Skip to main content

Home/ Government Diigo/ Group items tagged alcohol

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Bryan Pregon

If Alcohol Were Discovered Today, Would it be Legal? | Alternet - 1 views

  •  
    Interesting article out of Great Britain... especially considering all our laws on "drugs", are we forgetting that alcohol is a drug as well. For many, it is socially acceptable to get "drunk" while getting "high" is bad. Do you think if alcohol were discovered today, would we allow people to use it legally?
  • ...3 more comments...
  •  
    We probably wouldn't, and go back into the prohibition days. With all the stats they have between drunk driving and abuse, the government wouldn't think twice
  •  
    Well look from olden days, if we knew all deaths of drunk driving or stupid stuff people do, it never would have gotten relegalized. This is in my opinion
  •  
    i think that it would be illegal because of all of the stats they have form drunk driving, domestic abuses, child protection cases, and accidents.
  •  
    I really doubt that we would be able to limit it legally to the point of no use. I do think we would better restrict it though. It would likely turn into something like limiting a persons legal purchase amount in a week or a month or something, with some sort of item that would be required to purchase alcohol that one could only receive so many of in a month period.
  •  
    they tried to stop it with prohibiton when they first discovered it. but that only brought on moonshiners and illegal saloons (i can't think of the name right now) and now it would be almost impossible to make alcohol illegal. It would most likely turn into something like a huge illegal operation like a cartel or something worse.
Andrew Jensen

Why not legalize pot? - 4 views

  •  
    Now that we know Nixon was wrong about marijuana when he made it illegal, why isn't it legalized and sold today?
  • ...13 more comments...
  •  
    Exactly. I'm not a pot smoker but I see the silver-lining. We would make a profit just off taxes alone. Its a gold mine, in other words.
  •  
    I agree with everything they are saying. The government can make a lot of money on the taxes from selling pot and on top of t hat is it really that bad? We are accept alcohol and it is far more dangerous. How many violence issues, accidents, deaths, and overdoses have you heard of from pot compared to alcohol or any other drug. Pot is looking pretty well now compared to them.
  •  
    I agree that legalizing marijuana is a good idea. After all, alcohol is a far more dangerous and more addictive drug and our society practically expects people to drink. The only problem I have with this article is that it implies legalizing marijuana will end the "war on drugs." Legalizing marijuana won't stop people from using other, more dangerous, drugs.
  •  
    In my opinion the biggest obstacle to widespread legalization is the lack of a quick, real-time test which allows us to determine the level of impairment. I certainly don't want people driving drunk and there are many tests that we can administer to determine if the person is under the influence right now. Tests for marijuana can show use in some cases for weeks past. There are plenty of activities that people should not do while high or drunk, but how can we be certain of misuse without a more reliable way of testing?
  •  
    I understand that marijuana is not addictive or has as bad of an effect as drinking, but there is no quick test or "legal limit" like there is with alcohol, so how could we make it somewhat safe? Being high impairs your reflexes and ability to function normally, as does being drunk. I for one, wouldn't want to be anywhere and have someone just start smoking a joint and have to breathe in the smoke and worry about getting contact high. Smoking marijuana would have to obey the smoking cigarettes law of not being able to do it in businesses. And what would the age limit be, 18, 21? Smoking pot around children would need to be against the law because they wouldn't be of age to breathe it in. And what about the people like me who don't want to be around it? I could understand if you do it in the privacy of your own home, because that doesn't bother anyone. Also, would you be able to drive while high? Does every user know the effects it has on their body like cigarette smokers do because its on each packet? There are many situations that would have to be considered in the legalization of marijuana. I see no problem with it if it's in your own home or a place, like a bar that is for smoking pot, because isn't that what bars are for, drinking alcohol? So keep all possible situations in mind when forming an opinion on the legalization of marijuana.
  •  
    Legal or not people will continue to smoke pot when they please no matter what the age.
  •  
    What are the states who legalized it going to do when out of state people come and smoke their pot there?
  •  
    I can understand maybe being prescribed marijuana for medical purposes, because I know that does happen, but I'm not too keen on making it legal in other ways. Even if it has no addictive effects, it smells really bad. And there's also the getting high part.
  •  
    weed is from nature. it wasn't made by humans is dose not harm you.
  •  
    A great number of things from nature are extremely harmful.
  •  
    If stuff from nature isn't harmful that means I can finally try eating belladonna and hemlock! And get the pet cobra I've always wanted. (They ARE from nature)
  •  
    I believe pot should be legal because its grown in nature and it does less damage to your body than cigarettes and alcohol.
  •  
    My mother said that mary jo aunna is the devils daughter.....
  •  
    so that government can tax it and create more money for them.
Bryan Pregon

Fatal accidents involving stoned drivers soared in Washington since pot was legalized -... - 18 views

