By Daniel B. Kline
“Were you high on drugs?” shouted a reporter as Kayla Gerdes, an 18-year-old accused of killing a 69-year-old retired doctor by driving a van into her Long Island house, walked into court.
"No," she sobbed, "It was prescription drugs! It was all an accident! Please stop!"
Clear in the accused teen’s verbal defense of herself is that her actions are excusable because she was taking prescription – not street – drugs. Of course, nobody knows if the oxycodone that police say Gerdes was taking was actually prescribed for her or if she was taking it illicitly.
That technicality, of course, does not matter to the family of Rebecca Twine-Wright, who died because she decided to mow her lawn on the same day Gerdes chose to get behind the wheel while allegedly high. And, no matter the circumstances under which she allegedly took the oxycodone, that particular prescription pain medication comes with a clear warning that prohibits driving.
Whether she was taking a legal prescription written in her name or was popping pills pinched from the medicine cabinet of family or friends, nothing changes the fact that a woman lies dead because of these drugs. Prescription drugs are not safer than street drugs simply because a doctor signs off on them. In fact, according to the Centers for Disease Control, by 2006, prescription opioid painkillers were involved in more overdose deaths than heroin and cocaine combined.
Oxycodone is a powerful painkiller synthesized from the opium derivative thebaine. It resides in the same drug family as heroin and has many of the same addictive qualities, mood-altering effects and dangers as the “street” drug.
Used in specific instances of severe pain – such as in terminal cancer cases – oxycodone has its proper place in the medical world. That does not make the drug “safe” for non-prescribed or not-as-directed use. While effective under certain circumstances, oxycodone come with huge dangers when misused, including impairing one’s driving. Opioid painkillers must be treated as potentially dangerous and used only under strict conditions.
Too many of us are given a painkiller prescription for a legitimate reason – perhaps a dental surgery – and only use a portion of the prescribed pills. Instead of destroying and getting rid of the unneeded portion, we save pills at the back of the medicine cabinet for possible use later on.
Leaving these drugs in your medicine cabinet is like inviting a heroin dealer into your home. Instead of your child needing to take the scary step of obtaining illegal drugs on the street, he or she may simply decide to try what is already on hand.
Oxycodone potentially has the addictive power of heroin and once the household supply has been exhausted, painful withdrawal symptoms can lead to the newly-minted addicted seeking out the equivalent street drugs. Keeping these medicines lying around unused for “a rainy day” simply opens the door to abuse and ignores how dangerous these products can be when used improperly.
Saying that they were “only prescription drugs” does not make Twine-Wright any less dead, and it does not justify Gerdes’ alleged actions. Drugs are drugs, and we must be vigilant in their use and placement in our homes.
Daniel B. Kline works with The Governor's Prevention Partnership a not-for-profit partnership between state government and business leaders with a mission to keep Connecticut's youth safe, successful and drug-free. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Don’t let Iran become a nuclear power
By Daniel B. Kline
While we wage war in Iraq and Afghanistan -- nations that may well deserve our scorn, but countries that do not have the capacity to hurt us – the real enemy goes unchecked. Iran, a country run by an American-hating Holocaust denier, gets ever closer to having nuclear weapons while we essentially do nothing.
Not only does Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pretty openly hate the United States, but in that country he’s considered a moderate. His boss, the actual leader of the country, Ali Hoseyni Khāmene’i, dislikes America so much that in comparison he makes Osama bin Laden look like he might soften up and come over to the White House for a beer.
At least Iraq now has a government that we essentially installed as does Afghanistan. Admittedly, despite our helpful job recommendations, neither country’s leader seems to actually like America, but it seems unlikely that either one would actually attack us.
Afghanistan and Iraq likely harbor terrorists who have the ability to do harm to the United States. Unfortunately, full-scale invasions and open warfare are not only ineffective methods for rooting out these villains, our presence actually creates sympathy for the terrorists.
It’s hard to bomb a secret Al Qaeda that moves every day and lacks a conventional military profile. Hiding from armies in the mountains of Afghanistan or the anonymous sands of Iraq has not proven to be difficult for terrorist leaders specifically because their lack of organization and traditional structures specifically makes them elusive.
Taking Iran out of the nuclear arms race would be relatively simple as its fairly hard to hide full-scale nuclear facilities from detection. Sure, a country might buy some black-market plutonium and build one bomb, but actually producing your own warheads requires factories that our satellites can find.
