From here:
Of the many roles Pat Robertson has assumed over his five-decade-long career as an evangelical leader — including presidential candidate and provocative voice of the right wing — his newest guise may perhaps surprise his followers the most: marijuana legalization advocate.
“I really believe we should treat marijuana the way we treat beverage alcohol,” Mr. Robertson said in an interview on Wednesday. “I’ve never used marijuana and I don’t intend to, but it’s just one of those things that I think: this war on drugs just hasn’t succeeded.”
This libertarian position – one I have a passing sympathy for – reminds me of William F Buckley’s staunch support for legalising all drugs on the grounds that it isn’t the government’s job to limit people’s freedom to choose their agent of stupefaction – lethal or not.
The problem is, if government does not make legislation that limits freedom in order to encourage a functioning society, if its legislation is not grounded in a moral framework, then it should also not legislate against things like gay “marriage”, polygamy, polyamory, bestiality and bawdy houses.
I wonder if Pat Robertson would go along with that?
Decriminalizing pot in the Netherlands apparently didn’t work: it is becoming illegal for “coffee shops” to sell it to tourists, and the Dutch Government is in the process of reclassifying most forms of marijuana as hard drugs (http://www.dutchamsterdam.nl/2065-high-potency-marijana-hash-reclassifed-by-dutch-government), so why would anyone think it will work here?
I think it should be legal. It really doesn’t make any sense that cigarettes and alcohol are legal and pot isn’t. Take it out of the hands of crime gangs and let the govermnent tax it like cigarettes.
We have enough difficulty in society with drunk drivers and the damage they inflict, not to mention other anti-social incidents caused by overindulgence in alcohol. Would you want to think that another great cohort high on legalized pot is behind the wheel on our roads, or piloting our planes, or doing anything at all that requires a clear mind? It may well lead to tragic consequences should we have a more stupified citizenry. Many people go around stoned on the stuff already, and we have enough trouble with that — imagine all those who would jump on the pot-smoking bandwagon were it to become legalized, just to show how free and progressive they are. I find that a very large number of people conveniently forget the responsibility part of the “freedom is intertwined with responsibility” lesson.
It’s hard enough to keep teens from ilicitly indulging in booze when they are underage — try keeping them away from legalized marijuana!
We would live to see the law of unintended consequences being played out again, should this happen.
Old myths die hard…..particularly when you want to use them to prove a point that cannot be proven, because it isn’t true.
We heard the myth of the “fit 60-year-old Swede” for years, as part of Canada’s 1970s Participaction program, but we didn’t hear that Swedes were digging themselves an early grave with alcoholism, and that they probably did all that working out to try to put the failures of Socialism out of their minds.
Another myth comes to mind in terms of one country pointing to another and saying, “Ooh, look at what Land A has done…..aren’t they advanced! We need to do it too.” I am referring to Canada’s ill-fated fling with French Immersion in the classroom, which I have heard touted as the only way to flaunt educational elitism in wanna-be Socialist Canada and be praised for it (upper middle-class parents can’t wait to get their kids into upwardly mobile FI classes). FI leaves children only vaguely educated in academic subjects of note, such as the maths and sciences, and having a grasp of conversational French and English — perhaps — but a real lack of firm literacy skills in either language. As someone once said, they come out uneducated for the most part, and knowing only spoken FRenglish. But the myth of FI has been sufficiently fueled that both the average Canadian, and surface thinkers in outher countries, have the knee-jerk reaction to want to praise this program.
I’m a product of one of the first FI classes in the country, I have two university degrees, and am fluent (speaking only) in French. If we hadn’t left Quebec when I was in grade 7, I’m sure I would be able to read and write in French as well. The academic standards for French immersion are actually very high – higher than in the English programs, in the Ottawa school system at any rate.
I did tell you that FI was a sacred Canadian myth, didn’t I? Trying to shed light on something of this nature always brings out the screeches. That is what David’s own approach is all about, I might add, but I guess the holy Canadian FI program is ever more of a sacred cow than the ACofC! The truth sometimes hurts, Kate.
Nothing you tell me in your comment here disproves what I had said previously about FI.
I did you far better in the university-degree-department, since we seem to counting all of a sudden. Mine are at the graduate levels. And by grade 7, why wouldn’t a student in the “wonderful” French Immersion program be able to read and write in French? I have a grade 6 child who can do it already in Latin, without the much-vaunted immersion approach. You rather prove my point about FI actually.
By the way, Kate, I put a fair amount of effort into sending you information on Classical Christian virtual schools, that you noted in a comment you were interested in. It was very noticeable that you never acknowledged me in the least for this. A thank you? Not on your life. Where was that old Golden Rule then? You seem to practice Christianity when and if it suits.
And you know what? There was a long period in the last three decades or so of the 20th century in which Canadian universities would not only accept less than high calibre students (I think of Ottawa’s Carleton University at that time, which was deemed “Last Chance U.”), but would allow a number of them to float along at sub-par levels in ridiculous courses until they were finally granted a degree. Now, there were actually intelligent, hard-working students at the same universities, so I do not mean to say a given university’s students were all of this nature. However, as I have often pondered, how do we tell the difference later on? You could have scraped by with minimal marks and still have been granted that degree — gives you exactly the same bragging rights, unfortunately, as a brilliant and/or hard-working student who managed 90+ all the time. So, my point here is that just having a university degree does not necessarily mean you have a good education, nor does it prove that FI worked (particularly true of degrees only at the undergrad level, no matter how many of these you have — two B.A.s are not the same as a B.A. and an M.A.; it is not just the number of degrees which counts, Kate).
When FI began in Canada, it was sold to a generation of parents, many of whom had no education themselves beyond grade 12. The educational bureaucrats and frothing bilingualism advocates made it all sound so advanced and enlightened! Many Canadians were terribly naive. Middle class Canadian parents of the 70s and forward just lapped it up — made their kids seem oh so special! Who would argue? If these students went on to university, well, what more proof did you need that FI worked? Actually, a great deal more. Would a parent with a grade 12 education necessarily understand that not all university grads are created equal? I don’t think so.
Many non-FI students went on to university too. Many did exceedingly well, even in advanced degrees. I have a number of friends who fall into that category. I worked with fellow university students in summer jobs over the years, where employers gleefully welcomed FI students because of their supposed superiority, and at the end of every summer, the letdown was obvious. They were, in general, a big disappointment, considering the drum-rolling build-up. Most of us quietly realized that FI was a national sham, but no one ever dared to say it.
I dare. It’s another example of the Emperor having no clothes.
Truly well-educated graduates of FI are few and far between. If they are well-educated, it wasn’t due to the FI. They may get into university later, and they may manage to a better-or-less extent in French, but they are almost never what could be considered really well-educated in all subjects nor do they have full command of both languages at an educated level. I don’t mean conversational French. It is just that they and their parents have been taught to show pride in FI, and heck, the parents put a lot of effort into getting their children into it, so they are not going to admit now that it was all for nought, are they? Better to defend the myth. It’s worth bragging rights in Canada.
By the way, there is a body of relevant research material and commentary available to back up this view of FI. Sorry to burst the bubble.
Myth-breaking is a lot of work.
I am very familiar with Ontario Ministry of Education standards, and no, FI does not have higher academic standards than non-FI. Sounds good though, doesn’t it? That is part of the myth, and it has been hard to counter it with something as insubstantial as facts, unfortunately. When people buy into a myth emotionally, watch out.
Kate, why did you not continue with gaining French literacy skills outside of Quebec, after grade 7, if FI so inspired you? Where was your initiative? French as a Second Language courses are readily available all over North America. You mean to say that only Quebec Anglo students in FI there have the opportunity to learn full French skills to any degree? This is the old, “If only my parents hadn’t failed to send me to Upper Canada College when I was a kid, I am sure I would have been Prime Minster.”
When we moved to Ontario the French we were studying (in 1977) in grade 7 was the same as I had been studying in grade one in Quebec.
Yes, on the ground it does have higher standards. The teachers expect more, there’s more homework, the kids have to work a lot harder.
