A current hot topic is the debate of whether to legalize marijuana or not.  I believe the U.S. government should legalize marijuana not only for medicinal purposes but for recreational purposes as well.  At a very minimum, the federal government should decriminalize it and let each state decide for themselves, thereby removing the conflict between state and federal legislation, and treat it the same as alcohol and cigarettes.  A main argument for not legalizing it is that it is deemed to be a gateway drug.  I don’t see it that way.  My thoughts are aligned with Willie Nelson's.  He said, “I think people need to be educated to the fact that marijuana is not a drug.  It is an herb and a flower.”

Marijuana smokers shouldn't be viewed as criminals.  I work in the court system, and I see far too much energy and resources being focused on marijuana, a substance that is not known to induce violence.  Some people who drink excessive alcohol will get aggressive and even abusive (in addition to just plain stupid), and it often brings out the worst in people.  Marijuana, on the other hand, has a calming effect and seems to promote a peaceful vibe.

Marijuana has been proven to have health benefits.  I believe it should be decriminalized so that law enforcement and the court system can focus on more important problems and allow people who could benefit from using it to have the freedom to do so.  At this point, 28 states have legalized medical marijuana to treat illnesses such as cancer, PTSD, multiple sclerosis, Chron’s disease, hepatitis C, arthritis, migraines, anorexia, Turette’s syndrome, epilepsy, Alzheimer’s, muscular dystrophy, Parkinson’s disease, Lou Gehrig’s disease, lupus, seizures, and autism.  Researchers have even found that the plant protects the brain in some ways.  In the Business Insider article “23 Health Benefits of Marijuana,” several proven medical benefits are listed, backed up by reputable research teams.

Small doses of marijuana can also inspire creativity and trigger increased attention to detail, but it’s important to emphasize “small” doses here.  Anything becomes a bad thing when it’s overdone.  Junk food is legal, but if people overeat or eat nothing but high-fat junk foods with no nutritional value, they can become obese and unhealthy.  Alcohol is legal, and there's no harm in someone having a glass of wine after work, but to consume drink after drink after drink would cause someone to lose the ability to make rational decisions and become a danger to themselves and others.  Just as we expect people to drink responsibly, we would have the same expectations for marijuana use.

There would need to be regulations in place, just as with alcohol and cigarettes (minimum age, warnings about overuse, etc.), but I see no reason why marijuana should be illegal while alcohol and cigarettes remain legal.  Our neighbor Canada is now embracing marijuana legalization, according to the CBC article “Marijuana Industry Gets Boost from Legalization Target Date.”  The United States should do the same.  Bill Murray summed it up well when he stated, “I find it quite ironic that the most dangerous thing about weed is getting caught with it.”

    

The U.S. government should remove the federal prohibition on marijuana and allow this natural plant to be freely used if a person so chooses.  I believe it can help suffering people, boost the economy, cause law enforcement and courts to focus on worse problems, and there would be more mellow, easy-going people all around.

The Huffington Post blog titled “’Don’t Worry, I’ll Pull Out’ and Other Trump Lies” is a sarcastic piece written by Philip Rotner describing the various ways in which Donald Trump presents his lies.  Rotner has assigned humorous names to each type of lie in Trump’s arsenal.  While his descriptions are entertaining to read, it is simultaneously disconcerting because of the realization that this is the Commander in Chief of the United States that he’s talking about … or, as some have dubbed him, the Deflector in Chief.

It is clear that Rotner does not have warm feelings for Donald Trump, but even so, many of the lies he recites are ones that nobody … and I mean nobody (even his supporters) … should logically question are in fact lies due to hard evidence.  Rotner reminds us of the old familiar question Trump is basically asking:  “Are you going to believe me or your own lying eyes?”

Some may argue that all politicians lie and that a certain amount of lying may be acceptable if the politician has the best interest of Americans at heart.  Even Rotner, who has over 40 years’ experience practicing law as an attorney, would certainly understand a little holding back on details or downplaying or stretching the truth that is often employed by lawyers and politicians.  As Rotner points out, though, Trump has taken it to another level entirely.  Particularly troubling to me and others is how closely Trump’s ways run parallel with classic emotional and verbal abuse found in some personal relationships.  The hallmarks of an emotional abuser are denying reality and shifting blame.  When someone exposes something unfavorable about Trump, his knee-jerk reaction is to accuse his accuser of his own transgressions, utilizing what Rotner has labeled the Pee-Wee Herman: “I know I am, but what are you?” (known as “projection” in psychology circles).  Another technique they use is to twist reality until you question your own perceptions of it.  Yep, check-mark on that one, too.

