Response to "Legalizing Marijuana"

My colleague, Jane Kim recently published an original editorial making an argument against the legalization of marijuana. Due to my last blog post concerning the positive aspects of cannabis I thought it would be an excellent opportunity to not only express my beliefs on the topic but to also be able to fully understand the other side of this argument. 

Jane Kim’s main argument throughout his blog post is that marijuana is “harmful to kids and adolescents”. He supported this claim with numerous statistics proving that cannabis is currently being used and sold by teenagers. My problem with this is that the simple fact is that this shows that marijuana is being used already. Although the legalization of cannabis would increase the use of it, keeping it banned won't change these numbers. I would like to point out an option that Jane Kim did not address. An easy solution to any problems concerning kids and adolescents with legal marijuana is to have a 21 year old age restriction. This would ensure that children and teenagers are still not allowed to use cannabis, making positive that there will not be any more use from teenagers then there currently are.  

 I believe that making marijuana only legal to people of ages 21 and over will ensure that teenagers are kept away from this drug, as much as we can. In conclusion, I agree with the points my colleague made against the legalization of marijuana, but with that being said, I believe there to be many solutions, such as the one I mentioned. 

Stem Cell Research

Stem cell research is a very controversial topic trending the the United States. Although it has remarkable effects stem cell research has been deemed immoral. Most people are unaware of what stem cells truly are and their capabilities, understanding this will most definitely show how important it is to allow stem cells to be used when necessary.

Stem cells are truly remarkable, their possibilities are endless in a sense. Depending on the type of stem cell, it is able to change into a different kind of cell with different specialized functions (Stem Cell Basics). There are several sources of stem cells, depending on where the cell was derived from, its capabilities may vary. The most useful kind is the embryonic, coming from embryos that are three to five days old. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, meaning they can become ANY kind of cell in the body. Their versatility allows them to help with any kind of disease. Another kind of stem cell is adult stem cells, which can be found in bone marrow or even fat. The capabilities of this specific cell is limited compared to embryonic cells. There is only a few things that adult stem cells can imitate. The last source for stem cells is the umbilical cord and amniotic fluid. Although we do know that stem cells are located there we do not know its capabilities (Stem Cell Transplant).  

There have been many case studies done to prove the great effects of stem cells. An example of the many success stories is Laura Dominguez. After a horrible car accident she was diagnosed as a quadriplegic. Shortly after her accident she decided to proceed with a surgery using stem cells. Miraculously, her spinal cord began to heal, something many doctors said to be impossible. Now, Laura can feel in many parts of her lower half, can stand but most incredibly she can move her legs again. Just like Laura there are many people that can benefit greatly from stem cells. The possibilities of these particular cells are quite amazing, leading me to believe that stem cell research should be able to be further investigated and to be used in the future (Stem Cell Research Facts).

The proof and case studies speak for themselves, they work. The question is why would anyone oppose of the use of stem cells? Controversy arises from both adult and embryonic stem cells. Religious groups strongly believe that life begins at the moment of conception, making any research on embryos the same as murder. Although adult stem cells are not located in the embryo and therefore do not have any correlation with the reproductive system people still argue that adult stem cells are just as capable as embryonic. This argument has many problems. First of all, believing that using stem cells is equivalent to killing a human life is absolutely ridiculous. Embryos are incapable of existing outside of the womb, making them not living. Secondly, if the stem cells are going to be destroyed anyway it is more efficient to turn a loss into something great, transforming lives for an example. It ultimately comes down to the benefit from stem cell research outweighing the cost. Stem cell research will save lives in the future, but why not start tomorrow?

Bibliography

“Stem Cell Basics.” : Introduction [Stem Cell Information]. Web. 25 Oct. 2015.

“Stem Cell Research Facts - Adult Stem Cell Success -.” Stem Cell Research Facts - Adult Stem Cell Success -. Web. 21 Oct. 2015.

“Stem Cell Transplant.” Stem cells: What they are and what they do. Web. 25 Oct. 2015.

Response to " 11 States... Directive"

Although I agree with most aspects of my colleague Tida Phumtim’s most recent blog post, I found a few parts that I disagree with. I believe strongly in pursuing equality of all sorts, including transgender but when it comes to this specific directive Obama issued I found some problems that this may cause. While allowing transgender people to use their preferred bathroom is great, there really is no way to tell if someone is abusing this rule for harmful reasons. Also, in the end of Phumtim’s blog post she mentions “having much larger issues to deal with” I disagree with this statement solely because I think it is extremely important to look at every problem in society as being equally important and needing to be dealt with. This ensures that one’s opinion of how detrimental an issue is to them will not have to be factored into the equation to figure out what to issue deal with.

