Thursday, October 26, 2006


I have read Missouri's proposed Amendment 3 numerous times. The only thing I have issues with is the ambiguity, but when I thought about it (a lot), really, aren't most laws ambiguous? Can't most laws be interpreted in various ways? Isn't that why regulations are later developed to further define the law and courts are needed to make decisions on how the law should be upheld?

I've been tired of people who haven't even read the amendment, but defending their yes or no with a vengeance when their opinion appears based only on what they were told or by what they saw in commercials. ("I think this based on what so and so said.")

I also have a little spite in me, and I feel like a lot of opposers are mostly against the same debate with abortion as far as what constitutes life. I do not take issue with the fertilization and use of that product for stem cell research, especially with the 14 day limit. In any case, I think that seems to be the hidden issue with the church, but the cloning and such is a way to get more people on board to vote no. Then again, the other side of the fence is pushing the cure agenda, when I'm sure there's a lot of other scientist junk that can happen that has nothing to do with "cures."

I've weighed it heavily and I'm pretty sure I will be voting yes for # 2.

I thought I would vote yes for #3 (the cigarette tax), but I wonder about the message in that. If they are going to tax cigarettes, they should tax fast food to help pay for obesity healthcare issues in this country!

And why tax the consumers anyhow? Tax the corporations who pump the crap into society. And give relief to companies producing "good-for-you" organic stuff. Then maybe they'll lower the prices so I can afford to buy food that won't kill me.

Grilled chicken on whole wheat: over $3, Big Mac: $1. That's just wrong.

Ugh. How come I turn everything into food?

No comments: