| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"Paul J. Berg" |
| Date: |
14 Jul 2007 11:57:52 AM |
| Object: |
"It's just pot." |
~
From The (Portland) Oregonian - July 14, 2007
VERNONIA (Oregon) -- Chatter filled the hot, hazy air here Friday, from
a swimming hole where wrestlers backflip off long knotted ropes to a
senior center thrift shop where tutting ladies pursed their mouths, from
the local credit union where tellers came to tears to the hardware and
auto parts stores where regulars spoke like oracles: The fate of Aaron
Miller was on the minds and lips of Vernonians.
And so was the fate of Miller's champion, Kenneth Cox.
Miller is the elementary school principal who admitted smoking pot last
week when a deputy questioned him at Fort Stevens State Park near
Warrenton; Cox is the school superintendent who welcomed a school board
decision Thursday that leaves the principal on the job.
Vernonia is the school district whose decision to randomly test athletes
for drugs was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1995.
It's the kind of small former logging town where summer vacation equals
fresh-air boredom -- in the woods, along the reservoir, beside the
creek, behind the diner. Canopies of towering fir and cedar shade
fishing holes. A pioneer museum draws visitors down the main
thoroughfare, which crosses one bridge midtown and another on the way
out. Yes, it's called Bridge Street.
A police blotter in The Independent, the weekly newspaper, offers what
you might expect in a place with a population of 2,300: 10 people
stopped for riding bikes without helmets; a runaway taken to social
services; two minors released to their parents after being found with
liquor; a woman arrested for possession of controlled substances; drug
paraphernalia found and destroyed.
"It's rural Oregon," said Jay Nesmith, behind the counter of Vernonia
Hardware. "We've got that laid-back, lefty hippie lifestyle going on
here."
Meaning: Drugs haunt this place.
Signs near the school campus shared by grade, middle and high school
students warn it is a "Tobacco Free Zone." The local chapter of the
Lions Club -- to which Miller, 41, belongs -- supports a program to
educate kids about the dangers of drugs such as marijuana. Students on
sports teams face random urine tests. Failure can lead to suspension,
costly drug rehab classes, loss of ranking.
Miller will face undisclosed disciplinary consequences.
"I have been accused of setting a double standard in taking this
action," Cox wrote in a statement posted on the district's Web site
Friday. "I believe, however, that I have set a higher standard for
Vernonia administrators than for other staff members. Mr. Miller will be
dealt with in a fashion similar to, but more severe than, that which we
deal with students. If a student is caught using drugs they face
consequences -- but being summarily expelled from school is not one of
them."
"They let him slide"
The decision to allow Miller to stay was met with relief at the Vernonia
Country Kitchen, where Shawnna Lloyd delivered baskets of bacon burgers
and grilled ham-and-cheese sandwiches to a pair of patrons.
"He's a nice guy," she said, echoing many here where even childless
residents keep track of teachers and coaches.
Her fifth-grade daughter, Melissa, and kindergartner, Christopher,
attend Washington Grade School, where Miller is the popular principal.
Popularity aside, lifeguard John Murray wondered how students would
react to what amounted to "a slap on the wrist."
"They let him slide," said Murray, 47, never taking his eyes off the
river, dammed for summer, where a dozen kids paddled. "What a horrible
example for them. He's supposed to be a role model. I think he should
have been removed."
Irving Russell, on a bench outside the senior center, agreed.
"They raise hell about kids and drugs," said the 75-year-old retired
bridge inspector, "and then when the principal comes along -- who knows
better -- they exonerate him. Seems to me he and the superintendent
should be brought down."
Teens shrug it off
Just out of town, high school wrestlers Tylor Owen, 16, and Zack
Nutting, 15, swung from ropes at the idyllic swimming hole, an elbow in
the creek where crawdads troll underfoot.
Neither had been born when the school district started mandatory drug
testing of its athletes in 1989, nor two years later when a
seventh-grader, James Acton, refused to take a drug test as part of a
tryout for middle school football. He was banned from playing, and his
parents sued the school district. The case made it to the U.S. Supreme
Court in 1995, and in a 6-3 decision, justices upheld the district's
policy.
But between splashes, the teens said they knew about the history and
about current rules that test them during the wrestling season. They
mentioned classmates and friends who faced discipline for dabbling in
drugs. It didn't seem fair, they said.
Still, they shrugged off Miller's conduct in the state park, where
Deputy Chance Moore approached the principal after sunset and smelled
marijuana. When he asked whether Miller had been smoking pot, the
onetime baseball coach and teacher became visibly upset and said, "I
could be in a lot of trouble for this, but, yes, I have been smoking
marijuana."
The Vernonia School Board called the incident a single act of "poor
judgment," adding that Miller had voiced "very sincere remorse for his
actions."
Owen and Nutting were also willing to let bygones be.
"I don't think he should be taken out just for this," Owen said.
Nutting chimed in, tugging the rope before swinging into the still air:
"It's just pot."
