Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Give me freedom!

A flashback to me freshman year: I get a $5,000 scholarship! That is awesome! What do you mean that only covers room and board? Present day me: what do you mean my scholarship doesn’t cover my room and board?
Next year room and board at Piedmont College will cost $6000. At this point in time I can see no advantage to remaining a resident student just to keep a scholarship that is officially costing me money. I was completely okay with living on campus and following rules that I do not agree with because I was living for free. Now that the Presidential Scholarship that I receive from Piedmont will no longer cover room and board I just do not see the advantage of me living on campus.
By moving off campus I will free myself from overtly Christian rules that are enforced on the Piedmont campus. For example: I will be able to whoever I want in my room at anytime of the night and day, I, as a person of legal age, will be able to keep alcohol in my refrigerator and I will be able to whatever kitchen appliances in my room that I choose and be concerned with the fear that my stuff will be taken.
I think that Piedmont would benefit from allowing upperclassmen to move off campus and still keep their scholarships. Piedmont is quickly running out of dorm space and by allowing seniors to move off campus the dorm space issue would be cleared up. I know of at least a half dozen seniors who are being forced to live in freshman dorms next year under the new dorm guidelines. This would be a good way to give the seniors here at Piedmont an advantage over students who have not been at Piedmont as long as them, because as of right now seniority at Piedmont means that you are closer to graduation than your fellow students.

Better than some, worse than most.

I moved off campus a couple of years ago because Piedmont saw fit to saddle me with a scholarship that did not even cover the cost of my room/board and "required" meal plan. Not only that, Piedmont also saw fit to have "health and safety" inspections whenever; including when I am not in my own room. Once again, Piedmont is raising tuition and costs across the board while there is hardly any consideration to help off-set these rising prices with increased money in scholarships.

Piedmont, as far as rules while living on campus, isn't entirely bad. You can actually have visitation hours with members of the opposite sex (just take a ride down Highway 17 towards Toccoa Falls College, and you'll find you can't do that PERIOD.) There are still opportunities for students to live in a room by themselves and, when I lived on campus, I was able to live where the RD's and RA's were not Nazi-like in their approach to handling the life inside the dorms. However, where we are better than some, we tend to show up worse than most.

Our cafeteria food (not the workers, I do actually like the workers) is, quite frankly, a joke. The price students pay for the required meal plan is atrocious for the quality of food bought and served. If the school sees fit to charge so much for a meal plan (last time I lived on campus, it was $1000 per SEMESTER) then why do they not consider serving much better food? I've never seen a steak offered for dinner...yet they charge steak prices for Hamburger Helper taste.

On top of the cost of books, a meal plan, room and board and rising tuition, there appears to be no new help for students of the future at Piedmont College. While the cost of everything seems to rise annually, the amount of help money offered remains the same. It is time the school offered more scholarship money to students as the cost of living on campus increases. It would be the fair thing to do.

Stuck Here

Piedmont College has many regulations regarding student housing on campus. These rules bind and hinder students in many of the decisions that should be made by the student. Students that receive any form of scholarship money from the school are required to live on campus and participate in a meal plan. Because of this many students are forced to live on campus because of not being able to pay the rising tuition costs.
Athletes and people who are under the age of 21 are also required to live on campus. This rule is robbing students of an option to get life experience by living on their own. The meal plan is also mandatory and the only option for students to eat on campus. This rule is taking options as well because if a student wants to eat they have one option on campus. Another policy of Piedmont College is dorm room visitation. At Piedmont, all opposite gender guests are to visit between 12 pm and 12 am. While some students find this outrageous and strict, I must remind them of two of the surrounding college’s visitation policies. At North Georgia Tech, ALL visitors must be out by 10 pm and at Taccoa Fall College no person of the opposite sex is allowed in the dorms. So in comparison to surrounding schools Piedmont is almost lenient. In conclusion, while the scholarship students are stuck at Piedmont College, they should take advantage of what visitation rights they have.

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

College Adults

Imagine that you are an 18 year-old person lying in your bed. Next to you is your significant other. The time is about 2 a.m. and there is a knock on the door. The person at the door pushes their way threw and proceeds to throw your significant other out and give you a slip telling you that you must report to a hearing for punishment. Does this sound slightly odd to you? It does to me, but unfortunately visitation hours, and many other restrictions, are placed on Piedmont College students living on campus.

