Saturday, October 31, 2009
Should smoking be banned from public parks?
Answer:
No. I won't smoke around your kids though. However, with the increase in price, I am paying more taxes so I should be able to smoke anywhere I want. And I smoke a lot.
yes, it ruins the trees.
Allow smoking in places that weed is allowed.
Should loud rap music? Should people with too much perfume? Should ugly people? Should loud, stupid people?
yes i do and i am a smoking
That's a dangerous slope you're treading....
Should smokers file a class-action lawsuit against state & federal government?
The government has made billions in tax revenue from the sale of cigarettes. Now many of us are addicted and have tried repeatedly to quit. They continue to tax cigarettes like crazy and ban smoking in many places.
In Iowa, the cigarette tax just went up $1.00 and it costs $4.85 for a pack of Marlboros.
Should we sue the government from profiting from our deadly addiction for so many years and then making it almost impossible to continue smoking? If so, on what grounds could we sue?
Answer:
Yeah. I'm with you part of the way. I smoke and I wouldn't sue because I can just quit. But there are lots of choices folks make daily that are unhealthy for them, it ticks me off to have some obese, alcoholic senator make the decision for me by ratcheting up the price to make himself look good participating in the latest witchhunt. Just wait 'til it is alcohol's turn. Makes me so mad I just gotta go grab a smoke to calm down.
No, we should ALL stop sueing everybody and take responsibility for ourselves and our health!
This is worse than the people that sue the cigarette companies because they smoke...
No one ever forced anyone to smoke. Furthermore, it says that smoking is bad for you right on the box.
I used to smoke, but quit. No one ever forced me to smoke.
Stop making Iowans sound stupid.
It's not the government's job to protect you from yourself.
Smoking is bad for you so you should quit. Your lack of will power isn't the government's fault.
The taxes are meant to discourage you from smoking, and most of the additional taxes where lobbied by people such as yourself.
You said yourself that they have made it "almost impossible to continue smoking". So don't you realize how insane your question is?
LOL. great question,I think hypocrisy is appropiate here.....I can see those senators now critizing the tobacco heads,asking them if cigarette smoking is addictive after raking in those billions of dollars................THEY COULD CARE LESS..........at least until that money is taken away from them...............
sue them ? my opion?
"negative discrimination". Automobiles have killed and maimed more people than all of the drugs: from cigarettes, pot, cocaine, heroin and so on... many, many more people killed and maimed by cars and they don't persecute the auto industry or those that support them like insurance companies, road building companies and so on. I really think the whole cigarette industry persecution happen because some one slept with some one wife too many times, ya know, or some old fart politician got some one's daughter pregnant.
No they shouldn't. They should quit smoking and stop imposing the ill effects of smoke on non smokers. I was a smoker for 24 years and have quit for 5 years now. I haven't felt better in my life.
How about a lawsuit for not banning sugar? So many of us have bad teeth because of sweets...
The non smokers outweight the smokers. That is why I quit. I felt defeated and just went cold turkey.
Forget it, you will loooooooose big
smoking is a luxury of life. for most smokers a stress reliever. you cant sue the federal government because you fell down a cliff while hiking. you paid taxes to use those hiking trails but you got hurt while doing it. you cant sue because you make a mistake. smoking is a decision and if you have health threats from smoking and are going to let "addiction of cigarettes" control your fate, you do not have the will to live and nothing can change that. i am a smoker. i know that i will pay for it later in life but really, what choice has generations of freeloaders and irresponsible people left me to live with? a global warmed and dying planet where gas costs 2.75 a gallon and my smokes cost double that and it is getting worse and worse by the business day. i need my killer cigs to live man. if weed is legallized i will seriously be on a truth commercial myself.
In Iowa, the cigarette tax just went up $1.00 and it costs $4.85 for a pack of Marlboros.
Should we sue the government from profiting from our deadly addiction for so many years and then making it almost impossible to continue smoking? If so, on what grounds could we sue?
Answer:
Yeah. I'm with you part of the way. I smoke and I wouldn't sue because I can just quit. But there are lots of choices folks make daily that are unhealthy for them, it ticks me off to have some obese, alcoholic senator make the decision for me by ratcheting up the price to make himself look good participating in the latest witchhunt. Just wait 'til it is alcohol's turn. Makes me so mad I just gotta go grab a smoke to calm down.
No, we should ALL stop sueing everybody and take responsibility for ourselves and our health!
This is worse than the people that sue the cigarette companies because they smoke...
No one ever forced anyone to smoke. Furthermore, it says that smoking is bad for you right on the box.
I used to smoke, but quit. No one ever forced me to smoke.
Stop making Iowans sound stupid.
It's not the government's job to protect you from yourself.
Smoking is bad for you so you should quit. Your lack of will power isn't the government's fault.
The taxes are meant to discourage you from smoking, and most of the additional taxes where lobbied by people such as yourself.
You said yourself that they have made it "almost impossible to continue smoking". So don't you realize how insane your question is?
LOL. great question,I think hypocrisy is appropiate here.....I can see those senators now critizing the tobacco heads,asking them if cigarette smoking is addictive after raking in those billions of dollars................THEY COULD CARE LESS..........at least until that money is taken away from them...............
sue them ? my opion?
"negative discrimination". Automobiles have killed and maimed more people than all of the drugs: from cigarettes, pot, cocaine, heroin and so on... many, many more people killed and maimed by cars and they don't persecute the auto industry or those that support them like insurance companies, road building companies and so on. I really think the whole cigarette industry persecution happen because some one slept with some one wife too many times, ya know, or some old fart politician got some one's daughter pregnant.
No they shouldn't. They should quit smoking and stop imposing the ill effects of smoke on non smokers. I was a smoker for 24 years and have quit for 5 years now. I haven't felt better in my life.
How about a lawsuit for not banning sugar? So many of us have bad teeth because of sweets...
The non smokers outweight the smokers. That is why I quit. I felt defeated and just went cold turkey.
Forget it, you will loooooooose big
smoking is a luxury of life. for most smokers a stress reliever. you cant sue the federal government because you fell down a cliff while hiking. you paid taxes to use those hiking trails but you got hurt while doing it. you cant sue because you make a mistake. smoking is a decision and if you have health threats from smoking and are going to let "addiction of cigarettes" control your fate, you do not have the will to live and nothing can change that. i am a smoker. i know that i will pay for it later in life but really, what choice has generations of freeloaders and irresponsible people left me to live with? a global warmed and dying planet where gas costs 2.75 a gallon and my smokes cost double that and it is getting worse and worse by the business day. i need my killer cigs to live man. if weed is legallized i will seriously be on a truth commercial myself.
Should service of process protect privacy?
I used to work for a law firm; we always gave the process servers paperwork to be served in a sealed envelope to protect the privacy of individuals.
This doesn't happen now. Is service of process somehow exempt from providing a reasonable right to privacy? My neighbor was just served yesterday, although only his sister was home at the time. Apparently it was to advise him of a judgment, and an attached affidavit showed his name, (unlisted) phone number, and social security number. None of this was in an envelope, but available for anyone to see.
With identity theft becoming such a common problem, this certainly isn't a wise move. I can't see that it is ethical, but is this method of service really legal and approved?
For what it's worth, we are in Mesa, AZ. The company trying to collect is apparently not reputable, so he's fighting this. I don't have the resources I did, so if this provides additional ammunition, please advise! Thanks!
Answer:
In many states service is ineffective if it is in an envelope.
In CA where we serve process all legal papers must be plainly visible to the person being served. It protects us so we know EXACTLY what is being served and keeps us from being hauled into court by people claiming a certain document was not served and wasn't in the envelope.
All documents for service have the originals in the court file in the courthouse. All you have to do is head down to the court pull some files and you have all the info you need.
This doesn't happen now. Is service of process somehow exempt from providing a reasonable right to privacy? My neighbor was just served yesterday, although only his sister was home at the time. Apparently it was to advise him of a judgment, and an attached affidavit showed his name, (unlisted) phone number, and social security number. None of this was in an envelope, but available for anyone to see.
With identity theft becoming such a common problem, this certainly isn't a wise move. I can't see that it is ethical, but is this method of service really legal and approved?
For what it's worth, we are in Mesa, AZ. The company trying to collect is apparently not reputable, so he's fighting this. I don't have the resources I did, so if this provides additional ammunition, please advise! Thanks!
Answer:
In many states service is ineffective if it is in an envelope.
In CA where we serve process all legal papers must be plainly visible to the person being served. It protects us so we know EXACTLY what is being served and keeps us from being hauled into court by people claiming a certain document was not served and wasn't in the envelope.
All documents for service have the originals in the court file in the courthouse. All you have to do is head down to the court pull some files and you have all the info you need.
Should sentencing for murder and attempted murder be the same or different?
Say someone broke into a home, got into an altercation, stabbed the home owner, then flees, leaving the victim to die. Then someone comes over, sees a person dying, calls 911, and the victim survives.
The perp is caught and tried for attempted murder, and is convicted.
Should the attacker get a lighter sentence, seeing as the person's actions were identical to the actions of a murderer, and the one reason the victim lived was an unbelievable amount of luck that someone happened to show up?
Answer:
In reality they get a lighter sentence, but the intent is there so I think they should get the same punishment. Why should the sentence be lighter because of luck?
They're not the same...
based on the thumbs I'm getting, I'd say we have some dictators here on site, or more like the Inquisition
Sure ??
They should all get the lethal cocktail!!!
no, the intent to kill was always there, that's what should matter in sentencing.
In my opinion they should get the same penalty in the situation you described. But there would be no way of knowing for sure whether or not the victim would have survived if no one had shown up.
Different. Two different crimes should have two different punishments.
They are tried differently, but there are different degrees of murder and attempted murder...1st, 2nd and 3rd degree. Each one carries a different sentence.
/be-heading for either offense
They attempted to MURDER the person. No, they didn't kill them but they tried. Now, I don't think that qualifies for the death penalty but I think it does qualify for life without parole.
It is called frustrated when the person performed all the overt acts necessary for the commission of a crime but for reasons other than his own voluntary desistance the crime was not consummated.
It is consummated when the crime was actually committed.
It is attempted when one did not finish all the acts which will commit the crime, like attempting to stab a person but the thrust is parried.
An attempted crime has lesser penalty, with the consummated crime, the harshest. Frustrated ones have penalties higher than attempted but less than consummated ones.
The perp should be tried the same as if murder had been committed, it was sheer good luck that his victim survived.
The perp is caught and tried for attempted murder, and is convicted.
Should the attacker get a lighter sentence, seeing as the person's actions were identical to the actions of a murderer, and the one reason the victim lived was an unbelievable amount of luck that someone happened to show up?
Answer:
In reality they get a lighter sentence, but the intent is there so I think they should get the same punishment. Why should the sentence be lighter because of luck?
They're not the same...
based on the thumbs I'm getting, I'd say we have some dictators here on site, or more like the Inquisition
Sure ??
They should all get the lethal cocktail!!!
no, the intent to kill was always there, that's what should matter in sentencing.
In my opinion they should get the same penalty in the situation you described. But there would be no way of knowing for sure whether or not the victim would have survived if no one had shown up.
Different. Two different crimes should have two different punishments.
They are tried differently, but there are different degrees of murder and attempted murder...1st, 2nd and 3rd degree. Each one carries a different sentence.
/be-heading for either offense
They attempted to MURDER the person. No, they didn't kill them but they tried. Now, I don't think that qualifies for the death penalty but I think it does qualify for life without parole.
It is called frustrated when the person performed all the overt acts necessary for the commission of a crime but for reasons other than his own voluntary desistance the crime was not consummated.
It is consummated when the crime was actually committed.
It is attempted when one did not finish all the acts which will commit the crime, like attempting to stab a person but the thrust is parried.
An attempted crime has lesser penalty, with the consummated crime, the harshest. Frustrated ones have penalties higher than attempted but less than consummated ones.
The perp should be tried the same as if murder had been committed, it was sheer good luck that his victim survived.
Should Semi-Automatic weapons and/or clips with 10 or more rounds be outlawed?
While the Virginia Tech atrocity was the work of a seriously disturbed person, also significant were the weapons used by Cho Seung-Hui: semi-automatic pistols capable of rapid fire. Mass killers plan their rampages, and most choose semi-automatic handguns holding 10 or more rounds per clip.
Such weapons were not widely available in the US before the mid-1980s, since then the incidence of mass shootings has increased. It stands to reason that many less students would have died if Cho could only get access to smaller clips.
Answer:
That is terribly wrong and here's why...
High capacity magazines have ALWAYS been available through mail order from foreign countries and on the black market in this country. They are easy to make so many people made their own.
The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 did make these high capacity magazines illegal, however there were and will always be enough on the market to sustain criminals for many many years.
Banning such items only prevents me and any other honest person from owning them, even though if I really wanted to , I could illegally get it from at least 10 sources.
As far as the semi-automatic weapons go, the same rules apply. Why should I be restricted to only be allowed to carry a revolver with a five or six round capacity when criminals will always have rapid-fire semi-autos.
Is Marijuana and cocain not illegal? In ten minutes, if i chose to, I could probably have a pound and a half of the stuff. All it takes is money and connections. Criminals will always have those.
that won't stop anything at all. the gun user will simply carry more clips or more weapons in general.
I am against making any firearm illegal. I feel that every citizen has the constitutional right to own any firearm they can afford. With that, they also should immediately feel the consequenses of any harmful action. That means that if you use a gun in the commision of a crime, expect to die very quickly.
I would agree to the outlaw.
No. Quite simply it has nothing to do with nuts going berserk. I can unload a pump gun practically as fast as a semi auto, and a revolver can be emptied pretty quick. When you can demonstrate ANY where in this country gun restrictive laws have done anything to stop criminals, I might listen, but not very long.
how would this change anything? Guys.. it is not the guns... it is the screwed up person using the guns... you can outlaw all you want and guess what? If he wants it, he will still get it. Why does everyone think just because you make something law it will suddenly all go away? Cocaine is illegal... even larger bags of it, yet.....
Please stop and check history the first federal gun control act was 1932 and this was a requirement that a machine gun ( These shoot lots of bullets ) have a federal tax stamp. Large magazines or clips as you call them have been available since 1890. Dynamite and morphin was also not restricted.
yes they should be banned.
from '94-'04 we had a ban on assult weapons.
they have no other use but to kill and to kill massive amounts of people- you do not hunt with them and you do not defend your home or person with them
Such weapons were not widely available in the US before the mid-1980s, since then the incidence of mass shootings has increased. It stands to reason that many less students would have died if Cho could only get access to smaller clips.
Answer:
That is terribly wrong and here's why...
High capacity magazines have ALWAYS been available through mail order from foreign countries and on the black market in this country. They are easy to make so many people made their own.
The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 did make these high capacity magazines illegal, however there were and will always be enough on the market to sustain criminals for many many years.
Banning such items only prevents me and any other honest person from owning them, even though if I really wanted to , I could illegally get it from at least 10 sources.
As far as the semi-automatic weapons go, the same rules apply. Why should I be restricted to only be allowed to carry a revolver with a five or six round capacity when criminals will always have rapid-fire semi-autos.
Is Marijuana and cocain not illegal? In ten minutes, if i chose to, I could probably have a pound and a half of the stuff. All it takes is money and connections. Criminals will always have those.
that won't stop anything at all. the gun user will simply carry more clips or more weapons in general.
I am against making any firearm illegal. I feel that every citizen has the constitutional right to own any firearm they can afford. With that, they also should immediately feel the consequenses of any harmful action. That means that if you use a gun in the commision of a crime, expect to die very quickly.
I would agree to the outlaw.
No. Quite simply it has nothing to do with nuts going berserk. I can unload a pump gun practically as fast as a semi auto, and a revolver can be emptied pretty quick. When you can demonstrate ANY where in this country gun restrictive laws have done anything to stop criminals, I might listen, but not very long.
how would this change anything? Guys.. it is not the guns... it is the screwed up person using the guns... you can outlaw all you want and guess what? If he wants it, he will still get it. Why does everyone think just because you make something law it will suddenly all go away? Cocaine is illegal... even larger bags of it, yet.....
Please stop and check history the first federal gun control act was 1932 and this was a requirement that a machine gun ( These shoot lots of bullets ) have a federal tax stamp. Large magazines or clips as you call them have been available since 1890. Dynamite and morphin was also not restricted.
yes they should be banned.
from '94-'04 we had a ban on assult weapons.
they have no other use but to kill and to kill massive amounts of people- you do not hunt with them and you do not defend your home or person with them
Should schools be able to single you out if it only LOOKS like you might be doing something suspicious?
This is for a poll for a school project.
The school searched and accused a female student of being involved with and in possesion of drugs because she had been spotted ducking behind cars in the school parking lot while school was in session.