.
|
|
| User: "Gatt" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
17 Jul 2007 06:22:33 PM |
|
|
"Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4U9ni.4592$4J4.2433@trndny05...
One of my uncles was a navigator on a Sunderland Flying Boat during WWII.
They picked up downed air crew in the channel and hunted U-Boats.
Huge airplane for the day...ten feet longer span than a B-17 and about the
same in length. I bet the gunners broke a sweat every time they saw a
contrail; not much for defensive armament.
-c
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lobby Dosser" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
17 Jul 2007 11:51:30 PM |
|
|
"Gatt" <gatt@juggerFUbot.com> wrote:
"Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4U9ni.4592$4J4.2433@trndny05...
One of my uncles was a navigator on a Sunderland Flying Boat during
WWII. They picked up downed air crew in the channel and hunted
U-Boats.
Huge airplane for the day...ten feet longer span than a B-17 and about
the same in length. I bet the gunners broke a sweat every time they
saw a contrail; not much for defensive armament.
They got trapped in the channel once for several hours. Couldn't take off
because of wave height and Jerry shelled them from France. They didn't
get hit as they were still moving about, but my uncle said it was pretty
hairy. They did save the two guys they went down for.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Shatzer" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
17 Jul 2007 11:47:17 PM |
|
|
Gatt wrote:
"Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4U9ni.4592$4J4.2433@trndny05...
One of my uncles was a navigator on a Sunderland Flying Boat during WWII.
They picked up downed air crew in the channel and hunted U-Boats.
Huge airplane for the day...ten feet longer span than a B-17 and about the
same in length. I bet the gunners broke a sweat every time they saw a
contrail; not much for defensive armament.
Um, well, 4 fixed forward MGs, plus 2 MGs in the nose turret, 4 MGs in
the tail turret and two waist MGs. Later marks added a dorsal turret
with two additional MGs.
The Germans referred to the Sunderland as the "Fliegende Stachelsweine"
("flying porcupine") - they, at least, were impressed enough with its
defensive armament.
Peace and justice,
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Shatzer" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
17 Jul 2007 01:40:55 PM |
|
|
Gatt wrote:
"Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:zgVmi.3096$4J4.1173@trndny05...
Also looks a bit like an amphibious.
Like so: <http://aircraftinnovation.com/photos/index.html>
Those are spendy but they've always been one of my favorites.
Back in 1989 or 1990 there was a report of one flying under a bridge in
downtown, which is illegal (even though it's an amphib.) Law enforcement
was all over the place looking for it. Before I heard the news I saw one
being pushed into a hangar at Troutdale. They're not very common airplanes,
so I have a hunch that was it. Don't know whatever happened.
Whatever happened to the Seabee? Had a ride in one of those, including
a water takeoff and landing, when I was about 8 or 9 - neatest thing
which could happen to a kid.
I understand they've just added one at the Evergreen Museum in
McMinnville so maybe that's the answer to my question - they've all
become museum pieces, too valuable to fly.
Peace and justice,
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gatt" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
17 Jul 2007 06:16:50 PM |
|
|
"Bill Shatzer" <bshatzerNO@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:V_mdnfLlUsPekADbnZ2dnUVZ_v2unZ2d@comcast.com...
Whatever happened to the Seabee? Had a ride in one of those, including a
water takeoff and landing, when I was about 8 or 9 - neatest thing which
could happen to a kid.
www.republicseabee.com/Buyseabee.html
It looks like a VW bus. That's probably what happened to it. Hard to
imagine flying/floating a $50,000-$100,000 plane that looks like something
you usually see broken down on the side of the highway (and is 20+ years
older than the average VW bus.)
I have a photo somewhere of one that was recovered from the Mt. St. Helens
area after the eruption but I can't remember the story behind it.
It looks pretty cooked. It's the only one I've seen personally that I can
remember.
I understand they've just added one at the Evergreen Museum in McMinnville
so maybe that's the answer to my question - they've all become museum
pieces, too valuable to fly.
I see a couple have sold for $50,000 or so. Probably require an overhaul
and I wonder if they still float, but that's not bad at all for an amphib.
-c
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bo Raxo" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
16 Jul 2007 12:56:25 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive:yes
"Scratch" <Larry_Tigard@lefites.aretraitors.nut> wrote in message
news:ZpCdnd3Md___nAbbnZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@comcast.com...
Curt wrote:
"Scratch" <Larry_Tigard@lefites.aretraitors.nut> wrote in message
news:rqadnQZQeaQRIAfbnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@comcast.com...
Curt wrote:
"Scratch" <Larry_Tigard@lefites.aretraitors.nut> wrote in message
news:7YKdnTjTlYtB3QfbnZ2dnUVZ_ufinZ2d@comcast.com...
Curt wrote:
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$yfo7lj$ly$1@news.ipinc.net...
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.
I'm going to (safely) assume here that he had less than an ounce of
The
Devil's Herb on him -- so no, no crime here. Just an infraction. I
believe
it's a $600 ticket.
