Petition Tag - tested
1. No More Animal Testing And Mutilation
Animals shouldn't.t be tested for cloning, or no mutilations.
2. All products should explicitly state if they (or their ingredients) have been tested on animals
All consumers have the right to know how their product reaches the shop-shelf, and past surveys have shown that people would be less likely to buy products if they explicitly state that they/their ingredients HAVE been tested on animals.
We are campaigning in order to raise awareness of the extent of animal testing, in order to enable consumers to make more informed decisions with regards to the products they buy.
We are campaigning in order to raise awareness of the extent of animal testing, in order to enable consumers to make more informed decisions with regards to the products they buy.
3. Reinstate Ben Cousins to the West Coast Eagles!
Ben Cousins, has been the inspiration for the West Coast Eagles for many years, although there have been a few, to say the least, mistakes on Ben's behalf, I believe that the line WC took was a massive mistake that they will regret.
The fact is WC only did this because they knew they were going to get into trouble with the AFL, I’d just like to know where the line is, Melbourne players have been getting caught doing drugs for years, but it seems that only the WEST seems to have players publicly shamed! Ben Cousins has never been positively tested for drugs unlike *VIC players* who have tested positive twice and under AFL laws still have one more chance, well where is Ben Cousins' THIRD chance??
Shouldn’t punching your fist into an innocent person or even worse a loved one have the same effects as those placed on Cousins??? Where’s the JUSTICE!!
The fact is WC only did this because they knew they were going to get into trouble with the AFL, I’d just like to know where the line is, Melbourne players have been getting caught doing drugs for years, but it seems that only the WEST seems to have players publicly shamed! Ben Cousins has never been positively tested for drugs unlike *VIC players* who have tested positive twice and under AFL laws still have one more chance, well where is Ben Cousins' THIRD chance??
Shouldn’t punching your fist into an innocent person or even worse a loved one have the same effects as those placed on Cousins??? Where’s the JUSTICE!!
4. Help Eliminate Math Requirement
Clearly all teachers need to be proficient in English. But why math? Why ONLY math? Who besides mathematicians use algebra or geometry in their professions or in their daily lives? Who uses them to such a degree that proficiency in those subjects would be necessary to teach any other subject?
Demonstrating a basic knowledge of math doesn't prove competency in a non-math field. It doesn't indicate a lack of intelligence or teaching competency.
If the goal is truly well-rounded teachers, why aren't teachers required to demonstrate proficiency in literature, music, art, theater arts, psychology, philosophy, history, biology, sociology, geography, physics, film, environmental studies, current events, anthropology, computer programming, or any other field studied in college or taught in public schools?
Why is math privileged?
Many people hate math. Why are potential teachers forced to learn what for them is an irrelevant, boring subject when there are many other subjects that would be of more interest and value to them and to their students? Why not give potential teachers a choice of subjects to be tested on to indicate well-roundedness? Why not ask them to show proficiency in several subjects instead of just one - math?
If well-roundedness is truly the goal, teachers should have to show knowledge proficiency in several subjects, not just English (which obviously we all need) and math (which only a small minority actually NEED). Teachers should be free to choose which subjects they're tested on.
Demonstrating a basic knowledge of math doesn't prove competency in a non-math field. It doesn't indicate a lack of intelligence or teaching competency.
If the goal is truly well-rounded teachers, why aren't teachers required to demonstrate proficiency in literature, music, art, theater arts, psychology, philosophy, history, biology, sociology, geography, physics, film, environmental studies, current events, anthropology, computer programming, or any other field studied in college or taught in public schools?
Why is math privileged?
Many people hate math. Why are potential teachers forced to learn what for them is an irrelevant, boring subject when there are many other subjects that would be of more interest and value to them and to their students? Why not give potential teachers a choice of subjects to be tested on to indicate well-roundedness? Why not ask them to show proficiency in several subjects instead of just one - math?
If well-roundedness is truly the goal, teachers should have to show knowledge proficiency in several subjects, not just English (which obviously we all need) and math (which only a small minority actually NEED). Teachers should be free to choose which subjects they're tested on.
