Legalize Marijuana?

Should Marijuana be legalized? California was the first state to legalize medicinal marijuana sales with 15 other states following it. Should Texas legalize medicinal marijuana? A colleague's, Evin Whittington, blog says Texas should legalize marijuana not just for medicinal use. I would have to agree. With the degree of debt Texas is facing, the Texas government needs sources of revenue. If marijuana is legalized, Texas can apply a sales tax and make more jobs in the farming and production of marijuana which will reel in more income tax.

The major medicinal use of marijuana is to relieve pain. People say tobacco should be illegal because it is additive and is a gateway drug to other more dangerous drugs. Well, research in the United Kingdom shows that some over-the-counter pain killers have addictive properties. Shouldn't these over-the-counter drugs be prescribed if they are addictive just as medicinal marijuana is prescribed? Also, tobacco and alcohol are also drugs people use to relieve stress. Both of these drugs also have addictive properties similar to marijuana. So why aren't tobacco and alcohol illegal? Tobacco is one of the leading cause of death and lung cancer. Not to mention the amount of deaths second-hand smoke cost. I feel tobacco is practically the same drug as marijuana. I don't understand why tobacco isn't illegal. Tobacco endangers the health of people around smokers. Alcohol also endagers others' lives as drunk drivers hit the roads. There are campaigns everywhere I look to promote safe, responsible usage. What? If there needs to be this many cautionary warnings for alcohol, how is this safe? I feel marijuana has the same amount of possible dangers as tobacco and alcohol.  Lastly, people say marijuana is a gateway drug to more dangerous illegal drugs. This is probably true. However, I believe the reason for this is participants of marijuana, an illegal drug, feels they might as well try another illegal drug because both are illegal. I feel marijuana users won't try illegal drugs if marijuana is legalized.

I don't want to give the impression that I support the use of marijuana for I have seen the effects of this drug. However I don't see how marijuana is more dangerous as tobacco and alcohol. With Texas' major debt, the government needs another form of revenue which can be taxing marijuana. With marijuana being the third most popular recreational drug behind tabacco and alcohol in America, as stated in Whittington's blog, legalizing marijuana could also be a step towards solving the national debt crisis. 

HALT Act

The recently proposed Hinder the Administration's Legislation Temptation (HALT) Act, by U.S representative Lamar Smith, is designed to prevent the administration's discretion on immigration issues. Texas Democrats in the House of Representatives are attacking Rep. Smith's bill for they believe the bill attack's the president's integrity. The HALT Act will prevent the presidential administration from canceling the deportation of an illegal immigrant.

Illegal immigration cannot be allowed. It is a matter of national security. Texas' proximity to Mexico makes Texas a high target for illegal immigration. When people in the United States, citizen or not, break the law, that person must face the consequences. This Texas Tribune article states that the President Obama has deported the most illegal immigrant in recent Presidential history. However, why should some illegal immigrants be allowed to stay while others get deported? Why should one illegal be treated differently from another illegal immigrant? They are both illegal immigrants who have entered our country without proper documentation. Allowing unknown people to enter the U.S is a matter of national security. The reason why there is U.S customs in airports and shipping docks is to make sure the people allowed in our country are let in and keep people that shouldn't be in our country out. The HALT Act is a necessity to the protection of Texas citizens and all other border states where illegal immigration is more common.

Some oppose the HALT Act because there are special circumstances where the president should be able to use discretion to allow some illegal immigrants into our nation. For example, this Huntington Past article state that some families who adopt children from third world countries need discretion as a lifeline for their newly adopted child because some children may be sick and medical attention needed is not available in those countries. And yes, I understand that a majority of illegal immigrants do not mean harm and simply just wish for an opportunity for a better life. However, why do these good willed immigrant have to break the law? Why can't these immigrants apply for a green card? Just because a modern day "robin hood" robs a bank to donate to the poor does not give him immunity to the law. This modern day "robin hood" will still be tried for breaking the law.  Good intentions do not give you the right to break the rules.

The proposed HALT Act is essential to protect our nation. Giving the president power of discretion on immigration issues gives a huge margin of possible corruption power. Who is to say the president may not use his discretionary powers as a political move to win votes? We as Texans and we as a nation cannot take that chance. We must protect our nation and our nation's laws. Why have laws when we just allow others to break them with no repercussions?

