Pepito Escarce – The Stanford Daily https://stanforddaily.com Breaking news from the Farm since 1892 Fri, 16 Jan 2015 06:20:11 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.3 https://stanforddaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/cropped-DailyIcon-CardinalRed.png?w=32 Pepito Escarce – The Stanford Daily https://stanforddaily.com 32 32 204779320 Crisis of a generation: Why young Cuban immigrants are right about their homeland https://stanforddaily.com/2015/01/15/crisis-of-a-generation-why-young-cuban-immigrants-are-right-about-their-homeland/ https://stanforddaily.com/2015/01/15/crisis-of-a-generation-why-young-cuban-immigrants-are-right-about-their-homeland/#comments Fri, 16 Jan 2015 06:20:11 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1093966 To be frank, most Cuban policy is dictated by Cuban-Americans in Congress. After all, Cuba is now a politically non-influential country that gets disproportionate U.S. attention. As the older group fades out, the younger Cuban-American population should begin to dominate the political discussion about Cuba; this is the most direct path to the Cuban democracy we seek.

The post Crisis of a generation: Why young Cuban immigrants are right about their homeland appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
It’s an exciting time for Cuban-Americans. Since the provisions of the embargo were relaxed, most Americans’ curiosities have been piqued by the prospect of finally being able to visit the enigmatic island. For second-generation Cuban-Americans, such as myself, it has reopened the possibility of connecting with a culture that we are only familiar with through our grandparents’ stories.

Initially, the embargo was politically reasonable. It was first imposed in 1960, two months after the Castro regime took power. The U.S. was caught in the increasingly heightened Cold War, and Cuba had suddenly leapt forward as the Soviet ally in closest geographical proximity to the U.S.

After the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, the embargo was strengthened to ban all imports in addition to exports. Cuba was a legitimate threat as a base for Soviet aggression merely due to its proximity to the U.S. Of course, nothing highlighted this better than the Cuban Missile Crisis. While the logic of the embargo is quite complex, it was a U.S. attempt to deal with an unprecedented global crisis.

The significance of the Soviet connection is seen in today’s Cuba, as students learned Russian in school, and Russian names even took ahold. Spanishified Russian names are seen in the few baseball players that were able to defect, like Yasiel, Yunieski and Yoenis.

However, these indications of Soviet influence are mere remnants of a no-longer-existent past in which Cuba anchored the USSR’s presence in the Western Hemisphere. Cuba is by no stretch of the imagination an economic powerhouse, but is rather an impoverished island nation ruled by a despotic regime that has managed to develop one of the most accessible health care systems in the world.

What took the U.S. so long to do this? Since Gorbachev initiated perestroika and glasnost, an ever-spiraling decline of the dictatorship led to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. As a result of Raul Castro’s economic reforms in 2008, 20 percent of Cuba’s workforce is now in the private sector. While its free press rankings remain near the bottom in the world, it is the closest it has been during the Castro regime to realizing substantial democratic and free enterprise reforms. The impending boom in U.S.-Cuba interactions, not just at the political level but also among civilians, will hopefully catalyze progress toward this front.

Of course, despite the USSR’s dissolution, the embargo was not loosened until Obama took office. One common theory places the blame on the electoral college. Florida is perhaps the most evenly divided state in the nation, and offers the third-most votes in presidential elections. It also has a significant Cuban-American population. Miami is known as Havana North. Given the substantial Cuban-American voting bloc and the perception that Cuban-Americans lean right, Republicans have held onto this viewpoint for its political promise.

However, the new influx of younger Cuban immigrants and second-generation Cuban-Americans lean heavily toward the lifting of the embargo. This is the path the U.S. should follow as it continues to further increase diplomatic ties to Cuba.

An understanding of the distinct communities within the Cuban-American popular is key to the direction of forthcoming foreign policy.

The older population largely came over for political reasons. Most of them prospered in pre-Castro Cuba, and some even had substantial economic or political influence. In fact, when they established the renowned Cuban ex-pat community in Miami, they came to run the region.

This influence is seen in the two Cuban-American representatives from the Miami area in Congress. In Miami, over half of the population speaks Spanish. One  is more likely to find a sign that says “We Speak English” than one reading “Hablamos Espanol.” Similarly, at the Miami International Airport, every announcement occurs in both English and Spanish. Unlike other cities with significant Latin-American populations, Miami’s cultural ethos is heavily shaped by the Cuban presence.

The younger population of Cuban-American immigrants and second-generation Cubans is unfamiliar with pre-Castro Cuba. The new immigrants’ reasons for coming to the U.S. are much more similar to other Latin American immigrants. Mostly impoverished in Cuba, they came in search of a better life. Out of Miami residents, slightly over 40 percent of Cuban-Americans who immigrated between 1959 and 1973 favor reestablishing diplomatic relations with Cuba. Of those who left between 1981 and 1994, this number jumps to 65; and for those who came over after 1994, it is 80. Evidently, these more recent immigrants, who are more familiar with the modern Cuba than anyone else, think opening up relations is more likely to lead to Cuban improvements.

The younger population most interested in the diplomatic relations with Cuba is also composed of second-generation Cuban-Americans who do not have the same personal revulsion to the Castro regime that their grandparents, and even parents, may have.

To be frank, most Cuban policy is dictated by Cuban-Americans in Congress. After all, Cuba is now a politically non-influential country that gets disproportionate U.S. attention. As the older group fades out, the younger Cuban-American population should begin to dominate the political discussion about Cuba; this is the most direct path to the Cuban democracy we seek.

Contact Pepito Escarce ‘at pescarce ‘at’ stanford.edu. 

The post Crisis of a generation: Why young Cuban immigrants are right about their homeland appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2015/01/15/crisis-of-a-generation-why-young-cuban-immigrants-are-right-about-their-homeland/feed/ 1 1093966
In defense of offense: The Orwellian side to PC https://stanforddaily.com/2014/11/12/in-defense-of-offense-the-orwellian-side-to-pc/ https://stanforddaily.com/2014/11/12/in-defense-of-offense-the-orwellian-side-to-pc/#respond Thu, 13 Nov 2014 04:07:00 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1091972 There is no greater waste and inhibition toward our continued progress, than suppression of mere discussion due to the risk of offending. Perpetual comfort is not a foundational block to a free and prosperous society. The ability to argue ideas is.

The post In defense of offense: The Orwellian side to PC appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
“That’s offensive” has become one of the most effective ways to end a discussion.

Since its inception, the U.S. has seen a general trend not only toward tolerance, but also acceptance and genuine attempts to integrate and learn about peoples who have not traditionally been a part of mainstream American society, despite minor fluctuations in the rate of progress. While this may seem to be an obvious expectation, the same cannot be said for Europe.

However, as inclusion has blossomed, the dandelion of political correctness has been growing steadily on the side. It is stronger today than ever.

Political correctness is a very nice idea. While it has many interpretations and manifestations, the basic gist is not to say things in a way that a certain group could interpret as demeaning. In other words, don’t offend.

Almost all “offensive” things one could say can be broken down into two different categories: ad hominem attacks, and ideas.

The first category of offense is often rooted in malice and the desire to make a person feel worse about himself or herself. Usually, this sort of offense involves a criticism of one’s identity. Most instances of this sort of offense are a result of misguided attempts at humor, irrational moment sof anger, or lack of social judgment, often involving the perpetuation of some sort of stereotype.

Rarely does society benefit from these instances of offense. However, claiming “that’s offensive” is not the most beneficial way of responding to such comments. The word “offended” can represent many different emotional responses. It is better for the offended person to candidly explain his or her emotional response. Doing so helps both parties better understand each other.

Regardless, eliminating ad hominem attacks is unlikely to have widespread social implications. However, there is tangible evidence that eliminating the second category, ideas, has impeded our ability to address certain issues with intellectual honesty.

There are many people who prioritize the sensitivity toward one group over the ability to have a candid discussion about a pertinent topic. Consider an article Salon published questioning our practice of dubbing all members of the military service as heroes as soon as they enlist. Regardless of whether or not readers agreed with all or any of the article, the writer presented several original points and logical arguments as to why it was infantile to put soldiers on an untouchable pedestal just because they are soldiers. Even the person who disagrees most ardently would be interested in offering an explanation as to why this writer’s claims were wrong.

Unfortunately, the article mainly gave rise to a number of articles demanding an apology, without any sort of content-based response to the writer’s arguments. Granted, many of these responses came from right-wing blog sites, but Twitter was also set ablaze with condemnations of the article from people as liberal as Montel Williams. There was one tweet that best summed up the collective response attitude: “You guys are all heroes, no matter what Salon says.”