There was no reason other than pure speculation that she should have been accused of having anything to do with drugs.
Let me know what you think!!
Answer:
but did she have drugs? yes they should be able to
one answer. yes
one reason virgina tech
need i say more.
Suspicious activity warrants investigation.
Any search and seizure must have due cause. I have attended schools where they forced us to take our shoes off and empty the contents of our person on our desk. I can tell you now, I felt like I needed a warrant for what they were doing to us. I would say yes, with what you mentioned, but if it became abused I might go the otherway.
In light of what happened yesterday, YES!!! There is no GOOD reason to be ducking behind cars in the school parking lot when school is in session. Obviously she was up to something even if she was just skipping class.
If I were the school Police, I would check it out, just because she is a girl does not mean she is not doing something illegal or planning to do it, or maybe trying to skip, who knows. Yes, they do have a right to check it out as it is a suspicious situation, especially since school was still in session. They always shake you down for drugs in schools now days, and for good reasons. If you did nothing wrong, then why worry about it. By the way, what were you doing, just curious.
Maybe she was ducking bullets?!??! (sorry I just HAD to say that)
ZOMG! Yes! We all have to live in fear and panic from each other! (that was sarcasm BTW)
What your talking about is called Profiling. Sadly it is used as an excuse in alot of things.
Some examples ofr profiling are: All kids who wear black worship satan and do drugs. All intercity peoples smoke crack, all priest molest kids... the list goes on.
Profilling will NEVER stop. Speculation and conjecture will NEVER stop.
Such is life and you will just have to expect it. its UNFAIR yes, but speculation and profilng will never be stopped.
The school searched and accused a female student of being involved with and in possesion of drugs because she had been spotted ducking behind cars in the school parking lot while school was in session.
There was no reason other than pure speculation that she should have been accused of having anything to do with drugs.
Let me know what you think!!
Answer:
but did she have drugs? yes they should be able to
one answer. yes
one reason virgina tech
need i say more.
Suspicious activity warrants investigation.
Any search and seizure must have due cause. I have attended schools where they forced us to take our shoes off and empty the contents of our person on our desk. I can tell you now, I felt like I needed a warrant for what they were doing to us. I would say yes, with what you mentioned, but if it became abused I might go the otherway.
In light of what happened yesterday, YES!!! There is no GOOD reason to be ducking behind cars in the school parking lot when school is in session. Obviously she was up to something even if she was just skipping class.
If I were the school Police, I would check it out, just because she is a girl does not mean she is not doing something illegal or planning to do it, or maybe trying to skip, who knows. Yes, they do have a right to check it out as it is a suspicious situation, especially since school was still in session. They always shake you down for drugs in schools now days, and for good reasons. If you did nothing wrong, then why worry about it. By the way, what were you doing, just curious.
Maybe she was ducking bullets?!??! (sorry I just HAD to say that)
ZOMG! Yes! We all have to live in fear and panic from each other! (that was sarcasm BTW)
What your talking about is called Profiling. Sadly it is used as an excuse in alot of things.
Some examples ofr profiling are: All kids who wear black worship satan and do drugs. All intercity peoples smoke crack, all priest molest kids... the list goes on.
Profilling will NEVER stop. Speculation and conjecture will NEVER stop.
Such is life and you will just have to expect it. its UNFAIR yes, but speculation and profilng will never be stopped.
Should school children be allowed to carry & conceal?
And same with college students?
Wouldn't that prevent Columbine or VT style massacres?
The motto of the NRA is: "a society where everybody has a gun is a very polite society."
Also, "I better be tried by 12 than carried by 8."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news...
Answer:
School children do not have the same rights as adults, they should not be allowed to carry weapons.
Schools should stop announcing they are "no gun" zones. Schools should offer weapons training for teachers %26 administrators that want it and they should be allowed to carry a weapon.
It is these insane policies that need to be changed.
We also need to be able to committ people that have mental problems (even against their will if need be) and mental health information needs to be shared with law enforcement (especially for the purposes of registering firearms).
You can never prevent people from trying to murder people but you can make it more difficult and possibly reduce the casualties.
Just these few, simple %26 common sense changes can make a huge impact.
1) Elimiante "no gun" zones
2) Allow teachers to carry weapons.
3) Change mental health policies %26 reporting to law enforcement
Mine already do........"center mass",,,,
Oh yeah, my 12 year old packs heat every morning right after he packs a nice sandwich and cookies, and I make sure he has milk money.
What's the matter with you?
NO! look im all for the second amendment but i think we just need to keep the guns out of the crazies hands. Rathar than focus on makeing guns hard to get, how about focus on preventing them in places where they dont belong!
children, no, age 5-17
The adults charged with their protection during the mandated seperation from their parents: Yes
College Students of legal age to purchase and own, Yes
Yes, lets give all the 1st graders AK-47s. How ridiculously incompetent are you? The accidental discharge casualties would be higher than the death toll in Iraq. You are saying that we should give all the kids who are mentally unstable a weapon so when they have a bad day, they can go shoot a few people, then get shot themselves. You want to give people like the Columbine and VT shooters guns?
The NRA is a horrible organization. An society where everyone has a gun is a very polite, but extremely dangerous, society. Yes, everyone should have their fully automatic assault rifles with them at all times. Then maybe natural selection would get rid of all the people who come up with these stupid questions.
NO...the last thing we need is to bring back old wild west justice..especially when the (kids) are in a place like school where there's alot of stress. Leave it to the authorities!! I'd be more open to teachers and instructors carrying a sidearm like air marshalls do on planes for they would be mature enough to take the weapons training seriously and use better judgement. But kids have no business with a gun in schools!!
It seams sadly that only in America could such a question be asked and even sadder that it is thought that everybody carrying weapons makes for a safer place.
Please wake up America and stop wasting the lives of your young people just to appease the gun lobby.
although i have a carry permit for my compact 45, i would certainly not allow my prescooler to take it to school with her!! however, i do think that any full-grown, non-mental case, who can pass an extensive background check, and complete an intensive gun safety class should be able to carry a concealed gun anywhere withing reason, including a college campus! i would definitely rather be tried by tweleve than carried by eight!
Wouldn't that prevent Columbine or VT style massacres?
The motto of the NRA is: "a society where everybody has a gun is a very polite society."
Also, "I better be tried by 12 than carried by 8."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news...
Answer:
School children do not have the same rights as adults, they should not be allowed to carry weapons.
Schools should stop announcing they are "no gun" zones. Schools should offer weapons training for teachers %26 administrators that want it and they should be allowed to carry a weapon.
It is these insane policies that need to be changed.
We also need to be able to committ people that have mental problems (even against their will if need be) and mental health information needs to be shared with law enforcement (especially for the purposes of registering firearms).
You can never prevent people from trying to murder people but you can make it more difficult and possibly reduce the casualties.
Just these few, simple %26 common sense changes can make a huge impact.
1) Elimiante "no gun" zones
2) Allow teachers to carry weapons.
3) Change mental health policies %26 reporting to law enforcement
Mine already do........"center mass",,,,
Oh yeah, my 12 year old packs heat every morning right after he packs a nice sandwich and cookies, and I make sure he has milk money.
What's the matter with you?
NO! look im all for the second amendment but i think we just need to keep the guns out of the crazies hands. Rathar than focus on makeing guns hard to get, how about focus on preventing them in places where they dont belong!
children, no, age 5-17
The adults charged with their protection during the mandated seperation from their parents: Yes
College Students of legal age to purchase and own, Yes
Yes, lets give all the 1st graders AK-47s. How ridiculously incompetent are you? The accidental discharge casualties would be higher than the death toll in Iraq. You are saying that we should give all the kids who are mentally unstable a weapon so when they have a bad day, they can go shoot a few people, then get shot themselves. You want to give people like the Columbine and VT shooters guns?
The NRA is a horrible organization. An society where everyone has a gun is a very polite, but extremely dangerous, society. Yes, everyone should have their fully automatic assault rifles with them at all times. Then maybe natural selection would get rid of all the people who come up with these stupid questions.
NO...the last thing we need is to bring back old wild west justice..especially when the (kids) are in a place like school where there's alot of stress. Leave it to the authorities!! I'd be more open to teachers and instructors carrying a sidearm like air marshalls do on planes for they would be mature enough to take the weapons training seriously and use better judgement. But kids have no business with a gun in schools!!
It seams sadly that only in America could such a question be asked and even sadder that it is thought that everybody carrying weapons makes for a safer place.
Please wake up America and stop wasting the lives of your young people just to appease the gun lobby.
although i have a carry permit for my compact 45, i would certainly not allow my prescooler to take it to school with her!! however, i do think that any full-grown, non-mental case, who can pass an extensive background check, and complete an intensive gun safety class should be able to carry a concealed gun anywhere withing reason, including a college campus! i would definitely rather be tried by tweleve than carried by eight!
Should Republicans charged with a DUI/DWI be allowed to own/get guns?
It is quite obvious a drunk with a gun is as dangerous as a drunk with a car. And since most registered Republicans support the war and the right to own guns, I think we can connect the dots. At least most of us non-Fox News people.
Answer:
It depends on laws concerning dui and the ownership of a gun. If the dui results in commitment to a treatment facility'then I do not think they should be able to own a gun due to unstable mental health
No, what has one got to do with the other?
is not it enough to lose your driver's license and pay a high insurance rate?
well, to each his own
This question is so ludicrous,I can't even rise up to bash you
lets just have a day where drunks can drive drunk, and another when drunks can walk down the street with guns, this should eentualy eliminate the problem while keeping inocent people safe.
I am curious, why didn't you do this for everyone? Why just the Republicans?
Honestly, I believe that DUI/DWI should be equal across the board with license forfeiture, since licenses are not a right, but a privilege.
Firearm ownership is not a privilege, it is a right and therefore not subject to the same rules. But, that being said, all of our rights also carry responsibilities and they are not divorced from each other.
The 1st amendment is not without it's responsibilities, and neither is the 2nd. By exorcising these rights we agree to engage in these in a responsible and respectful manner.
I sure can't connect your dots in any logical manner to even understand what the question is. Too much Brit Hume, I guess.
Answer:
It depends on laws concerning dui and the ownership of a gun. If the dui results in commitment to a treatment facility'then I do not think they should be able to own a gun due to unstable mental health
No, what has one got to do with the other?
is not it enough to lose your driver's license and pay a high insurance rate?
well, to each his own
This question is so ludicrous,I can't even rise up to bash you
lets just have a day where drunks can drive drunk, and another when drunks can walk down the street with guns, this should eentualy eliminate the problem while keeping inocent people safe.
I am curious, why didn't you do this for everyone? Why just the Republicans?
Honestly, I believe that DUI/DWI should be equal across the board with license forfeiture, since licenses are not a right, but a privilege.
Firearm ownership is not a privilege, it is a right and therefore not subject to the same rules. But, that being said, all of our rights also carry responsibilities and they are not divorced from each other.
The 1st amendment is not without it's responsibilities, and neither is the 2nd. By exorcising these rights we agree to engage in these in a responsible and respectful manner.
I sure can't connect your dots in any logical manner to even understand what the question is. Too much Brit Hume, I guess.
Should race be a consideration in college admissions and how can it relate to a larger issue?
Answer:
no
No
no it shouldn't, but it does. It relates to affirmative action.
no.. but academics should
Yes. Because otherwise in 2050 there will be more spanish and black people then there will be white people, but white people will still hold a huge majority of the high paying jobs. This is a problem Just ask South Africa.
The race selection needs to be dropped on all forms. It makes no difference. If someone is getting hired or accepted to a school, what difference does it make as to what race they are? If their scores are adequate, then they are adequate and that's all that matters.
(I'm white)
No. If you are smart you wont have a problem and before someone says minorities dont go to as good of schools thats bs too because not everbody at that school is always a minority.
yes, like chris rock said... white people had a 400 hundred year head start. On top of that blacks in america still aren't equal. Racism in America is still alive and well. I promise you the number of times you get discriminated against and held back from succeeding because you're black far outweight anything affirmative action can do for you.
I would say no, but I heard A speach on the subject from both Jesse Jackson and George W bush. If The college gives preference to the son of an alumni, They should give the same criteria of entrance for underrepresented people. If they don't , it would be another Jim Crow Law. I hate race base criteria in General. All seem to discriminate a different race, even though they are the most qualified. When I went to college, California actively discriminate against Jews and CHinese. Now it seems worse. I know African AMericans who has difficulty , beause they have a hard time selecting High school. The UC system decided to select the top 10% of each High school. That way they would have a more diverse group of students. THe problem was that my African American friend do not want to send her children in a prodominantly African American High school because of the lower education standard, but don't want to send her to a better high school, because her children would have a lesser chance to getting into the UC system.
Should Prostitution be illegal?
Keep prostitution illegal and keep the S.T.D's, rapes and murders or legalize prostitution, regulate it and ilmenite most of the diseases and crime.
What do you think would be better?
Answer:
no
The criminalization of prostitution corresponds directly with women's suffrage. There is no way prostitution will ever be legal again unless women were to lose the right to vote.
if you legalize prostitution it wont change rape murders and crime. people would still die from stds and what about the prostitutes? they still get raped and killed
well, i guess if it were legalized at least the government could keep checks on it to prevent disease spread... *shrugs*
definitely legalize and monitor for diseases regularly as is done in other countries. it makes sense to do it that way because the issue isn't going away and it would be safer for the girls and the clients.
wow which planet spawned this genious. Not only has the brain of a slug but can't spell.
Just hang out with easy women. As long as you pay them with drinks, no crime is committed and you end up spending less.
If prostitution was legalized, then we could keep the prostitutes in buildings instead of on the street. We also could keep them more safe because the only time there is a rape or murder is if the person believes that they wouldn't get caught. Look at the Bunny Ranch. How many rape cases are there? None. How many murders? None. Plus your children would have to see a half naked whore on the street.
Several counties in Nevada have legalized prostitution, and they have a much lower occurrence of STD's than the rest of the population. All the men customers wear condoms and there is no exchange of bodily fluids (no kissing on the mouth). All the women "workers" have to submit to regular testing.
Legalize it, regulate it, and tax the hell out of it.
Yes it should be legalized but thats just a boys dream !
Personally, I think it should be legalized, on the condition that it be licensed and regulated. Prostitutes would need a business license, and regular medical exams and must use rubbers.
Individuals who contracted diseases would have thier license revoked and wouldn't be allowed to work until they recieved a clean bill of health.
The money made by state and local governments could be used to fund social programs or anything that would help relieve the burden placed on financially strapped state and local governments.
The biggest flaw in your post is people will contract STD's regardless of prostituions legality. Secondly, it's doubtful that legalizing prostitution will eliminate the number of rapes and murders.
How would legalizing prostitution eliminate disease ? If a prostitute picks up a disease, she can pass it on to many many others before it's detected.
Inspections would help if a woman would be thoroughly examined and tested after each sale. Each "house" would have to have a dozen doctors on the payroll at all hours.
It's time don't ya think? It's only the oldest profession in the world and dates back to the Biblical times.
whAT about the drugs they do before they hit the street?
You're REALLY oversimplifying this, man. If prostitution were legal, who's to say that there still wouldn't be illegal means of becoming a prostitute? It's not as clearly drawn as a model for the legalization of drugs, where you can make the clear prediction that the danger issue of contaminated drugs will be taken care of, the underground economy will be undermined and there will be a regulated market price for a particular substance. Being subject to the individual's actions, prostitution ISN'T as easily managable or predictable. NO. they shouldn't legalize prostitution in the effort to quel murders or rapes...or STD's, for that matter. STDs are spread by waaayyy more people than prostitutes. (university campuses are really very high in STD numbers.)
What do you think would be better?
Answer:
no
The criminalization of prostitution corresponds directly with women's suffrage. There is no way prostitution will ever be legal again unless women were to lose the right to vote.
if you legalize prostitution it wont change rape murders and crime. people would still die from stds and what about the prostitutes? they still get raped and killed
well, i guess if it were legalized at least the government could keep checks on it to prevent disease spread... *shrugs*
definitely legalize and monitor for diseases regularly as is done in other countries. it makes sense to do it that way because the issue isn't going away and it would be safer for the girls and the clients.
wow which planet spawned this genious. Not only has the brain of a slug but can't spell.
Just hang out with easy women. As long as you pay them with drinks, no crime is committed and you end up spending less.
If prostitution was legalized, then we could keep the prostitutes in buildings instead of on the street. We also could keep them more safe because the only time there is a rape or murder is if the person believes that they wouldn't get caught. Look at the Bunny Ranch. How many rape cases are there? None. How many murders? None. Plus your children would have to see a half naked whore on the street.
