Should prescription drug companies be allowed to broadcast commercials on national television in order to advertise their products to consumers? This is currently a huge controversy and has been getting a great deal of media attention. Typically, Democrats feel it is not only irresponsible but poor judgment to allow Americans to sit at home eating dinner, watching television, and then have to see an ad come on the television promoting, say, narcotic painkillers. Many people feel that airing these commercials would be encouraging consumers to use the advertised products and that the number of users of each advertised prescription would greatly increase in a very short amount of time. They also feel that the drug epidemic is bad enough in this country without adding to it advertisements for prescription drugs, particularly drugs which are Schedule II,III, and IV narcotics, such as hydrocodone, Oxycontin, MS Contin, and Fentanyl patches.
0 Comments
Prostitution is defined as "the act or practice of engaging in promiscuous sexual activity or intervourse in exchange for money". Prostitution dates back to 2400 B.C. and is known as one of the oldest professions. Prostitution is illegal in 49 states in the United States; Nevada has 11 counties which have legalized prostitution. According to ProCon, there are 25 different types of prostitution, the five most common forms of prostitution are street, brothel, escort, private, and window/doorway prostitution (where prostitutes stand in doorways or windows in a provocative manner in an attempt to entice men to come talk to them, and then they make every effort to get the man to go back to a room with them. The Prostitution Act of 1996 states that: "No person's human or civil rights should be violated on the basis of their trade, occupation, work, calling or profession. No law has ever succeeded in stopping prostitution. Prostitution is the provision of sexual services for negotiated payment between consenting adults. So defined, prostitution is a service industry like any other in which people exchange skills for money or other reward..." Although I do not understand how a woman (or man, for that matter) could use her body as a means for making money, if someone chooses to do that, they should absolutely be free to do that. There are some people who just want to make money the easiest way possible and some women don't have the confidence in themselves to try to learn something else and/or they don't have the motivation to go out and get an education or go into the military. I am saddened by the thought of a woman having sex for money, but I don't think it should be illegal. This is America and people should be free to make money however they can. The biggest reason I believe prostitution is illegal (and I am writing this without having researched prostitution laws or any material or website that is anti-prostitution) is the risk of a girl under age 18 going out on the streets and selling herself sexually for money, after running away from home. I absolutely agree without a doubt that prostitution amongst minors is awful, horrible, and should definitely not be advocated or allowed. However, that is one small group of people. Just because prostitution is legalized doesn't mean that teenage girls under the legal age of 18 are going to run out and decide to be a prostitute; in fact, I don't think the kinds of girls who become prostitutes are not sitting at home watching television (if they even have a television at home) and worrying about the laws. However, there are three major reasons that prostitution should be legalized in this country. First of all, prostitutes are not committing a naturally harmful crime; its possible for sexually transmitted diseases to be spread but that is going to happen whether or not prostitution is legalized--a perfect example of that is Prohibition in the early 1900s. Secondly, imagine the benefit to this struggling economy. If prostitution were legalized taxes could be collected, and prostitution is a high-dollar activity in this country. The Baltimore Examiner stated in an article that it would be better for this country financially to collect taxes from prostitution because, whether or not its legal, its going to continue happening. They propose that the government collect taxes on it and then use some of the money to fund some programs for women to teach them other ways to make a living. I find that to be a fabulous idea, and 100% true. Prostitution will continue in this country no matter how many laws there are or what punishments there are in place, and not collecting taxes on it is completely stupid. The final major reason prostitution should be legalized is that the rate of rape would be decreased by about 25% in America.. That is a huge number- that's equivalent to about 25,000 rapes per year--how can these numbers be insignificant in anyone's eyes? All three of these reasons are very good reasons why it would be beneficial to this country to legalize prostitution. There are people who believe prostitutes should have the freedom to receive money for sex if they so desire, and they say that it's only taking one step further what we as women all do at some point in our lives: we get married and agree to be with a man for the rest of our lives and to have sex with him in exchange for a nice home, a family, and the things we want to buy for ourselves; although I don't agree with that argument, because when I married my husband it was because I waS deeply in love with him--in fact, we were broke when we first got married--I do see the point they are trying to make in that argument, although that is a feminist argument and I think feminists are complete hypocrites they only use feminism in ways that benefit women, and that right there is the opposite of feminism. Just as in the argument over whether or not drugs should be legalized, when you legalize something you take away a lot of the mystery surrounding it. Then we would be able to effectively address the problems with it. I'm with Ann Landers, when she said, "I've always been in favor of legalizing your profession". It would benefit America much more than it is in any way negative for America.. There is no doubt in my mind that sexual orientation is absolutely determined at birth. First of all, why would anyone choose to be different? They wouldn't. Sure, in time they will more than likely get more and more comfortable with being gay to the point that they openly show public displays of affection as well as bit get upset when people start name calling. Everyone is aware of this and everyone would most likely agree this statement--being gay or lesbian is the biggest difficulty that gay or lesbian individuals face in their life. Discrimination is something this country has been dealing with for hundreds of years. It's almost as if human beings are programmed to be bad, rude and disrespectful to people we don't know. IF there is one thing I have learned as a woman in my 30s, it's that a person's sexual orientation is a very private, personal thing and it's not right for anyone to ever make fun of someone for being gay or lesbian, or even bisexual. It is becoming more and more commonplace to see two men walking down the street holding hands or women trying to hit on your wife as we are driving down the street. Jeffrey Satinover quoted saying. "There is not any evidence that shows that homosexuality is 'genetic', and none of the research itself claims there is." That is a very close-minded way of thinking and frankly I'm surprised that more people didn't respond to that statement in some of these "cons" arguments. Did you know that the Department of Defense lists homosexuality as a mental disorder. Sandor Rado, a professor at Columbia University, believed that homosexuality was a result of same sex phobia of the opposite sex. CNN study posed this question to its viewers: "Can homosexuals change their sexual orientation if they choose to do so?" The results aren't quite what you would think: 56% said no, 36% said yes and only 8% said they weren't sure. The Catholic Medical Association openly believes that homosexuality is treatable and that of the homosexual individuals who. seek treatment, at least 30% experience freedom from symptoms (ProCon.org, Did You Know? 2011). And finally, of all the ignorant and backwards explanations of why homosexuality is biological: a physicist from New Mexico proposed a theory stating that homosexuality can be caught by a germ. I imagine a great deal of people agreed with or at least listened to and accepted his theory. It doesn't really matter where homosexuality comes from; if it isn't homosexuality destroying or breaking up your marriage, what is it? When someone who is heterosexual wants to flirt, it takes a lot more courage. But they eventually find their "move" and get to feeling fairly confident about it. I have absolutely no qualms about bringing a homosexual friend home with me. As long as homosexuals are happy, everything else is just secondary. I'm certain that homosexuals would agree, and an extremely high percentage of homosexual students is unhappy all through adolescence because this is a time in your life when you are just beginning to express yourself to the opposite sex. Sexual orientation is a touchy subject but a