Thursday, April 30, 2015
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
Saturday, April 25, 2015
What Science Says About Marijuana
For Michele Leonhart, the administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, there is no difference between the health effects of marijuana and those of any other illegal drug. “All illegal drugs are bad for people,” she told Congress in 2012, refusing to say whether crack, methamphetamines or prescription painkillers are more addictive or physically harmful than marijuana.
Her testimony neatly illustrates the vast gap between antiquated federal law enforcement policies and the clear consensus of science that marijuana is far less harmful to human health than most other banned drugs and is less dangerous than the highly addictive but perfectly legal substances known as alcohol and tobacco. Marijuana cannot lead to a fatal overdose. There is little evidence that it causes cancer. Its addictive properties, while present, are low, and the myth that it leads users to more powerful drugs has long since been disproved.
That doesn’t mean marijuana is harmless; in fact, the potency of current strains may shock those who haven’t tried it for decades, particularly when ingested as food. It can produce a serious dependency, and constant use would interfere with job and school performance. It needs to be kept out of the hands of minors. But, on balance, its downsides are not reasons to impose criminal penalties on its possession, particularly not in a society that permits nicotine use and celebrates drinking.
Marijuana’s negative health effects are arguments for the same strong regulation that has been effective in curbing abuse of legal substances. Science and government have learned a great deal, for example, about how to keep alcohol out of the hands of minors. Mandatory underage drinking laws and effective marketing campaigns have reduced underage alcohol use to 24.8 percent in 2011, compared with 33.4 percent in 1991. Cigarette use among high school students is at its lowest point ever, largely thanks to tobacco taxes and growing municipal smoking limits. There is already some early evidence that regulation would also help combat teen marijuana use, which fell after Colorado began broadly regulating medical marijuana in 2010.
Comparing the Dangers As with other recreational substances, marijuana’s health effects depend on the frequency of use, the potency and amount of marijuana consumed, and the age of the consumer. Casual use by adults poses little or no risk for healthy people. Its effects are mostly euphoric and mild, whereas alcohol turns some drinkers into barroom brawlers, domestic abusers or maniacs behind the wheel.
An independent scientific committee in Britain compared 20 drugs in 2010 for the harms they caused to individual users and to society as a whole through crime, family breakdown, absenteeism, and other social ills. Adding up all the damage, the panel estimated that alcohol was the most harmful drug, followed by heroin and crack cocaine. Marijuana ranked eighth, having slightly more than one-fourth the harm of alcohol.
Federal scientists say that the damage caused by alcohol and tobacco is higher because they are legally available; if marijuana were legally and easily obtainable, they say, the number of people suffering harm would rise. However, a 1995 study for the World Health Organization concluded that even if usage of marijuana increased to the levels of alcohol and tobacco, it would be unlikely to produce public health effects approaching those of alcohol and tobacco in Western societies.
Most of the risks of marijuana use are “small to moderate in size,” the study said. “In aggregate, they are unlikely to produce public health problems comparable in scale to those currently produced by alcohol and tobacco.”
While tobacco causes cancer, and alcohol abuse can lead to cirrhosis, no clear causal connection between marijuana and a deadly disease has been made. Experts at the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the scientific arm of the federal anti-drug campaign, published a review of the adverse health effects of marijuana in June that pointed to a few disease risks but was remarkably frank in acknowledging widespread uncertainties. Though the authors believed that legalization would expose more people to health hazards, they said the link to lung cancer is “unclear,” and that it is lower than the risk of smoking tobacco.
The very heaviest users can experience symptoms of bronchitis, such as wheezing and coughing, but moderate smoking poses little risk. A 2012 study found that smoking a joint a day for seven years was not associated with adverse effects on pulmonary function. Experts say that marijuana increases the heart rate and the volume of blood pumped by the heart, but that poses a risk mostly to older users who already have cardiac or other health problems.
How Addictive Is Marijuana? Marijuana isn’t addictive in the same sense as heroin, from which withdrawal is an agonizing, physical ordeal. But it can interact with pleasure centers in the brain and can create a strong sense of psychological dependence that addiction experts say can be very difficult to break. Heavy users may find they need to take larger and larger doses to get the effects they want. When they try to stop, some get withdrawal symptoms such as irritability, sleeping difficulties and anxiety that are usually described as relatively mild.
The American Society of Addiction Medicine, the largest association of physicians specializing in addiction, issued a white paper in 2012 opposing legalization because “marijuana is not a safe and harmless substance” and marijuana addiction “is a significant health problem.”
