I strongly agree with my colleague and his critique to legislator David Simpson in his argument for the legalization of marijuana. I don’t think a legislator should use his religious affair to defend a law or his argument for the prohibition of marijuana. His argument makes him seem bad because does he really think this could make people change their mind and legalizing marijuana. It concerns me that a legislator is thinking that way, and it scares me that a bill was passed using that kind of arguments. It’s like saying since abortion is prohibited by my religion then they should prohibit it as well, that’s not how it works.  I believe there are better arguments like Adrian said, for example seeking studies that demonstrate the positive outcomes or benefits that legalizing marijuana can do to our state, not just mentioning that marijuana comes from God and should not be prohibited. 

   The Texas Tribune presented Senate Oks Sealing More Criminal Records on Tuesday. It’s based on Senator Charles Perry who presented bill 1902, which would give a second chance to those who complete their probation or jail time and don’t commit any other crime. I believe this is a great opportunity for those who are willing to change. People who have learned from their mistakes and are willing to leave the past behind. I think it’s enough with what the criminal justice has persecuted the person for, and they should not be haunted for the rest of their life. If they already paid their sentence why should they still put up with having fewer opportunities than the others? I believe they should be seen like a regular person. They should have the opportunity to start over and change their way of life.

       
               Some may disagree or argue that it may contribute to the insecurities of others, but this bill will only allow the offenders to choose if they wish to disclose their criminal record to their landlords or employers. The offender’s record will remain available to certain law enforcement and criminal justice agencies along with others like health care and educational agencies. Furthermore only individuals who are dismissed after completing their sentence are eligible for an order of nondisclosure.

           
               I don’t see why people should oppose this bill; I believe it’s a great opportunity for those people who did wrong, they will have a second chance and can take advantage of this bill and do better things with their life. 

I don’t really agree with Drink and Ride or Drink and Drive?  argument, I believe there are other alternatives you can take other than choosing between the option of a cab ride, hire a driver, or driving yourself back home. If you’re going out to drink and know that you won’t be able to drive, you can make sure that you go with someone that will not be drinking that night and can drive you back home, or that you save money for a cab ride. I wouldn’t like someone to be putting myself or anyone else in danger only because they didn’t have enough money to hire a driver or a cab ride.

  I don’t think we can make Capitol Metro responsible or demand that they shouldn’t be available more hours. Not only will it be dangerous, but like you said it will cost us too. I don’t think no metro driver would like to be in a bus with people who are drunk; I don’t think I would ever like to be in that position, especially when you know that drunk people don’t act right or aren’t conscious of what they are doing. How would you know where to take them? If you’re dropping them off how would you ensure that they live there, of if they will be safe? Furthermore if you’re talking about costing the city, I don’t think the argument of giving the drunken people an option for transportation is a strong argument to make them change their mind, and extending hours for Capitol Metro.  

If you’re responsible enough to go out and drink you should definitely be responsible to have some sort of transportation available that can take you back home. It’s will not only be for the safety of you, but for the safety of others.

I agree with the open carry handgun law which allow the licensed person to open carry a handgun in our state. Texas had allowed concealed carry of handgun since 1995, but there has been a recent push by the new republican leaders like Governor Greg Abbott and our Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick. Texas is one out of six states that doesn’t allow open carry of handguns. The ones who are in favor call that the bill is an important second amendment protection, and those who are against it  say that the open carry guns in the streets is less about gun rights than intimidation.

   I come to an agreement with this bill because I know it will have many regulation which means that it won’t allow just any person to obtain a license. The people will have to go through certain regulations and procedures.

One of the strongest argument for this bill is that in response to a series of shootings incidents across the United States in schools like the Sandy Hook Elementary school were 28 innocent people were killed. The bill would allow or make it easier for administrators and educators to carry a weapons. Therefore this is a great argument because everybody wants the safety of children especially if they are in school. Those who are against the open carry handgun bill say that it will cause intimidation in our streets and insecurities. But I believe they shouldn’t feel that way because those who are allowed to open carry will have to have a license and have had to do all the process like doing a background check and making sure that they really know the kind of people they will be granting the license too.

