After reading chapter 23 in your textbook, describe three barriers to communication, as well as ways in which healthcare workers can break these barriers to communicate effectively with patients/residents
First let’s understand the question, before we can understand an answer to this discussion. Communication between patient and professional in a quality of aspects help us interact with each other a little better. The Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Minority Health 2003 is developing effective communication between patients who speak different languages who come from different cultures, creed, and backgrounds. An effort to reduce, or eliminate health disparities (National Center for Health Statistics, Healthy People 2000, 2010).
Well, what we know as about ‘Barriers’? Well, a Barrier is like a wall, a block of vision, or type of force keeping the inevitable from performing its task. Such barriers include language, to ensure the proper treatment, and amount of competency being made is in an orderly manner. As we discussed this in class earlier about the ‘Bill of Rights’ patients rights, we all have so many rights in Healthcare. Thus as students we learn to become ‘Culturally Competent’ (Fortier et al. 1998; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights 2001; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Minority Health, Closing the Gap 2001), having the permission to get consent from our patients before and after tasks given to us, right? Right? Okay, so we now know that there is a ‘Cultural Barrier’ here.
So what do we know of ‘Communication’? Communication is the means of interacting with my fellow classmates, right?
Okay, so the common Barriers shown in Page 208 of our book, to Communication are;
1. The Hearing Impaired Resident
2. The Blind Resident
3. The Difficult Resident
4. The Confused Resident
5. The Unknown Resident
Well, let me begin by telling you about them and how all of these come into play. This is my playground, and you get a treat from me through these discussions, as my original classmates such as Brian have experienced this in all of our classes. I do not do half-a&*Ed discussions, so this will be a treat.
For most people, patients, and care givers (Could be a Nurse, or Doctor, or responsible residence), we come across a little hinder that can lead into a possible large argument or misunderstanding. On Page 208 of the CNA 111 book, we read the Barriers, but prior to that page in Chapter 23 beginning, in Page 205 explains the definitions of Aphasia = (Loss of ability to use language effectively), Body Language = (Communicating through posture or facial expression or actions), Communicate = (To exchange information or opinions).
For some patients who are either blind, or just plain difficult, these patients are the ones, I believe are in more need of attention, and to be handled with the greatest care. I say, the greatest care, as if it is your life or death situation, you understand. This I critical, for they are the ones that depend in the hospitals expertise. There is a balance, we must be accurate when taking their vitals (It does not hurt to check more than 3 or more times to be sure, trust me, please). We must be consistent, in being helpful no matter how difficult a patient may be, the many times out of 1. Patients may be tired, and not want to fight anymore. (But please be polite and courteous at ALL times). This repetition of politeness, goodness, will rub off, who knows; you may have already healed the patient back to health, just by being an ‘ANGEL’ to their needs. For the blind person, we usual will use a brachial, what is that word Brail language, giving them options, where hopefully they can still hear, so we can read in detail, help the patient to understand better our policies, our plans, for this patient the task we will be administering him/her/it.
When I was a little boy, I remembered at four-years old my first doctor visit was at Kaiser Permanente. I will not disclose any details about his name, or what it was for? (Here I consent to disclose this much information). I remember asking the doctor questions about what he was doing? He explained in a generous manner in detail, what he was doing, and why? He then proceeded to administer a needle into my arm with ‘stuff’ in it. (My mother was in the room, with me). I did not know what it was?? I started to cry, so he stopped. He then, told me a story of how he became a doctor, I was intrigued. So, I was then occupied by my mother’s hands where she was playing with me, clapping and joking with me. My head was turned towards my mother, she both of my arms, then the doctor just swiftly poked me with that needle, I was so gravely afraid of. I really did not feel it, except later on, the ‘stuff’ was started to burn inside my arm, just like the doctor said it would. I was not clear myself to what that was, but apparently my mother knew I was going to be in excruciating pain. So she, tried to calm me down of course, after I cried and cried, because I did not know what was growing inside of me. But the doctor then made it better by putting in front of my face a nice ‘big lollipop’, and a sticker. It’s funny, but true. My mother took me to get ‘Ice Cream’, and my favorite sweet ‘pomegranates’. I was fine coming out of the doctor’s office, but as soon as we came in the store I was in pain, like I was dying or something. My mother handed me the big waffle cone of ‘Butter Pecan’, and I shoved it right on my arm. I felt better; the ice cream was demolished, melting down my arm. My mother did not mind, for it kept my mouth shut. So here, I’m walking home with my mom, holding her hand, and with the other hand the ice cream dripping down my arm. I had to take a bath of course, once I came home.
So you see, it’s a matter of tactical measures, and applying code of conduct, professionalism, and help of our parents. We grew up with this kind of behavior, so let’s practice better tactics, and better politeness.
These key words are what should be applied while communicating; speaking and listening. These can be used in the form of; Written, nonverbal, and effective use of communication. Other means of communication have three other key ingredients; Body language (We all know through visual, and perception of what women say in body language, wow!), moving on. Eye Contact (How you fell in love with your sweetheart in high school, right? Right?) Touch (These sensors in our bodies signal our brain through our ‘Nervous System’, through means of Nerve Impulses).
