Friday, November 6, 2015

Beating a Dead Horse: The War on Drugs

The war on drugs has always been a hot button issue in the United States. The problem is, one cannot fight a war on inanimate objects. One can only fight a war on people. The war on drugs isn't about drugs, it's a war on the addicts rather than the real issue, the manufactures and the dealers. William F. Buckley wrote a paper declaring the war on drugs dead, this paper will discuss his logic and options that might be viable if the war on drugs is indeed dead.
            In the 1970s, President Nixon declared a war on drugs. This wasn't a violent war in the traditional sense of the word, but a criminal war. He made federal drug control agencies larger and have more power in order to squash the rising drug using population (drugpolicy.org, 2015).  A year later, the very commission Nixon put in place recommended weed was made legal for personal use (drugpolicy.org, 2015). Nixon of course ignored this recommendation and chose to push forward banning all of what is now considered illegal drugs (drugpolicy.org, 2015). The view on personal use weed went back and forth like a pendulum until the 1980s (drugpolicy.org, 2015). By the 1980s and 1990s incarceration for drug charges went from 50,000 to over 400 thousand by 1997 (drugpolicy.org, 2015). This number is the equivalent of a small city’s worth of people serving time for some kind of nonviolent drug charge ranging from possession for personal use to manufacturing of the drugs themselves.
            William F. Buckley wrote a paper in the 1990 declaring the war on drugs dead. This author whole-heartedly agrees with him. Per Buckley’s paper, the US has wasted over 100 billion dollars a year in tax payer money to punish those who have the mental illness that is addiction and those who seek to use that illness against them.  Buckley cites money as a reason to legalize drugs, that if the state were to control the drugs and charge for them, it would put the US into the black as opposed to wasting so much money (Buckley). Buckley goes on further to talk about how crime rates have gone up over 400 percent since the grand war on drugs has started. The article further speaks of legalizing the sale of drugs, which this author disagrees with, citing that the country could make far more money that what it costs to prosecute and lock up those who are caught with only enough drugs to get themselves high (Buckley).
            Instead of keeping the possession of personal use levels illegal, the US should take a page from other first world countries and legalize possession for personal use amounts legal and instead offer options to treat the addiction which is the root of the problem. This would of course require other safety nets to be in place for those fresh from recovery. They would need jobs, housing, food, medical care, and of course steady mental and social support. Those who receive this support would be expected to pay the government back by participating in drug prevention programs and by paying their share of taxes based upon their tax brackets. The Portugal made possession of personal amounts of drugs legal in 2001 and instead started to treat the root of the problem, the addiction itself (Kain, 2011). For such a small country that equated roughly 100 thousand people nationwide (Kain, 2011). If the US were to do that same thing and get the same results that would mean an estimated 200 thousand people would become clean and sober over the course of ten years.
            The US has been fighting a losing war since 1971 thanks to the knee jerk reaction of the political sphere to people experimenting with drugs of various types. This has cost taxpayers more than t it would to treat the problem as a mental illness instead of a criminal one. While drug manufactures, distributors, and sellers should still face the fullest extent of the law, it does no one anyone good, but those who own for profit prisons, to keep those who are addicted to drugs going through the revolving door that is the current penal system. We should instead legalize possession of personal use amounts and offer to treat each person for their addiction and offer to help them get back onto their feet so that they might become productive members of society and pay back into the very system that helped to save their lives.



References
A Brief History of the Drug War. (n.d.). Retrieved May 22, 2015, from http://www.drugpolicy.org/new-solutions-drug-policy/brief-history-drug-war

Buckley, W. (n.d.). The War on Drugs is Lost. Retrieved May 22, 2015, from http://web.archive.org/web/20121116132827id_/http://old.nationalreview.com/12feb96/drug.html

Kain, E. (2011, July 5). Ten Years After Decriminalization, Drug Abuse Down by Half in Portugal. Retrieved May 22, 2015, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/


