By: Adam Schultz This past Wednesday I attended a deliberation regarding contraceptives, abortion, and the role of the government and the individual in whose should decide the laws regarding these two issues. The group opened up with a person anecdote about an eleven-year-old girl who was taking birth control. The first thing that came to mind for many of us was, this girl is way too young to be having sex. Yet, following this brief time to contemplate why such a young girl would be taking birth control, one of the group members revealed that the eleven-year old girl was in fact her sister; and that she was taking birth control in order to prevent a cist from continuing to grow on her ovaries, which could lead to infertility. Following this short introduction, we broke into small groups and the discussion really picked up. Our group discussed our beliefs regarding the topic of who should subsidizes contraceptives and allow abortions. Everyone at my table agreed that the individual should be the one who decides whether or not to have an abortion or to take contraceptives. We also believed that the government should help subsidize the costs of contraceptives, such as the birth control pill. We discussed past laws/court cases such as Roe vs Wade and the Affordable Care Act. We believed despite other’s religious, moral, or other reasons for being against contraceptives and abortion, that companies/businesses and the government should be required to fund them under their healthcare plan for their workers. We believed this because we thought that the individual should have the choice of these options no matter what. We discussed that if you were someone with moral, religious or other objections to said laws that gave the choice to Americans, that you could choose not to use contraceptives or have an abortion. We agreed that it was our right to have these choices available to us as Americans. Another thing that came up during this discussion was that fact that this topic regarded women and not men. Most of my group was female and they discussed how if this had been a man’s issue it would have already been taken care of, no questions asked. For example, one woman brought up how Viagra for men is covered. The women in my group believed if there was greater women representation in government and congress that their perspectives would allow the right to choice to come to fruition. This was very interesting to listen to, and it really opened my eyes to the discontent of many women who believe our governmental system is biased to older white men. Yes, I do know that majority of our government is mainly white men, and that is something that needs to change, but hearing them discuss the issue really opened my eyes to the change that needs to take place. Not only do I believe that women should and have the right to choice, but this discussion opened my eyes to the fact that we need new faces in Washington. Our moderator throughout asked us great questions that kept our minds thinking, while providing background information that we might not know in order for us to adequately discuss the issues. I was glad to see that many in the group, including other men believed that women should have the right of choice, and that the government should help subsidize contraceptives. The deliberation ended with possible solutions and a call to action, which I believe is a top priority for us as Americans right now, as the Affordable Care Act which covers expensive contraceptives for all women is being threatened.
0 Comments
By: Adam Schultz This past Sunday I attended a deliberation focused on our presidential election system here in the United States, specifically the electoral college system. The group opened up with an introduction into the background of the electoral college system, and then asked the audience a few general questions. Some examples of questions included, do you believe in the electoral college system? If not, do you think it should be abolished completely, or amended? Do you believe there are any benefits to the electoral college system, if so what are they? I learned from this short opening how divided Americans are on this topic. Almost everyone in the room agreed that the electoral college system needs to be amended, but the ways in which people wanted to do so varied tremendously. Following this short introduction, the audience was broken down into small groups and this is where the conversation really picked up. Their first approach to this issue was to abolish the electoral college system all together, and the second approach was how to amend the current system. In my group, all but one person, including myself, agreed amending the current system was the best plan of action. We believed the electoral college system was designed to give voice to the smaller factions of Americans, such as farmers and rural living Americans; if we were to change our system to a straight national vote, many of these smaller factions would not be heard, and candidates would only campaign in cities and largely populated areas. We believed this would defeat the purpose of the presidential election, where everyone’s voice is supposed to be heard. However, the one person in our group who believed it should be abolished, argued that individuals in smaller states, as well as swing states, votes mattered more than others votes. He believed that this also defeated the purpose of our presidential election system because not every person’s vote counted equally. Before attending this deliberation, I was completely for the electoral college system, even though it had hurt my candidate of choice in past elections; Hillary Clinton and Al Gore both won the national vote, but lost the electoral college. This man’s opinion/ideas really impacted my views on the electoral college system and really got me thinking on what was the best way to change the presidential election system to make it fair for everyone. One person in our group believed that changing the electoral college system would cause too much chaos and thus nothing should be changed. Another person believed that we should take away the two senator electoral college votes from every state/district. For example, Pennsylvania has twenty electoral college votes in the current system, but in his proposed system they would only have eighteen. This in turn would make the electoral college more proportional to population and thus states like Wyoming’s votes would not count for so much more compared to a state like Texas. I thought this was interesting idea, but really defeated the purpose of the presidential election, because it would take the voice away from smaller factions. My idea, which I believed kept the voice of smaller factions intact, but made the national/general vote count for something, was a system where the electoral college could be trumped. My idea was that the electoral college system as it stands now would decide the next president of the United States, unless the candidate who lost the electoral college, won the popular vote by more than five percent of the total number of people who voted. For example, if fifty million people voted, then you would have to win the popular vote by at least two and a half million votes in order to win the presidency. Some in my group supported this idea because it created a strategic conflict for candidates. They would not only have to try to win the electoral college by campaigning in smaller states to smaller factions, but also to large urban areas in order to try to win the national vote. Following, our groups discussion we brought it back together as whole group and big ideas from each small group were expressed. Some of the ideas presented I thought were radical, such as our senators and representatives should decide the next president, since we already elected them. The deliberation ended with a brief synopsis and encouragement to keep expressing our opinions. Overall, the deliberation really opened my eyes up to the degree of different ideas regarding this topic. It made me want to convince others why my plan was the best and why theirs was not. Some other people’s ideas really worried me and I plan on attending other events and voicing my opinion to others regarding this topic.
