Week 2 Blog

9/2/2014

States Rights/Federalism - Historical & Contemporary Context
A defining characteristic of the United States is our federalist stance. Our model of government enables states (and sometimes territories) to have a partially autonomous legislative and legal system within the national structure. The relationship between the federal government and the states has been contentious from the start. Issues of constitutionality and morality are generally at the center of these debates.

This nuanced relationship between the federal regulations, laws and practices with the cultural differences in each state has shown to be tenuous and draining on our political system.

Below there are two excerpts from online publications that highlight a historical and contemporary issue that provides additional context to this central question in American political institutions. Choose one and comment below answer the guiding questions.

Marijuana Reform/ A Statement by - Ethan Nadelmann:
    The suggestion that reform of marijuana prohibition laws in the United States must start by focusing on federal and international law is simply an excuse for inaction. Federal law in this area will only change as a result of political pressures associated with changes in state laws. This does not mean that no efforts should be made to change federal and international laws, just that reforming state laws is an essential part of the political process by which federal and international marijuana prohibition laws will ultimately be reformed and repealed. Keep in mind too that this country has a long tradition of states serving as incubators for innovative policy reforms.
     Kevin makes two other mistakes in his commentary. It’s not true – although I wish it were – that "most places punish the use of small amounts of marijuana similarly to a speeding ticket." Few people are handcuffed or taken to a police station or incarcerated in a jail for speeding tickets, but all those indignities routinely are applied to people arrested for possession of small amounts of marijuana. Government employees won’t lose their jobs for a speeding ticket but they may very well for a marijuana possession arrest. Punishment can be even more severe if the person arrested is among the roughly five million Americans on parole or probation, often for very minor offenses. Millions of Americans have suffered much worse than the equivalent of a speeding ticket in recent years for nothing more than being caught with a little marijuana.
     As for the comparison with alcohol, the costs of alcohol abuse are so great in good part because alcohol can be a remarkably dangerous and destructive drug for a minority of consumers – much more so than marijuana. There is no basis to assume that the costs of marijuana misuse would be anything comparable to those of alcohol misuse if marijuana were made legally available.

Ethan Nadelmann is Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance. Excerpt from: http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/09/marijuana-and-states-rights-a-reason-deb.

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
    In Dred Scott v. Sandford (argued 1856 -- decided 1857), the Supreme Court ruled that Americans of African descent, whether free or slave, were not American citizens and could not sue in federal court. The Court also ruled that Congress lacked power to ban slavery in the U.S. territories. Finally, the Court declared that the rights of slave owners were constitutionally protected by the Fifth Amendment because slaves were categorized as property.
    The controversy began in 1833, when Dr. John Emerson, a surgeon with the U.S. Army, purchased Dred Scott, a slave, and eventually moved Scott to a base in the Wisconsin Territory. Slavery was banned in the territory pursuant to the Missouri Compromise. Scott lived there for the next four years, hiring himself out for work during the long stretches when Emerson was away. In 1840, Scott, his new wife, and their young children moved to Louisiana and then to St. Louis with Emerson. Emerson died in 1843, leaving the Scott family to his wife, Eliza Irene Sanford. In 1846, after laboring and saving for years, the Scotts sought to buy their freedom from Sanford, but she refused. Dred Scott then sued Sanford in a state court, arguing that he was legally free because he and his family had lived in a territory where slavery was banned. In 1850, the state court finally declared Scott free. However, Scott's wages had been withheld pending the resolution of his case, and during that time Mrs. Emerson remarried and left her brother, John Sanford, to deal with her affairs. Mr. Sanford, unwilling to pay the back wages owed to Scott, appealed the decision to the Missouri Supreme Court. The court overturned the lower court's decision and ruled in favor of Sanford. Scott then filed another lawsuit in a federal circuit court claiming damages against Sanford's brother, John F.A. Sanford, for Sanford's alleged physical abuse against him. The jury ruled that Scott could not sue in federal court because he had already been deemed a slave under Missouri law. Scott appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed the case in 1856. Due to a clerical error at the time, Sanford's name was misspelled in court records.
(Excerpt from: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_dred.html)

Who benefits from the decisions being made on the issues above? (drug policy, citizenship rights, racism)
What realities about American political culture did you learn when reading about the "case" you chose?
In what ways could this issue be transformed? How would you change the dynamics (push and pull factors) of this political issue?

