Forum participants challenging perceptions

Chad Clemens

Friday, Dec. 31, 2010 | 2:01 a.m.

About 1,000 students from high schools throughout Southern Nevada participated in the 54th annual Sun Youth Forum on Nov. 23. The students were divided into groups to discuss various topics. A representative was chosen from each group to write a column about the students’ findings. Chad Clemens of Palo Verde High School writes about issues covered by his group, “Law and Crime.”

Spending the day with my peers at the 2010 Sun Youth Forum has shown me that our up-and-coming generation knows much more about our world than skeptical Baby Boomers may think.

It took hardly five minutes for our room, which focused on law and crime, to dive into controversy over the death penalty. A majority opposed capital punishment, saying it is an ineffective and time-consuming method that pushes the standards of ethics. Those who supported the death penalty cited the overcrowded prison system and the financial burden that lifetime incarcerations put onto taxpayers.

Once most of the room had their say, we moved on to another headline-worthy topic: marijuana.

As one might expect, the room overwhelmingly supported the legalization of marijuana, but for entirely unexpected reasons. The main argument in favor of it its potential benefit to our broken economy as a taxable commodity. With certain restrictions, the group agreed that marijuana’s risks are easily outweighed, especially compared with those of alcohol.

The arguments against legalization consisted mostly of concerns over excessive use of marijuana and its potential to lead to illicit activities.

The next topic for argument was the recent news of Transportation Security Administration searches in airports. I was surprised that this subject even sparked debate; I hardly expected anyone to find problems with random pat-downs or optional screenings.

However, some thought pat-downs are invasive and screenings a potential health risk. In the end, most agreed that sacrificing some personal comfort for the safety and security of all is in our best interests.

Later, the Constitution became a hot topic of discussion, predominantly involving the First and Second amendments. First, we asked ourselves, is the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional?

Some saw it as a noncontroversial aspect of the wording because the pledge’s main function is to create national loyalty and unity. They also agreed that the phrase does not establish a religion and isn’t a prayer. One student noted a recent case, Newdow v. Carey, in which the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the phrase did not constitute an establishment of religion and was thus constitutional.

On the opposing side, it was argued that “under God” still favors monotheism and therefore supports religion, which in itself is unconstitutional. The argument ended when it was declared that until the Supreme Court decides on the matter, we won’t be able to come to a consensus as a nation.

On the next issue, gun control, the room almost completely favored tighter restrictions. Some argued the safety of our citizens should be considered top priority. Although most argued for stricter ownership laws, the consensus was in favor of the Second Amendment.

The day came to a close with many other issues being discussed, including the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law, texting while driving, and prostitution. Although the stances of the students varied, each was able to maintain his or her composure and refrain from personal attacks, something few politicians do today. Walking out of the forum, I thought to myself, people don’t know what they’re talking about; the future is indeed in good hands.