Green Nemesis

NEMESIS

Be for warned, this is a personal beef against common marijuana use. Not that the my opinions and grievances are not founded in reason, but they are fanned into a passion of my own against, not necessarily the legality or illegality, but the smoking and ingesting of it for recreational or social use.

I don't drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, do narcotics or use marijuana. I am highly sensitive to all of these. My body is intolerant of them. And my life has been greatly affected by the use of these substances by others. My mind, however is not so intolerant.

I cannot absolutely bluster against the medicinal use of marijuana. If some have found some form of relief from this plant, which has not been found in any other alternative that is within their reach of affordability or accessibility, then I am happy for their sake that they have such relief. Yet I would argue that many who claim the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes do not need it, or could access other safe and natural alternatives, but choose to use marijuana for the high that goes along with the "medicinal" effect.

Let me state: every human being has been given free will by the Creator. Therefore, I agree that a person has the right to choose to do what is right or good, or to choose what is wrong or bad. That does not mean that either choice should be treated as equal. Every choice has consequences, and it is in the consequences that good and bad are defined and bad is rightfully regulated by bodies of governance: family, corporate, community, state or nation.


The natural consequences of marijuana use are what I despise! The legal consequences I admittedly question; but, due to the natural consequences and the selfishness of others, believe that some regulation must remain in place.

Natural consequences to the individual:

• Short term memory problems
• Impaired thinking
• Loss of balance and coordination
• Decreased concentration
• Changes in sensory perception
• Impaired ability to complete complex tasks
• Decreased alertness
• Decreased reaction time
• Loss of energy
• Potential due to the above for loss of life, limb or health in general.
• Loss of interest or motivation for beneficial tasks such as work, education, relationships, etc. with long term and/ or frequent use.
• Loss of jobs, sales, educational opportunities, family relationships, etc. due to poor performance and attitudes with long term and/ or frequent use.

Natural consequences to family, friends, co-workers, etc.:

• Exposure to second hand smoke, which has the same consequences as the above except for the last two in the list which are attributed more to long term or frequent use.
• For some, adverse reactions such as: allergic reactions, headaches, nausea, irritability
• Changes in relationships due to changes in user's personality, reason, viability, accountability, philosophy, etc.
• Potential for loss of life, limb or health in general when in the presence of users that are under the influence of marijuana while performing different tasks, for example: driving, operating machinery, handling dangerous substances.
• Subject to abusive behavior or neglect

Natural consequences to corporate, community or society:

• Increase in unemployment due to job losses.
• Increase in auto insurance rates due to accidents
• Increase in health insurance rates and medical care costs due to injuries and negative effects on health of users and others exposed to them
• Increase in STUPID
• Increase in WHO CARES
• Increase in crime rates because of the increase in STUPID (While there are studies that show a connection to pot use and criminal activity, not including the illegal use of pot, there are others that dismiss the connection as coincidence of lifestyle. So, while pot use may not lead to a life of crime, it does lead to many stupid choices while under its influence.)
• Decrease in profitability due to increased errors in judgement of employees or employers under the influence of marijuana
• Decrease in public safety due to the errors in judgement of those under the influence of marijuana

While I am sure that many users may object to the validity of some or all of the above natural consequences, such objections are based on biased opinion. These consequences as listed are based upon not only a multitude of studies, but also upon personal observation and experience.

Am I biased against, as might be claimed? No. Here's why, because I can acknowledge that marijuana as a plant may have some benefit on a personal and industrial level. And, that if all users were capable of occasional, unselfish use of the plant for "relaxation" or a high, the  use of the plant would not be an offense. But because most users selfishly use the plant, (exposing themselves or others to the negative effects, at home, in public, at work, etc., including the awful stench of the smoke or breath, even the body odor in some cases), there is merit in society requiring regulations of some kind to deter the exposure of the family or public to the dangers.

Any argument comparing pot to cigarettes, which are legal, is like comparing apples to oranges. Cigarettes, while having negative effects on health to the smoker and to those exposed to second hand smoke, do not have the same impairments of judgement, motor skills and motivation as does marijuana. No legal comparison can be made.

Arguments of alcohol use compared to marijuana use, while legally could be treated similar, are not the same due to the fact that others around the drinker do not get intoxicated by simple exposure. Yet those around a pot smoker, while the smoker is smoking or breathing on them, can get high, sick or at least experience some form of impairment because of inhalation of the second hand smoke or fumes.

