MARK YOUR CALENDAR FOR THIS SATURDAY!
As you may already know, it is a sin for a Muslim male to see any woman other than his wife naked, and that he must commit suicide if he does.
So this Saturday at 4 P.M. Eastern Time we are requesting all women are to walk out of their house completely naked as means of helping us identify and weed out any neighborhood terrorists.
Please circle the block for one hour. We ask our rural women to walk back and forth along the road for 陆 mile in each direction. All men are to position themselves in lawn chairs in front of their house to prove they are not Muslims, and to demonstrate they think it is okay to see nude women other than their wife and to show support for all American women.
Since Islam also does not approve of alcohol, a cold 6-pack at your side is further proof of your anti-Muslim sentiment.
Please notify this office of any residents in your neighborhood who do not participate as to your nearest police department.
The American government appreciates your efforts to root out terrorists and applauds your participation in this anti-terrorist activity. God bless America.
Answer:
Well, this could be a very interesting Saturday.
This Special Comment By Keith Olbermann is most poignant this 4th of July.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19588942/...
You're an idiot.
Obviously you know nothing about Islam. And don't try to make this a war against muslims Adolf.
What the hell is wrong with you? You are a terrorist if you are purposely trying to get Muslim Americans to kill themselves. Just because they are Muslim does not mean they arent Americans, and it certainly doesnt mean they are terrorists. You are a sick bastard.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Will accelerated interbreeding eventually elimated diversity?
or will that lead to planned breeding like the dog breeders enjoy to create such an assortment of "interesting" and diverse breeds. where does it lead, do you think? will all cultures merge and will there be need for more than one language? what is correct?
Answer:
I think the interaction between different races and different cultures is inevitable but there is a natural diversity amongst people that will always exist.
Public education will concentrate on a main language which will be English leaving us with a familiarity of other languages that will probably fade into the past as generations go by.
No.
x 5, and counting.
no idea, but shant live long enough to see it
Interbreeding may result in more diversity ,like ananimal having charecteristics of horse and zebra. Incase of animals,how far it is desirable is not clear.There are seven continents.Animals of these different continents having different in built qualities suitable to the repective continents.Further all animals cannot be found in same place even in the same country.Free interbreeding of animals may result in ecological imbalance and far reaching consequences.It is dangerous to tamper with nature.
As far as human beings are considered the same rule applies.While Africans and Asians are "made" for hot temperate climate while the "whites"are for cool temperatutre.
A breed from the two may not be suitable on long term basis.There is no system of breeding of intercontinental breeding of human being or any scientific study made on that.But defnitely this is happening on small scale in the west.This creates Eurasians,Anglo Indians etc.,and to certain extent these people remains isolated from main society.With fast developing technology and distance is overcome by speed,interbreeding acorss the world is likely to happen creating further diversity.,not elemination of diversity.
Despite large scale migration from India and Pakistan etc to UK and Canada it has not resulted in unification of culture or blending.The migrants create their on patch of islands in the foreign nation.The East is the East,East and West cannot be one.But the only hope the fast spreading of English all over the world,even in Japan and China.English as a world language is a reality and thgis may ultimately result in some common culture and unity,to some extent.
I think the Nazis tried this or something similar to create a master race. Thankfully the non master races fought back.
I think European countries will eventually interbreed into one race. The sad thing is there will be no mother country one could call white, but India, Pakistan, China, Africa will remain as they are due to lack of people emigrating to those countries, hence there will be no interbreeding in those countries with perhaps the exception of south Africa
Genetic diversity is good for any species.
I could go on more but what I have to say on the subject would very likely offend people because of the nature of the subject, most people cant get used to the idea that deformity and serious physical conditions are just genetic throwbacks.
In saying that I'M bound to of offended people but that's life, if they cant deal with it then they shouldn't be here reading this thread.
Answer:
I think the interaction between different races and different cultures is inevitable but there is a natural diversity amongst people that will always exist.
Public education will concentrate on a main language which will be English leaving us with a familiarity of other languages that will probably fade into the past as generations go by.
No.
x 5, and counting.
no idea, but shant live long enough to see it
Interbreeding may result in more diversity ,like ananimal having charecteristics of horse and zebra. Incase of animals,how far it is desirable is not clear.There are seven continents.Animals of these different continents having different in built qualities suitable to the repective continents.Further all animals cannot be found in same place even in the same country.Free interbreeding of animals may result in ecological imbalance and far reaching consequences.It is dangerous to tamper with nature.
As far as human beings are considered the same rule applies.While Africans and Asians are "made" for hot temperate climate while the "whites"are for cool temperatutre.
A breed from the two may not be suitable on long term basis.There is no system of breeding of intercontinental breeding of human being or any scientific study made on that.But defnitely this is happening on small scale in the west.This creates Eurasians,Anglo Indians etc.,and to certain extent these people remains isolated from main society.With fast developing technology and distance is overcome by speed,interbreeding acorss the world is likely to happen creating further diversity.,not elemination of diversity.
Despite large scale migration from India and Pakistan etc to UK and Canada it has not resulted in unification of culture or blending.The migrants create their on patch of islands in the foreign nation.The East is the East,East and West cannot be one.But the only hope the fast spreading of English all over the world,even in Japan and China.English as a world language is a reality and thgis may ultimately result in some common culture and unity,to some extent.
I think the Nazis tried this or something similar to create a master race. Thankfully the non master races fought back.
I think European countries will eventually interbreed into one race. The sad thing is there will be no mother country one could call white, but India, Pakistan, China, Africa will remain as they are due to lack of people emigrating to those countries, hence there will be no interbreeding in those countries with perhaps the exception of south Africa
Genetic diversity is good for any species.
I could go on more but what I have to say on the subject would very likely offend people because of the nature of the subject, most people cant get used to the idea that deformity and serious physical conditions are just genetic throwbacks.
In saying that I'M bound to of offended people but that's life, if they cant deal with it then they shouldn't be here reading this thread.
Will a warrent go away?
My dad had a warrent for his arrest from not paying back child support and my uncle who was a lawyer told him that after so long it went away? I don't know if that is true or not but my question is a freind of mine has a warrent for not finishing some comm service. I was curious to know if eventually that will go away if he is never caught or if he could just pay a fine instead of going to jail. I was curiou to know. Esp since my dad's went away.
Answer:
What I offer is mere information, not to be construed as forming an attorney client relationship.
They may still be charged on new charges, or if on new charges, prosecution will have to show diligence in trying to arrest/bring forth these charges. Also, judge may decide statute of limitations is not up. --%26gt; lots of loopholes in the law.
The statue of limitations applies to the issuing of the warrant. If no action is taken as in no warrant is issued the statute of limitations will run out on how long you can issue a warrant. Once the warrant is issued the statute of limitations does not count because action was made and not satisfied.
In short - The state did their part in issuing the warrant. The limitation does not apply because they have not found the person. If you think about it, it makes sense.
It will go away when they get arrested.
It will only go away if he turns himself in and then makes a bond and arrangements for payment.
once a warrant is issued(someone is charged) it doesn't "go away" until time is served or judge dismisses it. if u commit a crime and are not caught,statute of limitations runs out,except for murder
Warrants for arrests stay in the LIEN system until the warrant is carried out by the police or if a court dismisses a warrant. Your dad might be better off to just surrender to the court and get the warrant done and over with.
Hope this helps. Good Luck
Answer:
What I offer is mere information, not to be construed as forming an attorney client relationship.
They may still be charged on new charges, or if on new charges, prosecution will have to show diligence in trying to arrest/bring forth these charges. Also, judge may decide statute of limitations is not up. --%26gt; lots of loopholes in the law.
The statue of limitations applies to the issuing of the warrant. If no action is taken as in no warrant is issued the statute of limitations will run out on how long you can issue a warrant. Once the warrant is issued the statute of limitations does not count because action was made and not satisfied.
In short - The state did their part in issuing the warrant. The limitation does not apply because they have not found the person. If you think about it, it makes sense.
It will go away when they get arrested.
It will only go away if he turns himself in and then makes a bond and arrangements for payment.
once a warrant is issued(someone is charged) it doesn't "go away" until time is served or judge dismisses it. if u commit a crime and are not caught,statute of limitations runs out,except for murder
Warrants for arrests stay in the LIEN system until the warrant is carried out by the police or if a court dismisses a warrant. Your dad might be better off to just surrender to the court and get the warrant done and over with.
Hope this helps. Good Luck
Will a restraining order - order of protection against a cop even work?
This guy has been a thorn in my side for years...now he is a cop. Recently saw him out and he is still giving me problems. If I file a restraining order.will that even work? It won't be in his same district...he is a county sheriff while he lives in a different town. But still wondering..
Answer:
Restraining orders are for your protection, not just because some one bothers you, or you don't like them. If you feel that he is a threat to your safety, then get one and report his actions to the department he works for. Get as much proof as you can (witnesses, etc). The days of protecting a cop who hurts people are over, the Sheriff won't want the publicity risk (by the way this guy would be a deputy, not the Sheriff)
Good luck!
Probably not. Cops are a brotherhood.
If he lives in a different town, how can he be giving you such a hard time? In my county, a judge has to sign off on a restraining order, and he's going to look for reasonableness in the request.
why would it, they don't even work for us regular people.
Yes a restraining order even applies to law enforcement.
Answer:
Restraining orders are for your protection, not just because some one bothers you, or you don't like them. If you feel that he is a threat to your safety, then get one and report his actions to the department he works for. Get as much proof as you can (witnesses, etc). The days of protecting a cop who hurts people are over, the Sheriff won't want the publicity risk (by the way this guy would be a deputy, not the Sheriff)
Good luck!
Probably not. Cops are a brotherhood.
If he lives in a different town, how can he be giving you such a hard time? In my county, a judge has to sign off on a restraining order, and he's going to look for reasonableness in the request.
why would it, they don't even work for us regular people.
Yes a restraining order even applies to law enforcement.
Will a positive criminal background prevent me from being accepted into nursung school?
I have been wanting to become an lpn for quite sometime but 2 things have been holding me up. One is that I did not graduate. But Ive been working on my diploma for almost 2 years with Penn Foster and I am almost finished. The second thing was my criminal background. Nine years ago I was charged with a misdemeanor of petty larceny when my sister gave me free milk from a store she worked at. I have never had anything else on my record since this incident when I was 18. Will this be grounds for automatic rejection?
Answer:
I'm not entirely sure, it depends on the current laws in the state you wish to get licensed in.
I can tell you this though, do NOT go through school until you find out if you're able to be licensed with this on your record. Schools will gladly take your money and train you, but after you graduate getting a license is a separate story. So, you could end up paying for tuition only to find out you'll never get licensed to work - huge waste of money.
I'm sure a simple misdemeanor that does not involve drugs or stolen goods wouldn't be a big deal, but still double check before you apply. I recommend looking up your state board of nursing or board of health and putting in inquiries into this.
Good luck, we sure need more nurses!
First to be clear one thing is going to nursing school and another is to get your nurce license and registration.
Most likely you will be ok, since this was a midemeanour and not a violent or drug or sex related crime.
You need to find out what are the requirement in your state to get the license. Give them a call; look for the nurse asosiation in charge of that in your state.
Your misdemeanor will not stop you from getting into school, its going to be the fact you have not graduated. You should be able to take your GED and get it done pretty quick. If it is taking you 2 years to pass your GED then you probably should not be in the nursing field.
Go to your state's General Assembly (that is usually what it is called) or your state's statute link and check for their expungement law. A nine year old misdemeanor should qualify for expungement.
Talk to the nursing board in your state. Misdemeanors are usually evaluated on a case by case basis and since it was milk it may be overlooked using discretion. Granting a license is solely at the discretion of the board and Boards of Nursing are tougher on applicants and nurses than any other profession including doctors and pharmacists.
Answer:
I'm not entirely sure, it depends on the current laws in the state you wish to get licensed in.
I can tell you this though, do NOT go through school until you find out if you're able to be licensed with this on your record. Schools will gladly take your money and train you, but after you graduate getting a license is a separate story. So, you could end up paying for tuition only to find out you'll never get licensed to work - huge waste of money.
I'm sure a simple misdemeanor that does not involve drugs or stolen goods wouldn't be a big deal, but still double check before you apply. I recommend looking up your state board of nursing or board of health and putting in inquiries into this.
Good luck, we sure need more nurses!
First to be clear one thing is going to nursing school and another is to get your nurce license and registration.
Most likely you will be ok, since this was a midemeanour and not a violent or drug or sex related crime.
You need to find out what are the requirement in your state to get the license. Give them a call; look for the nurse asosiation in charge of that in your state.
Your misdemeanor will not stop you from getting into school, its going to be the fact you have not graduated. You should be able to take your GED and get it done pretty quick. If it is taking you 2 years to pass your GED then you probably should not be in the nursing field.
Go to your state's General Assembly (that is usually what it is called) or your state's statute link and check for their expungement law. A nine year old misdemeanor should qualify for expungement.
Talk to the nursing board in your state. Misdemeanors are usually evaluated on a case by case basis and since it was milk it may be overlooked using discretion. Granting a license is solely at the discretion of the board and Boards of Nursing are tougher on applicants and nurses than any other profession including doctors and pharmacists.
Why's there even got to be a DEBATE about outlawing texting while driving? Are American legislators THAT dumb?
In Europe even holding your phone to your ear to talk while driving is illegal. Why don't the Americans get it?
Answer:
I completely agree with you, look at all the unfortunate lives that have been harmed because of inconsiderate people texting while driving.
Yes, they are THAT dumb
Ammmmmm we have that now. wake up
What we "get" is that libs like you want a law on everything down to having to brush your teeth at night.
Hey I drove from New Mexico to Illinois and I needed to keep busy somehow.
Because the legislators obviously do it as well. Oh wait, they all have chauffers...
hmmm, their kids do it?
or they just have to make the argument that it isnt worth the time, even though while arguing they could have made a decision.
Well its called the risk factor. Its boring just to drive. So Americans like to throw in risks. Can I drive while texting? Can I drive while reading a magazine? Can I drive while makeing an omlet? It will continue until someone sues a phone company blameing text messageing for their accident.
Hey it is not my fault that there are poeple out that that are unable to multitask!! I am a pro at texting while driving..it is just another something to do while driving.if they outlawed that shouldn't they outlaw putting on makeup, eating, talking on the phone, writing things down and all of the millions of other things that people do while driving!!
Why isn't it illegal to stick your head in a pumpkin while driving?
Sometimes laws are just plain stupid. If you are stupid enough to drive with a pumpkin on your head, no law will stop you and no cop will be able to stop you.
Unenforcable, stupid laws that restrict everybody because of a few idiots are wrong.
I'd like to think that the American public was being given the benefit of the doubt, and given the chance to show whether or not they could be responsible.
There are already laws on the book which would apply to driving while distracted be it texting, cell phones, eating or whatever. Legislators like to create legislation whether it is needed or not. Our government has a group of people who want to legislate common sense which will never work..
Maybe you should be the one to let them know about this.
taking away my right to text and drive takes away from my freedom of speech. it is my first ammendmend right. How else will I talk to people. In the phone? that is so 20th century...
They are not dumb, they are responding to the pressure of the mobile phone lobbyists. Wireless companies in America do not want limits placed on the use of their products.
Unfortunately, most political decisions in the US are not based on what is good for the people. They are based on who makes the most noise and is able to get the attention of the politicians.
About four weeks ago five high school girls were killed in a head on collision with a tractor trailer. They hit the truck going 60 mph.
Phone records indicate that the driver may have been sending a text message when it happened.
That settles the debate for me!
From my many years here in America, Americans are like Burger King's slogan, "Have It Your Way." Have you ever heard the term "The Ugly American"
To Many Americans Don't appreciate the freedom we have so we abuse it.
How many years has the law said don't buy and use illegal fireworks-but every year we do just that.
Let me show you how much of a prophet I am...Even though it's against the law Americans will be Shooting Their Bullets In The Air Come New Years Eve And Only God Knows Where They'll Come Down! The legislators are the problem but they've got plenty of company.
Answer:
I completely agree with you, look at all the unfortunate lives that have been harmed because of inconsiderate people texting while driving.
Yes, they are THAT dumb
Ammmmmm we have that now. wake up
What we "get" is that libs like you want a law on everything down to having to brush your teeth at night.
Hey I drove from New Mexico to Illinois and I needed to keep busy somehow.
Because the legislators obviously do it as well. Oh wait, they all have chauffers...
hmmm, their kids do it?
or they just have to make the argument that it isnt worth the time, even though while arguing they could have made a decision.
Well its called the risk factor. Its boring just to drive. So Americans like to throw in risks. Can I drive while texting? Can I drive while reading a magazine? Can I drive while makeing an omlet? It will continue until someone sues a phone company blameing text messageing for their accident.
Hey it is not my fault that there are poeple out that that are unable to multitask!! I am a pro at texting while driving..it is just another something to do while driving.if they outlawed that shouldn't they outlaw putting on makeup, eating, talking on the phone, writing things down and all of the millions of other things that people do while driving!!
Why isn't it illegal to stick your head in a pumpkin while driving?
Sometimes laws are just plain stupid. If you are stupid enough to drive with a pumpkin on your head, no law will stop you and no cop will be able to stop you.
Unenforcable, stupid laws that restrict everybody because of a few idiots are wrong.
