Two Terms for Our Leader(But Life-Terms for the Decision-Makers????)

I was reading Friday's Florida Times-Union today at work and came across an article written by a citizen of Jacksonville, also available online at Citizen Action: Four Issues That Demand Action.

I would like to expand on the first point the writer brings up about term limits for congress.  This only states congress but I believe that it needs to go farther than that and place limits on all public offices.  Why was John McCain able to run for President after serving our country for 30 years in the Senate and not doing anything?

When our first President, George Washington was elected into office over 200 years ago, after his second election he left for home and became subject to the laws he put into place.  In 1940 Franklin Delano Roosevelt ran for a third term and a then a fourth term, winning both and becoming the first and only President to be elected to office more than two terms.

This brought to nation to bring into affect the 22nd amendment, No person shall serve as President for more than two terms.  This did not have any affect on any other public office.  The customary tradition of House and Senate was that one would serve two terms in the House, then perhaps, one or two in the Senate.  Following their terms, they would return to be an average citizen and be subject to the laws they put into place.

Going into the new century the perks of being of member of congress, the House, or the Senate are a lot greater than they were during the first century of our country.  With the six-figure salaries congress people pull they can pad their nest egg and be treated like royalty.  As of 2008, the average House member was elected into office in 1968, since the first Woodstock.

In the early 1990's 23 states voted to put term limits on members of congress, the vote passed 2 to 1.  The members of congress came out and said that states can not impose term limits on federal officers.

That sounds like some self-defense to me, these individuals make far to much money, have way to much power, and live above the law.  They are the same people making laws from 20, 30 or even 40 years ago.  America has proven to vote for the incumbent so for our own sake, we need to have term limits on these people.

They make laws that they do not have to follow, if they were sent back to average citizenship after serving their 3 or 4 terms, there would not be as many kick backs and they would not all be fighting for re-election, they would be fighting for actual change, not this change Obama rambles on about.  (oooo was that a shot???)

IM OUT!!!! JaxStevo

Congress for Life:

The Problem of Careerism in Congress

and a Case For Term Limits

I'll Take a Pack of Purple Haze, please

Let me start this blog by saying that I am not writing strictly based off the fact that I am an advocate for legalizing marijuana.  I have noticed of late that this has become a national issue, it has been decriminalized in California to certain extents for medical reasons.

In California, marijuana is the largest cash-crop, generating an estimated $14 billion.  At a 10% tax that would make California alone $1.4 billion.  Now take that number over all 50 states and imagine the money marijuana would generate

In 1919, the 18th amendment was established and alcohol became illegal to manufacture, transport and distribute nationally, thus creating a black market for it.  Alcohol was still accessible but it became a violent business to become part of.  In 1919 the number of inmates at Sing-Sing was 1,100 and in 1920 that number jumped to 1,500, then 1,600 buy 1922.  That was not cheap on the tax payers to cover the cost of the inmates in prison.

In 1933, the 21st amendment was established that lifted the ban on alcohol, the black market disappeared along with the violence.  That should have been enough of an example for the American government to realize they should not ban something the American people want.  Yet in, 1937 they decided to create the "Marijuana Tax Act", making marijuana illegal and highly punishable.

In America we spend about $150 billion in funding for the courts and police and $68 billion in corrections.  1/3 of these criminals being corrected are locked up for a nonviolent-drug related charge and 47.5% of arrested are marijuana related.  Marijuana is not a dangerous drug, it does not create health issues and in some cases even help with health.

So why the hell are we spending so much taxpayers money on fighting against something that is safer than alcohol and tobacco?  It seems to me like the economic crunch we are in has opened up the eyes of some of the politicians in America.  California's debt sits at at-least $136 billion, I think that instead of pumping money into the locking up the "criminals" who sell and produce marijuana, the government should consider that stats based off of California's profitability off marijuana.  If California could generate $1.4 billion off of marijuana alone, imagine how much more money they would have when they stop arresting people for it.

 

While it appears California is catching on, I hope it can progress on a national level.  In America, marijuana produces about $36 billion per year, thats more than corn and wheat combined.  There is no evidence of any damage to public health by legalizing marijuana, the penalties for marijuana cause more damage than the drug itself.  Think about no one robbing anyone for marijuana, you don't see people robbing anyone for cigarettes!!!