Abortion

Abortion has always been a very controversial topic. I have always believed that abortion is a bad practice. I see abortion similar to euthanasia, which is considered murder. Euthanasia is assisted suicide where a patient, usually terminal patients, will ask a doctor to assist them in suicide. Many doctors are opposed to this practice but Dr. Jack Kevorkian did not. Dr. Kevorkian invented his own overdose apparatus where patient wanting to be euthanized will be hooked up, the patient presses a button and dies of overdose. Dr. Kevorkian was sentenced to prison for second-degree murder.

I feel abortion is similar to euthanasia, where doctors assist mothers in killing the life that mother decided to create. Why are children in mother's womb treated differently than children out of the womb? Can a mother take their born child to the hospital and have then euthanized because the mother doesn't want it anymore? I don't think so. So why are children in mother's womb treated differently? I understand that there are unexpected pregnancies but pregnancy is a risk a woman and man are taking when they are having sexual activity with or without contraceptives. If they take the risk, they must take responsibility and face the consequences of their actions. That's life. I recognize that unwanted children is another issue for they end up with uninvolved parents or children end up in foster care. Now I ask, what has our society come to? Why are people making children they don't want? How messed up are our society's morals to allow people to make children and make it acceptable to be irresponsible?

I would disagree with Cristian Jaramillo's blog "Republican legislation = Odd". I feel Texas' sonogram law is necessary when it comes to abortion. The law requires doctors to do ultrasounds, make woman hear their baby’s heartbeats, and all the other required actions. Some say it violates doctors’ and women's 1st Amendment rights but these requirements are already required by hospitals. Whenever a doctor is about to do some kind of surgery or procedure, the doctor must educate the patient about the details and risks of the procedure. It doesn't matter if the patient wants to hear the risk of a procedure, the doctor tells patients the risks anyway and has them sign a waiver that they understand the risk for consent and legal reasons. The blog also links to an article that states the Texas sonogram law contradicts doctor's moral code. But from what I remember and learned, from being an EMT and being a pre-med student, doctors take a Hippocratic oath that includes a Latin statement meaning "DO NO HARM". I would think taking a life created by a human reproductive system is considering doing harm, a contradiction to the doctor's Hippocratic oath. 

Public Education

Public education has always been a hot issue; especially with the recent proposal for education budget cuts in Texas. Due to the future education budget cuts, legislators are now being stricter on having educators be accountable of their efforts of educating children. Using the school accountability rating, educators of schools rated “unacceptable” will have to give an explanation to their community. 

The Texas Education Agency will be publically releasing their annual accountability rating for Texas’ 1,000 school districts. These rating will categorize schools as being exemplary, recognized, acceptable, or unacceptable. This makes educators and the school accountable for their efforts in educating their students. Unacceptable rated schools will be labeled and the community can question the educator’s ability and efforts. These rating are making some school officials nervous. The rating schools receive will be bannered for everyone in the community to see. This nervousness makes one wonder how bad some schools actually are. Why are these educators worried that their schools will be rated unacceptable? Are these educators actually trying to educate students or are they just trying to just doing as minimal as possible to pass regulations? Do the schools that are rated unacceptable really need extra funding? I understand why schools that have good test scores are worried about budget cuts for they will lose teachers, lose textbook buying ability, and many programs. Schools with bad test scores shouldn’t worry so much about the budget cuts but should worry more changing their educational system and programs to benefit students. The school rating system by the Texas Education Agency will be a good tool for the community to monitor their schools. Parents moving to Texas or new parents can now know which school district can provide a good education for their children. Hopefully the school rating system will be enough encouragement for schools to deal with the education budget cuts and focus on providing education to students. This is one step in improving public education in Texas.

Taxpayers are furious when they hear that the budget for education will be cut when many public schools are already suffering in their ability to educate students. Many taxpayers with children in public schools are willing for the government to increase property tax in order to prevent education budget cuts. Education is a nation builder, especially in a democratic government system. Without educated citizens, our government will collapse. There is urgency in our current financial crisis, but legislators must also think of our country’s future. Cutting the education budget will be a dire mistake in the long run. Legislators must remember that education builds the foundation of our government. 

Texas Legislature's Questionable Priorities

Rachel Farris, blogger of Mean Rachel, states her strong opinions against the  Republican supermajority in Texas Legislature in her Mean Rachel blog "Size Matters?". Farris is strongly informing voters to reconsider who they allow to control Texas policymaking. Farris annoyingly states that Texas policymakers recently passed a bill legalizing noodling, which is fishing for catfish with bare hands. Farris blames the Republican supermajority of wasting time at the 82nd Session discussing unimportant bills, like legalizing noodling, instead of discussing the drastic budget crisis. As Texas policymakers talk about fishing, teachers are loosing their jobs.

