Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

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.

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 that it is time for the Supreme Court to rule on this issue. This is an issue that is important to a minority group that has never really been ruled on by the Supreme Court. I personally want to see how the Court applies the Loving v. Virginia case to one or all of the cases they may hear. I just don't expect anything until after the election in November because it has become an important issue this election cycle. Payton I don't think that the Supreme Court could end same-sex marriage. Marriage licenses are left up to each individual state and I can't imagine any possible outcome that would result in the Supreme Court taking away a State's right to issue a marriage license to whoever they want to grant a license to. I can see them saying there is no right to marry at the federal level or that the Federal Government doesn't have to recognize same-sex marriages but I don't see them telling states that they can't issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple if the state wants to.

Jeremy, what I am saying is that same sex marriage, if ruled against, will have almost no chance of reversing the choice for a very long time. Based upon our constitutional values though, I doubt that they will rule in favor of those that oppose same sex marriage though.

I'm still like . . . trying to figure out why exactly some people hate the idea of gay marriage so much and want to make sure that it's not legal. I mean, even if it's for religious reasons, like their religion doesn't support gays and lesbians, it's not like they would be getting married in their church or that they even want to. It doesn't affect those against gay marriage at all. It really only affects gays and lesbians and it makes them happy.

I think whatever the outcome and effects of the ruling will be a new direction in our lives as Americans. I'm interested in how this will effect us in the future.

http://gaymarriage.procon.org/ I know I got a little confused about why some people think same sex marriage marriage is bad and I found this to be very helpful in understanding it.

I, myself, do not agree with gay marriage, or being gay at all. But that is my personal beliefs. I don't want people to try to tell me that I'm wrong, because I'm not saying I am right. I know this is a big issue in the U.S and it does need to be addressed, but I do think it is more of a state issue. As for gay marriage, it will probably be passed to be legal, and that's fine because it really doesn't affect me, I am straight. But from a conservative viewpoint, here is why some don't agree with gay marriage, not just because of religion. It is because it defeats the whole sacredness marriage was and still is meant to be. To me it is for man and wife. Not man and man or woman and woman. I am not intending to offend anyone at all, if someone wants to be gay, then be gay. I will not discriminate, I just will not support it, because I don't agree with it.

You do realize that times have changed, right? And there are a lot of things that have changed as times have gone on, like gender roles, for example. It used to be that women were raised to do all the housework and mothering and such because "things were meant to be that way". Meanwhile, men were raised to fight and work on the farms because "things were meant to be that way". Now women, while payed less, are allowed to have jobs and have gotten the right to vote, but even so still have to fight to gain and keep other rights. Honestly, unless you're white, straight, and male, you haven't really gotten rights until sometime in the late 19th /20th century, and for some in the 21st century. Also, how would a homosexual relationship ruin the sacredness of marriage? When you really consider it, marriage isn't all that sacred, especially these days because there's money and materialism involved, and then of course sex too. Of course, sex is okay so long as you're married, but if you're not married and you've had sex, it's considered immoral, according to society. And even though people these days marry for love, those things are still involved in it. And if marriage is sacred, then why are divorces allowed? Aren't sacred things supposed to be protected no matter what? Divorce obviously doesn't protect marriage. It just ends marriages. If marriage was considered sacred then divorces wouldn't be allowed, and divorce is necessary at times.

I think that if a man and a woman hate each other but still have more rights to get married than two homosexuals who actually love each other, then we should definitely legalize it!

Whoa, I never said anything about the roles of men and women, sex or divorce. I was stating my opinion on gay marriage, and I will continue to do so in this comment. Again, not intended to offend anyone, just my take on what I think about gay marriage and being gay in general. Kirstina, you just proved my point for me that being gay isn't right by saying it depends on how people are raised that changes how they will be like when their older. So are the way people are raised now, affecting if they are gay or straight? If someone were told tell me that people are born gay, I would say they are wrong. (I'm bringing this up because that is probably what you and many viewers believe) Here's why, when you're a little kid, you don't think about which gender you like. You think about having friends with whoever and don't even know about how to take friendship further than that, as a child. There is no gene in your body that makes you gay.Plus, no one that says they're gay, knows until they are teens or older. That is because they observe how others are, think about how they are treated by the opposite gender and make their decision. And why are there all of the sudden so many gay people? Why weren't there any back then? Not because it wasn't allowed, because it wasn't not allowed, it was just unheard of. It's (to me) because it isn't natural. It is a life CHOICE that people have made for their OWN reasons. Some for attention, some to fit in, some because they can't find someone of the opposite sex that is interested in them and some for reasons I don't know. People are put on this Earth to make more people, just like animals are here to live, provide for people and make more animals. Two men or two women physically cannot make more people. Man and man and woman and woman are not meant to be together. What is and/or was meant to be can't change. Because whatever is meant to be is just meant to be and you can't change that, no matter what time in history it is. Gay marriage d