While, the administration of George W. Bush ignored Iran as a nuclear threat and President Barack Obama continues that policy, the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, has at least tried to sound the warning. In January, he circulated a memo that appeared in press accounts this week, which stated the following:
“If Iran obtained the fissile material, designs and triggers needed for a nuclear weapon but did not assemble a bomb, Washington would be unprepared to counter the country's emergence as a "virtual" nuclear weapon state.”
President Obama must not let Iran become a nuclear power. If that means giving them a warning and then bombing any site suspected of being part of the country’s nuclear program, then so be it.
You cannot negotiate with religious fanatics and Ahmadinejad and are most Khāmene’I will not be reasonable in their handling of nuclear weapons. These are lunatics who mean to do us harm. They are not hiding their intent and they can’t hide their weapons.
America must not strike maliciously or without warning, but if Iran refuses to abandon all efforts to obtain the ability to create nuclear weapons, then the U.S. military must take that option away. This isn’t a hidden terrorist that we can’t find or shadowy cells plotting evil below the radar, these are full-fledged comic book-style super villains who mean to kills us all.
Fortunately, we already have the weapons to stop them from ever harming the United States. It’s unclear though if we have the courage to do what must be done.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at dbkline.com or befriend him at facebook.com/dankline.
While we wage war in Iraq and Afghanistan -- nations that may well deserve our scorn, but countries that do not have the capacity to hurt us – the real enemy goes unchecked. Iran, a country run by an American-hating Holocaust denier, gets ever closer to having nuclear weapons while we essentially do nothing.
Not only does Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pretty openly hate the United States, but in that country he’s considered a moderate. His boss, the actual leader of the country, Ali Hoseyni Khāmene’i, dislikes America so much that in comparison he makes Osama bin Laden look like he might soften up and come over to the White House for a beer.
At least Iraq now has a government that we essentially installed as does Afghanistan. Admittedly, despite our helpful job recommendations, neither country’s leader seems to actually like America, but it seems unlikely that either one would actually attack us.
Afghanistan and Iraq likely harbor terrorists who have the ability to do harm to the United States. Unfortunately, full-scale invasions and open warfare are not only ineffective methods for rooting out these villains, our presence actually creates sympathy for the terrorists.
It’s hard to bomb a secret Al Qaeda that moves every day and lacks a conventional military profile. Hiding from armies in the mountains of Afghanistan or the anonymous sands of Iraq has not proven to be difficult for terrorist leaders specifically because their lack of organization and traditional structures specifically makes them elusive.
Taking Iran out of the nuclear arms race would be relatively simple as its fairly hard to hide full-scale nuclear facilities from detection. Sure, a country might buy some black-market plutonium and build one bomb, but actually producing your own warheads requires factories that our satellites can find.
While, the administration of George W. Bush ignored Iran as a nuclear threat and President Barack Obama continues that policy, the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, has at least tried to sound the warning. In January, he circulated a memo that appeared in press accounts this week, which stated the following:
“If Iran obtained the fissile material, designs and triggers needed for a nuclear weapon but did not assemble a bomb, Washington would be unprepared to counter the country's emergence as a "virtual" nuclear weapon state.”
President Obama must not let Iran become a nuclear power. If that means giving them a warning and then bombing any site suspected of being part of the country’s nuclear program, then so be it.
You cannot negotiate with religious fanatics and Ahmadinejad and are most Khāmene’I will not be reasonable in their handling of nuclear weapons. These are lunatics who mean to do us harm. They are not hiding their intent and they can’t hide their weapons.
America must not strike maliciously or without warning, but if Iran refuses to abandon all efforts to obtain the ability to create nuclear weapons, then the U.S. military must take that option away. This isn’t a hidden terrorist that we can’t find or shadowy cells plotting evil below the radar, these are full-fledged comic book-style super villains who mean to kills us all.
Fortunately, we already have the weapons to stop them from ever harming the United States. It’s unclear though if we have the courage to do what must be done.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at dbkline.com or befriend him at facebook.com/dankline.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
When in doubt, add more bacon
By Daniel B. Kline
In a move that suggests that Homer Simpson has taken over for Colonel Sanders, Kentucky Fried Chicken has introduced a sandwhich that uses fried chicken instead of bread and bacon instead of chicken. Add a liberal helping of special sauce and a couple of slices of cheese and you have something that pretty much shows that the Colonel's gang has given up on their attempt to become known as simply "KFC" so people wouldn't associate the brand with only fried food.
