Scared Monkeys Discussion Forum

Seems Barack Obama has admitted in a book that he partook of Marijana and Cocaine in his past.

Was this ever considered illegal?

Wonder if he smoked while he was a minor?

Think he ever exceeded the speed limit while driving?

Wonder which laws are 'laws' and which are just guides?

Sure glad the 'right folks' don't ever get in trouble for such things.

Get a clue, George.  

He outdid any other candidate by admitting his foibles upfront. This was addressed in detail by FOX pundits today. Did you miss it?

Hmmm. . . Carnut, you got me thinking (never a good thing, lol!)

My guess is, most people who were young in the 1970's, '80's, 90's and currently have experimented with drugs.  Certainly those who are college educated have been exposed to the easy availabilty of drugs. How does that make them unfit to serve?  

I know I experimented with grass, coke and plenty of alcohol when I was in college.  I never touched drugs after I graduated, but I did develop a drinking problem, quite common on the Irish side of my family.  Once I recognized the error of my ways, I quit, and have not touched alcohol in over 12 years. I am a productive member of society and don't see why I couldn't hold public office, if so inclined.  You live, reflect, and learn.

Is it important to have leaders who are sheltered and saintly?  Is it important to have leaders who have fully experienced the reality of society as it is?  These are questions voters must weigh.

Do we consider youthful experiementation to be so grave, the undoing of society, morally evil and all that?  I personally would have more of a problem with a candidate or office holder who currently has an alcohol abuse problem or who still recreationally uses drugs.  But youthful indiscretions, no.  We need to evaluate the candidates as they are, now.

Well, I went thru all that and the army and never touched any of that stuff, so I guess I judge those folks by my standards and yes I do think it counts against them for trusted community service.

Don't think I was in anyway sheltered or saintly in my upbringing but I would like someone who really agrees with my understanding of morality and honesty.

Dear A's Fever,

I enjoyed your post very much.

On FOX today, the pundits were discussing that Obama wrote in his first book "Dreams From My Father" that he smoked pot and tried cocaine. They said exactly what you said ... that anyone from 1970's, '80's, 90's all probably smoked pot in their youth and that pot was not an issue.  They were a little uncertain about the cocaine but gave Obama credit for releasing this information way ahead of time so as to "scoop the media" and put the kibosh on it coming out later in a scandalous manner.

I further agree with you, youthful experiments are just that ... youthful experiments. They don't mean a thing.  Bush 43 was a known alcoholic and cocaine abuser and he never addressed those issues. All he said was it was in the past and had no connection to the present.

Ok, so it's alright for everyone to 'experiment' with pot and cocaine.

Now what is the definition of 'experiment'? Use once, twice, once a day, twice a day, for a week, for a month, for a year?

At what age is one allowed to 'experiment' and at what age is it acceptable to stop?

Gee, me and my friends sure did experience a different 60's, 70's and 80's than everyone else it appears.

My head is whirling here, now it was ok for Bush to be a drunk and Obama to use pot and cocaine.

Is there anything that should keep someone from being President?

Obviously sex orgies in the oval office are ok.

Just trying to figure out these new rules.

Carnut, I certainly did not mean to put you in a tizzy!

I just think life is messy.  It's not cut and dried, black and white.  I see a lot of grey.  People do stuff, experiment, learn and grow.  I would hate to define any person in  their 40's or older by what they did or thought in their teens or 20's.  

I don't yet know anything about Obama, his politics, or what he revealed in his book.  All I can say is, whatever he did in his youth, he obviously pulled himself up out of it and became a very accomplished man.  Isn't that an American success story?  Personally, I would concentrate on that and not on things he did long ago.

Thank you, Louise, I always enjoy your posts as well.  And your adventures  :wink:

I'd say the age of indiscretion is between the years of 18 and 21. After that it should be over if the person is serious about having a future in any field.

Yes, what you experienced growing up in Kansas is completely different from the experiences of people growing up in areas on the edge of intellectual enlightenment such as New York or Los Angeles or Paris.

It was never ok for Bush43 to be a drunk and cocaine addict into his adult life. Bush continued drinking and drugging into his 40s. That goes way beyond the years of youthful indiscretion. It was an addiction that lasted into his middle age.

On the other hand, let's make a contrast to Obama. He said it was a brief experimental episode during the late 70s. Obama is 45 years old at this moment and in his "middle age" and has no record of having used drugs into his adult life.

And further, George, please don't attribute words to me that I never said such as "now it was ok for Bush to be a drunk and Obama to use pot and cocaine. " I do not appreciate that.

So, you don't think a persons character is formed in their youth?

I suspicion you are wont to rationalize the grey stuff because you feel you can determine your own rules from your own past experience. You chalk this up to learning and growth.

