Politicians and pharmaceutical companies circulate ridiculous exaggerations for their own monetary gain that play on the fears of ignorant people who have no experience with marijuana. This bill has little to do with our health but everything to do with collecting state taxes. The direct effect will be an increase in revenues for the Port Authority via the GW Bridge, Lincoln and Holland Tunnels and a rise in people transplanting from neighboring states with a rise in real estate prices in New Jersey. The reason it has taken this long to legalize medical marijuana is due to the fact that this business will not be as lucrative as prescription drugs and politicians kickbacks will be much less from the sale of medical marijuana as they would through big pharmas. It is preposterous that lawmakers are currently overruling doctors who are forced to prescribe drugs much powerful as Oxycotin, Ritalin and Prozac than the much milder marijuana.

If the concern is about sending the wrong message to kids we should then ban ads for alcohol and cigarettes. Marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol and cigarettes and anyone with a fake ID can purchase these substances at the corner store or order PD’s from Canada. Minors already have easier access to marijuana than cigarettes according to nationwide studies thanks to the underground market that has grown over the last half century while the war on drugs has managed to waste away $1 trillion of our tax dollars and yet drugs are just as easy to come by as they were before the war started. This futile effort has limited economic benefits with no tax revenue but pales in comparison to what the drug lords and cartels withdraw from our economy. Marijuana is considered the least damaging and dangerous of the controlled list. Decriminalizing marijuana use on a broader scale is the only way to extract money out of the hands of drug cartels and start emptying our prisons. It is understood that if marijuana is consumed in large quantities it may be harmful but doesn’t this apply to all aspects of drugs? If anything is consumed in large quantities it may be harmful, this is no reason to make it illegal. The only time it will become difficult for minors to obtain is when the plant is legalized and sold in authorized stores instead of on the corner. Purchasing in a store would also deter the introduction to more destructive drugs. The crime rate would go down greatly and possibly alcohol use would go down to a certain extent.

Alcohol is a factor in most violent crime cases in America as well as responsible for a large portion of vehicular fatalities, but it is legal and cleverly marketed to minors. Cigarettes kill over 400,000 Americans a year and prescription drug fatalities hover around the same figure. During alcohol prohibition bootleggers were around every corner, people still drank and gang violence became a national problem. The year after prohibition ended, the murder rate in America was half what it was under prohibition. Why do we continue to waste resources in an unwinable war? Today marijuana is funding organized crime, the same way prohibition did in the 20’s.

Most of the scientific literature available to the public agrees that marijuana addiction has less detrimental effects than alcohol, cigarettes and prescription drug addictions. Yes, marijuana can cause cancer, same as cigarettes. It is not as harmless as is often stated but what makes marijuana similar to cigarettes are the pesticides/additives being soaked into the plant by the cartels. As marijuana becomes legalized the states and federal government could produce a substance with much less potent levels.

Watching state by state passing these laws is similar to how states adopted the lottery. In the 1980’s a handful of states allowed lotteries. States insisted lotteries were the root of all evil. But, as politicians slowly overspend state budgets lottery was adopted in all 50 states to fund education. As current state deficits balloon it is only a matter of time before each state adapts New Jerseys stance on marijuana.

thevoice@voicedup.com

His followers will say that the FED is one of the biggest scams in the Unites States history. Mainly since its conception was by private bankers and not the common man. Milton Friedman believes the FED is responsible for the environment that caused the great depression. Many believe the FED is responsible for the current crisis as well.

I have not yet read the book but from what I hear the Fed is reluctant to disclose other banks holdings in order to protect their solvency. Could it be that the FED is primarily concerned by protecting its own solvency? Could the FED be too big to fail? And if so doesn’t the FED then pose a systemic risk that could be catastrophic? On a grander scale, wouldnt all counrties have to embrace the gold standard for optimal performance? If not the risk of a 1907 repeat is bound to happen again. London and other European banks raised interest rates stemming outflows while the U.S. maintained the gold standard, leading to the creation of the FED.

