Dissenting Opinions Matter

I couldn't help but comment on the most recent freedom of speech controversy at my alma mater and the newspaper I used to be editor-in-chief of.  So I had to submit my humble opinion, which is here: http://wesleyanargus.com/2015/09/23/dissenting-opinions-matter/

I've also pasted it below, as the Argus website appeared to have a few minor spacing glitches.  Also, the picture I put here is one that was taken during a party in the Argus office back in the day.  I found it in my archives.  And yes, I'm wearing an Argus headband.  Ballin.

SUBMITTED ARGUS "WESPEAK" FOLLOWS:

It was Fall 2003 and I was a freshman at Wesleyan. Having grown tired of seeing pro-choice posters plastered all over the place, I decided to put a pro-life sign on the door of my dorm room. I checked with my roommate first, of course, and he was pro-life and didn't really care what I put on the door. So I put it up. Later that night, I was sitting in the bathroom stall and I heard yelling from across the hall.
“Make him take it down!” said the girl who lived in the dorm room next to me. I immediately knew what the discussion was about.
“I can't make him take it down!” my RA responded back, trying to keep his composure. “I don't agree with it either, but he's entitled to his opinion.”
The girl was crying and screaming now, and neither person involved in the conversation had any idea that I heard the whole thing. Her reasoning became more and more absurd, at one point suggesting, I kid you not, that I didn't have a right to that opinion because I was a man. At that point, my RA was starting to raise his voice too, and soon the girl left his room and the conversation was over.
The sign didn't stay on my door for very long. I found it torn into pieces later that week. I don't know who did it, nor do I care. But it's a sad day when people try to silence the opinions of others because they disagree with them.
There are folks on the opposite side of the political spectrum who are guilty of doing this same thing. For example, I know of so-called Christian Universities where students are not allowed to publicly speak out against and question the administration. One of these universities didn't allow interracial dating until the year 2000. It's amazing what can happen if we stifle free speech and impede discourse.
I was the editor-in-chief at the Argus for a semester, and in other editorial positions during other semesters, and we came across a similar problem then. The Argus published some Wespeaks that contained unpopular views, and was called Islamophobic, among other things. We published it because our policy then was not to publish personal attacks or hate speech (i.e. Let's do this violent act to this particular group of people), but anything else was open to discuss. People outside of the Argus office didn't know that a copy editor, who happened to be a Muslim, had read through one of the more controversial pieces before we published it, and while neither she nor most people in that room agreed with what was said, no one in that room seriously considered the idea that we shouldn't publish it.
So, flash forward to 2015, and there is now a petition signed by around 150 people at Wesleyan at the time I'm writing this, to defund the Argus because someone wrote a controversial opinion piece about Black Lives Matter. And one student who signed the petition was quoted in the Argus as saying that “publication of this opinion is a silent agreement with its content, and a silent agreement to the all too prevalent belief that black [and] brown people do not deserve a voice, and that we are not worthy of respect.” Does this person understand what the opinion section of a newspaper is for? How could anything published in it, outside of a call to violence against a group of people, possibly be indicative of an entire staff having such terrible beliefs (in this case, I don't even think the person who wrote that piece has the beliefs assumed in that quote)? When I, a political moderate, was editor-in-chief of one of the most Liberal newspapers in the country, I published many things that I did not agree with. Do you know that I even penned some of them myself? A useful but rare exercise is to write something in favor of an opinion that you disagree with. And in a tradition that I hope continues to this day, which sometimes resulted in that exercise, an Argus Staff editorial was written by one member of the Staff for each issue, and it had to be reflective of the Staff discussion about the issue that preceded it.
Let's take a look at the list of demands for the Argus in that petition, fit to be published in the joke issue (which I hope still exists). Include a work study/course credit position? The Argus used to do that, and it was great (I took the course), but they would presumably need funding for that restored in order to have it again. A monthly report on allocation of funds and leadership structure? Yeah, it's pretty much on a volunteer basis. The only semester I got paid was when I was editor-in-chief, and that was $500 total, which worked out to about $1 per hour. A Social Justice/Diversity training for all student publications? Yes, Wesleyan students getting more of that, in a required setting no less, is going to somehow make the Argus better. Excuse me while I go preach the Gospel to my Pastor. Active recruitment and advertisement? I'm pretty sure they do that. That's how you get on the Argus staff. The makeup of that staff is entirely dependent on who volunteers for it. And open space on the front page dedicated to marginalized groups/voice? I think they're probably still trying to run a legitimate newspaper there. You know, one where top news stories are on the front page and the opinions section is somewhere inside, though marginalized groups and voices are more than welcome to participate.
Or perhaps you can find a paragraph like this one in that section, where I can state some of my personal beliefs, which are bound to offend people. I agree with the Supreme Court's decision on Gay Marriage, and I disagree with the refusal of Kim Davis to step down from her position, despite the fact that I am a Christian who believes that Gay Marriage is against the Bible. We need separation of church and state, but we also need to allow those who dissent to voice their opinions, whether they are on the opposite side of the divisive (outside the Wesleyan bubble) issue of gay marriage, or against something, such as interracial marriage, that nearly everyone agrees with, as they should. We've come a long way as a nation, but we have a long way to go. I understand and agree with what many participants of Black Lives Matter are trying to accomplish, and I see why it upsets some folks when someone suggests replacing “Black” with “All” but I stand with Ben Carson, who instead suggests adding “All” in front of “Black” to include black lives snuffed out by abortion, as well as violence of any kind. And while we're defending marginalized groups, why not defend one group that is utterly voiceless and stand with “Roe” from Roe v. Wade, who now wants that landmark decision overturned? Instead of fighting to defund the Argus, let's fight to defund Planned Parenthood!
Let discourse ensue.

