KellanStec

Think really hard to yourself for a minute. Why do you suppose some drugs such as ethanol, caffeine, ibuprofen, and nicotine are legal–while others such as tetrahydrocannabinol (THC, found in cannabis), seratonin (LSD), and dopamine (cocaine) are not? Be sure you’re able to give logical reasons–and don’t let the drugs that are currently legal fit your definition of a harmful drug! I gave up already too. Recently, a team of British researchers conducted an investigation to categorize the most commonly used drugs, effectively giving them a “harm rating”. They categorized twenty different drugs including both ones that are currently illegal and legal.

Their findings were interesting. The study looked at physical harm (acute, chronic, parenteral), dependence (intensity of pleasure, psychological dependence, physical dependence), and social harms (intoxication, other social harms, healthcare costs). Here is the chart of the results:

The classes indicate at which class the laws currently classify that particular drug. Isn’t that something? The class system seems to be arbitrary. We have alcohol (perfectly legal) near the top of the charts right next to heroin, meth, and cocaine. Drugs like LSD and Ecstasy are on the bottom of the chart. Marijuana is right in the middle below tobacco. It’s actually about what you’d expect if you weren’t conditioned by the current stigma against some drugs while others are readily available.

So, why don’t we just ban all drugs? Then we won’t have to worry about any of this stuff. Well, we’ve tried that once. It didn’t work. When you make a drug illegal, the people who want to use it will find a way to use it. It allowed organized criminals to profit from the illegal sale of the beverage. When alcohol was not readily available, people who wished to use it were willing to pay more for it. This forced mobsters such as Al Capone to take more radical measures when securing a shipment.

So, banning all drugs is probably not a practical option. It also appears that our current system is impractical and arbitrary. There is no good reason that marijuana should be illegal and tobacco not. Banning alcohol is not a viable option since it’s already deemed acceptable by the majority of society. But, if we leave that legal then what reason do we have to keep ecstasy classified as a Class A drug?

My solution would be to legalize all drugs. I’m crazy? Hear me out. It’s my belief that this is not an issue about drugs. It’s an issue about freedom. Here are four reasons that I think make a logical argument for the legalization of all drugs:

1. Reduce crime. A large majority of drug-related crime is committed by the people who profit from the unregulated drug market. If we make all drugs legal, we will effectively eliminate these types of crimes. We would be able to regulate the usage.
2. Save Money. With legal drugs, our prisons would be freed of people who are lawbreakers of victimless crimes. Our government would not have to spend billions of the taxpayers’ money on the “war on drugs”. The prices of these drugs would be dramatically reduced, and users would not have to steal to support their habit. This money could then be used to improve public health and education programs. Alternatively, it could not be taken from citizens in the first place, drastically reducing tax rates.
3. Promote Freedom. In a free society, an adult should be allowed to put whatever he or she chooses to put in their body. It is not the government’s job to play babysitter in our personal lives.
4. Decriminalize otherwise law-abiding citizens. Over half of all people in this country aged 15-16 have used an illegal drug. Up to to one and a half million people use ecstasy every weekend. When so many people use illegal drugs, why not let the laws match the majority?

These are just a few reasons, and there are many more. My point is, why do we have such a system in place? It’s perfectly acceptable to use alcohol–even while alcohol is clearly more harmful to yourself and others than marijuana. For most people, the thought doesn’t even cross their mind that they are using drugs when drinking alcohol. Some people may say that the legalization of all drugs would cause a great surge of drug use. I think this is an insult to human integrity. This suggests that the only reason they don’t drive around on the roads while high is because it is illegal to do so.

People use drugs because they do what they are supposed to do. People smoke marijuana because it makes them feel good. People take caffeine to perk themselves up. No drug has a monopoly on safety. Taking too much caffeine can kill you. It is literally impossible to overdose on marijuana. Yet, one is legal and one is not. Why? As long as their drug use harms nobody else, an adult should be able to take whichever drug they wish to. That’s what freedom is about.

Yeah, I forgot to pay my domain name bill. When I did this, my webhost parked my domain on another server until I was able to pay my bill. I paid it, and it took a couple of days for all of the DNS servers to resolve to the proper domain. The Wayne State servers just resolved to the proper domain 30 minutes ago, so everyone should be able to access the site now. If not, just be patient until your internet provider’s cache is updated.

We should just run the Bill of Rights through a paper shredder. We won’t be needing it any more.

This article is a bit old, but I just saw it today (the article was published on February 23, 2007). It deals with the freedom of speech assured by the first amendment to students in public schools. Specifically, a girl wrote an opinion article–her first for the school newspaper–telling other students she thinks it is wrong to look down upon people who have a sexual preference unlike your own. The teacher in charge of the newspaper was suspended for two months for allowing the story to be published.

