The Guardian Program

1-minuteman-grangerIt is time that we institute a national program I call “Guardian.” The Guardian program will be populated by men and women who are trained to take emergency defensive steps in all sorts of venues, and who are willing to carry and employ firearms as part of those steps. Each would be carefully investigated by the U. S. Marshall service, and trained, at partly their own expense, at certified gun safety ranges and, later, at police academies in each state. The idea is that these thousands of individuals would have a form of interdiction powers, such that one might stop an incipient crime or shooting by presenting his or her weapon and a trained stance, in situations where an idiot wielding a firearm would have expected no resistance whatsoever.
Copious history supports the likelihood that a fool with a gun will usually abandon his plans and submit or attempt to flee when faced with a defender with a gun. At the worst, like the examples of Adam Lanza at Newtown, or James Holmes at Aurora, Colorado, or even the two dopes at Columbine High School, a single armed and trained individual would have stopped the carnage before or immediately upon its beginning in all three of those circumstances.
Guardians would also be equipped with “911” buttons, so to speak, that would be required equipment anytime they are carrying a firearm. One push of the button would open a 911 channel unique to that purpose, such that the wearer could explain what was happening as it unfolded. Police could respond at their fastest, knowing it was a potential shooting incident, probably active.
Guardians would be insured under a federal policy, and held harmless from prosecution unless true negligence were established. It will be at some risk that a gun owner might submit to the rigors of Guardianship, but, aside from announcing the existence of the program and the numbers of Guardians in the country, neither their identity nor their locations – even generally – would be published.
Obviously they would be witnesses, but perhaps better-quality witnesses – part of their training. Masking their identities at trial is not an insurmountable problem.
Many of the objections raised to the free exercise of 2nd Amendment rights eventually come around to “that’s not the kind of country we are,” or, “we aren’t that kind of people.” Such statements are correct, in the worst way. America is increasingly occupied by who must be seen as “non-Americans.”
That is, there are, ANNUALLY, many thousands of illegal and legal entrants added to our population, who have no desire or intent to “become” Americans. In other words, they are not interested in our culture, morals or heritage of individual responsibility. Many of these entrants and immigrants, come to the U. S. for no more than personal gain. They may work, but this means “under the table” for a large number. They may be granted refugee status and this provides various forms of welfare support without waiting, and it is as likely as not that what is claimed to earn “refugee” status is a lie. They may have a distant relative already here, making it easy to “win” welfare status.
They may simply be criminals, drug merchants or otherwise, ready to take full advantage of liberalism’s open arms. Despite their receipt of welfare and education, these criminal types remain members of criminal gangs who ply death amongst us.
The rise of indigenous gangs is another source of extreme criminality that soft hearts and softer heads attempt to explain, rationalize and justify as a fault not of the criminals involved, but of society -American society – itself.
None of these sources of sociopathy can be traced to the mere availability of guns, nor to the legal ownership of guns, regardless of number. What these sources have done, similarly to the influx of Italian gangs in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, is to introduce a new element of danger and criminality to American society, with two significant differences.
One is the scale and reach of modern criminality – largely connected to drugs – which reaches down to virtually every street, unlike “organized crime” that may have profited from many streets, but which limited its murderous effects to rivals in its own universe. The other is that, today, murder is a way of doing business, even crappy, penny-ante neighborhood-dominance business. Kids are being shot before they can overdose.
The conditions for widespread death-dealing are a direct result of federal policiy failures. Yet many are afraid to recognize – or are blind to – that fact. As suburban kids, from “good” towns and families run a race to eternity with heroin, fentanyl and pain-killers, not always beating the cops with the Narcan, at least not the first time, more and more parents, police, teachers and counselors are asking why things have sunk to this.
Having porous borders for not just the past 8 years, but for the past 30, has promoted the hard drug trade like nothing else. Instead of delivering drugs to retailers, loose immigration has enabled larger-scale wholesalers to establish themselves in every metropolitan area and in many mid-size cities. Drugs, now, are delivered in tons rather than pounds. Shipments of cash in return are measured the same way.
A federal administration that prevents arrest and deportation of illegals only compounds failures of policy marking the last 30 or more years. Compounding that, the policy of releasing convicted criminals, mostly drug dealers – re-defined as “non-violent” offenders – has made a mockery of federal law in general, and a mockery of the oath by every member of our armed forces, to “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…”
Finally, we have entered a period of social confusion that seems more concerned with the misfortune of criminals than with that of their victims. A new faith in “rehabilitation” has infected our judicial network and we are less safe. Some can be rehabilitated, and God bless them. The other 80% of violent offenders – and I include drug dealers – will not be. Yet we feel compelled to parole them, somehow, to test arcane psychological theories. No one involved is held accountable when a parolee murders an innocent, and we are less safe.
Combined with the influx of new criminals from outside our borders, we have created our own, unfolding tragedy. Gun ownership is a perfectly logical reaction; self-defense an inherent right, the Guardian program a wise extension of those rights. I strongly encourage its adoption.

