Science underlines marijuana, used by politicians and others, not a gateway drug

 

Marijuana plant

While opponents of marijuana continue to maintain it is a gateway drug to more dangerous drugs, even though research from the University of New Hampshire. disputed that nearly five years ago.

 In fact research observes that statements about marijuana is a gateway drug are overblown.  Whether adolescents who use marijuana turn to other drugs depends on other life factors that can influence
drug-taking, including employment, stress and work relationships.

The research appeared in the September 2010 issue of the Journal of Health and Social Behavior and  entitled, “A Life-course Perspective on the ‘Gateway Hypothesis,’ disproves this thesis that marijuana is a gateway drug.  The observation that other factors, instead of marijuana, are key in drug-taking are particularly important, researchers said as they reported their findings.

“In light of these findings, we urge U.S. drug control policymakers to consider stress and life-course approaches in their pursuit of solutions to the ‘drug problem,’ ” they declared.

Data was obtained from 1,286 young adult college students from a variety of racial backgrounds and employment situations.

That "gateway"argument is not substantiated either by the fact that people tend to

grow out of that effect regardless of the stresses created by lack of education or employment.

Race/ethnicity has been found to be a better predictor of marijuana use turning to
other drugs.  Non-hispanic whites show the greatest instances of other illicit substance use, followed by Hispanics and African Americans.

The American Sociological Association (www.asanet.org),founded in 1905, is a nonprofit membership association dedicated to serving sociologists in their work, advancing sociology as a science and profession, and promoting the contributions to and use of sociology by
society. The Journal of Health and Social Behavior is a quarterly,peer-reviewed journal of the ASA, where the research was reported in 2010.

Those who maintain marijuana is a gateway drug tell us that it leads to harder drug use since it takes increasingly larger amounts to get the same "high", so users turn to other drugs as a result when they see that marijuana no longer works.

And considering the record of politicians on the subject of marijuana, President Barack Obama said he used it in high school occasionally, while former President Bill Clinton observed that he did also but did not inhale. Jeb Bush, seen as a potential Presidential candidate for 2016, has been said to have smoked marijuana as well..

None of these politicians have been reported as either using marijuana presently or hard drugs such as cocaine or heroin, in spite of those who continue to espouse the myth that science had expelled with research findings nearly five years ago.

Private vs government-run agencies: Either can fail in service delivery

[caption id="attachment_22101" align="alignleft" width="391"] United Parcel Service[/caption]

Gordon Matilla----While many people complained about the rollout of the Affordable Care Act's health care options and fault President Barack Obama and the Democrats for the inefficiency and errors that were dramatically displayed in the government website, the United Parcel Service is presently criticized for its delays in shipping Christmas gifts. One is a government program; the other privately managed.  It simply might mean that corporations and agencies must be individually evaluated for efficiency as opposed to criticizing one or the other as faulty or favored.

Many people complain about too much government and maintain that privately-run corporations can do a far better job at managing the affairs of business, and even social service and mental health programs.  On the other hand, across the board there have been examples of private companies failing in their attempts to provide services, just as government agencies sometimes fail as well.  The difference, however, is many in the private sector have had less oversight and therefore more likelihood of failure.

An example are the privately-run prisons.  Experts contend prisons managed by private corporations not only aren't necessarily more efficient in delivering services, often they exhibit poor management and poor outcomes related to treatment and recidivism.  In addition, many times the prisons themselves exhibit poor conditions and sometimes less qualified staff than those that are state or federally managed.  In fact some say that the promises made by private corporations seem to be like so much "fairy dust."

Criticisms should be given those who fail regardless of whether they are corporation or government managed, as experience has shown it is the individual situation or event that should be assessed as opposed to making generalizations about whether one way is right or not.  The post office may have its problems, but perhaps they did just as well delivering merchandise as UPS, or at least tried just as hard to get those gifts to the recipients as early as possible.

Ageism an issue in the criticism of Obama's choice for Ambassador to China

[caption id="attachment_21990" align="alignleft" width="214"] Senator Max Baucus[/caption]

President Barack Obama's choice of Ambassador to China, Montana Senator Max Baucus, has received criticism from some of the public and the media that Senator Baucus is too old for the job.  He is 72 years old.  But is that age a serious barrier to his ability to serve in the capacity of Ambassador to China, even in the face of the smog conditions that exist in the country?


Age is one of the barriers not just in politics but in the arts and business too.  Age 65 has been the usual and customary retirement age for individuals in the United States, with some of the European countries having even earlier periods for retirement.  Yet age continues to be one the principal barriers to gaining positions in politics, the arts, business and even in social arenas.

