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.
Wednesday, March 8, 2017
Where Credit is Due: Part 1
Forgive me, please. I must be raw for a moment. I must extend some very intense emotions to those who were on the outside looking in.
As you know, I am now divorced. While that can never be expected to be an easy transition, I am happier, healthier, and more positive. As my friends, I have shared good times with you. Whether to my detriment or credit, I have deliberately not shared this time with you. Not for a lack of trust in your support, mind you, but for an abundance of respect; from which came my resolve to not expose you to my baser inclinations.
In a divorce, there is always the temptation to strike out at your former spouse. I have found this to be repugnant, and my only safeguard is in keeping the more disgusting details to myself. I could not stoop to the level I feared if I did not first have the audience I needed. However you interpret my withdrawal and silence, know that it was to protect our friendship and my integrity.
As the divorce draws to a close, I must thank those who did not repeat the awful things said about me. I know that such things were said because they've been conveyed to me in the most hateful and vitriolic way I can imagine... repeated as gospel by people I once considered my closest friends.
To those who did repeat these awful things, and to whatever extent they were broadcast... fuck you.
My attempts to remain above board with my former spouse have been ignored, glossed over, or downright buried in a dung heap of biased contempt. To even call my behavior "above board" is something of a misnomer since I did not return the treatment I received in-kind. However, I was painted as everything from a cheater to an abuser. I can't even begin to illustrate how untrue that is. But the pure malice that came from the people who believed these things about me was astonishing and pervasive. To this day, I maintain blocks so that certain individuals cannot contact me directly. The same people I dearly loved before all of this began.
In late August of 2016, we had the opportunity to refinance our marital house. Even though divorce had become a certainty, refinancing would still have saved my ex some money on the monthly note, and I was still intent on making her life without me as easy as possible. While she had become impatient about transferring assets out of my name, she also became insistent that we attend the refinance closing separately. The reason why did not become apparent until the day of closing. The title company had requested that we do the paperwork in one sitting so as not to unnecessarily occupy their agent. I arrived at the appointed time and noticed that her vehicle wasn't there. There was one which was a model year newer, but I dismissed it until I saw the license plate...
She had traded in our marital vehicle without my authorization, or the court's, in direct violation of preliminary injunctions. Now I understood why she didn't want us to be there at the same time. I also found that she had started the signing earlier than appointed, which I interpret to mean she hoped to be gone by the time I arrived.
Let me make something abundantly clear. From the day I moved out in March of 2016 through July of that same year, I was supplying my ex with $650 a week in support. That had been my customary contribution to household funds, and before divorce had become certain, I felt it necessary to continue that. Even after it became certain, I continued this support throughout mediation. I was financially unable to have a home of my own because of the overwhelming majority of my check going to a home I could not sleep in.
To the outside world, it simply looked like I was comfortable couch surfing; a professional and irreverent house guest who simply wouldn't leave. Regardless of how upset my hosts may have become, it was never expressed to me directly. All I ever heard was the second-hand lamentations laid upon me by my ex.
Imagine how uncomfortable that would have been, magnify it by infinity and compound it in eternity. That's how uncomfortable that was. And then to find out that she had already taken it upon herself to remove my name from property that wasn't yet hers by the estimation of the court. I requested a renegotiation of the support that we had begun in court. I was at least determined not to pay for her new car while I slept on a couch and drove a borrowed vehicle. How selfish of me...
On August 28th, she angrily interrupted parenting time that I had with my child. She came to the home of my friends to harass and intimidate me into compliance. I had the foresight to take video (youtube link) of the entire exchange. During the conversation (if it can be called that), she threatened to call the police and report my child kidnapped if I didn't return him. When I refused to let her in the house, she frantically rang the doorbell until my friend answered and instructed her to leave. Even so, she forced her way inside and managed to convince my child to leave with her. At the end of our conversation, she struck me, knocking the camera from my hands and ending the recording.
Everything described above is also in violation of preliminary injunctions issued by the court.
Everything described above is also in violation of preliminary injunctions issued by the court.
The next day, I was served with a restraining order at work. Yes, a restraining order. In it, I was accused of sending harassing text messages, making aggressive or threatening motions toward her (even though you can clearly see in the video me retreating from her advances toward the door), and physically assaulting her at Christmas.
Shortly thereafter, she retained an attorney. I, being unable to afford one of my own (for the reasons detailed above), requested many times that the restraining order be voluntarily dropped. Every request was denied because she felt "unsafe". I presented the attorney, in good faith, the video recording and a complete transcript of text messages extracted from my phone. The response from the attorney was that they were "self-serving and possibly edited". I couldn't even get vindication from hard physical evidence. I continued to implore that the order be rescinded as my name and character were being assassinated. I continued to be denied.
After moving into my own apartment at the beginning of September 2016, I finally got to have regular time and sleepovers with my child. I was finally getting to be a parent again! After a few weeks of this arrangement, I received an email telling me that I was not providing a proper home for my child and that I would be limited to seeing him for eight hours every other weekend. In case you're wondering, no, an officer of the court or representatives from family services never came to my home to investigate. My apartment was not unfit, just under-furnished. But that was reason enough for my ex to interrupt my time with my child yet again. Being under a restraining order, I could not contact her directly about it, and her attorney would not address the issue.
Court would follow a few months later and after our preliminary hearing, I visited the Protective Orders office at the courthouse and set a date for a hearing before the commissioner. Then, and only then, did she drop the order. I had been denied the opportunity to exonerate myself in front of the court. She had even found a way to take that from me.
