In my great state of Pennsylvania it seems that high school seniors are well on their way to fitting right into the college life style. In a recent survey 44% of the states high school seniors said that they drink fairly regularly and many would say pretty heavily despite all sorts of law enforcement initiatives and scholastic programs illustrating the dangers and the illegality of underage drinking and driving under the influence. It also didn’t seem to dissuade anyone in this demographic that their peers were dying all around them.
One of the common proposed solutions to the issue of drugs is that they should be legalised. I thought it would be an interesting exercise to briefly look at some of the arguments that are used in favour of drug legalisation over the course of a couple of days or weeks in a series of posts - identifying each of the main arguments individually and discussing them.
I want to look at the main issues surrounding each of the arguments for drug legalisation and explore the strength of each point.
This is not an exercise in “proving” one point or another - to be perfectly honest my current view is that both drug hardliners and harm reduction theorists have some pretty flawed reasoning for applying their respective views accross a large segment of society.
That is the charge brought by Cato Institute analyst Radley Balko in his latest FoxNews.com column about the use of military-style SWAT teams against non-violent drug offenders, mirroring the conclusions he made in his recently released study called “Overkill:The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America“.
I’m currently reading through the case studies of botched drug raids that appear as an appendix to “Overkill” and hope to give a more detailed reaction to the complete 97-page study in a week or two.
But based on my reading of the report so far, I’d agree with the thrust of what he is saying, namely that paramilitary tactics are only applicable to extraordinary, violent crimes in civil society - such as hostage-taking and bank robberies - as well as battlegrounds overseas.
The Economist has an interesting article this week on the reemergence of research into the effects of psychadelic drugs - specifically magic mushrooms.
Mushrooms, also known as teonanacatl, hasn’t been studied seriously since the 1950s, but recently a team from Johns Hopkins began studies into the effects of psilocybin, the main active component of shrooms.
According to their study, which has been published in Psychopharmacology, psilocybin does indeed induce a mental state that they identify as akin to “religious experiences.” No big finding there. Their other finding, which may raise a few eyebrows however, is that psilocybin also has lasting positive effects on its users.
A recent study that re-evaluated a 1998 Lung Health Study of 5,887 smokers from the U.S. has revealed that smokers on average add an extra 21 pounds (9.5 kilograms) in body weight after quitting compared to the original result of 12 pounds (5.5 kilograms).
Undertaken by Daniel Eisenberg of the University of Michigan and Brian C. Quinn of the University of California, Berkeley and appearing in the journal Health Services Research, they advised that the new “findings highlight the need to provide effective dietary and physical activity counseling along with smoking cessation programs”. Or in other words, if you’re butt is getting too big, get off it. Further, people mustn’t use the larger weight gain as an excuse to not quit, unless, of course, you look like Keira Knightley.
Pot or marijuana has been around and in use by humans in one form or another for thousands of years. Its uses trace back many thousands of years to before recorded history. Here are a few of the places you might have encountered ancient stoners.
The earliest known use of the plant was in the area of current day Romania as far back as the Neolithic age in the third Millenium BC. Archaeologists managed to uncover hemp seeds that had been charred in a vessel known as a ‘pipe cup.’ That in turn, was found in a burial grave of the Kurgan people. Other finds accross Europe dated to similar eras have led to hypotheses that these were the precursor to the use of cannibis in later ritual use.
Obesity and all of the implications and complications with regards to its impact on an individual’s health may have one and only one upside. If you’re obese you may be less apt to indulge in substance abuse. Unfortunately though this is a miniscule benefit, as obese folks tend to have other major behavioral issues. Among them depression, anxiety (General and Panic) bipolar, agoraphobia and yes substance abuse disorders (But a 22% lower risk!). None of these symptoms were found to be gender specific, though race and education were found to be factors.
For smokers it’s starting to look more and more like that. This past June was a bad month for many smokers and an early Christmas holiday for many anti smokers and the folks who lobby on behalf of limiting smoking rights and freedoms.
A few of the more news worthy and important smoking items (At least to me) were:
Philadelphia Pennsylvania’s city counsel after wrangling for almost two years finally passed a bill to ban smoking in almost all public spaces. Following the lead of the states of Delaware, and more recently New Jersey (Statewide bans) Philly has decided that it needs to protect people from themselves whether they like it or not. Business owners be damned. At first it got very little support from the council and was voted down at least once and then tabled. But like everything else in Philly the real game was played on the sly and just when it was thought to be dead for at least a good long time it amazingly, out of nowhere came back to life. Councilman Michael Nutter (Who is annoying to the extreme, in Philly that takes some doing) was behind the scenes tweaking the bill and cajoling folks to support the new version and finally got the votes needed. I know the majority of you could care less about Philly politics, but the point I’d like to make here was and is the insidious nature of how this bill was tweaked and passed if only to show that some folks will do anything no matter how deceptive to forward their agenda. Those were small items like not making the bill an all-encompassing ban. For instance, small neighborhood bars would be exempt if they could show that less than 10% of their income came from the sale of food, and outdoor cafes would allow you to light up also, allowing establishments lots of wiggle room to bend and twist and find loopholes. Like one other member of city council said “It’s like allowing smoking in economy class on a plane and not first class.” Typically Philly, and yet a reason the mayor still may not sign it into law. And of course Nutter wants to be our next mayor…blech!
Why is it I always find out that what I’ve been doing up until now in fact is not for the better, but for the worse? No matter how much logical or practical intuitive sense it seemed to have made at the time it always turns out that some experts will arrive on scene to make some triumphant announcement that everything you know or thought you knew is wrong!
I guess I should be used to it by now, being proved wrong over and over again by the overeducated but alas I’m not. The most recent example was the revelation that light cigarettes are not less addictive, but in fact are MORE addictive then full strength smokes. Whodathunk it? Not me that’s for sure. All this time I’ve graduated to the point where all I smoke are “Ultra lights” and I thought it was a GOOD thing. Obviously not as good as it would be to just quit but better. Psychologically I was of the mind that if there were “Ultra ultra super lights” that would then be my brand of choice, so imagine that virtual smack in the face I received when I learned lights were more addictive and individuals who smoked them regularly were much less likely to quit smoking, and that percentage lessened even more as they advanced in age! I guess I’m doomed. I wish I never stopped smoking those full strength Camels.
With all of the modern day hustle and bustle and the seemingly endless need and feelings that one must be in two places at once, is it any wonder that our quality of life starts to suffer? That the fabric of a healthy functional family starts to break down? That rampant obesity and diabetes are becoming the norm? That our children start to experiment with sex and illicit and dangerous substances at earlier and earlier ages? Well is it?
It really shouldn’t make anyone wonder about the “whys” and the “hows” if you invest the time to read some of the premises of writer Janet Peterson. This nice Utah based church lady will be only too happy to tell you via her new book “Family dinners: Easy ways to feed your kids and get them talking at the table” how the importance of the family meal and very specifically dinner is the basis and backbone to circumventing and minimizing future behavioral issues with your children. That’s right folks, having dinner together as a family regularly, lessens the chance that children will engage in risky behaviors like drug abuse and promiscuous sex at an early age and are also less prone to smoke or show symptoms of depression just by sitting and sharing conversation and food together.