The Future of Marijuana

2012 (yes I know that's not the future, just shutup): The debate rages on concerning the legalization and taxing of marijuana; whether it is a question or morality, health, government, etc. Alcohol meanwhile remains perfectly legal despite causing numerous deaths on a daily basis.

2022: Many partakers of the bright green pleasure machine are now elected to office, as Governors, Senators, Congressmen and Congresswomen; they naturally want to protect themselves from legal scandal, therefore...

2023: Marijuana becomes a legal substance, taxed and sold in your local convenient store, between the Soap Opera Digest and the Monster energy drinks.

2030: A mortician in Bluefield, West Virginia is baked when his assistant, who was heavily baked at the time, accidentally turns on the cremation machine whilst the mortician is inside, searching for where he last placed his prized Seth Rogen Series ivory bong.

2031: Though nowhere as frequent as alcohol-related deaths and injuries, a small but noticeable concern grows in America over whether or not a legal cannabis intake limit should be put in place for public marijuana use, much like a blood-alcohol level.

2034: The Illinois State Supreme Court becomes the first to enact a cannabis level limit, which works much like a field sobriety test. The law is passed on September 3rd; it was meant to be passed September 2nd, but half of the Illinois Supreme Court forgot about the meeting and went to a Denny's in Chicago instead.

2035: Several states follow in making cannabis level limits for public use of marijuana. By the end of 2038, forty-seven states have such laws in place; see if you can guess which three don't!

2036: Numerous protests by grass-roots (pun intended) activists insist that State governments limiting the amount of marijuana one can use at any given time in public is, to quote one group's leader, Violet Burgundy, "unconstitutional and sooo gay."

2040: US Representative from Texas, Ron Paul (yes he's still alive - he's 105 years old, has legally changed his name to "Cap'n Ron Paul McCartney," and takes more geriatric medications than the entire cast of Hot In Cleveland combined, but dangit the kids love him) once again runs for President, citing the cannabis level limits as unconstitutional, and using the hot button issue as one of his main platforms. On Election Day '40, he is defeated by the Democratic nominee by 420% to 308% (somehow by 2040, mathematical laws were altered and somehow made these figures possible).

2085: The first lawsuit by a private citizen against a major marijuana corporation is filed; Kenneth Palmer of Salina, Kansas, claims his consistent short-term memory loss and low sperm count is the direct result of "big marijuana" and their advertisements, which he feels influenced his decision to begin smoking weed.

2086: "Big marijuana" settles the case with Palmer out of court, awarding him $25,000.

2087: Hundreds more similar suits by similar users with similar side-effects from marijuana use are filed.

2088: The first anti-big marijuana company commercial airs during the first game of the World Series (won by the Pittsburgh Pirates).

2089: Similar commercials air rampantly; the kind with teenagers with tough faces staring into the camera, vowing never to become "victims of big marijuana," using mannequins and other creepy props to make their points, eerily similar to today's "Truth" commercials condemning "big tobacco."

2091: Marijuana companies are no longer allowed to advertise on billboards or in High Times magazine.

2091: High Times magazine goes out of business.

2095: By this year, courts have awarded a whopping eighteen billion dollars in numerous lawsuits in the US to  people who claimed to have been affected negatively by "big marijuana" corporations. In a speech before the Organization of Veterans of the Venezuelan Conflict, Senator Paul-McCartney calls this "justice in action."

2100: Marijuana use stays steady in the US at the turn of another century, having first surpassed tobacco use in 2047. Marijuana farming and distribution makes up one of the three leading industries in the US (the other two being avocado bobble heads and extension cords).

According To Our Work

I read a man’s suicide note last week. His name was Joe Bodolai. He was a comedy writer in his time. He posted a final blog, posting the things he’d accomplished that he was proud of, and the things he regretted, such as his alcoholism. Soon after, he killed himself in a hotel room. In the blog, he cursed God, saying He was evil if He existed, because of the atrocities committed in the world.

