In the November election, 2014, residents of Florida will be called upon to vote on medical marijuana for this state. The Orlando Sentinel gave on September 26, 2014, a page-long column to those both for and against Amendment 2. Ben Pollara encouraged readers to vote in favor of the amendment, saying it would be heartless to deny those who need marijuana, which serves as medicine for numerous ills (just about anything, actually). Is it true that marijuana does help some conditions? Yes. Is this amendment only about helping those folks? No. It is about opening the door to increased marijuana usage.
Some individuals do actually benefit from some marijuana, and it is cheaper to buy than various drugs that “Big Pharma” produces and makes available. So why not have compassion on those who do not have the money to pay large sums of money for costly prescriptions and just legalize it for those suffering with certain health problems? If that could be accomplished in a way that would not advance marijuana usage among the general population, many of us would vote for it. Alcohol and morphine are used to relieve pain; why not use marijuana for the same purpose?
Madelyn Butler wrote the opposing position in extremely fine fashion. She begins thus:
The relationship between a doctor and a patient is a sacred trust and a legal bond. One of the most common treatments that doctors provide to patients is to prescribe medications. When writing a prescription, the doctor stipulates a specific medication, precise doses, how often and when it is taken, and for how long. Your doctor and pharmacist review every medication you are taking to protect you from adverse drug interactions. The entire process of testing, approving, manufacturing, prescribing and selling prescription medications is carefully regulated (A16).
Under Amendment 2, none of these safeguards are in place. All that would be needed to obtain “medical marijuana” is a “recommendation” from a “licensed physician.” Probably, as it has occurred in other places (such as San Francisco), so would it be here: Marijuana would be prescribed for just about anything, including “trouble sleeping” (lawyers admit that this is not an exaggeration). As Madelyn Butler put it:
And you wouldn’t be getting marijuana through a reputable doctor’s office. Like other states with these sham laws, people who want to smoke pot will visit a “pot doc”—someone of the same ethical ilk as the “pill-mill docs” that we’ve worked so hard to drive out of Florida.
Motives
The advocates for legalization say that opponents are simply using scare tactics to talk voters out of passing the amendment, which “establishes the right of seriously ill Floridians to use medical marijuana if their doctor recommends it” (A16). Okay. So those opposed to the amendment want seriously ill people to remain seriously ill? Really? Is this the best argument for voting in favor of Amendment 2? Such is absurd on the face of it, and it ignores what has happened in other locales where the ill were used as a pretext for the camel to get his nose under the tent.
Pollara also argues that opponents of the amendment have suggested that legalizing medical marijuana could lead to date rape. Probably very few have used such an argument, but it is no worse than blanketing all opponents as heartless. Pollara insists that “the social ills predicted by hysterical opponents have simply failed to materialize.” Has the man never heard of the city of San Francisco? Type in the city and “marijuana” on the Internet. Medical Marijuana cards are available for $10. You can find a “weed” map where pot is sold.
There are no problems with legalization. No kidding? What world does Pollara live in? Why, in the world of Mary Jane, everything is apparently wonderful. The crime rate is down, suicide is down (never mind the evidence to the contrary), teenagers are using less marijuana. Isn’t it marvelous? One cannot help but wonder if the one making this case was not high on something when he wrote it?
He does not deal with the fact that marijuana is sev-eral times more potent than it was forty years ago or that it is particularly devastating to young people. Just as marijuana is a gateway drug, so the “medical Marijuana” gambit is a gateway to having as many people smoking pot as have the desire.
No Accountability
According to Madelyn Butler, if someone is harmed or killed while using marijuana, the person who “prescribed” it to them cannot be held accountable. She writes that John Morgan,
the trial lawyer bankrolling Amendment 2, runs ads for his law firm “seeking justice,” “for the people,” as he says—but under his amendment, marijuana would become the only drug for which those who recommend, sell or use it couldn’t be sued or arrested if something goes terribly wrong.
