Thinking Outside the Blog, written by Louis Lapides offers readers a much - needed pit stop to help us refine our thinking on life's big issues. In his blog Louis steers us outside those comfortable mental roads we often travel on when it comes to the way we think about God, religion, politics and culture. Thinking Outside the Blog maps out a highway of wisdom that must be revisited over and over.
As a guest on Fox's Bill O'Reilly show last night, Samaritan's Purse CEO Franklin Graham was asked about Pastor Robert Bell's denial of hell in his book, Love Wins.
Graham, son of evangelist Billy Graham, wasted no words in describing Bell as a "false teacher and a heretic" because "the Bible is very clear that there is a hell." Playing the devil's advocate O'Reilly questioned whether the belief in eternal damnation in hell is cruel. The evangelist responded.
What's cruel is a person who rejects Almighty God and slams the door in God's face. The Bible says God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son.
Graham made it clear that God has made every provision possible through the gift of His Son Jesus Christ so that no one need spend eternity separated from God.
Pastor Rob Bell of Mars Hill Bible Church, outside of Grand Rapids, Michigan, has become the center of controversy due to his denial of hell recently reported in Time magazine's cover article. Bell is a declared participant in a growing movement trying to pass themselves off as part of evangelical Christianity known as the "emerging church."
The emerging church phenomenon is a new generation churches, according to Christianity Today known for their improvisational approach to everything "from worship to leadership to preaching to prayer." Unfortunately, emerging church pastors are also taking an improvisational approach to the authority of the Bible.
I have to ask myself if a so called "christian" movement questions the reliability of the Word of God, then what is this movement emerging towards. Heresy? False doctrine? A watered-down version of the New Testament?
In an CT interview with Pastor Bell, he told the evangelical magazine that he started questioning his own assumptions about the Bible, "discovering the Bible as a human product, rather than a product of divine utterance."
Bell's wife Kristen confessed in the same interview that she grew up thinking "that we figured out the Bible that we knew what it means. Now I have no idea of what most of it means." With statements like these from the Bells, perhaps Mars Hill Bible Church should rename itself to "Mars Hill Bibleless Church."
It also seems any pastor who associates himself with the views of Pastor Bell may lose his job. At the end of March, North Carolina Methodist minister Chad Holtz was fired from his pastoral position after expressing his doubts over the existence of hell. Holtz was outed for his beliefs after posting on his Facebook page support for Pastor Bell's book Love Wins.
As a former pastor I rejoice that evangelical leaders like Franklin Graham, pastor and author John Piper and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president R. Albert Mohler, Jr. are stepping forward in condemning the false teachings that are expressed by the leaders of the emerging church movement, especially Pastor Bell.
In a time when sound doctrine is essential to communicate the good news of Jesus the Messiah to a lost world, we cannot be improvising the eternal truths of the Word of God as seen in this current movement.
The challenge to the growing rank of emergent churches is to start emerging back to holding fast to timeless teachings of Jesus, and stop worrying how to make Jesus more relevant to today's aimless culture. Jesus Himself told His contemporaries that "heaven and earth will pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matthew 24:35).
In 1975 John Lennon wrote the song Imaginein which he visualized a world where hell does not exist:
Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Now Pastor Robert Bell of Michgan's Mars Hill Bible Church has sketched out the theology to accompany Lennon's classic tune.
On the cover of the April 14th issue of Time magazine, the question sparked by Rob Bell's book new best seller, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, is asked, "What If Hell Does Not Exist?"
The Time article offers a meandering outline of Bell's theology regarding the issue of hell's existence. The news magazine makes it crystal clear that the traditional evangelical message is that salvation is found only in the atoning death of Jesus Christ. Bluntly stated, Time author Jon Meacham acknowledges the classic Christian viewpoint, "In the Evangelical ethos, one either accepts this and goes to heaven or refuses and goes to hell."
