Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DMaA who wrote (39056)	3/17/1999 12:13:00 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 67261

Actually the arguements for repealing the Volstead act are being reapplied to the use of "illicit drugs." The Volstead act was popular when it was passed. The culture changed in the midst of it being passed. Part of this was as reactions to the Volstead act. In the late sixties Steven Stills was arrested at his home in Boulder and judged guilty on drug charges. The detectives vacumed his carpet and recovered a marijuana seed. This was widely publicized at the time. The establishment (majority) at the time saw this as a righteous bust. Within about two years we saw the cultural reaction to the "60's." Eighty percent of college students were using marijuana. The government pamphlets, education programs, justice system, etc. was almost totally inept at dealing with this. The comparison was easily and rightfully made with alcohol prohibition. The changes in levels of usage have come with changes in public conscience about it not by the legal system. When people begin believe it is harmful or wrong for them they refrain or stop. When they are focused more on the right to choose and competing information is out there accentuating its attractions and telling them they are missing out, they protest. If the public conscience was supportive, prohibition laws would return. The legal stance our society takes on any issue generally mirrors the public conscience. Its hard to bring about social change at the heart felt locus of responsibility in current times. We are told to let things go and leave it in the hands of known pathological liars. The general feelings about omniscience is that if there is a God it is to misterious for common people to deal with. So for the people who do suspect there is a God the responsibility for caring for our souls is passed off to a saviour, pope, preacher etc. Personal responsibility is considered extreme. This board is a great example. Its just politics. So, go ahead and criticise any politician on "the other side" for breaches in ethics, standards, behavior. But take no responsibility for the ones representing you. We know the worst about dems and repubs and criticisms from the "other" camp rarely have any credibility.