relief policy is outrageous with our economic situation. As our country continues to suffer from the recession the reduction of giving out food stamps is harmful to us as taxpayers. As soon as we continue to fall deeper into debt our country will have more hungry people and this is only in New York. In this piece the editorial group truly explains the necessity of food stamps and its ability to jumpstart the economy. The Mayor feels he is making people earn there dinner plate but forcing them to find these jobs to be eligible is counter productive. They should be out searching for real jobs instead of worrying about Bloomberg’s eligibility laws. There was 19 percent increase in New York in 2008 alone and 750,000 dollars annually have been cut out of what they have been getting from D.C. Unless this policy gets removed and food stamps begin to circulate New York is going take a turn for the worse.

New Findings in Stem Cell Research

The debate for Stem Cell research has long been hotly contested in the United States political system. Stem cells are unique from other cells and are characterized by the ability to renew themselves which has the ability and potential to regrow any form of body tissue. Embryonic stem cells are the most efficient of these cells in that they are the building block for new life. The potential for the furthering of medicine is tremendous. Instead of individuals waiting on a long list for organ donors the organ could be specially made for them or severe burn victims being able to re-grow damaged skin cells and live an aesthetically normal life or even cure paralysis. The possibilities are endless. I believe that stem cells are the future of medicine and that many of the world’s health issues can be solved by mastering the use of these cells. Stem cells have enormous potential in health and medical research but to fully harness this potential, scientists are studying how stem cells transform, or differentiate, into the diverse range of specialize. Most of the controversy is surrounding the need to use embryos that have been aborted to study for scientific endeavors. Common sense would state that most individuals who are not in support of abortion will more often than not be opposed to stem cell research. Cells are extracted from embryos and used for the benefits of science. Ethical issues arise from this practice, but as science improves the process can become more efficient. Former President Bush was harshly opposed to stem cell research and as a result the science lost government backing in the United States. Currently, President Obama is in support of stem cell research so the science will continue.
Recent studies suggest that skin cells can be used to safely make stem cells. This can eliminate the need to use aborted embryos. “It is the first time that scientists have turned skin cells into induced pluripotent stem cells or iPS cells -- which look and act like embryonic stem cells -- without having to use viruses in the process.” In the past iPS cells have been created using skin cells but viruses also had to be used in the process which is problematic because these cells are more prone to become cancerous in the process. Now that no viruses or embryos are required I believe the process will advance greatly under the current administration. Like I previously stated these cells have the potential to have an enormous impact on medicine and science and humanity as a whole.

Soldier from Union Beach dies in Iraq from vehicle explosion

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/02/soldier_from_union_beach_dies.html



On Thursday, Kara Connelly gazed at her husband for the last time. Four hours later, he was killed when his vehicle was struck by an explosive on a Baghdad Street, the Department of Defense said today.
Brian Connelly, 26, is at least the 106th member of the armed services with ties to New Jersey to die in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
When I read this article the first thing that came to my mind was; why are our troops still, not only dying but fighting in this war? I still cannot see why it is 8 years down the line and we, America, are still fighting this war. Well what is it for? What are we being “rewarded” by continuing to fight? We are not receiving anything, but we are losing much. We are losing the precious lives of brave hearted men and women, and their families who are victims of this war.
In this article, the parents of Brian Connelly said he really was not interested in school. But when he graduated he became a part of this unemployment era, just after being laid off his previous job. When this happened all of Connelly’s hopes and dreams went out the window. He later contacted the army recruiter whom he remembered from coming to his high school. Not knowing that this so fretful phone call would end his young life so soon. His mother stated that, “they (army recruiters) shouldn't be able to talk to our kids in high school”.
I’m still unsure of why America is fighting this war still. But in closing I want to say that I notice America’s main problem, my brave country is too worried about other countries problem, before handling its own first.

Wall Street: Teetering on 12-year lows

Wall Street: Teetering on 12-year lows
As the Dow and S&P 500 hover near '97 levels, investors brace for a barrage of economic news and watch for the latest from Washington.