Piedmont College requires that its students receiving major scholarships live on campus. It also requires that all athletes, those under 21 and not living in a surrounding county with parents or guardians, and certain others live on campus.

I know that Piedmont has concerns invested in its students; however I feel that if the college is going to require students to live here they should provide a situation where adults can act like adults. This, to me, means not having visitation hours, not requiring students to have a meal plan, allowing students the ability to cook in their rooms, and not making students subjects to random room searches.

The meal plan is the thing that really does not make sense to me. I believe students should be allowed to cook in their rooms and not have to have the meals plans. Now there is the side of the argument that this is a fire hazard and Piedmont needs to protect its buildings; however I feel that if they are going to require students to live on campus this is a trade-off they should be willing to make. I know many people, including myself, that would probably not eat in the cafeteria if they did not have to pay for anyways.

The argument has been made, as to the reasoning behind keeping students on campus, that a school as small as Piedmont needs to have its students on campus to create a “tight knit” environment. This “small town atmosphere” is claimed to be a necessity for such a small school. My argument to this is my experience with the Piedmont College Theatre department. Many of its students are commuting students, but you will be hard pressed to find a closer knitted group of students on campus.

One friend of mine that lived on campus at West Virginia University comes to mind as I think about this topic. As I discussed Piedmont’s dorm policies with him, he was shocked by how strict the rules and regulations were. And, in fact, when I went the WVU for a visit I was very impressed with the freedom allotted to their students.

Overall my opinion is that if a person is going to be required to live on campus, then that person, presumable being more then 18 years of age, should be allotted the rights and freedoms of any adult living on their own. I believe that if a person is responsible enough to leave home and start college, they should be responsible enough to be trusted with their own lives. One of the ideas behind a college education is to prepare a person for life outside an educational environment. How is a student supposed to learn to live in the real world, when their college regulates so much of their life? Piedmont College should not be baby-sitting and/or enforcing regulations on its students.

on-campus?

At Piedmont College, it does not matter if you are 18, 21, or any other age, you may have to live on campus, and therefore under strict rule. Unfortunately, the only sure way to not have to live on campus is to not take any scholarships from the school. That's right, for most of the big dollar scholarships that are given out by the school and by alumni, one requirement is that the recipient must live on campus. This year, room and board is $2500 a semester. There is a sort of unwritten code between students, if your scholarship is not above room and board, you might as well live off campus.
In addition to requiring residence for scholarships, Piedmont requires it for all athletes. This way the school and the coaches can keep control of the athletes to see that they do not get into any trouble. Athletes are said to represent Piedmont on the fields, and therefore Piedmont does not want to look badly as a reflection of these players.
Compared to Atlanta area public schools, Piedmont is not too harsh. Some schools require students to live on campus just because they are freshmen. Compared to other private schools in the South East, Piedmont is a little strict. Many of the other private schools in the area do not require students to live on campus, even if they are receiving large amounts of scholarship.
Although this issue has been around for a while, it is only recently began to become an irritation to some students because of changes that are going into effect next semester. Starting next year, sophomores and some juniors will have roommates, where traditionally, this has never happened. The cost of room and board are expected to increase with the increase of tuition. Resident students cannot learn to live in the real world since they are required to abide by so many rules.

Piedmont College Campus Life

Students under the age of 21 that do not live in the counties surrounding Piedmont are required to live on campus. They are also required to pay for Piedmont's meal plan and also must adhere to Piedmont's no tobacco and no alcohol policies. Is this right? That is the question many students are always asking themselves and other students. In my opinion no it isn't, but if things were different it wouldn't change my life. I would still live here on campus and live by the rules of the college, probably still complaining about the rules.
I personally believe that students should have the choice of where they live, but around Piedmont there aren't that many off campus places to live. So if students don't sign up to live on campus there is no guarantee that they would have a place to live. Maybe Piedmont is doing us a favor. No one seems to be looking at this situation that way. Even if Piedmont is doing us a favor, why must we pay for the meal plan? This semester the dining hall has made some changes and has been better, but should every student who lives on campus have to pay for it? I don't think so, students should have their own choice of what food they pay for. As far as the tobacco and alcohol policies I think the school has the right to make their own policies for students involving tobacco and alcohol. I don't think many people at this school have much of a right to complain about school policies because they chose to come to this school knowing the policies before hand.

Rules and Regulations...what did you expect?

My expectation for campus life is living like an adult. To me, this means making my own decisions, being responsible for myself, meeting new people, having fun, and having the convenience of recourses available just a short walk away. This is the reason I have never lived on the Piedmont College campus.
Students who are required to live on campus at Piedmont College are students under the age of 21 who do not live with spouses, parents, grandparents, legal guardians, within the surrounding counties, and all athletes. These rules are similar to the rules at North Georgia College and State University in Dahlonega. At NGCSU it is students under the age of 23. Maybe Piedmont is not that bad.
Because I have lived on my own even before I began my college career in 2004 at the age of 19, I felt I could not comply with the rules and regulation of Piedmont College. Therefore, I chose to live off campus. Students who choose Piedmont for athletics, academics, or any other reason made their decision knowing about the rules. Piedmont is a small private college, rules and regulations are to be expected.

Time is Money…Making the Most of Both

With the understanding that the rich are getting richer, and the poor are barely getting by, there is another class of people, the “middle-class”, that is shrinking proportionally in America.

According to CBS correspondent Rita Braver, “The idea of a thriving middle-class has always been at the heart of the American dream. The concept really took off in the wake of World War II, when the GI Bill started helping everyday Americans pay for college or vocational education and take out loans to buy homes.”

But today those same ideals and principals that were once put into practice, which allowed the American economy to thrive, are being threatened like never before. Middle-class Americans are facing the challenges of making ends meet without being sucked under by over-burdening debt. The rising tuition rates of colleges and universities are just another part of the overwhelming struggle many in middle-class America are facing.

Jacob Hacker, a professor of political science at Yale University, told CBS Sunday Morning correspondent Rita Braver, “It seems as if health care, retirement security, being able to pay for kids’ college, being able to hold on to and afford a home are real sources of anxiety for middle-class Americans today.”

And he says it’s not because the middle-class American isn’t working harder. “I think the symbol is people who are not rich, who have to work hard, usually both parents are working, he said. “They probably have children, that’s sort of the image that we have. It’s a hard- working middle-class family with kids, making $60,000 to $80,000 a year and feeling really strained economically.”

So the idea that it is the poor college student who is struggling to get by is only a part of the problem. The one’s who administrate, teach, coach, cook and maintain the institutions of higher learning are also finding it difficult to live and work in a society where education is the door of opportunity, but money is the key to obtaining it.

Being a non-traditional student who has worked since the age of 15, I’ve seen the growing trend to have more over shadowing the values of what the middle-class population wants for their children. For many middle-class homes, the opportunity to go to college without accumulating any debt is impossible. Even those parents who begin college funds before or shortly after the birth of their first child, still find it difficult to afford college tuition over the four or six year period.

A CBS News poll conducted for Sunday Morning this past week finds that almost 60 percent of Americans think that life for the middle-class has gotten worse in the past ten years. Almost half of those who identified themselves as middle-class are concerned about having enough money to pay for major expenses like health care, tuition, buying a home and retirement. According to the poll, only 19 percent of middle-class Americans feel they are getting ahead in life.

The report goes on to say that a college degree is now seen as an important ticket for entering the middle class and average tuitions are increasing about 8 percent a year.

So what is a struggling college student to do when there doesn’t seem to be any indication that tuition rates will stop rising? I can think of three possible alternatives, 1) Investigate your options. Find schools that offer the course credits needed for your field of study that are the least expensive. 2) Maintain good grades and check into scholarship opportunities within your field of study. 3) If the realities of your financial situation won’t allow you to do one or two—take time off from school and work a job that will help pay for your college and go to night and weekend classes. There are many colleges and universities that now offer degrees for anyone wanting to complete their education at their own pace.

Bottom line...using time wisely to find a solution to any problem is a proactive way to keep from becoming a statistic on the negative side of the scales. Do I feel that higher tuitions are fair? Yes, because I feel that those who contribute to my education deserve to be given the same quality of life I want for myself. A person is worthy of his/her hire. That individual has dedicated his/herself to the betterment of my education and future endeavors. They also have to eat and take care of their families. A true life lesson …Nothing in life is free; somebody has to pay the bills.

Monday, April 16, 2007

Look at it this way

Piedmont College requires students to live in the dorms if they are less than 21 years old and do not live in Habersham or surrounding counties. Moreover, if you live on campus, you are required to pay for dining expenses. Many students complain about the lack of freedom regulated by Piedmont College. However, does the college have a right to some of the rules that they enforce?

