Author: Sarah Riordan

I’d like to apologize in advance to all the potheads (and Michael Phelps) out there, but marijuana is in fact, contrary to popular belief, a dangerous drug.  So despite all the supposed economic benefits of legalizing and taxing marijuana, having a bunch of slow moving burnouts doesn’t exactly paint a picture of a booming economy. As a result, an attempt to legalize it is like, dude, such like, a bad idea man.

California legislators are proposing that marijuana be taxed and legalized in bill AB390. Despite its legalization for medical purposes in many states, as a recreational activity, marijuana has remained a controversial subject.   In a recent New York Times/CBS Poll, 41 percent of Americans now support legalizing the drug.  Yet, it remains illegal for a reason. 

Pastor Scott Erlich is the chaplain for Valley Hope a 30-day rehabilitation center in Boonville, Mo.  As someone who daily counsels people with drug addictions, Erlich is against the legalization of marijuana but also against standard treatment for the problem. 

“There are three main reasons why I’m against the legalization of marijuana. The first reason is that this is not your father’s drug.  Marijuana has grown stronger and more potent in form overtime.  It’s far more dangerous now than it was for the hippies. The second reason is that there is good scientific evidence that indicates the drug is addictive. The third reason is that I’ve seen time and again how it is a gateway drug.  People who use marijuana are far more likely to experiment with other drugs.  That’s supported by countless statistics. That having been said, it’s important to note that if marijuana stays illegal, prison time is not the answer.  Drug addicts need help.  Sending them to prison will make their addiction to even marijuana worse,” Erlich said.

According to a recent study conducted by a Harvard medical research team, the negative affects of marijuana still outweigh the positives. The research shows that even using the drug for medical purposes is dangerous.  Though it’s often used to treat AIDS victims and cancer patients, marijuana is actually harmful to the immune system.  Though the drug may give patients the illusion that they’re feeling better, it adds to the ailment by making a patient with an already weakened immune system more susceptible to disease.   The research also shows that, like cigarettes, marijuana is harmful to the respiratory system and is just as likely to lead to lung cancer. 

Though the Harvard study includes some research on the mental effects of marijuana usage, there’s plenty of additional research that reveals the truly frightening psychological consequences.  Online information for the Marijuana Detox Center says the drug greatly inhibits the use of short-term memory, and makes even simple tasks seemingly complex.  Marijuana also causes slow reaction time which can lead to life threatening situations if behind a vehicle or in charge of caring for another individual.   These effects also last up to 24 hours.  Research has also shown that people who smoke the drug suffer from learning disabilities while smoking.

Lastly, according to drug-rehab.com, marijuana can strengthen the severity of mental illnesses like schizophrenia, anxiety disorders, and social problems.  The drug can lead to increased levels of anxiety and at times hallucinations.  To all you young men out there who think smoking weed is dope, (pun intended) the drug causes a severe decrease in a person’s sex drive and ability to perform sexually overall.  So while you might feel like a stud you won’t be such a big hit with the ladies . . . if you catch my drift.

There you have it, a huge list of mental, physical, and emotional reasons why marijuana should not be legalized. But you know what, don’t take my word for it; take the word of Harvard, drug rehabilitation centers nation wide, and drug rehab chaplain Scott Erlich.  They may just have more insight than the rest of us.

Arguments abound – see what proponents of AB390 are saying!

For reader comments, click here.

For State Surge author Kellie Bartoli’s coverage, follow this link. 

Video: 95% of Americans Want Marijuana Legalized 

 

Author: Jared Fallon

Tom Ammiano’s  plan to legalize marijuana in the state of California is turning heads around the nation. The Assemblymen seeks to “remove all penalties in California law on cultivation, transportation, sale, purchase, possession or use of marijuana…or paraphernalia for persons over the age 21.” 

Proponents of the bill claim that aside from lack of substantial health concerns, the plan would help provide $1 billion per year in much-needed state revenue. In addition, the bill would bring down overall costs for law enforcement, while helping officials focus on more important priorities.

Opponents say that legalizing pot is socially dangerous largely due to its’ suspected reputation as a “gateway drug.” In addition, many highly respectable institutes have conducted studies about the health effects from smoking cannabis and the results are not positive. 