  •  
    "Fatal accidents involving stoned drivers have soared in the state of Washington since marijuana was legalized there, according to a study from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. But it's difficult to determine whether a high-on-pot driver is too impaired to drive, according to a separate study from the same group."
  • ...11 more comments...
  •  
    I believe that this is null and void, just because someone has the drug in their system at the time of driving does not mean that it was the reason for their impairment.
  •  
    Fatal accidents involving the use of marijuana have risen ever since it was legalized. Sparking the debate, which is worse? Driving drunk or stoned? This is a hard thing to prove which one is worse, so the answer is unclear. Either way just because the drug is legal does not mean you are totally safe to be operating a vehicle.
  •  
    I think that they should try and invent things to help test and see if it impairs their judgment.
  •  
    If it is harder to tell whether marijuana has something to do with impairment or no then they need to do more studies on it. Once they have done more studies and figured out what effects marijuana have then they can decide on laws or regulations that they need to have.
  •  
    I believe that it could have happened if they weren't using the drug
  •  
    But coming up with a test to get impaired drivers off the road will be far more difficult than the blood alcohol tests used to test for drunk drivers, according to the group. While tests show the ability to drive gets worse as blood alcohol rises, laboratory studies show the same is not necessarily true with increased levels of THC,
  •  
    If they are going to legalize marijuana they should come up with a test like a breathalyzer test so they can actually tell if the incidents were the cause of being stoned.
  •  
    I think it is a possibility that people who are stoned are at an increased risk of crashing their car. The article said, "One driver with high levels of THC might not be impaired, while another driver with very low levels can be impaired." I think that researches should base regulations off of the people that are impaired by low levels. They should also look at how levels of THC decrease over time to see how long it would take to get down to the lowest level that would affect people.
  •  
    I believe more research needs to be done. Like alcohol, there should be limits and rules with the marijuana. Because it is a drug, there should be a law about driving because it impairs your thinking just like alcohol.
  •  
    I think that in order to decide what they are going to use to test the amount, more research needs to be conducted on how marijuana affects the brain. It seems to be proven that marijuana can have a negative affect on driving and can impair people who are using it and I think that's reason enough to do more research. I also think that before a state legalizes marijuana they need to find solutions to all of the precautionaries, such as driving, first.
  •  
    There is currently no way of testing if someone was "high" at the time of an accident and having THC in your system at the time of the accident means nothing, you could have smoked a week or even a month prior to the accident and had it in your system! I think they should keep doing studies and try and come up with a way of telling just like they have for alcohol testing for drunk driving but "All this report really shows is that more people in Washington State are likely consuming cannabis, and thus might have some THC in their systems at the time of an accident. But since having THC in your system tells us nothing about your potential impairment, it would be like a report showing how many people involved in accidents had drunk a beer in the last week" is all that needs to be said
  •  
    there is a way but its not like a brethalizer or anything like that for alcohol and other stuff.they can give u a piss test and it will tell weather u are on weed,pills and a bunch of other stuff so there is a way but i dont think that they think about it at the time.
  •  
    I think they need to do at least 10 to 20 years of research to confidently say marijuana is bad and causes this to happen so it should be illegal or its not so bad and can stay legal. I think its highly likely the deaths will go up for stoned driving for the first couple years then go down.
Ellie Croson

Creighton Prep announces mandatory drug, alcohol testing for students - 2 views

shared by Ellie Croson on 08 Jan 14 - No Cached
maceep and john cannon liked it
  •  
    Creighton Prep on Wednesday announced it's implementing mandatory and random drug and alcohol testing for all students.
  • ...3 more comments...
  •  
    RE: Eric, Creighton Prep is a private high school so none of the students are 21. This is a really interesting case of your right to privacy. If this were a public high school like ours, I believe the courts would not allow this type of drug/alcohol testing without a suspicion for ALL students. (4th Amendment rights?)
  •  
    It is not invading our 4th amendment rights because most jobs require drug tests so why cant *Private* School do the same.
  •  
    I think that this is a good idea if students don't take it they should be kicked out of the school.
  •  
    i think this is a good idea because you can't really play good when your on drugs and you could really get hurt.
  •  
    I think that this is a good idea if students don't take it they should be kicked out of the school.- Daniel Bonner
Natalie Wilson

Teenage girl suffered strokes, brain damage after smoking synthetic marijuana - 3 views

  •  
    class A reason why they should just legalize what is know to be a safe substance. Then maybe kids wouldn't be choking each other for a high... or putting stuff in their body they have no background knowledge on.
  • ...11 more comments...
  •  
    That's the risk of doing she lived on the edge and she fell off
  •  
    Something that is legal so you can get a high, it almosted costed her life and the worst thing is she wont ever be the same.
  •  
    I think that's a perfect example as to why they shouldn't legalize it, not the opposite.
  •  
    She may not of known what would've happened to her if she smoked the fake marijuana but, she did make a choice into smoking it knowing that it might not of been a good thing to her. Sure it's bad that she had seizures and became paralyzed. But, it was fake it wasn't the real thing maybe due to the chemicals in the drug triggered the seizures and other symptoms.
  •  
    I think that the fact that real marijuana is illegal while "fake" marijuana remains legal, is ridiculous. I think the fact that Marijuana being illegal is ridiculous in itself. If we can legalize alcohol, why not Marijuana? I can understand that there is no immediate test to see if one is high or not while there is for alcohol, but that is a minor step in the road. Why not take it, set an age restriction on it, then tax the poop out of it? Make some money while legalizing something that has no reason to not be legal and will continue to be used anyway.
  •  
    I think this proves that we should just go with the lesser evil and legalize it. Make it available at a certain age, yeah minors will be able to get a hold of it like they do with cigarettes and alcohol, but clearly marijuana is much safer than the legal "fake" stuff. It poses no harm to the user other than the fear of getting possession charges.
  •  
    This information should be spread so people know the effect that it can have on people if they don't know what is in it. They need to learn some of the effects of it before doing it. She chose to smoke it not knowing the effects of it and she won't ever be the same because of it. This story is a good example of why you need to be educated about what you are doing.
  •  
    That should prove why it would be wrong to legalize it, especially since a lot of young users don't know the side effects it can cause not just to themselves but to their loved ones as well.
  •  
    Well it was her choice, Kids only do it to be against "the man" if they legalized thaat itd be a few days of people smoking on every corner then everyone would get tired of it. There will always be substance abuse.
  •  
    Obviously fake and legal marijuana creates more problems than illegal marijuana does. If marijuana were to be legalized these problems wouldn't occur due to the fact that people wouldn't get the fake kind. Even tho marijuana does cause problems, it's not to that intensity where you have multiple strokes and your brain is half or three fourths dead.
  •  
    She should have known more about it before she did it
  •  
    I think this is a perfect reason why they shouldn't legalize it. If she wants to smoke then she should just go live in Colorado.
  •  
    I mean if she wanted to smoke she should of just moved to Colorado!
Jeremy Vogel

