Marijuana

For the topic of my persuasive essay I am going to talk about the legalization of marijuana in the USA. We live in world were there are an estimated 310 million marijuana users. With 50 million users in the USA the math turn into about 1 in every 6 americans. The U.S. spends an annual 1.3 billion dollars a year on the prohibition of marijuana this number dose not include incarceration costs. In the United States there are an average of 800,000 people arrested for marijuana per year. Out of this 800,000 only 11% are guilty of trafficking, that leaves the other (89%) 712,000 harmless americans locked in jail for simple possession a year. That number is far greater than the amount of prisoners locked up for forcible rape, murder and robbery combined. It cost our government an average of 19,000 dollars per inmate per year for incarceration. If marijuana was legalized that would be 13 billion dollars a year not being spent incarcerating innocent americans with lives to live and families to care for. With our U.S. prisons already being overfilled the legalization of marijuana would empty space for real criminals and save important money from being wasted. With legalization the United States would not only be saving poorly spent money, it would be generating new profit. By legalizing and taxing marijuana like the U.S. has done with alcohol and cigarets the annual revenue would be in-between 11 to 14 billion dollars a year. An extra 11-14 billion dollars a year in America's pocket could do wonders for the country helping us pay off debts and boost health care. In this current recession legalization will provide more money it will also provide more jobs. With the unemployment rate hitting around 9.7 in the United States this year any job counts, legalization would proved many americans with pay. That fact that cigarets and alcohol are legal and account for more than 20% percent of deaths per year is ridiculous. marijuana accounts for 0% of deaths per year. There is no medical account that proves that just marijuana was a cause of death. Smoking marijuana is by no means healthy but has been used as medicine for thousands of years and helps many cancer patients on a day to day basis. Marijuana should be legalized and the government should be taking a look at the bigger picture.

ANDY G

AGE

For my persuasive essay I am going to focus on the problem with legal ages in America. When I say legal ages I am talking about the legal age at which you can purchase an alcoholic beverage or have license to drive a vehicle. To begin with I will start with the absurd law that restricts you of drinking or buying an alcoholic beverage before the age of 21. When you turn 18 in this country you receive many responsibilities that are life changing, but you are not allowed to go buy a beer. Some of these life changing responsibilities include being able to vote, to serve on juries, to get marries, and most importantly to join the military. These decisions can radically change your or some one else’s life, and you could possibly end up getting your self killed in battle. If people have these radical choices at 18, they should also have the choice of buying some alcohol. It would also be a good idea to integrate children into the idea of drinking. Teach adolescents how to drink responsibly instead of them going to college and binge drinking until they die. Also, lowering the drinking age to 18 would make alcohol less of a taboo, and adolescents would have less of an urge to get their hands on it. It is extremely scary that teens can get behind of the wheel of a car at 16. I know that I was excited as hell to grab my license at 16, but two years later when I am 18 I realized that I did not have the maturity to drive a vehicle at that age. If they raised the driving age to 18 or 21 then there would be much less accidents and much more mature drivers. What I don’t understand is how you can purchase a gun at 18 and kill some one, and you can buy a car at 16 and kill some one, but you have to wait until your 21 to go get wasted and kill some one. I just don’t get it!

This one's actually from KATIE

It took me a while to figure this out. I didn’t actually decide what I wanted to write about until my Mother came home after some school meeting complaining about how lenient Telluride High School is when it comes to drugs, alcohol and other illegal things happening outside of school. This made me think that I totally agree with her. How is it that our coaches allow students who so clearly use drugs and alcohol over the weekends to play sports? Why not drug test kids before they are allowed to be on a team? Whether its basketball, soccer, track, volleyball, they should not be allowed to play when they are abusing drug use. And we shouldn’t stop there. I think that if you are caught with drugs at school, or get in trouble with the law, you should not be able to participate in any school activity such as sports, student council, EPICS, or any other school event or club. It’s stupid to reward kids that don’t behave and it definitely isn’t good to have them as our student’s role models. Our School Board should acknowledge this and have some kind of punishment for it. Maybe get taken away from your club for a certain amount of time, or until your Juvenile Diversion is over. A kid shouldn’t be allowed to play a sport until they are clean. Now lets be real here, we all know that at Telluride High School the sports would suck until kids got their acts together but if it’s really important to them and they want to lead this school than we wouldn’t be asking much.

