# data[].attributes.body
Share your essay with your classmates.

# data[].attributes.body
School uniforms have the potential to improve academic performance, decrease student misconduct, and lower crime rates at schools. Currently in the United States, most public schools do not require uniforms. Students come to school dressed however they like. This can create problems for students, teachers, and school administrators. Some students wear clothing that offends other students, some students dress in gang colors while other students are sent home because they are wearing clothing that is too revealing. By adopting school uniforms, all of these problems can be avoided.

One serious problem that school uniforms address is the difference between students from wealthy homes and students from poorer homes. Students from wealthy homes come to school dressed in expensive designer clothing whereas students from poorer homes attend school dressed in cheaper clothes. This can make students, especially middle-school aged students, extremely self-conscious. School uniforms erase the designer versus cheap clothing social stigma. According to research conducted by Schoolwear Association, 83% of teachers believe that school uniforms can reduce school bullying because children are dressed the same. (1) Moreover, teachers and school administrators advocate school uniforms because they help kids feel like they fit in. School uniforms can reduce the disparity between children who come to school with fewer resources than other children.

School uniforms have the potential to lower crime rates at school. In some inner-city neighborhoods, street gangs are a strong presence. Gangs identify their members through certain colors, clothing, and tattoos. School uniforms prevent students who identify with particular gangs to wear specific colors and clothing so gang insignia is no longer a problem and this creates less conflict between students who may identify with particular gangs. Additionally, the polo shirts and pants worn by students in uniform make it far less easy to conceal weapons than baggy sweatshirts and jeans. Not only do school uniforms cut down on violence, they help reduce theft. Since students wear the same uniform, designer clothing theft is a non-issue. School uniforms contribute to safer school environments.

In addition to eliminating disparities and contributing to a safer school environment, school uniforms can enhance academic performance. Principals and politicians like Hillary Clinton agree that when students are focused on their school work rather than their appearance, they are more focused. (2) Uniforms also make the morning routine flow more smoothly since children no longer have to think about what to wear. This means kids arrive to school on time with less stress. Finally, when students no longer have to worry about whether they look right or fit in, they can concentrate more on their school work. Improved academic achievement is a strong reason to advocate for school uniforms.

Opponents to school uniforms say that uniforms interfere with students’ freedom of expression and promote conformity. This argument does not recognize that kids would be free to wear whatever they like after school and on the weekends. As for promoting conformity, perhaps the reduced crime, improved academic performance, and equitable status students receive as a result of the uniform is worth a small bit of compromise. The vast majority of public schools in the United States do not require school uniforms. Academic performance has been declining in the United States for several decades. School uniforms are one step to creating a more globally competitive educational system.

(1), (2) MLA (8th ed.): ProCon.org. "School Uniforms ProCon.org." ProCon.org. 15 Nov. 2017, 11:00 a.m., school-uniforms.procon.org/

[Editor’s Note: The MLA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

# data[].attributes.headline
  Human Activity is Primarily Responsible for Climate Change                by Susi Salgueiro     The earth’s climate has been affected by human activity. Between 1901 and 2016 temperatures on earth have increased approximately 1.8F. Besides, over this period, atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) have notably increased. Overwhelming scientific consensus says human activity is primarily responsible for climate change. The specific type of CO2 that is increasing in the earth's atmosphere can be directly connected to human activity. The sun's natural activity cannot explain 20th century global warming. The discussion about climate change’s primary cause is vital to find a solution to this global problem.     Global warning, particularly the greenhouse effect, has been studied by scientists for a long time. The British physicist John Tyndall, in 1859, discovered thought experiments that the CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs the heat of the sun. (1) Since then, most scientific studies have converged to hold human activity as the main cause of this climate change. The study published in 2010 by Anderegg found that 97-98% of the largest climate research agrees with this statement. (2) Cook’s review of 2013 revealed that only 78 studies out of a total 11,944 peer-reviewed (0,7%) reject the position that humans are responsible for global warming. (3) Another survey in 2011 found 84% of scientists point out that human-induced global warming is occurring. (4)     The US National Academy of Sciences reported in 1977 that burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric CO2. This was associated with a rise in global temperatures. CO2, produced by burning fossil fuels, can be differentiated from natural CO2 because it has a specific isotopic ratio. (5) It is estimated that since 1751, 337 billion metric tons of CO2 have been released into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels and by cement production. Methane is responsible for about one-fifth of global warning since 1750, which is increasing in the atmosphere due to agriculture and fossil production. These gases, produced by humans, create a greenhouse effect that retains heat and cause global warning.    Climate change can have natural causes or it can be a consequence of human activities. Earth naturally passes through heating and cooling cycles. In view of the fact that it is possible to differentiate between them, it has been proven that those caused by human activity grew in a very high way, like the increase of CO2 after the Industrial Revolution. Of course, natural climate changes could never produce the current atmospheric CO2 levels. Scripps Institution of Oceanology quoted in 2013, “The extreme speed at which carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing is unprecedented”. (6) This can only mean the human activity is interfering  with climate temperature.     A considerable number of scientists, over a thousand, disagree that human activity is the main cause of global climate change, including former United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, UN IPCC. (7) Although the absolute number of scientists is high, the relative number is minimal compared to those who have the opposite opinion. In addition, a Purdue University study of 2012 pointed out that 47% opposing scientists credit an equivalence of responsibility between environment and human activity. (8) It is urgent to rethink consumption and sustainability for the health of our planet. Human activity is the most important factor for climate change.(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9) MLA (8th ed.): ProCon.org. "Climate Change Debate ProCon.org." ProCon.org. 1 Mar. 2018, 12:07 p.m., climatechange.procon.org/[Editor’s Note: The MLA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

