Tag Archives: Mental health

Medical Marijuana: Benefit or Slippery Slope?

Posted on by

Author:  R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D

Well, here we go again. The N.C. General Assembly may be considering making marijuana legal for medical use, which they declined to approve in the last session. Apparently enough people in North Carolina (or at least in the General Assembly) are pushing this idea so that it keeps coming up. Let’s take a look at the pros and cons of medical marijuana. It should be noted that medical marijuana is legal in 38 states and the District of Columbia.

There is surprisingly little valid scientific research on the health benefits of marijuana. Most of what is claimed is based on anecdotal reports or small studies on short term benefits. Some of the claims are that it relieves nausea caused by some cancer treatments, relief of chronic pain, although not severe pain such as from surgery or broken bones, epilepsy and seizures, Alzheimer disease symptoms, HIV/Aids, and Crohn’s disease. Marijuana has over 100 different chemicals, so it is difficult to isolate the beneficial elements for each disorder. CBD is alleged to have positive effects on health while THC produces the euphoria or high that people experience. It should also be noted that marijuana is used to treat the symptoms of a medical condition, not the cause of that condition. Another important issue is whether there already exist legal drugs or treatments that patients can readily access that address these symptoms.

There are also negative effects. Because marijuana is a mind altering substance, changed perception and reaction times can negatively affect things like driving, leading to more injuries and deaths. Children can be especially harmed if they access marijuana, particularly ingestible forms such as gummy bears, cookies, brownies, etc. Although the long term impacts are not clearly understood, cognitive thinking ability and memory declines are documented for all ages. Confusion, poor muscle coordination, and dizziness are common. Motivation to lead a rewarding traditional life of work, family, and associated rewards often deteriorates, leading to nonproductive citizens. No society can flourish with large numbers of citizens addicted to drugs. Of course, the euphoria induced by marijuana is strongly related to its addictive potential and especially to its role as a gateway drug that leads the user to more potent drugs such as meth or heroin. Having worked in the N.C. Department of Correction as the Mental Health Services Director, I can testify to the numerous cases of criminal behavior in pursuit of illegal drugs that started with smoking marijuana. Interestingly, the FDA has not approved marijuana for general medical use except lab produced Epidiolex, Marinol and Cesamet to treat nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy, and low appetite for HIV patients.

Recent reports of the dramatic increase of China’s role in the marijuana trade adds another risk that should concern us all. There is increasing evidence that Chinese invaders are controlling the production and distribution of marijuana from California to Maine. They grow it and distribute it throughout the country, relying on the increased flow of illegal Chinese over our southern border for laborers. The Chinese are also the originators of the fentanyl crisis that is killing somewhere near 100,000 Americans each year. Now what could possibly go wrong with our biggest adversary, China, controlling marijuana and fentanyl production which can produce a deadly combination? Are we on a path of self-destruction? It makes one wonder. Twenty four states that started with medical marijuana have now legalized its recreational use. Result: 20% of the US population now report using marijuana. So if you think using marijuana is a good thing, then support medical marijuana since that is what is most likely to occur. Personally, I do not.

‘Free’ gambling money, a costly gift for players

Posted on by

The following editorial is taken from Carolina Coast Online:

“Bewre of Greeks bearing gifts” is a famous phrase from the “Aeneid,” the epic poem about the fall of the ancient city of Troy. It certainly applies today as gambling companies begin their onslaught of promotions offering “free money” to begin online sports betting. But gamblers beware, there is more at play.

As anyone with an ounce of common sense knows, there’s nothing free in life, especially money. There is a cost and in this case, as new North Carolina gamblers line up to play with the “house money,” the cost is the gambler’s personal profile along with enticements to gamble again and again, with the possibility of addiction.

Under the headline, “Place Your Bets. Sports betting officially becomes legal in NC” the AP announced that “Anyone 21 or older holding an account with a licensed operator can use their phone or electronic device to place sports wagers starting at noon on March 11.” What the AP story failed to explain, a fact that does warrant concern, is how do the gambling companies know the age of the user. Can the computer or phone really determine the gambler’s age?

Ads are running in TV sports programs, major news outlets and particularly college campuses, home of the industry’s primary target- college-age men, offering upwards to $1,000 of “free money” to place bets on a variety of games to include in-state college sports.

Steve Wiseman, sports reporter for the Durham Herald Sun, opined that the allowance of betting on in-state college sports will create greater pressures and even vitriol for the athletes. He explained that “lawmakers opted not to include any restrictions on college sports…(which) makes financial sense given the popularity of college athletics in the state that’s long been the ACC’s home base. But it means that schools are tasked with doing all they can to protect their athletes from physical and mental health standpoints, and prevent any betting scandals from engulfing their teams.”

At the same time Wiseman’s story appeared in the Raleigh News & Observer, Luke DeCock, sports columnist, offered advice to would-be gamblers on how to use the “free” money in a frontpage article. He described himself as an “experienced” gambler, explaining that he doesn’t bet on sports for professional and ethical reasons, but that he has dabbled in betting on horses, golf, craps, and blackjack. He also acknowledged, but again only briefly, the potential addictive nature of gambling.