In other words, we listen to our patients, as simple, polite and courteous reply’s to find out about their situation, if there is pain, where, when, how, why do you think? Questioning the patient in a more approachable composure, finding the true nature of origins in their visit. If it may be a child, then ‘laughter’ is the key, not necessarily taking the kid to be your own, but to baby him/her/it. This goes for the elderly, they want nothing, but maybe wanting their visit to the doctor a pleasant one. (Many elder patients are always at the hospital, boring, scary, you name it). So observing, knowing what the patient needs, wants, but do it as a professional, and do it to where it does not hinder our code of ethics.
The language barriers may also reduce patient’s abilities to follow provider instructions for treatments (Collins et al. 2002; David and Rhee 1998; Manson 1988), to comprehend with spoken criteria for further follow-up care (Enguidanos and Rosen 1997; Manson 1988). This can also, lead us to the confusion part of our lesson, where the patient we are treating, is able to retain adherence of our communication, then this is not consistent. We all need consistent and precise communication to understand what is being told to us, right? “If we cannot, then we are not professionals”. Who agrees, I hope all of you do? Because I sure would not want some ignorant incompetent that can’t even compose his/herself/thing professionally, and know what the hell that he/she/it is talking about, right? This brings me to the third most important barrier, Health Literacy.
The ‘Unknown Barrier’ I think would be Health literacy. This is defined: “The degree to which individuals have the capacity to obtain, process, and understand basic health information and services needed to make appropriate health decisions”. (National Center for Health Statistics, Healthy People 2010). Who here is a minority, I am? In 1994 Commonwealth Fund’s Minority Health Survey, confirmed that our language, culture, and our minority groups are the cause of most of these barriers. Most of the time we come across resident’s that may be difficult because of language, culture, or he/she/it may feel like a minority. Like I said long ago, in our first topic summary assignment. “WE MUST BABY THE PATIENT”. We are here, to learn, to become professional nurses, X-ray Technicians (Which most of you were so many wanting to be, last discussion), RNA, LVN”S, EKG’S, did I miss any titles, well whatever it may be, are here to ‘serve the people’. We have lost track of our great nation’s founded fathers, remember back in grade school, as little toddler’s, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington. We lost our language to speak, to communicate as people. So that’s why I think Healthcare will teach the government, to be able to help our nation get back in our feet, the right way. Let us not fall into their nonsense, but to be Healthcare professionals, and teach everyone, our patients, our doctors, our own families that we are better people than the ones taking lives. (Please refer back to my Capital Punishment research, blog, essay, and movement).
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Written Extended Argument Capital Punishment
What do we know when someone says Capital Punishment? We think Death Penalty, we think Death Row, and we think the worst. Let’s define these; Death Penalty, legally known as capital punishment, is the lawful imposition of death as punishment for crimes. Forms of execution include death by lethal injection, electrocution, lethal gas, hanging, and firing squad. The United States stands apart from Western Europe's clear opposition to the death penalty and is one of 94 countries and territories in the world that use the death penalty today. Now, we argue “Theory of Deterrence-Pro/Con”. There are two common arguments in support of capital punishment: that of deterrence and that of retribution. We’ll get back to this in a little bit, let’s look at the costs.
Prosecution of even a single capital case costing millions of dollars. Example: Cost of executing thousands of people has easily risen to billions of dollars. Because of our recession problem America now faces today. Our valuable resources that have been used to carry out death sentences would be better spent investing in programs that work to prevent crime, such as; improving education, providing services to the ill, and putting more law enforcement on our streets (not necessarily physical officers, but even just Neighborhood watches). We should make sure that monetary value of money, resources, life, and energy should spend to improve life. But why do we destroy it?
The purpose of the death penalty to remove from society someone who would cause more harm, remove him/her/thing from society, whom is incapable of rehabilitation, purpose of the death penalty to deter others from committing murder, to punish the criminal, to take retribution on behalf of the victim. Revenge or Avenge, which we all know is not going to bring their loved ones back from the dead anyway, it will not make the matters any better; no will you ever feel at peace. Sometimes, this makes matters worse, because you the one that seeks it are no better than he/she/it is.
Capital Punishment does not deter violent crimes. In short, a potential murderer does not have an option to consider the possible parole, automatically convicted to face the death penalty before committing a murder. In many experiences, and through even the eyes and hearts of those who stand accused, spectators watching, judges, governors, attorneys, the DA, doctors there to make sure it is downright by Medical Ethics code, families of the prosecution all have changed their views of the Death Penalty. “This should be abolished”, they say, “what was I thinking, this is wrong!” As they cried, not because of their lost loved ones, but because it’s another life, who are we to judge a man’s/women’s/its life. It’s cruel how we are, human nature, war after wars, fights after fights, rape after murders. We are just much of an animal to take a life, as the one who did the crime.