I asked a high school senior what she expected general regulations would be at an ordinary 4-year college. She said that she would expect students to be able to live where it is most convenient and not be restricted to dorms on campus. “If a student lives less than 15 minutes from the college, they should be allowed to commute,” she said. However, she also would not be surprised if colleges required freshman students to live and eat on campus in order to become familiar with the campus, students, and college activities.

As a small private college, Piedmont needs to have a united student body in order to have a successfully functioning institution. Requiring students to live on campus is not asking too much. In fact they give leeway, stating in the handbook that students over 21 and who live in specific surrounding counties are not required to live on campus. Also, students attending the Athen’s campus do not have to live in the dorms. Piedmont College restrictions are not going to change anytime soon; students should learn to look on the bright side.

Give us democracy!

The housing requirements for Piedmont College are absolutely rediculous and show that this college is not a democracy encouraging young adults to grow. The college takes great measures to see that every student gets the "college experience," but at a small school like Piedmont College, there is no such as thing as college life. Large schools that are located in what is considered to be college towns, such as the University of Georgia in Athens have a booming atmosphere with a wide variety of activities. However, many students have called the campus of Piedmont College a ghost town, claiming that at times it is very hard to find stuff to do. Students who live in Habersham, Banks, Hall, Rabun, Stephens, Towns, or White County are allowed to attend Piedmont as commuters; but if you live father then that premises, and are under 21 and single, you are required to live in the dorm. Last fall, I had a knee injury and required surgery, I had major complications with the surgery and it was a month before I could walk again. I asked the college if I could live at home in Gwinnett County and commute for remainder of the semester. But Piedmont College put their foot down and said I would not be able to get any kind of refund for my room and was required to keep it. This was an outrage being that I was very dependent on my mother to help me with every day things.
Another thing Piedmont College enforces with an iron fist is the meal plan for resident students. All students living on campus are required to have a meal plan which pays for 3 meals a day, 7 days a week. I myself am a very picky eater and do not like most of the food served in the cafeteria. I would prefer to buy my own food from the grocery store and keep it in my refrigerator rather then buying the meal plan. I also am constantly on the go, and many days my meals are just grab-and-go type things from my refrigerator. The meal plan at Piedmont College is very expensive, and the food is very cheap. Each meal covered on the meal plan is the equivelancy of a meal at Red Lobster. At the University of Georgia, students living on campus are allowed to choose from a variety of meal plans. Students can choose a plan which allows them to eat one meal a day, three meals a day, or no meal in the cafeteria. Piedmont College claims that they require students to have a full meal plan because they are worried students will not eat and may become mal-nurished. They say eating disorders become a huge problem for many college students; well, college is a time for a young adult to learn how to take care of his or herself, if a young adult doesn't realize that he or she needs to eat, he or she should not be at college. Piedmont College needs to offer more living arrangement options for students interested in attending the school, and it would draw the interest of many more students.

Friday, April 13, 2007

On-Campus Living

Blog Post #7 Due Wednesday, April 18

Look up Piedmont's rules about who must live on-campus and who may live off-campus. Discover the reasons behind these rules. Compare the rules to those of other institutions. In your blog, consider discussing some or all of the following: additional rules and restrictions placed on dorm residents, requirements regarding food service, changes in how students are assigned to dorms and to rooms, and rules for athletes regarding campus living. Before writing your blog, examine your expectations for reasonable rules regarding campus living. Be careful not to sound whiny, or you won't be taken seriously.

