Step Back into the Past by Bruce He

Slavery! Misery! Torture! The thought of empires and colonies usually evokes images of oppressed slaves toiling for foreign autocrats, of states that are the costly, impractical contrivances of corrupt profiteers. Are these notions true? No! These notions are absolutely fictitious and incorrect. The policy of creating an empire is and remains a fail-proof way for any nation to gain prosperity. Every nation that has embarked on the path of empire building and colonization has invariably become the most economically developed and the most politically influential in the world. Empires and colonies allow countries to gain access to markets, strategic routes, and resources, allowing great commercial expansion. Empires also create an effective means of defending oneself from hostile enemies, providing an effective defence system. They are, as one can see truly beneficial to countries. Therefore, it is in the best interests of the people for the government to adopt a policy aimed at creating colonies and an empire as it will greatly benefit the national economy by opening up resources, and markets, create an effective defence network, and allow the accumulation of greater political influence in international diplomacy.

A policy of imperialism will undoubtedly bring economic benefits which will be greatly welcomed in today's time of financial turmoil. Colonizing areas would allow access to vast amounts of natural resources and open up new markets and commercial trade routes. Various areas of the world have abundant stocks of certain commodities or resources. If these areas could be colonized, they would give the country access to these resources. That would allow a profitable export industry to be developed, bringing in revenue while at the same time promoting self-sufficiency. Various colonizing experiments in the pasts have proven resource exploitation in colonies is a profitable and beneficial enterprise. For example, according to J.M. Roberts (2013) the former Spanish empire received 16000 tons of silver and 15 tons of gold yearly (or about 17 million dollars then) from its gold and silver mines in its American colonies. A large fraction of this was used to finance the government's projects, providing an example of how colonies could finance the budgets of governments. Resource was not limited to Spain, however. According to Roberts the Dutch, for example, established a valuable spice monopoly in the East Indies, and the colonies in the East Indies produced tons of valuable sugar. These all prove that colonies are extremely important producers of commodities.

Colonies also allow one to control trade routes and thus different markets in the world. Colonies and territories situated at major trade intersections and travel routes will bring in enormous profits as well as revenue through tolls. In addition, controlling these routes would ensure that businesses and merchants from the home country would have a reliable passage and be free of the hassles associated with passing through foreign land as well as potential foreign hostility or instability. The advantages of controlling such trade routes could be evidenced in the Ottoman empire of Turkey. According to Karen Farrington (2002) The Ottoman Empire, which controlled all trade routes leading from Eastern Asia to Europe reaped huge gains due to their possession of the trade routes before subsequently declining partly because of the discovery and subsequent possession of alternative trade routes leading to Asia by the Europeans, who as a result became wealthy. This demonstrates the advantages of obtaining one's own trade routes instead of becoming reliant on the costly and unpredictable routes provided by foreign nations. As one can see overall, colonies have a great amount of economic benefits, benefits that everyone needs during the modern world of financial upheaval and bursting budgets.

Not only does imperialism bring economic stability, it also produces security. Colonies and dependencies form extremely successful defence networks that help protect the empire and national interests. A system of colonies has two main benefits in the area of defence: it provides troops, production, etc. to supplement the war efforts of its home country, and it provides a network of strategic bases. The former advantage is often ignored as there is a prevailing attitude that colonies are home to rebellious populations, with the continual citing and re-citing the American War of Independence being used by opponents. However, contrary to that, colonies actually provide valuable wartime assistance. In World War I for example, according to H.P. Willmott (2003) at least 200000 French colonial troops from Northern Africa and 163000 troops from West Africa served in Europe, while at least 500000 colonials worked in munitions factories. Similarly, the British fielded at least 1168809 soldiers from dominions such as Canada and Australia as well as 241000 soldiers from India and 244000 South African soldiers. Colonies are key allies during wartime that send valuable assistance, and are not full of rebels.

 Colonies also serve as bases around the world that can be used to protect the interests of the home country. Colonies allow a country to establish a presence throughout the globe, and allow forces to be placed around the world to defend national interests. These bases can prove to be extremely important when national interests are threatened. In World War II, according to R.G. Grant (2008) the German battleship Bismarck, intended to raid Atlantic commerce was disabled by a naval force from Gibraltar, a British dependency used as a naval base during the war. Gibraltar also kept lines to the Mediterranean open, clear proof of the strategic value of colonies. Since colonies greatly assist the defence efforts of their home country and are valuable strategic assets, they are an invaluable defence network.

