"II smoked one day during lunch and then had to give a presentation in English class. I stumbled through it, incapable of putting together simple phrases, feeling like a total loser. It is still one of those embarrassing memories that pop up unbidden at 4 in the morning."

THAT'S IT? How does this guy write for a living in The New York Times? I used to do that too on a drug called AWKWARD TEENAGE YEARS.

despite the fact that you can get $3 box wine (or very cheap, forget the exact price) at Trader Joe's.

You're thinking of two buck chuck which is the nickname for Charles Shaw wine.
(Now at a higher price.)

But it still comes back to personal responsibility.

Brooks makes the mistake that a lot of conservatives (does Brooks still qualify as a conservative?) make: he assumes that making something legal constitutes a government endorsement of it. I'll repeat my sermon on this: Law isn't morality. It can't be. Law is just a minimum set of standards to prevent social disorder. That's all it can do.

I smoked one day during lunch, and had to present my 10 page essay on The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings.

ACED it! (complete with references to Led Zeppelin lyrics.)

Heh.

"People can develop personal responsibility. They can't develop freedom."

Nailed it.

"I used to do that too on a drug called AWKWARD TEENAGE YEARS."

Made my morning.

In my life, I have only ever met one person who actually waited until she was 21 to start drinking alcohol. The idea that there are millions of people who are waiting for marijuana to become legal before they smoke it is ludicrous.

does Brooks still qualify as a conservative?

I'm pretty sure he endorsed Obama twice. So, no. He's a "house conservative" for a progressive media outlet, so his job is to attack the usual suspects: actual conservatives so that they can be labeled "ultra-right wing" or "nut jobs" as the case may be.

Here's what this irresponsible pothead just did:

I shoveled (okay I used a snow thrower, but still, I had to shovel the steps and the walk leading to the driveway) the main sidewalk in front of the house, the driveway, and the little old lady who lives next door's walk and driveway, of about half a foot of snow (we're lucky, we live near the shore, so we didn't get as much as some other places). Now, I'm going to have a cuppa dark hot chocolate, some bacon, and a coupla tokes off this sweet bud someone gave me for Yule. Then I'm going to check my work email for any crises, and if there aren't any, I might have another toke and start the new book I just got. Or finish the baby blanket I'm crocheting for my niece. Go me!

Watch out, Flynne. A certain federal employee is going to pop up any minute to remind us all that "drug users LIE!" You can't POSSIBLY smoke dope and be productive, let alone do nice things for other people!

A certain federal employee is going to pop up any minute to remind us all that "drug users LIE!" You can't POSSIBLY smoke dope and be productive, let alone do nice things for other people! -- ahw at January 3, 2014 9:15 AM

Another poster might do that as well.

I wish I was having Flynne's day.

ahw, you are probably talking about me.

So I will call you on your "strawman" and also address the issue.

The entire reason "zero tolerance" regulations and laws are on the books for critical industries is that yes, drug users lie. This has been proven again and again in industrial accident investigation.

Now, about the strawman: my assertion is not the good work cannot be done by people under the influence. It is that persons under the influence routinely endanger and injure and kill other people in critical industries.

I would venture to say that a lack of reasoning ability is not the reason that you've offered your "strawman". Most people simply do not consider that unless an accident is prevented, no good has been done. There is no way to reward the injured or punish the offender to make an accident "unhappen".

Most people simply do not consider that unless an accident is prevented, no good has been done. There is no way to reward the injured or punish the offender to make an accident "unhappen". -- Radwaste at January 3, 2014 3:42 PM

That is very true. But simply making something legal or illegal doesn't stop it's use or abuse. It also won't stop irresponsible behavior.

Look at alcohol use and drinking and driving. Most states were forced into passing the .10 BAC laws. There was also a subsequent campaign that said it was in force. The number of DUI fatalities, injuries and accidents dropped significantly.

Then MADD came back and said they're are still DUI deaths occurring. So they instituted a .08 level. Yes the number of arrests went up. But if you look at the number of DUI fatalities, injuries and accidents they remained almost the same.

Take a guess why -- the personal responsibility factor didn't really change.

So there are always going to be the person that will drink a beer or toke a bowl on the way to work and get lucky for a long time. Then there is going to be the person who has an 8 or 12 hour rule.

Making people lie doesn't benefit anyone.

"But simply making something legal or illegal doesn't stop it's use or abuse. It also won't stop irresponsible behavior."

Which is actually why I cite industrial concerns each and every time on this issue.

Again: Until a standard for impairment is established for a drug, an industry cannot prohibit it from the workplace if it is legalized.

As with other criminal behavior, FORCE is required to exclude people who abuse drugs from critical positions - even in cases where the majority understand the need for clarity at work.

"Take a guess why -- the personal responsibility factor didn't really change."

There's another factor, although maybe such was your point and I missed it. The .10 standard was, by and large, something that most people agreed needed to be done. The .08 standard was, and this was transparent to most citizens, authority ratching -- the federal government imposing its muscle, top-down style, because it can get away with it. And local governments allowed themselves to be bribed by the promise of increased revenue in fines and fees. Win-win for the authoritarians. MADD would very much like for the standard to be zero, which will make no difference in highway safety, but it would make a huge difference in the power of the Dolores Umbridges to control everyone else's lives.

Again: Until a standard for impairment is established for a drug, an industry cannot prohibit it from the workplace if it is legalized. -- Radwaste at January 5, 2014 9:50 AM

If it is occurring so often in your workplace then maybe you need to have a team that runs the standard roadside impairment test on every person as they enter the premises for work.

Way back when I was in the USAF, there was a 10 hour bar on consumption of alcohol and going on security duty carrying an M-16 (some with grenade launchers) or an M-9. I know more than one person who didn't observe it and got away with it. I also know some that were written up for it with associated penalties. Most of them were done off observation and not a BAC test.

Alcohol has a more predictable intoxication standard. But that is based off of years of study. Intoxication standards will come with time, but being illegal for consumption helps nothing.

And as Amy is trying to point out, and as I pointed out in my comment, Between unions, individual companies, and federal regulation they can set standards for themselves.

There are companies and organizations that still have a morals clause in the employment agreement. there have been cases such as the Salvation Army firing a director for living with a woman. A woman tried doing IVF as a single mother and was fired by a church.

So saying a company can't say if you are smoking pot we don't want you as an employee would be an easy case to win.

The .10 standard was, by and large, something that most people agreed needed to be done. The .08 standard was, and this was transparent to most citizens, authority ratching -- the federal government imposing its muscle, top-down style, because it can get away with it. -- Cousin Dave at January 5, 2014 10:29 AM

That was my point. It's like the recent campaign of Buzzed driving. How many people do you think are going to change from those commercials?

this dumbass column on how pot legalization is going to cause the entire country to be able to afford to lie on their parents' living room floor contemplating the weave of the rug.
_________________________________

I thought that was a pretty misleading statement. From it, I thought the column was going to be about the economic benefits of legalization - that it was going to make us all rich. Or at least that it would give us zero unemployment.

Look at Reason TV's view on legalization: Is Colorado Pot Overtaxed and Over-Regulated Already?