Nonetheless, that health problem is far less significant than for other substances, legal and illegal. The Institute of Medicine, the health arm of the National Academy of Sciences, said in a 1999 study that 32 percent of tobacco users become dependent, as do 23 percent of heroin users, 17 percent of cocaine users, and 15 percent of alcohol drinkers. But only 9 percent of marijuana users develop a dependence.
“Although few marijuana users develop dependence, some do,” according to the study. “But they appear to be less likely to do so than users of other drugs (including alcohol and nicotine), and marijuana dependence appears to be less severe than dependence on other drugs.”
There’s no need to ban a substance that has less than a third of the addictive potential of cigarettes, but state governments can discourage heavy use through taxes and education campaigns and help provide treatment for those who wish to quit.
Impact on Young People One of the favorite arguments of legalization opponents is that marijuana is the pathway to more dangerous drugs. But a wide variety of researchers have found no causal factor pushing users up the ladder of harm. While 111 million Americans have tried marijuana, only a third of that number have tried cocaine, and only 4 percent heroin. People who try marijuana are more likely than the general population to try other drugs, but that doesn’t mean marijuana prompted them to do so.
Marijuana “does not appear to be a gateway drug to the extent that it is the cause or even that it is the most significant predictor of serious drug abuse,” the Institute of Medicine study said. The real gateway drugs are tobacco and alcohol, which young people turn to first before trying marijuana.
It’s clear, though, that marijuana is now far too easy for minors to obtain, which remains a significant problem. The brain undergoes active development until about age 21, and there is evidence that young people are more vulnerable to the adverse effects of marijuana.
A long-term study based in New Zealand, published in 2012, found that people who began smoking heavily in their teens and continued into adulthood lost an average of eight I.Q. points by age 38 that could not be fully restored. A Canadian study published in 2002 also found an I.Q. loss among heavy school-age users who smoked at least five joints a week.
The case is not completely settled. The New Zealand study was challenged by a Norwegian researcher who said socio-economic factors may have played a role in the I.Q. loss. But the recent review by experts at the National Institute on Drug Abuse concluded that adults who smoked heavily in adolescence had impaired neural connections that interfered with the functioning of their brains. Early and frequent marijuana use has also been associated with poor grades, apathy and dropping out of school, but it is unclear whether consumption triggered the poor grades.
Restricting marijuana to adults is more important now that Colorado merchants are selling THC, the drug’s active ingredient, in candy bars, cookies and other edible forms likely to appeal to minors. Experience in Colorado has shown that people can quickly ingest large amounts of THC that way, which can produce frightening hallucinations.
Although marijuana use had been declining among high school students for more than a decade, in recent years it has started to climb, in contrast to continuing declines in cigarette smoking and alcohol use. Marijuana was found -- alone or in combination with other drugs -- in more than 455,000 patients visiting emergency rooms in 2011. Nearly 70 percent of the teenagers in residential substance-abuse programs run by Phoenix House, which operates drug and alcohol treatment centers in 10 states, listed marijuana as their primary problem.
Those are challenges for regulators in any state that chooses to legalize marijuana. But they are familiar challenges, and they will become easier for governments to deal with once more of them bring legal marijuana under tight regulation.
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
The Church and Sex
The Church has a problem with sex
• April 22, 2015
The Church has a problem with sex.
The secular world thinks the problem is that the Church is out of step with modern morality. The real problem, though, is that the Church should be out of step with this modern morality, but many of our bishops and priests have embraced secular mores. This is reflected in our pastors’ tacit acceptance of cohabitation and the use of artificial contraception. The tacit acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle by many bishops and priests has also become more explicit.
The problem is that our shepherds suffer from amnesia; they seem to have forgotten what the Church really teaches about sex. We should not have a cardinal saying “Bravo!” to the “coming out” of a homosexual football player, nor should we have prelates admitting they haven’t talked about sexual sins like artificial contraception in decades. We shouldn’t see Catholic groups marching in parades alongside “gay pride” groups, let alone leading those parades!
The main point that’s been forgotten is that the primary end of the marital embrace is procreation. There is much talk of the unitive aspect of sex, but that is new phraseology. Church Fathers used to call it “mutual help” and “the quieting of concupiscence.” These days, people barely know what “concupiscence” means. The traditional words for “sex” (meaning the act of sexual intercourse) were “marital embrace” or “marital act”—terms that made clear that sex isn’t divorced from true marriage; and the link to procreation was always assumed. Is that just because the ancients (and the pre-moderns) didn’t know how to regulate births?