As a result of the numerous economic and military benefits derived from colonialism and imperialism gives countries an increased diplomatic influence in the world. Firstly, the economic and military power gained from a colonial and imperial policy aforementioned in the above paragraphs would allow the nation to influence the economy and businesses of the world as well as militarily intervene on matters in the world. Secondly, the strategic areas controlled by colonies would also grant the state extraordinary influence. By controlling the export of commodities and the passage of ships, vehicles, and goods through colonial regions, colonies would allow the state to wield enormous power, allowing it to pressure other states through threatening to close down the routes and halt exports. This influence is highly important, as it allows the state to protect its interests and prevents other nations from infringing upon its rights or acting in a way that is not to the interests of the state. In addition, it allows the nation to influence international policies and have greater say in what the international community is doing. Colonies in addition maintain the interests of the state abroad, and allow it to have influence in all regions of the globe instead of being limited to particularly one region. There are various examples of empires that have exercised great diplomatic influence; envoys of the Roman republic (then reaching empire size) were able to force another state occupying Egypt to evacuate by threatening the sheer power of Rome in 168 BC according to Flower (2004). The influence granted by colonies and empires, as it can be seen greatly helps the maintenance of national interests, making empires and colonies hugely important.

There are some who will oppose the policy of empires and colonies with the following two points: that the establishment of colonies and empires involves enslaving large numbers of people and that colonies are too costly to maintain. The former argument relies on the fact that numerous empires in history have enslaved or oppressed people. However, empires or colonies are not inherently slaving machines. The enslavement and oppression of people has to do more with the prevailing social attitudes and the outdated philosophy of "racial superiority" (people, even those campaigning against colonial cruelty believed in the Aristotelean philosophy that some races were inherently "slaves"according to J.M. Roberts) instead of the policy of colonialists. Colonies could be given some level of autonomy such as in the case of the British dominions and people given freedom; slavery is not an essential part of empires. As for the cost issue, that can be refuted when one sees the economic advantages of colonies and the profits generated which is discussed in the first paragraph, showing quite well that colonies can finance themselves instead of being a financial burden.

In the light of the evidence, it is clear that a network of colonies and dependencies would greatly aid the state. Such colonies boost the economy, defend national interests, and give the nation greater say in the affairs of the world. The resources provided by colonies, as well as the trade & travel routes, markets, and economies they provide should not be refused in this time of economic uncertainty. The military advantages of are similarly great: empires and their colonies allow a nation to protect its interests in every region of the world and provide defence forces to supplement those of the home country. The accumulated power associated with empires gives more voice to the diplomats of the empire, allowing a country to acquire more influence. With these advantages, one can easily conclude that empires are a great asset that enriches countries and protects them. Therefore the state is well advised to create an empire. There are two options now: one is to refuse imperialism and plunge into decline and ignominy; the other one is build an empire and enter a new age of prosperity.

Combating the Floods

By: Gina Yang

Writing Grade 9-10

“We’re struggling to keep things like the TTC up and running and hospitals up and running,” Haines said on CP24 in Toronto. The July 8, 2013 storm ranks as the most costly natural disaster in the province's history, resulting in over 850 million dollars in property damage, according to CBC news. Despite this, not much effort has been made to deal with the infrastructural problems that led to the extensive flooding that caused the bulk of the damage. 


Although some question the effectiveness of sewage and drainage system upgrades, believing that they'll only serve to increase the already enormous debt held by the city, they can help to alleviate future flood damage as well as improve the functionality of the city during intense storms. Improving Toronto’s drainage and sewage system infrastructure would prevent home and road flooding, resulting in lower water damage costs as well as smoother transportation in the city.

The record breaking downfall of rain caused major sewerage lines to be backed up which resulted in thousands of flooded basements. By July 26, 2013, about 4500 calls had been made to Toronto Water regarding flooded basements. 

“Tanya Morgado, who commutes from Mississauga, Ont., to downtown Toronto, chose to focus on her flooded basement instead of trying to make her way into work. When the 25-year-old got home on Monday night, she ran downstairs — in the dark due to a loss of power — to find muddy water seeping in and rising at an alarming rate. At its highest point, Morgado estimated about 45 centimetres of water covered her carpeted basement floors, rising higher than the electric sockets in the walls.” – National Post.


