In addition, under Federal Law, the proceeds of the forfeiture go directly to the agency that seized them, the goods are charged with a crime, and the owner must go to trial against the Federal FSKING Governent to prove the goods innocent in order to get them back.

For extra credit, can anyone spot the perverse incentive here?

I am an Emergency Room RN, with 8+ years of experience, including Advanced Cardiac Life Support.

Most of the research of which I'm aware shows that early defibrillation is second only to good CPR in the vast majority of cases. Studies from Japan have showed that the most common medication, epinephrine, actually does nothing more than allow a body to get to the hospital with a non-functioning brain, but it has been used for so long by out of hospital providers that it is a very difficult thing to remove from the protocols ("but, we have to do something!") Oxygen is also being stressed less, as research shows that it can cause vasoconstriction of the coronary arteries.

Out of hospital survival rates for cardiac arrest are lower than most people think (as are in-hospital rates, though they are higher. See http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/... for U.S. statistics). The reason for higher survival rates in the hospital setting are varied, but the biggest reason is that you have trained people nearby, and quick access to the one thing that makes a real difference - early defibrillation of an appropriate arrhythmia.

Early AED delivery in the field could be of great assistance in the right circumstances.

BTW, an AEDs do not recommend defibrillation unless it senses a "Shockable Rhythm," i.e. Ventricular Tachycardia or Fibrillation. OP is correct that there are other rhythms which do not respond to defibrillation, but a) AEDs are good at recognizing them, and b) rates of survival to neurologically-intact discharge are much lower, on the order of a full order of magnitude. A patient with Pulmonary Embolus or Aneurysm (or Seizure for that matter) would not have either of these rhythms.

This is a partial answer, and misleading, at best. A significant portion of the value of a given property is due to the services provided by the governemt - not just streets, but education, law enforcement, fire protection, etc... The same size house in Mississippi is worth orders of magnitude less that the same building in San Francisco. The owner derives benefit proportional to that value, and therefore has the social burden of paying for that benefit.

This is a gross isrepresentation -- Ellsberg states in the article that his trial was not fair:

As I know from my own case, even Snowden's own testimony on the stand would be gagged by government objections and the (arguably unconstitutional) nature of his charges. That was my own experience in court, as the first American to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act – or any other statute – for giving information to the American people.

I had looked forward to offering a fuller account in my trial than I had given previously to any journalist – any Glenn Greenwald or Brian Williams of my time – as to the considerations that led me to copy and distribute thousands of pages of top-secret documents. I had saved many details until I could present them on the stand, under oath, just as a young John Kerry had delivered his strongest lines in sworn testimony.

But when I finally heard my lawyer ask the prearranged question in direct examination – Why did you copy the Pentagon Papers? – I was silenced before I could begin to answer. The government prosecutor objected – irrelevant – and the judge sustained. My lawyer, exasperated, said he "had never heard of a case where a defendant was not permitted to tell the jury why he did what he did." The judge responded: well, you're hearing one now.

And so it has been with every subsequent whistleblower under indictment, and so it would be if Edward Snowden was on trial in an American courtroom now.

In addition, Ellsberg never got a "fair trial"; the charges against him were dismissed for gross misconduct on the part of the government -- see http://www.washingtonpost.com/... for a summary.

Way to keep hawking that meme, Baloroth!

The methodology used to come up with that 35% figure counts only the FEDERAL INCOME TAX, leaving out sales taxes, licenses, payroll taxes, local income taxes, state income taxes, property taxes, fees, tolls, energy taxes, etc... According to Citizens for Tax Justice, ( http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2009.pdf), when you take all of these taxes and fees into account, that 1% pays 23% of ALL taxes on 22.2% of ALL income -- not exactly representative of a progressive tax system.

In addition, that same 1% controls 40% of the wealth in this country, which they supplement by raking in that 22.2% of income, along with returns on the investment of that wealth, which are taxed at a far lower rate. And don't get me started on carried interest!

Now, we can argue about whether or not the tax system is fair, or working to advance the goals which we agree on. But to continue to trot out the trope that the poor wealthy are overburdened compared to the moochers at the bottom serves only to muddy the waters of any attempt at a rational discussion.

The actual text of the article cited by the parent is below:

(c) No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this Act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301 of this Act. Provided however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected.

Full text here: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Text_of_Proposition_19,_the_%22Regulate,_Control_and_Tax_Cannabis_Act_of_2010%22_(California)/

Seems to me that what the Proposition is saying is that an employer can't fire you solely on the basis of your usage of cannabis, but there's nothing there that says you can't be fired for cause; i.e. being late, not fulfilling your job duties. Doesn't strike me as any different than the status quo -- employers have plenty of reasons to unload a problem worker without discriminating.