TT Note: I remember an uncle of mine suggesting that my brand new cell phone would cause brain cancer. His bold statement was made in 1991. Wonder what the evidence shows now?
/PRNewswire/ -- Are cell phones safe? Mounting concerns about the cancer risks of cell phone radiation, especially for children, will bring experts to Washington for a groundbreaking international conference on September 13-15. The goal of the conference is to propose a U.S. research agenda.
The latest scientific evidence on cell phones and human health and public policy implications will be presented by such respected experts as Dr. Ronald B. Herberman, Director Emeritus, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute; Dr. Siegal Sadetzki, Tel Aviv Medical University, Israel's key researcher on cancer and cell phones; Dr. Margaret Offermann, national research deputy at the American Cancer Society; and Professor Frank Barnes, chairman of the 2008 National Academy of Sciences report on research needed on cell phones and other personal wireless devices.
Key members of Congress are expected to attend. Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) is planning to independently chair a Senate hearing on cell phones and health on Monday, September 14 on Capitol Hill.
Dr. Devra L. Davis, Professor of Public Health at the University of Pittsburgh and primary organizer of the conference, reports: "Deeply troubling findings have been reported outside the U.S., where cell phones have been widely used for longer periods of time. These findings show a doubled risk of brain cancer. Many governments, including France, Finland, China and Russia, even advise that children not use cell phones."
Says co-organizer Dr. Dariusz Leszczynski, Research Professor at the Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, "People want to believe that cell phones are safe, but at this point we cannot make that judgment. Some scientific evidence suggests that cell phones might be harmful. Given the current uncertainty, we have to develop precautionary measures to reduce potential risks while the new research is planned and carried out."
Sponsored by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; University of Pittsburgh; National Research Center for Women & Families; The International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety; The Flow Fund Circle, and the Environmental Health Trust, the conference will be held at the historic Credit Union House, 4th and Maryland Ave. NE, near the U.S. Capitol.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Monday, August 31, 2009
Friday, August 28, 2009
Revolt Against Career Politicians in the US Congress Begins Today
/PRNewswire/ -- The American Revolution of 2010 unveiled its web site two days ago, providing the Nation with a viable means to dramatically change the US Congress. With the current uproar over Congress' handling of health care proposals, their timing could not be better. Their unique strategy has a real potential to lure literally millions of Americans who are frustrated with the career politicians currently occupying the halls of Congress to join their revolt.
Based upon a concept of voluntary accreditation of candidates seeking public office, the strategy incorporates mandatory standards for candidates that focus on ethics, disclosure, conduct, term limits and other requirements that many have been clamoring for. Coupled with an evolving five-year plan to move the Nation forward, this grassroots initiative might very well evolve as the consolidation point of numerous other grassroots political initiatives, obviously enhancing the chances of Congress actually being transformed.
A thorough examination of this non-partisan approach reveals no major or even minor flaws. Other than the career politicians they are targeting, and those few who still have a favorable opinion of Congress, this initiative will be very appealing. Confident in their concept, the American Revolution of 2010, LLC promises that if a more feasible, viable, and achievable plan emerges that will enable the American people to take back control of their Nation from the career politicians they will turn over all of the company's financial assets to the organization spearheading that initiative, offer its full endorsement of that initiative, and promote the support of that initiative through their web site. In addition, their founder has pledged he will make a $50,000 donation to that organization from his personal savings should such a superior plan emerge.
Don't look for either to occur. If the American people really want to wrestle control from the career politicians, this concept appears to be the means to do so. This common sense concept leaves the reader thinking "Why didn't someone think of this sooner? This is a more perfect form of a representative democracy."
Discussing the unique concept of accreditation of political candidates will likely prove to be an irresistible topic for many of the political talk shows. Given the percentage of voters possessing a low opinion of Congress, look for this initiative to quickly gather momentum.
