McCay Harold and Kumar Post

Do you think this film has any message other than a happily irreverent bong message. If you say no, you must explain why bong films are so attractive to your age group. If you say yes, please articulate the message. Remember, at least 250 words and a picture or a link.

Alex D., Rendition

If there is a legit, justifiable reason for the use of torture, either it does not exist or I have not heard anything about it (the two are not mutually exclusive). What really soldifies my argument was when Anwar "confessed" to Freeman and gave him a name of "suspected terrorists", only to give his the names of the Egyptian soccer team. That scene proves that if put under pressure, people will say anything to relieve the pain. Even I admit this point--if someone threatened to waterboard me or harm my family, I would start spouting out random names and see if they fit (I hope Mr. Micheal Rotch or Amanda Huggenkiss don't think of me as a traitor for squealing on them).

Though if the CIA has any reason about them, they could develop a list of "names only used for squealing". That way, no one would be confused about which Eric Cartman bought the ingredients for a bomb; and maybe it wasn' t that Andrew Ryan but this one who helped plan the attack

Webster- rendition

I don’t think there are times when torture should be used, because the people that are being tortured probably have been trained to withstand it, or lie. However Im not an expert in torture, and I don’t know anything about it. If the government has successfully gotten information out of terrorists who have been tortured, then I fully support it. I mean it’s definitely not ethical, but if it saves lives then it seems to be to worth it. That is if it does save lives, according to most people torturing is not very effective, so it rarely does any good for the country, and if that is the case, then I think it should be not allowed to happen, especially to people like it did in rendition, where they didn’t have any real solid evidence. Another reason I don’t really believe in torture, is Lost, the show, i've started watching it and Sayid, was a torturer for the republican guard in Iraq, and he’s just emotionally scarred from it. I don’t think its fair for the torturer, they are forced to injure this person, which is really sick, and it affects them for the rest of their life. Sayid gets kidnapped because people want revenge, they don’t realize that it isn’t the torturers fault, they were just following orders, and they shouldn’t be blamed.

Krotulski - Rendition

While most people today are against torture, there are many people who think that it is still right. I personally am a bit on the fence with torture. I think the torture I the movie Rendition is a bit different than normal torture. In the movie the guy was from America and it did not seem as though the people doing the torturing ever had the right to keep him there. For some reason I sided with the man in the movie. In other cases I would say I am for torture. When a group of people commits terrorist acts against our country, I think it is right to be able to go back and torture those people. After 9/11 I think it was good that the US took people in from the Middle East and tortured them in hopes of getting the good information. In this case the people are not from our country and do not have as much closeness and Anwar did in Rendition. Also after being attacked on our own soil I think we as a country could not just sit back and watch what was going on. We needed to act. By acting, we decided to torture people who were possibly involved with the attacks and I believe there is nothing wrong with this. So as an over view I think rendition is wrong because the people are usually our own citizens, and I also think that torture on people linked to attacking us is fine because they do not have a close link to us.

Cole, Rendition

Only if there is concrete evidence of terrorism, or other extreme activity, should torture be an option for gathering evidence. I am an advocate of innocent until proven guilty, and especially in Anwar’s case where there was a high possibility that he was innocent, such drastic measures should not be taken. As we discussed in class, the act of torture diminishes the legitimacy of the confession or information given. Anwar’s phone looked like a terrorist force had contacted it, so in a way the torturing seemed authorized. Electrocution and water boarding, however, are too extreme for the situation in my opinion. There are other ways of using force to scare a person into confession that do less physical harm. In the film, Fawal tries to lie to Anwar that they had confessions from Rasheed of his help with the suicide bombings, to which Anwar says that he is indeed lying. This blatant disagreement with the supposed evidence confirms that Anwar is telling the truth. If he had shown any sign of wavering in his response then that may have allowed for more interrogation. If torturing was to happen in such a form as seen in Rendition, I think that it needs to be made known to the public so that it wasn't a completely governmental controlled thing. If the United States is going to torture, in any form, it needs to be approved by the people. However I do not see the government ever relenting their ways for handling terrorism...

Marker: Stop Loss

The way that the stop-loss policy is implemented today essentially makes it a draft. In the original contract a soldier signs with the military a term of service is laid out. It can be assumed that if someone gets stop-lossed he or she has completed said term of service. Thus the soldier has upheld his part of the contract so it only seems fair that the military should have to uphold its end as well by discharging the soldier. This, however, is not the case with stop-loss as an option. The military can essentially force a soldier to continue serving beyond his designated term without his consent. This policy is unfair and unjust, even if the soldier is warned of its existence prior to entering the military. Both parties should uphold the terms laid out in the contract without exception. It seems unmerited that the military is allowed to essentially disregard the original contract to suit its own needs. Whether or not stop-loss is actually implemented legally is not the issue in my mind. The real issue lies in the morality of implementing a policy of stop-loss at all. There are few circumstances under which stop-loss can be justified.

When faced with being stop-lossed, in order to best represent discontent, one must not continue service. Instead, he either has to seek asylum in another country or simply continue to run and hide within the U.S. Both of these options are far from ideal but are seemingly the only realistic options if continuing service is not.

Stop Loss

Soldiers sometimes have no choice but to return to the army. Either they are forced to do so, such as King in Stop Loss, or they can’t make it out in the public world outside of the army. For those who do not choose to go back and are angered there are not many ways they can express their feelings. They could boycott the army but usually there are harsh consequences. They could also come up with legitimate reasons for not going back, but again it’s hard to get out of. The army is a tightly ran institution. Sometimes they have no choice but to seek asylum. Also in some cases they don’t mean to. In a lot of soldiers it is hard for them to live in the world with out war and it affects their daily life. This makes it harder for them to go back to war and it makes their home situation much worse. Freedom is never achieved when leaving the war. The soldiers are permanently stuck with a stigma that can be viewed as good and bad; for reasons other than the views if war is good or bad. There aren’t a lot of methods of dealing with the issue of stop loss, there aren’t loop holes and there aren’t ways around the law. Soldiers sign up to give their life away, they don’t have much say in the aftermath of war. 

Unforgivable

Torture is about inflicting pain or suffering intentionally on a person in either a mental or physical way. Torture is however, under international law, prohibited. No person has the right to resort to torture. Torture can be criticized on the grounds of humanitarian and morals. Obviously you are taking away the freedom of the victim during torture. The victim should not be put under pain to reveal information, nor should they suffer for a group of people. No matter who it is, or what they have done in their past every life holds value and meaning. I feel there are such greater heights that are morally acceptable that the government could resort to before they turn to torture. Nothing is positive about torture. Even if you get the results you want from taking away the pride and freedom from the victim the consequences following the procedures could be worse. There could be followers of the victim that could come back harder, or something along those lines. Torture is a subject, which is up for discussion for most people. Some say its understandable for personal reasons that touch close to home, like if someone killed your family member or something like that. I still find no need to turn to violence. Violence is a strong action that can never be taken back. 