Yes I do see the world differently. I do believe and have always believed things are a whole lot more black and white than you.

I do see that society has changed to a 'anything goes as long as you don't get caught' and now a days you can atone for anything in your youth when you get to middle age.

I think a lot of that goes back to the hippie drug culture and their questioning authority, something I never subscribed to, but it seems to have led to quite a bit more permissive societal values now a days. Not a good thing in my book.

I also blame a lot of lack of appreciation of the law on Jimmy Carters 55 mph speed limit, which about 95% of the drivers disobayed, causing folks to begin disregarding other laws they deemed unreasonable.

Used to be that only criminals disregarded the law, but now adays it's just about everyone as long as they don't get caught or at least have a good excuse for it if they are.

Anyhow, I didn't vote for Bush because he was a drunk. I was ashamed of the disrespect that Clinton brought on the presidency and I for sure wouldn't vote for an ex drug user.

Humm, 45 yr old Obama did drugs in the late 70's.

Now 1979 was 28yrs ago. So Obama not only did drugs, he did drugs while underage and all is forgiveable.

So no child under 18 should be prosecuted for doing drugs or 'experimenting' with drugs.

Yep, I'm definitely learning the 'new age'.

The formative years of children are age one through six. After that, their direction is formed. That is their "youth." I was a Psychology and English major. What are your educational qualifications regarding this matter?

If you voted for Bush43, you did NDEED vote for a long time drug user ... he was a cocaine addict as well as an alcoholic into his 40s. If so, you DID vote for an ex drug addict.

So please clarify this sentence you wrote. "Anyhow, I didn't vote for Bush because he was a drunk. I was ashamed of the disrespect that Clinton brought on the presidency and I for sure wouldn't vote for an ex drug user."

I happen to be a degreed Psychologist as well.

With all due clarity, I did not vote for George Bush for president because he was a drunk.

Louise, I received a degree in English from UC Berkeley!

Ok George,

Thank you for explaining that you did indeed not vote for Bush43 because he was a drunk.

Regarding being a degreed Psychologist, I don't feel in any mood to grill you to find out more info and if you had a practice. I'm just tired Dr. George.

I agree my vote doesn't count. The elections are run by other entities.

Tired.

PS: So you haven't voted recently?

I definitely understand your point of view now.

No, I haven't voted recently. Not since Clinton got elected and I saw the futility of it all.

LOL, I'll bet!

A's,

Oh my, I want to make a fuss over you!  Good job!!!! Congratulations.

With Love, Louise

I don't think Carnut would want to come to our party!  By the way, it was back in the 1980s, not recently.

Heh, heh, doubt very much that party animal and my name have ever been used in the same sentence.

I just hang out in dingy bars and honky tonks dancing with the ladies.

Carnut, the Party Animal.  There.  Now you can tell the ladies that you are sometimes called a party animal!

Louise I explained to you my higher education credentials in this tread awhile back.

http://www.scaredmonkeys.net/viewtopic.php?t=467

WooHoo I'm a Party Animal. Thanks.

No one who knows me would believe it, they all the know the cool, reserved, aloof Carnut.

While I agree that people should be held accountable for their actions, I also believe in the folly of youth. I never experimented with drugs, and I was never a big drinker. But I made other mistakes when I was young, and I learned from them. Some of those lessons were very valuable to me later on in life.
No one is perfect. Personally, I'd rather vote for a man who admits a youthful indescretion, and recognized that it was not a good path to follow. Using drugs was not a great thing to do, and no one is suggesting that it was. Obama certainly isn't. But to me there are worse things......stealing, cheating, assault, rape.........those are the things that are suggestive of terrible personality flaws.
Dubya was not an experimenter. He was a full blown addict who was enabled by his family and money. He still has a hard time being held accountable for his errors, and still won't admit it when he's wrong. IMHO, he learned nothing from his rehabilitation that made him a better man, just a sober one.
Carnut - I also majored in psychology and minored in criminal justice. I strongly believe in the concept of accountablility, and morality.
But I do not believe a mistake by a man as a teenager suggests that he is immoral or has no sense of right and wrong as an adult. He probably has a better idea than someone who has not been tested.
And I'd also like to add that drug abuse is as old as mankind. Human beings have been experimenting with different substances for thousands of years. We have had many great leaders in the past who probably were no stranger to drugs, but the reality of addiction was different in those  earlier cultures. It did not have the same moral and legal ramifications that drug addiction does now, and did not destroy lives on the same scale because it was not recognized as something harmful that needed to be changed. During the Victorian era, laudanum was commonly prescribed by physicians for all kinds of women's ailments. Laudanum, of course was very addictive and contained an opiate that was quite powerful. Generations of women were addicted to it, but no one understood that at the time.