Curt
you missed (As always) or snipped the very thing Ted was trying to
make
a point of. Congratulations on your 100% failure.
Um, Larry. When you're going to call someone wrong, you should be
careful to
be right.
Ted said the guy was guilty of a crime for smoking and having pot. I
merely
corrected him. There's no Oregon crime if you've got less than an
ounce.
It's an infraction. Or is this merely another in the long list of
things
you
aren't aware of?
Curt
Sorry, I guess I just don't hang with the same bunch you do to know such
things.
Yeh -- my bunch is informed as to the ORS's.
Curt
pass the doobie dude! Yes I'm sure you are.
Awww, scratchy loses the argument and throws a tantrum. Must need a diaper
change.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lobby Dosser" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
16 Jul 2007 12:58:11 AM |
|
|
"Bo Raxo" <crimenewscenter@gmail.com> wrote:
x-no-archive:yes
"Scratch" <Larry_Tigard@lefites.aretraitors.nut> wrote in message
news:ZpCdnd3Md___nAbbnZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@comcast.com...
Curt wrote:
"Scratch" <Larry_Tigard@lefites.aretraitors.nut> wrote in message
news:rqadnQZQeaQRIAfbnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@comcast.com...
Curt wrote:
"Scratch" <Larry_Tigard@lefites.aretraitors.nut> wrote in message
news:7YKdnTjTlYtB3QfbnZ2dnUVZ_ufinZ2d@comcast.com...
Curt wrote:
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$yfo7lj$ly$1@news.ipinc.net...
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.
I'm going to (safely) assume here that he had less than an ounce
of
The
Devil's Herb on him -- so no, no crime here. Just an infraction.
I
believe
it's a $600 ticket.
Curt
you missed (As always) or snipped the very thing Ted was trying
to make
a point of. Congratulations on your 100% failure.
Um, Larry. When you're going to call someone wrong, you should be
careful to
be right.
Ted said the guy was guilty of a crime for smoking and having pot.
I
merely
corrected him. There's no Oregon crime if you've got less than an
ounce.
It's an infraction. Or is this merely another in the long list of
things
you
aren't aware of?
Curt
Sorry, I guess I just don't hang with the same bunch you do to know
such things.
Yeh -- my bunch is informed as to the ORS's.
Curt
pass the doobie dude! Yes I'm sure you are.
Awww, scratchy loses the argument and throws a tantrum. Must need a
diaper change.
Why 'no archive' something as innocuous and dumb as that response?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bo Raxo" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
16 Jul 2007 01:36:43 AM |
|
|
"Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:TNDmi.4940$Wh4.1109@trndny06...
"Bo Raxo" <crimenewscenter@gmail.com> wrote:
x-no-archive:yes
"Scratch" <Larry_Tigard@lefites.aretraitors.nut> wrote in message
news:ZpCdnd3Md___nAbbnZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@comcast.com...
Curt wrote:
"Scratch" <Larry_Tigard@lefites.aretraitors.nut> wrote in message
news:rqadnQZQeaQRIAfbnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@comcast.com...
Curt wrote:
"Scratch" <Larry_Tigard@lefites.aretraitors.nut> wrote in message
news:7YKdnTjTlYtB3QfbnZ2dnUVZ_ufinZ2d@comcast.com...
Curt wrote:
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$yfo7lj$ly$1@news.ipinc.net...
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.
I'm going to (safely) assume here that he had less than an ounce
of
The
Devil's Herb on him -- so no, no crime here. Just an infraction.
I
believe
it's a $600 ticket.
Curt
you missed (As always) or snipped the very thing Ted was trying
to make
a point of. Congratulations on your 100% failure.
Um, Larry. When you're going to call someone wrong, you should be
careful to
be right.
Ted said the guy was guilty of a crime for smoking and having pot.
I
merely
corrected him. There's no Oregon crime if you've got less than an
ounce.
It's an infraction. Or is this merely another in the long list of
things
you
aren't aware of?
Curt
Sorry, I guess I just don't hang with the same bunch you do to know
such things.
Yeh -- my bunch is informed as to the ORS's.
Curt
pass the doobie dude! Yes I'm sure you are.
Awww, scratchy loses the argument and throws a tantrum. Must need a
diaper change.
Why 'no archive' something as innocuous and dumb as that response?
Because I didn't see it as worth archiving for future generations to review.
They can easily draw the obvious conclusion (one hopes).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gatt" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
16 Jul 2007 10:37:45 AM |
|
|
"Scratch" <Larry_Tigard@lefites.aretraitors.nut> wrote in message
news:rqadnQZQeaQRIAfbnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@comcast.com...
Ted said the guy was guilty of a crime for smoking and having pot. I
merely
corrected him. There's no Oregon crime if you've got less than an ounce.
It's an infraction. Or is this merely another in the long list of things
you
aren't aware of?
Sorry, I guess I just don't hang with the same bunch you do to know such
things.
You probably shouldn't talk about things you don't understand. It's common
knowledge in Oregon; up there with the bottle bill, the self-service ban and
legal fireworks in Washington.
