We Have Some Really, Really Bad News For You About Oral Sex

Oral sex between couples in a monogamous or open relationship shouldn’t have them fearing for their lives, but a new study reveals that men who have a high number of oral sexual partners could increase their risk of head and neck cancer. The same is true for men who smoke, with the highest risk category being men who smoke and have a high number of oral sex partners.

While the rate of those being diagnosed with oropharyngeal (middle part of the throat) cancer is low – with only 0.7 percent of men being diagnosed and an even lower percent of women – the study shows that HPV-related oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer among men has doubled over the last 20 years. By 2020, they estimate that oropharyngeal cancer will become a bigger issue than cervical cancer in the US.

Study author Dr Amber D’Souza, associate professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said: “Most people perform oral sex in their lives, and we found that oral infection with cancer-causing HPV was rare among women regardless of how many oral sex partners they had. Among men who did not smoke, cancer-causing oral HPV was rare among everyone who had less than five oral sex partners, although the chances of having oral HPV infection did increase with number of oral sexual partners, and with smoking.”

The study, published in Annals of Oncology, included 13,089 people between the ages of 20 and 69, who had been tested for oral HPV infection. They then used data on US oropharyngeal cancer cases and deaths to predict one’s cancer risk from oral HPV.

Men who engage in oral sex with five or more partners had a prevalence of 7.4 percent for oral infection with cancer-causing types of HPV. This is compared with 1.5 percent of men who had oral sex with one or no partners. For those with two to four oral sex partners, their risk increased to 4 percent – smoking made this worse, jumping the risk to 7.1 percent. Men who smoke and engage in oral sex with five or more partners landed at 15 percent.

“Currently there are no tests that could be used for screening people for oropharyngeal cancer,” said co-author Dr Carole Fakhry, an associate professor from Johns Hopkins Department of Otolaryngology, in a statement. “It is a rare cancer and for most healthy people the harms of screening for it would outweigh the benefits because of the problem of false positive test results and consequent anxiety.”

“Our research shows that identifying those who have oral HPV infection does not predict their future risk of cancer well, and so screening based on detecting cancer-causing oral HPV infection would be challenging,” Fakhry added. “However, we are carrying out further research of oral HPV infection in young healthy men to explore this further.”

Richard Shaw, a Cancer Research UK scientist from the University of Liverpool, shared earlier this year that there has been a debate about vaccinating not only young girls, but boys too. He also added that “along with vaccinating against HPV, helping people to quit smoking and cut down on alcohol are important.”

Read more: http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/oral-sex-increases-risk-of-men-developing-neck-and-head-cancer/

6 Popular Exercises That Are A Total Waste Of Time

Okay, let’s make one thing clear. One third of Americans are obese and more than two thirds have never even heard of SoulCycle. Basically, if you’re exercising, you’re already doing something right. Getting to the gym is actually the hardest thing in the world, and so even if you’re literally walking on a broken treadmill, you can congratulate yourself on beating the odds. With that being said, there is so much bullshit information out there, whether you’re getting ideas from online workout plans or health magazines with Khloe Kardashian on the cover. If you’re in the gym for like, 30 minutes, you want to maximize the amount of time you’re there, so you should know if your go-to workout moves are wasting your time. Here are six popular exercises that you should skip:

1. Crunches

This is probably a shock, but it’s true- your 100 bodyweight crunches are totally wasting your time. There are so many good ab workouts you can be doing, and crunches are probably the worst. First of all, when you do a crunch, you’re lifting your shoulders off the ground and flexing the top part of your abdomen, without getting your obliques or bottom parts of your abs involved. This could create a muscle imbalance and even cause you to hurt your back in the long run. Doing moves like planks or leg raises, where your whole core is engaged, will give you more bang for your buck because you’ll be using your entire core in every movement, not just the top half.

2. Donkey Kicks

There’s nothing necessarily bad about donkey kicks,but if you’re short on time, this isn’t the best move you should be doing. Donkey kicks are supposed to tone your butt while getting your heart rate up, but there are better moves that do these two things more effectively. Exercises like squat jumps and jumping lunges, for example, work your legs while burning calories, and they’re much more effective than donkey kicks. I mean, there’s a reason you can do like, 80 donkey kicks but only 12 squat jumps. They’re harder but they’re so much better for your body.

3. Fast Bicycle Crunches

The bicycle crunch is an amazing ab burner, but a lot of fitness classes and online workouts tell you to do them fast, and you just end up screwing up your form and missing the point of the exercise. The idea behind the bicycle crunch is to twist your entire torso to one side, eventually touching your elbow to your opposite knee while engaging your obliques. By doing them fast, you completely skip the core engagement and you end up just kicking your legs around. Slow these down or skip them completely so you can stop kidding yourself.