Drunk-drive blood tests divide Supreme Court - 0 views

  •  
    Washington (CNN) -- Alcohol-related car crashes kill about 10,000 people each year in the United States and law enforcement wants more flexibility to determine whether a suspected drunk driver is, indeed, over the limit. But the Supreme Court was clearly divided in oral arguments on Wednesday about whether police can obtain a blood test without a warrant to determine intoxication levels.
  • ...1 more comment...
  •  
    I thought that if the field sobriety test was failed or alcohol was on the breath they were instantly subject to breath test or blood test.
  •  
    I know that in Iowa, if you do not consent to a test(s), it is as if you fail all 3. In our state, it does not take much to arrest someone for drunk driving. If you fail one of the 3, you have to consent to one of the others, or once again, you are arrested for drunk driving. In all honesty, I would be pretty angry if someone wanted to draw my blood. I am first of all, scared of needles, and I am pretty sure I am also Hemophobic. I want to see what the courts rule on this.
  •  
    if you refuse to take the test its the same as failing the test
jordan peterson

The War on marijuana and who's winning - 10 views

  •  
    This would for sure help our debt if they did end up legalizing it and taxing it!
  • ...3 more comments...
  •  
    Also if it was legal the government could regulate it, like they do alcohol. It'd make marijuana a lot safer.
  •  
    At the moment we are being told that we are winning the war by the gov't. But the truth is hiding behind the government. They wont tell us the truth because it would show a weakness. We are losing.
  •  
    how is cannabis not safe? more people die from alcohol related incidents a year than weed for sure, and weed cant poison people. so i vote yes! legalize it.
  •  
    I am actually surprised that the govt hasn't legalized it yet because the govt loves money and marijuana sales makes on average 1.5 billion dollars a year so in about 10 years (maybe) the USA could actually not be in debt.
  •  
    i dont see why marijuana is not legal anymore its actually funny how our first president grew marijuana as a cash crop
Bryan Pregon

Gun Rights Activists Sued Over Trump's Bump Stocks Ban - 0 views

  •  
    "The suit from three gun rights groups on Tuesday points out that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives - a division of the Justice Department known as ATF - has repeatedly found that the devices cannot be banned by the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act."
Natalie Wilson

Victim's son: 'They ran him over because he was black' - 4 views

  •  
    he turned the wheel to hit him so he ment to injure him so it was a hate crime
  • ...15 more comments...
  •  
    In the south it seems like, there are people who will threaten you if you say it's a hate crime when it was a supposed 'Accident'
  •  
    This story seems to belittle the idea of equality and shows that racism will continue and equality might never happen. Really sad
  •  
    what is the world coming to
  •  
    I don't think this man was ran over because of his race. The article clearly states that the teens were under the influence of both drugs and alcohol. I think that the driver did not care what race the man was, he was going to be hit either way.
  •  
    He might have been under the influence but he did say he turned the wheel on him so it would be consider he did it on purpose
  •  
    This is so horrible!! They do it for entertainment and its just wrong. Some people need serious help and put in an institution..
  •  
    Racism is not a joke, and for everyone living in a "free" country, I don't believe anyone really feels that way.
  •  
    Who in there right mind would run over a person no matter what race he or she is?! Even though they were under the influence the driver still purposely hit the man.
  •  
    that just racist!!!! some people need serious help or be locked up in an insitution or something!!!!!
  •  
    Personally, I don't think that racism has to do with this. I think that the person driving was the only one that can be held accountable for the crime, but they all should be held accountable for not doing something about it. I also don't feel it was necessarily a hate crime either. I feel that the driver just wanted to hit that person, no reason behind why. I think that they tried to make it seem like a racist hate crime to make the story more interesting or something. And if it truly was a hate crime, then that is a shame. I guess some people may not ever be able to accept others.
  •  
    I don't understand why people would do something like that to and innocent person. makes my sick when people get the sick thought in their mind to do something like that.
  •  
    I think this is absolutely terrible what those people did, and it's sad that people think because you're that race, and I'm this race, that I'm better than you just for that reason.
  •  
    That is really cruel and racism is not right
  •  
    They didnt do it just for the fun of it. They run BLACK people over to keep themselves entertained. They said it plain and simple and admitted to it. Its just wrong on a whole nother level. I dont even understand what goes through some individuals minds and i dont think i want to understand.
  •  
    The police are obviously not doing their jobs correctly. A black man was killed 3 years before this happened and they did nothing about that either. The FBI should step in and take these cases over, because these cops are hiding something. Even the mother said two of the kids were racist.
  •  
    It's good to see that the teen is being charged with murder, but he should also be charged for the murder being a hate crime. And I'll never know why people can hate someone for the color of their skin.
  •  
    it was a hate crime and an intention to hit the guy
Madison Clark