KFC does not even make a tiny nod to health by including lettuce and tomato, it's just fried chicken, bacon, cheese and sauce. I suppose I should not be surprised as these are the people who combined fried chicken, cheese, gravy and mashed potatoes in one bowl -- presumably for people too lazy to stick their spork into multiple places.
This new Kentucky Fried monstrosity, called the "Double Down," continues a disturbing trend where fast food restaurants attempt to outdo each other by adding more bacon, more cheese and more mysterious "special" sauces to their fare. We now live in a world where it's not only possible, but easy, to order a quadruple burger with four layers of cheese and bacon.
If we can use fried chicken patties as the bun, why not wrap everything in two slices of pizza, then dip that into the fryolator? I'm not sure you're technically eating a sandwich once you eliminate the bread, but if you are, then we're about 15 minutes away from a "sandwich" consisting of two slices of cheesecake with a layer of fried Twinkies in the middle.
If it's not Homer Simpson making these decisions, then clearly a bunch of drunk frat boys has someohow taken over the fast food industry. Only the drunk or stoned could possibly conceive of foods like fried macaroni and cheese, the chicken fry, the 12-layer burrito and stuffed-crust pizza.
My friend Jason and I, in much fatter days, used to frequent the Dunkin' Donuts near our office. Jason (who now runs triathalons) used to eat a Dunkin' Donuts sausage, egg and cheese breakfast sandwich along with two coffee rolls. Basically a bigger donut with no hole, the coffee roll is covered in a mildly disgusting, absurdly delicious, sugary goop which makes a regular glazed donut seem practically sugar-free.
We used to regularly tease the staff behind the counter that they should just serve Jason's sausage, egg and cheese on the coffee rolls. We were kidding, but clearly we were not the only people thinking in this direction as Dunkin' Donuts now offers a sausage, egg and cheese served on two waffles. In addition, there are actually some baseball stadiums that serve a cheeseburger on two Krispie Kreme donuts, so our joke, was not that far from the truth.
The public appears to have a boundless appetite for the absurdly unhealthy and restaurants seem perfectly willing to switch from slowly killing their customers to doing it pretty quickly. I'd like to think that there won't be a demand for the "Double Down," but in a world where we add bacon to our chili cheese fries, that seems unlikely.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at dbkline.com or befriend him at facebook.com/dankline.
In a move that suggests that Homer Simpson has taken over for Colonel Sanders, Kentucky Fried Chicken has introduced a sandwhich that uses fried chicken instead of bread and bacon instead of chicken. Add a liberal helping of special sauce and a couple of slices of cheese and you have something that pretty much shows that the Colonel's gang has given up on their attempt to become known as simply "KFC" so people wouldn't associate the brand with only fried food.
KFC does not even make a tiny nod to health by including lettuce and tomato, it's just fried chicken, bacon, cheese and sauce. I suppose I should not be surprised as these are the people who combined fried chicken, cheese, gravy and mashed potatoes in one bowl -- presumably for people too lazy to stick their spork into multiple places.
This new Kentucky Fried monstrosity, called the "Double Down," continues a disturbing trend where fast food restaurants attempt to outdo each other by adding more bacon, more cheese and more mysterious "special" sauces to their fare. We now live in a world where it's not only possible, but easy, to order a quadruple burger with four layers of cheese and bacon.
If we can use fried chicken patties as the bun, why not wrap everything in two slices of pizza, then dip that into the fryolator? I'm not sure you're technically eating a sandwich once you eliminate the bread, but if you are, then we're about 15 minutes away from a "sandwich" consisting of two slices of cheesecake with a layer of fried Twinkies in the middle.
If it's not Homer Simpson making these decisions, then clearly a bunch of drunk frat boys has someohow taken over the fast food industry. Only the drunk or stoned could possibly conceive of foods like fried macaroni and cheese, the chicken fry, the 12-layer burrito and stuffed-crust pizza.
My friend Jason and I, in much fatter days, used to frequent the Dunkin' Donuts near our office. Jason (who now runs triathalons) used to eat a Dunkin' Donuts sausage, egg and cheese breakfast sandwich along with two coffee rolls. Basically a bigger donut with no hole, the coffee roll is covered in a mildly disgusting, absurdly delicious, sugary goop which makes a regular glazed donut seem practically sugar-free.
We used to regularly tease the staff behind the counter that they should just serve Jason's sausage, egg and cheese on the coffee rolls. We were kidding, but clearly we were not the only people thinking in this direction as Dunkin' Donuts now offers a sausage, egg and cheese served on two waffles. In addition, there are actually some baseball stadiums that serve a cheeseburger on two Krispie Kreme donuts, so our joke, was not that far from the truth.
