Legalize Weed!

Marijuana Legalization position paper

The question of whether or not marijuana should be legalized has been an ongoing discussion ever since the prohibition of the plant in 1927. Although the reasoning as to why marijuana was made illegal seemed rational at first, the real terms of the experiment were released leaving room for discussion. I will disprove the theories attributing brain cell loss to marijuana consumption by exposing the hidden facts of the original marijuana experiment. I will also examine the many industrial purposes of the hemp plant in attempt to persuade those against the legalization of marijuana that this drug's benefits far outweigh its negative stereotype.

Marijuana is the product of an extremely versatile hemp crop. The key difference between Hemp and Marijuana is that hemp lacks the resin glads found in marijuana which produces tetrahydrocannobinal or THC. Therefore, Hemp only has one tenth the amount of THC that would be found in a marijuana plant. THC is the main ingredient responsible for triggering the commonly known side effects of marijuana. Considering that hemp does not contain these high levels of THC, the fact that it is illegal for industrial purposes is simply irrational. Industrial hemp is composed of three primary parts; seeds, hurds, and fiber. All of these parts have strong benefits to our present day lifestyles in the United States. The seeds provide many nutrients for people and animals and can also be used in oils for shampoos, soaps, and many other cosmetic products. The oil which is produced from the hemp plant contains the highest amount of polyunsaturated fats of any plant in the plant kingdom. This oil has many benefits including the clinically proven treatment of arthritis and premenstrual syndrome. The fiber of the hemp plant has many industrial purposes in making clothes, rope, and paper. In fact, Hemps absorbency and strength make it the most durable fiber in the world. Its resistance to salt water, UV light, and raw strength would make it an elite and highly valuable product in todays market. Lastly, the hurds, or woody core, can be used for paper as well as other chemicals, plastics, fuels, etc which would help the issue of deforestation. Along with the benefits produced from the basic processing of hemp, the waste resulting from this process also yields many benefits as well. The vast amount of waste can be used in paper making, as a biomass for fuel production, and serves as a renewable source of raw material for pastiche production.

The most popular and untruthful arguments against the legalization of marijuana is it causes smokers cough, has harmful affects to proper brain function, and kills brain cells. In the Heath Tulane experiment released by Ronald Ragan in 1974 he stated, "the most reliable scientific sources says permeant brain damage is one of the inevitable results of the use of marijuana." Throughout the study monkeys were pumped full of marijuana, supposedly 30 joints per day. Naturally, these monkeys began to die after 90 days. However, after 6 long years of requests about the true nature of the study many startling facts were uncovered. According to a documentary, "The Union," Adam Scorgie states, "instead of administering 30 joints a day for one year, they were given an equivalent of 63 columbian strength joints through a gas mask within 5 minutes over 3 months." In other words, these monkeys were pumped full of marijuana without any additional oxygen and consequently suffocated to death. By blocking the brain from receiving oxygen, the brain cells in these monkeys were killed but instead of attributing the death of brain cells to suffocation the experimenters claimed this was the direct result of smoking marijuana. The government then portrayed marijuana to the public as a harmful and damaging drug. Because of these untruthful conclusions marijuana was made illegal and a misleading stereotype began. These false claims became the basis for the illegalization movement when the results of the study should have proven otherwise.

As I stated above there is absolutely no evidence that marijuana causes brain cell damage. With that being known, marijuana should not only be legalized because of the many beneficial industrial purposes this plant provides but also because it is not proven that this drug is directly linked to any harmful longterm health issues.

Jordan Verastique

Should Fast Food Be Banned?

Lower the Drinking Age

One of the many controversial issues today is the movement to lower the drinking age in the United States to eighteen. Only four countries in the entire world have a drinking age of twenty-one: Ukraine, South Korea, Malaysia, and of course the United States. All other countries have a lower drinking age, and some don't even have a legal age. Some argue that lowering the drinking age would result in more drinking and driving deaths. I don't believe this would occur. Instead, I believe the number of deaths would remain approximately the same, with more deaths in the 21-24 age group than in the 18-20 age group. Another argument against lowering the drinking age is that eighteen year olds aren't mature enough to drink alcohol. However, when you are eighteen, you are eligible to vote, serve on juries, fly an airplane, and even old enough to join the military. I don't see how an eighteen year old can be mature enough to make the decision to serve his or her country at war, but not mature enough to drink a beer. Also, who says that twenty-one is the magical age where you're all of a sudden mature enough to drink? Gradually introducing the concept of responsible conception at an earlier age would lead to less alcohol-related incidents later on when young adults move out on their own and are no longer supervised. A possible way to gradually introduce alcohol to eighteen year olds would be to only allow them to drink beer or wine at eighteen, then allow hard liquor consumption when they turn twenty-one. However, I do understand that this could be a hard law to enforce, since it would be dificult to distinguish if an eighteen year old had consumed beer/wine or hard liquor. Placing the drinking age at an age extremely higher than the world average has not kept minors from being able to obtain alcohol. There have been many studies and surveys taken that show it has still been relatively easy for minors to obtain alcohol despite the high age requirement. Also, during your college years, it puts a bind on friendships with those friends who are of age when you are underage, and vice versa, because many times you are unable to go to the same places together. It is time to join the rest of the world and lower our country's drinking age to eighteen.

Corey Inboden

Should HIgh Schools Drug Test Their Athletes?