Requirements for BLOG POSTS

You must write 250 words each post (due Thursday @ Midnight), Responses to two other students 50 words each (due Friday @ midnight)
Students must post during the week the blog is assigned or it will not be graded.

26 Comments

Aaron Onia

9/17/2014 02:12:55 am

Response to: Marijuana Reform/ A Statement by – Ethan Nadelmann

I believe that Nadelmann has an accurate view on how the state and federal dynamic should work to promote changes in legislation, especially to laws that some might consider being outdated or in need of reform. In my opinion, Nadelmann did an awesome job at addressing the fallacies presented in Kevin Sabet’s argument. For one, the legal repercussions of marijuana possession are in fact more severe than getting a speeding ticket and, in addition, can possibly be used as a ploy to keep some citizens oppressed and institutionalized. Second, to equate the misuse of alcohol and marijuana is an association fallacy because the adverse effects of the two substances are completely different and furthermore negates the beneficial properties of medical marijuana.

The people that benefit on the decisions made in the marijuana reform are primarily the legitimate patients that use marijuana to treat or alleviate health issues or illnesses in which studies have proven their effectiveness. Also, it benefits the adult recreational users seeing as though their own personal use should not pose a criminal threat to society. Also, I believe there are economic benefits to the legalization of medical marijuana because the profits made by legal dispensaries can be taxed and create revenue.

In states where medical marijuana was made legal, federal agents still go into those states and raid dispensaries while sometimes using excessive force. No dollar or bud is left behind. This is something I believe needs to be changed. I believe that a good way to combat the feds from coming into our states and enforcing federal law is by demonstrating that our state can effectively create uniform regulations to the medical marijuana industry and properly enforce them. This communicates the fact that ‘we got this’ and eliminates the need for federal intervention.

Courtney Broussard

9/18/2014 01:50:26 pm

I agree with you ideas on what changes need to be made at weed dispensaries. Some local places Oakland and Berkeley have been shut down, striped away of everything and they have so many people counting on their business. Its very smart for our state to create their own regulations on the marijuana. Letting the federal government know we don't need help policing our citizens, which could further help us make state laws on other issues.

Great Post!

Alex Diaz

9/19/2014 04:54:02 pm

Yes, absolutely. If I'm not mistaken I believe the constitution said that states could create there own laws and regulations and if the majority of population or other states saw it as a threat then the federal government could take initiative. This is not the case in the documentation it said that 50% favored marijuana while 46% did not. This shows the power that the federal government now has and I personally believe that the impact of the federal government should not influence its civilians as much as it does. Seeing people get busted and arrested or having houses raided causes fear and shows a negative view of marijuana.

Sharon Clark

9/22/2014 09:21:37 am

to be honest the use of marijuana is off the hook, and i am not a big fan of it. to some extent i think it can be a social drugs but not an everyday drug, because then it leaves room for dependency. once dependency occurs then come more money then comes the spread of the drug.so now you talking beyond legal use, it then turns into a bad habit so don't get hook is my recommendation.

Sorasak Prasertsri

9/18/2014 07:44:32 am

Marijuana Reform

- One of the major percentages of people that would be effected by marijuana reform in a beneficial ways that would be people got lock up, in jail or in the prison. With small amount of marijuana and non violence crime. Also effects the family by peoples that caught up in jail. Another people benefit from this are the people who choose alternative medication. Their don't have to feel scare of discriminated against for holistic healing.
Marijuana reform, also would be good for people who have past recorded of the drugs related criminal changed. For example, a teacher he got denied for the position because of in the past of marijuana changed.

- One of the reality about American political culture was the percentage of the people in the jail for the drug procession and non violent crime. Which make me understand, why this type of system is in to make more money. More prisoner equal more money.