Currently, according to the Huffington Post, insurers warned that consumer’s insurance bill may rise due to the 850 million dollars in damage as a consequence, strengthening the sewerage system would save people lots of money seeing that home damage would be reduced.

The intense flooding caused by the storm resulted in the closure of many roads and highways, including the Don Valley Parkway. In addition, approximately 1400 GO transit passengers were stuck in the trains for seven hours before being rescued. Moreover, sinkholes were created from the heavy downpour, creating further complications for travelling. CBC news reports that it could cost 8 million dollars for a city to repair all its sinkholes from flooding. Therefore, fixing sewers would not only save money in the future, but it will save people time on their commute and ensure their safety in intense storms.

Although there are numerous solutions, the most straightforward and effective choice would be to simply bring back underground rivers. These underground rivers are designed to relieve stress on the drainage in times on high water traffic. Yet, this idea is outdated and clearly cannot manage the heavy precipitation as shown from July 2013. 


Michael Cook, a graduate student in landscape architecture at the University of Toronto who has been exploring sewer systems around the GTA for the past decade, is championing an idea to ease the strain on the storm sewer system: prevent rain from entering the sewers in the first place. “One way to do this,” he said, “is to restore buried rivers and creeks, a practice known as ‘daylighting’ that is gaining traction in cities around the world.”- The Globe and Mail. Daylighting will not only help to alleviate stress from the sewage and drainage systems, it will also make Toronto a more environmentally friendly city. This system has also been demonstrated to work in other major cities around the world. When the city of Seoul spent 384 million dollars to restored six kilometres of the Cheonggyecheon stream, air and noise pollution were reduced and birds, fish and insect came back to the area.

Spending over 900 million dollars to improve Toronto’s infrastructure, specifically focusing on drainage and sewage systems would be ideal to Torontonians. Using the money to repair the city and to introduce daylighting would reduce home and road damage in future storms. Commuting during storms will be more efficient, not as many basements would be affected by flooding and the city will become more eco-friendly. Overall, this investment will strengthen Toronto for the future.

The Next Step in Human Evolution

 by Daniel Qi Writing grade 9-10 class

  

Every one in six thousand five hundred babies are born with a serious mitochondrial disorder. This common issue, a DNA defect in the mitochondria (which causes many chronic diseases), can be solved through genetic engineering. Human genetic engineering is the key to the future of human evolution as children can be genetically engineered to save siblings from fatal diseases, modified to be more intelligent and have stronger immune systems, and most importantly, family related illnesses such as mitochondrial defects can be eliminated.         

           

There are babies who are referred to as the "saviour sibling". These are children who are genetically engineered to provide matching tissues to help cure an elder sibling who is ill. For instance, Zain Hashmi, a six-year-old boy with a fatal genetic blood disorder, who's only chance is a bone marrow transplant from a common blood type sibling. His mother's eggs were tested to find one that is suitable to save Zain. His new baby brother saved Zain's life and his parents were grateful. Not all cases however have a happy ending. Many people argue about the ethical issues of "saviour siblings". On the other hand, the pros of this type of genetic modification out weighs the cons. Many fatal and chronic diseases can be greatly slowed or cured entirely.

           

Even healthy children can benefit from this technology through the testing of the mother's eggs for the best child. Many diseases can be screened not to happen in the first place, in a process called IVF-ET (In Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer). Parents can select a child that will not contract a family related illness such as heart disease. Children may be selected for physical traits such as eye or hair colour. The most important idea is that children can be selected to have a strong immunity to disease and become very intelligent. Every parent wants the best for their child and this would allow them to give their child a more happy life. Some people say it's not safe to allow the practice right now and they are right. Selective traits are practiced on animals to make sure there would be no issues later in humans.

           

One type of genetic engineering already proven to be possible is the mitochondrial transfer. This practice essentially allows for a three parent child, where the mother's defective mitochondrial DNA is replaced with DNA from a donor. In late April of this year, it was confirmed that the team at the Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science of St. Barnabas has successfully produced 30 babies through this process. These transfers allow the parents to avoid passing these genetic defects to their child. Common mitochondrial diseases may cause diabetes, degeneration of nerves, or even blindness. Once the cause of the disease is found to be a mitochondrial genetic disorder it's too late, the child would have to live with the disease forever as the DNA is locked in their cells. 