“As any competent heroin dealer knows, the whole point of these bonus offers is to get people hooked – imagine if it was legal to hand out free booze and cigarettes- but that is the compromise we’ve become willing to accept in this state, because this gambling was happening anyway, in darker shadows, and we might as well benefit from it.”

There is so much to unpack with DeCock’s opening remarks that it defies the space allotted. But we’ll try, taking the points from the bottom up starting with the benefit of taxing gambling.

That’s not necessarily a bad idea as it applies to an age-old concept of taxing the vices and incentivizing the virtues. And this is what the legislature and Governor Cooper, who signed H.B. 347, are interested in doing. But they have done so with very little control over the marketing of the gaming industry, to include allowing sports betting on in-state college sports, which is prohibited in other states that have endorsed online sports gambling.

As for taking betting out of the shadows, DeCock obviously supports removing the stigma of doing something that is at the very least questionable, if not outright illegal. Social stigma is not a bad thing. It promotes a reason to pause before making stupid and most likely dangerous decisions. As has been proven, addictive gambling, particularly now that it is conveniently available online, can result in harmful behavior, especially when gambling debts become unmanageable.

Allison Drain, a coordinator with the NC Problem Gambling Program told NC Health News that younger college-age males are among the population expected to show an uptick in problem gambling despite many of them being younger than 21. Noting that gambling disorder is similar to substance abuse disorder, Drain also stated, “the earlier that you engage in the activity, the greater the chances are of you becoming addicted to it later in life because it deals with that brain structure and development.”

The concept of giving a product or service away, including money, to build habits and dependence is not new. The cigarette manufacturers proved this in both World Wars. In both wars the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines on the front lines were issued three or four cigarettes with their rations, with the purpose of providing a calming activity in the midst of terrible circumstances.

There is good reason to believe the nicotine in these free cigarettes provided a calming effect, but they also strengthened the habit of cigarette smoking, which they continued once the wars ended. Faced with the growing evidence of the negative health impacts of smoking, the Department of Defense in 1976 finally halted the distribution of Camel, Chesterfield, Old Gold and Lucky Strike cigarettes in military ration kits.

In 1971, recognizing the health risks of cigarette smoking, the federal government banned the advertising of cigarettes on television and radio or in magazine publications focused on audiences under age 21. The restrictions on advertising also included universities, colleges and schools that produce theatrical or sports events.

The addictive nature of gambling, as with smoking, should also be a concern for the state and its policy makers. Just as with cigarettes, it is impossible to outlaw an activity that mature adults wish to engage in, no matter that it is harmful to the user. That is a personal choice made by adults.

The same argument holds true for gambling. It is a natural human activity, some would say weakness, but mankind is by nature a risk-taker. That proclivity to take risks and dares is why mankind continues to progress. But at the same time caution is needed in developing and honing that risk nature which can best be done by tailoring the messages, and in some instances prohibiting promotions, in cases where they can do the most harm.

The nation took action to address the addictive nature of cigarettes, so too the state should reassess its responsibilities with the potential of gambling addiction as well.

When Government Ignores The Constitution

Posted on by

Yesterday The Washington Free Beacon posted an article yesterday about an incident in San Jose, California, that should give us pause.

The article reports:

In 2013, Lori Rodriguez called San Jose police to her home because her husband was having a mental health crisis and making violent threats. Seven years later, she is petitioning the Supreme Court to force the city to return her guns.

“It’s not right. I shouldn’t have to do this to get back what’s mine,” Rodriguez told the Washington Free Beacon. “They violated several of my constitutional rights.”

Rodriguez claims police ordered her to open the couple’s gun safe so they could seize all of the weapons in the home after her husband was detained for making threats that the city says included “shooting up schools.” Cops seized not only her husband’s weapons but also the guns that were personally registered to Rodriguez. The city has repeatedly rebuffed her requests to return her property.

The suit is now the sole case with Second Amendment implications remaining before the Court after the justices rejected 10 other gun-rights cases on June 15. Rodriguez’s legal challenge comes as the federal government and a number of states debate “red flag” bills that would allow authorities to deny gun rights to citizens. It has the potential to clarify the extent to which the Second Amendment protects individuals from seizures of firearms.

San Jose city attorney Richard Doyle did not respond to a request for comment. The city defended its actions, saying that authorities were within their rights to confiscate the guns, calling Rodriguez’s claim “borderline frivolous.”

“If the government has lawful authority to effect the forfeiture and observes the requirements of due process in so doing, it has complied with the Constitution,” Doyle said in a brief submitted to the Supreme Court on Wednesday. “The forfeiture does nothing whatever to impair the previous owner’s right to buy, possess, or use firearms, and notwithstanding that the owner may recover the full market value of the guns through their transfer and sale.”

The article continues:

Several of the guns confiscated from Rodriguez by San Jose police have special sentimental value, according to Rodriguez. Police confiscated not only handguns that she and her husband purchased but also a war souvenir inherited from a family member.

“One of them is a gun my great uncle brought back from WWII,” she said. “I really want that one back. You can’t replace that one, obviously.”

