Can marijuana save the economy?

Could legalizing marijuana be the answer to saving our economy? We all know that the war on drugs is an expensive battle. A great deal of time, money and resources go into catching those who buy or sell illegal drugs, prosecuting and incarcerating them. There is no way to effectively measure the amount of revenue marijuana brings in, but legalization would eliminate the risk buyers and sellers take now, causing the demand to rise. Increased demand could bring in more revenue for the government, if marijuana was being taxed similarly to alcohol and tobacco.

California State Assembly member Tom Ammiano introduced legislation last month, that would legalize marijuana and allow California to regulate and tax its sale. Marijuana is already California's biggest cash crop, bringing in $14 billion in annual sales. California's tax collectors estimate the new bill would bring in $1.3 billion in additional revenue each year.

California was one of the first states to legalize marijuana in 1996. US Attorney General Eric Holder recently announced that states should be able to make their own rules on medical marijuana. However, despite the fact that legalizing marijuana may bring a much needed revenue, opponents say legalizing pot will only add to social woes; increasing crime, drug addiction, mental health disorders, and driving up insurance rates.

So my question to you this week is "Should the United States legalize marijuana, medicinally or otherwise?" Answers are due by Saturday, March 21st, 2009.

Can the United States Save Darfur?

The conflict in Darfur in an ongoing military conflict in the Darfur region of Sudan, the largest country in Africa. It began in 2003 and is seen by many as a conflict along ethnic and tribal lines. One side is composed of the Janjaweed, a militia group recruited from the camel-herding, nomadic Arab tribes. The Sudanese government, while denying the it supports the Janjaweed, has provided money and assistance to sustain attacks against the rebels. The "rebels" comprise the other side of the conflict, and consist mostly of armies recruited from Black ethnic groups, who make a living farming the land.

The conflict is caused by the Arab tribes searching to find water for their camels. In doing so, they take over the land occupied by the Black farmers. The Janajaweed have systematically burned villages, and committed mass murders and rapes. An estimated 3 million people have been displaced, and more than 200,000 have been killed since the conflict started. The United States has classified the conflict in Darfur as a genocide, however the United Nations has yet to describe it this way.

Last week, the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for the Sudanese President, al-Bashir, charging him with war crimes and crimes against humanity. In response, Bashir has launched a crackdown on humanitarian aid in the region, forcing dozens of major aid institutions to leave the area.

My question to you this week is, "Should the United States get involved in Darfur, and if so, how? Should we use diplomatic, humanitarian or military efforts?" Answers are due by Sunday, March 15th at 6:00 p.m.

Should Newspapers Be Saved?

Recently, we studied how the media affects our political culture and why it is sometimes called the fourth branch of government. The media's influence on politics has always affected how we view our politicians; from the times of the penny press, FDR's fireside chats and the televised Kennedy/Nixon debates. However, it is now possible that some major cities will soon no longer have a newspaper.

In a recent cover story, Times author Walter Issacon notes that although readership is on the rise, fewer consumers are paying. According to a Pew Research study, more people got their news online for free last year, than paid for it by buying newspapers and magazines. The newspapers, which traditionally have counted on sales from subscriptions and newsstands are now only relying on advertising dollars, thus making the content beholden to the advertisers themselves.

Walter Issacon makes a case for charging for the news we access. Whether we pay an online subscription fee for the newspaper of our choice, or we are simply charged a "user fee" for each article we access, Issacon stresses that charging for content might just be the only way to save our newspapers.

You are all creative students, who produce artistic content that I am sure you would like to get paid for, yet at the same time, I am sure many of your access news for free off of the Internet. So my question to you this week is, "Do you think we should be charged for the news we access, and if so, with what kind of fee?". Answers are due Sunday, March 8th, 2009 by 6:00 p.m.