The Law of the Times



To many people, the specter of drugs and drug violence is a very real thing that comes to them in their daily lives rather than on the late night news. To many people, giving people open access to drugs would reduce the amount of drug-related violence due to said drugs no longer being difficult and expensive to access. This was the goal of many people in California; they called their plan Proposition 19.

Recently in California, the public voted on whether or not to allow Marijuana and Marijuana-related activities in the state. This was known as Proposition 19. It was defeated in a 53.5% vote against the proposition to a 46.5% in favor of the proposition.

This Proposition had many legal concerns, most notably being the Proposition being at odds with the Controlled Substances Act, a federal law classifying various controlled substances based on their potential uses to the human body and level of legality. Marijuana is classified as being on the same level of legality as Heroin and MDMA, whereas Proposition 19 would legalize Marijuana, completely reversing the federal drug policy on Marijuana.

On the opposite side of the argument, many people supported Proposition 19. A primary factor for the support of Proposition 19 was the belief that the legalization of Marijuana would reduce the impact of Mexican Drug Cartels, as it has been reported that the sale of Marijuana accounts for 60% of the profits of the participating cartels. This, according to many people, would lower the impact of the cartels in California and would do much to help people who have been affected by the cartels and cartel violence.

Proposition 19 touched upon legal concept of privacy. Should a person have the right to do what they will or use what they will as a rational, legal adult? Should the government have the ability to prevent people from utilizing a type of plant in their own homes? These were the questions posed to the residents of California, and they ruled that Marijuana is too dangerous to be legalized for recreational use and the government should have the right to restrict the usage of a plant.

When presented with a choice between government control and an increase in the privacy of their actions, the people of California chose control.

Big image


The internet has affected all facets of our society. One way we did not intend it to affect it bullying, everyday countless people are bullied on the internet. This has caused many young to commit suicide due to their emotional distress over being bullied over the internet.

Cyber bullying is when kids bully each other through electronic technology. This has affected many of our young people over the past ten years and is seen by many as a threat to our youth. Many place cyber bullying at the same level as normal bullying. This would make cyber bullying a legal crime. It is already illegal in states such as North Carolina.

The Legal Issue of Cyber Bullying is whether not their parents should be held accountable for their child’s actions. There are many people who feel that parents should be held liable for their children’s actions online in the same way that they are for if a child kills someone with one of their parent’s guns. Many believe that since parents own the means of accessing the internet, they should be held liable if their child uses those means to hurt others.

This question of Vicarious Liability forms the basis of the debate over cyber bullying. Should it be just the young perpetrators who are punished, or should it be the parents as well?

Big image


Imagine, if you will, that you were in love with someone. Imagine if you were so in love with said person you felt it was the time for marriage. Now, imagine if the government wouldn't let you get married. Imagine if you were denied the right to be with the one you love. This is the state of homosexuals in most areas of our country.

Homosexuals are not permitted to marry in 38 of our 50 states. This, for many Americans, violates one of the basic foundations of our government and society: the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, they believe that preventing certain people from marrying based on their sexual orientation violates their ability to pursue happiness.

Opponents of Homosexual marriage point to many factors as to why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. A major point of support for Traditional marriage comes from the Holy Bible. Contained within the bible are several verses that denounce Homosexuality as unnatural and evil, “If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act.” (Leviticus 20:13). Another point of opposition towards gay marriage is the lack of evidence for or against the belief that a gay couple can raise a child as well as a traditional family. Opponents say that we should not risk a child’s development on something we have little long-term statistics over.

Big image


The Death Penalty, quite simply putting a man to death due to the nature of his crimes and actions, usually involving murder. This is a legal practice in 18 States in our Union, along with the District of Columbia. It has drawn the ire of many through its supposed barbarity and futility. Meanwhile, supporters of the death penalty point to the policy’s ability to limit crime by the knowledge of the consequences.

The Legal Issue here is whether or not the Death Penalty is a just Punishment. Supporters will give an impassioned yes, as they see the punishment, death, as fitting the crime, killing. Opponents of the penalty view death as pointless, the convicted will not learn anything from their punishment and, in their view, solves nothing. Many states have deemed the Death Penalty to be an unjust punishment and have since banned the practice.

The question of whether or not it is just to end a person’s life, given their actions, is a dividing issue of our time. This is an issue of moral law that varies by the person and may never achieve full acceptance or rejection.

Big image



Today, we decided to ask one of our loyal viewers for their opinion for an important topic of our time. The citizen we interviewed was Andrew BItterling, who had this to say on the topic of Video Game Violence, "Video Game violence does not contribute to crimes, although, it might be bad for people's morals, therefore, video game violence should not be encouraged though it shouldn't be discouraged either." This opinion tries to take a middle-of-the-road path with regards to this issue, and appears to be conciliatory to both sides. We would like to remind our readers that the opinions contained within the Opinion Section are the opinions of those we interview and are not necessarily the opinions of THE LAW OF THE TIMES, as we strive to provide the most non-biased legal information we can, thus we do not adopt a position, we provide facts.