Equal Pay?

According to a national poll on worker wages, women only make 88% of every dollar that a man is paid in the United States. This means that women are in fact paid 12% less than men are for the exact samw work and qualifications. For a nation that try's to portray equality in almost every aspect, this is completley unacceptable. Men along with women should be paid equally with similar education, jobs, experience, and credientials. In this day of age, it seems that it benefits no one when women are paid less. Take for instance a couple working for minimal wage. Is it not fair that the wife isn't able to make the same amount of money her husband would simply because she is a women. I feel that women are often times taken advantage of in the work place. For those who believe women should be paid less, arguments such as women's tendencies to become too emotionally involved in the work place( and are thus not able to focus on the job or set task as the men) are seemly legitimately addressed. However, scientific studies have shown that women are more easily and proficiently able to multitask than men are. When looking at the MRIs between a male and female brain, men have only four areas of brain activity, while omwen have approximately 16 lighted areas. This accounts for the comon knowledge that most women are better at multitasking than men. Women can grade papers, keep up with a televisino program, talk to a child about homework and cook a meal all at the same time. As well, more stuides show 62% of women are the main source of income for their families. This means that the husbands will only bring in 38% of the dough. Now does this make sense or seem fair that women are paid less than men especially when they are their family's income. This is not right and is certainly unethical when women have the same qualifications as men and women are making up more than half of their families income. The work mania of today usually means dealing with customers or people in general. This means you must know how to be both emotionally compliant and business savvy (something women do well). Another recent poll showed that raising women's pay bt 13% would actually raise men's wages by 1%. Therefore this in fact is a win situation in both cases. Personally I have been working at my job for 3 years. A new male employee was hired and given one dollar more than I was. I have been working there for three years and have had much more experience. The new employee on the other hand has only been working there for around four months. Is this fair?

TV!

The wall of shame...

Television. Is it good or bad for the mind? I am going to argue negative side of the TV argument.

Children - I would like to address the fact that it's great and easy for parents to be able to sit their child in front of the tube while they get work done, but couldn't they choose another activity. Using TV as a resort that they know their kids will like is pathetic. We shouldn't have to rely on the box to entertain today's youth.

Obesity - coevally, rates are higher than ever. Maybe if all the lazy fatsos got off the couch and exercised our nation would be slimmer.

Family time - let's watch this, let's watch that...during dinner. Many studies found that family time is very valuable especially with the busy lives people lead. But bonding over television is not what they meant by quality time.

News - The amount of B.S. and corruptness that we call news is unbelievable. Then the fact that americans believe what they say is even more shocking.

Reality shows - We are representing the U.S. when the hills and jersey shore come on MTV. I can't comprehend how much viewers watch shows that undermine the integrity of the american public.

Hmmm what else?

False reality - look at that guy jumping of a cliff, maybe i should do that too!

8th grade level - TV is geared at this intellectual level.

Commercials - tends to promote bad eating habits.

Violence - tends to idealize and glorify this.

No PINK!!!

