More About the Adverse Effects of Marijuana

In the 60’s and 70’s, America began experimenting with marijuana. The story at the time was that cannabis does nothing more than get you high, make you mellow, and give you a craving for munchies and sex. That was then.

Moving forward in time a few decades, and we find people pushing marijuana to become legalized. First, they convinced many that it was important medically, but it turns out that there is little scientific evidence that it helps either chronic pain or PTSD.  The U.S. government says there is no accepted medical use for marijuana.

Not only that, but there is evidence is actually causes harm:

  • Impairs short term memory and judgment
  • Distorts perception
  • Negatively affects teen cognitive
  • Addictive

Marijuana is also associated with:

Now, we have discovered that smoking marijuana makes people more violent.

Since this blog is about how people think, we can clearly see that marijuana is harming how people think. So why did we want to legalize marijuana again?

Of course, it’s because we just wanted another way to get high. Legally. Forget about whether it actually is good for us.

 

 

Advertisements

Trigger Warning: This is About Trigger Warnings

According to a new study, only about 31% of blacks said that they experienced discrimination “sometimes” or “often.” Comparatively, 27% of Hispanics, 23% of whites, and 18% of Asians were in the same category. That means that most minorities do not experience discrimination on a frequent basis. 

See https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9699

The actual question they asked was “In your day to day life, how often do you feel you have been treated with less respect or courtesy than other people?” The answers were “never”, “rarely”, “sometimes”, or “often”. That means 69% of black “never” or “rarely” experience discrimination. 

This was a scientific study that did not coach the respondents. They were free to interpret the question as they saw fit. 

The authors of the study said they were “surprised” by this finding because they expected the rate of discrimination to be much higher for blacks. 

Note that this study reported how each group felt they experienced discrimination. It did not identify whether there actually WAS discrimination. It was what they felt. Nor did it mention how strongly they felt discrimination. It was purely self-reported. 

Let me say here that I don’t want to minimize the experience of discrimination. Anyone who has felt discrimination can tell you how small and irrelevant it made them feel. And obviously there are different intensities of discrimination. The study does not address instensity. It only mentions frequency. 

Why does this surprise us? Because we are constantly receiving messages about racial discrimination, overwhelmingly against blacks. But the data does not back that up. 

If each of the groups reporting discrimination actually reacted in the same way about their discrimination, then Hispanic, white, and Asian outrage would less than, but not tremendously less than, black outrage. But this is not what we see in the news. 

But let me emphasize here that the discrimination reported in the survey is whatever the respondent identifies as discrimination. One of the most egregious kinds of discrimination that has been in the news during the past few years is that of white policement reportedly targeting and killing black men.Let’s ignore for now whether that is valid or not and assume that at least some (whether a majority or a minority of cases) of it are actually occurring. That’s on one end of the spectrum. 

On the other end of the spectrum is a perceived discrimination about incidents that often seem ludicrous. Recently, there were blacks from Ole Miss who were “triggered” because someone threw a banana in a tree. NC State University black students were triggered when a toilet paper noose was found in a bathroom stall. And there are others. Individuals on a witch hunt for racists will see this type of behavior as indicative of widespread racism, but the vast majority of Americans just see this as silly. It is a shame that we have to treat these kinds of incidents with the same validity as significant cases of discrimination. 

Racisl protests are almost exclusively about black racism and discrimination. It is as if no other group of Americans experience discrimination. If we were all reacting to discrimination in the same way, we would find Hispanics protesting slightly less than blacks, white protesting slightly less than Hispanics, and Asians protesting slightly less than whites. But it’s not like that. 
Again, I know some will read this and think that I don’t think discrimination is taking place. No. I know discrimination occurs, that it is sometimes horrific, and I believe that blacks probably experience more discrimination than other groups. But I think there’s an assumption that blacks are triggered much, much more easily than other groups. And I think there’s an assumption that no other groups should feel discriminated against. 

I understand the fact that lynchings of blacks were a terrible part of our past, but they have almost completely disappeared. I doubt that there are many black Americans alive who actually witnessed a lynching. That doesn’t make it inoffensive, but I wonder about the concern for “triggering” when most black Americans never saw it occur.

There are other groups who could just as easily feel triggered:

  • Shouldn’t Christians who have witnessed their brethren around the world being slaughtered on camera by Islamists with large knives be triggered by hooded men, large kitchen knives, and Muslim symbols?
  • Shouldn’t Korean- and Vietname-era veterans who were POWs be offended by anything that reminded them of the tortures they experienced in their own lifetimes at the hands of Communists? Should anyone be allowed to speak of Communism in a good way based on how these men suffered terribly?
  • Shouldn’t women (and men) who were trapped by forced sex slavery be triggered by scenes of prostitution on television and the movies? 
  • Should anyone be allowed to show entertainment that involves illegal drugs based on the number of people whose lives have been actually ruined by the same? 

It’s time for us to move beyond hyping and trivializing the discrimination experienced by one group and focus on how to remove discrimination by all. And it’s time for the Perpetually Offended to begin focusing on what others have experienced. 