Fraid I do disagree that Bush was ever addicted to cocaine, I will agree that he was/is an alcoholic.

Seems that it depends on ones politics as to whether one is forgiven for being a drug user.

The dem Barack is ok for using cocaine, just didin't admit in his book that he may have abused the stuff, but he gets a pass by dems.

The GOP Bush is excroriated for having been an alcoholic by dems.

One of the reasons I thought Clinton was unworthy was his disclosure of puffing pot but not inhaling, how disengenous can you get? This before monicagate or even 'the nose' filed suit.

Anyhow, none of them are/were acceptable in my book.

Beginning to think Don Quixote and I have a lot in common.

Hey George,

I checked out the link and indeed you told me you were a psychologist in the area of emphasis 'Tests and Measures' as well as you have a degree in history in the area of 'Medieval and Ancient' history. Apologies are in order from me to you.

All things considered, after you graduated, did you find a job working  with tests and measures? I imagine a career in accounting, quality control, ect. Or were you one of those guys who designed "personality tests?"

pdh3,

Standing on a chair and applauding your post.

Ah, I managed to get by and retire at 54.

pdh3, that was an excellent post.  Thank you for your insights.

Carnut's initial observation about Obama's past drug use admission has provided fertile ground for discussion tonight.  I have really enjoyed reading and thinking about the differing points of view. I guess there will be a lot of this type of discussion leading up to the next election.

Yeah, but I'm the only one on the opposing side, I don't even vote anymore.

Carnut........voter apathy is a problem, especially in a democracy like ours. Think about it.
When I was 18, I was a mediocre student and had no plans for my future. On my first trip to college, I flunked out, came home and worked for a while. As I matured, I learned from that mistake. I went back to college and was a Dean's List student. I was a BETTER person for having failed at something. I was able to use that lapse in judgement made as a teenager in a positive way.
We learn wisdom as we age. I am not the same person I was at 18. Few people are.
Whether it's experimenting with drugs, or any other youthful indescretion, a person of strength and character will admit they made an error and move forward.
As much as I liked Bill Clinton, and thought he did a great job as President, one thing about him bothered me. For all his charisma and charm, Bill lacked self-confience. This is why he couldn't admit his pot-smoking, and why he was an unfaithful husband. He sought approval in inappropriate ways, and it was his undoing.
Every President has at least one major flaw, because every President is human. We need to stop expecting perfection, because no one can deliver it. What we need is someone who recognizes their weaknesses, and can appoint others to fill the void. This is what Ronald Reagan did so effectively.

Yeah, Reagan was the last Pres that I actually voted for.

Soon afterwards I saw that neither major political party voiced much that I could agree with and all I had left was chosing between two evils and personalities.

I have always been one who seemed to vote 'against', rather than 'for' most political office choices.

Then I saw that the only political party anywhere near my values was the Libertarian party and that they had no chance of ever winning any offices and at the worst they were just spoilers and generally they 'spoiled' the one candidate that I leaned more toward than against.

So I now choose to not vote, I really do think it is a waste of time on my part. And I honestly believe that all elections should be 'lotteries' kinda like picking for jury duty. Really doubt very much such elections would produce any worse results that the current methods.

So I consider myself more of a political Anarchist than anything else.

The Libertarian Party has some good philosophies. It just needs young people and lots of money to move to the forefront. It needs energizing and publicity, and then the money would flow into it's bank account. It would be nice to have another viable party candidate from which to choose.
Did you know that John Stossel is a Libertarian?

Yes, I know John Stossel is a Libertarian.

Fraid I disagree with the term 'voter apathy'.  I think not voting is a choice and not just 'apathy'. Why vote when the choice is between two equally evil or unacceptable candidates?

Again I can see where assisting in campaigning can be of some use if there is any chance for someone to get elected, but with two highly opposing parties with candidates chosen by being acceptable to the extremes of the opposing parties, there seems to be little or no rationale for voting for one extreme or the other.

I still think that a lottery is the way to pick public servants. Don't really think that could be any worse than the election choices I have seen in the last 20yrs. or so.

Wow carnut....you are very rigid in your interpretations. I see voter apathy as those who do not vote because they do not like any candidates, or don't care to get involved in the process for whatever reasons. There are always amendments to vote on, as well as local elections, but some people just aren't interested in politics at any level. There are many people too lazy to make the effort. When people are not engaged in doing their civic duty, I see it as apathy.
Changes are made when people get involved and decide to get something done to make things better. Hopelessness does not make any situation better. It's a guarantee of the status quo.

Ok, when I see any election issue or office with a tie vote, I'll kick myself for not voting.

I totally agree with this statement, I just don't think it has much to do with an individual voting.

Heh, heh, yes many folks in my past would agree with the 'Rigid in interpretation' bit, as well as with cold, unbending, heartless and strict.