School District In Washington State has banned the Game of Tag

The Mercer Island School District, in Washington State, just banned the game of tag (and did not even ask the parents for input), do to safety concerns.

The clip can be seen at http://q13fox.com/2015/09/23/game-of-tag-banned-to-ensure-physical-emotional-safety-of-students/ and was posted on September 23, 2015, by Steve Kiggins.

In an e-mail, to Q13 Fox News, Mercer Island School District communications director, Mary Grady, explained the new policy and how it is being implemented.

“The Mercer Island School District and school teams have recently revisited expectations for student behavior to address student safety. This means while at play, especially during recess and unstructured time, students are expected to keep their hands to themselves. The rationale behind this is to ensure the physical and emotional safety of all students.

“School staffs are working with students in the classroom to ensure that there are many alternative games available at recess and during unsupervised play, so that our kids can still have fun, be with their friends, move their bodies and give their brains a break.”

Obviously, some parents were not pleased and rightfully so.

“Good grief, our kids need some unstructured playtime,” said mom Kelsey Joyce.

Joyce further elaborated, “I totally survived tag,” said Joyce. “I even survived red rover, believe it or not.”

“I played tag,” said mom Melissa Neher, “I survived.”

Neher also stated, “In this day and age of childhood obesity, there’s a need for more activity,” “Kids should be free to have spontaneous play on the playground at recess. It’s important for their learning.”

The aforementioned school district is not the only school district in the country to ban certain types of games.

According to the article, 10 Children’s Games You Won’t Believe Got Banned, on July 10, 2013, Maureen Roe (a professor of English and Critical Thinking at Santiago Canyon College in Orange, California), points out these games have been banned at one time or another as well as in other countries and is not necessarily limited to schools.

Here are the tidbits from the article, for more information go to   http://listverse.com/2013/07/10/top-10-recent-ridiculous-bans-on-kids39-games/.

  1. Duck, Duck, Goose- “The war against this game is being waged on several fronts. A few years ago, an anonymous online petition sought to ban Duck, Duck, Goose because it is “a hazard to innocent children across the playgrounds of America.” To avoid the long list of injuries resulting from this game (broken noses, ankles, wrists, and necks) the petition said that children must be protected, and we should “erase the game of Duck, Duck, Goose off the dark underbelly of sinister children games.”
  2. Tag- “According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, seven percent of American children ages six to eleven were obese in 1980. Now that number is close to 20 percent.  Nevertheless, elementary schools in Wyoming, Washington, South Carolina, Oregon, and other states have passed bans against fun-filled, obesity-fighting tag in the name of safety—because such games can lead to slapping, pushing, and hitting instead of just touching. One Boston Elementary school principal said that recess is “a time when accidents can happen.” Last I checked, accidents can occur anytime, anywhere. Even in a padded room, one can trip over one’s feet and fall.”
  3. Red Rover- “What used to be ideal for a playground game, a summer camp icebreaker, or a class team-building exercise is now labeled a “dangerous contact sport” by some summer camps…  Does it deserve the label of a “dangerous contact sport”? According to Children’s Hospital at Stanford, California, more than 3.5 million children under age 14 get hurt each year playing contact sports, and the leading cause of death from a sports-related injury is a brain injury. Not surprisingly, I couldn’t find a single reported case of a child’s head injury from Red Rover.”
  4. Human Target Games- “In March 2013, the New Hampshire School District banned “human target sports,” such as dodgeball. The dsitrict’s decision falls in line with the National Association for Sport and Physical Education—a nonprofit group that sets standards for K-12 school sports. They’ve concluded that it disapproves of dodgeball. Why? Apparently, throwing a soft, rubber ball at a human being—even in the spirit of fun and cooperation (teams working together to have their last player standing)—encourages bullying and the infliction of injury on others.”
  5. Slip N Slide- “This obnoxiously yellow runway of plastic was invented in 1961 by Wham-O. On a hot, summer day when kids will do almost anything to be in the water, this was the ideal backyard toy. And it was easy and convenient, too: all you needed was a large enough patch of grass, a bathing suit, and a hose. Sadly, because seven adults and a 13-year-old suffered neck injuries or paralysis after slipping and sliding, this toy was recalled in 1993. Apparently, the government determined that parents and children just were not capable of finding the right type of landscape to assemble their plastic slide (too hilly, too irregular) or they couldn’t assume the right position before sliding (too bent over, too head first). The government suggested that families instead seek their slipping and sliding pleasure at city and county water parks where professionals assemble and maintain the equipment…”
  6. Stocking Stuffers- “In the last two years, toys traditionally ideal for stuffing into Christmas stockings have been banned in Brussels, Belgium. They were deemed too dangerous by the Toy Safety Directive, a group which regulates all toys sold to children younger than 14. According to the Directive, toys containing magnets, like fishing games, are unsafe because the magnets could be swallowed. Musical instruments, such as whistles and recorders, are being pulled from shelves since they might break apart and small pieces could be swallowed. The party blowers that make noise and unfold upon blowing into them are now labeled a risk for those under 14 because tiny bits of the blower could possibly come off and result in choking.”
  7. Cops and Robbers- “In March 2013, school officials at Worcesters Primary School in North London banned any playground games that involve “imaginary weapons.” Of course, cowboys and Indians is included as well—not only for the weapons issue (guns and tomahawks) but because it makes children wonder why Indians are always the bad guys.”
  8. Snow Ball Fights- “In January 2013, several municipalities in Belgium’s Flemish region attached a fine of 100 euros to the heinous crime of starting a snowball fight. Has Belgium unleashed a special police unit trained to spot suspicious snowball behavior? This activity has been determined to put kids’ health and safety at risk. In fact, one local official explained that throwing snowballs is like throwing stones.”
  9. Super Hero Games- “On May 17, 2013, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania preschool sent home a bizarre and disturbing letter to its parents. Part of the disturbing nature was linked to the misspellings of words throughout the writing, like “our” and “play,” but the true oddity was in the photo placed at the top of the letter: a picture of some iconic childhood idols, such as Wonder Woman, Superman, and Batman, with a thick red line through them and a decree that because the “imaginations of our preschool children are becoming dangerously overactive,” superhero play would no longer be permitted.”
  10. Musical Chairs- “A 2002 Washington Times article urged schools to ban musical chairs from all functions. Why? Musical chairs has been blacklisted for an impressive array of reasons: it encourages exclusion (you don’t sit on a chair fast enough, you’re out), bullying (you might be teased for not playing well and getting out quickly), aggression (you are all fighting for a chair), and competition (you are trying desperately to win and beat everyone else to that last chair).”

Parents and school districts should encourage children to participate in those mentioned games.

I can understand the fears of litigation, but let’s face facts, no one person can be around someone every second of every day.

With banning certain games, what incentive do children have to sharpen their cognitive skills?

These games foster creativity and allow for children to engage in physical activity.

Over-protectionism is counter-productive and free-play has benefits.

In the 2013 tome, Free to Learn: Why Unleashing the Instinct to Play Will Make Our Children Happier, More Self-Reliant, and Better Students for Life, by Peter Gray, a Boston College developmental psychologist, had this to say, (For more details visit http://www.bc.edu/offices/pubaf/news/2013-mar-apr/peter-gray-book.html.)

“Playing with other children, away from adults, is how children learn to make their own decisions, control their emotions and impulses, see from others’ perspectives, negotiate differences with others, and make friends,” says Gray, an expert on the evolution of play and its vital role in child development. “In short, play is how children learn to take control of their lives.”

“How did we come to the conclusion that the best way to educate students is to force them into a setting where they are bored, unhappy and anxious?” Gray asks. “Our compulsory education system features forced lessons, standardized tests, and seems specially designed to crush a child’s innate and biological drives for learning.”

“I present compelling evidence that over the past 50 years—as children’s opportunities for free play and exploration have declined—there has been a dramatic rise in anxiety, depression, and suicide in young people, who have not had the opportunity that free play provides to find meaning and joy in life.”

Advertisements

Toledo, Ohio Residents Support The Sensible Marihuana Ordinance

On September 15, 2015, residents of Toledo, Ohio, in a 9 percent turnout (council seats were also on the ballot) voted in favor to abolish penalties in city law for possession and cultivation of marihuana.

In the 226 precincts in Lucas County, the vote was 11,197 to 4,760 in favor of the policy.

Sean Nestor, the manager of the campaign, for the citizens initiative, was pleased with the outcome.

““This is certainly a historic moment in the state and even in the country. We do expect there to be challenges and we are prepared to meet them with the full political and legal force we can muster,”” Mr. Nestor said.

“I do think what we have is pretty potent as far as protecting cannabis users. We feel this is important even on a national scale.” ( http://www.toledoblade.com/Politics/2015/09/16/Voters-ease-penalties-for-marijuana.html#kutfZW4gQ8GO5zkC.99)

Among the Toledo mayoral candidates whom are in support of this are, Ms. Hick-Hudson, former mayors Carty Finkbeiner and Mike Bell, Councilwomen Sandy Spang, and former Councilman Mike Ferner.

Candidate Sandy Drabik Collins, widow of Mayor Collins, did not take a position, but stated she would follow the law.

Here is the ordinance:

“The Sensible Marihuana Ordinance

THE SENSIBLE MARIHUANA ORDINANCE

Be it ordained by the people of the City of Toledo that:

Section 1. The Toledo Municipal Code shall be and is hereby amended and supplemented by the repeal of Toledo Municipal Code Section 513.01, Section 513.02, Section 513.03, Section 513.05, Section 513.08, Section 513.12, Section 513.14, Section 333.01, Section 749.08 be and the same is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The new Toledo Municipal Code Section 513.01, Section 513.02, Section 513.03, Section 513.15, Section 333.01 be enacted to read as follows:

513.01 . DEFINITIONS.

(a)   “Administer” means the direct application of a drug, whether by injection, inhalation, ingestion or any other means to a person or an animal.