Rotner’s blog is meant to be funny as he highlights an important problem.  Even if people agree with policy changes that Trump is making, I think all people should be concerned with the ease in which Trump lies because it calls into question:  Is he intentionally lying and trying to fool the people he’s representing or does he have a skewed view of reality?  Either way, it’s problematic for everyone.

In the op-ed “Trump Voters Are Not the Enemy,” Nicholas Kristof makes an argument that it is unwise to cast all Trump voters into the same wide category.  When I first pulled up the article, the title suggested to me that I was about to read the words of a pro-Trump writer defending Trump and his actions in some way.  As it turns out, Kristof is not a Trump supporter.  In fact, he is quite critical of President Trump.  As a columnist for The New York Times and a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner, Kristof in this article simply encourages the reader to channel his or her frustration to the right source.  This Harvard grad writes articles with an emphasis on human rights abuses and social injustices, and understandably Kristof is displeased with the new president, but he makes a valid point that “it’s short-sighted to direct liberal fury at the entire mass of Trump voters” and to view them as the enemy.

 

During this past presidential election, many people disassociated themselves from friends and family once it was revealed that they were in opposite camps, Trump vs. Clinton, and the aftermath has been disheartening.  Some of the back and forth shared on social media has been downright ugly and, quite frankly, has caused me to view many people differently too, not based on who they voted for, but the manner in which they’ve expressed their opinions … nasty, name-calling, stereotyping, putting large groups of people in one big lump.  Hmmm, isn’t that the very thing so many of us are concerned about Trump doing?  Sometimes I agree with the premise of what people are saying, but I’m too often struck by the force of ugliness with which those views are expressed and the resulting irrational sound of it all.  As Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, “What you do speaks so loud that I cannot hear what you say.”  People on both sides are making blanket judgments about the other … baby loudmouth liberals, proud bigot republicans, just as an example.  Too many are just caught up criticizing, which leaves no room for intelligent debate.

Kristof is troubled by the condescension that is being directed not just at President Trump (who he believes well deserves it), but he warns that “demonizing Trump supporters feeds the dysfunction of our political system.”  I agree with this sentiment.  Sure, there’s plenty to worry about, but not everyone who voted for Trump embraces everything he’s saying and doing.  I know a handful of people who now wish they hadn’t voted for Trump.  He appealed to those that wanted someone to take action, to fix things that were broken for them.  Well, there’s no question he’s taking action.  (This sort of conjures up images of a bull in a china shop for me).  Kristof’s point is that it is not effective to demonize everyone who voted for Trump and that to continue to do so may work to entrench them into Trump’s camp even more by mocking them and refusing to listen.

I agree with Kristof that while many people are disgusted by Trump’s “otherizing,” we should all be careful not to stereotype people by who they voted for, lest we find ourselves doing the very same thing we abhore.  I’m not unrealistically thinking that Republicans and Democrats are likely to hold hands and sing Kumbaya any time soon, but, like Kristof, I do believe it behooves everyone to stop demonizing others in a blanket fashion and to direct any animus at exactly who it needs to be directed at. 

Many people, myself included, have found themselves scratching their heads wondering how people have such vastly differing views of the same thing.  In the NPR article “When It Comes to Our Politics, Family Matters,” Shankar Vendantam invites us to consider the parallels of political views and parenting styles, the way in which we view family.  Vedantam focuses his reporting on human behavior and the social sciences and has written about how unconscious biases influence people.  Although this article was featured and the podcast aired in September 2016, during the middle of the heated run for presidency, it is still relevant because … well, as we all know, people are still scratching their heads, exasperated by the incomprehension of how people see things so differently from themselves.

I applied Vendantam's theory as I thought about all the people that I know and their accompanying points of view, and I found that there is indeed a parallel.  As the article states, real life is much more nuanced, but this will certainly pique the interest of anyone puzzled with the great divide as I have been.  After reading the article, I highly encourage you to play the audio podcast associated with it.  The added voices and sound bites with more extended coverage on this topic is very interesting.  This article is very much worth reading (and listening to) because it introduces a new perspective from which to view things, and it could help us have a better understanding of all people and where their views may be rooted.

Hello, colleagues!