IN THE MID-SEVENTIES, the high school I taught in was having problems with students smoking “weed” and cigarettes in the bathrooms. This prevented others from using the smoke-filled facilities. The bathrooms were also severely vandalized and inoperative on many occasions.
The Board of Education, the administrators, and the staff came up with a plan to rid the bathrooms of smokers and prevent vandalism — they proposed creating a SMOKING ROOM for the students; a room where the students could legally smoke and not fear “getting caught.” The people in favor thought the room could be fully controlled. The district leaders were about 85% sure that this would fix the problem in the bathrooms and at the next board meeting planned to initiate the plan for such a room.
In the curriculum used in the high school was a health course, which taught the evils of smoking, using “weed,” drug usage, and drinking. Students were urged and encouraged to refrain from all four. Staff members handed out literature, gave seminars, invited speakers to present their stories about how each one or all four of these vices ruined their lives.
Do you see the duality? Do you see the confusion raised in a student’s mind?
What the district failed to see was the hypocrisy in their plan for a smoking room. The students would be presented with approval to smoke, from the school authorities, in the created space and then be asked to join the crusade to stop all smoking in their health course.
Now take this situation one step higher and consider Massachusetts’ approval to buy and sell recreational weed. Take into consideration the opioid crisis plaguing the New England states. The state’s hypocrisy is consequently glaring and obvious.
The majority of citizens in these New England states is now suffering and will suffer from the fallout of such legislation. To reverse such a decision, politicians claim “to repeal the law would promote a right-wing ideology at odds with the will of the American people.”
Do these politicians speak for every parent’s school age child driven to school by a person using recreational pot; does he/she speak for the drivers going to and from work each day using the same roads that are traveled by drivers using recreational pot; does he/she speak for employers seeking competent help from a pool of recreational pot users; does he/she speak for the ill when a pharmacist using recreational pot is filling their prescriptions?
Are the politicians speaking for you?