I'd like to think that the American public was being given the benefit of the doubt, and given the chance to show whether or not they could be responsible.
There are already laws on the book which would apply to driving while distracted be it texting, cell phones, eating or whatever. Legislators like to create legislation whether it is needed or not. Our government has a group of people who want to legislate common sense which will never work..
Maybe you should be the one to let them know about this.
taking away my right to text and drive takes away from my freedom of speech. it is my first ammendmend right. How else will I talk to people. In the phone? that is so 20th century...
They are not dumb, they are responding to the pressure of the mobile phone lobbyists. Wireless companies in America do not want limits placed on the use of their products.
Unfortunately, most political decisions in the US are not based on what is good for the people. They are based on who makes the most noise and is able to get the attention of the politicians.
About four weeks ago five high school girls were killed in a head on collision with a tractor trailer. They hit the truck going 60 mph.
Phone records indicate that the driver may have been sending a text message when it happened.
That settles the debate for me!
From my many years here in America, Americans are like Burger King's slogan, "Have It Your Way." Have you ever heard the term "The Ugly American"
To Many Americans Don't appreciate the freedom we have so we abuse it.
How many years has the law said don't buy and use illegal fireworks-but every year we do just that.
Let me show you how much of a prophet I am...Even though it's against the law Americans will be Shooting Their Bullets In The Air Come New Years Eve And Only God Knows Where They'll Come Down! The legislators are the problem but they've got plenty of company.
Why, under the anti terrorism laws have officers been told to stop and search in equal No's among the races
Every terrorist so far has been eastern looking, so if two people of eastern appearance are stopped it means the officers have to stop 2 white people to address the balance. Is this reverse racism gone mad. our police have been hamstrung again even before they start
Answer:
The race laws are a joke and should be scrapped. the non ethnic people know these laws inside out and use them at every opportunity, often to the detriment of ethnic Britons. My letters to the local paper will not be printed if they contain even a whiff of a question concerning the different races in this country, not racist. We have lost our freedom of speech in this area and a lot of people are very annoyed over it. As regards the police having to sop about stopping us, words fail me. Let the boys in blue alone, they, and only they, know how to do their job.
Insanity rules the roost my friend.
the government has to be seen as being politically correct,
Because politicians are stupid. Let the cops do the profiling, not the politicians.
The government loves it when the peons fight amongst themselves. It makes their job so much easier.
I'm afraid you, (as do we all) know the answer to this.
Because the role of the police is no longer law enforcement, it is to make sure that no one complains about them. The way the stop and search regime is being run, it is a waste of time and energy. They are stopping people who have obviously no connection to the people they are looking for
GOD!! Everybody knows this one. It's called Political Correctness.
It's got to be the right thing to do because our Lords %26 Masters tell us it is.
Its P.C again! I wonder anyone joins the police or the armed forces these days because they cant win. Idiotic laws and idiotic people have seen to that!
Excuse me! YOU ARE SO ABSOLUTELY WRONG.. the usa is missing a whole alquada network on the usa homeland.. just do to that racial profiling. you are missing whats going on. There are large significant numbers of caucasians, who may be of forgein orgin, I have heard many speak over the years they have forgein accents, but look like soccer moms and dads... there is also a large group.. its a quasi alquada group not yet defined from west africa, somolia, nigeria and other african nations.. that is COMPLETELY ALL BLACK.. ok.. if the feds and cops continue to profile only arabs, or muslims or muslim women in jabbas, they are missing the fact that forgeiners are pouring in here and being taught to assimilate into our culture. key things to look for is, they do not understand our govt structure, they do not understand our banking and financial systems, they do not understand pop culture. they move together in significantly large groups, they do not work alone and they are being taught to look like us or sound like us, but they bring elements of trade off finanical fraud which indicates islamic banking procedures, and also they bring poisioning,domination , control , violence , murder, invasion of privacy and use high technology usually left in hands of our us military so we dont suspect its being used in our malls, streets and suburban homes. I am a witness and VICTIM OF THIS and if it didnt take SEVEN YEARS to get the police to recognize I wasnt crazy and there was a real problem here, There wouldnt be 2000 or more, when originally there were about 28 people involved. I am still treated like a terrorist when in fact I was the most significant witness to pre 9-11 intel info, if the fbi had responded in time and stopped a malicious man from hiring imposters of me.. there after you would have nipped it in the bud.
I AM THE REAL WITNESS AND I AM SERIOUSLY HARRASSED AND UNDERMINDED DAILY.
Believe me. IVe seen it and see it and try to say. but its impossible to do this alone!
Please click my profile and read my last question which Yahoo haven't posted. My answer is simply this: New Labour are traitors.
You have to blame the stupid PC brigade for that.!
Answer:
The race laws are a joke and should be scrapped. the non ethnic people know these laws inside out and use them at every opportunity, often to the detriment of ethnic Britons. My letters to the local paper will not be printed if they contain even a whiff of a question concerning the different races in this country, not racist. We have lost our freedom of speech in this area and a lot of people are very annoyed over it. As regards the police having to sop about stopping us, words fail me. Let the boys in blue alone, they, and only they, know how to do their job.
Insanity rules the roost my friend.
the government has to be seen as being politically correct,
Because politicians are stupid. Let the cops do the profiling, not the politicians.
The government loves it when the peons fight amongst themselves. It makes their job so much easier.
I'm afraid you, (as do we all) know the answer to this.
Because the role of the police is no longer law enforcement, it is to make sure that no one complains about them. The way the stop and search regime is being run, it is a waste of time and energy. They are stopping people who have obviously no connection to the people they are looking for
GOD!! Everybody knows this one. It's called Political Correctness.
It's got to be the right thing to do because our Lords %26 Masters tell us it is.
Its P.C again! I wonder anyone joins the police or the armed forces these days because they cant win. Idiotic laws and idiotic people have seen to that!
Excuse me! YOU ARE SO ABSOLUTELY WRONG.. the usa is missing a whole alquada network on the usa homeland.. just do to that racial profiling. you are missing whats going on. There are large significant numbers of caucasians, who may be of forgein orgin, I have heard many speak over the years they have forgein accents, but look like soccer moms and dads... there is also a large group.. its a quasi alquada group not yet defined from west africa, somolia, nigeria and other african nations.. that is COMPLETELY ALL BLACK.. ok.. if the feds and cops continue to profile only arabs, or muslims or muslim women in jabbas, they are missing the fact that forgeiners are pouring in here and being taught to assimilate into our culture. key things to look for is, they do not understand our govt structure, they do not understand our banking and financial systems, they do not understand pop culture. they move together in significantly large groups, they do not work alone and they are being taught to look like us or sound like us, but they bring elements of trade off finanical fraud which indicates islamic banking procedures, and also they bring poisioning,domination , control , violence , murder, invasion of privacy and use high technology usually left in hands of our us military so we dont suspect its being used in our malls, streets and suburban homes. I am a witness and VICTIM OF THIS and if it didnt take SEVEN YEARS to get the police to recognize I wasnt crazy and there was a real problem here, There wouldnt be 2000 or more, when originally there were about 28 people involved. I am still treated like a terrorist when in fact I was the most significant witness to pre 9-11 intel info, if the fbi had responded in time and stopped a malicious man from hiring imposters of me.. there after you would have nipped it in the bud.
I AM THE REAL WITNESS AND I AM SERIOUSLY HARRASSED AND UNDERMINDED DAILY.
Believe me. IVe seen it and see it and try to say. but its impossible to do this alone!
Please click my profile and read my last question which Yahoo haven't posted. My answer is simply this: New Labour are traitors.
You have to blame the stupid PC brigade for that.!
Why would you deny this person Medical Marijuana?
Reposted from420hussy.blogspot.com.
Life's a struggle. It shouldn't always have to be. I'm not setting out to change the world; I'm not trying to change government policy, though it would be nice. I'm propelled to shed light where I believe light needs to be shed. These are the facts of my mind.
The air is undulating again. Transparent shades of dust cycle before my blinking eyes. Light beams glare off the plastic rims of my glasses. Taking them off and putting on them on as I attempt to make sense of today's headlines in my Google Reader. They say air is invisible but I can feel it curve around me, slowly inhaling and exhaling carpet fibers. How do I feel? How do I not know how I feel? Am I supposed to feel like this? My head hurts just a tiny bit - yet with movement, a slight dizziness. There's a lump within my throat, a regurgitating feeling shooting up from my gut. I'm always burping something up (or wish I could). An indescribable nausea that's never bad enough to demand serious medical attention, yet impairs me enough to demand my constant attention.
But I'm not worried. It happens everyday.
I've searched and scoured online, read books, and spent many visits in doctor's offices. Blood tests and consultations. Nothing ever concrete. Perhaps its just a bad stomach acid? I get that from my father. And anxiety? My mother. I grew up hearing my OCD mother count letters in names and doing small tasks a specific number of times. As I witnessed this, I promised to myself that I would not let the OCD get through to me. As a result, I believed I developed a social anxiety. (I'm not anti-social; it's just hard for me to make new friends.) I never have near the amount of caffeine the average coworker ingests. Never ever coffee. Yuck.
Is it an anxiety disorder that I could easily overcome? I saw a therapist with a comb-over. He took my company's insurance. I believe it helped me (no more panic attacks) but the nausea just didn't go away. The doctors keep telling me there is nothing to be concerned about. I suppose it was nice to hear that I'm healthy. Extremely nice. So that means I'm supposed to deal with nauseous headaches for the rest of my life?
Medication made it all worse. I even stopped using pill-form birth control so as not to disturb my stomach's delicate balance. Psychoactive drugs tie my stomach in more knots. Not to mention becoming a total *****. The Xanex I was prescribed is addictive so I'm afraid to take too much, plus she won't keep prescribing it. It does nothing for the nausea but certainly calms down my naturally wired self. I tried all the natural and over-the-counter remedies, too: Ginger, peppermint tea, fish oils, meditation, and antacids. They all worked somewhat but the stomach issues persist.
I would also eat a lot. Always bread and crackers and chips in attempt to calm my stomach. Anything with carbs, a rather atypical diet. I've even changed my eating habits beyond that. Very little refined sugars (for the headaches), nothing spicy, very little caffeine (I may have tea or a piece of chocolate), and very little fried/greasy (I love fried foods, so I won't cut them out completely).
There is one thing that works. And it works so well. I actually stopped eating as much because it absolutely cures my stomach as quickly as I intake. It surprisingly takes away the dizziness; no longer do feel the air move as I stare into its blank abyss. I can focus! I can read! I can be as productive as a 50's housewife or Kamikaze pilot on speed. Too bad it's only partially legal in ten states. And don't even think of healthcare covering it.
Many people refuse to believe me; just because cannabis makes them dizzy and hungry, why would it take mine away? How does speed (amphetamines) help those with ADD to actually calm down and focus? Its a chemical reaction that no amount of perceived logic will help those understand who do not wish to. Cannabis completely and absolutely helps me to be the productive woman I was raised to be. And want to be. Too bad I can't take my medication at work. I'd be a much more effective employee.
I can't tell most of my family members, even less of my coworkers, and must be hush, hush about what I say online. I can't casually mention it on the street. And to any strong conservative, I'm just a no-good druggie pothead.
Answer:
druggy for smoking grass? hahahaha just enjoy another beer and be a hypocrite.
i dont smoke it myself by the way but the fact were having this debate about it being used for medical purposes shows how backward the drug policy is.
Sounds like a BS story to me. Or an educated druggie. I am not a conservative.
because you own stock in a drug company
A druggie making up excuses to continue their addiction? It can't be!!
I'm a child of the 70's. I don't like marijuana, personally. But I would never deny anyone's reason for smoking it -- ever.
I think society's starting to move in the right direction. Look at the old movie "reefer madness," which portrayed folks smoking marijuana and committing crimes such as murder (yeah, right. Most stoners I know would be too busy eating fritos and watching movies to kill anyone). Now look at how many states and places today are cool with medical marijuana or decriminalization.
Sure, there will always be the morons who chant "drugs are bad!" while they sip their beer.
But there are less of them every day and more people are waking up.
I get what you are saying, (and I do believe weed should be prescribed for certain muscular illnesses) but the fact is is that anxiety, panic attacks and OCD can commonly made worse by weed. Furthermore, in the past 20 years, a highly effective treatment has been developed for OCD and panic attacks. It's called Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. If given the choice between supressing or masking unhelpful thoughts with a chemical aid (i.e. weed) or changing my thought patterns permantly with CBT, I'm going to go for the latter.
If you were ever interested in self-help in a non-chemical way, try the following steps:
1.Breathe properly - if you control your breathing, you control panic. As soon as you notice the signs of anxiety, check your breathing: breathe in slowly through your nose pushing your tummy out (to the count of 5 or so). Breathe out slowly and for a bit longer (to the count of 7 or so) through your mouth. Do not breathe rapidly or shallowly (in the chest area). This will soon restore the balance of oxygen and you will feel a lot better.
2. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy! CBT is proven to be the most effective thing for panic attacks, OCD and anxiety etc. It takes a bit of work, but it is super effective. (After 15 years of panic attacks, mine stopped completely). You can speak to your doctor about taking a course or you can take a course for free online at: www.livinglifetothefull.com It has been funded by NHS Scotland and has had great results thus far.
3. Try relaxation exercise tapes (progressive muscular relaxation). They really help if you practise often enough. This site has instructions on how to do it without the tapes (and other useful info): http://www.cci.health.wa.gov.au/resource...
With each step practise makes perfect. (i.e. practise the steps every day, not just when you are feeling bad).
Best of luck!
Life's a struggle. It shouldn't always have to be. I'm not setting out to change the world; I'm not trying to change government policy, though it would be nice. I'm propelled to shed light where I believe light needs to be shed. These are the facts of my mind.
The air is undulating again. Transparent shades of dust cycle before my blinking eyes. Light beams glare off the plastic rims of my glasses. Taking them off and putting on them on as I attempt to make sense of today's headlines in my Google Reader. They say air is invisible but I can feel it curve around me, slowly inhaling and exhaling carpet fibers. How do I feel? How do I not know how I feel? Am I supposed to feel like this? My head hurts just a tiny bit - yet with movement, a slight dizziness. There's a lump within my throat, a regurgitating feeling shooting up from my gut. I'm always burping something up (or wish I could). An indescribable nausea that's never bad enough to demand serious medical attention, yet impairs me enough to demand my constant attention.
But I'm not worried. It happens everyday.
I've searched and scoured online, read books, and spent many visits in doctor's offices. Blood tests and consultations. Nothing ever concrete. Perhaps its just a bad stomach acid? I get that from my father. And anxiety? My mother. I grew up hearing my OCD mother count letters in names and doing small tasks a specific number of times. As I witnessed this, I promised to myself that I would not let the OCD get through to me. As a result, I believed I developed a social anxiety. (I'm not anti-social; it's just hard for me to make new friends.) I never have near the amount of caffeine the average coworker ingests. Never ever coffee. Yuck.
Is it an anxiety disorder that I could easily overcome? I saw a therapist with a comb-over. He took my company's insurance. I believe it helped me (no more panic attacks) but the nausea just didn't go away. The doctors keep telling me there is nothing to be concerned about. I suppose it was nice to hear that I'm healthy. Extremely nice. So that means I'm supposed to deal with nauseous headaches for the rest of my life?
Medication made it all worse. I even stopped using pill-form birth control so as not to disturb my stomach's delicate balance. Psychoactive drugs tie my stomach in more knots. Not to mention becoming a total *****. The Xanex I was prescribed is addictive so I'm afraid to take too much, plus she won't keep prescribing it. It does nothing for the nausea but certainly calms down my naturally wired self. I tried all the natural and over-the-counter remedies, too: Ginger, peppermint tea, fish oils, meditation, and antacids. They all worked somewhat but the stomach issues persist.
I would also eat a lot. Always bread and crackers and chips in attempt to calm my stomach. Anything with carbs, a rather atypical diet. I've even changed my eating habits beyond that. Very little refined sugars (for the headaches), nothing spicy, very little caffeine (I may have tea or a piece of chocolate), and very little fried/greasy (I love fried foods, so I won't cut them out completely).
There is one thing that works. And it works so well. I actually stopped eating as much because it absolutely cures my stomach as quickly as I intake. It surprisingly takes away the dizziness; no longer do feel the air move as I stare into its blank abyss. I can focus! I can read! I can be as productive as a 50's housewife or Kamikaze pilot on speed. Too bad it's only partially legal in ten states. And don't even think of healthcare covering it.
Many people refuse to believe me; just because cannabis makes them dizzy and hungry, why would it take mine away? How does speed (amphetamines) help those with ADD to actually calm down and focus? Its a chemical reaction that no amount of perceived logic will help those understand who do not wish to. Cannabis completely and absolutely helps me to be the productive woman I was raised to be. And want to be. Too bad I can't take my medication at work. I'd be a much more effective employee.
I can't tell most of my family members, even less of my coworkers, and must be hush, hush about what I say online. I can't casually mention it on the street. And to any strong conservative, I'm just a no-good druggie pothead.
Answer:
druggy for smoking grass? hahahaha just enjoy another beer and be a hypocrite.
i dont smoke it myself by the way but the fact were having this debate about it being used for medical purposes shows how backward the drug policy is.
