Commentary on "Decreasing Water Supply"

In Karlie Fitzsimmons’ blog post, “Decreasing Water Supply”, she describes the dire situation that many people face everyday regarding access to clean water. She uses reasons to feel to persuade her audience that the world is facing a crisis regarding our water supply. I felt that this piece was well written, and I agreed with what she was saying. Her word choice was appropriate for the urgent tone she was trying to set. Fitzsimmons provided a link to a United Nations report which increased the believability of her claims. The only thing that I can think of that would make her blog post better would be to link more articles that solidify her claims. Towards the end of her post, she emphasizes how important it is that the public’s awareness is raised regarding our decreasing supply of fresh water. This rallying cry is very important, and I wished that she had spent more time discussing the ways that awareness could be raised. Maybe through new media, or programs implemented in schools? Overall, I found her article to be well written and while it was to the point, it definitely convinced me. Water shortage is an issue now, and will be an even bigger issue in the near future. Immediate action on a personal level and a government level is crucial.

Dear Texas: Stay out of my health decisions.

Texas is notorious for it’s abortion restrictions and it’s politicians are known for their anti-abortion stances. With the Supreme Court ruling against the constitutionality of HB2 this past week, I though it would be appropriate to address other restrictions against abortions in Texas. 

The biggest Texas abortion restriction is one that requires the woman seeking an abortion to have a counseling session and an ultrasound 24 hours before the procedure happens. I personally believe that this restriction is unconstitutional. It completely goes against a women’s right to privacy, and with abortions being time sensitive, creates undue burden for the woman. This restriction treats women seeking abortions like they don’t have the intelligence to know what they should or should not do with their own bodies. The “counseling” is has an obvious pro-life agenda, and is placing politics before a women’s health. The decision to abort should be between a woman and her doctor. Legislation created to undermine this private relationship is unconstitutional and ridiculous. 

The second restriction Texas places on abortion that I would like to address is the law that requires minors to have parental permission before getting an abortion. Anytime minors are involved it makes things complicated. In this case, there shouldn't be an argument. If a teenager wants an abortion, I personally would hope that they discuss it with their parent(s) before making a decision. But sometimes, this may not be an option. The safety of the young woman seeking the abortion may be put at risk if she were to get parental permission. On the other hand, her parent(s) may not allow her to get an abortion if they have moral qualms about it. This is not their choice. It is no ones choice but the woman's, young or old, seeking the abortion. 

While the ruling against HB2 was a huge step forward, there is still more to be done. These restrictions undermine a woman's right to choose. They are wrong. It is time to again say no to the regulation of our bodies.

Commentary on "Legalize Cannabis"

“Legalize Cannabis", an article written by Madison Bush Couch, gives us reasons why marijuana should be legal in the United States. I want to start out by clarifying that I do believe that marijuana should be legal for recreational use in the U.S. I agree with her overall rhetoric. Especially the point made about tobacco and alcohol being both legal and easily attainable, even though they have been proven time and time again to be more harmful than marijuana. I only have a couple of minor issues with her article. The first issue is with Couch’s argument is her claim that marijuana kills brain cells. Numerous studies have proven over the years that this is nothing more than a myth. It’s a harmful myth, that while disproven, is still widely used by anti-legalization supporters. Another issue I have with Couch’s argument is that she doesn’t cite/link any of her sources that she used. While it is true that there are studies that potentially link CBD (cannibidiol, a compound found in marijuana) to improvement of epilepsy, and that medical marijuana has been used to treat side effects of other diseases. But without citing a source, I find it hard to believe that cannabis treats “700 diseases.” This information may be completely valid, but it’s hard to believe facts presented in an argument without any type of citation. Overall, I agree 100% with Couch’s pro legalization standpoint and her broader points.

Drug offenders need rehabilitation, not punishment.

Drug addiction is an insidious disease. According to the American Society of Addiction Medicine, “Drug overdose is the leading cause of accidental death in the US, with 47,055 lethal drug overdoses in 2014.” Drug addiction is an issue that has effected me in the most personal way. While I have been fortunate enough to not struggle with drug addiction myself, in January of 2014, I lost someone very close to me because of it. It’s time to realize that these people dying are not just statistics; they are our mothers, fathers, brother, friends, lovers. It’s time to stop vilifying drug users. They are human beings that need compassion and medical attention. What they do not need are sentences in jail or prison and a criminal record.

According to the U.S Department of Justice, “Nearly half (48%) of inmates in federal prison were serving time for drug offenses in 2011.” There are two ways to look at this statistic. You can think about it emotionally: the lives that are effected and the families torn apart. Or you can look at it from a public spending perspective: does treatment for drug offenders cost less than prison sentences? The answer is, yes. Is it more effective in treating drug addiction? Again, the answer is yes.

A policy report written by the Justice Policy Institute titled, “Treatment or Incarceration?  National and State Findings on the Efficacy and Cost Savings of Drug Treatment Versus Imprisonment”, does a great job at showing us the cost of treatment vs. prison sentences. According to their findings in the state of Maryland, the average amount spent on incarceration is $20,000 a year. On the other hand only $4,000 a year was spent on treatment for drug offenders. With a cost increase of 400%, it’s hard to argue that treatment is not the more cost effective strategy for dealing with drug offenders. 

