Gimme Back my Weed!

Back in January I wrote a blog post about Colorado's revolutionary legalization of marijuana for recreational use. They made history and opened new doors for marijuana policies in the government, and since then, the negative stigma around marijuana in American culture has been slowly disappearing. And just this past week, we got a great reminder of this, in the form of possibly the largest victory for pro-marijuana advocates since Colorado's legalization efforts. But first, a little background.

Although many states have legalized marijuana for medicinal and recreational purposes, the DEA still considers marijuana a Schedule I drug (meaning it has no medicinal value whatsoever, which is absurd.) It's classified right alongside MDMA and heroin. So naturally, these state and federal laws have clashed, and it often leads to dramatic DEA raids of dispensaries and medical marijuana grow operations. And while it may seem as though this is simply inconveniencing some people, these dispensaries provide medicinal cannabis prescribed by a doctor, often for patients who have gone through product after product with no results. For many, medical marijuana is a last resort, and it allows a life without constant pain. So you can see how, when dispensaries are raided, their product snatched and lives put on hold, it not only closes a business, but prevents patients from having medicine. 

So now we arrive at the victory. This past Monday, the House passed a bill that effectively prevents the DEA from raiding medical marijuana dispensaries and grow operations that are legal on the state level. This is such an important event because it demonstrates a more open attitude towards medicinal and recreational marijuana use than the government has shown in the past, which signals a possible shift towards sensible marijuana policies (or, at the very least, more sensible than the ones we have now.) Does this signal a change in attitude in the government, or is this just a special case?

You Can Go to War, But Don't Smoke While You're There!

18 is a big age in America. You can drive past curfew, buy lottery tickets, and get drafted, among other things. And in most states, it's the age at which you can legally buy cigarettes. Some states, like Utah and Alabama, have changed this to 19, and so have some counties, in an effort to discourage the use of cigarettes. But just yesterday, New York City made a big change: they changed the legal smoking age to 21. Many younger New Yorkers are outraged about this, and the comparison is being made to the minimum age required for service in the military; if I can kill a man for my country, why can't I smoke a cigarette?

But while this is a big change, it's not necessarily a surprising one. NYC is one of the most anti-cigarette areas in the country, with huge taxes bring the average price of a pack to upwards of $12, as opposed to the national average of just above $5. So with the taxes and raised age minimum, one would think smoking would be substantially diminished in NYC, right? Well, apparently not. Just below 16% of New Yorkers smoke cigarettes, which is only slightly below the national average of 18%. But with an economic recession in full force, it's just not practical for NYC residents to pay $14 for a pack of cigarettes. And that's where one of New York's best kept secrets comes in: it's multi-million dollar black market cigarette industry.

NYC's rising cigarette taxes and restrictive smoking laws have created a slight decrease in smoking, but on the other hand, they've created an enormous market for black market cigarettes. Smugglers buy carton after carton from Virginia and Washington D.C. for a fraction of the price, and sell them to local NYC stores, generating a hefty profit. One shop owner even went as far as to say that "every store in Brooklyn" buys from one man, who the store owner claims "makes a million dollars a year."

Despite action from lawmakers over the past decade, this underground cigarette industry has not gone away, and has only flourished with newly restrictive smoking laws, and it's likely that this newest one will be no exception. Should NYC enforce it's newest cigarette law, or will it just push more teens to the ever-growing black market?

Checking Your Privilege

I go to New Trier High School, of the small city of Winnetka, on the north shore of Chicago. It's one of the wealthiest areas in the country, and in turn (due to America's lopsided educational system,) it's high school is among the top in our nation. But likely the biggest difference between my school and, say, a CPS school, is the diversity of my school (or, rather, lack thereof.) If you walk through the halls of New Trier, you don't see Latinos, African Americans, and Asian Americans... you see white people. I don't believe I'm in a single class with an African American student; and despite the fact that this doesn't happen in most schools, it really should NEVER happen. So taking all this into account, if I were told to "check my privilege" by someone with a different racial background than myself, I would acknowledge it as probably being honest.

But that's not what Tal Fortgang did. Instead of considering the comment and realizing the fact that he's been luckier than most, he took it as a personal assault. Instead, he wrote an article about it in the Princeton Tory entitled, "Why I Don't Apologize for 'White Privilege.'" And if you read his article, you can already see why the title is misleading. It implies that someone attacked him, personally, with some kind of inversely racist remarks, but no. An African American student at Princeton simply told him to "check his privilege." No one is asking him to apologize for being a rich, white male, but merely asking him to acknowledge the fact that his life has been somewhat easier than the lives of many people of color. But Fortgang rushed to his computer and typed out an enraged article about how his parents and his parent's parents worked oh so hard to break the cycle of poverty, and how he is a product of their labors.