Drugs and Governance

teen-drug-abuse-s2-statisticsWe are not serious about ridding ourselves of drugs. We’ve been touting a “war on drugs” since 1971. Nixon’s concept was dead-on. Yes, it was a reaction to the wantonness of the ‘60’s, and an unpleasant adult’s attempt to restore adult control over the dangerously immature. But it is impossible to measure the destruction of lives that could have been avoided over the fifty-plus years since: the loss of fertile minds, the waste of generations of inner-city youth, the corruption of law enforcement and even the judiciary, and, now, the virtual abandonment of moral authority by governments at all levels.

The instinct to protect ourselves and others from mind-corroding drugs is now conflicting with a new, unprecedented concept of “rights.” America was founded in a time of moral adjustment and intellectualization of models of governance. Smart people, sensitive to history and the writings of philosophers both current and precedent, and fresh from the struggle of revolution, conceived of a constitutional republic where qualified citizens would vote for three levels of government: local, which elections already existed, state, which had existed for domestic issues despite top-down controls from England, and the new, federal, yet divided, central government. Overarching was the logical fear of creating a new tyranny to replace the old one: government could not be trusted to govern itself.

None of it worked without a shared morality among the citizenry and, most basically, moral self-governance. The Founders expected, and observed, a general ability to govern oneself, and the social agreement of when self-governance had failed. How distant those concepts are.

The Constitution, revered in theory and acknowledged in breach, has become the means to separate individuals from all external moral forces, starting with one’s parents. Not the original intent, but enough lawyers and psychologists, teamed with power-hungry political weasels, have managed to literally talk us out of our heritage. Shame on us.

We are now at the critical knife-edge of history where a civilization finds the courage to defend and restore itself, or passes from history to join the other failed attempts to organize societies with a measure of individual freedom. For the new power-meisters, morality and moral stricture are the obvious enemies of the individual’s enjoyment of life, and they are happy to take the votes of the threatened and pass laws that prevent morality from interfering very much. So long as “things” hold together – things like infrastructure, utilities, law-enforcement and food and energy supplies – individuals’ new friends in government will continue to find ways for their voters to avoid responsibility, taxes and work. Maybe. It’s all crap.

Meanwhile, human potential is dissolving in mixtures of chemicals, both legal and, nominatively, “controlled.” Parents are crying over suburban kids dying from heroin, boys and girls, while legislatures rush to legalize marijuana. The edge of logic has become fuzzy. Lives of otherwise responsible people are being distorted, ultimately twisted, by cocaine. Oh, but not “crack” cocaine! No, no, no; that’s for stupid people.

And the ‘War on Drugs’ goes on, accumulating statistics. What is missing is the will to actually stop the drug business. Succeeding will ruffle a lot of feathers.

Suppose a tough governor and a tough U. S. Attorney, working for an adult, a-political Attorney General, agree to designate a venue like a group of urban counties, and said governor agrees to take the heat for allowing a federal “state of emergency” in those counties. Under that declaration a special form of “martial law” would establish a camp, or camps, where National Guard troops will hold everyone arrested for even minor drug infractions. There they may be held indefinitely until the source of their drugs is identified and proven, on the presumption that ALL drugs have crossed state or international borders and are subject to federal penalties.

Detention camps will have ‘detox’ facilities. Addicts obviously are in possession of drugs on, or in their persons. They will be detained until their sources are identified. Then their sources will be arrested and detained until their sources are identified. And on, and on, until serious distributors are detained. As each level of source has been identified, the corresponding identifiers will be released to normal legal processes with all evidence gained under martial law admissible. We are either going to save our children – and society – or we are not.

Is it inevitable that individual freedom shall destroy our families, communities, schools, police and judiciaries? Because of our cleverness with words? Or do we have the right to cleanse society of corruption and disease, and to raise succeeding generations in clean, nurturing environments? Let’s choose rightly.