# data[].attributes.subject
  Human Activity is Primarily Responsible for Climate Change                by Susi Salgueiro     The earth’s climate has been affected by human activity. Between 1901 and 2016 temperatures on earth have increased approximately 1.8F. Besides, over this period, atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) have notably increased. Overwhelming scientific consensus says human activity is primarily responsible for climate change. The specific type of CO2 that is increasing in the earth's atmosphere can be directly connected to human activity. The sun's natural activity cannot explain 20th century global warming. The discussion about climate change’s primary cause is vital to find a solution to this global problem.     Global warning, particularly the greenhouse effect, has been studied by scientists for a long time. The British physicist John Tyndall, in 1859, discovered thought experiments that the CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs the heat of the sun. (1) Since then, most scientific studies have converged to hold human activity as the main cause of this climate change. The study published in 2010 by Anderegg found that 97-98% of the largest climate research agrees with this statement. (2) Cook’s review of 2013 revealed that only 78 studies out of a total 11,944 peer-reviewed (0,7%) reject the position that humans are responsible for global warming. (3) Another survey in 2011 found 84% of scientists point out that human-induced global warming is occurring. (4)     The US National Academy of Sciences reported in 1977 that burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric CO2. This was associated with a rise in global temperatures. CO2, produced by burning fossil fuels, can be differentiated from natural CO2 because it has a specific isotopic ratio. (5) It is estimated that since 1751, 337 billion metric tons of CO2 have been released into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels and by cement production. Methane is responsible for about one-fifth of global warning since 1750, which is increasing in the atmosphere due to agriculture and fossil production. These gases, produced by humans, create a greenhouse effect that retains heat and cause global warning.    Climate change can have natural causes or it can be a consequence of human activities. Earth naturally passes through heating and cooling cycles. In view of the fact that it is possible to differentiate between them, it has been proven that those caused by human activity grew in a very high way, like the increase of CO2 after the Industrial Revolution. Of course, natural climate changes could never produce the current atmospheric CO2 levels. Scripps Institution of Oceanology quoted in 2013, “The extreme speed at which carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing is unprecedented”. (6) This can only mean the human activity is interfering  with climate temperature.     A considerable number of scientists, over a thousand, disagree that human activity is the main cause of global climate change, including former United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, UN IPCC. (7) Although the absolute number of scientists is high, the relative number is minimal compared to those who have the opposite opinion. In addition, a Purdue University study of 2012 pointed out that 47% opposing scientists credit an equivalence of responsibility between environment and human activity. (8) It is urgent to rethink consumption and sustainability for the health of our planet. Human activity is the most important factor for climate change.(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9) MLA (8th ed.): ProCon.org. "Climate Change Debate ProCon.org." ProCon.org. 1 Mar. 2018, 12:07 p.m., climatechange.procon.org/[Editor’s Note: The MLA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

# data[].attributes.body
Universal Basic Income (UBI) does not help the people out of poverty. Furthermore, it may cause some serious problems. UBI is far too expensive to proceed. Also, UBI removes the incentive of working. One of the requirements of UBI is that the individual’s revenue is lower than the resident average minimum revenue amount. The investigation of how much a person is being paid is a heavy job for the government. In addition, some people would rather stay at home without working to meet the requirement of the UBI. On the other hand, people may quit their jobs, since they can get money from UBI. UBI is far too expensive, it encourages the people to lazy, and it does not help the people out of poverty.