As the month of February ends we look at dismal numbers amongst nearly all of the

indices including the DJIA, the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq. Reasons for this decline range from the

poor housing market, the credit crisis and the unfortunate banking troubles that our economy is

facing. President Barack Obama has created plans for an attempted rescue of the economy by

infusing the economy with 750 Billion dollars worth of tax relief money, subsidies and

government spending in the hopes that the economy will enjoy a temporary boost from the

infusion of money. The stock market itself is flailing around in an attempt to rectify itself but has

only been able to stabilize itself before plunging once again all the way to numbers that it was

posting back in ’97. As new news comes out about company forecasts and overall economic

status we hope that this allows the ticker to go into the green. What traders and technicians are

hoping for is a rally to form soon as the numbers that were previously thought to be the bottom

of the Bear Market are now looking good in comparison to the current market.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/01/markets/markets_weekahead/index.htm?cnn=yes

Buy American Clause

The whole world is talking about the recent US stimulus package which totaled close to $800 billion to stimulate domestic production and create jobs. In the US, there are mixed feelings about the economic boost. While many citizens are terrified over the future of their social security, others are rejoicing over the funding that will aid thousands of struggling families. But abroad, most of the controversy is about a particular clause that the Senate incorporated into the deal, and the House unanimously supported. The ‘Buy American’ clause was added to the package as a provisional demand to incorporate only American-made steel and iron for any bailout projects that are funded by the stimulus. According to a CNN report, buy American provisions have been included in public procurement provisions for decades and have always been trade agreement compliant. Leading democratic senators for the clause insist this one is no different and shall be treated in no other manner.

Yet many in the international community feel the clause is too protectionist and violates standing trade agreements. China and partners in NAFTA feel especially threatened by the legislation and have even gone so far as to advise their intent to file complaints to the World Trade Organization for the US’s non-compliance with standing agreements. Supports in the US argue that the provision says nothing about breaching current trade commitments, and refers only to non-related stimulus funded projects. President Obama referred to the concept saying “it is not protectionism, it is common sense” and stated the he supported “Buy American” provisions as a model for boosting the domestic economy and focusing on providing jobs at home.

Critics of the clause are concerned that historically strong trading partners will view the policy as a "slap in the face" and feel hesitant to supporting US trade goods in return. Another cause for concern is the high costs of American-made materials in many cases. Those expressing dis-support for the policy claim that the clause will only waste American dollars where they could be spent elsewhere. In the long run, many worry the situation might actually be worse for the economy than the jobs it might temporarily create in the US.

With the passing of the clause last week, the WTO and others expressed uneasiness over the very real potential of trade-wars arising between Canada, the EU, and others. I agree with their concern and think that the goal of the clause could have been achieved without such a bold statement to the international community. An intention to use stimulus purchasing power to prioritize American-made goods is definitely a reasonable one. But before the language was softened, the clause very bluntly implied more than just an American priority. The current wording leaves room to "approve" otherwise cheaper foreign options, but by discluding the clause all together the exact same outcome could have been achieved without further tainting the "selfish American" image to the rest of the world - who is also facing economic hardship.

Obama's Double Standard with Earmarks

In the Times.com article, “Does Obama Have a Double Standard on Earmarks?,” President Obama is criticized for proclaiming at the join session of Congress last Tuesday night that he would eliminate earmark spending from the stimulus bill, but the next day on Wednesday Democrats passed the rest of the fiscal budget for 2009 with over 9,000 earmarks in it. Most likely Obama will sign this bill into law to keep the government running and to finish out this year; however the bill will spend an estimated $7.7 billion on earmarks. Some Republicans have asked President Obama to put a freeze on spending and to eliminate these earmarks, but these pleas are going unanswered. The argument against this double standard is that this legislation is from the old administration and President Obama is focusing on the 2010 budget, which the framework for will be released in the next week. In this budget he will keep his promises to bring earmark spending lower than it was in 1994, which was about $7.8 billion. Even though President Obama’s focus is on the 2010 fiscal budget, if he signs in this current legislation he will be putting his signature on over 9,000 earmarks and will be continuing with Washington as usual.
Earmarks effect most legislation, and get put onto spending bills all the time by legislators. Some projects are worthwhile for their communities at home and others are just plain ridiculous. President Obama campaigned on cutting earmarks from legislation and not playing the same game as Washington. He said he believes every dollar should be spent with the best interest of Americans in mind and not on special projects of legislators. I think it is a very risky move at this point for President Obama to sign 9,000 earmarks into law. This would just be going along with Washington as usual, and not holding true to his promises. If we don’t see real change by his 2010 fiscal budget, it might be too late for President Obama to stick to his promises and make a true change in spending. A change needs to happen, but he can’t wait three years to make that change.

