French Fries: The Gateway Drug

Now, yes I am being a little facetious here in the title of this post--kinda. I'm trying to show the abusurdity of one of the arguments made against policies that would decriminalize marijuana in the U.S.. "Once they smoke pot, the next time you see them they could be mainlinin' dope!" is often the cry you hear coming from the mouths of the brainwashed masses. Does "brainwashed" seem like a harsh adjective to use in describing the jibber-jabber of the hypnopaeds? Actually, on the contrary, it is quite gracious. Better they hold their position because of brainwashing and ignorance than arriving at it by actually thinking and reasoning. For in reality, reason would only lead you to support the decriminalization of marijuana, and only irrationality or a lack of reason could lead one to the position now held by a majority of Americans. So then, in actuality I'm describing these folks in terms of their victimization by a propaganda machine that has been churning out its doctrine since shortly before the mid twentieth century--"Reefer Madness" anyone! Yet, it will be their fault if when met by reason and facts they continue to pipe on like good little sycophants will.

Look at these stats, and use reason to deduce what is more dangerous for Americans:

Annual Causes of Death/Death Toll (Year 2000)

Tobacco (435,000)
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity (365,000)
Alcohol (85,000)
Microbial Agents (75,000)
Toxic Agents (55,000)
Motor Vehicle Crashes (26,347)
Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs (32,000)
Suicide (30,622)
Incidents Involving Firearms (29,000)
Homicide (20,308)
Sexual Behaviors (20,000)
All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect (17,000)
Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin (7,600)
Marijuana (0)

Information gathered from: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm#item1

Think about the fact that drugs like Aspirin are responsible for 7,600 deaths per year and compare that to marijuana induced deaths. Work your way up the list from the big fat zero at the bottom. Then, focus on the top three causes of death in the U.S.. Isn't it more likely that Alcohol is the "Gateway Drug?" Isn't it far more readily available than marijuana? Unless I've been missing out, I've never seen joints for sale at the Circle K, but they do carry beer. Even better yet, when I think about it, I had french fries before I ever sucked down a sip of goat whiz from my father's can of Bud. There are two McDonald's, 2 Jack in the Box's, as well as an Arby's within a 2 mile radius of my residence (aka Maelstrom Central Control). How's that for availability? So, next time a hypnopaed asserts that marijuana is a leaping off point on the way to the needle, posit that you instead believe our troubles begin with those items born of the deep fat fryer, and lay out the stats to prove it.

This of course is not the meat of the argument for the decriminalization of marijuana, but is simply one facet of the periphery. There are certainly core issues that far outweigh mere statistical information, and those will be brought to light in subsequent posts here in the Maelstrom.

Smoke Up, Li'l Johnny

As a man for all seasons, I frequent many different forums, hangouts, and squats on the internet. One such forum is called WarriorTalk Forum. We talk about how we can be more proficient warriors in all areas of life there--Great place to learn about a side of being a man that seems to be all but lost on our feminized male culture. Anyway, a discussion of drugs came up, and some others and I were perplexed by the hypnopaedic rants that were appearing on the thread. TravisABQ responded wonderfully to such foolishness. So much so that I wished to post it here. I'm sure you can deduce what was being said in posts previous to this one.

"Sarah Brady is just as certain that posession of a gun will
MAKE you shoot somebody with it, as you seem to be that
using mind altering drugs (you are hedging on alcohol)
will MAKE someone destroy their own lives, use worse
drugs, destroy themselves and destroy other people on
their way to hell.

I have met alcoholics, and druggies, and the idea that
alcohol or drugs MAKE you screw over family and
friends, and take up all sorts of antisocial behaviors is
just Bovine Scatology, IMO.

I DON'T want a cokehead on the police force, don't
want a meth-head driving a semi, don't want a missileman
in Minot fuzzed up from smoking a joint 2 weeks ago.
I'm none too crazy about having chronic drunks, or people
on Prozac, Zanix, or Zoloft in those occupations either.
Your posts seem to reflect you have had a good amount
of experience with hard-core self-destructed druggies...
I won't debate that point. Asserting that "most" Marijuana
users will use hard drugs, and that "most" users of "hard
drugs" will self destruct because of it is just so specious.
The facts do not support that.

If somebody is into heroin, cocaine, and meth, are they
more likely to be smoking dope, or cigarettes and drinking hard liquor?

I've happened upon some AA meetings, and bars: judging
from the cigarette smoke, I think that hard core addictive
behavior comes in BUNCHES.

If you wish to look up the actual numbers of Causes of death...
http://www.citypages.com/databank/2...rticle12991.asp
"For every so-called "overdose" you can show,
I can stack up corpses from tobacco, alcohol, and
prescribed medications like cordwood.