First, the UBI removes the people’s incentive to work. I have a story that my father told me. My father is an experienced traveler. One spring, he traveled to a province where the economy relies on the agriculture. What astonished him was almost all the people living there didn’t work during the busy farming season. Some farmers revealed the reason was they would be paid only slightly less from UBI than the people who work hard. On the other hand, staying at home without being paid is the necessary condition to meet the requirements of UBI. Therefore, these farmers had no motivation to work at all since they are going to be paid from UBI. When they were asked how their lives were going to be, the reply was, "Our life depends on how much UBI we can get." That removes the uncertainty from their life. Furthermore, these lazy bones mocked others who were working hard. "It is stupid to work hard since UBI will pay us almost the same money." It is really unfair to those people who work hard. The UBI cut down the motivation for people to go to work and encourages people to be lazy.

Secondly, the UBI is far too expensive and is not efficient. To estimate who qualifies for UBI, the government has to spend a lot of money to investigate. In the meantime, more expenses will be paid for the staff who take care of UBI. The more policies needed to proceed, the lower the efficiency of the UBI is. Also, the UBI takes up a large budget which should be used in other areas, resulting in the increase of the deficit. When the people who need the UBI finally get paid, the cost behind the UBI itself may be doubled. In a September. 14, 2016 parliamentary debate, the UK Minister for Employment, Damian Hinds, rejected the idea of UBI, saying that the estimated implementation costs ranging from £8.2 billion - £160 billion ($10.8 billion - $211 billion USD) are "clearly unaffordable." (1) Therefore, the UBI is far too expensive and is not efficient for any sides involved.

Furthermore, the UBI may result in some other problems if someone regards the income as a matter of course. What if one day the UBI stops? Protests and parades would be held. The government would have to spend more money to tidy up the mess caused by UBI. Last but not least, the UBI takes money from the poor and gives it to everyone, increasing poverty and depriving the poor of needed targeted support. Poor people face a variety of hardships that are addressed with existing anti-poverty measures such as food stamps, medical aid, and child assistance programs. UBI programs often use funds targeting the poor for distribution to everyone in society. According to Robert Greenstein, President of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “if you take the dollars targeted on people in the bottom fifth or two-fifths of the population and convert them to universal payments to people all the way up the income scale, you're redistributing income upward. That would increase poverty and inequality rather than reduce them."(2) This discourages these people to find new jobs to start their new life. So these serious problems caused by UBI are far more than people expect.

Some people believe UBI reduces poverty and income inequality. But in my opinion, the UBI removes the incentive to work, and encourages people to be lazy. The UBI itself is not efficient and is far too expensive to proceed with, which results in a lot of waste. The UBI also causes plenty of unexpected problems. So, cutting down the UBI and increasing the minimum wage is a better way to help the people out of the poverty and lead to better job growth.

(1), (2)MLA (8th ed.):ProCon.org. "Universal Basic Income - Top 3 Pros and Cons." ProCon.org. 18 Sep. 2017, 11:04 a.m., www.procon.org/headline.php?headlineID=005363
[Editor’s Note: The MLA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

# data[].attributes.body
I read your pesuasive essay, and I think it is very well written. This subject interests me. In my opinion, it should interest everyone. It is a citizenship act to worry about living and building a just society. You were very convincing in the third paragraph, that the UBI is too expensive and not efficient. In Brazil, these populist measures are used by politicians only to win votes. I agree with you, they are not effective. I believe that other forms of support and incentives should be discussed and implemented to provide aid and inclusion.
Susi.

# data[].attributes.body
Is Sexual Orientation a Matter of Choice?

By Pilar Schiocchet

It is common to hear discussions or read news about sexual orientation and gender these days, especially among teenagers and young adults. Many people may think these choices are related to people trying to be different or to shake up the establishment. This is possibly true in some cases, but not in all of them. Some scientific studies show that sexual orientation, as well as gender, is determined by genetics, hormones and environmental factors that influence a person’s sexual orientation. These factors will determine if a person’s sexual orientation will differ from their biological gender or not. In those cases, being homosexual, lesbian or transgender is not a question of choice, but just the way they are made.

Genetic studies are being conducted to help us understand how our biology can influence our choices or behaviors and how the environment is related in these cases. It is known that certain types of cancer are imprinted in our DNA, but it is not a certainty that we are going to have these types of cancer. It will depend on our environment. This rule is valid to many types of genetic diseases, allergies and mental illnesses. It is even valid for some behaviors that we have. It is common to hear people saying that some facial expressions or emotional reactions that we have resemble our parents or some relative. If genes and environment can have this much influence in peoples’ lives in so many ways, why it is so hard to believe that sexual orientation can be one of these cases?

Obviously, genetics are not responsible for all things that happen to a person, but for those which this is true, it is not a choice. For these people, there is no way they can be “normal”. They cannot be “cured” because they are not sick. They do not need to be forgiven because it should be no sin to be the way they are. Thinking carefully about this, it is harder for someone to be gay, even though we live in a modern society where people say they do not discriminate. We still hear that some neighborhoods are gay. It is not said out loud, but the prejudice is there. All this is understandable if we look back and see how society used to be in the past. Using a historical perspective, maybe we can try to do things better not only for us, but for everybody around us.

Being different from the majority of the society is never an easy choice. In fact, it is really hard to go against the status quo. It takes courage, it takes resilience and sometimes it costs your family or your life. So, if a person decides to be openly gay, despite all the discrimination, it is not only because they want to cause commotion or they are being rebellious. It is much more than that. It is so much more that they risk all their lifestyle just to be able to stop faking themselves. As one gay men explains:

“In fact, I tried my damnedest to not be gay. There is really no way for me to explain how badly it sucked to grow up queer in small-town Wisconsin in the '80s. If I could have chosen to be straight, I would have. And I did try. I spent my study hall periods in ninth grade writing letters to God asking him to make me straight. I spent my nights lying awake, trying with every ounce of my being to convince Jesus to materialize at the foot of my twin bed and take my sick queer desires into his sacred pink heart, where they'd be vanquished and I could finally date a cheerleader and be just like every other guy in my school. When, after I'd been trying for months, it didn't happen, I spent the rest of my freshmen year considering the different ways I could kill myself…” (1)

Many people disagree with the studies and opinions about the biological side of homosexuality, saying that science has not proven its existence yet. Well, science cannot prove how some cancers happen, why some people become allergic at some point in life, or why we sometimes have the same facial expression as our moms when we are happy. We do not know the triggers. Science does not either. It does not mean they do not exist. Other peoples’ sexual orientation should be the least of our problems. Understanding and accepting others, regardless of their differences, is the key to our evolution as human beings.

(1), MLA (8th ed.): ProCon.org. "Is Sexual Orientation Determined at Birth?" ProCon.org. 31 Aug. 2017, 9:45 a.m., borngay.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001335

[Editor’s Note: The MLA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

# data[].attributes.body
I read your essay and I couldn't agree more with you. Global Warming is a real problem and we all should be concerned about it. Even tough I think it's an issue for all of us, I feel that government must be involved and continue to sponsor measures and laws in order to change the way countries and business run their activities. Of course each one of us can actively participate, but the main policies should be thought and implemented in a way that big changes can be achieved within the years. We see a lot of policies and incentives like that here in California, which is great. Let's hope it spreads and reach as many countries and business as possible.
Pilar

# data[].attributes.headline
Abortion is Not the Right ChoiceBy Quy Nguyen              Abortion is a tough discussion from many points of view and points of morality. Whether abortion is legal or not, it is truly an elimination of a human life. I believe most women have a desire to be a mother during their lifetime. So why would a woman choose which one of her children should be nurtured and which one should be killed? Abortion should not be a choice based on the human moral values. 	Killing an innocent baby is wrong because life begins at conception. It is immoral to kill a fetus simply because a woman chooses an irresponsible lifestyle. She is heartless to ruin her baby’s chance at life because she does not want to be a mother at that time. I feel so lucky that my mother, who was in a bad time of her life, had continued her pregnancy to give me a life. How horrible it would be to imagine if my mom had made the decision to kill me while she was carrying me! 	A woman needs to take responsibility for her sexual activity to have a healthy and long life. Therefore, she should prevent unwanted pregnancy if she knows having a child may affect her career opportunities or may not fit her lifestyle. Moreover, she should not use abortion as a way of contraception. Abortion causes many bad consequences for a woman as long as she lives. Adult women who undergo abortion may increase their risk of a sub-subsequent depression (1), the risk of death, and the risk of infertility or miscarrying in the future (2). 	In addition, abortion will reduce the number of adoptive babies. Lots of people who are infertile wish to be parents and have a hard time getting children to adopt. “There are up to 36 couples waiting for every one baby placed for adoption” (3). When parenting a child is simply not an option for a woman and her partner, the good choice is adoption not abortion. Her baby may have a chance to grow up happily with adoptive parents, who are willing to give her unwanted child an unconditional love care. Carrying the pregnancy to full term and then giving up the baby for adoption will save a woman from grief and guilt and help people who cannot have children to be parents.	Although abortion is not the best option in most cases, it may be the best choice if the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest. It also may be a choice if the health of the mother or the fetus is at risk. Abortion is still a hard decision to make in these cases, but it is understandable. In my opinion, the question of abortion is a moral question, not a question of a person’s rights. Abortion should not be a choice if the woman is responsible. If she doesn’t want to be a mother, she needs to prevent pregnancy. In case the contraception fails, she should give up her unwanted baby for adoption instead of killing an innocent baby. Life should be cherished, not be eliminated.	Preferences:(1) ProCon.org. "Abortion ProCon.org." ProCon.org. 17 May 2017, 9:14 a.m., abortion.procon.org/ (2)http://afterabortion.org/2011/abortion-risks-a-list-of-major-psychological-complications-related-to-abortion/(2)http://afterabortion.org/1990/abortion-complications/https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mirah-riben/abortion-adoption-and-the_b_8795028.html(3)http://www.lifenews.com/2012/07/09/thirty-six-couples-wait-for-every-one-baby-who-is-adopted/(3)https://adoption-for-my-baby.com/how-to/adoption-vs-abortion-vs-parenting/ 

