Money Can Buy Happiness — or at Least Improved Morale

I completely agree with my peer, Benny Leykun in his postabout holding police officers more accountable.  Not only to assure the safety of citizens but also for those in the force.

Working as a nanny during summer for a police officer, Rick, I understand (as best I can), the strain this position can put on not only the individual, but also his or her family. “Risking your life every day in this duty with a family is scary” Rick tells me, “I used to think it was bad-ass to fight crime, but being held at gunpoint is terrifying when you know you have two kids at home”. Becoming more and more controversial, it is important to have complete transparency in this service with body cameras.

You reap what you sow, and if government places more funding into law enforcement, there is more security in what men and women in uniforms are instilling in the safety of our public. Everyone has a right to feel safe in their communities.

Medical Cannabis: 21 States to Go

The prohibition and criminalization of marijuana use does more harm than good. But before I take a stance on legalizing the recreational use of marijuana, it is most important to voice my support for the critical need for the legalization of medical cannabis.

Doctors themselves have formed a national organization for the legalization of marijuana under the name Doctors for Cannabis Regulation in 2016. The physicians say that “creating a legal and regulated marijuana market is the best way to ensure public safety” (Ingraham, The Washington Post). The US Government Accountability Office noted the following conditions along with many others in their report "Descriptions of Allowable Conditions under State Medical Marijuana Laws": Alzheimer's Disease, HIV, Cancer, Epilepsy, AIDS, and many more. Marijuana is a much safer alternative to pharmaceuticals, to relieve chronic pain associated with these illnesses. Also, with medical cannabis, patients can reap the benefits of managing their symptoms without having to worry about addiction, overdose or, serious side effects that aren't worth the risk of pharmaceutical drugs.

Legalization can help societies as a whole. If medical marijuana were legalized, governments would be able to ensure that patients are receiving safe cannabis and would not have to risk the probable dangers of engaging in the exchange of black market cannabis. Additionally, they could effectively "control doses, track its use on a large scale, and place taxes on its sale in order to increase government profits" (Medical Marijuana Association). Legalization would also reduce the regulations on research so that we have more scientific studies on the subject, leading to a more firm grasp of its health benefits as a medical prescription.

Privatiza- AHHHH!

In my colleague's blog, "What Would American's Do?", Ronnie Medrano addresses the call for U.S. veterans to receive free health care due to the physical and psychological impact on a person from serving their country. Although I fully agree with Medrano who served in the U.S Navy for five years, the word "free" scares some people and will require steps to achieving this goal of health care for all veterans.
The first step, in my opinion, would be the privatization of health care for individuals that served this country. That being said, a question to consider: why in the world are we denying care from qualified private providers when those on Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare can? According to the New York Times, even the Veterans Health Administration's direct employees "enjoy a vast array of private health care and coverage options that are denied to the veterans they ostensibly serve" (Avik Roy, Veterans Should Enjoy the Same Health Care Options as All Americans). The privatization health care for veterans is nothing to be scared of, the Department of Veterans Affairs would improve from public resources, and providing the option for individuals who served this country the option to receive care from high-quality, private sources is a win-win. 

Welfare Drug Testing, Worth the Dollar?

Fifteen U.S. states have passed legislation regarding welfare recipients to be tested for drugs. There are numerous benefits to holding individuals on welfare accountable by helping drug users off the dole and thus reduce spending on benefits. At least twelve states include language requiring testing only if there is reasonable cause to believe the person is using illegal substances. Providing treatment for those testing positive rather than immediately terminating financial assistance is a large step toward authenticating government aid, expediting citizens getting off welfare, as well as simply for health-related improvements.                                   

While opponents argue that this mandatory drug test is a waste of money, this is an efficient and reasonable allocation of taxpayer’s money. The government provides money for a specific purpose, to ensure that low economic class American's have sufficient resources, and we want to ensure that the taxpayer’s dollar is being used for that purpose rather than taking advantage of the government check.  With results from drug tests, the government can understand specific situations and help these citizens more effectively, provided with more information. It is reasonable to expect that the people receiving welfare assistance should be held to certain standards in order to ensure the temporary nature of the assistance and to lead to their quick re-entry into the workforce.