86% if high schoolers say marijuana is easily accessible.  Aaron Houston, an American lobbyist for the legalization of marijuana presented a very valid argument to counter that stat.  Legalizing marijuana but regulating it just like alcohol, making sure the purchaser has proper identification and is over the age of 21.  This would combat the problem of having marijuana so accessible to teenagers.

I don't want to sound like a broken record by trying to fight for the legalization of marijuana, it has been a topic of great discussion through out the nation for many years.  Looking at this, as Obama calls it, economic crisis America is in, making a few bucks off taxes for marijuana does not sound to bad.

Imagine a United Nations meeting and all the world leaders are kicking back and smoking.  The only fights will be over who is buying munchies.

YouTube Video of Aaron Houston's proposal:

US gains from legalizing marijuana

Why Legalizing Marijuana Makes Sense

My name is Stephen and I am an addict (apparently)

So over in Amsterdam they have this new rehab facility, the Smith and Jones Center.  It is a detox clinic for avid gamers who believe to be addicted to gaming.  

I was reading this article, Detox for Video Game Addiction, and it was explaining to me the actual effects of gaming and the way these individuals get addicted.  I quote from the article "an intelligent child who is unpopular in school can become dominate in the game".  That sounds to me like bad parenting.  

I will admit that pretty much all of middle school and high school I had a gaming system, I started with a Playstation One and have moved up to the Playstation 3.  Now I have played sports my whole life, I have not gained a pound in 5 years (thats almost half my gaming life), I socialize and have more friends than I really care about.

The reason for that being my parents.  Now at 21 I do whatever the hell I want, and thankfully I have a very active job so that prevents me from becoming a fat slob.  But like I was saying, my parents would not let me sit on my ass all day and play games.  I am reading these articles on so called "video-game addiction" and it keeps repeating to me that kids sit for 4, 5, or 6 hours a day on a video game system.  Who's fault is that???  

According to wikipedia :Video game addiction, or more broadly video game overuse, is excessive or compulsive use of computer and video games that interferes with daily life. Instances have been reported in which users play compulsively, isolating themselves from, or from other forms of, social contact and focusing almost entirely on in-game achievements rather than broader life events.

To me that sounnd like a pathetic human being.  I love video games and many games I have owned are multiplayer games.  Most my friends enjoy playing video games and therefore we can all socially play a game.  The online experiance has only enhanced that ability.   To "isolate" yourself from other human contact is just plain stupid.  

Now this clinic is Amersterdam has been doing studies since it opened in 2006 and realized that 90% of avid gamers are not addicted, they just need some social contact.  Well, duh, who doesn't.

From this article, Game Rehab Clinic Says 90% of Patients Aren't Addicts, I have learned that 80% of young people have been bullied and feel isolated.  That to me is another ignorant statistic.  Who does not know going into high school that things happen.  While school is a place of learning, lets be honest, as a teen it is your number one source of socializing.  I was not Mr. Popular but I was not isolated.  There were cliques of friends everywhere.  No matter what category you fell under there were always others like you.

The whole point of this blog is to say that to label someone a video game addict is in all ways wrong.  Addiction is defined by Webster's Dictionay as "a compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal ; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful"

Withdrawal is defined by webster as the syndrome of often painful physical and psychological symptoms that follows discontinuance of an addicting drug.  When I go days without gaming I do not get sick and I do get violent or psychologically impaired.  I will admit that I can go hours with out a video game but I can't go hours without a cigarette.  I do like to call nicotine(and this will probably be a future topic) an addiction but for the sake of this argument we will.  Without a cigarette I can feel myself get aggravated quickly and I "need" a smoke.  However, I may crave to play a video game, I can go without it.  

Anyone who claims to be a video game addict is doing an injustice to all of us other gamers.  To call something an addiction is almost like black listing it.  Now we will have reasons to dump more money into "video games habit studies."  I do not want that, I would like money dumped into finding out how to make my gaming experience more exciting and realistic.

Video gaming is not an addiction, it is a passion.  Anyone who can not control their habits have problems far away from just being a gamer.  If you want to call yourself a video game addict, please first call your self a loser and a nobody.  That will save me the pains of being called an addict in the future.