Sounds like a BS story to me. Or an educated druggie. I am not a conservative.
because you own stock in a drug company
A druggie making up excuses to continue their addiction? It can't be!!
I'm a child of the 70's. I don't like marijuana, personally. But I would never deny anyone's reason for smoking it -- ever.
I think society's starting to move in the right direction. Look at the old movie "reefer madness," which portrayed folks smoking marijuana and committing crimes such as murder (yeah, right. Most stoners I know would be too busy eating fritos and watching movies to kill anyone). Now look at how many states and places today are cool with medical marijuana or decriminalization.
Sure, there will always be the morons who chant "drugs are bad!" while they sip their beer.
But there are less of them every day and more people are waking up.
I get what you are saying, (and I do believe weed should be prescribed for certain muscular illnesses) but the fact is is that anxiety, panic attacks and OCD can commonly made worse by weed. Furthermore, in the past 20 years, a highly effective treatment has been developed for OCD and panic attacks. It's called Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. If given the choice between supressing or masking unhelpful thoughts with a chemical aid (i.e. weed) or changing my thought patterns permantly with CBT, I'm going to go for the latter.
If you were ever interested in self-help in a non-chemical way, try the following steps:
1.Breathe properly - if you control your breathing, you control panic. As soon as you notice the signs of anxiety, check your breathing: breathe in slowly through your nose pushing your tummy out (to the count of 5 or so). Breathe out slowly and for a bit longer (to the count of 7 or so) through your mouth. Do not breathe rapidly or shallowly (in the chest area). This will soon restore the balance of oxygen and you will feel a lot better.
2. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy! CBT is proven to be the most effective thing for panic attacks, OCD and anxiety etc. It takes a bit of work, but it is super effective. (After 15 years of panic attacks, mine stopped completely). You can speak to your doctor about taking a course or you can take a course for free online at: www.livinglifetothefull.com It has been funded by NHS Scotland and has had great results thus far.
3. Try relaxation exercise tapes (progressive muscular relaxation). They really help if you practise often enough. This site has instructions on how to do it without the tapes (and other useful info): http://www.cci.health.wa.gov.au/resource...
With each step practise makes perfect. (i.e. practise the steps every day, not just when you are feeling bad).
Best of luck!
Why would this judge be doing this when a grandfather is talking his murdered grandson?
http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_1...
Answer:
There are no professions exempt from being a perv, judges, Priests, school teachers, guidance counselors, grandparents, parents, Doctors, lawyers and Indian Chief.
What is the one thing that most all perv's have in common?
You got it! Just dont want to say it.
He's got some problems, huh?
He didn't really have a good sense of boundaries, did he? its like, hello! you are in public!
But maybe that is what excited him.
I hope he gets the max
Because the judge is a very sick man.
There are idiots everywhere
i will be utterly disappointed if they don't disbar him.
they might even invalidate his pension...
Answer:
There are no professions exempt from being a perv, judges, Priests, school teachers, guidance counselors, grandparents, parents, Doctors, lawyers and Indian Chief.
What is the one thing that most all perv's have in common?
You got it! Just dont want to say it.
He's got some problems, huh?
He didn't really have a good sense of boundaries, did he? its like, hello! you are in public!
But maybe that is what excited him.
I hope he gets the max
Because the judge is a very sick man.
There are idiots everywhere
i will be utterly disappointed if they don't disbar him.
they might even invalidate his pension...
Why would ex-spouse want to use my address.How to find out if ex-spouse is stealing from our child?
Abbreviated version.I have a child living with me (since birth) that is "foster child" situation. Parent deserted this child but stays in touch enough to have "rights". Bio -parent went through bankrupcy and I suspect is using the childs identity somehow to get money (spends excessive amounts of money!! where does it come from?)..how do I find this out?? I have not "legal"rights to request credit checks for my child.
The other thing.we have been getting mult credit card offers and bills at our house with ex-spouses name but OUR address.should I be worried? This never used to happen but now is starting to? How do you find out if someone is using your address?...why would they WANT to?
Answer:
Any credit card bills you get for your ex should be returned to sender. Just write "Addressee unknown" and drop it in a mail box. Don't give it to your ex. Sounds like he is trying to scam you and the card company.
If you have a foster child you have legal guardianship awarded to you by the state. You can check the 3 major credit rating services. You can tell them you suspect someone is illegally using your child's information for credit card fraud.
One question at a time. I counted 2. When they are totally unrelated you should submit them separately.
Are you getting bills and credit card offers in the child's name or just your ex's name?
Talk to your social worker about this. He or she should be able to help. Also, talk to your local police about what they suggest.
The other thing.we have been getting mult credit card offers and bills at our house with ex-spouses name but OUR address.should I be worried? This never used to happen but now is starting to? How do you find out if someone is using your address?...why would they WANT to?
Answer:
Any credit card bills you get for your ex should be returned to sender. Just write "Addressee unknown" and drop it in a mail box. Don't give it to your ex. Sounds like he is trying to scam you and the card company.
If you have a foster child you have legal guardianship awarded to you by the state. You can check the 3 major credit rating services. You can tell them you suspect someone is illegally using your child's information for credit card fraud.
One question at a time. I counted 2. When they are totally unrelated you should submit them separately.
Are you getting bills and credit card offers in the child's name or just your ex's name?
Talk to your social worker about this. He or she should be able to help. Also, talk to your local police about what they suggest.
Why were the electric chair, hanging, beheading and other capital punishments illegalized?
The point of the death sentence is to punish them for their crime, right? So then why are they simply given a shot and put to sleep forever, or left in a cell with comfy treatment (that costs millions!) and alive?
Shouldn't they have to feel the same pain as their victims; you know, an eye for an eye.
Thank you for your input!
Answer:
It's that pesky Constitution again. Always putting limits on what govts can do.
In the US, the 8th Amendment prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment". That includes any punishment that intentionally inflicts pain (i.e. being intentionally cruel). Each of those execution methods has been challenged, and the courts ruled that they cannot be used because they cause too much collateral (side-effect) pain.
Making them feel "the same pain as their victims" would definitely fall under the "cruel and unusual" category. It's just not allowed under US law.
It comes from the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause in the constitution. Many states abolished these methods of execution for that reason.
No, people convicted of capital crimes should be pampered, well fed, and kept healthy.
Until someone needs a transplant.
I think some cases deserve it. Like this one I just saw.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...
I agree the constitution needs some work. We don't live in the same society as the framers of the constitution did.
Actually, I live in Nebraska and we STILL use the Electric Chair.
I agree with you. Murderer's should be murdered.
China harvests the organs of their executed prisoners...sounds like a good idea to me. Although, bullet to head would be the cleanest and would leave the organs intact.
Read the eighth amendment to the U.S. Constitution which, among other things, prohibits "cruel and unusual" punishment.
This has been interpreted in different ways by the Supreme Court over the years such as in the Furman decision.
The point of capital punishment is two-fold. Ostensibly, it's a deterrent (a dubious premise). And it's to use the power of the state to kill a person.
As Gandhi said, "An eye for an eye makes us all blind."
One answer is that most state govts have interpeted the constitution's "cruel and unusual punishment" clause to mean that electecuting, beheading, and hanging a human being is cruel and unusual. Other states feel it isnt "cruel and unusual" hence they keep doing it. Another answer is that punishments that you have mentioned have fallen out of favor with society... Any public outcry that puts a politicians political office in jeapordy will be dealt w/ quick.
We are civilized, which has its advantages for capital offenders.
In some states they're still used, I think.. "Hanging, firing squad,ole' Sparky"(electric chair) but, with lethal injection also on the table. Well, that's a no decision, as to which one I'd choose. How about you? The "eye for an eye" is from Old
Testament teachings...New Testament teachings is supposed to be, "turn the other cheek." Here's one I'm sure we are all guilty of it if were honest with ourselves, and that's
"judge not lest we be judged" lol Have a Great Week-end!
Shouldn't they have to feel the same pain as their victims; you know, an eye for an eye.
Thank you for your input!
Answer:
It's that pesky Constitution again. Always putting limits on what govts can do.
In the US, the 8th Amendment prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment". That includes any punishment that intentionally inflicts pain (i.e. being intentionally cruel). Each of those execution methods has been challenged, and the courts ruled that they cannot be used because they cause too much collateral (side-effect) pain.
Making them feel "the same pain as their victims" would definitely fall under the "cruel and unusual" category. It's just not allowed under US law.
It comes from the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause in the constitution. Many states abolished these methods of execution for that reason.
No, people convicted of capital crimes should be pampered, well fed, and kept healthy.
Until someone needs a transplant.
I think some cases deserve it. Like this one I just saw.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...
I agree the constitution needs some work. We don't live in the same society as the framers of the constitution did.
Actually, I live in Nebraska and we STILL use the Electric Chair.
I agree with you. Murderer's should be murdered.
China harvests the organs of their executed prisoners...sounds like a good idea to me. Although, bullet to head would be the cleanest and would leave the organs intact.
Read the eighth amendment to the U.S. Constitution which, among other things, prohibits "cruel and unusual" punishment.
This has been interpreted in different ways by the Supreme Court over the years such as in the Furman decision.
The point of capital punishment is two-fold. Ostensibly, it's a deterrent (a dubious premise). And it's to use the power of the state to kill a person.
As Gandhi said, "An eye for an eye makes us all blind."
One answer is that most state govts have interpeted the constitution's "cruel and unusual punishment" clause to mean that electecuting, beheading, and hanging a human being is cruel and unusual. Other states feel it isnt "cruel and unusual" hence they keep doing it. Another answer is that punishments that you have mentioned have fallen out of favor with society... Any public outcry that puts a politicians political office in jeapordy will be dealt w/ quick.
We are civilized, which has its advantages for capital offenders.
In some states they're still used, I think.. "Hanging, firing squad,ole' Sparky"(electric chair) but, with lethal injection also on the table. Well, that's a no decision, as to which one I'd choose. How about you? The "eye for an eye" is from Old
Testament teachings...New Testament teachings is supposed to be, "turn the other cheek." Here's one I'm sure we are all guilty of it if were honest with ourselves, and that's
"judge not lest we be judged" lol Have a Great Week-end!
Why were Jim Crow laws aboilished?
Why were these laws abolished? I mean crime was lower in these days. We also had cheaper laborers than we do today?
Answer:
Shut up and fix me a sandwich, woman.
Racist skank.
Activist Judges
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?s...
the KKK is back... talk about activist judges.
The Jim Crow Laws were state and local laws enacted in the Southern and border states of the United States and enforced between 1876 and 1965. They mandated "separate but equal" status for black Americans. In reality, this led to treatment and accommodations that were almost always inferior to those provided to white Americans. Although it was legally required that the facilities provided should be equal, they were not. The Jim Crow period or the Jim Crow era refers to the time during which this practice occurred. The most important laws required that public schools, public places and public transportation, like trains and buses, have separate facilities for whites and blacks. (These Jim Crow Laws were separate from the 1800-66 Black Codes, which had restricted the civil rights and civil liberties of African Americans.) State-sponsored school segregation was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education. Generally, the remaining Jim Crow laws were overruled by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act; none were in effect at the end of the 1960s.
Really? It might have something to do with the extreme racism under which those laws were written. You know who else had low crime rates? Nazi Germany. So if you really want to go down that road...
卢because they were wrong! Would you want to live under those kinds of laws?
Crimes wasnt lower. Its just that a lot of crimes went unpunish or turn a blind eye upon.
I hope this is a joke. I would consider it to be due to the grammatical and spelling errors, but I'll humor you. The laws were fundamentally unfair, biased and not only violated the U.S. Constitution, but violated the unwritten code of human decency.
Additionally, who are the 'we' to whom you refer as having cheaper laborers? I can say with a high level of certainty that you probably would not have been benefiting directly from cheap laborers, seeing as how wealthy land owners and manufacturers benefited the most from the exploitation afforded by Jim Crow laws. Exploitation and unfairness breeds resentment and hostilities that eventually lead to social problems.
Lastly, think about the effort it takes for one person to physically, hold another down. In order for you to hold someone down, you yourself must stay low with them to keep them from rising. The same concept applies to the case of oppression in America and throughout the world, by means of unethical but techincally lawful devices like Jim Crow laws.
Imagine how much further as a nation America could be if, instead of oppressing people, all races were nurtured and allowed to grow and contribute to make this Nation a truly great and fair land of opportunity! In quoting the Bible, Abraham Lincoln recognized that a divided America would be a weaker America. While statutorily, slavery and Jim Crow were abolished, the practices continued culturally and have had a weakening effect on the nation. That is evident spiritually, morally, industrially, educationally etc.
So to answer your question, the Jim Crow laws were abolished because decent, God-fearing, Americans who believed in equity and the ideals housed within the Constitution stood up for right in the face of wrong.
Answer:
Shut up and fix me a sandwich, woman.
Racist skank.
Activist Judges
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?s...
the KKK is back... talk about activist judges.
The Jim Crow Laws were state and local laws enacted in the Southern and border states of the United States and enforced between 1876 and 1965. They mandated "separate but equal" status for black Americans. In reality, this led to treatment and accommodations that were almost always inferior to those provided to white Americans. Although it was legally required that the facilities provided should be equal, they were not. The Jim Crow period or the Jim Crow era refers to the time during which this practice occurred. The most important laws required that public schools, public places and public transportation, like trains and buses, have separate facilities for whites and blacks. (These Jim Crow Laws were separate from the 1800-66 Black Codes, which had restricted the civil rights and civil liberties of African Americans.) State-sponsored school segregation was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education. Generally, the remaining Jim Crow laws were overruled by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act; none were in effect at the end of the 1960s.
Really? It might have something to do with the extreme racism under which those laws were written. You know who else had low crime rates? Nazi Germany. So if you really want to go down that road...
卢because they were wrong! Would you want to live under those kinds of laws?
Crimes wasnt lower. Its just that a lot of crimes went unpunish or turn a blind eye upon.
I hope this is a joke. I would consider it to be due to the grammatical and spelling errors, but I'll humor you. The laws were fundamentally unfair, biased and not only violated the U.S. Constitution, but violated the unwritten code of human decency.
Additionally, who are the 'we' to whom you refer as having cheaper laborers? I can say with a high level of certainty that you probably would not have been benefiting directly from cheap laborers, seeing as how wealthy land owners and manufacturers benefited the most from the exploitation afforded by Jim Crow laws. Exploitation and unfairness breeds resentment and hostilities that eventually lead to social problems.
Lastly, think about the effort it takes for one person to physically, hold another down. In order for you to hold someone down, you yourself must stay low with them to keep them from rising. The same concept applies to the case of oppression in America and throughout the world, by means of unethical but techincally lawful devices like Jim Crow laws.
Imagine how much further as a nation America could be if, instead of oppressing people, all races were nurtured and allowed to grow and contribute to make this Nation a truly great and fair land of opportunity! In quoting the Bible, Abraham Lincoln recognized that a divided America would be a weaker America. While statutorily, slavery and Jim Crow were abolished, the practices continued culturally and have had a weakening effect on the nation. That is evident spiritually, morally, industrially, educationally etc.
So to answer your question, the Jim Crow laws were abolished because decent, God-fearing, Americans who believed in equity and the ideals housed within the Constitution stood up for right in the face of wrong.
Why we have censorship in Canada?
why we have censorship in Canada also in FreeLawAnswer.com by Canadian when some immigrant are complaining about quality of life in Canada, looks to me Canada became like china with dictatorship regime , immigrant are having right to send own voice out of the Canada about racism and discriminant's , expensive4 cost of living only for immigrant and not Canadian because they are receiving nice care from government , grant, free land, nice job in government free medical and health care
and only a citizen ship paper for new comers, to work's like slaves in canada and pay TAX,
Answer:
Well, since Yahoo is a PRIVATE COMPANY, and not a GOVERNMENT AGENCY, they can allow whatever they choose on THEIR website, and make sure that others are gone.
I find it hilarious that jokers such as yourself will cry "censorship", but in reading the community guidelines YOU MUST AGREE TO FOLLOW BEFORE BECOMING A MEMBER OF FreeLawAnswer.com, it tells you what you can and can't do. And it is funny to me that you agreed to it, and then cry when they enforce it.
Just sign off and go play WWE Smackdown. This is a tired, and rather silly, subject to ask about. . .
Censorship is action by the government. Yahoo is not owned by the government, and therefore it is not censorship.
Ummm... Yahell is an AMERICAN company to begin with!
I'm not sure what you're smoking, but you're making the rest of us Canucks look like morons ;);););)
There is NO place in this world with the freedoms that you are talking about - we ALL have to pay taxes, and deal with whatever government is in power. Maybe in some drug induced fantasy world - but not in REALITY!
If you don't like who's running the show - then get your @$$ out there and VOTE!
Sounds like you're a spoiled little (rich) momma's boy - who has NEVER done anything for themselves!
I'd like to answer this but after reading four times I'm just wondering what the hell you are saying. This is a meaningless rant without much substance.
I really should'nt give you the satisfaction by answering your idiotic question.I know you have posted the same type of question about Canada before this one.You hav'nt got a clue what your saying.If you don't like Canada,then why are you here?Get a life.
and only a citizen ship paper for new comers, to work's like slaves in canada and pay TAX,
Answer:
Well, since Yahoo is a PRIVATE COMPANY, and not a GOVERNMENT AGENCY, they can allow whatever they choose on THEIR website, and make sure that others are gone.