(b)   “Controlled substance” means a drug, compound, mixture, preparation or substance included in Schedule I, II, III, IV or V.

(c)   “Dispense” means sell, leave with, give away, dispose of or deliver.

(d)   “Distribute” means to deal in, ship, transport or deliver but does not include administering or dispensing a drug.

(e) “Hashish” means the resin or a preparation of the resin contained in marihuana, whether in solid form or in a liquid concentrate, liquid extract, or liquid distillate form.

(f)   “Hypodermic” means a hypodermic syringe or needle, or other instrument or device for the subcutaneous injection of medication.

(g)   “Manufacture” means a person who plants, cultivates, harvests, processes, makes, prepares or otherwise engages in any part of the production of a controlled substance by propagation, compounding, conversion or processing, either directly or indirectly by extraction from substances of natural origin, or independently by means of chemical synthesis, or by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis and includes any packaging or repackaging of the substance or labeling or relabeling of its container and other activities incident to production, except that this term does not include a pharmacist who prepares, compounds, packages or labels a controlled substance as an incident to dispensing a controlled substance in accordance with a prescription and in the usual course of professional practice.

(h)   “Marihuana” means all parts of a plant of the genus cannabis, whether growing or not; the seeds of a plant of that type; the resin extracted from a part of a plant of that type; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of a plant of that type or of its seeds or resin. “Marihuana” does not include the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oils or cake made from the seeds of the plant, or any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks, except the resin extracted from the mature stalks, fiber, oil or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant that is incapable of germination; except that it does not include hashish.

(i)   “Noxious additive” means any element or compound designated by the State Board of Pharmacy for use as a safe and effective ingredient in any product containing the ingredient toluene, the gas, fumes or vapor of which when inhaled can induce intoxication, excitement, giddiness, irrational behavior, depression, stupefaction, paralysis, unconsciousness, asphyxiation or other harmful physiological effects, which will discourage the intentional smelling or inhaling of the fumes of such product. A noxious additive shall not be added to such product if such addition would make the product unsuitable for its intended use or adversely affect the performance of the product. The addition of a noxious additive to such product is not required if the Board determines that the normal chemical composition of the product creates a level of noxiousness that is sufficient to discourage the intentional smelling or inhaling of the product’s fumes.

(j)   “Official written order” means an order written on a form provided for that purpose by the Director of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration, under any laws of the United States making provision therefor, if such order forms are authorized and required by Federal law.

(k)   “Pharmacist” means a person registered with the State Board of Pharmacy as a compounder and dispenser of drugs.

(l)   “Pharmacy” means any area, room, rooms, place of business, department or portion of any of the foregoing, where prescriptions are filled or where drugs, dangerous drugs or poisons are compounded, sold, offered, or displayed for sale, dispensed or distributed to the public.

(m)   “Practitioner” means a person who is licensed pursuant to Ohio R.C. Chapter 4715, 4731 or 4741 and authorized by law to write prescriptions for drugs or dangerous drugs.

(n)   “Prescription” means a written or oral order for a controlled substance for the use of a particular person or a particular animal given by a practitioner in the course of professional practice and in accordance with the regulations promulgated by the Director of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration, pursuant to the Federal drug abuse control laws.

(o)   “Sale” includes delivery, barter, exchange, transfer or gift, or offer thereof, and each such transaction made by any person, whether as principal, proprietor, agent, servant or employee.

(p)   “Schedule I”, “Schedule II”, “Schedule III”, “Schedule IV” and “Schedule V” means controlled substance Schedules I, II, III, IV, and V respectively, established pursuant to Ohio R.C. 3719.41, as amended pursuant to Ohio R.C. 3719.43 or 3719.44.

(q)   “Wholesaler” means a person who, on official written orders other than prescriptions, supplies controlled substances that he himself has not manufactured, produced or prepared and includes “wholesale distributor of dangerous drugs” as this term is defined in Ohio R.C. 4729.02.

(ORC 3719.01)

(r)   “Drug of abuse” means any controlled substance as defined in subsection (b) hereof, any harmful intoxicant as defined in subsection (x) hereof and any dangerous drug as defined in subsection (r) hereof.

(ORC 3719.01)

(s)   “Dangerous drug” means:

(1)   Any drug which, under the “Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act”, Federal narcotic law, Ohio R.C. 3715.01 to 3715.72 or Chapter 3719, may be dispensed only upon a prescription;

(2)   Any drug which contains a Schedule V narcotic drug and which is exempt from Ohio R.C. Chapter 3719 or to which such chapter does not apply;

(3)   Any drug intended for administration by injection into the human body other than through a natural orifice of the human body.

(t)   “Bulk amount” of a controlled substance means any of the following:

(1)   An amount equal to or exceeding ten grams or twenty-five unit doses of a compound, mixture, preparation or substance which is, or which contains any amount of, a Schedule I opiate or opium derivative, or cocaine;

(2)   An amount equal to or exceeding ten grams of a compound, mixture, preparation or substance which is, or contains any amount of, raw or gum opium;

(3)   An amount equal to or exceeding thirty grams or ten unit doses of a compound, mixture, preparation or substance which is, or contains any amount of, a Schedule I hallucinogen other than tetrahydrocannabinol, lysergic acid diethylamide, lysergic acid amide or marihuana or a Schedule I depressant.

(4)   An amount equal to or exceeding twenty grams or five times the maximum daily dose in the usual dose range specified in a standard pharmaceutical reference manual of a compound, mixture, preparation or substance which is, or contains any amount of, a Schedule II opiate or opium derivative;

(5)   An amount equal to or exceeding one gram or ten unit doses of a compound, mixture, preparation or substance which is, or contains any amount of lysergic acid diethylamide, lysergic acid amide;

(6)   An amount equal to or exceeding five grams or ten unit doses of a compound, mixture, preparation or substance which is, or contains any amount of, phencyclidine;

(7)   An amount equal to or exceeding 120 grams or thirty times the maximum daily dose in the usual dose range specified in a standard pharmaceutical reference manual of a compound, mixture, preparation or substance which is, or contains any amount of, a Schedule II stimulant or depressant substance, or a Schedule III or IV substance;

(8)   An amount equal to or exceeding 250 milliliters or 250 grams of a compound, mixture, preparation or substance which is, or contains any amount of, a Schedule V substance.

(u)   “Unit dose” means an amount or unit of a compound, mixture or preparation containing a controlled substance, such amount or unit being separately identifiable and in such form as to indicate that it is the amount or unit by which the controlled substance is separately administered to or taken by an individual.

(v)   “Harmful intoxicant” does not include beer or intoxicating liquor, but means any compound, mixture, preparation or substance the gas, fumes or vapor of which when inhaled can induce intoxication, excitement, giddiness, irrational behavior, depression, stupefaction, paralysis, unconsciousness, asphyxiation or other harmful physiological effects, and includes without limitation any of the following:

(1)   Any volatile organic solvent, plastic cement, model cement, fingernail polish remover, lacquer thinner, cleaning fluid, gasoline, and any other preparation containing a volatile organic solvent;

(2)   Any aerosol propellant;

(3)   Any fluorocarbon refrigerant;

(4)   Any anesthetic gas.

(w)   “Manufacture” means to plant, cultivate, harvest, process, make, prepare or otherwise engage in any part of the production of a drug by propagation, extraction, chemical synthesis or compounding, or any combination of the same, and includes packaging, repackaging, labeling and other activities incident to production.

(x)   “Possess” or “possession” means having control over a thing or substance but may not be inferred solely from mere access to the thing or substance through ownership or occupation of the premises upon which the thing or substance is found.

(y)   “Sample drug” means a drug or pharmaceutical preparation that would be hazardous to health or safety if used without the supervision of a practitioner, or a drug of abuse, and that, at one time, had been placed in a container plainly marked as a sample by a manufacturer.

(z)   “Standard pharmaceutical reference manual” means the current edition, with cumulative changes if any, of any of the following reference works:

(1)   “The National Formulary”;

(2)   “The United States Pharmacopeia”, prepared by authority of the United States Pharmacopeial Convention Inc.;

(3)   Other standard references that are approved by the State Board of Pharmacy.

(aa)   “Juvenile” means a person under eighteen years of age.

(bb)   “Counterfeit controlled substance” means any of the following:

(1)   Any drug that bears, or whose container or label bears, a trademark, trade name or other identifying mark used without authorization of the owner of rights to such trademark, trade name or identifying mark;

(2)   Any unmarked or unlabeled substance that is represented to be a controlled substance manufactured, processed, packed or distributed by a person other than the person that manufactured, processed, packed or distributed it;

(3)   Any substance that is represented to be a controlled substance but is not a controlled substance or is a different controlled substance.

(4)   Any substance other than a controlled substance that a reasonable person would believe to be a controlled substance because of its similarity in shape, size and color, or its markings, labeling, packaging, distribution or the price for which it is sold or offered for sale.

(ORC 2925.01. Ord. 485-83. Passed 5-24-83.)

