NBVegita

lol. The statements are obvious exaggerations with truth behind the statement. 1) No the FBI would not be called in. I do know for a fact back at my highschool they would have locked down the school, arrested the person who owned the vehicle, impounded both his car and gun and yes actually offer "councelling" to students. Not exactly the FBI, but not too far off. 2) Again, SWAT team doesn't arrive, but back when I was in school they were both suspended and both, if old enough, charged with assault...thats why kids learned you don't fight on school grounds you go across the street 3) Is completely true. 4) The rest of the psychological stuff could be an exaggeration, but overall the kids would get taken from the father for child abuse and put into homes. 5) You wouldn't get arrested but back in my HS you couldn't bring any medication into school, or you would be suspended for a week and your parents had to meet with the staff. After a second offence you risked getting expelled. The only medication you were allowed to take in school had to be provided by the nurse. 6) Is that really that far off? 7) This is a crazy exaggeration. If caught the police would maybe charge you with something minor like possesion of fireworks (if illegal in your state) or something small like that. Again an exaggeration but I know teachers were absolutely not allowed to give students hugs, even at our graduation. Again it is a joke with the exaggerations, but ultimately I think it's a principle they're describing not specific events.

To you, it's very wrong, to me it isn't. People have been using euthanasia for centuries yet now it is magically wrong? I mean if a horse breaks his legs and he'll never be able to walk again, they kill it for it's own sake. If an animal gets rabies, you kill it for it's own sake. Yet if I were say to become a quadrapalegic, with brain function, it would be wrong for someone to help me die? Or I have to go through the extremely painful and torturous natural death process? I agree with you on the fact that with something like dimensia it becomes very complicated, but if you are in full brain function and willing want to end your life, specifically due to a serious medical condition, it is only humane to help you do so. You say that have a right to pain killers, but no pain killers in the world, short of knocking you unconcious can takle the pain of a serious brain tumor. Also you say to dope them up, so then they're really not "alive". A person's life isn't simply the years in there life, it's the life in their years. It is cruel to force someone to die a painful or prolonged death, when they could pass on very painlessly and immediately. It's cruel to the person and to the family. As for the doctors, you don't have to force doctors to do this, simply allow doctors to do this. Obviously with regulations.

First off this memo simply shows that legal council to the department of Justice states that they believe the president would have the power to circumvent the 4th Amendment and P.C., not that the president was asking to, nor attempting to. It did ask if they could circumvent the P.C. act, but that is about all this article shows beyond the fact that council for the Justice Department thought it would be constitutionally acceptable. Exactly.

I mean it is a conundrum you are in, people nowadays want the rights we had when the constitution was created, back when we trusted people as a whole, yet want laws to protect us assuming that you can't trust anyone. Overall I feel that we're an over coddled society which has evolved to resemble a spoiled child throwing a temper tantrum.

I wouldn't necessarily agree. My fiance's grandfather just passed away after two months of being on level 10-15 oxygen (fluctuating) and having a morphine drip under his tongue to simply make the pain bearable. I don't think I would have called him insane for wanting to end that. Nor would I consider someone who has (insert terminal medical illness) from trying to die before their body is wracked with pain/disease/ect.

So with the current article in the news about Final Exit I feel it brings up a good debate: Should medically assisted suicide be legal or not? I personally feel that if you want to end your life, it's much better to have a medical professional help you, than to try it yourself. Or in the case that you are unable to do it yourself. Obviously with regulations. What are your opinions?

It is sad how we've become.

I was reading through news articles and stumbled upon another article mis-quoting the now common fact that women earn between 77-% less than men do. Many people who quote this number, quote it erroneously. They try to state or imply that women earn 20-23% less than men doing the EXACT same job. Well although this could be true in some instances this study is simply the mean average of all men and women who worked 35 hours a week. This number doesn't even remotely imply that if I am a financial analyst that a female financial analysts only makes $,000 while I make $100,000. There are hundreds of studies that show math and engineering fields of study are greatly dominated by men in colleges. Women also tend not to take jobs that are more dangerous, have longer hours or require relocation/travel. There are dozens of other cases to support why this median has a discrepancy. Things like this get under my skin because they undermine any real sexism that exists.

What you don't understand is that if you bash yourself in the head with a brick then someone rushes you to the emergency room, I have to pay for you doing that. If you hit yourself with a brick, think you're ok to drive yet crash into me because you have a concussion, again you're effecting me. Also your non-profit organization has to be funded. Well you either need to tax it severely to pay for everything, or tax everyone else, again effecting me. If you are a moderate drug user who simply does them behind closed doors and does not leave until you are 100% off the effects of your drug, then your theory works. For that person I say let them do it all they want. The problem is that the MAJORITY, for which laws are made, do not have that discipline/concern for other/keep listing items down the line that certain individuals have. Parallel it to the fact that they don't outlaw high powered sniper rifles for the people who are very experienced and want to target shoot 1000 meters out, they have the laws in place for the everyday bloke. I mean I could keep going and you can keep countering and we'll go back and forth for 8 pages until one of us gets tired and stops posting, so I'll just end my end of it here as I don't feel like arguing a point that you and I have beat to death in multiple past topics.

lol well if you make using drugs legal, then a drug user can't be a criminal Well being most drugs are inherently addictive, most of them severely, simply having the government sell them to people is the government seeking profit (tax revenue) by getting people addicted to drugs, thus making the government criminals. Under your definition that is.

Tobacco and alcohol are more difficult than marijuana to grow/produce. At least of quality. I mean anyone can make a crude alcohol, but that doesn't mean you want to drink it. Vice versa if you manage to get the tobacco to survive infancy you could cultivate it, but in order to make one pack of cigarettes you need a LOT of tobacco and unless you are advanced enough to fire cure it, you're looking at 4-8 weeks just before you can harvest a few cigarettes. Marijuana is a much less volatile plant and it is consumed at a much lower rate than tobacco. Really because this: "Mecke said Ammiano's proposed bill "would remove all penalties in California law on cultivation, transportation, sale, purchase, possession, or use of marijuana, natural THC, or paraphernalia for persons over the age of 21."" Sounds to me like everyone can grow it. With access so plentiful, even if they required every civilian to have a license for it, how are they to track you? You'd spend that whole billion dollars trying to pay for and enforce your licensing. Yes lots of drugs were legal, now they are not. There will always be crime no matter if you made every illegal substance legal today. The concept that there have been no major social/economic/political/ ect. ramification's of having these drugs illegal for the past 70-100 years just proves that the majority feel that having them illegal is socially acceptable. Also, contrary to popular beliefs, drugs, including marijuana are actually still illegal in the Netherlands.

1) The only state you can legally make porn in is California and that is a much larger source of revenue that marijuana. Also note how brothels are legal in Nevada, ect. Simply because one state makes it legal historically does not mean another will. 2) Unless they levee a huge federal tax, why would they make it legal? So now instead of paying $50 dollars in tax per ounce you pay $100. Awesome. 3) You realize if it's legal...and you are in California...the proper light = growing it outside. Like most plants, growing it outside is the most efficient and easy way to maintain it. If you can grow tomatoes, you can grow pot. 5) I'm kinda confused, how would an employer benefit economically from allowing you to smoke pot? Drug testing as it is now is not mandatory for most jobs, so if they wanted to let their employees smoke pot, they would simply not drug test them as it is now. 6) That will NEVER happen. As stated, if the state can mass produce it, then so can these professionals. Most of your markup already is simply due to the costs of importing an illegal substance. It will be very easy for them to under write the State price + tax. You forget that unlike tobacco and alcohol, marijuana is a ridiculously easy plant to grow, manufacture and sell. I would also say I agree with: 7) Laws are not made for individuals, they're made for the masses. As a whole the masses don't have discipline. That is why we're the most obese country in the world. Oh great the age old "Well...well...ALCOHOL IS LEGAL!" argument. I'll tell you this, if you directly switched the social roles of the two drugs, Alcohol is illegal, Marijuana is legal, you could not pass legislation to make alcohol legal today. If America could, they would have kept alcohol illegal, but unfortunately, or fortunately depending on how you look at it, alcohol is the American drug of choice. Even today, the best estimate, used from a site trying to promote the legalization of Marijuana states that 97 million Americans claim to have TRIED pot in their lives. 69% of Americans actively admit to drinking on a REGULAR basis. That's roughly 209.07 million Americans. Right there presents a problem. Socially drinking is still far more acceptable (as a whole, not in your little clique) than Marijuana. I mean if all of these statistics aren't enough, just look the fact that the social/political impact of 13 years of alcohol prohibition has outweighed 72 years of Marijuana prohibition. As I've stated many times, unless you can create a virtually bulletproof case showing great economic/social/"insert major influence here" gain while also analyzing all negative aspects, you won't get it legalized. As of now there simply is not enough information that cannot be disputed to make that kind of case. Could it become legal in 20 years? Possibly. I'd put more money stating that cigarettes would be illegal in 20 years than pot being legal.

I've come on a couple of times for 30-45 minutes and no one shows up...so then I get bored and leave

Lol, the whole idea is amusing. First, being it would be illegal in all states but California, I hope you all live in CA. Second, it would still be Federally illegal. Third I don't personally don't believe people would be willing to pay an extra $50 an ounce to get it from the government, specially when it is a ridiculously easy plant to grow. It's not like growing tobacco or brewing your own beer. Any idiot with 1/4th of a brain can grow pot. Fourth regulations will have to be put into place for underage smokers along with driving/operating machinery ect. Fifth simply because the state deems it legal does not mean your employer has to accept that you smoke, specially as it is still a federally illegal drug. Sixth (tied in with number 3) the price of the "black market" will drop sufficiently under the price the feds will sell it at because if it's not illegal it takes out most of the cost associated with the pot you buy now. The market supply would flood to a level beyond the demand of the plant and I would expect it to become cheaper to buy weed than cigarette's over time. Seven, it'll be interesting to see the obesity rate soar in California. Well I guess at least THAT would stimulate the economy... Without seeing the details of this bill, it seems pretty half-assed to me.

