Marijuana should not be legalized

I found very interesting an article called, “So Much To Say About Mary!....” It was published in the “Necessary Change 24/7” blog by unknown author. In the article, the author stands for the legalization of marijuana for economical, medical and mood. I strongly disagree with the author’s point of view related to marijuana. In my opinion, marijuana should not be legalized because it brings social and economic negative effects.

First of all, marijuana should not be legalized because it brings social negative effects. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, “Marijuana is the most commonly abused illicit drug in the United States. It is a dry, shredded green and brown mix of flowers, stems, seeds, and leaves derived from the hemp plant Cannabis sativa.” This sounds very natural, but it also contains many chemicals. According to the Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse, “The main mind-altering (psychoactive) ingredient in marijuana is THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), but more than 400 other chemicals also are in the plant. The amount of THC in the marijuana determines how strong its effects will be.” The consumption of one plant combined with more than 400 chemicals will cause a social breakdown. After legalizing marijuana, it will be cheaper and easier to get, even for children and teenagers because it is well known that many of the consumers are underage. Many people think that marijuana is a harmless plant, but the true is that it has too many chemicals that affect people’s health. According to Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse, "the strength of today's marijuana is as much as ten times greater than the marijuana used in the early 1970s.” Another social negative effect is the crime increase. People acting under drug effects can violate the law without being aware of it. Also, when addicts do not have the money for buying marijuana, they are able to steal or kill. Then many people will feel unsafe walking around their towns or cities.

Second, marijuana should not be legalized because it brings economic negative effects. The article “So Much To Say About Mary!.... says that “all the taxed marijuana we would have to regenerate the economy.” However, if marijuana becomes cheaper, easier to get and people become very use to it will increase the numbers of the consumers. In other words, it will increase the addiction. But how this increase will affect the economy? First of all, the fact that more people would become addict means that more people would get sick, and more people would need medical and rehabilitation treatments which would increase the health care cost. In addition, it would generate a profitable black market among the people who are not authorized to buy it such as children and teenagers. In order to control the social problems, government would have to invest more money in the security such as hiring and training more police officers, buying more guns, motorcycles and cars, and also, government would have to build more jails and more judges. Finally, it would bring environmental problems such as cutting down trees in order to cultivate cannabis, soil overexploitation and soil salinization.

In conclusion, marijuana should not be legalized because it would bring several disturbances in the social and economic patterns. Firs of all, it will increase the numbers of addicts. Furthermore, it would raise crime rates in cities and negative economical effects. Legalizing of marijuana just would increase medical care costs, prevention programs, security system and environmental costs.

Torture

The article “The Torture Debate: The Missing Voices”, published in the editorial of The New York Times on May 6, 2009, criticizes the torture methods for prisoners that President Bush authorized during his administration. To understand this better, it is necessary to define the term torture. According to the article one of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, torture means, “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession.” Is torture a good method used to get information? Is it ethical that former President Bush has authorized this kind of methods? In my opinion, the answers to both questions are NOT. Torture should not be applied for two reasons: it violates human rights and it can generate false information.

First of all, torture is a violation to human rights. It violates the fifth article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which says, “No one shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Although the human rights standards were created to protect people from abuse from others, they are not being accomplished at all. Today, many people are being victim of torture, especially prisoners who are defenseless and who are under control of government. The article “Terror Suspect Treatment” published by the BBC mentions the most common methods for torture such as sleep deprivation, wearing a hood, exposure to noise, threaten to shoot, exposure to hot/cold, no food or water, punching / kicking, make person go naked, hold under water, threaten relatives, use electric shocks and sexually humiliate. All of these horrible acts are seen as part of the interrogation techniques to get information. But are these techniques a good way to get information? This question is answered in the next paragraph.

The second reason against torture is that it can provide false information. Torture should not be practiced today as it was mentioned before, it violates the human rights. Although it is very clear that nobody, with no exceptions, should use torture, today, it is very common method especially applied in interrogatories processes by terrorists, guerrillas, drug dealer, and even by governments such as the United States. Torture techniques are often used in interrogatories processes in order to get relevant information. However, the quality of the information obtained by these methods can be questionable because a person who is being tortured can say anything in order to stop the pain. The article The Torture Debate: The Missing Voices” mentions that former President Bush authorized to torture prisoners with methods such as waterboarding in order to interrogate them. Also, the article criticizes the declaration made by Ms. Condolezza Rice when she said that torture methods like waterboarding are legal. According to the article, she said, “By definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture.” Ms. Rice’s declaration is contradictory. She is accepting that the U.S. government was torturing prisoners –which violates the human rights—but at the same time, she says that it was legal because it was authorized by the president. It is unethical that a country violates the international human right standards. Government is supposed to protect its people, and respect people’s rights.

In conclusion, torture methods are a violation of human rights. They should not apply under any reason, even for interrogatories activities. Through torture, the torturer just will get from the victim false information, which is told in order to stop the pain. Instead of governments torturing prisoners, they should find other ways to encourage prisoners to collaborate by giving relevant information such as offering prisoners reduction of sentence.

Energy Crisis is TRUTH!

After I read the article called, “Energy Crisis Not so much about Energy,” published by Elaine Posluszny, I have been thinking about how to make some people change their minds respect to the relationship between energy and environment. Most of the people are just thinking on themselves and on their generation, but what about the future generations? What are we doing to guarantee that next generation enjoy the same benefits that we already have? In the article, “Energy Crisis Not so much about Energy,” the author gives the reader several facts related to energy and environment which deny the existence of the energy crisis and indirectly accuse environmentalists for exaggerating the reality of the oil. I disagree with some of these ideas for the reasons that I will explain in the next paragraphs.

First of all, the article begins with the next question, “How can the United States have a crisis over energy when we have more coal reserves than any other nation in the world?” Although this fact is true, the author does not take into an account that population and coal consumption are increasing, and it well known that coal is a fossil fuel and that one day it will be over. In addition, in paragraph one, the author says that environment “should be considered separate from the claim of an "Energy Crisis." In my opinion, these two issues are much related. Then, they cannot be separated. Due to the high dependence of fossil fuels, mankind releases to the atmosphere large amount of greenhouse gases, which are contributing to the global warming. In addition, the article makes an interesting statement. “To be clear, America is not lacking in fossil fuel deposits. The reservoirs in parts of Colorado and Utah could hold "upwards of 1 trillion barrels of oil"- more than 3 times the proven reserves in Saudi Arabia.” I totally disagree with this statement. It is well known that there is a fossil crisis in America and in the rest of the world. According to a study made by the Central Intelligence Agency CIA, in January 2008, “the world oil reserve is 1,332,000,000,000, from which Saudi Arabia is the country number one with more reserves, 266,800,000,000, and the U.S. is the country N. 13 with 20,970,000,000.” In order to understand this, it is necessary to explain briefly how oil is formed. According to the Energy Information Administration, “Oil was formed from the remains of animals and plants that lived millions of years ago in a marine (water) environment before the dinosaurs. Over the years, the remains were covered by layers of mud. Heat and pressure from these layers helped the remains turn into what we today call crude oil.” With this explanation, it is very clear that oil is a nonrenewable source. It means that one day, it will be over, and it will take millions of years to be formed again. But the real problem with the fossil fuels like oil is that while it is decreasing, oil consumption is increasing. Today, the world has approximately 6.8 billion people, and it is expected by 2050 to have 9.3 billion people which will increase the oil consumption. According to the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, “From now to 2020, world oil consumption will rise by about 60%. Transportation will be the fastest growing oil-consuming sector. By 2025, the number of cars will increase to well over 1.25 billion from approximately 700 million today.” Then, there is not balance between oil offer and demand, which is already producing an energy crisis.

