Let's talk about some chemicals.

We are taught LIES about certain chemicals in this society (the United States) and others, and this is supposedly for "our safety".

Governments or other organizations want to regulate YOUR BODY, and most importantly of all, they do NOT want you to use your MIND, ever.

Okay, firstly, marijuana, or cannabis DOES NOT KILL or even harm you, really. Maybe if smoked, yes, but what about vaporized?

Marijuana helps numerous cancer patients and others in pain to ease some of that suffering, and it is one drug that IT IS ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE TO OVERDOSE ON.

Please read that again.

That's right, impossible. You would pass out before being able to smoke/otherwise consume that much.

I'm sure that governments and big business (corporations) would love to make money from a legal cannabis trade, but there is still so much untruth and fearmongering going on amongst conservative groups, without the proper facts being presented.

Also, taxing something that grows ANYWHERE (a weed, after all) would probably be difficult. But they did it for beer, and you can make your own beer, after all. And it would probably make them look like hypocrites, or idiots, after all these years of prohibition. Or both.

The real issue is the ridiculous nature of these laws, laws upon NATURAL SUBSTANCES. Substances that occur naturally in the wild, in nature, and occasionally, even in OUR OWN BODIES! (DMT).

They always say "not enough testing has been done" or "more research is needed" or something similar.

So DO THE FUCKING RESEARCH, already, then!

Or trust the millions of people who smoke something like cannabis (oh yes, it's the world's MOST WIDELY USED SUBSTANCE).

And how many deaths from it?

Zero.

Psychedelic (psilocybin) mushrooms, although mind-altering and perhaps toxic to those allergic to mushrooms (or claiming to have a "bad trip"), is relatively harmless, in reality, and is much less potent, even, than its man/lab-made counterpart, LSD (acid).

So we have marijuana, psychedelic mushrooms, and what else?

DMT.

DMT is a substance that ALL OF OUR HUMAN BODIES produce, naturally!
How can they say THAT is illegal?

The other two are plants that grow in the wild, in nature, as we mentioned before.

Psychedelic mushrooms actually improves your vision, this has been shown in studies and tests.

And let's be fair here, marijuana is FAR safer than alcohol. It doesn't cause cirrhosis, or possibly KILL YOU (as in alcohol poisoning, which is what you feel a little of every time you take a drink, and get even slightly "buzzed" or especially, when drunk).

Okay though, alcohol is only legal after you are 21 years of age here in the United States (18 in Canada, and there are less taboos about it in Europe, as well).

What about a little drug called caffeine? One of the most addictive, heart-unhealthy substances on the planet?

Legal, to those of ANY AGE. And ABUNDANTLY available!

How about nicotine? Legal, after you are 18 years of age here in the States. And smoking cigarettes is one of the leading causes of death every single year.

Smoking cigarettes has become slightly less popular among some circles though, the avidly non-smokers who would make the smokers into pariahs.

And we can't forget our favorite chemical, SUGAR. Terence McKenna speaks in great detail about the health horrors of this substance, yet it is in almost every damn thing you care to look at in a supermarket or restaurant. Flavorful, right? It's always about flavor country.

Now, why would a workplace or an employer be fine with caffeine in coffee or any number of energy drinks, or cigarettes, but not marijuana?

Easy. Productivity! But some people can be VERY productive (if not even more so) when using cannabis on a regular basis. You never hear about this. EVER.

I once had a boss who had been in the military for many years before the end of his service (NOT dishonorably) and who was also a millionaire (he owned several local shops/strip malls in the area - this was Florida).

So explain that one to me.

Basically, government (and big business) can't wait to get their hands (and their laws) on your body. They don't want you to question anything other than what is "socially acceptable", the status quo, etc.

They do not WANT you to have free thought. After all, human manpower, life hours, sweat and fuel is needed for the economic machine that keeps them all in business, the fat cats rich, high up on pedestals, and getting continually fatter.

