Stephanie A. & Amanda S. Post

Texting and Driving

A recent issue that has been a big argument in most states is banning texting and driving. There are mostly two sides to this argument. One side is for banning texting and driving. These people see texting and driving as dangerous and life threatening and even worse than drinking and driving. The other side is leaving texting and driving legal. These people feel our society is now computer savvy and knows how to properly text and drive in a safe manner.

Texting and driving is a normality to todays society. Mostly everyone is guilty of it. Banning texting and driving will inconvenience many Americans. Instead of being for the texting and driving ban or against it, lets try and find a middle ground. Would it be a possibility just to ban texting and driving while the car is in motion? Lets maybe keep it legal to have a phone in a car and be able to use it, but only when the car is at a complete stop. By doing this, it will make our roads safer but will also keep people be in touch with their personal life.

Instead of looking at a side lets look at the major problem in this picture. Our society is addicted to technology. This argument would not have to be debated if Americans would just be able to use technology in a safe manner and not put people’s lives in danger. Technology is taking over peoples lives and this argument shows it very well. People should just be smart enough to realize that anything that distracts you, and takes your eyes off the road is a hazard and can put lives in danger.

How do you feel about this issue? Do you think our society’s obsession with technology is the real issue to this argument and could be prevented? How do you feel when you or others text and drive and how do you think it will help this argument?

Euthanasia: David & marcus
Euthanasia is a problem that has prospered since being legalized in the United States. Euthanasia is the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit; Therefore, if it isn’t a planned death than it isn’t an act of euthanasia. There are typically two sides to this debate and that is whether or whether not it should be legalized. The people that are on the side for it being legalized usually argue that it is a way to relieve extreme pain especially when a person’s quality of life is low, frees up medical funds to help other people, and that it is another case of freedom of choice. The side that debates otherwise usually argues that it devalues human life, causes people to be directly involved in causing death, and that it can become a means of health care cost suppression. Well these are two more stances that I take in euthanasia which is suicidal, and the death penalty. If euthanasia is okay then what is wrong with someone committing suicide? A suicidal person has the freedom of choice to do what he/she believes, but does it devalue human life to commit to your own death intentionally? At least in this aspect no one has to contribute to your death. Why suicide is looked so down upon when it is the same thing as euthanasia. How about the death penalty? People argue so much about it being right or as justice, but is this really right? What gives mankind the right to choose who dies or lives because of their wrong doing? Well this is an act of euthanasia, but the more brutal side that no one likes to argue. Any person that is religious should probably be against euthanasia right? Well put yourself in the position that forces you to either kill someone close to you that wants to be killed or not. What would you do? If you would commit to doing it why is that reason? If you have strong religious beliefs isn’t this going against it?

"High School Dropouts" By: Jacob Rubinton & Abby Miller

Every 29 seconds another student gives up on school, resulting in more than one million American high school students who drop out every year. Teens dropping out of school has been an issue talked over for decades. Teens drop out for many reasons, and the decision to drop out is rarely spur of the moment. Kids usually drop out of school following a long process of disengagement and academic struggle. While national leaders have demanded that schools, communities, and families make a major effort to retain students, the dropout rate remains high. Almost 1/3 of students do not graduate from highschool and in urban areas the percentage of students can grow to 50%. Although these statistics are shocking the current rate of dropouts show that is is not increasing. Research shows that students who do not drop out of highschool make over 1 million dollars more in their lifetime.Statistics show

High school dropouts are more likely to be:

• unemployed
• in prison
• recieving government assistance
• less healthy
• divorced
• living in poverty
  

While most people agree that young people who don't complete high school face many more problems in later life than do people who graduate, some teens find that the benefits might outweigh the disadvantages. Teens that have kids might drop out so they can get mulitple jobs to support their children. Sometimes students feel that school just isn't right for them and that they could be getting an education somewhere else.

Some benefits of dropping out:

• Jumpstart your education
• Get a jump on the workforce
• Not wasting time
• Popularity doesn't interest you
• More time on your hands

There are many ways to look at the problem of dropping out of high school. While some choose to look at ethnicity and socio-economic status as an indicator for dropping out, others focus on peers, the overall drop out rates and how they have gotten worse or improved. Many intervention programs have been successful at reducing the overall high school drop out rate. Yet more is needed to be done until the concept of dropping out is foreign.