Poverty in Appalachia, Kentucky

The issue I will be discussing is poverty, specifically that of Appalachia Mountains in Kentucky as portrayed in an ABC Documentary and report.

The Video clip I will be using as an additional resource was found on YouTube.

In a recent report done by ABC’s Diane Sawyer, the people of the Appalachia Mountains were followed and closely studied for two years prior to the documentary being aired on television. A day before the documentary was aired; Sawyer was a guest on Bill O’Reilly’s segment, ‘Unresolved Problems’ to discuss the poverty issue and living conditions of the children in Appalachia.

In her documentary, Sawyer highlights a few prominent problems if not factors to the increasing poverty situation in the area of Kentucky. In doing so, she interviews approximately five children and teenagers on their lives, their family and their status two years ago and then currently in 2009. Of the most significant problems is prescription drug addiction, toothlessness due to the addiction of sugary soft drinks such as Mountain Dew, and more importantly, Sawyer’s assertion that America has forgotten about these ‘people of the mountains;’ more importantly, its children.

Even before Sawyer is introduced from a previous episode showing, O’Reilly states that poverty is unsolvable; there is nothing to be done. While much aid is given to the poor domestically and abroad, in the form of contributions and monetary aid, poverty cannot be resolved. During the actual discussion, O’Reilly raised the question, why Appalachia? Such living conditions and numbers of people living in poverty are not seen in the Rocky Mountains or the Sierra Mountains, so why Appalachia? Furthermore, he draws on the explanation that people, who live in an area that does not produce any source of productivity in terms of money or success or basically a future, usually move out and go elsewhere; rather, than remaining in an area that has seen poverty for almost 200 hundred years.

That is an excuse, Mr. O’Reilly, not an explanation.

Without spoiling too much of the documentary for those who have not watched it, Sawyer’s piece only highlighted about five children and their families, much of which were extended families. So you’re talking about at least seven people under one roof. Additionally, the purpose of the documentary was to show how in midst of all this drug abuse, poverty stricken place, there are children willing, ready and able to get out of Appalachia to become something successful, contrary to what O’Reilly stated.

Some of the families are getting better and have increased in bettering their lives and solving their domestic problems. But once again, they are just a tiny fraction of the larger amounts of people and children who are struggling and living each day with still such poor conditions.

Protecting the NJ Coastline

The NJ coastline is a place where many people from the tri-state area go for a day "away." Two hours away from NYC down the GSP, you can walk on a sandy beaches and fish of the side of a canal into the ocean, where a divider could go get a handful of starfish. There are other things as well than its recreational activies that its known for. It is the home of all its weird NJ facts, Atlantic City, The Sopranos, and the home of "Watch the tram car, please!" Whether you are locals or new comers, the NJ shoreline offers that day away.

However, after my years of going to Seaside for prom weekends and what not, the shoreline has lost its popularity because, well lets face it, it has been going down the drain. The pollution is getting worse; the trash is flowing to the shore by rivers and streams from all over. "According to the US EPA, only 15% of New Jersey's coastal waters are of "good" quality. So, Environment New Jersey has filed a petition with the State to formally protect the Toms River (Ocean and Monmouth Counties). To read more about the petition and see pictures of the shoreline visit the site!