And we won't even delve into the CIA's ties to the import of cocaine (and other drugs) into the United States. Well-known facts, and explainable by dollar signs.

The "war on drugs" is a lie, and we all know it.

If some or all of these substances were legalized, would there really be more addicts and violence in the streets? Or would there be less, because of the lessening and eventual elimination of smuggling and other underground operations?

John Hancock, founder of our nation and known for his large signature, was a smuggler, after all.

Many of our founding fathers were far less than perfect.

How can we hold ourselves to such high standards without appearing incredibly hypocritical?

Are we supposed to have EVOLVED?

It feels like DEVOLUTION to me.

Let's talk about some chemicals.

We are taught LIES about certain chemicals in this society (the United States) and others, and this is supposedly for "our safety".

Governments or other organizations want to regulate YOUR BODY, and most importantly of all, they do NOT want you to use your MIND, ever.

Okay, firstly, marijuana, or cannabis DOES NOT KILL or even harm you, really. Maybe if smoked, yes, but what about vaporized?

Marijuana helps numerous cancer patients and others in pain to ease some of that suffering, and it is one drug that IT IS ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE TO OVERDOSE ON.

Please read that again.

That's right, impossible. You would pass out before being able to smoke/otherwise consume that much.

I'm sure that governments and big business (corporations) would love to make money from a legal cannabis trade, but there is still so much untruth and fearmongering going on amongst conservative groups, without the proper facts being presented.

Also, taxing something that grows ANYWHERE (a weed, after all) would probably be difficult. But they did it for beer, and you can make your own beer, after all. And it would probably make them look like hypocrites, or idiots, after all these years of prohibition. Or both.

The real issue is the ridiculous nature of these laws, laws upon NATURAL SUBSTANCES. Substances that occur naturally in the wild, in nature, and occasionally, even in OUR OWN BODIES! (DMT).

They always say "not enough testing has been done" or "more research is needed" or something similar.

So DO THE FUCKING RESEARCH, already, then!

Or trust the millions of people who smoke something like cannabis (oh yes, it's the world's MOST WIDELY USED SUBSTANCE).

And how many deaths from it?

Zero.

Psychedelic (psilocybin) mushrooms, although mind-altering and perhaps toxic to those allergic to mushrooms (or claiming to have a "bad trip"), is relatively harmless, in reality, and is much less potent, even, than its man/lab-made counterpart, LSD (acid).

So we have marijuana, psychedelic mushrooms, and what else?

DMT.

DMT is a substance that ALL OF OUR HUMAN BODIES produce, naturally!
How can they say THAT is illegal?

The other two are plants that grow in the wild, in nature, as we mentioned before.

Psychedelic mushrooms actually improves your vision, this has been shown in studies and tests.

And let's be fair here, marijuana is FAR safer than alcohol. It doesn't cause cirrhosis, or possibly KILL YOU (as in alcohol poisoning, which is what you feel a little of every time you take a drink, and get even slightly "buzzed" or especially, when drunk).

Okay though, alcohol is only legal after you are 21 years of age here in the United States (18 in Canada, and there are less taboos about it in Europe, as well).

What about a little drug called caffeine? One of the most addictive, heart-unhealthy substances on the planet?

Legal, to those of ANY AGE. And ABUNDANTLY available!

How about nicotine? Legal, after you are 18 years of age here in the States. And smoking cigarettes is one of the leading causes of death every single year.

Smoking cigarettes has become slightly less popular among some circles though, the avidly non-smokers who would make the smokers into pariahs.

And we can't forget our favorite chemical, SUGAR. Terence McKenna speaks in great detail about the health horrors of this substance, yet it is in almost every damn thing you care to look at in a supermarket or restaurant. Flavorful, right? It's always about flavor country.

Now, why would a workplace or an employer be fine with caffeine in coffee or any number of energy drinks, or cigarettes, but not marijuana?