If you live here, you're aware of it. If you're not aware of it you should
learn something before you spout off and insult others.
-c
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bo Raxo" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
15 Jul 2007 07:37:04 AM |
|
|
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$yfo7lj$ly$1@news.ipinc.net...
"Bo Raxo" <crimenewscenter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:HKudna6iGsK14QTbnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:2972-4699381B-774@storefull-3236.bay.webtv.net...
`
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Curt" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
15 Jul 2007 01:26:00 PM |
|
|
"Bo Raxo" <crimenewscenter@gmail.com> wrote in message
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.
I wouldn't try to make that argument, personally, but fair enough. But --
WTF -- are we thinking he didn't have a ride home? I go out drinking, I take
a cab home. Why would this guy be different?
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.
I do. It's not a crime.
Curt
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tiny dancer" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
15 Jul 2007 09:43:52 AM |
|
|
"Bo Raxo" <crimenewscenter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:yoadneaEHZkfiQfbnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$yfo7lj$ly$1@news.ipinc.net...
snipped> >>
If he smoks pot on the weekend in the privacy of his home then fine,
they
are certainly not at risk. > >
He sounds like he's good at his job. Outside government, as in the real
world, that would actually count as to whether he kept his job or not.
Actually not, at least not the private sector that I'm familiar with. The
rules on random drug testing and the results are pretty standard.
I agree with Ted. This guy took a risk toking in public, and he lost.
Regardless of *east coast/west coast/middle america* standards. You can
lament on and on about 'west coast standards', but the bottom line is, the
guy KNEW the rules of the game he was playing. He broke 'em and he got
caught. Obviously some 'west coast' cops give citations for pot smoking in
public, evidenced by this story.
td
Bo Raxo
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "nimue" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
15 Jul 2007 11:52:40 AM |
|
|
(I am sure these headers are all messed up due to my snippage -- sorry)
Bo Raxo wrote:
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$yfo7lj$ly$1@news.ipinc.net...
"Bo Raxo" <crimenewscenter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:HKudna6iGsK14QTbnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:2972-4699381B-774@storefull-3236.bay.webtv.net...
snip
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.
Maybe he wanted to smoke pot in the park, surrounded by nature on a
beautiful day and all that. I know lots of people who do.
snip
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.
Really, Bo? I am not doubting you. I was just wondering if you had any
cites for that.
snip
To me, him smoking pot in a public park is as stupid as
riding a motorcycle without a helmet.
Really, person who isn't Bo? So you think that a principal should lose his
job for 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?
No kidding, Bo!
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.
Why not? It's honest work. What's wrong with it?
snip
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.
Good point, Bo.
snip
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.
Really? I don't know anyone who has ever gotten a DUI. Of course, people
don't drive in NYC.
snip
He sounds like he's good at his job.
Clearly he is. They are desperate to keep him. It is NOT easy to find a
good principal.
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.
Well, thanks to NCLB (and I hate NCLB), people are starting to understand
that more and more. If this guy is making his NCLB numbers -- not easy to
do -- they will NOT want to let him go. No way.
I would like to say here that the thing that REALLY bothers me about this is
the hypocrisy. The school conducts random drug tests of its students,
apparently. I don't see how the principal, a pothead himself, could in good
conscience do that to kids he is supposed to protect. That makes me lose
sympathy for him, but even though I despise his hypocrisy, I still think
that the man should not lose his job for smoking pot.
Of all drugs, including alcohol, pot surely causes the least harm. I think
it's ridiculous that it is illegal. I think it's ridiculous that a
principal who is clearly doing his job is in danger of losing it because he
smoked some pot. I know so many potheads -- one of the most brilliant
teachers I ever knew (I worked with him) was a big pothead. He didn't smoke
at work, so I didn't care.
Bo Raxo
--
nimue
"Let your freak-flag fly, and if someone doesn't get you, move on."
Drew Barrymore
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bo Raxo" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
15 Jul 2007 02:49:07 PM |
|
|
=On Jul 15, 9:52 am, "nimue" <cup_o_ca...@yahoo.com> wrote:
(I am sure these headers are all messed up due to my snippage -- sorry)
Bo Raxo wrote:
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.
Really, Bo? I am not doubting you. I was just wondering if you had any
cites for that.
Been around a lot of drunk people. Been around a lot of stoned people.
Have ridden in cars driven by the latter too many times to count.
Including while they imbibed. They drove fine, generally, slightly slowed
reflexes but nothing that makes you say, "pull over and let me take a cab".
Haven't ridden with drunk people, but having been drunk (again with the too
many times to count thing), you can't remotely drive a vehicle while drunk.
Heck, most people can't even walk straight (hence the roadside sobriety test
based on that).
Oh, wait, I did ride with one drunk driver. Called a cab, he arrived, I
could smell it on his breath. Got in anyway. This was the middle of the
day, BTW. He stopped at a green light, I let that go. He ran a red light,
that's when I had him pull over and got out and told him the Big Gulp cup on
the front seat wasn't fooling anybody. Always regretted I didn't call the
cops on the guy. Anyway, I've ridden with the circle I refer to as my
hippie friends plenty of times when they were baked, and they didn't do
anything stupid like that.