Another manifestation of this problem was evident in the widely circulated discussion between Sam Harris and Ben Affleck about the prevalence of Muslims who ascribe to certain Islamic doctrine in countries throughout the Middle East. Harris opened the discussion by saying “Every criticism of the doctrine of Islam gets conflated with bigotry toward Muslims as people…I’m not denying that certain people are bigoted against Muslims as people, and that is a problem.”

Affleck then attempts to shut down the discussion: “It’s gross. It’s racist…It’s like saying ‘Oh, you shifty Jew.’” After Harris explicitly differentiates criticizing Islamic doctrine from bigotry against people who identify as Muslims, Affleck’s immediate response is to compare it to an ad hominem offense. Additionally, he makes the dishonest claim of categorizing criticism of religious principles as “racism,” in an attempt to delegitimize Harris’s argument.

Luckily, Harris did not allow himself to be silenced by Affleck’s attempt to make him a pariah, and he was eventually able to engage the panel in a discussion. Unfortunately, most people do not have the epidermal thickness Sam Harris has cultivated throughout his career as a polemicist. In many instances of everyday conversation, Affleck’s method of thought bullying would be quite effective.

Given the consequences of political correctness, should we make sure to engage anyone’s idea, no matter how offensive it may be? For instance, should we engage the KKK, who advocate a racially-segregated society, in a discussion of race relations in the U.S.? Or chat with the Westboro Baptist Church about its views on gay marriage?

Most people would not only feel an abhorrent physical illness to those groups’ views, but would quickly destroy them in a rational debate. Of course, these two groups are marginal. Their views do not threaten our society’s well being; it is not at all important that their views be discussed.

Such potentially harmful viewpoints must not be silenced entirely. Rather than shut down a conversation the next time someone presents an opinion that makes your skin crawl, just listen. It will likely reinforce your repulsion to the idea, and you will better understand your repulsion. And there is a chance that person actually has a point.

There is no greater waste and inhibition toward our continued progress than suppression of mere discussion due to the risk of offending. Perpetual comfort is not a foundational block to a free and prosperous society. The ability to argue ideas is.

Contact Pepito Escarce at pescarce ‘at’ stanford.edu

The post In defense of offense: The Orwellian side to PC appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2014/11/12/in-defense-of-offense-the-orwellian-side-to-pc/feed/ 0 1091972
A tale of two cities: Why Uber must stay https://stanforddaily.com/2014/10/20/a-tale-of-two-cities-why-uber-must-stay/ https://stanforddaily.com/2014/10/20/a-tale-of-two-cities-why-uber-must-stay/#comments Tue, 21 Oct 2014 05:00:44 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1090166 Accessibility depends on two variables: availability and affordability. For something to be accessible, it first must be attainable to the potential customer. Affordability is often the greater obstacle. However, Uber and ridesharing companies have done a good job of being both very available and very affordable; they should be kept.

The post A tale of two cities: Why Uber must stay appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
For any young person living in San Francisco planning to do anything within the city, there are four available transportation options: driving, public transportation, taxis or a rideshare service like Uber.

Parking in the city ranges from physically impossible to economically unfeasible, so driving is out of the equation. Public transportation is convenient to get to certain areas, but requires a little advance scheduling and does not provide easy access to certain areas of the city.

When time is of the essence or there is no direct access to the destination via public transport, there are two options: taxis and Uber. In San Francisco, Uber demolishes the taxi service.

About 630 miles north of San Francisco lies Portland, where relatively very few people use public transport, taxis rule the alternative transportation scene. Why?  For the simple reason that Uber is banned. Uber is also prohibited from operating in many cities including Miami, Orlando and Austin, and is fighting to stay in Boston and Anchorage. Some insurance-related regulations on Uber have recently been imposed in Virginia, California and Colorado in lieu of bans. Time will tell if these affect Uber availability.

The primary argument heard by both lobbyists and legislators opposed to Uber is that because Uber drivers do not undergo the same regulations as taxi drivers, Uber is not as safe for users as taxis are. In fact, some advocates of these bans claim that users assume Uber is as well-regulated as taxis, so they are ensured as safe of a ride.

Another justification is that Uber and other ridesharing companies will keep prices low until they send taxis completely out of business, and then price gouge their customers once ridesharing is the only option left.

However, this argument is wrong. Nowhere does Uber, Lyft or Sidecar suggest that they are taxis or subscribe to the same regulations as taxis. In fact, Uber very explicitly advertises itself as a ridesharing service and promotes itself as a company one can work for with little barrier to entry.

While Uber drivers are not ordinarily held to the same level of inspection as cabbies, Uber has many innovative features that are in everyone’s best interest. Customers rate their drivers and drivers rate their customers, so users can see both how much experience their driver has and how well he or she was liked by passengers.