(cc) “Drug paraphernalia” means any of the following:

(1) All equipment, products and materials of any kind which are used, intended for use or designed for use in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing, preparing, testing, analyzing, packaging, repackaging, storing, containing, concealing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling or otherwise introducing into the human body a controlled substance in violation of this section. It includes, but is not limited to:

  1. Kits used, intended for use or designed for use in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing or harvesting of any species of plant which is a controlled substance or from which a controlled substance can be derived;
  2. Kits used, intended for use or designed for use in manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing or preparing controlled substances;
  3. Isomerization devices used, intended for use or designed for use in increasing the potency of any species of plant which is a controlled substance;
  4. Testing equipment used, intended for use or designed for use in identifying or in analyzing the strength, effectiveness or purity of controlled substances;
  5. Scales and balances used, intended for use or designed for use in weighing or measuring controlled substances;
  6. Diluents and adulterants, such as quinine hydrochloride, mannitol, mannite, dextrose and lactose, used, intended for use or designed for use in cutting controlled substances;
  7. Separation gins and sifters used, intended for use or designed for use in removing twigs and seeds from or in otherwise cleaning or refining, marihuana;
  8. Blenders, bowls, containers, spoons and mixing devices used, intended for use or designed for use in compounding controlled substances;
  9. Capsules, balloons, envelopes and other containers used, intended for use or designed for use in packaging small quantities of controlled substances;
  10. Containers and other objects used, intended for use or designed for use in storing or concealing controlled substances;
  11. Hypodermic syringes, needles and other objects used, intended for use or designed for use in parenterally injecting controlled substances into the human body;
  12. Objects used, intended for use or designed for use in ingesting, inhaling or otherwise introducing marihuana, cocaine, hashish or hashish oil into the human body, such as:
  13. Metal, wooden, acrylic, glass, stone, plastic or ceramic pipes, with or without screens, permanent screens, hashish heads or punctured metal bowls;
  14. Water pipes;
  15. Carburetion tubes and devices;
  16. Smoking and carburetion masks;
  17. Roach clips: meaning objects used to hold burning material, such as a marihuana cigarette, that has become too small or too short to be held in the hand;
  1. Miniature cocaine spoons and cocaine vials;
  2. Chamber pipes;
  3. Carburetor pipes;
  4. Electric pipes;
  5. Air-driven pipes;
  6. Chillums;
  7. Bongs;
  8. Ice pipes or chillers.

(2)   In determining whether an object is “drug paraphernalia”, a court or other authority should consider, in addition to all other logically relevant factors, the following:

  1. Statements by an owner or by anyone in control of the object concerning its use;
  2. Prior convictions, if any, of an owner, or of anyone in control of the object, under any state or Federal law relating to any controlled substance;
  3. The proximity of the object, in time and space, to a direct violation of this section;
  4. The proximity of the object to controlled substances;
  5. The existence of any residue of controlled substances on the object;
  6. Direct or circumstantial evidence of the intent of an owner or of anyone in control of the object, to deliver it to persons whom he knows intend to use the object to facilitate a violation of this section; the innocence of an owner or of anyone in control of the object, as to a direct violation of this section, shall not prevent a finding that the object is intended for use or is designed for use as drug paraphernalia;
  7. Instructions, oral or written, provided with the object concerning its use;
  8. Descriptive materials accompanying the object which explain or depict its use;
  9. National and local advertising concerning its use;
  10. The manner in which the object is displayed for sale;
  11. Direct or circumstantial evidence of the ratio of sales of the object to the total sales of the business enterprise;
  12.  The existence and scope of legitimate uses for the object in the community;
  13. Expert testimony concerning its use.

513.02 . GIFT OF MARIHUANA.

(a) No person shall knowingly give or offer to make a gift of twenty grams or less of marihuana.

(b) Whoever violates this section, anywhere inside city limits, is guilty of trafficking in marihuana, a minor misdemeanor drug abuse offense. Persons convicted of violating this section shall not be fined and no incarceration, probation, nor any other punitive or rehabilitative measure shall be imposed.

513.03. DRUG ABUSE; CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE POSSESSION OR USE.

(a)   No person shall knowingly obtain, possess or use a controlled substance.

(b)   This section does not apply to manufacturers, practitioners, pharmacists, owners of pharmacies and other persons whose conduct was in accordance with Ohio R.C. Chapters 3719, 4715, 4729, 4731 and 4741. This section does not apply to any person who obtained the controlled substance pursuant to a prescription issued by a practitioner, where the drug is in the original container in which it was dispensed to such person.

(c)   This section does not apply to marihuana or hashish.

(d)   Whoever violates this section is guilty of drug abuse:

(1)   If the drug involved is a compound, mixture, preparation or substance included in Schedule III, IV or V drug abuse is a misdemeanor of the third degree, and if the offender has previously been convicted of a drug abuse offense, drug abuse is a misdemeanor of the second degree.

 

513.15. MARIHUANA LAWS

(a) No person shall knowingly obtain, possess, or use marihuana or a compound, mixture, preparation, or substance containing marihuana other than hashish, whoever violates this section is guilty of possession of marihuana. The penalty for the offense shall be determined as follows:

(b) Whoever violates section (a) of this section, anywhere inside city limits, is guilty of one of the following:

(1) Except as otherwise provided in (b)(3) of this section, possession of marihuana is a minor misdemeanor drug abuse offense.

(2) If the amount of the drug involved is less than two hundred grams, possession of marihuana is a minor misdemeanor drug abuse offense. Persons convicted of violating this section shall not be fined and no incarceration, probation, nor any other punitive or rehabilitative measure shall be imposed.

(3) If the amount of the drug involved equals or exceeds two hundred grams, possession of marihuana is a fifth degree felony drug abuse offense. Persons convicted of violating this section shall not be fined and no incarceration, probation, nor any other punitive or rehabilitative measure shall be imposed.

(c) No person shall knowingly obtain, possess, or use hashish or a compound, mixture, preparation, or substance containing hashish, whoever violates this section is guilty of possession of hashish. The penalty for the offense shall be determined as follows:

(d) Whoever violates section (c) of this section, anywhere inside city limits, is guilty of one of the following:

(1) Except as otherwise provided in (d)(3) of this section, possession of hashish is a minor misdemeanor drug abuse offense.

(2) If the amount of the drug involved is less than ten grams of solid hashish or less than two grams of liquid hashish, possession of hashish is a minor misdemeanor drug abuse offense. Persons convicted of violating this section shall not be fined and no incarceration, probation, nor any other punitive or rehabilitative measure shall be imposed.

(3) If the amount of the drug involved is over ten grams of solid hashish or over two grams of liquid hashish, possession of hashish is a fifth degree felony drug abuse offense. Persons convicted of violating this section shall not be fined and no incarceration, probation, nor any other punitive or rehabilitative measure shall be imposed.

(e) No person shall knowingly do any of the following:

(1) Sell or offer to sell marihuana or hashish;

(2) Prepare for shipment, ship, transport, deliver, prepare for distribution, or distribute marihuana or hashish, when the offender knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the marihuana or hashish is intended for sale or resale by the offender or another person.

(f) Whoever violates section (e) of this section, anywhere inside city limits, is guilty of trafficking in marihuana.

(g) Trafficking in marihuana shall be a fifth degree felony drug offense. Persons convicted of violating this section shall not be fined and no incarceration, probation, nor any other punitive or rehabilitative measure shall be imposed.

(h) No person shall possess, sell, manufacture or use marihuana or hashish paraphernalia. The penalty for the offense shall be as follows:

(i) Whoever violates section (h) of this section shall be guilty of a minor misdemeanor drug abuse offense. Persons convicted of violating this section shall not be fined and no incarceration, probation, nor any other punitive or rehabilitative measure shall be imposed.

(j) No Toledo police officer, or his or her agent, shall report the possession, sale, distribution, trafficking, control, use, or giving away of marihuana or hashish to any other authority except the Toledo City Attorney; and the City Attorney shall not refer any said report to any other authority for prosecution or for any other reason.

(k) Should the State of Ohio enact lesser penalties than that set forth above, or entirely repeal penalties for the possession, sales, distribution, trafficking, control, use, or giving away of marihuana or hashish, then this ordinance, or the relevant portions thereof, shall be null and void.

(l) Criminal or Civil Asset Forfeiture due to any violation of these sections herein is not authorized and is strictly prohibited by any authority.

(m) Arrest or conviction for a minor misdemeanor violation of this section does not constitute a criminal record and need not be reported by the person so arrested or convicted in response to any inquiries about the person’s criminal record, including any inquiries contained in any application for employment, license, or other right or privilege, or made in connection with the person’s appearance as a witness.

(ORC 2925.11)

(n) All court costs to be suspended for minor misdemeanor violations of these sections herein.

(o) Severability. The sections of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of a section shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections. Invalid sections shall be revised to the minimum extent necessary to maintain validity and enforceability.

 

333.01 . DRIVING OR PHYSICAL CONTROL WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE; EVIDENCE.

(a)   (1)   Operation generally. No person shall operate any vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley within this Municipality, if, at the time of the operation, any of the following apply:

  1. The person is under the influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse, or a combination of them;
  2. The person has a concentration of eight-hundredths of one per cent (0.08%) but less than seventeen-hundredths of one percent (0.17%) by weight per unit volume of alcohol in the person’s whole blood;
  3. The person has a concentration of ninety-six thousandths of one percent (0.096%) or more but less than two hundred four-thousandths of one percent (0.204%) by weight per unit volume of alcohol in the person’s blood serum or plasma;
  4. The person has a concentration of eight-hundredths (0.08) of one gram or more but less than seventeen-hundredths (0.17) of one gram by weight of alcohol per 210 liters of the person’s breath;
  5. The person has a concentration of eleven-hundredths (0.11) of one gram or more but less than two hundred thirty-eight-thousandths (0.238) of one gram by weight of alcohol per 100 milliliters of the person’s urine;
  6. The person has a concentration of seventeen-hundredths of one per cent (0.17%) or more by weight per unit volume of alcohol in the person’s whole blood;
  7. The person has a concentration of two hundred four-thousandths of one percent (0.204%) or more by weight per unit volume of alcohol in the person’s blood serum or plasma;
  8. The person has a concentration of seventeen-hundredths (0.17) of one gram or more by weight of alcohol per 210 liters of the person’s breath;
  9. The person has a concentration of two hundred thirty-eight thousandths (0.238) of one gram or more by weight of alcohol per 100 milliliters of the person’s urine.
  10. Except as provided in division (K) of this section, the person has a concentration of any of the following controlled substances or metabolites of a controlled substance in the person’s whole blood, blood serum or plasma, or urine that equals or exceeds any of the following:

(i)   The person has a concentration of amphetamine in the person’s urine of at least five hundred nanograms of amphetamine per milliliter of the person’s urine or has a concentration of amphetamine in the person’s whole blood or blood serum or plasma of at least one hundred nanograms of amphetamine per milliliter of the person’s whole blood or blood serum or plasma.

