Drugs, Regulated for a reason

One of my classmates recently wrote an article about how drug use should legalized because it hurts innocent bystanders and the government shouldn’t be allowed to do what they want with their own bodies. What I believe they failed to realize however, was that a lot of laws control exactly with we do with own bodies.

For instance, you are required to wear a seatbelt when driving a car, even though if you don’t, no harm will come to anyone else besides yourself. You can’t smoke under the age of 18, drink under the age of 21, even though none of these things affect someone else. But, they actually do. Smoking under the age of 18 can create an addiction that last longer, which increases the likelihood of smoking related illnesses, which increases insurance premiums and government medical taxes for everyone. Drinking under the age of 21 increases the likelihood that someone will drink and drive, thus costing someone else their life.

The argument that legalizing drugs does less harm to non-drug users (or as the author calls them, innocent bystanders) doesn’t hold water. With cheaper drugs on the market, which the author and I agree would happen with a fair market system, drug use would increase, increasing the number of fatal car accidentals that were committed by drug users which would harm others, decrease worker productivity, which would raise the cost of products of services for everyone, and more likely than not an increase, not decrease, in numbers of thefts. Just because the drugs are cheaper, doesn’t mean people won’t still spend every last dime getting them.

Even with those arguments aside, the increased health problems caused by drugs such as crack, crystal meth, and heroine, would increase medical cost across the board, harming everyone by increased cost. So while people doing drugs would get lower prices for their drugs, everyone, including non drug users, would see an increase in overall costs, thus harming every non-drug user, instead of just a few people every now and then. Not to mention the increased risk of HIV from sharing needles and having unprotected sex. (Crystal meth usage shows a decrease in the potential of having safe sex)

START of a safer world

As the lame duck post mid-term Congress meets, we are bound to see some conflicts between the Democrats and Republicans, as each party adjust to a split government over the next 2 years. What wasn’t expected was the Republicans effort to push the vote of START off until after new members are sat.

START stands for Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, aimed at continuing the dismantlement of nuclear arms between the US and Russia. The former agreement, initiated under President Bush ended last December. The treaty calls for each country to have access to the others nuclear facilities, to monitor dismantlement, and to inspect weapons. Without this treaty, the United States has no access to Russia’s weapons or facilities. As the two most powerful nuclear states in the world, Russia and the United States should work on lowering nuclear stockpiles and continue the monitoring of the other’s nuclear weapons. 

The issue that I see arising has less to do with the ability to monitor Russian silos and weapons, (after all, even with constant monitoring, there’s nothing to stop Russia from launching the missiles) and more to do with a trust arrangement. If Russia is, and they are, willing to sign the treaty, and the U.S. isn’t, it could lead to suspicion on behalf of Russia. I think having a nuclear state at alerted military level is not going to be a good thing. Russia is ready and willing to the show the US that we don’t get to call all the shots, as they did with their invasion of Georgia. Looking at it from monitoring point of view, nuclear weapons are probably the largest deterrent the US has against nation-state attacks. Russia is estimated to have over 3x as many nuclear weapons as the US. Can we let a foreign nation run a massive nuclear program, unchecked by the country that was its largest enemy in the world a scant 40 years ago?

Besides posing a higher threat to Russia, the inability to sign the treaty puts the U.S. in an awkward position. As the main leaders for nuclear dismantlement, and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons we must be willing to subject ourselves to inspections. It’s hard to police the world when you don’t follow all the rules yourself. Republicans need to drop the act and pass the treaty, nuclear weapons are a serious threat and should be reduced as much as possible.

First Amendment Under Attack

One of my colleagues recently did an editorial on whether or not creationism should be taught in our public school system. Their idea was that because evolution was a theory and not a fact, that creationism, another theory, should also be taught in schools. The issue at stake, or at least the one in the article, was about whether or not the First Amendment allows for religious theories to be taught at public schools.