I don't think any person should have the right to torture any other person. I don't approve of the idea of torture at all, because I feel that human life should be valued, no matter what. If people are caught, they should be tried and punished. Perhaps even offered a less evil punishment in exchange for useful information. Perhaps this is close-minded, but I don't believe that torture is the right path to take in any circumstance. Even if the government set standards and allowed only certain procedures, torturers would not follow these rules. In addition, who is to say which forms of torture are acceptable and which aren't? They should all be unacceptable, in my opinion. Whose discretion will be used to make these decisions? A safer, "more acceptable" procedure of torture is simply not possible, and so I think it should be rid of altogether.

Gentner Rendition

I am fully aware of arguments for and against torture. I do not like it, and I find it frightening, but I am not in complete opposition. Ideally, I would lie out a set of rules and regulations that the government would have to follow in order to be allowed to torture someone. In addition, I would give the government a set of standards and procedures that would need to be followed in order to carry out a torture. In my eyes, torture should be allowed if there is actual reason to believe that the person is guilty. There should be physical evidence, and a judge should have to find that evidence to be sufficient. Then, if the evidence is sufficient, the defendant should be interrogated aggressively, without physical force. I think that giving people just enough food and water to survive is an excellent way to get information out of them, but I do not agree with water boarding, electrocution, or any other sort of sick way of inflicting physical pain upon someone. So when would I find it COMPLETELY acceptable to torture someone? The answer is if I was doing it myself to a man whom I knew kidnapped my child. I do not trust anyone else to properly follow my moral standards of torture, and for that reason, I do not think that it should be legal in any form, including extraordinary rendition.

Knoepfler: Stop Loss

Hello. I am going to start this blog first by saying that I do not agree with the stop loss policy of the United States. I do not agree with any sort of mandatory military service at all, actually. I think that a country that cannot defend itself with voluntary military service does not deserve freedom at all.

So, what should a soldier do if he is asked to return to the heat of battle against his will? The most logical choice would be to go AWOL and move to Canada. We all know, however, that Canada is the worse place in the world, so there has to be another choice. I would try to start some media fire on the issue. Get the press involved, and let the American people know what a troubled soldier is going through. If war really does put that much psychological stress on its soldiers, I have a feeling that our caring countrymen would help. If that doesn’t work, another possible option would be to claim psychological problems. The military sure does not want a trigger-happy war veteran returning to take revenge. It’ll be like pleading insanity in a criminal trial. That should be pretty easy to pull off, seeing as King has hallucinations of battle scenes when he is back in the United States.

In reality, though, I do not think that there is much one can do if a stop-loss is issued. That is one of the many fatal flaws of this country.

webster- Stop Loss

After watching the movie and reading the articles, I’m not sure what I feel is the best way for soldiers to represent views about continued service after their enlistment. I definitely think going AWOL is the worst choice, because it pretty much erases all of the honor that you worked so hard to achieve, as well as alienates you from the country that you just fought for. That being said, if I were stop lost, I would definitely put a lot of thought into running away, especially if I had been through the type of trauma that Ryan Philippe’s character had. I definitely don’t think jail is the right choice, because it really does ruin your future. Also seeking asylum would probably be very difficult if not impossible, because no one would really want to help you, for fear of being prosecuted by the American government. I think the best way of dealing with it, would be to go back and fight, and then once you made it out, start helping in the fight to end the program, and talk about how unfair it truly is. Although there is always the very real possibility that you don’t make it out, so I really feel there isn’t an easy way to go about this, there is no definitive answer, and even though I feel very strongly about the stop loss program, I would probably just accept it and serve another tour, and hope that I made it home safe, and once I did , I would be able to help those looking into ending the policy because I would have first hand experience of what it could do to a soldier.

PJ DiIorio - March 12 Post

I haven’t really had many problems with blackboard. It is easy enough to use and self-explanatory for the most part. The one point I would make is the problem with the submission of papers through the digital drop-box. However, the problem doesn’t lie with Blackboard itself, but with the file type of submitted papers. Most people use Microsoft Word, although many students use different versions of Word, or different programs altogether. The problem with this is that once the paper is submitted, if it is not the correct file type, Mary won’t be able to view it. In order to solve this problem you should all take the following steps. Once you have finished your essay, you should save it in compatibility mode. This means that it will be viewable no matter what program is being used. To do this (at least in Microsoft Word) you go to “Save As” and then under “Format” change it to “Word Document 97-2004 (.doc).” In this format it is now compatible with most word processors. In terms of other topics we should discuss, I would be interested in how other people in the class would feel about torture and our country’s standpoint on it. Many people view it as a completely immoral and horrific act. However, others might see it as a necessary evil.

PJ DiIorio - Stop Loss Post

One of the major problems with the military's use of Stop Loss is that it leaves the affected soldier with almost no options. The military can act above the law if they so choose and that is exactly what they are doing with Stop Loss. It would be extremely difficult to take any legal actions because it would be hard to find any lawyer willing to risk going against the military. I cannot honestly say what a soldier should do in the position of being Stop Lossed. From an outsider’s perspective, the best option, however hard it may be, would be to try to take legal action. An effective approach to this would be to raise public awareness. Find other soldiers in the same position and work together to prevent the injustice. Organize protests, hold demonstrations, raise awareness, and attract attention. Press coverage would be very important. Once enough people start realizing the injustices occurring, they can be very effective in attracting attention from politicians and lawmakers who are in the right positions to make a change.

Duhe's Stop-Loss Blog

Soldiers are currently facing enourmous obstacles in their armed forces enlistment contracts. They are being torn between their feelings of obligation to their country and their feelings of betrayal at the effects of the stop-loss policy. I choose the picture above because it highlights the depth of many soldiers commitment to their duty. We only see the superficial side of the fight from fences far away from the heart of these soldiers. True, a few soldiers speak out against the unfairness of the stop-loss policy and many support these opinions and views. Thousands of soldiers, however, support their country and its decision for whats best unconditionally, many take their stop-loss and continue to fight loyally without objection. Which brings us to the point, which soldier is right? I for one think they both are, bless the soldier that revels in his service and continues to fight without of objection and praise the soldier that speaks out against his and his brethrens mistreatment. Soldiers themselves are in turmoil about what to do over this mistreatment as they are loyal without question to those being accused. It is up to the politicians, generals, and citizens to realize that they must value the lives of those that serve them above all else and seek nothing but the most fair of treatment towards them. It is up to our leaders to make the moral choice on our soldiers behalf, and it is up to us as citizens to make them realize the importance of this decision. I think that those who are needed should be encouraged to stay but those who wish to leave at the end of their contract should always have the option; even if I believe they should choose to further serve the forces that trained them.

McCay Rendition Post

In the abstract, I am sure all of us would say that we are opposed to torture, and the film, Rendition, shows a very mild form of torture; however, do you believe there is a circumstance in which a person, an army, a government has the right to resort to torture? Give specifics of your example and your reasoning.

Krotulski - Stop Loss

Today in the military, a soldier can be “stop lossed,” meaning he or she must return to duty even though their term is almost up. After watching the movie Stop Loss, I think it is clear that a soldier cannot do much to prevent against this program. In the movie King tries to go to higher powers but he quickly find that now he has left the Army basically no one will be on his side. Through the readings in the folders and online as well, I have come to believe that with stop loss the Army and military is never wrong. There have been many cases where people have tried to fight back but almost always lose in the end.

If a soldier does decide to run away after being stop lossed then I think that he or she needs to look at where they are going. As the movie has shown, going to higher powers does not work. From a government stand point I think the only thing they could do with people who wish to escape being stop lossed in jail them or put them into asylums. When it comes to it, running away from the Army after being stop lossed is completely illegal. The soldiers have contracts in which they have signed and there is really no going against that. The only real way to upholding the policy to jail or asylum soldiers who go against orders. I do not think the program is right but I think that there is not much that can be done. Someone high up in power needs to take a stand against stop lossing soldiers and show that it is not good.

Davis, Stop Loss

Stop-loss legislation is one of those issues where I have murky opinions. On one hand, I do not approve of a quasi-draft by forcing veterans to return to combat; on the other, the possibility of being stop-lossed is a clear and obvious risk associated with the job. While I believe that the current legislation violates a solider's civil liberties, going AWOL like Brandon King did in the film would not be worth the effort. Brandon ended up risking his friends' mental stability, his relationship with his parents, and even the chance of being stripped of his rank. If I had been stop-lossed, my first priority would be to ask if I could fulfill a noncombat role -- military police, technical crew, JAG,etc. That way, soldiers could still support the war efforts without actually having to engage in combat

Antoon - Stop Loss

I believe the best method for soldiers dealing with extra tours after their intital enlistment is to speak out against the government. Although they may still have to go overseas, if enough people follow this action, the government might begin to fear that if enough soldiers are dissatisfied with the way the forces are carried out, fewer people will join. Going awol or leaving the country might seem to work for a short period of time, but it is not truly fixing the problem, it is rather just finding a temporary manner of coping with it. I don't believe the government should force people that have already served so much time to return against their consent. While I'm certainly not in favor of a draft, given the two options, it almost seems more fair to have others serve as opposed to re-enlist those who have already sacrificed so much

Gentner Stop Loss

viewing the film, the problem of the stop loss registration became apparent to me. I was previously unaware of the policy and its history. Now that I have been educated and have seen the film, however, I have formed my own opinions of what is going on in the military. To begin, I would like to share that I have a cousin in the marines, and he has influenced my view of the military greatly. I guess you could say that I am an avid supporter of the whole “Death before dishonor”. I feel strongly that because soldiers are now educated regarding their contracts and the stop-loss policy before hand, they are responsible to fulfill the terms of the contract. There is no excuse as to why one should not do so. Having said that, however, I empathize with what a soldier would go through after having served their tour and being sent back again. It is definitely a traumatic experience, and it should be treated accordingly. I am not really sure what I would suggest to a soldier who does not wish to serve another tour or to a soldier who has any problems with the military? What can one do? Passively, soldiers could attempt to have the law changed, although that would be effective only in an ideal world. I can say that what I do NOT suggest is that a soldier go AWOL. It is such a conflict because going to serve another tour is obviously dangerous and a risk to one’s life. It must be so difficult for a family to have to deal with the possible loss of their child more than once. I guess if I had to choose, I would tell the soldier to do as the military wishes and pray for the best until another LEGAL way of dealing with the issue is found.

Calder, Stop-Loss

I think the policy of stop loss is reprehensible, if not unconstitutional. It amazed me how in those articles, they talked about how the policy was upheld multiple times in court. As many (including John Kerry) have said, the policy of stop loss is a "backdoor draft" where the military involuntarily extends the tours of duty of soldiers. In the 2008 film Stop-Loss the character SSgt. Brandon King (Ryan Phillippe) goes AWOL after receiving stop loss orders the day he is going to be discharged. After meeting up with other AWOL soldiers fleeing to Canada, he tries to buy fake papers from a man, and later tries to flee to Mexico. While I disagree with the policy, I cannot agree with the course of action the character. I think the most acceptable way to deal with it would be to go to jail and fight the policy from there. Going AWOL is not only cowardly, but it is a temporary solution: you are going to get caught eventually. If American legal channels were not an option, the second-best route would be to seek asylum legally in a foreign country. My views on the policy of stop loss are much like my views on the draft. Stop loss, as well as the draft, should only be implemented when there is a legal war, declared by congress. It should not be allowed to be implemented for a "conflict" so unpopular that it cannot get soldiers to sign up and fight for it.

Calder, Blackboard

I, personally, have not had any problems with Blackboard. To solve the problems associated with it I would be okay with turning in a hard copy to you, however I realise this is not feasible for everyone.

I think the class is going really well. The only thing I think we could change about the discussions is not getting off-topic so much, however I am guilty of that too. Ideally we could have a few more opportunities for extra-credit before the semester is over.

Cole, Stop Loss

A soldier who has been stop-lossed has a variety of options to consider. First, they can obviously return to war and fulfill another tour, however, less desirable options are available as well. I do not think that seeking asylum or going AWOL is the right way to go about handling the situation, although many soldiers seem to choose the latter. Although many soldiers suffer from post-traumatic stress from their tours, seeking asylum seems like it will only bring more mental problems to the soldier, and hinder his progression to living in society. I believe that going AWOL will have similar consequences on the mind in the long run, as the separation from family, friends, and the familiarity of home will eventually take its toll on the soldier. Fighting the order seems to be the only way to effectively get across the views of the soldier. If they aren’t willing to go to war again, they must be willing to face the injustice in court. Jail is not the ideal solution to any problem, but if serving a little bit of time to make an important point is what it takes then by all means. It really is up to the soldier to decide how strongly he feels against the stop-loss movement. I also agree with Alyssa’s idea that there is strength in numbers. If every soldier who was stop-lossed rallied together against the government, I think the effect would be powerful, in comparison to a single man standing up against it.

Overall, stop loss is the only way for our government to not lose their troops, but the cost is often too great. The mental health of both the soldier and their families is already at risk after one tour, a second would be suicide in many people’s eyes.

Loos, Death Before Dishonor

Soldiers who have been stop-lossed are in a very difficult position if they are looking to avoid more military service. Many soldiers have fought the stop-loss in court, which is the method most assume they would use. However, the courts have usually side against the soldier, in favor of the U.S. government. A law suit is a valid, but most likely ineffective way to fight stop-loss.

Soldiers have already attempted to seek refugee status in Canada, but Canada rejected the claim pointing out the difference between prosecution and persecution. Canada also fears a large influx of deserters because during the Vietnam War, many Americans deserted to Canada.

There is the option of going AWOL. Staying in America would be difficult, as we see in the film when Brandon meets a deserter and his family. Mexico and Canada would be the best place to go.

During the Vietnam War, many men were put in jail when they refused to serve. I suppose if a soldier’s lawsuit didn’t work out and he could not flee, and he would literally do anything not to go back to war, jail would not be such a bad option. Jail is a rough place to say the least, but if a person had a moral objection to war, going to jail is better. Unlike going AWOL, jail also makes a stronger statement that stop-loss is wrong.

I feel the only real option our government gives a person to object to stop-loss is through the courts, even though past lawsuits have not been favorable to the soldier. On the bright side, it could possibly delay your tour.

There are other last resorts. If a woman did not want to return to Iraq, she could get pregnant. If a man did not want to return, he could say he is homosexual.

Tell Your Kids!!!!

Marijuana became illegal in 1937, and has remained a controversy ever since. According to the DEA’s website, “Most drug crimes aren’t committed by people trying to pay for drugs; they’re committed by people on drugs.” They also claim that when “Holland” legalized marijuana there was an increase in heroin usage. Also, when Alaska decriminalized marijuana in the 1970s, the state’s teen usage doubled leading to re-criminalization in the 1990s.

The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, (NORML) on their website lists four talking points for pro-legalization. These are, decriminalizing marijuana frees up police resources so they may spend more time on more serious crime, far more harm is caused by prohibition than by actual usage of marijuana, decriminalization does not lead to increase in use and that prohibition does not deter marijuana usage.

In my opinion marijuana should be decriminalized. The United States has more citizens imprisoned than communist China, 60,000 of which are there for marijuana offenses. By making marijuana illegal our government has created crime. When someone smokes pot in the comfort and privacy of their own home, who are they harming? No one. Drunk people are far more dangerous and annoying then stoned people. Marijuana should be legalized not only for medicinal and industrial usage but also for recreational use.

Nancy Grace disapproves of Paris Hilton Smoking Pot:

Bodin, Blackboard

Fortunately, I have not experienced too many problem with blackboard. My only concerns are with submitting papers. I was unaware you could also save papers on blackboard, and instead of actually submitting my paper, i just saved it. So maybe that is my own fault for not understanding the system, and not blackboard's fault. Other than the problems with submitting papers I have not had trouble with videos or other aspects of blackboard. One thing I would change about blackboard would be to somehow connect it with our loyola email. Because sometimes, for example, when class is cancelled, some teachers post it on blackboard or some send an email. It gets time consuming waiting for blackboard to load, so it would be nice if your email could send you a message of what has been posted on blackboard.

Personally, I don't have any problems with the class. I enjoy the class discussions about he films. The movies we watch are definitely movies I would not have chosen to go see just because they are very heavy. I guess I enjoy "mind-less TV" because I rarely watch movies that are centered around such heated world issues. But, nonetheless, the films are very enlightening. The topics we should discuss with Stop-Loss involve the military's decision to re-enlist its soldiers and how the policy is still in effect today.

Patterson Stop Loss Power In Numbers

The best way for soldiers to deal with the issue of stop-loss, in my opinion, is to find power in their numbers. Almost one fifth of the soldiers who serve in Iraq are stop-lossed and forced to return. That is far more than enough people to congregate together and rise against the government. This would not be the most peaceful, or easy solution, but it could be the only one that is enough to make a difference. The government is clearly not paying any attention to each individual soldier, therefore they must band together to gain attention. Surely the government cannot arrest that many soldiers, and even if they wanted to, they wouldn't just for appearance's sake. How would the American public react if thousands of soldiers who had just risked their lives to defend the country were thrown into jail? That is hardly a welcome home. I think that the only real way for these soldiers to cause enough commotion to be respected and to truly take a stand against stop loss is to all come together and refuse to go back together. This way, there is no one getting physically hurt, no one fleeing the country to pretend their lives never existed, and no one getting killed in war when their tours had already been served.

Bucher, Stop-Loss post.

The film Stop-Loss seems to have an underlying theme of psychological effects of war for soldiers, as do most war-related films. I feel in the class discussing this film, we should focus on the psychological effects warfare has on the human mind not only in film and media but in reality as our troops serve in Iraq. As far as film, great psychological war films should be discussed in allusion to this topic such as Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, The Deer Hunter, and many other films.
To many individuals view war movies and find misinterpreted meanings behind the plot or do not look beyond the explosions and action of the scenes. Also, some films of war are not written with the intent to discuss psychological matters [i.e. directors like Michael Bay].

Bucher, Blackboard post

Blackboard has been helpful to me in my time at Loyola thus far. The site management is easy to understand, navigation is explicit, and the information is at the student's disposal. The only issue I have with Blackboard is more about the professor's involvement using it.

Some professors post notes, discussion topics, the syllabus, grades, assignments and everything else the site caters to in order to assist the students with the course outside of the actual classroom. Other professors do not use the site at all and all assignments with other class work material is either assigned in class or the syllabus is only posted on LORA. It's nice to have the syllabus somewhere online, but LORA is much more arduous and difficult to navigate than Blackboard.

Overall, I am perfectly content with the site and perhaps it is the professors themselves that make the site difficult to use. I'm not sure if there is not enough education for faculty use on the site or if some faculty refuse to deal with the new technology, but professors must be encouraged to utilize the site more for the students' convenience.

William Duhe Marijuana

The Union Movie Trailer

The Union: The Business Behind Getting High | MySpace Video

Samuels, David. “Dr. Koosh.” The New Yorker. The New Yorker, 28 July 2008. Web.

5 Oct. 2009.

This article is based on a day in the life of a pot broker. The author explains the processes that marijuana goes through before being sold to the public for medical use. The author based the article around one his good friends named Blue who is a “connection” for marijuana growers in northern California, to patients around the state who are prescribed to the drug.

David Samuels wrote this particular piece off of experience and interviews. He is a former editor of The Harvard Lampoon. Several of his stories have been featured on the Atlantic. He has written over a dozen features for The New Yorker.

“Although much of the public discussion centered on the needs of patients with cancer, AIDS, and other diseases that are synonymous with extraordinary suffering, the language of the proposition was intentionally broad, covering any medical condition for which a licensed physician might judge marijuana to be an appropriate remedy—insomnia, say, or attention-deficit disorder.”


McCartney, Robert. “Some Potent Arguments For Legalizing Marijuana.” The

Washington Post. 13 Sept. 2009. Web. 5 Oct. 2009.

This article also explains the benefits of legalizing marijuana along with touching on the cons. The author explains how legalizing the drug would benefit the economy and country. He writes about the responses he got on the topic while traveling from high school to high school.

Robert McCartney has been writing for twenty seven years and is the assistant manage editor of The Washington Post. This particular article is gathered from interviews and polls he personally took from students. He is biased and for legalizing marijuana to the public.

“When it comes to marijuana, American society has lost the war on drugs--and that's okay. We should stop squandering time and money trying to reverse history and instead legalize both medical and recreational use of this mild narcotic widely seen as no more harmful than alcohol.”



Vick, Karl. “In California, Medical Marijuana Laws Are Moving Pot Into The

Mainstream.” The Washington Post. The Washington Post, 12 April 2009.

Web. 5 Oct. 2009.

In this article, the uses of medical marijuana are exposed. The author explains how many of the patients prescribed to marijuana are given the drug for simply stating they want it. The author expresses how the use of medical marijuana has begun to help with California’s financial issues and becoming a part of the states mainstream.

Karl Vick is the West Coast Bureau Chief at the Washington Post for the Greater Los Angeles Area. His opinions in this article are not biased and he touches on both sides of the topic. He has written over 65 articles for the Washington Post.

“But in California, pot is such a booming growth industry that lawmakers are being asked to consider its potential as a salve to the state's financial woes.”


Wood, Daniel. “Tests For California’s ‘Pot Economy’”. Christian Science Monitor.

Christian Science Monitor, 26 July 2009. Web. 5 Oct. 2009.

This article focuses on Los Angeles and its “booming” marijuana medical use. Wood also discusses the debates in other states of whether use of marijuana should become legal or if it should be banned from even medical use. The article explains the rapid growth of the patients prescribed to the drug in the past few years. He explains the use of the drug as a cultural change and foresees more states making the drug legal.

Daniel Wood is a writer for the Christian Science Monitor. He used interviews and quotes in this article. His opinions on the topic are unbiased and he brings up valid points in his writing.

“Los Angeles's pot economy is booming. The number of medical-marijuana dispensaries here has skyrocketed from 183 in 2007 to about 800 now. In this period, pot shops have morphed from what Reynolds calls "hidden, remote places with no signs or addresses" into listed and public outlets. Many sport 10-foot signboards in the shape of a marijuana leaf.”

As my opinions probably became relevant through the articles I choose to exhibit there is little need for me to state my opinion of the legalization of marijuana. I believe the only thing stopping the drug from being made legal is the ignorance and pride of those in power.

William Duhe's Blackboard Post

Blackboard has always been a valid resource for me. I have never really had a problem with it to be perfectly honest. This class is the first class I have ever experienced and turbulence over its performance. I posted papers and they went up, I watched video's and they worked, and checked assignments daily. I think the problems we have experienced in this class have been more due to the lack of communication between us as students and our wonderful professor. I think that we have figured out a majority of the confusion and we will move forward through this semester.

As far as what I think we should discuss as a class over the next few films I believe that we should focus more on what political biases the films have towards a particular group. I think that we should examine these biases and attempt to understand how they might slant the message that the film is sending. Such as the depiction of Bush is Harold and Kumar.

McCay Stop Loss Blog

REMEMBER, WHEN POSTING YOUR BLOG, YOU SHOULD PUT YOUR LAST NAME IN THE TITLE AS I HAVE IN MINE. IF YOUR NAME WERE SMITH, YOUR BLOG TITLE WOULD READ SMITH STOP LOSS A DIFFERENT FORM OF DRAFT? FOR EXAMPLE.

After viewing the film and reading the readings in the STOP LOSS folder, discuss how you think soldiers can best represent their views about continued service after the end of their enlistment. if they do not wish to continue service, should they seek asylum? Go AWOL? go to jail? or find another method of dealing with the issue?

Alex D., Blackboard post

My only problem with Blackboard came when I submitted the last paper; even though the file had sent, I had no way of knowing if it was the correct one. Plus, the file ended up corrupted, so I just had to submit a hard copy anyway.

Since Stop-Loss deals with the quagmire in Iraq, we should obviously mention the political implications. We should also discuss racial profiling (and the drug trade) for Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay.

Cole, Blackboard Post

I have had no issues with Blackboard besides the videos not working properly, but that is probably due to the terrible internet connection in my dorm room for the most part. I go to the Monday night screenings, but when I want to go back to review for papers the streamings aren't always the most convenient. All of my papers, though, have been received by you through Blackboard and all the posted readings have worked as well. The blogging is a bit of an annoyance, not because of the actual blogging, but because blackboard has a blogging tool which would be easy enough to use. Although I am getting the hang of this blogging site, now.

The issues brought up in the movie Rendition will be interesting to discuss, as well as Stop Loss, although talking about the military is always a subject that needs to be tread lightly. As long as we can stay on track and be open minded to other views I think the discussions will be successful. Speaking of staying on track, I think that is an issue that needs to be resolves in class. We never continue on with one topic or train of thought for more than a couple minutes it seems, and it seems that we end up talking about something completely irrelevant at times. This makes it hard and often frustrating to keep up with, not motivating me to contribute to the mass of streams of thoughts being thrown out. I do enjoy listening to the ideas and opinions of my classmates but sometimes they need to be helped in the right direction of the discussion and issues at hand. This class has been very interesting thus far though, and I have enjoyed the paper topics as well up to this point in the year.

blackboard

My only real issue with the whole blackboard thing, is this blog, I mean there is a blog on blackboard that’s pretty easy to use, and doesn’t make us get invited, so I just don’t understand why we aren’t using it... as for the drop box and the streaming, its not really a problem for me. I like how we are discussing movies in class, I think its informative, and I really enjoy it, I would like to do a little less mise en scene work, I still don’t really understand the concepts, and its not because I haven’t tried...

Traffic post

The legalization of medical marijuana has been a very slow process because there are two very different sides arguing over it, on one side there are people who do not believe marijuana in any form should be legal, and on the other side there are people who think it is the greatest plant ever discovered, each side has rational arguments that prevent the issue from being resolved. Those who feel that marijuana should be illegal even for medicinal purposes feel that way because there are other pharmaceuticals that can alleviate pain just as well as marijuana can that have been tested by the FDA, they also feel that if marijuana is legalized then everyone will find a way to access it. Those who feel that all marijuana should be legalized especially medicinal argue that marijuana can help take away pain without harsh side affects such as some pharmaceuticals, also marijuana has been proven to work for hundreds of health problems, and is no more dangerous then any other sort of pain killer. I personally feel that medicinal marijuana should be legalized, because someone who is dying of cancer should be able to chose how they want to soothe their pain through that ordeal, its not fair for a doctor or a government official to make that decision for them, because in the end they are the one who is suffering and they are the one who will have to deal with their illness, I also understand that marijuana can be very profitable for the economy, so why not tax it and make everyone happy.

Blackboard & Course

There are not that many big issues with Blackboard, but there are problems with the site nonetheless. The e-mail through Blackboard is not very reliable at all, many time I have sent e-mails through Blackboard and they have not gone through to the recipient. Some teachers post things on Blackboard, telling them about the next homework assignment or paper, etc, but many students do not check Blackboard everyday because other teachers just send e-mails, I think that it would be helpful if a e-mail was automatically sent out when a new notification or post has been put up by the teacher, if that were possible. There have been times when I could not access Blackboard for hours at a time, which is inconvenient because some of the material held on Blackboard is vital for classes, like homework, readings, videos, etc. Besides the issues listed above, I personally, have not had any other issues that I can think of with Blackboard.

About the course:

I think the class is very well proportioned between video clips, discussions about the worksheets and political issues themselves, and questions asked. Sometimes if a student begins to talk and the beginning of their argument is not exactly what is wanted to be heard or off topic a little but, they are cut off completely and not given a chance to talk at all. I know there are other things to talk about in class that need to be gotten to, but I think there is enough time within the class for us to get a little off subject, which happens, and if a student wants to say something, they should be given the chance to do so. Of course, if their argument does not hold up or if they are COMPLETELY off topic, go to the next, but every student should be given the same privileges of speech. The political and film issues that we discuss in class are right on target with what they should be about with each movie, in my opinion. I also think the new rules for this part of the term will do good to those who are not timely with turning things in, it will give fairness to other students as well.

