WebProNews

Tag: Federal Government

  • Colorado Legalizes Marijuana

    Colorado Legalizes Marijuana

    Colorado has long been known for its mountains, amazing snow-skiing, and stunning scenery. Now, it’s famous for something very different. And its not exactly something to put on their license plate…not just yet anyway. To all the “stoners” out there, Colorado welcomes your visit. So put down the Cheetos and water bong and stop on in to your neighborhood marijuana dispensary. Because now, in Colorado, it’s legal to get lit! Even Willie Nelson gives his approval.

    Marijuana, or cannabis, has been grown for hundreds of years all over the globe. In the United States it was grown legally until the 1930’s when the federal government turned its sights to pot after the end of Prohibition.

    Even now, it is against federal law for anyone to grow, possess, smoke, etc marijuana. However, on December 10th, 2012, when Colorado passed the voter-approved Amendment 64 to the U.S. Constitution, the state became the first state to turn its proverbial nose up at the feds and legalize marijuana. Can the government still come to Colorado and arrest those individuals partaking in the pot craze? Absolutely. State law does not trump federal law – even with the a constitutional amendment.

    In a memo, written on August 29th, 2013, the United States Attorney General stated that it is “committed to using its limited investigative and prosecutorial resources to address the most significant threats” meaning that the federal government does not plan on mixing it up with state and local mandates. With that, Cole went on to highlight eight guidelines that the government will enforce.

    – Preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors;
    – Preventing revenue from the sale of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises, gangs and cartels;
    – Preventing the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal under state state law in some form to other states;
    – Preventing state-authorized marijuana activity from being used as a cover or pretext for the trafficking of other illegal drugs or other illegal activity;
    – Preventing violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of marijuana;
    – Preventing drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences associated with marijuana use;
    – Preventing the growing of marijuana on public lands and the attendant public safety and environmental dangters posed by marijuana production on public lands; and
    – Preventing marijuana possession or use on federal property.

    So while you’re not likely to be arrested by a federal agent for getting stoned in your living room, you’ll still have to abide by the long list of restraints placed upon the popular drug. Some of the restraints include having to be 21 to purchase, quantity restrictions per purchase, and especially WHERE you can smoke. Unlike Amsterdam, where hash is smoked in coffee shops and the like, Colorado’s Clean Air Act applies to tobacco AND marijuana smoke. Add in the laws that govern illegal substances at airports, national parks and the like and your living room really is the ONLY safe place to smoke your weed. A living room in Colorado, at least.

    Will the new legalization laws have a direct on crime in Colorado, problems with kids in school, gang-related issues, trafficking turf wars, traffic violations and hospital visits? It may take years to fully know for sure. Some studies show that those using marijuana are less likely to abuse alcohol – so perhaps it could be a good thing.

    With all change comes push back. It’s inevitable. Sometimes the push back is warranted, sometimes not. When change involves our health and the well being of our children, one must beg the question – is it worth it? Is reducing the amount of stoners in jail, increasing tax revenue for the economy, and growing jobs a suitable trade in for the drastic increase and availability of an illegal substance (except Colorado and Washington) in our children’s world? Some would argue that the drug is already out there; kids and adults alike know everything there is to know about the wonderful world of marijuana.

    Perhaps it could be equated with Sunday alcohol sales. Cities and states across the U.S. struggled with this issue for decades and many cities, especially those in the southeastern Bible belt, still do not allow alcohol sales on Sundays. For those cities that passed the ability to sell on Sunday, their economy grew markedly and crime rates actually dropped in some places. Reason being, it was speculated, that people didn’t have to drive hours to get their liquor and be drunk by the time they got home – endangering countless lives on the road during their trek. But those cities that remain steadfast hold tightly to the belief that allowing sales on Sunday will kill everyone. Society will crumble. Alcoholics will run rampant. By that way of thinking, citizens should be humiliated. Alcoholics, just like potheads, will partake whether its against the law or not. Period. End of story. All you’re doing is deciding whether or not you’re going to capitalize on it or let someone else reap the profits. So would it be fair to say that an upside of legalizing marijuana could be that our kids won’t be subject to as many drug dealers looking to push their pot? Maybe.

    Regardless of the federal government and push back and local objectives, the question on everyone’s mind remains the same. Will our state be next? You might want to start redesigning your license plates and state mottos, because it seems like the push for pot is here to stay. Time will tell.

    Image via Wikimedia Commons

  • Unemployment Benefits Expire For 1.3 Million

    This weekend, millions of Americans are suddenly going to stop receiving their unemployment benefits. The extended federal benefits plan expires this Saturday, the 28th, forcing 1.3 million to go without a source of income.

    These long-term federal benefits were created by President Bush in the recession of 2008, and since then have been extended 11 more times. The most recent extension allowed for a total of 73 weeks of government assistance. But last week, Congress failed to extend the benefits plan any further.

    Federal long-term benefits kick in after the state’s unemployment benefits have run out. On average, long-term unemployment runs from 14 to 47 weeks. The typical weekly benefit check is $300. Which is roughly the pay of a full-time job at minimum wage. The Obama administration says these weekly checks were enough to keep 11 million Americans above the poverty line and supported roughly 17 million children. And now, that source of reliable income is gone.

    So how long will these long-unemployed have to live without benefits? According to CNN, senators will bring it to vote as soon as they are back from recess. A majority of Democrats have pushed for another extension but are facing opposition from Republicans, forcing a stalemate.

    The benefit extension plan isn’t cheap: according to the Congressional Budget Office, the cost to extend the federal benefits by another year is around $26 billion. But many argue that the extra money helps stimulate the economy, as families use their checks for groceries, shopping, and paying the bills. President Obama supports extension of the plan, calling on Congress to make temporary extension their “first order of business” in 2014. Obama has said that he would sign a proposal “right away,” but with the stalemate between Republicans and Democrats, prospects for immediately passing the bill seem weak.

    Image via Wikimedia Commons

  • How to Be a Dad – Government Knows Best?

    For those of you that enjoyed your Father’s day weekend, the federal government wants to remind you that being a father isn’t all presents and cookouts. The job is far from over, and the government wants to help you out by giving you “tips” on how to be a better dad in the form of instructional videos and outreach programs.

    Our government has released a website that is to be used as an instructional tool for all the would be fathers out there. The parenting tips can be found at www.fatherhood.gov and are brought to you by the National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse. Fathers can go to the site to get involved with outreach programs with other fathers in their community. They can also share stories and thoughts on what it means to be a father on the DadTalk Blog.

    It links to to the videos on the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences’ Psychiatric Research Institute’s Web site that gives helpful hints for being a better father. Most of them are simple tasks to do with your children, like helping them develop healthy eating habits, brushing their teeth, washing hands and going to the library.

    The site is funded with taxpayer money, and launched during the Clinton administration. It is currently being funded by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 and is intended for “the development, promotion, and distribution of a media campaign to encourage the appropriate involvement of parents in the life of any child and specifically the issue of responsible fatherhood, and the development of a national clearinghouse to assist states and communities in efforts to promote and support marriage and responsible fatherhood.”

    These tips could possibly be helpful to people that don’t know how to do these things. But who really doesn’t know how to show a child how to brush their teeth, or how to read a book to them. Which raises the question, is this website at all necessary? It is everyone’s duty to be socially responsible and teach their children how to be a proper person, but does the government really need to get involved in this? Some are going to argue that social initiatives like this will ultimately help Americans move forward as a society, others are going to argue that this is just another way for the government to enter our households.

    One thing is certain, no one has ever said their dad was a good father because the government showed him how.

    [via: cnsnews.com]

  • Medicare: More Patients Being Kept for Observation

    Medicare patients are being kept for observation at hospitals more often than they’re being admitted, thanks to pressure from the federal government. According to a recent study, the number of individuals who have been kept for observation has risen dramatically over the past several years. And while the decision not to admit those on Medicare may help cut costs down the road, the end result, unfortunately, is more out-of-pocket costs at the expense of the patients.

    Researchers at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island poured over nearly 29 million records from Medicare beneficiaries to analyze the data, which yielded some interesting statistics. In 2009, patients recommended for observation numbered in the millions. However, in 2007, only around 815,000 individuals weren’t immediately admitted. In turn, the number of admissions feel sharply during the same time frame, indicating that doctors are being a bit more careful about who they admit and who they decide to observe.

    Here’s the problem with this setup: Those who are admitted to hospitals often pay a lot less than those who are kept for observation. Since these individuals are classified as “outpatient” per Medicare rules, their co-payments are often considerably higher. Additionally, these individuals may be turned down for subsequent care in nursing facilities should they require it.

    “The dual trends of increasing hospital observation services and declining inpatient admissions suggest that hospitals and physicians may be substituting observation services for inpatient admissions — perhaps to avoid unfavorable Medicare audits targeting hospital admissions,” study author Zhanlian Feng said in a Brown University press release.

  • Anonymous: MegaUpload Take Down Could Be Trap

    Anonymous: MegaUpload Take Down Could Be Trap

    Did Anonymous play into the government’s hands?

    That’s the suggestion of Molly Wood at CNET who claims that the government planned the MegaUpload take down to happen right after the SOPA/PIPA protests on Wednesday.

    She claims that her sources told her that the timing of the MegaUpload arrests was intentional. The federal government was wanting to start a fight with Anonymous after the beating SOPA and PIPA received on Wednesday. Her sources claim that the government instigated a fight with Anonymous to display the Internet not as a peaceful resistance force, but as a violent, destructive mob.

    As we mentioned yesterday with the original MegaUpload take down story, the timing was all too convenient. Does that mean the government did it on purpose? There’s no way to really tell.

    What we do know is that an effective way to ruin the Internet’s good image after the peaceful protest on Wednesday is to represent them as being part of the same force that Anonymous belongs to. While it is true that Anonymous did support the blackout, the two sides (internet culture at large and Anonymous) couldn’t be more different.

    If this does prove to be true though, expect the government to use OpMegaUpload as proof that the Internet needs to be regulated. It will be used to label legitimate companies like Wikipedia and Google as cyber-terrorists because they supported the black out which was obviously organized by Anonymous as a form of terrorism.

    Do you believe that the federal government timed the MegaUpload arrests on purpose? Is Anonymous playing right into their hands? Let us know in the comments.