Ben Slater's Govt 2306 Blog

Stage Seven

2009-05-15T17:47:00.000-07:00

One thing that's always stuck out to me about Texas was their philosophy of strict punishment. We have the second highest incarceration rate of the country. I think that of all of Texas' miserable statistics, this is the most shameful. Time and time again, study after study, all evidence in regards to the success of harsh punishment as a deterrent shows that it causes more problems than it solves. Often I read articles about prison systems in various countries, particularly in Europe, and I find a depressing number of comments laughing at their compassionate approach. They point to the lifestyles that prisoners hold and they cannot accept what they perceive as a lack of justice. I would agree that it is not ideal for prisoners to be treated like royalty, but being able to discern justice from vengeance is vital for a more enlightened opinion. More important than the leniency of prisoners' punishment are the raw numbers; these prisons have a lower rate of recidivism than ours. This seems contrary to logic, so it is understandable that the first reaction of many people is to laugh. However, I believe people have a responsibility to do the research before forming an opinion, especially when it comes to matters as deadly as incarceration.

Yes, deadly. People don't realize that a prison sentence is often a death sentence. Take nonviolent drug offenders, for instance. Most them are in prison for marijuana alone. Is this offense bad enough to warrant an unacceptably high chance of prison rape? This, by the way, is another matter that utterly disgusts me; even more disgusting, however, is the prevalent attitude that prison rape is laughable. How many times have you heard jokes about "pound me in the ass" prison? But the truth is that people die from AIDS after they are raped in prison. No one deserves this.

Stage Four

2009-05-15T14:37:00.001-07:00

The Lonestar Times' SB-1028: Buckle Up! Or Else! entry is somewhat naive, in my opinion. They opine that Senator Kirk Watson's bill to make it mandatory for an adult in the back seat to wear a seat buckle is just another example of the expansion of government into private lives. I'm all for small government, myself, but this is really a matter of consistency. Because of the existence of health care and insurance, it is only logical that we require all safety measures reasonably enforceable. After all, if we are potentially paying for someone's hospital bill, it is not fair to us, the taxpayers, for that hospital bill to be increased by neglect of something so simple as buckling up.

As a right-leaning blog, their intended audience of fellow right-wingers might argue that this is justification for not having mandatory insurance or health care. I disagree; to me, matters of public health supersede individual rights in cases such as this.

The Lonestar Times also implies that this is not the best time to be using resources on such trivial matters, and I must agree with that. However, their sarcastic tone ("this incredibly important, life saving, URGENT bill") I find a little misplaced, as the whole point of making adults buckle up is exactly that--to save lives (although the cynic in me finds their next statement, an implication that the true purpose of the bill is to create an additional source of revenue for the senators, entirely plausible).

2009-04-14T21:54:00.000-07:00

As a result of the realization that it is immoral, slavery was abolished. With the realization that prohibition is impossible came the Twenty-first Amendment. It is truly an American process that laws be changed as society’s viewpoint changes; thus, it is not surprising that many Americans’ changing of positions on the legalization of cannabis will impact legislation thereof—as is the case already in many other countries, and even in many other states (Texas, unfortunately, is not one of them). Twelve states allow for medical use, and additional states have decriminalized non-medical usage as well.

The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 classified marijuana into Schedule I, implying that it supposedly has the highest potential for abuse and lowest potential for medical use. Other drugs in this category are heroin—which indeed has a large potential for abuse—and LSD (Kleber). The very notion of this classification is more than absurd in every possible way: it has been proven that marijuana has no potential for physiological addiction (Nadelmann). It has also been shown to have no harmful potential—in fact, Francis L. Young, an administrative law judge with the Drug Enforcement Agency, claims that cannabis "is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known" (Hoffman). Finally, the claim that cannabis has the “lowest potential medical use” is outrageous—in fact, the contrary is true: recent research indicates that Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, gastrointestinal disorders, hepatitis C, hypertension, incontinence, multiple sclerosis, osteoporosis, pruritis, rheumatoid arthritis, Tourette's syndrome, and many other disorders are alleviated by therapeutic cannabis use (Armentano). It is clear that there is absolutely no reason for cannabis to be in the same schedule as heroin, so why does it remain so?

Two more misconceptions about cannabis use that go hand-in-hand are that it is an addictive substance and that it is a “gateway” drug. Thirty-five percent of American adults have admitted to trying cannabis, but only five percent of those adults have used it in the past year (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). Research also indicates that "there is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs" (National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine). The notions that cannabis is addictive and a gateway drug are thus rendered entirely void, by federally funded research. Texas, unfortunately, has not made many efforts to expose this cognitive dissonance through statewide decriminalization, as more progressive states have.

