I read a study earlier this year that marijuana can cause the onset of schizophrenia at an earlier age... I think most shizo's start showing the symptoms in their 20's but in marijuana users it's in the teens?
Yep, by restricting the supply and making it difficult for drugs to be shipped into the country, the government actually helps the cartels justifiy higher prices for their products.
Well, J... I have to disagree with you on that. In the first place, I've known people who were high every single day of their lives for as long as I knew them and they never experienced any negative side effects except for a little bit of laziness.
One of those people I knew successfully graduated law school with me.
Your friend had something else wrong with him that caused convulsions. It wasn't the marijuana. It's possible that the marijuana aggravated a condition... but it didn't cause it by itself.
Secondly, unless you're a medical doctor, you have no way of knowing, much less telling anyone that your friends condition was brought on by marijuana. (That is meant in the kindest possible way... but it's true).
Seriously... look it up. It is physically impossible to overdose on THC. That's just the facts, personal anecdotes notwithstanding.
Also, it is the fact that marijuana is illegal that brings the cartels money. If it were legal, there would be no drug cartels. Farmers would grow it here in the US. People could actually grow it in their own back yards.
Every legal child in the US should be able to get a voucher. The money would go to finance the education of these children at a school of the parents' choice. Most parents would not send their children to school in a building that ought to be condemned if they knew about it. They see that in the newspaper, and they'll pull their kids from that school and get them to a safe one. And schools with good reputations will reap their own rewards and attract the funding for better facilities.
We have good laws in place, and we are a very generous nation when it comes to immigration. You need to know whether or not the people coming into your country have communicable diseases, criminal records, and so forth. Also, you need to have rule of law.
Alright, I have a few thoughts/questions. I'm actually very torn by this issue since I can see it from a few different sides and there are a lot of valid points to be brought up.Every legal child in the US should be able to get a voucher. The money would go to finance the education of these children at a school of the parents' choice. Most parents would not send their children to school in a building that ought to be condemned if they knew about it. They see that in the newspaper, and they'll pull their kids from that school and get them to a safe one. And schools with good reputations will reap their own rewards and attract the funding for better facilities.
My plan involves getting rid of NCLB. With choice, there will be no need for it.
They wouldn't be in a federal plan. As for state/local, there are different proposals but I would think a good proposal would be state taxes rather than property taxes. School funding via property taxes is one of the big problems we have right now.
That's a good question. I suppose the good schools would have a limit and then they'd say no more. Also, more freedom in the marketplace will stimulate the market. This means there will be more schools popping up to take the kids.
They do not, and this is the core of the voucher issue. As it stands, we pay in property and state taxes to fund our schools. If you live in one neighborhood, your property taxes will go to a certain school system. If that happens to be a poor neighborhood, the school will be poorly funded. And these inner city schools are also more violent, and have more bad teachers than the affluent towns and other communities have. So the poor who live in these bad neighborhoods are held hostage to these failing schools and corrupt districts. With vouchers, each family would get a certain equal amount of money to spend on their children's education. They could send the child wherever they want, so if you're living in the ghetto, you don't have to send your child to the crumbling ghetto school. You'll have assistance to send him wherever you want. The idea is that there will always be good schools who won't need more tuition than the voucher will provide. If the costs go up, you increase the value of the voucher to equalize.
It won't, and the results have shown that. This is why there needs to be accountability through competition. This is what Europe has, and their schools are doing great. Freedom from regulation also allows teachers and staff to be all they can be.
It does, and you're right. This won't do anything for the kids whose parents don't give a flip about their education. But there are parents who do, and not all of these parents make a lot of money. They should have the option of sending their kids to a better school, that shouldn't only be for the rich folks.
Since when does the state have a monopoly on compassion for the poor? Jesus said to be generous, but He never said that the government had to be the vehicle for our generosity. Besides, it's more of a cop-out than anything. Entitlements are just tax-and-spend, it's all automatically taken out of your paycheck, there's no giving, no donation. I fail to see the generosity of the people at work in this case.