Antoon, March 10, Blackboard

So far, I really have not had any major complaints with Blackboard. The only issue that I have is I prefer handing in a physical copy of an assignment in class rather than submitting it online for the simple fact that I am positive the professor has recieved my work. Even if one submits the assignment properly online, there is no assurance that it has been received by the professor, and I just like having the piece of mind that it has been completed and I don't have to worry about it. Also, many of the professors use online resources in different ways, and sometimes it makes it hard to keep track of all of my classes. As far as topics to be discussed in class, I think we've covered many of the major ones already, and have not seen any of the remaining ones, so I really can't say what aspects of each we should discuss. I've enjoyed the class so far though, and I feel like whatever topics do arise will provide meaningful and insightful discussion.

Marijuana

Probably the most frequent argument I hear for the legalization on marijuana is that the federal government from taxing it. Drug sales are a huge underground industry in this country. If marijuana were made legal federal and state government could impose a so-called “sin tax” on it, much like they do with alcohol and tobacco products. Another reason often cited is the overcrowding in Americas prisons. Many of the prisoners housed in state prisons are non-violent drug offenders. Instead of sending a college student with a dime bag to New Orleans Metro, they could be focusing state resources on violent criminals. Here is a very good website with he statistics on drug offenders in prison. The “war on drugs” has been going on for decades, and obviously it is not working. Something has to change, because demand is never going to go away, and where there is a demand there will always be a supply. I think that the overcrowded prisons are the most convincing argument for the legalization of marijuana. This is also one of the reasons that will actually bring about change. Reasons appealing to money are going to be the ones that will lead to change in policy, simply because that is what will appeal to non-marijuana users the most. The former marijuana user, Arnold Schwarzenegger said that he is willing to talk about the complete legalization of marijuana. As I was writing this blog I asked my friend’s opinion on this issue. My friend took a USA Today out of her bag, and on the front page was an article titled “Slowly, limits on pot are fading.” I think that people are talking about this issue more than ever, and soon the laws will change.

I've never personally had any problems with blackboard. This may or may not have
to do with the fact that I rarely use it, though. In previous classes, the only
interaction I had with the ever glorious Blackboard Academic Suite was a weekly
post on the discussion board and occasional checking of grades, assignments,
course materials, ect. In this class, however, I was introduced to a new aspect
of the software, turning in assignments. Call me old fashioned, but I would be
in favor of turning in papers and assignments in class. Physical papers excite
me. It makes me feel like I actually achieved something.
In regards to the political issues to be discussed after we watch Stop Loss,
Rendition, Harold and Kumar, and W, I feel as though we could use some help with
that. Oftentimes, movies have a blatantly obvious political message. This is not
the case in a lot of the films we have watched, however. If we got some sort of
prompt to give us a few ideas before the movie, the worksheets and discussions
would probably turn out a lot better.
The class seems like it jumps around a lot. I’m not very much of an outspoken
person, but I’ve had a few moments where I wanted to throw my opinion into the
mix. I find that to be getting increasingly hard, though. For example, we would
be talking about one thing in class, someone brings up a comment on that, and
the conversation goes into a completely random tangent. It’s really hard to keep
up and pay attention sometimes.
On a lighter note, I really do enjoy this class. Cheers.

blackboard and improvements

Since the start of the semester, I have not had any substantial problems with Blackboard. The only problem I have personally had was the problem with how to submit papers. I talked with Amy and she showed me how to submit the next papers. I did not realize you had to use the send feature rather than the add feature. That has been the only problem I have had.

I really do not see how the library would serve blackboard better. I think that having someone there that knows what they are doing is fine. Bryan has helped out and I think that is enough. If people are having problems then they need to take it upon themselves to ask or go to Bryan. I think that Blackboard informational sessions will just be a waste of time.

I think that the class has been running very well. I have enjoyed watching the films and have definitely learned something through the last half of the semester. If I could suggest one thing it would be to maybe highlight the political aspects the movies covers. I realize that it is usually apparent as to the message behind the film. I just think it would be help if you suggested some specific things to think about while watching the movie. I am not able to go the screens, so I do no know what happens there. I know I am not a frequent reader of the papers, and I know I have to work on that as well.

blackboard

Blackboard is a school website that helps organize students academic life. It holds their work assignments, their grades, and other essentials elements of student’s academics. I’ve been lucky enough to never have any problems with blackboard. I know others have though. Some have trouble with the tools blackboard holds, such as drop box. Although the e-mail from the man from the library helped, the tools can still be confusing. But I do think Blackboard is a simple as it can get.

I can’t put much input into the discussion topics because I have not seen any of the movies. Usually the discussions go well and there aren’t very many silences where you have to strive to get input. Up to this point the movies have gone well with the topics that are up for discussion in society. But I do think the curriculum goes hand in hand with the up and coming decisions the government will be making, or the protests that are being held. 

Blackboard issues

In terms of blackboard, I have been somewhat lucky in that I have not encountered many issues. That may be a result of the fact that I only use it sparingly (or when I have to). Yet when I have had to interact with the site, I have found most things to be pretty straightforward. The biggest issue I have had is that the movies that are streamed, often times are very slow and tend to stop a lot as you are watching them. I have found that it is just easier to rent the movies instead of getting frustrated at blackboards streaming. Also, I think the layout of blackboard is somewhat annoying. It is straightforward, however it lacks good organization. So, to conclude, I have been fine using blackboard. If anything, it is just a hassle, and that seems to be my only complaint.

To legalize or not to legalize

In terms of the argument in favor of legalizing marijuana, the following points have been made. The history of prohibiting this drug has failed to control its usage, production and sales of such thing. The arrests that take place over marijuana possession has resulted in ridiculously expensive taxes among the people; when if we just eliminated those people from our prisons the taxes would go down significantly, and the government and American people would save money, and our justice system would be come a great deal more efficient. Also, if a legal market in marijuana was passed, then the sales and usage (especially among teenagers) could be regulated and ultimately reduced because of the rebellious appeal is taken away, and the government can control the distribution more closely. If Marijuana was legalized it would reduce the transactions that take place between international gangs. The fact of the matter is, weed is not a lethal drug. Studies have proven that it is actually significantly less dangerous compared to alcohol, and the drug is not toxic. It is unlikely for a user to overdose as well as become addicted, especially when comparing it to alcohol or tobacco or other drugs. Most importantly, Marijuana has a great deal of medical value. It allows for pain relief, nausea relief (just to name a few). For many people who have not seen results from their conventional medications, the recreational use of marijuana has had great feedback. What is useful in using this drug for treatment is the fact that there really is a low chance for any kind of dependence, and the side effects are more than manageable. This is considered to be a “low risk” drug.

