SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: TimF who wrote (253452)5/8/2002 9:53:29 AM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (1) of 769670
 
On the militarization model, we would make the commitment to contain our borders. It is universally acknowledged that we have made no such commitment.

It is possible that marijuana should be treated separately, although I understand that more recent breeds are far more potent than was common when I was a teenager, and therefore may be dangerously intoxicating. I will, nevertheless, leave that on the "ambivalent" side.

Drinking can be socially destructive, no doubt, but the overwhelming majority of people are generally responsible users, and there are customs which only the worst alcoholics would tend to violate, about when, where, and how to drink. Most drugs exist only for the psychotropic effects, and act rapidly, in small doses, to intoxicate. Additionally, most are addictive after a short period of habitual use, and most involve the development of tolerance, so require increased dosages to get high. Since habitual drug use generally gets out of hand, and causes one to be delinquent in one's duties, not only on the job, but in parenting and dealing with friends and family as well, and since it is very destructive of the ability of teenagers to learn and mature properly, it seems to me that it is not something we want to rely on the discretion of adults to control. The social harm is too clear.

Would we be flooded with drugs? Again, it seems to me that when drugs are readily available, less costly, free of danger, and virtually free of stigma, the answer is yes. Even if it were only a matter of making it easier to divert drugs into the blackmarket aimed at children, it would be intolerable. I remember when I was a teen, after a lot of resistance, getting talked into trying marijuana. True, I did not become a habitual user, but only toked a handful of times. Nevertheless, it was everywhere, plentiful, cheap, and one could easily be portrayed as uptight or childish for not experimenting. Similarly, when I was in college, there was always liquor around, and one did not have to spend one's own money to get drunk. I noticed that I was drinking far more than I meant to, and so developed rules about drinking to resist. Most people are not so disciplined. Now, assume that the drug which is readily available is heroin, and it is tres chic.....
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext