It finally happened. Took a lot longer than I expected, but it finally happened. Society has risen up against a marginally suggestive, and therefore offensive, Christmas song. Baby, It's Cold Outside has become the season's punching bag, much to the relief of Starbucks.
Yeah, yeah - debates are ongoing as to the true meaning. An English-teacher, tumblr user teachingwithcoffeetumblr, breaks things down in a very plausible and meaningful way. The song itself was first used in pop culture for the movie Neptune's Daughter (1949), and at that time, romantic relationships were vastly different. As teachingwithcoffee points out, women at the time lacked sexual and reproductive agency, so admitting that they wanted to be intimate with someone to whom they were not married was something no one had yet figured out how to discuss.
But here we are, 69 years on, and now having that discussion about whether that song is appropriate or not. I agree that the superficial value of the lyrics runs afoul of growing social conscience. Perhaps ten years ago, I would have still chuckled at the idea that a guy was seemingly trying to coerce a single woman into bed. It was normal, and I would also have not regarded that song as the rape-anthem that it seems to be receiving now. Now is very different.
But why?
Social context... I am of a generation that warns girls to look out for dangerous and predatory boys. There's a good reason for that. The reported instances of rape are heartrendingly common, while unreported incidences seem to outweigh those by a healthy margin.
If our recognition of rape culture tells us anything, it's that consent no longer has the luxury of ambiguity. We can't jokingly say that there's something "in this drink" to excuse sexual interest while preserving innocence. It is a vestige of a deeply inequitable time when women were still victims, even when they weren't, because they couldn't be allowed to make the choice for themselves. Frankly, I feel that the radio stations who are banning the song are doing the right thing, but maybe for the wrong reason.
Stepping outside of rape culture for a minute, let's go back and focus on the social stigma of women who own their sexuality. We have historically called them hussies, sluts, tramps... anything that would demean their self-actualization. We have treated this like a disease for decades, generations - hell, millenia! So why are we continuing?
If teachingwithcoffee is right, then the female voice in the song doesn't have the right or ability to say she's interested, and that's just wrong. If the public outcry is right, the male voice is intent on subjugating a woman who is vocally protesting the situation, and this is equally wrong. Why should we be propagating either of these ideas? Because it's tradition? Well, that's bullshit.
We are faced with a reality where people are violated by repeat offenders that spark #MeToo movements. We watch frat boys walk away from the judiciary with a stinging wrist. We watch entire films that revolve around that haze of confusion that follows a roofied drink. How is it then okay to hold a holiday tune unaccountable for its expired relevance and confusing message?
Neither side of this coin is okay, but nobody really wants to address that. It's entirely possible for both sides to be wrong for very different reasons. Apologists who want it to continue playing are ignoring the public epidemic that has 1-in-6 women being victimized, 80% of whom will experience a completed rape. Alarmists who want this song pulled are also ignoring the oblique agency displayed in the song.
Rape culture AND sexual autonomy both need to be publicly discussed. This song is suitable as a springboard for both, and which one you discuss is determined by what you think it's saying. Both messages are bad. There's nothing wrong with taking this little ditty out of the playlist while we parse the differences between non-protest and consent. No one is hurt by its silence. You'll have plenty of non-Christian folklore and tradition to revel in this holidays season, courtesy of Bing Crosby and Burl Ives.
Wednesday, December 12, 2018
Monday, June 4, 2018
Solo: A Star Wars Soap Opera
The internet has been murmuring about this film for a few weeks now. People are pointing out the low box office, brand fatigue, and a number of other shortcomings. Admittedly after seeing it, I didn't share the wow factor that I feel I should have. Yes, Rogue and Solo have given us a look at the more tangential dealings of the Star Wars universe. They run in parallel with the main hero's-story arc of the original three films, filling in valuable blanks, but lacking the unified vision that would have made them hits.
By their own admission, producers and writers of the new films placed themselves into creative bubbles expressly for the purpose of preserving their vision from fan interference. I do respect that creative process, but that's better reserved for reboots and spin-offs, which these are not. Blinding the creative minds to the cultural institution that is now four decades in the making was a commercial blunder.
Among the more eye-rolling issues is the one of Lando Calrissian's sexuality. To which I say, "so what..?"
There is currently a debate going over whether it was a mistake on the part of writers in making it primary to his character. For the record, I don't think it is primary at all. In fact, it wasn't until I engaged in a discussion over the pansexuality that I gave it any real thought. Did that make me insensitive? I don't think so. I mean, I didn't think ill of it when seeing it. I just found it to be an interesting character dynamic, as well as entirely implicit.
Writers and producers have outright said that they wished they could have gotten a stronger LGBT character into the film. But I have to call party foul. Deliberately inserting a character that meets a specific demographic for the purpose of visibility isn't progressive thinking. It's pandering. This is where we find the origins of the "token black guy", which is generally found offensive, except we're trading it for the "token LGBTQ".
Lando's suggested pansexuality is a gimmick in that it adds nothing to the plot of the film. With or without it, the story is unchanged because the story isn't about Lando. It's about Han. Han's romantic entanglement is both heterosexual and a plot device. It serves as the entire motivation for everything else that occurs in the film. Were the tables turned and the movie was about how Lando pursued a promise to a love interest, and that pursuit added up to perils and theatrical explosions, then it would be relevant.
As it is, it's a tacked on detail that, while interesting and character defining, was only put in so that the creative team could pat themselves on the back. CNN even sprung to the defense of the creative team by paraphrasing Han Solo in saying that these things can't always be done "by committee." Sure, I'll buy that - when you're talking about a original creative work. Solo is not that.
I'm sure this makes me sound horrible, but this isn't even an original idea. Captain Kirk was getting jiggy with aliens well before Kathleen Kennedy took credit for this. You can also stream a film called Galaxina on Amazon Prime (for the record, I advise against it) if you want to see humans and robots with complicated love lives. Or for the Trekkers, human/inorganic romance is more thoroughly addressed in the TNG episode called "In Theory" (S4:E25).
Before we make the mistake of thinking that LGBTQ-phobia had anything to do with the poor performance at the box office, let's remember that there were fan-community expectations that this would flop. Those predictions were being issued months in advance of the release, or the claims of inclusion from Disney brass.
So does Disney deserve any credit here? I just don't think so. They didn't even do anything revolutionary, but still took the time to point out their own accomplishment. Self-aggrandizing is something that doesn't mix well with the Star Wars universe. It's about danger and sacrifice, usually for the sake of stopping self-aggrandizing antagonists. So sitting at the keyboard now, both as a fan and consumer, I am intensely aware that it is the characters who manipulate the fervor of the crowd for their own gains that get blown up or dropped in reactor cores in this universe.
No, no I'm not advocating that anyone die over this. But the aptly phrased "strip mining" of the Star Wars universe (thank you, CNN) is becoming obvious. Episode VII was a thinly veiled retelling of Episode IV. Episode VIII was really an insult to fans, about which even Mark Hamill was outspoken. Solo became a self-congratulatory cameo to social progress that was better addressed by Modern Family, Glee, and more anime than you would think. But you know who doesn't care that Lando is pansexual? Pansexual people...
Disney wants recognition. That's what's wrong with Solo. This movie was made for them and the box office reflects that.
By their own admission, producers and writers of the new films placed themselves into creative bubbles expressly for the purpose of preserving their vision from fan interference. I do respect that creative process, but that's better reserved for reboots and spin-offs, which these are not. Blinding the creative minds to the cultural institution that is now four decades in the making was a commercial blunder.
Among the more eye-rolling issues is the one of Lando Calrissian's sexuality.
There is currently a debate going over whether it was a mistake on the part of writers in making it primary to his character. For the record, I don't think it is primary at all. In fact, it wasn't until I engaged in a discussion over the pansexuality that I gave it any real thought. Did that make me insensitive? I don't think so. I mean, I didn't think ill of it when seeing it. I just found it to be an interesting character dynamic, as well as entirely implicit.
Writers and producers have outright said that they wished they could have gotten a stronger LGBT character into the film. But I have to call party foul. Deliberately inserting a character that meets a specific demographic for the purpose of visibility isn't progressive thinking. It's pandering. This is where we find the origins of the "token black guy", which is generally found offensive, except we're trading it for the "token LGBTQ".
Lando's suggested pansexuality is a gimmick in that it adds nothing to the plot of the film. With or without it, the story is unchanged because the story isn't about Lando. It's about Han. Han's romantic entanglement is both heterosexual and a plot device. It serves as the entire motivation for everything else that occurs in the film. Were the tables turned and the movie was about how Lando pursued a promise to a love interest, and that pursuit added up to perils and theatrical explosions, then it would be relevant.
As it is, it's a tacked on detail that, while interesting and character defining, was only put in so that the creative team could pat themselves on the back. CNN even sprung to the defense of the creative team by paraphrasing Han Solo in saying that these things can't always be done "by committee." Sure, I'll buy that - when you're talking about a original creative work. Solo is not that.
I'm sure this makes me sound horrible, but this isn't even an original idea. Captain Kirk was getting jiggy with aliens well before Kathleen Kennedy took credit for this. You can also stream a film called Galaxina on Amazon Prime (for the record, I advise against it) if you want to see humans and robots with complicated love lives. Or for the Trekkers, human/inorganic romance is more thoroughly addressed in the TNG episode called "In Theory" (S4:E25).
Before we make the mistake of thinking that LGBTQ-phobia had anything to do with the poor performance at the box office, let's remember that there were fan-community expectations that this would flop. Those predictions were being issued months in advance of the release, or the claims of inclusion from Disney brass.
So does Disney deserve any credit here? I just don't think so. They didn't even do anything revolutionary, but still took the time to point out their own accomplishment. Self-aggrandizing is something that doesn't mix well with the Star Wars universe. It's about danger and sacrifice, usually for the sake of stopping self-aggrandizing antagonists. So sitting at the keyboard now, both as a fan and consumer, I am intensely aware that it is the characters who manipulate the fervor of the crowd for their own gains that get blown up or dropped in reactor cores in this universe.
No, no I'm not advocating that anyone die over this. But the aptly phrased "strip mining" of the Star Wars universe (thank you, CNN) is becoming obvious. Episode VII was a thinly veiled retelling of Episode IV. Episode VIII was really an insult to fans, about which even Mark Hamill was outspoken. Solo became a self-congratulatory cameo to social progress that was better addressed by Modern Family, Glee, and more anime than you would think. But you know who doesn't care that Lando is pansexual? Pansexual people...
Disney wants recognition. That's what's wrong with Solo. This movie was made for them and the box office reflects that.