Gay marriage does ruin the sacredness of marriage because a married couples are supposed to stay together, reproduce, carry on the human race, and be a happy family. I know, sounds a little far fetched in this modern day, but if America could go back to that, this country would be so much better off. I'm not saying divorces don't happen, or are wrong because my parents are divorces and my mom is remarried and that doesn't make them bad people. But I am saying that they made a mistake somewhere and did, in turn affect the sacredness of marriage. Divorces should not be illegal, but people should think twice before getting married. Also, I'm not trying to squash the dreams of gay couples, or tell anyone that I'm right and their wrong, that is not my intention.

Alex I would just like to point out a few things you may have over looked or may not have known. The first thing is that there aren't "all of the sudden so many gay people?" There have been homosexual and bisexual people throughout history. One example is the first gay couple to be joined by Civil Union in the world, in Denmark, in 1989 and had been in a relationship 40 years prior to their Union. The reason we don't hear much about homosexuality in history is because it used to be a crime that if found guilty of being homosexual you could be put to death or thrown in jail for it (the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has more information on this particular subject). It is reasonable, then, to believe that homosexuals would keep their homosexuality to themselves as to protect themselves from violence. Another thing you seem to overlook is that there are heterosexual couples who "physically cannot make more people," for one reason or another without using alternative methods such as surrogates and/or in vitro fertilization. that still enjoy the benefits and legal aspects (such as inheritance and the right to hospital visits and end of life decisions for their spouse) of marriage. These same options are also available for Same-Sex couples and they have the option to have children that are the biologic child of one of the parents just like families where one of the parents is infertile. Homosexual behaviors have also been observed in natural populations in a large number of other animals have shown homosexual behaviors while observed in their natural habitats and also in unnatural locations such as zoos. So to say that homosexuality is unnatural ignores that these observations have been made in the "natural" world. The finial thing that you brought up was about when people form, or in your words "choose", their sexuality. The American Psychological Association says that a persons sexual orientation can start to form in middle childhood and early adolescence a

Alex . . . you totally missed my point with me saying how people used to be raised. This is what I said: "And there are a lot of things that have changed as times have gone on, like gender roles, for example. It used to be that women were raised to do all the housework and mothering and such because "things were meant to be that way". Meanwhile, men were raised to fight and work on the farms because "things were meant to be that way". Now women, while payed less, are allowed to have jobs and have gotten the right to vote, but even so still have to fight to gain and keep other rights." I was merely giving that as an example of how times have changed and how things have changed. If women and nonwhite races can get rights over time, then why can't homosexual people? That doesn't seem fair. Marriage has now become a legal thing, and even if you don't want to, you have to accept it as it is - a legal thing that's nowhere near sacred. So what's so bad about gays having the the same legal rights to get married and all the legal things that come with it? Also, at dinner tonight, my dad told me that marriage used to be a property thing. Women/wives used to be considered property and not human beings. African Americans became slaves of the American white people, and therefore were also property. Now slavery is illegal, and marriage happens between two people who love each other and are willing/want to be legally bound. Also, therefore marriage has never been sacred. I also agree wholeheartedly with what Jeremy said.

Guys, Alex gave her opinion, she even said in her that is her personal belief, and that she didn't want anyone trying to tell her that she was wrong. She stated her opinion, you don't have to kill her through a website, It is her opinion, lay off.....

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

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.

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.

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 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.

"It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person." This is some of the language of the out of the bill (I found it in another article on Forbes). It seems reasonable, at least this section as I haven't read the whole law, except for the parts that say, "annoy or offend" and "use any obscene, lewd, or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act". We have laws that say you cant threaten, intimidate, threaten, or harass people in person or to threaten to inflict harm on another or their property so it makes to do the same thing over the internet. The fact that they added the annoy or offend and other parts I mentioned is a little ridiculous because just stating your opinion, and what you believe, on Facebook or in a comment section on a news article could "offend" someone. There is a big difference between being offensive, which is and should be legal, and trying to threaten, harass,terrify, and intimidate someone.

