# data[].attributes.body
"You just want attention, you don't want my heart. Maybe you just hate the thought of me with someone new." - Charlie Puth,  Attention

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
OK, technically the song is about Camilla Belle, the girl Joe immediately dumped T-Swift for in 2008 (which he did with a super classy 28-second-long phone call). But it's definitely still about their relationship. Not surprisingly, she furiously penned the song with the infamous chorus, "She's an actress, whoa, she's better known for the things that she does on the mattress, whoa." Whoa, indeed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
17 Hit Taylor Swift Songs And The Ex-Boyfriends They're Each About - Suggest.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Taylor Swift has a list of ex's longer than our grocery list - and a even longer list of hit songs she's written about their past relationships. Although she hasn't come out with an official burn book matching up songs with ex's, we took the liberty of doing that ourselves (and don't worry, not ALL of them are bad).

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/behind-the-rhetoric-of-my-body-my-choice

# data[].attributes.body
"Smoking weed is a “victimless crime” where only the user is taking any risk. It is immoral to tell people how they can, or cannot enjoy themselves."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
FOR Legalising Cannabis

AGAINST Legalising Cannabis

1 - TOKING FOR FREEDOM

The government just has no right restricting the relatively harmless pleasures of consenting adults. Even if marijuana is harmful - and that is by no means clear - it is the right of every individual to decide whether to take it. Smoking weed is a "victimless crime" where only the user is taking any risk. It is immoral to tell people how they can, or cannot enjoy themselves.

1 - IT'S BAD FOR YOU IN ALL SORTS OF WAYS

Although cannabis may have some medical uses in strictly controlled circumstances, smoking it or munching on space cakes is simply not good for you. Opium poppy derivatives have medical uses - but that doesn't make heroin healthy. Dope is called that for a reason - it makes you stupid. As well as being bad for your brain, it's bad for your lungs, bad for your heart and a terrible risk if you plan to do anything like drive or operate machinery. Pot smokers also run higher risks of developing mental health problems like schizophrenia and depression.

2. BETTER THAN BOOZE

Weed is less harmful than legal drugs like alcohol or tobacco, so keeping it banned is pure hypocrisy. In fact, cannabis has proven health benefits, from treating glaucoma to preventing epilepsy or easing the symptoms of multiple sclerosis. There are no health grounds to keep it illegal, it's purely a cultural hangover from the days when pot was considered a dangerous, exotic import. Tobacco is more addictive than cocaine, but there is no sign that marijuana causes physiological addiction. If you ban pot, you may as well ban burger eating, bungee jumping or any other moderately risky pastime.

2. MORE PEOPLE WILL USE IT

Cannabis is highly addictive. Studies show up to one-in10 users develop dependence over time. Stopping marijuana use can lead to withdrawal symptoms like anxiety and irritability. Over half the 7.3 million people classified with illicit drug dependence or abuse in the United States are hooked on weed. Making it legal will mean more people will use it - including youngsters - and more people will become addicted.

3. FOCUS ON THE REAL BAD STUFF

Legalising cannabis would take the trade out of the hands of criminal gangs. That would reduce their nefarious influence in both cannabis importing countries and the places where it's produced. Legalized, pot could be properly regulated to ensure quality and safety - just like any other product. When it's sold illegally on the street, nobody controls what dangerous substances could be mixed in with it. Freed from chasing hapless dope-smokers, law enforcement agencies could focus on dealing with hard drug pushers who do real harm.

3. PUSHERS WILL KEEP PUSHING

Legalizing cannabis won't stop the drug gangs, they'll just see profits boosted as it leads to more users and more addicts. Just look at Amsterdam where the liberal pot culture has spawned social problems from muggings to prostitution and hard drug use. The authorities there have been tightening restrictions. Research shows that heavy pot-smokers are several times more likely than non-users to commit violent crime.

4. GIVE THE TAX MAN A HIGH

Estimates in the United States suggest legalising marijuana would make the country about $18 billion better of every year. The gains would come from tax revenues on pot sales and savings to the justice system - including the cost of keeping smokers in jail. Since prohibition is never going to stop people smoking dope, the state may as well make money out of it. Colorado raked in more than $5 million in the first week after legalizing retail sales. It could also be a major boom to the economies of producing countries. One Jamaican company recently struck a $100 million deal to supply Colorado with medicinal ganja.

4. WEED LEADS TO WORSE

The use of soft drugs, such as marijuana, leads to the use of hard drugs. Addiction experts regard weed as a gateway drug that potentially introduces users to more serious substance abuse. Research in New Zealand found regular cannabis users were 60 times more likely to try other illicit drugs than young people who had never smoked cannabis. Cannabis itself is getting stronger. The stuff puffed by hippies in the 1960s had around 1% of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the chemical responsible for most of marijuana's psychological effects. Today's THC levels can run to over 30%.

Want to debate this question with others? Join our debate "Should cannabis be legalised across Europe?" and add your thoughts in the comment section!