The Long Game

Of the election marathon of 2015-2016 it is safe to say that the Hillary phenomenon is not much of a surprise, although the Bernie Sanders phenomenon is – and he’s more instructive.
On the other hand, the Trump phenomenon has caught a lot of supposed wise observers by surprise and it surely ought not have. Trump is fulfilling an Alinsky-ite prediction: Obama’s EVERY effort has been to destroy his enemies and the classic Alinsky tactics have been employed repeatedly over his two terms.
First was / is to assault normalcy not quite outrageously, but steadfastly, in small ways and large. The “crisis” of financial meltdown, so convenient for Obama’s election, was the blasting cap. Never let a good crisis go to waste. Bam! In came the bailouts and Obama’s first victory in the budget-busting “stimulus” package that upped federal spending by 20%. Republicans didn’t have the majority, then, and watched helplessly, moaning and groaning, some even voting FOR it – able to swallow almost anything.
The Tea Party was born and the 2010 campaigns for Congress joined at that moment. The opposition was “stirred up,” as it were, and Obama’s plan was working. With the mainstream media lathering syrup on his every waffle of wisdom, Republicans were made to look silly in opposition. Time to strike!
In came Obamacare, that Orwellian lie of a law (or, Orwellian pile of crap… whatever works for you), that caught Republicans and the country off-guard. Bam! That was slammed through: another gigantic increase in federal share of GDP, gigantic increase in police-state controls over our most intimate freedoms, and Republicans were made to look silly in opposition.
In 2010 the House went Republican. Oh, wonderful, they said, now we can thwart Obama through control of the “purse strings!” Obama was perfectly satisfied to have Congress split. His plan never was to increase Democratic majorities – it was to destroy Republicans and any opposition to his socialist weakening of the U. S. When you’re in a shooting gallery, the only ducks you can hit are the ones parading by in front of you.
Well, the Republicans were really mad, now, and they proposed repeal of Obamacare, over and over again. The Senate pissed on that idea and Republicans were made to look silly in opposition. No formal budgets were passed, just continuing resolutions that cemented-in the 20% budget increase (plus Obamacare that kept getting funded) the stimulus had injected, and Republicans were made to look silly in opposition, especially when the government shut down for a few days.
Oh, my God! Look at the suffering! It didn’t stop the Republicans. They made believable promises to their base that once they had both Senate and House they could really stop the Obama regime and its terrible…, whatevers – fill in the blank and send a check. Republicans and conservatives were reaping a windfall in donations thanks to that ogre, Obama. And continuing resolutions were passed and the budget remained outrageous, even as Obama could claim to be “reducing deficits at the fastest rate in history.” It was still better that Republicans now controlled Congress for the press could make them look even sillier in opposition… as well as disingenuous to their base!
Having boxed them in with lies about government shutdowns and other opposing acts, Obama and the press displayed all too clearly how Republicans could not be trusted even when they had all the power to stop him that they’d asked for.
Enter Trump, a fallen angel, but angel nonetheless. He has ploughed through standard Republicans, and even Ted Cruz, engendering a substantial opposition within the Republican party, itself, including Mitt Romney Syndrome, that will, if successful in presenting a third candidate, complete the destruction of Obama’s enemies.
It was a long game, but perfectly played by the president, traitor though he may be. Watching the Republicans fumble around, afraid to impeach or withhold funds, all the other crises of Obama’s making were just diversionary, happily watched and waited-out while the long game played along.
Republicans’ 8 years of foolishness have brought us almost to our own goal line, not even talking about defending it, while Mr. Obama flips America the bird.

Prudence Leadbetter

Free Sex and Freedom

Homosexuality and other sexual expressions have changed. No news flash there, but what does it mean? In many ways it is a frontal attack on religious belief and expression, but it is also an attack on free enterprise, Constitutional protections and the public covenant. AIDS was its greatest ally.
AIDS was spread almost exclusively from particular sex acts by men. It can infect both genders but it began with men doing unnatural – as in non-evolutionary – sex acts. And it was and is terrible.
Once it was identified and named, teams of researchers began seeking a cure and seeking voluminous funding from governments to expand the fight against AIDS. Within a couple of years AIDS had legal standing, virtually unique among diseases. Special non-discrimination provisions were added to our laws so that sufferers would not be ostracized and suddenly, everyone was feeling sorry for – and accommodating – homosexuals! Gays, queers, trannies, lesbians, dykes and butches were organized in ways and with successes, never achieved before.