I can see why they want to remove the whole terrify, intimidate, and threaten part, but in all reality, the rest of the law is what is accountable to what most consider, "trolling." I personally don't get why annoying people would be against the law, it's human nature, and you cannot change that. And offending someone online means you do so verbally, and have a separate opinion from the person you are offending.You would be violating freedom of speech if you put that last bit in.

the expressed opinion that annoying someone else is human nature makes me question if you truly understand human nature. However, you are also incorrect about your freedom of speech theory. The law states that it is illegal to post something with "the intent to terrify, intimidate, threatend, harass, annoy or offend" which clearly removes it from freedom of speech parameters. Do you honestly believe that it is your free right to harass a person, or to intentionally offending someone, which can logically be derived as a branch of harassment? I don't mean to sound rude or agressive, but I really don't see that falling under a freedom of speech infraction

I agree with Alex plus it says the intent to do those things... If you're stating your opinion you aren't really intentionally setting out to annoy or offend anyone. You are just stating what you think

I have to disagree that intentionally offending a person is a form of harassment. Casually stating god isn't real to a person you know to be a devote Christian could potentially be offensive but it isn't harassment. On another note being intentionally offensive has been upheld by the Supreme Court, in the case of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, as being in the parameters of protected speech. However, in Virginia v. Black the Court said that being offensive as to intimidate a person or group is not protected speech. Some comedians are intentionally offensive to specific groups but because they aren't being offensive as to intimidate, harass, terrify, or threaten others their offensive speech is protected.

an interesting point, Jeremy. However, if I may ask, would hunting down a specific group on the internet in order to state a belief against theirs for the sole purpose of antagonizing that group not be harassment? I cannot argue against the logic presented in those cases that intentionally being offensive would be protected... however, entering a church in order to proclaim that there is no god (as an example) would be the equivalent of hunting a group down and posting that on their forums. I know that isn't the only reason that a post would show up like that, but it seems the most likely to me. I do enjoy a good, offensive comedian, but if he were to come to me specifically because he wanted to tell me how my beleifs were incorrect, I think that would fall under religeous harassment, (spelling?) just like a religeous person can be charged for harassment for hunting down a person with opposing beleifs and proclaiming their message, shouldn't people trying to tell them that their beleifs are incorrect be treated in kind?

Great discussion... another issue to consider is whether or not the listeners are "captive audience" or not. Freedom of speech is an incredibly complex topic (which we will discuss more soon in class) There is a big difference between an offensive comedian that I choose to go watch at a club and the same comedian that shows up on my doorstep to deliver an offensive message... if the second scenario continued it would seem to rise to the level of harassment pretty fast. The bigger question in my mind is do we want to prevent "offensive speech" at all or would that be a slippery slope to taking away more of our right to expression?

I don't think that being annoying or offensive (so long as it's not harassment) should be illegal. It's kind of like cussing - it's frowned upon, but shouldn't necessarily be illegal (unless used in an act of violence or threatening someone).

Alex, you stated earlier that, "The law states that it is illegal to post something with "the intent to terrify, intimidate, threatend, harass, annoy or offend" which clearly removes it from freedom of speech parameters." That is false, and why the law has not been passed as of now, and unlikely to be passed ever. Not to mention that it is to unclear upon its wording to be held up in court. I also do know that this law clearly states, "annoy." I annoy people, I do it daily, should I be jailed for 25 years for it? (The maximum time period in which this law can jail a person for). Also, I can go into a church and say, "God is not real." What exactly can you legally do against me? Can you jail me for going in there and stating my beliefs? At the most, you can make me leave by request or have me jailed for trespassing. That's like being jailed for saying, "I hate the U.S. government," which I have a clear right to say as in our first amendment. As for the idea of "Religious Harassment," one can have there beliefs. If I go to a church, and decide to start screaming on the top of my lungs, "God is not real!" I am stating my beliefs were I please, which is protected under the first amendment. A Christen probably would not like it, but if one comes up to me and says God is real, there is not much either on can do to convince the other the other that they are wrong, and both are entitled to there own opinion. This law would jail someone for stating there religious beliefs, which is not legal by our constitution. Would that not be "Religious Harassment?"