Back when I was in high school, our school board added a new policy where all athletes would be randomly drug tested. If the athletes failed, then they were suspended from two of their games. This policy became very controversial among most students, faculty members, and parents. Most students, of course, disagreed with this because they felt as if it was an invasion of privacy and that it was completely ridiculous that they were gonna drug test a bunch of high school kids. All the parents, with exception to some of them, disagreed with the students and thought it was a great idea. The parents and the school's faculty believed that threatening the athletes with random drug testing would keep the students away from the drugs and out of trouble, even if this meant the best football/basketball players being suspended. In my opinion, I believed the drug testing was just a waste of time and money. The school board believed that this was going to change many athletes into better students and that we would be a drug free campus. But in reality, the drug testing didn't change the way students felt about drugs and didn't stop them from the students from doing them. If anything, it encouraged the students more to do drugs because they were so annoyed with the fact that they might be drug tested. So one can see many valid points and why they should drug test, but either way it isn't going to keep the athletes away from the drugs.

Kara Oliver

Why Voluntary Euthanasia Should be Legal

By Ginger Tamijani

Imagine a loved one has a terminal illness and has been given less than six months to live. They are in immense pain and are in a hospice, just waiting to die. Your loved one feels absolutely awful, and wants to die peacefully instead of being constantly drugged up, unable to walk or even eat on their own. However, their request must be denied, because voluntary euthanasia is illegal and is considered to be assisted suicide, and when a doctor does decide to end a patient’s suffering, they serve a jail sentence, like the case of Dr. Jack Kevorkian who was a man who performed mercy killings upon his patients upon their request.

It’s sad when one realizes that animals have more rights than human beings when it comes to the process of dying. This past April, my dog Hank was getting quite sick and weak, and was diagnosed with a heart murmur. The vet said that the best and most humane thing to do would be to gently put him to sleep to end his suffering. Though my family and I were devastated that it had to come to this, we realized that it he was such a sweet and amazing animal who did not deserve to live in such pain. With this in mind, why must it only be applied to animals? Do humans not deserve to die comfortably and removed from the misery and dreariness of the dying process?

As human beings, we deserve the right to die with dignity. Studies and tests performed on people seeking voluntary euthanasia have proven that they are not mentally ill or depressed; they merely want their suffering to end.

Free Speech Policy on UA Campus

At the University of Arkansas for the fall 2010 semester a new policy was instilled to limit the number of times a person who is not related to the U of A can come to campus and make a speech. The new limit is five times a semester. The previous regulation was that a person not associated with the university had to obtain a permit to speak or make exhibits on campus. A speaker still has to obtain a permit to speak but there is also a limit to five visits per semester. As most upper classmen know there is a man referred to as “Moses” who used to frequent our campus. “Moses” whose real name is Gary Bowman would come to campus to preach about sin and the evil behaviors that students allegedly partake in. Moses makes attacks on Greek life and typical college behavior like drinking. When he comes to campus it’s obvious students don’t agree with his accusations because of the muttering and whispers of disagreement from the crowd, yet Moses still gathers a large crowd sometimes of thirty people or more.

So is this policy even legal is it violating the right of free speech? Can the university decide how many times someone can come to the campus to make a speech about whatever they wish? I absolutely believe the university is permitted to establish this policy. I think that the university in a sense has the “all powerful” authority about what happens on campus. When students, faculty, and staff are on campus we have to abide by the rules and policies the university executes. As long as those policies and regulations are ethical and hold the good of the students at heart I think they are viable.

University officials claim this free speech policy was not directed at Moses but to be applied to all people not related to the university. I think that even if the policy was applied to limit the times Moses could come to our campus it is perfectly okay. Moses is a complete distraction to students on campus. Not only is he offensive and unwanted by most students, but students become distracted by his speeches and the crowds of people that surround him. I know students who have wanted to stick around to listen to Moses’ crazy allegations and have skipped class because of it. When crowds gather to listen to Moses I often have to walk around the large circle to get to my class. People should not be ban from coming to speak on our campus and they are not. It is simply that there is a limit to how many times someone can come speak which I believe is absolutely feasible. We will still hear what you want to say we just don’t want to hear it once a week.

Allison Lafargue

Yay For Uniforms!

Coming from a background where I had to wear a uniform everyday to school kindergarten through twelfth grade, I feel that I am qualified to write about implementing uniforms into public schools. This argument is a complicated one that has many pros and cons. Some people agree that by wearing uniforms a student is not allowed to express his or her individuality. Others think that enforcing uniform rules may make children more prone to get into trouble. By taking away some of their freedoms by making them wear a specific thing could aggravate some children’s naturally rebellious spirit to make them want to resist conformity even more. They may tighten, widen, shorten, and lengthen the uniforms in order to rebel.

On the other hand, I believe that a school uniform would be a positive thing for public schools to require. I used to hate wearing the same thing day after day but once I thought about all the positive things about them, I quickly changed my tune. I would hear stories about how much money the other kids who didn’t have to wear them spent on back to school clothes and it appalled me. Especially in the tender years of middle school that are swarming with bullies just waiting to criticize any little thing they can, I believe that having uniforms would take stress off of kids who are trying to fit in. If everyone wears the same thing then kids wouldn’t feel self conscious about not wearing designer clothes or wearing last year’s hand-me-downs and it would ease tension altogether. Schools focus on making sure that a student’s individuality and uniqueness isn’t determined by the kind of clothing they wear. Also studies have shown that in elementary schools with uniforms children tend to perform better because they are more focused. Clothing can be a distraction to learning and school for some becomes an unending fashion show. Another positive thing about school uniforms is the price. So many families spend hundreds of dollars on a new wardrobe for their growing child each school year. School uniforms are a bargain and are way more economical than designer brands and trendy fad clothes. Also uniforms can help build school spirit and instills a sense of belonging in students. In general I believe that students and families alike would benefit a lot from implementing uniforms into public school systems.