Statistics show that around 40% of high school students have been offered or pressured into trying marijuana. That means that about 12 of you in this classroom have had the chance to get high. Now of just the senior population alone, 19.4% of students have used marijuana in the last 30 days. That’s not counting the other illegal drugs, and the alcohol abuse that happens all the time, which is just as dangerous.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not just picking on marijuana. It just happens to be the most common recreational drug used. I’m also not saying we should keep it illegal or legalize it. What I do believe though, is that if we are to keep marijuana, and other drugs, illegal we should at least enforce the laws we have, and enforce them correctly.
Currently only athletes are subjected to drug testing, which is done incorrectly. According to the KHSAA, and Fayette County rules athletes are to be tested before the season, and randomly throughout. Neither of these rules have been met at Henry Clay for multiple sports teams since drug testing has started. Do you really think that incorrect drug testing will solve the problem?
If the school is so avid about stopping the abuse of drugs, then why do they continue to waste time, money, and human resources to do drug testing that is accomplishing nothing? Honestly, the school is doing such a bad job with it; they shouldn’t be doing it at all. Plus, if you think about it, many people hold high school athletes as being the leaders of their schools, and above many things like drugs. Now, I know drug testing is also for steroid use, but if the schools are looking for illegal drugs and the misuse of prescription drugs, then why not expand drug testing to the rest of the school? It is unfair to single out one select group of students because they happen to play a sport.
In drug testing an entire school I wouldn’t expect them to do it randomly every week or month, though they could randomly test different parts of the student population during the school year. Teachers should also be tested, even if they are regarded as great role models and above things like drugs, we all know people aren’t perfect and even the best among us can fall short sometimes. Recently we’ve seen an example of a teacher caught up in problems with drugs, which is just another reminder that it could happen to any of us.
Drug testing would also allow kids to see, on a smaller scale, the consequences of drug use and abuse. The many D.A.R.E. classes we had in elementary school are in no way doing enough to stop the use of drugs. Statistics taken by the Bureau Of Justice are showing that from 1988 to 2008 high school students who believe that there is a risk in doing illegal drugs has dropped. That means that more and more students aren’t thinking about what marijuana, heroin, LSD, and many other drugs can do to their body, mind and their futures.
If we drug test, we should do it right, and we should do it to everyone, not just athletes. Students, teachers, principals, counselors, coaches, and staff should all be tested. Just because you hold a position of power doesn’t mean you aren’t above being tested and it doesn’t mean you are any less likely to do drugs than the rest of us. We’re all human after all.
Welcome to America- the freest and best nation in the world- where the grass is green, the skies are blue, and healthcare will cost you an arm and a leg. That’s right, ladies and gentlemen, regardless of whether or not you think America really is the Land of the Free, there can be absolutely no doubt that America is light years behind many other industrialized nations in terms of providing affordable healthcare for its citizens. But don’t despair, there is, in fact, a way to dig us out of this ditch- a public option healthcare plan. A public option plan is one in which the federal government would provide its citizens with insurance that they can use to purchase healthcare, whether through a self-sustaining public insurance, premiums subsidized via taxes, or another method. And why, you ask, is public option health care the only option for America? I’ll tell you why.
46.3 million Americans were uninsured in 2008. That’s 600,000 more than in 2007, and the numbers are still rising today. These people are at the mercy of fate, and the most they can do is hope that they won’t get sick or have a medical emergency. This does not always work out for the best, and it sometimes ends in tragedy. Just take the story of Leslie from North Carolina. Last year, Leslie’s young son became very sick. Because his son was not insured, it was not found that he had cancer until he was already in renal failure. A short time later, Leslie’s son became one of the 30,000 people who died last year merely because they did not have insurance. When the system only cares about those who have enough money, sad stories like this are all too common, but under a public option plan, needless deaths can be prevented because everyone can afford health insurance.
So how would healthcare be any more affordable under a public option plan than it is now? First of all, because the federal government is a huge organization and a large percentage of the American people would be taking part in the public option, there would be a decrease in the pricing of health care needs. Also, as a large organization, the government would have some real clout to create competition with private insurers and to encourage them to lower their prices, making healthcare more affordable for all Americans, no matter whether they choose public or private insurance. Whereas the goal of private insurers is to make a profit, the government is not-for-profit, and thus, with a public option plan, the healthcare provider’s focus could shift from making money to providing quality healthcare for its recipients.