lol? If you are financially stable and can realistically take on the cost of supporting a child, then you are financially ready to have a child. If you don't have a job, have no concept of money and struggle to support yourself, you are not financially responsible. There is an obvious deviation from money you plan for a child and how much one will cost, but that is the same with anything in life. If you don't have your own life in order then it is irresponsible to bring another life into it. You don't have to be rich to be a good parent, but you are not at least moderately financially stable, it is immature and irresponsible to bring a child into your life whom needs your support to survive. It's also irresponsible to bring a child into the world while relying on other people to support not only yourself, but the child too. Not saying that finance is the only determining factor concerning have a child, it is just one factor that can determine if you acted irresponsibly or not. The question isn't if they are capable of raising a child, the question is how well they will raise the child and the impact that it will have on their lives. The fact that she is a little ho, means they most likely won't stay together, not that at 13 and 15 there is a high chance of that anyway, which is one strike against the child. Money is the second strike against the child, you don't have to have a moderate income to be a good parent, but you need to understand money. Well I guess that ties into maturity, which at 13 and 15 you are no where near the maturity level needed to raise a child. Hell you are still a child yourself! I don't want to hear any of this crap about "Most 40 year olds aren't mature enough to raise a child". The majority of people at the age of 20 are vastly more mature than those at 15. The majority of people at 25 are infinitely more mature than those at 15. It's hard to talk of maturity when your hardest decision in life has been to play video games or watch cartoons on a Saturday morning. Is it possible to gain this maturity as the child grows? Sure. That's life. Some people will, some people won't. No matter how you look at it, having a child at 13 and 15 is irresponsible.

I would say irresponsible, I guess that is a better term than bad, even allocated towards those children. If you don't have the fiscal means to support a child, it is irresponsible to bring them into the world. As for their story, being it's already headline news, I high doubt they're going to sell it for much, plus with the controversy out that it's not even his kid, the only avenue they have for money is Jerry Springer. Note how the family of octuplets that hit the news is about to foreclose on their house because they can't afford it. It's not THAT big of a story.

Agreed Ducky. Did it necessarily ruin their lives? No. My friend and his wife had their first kid when she was 15, but with parental support they made it through. Now granted, she was loaded, and I mean loaded, so her situation is a little different than this girls, but it can turn out ok. Is it a good idea? Hell no.

BTW just to clarify: [sarcasm]I swear I want to see his birth certificate[/sarcasm]

I swear I want to see his birth certificate.

I do concede that they are not wholly bad, but I feel the harm out weighs the good.

My point is that common law and treaties must be enforced by an authority, the authority in the case is the U.S. government. In nearly every system in the world, that would be the government or governing body. Law: Spoiler! --Click here to view--Law1   /lɔ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [law] Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision. As there are literally 2 dozens explanations I'll only post the first definition, which again proves my point. I seriously don't know how you're still arguing this. I'm not arguing that ALL immigrants are illegal. Oh I understood the philosophy of your statement, I want the applicability elaborated. Yes and no. Philosophically, as you stated, a man who limits another man's right is a tyrant. In this case it is a conglomerate of our peers, ourselves included, limiting all of our rights, under the perceived notion of stability and security. You implicitly said: You stated that men rarely prosper in jobs, I stated a case stating that it is the rarity to not prosper in a job, or that it is the fault of the man's expectation of prosperity as to if he is actually prosperous. Also the only difference between a job and a career is your perception of it. Now I ask you how "They are one of many contributing factors." becomes "...country become the root of any of our economical difficulties"? Essentially yes, assuming barrel of a gun is a metaphor for any type of force. Nothing will ever be able to abolish that. You show me on case in all of history where a civilization survived even a nominal time with no army, no police/enforcement, no magistrate and I'll concede my argument. I still challenge you to define how the United States is a "Federal Corporation", what by definition that "Federal Corporation" is and just how we became that "Federal Corporation". Law is enforced by an authority. If no authority enforces it, it is not a law. If there is no law protecting your right, someone is free to take that right from you (in essence), unless under your own power/authority you can prevent it. Your "inalienable rights" no matter how deserved and justified are only present because someone enforces them for you. You may always "have" your rights in the theoretical sense, but if you can't fully exercise them, you applicably, don't. Please cite me a legal source to investigate and also elaborate, with examples, how the majority of people are in slavery. Also #1 doesn't because there is no possible way to correlate the U.S. population as being abjectly subservient. In a simple way my quote in reference to my previous statement was to state that simply because man does not constantly rebel against that which he believes unjust does not mean he is a sheep in the system or subservient to the same system. If every man combated every law or provision he felt was even lightly unjust, we would be in a constant state of anarchy.

I do agree 100% with you on that, without further knowledge of the case and ALL of the details I am only making a partially education summarization of the case at hand.