Web site visitors should plan to spend an hour or so of their time fully exploring the site to glean a full appreciation of the comprehensive strategy. The site is at: http://the-american-revolution-of-2010.com/ .
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Based upon a concept of voluntary accreditation of candidates seeking public office, the strategy incorporates mandatory standards for candidates that focus on ethics, disclosure, conduct, term limits and other requirements that many have been clamoring for. Coupled with an evolving five-year plan to move the Nation forward, this grassroots initiative might very well evolve as the consolidation point of numerous other grassroots political initiatives, obviously enhancing the chances of Congress actually being transformed.
A thorough examination of this non-partisan approach reveals no major or even minor flaws. Other than the career politicians they are targeting, and those few who still have a favorable opinion of Congress, this initiative will be very appealing. Confident in their concept, the American Revolution of 2010, LLC promises that if a more feasible, viable, and achievable plan emerges that will enable the American people to take back control of their Nation from the career politicians they will turn over all of the company's financial assets to the organization spearheading that initiative, offer its full endorsement of that initiative, and promote the support of that initiative through their web site. In addition, their founder has pledged he will make a $50,000 donation to that organization from his personal savings should such a superior plan emerge.
Don't look for either to occur. If the American people really want to wrestle control from the career politicians, this concept appears to be the means to do so. This common sense concept leaves the reader thinking "Why didn't someone think of this sooner? This is a more perfect form of a representative democracy."
Discussing the unique concept of accreditation of political candidates will likely prove to be an irresistible topic for many of the political talk shows. Given the percentage of voters possessing a low opinion of Congress, look for this initiative to quickly gather momentum.
Web site visitors should plan to spend an hour or so of their time fully exploring the site to glean a full appreciation of the comprehensive strategy. The site is at: http://the-american-revolution-of-2010.com/ .
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Thursday, August 27, 2009
White House Sued Over Free Speech Violations In Healthcare Battle: Doctor & Patient Groups Say White House Intended to Shut Up Opponents
TT Note: "When we first try to deceive...." Free speech with your fish, anyone?
/PRNewswire/ -- The Office of the President and other White House officials are defendants in a free speech lawsuit filed by a prominent physician group, and a non-profit advocate for inner-city poor.
The White House has "unlawfully collected information on political speech," thereby illegally using the power of the White House to chill opposition to its plans for health care reform, according to the complaint filed in District Court for the District of Columbia, by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) and the Coalition for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE)
The lawsuit was prompted by the White House solicitation for the public to report any "fishy" comments to 'flag@whitehouse.gov.' Although the White House slightly revised its data collection procedure last week, the email address still exists, the illegal activity continues, and is part of an "unlawful pattern and practice to collect and maintain information" on the exercise of free speech, which "continues in violation of the Privacy Act and First Amendment even if the Defendants terminate a particular information-collection component due to negative publicity."
The lawsuit outlines how the White House has employed a form of "bait-and-switch" tactic of accusing the Plaintiffs and other opponents of spreading misinformation about the Administration's goals for health care reform, and thereby refusing to 'come clean' about its real agenda.
The lawsuit outlines that the White House knew that the data collection would chill free speech, and in fact, intended to do just that:
"43. As part of their effort to advance the White House healthcare
reform agenda, Defendants have accused opponents (including
Plaintiffs) of spreading misinformation on issues such as whether
(a) health reform would provide public funding for abortions, (b) put
"death panels" in place to deny care to the elderly or infirm,
(c) amount to a government takeover of healthcare, and (d) increase
healthcare costs..the Defendants and the administration have spread
misinformation, semantics, and disinformation on these topics.....
"45. By denying and continuing to deny that healthcare reform
legislation includes "death panels" that make individual life-or-death
decisions on the elderly or infirm, the Defendants and the current
administration have ignored and implicitly denied and continue to
ignore and implicitly to deny both that their healthcare reform agenda
involves rationing healthcare..."
