Should marijuana be a medical option?

In 1972, the US Congress placed marijuana in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act because they considered it to have "no accepted medical use." Since then, 15 of 50 US states and DC have legalized the medical use of marijuana.Proponents of medical marijuana argue that it can be a safe and effective treatment for the symptoms of cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, pain, glaucoma, epilepsy, and other conditions. They cite dozens of peer-reviewed studies, prominent medical organizations, major government reports, and the use of marijuana as medicine throughout world history.Opponents of medical marijuana argue that it is too dangerous to use, lacks FDA-approval, and that various legal drugs make marijuana use unnecessary. They say marijuana is addictive, leads to harder drug use, interferes with fertility, impairs driving ability, and injures the lungs, immune system, and brain. They say that medical marijuana is a front for drug legalization and recreational use.

Dec.Should all Americans have the right to health care?

46.3 million people in the US were uninsured in 2008 according to the US Census Bureau. In 2007, health care expenditures totaled $2.2 trillion - 16.2% of the US economy. Health care is the largest industry in the US, employing more than 14 million people. Proponents of the right to health care argue that it would stop medical bankruptcies, improve public health, and reduce overall health care spending. They say that no one in the richest nation on earth should go without health care. A June 12-16, 2009 poll shows that 64% of Americans say health care should be a right.Opponents argue that using tax revenue to provide health care to all Americans amounts to socialism and would decrease the quality and availability of health care for those who work hard to get medical coverage. They say it is not the government's responsibility to guarantee health coverage.

Dec.Should Social Security be privatized?

The US Social Security program is intended to provide a safety net protecting American workers and their families in the event of retirement, disability, and early death. Moving Social Security benefits into private accounts is one proposal to prevent Social Security's predicted future financial shortfall. Privatization of Social Security would allow workers to control their own retirement money through personal investment accounts.Supporters of private accounts contend that retirees would have the freedom to invest their retirement money in the stock market as they wish, theoretically earning higher returns than with government-invested funds.Critics of privatizing Social Security argue that investing retirement money is complicated and risky because individuals can lose their retirement safety net through bad decisions.Since Social Security is an entitlement program and Congress can change the rules regarding benefit eligibility at any time, workers paying into the Social Security system do not have a right to receive Social Security benefits.



A good thing is:
When Social Security began in 1935, the contributions of 17 workers paid for the benefits of one retiree. In 2035 the estimated ratio will be 2.1 workers per beneficiary. Allowing individuals to contribute to their own private accounts may reduce future loss of money from fewer worker contributions.

A bad thing is:
Moving Social Security into private accounts would cause substantial reductions in traditional Social Security benefits. Privatization would, over the next 47 years, reduce benefit levels by as much as 44% below 2005 levels.