The opinion from WeThePeople76's Blog


Well, actually I am in disagreement with your opinion that marijuana shouldn't be prohibited. I just collected the history which supports why it shouldn't be allowed.   




California, 1913
The first state marijuana prohibition law was passed in California in 1913. The law received no public notice in the press. It was passed as an obscure technical amendment by the State Board of Pharmacy, which was then leading one of the nation's earliest and most aggressive anti-narcotics campaigns. Prior to the passage of the law, there was no indication that cannabis was a problem in California. The Origins of Cannabis Prohibition in California from California NORML  
Utah, 1914
Utah outlawed marijuana in 1914. A number of Mormons moved to Mexico when polygamy was outlawed in Utah in 1910. When they returned to Utah, marijuana was one of the things they brought back with them. Marijuana was outlawed with a number of other common vices as part of Mormon religious prohibitions enacted into law. 
Other state laws 1915-37
Marijuana was outlawed in 30 states by 1930. There were two primary reasons for the laws. 
In the southwestern states, marijuana was outlawed because of racial prejudice against the Mexicans who used it. As one Texas legislator said, "All Mexicans are crazy and this stuff (marijuana) is what makes them crazy."
In the other states, it was outlawed because of fears that heroin addiction would lead to the use of marijuana - exactly the opposite of the modern "gateway" myth. 
The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937
Marijuana was outlawed at the national level in the US by the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. (Note that the US Government has traditionally used the spelling "marihuana".) There were a number of reasons given for its passage in the congressional testimony. The quotes included:

• Two weeks ago a sex-mad degenerate, named Lee Fernandez, brutally attacked a young Alamosa girl. He was convicted of assault with intent to rape and sentenced to 10 to 14 years in the state penitentiary. Police officers here know definitely that Fernandez was under the influence of marihuana. But this case is one in hundreds of murders, rapes, petty crimes, insanity that has occurred in southern Colorado in recent years.
• I wish I could show you what a small marihuana cigaret can do to one of our degenerate Spanish-speaking residents. That's why our problem is so great; the greatest percentage of our population is composed of Spanish-speaking persons, most of who are low mentally, because of social and racial conditions.
• Did you read of the Drain murder case in Pueblo recently? Marihuana is believed to have been used by one of the bloody murderers.
• . . .a boy and a girl . . . lost their senses so completely after smoking marihuana that they eloped and were married.
• It is commonly used as an aphrodisiac, and its continued use leads to impotency.
• Practically every article written on the effects of the marihuana weed will tell of deeds committed without the knowledge of the culprit, while he was under the influence of this drug. . . .  "A man under the influence of marihuana actually decapitated his best friend; and then, coming out of the effects of the drug, was as horrified as anyone over what he had done" (9). Then we have the case of a young boy in Florida. The story runs as follows: "A young boy who had become addicted to smoking marihuana cigarettes, in a fit of frenzy because, as he stated while still under the marihuana influence, a number of people were trying to cut off his arms and legs, seized an axe and killed his father, mother, two brothers and a sister, wiping out the entire family except himself." (10)

From Additional Statement of Harry Anslinger from Transcripts of the Congressional Hearings for the Marihuana Tax Act

However, I am in agreement that the war on drugs in the U.S hasn't been better definitely. The War On Drugs is no better now than it was in the 1920's when we called it Prohibition. It turns a mild social problem into a major one, creates crime, and takes people away from productive work. It is a cure far worse than any plausible disease.

If you think that the current crop of illegal drugs are "inherently" going to lead to crime in a way that alcohol isn't, you'll have to explain why Al Capone was a big-time mobster, making a large career out of sneaking around the ban on alcohol, and killing people to do it, but no one does that now. The War On Drugs is an attempt to prevent people from using some substances that some government officials believe are "bad for them". It does not affect all harmful substances (for instance, alcohol is excluded), and it does not restrict itself to substances which are mostly harmful. (For instance, there are well documented medical reasons for people to use marijuana, and indeed, the objection that got marijuana in as a controlled substance was raised by people who grew cotton - which makes weaker, heavier, fabric than hemp.)