Either way, the public has spoken and according to a recent poll conducted by CNN, 95% of Americans now are in favor of marijuana being legalized. See:

Author: Kellie Bartoli

Hippies (and Michael Phelps) – rejoice! On Feb. 23, the California legislature introduced AB390, a bill to legalize marijuana. And, if I do say so myself, it’s about time.

The measure is said to “remove all penalties in California law on cultivation, transportation, sale, purchase, possession or use of marijuana…or paraphernalia for persons over the age 21.”

Oh yeah, and bring in roughly $1 billion annually. Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, the bill’s sponsor, mandates “establishing a fee on the sale of marijuana at a rate of $50 per ounce.” That’s certainly one way to chip away at the state’s $42 billion deficit.

There couldn’t be a better time for such a proposal, especially when you consider the World Health Organization’s estimate that 42 percent of American adults have tried marijuana (not just the hippies anymore…my apologies). A recent study says 40 percent of Americans believe the drug should be legalized.

While that percentage wasn’t broken down by state, I can imagine that many California residents might be even more likely to support legalization. Since 2006, California has accounted for almost one-third of pot production, and marijuana has been more valuable to its growers than wheat and corn – combined. 

California is often viewed as the leader in creating policy changes that will eventually take over the country. The indoor smoking ban? California’s was enacted in 1994 and strengthened in 1998, years before the rest of the country caught on. Perhaps if the bill passes in California, other states may soon follow suit. The economy couldn’t ask for more.

According to a 2005 report by Professor Jeffrey A. Miron, “marijuana legalization – replacing prohibition with a system of taxation and regulation – would save $7.7 billion per year in state and federal expenditures on prohibition enforcement and produce tax revenues of at least $2.4 billion annually if marijuana were taxed like most consumer goods.”

The report goes on to explain that if marijuana were taxed like alcohol or tobacco (and it’s safe to assume it would), up to $6.2 billion could be generate each year.

And the economic windfall doesn’t stop there. With the decriminalization of marijuana, the government would be able to save the money it spends fighting against the drug and put it to better use. How much difference can that really make? It’s estimated that every state annually spends around $19.2 billion to fight the war on drugs, and at least 20 percent of that amount goes toward marijuana. That’s an extra $3.8 million that could be saved.

The “War on Drugs” sounds so very Nancy Reagan, though, right? When I hear the term, I imagine undercover FBI agents taking down an underworld drug cartel. But alas, my vivid imagination has gone too far.  Instead, the government focuses its efforts on arresting people for smoking marijuana – in the last decade alone, 6.5 million citizens have been arrested with marijuana violations.  Just in case you were wondering, that’s a higher number than the populations of Alaska, Delaware, Washington D.C., Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming put together.

• Yearly marijuana arrests have almost tripled since the early 1990s, accounting for the highest number recorded by the FBI.
• In 2006, 89 percent of the Americans arrested (738,915) were charged with simple possession.
• The amount of marijuana-related arrests in 2006 greatly exceeded the combined arrests for murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault.

That’s right – more Americans were locked up for smoking pot than committing violent crimes.

While some states may not be as forward thinking as California, they are willing to give marijuana a second chance, at least medically speaking.

In 2007, Massachusetts introduced HB2247 to legalize medical marijuana. While the bill didn’t make is past the Committee, voters took the issue into their own hands this November. After securing 65 percent of the vote, Massachusetts decriminalized pot possession of one ounce or less, making it a $100-fine offense.

On Feb. 23, the New Jersey Senate passed S119  22-16, making the state one step closer to providing some aid to the suffering.

For many, traditional medicines are simply not strong enough. However a significant number of patients could get some much-needed relief thanks to medical marijuana.

Some of the most common medical uses for marijuana:

• Relieve mild to moderate nausea brought on by chemotherapy.
• Help reduce nausea and weight loss in people with AIDS and suffering from anorexia.
• Reduce tremors, muscle spasms and the pain brought on by multiple sclerosis.
• Relieves pressure from the eye and pain from glaucoma.
• Lessen the extreme pain caused by cancer, AIDS, arthritis and others.

