Three Headlines

"Three kids hospitalized following car vs. semi crash..."

"39-year-old Boise man arrested for third DUI in last 10 years"

"Drugmakers pay millions to Idaho physicians"

In the first case, mom slammed on her brakes in a vehicle in which if anyone was wearing a seatbelt, she may have been (none of the kids were), to avoid stopped traffic. She lost control and got hit by a semi, the driver of which was uninjured (unless we're willing to take into account the potential impact on his or her career and, ya know, the possibility that it might be traumatizing to know you've hospitalized four people, three of which are kids, and that mom and one of those kids are both seriously injured). No charges have been filed. She may have been angry, distracted, drowsy, who knows why it went down the way it did for her; she'll (hopefully) have to live with it, too (meaning, it'd be better than not living), and hopefully it was something to which she can reconcile herself. But it appears no substances were involved, or nothing was apparent at least in anyone's behavior or physical presentation.

3rd-time DUI guy, well, duh. People who do that do that, and three times in ten years isn't really as bad as some people whose crisis is more acute where they get to that, "I can't do this anymore," place. Some people get 'em twice in a night. (Google 'two duis one night' for some... I'll say 'unfortunate' reading. Just wouldn't be right to call it 'amusing'. :D ) Some people drink and drive their whole lives and never drive drunk (either because they know their limits or they have a high tolerance, or their communities keep an eye out on and for them), some just never get caught (either because they know their limits or they manage not to hit anything, or their communities keep an eye out on and for them; yes, I meant to repeat two of those :)). This guy shouldn't try, most people shouldn't try (and really I think that's a very strong argument for autonomous, community-owned personal vehicles), he did, he's busted. The point is, alcohol has some benefits, and in a society like ours that finds it necessary and attractive to push the envelope and test limits and live on edges, it also has many potential pitfalls. It gets bad moral press, but 'at least it's legal', we often say as we shrug off the physical (and sometimes emotional) consequences of a night's or weekend's misuse. It seems counterproductive that it's not legal for young people to learn how to drink in the company of more experienced people who might offer a word of advice now and then that doesn't end in, "Chug! Chug! Chug!" Chuggin's all well and good until someone goes into alcohol poisoning, then it's just not cool, man. Not cool at all. :D (Seriously, though. :))

Prescription drugs, the fastest-growing arena of substance abuse (and among the more dangerous), pushed by multi-million-dollar dealers to street-level pushers rakin' in high-six- and low- to mid-seven-figure incomes, all under the umbrella of the law, often subsidized and even mandated by it. Medicine, upon finding that caffiene can have beneficial effects in kids with the ADD-type disorders, says, "Well, if amphetamines don't help, let's give 'em some diet soda ['cause caffiene is so much harder on the system, I guess - PJ]," And then the same kids that were raised on amphetamines to settle them down get thrown in jail when they reach a certain age or maturity level where maybe something else allows them to find focus and concentration and they recall that sensation with fondness, or maybe just aren't really sure how to get along without it at first, seek to experience it again from time to time. Or worse, because they no longer have access to clean, pharmaceutical amphetamines, they're smokin' that worst-case scenario street garbage meth that eats their teeth and brains, and they die. (If the pharma stuff has those things as side effects... then human rights are being violated in giving it to children.) And that's just one example: Coca is illegal to grow, a plant that even children can, do, and in some regions need to use regularly without ill effect, but cocaine is still used as an anesthetic (largely in facial de-/reconstruction surgeries, much stronger formulations are synthesized now for widespread application). Opium poppies are illegal to... like, milk, or whatever? I don't know the mechanism there, but I'd be willing to bet that whatever's being captured from the plant, even distilled, is nowhere near as potent as fentanyl, which is given to babies in NICUs. There was an attempt to make ephedra illegal, but it's pretty hard to grow so I think that law came and went. My point is... I'm not sure what the message is supposed to be.

"Take prescription drugs so you'll feel something within this narrowly-defined band we all agree upon as where someone is, 'fine', but don't use them in any way you might enjoy." Okay, so why do we need alcohol? Shouldn't that just be a disinfectant? And probably tobacco and most foods should be regulated, too, I guess, or banned altogether. And exercise: 'Runner's high' is more likely endocannibinoids than endorphins. That thought leads to all sorts of gruesome possibilities that could arise in the quest to continue to ban an illegal substance we produce with our own bodies. :D Ugh. (NOOOOOOO, not my pot glands!!! :D) (And now ya know why I love exercise. :) )

"Take prescription drugs so you can manage your pain, but only when you're not driving or around your kids." Huh? Sorry, if I actually take an Aleve it's gonna be because I have a headache or some other intrusive pain and I need to be able to function around it. I assume that anyone taking scripted pain meds for pain is seeking essentially the same effect, and that it would be desirable to reach a certain tolerance and then maintain a steady dose where benefits are maximized and risks or damages are minimized. Unfortunately, most distilled or synthesized substances overwhelm the body's ability to moderate and create (eventually ravenous) demands for more in order to create the same effects.

"Don't take any drugs." Okay. Can I exercise? Can I meditate, or pray, or go to church? Which of the things that make me feel good can I do, or I should say, may I? May I breathe? I'm pretty addicted to that. May I eat food? Which foods? May I eat foods I enjoy, or is food only acceptable if it sustains us nutritionally but offers no pleasure beyond that bare minimum? I mean, I really enjoy fruit, may I eat that? I enjoy anything that makes me feel healthy and fit, may I do any of that, or is it reserved only for those who'd rather focus in other areas, aren't really that bothered about health or fitness? May I use herbs? (Ah ha, only some, when you see fit to allow it, I see; thanks for the heads-up.)

"Drugs are bad." So stop puttin' everybody on 'em.

"Drugs are good, when we say so." 'Kay, Nanny-Merica. Love you, too. May I go to the bathroom now? Please, I really gotta. I don't think I can waaaaaaait! (Get it? If you weren't so busy tellin' people what to do you might have more time to make the money go around and to ensure that it's worth a little somethin'. That's what we hired you to do. And to keep really really bad people from killin' and rapin' and kidnapping and torturing other people, but I realize you've got your hands full keepin' the fuckin' stoners from eatin' all the munchies.) (Fuckin' stoners. :D)

It's just, the message is so mixed, ya know? I see the craftiness in it, though ("a very handy and crafty... craftsman..." - name that movie!), make it all so confusing people just throw their hands up and say to their elected officials, "Geez, you deal with it. It's too much trouble for me, I just wanna do what I wanna do, alrighty? So all y'all polly-titians figure that out and we'll be back around when there's more money to be spent. We're always good for helpin' with that." :D (The consequences of that approach are already pretty clear, it seems. :) ) The difference being, if we treat them as agents of our society and expect (and allow) them to do their jobs, they will. If we treat them as responsible for our society, they'll fulfill that role, too. (Some would say they're not responsible for much, but I think that's not really fair. :) ) I would prefer the people be responsible for the society, and our officials be responsible for the jobs they're elected to do, under our purview. But we have to be willing not only to watch, but to wait, and see if what they're trying to do is going to work, and to give the benefit of the doubt before we decide the person we put in that position (and if we didn't we allowed that to happen, too) is a failure. Until we are, we're not ready to take the reins. I hope we are soon 'cause while I don't mind being given direction I don't appreciate being told what to do. 'Til we get to that point, I just want the messages to be a little clearer.

Posted via email from Moments of Awareness