Many Americans fear that public option healthcare is a socialist scheme that, if enacted, will lead America one step closer to that evil from which there is no return: communism. How far must one go into the Axis of Evil to find a nation with affordable, “socialist” healthcare? Look no further than Britain or France, where everyone can afford to get the medical care they need. In France, whose healthcare system ranked first on a list of best healthcare systems, patients at a hospital are charged for most visits, however they are reimbursed after the visit with anywhere from 75-85% of what they spent. (The United States placed 37th on the same list, right between Costa Rica and Slovenia.) Talk to a Canadian and they will tell you all about their publicly funded healthcare system, which, according to a 2008 survey by the Strategic Counsel, 91% of Canadians were said to prefer to that of the U.S. So have these nations devolved into communist hellholes? The statistics show that these nations have improved because of their healthcare systems and prove Americans’ fears to be irrational and not grounded in fact.
Since doctors could receive lower reimbursements under a public option plan, many Americans are afraid that they would reject public option patients in favor of those using private insurance. If the public option system works the way it is intended to, however, this would not be the case, because private insurers would lower their prices to match public option prices, thus leveling the playing field and ensuring that doctors would not prefer any patient to the other based on their healthcare method.
Finally, it is important to realize that the success of the public option system rests in the hands of you, the youth of America, because, for it to succeed, everyone, yes, everyone, needs to purchase some sort of coverage, not just the old and sickly but also the young and healthy. Young Americans may complain that they don’t really need it, but, in order for the cost of healthcare to go down, young people must put money into the system so that the strain on the population as a whole is reduced. This way, by the time that today’s youth have become seniors, they will be able to reap the benefits of lower healthcare costs. The opportunity for a better America is waiting. The choice is up to you.
Star Wars- one of the top selling, top money-making movies of all time. Star Wars- a simple tale of good versus evil; a tale in which good triumphs in the end- a great story in which there’s no middle ground and everything is portrayed in terms of black and white, dark or light. So when I say “Star Wars”, what’s the first image that pops into your mind? Do you see fascinating characters like Darth Vader or Luke Skywalker; Princess Leah or Han Solo? Do you see lovable aliens like Wookies, Jawas, or Ewoks? Do you see futuristic technology like the “Millennium Falcon” or various colored light sabers? George Lucas and Hollywood make his all seem so exciting and glamorous and harmless. Unfortunately, it’s also unrealistic. The Star Wars that we could be facing some day in the future will be nothing like what we have just been envisioning. Our Star Wars will be dark and deadly. For decades, the leaders of our world have been working on the militarization of space. This will only have destructive consequences. Nothing fascinating or inspiring, glamorous or harmless will result. What we have to lose far outweighs anything we might gain from placing weapons in space. The most logical way to ensure the continued wellbeing of our planet and the human race is to de-militarize what is currently in space and to prevent any future attempt by any nation- including our own- to place weapons of any kind, anywhere in space.
First, the militarization of space will result in the destruction of all the scientific gains from space that we have made in the past fifty years. But what have we gained in peaceful scientific exploration? Well, some of the most important devices that we have today were developed, put into, and stay in space because of peace there: satellites. They aid our weather prediction and allow cell phones and GPS to work. Just this one major thing with these three branches has saved countless human lives. If we were to allow weapons in space, satellites could and would be damaged, causing cell phones, weather prediction centers and GPS systems to immediately stop working. This would cause global chaos and panic, and undoubtedly put lives in danger.
Plus, if something goes wrong, and there’s an accident, say, one nation destroys another nation’s property, there are going to be some bad feelings. We do not want increased global hostility. It could lead to negative reactions, and to the consequences discussed earlier. Weapons in space have also caused grief in the money aspect. To this date, we have spent over $150 billion for space weapons, and so far, there has been very little success. Nearly all that has been attempted to be made has failed. They simply don’t work. So why are we still trying? We’re just losing money.