In contrast the Michigan pastor suggests that the redeeming work of Jesus Christ "may be universal." In other words, every person who has ever lived has a place in heaven. Rather than parlay with Bell's non-evangelical theology on every jot and title, I want to address a few disconcerting issues in his belief system:
*Pastor Bell's lack of certainty in his denial of the existence of hell is a red flag. In contrast to the New Testament authors who speak with confidence about salvation through Christ alone, Bell speaks of his "salvation for everybody" with a great deal of uncertainty. He feels the eternal destiny of those who don't accept Christ is a "mystery" and that his view is a "suggestion".
Of what advantage is Bell's beliefs if they are merely uncertainties and suggestions of mystery? Pastor Bell is concocting a stew of controversy in the church over issues he is not really sure of himself. Consequently, his book helps no one but is a tragic piece of Christian literature whose sole purpose is to raise doubt regarding the veracity of the Bible.
Perhaps Bell should have written a science fiction novel about a make-believe Christian utopia rather than a book about a make-believe theology!
*If Bell's view of hell is true, then, as Meacham points out, "Christianity becomes [little] more of an ethical habit of mind than a faith based on divine revelation."
If all Christianity has contributed is just one more religiously based moral code, then Christ died needlessly. Without the substitutionary death of Jesus, the Apostle's have given us a set of rules to follow in order to live a better life. Eternal salvation through Jesus becomes a non-issue in Pastor Bell's uncertain theology.
Even if Jesus died for everyone resulting in the fact everyone is going to heaven, where is the motivation for sharing the gospel message? There is no need for the church to share the message of Christ and there is no need for the cross which is the essence of the gospel message.
*Finally, if there is no hell as John Lennon merely imagined, then there lacks a sense of justice in the universe. In the afterlife both the victimizer and the victim are destined to the same end. Even if one believes the afterlife is a state of sleep or annihilation, the adherent to this view has to deal with the fact life ends without a sense of divine justice. Hitler and Mother Teresa share the same fate.
An afterlife without divine justice means that murderers like Jeffrey Dahmer, Joseph Stalin and Pol Put will never face judgment for their sins. Unless they confessed their sins and sought forgiveness from Christ for their heinous crimes, they will be enjoying eternal bliss with their victims.
Though I am not a betting man, I highly doubt if anyone of these brutal killers ever repented of their sins and begged Jesus for forgiveness. I don't know about you, but a world that does not include divine justice is a sad, meaningless world.
The worse aspect of Bell's Love Wins is his question, "What does it mean to be a Christian?" Bell's book leads us to the conclusion that a follower of Christ is non-judgmental, lacks a sense of conviction about the gospel message of eternal life through Christ and that other faiths are no different than the New Testament message of salvation through Jesus. If am a Buddhist, then why do I need to accept Jesus as my Savior if He has already redeemed my soul and promises me heaven?
Robert Bell has a lot of answering to do for his "denial of hell" which has placed him outside the fold of the evangelical faith.
This week newspapers trumpeted the significance of the discovery of 70 lead codices (manuscript volume) that could impact our knowledge of early Christian history. Some scholars are of the opinion this find may be more important than the Dead Sea Scrolls.
According to the BBC News this could be the earliest Christian writing in existence.
Tests so far by metallurgists on the badly corroded lead leaves. unearthed in a northern Jordanian cave, suggest the books were not made recently, suggesting they are not a fake. The jury will have to remain out on the dating of this discovery until all the evidence has been examined.
Director of Jordan' Department of Antiquities, Ziaf al-Saad advocates the books may have been composed by Christians living in the "few decades immediately following His [Jesus] crucifixion."
The Jordanian government is arguing the codices were smuggled out of Jordan by an Israeli Bedouin who claims the relics were in his family for 100 years. Rather than belabor the issue of who owns the books, biblical scholars need to focus on the validity and meaning of this possible unprecedented find.
The Composition of the Codices
The books, which turned up five years ago, were cast in lead before they were bound together by lead rings. They resemble an ancient spiral notebook. The pages or leaves are the size of a credit card and the text contained within the manuscripts are written in ancient Aramaic - the language of Jewish people living in the time of Jesus.
Presently a British team of archaeologists, headed by David Elkington, a scholar of ancient religious archaeology, is investigating these objects that may have made the rounds among early Jewish believers in Jesus.
So far, according to Yahoo News inspection of the codices contain "a number of images and textual allusions to the Messiah, as well as some possible references to the crucifixion and resurrection."
In the upper square of one of the book covers, a seven-branch menorah is displayed. Elkington states the presence of the menorah would be interpreted by early Christians as indicating Jesus. Since the menorah was placed in the holy place in the Temple, it spoke of the presence of God. Since Jesus brought the presence of God on earth, the menorah on the manuscript cover, says Elkington, points to Jesus.
The Validity of the Codices
Are these codices valid or not? My main concern is the readiness of some Christian scholars to add their twentieth century theological biases to the understanding of this ancient relic.
There is a cross in the foreground, and behind it is what has to be the tomb [of Jesus], a small building with an opening, and behind that the walls of the city. There are walls depicted on other pages of these books, too, and they almost certainly refer to Jerusalem.
Davies is way too assured when he states, "it is a Christian crucifixion taking place outside the city walls." One cannot forget that Jesus was not the only one crucified by the Romans.
Crucifixion was a regular method of execution of Jewish rebels against the Romans rule in the early centuries. A casual examination of the New Testament reveals the two thieves that were crucified next to Jesus at a location outside the city walls that was probably used to execute Jewish Zealots.
When Davies says, "what has to be the tomb [of Jesus}, he needs to rear back before making such bold pronouncements until further evidence is brought forth. We cannot forget the forgeries of other so-called Christian relics such as the ossuary that was said to contain the bones of James, the half brother of Jesus.
The questionable reference to the resurrection of Jesus. Along with the image of the menorah, a text reads, "I shall walk uprightly," a sentence Robert Pigott, BBC News religious affairs correspondent, says could refer to the resurrection of the Messiah. He also maintains this phrase appears in the Book of Revelation.
The presumption this phrase refers to the resurrection is Pigott's conjecture and thus far is not supported by any similar statements from either Jewish or Christian source materials. Christians should be hesitant to quickly conclude like Pigott that we have an early reference to the resurrection of Christ in the lead leaves.
The preposterous reference to the sealed book in Revelation I am amused by the view put forth by the Yahoo article that "since some of the codices were sealed, prompting yet more breathless speculation that they could include the sealed book, shown only to the Messiah, mentioned in the Book of Revelation."
This view is fallacious for several reasons:
First, the sealed book mentioned in the futuristic vision in Revelation 5:1 refers to a heavenly (not earthly) scene taking place before the throne of God, and only the Lamb of God, Jesus was able to open the book (vs. 6). So these codices could not be the book that could only be opened by Jesus.
Second, further reading of Revelation 5 shows the sealed book contains the seven seals of judgment to fall upon the earth during the period of the tribulation on the earth prior to the return of Jesus (Revelation 6).
Third, if the sealed book can only be shown to the Messiah, why are we even discussing this archaeological find? All the experts would need to open the sealed books would be a pair of wire cutters and the mystery is solved. Fortunately, the mystery is already solved since we are already told what is contained in the sealed book in the Book of Revelation.
Conclusive Comments
Whether or not the codices are authentic remains to be seen. For sure, their discovery is exciting and could contain a link to the early Jewish followers of Jesus. If anything, these codices, assuming they are not forgeries, can provide many unanswered questions concerning the beliefs of the early Jewish followers in Yeshua in the first century. If the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus are contained in these manuscripts that would put to rest the liberal Christian view that the resurrection of Jesus was a doctrine fabricated by Gentile Christians in later centuries.
I would be the first one to celebrate the validation of the widespread faith in Jesus as Israel's Messiah among first century Jews. However, for now the jury is still out on confirming the authenticity of this important archaeological discovery.
"WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?" Louis Farrakhan shouted at President Obama over WVON-AM 1690 radio in Chicago on Saturday's broadcast.