Given these ratings on a five-star scale, users can be assured of the quality of their driver and make a decision whether or not to opt for a new one. Although it varies depending on the city, Uber drivers must maintain at least a 4.5 rating or they risk being fired. About 98.9 percent of Uber rides end with a five-star rating from the customer, indicating that the unsafe ride is a negligibly rare exception.

It is true that Uber, for the most part, offers cheaper prices than taxis because they must adhere to fewer regulations. However, given the success of the company that many customers safely depend on, taxi services should fight the regulations, not the competitors.

In the event of the actual destruction of the taxi industry, price gouging is not likely. Uber would not have a monopoly on quickly accessible transportation, because it is a member of an entire ridesharing industry. This industry includes other popular services like Lyft and Sidecar, and other more obscure ones.

The success of these ridesharing services has naturally evolved many similar companies, each with its own little tweak to differentiate itself. Sidecar offers free credits every few weeks. Lyft offers “Happy Hour pricing,” which is effectively the opposite of surge pricing. Even in a taxi-less world, a cheap ride will always be available.

Regardless of the legal ruckus taxi companies make, why don’t taxi drivers switch to Uber, given that their business is taking such a hit in most places? Well, many have. However, in many cities, taxi drivers must obtain medallions, which effectively serve as licenses, to drive their taxis. These medallions are expensive, often ranging between $500,000 to over $1 million. Usually drivers will lease them. Even with a lease, a medallion is a substantial investment, so it is in their best interest to achieve as high a return on investment as they can.

Do we have a fundamental right to get wherever we want at any time of the day? Of course not. Nevertheless, it is a modern privilege many people have and an accessibility that we should strive to expand.

Accessibility depends on two variables: availability and affordability. For something to be accessible, it first must be attainable to the potential customer. Affordability is often the greater obstacle. However, Uber and ridesharing companies have done a good job of being both very available and very affordable. They should be kept.

Contact Pepito Escarce at pescarce ‘at’ Stanford.edu.

The post A tale of two cities: Why Uber must stay appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2014/10/20/a-tale-of-two-cities-why-uber-must-stay/feed/ 4 1090166
Avoiding misrepresentation: Why columnists must write as clearly as ever https://stanforddaily.com/2014/10/01/avoiding-misrepresentation-why-columnists-must-write-as-clearly-as-ever/ https://stanforddaily.com/2014/10/01/avoiding-misrepresentation-why-columnists-must-write-as-clearly-as-ever/#respond Thu, 02 Oct 2014 03:38:42 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1088708 Given how easily one can be misrepresented through a quote or a small passage, it is more than ever in a writer’s interest to present his or her point as clearly as possible.

The post Avoiding misrepresentation: Why columnists must write as clearly as ever appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
In light of increased public awareness surrounding sexual assault, Bloomberg published an article about hook-up culture and interviewed former Daily columnist Chris Herries who wrote a column about victim blaming.

They paraphrased and quoted him as follows: “While everyone condemns sexual assault, there seems to be an assumption among female students that they shouldn’t have to protect themselves by avoiding drunkenness and other risky behaviors, he said. ‘Do I deserve to have my bike stolen if I leave it unlocked on the quad?’”

An online outrage ensued condemning this analogy. The loudest voices were heard from two online newspapers with feminist foci, Jezebel and Identities.Mic, berating Herries for this comparison. At first glance, it seems that they have a point. However, there was a subsequent backlash against Bloomberg for grossly misrepresenting Herries’s point and a backlash against the response sites for using one out-of-context quote to incite outrage.

Herries wrote an eloquent response to the criticism from Jezebel and Identities.Mic, among others, that should exonerate him from any apparent misogyny or other heinous worldview that a reader might find in the Bloomberg piece.

Though unfortunate, that Herries was subject to these attacks should not surprise us. In the 21st century, speed and outrage, not fact, rule journalism.

For instance, according to his response article, the Bloomberg writers originally contacted him because of the columns he had written in the past.  Unfortunately, they did not even hint at the crux of his argument in their piece but instead focused on the seemingly egregious bike-locking analogy.

“Journalists” then distributed this quote to manipulate the outrage of the public, which is a simple tactic in this case given the grave sensitivity people appropriately feel about the issue in question. And often, when even broaching such a sensitive topic, emotional arguments will impede logical discourse, as Herries was attempting.