Sunday, October 18, 2015

Marriage Rights: Voting For the Obvious





Marriage Rights: Voting For the Obvious





            Just this year, SCOTUS has had many a case brought before it that can be deemed controversial. Gay Marriage Rights was finally ruled upon in a case called Obergefell v. Hodges. This was tied to five other cases of similar style calling for the Court to decide if homosexuals had the right to marry in the eyes of the law. The Court ruled that marriage is a right for all consenting adults be they homosexual or heterosexual (576 U.S. ___). This has caused a backlash all over the country from people who think that such actions are illegal and in their opinions against "God's Laws".
            Obergefell v. Hodges was years in the making, it started with DeBoer v Snyder (576 U.S. ___). This was a Michigan case that was filled in  2012 due to the couple being black balled from sharing parenthood of their son because they weren't in a legally recognized marriage (772 F.3d 388). Deboer's case was focused on the state's adoption laws but was refocused towards the marriage law as that was the true thing holding the couple back (772 F.3d 388).  This worked and the couple went on to sue the state claiming that anti-gay marriage laws were against the United States Constitution(772 F.3d 388). This snow balled into 5 cases making the equivalent of a class action law suit against the Fed under the claim that anti gay marriage laws violated people's rights under the Constitution. Obergefell came a year after in 2013 when one half of a gay marriage died and the other half requested that he be placed on the death certificate as his husband and surviving spouse (576 U.S. ___).
            The five cases were combined under the title Obergefell v. Hodges (576 U.S. ___). The claim was that the laws in each state violated the claimants 14th Amendment rights to Due Process and Equal Protection (576 U.S. ___). The court agreed with the petitioners and ruled that the Fed and states must recognize and issue same sex marriage licenses or violate the inherent spirit of the 14th Amendment. SCOTUS has a heavy burden each year while they are in session to analyze each case presented carefully and weigh the cost of agreeing with the petitioner or tossing the case out for precedent (576 U.S. ___).
            Over the past couple of years cases have been brought before the Supreme Court that have systematically destroyed all legal argument for denying two consenting adults under the spirit and heart of the United States Constitution. Obergefell and the various petitioners have been given the same rights as those in heterosexual relationships (576 U.S. ___). The Constitution cannot be taken literally or else laws on marriage wouldn't be allowed in the first place as the lack of writing upon them would create a void in the government. The Constitution has to be taken in the spirit it was written instead.

            The 14th Amendment states: " Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (Cornell University Law School). The spirit of the law in this passage is how cases such as "Brown v. Board of Education" those cases were looked at not in the letter of the 14th Amendment, but in the spirit of the Amendment it guarantees each child, regardless of ethnicity or gender, an education that is the same as everyone else. There is no logical reason that marriage rights shouldn't fall under the same thought process as education. Before this case was put before the Supreme Court, the law couldn't legally tell two heterosexual adults they couldn't get married because of the color of their skin, that was ruled unconstitutional years before, gender is no different. In this case I agree with the majority that to deny homosexual couples the same right that their heterosexual counter parts enjoy each day is turning our back on the keystone of social order that marriage is in our country. I also agree with the majority that the idea of same sex marriage harming the marriages of straight couples is ridiculous and that no lasting harm can happen to any current or future heterosexual marriage by allowing same sex couples to marry (576 U.S. ___).

            Marriage is a fundamental right promised in the Constitution by its promise of the right to freedom and happiness for every person in this nation. By denying gay couples because of a small group's ideal of moral propriety is to thumb our noses at the spirit that was engrained into the very parchment our founding fathers wrote it on. By denying a portion of our nation the same rights that a majority of the nation gets is turning our backs on the basis of our society that all men are equal.




Resources

Cornell University Law School. (n.d.). 14th Amendment. Retrieved September 19, 2015, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2014)


Obergefell v. Hodges 576 U.S. ___ (2015)

Saturday, August 22, 2015

depression

http://viralwomen.com/post/things_you_should_never_say_to_someone_with_depression

Anxiety

http://www.calmclinic.com/anxiety/disorientation

Thursday, July 30, 2015

GRR!!!!

I do see a problem with special interest groups. The ones that I see to be a problem are mostly those who seek the shove religion down the throats of the American populous under the guise of freedom and tax concerns. An example of this would be the ruling for Hobby Lobby. To me, it wasn't about the company having a religious view point, or In-n-Out Burgers would have been in the law suit as well given they are owned by deeply religious people as well.

This can cause a problem because it begins to blur the line that is suppose to be finite between church and state. There seems to be this belief that the US was founded on Christian ideals when it wasn't and that is expressly stated that church and state shall be separate. Once special interest groups are made, they can reek havoc on rulings and the political field for years to come. Hobby Lobby's suit caused part of the ACA to be rewritten so that even if employers won't pay for there is an insurance that will and employers can't stop employees from using it.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/10/white-house-birth-control_n_7771004.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/magazine/what-the-hobby-lobby-ruling-means-for-america.html?_r=0
http://www.streetlaw.org/en/landmark/cases/roe_v_wade
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12334123945835207673&q=Roe+v.+Wade,+410+U.S.+113+(1973&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&as_vis=1

I am getting too old for this

My job is really trying. I work with autistic kiddos and help them learn how to interact with the world in a way we deem acceptable. Such as asking for things and understanding that they can't scream and throw a fit when they are told no.