Quick Picks: Republican Candidates

The Top 11 candidates in the race for the Republican nomination and, in order from worst to best, how good of a choice each candidate would be to take on whoever the Democrats nominate (I'll do this for the Democrats after they have a debate, though that field is much less crowded and will make for a shorter post).  Brief two-sentence notes (with 15-day polling average from 2016.republican-candidates.org)...

11th (polling 1st), Donald Trump: To understate it, this would be a nightmare for Republicans.  He's a straight talker, and a lot of intelligent things come out of his mouth, but so do many, many terrible things that make most folks cringe.

10th (polling 3rd), Jeb Bush: His last name is Bush.  That is all.

9th (polling 7th), Mike Huckabee: Standing next to Kim Davis is not a good political move.  Or a good move in general, for any reason really.

8th (polling 8th), Scott Walker: A lot of people in Wisconsin don't like him very much, which is why he nearly got recalled.  It's hard to see a reason why he would do a better job in Washington, D.C.

7th (polling 6th), Ted Cruz: Conservative for sure, but to the point of extreme absurdity.  Polarizing and kind of creepy.

6th (polling 5th), Carly Fiorina: An intelligent and strong woman with strong views for sure, some of which I agree with, and others which I definitely do not.  She has little political experience, which would be fine if not for her checkered past in the careers she has chosen to pursue instead.

5th (polling 11th), John Kasich: I don't mind Kasich so much, and I like that he's not afraid to disagree with fellow Republicans on some issues, but I have a hard time seeing him having any chance of getting the nomination.  And his chances in the general election would be poor.

4th (polling 9th), Rand Paul: Paul is another one who's not afraid to disagree with others in his party on some issues, and he often seems to lean Libertarian.  Unfortunately, he has the feel of a failed Independent candidate.

3rd (polling 10th), Chris Christie: He's running despite a scandal that nearly derailed his campaign before in started.  But he's saying the right things, he's likable, and being a successful Republican in New Jersey has to count for something.

2nd (polling 4th), Marco Rubio: He's intelligent, he's done well in the debates, and many of his views make a great deal of sense.  But he's a bit awkward.

1st (polling 2nd), Ben Carson: Frankly, finding the best candidate for this job is not even close.  Ben Carson projects wisdom as well as love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (see what I did there?).

Because of the voter laws in Connecticut, as a registered Independent, I can't vote in the primaries, and I'm actually considering registering as a Republican just so I can vote for Ben Carson.