- In one way the issue can be transform would be by legalizing marijuana federally. Since 2010 drug law have been reducing the sentences. Which shows that the drug is not the main issue. But the main issue is the people because we are the human be. Human always want more and more. Also, most the time dealing with money.

Kim Shaw

9/19/2014 02:51:38 pm

I agree if marijuana is illegal then the government makes money. They make money by sending people to prison for have marijuana in their possession and/or selling it. The more people locked up the more money is made. As with any debate there are pros and cons, so legalizing marijuana is definitely no different. Right now it appears that the government is benefiting from marijuana being illegal.

Juan Flores-Rodriguez

9/18/2014 12:54:21 pm

In the debate between Kevin Sabet and Ethan Nadelman, when discussing Marijuana reform in Colorado, both argued the tradeoffs between legalizing marijuana, the cost to society, and how it conflicts with federal law.

Sabet who is Director of the Drug Policy Institute at the University of Florida, feels that by legalizing marijuana, society is affected negatively. He feels this way because he feels that by legalizing cannabis, it would increase crime, traffic accident deaths, addiction and dependence on the drug and increase consumption by a larger percentage of the population.

This argument according to Nadelman, who is the Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance, is false, and over-exaggerated. Instead he advocates legalization because he argues the tradeoff would be greater. For example, by legalizing marijuana, the state would receive additional tax income. In addition, the effects of legalizing the product would help regulate the quality and source of marijuana. This he argues, is the best way to combat illegal black markets that are the current suppliers. Furthermore, people would not be disqualified from benefits or work, if they are caught with small amounts of marijuana. This in turn could also decrease the amount the state must pay to prosecute these people.

Very similarly, both men do not agree on the foundation needed to make legislative change. Sabet feels that if marijuana laws are to change, they must begin at a federal and international level. Although Nadelman agrees that pressure at a federal level to make a change should be applied, ultimately change begins at a state level. Nadelman sites that “this country historically has a long tradition of states serving as incubators for innovative policy reforms." As long as this drug law stays in effect it will again and again be used to prosecute minorities specially African American and Latinos, more consistently than other ethnic groups. To sit back and wait for federal change to see change at a state level, is simply and excuse to do nothing.

The reason that states hold the power to create laws in their territory independent of other states and federal government is because laws often need to change to best serve the people living in that state. In my opinion Federal Government should not violate the laws that the states create. They should not be allowed to raid dispensaries in states that have made them legal. This happens too often, and nothing is done to stop it.

Much like Dred Scott, the States should be able to sue the Federal Government, and bring their case to the Supreme Court. It's a very farfetched idea, I know, but why is the Federal Government not held accountable for violating the laws of the State, and individuals?

Deante Climon

9/18/2014 03:12:17 pm

Man that is absolutly correct. illegalization of marijuana is really to target African american and Latinos. it is known that someone did pump large amounts of drugs into the urban cities after the civil rights movement. ever since then america has had a war on drugs. its true as well the most populated prisons are for small time drug users and dealers. if we take a look at who owns the prisons and how the laws are set up, a drug such as marijuana made illegal can also make as much money as if it was legal. not just from street distribution, but the prosecutions that come with the drug itself. even though its like a speeding ticket, you still have to pay for your ticket, or you will have a warrent out for your arrest. Thats how they get people as well. and If you look at how the prison were set up, when slavery was abolished, lots of african american (freed slave) had no where to go and were hanging out on street corners. and when law enforcment seen these freed slaves hanging out on corners, they would lock them up, put them on the chain gain, and they would produce goods for the society. this is how there will always be slavery.

Courtney Broussard link

9/18/2014 01:01:51 pm

In the marijuana reform statement issue, I really agree with Ethan on his counter statement to Nick. Its almost as people/nation make marijuana out to be this trouble opium. That is toxic for Americans to indulge in. Frankly, I just don't understand why. clearly there isn't enough factual reasoning behind the government, for making marijuana illegal. Rumor has it that the law wasn't passed because the legislators lied and said marijuana was a dangerous plant that is harmful to Americans. Since when?