necessary one. I only hope that all parents someday are as accepting and forgiving as me. It doesn't really matter where homosexuality comes from; if it isn't homosexuality destroying or breaking up your marriage, what is it? When someone who is heterosexual wants to flirt, it takes a lot more courage. But they eventually find their "move" and get to feeling fairly confident about it. I have absolutely no qualms about bringing a homosexual friend home with me. As long as homosexuals are happy, everything else is just secondary. I'm certain that homosexuals would agree, and an extremely high percentage of homosexual students is unhappy all through adolescence because this is a time in your life when you are just beginning to express yourself to the opposite sex. Sexual orientation is a touchy subject but a necessary one. I only hope that all parents someday are as accepting and forgiving as me. Beauty, more than bitterness Makes the heart break. ~ Sara Teasdale Beauty is in the eye of the beholder ~ Margaret Hungerford The controversy which surrounded these photos was phenomenal. Titled "Victim of Beauty" and photographed by Vasil Germanov, it was strongly believed and angrily asserted that these photos glorified spousal abuse; each of these women has a major, major injury which, easily told by examining the photos, the women appear to have been abused by a man but at second glance it is obvious the injuries are fake. One has a burned face; one has her cheeks sliced open into a "Joker-ish Face"; one has a slit across her throat (which, if a women's throat was actually sliced this way, she would be dead right now from blood-loss alone); one has a large open wound--a gash, more or less--all the way across her nose and she has bruises and cuts throughout her face. ; one has a severe black eye that would have only been caused by getting a severe beating; and then finally, one woman has a nasty cut on her bottom lip and several abrasions which appear to be even older than the cut on her lip; this is clearly a woman who has gone through this in the past; she's the one who makes the biggest statement, it's a statement of repetition, or spousal abuse, I think most people, were they to examine these photos and find out what the ad campaign was all about, would be offended that the photographer was so open and brutal in his portrayal of abused, battered women, which were not real injuries at all but all six were makeup--FAKE cuts, FAKE slit throat, FAKE bruises, FAKE abrasions, FAKE burns on the face, and FAKE blog on some of the victims At least if it were real battered women, it would stand for something; one could easily have attributed it one of many Spousal Abuse Organizations, such as The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, SAFE (Stop Abuse For Everyone), or even the National Center for Domestic Violence; each of these organizations has one MAJOR goal as the priority, and that is getting the abused and battered wife and/or children out of the home, away from the abuser permanently, and safe from that moment forward. These organizations help women in amazing ways. Women are trained for jobs, they are given counseling classes to help the healing process begin so that the woman can comfortably leave the shelter at some point and have a productive, positive life and also a better environment for the children, who also need to learn about the abuse that they have undergone. The most offensive part, in my opinion, is how the photographer chose to use Supermodels wearing makeup, who are all very thin and malnourished-looking, rather than to actually get some battered women. That seems like the most honest, open and statement-making choice with a photography campaign such as this one. A lot of people may have followed the story, started following the battered women, and very probably, have researched some battered women organizations and/or charities in order to start donating money toward that cause in the name of those women. Whatever the case may be, this campaign defintely made a strong statement and women will be talking about this for many, many years. Don't allow yourself, or your children, to be battered. You're above that, you don't deserve it and you have an obligation to protect your children. Call the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence at 1-800-799-SAFE or go online to www.nomore.org. You can also contact me if you're scared, and I will gladly help you make that call. CONFUCIUS, the great Chinese sage, philosopher, thinker and minor political official was born June 19th, 551 B.C. at Shang-ping, in the country of Lu. Although K'ung Fu-tzu was the philosopher's correct name, he has historically been referred to as Confucius in Western countries; Confucius is to the Chinese culture and history what Socrates is to the Western culture and history. His teachings have deeply influenced Asia for centuries. Both philosophers lived before A.D. Under his wise administration the State attained to a degree of prosperity and moral order that it had never seen before. But through the intrigues of rival states and the pressures from his people, the Marquis of Lu was led to prefer ignoble pleasures and luxuries to the preservation of good government. At the age of 50, Confucius was made Governor of the state of Lu and saw his opportunity to truly change China for the better. Confucius' philosophy was predominately a moral and political one. It was founded on the belief that heaven and earth coexist in harmony and balanced strength whilst maintaining a perpetual dynamism. Human beings, he taught, are sustained by these conditions and must strive to emulate the cosmic model and must adhere to certain daily practices.. Many people refuted his teachings and beliefs, however, and he ran the risk of being waylaid by his many enemies. He continued his incredible bravery. Confucius' strong and persistent confidence in the promising and beneficial reputation of his beliefs never deserted him, and he remained positive and steadfast in his beliefs despite the people who were against him. Many of the principles of Confucius have gone on to be the foundation of morals and societal norms for many countries. He died in 478 B.C., at the age of 74; his death almost perfectly coincided with that of Buddha, who died two years prior at the age of eighty years old. His quotes teach us amazing and lessons. For example, "Life is really simple. We insist on making it complicated"..this quote is a statement which I believe to be true and what it is talking about is the way most people think; we never just accept something as is; it is a terrible habit of many people especially these days, to try and figure out a deeper meaning of statements which are simple and obvious and most of all--innocent; then as you start reading something in to it so that there is something there which is truly not, emotions start flying and then arguments begin and it just turns in to a big mess.. His way of wording his sentences, with a lot of meaning in a few words, makes his work spiritual wisdom. His quotes inspire more thought on any given subject. Furthermore, the quote, "Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising every time we fall" which very simply states that we need to learn from our mistakes, and then rise up, dust ourselves off, and move forward, taking a lesson away from each mistake, big or small, we make. "Love is like a spice; it can sweeten your life--it can spoil it too". There is balance in everything in this world. Love needs to have a bit of a fiery, peppy side to it (which keeps it moving forward, keeps it on track), yet it also needs a bit of sweetness (tenderness, the soft side) as well. Without this balance of love and fire, the relationship won't stay on track. The reason it states that "it can spoil it too" is that too much of anything is bad; everything in excess...there's a delicate balance which, once discovered, is very simple to follow. "The way which the superior man pursues, reaches wide and far, and yet is secret. Common men and women, however ignorant, may intermeddle with the knowledge of it; yet in its utmost reaches, there is that which even the sage does not know" ~ Wiki Quotes are eight trigrams used in Taoist cosmology to represent the fundamental principles of reality (facts), seen as a range of eight interrelated concepts. Each consists of three lines, each line either "broken" or "unbroken," representing yin or yang, respectively. Due to their tripartite (divided into or consisting of three equal parts) structure, they are often referred to as "trigrams" in English. Trigrams consist of three adjacent letters or symbols. There's a lot more to the part we are accustomed to seeing--just the center black and white with black or white dots on the opposite color. Confucius broke down the problems facing his society and came up with a solution that worked, following his paradigm. The people weren't sure if they liked the resulting solution yet; Confucism took a great deal of pride in his ability to be able to give a well thought out answer and make it simple for the people to be happy living the good life. His teachings are still recognized all over the world today, he had a permanent effect on society and will always be a very highly respected philosopher.
