header pic

Area51 Board (non-moderated) at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' Scout-Tennessee a51 Crowd- Enjoy ROWDY discussion covering politics, religion, current events, and all things under the sun

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: Nanny State Insanity: Abortion and Marijuana are Safe, Pregnancy and Soda are

 (Read 963 times)

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18363
  • Liked:
 Dangerous
 

by George Neumayr –
 For the Nanny State Left, abortion is safe and pregnancy is risky. Fertility is treated as a disease requiring “preventive” drugs and pregnancy is seen as a disability.
Under the nanny state, what qualifies as a risk is often perplexing. Its champions usually see risks everywhere, from climate change to oversized sugary drinks to cupcake parties in public school classrooms. They press for more and more safety and healthy regulations in every area of life, demanding that society err on the side of caution. But when topics such as over-the-counter abortifacients and drug legalization come up, proponents of the nanny state suddenly change their tune. Risks are downplayed and freedom is extolled.
The New York Times, which normally favors hyperactive legislation and regulations for imaginary risks, has adopted a dismissive attitude about the real risks of marijuana use. Its editorial board has pronounced marijuana a “substance far less dangerous than alcohol”  and declared that pot “addiction and dependence are relatively minor problems, especially compared with alcohol and tobacco.” It continued, “Moderate use of marijuana does not appear to pose a risk for otherwise healthy adults. Claims that marijuana is a gateway to more dangerous drugs are as fanciful as the ‘Reefer Madness’ images of murder, rape and suicide.”
The paper has finally found a pollutant it can cheer. After years of denouncing Big Tobacco, it has no qualms about the mainstreaming of marijuana. It can at once inveigh against the perils of “secondhand smoke” and cast marijuana use as harmless.
If the Nanny State Left likes a particular activity, it has no problem overlooking science that frowns upon that activity. On matters such as global warming, it brooks no scientific dissent. But it will use “contested” science to take the view that pot use is benign. It will hold hearings on the dangers of dietary supplements and hector someone like Doctor Oz about dubious advice while shutting down any debate about the dangers of over-the-counter abortifacients for teens. Eric Shaff, chair of the National Abortion Federation, famously said that RU-486 is less dangerous than aspirin.

Under Obama, in this supposedly kid-conscious age, 15-year-olds can pick up abortion-inducing drugs at their local CVS. Obama has said that he is “comfortable” with this arrangement, citing “sold scientific evidence” for it, though before his reelection he had worried about the prospect of kids picking up such consequential and dangerous drugs “alongside bubble gum or batteries.”
For the Nanny State Left, abortion is safe and pregnancy is risky. Fertility is treated as a disease requiring “preventive” drugs and pregnancy is seen as a disability. As the Wall Street Journal pointed out, Obama’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission now treats conditions associated with pregnancy as impairments under the Americans with Disabilities Act:
Quote
On a straight 3-2 party-line vote July 14, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission voted new “enforcement guidance” rules, which define pregnancy as a workplace disability.… Even after the 2008 amendments, the ADA at no point defines pregnancy as a “disability.” To end-run this fact, the agency discovers pregnancy’s “impairments.” The EEOC’s guidelines argue, “Although pregnancy itself is not a disability, impairments related to pregnancy can be disabilities if they substantially limit one or more major life activities.” Morning sickness, for example, would become a qualifying impairment under the ADA.
[color][size][font]