There are several reasons why marijuana is currently illegal: racism, protection of corporations profits, greed, and ignorant corrupt legislators. The benefit of the government not making marijuana legal; is because they saw marijuana as a money making business. Lets take our people to jail and incarcerate them with possession of marijuana charges. This will produce a high number of individuals in jail which will gives a great income. The benefits for marijuana to be legal to Americans, would allow people to enjoy a free life with out fearing jail consequences. Would also could be a cure for disease related pain, and possible reduce alcoholism.

On that note, we could make marijuana legal and tax the states when purchasing instead of giving the money to the jails. This would be a dynamic change in politics. It is forcing them to be liberal with their thinking instead of so conservative. The people who run our government are very fixated on greed, which is nothing new. I do believe that one day this issue will be approved. Hopefully in the next five years! The outstanding facts of comparing people abusing alcohol to marijuana will be soon an impact on the government. If not, that wil be ignorance at its finest.

Annette Thomas

9/19/2014 11:22:57 am

Alcohol and tabaco companies believe they can run the market on recreational substances and have to money to purchase the power the same way they use their money to buy scientific “results” showing their products in a good light. Because of their greed individuals who would benefit from the medicinal indications of marijuana have to suffer, even in states where it is deemed legal. Which is another thing I don’t understand, how can the federal government enforce laws a state has ratified? The corruption in our political world needs to be dealt with so citizen can be free.

Dulce Fajardo

9/19/2014 02:04:43 pm

I agree with you, there is no convincing argument that the government could put up stating that marijuana is a harmful drug. If anything, its legalization would increase the governments revenue since they would be able to tax it. I also think about all those people incarcerated because of marijuana and how all that money wasted on jails could go towards education for example.

9/19/2014 02:43:05 pm

I agree that the government is very greedy. If it is not for profit to the government chances are it won’t happen. However as soon as the government sees that they can benefit from it then everything changes. I as well believe in the very near future the issue will be approved.

9/18/2014 02:45:54 pm

The federal government has a zero tolorence when it comes to drugs. I believe it has to deal with how it gets into the country and how it is distributed on the streets. As for Marijuana, it does have a street vaule of millions on non taxable dollars that the federal government has no control over and from my understanding the government does not like not having control over anything so this could be a reason why they outlaw marijuana. marijuana itself can cut into the production of medicine. many American patients with disabilities outsource other medicinenal alternatives instead of taking pills. cotton has been one of the major productions america has had since slavery. eventhough cotton has been made for clothes and other uses, people are starting to use hemp which is also a natural resouce. marijuana is another way to opress people as well. their are already strugling addicts on heavier drugs, but somehow they continue to preach that marijuana is just as bad as any other hardcore street drug. Drug cartels just make it worst becuase of the money thats made which comes with violents and because of mass production of drug money, marijuana could still be catagoried as a harmful substance. by legalizing the plant, it could possibly lower crime rates but I gaurentee the Federal government could make alot more money by taxing marijuana sales. This is very similar to the alcohol prohibition from 1920 to 1940.

It suck to say that we still live in a unjustified jugdicial system. everything has always been backwards when it comes to supreme court rulings. that was a form of racism. it was a good thing that Mr. scott was educated on knowing his rights becuase lots of people get messed over by the system.

9/19/2014 08:42:38 am

Deante, you bring up some very interesting points that should be looked into. You’re probably right that the federal government does not like that they can’t control the revenue created from the production and sale of marijuana. If there was a change in policy that made regulating this market profitable to the states, there would be much to gain for the federal government. I’m also pretty certain that this has been pointed out to government officials by other very intelligent officials working in the white house. Yet it’s been shot down based on arguments that are downright false. One could speculate that there is strong opposition because it fulfills a different agenda that the federal government does not want lose control over; the institutionalization of specific groups of people. It’s an unfounded speculation, and could be wrong, but it’s an interesting that even though there’s of evidence proving that legalization of marijuana makes perfect sense to me, to others, and some states, it still makes no sense to others.

