War vs No War

The group opposing me has a fear of having a world with drugs fully legalized. They say it is because it is a “absolutely untested proposition” and the only evidence provided so far is in small trials in small parts of the world. They make it seam as if a trial in America or possibly other large nations is terrifying with it’s “unforeseeable consequences”.

The Drug Commission recently scrutinized the last four decades of the Drug War and has categorized it as a failure. They are examining parts of the world taking a different approach such as Portugal, which said they would not legalize all drugs but were going to decriminalize them. Which for the most part means that if someone is caught with drugs they will not put them in jail. The money it would take to put these individuals in prison will now be spent on the treatment of their addiction “which is about three-quarters cheaper” The country has seen substantial reduction in people using heroin along with drug-related robbery. “Heroin use among 16- to 18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8%. New HIV infections fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003. Deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by half.”

My opposition may be doubtful about the statistics related to Portugal because Portugal seams to be a semi-isolated relatively small nation, and is for the most part well off. They say the poverty stricken South American locations wouldn’t respond well to this type of approach. “Everything we’ve seen about decriminalization just frees up the drug barons, because they are in a position to continue a substantial market without law-enforcement” and there would still be major black market for drugs. New drugs would be coming onto the market constantly and a significant amount of enforcement is the only way to shut this down. Also the focus is usually on addicts getting treated for their drug habits, but the common drug user has a job and a stable life. “Is it right to criminalize them?”

The common drug user (225 million people) is mostly just a marijuana user and there is the argument that drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco are more detrimental to a person’s health than the use of marijuana. “Because marijuana is the drug of choice of young people, is it right that it should be treated any differently from alcohol?” Also very high portions of people who use the drug are not addicts.

A previous experiment around the reclassification of cannabis happened. My opposition claims that the politicians who were for the reclassification were whiped out because of it and that any politician who goes forward into a election with the a position similar to this could not win and there for the laws will never get made. This is not necessarily true though it does not have to be a vote-loser for politicians there was two surveys done in britain and an overwhelming amount of civilians(potential voters) said ” nobody should be sent to prison for taking drugs, they should be decriminalized”

Others say that drugs being illegal is “about protection of people from the really bad guys. Enforcement has to be part of that.” But if done right these “bad guys” don’t even need to exist. These so called bad guys are the “drug pushers” so to eliminate them the government needs to go to the next step and legalize. Let’s say they legalized marijuana and taxed it like any other product there will be vast amounts of income from it. So why not put the nearly “$350 billion dollars” to good use instead of giving it to drug dealers.

But then the question of how legalizing “milder” drugs will move up to cocaine, heroin, and other harder drugs. But one of the main reason that someone acquires these hard drugs is because they are also sold by the black market drug dealer selling these people their marijuana.

Work Cited:

Emine Saner. Richard Branson and Ian Blair debate drug decriminalization. TheGaurdian,  16 March 2012. Web. 1st April 2012.

Captain America Would be Disappointed

America is the greatest nation in the world.

We as Americans are free, proud, and strong; this is the land of opportunity and prosperity.  Or, at least, that is what she was founded on.  Unfortunately, history has not been kind to America; every incident of the past has brought the nation to a cruel and cynical present.  Even the escapes from the real world like the comic book have suffered at the hands of modern America.  Heroes were founded as means of being aspiration goals and for the enjoyment of the masses in a time of crisis; now they’re pawns of an industry driven by economics and being better than it’s rivals.  A noble cause to be the best, yes, but at what length is worth hurting not only the employees but the entire spirit of comicdom?  Marvel is pushing the boundaries, using its legal capabilities to take action against artists personally profiting from the sales of unauthorized artwork, and it is here that they have crossed the line of “Cruel and Unusual.”

To clarify, Marvel is suing its own artists and character creators, who they employ, for selling artwork such as personal commissions of copyrighted Marvel characters for a personal profit.  Normally this would not be as drastic of an issue, but its the idea that Marvel hired someone like Gabriel Hardman to draw the Secret Avengers for the mass-market book and prohibits him from drawing Hawkeye as a commission even though it is his job; it’s akin to telling a plumber to never fix his mother’s sink.