We teach our children responsibility. We tell them to own up to their own actions, not to blame others for their own mistakes, and no one will ever wave a magic wand and make their consequences disappear. Yet when someone overdoses on heroin, we blame God for not yanking the needle from their arm, rather than obeying God’s command of love and taking the drugs away ourselves and flushing them down the commode. When a homeless man is beaten to death by delinquent teens, we blame God for making him homeless rather than taking him in ourselves or paying for a place for him to stay, and we blame God for the violence, rather than the society that so loves violence, the Tarantino and Rodriguez films that depend on gratuitous gore to make their money at the box office. We don't blame the parents who beat and abused their children and drove them to life on the streets.

Every injustice and atrocity in this world is caused by sin, which is as you know, rebellion against God’s will. If those in third world countries are starving, it’s because a dictator has withheld provisions to pay for his palaces. Or because none of us saw fit to travel to those countries and feed the hungry. That’s beneath us, a novelty as we see it, something Miss America contestants say.

But we refuse to take responsibility for our own actions, or inactions. We instead throw tantrums as children and irrationally blame God for the things we chose to do or not to do. This is why sin is such a harmful and destructive thing, not only because it hinders the good in our own lives, but because it damages the lives of others. Your sins, my sins, can so easily lead another astray, lead them to lose hope, lead them to stop caring for themselves and others, and lead them to deny God.

And when God intervenes and delivers someone from their peril, whether it was self-inflicted or not, as He so often rescues us, we scoff and call them liars out of bitterness and envy.

We laud responsibility for our own actions, but we blame God when we do atrocious things or do nothing to stop them. We accept the idea that God exists, we even accept that He has statutes that we’re to follow for our own sakes and for the sakes of others. But when we break His commandments, and disaster follows, we forsake God and hate Him by claiming He doesn’t exist.
That’s the worst way a person can convey their hate - by claiming those they despise don’t exist.

If I know someone like Joe Bodolai, who I know to be in pain, and I turn them away and do nothing to help them, their pain is on my hands and not the fault of God, whose command of love I've broken.
I hate that you were hurting, and I hope you didn’t mean those things you said; I love you Joe Bodolai.

“Therefore listen to me, you men of understanding: far be it from God to do wickedness, and from the Almighty to commit iniquity. For He repays man according to his work, and makes man to find a reward according to his way. Surely God will never do wickedly, nor will the Almighty pervert justice.” -Job 34:10-12

Rebuking the Founding Fathers

People have long used quotes from our nation’s Founding Fathers to bolster their arguments and legitimize their viewpoints, whatever those opinions may be. The internet has no shortage of politically-motivated images consisting of text written by, accompanied by a painting of, a Samuel Adams or a John Hancock. For example, one who believes Van Halen was a better band with David Lee Roth as their lead singer might try and strengthen their claim by quoting our fifth President, James Monroe, who once wrote in a letter to a confidant: “It is my deep and abiding conviction that Van Halen without the magnetic frontmanship of David Lee Roth is but a sinking vessel for watered-down rock n’ roll.”

The patriot with the pro-Lee Roth opinion would feel his or her argument is made stronger by including a quote from the cast of characters in our nation’s infancy such as Patrick Henry or Thomas Paine (unquestionably two of our greatest Presidents). They feel that if the sentiments of one of these great men, even if to some small degree, coincides with their stance on the subject, then they must be right. In my allegiance to neither the left nor the right wings of modern American politics, I’ve seen this done more by conservatives, though liberals are also known to slap a painting or daguerreotype of some figure of great historical significance next to a quote of his or hers, to support a social stance.

It’s become quite a routine weapon of those on the left to assert to their enemies on the right that the Founding Fathers did not found “a Christian nation,” as is the common misunderstanding of many conservatives, who hold that our American forefathers were pious, devout Christians in the strictest sense. There are so many who so strongly identify the Gospel as an American Gospel, as if only the most patriotic have a right to proclaim Christ. In doing so, they cause the rest of the world, and many of their fellow countrymen and women to see Jesus as an American staple. But the Gospel is not a nationalistic message, not for America or any other nation; Jesus Himself says, “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.”