Don Kilmer, Rodriguez’s lawyer, said that while the case implicates the 2nd Amendment, in addition to the 4th and even 14th Amendments, it ultimately comes down to an undisputed fact: Lori Rodriguez is not prohibited from owning the firearms San Jose took from her house.

“Her mental health has never been at issue,” Kilmer told the Free Beacon. “The law that the city is holding these guns under says that you can confiscate weapons of people who are mentally ill. Lori is not mentally ill.”

In the years since the initial police call, the Rodriguez family continues to live together, but Lori has taken steps to ensure she can legally own the confiscated firearms. She has transferred all of the firearms into her name and she is the only family member who knows the combination to the gun safe. Her lawyers argue that she is in compliance with all California gun laws—including those for individuals who live with people who can not own firearms themselves.

If her husband was the problem and he had no access to the gun safe, how can the city justify taking her guns away? This is definitely overreach.

The Homeless Are A Danger To Themselves And To The Rest Of Us

Posted on by

The once beautiful streets of San Francisco are now littered with needles and human waste. The homeless commit crimes to support various drug habits. Diseases that we have not seen in America for decades are appearing in the community. Who knows how the coronavirus will impact these people. The city does not seem to be able to deal with the problem. Where do you start?

On Tuesday The City Journal posted an article about the homelessness problem. The article reminds us that new data undermines the idea that homelessness is the result of high rents and lack of economic opportunity.

The article reports:

But new data are undermining this narrative. As residents of West Coast cities witness the disorder associated with homeless encampments, they have found it harder to accept the progressive consensus—especially in the context of the coronavirus epidemic, which has all Americans worried about contagion. An emerging body of evidence confirms what people see plainly on the streets: homelessness is deeply connected to addiction, mental illness, and crime.

Homeless advocates argue that substance abuse is a small contributor to the problem, and that no more than 20 percent of the homeless population abuses drugs. Last year, when I suggested that homelessness is primarily an addiction crisis—citing Seattle and King County data that suggested half of homeless individuals suffered from opioid addiction—activists denounced me on social media and wrote letters to the editor demanding a retraction. But according to a recent Los Angeles Times investigation, 46 percent of the homeless and 75 percent of the unsheltered homeless have a substance-abuse disorder—more than three times higher than official estimates from the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority.

In the interest of preventing “stigmatization,” progressives downplay the connection between schizophrenia, severe bipolar disorder, and homelessness. In general, cities have claimed that roughly 25 percent to 39 percent of the homeless suffer from mental-health disorders. As new data from the California Policy Lab show, it’s likely that 50 percent of the homeless and 78 percent of the unsheltered homeless have a serious mental health condition. For residents of cities like San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle, this should come as no surprise. The people smashing up property and yelling in the streets are clearly suffering from mental illness. The numbers confirm the ground-level reality.

The article concludes:

Residents in the most progressive enclaves of West Coast cities have quietly begun to demand policy changes to address the obvious causes of the homelessness crisis. In San Francisco, city leaders have launched a new initiative to focus on the 4,000 individuals who suffer from the “perilous trifecta” of homelessness, addiction, and mental illness. Mayor London Breed has spoken frankly about the human causes of homelessness, and Anton Nigusse Bland, a physician and director of mental health reform for the city, has pledged to “develop a strategic approach to mental health and substance use services for people experiencing homelessness in San Francisco.”

This is a small but promising step. Especially now, with the threat of an infectious disease becoming a national crisis, it is imperative that city leaders come to grips with the dangers of letting people live in encampments that lack even rudimentary sanitation. We can only hope that this new awareness extends to other cities. For now, more than 100,000 people in California, Oregon, and Washington continue to languish in the streets.

Rhode Island has put in place a program that has been successful in dealing with the problem of homelessness. The problem includes counseling, drug rehabilitation, reintegration into the community and reintegration into family units. The program is a public-private partnership that has been successful in getting many of the homeless reintegrated into society. Similar programs need to be instituted on the west coast. It is a disgrace that America has not done more to help those among us living on the street. Throwing money at the problem or ignoring it is not the answer. It takes a commitment to helping the homeless deal with the mental problems that have resulted in their living on the street.

Searching For The Truth Regarding Guns

Posted on by

Yesterday American Greatness posted an article detailing some of the lies the American people are currently being told about guns.

The article reports:

There’s a lot to unpack here about so-called “assault weapons.” The first challenge is the absence of any fixed legal definition of what constitutes an “assault weapon.” Numerous state laws have defined the phrase as everything from paintball guns to all semiautomatic firearms to Remington 11-87 shotguns, the latter famously used by former presidential candidate John Kerry (D-Mass.) on Labor Day in 2004 to demonstrate his legitimately good trap-shooting skills.

The vague term “assault weapon” is distinct from an assault rifle, however, which refers to a rapid-fire, magazine fed rifle that allows the shooter to select between semiautomatic (requiring you to pull the trigger for each shot), fully automatic (hold the trigger and the gun continuously fires) or three-round-burst modes. Assault rifles are, for all intents and purposes, already banned in the United States. More on that shortly.