Several counties in Nevada have legalized prostitution, and they have a much lower occurrence of STD's than the rest of the population. All the men customers wear condoms and there is no exchange of bodily fluids (no kissing on the mouth). All the women "workers" have to submit to regular testing.
Legalize it, regulate it, and tax the hell out of it.
Yes it should be legalized but thats just a boys dream !
Personally, I think it should be legalized, on the condition that it be licensed and regulated. Prostitutes would need a business license, and regular medical exams and must use rubbers.
Individuals who contracted diseases would have thier license revoked and wouldn't be allowed to work until they recieved a clean bill of health.
The money made by state and local governments could be used to fund social programs or anything that would help relieve the burden placed on financially strapped state and local governments.
The biggest flaw in your post is people will contract STD's regardless of prostituions legality. Secondly, it's doubtful that legalizing prostitution will eliminate the number of rapes and murders.
How would legalizing prostitution eliminate disease ? If a prostitute picks up a disease, she can pass it on to many many others before it's detected.
Inspections would help if a woman would be thoroughly examined and tested after each sale. Each "house" would have to have a dozen doctors on the payroll at all hours.
It's time don't ya think? It's only the oldest profession in the world and dates back to the Biblical times.
whAT about the drugs they do before they hit the street?
You're REALLY oversimplifying this, man. If prostitution were legal, who's to say that there still wouldn't be illegal means of becoming a prostitute? It's not as clearly drawn as a model for the legalization of drugs, where you can make the clear prediction that the danger issue of contaminated drugs will be taken care of, the underground economy will be undermined and there will be a regulated market price for a particular substance. Being subject to the individual's actions, prostitution ISN'T as easily managable or predictable. NO. they shouldn't legalize prostitution in the effort to quel murders or rapes...or STD's, for that matter. STDs are spread by waaayyy more people than prostitutes. (university campuses are really very high in STD numbers.)
Should prosecutors have to pay if they wrongly convict someone.?
I mean if there is a doubt and they still prosecute, should they be suspended or fined if they are wrong?
A lot of this is coming up with DNA these days
Answer:
I believe that prosecutor should pay a price only if they are flagrantly wrong. There should be know penalty for getting it wrong.
I am from Oklahoma City and the DA Bob Macy convicted an innocent man who was cleared twenty years later by DNA. Although I have the deepest sympathy for the apartment maintenance man who life was ruined I believe that Macy acted in good faith and a normal person would have felt that he was guilty. Under that circumstance; he should not be held accountable.
The Duke case was a different ball of wax; he knew they were innocent but went after them for political gain. He should not only pay the heavy cost that their parents had to pay for legal bills but he should be subjected to the same prison sentences that the Lacrosse players faced.
The scary part of this case is that it severely hurt some of the families financially they were able to hire the best counsel. If this had happened to someone of an average income they would be in prison.
No. It's hard enough to convict a guilty person today. If you can manage to convict an innocent one, man, you are one good prosecutor!
No they need the freedom to prosecute vigourously and without worrying about consequenses.
I think the Defending lawyers should be punished if they fail to defend an innocent person.
They're just doing their jobs. They are not supposed to determine whether you are innocent, just make sure that the jury doesn't believe that.
i agree they should pay and everyone else who had anything to do with the conviction. They flirt with peoples lives like it is a video game or something. They know how to get a conviction.
RJ
It is the job of prosecuters to prosecute - it is up to a judge or jury to convict someone. There is almost never a completely air tight case, unless someone confesses, and sometimes not even then - so to suggest that a prosecuter shouldn't prosecute someone just becuase there is doubt about the person's guilt?!? Of course they shouldn't have to pay for doing their job!!!
yes - if they had reason to believe they were wrongfully prosecuting someone, like in the duke case, then they should have consequences...
not just some doubt though...like a lot of doubt...
No- not at all. It's their job to make the strongest possible case out of the evidence available. They shouldn't be penalized because technology that didn't exist at the time provided further evidence.
Prosecuters do NOT convict people...juries do
Yes they should. The whole court system could be held accountable for thier actions. This would ensure fair justice. Currently the system goes on the who cares if your innocent ideology give me your money your guilty.
not personally if they acted in good faith. But people who are wrongfully convicted shoulr be compensated for loss of reputation, leagal expenses and jail time by the jurisdiction that prosecuted them.
Only if the Prosecutor is found guilty of criminal misconduct.
Criminal court is not about who is right or wrong. It is not about true or false. It is about proving a case or not proving a case. If someone is acquitted it does not mean he did not commit the crime. Just because someone is convicted it does not mean he committed the crime.
.
No. There are several individuals in the production line and any one of them may have overlooked some vital evidence of put forward misleading facts. Which one of them would you blame? Where a vital evidence is withheld either by a police officer or a lawyer, then the person concerned is dealt with through disciplinary proceedings and in extreme cases could be charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Where a prosecutor is simply doing a job conscientiously, then he or she does not deserve to be punished. Where a prosecutor in court does feel on reasonable grounds that there is a problem of this kind, then he or she has to check with a superior before abandoning a case. It is not always a matter of personal choice.
Proscecuters work on behalf of the state, so the state is what gets sued. That is why when a case is called they say " The State vs...".
Prosecutors don't convict anyone. That decision is made by a judge or jury. If the evidence is there to satisfy those folks beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecutor is doing his/her job. On the other hand, if a prosecutor withholds potentially exculpatory evidence from the defense or in some other way manipulates evidence to obtain a conviction, they can and should be prosecuted and disbarred (think Duke Lacrosse case).
out the a** my dear, but only they can lie and get away with shi*. its the state tho that should pay, since they all work for the state, although in a jury trial, its hard to say.
A lot of this is coming up with DNA these days
Answer:
I believe that prosecutor should pay a price only if they are flagrantly wrong. There should be know penalty for getting it wrong.
I am from Oklahoma City and the DA Bob Macy convicted an innocent man who was cleared twenty years later by DNA. Although I have the deepest sympathy for the apartment maintenance man who life was ruined I believe that Macy acted in good faith and a normal person would have felt that he was guilty. Under that circumstance; he should not be held accountable.
The Duke case was a different ball of wax; he knew they were innocent but went after them for political gain. He should not only pay the heavy cost that their parents had to pay for legal bills but he should be subjected to the same prison sentences that the Lacrosse players faced.
The scary part of this case is that it severely hurt some of the families financially they were able to hire the best counsel. If this had happened to someone of an average income they would be in prison.
No. It's hard enough to convict a guilty person today. If you can manage to convict an innocent one, man, you are one good prosecutor!
No they need the freedom to prosecute vigourously and without worrying about consequenses.
I think the Defending lawyers should be punished if they fail to defend an innocent person.
They're just doing their jobs. They are not supposed to determine whether you are innocent, just make sure that the jury doesn't believe that.
i agree they should pay and everyone else who had anything to do with the conviction. They flirt with peoples lives like it is a video game or something. They know how to get a conviction.
RJ
It is the job of prosecuters to prosecute - it is up to a judge or jury to convict someone. There is almost never a completely air tight case, unless someone confesses, and sometimes not even then - so to suggest that a prosecuter shouldn't prosecute someone just becuase there is doubt about the person's guilt?!? Of course they shouldn't have to pay for doing their job!!!
yes - if they had reason to believe they were wrongfully prosecuting someone, like in the duke case, then they should have consequences...
not just some doubt though...like a lot of doubt...
No- not at all. It's their job to make the strongest possible case out of the evidence available. They shouldn't be penalized because technology that didn't exist at the time provided further evidence.
Prosecuters do NOT convict people...juries do
Yes they should. The whole court system could be held accountable for thier actions. This would ensure fair justice. Currently the system goes on the who cares if your innocent ideology give me your money your guilty.
not personally if they acted in good faith. But people who are wrongfully convicted shoulr be compensated for loss of reputation, leagal expenses and jail time by the jurisdiction that prosecuted them.
Only if the Prosecutor is found guilty of criminal misconduct.
Criminal court is not about who is right or wrong. It is not about true or false. It is about proving a case or not proving a case. If someone is acquitted it does not mean he did not commit the crime. Just because someone is convicted it does not mean he committed the crime.
.
No. There are several individuals in the production line and any one of them may have overlooked some vital evidence of put forward misleading facts. Which one of them would you blame? Where a vital evidence is withheld either by a police officer or a lawyer, then the person concerned is dealt with through disciplinary proceedings and in extreme cases could be charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Where a prosecutor is simply doing a job conscientiously, then he or she does not deserve to be punished. Where a prosecutor in court does feel on reasonable grounds that there is a problem of this kind, then he or she has to check with a superior before abandoning a case. It is not always a matter of personal choice.
Proscecuters work on behalf of the state, so the state is what gets sued. That is why when a case is called they say " The State vs...".
Prosecutors don't convict anyone. That decision is made by a judge or jury. If the evidence is there to satisfy those folks beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecutor is doing his/her job. On the other hand, if a prosecutor withholds potentially exculpatory evidence from the defense or in some other way manipulates evidence to obtain a conviction, they can and should be prosecuted and disbarred (think Duke Lacrosse case).
out the a** my dear, but only they can lie and get away with shi*. its the state tho that should pay, since they all work for the state, although in a jury trial, its hard to say.
Should profits come before humanity??
Answer:
Should the humanity of one nation come before the humanity of another?
Ask Dick Cheney.
I say no but I'm sure the rotten people getting fat off of the high gas prices would say yes.
Who truly needs to make 9 BILLION dollars in profit? By my standard anyone who makes 6 figures in one year is extremely wealthy.
OOOOO I better get off my soap box before Yahoo! suspends me.
If you are a business man, YES, if not, NO. You learn this in economy courses, no man ever decide to become a business man, or to take any risk, without having some certainty that he`ll get profits, if he`ll not get profits, he won`t do it. So YES, for the person that chose this proffesion, profits comes first.
They probably "should" not. There are a LOT of things that "should" not be.
No. You have to set standards and have ethics. Some people would sell their gramma and their soul for money. Look at the Bush administration. He has not yet figured out he does not work for Halliburton.
Your quesiton is rhetorical. It is based on an assumption that profits and humanity are mutually exclusive. One of the contributors has already jumped on the bandwagon and declared, in essence, that to be a businessman is to be inhumane. (So, the only way to practice humanity is to be a bum? After all, even if you work as a government functionary, you are still selling your services at a profit, however small.)
In any event, since the question appears in "law and ethics", I think the more interesting inquiry would be: Can you legally obligate people to be humane? But then, to what extent can you legislate morality before such laws become inhumane in and of themselves?
Is a society which outlaws profits humane by definition? I grew up in a country where profits were against the law. In fact, in many cases, profiteering was punishable by death. Nevertheless, it was one of the most INhumane societies the world has ever known.
What do you do about situations when people have conflicting interests? A case in point: I once worked at a law firm which had a 90-year-old secretary. She had worked for the same law firm for over 40 years. This secretary was wealthy (her husband had been a successful patent lawyer and left her a handsome fortune), so it's not like she needed money. However, one of her sons had died, the other was estranged and lived far away. She was extremely lonely, and work was the only thing in her life that still gave it meaning. One of the partners, who had known her all his life, since the Stone Age when she worked for his father, was willing to pay her a pension, but simply didn't have the heart to tell her not to come to work anymore. The problem was, unfortunately, that she was no longer competent: she made mistakes all the time, misfiled papers, messed up letters that were dictated to her in various ways too numerous to list here, lost files and evidence. I cannot tell you how many times she made messes so horrendous that it later took LAWYERS to litigate for months to correct her errors; and some errors, unfortunately, could not be corrected at all (and mind you, the ones who suffered most from them were the clients). So here is the dilemma: by keeping her on the job, the firm was certainly humane TO HER; but it was being inhumane to the clients, whose cases became compromised as a result of her working on them.
Should profiling be illegalised at least in some states?
By profiling i mean using data compiled by credit reporting agencies and consumer reporting agencies to determine the character of a person, there are also many other ways to create a profile like "myspace". If people can get enough data on you don't you think they can compromise you somehow and take advantage. I think the initial intent of credit reports was noble but now it can be used to other means and with hackers running rampant anyone can get your credit report info.
Answer:
Yes, and further the credit reporting agencies should be illegal.
But they probably wouldn't even exist if the law was enforced. A SS card is not to be used for identification, the SSN is for the use of, and is property of, the SSA, etc., etc.
42 USC 搂 408. Penalties
'(a) In general
Whoever -
(8) discloses, uses, or compels the disclosure of the social security number of any person in violation of the laws of the United States; shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.
For me, yes. Anyone else, no.
I know what profiling is but what's illegalised?
Answer:
Yes, and further the credit reporting agencies should be illegal.
But they probably wouldn't even exist if the law was enforced. A SS card is not to be used for identification, the SSN is for the use of, and is property of, the SSA, etc., etc.
42 USC 搂 408. Penalties
'(a) In general
Whoever -
(8) discloses, uses, or compels the disclosure of the social security number of any person in violation of the laws of the United States; shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.
For me, yes. Anyone else, no.
I know what profiling is but what's illegalised?
Should private firearm ownership be banned in the United States?
Why or why not?
Pretty cool debate, lots of reasons for each side.
What do you think
Answer:
There is one overriding reason that firearms cannot be banned; The United States Constitution! Unless you change that all talk is moot but if you want to get into it... I read some of the answers here and I agree with most of them. Some things I don't agree with: England has a ban on guns and yet they have the IRA and gun crimes are increasing. In the 18th century a competent soldier and marksman could load and fire in about 20 to 30 seconds, not 2 minutes. Of course, a person could always carry more than one gun like the Missouri bushwackers did during the War between the States. Many bushwackers carried as many as 7 pistols and a rifle or shotgun! Banning high capacity magazines won't work because of that. VT the *** who did the killing fired way too many rounds to be competent and all it would have taken was one armed student to stop him. Banning guns would place all of us at the mercy of criminals and a corrupt, oppressive government. I mean a real oppressive government like Saddam Hussein or Hitler.
It could work.
There would be more crime at first,
but I predict that it would dwindle down to zilch within a few years.
No, why would someone want people to be defenseless against criminals?
Criminals get guns illegally...
probably not
I would like to ask the person who thinks their gun gives them freedom what they would do to protect themselves from the government, because that is the argument they use%26#92;
a gun could help you if you are in a bind, but it will do nothing for you if the government turns on you.
Honestly, I do think it should be banned. Or at least controlled to the highest extent possible.
People don't realize the numbers of gun crimes in America, and the fact that those numbers are growing by the hour. They don't realize that guns kill just as much as the people who shoot them. They don't realize that having them available and under such laxity, that they can get into the hands of a crazed and metal person, and tragedy can happen. Look at VT and the recent events. That's the exact reason why they should be controlled and banned.
No. But only citizens should be allowed to own guns. Not illegals or people here on a work or school visa. I hate to say that...but I believe it. I also believe it may be time for Americans to beef up on gun ownership.Again..I hate it! But, I believe it!
No. Even a communist like me understands that the second amendment is legitimate.
That said, we don't live in the 18th century when it took 2 minutes to prepare a gun to fire. So, as with the evolution of firearms the rules that govern their ownership should also evolve. No one needs an M-16 to kill a deer or the dude stealing their television.
of course not.you want only criminals to own guns.I think you should live in the moon,ciao baby
No.
The right to bear arms shall not be infringed....sound familiar?
Heck no I'm one of those who believes the constitution needs to be upheld including the amendments. I don't really think people should be allowed to own a weapons cache big enough to level war on a small country, but i like guns in general as long as they aren't in criminal hands. It seems unfair to ban all guns since many only own hunting weapons which there is no apparent reason to ban. Oh yeah if you would like to know i'm a pretty liberal guy so i don't follow the party line.
No.
Banning private firearm ownership strips a law-abiding citizen from protection against a criminal, which as someone earlier said, will get guns illegally.
The Virginia Tech shooting could have been stopped much sooner had someone else brought a gun and been able to stop him.
it would never work it's protected by the amemndment "the right to bear arms." and it's best for some peoples safety. it would not help too much with stopping violence and crimes simce there are still knives and bombs and other weapons. so it'd just be pointless to waste time no trying to do
Well, why stop at our constitutional right to bear arms. Why not start telling folks they do not have a right to own property if they do not meet government guidelines. Maybe they can tell us who is legal to have a child. I am not a gun freak, I personally have no use for them. I believe the old "Outlaw guns, and only outlaws will have guns." Controls, yes. Why not start with getting the firepower that is more deadly than our Policemen carry. Start with some bite on automatic and even semi-automatic guns. I don't think anyone needs that for hunting or any other valid reason.
No, because you have had guns for too long, so if you take them away now, you will only take them away from the honest people.