Easy. Productivity! But some people can be VERY productive (if not even more so) when using cannabis on a regular basis. You never hear about this. EVER.

I once had a boss who had been in the military for many years before the end of his service (NOT dishonorably) and who was also a millionaire (he owned several local shops/strip malls in the area - this was Florida).

So explain that one to me.

Basically, government (and big business) can't wait to get their hands (and their laws) on your body. They don't want you to question anything other than what is "socially acceptable", the status quo, etc.

They do not WANT you to have free thought. After all, human manpower, life hours, sweat and fuel is needed for the economic machine that keeps them all in business, the fat cats rich, high up on pedestals, and getting continually fatter.

And we won't even delve into the CIA's ties to the import of cocaine (and other drugs) into the United States. Well-known facts, and explainable by dollar signs.

The "war on drugs" is a lie, and we all know it.

If some or all of these substances were legalized, would there really be more addicts and violence in the streets? Or would there be less, because of the lessening and eventual elimination of smuggling and other underground operations?

John Hancock, founder of our nation and known for his large signature, was a smuggler, after all.

Many of our founding fathers were far less than perfect.

How can we hold ourselves to such high standards without appearing incredibly hypocritical?

Are we supposed to have EVOLVED?

It feels like DEVOLUTION to me.

"Remember to crush thoroughly next time" ;-)

- Mr. Blonde (anonymous poster)

Our youth are experimenting with dangerous prescription narcotics, largely due to their easy access, and turning to anonymous idiots on the Internet for advice on abusing them. This is how people die.

_

Link to Bluelight, the Internet forum mentioned above.

China is a wonderful and powerful nation of some 1.3 billion people.  Since I lived among the Chinese for some time I came to know that the Chinese are a determined people with a history and tradition of some five thousand years.

I recall many of the "folklore" or traditional teachings of the "old ones" or "elders" and Richard Halloran in today's Washington Times brings forth one of my favorites: "The long journey starts with but a single step."  In other words, you'll never get there unless you start.

This reminds me, and I am reminded of this almost every day in American life, of a thousand moments.  John F. Kennedy challenging the nation to go to the moon -- and we went.  Today I think of nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and their obstinate refusal to consider drilling for oil.  Their rationale runs counter to everything the Chinese believe and stand for.  The Democrats wont allow more oil drilling because, in essence, the pay-off might not be for 10 years, and even then the yield might only be 1% of our national need.

Yet just the open discussion of the idea does and has caused prices to go down.

Sometimes just taking that first step is all it takes!

Ask athletes about "The long journey starts with but a single step."  Ask recovering drug addicts and alcoholics: in Alcoholics Anonymous they say, "One step at a time."  Sound like "The long journey starts with but a single step"?

Ask the Chinese.....

By Richard Halloran
The Washington Times
COMMENTARY:

To most people outside of China and Taiwan, a dispute over the name of Taiwan's Olympic team might seem petty, but the argument has underscored an elemental point: The games that open Friday in Beijing may be the most politicized since the Nazi German dictator Adolf Hitler sought to enlist the Berlin Olympics of 1936 as evidence of Aryan racial superiority.

Moreover, President George W. Bush, who plans to attend the opening ceremony, will be part of that highly charged political event as the first U.S. president ever to go abroad to the Olympics. His decision has been mildly controversial: On one hand, it gives the president an opportunity to engage Chinese leaders; on the other, it may be seen as reinforcing the oppressive rule of China's communist regime.

The president jumped into Olympic politics last week by welcoming five Chinese dissidents to the White House. A Chinese spokesman responded by contendingthe president had "rudely interfered in China's internal affairs." Later, the president told a Chinese TV interviewer "I'm coming to China as the president and as a friend."

Several weeks ago, authorities of the People's Republic of China in Beijing suggested that the team from Taiwan compete under the name of "Taipei, China." The proposal caused an uproar in Taiwan because that name, "Chungkuo Taipei" in Chinese, implied that Taiwan was part of China, like Hong Kong or Macau.