No. I think it’s just that they took sex seriously. They understood—better than we do, in our current hyper-sexed culture—that sex is easily abused and perverted. There are abuses and perversions in our society that would make any saint (and many a sinner) from earlier times recoil in horror and disbelief (and they would use terms like “fornication” and “sodomy”).
But we’ve become habituated to it, because we’ve separated sex from its procreative function via artificial contraception, and we’ve made it recreational. People have become conditioned to believe that sex should be separate from procreation; otherwise, the coveted aspect of wanton pleasure is lost, and lustful couples might have to take responsibility for a child.
Many Catholics have swallowed the hook that sexual intercourse is good—even sacred and holy—in and of itself. An NFP proponent recently informed me that “God loves sex! He wants us humans to have sex!”
I beg to differ: God does not “love” sex. God loves the fruits of the conjugal embrace, but God does not love sex for the sake of sexual pleasure; in fact, He doesn’t love anything for the sake of carnal pleasure. For example, God made food for us to eat, but He doesn’t “love” eating; neither does He love to have us overeat, even if it does feel good at the time.
The love and intimacy we can achieve in marriage is a much greater gift than mere sex. The gift is that we can approach sex with reason and will. Sex is good only in marriage—marriage between a man and a woman, with the full knowledge and hope that children may come from that intimate union. And no, God does not want us humans to have sex for the sake of having sex. That fact is perfectly apparent when you consider the following situations: sex outside of marriage; the sexual act involved in rape; or sex between two men or two women. Sex in and of itself is not always “good.”
In 1930, Pope Pius XI reminded us in Casti Connubii that “amongst the blessings of marriage, the child holds the first place” (§11). In other words, if sex is a gift, then it is inextricably tied to the gift of children.
Instead, though, the following line of reasoning permeates the modern Catholic’s thinking:
When Protestant groups began to accept artificial contraception as a legitimate means of regulating births in the 1930s, some of our Catholic leaders demanded the same “right.” The Church tried to stem the tide, with Pope Pius XI’s Casti Connubii affirming the primarily procreative end of marriage. That encyclical also acknowledged “secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence,” but this was not a concession to the contraceptive mentality; Casti Connubii still contained the caveat that such ends must be “subordinated to the primary end” of procreation.
Proponents of Natural Family Planning and Theology of the Body are quick to claim that the procreative and unitive aspects of the sexual union are equally important. This is incorrect in the sense that there is still a hierarchy of ends, even if our bishops aren’t teaching it. They are equally important, though, in the sense that these two aspects of the marital embrace are meant to be inseparable. Sex without fear of conception is not what the Church encourages; what is encouraged is the idea that “husband and wife be joined in an especially holy and pure love, not as adulterers love each other, but as Christ loved the Church” (Casti Connubii, §23). He’s talking about chastity vs. concupiscence, about love vs. sex—the love that “is not that based on the passing lust of the moment . . . but in the deep attachment of the heart which is expressed in action, since love is proved by deeds” (§23).
Artificial contraception, sterilization, and even NFP separate the procreative end from the unitive end of marriage; and with that separation, we have greatly diminished our ability to argue for the sanctity of marriage, and to explain effectively why homosexual behavior is inherently sinful. In fact, the separation of the unitive from the procreative ends can be used as justification for sex between or among any number of people regardless of gender. The slippery slope is getting more slippery.
We desperately need a return to an understanding of what the marital embrace is all about. Until our bishops begin to teach the primacy of procreation in marriage, contraception will rule society; family sizes will remain small; abortion will continue to be accepted; and the homosexualist agenda will directly impact our religious freedom.
http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/god-loves-sex
The secular world thinks the problem is that the Church is out of step with modern morality. The real problem, though, is that the Church should be out of step with this modern morality, but many of our bishops and priests have embraced secular mores. This is reflected in our pastors’ tacit acceptance of cohabitation and the use of artificial contraception. The tacit acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle by many bishops and priests has also become more explicit.
The problem is that our shepherds suffer from amnesia; they seem to have forgotten what the Church really teaches about sex. We should not have a cardinal saying “Bravo!” to the “coming out” of a homosexual football player, nor should we have prelates admitting they haven’t talked about sexual sins like artificial contraception in decades. We shouldn’t see Catholic groups marching in parades alongside “gay pride” groups, let alone leading those parades!
