Author's Note: although Jesus never specifically condemned it, I think wearing snow boots with your mini skirt after Easter is a sin. But that's just my holistic interpretation of the Scriptures. What's true for this author may not be true for you.
I have an old friend named Don who graduated from college twenty years ago. He has tried every get rich scheme in an effort to retire early and enjoy the good life. Now that he's in his forties and has nothing to show for it, he's decided to take the biggest shortcut in life: he's joined the Democratic Party.
Don started smoking pot every day in college. Unlike most pot smokers he never grew out of it. So he suffered the side effects of pot including laziness and inattention to personal hygiene. These are among the reasons none of his get rich schemes worked. In every business venture, no matter how temporary, one must be on time, responsive, and well kempt. Pot interferes with all of these objectives.
Daily pot use led him to failure, which, in turn, led him to liberalism as a means of rationalizing his personal failure. In 2009, Don came by my office to discuss the TARP bailout. I told him why I opposed the bailout in principal and in accordance with my concerns over its long term economic consequences. Don told me we needed TARP because ultimately the government had to take over the banking industry. He spoke of the evils of greed, insider trading, and crony capitalism. It's the kind of thing I heard every day in academia. So I just changed the subject.
Failure in business can cause someone like Don to jump ship and become an economic liberal. The motivation for that switch is obvious. Desperate people crave handouts. But at some point the former conservative who joins the Democratic Party must make peace with the radical social policies of the Democratic Party. For a while, I’ve wondered how Don would make that transition. Last week, I found out when he decided to show up after four years of silence and bomb my Facebook page. That's why I love Facebook. It's been reuniting me with psycho ex-girlfriends and frenemies for years.
Don the ex-con (that's short for ex conservative) went right to one of my status updates, which criticized the homosexual rights movement. In addition to a few personal insults, he left a comment I am hearing with increasing frequency from the so-called Christian Left. He said "Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. EVER!" And so we are supposed to assume that anything Jesus was not recorded as saying in the Bible is fair game.
First, as a matter of clarification, Jesus did condemn homosexuality. In the first chapter of Romans, homosexuality is very specifically condemned. That book was written by the Apostle Paul. But those weren't his words. He was speaking the word of God. And Jesus is God. So the words belong to Him. Second, and perhaps more importantly, things may not have been mentioned by Jesus because they were obviously wrong, not because they were right. Furthermore, consider the ramifications of assuming that things Jesus never specifically mentions are therefore permissible:
Jesus never mentioned child pornography. Does that mean it is moral and therefore fair game?
Jesus never mentioned female genital mutilation. Does that mean it is moral and therefore fair game?
Jesus never mentioned insider trading. Does that mean it is moral and therefore fair game?
And, finally, Jesus never said anything about smoking pot every day, mooching off your wife, and bombing your friends’ Facebook pages while they are at work trying to earn a living. But decent people know some things just aren't right. In fact, they are downright left.
When Don wakes up, lights another bowl, and logs onto Facebook he's going to realize it was imprudent to pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel. And he'll likely offer another inane liberal rebuttal to my well-reasoned remarks. When he does, I'll be sure to write a follow-up. It's how I earn my living and avoid government handouts.
Marijuana is the most commonly abused illicit drug in the United States. It is a dry, shredded green and brown mix of flowers, stems, seeds, and leaves derived from the hemp plant Cannabis sativa. The main active chemical in marijuana is delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC for short.
Not surprisingly, marijuana intoxication can cause distorted perceptions, impaired coordination, difficulty with thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory.
A number of studies have shown an association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, and schizophrenia.
Marijuana increases heart rate by 20-100 percent shortly after smoking; this effect can last up to 3 hours. In one study, it was estimated that marijuana users have a 4.8-fold increase in the risk of heart attack in the first hour after smoking the drug. This may be due to increased heart rate as well as the effects of marijuana on heart rhythms, causing palpitations and arrhythmias. This risk may be greater in aging populations or in those with cardiac vulnerabilities.
Pot fans got what they wanted in Colorado: they finally convinced voters there to support the legalization of “recreational marijuana.” It’s seen as a huge victory for those who support the powers of the individual states, and a great example of “federalism” in action. But who is considering the burden of all of this on the American taxpayer?