sharon clark

9/22/2014 09:17:23 am

In addition to this blog there is always room for growth for example just to name a few; Marijuana arrests are the engine driving the U.S. war on drugs. Nearly half of all drug arrests each year are for marijuana-related offenses, the overwhelming majority of which are for personal possession. These arrests fall disproportionately on blacks and Latinos, even though white people use marijuana at similar rates. Many of those who are arrested are saddled with a criminal conviction that can make it difficult or impossible to vote, obtain educational loans, get a job, secure housing, or even adopt a child. Additionally, the huge number of marijuana arrests each year usurps scarce law enforcement, criminal justice, and treatment resources at enormous cost to U.S. taxpayers.

The Drug Policy Alliance works to reduce the number of marijuana related arrests and associated penalties through crafting and advocating for legislation removing or reducing criminal penalties, initiatives making marijuana arrests the lowest law enforcement priority, and community based policy changes.DPA also works to expose and reduce rampant, system-wide racial disparities in marijuana arrests. DPA has released reports documenting and detailing chilling disparities in New York City and across California and continues to raise awareness about the unique burden U.S. marijuana policy places on black and Latino communities.Marijuana prohibition has also caused incalculable violence and destruction by fostering an illegal marijuana market. Organized crime, drug cartels, and gangs are the greatest financial beneficiaries of marijuana prohibition. In Mexico, illegal marijuana sales have contributed to the loss of tens of thousands of lives.

Judy Sierra

9/18/2014 03:00:12 pm

The purpose of the state rights in American is to give the state rights and to limit the federal government powers. The laws adopted by the federal government when exercising its constitutional powers are generally paramount over any conflicting laws adopted by the state government. In the Dred Scott vs Sandford case, the ultimate decision of his freedom should have relied on his relocation within the states. This shows a power struggle between the federal and state government and their improper usages. Scott should have been allowed to sue because he was no longer a slave in the state where he lived, but that didn't happened. It also had a lot to do with Scott being African American and because he was not a citizen. The court of course was going to rule in favor of Sandford, and the court viewed slaves as property. Why does the federal government have the ability to overpower the state? Will there ever be fairness and equality? Who are they to said who can sue in a court? I learned that the states really don't have many rights when it comes to federal. The federal government takes over the largest cases and cases that they feel are necessary. Despite its original creation the federal government has and will abuse their power over the state. We are allowing others to take away our freedom of speech.

9/18/2014 03:03:55 pm

Response to Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

In this case it could be said that Sandford benefited from racism. At the end of the case Sandford never had to pay for the damages he causes Scott and his family. I’m sure he wasn’t happy to loose Scott as his slave and I’m also sure he didn’t believe Scott was owed anything. I’m sure he looked down on Scott and thought how he dare sue him because he owned him. Scott won his freedom, however him and his family suffered years of abuse and mistreatment. I’m sure his freedom was more important than the money and I understand wanting to be paid for pain and suffering.
The reality is that white people and money often win, it happened then and it happens today. I like that Scott was persistent and kept on fighting for what was his and what he believed to be right. Scott seemed like a hardworking man that fought for what he believe and that is how he survived all he had to endure. I guess that what it took to make it in those days because there was so much unfairness and mistreatment. One state says you are a free slave, another says you are not. Then the courts tell you, you can’t file a claim because you were a slave in a state where slavery wasn’t banned. This will make a weak person throw in the towel and say forget it, it’s not worth it, when it really is. This is how the government wins, people give up easily, turn their heads, say it doesn’t affect me so why bother and the few that stand up aren’t powerful enough and/or don’t have the resources need to make a difference and or a change. It makes me think of the sayings a closed mouth don’t get feed, if you want change you have to make and if you don’t stand for something you will fall for anything. What am I standing for?!

annette thomas

9/19/2014 11:44:09 am

It is unfortunate that even with all our society’s “progress” and even though people are not classified as property the same class of people continue to manipulate the system. Every ethnicity is looked down upon as unworthy of the American Dream. As difficult as change is the “minorities” need to stand together and put our numbers to work for us. We should take inspiration from Dred Scott’s determination.