Our government here in Australia had a knee jerk reaction after Martin Bryant murdered all those people in Port Arthur, Tasmania, they spent millions buying back guns, often old and useless and I will bet you anything that none of them were from the villains, they just kept them hidden until they have a use for them.
So the only people that finish up defenceless are honest people!
Never! and the day it happens is the day we will no longer be a constitutional government. The reason we have the rights to keep and BARE arms is to protect us from not only foreign powers that the military may not be able to protect us from, but to also to protect us from ourselves (criminals and our own government if need be). The moment we surrender our right to protect ourselves is the moment we surrender our freedom.
no,it should not be banned.i would like to defend my family and everything i've worked for,against someone who thinks he or she has the right to help themselves.
I say no as well.
But even if you banned them, there would still be guns, and gun crime.
That would certainly make criminals happy and those in the government who want absolute power so I guess it just depends on where one stands.
yes i am doing a debate on that and its not just people be defenceless its about other people killing inocent people like the ohio tech thing those people couldnt carry guns to school any way so they were defenceless anyhow.
Pretty cool debate, lots of reasons for each side.
What do you think
Answer:
There is one overriding reason that firearms cannot be banned; The United States Constitution! Unless you change that all talk is moot but if you want to get into it... I read some of the answers here and I agree with most of them. Some things I don't agree with: England has a ban on guns and yet they have the IRA and gun crimes are increasing. In the 18th century a competent soldier and marksman could load and fire in about 20 to 30 seconds, not 2 minutes. Of course, a person could always carry more than one gun like the Missouri bushwackers did during the War between the States. Many bushwackers carried as many as 7 pistols and a rifle or shotgun! Banning high capacity magazines won't work because of that. VT the *** who did the killing fired way too many rounds to be competent and all it would have taken was one armed student to stop him. Banning guns would place all of us at the mercy of criminals and a corrupt, oppressive government. I mean a real oppressive government like Saddam Hussein or Hitler.
It could work.
There would be more crime at first,
but I predict that it would dwindle down to zilch within a few years.
No, why would someone want people to be defenseless against criminals?
Criminals get guns illegally...
probably not
I would like to ask the person who thinks their gun gives them freedom what they would do to protect themselves from the government, because that is the argument they use%26#92;
a gun could help you if you are in a bind, but it will do nothing for you if the government turns on you.
Honestly, I do think it should be banned. Or at least controlled to the highest extent possible.
People don't realize the numbers of gun crimes in America, and the fact that those numbers are growing by the hour. They don't realize that guns kill just as much as the people who shoot them. They don't realize that having them available and under such laxity, that they can get into the hands of a crazed and metal person, and tragedy can happen. Look at VT and the recent events. That's the exact reason why they should be controlled and banned.
No. But only citizens should be allowed to own guns. Not illegals or people here on a work or school visa. I hate to say that...but I believe it. I also believe it may be time for Americans to beef up on gun ownership.Again..I hate it! But, I believe it!
No. Even a communist like me understands that the second amendment is legitimate.
That said, we don't live in the 18th century when it took 2 minutes to prepare a gun to fire. So, as with the evolution of firearms the rules that govern their ownership should also evolve. No one needs an M-16 to kill a deer or the dude stealing their television.
of course not.you want only criminals to own guns.I think you should live in the moon,ciao baby
No.
The right to bear arms shall not be infringed....sound familiar?
Heck no I'm one of those who believes the constitution needs to be upheld including the amendments. I don't really think people should be allowed to own a weapons cache big enough to level war on a small country, but i like guns in general as long as they aren't in criminal hands. It seems unfair to ban all guns since many only own hunting weapons which there is no apparent reason to ban. Oh yeah if you would like to know i'm a pretty liberal guy so i don't follow the party line.
No.
Banning private firearm ownership strips a law-abiding citizen from protection against a criminal, which as someone earlier said, will get guns illegally.
The Virginia Tech shooting could have been stopped much sooner had someone else brought a gun and been able to stop him.
it would never work it's protected by the amemndment "the right to bear arms." and it's best for some peoples safety. it would not help too much with stopping violence and crimes simce there are still knives and bombs and other weapons. so it'd just be pointless to waste time no trying to do
Well, why stop at our constitutional right to bear arms. Why not start telling folks they do not have a right to own property if they do not meet government guidelines. Maybe they can tell us who is legal to have a child. I am not a gun freak, I personally have no use for them. I believe the old "Outlaw guns, and only outlaws will have guns." Controls, yes. Why not start with getting the firepower that is more deadly than our Policemen carry. Start with some bite on automatic and even semi-automatic guns. I don't think anyone needs that for hunting or any other valid reason.
No, because you have had guns for too long, so if you take them away now, you will only take them away from the honest people.
Our government here in Australia had a knee jerk reaction after Martin Bryant murdered all those people in Port Arthur, Tasmania, they spent millions buying back guns, often old and useless and I will bet you anything that none of them were from the villains, they just kept them hidden until they have a use for them.
So the only people that finish up defenceless are honest people!
Never! and the day it happens is the day we will no longer be a constitutional government. The reason we have the rights to keep and BARE arms is to protect us from not only foreign powers that the military may not be able to protect us from, but to also to protect us from ourselves (criminals and our own government if need be). The moment we surrender our right to protect ourselves is the moment we surrender our freedom.
no,it should not be banned.i would like to defend my family and everything i've worked for,against someone who thinks he or she has the right to help themselves.
I say no as well.
But even if you banned them, there would still be guns, and gun crime.
That would certainly make criminals happy and those in the government who want absolute power so I guess it just depends on where one stands.
yes i am doing a debate on that and its not just people be defenceless its about other people killing inocent people like the ohio tech thing those people couldnt carry guns to school any way so they were defenceless anyhow.
Should private firearm ownership be banned in the United States?
Interesting debate. Thanks for any answers.
Answer:
John Stossel(of 20/20 fame) actually showed that violent crimes increase in areas where guns have been banned, because the criminals know for a fact that the law abiding citizens will be unarmed. As mafia turncoat Sammy 'the Bull' Gravano said, "Gun control? It鈥檚 the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I鈥檓 a bad guy, I鈥檓 always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You pull the trigger with a lock on, and I鈥檒l pull the trigger. We鈥檒l see who wins."
no. that would be unconstitutional.
no, it is a basic freedom.
Nope. Against the 2nd Amendment. Any such ban would be struck down by the courts.
That subject is so dead, it has quit smelling. There is no way the U.S. will ever ban private ownership of firearms, ever
absolutely NOT!
It would never pass, and yes, it is considered by most to be unconstitutional.
No, no a thousand times no.
You cant put the genie back in the bottle, guns will always be available and criminals will always have them. The question is do the law abiding among us want to be able to arm ourselves against them.
Simple answer. No.
Complex. Tighter gun control laws are needed, but a complete ban is unrealistic.
Case in point, the killing of the mayor of Osaka in Japan. Killed by a senior member of the Yakuza.
Total ban on firearms in Japan, yet according to news reports, the Yakuza have firearms and that's what killed the mayor.
Problem is not with firearm ownership but the control of the firearms.
Not No But He** No..................
please see Amendment II of the Constitution
No one wants to mess with the constitution -
well bush did for a little while, then he found out he wasn't a King.
The 2nd Amendment clearly states that I have the right to protect my home and my family by owning a firearm. Which I do. I'll be damn if I'm gonna let someone come into my home unwelcome and rape my wife and daughter before they make off with all of my possessions and never get caught. I don't care what anyone else thinks, but I refuse to let that happen to my family, even if I have to go to jail for it.
Absolutely not. If we ever find ourselves with another majority congress rubberstamping for a president of equally dubious intention to that of George W. Bush, but superior intellect, our guns may be our last line of defense against dictatorship. That's why the Framers included the 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights. It's a last resort, but an important one to keep around. Remember that armed revolution wasn't hypothetical for those guys, they had just accomplished one, and fully understood it's importance.
not while the tools and knowledge to make them is still available. That has to be delt with at the same time. They're here and not going away.
No! With all the Illegal Alein and everything and everybody else with No protection from Government, granting Amnesty to Criminals from Abroad.... I should say not. I was anti gun before Not now!
Answer:
John Stossel(of 20/20 fame) actually showed that violent crimes increase in areas where guns have been banned, because the criminals know for a fact that the law abiding citizens will be unarmed. As mafia turncoat Sammy 'the Bull' Gravano said, "Gun control? It鈥檚 the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I鈥檓 a bad guy, I鈥檓 always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You pull the trigger with a lock on, and I鈥檒l pull the trigger. We鈥檒l see who wins."
no. that would be unconstitutional.
no, it is a basic freedom.
Nope. Against the 2nd Amendment. Any such ban would be struck down by the courts.
That subject is so dead, it has quit smelling. There is no way the U.S. will ever ban private ownership of firearms, ever
absolutely NOT!
It would never pass, and yes, it is considered by most to be unconstitutional.
No, no a thousand times no.
You cant put the genie back in the bottle, guns will always be available and criminals will always have them. The question is do the law abiding among us want to be able to arm ourselves against them.
Simple answer. No.
Complex. Tighter gun control laws are needed, but a complete ban is unrealistic.
Case in point, the killing of the mayor of Osaka in Japan. Killed by a senior member of the Yakuza.
Total ban on firearms in Japan, yet according to news reports, the Yakuza have firearms and that's what killed the mayor.
Problem is not with firearm ownership but the control of the firearms.
Not No But He** No..................
please see Amendment II of the Constitution
No one wants to mess with the constitution -
well bush did for a little while, then he found out he wasn't a King.
The 2nd Amendment clearly states that I have the right to protect my home and my family by owning a firearm. Which I do. I'll be damn if I'm gonna let someone come into my home unwelcome and rape my wife and daughter before they make off with all of my possessions and never get caught. I don't care what anyone else thinks, but I refuse to let that happen to my family, even if I have to go to jail for it.
Absolutely not. If we ever find ourselves with another majority congress rubberstamping for a president of equally dubious intention to that of George W. Bush, but superior intellect, our guns may be our last line of defense against dictatorship. That's why the Framers included the 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights. It's a last resort, but an important one to keep around. Remember that armed revolution wasn't hypothetical for those guys, they had just accomplished one, and fully understood it's importance.
not while the tools and knowledge to make them is still available. That has to be delt with at the same time. They're here and not going away.
No! With all the Illegal Alein and everything and everybody else with No protection from Government, granting Amnesty to Criminals from Abroad.... I should say not. I was anti gun before Not now!
Should prisoners pay for their own court costs?
If a prisoner has used public funds in their defence in a court case and they are subsequently found guilty, should they have to pay back the court and defence costs?
Answer:
We be waiting a long time for them to pay back their costs. It also brings up a whole new set of questions. Just like in hospitals padding the bill, I'm sure that if this came into being there'd be a half-dozen lawsuits that the courts were padding the bill.
They should have to pay back their prison costs, graduate loan style.
they have it hard enough as it is in prison, and when they get out i highly doubt they will be able to find a job. i won't hire them don't know about you. so lets just leave it, we don't want to give them more reasons to go back in.
With what, though . . . cigarettes? They don't exactly get to use Mastercard in prison.
One big problem here.......NO JOB!!
yes they should
'KandyMan' you have got to be jokin' when you say' they have it hard enough in prison!!!' ......... Some of them are better off in there than they are in the outside world!!
Can't get blood out of a stone. Of course, if it's a fraud case and it's found they did have sufficient assets to pay for their own defence, that's a different matter. But I think they do have to repay, or at least have their assets siezed, anyway in those circumstances.
in an ideal world... Yes,
in an ideal world... communism should work...
in an ideal world... they'd be no crime.
No, with what, their good looks? Some convicts aren't even capable of working. Are ya gonna lock em' again for not paying? There's a county in Michigan charging inmates $52.00 a day to pay for their room and board, and if they don't pay, they go back to jail to run up a higher bill. It's fascism is all. Government control of the working class poor slave drones, by the ruling elite Illuminati.
If the defendant has the funds then a POCA hearing will be heard to recoup costs to the public purse.
As for getting a convicted felon to pay for their defence costs when there are no obvious proceeds of crime - well it isn't going to happen.
For their initial [criminal] court costs ... NO! "The State" brought the charges, and "the State" (really "the taxpayers") should bear the cost.
Lawsuits filed AFTER conviction are a different story! Where the convict prevails in his/her lawsuit (failure to protect convict from reasonably foreseeable dangers and/or misconduct on the part of a State employee), the state (the taxpayers) should bear the cost of the court (and whatever penalty the jury deals out, the convict's victims have first claim on any "profits").
If the lawsuit is unsuccessful (I got CREAMY peanut butter on my samich, I wanted CRUNCHY!, or "the health club quality weight room was not available to me on 15Apr06@ 0045 hours, in accordance to my religious observance, I should be compensated). The convict should bear the full cost of the court, as well as punitive damages, equal to three times the value of the original lawsuit, or $300,000 whichever is more!
What with?
Answer:
We be waiting a long time for them to pay back their costs. It also brings up a whole new set of questions. Just like in hospitals padding the bill, I'm sure that if this came into being there'd be a half-dozen lawsuits that the courts were padding the bill.
They should have to pay back their prison costs, graduate loan style.
they have it hard enough as it is in prison, and when they get out i highly doubt they will be able to find a job. i won't hire them don't know about you. so lets just leave it, we don't want to give them more reasons to go back in.
With what, though . . . cigarettes? They don't exactly get to use Mastercard in prison.
One big problem here.......NO JOB!!
yes they should
'KandyMan' you have got to be jokin' when you say' they have it hard enough in prison!!!' ......... Some of them are better off in there than they are in the outside world!!
Can't get blood out of a stone. Of course, if it's a fraud case and it's found they did have sufficient assets to pay for their own defence, that's a different matter. But I think they do have to repay, or at least have their assets siezed, anyway in those circumstances.
in an ideal world... Yes,
in an ideal world... communism should work...
in an ideal world... they'd be no crime.
No, with what, their good looks? Some convicts aren't even capable of working. Are ya gonna lock em' again for not paying? There's a county in Michigan charging inmates $52.00 a day to pay for their room and board, and if they don't pay, they go back to jail to run up a higher bill. It's fascism is all. Government control of the working class poor slave drones, by the ruling elite Illuminati.
If the defendant has the funds then a POCA hearing will be heard to recoup costs to the public purse.
As for getting a convicted felon to pay for their defence costs when there are no obvious proceeds of crime - well it isn't going to happen.
For their initial [criminal] court costs ... NO! "The State" brought the charges, and "the State" (really "the taxpayers") should bear the cost.
Lawsuits filed AFTER conviction are a different story! Where the convict prevails in his/her lawsuit (failure to protect convict from reasonably foreseeable dangers and/or misconduct on the part of a State employee), the state (the taxpayers) should bear the cost of the court (and whatever penalty the jury deals out, the convict's victims have first claim on any "profits").
If the lawsuit is unsuccessful (I got CREAMY peanut butter on my samich, I wanted CRUNCHY!, or "the health club quality weight room was not available to me on 15Apr06@ 0045 hours, in accordance to my religious observance, I should be compensated). The convict should bear the full cost of the court, as well as punitive damages, equal to three times the value of the original lawsuit, or $300,000 whichever is more!
What with?
Should prisoners be treated as slaves?
i was told that people in prision should work work work, get fed, washed, treated with a certain degree of respect but pay for theirselves and make britain profit from them.i agree.
Answer:
Slavery, in any form is wrong..
To the thumb down Brigade,
Article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms
thumbs down prove I am right,
Maybe if they were, the crime rate would decrease.
prisoners should be treated as prisoners...
It depends which model of imprisonment you take - is the purpose punishment, reform or containment?
For the last 200 years, these three basic themes have come into and out of fashion, and all have pros and cons. I would tend to agree that the current 'human rights culture' seems to make a mockery of imprisonment as punishment, although I think there is probably a reality gap between the cases that grab the tabloid headlines and the reality of the prison experience for the average crim!
Prison is meant to be a punishment, not a trip to Club Med. While I don't agree with slavery, I don't see making prisoners work long and hard to earn their keep as slavery. After all, I work long and hard to earn my keep and I haven't committed any crimes.
Not as slaves, but as a normal working man. They should grow their own food, raise their meat, or work to make a profit for the prison so taxpayers want have to pay.
They did the wrong, they should pay for it.
slavery is not wrong if the person committed a big crime. i'm against the death penalty because it's too easily. you should make hell for those that have murder or tortured innocent people.
That would give the authorities an excuse to jail anyone for anything. Anyway what did slaves do to deserve being treated in such a fashion, was it to do with skin colour? Are all people behind bars guilty? Someone said they should be given a bit of land and left to 'get on with it'. That might scare some people as they might actually become prosperous
I think the bread %26 water days are long behind us, and unfortunatly John Reid would not consider schackling prisioners to the walls in an attempt to solve prison overcrowding. To use the word slave at this moment in time is probably not the best term to use, but I agree with you on one thing, prisioners should be forced to work, and prefferably hard labour, but the punishment should fit the crime, for example someone who is in prison for non-payment of council tax probably doesn't deserve to spend 12 hours a day working in a chain gang.