The Keynesian school believes in printing money when necessary to improve economic fundamentals. I do not have a problem with this as long as the stimulus is spent wisely. Allocating these funds to a scrupulous group of banks that have obvious ties with the current FED does not seem optimal except to the selective pockets that gain.

thevoice@voicedup.com

1. Insurance for those that do not have coverage
2. Mitigate the cost growth of healthcare in the U.S.
3. Ensure there is a level of stability and security for those with current coverage
4. Prohibit insurers from dropping or denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions
5. Limit out of pocket expenses
6. Remove caps on coverage
7. Establish an insurance exchange to facilitate competition between insurers
8. Possibility of a not-for-profit plan with no taxpayer subsidies

- Remarks of President Barack Obama -

thevoice@voicedup.com
Follow me on twitter @voicedup

thedoc@voicedup.com:
The web is certainly a good place to retrieve unfiltered news although this is not necessarily a good thing. For one, its not always a left wing journalist filtering information. If it was there would not be round the clock coverage of Sarah Palin’s resignation speech with basketball analogies. Coverage would also be extended to people with real health care problems vs. illiterates that shout down town hall meetings with statements such as “Tell the government to keep their hands off my medicare.” Discussions would have centered around Obama’s health care press conference instead of focusing on the Skip Gates and Officer Crowley comment. The media here is so worried about being called the liberal media that they don’t actually report news anymore. When was the last time anyone saw a presidential debate where the news station had its analysts go over and break down what the candidates said and what it means and who was telling the truth and who was untruthful? Today viewers are sent to a democratic “spinster” and then a republican “spinster” who both act as if their candidate was flawless. They literally send you to a place called deception alley and they don’t break down the debate for the public with fear they will be labeled liberal or leftist. The problem with the web is that everyone is in such a rush to get the story out first, that media outlets don’t actually have journalists doing investigative reporting. The validity of a web article is left up to the reader. When Dan Rather went on 60 minutes to report it was known he investigated it and checked his sources. Now most of the time people read the title of an article when Internet explorer opens up, click on the link, glance over the article and aren’t even sure what the source of the information is.

As for his comments on health care, there was nothing concise stated. He attempted to align himself with the founding fathers, Jefferson in particular, but did not lay out any real data. There is information from the World Health Organization on life expectancy, infant and maternal death rates during pregnancy etc, and we fall short of many other countries. We also pay more and get less coverage. I have not found the data yet that he is speaking of that shows survival rates after heart attacks and other procedures. If anyone can find that data let me know. Even if he is right about that, I’m not trying to say that we don’t have good doctors here. Our technology and medical understanding is fantastic, the main problem is not everyone can get it when they need it.

A free market enterprise will not work with health care. France has a hybrid system with a public option and private companies and it works great. It’s one thing when people get fooled when it comes to their money, investments, selling of cars, etc. It’s another thing when you have cancer and your insurance tells you your procedure was denied, please call this number and try again and your cancer kills you while you are waiting. This happens time and time again. Now the problem most people have with this is selfish. It’s like belonging to a country club. Once you let everyone in, its not really a country club anymore. Most people are too afraid to say that out loud, but that’s what they usual mean. its understood except this isn’t a country club, its people’s lives. The problem with health care is that most people with coverage think they belong to the country club, until they try to collect. Then they realize that they weren’t really a member. A co-worker had a situation with her godson. The father was a cop, the mother a teacher. Both had insurance. Their son had childhood leukemia. However most of the treatments that their child required to get through the cancer was not covered by either insurance. Both parents work full time, both public service jobs that are supposed to have good benefits. They had to foreclose on their house to get him treated and had a fund raiser which raised an additional 90k dollars through some of her husbands wealthy wall street friends. Most people don’t have friends that can raise that kind of money. Now let me ask you this, if you had cancer, or someone you loved had cancer, would you rather have the person who was deciding whether or not you were going to be covered for your treatment to be a free market capitalist working for a private company whose main goal was to make a profit, or a government bureaucrat?

