Free Advice and Opinions

両方のことわざ，ご存知か？　熟考するのがいやなのであろうか？　人気ではない世界へようこそ。Politics and religion.話題にしないのがどうして法律になっているか？
　９９．９９％の人は、実際、話題には最初からしない。自分が思っている事を話の相手も思わすだけで、自分の信じている事を疑問する勇気がない。出ている釘になるな。Squeaky wheelになるな。それで気分が満るか？
　ご自分の最も秘密の所では、質問がない？　Judgment Dayにはね返ってくると思わない？言うまでもなく，こんなに気をつかうのが普通な人間にはもったいないと言えるかも知れない。そう思わない。I have more to say on this, but I’m tired and it’s time to go to sleep now.

　最近人々は私の事をとても大切にして、このブログを商売のJRPottery.comから消すようにアドバイスをくださっている。お気持ちは心から感謝いたしており，お断りする理由を申し上げる。
　先ず、その人々の文句をはっきり繰り返しておく：　私は麻薬禁止法律を反対する。理由はいろいろあるけど，ようするに個人責任そしてその当たり前に付随の個人自由はなによりも大事だ。私は黙ったら、嘘に過ぎない。
　いやだったら私の品物を買わないでください。私の品物がお気にいってくれて、しかし，私の愚かな意見を読むのがいやだったら、”Free Advice and Opinions”にクリックしないで，私の作品だけをご覧ください。それとも、論理を使って反論をしてください。約束：私は間違っている事を立証したら，私はちゃんと拒否する。お待ちいたしておる。
　

Dear Mr. Davis,
I have written to you before about the “War On Drugs”, which is in fact only a “war” on recreational use of certain drugs, but that’s not a politically palatable sound-bite. An even more accurate and less politically palatable appellation would be “Prohibition”. You’ll never hear the pedantic “Drug Warriors” use that word to describe their imposition of what they haughtily call “morality” on the rest of us.
You might not have noticed it in the recent “Omnibus” Bill, but there is a provision to fund “Mycoherbicides”. Briefly, these are herbicides derived from certain mold or fungus, which the “Drug Warrior Scientists” claim will only kill coca, or poppies, or marijuana, without harming other non-recreational crops. The “scientists’” claim is a lie, they know it, and they hide evidence to the contrary. Mycoherbicides harm more than just other crops, they harm humans and livestock. If you doubt that, try eating some Mycoherbicides. Bon appetit. In plain English, the US Government poisons peasants’ fields, while maintaining the risible pretense that they’re doing the morally “right thing”.
Here’s a question that has prompted right-wing radio talk show hosts to “dump” my telephone calls: If pot, coca, and other recreational drugs are intrinsically “sinful”, why did God Create them in the first place?
God didn’t make a “mistake” in Creating these things. You in the Congress are making a huge mistake, in fact you’re “playing God”, in trying to eradicate them. You spend tens of billions of our tax dollars every year on the “War On Drugs”, on Prohibition, and all you have done is to create a Black Market, by which terrorists, illegal aliens, corrupt government officials, and other common criminals prosper. Meanwhile, drugs are exorbitantly expensive, so some people commit crimes to be able to afford them.
The “War On Drugs” is morally bankrupt and always has been. Prohibition laws proceed from the assumption that no individual is capable of “Personal Responsibility”, so Big Brother must forbid recreational use of drugs, other than alcohol (since the Supreme Court ruled alcohol prohibition to be Unconstitutional) and aspirin and Ny-Quil and a few others, which the FDA has graciously allowed us to use.
Last time I wrote to you, you said you’d keep my thoughts in mind if some other congressman were to bring the issue up. That’s not leadership, please pardon my bluntness. Obsequy is clearly not my strong suit, but I remain,
Yours Sincerely,
John Ray

I’ve been looking for a word that describes an unhealthy degree of interest in blood-n-guts things, or person-harms-person things that one might typically see, and some might sometimes applaud, during prime-time on the idiot box.
I looked up the words “prurient” and “salacious” in my Oxford English Dictionary, both of those words have specifically to do with sex.
There seems to be no similar word to describe the kind of person who likes to watch prime-time idiot box shows, with all their violence, deceit, theft, corruption, and other such things that seem not to bother “society” nearly as much as sexuality, no matter how gentle and harmless.