I can also never understand why drugs are so rife in prision, surely it can't be that hard to stop them getting in. So to answer your question, no not as slaves, but the country would benefit from tougher sentencing (so we would have to rip up the Human Rights Act (1998), the punishment should fit the crime and the manner in which you served your sentence (so yes use your work work work ethos here), and I am a beliver in capital punishment, so child killers and peodophiles, certain murderers, severe drug dealers, traitors and terrorists would swing.
So do I, because rehabilitation sure isn't working.
No. Slavery is one of the most immoral things, and even people who have committed crimes don't deserve it.
Besides, many "criminals" only commit the crimes because they live in society that makes it hard for them to live any other way. it's no coincidence most criminals are working class.
you would create an internal rebellion.it wont work.
Answer:
Slavery, in any form is wrong..
To the thumb down Brigade,
Article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms
thumbs down prove I am right,
Maybe if they were, the crime rate would decrease.
prisoners should be treated as prisoners...
It depends which model of imprisonment you take - is the purpose punishment, reform or containment?
For the last 200 years, these three basic themes have come into and out of fashion, and all have pros and cons. I would tend to agree that the current 'human rights culture' seems to make a mockery of imprisonment as punishment, although I think there is probably a reality gap between the cases that grab the tabloid headlines and the reality of the prison experience for the average crim!
Prison is meant to be a punishment, not a trip to Club Med. While I don't agree with slavery, I don't see making prisoners work long and hard to earn their keep as slavery. After all, I work long and hard to earn my keep and I haven't committed any crimes.
Not as slaves, but as a normal working man. They should grow their own food, raise their meat, or work to make a profit for the prison so taxpayers want have to pay.
They did the wrong, they should pay for it.
slavery is not wrong if the person committed a big crime. i'm against the death penalty because it's too easily. you should make hell for those that have murder or tortured innocent people.
That would give the authorities an excuse to jail anyone for anything. Anyway what did slaves do to deserve being treated in such a fashion, was it to do with skin colour? Are all people behind bars guilty? Someone said they should be given a bit of land and left to 'get on with it'. That might scare some people as they might actually become prosperous
I think the bread %26 water days are long behind us, and unfortunatly John Reid would not consider schackling prisioners to the walls in an attempt to solve prison overcrowding. To use the word slave at this moment in time is probably not the best term to use, but I agree with you on one thing, prisioners should be forced to work, and prefferably hard labour, but the punishment should fit the crime, for example someone who is in prison for non-payment of council tax probably doesn't deserve to spend 12 hours a day working in a chain gang.
I can also never understand why drugs are so rife in prision, surely it can't be that hard to stop them getting in. So to answer your question, no not as slaves, but the country would benefit from tougher sentencing (so we would have to rip up the Human Rights Act (1998), the punishment should fit the crime and the manner in which you served your sentence (so yes use your work work work ethos here), and I am a beliver in capital punishment, so child killers and peodophiles, certain murderers, severe drug dealers, traitors and terrorists would swing.
So do I, because rehabilitation sure isn't working.
No. Slavery is one of the most immoral things, and even people who have committed crimes don't deserve it.
Besides, many "criminals" only commit the crimes because they live in society that makes it hard for them to live any other way. it's no coincidence most criminals are working class.
you would create an internal rebellion.it wont work.
Should Prison sentaces be Reduced if they have Children?
1) If a prisoner poses no threat to their children and never has should their prison sentences be reduced so they can spend more time with their children?
2) What if they are the only parent?
3) Does the age of the child matter?
4) Also could there be a formula for this? IE 1 child 10 years old gets a reduction of 2 years from a 10 year sentence for burglary...
Answer:
if we did this I wouldn't make a hardline rule for a few reasons.
1. Many criminal...especially repeat offenders may have several children and never see them or even pay child support....ie by the formula I have 8 kids so I get 16 years off?
2. Many of these persons have proven themselves to be bad influences over their children...not all of them...and as much as I don't want to see children without parents...do we really need more parents teaching kids to do drugs, or steal? It does happen...my sister in law won full custody against her ex husband for this very reason.
3. We could actually see an influx of criminals going out and getting women pregnant/getting pregnant just ot do a crime and get a reduced sentence.
I may seem to be biased to think men commit more crimes....actually this is True.
In the state of Ohio there are 28 state prisons....1 is feamle and 27 are male. Do we really need more absentee fathers out there creating children just to get a reduced sentence?
No, prison is about punishment, not rehabilitation. They can leave when they have finished their debt to society.
No.
A murder victim can't visit their family or children...why should a criminal get that priviledge?
No they should not. If they were so committed to parenting well, they shouldn't have committed the crimes to begin with.
And here's a thought: I engage purposefully in a life of crime. Why don't I go out and procreate selfishly so if (when ) I get busted I use thise kids as my "get out of jail free card".....
Dumb dumb dumb idea.
absolutely not. you commit the crime, you do the time
yes for minor drug offenses
Not at all. Absolutely not. When one makes the decision to commit a crime, one must face his/her sentence and part of that is being apart from your children to serve out your full time.
That's like asking: "Should those who received the death penalty be allowed some slack on time because they have children"??
See my point? When you think about committing a crime, be careful and don't do it if it means you will lose time with your children which pretty much means you'll lose custody.
Think before you act, you know? When you're committing crimes you're not a good example or role model for your children anyway; you are just related by blood at that point...that's it.
No. If they were so worried about their children why did they make the choice to break the law. Most prisoners have children, but that doesnt stop them from making bad decisions. If anything it might encourage them to continue with the bad behavior because they would know that there is lesser sentences for parents
if they go to jail the social service or whatever should decide what happens to the kids or if the parents should get a sentence reduction
Nope. Only parent or not, young child or old, if the person doesn't care enough about the welfare of their child and how them deciding to commit a crime will effect the child then why should anyone have sympathy for them.
1. No, it should not matter. They should carry out their full term sentences. What kind of impact would they have on their children? Why expose young children to "criminal minds?" The children need someone positive in their lives; not losers.
2. The children can be with relatives (grand parents/aunt/uncle).
3. Age of the child should not matter.
4. You are giving privileges to criminals. They should have thought of the consequences before committing the crimes.
Nope. You do the crime, you do the time. Other family members can care for any children.
Think about it -- would you want a convicted murderer or rapist out being a parent to his or her kids. What a role model!!!!!!!!!! (Not).
2) What if they are the only parent?
3) Does the age of the child matter?
4) Also could there be a formula for this? IE 1 child 10 years old gets a reduction of 2 years from a 10 year sentence for burglary...
Answer:
if we did this I wouldn't make a hardline rule for a few reasons.
1. Many criminal...especially repeat offenders may have several children and never see them or even pay child support....ie by the formula I have 8 kids so I get 16 years off?
2. Many of these persons have proven themselves to be bad influences over their children...not all of them...and as much as I don't want to see children without parents...do we really need more parents teaching kids to do drugs, or steal? It does happen...my sister in law won full custody against her ex husband for this very reason.
3. We could actually see an influx of criminals going out and getting women pregnant/getting pregnant just ot do a crime and get a reduced sentence.
I may seem to be biased to think men commit more crimes....actually this is True.
In the state of Ohio there are 28 state prisons....1 is feamle and 27 are male. Do we really need more absentee fathers out there creating children just to get a reduced sentence?
No, prison is about punishment, not rehabilitation. They can leave when they have finished their debt to society.
No.
A murder victim can't visit their family or children...why should a criminal get that priviledge?
No they should not. If they were so committed to parenting well, they shouldn't have committed the crimes to begin with.
And here's a thought: I engage purposefully in a life of crime. Why don't I go out and procreate selfishly so if (when ) I get busted I use thise kids as my "get out of jail free card".....
Dumb dumb dumb idea.
absolutely not. you commit the crime, you do the time
yes for minor drug offenses
Not at all. Absolutely not. When one makes the decision to commit a crime, one must face his/her sentence and part of that is being apart from your children to serve out your full time.
That's like asking: "Should those who received the death penalty be allowed some slack on time because they have children"??
See my point? When you think about committing a crime, be careful and don't do it if it means you will lose time with your children which pretty much means you'll lose custody.
Think before you act, you know? When you're committing crimes you're not a good example or role model for your children anyway; you are just related by blood at that point...that's it.
No. If they were so worried about their children why did they make the choice to break the law. Most prisoners have children, but that doesnt stop them from making bad decisions. If anything it might encourage them to continue with the bad behavior because they would know that there is lesser sentences for parents
if they go to jail the social service or whatever should decide what happens to the kids or if the parents should get a sentence reduction
Nope. Only parent or not, young child or old, if the person doesn't care enough about the welfare of their child and how them deciding to commit a crime will effect the child then why should anyone have sympathy for them.
1. No, it should not matter. They should carry out their full term sentences. What kind of impact would they have on their children? Why expose young children to "criminal minds?" The children need someone positive in their lives; not losers.
2. The children can be with relatives (grand parents/aunt/uncle).
3. Age of the child should not matter.
4. You are giving privileges to criminals. They should have thought of the consequences before committing the crimes.
Nope. You do the crime, you do the time. Other family members can care for any children.
Think about it -- would you want a convicted murderer or rapist out being a parent to his or her kids. What a role model!!!!!!!!!! (Not).
Should porn be more heavily regulated on the Internet?
Is it to easy for children to get into porn sites?
Answer:
Yes, it should be harder to access by children. Seems the longer the internet is around, the more garbage is on it.
They should cease and desist and keep it in the Netherlands and Brussels Belgium where anything goes!
Answer:
Yes, it should be harder to access by children. Seems the longer the internet is around, the more garbage is on it.
They should cease and desist and keep it in the Netherlands and Brussels Belgium where anything goes!
Should police be protecting schools yes or no ?
Answer:
Yes.
yes if the situation warrants it. there are some public schools i've seen in DC and Baltimore in very dangerous situations.
if the police were more involved with the school and the community then kids coming up wouldn't fear or resent police. they would get to know them as a person.
in one word....yes....
there are many fights at our school and also police are the only ones that are really allowed to search through kids stuff. also a school in my county there was someone choking to death and a police officer saved her while every one else sat around.
sorry if you didnt want an explanation 鈾?
Should police and politicians receive harsher sentences?
When police, judges or politicians break the law should they receive a longer sentence and/or larger fine than a common citizen?
Answer:
its called equal protection under the law, and it is firmly engrained in our Constitution, so the answer is no.
YES ,but most get away with their crimes because somehow they are above the law.
I think so...they deal with laws and rules more on a daily basis than most people so they are more aware of it. That my opinion.
The punishment should fit the crime.However,Some judges should make examples of these people.Hopefully that will make them think twice before breaking the laws they swore to upold.
ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! They deserve the same punishment as anyone else.
No, but they should receive the same sentences as a common citizen and not be given preferential treatment just because of their positions.
Answer:
its called equal protection under the law, and it is firmly engrained in our Constitution, so the answer is no.
YES ,but most get away with their crimes because somehow they are above the law.
I think so...they deal with laws and rules more on a daily basis than most people so they are more aware of it. That my opinion.
The punishment should fit the crime.However,Some judges should make examples of these people.Hopefully that will make them think twice before breaking the laws they swore to upold.
ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! They deserve the same punishment as anyone else.
No, but they should receive the same sentences as a common citizen and not be given preferential treatment just because of their positions.
Should physician assisted suicide be legal?
Answer:
Yes.
I don't want some radical Christian punk telling my family they can't turn of the machines because it's a sin.
Grow a brain, we're animals and why would you want to keep some one alive who has no chance of recovering?
no.
It is legal where I live, OREGON
Yes
No. Doctors take an oath that does not allow them to ethically do this. Besides, if it were legal, it would be misused. There have been instances in places where it is legal that people were euthanized against their wills.
yes
only if it will relieve suffering,
If someone refuses treatment because they want to die is that legal? To me it's the same thing. So, yes.
It already is...they are killing us with the high cost of medicine and treatment.
No, because of loop holes like these: doctors can kill their patients without their consent and the law will protect them because they have no proof that the patient didn't consent. Let's not make murder easy, guys. Any way you put it, assisted suicide = murder, consented or not. Even if a person is brain dead, who are doctors to decide if they should live or not? Definitely not God, they aren't.
Yes. You have to trust people that they know their needs and their limitations better than some blanket law hacked out in political games thousands of miles away. Leave decisions like that up to the people involved, not Big Government.
Legal or not, it's still unethical. All doctors pledge not cause any harm to others. Don't see how this can be fuzzy.
No. Just read the name. assisted SUICIDE. Suicide - the act of killing oneself. Would you help someone kill themself? Any logical person would say no. If no, they why are people willing to help "put to sleep" (thier pathetic term for killing) an old or hanicapped person?
yes. Pro choice is where it's at. whether at the beginning or end of life.
No, I don't believe in assisted suicide for the same reasons that I don't believe in suicide. It's against my religion.
If this practice becomes legal then people will abuse the system and probably get assisted suicides as a form of suicide. I believe that every patient should be given the chance to recover, and that oftentimes a bleak prognosis is not necessarily a precursor of continued deterioration.
no
I am a medical student and we have covered this topic.
It is legal in Oregon I believe.
As a physician we take an oath of "first do no harm",there for it is not right or justified to help someone kill themselves.
If such thing was legalized, there are potentials for abuse. In a study, done in Oregon. There have been roughly 400 some patients that have requested this from their physician. From those only 5 or so have gone through with it. This in my eyes shows that it is more a cry for help and attention that should be given to the patient than to empower them to take their life. For those that went through with it, it was a matter of control to a certain death. Chronic disease that eventually would lead to death, the patient wanted to have control over their death.
There are lots of loop holes a patient has to go through to make this happen....
I believe that in certain cases assisted suicide should be legal. If someone is terminally ill and in great pain it would be inhumane not to. That would be like finding a wounded animal knowing that you can't help him and keep him alive just so you could watch him suffer. That's just wrong! My grandfather died of lung cancer. His last 3 weeks he spent in the hospital in tremendous amount of pain but the doctors kept him alive as long as possible even though he had no chance. That's immoral and that's my opinion.
I'm assuming you mean helping someone kill them self by showing them the best way or whatever.
No, it's unnethical and goes against the hipporatic oath. HOWEVER, I understand in some instances. If the patient is someone who is going to die in a month, and so is his son if his son doesn't get a transplant, and the dads the only one that matches? I can basically understand that, but the doctor still shouldn't be helping him. And whose to say it would always be consentual? Suicide, not murder. that persons already dead, so there goes the evidence.
lets say i saw a guy laying on groundin obvious agony. Screaming please make it all stop. So i take his money as payment on assisted suicide and burial expenses and when i get caught i can plead assisted suicide? Thats the man upstairs job. when the time comes unplug the machines and let nature do what it needs to be. I had to pull plug on my mother. after a month in ic. because the doctors didnt take time to research but instead assumed her ailment. By the time a another doctor overheard us and stepped in 2 weekslater it was too late. 2 minutes extra 2 weeks prior my moms here. how is that legal?
This is a tough question. I am totally against murder, abortion ect. I don't think assisted suicide should be allowed either. There may be some special circumstances, but I can't think of any. I have seen death. Dying with cancer is very painful they say, but maybe it depends on the doctor. My friend died of prostate cancer. When I took him to the ER they made him say he understood he would most likely not be going home. I left the room very upset, But later realized whatever else they talked about, my friend really was never very concious of anything else. He was heavily medicated and slept almost all of the time until he died. I don't think he had any pain at that time. So what is the purpose of suicide? This is still a decision that has to be made by the person who is dying not by me or you.
No.
As Christians, we believe that human life is a sacred gift from God to be cherished and respected because every human being is created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26).
In heeding God’s command, "Thou shall not kill" (Exodus 20:13), we recognize that we cannot end of our lives or the lives of others as we please. We must respect and protect the dignity of human from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death.
Euthanasia occurs when a doctor or medical staff person administers a lethal dose of medication with the intention of killing the patient.
Assisted suicide occurs when a doctor or medical staff person prescribes a lethal amount of medication with the intent of helping a person commit suicide. The patient then takes the dose or turns the switch.
We also recognize the need for the proper management of pain. Modern medicine provides effective treatments for pain that guarantees that no one will suffer a painful death. No one needs to escape pain by seeking death.
Suicidal wishes among the terminally ill are due to treatable depression similar to that of other suicidal people. If we address their pain, depression and other problems, then there is generally no more talk of suicide.