This essay is a challenge for me because I have to find the right way to convince as many people as possible that pink should be banned from society. It's usually a color that everybody likes but I hate it. I really do.
I worked for about an hour on making a pros and cons list: I found seven cons and only one pros which should make you believe me when I say that this essay is going to be really hard.
The first reason why I don't like pink is because everybody likes it and I don't like being part of the crowd...I like being different.
Second reason why is because pink is automatically associated with the female "gender" and I don't like when things are given for granted especially since NOT every girl likes this color.
Third reason why (and it's going to sound really stupid) is because it reminds me of Barbies which I really don't like. In fact I used to play with "little cars and trucks" when I was little.
Fourth, I feel like I know what to expect from people wearing pink (this is a huge generalization so no offense to anyone): if I see a woman with her nails painted pink I know she's obssessed with clothes, make-up, that's she spends/waists a lot of money and that she think she's the most beautiful "creature" on the planet.
I kind of like this color only in one case: when it's worn by gay men. If you see a man wearing a pink sweater, what do you think at first? ...exactly. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being gay but our society is not completely open-minded yet so being gay is still really hard. That's why I approve of every way and means that can help gay men to show who they really are.
I think this essay could be very interesting and I hope to be able to develop a good enough argument in order to make it interesting for as many more people as possible.

SLACKERS! Hall of Shame

How is it that I can set aside an ENTIRE class period for blogging, and yet the following students still can't manage to post?

MAX
COLIN
ANDY
NEVE
MEGHAN
TENAE
SHANNA MAE
JUSTIN

If your excuse is that you wanted to take a little more time to compose as thoughtful a post as the ones below (all of which are worth reading), well, class was Friday. It's now Sunday. Therefore, your reservation in the HALL OF SHAME is officially confirmed.

If you're looking for a good debatable topic, what about the use of public shame to motivate students?

On Campus Drinking

Recently visiting two colleges, Grinnell and Knox, of course the subject of campus social life and parties was visited. Grinnell, has an open campus policy where most partying takes place on campus under a "self-governed" trust policy. At Knox, most everything happens off campus. Grinnell was the first school I had seen where the social life was pretty much centered on campus. The students I talked to said that they were very fond of how this worked. Yes of course, alcohol and drugs were still present, but almost every single one of them mentioned having a better partying experience because people weren't trying to hide anything from "the officials." They said people were more casual in their partying and binge drinking on campus was rare. These students were protected by campus police in the event of an emergency, but in their policy, there was never anyone getting in trouble for underage drinking unless they were causing a problem. It made me wonder if all college campuses should be like this. With less things happening off campus and not involving other security people (off campus, rather than just on campus cops) the partying would definitely be more casual. People may not feel as rushed to get drunk because there is a short window of time to drink on friday night. This would most likely work better for smaller colleges because there would be less people causing a disturbance, and less people to abide by such an honor code. Some people might see this as an encouragement to drink, but ALL the students I talked to said that they felt less pressured to drink in this environment because 1. they knew that the opportunity was more readily available so they could later if they wanted to and 2. as part of the honor code, people respected the wishes of people who chose not to participate in these activities.

Persuasion via analogy

For my persuasive essay i am going to argue that marijuana should indeed be legalized by the government. I will not do this by simply presenting the plethora of valid reasons, but instead by using a reasonable analogy. The legal distribution and consumption of caffeine in its most common form, coffee will be the focal point of my analogy. I will research specific statistics and evidence that caffeiene is potentionally more harmful than marijuana and yet millions of people all over the world consume it multiple times per day. What would happen if caffeine was illegal? Would it have the same fate as marijuana? Would people smuggle coffee beans over the border, and distribute them illegally to the masses of addicts? In my essay i will start with the analogy and then when the reader starts to see the irrationality in making caffeine an illegal substance i will relate it to the role of marijuana in America today. Is legalizing caffeine and not marijuana justified on any level?

Illegally Downloading Music

I've decided to write my paper persuading people to stop downloading music illegally. Everyone listens to music in some form or another. Walking into school there are dozens of people with their iPods plugged into their ears, but how many of these kids actually paid for the music? With the ease of downloading music without paying for it, many people forget that before the age of the internet, Music had to paid for. To listen to any music, you had to pay for the CD, you had to pay to go to the concert. That's how the music was made. The artists need to make a living, their money came from the sales of their CD and the people going to concert. They need money to finance the recordings of their future albums, to hire producers, musicians, rent studio time, fund music videos and concerts. By illegally downloading music, you are taking away that money away. Every-time you illegally download a song, you are taking money away from that artist. If an artist does not generate music for their record label, the label will drop the artist, and no more music will made.