I feel abortion is a personal choice--I personally don't think it's the right choice for myself--however if a woman chooses abortion that should be her right. I'm a reasonable person. Here's what I don't agree with, however. If a woman hasn't made the decision by 6 fucking months pregnant that abortion is the way to go for her, she needs to take the next three months to find a nice couple who wants a baby so bad but can't have children--and give that baby a chance in life. To have an abortion at anything beyond 12 weeks is just sick. How can anybody say that abortion isn't murder? If a baby born can survive outside the womb it's absolutely murder and anyone who says its not is in major denial. I can't believe that late-term abortions are even legal. What makes a woman wait until she's more than six months pregnant to have an abortions , anyway? Obama supports abortion and that's fine but anything after 12 weeks is selfish, stupid and sick. How can a DOCTOR kill a fetus this way? This IS murder no matter how you look at it and the law needs to change. Would you do this to your fetus? This is sickening! Only because I have matured am I even able look at this; there was a time, when I was in my early 20s and in college, when I would not have looked at this if you offered me a million bucks. Look at this fetus' head! I cannot believe that people justify this for any reason.
Is life random or do you believe we are here for a reason? And if you believe we are here for a reason, why are you here? "In order to hold on to thoughts of anger, bitterness, revenge, guilt, and shame, we have to use a lot of energy..." ~ Edwere Gaines "I don't care if you're black, white, straight, bisexual, gay, lesbian, tall, short, fat or skinny or rich or poor. As long as you're nice to me, I'll be nice to you simple as that" ~ Eminem This is obviously a very, very touchy subject, one that I feel quite different about now than I did when I was young, immature, and lacking in life experience. I had an abortion once. It was the hardest thing I have ever done, and although I don't regret it, I now feel very differently about it and would not be able to do it nor would I be supportive of someone doing it unless there were mitigating circumstances, such as the mother was raped, the mother is way too young or otherwise unable to care for a baby (such as with a severe mental illness or developmental disorder which caused the mother to be completely unable to do anything for a baby or make any sort of decisions for the baby. Another reason I'm completely supportive of a mother getting rid of a baby is if the mother is doing drugs recreationally on a regular basis. A woman doing that definitely should not be caring for another human being. People who do drugs are usually very flighty and undependable, and are a risk to themselves and to any small child or infant. And finally, I would support a woman having an abortion if the father is being abusive either toward his other children or toward the mother. Why bring a newborn baby into a world where they aren't wanted? But what about instances where a woman wants to have an abortion and the father feels very strongly against it, so much so that he wants the mother to give birth to the baby and give the baby to him to care for and raise by himself? What rights should that man have? Should he have the right to protect his unborn baby? As I pondered this question, I decided to write this as if I were arguing both sides and at the end of this blog post I will close out by giving you my opinion and explaining why. This is a very important issue and it needs to be addressed in the Supreme Court, because there are a lot of situations nowadays when the mother is without a doubt unfit to care for a newborn baby, but does that mean that the baby necessarily has to be aborted? Let's say a woman has severe bipolar disorder with schizophrenic tendencies. The woman has bipolar disorder so severe that she regular tries to commit suicide. The way that she got pregnant was that she was doing really wonderful on her medication for a period of time and had her life together, so met a wonderful guy, fell in love rather quickly, and after a few months, ended up pregnant. She hadn't told her new boyfriend about her bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. When she tells him she's pregnant, he's so excited he can hardly contain himself. Then she looks down at the floor as she says to him, I'm having an abortion. She says it's not up for debate and she stops talking to him immediately. She's crushed because she truly cares for him, but she's not in any position to take care of a baby. The man calls the girls family and finds out about her problems. He goes to an attorney to file suit to prevent her from having an abortion. When a woman gets pregnant she is now carrying inside of her womb a fetus that doesn't just belong to her, but it belongs to the woman carrying it but also to the man who fathered it. Why should he be discounted. If it can be proven that she was dishonest with him and failed to tell him that she had these problems, and she became pregnant and now wants an abortion just because she can't take care of the baby when it comes into the world, that doesn't mean he can't. He should definitely be given the opportunity to prove that he is fit to take care of the unborn baby, not just financially but also emotionally, physically and in the long-distant future. In the case that he can adequately prove he can take care of that unborn fetus, the mother should be forced to continue the pregnant and take proper care of herself including vitamins, check-ups, There is a completely opposite argument, however. A great deal of folks think that a man has no rights at all when it comes to his unborn child, that until that fetus has been born it belongs to the mother. A lot of people believe that while the fetus is inside of its mother that it in essence belongs to the mother until it comes out of the womb. I can't even pretend for a minute that I agree with the ultra-feminist belief I just gave a couple sentences of. I absolutely do NOT believe for a minute that an unborn fetus "belongs" to the mother--the man that impregnated a woman is absolutely just as much a parent to that unborn baby--not FETUS, but BABY--B-A-B-Y! Anyone who think any less than that both parents have a right to that unborn baby then they should be ASHAMED of themselves! Please take a moment and give me your opinion on this issue--EVERY OPINION COUNTS when it comes to the life and the rights of an unborn fetus to have someone speak on his or her behalf! Why should it be okay for a woman to make some stupid, asinine comment like "I might let you PAY for the abortion if I decide to LET you"...I've heard all sorts of cheezy comments that feminist bitches say and it's ridiculous. I would appreciate if everyone who reads this debate-style blog post would vote and give me their opinion on our topic today. Do MEN have any rights if the mother of their baby decides to have an abortion? So Obamacare is literally being shoved down the throats of everyone in America but Congress has the nerve to ask for an exemption for themselves and their staff? What kind of message is that sending to all of the people who supported Obamacare? It must be pretty undesirable and hokey if Congress doesn't even want anything to do with it! I'm Libertarian, as is my staunchly Anti-Liberal husband--and we both strongly oppose the shady tactics of the Obama Administration. I, however, went out and purchased a book called "Obamacare Survival Guide: The Affordable Care Act...and What it Means For You and Your Healthcare" because if this horribly dreaded healthcare reform is going to be imposed on me and my family, I want to at least know what we're up against and to understand what's to come in the next few years. I was planning on going along with it because we really have no choice; Republican or Democrat, it doesn't matter--we all, I thought, HAD to embrace this new healthcare system coined "Obamacare". But why should the rest of America be forced to smile and nod as all of these changes are made to our healthcare system, all the while Congress is trying to be excluded from having to participate...What kind of bullshit is that?
So Obamacare is literally being shoved down the throats of everyone in America but Congress has the nerve to ask for an exemption for themselves and their staff? What kind of message is that sending to all of the people who supported Obamacare? It must be pretty undesirable and hokey if Congress doesn't even want anything to do with it! I'm Libertarian, as is my staunchly Anti-Liberal husband--and we both strongly oppose the shady tactics of the Obama Administration. I, however, went out and purchased a book called "Obamacare Survival Guide: The Affordable Care Act...and What it Means For You and Your Healthcare" because if this horribly dreaded healthcare reform is going to be imposed on me and my family, I want to at least know what we're up against and to understand what's to come in the next few years. I was planning on going along with it because we really have no choice; Republican or Democrat, it doesn't matter--we all, I thought, HAD to embrace this new healthcare system coined "Obamacare". But why should the rest of America be forced to smile and nod as all of these changes are made to our healthcare system, all the while Congress is trying to be excluded from having to participate...What kind of bullshit is that?