The major argument posed here is not disillusioned.  To suggest that Marvel is right is much more than acceptable; in a very twisted, appropriate way, they are.  By law, Marvel Comics holds the rights to each character it publishes; Jack “The King” Kirby and his heirs do not own Thor, Gary Friedrich does not own Ghost Rider.  By United States Copyright Law, the creators wanted to see their work published, so whether it was someone like Jack Kirby who designed Thor working for Marvel (ignoring that the character could be considered public domain; this is not that Thor) or Friedrich making an appeal to Marvel, they signed contracts to give the use of the characters to Marvel.  As such, Marvel is allowed the sole usage of the character in whatever manners are outlined in the contract; anyone else is technically stretching or breaking the law.

But this should not diminish the impact of the creator over the character; as a result of Marvel suing Friedrich on the grounds of his selling Ghost Rider merchandise at a comic convention, Friedrich’s punishment includes a $17,000 payout to Marvel as well as Friedrich to stop saying he’s the creator of Ghost Rider.  Now it is no longer a matter of ownership and usage rights, its a point of sending a message.  Forcing the practically poor 60-plus year-old man to not only take away the one thing he’s done with his life that makes him a profit but to prevent him from boasting that he created a nationally-recognized character is horrifyingly severe; Marvel could not have asked for a better test candidate.

The true question at hand though is if laws are actually being broken by artists in the first place; it is quite possible that the law itself has a written loophole to prevent further legal action.  In art of all forms there exists a category exploited far more than any other: Parody.  A parody is an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect; in terms of the actual law, parody’s fall under the Fair Use Law and is not sue-able by grounds of plagiarism .

Saturday Night Live is the most open proprietor of the parody concept; the sketches conducted on the program constantly utilize copyrighted film, book, comic, and other media characters and do not pay any sort of royalties or licensing fees for each use.  The characters are not “deliberate exaggeration[s] for comic effect,” either; certainly John Belushi in Lou Ferrigno-style  Hulk make-up may look humorous, but that is more the fault of Belushi; SNL is permitted to use exact interpretations of copyrighted characters for their program with no drastic changes, basically.

The concept is just as applicable to comics.  If an artist is at a convention and sketches a commission for a child of Captain America, but draws the classic Captain America with no scaling detail and has him hold the original heater shield instead of the circular, is it still the currently-published Captain America?  Another key element that lends to this is artistic liberty.  No two artists draw the same, and the basic recognized element is costume; does adding an extra red stripe to Captain America’s waist-padding still make him Captain America?  The Fair Use Law can be stretched to permit all such actions, technically, and no one but the creator has the ability to say what something is or is not; that right prevents all legal action.

So, no, the law is not as clear as Marvel would prefer it to be to sue a few pencillers.  Elements such as the Fair Use Policy and the parody clause still exist and have been exploited for years, and are just as applicable in this instance as any other.  Unfortunately it is ignorance of the actual law that not only gives Marvel the ability to sue, and win, but will halt artists from continuing their passions; with each court case, the fear of a threat does not help matters either.  Artists continue to come forward with statements agreeing with Marvel, such as Robert Liefeld, creator of Deadpool, Cable, and the first X-force, boasting that he is aware that

“not a single creator that has sued Marvel for creative compensation has succeeded. The list is getting longer. Know what you signed.  I do not own Deadpool, Cable, X- Force—I get a generous payout on their exploitation, but I knew from day one, they are not mine. Period.  I signed those deals when I was 21 years old. I knew that pennies on the dollar were better than no pennies at all.  I was an eager young talent looking to change the game and the playing field, I did that through my creations. No regrets.”

It is very disheartening that so many would choose to side with Marvel and cease their actions of their wonderful work.  The main Copyright Law is not clear, but there are other ways to side-step it and still succeed; parody and Fair Use are strong weapons to have against Marvel’s legal team.  Marvel is not wrong to be pursuing action, but they are wrong to succeed and force their artists to stop drawing such great characters.

Works Cited

“Copyright and Fair Use.” ASHE Higher Education Report 34.4 (2008): 31-52. Academic Search Premier. Web. 3 Apr. 2012.

Deazley, Ronan. “Copyright And Parody: Taking Backward The Gowers Review?.” Modern Law Review 73.5 (2010): 785-807. Academic Search Premier. Web. 3 Apr. 2012.

Liefeld, Robert.  Twitter.  Web.  14 Feb. 2012.

Cieply, Michael.  “Court Ruling Says Marvel Holds Rights, Not an Artist.” New York Times.  Web.  28 July 2011.