(ii)   The person has a concentration of cocaine in the person’s urine of at least one hundred fifty nanograms of cocaine per milliliter of the person’s urine or has a concentration of cocaine in the person’s whole blood or blood serum or plasma of at least fifty nanograms of cocaine per milliliter of the person’s whole blood or blood serum or plasma.

(iii)   The person has a concentration of cocaine metabolite in the person’s urine of at least one hundred fifty nanograms of cocaine metabolite per milliliter of the person’s urine or has a concentration of cocaine metabolite in the person’s whole blood or blood serum or plasma of at least fifty nanograms of cocaine metabolite per milliliter of the person’s whole blood or blood serum or plasma.

(iv)   The person has a concentration of heroin in the person’s urine of at least two thousand nanograms of heroin per milliliter of the person’s urine or has a concentration of heroin in the person’s whole blood or blood serum or plasma of at least fifty nanograms of heroin per milliliter of the person’s whole blood or blood serum or plasma.

(v)   The person has a concentration of heroin metabolite (6-monoacetyl morphine) in the person’s urine of at least ten nanograms of heroin metabolite (6-monoacetyl morphine) per milliliter of the person’s urine or has a concentration of heroin metabolite (6-monoacetyl morphine) in the person’s whole blood or blood serum or plasma of at least ten nanograms of heroin metabolite (6-monoacetyl morphine) per milliliter of the person’s whole blood or blood serum or plasma.

(vi)   The person has a concentration of L.S.D. in the person’s urine of at least twenty-five nanograms of L.S.D. per milliliter of the person’s urine or a concentration of L.S.D. in the person’s whole blood or blood serum or plasma of at least ten nanograms of L.S.D. per milliliter of the person’s whole blood or blood serum or plasma.

(vii) The person has a concentration of methamphetamine in the person’s urine of at least five hundred nanograms of methamphetamine per milliliter of the person’s urine or has a concentration of methamphetamine in the person’s whole blood or blood serum or plasma of at least one hundred nanograms of methamphetamine per milliliter of the person’s whole blood or blood serum or plasma.

(viii)   The person has a concentration of phencyclidine in the person’s urine of at least twenty-five nanograms of phencyclidine per milliliter of the person’s urine or has a concentration of phencyclidine in the person’s whole blood or blood serum or plasma of at least ten nanograms of phencyclidine per milliliter of the person’s whole blood or blood serum or plasma.

  1. Subsection J. does not apply to a person who operates a vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley while the person has a concentration of a listed controlled substance or of a listed metabolite of a controlled substance in the person’s whole blood, blood serum, or plasma, or urine that equals or exceeds the amount specified in that prohibition, if the person obtained the controlled substance pursuant to a prescription issued by a licensed health professional authorized to prescribe drugs and the person injected, ingested, or inhaled the controlled substance in accordance with the health professional’s directions.

(b)   Operation by underage persons. No person under twenty-one years of age shall operate any vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley within this Municipality, if, at the time of the operation, any of the following apply:

(1)   The person has a concentration of at least two-hundredths of one percent (0.02%) but less than eight-hundredths of one percent (0.08%) by weight per unit volume of alcohol in the person’s whole blood;

(2)   The person has a concentration of at least three-hundredths of one percent (0.03%) but less than ninety-six thousandths of one percent (0.096%) by weight per unit volume of alcohol in the person’s blood serum or plasma;

(3)   The person has a concentration of at least two-hundredths (0.02) of one gram but less than eight-hundredths (0.08) of one gram by weight of alcohol per 210 liters of the person’s breath;

(4)   The person has a concentration of at least twenty-eight one-thousandths (0.028) of one gram but less than eleven-hundredths (0.11) of one gram by weight of alcohol per 100 milliliters of the person’s urine.

(c)   (1)   Physical control generally. No person shall be in physical control of a vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley while under the influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse, controlled substances, metabolites of a controlled substance, or a combination of them or while the person’s whole blood, blood serum or plasma, breath, or urine contains at least the concentration of alcohol specified in division (a)(1)B., C., D., or E., of Section 333.01 of the Municipal Code.

  1. As used in Section 333.01 (c), “physical control” means being in the driver’s position of the front seat of a vehicle or in the driver’s position of a streetcar or trackless trolley and having possession of the vehicle’s, streetcar’s, or trackless trolley’s ignition key or other ignition device.

(d)   (1)   In any proceeding arising out of one incident, a person may be charged with a violation of division (a)(1)A. and a violation of division (b)(1)(2) or (3) of this section, but the person may not be convicted of more than one violation of these divisions.

(e)   Evidence; tests; immunity.

(1)   In any criminal prosecution or juvenile court proceeding for a violation of division (a), (b) or (c) of this section, the court may admit evidence on the concentration of alcohol, drugs of abuse, controlled substances, metabolites of a controlled substance, or a combination of them in the defendant’s whole blood, blood serum or plasma, breath, urine or other bodily substance at the time of the alleged violation as shown by chemical analysis of the substance withdrawn within three hours of the time of the alleged violation. The three-hour time limit specified in this division regarding the admission of evidence does not extend or affect the two hour limit specified in division (A) of section 4511.192 of the Ohio Revised Code as the maximum period of time during which a person may consent to a chemical test or tests as described in that section.

When a person submits to a blood test at the request of a law enforcement officer under Section 333.01 , only a physician, a registered nurse, or a qualified technician, chemist, or phlebotomist shall withdraw blood for the purpose of determining the alcohol, drug, controlled substance, metabolite of a controlled substance or combination content of the whole blood, blood serum, or blood plasma. This limitation does not apply to the taking of breath or urine specimens. A person authorized to withdraw blood under this division may refuse to withdraw blood under this division, for the purpose of determining the alcohol, drug, or alcohol if in that person’s opinion the physical welfare of the person would be endangered by the withdrawing of blood.

The bodily substance withdrawn shall be analyzed in accordance with methods approved by the Ohio Director of Health by an individual possessing a valid permit issued by the Director pursuant to Ohio R.C. 3701.143.

(2)   In a criminal prosecution or juvenile court proceeding for a violation of division (a) of this section or for an equivalent offense, if there was at the time the bodily substance was withdrawn a concentration of less than the applicable concentration of alcohol specified in divisions (a)(1), B., C., D., and E. of this section, or less than the applicable concentration of a listed controlled substance or listed metabolite of a controlled substance specified for a violation of division (a)(1)J. of this section, that fact may be considered with other competent evidence in determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant. This division does not limit or affect a criminal prosecution or juvenile court proceeding for a violation of division (b) of this section or for an equivalent offense that is substantially equivalent to that division.

(3)   Upon the request of the person who was tested, the results of the chemical test shall be made available to the person or the person’s attorney, immediately upon the completion of the chemical test analysis.

The person tested may have a physician, a registered nurse, or a qualified technician, chemist, or phlebotomist of the person’s own choosing administer a chemical test or tests, at the person’s expense, in addition to any administered at the request of a law enforcement officer. The form to be read to the person to be tested, as required under Ohio R.C. 4511.192, shall state that the person may have an independent test performed at the person’s expense. The failure or inability to obtain an additional chemical test by a person shall not preclude the admission of evidence relating to the chemical test or tests taken at the request of a law enforcement officer.

(4)   A.   As used in divisions (e)(4)B. and C. of this section, “national highway traffic safety administration” means the national highway traffic safety administration established as an administration of the United States Department of Transportation under 96 Stat. 2415 (1983), 49 U.S.C.A. 105.

  1. In any criminal prosecution or juvenile court proceeding for a violation of division (a), (b) or (c) of this section, if a law enforcement officer has administered a field sobriety test to the operator of the vehicle involved in the violation and if it is shown by clear and convincing evidence that the officer administered the test in substantial compliance with the testing standards for any reliable, credible, and generally accepted field sobriety tests that were in effect at the time the tests were administered, including, but not limited to, any testing standards then in effect that were set by the national highway traffic safety administration, all of the following apply:

(i)   The officer may testify concerning the results of the field sobriety test so administered.

(ii)   The prosecution may introduce the results of the field sobriety test so administered as evidence in any proceedings in the criminal prosecution or juvenile court proceeding.

(iii)   If testimony is presented or evidence is introduced under division (e)(4)B.(i) or (ii) of this section and if the testimony or evidence is admissible under the Rules of Evidence, the court shall admit the testimony or evidence and the trier of fact shall give it whatever weight the trier of fact considers to be appropriate.

  1. Division (e)(4)B. of this section does not limit or preclude a court, in its determination of whether the arrest of a person was supported by probable cause or its determination of any other matter in a criminal proceeding of a type described in that division, from considering evidence or testimony that is not otherwise disallowed by division (e)(4)B. of this section.

(f)   (1)   Subject to division (f)(3) of this section, in any criminal prosecution or juvenile court proceeding for a violation of division (a)(1), B., C., D., E., F., G., H., I., or J. or (b)(1), (2), (3), (4) or (c) of this section, a laboratory report from any laboratory personnel issued a permit by the State of Ohio Department of Health authorizing an analysis as described in this division that contains an analysis of the whole blood, blood serum or plasma, breath, urine, or other bodily substance tested and that contain all of the information specified in this division shall be admitted as prima facie evidence of the information and statements that the report contains. The laboratory report shall contain all of the following:

  1. The signature, under oath, of any person who performed the analysis;
  2. Any findings as to the identity and quantity of alcohol, a drug of abuse, a controlled substance, a metabolite of a controlled substance, or a combination of them that was found;
  1. A copy of a notarized statement by the laboratory director or a designee of the director that contains the name of each certified analyst or test performer involved with the report, the analyst’s or test performer’s employment relationship with the laboratory that issued the report, and a notation that performing an analysis of the type involved is part of the analyst’s or test performer’s regular duties;
  2. An outline of the analyst’s or test performer’s education, training, and experience in performing the type of analysis involved and a certification that the laboratory satisfies appropriate quality control standards in general, and in this particular analysis, under rules of the Department of Health.