Whether some murderers deserve to die for their crimes is generally not an issue in dispute between supporters and opponents of the death penalty. The issue is whether the death penalty should be allowed in the United States. This last February of 2010 during the Valentine’s Weekend, my wife and I went to Monterey, California for the Public Defender’s Seminar to support the abolishment of the Death Penalty. It was more like going to college all over again, classes at certain times, taking notes, mingling with other lawyers, and others. While attending the first Session in the big ballroom at the Portola Hotel, we were introduced to an accused sentenced to Death Row, till later was appealed. He was released because of DNA evidence that nowadays, we have forensic science to help deter the false prosecution. This is why the two prong effect (Represent the counsel the best of his abilities (Not being lazy, come now), Where one counsel would do the same representation of defense, as if the next counsel will represent him the same way, without reckless abandonment). Ineffective Assistance of Counsel should not be present, for when an appeal finds out noticeable cause, original counsel can be sanctioned. Followed by a hearing in court to make sure the accused original defense represented him right. When misrepresentation is found through Mensrea, or otherwise, that representing counsel can have their B.A.R. card (Right, license-like to practice law) pulled, suspended or even revoked. Just like a driver’s license, but worse. I know this because I have met some of the most unworthy attorney’s I’ve ever encountered, shameless to say; they were horrible people in general. This is irrelevant I know, back to the argument.
Example: Look at cases like Ted Bundy, two death sentences, put to death in Florida. Very smart, intellectual LAW student, who studied his first two years of college in Psychology and oriental studies. Became a writer later on, managed the Seattle office of Nelson Rockefeller’s Campaign for Presidency. Re-enrolled in college with a Major and Degree in Psychology. Enrolled in LAW school, dropped out spring of 2004. Now, researching this, did anyone think to find out what was going through his head, was DNA evidence irrelevant in those days, who know? NO. He was convicted of killing thirty of the raped-women murders, hundreds more that were not related to his serial killing spree. Someone needed to be convicted otherwise, even if Bundy himself was not the original rapist of the other unknown murders. In our judicial system, someone has to be punished for the crime. His forte was Necrophilia (sex with someone already dead). This is another subject that can be discussed in another time.
Theory of Retribution, on the Old Testament and its call for “an eye for an eye.” Proponents of retribution argue that “The punishment must fit the crime.” According to The New American: "Punishment, sometimes called retribution, is the main reason for imposing the death penalty.” (In Gregg v Georgia, the Supreme Court wrote that "The instinct for retribution is part of the nature of man.")
Opponents of retribution theory believe in the sanctity of life and often argue that it is just as wrong for society to kill as it is for an individual to kill. These are the religious nut-heads. As people of faith, we take this opportunity to reaffirm our opposition to the death penalty and to express our belief in the sacredness of human life and in the human capacity for change.
In 2005, Congress considered the Streamlined Procedures Act (SPA), which would have amended the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). AEDPA placed restrictions on the power of federal courts to grant writs of habeas corpus to state prisoners. The SPA would have imposed additional limits on the ability of state inmates to challenge the constitutionality of their imprisonment through habeas corpus.
Reference this page it's important. According to Gallup, most Americans believe that the death penalty is a deterrent to homicide, which helps them justify their support for capital punishment. Other Gallup research suggests that most Americans would not support capital punishment if it did not deter murder. Social scientists have mined empirical data searching for the definitive answer on deterrence since the early 20th century. And "most deterrence research has found that the death penalty has virtually the same effect as long imprisonment on homicide rates." Studies suggesting otherwise (notably writings of Isaac Ehrlich from the 1970s) have been, in general, criticized for methodological errors. Ehrlich's work was also criticized by the National Academy of Sciences - but it is still cited as a rationale for deterrence. From Referenced page, we go back to the issue at hand.
Some say, or may argue that the Death Penalty will deter crime, yes I agree. Some may argue that it will reduce our economy, it will not. I will tell you that right now, the Death Penalty will actually increase prices to even put someone in Death Row, it cost money. Doctors are needed to administer and make sure the Medical Ethics is up to par, we have the engineers, to operate the machines and such; we have the visits, the extra guards, and so forth. It actually cost money to bring in a visitor to the prison, trust me. This is not an appeal to authority, it’s a fact.
There was a session I went to when I entered that John Steinbeck Forum Room, it looked like a huge college classroom, and learned that we are now more dependant in forensic sciences, including another topic which was carefully entailed in anti-terrorism interrogations, public defender’s defending terrorists openly admitting to cruel and unusual punishment (Unorthodox, and inhumane ways of interrogation). Okay, I said too much. That’s enough for this argument.
Prosecution of even a single capital case costing millions of dollars. Example: Cost of executing thousands of people has easily risen to billions of dollars. Because of our recession problem America now faces today. Our valuable resources that have been used to carry out death sentences would be better spent investing in programs that work to prevent crime, such as; improving education, providing services to the ill, and putting more law enforcement on our streets (not necessarily physical officers, but even just Neighborhood watches). We should make sure that monetary value of money, resources, life, and energy should spend to improve life. But why do we destroy it?
The purpose of the death penalty to remove from society someone who would cause more harm, remove him/her/thing from society, whom is incapable of rehabilitation, purpose of the death penalty to deter others from committing murder, to punish the criminal, to take retribution on behalf of the victim. Revenge or Avenge, which we all know is not going to bring their loved ones back from the dead anyway, it will not make the matters any better; no will you ever feel at peace. Sometimes, this makes matters worse, because you the one that seeks it are no better than he/she/it is.