Those on the left are right, however, in their rebuke of the conservative view that our founding fathers were all Protestant church-goers; our great country was not molded as a Christian Union, though the left should know that they’re not exactly letting a cat out of a bag by stating this.

No, a bunch of rich, deist slave-owners did not found a Christian nation.

That’s not to say that all of our Founding Fathers were deists (or rich, or owned slaves), but many of their philosophical and religious practices were indeed influenced by the doctrine of deism. Deism was a popular belief among many of our Founding Fathers, though it was of more a philosophical birth than a spiritual one. In its warped nutshell, deism is a vague belief in a God or a Higher Power, often referred to as simply as a “Creator,” who does not involve Himself with nature; deism also rejects the notion of supernatural miracles, the divine Authorship of the Bible, and the holy Trinity. Deism places high esteem in the notion of “reason,” which I do not deny is a catalyst of faith, especially in defending that faith; but the reason magnified by deism is man’s reason – self-contradicting, self-assuring, and self-serving. Deism is an example of man’s own theologies which he builds on sand, all for the sake of unburdening himself of the responsibility the true God has given him. If he dismisses the notion that God authored the Scripture by revelation through a Holy Spirit, he has no reason to risk embarrassment and ridicule to share with another human being the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The popularity of deism rose from what is called the “Age of Enlightenment,” a movement that, unlike the Reformation or the Great Awakenings, was not borne of a zeal for Christ or His love. The Age of Enlightenment was a product of man’s praise of his own intellect.

No, our Founding Fathers, even the more overtly “Christian” among them, did not create a Christian nation. Even many of our great nation’s leaders who came after the Era of Good Feelings had religious views that were contrary to Scripture; William Howard Taft, for example, the last President to wear facial hair, was a Unitarian and thus rejected the divinity of Jesus Christ; the same was true for Millard Fillmore, minus the facial hair.

But back to the Founding Fathers. Having said all of this about the illusion of America as a country whose leaders have been devout Christians, and having expressed such a dismay at many fellow Christians who lean so heavily on the words of our forefathers, mistaking them to be words of fellow saints in Christ, I must bring about a few quotes from these men, men who were brilliant indeed, but men whose brilliance should be kept at work in political policy, not the bolstering of our faith.

I start with Benjamin Franklin, who once wrote, “I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it.”

What Mr. Franklin failed to understand is that it is of no flattery to God that we praise Him, for we fail Him daily. But His love for us never fails, which should be of the utmost comfort to us and worthy of our praise.

““Which is the first commandment of all?”

“Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: “Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one. And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.” This is the first commandment.””

Mr. Franklin was right on one thing – of course God is above our praise. He does not require it to operate, it does not boost an ego, nor does God need praise to function – He is criticized and slandered every day, but remains holy, almighty, and sovereign. The reason God desires our intimate enthusiasm of Him is for our own sakes. If we praise God, truly and from the heart, we will be open and receiving to His instructions and commandments, each of them lovingly crafted for our own benefit, both on this earth and in the everlasting life He gives us.

Now onto a man revered by many, probably above any other Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson. He once wrote: “I never told my own religion nor scrutinized that of another. I never attempted to make a convert, nor wished to change another’s creed.”

President Jefferson, it seems, had quite an odd notion of the God even he believed to be true. If a doctrine concerning the soul presents itself as the truth, but also teaches that it’s of no consequence or importance if that truth is accepted and practiced or not, and that it’s of no importance to go near and far to tell others of that truth, then logically that doctrine must be hopeless, and above all, meaningless.

Fortunately, God’s doctrine is the stark opposite, as Jesus says, “Whatever I tell you in the dark, speak in the light; and what you hear in the ear, preach on the housetops.” He also gives the Great Commission to His apostles and to all believers: “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” The apostle Paul, of whom President Jefferson was quite critical, writes, “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God” (2 Corinthians 5:17-20).