Contrary, the reasons that back up the argument that marijuana should not me legalized include: The fact that the American government knows little about this drug, and it could take up to years before scientists are able to attain all the information of this drug (which is considered to be a complex structure) in order to really know the true medical value. Also, if marijuana were legalized it is likely that the distribution and usage would be abused. There is also the argument that just because marijuana is safer than alcohol, does that mean it should necessarily be legalized. To back this up, examples such as: would you want your pilot to be flying your plane after smoking, or your cab driver etc. Finally, this drug may not be incredibly dangerous, but its reputation for being the “gateway” drug is in fact a danger to individuals smoking it and their families and our society as a whole.

I think it is somewhat simple, based on the increasing prices of our nation’s prisons, and the unnecessary costs that are being spent by the American government; the system that is set in place now is flawed. Too much money is being spent on something that could be better controlled, and have the ultimate goal achieved of reducing drug consumption and distribution. And lastly, if there have been studies that have proven the medical benefits of this drug, a person’s health should become priority, regardless of what the treatment intakes.

Call it cannabis!

Since it seems that everyone in our class is for the legalization of cannabis, let me say this: If you want to see cannabis legalized, then don't refer to it as marijuana (which is a Mexican word that found it's way into the English language in the 1930's when the government and private interests were pushing forth legislation to criminalize cannabis), and don't refer to it as any of it's myriad of street names; these names demonize the substance and constrict people's thinking about it. Refer to it as cannabis, which is the true scientific, English language word for it.

Prohibition has never worked in America. During the prohibition of alcohol we created an entirely new revenue stream for organized crime rings like the mafia. This was the main reason that the mafia gained so much power during those days. That is happening again with the Mexican drug cartels because of cannabis prohibition.
The ultimate effect of prohibiting any substance is that substance moving from the legitimate market to the black market. This effect has many severe ramifications: The government can no longer tax or control the sale of the substance, the government spends much needed tax dollars on trying to eradicate the substance (unsuccessfully) and imprisoning otherwise law abiding citizens, the substance will only be sold on the black market (which is completely unregulated) by criminals (or connoisseurs of the substance), and people who continue to buy and use the substance must deal with real, potentially violent criminals.
A recent study found that if cannabis was regulated and taxed in California, the California state government would bring in over a billion dollars a year. That's just in California, the federal government would probably take in anywhere from 25-50 billion dollars in taxes if it was regulated across the country. Also, as long as cannabis is kept in the black market we cannot control who buys or uses it; There is no age restrictions on the black market, the street corner dealer doesn't care if you're 13 or 25 as long as you have the money. Currently it is easier, on average, for high school students to buy cannabis than it is to buy alcohol.
The very idea that the US government can successfully eradicate cannabis from America by imprisoning users and dealers is flawed because the more dealers they arrest, the higher the prices become, and the higher the prices become, the more people start dealing. This is an equation that can never work. Furthermore, when we arrest users we are not hitting at the source of the problem, it just clogs up our legal system. I was arrested for minor possession of cannabis last November and I am still suffering the consequences (Huge legal fees, completely unnecessary rehab classes, oh and FIVE DAYS in one of the worst prisons in the country, along with a slew of constitutional infractions that I just can either spend even more money in legal fees fighting or just forget about; and unless someone wants to donate money then I'll probably go for the latter).

Loos, Second Quarter Recommendations

I honestly have not had problems with Blackboard. I print out and turn in my worksheets in class, and I email the paper in addition to submitting it to the Drop Box. I cannot give any input on how to improve it.

One political issue I am interested in discussing this quarter is the treatment of American soldiers and veterans of the Iraqi war. I do not think this class has really discussed the military in great depth. I am sure the themes brought up in the movie Stop Loss will lead to some debates in class. I am curious to see what discussions will arise from Harold & Kumar: Escape from Guantanamo, since Harold and Kumar movies are considered some what lowbrow.

Here are some movies that might be a nice addition to the class, and if nothing else they are nice recommendations. The first is Black Book, a German film about a Jewish woman working with the resistance. The second is Saving Private Ryan which I am sure most people have already seen. This film is perhaps the most realistic representation of D-day. The third recommendation is The Last King of Scotland, another highly regarded film about the physician of a Ugandan dictator. This film’s theme is very similar to that of Good.

Patterson, March 12 blog

I really haven't had any problems with Blackboard. It is all very self-explanatory and easy to understand. However, I would prefer if the library left the films on streaming video for a longer amount of time. I like being able to refer back to them, so it'd be great if the films could stay on blackboard all semester, especially for when we will have to write our comparison paper.
After we watch Rendition, I would be interested in discussing torture, and the American viewpoint of it. On one hand, it could be extremely useful in combating terrorism and every other country seems to be doing it. However, it is incredibly morally wrong, and seemingly un-American. I'd be interested to hear what people think about the issue. When we watch Harold and Kumar, I'd expect to talk about stereotypes and discrimination. I'm curious to try to spot elements of mise-en-scene in that movie. I've never seen Stop-Loss or W, so I am not sure what we would discuss in class.

Legalize Marijuana and Save the State of Our Nation

Doctors prescribe morphine and other highly addictive drugs, while weed is not addictive at all. There are more people in rehab for morphine addiction, so perhaps the government should illegalize some other more harmful drugs instead of putting all their energy and our tax dollars into eradicating weed. You cannot overdose on weed; you can never do too much weed.

On point against the legalization of medical marijuana is that some medical studies have tied marijuana usage to brain damage, cancer, and depression. Memory loss and slower problem solving skills are also cited as possible side effects of smoking weed.

I think that the legalization of weed whether it is for medical purposes or leisure is inevitable. Massachusetts has decriminalized marijuana and California is known for their top-grade and legal medical marijuana. The legalization of weed would also save the government money in a time when America’s economy is in a recession. This country spends billions of dollars a year to catch weed dealers and enthusiasts and to lock them up. Over 40% of prisoners in our jails are there for weed related crimes. The government would get to stop pouring billions of dollars into useless and ineffective prevention, and they could also tax the weed. It’s a win-win for everyone. Not only will people be happy because weed is legalized, but they will be happy that America’s economic woes have been solved.

War on Drugs

The legalization of marijuana has always been one that I have been a little torn between. I don't think there is any reason it should be illegal, yet I also feel, for many reasons people often overlook, that it should not be used. I am very well aware that it is less dangerous than alcohol, but it can cause an "emotional" addiction, even if it doesn't cause a physical one. Many people that use marijuana obviiously use it to enhance the experience of whatever they are doing, whether it is film, music, or anything else. The problem with this is if everything appears "beautiful" under the substance, many people are unsatisfied with these things off the drug, which can cause some people to find it hard to stop usage, and yes, it does cause short term memory loss, laziness, and the smoke can still cause cancer (many scientists believe at a higher rate than cigarettes, and studies have shown that it increases risk of testicular cancer.) However, the assignment is whether or not I think it should be legal, which I suppose I do. If people are going to use it, which obviously they are, I think the government should at least be able to tax it and have some control over the circulation of it. It should not be the government's place to dictate the choices other make with their lives as long as those choices don't interfere with the well-being of others.

McCay, March 12 Blog

Please do a blog that indicates the problems you have had with blackboard, the ways the library might serve Blackboard better, and the specific political and film issues you would like to discuss when we do Stop Loss, Rendition, Harold and Kumar, and W. I would appreciate any input you have. I also want to congratulate the people who have been doing blogs consistently. They are generally very thoughtful and thought provoking. ALSO. When you make a title for your blog, please do what I did in my title. Use your last name as the first word in the title of the blog.

