Legalizing Pot, Really?

With the vote on Proposition 19 in California getting closer and closer, voter support is scarily continuing to getting higher and higher. The proposition, if passed, will legalize various marijuana-related activities, allow local governments to regulate these activities, permit local governments to impose and collect marijuana-related fees and taxes, and authorize various criminal and civil penalties. The effect will not only have a huge impact on the state of California, but more importantly the nation as a whole. To think that after all the crackdowns we've had, and now we're moving to making marijuana a "recreational" drug, doesn't make any sense at all.

You don't have to go far in California to find proponents of this measure, who point to the massive state budget deficit California is facing, saying that passing the proposition will bring in "billions of dollars" in new state tax revenue. Despite the idea that legalizing pot will be the solution to all problems, in a report by the State Board of Equalization it was determined that revenue generated would be roughly $1.4 billion annually, which is far less than what people are expecting. To go along with this report, President Obama has stated “I don't think that is a good strategy to grow our economy," encouraging looking elsewhere for economic stability. If we legalize marijuana then we are not only going against our president, but also putting a blind bet that pot will become a saving grace in our economy.

Many proponents also cite that legalization would bring down law enforcement expenses, in other words also save the big bucks. One thing that these proponents fail to take into account though, is how they will enforce situations at schools, public use, smoking while minors are present or providing it to people under 21, which is what the measure calls for. Given all these factors, it seems to me like law enforcement is going to have a pretty tough time regulating something like marijuana on such a large scale.

Those in California need to realize that the whole country will be affected by this, not only them, and if passed would put a huge burden on government regulation. The uprising created would be huge, and spring massive controversy over whether the federal government should step in or not. In a recent Fox News report, retired English teacher Shirley Williams comments, "I think it would be chaos if it was legalized," a fear which much of the country might soon see.

How We Look at College

Last Thursday in the National Review's Phi Beta Cons blog, George Leef commented on the way we look at universities and how they look at us. Leef's post, Striving for Socioeconomic Diversity, offers two main points, one of which I agree with and one which I have a big problem with. He presents a very good point saying there's no reason to see it as a "reward to go to an elite college or university," with many teenagers today mystified by the likes of Harvard, Yale, and some of the other college elites. Along with this, Leef finds it hard to justify the characterization by colleges of a poor individual who succeeds, as a "striver" or someone who has "overcome obstacles."

Is going to an ivy league university really going to make a difference in the long run? If anything it might increase possible salaries and connections, but as Leef speculates, you probably won’t have a "brighter, more lucrative career" at a school like Duke than a smaller school such as ECU. To get everything out of these top schools you have to be at the top of a "more intellectually competitive,” which sure does require a lot of drive and eagerness to succeed. To assume "schools with higher U.S. News rankings are “better” schools," and that these schools are your ticket to success is totally wrong. Ultimately it's not the degree from Harvard that's going to matter, but what you're going to do with it in the real world that will determine your success.

Believing that "being relatively poor in the U.S. does not entail deprivation of anything essential," is like saying being rich doesn’t have any benefits. If you don't consider a strong education essential, then I don't know what you do. In many cases poor Americans are strongly deprived of the same standards of education of even the middle-class, with their schools usually struggling to even keep their education system afloat. To go along with this they lack many of the resources and opportunities available to many others which is arguably just as important as the education itself. Leef states that "there are non-poor students who have managed to deal with difficulties," which is true, but the two difficulties are usually on two very different levels and are hard to compare.

In an ideal world to many, such as Leef, colleges in acceptance would look at nothing but academic interest and aptitude, but that's just not the world we live in. There's much more to a person than just academic success, and to look at a person as a whole makes a whole lot more sense than just test results. Just because someone got a great score on the SAT doesn't indicate at all that they will do great in the real world. Interestingly enough it’s those people with the interesting stories and that come from a poor family that are more prepared to face all the difficulties that life has to offer.

What Really Matters?

This past Sunday in The Pundit Delusion, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman speculated on the true reason the approval ratings have dropped so low for the Obama administration. The "Obama Paradox," as described by Krugman, has resulted not because he is "too liberal" or "too Mr. Spock," but because he just simply hasn't overcome the big economic problems. I fully agree with this because the general public isn't really going to appreciate the big victories for congress and the president like health and financial reform. Instead we care more about what the President is doing for us, specifically how our jobs and businesses are doing. Krugman presents a very valid point saying that part of the problem is giving too much attention to the pundits in the decision making.

During the peak of our economic crisis instead of pursuing a larger stimulus package and his policies’ actual impact on the economy, Obama went with looking good in the headlines. The economic downfall has pretty much been the story of the Obama presidency thus far, and given that's the one thing people pay attention to there's no question to why he's in trouble. If there is still a question as to what Americans care about, Krugman backs that claim up by citing a Presidential election report by Larry Bartels, finding that economic conditions are the single most important thing influencing a president's chances in re-election. Yes, not television ads, not debates, not t.v news but the state of our economy. In other words if the economy is doing good right before an election, the president has a good shot, but if it’s falling then he’s toast. Families today don't have the time to pay attention and dissect specific policies or legislature passed, but care most about getting the bills paid. To make matters worse there are the widespread increases in unemployment rates that are just adding to the frustration.

With the midterm elections coming up, it's looking like the GOP is poised to get some big victories in November. Whether or not the primary reason for the problems are indeed the "pundit delusions,” there's not much time left to turn things around, and voter's ignorance to policy successes aren't going to change anytime soon. Seeing their jobs in danger, and having to severely limit spending, the American people are looking to punish those in office and aren't going to be very patient in doing so. Krugman sums it up perfectly saying that with midterms turning out sour, the usual suspects will come up such as … 'he was just too liberal,' or 'where'd the passion go?,' but instead the true reason was that Obama simply wasn't doing enough to create jobs.

Immigration law to face further US legal action

A recent Washington Post Article discusses the Obama Administration's legal efforts to stop Arizona's controversial immigration law. The government states that the law is unconstitutional because the power to set immigration policy lies in the hands of the federal government, and not the state. Citing potential "detention and harassment," no argument is made specifically against racial profiling in the lawsuit. There are so many activists groups outraged with this law that it seems like it doesn't have a chance of making it through. If the fed's initial attempt to bump the law fails, the Justice Department will likely make another one looking at racial profiling. Sure the law does say that no racial profiling will occur, but incidents about stopping someone just because they look Hispanic probably will happen. And then how far will it go? Constitutional rights will be questioned, the outrage will gain momentum and the problems will just keep getting bigger and bigger. John McCain and other proponents knows that everybody is all for keeping illegal immigrants out of the country, but should leave the policy making decisions to the federal government.