The main point that’s been forgotten is that the primary end of the marital embrace is procreation. There is much talk of the unitive aspect of sex, but that is new phraseology. Church Fathers used to call it “mutual help” and “the quieting of concupiscence.” These days, people barely know what “concupiscence” means. The traditional words for “sex” (meaning the act of sexual intercourse) were “marital embrace” or “marital act”—terms that made clear that sex isn’t divorced from true marriage; and the link to procreation was always assumed. Is that just because the ancients (and the pre-moderns) didn’t know how to regulate births?
No. I think it’s just that they took sex seriously. They understood—better than we do, in our current hyper-sexed culture—that sex is easily abused and perverted. There are abuses and perversions in our society that would make any saint (and many a sinner) from earlier times recoil in horror and disbelief (and they would use terms like “fornication” and “sodomy”).
But we’ve become habituated to it, because we’ve separated sex from its procreative function via artificial contraception, and we’ve made it recreational. People have become conditioned to believe that sex should be separate from procreation; otherwise, the coveted aspect of wanton pleasure is lost, and lustful couples might have to take responsibility for a child.Many Catholics have swallowed the hook that sexual intercourse is good—even sacred and holy—in and of itself. An NFP proponent recently informed me that “God loves sex! He wants us humans to have sex!”
I beg to differ: God does not “love” sex. God loves the fruits of the conjugal embrace, but God does not love sex for the sake of sexual pleasure; in fact, He doesn’t love anything for the sake of carnal pleasure. For example, God made food for us to eat, but He doesn’t “love” eating; neither does He love to have us overeat, even if it does feel good at the time.
The love and intimacy we can achieve in marriage is a much greater gift than mere sex. The gift is that we can approach sex with reason and will. Sex is good only in marriage—marriage between a man and a woman, with the full knowledge and hope that children may come from that intimate union. And no, God does not want us humans to have sex for the sake of having sex. That fact is perfectly apparent when you consider the following situations: sex outside of marriage; the sexual act involved in rape; or sex between two men or two women. Sex in and of itself is not always “good.”
In 1930, Pope Pius XI reminded us in Casti Connubii that “amongst the blessings of marriage, the child holds the first place” (§11). In other words, if sex is a gift, then it is inextricably tied to the gift of children.
Instead, though, the following line of reasoning permeates the modern Catholic’s thinking:
- Sex is good all the time for married couples, because it is a gift from God.
- Sex is a way of expressing love between husband and wife (the unitive end of marriage).
- Therefore, it is good for a married couple to be able to engage in intentionally sterile sex so they can still enjoy the unitive end of the marital act while avoiding pregnancy.
When Protestant groups began to accept artificial contraception as a legitimate means of regulating births in the 1930s, some of our Catholic leaders demanded the same “right.” The Church tried to stem the tide, with Pope Pius XI’s Casti Connubii affirming the primarily procreative end of marriage. That encyclical also acknowledged “secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence,” but this was not a concession to the contraceptive mentality; Casti Connubii still contained the caveat that such ends must be “subordinated to the primary end” of procreation.
Proponents of Natural Family Planning and Theology of the Body are quick to claim that the procreative and unitive aspects of the sexual union are equally important. This is incorrect in the sense that there is still a hierarchy of ends, even if our bishops aren’t teaching it. They are equally important, though, in the sense that these two aspects of the marital embrace are meant to be inseparable. Sex without fear of conception is not what the Church encourages; what is encouraged is the idea that “husband and wife be joined in an especially holy and pure love, not as adulterers love each other, but as Christ loved the Church” (Casti Connubii, §23). He’s talking about chastity vs. concupiscence, about love vs. sex—the love that “is not that based on the passing lust of the moment . . . but in the deep attachment of the heart which is expressed in action, since love is proved by deeds” (§23).
Artificial contraception, sterilization, and even NFP separate the procreative end from the unitive end of marriage; and with that separation, we have greatly diminished our ability to argue for the sanctity of marriage, and to explain effectively why homosexual behavior is inherently sinful. In fact, the separation of the unitive from the procreative ends can be used as justification for sex between or among any number of people regardless of gender. The slippery slope is getting more slippery.
We desperately need a return to an understanding of what the marital embrace is all about. Until our bishops begin to teach the primacy of procreation in marriage, contraception will rule society; family sizes will remain small; abortion will continue to be accepted; and the homosexualist agenda will directly impact our religious freedom.
http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/god-loves-sex
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
Saturday, April 18, 2015
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Sunday, April 12, 2015
Saturday, April 11, 2015
Friday, April 10, 2015
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
Sunday, April 5, 2015
Saturday, April 4, 2015
Friday, April 3, 2015
Thursday, April 2, 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)