Nevertheless, amid this fast-paced, easily distorted, state of news and commentary distribution in the modern world, we can find a silver lining.

All writers — novelists, poets, and even columnists — have one unifying fundamental purpose: to share thoughts and experiences they have with their readers in as lucid a way as possible. Especially for columnists, a writer’s goal is for the reader’s understanding of his or her piece to come as close as possible to what the writer is actually thinking.

Given how easily one can be misrepresented through a quote or a small passage, it is more than ever in a writer’s interest to present his or her point as clearly as possible.

After all, it does not seem that the Bloomberg writers read Herries’s articles, interviewed him, and then went out of their way to manipulate his views in as negative a fashion as possible. Rather, it seems that their article was a viable — albeit poor — interpretation of Herries’s words. The fact that they revised their original article and republished is indicative of a poor interpretation, not malicious intent.

Nevertheless, Herries’s original article should have done better. The purpose of the article is to discuss situations both in which victim-blaming is accepted and in which it is not. To convey this point, the use of the sexual assault example juxtaposed with the bike-locking example was, if not logically incorrect, exceedingly lazy. The aversion a reader might experience when reading this implied analogy distracts from his argument.

Herries writes the following two sentences in succession: “Moreover, victim-blaming in sexual assault attempts to limit a person’s fundamental freedoms to do things like dress how they please. At the same time, I should have the freedom to park my bike without a lock.”

Is this a comparison or not? Read it again.

These two sentences do not technically compare a seductive dress style to leaving one’s bike unlocked. They sure feel like one, though, after a quick read. And that is how people read columns. Readers do not dissect columns like literature. These days, readers give them a quick once-over.

The diminished thoroughness of the average modern reader and the celerity with which a single quote or soundbite can spread and incite outrage makes it more pertinent than ever that opinion writers elucidate their points as clearly as possible.

I have tried to do so. Knock on wood now that one of these sentences does not incite a viral mob.

Contact Pepito Escarce at pescarce ‘at’ stanford.edu

The post Avoiding misrepresentation: Why columnists must write as clearly as ever appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2014/10/01/avoiding-misrepresentation-why-columnists-must-write-as-clearly-as-ever/feed/ 0 1088708
Killing Walter White: Why the government needs to sell drugs https://stanforddaily.com/2014/07/24/killing-walter-white-why-the-government-needs-to-sell-drugs/ https://stanforddaily.com/2014/07/24/killing-walter-white-why-the-government-needs-to-sell-drugs/#comments Fri, 25 Jul 2014 00:52:58 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1087051 Two weeks ago, vendors in Washington began selling marijuana for recreational purposes. Initiative 502, passed in 2012, has finally been implemented. Majorities of both the state and the U.S. as a whole favor marijuana legalization, perhaps indicating legalization at the federal level is in the not-too-distant future. Don’t be appeased. This prospect offers little hope […]

The post Killing Walter White: Why the government needs to sell drugs appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Two weeks ago, vendors in Washington began selling marijuana for recreational purposes. Initiative 502, passed in 2012, has finally been implemented. Majorities of both the state and the U.S. as a whole favor marijuana legalization, perhaps indicating legalization at the federal level is in the not-too-distant future.

Don’t be appeased. This prospect offers little hope to those who strive for a society that does not suffer from the residual effects of drug prohibition.

Marijuana legalization is merely a pathetic stopgap measure — not a solution — to the most devastating consequences of the War on Drugs. This war is culpable for high rates of drug abuse, prison overcrowding, misappropriation of law enforcement’s focus, a sizeable chunk of gang-related activity and much of the violence at the U.S.-Mexico border. These are not just exciting plot points in “Breaking Bad.” These problems degrade many aspects of American society. Only once the federal government legalizes all drugs will there be a chance to mitigate, and eventually eliminate, these consequences.

The estimates of cartels’ profits that can be attributed to marijuana vary significantly: RAND estimates pot sales account for 15 percent of all profits. The U.S. government’s estimate is four times as high. Hypothetically, marijuana legalization would reduce this illegal drug trade and, consequently, much of the violence. Nonetheless, if marijuana is the only drug legalized, it is likely that the cartels will make up for lost profits by investing more in hard drug trafficking. Even if only a small portion of the marijuana market is replaced with increased heroin and cocaine trafficking, there will still be a sizable and costly drug war on the scene.