For those who will be offended and quit reading long before you get to where something similar is written below:
I publish this blog in order to avoid deceiving you by omission. I have short hair, good personal hygeine, nobody could mistake me for a “hippie”; by simply remaining silent, I could present myself as an All-American, Athletic, Apple Pie Guy. In fact I am just such a guy.
Prohibition Laws are antithetical to Liberty, I invite anyone to dispute that! Prohibition Laws are also obviously unnecessary: according to the DEA’s own stats, which they juuuust might be low-balling, there were 12 million pot users last year, but those 12 million folks didn’t all rob banks or push dimebags in schoolyards or snatch little old ladies’ purses, nor did they all gravitate ineluctably to harder and harder drugs, despite the “gateway drug” fallacy.
Not only are Prohibition Laws unnecessary and inimical to Liberty, the laws themselves cause the very “harm to society” they are supposed to deter: drugs, as well as prostitution and gambling, all are expensive only because of the risk involved in purveying those items or providing those services. Pot isn’t called “weed” for no reason, it grows just about anywhere. Similarly, prostitution and gambling can happen anywhere cops aren’t. The only way for the government to “save” us from any of these things is for the government to watch us with the vigilance of Big Brother. If government fails to go that far, it will only make those things scarcer, therefore more lucrative.
I know I have exceeded the attention span, or perhaps the truth-tolerance, of most Prohibitionists, congratulations to those who have the brass to read this far. If you still want to buy my art, great; if you don’t, great. Never let it be said that I pretended to be something I’m not, simply because I know that speaking my mind will likely offend one of my target demographics, rich “conservative” people. I love to love you, I differ with you, I will differ respectfully but I will not be a submissive little mouse, nor will I deceive, even by an omission that many people seem to believe is quite justifiable. If that means I don’t make some sales, I won’t miss them, I’m Content to have a Clean Conscience.

How do you sleep?
How do you sleep, Takeda Drug Company? How do you sleep, FDA?
How much money do you, Takeda, pay to the FDA, in order that they grant you permission to say in your radio commercials that “Rozerem is non-habit-forming and couldn’t ever, ever, ever lead to abuse or dependence”?
We hear about addictions to porn, addictions to sex, addictions to “crackberries”, addictions to gambling, addictions to X-Boxes, addictions to food (although somehow about 70% of our population has very little to say about this one- perhaps they’re too polite to talk with their mouths full), notably we don’t hear about TV addictions but I recently heard that most American households have the Idiot Box turned on at least 6 hours a day.
But Oh No, not Rozerem! It’s “Non-habit-forming”, the FDA tells us so!
Now children, don’t take Rozerem if you’re taking Flubbasproxin or Splortablootamine. “Avoid taking with alcohol”, boys and girls. Translation: “Pop a half dozen of these little beauties and drink your 12-pack of Bu-bu-bu-buuuud Lite and you’ll be feelin’ all right!”
“Rozerem may cause decrease of certain hormones.” Translation: “Your pecker’ll fall off but you won’t care because you’ll sleep through it.”
So waddle right out and ask your doctors about Rozerem, all you gluttonous, slothful Americans, as you ponder why you’re a bunch of wheezing, (adult-onset) diabetic blobs of adipose tissue and you can’t get ro sleep. At least Rozerem will help you see all those Gargoyles that haunt what dreams you see before your sleep apnea awakens you.
Insensitive? Mean-spirited? “Won’t attract flies with vinegar”? I know as I write this, I’m not even as popular as an alarm clock with a broken snooze button. My message is, “WAKE UP, DING-A-LING”! My purpose is not to attract flies, my purpose is to awaken a few Humans, I hope, a few people who will, if you have the will-power, take responsibility for your eating, drinking, and sleeping habits instead of taking Rozerem after taking the FDA’s word that it’s “Non-habit-forming”.
If you’re angry at me, that’s good. How will you sleep, tonight?

