Comment on "Marijuana and Alcohol"

Eddie's post Marijuana and alcohol caught my eye, he says:
   
    "Why is the government still thinking about legalization of Marijuana? That issue should have been resolved long time ago. I can assume that most of us including me are for legalizing the herb now that 58% are pro marijuana. Drinking while intoxicated could and has been lethal and so many people have died because of drunk drivers and consumption of alcohol. Some studies have shown that in a driving test, a driver under the influence of marijuana overestimate their impairment and show greater distance between cars versus drunk driver who have the most difficulty passing simple tests.

The government has to put it all in a balance and make the decision knowing that alcohol is worse than marijuana. According to both researchers; D. Mark Anderson of Montana State University and Daniel Rees of the University of Colorado at Denver from Journal of Policy Analysis and Management report there has been a decrees in teenage drinking from ages ranging in the 18- to 20-years and a 5% decrease in alcohol sales.

the “green light” to legalizing marijuana could and would make the streets safer. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) and other organizations against drunk driving would have part of a solution to the problem. Also, when have you heard of someone having an overdose on marijuana? Or that someone feels the need to kill someone, rob a bank or kidnap someone because they were under the influence of marijuana? Government has to get on with the program and legalize it. If they would just tax it like everything else, even drug trafficking over the borders cold decrees." 

   I completely agree with Eddie, what is the reason it's taking so long? Many people I know wouldn't live in fear of getting caught, children wouldn't be taken away from their own families to be placed in horrific foster families cause their parents smoke pot. I've never heard of it making people violent or a threat, where as many of  my friends can turn into stupid, angry, emotional, monsters who do not think before they act and do something stupid. I myself do not smoke marijuana, but I know it would be a happier place if everyone who wanted to could do it openly. Besides, who wouldn't want everyone around you high! It would be nice! :)

Toddler Dies in CPS Custody After Being Taken from Marijuana Smoking Parents

I read this article that really got my attention. It tells how a young two-year-old girl died from brutal force to the head while in the care of a foster family. The child was taken away because her parents were caught, recreationally and simply, smoking weed in their living room, after putting their daughter to bed. Their daughter had never been sick or needed to go to the hospital while living with her loving parents, but just days after being placed into the foster family their daughter experienced blunt force trauma to her head and had to be air lifted to the hospital where she died days later. This is shocking. The fact that our government, who is supposed to protect us, can take our children away for smoking a harmless drug. Their child was never neglected or abused, and the fact that they have the right to take away their two year old children for no reason is absurd. The artical states: "This should be a red flag warning to parents that the states power has risen to the point that it can arbitrarily snatch children for petty, non-violent crimes and wash its hands clean of liability if that child dies while in its "protective" custody." I am disgusted with how wrong this is and to think... How many other children are living with dangerous solely money sucking, families who are sometimes less capable to take care of children than their real families? This is wrong, and needs to stop.

House set to vote on bill banning plastic guns amid 3D printing worries

   There was an interesting article about plastic weapons that said: The House is expected to vote this week on renewing a 25-year-old law that bans the production of undetectable guns, in an age when new technology could open the door to at-home production of plastic weapons. The law is supposed to expire on Dec. 9, and lawmakers are divided on whether to renew it. But the measure to renew it would prohibit the manufacture of plastic weapons, which can’t be detected when going through security at airports and other metal detectors. There has been growing concern over the emergence of 3D printing, which can now create some operable plastic guns and other weapons. 

   The House wa supposed to vote late Monday on the bill, but there were setbacks so they will vote on Tuesday. The bill will need a two-thirds majority to pass the House. The Undetectable Firearms Act, which was first enacted in 1988 and reauthorized in 2003, makes it illegal to “manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer or receive” any firearm that’s undetectable by metal detectors and X-ray machines.The National Rifle Association has not publicly stated where it stands on the proposed extension, but Gun Owners of America, a smaller gun rights group, told The New York Times that the extension is unnecessary because 3D printing technology is not widely available. 

  “They’re not going to be in Kinkos,” Larry Pratt, the group's executive director, told the newspaper. “And at the moment, they can’t fire that many rounds. It’s just not something that we’re going to be dealing with anytime soon.” Schumer, however, has said the technology of 3D printing has advanced to the point anyone with $1,000 and an Internet connection can access the plastic parts that can be fitted into a gun. Those firearms can't be detected by metal detectors or X-ray machines. The senator says that means anyone can download a gun cheaply, then take the weapons anywhere, including high-security areas.

   I'm not for con control, I do think people should have the right to bear arms, but I do think plastic weapons are a little different, seeing as they're undetected by X-ray machines and can be taken anywhere. So It's understandable that it's scaring people, especially important people. But on the other hand, if someone is planning on killing a person.. I'm pretty sure one law won't stop them from breaking another, such as murder. But seeing as plastic guns aren't really necessary to anyone, I see no reason why banning them is a bad thing.

Commentary: "Didn't your mother teach you eavesdropping is not polite?"

              I found this article very interesting and agreed with it. Yosef says he fears we are going to war alone and broke. "What are we doing spying on our own ally’s?" He asks. Yosef states "An unhealthy obsession with our public safety has lead this nation to paranoia, which will leave as with no ally’s; unless we stop spying on our friends." I couldn't agree more. No matter how good a friend someone could be to you, if they eavesdropped on one of your conversations, just to make sure you weren't talking about them, you would definitely not be happy. I agree with Yosef and think we need to work on mutual trust.
                The article states that the NSA collected 70.3 million pieces of French telephone data in the span of a month. The questing is why? Why do we always have to feel in danger? Even by our ally's?  If you show a friend that you don’t trust them they start to not trust you as well, which will cause you and your friend to drift apart. Finally they will walk away singing “we are never, ever getting back together”. The same situation goes for spying on Brazil, and Germany.
               According to this article the United State is currently $17,116,590,825,120.15 in debt right now. The estimated population of the United States is 316,981,640, so each citizen’s share of this debt is $53,998.68. The National Debt has continued to increase and average of $2.63 billion per day, and yet we spend billions on spying on countries that are irrelevant. This is completely ridiculous and unnecessary. If there was a war to break out; we would not have any money to fund our military operations and we would not have any ally’s to relay on. I mean we're basically hurting ourselves because we're scared and non-trusting.  So stop the spying and keep the NSA under control.

Federal Workers Sue Government For Withholding Pay During Shutdown

    An article on Huffington Post states how a group of federal workers who had their pay delayed due to the shutdown are suing the federal government, saying it violated its own labor laws by giving them abbreviated paychecks in October. 
    In a suit that was filed October 24th, five federal employees who were required to work through the shutdown accuse the government of failing to pay them minimum wage and overtime during one pay period. By withholding several days' worth of pay, the government ran afoul of the Fair Labor Standards Act, they claim. "These are by no means highly paid federal employees," said the lawyer, Heidi Burakiewicz, of Mehri & Skalet in Washington. "They didn't know how they would support their children during the shutdown. They had to defer payments for bills." Even if these workers were fully compensated later, they were still paid less than the minimum wage on their scheduled payday, the suit claims. According to Burakiewicz, many employees who worked overtime during the shutdown had their additional hours recorded but couldn't be paid for them in their next paycheck. "Its violation was willful, and in conscious or reckless disregard of the requirements [of the law]," the suit says of the government.
   That is sad, no doubt. But what about the 200,000 people and small businesses all over America who live off a much smaller paycheck who had to go without a job and will not receive back-pay of any kind? Honestly, the fact that the government shutdown cost our economy $24 billion just because our leaders, who we've put in charge, couldn't come to an agreement shows we have much more to worry about. 

