By: R.J. Moeller

--------------------------

From the part of progressive liberal Elizabeth Warren's politically correct-obsessed brain that brought you her lie about being part Cherokee that has come to light in the midst of her current senatorial race, we get this tasty little treat-of-a-blurb about a young author named Barack Obama way back in 1991.  You remember! Back when Will Smith slept in Uncle Phil's pool house (whereas now DJ Jazzy Jeff sleeps in Wills', I imagine).

An excerpt from the people who broke the story in question:

"Breitbart News has obtained a promotional booklet produced in 1991 by Barack Obama's then-literary agency, Acton & Dystel, which touts Obama as "born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii."

The booklet, which was distributed to "business colleagues" in the publishing industry, includes a brief biography of Obama among the biographies of eighty-nine other authors represented by Acton & Dystel."

Now please understand that I absolutely agree with Joel Pollack, the author of this piece, when he writes that President Obama was born in Hawaii, not Kenya.  But, and this is a big "but,' what does it say about the character and pathology of a man that he would allow information that included his birthplace being on the wrong continent to be distributed just so he could get a book deal?  How would it have ever been a point of confusion between a young Obama and his literary agent what country he was from?

The only way this happens is collusion between the two.  But why? What possible gain could there be from telling people you were born in the 3rd World?  It's not like our country has some perverted sense of multi-culturalism and "white guilt" or anything, right?

Honestly, what does it say about our society that being born with a certain amount of melanin in your skin matters so much to so many people (who are all claiming to only be caring because they want to "move past race")?

Elizabeth Warren is running for Senate of the United States and is highly educated, but when it came time to be honest about her ethnicity, she allowed institutions like Harvard to falsely promote her as a "Native American", all for the sake of diversity.  A young man named Barack Obama falsified public information about himself to get a book deal because he knew it would help his career (and book sales - what a greedy capitalist!).

All of this IS MADNESS!!!

Content of character, not what ethnicity or birthplace you can lie about, should be all that matters. But that would require our society, and before that, a series of individuals, to stand up and say, "Enough with your quotas and affirmative action and guilt trips! This is the freest, most prosperous place in human history.  Go forth and make something of yourself. We don't care where you're from, for better or worse."

(Note: for more on the Elizabeth Warren story I alluded to, do yourself a favor and read Mark Steyn's take on that situation right here.)

The "progressive" Left in this country seem to be devoid of any sense of irony, and I have to admit: it's good fun to watch sometimes.

The latest example of this comes from my new hometown, Los Angeles, CA.  It seems that the boxing champ Manny Pacquiao - a public figure who has publicly expressed his support for traditional marriage - and his family have been "banned" from a popular mall in the L.A. area called The Grove.

From my friend Ben Shapiro over at Breitbart.com:

The owner of The Grove, Rick Caruso, tweeted that iconic boxing great and Philippines Congressman Manny Pacquiao would not be allowed “on the premises” thanks to Pacquiao’s outspoken opposition to same-sex marriage. “Boxer Manny Pacquiao is not welcome @TheGroveLA,” he tweeted. “@TheGroveLA is a gathering place for all Angelenos, not a place for intolerance.” Pacquiao was supposed to do an interview today with “Extra” at The Grove.

So by this tool Caruso's logic, a professional athlete who happens to support the institution of marriage can't bring his wife and three kids to a mall in a town where he likely pays millions in taxes - to fund things like schools his kids probably don't go to and policemen he'll never need (cause he can beat any intruders up, right?) - and the act of banning that professional athlete and his family is the tolerant position?

"Woe to those who call good evil and evil good" Isaiah 5:20

Something we are very passionate about here at Values and Capitalism and The RJ Moeller Show is the highlighting of those people who dedicate their lives to the pursuit of entrepreneurial activities.  Job-creators.  Technology innovators.  That's why we wanted to talk to Dr. George Savage!

George Savage is a physician, biomedical engineer, and co-founder of several technology-based medical companies in Silicon Valley  His latest project is Proteus Biomedical, where he currently serves as Chief Medical Officer.  George is also a co-founder of one of our favorite websites for on-line political conversation: Ricochet.com.

We wanted you to hear some of Dr. Savage's story and his contagious passion for free enterprise. RJ chatted with the good doctor about everything from the political ideologies one has to deal with at medical school, to what limitations are put on entrepreneurs in a state like California. You're going to enjoy this interview and we encourage you to follow George on Twitter at @george_savage.