Legal consequences, as most laws in most states stand at this time, involve heavy fines, jail time, and prison time. I believe that they always should, but based upon the same fines and prison terms for public intoxication, driving under the influence and sales to minors of alcohol. Public ban on pot smoking should be the same or stronger as for tobacco. Agriculture and sales of marijuana should be under the same regulations as alcohol and tobacco, making it heavily taxed to help compensate for the negative public and social effects.

Whether or not users agree or disagree with standing laws, these laws exist and the use of marijuana comes with even greater risk to themselves and others. Using it, growing it and selling it comes with that risk, and if your philosophy and the importance of the use of the plant is worth the risk to you personally, well, I think that goes along with my assessment of more STUPID. However, it is  your choice and your STUPID, disguised by your rationalizing it as "principle."

Yet, consider that your STUPID, or "principle" is also exposing your family and friends to the consequences that they have not chosen. They will not only suffer the natural consequences but also may full well suffer the legal ones because of you. You could cause the break up of your family, the arrest of those of legal age within your household, etc. What right do you have to do that!

What right do you have to put your desire to smoke or ingest and/ or grow this stuff over the consideration of your family and others? What right do you have to force a wife or child or neighbor to smell what is offensive to them? What right do you have to subject them to headaches and nausea, justifying it because you think its all in their heads, that they are imaging it. What effects you in one way effects others differently.

If you insist upon your right to do as you will, then you should have the guts to admit that your love for weed is stronger than your love for family and friends and move on to a place where your habit, your love, is shared by others and your poor habits no longer put your family at risk; a place where all risk is yours alone.

I stand by this. After being exposed to this STUPID, for years, I declare my rights to express not only my opinion, my observations, the facts , but also my declaration of independence from being subject to the negative effects and the general STUPID of the selfish users of marijuana.

Lori Vidak
8-21-2016

Green is for the Congo--The Legend of Tarzan--A Review

Wow! As a fan from my youth of the Tarzan books, I say again, "Wow!" The Legend of Tarzan, did not disappoint me. My mother Diane and I went together today. It is not often that either of us goes to a new movie on opening weekend. However, this was special. As I mentioned, I've been a fan from my youth, and apparently so has my mother, which is a few decades longer at fandom than me.

Until my mid thirties, I use to dream of making a Tarzan film that would do justice to both the character and the author Edgar Rice Burroughs. Of course, I had hoped to play the role of Jane. Obviously, at 55, that opportunity is long past. Yet, viewing this film sent me back thirty years to the days when I first read all the Tarzan novels, 26 or 27 of them. Many movies borrowed the character's name, but not his true character or his legendary status.

As a kid, I enjoyed Johnny Weissmuller, Tarzan films. They did not however capture Tarzan's genius, the savage heart of a beast that lay just beneath the thin veneer of civility learned in a only few short years of his early adult life. Like Batman was the dark, yet heroic alter ego of Bruce Wayne; Tarzan is the darker alter ego of Lord John Clayton, Earl of Greystoke. I say darker, for his animal instincts and survival training made him a ruthless enemy.

This movie captured the Legend, and hinted at the darker side of Lord Greystoke. The enemies were despicable, the natives and animals exploited, (which was a bit of a tribute to the old Tarzan films), but the natives were also brave warriors, some friendly, others less so and with good reason. And, Tarzan's love for Jane was both his civility and his savagery.

The acting was great. Alexander Skarsgard was the best Tarzan of all that preceded him. He was subdued, as was John Clayton, until the beast was unleashed, and then he was as lethal as was necessary. Christoph Waltz seemed to really enjoy his role, as the power driven Leon Rom. And, Samuel L. Jackson as George Washington Williams was a combination of confident supporting hero and awe inspired friend. Margot Robbie's Jane was spunky, a bit fearless, yet not reckless, and adamant that Tarzan would be a frightening foe when he came to her rescue.

I enjoyed the special effects, and the fact that it was not overly action, action, action! Those who criticize the movie's pace can't appreciate the simmering plot until it boils. This was not a summer action movie, it was a Tarzan movie. Tarzan books were not all about action, and trust me there was plenty when appropriate. If you enjoyed the Tarzan books, and still appreciated the old Tarzan films, as a true fan, you should love this film. A true fan will in the very least enjoy it. It is rated PG-13 because some scenes might be frightening to younger children. Otherwise, I would say that it is a family film.

I give it five stars, because it both entertained and captured the heart of Tarzan, one of my favorite characters of all time. I highly recommend it.

Lori Vidak,
7-03-16