Capital Punishment does not deter violent crimes. In short, a potential murderer does not have an option to consider the possible parole, automatically convicted to face the death penalty before committing a murder. In many experiences, and through even the eyes and hearts of those who stand accused, spectators watching, judges, governors, attorneys, the DA, doctors there to make sure it is downright by Medical Ethics code, families of the prosecution all have changed their views of the Death Penalty. “This should be abolished”, they say, “what was I thinking, this is wrong!” As they cried, not because of their lost loved ones, but because it’s another life, who are we to judge a man’s/women’s/its life. It’s cruel how we are, human nature, war after wars, fights after fights, rape after murders. We are just much of an animal to take a life, as the one who did the crime.
Whether some murderers deserve to die for their crimes is generally not an issue in dispute between supporters and opponents of the death penalty. The issue is whether the death penalty should be allowed in the United States. This last February of 2010 during the Valentine’s Weekend, my wife and I went to Monterey, California for the Public Defender’s Seminar to support the abolishment of the Death Penalty. It was more like going to college all over again, classes at certain times, taking notes, mingling with other lawyers, and others. While attending the first Session in the big ballroom at the Portola Hotel, we were introduced to an accused sentenced to Death Row, till later was appealed. He was released because of DNA evidence that nowadays, we have forensic science to help deter the false prosecution. This is why the two prong effect (Represent the counsel the best of his abilities (Not being lazy, come now), Where one counsel would do the same representation of defense, as if the next counsel will represent him the same way, without reckless abandonment). Ineffective Assistance of Counsel should not be present, for when an appeal finds out noticeable cause, original counsel can be sanctioned. Followed by a hearing in court to make sure the accused original defense represented him right. When misrepresentation is found through Mensrea, or otherwise, that representing counsel can have their B.A.R. card (Right, license-like to practice law) pulled, suspended or even revoked. Just like a driver’s license, but worse. I know this because I have met some of the most unworthy attorney’s I’ve ever encountered, shameless to say; they were horrible people in general. This is irrelevant I know, back to the argument.
Example: Look at cases like Ted Bundy, two death sentences, put to death in Florida. Very smart, intellectual LAW student, who studied his first two years of college in Psychology and oriental studies. Became a writer later on, managed the Seattle office of Nelson Rockefeller’s Campaign for Presidency. Re-enrolled in college with a Major and Degree in Psychology. Enrolled in LAW school, dropped out spring of 2004. Now, researching this, did anyone think to find out what was going through his head, was DNA evidence irrelevant in those days, who know? NO. He was convicted of killing thirty of the raped-women murders, hundreds more that were not related to his serial killing spree. Someone needed to be convicted otherwise, even if Bundy himself was not the original rapist of the other unknown murders. In our judicial system, someone has to be punished for the crime. His forte was Necrophilia (sex with someone already dead). This is another subject that can be discussed in another time.
Theory of Retribution, on the Old Testament and its call for “an eye for an eye.” Proponents of retribution argue that “The punishment must fit the crime.” According to The New American: "Punishment, sometimes called retribution, is the main reason for imposing the death penalty.” (In Gregg v Georgia, the Supreme Court wrote that "The instinct for retribution is part of the nature of man.")
Opponents of retribution theory believe in the sanctity of life and often argue that it is just as wrong for society to kill as it is for an individual to kill. These are the religious nut-heads. As people of faith, we take this opportunity to reaffirm our opposition to the death penalty and to express our belief in the sacredness of human life and in the human capacity for change.
In 2005, Congress considered the Streamlined Procedures Act (SPA), which would have amended the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). AEDPA placed restrictions on the power of federal courts to grant writs of habeas corpus to state prisoners. The SPA would have imposed additional limits on the ability of state inmates to challenge the constitutionality of their imprisonment through habeas corpus.
Reference this page it's important. According to Gallup, most Americans believe that the death penalty is a deterrent to homicide, which helps them justify their support for capital punishment. Other Gallup research suggests that most Americans would not support capital punishment if it did not deter murder. Social scientists have mined empirical data searching for the definitive answer on deterrence since the early 20th century. And "most deterrence research has found that the death penalty has virtually the same effect as long imprisonment on homicide rates." Studies suggesting otherwise (notably writings of Isaac Ehrlich from the 1970s) have been, in general, criticized for methodological errors. Ehrlich's work was also criticized by the National Academy of Sciences - but it is still cited as a rationale for deterrence. From Referenced page, we go back to the issue at hand.
Some say, or may argue that the Death Penalty will deter crime, yes I agree. Some may argue that it will reduce our economy, it will not. I will tell you that right now, the Death Penalty will actually increase prices to even put someone in Death Row, it cost money. Doctors are needed to administer and make sure the Medical Ethics is up to par, we have the engineers, to operate the machines and such; we have the visits, the extra guards, and so forth. It actually cost money to bring in a visitor to the prison, trust me. This is not an appeal to authority, it’s a fact.