(2)   Notwithstanding any other provision of law regarding the admission of evidence, a report of this type described in division (f)(1) of this section is not admissible against the defendant to whom it pertains in any proceeding, other than a preliminary hearing or a grand jury proceeding, unless the prosecutor has served a copy of the report on the defendant’s attorney, or if the defendant has no attorney, on the defendant.

(3)   A report of the type described in division (f)(1) of this section shall not be prima facie evidence of the contents, identity, or amount of any substance if, within seven (7) days after the defendant to whom the report pertains or the defendant’s attorney receives a copy of the report, the defendant or the defendant’s attorney demands the testimony of the person who signed the report. The judge in the case may extend the seven (7) day time limit in the interest of justice.

(Ord. 606-06. Passed 9-5-06.)”

Now that residents of Toledo have made their voices heard, regarding the aforementioned issue, this could pave the way in my opinion for Issue 3, which is a proposed constitutional amendment to legalize recreational marijuana and medical use of marijuana and a regulatory system for growing and selling.

Scott Walker is Going After Unions Again

While Scott Walker speaks in front of a town hall meeting in Las Vegas , today, Walker plans on unveiling his plan for more restrictions on unions; like we have not read that script before.

“None of this intimidates us,” Walker said at a recent campaign appearance. “I think if people are looking for someone who is truly going to shake things up and wreak havoc on Washington, they want someone who’s got real solutions and someone who is truly tested. I’m the only one on that stage that fits the bill.” ( more can be read at, http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-gops-walker-proposes-vast-union-restrictions-040129104–finance.html).

As stated in the Inquisitr, writer, Tara Dodrill, (http://www.inquisitr.com/2418050/scott-walker-union-restrictions-expected-to-take-center-stage-at-las-vegas-townhall/#7x7UZS13ogB0OoFb.99), states some highlights of the possible restrictions Walker is proposing.

Dodrill goes into this detail, which is referencing the Wisconsin governor’s presidential campaign committee.

  • “Allow employers to give workers the option of taking time off work instead of extra pay, to compensate them for overtime.
  • Elimination of the National Labor Relations Board.
  • Mandating that federal employee unions disclose the amount of dues used for political activity.
  • End the Davis-Bacon Act. The federal statute requires government contractors to pay workers the prevailing wage. The controversial law has often been blamed for knocking out local private businesses from bidding on contracts paid for, at least in part, by federal funds because the workers are not union or are paid at a local living wage, which is not equal to union prevailing wage.”

While, I do not think Walker will get the republican nomination, I think when it comes to your state primary, whenever that is, keep what he says in mind.

“This will not be easy. Many — including the union bosses and the politicians they puppet — have long benefited from Washington rules that put the needs of special interests before needs of middle-class families,” Walker said.

Obviously, Walkers ideas with the aforementioned proposal, will not win over labor unions and labor lawyers, or middle class families whom are part of unions.

Lee Alder, who is a labor law expert at Cornell University, had this to say regarding Walker’s policy.

“Mr. Walker could only be making these type of proposals to satisfy his most backward-looking, wealthy contributors, just as he pursued, as governor, policies advanced by these people that sought to destroy school teachers and other public employees’ rights in Wisconsin,” he said.

According to the AFL-CIO, here are some facts regarding right to works states vs. union states.

States with Right to Work Laws Have:1

“Lower Wages and Incomes

  • The average worker in states with right to work laws makes $5,971 (12.2 percent) less annually than workers in states without right to when all other factors are removed than workers in other states.2
  • Median household income in states with these laws is $6,568 (11.8 percent) less than in other states ($49,220 vs. $55,788).3
  • In states with right to work laws, 25.9 percent of jobs are in low-wage occupations, compared with 18.0 percent of jobs in other states.4

Lower Rates of Health Insurance Coverage

  • People under the age of 65 in states with right to work laws are more likely to be uninsured (16.3 percent, compared with 12.4 percent in free-bargaining states).5
  • They’re less likely to have job-based health insurance than people in other states (53.9 percent, compared with 57.1 percent)6 and pay a larger share of their health insurance premiums (29.9 percent compared with 26.1 percent).7
  • Only 46.8 percent of private-sector employers in states with these laws offer insurance coverage to their employees, compared with 52.6 percent in other states. That difference is even more pronounced among small employers (with fewer than 50 workers)—only 30.3 percent offer workers health insurance, compared with 38.8 percent of small employers in other states.8

Higher Poverty and Infant Mortality Rates

  • Poverty rates are higher in states with right to work laws (14.8 percent overall and 20.2 percent for children), compared with poverty rates of 13.1 percent overall and 18.3 percent for children in states without these laws.9
  • The infant mortality rate is 14.2 percent higher in states with these laws.10

Less Investment in Education

  • States with right to work laws spend 31.3 percent less per pupil on elementary and secondary education than other states.11

Higher Workplace Fatalities

  • The rate of workplace deaths is 54.4 percent higher in states with these laws, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.12″

Finding a balance with unions are one thing, (I do not think unions should be forced on people, but, I also believe unions should not be denied for people who want them), striping individuals of collective bargaining is wrong, as far as I know, we still have the right to assemble.

Canadian Comedian in Controversy for alleged Fat-Shaming Video.

On Friday September 4, 2015, Canadian comedian, writer, singer, and actress, Nicole Arbour posted a controversial video on her You Tube page.

The video is titled, “Dear Fat People,” which can be seen at this link, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVIbk7difVE.

Arbour’s rant has been seen over 18 million times, since the release.

During the duration of the video, Arbour had this to say, among other satire statements.

Medically Daily pulled these quotes from, Arbour’s video.

“Are you going to tell the doctor that they’re being mean, and fat-shaming you when they say you have f-ing heart disease?”

“There’s a race card. There’s a disability card. There’s even a gay card because gay people are discriminated against, wrongfully so. The gay card is covered in glitter.”

Obviously, there was a backlash.

The star of TLC show My Big Fat Fabulous Life and founder of the No Body Shame campaign, Whitney Way Thore posted a video response on Facebook.

Thore said, “Fat-shaming is a thing, it’s a really big thing, no pun intended. “It is the really nasty spawn of a larger parent problem called body-shaming, which I’m fairly certain everyone, on the planet, especially women, has experienced.”

One of Arbour’s Tweets stated, “If you show a kid South Park, and watch them get offended, then get mad they got offended, and then yell at South Park. You’re an idiot.”

According to the CDC here is how the BMI index is calculated and the categories of which one can fall into.

“How is BMI calculated?

BMI is calculated the same way for both adults and children. The calculation is based on the following formulas:

Measurement Units Formula and Calculation
Kilograms and meters (or centimeters) Formula: weight (kg) / [height (m)]2

With the metric system, the formula for BMI is weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared. Because height is commonly measured in centimeters, divide height in centimeters by 100 to obtain height in meters.

Example: Weight = 68 kg, Height = 165 cm (1.65 m)
Calculation: 68 ÷ (1.65)2 = 24.98

Pounds and inches Formula: weight (lb) / [height (in)]2 x 703

Calculate BMI by dividing weight in pounds (lbs) by height in inches (in) squared and multiplying by a conversion factor of 703.

Example: Weight = 150 lbs, Height = 5’5″ (65″)
Calculation: [150 ÷ (65)2] x 703 = 24.96

Top of Page

How is BMI interpreted for adults?

For adults 20 years old and older, BMI is interpreted using standard weight status categories. These categories are the same for men and women of all body types and ages.

The standard weight status categories associated with BMI ranges for adults are shown in the following table.

BMI Weight Status
Below 18.5 Underweight
18.5 – 24.9 Normal or Healthy Weight
25.0 – 29.9 Overweight
30.0 and Above Obese

For example, here are the weight ranges, the corresponding BMI ranges, and the weight status categories for a person who is 5′ 9″.

Height Weight Range BMI Weight Status
5′ 9″ 124 lbs or less Below 18.5 Underweight
125 lbs to 168 lbs 18.5 to 24.9 Normal or Healthy Weight
169 lbs to 202 lbs 25.0 to 29.9 Overweight
203 lbs or more 30 or higher Obese

This is what obesity can lead to:

Obesity is common, serious and costly

  • More than one-third (34.9% or 78.6 million) of U.S. adults are obese. [Read abstract Journal of American Medicine (JAMA)]
  • Obesity-related conditions include heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes and certain types of cancer, some of the leading causes of preventable death. [Read guidelines]
  • The estimated annual medical cost of obesity in the U.S. was $147 billion in 2008 U.S. dollars; the medical costs for people who are obese were $1,429 higher than those of normal weight. [Read summary]

Obesity Prevalence Maps

Obesity prevalence in 2013 varies across states and territories

  • No state had a prevalence of obesity less than 20%.
  • 7 states and the District of Columbia had a prevalence of obesity between 20% and <25%.
  • 23 states had a prevalence of obesity between 25% and <30%.
  • 18 states had a prevalence of obesity between 30% and <35%.
  • 2 states (Mississippi and West Virginia) had a prevalence of obesity of 35% or greater.
  • The South had the highest prevalence of obesity (30.2%), followed by the Midwest (30.1%), the Northeast (26.5%), and the West (24.9%).
  • The prevalence of obesity was 27.0% in Guam and 27.9% in Puerto Rico.+”

Comedians are suppose to say provocative and controversial statements, if they do not, then they are failing to do what their profession requires.

If one takes offense to what Arbour said, oh well. If you do not like her statements, then do not patronize her YouTube Channel or Twitter page.

So let me get this straight, if one brings up the comments regarding what Arbour explained, then its fat-shaming, but if an obese person tells an lean or athletic person to eat more, it’s not considered skinny shaming?

And while we are on the topic of “shaming,” I’m going to come up with a new term, it’s called nice guy shaming. This is when a women complains about wanting to date or marry a nice guy, but dates someone who is a bad boy or with swag and then complains to their good guy friend about how their relationship is horrible.