Girl "Raped" at After Game Parties.. Should Boys be Charged? - 1 views

  •  
    The eye witness admitted to sharing a bottle of vodka with the girl. If she allowed herself to get so sloppy drunk, especially at the age of 16, then how are people suppose to feel bad for her? I mean i'm not saying that getting "raped" is ever okay but I'm sure the boys were impaired as well and neither parties really knew what was going on. Another thing I would like to point out is, how does this girl just happen to show up at MULTIPLE parties with these guys?
  • ...13 more comments...
  •  
    To me, the boys definitely should have to face the consequences of their actions, for taking advantage of a girl the way they did, but she had every intention to go to that party to drink. How do you not expect to be taken advantage of at a party when you're a drunk teenage girl? Going to the party in the first place was irresponsible and not safe on her part, because anyone will take advantage of a girl too drunk to say no. Her "friend" should have made sure she did not go to the house with those two boys anyway.
  •  
    The guys who did that should be charged, maybe 90 + but the girls "victim" should also be charged for drinking under age. The person who gave her the vodka should be charged for distributing to minors
  •  
    Those two guys should have to serve time in prison, rape is a serious crime. They were super cruel!!!
  •  
    To me it seems like she is saying she was raped to help her image. She might not of wanted to do what she did when she was sober, but since she was drunk her mindset could have changed completely
  •  
    I think all three of them should be punished. They were all drinking way too much and did it to themselves. Although I do think the boys should be in more trouble than the girl because rape is worse than drinking.
  •  
    I feel that this case is a good reminder that there are "natural consequences" for our behavior. These are separate from the legal consequences that so many people argue over. I think that anyone should expect bad things to happen when they put themselves in these situations, but that doesn't mean they "deserve it". In my eyes the legal consequences are clear; anytime you have sex with a person who doesn't know what's happening, you are committing rape. Period.
  •  
    It was her fault that she was drinking, and if it was a "rape" at a party. Someone would have heard or saw i think she just did something she regretted and now shes saying that she got raped.
  •  
    I think that it was partially her fault for putting herself in that situation, but if she shared a bottle of vodka and was that so drunk, than how does she actually know if she was raped? Plus she showed up at other parties with these boys when they all knew what would happen at each party when they drank. This is why there is an age limit to drinking, and minors should not drink.
  •  
    Multiple people should be charged for different crimes
  •  
    They should be punished. But the girl should also receive a punishment for she was drinking underage and she should have been conscious of how much she drank. None of them should really be considered "victims" in my opinion
  •  
    well my opinion is that the boy shouldnt be the only charged with a crime. Multiple people should be charged for different crimes.
  •  
    Okay, here's my perspective on this. The girl obviously decided to party with them at multiple parties with them multiple times. if she chose to drink that much alcohol and get drunk to where she didn't know what was going on, then that's her own fault. But they boys also should not have taken advantage of the girl. But her choice had bad consequences.
  •  
    Even more people may end up being charged with this crime: http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/03/18/steubenville-rape-investigation-isnt-finished
  •  
    If the girl has party with the boys before, and probably then, got stupid drunk, then what would urge the oys to "take advantage" of her this time, as opposed to all the other times? It does not make sense. Plus, she is only sixteen, so it is more her fault that she even allowed herself to go to parties, knowing everything that could, or may happen.
jessicavaldez

Lawyer says a man is recieving hate mail over the accusation of slapping a baby - 2 views

  •  
    Being intoxicated or aggravated doesn't give anyone the right to use racial terms towards anyone. And, they don't have the right to slap a child, either. I think this man deserves hate mail.
  • ...9 more comments...
  •  
    Slapping a child is never okay, and being intoxicated is not an excuse for it either. This man deserves more then just hate mail.
  •  
    I wouldn't be surprised if he got more than just hate mail, Just because your intoxicated gives you no reason to slap a baby. That baby didn't deserve that.
  •  
    That guy is crazy, he slapped a little kid in front of a bunch of people, and called it the N-word. He's lucky he's just getting hate mail and nothing more.
  •  
    just because a baby is crying it does not give anyone the right to slap a baby
  •  
    I think that this story is a great reminder that our behavior has consequences. He has already been fired from an executive position in his company and has been publicly ridiculed. This in in addition to any sort of legal punishment that he might be facing. His decision to have maybe just one more drink before he boarded the plane was a bad decision with far reaching consequences!
  •  
    Of course he is being sent hate mail he slapped a baby. What kind of person does that?
  •  
    If what he is being accused for actually happened he deserves time in prison because for one racism is a terrible thing people don't get to choose what raise they are going to be they are born into it. For two no one in their right mind should every hit a child.
  •  
    i agree with all your comments it isn't right to slap a child becuase it's crying and it's not ok to use racial terms to anyone it's not cool.
  •  
    it all depends on the terms of which he did or did not some might say he did in fact slap the baby while others would say he didn't because of the accusation that he did in fact hit the baby but what it all comes down to is that no matter what you still have no right to hit a kid under any circumstances no matter what so he might deserve hate mail or he might not but not racist comments seriously what the f#^5 don't be racist
  •  
    This story is interesting..if he was intoxicated of any sort, that doesn't make it okay to use the language he supposedly did or hit a child. That's why I don't think it should be allowed to have alcoholic beverages on a plane. People take advantage of it, and you never know what could happen..much like what he's being accused. I think he deserves the "hate mail" he's getting!
  •  
    Is not right to slap a baby,because he/she is just a little baby who doesn't know nothing yet.
Bryan Pregon