While the author of the article didn’t come out and state their stance, I believe they were leaning towards allowing creationism to be taught in public schools, based on the fact that the First Amendment disallows the Federal government to establish a national religion. They make several good points about how each is just a theory, and thus with neither proving to be correct, both should be taught.

The main issue that would arise is that if a religious doctrine, or theory, is allowed to be taught, then we must open ourselves to allow ALL religious doctrine and theories. Why should the Christian theory of creationism be taught and not Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu theories? It is hypocritical to say we don’t like the theory of evolution, we want creationism to also be taught, but we don’t other people’s versions of creationism to be taught too, we only want our theory of creationism to be taught. We can’t allow religious theories to be taught in public schools unless all religious theories were taught, otherwise, the exclusivity of all but one religious theory being taught in public school creates a government established (approved) religion; something the founding fathers would never want.

Can you find protection on the bottom of a clear lake?

Is it possible to have both a transparent government and national security? As the US government is preparing for yet another release of classified documents by WikiLeaks, a website devoted to whistle-blowing, the big question is, can we have both.

There are several reasons to warrant classified information, with today’s technology of instant communication pretty much anywhere around the globe, protecting information is more important than ever. Names of CIA operatives, informants, military positions and weapons, are these things that we can afford to have the whole world know about? Of course not! Our CIA operatives would be targets, informants would disappear, and the enemy would know our capabilities and location, none of which are good things.

WikiLeaks is planning on leaking about 400,000 classified documents on the US-Iraq war. What can possibly be gained be releasing these documents? That the government lies to its’ people? We all know that already, just look at our politicians, willing to tell their constituents whatever it is they want to hear to get elected. It would show the government’s plans, the information they had, and how they were struggling. How is any of that useful to the American public? So we can look back on a President that’s no longer in office and say, “See, I told you he was terrible.”? The only people that would gain any useful information are the people we are fighting against.

There is no valid reason to de-classify documents about on ongoing war. Wars of the past, sure, history buffs would love it and it gives citizens who care a valuable insight to how the government is run. Not that people don’t want to know that information about current wars, but it’s much more important to protect security information in current combat. People push for the government to be more transparent, sometimes without thinking about what the consequences of such actions are. Whether for or against the Iraqi war, surely no one wants our soldiers to die, leaking information can, and does, lead to deaths.

It’s not possible to have your cake and eat it to in the world of information security. Think of the US Government as a company, and the citizens of the US as the employees. Does the CEO tell everyone in the company what their secrets are, what companies they are going after to acquire, what new technologies they are researching? Of course not, they tell the employees that need to know, so as not to give information to the wrong group of people that can then use it to harm the company. (And for those that will attest that the government is the employee and the citizens are the bosses, do we, as employees, tell our bosses about every aspect of our jobs, even when errors are made?)

The need for secrecy is there. The government can’t go around waving its’ plans around to everyone, or its’ weaknesses. As much as citizens want their government to be transparent and open, classified documents are necessary for the security and safety of us all.

Appealing the rulings you favor, to preserve a voter base

America Blog News had an editorial about the recent Don’t Ask Don’t tell policy that got overturned by a Federal judge. The policy, which bans homosexuals from openly serving in the armed forces, has been in place since 1992 when Clinton was in office. The author of the editorial, John Aravosis, seemed to be addressing members of the Democratic Party, rather than the Republicans. He believes, rightly in my opinion, that Obama has made several promises to the gay community, but has yet to follow through, or even take actions, to get them done. On the contrary, while Obama has promised to repeal DADT, he has ordered the Justice Department to appeal the decision that it’s unlawful, even though he is against it.

The author claims that Obama is appealing the law, because he feels that the DoJ must appeal any challenges to laws. He feels that Obama has back tracked on promises he made to people to get into office, and is now actively doing the opposite of what he has promised. The author makes several good points, showing that Obama didn’t actively push for DADT repeal to be passed in the Senate (it failed) and that he hasn’t actively done anything since its’ failure to pass. That Obama is using this as a tactic to get Dems votes in the election, (if we had more Dems in Congress we could pass this repeal) and that the President lacks the courage to push through changes with elections so close. When it doesn’t pass after the election, Obama will be “shocked” and vow to fight, to ensure that he keeps getting liberal votes. The evidence is appealing, Obama using scare tactics to garner votes, but the logic seems terrible.