Also, one cannot claim to support free speech, if they want to censor the speech they do not approve of.

People, let’s put on our adult pants and get over it. If you want to change something about yourself, you have to make the first step to change.

I do not like death metal music, since it sounds like the lead singer is attempting to enunciate with gravel in their mouths.

I also, do not like it when rappers say Fuck the Police, but I’m I going to go to the halls of Congress or demand radio stations ban the aforementioned, absolutely not.

In the age of the cornucopia of political correctness, we continue to be accustomed to, I’m pleased to see that Arbour is sticking by her guns.

“”Will I take what strangers on the internet say about me personally? No,” she told BuzzFeed. “Because what they are saying is a ridiculous outrage to a comedy video that has a bit too much truth in the jokes for their personal taste.” However, she did add, “I never intended for kids to be watching it and I’m sorry if any kids who didn’t understand that I’m a comedian were shocked or upset.””

How the West Could be Won: Rand Paul’s Visit Provokes a frenzy

During this past weekend, Senator Rand Paul, known for interjecting some of his libertarian ideals, was able to captivate large crowds from Utah to Alaska.

During Paul’s speech in Washington State, Matt Dubin, Vice Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus in Washington State, who introduced Paul, said, “Rand Paul is the kind of Republican who can win in the state of Washington…Can Washington Stand with Rand?”

Well, Dubin’s question may have to wait to be answered, but one thing is for sure, Paul did not hesitate in calling out fellow republicans.

“To defend the Second Amendment, you have to defend the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment and the First Amendment…The problem with the Republican Party, and why we don’t win, is we are not for what we are supposed to be for?”

Paul also discussed the abuse of power as well as immigration.
“I promise you this: If I am your president, I will spend every waking moment giving power back to the states and the people,” Paul said during his speech.

On immigration Paul stated, “I think it’s wrong to think for people who come here chasing the American dream won’t eventually get the American dream and be a good part of America and make America a better place”. “I want to make sure the people know that Republicans aren’t against immigrants or against immigration.”

While those aforementioned issues continue to be discussed and should definitely be solved Paul, to some might seem like a broken record like most politicians, however, what separates him, from other candidates?

Dubin has some insight to the proposed question.

Dubin elaborates, “He would not interfere with Washington’s legal marijuana or same sex marriage laws, he would end racially discriminatory mandatory sentencing, he would reform civil forfeiture laws, he would end bulk surveillance of people’s cell phone and credit card records, he would bring our troops home from pointless wars and interventions all over the world, he would enforce the 6th amendment right to a speedy trial, he would repeal the laws allowing indefinite detention of Americans without criminal charges, he would fight the crony capitalism status quo embraced by both parties, he would oppose bailouts of big banks and big corporations, and he would return authority and money to our communities, instead of forcing us to continue sending both to the other Washington and then beg for some of it back. Simply put, Rand is a new kind of Republican. One who has consciously worked for years to broaden the base of the party and to remake the GOP as the party of justice for all, not just the few. There is no longer a reason to choose between civil liberties and fiscal responsibility. You can have both. You deserve both.”

Keep in mind, Paul has a difficult task in trying to balance what his father Ron created and striking a moderation with the tradition conservative base.

If you look at head to head match-ups with Hillary Clinton being the possible nominee for the democrats (which is too early to tell on either side, who the eventual nominee will be), Rand Paul has the best statistical chance to beat Clinton, besides, Rubio, Walker and Bush.

And we know Rand has more personality and better polices then Walker, Rubio and Bush.

Here are the results, thus far according to the Web site Real Clear Politics.

2016 Presidential Race

General Election: Trump vs. Clinton

Poll Date Sample MoE Clinton (D) Trump (R) Spread
RCP Average 7/20 – 8/25 49.4 40.6 Clinton +8.8
Quinnipiac 8/20 – 8/25 1563 RV 2.5 45 41 Clinton +4
CNN/ORC 8/13 – 8/16 897 RV 3.5 51 45 Clinton +6
FOX News 8/11 – 8/13 1008 RV 3.0 47 42 Clinton +5
McClatchy/Marist 7/22 – 7/28 964 RV 3.2 54 38 Clinton +16
PPP (D) 7/20 – 7/21 1087 RV 3.0 50 37 Clinton +13

All General Election: Trump vs. Clinton Polling Data

General Election: Bush vs. Clinton

Poll Date Sample MoE Clinton (D) Bush (R) Spread
RCP Average 7/20 – 8/25 46.2 42.2 Clinton +4.0
Quinnipiac 8/20 – 8/25 1563 RV 2.5 42 40 Clinton +2
CNN/ORC 8/13 – 8/16 897 RV 3.5 52 43 Clinton +9
FOX News 8/11 – 8/13 1008 RV 3.0 42 44 Bush +2
McClatchy/Marist 7/22 – 7/28 964 RV 3.2 49 43 Clinton +6
PPP (D) 7/20 – 7/21 1087 RV 3.0 46 41 Clinton +5

All General Election: Bush vs. Clinton Polling Data

General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton

Poll Date Sample MoE Clinton (D) Rubio (R) Spread
RCP Average 7/20 – 8/25 45.3 43.0 Clinton +2.3
Quinnipiac 8/20 – 8/25 1563 RV 2.5 44 43 Clinton +1
FOX News 8/11 – 8/13 1008 RV 3.0 44 46 Rubio +2
McClatchy/Marist 7/22 – 7/28 964 RV 3.2 47 42 Clinton +5
PPP (D) 7/20 – 7/21 1087 RV 3.0 46 41 Clinton +5

All General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton Polling Data

General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton

Poll Date Sample MoE Clinton (D) Cruz (R) Spread
RCP Average 6/21 – 7/28 48.3 40.7 Clinton +7.6
McClatchy/Marist 7/22 – 7/28 964 RV 3.2 49 40 Clinton +9
PPP (D) 7/20 – 7/21 1087 RV 3.0 48 40 Clinton +8
FOX News 6/21 – 6/23 1005 RV 3.0 48 42 Clinton +6

All General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton Polling Data

General Election: Walker vs. Clinton

Poll Date Sample MoE Clinton (D) Walker (R) Spread
RCP Average 7/20 – 8/16 47.5 42.8 Clinton +4.7
CNN/ORC 8/13 – 8/16 897 RV 3.5 52 46 Clinton +6
Quinnipiac 7/23 – 7/28 1644 RV 2.4 44 43 Clinton +1
McClatchy/Marist 7/22 – 7/28 964 RV 3.2 48 41 Clinton +7
PPP (D) 7/20 – 7/21 1087 RV 3.0 46 41 Clinton +5

All General Election: Walker vs. Clinton Polling Data

General Election: Fiorina vs. Clinton

Poll Date Sample MoE Clinton (D) Fiorina (R) Spread
RCP Average 7/20 – 8/16 50.0 38.8 Clinton +11.2
CNN/ORC 8/13 – 8/16 897 RV 3.5 53 43 Clinton +10
FOX News 8/11 – 8/13 1008 RV 3.0 47 40 Clinton +7
McClatchy/Marist 7/22 – 7/28 964 RV 3.2 53 35 Clinton +18
PPP (D) 7/20 – 7/21 1087 RV 3.0 47 37 Clinton +10

All General Election: Fiorina vs. Clinton Polling Data

General Election: Carson vs. Clinton

Poll Date Sample MoE Clinton (D) Carson (R) Spread
RCP Average 7/9 – 7/28 48.3 38.0 Clinton +10.3
McClatchy/Marist 7/22 – 7/28 964 RV 3.2 49 39 Clinton +10
PPP (D) 7/20 – 7/21 1087 RV 3.0 47 39 Clinton +8
USA Today/Suffolk 7/9 – 7/12 1000 LV 3.0 49 36 Clinton +13

All General Election: Carson vs. Clinton Polling Data

General Election: Kasich vs. Clinton

Poll Date Sample Clinton (D) Kasich (R) Spread
RCP Average 5/9 – 7/28 48.5 39.5 Clinton +9.0
McClatchy/Marist 7/22 – 7/28 964 RV 49 39 Clinton +10
FOX News 5/9 – 5/12 1006 RV 48 40 Clinton +8

All General Election: Kasich vs. Clinton Polling Data

General Election: Paul vs. Clinton

Poll Date Sample MoE Clinton (D) Paul (R) Spread
RCP Average 6/21 – 7/28 46.8 41.3 Clinton +5.5
McClatchy/Marist 7/22 – 7/28 964 RV 3.2 48 43 Clinton +5
PPP (D) 7/20 – 7/21 1087 RV 3.0 45 42 Clinton +3
USA Today/Suffolk 7/9 – 7/12 1000 LV 3.0 48 38 Clinton +10
FOX News 6/21 – 6/23 1005 RV 3.0 46 42 Clinton +4

All General Election: Paul vs. Clinton Polling Data

General Election: Huckabee vs. Clinton

Poll Date Sample MoE Clinton (D) Huckabee (R) Spread
RCP Average 7/9 – 7/28 48.3 40.3 Clinton +8.0
McClatchy/Marist 7/22 – 7/28 964 RV 3.2 50 41 Clinton +9
PPP (D) 7/20 – 7/21 1087 RV 3.0 46 40 Clinton +6
USA Today/Suffolk 7/9 – 7/12 1000 LV 3.0 49 40 Clinton +9

All General Election: Huckabee vs. Clinton Polling Data

General Election: Christie vs. Clinton

Poll Date Sample MoE Clinton (D) Christie (R) Spread
RCP Average 6/26 – 7/28 50.3 39.0 Clinton +11.3
McClatchy/Marist 7/22 – 7/28 964 RV 3.2 50 40 Clinton +10
PPP (D) 7/20 – 7/21 1087 RV 3.0 46 38 Clinton +8
CNN/Opinion Research 6/26 – 6/28 890 RV 3.5 55 39 Clinton +16

All General Election: Christie vs. Clinton Polling Data

So, contrary to popular believe, Paul’s, campaign is not dead in Defeating the Washington Machine.