New wrinkle in pot debate: stoned driving - 23 views

  •  
    This women is given a medical drug. When she drive's when she's is still high? So if she is getting medical weed and they make a law stating that you can not be "high" or drugged up before driving. Then why doesn't the government give them transportation, sure buses work if you live in the city, or taxi's. But why should she have to pay when the hospitals are giving it to her.
  • ...9 more comments...
  •  
    Or maybe instead they should just not drive. if smoking marijuana impairs you to the point to where your incapable of driving then don't drive, its not the governments responsibility to provide transportation to someone who chooses that as a medicine. and yeah the hospital gave it to her, but the hospital gives people a lot of other drugs that have warning labels stating not to drive and use heavy machinery. so why should the government have to provide transportation when people know that using that medicine might not allow them to be able to drive?
  •  
    Why Shouldn't they? there handing it out? Right? So if the government made the decision to give out marijuana to those who would like to have because of health problems then they should take Responsibility for the people there giving it to . Plus people wouldn't listen any ways, people drive under the influence all the time. No matter what its going to happen, that's why I think that the government should keep tabs on people who have medical drugs and make sure there safe, and make sure there not hurting someone else.
  •  
    if people wouldn't listen, then there is no point for the government to pay to transport someone around who would just abuse it in the first place. and keeping tabs on all of the people who use medical marijuana or any drug that could impair you would take a ridiculous amount of time and money that our government probably isn't willing to do. if someone wants or needs that medical drug then they should be responsible for their actions while using it not the government.
  •  
    Then why make a laws and expect people to follow this one. It's pretty evident that nobody listen's anyways. So enforcing the law by keeping tabs might save people's lives and save them from injury? So how would that be a waste of time? And yes the thought is unrealistic but, I was just throwing out an idea.
  •  
    i think its ok to be given the drug for a medical problem and to be able to drive, but if its worse then being drunk and then driving afterwards then you shouldn't be able to drive and be under an influence of a medical use of drugs. they should have special ways of transportation.
  •  
    I believe it's impossible to be too dough'd to drive!
  •  
    I think that yes government should provide the transportation if your under medication that you should not be driving or using heavy machinery. Then there is also the thought of who is to say that some one won't just get high and say its hospital medication? It will always be a battle no matter what happens. you could have the government provide the transportation but the only way you can use it is by providing proof by like wearing a I.d. bracelet or having to keep the container with you. Then there are still ways that people will get around like taking other peoples bracelets or containers or them expiring. So there is almost no way to decide and make it possible! Not everyone is going to follow the laws or ever will!
  •  
    i dont think it really matters wether they make it legal or not, people will still abuse it just like alcohol. they can set an age limit on it, but you still see 9 yearolds getting their hands on cigaretts even though ur supposed to be 18. and as far as transportation goes, i dont believe the government will provide transportation. if you choose to smoke pot, then its ur problem wether to drive or not. i dont think its a big deal if you smoke a bowl or two and then drive to the store, but can the police actualy tell or test you for thc? argue all you want i say let people be free and smoke whatever plant they want wether its tobacco or marijuana, its a natural god given plant.
  •  
    There's no reason that the government should use the money, that we don't have, to provide transportation to someone who doesn't need it. Does she need marijuana? Clearly, she may however, that does not constitute the necessity to have someone pay for her to get around. Maybe, she should try taking the bus.
  •  
    I believe she should not be driving while under the influence. Even if she is prescribed the drug, there should be warnings and other precautions taken to prevent accidents.
  •  
    Maybe she should try cocaine I heard that works too.
Julia Gibler

The women on the front lines of the new abortion battle - CNNPolitics.com - 14 views

  •  
    At 21 weeks, the pregnancy had been going well. But the look on the technician's face as she examined the images told Zink that was no longer the case. Further scans revealed that the fetus' brain was badly malformed. Two hemispheres should have formed by then, but the right side of the brain had not developed at all.
  • ...4 more comments...
  •  
    It's pretty insane to think that any people would have to make a decision to abort their child or keep the baby even though it would be given a life of pain, like Zink's baby would've endured. Normally I would state that I'm very against abortion, but under some certain cases, (like having a baby with a deformed brain that would have to be connected to life support and live with pain), I think the option to have an abortion should be given to some people at 20 weeks or 24 weeks.
  •  
    I do not completly agree with abortion, if she was 20 weeks in and the baby was fine and everything was going good then I think it would be wrong for her to of had an abortion, but since the baby had a malformed brain she was putting the baby out of pain the it might of had in the further, it was like putting a dog down its sad but needed to be done in her point of veiw.
  •  
    I am pro-choice, and believe that any woman should have the right to an abortion. It sounds like they don't really know when babies can feel pain. I think that they should look into that more and find out for sure before passing a law against abortion after so many weeks. It could be harmful to pass one long before or long after babies can feel pain. I think that it was the good thing to do to have an abortion so her child wouldn't have a life full of pain. It's a good thing that abortion is legal, a woman should have the right to do what she wants with her body. For example, they could have been raped, not had enough money to support the child, had a drug or alcohol problem, etc. Adoption isn't an "easy way out" of abortion, having to be pregnant for 9 months and giving away a baby you didn't want or couldn't raise is very traumatizing and stressful. It is good that abortion is legal and nobody should get to take that right away from a woman.
  •  
    I think women should have the right to have an abortion if they wanted to but to have a limit at how many times they can do so. It is true that if your'e raped and aren't financially well then it will be troublesome. It is better than having to burden the child as well but there is a limit.
  •  
    I think that it's wrong to say that women should have more right to an abortion if they had been raped or wouldn't be financially stable. Women should also be able to have as many abortions as they want, and it shouldn't be limited. Also I'm wondering what limit there is? And why you think that there should be one if that's what you meant. It is the womans choice, and it's her life and she can do with it as she pleases, so she doesn't have to have a "good reason" or have others think that it is okay if she has one.
  •  
    Women have a right to their own body and abortion is exercising that right. Wanting an abortion is the only reason a woman needs in order to get one. Being raped or a victim of incest are seen as more understandable reasons to get an abortion but those are not the only reasons that should be seen as acceptable. All women have a right to their bodies and a right to decide what they want to do with their bodies.
mya_doty