IMAGE CREDITS: CC / Flickr - Unai Mateo

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Arguments for and against legalising cannabis - Debating Europe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
FOR Legalising Cannabis AGAINST Legalising Cannabis The government just has no right restricting the relatively harmless pleasures of consenting adults. Even if marijuana is harmful - and that is by no means clear - it is the right of every individual to decide whether to take it.

# data[].attributes.body
"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal." Declaration of Independence

# data[].attributes.body
"Every conscious being has interests that should be respected. No being who is conscious of being alive should be devalued to thinghood, dominated, used as a resource or a commodity. The crux of the idea known as animal rights is a movement to extend moral consideration to all conscious beings."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is meant by animal rights?

Every conscious being has interests that should be respected. No being who is conscious of being alive should be devalued to thinghood, dominated, used as a resource or a commodity. The crux of the idea known as animal rights is a movement to extend moral consideration to all conscious beings.

Nobody should have to demonstrate a specific level of intelligence to be accorded moral consideration. No one should have to be judged beautiful to be accorded moral consideration. No being should have to be useful to humanity or capable of accepting "duties" in order to be extended moral consideration. Indeed, what other animals need from us is being free from duties to us.

How is this different from animal welfare?

Traditionally, charities have worked on reducing the suffering of other animals that occurs when they are thought of as lesser beings who can and should be controlled.

There will always be suffering as long as any group is defined as available to be dominated and controlled. The nonhuman rights advocate does not dismiss people's concerns about suffering. Those concerns are valid. But the concept of animal rights involved working at the root cause of the problem.

Regulating the methods of exploitation is unlikely to significantly improve the status of nonhuman animals. Indeed, by passing laws to regulate the way in which individuals are exploited, we harden into law the concept that humans have the right to use other conscious individuals as tools for research, as entertainment, as food, as so on.

So the rights advocate asks that we relinquish the idea that other animals can be bought, sold, and treated as things. This is not the same thing as asking for better treatment; the rights advocate demands something infinitely more valuable - freedom.

Is this practical?

Yes. In an important way, the idea of animal rights is more practical than seeking welfare reforms.

Monitoring the welfare of owned animals is, in the overwhelming number of situations, simply not possible. As corporations and government-sponsored uses continue to proliferate, the situation spins ever further out of control, with uses in which welfare just seems to be a quaint idea, not at all connected with reality. Think of cloning, or birds engineered so they cannot support their own body weight, over sheep that suffocate under the pressure of their wool in the weather; "animal welfare" for such individuals rings hollow.

On the other hand, a view of other animals that respects their interests is something within the reach of each consumer.

When we stop eating and drinking products derived from other animals, when we stop going to circuses, decline to breed or buy dogs and cats, we are carrying out this idea and that is entirely within our power, in a way that regulating nonhuman welfare in a corporate setting can never be.

So rights advocates ask openly for what they really want. One at a time, as more and more people decide to do the same, respect for all conscious animals - regardless of how they happen to be classified or named - will be achievable.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Every conscious being has interests that should be respected. No being who is conscious of being alive should be devalued to thinghood, dominated, used as a resource or a commodity. The crux of the idea known as animal rights is a movement to extend moral consideration to all conscious beings.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cyberbully is a television film that premiered on July 17, 2011 on ABC Family. The film tells the story of a teenage girl who is bullied online. The film was released on DVD February 7, 2012. Don't let this happen to your children.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Last week, I examined how obesity among low-income households cannot be explained by simply claiming that low-income people don't have access to healthy food. It is claimed that supermarkets and other places that sell food are too far away from low-income neighborhoods for households to access them. It is assumed that low-income people will eat fast food instead. This is known as the "food desert" concept in which some places are devoid of food choices.

In that article I quoted sources which concluded that there is not actually compelling evidence that low-income neighborhoods have fewer grocery stores than other neighborhoods.

Now, it appears that the USDA ( as of May 2016) has recently caught up with a multitude of other sources and found that "the effect of food store access on dietary quality may be limited" and in many cases, is "negligible." When the USDA report says "limited" they mean very limited. The study concluded that when food choices are less constrained (i.e., when low-income shoppers experience an increase in choices for food stores) "low-access consumers purchased 0.42 percent more fruits, 0.55 percent more vegetables, 0.61 percent more low-fat milk products, and 0.33 percent less nondiet drinks."

The study did find, not surprisingly, that people will travel further to stores they believe to offer lower-prices. But, this further travel did not lead to significantly improved dietary habits. Indeed, two recent studies showed that putting a new grocery store in the neighborhood did nothing to improve diets:

In a 2015 study, researchers at the Rand Corporation and at collaborating universities interviewed households in a Pittsburgh neighborhood before and after a supermarket opened in 2013 and compared their food purchases and dietary intake with those of households in a Pittsburgh neighborhood similar in demographics and income but without a new store. Residents in the neighborhood with the new store consumed fewer calories overall, less added sugars, and fewer calories from solid fats, alcohol, and added sugars than residents in the neighborhood without a new store.

However, the changes were not associated with regular use of the new store-residents who regularly used the new store had similar diets as residents who did not. The study also found that fruit and vegetable consumption decreased slightly in both neighborhoods.

