Colleague Blog Comment

I'm commenting on my colleague Haley Van Horn's Blog 7. First off I want to say I hope for the best for the child and her family. I personally never heard of the disease, but it's just another reason why we should legalize marijuana. The benefits of legalizing it far more exceeds the dangers. There is so many good that can come out of legalizing it and it's not like it won't be regulated. Yes their would be people that abuse it, but alcohol is legal and there is far more dangers in alcohol than in marijuana in my opinion. Furthermore, there's no positive health benefits with alcohol. Legalizing marijuana will help many people all around the United States including the child from the blog.

Regulating Electronic Cigarettes

It has taken far too long for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to impose regulations on e-cigarettes: More than three years have passed since it announced its intention to do so. During that time, the devices have caught on with teenagers, whose use of them doubled from 2011 to 2012. And the rules proposed on April 17, 2014 will not be finalized for at least another year.

The new regulations are appropriately strong in many ways, banning sales to minors and requiring the disclosure of ingredients as well as evidence for any marketing claims that e-cigarettes are healthier than traditional cigarettes. But more is needed.

To the extent that they are used by people who would otherwise smoke regular cigarettes, e-cigarettes might save tens of thousands of lives each year. That's because the devices deliver the nicotine that smokers crave via vapor, without the smoke that causes cancer and other illnesses.

On the other hand, because the vapor doesn't irritate the throat and lungs the way regular tobacco products do, e-cigarettes might serve as a gateway to smoking for teenagers. Recent sales figures among minors indicate that is already happening. The lack of research on e-cigarettes is a major impediment to shaping meaningful regulations.

The FDA did not overreach. It did not attempt to restrict the advertising of e-cigarettes on television. At the same time, it plans to ensure that e-cigarette companies cannot make lavish claims that their product is less dangerous than cigarettes or that e-cigarettes can help smokers quit the habit, unless they provide evidence for those claims.

More important, the rules would ban sales to minors. But because advertising is considered a matter of free speech, the FDA did not prohibit the marketing of the devices to teenagers. Before it can do that, the agency must have stronger evidence that e-cigarettes harm young people. That's a shame, because the manufacturers have been advertising in magazines popular with teens and sponsoring rock concerts.

Above all, the FDA and the National Institutes of Health should make research on e-cigarettes a top priority. Sales are soaring, and only with better evidence can rules be crafted that recognize whatever health advantages e-cigarettes might offer while minimizing possible downsides.

Comment on colleague's work

I agree 100 percent with my colleague Jay that marijuana should be legalized in the United States. Marijuana not only will increase tax revenue ,but it will also create jobs for the people. The only negative thing about marijuana are people's perception that there is something negative about marijuana and legalizing it. However, I believe more people are changing their opinions on their view of marijuana being negative and are focusing more on the benefits of legalization. In this struggling economy any industry that can create jobs can't and shouldn't be overlooked. Marijuana is already legalized in Colorado for medical and recreational use and they are already benefiting a lot from legalization from an economical stand point. I believe we'll continue to see other states follow Colorado and legalize marijuana for the good of their state and the people.

Moving Election Day

Today, despite early voting and voting-by-mail in most states, in 15 states you can only vote on Tuesday during the hours the polling place is open. So if you're a single mother or father, or work two or three jobs, or have long hours in school and you can't make it to your polling place tough luck. This in a country whose voter turnout ranks 138th of 172 nations. It's hard to believe that the world's most famous democracy has one of the world's worst voter turnouts. Moving Election Day to the weekend will make it more convenient for people to vote and the voter turnout will rise dramatically in my opinion.

Whether we move Election Day to the weekend or make it a National Holiday to increase turnout, or adopt convenience voting in all 50 states, something must be done to fix our terribly broken voting system. With rules that make it more difficult to vote, from voter ID, to purging, caging, felon disenfranchisement, and tricky registration regulations, the least we can do is vote on a day or in a way that makes voting accessible.

U.S. needs to add student online privacy rules.