Instead, Taiwan's leaders, Olympic committee and press insisted that their team be called "Chinese Taipei," or "Chunghua Taipei." That form was devised in the 1980s when China demanded that international organizations not allow Taiwan to use that name or the Republic of China, its formal title. "Chinese Taipei" indicated that Taiwan was Chinese in culture but detached from China in politics.

In the argument with Beijing, Taiwan even threatened to withdraw from the games, a warning that had teeth. Earlier, the Beijing Olympic Committee planned to have the Olympic torch carried through Taiwan on the way to Beijing. The route made it look as if Taiwan was part China. Taiwan promptly refused. Beijing evidently decided that, after being criticized for several other issues, more bad publicity would not be helpful.

Although political leaders, Olympic committees and athletes everywhere have decried efforts to embroil the Olympics in politics, that has often been the case - and none more so than in China now.

Orville Schell, a scholar of China writing in Newsweek, says the Beijing Olympics are intended to mark the emergence of China from its "national inferiority complex" that began with China's defeat by Britain in the Opium War of 1839-42. There followed two centuries when the "Chinese melon" was sliced up by Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Portugal, the United States and Japan.

Today, educated Chinese constantly remind themselves - and anyone else who will listen - that they come from a nation with a 5,000-year history, and they contend their nation is due the respect of a global leader. Perhaps more than ending China's sense of inferiority, however, the Beijing Olympics may be that first step in the Chinese saying: "A journey of a thousand li (a measure of distance) begins with but a single step."

For China appears bent on regaining its place as the Middle Kingdom, a concept formed in the Han Dynasty of about 200 B.C. to 200 A.D. In that scheme, China is the center of the world and its neighbors are vassals who pay court and make no move of consequence without Beijing's permission. Other nations, particularly those of the West, are barbarians to be fended off.

Politicizing the Olympics has a long history. Tokyo, in the first games in Asia, marked Japan's recovery from World War II; the lad who lit the Olympic flame had been born in Hiroshima the day it was it hit with the first atomic bomb. The 1972 Olympics in Munich saw Palestinian terrorists kill 11 Israelis. The U.S. boycotted the 1980 games in Moscow to condemn the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

In revenge, the Soviet Union and 14 satellites boycotted the Los Angeles games in 1984. South Korea turned the 1988 Olympics into a showcase for its economic achievements. Another terrorist attack took one life and injured 110 others in Atlanta in 1996.

Sometimes, however, Olympic politics backfire. Hitler had his vaunted Aryan superiority thrown in his face by an African-American sprinter and long jumper named Jesse Owens - who won four gold medals in the Berlin Olympics.

Richard Halloran is a freelance writer and former New York Times correspondent based in Honolulu.

Thanks to all our readers and friends....

Heroin, crack and Prada shoes

AIDS is a terrible affliction. It is brutal and unfair. We should and do dedicate money and resources to bring about its annihilation. One who contracts HIV and, consequently, the AIDS virus is seen as a victim and is comforted by the support that is readily available to them. Fair. I am proud of this part of our culture.

Digging deeper I ask, "How does one contract this terrible disease?". The most common ways you can catch HIV/AIDS are, to quote Wiki:

The most common way is thru sexual intercourse (oral, anal, and vaginal) however, u can catch it by intravenous drug use, blood transfusions, open wounds (anywhere where fluids can be exchanged)

So, we see that the top two ways of catching the disease are: 1) Unprotected sex & 2) Intravenous drug use. Hold that thought and keep in mind the empathy and support gushed upon AIDS patients.

