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