Should the Drinking Age Be Lowered from 21 to 18?

The United States has the highest minimum legal drinking age in the world and is one of the countries most scrutinized laws. I'm sure that many students would argue that the current drinking age being 21 is unfair and should be reduced back to 18. However there are certainly people that think that this is absurd. The consumption of alcohol has been a heated debate ever since it was originally banned in the 1920's with the establishment of the eighteenth amendment. This didn't stop people from drinking however. Home brewing become more popular and drinking still went on in secret. Todays problem is that the current drinking age of 21 isn't working. The number of students drinking under age is rising and studies show that the number of students ages 18 to 20 who binge drink and drive under the influence is on the rise. We become adults at 18 and assume all the rights of an adult other than the right to enjoy a drink. The enemy of a lowered drinking age is in the facts and the facts show that the number of traffic fatalities involving 18 to 20 year olds has dropped by 13 percent since the minimum drinking age was increased to 21. I believe that because of the fact that American teens tend to start driving at an earlier age we are prevented from joining the majority of all other countries with a minimum drinking age of 18.

Pros

• Turning 18 opens the doors to adulthood, it gives us the right to vote, get married, join the military, serve on a jury, and even be tried as an adult in a crime. It should also include the freedom to drink.
• The national alcohol prohibition from 1920 to 1933 failed, this shows that strict regulation of drinking is counterproductive, unenforceable, and lead to an increase in illegal, underground drinking.
• Enforcing the minimum legal drinking age of 21 is expensive and inefficient. Drinking is still a major problem among teens.
• Drinking in moderation has proven to be good for ones health, this means 18 to 20 year old adults as well.
• Reducing the minimum legal drinking age to 18 would help boost our economy just like repealing the prohibition in 1933 did.

Cons

• The earlier a person starts using alcohol the more likely they are to become an alcoholic later in life
• Lowered drinking ages in European countries is inappropriate for our standards because of the fact that American teens generally start driving at an earlier age.
• Alcohol related traffic accidents have declined since 1984 when the minimum drinking age was raised to 21.
• Countries with a minimum drinking age of 18 or lower have had serious problems with binge drinking.
• Lowering the drinking age to 18 increased traffic related fatalities by 10 percent.

Should Smoking be Allowed on Campus? By Dan and Tim

Smoking cigarettes can be a polarizing issue. The simple views on smoking cigarettes is simple to or not to. However there are many different ways of looking at the issue. This post will deal with smoking cigarettes on campus at FGCU. The first stance is that people should be allowed to smoke anywhere they want. These people feel this is America and this is a freedom that should be given to them. If they need a smoke so that they can relax in class why not. The problem with this is that many people would want to avoid second hand smoke. This option would not allow them to do that. Plus there is the problem of smelling like you smoke even if you don’t want to.

The other side of this polarized issue can be that people just shouldn’t be allowed to smoke period. I mean smoking is one of the leading causes of death amongst people, why allow something that is so dangerous to our bodies. Besides that, people around them have to deal with second hand smoke which can in turn cause harm to their bodies too. Also, who wants to be around the smell of it anyways, not to appetizing. This option would be many people’s favorite, but since smoking isn’t illegal and many people love smoking, it just wouldn’t work out and would cause massive debates from smokers and the tobacco companies.

Another way to look at people smoking on campus is to allow them to smoke in designated areas on campus. This seems to be the current method that is used now on campus. This allows people to smoke, but other people can know where they are to avoid them. If you don’t want to be around smokers just don’t go to the designated areas. The problem with this is that smokers might begin to feel as if they segregated against. This might create a feeling of separation from the rest of the faculty and students by the smokers.

An alternative to designated smoking areas can also be a law that smokers are allowed to smoke as long as they are a certain distance from the buildings. This plan is in action too, mostly with office buildings and hospitals. This allows people who don’t want to be around smoking as they walk around their office buildings to not have to deal with it. Also it keeps smokers from throwing cigarettes on the ground around the office buildings.