—-Somebody commented, the comment is someplace in the ether-dust. This was my response:

NPR just made my case for me. They re doing a story about one Lester Crawford, an FDA bigwig who is to appear tomorrow before a federal magistrate to answer charges of improperly benefiting, failure to report transfer of and profit from stocks he wasn t supposed to own in the first place, so on… My point is, those people don t have holes in their hands, they don t walk on water. Not only is their research imperfect (e.g. They tested for twice recommended dosage and claim it had no or negligible effect on the abbadabba portion of the brain, but they didn t test for three times dosage, and they certainly didn t serve their test subjects any Margaritas,) but beyond making what might be an honest mistake, they could easily have falsified or concealed test results. Color me jade, jade, jaded if you must, but I d sooner trust a Nashville Bum than an FDA bureaucrat.
Again, if it works for you, super. Too bad you have to pay more than you would have had to, in the absence of government intrusion. I wonder where all the studies were done, and who holds the patent rights, and what portion of those rights ought rightly to belong to us taxpayers whose money they used for tests, facilities, and all of it.
More than ever, I maintain that the government needs a double dose of Butt-out-azine , together with pink slips for most of them, and a strict regimen of get a real job .
As to the Takeda people, I d be surprised if many or most of them weren t playing right along.
——————-
So just now, I heard on the news that the FDA has finally OK’d Silicon-Boobies! Just get MRI’s annually, or come to me any time for Palpation Examinations, Ladies!!
Sheesh, I don’t understand how you can call those white-smocks “doctors”!! Just say “doctor” and 9 in 10 of you bow and scrape as if the Man Behind the Smock were a demi-god! Say he’s with the CDC, or the NIH, or the ONDCP, and y’all think he’s infallible! (Numerous expletives deleted!) OK, that’s enough for tonight.

Phil
You just keep on attempting to circumscribe your neighbor’s liberty, keep excusing it by asserting that we would ineluctably become addicted and that we’re incapable of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Keep drinking the formerly-prohibited drug (and keep referring to “drugs and alcohol” as though the latter were not one of the former) and keep denying that you’re a hypocrite, because you engage in RECREATIONAL USE of your drug of choice, but you attempt to deny others the same right to “Pursuit of Happiness” by means of other drugs, which, the ONDCP “Sciiiiientists” gull you into believing, cause “Haaaaarm to Sociiiiiety”.
Again I tell you, the only way to “win” your Holy “War On Drugs” is, absit omen, to empower the DEA to indiscriminately interrogate and conduct body-cavity searches on every single citizen of the Land of the Formerly-Free, to peruse our bank accounts, to search our houses and cars and property. Until you do that, you will only make illegal drugs more scarce, the price will rise commensurately, and more people will be more tempted to make a quicker thousand, hundred thousand, million bucks. More violence will ensue and the blood will be, as it is now, on the hands of you prohibitionists.

John Ray

Phil responded, and I to his response:

On 8/31/06 12:50 PM, “The Phil Valentine Show”
wrote:

> John,
>
> In 1975, 17 percent of people had used an illegal drug in the last 30 days.
> By 2000, that figure was down to 5 percent. For all you guys who think we’re
> not winning the war on drugs, look at the facts. I would call 95 percent of
> Americans not using illegal drugs on a regular basis a victory.
>
> Phil
>

Point 1: According to whom? According to the same government thugs whose jobs depend on convincing you suckers that their jobs are worthwhile. I doubt your “statistics”.