4. Butt Kicks

Butt kicks are similar to donkey kicks. There’s nothing wrong with them, but there are so many moves that hit the same muscle groups in a stronger way. By kicking your heels toward your butt, you’re technically getting a lower body cardio workout, but there are several moves that are even stronger cardio, and get your whole body involved in the movement. For example, squat thrusts and burpees are both movements where you’ll burn calories while toning the upper and lower parts of your body. Don’t believe me? Try doing 30 seconds of butt kicks and then 30 seconds of burpees and tell me which one felt like a better workout.

5. Elliptical Machine

The elliptical is honestly so fucking sad, and the fact that so many girls just go to the gym to prance around on that machine is pathetic. But then again, they probably don’t know better so we’re not gonna call them out. The elliptical is basically an easier version of other cardio equipment at the gym. People like it because it’s easier on your knees than the treadmill, but if you’re really trying to burn calories in a short amount of time, there are so many other machines that are so much more useful. For example, the rowing machine and the Stairmaster probably burn like, twice as many calories as the elliptical does, and they activate more muscles in your body. It might seem scary to try out machines you’re not used to, but if you can get a better workout in a shorter amount of time, it’s worth it. Step away from the elliptical.

6. Tuck Jumps

Tuck jumps are included in a lot of HIIT workouts because they blast calories super fast and make you like, really exhausted after only a few jumps. While we’re not arguing against tuck jumps being an effective workout, they’re super tough on your joints, so you could end up with a major knee injury. I mean, think about it. The idea behind the move is to jump your knees up to chest height and then hit your feet down on the floor. It’s just a lot of pressure on your knees and it’s not worth the joint pain you’ll end up dealing with. Try doing other HIIT moves like skaters, burpees, or mountain climbers. They’re just as effective and they’re so much easier on your joints. Like, no workout is worth legit hurting yourself. Being too sore to sit down the next day is bad enough. 


Read more: http://www.betches.com/popular-exercises-that-are-a-waste-of-time

Bartender says she broke her hand beating up the man who sexually assaulted her

A Philadelphia bartender’s harrowing story should be a testament to predators everywhere that if you’re ever urged to “grab by the pussy,” pussy will definitely grab back.

The Philadelphia Police Department is looking for a man who 30-year-old Jacquelyn Blough said sexually assaulted her while she was out with her friends at a bar she tends.

According to Philadelphia magazine, Blough and her friends were being chatted up by a group of men on the night of Oct. 28, when around 1:30 a.m., shortly before closing time, one of the men approached Bloguh from behind and forced his hand up her skirt, sexually assaulting her. And while there is no “appropriate” or “right” way for someone who has been sexually assaulted to react, Blough’s immediate response warrants a standing ovation: She turned around and beat the shit out of this asshole.

“He forcefully rammed his fingers up inside of me, out of nowhere,” Blough told the magazine. “It was awful. I spun around, and he looked at me and told me he was just kidding. So I put him in a headlock and beat him to a pulp. I’m a small woman and this huge guy couldn’t get me off of him. I beat him until he just couldn’t be beaten any further.”

Bar staff then threw the man out of the bar, and she went to the hospital—in the process of beating her assailant, she had broken three bones in her hand. She said she spent the next six hours at the hospital, which fixed her up with a cast to be worn the next four to six weeks.

When Blough got home from the hospital she said she tried to put the incident behind her in the days following, but ended up going to the 17th Police District in South Philadelphia on Nov. 1 to report the assault. She described her assailant as a stocky white male standing at 5’11” and around 40 years old, who wore a baseball hat, sweatpants, and a T-shirt.

“I was in bed with my mind spinning. I was feeling physically ill. I had so much anxiety, and I realized that this is not OK. This person should not be walking the streets. What’s he going to do to the next girl?” Blough said.

To add insult to injury, Bloguh’s broken arm has put her out of work since she can’t bartend and also doesn’t have health insurance. In the meantime, she’s looking for work she can do with her cast and has set up a GoFundMe page for her expenses, medical and otherwise.

“It’s just miserable. One nightmare to the next. All because somebody chose to be a horrible person,” Blough said.

Despite the series of events, Blough’s luck is looking up—her campaign is trending on GoFundMe, and more than 170 people have donated thousands in one day, already exceeding her $4,000 goal.

Blough did not respond to the Daily Dot’s request for comment.

H/T Philadelphia

Read more: https://www.dailydot.com/irl/jacquelyn-blough-bartender-broken-hand/

Researchers Have Discovered A “Functional Cure” For HIV

With one confirmed exception – the Berlin patient – no one has been cured of HIV. It is possible to nullify the symptoms of the virus, however, and there have also been several cases where levels of the virus in the blood have been essentially undetectable – meaning that the patient can’t pass on the infection to another person.

Although not a definitive cure, this type of viral drawdown can be described as a “functional cure.” Now it seems that scientists from the Florida campus of The Scripps Research Institute (TSRI) may have just found another way to obtain one.

