Texsox

I'm not surprised that more people did not weigh in, I am surprised that more did not agree with the parents. The main benefit is that the parents will have a smaller person to care for with simpler needs. (No menstrual issues). The benefit to the child, it would seem, is her caregivers will have an easier time and perhaps she will be more likely to live with her parents instead of being institutionalized. The child also bore the risks and discomfort of surgery. I voted I would not do it, but it would be a difficult decision and if my spouse said yes, I think I would be persuaded to agree. But I don't I could be the one saying yes first. I'm a wimp I guess.

It's a tough call. Inflicting major surgery should not come lightly. An elective hysterectomy is a tough leap to take. And to basically stunt their growth? Wow. I'm just so very lucky to have two perfectly healthy children.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 06:45 PM) But Iowa isnt California. Only California and NY count to hillary. All those "other" states dont matter. Then why have them on the map?

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 04:46 PM) How hard would it be to color a state for a candidate who won the most delegates? It would be like going to the standings page on ESPN.com and no longer seeing wins and losses but who leads in team batting average. Why rank by a measurement that does not affect the final outcome of who will win the division? It wouldn't be hard at all. I don't get your point. So they have a map that shows popular votes. I guess if you only want one map, then this isn't the map for you. Bottom line, a map that shows the popular vote from state to state allows the public to see in which states the candidates received more votes. They could also come up with a delegates map, but the charts seem to work well. Why are you so afraid of the popular vote? And what do you think about a system that allows a candidate to lose the popular vote and win more delegates? Fair?

QUOTE(qwerty @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 03:36 PM) I remember reading about an experiment done recently regarding this very situation. They set up all sorts of field tests with sober people, high people, liqoured up people , and people on other miscellaneous impairing drugs. The high people blew everyone else out of the water ( yes, the sober) for the better. They also set up people just on a cell phone... also eating something as simple as a bag of chips while listening to the radio... etc. I will find it later and post it, because i have a feeling this will be an on going thread for awhile.. Btw, what was the purpose of this thread again? QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 03:40 PM) ^^^ How many would want their surgeon smoking a joint right before operating? QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 04:39 PM) What the hell does that have to do what he was talking about? Doesn't the surgeon has his own morals? No, I don't really want my surgeon smoking pot before operating on me (it could calm him and make him better,) and I don't want him masturbating before the surgery either. I don't care if he washes his hands. Should we ban masturbation in the US to prevent a possible case of a surgeon contaminating the patient? QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 06:49 PM) ...and where did I say I pot makes you a better driver? Only one post by qwerty implied that. The only link I gave said there is no correlation(i.e. not better or worse) between smoking pot and being a bad driver. This is all in response to a post that specifically said the reason it won't be legal was because there is no breathlyzer test for it. Just when does a surgeon take a breathalyzer before doing his or her job? Go stir s*** with someone else as you are badly confused. Here is the sequence. I guess that short term memory loss isn't a myth. If there are no negatives for being high while driving, are there any negatives for a surgeon, and what would they be? I cannot think of a skill that a driver needs that would not also help a surgeon, so it would seem that being high would help the surgeon as well. And so far no one can think of a reason why it would be bad for the surgeon without also hurting a driver. As far as masterbating, I'll leave that in your hands. eww.

I believe pot has negatives, similar to alcohol, but overall is less harmful. I think we have wasted a lot of money on enforcement and prosecution of marijuana laws. I also think that the full legalization and manufacturing is probably not a good idea. I do not have a bunch of facts and figures to back it up, but I would think that if there was not problems, and it was this clear cut, that at least a few first world countries would have made it legal by now. I don't think it improves driving. There are skills involved, and most decline when high, not improve. If there were no negatives, people could have pointed out why a surgeon being high would be better then sober. Like most drugs, judgment is impaired, and we need drivers to be in full control. Finally, I laugh at the pot lovers who claim it is the most amazing drug ever discovered. So far the only thing it hasn't done is cure male pattern baldness.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 05:51 PM) Who has suggested anything close to that? And a rebuttal...would you be fine with a cook at a restaurant - let's just say some bar and grill type place - being high as a kite, cooking your food? qwerty reported that people drive better high then sober. And no, I'd prefer the cook not be high. It's funny that around here it isn't enough to believe pot is about as bad as alcohol, you must believe it is a miracle drug and has no negatives. It improves driving, makes life worth living for cancer patients, solves all the world's problems and argue with anyone who doesn't agree.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 05:48 PM) You can for sure get impaired as it slows your motor skills, but not nearly to the extent of alcohol. IN fact cell phones impair driving more than Marijuana. Thats something that causes an actual danger on the road. You can put down the cell phone when traffic situations change, you can't suddenly pick sober. In fact, sober without distractions is the best way to drive.

QUOTE(qwerty @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 03:36 PM) I remember reading about an experiment done recently regarding this very situation. They set up all sorts of field tests with sober people, high people, liqoured up people , and people on other miscellaneous impairing drugs. The high people blew everyone else out of the water ( yes, the sober) for the better. They also set up people just on a cell phone... also eating something as simple as a bag of chips while listening to the radio... etc. I will find it later and post it, because i have a feeling this will be an on going thread for awhile.. Btw, what was the purpose of this thread again? QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 05:46 PM) I never saw anyone say that. Stone cold sober is usually the best way to go through life, unless you need medication to function. Just for you. Now Santo has two of us to argue with.