Pros of illegally downloading music:

- It's free

- It's easy

Cons of illegally downloading music:

- Its illegal

- Take money away from artist.

- No money being made, no music being made.

- No concerts to go to.

- End of record industry as we know it.

- CD stores nationwide are closing.

- Lawsuits by labels and RIAA

Predator Drones. For better or for worse?

For better or for worse in the year 2008 there was a 94% increase when it came to the number of Predator Drones being used in action. These drones in today in the war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda are firing Hellfire anti-armor missiles and are killing many innocent civilians. Now I understand that there is reasons for using these drones, it is a way to make sure that we do not lose as many soldiers, however are innocent lives a fair trade off? Some may say that these people may grow up to be terrorists one day, but is it this day? And how can one determine if someone else is going to end up killing thousands? Doesn't the fact that a person can be in Nevada and be killing people all the way across the world make him more or less of a killer? I feel as though the complete detachment from the situation would be unnerving. The video game perspective is odd in and of itself. I simply think that if we don't want our own soldiers dying then we shouldn't be at war. I understand the appeal to the drones, who wouldn't want to be sepperated from the battle but just as much a part of it? At any given point there are at least forty drones in the air, thousands of miles away from their desk bound flyers. These drones are opperated by two men holding on to joysticks. They simply watch a play by play video of what is happening in Iraq and find the enemies from the air and fire at will. It takes no longer then 1.7 seconds for the transmition to be sent over twelve different time zones. These drones carry a 500 pound bomb that will leave a crator fifteen feet wide and two feet deep. There is also a stitsic that states that only 15% are the drones fired at an identified target. The other 85% of the time I guess they just don't care. The Obama administration has approved skyrocketing usage of drones 400 hours a day, a 300 percent increase.

libertarian society

We live in a "free" country. In this free country, thousands of people are in jail for victimless crimes in which the only person being affected is the person sitting in jail. My feeling is that in a free country you should be free to do what you want, as long as you are not negatively affecting others around you. What should stop two consenting adults from fighting to the death if both of them consented and had no problem with being killed. In a free country, you should have complete control over your actions and no one should be able to take that away from you.
We should have a minimal amount of taxes that goes to the bare necessities such as hospitals. Private companies should be in charge of building bridges and so on. Education would be somthing that you would have to take the initiative to get. There would be no public schools, only private and mostly people would homeschool their children. This would eliminate kids in school who don't want to be in school.

Give Me My Damn Music!

For my topic I am going to present the case againt the growing norm of putting Digital Rights Managment on media, in particular, music. Music has a long history of problems arising from copyrights and usage, this stems from the fact that there are only 12 chords in western music, which creates a situation where copying is inevitable. Copyrights were established in the music industry to protect artists from unfair treatment, however, in today's musical society where it seems everybody and their brother has a band writing songs, the ability to write truly original music is almost non-existant as all possible combinations are being used in some way, shape, or form. The security functions that have been established in a growing digital community to serve similar functions as copyrights in these new arenas have become and incredibly tiresome and unnecessary annoyance. Digital Rights Management is particularly to blame, with it's insistance on only allowing the artists, record labels, and distributors to use songs in other entertainment mediums.
The common argument is that the DRM provisions are discouraging pirating. But figures can be found (which I will dig up) that show that DRM is actually increasing the amount of pirated downloads. In the videogame medium, games with little to no DRM have consistently shown massive sales and minimal pirates while games with large amounts of DRM have sold very poorly with massive amounts of pirates. Music is no different. There are statistics supporting this comparison which I will find and use.
I'm having difficulty deciding on the more broad copyright issue or the more specific DRM one, but I will no doubt end up addressing both.