Writing in the journal Cell Reports, they explain how a new type of drug appears to suppress the virus’ replication in chronically infected cells. This prevents viral rebound – wherein the levels of virus in a patient shoot up after an initial slump – even during treatment interruptions.

This has been described by the team as a “Block-and-Lock” approach, in that the reactivation of the virus within cells is prevented and HIV in the patient enters a latent state, doing no harm to the body.

“When combining this drug with the standard cocktail of anti-retrovirals used to suppress infection in humanized mouse models of HIV-1 infection, our study found a drastic reduction in virus RNA present,” TSRI Associate Professor Susana Valente, the coordinating author of the study, said in a statement.

“No other anti-retroviral used in the clinic today is able to completely suppress viral production in infected cells in vivo,” she added.

In the mice tested, they were shown not to experience a viral rebound for up to 19 days after they stopped receiving doses of the compound. In half of all treated mice, the virus was undetectable for 16 days after the treatment stopped. Imagine if the same effect could be reproduced in HIV-positive people.

The focus of the research was a compound named didehydro-Cortistatin A, or dCA for short. First isolated from the marine sponge Corticum simplex back in 2006, a researcher at TSRI managed to synthesize it in a laboratory just two years later.

The TSRI team have been working with it for some time now, and in 2015 announced that it has HIV-disrupting characteristics. This new study confirms that it blocks Tat, a regulatory protein that boosts the rate in which HIV copies DNA into RNA – a vital process in its life cycle.

“It is really the proof-of-concept for a ‘functional cure,’” Valente explained. She also pointed out that the maximum dose of the drug had “virtually no side effects.”

HIV/AIDS used to be a life-destroying disease. Now people can not only live normal lives with it, but they can see how science is paving the way to both functional, and complete, cures.


Read more: http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/researchers-discovered-functional-cure-hiv/

Trump: ‘We are stopping cold the attacks on Judeo-Christian values’

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump dove into America’s culture wars on Friday, touting his administration for “returning moral clarity to our view of the world” and ending “attacks on Judeo-Christian values.”

Trump, nine months into his presidency, has found it harder to get things done than the ease with which he made promises on the campaign trail, making speeches to adoring audiences like Friday’s in Washington key to boosting the President’s morale. And the audience at the Values Voter Summit, an annual socially conservative conference, didn’t fail to deliver.
“We are stopping cold the attacks on Judeo-Christian values,” Trump said to applause, before slamming people who don’t say “Merry Christmas.”
    “They don’t use the word Christmas because it is not politically correct,” Trump said, complaining that department stores will use red and Christmas decorations but say “Happy New Year.” “We’re saying Merry Christmas again.”
    The comment drew thunderous applause.
    Heated debates over the “War On Christmas” have raged for years, with many on the right complaining that political correctness has made it less acceptable to say Merry Christmas. Trump has seized on these feelings, regularly telling primarily religious audiences that his presidency has made it acceptable to “start saying Merry Christmas again.”
    “You go into a department store. When was the last time you saw ‘Merry Christmas?’ You don’t see it anymore,” Trump said on the campaign trail. “They want to be politically correct. If I’m president, you will see ‘Merry Christmas’ in department stores, believe me, believe me.”
    “America is a nation of believers and together we are strengthened and sustained by the power of prayer,” Trump said.

      Trump ends insurance subsidies for poor people

    This is not the first time Trump has addressed the group and initially he was not universally well received. Speaking before the group in 2015, Trump got booed when he referred to Sen. Marco Rubio, then a 2016 presidential candidate, a “clown.”
    Trump, facing difficultly in getting Congress to work with him on a host of issues, has focused more on his political base lately, catering to the conservative voters for vaulted him from reality TV star to President.
    The President needled Congress on Friday.
    “Congress forgot what their pledges are,” he said about health care, faulting them for requiring the Trump administration to take a “different route” on repealing Obamacare.
    Most recently, Trump rolled back an Obamacare rule that required employers to provide birth control coverage as part of their health insurances packages. Trump scraped that plan with a new rule that would exempt employers whose religious or moral beliefs conflict with providing contraceptive coverage.
    Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, heralded that decision, arguing that it showed Trump is committed to “undoing the anti-faith policies of the previous administration and restoring true religious freedom.”

    Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/13/politics/trump-values-voters-summit/index.html

    I Am Always Just Her

    Jacalyn Beales

    Before we became Real Friends, we’d sit around his living room and he would talk about his ex-girlfriend (the one he was still in love with) and he would never use her name (although I knew what it was). He’d always just say “her.”

    I didn’t even know the ex that well (I think we met at a party once — I remember someone told me she came from a really rich family in Northern California or something, and I think they only told me that as some basis for me to establish an immediate and superficial connection with her and I wondered if someone had told her about where I came from in an attempt of the same vein, so I immediately hated her), but the idea of someone referring to me as just “her” made want to tear out my esophagus.