"My hate mail started shortly after the White House issued the 'fishy' request," said Kathryn Serkes, Director of Policy and Public Affairs for AAPS. "We were quite visible and vocal before then, so it doesn't seem like a coincidence. Who did they share their data with? With whom might they share it?"
AAPS and CURE demand that the White House remove all information already collected, and further, be prohibited from collecting any personal data in the future.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
/PRNewswire/ -- The Office of the President and other White House officials are defendants in a free speech lawsuit filed by a prominent physician group, and a non-profit advocate for inner-city poor.
The White House has "unlawfully collected information on political speech," thereby illegally using the power of the White House to chill opposition to its plans for health care reform, according to the complaint filed in District Court for the District of Columbia, by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) and the Coalition for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE)
The lawsuit was prompted by the White House solicitation for the public to report any "fishy" comments to 'flag@whitehouse.gov.' Although the White House slightly revised its data collection procedure last week, the email address still exists, the illegal activity continues, and is part of an "unlawful pattern and practice to collect and maintain information" on the exercise of free speech, which "continues in violation of the Privacy Act and First Amendment even if the Defendants terminate a particular information-collection component due to negative publicity."
The lawsuit outlines how the White House has employed a form of "bait-and-switch" tactic of accusing the Plaintiffs and other opponents of spreading misinformation about the Administration's goals for health care reform, and thereby refusing to 'come clean' about its real agenda.
The lawsuit outlines that the White House knew that the data collection would chill free speech, and in fact, intended to do just that:
"43. As part of their effort to advance the White House healthcare
reform agenda, Defendants have accused opponents (including
Plaintiffs) of spreading misinformation on issues such as whether
(a) health reform would provide public funding for abortions, (b) put
"death panels" in place to deny care to the elderly or infirm,
(c) amount to a government takeover of healthcare, and (d) increase
healthcare costs..the Defendants and the administration have spread
misinformation, semantics, and disinformation on these topics.....
"45. By denying and continuing to deny that healthcare reform
legislation includes "death panels" that make individual life-or-death
decisions on the elderly or infirm, the Defendants and the current
administration have ignored and implicitly denied and continue to
ignore and implicitly to deny both that their healthcare reform agenda
involves rationing healthcare..."
"My hate mail started shortly after the White House issued the 'fishy' request," said Kathryn Serkes, Director of Policy and Public Affairs for AAPS. "We were quite visible and vocal before then, so it doesn't seem like a coincidence. Who did they share their data with? With whom might they share it?"
AAPS and CURE demand that the White House remove all information already collected, and further, be prohibited from collecting any personal data in the future.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
No Taxes, Just the Give Me the Health Plan
TT Note: Hmmm. Illegal? Don't have to pay taxes? But Americans pay for health care of illegal aliens? Doesn't seem right, does it? Let your Congressman know your views on the subject.
Congressional Research Service: Illegal Aliens Can Receive Benefits Under House Health Care Bill
/PRNewswire/ -- Tuesday, the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the "research arm" for the United States Congress, issued a report validating an analysis by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), that illegal aliens would be able to receive benefits under the House health care reform bill, America's Affordable Health Care Act of 2009 (H.R. 3200).
The report, Treatment of Noncitizens in H.R. 3200, states definitively, "H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitizens - whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently - participating in the Exchange." H.R. 3200 establishes a Health Insurance Exchange which would provide individuals and small businesses with access to health care plans, including the "public option" to be managed by the government.
CRS also confirms FAIR's assessment that the House bill does not include a mechanism to prevent illegal aliens from receiving "affordability credits" that would subsidize the purchase of private health insurance. CRS specifically noted the absence "of a provision in the bill specifying the verification procedure." Because the language is ambiguous, all CRS could reasonably conclude is that any eligibility determination would be the responsibility of the Health Choices Commissioner.
The CRS analysis comes after weeks of denials by Members of Congress that illegal aliens could receive benefits under the House bill. These denials were echoed by countless media and health care "experts" who dismissed public concerns as myths, or as politically orchestrated attacks.