After all, “Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.” Or so said DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis Young. 

While marijuana isn’t harmless, there are much more dangerous drugs readily available – and legal. Alcohol? Tobacco? Countless studies have proven fatal consequences from the two. Yet there are no documented deaths from marijuana.  A UCLA study found no link between smoking pot and lung cancer. So who made marijuana the bad guy?

Author: Sarah Riordan

Unless you A. don’t have a TV, B. have one but only watch MTV, VH1, or E, C. don’t have a computer, or D. your electric was turned off, you really don’t have an excuse to be oblivious to the fact that California is facing a budget crisis.  Plus, in addition to facing severe financial problems, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is having some trouble getting his budget proposal passed.  So while the California State Senate continues to debate what’s best for the people of California, it is StateSurge’s job to provide you with information about the budget, and legislators in charge of passing or failing it.

In a statement that seems reminiscent of a recent federal bill that had a little something to do with economics, the Republicans seem to be the ones resisting the proposed budget plan. There is one Republican supporting it however, so here’s a brief little tidbit about the lone Republican, and what he has supported in the past.

Dave Cogdill is the lone Republican supporting the governor’s budget plan.  He’s a Senator from the 14th Senate District including the areas of Mariposa, Madera, San Joaquin, Fresno, Tuolumne and Stanislaus.  He has served as the 14^th district’s Senator since 2006, and has been the State Senate Minority Leader since he was voted unanimously to the position in 2008.  Despite his position as minority leader, according to Statesurge’s legislative tracking,  Cogdill is one of the five least effective legislators in California.

According to Cogdill’s own website, he’s not a fan of tax increases and is against increasing the tax burden on Californian’s in a time of economic hardships.  However, the proposed budget includes a number of tax increases for Californians.  This is supposedly the reason why few Republicans are backing the budget plan.

So naturally, the assumption is that Cogdill is well…a RINO. (Republican in name only) However, it seems that both fisically and socially Cogdill has maintained a conservative stance.  He has repeatedly voted against tax increases, and his anti-abortion and anti-homosexual marriage views have been unpopular in California since his 2006 election. 

So, with experience and seemingly strong conservative values, why is Cogdill going against his party and voting for a bill that not a single additional Republican is supporting?  Honestly, at this point, no one really knows.  Perhaps Cogdill believes the budget is reasonable, or perhaps he thinks it’s necessary for the state to pass the bill in order to rescue the California government.

As of today however, we have no clear answer and no idea why Cogdill has been unsuccessful in convincing his fellow Republicans to follow his lead.  Though no Republican Senator has yet agreed with Cogdill, there is talk that Republican State Senator Roy Ashburn who abstained from voting originally, will follow Cogdill’s lead and side with the Democrats. Until more information is released however, we spectators can sit back and wait to see who supports who, if the bill will ever pass, and how California will survive their current budget crunch.  

Author: Crystal Fontaine

In 2004, lung cancer accounted for more deaths than breast cancer, prostate cancer, and colon cancer combined. Approximately thirty five million Americans now live with chronic lung disease, making it one of the leading causes of death in the United States as it is responsible for one in six deaths. The financial costs of treating lung cancer are incredibly high, costing approximately $9.6 billion per year. One does not have to be a smoker to develop lung cancer as there are many factors that are added into the risk of getting lung cancer. However, smoking does increase one’s odds considerably.

According to a 2005 C-STATS data sheet for the state of California, there are 14.3% of Californian adults (ages 18-65) that are current smokers with 10% being daily smokers, leaving the remaining 4.3% claiming they are only occasional smokers. Unfortunately in 2008, there was an estimated total 18,060 Californians who were diagnosed for lung cancer with an expected number of 13,000 dieing from the disease. Due to these increasing numbers, California Assemblyman Tom Torlakson introduced Assembly bill 89, which increases the states cigarette tax. The legislation is similar to California Senate bill 24 that Torlakson introduced last year. AB 89 would provide “much needed funding for Lung Cancer Research while saving our State billions in tobacco-related health care costs”. The bill provides a good way to gain the money needed for research and to help protect the health of many Californians.