What's more interesting? Go online to http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2900475/posts and you'll be dumbfounded by the gigantic list of companies who have filed for exemption from Obamacare. Topping that list is 24-Hr Fitness. Hey, I'm in agreement with all of these companies--that's not the issue here. Why should big companies be pardoned from Obamacare but not the rest of us? I think every single American should be given the choice of opting-out of Obamacare, so long as they do provide proof of having insurance. My husband gets health insurance through his employer sign Anthem Blue Cross of Californis. I haven't gotten that far in the book yet, but that's my main question and my main concern at this point: What kind of changes are going to take effect next January for us Americans with healthcare through our employers? Hey, if the changes are minimal, hooray. But it's really pretty up in the air at this point. According to the book I purchased, large businesses are waiting and hoping for change in their favor when the new healthcare exchanges"bring these rising costs under control and provide employers with more options when they seek to purchase insurance for their workers..." The book mentions "non-compliance waivers"' which, it sounds like to me, are pretty similar to the exemptions that Congress is seeking.
I was with the understanding that people employed by a large business would be better off than those employed by small businesses, but it looks like it's exactly the opposite according to this book. Small businesses will be offered an incentive via a "generous tax credit" if they offer health insurance to their employees, but if they choose not to, their employees will be able to purchase insurance through a government-subsidized exchange, and as the book states--"...probably at a below-market price". The advantage to this is that if an employee wants to change jobs, they can do so without it affecting their insurance. I'm willing to bet that presently, there a great deal of Americans unhappy with their job who stay because they don't want to lose their health insurance coverage. This will no longer be an issue. But at the same time, those who aren't employed at all are forced to carry insurance coverage and that's not right in my eyes. Methamphetamine, as I have written in prior posts, is a dangerous psychostimulant drug that has become a serious epidemic in America and has replaced heroin as the major drug that is abused in America today. For many decades, heroin was the drug of choice amongst the majority of Americans and in drug rehabilitation centers. From 1990 to 2010 the amount of heroin users you saw in rehab centers had dropped from over 50% to under 5%. The biggest group of opiate users you now see rehab centers is opiate painkillers, such as Norco, OxyContin, and morphine. I myself entered rehab in 2010 for an addiction to OxyContin (for more on this, please see an article I wrote for HubPages that got rave reviews: http://lulubelle7537.hubpages.com/hub/OxyContin-My-Story-Of-How-it-Almost-Destroyed-My-Life--this is my story) and in the program I was in, there were up to 60 people in the daily classes at any one time (there were people who were outpatient as well) . The statistics of my group were as follows: 45% alcoholics (this is usually the biggest group when alcoholics are included in the program), 26% prescription opiate addicts, 10% benzodiazepine addicts, 10% multiple-drug addicts, 8% crystal meth addicts and less than 1% heroin users. Twenty years ago, according to my research, the heroin users were about 40% of the group. Painkiller addicts have virtually taken the place of heroin users--even in methadone clinics. But methamphetamine as a whole is a much more dangerous drug, and not just because of how it affects you when you use it; there are home methamphetamine labs all of the country which are very unsafe and blow up if not handled properly. And meth mouth is a regular occurrence amongst serious meth users--meth mouth is caused by smoking the meth. The vapors created by the smoke destroy teeth. And because methamphetamine also causes people to not drink enough fluids which causes severe dry mouth, which makes many users pop sugar candies in their mouths or drink sugary soda to get rid of the dry mouth. That causes even more damage to the teeth. So how can a drug such as this, a drug so damaging to the teeth that within mere months of starting to use, some users have reported their teeth beginnng to rot--which says nothing about what it does to the body--be also available to children as a prescription for Attention Deficit Disorder/Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder? As you may well know, one of the biggest, if not the biggest, drug for ADD/ADHD on the market today is Adderall XR and Adderall IR, both which contain amphetamine salts, which is a derivitive of amphetamine and in much lower amounts than what is in cocaine or crack cocaine. But even more shocking to me was my finding methamphetamine as a prescription medication for ADD/ADHD and narcolepsy (a sleeping disorder where a person falls asleep in the middle of the day even in the middle of performing activities) when I was doing research on ADD medication for my daughter, who has ADD and was recently taken off Adderall. I can't believe there are many Doctors who would prescribe methamphetamine for any reason at all, let alone to children. I came across a story in my research which was very interesting and just as much disturbing; it told me a great deal about this prescription drug and how strong it really is. I came across a web page with a young woman writing in to a forum meant for pre-medical and medical students; the young woman was writing in to discuss "The Disturbing Truth About Meth, Adderall, ADD, Children, and Prescription Medications for ADHD" (http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=301565). She stated that she had been prescribed Adderall for ADD since she was a child, and that she had managed to talk her Doctor in to prescribing her 90mg per day of Adderall, which is extremely high--the maximum dose per day of Adderall, according to my Doctor--a Psychiatrist (I suffer from ADD as well and take Adderall)--is 60mg per day, and even that is only in severe cases. 90mg per day is extraordinarily high. Even the young lady admitted it was very high and that she used her prescription to get high at times with friends. She got to college, according to her letter to the forum, and began experimenting with crystal meth. She stated that she wasn't nearly as high with meth as she was with Adderall, and she was kind of making cracks about Adderall being too strong and it shouldn't be legal. The entire time I was thinking, hey stupid--you got your Doctor to prescribe you well over the maximum amount (and her Doctor told her the max is only 40mg--more than half as strong as she was taking! In response to her post and my own experience with both Adderall and crystal meth in the past--when a person has ADD/ADHD, meth mellows them out--calms them down. It's nothing like someone without ADD/ADHD using crystal meth. In fact, I met a young lady in rehab years ago who was only 29, had been doing meth for 10 years--her entire marriage to her husband--and he had just recently found out and told her she has to quit. When she was in session with a Psychiatrist she reported feeling mellow and calm when she did meth; he asked if she had ever been diagnosed with ADD (only after pre-diagnosing her himself) and she said no. She clearly had ADD and it was very interesting how meth did not wire her or make her stay up all night. It made her calm, got rid of her anxiety, plus helped all the symptoms she had which were a direct cause of ADD--inattention, inability to focus, inability to concentrate, easily distracted. She was not a very educated young lady--she hadn't even finished 11th grade--and she didn't know anything about Attention Deficit Disorder and didn't realize her symptoms were linked to it. So, back to the young lady in the forum--she also stated that the meth she got was "believed to be some of the best quality because the friend who brought it here is a 48 year old woman who has been addicted to crystal meth for most of her life". That is the stupidest statement I have ever heard someone--especially someone educated--make; it was a completely stereotypical statement and she very clearly did not ask the lady what the quality of the meth was. Just because someone has been addicted to meth all their lives doesn't mean that person doesn't get crappy quality