Does not this “blanket immunity” make marijuana a drug of privilege? How about that? It goes from illegal to a status of privilege in only one election. The fact is that legalizing marijuana will be as detrimental to Florida as it has been to any other state. People will be amazed at how many citizens are suddenly “helped” by smoking it—“for medicinal reasons,” of course.
Marijuana is not difficult to obtain now, let alone if it is legalized for any reason. This writer knows of an individual who is already using marijuana for a legitimate medical purpose. He has no trouble obtaining the substance, and probably neither does anyone else. If pot is that easy to obtain while it remains illegal, what will happen if the voters decide to approve this amend-ment? The answer is obvious. It will be available to an even wider base of users, and (not surprisingly) much more of it will be grown here or imported from a nearby state.
Only one clear choice presents itself in voting on Amendment 2: “Should we vote to expand the number of users of marijuana in Florida?” A “yes” vote will most assuredly accomplish that goal. A “no” vote will not eradicate marijuana use; the buying and selling of it illegally will continue to be done. Chances are that those who need the drug for health reasons are already getting it. Society does not need another element of corruption. No one is employing scare tactics in recounting what will happen. They have just examined what has happened elsewhere and are simply acknowledging reality.
SATANISTS’ MATERIAL
Gary W. Summers
On an episode of Dragnet years ago (the one that ran from 1967 to 1970), Sergeant Joe Friday and his partner Bill Gannon were dealing with a citizen skeptical about the need for the police to have guns. (The conversation below is only an approximate one.) An officer had been shot answering a burglary call, and the store owner seemed to think that if the officer had not had a gun, he might not have been shot. Friday asked him in his usual terse manner: “The officer was shot while protecting your store?”
Store owner: “Yes, that’s right.”
Friday: “Do you have a gun?”
Store owner: “No, I told you I don’t like them.”
Friday: “What do you suppose the robber might have done to you if an armed officer had not prevented him from doing so?”
The same case could be made with respect to morality. If churches were not a civilizing influence on society, how bad might it be? Yet Satanists want permission to hand out literature to school students, according to an article in the Orlando Sentinel on September 16, 2014. “A religious group called The Satanic Temple is making plans to hand out literature in Orange County Public Schools later this school year…” (B2).
Is this really necessary? Aren’t children today bombarded constantly by Satan? Aren’t they already influenced toward immorality by television and movies? Aren’t they taught to take God’s name in vain and to use foul, crude language? Aren’t they taught that marital infidelity is normal and that drinking alcohol is the sophisticated thing to do? Aren’t some of the devil’s humanistic teaching incorporated in school curriculums? Are not many of their peers using drugs or engaging in fornication? What possible need could today’s young people have for Satanic materials?
The Satanic Temple is jealous because sometimes Bibles or pamphlets have been allowed to be given to students. But with nearly everything in society geared toward Satan’s way of thinking, is it really so terrible to hand out something to the contrary? The Bible, if followed, makes people (in particular) and society (in general) better. According to Daniel Webster (in a letter he wrote in 1852), Thomas Jefferson once told him: “I have always said, and always will say, that the studious perusal of the sacred volume will make better citizens, better fathers, and better husbands.”
This statement is true. Husbands who follow the Bible will love their wives as Christ loved the church, and godly wives will submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:22-25). Christians will strive to be good parents (Eph. 6:1-4). All who study the writings of Paul and Peter will do their very best to be good citizens (Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17).
When has Satan ever taught such lofty principles? But Satanists want “equal” time to propagate their teachings. The Satanic temple “supports social-justice causes and believes Satan is ‘the eternal rebel against the ultimate tyrant,’” according to the Sentinel (D2). How talented is this group to compact two lies in only a seven-word description? In the first place, Satan is not eternal. His followers only wish that were the case be-cause they can then hold out hope that he has as much power as God and that someday he and his followers might even be victorious. And, in fact, if Satan were eternal, why would he not have as much power as God?