It was great news when the first non-gay was infected because now AIDS was “everybody’s” threat and problem. Now, straights and gays were the SAME! No more could gay friends and co-workers coexist through tolerance or ignorance of their differences, now the path was celebration, equality, pin-point anti-discrimination, and marriage! Glory be to politics! Being recognized not for gender but for sexual practice was a new pathway to power, codified, publicized, made equal in education and made equal to religion. Soon it was not equality but dominance that was sought – and here it is.
Homosexuality is not an evolutionary trait. It occurs in nature but by definition cannot procreate and pass on more and more “successful” homosexual genes. Homosexuality, at least until the twentieth century, was never more than a tiny percentage of humanity because it is constantly dying out.
What has happened? Homosexuality has gained a social value, and, therefore, political value and power.

Non-heterosexuality (NHS) is not normal in that it is unable to reproduce, which is to say, it cannot strengthen the gene pool. This is not to say it does not occur. Even some animals display same-sex courtship activity, but whatever motivates such action, it will not “enter” the genetic stream.
This was the case for all of human history until quite recently. We can look back from our new ethical platform and say that it was terrible to treat NHS people so poorly. Today, except for Islam, most social systems have decided to accept NHS at varying degrees of ignore-ance, tolerance or “equality.” Muslims kill homosexuals. They kill lots of other groups they don’t agree with, also, but they are just about the last belief structure that applies torture and death to NHS’s. In most cases, then, homosexuality is now tolerated. In our cloudy enlightenments America and Europe not only tolerate it, we give it “equal” status with heterosexuality. That is, NHS’s can now “marry” some one not of the opposite gender. However, they are not really “equal,” because they have also gained legal protections that restrict only heterosexuals.

Indeed, the diaphanous basis for enacting laws that benefit only NHS people is constitutionally questionable, to say the least.

Lately the battle lines are between the tiny, tiny number of self-identified “trans-gender” NHS people. These are they who claim – and perhaps believe – that their “identity” and their bodies don’t match. For those not suffering the same way this is not only hard to empathize with, it is hard to tolerate in its outward expression. We are adapting, little by little, largely through force of the new political power connected to all things sexually deviant – deviant in the sense that they are not evolutionarily functional, only socially.

“Transsexuals” want to utilize facilities where clothing comes off, based on what they believe about their bodies. Removing one’s clothing is a basic sexual act in western society. It is also a necessity in order to relieve one’s self, bodily, or to bathe or to replace soiled clothing with fresh. For transsexuals, these things cannot be separated. Their perceived “gender” is the determinant of their rights and necessities, evidently with no compartmentalization.

Social norms require that our sexual beings be limited, which is to say, mostly private. We celebrate the events in the creation of families, from marriage to pregnancy to birth and on and on. Families are the keystone to our civilization. They are strengthened by shared restrictions on sexual activity, and destroyed by sexual abandon, debauchery, adultery and so forth. That destruction hurts our children and their upbringing and maturation, things that society – all of us – want to see happen. These norms – and our children – are under assault.
Ultra-feminism has a role in all this, as does liberalism generally, which gains through group identities and group victim-hood. First, feminism has distorted the roles of men and boys. It wants softness, less manliness, sensitivity. It demands that rambunctious boys be corralled and defined by female control.

Feminism has changed ratios of success and achievement in education, business, politics and medicine. At the same time it has equalized sexual abandon and destructive habituation. Most of all it has confused the roles of men and women in the key functions of love, romance, marriage, family and child-rearing. Politics, feminist-driven, has enabled and profits from this demand for both victim-hood and dominance. Manhood is retreating.

Non-heterosexuality is growing socially, not genetically. It has become simultaneously acceptable – celebrated! – and less-threatening to bond with another man or woman than to undergo the rigors and risks of heterosexual courtship and responsibility. Almost like gang initiation and in-group recognition or status, “coming out” removes one from fulfilling roles that accept the burdens and risks of society and family and love of, and sacrifice for, a true spouse. And, we have the full force of government – right down to first grade and earlier – punishing heterosexual expression when it isn’t even sexual.

We bring up children amidst all of this and (feminist-driven and politically protected) unfettered abortion of unwanted babies, and then marvel at their growing reactions as they choose to couple purely for fun, hetero or homo – responsibility be damned.