product sometimes. The person who one buys meth from is not the source of the meth--they are at the minimum a middle-man, but probably there are two, three people above that person--they don't care that someone has been addicted for most of their life--the try to get rid of product to anyone they can. For someone to assume the above statement is just assinine and I don't think I need to go any further in to my argument regarding that. The second part of my argument regarding her statement--she was taking 90 frickin' milligrams of a very powerful stimulant! I can attest to the fact that 90 mg has gotten me quite high on occasion! There have been times I wanted to party and feel good so took 5 of my 20mg Adderall XR pills and HELL YEAH they made me high! My final argument here is that the times in the past that I have done crystal meth--and I have tried it all ways besides plugging (ew, gross)--snorting, injecting via IV, and smoking--and none of those made me as high as taking 100 mg of Adderall! But I will tell you one thing--Adderall absolutely does help my ADD symptoms immensely, and despite the side effects of taking an amphetamine--dry mouth, oh that's it! That's the only undesireable side effect I experienced! I would much rather take Adderall to get high (this is for argument's sake only) than to use meth--any day of the week and twice on Sunday! I do however feel that based on what I just said and the argument of the naive young lady in the forum, children definitely should not be prescribed Adderall, even, let alone methamphetamine. My daughter was on Adderall recently for one month and I saw her behavior, attitude, mental state, and weight change on a daily basis and I promptly took her off. At first she was devastated, and she didn't say anything after we discussed that day I took her off--but I think she knew she was liking it way too much (one of her friend's told her Mom that my daughter had said she really "likes how Adderall makes me feel--I feel so happy!" and that definitely contributed to my decision. Not to mention, she brought home a report card of four As and two Bs just two weeks after getting on Adderall. She clearly doesn't need Adderall, she was on it one month total, and had been on it two weeks when report cards came out. I'm teaching her other ways to deal with problems with inattention, getting distracted, lack of focus and not being able to concentrate. I believe my daughter having ADD is much less of a problem than it would be for her to be on Adderall, or worse yet--methamphetamine. **If you have any experience with this or have an opinion you'd like to share, please comment, I would love to hear your thoughts! Please subscribe to my blog and tell your friends about it! I've never been much of a "techie" really. In fact I've always been the one who refuses to follow the mainstream. It has always made me physically Ill the way people rush out to buy each new Apple product when it comes out. I want to say "Come on people! It's a phone. It's just a phone so calm down!" It's like some people just believe how the media portrays Apple products as being, I don't know, GOD! I used to always love it when my parents would go out and buy my brother and me whatever new game system was out, one time they bought us each a new Sega Genesis, remember Sonic when he first came out? But that's about it on products in my family growing up. Anything beyond that we would hear "It would do you good to get a job and pay for all those fancy things yourself"....yeah, I was like 10 years old. Come on mother, get real! Just look at how much Apple products have evolved over the years! I bought my oldest son, who is now 18, an iPod Nano that was before they came out with the iPod Touch. I remember even that thing was awesome! It held over 500 songs and he had Superbad installed on it too. He begged and begged for the new iPod Touch 3rd Generation; he badly wanted a 64GB iPod but as they were over $200 more than the 8GB one, I told him we would have to compromise, and I got him a 32-GB version. I had to admit even then, when I still very stubbornly refused to be an Apple Product Geek, that it was possible I might be wrong. He left his iPod sitting out one night so I first figured out his password then I got into it and really, really browsed through the apps it came with (I was like, "App Store? What the heck is an App Store?") I got a little bit acquainted with it that night that I thought I would like to have one for myself so I could see what all the apps I would like were all about, like the Productivity apps, the Social Media apps, and finally, the shopping apps. I didn't really get what the apps on stores represented--a Facebook app. What was the app about? I mean, does it play Facebook games or something? I truly didn't understand. I wanted one at that point but I didn't hold out much hope for getting one anytime soon, we were just about to open our brand-new restaurant in Antelope and we just paid for my husband's daughter's wedding. But that Christmas, my husband shocked the hell out of me when he got me an iPad 2 for Christmas. We had taken the kids to Disneyland for Christmas and I had no clue he would get me a gift at all let alone an iPad 2. I will never forget the first time I was able to sit and spend hours on that sucker. I was in sheer amazement over the amount of apps there were!! I had an LG Optimus earlier that year and the Android apps were LAME-O. I looked at every single game app there was in the store and it was less than 20-25 games. So I had heard people say that Apple had a lot more apps, but I was not in store for what I found. It is so much fun to play around in the App Store and see what you find. There are, I bet you, over 100,000 apps in that store. It is utterly mind-blowing. I discovered one day in my research that you can literally find an app on every single thing you search for. I typed in "hopscotch" (don't ask me why that popped in to my head) and there were 15 results. On hopscotch! The apps available mostly are aids in playing, I think you use the app to keep score, but ALSO, a couple even teach the rules of hopscotch. I then tried "back pain" because I'm laid up with a back that went out on top of having the flu, and I found 161 apps--161!! That just shocked me to no end, it's almost as though Apple products are too good to be true, but they really are true.. There were a wealth back pain from different angles; you can go on there and find relief from back pain by getting an app on Yoga Exercises, Back Pain Physical Therapy, and many others. Since I've been doing freelance writing and started my own business, there have been a lot of different aspects of getting my freelance business started which would require me to do marketing and advertising, I found apps for that; I need a website, I used an app to create my mobile site. I'm going to need a money managing course of some kind because I'm just terrible with money; I found two apps that were both exactly what I was looking for. I think it's wonderful how much my iPad (and I have since gotten an iPhone) has been completely useful for me. All the articles I read before I considered an Apple product, said that there are so many apps and so much you can do with your iPad or iPhone that you actually save money by learning how to do things yourself. My daughter wanted to take piano lessons to warm up, like a refresher, with all the time she already spent in lessons when she was 5, so she checked the App Store and got a couple apps on piano keys, notes, finger/hand-position, and specific songs she wanted to learn. My daughter is thirteen years old and she got herself 100% warmed up and retaught herself to play the notes she learned years ago. I was impressed. There were over 2,500 apps on piano! I am still amazed how it seems as though I'm finding things practically on a daily basis that I didn't know about on my iPad and iPhone, and it just never ceases to blow me sky high. Ever since I discovered that there's an app for everything in the App Store, I have things come up in my life so I check to see if an app would help me solve the problem, and it pretty much always does. What one app doesn't have that I want, another app does. And 99% of the time the apps I buy are free. Though even the paid apps are usually $1.99 or less. It's a wonderful, wonderful thing. I could be a paid promoter for Apple products because I am constantly trying to get people to switch to an iPhone--especially after I found that Verizon is giving away iPhone 4s with a two-year contract. At that price, virtually anyone can own one.