The public appears to have a boundless appetite for the absurdly unhealthy and restaurants seem perfectly willing to switch from slowly killing their customers to doing it pretty quickly. I'd like to think that there won't be a demand for the "Double Down," but in a world where we add bacon to our chili cheese fries, that seems unlikely.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at dbkline.com or befriend him at facebook.com/dankline.
Church leaders must be held accountable
By Daniel B. Kline
If the head of a major business covered up the sexual abuse of children by his employees by simply moving the guilty workers to another location, that CEO would be held criminally accountable. The same thing would happen if a superintendent of schools covered up the rape of innocent kids by reassigning the offending teachers to another school.
In fact, in any area or field where an adult covers up the abuse of children and puts the abusers in position to commit the same crime on a new set of kids, the supervising adult would be arrested. Somehow, though, these rules do not apply to the Catholic Church.
It's important to remember that the underlying Catholic faith had nothing to do with these unspeakable crimes. The religion's basic beliefs abhor the kind of crimes committed by these rogue priests and covered up by misguided leaders. Guilt should fall not on the church as a whole, but all those who ignored the teachings of their religion to commit unspeakable acts and the church leaders who, instead of protecting the children in their care, chose to protect their own positions.
Over the past few years, we have seen a disturbing pattern of child sexual abuse emerge. A priest would abuse his position of authority to take advantage of children in his parish. The priest's transgressions would be discovered and instead of getting the police involved, Church leaders would simply move the offending priest to another parish where he could hurt more kids.
Even when the allegations of widespread sexual abuse became public, church leaders did little to punish the offending priests. Instead of openly and honestly complying with investigations, all efforts were made to protect the church at the expense of its young members.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this sexual abuse scandal is that America's legal system has largely ignored the crimes. Why have bishops, cardinals and other church leaders who knew of these crimes not been held criminally liable for their actions? Yes, we have arrested individual priests, but we have not held their bosses accountable for covering up their actions and essentially facilitating more crimes.
Don't put Catholicism on trial, but apply the law of the land to all criminals. I don't remember there being an exception to the penal code that allows the Catholic Church to handle its own business and I don't believe Cardinals or Bishops have any special legal exemptions when it comes to the rape of children.
And, I still do not see the Pope or any other leader of the Catholic Church actually stepping up to take responsibility for what has happened. At the very least there should be widespread resignations from positions of authority and an open cooperation with the authorities to make sure all the perpetrators and those who covered up the crimes go to jail.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at dbkline.com or befriend him at facebook.com/dankline.
If the head of a major business covered up the sexual abuse of children by his employees by simply moving the guilty workers to another location, that CEO would be held criminally accountable. The same thing would happen if a superintendent of schools covered up the rape of innocent kids by reassigning the offending teachers to another school.
In fact, in any area or field where an adult covers up the abuse of children and puts the abusers in position to commit the same crime on a new set of kids, the supervising adult would be arrested. Somehow, though, these rules do not apply to the Catholic Church.
It's important to remember that the underlying Catholic faith had nothing to do with these unspeakable crimes. The religion's basic beliefs abhor the kind of crimes committed by these rogue priests and covered up by misguided leaders. Guilt should fall not on the church as a whole, but all those who ignored the teachings of their religion to commit unspeakable acts and the church leaders who, instead of protecting the children in their care, chose to protect their own positions.
Over the past few years, we have seen a disturbing pattern of child sexual abuse emerge. A priest would abuse his position of authority to take advantage of children in his parish. The priest's transgressions would be discovered and instead of getting the police involved, Church leaders would simply move the offending priest to another parish where he could hurt more kids.
Even when the allegations of widespread sexual abuse became public, church leaders did little to punish the offending priests. Instead of openly and honestly complying with investigations, all efforts were made to protect the church at the expense of its young members.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this sexual abuse scandal is that America's legal system has largely ignored the crimes. Why have bishops, cardinals and other church leaders who knew of these crimes not been held criminally liable for their actions? Yes, we have arrested individual priests, but we have not held their bosses accountable for covering up their actions and essentially facilitating more crimes.
Don't put Catholicism on trial, but apply the law of the land to all criminals. I don't remember there being an exception to the penal code that allows the Catholic Church to handle its own business and I don't believe Cardinals or Bishops have any special legal exemptions when it comes to the rape of children.
