+- FBHW Forums (https://www.cdih.net/fbhw)
+-- Forum: Way Up High In The Playpen (https://www.cdih.net/fbhw/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Forum: The Touchy Subject Forum (https://www.cdih.net/fbhw/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+--- Thread: Michigan State Proposals (/showthread.php?tid=1684)
Pages:
1
2
Michigan State Proposals - Howie Feltersnatch - 10-27-2008
08-1 -- Michigan Medical Marihuana Act
08-2 -- Stem Cell Research
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/ED-20_11-08_Props_Poster2_251561_7.pdf
what do you think?
I'm unsure on 2 as I'm not clear on it yet. 1 is a yes for me.
Michigan State Proposals - Rock Monster - 10-27-2008
I think I'll be voting yes on both of them. Here's some stuff from both sides.
http://www.curemichigan.com/
http://www.2goes2far.com/
Michigan State Proposals - Howie Feltersnatch - 10-27-2008
I was thinking yes on 2. I'm pro-choice, but I feel it's important what choice you make. I'm 25 with a 6yo son...I coulda taken an easy out but didn't. I'm more against the gubment making desicions for us. With that I think that if an embryo is going to be flushed anyway (from IV left overs) might as well use it to help someone....sorta like organ donors...sorta
Michigan State Proposals - Biff - 10-27-2008
Yes on one, no on two. Two has language on it that reads "Prohibit state and local laws that prevent, restrict or discourage stem cell research, future therapies and cures".
I'm sorry but no proposal should have a blank check like that. I'm not opposed to stem cell research but I am opposed to granting anyone absolute power like that.
Michigan State Proposals - Rock Monster - 10-27-2008
Maybe I'm just reading it differently, but isn't simply saying that it will be legal, and no laws can be passed that makes the research, or use of (if they find cures) that makes it illegal?
(I'm confused!!)
Michigan State Proposals - Biff - 10-27-2008
Rock Monster Wrote:Maybe I'm just reading it differently, but isn't simply saying that it will be legal, and no laws can be passed that makes the research, or use of (if they find cures) that makes it illegal?
(I'm confused!!)
It opens a very wide door for cloning and/or the creation of embryos just for stem cell research. I find this objectionable. Who knows what other doors it opens as well. In addition, this is a constitutional amendment not just a law.
Michigan State Proposals - Rock Monster - 10-27-2008
Admin Wrote:It opens a very wide door for cloning and/or the creation of embryos just for stem cell research.
The very first line, under Article I (page 14 of howie's link) Says:
"Nothing in this section shall alter Michigan's current prohibition on human cloning."
There won't (shouldn't) be any doors opening..
Michigan State Proposals - Biff - 10-27-2008
I didn't read Howie's link I just knew about the line I quoted. Either way, with the way that technology is advancing I don't like unrestricted permission WRT stem cells etc.
What happens when they want to perform testing on people in comas? On life support? On the mentally retarded? The door that is opened might be a crack today but could become far too wide in the future and I'm opposed to that.
Michigan State Proposals - Rock Monster - 10-27-2008
My stance is that if there's a chance that a quadriplegic will walk again, with this research, why wouldn't we try it?
I know that there's a possibility of someone taking it too far, but why stop all of the good that could happen, just because of the outside chance that someone, someday will cross that line. (wherever it may lie)
Michigan State Proposals - Biff - 10-27-2008
Rock Monster Wrote:I know that there's a possibility of someone taking it too far
Then they need to amend the language and try it again.
Michigan State Proposals - Rock Monster - 10-27-2008
I just read the post again...
there can't be testing on anyone in comas, etc.
"No stem cells may be taken from a human embryo more than 14 days after cell division begins..."
I think that covers your issue?
Michigan State Proposals - Biff - 10-27-2008
Rock Monster Wrote:I just read the post again...
there can't be testing on anyone in comas, etc.
"No stem cells may be taken from a human embryo more than 14 days after cell division begins..."
I think that covers your issue?
It doesn't. It doesn't cover creation of embryos for research and there is still the issue of not knowing future technology.
They can rewrite the bill and try again in two years IMO.