The Nanny State Left calls natural conditions unhealthy and unnatural ones healthy. Deliberately sterilizing a functioning part of the body counts as “health care” under Obama while pregnancy causes congresswomen like Gwen Moore to say, “The National Institute of Health has said that it is a danger to women’s health and safety of their
 t is not surprising that marijuana use now assumes its place as another risk-free practice under the ideological quirks of the Nanny State. The counterculture has become the culture and the Left isn’t going to let science or common sense impede its advance. The New York Times thinks it is funny to morph the stars of the American flag into marijuana leaves and leave people with the impression that drug use is no more serious than drinking a beer. It has even dropped its customary insistence on national uniform standards in favor of state experimentation with novel drug laws. On most matters they don’t want 50 laboratories of democracy, but on marijuana use they are fine with it, provided that they are drug labs.
The paper has finally found a pollutant it can cheer. After years of denouncing Big Tobacco, it has no qualms about the mainstreaming of marijuana. It can at once inveigh against the perils of “secondhand smoke” and cast marijuana use as harmless.
If the Nanny State Left likes a particular activity, it has no problem overlooking science that frowns upon that activity. On matters such as global warming, it brooks no scientific dissent. But it will use “contested” science to take the view that pot use is benign. It will hold hearings on the dangers of dietary supplements and hector someone like Doctor Oz about dubious advice while shutting down any debate about the dangers of over-the-counter abortifacients for teens. Eric Shaff, chair of the National Abortion Federation, famously said that RU-486 is less dangerous than aspirin.
Under Obama, in this supposedly kid-conscious age, 15-year-olds can pick up abortion-inducing drugs at their local CVS. Obama has said that he is “comfortable” with this arrangement, citing “sold scientific evidence” for it, though before his reelection he had worried about the prospect of kids picking up such consequential and dangerous drugs “alongside bubble gum or batteries.”
HT: The American Spectator[/font][/size][/color]
President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

P1tchBlack

  • Guest

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18363
  • Liked:
Diaper Boy aka Pitchy misses the point again
« Reply #2 on: January 08, 2018, 01:53:40 PM »
 :34:
President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

HK_Vol

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 16968
  • Liked:
It is ironic that many of those promoting marijuana are the same one who scream of the dangers of cigarettes and want them even more heavily taxed or outright banned.


DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18363
  • Liked:
It is ironic that many of those promoting marijuana are the same one who scream of the dangers of cigarettes and want them even more heavily taxed or outright banned.
True

I did find this article interesting giving the very liberal slant of Psychology Today https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-brain/201603/marijuana-use-increases-violent-behavior

One of my biggest concerns is the inability to detect when someone is under the influence as well as the delayed affects that science can last for 30 days, unlike Alcohol which is immediately detectable and effects are over in a relative short period of time.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2018, 06:22:33 PM by DunkingDan »
President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

P1tchBlack

  • Guest
I guess we should outlaw alcohol, too....

https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa38.htm

HK_Vol

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 16968
  • Liked:
I also find that those who argue that "sugary drinks" are evil and dangerous and should be heavily taxes and consumption discouraged also strongly object to banning the purchase of those exact same items by the poor with their SNAP cards.  Why they are supporting a heavily regressive tax is pretty ironic.

HK_Vol

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 16968
  • Liked:
Alcohol is dangerous when abused (just like any drug).

But it does seem to have health benefits.

Mayo Clinic

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/heart-disease/in-depth/red-wine/ART-20048281

SNIP:
Still, many doctors agree that something in red wine appears to help your heart. It's possible that antioxidants, such as flavonoids or a substance called resveratrol, have heart-healthy benefits.

Red wine seems to have heart-healthy benefits. But it's possible that red wine isn't any better than beer, white wine or liquor for heart health. There's still no clear evidence that red wine is better than other forms of alcohol when it comes to possible heart-healthy benefits.

P1tchBlack

  • Guest
Alcohol is dangerous when abused (just like any drug).

But it does seem to have health benefits.

Mayo Clinic

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/heart-disease/in-depth/red-wine/ART-20048281

SNIP:
Still, many doctors agree that something in red wine appears to help your heart. It's possible that antioxidants, such as flavonoids or a substance called resveratrol, have heart-healthy benefits.

Red wine seems to have heart-healthy benefits. But it's possible that red wine isn't any better than beer, white wine or liquor for heart health. There's still no clear evidence that red wine is better than other forms of alcohol when it comes to possible heart-healthy benefits.
marijuana has health benefits....not that health benefits should be the measure for making something legal.

 

Associate Links/Search