    I think one of my biggest, most suppressed fears is the idea that nobody knows who I am. My Favorite Therapist, who I saw a couple years ago and never have/never will properly thank, told me this is because I have an irrational fear of being average and/or failing, and I have an irrational need for a very specific kind of attention. She strung together a bunch of stories I’d told her (Does anyone else wonder if their therapist talks about you? Sometimes I’ll tell mine things in hopes that she’ll talk to therapist about it — sometimes I really want to stump her with my problems, but it never happens, probably because I’m ) and she explained that the root of a lot of my problems (I would tell her one thing and she’d say “You know what this is called?” and I’d scream because I couldn’t believe there was something else to add to the list of things that were wrong with me, it was getting out of control) were these fears.

    You know how there’s that idea that the root of all fear is death? The root of all my fears is dying without anyone knowing who I am. At my most depressed, I was convinced nobody knew who I was. And it’s not like I didn’t have any friends or family who loved me — I am not a loner, I do not have trouble making friends, and I need to be surrounded by people or else spiders will crawl out of my eyes or something — but I had completely tricked myself into believing that I was always an afterthought. Like if any of the people who loved me had someone bring me up to them, they’d say something like: “Oh, yeah, her.” The idea of just being “” drove me insane.

    One of the of complaints about my White Girl Names article was that I didn’t make fun of my own name enough. But joke’s on you, you complete clowns, because this is actually the worst thing I could say about anyone:

    I abruptly stopped seeing My Favorite Therapist once my student health insurance stopped, so she never got around to telling me how I’m supposed to deal with this.


    After we transitioned from Real Friends to Not Friends, I saw on some form of social media that he had gotten dinner with two mutual friends of ours. Actually, I think someone sent me a photo of it without realizing that he and I were not on speaking terms anymore and therefore did not know that the actual sight of this photo would make me want to smash my phone screen into tiny little pieces and then swallow the shards in anger.

    I looked at the photo for an embarrassing amount of time and wondered if he now refers to me as “her.”

    Read more: https://thoughtcatalog.com/katie-mather/2017/10/i-am-always-just-her/

    ‘Toxic’ cars hit with new charge

    Image copyright Getty Images
    Image caption The T-Charge aims to cut pollution in the capital

    Drivers of older, more polluting vehicles will have to pay almost twice as much to drive in central London.

    Mayor Sadiq Khan’s £10 T-Charge, which mainly applies to diesel and petrol vehicles registered before 2006, has come into force.

    It covers the same area as the existing congestion charge zone, bumping up the cost to £21.50 for those affected.

    Opponents said the scheme would “disproportionately penalise London’s poorest drivers”.

    The measure is the latest attempt by Mr Khan to improve air quality in the capital and according to the mayor’s office, will affect 34,000 motorists a month.

    Speaking on the Today programme, Mr Khan said: “We’ve got a health crisis in London caused by the poor quality air.

    “Roughly speaking each year more than 9,000 Londoners die prematurely because of the poor quality air – children in our city whose lungs are underdeveloped, with adults who suffer from conditions such as asthma, dementia and strokes directly caused by poor quality air.”

    However, Simon Birkett, from the campaign group Clean Air London, does not believe the move goes far enough.

    “The Mayor has pledged in his manifesto to restore London’s air quality to legal and safe limits and that means he has to do a whole lot more.

    “We want him to take steps which are bigger, stronger an smarter.”

    Mr Khan has described the introduction of the T-Charges as “part of a package of measures” being undertaken.

    ‘Filthy air’

    Many people have taken to social media to express their views on the new levy.

    Daniel McGuiness said on Twitter: “T-Charge, it’s a start but there’s still a long way to go in tackling the public health emergency that is our filthy air. #CleanAir”

    While user David Smith said: “With the introduction of the new T-Charge, it’ll be the poorest who will be paying the most… again.”

    What is changing?

    Image copyright Dan Kitwood

    From Monday 23 October, there will be a £10 daily fee for those who drive more polluting vehicles in the congestion charging zone, on top of the existing £11.50 congestion charge.

    Vehicles that do not comply with the Euro IV exhaust standard must pay the charge.

    The standard defines emissions limits for cars, vans, buses, coaches and lorries. Most vehicles registered before 2006 are likely to exceed these limits.

    The zone will operate between 07:00 and 18:00, Monday to Friday.

    Find out if your car is affected with TfL’s T-Charge checker.

    The T-Charge is the first of a series of new rates being introduced in London.

    It is due to be replaced by a stricter Ultra-Low Emission Zone in 2020, although Mr Khan is consulting on bringing this forward to 2019.

    This will mean diesel cars registered before September 2015 and petrol cars registered before 2006 will face a £12.50 charge in addition to the £11.50 congestion charge.

    The mayor hopes to expand the area covered for cars and vans up to the North and South Circular roads in 2021.

    City authorities in Birmingham, Leeds, Southampton, Derby and Nottingham have also been advised to impose charges for some polluting diesel vehicles by 2020, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said.

