This is why we have people with high IQs supporting the war on drugs. 
Posted on 11/05/2004 1:38:10 PM PST by Ahriman
IQ is a number. IQ stands for Intelligence Quotient, not Intellect Quotient. I'm just asking where the cut-off for character lies on the Bell Curve.
Let me ask it another way. If we were to measure the IQ of all the people with character, what would be the lowest IQ we would find? 60? 80? 110? Certainly one who makes the statement, "Character requires intelligence." has some level of intelligence in mind.
A person with character does not always make the logical choice, granted. But that has nothing to do with their intelligence.
Logic says that if a man is dying, what difference does it make if he takes an addicting drug. Logic is devoid of ethics and morals.
Just because a person with character doesn't always make the logical choice doesn't mean he's stupid -- excuse me, "not intelligent".
It didn't start with control. The government, starting with LBJ's Great Society, became the nanny state, taking care of people from cradle to grave.
It started with Welfare. Food stamps. Housing. Health care. AFDC. WIC. Alphabet agencies up the ying yang to pick up after people.
Then came the lawyers. Suddenly, it's not your fault anymore. It's the fault of the guy with the deepest pockets.
Personal responsibility went out the window. Social stigmas (against out-of-wedlock pregnancies, homosexuality, obesity, immorality) are passe -- I'm surprised they're not considered hate crimes. Political correctness is in. Zero tolerance is in, taking away basic judgment.
There's nothing left to control people's behavior -- except more laws.
This is why we have people with high IQs supporting the war on drugs.
First, people with low intelligence don't have character. Then, people with high intelligence don't have common sense.
You'd better quit while you're behind.
You know, rp, I agree with virtually every item in your post, but find bizarre the conclusion that you draw - that people nowadays are crap, and the only way to make life bearable is to have an active and powerful state.
It is the state intrusions themselves which have engendered the very real social disorders you enumerate.
This would be the public policy analogue of iatrogenic diseases, defined as those caused by medical intervention itself.
The modern state is at war with its people - and only one side will be victorious.
You need to define "state intrusions". If you mean social programs, then I agree. If you mean today's current laws, then I disagree.
You don't have to go that far back to see that we were a country with a strong work ethic. Where people had pride and self esteem. People took personal responsibility for their actions. A man's word was his bond. People had character, and women knew how to deal with a "cad".
What happened?
You say it's the government's fault because they started writing laws? C'mon. That came much later.
The federal government started buying votes with their social programs. A pregnant woman didn't need a husband, not when she had Uncle Sam. Welfare grew by leaps and bounds and became a way of life for many people.
These programs robbed people of their self esteem (unlike the CCC during the Great Depression where people refused a government handout and insisted on working for the money) and took away personal responsibility.
People used to be helped by their church and their community. Now they get a check from some faceless bureaucrat in Washington, D.C.
Vast amounts of money were forcibly taken from one class of citizen and given to another, breeding resentment and class warfare.
The laws came later. If character and self esteem will not keep you from doing drugs, then laws need to be written. If men have no shame and harrass women, then laws need to be written. If people are going to receive free health care, then laws controlling their behavior will be written.
You need to ask yourself the real reason for some law. It's not government control. It's more than likely taking the place of something that was voluntary before.
I agree with you absolutely that welfare programs are anti-human and destructive of society.
You argue that since these socialist depredations are irreversible, we must abandon our liberal, capitalist and open society in favor of a more closely-regulated one.
I argue that we should cancel the war on community and individual responsibility, and let the chips fall where they may.
The WOD is a misbegotten policy in its entirety. Founded in racism and personal ambition, it has had the inevitable result of enriching murderous criminals and corrupt officials around the world.
An entirely new strategy should not be dismissed simply because it would reflect poorly on the existing bureaucracy and their thuggish disregard for American freedoms.
I do not. I simply am telling you what is.
"I argue that we should cancel the war on community and individual responsibility, and let the chips fall where they may."
Nope. You want to take away the laws against drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc., then "let the chips fall where they may"?
Hell, those "chips" will fall right into one or more of the existing federal government programs. Let's double the number of people on welfare, then we'll try to get rid of the program, huh?
How about this? Let's get rid of the social programs first, thereby forcing people to assume personal responsibility. Once these programs are gone, I would venture to guess that the citizenry would be much more receptive to ending the "war on community and individual responsibility", since the results of ending that war will have little impact on their lives.
Naah...let's do it all at once - like ripping off a bandaid it will hurt less!
;^)
These programs robbed people of their self esteem (unlike the CCC during the Great Depression where people refused a government handout and insisted on working for the money) and took away personal responsibility.
Like FDR didn't buy votes promising people the federal government could make it all better.
Oh goody. tacticalogic is here to help change the subject to an analysis of FDR.
Hey, everyone knows he "packed the court" and singlehandedly "expanded the commerce clause" -- what more do we need to know?
We need to know that your only interest in pot is making sure your children never smoke it, and most of all we need to know you don't have any particular scruples about what you'll do to make that happen.
You're confusing intellect with intelligence again. Intelligent people have character regardless of their IQ. Matter of fact, you might say that the presence of one is synomous with the other.
Then, people with high intelligence don't have common sense.
People with a high intellect do not necessarilly have common sense.
Any other straw men you'd like to beat?
So an intelligent person with an IQ of 40 has character. Got it.
Now who, besides you, defines a person with an IQ of 40 as "an intelligent person"?
Good.
Now who, besides you, defines a person with an IQ of 40 as "an intelligent person"?
Now, you say you got it, then you say something that indicates you didn't got it.
Try a word search on "Marinol".
"Marijuana use dropped over 60% from its high point in 1979."
Rp, I see you are back to making dishonest claims again. Are 60% less people smoking pot today than in 1979? Of course not, yet you still keep making this false claim knowing full well that it isn't true.
Liar.
Insofar as nonlegal factors affect recreational substance use, your claim that a drop in drug use must be due to the legal war on drugs falls flat. Thanks for exposing the weakness of your own argument.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.