I find it hilarious that jokers such as yourself will cry "censorship", but in reading the community guidelines YOU MUST AGREE TO FOLLOW BEFORE BECOMING A MEMBER OF FreeLawAnswer.com, it tells you what you can and can't do. And it is funny to me that you agreed to it, and then cry when they enforce it.
Just sign off and go play WWE Smackdown. This is a tired, and rather silly, subject to ask about. . .
Censorship is action by the government. Yahoo is not owned by the government, and therefore it is not censorship.
Ummm... Yahell is an AMERICAN company to begin with!
I'm not sure what you're smoking, but you're making the rest of us Canucks look like morons ;);););)
There is NO place in this world with the freedoms that you are talking about - we ALL have to pay taxes, and deal with whatever government is in power. Maybe in some drug induced fantasy world - but not in REALITY!
If you don't like who's running the show - then get your @$$ out there and VOTE!
Sounds like you're a spoiled little (rich) momma's boy - who has NEVER done anything for themselves!
I'd like to answer this but after reading four times I'm just wondering what the hell you are saying. This is a meaningless rant without much substance.
I really should'nt give you the satisfaction by answering your idiotic question.I know you have posted the same type of question about Canada before this one.You hav'nt got a clue what your saying.If you don't like Canada,then why are you here?Get a life.
Why wasn't the CIA leaker (Richard Armitage) prosecuted?
Answer:
Because no crime was actually committed. Plame was not covert. The person that wrote the law even said that this outing was not covered under the law.
He is a Liberal!
There was no crime.
Because Plame was not covert.
because valorie plame was not a person who it was illegal to say the identity of. she was not a covert agent, therefore leaking her name was not illegal,.
That's the beauty of this whole friggin' debacle. There was no crime committed, yet Libby was convicted about lying about the non-crime.
Selective persecution.
Because it was an Oopsy (Armitage was not part of the plot) and the reporter he blurted it to did not publish it, unlike Robert Novak the Traitor.
My understanding of it was that he came clean quicker than Libby did. The last person to 'fess up got it. Seems like a good idea to me. Libby should have been smart and excersized some self-preservation a little bit quicker.
Those reporters were morons for allowing the administration to use them. Good thing they were morons with good notes... Too bad the president doesn't have to obey the law, and can just pardon people who break it for him. I hope there are other people who are outraged about that, because it is a very big problem.
Good question! For the same reason the talking heads who were subpoenaed, and caught contradicting themselves on the stand were not prosecuted for perjury! For the same reason that the prosecutor wasn't disbarred from wrongful prosecution, after all the original issue, allegedly uncovering a covert operative, was a Sham as she was not in covert ops at the time! This guy ought to be disbarred just like the dude in the DUKE rape case! The only ones raped in that case were the Innocent players who were wrongfully prosecuted for political gain.
Because it appears to me that this was a political prosecution not a true criminal prosecution and Richard Armitage was not the political target.
I am a liberal Democrat not a Republican.
It disappoints me that so many of my friends in the Democratic party are willing to get distracted and worked up over this issue.
Scooter Libby never should have been prosecuted in the first place.
We have much more important issues to work on.
The Republicans have bungled the war on terror and the war in Iraq. That is what we should be focused on. Not whether or not Scooter Libby kept adequate records of his conversations with other people.
Why was the Sumner police rude to me on the phone, refused to help me and hung up on me when I called for help
My 5 year old was playing in the sprinkler in the back yard. Then 2 big wandering dogs not on leashes were on my yard barking at my son. I went outside when I saw trouble. I grabbed the pepper spray. I went outside. The dogs barked at me. I sprayed pepper spray at the one dog. The other ran off. I called animal control, no answer, left message. They called me back 2 hours later gave me another number that was wrong. I called Sumner police no emergency line when the 2 dogs came back. The Sumner police dispatcher was absolutely refusing to help me. She told me there was nothing I could do to the dogs even on my property and threatening us. That I would be liable. She was very mean and rude. She refused any assistance and hung up on me!
Answer:
because you interrupted him while he was having his donuts. Don't you dare doing that again. most cops are worthless pigs. I am sorry.
Go see an attorney. Your problem is hardly unique.
You need to deal with Animal Control...the police don't come out for DOGS running in the neighborhood unless someone has been injured.
Why would you think you have a lawsuit...nobody got hurt.
Follow up with animal control..
Answer:
because you interrupted him while he was having his donuts. Don't you dare doing that again. most cops are worthless pigs. I am sorry.
Go see an attorney. Your problem is hardly unique.
You need to deal with Animal Control...the police don't come out for DOGS running in the neighborhood unless someone has been injured.
Why would you think you have a lawsuit...nobody got hurt.
Follow up with animal control..
Why UNETHICAL people makes more money than ETHICAL and honest people ?
Answer:
I don't believe this to be true. Besides - part of being ethical is understanding that their is more to life than money.
because they are knowingly breaking the law to make more money...hence unethical
like cheating on your tax returns or selling dope
Because unethical people don't have any hangups about stepping all over other people on their way to the top.
because they know how to cheat the system
because they are crooks, the Bible says you will not prophet from ill-gotten gains.
i guess more than quantity.wat more important is that...how much satisfied are you and your fly with your money.honestly made money is netime bttr dan unethically...wat say!
I'm not sure I agree with your premise
But it is worth considering there could be more one pointed focus in place to acquire the money - chi is indiscriminate -it will magnify whatever it is focused on - no judgment, no "good" or a"bad". That lives in the mind, not the life force.
Because they don't see the value or worth of morals or common decency.They are essentialy selfish human beings and will do anything to get their own way,much as a spoiled child.They are self interested and lack empathy or compassion.They don't mind deceiving and lying and cheating,in fact they see these traits as necessary for survival.You could see them as the next evolutionary step perhaps.This is the present of natural selection.Those who trample on others will suceed and get to the top.Those who don't bye bye!
It is a matter of the rate of rise (ror). In the negative path, the ror is high. But the fall is sudden and unexpected.
In the moral path, however, the "ror" is low or mediocre. But there is little chance of downfall. Slow and steady wins the race, you know.
They know how to manipulate and present things in the way in which people want.
No one has the time to see what is ethical and unethical. People see convenience first.
This is especially true for powerful people. So, the unethical people win the powerful people fast and make more money and benefits.
Ethical people get stuck with their ethics and truth and miss the bus...
Why there is not a law in india to punish wife and her parents involved lodging a false dowry case on husband?
The law is pro-female in india and has been rampantly misused leadind to many a broken family. Hell of harrasment to some of innocent husband and their families.False dowry cases rule in india. Can any1 tell me are their any laws to counter and punishment given to wifey on proving false dowry case?
Answer:
I agree with you that there is no legislation against filling a false criminal case against the husband %26 his family for the offence of dowry, but the Supreme Court has held in its very recent judgments in few cases that such false complaint against the husband amounts to mental cruelty on the basis of which the husband can be granted decree of divorce. This principle has been applied by many High courts too specially the Delhi High Court where the aggrieved husband was granted divorce on the basis of the wrong criminal complaints made against him under the Prohibition of dowry Act %26 section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Hence now the law is very clear in such cases where wife or her relatives indulge in filling wrong or false criminal complaints against the husband %26 his parents just to harass them.
I'm sorry, do I understand this correctly. you mean that you married for money or goods?. Wow I married for love.
If you married for financial gain, then I hope you rot in HELL!
Answer:
I agree with you that there is no legislation against filling a false criminal case against the husband %26 his family for the offence of dowry, but the Supreme Court has held in its very recent judgments in few cases that such false complaint against the husband amounts to mental cruelty on the basis of which the husband can be granted decree of divorce. This principle has been applied by many High courts too specially the Delhi High Court where the aggrieved husband was granted divorce on the basis of the wrong criminal complaints made against him under the Prohibition of dowry Act %26 section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Hence now the law is very clear in such cases where wife or her relatives indulge in filling wrong or false criminal complaints against the husband %26 his parents just to harass them.
I'm sorry, do I understand this correctly. you mean that you married for money or goods?. Wow I married for love.
If you married for financial gain, then I hope you rot in HELL!
Why the Indian president is elected by the political parties and not by the people of India?
Answer:
In India we follow the Parliamentary form of government where the members of the lower house (Lok sabha) are elected by the people of India, who form the Government in the Centre or federal government, similarly for various states we have legislative form of government where the members of the lower house or Vidhan Sabha are elected by the people of the state %26 these members form the state government. These very members even elect members for the Upper house (Rajya Sabha) of the Parliament in the centre. Now as far the election of the President of India is concerned the Constitution of India has given a procedure for his/her election according to Article 54 The President shall be elected by the members of an electoral college consisting of-
(a) The elected members of both Houses of Parliament; and
(b) The elected members of the Legislative Assemblies of the States.
[Explanation. In this article and in article 55, State includes the National Capital Territory of Delhi and the Union territory of Pondicherry.]
Thus we see that the elected members of the Parliament as well of the State legislature do this job for the people of India as they are the representatives of the People of India, in other words we can say the people of India are only electing the President indirectly through their representatives.
it's the parlimentary system that exists in almost all democratic nations except the usa
Good question...; ruling political party is acting like a government... unlike a democracy鈥?
I don't know but they poop on the street .
The President of india is elected by the electoral college which consists of all the Members of Parliament and Members of state legislative assemblies. however as these elected members invariably belong to some political party ; the party leaders have a big say in who should be elected as President.
father of our constitution assembly - fully knows the tendency of our people. I f we give power to one person, he may give all post to his wives, sons, daughter etc.
we must worship our father of our cons. assembly for the
present method of election.
The President of India is not having any executive powers. The Cabinet is the Government, in a parliamentary democracy, and according to rules of business framed by the Cabinet, every deputy minister, minister of state and cabinet minister takes decision, as per delegation of power and any matter beyond delegation and all matters of policy are approved either by the cabinet sub-committee or by full cabinet. All work is done in the name of the President of India but very few files are required to be signed by him and even here, the concerned minister only is responsible for the decision.
If direct election of the President is allowed, then there will be two rival centres of power, the President claiming his legitimacy by popular vote and the Prime Minister enjoying the confidence of the House of the People composed of elected members. This will be most unhealthy governance and will hamper government work. On the other hand, Executive Presidential system, was debated in the Constituent Assembly, and discarded as unfeasible. It is not wise to vest in one person near-plenary powers. The example of USA is before us, where even one declared elected by a negation of democratic process, by a crazy system of electoral votes, can run berserk and threaten everyone on this earth. Democracy has to have system of checks and balances and the Indian system comparatively is by far the best one.
Why the h**l is spanking still legal in the U.S.A.??!?!?!?!?!?!?
I MEAN THIS IS THE 21st CENTURY!! I THOUGHT THIS WAS A CIVILIZED COUNTRY!! SPANKING IS OUTDATED AND PRIMITIVE AND OLD-FASHIONED!!!! NOT TO MENTION THAT SPANKING IS A FORM OF SEXUAL ASSAULT!! IT'S WORSE THAN RAPE!!! BUTTS ARE A SEXUAL REGION, IDIOTS!!! SPANKING IS A TERRIBLE FORM OF VIOLENCE AND IT TEACHES KIDS TO BE VIOLENT!!!! ALL PARENTS WHO SPANK THEIR CHILDREN ARE EVIL, VIOLENT, PEDOPHILES!!! SPANKING SHOULD BE ILLEGAL AND ALL PARENTS WHO SPANK SHOULD BE BURNED AT THE STAKE OR CRUCIFIED OR DRAWN%26QUARTERED!!!!! IF YOU SPANK YOUR CHILDREN YOU ARE AN ABOMINABLE PERVERT AND SHOULD BE REGISTERED AS A SEX OFFENDER!! SO CAN SOMEONE TELL ME WHY OUR "CIVILIZED" SOCIETY IS SO F***ED UP THAT SPANKING IS STILL LEGAL AND EVEN SOMETIMES IT'S SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE!!! OUR GOVERNMENT MUST BE RULED BY PEDOPHILES WHO WANT CHILDREN TO BE BEATEN UP!!
Answer:
Wow. I would hope for your sake that you are only joking on this. This has got to be the most ridiculous thing I have ever read on here.
Spanking is worse than rape? what? How about I get someone to rape you, and afterwards, you can tell me if rape doesn't even come close to spanking being so horrible? I'm dead serious.
If you don't like the USA laws, get out and move to the middle east.
EDIT: Ever heard of therapy? You need it.
I know many people who have been spanked. The guys don't beat their wives, and the girls don't marry guys who beat them. You just seem to be talking out of your butt.
How about you let other people have their own opinion, and turn off your effin caps lock? You can't change people's minds by screaming and yelling how spanking is worse than rape (which that has got to be the most retarded thing I have ever heard), people who spank are pedophiles and need to be crucified. If you actually believe half of the crap you're saying, I would seriously suggest therapy.
you have issues. seek help imediatly. parents have been spanking for thousands of years. what makes you think it is wrong all of the sudden. This is clearly a matter of personal choice until a point. Children need disipline and billions of people will tell you that spankings helped them in their life. and no it is not rape and certainly not worse than it this is so off base.
Spanking is still legal because it works.
Well geez I guess I am evil because I have 3 kids and I spank them. But then I guess maybe I should let them do what they want so then when they get in trouble and get hooked on drugs they can blame me for all there troubles. Just one ? do you have children??
Ah, that's what I like to see - a calm, rational argument, lucidly stated.
Sounds as though your mommy spanked your backside a few days ago. Did her hand make your backside sting a bit?
Answer:
Wow. I would hope for your sake that you are only joking on this. This has got to be the most ridiculous thing I have ever read on here.
Spanking is worse than rape? what? How about I get someone to rape you, and afterwards, you can tell me if rape doesn't even come close to spanking being so horrible? I'm dead serious.
If you don't like the USA laws, get out and move to the middle east.
EDIT: Ever heard of therapy? You need it.
I know many people who have been spanked. The guys don't beat their wives, and the girls don't marry guys who beat them. You just seem to be talking out of your butt.
How about you let other people have their own opinion, and turn off your effin caps lock? You can't change people's minds by screaming and yelling how spanking is worse than rape (which that has got to be the most retarded thing I have ever heard), people who spank are pedophiles and need to be crucified. If you actually believe half of the crap you're saying, I would seriously suggest therapy.
you have issues. seek help imediatly. parents have been spanking for thousands of years. what makes you think it is wrong all of the sudden. This is clearly a matter of personal choice until a point. Children need disipline and billions of people will tell you that spankings helped them in their life. and no it is not rape and certainly not worse than it this is so off base.
Spanking is still legal because it works.
Well geez I guess I am evil because I have 3 kids and I spank them. But then I guess maybe I should let them do what they want so then when they get in trouble and get hooked on drugs they can blame me for all there troubles. Just one ? do you have children??
Ah, that's what I like to see - a calm, rational argument, lucidly stated.
Sounds as though your mommy spanked your backside a few days ago. Did her hand make your backside sting a bit?
Why the big push to get people drinking tap water?
In a country run by corporation who want money, money, money why the sudden push to get people drinking tap water. I won't drink it. The EPA is useless. Makes me wonder if they have some dark motive like poisoning people.
Answer:
the water wasn't safe, so they went to bottled, like they did in europe eons ago and now they are worrying about the plastic garbage.
There are no quick fixes and when they stop trying to put bandaids on things then maybe it will stop.
Spending money on giving us clean water seems like the last thing on their list.
I don't drink the water out of the tap either, I have a reverse osmosis system in my home..
well worth the money and I don't have to deal with the plastic garbage... hello... it is affordable and in the long run pays for itself in no time flat.
The push is for city employees to use tap water rather than bottled water to save money for the city. I think I heard that LA spends millions a year on bottled water. And the EPA is hardcore on environmental protection. I believe they are one of the few agencies that do there jobs as best they can. Why would they poison the water?
Too many people are watching conspiracy movies. Or possibly have schizophrenia. No one is out to get you or poison you.
Tap water contains flouride which helps teeth. We've seem increases in cavaties and mouth disease, including oral cancer due in part to the huge shift to bottle water-people need more flouride than they are getting.
There were a bunch of articles on it when the push first started, lots of info was available. Then the flouride conspiracies started surfacing again and they pointed to other reasons for the move back to tap water.
Its about illustrating how pointless it is to spend so much money needlessly on bottled water.
To do away with all those plastic bottles.
First - to reduce the waste (in energy and material) used to create the bottles.
Second - to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels (in transporting the loaded bottles to the place of consumption).
Third - to try to 'clean up' the bottled water industry, since there is absolutely no guarantee that the water in the bottle is not tap water in the first place (particularly in less well-developed countries).
Fourth - the rise in health issues (like cavities, etc) caused by omitting the preventive measures (like fluoride and chlorine) from the water consumption process ... particularly in urban environments.
Do you need me to continue?
Tap water is just more economical for everybody. I heard on the news that a person who drinks bottled water, 8 8 ounce glasses a day, spends up to $1500.00 per year on water. A person who drinks tap water spends about fifty cents. Think of all the landfill trash the water bottles make and how much petroleum it takes to produce all that plastic. Bottled water also lacks flouride. If your city water tastes good, why drink bottled?
Answer:
the water wasn't safe, so they went to bottled, like they did in europe eons ago and now they are worrying about the plastic garbage.
