Who Am I?

Allow me to share a little of my inner-self with you: I would love to go through boot camp.

Call it a boyish desire for guns, sweat and tears, but there's something about the physical and mental struggles that our armed forces members go through that I would like to experience.

The Discovery Channel has put together a series called Surviving the Cut. If you have Netflix, look it up. It's pretty interesting to watch. Each 40-45 minute episode covers the training or interview process for a different kind of specially trained troop in the various branches of our military.

So far I've watched episodes on Army Rangers, Air Force Para-rescue, Marine Recon, Special Forces Diver, Marine and Army Sniper, and Special Warfare Combatant-Craft Crewman. I also watched Two Weeks In Hell, a separate documentary on Green Baret training. Surprisingly, there's no episode on the popular Navy Seal. Each school or program has one thing in common. They. Kick. Your. Ass.

You get to watch soldier after soldier vomit from exhaustion, collapse trying to simply walk down the street. Thousands of push-ups. Leg-lifts. Running. Carrying. Log drills. More running. Snot, blood, sweat and, yes, lots of tears come out during so many of these trainings. And I find that I'm captivated it.

It's not that they assign a lot of PT (physical training). It's that they assign more than anyone could possibly do. Each of the programs seems to involve an element of bringing a man to the point of physical fatigue to then see what he does. All of the candidates interviewed state that its a battle of the mind - mental toughness (along with a dose of physical toughness I'm sure, too). The armed forces are looking for individuals who, when they've reached their breaking point, will keep pushing anyway or break trying.

And many do. Dozens of candidates are discharged from the tryouts because they've pushed their bodies too much and medics won't allow them to continue. I'll take a moment to say that the sniper schools were very clearly the least demanding physically and there was far less emphasis on PT and the will to go on. However, sniper school presents it's own challenges and still had a high attrition rate.

To me, the worst looking one to survive was probably Marine Recon. In addition to spending lots of time operating on no sleep and no energy, they finished their training with what's called the Zombie March. In a staged exercise to rescue several injured soldiers and carry them miles away to safety, the instructors started throwing cans of tear gas. Can after can. For an hour.

The gas made candidates vomit, tear up, ooze snot and saliva from everywhere, and made them feel as  if their lungs were on fire. But, apparently, tear gas doesn't kill you. Technically, you can breathe through it, suck it up, and keep going. And that's what the candidates for Marine Recon had to do. They marched and heaved for an hour, over several miles, through dozens of tear gas clouds. All the while they carried 200lb dummies, extra gear, and their own 70lb packs. After the hour of tear gas, they still marched and carried another two hours. At the end, they all looked like zombies, hence the name.

The most elite of the specialized schools seemed, to me, to be the Special Forces Combat Diver. The guys enrolled in this school had already passed one of the other special forces schools (e.g. Marine Recon, Green Baret, Army Rangers, Navy Seals). So they had already proven they were bad-ass. But underwater is a very dangerous environment to operate tactically.

The combat diver school pushed candidates to the point of panic, and then watched how they responded. There were specific drills, done in the water, to test whether a candidate could continue thinking clearly, even when his body and lungs began physical panic. This was very interesting to me as I spent lots of my childhood swimming in lakes and pools and I'm familiar with at least the first moments of panic due to lack of air. Not fun. These guys were being asked to continue functioning when panic set it. Yikes.

Also, the combat diver training involved much less of the traditional loud-in-you-face-drill-seargent-yelling than the other schools. Like I said, these guys had already proven themselves and didn't need that. It was much more laid back. "Let's learn how to become even more bad-ass." And you could tell.

The final mission of combat diver school included a mock military operation. They had to infiltrate undetected via the water. Then go on land, and take down their instructors with military grade paintball guns, recover a hostage, make it back to the water and boat away. Now, some of the other schools had mock missions simulating real combat. But the combat diver school included a bunch of bad ass veterans, most of whom had already seen real combat as a special force unit. And you could tell. They rocked the final mission! Even though the instructors (posing as bad guys) knew they were coming at some point, these candidates took them apart. They went in, took names, and got out of there.

But back to the reason for this post. Watching these guys find their breaking point and decide what to do next is inspiring. Some give up. Some press on. It makes me ask the question, What's my breaking point? There's a part of me that very much would like to find out. The problem is, it's a rough journey just to get to your breaking point, and then, I can't imagine the mental fortitude it takes to continue at something when your entire body says "no." But that's what I want to find out.

