We pride ourselves on having the friendliest
and most welcoming forums for moms and moms to be! Please take a moment
and register
for free so you can be a part of our growing community of mothers.
If you have any problems registering please drop an email to boards@justmommies.com.
Our community is moderated by our moderation team so you won't see spam or offensive messages posted on our forums. Each of our message boards is hosted by JustMommies hosts, whose names are listed at the top each board. We hope you find our message boards friendly, helpful, and fun to be on!
I was reading and article yesterday and came across a statement that gave me mixed feelings. I don't want to discuss the article itself, but the comment.
In the article, the author was discussing the illegal drugs that candidates used when they were young. Her comment is:
Quote:
What a candidate did as a young man -- even if it was illegal -- should not necessarily disqualify him from becoming president.[/b]
My question is do you agree with this statement? On the surface it seems logical and I am OK with it, but the reason that I am torn on it is because there are other not-so-prominent jobs out there that illicit drug use DOES disqualify you. For example, this is the current recruiting policy from the FBI:
Quote:
An applicant who has used any illegal drug (including anabolic steroids after February 27, 1991), other than marijuana, within the last ten years or more than five times in one's life will be found unsuitable for employment.[/b]
Is it OK that the President gets a pass when an new FBI agent doesn't? Let's discuss.
Just reading the first part of what you said, I felt like OK maybe he/she should get a pass. BUT, reading on further, I can see why you are torn!
Committing an illegal crime, whatever it is, goes against the law, and he/she should then be disqualified, IMO.
I know everyone makes mistakes in their life, but there are only a few that will ever have the honor of leading us as a nation, and for that we should be picky.
That is what I am asking you... I did not and am not referring to any particular candidate at all... Cllinton, Bush, whoever.
We know that Obama used drugs in the past from his admissions in his books. And while it has not been reported, I would not be surprised at all if the self-admitted troublemaking maverick did while in Viet Nam... it was very common in that decade.
My intention was to discuss whether it is OK, not to discuss one candidate or the other.
I think you would have to disqualify 80% (and no, I have no facts to back up that number, it's just a guess) of politicians.... Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy, and so on (including Bush, Clinton, Obama, Palin). My personal opinion on this is that if this happened a number of years ago (high school, college etc) before politics was the person's chosen career, than who cares? As long as the person is clean in the office and is clear thinking it's a moot point. There is no evidence that Bush, Clinton, Obama, Palin (alphabetical order ) have abused any substance (legal or illegal) in office. Kennedy was a basket case in office and should never have been given the pass that history has.
I feel the same way about Police, FBI.... Does the fact that a person inhaled once in college stop them from being a good FBI agent?? I don't think so. Now if it happens while they have a badge, different story altogether!
I think you would have to disqualify 80% (and no, I have no facts to back up that number, it's just a guess) of politicians.... Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy, and so on (including Bush, Clinton, Obama, Palin). My personal opinion on this is that if this happened a number of years ago (high school, college etc) before politics was the person's chosen career, than who cares? As long as the person is clean in the office and is clear thinking it's a moot point. There is no evidence that Bush, Clinton, Obama, Palin (alphabetical order ) have abused any substance (legal or illegal) in office. Kennedy was a basket case in office and should never have been given the pass that history has.
I feel the same way about Police, FBI.... Does the fact that a person inhaled once in college stop them from being a good FBI agent?? I don't think so. Now if it happens while they have a badge, different story altogether!
Just my two cents![/b]
This is the way I am leaning as well. I actually think the FBI and other companies with restrictive policies like this should be relaxed a little bit - mainly because of your very first sentence. Eventually we will run out of elegible people to run/serve/apply, etc. And, I think more then just 80% of politicians - probably 80% of the population in general would have problems.
BUT then on the other hand... I can just see a high school kid coming back with the "Well no one cares that the President used ____ drug... so who cares if I do" type arguement.