Farrakhan's Controversy Over Libya
Minister Farrakhan, long-time Nation of Islam leader aimed his tirade at the U.S. President over his decision to call Libya's Muammar Gaddafi to step down from his leadership role. Gaddafi is the object of America, Great Britain and France's ire over the slaughtering of Libyan citizens who are protesting his dictatorship politics and seeking his resignation.
Farrakhan, outspoken supporter of Obama and recipient of a lifetime achievement award from Obama's former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is a noted anti-Semite and racist. In his criticism of the president, the Minister cautioned Obama:
I warn my brother do not let these wicked demons move you in a direction that will absolutely ruin your future with your people in Africa and throughout the world…Why don’t you organize a group of respected Americans and ask for a meeting with Gaddafi, you can’t order him to step down and get out, who the hell do you think you are?”
Farrakhan's Blind Eye Towards Muslim-on-Muslim Mass Slaughter
Farrakhan reference to "wicked demons" describes the leaders of "imperialist" Great Britain, France and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton who decided to establish a "no fly" zone in Libya. Farrakahn is infamous for calling white people "white devils" yet he ignores the Islamic demons in his own backyard.
Not once in Farrakhan's biased rant on Chicago radio did he condemned the slaughter of Libyan citizens - fellow-Muslims - by the Libyan leader.
Minister Farrakhan was quick to condemn President George W. Bush for advancing into Iraq for the purpose of regime change. Yet Mr. Farrakhan never condemned his Muslim brother, Saddam Hussein, in his murderous use of WMDs against the the Kurds and against Shi'ite Muslims in the Iran-Iraq war. The Nation of Islam leader also skipped over the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis Hussein tortured and savagely slaughtered during his evil reign.
Farrakhan displayed a jaundiced eye towards the miserable human rights violations unleashed by Iranian leader Ahmadinejad upon fellow Iranians, especially Islamic women.
It is clear the Nation of Islam leader, like his Chicago cohort, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is more concerned with condemning America as an imperialist force than he is in blasting Islamic leaders for their slaughter of thousands of fellow-Muslim brothers and sisters. In recent years America has shown more concern over the death of Muslims than the Black Muslim Minister!
Farrakhan's Consistent Hatred of Israel
Farrakhan wasted no time in his radio fireside "rant and rave" to condemn Israel as he addressed Americans:
Is it that you are so concerned over the blood that is being shed in Libya that you look the other way when the Israeli Defense Force was bombing innocent people of Gaza, unarmed men, women and children? But our government looked the other way.
Mr. Farrkahan not once acknowledged the terrorists attacks on Israel by Palestinian citizens of Gaza that preceded the IDF's attack on the Gaza. Calling the Palestinians "unarmed" demonstrates the Minister's ignorance of the fact the Israeli military discovered tunnels running from Gaza to Egypt for the purpose of transporting arms into Palestinian territories. Just last week Israelis commandeered an Iranian ship bound for the Gaza Strip loaded with weapons to be used in terrorist actions against the people of Israel.
From the Black Voice News we learn more about Farrakhan-Gaddafi-Palestinian connection:
Gaddafi used this jackpot [discovery of oil on Libyan soil] to finance such radical military outfits as the Irish Republican Army (IRA), the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and any group considered oppositional to imperialism.
Farrakhan's Blame of Black Problems on the Jews
Just who is Louis Farrakhan? Most people are not familiar with the Chicago-based Nation of Islam's leader. An excellent violinist, Farrakhan's appreciation for fine arts and culture has not hindered him from being a low class race monger.
According to a 2009 Anti Defamation League Report, Farrakhan accuses the Jewish people of "sucking the blood of the black community." The Islamic leader also claims the state of Israel will have no peace because "there can be no peace structured on injustice, lying, thievery, murdering and using God's name as a shield for your dirty religion."
Farrakhan believes blacks are superior to whites and are God's chosen people and that blacks should have a separate nation within the United States.
When Farrakhan speaks Americans must take into account here is a man who called Hitler a "very great man . . a great German." When he tried to explain his comment, he made his stand even worse, "He was indeed a great man, but also wicked-wickedly great."
Anti-Semitism is a staple of the Nation of Islam. Some of their book shops display and sell copies of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," a forgery claiming a plot exists in which Jews are conspiring for world domination. Yet Farrakhan and followers play down the Islamic desire to convert all infidels and to bring the whole world in submission to Allah.
Farrakhan's Beliefs Cannot Be Ignored
The controversial Louis Farrakhan can be written off as a marginal nut job that need not be dealt with. Regardless, he is a man of influence as seen in his 1996 visit to Gaddafi along with Rev. Wright. Afterwards Gaddafy offered Farrakhan a $5 million dollar interest free loan to be used to fund the Nation of Islam in their war against "white devils" and Jews. Thankfully, this gift was blocked by President Clinton.
Several times in his radio speech, Farrakhan calls Gaddafi "Brother Muammar" and asked Obama to consider he is allying himself with countries who want to kill "Brother Muammar." One wonders since Farrakahn refers to Obama as the "son of a Kenyan man", if he considers our president a brother to Gaddafi due to their similar Muslim background. Obama did live as a Muslim from ages six to ten while living in Indonesia with his nominally Islamic step-father and white mother.
Though several degrees of separation exists between Farrakhan and our president, the steps are not that far away. Farrakhan has great influence on President Obama though former pastor Jeremiah Wright [a man Obama sat under for twenty years a a congregant in his church] with his raging hatred for America.
We can only hope Obama will ignore the deep loathing Farrakahn and his former pastor both have for the country "Brother Barak" is now leading.
During the current debate over the Obama-GOP tax-cut compromise, the comments aimed towards the rich have been far from flattering.
Sure, I'm the first one to admit I am not the number one fan of the super-wealthy. From my own observations, wealthy people can be elitist, greedy, over-indulgent, out of touch with the needs around them and lack understanding of what it's like to struggle financially. But even my characterization of the wealthy is made up of generalizations and stereotypes. Among the rich, one can easily find generous individuals who give of their time, finances and business expertise to help those in monetary need.
Critics of the rich like socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont bullseyes the affluent in his complaint that "the rich are never rich enough." Like heroin addiction, the senator claims they cannot stop seeking more wealth. Sanders characterizes the greed demonstrated by the rich as a "sickness."
In his must-read article Deroy Murdock, a writer for the Scripps Howard News Service, responds to Sanders' criticism that the top 1% of taxpayers (who earned more than $380,354) earned 20% of America's adjusted gross income in 2008. Murdock wisely points out that the top wealthy 1% also paid 38% of all federal income taxes.
Murdock continues, "The top 10 percent (with incomes above $113,799) earned 45.8 percent of AGI and paid 69.9 percent of federal income taxes."
Let me share some more clarification about the role of the rich in the U.S. from Murdock's article:
High-income taxpayers also cough up state and local levies and often taxes on sales, property, capital gains, dividends, partnerships and corporate income. Their wealth floods public coffers and flows into government programs, many targeted at low-income Americans.
Concerning the willingness of the rich to share their wealth, the results from the 2010 Bank of America Merrill Lynch Study of High Net Worth Philanthropy should cause our wallets to shudder:
This survey included 801 respondents who made at least $200,000 and/or enjoyed at least $1 million in net worth, excluding housing. The average respondent was worth $10.7 million.
Among these multimillionaires, 98.2 percent contributed to charity, versus just 64.6 percent of the general population. The wealthy typically gave away about 8 percent of their incomes in 2009.
This figure has slipped as the economy has slid. In 2007’s survey, the rich donated between 9.3 percent and 16.1 percent of income.
In 2009, 26.8 percent of Americans volunteered with charitable organizations. However, 78.7 percent of wealthy people donated time. The average rich respondent volunteered 307 hours — the equivalent of 38 eight-hour shifts.
These stats don't erase the crimes of greedy crooks like Bernie Madoff. Capitalism still needs major reform when it comes to bailouts and special favors towards the wealthy that come out of the taxes paid by the middle class. Yet let us remember the Madoff's are the exception and not typical of the wealthy.
The next time you're poised to condemn the wealthy for getting tax breaks, take a second look not at the greed of the rich, but at their charitable giving.
According After reading Proposition 19 several times, I've boiled down my objections to the legalization of marijuana via this measure to five major objections. This doesn't mean I couldn't come up with another six or seven, but these five stand out to me the most.
First, the possession, cultivation and distribution of pot will still remain illegal according to federal law. If Proposition 19 passes, the vote of Californian voters will not change the federal government's refusal to legalize pot. Attorney General Eric Holder warned Californians that if Proposition 19 passes, the feds will continue to prosecute those who are caught in possession of illegal pot. If you proceed to grow your marijuana garden in a "legal" 5x5 parcel according to Proposition 19, you run the chance of getting busted by the feds.
According to the 1988 Drug Free Workplace Act, it "requires some Federal contractors and all Federal grantees to agree that they will provide drug-free workplaces as a precondition of receiving a contract or grant from a Federal agency." Though the Drug Free Workplace Act does not require drug testing, there are notification requirements if an employee has been convicted of a criminal drug violation in the workplace.
For all those government jobs created by the Obama administration, pot smokers are to beware. An employer can take action against you if it determined that your work performance is being affected by your usage of pot.
In addition, since pot smokers are to smoke only in non-public places such as their personal residence in accordance with Prop 19, the federal ban on pot would not allow a user of marijuana to smoke a joint in Section 8 or any housing paid for by the U.S. government. If the possession and cultivation of pot is against federal law, how can a marijuana addict smoke weed on federal property?
If a pot smokers has a job that is a recipient of a federal grant, their use of pot could jeopardize the continuation of the grant since they are in violation of the 1988 federal law. Is the company you work for (receiving federal funding) going to allow you to endanger their continuation of receiving a grant or permit you to smoke pot on a smoke break somewhere on their premises? These issues are not addressed in Proposition 19 thus leaving a gaping hole on the federal vs. state's rights issue.
Second, in Proposition 19 the state of California is being given the option of legalizing a harmful hallucinogenic for the sake of bringing revenue into our lagging economy. Why stop at pot? Why not legalize prostitution and have the state regulate and tax any engagement a person may have with a hooker?
The legalization of pot in California will not decrease the number of pot users among youth, but because of its accessibility we can expect an increase in pot smoking. That increase will translate itself into more youth enrolled in rehab and treatment programs for marijuana addiction.
The U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy Director R. Gil Kerlikowske states that the number of adolescents enrolled in marijuana rehabilitation program is higher than ever. "In California 47% of those undergoing drug treatment for marijuana in 2008 either voluntarily or after encounters with the criminal justice system, were under 18, compared to 28% for the country as a whole" (AP/KNX 1070).
Shame on us as Californians that we would legalize a harmful drug and make it easier for our youth to gain access to weed just so we can add more revenue to our bankrupt economy. Where are our morals and concern for future generations?
Third, the claim that legalizing pot will bring billions into the California budget is erroneous. The official title of Proposition 19 is "The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010. Consider the words: regulate, control and tax. It will cost money for local governments in cities where pot shops exist to license, regulate and impose taxes on these retail establishments. It will also cost the state of California to regulate cities were pot shops exist.
Proposition 19 encumbers local governments with the responsibility to control these licensed pot shops in regards to their sales, cultivation of pot, possession for sale and on premise consumption of marijuana (Article 5 Section 11301.h).
Local governments will also have to regulate location, hours of operation, occupancy, protection of nearby properties and persons from unwanted exposure to pot smoke, signs and advertising. All that revenue that allegedly will come from pot sales will be redirected to subsidize local governments so they can effectively control pot retail shops in accordance with Proposition 19. Follow the money.
Also, if the rate of pot usage among youth increases with the passage of Proposition 19 and violators of the law are court ordered to attend a drug rehab treatment program, where is the money going to come from to cover the increase of drug rehab patients? To be fair, the funds should come from the revenue that comes from the sale of pot.
What we have here by those who support Prop 19 is a failure to read the particulars of the bill. I suggest those who are considering a YES vote on this measure to carefully read Article 5, Section 11301 h-m.