Payton, you state that my reference to the law is false, however I took that as a direct quote from Jeremy. Perhaps you should do a little reading? as for what I can legally do, I can report you for religious harassment and get you a ticket. By there you mean to post "thier", just so you know. Simple mistake. Anyways, specifically looking for someone to aggrivate by stating thier beliefs are no longer just looking to state their beliefs. I am not arguing against one's ability to annoy, by the way. I do tend to do this on a regular basis. I am stating that it is harassment to seek out persons that I know will be offended by my remarks and verbally assault them, and they may do as they please with this assault. I do appreciate your use of 'reductum ad absurdum' or the reduction of an opposing argument to its most rediculous or nonsensical interpretation. However, I am not suggesting jail time.

Alex, you do realize the law itself suggests a minimum sentence of 6 months, to the max of 25 years in prison for one simply stating something as simple as beliefs on the internet. As well as that 2nd hand reference, that I assume you simply went off the word of another with, is still false, the bill did not pass because it broke the first amendment. As for that ticket, I would be ticketed for expressing myself about my religion, and in no way did I say anything bad about another religion, that would be freedom of speech before religious harassment.

That ticket would be for harassing a group of people for their beliefs, and you know it. If I were to hunt you down and assault your every belief, whether it be right or wrong, and do it, not just for no reason, but simply because I want to cause anger and controversy? That goes against everything our country stands for. We have certain inalienable rights, including the pursuit of happiness, and dealing with someone who just wants to make you angry directly interferes with that.

I'll first start off by saying that in my last post I misspoke when I said that I didn't believe that being intentionally offensive is harassment. I should have said that it isn't necessarily harassment. Payton the law did pass the Arizona Legislator and it reached the Governor's desk, that is why people were worried about First Amendment Violations. The Legislator then pulled it back before Governor Brewer signed it into law, stating that they may rework the wording of the Bill to narrow the broad language in hopes to remove parts that could potentially violate Free Speech. The revised bill has since been signed into law. This is the first form of the Bill passed by the Legislator but was brought back to be reworked: http://mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/AZ-HB-2549s-as-passed-by-legislature.pdf This is the reworked Bill as to narrow it's scope which became law: http://www.mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/HB2549-as-amended-most-recent-04_2012-full-bill.pdf Alex and Mr. Pregon do make a good point about seeking out specific groups. I think after looking into it a little more Mr. Pregon is right about Freedom of Speech being a complex topic. Looking at the two court cases I mentioned and then two others I ran into while looking things up seem to contradict each other in someways yet support each other at the same time. Snyder v. Phelps and the parts of the majority ruling that were in an article I read, actually found the full ruling and opinions and plan on reading them, make it seem like, to me at least, it is in fact okay to seek out a group and say things that are unpopular, potentially offensive, and controversial as long as you aren't trying to intimidate, threaten, etc. that group as V

Alex, there is a difference between stating a belief, such as not believing in god, and discrediting a religion based on that belief. That would be an odd situation, but as long as one does not go into detail as to how a religion is superior/inferior to another, it should not be considered offensive. Jeremy, this article was written previously to the revised bill, due to it being highly ambiguous. I also agree as to the newly revised bill. The bill previously was going strictly reduce freedom of speech, which will no longer be that well restricted, although I doubt it will be easy to enforce.

Of course you would put this up Payton....

I really do personally believe this women should be jailed for murder, but legally, it would be difficult to get a conviction. Due to our legal system, we have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, (about 90% chance) that she killed her baby. She gave a second story, so one of the two stories must be true. 50/50 chance, good luck actually proving it. All she has to say is, "I said that to hurt him, and I gave the baby away," and she would probably just be convicted for kidnap. Either way it is a tough case, I think I may have to follow it.

I agree with Payton she should be jailed for murder. I believe that she did kill her son, she wouldn't have told him that she killed him if it wasn't true unless she's crazy, which she probably is. None of that would have happened if she would've just gave the father custody, but instead she left for Texas with her son.

I also think that she should be put in jail. If you're gonna say you killed him, it's usually not something you're lying about, and if she just gave the baby away, someone would have seen the stories and said "Oh I have this child" or something like that, but no. Nobody said anything so it goes to show that it all comes back to her.

I agree the mother should be jailed. They even have proof that the mother killed thee baby by sending a text to her husband saying that she killed the baby and dumped the body in a dumpster somewhere in Texas.

Almost three years later, his disappearance is still a mystery. And a trial that gets underway this week may finally provide some answers to what happened.

I agree with the both of you. No sane, rational person would say anything about killing their own child, whether or not it's true. I believe that she is guilty and should be jailed and have to go under a serious psychiatric assessment. I feel so bad for the father, this must have been such a traumatic experience.

