Sometimes I rattle the cage and beat my head uselessly against its bars, but sometimes, I can shake one loose and use it as a dildo.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Dance, monkey, dance!
You aren't very good at reading social cues are you?
Fewer kids will be at risk because lawmakers made the correct decision.Where I'll still politely disagree with you.
...I think that if you want to prevent drug use, you ought to not be focused so much on keeping the penalties against use intact, but giving people a reason for not using -a reward.
You focus on the stick, from what I have seen so far.
From what I can tell it's the carrot-positive opportunities to work towards-that keep people off drugs.
This thread on an internet message board has been focused on the discussion of legalization. It is representative of precisely that, a discussion, and not my job. A job where I certainly do employ strength-based strategies to give kids positive alternatives to drugs, to build refusal skills, to engage and empower them to not need chemicals for fake strength. I do all these things. But it isn't either/or. I can do these with the substance still illegal, because the law itself isn't prevention, but lifting the ban on marijuana will create more access which is just not an acceptible move.
And, of course, there are about a zillion co-sponsors. 2 out of the more than a dozen voted against it (my guess would be an objection to an amendment, or the co-sponsorship was a political favor to begin with and they never intended to vote for it) and RWHN tries to portray that as though he himself took up the mantle of righteousness and showed those legislators the error of their ways.
Way I see it, convincing 2 out of more than a dozen people to adopt your position (even though we all know that's not what really happened) doesn't speak all that well of your testimonial abilities.
This whole post speaks to how ignorant you are of the legislative process in Maine. The two co-sponsors who voted against it were the ONLY co-sponsors of the bill on the committee that had the bill. The committee only has 13 lawmakers on it. Only 13 lawmakers had a vote. Only two of them were co-sponsors. And they both flipped. We don't need the rest of them to flip, because the bill is fucking dead. Is this sinking in?
Presented by Representative Russell of Portland.
Cosponsored by Senator Valentino of York and
Senators Gerzofsky of Cumberland, Mazurek of Knox, Representative Bear of Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, Representatives Beavers of South Berwick, Beck of Waterville, Bolduc of Auburn, Chapman of Brooksville, Chipman of Portland, Dickerson of Rockland, Dunphy of Embden, Farnsworth of Portland, Hamann of South Portland, Harlow of Portland, Harvell of Farmington, Hayes of Buckfield, Hickman of Winthrop, Jorgensen of Portland, Kruger of Thomaston, Lajoie of Lewiston, Libby of Waterboro, Libby of Lewiston, MacDonald of Boothbay, Mitchell of Penobscot Nation, Monaghan-Derrig of Cape Elizabeth, Moonen of Portland, Morrison of South Portland, Noon of Sanford, Peoples of Westbrook, Powers of Naples, Rykerson of Kittery, Stanley of Medway, Stuckey of Portland, Welsh of Rockport, Wood of Sabattus.
Yep, especially the two co-sponsors of the bill who flipped and voted against it.
Gerzofsky, one of the Committee chairs, and Lajoie were two of the 35 co-sponsors of the bill. They both ended up voting against it.
That's not a link. I'd like to see what amendments and riders were added and when.
Google. I'm not linking you to the site for the bill because it would provide easy access to personal information I'd rather not have easily accessible from this site.