Off-fence-ive Walls

Liberals seem to hate walls.  When I was a student at Wesleyan, there was one area of campus in which the majority of laptop thefts occurred.  This area happened to be student housing that bordered low-income housing projects.  That's not to suggest that the residents in that area were responsible for all (or any) of the thefts (there was poor lighting there and easy escape routes), but when someone suggested building a wall between the two areas, all hell broke loose.  You see, the wall would represent something that was more than a wall.  It would represent class separation or a "stay out of OUR area" mentality.  It didn't matter that there were students at the University tutoring children in that bordering community.  All that mattered was that wall and its perceived symbolism.  And the thefts?  Those were an afterthought.  Surely a wall couldn't fix that problem.  Logical arguments have little value to people whose arguments are based almost entirely in emotion.

Roughly ten years later, here we are on a National scale trying to fix our illegal immigration problem, and Donald Trump's idea of immigration reform is building a wall along the entire southern border and deporting all of the illegal immigrants.  So in this case, the wall would not be merely be symbolic, but would be an actual way to keep "those people" out of "our area."  Really, it's not the wall part that's such a bad idea.  It's the part about deporting everyone who is here illegally.  That is an expensive and sometimes heartbreaking task, but it is also an unfruitful one because, as Ben Carson pointed out, unless we secure our borders first, it accomplishes nothing.

Carson's views on immigration may not be popular, inside or outside of the Republican party, but they make an awful lot of sense.  I would expect that coming from an intelligent, thoughtful, and humble candidate like himself.  We're not ignoring the fact that these illegal immigrants are breaking the law by being here, or by not paying taxes.  And we are not ignoring the fact that some (though not a majority, Mr. Trump) of them break other laws by acting violently and selling drugs (and those people need to be prosecuted and not allowed to live free in our land).  But we need to find some way to deal with those people who are here to work and make better lives for them and their families.  While I don't believe full amnesty is the answer, certainly finding ways for those who are here for the right reasons to be here legally is a good way to go.  Work visas, pathways to citizenship... These are some good ideas that need to be considered.  After all, we are a nation of immigrants.  But immigrants needs to come here legally and be subject to the same laws and taxes (and, once legal, benefits) as everyone else, just like my grandmother, when she came here from Italy in 1947, as well as now.

A related topic is that of refugees.  The United States is a nation that accepts refugees, but it is also a nation that needs to be sure that we are not letting murderous Islamic extremists into our borders.  That's the age we live in today.  That's how our greatest enemy operates.  This is not a discriminatory statement, but a fact.  Folks on the left and right need to sit down with each other and have a sensible discussion about immigration reform and stop pointing accusatory fingers at each other.  We need to come up with some real solutions.  The walls we've built between ourselves need to come down.  After all, Conservatives don't like all walls.  It was the greatest President of my lifetime who famously told Mr. Gorbachev to "Tear down this wall!"  And paraphrasing thoughts from Darrell Hammond's autobiography, when Ronald Reagan spoke those words, he spoke them from his balls.

Thought Bubbles

In honor of the second Republican Debate, here is an attempt to get inside the minds of the candidates in this photo from the first debate.

Christie: “I hope no one smells that.”

Rubio: “Did Chris just fart?  Holy cow, what did he eat?”

Carson: “I wonder if I’m the only person on this stage with a three-digit IQ."

Walker: “Is that security guard in a union? Why is he in here?”

Trump: “I am so awesome.  No one is more of a man than me."

Bush: “Is that Katherine Harris over there? I think it is. She must be here to support me!”

Huckabee: “Hmmm… If the stock market collapses, how can I blame it on the homosexuals?”

Cruz: “Golly, I’m so happy to be here. I’m the most conservative, so I’m clearly the best choice.”

Paul: “Does standing next to Ted Cruz make me look better by contrast or worse because I’m even associated with him?”

Kasich: “Not many people have heard of me before today.  Maybe that's why I'm polling so low."

Nip It

If you haven't figured it out yet, I've been oscillating between posts that are "liberal" and "conservative" viewpoints.  And while this post is one of the less important subjects I've written on, it's probably going to rub some people the wrong way, perhaps more than most of my previous posts.  So feel free to stop reading now if you have a problem with a frank discussion regarding nipples.

