newsobserver.com projects - crossover - Comments

Re: Senators go herbicidal

horsewhspers — Sat, 16 May 2009 12:52:17 -0400

______________
Update: Purcell said he became concerned after hearing about people using the herb who became violent or suicidal. He said it appears to be more commonly used in the western part of the state.

"Methamphetamine got out of control before we did anything about that," he said. "I'm hoping we can do something sooner this time."
_______________

Certainly Purcell as a pediatrician understands the HUGE span of abyss between chemically manufactured and addictive Methamphetamine and naturally grown Salvia divinorum. The two are incomparable.

If there were truly a concern on Purcells part, alcohol is PROVEN to be depressant that causes both suicidal thoughts and violence.

One would be hard pressed to find a single fatality amongst Salvia users. Further, reportedly this herb is seldom used more than once or twice because of its intensity and short lived affects.

This is just another extraordinary waste of tax dollars to prohibit something that poses no threat to community, family or personal safety.

Re: House gives adultery suits a deadline

Taxpayer2008 — Fri, 15 May 2009 22:07:10 -0400

Its been reported that there have been jury awards of upwards of $1M for such suits.

That's no grade school case. Someone needs to tell Rep. Deborah Ross. Apparently she must feel her her escapades on Craigslist might come back to bite her!

LOL

Re: Dome Memo: Over and out?

Gosh — Fri, 15 May 2009 18:53:11 -0400

IN OTHER NEWS: Former Carolina Panthers safety Mike Minter may run against Democratic Rep. Larry Kissell next year.

The lack of interest on this blog is telling.

Thank you, Rep. Ross

Isaac136 — Fri, 15 May 2009 17:06:40 -0400

I applaud Representative Ross and other legislators for opposing these awful lawsuits.

The law made a modicum of sense back in the days when a woman's economic reliance on her husband was unquestioned. These days it is simply a mechanism for perpetuating a pain for which there is no legal remedy and never will be.

The so-called alienation of affection suit accomplishes nothing of value for the aggrieved spouse unless dwelling on this hurt, publicizing it and focusing on it is somehow positive. She (or he) would be better off minimizing the estrangement as best as can be managed for her own mental health and for the sake of his or her children, assuming they exist, who are probably already hurt by the divorce but whose stand to be hurt much further by the increase in bitterness and foul publicity that these suits entail.

The idea that a person is property and that his or her affections can be "stolen" is pathetic.

Re: Bill would allow mayors to officiate

tytillett — Thu, 14 May 2009 21:35:45 -0400

"Polls show that 70% of North Carolinians support defining marriage as between a man and a woman."

I have no idea where you are getting your numbers from. Below is a link to an article showing that 50.4% of North Carolinians believe there should be no constitutional ban in our state on gay marriage. North Carolina is evolving out of being a red state and and slowly becoming more and more liberal. People in North Carolina are beginning to believe what our very own declaration of independence states, "that all men are created equal." It is time that North Carolina realizes that whether you are gay, straight, bi or whatever, you are a citizen of the United States and deserve the same rights that every other American has. It is about time for North Carolina to join the ranks of MA, CT, IA, ME, and VT and legalize gay marriage and give these individuals equal treatment under the law.

http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/4794291/

Re: Your cheatin' start

beachbum474 — Thu, 14 May 2009 21:16:50 -0400

I like the idea of being able to sue the person who slept with your spouse. For the "victim" there is typically nothing to make them whole, just a broken marriage resulting in a fling that will unlikely last. Either way, this law at least gives the spouse who was cheated on a day in court to in some way penalize the perpatrator.

Re: Your cheatin' start

Kingixolib — Thu, 14 May 2009 19:05:36 -0400

She's a politician......nothing she would ever do has to make sense.

Re: Senate meets its crossover deadline

BitterEXdemocrat — Thu, 14 May 2009 17:17:44 -0400

is this kind of drivel really needed here? ... they ought to be totally embarrassed of themselves over what they have done to NC over the past 8-112 years!!!

Re: House declares two more months

BitterEXdemocrat — Thu, 14 May 2009 17:15:47 -0400

its going to be a LONG HOT SUMMER...

Re: Senate meets its crossover deadline

jesmyopinion — Thu, 14 May 2009 13:34:46 -0400

And they are proud of themselves... Bad In = Bad Out

Re: Your cheatin' start

cdtew — Thu, 14 May 2009 13:32:12 -0400

I understand the need for this "clarification", but Rep. Ross apparently doesn't believe in the legal system's ability to ferret out baseless claims. For a law professor, you'd think she'd have heard of NC Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or of "summary judgment."

This is just liberal legal reformers attempting to take away a very valid and necessary claim from the good folks of North-by-God-Carolina. Rep. Ross should go back to the gothic confines of Duke, where she can pretend that her opinions are worthy of being aired.

Re: Bill would allow mayors to officiate

JRS1988 — Thu, 14 May 2009 13:16:21 -0400

Why is it that the General Assembly does not want the gay marriage amendment put on the ballot in North Carolina? My cynical theory is that Democrats are afraid that if they put the amendment on the ballot in the 2010 midterm elections, conservatives will come out in force to vote for the amendment as well as vote for Republicans on the ballot. Polls show that 70% of North Carolinians support defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The Democrats are scared they will lose their stranglehold on state government. Let the people decide!

Re: Living will on driver's license

RobSchofield — Thu, 14 May 2009 11:03:35 -0400

Actually, it appears the bill isn't called the Schiavo Act anymore. The short title now reads "Advanced Directives on Drivers License." Seems like a logical improvement.

I'll tell you when the line's been crossed

CutterJoe — Thu, 14 May 2009 10:36:49 -0400

When a businessman can't provide a non-essential business where his patrons are offered the opportunity to enjoy an otherwise legal activity and so he must go out of business. Infringes on rights, hurts the tax base, hurts the job market, and hurts businesses. I have supported all anti-smoking rules up until this point because I do believe non-smokers shouldn't be FORCED to inhale 2nd hand smoke. As I've said, I'm an occasional smoker and the wife a non-smoker, I DO want the right to choose when and where I'm exposed to smoke, but this law crosses that line in a big way and tells me I can't choose when and where I want to be exposed to smoke!

Re: Living will on driver's license

PlaybyPlay — Thu, 14 May 2009 10:29:41 -0400

Why not go further and put some medical history on licenses. Like allergies to certain drugs like penicillin. The barcode on the back can carry a lot of info.