Or the opposing side trying to make him look bad. California still sets the standards for a lot of rules that we'd be better off with the rest of the country copying.
Yeah honestly it seems like a targeted media blitz more than anything. If you read the actual article, most of his vetos are done for very good reasons - but they're all being posted with reductive headlines
Teens having Kids cost more than condoms
Frankly, when I was in high school - cost was never the issue in whether a couple used condoms, and even in my relatively conservative area, there were local programs that would give out free condoms if you cared enough to look
Better sex education would go a much longer way imo - because even in California our sex Ed (this was like a decade ago, so maybe it's changed) was full of "abstinence only" garbage - thankfully the teachers were usually smart enough to go off book and give realistic advice/answers
if you cared enough to look
Big if. To me it seems worthwhile to have them easily accessible so that teens would be carrying them around. Limits the amount of pre-planning needed
My wife grew up.in California and they didn't even teach sex ed.in high school. We need tobtake back out schools from these Christian crazies who ruined sex.ed and want to take away our books
Buying them isn't an issue. Getting kids to actually use them is what matters.
Some stores won't sell to people under 18, even when there's no law requiring them to (I don't k.ow of a place that does) and that requires money, something in short supply if you're a teen
Funny story. I remember years ago having a girlfriend when I was 25, and we are staying with my parents, who live in a small town for a few days. We went to buy some condoms one day, and we found that none of the mini marts nearby carried any sort of contraceptives at all.
I remember asking the clerk, who was younger than me, and he acted incredulous that anybody would need a condom. In a city of 25,000 people.
What was the cost associated with banning caste discrimination and decriminalizing mushrooms?
The caste one he argued that there are already laws in place that cover it, and that what we need instead is to increase education about these existing laws and how they can be used to prevent caste discrimination. There is no point in creating another law that does the exact same thing as existing anti discrimination laws.
For decriminalizing mushrooms he argued that the bill doesn't actually include any provisions for how the medical usage can be implemented or how the required infrastructure can be put in place. When CA was medical only for weed it was frankly a shit show for a long while because it was highly unclear what was actually allowed and what wasn't, he didn't want a repeat.
Whether you agree with either of those arguments is an entirely different question, but the titles of been seeing make it seem like he's just shooting them down for fun - hence my suspicion that this is astroturfing.
One of two things is true - either over the last week he's inexplicably gotten a ton of really controversial bills crossing his desk that are all more newsworthy than anything else over the last few years, and he vetoed every single one. Or half-assed bills like these pass this desk all the time and get vetoed pending better solutions, and they're only now getting overblown coverage as part of a smear campaign. Frankly the latter seems more likely
Or the opposing side trying to make him look bad. California still sets the standards for a lot of rules that we'd be better off with the rest of the country copying.
Yeah honestly it seems like a targeted media blitz more than anything. If you read the actual article, most of his vetos are done for very good reasons - but they're all being posted with reductive headlines
Teens having Kids cost more than condoms
Frankly, when I was in high school - cost was never the issue in whether a couple used condoms, and even in my relatively conservative area, there were local programs that would give out free condoms if you cared enough to look
Better sex education would go a much longer way imo - because even in California our sex Ed (this was like a decade ago, so maybe it's changed) was full of "abstinence only" garbage - thankfully the teachers were usually smart enough to go off book and give realistic advice/answers
Big if. To me it seems worthwhile to have them easily accessible so that teens would be carrying them around. Limits the amount of pre-planning needed
My wife grew up.in California and they didn't even teach sex ed.in high school. We need tobtake back out schools from these Christian crazies who ruined sex.ed and want to take away our books
Buying them isn't an issue. Getting kids to actually use them is what matters.
Some stores won't sell to people under 18, even when there's no law requiring them to (I don't k.ow of a place that does) and that requires money, something in short supply if you're a teen
Funny story. I remember years ago having a girlfriend when I was 25, and we are staying with my parents, who live in a small town for a few days. We went to buy some condoms one day, and we found that none of the mini marts nearby carried any sort of contraceptives at all.
I remember asking the clerk, who was younger than me, and he acted incredulous that anybody would need a condom. In a city of 25,000 people.
Luckily, Safeway came to the rescue. Lol
What was the cost associated with banning caste discrimination and decriminalizing mushrooms?
The caste one he argued that there are already laws in place that cover it, and that what we need instead is to increase education about these existing laws and how they can be used to prevent caste discrimination. There is no point in creating another law that does the exact same thing as existing anti discrimination laws.
For decriminalizing mushrooms he argued that the bill doesn't actually include any provisions for how the medical usage can be implemented or how the required infrastructure can be put in place. When CA was medical only for weed it was frankly a shit show for a long while because it was highly unclear what was actually allowed and what wasn't, he didn't want a repeat.
Whether you agree with either of those arguments is an entirely different question, but the titles of been seeing make it seem like he's just shooting them down for fun - hence my suspicion that this is astroturfing.
One of two things is true - either over the last week he's inexplicably gotten a ton of really controversial bills crossing his desk that are all more newsworthy than anything else over the last few years, and he vetoed every single one. Or half-assed bills like these pass this desk all the time and get vetoed pending better solutions, and they're only now getting overblown coverage as part of a smear campaign. Frankly the latter seems more likely