Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard?

"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:newscache$yfo7lj$ly$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Bo Raxo" <crimenewscenter@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:HKudna6iGsK14QTbnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:2972-4699381B-774@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > `
>> > School principal Aaron Miller is a drug-addict and is no example for 
>> > the
>> > children of Vernonia, Oregon or anywhere else.
>> >
>>
>> Marijuana is not addictive, and there is no evidence that he is even a
>> habitual user, much less an addict.
>>
>
> Your right, he isn't a drug addict.
>
> But, he IS a drug ABUSER.
>
> I used to smoke pot myself and am very aware of it's effects.  Anybody
> that smokes weed knows that it's illegal.  And, is the smoker is USING 
> pot,
> the ARE NOT going to be smoking it in public, much less a park that
> is miles from home.
>


In a big city that's coastal, in the U.S., you're generally not even going

to get a second look for smoking pot.  I've watched people do it in public

parks, including adults with small children (presumably their parents). 
It 
is entirely possible that he had done it there many times before, and
never 
been busted for it.   I've seen cops in Golden Gate Park come strolling 
through hippie hill when people were smoking; as long as they made some 
half-assed attempt to hide it when the cops actually appeared, that was 
taken as a sufficient token of respect and no citations were issued.




> You have a school principal here who is risking his job and possibly his
> remaining career so he can smoke some grass in a public park.  In short,
> the guy cannot even wait an hour to get home and have a toke.
>

Haven't spent much time  on the West Coast, I'd guess.  Huge numbers of 
people smoke weed, and in many places can get away with it in public.  Go
to 
any rock concert, there will be people smoking in public.  Often when 
there's a line for movie tickets or a nightclub somebody fires up right 
there in front of everyone.  Nothing happens.


> For all the defenders out there, how exactly was this guy supposed
> to get home from this park he was toking out in?  Walk home?  I
> very much doubt it.  No, he was just going to toke out and then
> get in his car and drive home.  As in, under the influence.

Bah, people who are high on pot don't generally have anywhere near the 
physical impairment of someone who is drunk.  The law may see them as the 
same, and there are some good reasons for doing so under the law, but as a

practical matter most regular pot smokers can drive pretty well after 
smoking a joint.

>
>> > This is the example that lets children think that it is O.K. to do
>> > drugs.
>> >
>>
>> No, your attitude is an example of the oversimplification that makes
>> children not believe adults when they talk about drugs. Lumping
together
> all
>> drugs, from marijuana to crack, under the same heading, calling someone
a
>> drug addict when they are using a substance that isn't even addictive,
> it's
>> these kind of stupid mistakes that explain why adults have little
>> credibility when they try to demonize all drugs with kids.
>>
>
> Teenagers today know the score on pot perfectly well.  They are 
> intelligent
> enough to know that a teacher is pretty much required by school policy
> to say that recreational drug use is bad.
>
> What kids today need is positive examples of role models.  I would not 
> call
> an adult who takes as stupid a risk as this guy did any kind of positive
> role
> model.  To me, him smoking pot ina public park is as stupid as riding a
> motorcycle without a helmet.
>

You actually think teenagers look at their principal as a role model, 
someone to emulate?  Dude, were you ever actually a teenager?


>> > If  Mr. Miller was the school's janitor would he still have his job?
>>
>> If he was the school's janitor, would the school board have even found 
>> out
>> about the citation?  Would it have made the news?
>>
>
> Irrelevant, schools are not holding up janitors as role models.
>

If the example is irrelevant, why did you bring it up in the first place?

>> > perhaps. But he is in such a significant position that it doesn't 
>> > matter
>> > how nice he is, he has an addiction and the children may be a risk.
>> >
>>
>> How are children at risk if he smokes pot on the weekend?  A
significant
>> percentage of those teenagers - and their parents - have smoked 
>> marijuana,
>> if they are in any way representative of statistical averages.
>>
>
> If he smoks pot on the weekend in the privacy of his home then fine,
they
> are certainly not at risk.  If he does so in a public place, gets high, 
> then
> drives home then he's putting a lot of people at risk.

You have no idea if the park was within walking distance of his home, or
he 
was taking a bus, or even a cab.   I live in a big city, people take buses

and cabs quite often, myself included.  I've grabbed a bottle with a
friend 
and taken a walk in a park late at night, having a few drinks.  We usually

picked the nearest park to my place or hers, easy to do as big cities 
generally have a park within walking distance in any neighborhood except
the 
poorest.


>

>> >
>>
>> Quite true.  The question is what that standard is.  If he got a DUI,
> would
>> you fire him?  That's a more serious crime, a misdemeanor, as compared
to
>> the infraction he committed.
>
> If he was convicted of a DUI I would fire him.  However you need to be
> very careful what your saying.  Most people that get DUI's do NOT get
> convicted - they go into a diversion program and in exchange for 
> successful
> completion the DUI charges are dropped.  Thus, in the eyes of the law
> they never had a DUI and if you fire them you had no cause and will
> likely have a wrongful dismissal suit.

Must be different when you are.  Nearly all of my friends have gotten a
DUI 
(some a second one), and nobody ever got diversion.  A couple hired
lawyers 
and managed to plea out to a wet and reckless, most either pled guilty or 
hired a lawyer and lost anyway.


>
>> What about a speeding ticket - that's an
>> infraction on par with the majijuana citation.
>
> No it isn't.  Possession of marijuana is a crime.  USe of marijuana is 
> also
> a
> crime. So he is guilty of two crimes and a terrible lapse of judgement.

Actually, in that jurisdiction possession is an infraction, not a crime. 
Crimes are misdemeanors and felonies, this was neither.  As for whether
use 
is a crime, or an infraction, I don't know and obviously neither do you. 
If 
you can find an actual statute in the criminal code, cite it.

>
> A speeding ticket, depending on the ticket, is not a terrible lapse of
> judgement.  For example if it's for going 70 in a 65 zone
>
>>  What about shoplifting -
>> should that get him fired?
>>
>
> yes.  If convicted.
>

He sounds like he's good at his job.  Outside government, as in the real 
world, that would actually count as to whether he kept his job or not. 
Because the private sector understands economics.   But inflexible
standards 
that government agencies run under make just the kind of stupid decision 
you're advocating, and that's one of the reasons government doesn't run as

efficiently as the private sector.


Bo Raxo