It makes more since that If Obama keeps back tracking on a gay rights and doesn’t pass one major civil rights bill (he has promised both a repeal of DoMA and DADT) before next election season, he will lose a majority of the homosexual vote, and possibly the large youth vote that he got in the ’08 election. With virtually no campaign promises filled (except Healthcare reform, which was far from his original outline plan) the disparity that youth felt about politics and politicians could return. Hope was placed in Obama, that he truly was a different kind of a candidate and he motivated and excited the youth vote, but if it turns out, he’s the same kind, he’s just better at hiding it and he can’t count on those votes again.

The author is right in that Obama is definitely not taking any action on gay rights as promised, and that he definitely is holding off on pushing through major civil rights reform because he lacks the courage to stand up and act out, for fear of losing votes. I believe that by not being courageous and speaking out, he will lose even more.

Green Cars=Less Oil use?

The New York Times recently had an editorial on the Obama’s administration push for more mpg on cars. It’s the largest advancement in fuel efficiency in the past 30 years. The author, who is aiming the article at the less environmentally friendly folks, since the environmentalist, arguably, would already be in agreement with him, believes that these changes are great but not enough. The author makes several points (European and Asian fuel standards, as well as goals to increase, with dates) that show that they have at least done some research into their statements, but bases some arguments on incorrect information, or lack of research.

The author claims that the US is falling behind the rest of the developed nations in fuel efficiency, that even the new standards we set, are behind what Europe’s current fuel efficiency is. The problem with this is that Europe is constantly increasing their fuel efficiency, a little bit over times, year over year. The US hasn’t had a legally required raise in fuel efficiency in over 30 years. While it is possible to achieve the goals Europe has set (since European car makers obviously meet them) I believe it will take more time to ramp up to where other nations are. We will eventually catch up, but the new technologies required will take time to innovate and get into production.

The author points out that raising fuel efficiency will lower reliance on foreign oil. This is a flawed argument. While raising fuel efficiency will lower consumption of gas and thus oil, it won’t necessarily reduce foreign consumption, the US currently exports about 500 million barrels of oil a year, with a weakening demand for oil consumption, US companies would export more oil to other countries that were willing to pay more for it, providing less oil domestically. On top of this, according to the US Department of Energy, only 28% of US oil consumption is used for transportation, of that 28% only 61% is used for automobile fuel. The demand for oil wouldn’t fall drastically enough that the US could start meeting its’ own demand.

I agree that better fuel efficiency is better for everyone, but the pace at which it is occurring is fine with me. It won’t drastically reduce dependence on foreign oil, magically make the air instantly cleaner or make the US the world leader in environmental issues.

Rebuilding the Internet for Government Censorship

Fox News reported on a story about Congress's plans to pass a bill granting the Justice Department to shut down websites that are deemed to be dedicated to counterfeit material.

The bill would grant broad powers to a handful of people in the federal government to completely shut down a website, that is legal under current laws. The original bill went as far as to create and publish a blacklist of websites.

This article goes along with the Justice Department, who wants to be able to "wiretap" the internet. (NYT article), want to make sure that encrypted messages, like Blackberry messaging, instant messaging services, social media sites, and even Skype will be able to allow law enforcement to "listen" in on conversations.

These articles demonstrate a growing concern the US Government has about illegal activities taking place off the phone lines and on the Internet. The importance of such articles is that privacy is a quickly fading thing of the past. If the government is granted the ability to listen in on IM's, emails and facebook messaging, it could be the largest invasion of privacy since the Patriot Act. Luckily though, the backdoors that would be required to allow such snooping are not in place and would require a restructuring of the internet to be there.