There are no quick fixes and when they stop trying to put bandaids on things then maybe it will stop.
Spending money on giving us clean water seems like the last thing on their list.
I don't drink the water out of the tap either, I have a reverse osmosis system in my home..
well worth the money and I don't have to deal with the plastic garbage... hello... it is affordable and in the long run pays for itself in no time flat.
The push is for city employees to use tap water rather than bottled water to save money for the city. I think I heard that LA spends millions a year on bottled water. And the EPA is hardcore on environmental protection. I believe they are one of the few agencies that do there jobs as best they can. Why would they poison the water?
Too many people are watching conspiracy movies. Or possibly have schizophrenia. No one is out to get you or poison you.
Tap water contains flouride which helps teeth. We've seem increases in cavaties and mouth disease, including oral cancer due in part to the huge shift to bottle water-people need more flouride than they are getting.
There were a bunch of articles on it when the push first started, lots of info was available. Then the flouride conspiracies started surfacing again and they pointed to other reasons for the move back to tap water.
Its about illustrating how pointless it is to spend so much money needlessly on bottled water.
To do away with all those plastic bottles.
First - to reduce the waste (in energy and material) used to create the bottles.
Second - to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels (in transporting the loaded bottles to the place of consumption).
Third - to try to 'clean up' the bottled water industry, since there is absolutely no guarantee that the water in the bottle is not tap water in the first place (particularly in less well-developed countries).
Fourth - the rise in health issues (like cavities, etc) caused by omitting the preventive measures (like fluoride and chlorine) from the water consumption process ... particularly in urban environments.
Do you need me to continue?
Tap water is just more economical for everybody. I heard on the news that a person who drinks bottled water, 8 8 ounce glasses a day, spends up to $1500.00 per year on water. A person who drinks tap water spends about fifty cents. Think of all the landfill trash the water bottles make and how much petroleum it takes to produce all that plastic. Bottled water also lacks flouride. If your city water tastes good, why drink bottled?
Why Shouldn't we legalize Marijuana?
It would replace 30 - to 40% of medicines today. Its easy to grow you dont need pestacides to grow it. You've never heard of someone killing or robbing a bank because they were high. The only reason its illegal today is in 1935 the media lied and made the politicians believe it is as dangerious as meth or cocane but its not. If we mass produced it our taxes wouldn't be paying to support all these people in jail and prison for pot. you could use the hemp for clothes. its rediculious the government in the 80's legalized it as long as you bought it from them. Whats up with that, it can be used for fuel clothes almost anything. they only dont legalize it because it would put the oil companies out of business the cropdusters the tobacco companies. Even Bill Clinton supported it he just didnt openly support it it wasnt a cigar tube he used it was a blunt tube
Answer:
Because we don't want to
We legalized alcohol after Prohibition becase we wanted to. If pot was something we wanted, we would have done it already.
We (Americans) don't like pot
Nonsense.
it's worth more illegle than legal?
yeah I agree, it doesn't do anything horribly bad to you, at least nothing more harmful than drinking or smoking cigarettes.
Because they can't place taxes on it.
Because I dont want my airplane pilot, surgeon, or my kids bus driver to smoke weed.
If we could lock all the potheads in a room someplace and let them smoke out... fine. But if they are going to be put in a position where their irresponsibility could kill someone I love, then it should continue to be illegal.
Because it is a gateway to the refrigerator. We have enough fat people here all ready. We don't need our kids growing up to be even fatter.
THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON DRUGS. FINE EXAMPLE OF WHY MARIJAUAN IS NOT LEGAL GOOD WORK.
If it were legalized,where are you going to smoke it? Smoking is illegal any more. It should never be legalized.Just another habit.And a gateway to worse.
Well I don't see why they don't legalize it. The only problem is.if I drink in front of my child, my child will not get drunk, but if I smoke pot with my child in the room, my child could get high. But that is happening already. One reason they don't want to legalize: When cops bust people who are selling marijuana, they can take property that they believe was purchased with the profits of their drug dealing. The police force counts on that money to support their office.
Pot is not a gateway drug. Gees
And just think of all the people - pilots, drs etc. who are already addicted to alcohol, pot and other drugs. Legalizing it doesn't mean it would be legal to do it and drive or fly or operate or whatever.give me a break.
ok let a former user tell you about it ok ! i remember stopping my car at green lights and paying for food at mcdonalds first window and driving past the second window where you pick your food up !! might this help answer your question why it will never in your lifetime be legalized nationally?
I don't think it would replace 30-40% (source please?)
I agree it should be legalized, it is less dangerous than alcohol and cigarettes.
Plus, it would help diminish crimes (not only because pot would be legal, but because it would discourage organized crime
While you are right, your reasoning is extremely flawed and juvenille. Every hippie has your argument. Here is why it ought to be legal.
First, Drugs are BAD. Don't forget that.
However, we are supposed to be a free people. As such, we have inalienable rights. A somewhat universally accepted definition of a natural or inalienable right is the right to do that which imposes no burden on your fellow man except that of non-interference. That seems to apply to marijuana use. If a person's ambition and happiness in life comes from smoking pot, who are we to take away their liberty for their decision unless it affects us. I would of course take away any medicaid, welfare benefits for anyone who smokes pot or has a smoke related illness. But if you can take care of yourself why you smoke pot. Have at it.
Your conspiracy theories are completely ridiculous. I know you are just reciting the NORML talking points but if you believe in legalization and want to make an argument with any credibility outside of the 19 year old NORML crowd, look at the basics of freedom and what our nation was founded on and get rid of your oil companies are bad rhetoric, we've heard it, its nonsense.
Taxing it is wrong too. Social engineering through taxes is as unjust as outlawing activities that do not impose a burden on you.
The most compelling non-freedom argument seems to be that it does save tax payer money as we spent an awful lot preventing people from doing something that doesn't cost us an awful lot.
Hear Hear.
Goverment/police/cities/states... ect bring to much money in for arrests..court costs %26 ect.
lol what do they do with it afterwards...smell the smoke while burning it proably.
because uncle sam says so!
The government makes more busting/ confiscating it than they would by making it legal %26 taxing it. That other guy's answer was a little off, you could regulate it the same way they regulate alcohol. Its illegal to drink or be drunk while driving his kids to school, flying his flight, etc.
but of course, why fight something that will never change
Think of the economic havoc it would reek on all the folks who sell it as a major part of their supplemental income. Have you no compassion? Just kidding, but you're preaching to the choir here.
I used to be anti-legalization. I still do not like pot-heads. I think they lack good sense and judgment. However, I have come to terms with the issue and resolved that MJ should be legal because we tax payers are simply paying too much to prosecute petit offenders.
Our jails are full of people who just smoke weed and will not stop. Most of them do not have jobs so they are unlikely to pay the fines and prefer to just wait out their short sentences in jail.
Also, in the name of "war on drugs" too many civil rights have been violated by over-zealous cops. I remember a story of a druggy who refused to sign a "consent to search" when cops came knocking on his door. The cops threatened and tortured him (i.e. clamping wires from a car battery to his testicles). Unbeknownst to the fine peace officers, the druggy had been recording the entire "interview" with cassette players hidden in his home.
Also, I think it is the height of arrogance to deny very sick people a substance that can make them feel better, especially if they are dying.
Nevertheless, I think employers should not employ dopies for certain jobs.
Mainly because to many people use it improperly, outside of its correct spiritual context. Using it as a recreational drug is a terrible misuse of a God-given herb.
MJ is a choice drug of mainly the youth of this country and even if it was legalized for adults (18 or 21, whichever) it would not be legal for youth. However, making it legal for adults would make it even more readily available to young people. Reliable studies show that the use of any drug will likely alter social and mental development and become a substitute for actual engagement in life for a large portion of the population that uses it to the extent of abuse. Youth are the worst to abuse it and not recognize that they are even doing that.
It would be initially cheaper for the country to legalize it by saving money used for enforcement and incarceration and it would remove a source of funding for gangs but the total social costs are too high.
Also, several of your latter arguments are just urban legend and BS. Grow up.
The only reason is because it is (basically) a combination of Alcohol and Cigarette...
You get inebriated off it (differently than booze - but still intoxicated) AND you have to smoke it (2nd hand smoke).
As for taxing it, make it a Controlled Substance - where it can ONLY be bought from the Government (also like booze and smokes). Make it ILLEGAL to grow it on your own, and tax the hell out of it ;););)
As far as I am concerned, we should.
Your arguement is flawed.
"Replace 30-40% of medicines today"? Those medicines will still be used and perscribed no matter what. Furthermore, how will marijuana be used in treatment? I can only think of a few conditions that treatment with marijuana would be practical.
"You've never heard of somebody killing or robbing a bank because they were high"? How do you kill a bank? Unfortunately, stoned drivers are just as dangerous as drunk drivers. Also, how many accidental deaths have been caused by marijuana? Don't try to feed us crap.
"If we mass produced it our taxes wouldn't be paying to support all these people in jail and prison for pot" ? Try again. The criminals were charged and found guilty of crime while marijuana use/growing/distributing were illegal. If we suddenly repealed the laws against murder, the murderers who are serving time would still be guilty and forced to stay in prison. The appeals court would have to hear each case individually.
"you could use the hemp for clothes" Very true, but hemp and marijuana are not exactly the same thing. Hemp has low THC levels and little effect on humans when compared to most marjuana grown today.
"it can be used for fuel clothes almost anything. they only dont legalize it because it would put the oil companies out of business"
Partially true again; check your grocery store's for hemp bread. Hemp is also used to make ropes and some cloth. As for the fuel, everybody knows oil will not last forever; including the oil companies. If you are convinced that a car can be powered by hemp, build it yourself. Better yet, sell the design to Ford or GM.
"Even Bill Clinton supported it he just didnt openly support it it wasnt a cigar tube he used it was a blunt tube" I thought you wanted to get us on your side. Why bring in undocumented hype like that? Just be thankful he confessed to smoking pot in college; that is a huge step in itself.
the person that stated that they were stopping at green lights etc. You either smoked some very strong weed, you were not use to it, or your cognition is bad even when you don't use it.
Of course mj is not for everyone. Some people are not affected the same way. I can remember the few times that I first tried it, I inhaled way too much at a time and it did make me remember scenes back in my childhood as if they were happening right then. It is much better to take only a few hits at a time. Moderation is important.
My mom had died a year ago from breast cancer. Not even morphine helped for her pain which is about 20 times stronger than weed. There are better forms of pain management in certain doses.
Answer:
Because we don't want to
We legalized alcohol after Prohibition becase we wanted to. If pot was something we wanted, we would have done it already.
We (Americans) don't like pot
Nonsense.
it's worth more illegle than legal?
yeah I agree, it doesn't do anything horribly bad to you, at least nothing more harmful than drinking or smoking cigarettes.
Because they can't place taxes on it.
Because I dont want my airplane pilot, surgeon, or my kids bus driver to smoke weed.
If we could lock all the potheads in a room someplace and let them smoke out... fine. But if they are going to be put in a position where their irresponsibility could kill someone I love, then it should continue to be illegal.
Because it is a gateway to the refrigerator. We have enough fat people here all ready. We don't need our kids growing up to be even fatter.
THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON DRUGS. FINE EXAMPLE OF WHY MARIJAUAN IS NOT LEGAL GOOD WORK.
If it were legalized,where are you going to smoke it? Smoking is illegal any more. It should never be legalized.Just another habit.And a gateway to worse.
Well I don't see why they don't legalize it. The only problem is.if I drink in front of my child, my child will not get drunk, but if I smoke pot with my child in the room, my child could get high. But that is happening already. One reason they don't want to legalize: When cops bust people who are selling marijuana, they can take property that they believe was purchased with the profits of their drug dealing. The police force counts on that money to support their office.
Pot is not a gateway drug. Gees
And just think of all the people - pilots, drs etc. who are already addicted to alcohol, pot and other drugs. Legalizing it doesn't mean it would be legal to do it and drive or fly or operate or whatever.give me a break.
ok let a former user tell you about it ok ! i remember stopping my car at green lights and paying for food at mcdonalds first window and driving past the second window where you pick your food up !! might this help answer your question why it will never in your lifetime be legalized nationally?
I don't think it would replace 30-40% (source please?)
I agree it should be legalized, it is less dangerous than alcohol and cigarettes.
Plus, it would help diminish crimes (not only because pot would be legal, but because it would discourage organized crime
While you are right, your reasoning is extremely flawed and juvenille. Every hippie has your argument. Here is why it ought to be legal.
First, Drugs are BAD. Don't forget that.
However, we are supposed to be a free people. As such, we have inalienable rights. A somewhat universally accepted definition of a natural or inalienable right is the right to do that which imposes no burden on your fellow man except that of non-interference. That seems to apply to marijuana use. If a person's ambition and happiness in life comes from smoking pot, who are we to take away their liberty for their decision unless it affects us. I would of course take away any medicaid, welfare benefits for anyone who smokes pot or has a smoke related illness. But if you can take care of yourself why you smoke pot. Have at it.
Your conspiracy theories are completely ridiculous. I know you are just reciting the NORML talking points but if you believe in legalization and want to make an argument with any credibility outside of the 19 year old NORML crowd, look at the basics of freedom and what our nation was founded on and get rid of your oil companies are bad rhetoric, we've heard it, its nonsense.
Taxing it is wrong too. Social engineering through taxes is as unjust as outlawing activities that do not impose a burden on you.
The most compelling non-freedom argument seems to be that it does save tax payer money as we spent an awful lot preventing people from doing something that doesn't cost us an awful lot.
Hear Hear.
Goverment/police/cities/states... ect bring to much money in for arrests..court costs %26 ect.
lol what do they do with it afterwards...smell the smoke while burning it proably.
because uncle sam says so!
The government makes more busting/ confiscating it than they would by making it legal %26 taxing it. That other guy's answer was a little off, you could regulate it the same way they regulate alcohol. Its illegal to drink or be drunk while driving his kids to school, flying his flight, etc.
but of course, why fight something that will never change
Think of the economic havoc it would reek on all the folks who sell it as a major part of their supplemental income. Have you no compassion? Just kidding, but you're preaching to the choir here.
I used to be anti-legalization. I still do not like pot-heads. I think they lack good sense and judgment. However, I have come to terms with the issue and resolved that MJ should be legal because we tax payers are simply paying too much to prosecute petit offenders.
Our jails are full of people who just smoke weed and will not stop. Most of them do not have jobs so they are unlikely to pay the fines and prefer to just wait out their short sentences in jail.
Also, in the name of "war on drugs" too many civil rights have been violated by over-zealous cops. I remember a story of a druggy who refused to sign a "consent to search" when cops came knocking on his door. The cops threatened and tortured him (i.e. clamping wires from a car battery to his testicles). Unbeknownst to the fine peace officers, the druggy had been recording the entire "interview" with cassette players hidden in his home.
Also, I think it is the height of arrogance to deny very sick people a substance that can make them feel better, especially if they are dying.
Nevertheless, I think employers should not employ dopies for certain jobs.
Mainly because to many people use it improperly, outside of its correct spiritual context. Using it as a recreational drug is a terrible misuse of a God-given herb.
MJ is a choice drug of mainly the youth of this country and even if it was legalized for adults (18 or 21, whichever) it would not be legal for youth. However, making it legal for adults would make it even more readily available to young people. Reliable studies show that the use of any drug will likely alter social and mental development and become a substitute for actual engagement in life for a large portion of the population that uses it to the extent of abuse. Youth are the worst to abuse it and not recognize that they are even doing that.
It would be initially cheaper for the country to legalize it by saving money used for enforcement and incarceration and it would remove a source of funding for gangs but the total social costs are too high.
Also, several of your latter arguments are just urban legend and BS. Grow up.
The only reason is because it is (basically) a combination of Alcohol and Cigarette...
You get inebriated off it (differently than booze - but still intoxicated) AND you have to smoke it (2nd hand smoke).
As for taxing it, make it a Controlled Substance - where it can ONLY be bought from the Government (also like booze and smokes). Make it ILLEGAL to grow it on your own, and tax the hell out of it ;););)
As far as I am concerned, we should.
Your arguement is flawed.
"Replace 30-40% of medicines today"? Those medicines will still be used and perscribed no matter what. Furthermore, how will marijuana be used in treatment? I can only think of a few conditions that treatment with marijuana would be practical.
"You've never heard of somebody killing or robbing a bank because they were high"? How do you kill a bank? Unfortunately, stoned drivers are just as dangerous as drunk drivers. Also, how many accidental deaths have been caused by marijuana? Don't try to feed us crap.
"If we mass produced it our taxes wouldn't be paying to support all these people in jail and prison for pot" ? Try again. The criminals were charged and found guilty of crime while marijuana use/growing/distributing were illegal. If we suddenly repealed the laws against murder, the murderers who are serving time would still be guilty and forced to stay in prison. The appeals court would have to hear each case individually.
"you could use the hemp for clothes" Very true, but hemp and marijuana are not exactly the same thing. Hemp has low THC levels and little effect on humans when compared to most marjuana grown today.
"it can be used for fuel clothes almost anything. they only dont legalize it because it would put the oil companies out of business"
Partially true again; check your grocery store's for hemp bread. Hemp is also used to make ropes and some cloth. As for the fuel, everybody knows oil will not last forever; including the oil companies. If you are convinced that a car can be powered by hemp, build it yourself. Better yet, sell the design to Ford or GM.