Wednesday, May 10, 2017
The God Riddle
Marcus Aurelius is often credited with the most succinct evaluation of divine wrath and human existence:
The Judeo-Christian tradition often talks about invoking God's wrath. This ranges from heavenly fireballs to floods to bears eating children. The Lord, your God, is a jealous God. Fearing Him is a sure way to make sure we don't misstep and anger him.
The world is currently struggling with the idea that God is a discrete entity. The religious insist that He is, even though there is no scientifically qualified evidence to the fact. Atheists believe that He is not, but have no evidence either. The atheist movement is growing, and will likely continue to grow as knowledge becomes more easily disseminated by the internet. The biggest detriment to the creationist slant is that scientists are continually proving the biblical narrative to be largely inaccurate. Given enough time and learning, God will lose.
God will lose because we regard Him contextually. He, to us, is a conscious being. He knows all. He sees all. He had a plan for everyone and everything. We have our own consciousness and agency. God, therefore, must as well. That is all we can grasp.
Science is pretty uniformly on board with the Big Bang Theory. The Red Shift is clear cut evidence of an expanding universe. A universe in the process of expansion is bigger now than when I began writing this sentence. That said, go far enough back into history and it is a foregone conclusion that the universe was very small indeed. It may be correct to say that all matter was condensed into an infinitely small space, otherwise called a singularity.
That singularity, as mentioned, contained every atom of every galaxy. You, me, the people on the highway this morning commuting to work, this computer on which I type, and the electricity running it once occupied the same space. In that state, time had no meaning. Time and space are two axes of the same plane. One does not exist without the other. Thus, the singularity of all that the universe would become existed without time or dimension. It was both infinite and without form at the same time.
Within that singularity was also contained every possibility, every conscious being (or soul, if you wish) that could ever exist, and all knowledge that could be accumulated. Every thought that could be had, choice that could be made was first part of the singularity. And of that limitless potential and understanding, we were scattered into the existence we know now, to take what form we would. The singularity had been the giver of life, the bringer of death, and omnipotent over all that could exist.
What if... just what if the singularity was God.
While the narrative that we've become familiar with through religious tradition typically includes conscious and deliberate design, it can neither be proved nor disproved that the singularity possessed thought. The narrative may only have been a fabrication to explain existence to ourselves, but it is not in conflict with this possibility.
It also allows for atheism. Presupposing that there is sentient life elsewhere in the universe, it could easily be surmised that they are not Christians. Neither are they any of the other 4,200 other religions in the world, if they are religious at all. The singularity ceased to be when it gave birth to all that we know now. It could not bring us into being without destroying itself. The Alpha and the Omega are no more.
It's an intriguing thought. At least it is to me...
The leap isn't even a difficult one to make. Creation myths usually include one all powerful, or all encompassing deity. The singularity fits that role as being all powerful (containing all the energy in the universe) and all knowing (aforementioned aggregate of all information). The all powerful was simply the most powerful creative force. None of the singularity's offspring will ever be as powerful as it was. And only as the singularity could the repository for all knowledge be in one place; a feat which the offspring can never achieve.
As corporeal entities, we are blessed with inherent limitations. We ourselves are a conglomeration of energy, information, and mass that was once part of the singularity. There is nothing greater than the singularity to which we can aspire. Doesn't that meet the definition of "God"?
Live a good life. If there are Gods and they are just, then They will not care about how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you lived by. If there are Gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship Them. If there are no Gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.It s a very neat and tidy philosophy. It does not claim or deny the existence of deities. It simply removes them as the motivating force for being a decent human. Nearly every organized religion has some framework of acceptable and holy behavior that adherents attempt to emulate. For the most part, religions tell us not to victimize others. That's not really a bad plan or even difficult to follow.
The Judeo-Christian tradition often talks about invoking God's wrath. This ranges from heavenly fireballs to floods to bears eating children. The Lord, your God, is a jealous God. Fearing Him is a sure way to make sure we don't misstep and anger him.
The world is currently struggling with the idea that God is a discrete entity. The religious insist that He is, even though there is no scientifically qualified evidence to the fact. Atheists believe that He is not, but have no evidence either. The atheist movement is growing, and will likely continue to grow as knowledge becomes more easily disseminated by the internet. The biggest detriment to the creationist slant is that scientists are continually proving the biblical narrative to be largely inaccurate. Given enough time and learning, God will lose.
God will lose because we regard Him contextually. He, to us, is a conscious being. He knows all. He sees all. He had a plan for everyone and everything. We have our own consciousness and agency. God, therefore, must as well. That is all we can grasp.
Science is pretty uniformly on board with the Big Bang Theory. The Red Shift is clear cut evidence of an expanding universe. A universe in the process of expansion is bigger now than when I began writing this sentence. That said, go far enough back into history and it is a foregone conclusion that the universe was very small indeed. It may be correct to say that all matter was condensed into an infinitely small space, otherwise called a singularity.
That singularity, as mentioned, contained every atom of every galaxy. You, me, the people on the highway this morning commuting to work, this computer on which I type, and the electricity running it once occupied the same space. In that state, time had no meaning. Time and space are two axes of the same plane. One does not exist without the other. Thus, the singularity of all that the universe would become existed without time or dimension. It was both infinite and without form at the same time.
Within that singularity was also contained every possibility, every conscious being (or soul, if you wish) that could ever exist, and all knowledge that could be accumulated. Every thought that could be had, choice that could be made was first part of the singularity. And of that limitless potential and understanding, we were scattered into the existence we know now, to take what form we would. The singularity had been the giver of life, the bringer of death, and omnipotent over all that could exist.