And, in chains, as his execution for preaching the Gospel neared, Paul wrote to his faithful companion and fellow servant Timothy, “do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner, but share with me in the sufferings for the gospel according to the power of God, who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began, but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, to which I was appointed a preacher, an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles. For this reason I also suffer these things; nevertheless I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep what I have committed to Him until that Day” (2 Timothy 1:8-12).

We move on to John Adams, who wrote in one of the many letters he and fellow former President Jefferson exchanged in the later years of their lives, “I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved – the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!”

I find it remarkably sad that President Adams only saw grief in that upon which Jesus died to bring so many eternal life. His sentiment is shared by many today who have been led astray by the evil acts of men who had the ignorance and audacity to commit such “abuses of grief” in the name of Christ and the cross. President Adams no doubt had in mind the exploitations of man. But I’m sure he would shudder today, when the conservative vs. liberal dogma fights both use his very words, in various quotes and memes, to support their respective political claims, twisted and erroneous as one or both may be. But I’m sure John Adams would recognize that it is not his words that produce the strife – it is the bitter nature of man. President Adams once said, “Facts are stubborn things.” Two centuries later, President Ronald Reagan tried to use this quote, but botched it and said, “Facts are stupid things.” Did Reagan’s mishandling of Adams’ words render them, on their own, less unique, insightful, or valid?

So, as another Founding Father, John Dickinson, once said in dispute with the future second President over the Olive Branch Petition: “shut your gob, John Adams.”

I realize that I’ve tried to use the very Bible many of our Founding Fathers dismissed, in my attempt to rebuke their words. I suppose that would mean nothing to them if they were alive today, as they found such little merit in the Book in the first place, and the Scriptures would likely not change their opinions. But I say these things not for their sakes, but for yours, because these men are long dead. Jesus Christ however rose from the tomb and lives today; his apostles are passed away, but the words they wrote to form what we came to call the New Testament were breathed into them by the Holy Spirit, an Authority that, as history and modern times rapidly move towards proving, is infinitely more sturdy, sound, and unchanging than any legislature of man.

I thank the Lord God for the brilliance of these men who molded and fashioned our great nation. I wish they had acknowledged the Spiritual truths which they dismissed, but there’s nothing I can do about that. I don’t wish they had accepted the perfect, loving truth of the Bible so that they had molded “a Christian nation,” but for the sake of those wonderful men themselves.

I rebuke our Founding Fathers’ notions about our Creator, not in some hackneyed attempt to be controversial nor in-one’s-face, but for the sake of urging my brothers and sisters not to turn good men into idols. An idol is not strictly an object or false deity, but an idol is also something in which we put our faith and confidence that distracts us from Jesus, that makes us confused or double-minded concerning His Father’s word. Sometimes, man doesn’t make for himself an idol or false doctrine merely because he doesn’t want to worship God. Sometimes, we make idols and twist to our own satisfaction warped beliefs to escape the commands God has given us, while still acknowledging Him in our own way. Unfortunately, the command of God from which man most wishes to escape is the instruction to go far and near to tell others that Jesus Christ is alive and loves them.

Although America was once identified as a Christian nation by many, we certainly weren’t founded as one, and we resemble one less and less each passing year. In a quote of uncertain origin (but generally misattributed to Sinclair Lewis), skeptics of the notion of “God and country” often repeat, “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”

Whoever truly said this didn’t foresee “the decline of Christian America,” as Newsweek once featured it, or the increasing blasphemous and sardonic attitude toward Jesus shown in politics, entertainment, and American culture in general. They also didn’t foresee the recent social media challenge of “flag stomping.” Whoever said this needn’t have worried about Christian domination or fascist rulers, because fascism will never come to America. The notion of America becoming a fascist regime is akin to the idea of the glutton yanking the bacon-wrapped Pop-Tart from his own mouth. But if I’m wrong, and America does someday adopt a fascist form of government, of this I’m sure: the steady decline of respect and reverence for God, and the open rebellion against Him, certainly shows that American fascism certainly will not come bearing the cross of Christ.

(Updated and revised June 2015)