Sex Outside of Marriage is Death!

Wouldn’t you know it? The Christians are once again opposed to a wonderful new advancement in medicine. A vaccine, given to adolescents before they become sexually active, is proving effective in preventing cervical cancer (and genital warts). The religious opposition claims that giving this vaccine would be advocating children to become sexually active. They argue that abstinence should be viewed as the only form of protection against these kinds of health risks. This reasoning is so idiotic I’m not sure what to criticize about it first.

It’s obvious that kids will be having sex regardless of what their parents tell them to do. Depriving them of the vaccine is turning cervical cancer into a punishment for not practicing abstinence (how does one practice abstinence when it consists of inaction?) Of course, these people believe that sexually active people get STD’s because God is inflicting punishment on the sinners of the world. What I don’t understand is why anyone would want to devote their life to a God who tortures people with illness deliberately, and why they would prefer that their children die from a potential illness rather than protecting them against it.

According to Concerned Women for America, the only way to protect against God’s wrath of cervical cancer is to never have sex before or outside of a “mutually monogamous marriage”. Why is marriage is a requirement? The only requirement I can see is that both parties have to be free of infection. HPV could make this possible for everyone, and it is to be given before becoming sexually active, whether your kid has sex for the first time at 15 or 30 is of no consequence.

I think this vaccine should become an acceptable procedure for young adults and treated just like any other vaccine we give to kids. When you give your child a tetanus shot, you aren’t suggesting that he should go outside and step on a nail, you are protecting against the possibility. It could happen, and if it doesn’t, so much the better. If you’re a staunch Christian and you’ve raised your kids to believe that sex before marriage is out of the question, I really doubt a vaccine will influence your kids into sudden sexual rebellion. If Christians think recieving an injection will change their entire belief system, Christianity must be shakier than I thought.

A Bluegrass Blog
Body and Soul
cnsnews.com

Help Fight Draconian Anti-Drug Measures

Congressman Sensenbrenner has introduced a mandatory minimum sentencing bill, which would hold accountable those who simply witness a drug transaction take place.

From the Drug Policy Alliance site:

If you "witness" certain drug offenses taking place or "learn" that they took place you would have to report the offense to law enforcement within 24 hours and provide "full assistance" in the investigation, apprehension, and prosecution of the people involved. Failure to do so would be a crime punishable by a mandatory two year prison sentence.
Here are some examples of offenses you would have to report to the police within 24 hours:

• You see someone you know pass a joint to a 20-year old college student.


• Your cousin mentions that he bought Ecstasy for some of his college friends.


• You find out that your brother, who has kids, recently bought a small amount of marijuana to share with his wife.


• Your substance-abusing daughter recently begged her boyfriend to find her some drugs even though they're both in drug treatment.

This is ridiculous, and simply must not be allowed to pass. Take action immediately!
via Drug Policy Alliance
Read Bill H.R.1528

Humiliation Doesn't Help

NBC recently did an undercover investigation to catch online predators "in the act". I first saw this story on Tuesday, but they've been milking it ever since. In this investigation, people posed as young girls and lured unsuspecting guys into coming over. The guys seek to take advantage of young girls home alone, but when they get there all they find are video cameras and accusing reporters.

When first watching this story, something didn't sit right with me. I'm certainly not in favor of grown men taking sexual advantage of underage girls, but I highly doubt that this story was done purely for the good of protecting children.

The guise of this story was that it was intended to bring awareness to parents about how dangerous the internet is for kids, and how online predators are everywhere. (Something that has been known by parents and most everyone with a brain for quite some time) I believe that if that were truly the objective, the faces and names of these men would have been protected, but they were not. The true purpose of this story was to publicly crucify potential sex offenders and to humiliate these men and destroy their lives, purely for the entertainment value of viewers at home who are full of distain for pedophiles and sex offenders. The result is that these men will forever be shunned by society for something they may or may not have been about to do. It’s like Minority Report. We are convicting them for a crime they haven’t even committed yet. It also shouldn't come as a shock that in a society where youthfulness is equated with beauty, situations like this will occur. (Women in magazines are often so thin that they look like 12-year-olds, but I plan to rant about that on another occassion)

It is my belief that pedophilia is a disorder. Many suffering from this disorder seek treatment because they know that what they are doing or what they desire to do is wrong. They would give anything to have the sickness removed from them. Likewise, I believe that some of the men duped in this investigative study are not necessarily horrible people who deserve to be publicly humiliated. These are human beings. They make mistakes. They have sick desires. They are lonely, and in their desperateness, they made a very poor decision. Because of this, they are treated with disgust by society. Many of these men lost their jobs after their employers saw them on the news.