"Case closed. Illegal aliens will be eligible to participate in the health care program offered by the House bill unless Congress acts to amend the bill," stated Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "The loopholes and omissions in the House bill are not there by accident," continued Stein. "These loopholes were intended to extend benefits to illegal aliens while allowing Members of Congress to deny those facts to the American people."
The House Ways & Means Committee had the opportunity to include language that would have barred illegal aliens from enrolling in the proposed public option or receiving the affordability credits, but chose not to. An amendment offered by Rep. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) would have applied the same eligibility verification procedures for coverage under H.R. 3200 that have been used for years to prove eligibility for Medicaid. That amendment was rejected by a party-line vote.
Based on its own findings and those of CRS, FAIR is calling on Congress to:
-- Adopt clear language that makes illegal aliens (and nonimmigrants)
ineligible for enrollment in publicly funded or subsidized health
insurance programs.
-- Require electronic eligibility verification for any health care reform
proposal through the existing Systematic Alien Verification for
Entitlements (SAVE) system.
-- Maintain a five-year eligibility waiting period for legal immigrants
to ensure that individuals don't come to the U.S. and immediately tap
the system.
"For the past month, irate citizens, concerned that their tax dollars will be used to fund health care for illegal aliens, have been unfairly portrayed as uninformed rabble by their elected representatives and a host of media organizations," said Stein. "It is time for the politicians to close the loopholes, and for the media establishment to acknowledge that they got it wrong."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.artsacrossgeorgia.com
Arts Across Georgia
Congressional Research Service: Illegal Aliens Can Receive Benefits Under House Health Care Bill
/PRNewswire/ -- Tuesday, the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the "research arm" for the United States Congress, issued a report validating an analysis by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), that illegal aliens would be able to receive benefits under the House health care reform bill, America's Affordable Health Care Act of 2009 (H.R. 3200).
The report, Treatment of Noncitizens in H.R. 3200, states definitively, "H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitizens - whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently - participating in the Exchange." H.R. 3200 establishes a Health Insurance Exchange which would provide individuals and small businesses with access to health care plans, including the "public option" to be managed by the government.
CRS also confirms FAIR's assessment that the House bill does not include a mechanism to prevent illegal aliens from receiving "affordability credits" that would subsidize the purchase of private health insurance. CRS specifically noted the absence "of a provision in the bill specifying the verification procedure." Because the language is ambiguous, all CRS could reasonably conclude is that any eligibility determination would be the responsibility of the Health Choices Commissioner.
The CRS analysis comes after weeks of denials by Members of Congress that illegal aliens could receive benefits under the House bill. These denials were echoed by countless media and health care "experts" who dismissed public concerns as myths, or as politically orchestrated attacks.
"Case closed. Illegal aliens will be eligible to participate in the health care program offered by the House bill unless Congress acts to amend the bill," stated Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "The loopholes and omissions in the House bill are not there by accident," continued Stein. "These loopholes were intended to extend benefits to illegal aliens while allowing Members of Congress to deny those facts to the American people."
The House Ways & Means Committee had the opportunity to include language that would have barred illegal aliens from enrolling in the proposed public option or receiving the affordability credits, but chose not to. An amendment offered by Rep. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) would have applied the same eligibility verification procedures for coverage under H.R. 3200 that have been used for years to prove eligibility for Medicaid. That amendment was rejected by a party-line vote.
Based on its own findings and those of CRS, FAIR is calling on Congress to:
-- Adopt clear language that makes illegal aliens (and nonimmigrants)
ineligible for enrollment in publicly funded or subsidized health
insurance programs.
-- Require electronic eligibility verification for any health care reform
proposal through the existing Systematic Alien Verification for
Entitlements (SAVE) system.
-- Maintain a five-year eligibility waiting period for legal immigrants
to ensure that individuals don't come to the U.S. and immediately tap
the system.
