Proclamations of Retardation
On the train ride home Wednesday night, I was on the verge of finishing an essay completely different from this one to post. The ride inspired me to write this instead. As usual, this article suffered from severe scope crepe, and ended up touching on many more topics than intended. Part of it is my need to potentially defend myself for statements I make. Not that that is a bad thing, one should be able to stand behind any statements you declare.
The train on the ride home was surprisingly packed, more packed than I’ve ever seen it in fact. Granted, this simply means that some of the small bench chairs designed to accommodate two average sized people actually have two (most likely larger than average) people in them. A “crowded” light rail car during rush hour in Sacramento isn’t anything like one in Europe or New York. As the car filled up, it became harder to ignore the people around you; everyone was forced to acknowledge the existence of other passengers.
As anyone who rides public transit in this country outside of New York, San Francisco, and to some degree Chicago knows, the passengers generally herald from the poorer side of the spectrum. Most of these passengers are every day normal people, and in many ways it’s actually hard not to respect them. Their reasons for taking the train are generally not because its more convenient, or cheaper than driving, or because of a moral dedication towards progressing public transit, but more likely because its their only option. There is no car at home for them to have to waste money on gas filling up. They do what’s necessary to take care of their family, even if that means taking public transportation to work at a cost of potentially adding hours to their day just to get to work. This is in stark contrast to many of the people driving down the highway that runs parallel to the light rail tracks. As I see many of the fancy SUVs go down the road empty except for the driver who’s wearing a suit and talking on a cell phone, I’d be willing to bet that if their car broke down, they’d probably call into the office and say they couldn’t make long before they’d consider taking an extensive series of busses, and trains to get there.
With that being said, however, there are also the “trashy” people on the train. These are the passengers who have no respect for others around them, talking loudly, and being rude in general. They will often also maintain an unkempt dirty appearance or smell that can immediately turn off others. Alcohol or other substance abuse is often apparent. Although there is most likely a correlation between the propensity towards being trashy and income level, it would be a gross error to confuse the two. You can be poor and still maintain respect for yourself and others. You can also be well off and still be rude in public. Unfortunately, many upper and middle class citizens fail to make this distinction, and instead find the concept of riding public transit somewhat insulting. Sometimes these thoughts make me feel judgmental. Who am I to say what is considered appropriate behavior? Maybe in their culture and background their actions are completely normal, and here I am referring to them as trashy. I recognize that these doubts can lead down the slippery slope of relativistic morality, however, and I take step back again. There are some standards that we should try to maintain, and being polite to those around you is one of them.
On a more empty train, people will choose seclusion while they sit in their own world, pretending not to notice what ever events take place. They’ll keep they’re head down, or staring out the window. It’s a natural response. By not acknowledging the run down appearance and lifestyles that can envelope the personalities on the train, they don’t have to admit that they might be part of it. When I’m faced with these situations, however, I instead try to embrace the atmosphere. Part of it is me feels the need to get by any subconscious prejudices I may have, and to see the people as just living their lives like everyone else. I condemn those who see themselves above public transit; therefore I must refute any negative claims they have about it. Part of it, though, is an egotistical side of me that wants to provide myself with a feeling of resilience.
So the train was crowded, and there was this kid sitting in front of me. (By kid I mean mid to late teens) He seemed pretty respectable, first napping, and then talking on his cell phone quietly. His conversation became louder eventually, and everyone around our half of the train could easily here it. It soon became evident that part of the conversation was revolved around some pot that a friend of the person on the other side of the line was trying to sell. It wasn’t in a real mischievous, dark, drug dealer kind of way, but more in the way a person might casually mention that a friend of theirs was selling a car. In a short amount of time, a couple sitting across the aisle from me chimed in that they would be interested in buying the pot, or “fire” as it was affectionately referred to. Connections were made, calls were placed, and everyone involved seemed much more excited the remainder of the ride.
