[Cincinnatus]

Peregrino,

I agree on the issue of responsibility. I quite like the quote, I've seen it attributed to both Heinlein and Orwell, to the effect that "Pacifism is a shifty doctrine, where a man enjoys the benefits of the community while refusing to contribute to it's defense, yet claims a halo for his dishonesty." We're straying rather far afield here, but another thing that will happen when I become king (btw, shall I infer from the lack of dissent that the no bras on campus measure has unanimous support? Or should that be lack of support?) is mandatory national service, whereunder everyone, some time between their 17th and 21st birthdays will go through a boot camp or Outward Bound type program, that would include physical stress, team building, first responder training, marksmanship and firearms safety, guided discussions on civic responsibility, poli sci and government, etc., and thereafter be required to perform 100 hours community service annually for the next ten years. Military service (active and reserve), Peace Corps, AID, would count toward this total, as would service on a fire and rescue squad, AmeriCorps, teaching inner city kids to write, etc,, but everybody would have to do something.

Now one can argue that my advocating mandatory service contradicts my supporting people's freedom to do as they choose. I'll just have to plead guilty to certain inconsistencies, much as Jack can go, in more or less the same breath, from urging the strictest enforcement of the existing laws to advocating vigilante type behavior. But the above would be my way, or part of it, of addressing the responsibility issue.

I've also made pretty clear in the above posts that while I support the decriminalization of drug use, I don't condone behavior that endangers others or their property. In considering sentencing, or even the decision to prosecute, I think intoxication should be considered an aggravating circumstance. If some meth freak attacks someone I care about, or even someone I don't, in my presence, I'm going to do my best to shoot him to the ground. That an attacker might be high, or off their meds, suffering from PTSD, come from a broken home, or been abused as a child is irrelevant under the circumstances. It also doesn't change my basic premise and position.

Part of the issue may also be the mental image one has of drug users and one's ability or inclination to see them as other than oneself. I tend to think of someone sitting on the porch getting high and watching the sunset or smoking a joint at a Buffet concert, as that's really the only first hand (or actually I guess it would be second hand) exposure I've had in many years. Jack or AM may think of crackheads pulling stick ups and doing drive bys. Half a dozen QPs have responded since I posted about "SF guys who retire, grow their hair, buy a Harley, and start smoking dope" without commenting on this. Is that because they don't see this as a problem? Don't think it's realistic? Think different rules should apply?

One last point on the medical marijuana issue, I've both read, and have anecdotal evidence (a friend of mine is dying of leukemia) to support the reading, that the synthetic THC (forget the brand name) is not as effective at controlling pain, preventing nausea, or encouraging appetite, as the real thing. However, my self medication argument is by no means limited to medical marijauna, I think most drug use is an attempt to self medicate and even that which I find the most offensive and self destructive should not be criminalized.

At this point, I think I've made my arguments about as clearly as I'm able. Further repetition is likely to dilute my points and as I don't want to debate corner cases or see what has been pretty much a well reasoned discussion of a serious issue degenerate into something else, I'll try to withhold further comment.