In 1958, Thomas White, the chief commander of the Air Force said this: “The United States must win and maintain the capability to control space in order to assure the progress and preemince of free nations. If liberty and freedom are to remain in the world, the U.S. and its allies must be in a position to control space.” This along with “If we don’t do it, someone else will,” is the rationale that leaders of this nation have been using for the past 60 years to qualify weapons in space. The first problem I see with this statement is that if we do go ahead and develop space weapons, the surely other countries will develop them as well. If the United States does something, it somewhat qualifies as a green light for other nations to go ahead and follow. But if we don’t do it, then undoubtedly other nations are going to relax more and sit back.
In 2001, the United Nations released a resolution to prevent an arms race in outer space. It stated that, “The exploration and use of outer space… shall be used for peaceful purposes and shall be carried out for the benefit of all countries.” Every single one of the 163 attendees signed this resolution. The three nations that were absent (the United States, Israel, and the Federated States of Micronesia) did not. One hundred sixty-three to three. An obvious majority agrees on the issue. And so I ask, what gives these three nations (including our own) the right to go against- and potentially put the well being of at risk- the rest of the world? The simple answer: we don’t.
“Repeal that law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. Six days shalt thou labor, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.” - Benjamin Franklin
Welfare is a touchy subject. When it is discussed among our society harsh words are often used. People become offended and words like “selfish” and “hate” are thrown at those who oppose the concept- “socialist”, “lazy”, and “leech” are the words that are thrown back. I don’t believe that this subject should be treated this way- dealing with our nations poor is something that affects each and every one of us in some way. They are our neighbors and fellow citizens. I don’t wish to hurt these people.. I only wish to give them back the liberties that our forefathers once granted them.
“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” - Thomas Jefferson
It was not the intentions of the founding fathers to create a government in which its purpose is to take care of the people. The purpose of the government is to enable the people of the nation to live in safety and happiness. Welfare is, in fact, taking the money from one set of people and giving it to another. Is this always necessarily a bad thing? No. Should our money be used for public education, public transportation, and people who actually need assistance? Yes! But our current welfare system just hands the money to people who are not deserving of this assistance- they often have the wrong motives in receiving your money. The current system propagates greedy, selfish people into misusing the assistance that our government so willingly provides.. these kinds of people are stealing the money from the disabled who truly need assistance from the government. Do I think our money should be used to provide for those who are able to provide for themselves? Of course not.
“A good job is more than just a paycheck. A good job fosters independence and discipline, and contributes to the health of the community. A good job is a means to provide for the health and welfare of your family, to own a home, and save for retirement.” James H. Dougless
What is the purpose of life? Many would agree that it is to create and sustain a good life for yourself and your loved ones. I don’t believe it is unreasonable to say that a person cannot truly be happy without being self-sufficient. Self-sufficiency is what enables a person to have pride and self-respect. It’s what keeps people motivated to continue “moving up” in the world. It’s what creates achievement. A good job is truly more than a paycheck. It is the mark of success- that you have fulfilled your duty to your country, community, family, and yourself. Welfare recipients have no motivation to help themselves or their families. They are scraping by with what the government has provided for them- when in reality they could be living a much happier and more fulfilled life. They could put their kids through college, own their own home, and live long, happy lives that they can be proud of.
“When government accepts responsibility for people, then people no longer take responsibility for themselves.” – George Pataki
Honestly, wouldn’t the world be a better place if we could all depend on ourselves? If we all made enough money to keep our families fed, housed, and happy? I believe welfare is nothing but a societal sin. Many Americans on welfare could, in fact, take care of themselves. No, I’m not trying to say that all welfare recipients are couch potatoes who use their welfare to pay for cable and do absolutely nothing all day.. I’m saying that with some WORK, these people could get back on their own two feet.. which is the point of welfare, isn’t it? The government provides for you only until you can provide for yourself.
And lets face it, those who are on welfare as children are more than likely to be on welfare as an adult. Generations of people are learning to be dependent on our government. I personally, do not want to see America commit suicide. The welfare system has created a whole society that simply believes they can’t do for themselves. They are no longer being responsible, independent, or respectful to the opportunities they have been given as Americans.