9/19/2014 02:14:38 pm

People will definitely not get what they deserve if they do not stand up strong for what they believe. It is true that racism is the leading factor for many governmental issues to go wrong. Even today it keeps happening that the minority are looked down on and the minority will keep on thinking they are less because they are made to believe that. I also agree with you saying that Scott was persistent, even if he did not win every claim he filed, and it is wrong that people like him did not get everything they deserved.

9/19/2014 04:48:23 pm

Its a shame how our government tries to silence or does not teach you things like this and if they do they try and phrase it in a way that doesn't sound as racist. And if you analyzing crimes that happen on a daily basis and the difference in people being incarcerated you can still see racism. Even with applications having its own section asking if you of latino or hispanic decent. The whole Tuscan Arizona banning of Mexican culture books. The government won't tell you that latinos helped slaves escape slavery because then it would cause the two communities to come together and actually create new movements.

9/18/2014 03:09:23 pm

Dred Scott v. Sandford:

Congress, the Supreme Court, the upper class white, and slave owners benefit from the decisions being made in this case. Congress has executive authority to define national citizenship, and the African American did not fit in the U.S. as citizens, therefore since the Supreme Court did not hear slaves’ cases they were not going to change anything. The Supreme Court basically stated that they would not waste their time hearing a case that did not qualify as part of the “select parties,” and the slaves did not make it into those select parties, they basically were not important enough for the Supreme Court. The rich white class would still continue to feel superior to any other race, especially “negroes.” Lastly, slave owners benefitted since they could keep treating slaves as property, not pay them their wages (if in a free territory), and would not be afraid AT ALL of being taken to court since they would be confident to win any case against the slaves.

The white were the only ones that had power when it came to politics. It is shocking that this is not as surprising as I thought it would be. It is upsetting to learn that Congress and the Supreme Court at one point looked down on the African Americans, and that they got away with it for a long time. The white did not look at themselves as being immigrants even though they definitely were and they were basing their decisions on skin color. If it were not for cases like this, and for Scott, then many slaves, abolitionists, and “free states” would not have realized what a horrible country this was, and would not have continued to fight for the slaves’ freedom.

Changes to slavery should have happened sooner than they really did. We in modern society would have stood up quickly to defend the slaves or any other group of people that are being looked upon as the powerless. If Congress and the Supreme Court would have been fair since early on in history: by declaring the slaves US citizens and not property it would have created a pathway to transformation; the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence would of also applied to African Americans, and would of automatically ended slavery in every state. The fight against slavery could have ended much earlier if the Government would have been fair, and if the federal courts had taken cases like this more seriously, without offending any group of people, no matter what color, race, or economic class.

9/18/2014 04:49:34 pm

I think you've identified exactly who befitted by the decision made in the Dredd Scott v Sanford court ruling. How we would react if this exact thing was going on in our society today? You've brought up an interesting thought. It's very hard to say because much like you've pointed out their's a precedent for it. I also agree that I'm not at all surprised that this happened in our history. Quite frankly, it's sad because I feel this is due to conditioning. How great would it be to have this feeling not be the case?

9/18/2014 03:27:50 pm

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
The entire case is appalling. Only the white property owners benefited from the decision. The Sanford family was able to hold on to their money and reputation. I am certain encouraging other slave owner to deny humane treatment to the slaves in their care. The verdict set precedent giving the Missouri court power to classify an entire race, which built this country, not only as non-citizens but as non-human. While today corporations are classified as humans with the same rights as citizens. Either way hard-working people of this country lose because the power of money to buy justice has not evolved. However because of the verdict the tensions leading to the Civil War increased and as a result in the mid-1860’s anyone born in the United States is classified as a citizen with rights under the Constitution. Of course this leads to other disputes as populations migrate to the United States. So while battles are being won there is still racism and ability to buy political power to fight against today.
I can only hope had the original verdict been upheld the battle fought on the battle field during the Civil War would have been fought in courthouses leading to less bloodshed. This could also not have been prevented had Emerson Sanford, rather than leave Scott and his family to his wife, freed Scott in his will. It seems to me denial of wages and indifference of life was not the way of Emerson but because of social obligations he saw no ill doing in considering Scott property.