A prevalent argument against the decriminalization of marijuana is that even if cannabis is not harmful in and of itself, it might be “laced” with other, potentially more dangerous substances, especially narcotics. Again, this is based entirely on faulty assumptions. Primarily, if marijuana were decriminalized, the distribution thereof would be closely regulated by the government, so any possibility of laced cannabis would be eliminated. Users could conceivably grow their own cannabis plants for their personal use without worrying about, potentially, life in prison (Nadelmann). This would also guarantee a complete lack of narcotic additives. A beneficial side-effect to government regulation of cannabis would be the incredible economic growth potential of the country as a whole via taxation, similar to the taxation of tobacco products. Allen St. Pierre, executive director of The NORML Foundation, puts it best: "marijuana cultivation is here to stay. The question is: Do we continue with current, unsuccessful efforts to sanction growers and users, or do we try to harness this unregulated, multi-billion dollar-a-year industry?" Currently, cannabis is the fourth largest cash crop in America (below only corn, soybeans, and hay), even taking its illegality into account. In addition to the massive potential of cannabis taxation, the United States would save approximately $10 billion per year by not having to enforce prohibition thereof (St. Pierre). California and New York both have bills proposed to fully legalize cannabis for adults, citing the economic gain as the chief motivation. Texas may be holding up in this recession better than many other states, but many experts believe the worst is still to come. Assuming this is true, we may very well reach the point where we cannot afford to legislate morality, and just as the Great Depression was largely alleviated with the re-legalization of alcohol, the re-legalization of cannabis may be crucial to getting back on our feet.

References

Armentano, Paul. "Emerging Clinical Applications." NORML 18 Dec 2006 20 Mar 2007 .

Kleber, Herbert, and Joseph Califano Jr.. "Legalization: Panacea or Pandora's Box?." World & I Jan 2006: n.p.

Hoffman, D.; Brunnemann, K.D.; Gori, G.B.; and Wynder, E.E.L. On the carcinogenicity of marijuana smoke. In: V.C. Runeckles, ed., Recent Advances in Phytochemistry. New York: Plenum, 1975

Nadelmann, Ethan. "An End to Marijuana Prohibition." National Review 12 July 2004: 28+.

National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine (IOM). 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 6.

St. Pierre, Allen. "Marijuana Ranks Fourth Largest Cash Crop In America Despite Prohibition." The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. 14 Oct 1998. NORML Foundation. 3 Apr 2007 .

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2000. National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Table G.9. Percentages Reporting Lifetime, Past Year, and Past Month Use of Illicit Drugs Among Persons Aged 26 or Older: 1999. DHHS Printing Office: Rockville, MD.

Stage Three: Commentary

2009-03-24T20:22:00.000-07:00

The Editorial Board’s entry “Government, marriage are unhappy couple” in the Austin American Statesman highlights the growing problem of disrespect for the separation of church and state advocated by America’s founders. Religion is never explicitly mentioned, but this notion of legislated morality seems to be inevitably acquainted therewith. From reproductive rights to gay marriage rights to stem cell research, the religious Right can’t turn down the opportunity to attempt to impose its morals on the rest of America. Worse than this, however, is the inherent hypocrisy in calling oneself “conservative” while defending the use of big government to crack down on utterly trivial matters, especially in such economically tumultuous times.

The Board takes a logically sound stance on Rep. Warren Chisum’s asinine proposal to force unhappy newlyweds to remain married for two years. They fortunately keep a professional tone, praising his intentions and values, but even more importantly they don’t hesitate to call him out on his naïveté. They cite Rep. Jessica Farrar’s apt quote that it’s not “the government’s job to force people to stay unhappily married,” illustrating the contradiction between so-called “conservatives” such as Chisum and true conservatives that are against any unnecessary government intrusion.

The intended audience of (largely) Austinites is one that is much more progressive than other parts of Texas, and they clearly recognize the appeal of such a commentary to this crowd; tension is growing in the GOP that may ultimately result in nothing less than a schism, leading to a party of neo-conservatives/religious zealots separate from the traditional conservatives who may merge with the libertarians. Conservatives are becoming sick of being grouped in the same party as those who are so blatantly in favor of government intrusion--as they should be. In fact, that's exactly why I now consider myself a libertarian; I was disgusted with the perversion of the word "conservative" into its exact opposite, an ideology of expanded governmental power and injection of Christian values. I sincerely hope that such a split will take place in the Republican party so that true conservatives will finally vote for the libertarian candidates they've wanted to support but were too afraid that they would be too obscure.

Article Introduction and Colleages' Blogs

2009-03-06T17:11:00.000-08:00

News8Austin's article on Michael Phelps' suspension from swimming in Austin highlights the "Reefer Madness" hysteria that lives even in the twenty-first century. It also demonstrates a profound level of cognitive dissonance: even though absolutely no "anti-doping rule was violated," the federation still deemed it fitting to reprimand him for not acting as a "role model." Well, what about the DUI conviction he already had? Does anyone seriously consider driving under the influence of alcohol--which has been proven study after government-funded study to be more harmful, more addicting, more intoxicating, and even more of a gateway drug than cannabis--to be perfectly acceptable behavior, while responsibly consuming cannabis and harming no one at all is worthy of reprimand? It's time to face the facts: spewing propaganda may have flown in the pre-Internet days, but now the tools are available to counter such lies with actual science instead of fear-mongering.