She lied about me, robbed me of my rights as a spouse, as a parent... and even then, I sacrificed certain rights. At court, I surrendered my claim to equity in our house, her retirement, and her business interests, all of which the law would have given to me without a fight. All I wanted in negotiations with her attorney was equal parenting time with my child. Instead, I was lawyered out of that.
She took everything she could get from me, and even after all I gave up, she took more. These are the things I kept to myself. These are the things that I endured quietly while some of you were fed stories to the contrary. For those who have the stomach, read the messages above and see the horrible names she called me. Watch the video and tell me that I threatened her in any way. Having been denied everything that was rightfully mine, I wish to claim this one last thing. A balanced view.
And there you have it. My side. Only what I can prove. If I'm the awful person she claimed I was, then maybe we shouldn't be friends after all.
Thursday, February 9, 2017
To Impugn with Impunity
I find myself angry about a great many things these days. At first, I thought that I was just being cranky and cantankerous as I approach middle-age. I've contended with bitterness, malcontent, and shades of anxiety and depression. Every time I look into the world around me, I'm awash with frustration and defeat. How could things have gone this wrong?
The answer is gradually.
It didn't all go to shit over night. No, we've been on this path for a long time. Little by little, we've come to accept that mediocrity is exceptional, and the minimal efforts of society at large somehow constitute cooperation and peace.
I do not vote for any particular party, so I have no political agenda with respect to either of the main parties. The last several weeks have made a mockery of democratic elections, constitutional reverence, and liberty. We are presently in the path of the loosest cannon that has ever been unleashed on the American People, and he is armed with a hair [piece] trigger.
Today, Elizabeth Warren was shushed in the Senate for impugning a fellow Senator. I have read the letter from Coretta Scott King and found no injury so severe that her voice as Representative of her constituents needed to be silenced. The audacity that has bled from the GOP following Trump's election reeks of cigars, shitty brandy, old leather chairs, and even older money. Yes, I'm talking about the Old Boys Club.
Your Government doesn't belong to you anymore. It hasn't for decades. Career politicians that will retire wealthy while having done a half-assed job are the ones we keep putting in office. Why? Because they are the only ones with money to run for office? This is absurd! We vote for the douche or the turd sandwich because we believe that the third candidate can't win, and as long as we believe that, we're right! We can only accomplish that in which we believe.
Mr. Trump won by appealing to the lowest common denominators - ignorance and fear. The latter being the offspring of the former, America voted with its uncertainty. We have been sandbagging against our deepest concerns and placing into positions of leadership persons who have the uncanny ability to appear useful by looking busy. If there was half as much effort put into cooperation as there was making sure the other side of the aisle didn't get theirs, then this country could be in a very different position.
We live in a connected world now. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence, some public speaking ability, and decent sense could make a run for office. However, we still see the same formula playing out in every election. Wealthy people with super-PACs who have not lived in the midst of working-class America since before college go on television and tell you how connected they are to the plight of the middle-class. No they aren't... and it's an insult to suggest that the public should buy into it.
What do we look like? Oh... yeah... votes. I forgot.
You're being sold promises in exchange for your future. That's a bit of a high cost for representation that is as familiar with your lot in life as you are with theirs. Though we've been making strides with respect to equality, having more female and minority House members with each passing election, they are still stymied by the collective non-cooperation of Washington. The largest issue that government has suffered from is the inability to drag themselves from the mire of committee upon sub-committee that do little more than achieve impasse.
In my profession, I have had the opportunity to engage the government in its decision making process. This has taught me one unfortunate truth. The bureaucracy is so stratified and convoluted that no single position can affect change. That's not a terrible thing, since things like executive orders are subject to judicial review. The real hurdle is that no group of people can affect change either. They are so compartmentalized in their authorities that no other group (who may have the duty to implement changes dictated by the first group) have the duty to listen to the ones making the decision.
This is magnified by the fact that important data needed by those trying to affect change is under the control of a second governmental entity, who cannot be approached through direct channels, and who otherwise have no procedural accountability to those attempting to affect change.
To be quite blunt, Right Hand needs Left Hand to reach for the soap. Left Hand doesn't know Right Hand is dirty and there is no channel through which to communicate that need. To really put the icing on this bukakke, in which the tax-payer is the catcher, Right Hand is obligated to leave the soap alone... I truly wish I was kidding.
Mr. Trump is used to being a CEO. They tend to wield a lot of unmitigated authority, and my fear is that he's carried that forward into his Presidency. Much of this administration is going to be marked by overturning executive actions that are unconstitutional because our Republic is inherently structured to prevent the bull from running loose in the China shop. This bull may not yet get that message.
In the meantime, however, there are a lot of Senators and Congress[men] who will have their antics go unnoticed because of the shit-storm coming out of the Oval Office. The amount of damage that will be done in the next few years may take decades more to correct. Meanwhile, we have elected officials spending more time quibbling over hurt feelings and procedure than they are on issues of substance.
This will be a long and bumpy ride...
The answer is gradually.
It didn't all go to shit over night. No, we've been on this path for a long time. Little by little, we've come to accept that mediocrity is exceptional, and the minimal efforts of society at large somehow constitute cooperation and peace.
I do not vote for any particular party, so I have no political agenda with respect to either of the main parties. The last several weeks have made a mockery of democratic elections, constitutional reverence, and liberty. We are presently in the path of the loosest cannon that has ever been unleashed on the American People, and he is armed with a hair [piece] trigger.