Anyone who has had an injury or a surgery knows that they give you something strong, typically, for pain right after a surgery or if something happens that you injure yourself and damage your body in such a way that it takes a length of time to heal. In 2008, I was 33 years old and had been suffering with chronic back pain my entire life, including childhood. I was born with scoliosis--curvature of the spine--and it wasn't ever serious enough that I needed to have corrective surgery or anything at all like that. I began physical therapy at about age 13 and went on and off throughout high school. I also went to a Chiropractor quite often. I suffered from pain for a long enough period of time that I'm actually surprised I was never offered anything for pain relief. I stayed home from school on occasion because the pain was so bad. My parents were very understanding when I wanted to stay home because I hurt. I wasn't often at all, but it did occur on a few occasions. So it really was a huge surprise when I hit my mid- to late- twenties with three children and I had somehow escaped having chronic back pain. In fact I remember a specific house we lived in several years ago where I was sitting one afternoon reading a book on dream interpretation, and I had a very insignificant twinge of a back pain that made me think to myself, "Wow, I haven't had real back pain since high school"... I remember that it was nothing, it went away. In 2008 my husband and I, along with some family, opened our first restaurant (bar and grill type place) and I was the GM. One night I was working late and went back to the very back of the kitchen to see how the progress was on closing cleaning duties. I slipped and fell on the wet, slippery tile floors-they were supposed to keep the mats down at all times, but had just been rinsed off- when I hit the floor it was on my butt, and it hurt so incredibly bad that I felt nauseated. Once I was pulled up to standing I realized this was something more than just a boo-boo. Because of the hours I worked I didn't have time to get in to see my Doctor for, I would say, about two weeks. By the time I made it in to see her that first time, the pain was worse than childbirth. She took X-rays and found that I had fractured my tailbone pretty severely; she prescribed me some 800mg Motrin and I left. The Motrin did nothing to even touch the pain, so within a couple of days I called the Dr back and explained to her that the pain was horrific, and I needed pain relief NOW. She asked if I had ever heard of Norco. I told her that I hadn't, and she told me its like Vicodin, which I also wasn't familiar with. I didn't really pay much attention to anything she said I just hung up, and went to the pharmacy as soon as I possibly could. From the moment I popped that very first Norco in my mouth, I discovered a euphoria--oh my god the euphoria--like I had never heard of before, like I didn't know existed. I very quickly was hooked for good. Within seven months I was begging my Dr to help me get off of Norco, because just in that short, short period of time, I had already attempted to quit several times but had severe opiate withdrawals and every time I relapsed. By the time I was in her office begging for help, I had already, in just seven months, gotten to a point where I was using my prescribed Norco (180 per month) within less than ten days. One thing i left out, was the fact that i had an MRI which showed me to have eight bulging discs in my lower back and degenerative disc disease. The pain I had every day made me take more and more Norco, I then was forced to buy them. I didn't tell my Dr all the gritty details but I was very open with her and told her I genuinely wanted to be off of these, I sat there bawling my eyes out in her office-I wanted help so bad and begged her to help me. I believe now, looking back, that she was actually stumped and didnt want me to know. She gave me one plan of treatment, then after leaving her office for nearly ten minutes, she returned and told me that, taking in to consideration that I would have to deal with chronic pain the rest of my life and, after thinking about it, she felt it best if she prescribed me another opiate for pain, which I had never heard of up to this point- OxyContin. She explained that she would quickly get me off the Norco, then start weaning my OxyContin down, until I was okay with zero opiates. Now I'm not a Doctor...I by no means claim to have enough medical knowledge to write home about, but even knowing at the time NOTHING about OxyContin, I immediately thought "if you're putting me on another opiate so I could handle getting off the other, wouldn't I be replacing one opiate with another, and therefore not truly off the first?" I also thought, "just because I'm not putting any Norco in my body doesn't mean I'm off of it!" Dammit I wish I hadn&'t given a hoot what I sounded like questioning a Doctor, because that was my concern-respect. And that was the last time I would trust a Doctor to decide what the best method of anything is. The unbelievable sequence of events from then on would change my life forever. . Not very many people spend the amount of time I do researching things I know nothing about. I discovered after hours and hours of research and reading two books on addiction that OxyContin is very different than other opiates in one crucial way. Let me rephrase that. OxyContin differs in only one way that f*%%in matters! What the maker of OxyContin did to ensure they made it the highest selling opiate painkiller of all time, and according to the information I came across at the time, that was their #1 goal--was they put fillers in the OxyContin ER pills which served three purposes- first, it acted as a filler. Second, it sends signals to the brain telling it that there pain-far worse pain than there actually is- so that the third could take place, and that was to send signals to the brain telling it that more OxyContin was needed. So I started at 80mg per day of OxyContin, and she cut me back to 2 Norco per day (within a month I had thrown the Norco away)...but only because I was having a party in my brain every day out of sheer excitement about the OxyContin I was now taking, and now liking more than I even thought possible with the Norco. Less than a month after the new scrip, I started having these horrific back pains that kept me from being able to function, so my Doctor increased my dose to 160mg per day, two 40mg pills twice per day. At first that was the exact solution to my pain I needed. Things were goin good there for a little while, I was on top of the world! At the time, nothing...nothing at all seemed wrong. I was so incredibly stoned off my butt from those damn pills that no bad could happen to me; I was very positive and very agreeable I would say about 3 weeks or so from the time my Dr last increased my dose, I was cutting my rose bushes in my front yard when I felt as though my lower back had gone out. I went inside to sit down on the couch but within twenty minutes my back stiffened up severely, I mean I had literally no idea what was going on, I must have pinched myself ten times to make sure I wasn't dreaming because this just didn't seem right--I called for my roommate to come help me and she got my pillows and propped me up against the bottom of ye couch. I called my Drs office, again crying my eyes out because I had absolutely no idea why I was experiencing pain like this. She immediately told me to increase my dose from 160 to 240mg; that would have me taking two 40mg OxyContin three times per day. Now, I don't know how much you know about that stuff, but 240mg is the very maximum you can take of OxyContin in a 24-hour period. That was an extremely high dose. But I was too wrapped up in it, I was in its clutches already and there was no turning back. Naturally the increased dose she gave me helped, but there was only one problem, which I didn't come even close to thinking about at the time; I was at the maximum. There was no more room to increase. I remember very naively thinking at the time, "Maybe this dose will help my pain enough and I won't need anymore". Literally, I mean I kid you not--within less than two weeks, I had the exact same problem start up in my back that had last time--I stiffened up and had even worse pain than before. I knew she couldn't do anything, so I increased my dose by two pills per day, just as she had, and that immediately helped the pain. Over the next few weeks, I had fallen in to a terrible pattern of having that severe, intense pain hit me, and I would increase my dose on my own, and I truly was oblivious to what I was doing to myself because all that mattered to me at that time, was OxyContin. As long as I had my pills I was the happiest camper you've ever seen. Unfortunately, however, within a mere month from the time she had started to prescribe me 240mg of OxyContin per day, I sat down and counted how many pills I had left, because I knew I was taking more than I was supposed to, except I honestly had no clue how many. It turned out that, after only being on this horrible drug for less than three short months, I was taking a total of around 15-18 of the 40mg OxyContin each day, though often times even more than that. That's 600-720mg per day. More than twice the maximum dose. Well I knew at this point I was in trouble. I needed help to get off. I ignored it for a couple of weeks but I knew it was urgent that I do this now before I got even further in the ground with this stuff. I wasn't even 100% certain I was ready to quit, but I knew that if I kept going I would either overdose, or else run out at some point because I couldn't afford the prices charged for those (at the time it was $12 per pill if I bought at least ten; otherwise, $15 each...WOW!). When I visited my Dr and completely laid everything out on the table and very honestly told her what was going on. I truly believed that she was going to feel awful for what she had allowed to happen, but to be honest--she didn't know what the hell to do!! Her exact words to me were, "Jennifer I don't have any expertise in this area...I have never had a patient on this high of a dose", and she said that she would have to refer me out to Pain Management, who she assured me would be able to help. Pain Management never came to my rescue. They said they were booked for the next four months. FOUR GOSH DAMN MONTHS!! I just could not believe this. I decided that I would buckle down and get myself weaned off these God damn things! I gave my bottle of OxyContin to my brother's wife and she would give me two to three days worth of my Oxys at a time so that I didn't have very many and couldn't take more than I was supposed. I had a key to their house, so I can't even tell you how many times I took a ride over to their house when I was certain they were at the gym, and ransack that entire house until I found them. There was never a time that I didn't find my pills. I knew I was screwing myself but I enjoyed the euphoria so much that I couldn't think about anything else.