Repercussions of Assisted Suicide
+ The patient seriously, possibly completely, damages his or her relationship with God.
+ Anyone assisting a suicide gravely endangers his or her spiritual, psychological, and emotional well-being including family members and medical professionals.
+ Corruption of the medical profession: whose ethical code calls on physicians to serve life and never to kill. The American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and dozens of other medical groups argue that the power to assist in taking patients’ lives is "a power that most health-care professionals do not want and could not control.”
+ Society will more and more disregards the dignity of human life.
Possible Corruptions
+ Exploitation of the marginalized: The poor, the elderly, minorities, those who lack health insurance would be the first to feel pressure to die.
+ Cost control: Patients with long term or expensive illnesses and considered economic liabilities would be encouraged die.
+ Rebirth of historical prejudices: Many able-bodied people, including some physicians, say they would "rather be dead than disabled." Such prejudices could easily lead families, physicians, and society to encourage death for people who are depressed and emotionally vulnerable as they adjust to life with a serious illness or disability.
Jesus uttered the words of faith that continue to inspire and to guide the Church’s teaching in this mystery of Christian death: "This is why the Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again" (John 10:17).
With love in Christ.
Should physc.evaluation be required before entering a university?
the recent school shootings left me with this idea as a safty measure,is this a good idea?
Answer:
I don't think there is any way to anticipate anyone doing something like that. The more likely result is that racial profiling will exclude kids for no valid reason. In fact, I doubt the Virginia Tech student would have been singled out in a psychiatric screening - he was Asian, and, based on history, virtually every mass murderer or serial killer has been a Caucasian male.
I remember the 1966 incident that happened at the University of Texas, when Charles Whitman barricaded himself in the university clock tower and killed 15 people before he himself was killed. Reading the student's biography, I don't know how anyone could have anticipated his actions. He was at one time the youngest Eagle scout in the country. Then his brain just went haywire. Personal problems (and we all have personal problems from time to time) got the better of him, and he snapped, killing his mother and wife before he went on his killing spree. He left hand-written notes saying he had no idea why he was doing these horrible things. We all have our demons, and we don't know if or when the demons will take control.
yep thats all we needs all the crazy poeple un-educated and runnign the streets - that would be so much better,.
Maybe before buying a gun.
We still don't know what happened. When we get the facts, we'll be able to answer these questions better.
i totallt y agree with you on that one i beleieve that background checks on all families should be done as well to see if somone else in the family may have had a mental problems
The sad reality is there is no way to totally stop things like this from happening. Not only could it happen at a school, but it could happen at someones office, a restaurant or other public place. If you were to make every possible student go through a psych evaluation there would be too many variables not to mention it probably violates some form of freedom to get an education. Who would you cut from the school? Depressed people? So many humans deal with depression and they don't kill people. I think a way of controlling this issue better would be to install metal detectors and more armed guards. If we can protect our airports better than we should be able to protect our schools better.
Let's say this person worked in a business instead of going to this university. If the same personal conditions existed, he would have shot up the place where he worked. What you are suggesting could be a slippery slope where that litmus test would be used throughout society. This taken to an extreme would lock people with a mental issue out of society. If you are suggesting that they be given a psyche eval, so that they can be given counseling as a requirement to stay in college, I think that would be a rather good idea. College can put a lot of people beyond the breaking point, so if you can identify those that may need help and get them that help before they break, things would be a lot better.
Being a college student myself, I can see where some may think that a psych. evaluation could be helpful. On the other hand, college life is stressful, trying to keep your grades up, trying to fit in with the current trends or campus life, all while trying to maintain a personal life along with a job, it can drive you nuts even if you were sane in the first place. Most campus' have counseling centers in their Psychology department, I would suggest if any student is feeling the overwhelming stress that they take advantage of this service. The psych. students are usually the counselors and not only can this help you by talking to someone who may know your situation, but it gives them practice also.
No, because psych evaluations are subjective, depending ont the interviewer no matter how "objective" the questions seem to be or even if on a paper psyche profile and has to do with the person at the time the are evaluated and their answers and a person that is used to living a lie or being a liar would still pass.
Also, the pscyhological trigger could occur well after the evalutation. It also does not take into account how drugs or alcohol that a student might start using to cope with the stresses of college life would react to a stressor.
It would not like catch the "truly gone crazy" for whatever the circumstances, but would deny borderline personalities, which would resent the denial of opportunity even more and might even be more likely to "go postal" on an employer if they are fired.
Answer:
I don't think there is any way to anticipate anyone doing something like that. The more likely result is that racial profiling will exclude kids for no valid reason. In fact, I doubt the Virginia Tech student would have been singled out in a psychiatric screening - he was Asian, and, based on history, virtually every mass murderer or serial killer has been a Caucasian male.
I remember the 1966 incident that happened at the University of Texas, when Charles Whitman barricaded himself in the university clock tower and killed 15 people before he himself was killed. Reading the student's biography, I don't know how anyone could have anticipated his actions. He was at one time the youngest Eagle scout in the country. Then his brain just went haywire. Personal problems (and we all have personal problems from time to time) got the better of him, and he snapped, killing his mother and wife before he went on his killing spree. He left hand-written notes saying he had no idea why he was doing these horrible things. We all have our demons, and we don't know if or when the demons will take control.
yep thats all we needs all the crazy poeple un-educated and runnign the streets - that would be so much better,.
Maybe before buying a gun.
We still don't know what happened. When we get the facts, we'll be able to answer these questions better.
i totallt y agree with you on that one i beleieve that background checks on all families should be done as well to see if somone else in the family may have had a mental problems
The sad reality is there is no way to totally stop things like this from happening. Not only could it happen at a school, but it could happen at someones office, a restaurant or other public place. If you were to make every possible student go through a psych evaluation there would be too many variables not to mention it probably violates some form of freedom to get an education. Who would you cut from the school? Depressed people? So many humans deal with depression and they don't kill people. I think a way of controlling this issue better would be to install metal detectors and more armed guards. If we can protect our airports better than we should be able to protect our schools better.
Let's say this person worked in a business instead of going to this university. If the same personal conditions existed, he would have shot up the place where he worked. What you are suggesting could be a slippery slope where that litmus test would be used throughout society. This taken to an extreme would lock people with a mental issue out of society. If you are suggesting that they be given a psyche eval, so that they can be given counseling as a requirement to stay in college, I think that would be a rather good idea. College can put a lot of people beyond the breaking point, so if you can identify those that may need help and get them that help before they break, things would be a lot better.
Being a college student myself, I can see where some may think that a psych. evaluation could be helpful. On the other hand, college life is stressful, trying to keep your grades up, trying to fit in with the current trends or campus life, all while trying to maintain a personal life along with a job, it can drive you nuts even if you were sane in the first place. Most campus' have counseling centers in their Psychology department, I would suggest if any student is feeling the overwhelming stress that they take advantage of this service. The psych. students are usually the counselors and not only can this help you by talking to someone who may know your situation, but it gives them practice also.
No, because psych evaluations are subjective, depending ont the interviewer no matter how "objective" the questions seem to be or even if on a paper psyche profile and has to do with the person at the time the are evaluated and their answers and a person that is used to living a lie or being a liar would still pass.
Also, the pscyhological trigger could occur well after the evalutation. It also does not take into account how drugs or alcohol that a student might start using to cope with the stresses of college life would react to a stressor.
It would not like catch the "truly gone crazy" for whatever the circumstances, but would deny borderline personalities, which would resent the denial of opportunity even more and might even be more likely to "go postal" on an employer if they are fired.
Should pharmacists be allowed to refuse filling prescriptions for reasons of conscience?
If a patient has gone to a doctor and received a prescription for medication, should a pharmacist be permitted to say "I'm not going to do it" and deny the patient medication? I say no...fill the order or get another job.
If I'm an attorney and I get one of these pharmacists as a client, I'd be in for it if I said "my conscience prevents me from representing you."
What do y'all think?
Answer:
It is not a pharmacist's job to pass judgment on the necessity of the prescription. It is also not the pharmacist's business what the patient is using the prescription for. That is doctor-patient confidentiality.
Not a single pharmacist gets into the job thinking, "There will never be a situation where I disagree with what I'm being asked to do." They know it's going to happen. And if they don't want to do what they are being asked to do in their job description, they shouldn't take the job.
No
No they should not be allowed to refuse to fill a prescription. They were hired to do a job and they should do that job or be replaced. This is like letting Muslim cashiers in Target not scan pork products because it offends their religion. Its ridiculous. Scan it or be fired. Fill the prescription or be fired.
I dont care what their conscious does or does not approve of, if that is the case they should have picked another profession.
Actually, an attorney is perfectly free to refuse a client- and businesses everywhere have the right to refuse service. It's wrong to force anyone to act against their conscience.
Pharmacists have professional judgment and should exercise it.
Say someone gets three prescriptions from three doctors for Darvocet. Should the pharmacist use your logic and just fill the prescriptions? Of course not.
The contract of care is between the Doctor and patient. The pharmacists is their to follow orders.
No, they shouldn't. If you are a pharmacist, if someone presents you with a legitimate prescription and proof of identification, you should under law, be required to fill it.
If someone's conscience is so strong, why be a pharmacist? Big pharmaceutical companies have the worst track records of any medical corporation. They are all about the profit, developing drugs to treat symptom rather than to cure.
No, that would be like a cop refusing to enforce the law in favor of something he didn't like, or firemen refusing to respond to a fire at a bar because they're anti-liquor. A pharmacist has a public trust as a licensed professional. If they don't like all their job duties for reasons of their own, they can seek another line of work, just like anyone else.
Most of these employers will not retain a pharmacist who refuses to fill certain prescriptions. If the pharmacist truly feels it is unethical to fill some prescriptions, he/she has chosen the wrong profession.
If the pharmacist works for a parent company, it's not his direct choice to turn you away. Most major retailers have an inhouse pharmacy: Target, Wal-Mart, etc. Anyone may turn someone away from their business or service if it doesn't hinder rules laid down by a higher authority.
As a pharmacist sometimes it is good judgment that we refuse patients. I personally would not refuse to fill birth control like some do but there are instances that I can tell that someone is abusing drugs and even though I can't prove it I can refuse to fill it. I sleep a lot better at night knowing this. Also it serves as protection for me. If somebody does something that may cause them or someone else harm with the drugs that I gave them in some instances I can be held legally responsible. I did not spend all of that time and money to have my license taken away from me when I could have just said no. It is a very personal and professional choice and I think everyone no matter what you do has the right to make.
I think it's difficult because there are so many grey areas. If for example, a doctor prescribes a medication that will interact badly with a patient's other medications, a pharmacist should have the right to refuse to fill it until they speak with the doctor, HOWEVER...I do NOT think a pharmacist should be allowed to impose his/her own moral values on this decision. I assume you're talking about the morning after pill. What if they ARE allowed to refuse? What next? They can refuse to sell propecia because they think hair regrowth is vain, and shouldn't be allowed? There are instances where I do feel that a pharmacist should have the right, and the responsibility to refuse, but clashing moral values is not an acceptable reason.
I think that if a person is going to study to be a pharmacist, they should know that they are required to dispense WHAT THE DOCTOR ORDERED. The Pharmacist is not a doctor, not a diagnosician and can only disobey the doctors prescription for a MEDICAL reason. If someone is taking another medication that might conflict with the new one, the pharmacist doesn't fill it. At that point, the pharmacist would call the doctor and notify him/her that you are taking another medication that cannot be mixed.
Now, that being said, if the Pharmacist is the OWNER, he can refuse to do business with anyone. He must post his refusal or intent to refuse in a prominent place.
i think coke is bettr then sprite
sorry i can't answer ur question i dont get it
Hello. To start things off, there's a BIG difference between being a lawyer and a pharmacist. Many lawyers, NOT saying you personally, are not known for their moral nobility or scruples. Another thing to note is that though lawyers do partake in the dispensing of justice potentially, pharmacist dispense drugs and medical knowledge to aid and assist people in their health and life. This consequently is of more far reaching implications. So yes, I believe that a pharmacist should be allowed to refuse to fill a prescription based on reasons of conscience and morality. The pharmacist is the next primary thing basically to a doctor, and if he or she has issues with it they should not have to throw their beliefs out when they come through the door to work. I would prefer far more pharmacists with a better base of morality and genuine concern than those who don't give jack and go on and take the money into thecompany's fiscal bottomline! I wish many more pharmacists and doctors would not submit themselves to the pressure to prescribe medications that are more expensive just to increase the pharmaceutical companies financial standing and thereby please the shareholders. Lastly there is a big difference in representing a pharmacist who helps people tlhan for a lawyer to pass up one customer for one who would be less upstanding but would fit the essential bill for a new client. And that's my ruling!
No; too many watch dogs now.
It's not the job of the pharmacist to determine whether or not a prescription should be filled. That's the job of the doctor. The doctor went to school for such things, and he should know if a patient needs medicine or not.
No, I cannot choose what I want to do at work so :P
No. Their job is to fill prescriptions. If they don't like to prescribe a certain pill (I.E., The morning after pill) that's okay. They don't have to like it. If they're not comfortable with the idea of taking the pill, then they shouldn't take it. But they should still prescribe it.
It's a dangerous idea isn't it? What if a police officer didn't feel it morally just to defend people of color? or to step in on a domestic abuse call? It's a slippery slope.
They should do their job. Or Pray for our souls if they feel so inclined.
Yes they have a right to refuse if they think your abusing drugs. Some doctors will keep writing prescriptions for any thing, any time the person ask. So it`s the pharmacist duty to keep up with the drugs your taking.
Absolutely not. If they don't want to do the job, don't become a pharmacist. They have a duty under law to prescibe legal drugs that a doctor has decided are necessary to their patient.
It's not up to pharmacists to play god, or be our moral compass - they get paid a huge amount to do a pretty simple job and should just get on and do it without whining.
Of course not. If you can't do the job, get another one. It's my medicine, not yours, so its my conscience that matters, not yours.
Hi Bill. I agree with you 110%. It makes me furious when people let their narrow minded opinions rule their lives. If my pharmacist refused to fill a legal and legitimate prescription from a doctor, it would be lawsuit time. He would regret his decision.
I think that it is important to look carefully at a career before one takes expensive training, to make sure that you aren't going to be asked to do something that opposes your beliefs, or that might go against your conscience. This is something I considered carefully when I chose my training and my career.
If one develops these beliefs AFTER one has become a pharmacist (the type of beliefs that would lead to refusing to fill a prescription based on one's own morality, not the legally defined morality to which pharmacists are held accountable), then it might be necessary to leave the profession. Or a pharmacist working in a pharmacy filling prescriptions might wind up being fired. But if I'm not mistaken, there are other things one can do with a pharmacy degree... research and development perhaps.
I would never train to be a pharmacy pharmacist if I knew I'd be faced with having to do something I found morally wrong. But if I developed those beliefs later, I believe I would try to use my training in a different, more harmonious, fashion.
In my opinion, people who make a point of refusing to do something for which they have purposely trained, claiming reasons of conscience, and in doing so attract attention to themselves, and deny another their right to a service, are pursuing an agenda, calling attention to themselves, and behaving in a deliberately oppositional manner. This is far from noble, regardless of what they are claiming. It is political, and designed to control others. I would not patronize a business that employed such grandstanders.
No. Like doctors, pharmacists are required to help. If someone comes in needing a prescription, they need to fill it. If they WANT to descriminate, they need to open their own shop. And attorneys take cases they don't agree with all the time. Think of the poor buggers who are the lawyers provided by the state for low-lifes that can't afford an attorney.
No they are to be a disinterested third party if a doctor prescribes something they should fill it. If they think abuse is happening they need to notify the proper authorities to have them investigate. Whether that is the police or doctors involved.
Yes. This covers a lot more than RU-486. What if a pharmacist suspects someone is abusing a prescription? or selling it? or suicidal? Can they refuse (and even report) to fill the prescription in those cases? and couldn't those cases fall under "reasons of conscience"? What would be the different?
I say: Let the pharmacist refuse to fill prescriptions if they don't want to for personal reasons and they can sleep with a clear conscience. The customer can go somewhere else. What's the big deal? Heck, this is America....there is always somewhere else to go!
I agree with most of you in saying it is their job, and fill the prescription. Now, not being a pharmacist and not knowing the laws about it, I would think there should be something in place for the situation mentioned above. "Someone comes in with 3 scripts from 3 different docs for the same med, that happens to be a narcotic". I would think that they could alert the docs and let them decide whether to put refills on the script. The doc's may not be aware of what is going on, and it is for the safety of the patient. In that they may prevent it from happening again, and possibly stop that person from illegally selling prescription meds, or what ever they are doing with that amount of a controlled substance.