If you're on any sort of social media, you've probably come across something about the "Free the Nipple" movement that's currently taking place.  In a nutshell, there are many women (and men) who are protesting and making stands in various ways the fact that, in many places in the United States, it is legal for a man to be topless but not a woman.  A lot of the women fighting for "nipple equality" or whatever you want to call it are indeed feminists.  And believe it or not, yes, they are aware that there is an anatomical difference between men and women in the chest area.  Many traditional folks are disgusted by this sort of protest, especially when it is garnering support from the likes of Miley Cyrus.  Some think that nipples are lewd, that women going topless is shameful and disgusting, or that it is not modest and therefore against their religion, whether that be Christianity or something else.  But let's consider something here.  Miley Cyrus gets so much attention for showing her nipple for no reason other than that it's not really something you're supposed to do in this country.  If it were commonplace, no one would really pay attention.  I am not a nudist, and I see many reasons why both male and females should not expose their genitals in public (outside of nude beaches, etc.), but I am in favor of the "Free the Nipple" thing.  There are several reasons why that is, in addition to the fact that it would actually diminish the power that Miley Cyrus has.

First of all, because I am a Christian, I need to say that this belief does not go against the Bible from my point of view.  Does it go against traditional Conservative Christianity in the United States?  Absolutely.  But is it a sin?  I certainly can't find any scriptures that say so.  Is it a good idea to go topless in most places?  Probably not. The Biblical argument that can be used against it is that women should not do it if it can cause a man to stumble or lust after her.  And if going topless is going to cause a man to stumble or lust, while wearing a bikini or just regular clothes would not, then don't do it, but I don't buy that this is always the case.  Because it's not.  And because pretty much every man has lusted after women who are fully dressed in layers of winter clothes as well.  Should a woman go over a married man's house and hang out topless in his backyard?  I don't think so.  That's probably not wise thing to do, for many reasons.  But should a woman have the option to take off her top in the same places that men have that option?  Even though women are different anatomically, I will actually agree with the feminists here and state that I believe the answer is yes, for the sake of equality.

The Bible says that women should dress modestly.  But many churches today take that notion vastly out of context.  I Timothy 2:9-10 states that women should "adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh woman professing godliness) with good works."  Modesty appears to refer to not wearing expensive things or drawing special attention to yourself.  Note that this verse does not say, "not with the showing of shoulders or any part of the breasts (for God despises cleavage of any sort), nor showing too much leg (or back), and certainly none of the belly, but with fashions to the knee and loose fitting garments."  I've been in churches where I would swear that's what they thought it said.  Let me state that I do not believe that it is appropriate for men or women to attend a church service topless.  In our culture, this would seem to be disrespectful to God.  And I understand to some extent why there are dress codes in churches.  After all, there are workplace dress codes.  Men and women can't go topless at work either (in most 9-5 professions anyway).  But telling people what they should or should not wear in their life outside of church (or that males and females should not swim together unless both are fully clothed--I was in a church that said this, no kidding) crosses a line.

Let's take a look at some examples of nudity in the Bible.  We all know that Adam and Eve were naked, and in Genesis 3:7, after eating the fruit, they realize this, and the King James Version says that they then made aprons out of fig leaves.  Other versions say loincloths, but I don't believe there are any versions that note that the woman covered her breasts but the man did not.  It makes no distinction here.  What is clear is that both Adam and Eve covered their genitals, the organs which God made for reproduction and sex.

We all know the story of King David's sin with Bathsheba.  In 2 Samuel 11:2, David was walking on his roof and he saw Bathsheba washing herself (naked, presumably), and as we see in the verses that follow, he decided to commit adultery with her and murder her husband.  Surely this story is here to point out that women should always be fully clothed, right?  Look what happens when they're not!  They cause men to sin!  NO.  The Bible indicts David here.  Yes, 2 Samuel 11:2b notes that she was "very beautiful to look upon."  That's how God created her.  Women are works of God's art.  And yes, men enjoy seeing breasts, but this is no excuse to sin!  The problem here was what David did next.  The Bible makes it clear that David's lust, adultery, and murder were terribly wrong and sinful.  It does not say that Bathsheba should not have been washing herself where anyone could see her.

