When and where does a right to parental censorship stop?
We read:
"Recently I was in line at my favorite coffee shop. In front of me was an apparent father-son duo. I had seen the father around town but did not know him. The son, who appeared to be late teens or older, was scoping out my “cops say” button. As I sometimes do I said, “Go ahead, ask.” He did and I went into reasons why drugs should be legalized. Abruptly, his father whirled and began screaming at me, “You be quiet! You don’t talk to him! He’s mine!”
My verbal response was that the young man had asked and I was responding. The father then said he had been trying to “get him off marijuana” for two years. I centered myself and remained quiet. The man, a local realtor as it turns out, did apologize to everyone else in the shop. His son apologized to me on the way out.
Source
13 comments:
With new studies showing the adverse affects of long term cannabis usage coming out every day, and the current climate of anti-Tobacco sentiment in this country, how would anyone expect a "pot" manufacturer to survive the first wave of lawsuits?
Technically speaking, the guy asked the young man, the young man responded to him, and then he responded to the young man. Though the young man may have been looking at the button, the guy initiated the verbal conversation. In other words, he solicited the young man. The parent's point was simply why is a stranger, soliciting conversation with a young person?
While on one hand, I personally think the world needs to lighten the f*ck up, the fact remains that we live in a society where evil preys on our youth. How is a parent to know who is preying and who is simply being friendly? The trend is to err on the side of caution.
Good point. It was dumb of Jon to ask, or assume others would agree with his feelings. Keep your opinions to yourself unless asked.
Stan;
For several generations, the govt (as they usually do, and still do with many things) has been using hysteria and phony "science" to demonize marijuana. They used the same exact tactics when they banned alcohol in the late 20's. In fact, it's the only thing they can do since they totally lack any "genuine" scientific evidence to back-up their claims.
While we do know there are many "highly addictive and dangerous" drugs being used out there, marijuana is (IMO) not one of them. In many cases, addiction is based on the person, not the substance. There are millions of people addicted to many things, like coffee, potato chips, chocolate, TV, shopping, etc. Addiction is part of a persons nature if they are so predisposed.
Also, marijuana, a naturally occurring substance in nature that has been used for thousands of years, has many known (and yet to be discovered) "proven" medical benefits. You can not blame the substance for the weakness of people.
Here's another "fact". I spent 34 years with the NYPD. I've arrested hundreds of drug users and dealers, and never (repeat never) did i see an act of violence by a pot smoker. The only violence associated with marijuana is with the dealers fighting over turf, not the users. Legalization would end that.
BTW Stan, the current anti-tobacco craze, aside from denying a segment of society their right to free choice simply because it has been deemed politically incorrect, is more politically motivated than health related.
Det. - you may not have seen any acts of violence by a pot smoker (which I highly doubt by the way. Of course people who smoke pot can be violent in the right circumstances - I suspect you mean an act of violence which is directly caused by the pot) but I am certain you have seen plenty of examples of violence caused by drug-induced psychosis.
Det.
I didn't say cannabis was not safe - I said how do you expect growers of any size to survive the lawsuits? Just because something is safe, effective, and useful doesn't mean its manufacturer won't get sued....
Anon 6:17 said;
"Det. - you may not have seen any acts of violence by a pot smoker (which I highly doubt by the way."
Your doubt could only be alleviated by your personal experience with marijuana users, which you obviously lack. It is a well-known fact that pot is not assocciated with violence, except for the turf wars that i mentioned.
"of course people who smoke pot can be violent in the right circumstances"
That's a rather silly statement. I guess if you went up to someone smoking a joint and stuck a pencil in their eye, yes, you would probably get a violent reaction. Under "the right" circumstances, a rabbi could also be violent.
Look, we're not takling cutting-edge science here. The facts about marijuana have been known far longer than any of us have been alive. The problem is the distortions, misinformation, and hysteria created by the govt, who's only purpose is, as always, to control the masses. If there's one thing govt hates, it's not being able to control how people live. Look around you. The examples are everywhere.
It's bad enough sharing the road with drunk drivers now I have to worry about (legal) pot hears as well?
What is this country coming to?
I have personally seen the affects of pot smoking on friends of mine. Low IQ is a starter. Most of the ones who used in high school and continued into adulthood are doing the same thing they were then, NOTHING.
All but a few are on welfare, using my tax dollars to get high.
I say NO to legalization. We have enough LEGAL drugs to worry about.
For what it's worth: The July 2009 issue of the Socionomist, titled, "The Coming Collapse of a Modern Prohibition" said this: "Social mood influences people's actions and their social judgments. In times of positive mood, people have the resources to enforce their social desires. They can afford to express the black and white moral issues preferred during bull markets, and drug abuse is a favorite target. During times of negative mood, on the other hand, society's priorities change. People have other, bigger worries and begin to view recreational drugs as less dangerous, if not innocuous in offering stress relief, pain reduction, and the ability to cope with the pressures of negative social mood." The issue draws striking parallels between Prohibition and the current outlawing of drugs, and mentions that Prohibition ended and was repealed when the public got fed up with the criminal warring, corruption, violence, and death associated with enforcement efforts. The author predicts that just like the carnage associated with Prohibition spread well beyond Chicago, that the drug war will spread beyond Mexico and into the U.S. (I think we have already seen that.) He predicts the American government will try to assure the public that everything is under control, and the situation is contained to just a few small areas. Some will call for escalating, like with the Untouchables during Prohibition, but the dialog on how to deal with marijuana will shift from morality to how to stop the carnage. The final paragraph also suggests what society may well look like after the drug war is ended - "Following repeal of the 18th Amendment, organized crime and the violence that came with it almost completely disappeared as black market vendors lost the one tool that enabled them to maintain their monopoly and get unimaginably rich: illegality."
All but a few are on welfare, using my tax dollars to get high.
You are wrong. Your tax dollars are being used to fight the Bush-Cheney wars. My tax dollars are being used to fund welfare.
Det. - you were the one who said
"never (repeat never) did i see an act of violence by a pot smoker."
This is a ridiculous statement and you should acknowledge it as such. Then you should admit that you did see acts of violence by pot smokers and that I was correct that you actually meant an act of violence directly related to pot use.
Then go and research marijuana induced psychosis and then you can recant even that last statement.
The drug war is a waste of time, money and effort. It's a war that creates scarcity of popular products by limiting the supply which increases the demand which turns the dealers into rich criminals and brings wars for marketplace. Imagine if Phillip Morris made marihuana cigarettes and sold them for $10 a pack, how is a local grower going to compete with that? It's like asking a moonshiner to compete with Jim Beam, they can't so they remain small.
And by the way, the latest trend among teens is to make drug cocktails from their parents prescription cabinets. So, are we gonna declare war against Prozac and Sudafed? That war on drugs is an unjustifiable expense.
Parents, notorious for underestimating their childs evaluation of their arguments, would be well advised to always encourage strangers to talk to their children provided the parent is present, so as to encourage themselves to remember to use the "more speech " option rather than the censorship option for dealing with speech they do not agree with.
Post a Comment