Nelson Mandela was  75 when he was elected President of South Africa.  Ronald Reagan was just two weeks short of his 70th birthday when he was elected President of the United States.     Colonel Sanders was 65+ when he started the Kentucky Fried Chicken business with only his secret chicken recipe and Social Security check to support him at the outset.  Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was appointed to the Court at age 51 and served a quarter of a century to age 75, when she left her position on the Court to be available for her husband's care.

There are many more examples of people in their 60's, 70's and 80's working or volunteering around the world, even under difficult conditions.  Yet age remains a barrier in many arenas, leaving seniors with limited choices when they reach a certain age.  In music, most of the reality shows focus on youth.  American Idol has a restriction for those who wish to appear on that show.  Other reality shows, such as The Voice, seldom, if ever, have a performer over the age of 50.  Business places people on retirement status at that certain age of 65, while those same businesses will advertise for senior volunteers they don't have to pay. Ageism remains a concern to those healthy and able seniors.  In the case of the appointment of Senator Max Baucus, other criteria, such as whether he has relevant experience in Asian affairs remains reasonable; but the fact of his age as a barrier reveals the misconceptions about the elderly that continues to drive much of the culture around the world.

Twitter, Facebook founders changing political, social landscape

[caption id="attachment_4168" align="alignleft" width="300"] Facebook[/caption]

Leanne Jenkins----Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, has formed an alliance with Marco Rubio, Republican Senator from Florida who is often cited as a potential Presidential candidate, in order to reform immigration, as this newest foray into politics offers insight into the power of social media giants in framing political and social issues.

Zuckerberg was reported by Political Moneyline as working extensively with Rubio with his political advocacy group running ads in conservative areas.  The ads encourage voters to support a bipartisan Senate bill on immigration.

What would that bill include and what are the dimensions of immigration reform?  While Rubio has a Hispanic heritage, many of his positions have reflected conservative Republican ideas on what reform might be, many of which are in opposition to former President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama have conceived, especially in the area of a path for citizenship for illegal immigrants.  Rubio's political positions are here, as related by On the Issues:

Immigration is a human issue AND a law & order issue. (Mar 2013)

• 
  

  
  

  Leave immigration to feds; 50 sets of laws is worse. (Jun 2012)

  
  

  
  


• 
  

  
  

  English is de facto official language; let's recognize that. (Jun 2012)

  
  

  
  


• 
  

  
  

  AZ ant-immigrant law demands papers like "police state". (Jun 2012)

  
  

  
  


• 
  

  
  

  OpEd: Claimed falsely that parents fled Castro in 1959. (Jun 2012)

  
  

  
  


• 
  

  
  

  Legal status, but not citizenship, to migrant's children. (Jun 2012)

  
  

  
  


• 
  

  
  

  GOP DREAM Act: visas for going to college or military. (Apr 2012)

  
  

  
  


• 
  

  
  

  AZ law may unreasonably single out some citizens. (Apr 2010)

  
  

  
  


• 
  

  
  

  Don't count illegal immigrants in the 2010 census. (Apr 2010)

  
  

  
  


• 
  

  
  

  Allow children of illegals to pay in-state college tuition. (Mar 2010)

  
  

  
  


• 
  

  
  

  No amnesty in any form, not even back-of-the-line. (Mar 2010)

  
  

  
  


• 
  

  
  

  Oppose amnesty in any reform. (Feb 2010)

  
  

  
  


• 
  

  
  

  Opposes granting amnesty to illegal immigrants. (Sep 2010)

  
  

  
  


• 
  

  
  

  Supports full implementation of current border security laws. (Sep 2010)

  
  

  
  

While Zuckerberg has expanded his interests into conservative politics, Twitter founder Evan Williams has been creating and expanding social media sites, that initially included his creation of Blogger, which he sold to Google, then Twitter and now a social media site called Medium.  His ventures are aimed at changing the news, especially to encompass the public both as customers and as creators.

Both Williams and Zuckerberg's creations have changed the landscape of communication and help to facilitate change through their ventures.  While Williams politics are not as public as Zuckerberg, he is located in San Francisco, one of the progressive's best known havens.

'If you break it, you own it,' humanitarian worries over Syria

[caption id="attachment_20174" align="alignleft" width="240"] UN chief, Ban Ki-Moon[/caption]

Carol Forsloff----Most people throughout the world are against the use of chemical weapons, especially governments using them against citizens in their own country. But most people worry “If you break it, you own it,” might be the consequences of any military action, as humanitarian individuals and groups are also concerned about the consequences of an expanding conflict in the Middle East.