The primary argument against drug legalization is that it is correlated with increased use. Luckily, the U.S. can look to Europe as an example. Dutch citizens use marijuana regularly at lower rates than in France, Spain and the U.S., all of which ban pot. Between 1997 — the year before cannabis made its way into Dutch coffee shops — and 2009, the percentage of citizens 15 to 64 years old who reported regular usage in the past year did increase, but only from 5.5 to 7 percent, not likely to have created a discernible difference on the social fabric of the Netherlands.

Regardless, if drugs are legalized, lobbying groups will have less of an impact on what information from medical reports will be shared with the public, because they will no longer have a political impetus to skew science in their favors.

Despite legalizing all drugs, the system proposed here still bans recreational drugs from free market exchange. The only way to purchase a teener of coke or a sheet of acid will be at the local county Federal Recreational Users Dispensary (FRUD), which will be administered by the DEA. All drugs sold will be fabricated by government chemists and engineers and tested by the FDA. Doses will have to meet certain purity and health standards, just like pharmaceutical drugs do today.

The FRUD will work as follows: Customers will go through a doctor’s informational session where the doctor will explain the effects of the drugs the customers would like to use, the appropriate dose and the risks that they face given their particular health statuses. Only after understanding all of this information will they be allowed to purchase the drugs they want, which, it is important to note, will be sold at a price low enough to dissuade a strong competing private market. The revenue the FRUD accrues will go directly toward maintaining facilities, paying FRUD employees and developing strong rehabilitation programs, a subsection of the FRUD for users who want to end their addictions.

The FRUD is a self-sustaining ecosystem. Yes, it perpetuates, and perhaps even facilitates drug users’ self-destructive habits. However, the FRUD mitigates the residual effects of drug prohibition on innocent citizens, and has a system in place to fix those who want to be fixed. It will be much easier to tackle the problems related to drug use when the vast majority of these problems are contained in one place.

Government dispensaries do present one particularly disconcerting issue: Won’t a black market open up to target users who are fed up with the inconvenience of the FRUD? Probably — at some level — but it will be rendered impotent.

The success of the FRUDs will be contingent upon harsh mandatory sentencing laws for private drug dealers and purchasers, perhaps even harsher than they are now. These draconian measures will shrink the free drug market so much that the few private dealers remaining will be much easier to identify, target and prosecute. On top of that, users will be very unlikely to risk arrest to purchase a product through unlawful methods that they can obtain legally, merely for convenience.

The War on Drugs will still exist, but it will have been demoted to the Skirmish on Drugs-you-didn’t-buy-at-your-local-FRUD.

In addition to reducing the number of non-violent offenders and avoiding the increasingly threatening prospect of prison privatization, FRUDs will reduce the frequency of health catastrophes from drug misuse. These facilities will provide users the necessary information to avoid overdoses, and the FDA-tested drugs will run little to no risk of contamination. For those who want to fight their addictions, a FRUD will serve as an environment where users can seek treatment without fear of legal prosecution or spiraling into debt.

Yes, people will use drugs, but will use them in as healthy a way as possible. FRUDs will mitigate the greatest consequences of drug use: addiction through overuse and users’ — albeit irrational, yet present — fear of legal repercussions should they admit their addictions. There are also numerous positive side effects like reduced drug treatment costs and more efficient use of law enforcement. The police will spend much less time focusing on drug-related crimes when the black market is so significantly reduced.

The government is the only prospective dealer whose main incentive is not profit. Its primary motivation in this case is to reduce citizens’ health risks. Whether you want to buy your biweekly ounce of weed or try to end your meth addiction, the U.S. government is the only dealer that has your best interest at heart.

 

Contact Pepito Escarce at PEscarce@stanford.edu.

The post Killing Walter White: Why the government needs to sell drugs appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2014/07/24/killing-walter-white-why-the-government-needs-to-sell-drugs/feed/ 2 1087051
GameDay: Out in full force https://stanforddaily.com/2011/11/16/gameday-out-in-full-force/ https://stanforddaily.com/2011/11/16/gameday-out-in-full-force/#respond Wed, 16 Nov 2011 11:02:52 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1051830 It was 3:30 a.m. on Saturday, and for the first time in its 18 years broadcasting live from college campuses, ESPN College GameDay was hosting its national pre-game show at Stanford.

The post GameDay: Out in full force appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Somehow I convinced myself to roll out two hours before the rest of the campus. It was 3:30 a.m. on Saturday, and for the first time in its 18 years broadcasting live from college campuses, ESPN College GameDay was hosting its national pre-game show at Stanford.

Mitch Sherman, an ESPN blogger, feared a mediocre turnout.

