Its really simple, if you don't understand this, you need to question your own logic. Basically the Marijuana issue should be a state decision, not dictated by the Fed Govt. What don't you understand here?
185 karma · joined December 5, 2017
Its really simple, if you don't understand this, you need to question your own logic. Basically the Marijuana issue should be a state decision, not dictated by the Fed Govt. What don't you understand here?
I am for the legalizing of marijuana, but considering the majority of Americans live in only 9 of the states, decisions should not be made based on the "majority". Federal law based on what the majority wanted was one of the things that the framers were afraid of. 9 states should not be able to dictate what occurs in the other 41 states and vice versa. Full state rights. Again I am for the legalization marijuana, but this needs to be a state by state decision, not federal govt.
Pardon my humor, but do designated drivers exist anymore? or was that just a fad that went out of style?
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/10-health-benefits-of-i...
Some of the most reputable organizations in medicine have documented the dangers of an high sodium diet.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/salt-and-sodium...
https://www.cdc.gov/salt/pdfs/children_sodium.pdf
There are still some people that believe that smoking doesn't cause cancer after decades of research. In the end you are free to believe as you wish. Godspeed
If I let people pay to use my phone, then I am operating a cellular company. If I let people pay to use my lawn mower, then I am operating a grass cutting company. etc... No logically this ruling makes no sense. Just upset taxi companies that want to maintain the status quo.
That statement is simply incorrect. Both parties have a clear ideology that ebbs and flows for the sake of remaining in power
> If you change the candidates of the party, you have changed the ideology of the party.
That is also incorrect. The 2 parties may slightly adjust their ideology for the sake of power but the core of their ideology remains the same.
You do know the banks payed back the bailout money with interest and added fines right? Overall it was a net positive for tax payers. Not sure how that's a fraud... Your other examples are suspect as well...
Its not a matter of trust, its a matter of likely occurrence. In the event that someone uses their UBI on something non-essential like gambling/drugs instead of paying their rent. What do we do as a society? My solution is pay for the essentials like food, housing, medical, etc directly instead of handing out cash. This eliminates that possibility.
Out of curiosity don't we already do this? We have public/section 8 housing, food stamps, medical/dental, etc... If we are talking about handing out cold hard cash as basic income, as the statement implies, then that is a recipe for disaster. There would be no guarantee that people would use that money for basics like housing and food.
Economic policies from politicians influence economics. If policies are bad for business, jobs will leave, crime will rise and populations will decline. Economics don't happen in a vacuum. Most if not all of those declining cities have been consistently run by democrats
Are you really citing SF, New York, and Los Angeles as success stories. Those areas have some of the highest rates of homelessness in the US. In addition to the run away costs of living in those cities, they are certainly not models for success. Those examples don't help your argument...