By: Adam Schultz It has now been ninety-one days since Donald Trump was sworn in, officially taking over the duties of the president of the United States. In just his first month alone, he spent more time tweeting and golfing than he did getting updated in intelligence briefings or focusing and participating in foreign affairs. He spent nearly a quarter of his first month in office, approximately one hundred and six hours, taking trips to Mar-A-Lago, which is costing the American people nearly 3.6 million dollars per trip. Aside from constant fights with the media Trump has attempted to accomplish his “agenda”. He came to office never serving in any form of public office, and with little to no knowledge of the complex issues he would be making decisions about as the president of the United States.
With regards to action, Trump has been average in his pursuit of making America great again, but has lacked significantly on foreign affairs; he has delegated much of this work. So far he has signed a total of twenty eights bills into law, as well as issued twenty-four executive orders, twenty-two presidential memorandums, and twenty presidential proclamations. Yet, as we count the days to the all-important 100-day mark, Trump has still not signed a single major piece of legislation. Furthermore, it has been nearly one hundred days into his presidency and he still has not filled some of the major presidential appointed positions. Trumps first few months in office have given us a hint that his agenda may oppose some of America’s oldest and prestigious beliefs. Trump has attempted to ban Muslims for little reason other than their religion, multiple times in his short time in office. His latest attempt has been drawn back, and now only includes six Muslim majority countries including Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, and Somalia. These attempts have rightfully been met by serious out lash from the American people, as well as others in our government. It is my hope that the courts will uphold our constitution and once again overrule Trump’s travel ban. Now focus your attention to some of Trump’s biggest running points on the campaign trail; healthcare, the border wall, and tax reform. Republicans are taking another stab at repealing and replacing Obamacare. There are tentative plans in order to have the House of Representatives vote next Wednesday. However, with that being said, there is no current written legislation in order, and many are skeptical that Trump will be able to obtain the number of votes on both sides of the aisle needed for it to pass. Additionally, with the government set to shut down next week (April 28th), Trump and his fellow Republicans are trying to use discussions regarding the budget and spending to persuade democrats to support funding for the “wall.” It is estimated that Trump’s proposed wall, which was one of his biggest campaign promises, if not his biggest, would cost nearly seventy billion dollars. Finally, with regards to tax reform, Trump has failed miserably so far. To this point there has been little action in this area and Trump and his administration have yet to release a tax plan; Trump proclaimed today that they plan on releasing one next week. During Trump’s first full month of the presidency nearly 235,000 jobs were created. However, many believe that these numbers are mostly due to the previous administration’s work and that they have just carried over in the first few months of Trump’s presidency. I am indifferent on the topic and plan on waiting to see what the job market looks like in six months. Either way, jobs are being created and the American unemployment rate ticked down once again, and now sits at 4.7 percent. Trump has done a pretty good job with regards to foreign affairs, especially national security, which many argue was his weakest area when entering office. Just a few days ago he dropped the biggest non-nuclear bomb on Afghanistan. The bomb, deemed a MOAB, is a thirty-foot-long, nearly twenty-two-thousand-pound bomb, with GPS guided motion, that targeted an ISIS cave and tunnel complex along with ISIS fighters in Afghanistan. The mission destroyed the complex, as well as killing ninety-two militants. However, Russia continues to be a major problem with this administration, and North Korean rhetoric is nearly at an all-time worst. Overall, Trumps first ninety-two days in office have been unsuccessful. The economy is still struggling, countries around the world are questioning are strength and power, and our allies are as unsure as they have ever been in the last few decades. Here at home, the awful rhetoric that plagued his campaign has seemed to die down, and has returned to smaller communities and populations in America. Furthermore, some of Trump’s biggest promises have been unsuccessful. He has yet to find funding for the wall that many experts believe is unwarranted and not necessary for its cost. He has no answer for Obamacare and the tax code is still just as hard to decipher. I believe that these first one hundred days will show why Trumps election was a mistake. What do you think it has shown? By: Adam Schultz In the past five years we have seen numerous states oppose the 1937 Marijuana Tax, which legally criminalized marijuana, and move to a system of recreationally legal use. According to Harvard University economist Jeffery Miron this prohibition is costing the United States nearly twenty billion dollars annually, with nearly 8.7 billion of this staggering number coming from enforcing the current laws.