What if... just what if the singularity was God.
While the narrative that we've become familiar with through religious tradition typically includes conscious and deliberate design, it can neither be proved nor disproved that the singularity possessed thought. The narrative may only have been a fabrication to explain existence to ourselves, but it is not in conflict with this possibility.
It also allows for atheism. Presupposing that there is sentient life elsewhere in the universe, it could easily be surmised that they are not Christians. Neither are they any of the other 4,200 other religions in the world, if they are religious at all. The singularity ceased to be when it gave birth to all that we know now. It could not bring us into being without destroying itself. The Alpha and the Omega are no more.
It's an intriguing thought. At least it is to me...
The leap isn't even a difficult one to make. Creation myths usually include one all powerful, or all encompassing deity. The singularity fits that role as being all powerful (containing all the energy in the universe) and all knowing (aforementioned aggregate of all information). The all powerful was simply the most powerful creative force. None of the singularity's offspring will ever be as powerful as it was. And only as the singularity could the repository for all knowledge be in one place; a feat which the offspring can never achieve.
As corporeal entities, we are blessed with inherent limitations. We ourselves are a conglomeration of energy, information, and mass that was once part of the singularity. There is nothing greater than the singularity to which we can aspire. Doesn't that meet the definition of "God"?
Monday, May 8, 2017
Chronic[les]: The Drugged Driving Fallacy
An immediate and enthusiastic cry from the anti-marijuana camp when states began to legalize recreational weed was that we would be waylaid with scores of Driving Under the Influence of Drugs (DUID) arrests and/or accidents. People correlated the availability of legal weed with an expected uptick in DUIDs, and that's not an unreasonable conclusion to draw. However, much of our legislation is based upon what we think will occur rather than actual history. Legislators, from any perspective, are struggling to keep up with, and define, the problem of the DUID.
CNN has published another riveting article on the evolution of marijuana culture in the United States, this time citing a published study that examines the relationship between fatal accidents and drug intoxication. So here are the brass tax, as it were.
Page 7 of the report (press release) has an infographic that breaks things down rather succinctly:
This is the problem the states have with defining DUID. Testing positive for THC (psychoactive chemical in weed) only speaks to the presence of the drug. It is not conclusive of intoxication, proximity of use to the time of the accident, or causative relationship. The study is conspicuously silent on the issue of alcohol intoxication coexisting with suspected drug intoxication. Because the half life of THC in the blood stream is between four and twelve hours, there is an exceptional window in which to label a person as "impaired" when they may in fact have been well beyond any intoxicating effects.
Alcohol, on the other hand, metabolizes at a predictable rate with predictable effects on driving abilities. Any given person at a given Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) will have predictable symptoms. It can also be calculated how quickly a person will be over those symptoms, so even if a blood test occurs well after an event, determining BAC at the time is simple middle-school math.
The NHTSA, who performed this study, has a remarkable amount to say which was not included in the linked press release. Consider the following:
The NHTSA study quite clearly quantifies the risk of cannabis-only related crashes as "slight." Complimenting that is a 2012 study by Rune Elvik, Risk of Road Accident Associated With the Use of Drugs. Elvik found that the ratio of fatal accidents occurring among cannabis users was 1.31:1. That's practically an even chance. Alcohol, by comparison, is at least a 3:1 ratio in the best performing demographics (age 35 and above), and as high as 14:1 among teens.
The repeated conclusion is that marijuana intoxication does not present a significant risk to driver safety. It's groundless to claim otherwise. The scientific data just doesn't support the assertion that stoned drivers are dying in any significant numbers. That warning cry mentioned at the outset is just without foundation. Was it a good idea to be cautious? Certainly! But it just didn't manifest the way the nay-sayers feared. Advocacy groups, however, rarely have the humility to label themselves as alarmists, let alone wrong.
We are all familiar with the effects of drunk driving. That has been very well studied for decades. The experience we rely on in determining the threat presented to the public happens to be the only tool in the toolbox, unfortunately. And to police who only have a hammer, every driver looks like they need to be nailed.
Of course we all know that it's unwise to operate a car when our senses are affected. We learn to drive with unaltered sensory perceptions. It is only reasonable to conclude that any change to that presents a different risk. However, there are chemical and non-chemical distractions in this world that far eclipse the risks associated with marijuana intoxication.
The risks associated with drunk driving, texting and driving, and teen driving don't prompt us to outlaw booze, cell phones, or young people. Compounding the problem defining intoxication is that the interim demands some kind of stop-gap measure. Driving impaired is negligent to the safety of others, which is deserving of adjudication. But the determination of negligence can only be made by law enforcement who have only the most arbitrary of guidelines. I would personally like to think that if I were subject to legal penalty, my infractions would be very well defined.
Such as it is, the law and good citizenship demands that we do something, even if it's incorrectly scaled.
CNN has published another riveting article on the evolution of marijuana culture in the United States, this time citing a published study that examines the relationship between fatal accidents and drug intoxication. So here are the brass tax, as it were.