“There’s talk that the crowd Saturday for ESPN’s College GameDay may actually set a record low for attendance, what with the early morning start and apathetic nature toward football of the Stanford students,” he wrote in a Nov. 10 blog post.

GameDay: Out in full force
(NICK SALAZAR/The Stanford Daily)

Maybe it was because Stanford students don’t necessarily live and die with the football team’s successes and failures. Maybe it was because Stanford has such a small student fan base. Or maybe it was because GameDay starts at 6 a.m. on the West Coast.

But despite the media’s doubts, I walked over to the Oval with a few dorm mates eager to grab a spot in the front row, only to run into a long line of people with the same idea.

There was still hours to go before dawn, so the stage lights were on at full force. As we waited for the gates to open, I looked around at the signs students held.

Some were random.

“SMU beat Navy.”

“I Hate LeBron.”

A cutout of a random man’s face blown up to 10 times life-size.

Some were original:

“Tim Tebow – God + Talent = Andrew Luck.”

“LaMichael James Can’t Smoke This Tree.”

Before I knew what was happening, my group started entering a section closed off from the rest of the crowd near the stage. Chris Fowler, Desmond Howard and Kirk Herbstreit came and went from the stage. Erin Andrews stood on a stage to the side while the live ESPN telecast was broadcast on a JumboTron behind her.

Students were densely packed near the stage. Cameras ran on wires overhead, filming the crowd. Stanford males yelled out catcalls to Andrews. Between all the signs, the students hoisted on each other’s shoulders and the sheer enormity of the crowd, I felt much farther from the stage than I actually was.

Mitch Sherman could not have been more wrong.

“At 5:30, I was at the front of the pit, and a guy from ESPN turned around and told me, ‘You guys have already exceeded our attendance expectations,’” said Julie Lythcott-Haims ’89, dean of freshmen and undergraduate advising. “About half of the crowd had yet to come.”

Lisa Lapin, assistant vice president of university communications, echoed these sentiments.

“ESPN loved being at Stanford,” Lapin said. “They were incredibly impressed with the turnout and the behavior of everybody in the crowd.”

After Fowler’s brief admonition to the student crowd not to yell obscenities, the Hoover Tower’s appearance on the JumboTron signaled the beginning of the telecast. The crowd roared.

The majority of the crowd was made up of students, but there were also Oregon students, fans and families from the Bay Area.

The “truly incomparable” Leland Stanford Junior University Marching Band stood in juxtaposition to its uniformed and precise Oregon counterpart. Both bands started to play at around 6:30 a.m., shortly after the sun finally came up.

As it became light outside, time became insignificant. Lost in the huge crowd and white noise of the raucous students, I took it all in while hardly processing it at any level. Maybe it was just sleep deprivation, but it was a surreal experience.

The two most memorable moments involved the venerable–to college football fans, anyway–Lee Corso. During a commercial break, he held up a Stanford helmet, prompting a deafening roar. Then he held up the Oregon helmet, bringing on boos. At the end of the show, he predicted the winner by putting on a tree hat and dancing with the Tree, thrusting a fake musket in the air and saying he “was going duck hunting.”

I walked back to my dorm in desperate need of a nap before the game.

Although the team lost the game and, most likely, its shot at a national championship, GameDay went so smoothly that producers of the show suggested returning again in two weeks.

“They had called me before the end of the show, saying they were so impressed that if we won, they were considering coming back for the Notre Dame game,” Lapin said.

Although now that scenario is very unlikely, perhaps the turnout on Saturday–estimated at around 3,000–might change the perception that Stanford does not care about football.

The post GameDay: Out in full force appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2011/11/16/gameday-out-in-full-force/feed/ 0 1051830
Campus culture counted in the rings of El Palo Alto https://stanforddaily.com/2011/11/08/tall-tree-el-palo-alto/ https://stanforddaily.com/2011/11/08/tall-tree-el-palo-alto/#respond Tue, 08 Nov 2011 11:02:50 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1051547 The Band’s Tree, a relatively recent invention, is famous for its appearance, irreverence and status as Stanford’s unofficial mascot and as an icon of Stanford culture. However, the source of this mascot goes back to the 18th century and a 110-foot redwood named El Palo Alto.

The post Campus culture counted in the rings of El Palo Alto appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Campus culture counted in the rings of El Palo Alto
(SERENITY NGUYEN/The Stanford Daily)

Between the Band’s synchronized instrumental swing and the Dollies’ dance routine at a football game, the Tree stands out. It looks like a toy Christmas tree, but has two eyes and a toothy grin attached to its leaves. Its trunk jumps and twirls as Michael Samuels ’12, the man inside, rocks out to tunes.

