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

"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:newscache$hdr9lj$kf4$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Werebat" <ronpoirier@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:WEpmi.36977$LE1.31664@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> > Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > You are telling half of the deal here.  You are omitting the dangerous
> part.
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > IOW his crime in your eyes is not that he smoked pot so much as that
he
> > got caught doing it.  There's a lovely lesson to teach our kids.
> >
>
> This is correct.  Why - because pot is not addicitive, and not
unhealthy.
> It
> is far better for you than tobacco.  And in many jurisdictions it's
legal
to
> use
> as a medicine.
>
> The laws on pot are stupid and deserve to be violated.  Stupid laws
deserve
> to be violated, that is what this country was founded on.  If you still
> don't
> understand this, then read the Declaration of Independence.
>
> HOWEVER, there is a big difference between public and flagrant violation
> of stupid laws, and private violation of stupid laws.  The people who
> should be out there publically and flagrantly violating stupid laws are
the
> people who's job it is to effect change - ie: political protesters.  For
> example
> the people publically burning their draft cards during Vietnam War were
> doing their job as protesters.  The people who it isn't their job to be
> protesters
> but also it isn't their job to be implementors of the stupid laws, they
> should
> be doing their civic duty and voting the stupid laws out the window. 
The
> people who's job it is to implement the law, their obligation is to do
that
> and not to protest against it.
>
> This has nothing to do with being caught.  Being caught violating a
stupid
> law is a natural result of violating the stupid law in public in front
of
> authority figures.  If your a protester it is in fact essential that you
do
> get caught and get cited - your supposed to get arrested and cited -
because
> the public outrage at seeing someone get arrested and cited for a stupid
> law is what brings about change in the laws.
>
> For example the guy that got arrested for not paying child sup****t to
> his ex-wife.  Problem was, DNA testing on the child and the guy showed
> the child wasn't his.  The stupid laws on the books were what got him
> arrested and he had to be arrested in order for public outrage to get
> the legislators to change the laws.
>
> This principal's job was not that of a protester, in fact, completely to
the
> contrary, as a school administrator he agreed to implement ALL the laws,
> stupid or not.  If he disagreed with some of the laws - like drug laws -
> then as long as he was a school principal he was morally obligated to
> remain silent and do his smoking in private.  If he felt that he
couldn't
> do that then he should have resigned and made public that the reason he
> was resigning is that he was protesting the drug laws the school was
> telling him to administer.
>
> What you seem to completely miss is this guy's hipocracy.

Exactly.  And very well stated.

Ones personal opinion about marijuana doesn't play into this at all.  And
working for the government isn't the only place one gets fired for using
drugs.  Random drug testing is done throughout the business world.  Most
positive tests result in immediate dismissal *because* those were the
terms
of hire.  Do I think, in most instances, that is unfair?  Yes, but if you
get hired under those terms, that's simply the way it is.

Certainly nothing to do with this particular issue, but some years ago,
when
the nuclear power plant was being built in our area, two families of
workers
resided in our neighborhood.  I met the wives through my children, who
became playmates of their kids.  Over time I came to learn a lot about
these
*families*.  Way too much then I ever wanted to know, about all of 'em. 
One
of the things I learned was that the husbands/workers at the plant, were
extreme pot heads.  I wouldn't have called them *casual* or *recreational*
users.  After the plant was completed and they moved along, I got a call
from another nuclear plant in another area of the country, wanting a
*reference* on these guys.  WTF they gave me as a reference is beyond me.
But I politely refused to be a reference for them.  I told the caller that
'in good conscience I could not be a reference for either of these men.'
'That I knew nothing about these people, other than they were casual
neighbors.'

Did I think they should be working on the construction of a nuclear power
plant, hell no.  I wouldn't want them building my new home, let alone a
nuclear power plant.  I think, without going into detail, I got that
thought
across to the person enquiring as to their reliability and character.

td