Take the Politics Out of Classifying Mental Disorders

Many people have no idea that the American Psychiatric Association’s decision to say that transgender people are normal was not based on a scientific conclusion. It was simply done by fiat. 

 For several years, there were news reports that a gay gene had been found. Of course that was a news reporter’s understanding of scientific findings. They typically understand and report science incorrectly. No such gene has ever been found. What we did discover was that, if you say something often enough, many people will believe it whether there’s any evidence or not. 

 A person may decide that homosexuality and transgender’s is normal, but it is not based on any scientific evidence. It would just simply be a preference 

 This article tells some of the story of how that decision was made. It was nothing more than a vote. 

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/take_the_politics_out_of_classifying_mental_disorders.html

Scientists Criticize Stephen Hawking’s ‘Bizarre’ Claim Trump Will Push Earth ‘Over the Brink’ | The Stream

Stephen Hawkins extreme prediction of the earth becoming like Venus is interesting. Scientists have already indicated that this is not what is expected to happen if CO2 continues to climb. First, there is the scientism worldview that believes that anything that someone of science says must be true. That is a naïve worldview because science is sometimes wrong, and scientists sometimes have nonscientific bones to chew. For instance, scientist sometimes just want money for their pet projects. And they may exaggerate just to get funding. Not to say that all of them do, but it is a motivation for some. 

 Second, here’s the question of Hawkins reason for making such an extreme prediction. Most of us hold him in high regard simply because of his credentials. Recently, Hawkins changed his prediction that we have thousand years before the extinction of mankind to a new prediction that we only have 100 years. He gave no scientific basis for that, he simply made a prediction. Why 1000 years? Why 100 years? That is incredible rounding . Why not 1236? Why not 73? It makes you wonder if he’s just simply shooting from the hip based on a feeling he has. That’s not science. 

https://stream.org/scientists-criticize-stephen-hawkings-bizarre-claim-trump-will-push-earth-brink/

What will happen when states begin to produce too much renewable energy?

For those of you who are unaware of the effects of renewable energy, this story talks about something that actually has happened in California. It doesn’t matter if you are a climate alarmist for climate skeptic, this story is important because it will affect our thinking about renewable energy for a long time. I typically don’t post articles about climate change, but this definitely will affect worldviews. 

 California is heavily invested in renewable energy. So much so, that they sometimes produce too much energy. Traditional energy sources such as coal or natural gas produce a steady stream of constant energy. Renewable energy fluctuates and goes up and down over time. Many people want to let the renewables generate as much energy as possible, but it is difficult to predict when that will happen. And it is difficult to scale up or scale back traditional energy sources. It is difficult to get them started or bring them down quickly. As a result, renewables will often either overproduce or underproduce. 

 If you overproduced energy, you could be in danger of damaging your electrical infrastructure. So some utilities will try to send the energy to other states. That is what California did several times early in 2017. They ended up sending their extra electricity to the state of Arizona. They actually had to pay Arizona to take it during that time. 

 Again, I’m not trying to make a case for or against renewable energy. These are simply the facts. So how does this affect our thinking ? 

 If you are in a state like Arizona, you are probably glad to get this very cheap energy from another state. You could obtain that without even having to invest in any renewable infrastructure. Plus, you’re getting green energy , and you’re getting it very cheaply. Some states may actually make this part of their energy plan. They would simply count on other states like California providing them with green energy without having to pay for themselves. 

 Then what will happen to states like California? Will they feel cheated? Will they eventually demand that renewable energy be scaled-back? 

 It’s probably too early to tell what will happen. The renewable energy infrastructure most states is still being ramped up. Most people are unaware that this type of scenario is not just possible but probable. 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/26/california-dumps-millions-of-dollars-of-unusable-renewable-electricity-to-other-states/

Tiny hairs enable bumblebees to detect electrical fields: study finds

This is great evidence for intelligent design, so why no reference to it? At least they did not attempt to attribute this to evolution. How could evolution account for thousands of tiny hairs all over a bee’s body work together with motion sensors to help direct the bee? Had to be designed that way.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/tiny-hairs-enable-bumblebees-detect-120000732.html?ref=gs

Cohabitation hurts children

Every so often, I walk behind the buildings of mainstream media and look into their bands that are marked “Don’t print this”. It consists of news items that the news organizations have determined should not be news. That’s when I came across this item.

Cohabitation is pretty prevalent. It is risen dramatically in our culture. If you watch movies and TV, you would think that that’s just a normal part of dating. And Hollywood , which says it’s not responsible for trying to promote violence, drugs, or sex outside of marriage, says it would never do anything to undermine the concept of marriage.

And they also have some swamp land to sell you.

So there are lots of thoughts about cohabitation out there. It is typically presented as something that has absolutely no consequence. This study indicates that cohabitating couples split up more often. No surprise there. But the biggest negative impact is on children. They are much more likely to be the subject of abuse. It affects them in a number of negative ways.

So if you want children that are healthy in every way, you should seek out relationships with people who actually value marriage. And, of course, you want to avoid pregnancy before marriage.

Gee! I wonder why they didn’t want to print that?

http://dailysignal.com/2017/02/15/study-finds-cohabiting-parents-twice-as-likely-to-split-as-married-parents/