But on to the real question: does treatment work? Referencing the Justice Policy Institute’s policy report again, the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment is quoted in their final report as saying, “In summary, we observed a pattern of substantially reduced alcohol and drug use in every type of treatment modality, with reductions typically between one-third and two-thirds depending on the type of service unit and the specific measure.” This is substantial. Treatment is a way to reduce repeat offenses and to address the real problem that drug users face: their addiction.

Reform of our approach to drug offenders in the U.S is crucial. Treatment is the only sane answer to drug offenses. We need to stop punishing offenders for their addiction. Drug addiction affects individuals from all walks of life. Every race, every age can be affected. This is not a problem for someone else to deal with. Even if you personally do not know someone who struggles with drug abuse, the insane amount of U.S citizens in prison for non violent drug offenses affects everyone, on a monetary level alone. Stop the villainization of the human beings who need the most help. Treatment is the answer.

This just in: drug addiction is complicated.

In Ann Coulter’s blog post, “HEROIN: BLAME IT ON AMERICA”, she has a quick and simple answer for the rise in drug overdoses: the Mexicans. The audience Coulter is trying to reach consists of  conservative Republicans that are for stricter border control. She blames the illegal immigrants that have come into our country for the influx of drugs, namely heroin. Coulter insists that if we build a wall, this won’t be an issue. And of course, the only man for the job is Donald Trump himself. Before I say anything else, can it just be said that the Bush administration spent $6 million on the Secure Fence Act. While it may not be the Great Wall of China on the southern border that Coulter and Trump are advocating for, our borders are not open. Even if we built a wall 1,000 feet high, drugs would still find a way into our country. The cartel is bad. No one is arguing with Coulter there. But she seems to suggest that not only are Cartel members pushing drugs into our country, but every single person of Mexican heritage. The hard working families with full, productive lives? Nope, just a bunch of heroin pushers. Coulter notes the rise in heroin deaths for white and blacks. She contrasts this with a statistic that in her eyes proves Hispanics’s guilt, “Curiously, heroin deaths of Hispanics increased by 0.0 percent. They aren't the users; they're the pushers.” Yes, because all hispanics in our country, illegal or not, are pushing heroin. This rhetoric can’t any more bigoted. Coulter isn’t know for her political correctness, but this is a stretch. While it’s easy to blame America’s drug problem on some “other”, it just isn’t that simple. Drug addiction is insidious. It’s causes are to blame at a social, societal, and policy level. Drug trafficking is an issue. Heroin use and heroin overdoses destroy lives. But let’s call Coulter’s anti-Hispanic speech what it really is: xenophobia.

Trump the underdog? More like rabid dog.

Wayne Allyn Root begins his opinion piece, “Justice Isn’t Blind, It’s Crooked: Opposing View”, with the statement, “The powerful, corrupt, elite establishment is out to destroy or at least change Donald Trump.” The view that he paints of Trump is one of an underdog, fighting his way to the top of the big, bad establishment. In this fairy tale, Trump is little red riding hood and the Democratic party is the big bad wolf, huffing and puffing and threatening to eat grannies whole. Root is obviously pandering to die-hard members of the Conservative party. On his website, a quote describes Root as the “Chicken soup for the GOP’s soul”. 

Root claims that Trump’s comments regarding Judge Gonzalo Curiel were not race related, and that Judge Curiel was simply biased. Even if this were this case, who has Trump not attacked? I know that this argument isn’t a new one, but when you think about the women, African Americans, people of Muslim faith, Asians, and Latinos that he is known for slandering, there is a court room filled with judges who Trump feels can’t do their job. It’s racist and insulting to Judge Curiel to imply that because of his ethnic background he is unable to be an impartial judge.

Root also cries corruption when claiming that the “law firm bringing the suit paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Clintons”. This is a big accusation. Where are the sources cited? There are none. Because of the lack of evidence, I’m forced to conclude that this is nothing but gossip. Or maybe a lie, thought up solely for the creation of this gem, “It’s just one big incestuous happy family supporting big government, amnesty and Hillary Clinton”. Not only is that great imagery, but it’s inflammatory language that I feel discredits Roots authority. Again, Root is pandering to members of the Conservative party with their tin foil hats ready. They love a good conspiracy theory more than anyone, and Root is more than willing to provide, even if his misinformation is doing more harm than good.

No Grey Area When it Comes to Trump Support

Eugene Robinson, an opinion writer for the Washington Post, admonishes members of the Republican Party for their unwillingness to fully commit to Trump or denounce him. In his article, "You can’t be for and against Trump", Robinson points out the bigotry that Trump has expressed towards Mexican immigrants and Muslims is not a recent addition to his campaign. He criticizes members of the Republican party, questioning whether they are “just now noticing Trump’s bigotry?” He draws attention to what he considers to be Trumps appeal: political incorrectness, and wants members of the Republican party who are on the fence about Trump to accept this fact. This article makes an important point, and draws attention to what some consider to be an issue in modern politics: are political parties too polarized? Is it moral to vote for someone because they are a member of your party, even when you disagree with their questionable (in Trump’s case, racist) beliefs?