Group items tagged

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 don't think this will happen..

If it's gonna happen then their should be strict "laws" to follow for it. Although it probably wont happen.

I think that if it does not happen now it is inevitable for the legalization of marijuana. The government has noticed that when it was illegal the money made a year in the "business" is in the billions. The government does not want to miss out on that much money to conclude.

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.

I agree with Audrey, we should be able to protect unborn life, but also make an exception for if she was raped,or if it is an incest baby

I think this is a good decision to put this law into place because it allows exceptions for "rape, incest or medical emergency" but can still protect an unborn life.

I feel that the law is too restrictive because most women do not know they are pregnant and if you are 18 and have a kid then you might not be financially stable enough to take care of the child, then we have another kid not growing up with their parents or going into a foster care program.

I highly disagree with this. Women have the right to control what goes on with their bodies if they don't want to carry a child at all they shouldn't be made to do so. Just like if a women is married and doesn't want to have kids she should be able to get herself "fixed" she should be required to have two or more children before doing so or get approval from her spouse.

I feel this ban in unfair, as most women wouldn't know they are pregnant until it is too late. With this ban in place it eliminates the women's choice whether they want the child or not.

I agree with hayleigh35, most women can't even tell if they're pregnant by 6 weeks, so the bill really doesn't work in that sense, but I am glad that they put the exceptions of rape, incest or medical emergency. When they're raped, women don't get to choose whether they want to have a kid or not because it is forced upon them. In that case, they should be able to abort the child.

I disagree with this. These people are not going to care about them once they are born so why does it matter or effect them in any way?

So what is the difference between a Transgender already serving and a Transgender trying to enlist to serve their country? They're still humans, and they still have the same rights as everyone else. "The only exception is for transgender service members already in treatment."

@mason_mower Transgender individuals that are currently in the military can stay, but no money will be spent on any medical costs for them. I agree, anyone should be allowed to serve their country, considering they are mentally and physically capable, no matter their identity.

I wish I could understand the logic coming from this. Discrimination is just wrong.

It's interesting that while campaigning in 2016, Trump stated ""Thank you to the LGBT community! I will fight for you while Hillary brings in more people that will threaten your freedoms and beliefs.", but now he has become a person that threatens their freedoms and beliefs. His main reason for banning transgender people is the cost of surgeries and other care. Saying that the military was being burden by "tremendous medical costs." However, a study in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2015 put the number at of transgenders at 12,800 and the cost of care at $4.2 million to $5.6 million and concluding that "doctors agree that such care is medically necessary." And that the cost of care for transgender people is only a tenth of the cost of the annual $84 million dollars the military spends to treat erectile dysfunction.

This is a big step backwards for the trangender community. makes me sad

"The privacy of service members must not be infringed. This means that no soldiers, including those who identify as transgender, should be allowed to use the sex-specific facility of the opposite sex. When it comes to barracks, bathroom, showers, etc., the privacy of all service members must be respected. Given the nature of military living quarters, it is unclear where soldiers who identify as transgender could be housed." One of the reasons I don't believe transgender should be allowed to serve in the Military.

@stocktonthomsen Although I understand your concern Stockton, many transgender individuals are completely comfortable being housed in the sex specific facilities of the opposite sex. Considering some of them have stalls or something along those lines, the transgender individuals could change clothes and use the restroom/bathing facilities without exposing inappropriate parts. Also, considering the large military budget we have, we could afford either building separate barracks for the transgender individuals, or at least adding stalls to certain barracks so the individuals can wash up and use the restroom in peace.

Also, why does the gender matter of the person fighting? As long as they are capable of fighting, it should not matter. They want to fight for their country, so let them. @stocktonthomsen

"As far as the actual psychological issues at play, it used to be called gender identity disorder; now they call it gender dysphoria. The idea that sex or gender is malleable is not true. I'm not denying your humanity if you are a transgender person; I am saying that you are not the sex which you claim to be. You're still a human being, and you're a human being with an issue then I wish you Godspeed in dealing with it in any whatever way you see fit, but if you're going to dictate to me that I'm supposed to pretend, I'm supposed to pretend that men are women and women are men, no. My answer is no. I'm not going to modify basic biology because it threatens your subjective sense of what you are." -Ben Shapiro Desiring to be trans is ridiculous

I feel like we should have human lab rats for this stuff. Like if there's a mandate for vaccines, we should see what the effects are on people before we give it to the whole population.

I think there will be no easy way of getting rid of the virus because not everyone is going to trust the vaccine and not everyone is going to be on the same page. I can see this pandemic stretching far into next year which is so annoying and sad.

If the vaccine isn't going to 100% protect you then why get it? It's starting to seem like the vaccine has the potential to cause more harm than good.