What kind of stuff am I made of? There's a way in which you can't know until you've pushed for something beyond what you thought possible. And that's why it's a fantasy of mine to go to boot camp.
If only the military offered a way for civilians to experience boot camp, I'd be in the first line.

I'm not saying boot camp is as hard as these special military schools. I also don't think it would be easy either. But I'm sure basic boot camp creates plenty of moments that cause soldiers to question who they are. And in a way we don't really know who we are until we're pushed. And that's why I want to go do boot camp. To continue answering this life-long question, Who am I?

We Need A New Word, part 2

In my last blog post, in which I considered the Enlish language's lack of a word to denote a long-term committed relationship that does not involve contractual marriage, I offered a few possible words and asked for more suggestions.

Since then, I've been asking people and even trying out some of the alternate words in casual conversation to see how they "go over." I've also gotten some good feedback from the comments.

One commentor offered that we call these people who are in our family though not by law, "family." As she noted, this is not a new word, but simply a wonderful inclusion that expresses love and acceptance, two things of which I'm in favor. So, while I very much like this suggestion, it doesn't solve the problem.

My mother suggests that because Kiwanis (a Christian men's group) uses the term "partner," and since it's good enough for this national organization it ought to be good enough for everyone else. But, I already expressed why I think "partner" is not quite right. At least not yet. Society still thinks "partner" means homosexual.

 Similarly, another comment shared that "life partner" is used by the company she works for. And, it's understandable why the coorporate world prefers this term. It's easy, and most companies nowadays don't care of about the gay/straight issue to which this term might give rise.

Audrey also stated that she sometimes says she's "unmarried" or "a little bit married" to her long-time committed boyfriend. Generally, I like this phraseology. It's witty fairly and clearly describing their circumstances.

An unknown-to-me commentor agreed she doesn't like "partner" for reasons that it sounds too uptight or formal. She suggested "spouse," but obviously this doesn't work, because "spouse" comes with too much assumption of a marriage contract. The marrieds have the patent on "spouse." She says that she refers to her boyfriend of 18 years as her "man," which he likes. Though, I'm not ready to close the deal with "man/woman," because, let's be honest, it would just be weird and unclear if I started talking about my brother and his "woman."

Last night, in casual conversation I tried using the term, "unwife." Afterwards I asked the person I was talking to if she knew what I meant. She did not. I then suggested "not-wife," which she immediately thought was better.

We talked about it some more and came up with some more suggestions, which are "semi-wife/husband," "pseudo-wife/husband" and "para-wife/husband." Of these three I like "para-" the least and "pseudo-" the most. If I casually refer to my sister and her "psuedo-husband" in conversation, I think the correct meaning would translate fairly well to most people. Though, "semi-husband/wife/spouse" is a close 2nd to "pseudo-." What do you think between these two?

Further thoughts on "not-." I previously said that I'm not sold on "not-wife/husband," because it may convey a negative connotation of condemnation: that though these two are not married they should be. But does the term "not-spouse" actually convey this? Or am I just being a little paranoid of offending people? If you are in an unmarried although committed relationship, how does this term sound to your ears? Do you find it offensive in the least? Condemning?

Another option for seaching out a new word/term is to come up with an acronym that can be used as a noun. For instance, I could refer to the Person I Live With Un-Married as my "PILWUM." Now, "Pilwum" isn't very smooth, but I imagine more creative minds could do better than I did after only two minutes of thinking on it.

So, it's time for deeper discussion people! We need a new word, and the popularity of this blog is just the platform to spawn something that can take our society by storm! Comments, comments comments, please.

We Need A New Word!

Please help. Both my brother and my sister have, respectively, a girlfriend and a boyfriend with whom they live. And I don't know what to call them!

My sister lives in Raleigh with her boyfriend who is totally chill, go-with-the-flow, witty and is someone to whom I look up in the field of bad puns. I love them both and have spent many of my favorite family nights around a game table at their house or on the couch playing Wii. If my sister ever did anything to jeapordize their relationship, I'd be upset with her and miss him with a pouty stuck out lower lip.

My brother lives in Chicago with his brainy, dry-sense-of-humor and awesome girlfriend. She is working on her Ph. D. in something about which, I know nothing. I love them both and miss hanging out together as we did when we all lived in the same town. In fact, if my brother ever did something to jeapordize his relationship with her, I'd head slap him a good one. Actually, there was once some form of proposal and an exchange of an engagement ring between them. But, that was a number of years ago, and as far as I know there are no active plans in the works to get hitched. So, I could call her my brother's fiancee, but that kind of conveys a message that doesn't fit.