Wednesday, April 4, 2007

we're dependent enough

A little bit of pot never hurt anyone right? Wrong. With every joint smoked an individual harms his lung to the equivalence of smoking seven cigarettes, and loses up to 300 brain cells depending of the poutiness of the marijuana. Doesn’t sound like something the government would approve of does it? Well once again you would be wrong, in Nevada legislation is considering letting up to an ounce of pot legally be bought, sold, and smoked.
Not only is pot unhealthy, but it is also a gateway drug. You very seldom turn on the television and see where someone has died form marijuana overdoes, you hear of cocaine, heroin, meth overdoses and acid related suicides. Now how does this relate to pot? See the thing is that when one starts marijuana- alls good, he gets high, laughs a lot, gets the munches, and then comes off his high all happy, but after a while pot just doesn’t do it any more. His high isn’t as long or as intense so he starts to explore new more powerful drugs to get that same high.
One of the big arguments for the legalization of pot is the fact that it doesn’t hurt anyone but yourself so why is it such a big deal. Well, as I said you don’t turn on the television and here of marijuana related accidents . . . yet. If pot is legalized and more people are smoking, more people are losing brain cells doesn’t it seem logical to assume it will become more abused thus more harmful to the society as a whole? Suppose that pot is legalized, kids smoke pot like the smoke cigarettes then an entire generation will be killing their brains. Test scores will drop, more kids will drop out of school because as a side effect pot doesn’t make you very motivated, fewer going to college all because another substance abuse issue in our country. Car wreck involving pot are very rare now but if a greater percentage of Americans become carefree stoners then it’s safe to say they might be a little more careless at the wheel, especially since the fear of getting busted would be eliminated.
Now I don’t know about you but I think America has enough dependences already. The legalization of marijuana is just one more reason for a father to forget about his kids, One more substance to blame for someone to not be able to hold a job, one more accuses for the drive that accidentally killed a family of four, one more thing for Americans to abuse.

Legalize it

“Legalize it – don’t criticize it
Legalize it and I will advertise it”
-From the song Legalize it by Peter Tosh

Once again we return to the controversial topic of the legalization of marijuana. Marijuana is demonized in the media eye as addictive, but alcohol and cigarettes are just as, if not more, addictive than marijuana with none of the health benefits.

“It’s good for the flu,
It’s good for asthma,
Good for tuberculosis,
Even umara composis”
-From the song Legalize it by Peter Tosh

Marijuana has been used to treat all of these things in the past and currently serves the medicinal purpose of treating AIDS and cancer patient. Despite the benefits that could be pasted along to the average consumer marijuana remains illegal in this country and alcohol and cigarettes are not. It is hard to believe that something, smoking a cigarette, which kills more than 400,000 Americans annually, is considered to be less dangerous than marijuana. While the only benefit that can be said for alcohol consumption is that a glass of red wine a day is good for your heart.

“Legalize it – don’t criticize it
Legalize it and I will advertise it”
-From the song Legalize it by Peter Tosh

When used in moderation, marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol or cigarettes. By legalizing marijuana we as a nation will also reap the other benefits from the hemp plant. The most surprising of which is hemp oil, which is very effective as fuel and could be used as an alternative energy source.

All I am saying is, legalize it – don’t criticize it.

Tuesday, April 3, 2007

Here's what they didn't tell you...

How many more lame commercials depiciting teenagers who are "high" do I have to see? The ones that end up with the "high" kids running over some innocent girl riding her bike in front of a fast food drive-thru or with the "high" kids picking up dad's gun and shooting one another or themselves...Where are the commercials concerning a real problematic drug, crystal meth? I suppose that meth heads go out and plant gardens, help the elderly and promote gun safety when they're all geeked up.

For too long, this country has alienated people for making a lifestyle choice by smoking marijuana. Only because our government says it's illegal does it present a problem, and let me tell you about our government's past with the hemp plant. In the early days of America, the hemp plant was probably one of the 5 biggest cash crops. Not only did it present hundreds of uses (rope, paper, hemp oil - which is a VERY efficient fuel), but it also served as an important crop planted along with others such as soybean and corn. The hemp plant made the soil it was planted in richer in minerals and aided the growth plus productivity of the crops planted along with it. Our greatest surplus of main crops came when the hemp plant was used in this manner. Suddenly, the government took a 180 degree turn on the hemp plant because of the "high" produced by the leaves and buds of the plant. It was deemed illegal and now we arrive at this conversation today with a whole lot of problems over a very small thing.

Marijuana, when used in moderation, is a very effective drug. It can help cancer patients who are going through chemotherapy fight the side effects of treatments. It can help with headaches, it can calm you down if you're feeling really angry and it can help you laugh when you might be feeling down. Personally, I view marijuana as no drug at all. It was a plant that was here on Earth. It wasn't made in some laboratory. It grows naturally and, believe it or not, natural things tend to do a lot a less harm to the human body. Sure, smoking cannot be much good at all, but I would much rather smoke a fattie of Mary Jane than some nasty, chemical-ridden, factory made cigarette. I would rather toke up on a few buds than drink a few Buds. Marijuana was not a problem until the United States government made it a problem. It appears to me that the day this country backed away from the hemp plant, we not only lost the great revenues and positives of the plant as a whole, but we created a whole different monster of minor problems to combat when we should be focused a whole lot more on the major ones.