I too believe she should be jailed for murder of her child. She is not rational nor sane for making these allegations if they're untrue. Libby is right saying she needs to undergo some serious psychiatric assessments. I don't understand how a mother could do that to her own young child and blame it on the father. Just a very messed up thing to do or even imply on doing.

It's sad that there are still countries that give men power over their wives. Legally, a woman should be able to go where she wants without her husband's approval. There are rights for husbands but none for the wives which is unfair.

This woman is obviously very successful to be the captain of the travelling team that will be participating in the Asian Cup and for her husband to withhold her passport is hindering her success. It's very shocking and saddening to see this kind of misogyny still present within this world today.

I think that this is completely wrong. I believe that a woman should have free rights to do things she wants to do and go where she wants to go. This is a big thing for her and for her husband to withhold her passport is in no way okay.

That woman should have the right to join her team. She seems very successful. I don't think men should have control over the women and have no rights of their own.

If we as a society won't allow juveniles, sixteen year olds in particular, to vote or to sign their name to a legal contract and the justification for that restriction is because they aren't "mature enough" or that they "don't/won't understand" the lasting consequences then how can we expect them to understand the lasting consequences of committing a violent crime? If sixteen year olds are old enough and mature enough to understand the lasting consequences of committing a violent crime then shouldn't they also understand the lasting consequences to the things I mentioned above?

I agree with Jermey, we need to not set a double standard. We need to rehabilitate young offenders, because if you are not a hard criminal before you go to prison for 20 years of one of the most impressionable times of your life, you will come out of it as one. These are kids that probably grew up in broken homes, and this was the only path they were going to take, because it was the only one they saw. So lets rehabilitate, and give them productive lives, not ones that are going to keep the cycle going.

I agree with you for the most part Natalie. Although if it's a really small crime and the juvenile is unarmed, then they should go to juvenile court. But for crimes bigger than that example, they need to be charged as an adult would be charged. There's actually this reality TV show (that I can't remember the name of) where, in each episode, a group of kids who are on the streets and in gangs, etc. are taken into a jail as a form of rehabilitation, and they go through a day of being in jail and they also hear stories from people who are in jail at that time, and they always say that one doesn't want to end up in jail. I think there was one particular episode where a girl went with her mother to watch her mother plan a funeral for her. It's pretty interesting, and it does seem to help a lot.

Jared, I understand what you mean by some kids growing up in broken homes and having bad lives growing up BUT you always have the option to not go down that road. You have the option to try to better yourself and make something of yourself. Although most people don't do that, they don't always pull a gun on a cop. That is a serious offense and I feel like you guys are so focused on the fact that he's our age that you're blinded by what he did. Jeremy, I don't understand what you're saying. I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me so if you could maybe clarify that would be great. Thanks. Kirstina, I do get what you're saying. Most kids need to see what can happen but this kid is plenty old enough to know right from wrong.

I realize that, but the people that are the most likely to pull a gun are the ones that have the most messed up life beforehand in most cases. We should try them as children, and try to rehabilitate them. Before your 18, and move, a large part of what you do, and know is influenced by your parents, and other senor figures in your life, and even friends Until you reach adulthood, its hard to be your own person, especially in the environment that generates this type of person. There is the odd person in there that is just a bad person, and it is all there fault, but we need to try to rehabilitate them as a child, not as an adult.

Jeremy, there's a major difference between crime and legal contracts. They don't have anything to do with each other. Sentencing teens like adults is important because it protects us. It's a safety issue. Plus it tells other kids, "You break the law, you get in huge trouble." And they don't allow people under 18 to sign contracts without parental consent to protect them from making stupid decisions.

Natalie I'm sorry for the confusion. I was replying more to the article then directly to your post. To clarify I disagree with your position about putting juveniles into adult court that commit violent crimes. At least with the current system we have in place. Kirstina I know there is a major difference between committing a violent crime and signing legal contracts/voting. That's my entire point. If a sixteen year old is not mentally mature or responsible enough to understand the long term consequences of voting then they most definitely aren't mature or responsible enough to understand the lasting consequences of committing a violent crime like shooting at a police officer, an act that take far more mental maturity to fully understand when compared to voting. As long as our society wants to say that sixteen and seventeen year olds aren't mature enough to understand the consequences of something like voting then how can we expect them to understand these violent crimes that they commit. I'm all for placing older teens in adult court when they commit an adult crime but only if they aren't subjected to an unfounded and unreasonable double standard. Either sixteen year olds are on the same maturity level as adults or they aren't.

i think it is totally understandable because it shows that this kid is planning on doing crimes in the future.

i think that they did the right thing by arresting him if you are 16 then you are old enough to realize that shooting a cop isn't a good idea and you will have a punishment for it

Natalie i agree with your point of view on this article. If he is 16 he already knows what he is doing. We are all in high school and know well the consequences if we did that. I also agree with what you said about his background. It seems like this is a record and he already knows the consequences. So in my opinion he should be charged for adult crime.