Drug Addiction. ::crowd goes oooooh:: Dead rock stars, actors, and junkies. They had it coming and deserved it. They should have stopped using or never started. They made bad decisions and brought sickness upon themselves. I believe that this is a fair summation of the prevailing attitude towards drug users. Unlike HIV/AIDS there is no empathy, sympathy, or support for the disease of drug addiction. Yes kids, it is a disease. No addict enjoys using. This is the nature of addiction. It is a sickness acquired by either bad decisions or emotional problems such as Depression that do not respond to pharmaceuticals. Once addicted, the individual goes from mentally craving the "high" to physically needing the drug for basic sustenance.

The most common causes of drug addiction are: 1) Depression & 2) Substance Abuse

So, because of either a bad decision, or an untreated mental illness, an individual can become a drug addict.

Recently I watched the 79th All-Star Game at Yankee Stadium and heard the commentators tell and retell the story of how Josh Hamilton overcame drug addiction to reclaim his place in Major League Baseball. Every time, however, they clearly stated that Hamilton had missed three years of baseball and had almost died because of a sickness he "brought upon himself" or a lifestyle he "chose to live". Is that so? Do you think that Hamilton wanted it this way? We'll leave that as a rhetorical question as I ask a more poignant question. What if we prefaced those afflicted with AIDS the same way?

"He was an excellent student and had a bright future until he contracted HIV, a sickness he 'brought on himself'."

"There is a terrible AIDS epidemic in the inner city. Apparently this is a lifestyle more people 'choose to live in South Chicago'."

Never would you hear this because somewhere, sometime it was decided that using dirty needles and having unprotected sex was a sickness worthy of our deepest sympathies and deepest pockets. Similarly, it was decided that those trying to alleviate the terror of Depression or choosing to experiment with drugs almost deserved to become afflicted with Drug Addiction. There is no sympathy for Drug Addicts and this is because there is little understanding of the disease. Further, there is an incorrect stereotype and image of the "typical" drug addict that makes it impossible to garner support for these sick people. Thus, this sickness feeds on itself. Without a clear support channel, addicts often want to heal and overcome their affliction, but professionals from doctors to pharmacists make any help given magnanimous at best. The addict then relapses and falls deeper into despair knowing that the world is essentially against them and this monster that rules their existence is never going to be put down unless they tread this terror-laden road completely alone.

Josh Hamilton overcame his drug addiction. Why? Because he had, and still has, a companion who stands by his side and supports him. This prevents him from relapsing. To wit; Hamilton said, "Without his support I would never have gotten clean. I still need his help daily. I still don't trust myself." Seems that Hamilton is a pretty lucky guy. Most people are repulsed by drug addicts while they wear ribbons and hold fundraisers for AIDS victims. Remember the bulk of those falling victim to either affliction did so because of bad luck and/or poor decisions. Why do we then embrace those with AIDS and shun those with a drug addiction? It is a more pertinent question then you may believe, especially when you take in to account the story of Josh Hamilton and the success that he attributes to the intangible support of a beloved friend.

I asked before that you reserve judgment here and consider the case I am making. I know that I am being a bit hyperbolic with some of the argument, but you have to agree that it is worth some thought. Certainly I am not diminishing the tragedy of AIDS. I am only using it to shed light on the issue of drug addiction and the equal need for support with this disease.

If we continue to shun addicts and avoid the problem, it will get worse and many people will die. Now that we have the gateway drugs of Vicodin and Oxycontin being liberally prescribed by "health" professionals. Do you know that the makers of these drugs were found guilty of many high crimes recently for misrepresenting how addictive their "medicine" is. The result? They paid a stiff fine and the drugs remain on the market. Hmmmmm... Take a look at how many teens are dying from prescription medication. Then take a look at how many heroin addicts were led to this affliction by an opioid medication dispensed by their trusted doctor and local pharmacy. This is another issue and I am on a tangent, but it does deserve a mention here.

I ask that we begin changing our view of a drug addict and finding ways to support their desire to become clean. Like an AIDS victim, we must see drug addicts as sick people in need of care. If we do make this paradigm shift, we will stop this sickness before it inevitably becomes an epidemic and takes away the lives and contributions of more wonderful people. Everyone deserves another chance, despite the mistakes they have made. Nobody deserves to contract AIDS or a drug addiction. Both can be stopped with proper education and support. Let's try harder to be fair...