Man treated for Google Glass addiction - 0 views

shared by mya_doty on 15 Oct 14 - No Cached
  •  
    (CNN) -- A man who checked in to the Navy's Substance Abuse and Recovery Program for alcoholism is also being treated for a Google Glass addiction, according to a new study. San Diego doctors say the 31-year-old man "exhibited significant frustration and irritability related to not being able to use his Google Glass."
Bryan Pregon

Special Report - Nebraska v. Colorado: The War on Weed - 22 views

  •  
    "Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson in western Nebraska as he built the state's lawsuit against Colorado. His ultimate goal is to shut down the pot industry. "To me, people are being sold a bill of goods from people who stand to make millions from this industry. Our culture is at a pretty critical time where a whole generation of youth are at risk and adults need to step up and say this is a real potential harm to fight against.""
  • ...11 more comments...
  •  
    I feel that if they try to close down the pot industry they will just be wasting their time. People will still be using marijuana even if its not legal or being grown.
  •  
    I think that if people try and shut down the pot industry, that it will be hard and it wont be easy. pot users and pot lovers will always use pot and will do all most anything to keep it legal.
  •  
    It surprises me that the traffic related fatalities in people who had marijuana in their systems has been raised so much. I didn't realize it was that big of a problem. Maybe adults do need to fight back more for this potential harm.
  •  
    I don't feel they should be fighting this war. This because they don't have a valid point saying that marijuana is harmful in all actuality peanuts kill more people annually than marijuana and actually there hasn't ever been a death directly caused by it. Further more alcohol and cigarettes are far more harmful and are still legal.
  •  
    I think Nebraska has every right to sue the state of Colorado because they can't contain it in their state. That or they need to change their law saying only people who have a Colorado ID can purchase it.
  •  
    I feel like legalizing Marijuana is a good idea in my opinion. It can be used to help man medical conditions and also is saving people's lives that really need it. It is used as a stimulate. If the government would legalize it they would make a profit by taxing the product. Therefore benefiting themselves. People are going to do what they want with marijuana, there would have to be certain restrictions on it though. I don't think Colorado will regret this law because it's not only helping them but their society.
  •  
    i feel like nebraska is just doing everything it can to get its way and not let the people have what they want. if nebraska would just make it legal, these problems would cease
  •  
    Although people are going to continue to use marijuana illegally, that doesn't mean we should stop trying to clean our states of it. Shutting down the pot industry may take awhile, but it's a good goal.
  •  
    I can see why Sheriff Adam Hayward of Deuel County, Nebraska, would want it shut down. It has a dispensary near their county, and makes it a little easier to bring marijuana into Nebraska. And may cost more for patrolling.
  •  
    I think no matter what you do marijuana will always be here. At least as long as it continues to grow people will continue to use it. I think Nebraska has a good point on how it is affecting costs for more paroling and road searches for people trying to sneak the drugs over, but the world is changing in so many ways and people just need to learn to adapt. I think Nebraska needs to find a way to adapt some how because it's their state thats having problems don't blame Colorado.
  •  
    This should not be tolerated, Colorado is Colorado and Nebraska is Nebraska. There's different laws.
  •  
    The only reason I am for the legalization of marijuana is because medical marijuana could help my mother. She has a severe nerve condition called trigeminal neuralgia. This is an inflammation if the main nerve in the face. There is research to suggest that medical marijuana could ease the suffering of people like her without all the health risks with what they use now as treatment. The current treatment is round the clock narcotics and this damages the liver. My mother already has liver damage so this could be a safer alternative.
  •  
    I think Nebraska could be taking it a bit to far with going to court about it be I also think Colorado could be doing more to prevent this.
Bryan Pregon

White House proposes arming teachers, backpedals on raising age to buy guns - CNNPolitics - 33 views