A similar study of two neighborhoods in Philadelphia-one where a new supermarket opened in 2009 and a similar neighborhood without a new store-was published in 2014 by researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and Penn State University. Residents' perceptions of food accessibility in the neighborhood with the new store improved relative to the control neighborhood, but consumption of fruits and vegetables did not improve.

By the end of the study, the USDA concluded: "These results suggest that improving access to healthful foods by itself will likely not have a major impact on consumer diets or generate major reductions in diet-related disease."

Of course, there may be numerous characteristics common among low-income households that increase one's risk of obesity. Knowledge about nutrition, for example, is likely a real factor. However, even with this, we cannot simply blame low-income status. After all, immigrants - many of whom are very low-income - tend to eat healthier than the native population.

It's time to get rid of the "food desert" argument.

Indeed, if a "food desert" is defined as a place where low-income houses are unable to physically access presumably far-away grocery stores, then we're left doubting whether or not food deserts exist at all. As the USDA report admits:

The FoodAPS data revealed that about 9 of 10 households in the 2012-13 survey usually shopped for groceries at a supermarket or supercenter, regardless of their participation in food and nutrition assistance programs or their food security status. Roughly 90 percent of households that participate in USDA's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) or the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) did their primary grocery shopping in a supermarket or supercenter.

FoodAPS data also show that households often bypass the nearest supermarket to obtain groceries. The average straight-line distance to the nearest supermarket was 2.1 miles, but households traveled an average of 3.8 miles to get to the store in which they do their usual shopping. This behavior was consistent across transportations modes; even those who walk, bike, or take public transit traveled, on average, farther than the distance to the nearest supermarket to do their primary food shopping. This study suggests that most U.S. households are not limited by the food stores in their own neighborhoods.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
USDA: People Make the Choice to Eat Unhealthy Food

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Last week, I examined how obesity among low-income households cannot be explained by simply claiming that low-income people don't have access to healthy food. It is claimed that supermarkets and other places that sell food are too far away from low-income neighborhoods for households to access them.

# data[].attributes.body
More followers means more people know who you are and you have put your name out into the world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
His lifelong secret now out in the open, Bruce Jenner faces different reactions to his transition from his famous family. Subscribe now for instant access to all the details on the divided Kardashians and Jenners, only in PEOPLE.

For more than half of his life Bruce Jenner has kept the deeply personal secret that he's transgender from his family and friends, but, after three marriages and six children, the 65-year-old reality star made the life-changing decision to open up about his transition.

"He had enough of trying to fool himself and others," a source who recently spent time with Jenner tells PEOPLE.

"Once he realized he was done taking a backseat in his own life, he knew it was time to be honest with himself."

But the decision didn't come easy for the former Olympian.

"He suffered from feeling a lot of shame about this for a lot of years," adds the source. "Just recently, to see a growing acceptance for transgender people. It lifted a tremendous burden off him in terms of feeling alone."

Another big factor? The end of his 23-year marriage to wife Kris.

"She was in charge, and he was just along for the ride," adds the source. "It made him feel like he didn't have to worry so much about his identity, who he was."

But nearly three years ago, around the time of his son Brandon's wedding, Jenner knew he could no longer stay silent.

"He had enough of letting other people dictate how he was going to live."

Despite considerable hurt on both the Kardashian and Jenner sides regarding his decision, the decathlete's children support him.

"He seems happy that he can live his life the way he feels he's intended to," says a family insider. " His kids all love him very much and would do anything for him."
For much more on how Bruce Jenner's family is handling his transgender journey, pick up this week's issue of PEOPLE, on newsstands now
Behind PEOPLE's Cover: Bruce Jenner's Family Divided

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bruce Jenner Becoming a Woman: Why He Revealed a 50-Year Secret

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
His lifelong secret now out in the open, Bruce Jenner faces different reactions to his transition from his famous family. Subscribe now for instant access to all the details on the divided Kardashians and Jenners, only in PEOPLE.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Is this the land history promised? This field of play. Where the dream of fairness and mutual respect lives on. Where you are defined by actions, not your looks and beliefs. For too long these ideals have taken refuge inside these lines. Equality should have no boundaries.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ads Use Our Emotions To Have Us Buy/Give to Them

# data[].attributes.subject
Ads Use Our Emotions To Have Us Buy/Give to Them

# data[].attributes.body
"I bust the windows out ya car
After I saw you laying next to her
I didn't wanna but I took my turn
I'm glad I did it cause you had to learn." - Jazmine Sullivan, Bust Your Windows

# data[].attributes.headline
Girls Can Do Just As Good As Boys (and sometimes better)

# data[].attributes.subject
Girls Can Do Just As Good As Boys (and sometimes better)

# data[].attributes.body
"Sometimes they are full-fledged members of the community. Some entered the sex industry as a part of an economic strategy for supporting themselves and their families, getting by in lean economic times or realizing other economic goals." - Kathleen Peratis, JD, Chair of the Women's Rights Division of Human Rights Watch, in Insight on the News