Page 7 of the report (press release) has an infographic that breaks things down rather succinctly:
- 57% of fatally injured drivers were tested for drugs
- 34.3% of those tested were positive for drugs listed in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), which includes marijuana
- 35.6% of those who tested positive for FARS listed drugs were positive for marijuana
- Reporting is based on the results of blood tests taken after fatalities occurred
This is the problem the states have with defining DUID. Testing positive for THC (psychoactive chemical in weed) only speaks to the presence of the drug. It is not conclusive of intoxication, proximity of use to the time of the accident, or causative relationship. The study is conspicuously silent on the issue of alcohol intoxication coexisting with suspected drug intoxication. Because the half life of THC in the blood stream is between four and twelve hours, there is an exceptional window in which to label a person as "impaired" when they may in fact have been well beyond any intoxicating effects.
Alcohol, on the other hand, metabolizes at a predictable rate with predictable effects on driving abilities. Any given person at a given Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) will have predictable symptoms. It can also be calculated how quickly a person will be over those symptoms, so even if a blood test occurs well after an event, determining BAC at the time is simple middle-school math.
The NHTSA, who performed this study, has a remarkable amount to say which was not included in the linked press release. Consider the following:
- 23,000 vehicle fatalities in 2015
- 17,000 involved the death of the driver
- 6,400 drivers had a BAC over .08%
The NHTSA study quite clearly quantifies the risk of cannabis-only related crashes as "slight." Complimenting that is a 2012 study by Rune Elvik, Risk of Road Accident Associated With the Use of Drugs. Elvik found that the ratio of fatal accidents occurring among cannabis users was 1.31:1. That's practically an even chance. Alcohol, by comparison, is at least a 3:1 ratio in the best performing demographics (age 35 and above), and as high as 14:1 among teens.
The repeated conclusion is that marijuana intoxication does not present a significant risk to driver safety. It's groundless to claim otherwise. The scientific data just doesn't support the assertion that stoned drivers are dying in any significant numbers. That warning cry mentioned at the outset is just without foundation. Was it a good idea to be cautious? Certainly! But it just didn't manifest the way the nay-sayers feared. Advocacy groups, however, rarely have the humility to label themselves as alarmists, let alone wrong.
We are all familiar with the effects of drunk driving. That has been very well studied for decades. The experience we rely on in determining the threat presented to the public happens to be the only tool in the toolbox, unfortunately. And to police who only have a hammer, every driver looks like they need to be nailed.
Of course we all know that it's unwise to operate a car when our senses are affected. We learn to drive with unaltered sensory perceptions. It is only reasonable to conclude that any change to that presents a different risk. However, there are chemical and non-chemical distractions in this world that far eclipse the risks associated with marijuana intoxication.
The risks associated with drunk driving, texting and driving, and teen driving don't prompt us to outlaw booze, cell phones, or young people. Compounding the problem defining intoxication is that the interim demands some kind of stop-gap measure. Driving impaired is negligent to the safety of others, which is deserving of adjudication. But the determination of negligence can only be made by law enforcement who have only the most arbitrary of guidelines. I would personally like to think that if I were subject to legal penalty, my infractions would be very well defined.
Such as it is, the law and good citizenship demands that we do something, even if it's incorrectly scaled.
Friday, April 14, 2017
Chronic[les]: But Not for the Gander
It seems that with each iteration of this series, I become a little more incredulous of America drug policy. Today, I'm struggling with the discovery of unlabeled and unbottled Oxycontin in an abandoned rental property being a possible felony. Within the last few weeks, the tenant of the rental died of [gasp] a drug overdose. During the eviction of his remaining earthly possessions, these pills were discovered and identified. Oxy, being a Schedule 1 drug, is illegal to even touch if they are not prescribed to you.
There's an old adage that "possession is nine-tenths of the law". This could be an exaggeration, but it's quite clear that much of our legal code revolves around who is currently in control of objects or real and intrinsic value, to what degree that control is lawful, and what rights and authorities that control grants the person in possession. Obviously, since is is legal to prescribe Oxycontin in all fifty states, it is Federally legal to have Oxy on your person. If that prescription doesn't apply to you, you are susceptible to all kinds of legal troubles.
As you know, my worldly and savvy reader, Oxy is an opioid. Rush Limbaugh made it famous during his on-air admission to being addicted to it. It's become a pop buzz-word and so notorious that it even has comedic legs. You may not know that this semi-synthetic chemical dates back to 1917 and shares a long and sordid history with opiates of all shades. At this point, it's not really necessary to enumerate all of the bad things we know about opiates, but be aware that it falls within that scope of highly addictive substances.
I did become familiar with something new in researching the legalities of Oxy possession; opioid-induced hyperalgesia. This is a condition that arises through prolonged use of opiates and is characterized by hypersensitivity to pain stimulus. This "paradoxical" syndrome is poorly understood, but well documented. Unfortunately, it is difficult to distinguish from simple dose-tolerance, which can lead to heavier prescriptions and more certainty of addiction.
Seriously, I'm kinda sitting here at a loss for why this drug is even on the market. Yes, the government has a long and tumultuous romance with opiates. They aren't going to give up on that anytime soon. They have long preferred the company of the devil they know. But I think it illustrates the imbalance in drug policy when something so acutely addictive and laden with intolerable side effects is as available as the nearest scrip pad, yet marijuana carries a wholesale ban without any of these detrimental characteristics.
I have tried to imagine this in terms politicians would understand. No, wait... not politicians. I prefer framers of the Constitution. Those people were at least idealistic. But it occurs to me that the dichotomy between the legality of Oxy and illegality of weed is comparable to creative rephrasing of the 2nd Amendment. Imagine, please, that the government had a long history of allowing private citizens to own cannons, but strictly regulated butter knives. Both are classified as weapons; the potential for misuse of the former being a) orders-of-magnitude more likely, and b) infinitely more catastrophic. Inexplicably, however, the government stubbornly refuses to give up on cannons while all but eradicating butter knives.