I remember throughout high school being puzzled after learning that the liberties illustrated in the Bill of Rights apparently did not apply in school. The court case Tinker v. Des Moines made it clear that students do not “shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door.” For some reason, high school administrators have higher authority to limit students’ rights than the United States government does its citizens–despite the clear opinions of the high courts.

What exactly did she say? Here’s an excerpt from the entire editorial, which I have archived here:

I can only imagine how hard it would be to come out as homosexual in today’s society. I think it is so wrong to look down on those people, or to make fun of them, just because they have a different sexuality than you. There is nothing wrong with them or their brain; they’re just different than you. I’ve heard some people say that they think there is a cure to being homosexual. I can’t believe anyone would think that. It’s not a disease, or something that you catch from someone else; it’s something that they don’t have control over.

This is what the administration at Woodlan Junior-Senior High School would rather not be available to students. Assistant superintendent Andy Melin, who claimed that the opinion piece was biased and also stated that he hasn’t read the editorial, said school officials do not have an issue with the topic but with the lack of balance and thoroughness in the opinion piece. In one sentence, we can see just how twisted this guy is: he simultaneously has not read the article, knows it is an opinion piece, and claims that it is biased. If anyone knows how someone can possibly know that an article he hasn’t read is biased, please let me know. Also, does he know that it is an opinion article? It’s supposed to be biased. Hence, an opinion.

Presumably, the administration was angered because it only offered one viewpoint of the debate: pro-homosexual. But if you read the article, you will see that the student urges for compassion for everyone, because everyone is different. How is that a bad message to send to students?

Whatever the rationale is, it shouldn’t matter. Everyone is guaranteed a full right to free speech as outlined by the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.

There are no obvious reasons why this should not apply in public schools–especially when the message in question is a message of peace and acceptance. One person’s private quarrel to some type of speech does not counteract the principles of the first amendment. It’s freedom of speech; not freedom from. This is exactly the type of thing that the first amendment was designed to protect, and here we have a case where it is being completely ignored. Students need to be taught how to think, not what to think.

If only we thought more like Voltaire:

I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Today in my Intro to Sociology class, we were discussing an article written by Gwynne Dyer and entitled Anybody’s Son Will Do. The article discussed the re-socialization of potential military men, and how the system was organized to change the role they play in society. In the midst of dialogue, a student interjected with the “fact” that Fred Rogers was once a U.S. Marine sniper during the Vietnam War. Another student chimed in to mention that he has tattoos covering his arms, which was the reason why he so often wore long sleeved shirts on television. Now, I had a vague reminiscence that these stories were bunk, but I held my tongue because I wasn’t one hundred percent sure. Could it be possible that everyone’s favorite neighbor was a Vietnam killing machine? I probably should have said something, because I ended up being correct.

Being the skeptical myth-debunking machine that I am, I immediately did a little bit of research on the topic using highly venerated websites dealing with urban legends such as these. Snopes.com counters this story thoroughly. This is taken directly from their website:

This same rumor has often been applied to boyish country singer-songwriter John Denver (among others), and it’s just as false when told of Fred Rogers. Not only did Fred Rogers never serve in the military, there are no gaps in his career when he could conceivably have served in the military — he went straight into college after high school, he moved directly into TV work after graduating college, and his breaks from television work were devoted to attending the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary (he was ordained as a Presbyterian minister in 1963) and the University of Pittsburgh’s Graduate School of Child Development. Moreover, Fred Rogers was born in 1928 and was therefore too old to have enlisted in the armed services by the time of America’s military involvement in Vietnam.

So, not only is the story false, it isn’t even remotely plausible. It makes me wonder who starts these stories. It would have been much more believable had Rogers ever served military time, but he simply didn’t. I do know how they spread though. A person like me fails to point out the utter ludicrousity of such things, and now a large majority of those present will probably go on to relay the myth to others, and so on. It is an interesting story, and it’s popular because it’s a shocker! The internet makes this much easier to do. It’s a shame to see such things circulating around a great man.

This is going to be a longer post than usual. This is the first presidential election that I have paid any mind to, and I think it is important after spending the past six years wondering when we were going to get rid of Bush. It is my firm belief that we need a strong leader to get us out of the Middle East, restore our civil liberties, and reform government spending. There are a number of candidates that I am interested in, and I am going to take the time to summarize their political views and why I do or do not like them. I am taking two democrats (Clinton and Obama), two republicans (Paul and Giuliani), and one libertarian (Kubby). I’d like to do the greens and independents, but I don’t particularly care for either party. Libertarian is my party of choice, so that’s the only reason I am including a third party at all.