Bo Raxo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ted Mittelstaedt" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
16 Jul 2007 03:56:43 AM |
|
|
"Bo Raxo" <crimenewscenter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4qidnYcjqZlZ5AfbnZ2dnUVZ_hynnZ2d@comcast.com...
cops on the guy. Anyway, I've ridden with the circle I refer to as my
hippie friends plenty of times when they were baked, and they didn't do
anything stupid like that.
I've driven before (once) when slightly high, and I agree it is not nearly
as serious as driving drunk. It isn't something I'm proud of. As a rather
lame defense, it was in a college town, very late at night, on roads with
a max posted speed of 30Mph. If I had gotten pulled over I would have
got what I deserved, of course.
A baked driver is more impaired than a non-baked driver. It doesen't
matter that a baked driver is less impaired than a drunk driver. They
are still impaired. And the other drivers on the road do not deserve to
have to share the road with a driver that is not at full attention.
This also applies to some drivers that are in their 80's who should have
surrendered
their license years ago, and drivers who are falling asleep at the wheel,
etc.
Unfortunately, the law is still rather primitive in this regard and while it
should be altered to make driving in those conditions a citable offense,
it frequently isn't.
Ted
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gatt" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
16 Jul 2007 10:42:28 AM |
|
|
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$qdr9lj$kf4$1@news.ipinc.net...
A baked driver is more impaired than a non-baked driver. It doesen't
matter that a baked driver is less impaired than a drunk driver. They
are still impaired. And the other drivers on the road do not deserve to
have to share the road with a driver that is not at full attention.
Then you have to eliminate drivers who eat, (both hands on the wheel, bud),
who drink, who talk on cell-phones...truckers who use the CB while
rolling...anybody who's tired.
-c
.
|
|
|
| User: "nimue" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
16 Jul 2007 11:31:52 AM |
|
|
Gatt wrote:
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$qdr9lj$kf4$1@news.ipinc.net...
A baked driver is more impaired than a non-baked driver. It doesen't
matter that a baked driver is less impaired than a drunk driver.
They are still impaired. And the other drivers on the road do not
deserve to have to share the road with a driver that is not at full
attention.
Then you have to eliminate drivers who eat, (both hands on the wheel,
bud), who drink, who talk on cell-phones...truckers who use the CB
while rolling...anybody who's tired.
Or my grandma...don't ask...just don't ask. ;-)
-c
--
nimue
"Let your freak-flag fly, and if someone doesn't get you, move on."
Drew Barrymore
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lobby Dosser" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
16 Jul 2007 04:21:27 PM |
|
|
"nimue" <cup_o_cakes@yahoo.com> wrote:
Gatt wrote:
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$qdr9lj$kf4$1@news.ipinc.net...
A baked driver is more impaired than a non-baked driver. It
doesen't matter that a baked driver is less impaired than a drunk
driver. They are still impaired. And the other drivers on the road
do not deserve to have to share the road with a driver that is not
at full attention.
Then you have to eliminate drivers who eat, (both hands on the wheel,
bud), who drink, who talk on cell-phones...truckers who use the CB
while rolling...anybody who's tired.
Or my grandma...don't ask...just don't ask. ;-)
Somebody had a sig a few years back, something like:
"I want to die in my sleep like my grandpa, not awake and screaming like
the passengers in his car."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lobby Dosser" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
15 Jul 2007 05:21:58 PM |
|
|
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
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.
You do know that people Camp in parks, right? As in stay overnight, maybe
even a few days.
Who would have thought you could get busted for smoking a joint in a park.
Particularly by some guy in a Smokey The Bear hat.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Werebat" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
15 Jul 2007 08:52:32 AM |
|
|
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
"Bo Raxo" <crimenewscenter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:HKudna6iGsK14QTbnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Paul J. Berg" <pjberg@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:2972-4699381B-774@storefull-3236.bay.webtv.net...
`
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.
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.
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.
You don't know that. In America a person has to commit a crime before
they can be guilty of it. This is not Minority Report.
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.
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.
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.
Why not? If kids know that janitors are getting arrested for possession
and keeping their jobs, won't that affect them too?
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.
If he breaks the law, it's OK so long as he doesn't get caught?
You are funny.
- Ron ^*^
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ted Mittelstaedt" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
16 Jul 2007 03:48:43 AM |
|
|
"Werebat" <ronpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
news:WEpmi.36977$LE1.31664@newsfe13.lga...
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 support 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. He's making
a living in a job where the people paying him to do the job expect him to
do certain things. One of these things is to serve as a role model, another
is to be anti-drug. He's being paid to appear anti-drug. Yet he feels it
OK to be publically smoking pot.