It is one of my hopes that during my lifetime, marijuana is legalized in some form so that citizens may be able to smoke in the privacy of their own homes and possess a certain amount for personal recreation. But who am I kidding? I live under a government that brings up issues, makes them a hot topic for 3 days on the news circuits and drops them like a wet bag of bricks. Maybe Congress should take a recess, smoke out the Capitol Building, and start to tackle some real issues after they get their mind right. It's 4:20 somewhere!

Up in Smoke

Marijuana is a highly addictive drug; this, or some version of it, is what we are all told as we grow up. But for that matter is alcohol not a highly addictive drug. And what of cigarettes?

Webster’s dictionary defines the word “drug” as “something and often an illegal substance that causes addiction, habituation, or a marked change in consciousness.” Except for “illegal” alcohol and cigarettes both fit this definition. So what is it that makes marijuana so different?

Many argue that marijuana is detrimental to a person’s health. However the fact is, according to many university studies including one at UCLA from which I get my information, smoking marijuana actually causes a lower risk of such things as lung cancer than regular smoking. This is due to the fact that most marijuana uses smoke at most 3-5 cigarettes (or joints) a day, where as a tobacco smoker may smoke as many as 16-40.

Of course the argument we all know against marijuana is that it causes brain damage to the user. However, at closer inspection on finds that in the experiments cited to prove this theory, the rodents that were used as test subjects were subjected to up to 200 times the psychoactive does in humans. A later test performed on rhesus monkeys showed no noticeable changed, when exposed to the smoke equivalent of four to five joints per day, after a year.

So if there is not a physical health reason against marijuana better than those standing against tobacco and alcohol, then what is left? There is the argument, of course, that marijuana impairs judgment. But, following that reasoning, alcohol should be illegal as well.

As far as I can tell, according to the studies I have seen, marijuana is no more dangerous then the package of tobacco cigarettes I can go to the nearest gas station and buy. While there should be laws limiting and controlling marijuana, just as there are laws limiting and controlling both tobacco and alcohol, there is not substantial reason why marijuana should be illegal.

What is the problem?

The number of alcohol and tobacco related deaths are overwhelming. According to the Surgeon General there are 400,000 deaths annually in the United States that are contributed to smoking tobacco. In 2003, there were 28,085 deaths related to alcohol. These numbers speak for themselves. The ironic and confusing part of this research is that I was unable to find statistics as to how many people die from smoking marijuana. This is, perhaps, because people do not die from smoking marijuana. However, marijuana is illegal while tobacco and alcohol is not.
Marijuana is a drug which is known for relaxing people. It may hurt a person by making them lazy, unmotivated, and perhaps even increasing their apatite. A person’s life may pass them by while they sit around smoking marijuana every day. However, violence, and danger to yourself or to others is not something that is of a particular concern of in regards to smoking marihuana. Why then is it illegal? Essentially, being a “pot head” is a lifestyle choice. I do not feel it is the place of the government to make lifestyle choices for the citizens of the United States when it is not harmful to themselves others.
With all the medicinal purposes to which marijuana contributes, the United States should legalize it. It seems marijuana has more benefits than risks. This natural herb is not harmful to people. Lets legalized marijuana and focus on the real dangers which circulate on our streets and threaten people’s lives everyday.

Government and Marijuana--The Boundaries of Legalization


In 1996 voters in California approved SB420, known as the Compassionate Use Act. The bill makes medical use of marijuana legal for patients with a doctor’s recommendation. It also establishes guidelines for distribution along with an identification card program.

But according to a recent article written by the Daily News, Pleasanton, California’s Police Chief Michael Fraser and City Attorney Michael Roush are proposing a band on all medical marijuana clinics in town.

The ordinance cites “incidents of armed robberies, burglaries, vagrancy and resale to nonqualified persons in other communities with marijuana dispensaries…” But this does not apply to those who use marijuana for medical use in the privacy of their homes.

The ongoing debate over whether or not to legalize marijuana came after the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in 2005, the federal government’s power to enforce federal drug laws.

According to the Daily News, “The federal-state conflict led Pleasanton and dozens of other cities to enact moratoriums on the establishment of marijuana dispensaries.”

Why all the fuss about legalizing marijuana--this would depend greatly on who you ask.