Pros (for no DRM):

• decrease in pirating
• grass roots publicity
• increase sales

Cons:

• less security for artists
• no defense against would-be pirates

Screw Microsoft

No I am not arguing that Macs are better than PCs. Macs suck. That isn't what my essay is going to be about though. The reason I say screw Microsoft is that they recently held a press conference in which they revealed their intention to pursue Cloud Computing. As it stands 70% of Microsoft employees are working on projects that involve cloud computing, and they want to raise that to 90% by the end of the year. Microsoft is gambling their future on the cloud wave. By cloud wave I mean the recent push towards the integration of cloud computing as the standard. Now I understand that many people don't understand what cloud computing is, so the first bit of my essay will definitely be outlining what cloud computing is. Cloud computing is a way of using centralized computers. Amazon already has a service that resembles a cloud, where you can pay to use some of Amazon's extra processors. The eventual goal of cloud computing way down the line is to simply eliminate the use of a computer (the tower bit, not the screen). A cloud computer's utopia would have only a screen with minimal computing power to understand the data being fed to it from a central server. All processing, saved data, and calculations would be done elsewhere. Computing would then be payed for, instead of investing in a machine to do it yourself.

My take on the matter is that cloud computing is absolute crap. I hate the idea of it. I think that it is just a way for companies to make more money, and that it will kill a lot of what makes computing so fun, as well as eliminate quite a few Tech Support jobs. I suppose there are some advantages though. So here is the general standing of things:

Pros:
1) Centralized data is easier to guard from hackers, phishers, malware, spyware, etc.
2) Upgrades and installations can be done almost instantly to a central server
3) Data is more protected from crashes
4) People wouldn't need to pay for computers, and wouldn't need to worry about their upkeep
5) People could have access to a lot more computer power for cheaper

Cons:
1) Computing would join water, gas, and electricity as a utility
2) All your data would be saved on a company server, which the company would have access to
3) You would have to pay a monthly fee, or a fee per unit of time, or a fee per calculation (depends on the company) to use a computer
4) You would loose the ability to configure your computer freely
5) The central servers would provide easy targets for hackers and phishers
6) Computing would loose a lot of flexibility
7) The local computer repair profession would more or less be eliminated

My stance on the matter is always one of freer localized computing.

Barbies

I am going to form my essay around the main argument that Barbie should produce a fatter figured doll as well. Having a fat barbie would illustrate to young children who rely upon the looks of these dolls to develop ideas of the acceptable body shape, that it is okay to not have the perfect figure. Barbie being perfectly proportioned has enforced the idea that they need to look the same, if not similar to the doll in order to gain acceptance. Along with the media this can be ultimately harmful. There are so many sources out there today that enforce the idea of the perfect body, its gross. Children at such a young age should not be thinking about body image. They should be out there playing and having fun, living life while it is carefree. There will be plenty of time throughout their lives to worry about body image and how they look. It should not be something that they are thinking about as children. Barbie is a role model for young girls everywhere, and boys for the matter too (Ken); therefore, producing a fuller doll along with other body shapes would help to illustrate to the child that being different is beautiful. In addition, the production of these dolls would lead a number of media sources to expand their criteria for what is beautiful, meaning that they would be forced to market the idea that it isn't just the model figures that are beautiful, but all body types can be beautiful as well. All in all the production of such dolls would bring about change throughout the media addressing the idea of physical beauty.

Agua

For my essay, I’m going to write about the privatization of water. Initially I was going to write about the privatization of water access and property because of my relationship with water access and kayaking. However, my subject has evolved, I am now looking at the larger issue. Mainly focusing on the question, Is water a human right or a commodity? I don’t want to ending up writing a book about this subject, which I sure there already are and could do. I think it’d be easier to look at issues closer to home. Issues such as piping water to Denver from the front range and cities like Phoenix, L.A., and Las Vegas using water from the Colorado River to water their lawns in the middle of the day. There is plenty of water in the world, most of Earth is covered with it. Humans just need to answer the question, is there enough water, fresh accessible water, for us to shower three times a day? Two times? Even once? Until we figure out what our needs are we will be subject to the privatization of water, people selling us water that they hardly have a right too. Pressures on water resources are only going to be increasing making the solution more difficult. In essence, I’ll be arguing that the privatization of water is wrong, but the problem is larger than the corporations.