Moreover, it is important to have into account that some countries such as India, Brazil and China are growing very fast, and they are demanding a lot of energy, which make the oil scarcer and more expensive. According to the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, “In the next two decades, China's oil consumption is expected to grow at a rate of 7.5% per year and India’s 5.5%. (Compare to a 1% growth for the industrialized countries). It will be strategically imperative for these countries to secure their access to oil.” Again, oil dependence is growing up, but the source is shortening. Furthermore, the article, “Energy Crisis Not so much about Energy,” also makes another interesting comment about environment. It says that Energy Crisis “should be labeled the Environmentalists Anxiety Crisis.” With this statement, it could be inferred the point of view of the author respect to environment. It seems that the author does not believe the connection between fossil fuels, and their impact on the environment. But fortunately, scientists have showed that fossil fuels like oil, coal or natural gas have been affecting the environment killing many animals, plants and species and also depleting the habitats. In addition, fossil fuels are the first contributor to the global warming by releasing large amount of Carbon Dioxide and other greenhouse gases. According to the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, “The United States continues to be the largest single national source of fossil fuel-related CO2 emissions with emissions of 1577 million metric tons of carbon in 2005.” The U.S. is the top contributor of carbon dioxide, and the reason is the Americans high dependence on fossil fuels. Finally, the author makes another interesting comment when she says “It is dangerous for a country to be dependent on another for any reason, political or economic, and it is even more dangerous when a country to dependent on another who's political nature differs so greatly, as America and Saudi Arabia's do. So we should lessen that dependence and dig into the great gift of oil beneath our own surface.” I agree with the first part of this statement that talks about that a country should not depend on another country’s resources. Each country should work harder to find its own sources of energy that substitute fossil fuels. Although I agree with the first part, I totally disagree with the second part that says that encourages oil consumption.

In conclusion, I think that scientist community should work harder to find a renewable source of energy that substitutes fossil fuels. Governments should invest more money to support universities and scientists research to find renewable and environmentally friendlier sources of energy, and finally, people should save the scarce fossil fuel energy that we have today.

ORGAN DONATIONS SHOULD BE MANDATORY BY GOVERNMENT

Organ donations should be mandatory by governments as in the United States as in the rest of the world. Just in the United States, according to National Geographic, “more than 80,000 people are waiting for a transplant,” and according to Matching Donors Organization, “In the United States, 19 people die each day waiting for an organ transplant—most of them waiting for kidneys.” Usually organ donations come from a person who has recently died, or from a living donor. However, there is a shortage of organs, and many people are dying waiting for an organ transplant. The solution for this problem would be that government creates a law that makes people donate at least one organ after they die. In my opinion, this law is necessary for two reasons: to help others to live and stop human organ trade.

The first reason to create one-organ mandatory donation after death is that helping others’ lives should be considered as social justice. Every single individual has the opportunity to save others’ lives just by donating an organ during lifetime or after his or her death. However, there are few people who want to help others. Probably people do not donate an organ during lifetime because they are afraid of jeopardizing their own lives and suffering physical pain. Fortunately, there is another way to donate an organ without being worried about these things, donate organs after death. This could be the best option for everybody. In order to do that, people should authorize it in live, and as soon as they die, their organs would be removed and transplanted into somebody else. According to Matching Donor Organization, Texans can sign up to be organ donors by signing the back of their driver’s license upon renewal. Although this option sounds simply and painless, people still are not donating. There are a lot of organizations to encourage people to donate, but these efforts are not enough. Then, people who are waiting for a transplant they have three options: one is waiting until somebody with a good heart donates it (the hardest one); second, dying without having found a donor, or third, buying it from somebody in a poor country. The shortage of organ donors, the politics of organ donation, the people’s suffering and desperation, extreme poverty and corruption are the perfect features for human organ trade and organ black market around the world be successful.