This process has been tested to work on macaque monkeys; in 2009, Dr. Mitalipov and his researchers took eggs from two different populations (one from India, another from China). They transferred a foreign nucleus to the egg. The experiment's results were ground breaking; the infant monkeys were completely healthy even with DNA from two different populations of monkeys. "The monkey model is useful in understanding the early embryonic development, where the monkey can stand in for the human," says DR. Behringer a geneticist at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Although yet to be proven to work with humans, it will most likely work in the near future.

           

In the end, genetic defects plague the human population and this is the best solution for now. Genetic engineering is important to our evolutionary future, the fatal diseases we have can be cured and future generations can be genetically modified to be superior to humans today. The world is a harsh place and humans are far from perfect. With genetic defects that are fatal, our best solution is staring us in the face. Our technology is now almost to the point where we can control the course of our evolution, so why should we pass on a chance to improve ourselves?

Single-Sex Education: an Improvement?

By: Linda Wu

writing Grade 9-10

"Rigorous educational research has found that, contrary to popular belief, single-sex education does not produce better achievement outcomes compared to coeducation," writes Rebecca Bigler and Lise Eliot, authors of The Pseudoscience of Single-Sex Schooling. Also, while a child's education may be one of single-sex, the world he or she will continue in would not be. Knowing that, it is essential to have these teamwork skills between sexes developed at a young age; in a coeducational environment. Although single-sex schools in America are popular, it can do more harm than good, creating a lack of communication which can undermine potential partnerships with the opposite sex in a work environment, while establishing very little differences in learning styles between both genders, and promoting gender stereotypes.

Growing up in a single-sex environment at school, where most relationships with people are established, will not exercise healthy interactions between sexes needed in the real world. "Single-sex education reduces boys’ and girls’ opportunities to work together and learn from each other. These integrated interactions are known to be the most effective method for improving relations among groups of people. Girls may help boys learn better self control; boys may coax greater energy and challenge out of girls," writes R. S Bigler and L. S Liben on the American Council for Coeducational Schooling website. Even though some believe that students in a single-sex environment learn better without distractions from the opposite sex, this has not actually been proven true, according to Tim Barribeau's article at io9.com. Basically, students will have to learn how to work with the opposite sex sooner or later in life, and it would be agreeable to first practice that skill at a young age.

Realistically, the learning styles between both genders vary only slightly. Although one of the many reasons parents enroll their child in a single-sex school is because boys and girls learn differently, a study conducted in 2007 by the National Institute of Mental Health states that they found very little difference between the male and female adolescent brain when it came to learning styles. With this information, it is apparent that coeducation will be as beneficial to a specific gender's learning style just as single-sex education.

Finally, single-sex education reinforces gender stereotypes. A recent study from the University of Chicago Urban Education Institute concludes that: “Evidence is more clear that sex segregation increases gender stereotyping and legitimizes institutionalized sexism." Fundamentally, this is saying that since students are working in an environment without the presence of the opposite sex, stereotypes can easily flourish without the students experiencing what the opposite sex is really like firsthand. In 2011, a research conducted at Arizona State University showed that when boys and girls spend time apart, they do not learn from each other and negative stereotypes are reinforced. This can be proven by Lynn Liben's research, showing that when both genders are separated for two weeks, students "played less with children of the opposite sex and held traditional stereotypical gender views."

In conclusion, coeducation is more beneficial to a student's learning and growth because it exposes students to all kinds of experiences with the opposite sex, such as working together on a project and developing friendships, rather than shielding them from social skills they will need later to succeed in life. Even though these schools are now more popular, they do create a barrier of communication between sexes which may lead to a lack of communication which can conflict future partnerships in the work area with the opposite sex, while establishing very little differences in learning styles between both genders, and reinforcing gender stereotypes. Put simply: “Men and women have to get along. They need practice doing this and a co-ed education allows them to practice this.” - Chris Blake.

All about Face-to-Face Communication

By Vivian Li

Writing grade 9-10 class

On a brisk afternoon, Sharon exchanged text messages with her daughter who left home for three years and was studying in college. They chatted back and forth, and her daughter replied with positive statements followed by a big smile and a heart. Sharon was glad that her daughter seemed to be living happily alone. Her daughter committed suicide later that night. It came to light that Sharon’s daughter had been showing signs of depression for a long time. 