The next lie is that the assault weapons ban worked:

Except it didn’t. “There is no compelling evidence that it saved lives,” according to Duke University public policy experts Philip Cook and Kristin Goss. A 2004 Department of Justice study found no evidence the ban had any effect on gun violence, stating “should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” Other studies have found no statistically significant relationship between “assault” weapons or large-capacity magazine bans and homicide rates.

There is also substantial misunderstanding surrounding what the Assault Weapons Ban, which passed in 1994 and sunset in 2004, actually did. It didn’t ban anyone from owning an “assault-style” (again, an undefined term) weapon. All magazines and weapons produced before the ban were grandfathered in, and some companies actually ramped up production of the soon-to-be-outlawed firearm components, drastically increasing ownership of what lawmakers were seeking to reduce.

The article mentions:

Also, given the frequently cited claim that “assault weapons lead to more murder,” it’s worth pointing out that at least 730,000 AR-15s (not an assault rifle, but more on that in a bit) were manufactured and legally sold while the Assault Weapons Ban was in effect, and the national murder rate declined.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. We are being sold a bill of goods by people who want to take our Second Amendment rights away.

The article concludes with information about the shooting that recently occurred in Odessa, Texas:

The shooter was also prohibited under federal law from owning a firearm because a court previously had found him mentally unfit. He evidently had tried to purchase a gun in January 2014 but failed because the nationwide criminal background check system had flagged the mental health determination.

The federal Firearms Transaction Record, form 4437, required for all gun purchases, asks “have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?” Falsifying the form is a crime.

It was later revealed the shooter had a criminal record that included pleading guilty to criminal trespassing and evading arrest, both of which are misdemeanors in Texas. He did not receive jail time, but instead got two years of probation.

The Odessa shooting was a horror. But existing laws prevented it from happening sooner. And the fact that he got a gun at all tells us what common sense already teaches: motivated criminals don’t abide by laws.

As my boss, former U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said recently, the breakdown of the culture is more responsible for mass shootings than the availability of the guns themselves. There are myriad reasons for this, but lawmakers, he noted, need to set a better example for how to treat people before rushing to strip Second Amendment rights from the rest of us.

If guns are illegal, people who follow the law will not have them. If guns are illegal, people who do not follow the law will have them. It’s that simple.

Maybe There Is A Solution Not Yet Tried

Posted on by

Breitbart posted an article yesterday about an aspect of the transgender population that has not yet been fully considered.

The article reports:

A new study that examined students who claim to have gender identity issues found that, compared with 45 percent of students who are comfortable with their biological sex, 78 percent of gender-disturbed students met the criteria for at least one mental health problem.

Researchers affiliated with the Boston University School of Public Health, Harvard Medical School, and University of Michigan School of Public Health, conducted the expansive study, published at the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

The study, which included more than 1,200 college students with gender identity issues across 71 U.S. college campuses, found that, across commonly used mental health measures, 78 percent of the gender-disturbed students met the criteria for one or more of the outcomes of depression, anxiety, eating disorders, self-injury, and suicidality.

The article concludes:

In 2018, Dr. Lisa Littman at Brown University set out to learn more about why the number of adolescent girls identifying as transgender at Britain’s Gender Identity Development Service had increased from 41 percent in 2009 to 69 percent in 2017.

The researcher said she had observed teens without a history of gender dysphoria – a clinical term describing psychological discomfort caused by a sense one’s gender is incompatible with one’s biological sex – were “coming out” as transgender “after a period of immersing themselves in niche websites after similar announcements from friends.”

In her study of 256 parents, which was condemned by LGBT activists, Littman found 87 percent of the young people were reported to have “come out” as transgender after increased time spent on social media and the Internet and after “cluster outbreaks” of gender dysphoria among their groups of friends. Most of the teens who ultimately identified as transgender also showed increased popularity with peer groups afterward, according to their parents’ reports.

Additionally, Littman found nearly two-thirds of the young people whose parents participated in the survey had already been diagnosed with at least one psychiatric developmental disorder prior to the onset of the gender dysphoria. For example, nearly half of the young people had already attempted to harm themselves or had experienced a trauma, suggesting the mental health issues preceded the reported gender identity disturbance.

Recently, the academic response to a child who expresses a desire to change their sex has been to aid them in the process, sometimes without parent knowledge or consent. It would make more sense to search for underlying issues and deal with those issues before encouraging a child to walk down such a life-changing path. I recently read an article about a young boy, about nine or ten, who told his parents he wanted to be a girl. The parents sought counseling for the child, rather than simply go along with his wishes. The counseling revealed that because the child noticed that his younger sister who was handicapped got more attention from his parents than he did, he thought that if he were a girl, he would get more attention. His going through the transgender process would not have helped his problem at all. After counseling, the family dynamic was altered, and the boy went happily along the way as a little boy.

Not every person who claims to be transgender is actually transgender. Some have simply walked down that path in a desperate attempt to deal with other underlying issues. We do these people a disservice when we don’t look for and attempt to solve those underlying issues.

Usurping Parental Rights

Posted on by

Yahoo News posted a USA Today article about a 14-year-old school child who decided that she was a boy. The story is heartbreaking because the parents tried to provide the help the child needed, and the school undermined them every step of the way.