Is this a logical policy?
I certainly don't think so, but perhaps I'm exaggerating. Previously, I've discussed the medical facts of marijuana use. You may have read about the extremely low rate of dependence, the absolute absence of dangerous withdrawal symptoms, or the demonstrated inability to induce overdose. The more I learn about opiates, the more astounded I am at our elected leaders for continuing this relationship with opium.
CNN published an article on March 20, 2017 that equates length of prescription duration to likelihood of addiction. If you'd like to skip this paragraph, let me sum up: The longer one is prescribed opioid pain treatment, the more likely they are to become addicted. If you guffawed and said, "duh...", then we're on the same page. The rest of what follows will not be enlightening. Even with only a single day of use, there is a 6% chance that the patient would have found a way to be using a year later. After 31 days of prescribed use, that number jumped to 30%. Extended release opioids mitigate that some degree, but the rate of addiction remains high.
The end result is that 20% of people who start out on an opioid regimen will still be using opioids three years later. That brings one pertinent fact to the forefront... opioids are for short-term pain management. Extended exposure, as evidenced by the information above, leads to more addiction, more illicit drug use, and more negative health impacts.
I genuinely wish this was as simple as it sounds. Sadly, it is easier to develop and approve formulas that include opium than it is to establish medical validity of a product that requires no tampering. Medical marijuana, however, is now evaluated through the lens of knowledge acquired by our mismanagement of opium.
I have nothing to equate this with except ignorance. Coming back to how I lead off this entry, it is ludicrous that drugs like Oxy are handed out as easily as they are, the pitfalls being well known and documented, yet there is no accepted medical use for marijuana...
The fuck...?
There's an old adage that "possession is nine-tenths of the law". This could be an exaggeration, but it's quite clear that much of our legal code revolves around who is currently in control of objects or real and intrinsic value, to what degree that control is lawful, and what rights and authorities that control grants the person in possession. Obviously, since is is legal to prescribe Oxycontin in all fifty states, it is Federally legal to have Oxy on your person. If that prescription doesn't apply to you, you are susceptible to all kinds of legal troubles.
As you know, my worldly and savvy reader, Oxy is an opioid. Rush Limbaugh made it famous during his on-air admission to being addicted to it. It's become a pop buzz-word and so notorious that it even has comedic legs. You may not know that this semi-synthetic chemical dates back to 1917 and shares a long and sordid history with opiates of all shades. At this point, it's not really necessary to enumerate all of the bad things we know about opiates, but be aware that it falls within that scope of highly addictive substances.
I did become familiar with something new in researching the legalities of Oxy possession; opioid-induced hyperalgesia. This is a condition that arises through prolonged use of opiates and is characterized by hypersensitivity to pain stimulus. This "paradoxical" syndrome is poorly understood, but well documented. Unfortunately, it is difficult to distinguish from simple dose-tolerance, which can lead to heavier prescriptions and more certainty of addiction.
Seriously, I'm kinda sitting here at a loss for why this drug is even on the market. Yes, the government has a long and tumultuous romance with opiates. They aren't going to give up on that anytime soon. They have long preferred the company of the devil they know. But I think it illustrates the imbalance in drug policy when something so acutely addictive and laden with intolerable side effects is as available as the nearest scrip pad, yet marijuana carries a wholesale ban without any of these detrimental characteristics.
I have tried to imagine this in terms politicians would understand. No, wait... not politicians. I prefer framers of the Constitution. Those people were at least idealistic. But it occurs to me that the dichotomy between the legality of Oxy and illegality of weed is comparable to creative rephrasing of the 2nd Amendment. Imagine, please, that the government had a long history of allowing private citizens to own cannons, but strictly regulated butter knives. Both are classified as weapons; the potential for misuse of the former being a) orders-of-magnitude more likely, and b) infinitely more catastrophic. Inexplicably, however, the government stubbornly refuses to give up on cannons while all but eradicating butter knives.
Is this a logical policy?
I certainly don't think so, but perhaps I'm exaggerating. Previously, I've discussed the medical facts of marijuana use. You may have read about the extremely low rate of dependence, the absolute absence of dangerous withdrawal symptoms, or the demonstrated inability to induce overdose. The more I learn about opiates, the more astounded I am at our elected leaders for continuing this relationship with opium.
CNN published an article on March 20, 2017 that equates length of prescription duration to likelihood of addiction. If you'd like to skip this paragraph, let me sum up: The longer one is prescribed opioid pain treatment, the more likely they are to become addicted. If you guffawed and said, "duh...", then we're on the same page. The rest of what follows will not be enlightening. Even with only a single day of use, there is a 6% chance that the patient would have found a way to be using a year later. After 31 days of prescribed use, that number jumped to 30%. Extended release opioids mitigate that some degree, but the rate of addiction remains high.
The end result is that 20% of people who start out on an opioid regimen will still be using opioids three years later. That brings one pertinent fact to the forefront... opioids are for short-term pain management. Extended exposure, as evidenced by the information above, leads to more addiction, more illicit drug use, and more negative health impacts.
I genuinely wish this was as simple as it sounds. Sadly, it is easier to develop and approve formulas that include opium than it is to establish medical validity of a product that requires no tampering. Medical marijuana, however, is now evaluated through the lens of knowledge acquired by our mismanagement of opium.
