Marijuana legalization and the abolition of gay marriage are very alike...

On November 3, California voters will go to the polls and vote on many issues, but one is taking the spotlight away from all of the candidates vying for statewide positions and propositions set to enhance the wellbeing of California citizens. Propoisiton 19 asks the voters of California whether or not they want to legalize completely the use of marijuana in the state of California. As it looks right now, the voters of California seem as if they will pass this proposition, effectively changing the cultural climate of the United States forever. There's one hitch though. According to The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/09/californias-marijuana-initiative-a-problem-for-obama/63681/), President Obama may very well have to sue the state, just as they are suing Arizona over their new immigration enforcement laws.

There is a major difference, however, in suing Arizona over their arcane immigration laws and suing California over an issue the voters vote on. First, the Justice Department is suing Arizona because their laws essentially legalize racial discrimination, violating First Amendment rights, and because they restrict civil liberties of any American, especially those of color. Now, if one were to truly look at the issue of marijuana legalization, one must say that restricting someone from being able to possess and smoke marijuana violates our civil liberties as well. Regardless of one's stance on drugs or the fact that marijuana is a plant that grows naturally in our ecosystem, one must admit that restricting anyone to smoke marijuana is in fact against the First Amendment as well. There are basic freedoms owed to us in this nation, and the government does not exist to tell us what we can or cannot do to our bodies. Some might argue this argument could lead to the legalization of harder drugs, etc. But did the end of prohibition on alcohol lead to the legalization of any other drug? Certainly it has not. And the difference between marijuana and drugs such as cocaine and methamphetamines is that marijuana is not physically addictive. Furthermore, it can be used in its natural state. Even culturally, it is more accepted, but this should not be taken into consideration when arguing a law.

Now, another reason the Justice Department should stay away from the legalization of marijuana if California voters do pass this is that the voters are the ones who truly should be deciding the laws. Congress and the Justice Department are not above any other citizen, and this seems to be forgotten on a daily basis on Capitol Hill. Rich Congressmen seem to think they know what is best for the common American, even though many of them never live the life of a common citizen of the United States. They are there to serve not our best interests, but what their constituency believes in, and if that means the legalization of marijuana, and the legalization does not violate any constitutional code, then the Justice Department should not stick their nose in Prop 19's business.

The one flaw in this argument is perhaps Prop 8 of the 2008 elections which delegalized gay marriage in California. Obviously gay marriage is a contestable issue, and the majority of California voters voted against the legalization of gay marriage. Therefore, we should accept that this is what the voters want and move on, right? Wrong. Just as is the case with the Arizona immigration laws, the delegalization of gay marriage in California is inherently restricting all civil liberties of gay couples, because of their biological sexual orientation. This is clearly discriminatory and violates the civil rights of gay couples everywhere. So, you've got these three issues, and although voters may vote one way, Congress is in no place to tell them that they know better than the average American. However, the issues of gay marriage and immigration are ones that deal with civil rights and equality laws, whereas the legalization of marijuana does not contest any equal or civil issues among Americans. So, the Justice Department needs to avoid any conflict with the voters of California and let them decide once and for all whether or not they want to legalize the use of marijuana recreationally in their state.

Are all Atheists really just Deists?

I had an interesting discussion with my roommate and best friend the other day about whether or not Atheism is truly just a theory. I suppose I must preface this by saying one cannot truly know what everyone else in the world firmly believes, because often one isn't even sure what they believe in most of the time.

So Atheism, for this sake I shall call it a theory, by all dictionary definitions, not a cultural American definition, is defined as the rejection of belief in the existence of deities (shoutout to wikipedia for these). Now, if we are to accept this as the definition of what an Atheist truly believes then let's go forth to the definition of Deism. Deism "is the standpoint that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for either faith or organized religion, can determine that a supreme being created the universe. Further the term often implies that this supreme being does not intervene in human affairs or suspend the natural laws of the universe." So, really in essence Deism is the belief that there is a POSSIBILITY, regardless of how trivial or minute this probability is, from .000001% to 99.9%, that there is a supreme being.

Now, I have always regarded myself as an atheist. But really in essence I cannot rule out completely the existence of something that controls the universe. No one can. No one can say for sure that there is not a god, just as no one can say there is a god. And by 'god' this does not insinuate there is a person or a sentient being controlling all. Not by any means is this what a god could be. Our bodies are made up of so many particles that replicate millions of times and fail so infrequently, and our body has time to correct this, that it is seemingly perfect. Now, this can be attributed to nature or evolution, sure. But if we have so much in us we don't understand, it really isn't possible to rule out that we don't have the capability to fully fathom what is beyond us, or what is in other dimensions.