I guess it would depend for me. Im not sure what illegal drugs Palin has done, but in her home state, marijuana was (may be still) legal for personal use. If she had just smoked a little pot, wouldnt be a big deal to me. Likewise, if the area that Obama was living at the time, if the drugs were legal-I dont think Id find it to be a huge problem. Of course, it has been known for a while that things like cocaine are actually very dangerous, so I suppose the actual DOC would come into play as well.
I do think though that POTUS should be the ABSOLUTE hardest job to come by, so yeah.. they should at least be held to the FBI standards. Of course, I dont doubt that many FBI agents just lie
I think you would have to disqualify 80% (and no, I have no facts to back up that number, it's just a guess) of politicians.... Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy, and so on (including Bush, Clinton, Obama, Palin). My personal opinion on this is that if this happened a number of years ago (high school, college etc) before politics was the person's chosen career, than who cares? As long as the person is clean in the office and is clear thinking it's a moot point. There is no evidence that Bush, Clinton, Obama, Palin (alphabetical order ) have abused any substance (legal or illegal) in office. Kennedy was a basket case in office and should never have been given the pass that history has.
I feel the same way about Police, FBI.... Does the fact that a person inhaled once in college stop them from being a good FBI agent?? I don't think so. Now if it happens while they have a badge, different story altogether!
Just my two cents![/b]
This is the way I am leaning as well. I actually think the FBI and other companies with restrictive policies like this should be relaxed a little bit - mainly because of your very first sentence. Eventually we will run out of elegible people to run/serve/apply, etc. And, I think more then just 80% of politicians - probably 80% of the population in general would have problems.
BUT then on the other hand... I can just see a high school kid coming back with the "Well no one cares that the President used ____ drug... so who cares if I do" type arguement.
Does the role model aspect enter into it at all?
[/b]
Well, I am not a huge Role model person. I never have thought that one person should have the ability to influence someone's entire life choice (although I know it does happen, unfortunately). I guess my answer to the role model question would be this. If a high school kid tries drugs (and doesn't get arrested... like the people we are talking about) and stops after trying it (like the candidates), then I would have the same opinion as above. If they want to be President, go ahead and try. If that same high schooler tries drugs because of a role model and continues down a bad path and becomes a waste of space, then they aren't really following their role models, are they? So it wouldn't matter.
Quote:
I guess it would depend for me. Im not sure what illegal drugs Palin has done, but in her home state, marijuana was (may be still) legal for personal use. If she had just smoked a little pot, wouldnt be a big deal to me. Likewise, if the area that Obama was living at the time, if the drugs were legal-I dont think Id find it to be a huge problem. Of course, it has been known for a while that things like cocaine are actually very dangerous, so I suppose the actual DOC would come into play as well.
I do think though that POTUS should be the ABSOLUTE hardest job to come by, so yeah.. they should at least be held to the FBI standards. Of course, I dont doubt that many FBI agents just lie [/b]
Although it doesn't really impact my personal opinion, just a POI: Palin tried Marijuana years ago when it was legal in the state of Alaska. Obama tried Cocaine years ago.
That is what I am asking you... I did not and am not referring to any particular candidate at all... Cllinton, Bush, whoever.
We know that Obama used drugs in the past from his admissions in his books. And while it has not been reported, I would not be surprised at all if the self-admitted troublemaking maverick did while in Viet Nam... it was very common in that decade.
My intention was to discuss whether it is OK, not to discuss one candidate or the other.[/b]
You're right, and Palin admitted drug use as well. Maybe Biden has?
I look at it as the extent of the use. What Obama admittedly did, was experimental - in school. What Bush did was during a time when he should have been acting like a responsible adult. Clinton's admitted use was more a hippy thing, I think. I'm using them, because of the difference in use and thinking at the time. I see Bush's use as a more concerning issue and not an experimental one. And of course in that I also consider that Bush was an alcoholic too, so it's a pattern of behavior that makes it more an issue to me.
Now, on the flip side of things - I don't see how it's relevant having even Bush meet the qualifications of an FBI agent, in order to be president. There are many qualifications to becoming an FBI Agent that could disqualify many people. Everything from physical requirements, to behavior/code of conduct issues.
ETA: I think these are issues best weighed by the voter and their own ideals.