The article reports:

In April 2016, my then 14-year-old daughter became convinced that she was my son. In my attempt to help her, her public school undermined me every step of the way.

Throughout my daughter’s childhood, there were no signs that she wanted to be a boy. She loved stuffed animals, Pocahontas and wearing colorful bathing suits. I can’t recall a single interest that seemed unusually masculine, or any evidence that she was uncomfortable as a girl.

The only difficulty she had was forming and maintaining friendships. We later learned why: She was on the autism spectrum. She was very functional and did well in school, helped by her Individualized Education Program (IEP), a common practice for public school students who need special education.

At her high school, my daughter was approached by a girl who had recently come out at school as transgender. Shortly after meeting her, my daughter declared that she, too, was a boy trapped in a girl’s body and picked out a new masculine name.

The school began treating the girl as a boy and addressing her with masculine pronouns. The parents were unaware of this. When they found out about it, they requested that those in the school call her by her legal name at all times. Their request was ignored–the school continued to address her by a masculine name and masculine pronouns.

The article continues:

We met with the school district’s assistant superintendent, who told us the hands of school personnel are tied and that they had to follow the law. But there was no law, only the Obama administration’s “Dear Colleagues” letter of May 2016 that said schools need to officially affirm transgender students. Just three months later, in August 2016, a federal judge in Texas blocked the guidelines from being enforced. And in February 2017, the Trump administration rescinded the Obama-era guidelines, leaving it to the states to set their own policies.

I also learned that the ACLU has sent threatening letters to schools stating that it is against the law to disclose a student’s gender identity, even to their parents. But this letter appears to misunderstand federal law. The federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act requires that schools allow parents to “inspect and review” their child’s education records as long as the child is under 18.

The article then reveals the peer pressure in the world of psychology:

We had our daughter evaluated by a psychologist approved by the school district. He told us that it was very clear that our daughter’s sudden transgender identity was driven by her underlying mental health conditions, but would only share his thoughts off the record because he feared the potential backlash he would receive. In the report he submitted to us and the school, he did not include these concerns that he would only share in person.

Please follow the link to the article to read the rest of the story. I need someone to explain to me how this sort of behavior by schools is in any way helpful to our children.

Sometimes You Just Need To Learn When To Get Off The Stage

Posted on by

The American Thinker posted an article today about presidential candidate Joe Biden that is somewhat troubling. All of us who have watched Vice-President Biden over the years understand that he often says things that are really not appropriate for someone in his position. The press has been very willing to overlook his gaffes, and there is no reason to believe that they will not continue to do so in the future. However, some of the gaffes are getting a bit concerning.

The article reports a recent statement by Vice-President Biden:

“…those kids in Parkland came up to see me when I was vice president.” But when they visited Capitol Hill to talk with members of Congress, lawmakers were “basically cowering, not wanting to see them. They did not want to face it on camera.”

The article reminds us:

The kids could not have seen him in the Vice President’s Capitol office – as presiding officer of the Senate – since Biden was no longer the occupant of that office.

Biden fantasied this meeting and presented it as fact in public.

His recent gaffes already are horrendous. “Poor kids are just as bright, just as talented, as white kids” clearly indicates a mind that sees non-white (presumably black) kids as poor and in need of defense of their intellectual capabilities. “We choose truth over facts” plays directly into the progressives’ dismissal of facts as less important than the “higher truth” of the narrative they want to sell.  Or who prize being “morally correct” over mere facts, as AOC has done.

But those disturbing comments can be written off as a poor choice of words. Claiming to have met people in circumstances that did not happen is of a different order entirely. It indicates a mind that is not grounded in reality.

I have no idea what the statements about the Parkland kids mean in terms of the former Vice-President’s mental health, but they are disturbing.

An Interesting Perspective On Homelessness

Posted on by

Christopher F. Rufo posted an article in The City Journal about the homelessness that has become so prevalent on the west coast of America. The title of the article is, “An Addiction Crisis Disguised as a Housing Crisis.” Please follow the link above to read the entire article; it is very insightful.

The article states:

By latest count, some 109,089 men and women are sleeping on the streets of major cities in California, Oregon, and Washington. The homelessness crisis in these cities has generated headlines and speculation about “root causes.” Progressive political activists allege that tech companies have inflated housing costs and forced middle-class people onto the streets. Declaring that “no two people living on Skid Row . . . ended up there for the same reasons,” Los Angeles mayor Eric Garcetti, for his part, blames a housing shortage, stagnant wages, cuts to mental health services, domestic and sexual abuse, shortcomings in criminal justice, and a lack of resources for veterans. These factors may all have played a role, but the most pervasive cause of West Coast homelessness is clear: heroin, fentanyl, and synthetic opioids.

Homelessness is an addiction crisis disguised as a housing crisis. In Seattle, prosecutors and law enforcement recently estimated that the majority of the region’s homeless population is hooked on opioids, including heroin and fentanyl. If this figure holds constant throughout the West Coast, then at least 11,000 homeless opioid addicts live in Washington, 7,000 live in Oregon, and 65,000 live in California (concentrated mostly in San Francisco and Los Angeles). For the unsheltered population inhabiting tents, cars, and RVs, the opioid-addiction percentages are even higher—the City of Seattle’s homeless-outreach team estimates that 80 percent of the unsheltered population has a substance-abuse disorder. Officers must clean up used needles in almost all the homeless encampments.