I think of both my brother's and my sister's significant others as family, siblings-in-law, just as much as if there was a signed marriage contract registered with the state. The fact that there is no such document between either couple doesn't matter to me at all. As far as I'm concerned, my bro and sis are in committed relationships each with someone who cares deeply for them and treats them well.

Here's my problem. In casual conversation, I get caught up when describing my family and referring to these people. It doesn't do it justice to refer to her as my brother's "girlfriend" or to him as my sister's "boyfriend." Because, "boy-" and "girl-friend" implies a relationship in which people are dating, or are less committed, are younger or whatever. It just doesn't say it right. So when talking about them I have to say, "My bro's girlfriend...well, they've been together 10+ years and live together so..." (people shake their heads in understanding). So, "boyfriend/girlfriend" is out.

What about "significant other." This term in the English language in western American culture best describes the situation. But the problem is it takes so much effort to say. I mean come on, it's 6 entire syllables that don't flow smoothly off the tounge. And, I just don't like it very much. It's dry, bland, almost academic in nature. It conveys no feeling or care whatsoever. In the world of words, it's as tasteful as a rice cake.

Partner: some people would refer to them as a "partner," or "life-partner." And this one isn't bad. Except, at least where I come from, many people associate "partner" with same-sex relationships. If you say casually, my uncle Carl's partner..." most people will simply assume uncle Carl is gay. So, if you use partner, you always have to qualify it, which takes more time and effort and interrupts whatever story you may be telling.

A quick Google search shows people suggesting phrases such as common-law marriage, cohabitating, defacto relationship, domestic partners, roommates with advantages, and one even suggested that we call these non-married couples, "happy." But none of these suggestions work for me.

So, back to the title of this blog: We need a new word. I'd like to be able to smoothly tell about my sister or brother and describe their person-with-whose-life-they-are-conjoined-yet-legally-unmarried using a word that is accurate and rolls smothly off the tounge.

Here's what I've got so far. On my own, I came up with the mildly creative term, "not-husband/not-wife." I've recieved some good reviews and chuckles on this one, and people seem to instantly know what I mean. But, simply adding the negation (e.g. "not") in front of husband/wife kind of implies that something is lacking, incomplete, wrong. It almost implies that they should be married or something, and I don't want to should on anybody. So, this one is, at best, close, but not a winner. Perhaps we should consider "unwife/unhusband." This would remove the negative connotation that something is lacking and replace with the suggestions that something (i.e. the marriage) simply isn't there.

From my brother's witty un-wife, I heard the term "outlaw." For instance, she might refer to us by saying to a friend, "I'm going to spend the weekend with my outlaws." I like this phrase, and I think it has potential to maybe catch on; however, currently it's a little clunky in the singular. For instance, it would take a little getting used to to say, "My brother-outlaw is really good at poker."

That's it. I have no other options. That's why I think we need a new word for this kind of relationship. I think that "partner" has the best chance at filling this void, but we'll have to wait and see what our culture does with the connotation currently attached to it.

So, I'm looking for suggestions. What have you heard in your circles? What rolls smoothly off the tongue for you? We need new words!! I want to hear your suggestions.

Reflections on death, Bin Laden, human nature, and thanatology

A week ago Osama Bin Laden, probably the most infamous and likely the most dangerous terrorists in the modern world, was killed during an assault/raid on his lush Pakistan compound.

Shock and unbelief were my first two reactions. Could this be for real? We hunted him for near a decade. I guess I just never expected he'd be found, caught and/or killed. Millions of people across this country and many others celebrated. Parties, drinking, music, all manner of craziness let loose.

President Obama was quoted saying, "Justice has been done." Not trying to nit-pick, but I believe the proper words would actually be, "Revenge has been done." I mean, don't we Americans believe that justice includes a trial, witnesses, a judge and all that mess? Of course, everybody and their mothers know that had Bin Laden been tried he would have been quickly convicted and swiftly killed by the death penalty (costing the state mucho dinero in the end, I might add).

I heard one report that Bin Laden was unarmed and shot in the face. Don't know what is true, though.

In my almost two years as a hospital chaplain I've seen a fair amount of death. Dead people, people about to die, actively dying, and some dying so slowly and subtly that you cannot pin-point the moment when they actually died. Some families are relieved, but most are grieved. Some reminisce on the good times, and some painfully admit that because of the person's addictions/character-flaws/etc there were few, if any, 'good times.' I've seen graceful death, horrific death, painful and peaceful deaths.

