Refuse it vs Embrace it

Birkerts's Essay has many valid points. He points out the fact that people use technology, devices, the internet etc, to create networks that will supposedly connect many individuals. However, he reveals that technology actually tends to isolate us. An example of this would be when two individuals go out for lunch to spend time with each other but instead end up sitting at a table and just text other people with their phones instead of actually communicating and bonding with each other. The definition of what we consider a “friend” has also changed as a result of technological innovations. Social networks on the internet (such as Facebook and Myspace) have turned the number of friends someone has into something more significant than the quality of friends one has. For, example, people often add individuals that they don’t know as “friends” and seem to compete for who has the greatest quantity of friends. Thus, the definition of a friend has been reduced to merely an acquaintance (if even that). Another interesting point that Birkerts makes is that we readily adapt to technology. He states that we toil to create technology that will shorten or facilitate our physical involvement in activities and readily adapt to it without questioning its value. This is true because although we don’t all fully understand how technology works, everyone seems to want the latest models of laptops, televisions, cell phones etcetera—without asking themselves if they are hurting themselves with these technological devices. They don’t realize that instead of having real experiences, they might be wasting their time by using technology.

Despite the fact that I see these valid points in Berkerts’s essay, I also think that he fails to acknowledge all the positive benefits technology has brought about. With the innovation of photography, we could document real events (such as the atrocious results of war, poverty and disease). We also have security cameras to help the police track down criminals and prevent crimes. We have also developed and increased our knowledge of the sciences and have been able to produce valuable medicine, cures and treatments for illnesses such as cancer.

Kevin Kelly’s argument regarding computers has a very mystical tone. It is very general and makes many analogies in between technology and nature. Instead of having an argument based on facts and logic, Kelly composes an essay that discusses his opinions and theories about technology. He proposes that we completely embrace technology. However, his essay is much too ambiguous and theoretical that it fails to be convincing. Instead of fully rejecting and completely embracing technology, I believe that people should choose a middle ground. They should be free to use technology and explore it to find medical solutions but keep in mind that they need to have real experiences with other people and nature instead of relying on the internet to fulfill their desire to socialize.

Topic List

1) Legalizing and controlling the market for drugs
2) The health-care system should be reformed.
3) The educational system should be reformed across the United States.
4) America should remain without a declared "national language."
5) College/University students across America should be allowed to drop classes freely.
6) We should facilitate medical tourism.
7) Should we protect gay rights?
8) Should gambling be legal in all 50 states?
9) Should we condone the sale of liquor on Sundays?
10) Should a 50% gratuity be added to all checks at restaurants?

Revised Draft Page

The basic premise for opposing the decriminalization and legalization of marijuana is that drug use is a crime because it is immoral. Before we even attempt to discuss the morality of drug use, considerable thought should be given as to what actually constitutes a punishable crime. To provide a proper frame of reference, marijuana consumption should be compared to other crimes that unarguably merit punishment. Douglas Husak, professor at Rutgers University, points to robbers, rapists and murderers as excellent examples of people that should be punished. The reason for this, Husak asserts, is that they "deserve to be punished because they have violated the rights of their victims and harmed them severely," (30). A marijuana user, however, does not encroach on the rights of other citizens in the same way that other criminals do.

However, prohibitionists insist that marijuana users do indeed harm society. Proponents of prohibition often justify their actions by asserting that they want to protect our children and reduce crime. Prohibitionists often like to paint a propagandist picture that children are the innocent victims of drug leakage. However, their argument actually applies to adolescents, not children (which are highly unlikely to be drug consumers). Furthermore, their professed commitment to protect "our children" disappears when they catch juvenile users of marijuana or other drugs. They are actually quick to throw them in jail and turn a cold shoulder to them. As for their other popular argument, criminalizing drugs actually increases the crime rate. This is due to systemic problems that arise as a result of forbidding the market for drugs. For example, if a buyer or seller cheats the other party, the victim does not have the option of settling this case in a courthouse . Thus, both parties often attempt to settle disputes through violence, which consequently increases the risks that innocent bystanders will be caught in between the quarrel.