This story tells us about the lack of reality in electronic communication. Moreover, social media has led the younger generation today to ignore face-to-face communication causing them to be deficient of interpersonal communication skills. In order for youths not to be face-to-face communication outcasts, they are encouraged to go outside and interact because face-to face communication prevents misunderstandings of messages, creates more immediacy of the conversation and enhances the building of a strong relationship.

To begin with, although electronic communication saves the time for setting up a meeting, messages will possibly be misunderstood between exchanging texts. Dr. Albert Mehrabian, author of Silent Messages, found that only 7% of day to day communication is based on written or verbal word, the other 93% is based on nonverbal body language. Indeed, nonverbal communications such as tone, facial expression or body language convey the message in a greater meaning than verbal expression does. When people are face to face, they can observe each other’s reactions. For example, when observing someone who frequently checks his or her watch or averts eye contact, we can infer that he or she is impatient. In addition, back and forth texts sending may be confusing when someone is trying to make a decision. 

Cognitive psychologist Fred Conrad says that people are more likely to disclose sensitive information via text messages than through face-to-face communication. Certainly, responses through electronic communication may not be genuine; what is written on the text might be very different from what the sender is truly feeling. It is only when we can hear a tone of voice or see eye contact that we can decide whether the person means it or not. Therefore, with face-to-face communication, the message is less likely to be misinterpreted.

Furthermore, face-to-face communication makes the action of giving and receiving messages happen right away. A study from Kaiser Family Foundation found out that teenagers from eight to eighteen spend more than ten hours a day on average using social media. Surely, emails and texts can take from a few seconds to a few minutes to be received and the conversation can be dragged on and on. Compared to the face-to-face communication, the effect happens at once—speakers speak, listeners listen and react. The give-and-receive process does not require any waiting time and the results come out immediately. 

On the other hand, too many exchanges of text are not as efficient as face-to-face communication. Conversation can be carried on swiftly through face-to-face communication and any doubt regarding the topic can be resolved immediately. Also, while two people are texting online, they might be replying to the message and also doing other tasks, thus taking time to reply. Therefore, face-to-face communication saves people lots of time to have an efficient conversation.

Eventually, face-to-face communication can build a stronger bond between people. With someone who we already have an established relationship, an email of greetings will be sufficient; but for someone we meet for the first time, a meeting in person is necessary to establish a lasting relationship. The reason for a face-to-face communication to have a great effect on establishing relationships is the personal touch. Personal touch gives an impression of warmth and caring between personal bonds. DePauw University psychologist Matthew says, "With the face and voice, in general we can identify just one or two positive signals that are not confused with each other, but it seems instead that touch is a much more nuanced, sophisticated, and precise way to communicate emotions." 

This research also shows that touch can communicate multiple emotions, like joy, love, gratitude and sympathy. Meeting the person face to face gives the chance for a personal touch and the foundation of credibility can be built through a warm handshake/hug. " A limp handshake signifies uncertainty, low enthusiasm, introversion, while a vise-like grip can be taken as a sign that we're trying to dominate. We want to have a firm but not bone-crushing handshake," San Diego State University School of Communication professor Peter Andersen advises. In addition, people feel more connected to someone if they receive personal touch. Therefore, the personal touch plays a powerful role in face-to-face communication.

In brief, the younger generation should be expected to go out and interact face-to-face. Face-to-face communication is more effective than electronic communication in interpretation, immediacy and the establishment of a relationship. How the nonverbal cues can influence a conversation makes face-to-face communication an essential form of communication. Gerald Stark, vice president of education and product development at The Fillauer Companies Inc. said, “There’s a lot we can do with phone and email, but so much of the message or meaning gets lost. It’s important to meet the person in their own context because context really defines what they’re relating to. When we miss that with different kinds of communication instruments, we miss out on some of that meaningful communication.” 

People should try to change their habit of electronic communicating so they will not neglect nonverbal information that complements the message. Also, changing their habit of communication will also give people a more satisfying relationship which in return makes them significantly happier.

A Royal Agitation

By Bill Tang

Grade 9-10 writing class

More than 12 million Canadians tuned in to watch the royal wedding -- many waking up at 5 in the morning just to witness this $32 million spectacle from their beds. Worldwide, more than 2.5 billion others did the same [Source: CBC]. 18 months later, the Duchess of Cambridge went into labour and the door to London’s St. Mary Hospital became the most watched door in the world. But all this for what? Although the recent Royal wedding and pregnancy may evoke a sense of awe in some, its significance is overstated and its coverage has become over-coverage, harmful to society as it distracts the media’s and people’s attention away from more important global issues, leads to violations of the Royal’s privacy and has little economic benefit.

