Marijuana Reform

Political writer and blogger Chris Weigant wrote an article that was posted to The Huffington Post on October 14. Politicians and the federal government make up his intended audience. In his writing, he explains the rising interest in the federal "War On Weed" and how politicians are finally starting to agree that it needs to end. He describes how when the subject came up at the last Republican debate, "of the three Republicans and two Democrats asked about marijuana policy, all five of them supported medical marijuana. Four of them (to one degree or another) supported the right of states to set their own policy on recreational use."
Weigant argues that the current marijuana policy "is not a sane federal drug policy." He believes that the  the classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug needs to change. In fact, he believes "it is long overdue." He claims that "this classification is not about science, and never was. It has been purely political all along." Since one of the qualifications for a Schedule I drug is that "The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in the treatment in the United States," Weigant believes that this classification is no longer accurate and the federal law needs to recognize this. Additionally, he believes "it's a serious issue to bring up to people who want to lead our country." Weigant explains that the events of the last Republican debate, along with Barack Obama's stance on the issue marks "an astounding turnaround on federal marijuana policy." He also describes how everybody "is now taking marijuana reform a whole lot more seriously than they ever have before."

Fixing Our Broken Government

The Washington Post released an editorial written by Philip K. Howard on October 1. Howard is a well-known leader of government and legal reform in America and he is also chair of common good. In this piece of writing, he targets political candidates and voters as his audience. His argument is that candidates should focus less on their egos and put more effort into forming a plan of action to better the U.S. government. He also argues that voters should place their hopes in candidates who have visions of how to fix our broken government rather than those with good personalities and political withstanding. Howard backs his argument by using evidence such as Obama being unable to fulfill his promise of bringing "change we can believe in" after he took office. He explains that Obama "had no authority to escape from the legal goo of required studies, permits and processes." He uses Trump as an example as well. According to Howard, "Trump's appeal is based on Candor and power." However, he questions how Trump will be able to "make the trains run on time" as he claims he will when he can't ignore the laws and regulations presidents are faced with. These examples prove that some candidates are making promises that aren't backed by a thoroughly thought out plan. Howard makes a good point. It is impossible to come to a solution without a carefully considered and well thought out plan.