Shame is powerful thing. If someone is suffering from some sort of sexual depravity it's no wonder that they keep it to themselves in a world where people are treated like this. If we really believe that everyone deserves equal treatment in our society, then we should be helping these people, not humiliating them.



protecting your kids online

I need Ambien. The TV told me so.

With the exception of women seeking birth control from psuedo-moralist pharmacists, I think it's safe to say that our country's use of prescription drugs is excessive. According to the annual report in 1994, almost half of Americans are taking at least one prescription. Many of these drugs have helped people with serious ailments live fuller lives, while some prescriptions are completely unnecessary. For instance, one in ten women in our country take some form of antidepressant. Are that many women actually clinically depressed? It doesn't seem likely. Depression is tricky because it is a very gray area. We all (or most of us) have periods in our life during which we feel dissatisfied, empty and hopeless. For some people, these symptoms are a signal of a chemical imbalance in the brain. For others, the symptoms indicate a survivable period of sadness in their lives that will pass with or without the use of antidepressants. Psychotherapy, counseling or lifestyle changes may be all that is needed in such cases, but all too often people think that they can solve their problems by taking a pill. The risks of these drugs is frequently minimized and glossed over. In some cases, antidepressants may even make depression worse and lead to suicide.

I believe the source of our overuse of prescription drugs lies in the fact that we are a nation full of consumers. Prescription drugs are being marketed to us just like cars and tennis shoes. We see it. We want it. We get it. We are, after all, Americans.

It used to be illegal for prescription drugs to be advertised on television, but now television is an active marketing forum for prescription drug ads and a virtual playground for greedy drug companies. The FDA requires that drug ads give out accurate information, and promises to give more scrutiny to drug advertising in the future. Great. I'm all for stricter enforcement towards drug advertising, but wouldn't it have been better to scrutinize these ads before they gave false information to the public instead of pulling them afterwards? Television advertising of prescription drugs is leading people to believe they can diagnose themselves. We have licensed physicians for that. They spend years studying to know what is best for us and our bodies, while we see a 30 second ad on TV and think we have all of the answers.

We have a drug for everything now. If we can't sleep, we can take Ambien. If we are depressed, we can take an SSRI. If we have anxiety, we can take a benzo like Valium. The options are endless and continue beyond the realm of prescription drugs. If we want an herbal remedy for depression we can use Saint John's Wort (which may make birth control pills ineffective) or if we have trouble concentrating we can take Ginko biloba (which should not be taken with aspirin or other anticoagulants). We have a world of drug possibilities at our fingertips, and as many as 106,000 people in the US die each year because of adverse reactions to medications. Drug advertising is not only unethical, it is downright dangerous.

Right of Refusal

There have been several recent cases of pharmacists not filling prescriptions for birth control or the morning after pill because of "moral" beliefs. Two headline cases occurred in Texas, and others have popped up elsewhere in the country, including right here in Wisconsin.

It is my belief that if your religious beliefs interfere with the duties of your job, you are in the wrong line of work. Most of the pharmacists that have been in the news lately have been fired. I'm not saying that people can't have their own beliefs, but if you think those beliefs should trump company policy, you should be fired.

If I worked in a deli and refused to serve ham sandwiches because of my belief that eating pork is wrong, I would be a bad deli employee, and justifiably, I would probably lose my job. Likewise, pharmacists are employed to fill prescriptions, not to impose judgment on others, and if they refuse to fill prescriptions based on personal beliefs, they are bad employees.

I realize, of course, that pharmacists are required to use their conscience when filling prescriptions. The world is full of drug addicts. People will always try to forge prescriptions or increase the amounts of their favorite drugs, and in such cases, I think it's within the job description for a pharmacist to refuse. The problem is, these pharmacists are not drawing the line between their own personal beliefs and their professional ethics. Most company policies already allow pharmacists to refuse to fill a prescription based on religious beliefs provided they allow another pharmacist to fill it, or transfer it to another pharmacy. For me, this policy is too lenient, but for some Christian pharmacists, this does not allow them enough freedom. More legislation to protect their right to refuse is being considered, and unfortunately, the pharmacists are not refusing ham sandwiches, they are refusing the right for women to choose how they live their lives.

It's a good thing condoms are sold over the counter.


Ryan's Lair
Drug Topics