Beware the Man

Rome was an Empire that many thought would govern the western known world for all time yet after a millennia (or two depending on your definition of “Roman Empire”), this great republic fell due to gradual decay and defeat on the inside and out. As one of the great republics of our time, there is no reason for us not to learn from the mistake of our ancestors. Unfounded wars, economic extremes and depression, and the polarization of the people were all signs of the end. I do not truly think that our country is on the verge of collapse, but this is another chance in the history of the governed nations for the people to move into the future and not fall again to the ways of old. Many past generations thought that man would grow and learn and not repeat the same silly, primitive mistakes that led to the ill fates that they and their community met. But we stand today in the same places in many ways. We have only been a country for two hundred and thirty four years, but most of us feel it is permanent. Rome Ruled for around four hundred an fifty years as a republic. We have a long way to go before we can consider our world governmental system, let alone our country, a truly permanent human establishment that works.

Arguementative Essay (Condoms in School)

In this essay I will discuss the pros and cons of providing condoms at a public high school. While many adults and possibly some students feel that this will promote a bad idea and give kids more reason to have sex, we really need to think realisically about this issue. As much as people want to believe that if we don't have condoms available to us then sex will not happen, that is just not the case. Just like in the new movie called "The Pregnancy Pact," based on a true story about a group of 18 young high school girls (age about 15) who choose to get pregnant together, we find that without condoms kids are still just as likely. Throughout the movie, there is an ongoing debate between the school and various parents/adults in the town who fight for whether or not condoms and birth control should be available to students at school while the school offers daycare. Then, we soon find that one of those 18 girls is the daughter to a mother who VERY strongly feels no condoms available=no sex, which we find to obviously not be the case.
From living up in this little town of Tellurde, and being so involved in the AIDS Benefit I have learned more than I probably need to know about being safe and condom use is one of them. High school is the time when students really start becoming involved with dating, etc. and are the most willing to try new things. Seriously, tell me about one high school student who has never even thought about having sex. Also, while kids of this age are still underage to drink, many do and that sometimes leads to decisions they may have not made otherwise. If students are able to simply get a condom from their school, they are much more likely to be prepared in a situation like this. For students of high school age, it is embarassing to go into a store and buy a condom. While many say "if you are not mature enough to buy a condom, you are not ready for sex," the thing is many don't care if they are "ready" or not or they may just find it plain embarrasing. Just because they feel unsure about buying a condom, doesn't nessecarily mean they cannot handle themselves. Sex is a choice that kids at this age are going to make with or without condoms so why not have them available?
For those people who are against my case, sit down and really think about it. What bad will it do to have protection there for those who need it. By this I am not saying EVERY teenager is or will have sex before the end of high school, but what I am saying is that it is inevitable that some will engage in sex, so why not make them prepared? Some people argue that it will promote sex but what is their backing for that? From talking to high school students from being a peer educator, I am very aware that this is not the case. Those who don't want to have sex won't, and those who get pressured into it because "they have a condom" most likely would have been pressured into it either way with their partner saying something like "I promise it will be fine." The thing is that no it may not be fine. With the ignorance of safety that some schools promote to their students in order to "shelter" them from reality does the students no good. It teaches kids to be scared of something that is completely natural and without the knowledge it will NOT lead to abstinence but it will lead to uneducated choices. If students choose to take a condom in a school setting, that is their choice. By offering condoms at school, the district is not changing how they view life and decision making in any way, all they are doing is putting the safe option out there. They are not shoving protection in anyones face, they are not requiring anyone to take a condom. All they are doing is providing another option just like how it would be to provide pencils to students. If the student wants to use what is provided, they can CHOOSE to. Nothing is required. There is no harm in a choice.