# data[].attributes.subject
Abortion is Not the Right ChoiceBy Quy Nguyen              Abortion is a tough discussion from many points of view and points of morality. Whether abortion is legal or not, it is truly an elimination of a human life. I believe most women have a desire to be a mother during their lifetime. So why would a woman choose which one of her children should be nurtured and which one should be killed? Abortion should not be a choice based on the human moral values. 	Killing an innocent baby is wrong because life begins at conception. It is immoral to kill a fetus simply because a woman chooses an irresponsible lifestyle. She is heartless to ruin her baby’s chance at life because she does not want to be a mother at that time. I feel so lucky that my mother, who was in a bad time of her life, had continued her pregnancy to give me a life. How horrible it would be to imagine if my mom had made the decision to kill me while she was carrying me! 	A woman needs to take responsibility for her sexual activity to have a healthy and long life. Therefore, she should prevent unwanted pregnancy if she knows having a child may affect her career opportunities or may not fit her lifestyle. Moreover, she should not use abortion as a way of contraception. Abortion causes many bad consequences for a woman as long as she lives. Adult women who undergo abortion may increase their risk of a sub-subsequent depression (1), the risk of death, and the risk of infertility or miscarrying in the future (2). 	In addition, abortion will reduce the number of adoptive babies. Lots of people who are infertile wish to be parents and have a hard time getting children to adopt. “There are up to 36 couples waiting for every one baby placed for adoption” (3). When parenting a child is simply not an option for a woman and her partner, the good choice is adoption not abortion. Her baby may have a chance to grow up happily with adoptive parents, who are willing to give her unwanted child an unconditional love care. Carrying the pregnancy to full term and then giving up the baby for adoption will save a woman from grief and guilt and help people who cannot have children to be parents.	Although abortion is not the best option in most cases, it may be the best choice if the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest. It also may be a choice if the health of the mother or the fetus is at risk. Abortion is still a hard decision to make in these cases, but it is understandable. In my opinion, the question of abortion is a moral question, not a question of a person’s rights. Abortion should not be a choice if the woman is responsible. If she doesn’t want to be a mother, she needs to prevent pregnancy. In case the contraception fails, she should give up her unwanted baby for adoption instead of killing an innocent baby. Life should be cherished, not be eliminated.	Preferences:(1) ProCon.org. "Abortion ProCon.org." ProCon.org. 17 May 2017, 9:14 a.m., abortion.procon.org/ (2)http://afterabortion.org/2011/abortion-risks-a-list-of-major-psychological-complications-related-to-abortion/(2)http://afterabortion.org/1990/abortion-complications/https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mirah-riben/abortion-adoption-and-the_b_8795028.html(3)http://www.lifenews.com/2012/07/09/thirty-six-couples-wait-for-every-one-baby-who-is-adopted/(3)https://adoption-for-my-baby.com/how-to/adoption-vs-abortion-vs-parenting/ 

# data[].attributes.body
by Filippo Gandini

The use of recreational marijuana should be legalized in every country because it boosts the economy, it results in decreased teen use and finally the traffic security may even improve. Many people think that having easy access to marijuana is a bad idea but in most cases they have only a bias on this issue and they don’t spend enough time to make an informed opinion on this matter.