Today, Elizabeth Warren was shushed in the Senate for impugning a fellow Senator. I have read the letter from Coretta Scott King and found no injury so severe that her voice as Representative of her constituents needed to be silenced. The audacity that has bled from the GOP following Trump's election reeks of cigars, shitty brandy, old leather chairs, and even older money. Yes, I'm talking about the Old Boys Club.
Your Government doesn't belong to you anymore. It hasn't for decades. Career politicians that will retire wealthy while having done a half-assed job are the ones we keep putting in office. Why? Because they are the only ones with money to run for office? This is absurd! We vote for the douche or the turd sandwich because we believe that the third candidate can't win, and as long as we believe that, we're right! We can only accomplish that in which we believe.
Mr. Trump won by appealing to the lowest common denominators - ignorance and fear. The latter being the offspring of the former, America voted with its uncertainty. We have been sandbagging against our deepest concerns and placing into positions of leadership persons who have the uncanny ability to appear useful by looking busy. If there was half as much effort put into cooperation as there was making sure the other side of the aisle didn't get theirs, then this country could be in a very different position.
We live in a connected world now. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence, some public speaking ability, and decent sense could make a run for office. However, we still see the same formula playing out in every election. Wealthy people with super-PACs who have not lived in the midst of working-class America since before college go on television and tell you how connected they are to the plight of the middle-class. No they aren't... and it's an insult to suggest that the public should buy into it.
What do we look like? Oh... yeah... votes. I forgot.
You're being sold promises in exchange for your future. That's a bit of a high cost for representation that is as familiar with your lot in life as you are with theirs. Though we've been making strides with respect to equality, having more female and minority House members with each passing election, they are still stymied by the collective non-cooperation of Washington. The largest issue that government has suffered from is the inability to drag themselves from the mire of committee upon sub-committee that do little more than achieve impasse.
In my profession, I have had the opportunity to engage the government in its decision making process. This has taught me one unfortunate truth. The bureaucracy is so stratified and convoluted that no single position can affect change. That's not a terrible thing, since things like executive orders are subject to judicial review. The real hurdle is that no group of people can affect change either. They are so compartmentalized in their authorities that no other group (who may have the duty to implement changes dictated by the first group) have the duty to listen to the ones making the decision.
This is magnified by the fact that important data needed by those trying to affect change is under the control of a second governmental entity, who cannot be approached through direct channels, and who otherwise have no procedural accountability to those attempting to affect change.
To be quite blunt, Right Hand needs Left Hand to reach for the soap. Left Hand doesn't know Right Hand is dirty and there is no channel through which to communicate that need. To really put the icing on this bukakke, in which the tax-payer is the catcher, Right Hand is obligated to leave the soap alone... I truly wish I was kidding.
Mr. Trump is used to being a CEO. They tend to wield a lot of unmitigated authority, and my fear is that he's carried that forward into his Presidency. Much of this administration is going to be marked by overturning executive actions that are unconstitutional because our Republic is inherently structured to prevent the bull from running loose in the China shop. This bull may not yet get that message.
In the meantime, however, there are a lot of Senators and Congress[men] who will have their antics go unnoticed because of the shit-storm coming out of the Oval Office. The amount of damage that will be done in the next few years may take decades more to correct. Meanwhile, we have elected officials spending more time quibbling over hurt feelings and procedure than they are on issues of substance.
This will be a long and bumpy ride...
Monday, October 24, 2016
Chronic[les]: AZ Prop 205
So, Arizonans get a chance to vote on legalized recreational marijuana... again. It's come up before and failed by respectable margins. This year may be watershed. Public opinion has shifted heavily in the last few years on medical marijuana use, and we're faced with the most comical presidential tickets since the script of Idiocracy got the green light. People are tired of shitty options with shittier justifications.
I just scanned past CNN for the headlines (for which my ultra-Republican boss calls me a "commie") and saw a graphic that indicates early voting returns in Arizona are favoring the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson. That. Is. Epic. Anyone remotely familiar with Arizona knows that this is just a Republican state. Not that it matters much, since our meager few electoral votes don't amount to a fart in the wind of democracy. Be that as it may, we still vote red. Always have, always... well...
The implication that such a conservative state is willing to shift on something like the presidential candidate, to the untested Libertarian no less, is very favorable to the marijuana lobby. Libertarians, as you may know, generally object to the government telling them what they can and cannot do. As previous entries have intimated, as much as explicitly stated, the nature of marijuana puts it on par with regulating a tomato. There is no scientific purposed to keeping it a Schedule 1 drug.
Like most legislative decisions, this continued status is a result of misinformation and [likely] corporate interests. The emergence of a rumor in 2014 that Phillip Morris was introducing Marlboro M marijuana cigarettes was at the very least plausible, given that special interest groups have being buying representation from Capitol Hill for as long as there have been elected officials. There's nothing partisan about it. The 1% occupy both sides of the aisle, after all, but this is a fabricated story.
Even so, there is the fact that US law disallows placing any naturally occurring substance under patent. There is only one way to capitalize on a substance that cannot be trademarked. Make it illegal to posses, distribute, or transport; issue huge fines for non-compliance.
Does this sound conspiratorial? A little. Is it true? Probably more than anyone really wants to admit. Colorado and Oregon both experienced an interesting set of interrelated phenomena following the legalization of recreational marijuana. The first was pot-tourism. People flocked into the state(s) to get legal weed at licensed dispensaries. The second was a reinforcement of the black market, as locals with connections didn't want to pay the exceptional taxes associated with product purchased through dispensaries. The third, and most telling, was a massive decrease in misdemeanor crimes (mostly related to possession) and a drastic increase in felonies.