This is a trying thing to do as many of these kiddos don't grasp that they can still be told no, even if they ask nicely. They don't get that the person still has the right to say no. For them they only understand that saying please gets their way and when it doesn't, the world doesn't quite make sense.

I can handle my job. I can handle these kiddos. What I can't handle is a company that is not on the ball when it comes to assigning cases. I have been out of work for nearly three weeks now. My last client pulled services because of HQ's behavior in the middle of July. I was promised a new client by the time the second pay period began. That pay period has come and gone. In that space they tried to force a client that would cause me to have to drive over 300 miles a week for less than 12 hours a week worth of work. I stood my ground and drew the line. Then with out notification, I had two clients dropped on me in my area that I can make easily and they total 12 hours a week for pay. I technically make more on Unemployment than I would be making for this company. I find it highly suspect that these clients magically get assigned to me when just last Friday they swore they didn't have any clients in town and yet there are job postings of a need for more people in my town to do the job I'm doing from the exact same company.

This bugs me because it shows a lack of professionalism. If there aren't clients in the town you are hiring from, don't post the job like there is work in the town. Make it clear that people will driving upwards of 100 miles a week for pay that's less than most people get while working at McDonald's. The part that freaks me out the most is that I was part of a hiring pool of 13 people in April and there are only 2 of us left. That means that this company has fired or forced 11 people to quit in less than 6 months. That is a turn over rate that my mind just can't calculate. It makes me wonder just how well this company has been put together and how in the bloody hell it's survived this long.

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

The truth

I am a depressed person and I am sick of fucking always hearing that I just need therapy or to be fucking happy or reminded that I am in a mood. No one wants to help for real. The only help ever offered is to pass me onto a doctor or to ask a doctor to stuff me with meds. 

No one wants to help not really. Not even those who say they love me. It's about doing the bare minimum needed in order to alleviate guilt. 

I sit here struggling just to survive while I watch all my friends swim in success... I spend hours looking for a new job that will pay a livable salary and yet I have friends who have jobs and cushy living situations just fall into their laps. 

My health is spiraling downward while everyone else seems to be getting all they want with so very little effort. Someone I call a friend has a cushy job they do not appreciate.

The lack of appreciation for what they have is what bothers me the most. The constant complaining of how they are still lacking in some way while simultaneously posting about how they are out and about doing things like getting tattoos and going to concerts and such.

I always make an attempt to thankful for what I have, even though my anxiety tells me it's not enough to keep me going. I think that's where the anger comes from, the blatant disregard for what they already have. The same friend who got the windfall, had a nearly brand new car paid off free and clear and she still went out and bought a 20k truck because her new fuck toy wanted to have a truck for them to go have fun in. Now she complains that she wants to get a new stereo in both cars, a new alarm, AND Bluetooth for both cars.

Bottom line is I wish she would just step back and be happy with what she has. She has a house, a car, a dog, a life, and her bills are guaranteed to be paid for god knows how long. I just wish people who can't be thankful could live where things are actually shitty.

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

I Am

I am loud, I am brash, I speak directly and don't believe in beating around the bush. I don't sugar coat things that don't need to be. 

I am an unrepentant liberal/socialist. I believe that it's no one's business, but my own what I do with my body and the same for everyone else.

 I think the rich are too rich and the poor are too poor, that there needs to be a redistribution of wage and money. 

I think that the rich need to be taxed at a HUGE percentage and ALL that money needs to be spent on those who need it most, with absolutely NO tax breaks for the rich or businesses. 

I think rapists need to be treated like terrorists and that the focus of all crimes in the news should be on the victims and their families NOT the people who commit the crime.

I think Muslims are awesome people with a bad rep and that conservatism is the greatest threat to this country and freedom. 

I believe that marriage is between consenting adults gender need not matter. I will NEVER back down from defending what I believe. 

I will post what I want about my beliefs and I will never remove them. I welcome open peaceful dialogue and enjoy debate. 

I will NOT tolerate hate speech nor will I allow comments that serve nothing but to inflame those around the post.