2 up not the one above ^^ ^^

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 05:30 PM) I'd believe that some people do drive better high than sober. I'd also believe that some people drive better drunk than sober. I know when I smoke, I'm a worse driver than when sober. But I get from place to place safely, I obey all traffic rules, and everything's kosher other than the fact that I was high. And you would be fine if your airline pilot or kid's school bus driver said the same thing?

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 05:07 PM) Wow, really? Why does it take so much longer to go through med school than the driving school? Marijuana is linked to memory loss, and there is much more to remember when performing surgery than driving down the road. Again, it should come down to personal morals. Do you really need a law to tell you not to drive after drinking a lot? I guess common sense is hard to come by with Americans these days. So you believe that pot improves driving? QWERTY posted that people drive better high then sober. So name the specific skill that declines when you are high that effects the surgeon and not the driver?

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 04:57 PM) Surgeons require more skills than just simple motor skills and reaction time to do their job. They're two different situations. I wouldn't care if the zamboni guy or the landscaper on the riding mower smoked pot before doing their job. What skills that the surgeon needs that the driver would not? Or, if you prefer, what becomes worse with the surgeon that a driver does not need? And my point is, I find it hard to believe the drivers actually performed *better* than sober. Better than drunk, I believe. Better than some on cell phones, etc., I can believe. Better than stone cold sober, same set up, no way.

QUOTE(qwerty @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 03:36 PM) I remember reading about an experiment done recently regarding this very situation. They set up all sorts of field tests with sober people, high people, liqoured up people , and people on other miscellaneous impairing drugs. The high people blew everyone else out of the water ( yes, the sober) for the better. They also set up people just on a cell phone... also eating something as simple as a bag of chips while listening to the radio... etc. I will find it later and post it, because i have a feeling this will be an on going thread for awhile.. Btw, what was the purpose of this thread again? Instead of a surgeon, how about your pilot or the guy that is driving your kids to school? Prefer them high?

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 04:39 PM) What the hell does that have to do what he was talking about? Doesn't the surgeon has his own morals? No, I don't really want my surgeon smoking pot before operating on me (it could calm him and make him better,) and I don't want him masturbating before the surgery either. I don't care if he washes his hands. Should we ban masturbation in the US to prevent a possible case of a surgeon contaminating the patient? The previous post claims that people on pot actually drive better than sober. If that is true, then it should also make a surgeon better, certainly not worst. I can't think of a skill that a driver has that would not also help a surgeon.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 04:31 PM) At the end of the day when you add it all up, Obama wound up with more pledged delegates in Texas and in Nevada. How is she the winner? Her popular vote cannot be used as a defense when Obama has 2025 delegates. And he has the overall popular vote lead for those that think that is most important. At the end of the day, there is a state popular vote total, it is the only equal comparison between states. That map shows who received the most votes in that state. How that state manipulated the results so someone different received more delegates is a separate issue. So if you wish to have an asterisk that says Obama lost the popular vote, but won more delegates, I guess you can.

QUOTE(kjshoe04 @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 04:19 PM) I was on ESPN today. Details?

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 04:21 PM) Whenever they mention the maps they mention that it shows who "won" the various states. I am just having a hard time understanding why they use a different measure to identify which state a candidate won then the measurement that is actually used to secure the nomination. That is why they also report delegates won. Each state runs their primaries in their own way. In Texas you would need three maps to be really accurate. One to show delegates won based on the popular vote in each Rep district, one for caucus delegates won, and finally pledged superdelegates. And remember Texas awards delegates in a State Rep by State Rep districr basis. They report the popular vote because people want to know and it is the one comparison you can make from state to state. We still believe that every vote matters.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 03:59 PM) I understand the various things that are being reported wrt to popular vote, states won, etc. My beef is that when the major networks show a map of who won which state they only go by popular vote when that is not the measurement used for who wins the nomination. Would it be too difficult to color Texas and Nevada as Obama wins on the map? He did win those states when using the actual, and only, measurement used to decide the nominee. It depends on what they are trying to show with the maps.

QUOTE(pierard @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 04:12 PM) You really think so? I guess I never really though about it from that angle. It is a good point though. Personally, I don't know why people want pot to be illegal. Actually, after I thought about it, it would also depend on the current climate and who was elected and why.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 04:03 PM) He'd be impaired if he had a cold and took cold medicine, so yes he would be considering impairment is such a giant blanket statement. You can be impaired by coffee, pop, different foods, mood, blood chemistry, sleep deprivation etc etc. So I dont know what kind of statement you are trying to make. But how does pot make people better drivers, yet somehow worst surgeons?

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 03:58 PM) Makes zero sense considering I dont even want my surgeon in a fight with his wife before operating, having a bad day, dust in his eye, headache, twitch, ANYTHING. Are you saying he would be impaired?

QUOTE(pierard @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 03:43 PM) The whole pot legality argument is skewed. Right now, only one side (those in favor of legalization) bear the burden of persuasion. If the argument started on a neutral basis, that is deciding whether pot should be illegal or not without it already being legal/illegal, I think the argument to make it illegal would be MUCH weaker than the argument to legalize it. Unfortunately, Rockefeller was able to handicap the argument. Actually I think under those circumstances, we would wind up without pot, cigarettes, and alcohol.

QUOTE(pierard @ Mar 12, 2008 -> 03:45 PM) Driving = Surgery? Judgement, reaction time, reflexes, motor movement, etc. If they could drive better, why wouldn't they be better in surgery? What skills would get worse for surgery that you would not need in driving?

There are several *facts* being reported. It is being reported how many delegates have been won, and it is being reported who won which states. Should the media just not report the winner of the popular vote in each state because some people do not understand that delegate count is more important? What people think after reading and hearing those results cannot be controlled.