Is it actually constitutionall to prohibite ANY drugs?
Q. I read that the most comprehensive study ever done on marijuana was initiated by Nixon, who intensified the drug prohibition and started the so-calle "War on Drugs" and that this study found that the constituionality of such a prohibition, especially by a simple act of congress and not a constitutional ammendment, as was needed for alcohol prohibition, was highly suspect. The report also stated that the congress and president had a duty to obey the constitution even without a court order to do so. So is this modern day prohibition even legal? And if the point is even debatable, then why do reformers always concentrate on medical use or harm reduction?
Asked by munstrumridcully - Fri May 25 10:10:28 2007 - - 2 Answers - 0 Comments

A. In the Preamble there is a clause that states, "promote the general welfare". If I were to argue this in front of a court I believe I could make a case for the control of chemicals that alter a person in the ways many street drugs do. One would have to be careful though as a misstep could conceivably affect prescription drugs as well. Although, I think the administering of prescription medication under a doctor's care could also be said to promote the general welfare.
Answered by gimpalomg - Fri May 25 10:23:32 2007

after a exercise if our body ges cooled by a fan,,does this mean that we are doing more harm thn good?
Q. after a exercise if our body ges cooled by a fan,,does this mean that we are doing more harm thn good ok after doing exercise(weight reduction exercises-cadio type) i sit under a fan and my body gets cooled immediately does this mean that i m doing more harm then good to my body plz explain in detail that what is the effect of immediate cooling on body after a exercise
Asked by i m coming.................. - Wed Dec 24 02:33:03 2008 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments

A. does it really? i always go swimming after i've been running... would that be the same thing? sorry i'm not helping just adding to your question haha
Answered by runlolarun - Wed Dec 24 02:37:06 2008

There are four schools of thought concerning global warming?
Q. a) Do nothing. A dozen or so scientists contend climate change from human activities is not a threat, and a few popular press commentators and writers claim that global warming is a hoax. (b) Do more research before acting. A second group of scientists and economists point to the considerable uncertainty about climate change and its effects. They call for more research before making far-reaching economic and political decisions like phasing out fossil fuels and sharply reducing deforestation. (c)Act now to reduce the risks from climate change. A third group of scientists and economists urge us to adopt a precautionary strategy. When dealing with risky and far-reaching environmental problems such as climate change, they believe the safest… [cont.]
Asked by Alicia T - Mon May 26 05:41:50 2008 - - 9 Answers - 0 Comments

A. c) & d) and beyond. Of course research should continue, but we already have more than enough information to act. We already have too many problems and too short a time. The sooner and more agressive we act, the less suffering we will endure. Beyond = begin to attempt to limit population growth. We know from real empirical research that empowering the poor, especially women, leads to smaller families. What is wrong with empowering the poor and women? Moving to a carbon free economy? Protecting virgin ecosystems? Restoring degraded ecosystems? Moving to a more humane and rational way of life? ??? --- From Dr. Glenn Barry, Ecological Internet, Wisconsin No. 1 - population - Human populations surpass what the Earth can bear.… [cont.]
Answered by Dr. Blob - Tue May 27 09:50:46 2008