Fourth, the passage of Proposition 19 will not only increase the number of pot smokers, but will add a new generation of drug dealers. According to the measure, individuals twenty-one years of age and older will be able to possess an ounce of pot. In addition, they will be permitted to cultivate marijuana on a 5 x 5 parcel of land, assuming their landlord or homeowner's association will be tolerant of pot cultivation.
If twenty-one year olds are permitted to possess and cultivate pot, the chances are very high that teens will attempt to purchase pot illegally through young adults. Most teens who smoke pot obtain their stash through friends, but where do their friends score their weed. According to my own observance and experience, college kids and older adults scout out one teen who serves as their conduit to sell pot to both middle school and high school students. In discussions with the Ventura County Sheriff's Department my observations are accurate.
If Prop 19 passes, an individual who grows pot can only possess one ounce out of his garden. He cannot sell or distribute the weed that comes from his garden lest he break both state and federal law.
For the argument's sake, let's say unless you have a 25 square foot plot of land to cultivate pot, where will you buy pot? Answer: you'll be forced to go to a retail pot shop and purchase taxed marijuana. Based on section 11301 of the measure, the overhead for operating a pot shop could be quite high. And who will pay for the overhead needed to run these shops? The consumer, of course. So pot smokers can expect to pay a high price for an ounce of premium grass.
With higher priced, premium pot, smokers may think twice about buying marijuana at the corner pot retail outlet. Rather, they may be tempted to score pot the old fashioned way through a pot dealer-twenty one years and older. who has home-grown cannabis for sale. Would a pothead really want to pay all that extra cash for retail pot when they can buy an ounce much cheaper from the dude down the street with a blooming garden of weed?
Are we that foolish to think pot smokers are going to buy taxed pot at a retail price?
Last, pot smoking on the job is going to cause havoc in the workplace. The proposition makes it clear that an employer can forbid his employees from indulging in weed if it impairs their performance on the job.
However, we are allowing that employer to make that subjective choice. What if the owner of a gas station has no problems if his mechanics smoke pot on the job? You take your car to that shop to have your brakes repaired, and Beavis is installing your brakes. You'd have to be a Butthead to do business at this establishment, wouldn't you?
As a consumer I would want to know if an auto repair establishment is drug free. What if a private bus company allows its employees to smoke dope on the job and you get on a bus with a stoner at the wheel who's flying high?
If pot becomes legal, we will enter into a legal nightmare of people suing companies for damages caused by "legally" stoned employees who work under impaired conditions. Section 11300 b.3 states no one will operate a vehicle under the influence of pot. However, pot smokers argue that they are not impaired by their usage of pot.
At a recent panel I asked college students the question, "How many of you would board a plane operated by a pilot who just smoked two joints?" The response was mixed, but most respondents felt uncomfortable having a stoned pilot operate delicate instruments in the cockpit and placing their lives into the hands of a pothead pilot.
There are many more objections I can raise, but these are some of my practical concerns I raise through my reading of the measure and from my personal interaction with potheads.
My advice is to vote a big NO on Proposition 19 on November 2. If marijuana is legalized here, we can expect more and more Beavis' and Buttheads pouring into the Golden State. Why not? Pot would be legal and they can smoke dope to their hearts content. God forbid.
I've thought through the Proposition 19 issue and read a lot of pros and cons on the issue. After my head cleared, I felt unimpaired enough to write an article explaining why I will vote "no" on Proposition 19.
First, proponents of Proposition 19 refuse to see that legalizing pot will increase marijuana consumption. If you make it easier for individuals to obtain pot, they will take advantage of the easy access to the "now" decriminalized weed. Legalizing pot will make it much easier for those who wanted to experiment with smoking dope but were reticent because it is against the law. This argument is a no-brainer.
In addition, the legalization will increase the number of drug dealers. According to my experience and speaking with police, most minors currently obtain pot from college age kids and adults. Proposition 19 gives twenty one year olds the ability to buy pot and you'd have to be totally TUI (thinking under the influence) to not believe young adult pot smokers will be "good law-abiding boys and girls" and not sell marijuana to sell it to minors. The teens I have come in contact with obtain their pot from their friends who purchased the weed from a college student or an adult who has a card that enables them to buy "medicinal" marijuana.