Persuasive Essay - What is Beauty?

I'm going to argue that our country's concept of beauty is unhealthy and scewed. Therefore either the companies need to ban the use of computer enhancement or the modeling agencies need to broaden their range of body types. Points for this argument include:
1) the images they (the advertising agencies, modeling agencies, etc.) show are unattainable at best, but put the pressure on all of us (men and women alike) that we must look like that
2)it causes unhealthy, unattainable views of what is beautiful that interfere with a healthy life, including intimate relationships with others and our own self-confidence.
3)it kills people - example: people die from plastic surgery (I will come up with a figure for that); people (espeically women and young girls) die from eatting disorders due to them attempting to look like the images we see (I'll come up with a figure for that as well).
The main point against this argument is:
1)this is how the industry makes money - modeling agencies, food industries, advertising industries, etc.
My call to action is to boycott the use of enhanced images in magazines and on billboards and that if one woman who is a size 0 is chosen for modeling, than a size 13 should be chosen as well.

Uniforms

For this essay, I want to look at the case of having uniforms or not, and eventually argue against them. In the case against uniforms, there is the point that uniforms squash creativity, seeing as what you wear is one venue of self-expression. Uniforms also reduces individuality, an important issue for young United Statesians. Also, if public schools had uniforms, then the uniforms would be mass produced with quantity in mind, not quality, and so would be of poor quality.

On the side that is for uniforms, is that because they are all the same, no one can get picked on for what they wear, which could ultimately raise self-esteem and student morale. It would provide students with more of a sense of unity, or school spirit.

So, that's what I have, and I'll develop it more.

party house

I am going to argue that the community should have a designated party house that is off the police’s jurisdiction for high school kids to go to, to blow off stem. This house would be a safe place for teens because it would be a warm, minimally supervised place to go on nights when us kids might get into trouble if there is nothing better to do. In a community like this especially, the whole community could benefit, we could use one of the many houses in Mountain Village that sits vacant for the majority of the year to turn into the ultimate party house. Also there is a large group of high school children that would take advantage of this and use the time they spend in this house to prepare for college life. Not only the locals would benefit from this, the tourists would also see a difference in town because there would not be kids trying to get strangers to buy them alcohol, this is because there would be a full time bartender at the house, the tourists would also be less afraid to come into town because there would not be drunk kids throwing snowballs at them, causing mischief as usual. This would all be paid for with the money that is spent on, prior to the party house, convicting young adults. Teens could also get community service hours by cleaning up after the nightly parties that will be held, we could raise money by selling cups at the door and once we raise enough money we could hold concerts in the house or give back to the community in some way... the possibilities are endless.

Chicken or the Egg

A "chicken and egg" proposal is the classic example of a circular process, with no beginning or end. Yet this analogy is flawed from the start. Chickens have not been around since the beginning of time, so the whole process has to start somewhere. So how did the very first chicken arise? Two almost-evolved-into-chickens-but-not-quite-there parents laid an EGG, containing the first true chicken. The egg did indeed proceed the chicken.
Some, however, might vehemently argue that an egg containing a fully evolved chicken must be laid by an equally evolved chicken. Genetically, this makes sense. The argument that a non-chicken cannot beget a chicken is a very reasonable one, but it has one logical fallacy. Mutations in gene replication make the offspring more than just a product of the parents. They are the root of all diversity on earth. One minute mutation is what distinguished the true chicken from all other small clucking flightless avea. That one mutation first appeared in an egg.
Others will argue that evolution does not exist at all, so the first chicken was placed on earth as a chicken, and there have always been chickens, and the whole argument of the egg is therefore ludicrous. There are more than one fallacies with this point of view, but these reasons have been so often repeated and so little heeded by those of this point of view, it does not seem worth saying them again. For those who do believe in evolution, however, there can be no question as to the true beginning of this circle.