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a new warning on Friday regarding the popular painkiller fentanyl, basically a re-issue of its 2005 warning. The FDA estimates that the patch version of the potent painkiller may have been involved in more than 3,500 deaths.

Fentanyl patches (brand name Duragesic) are typically prescribed to patients with chronic pain, or to those who have trouble swallowing pills. The patch's transdermal system releases a uniform dosage of the drug over the course of three days.

“I think there is more that needs to be done, or else we’re just going to see this [warning] happen again another two years from now.” “The deaths are going to continue.”

-Michael Cohen, the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (PA)

The FDA also warns that heat and exercise can cause the patches to release the drug at a faster and potentially lethal rate. Patients who experience breathing problems while using fentanyl should call their doctors immediately, because high doses of the drug can cause the patients respiratory system to fail.

_

• View the 2005 fentanyl  FDA Alert
• View the 2004 fentanyl  FDA Recall Notice
• Duragesic Website: duragesic.com
• Image Courtesy Wikipedia

She's working the closing shift at a store in what we're going to call a mildly shifty neighborhood.  During her shift she:

• Stops a shoplifter.  She's on a ladder and can see the entire store, namely this man slipping red Revlon nail polish into his pocket.  She hops down and asks him if she can help him find anything.  He is shopping for his girlfriend, he says.  He goes and fumbles around with some body wash and drops a bottle of it.  C makes him buy it and brings him up to the counter.  She holds his change hostage until he gives back the nail polish that is still in his pocket.  He slams it onto the counter and she halfway hopes he breaks that as well so she can charge him.
• Avoids a hug from a bum with drool rolling down his face and chest.  Said bum claims to be looking for one of those pens with 4 colors in one pen.  He says she's crazy when she tells him they aren't made anymore.  As he goes to hug her, she back-pedals quickly and says loudly "Don't touch me.  Nobody touches me!"  He says "But sometimes it's okay to be touched, especially---"  "Do not continue that statement!  Get the hell out of my store!"
• Watches while a woman with pus, scabs, and track marks on both arms disputes her foot-long receipt.  C, who has been looking at this receipt for 10 minutes or more stops the woman from taking a bottle of chocolate milk with her because "that's not on the receipt."
• Sees a cop slam a man's head into a gas-station counter
• Is told by the cashier at the next gas station that she has beautiful eyes.  She just wants to buy her beer.  Seriously.

But the best part is yet to come.  The following is a conversation overheard by C at work.

Customer: I know yall are about to close, can I just get my stuff real quick and get out?
Sales Clerk: Sure, what can I help you find?
Customer: I need something for jock itch.
Sales Clerk: Okay, that's over this way.  (they walk down the aisle where C is).  We have this kind and this kind.
Customer: What's better?  The cream or the spray?
Sales Clerk: I'm really not the one to answer that, I wouldn't know.  (the clerk is female, just so you know)
Customer: Okay, I'll take this one.
Sales Clerk: Great.  Anything else I can help you find?
Customer: Yeah, condoms.
(long pause)
Sales Clerk: Seriously?  I don't think that's a good idea to mix with this particular ailment.
Customer: But I need them.
Sales Clerk: Um . . . okay.
(leads him off and eventually returns to C, who is laughing)
Sales Clerk: Oh god, that was disgusting.
C: How did you keep a straight face?
Sales Clerk: I don't know.  But I'm so glad I'm gay.

3g iphone addict one asks: "Can i shout Jezebelle, and other insults at normal iphone owners ?"

Sally replies: By all means do, but remember if you make a scene be sure that they have a normal phone first because you don't want to upset other special 3g iphone owners do you.

3g iphone addict two asks: "Am i special for owning an 3g iphone?"