The second reason to create one-organ mandatory donation after death is to stop human organ trade and human organ black market. The fact that organ donations depend on the people willing makes the process to find a donor very difficult. Then people have to find another ways to get an organ such as buy it. In addition, many people from developed countries are traveling to poor countries such as China, India or Mexico among other places to get an organ and transplant it in clandestine clinics. The biggest problem when people buy illegally an organ is that they really do not know where it is coming from, how it was founded, and even, they do not know if is really healthy. The terrible true is that organs in the black market come from people who were killed to trade with their organs, or from people who is extremely poor and have to sell them for a little money. These organs are being sold especially to rich people who can pay for these expends. For example, MSN News Published on June 16, 2007, an articled called, “Guatemala mob kills suspected organ thieves.” This article talks about in Camotan, Guatemala, a woman killed a nine-year-old girl to extract and sell her organs. Another example can be seen in the article “The Corruptive Influence of the Dollar: The Shameful Trade in Mexican Baby Organs!” published by La Voz de Aztlan. According to them, "there are many children in the United States waiting for organs in order to survive. Therefore, dozens of Mexican midwives, nurses, doctors, lawyers, judges and even clerics, participate as accomplices in the theft of children from whom organs are extracted at clandestine clinics on the U.S.-Mexico border." These are two clear examples of how people are being killed to extract their organs. In addition, there are other examples related to corruption of governments and organ trade. For example, BBC news published on June 28, 2001, an article called “Global demand fuels human organ trade." It says that in China, “Chinese prisoners may be being killed to order, so that their organs can be sold to rich foreigners.” Another example can be seen in an article called “Organ Shortage Fuels Illicit Trade in Human Parts” published by National Geographic on January 16, 2004. It says that “Brazilian police reported that dozens of willing donors were flown from that nation's destitute neighborhoods to South Africa where transplant surgery was performed on patients. Recipients may have paid as much as U.S. $100,000 for their ill-gotten organs. Donors received a fraction of that amount.” India is another example of human organ trade. BBC News published on October 15, 2002, an articled called “Indians selling human organs.” It says that “one area of the Indian city of Madras has been nicknamed 'kidney district' because so many people have sold their kidney.” These people are jeopardizing their lives for a little money, and their organs are being sold to some rich people from developed countries for a large amount of money. Generally, the organs obtained by these ways have bad quality because of the non-hygienic procedures used. Also, inside the U.S. organs are being sold. According to the article called, “The Organ Black Market,” published by How Stuff Work. In the U.S., "a black market for human tissue exists. It usually involves bodies about to be cremated. A black market broker may enter into a financial arrangement with a criminally minded funeral home director and carve up the bodies before they're cremated. Falsified papers -- such as consent forms and death certificates -- are produced, and the tissue can then be sold to an American research facility." These examples show clearly how the lack of voluntary donors has developed a black market of human organs which is making a lot of money and jeopardizing donors’ and patients’ lives.

In conclusion, organ black market is an immoral, terrible way to traffic with human parts. This can be reduced or stopped if organs are more accessible. In the only way that they could be accessible is creating a law that makes people donate at least one organ after they die. With this law, government could save a lot of lives, finish people’s suffering, save money in medical treatment and also, stop the organ human trade.

The Right to Bear Firearms

The article called, “Supreme Court right on target: Personal right to keep firearms is protected,” was published by Austin American Statesman in the Editorial Broad on June 26, 2008. This article says that the Supreme Court ruled that in the District of Columbia, people are allowed to keep arms at their homes. It was approved after a policeman applied to register a handgun to keep at home, but the District of Columbia refused. He sued the District based on the Second Amendment which protects an individual’s right to possess firearms. In this article, it is clear that the author is in favor of this right, and it is shown with phrases like “The U.S. Supreme Court got right in its historic decision Thursday, which said Americans have a right to arm themselves with handguns or rifles in their homes for self-defense. The court also appropriately said that this right is not unlimited.” But, is it appropriate to allow people to have arms at home? In my opinion, the right to bear arms should be exclusively for soldiers or policemen. I strongly disagree with the right to have arms at homes for two reasons: firstly, because it jeopardizes families and other people’s lives if the guns are at reach of children or teenagers, and secondly, it generates the concept in children of an unsafe, violent society.

Having guns at home jeopardizes children’s, relatives’ and other people’s lives. According to the website Family Education, “kids access guns easily because there's at least one gun in 40 percent of American homes. 30 to 40 percent of those guns are left loaded and unlocked. Roughly 80 percent of school shootings have occurred when kids access their parents' or relatives' guns.” This fact shows how dangerous are to have guns at home. Many children and teenagers die accidentally with their parents’ guns, or when they the guns to kill by themselves, relatives, teachers or classmates. For example, in December 9, 2008, CNN published an article named “Pennsylvania teen charged with plotting to kill school enemies.” It said that a teenager went to his school in Pennsylvania and killed his classmates he did not like with three guns that he took from his father. This is a good example that shows clearly how having guns at home jeopardizes people’s lives.