"For the past month, irate citizens, concerned that their tax dollars will be used to fund health care for illegal aliens, have been unfairly portrayed as uninformed rabble by their elected representatives and a host of media organizations," said Stein. "It is time for the politicians to close the loopholes, and for the media establishment to acknowledge that they got it wrong."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.artsacrossgeorgia.com
Arts Across Georgia
CASA* 2009 Teen Survey Reveals: Teens Likelier To Get Drunk, Use Marijuana, Smoke Cigarettes If They See Parent Drunk
/PRNewswire/ -- Compared to teens who have not seen their parent(s) drunk, those who have are more than twice as likely to get drunk in a typical month, and three times likelier to use marijuana and smoke cigarettes, according to the National Survey of American Attitudes on Substance Abuse XIV: Teens and Parents, the 14th annual back-to-school survey conducted by The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University.
The CASA survey found that 51 percent of 17-year olds have seen one or both of their parents drunk and 34 percent of 12- to 17-year olds have seen one or both of their parents drunk.
Teen drinking behavior is strongly associated with how teens believe their fathers feel about their drinking. Compared to teens who believe their father is against their drinking, teens who believe their father is okay with their drinking are two and a half times likelier to get drunk in a typical month.
The survey found that five percent of 12- to 15-year old girls and nine percent of 12- to 15-year old boys say their fathers are okay with their drinking. Thirteen percent of 16- and 17-year old girls and 20 percent of 16- and 17-year old boys say their fathers are okay with their drinking.
"Some Moms' and Dads' behavior and attitudes make them parent enablers--parents who send their 12- to 17-year olds a message that it's okay to smoke, drink, get drunk and use illegal drugs like marijuana," said Joseph A. Califano, Jr., CASA's chairman and founder and former U.S. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. "Teens' behavior is strongly associated with their parents' behavior and expectations, so parents who expect their children to drink and use drugs will have children who drink and use drugs."
Prescription Drugs Readily Available
For the first time this year, the survey asked 12- to 17-year olds how fast they can get prescription drugs to get high. More than one third of teens (8.7 million) can get prescription drugs to get high within a day; nearly one in five teens (4.7 million) can get them within an hour.
When teens were asked where they would get prescription drugs, the most common sources were home, parents, other family members and friends.
For the second year in a row more teens said prescription drugs were easier to buy than beer.
Drinking, Drugging and Sex
This year the CASA survey took a close look at teen drinking and discovered that 65 percent of 12- to 17-year olds who drink monthly report that they get drunk at least once in a typical month. Eighty-five percent of 17-year old drinkers get drunk at least once in a typical month.
The survey found that one third of teen drinkers usually drink with the intention to get drunk. Eighty-five percent of teen drinkers who say that when they drink they usually drink to get drunk do so at least once a month. Of those teens who do NOT set out to get drunk, 33 percent find themselves drunk at least once a month.
Compared to teens who have never tried alcohol, teens who get drunk monthly are:
-- 18 times likelier to have tried marijuana;
-- Four times likelier to be able to get marijuana in an hour;
-- Almost four times likelier to know someone their age who abuses
prescription drugs;
-- More than three times likelier to have friends who use marijuana; and
-- More than twice as likely to know someone their age who uses meth,
ecstasy, or other drugs such as cocaine, heroin or LSD.
Compared to teens who have never tried alcohol, those who get drunk at least once a month are:
-- Twice as likely to know a girl who was forced to do something sexual
she didn't want to do; and
-- Nearly four times likelier to know a guy who uses drugs or alcohol to
hook up.
"The message for parents is loud and clear. If your teen is drinking, the odds are your teen is getting drunk. And teens who get drunk are much likelier to try marijuana and hang out with friends who are abusing prescription drugs and illegal drugs like cocaine and heroin," said Elizabeth Planet, CASA's Vice President and Director of Special Projects. "Parents who think their kids are just having an occasional drink each month need to wake up and smell the beer and pot."
