Denis Leary: Prophet?

U.S. Priority on Illegal Drugs Debated As Pill Use Rises

The stats are staggering - in the US, cocaine was used by 1.5 million people, and heroin by 220,000 - but over 7 million people abused prescription drugs in the past year. While this hardly qualifies as a staggering fact, the release of this new data came at the same time when many outspoken officials on both sides of the debate have condemned the War on Drugs as a failure. The article quotes NJ governor Christie as agreeing with this statement, and even Pat Robertson, who as symbol of morality (for better or for worse) has condemned the prosecution of small amounts of marijuana, and has even joined the campaign to have it treated like alcohol. Further, the newly elected president of Mexico has clearly stated that his priority will be social treatment, rather than new efforts at law enforcement; he has further stated that he dislikes the US' strategy of ending drug use through enforcement, rather than looking at their own problem.

For me, the article allowed the formation of an image in my mind - specifically, will I see the day where there is no longer a War on Drugs? I don't think it's coincidental that so many voices have joined together to condemn this war, which has so little benefit - and if anything, is only encouraging the problem.

Finally, the tagline to this post is a reference to Leary's routine regarding legal drug use - in No Cure for Cancer, he jokes about how one can abuse legal drugs and get as good as, or in some cases, a better high off the legal stuff than you can on the illegal - and it's far easier to obtain, to boot. Further, I think the number the article quotes regarding the abuse of prescription drugs is lower than it is in actuality; does that number include the abuse of drugs like ritalin and adderall, which is becoming increasingly prevalent among students, as described by a recent NYT article?

We should simply end this War, and accept the consequences of that decision. I think it is possible to transition to an actually free society, where people can utilize whatever substances they like, as people use alcohol and tobacco now - with the caveat of a high tax on your pleasure. The abuse of prescription drugs is just as bad as abusing heroin, cocaine, or marijuana; the only difference is that drug companies have legitimate representatives and lobbyists in Congress.

Article written by Damien Cave & Michael S. Schmidt; published by the New York Times.

Should a Scandal Invalidate a Legacy?

Findings Stun Even Paterno’s Ardent Supporters

The outcome of the investigation isn't what I'm thinking about; rather, what I am considering more is the idea, referenced often in this article, that Paterno's legacy is being actively undermined for his role in the scandal. My question is, does that legacy deserve to be brought down? It sounds like Paterno was a really good guy, a great symbol as well as a philanthropic figure. I merely find it sad that his legacy would (or maybe should?) be limited because of his role in this scandal.

I honestly don't know what to think - the vindictive part of my personality wants to see this guy pay for what he did. He knowingly covered up the sexual molestation of young boys, on what seems to be a regular basis. And it wasn't like he didn't know what was going on; this article and the other article in the NYT today makes that clear. He knowingly covered up for sexual molestation, so maybe he deserves to have his legacy torn asunder.

The other part of me argues for forgiveness, even of crimes like this. One aspect of this is a question of loyalty, and also the culture in which these men lived. We have forgotten that it used to be very common to cover up these kinds of acts, and that it wasn't part of American culture at all to report these sick crimes to the police. Further, it's obvious that Paterno felt a great degree of loyalty to Sandusky; far greater men than he have been blinded by loyalty before. Honestly, however, the idea of forgetting this crime, even in the face of his many accomplishments, sickens me.

I simply find it truly unfortunate that this scandal is going to destroy a man's legacy; everything else that he did over the course of his career is now going to be questioned or viewed through the prism of the Sandutsky scandal. And maybe it deserves to be. I would much prefer, however, a more nuanced view of a man; can we selectively salute someone's accomplishments, even in the face of their failures? We do that a lot in history - look at Andrew Jackson, or any American president, for that matter - but does that work in the present day?

Article written by Bill Pennington and Tim Rohan, published in the New York Times.