Fotgang's outrage is an unfortunately accurate portrayal of some of America's most elite, and their ignorance towards the advantages that they've had. Despite many U.S. laws that discriminate against minorities and the fact that Princeton's population is almost 60% white, he still somehow denies that he is being favored. But I ask: how can this be true when I look around the halls of a place like New Trier and I don't see any minorities?

Apple Hates Creativity

Apple's iPhone is a powerful device. You can access the internet, text, call, and do so much more, all from the palm of your hand. But what if there was a way to make your device even more functional? There is a way to access features on your iPhone such as total customization, wi-fi tethering, and accessing apps directly from the lock screen. The only problem is that Apple is doing everything they can to stop you from accessing these features.

You may be wondering how to access these features, and the answer is simple: jailbreaking. Jailbreaking is when you install a software on your phone (such as Green Poison or Evasi0n) that gives you access to Cydia, which is kind of like a deep web app store. Cydia allows you to download free or paid "tweaks" that have different purposes on your phone. These include customization tweaks, such as changing the look of your app icons and hiding certain stock apps, or functionality tweaks, like ones that free up space on your device or changing the buttons on your Control Center. And while this may sound great for many Apple customers, the company does NOT want you jailbreaking. So much so, in fact, that if you jailbreak your phone, your Apple warranty is officially voided, and they will not fix your phone if you bring it in to a store. In 2010, the company tried to make jailbreaking illegal under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, but unfortunately for Apple, that failed. Even now, Apple is spreading what I refer to as "jailbreak propaganda" to encourage users from jailbreaking through the spread of false information (I can tell you from experience that jailbreaking will not shorten your battery life or make your phone less secure.) The company has made it very clear that if you want to jailbreak your phone, they don't want you as a customer.

This disheartens me because while I love my iPhone, I love it even more jailbroken. It allows me to really make my phone different from everyone else's, and I think it makes my phone better than it would be normally. That's why I choose to take a risk and jailbreak, despite the fact that it voids my warranty (and makes Apple hate me.) I'm a creative person and I want to be creative with my phone. So what's Apple's problem with individuality?

What's Wrong with Lollapalooza?

I very much look forward to my free period on Tuesday, as it's a great time for me to relax, eat, and do homework; and today was no exception. I walked into the student lounge this morning in hopes of doing a little research and taking a break. But when I opened up my laptop to try and use the internet, I got an irritating loading screen, and after several minutes I gave up trying to get anything accomplished. At this time I looked around to see almost every other person around me staring anxiously at their laptops. My friend came in glued to his phone, and I asked him what was going on. He simply replied, "I'm trying to get Lolla tickets."

Now, of course I can't be sure that everyone reading this post is from Chicago, but in case you aren't, let me clue you in; Lollapalooza is a BIG deal around here. Essentially, it's a music festival of epic proportions. But that isn't necessarily the reason it's so popular. Chicago's youth goes crazy over Lolla because to enjoy the festival, you don't have to love music. Other festivals like Pitchfork, Summer Camp, Jazz Fest; if you buy tickets, you know what you're in for. You've listened to the artists, you enjoy the music, and that's why you're going. But not Lolla. If you're going, it might be because you recognize one of the headliners, or because you like live music, but the biggest reason people go? For the atmosphere. And I'm not talking about the nice weather. By "the atmosphere," I mean anything goes, loud drum beats, and LOTS of drugs. And this is my concern.

I'm worried that size and popularity of Lolla is not indicative of Chicago's love of good music, but rather, of Chicago's love of going crazy for three days. That's not to say I'm condemning a massive party with good music; I've got no problem with that. But I do have a problem with preppy teenagers, with no prior knowledge of the artists they're seeing, pretending to like music in exchange for free weed from festival-goers. That may sound harsh, but I fear it's true. So please, prove me wrong. Do people really still love live music? Or do rich kids just want to pay 300 bucks to do drugs in a big field?