Never have I seen death celebrated.

And so, when I heard that Bin Laden was confirmed dead, and it was time to 'partay,' I hesitated. Yes, I felt a sense of relief to hear this terrorist was no longer a threat. I was glad. The revenge in me got a sense of satisfaction. I thought about all those families of the 9/11 attacks and what they must be feeling. I was sad that we lived in a world where we shoot one another in the face. I was sad that we celebrate such things. I was a bit shamed that I too wanted to celebrate. I wondered (and still wonder) what this might mean. A mix of emotions, and I don't know what to make of it all.

I wonder how God receives Osama bin Laden. There are those who believe that only Christians will experience God's grace after death. There are those who believe all people will be welcomed by God after death. I'm sure most Americans would balk at the thought, even the minute suggestion, that it is remotely possible that God might welcome Osama bin Laden (a deeply wounded and broken human) lovingly. I want to believe in a God who can do, who would do, who is capable of, this. Is Bin Laden in hell? Perhaps he lived in a form of hell? Is he now sentenced to endure unending conscious torment in a firey hell? I strongly question whether such a place actually exists. Whether God could tolerate such a place.  

The opposite of judgment is compassion. Both judgment and compassion are natural human responses to differing situations. Is it possible to find any sense of compassion for bin Laden? I struggle to. Would Jesus have compassion for him? So many questions. And, we want answers to them all. So many feelings of joy over a persons death. Revenge, solemness and satisfaction wash over me. A mix of emotions and thoughts so tangled they'll never be unwound and understood. But, isn't that human nature?

I wonder what your reactions are to Bin Laden's death. To this blog post?

Was Jesus Gay?

Well, was he?

The Bible holds no record that Jesus was married. And, in the the book of John, one of the disciples (some think it was the author of the book, but this most like isn't the case) was always referred to as the one whom Jesus loved (for an example see John 13:23). Jesus also predominantly hung out with a group of dudes. So, the question: was Jesus gay?

Before some of you balk too drastically at the absurdity of this question (presumably you're angrily reacting: of course he was not gay!!!!), know that the title to this blog is more for the purpose of grabbing your attention. I personally don't think Jesus was gay, but in all historical honestly we must admit together: we'll never know.

I did run across a provocative quote recently (forgive me for forgetting the author and being too lazy to go find it) that says, "Why do so many Christians worry about gays but not poverty?" And, I thought this was a good question. The Christians who believe being gay is a sin and will send you to hell too often forget or neglect those people who are impoverished and are already going through hell on the streets each night.

A number of Biblical scholars have made concerted attempts to exegete the Bible to show/prove that the Bible doesn't address modern homosexuality (see John Shelby Spong's Living in Sin: The Bible and Homosexuality). And, there is something to this proposition. While men having sex with men (and the same for women) did happen in antiquity, the modern notion of two men or women having a long-term monogomous relationship was simply outside of the cultural realm of possibility. In that way, the Bible doesn't address modern homosexuality.

There's also something to the fact that Leviticus directly condemns man-on-man sex, as well Paul, in Romans, lists sex between two men as sinful (right before he tells his readers that they're just as sinful!). So, it's worth while to consider that at least some of the biblical authors likely thought homosexuality (or some form thereof) was bad, not preferred, sinful, not useful for procreation (this last one was probably their biggest concern).

When considering Paul's stance (since so many Christians seem to listen to Paul more than Jesus) on this issue, I would like to pose this question, "Is is possible that Paul was just wrong?" I mean, he was wrong when he wrote that Jesus would be returing in the flesh very soon. It's been 2,000 years and no Jesus. I think we've exhausted the extent of the word, soon.

200 years ago, virtually everyone in the United States thought that slavery was moral and that God looked favorably upon slavery as "the way things ought to be.' The Bible was often cited as one of the cheif proponents of slavery. Then around the middle of the 19th century, when the country was split on the issue, the Bible was used to defend both sides of the argument. But now, in 2011, virtually all of us agree that slavery is, in fact, bad, wrong, sinful, not preferred. And, we use the Bible to support this thought.

I think we are in the middle of a similar kind of progression. Not too long ago, the vast majority of Americans (especially Christians) held that homosexuality was wrong. Currently, there's a strong divide on the issue and the Bible is being cited to defend both sides. I personally look forward to the day when gay-bashing is a thing of the past at which we hang our shameful heads.  And, I hope to live to see that day. I can't think of a worse way to spread "God's love" by telling someone he's going to hell (as some of my gay friends have been told).