Sally replies: Well somebody thinks you are, but please don't whinge and whine when your Hero Steve Jobs drops the price, or you need a spare and complain about the price. In that regard yes you are.

3g iphone addict three asks: "Im catholic - Is owning a iphone 3g sinfull ?"

Sally replies: If your a catholic probably then yes it is. Most things are. To resolve this problem get yourself raped/sexually abused by a catholic priest that solves most problems im told.

3g iphone addict four asks: "I cant get my phone to work"

Sally replies: so ?, you probably went to a lot of trouble to be an early adopter and you got one, well done, so who really gives a toss if you cannot use it.

3g iphone addict five asks: "What's a phone do"

Sally replies: oh dear you again.

3g iphone addict six asks: "help I'm being ripped off in z y and z by Apple and so and so"

Sally replies: you sure are, feel special ?

Hope that helps you all.

She has successfully helped deal with some of the issues of normal phones, and if your one of those really retarded people who is having problems with the 3g apple phones then drop her a note in the comments and she will try and help you in your mental problems that being an apple fan is causing you with.

So leave a comment and Sally will try and fix your 'problems'. Don't be frightened now.

While this does not surprise me, it is somewhat startling to see it printed in black and white by a major research university. What I’ve been calling the Painkiller Epidemic is essentially a rising tide of patients developing powerful addictions to prescribed opiate-based painkillers. Like it or not, these illegal web merchants are simply responding to a very real surge in demand.

If the failed “War on Drugs” has taught us anything, we should know that shutting down these Websites will not fix the problem. Fundamental changes in the way narcotic painkillers are used and prescribed are needed to combat this problem in the future. As for the present, the needs of these addicts will be addressed one way or another—either through treatment, or through the criminal—and often violent—machinations of the black market.

It’s up to us to choose.

_

CASA's Website: www.casacolumbia.org

Download the CASA White Paper: "You’ve Got Drugs!" V: Prescription Drug Pushers on the Internet

The report, yearly released for the last five years, addresses the difficulty of getting children of drug- or alcohol addicted parents involved in the support groups which are available in a number of different cities and towns in our nation.

The results of the year 2008 inquiry in the municipalities show that:

- 261 of 290 municipalities answered the questionnaire

- 74% (192 of 261) can offer support groups for this goal group.

- 35% will use more resources to develop ministry to these children (for a more detailed report check here for a download).

Thus far an extract of the report.

We are facing a real serious issue… about a month ago our church (www.newlife.nu ) was invited by the county council to receive a reward for our ministry against segregation. As I was there I was spending time with some of the governing politicians whose responsibility was to pursue initiatives towards children and youth. During our conversation I addressed especially the situation of the children to addicts (since we minister to addicts within the context of the church). He had recognized the same problem as I had seen similar to the one addressed in the report.

And I was thinking, here we have these thousands of children and youth who have been raised under pressure and are like “walking wounded” individuals who are still in the development stages of their lives and yet, we cannot help them to deal with their traumas, their fears and their hurts. We spend tremendous amounts on the rehabilitation of their parents and yet, they are hardly considered. This last statement I have to explain: they are considered and thought off, the sheer presence of such a report show that.

However, I do know that we have no means to get in direct contact with these children and youth. In contrast to their parents we have little follow-up on their whereabouts. They seem to disappear in the system, not even our social authorities seem to be able to connect with them as a group. Of course we have to realize that so many of these children have gone through such heavy traumas that they might be happy to be able to be in other, more healthy, environments and are therefore not receptive to engage in treatment, therapy or plain support allowing others to re-open wounds they try forget they have.

The big questions are:

· How do we identify them as individuals and as group?

· How do we structure support for them from the very first moment one of the authorities or other organizations is confronted with them and their family’s situation?

· How do we then synchronize our resources, know-how and personnel to create networks of professionals and volunteers who can be part of their daily life?

