8
OPINION
K ANSAN.COM
Shondell: Kobach’s marijuana stance is key
Kansan columnist Joseph Shondell argues Kobach’s stance on the legalization of marijuana could make or break his run for governor in November
JOSEPH SHONDELL @jshondy Kris Kobach needs to realize that Kansas will legalize cannabis. Whether it be next election cycle or in 10 years, it is inevitable. The Republican candidate for governor said during last week’s debate that marijuana is a gateway drug, leading users to other types of substance abuse. While his opponents Laura Kelly and Greg Orman are in favor of medicinal use, Kobach opposes any legalization of cannabis whatsoever. He argues that supporting legalization will be detrimental to his five children’s health. But what about the young children with seizures or cancer? Or the tax and licensing money that could go to the upkeep of schools and roads? Kobach’s conservative views on weed only hurt his run for the state’s top office.
Medical cannabis is the first step to seeing high revenue streams like Colorado is experiencing From a financial standpoint, Kansas needs all the help it can get right now. Look at the example set by western neighbors like Colorado: the state made $247 million last year alone from licenses, fees and taxes put in
Associated Press On Jan. 4, 2018, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach speaks during an interview in Topeka, Kansas. place to regulate the marijuana industry. In Kansas, the money made from legalizing cannabis could go to rural schools that cannot rely on property taxes to pay for education. Colorado even saw a decrease in sales tax around the same time due to the excess of money. Kobach should see that our neighbors are
legalizing a gold mine — one that also helps people with medical conditions to live a more comfortable life. Medical cannabis is the first step to seeing high revenue streams like Colorado is experiencing. Cannabis itself is used to treat many disorders, including side effects such as seizures. Kobach mentioned
during the GOP primary run that the FDA is close to approving a CBD medication that can handle said medical problems, but he fails to understand that CBD only relaxes the user and may not take the pain away. Cannabis, or THC, which is the “high” component in the chemical makeup of the plant, is starting to be used in cancer
treatment as a way to offset chemotherapy. It’s impossible to turn a blind eye to the fact that Americans consume alcohol and tobacco products in large quantities, and that the health risks from those far outweigh the risks of cannabis. Kobach’s run for governor now labels him as anti-weed. It is hard
to determine whether he is causing intentional harm, or whether it is unintentional, but his actions must be more proactive. Weed will be legal, and it already is in many places. The Kansas government now has a necessary choice on their hands: legalizing cannabis or not. If Kobach loses, it may be because of his selfish attitude towards the benefits legalization would bring. But no matter the outcome of the election, this state and its voters will continue the fight for medicine that improves everyone’s quality of life. The issue of legalization should become a bipartisan issue. Democrat or Republican — it shouldn’t matter since legalization can bring an economic boom and help sick children in more ways than one. In a time of such partisanship, weed may be a force binding us together. To be fair, cannabis has always done that. Whether it’s a child who can finally recover from crippling seizures, or people enjoying it at a concert, we can all celebrate the togetherness and benefits that cannabis brings. Kobach will eventually have to join in or see his political career disappear.
Joseph Shondell is a junior from Roeland Park studying journalism and environmental studies. —Edited McDowell
by
Nichola
Favreau: Knock-offs benefit both buyers and brands
Olivia Favreau/KANSAN Sophomore Lily Lyddon models a counterfeit Dolce & Gabbana shirt. OLIVIA FAVREAU @ramreau “Thank you. It’s fake though.” I often quickly mutter that after being complimented on a Dolce & Gabbana t-shirt I got at a thrift store. The usual response I get is “well, obviously.” But ensuring that someone doesn’t believe I bought a $500 t-shirt with loose threads and mismatched stripes is important to me. Like it or not, we as
a society value luxury brands, and while street fashion is shaping up to be a lucrative venture for street style brands like Gucci and Supreme, most luxury brand companies no longer make a profit on their clothing, but their accessories. Clothing is significant for fashion brands only in theory. In practice, runway shows and ready to wear collections alike are utilized more as marketing ploys for the brand than an avenue
to deliver clothing. For these companies clothing doesn’t sell well because the price that they are set at do not mirror the quality of their production. A ‘luxury tax’ is placed on cheaply produced products and that lack of quality is significant to how we deal with counterfeit clothing as a society. Most people who sell their souls to high fashion designers and claim to follow the ‘revolutionary designs’ produced by
their fashion house (rather than the team of designers behind them that won’t have their name on the tag) will tell you that counterfeit clothing is stealing intellectual property, and those who buy it should be punished for their participation. That’s a healthy stance to take with most instances of intellectual property theft, and as a designer myself (I’m a modern Alexander McQueen, I assure you), I would encourage this attitude towards literally any fashion brand other than the luxury ones (especially Gucci — please recognize this loosely veiled rant). Why? When your brand is 90 percent marketing and image, with the sole aim of pushing luxury items with drastic gaps between production cost and pricing, counterfeit accessories and clothing actually help maintain the status quo. Without hundreds of people purchasing passable fake Gucci slides, there wouldn’t have been a boom of people buying the real thing. Counterfeit items generate public interest and relevance. Not to mention the fact that a lot of counterfeit clothing is sold in countries that the brand
In practice runway shows and ready to wear collections alike are utilized more as marketing ploys for the brand than an avenue to deliver clothing. refuses to sell in (like Supreme in South Korea — as if Seoul isn’t teetering on being a fashion capital as it is), it’s hard to argue protection of intellectual property when your product is physically and financially unavailable to people otherwise. If this wasn’t the case, brands would not actively seek out designs that mimic counterfeit products of their brand, as is the case with Gucci’s latest “Guccy” designs. Furthermore, even with such low costs of production, many luxury brands aren’t transparent with where their clothing is being manufactured. The general belief that a higher price tag reflects the price of production is no longer the case. (If you’re ever curious about how your favorite brands fall in the spectrum of workers’ rights, Cleanclothes.org is a good resource.) So, which would you prefer? A $500 t-shirt that looks and feels cheap and was produced
with cheap labor, or a $20 counterfeit that looks and feels cheap and was probably produced in the same factory? I’m not arguing that buying counterfeit items is the way to a fashion revolution, nor am I saying it’s completely moral. But by keeping luxury brands relevant, counterfeit items don’t hurt the image of a luxury brand. Rather, it maintains the image that allows for their luxury prices in the first place. Allow me to alleviate any guilt that might be associated with your imitation Yeezys. Though luxury fashion is a scam, I won’t say you’re at fault for wanting to save up for a Gucci handbag. Just don’t be upset that someone else got it cheaper.
Olivia Favreau is a freshman from Westwood, Kansas studying strategic communications.