Over the next three months I got myself down to 80mg per day, but I just couldn't go any further. I checked myself into a rehab clinic to get the rest of the way off. I could start an entire new blog post just about that topic, because I wasn't properly taken off the OxyContin and for nearly two whole years I truly believed that "OxyContin ruined my life". OxyContin is a horrible drug. The way that it messes with people's minds is just unethical, and Im surprised it lasted on the market as long as it did. I used to have these detailed, long dreams where I hired an attorney who helped me take Purdue Pharmaceuticals, the maker of OxyContin, to court and sue them for millions of dollars. I did speak to one attorney but he stated that, though my case was incredibly strong and a highly extreme case, he would only be able to take my case if we could turn it in to a class action lawsuit, and I was a complete mess after getting off that stuff, there was no way I could deal with that at that time. That last part of my story which is maybe the worst of all, is how I was treated by the Sutter Health and Sutter Family Medicine community after my experience with OxyContin. My Doctor discharged me from her practice, despite the letters I sent to her coming clean about everything and letting her know exactly what had been going on. I thought she was going to feel a hell of a lot differently than she did, and I was very shocked when two years later I went to the same building as my former Doctor so that I could have blood drawn in the lab, and I found out that I had basically been blacklisted from the Sutter organization, which is highly unethical but I know for a fact is what happened. To this day, over three years after I got off of OxyContin, I still cannot go in to my local lab and have blood drawn. I'm in the computer as "deleted" and they tried two different times to create a new account for me, and of the two times, one time the account somehow got deleted so when I went back in for part 2 of my blood test, they told me they were going to have to figure out the problem before I could proceed; the other time, my blood was actually lost and they didn't call or anything. Several months later one of my Doctors called over to the lab and asked why he hadn't received my blood work yet, and the person claimed it had been "mixed up with another patient". This just goes to show you the extent to which Doctors will go to in order to prevent themselves from possibly getting in to big trouble. I was recently made aware of Agnosticism & the difference in its beliefs as opposed to Atheism. When I heard of Agnosticism I was very interested, because I knew it was similar to what Atheists believe, which is the anti-religion. I found Agnosticism to most closely match my own beliefs. Now come on, give me a break, I didn't ever research Atheism until recently, when my daughter and I were discussing how the world came to be. Such an interesting topic to discuss with a 13 year old. When I discovered Agnosticism and researched it enough to go, "Yes! That's my belief!", I was relieved to believe in something other than Atheism. Do you know what the biggest reason for that is? I'm sure you'll agree, that most people, only because of sheer ignorance, believe that Atheists are devil worshippers, or otherwise practice evil rituals and believe in very sinister, negative things. That is so completely untrue; I'm not saying that devil worshippers aren't Atheist, because that would be the only thing to make any sense at all, but the same is not true of Atheists. In fact, most Atheists do not worship the devil of anything of the sort. According to Austin Cline, Writer for About.com, states that; "...Atheists are thought to be closed-minded because they deny the existence of gods, whereas Agnostics appear to be open-minded because they do not know for sure. This is a mistake because atheists do not necessarily deny any gods and may indeed be an Atheist because they do not know for sure — in other words, they may be an Agnostic as well." It sounds to me as if Mr. Cline truly isn't very knowledgeable about the great debate between Agnostics and Atheists, although I do agree that Atheists are more close-minded in their belief, whereas Agnostics are thrilled to have more and more information that might help them to believe stronger in the anti-Gods belief. The reason I say this, is because Theists would say, when confronted with an Agnostic believer,, "Well, if there is indeed a God, and you die having refused to believe in one, then you would have been believing wrong all these years and who knows what will happen to you now! I'm super excited that I discovered this whole new belief and perspective I didn't realize existed, because I feel much less like a schmuck being Agnostic rather than Atheist. The main reason schmuck even comes to mind is because two of my three children have been to church and have been exposed to religion a little bit. My oldest once was very excited about his newfound Methodist religion and youth group; he went to Wednesday evening youth group and then decided to go on a very brief, one weekend retreat; when he returned he announced he was going to prepare over the next 18 weeks for Communion, and then be baptized. You know, to this day I cannot tell you what Methodists believe other than they believe in God and that Jesus Christ was the son of God. Right this moment in the middle of creating this blog, Im going to take a couple of minutes and look up Methodism on Wikipedia so that I may introduce it in to this debate with at least two minutes worth of research tied to it, here I go.... That being done, I'm going to see if I can remember basically what I read just now. Methodism is a Catholicism-based religion with its roots having began in England, and is now a Anglican Christian religion which has hundreds of thousands of members. My son, who went through Confirmation and was baptized in to the Methodist Church when he was just ten years old. This was 100% his decision from beginning to end. He is now 18 years old, and quite a young man with quite wonderful beliefs; he is now Atheist, he claims, but I believe him to be more Agnostic than he realizes. He is not very open-minded at all, and he absolutely makes up his own mind about things. He is a great example of Atheists being close-minded. It's safe to say that there will always be doubt regarding the existence of God, Jesus Christ, Heaven, etc. To be honest, I firmly believe that something could be discovered tomorrow which proves, WITHOUT A DOUBT, that all of the teachings of the Bible over the last thousand years were fake, and that there is in fact NO GOD, NO JESUS...but there will always be people who refuse to believe what is right in front of them; perhaps they really just need the comfort of religion in order to guide them through life. I think people can do just fine on their own, spiritually. I guess that's why we are all different...