Wait, increased crime? Well, really a redistribution based on the nature and degree of the crimes being committed. Dispensaries may be legal at the state level, but they are still subject to federal banking laws which make banking monies made on the drug trade illegal. All transactions for weed, [state] legal or not, have to be in cash. Dispensaries are subject to more armed robberies now than any other retail business.
Curious, don't you think, that the often-hyped increased crime that was expected to accompany legal weed is actually a result of violent crime tangential to the weed sales? No one started crashing cars into school loading zones. Cheeto theft didn't suddenly explode. There weren't bloody dance-offs breaking out in shopping malls. No crime, other than that related to the incapacity to securely perform the business of selling weed, increased.
Prop. 205 covers a lot of legal hurdles that would keep Arizonans out of jail for possession, but I believe that additional steps need to be taken to keep dispensaries safe. That seems to be dependent entirely on the the Federal government though. Simple ideas like state exchanges similar to the child support system would allow Arizona to collect secure transactions from consumers and then distribute funds to retailers, and at the same time collect user fees in the form of taxes to be used for the State. However, to whatever extent those are intertwined with the Fed, everyone still remains exposed.
The States are starting to exercise their authority, reflective of the will of the People. Lawmakers aren't going to be able to deny the public voice much longer. Arizona previously passed ballots that allowed medical marijuana use, first in 1996, then again in 1998. Both of those measures, however, were inadequately worded to protect patients from prosecution. Rather than amending the statutes, the state simply overturned them and waited until later measures received enough support to qualify them for the ballot. In effect, the AZ legislature back-doored the public in what I would call a governmental repurposing of the term "changing lanes without signaling."
It wasn't until Prop. 203 passed in 2010 that medical and compassionate care use came to be. To some degree or another, the voting pubic is of a majority opinion that marijuana should be legal. With elections in just two weeks, I'm hopeful that Arizona joins the ranks of more enlightened society.
We've demonized weed for decades without cause. It's been indoctrinated into entire generations without the benefit of critical examination. It's legal use has been pulled out from under the public by poorly written language. We've been cheated, lied to, and blinded from reality.
The world has a long and intimate romance with pseudoscience and medical quackery. Hopefully, the tide is turning.
Monday, October 17, 2016
Chronic[les]: Objectivity on Opioids
Please know that I do not come into this post with preconceived notions. There is no position to defend or agenda to advance. I'm just a guy with piqued curiosity and access to Google. So here we go.
I've recently heard repeated used of the phrase "opioid crisis". I didn't think much of it at first because, hell, people have been popping pills for as long as I've been aware of the concept of drug abuse. It has always been another behavior in a series of behaviors that Nancy Reagan campaigned against in the 80's. Nothing noteworthy about it. What could possibly have elevated this to the level of 'crisis'?
I have almost no context for it. I once had a prescription for Vicodin following oral surgery. I took it on a schedule recommended by the doctor. To the best of my recollection, the pain didn't actually lessen, so I really didn't see the point in taking it. I was, however, dutiful about it. Every six hours, I downed a pill of such size that my jaws seared in protest. After the sixth dose, I felt queasy and soon vomited. For all the up I've thrown in my life, I've never had to do it through clenched teeth. I felt like a bilious lawn sprinkler.
Opioids (in the form of Vicodin, anyway) did not agree with me. I never saw the appeal, either recreationally, or medically. I never felt better, and I've rarely felt worse. That leaves me hard pressed to understand why their use could even be called a crisis, as my own experience was so unpleasant. Who would want to subject themselves to such a reaction?
While my response was not at all unique, I appear to be in an insignificant minority of people who have not two shits to give about an opium high. Dr. Nora Volkow presented to the US Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control that some 2.1 million Americans, however, had some variety of opioid dependence. Another 467,000 were believed to be addicted to heroin. The link between prescription abuse and heroin addiction is noted to have been increasing.
In 2000, her report states, opioid prescriptions tallied 126 million for the year. By 2010, that number had risen to 210 million. Within the same time frame (2004-2008), emergency room visits from non-prescribed opiate overdoses rose from 144,600 to 305,900. Fatalities from overdoses also tripled.
Stats are a bitch, aren't they?
Let's go beyond stats. What's the science of it? First, let's be clear that even the word "opioid" is not exactly indicative of its origin. Opiates (not to be confused with opioids) are derivative from the opium poppy and include morphine and heroin. Opioids are chemical compounds that react to the opiate receptors in our brains. They are easily synthesized, effective at pain management, and nearly identical with respect to their addictive properties. Even anti-withdrawal compounds like methadone, which is used to help heroin users, are commonly abused.
Addiction is so common because opioids, in the long term, inhibit the body's ability to to produce its own opioid chemicals like endorphins and encephalins. Withdrawal symptoms accompany this absence of opioids and hilarity ensues.
Great... Useful information, right? Actually, it's troubling. Dr. Volkow's report draws an interesting correlation. Doctors are getting wise and becoming reluctant to hand out scrips for opioids. 2013 was the first down-tick in prescription issuance in twenty years, which should ostensibly be a good thing. Arizona even enacted in 2017 limits on prescription of opioid pain-relievers to a five-day supply. However, where pill-poppin' gets more difficult, heroin makes an effective and economical substitute. Heroin dosing is difficult to regulate, as is the quality of the product. But what choice is there? The medical community unwittingly created a generation of junkies and now has to figure out a way to get them clean.
Research is being conducted into technologies that will reduce addictive effects of opioids. One of the more promising is one that would allow opioids to interact with cannabinoid receptors in the brain. These receptors work perfectly well with marijuana, as the name implies. Marijuana, as previously posted, is non-toxic, non-addictive, carries lower risk of tolerance, and concurrently treats a number of other illnesses.
The state of Massachusetts has been treating opioid dependency with medical marijuana, publishing one of the first public reports just in October, 2015. While it is far from being a clinical slam-dunk, it's another bit of information that points to the potential for medical marijuana use.
This is an issue that has taken on personal importance for me and I intend to drill down to the irrefutable facts. The world is not as complicated as bureaucracy makes it. Natural compounds are available for our treatment and improved health. Ignorance is a poor excuse to create crises such as this one. It's an even poorer excuse for resolving it with the traditionally painful and health-negative protocols we use.
Interestingly, the existence of the opioid crisis is not really debated. There are no political divides on the issue. The Left and Right agree that it's an issue, which is exceedingly rare. It may be because of the equality with which it strikes at Americans. Every racial group, income level, geographic region, and background are affected by it.
In researching this topic, I really didn't find any source of information that refuted the existence of this crisis. One downplayed it as minor percentages, but seems to be ignorant of how many people may be dependent by focusing on how many die from use. That seems somehow insufficient to me.
I will continue to make this a topic of interest. It does, after all, have my curiosity. There can be no greater impetus for knowledge than wonder.
Saturday, October 15, 2016
Chronic[les]: Suspension of Disbelief
I finally got to see the 1936 American propaganda film, Reefer Madness. For those that haven't seen it, it's a pseudo-biopic that claims to a retelling of actual events. It's corny. It's melodramatic. It's also wildly inaccurate.
The film portrays events surrounding the purported dangers of marijuana abuse. Centered on a couple of unfortunate youth who fall in with the wrong crowd, the rapid decline into madness is frightening, or rather would be if it had any basis in fact. Through the magic of scientific discovery, we now know the representation to be a complete farce. The US Government funded this film, which is shockingly prurient for the period, to induce hysterical support for a ban on marijuana.
The success of the anti-marijuana campaign that followed the release of the film was dependent entirely on the ignorance of the public, which was seemingly considerable. The year following its release, the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act was passed. Within that legislation, heavy restrictions on the sale and transport of the drug were in place, along with penalties for mishandling. From that point forward, weed was increasingly criminalized until the final complete ban instituted by President Nixon in the early 70's.
In my previous post on this topic, I pointed out that marijuana is non-toxic, non-carcinogenic, and non-addictive. One would be hard pressed then to identify just what the objection is. Having grown up as a child of the 80's, I sat through the DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) presentations. I even knew our school's DARE officer. I learned to "just say no" like Nancy Reagan wanted. I also accepted, by way of indoctrination, that marijuana was a "gateway drug."
I recall in the 5th grade having our school counselor do a drug presentation. He asked one classmate after another if drugs were "bad." Without hesitation, they answered "yes." Mr. White continued to ask students until he came to one who said "no." It was then that he let us in on the little secret that no one really bothered to tell us about. The definition of what a drug was. It's remarkably simple, really.
A drug is a substance that is put into the body to change how the body works.
This is why Mr. White insisted on finding a student who said drugs weren't bad. They're not. At least not intrinsically. However, Reefer Madness was produced in such a way that demonized marijuana. The portrayal makes it clear that even minimal exposure robs one of their faculties, turning them into a lust driven lunatic bent on mayhem and murder.
Show me an article, publication, news story, or any other vetted source that tells such a tale. Truth is, they don't exist. Harry J. Anslinger, first Commissioner of the US Treasury Department's Federal Bureau of Narcotics, began lobbying heavily to criminalize marijuana following the repeal of Volstead Act (Prohibition), which died with the ratification of the 21st Amendment in 1933. Previously, he'd been quite neutral and disinterested in the use of marijuana. However, setting his sights on a new pariah, he launched a campaign to make weed illegal. He cited dozens, if not hundreds, of stories of murder or violence committed under the influence of marijuana. Most of them were simply falsely attributed to cannabis. Some were outright fabrications. The tactic was effective, however. He garnered enough support to put it before Congress, even convincing them of his lies, and helped get the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act passed.
Yes, I titled this entry "Suspension of Disbelief." The phrase normally refers to the ability of a film to convince you, at least while you're watching, that the events are real. In this case, I'm not referring to Reefer Madness. I'm most interested in the concerted efforts of US officials to ban something which presents no public health hazard and kills precisely zero people each year from disease related to consumption.
I cannot suspend my disbelief! I admit that deliberate ignorance is a pet peeve. In this case, the deliberate ignorance of scientific evidence, and the active limitation on establishing more scientific data, for the purposes of moral temperance... staggers me.
Logical conclusions are not hard to establish. Logically, our lawmakers are ignorant of scientific fact. Logically, the legislature has no interest in the impact that criminalization of marijuana has on non-violent offenders who end up in prison for extended stays. Logically, our elected officials are mired in decades-old propaganda with little respect for reality.
I will agree that these are incomplete conclusions and that other truths may exist. However, this theory explains the observation based on the available evidence.
Why is this topic becoming one of my favorites? Because it's so easy to pick on. The laundry list of fallacious reasoning, collusion, and public deception make it a poster child for malicious governance. The polls will be opening in a few weeks, and we will again have the opportunity to weigh in on our representation. Each passing year brings me a little bit more angst and disbelief in the people who waste taxpayer dollars while claiming to be public servants.