I recently read an article/blog about this kind of cultural shift from shaming a thing to accepting it. It was very enlightening and spoke to this subject. Click here to read it.

Where do I stand on the issue? Though I grew up being told that it was wrong and sinful by family, culture and the Southern Baptist Convention, I personally feel very welcoming and affirming of people with non-hetersexual preference. I also don't think it's my business to know if or if not another person is gay/lesbian. Asking someone if she's gay is as invasive as me asking you what your favorite sexual position is (also something I don't want to know). If you are ever asked if someone else is gay, I recommend responding, "I don't know that person that well." (For the yaars.)

When I imagine Jesus encountering a modern gay person, I think back to all of the Bible stories of Jesus meeting other ostracized, marginalized and outcast members of society. And, how did Jesus respond? By welcoming them, hugging leppers, speaking to and respecting women, mingling with the poor and inviting children in. I can't imagine Jesus responding any differently to a modern person who happens to be homosexual. So, how could I, how could we, think of responding any differently?

I also realize that this is still a heated issue for many people. (If you're somone with lots of energy on this topic, know that your energy is coming from fear and not from theological righteousness.) And, this will liely be a heated issue for a while. Hence, I choose to respect your position on this issue if it is different than mine. In return I ask for the same respect, and I'm happy to dialogue on the issue with anyone interested. Comments are welcome, please keep them civil.

Was Jesus A Christian?

I've been thinking lately about something. I've read in a number of books, heard in sermons, and one can even tell by carefully reading the New Testament, that Jesus did not intent to start a new religion.

This is a nice point to make in a sermon and quickly pass by knowing you've left a quaint smile on the faces of those listening but not processing. However, the more I think about this seemingly small notion, the less small it becomes.

In a lengthy theological correspondence, my sister and I have tossed this question back and forth a time or two, but never really landed anywhere solid.

Technically, of course Jesus was not a Christian, for the word itself means, "little Christ," and one of the chief marks of Christian belief is holding that Jesus was in fact a big Christ. The word "Christ" comes from the Greek for "anointed one" meaning traditionally the one who is set for the task of rescuing Israel. The Hebrew word for Christ is "Messiah."

Jesus was a Jew, a good Jew, who followed all, really most, of the rules. He never renounced his Jewishness, and he never told non-Jews that they needed to become Jewish. He never told Jews that they needed to become something else. In fact, as you follow Jesus around Palestine in the canonical gospels you start to notice that he didn't seem to be recruiting converts at all. If anything, you might say he was inspiring righteousness. He did recruit 12 followers, or disciples, and he had lots of other folks following him around. But, isn't it strange that we never find Jesus promoting the new fad and lining people up to take their name and count them part of his new movement?

The first public announcement Jesus makes is this: "The time has come....The Kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news" (Mark 1:15 NIV). This does not sound like a call for folks to get in the Christianity line.

In his hometown synagogue, Jesus read these lines from Isaiah: "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor" (Luke 8:18-19). And in John 10:10 Jesus says about people in general, "I came that they may have life and have it abundantly" (ESV). These are not calls for recruitment. They are statements of purpose.

In fact, nowhere in the New Testament can I find Jesus saying, "Line up behind me, everyone!" In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus did lots of teaching on how to live a moral life; however, none of that teaching seems to be the rules and guidelines for a new religion.

Even when Paul was trying to help sort out how Jews and non-Jews could live, worship and commune together, he never told one group that they had to assimilate and become another group. He advocated that Jews remain Jews and follow Jewish custom as long as they don't force it on non-Jews. And vice-versa.

I wonder, if followers of Islam had been around at that time what would Paul have written to them. Strangely, I'm suspicious that he would've said the same kind of thing as he said to the Jews.

This is a quandary for me. Jesus was not out to start a new club; however, after his death, the 12 disciples did just that. Is that what Jesus wanted? Is this what he'd planned all along, but not said anything about? What do we do with the fact that the new group started in Acts 2 was religiously pluralistic? It had people of many different faiths, a radically inclusive group. Yet today, 99% of the Christians out there are highly exclusive when it comes to different religions/faiths.

Now, I already know how most conservative Christians will respond to these questions. However, if these comments have pricked anything in your mind, please comment. I'd love to hear your thoughts or discussion points.

What do you think? Was Jesus a Christian? Would he be one if he was alive today?

Why would someone with four cars walk to work?

