I suppose this thought has always been in the back of my mind, but recently I've been thinking about it more and more. In Massachusetts, the state senate is close to passing a bill that would allow the sale of syringes over the counter; the purpose of this, for those who don't know, is to help prevent the spread of HIV, hepatitis and other diseases among drug users, and through that prevent the spread of it among the rest of the population. 47 other states already do this. Our governor is against it because he thinks it will promote drug use (lol - like a normal citizen is going to start using herion because they can buy a needle. Just like everyone who doesn't like drugs is now a chronic pothead because you can buy rolling papers in convience stores, right?), and will likely veto it if the senate does pass it. It seems ridiculous to me that in a democratic society, in this day and age, that one person has the power to negate a majority decision of the people, or a majority decision of the people's representatives rather, or that one person is "in charge" of an entire state. Similarly, it seems ridiculous that one person has control over the entire executive branch of our country's government. In the judicial and legislative branches there are a group of people deciding; supreme court, senate, congress, state senates, state supreme court, etc. So why do we entrust one person with executive power? Isn't it anti-democratic to have a checks and balances system where one man has as much power as a group of a dozen or of a hundred or more? I have to think that the interests of the people would be better served by having less centralized power in the executive branch, and that it would provide a firmer base of support for our government. So what do you think? Would this actually improve things, or would it just end up being a morass of beaurocracy? Is there any real advantage to having one person in charge of everything, when there is always a huge minority of the country that opposes everything they do?