Some people are just determined to destroy themselves....
Social puritans think we should throw them in prison in
order to save them.... and that we should imprison
thousands more casual users because they MIGHT
be self destructive.

Logic it out for me, why are we (as a society) getting
in between a fool and the consequences of his own
foolishness?

Alcohol prohibition did not work very well, it financed
the Mafia and turned millions of people from beer and wine,
to hard liquor.... and the present "Drug War" seems to
mostly have the effect of financing South American
Marxists, Al Quaeda, and keeping US prisons filled with
"customers".

Let's punish people for demonstrable bad acts, rather than
for posession of THINGS, and SUBSTANCES,
and the bad things that they CAN, or MIGHT
do with them."

--Travis--

The Glory of Soldiering

Most people I suspect have a little blue birdie that comes to roost upon their shoulder from time to time in order to pass on a juicy tidbit of information that the lil' blue birdie believes will be helpful to that person's life. I, too, have a creature who performs that very task, but it isn't a little blue birdie. Hell, it doesn't even have feathers. Rather it has tusks, hair, grunts, and squeals. Anyway, my creature passed on an article that reinforces in my mind the position that for the soldier, or the one acting in that capacity, there is great glory in the job of killing.

Onward Christian Soldiers
But is it wrong for a fighting man to enjoy his work?
by Gene Edward Veith

Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight," Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis of the U.S. Marine Corps said in a panel discussion in San Diego. "It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right up front with you, I like brawling."

That admission, from a "fighting general" who led combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq—including the Battle of Fallujah—caused an uproar. How terrible! How insensitive! The mentality that gave us Abu Ghraib! He must be disciplined! He should be thrown out of the military!

But if we are going to fight a war, we need to understand what war entails. The public supports our troops, but mainly by feeling sorry for them and their familes. We also should appreciate our troops' facility in fulfilling their purpose, namely, killing the enemy.

There is a pleasure in battle. Yes, there is fear and desperation, but there is also excitement, exhilaration, and a fierce joy that go along with combat. At least that is the testimony of veterans and accounts of war that go back as far as the Iliad. "It is well that war is so terrible," said Robert E. Lee at Fredericksburg, "lest we should grow too fond of it."

The "fun" of combat is what non-warrior types pursue vicariously through entertainment. The competition of sports, violent TV shows, first-person-shooter video games, and a big percentage of Hollywood movies tap into the primal love of war.

Ironically, Lt. Gen. Mattis himself is the subject of an upcoming movie, No True Glory: The Battle for Fallujah. Playing Lt. Gen. Mattis is Harrison Ford. Mr. Ford is an action star who in the movies entertains millions by shooting people and blowing them up. In real life, though, Mr. Ford joined other actors in a public protest of the war in Iraq. Perhaps the movie's producers will change the script to have Mr. Ford play a fictional character instead, now that Lt. Gen. Mattis has become so controversial. The makers of violent movies may find him too violent.

Lt. Gen. Mattis's love of fighting, though, is very different from the recreational violence of our entertainment industry. His violence has a moral context. "You go into Afghanistan," he said, "you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."

The commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Mike Hagee, said that he had "counseled" Lt. Gen. Mattis that "he should have chosen his words more carefully." While Lt. Gen. Mattis may not be a poster boy for compassion toward Afghans, Gen. Hagee nonetheless refused to discipline him, saying that his commitment "helps to provide us the fortitude to take the lives of those who oppress others or threaten this nation's security."

But what about from a Christian point of view? Should a Christian soldier take pleasure in killing people?

Luther wrote a booklet titled Whether a Soldier Too Can Be Saved, taking up the issue of whether a Christian, who is supposed to love his enemies, should join the military, where he has the duty of killing them. According to Romans 13, Luther argued, God has appointed earthly rulers to restrain sin and has given them the authority to "bear the sword." The soldier, acting under a lawful chain of command under the authority of the state, therefore has a legitimate calling from God, who Himself acts through human vocations. Luther says the soldier should look at it this way: "It is not I that smite, stab, and slay, but God and my prince, for my hand and my body are now their servants." The Christian soldier, living out his faith in his vocation, loves and serves his neighbors by defending and protecting them. Yes, soldiers can abuse their license to kill. Luther goes so far as to say that soldiers should refuse to fight in wars that are clearly evil. But those who have the Christian vocation of being a soldier may fight "in good conscience." Before God soldiers should be humble and repentant. But before the enemy, they should "smite them with a confident and untroubled spirit." Soldiers, Luther says, should go "forward with joy!" As in other vocations, so in the military, there is nothing wrong with enjoying one's work. —•

The above article can be found at http://www.worldmag.com/subscriber/displayarticle.cfm?id=10368