    To tackle air pollution, Oxford City Council and Oxfordshire County Council proposed a ban on petrol and diesel cars from travelling in the city from 2020.

    Paris, Grenoble and Lyon introduced an emission sticker scheme in January which splits vehicles into six different groups depending on their Euro Emissions standard.

    Vehicles deemed too polluting – which includes petrol and diesel-powered cars registered before 1997 – are not granted a sticker, banning them from driving in the city during certain times.

    Image copyright GLA
    Image caption The mayor has launched a poster campaign to highlight pollution

    ‘Toxic’ cars hit with new charge

    Sue Terpilowski, from the Federation of Small Businesses, said: “The introduction of the T-Charge comes at a time when small and micro-businesses in London are already facing astonishingly high property, employment and logistics costs.

    “There is a fear that this will be the final straw that closes businesses and takes jobs.”

    Shaun Bailey, conservative environment spokesman at the London Assembly, said: “As an asthmatic I’m well aware of how critical an issue this is for London but we need policies that actually deliver progress.

    “By boasting about a policy that so disproportionately penalises London’s poorest drivers and puts jobs at risk, the mayor is simply blowing more smoke into the capital’s already-polluted atmosphere.”

    Friends of the Earth air pollution campaigner Jenny Bates said: “Clearly the last thing individuals want is a new charge for moving around, but the grim reality is that nearly 10,000 early deaths are caused in London each year by the capital’s toxic air, so the Mayor is right to try to dissuade drivers bringing the oldest, dirtiest vehicles into central London.

    “It’s only one small step towards clean air though – we urgently need a programme of meaningful financial assistance to help drivers of the dirtiest vehicles switch to something cleaner, and bold policies to cut traffic over all.”

    The mayor is also seeking new powers to ban wood burning in the most polluted areas of the capital.

    When asked if wood-burning stoves would be banned entirely, Mr Khan told the Today programme the problem was with the material that was being burnt and a lack of maintenance rather than the stoves themselves.

    What questions do you have about the T-charge? Use the form below and we could be in touch.

    If you are reading this page on the BBC News app, you will need to visit the mobile version of the BBC website to submit your suggestion.

    Get news from the BBC in your inbox, each weekday morning

    Related Topics

    Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41695116

    5 Ways The War On Drugs Has Always Been Racist As Hell

    Sometimes drugs can ruin lives, and sometimes they’re simply a fun Friday night. It’s a complicated subject, and we’re not going to take a side. We will, however, point out that a lot of so-called anti-drug efforts which authorities have put together over the years have mostly been excuses to harass minorities. We’re talking about how …


    White Employers Got Black Employees To Use Cocaine, Then Panicked About It

    Cocaine used to be just another food additive which could be found in everything from children’s pain medication to pop. You’d think its 1914 ban would’ve come down to “Holy shit, we’re putting cocaine in everything, what the hell were we thinking? It must have been all the … oh.” But while people were aware of the dangers of cocaine abuse among middle- and upper-class white Americans, that’s not why it was banned. Instead, lawmakers were driven by the early 20th century equivalent of a racist chain email from your grandpa. There were stories of black Americans supposedly abusing cocaine, gaining superhuman strength, and using that strength to attack white men and sexually assault white women.

    Wiki Commons
    Using up precious cocaine earmarked for white children.

    If you’re wondering what happened to the “black people gain drug-based superpowers and use them to commit crime” chapter of your history book, then obvious spoiler alert: It wasn’t really happening. What was happening was that cocaine use among black laborers was widespread. Its recreational use was tolerated, and sometimes white employers were explicitly giving it to their workers, in both cases because they believed it would make the employees work harder. We, uh … we used to be pretty dumb when it came to drugs.

    Somehow, the “let’s give our workers coke” strategy backfired, as ridiculous stories began to spread. In 1914, The New York Times ran an article claiming that “most of the attacks upon white women of the South are the direct result of the ‘cocaine-crazed’ Negro brain” and “Negro cocaine fiends are now a known Southern menace.” While “Negro Cocaine Fiends” would be a great ironic album title, there was, shockingly, no evidence of crazed black people running wild.

    While widespread use of cocaine probably wasn’t great for anyone’s disposition, “news” reports claimed that cocaine made black men hallucinate taunts and abuse, as well as gain incredible accuracy with guns and immunity to bullet wounds which would stop or kill a sober man. Holy shit! Why wasn’t cocaine being used in secret supersoldier projects? Oh, right, because it was all bullshit. But the 1914 ban was passed anyway thanks to those myths, and not out of fact-based concerns about the health risks of cocaine. (Because white people could handle their coke, goddammit!)

    If you want a silver lining, the ban largely put a stop to lynchings of black men based on the “We think he’s high on coke, so he probably raped someone or whatever” clause. It also, uh, fueled nasty, often lethal stereotypes about impoverished minorities and drugs for decades to come, but that’s something, right?