This is no different than when the Miss America pagent finds out that
a contestant posed nude for Playboy. The pagent is hiring someone as
a public figure and quite reasonably expect them to not engage in
certain behaviors. Such as posing nude. The contestant that takes the
money even though they have done the posing anyway, is being a
cheater.
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.
Why not? If kids know that janitors are getting arrested for possession
and keeping their jobs, won't that affect them too?
Of course it will. However kids are able to put things into perspective
which
you appear to be unable to do so.
Sure, a minimum wage janitor is probably expected by the hiring school to
be drug-free. But if it turns out that he is not, well as long as he's not
doing
it during his work hours, the expectation by most people is that when your
out there paying minimum wage you take what you can get, and you are going
to expect to get rather crappy workers.
By contrast when your hiring the top-dog administrator for a lot more money
than minimum wage, and you expect that he's going to be drug free, when it
turns out he is not the example he's sending the kids is that even when
people
are paying you a lot of money to be a good worker, it's perfectly OK to
screw
them over anyway.
As a parent I really don't want my school holding up janitors as role
models anyway. I don't want my kids learning that being a janitor in
a school is a goal to strive for. If my kid came home and said they
heard through the grapevine that the school janitor was a pot head,
my response would be "well, what do you expect out of people that
work ***** jobs like that? The guy's a pot head probably because he
dropped out of school without graduating and
doesen't have anything better to look forward to than cleaning up
after you. That's what happens to people that don't do their homework
and pay attention to their teachers"
And of course now I'm sure to hear some mush-headed politically
correct outrage about how janitors are people to and all of that. Fine,
you teach your kids that and when your kids and mine are grown up,
your kids will be emptying the wastebaskets in the office building
that my kids are working in.
Ted
.
|
|
|
| User: "tiny dancer" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
16 Jul 2007 10:09:36 AM |
|
|
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$hdr9lj$kf4$1@news.ipinc.net...
"Werebat" <ronpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
news:WEpmi.36977$LE1.31664@newsfe13.lga...
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 support 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
.
|
|
|
| User: "nimue" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
16 Jul 2007 11:31:00 AM |
|
|
tiny dancer wrote:
snip
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.'
You did the right thing, tiny. You refused to be a reference, but did it in
a way that didn't malign either person. Well done.
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,
Actually, I knew a FANTASTIC carpenter who was a real pothead. His work was
amazing. It just took a long time to do it! I don't know if it was amazing
because he took his time or if it would have taken less time if he hadn't
been such a pothead. We wound up recommending him to friends; his work was
that solid. They loved his work, too.
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
--
nimue
"Let your freak-flag fly, and if someone doesn't get you, move on."
Drew Barrymore
.
|
|
|
| User: "tiny dancer" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
16 Jul 2007 12:13:03 PM |
|
|
"nimue" <cup_o_cakes@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:469b9d32$0$4728$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
tiny dancer wrote:
snip
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.'
You did the right thing, tiny. You refused to be a reference, but did it
in
a way that didn't malign either person. Well done.
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,
Actually, I knew a FANTASTIC carpenter who was a real pothead. His work
was
amazing. It just took a long time to do it! I don't know if it was
amazing
because he took his time or if it would have taken less time if he hadn't
been such a pothead. We wound up recommending him to friends; his work
was
that solid. They loved his work, too.
What I was more concerned about was *code*. A carpenter, to me anyway, is
much like an artist. Their work can be magnificent. A good carpenter, now
days anyway, is really hard to find. The way I, certainly not expert on the
subject, understood the construction of a nuclear power plant, the work had
to be very accurate and precise as to construction standards. Whether it be
the gauge of metals used, or other similar such matters. I mean, you don't
want to use the wrong strength of materials, wrong mixture of cement,
whatever else it entails.
And it was their wives who made references as to their *ability* an any
particular day. That was how I learned their usage was far more than
recreational. They would make comments as to 'how high' they were and 'hope
they didn't have anything critical to do that day.' These comments weren't
made in jest. It sometimes scared the ***** out of me, listening to them.
They all used, but it was the husbands who apparently were the heavy users.
The wives I'd call recreational.
I'm all in favor of legalization of pot. I don't have any hang-ups about
it. I've found it beneficial for certain pain relief, when all else has
failed, and have recommended it to various people for either pain or nausea,
especially related to serious illnesses.
Would I want my surgeon to be a bit *high* when operating on me? Not a
chance. I felt the same way about these guys, working on something like a
nuclear power plant. My surgeon can toke on the week-end, but when he steps
into that operating room, I want his full attention and quickness of
reaction time, to be focussed on me. :-) I'm *funny* that way.
Same way I'd prefer that my school principal not be picked up for pot usage.
If he wants to toke in the privacy of his residence, fine by me. I don't
think I'm being a hypocrite here. When it comes to teenagers, at least from
some I've seen, friends and acquaintances of my own kids, kids of friends of
mine, etc., it seems like for certain teens, pot can be a precursor to a
wasted life. I realize that certain personality types are more prone to
addictions. And I also understand that in the accepted terms of
*addiction*, pot doesn't necessarily 'lead to' disaster. This is just MO,
but I have seen certain kids of the teen age, to have real problems with
knowing when to stop and when they are getting themselves into really DEEP
*****. And I think that for this type personality in a kid, knowing that
ones teachers/principal uses, just can't be positive for them.
