Back in 2012 when I graduated high school our class song was Young, Wild, and Free by Snoop Dog and Wiz Khalifa.
For those of you who live under a rock, the song talks about smoking weed, drinking and living freely.
The artists in the song don’t really care what others say about their actions or lifestyle.
Recently Kylie Jenner posted a picture on Instagram of her smoking weed.
She is definitely living the carefree easy going life.
I really do not care if you post a picture of you drinking but drugs are another story.
“Come one it is one picture” you may say but if I posted one picture of me smoking weed my career as a nurse would be over before it even started.
Weed is still considered illegal and classified as a scheduled I drug by the DEA.
Let me go ahead and put this out there, I fully support cannabis in a medical setting to help people who really need it.
For example, that video on YouTube where the older gentleman has Parkinson’s disease but his tremors go away once he takes cannabis.
On other circumstances I am not totally against it but if you are going to blaze it up maybe don’t post it on Instagram.
My main concern with her post is young girls look up to her as a role model and as a kid we are taught not to do drugs…see where I am going on this?
I wish she would post images of her creating something new for Kylie cosmetics, videos of her cooking (I’ve heard she is a good cook), or her showing girls how to be successful.
I am sure Kylie Jenner is aware of the damage is done when you smoke weed but just in case she doesn’t, let me explain.
Have you ever heard of lung cancer?
Brain cells dying?
I don’t know about you but I’ll pass.
Lastly, I will close with this final statement.
It is her life and she may do whatever she pleases but she is a role model to millions whether she likes it or not.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.
Cover Photo Credit: Kylie Jenner/ Instagram
What Do You Think?
About the AuthorAnnalia is a nursing student who has a passion for kids, coffee, and makeup. She loves meeting new people and exploring this thing we call life. Her current goal is to not kill her cactus named Pricks.
You Might also like
Donald Trump is running a presidential campaign that often seems to be more about projecting strength than it is about specific policy positions.
Trump presents himself to voters as a “strong man” type who would deport more than 10 million people currently living in the United States, bar Muslims from entering the country, shut down mosques, and perhaps set up a national database to track Muslims.
Given that Trump is now the presumptive Republican nominee, it’s worth considering how his “strong man” approach would play out in office.
Some are skeptical of his rhetoric, arguing that Trump, if elected, would have to contend with the reality that presidents generally cannot act alone.
The Constitution divides most powers between the President and Congress: presidents cannot go to war unilaterally, they cannot make unilateral decisions about most matters involving national security.
The constitutional system of separation of powers uses checks and balances to make sure no one branch of government has concentrated power.
That is certainly correct, in theory.
In practice, however, recent presidents have shown a willingness and ability to write Congress out of the equation.
A President Trump who determined to act without Congress would have recent precedent to draw on—most notoriously, the unitary executive theory relied on by the Bush administration.
The unitary executive theory rejects the idea of checks and balances, claiming unchecked power for the president, even the power to set aside criminal laws.
As political scientist Jim Pfiffner observes, this theory assigns presidents “powers once asserted by kings.”
The Bush administration invoked the unitary executive theory to justify torture and warrantless surveillance prohibited by criminal law, and to claim complete power over decisions to use military force.
It is well worth finding out what Trump—and other candidates, for that matter—think of the unitary executive theory.
During the 2008 election, reporter Charlie Savage surveyed the presidential candidates to ask specific questions about the scope and limits of executive power. Of course, getting candidates on the record is not enough—President Obama has not adhered to the limits on power he acknowledged when answering Savage’s questions as a candidate. But it is a useful starting point to ask Trump and other candidates whether they acknowledge constitutional limits on presidential power.
Some of Trump’s public statements suggest he believes that constitutional limits would not bind him. For instance, during a debate, Trump said that President Obama lacked the “courage” to use military force against the Assad regime in Syria in 2013.
In reality, President Obama lacked constitutional authority to act alone against Syria—he needed congressional authorization, which Trump seemed to dismiss.
Trump has also said that he would order the military to carry out torture, declaring that they would follow his orders, whether lawful or not. Trump seemed to later backtrack when he said he would “stay within the laws” in responding to ISIS—but his new position does not immediately make sense.
Trump said he’d like to change the law to allow waterboarding. But waterboarding is torture.
Would Trump have the United States withdraw from the treaty? If Congress did not support him, would he act anyway?
Candidate Trump has proposed a number of radical, dangerous ideas. He is running a campaign based in large part on the promise that he would be a strong leader who would take actions other presidents have been unwilling or unable to carry out.
The U.S. constitutional system has checks in place that, in theory, can set limits on presidential power. But those checks have not functioned well during times of crisis, including in the years since 9/11—especially when Congress is passive or deferential.
It’s essential to consider what a President Trump could do to deliver on his promise to rule as a strong leader. The answer is that it could largely depend on how far he is willing to go.
Chris Edelson is an assistant professor of government in American University’s School of Public Affairs. His book, Power Without Constraint: The Post 9/11 Presidency and National Security, will be published in spring 2016 by the University of Wisconsin Press.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in public affairs. You can write for us.
Cover Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)Post Views: 785
What Do You Think?
The following is the opinion of the writer of this piece and not necessarily of Rise News.
The Keystone XL Pipeline is a divisive issue in American politics. Typically, Republicans favor it, stressing its economic benefits:
“This decision isn’t surprising, but it is sickening. By rejecting this pipeline, the president is rejecting tens of thousands of good-paying jobs.” – House Speaker Paul Ryan
While Democrats mostly oppose it, with an intense focus on its environmental impact:
“Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation’s interest. And our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.” – President Barack Obama
Given how difficult it has become for both sides to agree on anything, let’s just start out with some indisputable facts.