    Banning Alcohol From Native American Reservations Has Its Roots In A Myth That They’re Genetically Unable To Handle Booze

    Yeah, there’s a running trend of white people thinking other people react differently to intoxicating substances. You may have heard the still-prevalent idea that the genes of Native Americans make them biologically prone to alcohol abuse. Supposedly, when Europeans introduced Natives to alcohol, their bodies didn’t know how to handle it and a tremendous cultural struggle with alcoholism ensued. No sir, it wasn’t the depression and trauma of watching their friends and family die while their culture and lifestyle were extinguished which contributed to alcohol abuse — it was biology! Not whitey’s fault, so deal with it.

    William Faden
    “After all, they did trade Manhattan for four six-packs.”

    It is true that Native Americans experience problems with alcohol … at a rate equal to white people. But thanks to stereotypes, we tend to view alcoholism among Natives as a moral failing endemic to their culture, while an alcoholic white guy is some dude with a problem who doesn’t reflect on other white people. Natives do experience more alcohol-related health problems than whites, but that’s because as a group, they have inferior access to healthcare, healthy food, etc. — a problem which is a subject for a future wacky comedy article.

    For governing whites, prohibition laws on Native reservations were seen as a quick and easy way to address alcoholism. Natives can’t handle their booze, so cut them off and punish those who try to keep drinking. But Natives tended to see prohibition as white people trying to force a solution on them … to address a problem which they also forced on them. It’s like if someone smashed your car window and then took away your driver’s license because they said you were a bad driver for letting your window get smashed.

    But even if the root causes are horrible stereotypes, prohibition is still meant to help, right? It’s certainly an improvement from the days when laws against selling booze to Natives were lifted so settlers could turn a tidy profit from alcohol abuse. But “meant” is the keyword there. If you treat Native American alcohol abuse as a unique and more desperate problem than it is among other people, you create brand-new problems. Stereotypes about Natives and alcoholism can make them too embarrassed to seek medical treatment, and it can also lead to Natives who have never touched a drink in their lives getting rejected from jobs. Hey, do you think those kind of bullshit economic punishments might contribute to alcohol abuse?

    Also, a total ban on alcohol leads to people getting arrested for possession of a single beer, even though the stigma of having a criminal record is going to do someone more harm than one can of Bud Light. In one especially depressing incident, one cousin stabbed another to death over a bottle of beer, which A) might not have happened if beer wasn’t illegal, and B) is a clear sign that prohibition isn’t working. Could the truly atrocious living conditions on many reservations be contributing to incidents like that? Nah, they probably just can’t handle their firewater, right?


    America’s War Against Opium Was Fueled By The Fear Of Race-Mixing

    Another trend in antique drug laws is a baseless belief that minorities were stealing away white women and enabling the heinous crime of race-mixing (and implicitly, the equally heinous crime of white women not having sex with racist white dudes, even though they were totally nice guys who had their best interests at heart). Exhibit #317-B is San Francisco circa 1875, when Chinese immigrants, mostly railroad and mine workers, liked to unwind after a long day on the job by smoking opium. Hey, we’ve all been there.

    The Bancroft Library
    “Mondays, right?”

    White locals accused the Chinese of taking jobs from them during a rough economic downturn (technically true, but they were performing dangerous labor for shit pay, which is the kind of job that white locals tend to turn down or not even be offered). That complaint somehow morphed into accusations that opium dens were “girl traps.” The Chinese supposedly lured white women and teens into their dens with opium-laced candy and other treats until they were addicted and willing to have sex for more, which maybe says more about the people dreaming up such accusations than anything else.

    So San Francisco outlawed opium smoking in 1875. But this was a nationwide belief. In New York City in 1883, a local worrywart set up surveillance teams to keep an eye on suspected opium dens which were supposedly corrupting white women. Tellingly, this surveillance was done by people from other neighborhoods, as most local whites didn’t have an issue with their Chinese neighbors. But they called the police whenever they suspected a stranger’s vagina was in peril, and a series of raids uncovered … a 19-year-old woman. Singular. Who didn’t appear to be an addicted sex slave. Claims that girls as young as ten were escaping before the police showed up were unproven, probably because they were super-duper made up.

    But troublesome “facts” didn’t stop people from declaring that “hundreds of American girls” were becoming “associates and then slaves of the Mongolian” (old-timey racists weren’t big on demographic accuracy). So by 1909, Congress had made opium smoking, and only smoking, illegal nationwide. Drinking and injecting tinctures — how white Americans liked their medicinal and recreational opium — was still totally cool for a while, presumably as long as you pinky swore not to seduce dozens of sex slaves with the contents of your medicine cabinet.