Lastly, why is the drugs on war bad?
The War On Drugs is a false merging of a problem (drug abuse) with a non-problem (drug use). It is a false dichotomy between "bad" drugs and "good" drugs. No explanation is offered for why it is okay for doctors to prescribe morphine derivatives, but not okay for them to prescribe marijuana. No explanation is offered for the widespread availability of Ritalin and Prozac, but an absolute ban on marijuana.
The War On Drugs artificially inflates the cost of some products (the drugs which have been made illegal) by creating artificial scarcity, which makes the drug trade very profitable; profitable enough for people to kill over. How many people have been killed in turf wars over aspirin? The War On Drugs has created an incentive for the authorities to lose sight of a lot of due process issues.

From No more bopping around blog on April 27.

  


   I’d definitely agree with your opinion, especially the media ruins the concept of beauty towards women. For the media always try to sell something which can be a merchandise, they sometimes lure or distort certain images of concept. Beauty is one of the most obvious things what we confronted. Now, there is no argument of distinguishing beauty. Some figures of famous actress on TV a lot becomes just standard of beauty. For example, in Korea, we just judge on the beautiful woman that pursues on average of Western pretty woman what actress on TV shows. This is due to the fact that those girls show enthusiasm on plastic surgery, denying on their originality, even though each has their own characteristic and uniqueness. Not only that, but this circumstance rather drives young people to seek to the materialism. For this reason, I think that people should build their own distinctive sight toward the media for not being dominated.

Obama campaign implies that Mitt Romney would not have killed Osama bin Laden

On Friday, April 27, 2012, Washington Post published an article titled "obama campaign implies that Mitt Romney would not have killed Osama bin Laden" 


When George W. Bush invaded Afghanistan last time finally had his chance to get Bin Laden at Tora Bora, he just blinked. Then he put Afghanistan on the back burner and spent the next 5 years invading and occupying Iraq, costing a trillion dollars and thousands of American lives in an attempt to steal their oil. Since Obama took the presidency, he turned the focus from Iraq, but concentrated on Afghanistan, stepping up the drone attacks, all the while being criticized by the cowards in the GOP including Mitt Romney, and managing to capture Bin Laden, who was Number one on the FBI's Most Wanted List and the World's Most Wanted List - they were going to pay $25,000,000 for his capture/kill, which was no big deal compared to the accomplishment. After 2001, no one cared about taking out Osama bin Laden. Failing to capture Osama bin Laden was one of George Bush's greatest failings as president. And that's saying something. I mean it's not like Bush didn't try, right? Didn't Bush look under the table for bin Laden at one of the White House Correspondents' dinners? That was certainly a gold-star effort! It certainly got a big yuck from all the Republicans in the room. So between where Bush failed so miserably, for all the world to see, in capturing Osama bin Laden - even though he and al Qaeda were still out there committing acts of terror - and where Obama succeeded so brilliantly, there is a line of clear demarcation. It's the line between failure (Bush) and success (Obama), and that's what galls the Obama-haters the most is that one of Bush's greatest failings has become one of Obama's greatest achievements. And it's eating away at the Obama-haters like a cancer. 

Obama struggles with oil companies

On Thursday, March 29, 2012, USA today published an article titled "Oil industry group attacks Obama on gas prices"     


     There has been argued that oil industry companies attack Obama on gas prices. The fluctuation of rising gas price is always one of the biggest issues and the most disputable matters what we have confronted. Nowadays, the gas price has been skyrocketed, and it is rising to the surface again. Even though oil industry or the people against Obama try to insult or blame Obama administration on gas prices, people should recognize that it’s seriously flexible which can be dependent on economical situation or some kind of political intrigue, and also it is a finite resource, not unlimited one like the energy from the wind. I don’t think that Obama utilizes this one of the most important maintenance in our lives for his re-election strategy. For instance, the gas price average was up to $4.11 of a gallon in 2008. To be specific, there was a steady decline during the following 6 months owing to the recession which lead OPEC to cut production by 2.2 million barrels a day to keep the prices. As far as I’m concerned, the oil industry is blaming out at Obama because he wants to eliminate their $4 Billion in tax breaks after the big oil companies said that they had earned enormous profit in this year. Actually, not only in this year, but they have gained great profit during 4 years, and now they have been raising gas prices. It seems like their unfair and mean revenge started toward Obama and expects to have him disadvantage in re-election. 

On Wednesday, February 29, 2012, The New York Times published an article titled "North Koreans Agree to Freeze Nuclear Work; U.S. to Give Aid"


     Since I’m Korean (South), it’s inevitable for me to have any kind of connection or relationship with North Korea. Especially, I used to be in charge of the front line (GOP) of searching operation in the line between North and South Korea in the army, the relationship of us always provokes me having interested in it. February 29, North Korea where they seemed that have never given up developing a nuclear work, eventually looses their hold. This is due to the fact that since North Korea has been suffered from serious famine, Mr. Kim can’t just overlook a great amount of food support of the U.S. As far as I’m concerned, this is such a huge achievement for international diplomacy toward especially all those who say Obama does not have the chops. This deal was successful in negotiating. To be specific, choosing the way of more generous and humane that is different with other dangerous countries such as Iran to negotiate with North Korea seems perfect. The nation of North Korea just can’t fight for their right or even speak up because their priority is just rice. They desperately just need help for their lives, not for their war funds for guerilla fight against the U.S like Iran or Afghanistan. However, people should consider that supporting food, not money, cannot be the best idea as well. Even though South Korea or the U.S supported food and rice to North Korea, the government used them for their provision, not for their nations. Comparing to the previous blind diplomas with North Korea, this one was meaningful in terms of harvest of neutralizing nuclear work. To sum up with, this diploma toward North Korea of Obama administration.   

'The third blog'

On Thursday, February 23, 2012, The New York Times published an article titled "America is Europe." 


By going through “America Is Europe”, David Brooks argues about the matter of the essential social problem of the U.S by comparing to the Europe’s one. Overall, it seems that the writer criticizes that the government overplays than what they are supposed, especially welfare field. What is more, the government cannot handle of their tax expenditure properly.  He illustrates that “These tax expenditures are hidden but huge. Budget experts Donald Marron and Eric Toder added up all the spending-like tax preferences and found that, in 2007, they amounted to $600 billion. If you had included those preferences as government spending, then the federal government would have actually been one-fifth larger than it appeared. When you include both direct spending and tax expenditures, the U.S. has one of the biggest welfare states in the world.” However, David Brooks maintains that the Obama administration supported a simpler tax code even while operationally it has often muddied it up. Even though it would be coming up and is considered as hopeful, it definitely needs to be fixed and be more flexible. After that, he also adds two different methods which are Mitt Romney and Timothy Geithner. Nevertheless, these ways are kind of unreasonable, and the writer strongly appeals that shifting to tax expenditures and not just direct spending.

As far as I am concerned, I disagree with his opinion. The U.S government has just concentrated on bulking the appearance, as shown in the statistics, not trying to focus on the essential matter by using taxation or whatever. For example, basically the European does not have to make the choice of going bankrupt or dying when they get sick. As oppose to them, Americans, especially the poor where their country makes the biggest deposit of the welfare department in the world cannot help but facing the death if they have an even requiring minor surgery. In addition, there is a something wrong that “The Europeans provide welfare provisions through direct government payments. We do it through the back door via tax breaks.” Honestly, every health care purchased by business is provided by other private businesses. And while the tax breaks certainly encourage compensation in the form of health care, and they actually do not begin to cover the costs. Not only that, but I fully do not show pleasant to the writer’s example, which “Suppose the Pentagon wanted to buy a new fighter plane. But instead of writing a $10 billion check to the manufacturer, the government just issued a $10 billion “weapons supply tax credit.” This example is illustrating how exaggerated it is, and we actually do not anything like that. The use of direct tax credits to cover all the costs of a service is almost useless. These are the reasons why I somewhat disagree with the writer’s opinion.

On Friday, February 10, 2012, The Washington Post published an article titled "Obama: 10 states to receive No Child Left Behind waivers. In sum, The president Obama tried to make the law, “No child left behind”, waive or have some flexibility. Since this law has a tendency to oppress children to pass the exam, it rather blurred its essence by allowing them to study. However, the action by the president Obama may offend the other politicians because it might seem like that he overused his power, and show neglect toward them. The reason why I chose this article which worth to read is that I have been interested in the field of education. In addition, the article was impressive for me that the president Obama maintain his statement to keep justice, pinning against other's strong opinion.