When you are young its hard to grasp the things you do have serious consequences. I don't think there is anything wrong if someone choose to experiment. I know I did and I certainly don't consider myself a bad person because when I grew up I didn't do it anymore. Actually I feel bad and embarassed at the stupid choices I made.
Its also hard to say at what age you should be mature enough to know that you shouldn't do certain things. Can you understand when you are 18 eventhough you are legally an adult? I did dumb things at 18, but I also admit that I was still very immature. For me I think it boils down to, did you do it just when you were younger a handful of times to experiment ? Or do you have a history of long term drug/alcohol abuse. So if it was just for young experimentation I don't think it should matter for the Presidency OR FBI agent. That is just my opinion
I believe that the majority of politicians over the last several years probably dabbled in drugs during their youths. Look at the decades the majority of them grew up in or were young adults during. It was a time when drugs and "free love" ran rampant and was quite common. Heck drugs are rampant now in teens and young adults and its all done undercover. Imagine how many more must have been at it during a time when it was considered acceptable to do them out in the open in groups. I'm not saying everyone who lived during that time did drugs, but I'd venture a guess that the majority of young people probably did. Now to me, prior drug experimenting does not affect the kind of president these people would be. As long as it wasn't a problem and as long as they haven't used since their youth, it doesn't bother me. Now, if they were advocating drug use or secretly still doing them on the side, then yes it would be a huge problem and should disqualify them from the presidency. But as long as it was during a rather isolated time during their young adulthood and nothing more, then I feel it should have no bearing on their presidency.
I tend to be in favor of legalization of most drugs, in which case most of this wouldn't matter.
It is not proven, but is generally assumed, that both Bush 43 and Clinton used cocaine as well as marijuana. Kennedy had weird drug/vitamin shots in his back. Hoover used to stop by the Belgian Embassy in D.C. (technically foreign territory) to drink during prohibition. Harding was even more blatant and kept a well-stocked whiskey cabinet. I don't think all our hand-wringing over what substances a president may have used is really helpful. Bush hasn't done any drugs in a long time, and we still got Iraq...
I'd much rather vote for a person who smoked some pot in college and has a sound mind and good morals NOW than vote for someone who didn't smoke the ganja yet thinks it's ok to blow up Iraqi kids so Halliburton can get more contracts...
Furthermore, if breaking a law over the course of one's entire lifetime makes one unfit for the presidency then no human could ever be president, right?
__________________ Thank you Colleen for the beautiful siggy.
Why is everyone turning this into a Bush-bashing thread? It was a simple, non-partisan question about if the president should have it easier than another less prominent job.
Why is everyone turning this into a Bush-bashing thread? It was a simple, non-partisan question about if the president should have it easier than another less prominent job.
Sorry I even brought it up[/b]
Because it's so easy to do...and fun!
Seriously, I don't really care how many times these people lit up, so long as they've left that stuff in the past and it didn't manage to kill off all their brain cells.
Wow I wasn't aware it was 'fun' to bash people no matter who they are....
Second, I was 18 once and never did any kind of illeagal drugs. Dh did but I never did. I don't see if its illeagal for one person why its okay for another. And I am sure there is probably a statue of limitations on this charge (drug). I should also add I am very against legalizing pot.
Not a big issue for me......AS LONG as they were young and not currently doing it. If it was something they tried once as a kids not something I am going to hold against them. Kids do stupid things. That being said I have actually NEVER done any illegal drug EVER!
I have smoked pot and a few other minor things in my younger years. I never liked it, but I was dumb enough, at the time, to make sure I didn't like it.
If one of them had a serious drug problem, like a real addiction that would be a different story but I don't think that is the case with any of these people. Alcohol is legal and I would have a hard time electing an alcoholic, but if someone enjoyed the occasional drink, I would not care. I am far more concerned with McCains Keating Five scandal than I would be anything else that he may have done. When that was all over it cost tax payers over a hundred billion dollars.
) have abused any substance (legal or illegal) in office. Kennedy was a basket case in office and should never have been given the pass that history has. 
</div>
16 weeks
Linear Mode