O’Neal, Sean.  “Marvel Forces Ghost Rider Creator to Stop Saying he’s Ghost Rider’s Creator.”  The A.V. Club.  10 Feb.  2012.

Facebook: Friend or Foe?

It is unquestionable that the Internet has affected our job market tremendously in the last decade. Whether it involves finding jobs, advertising open positions, prescreening employment candidates, or keeping tabs on current employees, the internet has provided employers and job seekers with an important tool for the expansion of their companies and their professional connections through the use of social networking sites. While the presence of Facebook in the professional world obviously carries a lot of benefits – networking with colleagues or partners, promoting business through advertisements or referrals, etc. – there is still leeway for opposing viewpoints on the matter for those who believe that Facebook and other social networking sites shouldn’t have any connection to the professional world.

One of the most important issues with Facebook being used as a professional tool is the obvious lack of privacy. It is no secret that employers are able to prescreen job candidates through their Facebook pages before an interview even takes place, nor is it a surprise that they can utilize Facebook in order to keep an eye on their current employees to make sure that they are conducting themselves properly in and out of the workplace. And while a study conducted by researchers at the University of Dayton found that “32 percent of students think it is unethical for companies to scan the Facebook profiles of job candidates,” mainly because a prescreen could violate equal opportunity rights in this country, it is also true that the economy is not presently in its best state, which means that companies are striving to out-do their competition so that they can successfully stay in operation despite the economic downfalls they are experiencing. In order to rise above competition, a company needs to stand out as being the best, and in order to be the best, they must have the best employees, an ideal staff of respectable, hard-working personnel. In order to assemble such a staff, “40 percent of companies say they would at least consider perusing Facebook profiles before making hiring decisions.” Using Facebook to prescreen candidates allows for employers to find the best candidates to enhance their company’s success.

Employers have also turned to social networking sites to check on those already employed to make sure that they are acting in accordance with company standards at all times. This also can easily be labeled an invasion of privacy since most people would agree that their professional life is not defined by their personal life and that employer’s have no right to make it so. And while this is true, it also begs the question: would an employee of an organization’s personal life be important to us if that employee were someone like a teacher or a nanny taking care of our children? Whether one has a child or not, it can be universally agreed that most parents would like to be assured that when they send their child to school, they are in the hands of teachers who are educated, respectable, and a good influence on their child. But not all teachers are the outstanding citizens that their resumés boast them to be; first grade schoolteacher, Jennifer O’Brien, of P.S. 21 inPaterson,NJhad to appear in court after a comment she posted on her Facebook page was seen by parents and school officials.

O’Brien had posted the comment, which read, “I am the warden of future criminals,” in reference to her students at the predominately African-American school. She defended the comment by saying that she had written it in frustration after being constantly interrupted in class and having one student actually hit her. But regardless, the comment was loaded with racism and rude intentions, publicly displaying O’Brien’s ineptness as a positive role model. She may not ultimately lose her job, but the fact that school administrators were able to see this “private” side of O’Brien by utilizing Facebook is imperative because it allows them to see the true character of an employee whom they believed to be essential to their program.

Although not all companies and businesses use Facebook to prescreen or investigate employees, one company that most certainly has the access to do so is Facebook itself. With 3,200 employees and a “headcount rising about 50 percent per year,” Facebook has become one of the fastest growing companies in the nation over the last decade by creating “a new social media universe that supports games, advertising tools, and other applications that didn’t even exist a few years ago.” And while this sounds as though Facebook has become an asset to the economy by decreasing the unemployment rate, many will argue the obvious point that Facebook’s job market is really only geared towards one demographic: “college graduates under 40.” The type of skills required to be employed and useful at Facebook generally exist in the forms of “software engineers, product designers, and other personnel with certain technology expertise.” This decreases the actual value of Facebook’s expanding job market because it only pertains to a certain group of people, rather than the entire nation. However, for those that do not have the kind of skills needed to be a Facebook employee, the site can still be used to look for and find jobs in other job fields with other companies. According to a study done by employee recognition provider, I Love Rewards, and career-services network, Experience, 35% of college students plan to use Facebook or LinkedIn, another networking site geared more toward professional networking, to find a job post-graduation.

While there are definitely reasons that Facebook should not be utilized in the professional world, it is undeniable that in all the ways that it is unfair, there is always a beneficial counterpoint, allowing companies to hire and maintain the most successful staff and recruit candidates in a much more timely and cost-efficient manner. Instead of criticizing all the ways in which Facebook is detrimental to our professional lives, it is more realistic to accept that the impact exists and realize how we can use it to transform the standards of our professional world.

Works Cited

• The Facebook Economy
• Paterson Schoolteacher Under Fire for Racist Comment on Facebook
• Online
• More Grads Use Social Media to Jobhunt

A Greater Upside

The use of anabolic steroids has become a topic often talked about in major league baseball. Steroids have ultimately advanced the abilities of the players and quality of baseball for the fans.Many critcs say that the use of steroids in baseball is cheating and hurts the sport’s popularity. Another opinion of critics is that steroids are too harmful to be allowed in baseball. The reasons these arguments are wrong have piled up over the years.

The argument that using anabolic steroids in baseball is easily proven wrong. If using steroids in baseball was no longer illegal than it would not be cheating anymore. Although, some critics would say that even if it was legal it is still cheating and would take fans away from the sport. But, is evening the playing field really cheating. According to Canseco, up to 85% of MLB players currently playing today are using performance-enhancing drugs (“Why the Use of Steroids Is Bad for Baseball “). This is coming from someone who was in the locker rooms of major league baseball for many years. The fact that so many people around the league use steroids make it necessary to allow everyone in the league to have the opportunity to enhance their performance the same way. If those who obey the rules had the chance to take steroids like most of the players already do it would allow the players with greater natural talent to shine and become the stars they should be (“Why Baseball Players Take Steroids”). There is an immense pressure to use performance enhancing drugs in baseball (“Why the Use of Steroids is Bad for Baseball”). This means that allowing anabolic steroids in major league baseball is actually the way to get rid of cheating and even the playing field for all the athletes.

It is known that anabolic steroids have negative effects that go along with its positive effects. Critics say that they are far too dangerous to be allowed in professional baseball. Long-term anabolic steroid use may weaken the heart more than previously thought and may increase the risk of heart failure, according to research reported in Circulation: Heart Failure, an American Heart Association journal (“Long-term Anabolic Steroid Use”). It is also associated to mood swings. This is referred to as “roid rage”. These are some reasons that steroids is illegal. Some players around the league do not want to take the risk and use anabolic steroids.

It is true that steroids can be harmful to abusers but that should not be enough to make them illegal. If everything that could cause harm to users who abuse the product was banned then there would be more things banned than not. Major league baseball athletes are mature adults and have the capabilities to make their own decisions. If they decide to take steroids it should be their choice. It would be the same if they decided to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, or use chewing tobacco. The negative effects of all these substances are severe but they are not illegal so anabolic steroids should be no different.

Anabolic steroids have health benefits that go along with its side effects. Men who suffer from low testosterone will benefit from steroid use and the increase fertility (“Steroids Health Benefits”). When someone has too little estrogen in the body it can cause bone loss. Steroids increase estrogen which will help prevent bone loss. Estrogen therapy has been proven to reduce the risk of cancer and heart disease (“Steroids Health Benefits”). This means that steroids can help reduce the risk of cancer or heart disease. Steroid use also helps reduce blood pressure and bad cholesterol. Having all these benefits should be enough to prove people who say they are harmful wrong. Compared to most of the substances that are legal steroids are no where near as bad. Anabolic steroids bring numerous benefits and help professional baseball much more than it hurts professional baseball.

The critics of steroids have many arguments to why they should stay out of baseball. The two strongest points are that it is cheating and hurts baseballs popularity and they are harmful to users. The critics do not see all the positives that come from steroids and how their arguments can be proven wrong or not as strong as they believe. They need to realize that anabolic steroids are being used all around the league and would help the sport even more if they were allowed to be used without punishment.

 Works Cited

“Long-term Anabolic Steroid Use.” Escience News. Web. 03 Apr. 2012.

“Why the Use of Steroids Is Bad for Baseball.” Cheap Red Sox Tickets. Web. 03 Apr. 2012.

Shaw, Russell. “Why Baseball Players Take Steroids.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 28 Mar. 2008. Web. 03 Apr. 2012.

“Steroids Health Benefits.” IHealth Directory. Web. 03 Apr. 2012.