Democratic candidates

Hillary Rodham Clinton: Hillary is a strong democrat, and currently the only woman who ever had a good shot at being president. I like her support for some personal liberties, such as same-sex marriage and abortion as well as her support of net neutrality. However, had it not been for the democrat’s continual insistence that personal safety be regulated whether or not it breaches personal liberties such as the right to bear arms, I would probably be liberal. I would probably never vote for Hillary. I really don’t have a problem with a woman president. The idea of a woman president scares me a little, but I think that’s just because I am afraid of change. I am sure there are plenty of competent women out there that could run this country better than our current and many past presidents. I just don’t think that she is the right person for the job. Overall, the most I can say for Hillary is that she is okay. It’s probably true that I don’t like her because she’s a woman, but I think some of my views are motivated by her potential or lack thereof as a president.

Barack Hussein Obama: Barack is a great guy, and probably someone I would want in the White House. His only problem is getting by Hillary in the primaries. Anyone who has read The Audacity of Hope knows how intelligent he is. The name might damage him a little–having the middle name Hussein and a last name that sounds like Osama might deter potential voters. Some people may look at his race as well. It’s a shame, but I think that if he can beat Hillary in the primaries, he could give any republican opponent a run for his money. He supports many of the same policies that Clinton does, and supports mild gun control. Obama’s gun control system makes more sense to me, and he didn’t vote against the 2006 Vitter Amendment, which prohibits the confiscation of lawfully-acquired firearms during a disaster. This is an obvious breech on the second amendment, and Hillary supported it. I support Obama over Hillary mostly because his book was brilliant, and he doesn’t smear the opponents in his own party like Hillary does. It seems like Obama “gets” that politics should not be a game or competition, especially when it comes to the leader of one of the most powerful nations in the world. If you don’t currently support Obama, read his books and you will most likely be assuaged.

Republican candidates

Rudy Giuliani: Giuliani was the mayor of NYC during and following the September 11, 2001 attacks. His political views don’t make him a true republican–he is a moderate, if anything. I really like the way he feels about global warming (that the debate is irrelevant–we should be dealing with pollution anyway), but this isn’t exactly within the realm of presidential duties. On the topic of abortion, his views are pretty much in line with mine, “I hate [abortion]…However, I believe in a woman’s right to choose.” Hell, this guy is a quoting machine, “I’ve supported four or five hundred candidates in my time, but I’ve not yet found one with whom I can agree completely. In fact, I don’t even agree with myself on everything. There’s not a candidate with a clean skirt out there. Hell, I’ve been married myself three times.” I think I am starting to like this guy. My only problem with him is his failure to support same-sex marriages and his views on prayer in school. Other than that, he looks like a pretty solid candidate.

Ron Paul: Ron Paul is a libertarian disguised as a republican. Although many of his views aren’t in line with true libertarians, he could probably run as one without a hitch (and did–as a libertarian nominee in 1988). He supports the use of Marijuana for medical use and the abolition of the federal income tax. Ron Paul does have some admiral qualities, and I think this country could use a good libertarian president. I’m just not sure he could give either Hillary or Obama good opposition. Congressman Paul has been quoted on record in supporting the primary facets of libertarianism. He believes that the lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government’s. Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges. However, there are many sections of the electorate that do wish to regulate private affairs, including religious groups and people with dollar signs in their eyes. These are the people who would probably not give their vote to Paul.

Libertarian Candidate

Steve Kubby: Steve Kubby is a true libertarian. He wants to enforce complete personal and economic liberty for all citizens. He is probably the most colorful potential presidential candidate. He has said that he has cheated death by using medical marijuana to treat a type of cancer. In 1968 he was given five years to live, but has lived 25 since. His past criminal record (relating to the marijuana he uses) will probably be a turn-off to voters. This is probably the man that I want in office, and there’s a strong chance that I would vote for him.

All in all, there are quite a few good candidates and it will be interesting to see who wins primaries. The way it looks to me, Obama will probably be my first choice, followed by Paul and Kubby. I would like to see Paul and Obama running against each other, mostly because I would like to see either of them in office. I would vote for Kubby in this case to give the Libertarians a boost in the popular vote. The way presidential elections are set up wouldn’t allow my vote to count for Kubby anyway except on popular vote.

Who would you like to see run for president, and who would you vote for?

You can take a very simple quiz to determine where your views fall on the two-dimensional political spectrum. I’m a solid libertarian.