"Even Bill Clinton supported it he just didnt openly support it it wasnt a cigar tube he used it was a blunt tube" I thought you wanted to get us on your side. Why bring in undocumented hype like that? Just be thankful he confessed to smoking pot in college; that is a huge step in itself.
the person that stated that they were stopping at green lights etc. You either smoked some very strong weed, you were not use to it, or your cognition is bad even when you don't use it.
Of course mj is not for everyone. Some people are not affected the same way. I can remember the few times that I first tried it, I inhaled way too much at a time and it did make me remember scenes back in my childhood as if they were happening right then. It is much better to take only a few hits at a time. Moderation is important.
My mom had died a year ago from breast cancer. Not even morphine helped for her pain which is about 20 times stronger than weed. There are better forms of pain management in certain doses.
Why should we allow foreigners to set up shop in America to kill our horses?
There is horse slaughter going on in America by a foreign owned business. They do not pay real taxes for killing our horses, they do not obey state laws, they are polluting our water with the waste, and the USDA is inspecting meat that people overseas will eat, not us.
This practice is brutal, the horse is alive when it is taken apart piece by piece. Some think this is funny, some support it but the fact is our House of Representatives has bill HR 503 and our Senate S 311 up for consideration, so not so funny when our Congress for the most part is trying to stop it.
I ask you to go to www.equineadvocates.com and watch a video before you post your comments here.
Please keep in mind that these horses endure over 24 hours in a truck that will not allow them to stand properly, they fall and some are killed during transport by being trampled to death. NO water or food during the trip to end their lives.
USDA states 92.3% of these horses are young, healthy, re-trainable.
100,000 yr
Answer:
There are so many reasons why we should not allow our horses to be killed for human consumption abroad. One of the main reasons is that it is dangerous because American horses are not raised to be part of the food chain.
Horses raised in the United States are not meant to be food, and they may even harm those consumers of horsemeat. Horses are not raised or medicated during their lifetime with the intent of one day becoming human food. Because no American horse is ever intended for human consumption, horses receive medications that are banned for use during the life of food animals. Additionally, medications which are FDA approved for use in traditional food animals come with very specific withdrawal schedules printed on the packaging whereas, the very same medications, such as de-wormers, when purchased for horses do not include the requisite food animal withdrawal schedule. They simply state “NOT FOR USE IN HORSES INTENDED FOR FOOD.”
Unlike the United States, European Union and United Kingdom member countries have a distinct safety policy with regard to horses entering the food chain. All EU/UK horses must carry “equine passports” in which the animal is declared to be either “eligible for slaughter as human food”, or “not eligible for slaughter for human food.” Any EU or UK horse which has ever received a medication that is banned for use in food-producing animals is forever prohibited from entering the food chain. All food animal approved medications that are prescribed and administered to horses in the EU or UK have strict withdrawal schedules printed on the packaging, and all such medications must also be recorded on the equine passport. The EU/UK system is designed specifically to ensure the health and safety of humans that consume horsemeat.
American horses may actually be harmful when consumed as food. Just one more reason we should ban the slaughter of American horses.
I vote Nay .
You also have to think about who is selling to these people, knowing full well what will happen to the horses.
Save the horses! (You might want to stop eating meat altogether, because it's the same in all areas of animal "production")
Is this the wild horses that have been in our Western territories for years. It is so hypocritical for the legislators to have hidden this from us, the is a part of our history to have these wild stallions roaming the range and to sell them off because of the cattle industry protests against range use was bad enough but to then torture the animals is the topping on the cake I guess all for the French culinary palate.
What do you think happens to cows, pigs, and chickens?
I really like the line "the horse is alive when it is taken apart piece by piece" which gives the impression that other animals are allowed to age gracefully and then die of natural causes. NO they are all killed in the prime of their lives, all of them are killed brutally in ways that are pretty much unbearable to watch to for the average viewer.
The only difference between those animals and horses is American happen to like horses as pets.
The biggest hypocrisy of Americans is the moral superiority we hold when it comes to animal rights. We bash countries where they kill dogs or cats for worship or food, yet we have killed more cows than any place in the world, BTW cows are the holiest of animals in Hinduism, yet one of our nations biggest companies McDonald's kills millions of these scared animals every day and call it a "happy" meal.
If you want to save them more power to you, but it is not like killing animals is news in America.
This practice is brutal, the horse is alive when it is taken apart piece by piece. Some think this is funny, some support it but the fact is our House of Representatives has bill HR 503 and our Senate S 311 up for consideration, so not so funny when our Congress for the most part is trying to stop it.
I ask you to go to www.equineadvocates.com and watch a video before you post your comments here.
Please keep in mind that these horses endure over 24 hours in a truck that will not allow them to stand properly, they fall and some are killed during transport by being trampled to death. NO water or food during the trip to end their lives.
USDA states 92.3% of these horses are young, healthy, re-trainable.
100,000 yr
Answer:
There are so many reasons why we should not allow our horses to be killed for human consumption abroad. One of the main reasons is that it is dangerous because American horses are not raised to be part of the food chain.
Horses raised in the United States are not meant to be food, and they may even harm those consumers of horsemeat. Horses are not raised or medicated during their lifetime with the intent of one day becoming human food. Because no American horse is ever intended for human consumption, horses receive medications that are banned for use during the life of food animals. Additionally, medications which are FDA approved for use in traditional food animals come with very specific withdrawal schedules printed on the packaging whereas, the very same medications, such as de-wormers, when purchased for horses do not include the requisite food animal withdrawal schedule. They simply state “NOT FOR USE IN HORSES INTENDED FOR FOOD.”
Unlike the United States, European Union and United Kingdom member countries have a distinct safety policy with regard to horses entering the food chain. All EU/UK horses must carry “equine passports” in which the animal is declared to be either “eligible for slaughter as human food”, or “not eligible for slaughter for human food.” Any EU or UK horse which has ever received a medication that is banned for use in food-producing animals is forever prohibited from entering the food chain. All food animal approved medications that are prescribed and administered to horses in the EU or UK have strict withdrawal schedules printed on the packaging, and all such medications must also be recorded on the equine passport. The EU/UK system is designed specifically to ensure the health and safety of humans that consume horsemeat.
American horses may actually be harmful when consumed as food. Just one more reason we should ban the slaughter of American horses.
I vote Nay .
You also have to think about who is selling to these people, knowing full well what will happen to the horses.
Save the horses! (You might want to stop eating meat altogether, because it's the same in all areas of animal "production")
Is this the wild horses that have been in our Western territories for years. It is so hypocritical for the legislators to have hidden this from us, the is a part of our history to have these wild stallions roaming the range and to sell them off because of the cattle industry protests against range use was bad enough but to then torture the animals is the topping on the cake I guess all for the French culinary palate.
What do you think happens to cows, pigs, and chickens?
I really like the line "the horse is alive when it is taken apart piece by piece" which gives the impression that other animals are allowed to age gracefully and then die of natural causes. NO they are all killed in the prime of their lives, all of them are killed brutally in ways that are pretty much unbearable to watch to for the average viewer.
The only difference between those animals and horses is American happen to like horses as pets.
The biggest hypocrisy of Americans is the moral superiority we hold when it comes to animal rights. We bash countries where they kill dogs or cats for worship or food, yet we have killed more cows than any place in the world, BTW cows are the holiest of animals in Hinduism, yet one of our nations biggest companies McDonald's kills millions of these scared animals every day and call it a "happy" meal.
If you want to save them more power to you, but it is not like killing animals is news in America.
Why should three convicted Rapist and Murderers be granted a new trial because of a missing stapple in a paper
A pack of Murdering scum who were given consecutive life sentences and had their files marked "never to be released" for a savage pack rape and brutal murder in Sydney have now been granted a new trial because a stapple was missing from a filed defence document. This case shocked a Nation and led to new "truth in sentencing" laws meaning a life sentence would mean life ! So what about victims rights and their families. What if it happened to your family ? If you hunted down these animals and executed them due to Post Traumatic Stress would you be understood in a court of law for your justified actions ?
Answer:
Was it a member of your family that was raped and murdered?? If it was... I am truly...deeply sorry for your loss and the confusion and grief that accompanies such a horrific event.
Assuming a member of your family was NOT among the victims...I'd say your level of anger is an unjustified overreaction to this situation.
You're making "granted a new trial" sound as if they've already had the new trial, been found innocent and released from custody. A missing staple (NOT 'stapple' BTW) may get them a new trial...but it's NOT going to change the outcome!
It may seem extraneous on the surface, but making sure that the rule of law is followed in a capital case like this is far more important than you seem to understand. If the legal system that is charged w/ the responsibility of adjudicating the matter doesn't have to follow it's own rules...in all cases...it will eventually lose all manner of credibility.
I would challenge you to ask someone who's lived under a dictatorship... or in a police state... if these types of procedural rules are important.
As for the asinine question about "hunting and executing" these people based on PTSD...would you allow "these animals" to use that same defense... if something bad happened to them in their life??
Perhaps this will help you feel better:
Child Rapist gets 137 year sentence.
http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/news.p...
why was the stapple missing? did the dirty prosecutor hide evidence? you need to be clearer.
Answer:
Was it a member of your family that was raped and murdered?? If it was... I am truly...deeply sorry for your loss and the confusion and grief that accompanies such a horrific event.
Assuming a member of your family was NOT among the victims...I'd say your level of anger is an unjustified overreaction to this situation.
You're making "granted a new trial" sound as if they've already had the new trial, been found innocent and released from custody. A missing staple (NOT 'stapple' BTW) may get them a new trial...but it's NOT going to change the outcome!
It may seem extraneous on the surface, but making sure that the rule of law is followed in a capital case like this is far more important than you seem to understand. If the legal system that is charged w/ the responsibility of adjudicating the matter doesn't have to follow it's own rules...in all cases...it will eventually lose all manner of credibility.
I would challenge you to ask someone who's lived under a dictatorship... or in a police state... if these types of procedural rules are important.
As for the asinine question about "hunting and executing" these people based on PTSD...would you allow "these animals" to use that same defense... if something bad happened to them in their life??
Perhaps this will help you feel better:
Child Rapist gets 137 year sentence.
http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/news.p...
why was the stapple missing? did the dirty prosecutor hide evidence? you need to be clearer.
Why should or should not marijuana be legalized?
Amsterdam's statistics are proving that we in America have it wrong. By having it illegal here in the states it only causes the youth to be able to partake of it at an earlier age through drug dealers. In Amsterdam, no one under 18 is allowed to buy it and then only in very small quantities. People need to become educated about the true effects of mj and which are extremely minor compared to alcohol and is actually very good as a natural pain reliever. And it is NOT addictiing like alcohol or other pharmaceutical drugs.
Answer:
It should be legalized. The only reason its not is cause the Govt can't tax it. Luckilly people are waking up state by state and decriminalizing it. Just think how much money they'd save not locking up pot related criminals. Anyone ever see a stoner go on a rampage, killing people to get high? No. Anyone seen a stoner loose their head go out and hold up liquor stores or beat their spouse? No. Anyone seen somone get stoned and total their car on the front grills of traffic in the opposing lanes? No. Leave the poor stoners alone. The only crime Im guilty of when Im stoned is eating waaay to much and moving waaaay to little. And the cops are so proud when they arrest you w/ a joint, like they really cleaned up some crime there. Pfffft.
Yeah, I agree! PREACH IT SISTER!
I agree with you. marijuana is far less effective than alcohol. so if the goverment belives that marijuana should not be legalized then so should alcohol as well.
why Save cops time and generate tax revenue
it should be legalized because part of using marijunia is being cool and if you get it at a store from a 55 year old men or woman it ain't cool anymore. also this way you know what it is put in the drugs and its less potent because the people that sell it are heavily regulated and it reduces crime because its taking the business away from the drug dealer.
I don't have an problem with legalizing marijuana.
I do think that it is probably not a good idea to make another smoked product available. We now know that smoking is anything is bad for your lungs. Long term effects of smoking marijuana will lead to more long term public health problems. Perhaps the legalized marijuana would not take the form of cigarettes.
I would like to see industrial hemp legalized very soon. It is a fast growing renewable resource for fiber for clothing, paper and other products.
i totally agree with you, i myself do not smoke it but I do know others who has. Alcohol should be outlawed in my opinion, there are so many drinking related deaths than there are reported with Marijuana use. Then you have all these stupid people who are abusing pharmaceutical drugs and getting them illegally, come one now. I think Nevada has a law that you can a certain amount with you but no more, don't remember how much. Obviously the doctors think that its ok if they have medical marijuana. I look at it this way GOD put it on this earth for a reason, GOD did not put all the other crap here, all the other drugs are MAN made.
I agree that marijuana should be legalized. People are going to do it anyway so we need to stop burdening our criminal justice system. However, I disagree with you on this: It is addictive. But you can get addicted to anything, so I don't think that's a valid point in the against argument.
Our Government has been making lots of money off drug trafficking so they can't legalize it. it would be bad for their business. If smoking pot creates more tolerance and opens the mind then yes they should legalize it.
I accept that we are stewards of the earth ... that we don't actually own it...rather we hold it in trust for future generations.
But there is one thing in life that is ours, and ours alone...that is our bodies
Government keep your effing hands off!
It's not just Marijuana. Margaret Thatcher stopped the British program of doling out heroin on a prescription basis, back in the '80's and the UK's crime rate quadrupled in less than two years.
We need a rational, comprehensive national drug policy. One that actually takes reality into account. Drug Enforcement and Drug Law related crime have made our streets far more dangerous than they need to be.
Legalize marijuana, tax it and regulate it. Then use the money to treat addictive drugs like the medical problem they are. Crime will go down sharply and so will drug abuse. There's a certain cachet to being an outlaw that attracts people to experiment with the dangerous stuff. There's no such attraction to a socially stigmatizing disease.
I am against illegalization or legalization. I would rather see every state and county or parish and city or town in the USA have the absolute freedom to regulate by customs voted on by the people of that area, the citizens.
This way, some towns in the USA could be very strict and please those people who barely condone the use of coffee as s stimulant, while others that allow drugs, could set up internal regulation of them.
In any respect, I want to see the business transaction of drugs stay in America. I am against the loss of US currency to alien lands and the place of role the US allows them that increases crime.
I would have drugs for sale at prices that would make poor the users and would work on a sliding scale. Say a doctor wants some drug A, his scale price is calculated by his employment both in pay grade and responsibility grade and is by far a higher price then say a gang banger whose job is not but that he is in a program to work, ie live under supervision and direction of police and gang leaders who trade the drugs for behavior modifications concerning how these are used and permitted, ie, no driving, not in public, et al. This way drugs are in a lifestyle for those with lots of money to waste or those without any career goals but away from children and sober society.
Freedom is important, you can lead a horse to water but the bottom line is, you cant make him drink. So if people are absolutly determined to explore deep into drugs in soul searching it ought to be their right to do so but not without responsibility and liability in it as any other job in the USA would settle.
If controls can be set in that actually work to monitor the amount an over 18 gets then fine. But then what you get is people, which do not smoke it using their "entitled" amount for others - the only way it could be properly monitored would be through ration - like books, which people could use for others.
What happens though if you are 15 and want it? I'd only imagine that it would be a peace of pish to get it then. But what does that matter it is a peace of pish to get it now.
so really legalising will ensure that those would have taken it will get nothing mixed in with it which really could damage their health.
Education would be the way to go, but how do you educate the older generation 鈥?The ones that have the power to vote "No" in America.
I know a many people that do smoke it and as you rightly said it does relieve pain. A friend's mum has MS and weed really helps her cope. My Mum has spinal problems and it helps her to get over the pain, along with painkillers.
it the state were to legalise it, it would have to legalise it as a pain relief drug first, and ease the population into it, I do not see how over 50% will swallow "lets legalise weed for everyone!"
Another good affect be legalising it would to stop dealers mixing it and also selling it at a grossly high price, Ok there would have to be tax on it, but you would know what you were getting was pure and it would still work out a lot cheaper.
However, I cannot say its all rosy and it doesn't do any harm to you. Short term memory lose is a major effect, many of my friends that smoke have always said that it does have effects with their short term memory - how saviour it is, i guess is how much you smoke...
And lets face it if or when you smoke it 鈥?its not like you will cause violence, like alcohol does, mellow out people鈥?lol
In the States 鈥?could it really work at an individual state level? I do not know鈥?br />No major addicting effect? I don't know what you heard about that or if you have only been smoking it for a month or something... like anything that the body is use to it - the body will crave.
How much of a burden will it be to the National Health (I'm thinking about Scotland here lol) or any other private insurance company or medi-care? Many thousands die from smoking tobacco on a yearly basis, will smoking weed make this number rise, or stay the same?
How many people will get on the drug, which would not even have thought about it because it was a Class C or an illegal drug?
So, probably like everyone else that has answers so far - I am in favour of it, but only of the substance is properly monitored. It is taxed to the heavens, so the system is able to cope through the National Health or any other health scheme. After all it is better to be actually monitored, than not monitored at all - at the end of the day it is readily available.