           

The media's fixation on the royal marriage and birth has redirected the attention of people away from issues that matter, often even completely overshadowing them. One example is the case of New York Times journalist James Risen who is being imprisoned for protecting a source and refusing to testify in the criminal case of a CIA leaker [Source: The Guardian]— someone who the media should be jumping to protect. Another example is the recent discovery/admission by the Tokyo Electric Power Company that that radioactive water has been continuously leaking from the damaged nuclear facility in Fukushima, directly into the ocean, since the 2011 earthquake — causing a rise in the radioactivity of groundwater and contaminating seafoods worldwide. [Source: National Geographic]. These are just two of the many recent events which affect us much more than the royals as these events have much more potential to affect our future health and freedom. Nonetheless, instead of having worthwhile conversations about the crackdown on journalism, or the possible dangers of nuclear power, the media seems much more intent on knowing every detail about the wedding and newborn of a monarch across the sea.

However, not only does the media want to know every detail about the newborn, they are dying to know everything about the couple as well, often going to extreme lengths, neglecting the privacy of the couple and the people around them. A string of incidents have occurred since their proposal in 2012, one of which has even led to the suicide of a UK nurse. On 13 September 2012, CNN reported that the French edition of "People" magazine Closer and the Italian gossip magazine, Chi, had both published photographs of the Duchess sunbathing topless while on holiday at the Château d'Autet. However, even after a lengthy prosecution, in February 2013, Chi magazine published the first photos of Katherine's exposed baby bump, taken during her private vacation on the island of Mustique in their second violation of privacy. In the most astounding case of all, two Australian radio hosts, Michael Christian and Mel Greig, ‘prank’ called King Edward VII's Hospital Sister Agnes, pretending to be the Queen and the Prince of Wales. In their call, they ‘enquired’ about the Duchess' condition while she was being treated there for morning sickness. Believing the call to be true nurse Jacintha Saldanha revealed some private information about the Duchess and her condition. Later, she committed suicide after finding out the call was a prank. 

Although some may argue that the economic benefits of the royal affairs far outweigh the costs, their argument is in fact unfounded; the wedding actually turned out to be a mixed bag for the economy. Most of the wedding’s profits were expected to be from increased tourism and souvenir purchases; from these sources the commercial benefit came to just around £2 billion [Source: Thomas White Int’l.]. However, the wedding day being declared a paid civic holiday alone amounted to a £6 billion ‘cost’ due to lost productivity and overtime payments [Source: Guardian]. The costs of that single day are more than 3 times greater than the profits -- in other words, a £4 billion net loss. Apart from the lost productivity, there were even more costs associated with the power surge, clean-up, security, maintaining with road closures. The wedding event also proves bad for small businesses, as the holiday is right around Easter and Mayday, creating a mass of paid holidays and long-weekends all around the same time. More surprisingly, the economic impact was not in Britain alone; many around the world also decided to call in sick to follow the wedding or birth, causing worldwide impact. To add insult to injury, because the media is so fixated on broadcasting every detail of the wedding’s splendor, its economic costs are, like many other issues, overshadowed and ignored.

When all was said and done, the Royal wedding and birth’s costs comes to this: more than £6 billion, the life of a nurse, the Royal’s privacy and our ability to have meaningful discussions about issues which actually affect us in the long run. The costs of distraction and disruption far outweigh the splendor and the awe. The media fixation which has blown the wedding and birth to its current significance is misguided; there are many more issues of greater significance that deserve our attention and the front pages of newspapers and magazines around the world. In a world where there are more than 300 thousand born each day and 117 thousand marry, there is much more to care about. If we continue to obsess over the lives of others, we will inevitably lose check of our own. 

Marijuana: the substance that should never be legalized

by Amanda Zhu 

Grade 9-10 writing class

44% of Canadians admitted that they have used marijuana at least once in their lifetime; in fact, 28% of Canadian students, under the age of 18, said that they have smoked weed in 2012. Canadians have different opinions about the legalization of marijuana. Some people believe that the legalization of cannabis will be accompanied with strict rules to prevent youths from touching drugs and will bring people with a prescription for the drug pain relief. However, others believe marijuana should not be legalized because of its side effects. Though marijuana has a medical use for killing pain, it should not be legalized in Canada, so as to avoid crimes caused by its side effects, and to prevent the increasing number of drug users as well as keep youths from using drugs.