Michigan State Proposals - speedbump - 10-27-2008
Admin Wrote:Rock Monster Wrote:I just read the post again...
there can't be testing on anyone in comas, etc.
"No stem cells may be taken from a human embryo more than 14 days after cell division begins..."
I think that covers your issue?
It doesn't. It doesn't cover creation of embryos for research and there is still the issue of not knowing future technology.
They can rewrite the bill and try again in two years IMO.
What about this?
The human embryos were created for the purpose of fertility treatment
and, with voluntary and informed consent, documented in writing, the
person seeking fertility treatment chose to donate the embryos for
research; and
(i) the embryos were in excess of the clinical need of the person
seeking the fertility treatment and would otherwise be discarded
unless they are used for research; or
(ii) the embryos were not suitable for implantation and would otherwise
be discarded unless they are used for research.
© No person may, for valuable consideration, purchase or sell human
embryos for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures.
Doesn't this cover your concerns?
Michigan State Proposals - Biff - 10-27-2008
speedbump Wrote:Doesn't this cover your concerns?
That covers my "current" concerns. Again, I am not opposed to stem cell research. I am concerned about a constitutional change that doesn't allow any future limitations should it be required. If that part were out of it I'd probably give it the thumbs up.
Michigan State Proposals - spunkypopcorn - 10-27-2008
I still agree with both of them, but I do think No. 2 isn't worded very well and should be more specific (I think more people would understand it better if it was). I figure if the embryo is just going to be thrown away anyway, it should be used to help find cures for other people.
Michigan State Proposals - airhornahole - 10-28-2008
Thank You. All Of you. You have shown this board that, yes, a discussion can happen without the usual onslaught of childish name calling.
My opinion on these is no to both.
Pot is drug just like the rest and yes, in my opinion, alchohol is a drug. I have seen the nastiness it can bring. Just like cigarettes are a drug. If it is addictive, it is a drug.
Stem cell research, again in my opinion, is playing God. Everyone is in their situation for a reason. That which does not kill you, only makes you stronger. It would be nice to allow everyone to live forever, but that can't happen. Let's let God play God.
Michigan State Proposals - Rock Monster - 10-28-2008
airhornahole Wrote:Stem cell research, again in my opinion, is playing God. Everyone is in their situation for a reason. That which does not kill you, only makes you stronger. It would be nice to allow everyone to live forever, but that can't happen. Let's let God play God.
With that view point, isn't taking antibiotics playing god? Painkillers? What about radiation or chemotherapy for cancer patients? God gave them cancer, why should we fix them? Where do you draw the line what's acceptable or not?
Michigan State Proposals - airhornahole - 10-28-2008
Rock Monster Wrote:airhornahole Wrote:Stem cell research, again in my opinion, is playing God. Everyone is in their situation for a reason. That which does not kill you, only makes you stronger. It would be nice to allow everyone to live forever, but that can't happen. Let's let God play God.
With that view point, isn't taking antibiotics playing god? Painkillers? What about radiation or chemotherapy for cancer patients? God gave them cancer, why should we fix them? Where do you draw the line what's acceptable or not?
That's true. But providing medication for an illness is different than altering someone's DNA before or after they are born to prevent an illness.
I just think that if you start with this research, it will lead to bad things. What can the government take from the learnings and translate into military purpose? Will they be developing the "perfect human weapon"? I don't care what the law will read, the greedy fat cats and government aholes will get around the laws. They do now on a daily basis. They write the laws, so they are the experts at getting around them.
Michigan State Proposals - landmammaldolphin - 10-28-2008
Yes on both.
Michigan State Proposals - Rock Monster - 10-28-2008
airhornahole Wrote:That's true. But providing medication for an illness is different than altering someone's DNA before or after they are born to prevent an illness.
What about the person that was hit by a drunk driver, or was shot while at war defending our country, >
, and is now a paraplegic? Too bad for them? airhornahole Wrote:I don't care what the law will read, the greedy fat cats and government aholes will get around the laws. They do now on a daily basis. They write the laws, so they are the experts at getting around them.
If they're going to ignore the laws, and do it anyway, what's stopping them from doing it now? ???