I believe drug testing is an unreasonable search, and that it forces people to incriminate themselves. Many who take the same position believe drug testing violates the 4th and 5th amendments. The counter argument is that the Constitution doesn't apply to private organizations.
It comes down to these values. An employer's right to know who s/he is
hiring stands in conflict with an individual's right to privacy. I wrote
this petition because I value the right to privacy more.
I also believe people SHOULD have the right to consume any substance
they want [without limits] given that they are knowledgeable about that
chemical. Employers, like anyone, have been effected by the Reafer Madness
Movement.
The government pushed massive amounts of misinformation throughout communities and schools, and I don't believe that employers are
well informed enough yet to dictate what drugs will harm the workplace.
The only effective way to select workers is to evaluate their
performance on the job. Drugs can actually improve performance. Aspirin
relieves pain, allowing a worker to continue. Marijuana (when consumed on
the job) makes repetitive factory oriented work more interesting, which
lengthens a workers attention span. Marijuana will actually make some
people more alert. After intensive testing, someone I know can solve the
Rubix Cube 20 seconds faster when stoned (not scientific proof, yet
interesting). Stimulants will keep workers productive at the end of long
work days. If the negative effects of drug use begin to show in the
worker's performance, their employer has a number of options for dealing
with it.
Phil Smith summarizes an article in March 1990 Scientific American:
[The article] suggested that workers who tested positive for marijuana only: 1) cost less in health insurance benefits; 2) had a higher than average rate of promotion; 3) exhibited less absenteeism; and 4) were fired for cause less often than workers who did not test positive. Since marijuana is the most common illicit drug used by adults, and the one detected in up to 90 percent of all "positive" drug tests (half of which are false),
this fact has radical implications for current public and employer policies.
I could hardly believe what I was reading, but this article did carry
sufficient statistical evidence.
I see greater negative effects in drug testing than in drug use. In my
opinion, drug testing is un-American because guilt is assumed until the
test proves innocence. Our current conservative totalitarian Congress is
extremely irresponsible, and the peoples' civil liberties are suffering.
The Senate is even more threatening to our rights than Congress. This
particular privacy violation costs businesses $1.2 billion a year for
urinalysis of their workers. The military is notorious for their strict
drug tests. (note that marijuana helped soldiers in times of war). If you test positive in California, your drivers license is automatically
suspended for 6 months. Nightbyrd has "counseled several, very straight,
elderly workers - close to retirement -who were fired and lost their
pension benefits because they 'failed their drug test'" (Jeff Nightbyrd).
Bernard Williams of the Philadelphia Eagles failed the drug test for
marijuana. He was suspended from the NFL for six games for using a drug
that doesn't enhance performance. If anything, marijuana would detract
from an athletes performance. Let the coach judge Williams performance.
Now it's becoming popular for parents to drug test their children. Perfect; let's break up the families; cut down those lines of communication
and sneak around spying on our kids. Let's violate the child's privacy. We
use DARE like the salem witch hunts - to get children to turn in their parents. Now with DrugAlert, parents have a weapon to use on their kids.
The U.S. Supreme court just ruled June 1995 that public high schools
can require drug test for all student athletes. Many high schools already
do random searches on students; not for weapons, but for drugs. After all,
the Constitution has failed to protect children in the classroom, why not
expand? Students have lost 1st, 4th, and 5th amendment rights, and I think
it's absurd. We have patriotic history teachers telling children of their Constitutional rights, yet children aren't given these rights on campus. Kids get kicked out of school for questioning rules that violate the
Constitution.
It's also important to consider the discrimination factor. People with
dark skin may fail the urine test due to the false positive melenin. Drugs
are detected easier in dark haired people when the hair test is used. We are sacrificing too many important rights by allowing drug testing
to continue. Until this unjust drug testing frenzy is put to an end,
children, workers, military service people, and parolee's need to learn how
to protect themselves from the drug test.
I have no medical or legal credentials. I haven't even been drug tested myself (because I refuse to). I use the internet to research drug testing, and compile this paper from that information. I've talked to several knowledgeable people who either drug test, or get drug tested. I'm an activist against the War on [Some] Drugs, and I think that the government has taken the drug war to a ludicrous level. Laws created by the
legislature to protect me from myself demonstrate how totalitarian this
country has become. NORML reports that every *9* seconds someone gets
arrested for marijuana posession.
