Legalize Marijuana?

I agree with my classmate, that we should legalizing marijuana. There is no doubt that so many people use marijuana, so if we were to legalize it we would be adding money to our economy. We can tax marijuana and use that money towards K-12 education. As well as marijuana can help a lot of people out. It’s been use to help out cancer patients, people with eating disorders, and other illnesses. Marijuana is looked at as a bad drug or gate way drug, but studies have been done that show that marijuana has not cause any death or lead to any serious health problems. And it is not necessarily a gate way drug; because like any drug that is illegal, young adults want to try it to be rebels or to try new things and/or to feel good.

Another problem that can be somewhat solve is the drug cartel problem. If marijuana was legalize then the drug dealing would go down because users would go buy it legally instead of somewhere dangerous and illegally. Having to buy it from a drug dealer can be dangerous and also can lead users to getting involve in illegally activities and lead them to a life of violence. Especially young adults, they will see that drug dealers have nice cars clothes jewelry and other nice things, leading them to think that getting involved in that lifestyle is the best decision for them. Many people get busted selling or buying marijuana and they are arrested. Having them be arrested for possession of marijuana just makes our jails more crowded and our tax money is being put to use for a little crime such as having marijuana, instead of using that tax money for important things like education or health care.

Like alcohol, marijuana is going to be around no matter how many restrictions are put on it. The more people feel that the use of marijuana is an act of being a rebel or sticking it to the man, the more they are going to want it and find ways to get it. If it is legalize then there can be a possibility that the wanting of using it will go down, and if not well it will help out our economy and less people would be in jail for possession.

Drinking age from 21 to 25??

I do not agree with Mr. Ebeling about changing the drinking age from 21 to 25. Although he provides one good valid argument as in why they should change the drinking age, I do not believe it is enough. The story he provided stating that young people are irresponsible does not, in my opinion make a good enough argument. Yes young people are irresponsible and immature, but at the same time at what age do people really mature or become responsible, at 25? No, everyone matures at a different age, some around their 20s others late 20s and some really never mature. So comparing maturity with a person's age is not a good enough reason to change the drinking age.
Even now with what the drinking age is, some people argue that they should change it to 18 because they believe if a person is considered an adult and is able to fight for their country at age 18, then they should be able to legally drink alcohol. In my opinion 21 is a good age for legal consumption of alcohol, because by this age one has already finish high school or receive their GED, and is attending college or working.
If there were more arguments having to deal with health issues, economic issues or even educational issues, then maybe changing the drinking age would not sound like a bad idea. But in reality no matter what the drinking age is whether it stays at 21 or goes up to 25, younger people are still going to find a way to get alcohol. The problem i see with raising the drinking age to 25 is the fact that there will be way more tickets or even arrest for underage drinking. As well as the companies that produce alcohol and the places where alcohol is purchase by an individual will lose a lot of business. The drinking age should just stay at 21, it has been like that for a long while now and problems having to deal with alcohol will still be around no matter what the drinking age is.

Immigration in Texas

Immigration has been a big issue in the United States, and many States have tried taking matter into their own hands. In the Texas Tribune there is an article about the city of Farmers Branch in Texas that tried to pass an immigration law stating that they should ban immigrants from renting housing in the suburb of Dallas. The ruling of the case did not go through because the city does not have authority to enact immigration legislation, which falls under the federal government. It was unconstitutional because the law targeted illegal immigrants to be removed from the city of Farmers Branch, and that power to regulate immigrants and their residency in this country goes to the federal government.

Nina Perales, the vice president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, said that even though the ruling in Farmers Branch was a victory for immigrants it does not mean that other immigration legislation won't pass in court. Like the Senate Bill 1070 in Arizona, which is set to go through the Supreme Court in a month, which states that it is a state crime to be in this country illegally and it also allows local law enforcement to check the immigration status of people THEY suspect are in this country illegally. The SB 1070 gives rise to other states, Texas being one of those states, to attempt to pass their own form of immigration laws. A State Representative, Burt Solomons, said that lawmakers will wait and see what becomes of the Arizona law before trying to make an attempts at bring up an immigration legislation again.

“I suspect someone will try to move forward with [legislation],” he said. “There will still be attempts and I think that is going to continue until we see a national [immigration] reform.”

Although immigration is a big issue throughout the United States, some of the immigration laws that states are trying to pass are just unfair and wrong. The immigration law that the city of Farmers Branch was trying to pass was an act of racial profiling. As Nina Perales said

"The early part of the opinion says that the purpose of the ordinance is to push Latinos out of Farmers Branch, so you see a recognition in the decision that there was a strong racial element to what Farmers Branch had done,”

Many of the "illegal aliens" that come to this country, come for a better life for them and their families. They go about their business, getting jobs, trying to get education for their children, live a better life than they had in their own country. It is not their fault that they are not born in this country, but that small percent that come and do wrong make it hard for the rest of the immigrants to try and make something of them. I don't agree that the state of Texas should try and pass immigration laws like the ones in Arizona, its racial profiling and it affects every Hispanic not just the illegal ones. The law trying to be pass in Arizona states that the law enforcement officers can question anybody's legal status they suspect is in this country illegal. For the Hispanics that are born here or have receive their papers it violates their rights and is straight up racial profiling which is unconstitutional. They should try and fix the immigration problem, but not punish the immigrants that obey their laws and are trying to get their family and themselves ahead in life.

Texas Water Resources

In the Austin American Statesman there is an editorial, Groundwater ruling potentially unleashes geyser of future cases ,that talks about the ruling by the Supreme Court on property rights  and groundwater, and the effects it has on the conservation and regulation of aquifers. The court ruled that the property owners own the groundwater beneath their land just like they own the gas and oil underneath their land. The problem with that ruling is the regulations limiting on how much groundwater can be pump by the property owner, and how that will be consider unconstitutional because that is their property and the owner can do what they want with it, and limiting how much water they can pump interferes with their rights. Putting a limitation on the use of groundwater puts the districts regulators in a dilemma because of the fear of getting sued and having to pay thousands of dollars for compensation. However, with the drought that Texas has been facing, the limitation of the groundwater is essential to the other Texans who use and rely on the same water supply. The courts agree that the state should be able to regulate the production of groundwater, however, the court have the question on whether it would be reasonable or unreasonable of government taking property.
I agree with the courts on the state being able to regulate how much groundwater the property owner should own. The use of groundwater affects every other Texan that relies on the water supply and it affects Texas environment. If the state does not regulate the use of ground water then the rest of the people residing in Texas will suffer, and Texas would go into a drought. The Legislature should come up with something to protect everyone not just the property owners, because like mention in the article 60 percent of Texas will be affected and the damages will be greater. Water is very essential to everyone's well-being, so why not act fast on finding solutions that would in the end benefit everyone.