Before I go further, let me be clear: I have never in my entire life consumed marijuana. When I was a kid I was out of step with my peers on this, but I’ve just never been interested in “trying it,” and that’s still true today.
Secondly, I’m quite open to the idea that, as a substance, “cannabis” has value. The “hemp” fibers of the plant can clearly serve a variety of industrial purposes – people have been using it to make rope for years, and I own a wallet made from hemp (and my wallet “works” just fine).
There also may be medicinal values in the substance of “marijuana.” But when an individual state simply says “forget the feds, we’re legalizing it,” the state sets in motion a pattern of legal, administrative, and law enforcement chaos-and the already beaten-down American taxpayer ends up saddled with even more expenses and debts.
Consider how California began its “pot journey.” Voters there passed the “Compassionate Use Act of 1996” (commonly known as “Proposition 215”), a ballot proposition that was to allow marijuana consumption “for medicinal purposes” only. And the whole idea was sold to voters under the guise of “compassion”- you wouldn’t want somebody to suffer without their medicine, now would you?
When California voters said “yes” to medical marijuana, the next question from the government was “how do we give it to them?” It’s still illegal at the federal level, so it’s not like Californians could simply stock pot at the pharmacy, where all the legal medicines are sold. So California had to put together its own means of growing, harvesting, selling, and distributing pot.
This required the California legislators to spend taxpayer money legislating a new “Medical Marijuana Program.” After years of tinkering with legislative attempts, and making amendments, and facing threats of vetoes by former Republican Governor Pete Wilson back in the late 90’s, the California legislature finally found a friend in Democrat Governor Gray Davis, and in 2003 the state passed and began implementing the California “Medical Marijuana Program Act.” The state began hiring more government employees to administrate the new pot infrastructure program, and then began mandating to individual counties and cities that they acquiesce –and all of this was done at taxpayer expense.
Then, two politically “conservative” regions of California – San Bernardino County and San Diego County-refused to implement the new pot program. So the state government sued the two counties, and the counties put their Attorneys to work to defend them against the state. And this ended in a decision at the California State Supreme Court that determined that the counties had to do what the state told them to do with the pot shops – and all of this cost taxpayers lots of money.
By this time, cities and counties all over California began realizing that they had no choice – they had to allow for “medical pot shops.” So the elected lawmakers in the city and county governments began asking their city and county Attorneys “how do we establish zoning laws for the pot shops? Should pot shops be allowed near schools or shopping malls? Should we try to keep them away from kids? If we restrict the hours of operation for the pot shops, will we still be in compliance with the state mandates?” This consumed lots of “man hours,” required lots of professional expertise and input – and it was all done at taxpayer expense.
California’s legal, administrative, and law enforcement chaos hasn’t been confined by its borders- there have been plenty of confrontations with federal authorities along the way as well. With “medical pot” being the law of the land in California, law enforcement agencies and courts are put in a bind: they can enforce and uphold federal law on pot, or they can enforce and uphold state law on pot, but they can’t do both because the state and federal law is on conflict.
During the Clinton presidency, the federal government was mostly “hands off” with California’s medical marijuana efforts. As the program began to unfold, the Bush Administration was more inclined towards intervention.
The Obama Administration began on a note of tolerance with medical marijuana in California, but within a couple of years Attorney General Eric Holder was issuing warnings about the issue being inadequately regulated, and the various U.S. Attorney’s offices in California have initiated a variety of “probes” and “investigations” – all of which have cost lots of taxpayer dollars.
Pot lovers are passionate about their drug of choice, and will say just about anything to try and legitimize it. The argument starts over “medicinal pot,” but the end goal around the country is what Colorado got: legalized recreational pot. “Let’s treat it just like alcohol,” the reasoning goes, “legalize it, then regulate it, then tax it.”
But it’s not “just like alcohol,” at the individual state level. Pot is still highly illegal under federal law, and multiple layers of federal bureaucracies and multiple federal agencies with lots of career governmental employees have a vested interest in keeping it illegal.
So good luck, Colorado. But beware in the other 49: trying to defy the feds over pot unleashes legal, administrative, and law enforcement chaos – and almost nobody is trying to safeguard the taxpayer in the midst of it all.
Author's Note: although Jesus never specifically condemned it, I think wearing snow boots with your mini skirt after Easter is a sin. But that's just my holistic interpretation of the Scriptures. What's true for this author may not be true for you.