              In spite of the early impetus there are no guarantees that the Texas open carry of handgun laws will be passed,  there are lawmakers in Texas which are known to be as the capital of the American gun culture, which are hopeful to push some bills through the state legislature that will expand the owners gun rights. So even if this doesn’t go through there will be some hope to have something similar to open carry.

        A recent editorial in the Dallas News talks about the legislature passing the bill that extends the DNA evidence testing. The author briefly demonstrates his favor of the bill because he says, “some of them gather to offer moral support when a new innocent brother secures his hard-won freedom”. So many people are imprisoned for crimes that others committed, and having this bill passed would allow those who are behind bars to show that they are innocent people. 
       The author then goes into a specific example, and uses the Michael Morton case, a man who spent 25 years in prison for the murder of his wife but after evidence was tested it showed that the real killer was out in the streets. With the advance in technology we can now do better testing and figure whose DNA is contained in the evidence. The author clearly states what happened in the Morton case and says that Morton's lawyers fought for years so that court could approve to test a bandana that was found near the home where his wife was bludgeoned to death. 
         The author summarizes with stating that it’s a good change that gives courts a clearer direction and avoids fatal errors like imprisoning an innocent person for something that they didn't do. His intended audience is anybody who is interested in new bills that are passed or those who are imprisoned but are really innocent and have evidence that can be DNA tested.
          I agree with the author because I think it's very good change that they can expand the access to DNA evidence testing. It provides specific examples and gives great argument to choose a side. Who would ever go against this bill, I can only think of the people who are really the ones who committed the crime.                                                                                                                                                                                                               

        In an editorial from The Dallas News the reader talks about the Affortable Care Act that is generally referred to as the Obama-care which is the landmark health reform legislation passed by the 111th Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama in March 2010. The reader is saying how it might affect millions of Texans. To be exact the writter provides the reader with specific statistics and said that in 2016 if the U.S. Supreme Court sides with the plaintiffs in King vs. Burwell 1.7 million in Texas would be uninsured. 
        I believe this is a well written editorial because it gives specific examples, it provides the reader definitions to words or bills that are introduced , and even presents statistics not only how it can affect our state but also nationwide. The editorial also provides senators opinion about how they feel towards this situation. The writter states that if the Affordable Care Act fails many people won't be able to afford health insurance and that will cause a dramatic rise of uninsured people, since Texas already leads in to be the state with the most people to be uninsured .
         Senators have been trying to search for ways to fix this issue so they introduced the bill HB 817 that says that the state will run healthcare exchange that would allow our state to continue to receive federal subsidies, and allow the people to maintain their healthcare coverage.
         I believe this is a very important informative editorial which its primary audience is any of the people in texas who did sign up with the Affordable Care Act or any other person that can be affected by this changes. I believe that the writter couldn't have have done a better job in this editorial because it provides the reader with very important information along with what solutions there can be to fix this issue.

According to a recent article in the Texas Tribune titled Medical Marijuana Advocates: Proposal Doesn't Go Far Enough says, that two lawmakers have filed bills that could allow to use medicinal oils that are found in marijuana and contain a therapeutic component for epilepsy patients. Those who are in support of the Texas Compassionate Use Act which its purpose is to ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes are calling it an “appeasement legislation” that will only benefit epilepsy patients in Texas but would do nothing for those with other diseases. There are many in support but also against it and having the bill expand can also be a loss of political support. Additionally some, critics don't like how long the implementation of the measure could take, with the first dispensaries scheduled to be licensed by 2018. I believe this is important because if the bill were to be implemented it could benefit many epilepsy patient, and with that being passed it could support another bill that could allow the use of medical marijuana for many medical purposes.