How to Amaze Your Friends and Family With Your Confused Judgment and Decreased Motor Skills

The blog The Panacea proposes that marijuana should be made legal. Two of the ideas presented in the blog that attempt to support the cause for legalizing marijuana are “The medical community would benefit tremendously from the use of marijuana in the treatment process of easing the negative effects of certain ailments, such as cancers,” and “Society is now accepting and embracing marijuana.”
The argument is made that marijuana should be legal because it eases the negative effects of certain ailments. This is an attempt to persuade the reader to agree with the opinion stated in The Panacea by making individuals feel sorry for cancer patients. What kind of person would want to deny people suffering from cancer medication that would ease their suffering? But feeling compassion for someone does not serve as evidence for an argument. The reader should rely on the rational reasons behind the argument as opposed to allowing emotions to motivate them to legalize marijuana. In fact, the claim that marijuana should be legalized for the welfare of patients is not supported by the evidence.
Despite the assertion the medical community would benefit tremendously from the use of marijuana, the facts are that there are better treatments available. The only benefit of legalized marijuana to the medical community would be the rise in employment in drug treatment centers used to treat the thousands of new addicts it would create. A synthetic form of THC in pill form, Marinol, relieves the nausea and vomiting linked to chemotherapy. Unlike marijuana, Marinol has been studied and approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Physicians who practice 21st century medicine use Marinol, rather than act like snake oil salesmen and suggest that their patients smoke a plant.
Finally, let's look at the argument that society is now accepting and embracing marijuana. This is an attempt to use majority rule as a way to validate support for legalization of marijuana. We are suppose to believe that majority rule is all-knowing and we should follow it blindly. The argument should be rejected because suggesting that it is the majority opinion that marijuana should be legal is false.
If you take a look at polls you will see that supporters of legalizing marijuana are in the minority across the board regardless of age group or gender. According to Gallup polls the supporters for legalizing marijuana are the minority. Gallup combined the results of three surveys, conducted in August 2001, November 2003, and October 2005 and found that 44% of men aged 18 to 49 and 33% of men aged 50 and older support the legalization of marijuana. It also showed that for woman 34% of women aged 18 to 49 and 27% of women aged 50 and older support the legalization of marijuana. Another poll done by Time/CNN found that only 34% want marijuana legalized.
In conclusion, the reader should not allow themselves to be manipulated to promote the legalization of marijuana. The proven medical and scientific facts about marijuana will not be changed just by changing the laws.

Warning: We Must Save Innocent Lives

The death penalty is a warning, just like a lighthouse throwing its beams out to sea. We hear about shipwrecks, but we do not hear about the ships the lighthouse guides safely on their way. We do not have proof of the number of ships it saves, but we do not tear the lighthouse down. - poet Hyman Barshay

In May 2006 a Gallup Poll found that overall support of the death penalty was 65%. Punishment deters crime it follows that death should deter crime more effectively than less severe punishment will. The death penalty prevents murders from murdering again and saves innocent lives and we must choose the option that saves innocent lives. If we chose not to use executions as a deterrent to crime a loss of innocent lives would be the result. In a 1986 study done by Professor Stephen K. Layson of the University of North Carolina, he found that 18 murders were deterred by each execution is the U.S.

The argument that life in prison deters crime as well as the death penalty is false. A convicted murder sentenced to life without parole has no deterrent to stop him from committing more crimes to include continuing to murder people while in prison. We have no way to defend against them and protect the safety of correction officers. If they were to escape from prison then what is to stop them from killing people. For example on December 27, 2006, Officer Bryan Tuvera, 28, died in the line of duty after being shot by Marlon Ruff, who was being sought after escaping from a California correctional facility. There are some crimes that for which mere imprisonment seems an inadequate punishment . Society's sense of justice is deeply offended when a brutal murderer such as Charles Manson or Jeffrey Dahmer who killed sodomized and cannibalized his victims, is allowed to live in prison. The victims of a murder will never be able to see their children grow up, enjoy a meal, laugh, while a murderer sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole still can do these things. Furthermore the loved ones of the victim are among the taxpayers that endure the cost of supporting a murder for the rest of their lives.

We can not continue to support those who violate our human rights and murder our loved ones. We most show compassion for the victims of violent crime and concern for future victims. The death penalty helps prevent future crime a murder has been deterred from committing more crimes when he is executed