You really can't compel people to do anything they don't want to do, but actions have consequences, and in this case, I'd say the penalty for refusal to issue doctor prescribed medicine should be loss of license to practice
No they do not have a right to deny a customer a legal prescription.
I have heard of Pharamcist refusing to give women birth control because they are unmarried or they just dont believe in birth control. Interestingly I have never heard of a man being denied a prescription for viagra.
+1 for realst 1 that was a great answer.
If I'm an attorney and I get one of these pharmacists as a client, I'd be in for it if I said "my conscience prevents me from representing you."
What do y'all think?
Answer:
It is not a pharmacist's job to pass judgment on the necessity of the prescription. It is also not the pharmacist's business what the patient is using the prescription for. That is doctor-patient confidentiality.
Not a single pharmacist gets into the job thinking, "There will never be a situation where I disagree with what I'm being asked to do." They know it's going to happen. And if they don't want to do what they are being asked to do in their job description, they shouldn't take the job.
No
No they should not be allowed to refuse to fill a prescription. They were hired to do a job and they should do that job or be replaced. This is like letting Muslim cashiers in Target not scan pork products because it offends their religion. Its ridiculous. Scan it or be fired. Fill the prescription or be fired.
I dont care what their conscious does or does not approve of, if that is the case they should have picked another profession.
Actually, an attorney is perfectly free to refuse a client- and businesses everywhere have the right to refuse service. It's wrong to force anyone to act against their conscience.
Pharmacists have professional judgment and should exercise it.
Say someone gets three prescriptions from three doctors for Darvocet. Should the pharmacist use your logic and just fill the prescriptions? Of course not.
The contract of care is between the Doctor and patient. The pharmacists is their to follow orders.
No, they shouldn't. If you are a pharmacist, if someone presents you with a legitimate prescription and proof of identification, you should under law, be required to fill it.
If someone's conscience is so strong, why be a pharmacist? Big pharmaceutical companies have the worst track records of any medical corporation. They are all about the profit, developing drugs to treat symptom rather than to cure.
No, that would be like a cop refusing to enforce the law in favor of something he didn't like, or firemen refusing to respond to a fire at a bar because they're anti-liquor. A pharmacist has a public trust as a licensed professional. If they don't like all their job duties for reasons of their own, they can seek another line of work, just like anyone else.
Most of these employers will not retain a pharmacist who refuses to fill certain prescriptions. If the pharmacist truly feels it is unethical to fill some prescriptions, he/she has chosen the wrong profession.
If the pharmacist works for a parent company, it's not his direct choice to turn you away. Most major retailers have an inhouse pharmacy: Target, Wal-Mart, etc. Anyone may turn someone away from their business or service if it doesn't hinder rules laid down by a higher authority.
As a pharmacist sometimes it is good judgment that we refuse patients. I personally would not refuse to fill birth control like some do but there are instances that I can tell that someone is abusing drugs and even though I can't prove it I can refuse to fill it. I sleep a lot better at night knowing this. Also it serves as protection for me. If somebody does something that may cause them or someone else harm with the drugs that I gave them in some instances I can be held legally responsible. I did not spend all of that time and money to have my license taken away from me when I could have just said no. It is a very personal and professional choice and I think everyone no matter what you do has the right to make.
I think it's difficult because there are so many grey areas. If for example, a doctor prescribes a medication that will interact badly with a patient's other medications, a pharmacist should have the right to refuse to fill it until they speak with the doctor, HOWEVER...I do NOT think a pharmacist should be allowed to impose his/her own moral values on this decision. I assume you're talking about the morning after pill. What if they ARE allowed to refuse? What next? They can refuse to sell propecia because they think hair regrowth is vain, and shouldn't be allowed? There are instances where I do feel that a pharmacist should have the right, and the responsibility to refuse, but clashing moral values is not an acceptable reason.
I think that if a person is going to study to be a pharmacist, they should know that they are required to dispense WHAT THE DOCTOR ORDERED. The Pharmacist is not a doctor, not a diagnosician and can only disobey the doctors prescription for a MEDICAL reason. If someone is taking another medication that might conflict with the new one, the pharmacist doesn't fill it. At that point, the pharmacist would call the doctor and notify him/her that you are taking another medication that cannot be mixed.
Now, that being said, if the Pharmacist is the OWNER, he can refuse to do business with anyone. He must post his refusal or intent to refuse in a prominent place.
i think coke is bettr then sprite
sorry i can't answer ur question i dont get it
Hello. To start things off, there's a BIG difference between being a lawyer and a pharmacist. Many lawyers, NOT saying you personally, are not known for their moral nobility or scruples. Another thing to note is that though lawyers do partake in the dispensing of justice potentially, pharmacist dispense drugs and medical knowledge to aid and assist people in their health and life. This consequently is of more far reaching implications. So yes, I believe that a pharmacist should be allowed to refuse to fill a prescription based on reasons of conscience and morality. The pharmacist is the next primary thing basically to a doctor, and if he or she has issues with it they should not have to throw their beliefs out when they come through the door to work. I would prefer far more pharmacists with a better base of morality and genuine concern than those who don't give jack and go on and take the money into thecompany's fiscal bottomline! I wish many more pharmacists and doctors would not submit themselves to the pressure to prescribe medications that are more expensive just to increase the pharmaceutical companies financial standing and thereby please the shareholders. Lastly there is a big difference in representing a pharmacist who helps people tlhan for a lawyer to pass up one customer for one who would be less upstanding but would fit the essential bill for a new client. And that's my ruling!
No; too many watch dogs now.
It's not the job of the pharmacist to determine whether or not a prescription should be filled. That's the job of the doctor. The doctor went to school for such things, and he should know if a patient needs medicine or not.
No, I cannot choose what I want to do at work so :P
No. Their job is to fill prescriptions. If they don't like to prescribe a certain pill (I.E., The morning after pill) that's okay. They don't have to like it. If they're not comfortable with the idea of taking the pill, then they shouldn't take it. But they should still prescribe it.
It's a dangerous idea isn't it? What if a police officer didn't feel it morally just to defend people of color? or to step in on a domestic abuse call? It's a slippery slope.
They should do their job. Or Pray for our souls if they feel so inclined.
Yes they have a right to refuse if they think your abusing drugs. Some doctors will keep writing prescriptions for any thing, any time the person ask. So it`s the pharmacist duty to keep up with the drugs your taking.
Absolutely not. If they don't want to do the job, don't become a pharmacist. They have a duty under law to prescibe legal drugs that a doctor has decided are necessary to their patient.
It's not up to pharmacists to play god, or be our moral compass - they get paid a huge amount to do a pretty simple job and should just get on and do it without whining.
Of course not. If you can't do the job, get another one. It's my medicine, not yours, so its my conscience that matters, not yours.
Hi Bill. I agree with you 110%. It makes me furious when people let their narrow minded opinions rule their lives. If my pharmacist refused to fill a legal and legitimate prescription from a doctor, it would be lawsuit time. He would regret his decision.
I think that it is important to look carefully at a career before one takes expensive training, to make sure that you aren't going to be asked to do something that opposes your beliefs, or that might go against your conscience. This is something I considered carefully when I chose my training and my career.
If one develops these beliefs AFTER one has become a pharmacist (the type of beliefs that would lead to refusing to fill a prescription based on one's own morality, not the legally defined morality to which pharmacists are held accountable), then it might be necessary to leave the profession. Or a pharmacist working in a pharmacy filling prescriptions might wind up being fired. But if I'm not mistaken, there are other things one can do with a pharmacy degree... research and development perhaps.
I would never train to be a pharmacy pharmacist if I knew I'd be faced with having to do something I found morally wrong. But if I developed those beliefs later, I believe I would try to use my training in a different, more harmonious, fashion.
In my opinion, people who make a point of refusing to do something for which they have purposely trained, claiming reasons of conscience, and in doing so attract attention to themselves, and deny another their right to a service, are pursuing an agenda, calling attention to themselves, and behaving in a deliberately oppositional manner. This is far from noble, regardless of what they are claiming. It is political, and designed to control others. I would not patronize a business that employed such grandstanders.
No. Like doctors, pharmacists are required to help. If someone comes in needing a prescription, they need to fill it. If they WANT to descriminate, they need to open their own shop. And attorneys take cases they don't agree with all the time. Think of the poor buggers who are the lawyers provided by the state for low-lifes that can't afford an attorney.
No they are to be a disinterested third party if a doctor prescribes something they should fill it. If they think abuse is happening they need to notify the proper authorities to have them investigate. Whether that is the police or doctors involved.
Yes. This covers a lot more than RU-486. What if a pharmacist suspects someone is abusing a prescription? or selling it? or suicidal? Can they refuse (and even report) to fill the prescription in those cases? and couldn't those cases fall under "reasons of conscience"? What would be the different?
I say: Let the pharmacist refuse to fill prescriptions if they don't want to for personal reasons and they can sleep with a clear conscience. The customer can go somewhere else. What's the big deal? Heck, this is America....there is always somewhere else to go!
I agree with most of you in saying it is their job, and fill the prescription. Now, not being a pharmacist and not knowing the laws about it, I would think there should be something in place for the situation mentioned above. "Someone comes in with 3 scripts from 3 different docs for the same med, that happens to be a narcotic". I would think that they could alert the docs and let them decide whether to put refills on the script. The doc's may not be aware of what is going on, and it is for the safety of the patient. In that they may prevent it from happening again, and possibly stop that person from illegally selling prescription meds, or what ever they are doing with that amount of a controlled substance.
You really can't compel people to do anything they don't want to do, but actions have consequences, and in this case, I'd say the penalty for refusal to issue doctor prescribed medicine should be loss of license to practice
No they do not have a right to deny a customer a legal prescription.
I have heard of Pharamcist refusing to give women birth control because they are unmarried or they just dont believe in birth control. Interestingly I have never heard of a man being denied a prescription for viagra.
+1 for realst 1 that was a great answer.
Should People who use illegal drugs be punished?
Do you think that people who use illegal drugs (marijuana, cocaine, heroin etc...)should be punished/imprisoned? Or should we help them get rehabilitated?
I would really like to hear your complete thoughts on this subject :)
Answer:
Illegal drugs are causing this country and many other great nations to suffer greatly.The short answer is,yes,they must be punished,but the real criminals aren't the users.The real criminals are the drug dealers.They don't care about the consequences of drug use.They are in it for the money.The basic problem is that families are not like they used to be.Mom %26 Dad don't keep involved with what their kids are doing,who they are associating with,and setting a good example.This breakdown of the family is a big cause of why kids get involved with drugs and other illicit activities.Parents aren't setting rules and are trying to be friends with their children.It's a tough job being a parent,and tough love makes a child a better adult.Liberal attitudes are destroying our society.
I don't think so as long as they don't break any other laws, why not, population control.
People who commit any crime should be punished.
People that use illegal drugs must be punished because it is provided for under the law since prohibited drugs are dangerous to the health of people.
Imprison them for a good long time.
That will cure their cravings
The way I see it, its none of my business or anyone elses as long as they dont bother or endanger anyone else while using their drug of choice.
I'd even go so far as to say we should legalize most drugs as controlled substances, if for no other reason than to deprive the gangs and violent drug traffickers of their main revenue. No illegal drugs, no illegal drug market, no illegal drug sellers, no people killed over drugs, etc etc.
The "war on drugs" is a catastrophic failure and a colossal waste of money, time and resources. We should do away with mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug related offenses immediately. Our prisons are filled to the brim already, and we've created a subculture of people who live their entire lives in the prison system. Its ridiculous and shameful.
Thats only the beginning of my thoughts on this subject, but in the interest of space, I'm going to stop there.
if you are strong and respodsable you should tell someone you really trust tlo help you get these people because if you don't someone could get heart
I say give them what the want. Lethal Injection is a drug as well!
i would have to agree with the idea of the war on drugs as futile and hypocritical.....many drugs and very harmful substances are perfectly legal....alcohol....tobacco...... fructose corn syrup....etc... if we made it all legal, then we could focus on the violence that our society faces and put dangerous people out of society....rehabilitation, i fear would not work either, as nobody will be rehabilitated that does not want to be...they have proven this with aa...our whole culture and perspectives need to change to prevent abusive behaviors and lifestyles from ever occuring to begin with....our culture is not healthy....that is what needs to change, but to answer your question completely....if one is not violent and dangerous, they have no business being locked up
i personally don't think they should be punished. if they want to ruin their own lives it's no sweat off my back. in the animal world the weak ones get picked off and eaten so why not apply that to ours? let the drugs pick off the weak ones!
yes for one simple reason. "IT IS AGAINST THE LAW".
I would really like to hear your complete thoughts on this subject :)
Answer:
Illegal drugs are causing this country and many other great nations to suffer greatly.The short answer is,yes,they must be punished,but the real criminals aren't the users.The real criminals are the drug dealers.They don't care about the consequences of drug use.They are in it for the money.The basic problem is that families are not like they used to be.Mom %26 Dad don't keep involved with what their kids are doing,who they are associating with,and setting a good example.This breakdown of the family is a big cause of why kids get involved with drugs and other illicit activities.Parents aren't setting rules and are trying to be friends with their children.It's a tough job being a parent,and tough love makes a child a better adult.Liberal attitudes are destroying our society.
I don't think so as long as they don't break any other laws, why not, population control.
People who commit any crime should be punished.
People that use illegal drugs must be punished because it is provided for under the law since prohibited drugs are dangerous to the health of people.
Imprison them for a good long time.
That will cure their cravings
The way I see it, its none of my business or anyone elses as long as they dont bother or endanger anyone else while using their drug of choice.
I'd even go so far as to say we should legalize most drugs as controlled substances, if for no other reason than to deprive the gangs and violent drug traffickers of their main revenue. No illegal drugs, no illegal drug market, no illegal drug sellers, no people killed over drugs, etc etc.
The "war on drugs" is a catastrophic failure and a colossal waste of money, time and resources. We should do away with mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug related offenses immediately. Our prisons are filled to the brim already, and we've created a subculture of people who live their entire lives in the prison system. Its ridiculous and shameful.
Thats only the beginning of my thoughts on this subject, but in the interest of space, I'm going to stop there.
if you are strong and respodsable you should tell someone you really trust tlo help you get these people because if you don't someone could get heart
I say give them what the want. Lethal Injection is a drug as well!
i would have to agree with the idea of the war on drugs as futile and hypocritical.....many drugs and very harmful substances are perfectly legal....alcohol....tobacco...... fructose corn syrup....etc... if we made it all legal, then we could focus on the violence that our society faces and put dangerous people out of society....rehabilitation, i fear would not work either, as nobody will be rehabilitated that does not want to be...they have proven this with aa...our whole culture and perspectives need to change to prevent abusive behaviors and lifestyles from ever occuring to begin with....our culture is not healthy....that is what needs to change, but to answer your question completely....if one is not violent and dangerous, they have no business being locked up
i personally don't think they should be punished. if they want to ruin their own lives it's no sweat off my back. in the animal world the weak ones get picked off and eaten so why not apply that to ours? let the drugs pick off the weak ones!
yes for one simple reason. "IT IS AGAINST THE LAW".
Should people who make obscene profits when they sell their home donate a percentage to charity?
...instead of buying ludicrous investment holiday homes in Plovdiv or Torremolinos, how about sharing their windfall with Shelter, the homeless charity, or something else fairer and more equitable to wider society? More people are disadvantaged by runaway house price inflation than those who benefit.
Answer:
No, but we should persuade our politicians to do more about building affordable housing and stabilising the market. I find it quite shocking how house prices have rocketed.
My parents bought their first home for 拢300 in the 1960's. The same property would fetch 拢75,000 today!
In my opinion homes should not be about profit. Everyone deserves a place to live. The idea that people can play this market to make huge sums of money is criminal.
In my area people are crying out for affordable homes, yet the majority of those being built are 4 and 5 bedroom houses, beyond the means of the majority. Our Tory / "Independent" led council has been asked to do more for the general public, but they are not interested in the majority. We have the lowest wages in the UK and yet the houses being built are for commuters and the retired wealthy.
I do worry that when it all goes silly, we are all going to pay for it, regardless of whether we own a house or not. All it could take is a "Black Wednesday" type collapse.
Because THEY earned it.
No.......Why?
they should be taxed at obscene levels.
ONLY if they feel they must. I wouldn't. I play the real estate market and make money. I'm not going to give my profit to welfare moms and their little negroids.
Most people buy homes to sell for profit later. That is why it is called an investment. Why should anyone be forced to donate to charity if they do not want? This is America. Not China.
It's their choice, they can't be forced to give to charity. I think it would be nice, but people who do that usually don't give any thought to those who are less fortunate. It's a sad world. :(
Of course not. These people work hard to get what they want. If people choose to be losers, they're the one's to blame.