The arenas in which men fulfill male responsibilities and accept risks are shrinking, even in the military. Every form of sexual aberrance now has “rights” that all institutions in society (religions included, except Islam, apparently) must accommodate, if not promote. The destruction of culture and social strength that is racing to an end we pretend won’t come, is all of our faults. Shame on us and shame on the professions and politicians that enable it, rationalize it, give it classy names and ride the waves of new unfairnesses for their personal gains.


One would think that personal feelings could not be a premise for codification. There is no empirical evidence of feelings and as a result, any “law” based upon them cannot be enforced equally for all. A good example might be separation of bathroom and shower facilities based on gender. In keeping with the protection of females from feral males, and with the protection of children from pederasts, restricting access to “boys’ rooms” and “girls’ rooms” has been one of the most fundamental and successful social norms since civilization got organized… and crowded.

Indeed, as mass communications became increasingly sexualized in both words and images, and with heightened mingling of young men and women in schools, jobs and elsewhere, the removal of clothing became more and more of a point of risk for unwanted sexual contact with people unrelated to one’s family, and unknown in proclivities. The segregation of bathroom facilities – and other places of disrobing, even partially – is increasingly important, not less.

The fears of individuals – particularly females – about being assaulted in places of compromise or of temptation, are valid. The rights of those offended or just unnerved by the presence of someone other than one’s own gender, are equally valid, and codified in law! But, somehow, such laws are being over-ridden in the interest of… what? Celebration of mental incongruities.

The syndromes, or popularly-honored sexualities that have been named by psychiatrists as if to impart patinas of reality, are little more than mental distortions. This is not to say they aren’t deeply felt and troubling for those who feel them. They don’t derive from the wrong number of genes; these people are not genetic oddities. They are odd in habit and have, they claim, deep feelings. For whatever emotional, mental reasons these are feelings that express through sexuality and deserve, I think, sympathy.

It is impossible for heterosexuals to empathize with someone who feels like his or her gender is a mistake. But, we should be kind; we should be completely civil; we should not denigrate or mock or chastise that person. He or she is human and deserves to exercise inherent human rights.

A proper question is whether we are being kind when we facilitate self-mutilation in a most fallible attempt to re-order the flesh to please the mind. Suicide rates would argue the negative.

What is the legal status of a gay or lesbian person who elects – chooses – to live a straight life. It happens all the time. People who have lived “straight” for even decades, decide to “go gay” at some point. That happens, too. In BOTH instances, the change is not genetic, it’s self-declared. Yet when he or she has decided to be gay or lesbian, he or she is protected by unusually strict anti-discrimination laws… laws so severe that “straight” people accused of such discrimination can be ruined socially and financially with the aid of government police powers. That is, when straight they are at great risk for persecution under laws that apply only to heterosexuals. Is there no definition under the 14th amendment?

As we move farther and farther away from the fundamental rights protected (ostensibly) by the Constitution, we get mired in the soft police-statism of creating rights that may only be enjoyed by taking rights away from others! To paraphrase a great mind’s observation: “The road to fascism is paved with good intentions.”