Point 2: Even if your outlandish statistics were true, so what? You Prohibitionists are successfully circumscribing your neighbors’ liberty. How can you justify your Pyrrhic Victory, which cost more than $40 Billion dollars last year just in money the government admits to having spent? Of course they don’t tell us how or how much money is spent by those Upright Paragons in the CIA, their use of “Mycoherbicides” on fields in South America, the bribes they offer to various “Strongman” politicians down there. Add to that the costs to real people, the time taken from work to defend ourselves against charges frivolously brought by the DEA, the property confiscated and never returned simply because the thugs suspect (or at least say they suspect) it was bought with drug money, other costs too numerous to list here such as a very reasonable aversion to tell our anesthesiologists of recent drug use- they just might rat us out.

Point 3: The “Scientists” gather their “Statistics” by interrogating suspects who have been caught doing stupid things. They have every reason to tell the authorities what they want to hear, and they have no scientific basis to say, “The marijuana made me do it”, let alone any scientific training at all, in most cases. They’re stupid or they wouldn’t be caught. You rashly extrapolate from the datum that those who are caught are stupid, to the outlandish conclusion that all who use drugs must be stupid. Just how is it, then, that I’m the one who’s fluent in Japanese??
The “Scientists” also gather “Statistics” from “anonymous” questionnaires, which nobody believes are anonymous, given to high school students. Oh sure, they’ll answer honestly. Sucker.
The ONDCP gathers “Statistics” from jailbirds and high school students, but if we were to tell the truth about our drug use, our words could be used to put us in jail; convenient, no?

Point 4: Again stretching credulity beyond the breaking point, let’s assume that only 5% have used illegal drugs in the past 30 days. You’re “winning” your “Holy War On Drugs”. Does that mean that you’ve truly done the Right Thing? Do you imagine that God is Smiling down on you, just because you have prohibited your fellow man from engaging in the “Sin” of “Recreation” by means of an herb the He Created in the first place? And don’t try that unadulterated BS about stronger and stronger pot: if God didn’t Bless each plant, it wouldn’t grow anyway, and Sinsemilla pot was every bit as strong in 1975 as it is today.
I have not used any illegal drug in more than 30 days. Does this mean you’ve “won”? I warrant one thing: if ever there were some disaster and you were the second-to-last person alive, and I the last, you wouldn’t be nearly so smug about telling me what I may and may not do, at least not more than once.

Point 5: You didn’t address a single point in the letter I sent yesterday, you basically said, “naah, naah, we prohibitionists are winning” and gave one truly unbelievable “Statistic” to back your claim. Why don’t you address the points I raised? I’ll tell you why, you don’t want your “conservative” kool-aid drinkers to feel “Un-comfortable”, because it would negatively affect your precious Arbitron Ratings.

John Ray

Again Phil responded, and I again responded to him:On 8/31/06 4:22 PM, “The Phil Valentine Show” wrote:

> John,
>
> Just read the chapter in my first book, Right From The Heart, on drug
> legalization. The stats are overwhelming. We’d have a nation of addicts if
> you had your way. Thank God the people aren’t that stupid.
>
> Phil
>

That’s precisely what the alcohol prohibitionists said before the US Supreme Court (how’s that for gravitas??) ruled that alcohol prohibition is Unconstitutional. Of course we didn’t hear a word from the prohibitionists when the people, who were supposed to be besotted derelicts in alleys, a “nation of addicts”, went on to win World War II. To this day the prohibitionists haven’t admitted that most people can and do use alcohol responsibly, and the laws for the most part deal adequately with those who do act irresponsibly, whether they are under the influence of alcohol or any other drug or no drug at all.
Maybe you need the government to protect you from yourself, I don’t. Furthermore, what danger does, for instance, Willie Nelson pose to society? What about all the professional athletes who smoke pot and have the temerity to excel despite the direst predictions of those sycophants you call “scientists”?
I’m sure there are enough “Statistics” in the aptly-named “Right From The Heart”. Now it’s time to use your HEAD in addition to your heart: the Black Market exists for the single purpose of subverting Prohibition Laws. Unless and until those laws are either abolished, or (again I say, ‘absit omen’) enforced with ABSOLUTE authority, the Black Market will continue to exist. Are you ready for that body-cavity examination?? Or do you want the law to apply to me but not to you? Probably.