baminc@voicedup.com:

Philosophically I tend to agree with Hanan’s viewpoints, but have not made up my mind one way or the other as far as single payer. There are some strong ideas on health-care reform that should seriously be considered,however my initial stance is that we cannot afford it as a nation at this time. With this administration I see much of what we have already had in Washington via the previous ones. I am not on board with his war efforts and feel he’s been sketchy with the fed audit bill.m One can not start overhauling things when you have to buckle down your balance sheet. The reason taxes constantly increase is due to the constant deficits ran up by all the government agencies and programs. For instance lets take UPS. The mail gets there, but as there is better technology shouldn’t prices go down? Isn’t it getting easier to deliver letters? “real” price changes occur when there is more competition, not less. If health-care is so important in terms of rising cost, why not allow people to have coverage from businesses across state lines? There are morality laws from state to state that call for mandatory types of coverage, adjusting the price accordingly. If we received coverage from Nevada, all the other providers are greatly disadvantaged. They would have to scale down and streamline themselves to stay competitive. The consumer always wins in this scenario. Obama seemed as if he was going to do right by his constituency, but his actions dictate otherwise. It looks as if he’s similar to the latest GM car, full of promises, but ultimately an inferior product by an inferior company. He’s the last of a thankfully dying breed. He is a puppet with great name recognition. He is by all respects a sleeker, more exciting,and more charismatic version of the previous president. But ultimately, he is just a tool for the special interest agenda. Nothing against him, its the position. The previous generation fell asleep at the wheel. People, especially younger generations are getting fed up and are starting to expect more of their appointed officials. The topics Hannon discusses are considered radical in his country, yet in parliament, he is the only one who can oppose Brown simply on principal. When he does however, he makes a straight case and usually leaves Brown speechless and dumbfounded. To me this is less about health care and more about the role of government. The road to socialized medicine is very tricky. I seriously consider the warning for going this path. As Hannon stated, once you go government, there is almost no way of going back, hence I am not eager for this to happen. This is how guys like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich converse and try to get things discussed. They are maligned by our government and media as being “crazy”. This makes me so angry which is why I can no longer just accept that Obama and company knows what’s best. I take more offense that you seem in favor of the president/govt agenda than if you actually were a socialist. Again, its not because he is a democrat, its more along the lines of “new face, same product.”

Kindle: Amazon’s 6″ Wireless Reading Device (Latest Generation)

Correspondent: thedoc@voicedup.com, baminc@voicedup.com

thevoice@voicedup.com
Follow me on twitter @voicedup

Men lured from their homelands with promises of a better life, a steady income and the ability to provide for their families back home.  The truth isn’t revealed until it is too late.  These men arrive and their passports are confiscated, their salary contracts disappear and they are left with no escape.  They work 15-20 hour days in the ardent desert heat building skyscrapers where temperatures reach 100+ fahrenheit. While they build the dreams of the wealthy theirs decimate in a pool of blood, sweat and tears. These men barely eat, don’t have running water or bathing facilities.  They live in modern day shanty towns and they cannot escape. With barely enough money to eat how can they pay to leave the country that has enslaved them?   The ruler of Dubai Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum safeguards his city of negative publicity by fining, banishing and/or imprisoning members of the press attempting to investigate this matter. Outside rescue aid isn’t allowed to infiltrate their land and meddle in their affairs.  What can the average person do to help these men being enslaved by wealthy companies to build their majestic cities?  Unfortunately not much but avoid travel to U.A.E. and help spread the word.  Send links to this article and video via email, facebook, twitter, etc.  If you can prevent a single person from visiting and contributing to their economy you have done your part.  The following link will direct you to the VBS News documentary by Ben Anderson: VBS

Correspondent: CV@voicedup.com

thevoice@voicedup.com

As long as we keep printing money to bail out failing industries the value of our dollar and our purchasing power will continue to decrease while inflation ticks higher.

thevoice@voicedup.com