Despite what many believe, the majority of current marijuana arrests are affecting everyday citizens instead of the dramatized drug kingpins portrayed in popular media. For example, in 2016 alone, arrests for possessing small amounts of marijuana exceeded the total number of arrests for all violent crimes by 13.6%; law enforcement agencies arrested 574,641 individuals for possessing small amounts of marijuana, while they only arrested 505,681 for violent crimes such as rape and murder. I think these numbers are astounding. I am not saying that legalization is the answer necessarily, but I do believe there need to be changes to the current system. An American should not be arrested every thirty-seven seconds for marijuana related charges as it currently stands in America. If you were wondering that equates to nearly 853,000 marijuana related arrests annually. Many believe a system in which legalizing marijuana for recreational use would lead to major societal problems. Some of the fears include unknown short and long-term health risks, increased teen use, and increased use of harder drugs including cocaine, hallucinogenics, and opioids. However, if you look at current research, as well as statistics from states where marijuana is currently legal, there is not a whole lot of information to support such fears. Under the current federal laws marijuana is still considered a Schedule I substance – “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.” This classification has prevented much of the research needed to answer many of the medical questions concerning recreational use of marijuana. Despite this, current research has discovered evidence that marijuana is effective in reducing pain, treating chronic pain, nausea, and vomiting, little to no evidence that marijuana use causes cancer, none that it causes death by overdose, and limited evidence that it is a gateway drug; DARE officially removed it from its list of gateway drugs. On the contrary, preliminary data from states such as Colorado, Washington, and Oregon, where marijuana has been legalized for the longest, suggests that there are many benefits to the economy. In Colorado, the tax on legal marijuana is 29%, while it is 37% in Washington, and 25% in Oregon. Colorado tax revenues on legal marijuana totaled fifty-six million dollars in 2014, one hundred and thirteen million dollars in 2015, and one hundred and fifty million dollars through October 2016. In 2015 alone, the legal marijuana industry created approximately eighteen thousand new jobs in Colorado. Washington’s number started off slower, but have since skyrocketed and have significantly outperformed Colorado. Washington tax revenues on legal marijuana totaled sixteen million dollars in 2014, one hundred and twenty-nine million dollars in 2015, and two hundred and fifty-six million dollars in 2016. Oregon is one of the newer states to have legalized recreational marijuana, but its first year revenues are extremely encouraging. Oregon tax revenues on legal marijuana totaled just over sixty million dollars last year. Overall, recent projections suggest that the legal marijuana industry could be worth as much as 11.2 billion dollars by 2020 and could create nearly three hundred thousand jobs by that same year. With a rising national debt, this industry could have a major positive impact on our economy. Furthermore, teen marijuana use has not changed since the legal recreational marijuana industry was introduced in 2012; in both Colorado and Washington surveys have shown no significant increase in teen marijuana use. Additionally, marijuana arrests have decreased significantly since the introduction of legal recreational marijuana. In Colorado, from 2012 to 2014 the number of individuals arrested decreased by nearly 50%, while from 2012-2013 Washington marijuana possession charges declined by 98%. Finally, preliminary data has shown that the legalization of marijuana has not had any significant impacts on the use of other drugs including alcohol and cocaine in Colorado, Washington, or Oregon. Overall, the data suggests that there are definitive positives to legalizing marijuana. As stated, preliminary data is extremely encouraging regarding the economy. Additionally, marijuana arrests have significantly decreased in both Washington, and Colorado, which have further decreased the federal and state governments spending. However, that being said, the data return from this process is slow and, thus, we may not truly understand the effects of this type of legislative change for years, or even decades. With this information in hand, what do you believe? Support for legalization is at an all-time high with nearly 60% Americans supporting the legalization of the drug. Now the question becomes what do you believe? Do you think the rewards out way the possible risks despite the initial data that refutes such claims, and that these concerns are too publicized and only attempting such as system would provide us with the true answers? Or do you believe it is an idea that should not even be ascertained? I believe it is a process that should continue but very slowly and with extremely strict regulations and enforcement. Until understand what this type of legislation would lead to nationally, I don’t believe the drug should be federally legalized. Either way, this is a pressing issue in today’s society and one that should be addressed fairly, and respectively between Americans. |
Categories
All
|