The humanitarian approach to Syria remains as cloudy as any other issue in the world, given the stockpiles of chemical weapons owned by the Assad regime, the government seen by many nations as rogue in the relationship of how citizens have been treated, especially during the recent conflict.

As President Barack Obama offers strong appeals to the American public, and plans to address the nation about Syria in the early part of the week, there remains the everlasting question about little involvement expanding to greater involvement in what many interpret as another civil war.

The moral issue about watching innocent civilians, especially children, being attacked and dying in horrendous fashion, as has happened in recent history, with the German Nazi Reich, as the supreme example of the 20^th century in the torture and killing of millions of Jews in many parts of the world. One by one nations refused to offer refuge to the Jews, and each nation either denied this group was being methodically killed and at risk in the advance of Adolph Hitler, or wondered whether joining the protest through war would bring a wider conflict.

Americans who know history recognize that the United States was an isolationist country and did not enter World War II until the “shot over the bow” from the Japanese had really happened, a shot that was far greater than that shot discussed for Syrian response. It meant sinking ships and killing hundreds on an island far from the continental US. And a foreign war that can expand is something older Americans know something about, while the youth have been raised to think about the needs of today and focus on self-realization as opposed to any form of what others label an altruistic intervention that could go wrong.   In fact UN chief Ban Ki-Moon warns the world about the risks of US military strikes.

Humanitarian groups fall into different categories, and the response about conflicts such as Syria is different ethnically, nationally, and religiously, depending upon the incident. The present problem in Syria, however, puts people at loggerheads, as they debate the debate their greatest concern about limited strikes on Syria to end the use of chemical weapons may produce a wider response with the sides lining up in ways that could create a worldwide involvement in war. In other words the worry is as it is with most citizens around the world who are observing the Syrian conflict. Fareed Zhakaria relates it to the old adage, “If you break it, you own it.”underlining Obama's contradictions, which indeed resembles the worries of citizens around the world over what is the most humanitarian approach.

'Stand Your Ground' laws: Are they needed?

[caption id="attachment_19518" align="alignleft" width="300"] George Zimmerman shown after verdict[/caption]

Leigh Martin---Like many people as a writer, pre- law student and person who believes in staying updated on social matters, I  have watched the George Zimmerman trial and wondered about Florida's "stand your ground" law.  Is this a good or bad piece of legislation?  How does it influence human behavior?  These are some of the issues and answers to the questions I discovered during my research.

First a little about the Florida law.  While some people believe President Barack Obama or Congress should act, they actually have little to do with the state laws that have been touted as a way for people to protect themselves from assailants, whether these assailants are on the streets or in a person's home.    Actually, the jury's instructions during the George Zimmerman trial was that Zimmerman had “no duty to retreat," citing the law on Stand Your Ground.

Chapter 76, is discussed by one of Florida's Senators, Chris Smith, that he outlines on his website Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.  Other conditions are outlined and enumerated by Smith that are pertinent to the law of defending yourself and the conditions under which one may do so.

There are opposing sides on the condition of the "Stand Your Ground" laws, especially since the trial of George Zimmerman, who was found not guilty of killing Trayvon Martin, referencing the law in his defense.

Jonathan Turley, a well-known attorney and commentator on national news stories relative to the law,  maintains that Obama's sharing of his personal experience gave good insight into the problems of race in America.  He went on to say that he believes Zimmerman was fixated on the topic of crime as opposed to the SYG law itself and declares the use of it at trial was the classic self-defense style often used in trials such as these.

With reference to the use of SYG at trial, Turley writes:  "The jury clearly found the evidence lacking, as I pointed out in an earlier column. That does not mean that they were carrying out a racial agenda or blind to the historic mistreatment of blacks in America. They could have had a good-faith reason for reasonable doubt of what occurred at this place at that time."

A Mother Jones writer, however, believes the law was specifically what the jury was addressing when they made their decision to acquit.  Still the article seemed less to answer the question about whether or not SYG laws are needed and more on the trial of Zimmerman and the impact of the law specific to the case, whereas Turley asks us to pause and think about why the laws were instituted in the first place, so that people can protect themselves when police are not in the area at the time of an assault.

The controversies on the law are tinged with emotion, but the facts require reflection.  The states are finding the questions about the law more frequent after the trial of George Zimmerman.  Still the answers may come with the same arguments as the gun laws themselves, also different from one state to another.










-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Leigh Martin is a college junior, studying to enter law school, who is interested in how the laws are framed with respect to self defense and offered her observations as a free-lance writer.

Who is the 'nigger' now?