    Alcohol Prohibition Was An Anti-Immigrant And Anti-Black Panic

    Prohibition and the events leading up to it had all sorts of complex causes. But one of those causes was a bunch of tedious people getting together to complain about immigrants — specifically the still-viewed-as-extremely-anti-American Germans and Irish and their love of beer. Because when history is at its worst, the masses are swayed to the side of the people complaining about beer instead of enjoying it.

    In 1855 Chicago, the mayor and his followers were concerned about the influence of foreigners who took jobs and pledged spiritual allegiance to one of the most dastardly villains in history: the Pope. Gasp! They were especially distrusting of Irish and German immigrants, who liked to hit the pub on Sunday, their one day off. The Chicago Tribune called Irish Catholics “depraved, worthless and irredeemable drunkards and sots which curse the community.” We’re assuming that “sot” was a harsh burn back then.

    So Chicago dusted off an old law which required taverns to be closed on Sunday … but only enforced it in immigrant communities. Chicago also sextupled the price of an annual liquor license to $300 (about 7,800 modern dollars) to try to drive immigrant bars out of business. 200 tavern owners were brought up on charges, and when the first one went to trial, there were massive protests, because you don’t fuck with a 19th century working man’s booze. One protester was killed, the mayor’s political career tanked, and the laws were eventually repealed, but it wasn’t the end of anti-letting-immigrants-drink sentiment.

    The Prohibition movement was in full swing during World War I, and as you hopefully remember from history class, Germany was on team Not America. So Prohibitionist propaganda linked beer and brewing with Germany, and therefore treason. Prohibitionists also connected drinking with the Irish and other immigrants, with one congressman calling foreign drinkers the “degenerate vote” which “overwhelmed the liberties of free people” and were a “menace to our institutions.” Irish Americans were accused of being unpatriotic if they opposed Prohibition or the war, which silenced dissent.

    Meanwhile, in the South, “colored only” saloons were declared “centers of vice, schools of iniquity, and hot-beds of crime.” Prohibitionists dressed the movement up as concern for those poor black people who were spending all their money and “[feeding] their animalism,” but they also accused black saloons of threatening the safety of white women and children. Because who knew what those dastardly blacks were planning when whites couldn’t keep an eye on them?

    Again, Prohibition was complicated, but to some proponents, taking away one of the joys of minorities while making them less scary to the sort of people who wring their hands a lot was a big plus. One Southern Prohibitionist even argued that getting rid of saloons could prevent a race war and keep black Americans from rampaging through the streets, because ready access to alcohol was obviously the only reason black Southerners might get mad at white Southerners.


    Numerous Government Officials Have Confirmed That Laws Against Drugs Are Based On Race

    So far we’ve only given you historical examples, but you know what they say about history repeating itself to screw over minorities. Here, for example, is a 2015 interview with a former DEA agent who says they were told not to target drug sellers and users in rich areas, even though drugs are as prevalent there as anywhere else. The reasoning was that rich (read: mostly white) people have connections to lawyers, politicians, and judges who could make life a living hell for the DEA, while people in poorer areas (read: generally nonwhite people) wouldn’t be able to fight back.

    You can find comments like that throughout American history. In the ’30s, Harry Anslinger, one of the big shots behind cannabis laws, said, “Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men,” and, “There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others.” It’s admittedly kind of refreshing to hear someone be openly racist instead of trying to dress it up as being “for their own good,” although it sounds like Mrs. Anslinger probably had an unsatisfying marriage.

    Ironic, considering her husband was named “Anslinger.”

    Now let’s skip through time to a 2016 article on a 1994 talk with John Ehrlichman, one of Nixon’s top advisors and a Watergate jailbird. He told Harper’s, “The Nixon White House had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people … We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” He then presumably twirled his mustache and demanded one billion dollars, or else he would melt the ice caps.

    The Nixon administration’s official line was that they were responding to a heroin epidemic and an uptick in the smoking of jazz cigarettes, as we believe the cool kids still call weed. And to be fair, several of Ehrlichman’s children and colleagues called bullshit on his statements, suggesting he either never said them or was being sarcastic (the writer who talked to Ehrilchman thinks he was serious and trying to atone). Nixon did establish drug education and addiction treatment programs, but also signed off on no-knock searches and is on record as referring to black Americans as “little Negro bastards” who “live like a bunch of dogs.” Again, drugs are complicated. You’re welcome to draw your own conclusions.

    But while you’re reaching those conclusions, keep in mind that the drug war is incarcerating African American men at a rate about four times worse than black South Africans were during apartheid. Oh, and thanks to drug laws, there are more black men in the prison system than there were black men enslaved in 1850. So … maybe a change in strategy is in order here.

    Mark is on Twitter and has a book.

    If you loved this article and want more content like this, support our site with a visit to our Contribution Page.

    Also check out 6 Stories That Prove U.S. Drug Enforcement Agents Are Insane and 6 Drug Busts That Went Embarrassingly Wrong.

    Subscribe to our YouTube channel, and check out Everything You Know About Heroin Addiction Is Wrong, and watch other videos you won’t see on the site!