AB89 would impose an additional excise tax on the distribution of cigarettes at a rate of $0.105 for each cigarette sold. Cigarette dealers and wholesalers would be required to file a return with the State Board of Equalization, showing the number of tobacco products in their possession that is under their control. The revenues collected would be deposited in the Tobacco Excise Tax Account, which would be created under the legislation. The revenue would go towards certain education and health related purposes, such as child’s health care, tobacco cessation services, and lung cancer research. The law could raise approximately two billion dollars annually if it should go into effect.

Since 2000, there have been 42 out of the 50 U.S states that have increased their cigarette excise tax. According to Torlakson, this should be a win for California’s schools and public health. If the bill is to pass, approximately one billion of the estimated two billion that it is to generate would go towards California’s vast educational system. The other billion would go towards health care needs. As we face a struggling economy, it is just one way to look at different revenue options to help fund important things, such as lung cancer research and education. 

Author: Sara Hilbert

Last week, the Huffington Post’s David Reynolds rejoiced in the progress that America has come a very long way from its racist past. Barack Obama, the first African American, now holds the highest political position in the United States. As we celebrate this groundbreaking achievement, we must keep in mind just how far we still need to go.

As revealed on Election Day, 52% of America’s most trend-setting voters supported the most monumental ballot measure in history, proposition 8. Now, the state of California has eliminated the rights of same sex couples to marry (after awarding over 16,000 same-sex couples the right to wed).This article, unmistakably tagged with a photo showing a heterosexual couple, proves a bigger point.  It is no mistake; a marriage of a mixed race couple was once illegal. This same state once held an irrational view with anti-miscegenation law, stating, “All marriages of white persons with Negroes, Mongolians, members of the Malay race or mulattoes are illegal.” Once our law denied legal recognition to mixed race couples simply because it made others feel uncomfortable. Since these times, we corrected our unfair behavior towards this issue. However, our mindset still remains the same. The implications of the success of proposition 8 rings loud and clear: justice is second to our own comfort levels.

Legalization of same sex marriages, as many claim, destroys traditional family values and emotionally cripples children. That sounds more like the dreadful effects of divorce, not an effect from same-sex marriages. Current statistics show that 50% of first marriages, 67% of all second marriages, and 74% of third marriages end in divorce. This shows we are not teaching our children to respect any type of commitment, nor traditional family values. What we are showing them is that the real way to deal with relational dilemma is serial divorce. Leaving marriage to one man and one woman is not an argument, but an excuse for a prejudice.

California, a modern place of innovation and forward thinking, has been defeated. The scare tactics that the conservative organizations used entangled themselves into the California constitution. Over the years, the fight for equality has been so successfully strong. However, this recent set back, draws a line that that separates us from them. This generation is supposed to be more open and hopeful to the solution to end discrimination. Many have internalized these conservative messages that play on irrational fears.  Instead of noble and just laws throughout our country, we have a social disease. Homophobia, it is a cancer eating away at every chance of freedom and equal rights. Get back up, California, and dust yourself off. It is time to get organized and pass laws that no longer desire to exclude any longer. 

Author: Sara Hilbert

Election Day is here California, and you have been hit with the second most expensive campaign. Next to the presidential race, the combined efforts of committed individuals in favor and against Proposition 8, have raised over $65 million. This has resulted in the most expensive social issue campaign in the history of the nation. Californians are not the only ones concerned. Millions of campaign funding has come from groups and individuals out of state. Those donors know the reality; California is the front lines of the war for equal rights regardless of sexual orientation.

Here are some quick facts before you head to the polls:
The official title description of Proposition 8 is “eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry.” This constitutional amendment changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Prop 8 defines marriage to be recognized in the state of California between one man and one woman. In March 2000, California voters passed Proposition 22 to specify in state law that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. In May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that the statute enacted by Proposition 22 and other statutes that limit marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. It also held that individuals of the same sex have the right to marry under the California Constitution. As a result of the ruling, marriage between individuals of the same sex is currently valid or recognized in the state. If proposition 8 is enacted, it would revoke the 16,000 same sex couples their marriage agreement that have already taken place since June.