For more details on Rand’s tour out west, go to, http://www.randpaul2016.com/news/rand-paul-touts-small-government-talks-immigration-during-campaign-stop-in-utah and https://rlc.org/blog/rand-paul-makes-big-marks-out-west.

The Strange Case of: A Ballot Selfie

On August 11, 2015 a federal judge struck down a law, which prohibited voters in New Hampshire (the Live Free or Die state, if one wanted to know that factoid), from presenting their marked ballots on social media, saying the law violates free speech.

“In 2014, the New Hampshire legislature amended section 659:35, of the New Hampshire Revised Statutes (“RSA659:35, I”) to provide that: No voter shall allow his or her ballot to be seen by any person with the intention of letting it be known how he or she is about to vote or how he or she has voted except as provided in RSA 659:20.This prohibition shall include taking a digital image or photograph of his or her marked ballot and distributing or sharing the image via social media or by any other means.”

In all the laws infinite wisdom (note my sarcasm), was to stop vote buying and vote coercion that was prevalent in the 1800s, before the creation of secret ballots.

In a 42-page ruling, Judge Paul Barbadoro of the U.S. District Court in Concord, stated that there has not been evidence of either of the aforementioned.

“At its core, this dispute turns on a claim that the political speech rights of voters must be curtailed to protect the vote against those who would corrupt it with cash or coercion,” Barbadoro wrote. “If this claim could be grounded in something other than speculation, it would be more difficult to resolve because few, if any, rights are more vital to a well-functioning democracy than either the right to speak out on political issues or the right to vote free from coercion and improper influence.

Well, now that we know it is now legal to take a selfie ballot picture in New Hamsphire, let’s direct our attention to how a court case actually came about.

The full story can be seen at the American Civil Liberties Web site.

During the 2014, primary, Andrew Langlois of Berlin, New Hampshire was frustrated with the Republican candidates for U.S. Senate.

So Langlois, wrote the name “Akira,” as a write-in candidate.

The name Akira was chosen, since it was the name of his dog that passed away days before the primary.

Well, Langlois took a picture of the ballot’s U.S. Senate section with his phone, casted his ballot and then went home.

Langlois then posted his ballot on Facebook, along with commentary of his frustration of the Republican candidates for the Senate.

After the election, Langlois received a call by an investigator at the New Hampshire General’s Office.

The investigator told Langlois he was being investigated for posting a photo of his marked ballot on social media, which violated the law.

If you are still in bewilderment of Langlois story, don’t worry, I’m just as puzzled.

But, New Hampshire was not the only state with certain regulations with communication devices at polling places.

According to a Huffington Post article, titled “A Guide To Not Getting Arrested When You Use Your Cell Phone On Election Day, written by Amanda Terkel and Dana Liebelson in November of 2014, illustrate these details:

  • “”Alabama: Alabama’s policy is confusing, stating, “All citizens are allowed to photograph or videotape general election activities in a polling place as long as they remain 30 feet outside a polling place and do not photograph an elector marking their ballot.” When asked how a voter could both be “in a polling place” and “30 feet outside a polling place” at the same time, Alabama Secretary of State spokesman Will Sutton explained, “I believe they mean citizens can take pictures as long as they remain 30 feet outside a polling place and do not photograph an elector marking their ballot.” Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography banned.
  • Alaska: State law says a “voter may not exhibit the voter’s ballot to an election official or any other person so as to enable any person to ascertain how the voter marked the ballot.” Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography allowed.
  • Arizona: According to the Arizona secretary of state’s office, photography and videography are prohibited within the polling place and for an additional 75 feet. Breaking this rule is a class 2 misdemeanor. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography banned.
  • Arkansas: Arkansas state code says that “any … person in or out of this state in any primary, general, or special election in this state” cannot “divulge to any person the results of any votes cast for any candidate or on any issue in the election until after the closing of the polls on the day of the election.” It’s not clear, however, if this rule would apply specifically to individuals attempting to take photographs of their own ballots, and the Arkansas secretary of state’s office did not return requests for comment. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography may be allowed.
  • California: A 2012 secretary of state memo stated that the office “has historically taken the position that the use of cameras or video equipment at polling places is prohibited,” with exceptions for media. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography banned.
  • Colorado: Voters are not allowed to show how they voted, so an unmarked ballot may be allowed. There’s no statewide rule on taking photos in polling places, though the Colorado secretary of state’s office notes that some county clerks may bar voters from bringing cell phones or cameras into the polling place. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography allowed, although some counties may ban cell phone use.
  • Connecticut: State law criminalizes “any act which invades or interferes with the secrecy of the voting or causes the same to be invaded or interfered with,” but it’s not clear if this would apply to a voter photographing his or her own ballot. Connecticut officials did not return requests for comment. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography unclear.
  • Delaware: According to the Delaware Elections Commissioner Elaine Manlove, “[V]oters are not allowed to use cameras or phones in the polling place.” Since it’s a policy, not a law, there’s no real penalty for breaking the rule, other than getting reprimanded. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography banned.
  • District of Columbia: Cell phones are barred at polling locations in the District. There’s no penalty for breaking the rule, other than being asked to stop. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography banned.
  • Florida: State law says, “No photography is permitted in the polling room or early voting area.” Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography banned.
  • Georgia: Georgia law states, “No elector shall use photographic or other electronic monitoring or recording devices or cellular telephones while such elector is within the enclosed space in a polling place.” Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography banned.
  • Hawaii: Rex Quidilla, spokesman for the state Office of Elections, said there is an administrative ban on photography in polling places. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography banned.
  • Idaho: The secretary of state’s office instructs poll workers that with the exception of the media, photography is not allowed in polling places. There’s no penalty, however, if the rule is broken. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography banned.
  • Illinois: According to state election code, voters are not allowed to take pictures of their marked ballots and show them to other people. Doing so could result in a class 4 felony. Bernadette Harrington, legal counsel for the Illinois State Board of Elections, said that there is no specific prohibition on photography in a polling place, although taking a photo of another person’s marked ballot is barred. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography allowed.
  • Indiana: Taking a photo of a ballot and showing it to someone else — including on social media — is a level 6 felony in the state of Indiana. Trent Deckard, co-director of the Indiana Election Division, said there technically is no state prohibition on photography in polling places, but that could vary depending on the polling location. “We have an issue where a county elections board will adopt a policy asking people to silence their phones while they come in. There’s no law on that,” he said. “But then people will take that, at the precinct level, to ‘don’t use your phone at all.’ And so they will creep a little bit further.” Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography allowed, although voters may still be told to put away their phones.
  • Iowa: State law prohibits cameras and cell phones in the voting booth. The penalty is a misdemeanor violation. But according to Chance McElhaney, spokesman for the Iowa secretary of state, there’s no prohibition on taking photos in the polling place “as long as it is not intimidating or showing the way a person marked their ballot.” Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography allowed.
  • Kansas: According to V. Kay Kurtis, spokeswoman for the Kansas secretary of state, “Kansas laws don’t mention Facebook or even photography. Our office has discouraged taking pictures of ballots and posting them on the web, but we’ve been unable to prohibit or completely prevent it. We do think many people refrain from doing it if they know it’s discouraged by our office.” Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography banned.
  • Kentucky: State law bars people from using a “paper, telephone, personal telecommunications device, computer, or other information technology system to create a checkoff list or record the identity of voters.” While the law doesn’t specifically address using cell phones for other purposes, in 2008, then-Secretary of State Trey Grayson (D) said voters were not allowed to bring cameras and recording devices into polling places. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography banned.
  • Louisiana: State law says people cannot “allow a ballot to be seen,” resulting in a fine of no more than $500 or jail for no more than six months, or both. “Obviously, this law was written before the age of social media, so we do receive many reports of individuals posting their ballots on Facebook, Twitter, etc. Our response has been to remind voters that their vote is private,” said Meg Casper, press secretary for the secretary of state. Photography at polling places doesn’t appear to be banned, but it cannot be done in a way that affects or interferes with the voting process. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography allowed.
  • Maine: Deputy Secretary of State Julie Flynn said, “Ballots are not public documents, so voters should not be taking copies or pics and posting their ballots. We have not prosecuted anyone for this, but this is like putting a distinguishing mark on your ballot so that a party or candidate will know how you voted (harkens back to the days when the political machine would pay people for voting for their candidates). People should be discouraged from doing this.” She did not comment on photography in polling places generally. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography may be allowed.
  • Maryland: Maryland regulations ban the use of electronic communication devices, including cameras and cell phones, inside polling locations. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography banned.
  • Massachusetts: State law bans voters from sharing a marked ballot, with a penalty of jail for no more than six months or a fine of no more than $100. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography allowed.
  • Michigan: According to a recent press release from the Michigan secretary of state’s office, “The use of video cameras, still cameras and other recording devices are prohibited in the polls when they are open for voting. This includes still cameras and other recording features built into many cell phones. … Photos of ballots should not be posted on social media. Additionally, under Michigan election law, a ballot is rejected if deliberately exposed. A voter who deliberately exposes their ballot will not be allowed to vote in that election.” Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography banned.
  • Minnesota: Nathan Bowie, a spokesman for the Minnesota Secretary of State, said that while there is no law that specifically prohibits voters from recording their own voting experience, the office “strongly discourages voters from using cameras or video recorders in the polling place.” Bowie cited voter privacy issues and the fact that taking extra time to Instagram could hold up the voting process for others. State law also prohibits voters from showing their marked ballot to others. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography not technically banned, but it is discouraged.
  • Mississippi: Mississippi does not allow voters to show marked ballots, but it’s unclear whether photos can be taken in polling places. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography unclear.
  • Missouri: Missouri law bars a voter from showing a ballot to others “with the intent of letting it be known how he is about to vote or has voted.” So in theory, putting up a photo on Instagram of a totally blank ballot, with no other information, would be allowed. Breaking the state rule comes with a class 4 misdemeanor. There’s nothing in state law that bars voters from taking a picture in a polling place, although since some locations are private property (e.g. a church), the people running the operation could prohibit photos. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography allowed, but may be up to the discretion of the polling workers.
  • Montana: According to the secretary of state’s office, Montana law does not specifically prohibit taking pictures of a polling place or a ballot. However, election officials can limit any activity that may be disruptive to the voting process. Additionally, photos of marked ballots are discouraged, because Montana law states that an elector may not show the contents of the elector’s ballot to anyone after it is marked. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography allowed.
  • Nebraska: In Nebraska, under no conditions is a non-media person allowed to take photos inside a polling place building, including of a ballot, according to the secretary of state’s office. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography banned.
  • Nevada: Under Nevada law, “A member of the general public shall not photograph the conduct of voting at a polling place or record the conduct of voting on audiotape or any other means of sound or video reproduction.” Violating the secrecy of a voter’s ballot through photography is also prohibited. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography banned.
  • New Hampshire: According to the secretary of state’s office, it is legal for a non-media person to take a photo inside a polling place, provided the photographer does not try to capture how another person has voted and does not try to capture what another voter is entering on a registration form. However, there is a law specifically barring a person from sharing a digital image of how he or she voted, with a fine up to $1,000. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography allowed.
  • New Jersey: According to the Digital Media Law Project, it is “unclear whether a citizen recording inside the polling place would qualify as ‘expressive activity’ subject to [the Supreme Court] ban.” New Jersey election officials did not respond to clarify. Verdict: Ballot photography is banned. Polling place photography allowed, but policies are unclear.
  • New Mexico: State law does not appear to ban photography inside polling places or of ballots, but election officials did not respond to clarify. Verdict: Policies unclear. Ballot photography may be allowed. Polling place photography may be allowed.
  • New York: There is no law against photographing inside polling places, but according to the New York State Board of Elections, causing a commotion could get you kicked out. John Conklin, a spokesman for the Board of Elections, said people are encouraged to take photos of their ballots before, but not after, voting. Verdict: Ballot photography allowed. Polling place photography allowed.
  • North Carolina: Under North Carolina law, “No person shall photograph, videotape, or otherwise record the image of any voter within the voting enclosure, except with the permission of both the voter and the chief judge of the precinct.” Ballot photos are also prohibited. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography banned.
  • North Dakota: According to the secretary of state’s office, photography inside a polling place is allowed, and there is no law against taking a picture of your own ballot. Verdict: Ballot photography allowed. Polling place photography allowed.
  • Ohio: In Ohio, voters may not use devices to take photographs inside a polling place, according to the secretary of state’s office. The penalties for breaking this rule are unclear. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography banned.
  • Oklahoma: According to the Oklahoma State Election Board, there is no law restricting photography inside a polling place, but sharing your ballot while you’re voting is banned. So, the board recommends that you don’t photograph your marked ballot. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography allowed.
  • Oregon: According to the secretary of state’s office, it is legal to take photos inside a polling place. Additionally, “elections officials can’t show you a ballot for a photo, but an individual can.” Verdict: Ballot photography allowed. Polling place photography allowed.
  • Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania law bans voters from showing a “ballot or the face of the voting machine voted by him to be seen by any person with the apparent intention of letting it be known how he is about to vote.” Those who break the law are subject to a fine up to $1,000, a maximum 12-month jail sentence, or both. The law does not specify whether photography inside polling places is banned, and election officials did not respond to clarify. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography allowed, but policies are unclear.
  • Rhode Island: According to the rules established by the Rhode Island Board of Elections, “Electronic recording of the election process is allowed inside the polling place as long as it is done outside of the railed or enclosed voting area. Electronic recording devices may not hinder the election process or compromise a voter’s right to cast a secret ballot by recording the specific votes(s) cast by any person.” Under the rules, a moderator may remove or arrest a person who disturbs voting. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography allowed.
  • South Carolina: In South Carolina, there are no laws against taking photographs inside a polling place. But a spokesperson for the state’s Election Commission said that people can take photos only as long as they “don’t get too close to the machines,” and that poll workers still may tell people to turn their cell phones off. Verdict: Ballot photography allowed. Polling place photography allowed, but do it without turning your cell phone on?
  • South Dakota: Under South Dakota law, “No person may, in any polling place or within or on any building in which a polling place is located or within one hundred feet from any entrance leading into a polling place … use any communication or photographic device.” The penalty is a class 2 misdemeanor. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography banned.
  • Tennessee: Tennessee law does not say that photographing ballots or inside polling places is prohibited, but election officials did not respond to clarify policies. Photograph at your own risk. Verdict: Official policies are unclear. Ballot photography may be allowed. Polling place photography may be allowed.
  • Texas: Texas law prohibits photography within 100 feet of a polling place. A person who violates this law may be asked “to turn off the device or to leave the polling place.” Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography banned.
  • Utah: It is legal for any person in Utah to take a photo inside a polling place or of an unmarked ballot, according to the lieutenant governor’s elections staff. However, under state law, it is illegal for a voter to allow his or her ballot to be seen by any other person with an intent to reveal the vote, subject to a class C misdemeanor. Verdict: Ballot photography banned, but sharing the photo could get you in trouble. Polling place photography allowed.
  • Vermont: There is no law in Vermont expressly prohibiting a person from taking a photo of a ballot or while inside a polling place, according to the secretary of state’s office. However, there is a law that allows a $1,000 fine for a voter who “allows his ballot to be seen by another person with an apparent intention of letting it be known how he or she is about to vote.” Verdict: Ballot photography allowed, but sharing the photo of your marked ballot could get you in trouble. Polling place photography allowed.
  • Virginia: Under Virginia law, it is forbidden to take photos in a polling place or of a ballot. The penalty depends on the offense. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography banned.
  • Washington: Washington voters primarily vote by mail. At voting centers where people drop of their ballots, there are no prohibitions against photography, as long as it’s not disruptive. Verdict: Ballot photography allowed. Polling place photography allowed.
  • West Virginia: In West Virginia, a person is allowed to take pictures inside the polling place (unless they are disrupting the voting process, at which time a poll worker can tell them to leave), but they cannot take pictures of people actually voting or take pictures of a ballot. Under West Virginia law, entering a voting booth “with an recording or electronic device in order to record or interfere with the voting process” is a misdemeanor subject to a fine up to $1,000, a maximum 12-month jail sentence, or both. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography allowed.
  • Wisconsin: Under the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board’s interpretation of state law, “no voter or observer may use any video or still camera inside the polling place while the polls are open for voting, except for news media.” There is not a specific prohibition on taking a picture of your ballot. However, the board advises voters not to photograph their completed ballots because under Wisconsin’s election fraud law, it is a class I felony to intentionally show your marked ballot to any person. Verdict: Ballot photography banned. Polling place photography banned. Seriously, don’t do it.
  • Wyoming: According to the secretary of state, Wyoming has no laws that specifically bar photography inside polling places or of ballots. However, there is a law that says, “Judges of election have the duty and authority to preserve order at the polls by any necessary and suitable means.” Verdict: Ballot photography allowed. Polling place photography allowed. But a judge might decide to kick you out anyway.“”

I’m ecstatic Judge Barbadoro used common sense and upheld the Constitutional right to free speech in striking down a law that should not have been a law in the first place and let’s hope other states follow suit.

And also let’s hope, judges, know the first amendment contains this message: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Many Elephants in the Room; So Will the Real Republican Please Stand Up.

With almost a week passing since the first of many republican debates, the elephants in the room are having a problem with a fake conservative standing up.

While I’m sure during the duration of the primary season, which seems never ending on both sides of the duopoly, we will utmost sure witness the cacophony of bewilderment as establishment and non-establishment candidates attempt to woo us with their rhetoric in order to get elected.

So the vicious circle continues and hopefully the process will not turn into a variation of the Hunger Games or Divergent.

With that being written, there is a feud brewing and no, it is not between Katniss and President Snow.

Well, that escalated quickly.

The individuals involve Senator Rand Paul and businessman Donald Trump.

In a recent op-ed, which can be found at .ijreview.com and Reason Magazine had some excerpts from it, Paul had this to say regarding Trump being a fake conservative.

“It is refreshing to hear someone speak truth to power, to transcend Washington-speak, and cut through the staidness of our politically correct world but not when it is all blather, non-sequitur, and self-aggrandizing bombast. Donald Trump is showing he isn’t suited to lead the country, and I think we all need to discuss why. … We don’t need a bully, and we don’t need another President who thinks he is King.

(…) Voters are hungry for a plain-spoken critique of Washington. But I’m unsure how credible that voice is when it comes from the consummate insider, a man who buys and sells politicians like he does Lamborghinis.”

Trump of course rebutted.

Here is the Twitter account of what transpired, according to http://www.whas11.com/story/news/politics/2015/08/11/donald-trump-and-rand-paul-engage-twitter-war/314627.

“Truly weird Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky reminds me of a spoiled brat without a properly functioning brain. He was terrible at DEBATE!,” stated Trump on Twitter.

Trump further expounded.

“Why is @RandPaul allowed to take advantage of the people of Kentucky by running for Senator and Pres. Why should Kentucky be back up plan?

Then Paul shot back.

“I honestly have no idea what Mr. Trump’s real philosophy is. He was liberal before he was conservative.”

I’m taking Rand’s side on this one.

Trump, if you were any more arrogant, your mind would fall out of your head.

It was so obvious during the duration of the debate, that you were taking what the other candidates said and put your own spin on it to try and confuse the public like you actually have a specific agenda.

Your presidential page, according to the Web Site Rare, shows how you do not even have an issues page, which is helpful, when you want people to know what you stand for.

While this may not seem as though the feud is a huge issue, I think the larger narrative is, that pride goes before one falls.