Peer response to Brennas blog

In Brenna's blog, she compared two articles she found online regarding drilling for oil under water.
She presented two articles from very valid sources and explained her opinion of both the articles.
I thought her blog was interesting and very convincing. She explained how one article just talked about profits, while the other article laid out the facts and true harms of underwater drilling.

In the beginning of her blog, Brenna mentions the recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Measures being taken to address the spill are in an article I found on MSNBC. It looks like barely anything is being done to address such a catastrophe. I think what shocks me most though is that within the next two years they are leasing a new oil drilling sight off the coast of Virginia. It worries me that something like the oil spill in New Mexico could happen so close to home in the near future. Brenna was right in saying that drilling for oil offshore is not safe and not worth the damages it causes to the environment.

Comparison of two online articles: Legalization of Marijuana?

Legalization of marijuana is a hot topic in the United States today. After listening to Emily's speech about why marijuana should be legalized, I decided to look at a few articles about it.
I found an article on Rueters reasoning why California should legalize marijuana. The article interviews several individuals and explains why they believe it should be legalized. The article points out the drug criminalizes mostly "law-abiding" citizens and wastes precious police forces on trying to control a substance that is not that harmful. The article also argues that the sale and distribution of the crop would help pull the state of California out of the economic slump.

I found another article, in opposition of legalization, in The Muhlenberg Weekly. This article claims that since it is illegal now, those who use it are in fact criminals and not average citizens. It also points out health risks, such as short term memory loss. The article then jumps into a few generalizations and ideas not based in fact.

The first article supporting the legalization of marijuana is by far more convincing. The article uses facts and reasoning to support its views. Also, the first article addressed issues presented by the other point of view. The second article did not do this. The article did address the views of the opposition, but did not refute anything with facts. I find that the first article is way more convincing and alot less biased.
These articles haven't changed my opinion on legalization but simply reaffirmed it. It is pretty obvious to me that there are no real reasons why marijuana should be illegal other than opinions of individuals. Marijuana does present some health risks, but it has never killed anyone and is less harmful than excessive alcohol use. I think marijuana should be legalized and controlled because it really could be a great cash crop that boosts our economy.