I have to agree with Lennx partly, why take the vaccine when it is giving people more issues, even though not all vaccines are 100% sure to protect you I I think they should have worked and studied the vaccine longer to make sure it was safer than it is. Also, I don´t think it should be allowed to required medical workers to take the vaccine to keep their job because since people are getting sick from the vaccine more medical workers have to stay home from getting sick and if all medical workers have to take the vaccine and they get sick there is going to be a lot less doctors and nurses working.

I would like to see this put to test in AL or Council Bluffs and see if it is still accurate.

Interesting

It was not as surprising to me that these tests have happened. To me being exposed to nicotine while they are still in the developing process is very harmful. I don't think mothers should ever expose babies to that, if they want them to have a brighter future.

if they were exposed to marijuana the would have had better reading scores

re:patrick -- perhaps I misunderstood your comment, but outside of abstinence what "other methods of not getting pregnant" are there besides medical birth control options? Like other articles posted here, I was as interested in reading many of the comments on the NYTimes site after the article, there were very compelling arguments on each side. I found myself siding with many who said that employers should not get the choice to opt out of providing this coverage. This was one such post: "Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in blood transfusions. Does anyone believe for one second that we would be debating whether a Jehovah's Witness-owned company should cover blood transfusions for its employees? I seriously doubt it--which means that the debate we are having is not actually about religious freedom at all. It's about whether contraception is an essential part of women's health care, just like blood transfusions."

i agree with Patrick if women don't wont to get pregnant they should stay to the precautionary treatments to not become pregnant

'One of my favorite lyrics by U2 says: "Choose your enemies carefully, 'cause they will define you." The NRA, like too much of the conservative movement, has chosen its enemies indiscriminately and seems defined in opposition to most of modern America.' haha yep

i think it wont make a difference if america band guns or not, people will always find a way and when you take the guns away you'll be left vulnerable to robberies.

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.

Voters in several states legalized pot use yesterday: http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/06/14977250-colorado-washington-approve-recreational-marijuana-use?lite

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.

I can only hope that he does drop out of the race. I don't believe that anyone as ignorant as he seems to be is fit to be a Senator. I would have hoped that if someone were a pro-life advocate they could at least take the time to understand the reproductive system. Not to mention that "legitimate rape" is possibly one of the most offensive things you could say when discussing this issue. Is he trying to imply that there is non-legitimate rape or does he just not realize what he's saying?

From reading the article I feel as tho they did not get the most current and correct medical information about this subject. I also think candidate Romney is trying to back peddle and correct what he said in a earlier interview and he is not actually legitimately concern with this controversy.

i agree with Mallory I really would not want someone that ignorant being in power of anything

I don't think anyone ignorant and has no respect what so ever should have any power.

I think that from the physiological stand point this court case makes seance. How ever I think that our tax dollars should not be used to make this medical procedure happen.

This is a very odd case to say the least. This prison inmate is at 13x the risk of a sexual assault as the average inmate. So, the question is, is the protection of a near-insane murder worth tax payer dollars? I don't think so, but something has to be done about the inmates safety, perhaps being placed alone, or with people of the preferred gender of the inmate? In the event of tax payers paying, is it really that much? The government comes up with about $2,650 billion yearly from income tax alone. To add on, it is really not that often that this expensive of a situation arises. Is it really that big of a deal for something that almost never happens, but may help someone in the near future?

This may be what's "best" for the inmate, but he/she (no offense intended, I just don't know what to call them) murdered someone. Don't you think that a murderer should in some way "pay" for what they've done. They don't deserve the best, but they also don't deserve to be sexually assaulted. Also, tax payer dollars should not go towards things like this, that money is for the betterment of the community and/or the country. To fix the sexual harassment problem, the inmate should be put somewhere alone. Yet, another question rises, what about all the other inmates (male or female) who are sexually assaulted? We can't worry about them all, plus they're in there for a reason, they don't deserve tax money to go towards protecting them whenever they put others in danger that led them to be in prison. So, the answer is no, it's not worth it. It's not tax payer's problem.

if this person wanted to become a women then wouldn't they prefer men? which means that if they are 13 times the risk, wouldn't that be a good thing since they like guys? well if it was a rape then i understand but there are sometimes in prison when it isn't a rape or sexual assault, both want to do it. in that case that person should consider themselves lucky to be around guys all the time.

haha what if this dude was just really straight and thought that if he gets a sex change that he will be placed with da lady's so he wouldn't be around all da dudes n stuff .

I agree with Payton just place her alone if its for her safety. If its for her mental condition send her to a prison mental health facility.

I just don't understand how a PRISON INMATE is allowed that luxury of sex change surgery. Especially considering the price and how much it really is causing taxpayers