Free adult citizens should be free to do to themselves as they wish. Marijuana was legal in the US from 1776 until 1937, I think. I've always believed that pot was outlawed after the gov't repealed prohibition, to encourage booze consumption, for the taxes. I don't favor drug use, but just don't feel it's Uncle Sam's business. I also don't favor obesity, disco,drunkenness, not bathing, chewing with your mouth open, and purple houses. But, I don't believe that gives me some right to tell others what to do and how to live. If I don't have the right, I don't see why a whole bunch of people voting have more of a right to meddle in people's affairs. The power, yes- but not the right. No matter what their motive.
Answer:
It should be legalized. The only reason its not is cause the Govt can't tax it. Luckilly people are waking up state by state and decriminalizing it. Just think how much money they'd save not locking up pot related criminals. Anyone ever see a stoner go on a rampage, killing people to get high? No. Anyone seen a stoner loose their head go out and hold up liquor stores or beat their spouse? No. Anyone seen somone get stoned and total their car on the front grills of traffic in the opposing lanes? No. Leave the poor stoners alone. The only crime Im guilty of when Im stoned is eating waaay to much and moving waaaay to little. And the cops are so proud when they arrest you w/ a joint, like they really cleaned up some crime there. Pfffft.
Yeah, I agree! PREACH IT SISTER!
I agree with you. marijuana is far less effective than alcohol. so if the goverment belives that marijuana should not be legalized then so should alcohol as well.
why Save cops time and generate tax revenue
it should be legalized because part of using marijunia is being cool and if you get it at a store from a 55 year old men or woman it ain't cool anymore. also this way you know what it is put in the drugs and its less potent because the people that sell it are heavily regulated and it reduces crime because its taking the business away from the drug dealer.
I don't have an problem with legalizing marijuana.
I do think that it is probably not a good idea to make another smoked product available. We now know that smoking is anything is bad for your lungs. Long term effects of smoking marijuana will lead to more long term public health problems. Perhaps the legalized marijuana would not take the form of cigarettes.
I would like to see industrial hemp legalized very soon. It is a fast growing renewable resource for fiber for clothing, paper and other products.
i totally agree with you, i myself do not smoke it but I do know others who has. Alcohol should be outlawed in my opinion, there are so many drinking related deaths than there are reported with Marijuana use. Then you have all these stupid people who are abusing pharmaceutical drugs and getting them illegally, come one now. I think Nevada has a law that you can a certain amount with you but no more, don't remember how much. Obviously the doctors think that its ok if they have medical marijuana. I look at it this way GOD put it on this earth for a reason, GOD did not put all the other crap here, all the other drugs are MAN made.
I agree that marijuana should be legalized. People are going to do it anyway so we need to stop burdening our criminal justice system. However, I disagree with you on this: It is addictive. But you can get addicted to anything, so I don't think that's a valid point in the against argument.
Our Government has been making lots of money off drug trafficking so they can't legalize it. it would be bad for their business. If smoking pot creates more tolerance and opens the mind then yes they should legalize it.
I accept that we are stewards of the earth ... that we don't actually own it...rather we hold it in trust for future generations.
But there is one thing in life that is ours, and ours alone...that is our bodies
Government keep your effing hands off!
It's not just Marijuana. Margaret Thatcher stopped the British program of doling out heroin on a prescription basis, back in the '80's and the UK's crime rate quadrupled in less than two years.
We need a rational, comprehensive national drug policy. One that actually takes reality into account. Drug Enforcement and Drug Law related crime have made our streets far more dangerous than they need to be.
Legalize marijuana, tax it and regulate it. Then use the money to treat addictive drugs like the medical problem they are. Crime will go down sharply and so will drug abuse. There's a certain cachet to being an outlaw that attracts people to experiment with the dangerous stuff. There's no such attraction to a socially stigmatizing disease.
I am against illegalization or legalization. I would rather see every state and county or parish and city or town in the USA have the absolute freedom to regulate by customs voted on by the people of that area, the citizens.
This way, some towns in the USA could be very strict and please those people who barely condone the use of coffee as s stimulant, while others that allow drugs, could set up internal regulation of them.
In any respect, I want to see the business transaction of drugs stay in America. I am against the loss of US currency to alien lands and the place of role the US allows them that increases crime.
I would have drugs for sale at prices that would make poor the users and would work on a sliding scale. Say a doctor wants some drug A, his scale price is calculated by his employment both in pay grade and responsibility grade and is by far a higher price then say a gang banger whose job is not but that he is in a program to work, ie live under supervision and direction of police and gang leaders who trade the drugs for behavior modifications concerning how these are used and permitted, ie, no driving, not in public, et al. This way drugs are in a lifestyle for those with lots of money to waste or those without any career goals but away from children and sober society.
Freedom is important, you can lead a horse to water but the bottom line is, you cant make him drink. So if people are absolutly determined to explore deep into drugs in soul searching it ought to be their right to do so but not without responsibility and liability in it as any other job in the USA would settle.
If controls can be set in that actually work to monitor the amount an over 18 gets then fine. But then what you get is people, which do not smoke it using their "entitled" amount for others - the only way it could be properly monitored would be through ration - like books, which people could use for others.
What happens though if you are 15 and want it? I'd only imagine that it would be a peace of pish to get it then. But what does that matter it is a peace of pish to get it now.
so really legalising will ensure that those would have taken it will get nothing mixed in with it which really could damage their health.
Education would be the way to go, but how do you educate the older generation 鈥?The ones that have the power to vote "No" in America.
I know a many people that do smoke it and as you rightly said it does relieve pain. A friend's mum has MS and weed really helps her cope. My Mum has spinal problems and it helps her to get over the pain, along with painkillers.
it the state were to legalise it, it would have to legalise it as a pain relief drug first, and ease the population into it, I do not see how over 50% will swallow "lets legalise weed for everyone!"
Another good affect be legalising it would to stop dealers mixing it and also selling it at a grossly high price, Ok there would have to be tax on it, but you would know what you were getting was pure and it would still work out a lot cheaper.
However, I cannot say its all rosy and it doesn't do any harm to you. Short term memory lose is a major effect, many of my friends that smoke have always said that it does have effects with their short term memory - how saviour it is, i guess is how much you smoke...
And lets face it if or when you smoke it 鈥?its not like you will cause violence, like alcohol does, mellow out people鈥?lol
In the States 鈥?could it really work at an individual state level? I do not know鈥?br />No major addicting effect? I don't know what you heard about that or if you have only been smoking it for a month or something... like anything that the body is use to it - the body will crave.
How much of a burden will it be to the National Health (I'm thinking about Scotland here lol) or any other private insurance company or medi-care? Many thousands die from smoking tobacco on a yearly basis, will smoking weed make this number rise, or stay the same?
How many people will get on the drug, which would not even have thought about it because it was a Class C or an illegal drug?
So, probably like everyone else that has answers so far - I am in favour of it, but only of the substance is properly monitored. It is taxed to the heavens, so the system is able to cope through the National Health or any other health scheme. After all it is better to be actually monitored, than not monitored at all - at the end of the day it is readily available.
Free adult citizens should be free to do to themselves as they wish. Marijuana was legal in the US from 1776 until 1937, I think. I've always believed that pot was outlawed after the gov't repealed prohibition, to encourage booze consumption, for the taxes. I don't favor drug use, but just don't feel it's Uncle Sam's business. I also don't favor obesity, disco,drunkenness, not bathing, chewing with your mouth open, and purple houses. But, I don't believe that gives me some right to tell others what to do and how to live. If I don't have the right, I don't see why a whole bunch of people voting have more of a right to meddle in people's affairs. The power, yes- but not the right. No matter what their motive.
Why should marijuana be illegal and cigarettes legal?
alot of people act like marijuana is illegal because the government cares about your health
if they cared about your health they wouldnt allow cigarettes and alcohol to be sold to you but they do
so why do people stand behind such stupidity
knowing that its only illegal so the government can make a bigger profit
Answer:
It doesn't make sense to a lot of people for the reasons you just gave.
The practical reasons are that the cigarette lobby is huge, and that cigarette taxes are a huge source of revenue for states. Plus cigarette smoking doesn't carry the same stigma as marijuana smoking, and the potential social and economic cost of outlawing cigarettes and having all cigarette smokers suddenly become criminals would be prohibitive.
People will say "Well i dont want my pilot, doctor, or taxi driver to smoke weed before the job"
Well you need to have more faith in people to take care in their job.
They are just afraid from Reefer Madness.
Pot isn't good for you, but it is much better than cigarettes
I don't know, I never heard of anyone dying from smoking weed!!
because marijuana is a gateway drug after pot comes coke or something even worse.
It is our government that permits the cigarettes, as well as alcohol. Back in the day, drugs were legal, whiskey wasn't. But it our government which prefers the two listed above all other substances. It is their drug of chose and that is why it is legal, even though the cigarettes kill and the alcohol kills more Americans than any other substance used by man. They have to make money somehow, so marijuana is illegal.
Because cigarettes do not impair your ability to drive, operate machinery, eat, talk coherently, etc. like marijauna does.
Marijuana has been legalized for use for medicinal purposes, so the govt. cares a little bit about it.
But as far as the long term effects, certainly the lobbying power the cig companies has has played a part in that.
Our government dose not make a profit! That's why we have the national dept. Several companies do make big profits off marijuana being illegal. Cannabis can be used for fuel, medicine, food and clothing. Why would you treat pain or mental illness with a drug that may cause death when you could legally use a safe effective plant?
Monsanto is a major offender they are making big money off of corn used for fuel, but they are not paying for the damages done by agent orange. (This is turning into a rant.) I've researched this question for a long time. Do more than half the children in America need psychiatric medication? Should we eat food that are sprayed directly with roundup?
if they cared about your health they wouldnt allow cigarettes and alcohol to be sold to you but they do
so why do people stand behind such stupidity
knowing that its only illegal so the government can make a bigger profit
Answer:
It doesn't make sense to a lot of people for the reasons you just gave.
The practical reasons are that the cigarette lobby is huge, and that cigarette taxes are a huge source of revenue for states. Plus cigarette smoking doesn't carry the same stigma as marijuana smoking, and the potential social and economic cost of outlawing cigarettes and having all cigarette smokers suddenly become criminals would be prohibitive.
People will say "Well i dont want my pilot, doctor, or taxi driver to smoke weed before the job"
Well you need to have more faith in people to take care in their job.
They are just afraid from Reefer Madness.
Pot isn't good for you, but it is much better than cigarettes
I don't know, I never heard of anyone dying from smoking weed!!
because marijuana is a gateway drug after pot comes coke or something even worse.
It is our government that permits the cigarettes, as well as alcohol. Back in the day, drugs were legal, whiskey wasn't. But it our government which prefers the two listed above all other substances. It is their drug of chose and that is why it is legal, even though the cigarettes kill and the alcohol kills more Americans than any other substance used by man. They have to make money somehow, so marijuana is illegal.
Because cigarettes do not impair your ability to drive, operate machinery, eat, talk coherently, etc. like marijauna does.
Marijuana has been legalized for use for medicinal purposes, so the govt. cares a little bit about it.
But as far as the long term effects, certainly the lobbying power the cig companies has has played a part in that.
Our government dose not make a profit! That's why we have the national dept. Several companies do make big profits off marijuana being illegal. Cannabis can be used for fuel, medicine, food and clothing. Why would you treat pain or mental illness with a drug that may cause death when you could legally use a safe effective plant?
Monsanto is a major offender they are making big money off of corn used for fuel, but they are not paying for the damages done by agent orange. (This is turning into a rant.) I've researched this question for a long time. Do more than half the children in America need psychiatric medication? Should we eat food that are sprayed directly with roundup?
Why should i respect the law they have not done any thing for me?
examples
Answer:
You do not have to respect the law. There is nothing stopping you from doing whatever you would like. The thing is that if you do not respect it you are likely to see repercussions for you actions. There are people who get away with disrespect, but that percentage is far smaller than those who end up with huge fines, jail time, or prison time. I'm not really sure where you are but if you are thinking about doing something stupid, you may want to talk to an attorney to see what can happen to you for doing so. I do not recommend disrespecting the law.
Pure and simple law exists to prevent chaos.
you just have to obey the law(s)...whether you respect it is immaterial
Since you made the statement, I think you should be the one citing examples of how the law has not done anything for you.
well alot of people have that view i agree alot of laws are stupid and for a basic level of control. but some laws such as no killing are good as some order is essential so that there is no chaos people have lived too long togther in civilisations to go back to the hunter gatherer be4 laws lol
The reason that you are still alive and kicking is due to the law and order in your country. So should u respect it?
Not true the laws protect everyone,you and others, breaking laws in this life means you will pay and maybe sent to jail, life is too short, most think its long,sitting around in jail sucks, U think?
Because of your own self preservation. If you violate the law, it does not matter who or what has not "done anything" for you, you can still be arrested and put in jail. Why not put that anger into doing something positive for others who feel that they are also abandoned?
well because the law gives us rights that people cant take away which is called unalienable rights so it keeps us protected which helps u so all we have to do is obey the law
because the law protects you from getting yourself AND others out of a dangerous situation.
example: the law of wearing SEAT BELTS will reduce the risk of you and your passengers from dying in an accident.
the law(s) keeps you, your friends and family safe.
plus, you can be sent to jail if your lack of respect leads you to break a law.
What kind of handout are you looking for??
they get drug dealers and drugs, gangs, rapists, child molesters, off the street. being a police officer is the most un respected job on the planet. people get pissed off when they get stopped for speeding but it is their own fault they knew the law and ignored it. yes some cops r dirty i wont deny it it is just a fact but for the most part they r just doing their job and they dont get paid enough. usually the people who dont like cops r criminals so... i am just gong to assume .........
Answer:
You do not have to respect the law. There is nothing stopping you from doing whatever you would like. The thing is that if you do not respect it you are likely to see repercussions for you actions. There are people who get away with disrespect, but that percentage is far smaller than those who end up with huge fines, jail time, or prison time. I'm not really sure where you are but if you are thinking about doing something stupid, you may want to talk to an attorney to see what can happen to you for doing so. I do not recommend disrespecting the law.
Pure and simple law exists to prevent chaos.
you just have to obey the law(s)...whether you respect it is immaterial
Since you made the statement, I think you should be the one citing examples of how the law has not done anything for you.
well alot of people have that view i agree alot of laws are stupid and for a basic level of control. but some laws such as no killing are good as some order is essential so that there is no chaos people have lived too long togther in civilisations to go back to the hunter gatherer be4 laws lol
The reason that you are still alive and kicking is due to the law and order in your country. So should u respect it?
Not true the laws protect everyone,you and others, breaking laws in this life means you will pay and maybe sent to jail, life is too short, most think its long,sitting around in jail sucks, U think?
Because of your own self preservation. If you violate the law, it does not matter who or what has not "done anything" for you, you can still be arrested and put in jail. Why not put that anger into doing something positive for others who feel that they are also abandoned?
well because the law gives us rights that people cant take away which is called unalienable rights so it keeps us protected which helps u so all we have to do is obey the law
because the law protects you from getting yourself AND others out of a dangerous situation.
example: the law of wearing SEAT BELTS will reduce the risk of you and your passengers from dying in an accident.
the law(s) keeps you, your friends and family safe.
plus, you can be sent to jail if your lack of respect leads you to break a law.
What kind of handout are you looking for??
they get drug dealers and drugs, gangs, rapists, child molesters, off the street. being a police officer is the most un respected job on the planet. people get pissed off when they get stopped for speeding but it is their own fault they knew the law and ignored it. yes some cops r dirty i wont deny it it is just a fact but for the most part they r just doing their job and they dont get paid enough. usually the people who dont like cops r criminals so... i am just gong to assume .........
Why should cell phones be prohibited while driving?
Im doing a research paper and I need a good point why they shouldn't be restirected while driving?
Answer:
There have been various analyses of circumstances leading to traffic accidents.
* Intoxicated
* distracted
Most of us can do a lot of things at the same time.
Many of us can too easily get distracted, thus laws get passed to try to block the distractions.
Once upon a time, you could have a TV station playing in the car ... laws were made to say only back seat passengers could see the TV screen, because it was so distracting to drivers that they had lots of accidents.
I think we may be headed down that same road with pictures on cell phones, text messaging, GPS map direction systems, etc. Where the rule would be ... you want to use that stuff, first pull over to side of road to use it ... finished using it ... turn it off before resuming the driving.
It is my understanding that driving, while paying more attention to cell phone than to driving, has about the same rate of accidents as driving while drunk.
When you are driving, do you need to be able to hear traffic noises like a siren ... can you hear that Ok while talking on cell phone?
Do you have the kind of cell phone, where you can talk on it with your hands free to drive, or do you have to take one hand off the steering wheel to hold the cell phone up to your ear?
There is a kind with like ear phones that are over your head with microphone under your chin ... well you can use both hands to drive, but now you can't hear the traffic noises.
your a girl..who probably talks all the time while driving.
soooo write one on how you would just die if they took your phone away
Well according to studies by (I believe it was allstate or state farm) an insurance company, cell phones do distract drivers, but hands free devices do not change the impact, and the impact is very small compared to just having a passenger in the car, and having 2 or more passengers in the car is as distractive or even more than a cell phone.
This is why the law was passed that new teenage drivers cannot have more than one non-family passenger in the car for the first 6 months of driving (this is likely a state law)
josie...by your logic, we should have one seater cars because conversation is the problem...or ban talking in cars.