The site offers a great way to Take Action, to help and get involved to save the shore, protect NJ's parks and wildlife and clean up the pollution. For a local like me, I'm glad that more is being done to help save the shore. I've been going to the shore since I was a baby, taking those weekends to visit my grandma who lived in Toms River's Holiday City at the time.

American Opportunity Tax Credit

President Barack Obama has proposed a bill (section 1004) called the American Opportunity Tax Credit to "make college more affordable by directly reducing the amount of money a person owes in taxes." This Bill will make Community College tuition almost free and will try to cut at least two thirds of a Public College debt. Obama is proposing a maximum of $4,000 for a tax credit and possibly rewarding this credit to families even if no taxes are owed. This tax credit should be "immediately refundable," which means that these fund will be available at the time of enrollment for school.

This Bill is basically replacing the Federal Hope Scholarship. This tax credit will start to be applied to expenses paid in 2009 and after. This credit will be applied to 100% of the first $2,000 of expenses paid and 25% of expenses paid on the next $2,000 (the maximum will total $2,500). Students are eligible for four years instead of the original two years and will also be able to be applied to books and course materials. For a single tax filer the adjusted gross income has been raised to $80,000 and $160,000 for joint tax filers.
I think that bill is very good idea. I think that individuals who are motivated enough to take on the challenge of attending a college or university should be rewarded. Many students do not get a chance to attend a college of their choice and some do not make it to college because they do not have sufficient funds to do so. Those who attend college will be making future decisions and helping our country in the next five to ten years. I think that the future of this country relies on educated and qualified individuals and that out country should help support them, since we will be the ones who have the power to help this country's future.

Bringing Down the Cost of Energy or Raising Economic Distress?

The article entitled, "Obama's Greenhouse Gas Gamble," discusses President Obama's proposal of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases that are linked to global warming. There is an estimated amount of $645 billion in emissions trading revenue over the next 10 years. Much of this will be paid by oil, electric power, and industries that are heavy contributors of gases that are blamed for global warming, such as carbon dioxide.

Supporters of Obama's cap-and-trade plan claim that the benefits of this may outweigh the costs of pursuing this goal. Scientists say that by steadily decreasing emissions, the risk of climate catastrophe will be reduced. The White House does not only allocate money for reduction costs. Obama plans to set aside $15 billion a year from the sale of emissions permits to further advance the development of new sources of clean energy.

However, many argue that this program may just put the nation in more economic distress. By reducing emissions, people who are dependent on coal will now become more dependent on electricity. Thomas Williams of Duke Energy has predicted that "electricity rates would jump as much as 40% in states that are reliant on coal for much of their power."

Obama hopes to have the program up and running by 2012. What is the nation more inclined to do: pay more money every year in order to prevent the advancement of global warming or stick to sources of energy like coal and contribute to a climate catastrophe? In my opinion, even though it would add more weight to the nation's economy, it would certainly be more beneficial in the long run, not only for the United States, but for the rest of the world arena.

Hawaii Debates Same-Sex Unions

In an article in the New York Times, Hawaii has been debating whether or not to allow same sex unions like other states including New Jersey, New Hampshire and Vermont. The native state of President Barack Obama passed the measure in the State House and it now goes before the Senate for further approval.

I am personally not in favor of laws easing limits on same-sex marriage but I am not really going to be on the front lines supporting a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Hawaii is the country's most ethnically diverse state and is a top vacation getaway as well. It has always been regarded, in my mind at least, to be a very liberal place where almost anything goes. I would not be surprised if the Senate allows Hawaii to allow civil unions. I feel this way because as I said before, Hawaii is a very liberal place and if any state is going to allow same-sex civil unions, it's going to be Hawaii that is thousands of miles away from the continental US. The democrats have an edge over the republicans in the Senate and that will help them pass this measure.

