My hunch: If marijuana were traditionally consumed in liquid form — as a tasty beverage with or without a tiny paper umbrella protruding out the top — it would be legal today. Although it continues to be illegal in the vast majority of U.S. regions, some cities, and even the entire state of California, have rethought or are rethinking it’s legal status.
Over the past decades a big argument against legalization was the claim that marijuana is a “gateway” drug. That it leads to the use and possible addiction to harder, more physically and socially injurious drugs.
Is marijuana a gateway drug? The answer to that question depends upon what studies you consider. From some research the logical conclusion would be, seems so. From other research, maybe not.
A recent study falls into the second category.
New research from the University of New Hampshire shows that the “gateway effect” of marijuana – that teenagers who use marijuana are more likely to move on to harder illicit drugs as young adults – is overblown. [source]
Reading and thinking carefully here, the use of the word “overblown” suggests there may be a small link, a minor influence of marijuana use on whether or not an individual later uses other, more truly dangerous drugs.
Oh darn. Damn those precise scientists! Can’t give us a completely black or completely white answer! We’ll have to go to a preacher or politician for one of those.
Additionally, the small gateway effect appears transient.
[O]nce young adults reach age 21, the gateway effect subsides entirely.
Drug use is a complicated subject. A couple other variables that seem involved were exposed by this study. The first being employment. When gainfully employed, individuals are much less likely to “move on” to the use of harder drugs.
And then there was this surprising finding (at least to me) -
The researchers found that the strongest predictor of other illicit drug use appears to be race-ethnicity, not prior use of marijuana. Non-Hispanic whites show the greatest odds of other illicit substance use, followed by Hispanics, and then by African Americans. [emphasis added]
Hmm. Now that’s food for thought. No, not hash brownies. Regular food. At least not until you punch-out on Friday.
It has occurred to me that the Bible god could not have dictated His book to the Eskimos*, for it says nothing of seal and caribou. Rather than the Canaanites and Hittites, the extreme-northern Americans of the time battled bitter cold and the occasional polar bear. While heat appears in the King James Version of the Bible 241 times; there are only 17 uses of cold; A search for lion yields 141 hits, polar bear, not one.
Speaking of bears, the Bible god grants humankind dominion over all the animals. In the case of the grizzly, it’s a good thing humans invented weaponry, because without spears at minimum, the grizzly would have dominion over us relatively puny, sometimes knee-knocking Homo sapiens. Quoting Genesis to lions and tigers and bears doesn’t seem to impress them. Oh my.
Many characters in the Bible owned slaves. As far as I know, that’s not part of Eskimo culture. In the ancient Middle East one class of men had dominion over another. And they were not condemned for it. Perform a bit of a white-wash and call them servants if that makes you feel better. It was the way of their world. Men of the Bible god owned and sold other men, women, and children.
Didn’t the god of these people, this entity from a higher world, hold a higher standard? Did the Bible, in fact, get it wrong, and those who no longer hold one race above another now have it right? Throughout the ages the Bible has been used to commend and later condemn a whole platoon of motley behaviors.
Fortunately, human social conscience has evolved and is evolving. In some cases the pulpit may have helped to spread the word. But as frequently, and maybe more frequently, preachers have been behind the curve of recognizing an expanding circle of rights.
Forget about gay marriage — some churches still do not grant full respect and rights to women. Many religious authorities continue to assert, in words often left unsaid, that women deserve the status of “household assistants” and not that of complete equals to men. Aren’t women as worthy of standing behind an altar as they are kneeling before it? If not, why not?
Outdated reasoning. Although size and might may have “made right” in the human animal’s distant past — in times of the origination of religious sentiments that persist today — this is far from an essential truth. Power, however, is all today’s men have over women. That and undeservedly revered documents such as the Bible.
—
*The indigenous peoples of near-polar regions, including the Yupik, Inuit, and Aleut. [Wiki info]
The other night I watched a DVD of the film Avatar. Hadn’t seen it before. I hesitate to admit it, but I couldn’t sit through the entire flick. It bored and bothered me. Sure, visually it was stunning. But the storyline and characters — cardboard. Perhaps I wasn’t in the mood for a one-dimensional movie.
As a slight tangent let me just say that I hope that future human culture displays both technological and intellectual advancement . . . perhaps even to the point of recognizing that individuals are rarely uni-dimensional — psychologically speaking — and while the webs of nature are quite complex and even esteem-worthy, the Earth is not some magical, holistic, font of pure good.
Back to the visuals. When watching the first third of the movie I suspected that someone (writer/director James Cameron?) had obviously spent some time diving/snorkeling. Or had seen a bunch of old Cousteau videos. Or had fallen down and pressed his/her nose into the duff and gained a closer good look at the startling and awesome complexity of the marine life and the life of the microscopic realm. Which is a good thing. IMO.
Are atheists less patriotic than believers? And, if so, is this a bad thing?