    Follow our new Pictofacts Facebook page, and we’ll follow you everywhere.

    Catch a faceful of funny on Thursday, October 19 at The Cracked Stand Up Show, hosted by Alex Schmidt and featuring Soren Bowie, Eddie Della Siepe, Joel Samataro, Riley Silverman, and Barbara Gray. Get your tickets here.

    Read more: http://www.cracked.com/article_25139_5-ways-war-drugs-has-always-been-racist-as-hell.html

    Having A High IQ Puts You More At Risk Of Mental Illness, Study Finds

    If you look at television shows featuring a genius you very quickly see a pattern emerge. Hugh Laurie’s TV-doctor, House, is a medical genius but struggles with severe depression as well as a messiah complex. Sherlock Holmes can solve any case, but has many addictions and may just be a sociopath. Countless TV shows, films, and books all peddle the idea that highly intelligent people are prone to mental illness.

    However, the stereotype of tortured genius may now have gained some more scientific backing to it, after a new study has found that people with high IQs are more at risk of developing mental illness than the rest of the population.

    The study, published in Science Direct, looked at Mensa members with an IQ of over 130 and found that “those with high intelligence are at significantly greater risk for the examined psychological disorders and physiological diseases.”

    The study found that anxiety disorders were particularly prevalent amongst the 3,715 members of American Mensa they surveyed. Of these members, 20 percent had a diagnosed anxiety disorder, much higher than in the general population, where just over 10 percent are diagnosed with anxiety disorders.

    The researchers used a model that suggests intelligent people with “hyper brains” react more to environmental stimulus, and “that may predispose them to certain psychological disorders as well as physiological conditions involving elevated sensory and altered immune and inflammatory responses”. Science Direct.

    The study suggested that due to increased levels of awareness experienced by people with higher IQs, they react more to stimulus from the environment, creating a hyper brain/hyper body scenario, where they display a hyperactive central nervous system.

    Tiny stimuli, such as a clothing tag brushing against you or a strange sound can even “trigger a low level, chronic stress response which then activates a hyper body response,” Dr. Nicole Tetreault, co-author of the study, told Thriveworks, which could explain why people with high IQs are more likely to suffer a heightened state of anxiety.

    “Unique intensities and over-excitabilities [..] can be at once both remarkable and disabling on many levels,” the authors wrote in the study. “A significant portion of these individuals are suffering on a daily basis as a result of their unique emotional and physical over-excitabilities.”

    The authors stressed that their study showed correlation and not causation, and called for further investigation into this at-risk sector of the population, and more focus on the mental health of people with high levels of intelligence.

    “Intelligence research most often focuses on the flashes of lightning seen in this rare population, however in order to serve this group of individuals fully we must not neglect to acknowledge the rumbles of thunder that follow in the wake of their brilliance,” they conclude.

    Read more: http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/having-a-higher-iq-puts-you-more-at-risk-of-mental-illness-study-finds/

    Kris Jenner’s Latest Venture Is Her Best Idea Yet

    Kris Jenner officiated a wedding this weekend, meaning the median cost of a wedding these days just went up by like $100k. TBH, this is a brilliant beyond brilliant business decision. Not that we’d expect anything less from the woman who turned her daughter’s sex tape into an empire. She could probably charge as much as one of Khloé’s 1Oak appearances for reading a paragraph and fake crying. How much would you pay for Kris Jenner to say to you, after you’ve walked down the aisle, “You’re doing amazing sweetie?” Take my money now.

    The wedding was for two people you’ve probably never heard of unless you’re a teenager or some shit: Colton Haynes from and Jeff Leatham, the artistic director of the Four Seasons. Idk about these two, but Kris isn’t exactly the patron saint of successful marriages. Between her two divorces, her affair, and her situationship with Corey Gamble, it doesn’t seem like her blessing means a whole lot. 

    But what is a Kris Jenner wedding like? I’ve seen her plan a wedding in 12 days and have her wedding suggestions ignored because Kanye doesn’t like her taste, but how does Kris “It’s An Emergency: We Don’t Have A Wine Opener” Jenner officiate a wedding?

    Obvi the only way to envision this was to re-write traditional vows with a Kris flair. Feel free to use them at your own wedding:

    I, Colton Haynes, take you Jeff Leatham, to be my lawfully wedded—so don’t pull a Kris Humphries and try to get an annulment 72 days from now—husband.

    To have and to hold, with an airtight prenup, from this day forward. Until I file for divorce or you give a tell-all interview to . 

    For better (a September cover), for worse (an overdose in a Las Vegas brothel).

    For richer ($500,000 per Instagram post), for poorer (the annual sales of the Arthur George sock line).

    In sickness (post-face lift) and in health (during a FitTea detox).

    Until death, or separate homes in Calabasas, do us part. 



    Read more: http://www.betches.com/kris-jenner-officiates-wedding