Discussion in 'The Senate Floor' started by Lowbacca_1977, Nov 2, 2012.
Here we go. It's led every poll. Although it's been 3 months since the last one listed there.
The props/measure I'm watching closely (and thus care about the most here in California):
L.A. city measure B- This would require condoms in porn production... I'll be voting no. Why take the economic risk (since L.A., specifically the Valley, is the epicenter of the U.S. porn industry) of companies taking their business elsewhere? This is an issue that should be left up to the industry, not the city government. People who get into porn know what they're doing, the health risks they're taking. And it would require a public health permit for porn shoots... is that really necessary?
Prop 30- Would raise the sales tax & income tax (on those making $250,000 & up) to fund education... I'll be voting no. First off, the money is heading into the black hole (ie: the general fund) in Sacramento, as it's not written that the money would specifically be used for education. Secondly, Brown (and those terrible, terrible ads for 30 that have teachers in them spewing lies) is threatening $6 billion in cuts to education if this doesn't pass... set aside the fact that his latest budget has an increase of spending of $7 billion, why would this $6 billion have to exclusively be to education? Really Jerry Brown, you couldn't evenly distribute the cuts? What an schmuckhole. And thirdly, wouldn't it be wiser to better spend the money we do have (since a lot of it does go to education), and fight for real reforms in the government? Why lie & threaten catastrophe instead? Meh.
Prop. 32- http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.p...,_the_"Paycheck_Protection"_Initiative_(2012)- I'm voting yes on this, because I do believe that the public employee unions have too much power in the state/are a stranglehold to a lot of government spending reform. It would ban a lot of contributions from other special interests as well, though of course both (should this pass) would still have measures of $$$ power in this state.
Prop. 37: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.p...abeling_of_Genetically_Engineered_Food_(2012)- I'm voting no on this because it's badly written/inconsistent with what fall under the guidelines for this proposition.
Massachusetts has ballot measures to legalize physician-assisted suicide and medical marijuana. The Massachusetts Medical Society (the state association of doctors and medical students which publishes the New England Journal of Medicine) is opposed to both measures. Although part of me wants to support them, the MMS' reasoning is convincing. I'm still a little torn on the medical marijuana question, if only because the momentum of expanding legalization might eventually put pressure on the DEA to reclassify the drug and allow adequate medical research.
I voted yes on both of those, Terr. I can understand your apprehension for supporting the measure legalizing physician-assisted suicide, but I think the pros outweigh the potential cons.
As for medicinal marijuana, I just see no downside to it.
I'd hope the assisted suicide thing passes. It's their body, and they've a right to choose. I hope to see that continue to spread.
I will keep that in mind the next time the Crips and Bloods decide to wage turf war in downtown Oslo.
Agreed. If they truly wish to end it, I'd much prefer them do it with some sense of dignity with their doctor and family by their side.
Nothing too exciting on the PA ballot, just the run of the mill senate, US house, and PA senate and house elections, plus a few of the state row offices. I've been reading up on those candidates, since they're virtual unknowns and don't buy too much air time.
Part of the reasons gang activity is so pervasive in the US is because of the garbage state of our prison facilities. They basically have to unite in jails for their own safety. Admittedly, there are other issues related to our treatment of ethnic minorities and the impoverished in this country that would have to also be resolved to really strike at the root of the problem, but "YEAH BUT NORWAY DOESN'T HAVE ANY GANGS" is not, in and of itself, a valid rebuttal.
That's neat - it'll be interesting to see if the 4/20 celebrations around here get even more ridiculous if that passes.
Nothing of real interest for my town ballot. I saw it a few days ago while visiting the town hall after the storm.
President, US Senate, US Congress, State Senate, State Rep.
Looks like I'm voting Democrat across the board this round. None of the other parties swayed me this time. And I will particularly enjoy voting against Linda McMahon for Senate. That's really the only reason that I must vote this time. I'm certain Obama will carry Connecticut with or without my vote.
Okay then...other examples...
James Byrd, a black man, was abducted by three white men, tied to the back of a truck, and dragged down the road until his body fell to pieces.
Then there was the case of Beltway Snipers John Allen Mohammed and Lee Boyd Malvo. Some would say it was PTSD or something, but the truth of the matter is that Mohammed was upset over losing custody of his kids to his ex-wife. She was the real target. The other sniper victims were simply extra bodies to divert attention away from him.
I'm not saying our prison system is some kind of bastion of efficiency....but Darth Guy is suggesting that life sentences sans parole is "cruel and unusual". I simply do not buy that.
For those who don't feel like clicking through my link, here's what the Massachusetts Medical Society says about the two proposals on the ballot:
With respect to the argument about physician-assisted suicide not being necessary to improve the quality of life at the end of life, a lot of supporters of this argument reference the cases of assisted suicide in Oregon and Washington, where the majority of patients have requested life-ending prescriptions not because of physical pain and suffering but rather due to the emotional distress associated with being disabled (e.g. feeling like a burden on one's family members).
I'm still undecided on these two questions, but I tend to think, at the very least, that certain steps to ensure safe implementation need to be taken before these laws go into effect.
What did your other examples demonstrate? That people do bad stuff? We know that. How does that change whether life without parole is cruel or at all reduce the sort of incidents you are talking about?
Some degree of self-destructive behavior and self-sacrificial behavior is certainly allowable, but . . .
No, a physician has no business killing anyone. It's done it enough accidentally anyway.
"Do no harm" ring a bell?
Medical ethics is a tricky area--sometimes the greater harm is in keeping them alive, against their wishes, where they suffer from incurable pain. A doctor is in the business of helping people and treating them if possible. If there is no treatment, if there is only endless suffering, they can help in a different way. Just one way to look at it.
Killing someone isn't a treatment.
It doesn't make them healthier. It just makes them dead.
Even if the person specifically asks for it?
None of us have a real perspective on whether or not it constitutes a form of "treatment." Fortunately, we haven't confronted the situation where we are in a vegetative state and will never recover or suffer from an incurable disease of the mind, or are in constant perpetual pain.
As somebody who's work involves nursing home care, and has seen that first sentence up close, I have to say I agree with you. Certainly my feelings on assisted suicide are a lot different from say when I was 8 or 9 and just beginning to hear about Jack Kavorkian.
It's also why living wills and advanced directives are so important.
Still makes them dead, not healthier.
There's a big difference between not treating someone to let them die and killing them.
Yes, but these are circumstances where it is impossible for them to become healthier. What is more humane, allowing them to die a slow and painful death (against their explicit wishes in a living will) or to abide by their wishes and limit the suffering?
I think that there is harm in letting someone suffer. I mean, part of harm is mental damage, and I think death is far better than constant pain for someone who is limited by physical restrictions that they can't handle.
If there's much interest in this as a topic, it'd also make for a great Senate topic in it's own right
I think there was one (might have been created when Oregon had an assisted suicide measure on it's ballot), but it might be locked.
If threads have hit the point that they're locked, I figure that's a good sign that they're ready for a fresh start in many cases.
Yeah the last thing I'll say on assisted suicide--If the state is willing to impose death as a form of punishment for crime, why shouldn't it act out of mercy and compassion?