Getting High on the Down Low: Mixed Messages

The legalization of marijuana has been a reoccurring discussion since the day it was first outlawed. Both sides of the argument have valid points and I feel that Mike Sorenson's review of two articles regarding marijuana policy shows the weakness with which the first article was written, and I believe that any one reading its arguments could see where it fall flat. While I do agree with his ultimate point, that marijuana should not be legalized, I think that there are some kinks that need to be worked out of the whole system regarding marijuana. If the first article was written with less bias, its points would be better showcased.

The first problem with article one is that its summaries at the end of each paragraph make assumptions. For example, the first summary states, "the government should not tell individuals what to do as long as they do not harm others." Yes, there are no reported deaths reported that are directly linked to only marijuana, but the truth of the matter is that marijuana does affect your state of mind and could in turn affect your decision making. The other summaries in article one make similarly large assumptions.

The second problem with article one is that it needs to be written in a more formal, matter-of-fact manner. Instead of barreling on about the "lies" police officers spread about drugs in schools, there should be a less attacking style used and an acknowledgment of the side against marijuana legalization. The article also fails to provide an explanation on whether marijuana would be regulated like alcohol, which leaves me with a disgruntled attitude towards the writers

Mike simply states the arguments like they are, and in turn makes article one look much shabbier than the opposing article. The problem I see with this topic as a whole is that there is no middle-ground for the two sides to come together at. Regulating marijuana for strictly prescribed medicinal use could be the middle-ground between the two parties, but neither side seems like it is willing to budge any time soon.

Photo Credit: www.freedomsphoenix.com

To Bottle OR Not To Bottle?

With all the ideas of how we can become "greener," the bottled water industry has found itself under attack and not very "green" at all. In the following two articles, reasons for and against bottled water are given and I feel that while the reasons to use bottled water are compelling, they are just as achievable without the use of bottled water, rather just water in a reusable water bottle.

The first article explains the reasons why bottled water is increasing and why it is necessary. One reason is that tap water may be contaminated and can therefore be hazardous to health. Another reason is that tap water may taste and/or smell "bad." The article also argues that the bottled water industry is one of economic opportunity. While all these reasons may be true, plastic water bottles are not the solution.

The next article gives reasons not to buy plastic water bottles. In short the arguments were: that bottled water is not a good value, it is no healthier than tap, bottled water means more garbage, there will be less attention to public systems, and that water, what many deem to be a natural human right to have safe and affordable access to, is becoming a corporation. All of these reasons can be backed by proven and studied facts.

The arguments from the first article can also be backed by facts, but rather than making bottled water the solution, the reusable water bottle industry should be more actively suggested. By using reusable water bottles, unnecessary plastic bottle garbage will no longer be created, a focus will remain on public water filtration systems because consumers will use their own tap water to fill their bottles, and there will still be an industry for a product - a much "greener" product.

Photo Credit: www.mnn.com