A blog posted by the LA Times editorial board on March 5, 2014 is intended for students in school, parents and others who are concerned about a student's privacy rights. The post was written by the LA Times editorial board whom are qualified and reliable. The argument the editorial board is trying to make is that the federal government should enforce a policy that will ban private firms from contracting with public schools to sell student records in the U.S.

The editorial board is claiming that private firms are contracting with public schools for selling students' personal data and records. According to the children's advocacy group Common Sense Media the private firms are selling the students' records to other businesses without the knowledge of the students, their parents or the schools that hired them. In California, the state senate passed a bill that banned the private firms from contracting with public schools which is good, but it only applies in California. The authors are right when they say that the federal government needs to address this issue as well so that all students in the United States are protected.

I agree with the authors when they state "As more of our children's education moves online, there are increased opportunities for abusing the collection of their personal data." This is obvious, but true. The world is now a generation of technology and internet, therefore students' records can now be easily stolen. We must protect the privacy rights of our nations' students.

Raise the minimum wage or subsidize wages?

A blog posted by Larry Harris on February 21, 2014 in the LA Times is intended for unemployed people and low-income workers. The author Larry Harris holds the Fred V. Keenan Chair in Finance at the USC Marshall School of Business. He was chief economist of the SEC from 2002 to 2004. The blog is about an alternative plan to President Obama's proposal on Congress raising the minimum wage. The argument the author is trying to make is instead of raising the minimum wage, we could institute wage subsidies.

The author claims, "raising the minimum wage is the equivalent of taxing employers for the work done by their employees and giving the proceeds to the workers. And that works against employment, not in favor of it." I agree with him because employers will offer less labor when wages are high and they'll offer more employment when labor is less costly to them. The authors evidence is a report by the Congressional Budget Office. The analysts in the report predict that the proposed increase in the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would cost the economy 500,000 jobs. No one actually will know how much people will lose their jobs or not, but in my opinion I believe that unemployment will be higher than it is now. I assume this because I believe that most of the employers are going to employ the least possible amount of workers to save as much money as they can.

The author then proposes to do away with minimum wages altogether and institute wage subsidies. He suggests that the government should provide vouchers to unemployed workers looking for low income jobs and the vouchers would provide wage subsidies to employers who hire them. I agree with the author here because the subsidies would lower labor costs, thereby increasing the number of jobs employers offer. He then claims more jobs would reduce welfare grants and increase payroll taxes, which could help fund the subsidies. In my opinion, I agree with his idea on wage subsidies. The only problem would be getting the money to start up the wage subsidy plan. They could increase taxes, but I don't think many people would approve of that.

The earned income tax credit is somewhat a form of the wage subsidy plan. The only problem with the earned income tax credit is that it doesn't help people who are unemployed. The wage subsidy plan would be better because it would immediately lower the cost of employing workers, so the number of jobs increases. Overall, I agree with the author when he states, "Subsidizing wages would be much better for the economy than raising the minimum wage."

Unemployment extension denied

On February 6, the New York Times posted this article about the unemployment extension the democrats were trying to enforce but was denied. They were trying to get a 3 month extension added on to the unemployment benefits so people could have a longer time when looking for jobs. In my opinion, I some what dislike the idea of long-term unemployment benefits. I believe that too many people take advantage of unemployment and act like they are trying to get a new job but really just taking a long vacation. There really isn't a way to determine if someone really can't get a job so this makes it hard to check if someone is being truthful and deserves unemployment or not.

Although, I do know that there's a lot of people out there who are truly desperate and really can't find a job. There's really people out there who have a degree and can't find work or have to settle for a way lower paying job. This just shows how bad our economy is right now and I don't think extending unemployment benefits will fix the economy. I think unemployment is causing a rise in debt to our country. This article has shown me that most of the U.S. would like unemployment benefits to extend which really shows how desperate our nation is right now for jobs. I think this article was important because it informs people that our government is now trying to be more conservative with unemployment benefits.