“A society that puts equality ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom.” – Milton Freidman
Our founding fathers initially created our government with a limited federal government. They were much more keen on the rights of the people rather than how the government could provide for them. The more the national government is involved in our lives, the less we are at liberty to do as we wish. America has boasted its title as “land of the free” for 200 years, but as our government becomes larger our rights become fewer. Our goal should be for all Americans to live out the “American Dream” and have no dependency on the government whatsoever. It is the right of every American to express their independence from the government- because the government should truly be run for the people, not to support the people.
President Obama plans to begin spending even more money on welfare during his four-year term. Not only do I believe this is a mistake, I believe it is promoting dependency on the government, as well as destroying the right of Americans to be independent and self-sufficient. Instead of spending more money to support the poor we should use the money to get the poor Americans back on track to supporting themselves. Lets look into how we can use this money to promote independence in current welfare recipients.. Lets help the poor help themselves. Doesn’t every American deserve the right to live out the American Dream?
December 21, 2012. Some of you might know the date as the winter solstice. But most of you probably know this date in which the world is going to end. People have been freaking out about the world ending because of some prophets, ancient calendar, or even an internet web program. For me, I don’t buy it. You have to remember that nothing can predict the future; all of these “predictions” are mere coincidences. Plus, why bum yourself out that you only have three years of your life left?
Prophets are people who have been supposedly contacted by some god or goddess. These prophets had power in foreseeing the future, and could determine the fate of certain events. Upper-class members of a society would ask about wars, relationships, or other domestic issues. The prophet would then go into a trance and let their host god take over their body to send a message to the questioner. The prophecies would be surprisingly accurate, and the prophets would be consulted and everything that they ever said would be recorded in a book. The biggest problem is that the only way to predict a sure future is to tell the story of the past. Many people have found that many ancient prophets were just saying what happened in the past with vague details. The vague details could fit a multitude of different prophecies, so that the prophecy could come true in many different situations. Many prophets generally told their prophecies underground, why? Scientists have found proof that either gases from the fault lines under the temples, or the lack of oxygen caused these prophets to go into a trance state.
The best known reason for the sudden doomsday ideal is that the Mayan calendar ends on December 21, 2012. The Mayans were known for their incredible time-keeping records, obsessing to the point that their calendar is more accurate than ours. If the Mayans were so accurate in determining different events, such as the “white gods” (Cortez), or different catastrophes that occurred all over the world, why couldn’t they determine their own fate? In cases such as the overpopulation of the land, droughts and destruction of the environment around them, if they couldn’t even see far enough to prevent their own demise, what allows them to be accurate in naming our future as well? Another interesting point brought by the Mayans, is that on December 21, 2012, the Earth will align itself to the center of the galaxy, something that hasn’t happened in the last 26,000 years. Apparently when everything is aligned, catastrophes will occur one after the other, creating an apocalyptical sensation. If this cycle occurs every 26,000 years, how come humans are still alive? The answer is, even though Neanderthals died out, because of lack of adaptability, Homo sapiens has survived countless of genocides.
The most recent correlation is the Web Bot. Created in 1997, the Web Bot was designed to project stock market trends. But, by using a similar program, the Web Bot was used to predict events that will occur in 60-90 days. The most famous event it predicted was that in June 2001, a catastrophic event would take place in 60-90 days. That of course being the September 11 attacks, in which shocked most people that followed the Web Bot. But in order to criticize the Web Bot, you have to learn how it predicts the events. The Web Bot takes a snapshot of many different words across the world, and then analyzes that information to predict the different events that could happen. The Web Bot might seem spectacular at first, but it’s just a program, it can only predict things that humans have predicted it. For example, the Web Bot was able to predict the September 11 attacks, by extracting keywords from websites, kind of like Google. So what does this mean? It can’t predict things that people can’t already predict, so the end of the world? I think not, sure the Web Bot could help find terrorist attacks, but the Web Bot can’t predict the end of the world.
December 21, 2012, is this really the end of the world? I really don’t think so, much of the predicted prophecies are either extremely vague or the credibility is completely lacking. The Mayan Calendar, although strangely precise in some ways, the Mayans couldn’t even predict their own downfall, so how are they able to predict ours? The Prophets, even though they have been historically correct, they were relatively vague, and could fit a multitude of predictions. The Web-Bot, a program that can predict but can only predict things that humans can predict. It’s impossible to pin point what’s going to happen in the future, so there’s no reason to fear the end of the world.