The culture in our society is different.  We typically don't see people bathing from our rooftops.  But we typically don't baptize people naked anymore either.  That's right.  Early Christians were baptized by immersion naked.  We don't do that now, and that's a good call culturally, but it takes down any arguments where Christians try to say something should be done exactly as the early church did it, regardless of a different culture.  And arguments stating that the Bible tells women to cover everything up at all times hold no water.  People who take the stance that "you're not born gay" in the gay marriage debate, but fail to mention the irrefutable fact that "you're born naked" are laughable as well.

Breastfeeding or just relaxing topless are not disgusting or lewd things.  They are perfectly normal behaviors.  Jumping into a pool with a shirt on is abnormal behavior.  I did this once at a Christian camp where the rule was that all guys and girls had to be wearing a shirt when they went into the pool together.  It was unnatural and uncomfortable.  I am not meant to wear a shirt in the pool.  Few people are.  It actually felt wrong.  As for women, hey, maybe bathing suits or bikinis are more comfortable than a shirt, but if you're in a spot where men can go without a shirt, you should have that option as well.  If it's a hundred degrees outside and you want to take off your shirt, you should have that option.

We all have nipples.  Yes, men are wired differently and more stimulated visually, but women can lust after shirtless men too.  It's not up to a woman to control a man.  A man must have self-control.  There is no excuse for bad behavior or sin.  MAN UP!  A woman doesn't make you do anything by the way she dresses.  That notion needs to disappear from Christianity in the United States.  Sadly, and certainly without intending it, many churches foster cultures where women are blamed for things that they should not be blamed for, and where sexual assault can be borne out of sexual repression, fear, and a lack of frank and open conversations about sexuality.

Finally, to break down the psychology of various stats of undress, I will point out that on beaches where topless women are common, it is not a big deal, because it is normal.  Bikinis are often more seductive anyway, and quite honestly, there are a lot of women who look better in bathing suits than without them, and there are also those who are not exactly pleasant to look upon while in a bathing suit or topless, but that does not mean that they should not be allowed to go around topless.  Think of how many men you have seen without a shirt in your life that you wish you had not...

Whether or not a woman is "beautiful to look upon," a woman should not be shamed because of her body, and to some extent, that's what this double standard does.  Plus, allowing men but not women to go topless adds to the idea that a topless woman is always a sexual thing.  That in itself is dangerous.  Plus it's ridiculous.  How much hypocrisy is present when a woman is allowed to wear a thong and show nearly the entirety of both breasts in public or on television, and that is considered acceptable, but the moment the nipple makes an appearance, it's not?  We are a strange people.

"I have nipples, Greg.  Could you milk me?"

Gunning for a Real Solution

Why is it that every single time there's a tragic shooting in the news, it sets into motion a ridiculous debate that neither solves the problem nor honors the victims?  Suddenly, a bunch of folks on the far left are calling to ban guns, and a bunch of folks on the far right are saying that the answer is to arm everyone.  Neither of these things gets to the heart of the problem.  The real problem we have here in the United States is a psychological problem.  As a nation, we need to focus on coming up with ways to identify people who are threats to commit violent crimes, make sure these particular people do not have access to weapons, and get them the help they need.  We also need to take a look at our culture and figure out why shootings have become such a common occurrence.  I don't have all of the answers on this, but these are the questions we should be asking, rather than which additional restrictions we should place on firearms (to make it look to the general public like we're doing something to address the problem) and whether or not we should decide to have the government come and confiscate guns from everyone (yeah, that would go smoothly).