I'm thinking here of one friend in particular. Let's see, their son must be
around 30 by now. He started out okay, but he's apparently one of those
kids who NEVER should have started anything, and certainly shouldn't have
had any sort of 'role models' around him that gave him the idea any of this
was *okay*. Oh, like the other kids, he started out on pot. But he ended
up having an insatiable *need* for everything, including meth, heroin, coke,
etc. I've lost track of how many times he's been in and out of rehab. His
field of study had been 'working with kids'. But now he has a number of
felonies on his record, so that seems unlikely that he will ever get a job
in his *field*. And he has literally drained his parents future retirement
monies. In a way I feel for them, but then I want to smack the ***** out of
'em too, because they used to condone the usage of pot in their home. Would
toke up with their kids. The daughter is fine, can remain a casual user,
but the son is a lost cause. And he's caused them more heartache and pain
than I can even begin to describe. He married last year around this time.
A big wedding, all the trimmings. I talked to his mom a few weeks ago.
He's back in rehab, the new bride has had to move to a different apartment,
as she couldn't afford the one they had on only her salary. And I'm
guessing the *marriage* isn't going to be rekindled when he gets out of his
latest half-way house.
So I have really sticky *feelings* about teens, pot, and how we as parents
both set examples and try to keep them out of certain *stuff* until they've
had a few years to mature. Sort of the same as we do with consuming
alcohol. We know they are going to drink at a certain age. And depending
upon the kid, we try to keep them *safe* long enough for their emotional
maturity to catch up to the crap they will inevitably get into, if that all
makes sense?
td
.
|
|
|
| User: "nimue" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
16 Jul 2007 01:07:57 PM |
|
|
tiny dancer wrote:
"nimue" <cup_o_cakes@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:469b9d32$0$4728$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
tiny dancer wrote:
snip
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.'
You did the right thing, tiny. You refused to be a reference, but
did it in a way that didn't malign either person. Well done.
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,
Actually, I knew a FANTASTIC carpenter who was a real pothead. His
work was amazing. It just took a long time to do it! I don't know
if it was amazing because he took his time or if it would have taken
less time if he hadn't been such a pothead. We wound up
recommending him to friends; his work was that solid. They loved
his work, too.
What I was more concerned about was *code*.
Oh, I hear you. Making a gazebo is one thing -- making a nuclear power
plant is quite another.
A carpenter, to me
anyway, is much like an artist. Their work can be magnificent. A
good carpenter, now days anyway, is really hard to find. The way I,
certainly not expert on the subject, understood the construction of a
nuclear power plant, the work had to be very accurate and precise as
to construction standards.
I assume you are right.
Whether it be the gauge of metals used,
or other similar such matters. I mean, you don't want to use the
wrong strength of materials, wrong mixture of cement, whatever else
it entails.
And it was their wives who made references as to their *ability* an
any particular day. That was how I learned their usage was far more
than recreational. They would make comments as to 'how high' they
were and 'hope they didn't have anything critical to do that day.'
They laughed about that? That's scary. I have no problem with people
smoking pot or having a glass of wine OFF THE JOB.
These comments weren't made in jest. It sometimes scared the *****
out of me, listening to them. They all used, but it was the husbands
who apparently were the heavy users. The wives I'd call recreational.
I'm all in favor of legalization of pot. I don't have any hang-ups
about it. I've found it beneficial for certain pain relief,
I hope you are feeling all right now.
when all
else has failed, and have recommended it to various people for either
pain or nausea, especially related to serious illnesses.
Would I want my surgeon to be a bit *high* when operating on me? Not
a chance.
I agree 100%. That is why I equate it with the glass of wine at dinner --
or at a state park while on a weekend trip thing. You can do it, just not
at work.
I felt the same way about these guys, working on something
like a nuclear power plant. My surgeon can toke on the week-end, but
when he steps into that operating room, I want his full attention and
quickness of reaction time, to be focussed on me. :-) I'm *funny*
that way.
Once again, you and I are in complete agreement. Great minds...;-)
Same way I'd prefer that my school principal not be picked up for pot
usage. If he wants to toke in the privacy of his residence, fine by
me. I don't think I'm being a hypocrite here. When it comes to
teenagers, at least from some I've seen, friends and acquaintances of
my own kids, kids of friends of mine, etc., it seems like for certain
teens, pot can be a precursor to a wasted life. I realize that
certain personality types are more prone to addictions. And I also
understand that in the accepted terms of *addiction*, pot doesn't
necessarily 'lead to' disaster. This is just MO, but I have seen
certain kids of the teen age, to have real problems with knowing when
to stop and when they are getting themselves into really DEEP *****.
And I think that for this type personality in a kid, knowing that
ones teachers/principal uses, just can't be positive for them.