Overall, although I believe that both Tida Phumtim and I disagree about a miniscule part of her blog post I realize that we agree completely that the general public's safety needs to be considered when dealing with a subject like this one and that is the most important part of this post.

Legalize Cannabis

The legalization of Marijuana is a very controversial topic that is currently trending in the United States. In 1998 the first legalization of any kind of cannabis occurred in Oregon for medical purposes. From then to now an additional 23 states made some sort of marijuana legal, including 4 states allowing recreational use. But it should be legal everywhere in the U.S. without question. For a long time cannabis has been perceived as a very addictive, harmful drug, while this is not only untrue, marijuana has many effects that can change a person's life for the better. It is no question that there are many great health contributions made from this drug, this is easily proven by the 23 states allowing its use. My question to you is, if an easily abused drug such as Xanax is legal and able to be easily obtained then, why would cannabis not be allowed? There are over 700 diseases that marijuana helps treat, including Multiple Sclerosis and children with Epilepsy. These conditions not only cause a person suffer, but also lead to an early death.  Being capable of easing one's pain should not only be allowed but also available. A very common rebuttal to legalizing cannabis is that it kills brain cells, while this is true, I strongly believe that determining if it is allowed in this country should not be based off of that fact. It is known that alcohol and tobacco do much harm to one's body but can be bought at the nearest gas station. If our country was worried about our health many things would not be easily accessible. It is evident, the pros outweigh the cons and cannabis should be legal in the United States.  

Orlando Shooting and the Election

What Donald Trump Gets Wrong About Orlando is an article released just three days prior to this Blog Post. The New York Times Editorial (credentials mentioned in last blog post) lead by James Bennet  goes into great detail about not only the Orlando Shooting, but also Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton's reaction. The political argument of this article is that America needs to change gun regulation, by more restrictions. The New York Times believes it is our duty as a country to change something about the easy access to guns. Although the majority of this article talks about gun control in general, an important aspect is the reactions of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. This specific opinion editorial heavily criticized Trumps initial feedback about the tragic events. Shockingly enough, he exclaimed on Twitter that Obama needs to resign and congratulated himself for predicting such an assault. The New York Times talks in great detail about how this was not the appropriate response to this situation and is not an action that a possible president of the United States should do. In contrast, Clinton’s response represented the exact viewpoint of gun control that this newspaper expresses to be essential to America’s growth. “If the F.B.I. is watching you for a suspected terrorist link, you shouldn’t be able to just go buy a gun with no questions asked.” Both candidates of the presidential election agree that the Orlando shooting was a tragic event, but differ with their responses on how to change this country to avoid another mass shooting. Hillary Clinton is spot on and major revisions to gun laws need to be carried out.

Refugee Crisis

A Wrenching SOS, a carefully written editorial published by New York Times, explores the idea of the “refugee crisis”. This article was written by “The Editorial Board”, consisting of sixteen well educated journalists with very impressive political backgrounds. The authors, lead by James Bennet, include a wide range of journalistic expertise varying from national politics, legal affairs, tax policy and many more. The audience of this article is a politically aware group of educated people who have a vested interest in humanity, as well as the government's impact on the world. The political argument is how involved the government should become with the “desperate human beings at risk”. New York Times strongly believes that it is our duty as a country to help refugees in need, this is presented and argued through language, evidence and logic. For instance, this article begins by talking about “painful to watch” released videos of refugee packed ships and also constantly uses words with strong connotations such as “grotesquely”, “cruel”, “painful” and “desperate”. This causes the reader to subconsciously sympathise and feel for these victims. In addition, throughout this article many important pieces of evidence are stated. The fact that the Obama administration declared that it would resettle 10,000 syrian refugees but so far only admitted one fourth of that total is completely mind boggling. Bringing this to the audience's attention causes the reader to fully understand the actions being done for this tragedy. I agree with this article's claim and think it is important for America to aid any refugees in need. The NY Times presented an idea for a solution to this issue, coordination among European Nations. No matter the fix to this problem, it is evident that the refugee crisis needs to be dealt with, and turning our back to it is not the way. By America giving our assistance to this cause the U.S can help lead the “global rescue effort”.

Response To Gun Violence

Boy, 8, Brings Loaded Pistol to Brooklyn Public School, a recently NY Times published article talks about a specific case involving gun control. On May 27th an eight year old boy brought a loaded gun to Public School 21 in Brooklyn New York. Police report that there were no arrests made, but are looking into how the gun came into the boys possession. Although this article starts with a captivating beginning, it focuses more on gun control all together. Shortly after this incident, an advocacy group formed and attempted to reek havoc about what they believed to be a incline in gun violence. John B. King Jr., the New York State's previous education commissioner disagreed with their group, claiming that gun violence actually got better. I believe that this article is worth reading because it is an excellent example of the importance of being capable of seeing and understanding both sides of a story with this extremely controversial topic.