Please sign this petition if you think the government is violating your personal life by drug testing.
It comes down to these values. An employer's right to know who s/he is
hiring stands in conflict with an individual's right to privacy. I wrote
this petition because I value the right to privacy more.
I also believe people SHOULD have the right to consume any substance
they want [without limits] given that they are knowledgeable about that
chemical. Employers, like anyone, have been effected by the Reafer Madness
Movement.
The government pushed massive amounts of misinformation throughout communities and schools, and I don't believe that employers are
well informed enough yet to dictate what drugs will harm the workplace.
The only effective way to select workers is to evaluate their
performance on the job. Drugs can actually improve performance. Aspirin
relieves pain, allowing a worker to continue. Marijuana (when consumed on
the job) makes repetitive factory oriented work more interesting, which
lengthens a workers attention span. Marijuana will actually make some
people more alert. After intensive testing, someone I know can solve the
Rubix Cube 20 seconds faster when stoned (not scientific proof, yet
interesting). Stimulants will keep workers productive at the end of long
work days. If the negative effects of drug use begin to show in the
worker's performance, their employer has a number of options for dealing
with it.
Phil Smith summarizes an article in March 1990 Scientific American:
[The article] suggested that workers who tested positive for marijuana only: 1) cost less in health insurance benefits; 2) had a higher than average rate of promotion; 3) exhibited less absenteeism; and 4) were fired for cause less often than workers who did not test positive. Since marijuana is the most common illicit drug used by adults, and the one detected in up to 90 percent of all "positive" drug tests (half of which are false),
this fact has radical implications for current public and employer policies.
I could hardly believe what I was reading, but this article did carry
sufficient statistical evidence.
I see greater negative effects in drug testing than in drug use. In my
opinion, drug testing is un-American because guilt is assumed until the
test proves innocence. Our current conservative totalitarian Congress is
extremely irresponsible, and the peoples' civil liberties are suffering.
The Senate is even more threatening to our rights than Congress. This
particular privacy violation costs businesses $1.2 billion a year for
urinalysis of their workers. The military is notorious for their strict
drug tests. (note that marijuana helped soldiers in times of war). If you test positive in California, your drivers license is automatically
suspended for 6 months. Nightbyrd has "counseled several, very straight,
elderly workers - close to retirement -who were fired and lost their
pension benefits because they 'failed their drug test'" (Jeff Nightbyrd).
Bernard Williams of the Philadelphia Eagles failed the drug test for
marijuana. He was suspended from the NFL for six games for using a drug
that doesn't enhance performance. If anything, marijuana would detract
from an athletes performance. Let the coach judge Williams performance.
Now it's becoming popular for parents to drug test their children. Perfect; let's break up the families; cut down those lines of communication
and sneak around spying on our kids. Let's violate the child's privacy. We
use DARE like the salem witch hunts - to get children to turn in their parents. Now with DrugAlert, parents have a weapon to use on their kids.
The U.S. Supreme court just ruled June 1995 that public high schools
can require drug test for all student athletes. Many high schools already
do random searches on students; not for weapons, but for drugs. After all,
the Constitution has failed to protect children in the classroom, why not
expand? Students have lost 1st, 4th, and 5th amendment rights, and I think
it's absurd. We have patriotic history teachers telling children of their Constitutional rights, yet children aren't given these rights on campus. Kids get kicked out of school for questioning rules that violate the
Constitution.
It's also important to consider the discrimination factor. People with
dark skin may fail the urine test due to the false positive melenin. Drugs
are detected easier in dark haired people when the hair test is used. We are sacrificing too many important rights by allowing drug testing
to continue. Until this unjust drug testing frenzy is put to an end,
children, workers, military service people, and parolee's need to learn how
to protect themselves from the drug test.
I have no medical or legal credentials. I haven't even been drug tested myself (because I refuse to). I use the internet to research drug testing, and compile this paper from that information. I've talked to several knowledgeable people who either drug test, or get drug tested. I'm an activist against the War on [Some] Drugs, and I think that the government has taken the drug war to a ludicrous level. Laws created by the
legislature to protect me from myself demonstrate how totalitarian this
country has become. NORML reports that every *9* seconds someone gets
arrested for marijuana posession.
