A local man went out of his way to get arrested and convicted for smoking marijuana, then began a headline-seeking hunger strike after he was slapped in jail. He ended the hunger strike at a convenient time, of course, without any obvious physical damage and has since turned down a probationary period with parole because he says he does not want to be hindered and intruded upon by officers of the court. Does that mean he wants no restrictions on additional marijuana possession or use?
The man says his goal is to get antiquated laws making it illegal to possess marijuana off the books. As a sideline, but perhaps not, he also happens to be a candidate for Congress. Is he running for Congress to dramatize his views on marijuana or is he manipulating news coverage of his childish pot party to get votes? As if in a Greek chorus, his supporters rise in indignation if anyone even remotely questions the ``candidate's'' sincerity.
Rather than accept parole and release to help support his wife and six children, the "candidate" chose to remain jailed. Some may see this as a dignified and heroic decision. Others, however, interpret it as addled, selfish thinking. In fact, the critics' comments are more direct: That this shows that marijuana use weakens the reasoning powers of an individual to the point that he or she cannot make sound and sensible decisions about the important things in life.
Even though it's derisive to the individual, most people believe that if that's the message that society and especially our youngsters get from this minor drug abuse circus, some good may come out of it.