I offer my own thoughts.  Guns have been legal in our nation since the beginning.  We have the right to bear arms.  But mass shootings seem to be happening more often lately.  So, what has changed?  I would argue that it is our national attitude in general, where our kids are raised to believe lies.  There was a time when people carried guns in their vehicles to school because they would go hunting after school. This was normal.  I'm still in my 20s, and while I'm far too young to have been a part of that, I have always carried a pocketknife with me since I was a young boy.  I had one in my pocket at school every day.  This was a normal thing.  The thought of stabbing someone with the knife never once came to my mind.  A pocketknife is a tool.  I had it on me because you never know when you're going to need to cut something, or whittle a stick.  Sure, it can be used in self-defense as well, but if the person attacking you has a gun, you're out of luck.  But that's not my point at the moment.  My point is that if I was in elementary school today and a teacher saw me with a pocketknife, I would be in serious trouble.  You can't carry that tool to school anymore.  It's apparently a weapon now.  That's how we're being trained to view it.

You can't play dodgeball at school anymore either.  You get suspended for fighting instead of reprimanded.  Touching a fellow student in a non-sexual way is sexual harassment.  Anything you say can be construed as sexual harassment.  You can't say anything that's not politically correct either.  You can't hurt anyone's feelings.  If a teacher touches you, he or she could be fired.  Remember how teachers would pat you on the shoulder when you were a kid or even hug you on occasion?  That can't happen anymore.   But instead of physically showing that they care for students, they teach lies instead.  You can do anything you want.  You can be anything you want.  If you try hard enough, you will reach your goal, whatever it is.  Nothing is impossible.  Bullshit.

Meanwhile, no one plays outside anymore.  Your parents could be arrested if you walk a few blocks away to the local park unsupervised.  Besides, why would they allow that anyway?  You might get kidnapped or worse.  We all interact less in-person.  Even phone calls have declined.  We text instead.  We communicate through Facebook.  Sometimes we video chat.  You want to ask a girl out?  Text her.  Want to break up with her?  Text her.  Want to know what an old friend is doing?  Look at their online profile.  We are losing our ability to interact.

A teenage boy a few towns over from where I live asked a girl to prom a few years ago and got rejected.  He couldn't just move on to the next girl.  Yes, there was something psychologically wrong with him, but he grew up being taught that he would have whatever he wanted in life if he really wanted it.  He was shielded from anything that could possibly hurt his feelings.  He was never taught how to deal with the inevitable problems that will happen in life.  He stabbed her to death in the stairwell at the school.  A boy barely older than him stole his mother's gun, killed her, and shot and killed more than 20 people in an elementary school less than an hour away, before killing himself.  Connecticut responded to this by enacted gun control legislation that effectively did nothing, nor would it have prevented such a tragedy had it been on the books when it occurred.

Our President talks about how he is in favor of more gun control, because if new legislation saves the life of one child, it's worth it.  Well, unless it saves the life of an unborn child.  It's perfectly alright to kill them and sell their organs.  Our President talks about how armed guard at schools is a bad idea, yet there are armed guards present when his daughters go to school.  They're more important than other children.  Our President talks about how gun allowances are excessive for self-defense, yet everywhere he goes, he is surrounded by secret service agents with high-powered firearms.  When he spoke at Wesleyan's commencement in 2008, six months before he was elected president, there were snipers on the roof of the library, just in case.  His self-defense is more important than yours.

I have never shot a gun in my life.  I don't own a gun.  I plan to get one soon, to keep in my house in case I ever need it.  I live in a relatively safe area, and it's on my list of things to do, but it's not a huge priority for me.  My dad hated guns.  He was a Chief in the Navy.  He had to pass a shooting test, which he did, although he wasn't a particularly good shot.  In the latter part of his life, he did not own a gun.  His father was in the military as well, and once had his gun stolen in Bridgeport, Connecticut.  My dad never fought in a war, and he never had to shoot anyone, but he simply did not like guns.  Yet he was a proud member of the NRA.

Chicago has strict gun control laws, and a sad and disturbing rate of gun deaths.  Pretty much everyone in Switzerland owns a gun, and the number of people killed by gunfire is very low.  Violent crimes (and shootings) have gone up in the UK since guns were banned.  More gun control usually means less safety.  If you want more facts on the issue, here's one place to check them out: http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-in-other-countries/

Increasing gun control means that law-abiding citizens will have decreased access to guns.  Criminals will still get guns.  This is a problem.  If I wanted to get a gun illegally, I can head to downtown New Haven and get one quicker and cheaper than doing it legally.  Do we really think that's going to suddenly change if new gun control laws are passed?  Yeah, there have been a lot of shootings, whether suicide, gang or drug-related, hate crimes, mass murders, or whatever, but there have also been a lot of lives saved by citizens or police officers using or simply having guns.  And speaking of police officers, based on recent events in this country, a lot of the same people pushing for more gun control are very skeptical and distrusting when it comes to police officers.  Do you really want them to be the only people with guns?  And even if the vast majority are trustworthy people, certainly some percentage are not.