Carol Forsloff ---As the publisher of a magazine that deals with humanitarian issues, I believe one cannot write of the problems of the world without looking at America's greatest one, a problem that led to war and that has maintained bitterness and resentment against a whole race of people for centuries. That is the problem of racial prejudice.

[caption id="attachment_16312" align="alignright" width="184"] Martin Luther King[/caption]

Nuanced speech can't hide the fact that many people in America were not, and still are not, ready for an African American President. But it isn't polite to say so.

It is not socially appropriate to use the word "nigger" in polite discourse, yet the word is neatly hidden in an underground of conversation where the emphasis is on differences, foreign, not like us, something that has taken the United States to war and through the bitterness of the McCarthy era and other tragic times.

In reflecting on the topic of racial prejudice, it is essential that we examine how America has treated most of its foremost black leaders throughout history. Virtually every one of them has been vilified, condemned with the eighth commandment ignored entirely and figuratively placed in the garbage bin of the worst of human behavior. The accusations leveled against African American leaders violate the commandment against speaking falsehoods against one's neighbor. The platform used is freedom of speech, which in the modern world has taken the form of license.

Social media, ordinary conversations with acquaintances old and new, and comments on news threads are reminders of one of the worst and most long-lasting problems in the United States. The Southern Poverty Law Center reports that there has never been the level of violent speech and threats against any President in modern history as against Obama. The buzz word isn't "nigger" but the intention and the insults remain the same, only the key words are "Communist" "Foreigner" "Muslim, " not like the rest of us.

The vilification of President Barack Obama is only a repeat of long-lasting negative response against black leadership. Martin Luther King was called Communist and traitor and worse. He was the target of FBI witch hunts and personal violence, long before his death at the age of 39. In the McCarthy era, the target was Paul Robeson, whose career in music and the arts was virtually destroyed by right-wing attacks that continue long after the man's death to the extent that few people, either white or black, young or old, even know of his achievements. These three, Barack Obama, Martin Luther King and Paul Robeson are not the only ones who have suffered insult, constant verbal abuse and hate. The African American community, especially its children, recognize the pattern for what it is, racism and prejudice at its worst, as language and behavior reflect that Obama represents the "nigger" now.

"Nigger" is present in nuanced speech, but remains the same as ever, a blot on the American conscience that will not fade until folks focus on the problem of racism and stand together to fight the awfulness of its result so that every man, woman and child in America is treated justly and with respect in all aspects of life, including politics.

From the conscience of a conservative: Thank you Mr. President

[caption id="attachment_4044" align="alignleft" width="222" caption="President Barack Obama"][/caption]

Samantha Torrence--It almost feels like the day after 9/11 when America huddled together for comfort, and for just one small week we were one nation. We were not liberals and conservatives, or Republicans or Democrats, we were just Americans.  That time has happened again, to help us all remember that.

It has been a harrowing ride from then until now. Our nation has seen bitterness and hatred as we have become polarized. Our relationship as a nation has been strained because of the economy, and we all know that money problems are the number one cause of fighting and divorce. Hopefully the death of Osama Bin Laden has brought us back from that brink.

In 2001 we had a President that was not well liked, but after our shock and horror at being attacked and his speech to comfort us his approval ratings shot through the roof. Now nearly ten years later we have another President who has given us another speech to inspire our patriotism. If liberals and Democrats could put aside their misgivings for President Bush then I do not think it is a stretch for Republicans and Conservatives to do the same for President Obama.

I am grateful that President Obama delivered to us the finality to our mourning and the justice we have been craving. The good he did for our country by allowing these operations to happen can hopefully help us clean this wound of the salt festering in it and begin to allow healing. Am I naïve to think this is all we will need to come together as a nation? No.

As a Conservative I still do not support many of the initiatives that President Obama, his administration, and his party are presenting or enacting. And despite the enormity of respect I have for what he has done I still have my principles. And I think that President Obama can respect that.

So while I thank President Obama with all of my heart for bringing finality and close the cycle that had begun on 9/11 there are still some things that I plan on voicing opposition to. I plan on continuing my opposition to the healthcare bill as I see it as being far too punitive on the average citizen, and not proactive enough in really providing healthcare of fixing our healthcare system. I do not plan to support raising the debt ceiling, gas taxes, and estate taxes. I am still against bail outs for any big companies especially the banks. I will continue to demand that he get tough on the out of control spending in America. I certainly plan on asking him to reign in his green initiatives till we are stable enough to proceed.

But today, I will put aside my differences and focus on the one thing he and I can agree on. I will be happy that we have seen the last of this mad man who has brought so much pain and hurt to the world, and this action happened on the watch of President Barack Obama.

Thank you Mr. President