Groups in Hawaii have been working to shut down this attempt because of the belief that it would erode the strong and highly important conventional family values that Hawaii has. They are also worried about the influence it would have on the children. The fact that they are worried about children being influenced by this is absurd. There are more things on television that would severely negatively impact a child than seeing two men holding hands or kissing by the beach. Hawaii might want to embrace this because Hawaii would be the only nice, warm state to allow civil unions and that might boost their tourism rates. California reversed a decision allowing same-sex marriages over the summer.

Overall, the republicans are going to be distraught seeing that slowly slowly states are becoming more and more liberal allowing same-sex marriages or civil unions. The only way to stop all of this is either to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage or to regain control of the House and the Senate to further prevent states from "turning". It doesn't personally bother me but it would be different and shocking to see it starting to happen more and more often.

Metal Detectors

Metal Detectors
School security has always been an issue in many school districts. Depending on several factors like the location or the crime rate of a town, some school districts may be more prone to voice in favor of metal detectors. I read an article titled, “Metal Detectors in Schools?” which was written by Kenneth D. McDaniel II. The article talked about the pros and cons of a school having mental detectors.

Personally I am against the use of mental detectors in schools as the method of trying to eliminate school violence. Having metal detectors in schools does not fully eliminate school violence. Much of the violence and confrontations that occurs during school hours take place outside of the school’s walls. All schools have more then one entrance into the building, covering all of the entrances is also an obstacle.
This controversial issue has especially come more into the spot light since the unfortunate incident at Columbine High School. Preventing incidents like that one, is definitely at the top of the list of many school districts. Even though this is true, many schools are not jumping at the idea of having mental detectors, for several reasons. Schools tend to go from the other less costly but still effective alternatives for preventing school violence.
I read another article titled, “Metal detectors approved for Cleveland schools, will cost $3.3 million” written by Joseph L. Wagner. The title says it all. The article found at, http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2007/10/metal_detectors_approved_for_c.html, breaks down all the costs and who is going to pay the bill for this new security system. This school is a prime example of why many school districts tend to go for less costly security alternatives.
These two articles talk about mental detectors and school security and what should be done about school violence.

Medicinal Marijuana

The state of New Jersey has had numerous campaigns over the past several years affecting drug policy. There is currently a Compassionate Use Campaign initiated by the Drug Policy Alliance of New Jersey. This campaign hopes that people suffering from chronic illnesses will be able to use medicinal marijuana to alleviate pain from arthritis, cancers, and a number of other diseases.
Medicinal marijuana according to Drug Policy Alliance of New Jersey would be approved of by 86% of New Jersey citizens with a 4% margin of error. In 2006, the alliance ran a poll of 700 registered voters from New Jersey in different parts of the state. They found that a large number would be in favor of a new marijuana policy.
Those running for political office in the state should look to support the legalization of marijuana. The same poll showed that 62% of New Jerseyans would be more likely to vote for a candidate if they were in favor of legalizing the substance. 35% of people said they would be much more likely to vote for a candidate based on their marijuana stance. The poll did show however that marijuana was not a key issue for 21% of the voters and only 13% said that their support would not go to a candidate who was in favor of medicinal marijuana.
Does marijuana work? Many classes on drug use do not classify marijuana as a stimulant or a depressant, it is taught that marijuana will cause whatever the user believes it will cause. It is a fact that marijuana can dull the senses and often cause a blurred sense of reality. For this reason drug and alcohol abuse classes are misleading about the use of marijuana’s affects. Since smoking the product will dull the senses many people suffering from chronic diseases are looking to use it to heal their pain.