Those who say we cannot multi-task, you also believe that everyone is depressed or bi-polar, also don't you? Realty is that we all multi-task all the time. You can focus on many things at the same time. Communication is a distraction, but so are advertisments.
They should be restricted because people drive like idiots when they are gabbing on them. Also, you use the same area of your brain to drive as you do to talk, so when you are asking your brain to do two things at once in the same area of the brain, something checks out and unfortunately sometimes, that is your driving. I know you wanted info on why cell phone gabbing should not be restricted, but I can't give you any because I don't agree with it.
I do not think Cell phones should be banned while driving but they should be hands free, and no texting, etc. People listen to the radio but of course they are not having a conversation with a person. I think it should be restricted to over 19 as by then the driver has some experience. Younger ages are not properly equipped to handle a car , even though they think they are. Concentration is lost and people do not pay attention. I would make every state a hands free cell phone state for a start, restrict by age. This could include some older folk too who do not drive too well either. One needs a cell for emergencies and it is good for busy people to get some phone calls made uniterrupted..To just gab while driving for no reason..I do not believe in that.. I believe it is too drastic to restrict phones totally in cars but there must be rules attached.
Cell phones, eating, applying makeup, drinking are all distractions. people get into talking so much about their day or themselves on a cell phone and before they know it they've killed someone or caused an accident.
Because humans CANNOT multi-task, they THINK they can, but in a British survey, is was shown they cannot!
You either concentrate on your driving, OR, on your conversation.
But NEVER both.
They are a major distraction. Like tattie says, a person cannot focus on more than one thing at a time.
If you'd ever almost been run off the road by a woman talking in her cell and at the same time putting on her make up you'd know why cell phones should be prohiblited while driving.
Actually cell phones are not restricted while you're behind the wheel if you simply pull off to the side of the road and park the car until your conversation is finished.
I'm confused. Are you asking why they should be prohibited or why they shouldn't be? You asked both.
Since people have already given why they should be, I'll give a why the shouldn't be: Necessity. Because of our fast paced society, sometimes it is necessary to drive and talk with people over the cell phone at the same time.
I do not agree with this, but you could put it in your research paper.
Answer:
There have been various analyses of circumstances leading to traffic accidents.
* Intoxicated
* distracted
Most of us can do a lot of things at the same time.
Many of us can too easily get distracted, thus laws get passed to try to block the distractions.
Once upon a time, you could have a TV station playing in the car ... laws were made to say only back seat passengers could see the TV screen, because it was so distracting to drivers that they had lots of accidents.
I think we may be headed down that same road with pictures on cell phones, text messaging, GPS map direction systems, etc. Where the rule would be ... you want to use that stuff, first pull over to side of road to use it ... finished using it ... turn it off before resuming the driving.
It is my understanding that driving, while paying more attention to cell phone than to driving, has about the same rate of accidents as driving while drunk.
When you are driving, do you need to be able to hear traffic noises like a siren ... can you hear that Ok while talking on cell phone?
Do you have the kind of cell phone, where you can talk on it with your hands free to drive, or do you have to take one hand off the steering wheel to hold the cell phone up to your ear?
There is a kind with like ear phones that are over your head with microphone under your chin ... well you can use both hands to drive, but now you can't hear the traffic noises.
your a girl..who probably talks all the time while driving.
soooo write one on how you would just die if they took your phone away
Well according to studies by (I believe it was allstate or state farm) an insurance company, cell phones do distract drivers, but hands free devices do not change the impact, and the impact is very small compared to just having a passenger in the car, and having 2 or more passengers in the car is as distractive or even more than a cell phone.
This is why the law was passed that new teenage drivers cannot have more than one non-family passenger in the car for the first 6 months of driving (this is likely a state law)
josie...by your logic, we should have one seater cars because conversation is the problem...or ban talking in cars.
Those who say we cannot multi-task, you also believe that everyone is depressed or bi-polar, also don't you? Realty is that we all multi-task all the time. You can focus on many things at the same time. Communication is a distraction, but so are advertisments.
They should be restricted because people drive like idiots when they are gabbing on them. Also, you use the same area of your brain to drive as you do to talk, so when you are asking your brain to do two things at once in the same area of the brain, something checks out and unfortunately sometimes, that is your driving. I know you wanted info on why cell phone gabbing should not be restricted, but I can't give you any because I don't agree with it.
I do not think Cell phones should be banned while driving but they should be hands free, and no texting, etc. People listen to the radio but of course they are not having a conversation with a person. I think it should be restricted to over 19 as by then the driver has some experience. Younger ages are not properly equipped to handle a car , even though they think they are. Concentration is lost and people do not pay attention. I would make every state a hands free cell phone state for a start, restrict by age. This could include some older folk too who do not drive too well either. One needs a cell for emergencies and it is good for busy people to get some phone calls made uniterrupted..To just gab while driving for no reason..I do not believe in that.. I believe it is too drastic to restrict phones totally in cars but there must be rules attached.
Cell phones, eating, applying makeup, drinking are all distractions. people get into talking so much about their day or themselves on a cell phone and before they know it they've killed someone or caused an accident.
Because humans CANNOT multi-task, they THINK they can, but in a British survey, is was shown they cannot!
You either concentrate on your driving, OR, on your conversation.
But NEVER both.
They are a major distraction. Like tattie says, a person cannot focus on more than one thing at a time.
If you'd ever almost been run off the road by a woman talking in her cell and at the same time putting on her make up you'd know why cell phones should be prohiblited while driving.
Actually cell phones are not restricted while you're behind the wheel if you simply pull off to the side of the road and park the car until your conversation is finished.
I'm confused. Are you asking why they should be prohibited or why they shouldn't be? You asked both.
Since people have already given why they should be, I'll give a why the shouldn't be: Necessity. Because of our fast paced society, sometimes it is necessary to drive and talk with people over the cell phone at the same time.
I do not agree with this, but you could put it in your research paper.
Why people are greedy an shameless?
I mean greedy because they feel no shame in asking even if they are refused
Answer:
Becasue the love of money is the root of ALL evils
Who knows
human nature. Hunger usually acompanies greed
Answer:
Becasue the love of money is the root of ALL evils
Who knows
human nature. Hunger usually acompanies greed
Why oppose the smoking ban? Is a speed limit an infringement of right?
Why are people so strongly opposed to the smoking ban? It is hopefully going to improve the health of both smokers who may smoke less when they have to go out in the cold and rain for a puff, and for non-smokers who on a night out have to breathe in second hand toxic smoke and chemicals.
Is it an infringement of your right to drive at 80 miles per hour down your street, where children might play just because you always have done and still want to? What about the law protecting you by saying you have to wear a seatbelt?
Is segregation the answer? Smokers and non-smokers having thier own pubs and restaurants? What happens in a group of friends where there is a mixture of both? The non-smokers put up with smoky bars as has just been banned? The smokers go in the non-smoking bars and refrain from puffing, as has just been brought as law?
Answer:
I don't think that segregation is the answer, because smokers are a minority, and there would be less interest in smoking publicly after a while.
It annoys me when smokers talk about the loss of their freedom to choose because of the ban. It gives the majority of people back their choice not to breathe in second-hand poisons just because one person may want to kill themselves slowly. And harming their loved ones while they're at it.
Speaking as a non smoker married to a smoker, I think it should be up to the proprietor if he wants a smoking establishment. Non smokers are not compelled to visit them if they object to second hand smoke.
segregation is not the answer. non-smokers may want to work in the pubs that would be smokers pubs
smokers should either give up or shut up. theyd soon change their tune if one of their kids got lung cancer
Smoking bans can stunt commerce.
From a purely business prospective, smoking is not illegal and it should be up the the proprietor of a business as to whether they allow smoking in their establishment. It is a sad fact that smoking and drinking often go hand in hand. In other places where smoking has been banned in drinking establishments sales have suffered.
i pay 5 pound for a packet of fags i will smoke them were and when i want as i pay more taxes then a none smoker
Why do I oppose the Ban. BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT FECKIN LIED TO ME!!
This is a ridiculous statement. How can you compare idiots who drive at murderous speeds with people who smoke?
Now that smokers have to stand on the street to puff away are in full view of children who may then believe that it's ok to smoke because they are seeing a lot of people do it.
Not only do the public have to contend with idiots driving their vehicles at horrendous speed, we have to breathe in the fumes from those machines too. How about we ban cars, vans, lorries, buses etc? No, they won't do that will they, far too much tax to be creamed off!!
I'm not saying that there's no harm from passive smoking but at least people have the option to choose whether or not to be around smokers. We don't have the option of not breathing in the filthy fumes from vehicles walking down the street. Just because there has been no official statistics for death caused by the breathing in of vehicle exhaust fumes, doesn't mean it doesn't happen does it.
If government has the right to protect your health whether you like it or not, what else can it do?
Ban fast food? This is bad for your health.
Force you to exercise? Being lazy is bad for your health.
Force you to go to the doctor? May find a problem.
Force you to take medicine? Its good for you.
Ban SUV? This is bad for air quality.
Ban bungee jumping? The rope may break.
Where will it end?
1. People have the right to smoke.
2. Property owners (restaurants, bars, offices) should have the right to make their own rules. Leave the politicians and lawyers out of it.
As for the roads, for now the government owns the roads. As long as they do, they have the right to make their own rules about using them.
Seatbelt laws should also be repealed. You own your car. You own yourself. You should have the right to decide to wear a seatbelt or motorcycle helmet.
The answer is to get the government out of the way and let pubs and restaurant owners make their own rules.
People have the right to associate and not associate with smokers or non smokers as they see fit.
This really is about freedom of association and is a First amendment issue (in the US). Unfortunately, the courts do not agree.
Smoking bans are an infringement of the property rights of bar owners.
I don't oppose smoking bans insofar as they seek only to protect non-smokers from the harmful effects (if there truly are any) of second-hand smoke.
I do oppose smoking bans insofar as they have been extended at the insistence of nanny-state officious intermeddlers to protect smokers from themselves.
I also oppose smoking bans insofar as they infringe on the rights of smokers to associate only with other smokers and enjoy their pastime and habit in each others' company alone, including the establishment of clubs and restaurants exclusively for smokers.
Yes, I believe segregation is definitely an answer. Each member of a group of friends who enjoy each others' company, but find that the group includes both smokers and non-smokers, would need to look inside himself to determine his own priorities -- i.e., whether a non-smoker values the company of his smoking friends more than he values a smoke-free environment for a few hours, or vice versa, or whether a smoker values the company of his non-smoking friends more than he values the ability to smoke for a few hours, or vice versa. In each case, the choices would be entirely voluntary.
You should remember that in the United States the people have the right to determine through their elected representatives how much of the power that they might have chosen to confer on their government as a constitutional matter they are in fact willing to confer by statute and how much they choose to withhold; and the government may not exercise powers that the people might have granted to it under the constitution but have chosen to withhold by statute.
You also need to keep in mind, as does the government, that the American people do not appreciate having what they regard as their private space being invaded by a coercive government, especially in matters where they regard the governmental interest as being trivial or otherwise insufficient to justify any form of coercive intrusion.
And finally, under the American system electoral majorities are by definition transient; and next year's majority may elect representatives whose agenda prominently includes undoing much, or most, or all of what the representatives elected by last year's majority wrought. That's the way it is, and we wouldn't have it any other way.
There ways around every law and this spurious imposition on freedom of choice will prove no exception.
Idiots smoke and idiots speed !!!
smoke if you must but do-not inflict it on other`s
in both cases people should be prosecuted if they do
It has never been proven that second hand smoke is harmful. Until there is unbiased scientific proof I am against smoking bans. Having said this and knowing that smoking is an annoyance to others, I think people and businesses should have a choice. Since smokers are in the minority, I wonder why so many businesses resist this ban? Choice is the answer not bans based on hysteriical supposition. There are too many laws as it is.
Its simple - Don't go in pubs and they will have to drop the smoking ban!
Is it an infringement of your right to drive at 80 miles per hour down your street, where children might play just because you always have done and still want to? What about the law protecting you by saying you have to wear a seatbelt?
Is segregation the answer? Smokers and non-smokers having thier own pubs and restaurants? What happens in a group of friends where there is a mixture of both? The non-smokers put up with smoky bars as has just been banned? The smokers go in the non-smoking bars and refrain from puffing, as has just been brought as law?
Answer:
I don't think that segregation is the answer, because smokers are a minority, and there would be less interest in smoking publicly after a while.
It annoys me when smokers talk about the loss of their freedom to choose because of the ban. It gives the majority of people back their choice not to breathe in second-hand poisons just because one person may want to kill themselves slowly. And harming their loved ones while they're at it.
Speaking as a non smoker married to a smoker, I think it should be up to the proprietor if he wants a smoking establishment. Non smokers are not compelled to visit them if they object to second hand smoke.
segregation is not the answer. non-smokers may want to work in the pubs that would be smokers pubs
smokers should either give up or shut up. theyd soon change their tune if one of their kids got lung cancer
Smoking bans can stunt commerce.
From a purely business prospective, smoking is not illegal and it should be up the the proprietor of a business as to whether they allow smoking in their establishment. It is a sad fact that smoking and drinking often go hand in hand. In other places where smoking has been banned in drinking establishments sales have suffered.
i pay 5 pound for a packet of fags i will smoke them were and when i want as i pay more taxes then a none smoker
Why do I oppose the Ban. BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT FECKIN LIED TO ME!!
This is a ridiculous statement. How can you compare idiots who drive at murderous speeds with people who smoke?
Now that smokers have to stand on the street to puff away are in full view of children who may then believe that it's ok to smoke because they are seeing a lot of people do it.
Not only do the public have to contend with idiots driving their vehicles at horrendous speed, we have to breathe in the fumes from those machines too. How about we ban cars, vans, lorries, buses etc? No, they won't do that will they, far too much tax to be creamed off!!
I'm not saying that there's no harm from passive smoking but at least people have the option to choose whether or not to be around smokers. We don't have the option of not breathing in the filthy fumes from vehicles walking down the street. Just because there has been no official statistics for death caused by the breathing in of vehicle exhaust fumes, doesn't mean it doesn't happen does it.
If government has the right to protect your health whether you like it or not, what else can it do?
Ban fast food? This is bad for your health.
Force you to exercise? Being lazy is bad for your health.
Force you to go to the doctor? May find a problem.
Force you to take medicine? Its good for you.
Ban SUV? This is bad for air quality.
Ban bungee jumping? The rope may break.
Where will it end?
1. People have the right to smoke.
2. Property owners (restaurants, bars, offices) should have the right to make their own rules. Leave the politicians and lawyers out of it.
As for the roads, for now the government owns the roads. As long as they do, they have the right to make their own rules about using them.
Seatbelt laws should also be repealed. You own your car. You own yourself. You should have the right to decide to wear a seatbelt or motorcycle helmet.
The answer is to get the government out of the way and let pubs and restaurant owners make their own rules.
People have the right to associate and not associate with smokers or non smokers as they see fit.
This really is about freedom of association and is a First amendment issue (in the US). Unfortunately, the courts do not agree.
Smoking bans are an infringement of the property rights of bar owners.
I don't oppose smoking bans insofar as they seek only to protect non-smokers from the harmful effects (if there truly are any) of second-hand smoke.
I do oppose smoking bans insofar as they have been extended at the insistence of nanny-state officious intermeddlers to protect smokers from themselves.
I also oppose smoking bans insofar as they infringe on the rights of smokers to associate only with other smokers and enjoy their pastime and habit in each others' company alone, including the establishment of clubs and restaurants exclusively for smokers.
Yes, I believe segregation is definitely an answer. Each member of a group of friends who enjoy each others' company, but find that the group includes both smokers and non-smokers, would need to look inside himself to determine his own priorities -- i.e., whether a non-smoker values the company of his smoking friends more than he values a smoke-free environment for a few hours, or vice versa, or whether a smoker values the company of his non-smoking friends more than he values the ability to smoke for a few hours, or vice versa. In each case, the choices would be entirely voluntary.
You should remember that in the United States the people have the right to determine through their elected representatives how much of the power that they might have chosen to confer on their government as a constitutional matter they are in fact willing to confer by statute and how much they choose to withhold; and the government may not exercise powers that the people might have granted to it under the constitution but have chosen to withhold by statute.
You also need to keep in mind, as does the government, that the American people do not appreciate having what they regard as their private space being invaded by a coercive government, especially in matters where they regard the governmental interest as being trivial or otherwise insufficient to justify any form of coercive intrusion.
And finally, under the American system electoral majorities are by definition transient; and next year's majority may elect representatives whose agenda prominently includes undoing much, or most, or all of what the representatives elected by last year's majority wrought. That's the way it is, and we wouldn't have it any other way.
There ways around every law and this spurious imposition on freedom of choice will prove no exception.
Idiots smoke and idiots speed !!!
smoke if you must but do-not inflict it on other`s
in both cases people should be prosecuted if they do
It has never been proven that second hand smoke is harmful. Until there is unbiased scientific proof I am against smoking bans. Having said this and knowing that smoking is an annoyance to others, I think people and businesses should have a choice. Since smokers are in the minority, I wonder why so many businesses resist this ban? Choice is the answer not bans based on hysteriical supposition. There are too many laws as it is.
Its simple - Don't go in pubs and they will have to drop the smoking ban!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)