To Legalize Or To Not Legalize

Medical Marijuana

There have been debates and arguments over the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes. Some argue that marijuana can be safely used to treat multiple symptoms of different conditions and show studies of medical marijuana. While others argue that it is a dangerous drug that can cause harm to ones health, and may lead to other, more dangerous drug.

Fact:

According to procon.org, marijuana has been placed in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act in 1970 because the United States Congress stated that Marijuana has no medical use, potential for abuse and lack of accepted safety(1). However in 1968, after the University of Mississippi has grown marijuana with virtually no THC, the US government has approved the research(2). When 8 of the 10 states that had legalized medical marijuana by 2006, there has been a decrease in teen use of marijuana from 1999 to 2006.(3)

Definition:

The nature of the problem comes from two opposing ideas, and the people that support different ideas. There are two different focuses depending on what stance you have on the issue. There are proponents and opponents, people who are pro medical marijuana and people who are against the use of marijuana for medical purposes. We will look at the two sides, of their argument.

Proponents argue that marijuana can be safe and effective with the treatment of symptoms such as AIDS, cancer, epilepsy, glaucoma and many other conditions. They're are marijuana with no THC and are safe and effective for even kids to use without feeling "high."

Opponents argue that medical marijuana is too dangerous, can be addictive, will lead to stronger and harder drug use. Marijuana will also impairs driving ability, interferes with fertility, can cause lung, brain, and immune system issues. They also stated that it lacks FDA-approval.

Quality:

The debate whether marijuana should be used for medical purposes or not is good. It is good to have a debate where we can discuss the pros and cons, especially about something that may or may not change someone's life. Although debates may be stressful and can get nasty, it is always good to talk about life changing technology or medicine. This is a serious debate because it can cure many symptoms or it can go in the wrong direction of substance abuse. People who are effected by this outcome (legalized or not) could be people with AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, people suffering from epilepsy. Due to the taxes that will be imposed upon medical marijuana by the federal government the US economy will also be effected by this outcome. Many changes in the medical world, the research world will also be effected. There will be more tests, peer-review, statistic changes, and much more if the problem has come to a decision.

Policy:

I believe that this is a a very important topic that should come to a decision, and I believe that it is slowly getting there. Some states have already legalize the use of medical marijuana and others still have not, or choose not to. There definitely should be more researches, peer-review, to weigh the pros and cons for this. If medical marijuana can be use to help treatment of many conditions, how can we use it in a safer environment, or how can we prevent people from abusing the substance. I believe that there are people who are very concern about the use of medical marijuana being legalize in fear of their own personal beliefs about the substance that they can't see the good it can bring to certain people. There are others who will abuse this substance when it is legalize. There should be very strict laws about who can obtain this substance.

Stasis

I think that this topic may very well come to a stasis as soon as both parties come up with a law, that they are both comfortable with, for example, some states already allow the use of medical marijuana but with strict laws of who can and can not use it, with serious consequences. Therefore, the stasis of this topic may be, "We will legalize the use of marijuana for strictly medical purposes and prior only with doctor consent. If marijuana is being abuse there will be serious consequences." 

Citations:

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000091

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/

BP 2

"One nation under God"

There is a lot of controversy surrounding the Pledge of Allegiance on whether or not to take out "under God" completely from the pledge. People are arguing that religion and government should be two separate things and that it was how our country was suppose to based off of. While other people argue that "under God" isn't a religious saying that it a part of America's civic culture.

Facts: It was Eisenhower who added the phrase "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance on July 30th 1956 to become our nations motto. The phrase "one nation under God" was only added as a patriotic exercise and not a religious practice so it doesn't violate any law. People are also given the right to chose whether or not they want to stand, sit, or even say the pledge. The issue that many people who are not religious see is that whenever they say "One nation under God" they are agreeing that they believe in God and see it as religious affirmation and believe that it should be taken out since they don't believe in any type of God.

Definition:The main issue the in the "under God" controversy is that people who aren't religious are offended by it and feel like they are saying they believe in God when ever they recite the pledge. Non believers in God are also saying that if they refuse to say the pledge that it makes people view them as un-Americans since it's written in our pledge. 

Quality:This issue isn't a huge issue and shouldn't be an issue at all for that matter. The phrase isn't there to suggest that everyone who says the pledge is a Christian it's there to show what our country was built on. It's part of our history; our country was built on very religious values and it's there to only show our past.

Policy:There has already been several appeals filed on the "under God" phrase since it was added and was never in the original Pledge of Alligence written. I think the only thing there is for people to do it to just live with it or keep appealing it til something happens. In my personal opinion I don't see Congress or the Supreme Court or anyone in the government okaying the removal of "under God" but anything is possible.

Drinking Age - Stasis Theory

The legal drinking age is something that has constantly been argued over, there are multiple arguments on each side about lowering or keeping the drinking age. To fully comprehend this issue, we must use the Stasis Theory to analyze all aspects of this controversial topic and see if this is a topic that is able to reach a stasis point at the end.