More Oreos needed in Aisle 4

According to this website, a state cannot take part in the production or distribution of an immoral substance. I would hazard a guess that the author of the "Against" portion of this article has not noticed the prevalence of cigarettes and alcohol in stores around the USA. Nor has this author ever been to a bar. It seems to be that not only do the states of our country, but the federal government itself take part in distributing and profiting in this "immoral" trade. If you were to take the effects of alcohol and measure them next to the effects of pot, one would notice that pot doesn't leave a person incapacitated. As an EMT, I have seen my share of drunk people at many levels of intoxication. Some people can't talk, can't walk, or even think. I have also seen people who have been smoking weed. While these people are clearly under the influence and may desire an in depth conversation about how many grains of sand on on the beach, they are able to think, walk, talk, and function. While I do not agree with anyone driving under the influence of any substance, I do not feel as afraid of a high driver compared to the terror of touching bumpers with a drunk driver. Pot is not a dangerous drug. You can't OD on it, users don't get violent on it, and people could grow their own supply of it. The simple fact that people could grow their own supply destroys an entire market for dealers! Private cultivation also control purity of product. The grower knows exactly what he/she is getting. It is long past time that the use and cultivation of pot is legalized. Marijuana is a natural product, just like cigarettes. While more people may smoke pot if it is legalized, I think it is a better choice over drinking. Not only that, throwing people in jail for pot is foolish. It is a waste of federal dollars and a quick way to destroy families.

"Leagalize It"

The article I found on the legalization of medical marijuana was about supporting its legaliztion, but there also included some counter arguments as to why medical marijuana should not be legalized. One supporting statement from the article was, ".. not allowing those suffering from illnesses caused by diseases such as AIDS, chemotherapy-related malaise, and glaucoma, is a violation of their natural rights to live without pain. Pain and suffering should not have to be something one should have to live with simply because of a law that is only in place for different purposes". A statement of the opposing position stated in the article was, "For instance one critic of numerous states proposals to allow the drug for medical purposes states that as a country, "We cannot afford to further erode youth attitudes toward drugs by allowing marijuana to be falsely depicted as a safe drug and as effective medicine. Labeling marijuana as 'medicine' sends the wrong message to children that it is a safe substance." (Khatapoush 2004)".

I, personally, believe that medical marijuana should definitly be legal. There are other drugs that doctors prescribe and give out for reasons such as pain and medication of some sort, most of those drugs are highly addictive, and not safe (cauing dependency and other health issues). I agree with the article posted above 100% percent. People who are in pain, have a right to live without it, which is why they go to doctors to get prescribed pain pills and muscle relaxers and sleeping medication. Marijuana can be used to solve problems such as the ones that are solved with highly addictive pills. Those pills are ALSO NOT intended for recreational use, but many people and children use them anyway, and without prescriptions. Most of the pills given for pain and sleep can be easily overdosed on, causing serious health problems or death. It is also illegal to have any kind of medication on you that is not prescribed to you. Marijuana cannot be overdosed on, and it cannot kill anyone. Just because marijuana is illegal because of tax purposes, the goverment finds other reasons to make it illegal. The precautions about any drugs should be learned about just like any other legally prescribed medication. I do not think that if medical marijuana were to be legal that it would encourage our society's youth to think that other drugs were okay to use. The only reason that marijuana is seen as a "hard drug" is because it is already illegal.

Many believe that marijuana is a "gateway drug", but anything that gives you any sort of high could be considered a gateway drug. It is a personal choice to take other drugs because you want to get a bigger and better high. Tabacco and alcohol are both legal, and are both drugs. Those who drink and smoke at the same time do it because they want to maintain their high, or get higher. Over the counter medicines are drugs also, they can also give you a high, and they can also build up a dependency and be overdosed on (leading to serious health problems or death). I think the only reason that marijuana is illegal is simply because it cannot be taxed, and that would mean when doctors prescribe it to their patients, they will not be getting paid for it. But the whole reason for medicine in itself, is to better and help someone else, as is having a profession as a doctor, so the money should not really matter after all.

Marijuana relieves pain, and helps those who cannot sleep or have no appetite. It also makes people happy. If it were legal, people would not be so uptight and worried about things that do not really matter. There would be less fighting, and more money and reason to help those who need to be incarcerated for other things such as acutally 'hard' drugs, murder, etc.

"Put a smile on ya face, make the world a better place. Put a smile on ya face, do what ya wanna do"

Alex D., Traffic

Ah, the War on Drugs. Such a divisise, controversial issue.
Those in favor of legalization argue that by making marijuana legal, prisoners will be filled with less one-time drug users and more serious criminals. Also, there is no denying that marijuana is a hot substance, and if the federal government quit the raids and let people sell their own, there would be so much potential tax money. (In fact, you could probably make a fortune just by taxing the stuff sold at a Willie Nelson concert!)
People against legalization argue that by not allowing the drug to be sold,kids will be less drawn into crime and other illegal activites. Also, kids who use drugs might be less motivated and end up lazy. (There is some truth to this statement; after all, I've rarely seen my stoner friends do anything but listen to music, skateboard and drink.)
Personally, I think the whole "war on drugs" and "just say no" is a bunch of crock. Why should something found in nature be made illegal. Cigarettes are some of the most toxic substances available, and no one complains about outlawing them. Yet marijuana has much fewer side effects and health risks associated with it, but cops . (While we're at it, let's outlaw the manufacturing of bathtubs; after all, some kid could get in there and drown.)
And many of these moral guardians who support the war on drugs have "danced with Mary Jane" before. But do they think that kids will be kids and thus tolerate small usage? No, they act like hypocrites and deny people the same freedom they once had.Ah, the War on Drugs. Such a divisise, controversial issue.

Those in favor of legalization argue that by making marijuana legal, prisoners will be filled with less one-time drug users and more serious criminals. Also, there is no denying that marijuana is a hot substance, and if the federal government quit the raids and let people sell their own, there would be so much potential tax money. (In fact, you could probably make a fortune just by taxing the stuff sold at a Willie Nelson concert!)

People against legalization argue that by not allowing the drug to be sold,kids will be less drawn into crime and other illegal activites. Also, kids who use drugs might be less motivated and end up lazy. (There is some truth to this statement; after all, I've rarely seen my stoner friends do anything but listen to music, skateboard and drink.)

Personally, I think the whole "war on drugs" and "just say no" is a bunch of crock. Why should something found in nature be made illegal. Cigarettes are some of the most toxic substances available, and no one complains about outlawing them. Yet marijuana has much fewer side effects and health risks associated with it, but cops . (While we're at it, let's outlaw the manufacturing of bathtubs; after all, some kid could get in there and drown.)
And many of these moral guardians who support the war on drugs have "danced with Mary Jane" before. But do they think that kids will be kids and thus tolerate small usage? No, they act like hypocrites and deny people the same freedom they once had.