Yes, Proposition 19 states that a person can possess no more than an ounce of pot legally. How are the police going to stop adults from possessing more than an ounce. I can go into ten pot shops, buy an ounce at each one and then go out and sell my ten ounces for a profit. It will take a lot of regulation to keep one person from purchasing more than an ounce. This scenario is happening right now as medicinal marijuana cardholders visit more than one clinic to score as much pot as they want. Some clinics are connected to a computer system to prevent this from happening but the dude selling pot out of his upstairs pad could care less how many times you stashed up on pot in a given day.
Second, proponents of Proposition 19 claim that with the passing of this Proposition, police will no longer have to deal with arresting people for pot possession, but can concentrate on more important matters. Yet if you read the Proposition, you discover a lot more laws the police will need to enforce: as stated above, the amount of marijuana an adult can possess is one ounce; pot can only be cultivated within a 25 square foot area; legalized pot cannot be sold to others; consumption of legalized pot can only take place in a residence or non-public place and an adult 21 years or older cannot give pot to a minor.In light of the specific laws contained within Proposition 19, the police are forced to do more micro-policing than before.
If I know my thirty five year old neighbor is smoking dope in front of his two year old, I'm going to call the cops. Do you think they're going to take me seriously? Perhaps I should just call Child Protective Services and report my neighbor for child endangerment.
Third, proponents of Proposition 19 claim the sale of pot will bring $1.4 million into the California budget. The proposition claims that its purpose is to "tax and regulate cannabis in order to generate billions of dollars for our state." Yet, the proposition does not set up any government regulatory agency or impose a state-wide tax on pot. Will we now need to set up a bureaucratic agency to regulate pot?
Also, the proposition states each local government can set up its own regulation and taxes on the selling of pot. If you were going to buy pot, would you buy it from a pre-tax source to avoid taxes or a retail store and pay a tax? Perhaps you would drive from Woodland Hills where pot is sold at a 8% tax and go into Brentwood where you can get pot with a 4% tax attached. Let me make it clear that Proposition 19 does not contain specific provisions at the state level governing taxation or retail sale of marijuana. Local jurisdictions, according to the California State Board of Equalization are free under Prop 19 to impose licensing fees or enforce different tax rates or schemes.
Proponents of the marijuana proposition also do not take into account the state fees that will have to be channelled to court ordered drug rehabilitation programs for teens and adults who are abusing the drug. I know of teens who have been arrested for grand theft of a person to obtain money to buy pot, were sent to juvenile court and were ordered to a state funded drug rehab facility. Who is paying for this teen's drug rehab therapy? You and I, the taxpayers of California. With the increase of consumption of pot among teens will also advance the number of adolescents who will need to attend a drug rehab program, whether it is state funded or paid for by parents.
Fourth, Proposition 19 provides that employers cannot discriminate and fire workers who use pot unless the employer can prove the pot impaired the worker's performance. It's true that under Proposition 19 any employer can refuse to allow pot smoking during work hours. However, other businesses may be more lenient.
Fifth, Proposition 19 maintains the DUI laws are not altered under this proposition. Even so, highway patrol officers are going to have a hard time proving a person is impaired from smoking too much pot. How much pot is too much? Yes, the police can conduct a field test (with outstretched arms touching one's nose). If they conduct a blood test, it proves nothing since marijuana can be detected in your system for thirty days.
Proposition 19 allows a person to smoke dope prior to entering a vehicle, but there exists no standard for the police to use (other than an unreliable drug field test) to prove a person is too impaired to drive. Only if an accident occurs, will the Court be able to conduct a full investigation on how much a person's pot smoking influenced a driver enough to cause an accident.
Californians, please don't get a contact high from all the Proposition 19 proponents and cast your vote while under their influence. Clear you head by November 2 and vote "no" on the flawed and confusing Proposition 19.