The second falsehood is that God is the ultimate ty-rant. If He were, why did He not destroy Satan a long time ago? How many tyrants (let alone an ultimate tyrant) have we ever heard of who let a rebel stay on the loose for 6,000 years? Tyrants eliminate their opposition. The history of the world confirms this truth, as do the Scriptures. The principle is stated very clearly and succinctly in 1 Kings 16:21-22:
Then the people of Israel were divided into two parts: half of the people followed Tibni…to make him king, and half followed Omri. But the people who followed Omri prevailed over the people who followed Tibni…. So Tibni died and Omri reigned.
Tyrants (and their followers) vanquish any challengers as quickly as they can. The Satanic Temple has published a book that they want to distribute to children, which is called, The Satanic Children’s BIG BOOK of Activities. Notice what one of the activities is:
Damian is showing his class the way to make an inverted pentagram. Connect the dots to make one yourself.
Damien (slight variation in spelling) is the name of the Anti-Christ in The Omen movie series. He was born on June 6th, at 6:00 A.M. (666). The jackal who bore him died while giving birth; he was adopted by Robert Thorn, Ambassador to Great Britain. And the movie continues from there. But the Damian in the activity book is showing children how to connect the dots to draw a pentagram, a Satanic symbol.
And how is all of this going to benefit children? And what, besides Satanic symbols and propaganda, will this book teach with respect to social justice? Does it promote homosexuality, for example? What about abortion? Are these social-justice causes? What view does it take toward marriage? Don’t children already have access to sources promoting numerous forms of immorality? How about letting them have some doses of purity and righteousness for a change?
Somewhere, sometime, people in the community must stand up to the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the Freethought Community, and the ACLU by telling them, “This foolishness will not stand here.”
NO ONE IS BORN A HOMOSEXUAL
Marvin L. Weir [from The Reno Record, 9-14-14]
The quotes in the next three paragraphs of this article will be the comments of Michael L. Brown writing on September 8th as a guest columnist for OneNewsNow:
There is no clear evidence that anyone is “born gay.” One of the major gay activist talking points, it has even infiltrated parts of the church—but it is based on lies, not truth.
Brown quotes gay activist and history professor John D’Emilio who says:
“Born gay” is an idea with a large constituency (LGBT and others). It’s an idea designed to allay the ingrained fears of a homophobic society and the internalized fears of gay, lesbians, and bisexuals. What’s most amazing to me about the “born gay” phenomenon is that the scientific evidence for it is thin as a reed, yet it doesn’t matter. It’s an idea with such social utility that one doesn’t need much evidence in order to make it attractive and credible.
In other words, because the “born gay” idea has proved so useful, the fact that there’s virtually no scientific support for the theory hardly matters. It is an idea that has worked wonders for gay activists and their allies.
It is simply the case that people desiring to live in sin will use any outlandish statement to try and justify their ungodly behavior. In 2005, the Task Force on Religion and Mental Health said, “Researchers now openly admit that after searching for more than 20 years, they are still unable to find the ‘gay gene’” [Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons].
Can one choose to believe that he or she was born to be a homosexual, a thief, a murderer, or any other number of things? Absolutely! But choosing to believe that something is true does not make it true! For years a movement has been underway to deny that sin or wrongdoing exists. And if one does commit sin or wrongdoing, it is said that he cannot help it because of a certain disposition from birth.
The Bible teaches us that human beings are created in the image of God and then emphasizes that “male and female He created them” (Gen. 1:27). God also instructed the man and woman He created: “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” (Gen. 1:28). The reproduction process is impossible for homosexuals to accomplish by themselves (two men or two women). Common sense alone should be sufficient to convince rational people that God did not create humans with the possibility of having a “homosexual gene.”
The Bible clearly states that God “is no respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34). His will for all of mankind is the same—for each person to abide by His laws. Environ-ment and society does indeed affect people, but all can choose to overcome their environment and society if they so choose!