I got side-tracked earlier today on a challenge from a man I knew in college. Because I love pretending that I have nothing better to do, I accepted. Because I haven't blogged in a long time, I'm posting the results here for public scrutiny. It's not like I nailed this shit or anything, either. In total, this took about 40 minutes.
The rules of today's challenge stipulate the following:
- all responses have to be made on the fly (no research allowed - no exceptions)
- Guessing is okay. Lying is okay (if you don't get caught).
- choice of topics is the privilege of the challenger
- responses must be completed in a single sitting.
Stem Cell Research:
Sadly, I did not save a copy of my response to this, although it was my favorite. The gist, however, is that no matter where you land on where life begins or the morality of abortion, there are a number of proven methods to create a line of embryonic stem cells that do not involve the destruction of embryos. There is room for compromise in this matter of policy without compromise in values if people would just pay attention to the facts.
On Hydraulic Fracturing:
Hydraulic fracturing is the use of a high-pressure fluid solution to break up earth to facilitate the commercial extraction of natural gas. My position on the topic is somewhat at odds with itself. On the one day, fracking is not inherently unsafe. Ideally it should be done with pure water far from any sources of water of a population. On the other hand, safety issues arise because frackers tend to save money and boost performance by using solutions than regular H2O, solutions which contain hazardous chemicals, and do it in locations where natural gas could find its way into public water supplies. Public policy could be changed to deincentivize these practices. On an anatomically implausible third hand, I feel like we would be better off using public funds to incentivize renewable energy development, rather than dump it into a palliative like dirty domestic energy.
On Capital Punishment:
I don't know how I feel about capital punishment. When you take a look at states like Texas, my home state, it is easy to see the execution numbers as excessive. It is even sobering to consider how many death row inmates are innocent, or at least undeserving of the harshest sentencing. However, the alternative seems to be to provide room and board for such criminals for their entire lives on the taxpayer's dime. And lets not kid ourselves, this is money we'd all like to see spent doing something more positive, whether that means strengthening our public schools or just keeping our hands warm in our pockets. Of course, its callous to suggest we should kill off people to brighten up our balance sheets. Also, as we are all members of a society, are we not collectively responsible for the conditions that help create many of our criminal offenders?
On the Legalization of Marijuana:
Does prohibition work? Marijuana is a drug, true. But people use it voluntarily. Decades of studies have failed to support allegations that it is physically addictive, particularly when compared to a number of other substances that enjoy legal status in this country. Decades of studies have failed to support allegations that it has harmful physical effects, including long-term impaired brain function or cancer, quite unlike certain substances which enjoy legal status in this country. Rather than introducing an argument for why marijuana should be legalized, the onus should be on those who would justify its continued prohibition. For what reason does our country intrude of the personal freedom to safely enjoy a drug?
I am inclined, at this point, to take note that the cost of enforcing the prohibition on marijuana is high. It is high in dollars spent by local, state and federal law enforcement agencies to surveil and arrest offenders. It is high in resources to the these governments to try and inter offenders. It is high in less tangible ways to all sorts of offenders, particularly those who commit no other crimes but possession and distribution, to be treated like criminals. It is high in the public safety concerns it fosters by essentially creating a black market for the product: it forces even casual marijuana user to become involved with drug dealers, and drug dealers to resort to further crimes in the course of their industry because their government affords them no legal alternatives.
Naturally, a major concern about legalizing marijuana is that the public will be less safe if everyone is high all the time. However, we already have a framework, vis-a-vis alcohol and certain pharmaceuticals, for addressing drug abuse and unsafe behaviors. It could certainly be argued, given the incidence rate of drunk driving-related accidents alone, that existing measures do not go far enough. That is, however, can be a wholly different discussion from which we could arrive at policy measures that actually have a chance at working.
Note:
If anyone else wants to play, I propose: gay marriage (no pun intended); tax-hike for the rich; "teach the controversy."
or, for non-wonks: ethics of online piracy; existence of God; the origin of homosexuality
