Emotional Hardbody Answers

Emotional Hardbody Answers: Going round and round over ring leaves fiancé feeling not so rosy

Dear Emotional Hardbody,

In September, I’m marrying the man of my dreams and couldn’t be happier. But there is one issue that is causing our wedding bells to chime slightly off key. My fiancé does not want to wear a wedding ring.

It’s not that I don’t trust him, but I do think wearing a wedding ring is an important symbol of one’s commitment. When married people don’t wear rings, I think it raises eyebrows and questions. I get that wearing a ring might seem uncomfortable to someone who isn’t the jewelry type — which he isn’t — but I don’t think it’s too much to ask.

We’ve been round and round on this issue, and can’t seem to reach an agreement. Help?

Signed,

Going around in Circles

Dear Circles,

This may be your first marriage-related difference of opinion, but I promise you it won’t be your last.

Issues of opposing desires tend to come up now and then over the course of any long-term relationship. It’s helpful to have a framework to solve these impasses. That’s why I created the heartburn-saving game called "Have to/Want to/Don’t Care." (Trademark pending.) Think of this game as rock-paper-scissors: the couple's edition.

When it comes to opposing desires, the positions can usually be categorized in one of three ways: principled objection, strong desire or indifference. Under the game of Have to/Want to/Don’t Care, the hierarchy of opposing desires shakes out like this: a principled objection to something trumps a strong desire for something. And a strong desire for something trumps indifference to something.

Consider, for example, Andrea and Jack who are planning a trip to Los Angeles. Jack has never been to L.A., but he’s heard about the Beverly Hills Hotel and really wants to stay there. Andrea, however, doesn’t want to stay there because of the hotel owner's controversial connections to the Brunei government which recently passed laws that are anti-LGBT and anti-women. Even though Jack has a strong desire to stay at the Beverly Hills Hotel, Andrea’s principled objection to doing so wins. If, on the other hand, Andrea doesn’t really care where they stay, but prefers Hilton properties because that’s where she earns points, Jack’s strong desire would win over Andrea’s indifference.

You and your fiancé need to figure out how deep his opposition to wearing a ring runs. If there is a principle at stake for him, that trumps your strong desire for him to wear a ring. But if it’s more a case of him not caring about rings, that counts as indifference, and maybe he will consider wearing one if he knows it’s important to you.

Regardless of who wins at Have to/Want to/Don’t Care, you must also consider the "my body, my decision" rule. When it comes to whether someone should or should not wear something, it’s up to the individual who would be doing the wearing to decide. (The only exceptions to this rule are the wearing of cargo shorts, ankle bracelets, fanny packs and jorts.) Under this rule, just as it would not be your fiancé’s place to tell you not to wear a ring, it isn't your place to tell him he should. That means if your fiancé ultimately decides he does not want to wear a ring, it is his prerogative.

But while it is your partner's decision whether to wear a ring, it is up to you to decide how important it is to you to have a husband who does so. Maybe this tradition is so important to you that you would not want to marry a man who does not share your same view. Then again, maybe you’d be okay with marrying someone who doesn't share your commitment to this tradition, as long as he is still willing to go along with wearing a ring, anyway. And, of course, you may decide that in the grand scheme of things, this is not that big of a deal.

Before you finalize any more wedding details, you and your fiancé need to play a round or two of Have to/Want to/Don’t Care. Once you’ve done that, you’ll be in a position to decide whether the ring (and the wedding) are on or off. But if he holds firm to his objection to wearing a ring and you marry him anyway, you must vow to forever hold your peace on this issue — and then keep that promise.

Good luck!

Emotional Hardbody

unspecified

Genie Is Out of The Bottle

Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick starts quest to ban all forms of THC

The THC limit in medical cannabis products is also increasing.

Photo courtesy of TOCC

A ban on THC would not be popular.

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick is launching a quixotic quest to ban legal THC: According to a release, Patrick is pushing legislation that would ban all forms of consumable Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) from being sold in Texas.

He's promoting Senate Bill 3, which would be carried by Sen. Charles Perry, R-Lubbock, and would ban all forms of THC.

Patrick is unhappy with House Bill 1325, introduced by Rep. Tracy King, D-Uvalde, to bolster agriculture in Texas. It was passed by the Texas Legislature in 2019.

Part of that bill allowed for the commercialization of hemp, which included un-removable non-intoxicating trace amounts of Delta 9 THC.

“Dangerously, retailers exploited the agriculture law to sell life-threatening, unregulated forms of THC to the public and made them easily accessible," Patrick says in his release. "These stores not only sold to adults, but they targeted Texas children and exposed them to dangerous levels of THC."

"Since 2023, thousands of stores selling hazardous THC products have popped up in communities across the state, and many sell products, including beverages, that have three to four times the THC content which might be found in marijuana purchased from a drug dealer," he says.

It seems like the genie is out of the bottle: According to the Baker Institute, hemp in Texas is booming: From 2020 to 2023, sales of hemp-derived cannabinoids increased by 1283 percent, reaching a value of $2.78 billion last year.

And efforts to reel it back in are basically doomed, they say.

"While prohibition may seem like the simplest response, it is almost certain to fail — both in eliminating widespread access to hemp-derived cannabinoids and in protecting the public," they say.

"As of April 2024, Texas had over 7,000 registered hemp dispensaries," they note. "More than 50,000 Texans are estimated to be employed through the hemp sector. A state ban would ruin this industry, but it would not reduce consumer demand for hemp-derived cannabinoids. Instead, consumers would turn to the illicit hemp market that would inevitably form in the wake of state prohibition. Products sold today in state-registered shops would still be available through underground supply networks that would reap billions in tax-free profits."

They say that "a broad ban, even a poorly enforced one, would harm consumers more than the state’s current system."

Meanwhile voters are supporting marijuana decriminalization efforts such as the one recently approved by the city of Dallas, as well as Austin, Denton, Elgin, Killeen, and San Marcos.

Catina Voellinger, Executive Director of Ground Game Texas, a Texas group that has been advocating for decriminalization of marijuana, says in a statement that the legislation would turn back the clock to a more repressive time.

“Instead of banning THC, lawmakers should focus on legalizing marijuana statewide, which would allow for cannabis to be safely regulated, and would prevent countless residents from being harmed by unnecessary arrests and prosecutions for possessing something that is already legal in 24 states," Voellinger says. "We’ve seen repeatedly that this is what Texans want – our marijuana decriminalization ballot initiatives in Dallas, Lockhart, and Bastrop won overwhelmingly this November.”

Daryoush Austin Zamhariri, Executive Director of Texas Cannabis Collective, a group working to change cannabis laws, calls Patrick's endorsement of legislation that would ban all consumable THC products in Texas "tremendously out of step with the overwhelming majority of Texans."

"Poll after poll has shown the citizens of Texas support legalizing cannabis and ending the failed policy of cannabis prohibition," Zamhariri says. "These attitudes have manifested in several campaigns to progressively decriminalize marijuana possession in cities across the state with bipartisan super majority votes through local ballot initiatives. We oppose SB 3 and look forward to working with our coalition partners at the 89th Legislature to bring common sense cannabis reform to the entirety of Texas.”

marijuana politics cbd cannabis