In the second half of this week's show, RJ welcomes Andrew Walker of the Family Foundation and Eric Teetsel, now of The Manhattan Declaration.  The topic? President Obama's "evolution" on same-sex marriage, and the political, cultural, and moral fall-out from his big announcement last week.

We promise you this: it is one of the most interesting, thoughtful discussions on the subject that you are going to hear!

Follow Andrew on Twitter at @walker_andrew and Eric at @ericteetsel!

Stream the show on the application below, or download and subscribe to The RJ Moeller Show for free on iTunes!

------------------------------

By: The Good Friar, Contributor

---------------------

For those of us who happen to live in the fair city of Chicago, one of our showpieces is Wrigley Field, the venerable baseball stadium built by the chewing gum magnet family back in the 1920’s. Disregard the fact the Cubs have not won a World Series since1908, die-hard Cub fans have learned to console themselves and bravely carry on by repeating the simple manta, “Next Year.”

However, after 80 years of allowing only baseball to be played on the field during a baseball game in the “Friendly Confines” of Wrigley Field, it is time to recognize the basic inequality that it represents. Namely, the Chicago Bears, Chicago’s proud football franchise, has never been allowed to play football on the same field - at the same time - the Cubs were playing a game during the late summer, early fall, months.

Instead, the Monsters of the Midway have been relegated to Soldier Field, itself a long-existent structure on the shores of Lake Michigan. But, because of the fact that when outsiders think of Chicago they think immediately of Wrigley, the Bears organization may be feeling the nagging tugs of jealousy - a "stadium envy", if you will.  (Lord knows that White Sox fans do.)

So here is my modest proposal to correct the fairness gap that exists between how much more recognizable the name Wrigley Field is and nearly any other sports stadium in the Midwest: This summer, starting with the kick-off of pre-season NFL football, the Chicago Bears should be allowed to play full contact, four quarter football, complete with kick-offs, run-backs and Hail Mary passes, at the very same time on the very same field that the Chicago Cubs are playing their full nine innings of baseball.

True, things may get a little confusing at first -- with wide receivers running a down-and-out patterns right across the pitcher’s mound. Or with a curve ball smacking the defensive coordinator right in the chin. But as the idea settles in fans will get used to it. They will appreciate the efforts by those in the commissioner’s office to accommodate everyone who wants to claim Wrigley Field - and the prestigious name-recognition that goes with it - as their own. While they’re at it, they may even wish to allow Chicago’s soccer team, The Fire, to play their games while the Bears and Cubs are on the field as well.

We can't leave anyone out, and we can't divvy up the schedule to allow different sports to play at different time - that might give the impression that Wrigley Field belonged more to one team than another!

Now critics will undoubtedly argue that everyone using the same stadium at the same time will create such confusion and chaos on the field that the very game of baseball will be jeopardized and Wrigley Field will lose its basic integrity as an institution of America's past-time. Listen, if Wrigley Field is all it is cracked up to be by its proponents, it should prove resilient in the face of such challenges, right?.

But Critics may go so far as to say baseball and football are two fundamentally different games. Those Cub fans who cling to the idea that Wrigley Field should allow only baseball teams to play during a baseball game, well it’s time to make their peace with the fact that sports has evolved.

Again, we can rightly anticipate that a line-drive baseball may smack a quarterback or two in the back from time to time, and that a tough scissor-tackle may occasionally take down an unsuspecting short-stop, but the overarching good that inclusiveness will produce at Wrigley will far outweigh any potential negatives.

And so what if 10 years from now the critics are proved right? What if the predicted chaos on the field results in the loss of our fan base and ultimately the closure of Wrigley Field?

Well if that should happen (and it can’t possibly occur because "fairness" is involved, and who doesn't love that stuff), then it only goes to prove that the once-venerated sports stadium, Wrigley Field, never deserved to be open in the first place. It will be time to tear it down and build a brave, new stadium where all sports at all times can compete on the same level playing field.

You’re from Chicago, President Obama, what are your thoughts on the matter?

We're locked and loaded with two fantastic interviews for you this week on the latest episode of The RJ Moeller Show!

First up: author Dr. Hunter Baker, associate dean of arts and sciences and associate professor of political science at Union University in Tennessee.