I would consider myself a Republican, but I absolutely agree with Rachel Farris. The Republican supermajority of Texas Legislature is avoiding the difficult issues of our state budget by talking about unimportant bills...... regard fishing! I can expect degree of the state debt will increase exponentially for my generation based on the inadequate efforts of the current state legislature. This is unacceptable! Avoiding difficult issues, such as State budget, will just postpone a State government disaster, which will have a destructive ripple effect harming our society and way of life. Get it together Texas!

Source: Rachel Farris Blog "Size Matters?": http://www.meanrachel.com/2011/05/size-matters.html

Racists in Texas Legislation?

Illegal immigration has always been a controversial topic in Texas. Recently the Texas legislature have been deciding whether or not to approve Senate Bill 9, which will allow Texas law enforcement to ask for someone's immigration status after they are detained. Advocates of both sides of this issue have come forth to present their opinions during the recent Senate committee hearing. A Texas Senator states that he felt disrespected when a man, Antolin Aguirre, of the Austin Immigrant Rights Coalition made a testimony against SB 9 in Spanish. During a Capital rally, the co-founder of Women on the Wall, Rebecca Forest states her opinions of why Texas legislation cannot effectively enforce immigration laws. This commentary from the Austin American Statesmen editorial board  portray that there is still intolerance towards Hispanics in Texas.

Austin American Statesmen (AAS) is clearly biased in this situation. In its commentary "Curb the intolerance, por favor" shows Texas Senator Chris Harris being offended by Aguirre testifying in Spanish against SB 9. AAS says Sen. Harris' feeling of being disrespected is unreasonable because there is no law stating that one must speak English but there is a law protecting the freedom of speech. This logic makes perfect sense. There was a translator provided to translate Aguirre's Spanish. If Aguirre feels more confortable speaking Spanish, it is his right to be able to speak Spanish. I can also understand why Sen. Harris was confused as to why Aguirre spoke in Spanish when Aguirre knows English; however there was a translator present to immediately translate Aguirre's testimony to English and the Bill of Rights protects Aguirre's freedom of speech.

On the other side of the issue, co-founder of Women of the Wall, Rebecca Forest states her frustration of the lack of enforcement of Texas immigration laws. The reason for this, according to Forest, is that the Texas legislature consists of too many Hispanics. AAS portrays Forest as being intolerant towards Hispanics. Based on Forest's statements, I would have to agree with AAS. When was there ever a limit of how many Hispanics or any other race that can be in Texas legislation? Hispanics have become the primary race in the Texas population. It seems accurate that because Hispanics have become the majority in Texas, there is a majority of Hispanics in Texas legislation. Based on Forest's statements, Forest seems like she wants to change our whole government setup as a republic democracy. Clearly there are many Hispanics in legislation because that is what Texans want. Even though I don't agree with Forest's idea about Texas legislation, I do agree that there needs to be a stricter enforcement of immigration laws. It is unfair that illegal immigrants can come to our country and take all the benefits of this country without paying taxes. People living in a country must abide by the laws of that country. Texans may see this as a minor problem because illegal immigrants are just pursuing the "American Dream" and providing for their family, but why can't they do it legally? The process of gaining a green card or citizenship is a very long grueling process, but not everything in life is easy.

Commentary section: Austin American Statesmen Editorial Board- "Curb the intolerance, por favor"

What actually gets done at Legislative Sessions?

It seems so puzzling how it seems like whatever the government does, the amount of government debt continues to increase. As the Texas legislature meet at the 82nd Legislative session, the current budget is paid for and the future budget is set. That is all that really got accomplished so far. It seems like there is no plan on how we can stop increasing debt or some how even start repaying debt. Supposedly these people in legislation are somehow qualified to set government budgets yet for some reason debt increases. There are no agreements on what the next step to take on the government debt should be. Whatever the next step should be, there should at least be some kind of progress. Remaining in the same position we are in right now will result in just more and more debt. These Legislative sessions are ment to actually get something done. Hopefully the differnent groups in legislation can agree on some kind of plan to combat the financial crisis so we can start improving the already great state of Texas.