Marijuana Users Have Higher Levels of Heavy Metals in Their Blood, More Likely to Develop Fungal Infections: WSJ

The Wall Street Journal recently reported on the growing evidence that marijuana products are often contaminated with dangerous toxins and pollutants, writing,

Marijuana contaminated with arsenic, lead or mold is causing serious, even life-threatening illnesses around the country as use of cannabis products explodes.

People who have used marijuana have higher levels of heavy metals in their blood and are more likely to develop fungal infections, according to studies. Researchers have linked contaminants found in marijuana to cases of sudden-onset numbness, fatal lung bleeding and artery disease that resulted in amputations.

The article notes that marijuana products are easily contaminated by pesticides and mold spores, because the marijuana plant itself easily absorbs toxins in the soil and chemicals or other substances sprayed on the plant.

These contaminants are passed along into marijuana products — posing serious health risks for marijuana users.

Research continues to underscore that marijuana use is dangerous.

Marijuana users face a 60% higher risk of first-time heart attack, stroke, or other major cardiovascular problem.

Heavy marijuana use has been linked to psychosis — especially among young men.

And regular marijuana use has been associated with lung problems and an increased risk of heart attack and stroke. A 2022 study published in the journal of the Radiological Society of North America found marijuana smoke may actually be more harmful to lungs than cigarette smoke.

This medical research comes as a proposed marijuana amendment is vying for the 2024 ballot in Arkansas.

All of this underscores what we have said for years, marijuana may be many things, but “harmless” simply is not one of them.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.

Video: Abortion Drugs are High-Risk. We must hold the FDA Accountable for Removing Commonsense Safeguards.

The following video and commentary are from our friends at Alliance Defending Freedom.

When the FDA initially approved abortion drugs mifepristone and misoprostol, it did so with safety standards meant to protect women and girls. These standards were necessary because abortion drugs are high-risk–just ask Elizabeth Gillette.

Elizabeth experienced some of the complications that are far too common after taking abortion drugs, including intense pain and prolonged bleeding. During this time, she didn’t have a doctor or a nurse to help her navigate her suffering.

Ever since the FDA removed virtually all of its safety standards, many women and girls are at an increased risk of going through the same pain that Elizabeth did. That’s a fate that no one should have to suffer. Women and girls must have the ongoing care of a doctor when taking high-risk abortion drugs, and that’s why Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys are asking the Supreme Court to hold the FDA accountable.

FDA v. AHM case details: https://adflegal.org/case/us-food-and… #Women #Safety #Health #FDA

Find out more information about Alliance Defending Freedom: https://adflegal.org/

Bluey, the Cultural Warrior: Guest Column

The New York Times complains about fathers who might be too good in popular cartoon.

Recently in The New York Timespop culture critic Amanda Hess argued that the immensely popular Australian children’s cartoon Bluey is problematic. According to Hess, the cartoon offers an over-idealistic portrayal of parenting, especially of fathers. Not only is Bluey’s puppy dad Bandit “a good father—he is a fantasy, one crafted to appeal to adults as much as to children.” Bandit seems “omnipresent” in the seven-minute episodes, Hess complains, too often playing with his daughters and doing housework. He “represents a parent freed of drudgery, one whose central responsibility is delighting his kids.” 

The reason why a positive portrayal of dads is a bad thing has something to do with what former President George W. Bush once called “the soft bigotry of low expectations.” Hess is not really arguing that cartoon dads shouldn’t be good dads, but if they are too good, then real-life dads might feel guilty and real-life kids with absent or abusive dads might feel worse. In other words, if everyone does not meet a high bar, we should lower it. 

In a strange sense, of course, Hess is making a case that dads matter. Craving a dad who is consistently present, attentive, and loving reflects something about who we are and what we need, whether we received it or not.  We have that craving because it is built into the fabric of reality. We may wish and often repeat that men and women are interchangeable, and therefore, moms and dads are too. But our own hearts say otherwise. 

In fact, social science data routinely confirms how important dads are for the health and well-being of children. Kids who grow up without a dad at home are three times more likely to engage in criminal activity, more likely to engage in sexual activity earlier, less likely to go to collegemore likely to have emotional and behavioral problems, more likely to struggle academically, and are twice as likely to commit suicide. As author and Professor Nancy Pearcey recently wrote, the best predictor that a child will hold on to their Christian faith into adulthood is if their dad held on to his faith and nurtured a close bond with his kids. 

None of this means, of course, that children who grow up with an absent or abusive dad are doomed to failure, or that children who grow up with faithful, attentive fathers are guaranteed success. However, if we do know instinctively and empirically how important dads are, shouldn’t we hope for more good fathers to be modeled in the media and elsewhere, rather than fewer? 

In an episode of Bluey called “Hospital,” Bluey and her sister pretend to perform surgery on their dad. As is characteristic of the show, a few jokes are clearly aimed at the parents watching. At one point, Bandit asks pleadingly if there is another game they could play in which he could just lie on the couch and do nothing.

This endearing example isn’t one of perfect fathering that Hess is complaining about, but it is quite realistic and perhaps reveals the real “problem” with this particular cartoon dad: He doesn’t treat his children like objects or status symbols or constant irritants, as items on a bucket list, or as obstacles to freedom, prosperity, and autonomy. As my friend and kids’ rights advocate Katy Faust puts it, we think of kids as means to serve adult desires, rather than as ends in and of themselves, whose needs and wellbeing should be put first.  

According to Hess, the problem with Bluey is that it never portrays the “drudgery” of parenthood, peddling instead some irrational idea that a parent should delight his kids. In Hess’s critique, it’s not possible for a dad to feel annoyed, bored, and pulled in too many directions but still choose to play goofy games like “hospital” because he knows, at some level, just how consequential his love, time, and attention is for his kids. In fact, it’s more than possible that the ratio of annoyance to life-long importance is outrageously lopsided. It’s not only possible, it’s essential because only a dad can be a dad. 

For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, go to breakpoint.org. 

Copyright 2024 by the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. Reprinted from BreakPoint.org with permission.