If you call Prohibition “Freedom”, I abhor your version of “Freedom”. If you call Personal Responsibility “Docile willingness to do as one is told”, you can keep that too. Of course, you do call Ubiquitous Availability “Victory in the War On Drugs”, so you probably called your recent trip to Vegas “Winning” too.

John Ray

I didn’t hear from Phil for a while, so I sent him a little goad:

This is an excerpt from stopthedrugwar.org’s story about this year’s Seattle Hempfest:
—————–
Still, the ranks of the pro-marijuana legalization forces are growing, and who better to demonstrate that than [Seattle’s] former police chief, Norm Stamper?

Stamper, a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, has emerged as a leading police critic of the drug war and certainly warranted the main stage speaking slot (among others) he got. Seattlites who remember Stamper primarily as the head cop during the World Trade Organization riots in 1999 were in for a surprise.

Stamper talked about police officers he knew or commanded who were killed or injured enforcing the drug laws, and he talked about the futility of that policy. “It’s laughable when people say we are winning the drug war,” he said. “We need to legalize all drugs. Police should be focused on violent crime,” he told the crowd.
—————-

Keep on winning, Phil, just as you’re winning now, and before long we’ll once again live in the Land of the Free. Then, ten years or so down the road, when we win another World War in spite of your foolish prediction that we’ll be “a nation of addicts”, you too can pretend you never said anything of the sort. History will repeat itself, while you mindlessly recite Santayana’s apothegm about being “doomed to repeat” the history you’ve so thoroughly forgotten.

John Ray

…”about Marijuana”. “Important Facts About Our Nation’s Most Misunderstood Illegal Drug.”

That’s on the cover page, along with a photograph of a “roach” with a alligator clip, of a very revealing presentation that I downloaded from the ONDCP’s Website.

Let us now examine these “Misunderstandings”. I have begun the process of copying their 20-page truckload of crapoleum to my blog. Unfortunately I can’t do much with the graphs; if you want to see them, please hold your nose and go to the ONDCP’s weBSite yourself.
I have taken the liberty (gasp) of rendering into boldface some of the equivocal language they use, such words as “may, might, could” I have treated hyperbolic words such as “startling” in the same way. Please note how frequently such language is used. I will insert my comments and questions in italics.

I.There is a serious drug problem in this country,and marijuana is a much bigger part of the problem than most people realize. • Marijuana is the most widely used illicit drug in America. Of the nearly 20 million current illicit drug users, 14.6 million (about 75 percent) are using marijuana.

14.6 million? In the first place, how does the ONDCP expect us to believe their figure is anything more than just another “statistic”, certainly low-ball? Question 2: Where is all the violent crime that we are led to believe will attend that much “sinning”? Why aren’t 14.6 million people robbing 7-11’s and banks, and only taking time out to push drugs in schoolyards?

1 • Of the 7.1 million Americans suffering from illegal drug dependence or abuse, 60 percent abuse or are dependent on marijuana.

“Abuse or are dependent”? Who gets to decide if use is abuse, or desire is dependence? Why, the “Scientists”, of course!

2 • Of all youth age 12-17 in drug treatment in 2000, nearly 62 percent had a primary marijuana diagnosis.

OOOOOHHH! A Primary Marijuana Diagnosis! Sounds sexy! Now, if the “Scientists” are so worried about 12 year old kids, what has that to do with forty year old taxpayers who want nothing to do with kids, in fact we just want to be left alone?!

(Sunday, July 23, 8:50 Central; I have work to do, I will return to this later.)

