"The Silicon Valley of Pot"

A measure to legalize marijuana in California has enough signatures to qualify for the November 2010 ballot. The proposal would legalize possession of up to one ounce of marijuana for adults 21 and older. Residents could grow "pot gardens" in their backyards if they want to as long as it isn't larger than 25feet. The city hopes the new plants will produce 70,000 pounds per year and become a major source of tax revenue and jobs. California, the U.S. state that first allowed states of medical pot, in 1996, may take away all restrictions on adult use of the drug in the November vote, giving local governments the option to regulate sales and growing of marijuana.

In my opinion, kids who use prescription drugs justify use because a physician has prescribed them. I feel that legalizing pot could have the same results. The passage of a legalization law would not only send a message to our youths that it is okay to smoke pot, it also could ultimately lead to more people in the state possessing both legal and illegal marijuana. Mark Kleiman, director of the Drug Policy Analysis Program at UCLA research shows that when marijuana began being sold legally in smoke shops in Amsterdam, teen use surged, even though it was illegal for minors to possess or smoke the drug. I support the use of medical marijuana solely for patients that are in dire need of pain relief, when other measures have not been successful. I don't think a positive message is being sent to the worlds children that pot is safe and an okay drug to use. In my experience, marijuana is a gateway to other drugs especially when you are young. What's next, legalizing cocaine because it could be a major source of tax revenue and provide jobs? I sure hope not!

Hard Time

Mathew Yglesias expresses his disbelief in his blog titled "Hard Time" on ThinkProgress.org.
Yglesias writes about the over-imprisonment in America, based off The Economist website, which argues on the belief that in our civilized world there are so many that are locked up for such petty crimes. Yglesias is a credible, logical writer who holds a BA in Philosophy from Harvard University and has written in, The New York Times, the Guardian, Slate, The Washington Monthly, and other publications. In a recent poll done by International Center for Prison Studies, ranked the United States first, above Russia, having the most inmates. Yglesias states "when a habitual rapist is locked up, the streets are safer, but the same is not necessarily true of petty drug-dealers, whose incarceration creates a vacancy for someone else to fill, argues Alfred Blumstein of Carnegie Mellon University. "

According to Yglesias, some states treat opium-derived painkillers such as Percocet like hard drugs, if illicitly sold. Possession of a tiny amount (14-28 grams, or ½-1 ounce) yields a minimum sentence of three years. For 200 grams, it is 15 years, more than the minimum for armed rape. Prosecutors may charge him with selling a smaller amount if he agrees to “reel some other poor slob in”. He is told to persuade another dealer to sell him just enough drugs to trigger a 15-year sentence, and perhaps to do the deal near a school, which adds another two years.

Yglesias is making his argument towards supporters of a better criminal justice system and interest groups such as the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ) and Criminal Justice Policy Foundation. He claims, sticking to tradeoffs inside the realm of crime prevention, it would clearly make more sense to increase the quantity and quality of police officers and parole/probation supervisors than to be handing out these endless jail sentences. Even for legitimately serious violent crimes, it’s more important to catch and prosecute people quickly and effectively than to lock people away forever and ever.

I feel Yglesias has a valid point and think it is ridiculous that our criminal system doesn't see the time should fit the crime. "Criminals" who are caught selling drugs are getting a much heavier sentence than a rape conviction or child pornography. This is the kind of problem that causes over crowding of the prisons. It also causes the addicts who instead of jail time need medical help, such as rehab, but as a result they become harder criminals than they were before they went in.

"Investigating the Interrogators"

On July 21, Los Angeles Times' editorial board published an article regarding whether or not the CIA was using an unjustifiable amount of interrogation towards suspected terrorists. The writer expresses his opinion saying, "One of the most shameful chapters in the war against terrorism was the complicity of George W. Bush's Justice Department in the CIA's use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" — in plain language, torture — to extract information from suspected terrorists." The author of, "investigating the interrogators," claims that "former Assistant Atty. Gen. Jay S. Bybee acknowledged that the department did not approve some of the most revolting methods employed by the agency, including the repeated waterboarding of two high-value detainees." It is relevant the author's intended audience should be those who opposed George W. Bush's policies within the Justice Department.

In the article, the author brings to light some of the interrogating techniques
used by the CIA. Some are, waterboarding, solitary confinement, facial slaps, shackling them to ceiling hooks, and punching them. There is reasoning behind the methods used by the CIA and if men like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged 9/11 mastermind, chose not to terrorize the United States then the CIA wouldn't be under such scrutiny. In my opinion, the CIA does what no one else wants to do or even wants to hear about. They are trying to keep America safe as well as do what they were told. After the tragedy of 9/11, Bush was under a lot of pressure to retaliate and/or assure the safety of the Republic. It is somewhat of a, "your damned if you do, damned if you don't." If the CIA was too lenient, the media would say they aren't doing enough.

The writer might have a valid argument that the CIA went to far interrogating the detainees. Yet at the same time I feel the CIA can be compared to our soldiers that come home from war and are expected to continue normal everyday life. There is a line that is hard for them not to cross when they are witness to such terror. I am not saying this is an excuse but when a person is given permission to hurt someone (terrorists) a little, after a while, it might become hard to stop.

The writer suggests in the end that they "prosecute the wrongdoers." If we prosecuted every "wrongdoer" think about how long that chain would be. Can't we just let it go and move on? Obama even says, "look forward, not back."

The Slow March Toward Gay Marriage Rights

The Slow March Toward Gay Marriage Rights

Are citizens of the United States becoming more accepting of same-sex marriages? Will the state of California recognize such marriages? In the popular newspaper Newsweek, Ravi Somaiya writes about how the statistics show more people living in places that recognize same-sex marriage. Last week a judge in Boston struck down legislation that prevents such equal rights in the U.S. A Los Angeles Times poll found that 71 percent of Californians between 18 and 29 supported gay marriage rights. That figure dropped to 37 percent for those older than 65. Somaiya explains that "people are currently evenly divided on the issue, it seems that over time the trend will move toward acceptance in California, and eventually across America". Our younger generation it seems is more accepting and open-minded than our mothers and fathers or grandparents who find homosexuality unacceptable. Some of the places gay couples go to get married are Buenos Aires, Mexico City, Ames, Iowa, Pretoria, and South Africa. If Iowa accepts same-sex marriage than surely California can. This article should be read by others because people have their own views on this subject and its nice to know what is going on in our country related to same-sex marriages. To each their own!!