To start with, legalizing cannabis can be seen as an encouragement to buy and consume drugs, hence, increasing the number of drug users and addicts. According to Canadian Alcohol and Drug Use Monitoring Survey, 92.8% of Canadians admitted that they had used alcohol at least once in their lifetime. Since alcohol is a legalized good in Canada and has such a large consumption, it is sure that the use of marijuana will increase rapidly after its legalization. Selling marijuana legally creates opportunities for drug addicts to get the things they want easily. Due to the Legalization of Marijuana Fact Sheet from the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the legalization will lead to a lower price of cannabis, thereby increasing its use. The fact sheet also mentions that the use of marijuana now is restricted by the expensive price from drug dealers, as soon as the price goes down after the legalization, people with drug dependencies can have easier access to the drugs.

Moreover, the legalization of cannabis provides chances for people to use marijuana who have never been exposed to drugs and can result in addiction. The National Institute on Drug Abuse reported that people who use drugs to kill pain could become drug dependent. Long-term use of marijuana causes users to have difficulties controlling their drug use and to need marijuana to function daily. Marijuana can entice people to start using drugs and purchasing more drugs and it can lead to drug dependency.

Despite the encouragement to use drugs and drug addiction as negative outcomes by the legalization of cannabis, even the medical use of marijuana can be a reason why a car accident or even violence happens. Marijuana has the effect of euphoria that makes people feel high and induce hallucination according to the introduction on TeensHealth. Driving after consuming marijuana is as hazardous as drunk driving. The Police Chief magazine has identified medical marijuana as a serious danger to highway users. According to research, almost 30 percent of hurt drivers tested positively for drugs other than alcohol, with marijuana being the main culprit. 

Beside car accidents, the consumption of marijuana also increases the possibilities of violence. The statistics from United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes showed that 101,965 Canadians committed drug-related crime that includes violence as homicide and sexual violence. While it is true that marijuana comforts people from pain, it can also be argued that smoking weed increases people’s anxiety and panic that can lead to aggression. For example, CBC news reported that in February 2012, eight youths were arrested and were charged with 48 criminal offences after police raids; moreover, they were suspected to have long-term use of marijuana. Therefore, marijuana should not be legalized because of the hazards and the insecurities its side effects can cause.

Apart from the negative effects that using marijuana will bring, selling marijuana as legalized goods promotes underage drug use. Some people believe that strong regulations that restrict youths from using drugs will come out with the legalization of marijuana. However, it must also be recognized that only the regulation cannot stop teen desire to get age-restricted products. Canada has strong rules about underage drinking, but 2012 Canadian Alcohol and Drug Use Monitoring Survey showed that there are still almost 10 million youths that have consumed alcohol in 2012.  UNICEF reported that Canadian kids smoked the most marijuana in the western world. Large numbers of Canadian kids have already consumed marijuana even before a proposed legalization. The legalization of marijuana will only provide youths with a wrong idea that the medical use of marijuana will not cause any harm or dependency and offer them opportunities to get drug easily if their parents have prescription for marijuana. The facts about teens and drug use shows that prescription medicine causes more teen deaths than other illegal drugs; and teens who have painkiller abuse get their medicine from friends or relatives. According to Laurence Steinberg, distinguished university professor, "The teen brain is a work in progress, making it more vulnerable than the mature brain to the physical effects of drugs. The potential for developing substance abuse and dependency is substantially greater when an individual’s first exposure to alcohol, nicotine and illicit drugs occurs during adolescence than in adulthood.” Canadian teens are not mature enough to welcome marijuana as a legalized prescription medicine and to resist the temptation of marijuana when they can get or steal it easily from peers or relatives with a prescription for it.

To conclude, Canada should not start to sell marijuana legally. Canada’s government should not waste millions of dollars on a legalization that will increase the possibilities of committing crimes and underage drug use. Society is not prepared enough to resist the temptation of marijuana that may result in drug dependency and even deaths. Every Canadian should learn the hazard of marijuana and recognize that the legalization of marijuana will be an error, just as what the U.S Supreme Court said about the legalization of cannabis: “It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error.”