Michigan State Proposals - airhornahole - 10-28-2008
Rock Monster Wrote:airhornahole Wrote:That's true. But providing medication for an illness is different than altering someone's DNA before or after they are born to prevent an illness.
What about the person that was hit by a drunk driver, or was shot while at war defending our country, >
Pretty much.
airhornahole Wrote:I don't care what the law will read, the greedy fat cats and government aholes will get around the laws. They do now on a daily basis. They write the laws, so they are the experts at getting around them.
If they're going to ignore the laws, and do it anyway, what's stopping them from doing it now? ???
Who says they aren't already doing it?
Remember, this is my opinion. You are all welcome to your own.
Michigan State Proposals - potthole - 10-28-2008
airhornahole Wrote:Pot is drug just like the rest and yes, in my opinion, alchohol is a drug. I have seen the nastiness it can bring. Just like cigarettes are a drug. If it is addictive, it is a drug.
So are you saying that in your opinion, alcohol and smokes should be illegal, too? How about caffeine? It's also shown to be addictive.
Michigan State Proposals - airhornahole - 10-29-2008
potthole Wrote:airhornahole Wrote:Pot is drug just like the rest and yes, in my opinion, alcohol is a drug. I have seen the nastiness it can bring. Just like cigarettes are a drug. If it is addictive, it is a drug.
So are you saying that in your opinion, alcohol and smokes should be illegal, too? How about caffeine? It's also shown to be addictive.
Tobacco should be illegal. There should be volume limits on the sales of alcohol. Caffeine may be addictive, but it does not distort your mental ability when taken in excess.
Michigan State Proposals - landmammaldolphin - 10-29-2008
airhornahole Wrote:Pot is drug just like the rest and yes, in my opinion, alchohol is a drug. I have seen the nastiness it can bring. Just like cigarettes are a drug. If it is addictive, it is a drug.
Oh crap, that means that porn is a drug and so is floggin' the dolphin....crap!
Michigan State Proposals - potthole - 10-29-2008
airhornahole Wrote:potthole Wrote:So are you saying that in your opinion, alcohol and smokes should be illegal, too? How about caffeine? It's also shown to be addictive.
Tobacco should be illegal. There should be volume limits on the sales of alcohol. Caffeine may be addictive, but it does not distort your mental ability when taken in excess.
So, anything that can be addictive is a drug. And all drugs should be illegal, with the exception of caffeine and alcohol. I'm not really follwing your rationale on these...
Michigan State Proposals - airhornahole - 10-29-2008
potthole Wrote:airhornahole Wrote:Tobacco should be illegal. There should be volume limits on the sales of alcohol. Caffeine may be addictive, but it does not distort your mental ability when taken in excess.
So, anything that can be addictive is a drug. And all drugs should be illegal, with the exception of caffeine and alcohol. I'm not really following your rationale on these...
How's this, I believe people should have freedoms. That includes me having the freedom to not be killed by a drunk or stoned driver. That is how I base my opinion. Limits on alcohol and the ingestion of caffeine would still allow for those freedoms.
Michigan State Proposals - potthole - 10-29-2008
Where's the ban on smokes come into play with all of this?
Michigan State Proposals - airhornahole - 10-29-2008
potthole Wrote:Where's the ban on smokes come into play with all of this?
I have the freedom to not have to die from 2nd hand smoke inhalation which can lead to cancer.
Michigan State Proposals - potthole - 10-29-2008
And what if one would counter your arguments about smoking and drinking, by saying that they have the freedom to drink and smoke? Are your freedoms more important?
Please know I'm playing devil's advocate here, I, to a slight degree agree with some parts of your views.
Michigan State Proposals - plungerhand - 10-29-2008
airhornahole Wrote:potthole Wrote:So, anything that can be addictive is a drug. And all drugs should be illegal, with the exception of caffeine and alcohol. I'm not really following your rationale on these...
How's this, I believe people should have freedoms. That includes me having the freedom to not be killed by a drunk or stoned driver. That is how I base my opinion. Limits on alcohol and the ingestion of caffeine would still allow for those freedoms.
staying home is always an option. What about eating, texting, watching vids, talking on phone or to a passenger? All these things impair one's ability to drive. You are taking a chance every time you get in a car, period. Try a taxi or the bus if you're too scared to drive with the crazies.
