Smokers Will Be Smokers.

In response to Mariana Zubirias' blog post on smoking laws.....
       I understand that Texas' Government can regulate what we do in most cases. Such as giving punishments for driving while intoxicated, arresting parents who treat their children wrong/abuse them, not giving a driver's license to someone who failed the test, etc. But in this case, I have to disagree that this is a serious matter. Austin, TX and other cities already have bans on smoking in public places such as parks, and the "no smoking within 15 feet of a door to a public place." Those are all gravy, and understandable. Families take kids to parks and don't want smoke blown in their face. People walk out of a restaurant and don't want to smell smoke first thing after eating a good meal. I agree with those specific laws aimed at smoking.
        But how can government punish someone who smokes in their free time, in their home or in their car? Cigarette addiction consists of a mental addiction as well as a bodily craving. The nicotine withdrawals are rough, from what I have heard. The mind gets used to the habit to picking up a cigarette first thing in the morning, when a driver gets in their car, etc. It is not something most people can just put down and not have a second thought about. This, in my opinion, is nothing like driving while intoxicated, child abuse, or failing a driver's test. Because smoking cigarettes in your own private area does not affect anyone but the smoker themselves.
        If a smoker wants to smoke at a time and place where it won't affect or get all over other people, then so be it. Yes, it is absolutely bad for your health. But it is a choice that person makes to pick up cigarettes.

Get Them Tested Already

Okay, so… A lot of talk has been going on for quite a while now about the people on welfare not being drug tested. And I’m happy to say, that the legislature in Texas recently moved a step closer to getting this changed! Of course there are terms and conditions that apply to this SB 11 taking full effect, but at least it is headed in the right direction.

            Welfare Texans not being drug tested lead to the assumptions that these folks were spending their money carelessly on drugs, alcohol, lottery tickets, etc. At first, Texans on welfare could spend their money however they pleased. Then Texas passed a bill that ensured that if drug abuse were suspected during a drug screening survey, that specific family would be drug tested. The steps following that, of course included of more drug tests periodically and the right to ban the family from welfare for a year, then they could reapply six months later. If a second drug test were failed, the same consequences would arise. If a third drug test were failed, the family could be banned from welfare forever. In my opinion, this issue has come a long way and is headed in absolutely the right direction.

            Senator Jane Nelson from Flower Mound, Texas has been taking a good look at the children’s benefits over this ordeal. She believes that the children are the main priority- and that this bill is ensured only to protect them. If a parent fails a drug test, the money would be given to another guardian on the  children. That way, the children don’t lose the benefits for something their parents are doing and they are in no control of. If the parents are taking their money and throwing it away on alcohol and drugs, the children aren’t even being taken care of with the money that is GIVEN to the family to take care of the CHILDREN. The money isn’t given to help find the parent’s next high or drug fix.

            This could also save Texas some money and actually know that the money we are shelling out is going to the proper place. Why would we continue to give money to the same woman or man after several drug tests are failed- assuming correctly that their money is most likely going to drugs and alcohol and not their children? Sounds absurd to me. I strongly support this bill and this idea simply because the children’s lives could depend on this money and Texas might save some money by taking this action.  

Comment in Response to Improving Sex-Ed in Schools

I absolutely agree with this post on Senate Bill 521. Texas had the third highest teenage-pregnancy birth rate last year in all of the United States. I heard a speaker at the Brown Syposium a couple of months ago talk about the importance of sex education to young teens. Right now, Texas has a strict "abstinence only" sex education method, which fails to provide the OTHER methods that are available if a teen is to have sex. Which in reality, is bound to happen. They do not teach about condoms, communication with their partner, birth control, or anything of the sort. They simply teach "Say No," which doesn't provide pre-cautionary measures that could be taken. I agree that this bill is taking a step in the wrong direction. If they want the pregnancy rates to lessen- they need to DO THINGS that will make that happen! Such as passing out condoms/taking the stuff from Planned Parenthood would be a great start, in my opinion. And yes, sexual education in school would definitely eliminate the awkward conversation between the teen and their parents. Whew!

Let People Be Happy

As a straight, nineteen year old lady living in Texas, I support gay marriage. The legislature is at it’s peak right now at the Capitol here in Austin, Texas. Yesterday, my Facebook was blown up with posts about equality and people’s opinions on how gay marriage should be voted legal in Texas.

 The Human Rights Campaign is doing all it can to spread the word about their gay marriage act, some of the ways being wearing all red to support the act, using the hashtag #Unitedformarriage on Twitters, campaigns, etc. They firmly believe that anyone should be able to marry anyone they desire to- regardless of the sex of those two people.

 It is all based on equality, and I support this act 100%. Who will it REALLY affect if two women or two men become legally married to each other here in Texas? This topic steps on toes of certain religions and I understand that there would definitely be some upset Christian Texans if this law were to be passed. But so what? They may cry about it for a few days and then move on to the next thing to worry about. 