3.
Our eldest is a FI graduate who did just fine in university. Two of our remaining three are in English. The middle one is in FI. She is scary fluent in both languages and aces science and math in both languages.
It depends on the kid and the programme how they turn out.
By the way, ‘Jane’, changing your screen name to ‘Carol’ doesn’t do much good when you have such a, distinctive, writing style. You aren’t fooling anyone.
Kate, this is a very low remark. I think you believe that David set up this site as your personal sounding box, and that comments from Kate-Sanderson-the-holy are the only ones that count. Goodness…. I am glad I don’t meet you in church. I changed, actually, because you were quite viscious. I am glad you like my writing style. I am well educated myself, a mother of five, and I deal gracefully with issues that you cannot begin to imagine. I give of myself in support of what I believe, to an extent you may not be familair with. I am a practicing Christian. I’ll say a prayer for your difficulties.
You are exceedingly opinionated on this site, Kate, but you seem to reserve that right for yourself alone. For someone who claims to be nearly as Christian as Christ himself, you certainly could have fooled me.
Carol/Jane, you have got to be one of the most arrogant and unpleasant people I have ever come across on the net. Good day to you.
“I think you believe that David set up this site as your personal sounding box, and that comments from Kate-Sanderson-the-holy are the only ones that count.”
Right. Who changed the subject of this comment thread, completely derailed it, and then started throwing insults around? Who doesn’t use her real name, and changes her screen name to hide who she is? Look in the mirror, dear.
Kate, changed the subject? I mentioned FI only as an example of a myth, and others took it from there. I then responded. You were proven wrong, and now you have the sulks, and the “I am going to get her back” mentality that you find in the nasty-girl groups in middle school.
Looking over many of this site’s postings, they have often developed in this manner. Is there a law that tells us we must respond only to such-and-such? You are more hidebound than the Tax Man, Kate!
It is going to take you a while to get over the shock of your FI schooling not having been what you thought it was, but we all must grow up.
I still fail to note any thanks from you for the information I took the time and trouble to send you. Information is of value; a truly educated individual would realize that. This in itself is very telling.
I am beginning to think that this site, despite David’s excellent articles and comments, is actually a site for a small group of Anglicans in Ontario who all know one another. They may disagree amongst themselves, but let any outsider come along and bring up uncomfortable topics, and you begin to see the cracks.
Good-bye Kate. I have real work to do; I’ve spent too much time on this site as it is.
You are entitled to your opinions, Kate.
I am just not confirming what you wish to hear. Sorry about that.
As I said, the truth hurts. But a practicing Christian should be very concerned about it, nonetheless.
Good grief.
For anyone wishing to follow the myth-breaking concept further, you might start with news of the Diederik Stapel affair, in the Netherlands. He was an academic who was expert at creating the illusions that people wanted to hear, and that suited the tenor of the social times, but which were as phoney as the day is long. He delivered data to suit, and the super-liberal Dutch initially lapped it up, until he was caught.
Might say the same thing about the Climategate scandal.
I would also recommend “The Culture Cult: Designer Tribalism and Other essays” by Roger Sandall.
If you want to believe something — and sometimes the cagey types realize that they do well to set the stage first by priming you to want to be on the supposed winning team — then search first to see how and where and why that idea originated. Was it based on any evidence or proven truth, or was it simply another utopian idea that had the added bonus of making authority figures look good? Now, Christianity is perhaps one of the few things you will have to take mainly on faith. That is up to the individual, of course.
FI was not based on any real evidence or measurements or longterm studies — it was an EXPO ’67 kind of idea, meant to sever Canada from its past values and flatter the post-war parent generation into thinking their baby boom children were being given bright new vistas of opportunity in a bright new country. Only, it was not exactly as presented — and a great big waste of resources to boot.
There are educational studies and reasoned commentary to support this, but I am not going to provide a full bibliography (my experience providing resources on this site tells me that no one pays any attention). I am tempted to think that most readers here will not go near the topic anyway if they have something to lose from the tarnishing of FI.
Now, anyone wish to take on the “60 year old Swede” myth?