The Facts:

The facts according to ProCon.org are as follows; America is one of five countries with the highest drinking age in the world. The drinking age to purchase and consume alcohol on premises is 21 (Pro Con, 2011, para. 1). But drinking in about 29 states underage is allowed with parental consent on a private premises. At one point the drinking age was lowered from 21 to 18,19, or 20 in the year 1970-1976. The creation of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 was what prompted all the states to raise the drinking age to 21 in order to preserve the millions in federal highway funds. (Pro Con, 2014, para. 1)

Definition: 

The nature of this issue stems from the people, more than likely the young adults that are not yet legal enough to drink but can sure as hell buy a house, or a car, or be charged with manslaughter. As well as the other half that argues that the drinking age should stay the same, more than likely here it is the people who are of legal drinking age. We will call these two individual classes of people; proponents and opponents. The problem is that both sides cannot come to an agreement and have two differing opinions. These two clash, they are like fire and ice. They need to come to a consensus so that this issue is solved. 

Now, proponents argue that if 18 is the legal age to adulthood, then you should be able to drink as well, they argue also that countries with a MLDA (Minimum Legal Drinking Age) of 18 have fewer accidents and deaths. And that even though the drinking age is 21, people are still drinking underage but the MLDA is promoting unsafe drinking habits in uncontrolled environments instead. 

Opponents argue that the MLDA should be higher or stay at 21 because it would be medically irresponsible to lower it as well as due to the dangers that drinking poses. They feel people at the age of 18 for example are not yet responsible enough to drink. 

Quality: 

This is where we get into the judgment part of this issue. Deciding how serious or how good this issue is and what should happen if nothing is done. 

This topic is a very serious issue, you can tell how serious people are about this because of how argued this topic is. The people feel very strongly about this, on both sides. And i feel it is finally time to come to an agreement on drinking age. This is a topic that when a decision is made about it, it affects everyone's life and will create a drastic change. This will affect the economy, it will affect all statistics based on drinking, it will even affect people's personal lives. If nothing is done about this then people will still continue to drink underage in environments that are typically not safe as opposed to going to a bar possibly and having a drink there where it is safer. Also it will take the fun out of adulthood according to proponents, they say that if you are 18 and can buy a pack of deadly cigarettes or be drafted into the military, why not have a drink with both of those in a safe place? 

Policy:

Personally, something needs to be solved with this issue. There should be a mutual agreement on drinking age. Maybe it shouldn't be lowered to 18 specifically, they could come up with something between 18-21 like the MLDA should be 19, or even 20? This is an issue that probably needs to be solved at state level, states should be able to decide what their own MLDA is. If something cannot be agreed upon, it should go to congress and they should take into account all the arguments posed and see which would benefit the economy and the wants of the people and create a MLDA that is nationwide. in order for this to be fixed, people need to listen to both sides of the argument and take into account other people's thoughts and opinions, not just their own. 

Stasis? 

This topic is able to be at a stasis point for two out of the four Stasis Theory questions, When it comes to facts and the definition, it answers them perfectly. But when the questions involving quality and policy come into play, those are more controversial. They have to be divided into two separate sections, the questions need to be answered by both sides; proponent and opponent. This makes answering those last two Stasis Theory questions slightly ineffective. 


Citations: 

Pro Con. (2011, June 6). International Guide to Minimum Legal Drinking Ages (MLDAs) in 138 Countries - Minimum Legal Drinking Age - ProCon.org. Retrieved from http://drinkingage.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004294

ProCon. (2014, July 18). Drinking Age ProCon.org. Retrieved from http://drinkingage.procon.org/

MB3: Cassidy Kay

One of our first projects, I chose to write on a controversial subject of tanning beds. I am going to further that discussion/debate to you guys in the blog to see what your opinion is on them. So basically, the use of tanning beds is used by women in their teens and twenties. Why? Because being tan is a fad, or it could be because it clears up skin acne, or maybe because they are insecure about themselves. There are many reasons why some women use tanning beds; it is not uncommon for ladies to frequent them before large events or trips. The pro's: your tan, confident, and acne free perhaps. The con's: You are 62% more prone to skin cancer, your skin could eventually leather later in life, and you harm your eyesight. Weighing the pro's and cons...is the social aspect, or the health factors more of an issue. I can make an easy argument and say it would be the health con's. We are given one body to grow and nurture throughout the life, and the ability to obtain a tan naturally WITH sun screen is as much and more than our bodies need and can handle. The amount of the sun rays in today's environment are harmful unless we take precautions. And wanting to be tan because of a fad, is not worth the harmful elements you put your skin under. Have I ever used a tanning bed? Yes...but admittedly because I wanted to fit in and feel confident about myself. The way we can fix this issue is to make girls confident about their self image in their own skin. Not something they have to artificially alter. I think that tanning beds aren't the worst thing that young girls can get into, however, I believe it is a topic of concern.