"Mistrust those in whom the urge to punish is strong." Friedrich Nietzche

"Any and all non-violent, non-coercive, non-larcenous, consensual adult behavior that does not physically harm other people or their property or directly and immediately endangers same, that does not disturb the peace or create a public nuisance, and that is done in private, especially on private property, is the inalienable right of all adults. In a truly free and liberty-loving society, ruled by a secular government, no laws should be passed to prohibit such behavior. Any laws now existing that are contrary to the above definition of inalienable rights are violations of the rights of adults and should be made null and void." D. M. Mitchell (from The Myth of Inalienable Rights, at: http://dowehaverights.blogspot.com/)

Sunday, October 26, 2008

"Heaven" and drug rehab

Today, Sunday, I had all my household chores done and nothing really to do. I had just finished a good book and had not started another. So, there I was "clicking" through the channels for worthwhile movie to watch. I had the "preview" window on so that I could check out actors and actresses (yes, I am old-fashioned: men are actors, women are actresses) and to try and get an inkling of what the movies might be about.

I came across a movie titled "Heaven." The "blurb" said it was about an Italian policeman who falls in love with a widow (played by Kate Blanchett) and tries to help her kill a drug dealer. Okay, I gave it a try.

The movie was in progress and I heard the heroine states something to the effect that she knew of 13-year-old children who had been through drug rehab.

My immediate thought was that if the "drugs" were legal to adults there would probably be a whole lot fewer 13-year-old who had access to them. "Drugs", of course, being any of the presently illegal ones.

My second thought was how many 13-year-olds, and teenagers in general, have been through rehab for the narcotic drug, alcohol?

At "Focus Adolescent Services"
I found out that, in the U.S.A. there are at least three million teens who are "out-and-out alcoholics"; that there are 5,000 deaths per year of people under 21 that are alcohol related; and that for people, age 15-24, the leading causes of death are alcohol-related auto accidents, homicides, and suicides.

I didn't finish watching the movie. I didn't find out if, somewhere in the movie, the protagonists imbibed in one alcoholic beverage or another...although they probably did. How many people do you know that don't drink alcoholic beverages? I wonder if the writer of the movie thought about alcohol and 13-year-olds and drug rehab, or if the writer just thought of the presently illegal drugs?

I don't believe in prohibition...of any drug. I believe that adults should be able to make up their own minds about drug use, including alcohol and tobacco (tobacco being the number one preventable death-causing substance). The so-called war on drugs wastes money, wastes lives, causes more problems that it solves, and violates the rights of otherwise honest adults from the free use of their bodies and their minds where such use does not violate the rights of others. (Most rights-violating behavior surrounding the presently illegal drugs is caused by the prohbition, not the mere use of the drugs.)

Having said that, I must say that I do believe that, due to the nature of the adolescent brain--both physically and emotionally--all addictive drugs, nicotine and alcohol included, should be prohibited to adolescents and that strong punishments should be provided for adults who provide those drugs to them.

Teenagers need to let their (basically) scrambled brains--striving to change from childhood to adulthood--to settle down and straighten out before they start scrambling their brains with drugs.

Drug rehab and 13-year-olds. Three million out-and-out teen alcoholics. When I went to a web site for the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) for teens--Students & Young Adults--there were "click-on" articles for all of the presently illegal drugs, but none for alcohol.

Alcohol is a socially acceptable drug. Presidents, politicians, prosecutors, policemen, and millions of people everywhere drink this dangerous and (to some) addictive drug. It's endemic in our society. Still, it is a drug...a narcotic drug. And it causes so much more harm than all the illegal ones as to boggle the mind. But mostly, we ignore that and focus, as did the movie, "Heaven", on illegal drugs. Why?

As I said above--and I am as sure of what I am saying as I am sure that I am alive right now--if we legalized the presently illegal drugs to adults, then it would be harder for minors to get them. Why? Why not as easy as alcohol?

First, it's easier today for minors to get illegal drugs than alcohol. Age is not a factor in buying an illegal product, only money is. Do your research. Second, all of the presently illegal drugs, except, possibly, marijuana, are not socially acceptable drugs in the general sense as is alcohol. Therefore, if those drugs could only be bought by adults showing valid ID, and the punishment for selling or providing those drugs to minors were severe, then it would be harder for minors to get them.