In 1950 a quiz show called Truth or Consequences, hosted by Ralph Edwards, came to the American TV audience. The premise of the show was if the contestant could not complete the "Truth" portion; there would be "Consequences," usually something embarrassing. The show was very popular and lasted until the late '80's.

The reason I mention this quiz show is because if the truth is not told about whether or not to legalize marijuana society will suffer the consequences. For this both sides of the argument should be reviewed.

Some medical benefits of legalized marijuana are, 1) access and protection for pain control, 2) legal sale would only be for medical use and not personal pleasure and 3) the prescription drug will bring in added income for government use.

But on the other side some doctors writing prescriptions may be tempted to personally make money on the side by selling in on the black market or patients who use marijuana may become dependant on it and not seek further medical treatment. Also, if marijuana is legalized the likelihood of children being exposed in the privacy of their home becomes a greater possibility.

In my opinion, the most compassionate act is not about making marijuana legal…it’s about helping those who can’t say no—say yes to a healthy life by not being tempted to try it.

Let Everyone Light Up

Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death according to the US Surgeon General. Why then, are cigarettes legal, and marijuana not? There are no proven deaths that are linked solely to marijuana use. In other parts of the world, like Europe, marijuana is used frequently as a pain killing remedy.
The only downside is that every once in a while a young kid is introduced to pot and then later that day is introduced to other, more harmful drugs. The number of times that this happens would drastically decrease if marijuana was made legal. If it were legal, kids and people of all ages would not have to go to bad areas that house loads of harmful drugs. Instead these so-called "pot-heads" could just light up on the corner, just like a tobacco user could.
Marijuana use should be a choice. If the government wants to limit this choice, let them limit their limitations to those that apply to tobacco. April 20th is coming up. 4-20 is the Unofficial National "Get High" Day. Why can we not just bring the world together and have a jolly ole time.

Reliving Prohibition

The circumstances regarding the legalization of marijuana are comparable to that of the legalization of alcohol after the prohibition in the United States. From 1920-1933, the U.S. government outlawed alcohol. According to a policy analysis by the Cato Institute, the experiment was an effort to reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, reduce the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and hygiene in America. However, it had the opposite effect than the one intended. According to the History of Alcohol Prohibition, crime rates skyrocketed due to the insurmountable bootlegging organizations operating across the country. After it was finally legalized, crime rates dropped. Contrary to popular belief, alcoholism did not surge out of control.
The U.S. faces the same problems today with regard to the legalization of marijuana. Like alcohol, marijuana is a highly sought substance that people will seek with or without the government’s approval. Many high school and college students try the drug on experimental basis. Reports by the White House suggest that these individuals are not lifetime users. Marijuana should be legalized by the government and treated just like alcohol. As a commercial item, it can be regulated by price and tax. To keep it out of the hands of youths, the government could put an age restriction policy on sales of the drug.

Monday, April 2, 2007

Who's it gonna hurt?

According to a recent pyschological study, approximately 80% of the population has smoked marijuana at least once in their life. That means that 80% of the population have broken the law and could have been given jail time for the use of an illegal drug. America is supposed to be a democracy and given the percentage of people who have tried the drug, Americans seem to be in favor of looking into having it legalized.
There is one exception to the prohibition of marijuana in this country and that is for those who are suffering. A legal marijuana farm is running in Mississippi and the drug is given to hospitals to use for medical reasons. The two main medical conditions in which patients are given marijuana are cancer and muscular sclerosis. Marijuana not only helps the patients cope with pain, but it also creates an appetite for those patients struggling to eat. Marijuana should be given to any hospital patient who is experiencing great pain and wants some relief.
Another plus side of marijuana is that it has never killed anyone. Unlike alcohol, you cannot overdose on it and experience critical conditions. With large amounts of marijuana, black outs are possible, however they are not serious. Also, marijuana does not have hangover side affects as alcohol does; after smoking it at night, users wake up hungry, but not normally noxious.
Basically, smoking pot is no worse than drinking alcohol, and if the government is going to prohibit marijuana, they might as well outlaw liquor. Marijuana helps people relax and is not known to create violence, as crystal meth or other drugs. Of course, restrictions such as "no driving under the influence of marijuana," should be enforced, as well as a legal age limit. But it is still wrong to outlaw the drug completely. Besides, think of all the money late night drive-throughs would make if marijuana was legalized.