- The Athabasca oil sands in Alberta, Canada have a substantial amount of oil
- Around 48 companies have a stake in the oil sands, the majority of them not American-based
- A pipeline is one of a few different ways to transport oil
The Keystone XL Pipeline is commonly depicted by American politicians as the single determinant in whether this dirty oil is going to be extracted from the ground, but that is a narrow minded take on a large-scale problem.
Whether or not America decides to build one pipeline will not stop Canadian businesses and state and local governments from exploiting the economic windfall of this massive supply of energy. With no major pipeline to move this oil to one of its most logical destinations, many of these businesses have turned to a myriad of options.
America’s railroads have become a much more popular method to distribute their cargo, with western transportation spiking in this last quarter after President Obama vetoed the Keystone Pipeline.
“The environmental impact is negative either way, but when pipelines burst, they usually don’t present the immediate danger to life and property that derailed oil trains do.”
Transporting oil in a sealed compartment while speeding along metal rails is a much more dangerous option than pushing it through a pipeline.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration even says that “pipelines are currently still the safest means of transporting hazardous liquids and natural gas.”
If a train becomes derailed, multiple massive explosions are a possibility, as evidenced by the 2013 tragedy in Quebec that claimed 47 lives, the deadliest in the history of oil by rail.
WATCH: 2013 BBC report on the Quebec oil train tragedy
According to federal data, more oil was spilled from trains in 2013 than in the previous four decades combined. By creating a political football out of one project, we have avoided talking about the real consequences of action or inaction.
Inaction has led to a situation where oil that is especially combustible is being moved through cities and along rivers, and the problem is accelerating.
Nine railroad incidents spilled 4,900 gallons of oil throughout 2010; in 2014, 143 episodes released 57,600 gallons.
Even in the face of mounting calamities, the oil industry is dragging its feet on implementing new rail safety rules.
Granted, the rate of rail accidents has been declining since 2005, but the amount of oil being moved in the last five years isn’t even comparable to the ones preceding them. The issue has evolved into uncharted territory for the current model.
The Alberta tar sands oil industry is preparing to triple production by 2030. They are under immense pressure to find various methods to export this oil, especially since labor and materials have become more expensive.
Vetoing the creation of a pipeline into America will not keep this oil in the ground. There is plenty of demand for oil here, and any time we have the opportunity to lessen our dependence on Middle Eastern despots in order to become closer to our northern ally, we should take it.
Yes, a pipeline will have negative effects on the environment, but that oil is coming out regardless – the market has spoken. If we don’t buy it, someone else will. Saying no to a pipeline just means that more of this oil will be transported to the United States by alternative methods like rail, and there will continue to be tragedies that cost innocent lives.
The environmental impact is negative either way, but when pipelines burst, they usually don’t present the immediate danger to life and property that derailed oil trains do.
The United States should build a pipeline to the Canadian tar sands in order to alleviate the stress that is being placed on our railroads, and use the tax windfall to invest in an energy future where we don’t have to choose between a handful of lousy options.
Cover Photo Credit: Greg Gjerdingen/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)Post Views: 673
What Do You Think?
By Zac Head
My name is Zac,
I am not a person of color. I am not female. I am not a member of the LGBTQ+ community.
I have not truly experienced poverty. I will likely never know what it is like to be a member of any of these groups.
I am a straight, white male, whose household income is significantly above the poverty line.
I grew up with happily married parents who were always very supportive of me.
I have broken laws, and been sent away from at least two encounters with law enforcement with “warnings”.
I have benefited from biases of others based on race, gender, social class, and sexuality.
I am privileged.
While I value all human life equally, recognize the sacred worth of every individual, and know that we are all God’s children, made in the image of God, and equally loved by God,
I have biases that affect the way I perceive people of color.
I have biases that affect the way I perceive females.
I have biases that affect the way I perceive people with different religious and political views than my own.
While these biases are most often subconscious, I am aware that they exist and that they cause damage in relationships and the lives of others.
My mind often feels threatened by those who are different than myself.
My mind often feels threatened by black masculinity.
I am aware of my biases and constantly fight against them.
I pray for deliverance from my biases.
Through prayer and conscious effort I have experienced deliverance from bias bit by bit, but if I am being honest I may never completely leave these biases behind.
All I can do is try each day to only see people for the children of God that they are.
Until we can acknowledge our biases we will continue to teach these biases to our children.
Until we can acknowledge our biases, it should be no surprise that those against whom we are biased will suffer.
Until we acknowledge the issue of black masculinity being perceived as dangerous, black men will continue to die from violence (with and without police involvement) at a higher rate than white men.
Until we acknowledge the issue of black masculinity being perceived as dangerous, little black boys will continue to grow up being told by the media that they are more likely to be violent than their white counterparts.
Until we acknowledge the issue of black masculinity being perceived as dangerous, we should not be surprised when this cycle continues.
I can never know what it feels like to be black, a woman, or someone who grew up in poverty.
All I can do is try my very best to listen to others who have those perspectives, acknowledge the worth of these perspectives and individuals, and live in such a way that teaches my daughter to move past biases while doing my very best to keep certain biases from forming in our household.
Today, I acknowledge my biases.
Today, I pray for deliverance (my own and that of our society) from these biases.
Today I am proud to see so many young people standing up for what Is right and am filled with hope for the future.
Forgive us, oh God of grace, for failing to see your image in one another.
Zac Head is a pastor at Mount Hebron United Methodist Church in Beaverton, AL.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in public affairs. You can write for us.Cover Photo Credit: rwdownes/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)Post Views: 1,139
What Do You Think?