Governor Rick Perry made his opinion clear that he believes marriage should only be between one man and one woman. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and realize that those are traditional values for some older folks. But this is 2013, where so many things have already changed in the state of Texas, and I don’t see gay marriage being the end all, be all. It WILL be okay if gays or lesbians marry each other. Hillary Clinton is on that side of the opinion. She supports gay marriage, and the Human Rights Campaign set up a site where you can personally sign a “Thank You” to send to her for her input. I think that is significant in this debate.

Texas is not the only state going through this right now. Many other states are pushing for this act to be successful. Senator Kay Hagan of North Caroline infamously stated that, “We should not tell people who they can love or who they can marry.” With this act being pushed all over the nation…I do not see it coming to an end anytime soon if it were to fail this year.   I’m sure this will be a debate UNTIL it is finally passed. The Texas Constitution, as well as the U.S. Constitution, state that we are all equal. Really? How is this ensuring equality to everyone? Come on…It’s not that big of a deal! Let people be happy!

Might As Well Give It Another Shot

          I chose an article talking about less severe marijuana charges for a couple of different reasons. I do not smoke, so I am not biased towards this discussion. “Gritsforbreakfast” provided their opinion on the possibility of marijuana possession in the state of Texas being lessened from a Class B misdemeanor to a Class C misdemeanor. The author makes a claim that if House Bill 184 (which relates to penalties for possession of one ounce or less of cannabis) was to be passed, that the indigent defense costs in Texas would significantly decrease as a result.

 The author, I believe, is directing his logical appeal to the court systems of Texas. He uses a logical appeal by believing that the idea of saving money for local budgets is worthy of having a lesser sentence for pot possession. I'm sure, of course, defendants would appreciate this bill being passed as well. But I feel that the real relief would go towards the courts.

In my eyes, it is a valid point. The author provides evidence such as: in 2011, there were 69,770 arrests for marijuana possession (small amounts), according to the DPS. Also, 60% of drug arrests are pot smokers in Texas. That is a lot of arrests and police officers’ time that could be well spent worrying about something else. States like Washington and Colorado already have cannabis legalized, and I see more states jumping on that bandwagon in the future.

When a poor/needy person is charged with a Class B misdemeanor, the county is subjected to pay for a lawyer. If the charges for less than an ounce of pot were switched to a Class C misdemeanor, the defendant wouldn’t be at risk of jail time- therefore, the county would not have to appoint a lawyer. If this house bill were to be passed, the criminal status of being in possession of pot would not disappear. The defendant would still face the title of being in possession and have a misdemeanor. However, with no jail time, this could allow police officers to focus on other things, bring relief to county costs, minimize the population in county jails, etc. Overall- there are better things that could come from this than bad!

The Money Should Go Elsewhere

       The editorial I found on the Austin American Statesman really stuck out to me. The Editorial Board applies a strong, logical appeal towards this argument. Basically, Texas prisons and privately owned prisons are taking a rough amount of $3.1 billion a year to keep these facilities running. As if that number isn’t alarming enough, it’s worse to know that about 10,000 bunks in these prisons are being unused.
        Prisons in the state of Texas used to be absolutely filled. There have been fewer incarcerations the past few years, however, due to the crime rates getting lower. Now that more people who get arrested can afford the court costs, tickets, etc., less people have to look at prison sentences. So why, exactly, are we throwing $3.1 billion a year at these facilities when half of them are being used? Economic dependence.
        Most prisons are not closing down because they employ around 400 people EACH, and that would mean letting go of those people. Gregory Hooks disagrees on this matter, and believes that keeping these prisons open lessons the economic advantages.  The jobs at prisons have low pay rates and less benefits, so there really is no “economic boom” that people believe. Senator John Whitmire proposes the claim that Texas should not renew contracts with prisons when they expire. There really is no point in spending tons of money on these excess, empty beds.
         If we could shut a couple prisons down, and keep the others open and filled up completely, we could already save plenty of money. The money used right now towards these prisons could be helping educational facilities, health care for people who don’t have it, and enforcing public safety which would lower the crime rate overall…leading us more and more away from prisons. The audience this is aimed towards, the legislators, could, and I believe should, re-think where they are tossing their money. What is REALLY benefitting from keeping these prisons open?

To Text, or Not to Text

The article that I found very interesting on The Texas Tribune revolves around the possibility, or lack there of in some cases, for a law to be passed making it illegal to use a handheld device while driving. Many families who lost a family member due to this act were in the capitol on January 29^th, 2013 supporting the bill.  According to The Texas Tribune, 39 other states, plus the District of Colombia, already have laws that prohibit the act of texting and driving. Police officers and other people, though, say and feel that it is unlikely that this law can be enforceable. Rick Perry feels as though it would be the government “micromanaging” our lives/taking our freedoms away, and that information and education on the matter would be a better solution. We can still text, and we can still drive, but at the correct times to do so. This article is definitely important for others to read, because I know I am guilty of doing this sometimes, but this brings it to my attention how seriously dangerous it is and the possibility of it turning into breaking the law.