Marijuana, Availability Up Sharply
Between 2007 and 2009 there was a 37 percent increase in the percentage of 12- to 17-year olds who say marijuana is easier to buy than cigarettes, beer or prescription drugs (19 percent to 26 percent).
Forty percent of teens (10 million) can get marijuana within a day; nearly one-quarter of teens (5.7 million) can get it in an hour.
Teens who say that the decision to use marijuana by someone their age is not a big deal are four times more likely to use it compared to teens who say this decision is a big deal.
Teens whose parents believe the decision to use marijuana is not a big deal are almost twice as likely to use the drug, compared to teens whose parents say this decision is a big deal.
Most teens who smoke cigarettes (56 percent) say the decision to use marijuana is not a big deal.
Other Notable Findings
-- Two-thirds of high school students say that drugs are used, kept or
sold at their school.
-- Sixty percent of parents say that their child's school is not drug
free.
-- Of parents who say their teen's school is not drug free, almost half
think there is nothing they can do about it, and only a quarter have
even tried.
"Parents are the key to raising drug-free kids and they have the power to do it if they send their children the clear message to choose not to use and demand that the schools their children attend be drug free," noted Califano whose book How to Raise a Drug Free Kid: The Straight Dope for Parents, was published this month by Simon & Schuster's Touchstone/Fireside Division.
QEV Analytics conducted The National Survey of American Attitudes on Substance Abuse XIV: Teens and Parents from March 2 to April 5, 2009 (teens) and March 21 to April 10, 2009 (parents). The firm interviewed at home by telephone a national random sample of 1,000 12- to 17-year olds (509 boys, 491 girls) and 452 of their parents. Sampling error is +/- 3.1 percent for teens and +/- 4.6 percent for parents.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
The CASA survey found that 51 percent of 17-year olds have seen one or both of their parents drunk and 34 percent of 12- to 17-year olds have seen one or both of their parents drunk.
Teen drinking behavior is strongly associated with how teens believe their fathers feel about their drinking. Compared to teens who believe their father is against their drinking, teens who believe their father is okay with their drinking are two and a half times likelier to get drunk in a typical month.
The survey found that five percent of 12- to 15-year old girls and nine percent of 12- to 15-year old boys say their fathers are okay with their drinking. Thirteen percent of 16- and 17-year old girls and 20 percent of 16- and 17-year old boys say their fathers are okay with their drinking.
"Some Moms' and Dads' behavior and attitudes make them parent enablers--parents who send their 12- to 17-year olds a message that it's okay to smoke, drink, get drunk and use illegal drugs like marijuana," said Joseph A. Califano, Jr., CASA's chairman and founder and former U.S. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. "Teens' behavior is strongly associated with their parents' behavior and expectations, so parents who expect their children to drink and use drugs will have children who drink and use drugs."
Prescription Drugs Readily Available
For the first time this year, the survey asked 12- to 17-year olds how fast they can get prescription drugs to get high. More than one third of teens (8.7 million) can get prescription drugs to get high within a day; nearly one in five teens (4.7 million) can get them within an hour.
When teens were asked where they would get prescription drugs, the most common sources were home, parents, other family members and friends.
For the second year in a row more teens said prescription drugs were easier to buy than beer.
Drinking, Drugging and Sex
This year the CASA survey took a close look at teen drinking and discovered that 65 percent of 12- to 17-year olds who drink monthly report that they get drunk at least once in a typical month. Eighty-five percent of 17-year old drinkers get drunk at least once in a typical month.
The survey found that one third of teen drinkers usually drink with the intention to get drunk. Eighty-five percent of teen drinkers who say that when they drink they usually drink to get drunk do so at least once a month. Of those teens who do NOT set out to get drunk, 33 percent find themselves drunk at least once a month.