This is a hot topic in the USA since the State of California has legalized recreational marijuana on January 1st of this year. Other States or Countries should consider seriously to do the same because the advantages of this decision outweigh the disadvantages.

In the first place, the economy is boosted by the legalization. In Colorado, as an example, the purchases of marijuana give three times more tax revenue than alcohol (1). Also, it has been calculated that in 2016 the legal marijuana industry generated $7.2 billion in economic activity, and added millions of dollars in federal taxes (2). Likewise, for every dollar spent in the marijuana system, between $2.13 and $2.40 in economic activity is generated (3). This can be explained by the fact that an authorized shop sells many items to the customers, not only marijuana; in addition, the shop itself must be in good shape and it has also to be under surveillance to obey the law. In other words, to enjoy legalized marijuana many other products and services have to be paid, so overall the economy improves.

Second, legalizing marijuana results in decreased teen use. An important study of the Centers for Disease Control found that past-year marijuana use decreased by 17%, from 15.8% in 2002 to 13.1% in 2014, among US kids ages 12 to 17 (4). Also, according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, Colorado’s teens between 12 and 17 years old reported a nearly 12% drop in marijuana use just two years after adult use was legalized (5). Furthermore, the researchers at the Washington University School of Medicine found that "the rates of marijuana use by young people are falling despite the fact more US states are legalizing, or decriminalizing marijuana use and the number of adults using the drug has increased"(6). Therefore there is strong statistical evidence that legalized marijuana results in lower usage by teenagers.

Finally traffic deaths and arrests for DUIs do not increase where marijuana is legal and it may even decrease. Benjamin Hansen, an economics professor at the University of Oregon at Eugene who studied traffic deaths post-medical marijuana legalization, stated that "Public safety doesn't decrease with increased access to marijuana, rather it improves." In detail, in 2016 Reuters reported that traffic deaths dropped 11% on average in states that have legalized medical marijuana (7). Similarly, other studies show that drivers under the influence of marijuana tend to be more cautious and take fewer risks than drunk drivers, such as making fewer lane changes and reducing speed (8),(9). Thus traffic safety doesn’t get worse and surprisingly may even improve.

Opponents of legalizing recreational marijuana say that it creates steep costs for society and taxpayers that far outweigh its tax revenues. They imagine a gloom and doom scenario made of increased hospital visits and addiction treatments, environmental damages, augmented crime, workplace accidents, and lost productivity. In my opinion this argument is weak because it doesn’t take into account the pre-emptive actions made by the police and other security officers and the penalty system stated by the law. Probably right after the legalization there could be a period with more accidents, but this could be only a short time since all the study and research done so far show a different story. In summary, I think there is enough scientific and economic evidence to support the marijuana legalization in every State of the Union, with the result of a stronger economy, healthier teenagers and safer traffic condition.

(1)          Marijuana Policy Group, "The Economic Impact of Marijuana Legalization in Colorado," mjpolicygroup.com, Oct. 2016

(2)          Earl Blumenauer, "The Path Forward: Rethinking Federal Policy on Marijuana, " blumenauer.house.gov, 2017-2018

(3)          Alan Pyke, "Marijuana's $2.4 Billion Impact in Colorado Is a Lesson for 5 States Considering Legalization," thinkprogress.org, Oct. 28, 2016

(4)          Alejandro Azofeifa, et al., "National Estimates of Marijuana Use and Related Indicators - National Survey on Drug Use and Health, United States, 2002–2014," cdc.gov, Sep. 2, 2016

(5)          Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, "National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Comparison of 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 Population Percentages," samhsa.gov (accessed Jan. 8, 2018)

(6)          Jim Dryden, "As More States Legalize Marijuana, Adolescents' Problems with Pot Decline," wustl.edu, May 24, 2016

(7)          Ronnie Cohen, "After States Legalized Medical Marijuana, Traffic Deaths Fell," reuters.com, Dec. 28, 2016

(8)          D. Mark Anderson and Daniel I. Rees, "The Legalization of Recreational Marijuana: How Likely Is the Worst-Case Scenario?," ist.psu.edu (accessed Jan. 8, 2018)

(9)          NORML, "Marijuana and Psychomotor Impairment," norml.org (accessed Feb. 5, 2018)

# data[].attributes.body
(9)          NORML, "Marijuana and Psychomotor Impairment," norml.org (accessed Feb. 5, 2018)