Ultimately, every citizen has the right to bear arms, and can decide whether or not to exercise that right, but except in cases where someone is a violent threat, that right itself must always remain.

The Great Reefer Barrier

Within the next decade, maybe sooner, I believe that marijuana will be legal throughout the United States, for both medicinal and recreational use.  At least I hope it will be.  It's time.

I say this as someone who has never been high, and as someone who does not plan to use marijuana unless there is a medical reason to do so.  I am not encouraging getting high, but I am encouraging common sense.  And in my view, common sense includes the legalization of pot.

Let's start with the low-hanging fruit here.  It baffles me that there are places where marijuana is not legal for medical use.  Morphine is legal, but not marijuana?  Really?  It can help cancer patients, those who struggle with pain, those who need to increase their appetite, and a slew of others.  Used properly, marijuana is a drug that can help a lot of people.  At the very least, I see no valid argument against the legalization of medical marijuana.

And the case for legal recreational use is pretty strong too.  Where I went to college, marijuana may as well have been legal.  It was prevalent, to say the least.  For the most part, people who got stoned were pretty chill, but every now and then you would come across someone who became paranoid or mixed other drugs with marijuana and had a not-so-good reaction.  But it was during college that I realized something.  By itself, marijuana is less harmful than most legal drugs.  People get very sick from drinking too much alcohol.  Many people die every year from overdosing on alcohol.  Cigarettes kill in many ways too, although more slowly.  And how many people overdose on marijuana every year?  None.  You don't die from smoking too much weed.  If you smoke too much weed, your performance in life will probably be greatly hindered, but you're not going to end up sick or dead from it.  You'll be unemployed and hungry maybe, but alive.  Alcohol, while legal (as it should remain, and if you think otherwise, please read the history of prohibition), is far more dangerous than weed.

Keeping marijuana illegal because it's a "gateway drug" falls flat, because what the heck does that even mean?  Yeah maybe people who experiment with it are more likely to experiment with other drugs, including harder drugs that are very dangerous and can kill you the first time you try them, but reefer is not exactly the cause of that, is it?  And do we really think that if it becomes legal, suddenly a lot more people are going to start using it?  Let's be honest, if you want weed now, even though it's illegal in all but a few states, it is extremely easy to procure.  Making it legal isn't going to make a whole bunch of people suddenly decide that they now want to start smoking it, or vaping it, or eating delicious baked goods with pot as an ingredient.

But there would be some impact on society if it were legal, right?  Let's see...  A lot less arrests every year, leaving the police free to focus on REAL crimes.  Oh, and prisons would be less crowded.  That means less of our tax dollars going to pay for non-violent criminals to be put in prison.  Hmm, and I guess government regulation of it would mean less bad batches.  Oh, and taxes.  Huge taxes.  Our government probably can't be trusted to spend it, but maybe it will be a step in the right direction of actually balancing a budget, because that creates a whole lot of money going to the government.  And it takes a whole lot of money out of the hands of drug dealers.  If someone wants to deal it, it could be done legally and become a legitimate above ground business.  I guess that means that a bunch of legitimate jobs would have to be created.  And that means the government can tax those earnings as well...

Those are all positive things.  Let's think of some negative ones.  Well, I guess even though it would only be legal for adults, maybe kids could end up getting access to it. But that already happens.  Maybe more of them will get it somehow?  Or no?  I don't know.  Um... Oh, yeah, well, it's addictive to a lot a people.  So, yeah, there's that.  That's definitely bad.  And if we legalize it, then, well, I guess it's still just as addictive to just as many people.  Hmm... Never mind.  I give up.  What were our elected officials smoking when they made this stuff illegal anyway?