Michigan State Proposals - airhornahole - 10-29-2008
jus' P Wrote:airhornahole Wrote:How's this, I believe people should have freedoms. That includes me having the freedom to not be killed by a drunk or stoned driver. That is how I base my opinion. Limits on alcohol and the ingestion of caffeine would still allow for those freedoms.
staying home is always an option. What about eating, texting, watching vids, talking on phone or to a passenger? All these things impair one's ability to drive. You are taking a chance every time you get in a car, period. Try a taxi or the bus if you're too scared to drive with the crazies.
So, I have to give up my freedoms because other people are idiots and increase the risk of death for everyone else with their stupidity?
Michigan State Proposals - potthole - 10-29-2008
potthole Wrote:And what if one would counter your arguments about smoking and drinking, by saying that they have the freedom to drink and smoke? Are your freedoms more important?
Please know I'm playing devil's advocate here, I, to a slight degree agree with some parts of your views.
Still waiting on a response to this question.
Michigan State Proposals - ethos - 10-29-2008
Yes and yes for me.
Michigan State Proposals - airhornahole - 10-31-2008
potthole Wrote:potthole Wrote:And what if one would counter your arguments about smoking and drinking, by saying that they have the freedom to drink and smoke? Are your freedoms more important?
Please know I'm playing devil's advocate here, I, to a slight degree agree with some parts of your views.
Still waiting on a response to this question.
Of course, to me, my freedoms are more important than anyone elses. If neither you nor I thought this way, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Michigan State Proposals - potthole - 10-31-2008
I've never thought that what's best for me is best for everybody else. Sure, I like things to be good for me, but I'm willing to give on some stuff if it means somebody else will get things they like too.
Michigan State Proposals - landmammaldolphin - 11-04-2008
Saw a poll yesterday on the news that showed both proposals passing by a double digit margin. I can't believe that the poll will be indicitive of the actual results, but we'll just see now won't we.
Michigan State Proposals - Howie Feltersnatch - 11-04-2008
landmammaldolphin Wrote:Saw a poll yesterday on the news that showed both proposals passing by a double digit margin. I can't believe that the poll will be indicitive of the actual results, but we'll just see now won't we.
most people seemed to be for 1...atleast i hadn't talked to anyone against it. 2 is polarizing though.
anyone catch the anti-prop 1 commercials with the 'smoking parlors' and the teenagers? Everyone knows they aren't going to start opening up "head shops' just because of the proposal being passed....
the headshops will piggy back with already established Oxycotton and Meth parlors.
:
Michigan State Proposals - landmammaldolphin - 11-04-2008
I saw them. Stupid. Then I saw the ones about the sleeping judge, the woman who's desperate and will say anything, the one about the Presidential candidate, the one....oh hell I turned the TV off at that point! I can't friggin' wait until tomorrow so that only the commercials that the stupid programmers forgot to take off the air are shown.
Michigan State Proposals - Rock Monster - 11-04-2008
landmammaldolphin Wrote:I saw them. Stupid. Then I saw the ones about the sleeping judge, the woman who's desperate and will say anything, the one about the Presidential candidate, the one....oh hell I turned the TV off at that point! I can't friggin' wait until tomorrow so that only the commercials that the stupid programmers forgot to take off the air are shown.
One point, while watching TV last night, my GF said something about being sick of the political commercials. After that one was 3 more in a row, then the show came back on. I hate politics.
Michigan State Proposals - fistor!@# - 11-04-2008
Rock Monster Wrote:landmammaldolphin Wrote:I saw them. Stupid. Then I saw the ones about the sleeping judge, the woman who's desperate and will say anything, the one about the Presidential candidate, the one....oh hell I turned the TV off at that point! I can't friggin' wait until tomorrow so that only the commercials that the stupid programmers forgot to take off the air are shown.
One point, while watching TV last night, my GF said something about being sick of the political commercials. After that one was 3 more in a row, then the show came back on. I hate politics.
I don't hate politics, just negative campaign ads that assume the viewer is stupid enough to buy into it.