The Band’s Tree, a relatively recent invention, is famous for its appearance, irreverence and status as Stanford’s unofficial mascot and as an icon of Stanford culture. However, the source of this mascot goes back to the 18th century and a 110-foot redwood named El Palo Alto.

The redwood is located a little over four blocks northwest of the Palo Alto Caltrain station in El Palo Alto Park, which was built in 1971. It is so tall that an observer standing on the ground next to the tree cannot see its top.

Despite its size, the redwood is not as prominent as one might expect. Many trees surround the walkway around El Palo Alto Park. However, a plaque on a boulder next to the tree indicates its significance. The historical society Native Sons of the Golden West designated this plaque to commemorate the founding of the City of Palo Alto. The plaque reads, “Under this Giant Redwood, the Palo Alto, November 6 to 11, 1769, camped Portola and his band on the expedition that discovered San Francisco Bay.”

Gaspar de Portola was the first European explorer to discover the San Francisco Bay. El Palo Alto served as a reference point to his base camp because it could be seen from miles away.

“To the Spaniards, it was a clear landmark because all the other trees in the area were much smaller oaks,” said Steve Staiger, a Palo Alto historian.

As the site of their base camp, they named the tree “El Palo Alto,” Spanish for “the tall tree.” The region became known as Palo Alto, where the Stanford family would eventually settle on a farm.

After Leland Stanford Jr. died in 1884, his parents dedicated the rest of the decade to planning and building Stanford University on their farm. When the campus hosted its first students in 1891, six families lived in Palo Alto. That quickly changed. Palo Alto became a college town for the University, attracting campus workers, professors and investors from San Francisco. The Stanfords embedded a rendition of El Palo Alto in the Stanford crest, making it a symbol for the University. Stanford and El Palo Alto Park, then, serve to commemorate California’s oldest living landmark, according to a 1999 Palo Alto city manager’s report.

Addressing traditions regarding the tree, “It depends who you ask,” Staiger said. “A lot of people don’t know the tree even exists.”

In the past, students “held a yearly class contest to see who could place the class flag at the top of the tree,” the city manager’s report stated. However, in 1909, because a student became stuck in the tree, this annual tradition ended and the tree lost a significant part of its role in Stanford culture until the Band’s mascot emerged.

The Tree, inspired by El Palo Alto, debuted in a 1975 halftime show. The Tree gained popularity and made several appearances in other field shows. Eventually, it became a regular, and the Band adopted the Tree as its official mascot. It should not be confused, though, with Stanford University’s official mascot, Cardinal. But why are they different?

In 1930, the Indians became the University’s mascot, a mascot ultimately deemed offensive. In 1972, 55 Native American students and staff members petitioned to have it removed. The University complied, but needed to find a new mascot. In 1978, students voted for the Robber Barons as the new mascot, but the Department of Athletics rejected the idea. Finally, in 1981, the University permanently established Cardinal as its mascot.

Although the Tree is an unofficial mascot, it is inextricably tied to campus and Band culture.

“We think the idea of a mascot is absurd,” said Band manager Ben “Ditto” Lasley ’11. “You can’t see them, they can’t talk, you can’t even know who it is at a lot of schools. The Tree makes a mockery of everyone who takes themselves so seriously. It’s an extension of the spirit of the Band.”

The Band and the Tree pride themselves on their spirit of irreverence, and media sources lavish attention on the Tree. Last year, “Page 2” on ESPN.com rated the Tree the worst major college mascot.

Preforming at Band Run, Foster Field, Maples Pavilion and on College GameDay, among other things, the Tree is perpetually busy.

“Athletic events are about half of what I do,” Samuels said. “Anytime I’m not doing something else, I’m doing something for Tree. It’s going by so quickly. It’s taken over my life, in a good way.”

Samuels will remain the Stanford Tree until the end of winter quarter. Then he will pass his legacy on to the next Tree, which will be chosen during Stanford’s annual Tree Week.

The boisterous, iconic mascot found on campus starkly contrasts with the stoic landmark that inspired it. As the campus continues to evolve, El Palo Alto will continue to stand, marking the years that pass ring by ring.

The post Campus culture counted in the rings of El Palo Alto appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2011/11/08/tall-tree-el-palo-alto/feed/ 0 1051547