Individuals who apply for jobs, many are required to be drug tested, why should a welfare recipient be excluded from this requirement? These steps toward independence prepare (hopefully) potential employees with real standards they must meet in job requirements.

Accountability is what we as American citizens hold our government responsible for to maintain the freedom and equality of this country. Ensuring that the government assistance is being utilized wisely with drug testing on welfare recipients benefits not only the taxpayer of effective allocation of taxes but also the low economic class citizen to continue in taking steps away from government benefaction and into the workforce.

Should We Diagnose This Behavior?

A professor and sociologist with the username, Socdoc216, wrote an editorial on How the Media Normalized Trump's Mental Illness and put Democracy at Risk on Daily Kos’s blog. I find this title in and of itself ironic being that the more popular, left-leaning media floods social media and the news to demote President Trump by focusing on his irrational behavior.  Socdos216's main concern in this excerpt is the likelihood of President Donald Trump leading America with a mental illness.       

The article begins with defining the attributes in Donald Trump as closely related to those of a mental disease such as “his fondness for telling irrational but occasionally entertaining whoppers has also obscured…the extent to which Trump is mentally ill” (par. 2), meaning that Americans should associate ridiculous accusations with a mental illness. Trust me, I’m not the biggest fan of our new POTUS, but I most definitely do not agree with deeming him mentally ill nor incapable. Who are we to judge another’s actions to the extent of their mental fortitude? You would think, health professionals and physiatrists, right? But lo and behold, Socdoc216 contests these logical ideas with the argument that “one need not be a credentialed psychologist or psychiatrist to recognize…mental illness” (par. 4). Discussing mental diseases is very sensitive and easily offensive to far too many people, let alone accusing another of being mentally incapable of performing his duty BECAUSE of this mental illness is treading on thin ice.     

Socdoc216 is a credible author and makes valid opinions of our president, but with large allegations such as these against President Trump, it is very easy to offend and stoop to low levels of proving a point. Even if professionals diagnosed the POTUS, there is nothing written in the constitution prohibiting anyone physically or mentally for being in office, we the people set the standards for our presidents, we have our own specifications to judge who should oversee America. 

Wrong Way, America

With bold statements and just reasons, this editorial from USA Today truly shocked me with the news of Congress killing a bill to have stricter gun control for individuals with a mental illness. Although I believe the author is communicating and reaching out to all Americans about the issue of permitting guns to be sold to people with mental disorders and disabilities, the intended audience appears to be aimed at any individuals with a mental illness. The peice reiterates the point that the bill is not intended to “wrongly stigmatize everyone who suffers from mental illness”, but points out the facts that several, if not most gun violence has been associated with people who suffer from a mental illness. The editorial I read did not have a specific author, but The Editorial Board is credited from USA Today. USA Today is a reliable news source with more than capable staff on The Editorial Board. For example, Bill Sternberg, an editor for several years has covered some of the most well-known stories in the past decade including the Clinton impeachment scandal, September 11 terrorist attacks and the 2000 election recount. Sternberg and his editorial team state that people with a mental disability should not be able to access guns, being that many shootings in America have been a result of easy purchases of firearms while living with a mental illness and that the “definition of insanity is making guns more accessible to disturbed individuals”.  I agree with the logic that although people with mental sicknesses have just the same amount of rights as any other being, safety is vital and it should be more difficult for those individuals to purchase a gun. I am a supporter of the second amendment, yet I believe in strengthening the control of the sales and permits involved with firearms. This editorial piece was very constructive and thorough in identifying all claims made by backing up statements with evidence and speaking on refuting perspectives. 

DAPL-ease No

A topic that certainly is an emotional roller-coaster has begun to spiral downward during the recent construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, expected to be finished within three months after “Donald Trump formally backed the [DAPL] project last month in one of his first acts as US president” (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38915797). Although this construction is interfering with private land, an easement has been received, permitting companies to work on the private land. Native American Tribes have united after feuding for several years to protest the installation due to possible contamination of water and infringing on sacred land that belongs to the Cheyenne River Sioux tribe. BBC’s coverage on the Dakota Access Pipeline is easy to follow and engages readers emotionally and of course, politically. I encourage everyone to keep up with the story to be well informed of this issue.