As Americans, generally speaking, we are hysterical about drugs. And yet not hysterical enough about alcohol, which many see as a rite of passage, but which the statistics show as an initiation into lifelong problems for millions of teenagers. We need to stop being hysterical, that is, emotional, and become more logical about the realities of drug use.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Thoughts on California's Proposition 8

Proposition 8 is an attempt to change the California Constitution so that marriage would be defined as between a man and a woman only. That would invalidate an earlier California Supreme Court ruling allowing marriage between same sex couples.

The people who want Proposition 8 to pass are, basically, people who call themselves Christians. They see marriage from a (limited) Biblical point of view as only between a man and a woman. (I discuss why Christianity and homosexuality are incompatible in my article, "Diametrically Opposed," two posts below.)

Contrary to the generally held Christian viewpoint, that homosexuality is a choice, I believe, due to the literature that I have read on the subject and from talking to homosexuals that I have known, that homosexuality is not a choice. And, from the historical record going back at least two or three thousand years, homosexuality is not new.

But what is the purpose of marriage? Why must it be sanctioned by the "state"? And, will allowing homosexual marriages to be legally binding negatively affect people who are opposed to it, for whatever reason?

Taking that last question first, I would have to say that the answer is, more likely than not, yes. There are always unseen consequences to actions and laws. If a church or private school, among other scenarios, will not teach or recognize same sex marriages, they could be sued for civil rights violations.

America, if nothing else, is a sue-happy nation. We have 5% of the world's population and 75% of the lawyers . . . who will quite happily attempt to prove a legal wrong has taken place in order to take money from one person's pocket and line their own.

What is the purpose of marriage? Originally, it was to unite familes and strengthen bonds between clans, tribes, or nations; to produce bloodlines for inheritance purposes; and to tell the community and the world at large that a certain man was the owner and protector of both his wife and children, as well as being responsible for them and their actions. (Well, that's the short and practical version. It's really a bit more complicated than that.) Homosexuality had nothing to do with it as no children could be born out of a same sex marriage, and children were crucial to the original purposes of marriage.

As for marriages being "legalized" by the "state", that only came into being in the late modern times. Now with social security, insurance benefits, and others modern complications to our financial lives, marriage licenses are needed to prove eligibility for various financial benefits and rewards.

Therefore, I can only surmise that the only reason that the homosexual community wants to have their marriages legally recognized is for financial purposes. If that isn't the case, then there is no reason why a same sex couple couldn't have a private marriage ceremony, with friends and family in attendance to witness their vows and intentions.

The proponents of Proposition 8 say that same sex couples have the option of civil unions that would protect them in the areas I mentioned above. I haven't researched that but, if true, then I am on the side of the Proposition 8 proponents, because the law of unintended consequences will cause many prolems for them in the future.

If that is not true, if civil unions don't give the same or equal benefits to same sex couples, then that should be remedied, legally. A homosexual couple can love each other just as much and be devoted to each other just as much as a hetrosexual couple. They are, after all, humans too.

Monday, October 20, 2008


(This is a variation of my "Beginning Day" poem)

Early morning sunlight streams up
Pink and rosy to paint the bottoms
Of torn and ragged bits of clouds.
Old man crow is winging slowly overhead.
He croaks his harsh and guttural
Greeting to the new-come day.
The wind lightly sweeps through the trees
As the gathering light silently
Pushes back the soft darkness.
I hear the sounds of birds awakening.
I see the colors and textures of the world
Emerging slowly all about me.
I think of you, my love, and I am filled
As a cup that is filled to overflowing.

Diametrically Opposed: Why Christianity and Homosexuality Can't Mix

Can religion and logical thinking exist together? Obviously not...for many reasons. Here is but one.

I was watching a news program a while back in which a homosexual man was being interviewed. (I am not opposed to homosexuality. I do not believe that it is unnatural or that it makes a person bad or, as the U.S. military believes, that being a homosexual makes a person unfit or unreliable. Myself, I am heterosexual.) The man being interviewed, as the narrator said, studied his Bible and prayed to (the Christian) God on a regular basis because he was homosexual... without a doubt. He prayed for years that God would intervene and make him a heterosexual. It didn't happen. Then the man had his own little epiphany: Jesus loves him anyway and he could still be a Christian.

What's wrong with that man's thinking? It is anything but logical. As science and medicine has discovered, being homosexual, at least for the vast majority of men and women who are, is not a choice. They are born that way. That, of course, has not been proven. But many studies, with both humans and animals, show a physiological difference in brain structure or chemistry between heterosexuals and homosexuals. See, for instance the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality.

