Original

The United States Government is looking for tactics to cut expenditure or increase revenue. There is a controversial discussion about legalization of mind-altering drugs such as marijuana and cocaine. I found a monograph by a lecturer in economics at Harvard, Jeffrey Miron, which provides some statistics regarding this proposal.

There is an estimate of $41.3 billion reduction of government expenditure every year by legalizing the illegal mind-altering drugs. The savings would come from the reduction of law enforcement expenditure, judicial, prison and jail expenditure. Furthermore, legalizing the illegal drugs would arguably increase the federal and state tax revenues. He estimates the increase to be about $ 46.7 billion a year. There is also additional revenue from the income tax paid by the drug sellers.

Although I think there are some moral and ethical hazards regarding this legalization, there is potentially substantial revenue gain from it for the government and subsequently the whole society. I am not denying that there is a considerable social benefit of prohibition of mind-altering drugs. However, I think we can use the same arguments that were used 1933 for legalizing alcohol consumption. Moreover, the tax on these drugs would raise their price; therefore the consumption would be automatically moderated.

Comment on a colleague's work

Eugene Lee's original editorial about the Airport security is a very thought-provoking critique.

However, I have to disagree with Eugene due to my personal experience. About three month ago, I was travelling to Maryland. At the airport, after removing my jacket, I was asked to remove my long sleeve dress!! When I asked the officer why? She responded that I just have to without any further explanation. I refused and told her that is not possible. As a solution, I told her I would not mind to be fully scanned through the Body Scanner if necessary. She refused my offer because of the scanner malfunction.

Finally, the officer patted me down everywhere for a while, and then decided that I am not carrying anything underneath my clothes. My point is that, I would have gladly accepted a “virtual strip search” rather than wasting so much time. I don’t understand how is a full body pat down less embarrassing than a full body x-ray? I feel more violated when some stranger harshly touch me down head to toe.

Original

I learnt in my US Government course that the power to declare war or launch a military action against terrorists is the authority given only to the Congress. However, President Barack Obama's speech last week on Libya suggested otherwise. Mr. Obama explained his ambitious actions as an act to protect the Libyan people. He also said the decision to intervene in Lydia is justified since the Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi was preparing to commit a massacre. I believe President Obama made compelling arguments why military intervention is needed. The president argued that this decision is not only based on the moral duties toward Libyan citizens, but also a strategy to send a message to other oppressors that  violence is not the best approach to cling to power. Obama was clear enough on why military forces are necessary to enforce the UN no-fly zone, though there is plenty to critique. He failed to mention why US has to participate. He left some questions unanswered. Questions like, Does the US government have a plan or are we going to go down the same route as Iraq invasion? What is the next step for Libya after we remove the danger by forcibly removing Gaddafi from power?
I am all for a change of this brutal regime and I know United States, as a member of NATO has to stand up for Democracy and freedom. Nonetheless, we have to note that Libya is not the only place that innocent people are being slaughtered right now. Do we have to intervene in Sudan, Congo, Bahrain as well?