Jump to content
I too offer my condolences to the friends and family of the two boys. May you look to Christ for your strength and comfort in this difficult time.
I also hope that this serves as yet another wake up call for the community about how much of a problem underaged and binge drinking is here. Parents need to be parents. Know when, where, and what your kids are doing and who they're doing it with. Get to know their friends by having them over for dinner and talking with them about their lives. If you don't care who your kid hangs out with- your kid won't either, and their decisions will reflect that.
If you don't support this you're part of the immense under-aged drinking problem (not just here in Steamboat- which is above national averages for having a problem) but everywhere. "Individual rights" do not apply here. Students give up their so called rights when they register for school or purchase a ticket to a school event. The right of the school district to protect its students and staff as well as enforce its policies supercedes the right of the individual to "just have fun". (If you have conflict with that statment I'm more than willing to suggest that you would have nothing done about the two students at Moffact Cnty HS who recently made a hit list of a teacher and a student- you may say it was just fun, just kids being kids. Wake up! Our schools have not been a killing ground for that long- things that were reserved to what some school violence authors have described as prison-style occurances have not been an unfortunately common thing until very recently.) But I digress. That student that decides they can drink puts themselves and everyone around them in the position of possible tragedy. "But what if they don't drive and just walk?" Drunk pedestrians cause accidents too (I know from experience- having struck a dunk pedestrian and nearly killing them- believe me, that's trauma no one wants).
Its time the "adults" in this area woke up and begin behaving as such. I've been in meetings with students and they say the number one thing that curbs underage drinking is positive role models. Adults that they can relate to, that don't drink and know how to have fun without alcohol, impress them and command the repsect that young people are all too willing to give. Be a role model- act your age, not your shoe size.
Beagle- and last, but not least. The surveys were conducted via district email. All employees were sent the survey through their district accounts. Just thought you'd want to know.
Beagle- one more thing... "the 'lies' he told about Simms were just compliments about her"
Weather a lie is complimentary or not, it's still a lie. Think of it as if someone were applying for a job and had their friend be a "reference" for them from their previous employer. The prospective employer would then be lied to by the "reference" and hire someone under false pretenses. Bottom line: Devincentis had the chance to "ruin" Simms employment there when the MISD board members asked; he could have chosen to tell the truth with facts about her tenure here at SSSD, rather than use un-truth to persuade Simms prospective employers- and leave the decision up to them. Doing these things would have been the right thing to do and taken true courage- that is, doing the right thing at the right time.
Beagle- the relevance is debatable, I agree with you on that and enjoy the dialogue (je suis content que vous appreciez mon franÃ§ais). As far as an ORA request, on the other hand, it doesn't apply here- at least not by the standards that Devincentis himself applies to the board. (I site the "survey incident" when Devincentis said,"All school directors should have access to all school records at all times,". Here's the link to check it out if you want: http://www2.steamboatpilot.com/news/2...
Devincentis and other board members then proceeded to order Dr. Howell to release the survey results to them. (I'll note here that I am of the opinion that Dr. Howell should have never said the surveys would be kept confidential in the first place.) Devincentis should have noted the exception when he spoke (the exception being that "all" precludes anything he wrote in the emails). au revoir.
I've rarely seen anyone so passionate about defending wrong activity, sarcastic or not. Did Mr. Devincentis even take an ethics class at California State Teachers College while getting his master's or Ph.D. there? Did he take one at Pitt while getting his bachelors? If he had, I would hope he would have learned the quality of kindness over vindictiveness at the very least.
"...the court focused on the e-mails' content, holding that if they did not directly address the performance of official duties..."