  •  
    What are your thoughts on the gun control debate. It will be 1 month tomorrow that Parkland FL school shooter killed 17 and seriously wounded 17 others. Has the outrage become "yesterdays news"? How do the POLITICS of this issue make solutions difficult to reach?
  • ...26 more comments...
  •  
    I personally think that arming teacher would be a huge risk but yet could be a life-saving moment. Just think about it if a student would happen to go crazy in our school they would know that every teacher is armed with a gun so they'll do anything to get a gun from a teacher but yet if they tried anything a teacher could end up saving kids lives. I'm kind of in the middle. Also not selling guns to teenagers I mean that's crazy look what happened in Florida!!! I wouldn't want that to happen in our school. Checking their background and mental state I agree on, I just don't understand why this world and this generation needs to be holding guns to protect themselves I mean that's sad.
  •  
    I think that arming teachers would be a great idea, but schools shouldn't feel this unsafe. I believe that this outrage has kind of became yesterdays news the first couple of weeks there were a lot of controversy but has died down for the past 2 weeks. Solutions are hard to reach because not everyone agrees on one solution so whatever the government decides to do not everyone will be happy with the end result. I think that everyone should just be happy that the government is trying to solve this problem and they shouldn't freak out until they see a change.
  •  
    I believe there needs to be more limitations to those that obtain guns. Guns have become an unnecessary evil that many have taken advantage of greatly. The outrage has not yet become "yesterday's news" because many are still fighting and protesting for more effective gun laws. Many survivors from the Parkland shooting are coming forward and sharing their stories about the actions that took place inside their school and how horrifying the event was. They are still coming forward and still fighting to show everyone what it is like from their perspective. The politics of this issue make solutions difficult to reach because they many times propose an idea to prevent conflict in the future, but they do not follow through with the potential idea.
  •  
    I think that even if we try to have teachers have guns in school it will be a major problem. I think some teachers will be against it and students will be scared to come to school knowing their teachers have guns. I think the only thing schools can do to prevent this from happening is better security like more officers at the schools. The Parkland shooting won't be yesterdays news because many people are affected by this.
  •  
    Its very easy to get a gun. Guns should be legal just stricter tests and background checks.
  •  
    I feel that increasing the minimum age to buy firearms isn't really gonna make a change in what is happening because I feel that people are still going to find a way to get this firearm. i feel that politics are making this difficult because everyone has there own opinion on what to do and how it should be done. but this isn't something that should become "yesterday's news" we should be figuring out ways to make the school the safest it can be
  •  
    Honestly, I don't think we need teachers with guns, that is taking it a little too far, like that if they hit the wrong person or get angry at a kid and lose it and kill or injure a kid. I think we just need to have better protection in schools, and also we need to be aware of signs before things happen. Most times when there is a shooter they end up posting about it before it happens or will show signs that they might do it, and we just brush it off when we should be focused and do investigations if someone is on facebook bragging saying they are going to do it. We also need to have better plans for when a shooter does come, instead of sitting in a corner and hoping they don't come to you, we should figure out how to get out or something else instead of being sitting ducks.
  •  
    I don't really have a side that I'm 100% for I think no matter what happens there is always going to be someone who isn't happy which is going to lead to more conflicts.
  •  
    I think there should be some way to check mental health before buying a gun and stronger background checks. Maybe arm a few teachers that are capable that way its almost as if you have another cop in the school. I belive they need to find a compromise to make everyone happy and stay safe.
  •  
    I do think that students and their families shouldn't feel unsafe while going to school so I think that schools should either have more armed security or teachers should have guns. I do think this is kind of dying down and it isn't being talked about as much as it was 2 weeks ago.
  •  
    So... solve the problems of gun violence... with more guns? This is the White House's big plan. Because we have a Conservative cabinet, they do not support putting more restrictions on guns. This is why there is such a big debate. Others want more restrictions so this does not happen.
  •  
    I believe that there are many causes of a school shooting and because there are so many aspects to it, it then becomes difficult to fix. Sure you can make the buying age older but, then they will resort to other weapons which would just put a band-aid on the problem. Maybe more security would work? In the Flordia school shooting, there was a police officer there, there was protection but, somehow it still happened. I 100% believe that something needs to be done but, it's going to need to be more than just 1 thing that changes.
  •  
    Arming teachers is not a good idea, people who have witness school shootings do NOT want to see more guns in their school. Kids want to feel save in school.
  •  
    I think we just need better protection in schools and we must also be aware of the signs before things happen.
  •  
    I agree with limiting the ability to have guns. the parkland shooting will never be yesterdays news, its important to know about it so there can be prevention from this happening again. There are way more shootings going on around the world everyday that not as big as the mass shooting, but to just know that people are getting shot back to back because of the unnecessary presents of guns, that frightening and shows that we need a change. I also think teachers should NOT have access to guns. People may think they have the ability to carry guns, and believe that they can be smart with them, but i disagree.
  •  
    I think arming teacher would be a great idea, but like most people are commenting kids and teachers should not feel this unsafe in a school building. I think more security on schools is required to make teens and children safer. Yes, raising the gun purchase would help, but there is always still a way for people to get their hands on a weapon if they wanted to do harm to others. In the end, there are too many crazy and unsafe people out there and I think if they wanted to damage they could find a way I think the ultimate solutions are taking more precautions at schools.
  •  
    I agree with Taylor Nickerson, guns should be more restricted since they have become more dangerous than they should be. Nobody should feel unsafe going to school, or anywhere really. You're supposed to feel safe at school, with others. Guns and weapons as deadly as these shouldn't be so accessible, or easy to get. They should have a higher age restriction and make sure that they're going to use them properly and not going to harm others.
  •  
    i think the government shoulf take care of these things before it get out of hand and people get hurt. to them it take people dying or having a tragic thing happens for them to take initiative to do something about it. for example like sucide theres no posters up right now it there but then a week later someone commitis and then thats what is covering the walls poster after poster about bullying can lead to death. sucied pervention. stop things early
  •  
    I honestly think it would be a huge risk to arm teachers with guns but it could also be a good thing. The reason i think it would be bad is because i personally have been in a class where a teacher can't control themselves and freak out on students. Now if you armed teachers and they have a little "break down" they have easy access to and weapon and all those children in the class are in major danger. But there are positive things about arming teachers like if there was a person in the building trying to kill kids, the teacher could easily go and kill the shooter before he kills innocent kids. So there are good things and bad things about but i still don't know if i personally would feel safe knowing teachers have guns and easy access to them.
  •  
    i belive that what trump is saying "That we should arm teachers with gums and have them trained" evan if it's for the selfish reson of wanting to protect your self, is something good that could happen to all the schools in the US and it would stop school shooters a lot quicker
  •  
    I believe that It could be a good or bad thing because student can fear going to school knowing teachers have them but it can also be good if someone is in the school and protect students.
  •  
    I agree with Noah Lybarger with what he's saying that people will still find a way to get them. I personally believe that politics are making it hard because everyone has their own opinion and there are a lot of ideas on how to fix it, some that might work and some that won't, but they are completely different from each other. I feel they should raise the age and do a more thorough background check before the sale of firearms. Also a good idea to protect schools themselves is raising the security and maybe having more police officers around, making it a place where everyone feels safe. On the other side if it was made illegal to have a weapon, but just likes drugs and even all the way back to when alcohol was illegal, people that want to do harm like that they would find a gun somehow (just like people find drugs) would be able to find it and making it illegal to get a weapon would make the person that found one even more dangerous because people would be more defenseless than we are now.
  •  
    I do not believe that teachers should have guns because I think that that would just cause more problems and violence. I think that we need to add more restrictions for guns and I think we need to ban semi automatics to the public because there is no reason for it. I believe that honestly there would be more violence and deaths if teachers were to have firearms in school.
  •  
    I don't think that arming teachers would be a good idea, because I don't think there is a single teacher I have had that would have the willpower to shoot a person. Many school shootings are done by young people, and it would take a lot out of someone to shoot them, is this really what we want to do to our teachers?
  •  
    I believe that teachers having guns isn't going to improve safety for a school by much. What happens when a kid doesn't listen in class so the teacher pulls the gun on the student threatening them? Or worse, what if a student got a hold of one of these guns? We need to add more restrictions to guns and when they can be solicited to you because getting a hold of weapons at the mere age of 19 only seems to more endangering. There would be so much less violence if there were more restrictions to guns.
  •  
    I believe that arming teachers with a gun,would be a good idea. Because that could make the school much safer.
  •  
    Marissa: I agree with the idea that there may be students who could get their hands on the firearm, and it is a point I hadn't thought of before.
Bryan Pregon

Stockton's mayor wants to give residents $500 a month, no strings attached - Oct. 27, 2017 - 21 views

  •  
    "Stockton will likely become the first city in the nation to test out a version of universal basic income, an economic system that would regularly provide all residents enough money to cover basic expenses, with no conditions or restrictions."
  • ...6 more comments...
  •  
    I feel like if the whole nation did this and then cut everything else we would literally just be back at square one. It would not make a difference.
  •  
    This is crazy. This could help so much. We could get rid of welfare it that could be just like welfare.
  •  
    this is a very good idea and the results can be awesome and could chage and save lives from a lot of bad stuff. but we need to find a way to fund this idea. i think if we use the welfare money to fund it. we could get rid of the welfare and then we can make sure every one is taken care of with the basic income instead.
  •  
    I feel this would benefit so many people so much. And besides they say Canada is a pretty well-off country, so why not do this?
  •  
    i think that this would be good for some people to get this money like this to help them through tough times
  •  
    This is a great idea. Many people do not have the money to get by even though they might work long hours. The only problem is that some people will abuse this, and by drugs or alcohol, or even lottery tickets.
  •  
    The people could benefit from this so they could use it will bills,grocers, and things they need, but on the other hand they could miss use the money you are handing out. So is this a good thing? or not?
  •  
    This could definitely help the poor family's who don't have enough money.
Bryan Pregon

A man's 'Do not resuscitate' tattoo left doctors debating whether to save his life - CNN - 38 views

  •  
    "He has no identification and no family with him. On his chest, he has a tattoo: "Do Not Resuscitate." What would you do?"
  • ...8 more comments...
  •  
    my opinion, i would have went off of what the tattoo said because i would have seen it as his wishes. he was pretty much gone when he arrived, plus there was no family with him. there was no one/nothing saying otherwise so i would have just let him go.
  •  
    I would be lost but I think I would still resuscitate him because tattoos can sometimes be a regret and they had no way of knowing if it was legit or not.
  •  
    I think it was a good call to wait until they had actual (documented) proof that he did not want to be resuscitated instead of just going off of the words on his body.
  •  
    i think it was good that he was saved
  •  
    Very tough situation!
  •  
    Personally, I find it very wise that the doctors would have guessed that he had been resuscitated in the past. Especially due to his old age and multiple problems. It was also wise of them to follow this mans wishes and let him go.
  •  
    I think they did the right thing by not resuscitating him because tattoo's can sometimes be jokes but, no one would joke about this sort of thing. In addition to that he was nearly dead when he got there so it may have been easier for him.
  •  
    I think it was a good choice to wait for documentation of him not wanting to be resuscitated.
  •  
    I agree with their choice not to resuscitate him, no one would joke about that and have it on their body permanently.
  •  
    I feel that this man is smart. It said that there was alcohol in his system so maybe he was a drunk so being drunk can cause you to misplace items so he took the action to get "Do Not Resuscitate" on his chest so when the doctors checked for his information they wouldn't find it so when they did open his shirt they would know not to resuscitate him
1 - 18 of 18
Showing 20 items per page