We wanted to have Dr. Baker on specifically to talk about his book, The End of Secularism, which posits that secularism fails as an instrument designed to create superior social harmony and political rationality to that which is available with theistic alternatives. In the book, Baker also seeks to demonstrate that secularism is far from the best or only way to enjoy modernity's fruits of religious liberty, free speech, and democracy.

For more information on Hunter, and for links to his many columns and essays, check out his website here and don't forget to follow him on Twitter at @hunterbaker!

Up next, R.J. has the opportunity to chat with his friend Tim King, director of communications for the Sojourners organization in Washington D.C.

Tim is a graduate of North Park University in Chicago with degrees in both Theology and Philosophy. After graduation, he worked for the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago. Since joining Sojo, Tim has been a strong and public advocate for the "social justice" movement.

We invited Mr. King on to discuss the newly-launched "Voting For Us" campaign that Jim Wallis and Sojourners is promoting in the hopes of involving more young religious Americans in the 2012 election.

Tim is also active on Twitter and you can follow him at @tmking.

Stream the show below, or help the show grow by subscribing to us (for free) on iTunes!

-------------------------

By: Caitlin Cogan Doemner, Contributor

(If you haven't read Part 3 yet, we recommend that you do)

---------------------

The Conclusion

As I think about the arguments for and against legalizing marijuana, it seems to me that both sides have some powerful points. To help me gain a different perspective, I'd like to think a bit abstractly about the nature of rules and freedom. Please bear with philosophical tangent…

I believe there are natural and artificial laws with natural and artificial consequences. You jump up, and the natural law of gravity results in the natural consequence of falling back to earth. Artificial laws are those imposed by man -- if you go over the speed limit, you get a speeding ticket.

Within the artificial rule category, there seem to be rules intended to protect yourself and rules intended to protect others.

As a parent, I use the former to train my son to make wise decisions with the understanding that if he fails to develop a corresponding self-governing mechanism, he will fail as an independent adult. Hence, when he fails to do his homework and gets a poor grade on his test, we take away privileges, because when he's older and has a job, not doing work will get him fired. Which will significantly restrict his privileges.

I'm sure you seen the Overprotective Parent. They have rules for everything! This parenting style inevitably results in two kinds of kids: the Rebel, who throws the good rules out with the bath water; and the Obsequious Child, with no ability to decide anything for themselves because they've always been told what to do. So, excessive restriction of freedom seems to result in either too little or too much will. With Aristotle, good parents are always trying to cultivate that golden mean, the Self-Governing Child.

The role of government is not the same as that of a parent. It can't and shouldn't be trying to raise self-governing citizens. A government-by-the-people only works with already self-governing people. Unfortunately, looking at our current level of personal responsibility as a society from a historical perspective, it seems to me we have reached the lowest levels since Rome. We are an adolescent people, either looking to be told what to do or rebelling without a cause.

So what's to be done?

It seems the answer is either make the laws more severe or get rid of them entirely (regarding marijuana use anyway); the middle courses attempted in the past have only exacerbated the problem.

Let's look at the first option. Since the natural consequence of abusing drugs is physical harm and death, the artificial consequence should be similarly dire. Individuals caught abusing drugs could be caned; those caught dealing might be shot. Seems to me, fewer people would attempt either.

The trouble is that free will has always been a good enough thing in itself that it trumps even the worst of possible projected consequences (see: Eden). God Himself considered death preferable to tyranny.

So how can government simultaneously maximize personal freedom while protecting the weak?

Here's my suggestion, and I am open to revisions:

1. Legalize the use of marijuana for adults 21 and older.
2. Limit growing marijuana to authorized growers (with ridiculously heavy fines for infractions) to minimize access by minors.
3. Increase the severity of selling or otherwise distributing marijuana to minors (zero tolerance felony subject to the same parole conditions as pedophiles maybe?).
4. Tax marijuana sales sharply and devote the proceeds to educating children about the dangers of drug abuse and rehabilitating abusers.

In this way, the government can protect the innocents from the fools, rather than the fools from themselves.

Sometimes you just know you're going to get along with someone, even before meeting (or Skyping with) them.  Such was the case with both of my guests this week on Values And Capitalism's official podcast: The RJ Moeller Show.

First up, I chat with Caroline May of The Daily Caller and we get a chance to hear some of Ms. May's personal journey from growing up in North Carolina all the way to working in Washington D.C., making her living as a talented young journalist. I talk with Caroline about our mutual love for The Adam Carolla Show podcast, and we also discuss a few of the most recent stories she's been covering, including a Catholic bishop in Illinois coming under fire for comparing President Obama to Hitler and Stalin. Never a good idea.

Follow Caroline on Twitter at @C_maydc!

In our second segment, I am joined by writer, editor, and all-around busy guy Ben Domenech (on Twitter at @bdomenech).  Mr. Domenech is a research fellow for The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Health Care News.  He is also editor in chief of The City, an academic journal on politics and culture.  Previously Ben served as speechwriter to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, and as chief speechwriter for U.S. Senator John Cornyn of Texas.  He is one of the co-founders of the popular website Redstate, and currently edits and writes a popular daily email newsletter, The Transom, which aggregates news and notes from around the web.  Last, but certainly not least, Ben also co-hosts a daily center-right podcast called Coffee & Markets.

As Jonah Goldberg would put it, Ben Domenech's a real mensch.  I thoroughly enjoyed getting to know him a little bit better during the course of the conversation and I know you will as well.

It's a jam-packed, action thrill-ride of an episode of The RJ Moeller Show, so either stream us on the application below or head to iTunes where you can download and subscribe to our podcast for free!

-------------------------

By: R.J. Moeller

----------------------

When Perez Hilton is the voice of reason - be worried, America.

In the flamboyant wake of the profanity-laced tirade delivered by sex columnist and gay rights advocate Dan Savage to a group of high school students at a conference on journalism - the perfect place for a sex advice columnist, no? - the gay celebrity blogger Hilton offered this Rodney King-like appeal to all the haters out there:

Savage later called the walk-out "pansy-a**ed" which, from someone who helms an anti-bullying campaign, is obviously a very negative thing to say ….

Can't we just be good and kind to each other? Isn't faith in love and honesty and kindness all any of us really need?

The "walk-out" (who was chewed-out) that Perez is referring to was a young girl who apparently, upon hearing her Christian faith maligned by some angry "journalist," decided she would probably be able to still make a go at a career in journalism without enduring more verbal abuse from a man who convinced President Barack Obama to cut an "anti verbal abuse" commercial for his "It Gets Better" campaign.  That young girl was the first of many 15 and 16 year old students who at their very young ages were practicing the very same non-violent, non-abusive protest Dan Savage claims to love so much (and claims is absent among young people today).

No one fought Savage.  No one stuffed him in a locker.  No swirlies were administered.  But not even peaceful, non-violent advocacy floats in the ocean of rage swelling inside a man like Dan Savage should said peaceful, non-violent advocacy happen to contradict his rigorously dogmatic worldview.

Here's the clip in question:

Before I respond to some of Mr. Savage's impassioned claims, let me give you one other sampling of the kind of rhetoric old Danny Boy (an Irish "Catholic" from Chicago) employs in his public appearances:

(Warning! Not meant for children...or really for any humans of any age, for that matter)

Classy, no? Sure am glad that we searched high-and-low to find the most qualified adult in the country to head-up an anti-bullying campaign! Or was this one of those jobs that straight Americans simply will not do, President Obama?

Either way, I'd bet the free-range farm that the Dan Savage I know will have junior high bullies hammering their victims into plowshares before you can say, "I wish all Republicans were F-ing dead!"

As a quick aside, the obvious absurdity of the entire "anti-bullying" agenda is that no one is "pro-bullying."

Well...except that one guy named - let's just call him D.S. - who recently found a group of malleable, self-conscious high schoolers and unleashed all the pent-up aggression he has harbored toward his religious, conservative parents on them.  That's one guy who seems to love bullying.  The rest of us are still normal people who would love to have open and honest debate about our values (and our votes on things like state-wide propositions meant to decide the legal definition of marriage being upheld).

But I digress.

"People often point out that they can't help it, they can't help the anti-gay bullying because it says right there in Leviticus, it says right there in timothy, it says right there in Romans...that being gay is wrong."

Hmmm. You know, I think Mr. Savage is on to something here.  I don't know what your public school experience was like, but if I had a nickel for every time one of my utterly non-religious teenage classmates cited Mosaic Law directly after calling another classmate "fag" or "queer", I'd be able to afford a copy of this other, presumably limited-release, version of the Bible that Dan Savage has read in which it tells God's people to "go forth and humiliate all the nations of homos you will encounter."

If I paused here and used the stuff (common sense) I don't have any longer because the media, Hollywood, and my public school teachers taught me this other totally hip stuff (nonsense), I might be inclined to think that the whole "anti-bullying" campaign is really just cultural cover for a more insidious indoctrination (which in turn is masking the massive payback middle-aged gay men want against their own tormentors back in junior high and high school).

Naahhh, that can't be it.  Someone with a heart of gold (and the purified tongue of Isaiah) like Dan Savage is definitely just looking out for the kids!

"We can learn to ignore the bull-sh%$ in the Bible about gay people. The same way...the same way we have learned to ignore the bull-sh%$ about shellfish, about slavery, about dinner, about farming, about menstruation, about virginity, about masturbation...we ignore bull-sh%$ in the Bible about all sorts of things."

You would need a team of writers, working round-the-clock for a year, to fully explain all the ways in which what Dan Savage said here is poppycock.  So let me just point out a few things our generation's Ghandi didn't quite put in their proper context.  (Note: "context" is a word we religious, free market conservatives use as code when we want to be racist or homophobic and talk about intolerant things such as facts.)

First off, there are plenty of people who still adhere to OT law regarding things like shellfish consumption.  You can direct further questions about why they do, what they do, to the Jews who do. But Savage was raised Catholic and saves his most vile public hatred for Christians.  That is who he is really talking to here.

So what's a practicing evangelical or Catholic to do when faced with such seemingly insurmountable verbal assaults?  How can we ever hope to climb out from the mountain of Leftist, secular logic we're apparently buried under?

I suppose reading the Bible - the entire Bible - would be my first suggestion.

Christians don't adhere to the strict OT laws because they were handed down for a specific group of people, living at a specific time, and living on a specific piece of land.  The new covenant in Christ frees all Believers from being "slaves to the law."  This, like many of the best and most interesting things in life, has a counter-balance: Christ's reminder that he didn't come to remove the law, but to fulfill it.  God still has something to say about morality and human interactions on this earth.  But now we worship our Creator and Savior in spirit and in truth, not through top-down cultural and societal guidelines or the sacrifices of animals for a sin atonement.

I'm not ignoring Scripture's command to avoid shrimp, but I will continue to ignore biblically illiterate "journalists" who use such infantile arguments only because they know enough to know that millions of self-described Christian sadly do not know what I just explained.  (That one's on us, fellow Believers!)

"The Bible is a radically pro-slavery document.  Slave owners waved Bibles over their heads during the Civil War, and justified it."

Other people who "waved Bibles over their heads" (leading up to) and during the Civil War: Christians in the North - you know, that more than half of the country that didn't allow slavery - who pioneered the abolitionist movement and even did nefarious things like start their own political party when the Whigs wouldn't take a strong enough stand against slavery.

Christianity has a standard to point people to, to hold itself to.  We can call each other to account, even when some are using the name of Christ to do wicked and terrible things.

Secular-progressive ideology has Vanity Fair columns, New York Times editorials, the agenda of teachers unions, lawyers who believe South Africa has a better Bill of Rights, and Al Gore power-point presentations to guide them through the murky waters of human existence.

In Dan Savage's world, how do we know when something is wrong?  Or evil?  How do we know bullying is wrong? What can we use for a moral standard?  Whatever Barack Obama reads from his teleprompter?  Whatever Congress - the collection of people who currently have a lower approval rating than Hugo Chavez among American voters - enacts into law?

Should we rest our hops on whichever Public Service Announcement on YouTube gets the most amount of views?  Or whichever hate speech campaign advertisement gets the most amount of popular actors or NBA players to read off a cue card in it?

Or how about this: If we're all here by accident, if a book like the Bible and a Creator like the God described in its pages are nothing more than the ramblings of Michelle Bachmann's close-mined ideological ancestors, then where do we turn for a source of moral standards?

Natural selection?  Christians are always mocked for disagreeing that "Nothing x No One = Everything" when it comes to the universe's existence, but let's take the Darwinist at his word and assume natural selection and survival of the fittest.  How does the promotion of homosexual activity square itself with creatures who are in desperate need to procreate and advance the species if it hopes to avoid extinction?  How does one explain patently obvious facts like that evolution saw fit to make sure that male and female body parts "match up"?

These are fair questions to ask, in my opinion.  If I'm a sucker, bigot, and moron for believing what I believe about God, Scripture, and the proper relations between the sexes, Dan Savage has a few things I'd like cleared up about his "moral (but don't ask me where I got it) high-ground" position on the subjects he raised in his diatribe.