The Pitfalls Of Rape Prevention Critique

  
    So I recently read this article  The Pitfalls Of Rape Prevention on "The Dish" about rape. Emily Yoffe informs women "The biological reality is that women do not metabolize alcohol the same way as men, and that means drink for drink women will get drunker faster. … If female college students start moderating their drinking as a way of looking out for their own self-interest—and looking out for your own self-interest should be a primary feminist principle—I hope their restraint trickles down to the men." She adds that by not telling them the truth—that they are responsible for keeping their wits about them—she worries that we are “infantilizing women.”
    Katie McDonough accuses Yoffe of writing “rape apologia”: Yoffe has plenty of good data to support her argument that binge drinking on college campuses isn’t healthy. The over-consumption of alcohol can literally kill people. What it can’t do, however, is make a woman responsible for a crime committed against her.
     Emily Matchar comes to Yoffe’s defense saying "The fact that Yoffe didn’t discuss men in her story is troubling. It frames rape as a women’s issue rather than an everybody issue, which I assume was not her intent. But this doesn’t make her points about women and drinking any less true. Educating women on the factors that make them vulnerable to assault is not victim-blaming. It is simply practical advice backed up by data. We tell travelers to be aware of their surroundings in unfamiliar cities to reduce the risk of mugging. We teach new drivers defensive strategies to avoid being hit by drunks and speeders. This should not be any different."
    I agree that women should be aware, and should not put themselves in a position that could lead to being taken advantage of in anyway, and if they find themselves in a compromising situation or at a party where they don't trust or know the men, it wouldn't be smart to drink or get drunk, especially without a sober friend to keep an eye on you. Woman should be smarter and not give anyone the chance to take advantage of her... but I also do not agree that women are always responsible for the crime. It takes a sick person to take advantage of an unconscious or unwilling person, and not always does the blame fall on the stupidity of the victim for getting drunk in an unsafe environment without a friend watching them. In fact there are many people who get raped by friends who they have trusted for a while and it's not solely the woman's fault for being in that situation. I do think women should be careful and think things through and know the situation they're going to be in before they get drunk. But I also think if they're going to get drunk they need a friend to watch over them, because not many people can be trusted, especially when alcohol is involved.

Woman Says Strip Search After DUI Arrest Went Too Far

 I read an interesting article Woman Says Strip Search After DUI Arrest Went Too Far on abc news where a woman was arrested for drunk driving then was strip searched and treated harshly and it went too far. On May 18th in Illinois Holmes was pulled over by LaSalle county deputies. She had been at a wedding with her boyfriend and he was too drunk to drive. In this article, the police dash cam video shows her calmly taking a field sobriety test. The police say her blood alcohol level was three times the legal limit. She was arrested and taken to the police station for a dui, and that's where things go awry. The video shows Holmes standing against a wall while a female officer pats her down and male officers are standing by. Then all of a sudden the female officer puts her down to the ground in a rough manner, they say because she allegedly tried to kick them. "I was terrified," Holmes said, "I felt helpless. Within moments, deputies carry her into a padded room and shoved her face-down on the floor. Then, three male officers and one female remove all of her clothing, leaving her naked for two minutes, until an officer tosses in some blankets. "I was scared. And I lay there crying," Holmes said. Illinois law says officers can only conduct a strip search when there is a reasonable belief that a suspect has a weapon or drugs, and that they can only be searched by deputies of the same sex. And that it cannot be observed by anyone not physically conducting the search. They were on-duty deputies humiliating and groping a female inmate. It makes you wonder, were these guys ever even trained? This morning, Dana Holmes says her civil rights were violated, and she wants justice. She says she hopes they lose their jobs.
   I agree with Dana Holmes, as to her rights were violated. A strip search is a practice of searching a person for weapons or other contraband suspected of being hidden on their body or inside their clothing, and not found by performing a frisk search, by requiring the person to remove some or all of his or her clothing. None of that applies to Dana Holmes situation. All she was accused of was allegedly trying to kick the officer which you can't even prove from the video. And even if that was the case, she'd been calm the entire time up until then, why not even try another method first before using force? Why thrown her to the ground without a warning? And if she was drunk, she doesn't know exactly what she's doing, and she seriously cannot be a threat, why embarrass her and violate her rights by unlawfully strip searching her for no reason? And even then, strip search her illegally with officers not rendering the search in the room and on top of that, they being of the opposite sex. I agree with Dana Holmes and do believe her rights were violated and that it was wrong.