As to the first question, it seems so. At least a recent study finding suggests as much. The first paragraph of the news release sums it up:
A study by Ryotaro Uemura, sociology doctoral student at Indiana University Bloomington, found that people who had no religious affiliation have significantly less favorable views of the U.S. However, to be an ethnic minority does not necessarily have significant effects on national attitudes.
Wow. Have the FOX talking-heads been right all along? Are we godless liberals going to drive the country off the closest cliff? Do we really hate America?
First, a little more specificity:
Uemura also found that to be non-citizens does not have a significant effect on national pride; this suggests that non-citizens are as proud of the U.S. as are citizens.
Okay, if you think about it, a lot of questions come cascading, beyond the customary, “Is this finding legit.”
Is national pride the same thing as patriotism?
Is it possible to have less favorable views of your country but love and/or care for it as much?
Should FOX pundits direct their ire away from immigrants and Muslims toward non-believers?
Would it be advantageous/accurate to to view these findings in the light of feelings of group belonging and acceptance?
And then there is this:
As for ethnic subgroups, blacks tend to have less favorable views compared to their white counterparts.
Not surprising, but . . . more questions.
We human beings tend to explain differences in behavior by pointing toward dispositional attributes. It’s easy; it’s quick. One person does good things because he/she is a hero, another person does bad things because he/she is evil. Or unpatriotic. What goes missing are the many other, essential variables. Digging deeper to expose the actual psychological mechanisms would better explain our differences. Until that time, I try to steer clear of blanket dispositional-think.
Corporations have power. And they are guided by human beings — animals notorious for their propensity to be selfish (for good and bad). Add power to ordinary selfishness, and you’ve got a very big bully on your block.
No, corporations are not evil by nature. Yes, they may be dangerous by nature, due to their size. Clashes occur when the self-interest of a powerful few threatens the interests of many. The pharmaceutical industry may provide a good case-in-point. The selfish incentive provided by bottom-line profits has led to developments that do little good for consumers of a number of pharmaceutical products, yet generate a lot of cash. For the corporation.
This topic came to my attention recently in the form of a news release of the science sort – Pharmaceuticals: A market for producing ‘lemons’ and serious harm
Author of the study, Donald Light, came to this conclusion -
Three reasons why the pharmaceutical market produces “lemons” are: Having companies in charge of testing new drugs, providing firewalls of legal protection behind which information about harms or effectiveness can be hidden, and the relatively low bar set for drug efficacy in order for a new drug to be approved.
While the above makes a lot of sense to me — and perhaps even strikes a chord of my prejudices — I wondered about the source of the information upon which the conclusion was based. I learned -
Light’s paper, “Pharmaceuticals: A Two-Tier Market for Producing ‘Lemons’ and Serious Harm,” is an institutional analysis of the pharmaceutical industry and how it works based on a range of independent sources and studies, including the Canadian Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, the Food and Drug Administration, and Prescrire International.
Hmm. What’s an “institutional analysis”? I think I’d need access to the entire paper, and perhaps be a near-expert in the field, to evaluate the legitimacy of the finding. My hunch tells me it’s likely legitimate. But I await further information and education before I feel confident in the conclusions.
In any regard, I am hearted by the fact that there are individual Davies out there attempting to keep the corporate Goliaths in check.
Is communicating science a ‘catch 22′-type affair?
Are scientists caught up in an ivory tower of academia and thus have difficulties relating to the lowly, common woman and man?
Some have argued this point in one form or another. And, as I see it, there may be a modicum of merit to it.
What’s the pertinent part of the problem? Academic language. At least according to a recent article by one of those academic types. In Academic Language Impedes Students’ Ability to Learn Science, Expert Argues you will find this description of an important element to the problem:
In addition to having its own specialized vocabulary, academic language is more concise, using complex grammatical structures to express complicated ideas in as few words as possible. [all emphases mine]
This specialized way of communicating impedes the dissemination of science to students and the average Janes and Joes. So what to do?
Many apparently believe the solution is to dumb-down and sexy-up science. Massive rock hurtling through space, Earth in its cross-hairs!
While I’m all for making the findings of science more accessible, I believe this can result in writing that violates scientific values and methods. Objectivity, precision, accuracy, etc. And that is the catch 22. How to make science interesting and engaging without venturing into the realm of salesmanship and quasi-fables.
Fortunately, there is more than one solution to the problem. The short-term solution is for academics to come down out of their tower, to put on baseball caps and sunglasses, play some hip-hop music and rap about their findings. Or something not quite as extreme.
The longer term solution, the one I favor, is addressed in the article:
Catherine E. Snow, a professor at the Harvard University Graduate School of Education and the Boston research director for the Strategic Education Research Partnership (SERP), makes the case that students need to be taught academic language in order to learn science and other subjects.
Yes. Rather than fully dumbing-down science, educate the audience. Lift them up. All students, from ages 5 to 105. Those in school, those attending hard-knocks university.
If you ask me, the ivory tower is a good thing. For one, the view is outstanding. Let’s better open it up to the general public.
