Another marijuana post

I know people have been doing a lot legalization of marijuana rants but i want to look at it from a philosophical perspective. In a traditional natural law theorist's point of view, if you believe marijuana to be immoral than it should be illegal. However, natural law also says to do what makes your life better and more enjoyable to you. If you find nothing wrong with marijuana use, then it should be perfectly legal. In a positivist approach, if the law says its illegal, then in no way, shape, or form should be allowed. Both medical and recreational use should be made illegal. A realist approach, which i agree with, says the courts and judges should take a look at each case individually. State laws on medical use of marijuana are very strict. Dispensaries have to jump through many hoops to stay in business. How can a judge or jury look at an individual suffering from MS and sentence them to prison for taking medication that relieves their everyday pain? Now, if a nationwide drug dealer who is responsible for bringing in hundreds of pounds into residential neighbors is standing trial, then yes they should be sentenced accordingly. I'm not exactly sure how feminism fits into this scheme of things but as long as males and females are being treated the same by the law, i do not see them having a problem. Law and economics theorists would be all for the legalization of medical marijuana because, after the state applies very taxes to its sale, the governments will make a very large profit.

Minority Privelage

As a white woman of a middle class background I think that I have had more opportunities than some others who have grown up as minorities and may not have always been affored the same privelages as myself. Having said that, I do not believe that these facts allow for others to be awarded more privelages simply due to their minority status and any discrimination they or their ancestors might have faced in the past. When looking into college and law school admissions, most schools have quotas that need to be met. These quotas are not publicized, but are still well known and known to affect the admissions of all applicants. The same is true for scholarship opportunities. My roommate is 1/4 Jewish and for the past four years she has gotten a scholarship for $8,000 annually because she is a good student of Jewish descent. Looking over the terms of her scholarship a few days ago, we found that in order for her to be qualified for the scholarship she only needed to be 1/8 Jewish and maintain a 3.0 GPA in college. Are you kidding me? When applying for scholarships and to universities in the past, I always knew this type of reverse discimination existed, but I did not know to the extent that it does. As a white middle-class female, I risk not being admitted over a student with the same criteria as me simply because I am not of minority descent. Why should someone who is 1/8 Jewish be able to get such a wonderful gift that has nothing to do with their intelligence level? Yes, I'm sure that her GPA played a role in achieving this scholarship, but I still find the whole thing appaling. Just because I haven't lived life as a minority, don't have enough of a certain ethnicity in myself, am not gay or lesbian, or suffered in some other way, does not mean that I have not worked just as hard if not harder to attain the goals I strive to reach. I do not believe that anything other than one's qualifications and hard work should ever put them ahead of another.

Rape and Victims

While we think of rape as a male attacking a female and forcing sexual intercourse on them, this is not totally true. Men also rape people. This is not unheard of in the United States today. The problem is that men just do not report it when they are raped nearly as much as females. Maybe men just do not realize they are being raped when it happens or maybe they are afraid of what people with think of them, but whatever the case may be they should report this. Males raping females seems to happen a lot, and many females, especially on a college campus, do not like to walk alone in the dark. They fear that someone is out there to just come along and rape them, which I can totally understand their argument. But how likely is it that this will happen? We look and every 2 minutes in the United States someone is sexually assaulted. Now we can clearly see why people are afraid to walk alone down that dark alley. We constantly worry about this problem and the minute we let our guard down it will happen. Rape is an equal opportunity employer just like most other crimes, so should men fell scared as they walk alone down that dark alley. Maybe, but we usually do not feel like anyone can overpower us.

Decriminalization of Marijuana

On April 30, 2009, the General Assembly of Pennsylvania introduced House Bill #1393 to "provide for the medical use of marijuana, and repeal provisions of the law that prohibit and penalize marijuana use. It is called the Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act. This is not legalization of marijuana, but decriminalization of marijuana for medical users. Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington have similar legislation already enacted. On a federal level, Obama announced in March that his administration would end the Bush Era's federal raids on medical marijuana dispensaries. This is a crucial step in decriminalization. Under Bush, medical marijuana dispensaries, even when completely complying with state law, were raided under federal law. Obama's administration will not raid medical dispensaries, only drug traffickers that falsely masquerade as medical dispensaries. This is a devolution of power from the federal government to the state governments. While decriminalization is gaining momentum, legalization looms closer and closer on the horizon. There are benefits to legalization. The economy would benefit. Currently 19 billion dollars is spent annually on the war on drugs, while legalization would cut these costs in half. Also, marijuana could be taxed for revenue. Alcohol and tobacco excise taxes alone generate over 4 billion dollars per year. It is estimated that California alone could raise 1 billion in revenue generated from marijuana taxation. Also, law enforcement, federal agents, courts, and prisons would be freed of the burden of marijuana prosecution. 99 out of 100 marijuana arrests are made under the laws of states. If state laws were changed, there would be no arrests for marijuana. Also, the black market would be eliminated, robbing drug syndicates of valuable revenue and ultimately power. I'm not advocating legalization, I'm just framing the issue in a different light. I'm including the link to the house bill, its pretty interesting.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2009&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=1393&pn=1714

female rapers

While much attention has been given to the fact that men rape women, I was wondering if it is possible for a female to rape a man, or a female to rape a female. I would like to avoid the specific physical terminology and actions taken if either of these is possible, but, in general, I think a female can rape a man or another female. I mean it sounds tricky, sure, but what if a female drug induced a man or another female then "had their way with them," as funny as that sounds. Also, does rape have to be full blown sexual intercourse? What happens if someone forces you someone to do something other than sexual intercourse but is still sexual in nature. Does this count as rape? Lastly, whether a female can rape another individual or not, how ought a big college like Penn State protect against rape so that men are not always the one accused?

Simone de Beauvoir The Second Sex

The french female existentialist Simone de Beauvoir posited a pretty interesting theory about individualty, specifically female individuality. To put it as simply as possible she posits that one is not born a female (while yes they may be genetically) but rather they must become a female. This is a theme throughout all of existentialism, basically "existence proceeds essence," that is you are really nothing at your core and you choose through your actions/projects what you want to become, what you stand for. I know it is complicated, but it makes sense when you think about it. Personally, I hope to become a lawyer (assuming I didn't blow the LSAT) and I cannot say I was born a lawyer, but rather I am choosing through my actions and mindset what I hope to become. Regarding feminism, then, is one born an independent female thinker or do they have to evolve into this when they chose to do so? Is this applicable to men as well?

Affirmative?

I want to know if we think that the government was truly aiming to aid minorities when they began Affirmative Action. If we look at the facts presented before us, we know that in our nation there are a lot of underprivileged communities. These underprivileged communities have schools with far inferior funding to a lot of institutions in our Nation. These conditions are a large contributor to the disadvantages faced by minorities. If the government really wanted to solve these problems, wouldn't a better solution be to put money toward these schools that are struggling? Each year schools take tests to rank the proficiency of their students. Schools must meet certain criteria in order to gain their allotted funding. To me this seems to be the opposite of what should happen. If a school or area is struggling, they should receive more funding in order to increase the chances the students have at a better education. It seems to me that it could be argued that the government started affirmative action because it was the easiest solution: It is cheap, it looks like devotion to aiding minorities, but it doesn't help as many people as any number of programs could.