State Cell Phone Ban Laws

Although many may be accustomed to the legal policy of a ban on cellular phone use while operating a vehicle, it is currently still only mandated on a state level. Currently cell phone driving laws are only banned for all drivers in five states (California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Washington) and include the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. With the exception of the District of Columbia, these laws are primary enforcement policies, which means that law enforcement officers can stop a moving vehicle on the sole basis of using a cell phone. However, in the District of Columbia, it still remains a secondary offense and is only chargeable in combination with another primary offense. New Jersey also had an identical cell phone policy for the first few years that is was in effect, and has only changed it within the past few years.
Cell phone usage is currently defined as a handheld mobile device that is being operated while driving. Currently, no state completely bans the use of all types of cell phones and allows drives to opt to use hands-free devices in order to still communicate while driving. However, 17 states and the District of Columbia do prohibit all cellular use, both handheld and hands-free for certain segments of the population. These include novice drivers who have a limited or temporary driver’s license and school bus drivers. Furthermore, seven states (Alaska, California, Connecticut, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Jersey and Washington) and the District of Columbia have a text messaging ban for all drivers. Additionally, despite the growing popularity of cell phone bans while driving, eight states have preemption laws that prohibit local jurisdiction from enacting restriction of drivers. However, some of these states such as Utah and New Hampshire still treat cell phone use as a cause of distraction when a moving violation occurs.
These laws are based on statistical data that the use of a handheld device while driving causes one hand to be busy and therefore does not allow a driver to effectively react in a dangerous situation. This analysis is therefore adapted to current legislative policies that require drivers to maintain a certain 10 and 2 hand position on the steering wheel and requires the use of two hands. Furthermore, the argument for the ban results in the data that texting while driving actively engages a certain part of the visual cortex of the brain and therefore actively removes concentration from the road to the texting task at hand. This causes a great amount of risk and often leads to accidents.
Although, these policies might seem like a burden to many commuters, it is simply for the safety of the community. It does not prohibit the complete use of cellular technology, but rather requires that an additional hands-free unit be used so that the driver can have full capabilities to react in a dangerous situation. It seems like a reasonably sound and small request in order to save lives.

Death Penalty in New Hampshire

New Hampshire Legislators Eyeing Death Penalty

The Death Penalty is a very controversial topic not only on a state to state basis but for the country as a whole. In 1972 the Death Penalty was repealed with a citing from the Supreme Court stating that it was against the 8th amendment. They said it was cruel and unusual punishment. Just 4 years later, that decision was overturned by the Supreme Court and it was no longer cruel and unusual.

New Hampshire, like any other state has had its arguments over the death penalty. This article, coming off of the AP from a local New Hampshire newspaper. New Hampshire actually passed a bill in 2000 but it was veteod by then Governor Jeanne Shaheen. The now governor, John Lynch is also against a repeal of the death penalty.

Keeping or repealing the death penalty is always going to be something of a controversy because religious people will always cite that humankind does not have the authority, only God does himself, which they are arguing now. There are also people, like police officers, whose job it is is to uphold the law. To kill a police officer is one of only 6 crimes that is punishable by death in New Hampshire. Secondly, there has only been 1 other person in New Hampshire that has been sentenced, but not executed to death in 50 years. Nobody has been actually executed in 70 years.

New Hampshire is obviously one of hte strictest states when it comes to the death penalty and I am all for keeping the death penalty. There are circumstances, the killing of Police Officer Michael Briggs included, where the death penalty is needed. It should remain up to the states and up to a jury.

Julie Biondi: Sexual Harassment in the Workplace!





I have decided to switch topics over to Sexual Harassment in the workplace. I think this is a very touchy topic and something very hard to make a policy about. There are Sexual Harassment policies in every office that you go to but the problem is that these people feel a threat to their livelihood. Most sexual harassment cases are not only with women, but also with a co-worker that is higher on the work scale. These women and men feel as if they have no choice but to ignore the harassment and continue their day because if they don't, they may lose their jobs. Sexual Harassment laws are everywhere and they have to be respected, but there are still those people who know what they can get away with and because of them, there are hundreds of women afraid to complain about something that bothers them everyday. Statistics show that 31% of all women in the workplace are sexually harassed, whether its jokes or crude comments. Only 7% of men are harassed and that is still terrible. These women are working in jobs that are known to be more masculine then others such as, firefighters, coal mining, secretarial positions for a successful man etc. These women know that there are laws made so that these things will not happen, but these women also know that they need to make money and survive. I personally believe that these laws are a great thing to have, but if only there were a way so that the victim will not have to lose their job.