"The Bible got slavery wrong."

To paraphrase the great G.K. Chesterton: The problem was never, will never, be Scripture - we are the problem.  I am the problem.  Sin is the problem.  Divorce wasn't "God getting it wrong" as Jesus pointed out in Matthew 19. Such things are finite "solutions" (or realities) to a deeper, eternal problem inherent in all of us.

God is sinless, His Word is flawless, and we are fallen.  It is precisely because people like Dan Savage (and myself before coming to faith in Christ) refuse to acknowledge and confess such immutable, undeniable facts that they are so desperate to defend their way of life and attack ours.

And it's not all about homosexuality with us conservative Christians.  Honest, it's not!  Sin is sin is sin.  Sure, the "gay issue" gets a lot of play in the press, but so much of that (if you'll care to notice) is coming from the angry pro-gay side who seems to have a chip on their collective shoulder because - in my opinion - they resent someone, anyone, out there not signing-off on their lifestyle.  They are hoppin' mad that we aren't applauding them for their advocacy efforts to indoctrinate future generations with what we consider to be radical views on human sexuality and relationships.

Incidentally, you know that on-going (and painfully tiresome) "joke" that smug liberal commentators on everything from Saturday Night Live to CNN regurgitate that presumes any religious American openly against gay marriage must harbor and suppress wild homosexual urges?  Yeah, so if never shutting up in your condemnations of something you disagree with means you really like that other thing, does this mean people like Dan Savage and Rachel Maddow secretly long to meet a member of the opposite sex on a vacation to Jamaica, whereupon they impulsively wed that member of the opposite sex and end up like Frank Lambert and Carol Foster in the acclaimed 90's television series Step by Step?

(Cue the snickering laughter that will never come from the SNL crowd after Seth Myers never tells a joke like that on "Weekend Update.")

Alright, so I could go on for hours critiquing what Dan Savage spewed on stage at this "journalism" convention, but here feels like a good place to call it quits (for now).  Let me say that I don't hate this man.  I don't care who he decides to smooch behind the doors of his eco-friendly abode. But he and his loud-mouthed ilk have brought the discussion to our doorsteps and involved things like tax dollars, public policy, and the education of our young people.  He's the one who compared evangelicals' stance on gay marriage to Sharia Law.  He's the one who misrepresented and maligned the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

You can't spit in my soup and tell me I have to eat it too.  Especially not when your openly stated goal is to teach my kids to spit in my soup as well.

If Dan is serious about engaging in a meaningful and productive dialogue on these theological and historical issues he raised, I would encourage him to set up a series of public conversations with thoughtful men on "my side" like Pastor John Piper or Pastor Mark Driscoll. If he genuinely wants a spirited debate, go talk to adults who have studied the text and religion in question for a lifetime.

But calling little kids who had the guts to quietly stand up (and walk out) for their beliefs "pansies" - a term inferring that they were acting in an effeminate manner - is beyond cowardly.

However, and I close with this, I fear that Mr. Savage's views, and the unwavering way in which he presented them in this video clip above, are representative of a moral and cultural tide that has already swept over American society and even infiltrated the Church.  If Christians can't defend what we claim to believe, if we lack the conviction and courage to do and proclaim what is right regardless of what is popular, then Dan Savage will be seen decades from now as a prophet.

Jeremiah. Isaiah. Nehemiah.  Boys, on behalf of my generation, I apologize in advance.

By: Caitlin Cogan Doemner, Contributor

Click for Part 1 and Part 2

----------------------------------

Legalizing Marijuana: Just Say “No”

If you’re only worried about the health of your lungs, the health risks of marijuana are less extreme than tobacco; unfortunately, if you also care about your brain, marijuana’s effects are significantly worse. Use of marijuana distorts sensory and time perception, inhibits coordination, impairs cognitive functions such as recall, learning, and problem-solving, and in larger quantities can cause disorientation, hallucinations, and delusions. Long-time users have been known to develop anxiety, paranoia, schizophrenia, and other psychological disorders.  The argument that because some dangerous substances are legal (like alcohol and tobacco), other dangerous substances should be legalized is short-sighted. We know that alcohol is responsible for killing an average of 75,000 Americans every year; tobacco claims over 400,000 annually. Legalizing marijuana will inevitably increase the number of users and the corresponding number of deaths. Legalizing marijuana is the equivalent of signing a death warrant for thousands of people every year.