And, I still do not see the Pope or any other leader of the Catholic Church actually stepping up to take responsibility for what has happened. At the very least there should be widespread resignations from positions of authority and an open cooperation with the authorities to make sure all the perpetrators and those who covered up the crimes go to jail.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at dbkline.com or befriend him at facebook.com/dankline.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Something might be better than nothing
By Daniel B. Kline
If you get diagnosed with a disease, break your leg or find yourself facing some other medical calamity while not having health insurance, you're not likely to be too concerned with the intricate political debates that have paralyzed health care legislation for years. That's why the millions of working Americans who can't afford health insurance should be overjoyed at the massive health care reform bill that President Barack Obama pushed through Congress.
The conservative part of me wants to bash the Obama health care plan as more wasteful government spending coupled with the Democratic Party once again inserting government where it does not belong. My liberal side, however, has me wanting to praise any plan that makes having health insurance possible for people who don't.
Obama, who would not be my choice as president, saw a problem -- that millions of Americans lacked access to affordable health care -- and he acted. He did not come up with the perfect solution and the legislation he managed to pass through Congress leaves many questions to be answered, but he did something.
Usually our stict two-party system makes getting anything done in Congress nearly impossible. In general this creates an inertia that protects the people from its government as it stops the stupid laws from being passed along with the good ones.
Access to health care and affordable insurance should not be debated on strict party lines. Instead, we must consider the human aspect of the problem, then we must insert practical concerns.
Arguing the politics of health care with someone who works hard and still can't pay for health insurance would be like debating farm subsidies with a starving man. Until you've been fed, or in the case of health care, healed, nothing matters except the end result.
As Americans -- no matter which side of the aisle we fall on politically -- most of us agree that you should be able to work hard and achieve a modest level of security. I'd like to think that if an industrious fellow, even if he has no specific skills, puts in enough hours he should be able to pay for basic shelter, food and health care.
I'm not saying there should be a Porsche in every driveway, but we should all want to build a society in which even those on the bottom can survive. In the case of the basic's like food and health care, in some ways we need to feed the starving man before we debate how to pay for his meal.
I may not be not a fan of this health care plan, yet I applaud the President for getting any health care legislation passed. If the health care debate stops now, then, well, we probably have a disaster. But, if the Obama plan becomes a basis for negotiating and refining, then at least we have applied a tourniquet while we attempt to stop the bleeding.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at dbkline.com or befriend him at facebook.com/dankline.
If you get diagnosed with a disease, break your leg or find yourself facing some other medical calamity while not having health insurance, you're not likely to be too concerned with the intricate political debates that have paralyzed health care legislation for years. That's why the millions of working Americans who can't afford health insurance should be overjoyed at the massive health care reform bill that President Barack Obama pushed through Congress.
The conservative part of me wants to bash the Obama health care plan as more wasteful government spending coupled with the Democratic Party once again inserting government where it does not belong. My liberal side, however, has me wanting to praise any plan that makes having health insurance possible for people who don't.
Obama, who would not be my choice as president, saw a problem -- that millions of Americans lacked access to affordable health care -- and he acted. He did not come up with the perfect solution and the legislation he managed to pass through Congress leaves many questions to be answered, but he did something.
Usually our stict two-party system makes getting anything done in Congress nearly impossible. In general this creates an inertia that protects the people from its government as it stops the stupid laws from being passed along with the good ones.
Access to health care and affordable insurance should not be debated on strict party lines. Instead, we must consider the human aspect of the problem, then we must insert practical concerns.
Arguing the politics of health care with someone who works hard and still can't pay for health insurance would be like debating farm subsidies with a starving man. Until you've been fed, or in the case of health care, healed, nothing matters except the end result.
As Americans -- no matter which side of the aisle we fall on politically -- most of us agree that you should be able to work hard and achieve a modest level of security. I'd like to think that if an industrious fellow, even if he has no specific skills, puts in enough hours he should be able to pay for basic shelter, food and health care.
I'm not saying there should be a Porsche in every driveway, but we should all want to build a society in which even those on the bottom can survive. In the case of the basic's like food and health care, in some ways we need to feed the starving man before we debate how to pay for his meal.
I may not be not a fan of this health care plan, yet I applaud the President for getting any health care legislation passed. If the health care debate stops now, then, well, we probably have a disaster. But, if the Obama plan becomes a basis for negotiating and refining, then at least we have applied a tourniquet while we attempt to stop the bleeding.
Daniel B. Kline's work appears in over 100 papers weekly. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com or you can see his archive at dbkline.com or befriend him at facebook.com/dankline.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