Compared to teens who have never tried alcohol, teens who get drunk monthly are:
-- 18 times likelier to have tried marijuana;
-- Four times likelier to be able to get marijuana in an hour;
-- Almost four times likelier to know someone their age who abuses
prescription drugs;
-- More than three times likelier to have friends who use marijuana; and
-- More than twice as likely to know someone their age who uses meth,
ecstasy, or other drugs such as cocaine, heroin or LSD.
Compared to teens who have never tried alcohol, those who get drunk at least once a month are:
-- Twice as likely to know a girl who was forced to do something sexual
she didn't want to do; and
-- Nearly four times likelier to know a guy who uses drugs or alcohol to
hook up.
"The message for parents is loud and clear. If your teen is drinking, the odds are your teen is getting drunk. And teens who get drunk are much likelier to try marijuana and hang out with friends who are abusing prescription drugs and illegal drugs like cocaine and heroin," said Elizabeth Planet, CASA's Vice President and Director of Special Projects. "Parents who think their kids are just having an occasional drink each month need to wake up and smell the beer and pot."
Marijuana, Availability Up Sharply
Between 2007 and 2009 there was a 37 percent increase in the percentage of 12- to 17-year olds who say marijuana is easier to buy than cigarettes, beer or prescription drugs (19 percent to 26 percent).
Forty percent of teens (10 million) can get marijuana within a day; nearly one-quarter of teens (5.7 million) can get it in an hour.
Teens who say that the decision to use marijuana by someone their age is not a big deal are four times more likely to use it compared to teens who say this decision is a big deal.
Teens whose parents believe the decision to use marijuana is not a big deal are almost twice as likely to use the drug, compared to teens whose parents say this decision is a big deal.
Most teens who smoke cigarettes (56 percent) say the decision to use marijuana is not a big deal.
Other Notable Findings
-- Two-thirds of high school students say that drugs are used, kept or
sold at their school.
-- Sixty percent of parents say that their child's school is not drug
free.
-- Of parents who say their teen's school is not drug free, almost half
think there is nothing they can do about it, and only a quarter have
even tried.
"Parents are the key to raising drug-free kids and they have the power to do it if they send their children the clear message to choose not to use and demand that the schools their children attend be drug free," noted Califano whose book How to Raise a Drug Free Kid: The Straight Dope for Parents, was published this month by Simon & Schuster's Touchstone/Fireside Division.
QEV Analytics conducted The National Survey of American Attitudes on Substance Abuse XIV: Teens and Parents from March 2 to April 5, 2009 (teens) and March 21 to April 10, 2009 (parents). The firm interviewed at home by telephone a national random sample of 1,000 12- to 17-year olds (509 boys, 491 girls) and 452 of their parents. Sampling error is +/- 3.1 percent for teens and +/- 4.6 percent for parents.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Get Ready for Possible Taxation of Cash for Clunkers Rebates
TT Note: Oops. Did you take time to read the fine print when you traded your paid off car for the "free" money the American taxpayers so graciously gave you for Cash for Clunkers? Hmm. Looks like you might get taxed for it. Or did you notice that some dealers enticed customers with the rebate and only took that off the sticker price? So, was it such a great deal?
Whoops! Cash For Clunkers Payments Are Taxable!
Some of the drivers that bought new cars through cash for clunkers are learning that it wasn't quite the deal they hoped for.
Keloland Television: But many of those cashing in on the clunkers program are surprised.....http://www.businessinsider.com/whoops-cash-for-clunker-participants-dont-realize-their-rebates-get-taxed-2009-8
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Whoops! Cash For Clunkers Payments Are Taxable!
Some of the drivers that bought new cars through cash for clunkers are learning that it wasn't quite the deal they hoped for.
Keloland Television: But many of those cashing in on the clunkers program are surprised.....http://www.businessinsider.com/whoops-cash-for-clunker-participants-dont-realize-their-rebates-get-taxed-2009-8
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