I have nothing to equate this with except ignorance. Coming back to how I lead off this entry, it is ludicrous that drugs like Oxy are handed out as easily as they are, the pitfalls being well known and documented, yet there is no accepted medical use for marijuana...
The fuck...?
Wednesday, March 15, 2017
It's Not What You Think
Back in my days working for St. Louis University, I got to roam the campus as part of my job. I've been to the Dean's office, cleaned up porn spam for Jesuits, and accidentally walked into an autopsy lab. You just see shit. A lot of it is accidental.
Following freshman-week, the quad was packed with young coeds heading to the pool. My work partner and I overheard a heated conversation between two students, in which one of them was obviously accused of cheating. We chuckled knowingly about it. I mean, who among us hasn't been on the wrong end of anything from a lingering glance to a greater indiscretion?
My partner, Justin, related a story in which he had gone to a party and managed to hook up with a girl that he didn't otherwise know. Most stories end right there, but it turns out she had a boyfriend who came looking for Justin after finding out. There was bluster and demands for blood, to which Justin simply shrugged and said, "I'm not the one who cheated on you..."
The boyfriend, silenced by the retort, could only leave in embarrassment. Justin was one hundred percent correct. Whatever quarrel the boyfriend had, it was with his girl. She wasn't magically seduced, left senseless and unable to resist. She just made a bad call. Going after the person she made the bad call with was a misdirection of anger, and Justin rightly called it out.
Having seen the recent Facebook comment that "I don't mess with girls who are taken", I got to thinking about this issue again. Cheating is not what you think it is. Cheating is what your significant other thinks it is.
Everyone has a different definition of cheating. They also have a line they don't cross, and a line they expect others not to cross. Generally those are one in the same. But since you are not the one ultimately hurt by your cheating, it falls to the definition owned by the person who is hurt. Your boyfriend, girlfriend, spouse...
That also brings into question the concept of fidelity and its foundation. The Facebook comment I mentioned incorporates the word "taken". I find that significant because it implies ownership. Perhaps not in the legal sense, but we all know what it means. Someone, somewhere, is expecting exclusivity with the person that the Facebook poster mentioned above wont mess with.
Let's get one thing clear right now. If a person is in a relationship, an implicitly or explicitly exclusive relationship, and are still willing to cheat, then they aren't "taken". The person on the other end of that relationship may not know this. It could even be a soul-crushing surprise. In any case, at least one person in the relationship has the wrong idea, possibly even involving deceit.
Where does that leave someone like Justin? Firstly, he had no duty to the boyfriend. He's owed nothing. He gets nothing. Justin only had one question to answer, and that was "do I want to do the sex with this girl?" Clearly he did. He has no vested interest in the other questions that may exist. Secondly, the girl he slept with bears the responsibility of acting outside of the understanding her boyfriend had about their relationship. Thirdly, the boyfriend went after the obvious, however incorrect, person to exact his pound of flesh.
It's a learned behavior to go after the person your guy or girl fooled around with. Why exactly that is, I don't know. We've come to the mistaken impression that consensual sex is the fault of the third party. Except in extreme and criminal acts, that's just not the case. People fuck up all the time. They act selfishly, either by jumping in the sack or not being honest that they are prepared to jump in the sack. In either case, the fault is with the person who keeps someone else in the dark.
Justin didn't lie to anyone. He didn't coerce, manipulate, or bribe this girl into sex. To be mad at him is kinda like being mad at the person in front of you in line for buying the last Big Mac. So if you fuck around on your boo (and about half of you will), remember that there is no responsibility that you can push off onto anyone else. It's your decision; your decision to test their definition.
If you think it's anything other than that, you're mistaken.
Following freshman-week, the quad was packed with young coeds heading to the pool. My work partner and I overheard a heated conversation between two students, in which one of them was obviously accused of cheating. We chuckled knowingly about it. I mean, who among us hasn't been on the wrong end of anything from a lingering glance to a greater indiscretion?
My partner, Justin, related a story in which he had gone to a party and managed to hook up with a girl that he didn't otherwise know. Most stories end right there, but it turns out she had a boyfriend who came looking for Justin after finding out. There was bluster and demands for blood, to which Justin simply shrugged and said, "I'm not the one who cheated on you..."
The boyfriend, silenced by the retort, could only leave in embarrassment. Justin was one hundred percent correct. Whatever quarrel the boyfriend had, it was with his girl. She wasn't magically seduced, left senseless and unable to resist. She just made a bad call. Going after the person she made the bad call with was a misdirection of anger, and Justin rightly called it out.
Having seen the recent Facebook comment that "I don't mess with girls who are taken", I got to thinking about this issue again. Cheating is not what you think it is. Cheating is what your significant other thinks it is.
Everyone has a different definition of cheating. They also have a line they don't cross, and a line they expect others not to cross. Generally those are one in the same. But since you are not the one ultimately hurt by your cheating, it falls to the definition owned by the person who is hurt. Your boyfriend, girlfriend, spouse...
That also brings into question the concept of fidelity and its foundation. The Facebook comment I mentioned incorporates the word "taken". I find that significant because it implies ownership. Perhaps not in the legal sense, but we all know what it means. Someone, somewhere, is expecting exclusivity with the person that the Facebook poster mentioned above wont mess with.
Let's get one thing clear right now. If a person is in a relationship, an implicitly or explicitly exclusive relationship, and are still willing to cheat, then they aren't "taken". The person on the other end of that relationship may not know this. It could even be a soul-crushing surprise. In any case, at least one person in the relationship has the wrong idea, possibly even involving deceit.
Where does that leave someone like Justin? Firstly, he had no duty to the boyfriend. He's owed nothing. He gets nothing. Justin only had one question to answer, and that was "do I want to do the sex with this girl?" Clearly he did. He has no vested interest in the other questions that may exist. Secondly, the girl he slept with bears the responsibility of acting outside of the understanding her boyfriend had about their relationship. Thirdly, the boyfriend went after the obvious, however incorrect, person to exact his pound of flesh.
It's a learned behavior to go after the person your guy or girl fooled around with. Why exactly that is, I don't know. We've come to the mistaken impression that consensual sex is the fault of the third party. Except in extreme and criminal acts, that's just not the case. People fuck up all the time. They act selfishly, either by jumping in the sack or not being honest that they are prepared to jump in the sack. In either case, the fault is with the person who keeps someone else in the dark.
Justin didn't lie to anyone. He didn't coerce, manipulate, or bribe this girl into sex. To be mad at him is kinda like being mad at the person in front of you in line for buying the last Big Mac. So if you fuck around on your boo (and about half of you will), remember that there is no responsibility that you can push off onto anyone else. It's your decision; your decision to test their definition.
If you think it's anything other than that, you're mistaken.
Thursday, March 9, 2017
Chronic[les]: Gateway-Phobia
Author Texas Bix Bender has published a number of books filled with cowboy wisdom. He's said things like, "don't squat with your spurs on", or "there's more ways to skin a can than sticking its head in a boot jack and jerking its tail." One of my favorite little bits of brilliance has stuck with me since I first picked up one of his books over twenty years ago. "Don't be mad a someone who knows more than you. It ain't their fault."
Not to put too fine a point on it, the Trump administration has been mad at a lot of people lately...
Rather recently, Sean Spicer spoke on the issue of marijuana and enforcement of Federal laws in a somewhat sidelong manner. "I think that when you see something like the opioid addiction crisis
blossoming in so many states around this country, the last thing we
should be doing is encouraging people," Spicer said. "There is still a
federal law that we need to abide by."
He's right on the count of the opioid crisis. He's also right about there being Federal laws in place, though he stops short of saying that there will be more Federal resources used to enforce them in states that have legalized it for recreational use. Why he hits the brakes before making a sweeping statement like that, I don't know. Hasn't stopped anyone else in Washington lately.
Dr. Andrew Kolodny, co-director of Opioid Policy Research at Brandeis
University's Heller School for Social Policy and Management, has said "We know why there's an opioid addiction
epidemic. ... I don't think there is really debate. It's
because we have overexposed the population to prescription opioids. The driver behind that increase in opioid addiction has been an
overprescribing of pain medicine, overexposing the population to a
highly addictive drug."
The assertion that marijuana is a gateway drug is a relic from the days
of D.A.R.E. We were told that we'd be surrounded by people pushing drugs
at us. The practical manifestation of that claim resides in those who
ended up in a doctor's office with some variety of persistent pain. A
flowery way of saying that your local smack pusher was most likely your
doctor.
In fact, no causative relationship can be found between marijuana use and subsequent opiate abuse. The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a study that correlates state passage of medical marijana laws with a 24.8% reduction in opioid related overdose deaths between 1999 and 2010. Considering an average of 33,000 opioid overdose deaths in the United States each year, that is not an insignificant number. It's roughly the number of firearm related deaths, and suggesting a therapy that would reduce that number by 24.8% would certainly garner legislative support. That is a quantum leap in mortality prevention, no matter what your stance is.
In fact, no causative relationship can be found between marijuana use and subsequent opiate abuse. The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a study that correlates state passage of medical marijana laws with a 24.8% reduction in opioid related overdose deaths between 1999 and 2010. Considering an average of 33,000 opioid overdose deaths in the United States each year, that is not an insignificant number. It's roughly the number of firearm related deaths, and suggesting a therapy that would reduce that number by 24.8% would certainly garner legislative support. That is a quantum leap in mortality prevention, no matter what your stance is.
The JAMA study also points out that 60% of all opioid overdoses, whether intentional (suicide) or not, occur among patients legitimately prescribed opioid pain management therapies. It is a naked fact that overdoses among purely illicit drug users are in the minority. To Dr. Kolodny's point above, this is a crisis resulting from unchecked medical professionals.
Biological causality is really a better indicator of potential opioid abuse. People who have demonstrated use and abuse of things like alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana are likelier to become addicted to opiates. However, no causal link to marijuana can be established.
In previous articles, I have pointed out the complete vacuum of empirical evidence that ties marijuana to heroin. It is mildly addictive, at best, and functionally impossible to overdose. Some mental impairments have been associated with use in people who used at a young age. However, significant pathologies of any other type are completely absent, save for bronchial irritation (smokers cough).
Evidence doesn't just not support the idea of weed as a gateway drug, but it debunks it with every study published. Science, as Neal DeGrasse Tyson stated in a segment of Cosmos, follows evidence "wherever it leads." Right now, it's not leading to any gateways. So maybe we should quit repeating that disproved rhetoric...
Maybe we should focus on education for a bit instead of indoctrination. We'll have fewer people to be mad at because they know more than us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)