9/19/2014 09:02:30 am

the white property owners did benefit from the case. they brought up the amendment as African american are property and do not have any rights. the whole campaigns back in these times were mostly about African americans not being able to vote. first it was to abolish slavery, then once African american people were free, polititions debated about the rights of African americans, and both parties decided that African american people were not citizens of america.

9/19/2014 04:39:32 pm

Marijuana Reform/ A Statement by - Ethan Nadelmann:
I agree and disagree with both. I agree that in order to have reforms on a larger scale they need to start on a smaller one. Different states agreeing to legalize marijuana stirs up a bunch of new discussions and topics either pro legalization or anti legalization. Although using marijuana can demote concentration in youth, it can also help the ones who have problems with anxiety and ADHD. The younger you start using drugs the more chronic or addictive they become. So the ratios are dependent on the age that the consumption is started. The difference in ratio is 1 out of 10 one will be addicted (older) and out of 6 one will be addicted (younger). So what would the ratio of alcohol abusers be? the older is 1 out of 7, but what is the younger people ratio?

Secondly, drugs are used to represent something way bigger than just health concerns. They are made to make discriminations. People with higher degrees are more likely to be drug tested than people with lower degrees. This creates a class separation and eventually leads to the whole racial profiling idea. So people who use marijuana are crazy because American government is so strongly against it civilians automatically assume that this is true. This causes the assumption of the minorities or people of color to be main targets of these drugs. Small offenses or violations for marijuana generate and create much more money than it being legalized. People became so violent with alcohol that legalizing it would be okay because not only do they get tax money, but people would make dumb decisions once intoxicated, thus the whole prohibition era. Marijuana is much more peaceful than people believe the whole hippie era was nothing more than a bunch of people smoking marijuana and showing love and peace to the world. This would have a positive affect on crime, but a negative one on corporations that make money from prison systems.

This shows that the federal government isn't always right and what they believe or enforce isn't always right or in the general interest of the larger population. And if enough people in one state agree that they can create a reform. Not only the reform, but show a bigger picture and that would be how the federal government can still interfere with state laws despite the fact that the majority vote pro marijuana legalization.

sharon clark link

9/22/2014 09:15:14 am

i chose to writ about the marijuana reform . who benefits from the marijuana reform?(Drug Policy ) . my feelings having drug policies is the safest way to have concerning usages. The changes in federal and internal marijuana laws does need to benefit the proper citizens that have a right to use it illegally. to be honest my opinion is all adult citizens of legal ages and young adults with medical illness/ disorder with gain some great benefits with revised marijuana laws. Prescription medicine have been known to have to many side affects in the body.
i would like to share my concerns about government employees usage of drugs. these employees are no different then non- employee citizens of the law. the only exception is they have been either sworn in or contracted to follow government regulations and rules as a employee hired by the government. even though they represent the government they also must have legal documentation to smoke or purchase cannabis marijuana or any other type of drug/legal medication.if the government rules are not to smoke marijuana or take illicit drugs there should be no favoritism.
motto : should be you break the law you do the time no matter who you are or who your employer is. just be because some states approved the regulations of cannabis usage does not mean they will accept abusing these laws. whether be medical reason or illicit usage. my feelings concerning alcohol they should have banned that a long time ago, but its all about the supply and demand chain.

Week 2 Blog

Leave a Reply.

POSCI 1/COA

Archives

Categories

THE BEAUTY

OF BLACK

CREATION

ABOUT US

JOURNALS

SUBMISSIONS

Week 2 Blog

Leave a Reply.

POSCI 1/COA

Archives

Categories

THE BEAUTYOF BLACKCREATION

ABOUT USJOURNALS​​SUBMISSIONS

THE BEAUTY

OF BLACK

CREATION

ABOUT US

JOURNALS

SUBMISSIONS