There was a session I went to when I entered that John Steinbeck Forum Room, it looked like a huge college classroom, and learned that we are now more dependant in forensic sciences, including another topic which was carefully entailed in anti-terrorism interrogations, public defender’s defending terrorists openly admitting to cruel and unusual punishment (Unorthodox, and inhumane ways of interrogation). Okay, I said too much. That’s enough for this argument.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Dog Scent Help
Plus, I was going to do the one in Capital punishment anyway, for I am still working on research and my own work on it, for it is part of the Pubic Defense Seminar I attended in February 2010. It was an awesome weekend, where I shared the fact that I spoke to other Attorney's, where I was mingling with about my future. Because of my ability to analyze, to argue so well about issues, I was encouraged to become an attorney myself. There are many attorney's who go to LAW school that are weak to address issues. Go beyond to test the system, to utilize the resources, and knowledge to alter a case. Which in turn, I have a lot of. I just need to continue on in education, and go to LAW school after this. I'm looking into going to take more Philosophy classes, and some more Criminal Justice to enhance my knowledge even further. You are never too old to learn new tricks, right?
I have a paper on Dog Scent too, enchancing that as well. May I ask, what do you know about dog scent and dog trainers, dog scent evidence, whether or not dog scent is reliable? Many others I interviewed over the phone have told me the same thing, that dog scent evidence is only as accurate as the system allows. That most cases on dog scent evidence that go into appeal are 90 percent accurate. I researched that, sometimes the dog will do has the dog handler controlling the dog does, some cases I find that the dog handler had to guide the dog in order to point out the suspect a second or third time. But, should that have been irrelevant the first time, since the dog did not point out the suspect as it was originally trained to do. (Almost like the dog handler, made the dog go to the suspect, I smell soemthing fishy, because you know law enforcement, someone has to be accused one way or another.
I want to help those who have had a fallacy of representation on these dog scent cases. I will begin by researching more, and more then write articles on this. I will have my own extended argument online. It's the way we play the game in courts, right? Who has the better hand, who has a fighting chance? I like to go beyond that, because I believe there is so much more that our Judicial system has not implied, or has been Slanting, or Euphemized the trial to make it more appealing to the public.
I have a paper on Dog Scent too, enchancing that as well. May I ask, what do you know about dog scent and dog trainers, dog scent evidence, whether or not dog scent is reliable? Many others I interviewed over the phone have told me the same thing, that dog scent evidence is only as accurate as the system allows. That most cases on dog scent evidence that go into appeal are 90 percent accurate. I researched that, sometimes the dog will do has the dog handler controlling the dog does, some cases I find that the dog handler had to guide the dog in order to point out the suspect a second or third time. But, should that have been irrelevant the first time, since the dog did not point out the suspect as it was originally trained to do. (Almost like the dog handler, made the dog go to the suspect, I smell soemthing fishy, because you know law enforcement, someone has to be accused one way or another.
I want to help those who have had a fallacy of representation on these dog scent cases. I will begin by researching more, and more then write articles on this. I will have my own extended argument online. It's the way we play the game in courts, right? Who has the better hand, who has a fighting chance? I like to go beyond that, because I believe there is so much more that our Judicial system has not implied, or has been Slanting, or Euphemized the trial to make it more appealing to the public.
Medical Marijuana Argument
What is it do we know about Marijuana? Let’s start off by mentioning that most of our medications, prescriptions, and drugs come from stuff we grow, environmentally extinct rarities. Example of this is trees, plants, herbal remedies, and recipes. Others are formed from experience throughout our generations; some illegal drugs became legal passed through State. The reasoning is unlimited, for science has its advantages, as well as its ups and downs.
“If the Federal Government cannot tax it, they will illegalize it!”, “If the Federal Government cannot regulate it, then they’ll do everything in their power to make it illegal!” But, let’s look at another point of view shall we, from articles, and abstract debates in Medicine; With the dissatisfaction with an expanding corporate healthcare industry dominated by profit margins has spawned numerous reform ideas. One idea that has gained a foothold is a patients' federal BILL OF RIGHTS. In 1997, President Bill Clinton appointed an Advisory Commission on Consumer Protection and Quality in the Health Care Industry. The commission was directed to propose a "consumer bill of rights." The 34-member commission developed a bill of rights that identified eight key areas: information disclosure, choice of providers and plans, access to emergency service, participation in treatment decisions, respect and nondiscrimination, confidentiality of health information, complaints and appeals, and consumer responsibilities. Would any of this be illegal, or legal? (What about the book by Stephen Rachlin “Litigating a right to treatment: Woe is me”).
The main reason, and I think, and I quote is the only reason why “Our Federal Government just loves to Illegalize substances, acts, find loopholes to keep us blinded in their messed-up system, is because, they CAN NOT control ‘the people’ (Declaration of Independence) it’s unconstitutional to rip ‘the people’ of their rights)).
In short though, we help the Federal Government by this default because ‘we the people’ abuse these rights, set forth an addiction in capturing resources, utilizing them as if it were a matter of life and death. So therefore, this makes it a problem. Most problems become Illegal through Propositions, Legislature, passing a request to pass a new law bill.
Legal Marijuana blends do not work. Nothing will give the same exact high as Marijuana. A lot of people use a thing called "Saliva Divinorum" (Substance supplemental to ‘raw’ Marijuana). It is very powerful and definitely works. Now, just because it’s unknown, does the Federal Government see this as illegal, yes? Same concept, if you mix, it’s illegal. Since, the government does not know about it, they cannot tax it, so the Government cannot tax this, so therefore, it is illegal.