My next entry will focus on the current "opioid crisis." Juxtaposed against the Federal ban on medical marijuana, you may be just as confused as I am.
Tuesday, October 11, 2016
Chronic[les]: Blunt Language and Joint Efforts
Author's Note: The following is not meant to examine the morality of cannabis use. It is meant to highlight the disparity between science and law, and the resulting struggle between what is logical and what is lawful. Whatever your feelings are on marijuana use, understand that the laws of the United States are purposefully ignorant.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) defines Schedule I drugs as "substances, or chemicals... with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse." Apropos, cannabis is labeled as such a drug, wherein it carries stiff penalties for possession, use, distribution, and trafficking. It rubs shoulders, in fact, with the likes of heroin, LSD, Ecstasy, Quaalude, and peyote (which is approved only for certain religious rites of native tribes).
All of this begs a single, relevant question. Who says what "accepted medical use" is?
Apparently, that responsibility falls firmly on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Let's be clear, if it isn't already; the FDA is an Executive agency within the US Government. As an agency, they work closely with the DEA to regulate medical marijuana research.
Based on what we already know, let's establish a few things. Firstly, marijuana is a narcotic by order of the DEA. Secondly, a narcotic is a drug that dulls senses, relieves pain, or induces sleep (marijuana fits this description). Thirdly, narcotics in excessive doses can cause stupor, coma, or convulsions.
Based on what we already know, let's establish a few things. Firstly, marijuana is a narcotic by order of the DEA. Secondly, a narcotic is a drug that dulls senses, relieves pain, or induces sleep (marijuana fits this description). Thirdly, narcotics in excessive doses can cause stupor, coma, or convulsions.
The first point is not one that is up for contention. That's a cold, hard fact. Point two really isn't up for contention either. Marijuana has been proven effective in pain management, cancer treatment, and numerous other neurological disorders. The third point, however, is where marijuana fails to fit the implied description.
I really hate to come at this entry with dictionary in hand, but it's important to know what words mean before we use them, or acquiesce to their incorrect use. It has a direct and measurable impact on the interpretation of the standards being applied. So, here we go....
Stupor is generally defined as "a condition of greatly dulled or completely suspended sense or sensibility" or "mental torpor." More elaborate descriptions explain the absence of response to all but the most base stimuli, such as pain, shock, bright light, or loud noise. There has never been a recorded case of a person smoking themselves unconscious. Asleep? Certainly. But never unresponsive.
Coma is an extended state of unconsciousness, lasting days, or even years. In this state, even extreme stimuli mentioned above are ineffective. Given that marijuana is not known to induce stupor, it's proven completely incapable of inducing coma.
That brings us to convulsions. Typically manifesting as rapid, uncontrolled muscle movements, loss of speech, and occasionally soiling oneself, it should be noted that cannabinoids have been successfully used in treating and preventing these symptoms. Epilepsy has been effectively treated by canabidiol (CBD), a chemical found only in marijuana.
Given that the three major, negative narcotic effects cannot be attributed or associated with marijuana, it seems unfair at this point to lump it in with known dangerous drugs. But is that enough to rest on? Hardly.
The DEA also stipulates that Schedule 1 drugs have a "high potential for abuse." This clause is not defined, nor is clarification given. However, we can infer what is meant by comparing it to Schedule 2 drugs, which also have "a high potential for abuse, with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence." So there you have it. Schedule 1 drugs like marijuana carry a high risk of psychological or physical dependence. But, does it?
Cannabis Use Disorder is a condition in which a cannabis user experiences some degree of dependence. Dependence is vastly different from addiction, but is often used as a proxy in surveys studying the possibility of cannabis addiction, so the proof of addiction is highly questionable. Around 9% of marijuana users (dependent on their age at the time habitual use begins) develop some degree of dependency. Physical dependence has not been identified (see my entry Chronc[les]: But not for the Gander for a description of the condition HYPERALGESIA associated with opioid abuse).
By way of comparison, 15% of alcohol users, 23% of heroin users, and 32% of tobacco users develop dependency. According to an article published by the New York Times, of heavy marijuana users who attempt to quit "...some get withdrawal symptoms such as irritability, sleeping difficulties and anxiety that are usually described as relatively mild." The painful, and sometimes life-threatening, ordeal of getting off of other drugs would place marijuana withdrawal somewhere in the range of 'mild hangover'.
That really only leaves one question. How dangerous is it to overdose on marijuana? Here's the thing... depending on how you define an overdose, it's effectively impossible to do. The amount of marijuana that it takes to kill a user is estimated to be 40,000 times greater than what it takes to get a user stoned. It must be estimated because the actual number hasn't been found yet. Though one could make the argument that an overdose is characterized by paranoia, vomiting, tremors, and other physiological symptoms that pass within 20-30 minutes.
The state of Oregon (oregon.gov) has available through their website a report issued by the Institute for Cannabis Therapeutics which states "...enormous doses of Delta 9 THC, All THC and concentrated marijuana extract ingested by mouth were unable to produce death or organ pathology in large mammals..." Smaller animals, like mice, did die. However, as the article points out, this dose would be equivalent to an average person (154lbs) eating 46lbs of marijuana. That's a lot of hooch. It should be noted, you can die by alcohol poisoning with as little as five times the intoxicating dose.