Let me put this another way: Extremely few, if any, homosexuals were adult or near-adult heterosexuals then, one day, decided to become homosexuals. Therefore, by genetics, in the uterus, or in early childhood development--beyond the control of the child--some people become homosexuals. This seems to be a natural process, again, beyond the control of the person.

The Christians' creator-god quite clearly condemns homosexual activity in the Bible. Jesus Christ is the supposed human-born son of that creator-god and nowhere did Jesus say that he came to change the old laws of the Hebrews. In fact, he even stated that no biblical law would be changed. (Matthew 5:18.) Therefore, the Old Testament law banning homosexual activity (among many other behaviors common today), upon pain of death, is a Christian principle. It's the same God, Jesus is the son of that God (as well as being that God, too), and the law was not changed.

Based on these "Christian facts", a homosexual is a sinner and cannot, without repenting and giving up his or her sinful ways, go to Heaven. But, based on science, it is more likely than not that homosexuals do not have a choice in being homosexual. Then, by logical extension of the creator-god beliefs, we can see that God made homosexuals the way they are by allowing them to be born as homosexuals; knowing that they were going to be homosexuals, as well as knowing that no matter how hard they prayed to "HIM" to be "normal", they would remain homosexuals. Therefore, we have the irrational situation that a creator-god creates a world where it knows that homosexuals will be born...and condemns them to death and everlasting perdition. Yeah, I like that...a world created by an all-powerful, all-knowing being, who happens to be illogical and not very nice.

To believe in the Christian dogma and yet be an unrepentant and unchanged homosexual are diametrical opposites. That is, it is illogical. But then, I have found over the years that many, if not most, people allow their logical self to be controlled by their emotional self. That's one reason why so many people are screwed up, why the world is so screwed up. And, at the bottom of all this screwing up you will almost always find religion...emotion versus logic.

Sunday, October 19, 2008

Narco News

This is old stuff, but I just found out about it recently and have finally gotten around to writing something about it.

It has been stated in no uncertain terms that the United States is the biggest money laundering nation in the world--especially in relation to drug money--and that Wall Street is the place where the action happens. The same person who so claimed, stated that people high up in the government for several Presidential administrations have know about this and are or may be complicit with this money laundering.

This could be a reason why the so-called war on drugs will never be won...those in power don't want it to be...notwithstanding the fact that the war on drugs is a direct violation of the inalienable rights of adult citizens to the full and complete ownership and use of their bodies and minds if they are not violating the rights of others.

In any case, you can go to the first URL that I list below, then follow up to the next two from there, or click on each one separately, as you wish. These are must read articles if you want to know how evil the prohibition of the presently illegal drugs really is.



I wonder how the recent losses on Wall Street will affect the drug money invested there. Probably not nearly as much as legitimate investments. The only way to make money is to buy low and sell high. In the illegitimate drug world, what costs a dollar to produce can be sold for thirty, forty, fifty dollars or more; the epitome of buying low and selling high. The illegitimate drug producers can afford to take large losses and still make tons of money.

Saturday, October 18, 2008


Lightly the wind sweeps through the trees.
Paloverde and mesquite gently dancing in the breeze.
Quietly the gathering light of day
Pushes back the soft darkness.
Palest lavender, the early dawn is lifting
The veil of night so silently.

I think . . . . . . . nothing.
I hear . . . sounds of morning . . . awakening birds
And the slightly sighing breeze.
I see . . . inchoate colors and textures
Emerging all about me.

Old man crow, winging slowly overhead,
Croaks his harsh and guttural greeting to the new-come day.
I hear.
I see.
I take it as a greeting to me.
Another day in my prison is beginning.
I sit wrapped warmly in a blanket
Against the desert winter cold.
I sit wrapped in the tranquility of early morning.
But, in reality . . .
I sit naked, exposed, and oh so lonely in my soul.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Why I Can’t Own a Liquor Store

Supposedly, recreational drugs other than alcohol and tobacco are so bad, dangerous, addictive, and such society wreckers that the government has to protect adults from their use and abuse. Even though you may be an honest, self-supporting, hard-working adult, you are not competent to decide if you want to use certain chemical substances because they are so dangerous that you won’t be able to control yourself and will become: (A) addicted, (B) a murderer, (C) brain dead, (D) a thief , (E) all of the above.

Sounds like a good reason to ban certain drugs, right?. There is just one little problem with the government’s scenario. The true narcotic drug, alcohol, is addictive. Hard core alcoholics (drug addicts) are brain dead, more or less. Alcohol use is related to over 40% of all murders, among other crimes. The use of alcohol is responsible for five times more deaths than all the illegal drugs. Tobacco is responsible for 25 times more deaths.