· How can we provide an accountability structure for all involved to ensure the possibility to develop a relationship with every single child motivating him/her for the kind of help they need?

· How can we remain in touch with these children even when they have gone on to live with their parents and/or other adults?

I don’t have answers, just questions at the moment. What do you know, think, suggest? How can we together be part of the answer these children need?

John

And how we can’t tell where the Invisible Gardener’s work ends and the INVISIBLE GARDEN just happens – how we have to get out of the way and serve it and let it transform itself through us and us in the process…

On the afternoon of 17^th June 2008, John Crow showed Jimmy Cauty and Z. aka Mrs Redcross around the Invisible Garden. 2 JCs and a Z. Crow had come upon them flyposting Cauty’s Geese and Bones poster on the wall of the former burial ground.  Jimmy especially liked Crow’s Shrine for Dangerous Helpers with its broken gin bottle and cigar tin, its black feathers, its hairy patron Saint of Addicts and verses giving thanks for being set ‘free from mental slavery’.

Later, in the walled garden of the Ragged School, over tea and mango tart home-baked by Mrs R., they discuss how artists might contribute works to help establish Cross Bones as a site both of historical and living cultural importance, to save it from destruction by developers. J Crow urges J Cauty to become the Cross Bones icon painter. J Cauty says: ‘We should get BANKSY to do something on the concrete and tarmac, so they can’t dig up the bones without destroying his work.’

How John Crow - urban shaman and showman, The Bard of Southwark, servant of The Goose and curator of her Cross Bones Graveyard - came to be showing Jimmy Cauty - iconoclastic iconographer, co-founder of KLF, the artist who burnt a million quid - around this post-medieval prostitute’s cemetery in the heart of London…

is but a small part of the story at the very heart of all the stories to be told here, as you shall hear.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation Article: 'Hillbilly heroin' makes its mark on Australian streets

_

Readers of this blog already know my opinion on this ridiculous “Hillbilly Heroin” moniker—so I’ll ignore that for now. The real story here is that the illegal use and sale of painkillers like OxyContin in Australia has exploded from practically non-existent, to representing nearly half of the users at some safe injection sites*—just within the past 2 years.

I really don’t need to elaborate further as the original ABC article is excellent—except to point out that this painkiller epidemic, though already rampant in the U.S., is becoming a truly global problem. As the worldwide “War on Drugs” remains steeped in constant failure, we must find new solutions to combat what is truly a new form of deadly addiction.

• View other Painkiller Epidemic Updates

_

*Safe injection sites or "supervised injecting centers" are clinical facilities where illicit drug use is permitted; often clean needles and other injection equipment is supplied.

Image courtesy Wikipedia

A study conducted by Dr. Ana Rose Childress and Dr. Charles O’Brien of the University of Pennsylvania shows drug craving “triggers” are activated in the part of the brain responsible for emotions and rewards.

Cocaine addicts were shown a series of images for 33 milliseconds each—not nearly enough time to register consciously—yet brain imaging of the study participants showed activity in the limbic system (the area of the brain that is directly associated with reward) that coincided with the images.

“[The study] is the first evidence that cues outside one’s awareness can trigger rapid activation of the circuits driving drug-seeking behavior.”

-Dr. Ana Rose Childress

_

Original post:  Study Shows How the Subconscious is Related to Drug Addiction

Image courtesy Wikipedia

Citing safety concerns, and improper conduct, regulation has been proposed in order to prohibit the unsafe practices and unapproved activities.

Authorities have reported in the past that sledding in improper areas has been a problem and is being monitored.

Problems include traversal of unapproved areas, safety concerns, reckless operation of vehicles, pollution of pristine wilderness areas, garbage left, alcoholic impairment, and noise complaints.

There is now a push for Legislation which would regulate and limit sledding and snowmobiling off-trail and off-road and in unapproved areas.

The issue will be brought up to Members of Parliament and provincial legislators in order to review possible regulation.