The article reminds us that drug-dealing is a lucrative industry for the cartels:

For drug cartels and low-level street dealers, the business of supplying homeless addicts with heroin, fentanyl, and other synthetic opioids is extremely lucrative. According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the average heavy-opioid user consumes $1,834 in drugs per month. Holding rates constant, we can project that the total business of supplying heroin and other opioids to the West Coast’s homeless population is more than $1.8 billion per year. In effect, Mexican cartels, Chinese fentanyl suppliers, and local criminal networks profit off the misery of the homeless and offload the consequences onto local governments struggling to get people off the streets.

The article concludes:

No matter how much local governments pour into affordable-housing projects, homeless opioid addicts—nearly all unemployed—will never be able to afford the rent in expensive West Coast cities. The first step in solving these intractable issues is to address the real problem: addiction is the common denominator for most of the homeless and must be confronted honestly if we have any hope of solving it.

Part of the problem here is that some cities and states are moving toward legalizing recreational drug use. Obviously not all of that drug use will lead to further problems, but a percentage of it will–adding to the homeless problem. The other problem is that treating a drug addict will not be successful unless the addict desires to be free of drugs. You can lock up an addict until he is clean, but there are no guarantees that he will stay clean once he is out on the street again.

 

Women’s Health Is Improving–The Causes

Posted on by

The Washington Examiner posted an article today with the following headline: “Women’s health has improved over the last century, and Planned Parenthood had absolutely nothing to do with it.”

The article lists the scientific and cultural changes that impact the health of women:

1. Mammography–note–not a single Planned Parenthood facility offers mammography to patients.

2. Breastfeeding–the article states:

The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services cites breastfeeding as a benefit to infants, and to mothers, where women who breastfeed are “less likely to develop type 2 diabetes, breast and ovarian cancer, and postpartum depression.”

On Planned Parenthood’s website, the only note on breastfeeding is buried deep in the “birth control” page, where the only emphasized benefit of the practice is its natural tendency to wane with ovulation. It boasts how “you can’t get pregnant if you don’t ovulate.”

3. Smoking (In 1985 28 percent of women smoked; in 2012 the number had dropped to 16 percent. Obviously quitting smoking improves a woman’s health.)

4. Mental health–the article states:

A recent survey on abortion and mental health risks found that “women seeking abortions may be at higher risk of prior mental health disorders,” and it recommended that abortion care settings should be an intervention point for mental health screening. Because there is little to no access to behavioral healthcare at Planned Parenthood, many of the company’s patients may go untreated for their mental health needs.

5. Sexually transmitted diseases–the article states:

Last year’s Center for Disease Control STD report revealed a sharp increase in STD infections for the fourth year in a row, with gonorrhea cases increasing 67 percent between 2013 and 2017 and syphilis increasing 76 percent over those four years. Chlamydia, which was virtually nonexistent in the 1980s, is now a common condition. The National Coalition of STD Directors’ David Harvey noted that the U.S. has “the highest STD rates in the industrialized world.”

After the CDC report was released, Planned Parenthood’s senior director of medical services, Dr. Gillian Dean, blamed a lack of sex education as the reason STD rates were rising and applauded her organization as “the nation’s largest provider of sex education and one of the nation’s leading HIV testing providers.”

But here’s the thing: The states with the most Planned Parenthood clinics disproportionately suffered the largest increases in STDs.

California, for instance, with the most Planned Parenthood Clinics per capita of any state, saw a record rise in STDs and a spike in the number of stillbirths caused by syphilis for the third year in a row. California also mandates sex education in schools, which was incidentally signed into law nearly four years ago, when this alarming trend began.

6. Abortion and Maternity–the article states:

Planned Parenthood is notorious for its focus on abortion services as the crown jewel of the organization. The company continues to claim that abortions are only about 3 percent of its services, even though the Washington Post debunked that claim.

…An organization that boasts its “100 years of women’s healthcare” history but does not support vital protections, like a 20-week cutoff for abortion or the requirement that they be done by qualified doctor who graduated medical school, leaves women vulnerable to unsafe, low-quality, and high-risk healthcare.

The article concludes:

Planned Parenthood has yet to make a mark on women’s healthcare for anything other than promoting various controversial birth control methods and performing abortions. Looking back at the company’s history in the last 100 years, it’s clear that the U.S. government and its various women’s health initiatives in the last few decades have done far more than Planned Parenthood in its entire century of existence.

For Planned Parenthood to think it can claim the topic of women’s healthcare as its own is laughable, especially for an organization which has arguably done the most to hurt women in the last 100 years with its subpar, bare-bones medical offerings — abortion being at the very top of the list.

Abortion is a million-dollar business, and unfortunately a lot of that money is funneled into political campaigns through PAC’s. Political candidates like campaign money, and many candidates have no problem with taking money from people who kill unborn babies and sell aborted baby body parts. That is extremely sad.