This brings me up to this question. What if Marijuana was too composed into pill form, the government CAN now tax this, since it is being recorded, researched, and controlled as the Health and Safety codes follow these guidelines well? Then, why Marijuana is so bad, compared to our previous cases against Coca-Cola, or Heroine. Oxy-Contin, Oxycodeine, or even medications with codeine (will test positive in drug-tests, because it contains opiates) in general (Look at the ingredients of your prescribed medication from what your doctor authorized, if you ask me “I believe we are all drug-addicts for even taking these”), are all small doses of these drugs to help patients relieve of their pain, suffering, you name it. All LEGAL in the eyes of the government, only because they can TAX it. Because the ill need it, so therefore, they found a loophole that is also in their favor. All illegal drugs made illegal by the Federal Government we so kindly follow. “AWK!” (Belching) All illegal drugs that were illegal made lightly legal, but in small doses, and don’t forget TAX it.
I will tell you why, The Federal Government wants to regulate everything and anything as if they need to take control. It feels like a dictatorship to me, and a select others that have experienced fallacy in serving ‘the people’, our government rule.
It’s illegal to be under the influence of anything in public. Example; if you took too much cough syrup and were under the influence of that, even Novocain, or Viacadin (Numbing substance to relieve pain) right after the Dentist Appointment. YES. You would be arrested, under the influence, in public, or behind the wheel.
Under the influence is a term used to describe a state of intoxication which is criminal during certain activities, such as public intoxication or driving under the influence. Driving under the influence cases, whether referred to as a DUI, DWI, DWAI, OUI, OUIL, or any other acronym, all have certain things in common. (Including CUI, cycling under the influence)
All states have laws against driving intoxicated, which vary by state. Legal intoxication is defined as a certain level of blood alcohol content (BAC), usually measurable at .10 or .08 percent. States that use the lower .08 BAC to define intoxication are eligible for more federal assistance, and therefore, there is a trend toward lowering the BAC limit.
Referenced from one article was a case with, Allison Margolin, a Harvard law School graduate, daughter of Bruce Margolin, the criminal defense lawyer who also literally wrote the book on marijuana law (The Margolin Guide) argued passionately on behalf of Seamus Ethridge, who stood accused of breaking the state’s drug laws. Michael Estrin (a freelance writer living in Los Angeles), quotes, “Allison is pretty well known among [pro-marijuana] activists, “ Ethridge tell him, “she’s great because she doesn’t take any shit; she fights hard and believes in this.” As she felt discomfort, she quotes, “I don’t know where the DA gets off bringing this fucking case,” she adds “The law is on our side!” The Arrest-first mentality infuriates Margolin, making the case to drop charges against Ethridge, did not deny that he was a full-time marijuana cultivator. Margolin simply argued that everything Ethridge did was perfectly legal. (The state legislature passed the Medical Marijuana Program Act to clarify how patients can cultivate and distribute medical marijuana (Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 11362.711362.9)). Ethridge remembers and explained “I showed them my patient ID,” that he had grown marijuana for various collectives that he belonged to. Referenced: “The cops didn’t know much about medical marijuana laws, so they arrested me,” he says. (City of Corona, and later the City of Claremont, in landmark cases affirming cities’ ability to regulate or restrict marijuana dispensaries and collectives: City of Claremont v. Kruse (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1153 and City of Corona v Naulls (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 418. He has successfully represented governmental entities, businesses in numerous other court and jury trials, and appellate matters).
My wife Jessica Lynn Vitug, had a friend who was dying of aids (Anti-Immune Deficiency Syndrome), he will not eat. He had an eating disorder that will not allow him to eat; his body will not want to eat. He then, was prescribed Medical Marijuana small doses every night, and whenever he needed to eat. The Marijuana would force his body to be hungry after 20 minutes of intake. State will approve of this because of its ‘peoples’ demand for treatment, but the Federal Government will not, stating “it is still illegal”, and continue to illegalize it. They might as well say “We the government will continue to illegalize it, until we can get in on it, to profit!” “Cha-Ch’ing, money register!” (Patient’s rights: The law presumes that an adult is competent, but competency may be an issue in numerous instances. Competence is typically only challenged when a patient disagrees with a doctor's recommended treatment or refuses treatment altogether. If an individual understands the information presented regarding treatment, she or he is competent to consent to or refuse treatment).
The interpreted California’s fuzzy medical marijuana statues-starting with Proposition 215, also known as the Compassionate Use Act (The California Compassionate Use Act, CA HSC §11362.5), which voters approved in November 5, 1996. Was effective November 6, 1996.
(Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 11362.711362.9). Was deciding heavily on the judge’s call. Once patients have been charged, it is up to the courts to pass judgment on their medical claim.
This makes you think of the monetary value of our society. If the government had to barter with anything, but money, the endless supply of what we have is what we can ONLY offer, what then? “Illegalized drugs now, offered as bartering tool for other resources”, then what, “Hear ye, Here ye, all residence must grow their own resources”. Always a price for something, when it should never be about Monetary Value.
If you ask the question, “CAN I STILL BE ARRESTED OR RAIDED?”
YES, unfortunately. There is nothing in Prop. 215 to compel police to accept a patient as being valid. Many legal patients have been raided or arrested for having dubious recommendations, for growing amounts that cops deem excessive, on account of neighbors’ complaints, etc. A major purpose of the state ID card system is to avoid undue arrests.
