This scientist's editorial on CNN.com resonated with me. I have been disappointed with the sensationalist journalism regarding scientific research. Too many reporters seem to have the idea that great leaps are made with every incremental bit of research. Or perhaps they are just trying to grab eyeballs through any means possible.
NORML makes a persuasive case that the media censors all research on cannabis, unless there can be found a negative angle to said research, in which case the research will be misinterpreted, exaggerated, and placed as a top story. "Cannabinoids fight cancer" is deemed unsuitable as a headline, but "cannabis causes cancer" has been used many times. In case my reader is curious, certain cannabinoids do demonstrate cancer-fighting properties, although no one should claim "cannabis cures cancer," which would fall into the same bad habit of our mainstream media, exaggeration. Chocolate also possesses cancer-fighting properties in the form of antioxidants, but no one should claim "chocolate cures cancer," either. As for cannabis smoking causing cancer, I am sure that in time, it would, as would smoking anything at all. The responsible consumer should use either by vaporization or through digestion. However, cannabis smoking is much less harmful than cigarette smoking. For one thing, cigarettes contain harmful additives that cause additional damage above and beyond that caused by tobacco. Also, the THC in cannabis activates the coughing reflex, which helps to expel foreign material. Finally, a typical cigarette smoker smokes far more cigarettes per day than a cannabis smoker partakes of joints or bong hits.
Even politicians are often frustrated with the media, because it instigates continual conflict, even when there is none. Some politicians pander to the media's love of conflict and tension.
On another note, I saw a recent photo of Obama yesterday and was struck by how beautiful he is. He had a serious, even somber expression, befitting the times. He seems to be carrying the weight of the world on his shoulders. The occupation of President must be incredibly demanding, more so than in times past. He has a team to help him make decisions, but being a perfectionist, agonizes over every miscalculation, in sharp contrast to Bush, who was only concerned with his poll numbers.
It does not help matters that the Republicans oppose all his legislation just for the sake of opposing. I wish he had a worthy and virtuous opposition to contend with, but there is only one sane choice for the electorate, the Democrats, whatever their shortcomings. The Republicans are "looney tunes." The list of subjects that Republican politicians do not understand is a mile long. That they have sold out is understood. Their allegiance to their own party is unquestioning and absolute, which is why they vote as a block. It would be refreshing if some Republicans were mavericks and voted based upon their conscience. They seem to have no concern over the consequences of their actions, consequences that must be endured by the electorate.
Concern voiced by Republicans over the national debt ignores several important facts. Reagan spent his way out of a recession, too. Also, Bush spent trillions on pointless foreign wars. Why is it OK to spend trillions on Iraq, but not billions on the U.S.? I prefer the U.S. over Iraq. I think if a person pays taxes, he should be confident that his money will be spent on his own country, rather than another country.
It is true that the national debt is too high, but now is not the time to address that issue. There was a President who should have addressed that problem. He inherited a robust economy. His name was George W. Bush. Instead, he overspent, just as Republican Presidents do on a consistent basis, ever since Reagan.
No comments:
Post a Comment