Devincentis admitted in the emails that he lied to Mercer Island SD board members when they asked him about their prospective superintindent. A.K.A.: Devincentis addressed the performance of his official duties- that being his conversations with MISD board about his official duties and interactions with Simms- in the emails. He also discussed the official duties of Simms both here in Steamboat and in Mercer Island with McGowan. David Wilson makes a compelling argument, but it is sans the entire ruling in the case he sites. Close. But close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
Touche, local. Touche
, local. Touche
I've rarely seen anyone so passionate about defending wrong activity, sarcastic or not. And yes, I'm sure there are a lot of people that have 'vented' to others, as Ms. Mullen stated in her letter that you love. Back to my opening statement. Did Mr. Devincentis even take an ethics class at California State Teachers College while getting his master's or Ph.D. there? Did he take one at Pitt while getting his bachelors? If he had, I would hope he would have learned the quality of kindness over vindictiveness at the very least.
Good points. I'll do my best to answer them. But before I get to that let me just make a couple comments. If a doctor would prescribe marijuana that's their choice. I'm not entirely against 'medical marijuana'. But I am against its use outside of that context- which is SAFER's objective- to legalize non-medicinal use of marijuana (while using the Red Herring of promoting medicinal marijuana use as a means to their ends).
The study pointed to by dreamriver: A valid point, but if you read the link provided you'll notice that the study never was tried IN humans. All the cancer cells that were treated by this method were those that had been human cancer cells implanted in to lab mice. Bottom line, the study does shows progress against cancer in a lab (a controled environment) in mice, but not in humans- lab or not.
Here you are Tech:
1) Here's a link to some worldwide info on cigarette consumption. http://www.who.int/tobacco/en/atlas8.pdf I'll briefly highlight some:
-Currently, over 15 billion cigarettes are smoked worldwide everyday.
-The annual cigarette consumption per person in the US is between 1,500 and 2,499 per day.
-Less developed nations generally consume fewer cigarettes than their more developed counterparts.
2) I'm agree that many 'joints' may be shared in a group. So let's roll with a scenario:
-Four(4) people share one joint fairly equally; we do the math and the fact would hold to its logic of depositing the same amount of tar into each person's lungs as a filtered tobacco cigarette- continue with the division and 8 people would each have half the amount of tar...
3) It means that the myth of "marijuana is better for you than cigarettes" is just that, a myth. That marijuana is just as, if not, more dangerous than tobacco smoking. We know that tabacco smoking is not healthy, hardly anyone would deny that- even pot smokers. Thus proving the "anti-marijuana camp's" other leg to stand on. Yes, tobacco and alcohol are still legal, but that doesn't make them any less dangerous. I see the double standard here. But the other facts I mentioned speak for themselves, that being that those that use marijuana are more likely to use other more serious drugs. The fact that more people smoke and/or drink and DON'T use marijauna speaks for itself.
Cheesehead: I agree with you on this. To add to what you said. Many people refuse to take the opiates and other drugs that are prescribed for them by doctors, and that is their choice. So should we allow people to choose if they would want to use marijuana if prescribed by a doctor? I would follow that to say let people choose, but as with any other prescription they would be made aware of possible side-effects, etc. (It should be noted that most marijuana RX'es are prescribed not as smoked marijuana but as Marinol- which is either injected or mixed with food.)
"What we're trying to do is transform that into a public discussion about why marijuana laws need to be reformed and why marijuana isn't a big deal."
Not a big deal? Here's some facts for all. You decide.
Marijuana contains more than 400 chemicals, including most of the harmful substances found in tobacco smoke. Smoking one marijuana cigarette deposits about four times more tar into the lungs than a filtered tobacco cigarette.
Harvard University researchers report the risk of a heart attack is five times higher than usual in the hour after smoking marijuana.
The risk of using cocaine is estimated to be more than 104 times greater for those who have tried marijuana than for those who have never tried it.
Smoking marijuana can injure or destroy lung tissue. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 5070% more of some cancer causing chemicals than does tobacco smoke.
Reaction time for motor skills, such as driving, is reduced by 41% after smoking one joint and is reduced 63% after smoking two joints.
There have been over 7,000 published scientific and medical studies documenting the damage that marijuana poses. Not one study has shown marijuana to be safe.
Just something to think about.
Last login: Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2013 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.