Competition will bring prices down if it is truly legalized. It's a weed that grows in the ground. Most of the expense comes from the risks of smuggling. People won't do that unless the profits are huge. Excessive regulation and taxes could slow price reduction. In a truly open market it would be cheaper than tobacco.
Martial law just doesn't have any connotation with making the masses suffer for the violations of a few. Martial law covers everybody and has nothing to do with individual crimes. And it invariably involves the military. Definition: Martial law -- The exercise of government and control by military authorities over the civilian population of a designated territory. Explanation: Martial law is usually imposed on a temporary basis when the civilian government or civilian authorities fail to function effectively (e.g., maintain order and security, or provide essential services). Martial law is an extreme and rare measure used to control society during war or periods of civil unrest or chaos. According to the Supreme Court, the term martial law carries no precise meaning (Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304, 66 S. Ct. 606, 90 L. Ed. 688 [1946]). However, most declarations of martial law have some common features. Generally, the institution of martial law contemplates some use of military force. To a varying extent, depending on the martial law order, government military personnel have the authority to make and enforce civil and criminal laws. Certain civil liberties may be suspended, such as the right to be free from unreasonablesearches and seizures, freedom of association, and freedom of movement. And the writ of Habeas Corpus may be suspended (this writ allows persons who are unlawfully imprisoned to gain freedom through a court proceeding).
So imposing law that punishes the masses for actions of a few like curfews or drug laws aren't based on the same premise? The technicalities may be different....military enforcing as opposed to police enforcing but really the core idea is the same.
Why isn't the media covering the killing of an unarmed white youth by a black police officer? The case of Michael Brown, the unarmed, black teenager shot and killed by a white police officer, continues to make headlines weeks after the incident sparked riots and outrage in Ferguson, Missouri, and prompted a national debate. Meanwhile, the case of Dillon Taylor, an unarmed, white 20-year-old shot and killed by a black policeman outside a 7-Eleven in Utah has received virtually no media coverage beyond local news reports. The negligible coverage of the Taylor case by the mainstream media prompted many conservative critics to address the racial double standard. The Washington Times reports: "Talk-show host Rush Limbaugh blamed the discrepancy between the two cases on 'the liberal world view' that portrays whites as oppressors and blacks as victims." The Times noted that CNN news host Jake Tapper acknowledged the discrepancy between the two cases, and noted that "the press often undercovers such topics as inner-city violence and the high rates of black-on-black crime." According to Tapper, though, the Brown case is more newsworthy because of the national reaction it sparked, though some question whether the excessive media coverage of the violent protests actually served to fuel them. --Teresa Mull 1231
Racially charged protests and mob violence is news. Mormons don't march in the streets and burn the stores in their own neighborhoods. Who is going to send TV news crews to cover nothing? I don't think this is entirely accurate. It's more a case of people assuming that violence against a black person by a white officer is always a case of racism. This ignores much evidence that white people are also victims of white police, white people are victims of black police, and black people are victims of black police. The real issue here is excessive police violence.
All correct, but that's not what Limbaugh is commenting on....he's talking about the editorial process. White officer kills black kid....big news. "Non-white" (the media's term) cop kills white kid....crickets. Don't forget, Ferguson made headlines before a single rock was thrown or a single store looted. He's also commenting on the fact that, in Ferguson, the race of the cop and the victim were immediately reported, and drove the story. In Utah, those elements are being obscured by the term "non-white."
Not juicy enough. The purpose of the media and television today is to make people afraid, and to whip them into a frenzy. It's about ratings, and getting you to consume more. Black cop kills white kid would have been a story in the 50's. But today it's just not juicy enough, and like Red said, you arent going to see a bunch of white morman or Pentecostal protestors marching the streets. It deserves coverage, but so do the deaths of hundreds of black kids and Latino kids from gang violence every day. But that's not juicy. If a black kid walked into a school with white kids though and shot it up, or vice versa, that would be juicy.