With all of this in mind, there's one issue that needs to be cleared up. By whose estimation is marijuana as dangerous as heroin or cocaine? By whose estimation is there no accepted medical use? As we established earlier, the DEA and FDA. But who are they? They're law makers and enforcers. The DEA and FDA are not lead by doctors, and the doctors that they do employ are tasked with ensuring compliance, not providing medical advice. The leaders are not medical professionals with extensive lab or research experience. Yet they hold all the keys and guard all the locks. They are the worst possible entities to have the responsibility of making medical recommendations.
There isn't a single scrap of evidence that marijuana is addictive, toxic, or carcinogenic. There are mountains of evidence that it has medical value. Habitual users only suffer minor psychological withdrawal symptoms. Occasional users experience no adverse side effects. Yet we jail people for inordinate periods of time for possession of a non-lethal, non-addictive, non-toxic plant. Because why? Because bureaucrats said so.
I'm neutral over the notion of recreational marijuana use. I have no more interest in whether people smoke out or drink. Although, alcohol intoxication has the tendency to make you think you can do anything, including drive, whereas marijuana intoxication makes you want to sit on the couch. In that respect, I'd rather people toked out than slam tequila.
I'm a considerable advocate for the use of medical marijuana. I've seen its effects first hand, and the more I learn about its advantages and safety of use, the more convinced I am in the failure of our government on yet another level. This is an under-investigated issue with myopic officials at the helm. There is no scientific reason to classify marijuana as it is.
Your elected officials, their representatives, appointees, and assignees say otherwise. Ignorance speaks. Loudly. Those in power are listening.
Wednesday, March 9, 2016
Milton the Furry Turtle
This is a departure from my regular thinking-man's existential blog. This is just a story that I wanted to write just for the kiddos out there. For the people with kids. For the kids who are wondering who they want to be. For the kids wondering who they are...
Milton the Furry Turtle
Copyright 3/9/2016
Milton was a turtle. As turtles go, he wasn’t all that extraordinary. He had a shell and a tail, scaly skin, and all of the other things that you would think of when you thought of a turtle. But what you couldn’t see, deep in his heart, was a dream.
The dream was the same one he’d had from the moment he hatched and stepped foot into the world. No, it wasn’t to be fast. That would be silly! Who has ever heard of a fast turtle? It wasn’t to be tall. Why, that’s just as absurd.
No. Milton had a dream that was bigger than all of those things! In fact it was bigger than all of the dreams any other animals had ever had if you mashed them all together.
Milton wanted fur.
Every day, Milton would shuffle down to the pond and gaze at himself in the water. He sometimes had to think very hard about how he thought he should look. Without fail, though, he would see himself as he truly wanted to be.
He imagined all varieties of fur. He saw himself with the long mane of the horse, or the shaggy coat of the coyote. Sometimes it was the finer fur of the squirrel, or even the coarse hairs of the skunk with their racing stripes.
And he was beautiful! At least to himself he was. To the other animals, he simply looked as an ordinary turtle should look.
One day, as he stood by the pond enjoying the image of his magnificent mane, his friend Waldorf the Chipmunk happened by.
“Mornin’ Milt,” Waldorf chittered.
“Heya, Wally,” Milton replied.
“Whatcha doin’,” Waldorf asked.
“Just lookin’ at me,” he replied.
“Why?”
“Just tryin’ to see what’s missin’,” Milton explained. “Ever feel like you’re missin’ somthin’?”
“Acorns, mostly. That's what my mama says,” Waldorf shrugged. “She always says, ‘Waldorf, you’re a few acorns short of an oak tree.’ But I didn't know I was missin’ any acorns.”
“I don’t think that’s what she means, Wally,” Milton smiled.
“Well, whadya mean, Milt? What are you missing?”
“Fur.”
Waldorf rolled in the dirt clutching at his belly and laughing. Milton’s heart sank. “You can’t have fur, silly! Everyone knows that turtles don’t have fur!” Waldorf exclaimed between giggles.
“Just because you’ve never seen one doesn’t mean that I can’t! I can be anything I want, and I want to be furry!” Milton said with every ounce of courage he could muster.
“Oh, Milt. I’ve never seen a duck hoot like the owl either, and I know I never will. It’s just the way it is.” Waldorf tried to sound comforting, but it wasn’t helping Milton. “Ducks don’t hoot, chipmunks don’t lay eggs, and turtles don’t have fur, my friend.”
Waldorf rubbed Milton's shell and hopped off into the tall grass. Milton knew that Waldorf was right, of course. No turtle in the history of turtles had ever had fur. He also knew that in his heart, he was supposed to be the first.
Milton thought of one last place to go. His mama... She always knew just how to fix everything.
When he got to her home, she put a plate of cookies in front of him, just as she always did when she was sad. "What has my baby boy so inside out?" she asked.
"Mama, I don't know how to say this and I don't want you to be disappointed," Milton started.
"Milton," Mama said, "you could never disappoint me."
"I'm supposed to be furry..." Milton looked at her from the corner of his eye, trying to see her reaction. Mama just pursed her lips and sat down next to him.
"Son, you know there's never been a furry turtle in these woods, right?" Mama asked.
"Yes'm," he replied.
"You know that you were not hatched with that future in mind, right?" she asked.
"Yes'm. Are you disappointed?" Milton wondered.
"Not in you my dear. Not in you," Mama assured. Milton finally turned his head to see his mother's worried face. "I'm disappointed that you will have a difficult road ahead of you. I'm disappointed that this unexpected path in front of you will have struggles that will be yours alone to overcome. No parent wants that for their child."
"What will I do, Mama?" Milton asked.
"Your best, my love. You will do your best." Mama gave him another cookie and kissed him on the head.
“I gotta go, Mama,” Milton said, and started the long walk back to his burrow to think. It was a cozy little burrow dug into the side of a hill under an old log that was covered in moss. It was also where he got his best ideas.
When he got to her home, she put a plate of cookies in front of him, just as she always did when she was sad. "What has my baby boy so inside out?" she asked.
"Mama, I don't know how to say this and I don't want you to be disappointed," Milton started.
"Milton," Mama said, "you could never disappoint me."
"I'm supposed to be furry..." Milton looked at her from the corner of his eye, trying to see her reaction. Mama just pursed her lips and sat down next to him.
"Son, you know there's never been a furry turtle in these woods, right?" Mama asked.
"Yes'm," he replied.
"You know that you were not hatched with that future in mind, right?" she asked.
"Yes'm. Are you disappointed?" Milton wondered.
"Not in you my dear. Not in you," Mama assured. Milton finally turned his head to see his mother's worried face. "I'm disappointed that you will have a difficult road ahead of you. I'm disappointed that this unexpected path in front of you will have struggles that will be yours alone to overcome. No parent wants that for their child."
"What will I do, Mama?" Milton asked.
"Your best, my love. You will do your best." Mama gave him another cookie and kissed him on the head.
“I gotta go, Mama,” Milton said, and started the long walk back to his burrow to think. It was a cozy little burrow dug into the side of a hill under an old log that was covered in moss. It was also where he got his best ideas.
All day and all night, Milton sat in his burrow and pondered his problem. How does a turtle get fur? Of course, he had many ideas, but none of them seemed to work.
He tried pushing hair out of his body from the inside. He pushed with all his might, but only got strange noises coming from his tail.
He tried to walk through the brambles hoping the coyote fur stuck to them would in turn stick to him, but it simply didn’t work. In fact, the brambles slipped over his shell as if he weren’t even there.
He tried borrowing fur from the dens of the field mice, though they said he was crazy. Again, the fur slid off his shell without so much as a hit of taking root.
He thought rolling in mud may help the fur stick, but the only thing that got stuck was him. He lay there a good long time before Waldorf found him and flipped him over.
Word had begun to spread in the woods about what Milton meant to do, and time after time, animals would stop to chuckle and point at the crazy little turtle that wanted fur. Milton thought very long and very hard and soon decided to give up. The other animals were right, after all. Turtles weren’t supposed to have fur.
So Milton went back to his burrow and was very sad. Even the sky had turned sad. As the rain began to fall and thunder crash, Milton took comfort in thinking the sky was as sad as he.
All night it rained, pouring great gouts of water into the woods. Though Milton’s burrow was in the side of a hill and under his log, the ground still became muddy and soft.
Even so, Milton was able to fall asleep. All night the thunder crashed and the rain poured down. Milton’s dreams were frightful. He worried that he may never get his fur, no matter how hard he wished or knew it was meant to be.
Morning finally came and the sun peeked through the clouds. Milton crawled out of his burrow under the mossy log. He stretched his little turtle legs and was again determined to figure out a way to get his fur. As he basked in the warmth of the sun for a moment, he felt a cold, wet plop on the back of his shell. He turned his head to look and saw that the moss growing on his log had slid off onto his back in a thick blanket of green.
“Hmmph,” he groused to himself. “Now I’m covered in moss!”
He tried to shake his shell to remove it, but the sun quickly dried the roots of the moss to his shell. He tried to scrape it off on the underside of the log, but he just couldn’t reach. Frustrated and at his wit’s end, he flopped down in a puddle to pout.
“Great!” Milton said. “Not only do I have no fur, but now I’m covered in moss!”
It was then that Waldorf came along.
“Hiya, Milt!” he chirped.
“Hey, Wally”, Milton sighed.
“What’s wrong, Milt?” Waldorf said with concern.
“As you might have noticed, I still have no fur and I’m now covered in moss”, Milton pointed out.
“As you might have noticed, I still have no fur and I’m now covered in moss”, Milton pointed out.
Waldorf looked over Milton’s shell and saw that the moss had in fact become stuck on his shell. But it was still healthy and green. And on top of that, it had a single daffodil growing from the middle.
“Ya know, Milt, the moss kinda looks like fur!” Waldorf said in surprise.
“It does?” Milton exlaimed.
“Yeah,” Waldorf said, “green, but still furry! And I can promise you that no other animal in the woods has fur like this! Heck, you’re even growing a flower!”
Milton looked again and he finally saw it! It did look like fur! He turned this way and that way letting the dew catch the sunlight. His fur was healthy and bright, reflecting the light so beautifully that you could even see rainbows in the water droplets.
Milton was so proud that he strutted through the woods as best a turtle can. The other animals called out to him “Hey Milton, nice ’fur’!”, trying to make a joke of it. But he would just reply, “I bet you can’t grow fur like mine!” And he was right.
His fur was unique, unlike any other animal in the forest. It took time for them to see Milton as he saw himself, but soon enough they recognized him as the ‘furry’ turtle. Milton had always known what he was supposed to be, and though it wasn’t what others expected when he told them who he was, he believed in himself long enough that others finally saw him as the beautiful Milton he had always been.
Milton had finally found himself. Though it was hidden behind the turtle he had always been, and looked nothing like what the other animals thought it should look like, he had at last convinced everyone that he was the furriest turtle they would ever see and just as furry as he had ever hoped to be.
The end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)