If you check this box that would mean it would over ride the California Supreme Court decision for legalizing same sex marriages. This bill is strongly supported by many groups including: Focus on the Family, the Church of Latter Day Saints, and the Knights of Columbus. These groups feel family and marriage values are threaten by a few opinionated judges. Dr. James Dobson, of Focus on the Family wrote, “Quite literally, the institution of the family is hanging in the balance. If homosexuals are permitted to marry, then the entire legal basis for the family will be undermined.”

John McCain has spoken for marriage to be between a man and a woman. Throughout his campaign, McCain has stated that if something were to change, public opinion would have to dramatically change equal civil rights within state and local governments first. Only then should allow congress be allowed to legally consider amending the constitution. He feels like everyone should be included, but it is unclear about his plans to directly reserve rights for same-sex couples.

By reinforcing the rights of these 16,000 couples this monumental moment would set the stage for many other states to follow, which some hope would then pave the roads to be recognized under federal law. Many famous celebrities actively speak against this proposal such as Brad Pitt, Ellen DeGeneres and Steven Spielberg.The newlywed, Ellen DeGeneres and her same sex partner, Portia De Rossi, begs people stop the discrimination. On her show, she compares this unfair treatment to withholding voting rights from blacks and women. She says, “There is this old way of thinking that we are not all the same. We are all the same people. All of us. You are no different than I am. Our love is the same…. My hope is someday it won’t be called contract it will be called marriage.”

Barack Obama, personally, feels stronger for traditional marriages but fully supports the same sex lifestyle and their civil rights; from emergency visitation rights, health coverage, employee benefits, property and adoption rights. He also wants to expand federal hate crimes and the Employment Non-Discriminatory Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

Author: Crystal Fontaine

It boggles the mind to see people driving down the road while doing things other than completely paying attention to their surroundings. I suppose we all have the ability to multitask, right? Despite our confidences in doing more than one thing at a time, your risk of having an accident skyrockets if you are trying to drive while doing tasks such as applying make-up. We’ve all made excuses: I’m careful, I can still see what’s going on, I know this road like the back of my hand, etc. You may know the road well, but the drive isn’t exactly the same every day. Perhaps that is why there is an increasing, overwhelming concern for drivers talking and texting on their cell phones.

Several states have taken the initiative of banning talking on the cell phone and text messaging while driving. Recently, California Governor Schwarzenegger signed a law, SB 28, banning text messaging while driving. The bill was introduced by Senator Joe Simitian (D-CA). The legislation specifically prohibits the use of any electronic wireless communications device “to write, send, or read a text-based communication”. Motorists will be fined twenty dollars for the first offense and fifty dollars for each subsequent offense. A previous Californian bill passed in July requiring that motorists who use cell phones must use hands-free devices. In addition, drivers who are under 18 are not allowed to use their cell phones period. California is not alone in their quest to make the roads just a bit safer. For example, the states of Louisiana (SB 137), Minnesota, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Washington have all passed similar legislation.

However, there are some that believe the law is a bit excessive. It treads on people’s right of choice and the ability to make the decisions they feel are necessary despite what consequences may arise. Republican lawmakers have argued that the measure is another illustration of adding superfluous legislation to the Vehicle Code when there are already adequate regulations on the books. Assemblyman Chuck Devore, R., stated that there is “…already a blanket law that says reckless driving is illegal and if you cause an accident while recklessly driving, it’s a misdemeanor”. Regardless of opinion, no one is completely focused on their driving or, more importantly, on the other people driving around them when they are talking on their cell phone or sending a text message.

Over 200 million people in the United States use cell phones. In a 2004 MIT survey, it is just one invention that no one can live without…even if you hate it. The cell phone offers a variety of features that are fantastic and coincidently annoying, especially when you receive that 3 A.M text messaging from the Democratic Presidential nominee. However, we rely heavily on that little communications device despite its faults. As many have questioned before, is it really necessary to create a law banning it or certain features while driving? How easily would the law be enforced, especially since so many of us use the cell phone in our cars? What has the world come to if there is a need to make laws on simple, common sense issues?