To Spotify or Not to Spotify

As both a musician and an avid music listener, I can empathize with both sides of the recording industry; the consumer and the producer. The listener wants to listen to the music they like as easily as possible, and the artist wants to be fairly compensated for their art. So what happens when one side is completely fulfilled at the expense of the other? What happens when the consumer has everything, and the artist, nothing?

Enter, Spotify.

When I first heard about Spotify, I was ecstatic. Pretty much every artist I'd ever want to listen to (save the Beatles,) unlimited playlists, radio, recommendations; all for merely $10 a month? AND I can access it all from my phone without losing any memory? Sounds like the best service I could possibly ask for. And I enjoyed that fantasy guilt-free; for a while. But pretty soon, I started hearing people talk about Spotify, and not in a good way. Other musicians didn't have Spotify, and some claimed it was bad for the artist. At first I didn't believe it. I didn't want to believe that my favorite music streaming service was screwing over the artists it represented. Unfortunately, that's when I stumbled upon this NPR article. The headline could almost tell the whole story: "How Musicians Make Money by the Fraction of a Cent on Spotify." The article tells of Spotify's low royalties while mixing in the personal tale of Erin McKeown, a musician who puts up her albums on Spotify. The exact figure she makes per play, she says, is $0.004. Many can tell that this extremely low, but some say, well, with all the people using Spotify, I'm sure she makes a decent amount of money. Think about it like this: a thousand people listen to one of her songs. That's a lot of people. If all those people listen to her song once, she gets $4. If a thousand people bought her song on iTunes, she would make closer to $500. 

Perhaps if I weren't a musician this wouldn't bother me so much, but I know how it feels to pour out your heart into a two hour show (in addition to countless hours rehearsing,) and get paid $30 in tips to split between five people. But I also understand the plight of the consumer; you shouldn't always have to take the moral high road while sacrificing convenience and ease.

And after all this, I will openly admit, I still use Spotify. But I can justify it. For one thing, many of the artists I listen to through Spotify are people like The Doors of Pink Floyd, and they certainly aren't taking any big hits by losing some money. However, the main way in which I can justify my use of Spotify is the fact that I support the artists I listen to through the service in different ways, in addition to streaming their music. If I listen to artist I really like on Spotify, I'll buy their album on vinyl, or I'll go to see their show. Take the band "The Main Squeeze" for example. I discovered them through Spotify this year, but instead of only streaming their music, I purchased their record so I could listen to it off the web, and I've already seen them live twice. Because of that, I think it's fair for me to use Spotify, but I still have a lot of misgivings. I'm always asking myself, should I be using Spotify, or am I just hurting the artists I love?

Bill O'Reilly Goes (Against) Between Two Ferns

For those of you who are familiar with the internet, you may know that Zach Galifianakis, star of "The Hangover," has his own web-series entitled "Between Two Ferns," in which he interviews celebrities in a deadpan comedic style. I became of this show last year after I saw Galifianakis' hilarious interview with Justin Bieber, in which he makes such jabs as, "You've had three hair styles. What's next for your career?" However, this show was recently brought to my attention when I found out that President Obama actually appeared on the show. I was surprised, to the say the very least, when I found out that the President actually sat down with Zach Galifianakis for an interview, and I wasn't sure what to expect going in. The clip nearly brought me to tears. If you have not had the acute pleasure of viewing it, I strongly urge you to do so right now.

The video really surprised me for a couple of reasons, with the first being that I never thought our president could crack me up like that! I was also really impressed that he was able to navigate through the humour and still plug his new Healthcare initiative (while skillfully dodging insults from Galifianakis like, "Why would you get the guy who created the 'Zune' to make your website?") Finally, I was mostly just amazed that Obama would even participate in the creation of the show. But after I thought about it, it made some sense. One of the main facets of the Affordable Care Act is to get younger people health care, and Between Two Ferns most certainly appeals to a younger crowd. So I say, well done Obama.

Not surprisingly, not everyone shared my opinion on Obama's appearance on Between Two Ferns, most notably Bill O'Reilly (what a shocker.) In a section of his show entitled "Talking Points," O'Reilly made many desperate attempts to criticize the President's appearance, including saying that "Lincoln would not have done it." I would say this made me lose all respect for Fox News, but that happened a long time ago. This is an outlandish claim not only because no one can predict what a president would have done centuries ago, but because Lincoln was one of our funnier, warmer presidents, and would have quite possibly done something like this! O'Reilly's feeble attempt to criticize Obama only cements my opinion on his participation on the show; it was a smart, personable move.