This Really Shouldn’t Be A Surprise

Posted on by

A few years ago, I moved from Massachusetts to North Carolina. There was some culture shock. One part of that shock was the gun culture of some of the South. I grew up in a house where no one hunted, so the whole gun thing was very foreign to me. One of the first things I did was to take a gun safety course to education myself. I learned a lot and began to understand why the Second Amendment is so important to our freedom. Unfortunately the leaders in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have not yet gotten that message.

Yesterday The Gateway Pundit posted the following headline, “Boston Mayor’s Office to Force Doctors to Identify and Document Patients Who Own Guns.” Wow. What is the Mayor’s office doing collecting information from doctors?

The article reports:

Here are three of the top goals for health care legislation outlined by his office:

Involving doctors in gun safety: This act would require medical professionals to ask patients about guns in the home, and bring up the topics of gun safety. The goal, Boston Police Commissioner William Gross said, is to identify those at risk for domestic violence, suicide or child access to guns in order to guide people to mental health counseling, resources or other help. “We’re just asking them to help identify ways to save lives,” Gross said.

The fact that a patient owns guns would not be put in their medical record, and is not intended to have physicians help solve crimes.

Chief of Health and Human Services Marty Martinez said that while the program is already common practice at many of the city’s community health centers, legislation would broaden the program statewide.

Does anyone actually believe that gun ownership would not be made part of a patient’s medical record? If the measure is supposed to save lives, what action are the doctors supposed to take after they have determined that a person has guns in the house?

I may be paranoid, but this seems like a back door approach to finding out who has guns so that the guns might be taken away later.

Why You Should Bring Your Children With You To Church

Posted on by

On Thursday, Townhall posted an article about the impact of church attendance on children.

The article reports:

According to a new study, children raised in a religious environment are more likely to grow up to be happy and well-adjusted adults.

The study, conducted by Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, was published last week in the American Journal of Epidemiology.

Titled “Associations of Religious Upbringing With Subsequent Health and Well-Being From Adolescence to Young Adulthood: An Outcome-Wide Analysis,” the study’s results indicate that both children and adults who engaged in regular religious or spiritual practices were at a lower risk of developing mental health issues and substance abuse problems during their lives.

Roughly 5,000 participants engaged in the study, which followed children for a time period of between eight and 14 years. Researchers looked at the frequency with which children and teens attend church services with their parents, in addition to how often those same young people prayed and meditated on their own. As the children entered their 20s, researchers then evaluated their physical and mental health.

Children who attended church once a week with their parents were more likely to be happy. Children who prayed or meditated were emotionally stronger and less likely to engage in destructive behaviors. They also had a lower number of STD’s.

The article concludes:

The study’s senior author Tyler VanderWeele added, “While decisions about religion are not shaped principally by health, for adolescents who already hold religious beliefs, encouraging service attendance and private practices may be meaningful avenues to protect against some of the dangers of adolescence, including depression, substance abuse, and risk taking.”

“In addition, these practices may positively contribute to happiness, volunteering, a greater sense of mission and purpose, and to forgiveness,” he added.

The results of last week’s study confirm previous studies which have also linked adults’ religious involvement to “better health and well-being outcomes, including lower risk of premature death.”

When prayer was taken out of the schools, children learned that they were not accountable to anyone higher than themselves. That wasn’t what we meant to teach them, but it was what they learned. A child with a perspective that includes accountability is going to be more secure, behave better, and be happier. The framework of religion helps provide the security our children need.

A New Approach To Getting Out Of Doing Something You Don’t Want To Do

Posted on by

High School is not fun for everyone. Teenagers are often not the kindest of people–particularly to anyone who might actually be an individual or be different in some way. Social media has made that worse–bullying doesn’t stop anymore when you close the front door of your house behind you. Bullying on social media has resulted in teen age suicides. Bullying has always been a problem, but it seems as if we are not teaching our children to be resilient. One article seeking to solve the problem might without realizing it illustrate why the problem exists.

Yesterday The Daily Caller posted an article stating the following:

Middle and high school students are citing anxiety as their reason for pushing back against assigned in-class presentations as research shows that nearly one-third of teenagers have an anxiety disorder.

The National Institute of Mental Health reports that an estimated 31.9 percent of adolescents between the ages of 13 and 18 exhibit some form of anxiety. It’s an increase that experts say has been driven by the rise of social media, more pressure on students to go to college and other factors.

Students and teachers are split about whether offering alternatives to oral presentations will help anxious students or hurt them by letting them get around developing public speaking skills. The issue was brought to the foreground of discussion after a Sept. 8 tweet from a high school student that said “stop forcing students to present in front of the class and give them a choice not to” was retweeted more than 130,000 times.

“Nobody should be forced to do something that makes them uncomfortable,” a 14-year-old eighth grader identified only as Ula told The Atlantic in a Wednesday story. “Even though speaking in front of class is supposed to build your confidence and it’s part of your schoolwork, I think if a student is really unsettled and anxious because of it you should probably make it something less stressful. School isn’t something a student should fear.”