Please sign this petition if you think the government is violating your personal life by drug testing.
IF anyone has seen the commercial where they say the people who caused the accident were tested positive for marijauna? Firt off, I've done studies on it. Marijauna stays in your system 28 days after smoking it. It didn't cause the accident. Second off, Its not clinically proven nor is remotely true, its false accusations and evidence.
I'm not saying smoking marijauna is something that people should do, but at least have decent facts before you air something as not true as this. Yes they might have been tested positive but it doesn't mean they were under the influence at the time.
I'm not saying smoking marijauna is something that people should do, but at least have decent facts before you air something as not true as this. Yes they might have been tested positive but it doesn't mean they were under the influence at the time.
7. TEST BEEF IN THE USA FOR MAD COW DISEASE
Mad Cow Disease may be present in any of the cattle that are slaughtered for food in the USA each year. Even "downed" cows who stumble to their deaths on the way to slaughter are not even tested for this disease. Only 2,000 per year out of 36 million slaughtered are ever tested. This is not enough. This petition was copied and moved from TestCowsNow.com. Go there for full information on this harrowing situation.
8. End Genetic Horse Disease - HYPP
HYPP or Hyperkalemic Periodic Paralysis is a genetic disorder that affects both horses. It has, so far, been traced in horses back to a Quarter Horse ironically named "Impressive." The disorder causes horses that are affected to have muscle spazams, ranging in intensity from unnoticable to unable to stand. A horse may go a very long time, years in fact, without showing any symptoms, then suddenly deteriorate.
When tested for HYPP, there are three possible results: n/n (unaffected) n/h (affected) and h/h (affected, having inherited the h gene from both of the foal's parents. Because the h gene is dominant, a horse with the result n/h has as large a chance of being sick as a horse who receives a result of h/h. Horses who have the dual combination of the bad gene, however, tend to be sicker earlier. 50%, not 25%, of the offspring of a horse with the test result n/h will carry the h gene. The only way to eradicate this problem is to stop all breeding of all horses who possess the h gene. Period.
The Apaloosa Horse Club Of Canada is on the right track. Please follow their link to see what their plan is on this issue. Basiscally, they are already refusing registration to any affected horse that is not steralized. In 2002, they plan to deny registration to ANY horse that is affected. Also, at present, any horse applying for or already registered with the ApHCC must be tested at the request of the ApHCC and have the findings noted on the horse's certificate. This is the least we can ask for. I want disclosure. Breeders should have to tell potential clients about this disorder if they have a positive test result, and sellers should have to tell buyers.
The picture is of my beautiful little filly when she was one day old. Her test just came back positive.
I am not a vet, or any kind of expert. This is just my understanding of what I've read on the subject and my side of my own personal experience.
When tested for HYPP, there are three possible results: n/n (unaffected) n/h (affected) and h/h (affected, having inherited the h gene from both of the foal's parents. Because the h gene is dominant, a horse with the result n/h has as large a chance of being sick as a horse who receives a result of h/h. Horses who have the dual combination of the bad gene, however, tend to be sicker earlier. 50%, not 25%, of the offspring of a horse with the test result n/h will carry the h gene. The only way to eradicate this problem is to stop all breeding of all horses who possess the h gene. Period.
The Apaloosa Horse Club Of Canada is on the right track. Please follow their link to see what their plan is on this issue. Basiscally, they are already refusing registration to any affected horse that is not steralized. In 2002, they plan to deny registration to ANY horse that is affected. Also, at present, any horse applying for or already registered with the ApHCC must be tested at the request of the ApHCC and have the findings noted on the horse's certificate. This is the least we can ask for. I want disclosure. Breeders should have to tell potential clients about this disorder if they have a positive test result, and sellers should have to tell buyers.
The picture is of my beautiful little filly when she was one day old. Her test just came back positive.
I am not a vet, or any kind of expert. This is just my understanding of what I've read on the subject and my side of my own personal experience.
9. Make Bio-testing of all products law
Make Bio-testing (non-invasive, using state of the art technology) of all products used in and around our bodies, plants and animals absolutely compulsory. This would avoid the catastrophic consequences to humans, animals and plants of the widespread contamination by chemical,radiation, oil/petroleum, nuclear, pharmaceutical and biological agents.