I believe this kid should get charged as an adult because like they said in the article. He is a threat to society and to himself.

I agree with Natalie, everyone in the right mind should know shooting at someone; especially a police officer is wrong. And know their will be consequences to follow. So yes, juveniles should be charged as an adult depending on the circumstances.

I agree with charging juveniles as adults. People should know the right from wrongs at an early age and receive the consequences though an understanding of what they did wrong.

I agree with Melissa, people should know the difference from right and wrong, they definitely know the incentives for doing wrong as well.

Jeremy, I don't quite understand where you stand on the issue. You said that you realize there's a difference but then you said, and I quote, "Kirstina I know there is a major difference between committing a violent crime and signing legal contracts/voting. That's my entire point. If a sixteen year old is not mentally mature or responsible enough to understand the long term consequences of voting then they most definitely aren't mature or responsible enough to understand the lasting consequences of committing a violent crime like shooting at a police officer, an act that take far more mental maturity to fully understand when compared to voting." You're contradicting yourself there and in your original comment.

Obviously there is something wrong with society if we have mere teenagers pulling out weapons and assaulting people to the point of felony. I think that the punishment is completely fair for such a sick individual. Criminal behaviors are not taught, but learned so he had to have learned this from someone he knew or a parent with a criminal record. Either way, what he did was wrong and he deserves to be behind bars.

I agree with charging minors as adults because this article is one of many where the felon was a minor. I did research over this in another class and i found many articles where they were charging a minor with adult charges because of how brutal the murders they committed where. Like i argued in my other paper "is your loved one's life any less valuable just because they got murdered by a minor"

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/03/sport/football/dutch-linesman-killed-football/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 Here's another case of teenagers committing violent crimes. They beat this man to death. There were two 15 year-olds and a 16 year-old.

they should charge minors as adults because they will be out in the streets again and doing more crimies. its there own fault that they get charged thats why they should face charges alone.

I think if you do the crime, you pay the time whenever the government wants you to.

i say same charge for everyone no matter what

if you're willing to make the decision to break the law and commit a serious crime with the consequences of an adult then you should definitely suffer the same consequences no matter your age.

if anyone commits a crime they should be charged the same no matter what age

I agree with the idea that no matter your age, if you commit a serious crime, you should suffer the consequences. Say a teenager decides to murder someone... Just because they're a minor, should they be charged with a lesser offense than an adult would have? NO. If you are willing, capable, and have the mental capacity and audacity to commit such crimes, you deserve prison and whatever other punishment you receive.

Great discussion guys! Here is some more food for thought. People who do bad things need punishment, but there is plenty of scientific evidence that teenage brains are in a state of development that doesn't excuse bad acts, but can help explain it. http://goo.gl/MXEAd Ask yourself if you are the "same person" you were when you were 5 years old? I can tell you, you will make decisions differently when you are 25, and probably 65.

This is a good point i have to say. That's why I think we need to do our best to reform kids, not just punish them. Make it clear that their will be consequences, but try them as hardened, adult criminals is not the way to do it.

This is an extremely touchy subject. It's hard to lay out things like this without stepping on toes of other controversial subjects like voting age and military eligability

Wow this is crazy! I would quit!

Yeah it sounds crazy!

protesting is a legal rght given to any united states citizen as long as they do it legally

I agree partially with what the workers are striking for because Walmart is a crazy place every single day, especially around the holiday season. However, I do not think they need to demand better pay or more stable hours. Their average pay is 5 whole dollars above federal minimum wage, and there are plenty of people out there who work a different job with a lot more hours at irregular times for minimum wage and no benefits. Why should Walmart be any different? I feel as if they are striking for something they will not get.

I think the internet in general is such a great resource and If that means the authorities use it to crack down on suspects more power to them! If the suspect post about those illegal activities then its there own fault. I think what many people don't realize is even If you delete something of of Facebook It never really goes away Its on the internet for everyone to see for forever.

I agree with Hope on this, once it's posted, it's posted. Even if you delete it, its still there.

They know the risks if they post something. They know what they are putting out there and if they do they deserve it for at least not being sneaky.