I used to use the old atheist argument that if there was a god, who created that god? And so forth and so on. But to use this argument is to say that our brains can understand infinity, and really we cannot truly grasp just what infinity means. To believe in the existence of ourselves we must accept that there truly could be no beginning to the universe or what it really is, because something, SOMETHING, had to come around to make the universe. Wrapping your head around that can make one go nuts.

So, if deism is defined as entertaining that there could be something in this universe we do not comprehend, which clearly there is, then we must say that atheism is not a practice, but a theory. There are things beyond the control of humans in this universe that happened without us and will happen for eons after us. Maybe Jesus Christ didn't rise from Hell after sparing humanity by sacrificing himself three days previously, but certainly it cannot be DISPROVEN ever beyond theory that maybe there is a man upstairs, however unfathomable it may be.

Edit*: I suppose I should add that I do believe that Atheism has turned into a cultural term for those who generally disbelieve in a 'God' such as a higher power. But this cultural term is mislabeled, because truly no one can rule out the existence of anything. Therefore, agnostic or deist may be a more suitable term than atheist for nonbelievers.

Death penalty...and Dexter

I've just recently started watching season 3 of Dexter, and am about halfway through. Dexter, a serial killer in his own right, is really a vigilante of sorts, a la Boondock Saints. The thing with Dexter is that he, as he explains in the show, needs to kill. Its in his nature to shed blood, and he has chosen the supposed moral path to being a killer. A forensics leader in the Miami Police Dept. he really has his pick on the worst of the worst. He, for the first time, recently killed a child molester that had never killed. It 'broke his code' but he still felt good about it.

I find two inherent problems with this image, and I think the writers do a great job of involving those who support capital punishment, and therefore likely support Dexter's vigilantism (if they don't believe in the judicial's system like the ADA Jimmy Smits does) and those are pacifists or against killing another human being in prison, regardless of the crime. My problems with Dexter are that I think any human is capable of overcoming a biological difficulty. Instead of trying to do this, even as he becomes a family man, he just succumbs to this psychological/biological need to kill. I suppose one with dementia could never really overcome dementia, but the desire or need to kill, if we are looking at it from a strict scientific point of view, it is feasible to overcome. The man does not even see a therapist, nor does he have an attorney to confide in (until Jimmy Smits really, and even then he hides his ritual). And the one man he does confide him supports this unhealthy addiction.

My second issue is that killing humans is simply wrong. Killing a man who hasn't killed, as the pedophile that he killed, is no worse or better than killing a murderer, but even he had a code and broke it for this innate urge. Truly, pacifism I feel is not completely feasible in a world with fear and hate, although these are both human emotions that can be overcome, however that does not take away from the fact that it IS possible, however impractical. In Dexter's reality, where there is no exercise of self defense, the truly only justifiable defense of killing anyone in my belief, he kills for revenge. Killing for revenge or for a vendetta is inherently immoral. Killing is simply the most, by definition, inhumane act that could ever occur.

Alas, I enjoy the show because it sparks discussion like this, but I do feel that it helps spread the message, however insignificant or significant, that killing for revenge, i.e. the death penalty, is okay and justifiable. Furthermore, I feel that with the death penalty, even the trivial chance that an innocent could get killed, the potential for an innocent man to die is too much to justify the killing of anyone. So many men on death row have been exonerated after several appeals. Our judicial system may be faulty in great lengths, but it certainly isn't Dexter's job to pick up the slack.

Don't ask, don't ignore.

"A nation under a well regulated government, should permit none to remain uninstructed. It is monarchical and aristocratical government only that requires ignorance for its support." Thomas Paine could've told the United States government this now, and they'd still stare at him like a deer in headlights. 


It is hard to ignore rationality when it stares one in the face. With the United States' Senate recently deciding to sweep the 'don't ask don't tell' policy debate under the rug because grumpy Republicans think this isn't the right time for it, we are clearly stuck in the past. We are fighting two wars halfway across the world, and our recruiters are killing themselves, and regular soldiers as well, at rates never before seen in the United States Army. We have been fighting longer now than we did in Vietnam, and the military claims it needs soldiers. If there are willing citizens ready to take up arms, why is the US government so unwilling to let gay soldiers in? It is so ignorant to think that gay Americans are any different from any other American. It is furthermore infringing on many civil rights laws. Homosexuals have no physical or mental defect prohibiting from doing the job of a soldier, yet they are disqualified from joining the US military because of something that they were born with, something biological. Now obviously this same rhetoric could be used to justify gay marriage, but that requires another post at another time attacking the religious fanaticism behind that deplorable debate. It just is counter-intuitive for the United States Senate to ignore the facts, and the abhorrent civil law violations that this policy evokes. The people of the United States need to let their elected Congressmen know that this is not right and something needs to be done. We cannot let the minds and wallets of a few determine such crucial matters as these.