If you go to Drug War Facts at http://www.drugwarfacts.org and click on the simulated book cover in the upper left corner, that will take you to a page where you can find facts about drugs, including alcohol and tobacco. Then , “click” on “Causes of Death in the United States”.
Illegal drugs cause about 17,000 deaths per year. Aspirin and other such drugs cause about 7,600. Prescription drug use (in hospitals) cause 32,000, maybe as many as 106,000. Marijuana use causes no deaths. However, alcohol use causes 85,000 such deaths and tobacco 435,000.

Then, if you go back and “click” on “Alcohol” you can find that nearly 40% of all convicted prisoners were using alcohol at the time of committing their crime (paragraph 3). About 60% of jail inmates had been drinking regularly in the year previous to their crimes (paragraph 4). For more than 40% of convicted murderers alcohol played a part in the murders they committed (paragraph 6). Finally, under “Crime”, at paragraph 15, we find that, overall, the mere use of alcohol causes more violent crimes than all the illegal drugs.

So this is why I can’t own a liquor store, or any store that sells alcohol or tobacco. If the government’s rationale for banning the presently illegal drugs is correct—that they are addictive, dangerous, deadly, and cause crime and therefore must be prohibited—then wouldn’t that rationale hold true for the drugs alcohol and tobacco also? If it is wrong to sell any of the presently illegal drugs then it must be more wrong to sell alcohol and tobacco because of the far greater harm those two drugs cause to individuals and society.

We don’t arrest people for drinking. They are arrested only if their behavior violates or threatens to violate the rights of others. Why don’t we apply that same standard to all the “recreational” drugs? Don’t we, as adults, have the right to the use (or abuse) of our bodies as we want, just so long as we don’t violate the rights of others? Isn’t that what the concept of inalienable rights is all about?

Besides, re-legalizing drugs would put violent drug cartels and street gangs out of business, and severely restrict the money flow to global terrorists. Such a policy would also make it much more difficult for minors to buy those drugs. Then and only then could I own a liquor store . . . that is, if I had been so foolish as to have believed the government’s irrational, hypocritical, and rights-violating propaganda to begin with.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008


One day God was out walking in the void. He was experimenting with a new idea He had: light. It's rather dark in the void so God decided to make light.

First, He put it below Him. But He didn't like that effect. Oh, it would have been good for a scary monster effect...but at the time there were no scary monsters, or people, so He moved the light behind Him. He didn't like that either. It cast His shadow out in front of Him...and God has a very big shadow. Then He moved it to His right side, but wasn't happy with the results. A light always shining on the right side of Him was rather irritating. He didn't move it to the left side. He figured He wouldn't like it any better there than He had on the right side. Next, He moved the light in front of Him. But then it shone right into His eyes. That wouldn't do. Finally, He moved the light above Him. Ah! Now that was good. He could see all around in the void without shadows, or light in His eyes, or constantly on one side or the other. He liked it above, so He left it there.

As God was standing there looking up, He got a strange sensation in His nose. You know how, sometimes, it makes you want to sneeze when you look up at a bright light, or into the bright sky? Well, that is what happened to God...and God had never sneezed before, or He would have done something about it.

In any case, God sneezed. Oh my, what a sneeze that was! Billions and billions of tiny God-particles of mucus, moisture, and who knows what else went flying out into the void. Each particle contained a bit of God's DNA, of course. God's sneeze also shattered the light into billions and billions of tiny pieces. They, too, went spinning out into the void. God saw all the tiny points of lights in the void and thought it was very pretty and that it was good. He called it cosmos (God only spoke Greek in those days). God then turned around and walked back to his house (yes, the house of God) and went inside, closing the door behind Him. He went to contemplate some more, maybe come up with a new idea, like He had with light.

In the meantime, all the billions and billions of particles were now frozen balls of stuff...because the void is very cold...which, of course, doesn't bother God in the least. But slowly, over time (and one day of God's time is one-hundred million of our years), the bits of shattered light, which were bigger and heavier than the bits of God snot, attracted various bits of the God snot to themselves, which, due to gravity (another one of God's unique ideas) began orbiting the bits of light and, thus, solar systems came into being. The bits of God snot that were too close to the bits of light either vaporized or dried out. The ones too far away remained balls of ice. But the ones, like our Earth, that were at just the right distance from its bit of light, were neither too hot nor too cold. And God’s DNA, embedded in the God-Snot, began to grow, divide, and evolve. The rest is history.