Approximately half were referred to treatment through the criminal justice system and half through other sources, including self-referral. 5 • The average age of initiation for marijuana use generally has been getting younger. 6 • Along with the bad news, however, come signs of improvement (see graph, below): ➤Among 10th graders, past-year and past-month use of marijuana or hashish decreased from 2001 to 2002, as did daily use in the past month. 7 ➤There has been slow but steady progress toward reduced marijuana use rates among 8th graders. Their past-year marijuana-use rate of 14.6 percent in 2002 is the lowest since 1994, and well below their recent peak of 18.3 percent in 1996. 8 ➤At 30.3 percent for past-year marijuana use, 10th graders are at their lowest level since 1995 and somewhat below their recent peak of 34.8 percent in 1997. The past-year use rate for 12th graders is down, albeit only modestly, from 38.5 percent in their recent peak year (1997) to 36.2 percent in 2002. 9 More young people are now in treatment for marijuana dependency than for alcohol or for all other illegal drugs combined.

MYTH 1 Marijuana is harmless.
Marijuana is far from harmless; in fact, recent scientific findings about the drug are startling. Most of the drug treatment for young people in the United States is for marijuana alone. Marijuana emergency-room mentions have skyrocketed over the past decade, and the drug is associated with an increased risk of developing schizophrenia, even when personality traits and pre-existing conditions are taken into account.

FACTS: Health Consequences • Marijuana smoke contains 50 percent to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke. 10 Using marijuana may promote cancer of the respiratory tract and disrupt the immune system. 11 • Marijuana smokers have a heightened risk of lung infection. 12 • Long-term use of marijuana may increase the risk of chronic cough, bronchitis, and emphysema, as well as cancer of the head, neck, and lungs. 13 • Mentions of marijuana use in emergency room visits have risen 176 percent since 1994, surpassing those of heroin. 14 • In 2001, marijuana was a contributing factor in more than 110,000 emergency department visits in the United States. 15 • Marijuana can cause the heart rate, normally 70 to 80 beats per minute, to increase by 20 to 50 beats per minute or, in some cases, even to double. 17 • In a 2003 study, researchers in England found that smoking marijuana for even less than six years causes a marked deterioriation in lung function. The study suggests that marijuana use may rob the body of antioxidants that protect cells against damage that can lead to heart disease and cancer. 18 • Marijuana affects alertness, concentration, perception, coordination, and reaction time— skills that are necessary for safe driving. A roadside study of reckless drivers in Tennessee found that 33 percent of all subjects who were not under the influence of alcohol and who were tested for drugs at the scene of their arrest tested positive for marijuana. 20 In a 2003 Canadian study, one in five students admitted to driving within an hour of using marijuana. 21 Smoking marijuana leads to changes in the brain similar to those caused by the use of cocaine and heroin. 16
• Marijuana users have more suicidal thoughts and are four times more likely to report symptoms of depression than people who never used the drug. 22 • The British Medical Journal recently reported: “Cannabis use is associated with an increased risk of developing schizophrenia, consistent with a causal relation. This association is not explained by use of other psychoactive drugs or personality traits relating to social integration.” 23

Social Consequences • Heavy marijuana use impairs the ability of young people to concentrate and retain information during their peak learning years. Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main active chemical in marijuana, changes the way sensory information gets into and is processed by the part of the brain that is crucial for learning and memory. 24 • Animal studies indicate that marijuana use may interfere with brain function and create problems with the perception of time, possibly making the user less adept at tasks that require sustained attention. 25 • Marijuana use has been associated with poor performance in school. One report showed that youths with an average grade of D or below were more than four times as likely to have used marijuana in the past year as youths with an average grade of A. 26 • Marijuana users in their later teen years are more likely to have an increased risk of delinquency and more friends who exhibit deviant behavior. They also tend to have more sexual partners and are more likely to engage in unsafe sex. 27 Economic Consequences • Use of marijuana and other illicit drugs comes at significant expense to society in terms of lost employee productivity, public health care costs, and accidents. 28 • Americans spent $10.6 billion on marijuana purchases in 1999. 29 The British Lung Foundation reports that smoking three or four marijuana joints is as bad for your lungs as smoking 20 tobacco cigarettes. 19

Y’all out there in nlog-land can go to the ONDCP’s weBSite and get the PDF file yourselves. Those of you who want to believe you need them to protect you from “the people your parents warned you about” will probably be dissuaded by nothing less than the Second Coming, plus the ONDCP’s crap is so tedious, that I’m not gonna waste any more time shooting holes in it. Life’s too short to squander it trying to cinvince you that you wouldn’t be blind anymore, if only you’r take your hands off your eyes!