The word I would use to describe the above statement is not suitable for this blog. If students are not taught to face their fears as students, how are they going to face them as adults? Taking challenges away from students robs them of the opportunity of learning how to overcome challenges. The world is not always going to be sweet and padded. They might as well learn that before they leave school. For example, if I were allowed to vote on whether or not to go for my annual physical exam, I would vote not to do it. It makes me anxious. Therefore I should not have to do it. I really don’t think that works in real life.

No, It’s Not Harmless

Posted on by

Yesterday the U.K. Daily Mail posted a story about the impact of marijuana use on teenagers.

The article reports:

Cannabis is responsible for 91 per cent of cases where teenagers end up being treated for drug addiction, shocking new figures reveal.

Supporters of the drug claim it is harmless, but an official report now warns the ‘increased dominance of high-potency herbal cannabis’ – known as skunk – is causing more young people to seek treatment.

The revelation comes amid growing concerns that universities – and even some public schools – are awash with high-strength cannabis and other drugs.

The findings also back up academic research, revealed in The Mail on Sunday over the past three years, that skunk is having a serious detrimental impact on the mental health of the young. At least two studies have shown repeated use triples the risk of psychosis, with sufferers repeatedly experiencing delusional thoughts. Some victims end up taking their own lives.

Obviously the article deals with the situation in Britain, but I suspect some of the results of this research are also reflected in America. The problem in Britain is related to the potency of the marijuana used by teenagers. I am unfamiliar with whether or not American marijuana has the same potency. I do know that I have heard numerous people familiar with marijuana in America say that the marijuana available in America today is much more potent than the marijuana that was available during the 1960’s. I don’t have a problem with the use of marijuana in certain medical procedures, but I wonder if it can be administered in pill form and tightly controlled in order to avoid abuse by teenagers who think it is cool. Keeping marijuana away from teenagers after making it legal will probably be about as successful as keeping alcohol away from underage teenagers in the past.

The article further states:

The large rise in the number of youngsters treated for cannabis abuse comes despite the fact that total usage is falling slightly.

The report concludes: ‘While fewer people are using cannabis, those who are using it are experiencing greater harm.’

Almost all cannabis on Britain’s streets is skunk, which is four times more powerful than types that dominated the market until the early 2000s. It can even trigger hallucinations.

We need to rethink the legalization of marijuana. It would be horrible to waste the minds of the generation that will lead this country in the future.

Why The Anti-Gun Hysteria Is Dangerous

Posted on by

The Blaze is reporting today that the New York State Police mistakenly confiscated the guns of a law-abiding citizen. They confiscated the guns and suspended the gun permit of David Lewis of Amherst, New York, based on the misinformation that Mr. Lewis had mental health problems.

The article reports:

“Erie County Clerk Chris Jacobs said that late today he received a call from the New York State Police informing him that they had provided information on the wrong person when they notified his office of someone whose permit should be suspended because of the new mental health provisions in New York’s SAFE Act,” the release begins.

“When the State Police called to tell us they made a mistake and had the wrong person … it become clear that the state did not do their job here and now we all look foolish,” the release went on to say in a quote from Clerk Jacobs.

This is a vivid example of what can happen when the government has too much power.

This is the press release acknowledging the error:

New York State Police Admits It Got Wrong Man in Gun Confiscation Case

Keep this incident in mind as you listen to Congress declare that they have no intention of confiscating guns.Enhanced by Zemanta

Gun Owners Rally In Boston

Posted on by

Yesterday Fox News Boston and GOAL (Gun Owners’ Action League).org reported on a rally held at the statehouse in Boston by gun owners protesting the new laws being discussed in the state and in Washington.

Fox News reports:

Gov. Patrick unveiled a bill on Wednesday that would tighten access to high-powered rounds of ammunition, create four new types of firearms-related crimes and mandate buyers to undergo background checks before purchasing weapons at gun shows. It would also restrict gun owners to purchasing one firearm a month.

The bill would also allow Mass. courts to send all relevant mental health records to the state’s criminal justice information system so the federal government could include this information in a national gun license registry. Patrick said that would bring Massachusetts into compliance with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

The bill includes $5 million for Department of Mental Health programs, including training teachers to recognize symptoms of mental illness in students.

The only part of this proposed legislation that would have any impact on recent mass murders in America is the mental illness aspect of this. I have no problem with criminal background checks for gun owners, but I have a major problem with a national gun license registry. No one needs to know who has a gun and who does not.

The article at GOAL.org reports:

For years Massachusetts residents who lawfully own firearms have endured abusive restrictions and regulation which do nothing to lower crime and in fact have had the opposite effect.

Today, in the shadow of more legislation introduced over the last week by Governor Patrick and Rep. Linsky, many concerened citizens said “enough” and stepped out into the light to make their voice heard and to say “no more”.

All who attended were concerned about this new legislation, having witnessed the failure of the acts of 1998, and knowing that this increased scrutiny will only lead to the criminalization of the law abiding.

We need to remember as we listen to this debate that new laws will not impact criminals–they don’t follow the laws to begin with. New laws will only impact law abiding citizens. Is that really our intention?

Enhanced by Zemanta