Well, I don't know. I mean, I guess kids assume their teachers and
principals drink -- if they think about it at all, that is.
I'm thinking here of one friend in particular. Let's see, their son
must be around 30 by now. He started out okay, but he's apparently
one of those kids who NEVER should have started anything, and
certainly shouldn't have had any sort of 'role models' around him
that gave him the idea any of this was *okay*. Oh, like the other
kids, he started out on pot. But he ended up having an insatiable
*need* for everything, including meth, heroin, coke, etc. I've lost
track of how many times he's been in and out of rehab.
That's sad. I feel bad for him.
His field of
study had been 'working with kids'. But now he has a number of
felonies on his record, so that seems unlikely that he will ever get
a job in his *field*. And he has literally drained his parents
future retirement monies. In a way I feel for them, but then I want
to smack the ***** out of 'em too, because they used to condone the
usage of pot in their home. Would toke up with their kids.
THAT is a problem. I don't think parents should even drink with their kids.
The
daughter is fine, can remain a casual user, but the son is a lost
cause.
Is it genetic? What causes it?
And he's caused them more heartache and pain than I can even
begin to describe. He married last year around this time. A big
wedding, all the trimmings. I talked to his mom a few weeks ago.
He's back in rehab, the new bride has had to move to a different
apartment, as she couldn't afford the one they had on only her
salary. And I'm guessing the *marriage* isn't going to be rekindled
when he gets out of his latest half-way house.
So I have really sticky *feelings* about teens, pot, and how we as
parents both set examples and try to keep them out of certain *stuff*
until they've had a few years to mature.
I think there should be a legal age, like there is with alcohol.
Sort of the same as we do
with consuming alcohol. We know they are going to drink at a certain
age. And depending upon the kid, we try to keep them *safe* long
enough for their emotional maturity to catch up to the crap they will
inevitably get into, if that all makes sense?
It does.
td
--
nimue
"Let your freak-flag fly, and if someone doesn't get you, move on."
Drew Barrymore
.
|
|
|
| User: "tiny dancer" |
|
| Title: Re: "It's just pot.": Double Standard? |
16 Jul 2007 02:00:54 PM |
|
|
"nimue" <cup_o_cakes@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:469bb3eb$0$4696$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
tiny dancer wrote:
"nimue" <cup_o_cakes@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:469b9d32$0$4728$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
tiny dancer wrote:
snip
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.'
You did the right thing, tiny. You refused to be a reference, but
did it in a way that didn't malign either person. Well done.
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,
Actually, I knew a FANTASTIC carpenter who was a real pothead. His
work was amazing. It just took a long time to do it! I don't know
if it was amazing because he took his time or if it would have taken
less time if he hadn't been such a pothead. We wound up
recommending him to friends; his work was that solid. They loved
his work, too.
What I was more concerned about was *code*.
Oh, I hear you. Making a gazebo is one thing -- making a nuclear power
plant is quite another.
A carpenter, to me
anyway, is much like an artist. Their work can be magnificent. A
good carpenter, now days anyway, is really hard to find. The way I,
certainly not expert on the subject, understood the construction of a
nuclear power plant, the work had to be very accurate and precise as
to construction standards.
I assume you are right.
Whether it be the gauge of metals used,
or other similar such matters. I mean, you don't want to use the
wrong strength of materials, wrong mixture of cement, whatever else
it entails.
And it was their wives who made references as to their *ability* an
any particular day. That was how I learned their usage was far more
than recreational. They would make comments as to 'how high' they
were and 'hope they didn't have anything critical to do that day.'
They laughed about that? That's scary. I have no problem with people
smoking pot or having a glass of wine OFF THE JOB.
These comments weren't made in jest. It sometimes scared the *****
out of me, listening to them. They all used, but it was the husbands
who apparently were the heavy users. The wives I'd call recreational.
I'm all in favor of legalization of pot. I don't have any hang-ups
about it. I've found it beneficial for certain pain relief,
I hope you are feeling all right now.
Yeah, I am doing *better* pain wise, but I have to be so damn careful. You
feel a bit better, and then over-do and screw yourself back up again. :(
And truly, pot never did a thing for me personally. I'd much rather have a
glass or two of wine. ;) One time, when I'd been literally bent over with
back pain, it took care of it for me, but that was a long time ago. I've
had certain people offer it to me, not understanding how really, I'd rather
have the wine. Different strokes/different folks. A dear friend of mine
with serious eye disease is who I was thinking of when suggesting
medicinal/pain relief. It was the only thing that helped him. Me? I'd
rather have the hydromorphone. I consider pot much like beer. I've never
much liked beer either. Doesn't mean 'nobody should ever drink beer'
because I don't care for it.
when all
else has failed, and have recommended it to various people for either
pain or nausea, especially related to serious illnesses.
Would I want my surgeon to be a bit *high* when operating on me? Not
a chance.
I agree 100%. That is why I equate it with the glass of wine at dinner --
or at a state park while on a weekend trip thing. You ca | | | | | | | |