The most obvious motivation to prohibit any form of recreation is fear. The Prohibitionists list the various evils that people, presumably all people, will surely do if they are permitted to recreate by, for instance, smoking a joint:
They tell us it’s a “gateway drug”, by which they mean that more and more will be required to satisfy the craving, until the user moves on to try stronger and stronger drugs, with greater and greater frequency, until finally a formerly-innocent teenager (”Johnny was such a good boy”) becomes a ne’er-do-well, a lazy bum, a thief or a parasite on government welfare programs, and finally he either dies in ignominy in some alley with a needle hanging out of his arm, or perhaps he “hits rock-bottom”, repents, and “goes forth and recreates no more.”
To say that prohibitionists are motivated by fear that all who smoke pot will meet such a fate does not go far enough: clearly the fear has no basis in reality so it must accurately be called COWARDICE. Not long ago, I called a radio talk-show host named Phil Valentine to advocate abolition of prohibition laws. He did not even attempt to refute anything I said to him, instead he told me of the harm I must be doing to my lungs by “inhaling”. I reasoned, “So you’d have the government protect us from ourselves”. He smugly replied, “No, I’d have the government protect us from you”. There you have it, taxpayers, Phil would have the government protect society from the Great Pariah, John Ray. At least Phil’s not abashed of his cowardice!
Those who arbitrate Morality, the Self-Righteous Anointed Ones who accuse, try, and convict us of all sorts of imagined “crimes” without the inconvenience of a jury, or evidence, or testimony, or cross-examination, or any other vestige of jurisprudence, would be elated to throw us in prison for life, or better yet, to place us in a “Re-education Resort” until we are “Healed”. Then we can safely be returned to normal life, where we will dutifully take our places in factory assembly lines so we can be “productive members of society”, just like Winston Smith, the protagonist of George Orwell’s “1984”, after he was “converted” in Room 101.
Prohibitionists have another motivation, even uglier than the cowardice discussed above, and that is ENVY: They say, “If I can’t have that kind of fun, then neither can anyone else!” Their error of grammar, using ‘can’ in place of ‘may’, is, at least subconsciously, a sneaky way of refusing to acknowledge that they attempt to deny permission, not to discount possibility, but I digress. Back to ENVY: the Self-Righteous Anointed Ones seem to believe that they are assured their place at the Right Hand of God, if only they abstain from having any fun, but if they don’t get to have fun, they’ll be DAMNED if they’ll just sit by while someone else shamelessly -gasp- Recreates!! Ovine in their docility, they resent and ENVY those who do not kowtow to their authority. Christians are correct in calling ENVY a “Deadly Sin”, and prohibitionists will surely rue the day they misused their numerical majority and empowered government to at least attempt to prohibit recreation.

Dear Doug,
I’m a Born-Again Apostate. I do believe in One Omnipotent, Omniscient God though, and I believe God to be the Author of All Creation.
I have a hundred disturbing questions; I hope you will indulge me as I address just one to you today.

Given that we owe our existence, our prosperity, our joy, our opportunities to learn, everything, to God, and given that our greatest goal and Joyful Burden is to discern and perform God’s Will:

Does Jesus’ existence (or his torture and attempted murder by the multitude) increase or decrease that Joyful Burden? No. If I’m right in my assertion that Jesus was neither more nor less Anointed than any other of God’s Children, is our Duty to discern and vigorously perform God’s Will less or more? No.

I certainly don’t disparage Jesus, he did great things. I simply think he was wrong to say that the only way to God is “through him”. Hey, we all make mistakes.

I hope you don’t mind that I took the liberty of answering my question(s) above, by saying “no”, and I sincerely invite your thoughts on this matter. Then if you’re still interested, I have 99 more disturbing questions.

May God Bless and Keep You,
John Ray