In 2005, two years after the Legislature passed the Medical Marijuana Program Act, only four dispensaries operated openly in Los Angeles. A year later there were 98, according to a report by the LAPD's then-Chief William Bratton. He warned that without an updated zoning ordinance in place, criminal elements would exploit the vagueness of the law and set up shop near schools and residential areas. The city council responded in 2007 by passing a moratorium on new pot shops. But that measure did little to check the rapid spread of outlets, since it contained a loophole allowing dispensaries to apply for a hardship exception. Then, shortly after the council got around to closing that loophole, a judge declared the entire moratorium unconstitutional (Los Angeles Collective Assoc. v. City of Los Angeles, No. BC422215 (Los Angeles Super. Ct. Preliminary injunction issued Oct. 19, 2009)).
Los Angeles defense lawyer Michael Chernis advises doctors and a dozen collectives on how to operate within the state's medical marijuana laws. "The city council gets credit for not trying to ban dispensaries in the entirety or bowing to pressure from the DA and city attorney to ban sales," he says. "However, this [new ordinance] reflects a compromise position on many issues, the net result of which will likely be more litigation and patients getting hurt."
“If the Federal Government cannot tax it, they will illegalize it!”, “If the Federal Government cannot regulate it, then they’ll do everything in their power to make it illegal!” But, let’s look at another point of view shall we, from articles, and abstract debates in Medicine; With the dissatisfaction with an expanding corporate healthcare industry dominated by profit margins has spawned numerous reform ideas. One idea that has gained a foothold is a patients' federal BILL OF RIGHTS. In 1997, President Bill Clinton appointed an Advisory Commission on Consumer Protection and Quality in the Health Care Industry. The commission was directed to propose a "consumer bill of rights." The 34-member commission developed a bill of rights that identified eight key areas: information disclosure, choice of providers and plans, access to emergency service, participation in treatment decisions, respect and nondiscrimination, confidentiality of health information, complaints and appeals, and consumer responsibilities. Would any of this be illegal, or legal? (What about the book by Stephen Rachlin “Litigating a right to treatment: Woe is me”).
The main reason, and I think, and I quote is the only reason why “Our Federal Government just loves to Illegalize substances, acts, find loopholes to keep us blinded in their messed-up system, is because, they CAN NOT control ‘the people’ (Declaration of Independence) it’s unconstitutional to rip ‘the people’ of their rights)).
In short though, we help the Federal Government by this default because ‘we the people’ abuse these rights, set forth an addiction in capturing resources, utilizing them as if it were a matter of life and death. So therefore, this makes it a problem. Most problems become Illegal through Propositions, Legislature, passing a request to pass a new law bill.
Legal Marijuana blends do not work. Nothing will give the same exact high as Marijuana. A lot of people use a thing called "Saliva Divinorum" (Substance supplemental to ‘raw’ Marijuana). It is very powerful and definitely works. Now, just because it’s unknown, does the Federal Government see this as illegal, yes? Same concept, if you mix, it’s illegal. Since, the government does not know about it, they cannot tax it, so the Government cannot tax this, so therefore, it is illegal.
This brings me up to this question. What if Marijuana was too composed into pill form, the government CAN now tax this, since it is being recorded, researched, and controlled as the Health and Safety codes follow these guidelines well? Then, why Marijuana is so bad, compared to our previous cases against Coca-Cola, or Heroine. Oxy-Contin, Oxycodeine, or even medications with codeine (will test positive in drug-tests, because it contains opiates) in general (Look at the ingredients of your prescribed medication from what your doctor authorized, if you ask me “I believe we are all drug-addicts for even taking these”), are all small doses of these drugs to help patients relieve of their pain, suffering, you name it. All LEGAL in the eyes of the government, only because they can TAX it. Because the ill need it, so therefore, they found a loophole that is also in their favor. All illegal drugs made illegal by the Federal Government we so kindly follow. “AWK!” (Belching) All illegal drugs that were illegal made lightly legal, but in small doses, and don’t forget TAX it.
I will tell you why, The Federal Government wants to regulate everything and anything as if they need to take control. It feels like a dictatorship to me, and a select others that have experienced fallacy in serving ‘the people’, our government rule.
It’s illegal to be under the influence of anything in public. Example; if you took too much cough syrup and were under the influence of that, even Novocain, or Viacadin (Numbing substance to relieve pain) right after the Dentist Appointment. YES. You would be arrested, under the influence, in public, or behind the wheel.
Under the influence is a term used to describe a state of intoxication which is criminal during certain activities, such as public intoxication or driving under the influence. Driving under the influence cases, whether referred to as a DUI, DWI, DWAI, OUI, OUIL, or any other acronym, all have certain things in common. (Including CUI, cycling under the influence)
All states have laws against driving intoxicated, which vary by state. Legal intoxication is defined as a certain level of blood alcohol content (BAC), usually measurable at .10 or .08 percent. States that use the lower .08 BAC to define intoxication are eligible for more federal assistance, and therefore, there is a trend toward lowering the BAC limit.