I'm educated, but I'm also experienced through bible study attendance and bible reading done on my own, so when I say it's a personal choice and a well-thought out one at that, to be Agnostic. I'm not just being lazy, not wanting to waste my time investing some time and effort in learning about and experiencing religion and making a true effort to have a personal relationship with Jesus. I did and I tried. I never felt a connection to God/Jesus and I tried to feel something special with him, because there have been plenty of times it would have helped me in my life. The first time a teacher explained the concept of Darwinism, the experience for me was not, as it is for many religious people, a matter of thinking that was ridiculous and shame on them for trying to teach that in school. For me, it was a very intense, memorable "Ah-Ha" moment (an "Ah-Ha" moment is the experience of learning something new and going "Ahhhh! Yes" As in, that makes sense and answers my questions). When I learned Darwinism, I had grown up being taught and learning that God created the World in 6 days and rested on the 7th day. But not just from church; literally everyone around me believed that! It sounded like bullcrap to me at 8 years old: one all-powerful God took six days and created life, all forms of life, and plants, trees, lands of water, everything in this world. My parents acted like I was a traitor, betraying them in some way. I learned early on to keep my thoughts to myself. My Mom would say, "Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist, Jen". That wasn't enough of an explanation for me. Christians are the most arrogant group of people there is. We are all aware that there are hundreds of other religious beliefs and practices; most have at least on God or deity they worship. We learn as very small children, most often, about the religion our parents choose for themselves and we are forced to follow too. Don't you find it odd, no, better yet, have you ever stopped and wondered about all the other beliefs the rest of the world have? What makes arrogant Christians so quick to accept their parents' beliefs without researching it to find out if their religion is the right one, if the main beliefs and practices make sense and answer our religious questions, or if what they believe happens when we die is acceptable to us? I have spent a great deal of time pondering the many possibilities of what happens when we die. I have even pondered my own, unique ideas trying to find an answer that feels right to me. I know for sure that I don't believe that people who don't accept Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, into their hearts will go to Hell, along with sinners and evil people. The concept of a hell with burning flames and eternal pain and suffering, does not makes sense and therefore is not what happens. I also find the idea of dying and returning to Earth as something else entirely, also isn't a possibility. Perhaps because I find this idea both interesting and desireable, the one "end" which I find possible, is the idea of dying, and our soul immediately moving to another dimension and either becoming a newborn baby or being some other live creature. I can't by any means describe in detail how this would happen and what it would be like, because as far as I'm concerned, I don't need to know it or understand it now. It's something bigger than me and mysterious, and I have even considered that its different for each person and knows no boundaries or limitations whatsoever. I am perfectly okay with knowing no more than I do right this very moment for the rest of my life, then getting my answer when my time comes. I taught all three of my children very early in life that there is nothing they can't ask me or should keep to themselves. I have always allowed them to question things, even things which some or most may consider difficult to discuss, so long as its done respectfully. My oldest son, now 18, went to the Methodist Church which he and I found together in Alabama and really liked the casual, progressive, rock atmosphere and feel. For us that was the only Church we would attend. My son got very in to it and after 18 months chose to participate in Confirmation with the other boys and girls his age. The day he was formally confirmed into the Methodist Church, he was also baptized. It was a very special time for our family because my son felt comfortable with and fit in alongside the other children his age. As he grew older, he realized more and more that the beliefs and truths he had leaned as a Methodist, were becoming less and less a part of his heart, and more and more a belief he chose to reject and question. Both he and his 13 year-old sister have decided they are Agnostic. I never one time expressed to them that I felt most comfortable with Agnosticism as well and thought it was rather special that all three of us separately came to the exact same conclusion. My concern at this point is this. My youngest son is 9 years old and has, unfortunately, not been exposed to Church except as a toddler. I realize it's my responsibility to allow him the opportunity to decide on his own what he believes, and the only way he can is being exposed to it on a regular basis. A million things have been going on in our lives the last five or six years (that's no excuse; even as I just typed the words I felt ashamed), and my husband refuses to step foot in a Church, the reason which is unknown to me. I intended on taking him to Church once we left Alabama and moved back to Cali, but we were unsuccessful in our search for a Methodist Church which practiced and operated like the Methodist Church we fell in love with in Alabama. We were adamant about finding one. We never did and were so busy with different things in our lives that Church became less and less important. I would like to know how I should proceed in my effort to expose my 9 year old son to religion, because I believe it to be my parental duty and I feel incredibly disappointed in myself for letting something so important in a child's life fall by the wayside. I can't assume my little guy will share the three of us in our Agnostic beliefs. I don't and won't deprive him, he is still a child and it's never too late. If I could get some suggestions on this, I would be incredibly appreciative. I am so certain of and comfortable with my current beliefs that I am perfectly okay with discussing them with people. Until I reached the point of comfort and certainty, I felt embarrassed of my anti-God, anti-religious beliefs. But that's only because I wasn't able to explain Agnosticism or discuss it intelligently, nor was I able to put in to words the precise reasons I reject Christianity. Now, however, with two children who on their own joined my beliefs, I see this as not only being a part of who I am, but also feels right to me and makes sense, due to the fact that Science in Education is the very basis of my belief that Christianity makes no sense and contradicts itself.
Religion and spirituality is a personal choice and as long as a person can tell someone why they believe what they do or how they came to believe what they do, their choice is reasonable and acceptable. I'm not a hater, and it doesn't bother me people believing differently than I do and it is certainly not my business or job and doesn't make any difference to my life if someone chooses to believe differently than I do. --Those of you who choose to be religious and worship God, more power to you! But please leave me to believe what I do as well. Ever witnessed someone flipping out in the store about having to wait in lines that are extra long or due to not liking the Manager or other supervisor of a business (almost always because they didn't get their way about something)? He hollers, "Fuck you, you stupid bitch!" I held the door open for him as I was right behind him in line, but he still hit several people on the way out with his walker, didn't say "Excuse me" or "I'm sorry"--nothin. Now I personally found the incident to be hilarious because its not every day you see an 80 year old man with a walker screaming obscenities at a Nurse in a medical clinic. Plus, that new Nurse is a stuck up, judgmental bitch who got a much lighter reaming than Im sure the rest of the patients wish they had the guts to say. I've always been incredibly wacky and crazy in love with hardcore Grunge Metal bands and have come up with a list that sickly stands for my big picks--Bullet For My Valentine, Fuel, Disturbed, Avenged Sevenfold, Red Jumpsuit Apparatus, Nirvana, Creed, Godsmack, Helmet, Alice in Chains, Rage Against the Machine, Slipknot, 3 Doors Down, Breaking Benjamin, My Life with The Thrill Kill Cult, Three Days Grace, Linkin Park, Corrosion of Conformity, Seether, Korn, System of a Down, Radiohead, Primus, Death Cab for Cutie, Creed, Staind, Metallica, Audioslave...and last but not least, Nickelback. I know most of these bands are pretty hard core and I go nuts over the sound these guys put out there; but the ones who have a little or even a lot more soft tunes, are the ones I think are dope because their softer side coming through and being out there for the world to see is super ballsy, and bands like Nickelback get disrespected and put-down day after day and night after night, but not once has Nickelback done anything other than get their asses out there and put on the best, blow-your-mind shows you I've seen in a while and you leave almost in tears because when you can truly feel their music in your heart and soul, you know you truly get their music and message.
|