No. There are programs in place for the less fortunate. It sucks that I wasn't born rich but that isn't some strangers fault because he or she has money.
They do their part to help the homeless and the poor. Its called taxes, that is what pays for social services.
People can do whatever they want with their money. If you start forcing people to donate then it's not really donating. Plus, isnt that what taxes are for anyways?
No it's their money but your more than welcome to give them yours.
not at all some people work incredibly hard for their money think their penalised enough don't you think working people give enough to work shy slobs who live out their existence sitting on their sofas claiming benefits!!
i dont think it matters if its from property or not. if your making obscene amounts of cash it would be a decent thing to help out those who need it. the world needs more people like you!
I agree that you shouldnt force people to give cos they do work for what they earn but i think it would be a nice thing to do. a lot of people feel they have worked for their money but many of the disadvantaged people did not have the same opportunities when it comes to schooling and financing for education and are actualy willing to work if people aided them in doing so. Im not saying that we should just give people handouts but its for the greater good to invest in society...it actualy makes it a better place for you too. All these people need is some skills development and sometimes capital to get back on their feet. it will do wonders for the crime rates
Personally I can totally see where you're coming from and the logic makes sense. However people who 'invest' in property are generally in it for one reason and therefore the tendancy to get greddier and greedier is to tempting. Therefore charity or charity donation is right at the bottom of the list. However perhaps as a footnote to this some of the oscenely high taxes and fees that are part of the house buying/selling process should be donated to charities that deal with homelessness and housing support!
That would hardly solve the problem that you are outlining. the price of housing is down to this government making the borrowing of money so cheap. during my mortgage I have been paying up to 15% which means that I have paid most of the present, so called profit, as mortgage payments over the last 30 years. Way to reduce house prices is to increase interest payments which will reduce the number of people who can afford to buy. Unfortunately this does not help those who just bought. The other reason for not doing as you say is that many elderly are selling to realise the equity to enable them to live, again due to this governments actions.
i believe that all and any windfall monies and profits from any source should be invested not in charities or "good causes" but in your own "family" supporting education, health and any other life enhancing actions, by doing this (following the most fortunate peoples of the world) you protect your own against any future misshap. and please don't forget for every 拢$E 1 donated to any charity a very small proportion actually gets through to the needy. (check out the salaries of charity managers, they are not on minimum wage, nor do they live in shelters or on the street). it is for government through taxation (they tax us at 50% ish) to provide for the less unfortunate amongst us, instead of supporting wars and other military actions world wide.
Not at all,its their money! They can do what they like with it.
For the last 20 years we have paid a huge amount of our wages on a mortgage. Finally, next year, we will be mortgage free.
And next year our oldest will be looking to take out his first mortgage, just as we are looking to downsize.
We plan to invest some of the profit by helping our kids get on the housing ladder.
We've worked damned hard to get into this position, with the idea that we would have a little nest egg for our retirement. Why should we give it away?
No way, I have worked hard to get my house . and bought it some years ago, if i sell it to get a better life, i will need the profits to pay for it. why should we give money away to charities, Govt should sort that type of thing out that you have mentioned, plus thee areto many people with begging bowls on street corners collecting for charity, give them a 拢1 and you find out that 10p goes for the charity and 90p goes for the admin costs !!! whos getting ripped off ? dont get me on my charity soap box
As any homeowner knows, especially when buying a so called expensive property, you have to pay the government stamp duty, council tax, home insurance, mortgage payments, utility bills etc etc. the so called obscene profit is really no profit at all, you have paid for it all over the years. I would suggest provision of homes for the homeless is a government problem, they have had more than enough of the publics money to solve this and many other problems.
In a word NO. I purchased my present house ten years ago for 拢116,000. It is now valued at 拢480,000. It has nothing to do with me. The huge price difference has been caused by the rapid increase in the price of houses due mainly because supply cannot meet demand. When more homes are built, possibly the price of houses may start to move down.
Why are there so many people in this world who because of envy think that those who have worked hard and saved hard all their lives should somehow be penalised for making provision for themselves? It's just this sort of nonsense which leads to a Conservative and Tory government being elected.
Watch this space.
i'm priced out of the housing market, me and my fiancee who both have steady work will never be able to afford our own home so we have to rent privately. but i bear no ill will on those who make a huge profit. it is their property after all.
Why should you suppose that the people who make profits on property are not also giving to charity? Does anyone know what YOU give to charity? Of course not. In fact, the more you earn, the more tax you pay, and the more cost-effective charitable giving is, through Gift Aid tax reclaims by the charities. So there is a big encouragement to charitable giving, for higher earners and those who make caital gains. It would be interesting to hear some statistics, if anyone out there knows how to obtain them.
Anyway, most people who are selling their homes are just doing it in order to move house, perhaps going to another area for work. So any "profit" they make on the house they are selling gets used up in buying the new one, because that has gone up too. They don't actually SEE any of the money from the increase. Sometimes they have to take out a bigger mortgage to buy the new house, depending on house prices in the various areas. And when they die and leave it to their kids, it just enables them to own a house at the increased price level; inheritance tax mops up 40% of anything over a figure that represents the value of one fairly average house. It would be difficult - and unfair - to impose a special tax on people who sell a house here and buy a new one abroad. That's the sort of thing Communist countries used to do.
There might be a way to cream off a bit more in tax from speculators who buy a house and then sell it on (in the hope of profit) without either living in it themselves or letting it out for a period. But that's done already in the capital gains tax which has to be paid on all short-term profits over about 拢7000 during one year. However, many property speculators are actually buying to let, and providing a useful service in adding to the available pool of houses for rent - have you noticed that rental prices have come down, as the pool of rentable houses has increased? And the standard of rental housing has gone up too, because of the element of competition to find tenants. But noone buys-to-let in the hope of rental income alone. Taking into account the expenses of insurance and upkeep, the periods between tenants when there is no income, and the element of risk, they are counting on some capital appreciation to make their investment worthwhile. They can get their fingers bitten too. House prices went down drastically soon after John Major's last government got in, for instance, and the prices did not recover for several years.
Surely you only profit if;
(a) you down-size within a similar price-range area
(b) you move to a less expensive area
(c) you don't need your house any more so you don't buy another one?
Well, in principle, people should - in a perfect world -give a percentage of their income to charity, full-stop. But this is not a perfect world.
But your question merely gives rise to questions of its own. When does a profit arise? Do we take the difference between what it was purchased for and what it was sold at? Would that not rather penalise older people who just happened to buy in 1974 and sell now to retire?
Is profit simply the equity?
If you sell to move elsewhere and the equity is used in buying another place - is there a profit then and if so, what is it?
However you define profit; at what point does it become 'obscene?' 拢50,000? 拢100,000? 拢500,000?
I agree with the premise behind your question that ever-rising house prices are the economics of the asylum but inexplicable people seem to think higher house prices are 'good' whilst higher prices of goods are 'bad'.
Both are bad and distort the use of resources to means of land-use rather than to anything which generates true value.
Many who sell houses, of course, have to reinvest the notional profit straight back into the house they are buying. If they have died then there is the obscene Inheritance tax. Moreover, the costs of buying and selling houses is also very expensive (stamp duty etc).
I agree with you about house price inflation, it is ridiculous and properties are way over-priced. It is this Government that has pursued a policy of low interest rates (having chosen an inflation measure that encouraged this), endless amounts of cheap far eastern money, and lending agencies promoting ever larger multiples of imprudent borrowing. There is also no fear of debt these days, particularly amongst the young.
The Government should never have allowed house prices to run away like they have. Of course, it suited them didn't it? Because it encouraged further borrowing and made the economy appear strong.
With respect, I just think that you have come up with the wrong solution. Instead, we need a house price correction. Also, I don't trust charities either to spend money wisely. Many of them have become bloated and politicised.
Answer:
No, but we should persuade our politicians to do more about building affordable housing and stabilising the market. I find it quite shocking how house prices have rocketed.
My parents bought their first home for 拢300 in the 1960's. The same property would fetch 拢75,000 today!
In my opinion homes should not be about profit. Everyone deserves a place to live. The idea that people can play this market to make huge sums of money is criminal.
In my area people are crying out for affordable homes, yet the majority of those being built are 4 and 5 bedroom houses, beyond the means of the majority. Our Tory / "Independent" led council has been asked to do more for the general public, but they are not interested in the majority. We have the lowest wages in the UK and yet the houses being built are for commuters and the retired wealthy.
I do worry that when it all goes silly, we are all going to pay for it, regardless of whether we own a house or not. All it could take is a "Black Wednesday" type collapse.
Because THEY earned it.
No.......Why?
they should be taxed at obscene levels.
ONLY if they feel they must. I wouldn't. I play the real estate market and make money. I'm not going to give my profit to welfare moms and their little negroids.
Most people buy homes to sell for profit later. That is why it is called an investment. Why should anyone be forced to donate to charity if they do not want? This is America. Not China.
It's their choice, they can't be forced to give to charity. I think it would be nice, but people who do that usually don't give any thought to those who are less fortunate. It's a sad world. :(
Of course not. These people work hard to get what they want. If people choose to be losers, they're the one's to blame.
No. There are programs in place for the less fortunate. It sucks that I wasn't born rich but that isn't some strangers fault because he or she has money.
They do their part to help the homeless and the poor. Its called taxes, that is what pays for social services.
People can do whatever they want with their money. If you start forcing people to donate then it's not really donating. Plus, isnt that what taxes are for anyways?
No it's their money but your more than welcome to give them yours.
not at all some people work incredibly hard for their money think their penalised enough don't you think working people give enough to work shy slobs who live out their existence sitting on their sofas claiming benefits!!
i dont think it matters if its from property or not. if your making obscene amounts of cash it would be a decent thing to help out those who need it. the world needs more people like you!
I agree that you shouldnt force people to give cos they do work for what they earn but i think it would be a nice thing to do. a lot of people feel they have worked for their money but many of the disadvantaged people did not have the same opportunities when it comes to schooling and financing for education and are actualy willing to work if people aided them in doing so. Im not saying that we should just give people handouts but its for the greater good to invest in society...it actualy makes it a better place for you too. All these people need is some skills development and sometimes capital to get back on their feet. it will do wonders for the crime rates
Personally I can totally see where you're coming from and the logic makes sense. However people who 'invest' in property are generally in it for one reason and therefore the tendancy to get greddier and greedier is to tempting. Therefore charity or charity donation is right at the bottom of the list. However perhaps as a footnote to this some of the oscenely high taxes and fees that are part of the house buying/selling process should be donated to charities that deal with homelessness and housing support!
That would hardly solve the problem that you are outlining. the price of housing is down to this government making the borrowing of money so cheap. during my mortgage I have been paying up to 15% which means that I have paid most of the present, so called profit, as mortgage payments over the last 30 years. Way to reduce house prices is to increase interest payments which will reduce the number of people who can afford to buy. Unfortunately this does not help those who just bought. The other reason for not doing as you say is that many elderly are selling to realise the equity to enable them to live, again due to this governments actions.
i believe that all and any windfall monies and profits from any source should be invested not in charities or "good causes" but in your own "family" supporting education, health and any other life enhancing actions, by doing this (following the most fortunate peoples of the world) you protect your own against any future misshap. and please don't forget for every 拢$E 1 donated to any charity a very small proportion actually gets through to the needy. (check out the salaries of charity managers, they are not on minimum wage, nor do they live in shelters or on the street). it is for government through taxation (they tax us at 50% ish) to provide for the less unfortunate amongst us, instead of supporting wars and other military actions world wide.
Not at all,its their money! They can do what they like with it.
For the last 20 years we have paid a huge amount of our wages on a mortgage. Finally, next year, we will be mortgage free.
And next year our oldest will be looking to take out his first mortgage, just as we are looking to downsize.
We plan to invest some of the profit by helping our kids get on the housing ladder.
We've worked damned hard to get into this position, with the idea that we would have a little nest egg for our retirement. Why should we give it away?
No way, I have worked hard to get my house . and bought it some years ago, if i sell it to get a better life, i will need the profits to pay for it. why should we give money away to charities, Govt should sort that type of thing out that you have mentioned, plus thee areto many people with begging bowls on street corners collecting for charity, give them a 拢1 and you find out that 10p goes for the charity and 90p goes for the admin costs !!! whos getting ripped off ? dont get me on my charity soap box
As any homeowner knows, especially when buying a so called expensive property, you have to pay the government stamp duty, council tax, home insurance, mortgage payments, utility bills etc etc. the so called obscene profit is really no profit at all, you have paid for it all over the years. I would suggest provision of homes for the homeless is a government problem, they have had more than enough of the publics money to solve this and many other problems.
In a word NO. I purchased my present house ten years ago for 拢116,000. It is now valued at 拢480,000. It has nothing to do with me. The huge price difference has been caused by the rapid increase in the price of houses due mainly because supply cannot meet demand. When more homes are built, possibly the price of houses may start to move down.
Why are there so many people in this world who because of envy think that those who have worked hard and saved hard all their lives should somehow be penalised for making provision for themselves? It's just this sort of nonsense which leads to a Conservative and Tory government being elected.
Watch this space.
i'm priced out of the housing market, me and my fiancee who both have steady work will never be able to afford our own home so we have to rent privately. but i bear no ill will on those who make a huge profit. it is their property after all.
Why should you suppose that the people who make profits on property are not also giving to charity? Does anyone know what YOU give to charity? Of course not. In fact, the more you earn, the more tax you pay, and the more cost-effective charitable giving is, through Gift Aid tax reclaims by the charities. So there is a big encouragement to charitable giving, for higher earners and those who make caital gains. It would be interesting to hear some statistics, if anyone out there knows how to obtain them.
Anyway, most people who are selling their homes are just doing it in order to move house, perhaps going to another area for work. So any "profit" they make on the house they are selling gets used up in buying the new one, because that has gone up too. They don't actually SEE any of the money from the increase. Sometimes they have to take out a bigger mortgage to buy the new house, depending on house prices in the various areas. And when they die and leave it to their kids, it just enables them to own a house at the increased price level; inheritance tax mops up 40% of anything over a figure that represents the value of one fairly average house. It would be difficult - and unfair - to impose a special tax on people who sell a house here and buy a new one abroad. That's the sort of thing Communist countries used to do.
There might be a way to cream off a bit more in tax from speculators who buy a house and then sell it on (in the hope of profit) without either living in it themselves or letting it out for a period. But that's done already in the capital gains tax which has to be paid on all short-term profits over about 拢7000 during one year. However, many property speculators are actually buying to let, and providing a useful service in adding to the available pool of houses for rent - have you noticed that rental prices have come down, as the pool of rentable houses has increased? And the standard of rental housing has gone up too, because of the element of competition to find tenants. But noone buys-to-let in the hope of rental income alone. Taking into account the expenses of insurance and upkeep, the periods between tenants when there is no income, and the element of risk, they are counting on some capital appreciation to make their investment worthwhile. They can get their fingers bitten too. House prices went down drastically soon after John Major's last government got in, for instance, and the prices did not recover for several years.
Surely you only profit if;
(a) you down-size within a similar price-range area
(b) you move to a less expensive area
(c) you don't need your house any more so you don't buy another one?
Well, in principle, people should - in a perfect world -give a percentage of their income to charity, full-stop. But this is not a perfect world.
But your question merely gives rise to questions of its own. When does a profit arise? Do we take the difference between what it was purchased for and what it was sold at? Would that not rather penalise older people who just happened to buy in 1974 and sell now to retire?
Is profit simply the equity?
If you sell to move elsewhere and the equity is used in buying another place - is there a profit then and if so, what is it?
However you define profit; at what point does it become 'obscene?' 拢50,000? 拢100,000? 拢500,000?
I agree with the premise behind your question that ever-rising house prices are the economics of the asylum but inexplicable people seem to think higher house prices are 'good' whilst higher prices of goods are 'bad'.
Both are bad and distort the use of resources to means of land-use rather than to anything which generates true value.
Many who sell houses, of course, have to reinvest the notional profit straight back into the house they are buying. If they have died then there is the obscene Inheritance tax. Moreover, the costs of buying and selling houses is also very expensive (stamp duty etc).
I agree with you about house price inflation, it is ridiculous and properties are way over-priced. It is this Government that has pursued a policy of low interest rates (having chosen an inflation measure that encouraged this), endless amounts of cheap far eastern money, and lending agencies promoting ever larger multiples of imprudent borrowing. There is also no fear of debt these days, particularly amongst the young.
The Government should never have allowed house prices to run away like they have. Of course, it suited them didn't it? Because it encouraged further borrowing and made the economy appear strong.
With respect, I just think that you have come up with the wrong solution. Instead, we need a house price correction. Also, I don't trust charities either to spend money wisely. Many of them have become bloated and politicised.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)