Having arms at home make children feel that they live in an unsafe, violent society. When parents have guns at home, children grow with the idea that the society in which they live is not safe and that they have to use guns to protect themselves. When children are used to see guns since they are little kids, they grow seeing guns are as natural as cell phones or computers, and it can promote violent environment where children or teenagers can solve any problem by the force of guns. The way to prevent those problems is prohibiting civilian to bear guns. In my opinion, the only people who should be allowed to have guns should be soldiers or police officers because their lives are in risk because of their job. For example, a police should have a gun because his job is supposed to protect and defend civilians. Another example is a soldier. A soldier has the same job than police, to protect civilians, but also, they have to fight in conflict or wars, so unfortunately, they have to defend themselves with guns. Furthermore, policemen and soldiers are properly trained to handle guns and violent situations, but parents, children and teenagers not.

In conclusion, I strongly disagree with the opinion of the author about the right to have guns because children can have access to guns, causing accidents, killing themselves and other people. It also creates the idea of an unsafe, violent society.

Obama's enviromental plan: paying for contaminate?

It is great to hear that finally the U.S. government cares about global warming. It is important to say that the U.S. “is the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, a leading cause in global warming.” (Information taken from the website: http://www.workers.org/2007/world/global-warming-0118/). In other words, this country is one of the biggest responsible for global climate change. The most worrisome issue related to Global Warming is the fast rate of climate change that is not allowing species to adapt at the same pace. The U.S. is also suffering the consequences of climate change such as increasing the frequency and intensity of natural disasters like tornadoes, hurricanes, flooding and droughts among other disasters. Although the death toll and economic loss due to natural disasters is increasing, the U.S. government had not taken actions before. However, president Obama wants to effort to address global warming. Obama’s energy plan consists of reducing oil imports, creating green economy and limiting greenhouse emissions. Despite these goals seem to be necessaries for the economy and environment, it is questionable how Obama plans to accomplish them.

According to an article called Energy, published by the New York Times on February 26, President Obama says that reducing the greenhouse emission will produce 150 billion to support renewable energy project and to pay middle-class tax credit. Well, have you asked yourself how to obtain that money? The answer is selling to industries the right to emit greenhouse gases. In other words, I can understand that if people have money to pay, then they can contaminate the atmosphere. Is that morally right? Should we pollute our planet because we have money to pay for it? I think, there are better ways to make income and reducing the greenhouse gas emissions such as supporting alternative energy, improving public transportation, reducing the consume of fossil fuel energy, increasing taxes to big cars and educating people. However, I do agree that paying taxes to pollute or carbon trade is a good starting because it can lead to techniques such as carbon sequestration, that today many industries are applying in other countries like Norway. In conclusion, the motivation for taxing greenhouse emissions should not be seen as a source of money, instead it should be seen as mitigation for the global warming.

What should be the right position of the US about Israel crisis?

The article "Incursion Into Gaza," posted in the editorial of The New York Times on Jan 5, 2009, raises the attention about the challenges that the new US president will face with respect to the conflict in the Middle East. Israel fiercely attacked the militants of Hamas causing hundreds or even thousands of casualties and uncountable material damage on Gaza Strip; all publicly in front of the permissive attitude of the US. Why should Americans be concerned about this conflict? Well, according to “Text of U.S.-Israel agreement to end Gaza arms smuggling,” the U.S. will cooperate with the security, military and intelligence of Israel to control the terrorist in Gaza. Israel is the best allied of the US in the Middle East.
The United States have supported military Israel since it was established as state in 1948. Millions of Americans tax-dollars have been spent on the rockets that these days have destroyed houses, refuges, schools and innocents in Gaza. Obama's administration should aim for the regional peace and impose conditions to avoid that the aid will not be used to kill defenseless children and families. My position does not support Hamas terrorist attacks and does not neglect the fact that Hamas was the first who broke the cease fire agreement, but it criticizes that the U.S. backs up the disproportionate and violent response of Israel. Furthermore, in order to help solving this conflict they should dig into its roots. Perhaps, one of the causes is the strong religious type government of Israel. The state of Israel should treat equally its habitants regardless of their religious views or race. On this line of thoughts, I feel very fortunate to live in a country that respects all religious and political views. To summarize, I think Obama's administration should carefully watch the use of the US aid to Israel and advocate for the regional peace instead of fueling more this painful conflict.