REMEMBER, IN EVERY SINGLE CASE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION, GENETIC DAMAGE, NUCLEAR POLLUTION, CHEMICAL AND PHARMACEUTICAL DAMAGE/DEFORMITY, AND "SAFETY" STANDARDS CREATED FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF THESE PROBLEMS, THERE IS ONE FACTOR COMMON TO ALL. In EVERY CASE, there was a whitecoated, academically impeccable, well credentialled and well paid (or well paid OFF) SCIENTIST WHO WAS GIVEN THE RIGHT OF VETO ON SAFETY...
There needs to be a new standard of BIO-SAFETY which simply means that anything that interferes with our oxygen uptake, heartrate, brainwaves, pulse and bio-meridian electric field and causes loss of capacity or downgrading of any of the above, should not be able to be sold without a rating of safety from 1 to 10, with 10 being the safest to all major body functions. The same should apply to animals, and plants, which can be tested for slowing of sap flow and lack of capillary response, just like human & animal blood flow, cortisol etc. Thermal imaging, simple medical instruments can be used to test this on an instant response basis. We DON'T need a five year, fund sucking 'scientific' study on safety to give us all the damaging exposures that have been sanctioned by these elitists, who have said 'this is totally afe', or 'this is safe enough to pass'. We all pay the price for their arrogant lack of care - why aren't their safe chemicals tested on scientist guinea pigs, diluted of course, just like our drinking water containing poisons, and ag. runoffs which are classed as safe. Remember that NUCLEAR pollution was pronounced totally safe by the American Academy of Science in the 1940's, and tobacco, and DDT, and Thalidomide, and thousands of others. We now have BSE because nobody bothered to bio-test animals for their body and systemic reaction to being fed manure mixed with chemicals and body parts of other (even diseased) species. Nature never ever sinned against any species in history, equal to the damage caused 'scientifically qualified' humans. DEMAND PROOF OF DYNAMIC BIO-SAFETY, NOT FIVE YEAR FARCES. Our planet deserves it and so do we.
REMEMBER, IN EVERY SINGLE CASE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION, GENETIC DAMAGE, NUCLEAR POLLUTION, CHEMICAL AND PHARMACEUTICAL DAMAGE/DEFORMITY, AND "SAFETY" STANDARDS CREATED FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF THESE PROBLEMS, THERE IS ONE FACTOR COMMON TO ALL. In EVERY CASE, there was a whitecoated, academically impeccable, well credentialled and well paid (or well paid OFF) SCIENTIST WHO WAS GIVEN THE RIGHT OF VETO ON SAFETY...
There needs to be a new standard of BIO-SAFETY which simply means that anything that interferes with our oxygen uptake, heartrate, brainwaves, pulse and bio-meridian electric field and causes loss of capacity or downgrading of any of the above, should not be able to be sold without a rating of safety from 1 to 10, with 10 being the safest to all major body functions. The same should apply to animals, and plants, which can be tested for slowing of sap flow and lack of capillary response, just like human & animal blood flow, cortisol etc. Thermal imaging, simple medical instruments can be used to test this on an instant response basis. We DON'T need a five year, fund sucking 'scientific' study on safety to give us all the damaging exposures that have been sanctioned by these elitists, who have said 'this is totally afe', or 'this is safe enough to pass'. We all pay the price for their arrogant lack of care - why aren't their safe chemicals tested on scientist guinea pigs, diluted of course, just like our drinking water containing poisons, and ag. runoffs which are classed as safe. Remember that NUCLEAR pollution was pronounced totally safe by the American Academy of Science in the 1940's, and tobacco, and DDT, and Thalidomide, and thousands of others. We now have BSE because nobody bothered to bio-test animals for their body and systemic reaction to being fed manure mixed with chemicals and body parts of other (even diseased) species. Nature never ever sinned against any species in history, equal to the damage caused 'scientifically qualified' humans. DEMAND PROOF OF DYNAMIC BIO-SAFETY, NOT FIVE YEAR FARCES. Our planet deserves it and so do we.