Legalizing Marijuana Comment

I agree with Jay’s blog on the legalization of marijuana. This blog does a great job of giving a basic introduction on why the United States should legalize marijuana. The main argument with this issue is money with a secondary argument of health benefits. Evidence of the cost of how much it cost to keep an inmate in prison yearly and Colorado’s tax revenue are statistically correct. Adding citations would make this argument stronger as well as using political interviews as evidence for how Texas stands on this issue.

Legalizing marijuana would be definitely be a money maker but how would it be regulated for sellers. Would sellers have a limit that they can grow/sell? There are too many unanswered questions that would make the rest of the states follow. Colorado seems to be a trial and error period while everyone watches to see what happens. Legalizing marijuana sounds like a great idea on paper but there are too many unanswered questions for all of the states to jump on board. However, Jay makes a good argument on why marijuana is legalized.

Electronic Cigarettes are they better?

Electronic cigarettes have become a nationwide phenomenon in the past few years. Everywhere you look someone is smoking their e-cig even though the FDA has not proposed any type of regulation until now. A proposal has been issued Thursday, April 24, asking for a foundation to start regulations in the future. What does this mean? It means that the federal government would ban sales to minors and “require approval for new products and health warning labels” according to Fox News’ article “E-Cigarettes Could Get Hit With Regulations From FDA.” The plus side of the government passing this law would be what are people really smoking? Questions like this would be answered and no more misperceptions or wrongful health information. Cause really how well do we as a population know the side effects or even health side effects on a new product that is supposedly better for you than cigarettes.

                If this proposal passes it could possibly be a step towards banning where people can smoke or vapor. There is nothing more annoying than working at H-E-B and having customers walk up and be “smoking” or even at a local business where employees are smoking in front of you the customer. It’s great not having to smell old fashioned cigarette smoke but e-cigs are just perfumed smoke. Good news for those who smoke the product the government, if passed, would not ban any flavors. Plus if you use this product to help quit smoking or to cut down there is no evidence that it helps.

                Even if this proposal does pass it will be a slow and steady progression for benefitting the people.  We will find out in 75 days what the outcome is.

Health Care Critique

In Kumar’s blog, Obama and Affordable Care Act, Kumar does an overall good job of explaining the benefits to the health care law passed last year and proving his credibility. However, there are flaws to this blog. He shows examples of the benefits to health care by talking about preexisting conditions not affecting your insurance but he doesn’t explain the effects of having a preexisting condition. Does having a preexisting condition affect the price you have to pay for insurance? Giving evidence or statistics would help build or lower his argument for health care. Another example is when Kumar talks about insurance rates going down but where is the proof that they have lowered since the health care law. The rates may have lowered but is the coverage you get the same for that lowered price as it was before at a higher rate. Showing the negative effects in terms of the overall benefits of the health care law would strengthen his argument overall. It also gives the reader more of an idea to what the health care law is and the effects.

The author builds his credibility by writing on health care where a large number of people know what it is and does. Talking about Obama adds to your credibility because he is the President of the United States and has a credible background. By not using direct quotes or statistical information it lowers Kumar’s credibility. He could build his credibility more by expanding on his examples with information.

Overall the blog is good, by using a popular topic and giving examples it helps make his argument. A stronger argument or a two sided argument would make it stronger. The credibility is established to an extent with some grammatical errors.           

Tolls and Rage

Texas is doing a horrible job with toll roads. Nobody wants to pay money to drive on a road when there is a perfectly good free one. It seems lately toll roads are popping up everywhere. With a new toll road comes the increase moodier people.

            Sitting in morning traffic at eight am while they build a toll road right next to you with people bumper to bumper and reduced speed limit signs has created severe road rage in drivers. People are tired of sitting an extra 10-15 minutes because the government is building a road you have to pay on. So when the opportunity comes for you to go you scream at anyone who threatens to place you five seconds behind where you were.

            Continuing to build toll roads would be a great idea if the state was making money of it! They are spending a lot of money to build a road without making profit from it. Over 27 million dollars has been issued in unpaid toll violations. Texas needs to stop and evaluate, the profits or losses need to be assessed to see if, maybe, they should stop building more toll roads for people to drive on for free.

            Texas needs to create stricter punishments for those who decide to ignore their toll bill. One way for people to get rid of their toll bill could be through community service. They could perform tasks like: picking up trash, working at a food bank, or working at a state/ public facility. You could arrest that person for so many days but that would cost even more money having to feed them daily. However, something needs to be done.

            Toll roads and road rage are paving themselves for the future. In 50 years every road will be a toll road with even angrier drivers than before.

Religious Based Judges

            In Washington Monthly’s blog “Would-be Judge’s on a Mission From God” by Steve Benen, Steve discusses how certain judges, if elected,  in California would use religious morals as a basis for their judgment. Benen makes his claim to Californian voting adults. The author somewhat builds his credibility by referencing “the Taliban in Afghanistan” but he doesn’t build on the reference so that his readers understand it.  When reading this you can easily tell that Steve has strong opinion about this idea of judge’s ruling based on religious beliefs.

            The author could have done many things to improve his credibility which is relatively low. By referencing the Taliban he starts to build his credibility but when he doesn’t explain the reference, assuming we’ll understand, brings his credibility back down.  Benen does gain some credibility back when he uses quotes from Craig Candelore who is an attorney as well as a supporter for these judges.

            The argument is one sided. Steve makes his feelings very strong about how he feels about judges that will “promise to be biased, partial jurists, basing their decisions on a religious agenda.” From reading this sentence the reader develops a negative feeling towards these judge’s because of the author’s choice of words.  At the end of the blog Steve states that “organizers of this effort believe they have a reasonably good chance at pulling it off -- and they may very well be right” this statement seems contradicting to the blog. At the beginning he talks about how horrible it would be to have these judge’s elected and at the end he states that they will most likely win creates doubt towards the author.

            Steve Benen’s blog is packed with emotion, yet it lacks the credibility to really bring the blog full circle. Benen’s word choice and overwhelming emotion easily leads you in the direction he wanted. Using more sources and explaining the references will create an even stronger blog that the reader will have no doubt believing and understanding.

The War on Drugs

                In the Washington Post article by Charles Lane, “Drug Legalization Claims are Cloudy,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-lane-drug-legalization-claims-are-cloudy/2014/02/19/fd577128-98cf-11e3-b931-0204122c514b_story.html Charles makes a claim towards middle aged voting adults. Lane proves his credibility by providing quotes and statistics from: “Radley Balko, former congressman Barney Frank, drug-policy expert Keith Humphreys, Justice Department Statistics, and Philip Seymour Hoffman’s death” (legalization). Charles Lane makes the claim against the war on drugs saying that it’s “a costly flop” and providing statistics that drug use, crime, drug arrest rates are on the decline except for a pharmaceutical drug, Opioid, and marijuana which is rising. Lane never fully states his opinion on how to go about fixing the drug problem by avoiding the question.

                The author doesn’t have the information to be able to say what the world would be like if drugs had been legal for the last decade. Instead of making a case based on his statistics and data he just skips over it and jumps to his next topic. I agree with Charles Lane when he discusses the fact that pharmaceutical drugs are on the rise. Overall the author makes a fair claim until he says that “if the goal of the war on drugs is to limit demand for drugs, then you can’t say the authorities are losing.” In the next paragraph he talks about how certain drugs have fewer drug users, deaths, and violent crime than in 1991 and 2011. Is this because of the war on drugs or because people are choosing more wisely, there are a number of factors that are not discussed that could be the reason why drug use is on the decline.    

                Using credible sources like the author does proves his credibility and makes him reliable. As for his opinion and logic it makes his argument fall apart.

"U.S. to Recognize 1,300 Marriages Disputed by Utah"

The New York Times' article of "U.S. to Recognize 1,300 Marriages Disputed by Utah" briefly talks about the federal government granting 1,300 marriages legal. The 1,300 couples married in December when Utah made the decision to legalize gay marriages, shortly after, they changed their minds and denied the couples of the marriage. Barack Obama, who has changed his views on gay marriage, went back and federally overruled Utah. Utah is still fighting to overrule the decision. This article is worth reading because it shows that what you initially believe in at first can be altered rather quickly when it becomes a nationwide concern. Legalizing gay marriage federally and not stately can have more problems than originally. "The federal government will treat two sets of Utah couples equally, while their state will treat them differently" (Times). Federally they will be seen as married but in their state they aren't.
New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/11/us/politics/same-sex-marriage-utah.html?_r=0