Referenced from one article was a case with, Allison Margolin, a Harvard law School graduate, daughter of Bruce Margolin, the criminal defense lawyer who also literally wrote the book on marijuana law (The Margolin Guide) argued passionately on behalf of Seamus Ethridge, who stood accused of breaking the state’s drug laws. Michael Estrin (a freelance writer living in Los Angeles), quotes, “Allison is pretty well known among [pro-marijuana] activists, “ Ethridge tell him, “she’s great because she doesn’t take any shit; she fights hard and believes in this.” As she felt discomfort, she quotes, “I don’t know where the DA gets off bringing this fucking case,” she adds “The law is on our side!” The Arrest-first mentality infuriates Margolin, making the case to drop charges against Ethridge, did not deny that he was a full-time marijuana cultivator. Margolin simply argued that everything Ethridge did was perfectly legal. (The state legislature passed the Medical Marijuana Program Act to clarify how patients can cultivate and distribute medical marijuana (Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 11362.711362.9)). Ethridge remembers and explained “I showed them my patient ID,” that he had grown marijuana for various collectives that he belonged to. Referenced: “The cops didn’t know much about medical marijuana laws, so they arrested me,” he says. (City of Corona, and later the City of Claremont, in landmark cases affirming cities’ ability to regulate or restrict marijuana dispensaries and collectives: City of Claremont v. Kruse (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1153 and City of Corona v Naulls (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 418. He has successfully represented governmental entities, businesses in numerous other court and jury trials, and appellate matters).
My wife Jessica Lynn Vitug, had a friend who was dying of aids (Anti-Immune Deficiency Syndrome), he will not eat. He had an eating disorder that will not allow him to eat; his body will not want to eat. He then, was prescribed Medical Marijuana small doses every night, and whenever he needed to eat. The Marijuana would force his body to be hungry after 20 minutes of intake. State will approve of this because of its ‘peoples’ demand for treatment, but the Federal Government will not, stating “it is still illegal”, and continue to illegalize it. They might as well say “We the government will continue to illegalize it, until we can get in on it, to profit!” “Cha-Ch’ing, money register!” (Patient’s rights: The law presumes that an adult is competent, but competency may be an issue in numerous instances. Competence is typically only challenged when a patient disagrees with a doctor's recommended treatment or refuses treatment altogether. If an individual understands the information presented regarding treatment, she or he is competent to consent to or refuse treatment).
The interpreted California’s fuzzy medical marijuana statues-starting with Proposition 215, also known as the Compassionate Use Act (The California Compassionate Use Act, CA HSC §11362.5), which voters approved in November 5, 1996. Was effective November 6, 1996.
(Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 11362.711362.9). Was deciding heavily on the judge’s call. Once patients have been charged, it is up to the courts to pass judgment on their medical claim.
This makes you think of the monetary value of our society. If the government had to barter with anything, but money, the endless supply of what we have is what we can ONLY offer, what then? “Illegalized drugs now, offered as bartering tool for other resources”, then what, “Hear ye, Here ye, all residence must grow their own resources”. Always a price for something, when it should never be about Monetary Value.
If you ask the question, “CAN I STILL BE ARRESTED OR RAIDED?”
YES, unfortunately. There is nothing in Prop. 215 to compel police to accept a patient as being valid. Many legal patients have been raided or arrested for having dubious recommendations, for growing amounts that cops deem excessive, on account of neighbors’ complaints, etc. A major purpose of the state ID card system is to avoid undue arrests.
In 2005, two years after the Legislature passed the Medical Marijuana Program Act, only four dispensaries operated openly in Los Angeles. A year later there were 98, according to a report by the LAPD's then-Chief William Bratton. He warned that without an updated zoning ordinance in place, criminal elements would exploit the vagueness of the law and set up shop near schools and residential areas. The city council responded in 2007 by passing a moratorium on new pot shops. But that measure did little to check the rapid spread of outlets, since it contained a loophole allowing dispensaries to apply for a hardship exception. Then, shortly after the council got around to closing that loophole, a judge declared the entire moratorium unconstitutional (Los Angeles Collective Assoc. v. City of Los Angeles, No. BC422215 (Los Angeles Super. Ct. Preliminary injunction issued Oct. 19, 2009)).
Los Angeles defense lawyer Michael Chernis advises doctors and a dozen collectives on how to operate within the state's medical marijuana laws. "The city council gets credit for not trying to ban dispensaries in the entirety or bowing to pressure from the DA and city attorney to ban sales," he says. "However, this [new ordinance] reflects a compromise position on many issues, the net result of which will likely be more litigation and patients getting hurt."
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Human Beings all the Time Wars
I agree, I believe that we are all connected. Like some kind of key ingredient to find other keys, to find the doorway to find truth. Our differences tell us that there is an equal about us, but interpreted differently. Different language, different religions, I think the reason for all of it is because we need to be an being of peace. We are a race of humanity that always leads to wars. Then, we look to the stars for more civilization elsewhere, take over another beings heritage and rights. We populate and we destroy it again, through wars. And even greater threat will be amongst us, then we have to point our differences within each other towards the greater threat, going hand and hand to abolish this great thrreat. Again, wars. Then when a menace that would wipe out all living sentient beings arises, we all have gone into war again, but this time we are not alone. I have learned so much, and I believe that there is so much that even us humans fail to understand, a more broader of space does exist. We all Coexist, but why would we continue to labeel ourselves as violent beings that prefer to settle conflicts through wars, death, plummage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