Meet my buddy, Robert (on the right). He is a computer programmer for the distinguished Wake Forest University and lives in Winston-Salem, NC. I have known him for about 4 years now, and in that time he has owned a total of six cars (not at the same time). Robert introduced me to Dave Ramsey, a money guru who gives sound practical advice on managing personal finance. Together, Robert and I often talk about wise and not so wise money decisions when it comes to cars, apartments, jobs and paying off our wives' school debt.

You can view Robert's well-written blog here.

Now, the question that titles this blog is an intriguing one for sure. Why would someone with four cars walk to work? The answer to this question is in a sequence of events that coincidentally lined up as if nature was working against him that kept Robert from driving any of his cars to work. Robert, I won't divulge too much of your personal info on this one, but you have tarried too long in posting this funny story on your own blog.

Robert and his wife each have a car they use daily. However, Robert had recently purchased my car (car #3) with plans of selling his and making a few extra dollars; however, this car was still in Asheville for time being. At the same time, his wife had found what she's wanted for a long time, an old 1965 Chevy truck, and bought it cheap (#4).

One happy morning, these two wonderful people awoke and prepared each to go to work. Robert's wife, left first. But outside, she found that her car's lock was busted and wouldn't unlock. She couldn't get in. No matter, she borrowed Robert's regular car and headed off to the world of pharmacy for the day. Robert could drive the classic truck. But outside on a chilly morning, the truck wouldn't start. His last option, the car he'd bought from me, was some 130 miles away. So, he's standing outside next to a car that won't start, a car that won't open up with keys in his hand for a car that runs fine but is across the state.

When I heard about this, I sympathized, but I can't help but find this funny. And that's why someone with four cars would walk to work.

Why is marijuana illegal?

I was reading something recently that pricked in my mind the question which serves as the title for this post: Why is marijuana (Mary-Jane, i.e. MJ) illegal?

To clarify, I have never done marijuna, no, not even during my teenage rebellious year. Nor, is this post meant to advocate that this drug ought to be released from its illegalized prison. I'm not on a mission, I'm just curious.

The question behind this question is really a comparison between MJ and alcohol-an addictive and legal drug which is easily obtainable and alters on'e mental state and good-decision making capabilities.

Here are the observable facts. Alcohol, which I very rarely partake, can become lethal fairly easily. It all too often causes car accidents, relieves people of their inhibitions contributing to violence, injury, unplanned pregnancy and the spread of STD's. Consumed over many years, alcohol often leads to brain impairments, cirrhosis of the liver and early death. In the US some 100,000 deaths are attributed to alcohol use each year. Alcohol, alongside crack-cocaine, is the most damaging to a developing fetus of any drug (fetal-alcohol syndrome, anyone?).

Don't shoot the messenger, but you can't level any of these charges against MJ.

Marijuana, so far as we know, has no lethal dose; however, it does have a number of legitimate medicinal applications, particularly for cancer patients suffering severe nausea. It is not a good idea to operate a car after using MJ; however, it is far less inhibiting than alcohol when it comes to driving.

I have heard of a number of people who have smoked themselves stupid on marijuana, and many more than have drank themselves stupid and sometimes drank themselves dead. So far, I've not heard of anyone smoking himself dead on MJ.

MJ has also been lambasted as a gateway drug to harder more dangerous substance abuse. This claim is probably the most lefitimate case against the drug; however, I dare say it is not near as bad a risk or problem as we'd like to think. Alcohol can also be as just an effective gateway drug.

Then there's the fact that marijuana is naturally occurring. It doesn't have to be cooked down in a lab or chemically altered before use. There's something to this. I'm not sure what, but something.

So, I would go as far as to say that, plainly speaking, marijuana is less dangerous and harmful to both individuals and society than alcohol. But, alcohol is culturally acceptable, whi

le MJ is associated with law-breaking, bra-burning hippies from the 60's; and thus, it started out with a very negative social connotation.

Why is marijuana illegal Given that we're supposed to live in an enlightened society, I'm not quite sure. Again, I'm not advocating that we legalize of encourage the use of yet another mind altering chemical. i'm simiply remarking at a head scratching quandery. I think it is clear that alcohol is wose than marijuana, yet alcohol is legal and Mary-Jane is not. Somehow, that almost seems a bit silly...don't you think?

Clearly, there is more to say on the subject (not to mention the would be tax benefits), and I certainly don't know everything about it. So, any further comments or corrections are appreciated.

Thoughts?