Many conservatives are adverse to the idea of legalizing marijuana because they also believe that greater availability of the drug will result in an increase in its consumption and thus lead into an overall corruption of society. This fear is actually very similar to what early 20^th century religious Americans of the temperance movement felt when they pressured the Senate into proposing the 18^th Amendment. Almost immediately, problems sprang up as a result of this national decree. The National Prohibition Act or the “Volstead Act” prohibited the sale of alcohol which in turn prompted consumers of alcohol to illegally purchase bootlegged versions of the substance. Not only did these temperance reformers fail in achieving their goal of eradicating alcohol consumption but they inadvertently created a black market. The government did not have the means, let alone the desire to enforce the short lived18th amendment. As a result, the money that was being spent on alcohol was no longer circulating throughout the entire economy or being taxed despite the fact that the substance was still being consumed.

Such is the case with the marijuana market: the prohibition law hurts the economy in the same way it hurt America in the past. Forbidding the possession of marijuana in Texas, has an adverse effect on the states' economy. The criminal status of marijuana consumption demands that the government be able to finance the act of punishing. Inevitable, every time the state government actually attempts to enforce the prohibition law, tax payers lose money.This is due to the fact that taxpayers actually bear the burden of providing the government with the means of enforcing the prohibition of marijuana. This entails providing adequate food and supplies for imprisoned marijuana consumers as well as paying for the salaries of their prison guards. If prohibition were not in effect, however, the state government would be able to invest this money in causes that are noble, beneficial and that also bear fruit. Rather than wastefully imprisoning individuals that are not even harming other citizens, the state government could focus their attention and these funds on forming policies that would yield greater benefits such as the improvement of schools throughout the state of Texas and rebuilding freeways to prevent traffic congestion. Clearly then, the prohibition of marijuana hurts the economy and actually prevents the improvement Texas.

Unrevised Draft Page

The basic premise for opposing the decriminalization and legalization of marijuana is that drug use is a crime because it is immoral. Before we even attempt to discuss the morality of drug use, considerable thought should be given to whether or not the state of Texas should be allowed to punish marijuana users. To begin with, drug use should be compared to other crimes that merit punishment. The reason we incarcerate people is because they hurt society as a result of committing a certain act. A marijuana user does not encroach on the rights of other citizens in the same way that other criminals do. However, prohibitionists insist that marijuana users do indeed harm people. Many conservatives are adverse to the idea of legalizing marijuana because they believe that greater availability of the drug will result in an increase in its consumption and thus lead into an overall corruption of society. This fear is actually very similar to what early 20^th century religious Americans of the temperance movement felt when they pressured the Senate into proposing the 18^th Amendment. Almost immediately, problems sprang up as a result of this national decree. The National Prohibition Act or the “Volstead Act” prohibited the sale of alcohol which in turn prompted consumers of alcohol to illegally purchase bootlegged versions of the substance. As a result, the money that was being spent on alcohol was no longer circulating throughout the entire economy or being taxed despite the fact that it was still being consumed. Furthermore, the government did not even have the means, let alone the desire to enforce the law.

Such is the case with the marijuana market: the prohibition law hurts the economy in the same way it hurt America in the past. Forbidding the possession of marijuana in Texas, means that the state government is preventing the local economy from growing. To make matters worse the criminalization of marijuana means that tax payers lose money every time the state government actually attempts to enforce the prohibition act. In other words, each time a marijuana consumer is put in jail taxpayers lose money. This is due to the fact that taxpayers actually bear the burden of providing the government with the means of enforcing the prohibition of marijuana. This entails providing adequate food and supplies for imprisoned marijuana consumers as well as paying for the salaries of prison guards. If prohibition were not in effect, however, the state government would be able to invest this money in noble and more beneficial causes (such as the improvement of schools throughout the state of Texas and rebuilding freeways to prevent traffic congestions). Clearly then, the prohibition of marijuana hurts the economy and actually prevents the improvement Texas. Thus, conservative objections towards the legalization of marijuana are founded on irrational fears because the prohibition of marijuana is far more detrimental than the legalization of marijuana. In other words, by opposing the legalization of marijuana in Texas, conservatives are setting themselves up for a self-fulfilled prophecy and hurting society because they are allowing pious guidelines to blind them from reality.