Anecdotally, drug users start experimenting with marijuana, but eventually get into heroin, cocaine, or other harder drugs. While advocates of legalization claim that marijuana is not a gateway drug, “ a study of over 300 fraternal and identical twin pairs found that the twin who had used marijuana before the age of 17 had elevated rates of other drug use and drug problems later on, compared with their twin who did not use before age 17.” When society legalizes a drug, it implicitly endorses its use, and increased availability will inevitably increase demand. This increased acceptance and availability would almost certainly increase the chances of the drug finding its way into the hands of minors. Due to the psychoactive nature of the drug, smoking marijuana during one’s adolescent years can seriously – and permanently – impair a person’s cognitive development.

While the scientific data about marijuana serving as a gateway to harder drugs may be inconclusive, its legalization would certainly serve as a “gateway drug” politically. The legalization of marijuana would set a precedent that could eventually result in the legalization of harder drugs or all drugs. The legalization of marijuana presents a slippery slope dilemma to legislators: When you begin legalizing vice, where do you draw the line? Gambling? Prostitution? While individuals may have differing personal feelings about the issue, public policy needs to act in the best interests of its citizens. For those of us who believe in objective morality, doing what’s right trumps doing what’s popular.

Government was instituted by God for the preservation of justice, which includes punishing evil, rewarding good, and protecting the weak. While many of our citizens may have the strength of character and body to use marijuana moderately and wisely, there are thousands of individuals who are likely to indulge in the drug without wisdom and develop an addiction. In 2008, an estimated 4.2 million Americans were dependent upon or abused the use of marijuana. Addictions enslave a person’s will, removing their freedom to choose what is truly in their best interests, and frequently negatively affects their personal lives, as well as their familial and professional  commitments. In accordance with Paul’s admonition to avoid putting stumbling blocks in others’ paths, the majority of citizens who could indulge in marijuana safely should accept the legal prohibitions as a means of aiding the wellbeing of their fellow citizens and protecting those weaker than themselves.

The toll on “human capital” would very likely offset any economic advantages of legalizing marijuana. Marijuana use not only harms the user, but frequent use can undermine socially constructive behavior: “Marijuana users themselves report poor outcomes on a variety of life satisfaction and achievement measures. One study compared current and former long-term heavy users of marijuana with a control group who reported smoking cannabis at least once in their lives but not more than 50 times. Despite similar education and income backgrounds, significant differences were found in educational attainment: fewer of the heavy users of cannabis completed college, and more had yearly household incomes of less than $30,000. When asked how marijuana affected their cognitive abilities, career achievements, social lives, and physical and mental health, the majority of heavy cannabis users reported the drug's negative effects on all of these measures. In addition, several studies have linked workers' marijuana smoking with increased absences, tardiness, accidents, workers' compensation claims, and job turnover. For example, a study among postal workers found that employees who tested positive for marijuana on a pre-employment urine drug test had 55 percent more industrial accidents, 85 percent more injuries, and a 75-percent increase in absenteeism compared with those who tested negative for marijuana use.” So, not only would fewer people attend college, but worker productivity would decrease as well.  The Drug Enforcement Administration says legalization of drugs will cost society between $140-210 billion a year in lost productivity and job-related accidents. Additionally, increased health care needs and more car accidents will result in higher insurance premiums for all.

Legalizing marijuana doesn’t make economic sense and will likely harm the most vulnerable members of our society.

Our featured guest this week on The RJ Moeller Show is James Poulos.

James is a columnist at The Daily Caller and a contributor at Forbes, Ricochet and Vice. He's been printed in publications such as The American Conservative, The American Interest, The Atlantic, The Boston Globe, Cato Unbound, First Things, Foreign Policy, and The Weekly Standard. Mr. Poulos also appears on shows like UP with Chris Hayes on MSNBC, or with The Young Turks on Current, or on RT’s The Alyona Show. After years in DC, James now resides in Los Angeles where, among other things, he is finishing a dissertation for Georgetown on the place of Napoleon in 19th-century democratic political thought.

RJ and James chat about everything from Aristotle to GOP Vice Presidential picks to Dick Cheney's fishing lure preferences (and anything in between).  Visit jamespoulos.com and follow him at @jamespoulos!

In the second segment, friend-of-the-show Eric Teetsel gives his review of the recent Q conference that took place in Washington D.C.

Stream the show on the application below, or find (and subscribe to) us on iTunes!