As you can see, there are many different ways the issue of smoking on campus and around society can be taken care of. Whether they allow smoking or just outlaw it, or they come up with alternative plans, this is always going to be a big issue that should be taken care of by the office building or school.

Liz and Jesse's Blog

Pros and Cons of Living on and Off Campus
Many FGCU students may frequently wonder whether it is better for them to live in campus housing or to live off campus. Both sides have their pros and cons but a student arguing to live on campus may say that it is more convenient. Campus housing is just steps away from classes, food, and many other services offered on campus. Also, by not having to drive to class everyday it is a good way to save money on gas. Even though the school offers shuttle services, students who walk to class get an opportunity for some exercise, instead of just driving a car. Now a student arguing to live off campus may say they can have a lot more fun living away from school which is a very good point that I think most students would agree on. Also in many cases it is cheaper to live off campus instead of in housing, another way to save money. Responsibility is a big part of growing up. Living off campus is a good way to start being responsible by paying bills and taking care of the house.
While most students think of their living situation having to choose from either on campus or off, parents and teachers may come up with a third point of view that compromises both of these options. Parents may encourage the idea of their child living on campus because it will keep them from partying as often and they will be closer to the campus library to help improve their grades. However, parents might also consider the idea of having their child live off campus because it would save them hundreds of dollars each year from the high price of on campus housing. Teachers also have reasons that may lead them to think a student might succeed better from living on or off campus. When a student lives on campus they will most likely make it to class more often than someone who has to drive from a few miles away because living on campus is more convenient. But on the other hand, a student who owns their own house in most cases should know their responsibilities which includes getting their work done and always showing up to class, which a teacher would respect. Whether a student decides to live on campus or off, the price they pay and the decisions they make will determine if they have made the right choice of their living situation.

Legalization of Marijuana.
Since the 1960’s, there has been much debate about the legalization of cannabis. Legal in many progressive European countries including Holland and Finland, it is still a heated debated topic in the United States . States like Colorado and California have made it legally for medicinal purposes, yet many want the complete legalization of the drug. Others worry that making this dangerous drug legal will facilitate young adults and teens to abuse it, making it a more serious problem than it is.
The Pros
• Limiting the use of the drug intrudes on personal freedoms. Like with the prohibition of alcohol during the 1920’s, many argue that this drug should be regulated to control crime and leave the use of this substance which is equally as harmful to the user.
• There are medical benefits such as those for cancer patients. Instead of using harmful chemical drugs that have adverse secondary effects, marijuana is a plant with organic benefits and little to no side effects.
• If marijuana becomes legal, agencies like the FDA can control the substance making sure is less harmful for the user. When marijuana is illegal, the consumer is left on the hands of untrustworthy drug dealers who could mix it with harmful chemicals.
• If marijuana becomes legal, the government will be able to tax it just like they tax alcohol and tobacco. During this time of recession, any additional income is greatly welcomed.

The Cons.
• Marijuana is a gateway drug. Many users of hardcore drugs started by using marijuana. Legalizing it will make the use of other drugs seem less harmful.
• Because the use of marijuana would increase dramatically if it became legal, the instances of driving under the influence of cannabis would increase.
• Legalization will also increase the chances of the drug falling into the hands of kids. Seeing marijuana at the same level as alcohol, many children will be tempted to try it. The fact that the government endorses its use by making it legal will facilitate children from obtaining it.
• Since more people are using marijuana, the health risk from the consumption will cause the same effects as those of people who consume tobacco or alcohol. Health risk such as pulmonary cancer and clogged arteries are prevalent on frequent cannabis users.
The Borderline
In deciding whether to make a drug legal or not, all aspects of the outcome should be examined. Making a drug completely legal causes negative externalities in a community, which is the reason why there is a drinking age and an age limit on the sale of cigarettes. Both parties can find a middle ground by allowing and making restrictions on the use of a drug and thus preventing it from falling in the wrong hands yet allowing responsible users and the government to have regulation over it.

By Maria Lopardo and Patrick Potts