Mitt Romney Syndrome

RomTrumpSince Mr. Obama was elected in what was, until then, the most dramatic turn-around in U. S. politics (we elected a quite radical Muslim sympathizer who had been raised and largely educated by communists, who expressed a deep dislike of his supposed homeland, and who was the only person who ought to know his birthplace, who ever claimed – in writing – that he was born in Kenya – except for his grandmother and other members of his extended family), our politics and domestic body politic has been undergoing an even more dramatic shift. Few have taken good note of this, even as Republicans have consistently voted (they thought) for policies and people in direct opposition to what Mr. Obama represents. Their disappointment with the results of their overwhelming votes, votes that delivered House and Senate to Republicans and a wide majority of state legislatures and governorships as well, have finally found glaring outlet in the open presidential election marathon of 2015 – 2016.
Those who have fallen away as Donald Trump won the Republican nomination in the hardest-fought primaries of our lifetimes, still don’t grasp the implications, despite experiencing the reality. Republicans in “power” not only fail to grasp the shift, they are in denial and considering a tragic course to unseat the primary winner, Trump.
Key leader in this error is Mitt Romney, but there are dozens of ostensible conservatives and obviously liberal Republicans egging him on. For shame. Many of these claim to be struck by intense principles that prevent them from supporting Trump, led as much by William Kristol and those who orbit his diffuse conservatism, as by Romney.
Romney, too principled to stomach The Donald, was unable to declare said principles when debating Barack Hussein Obama in 2012, sitting silently as Obama spewed his Zebra-dung half-truths with the help of Candy Crowley. Perhaps Romney would be president now if he had shown proper outrage at the Benghazi and other outright lies and stormed off the stage of that debate with a statement that he was going to where Americans wanted to hear some truth! Obama deserved no more respect. But he did not have the spine – or principles – for that, which principles he claims guide him now.
Now his spine has returned to service. Trump is offensive to some and he, ROMNEY, will not stand for it… no, not for one minute!
How is it that millions of Republicans and others have chosen Trump over all those who use Republicanism, but don’t stand up for it? How is it that so many declare, loudly, that they aren’t seeking gentility or even manners, but rather someone with the nature of a bulldog who will not tolerate mealy-mouthed acquiescence to the destruction of liberty, personal responsibility and Constitutionalism?
Trump ain’t Winston Churchill, which would be nice, but this ain’t tiddliwinks, either; this is the salvation of the IDEAS of America and its promise, fought for so terrifically by Washington’s ragged troops.
Mr. Romney, be a statesman, now. Hold out your hand and help to Donald Trump and sign on to the victory that is within the grasp not of Republicans, but of real Americans.

Prudence Leadbetter

All we need is Pot

Brain Food
Brain Food
One of the least productive efforts a thinking society could engender is the legalization of marijuana. Now that we have failed, miserably, to control the entry of drugs into the United States – not because we can’t control them, but because we have not the collective will to do so – pot-heads are using that failure as a reason to legalize.
Then there is the old saw, “Alcohol is even worse, so give us our dope.”
Liberals and other statists can’t wait to, quote, “regulate it,” unquote, and tax it… ohhh, my gawwd… tax revenue. Ohhhh. Wow.
Dopers and those who will profit from their pot habits, point to traffic accidents tied to booze and say that those statistics “prove” that pot is less harmful, so let’s party, man. To them it’s also proof that we long-ago relinquished our societal right to limit anything people want to do for pleasure. Besides, since those who most want to restrict pot don’t use it themselves they have no right to limit those who do.
Clearly if your skin is not brown you have no right to pass judgment on a brown-skinned law-breaker; if you’ve never raped a girl you can’t understand or condemn a rapist; if you didn’t grow up poor you can’t criticize rioters.
So I can’t criticize pot users, but a few facts are still pertinent. I was going to say timely, but the irony would be lost… eventually.
Like any psychoactive substance, marijuana messes up mental function. It has its own set of effects, but its common effects are well-known and the subject of much humor. Today it’s politically incorrect to joke about alcohol problems and drunkenness. Marijuana’s effects, on the other hand, are still funny, still mocked, still mimicked… and we laugh.
As marijuana gains popular legitimacy through various forms of disingenuous ballot initiatives (you know “medical marijuana” is a giant lie; if it were “medical” it’d be sold at CVS) prompted by looming profits and the intense desire of pot-heads to gain permission as it were to do something “wrong” and slightly stupid, politicians – social leaders, they – are finding ways to gain votes by helping to destroy the social fabric. The fact that we appear to have “lost” the war on drugs is proof only that we have never truly fought it, not that widespread drug use is “inevitable.”
Despite what you may have heard, pot use does often lead to use of stronger drugs. Pot that will soon be “recreational,” or, better, “de-creational” is 10 times stronger than what the great leaders of the ‘60’s messed around with. And the euphoria of toking comes from interaction with the same pleasure receptors as do cocaine and opioids, which we still, sort-of, think are bad.
That child development is severely messed up by pot use – as is their future success and mental balance – should lead us to make it harder to get the stuff. Not so according to great pot-conflicted, or pot-afflicted, political “leaders.”
Pot, I believe, has a lot to do, pre-natally, with the rapid increase in ADHD and autism-spectrum disorders. Not to worry, we have renamed amphetamines to help some of those, and other drugs may come along to counteract other drug downsides – like Narcan.
It’s all depravity but repackaged to be rational because alcohol is bad for some people. To the degree that some drinkers become alcoholics, so do pot smokers become addicted and / or strongly habituated, suffering withdrawal reactions when cut off from it. What a victory for society. You think the Constitution protects license as much as liberty? Is there a line you won’t cross in that descent? Why not this one?

Prudence Leadbetter