Maybe I’m some what of a prude, but I think that kid was pretty retarded. Not only was he being loud (rude), but he was doing so while talking about drugs, which I would consider somewhat of a taboo subject to be discussing openly in public. Plus he was publicly getting involved in illegal acts, the selling of said drugs. Seriously, how stupid can you get? Although the chances of an off duty cop being on board is slim, what about a social service worker, or maybe one his neighbors? Here is the following information made available to anyone sitting around us:
his name
his brothers name
his brothers suppliers name
the buyers name
what was for sale
how much
where he lived.
Seriously, how stupid
As aforementioned, my first response was to just think how retarded he was. But then I realized that maybe drugs were just so much of his culture that it didn’t seem abnormal for him to be talking so openly about it. Kind of like speeding on the highway. Everyone knows its wrong, and you can get in trouble for it, but most people still do it, and its not that big of a deal. I wouldn’t think twice if I heard two people talking about how fast they drove to work in the morning.
In all honesty, it doesn’t surprise me to find that drugs are so ingrained in parts of our culture. They probably always have been, and always will be. Also in all honesty, I don’t think it’s as big of deal as everyone makes it out to be. Most drugs should be legalized, or at least be non-criminalized like in Holland.
Its not that I don’t necessarily think the government should have a role in regulating the sale of pharmaceuticals, although I do see personal freedom of choice as having a large part in the debate. It also isn’t that I think there aren’t huge social implications from having easy accessible drugs. It’s just a simple matter that the current drug policy DOES NOT WORK. Regardless if you think people have the inalienable right to live their lives in a hazy stupor, or if you are a straight edge republican demanding a god fearing, moral abiding society, it’s a stretch to say the war on drug has been much of a success, especially considering the side effects.
Drug abuse definitely hasn’t been stopped, although the illegal nature of it has risen prices so those afflicted by addiction are therefore also in increased financial difficulty. Drug related crime is also a huge problem. When I say drug related crime, I’m not talking about crimes committed by those on drugs, but crimes that result because the drug economy. I don’t know any statistics on it, but I’d be surprised if the majority of incarcerated prisoners aren’t there for drug related problems. Plus there’re the problems we’ve caused in other countries. Entire economies in South American countries have been affected because of the large power the drug cartels have do to their wealth.
It’s funny to hear the same people who proclaim the efficiencies of the free market then turn around and insist on trying to defeat the drug problem by eliminating the supply. (Making it illegal) Their own rhetoric says that as long as a demand exists, the supply will be created. Restricting it only makes it more profitable to get into the business, causing many problems to arise. Ugh, this is becoming another essay by itself.
The train on the ride home was surprisingly packed, more packed than I’ve ever seen it in fact. Granted, this simply means that some of the small bench chairs designed to accommodate two average sized people actually have two (most likely larger than average) people in them. A “crowded” light rail car during rush hour in Sacramento isn’t anything like one in Europe or New York. As the car filled up, it became harder to ignore the people around you; everyone was forced to acknowledge the existence of other passengers.
As anyone who rides public transit in this country outside of New York, San Francisco, and to some degree Chicago knows, the passengers generally herald from the poorer side of the spectrum. Most of these passengers are every day normal people, and in many ways it’s actually hard not to respect them. Their reasons for taking the train are generally not because its more convenient, or cheaper than driving, or because of a moral dedication towards progressing public transit, but more likely because its their only option. There is no car at home for them to have to waste money on gas filling up. They do what’s necessary to take care of their family, even if that means taking public transportation to work at a cost of potentially adding hours to their day just to get to work. This is in stark contrast to many of the people driving down the highway that runs parallel to the light rail tracks. As I see many of the fancy SUVs go down the road empty except for the driver who’s wearing a suit and talking on a cell phone, I’d be willing to bet that if their car broke down, they’d probably call into the office and say they couldn’t make long before they’d consider taking an extensive series of busses, and trains to get there.
With that being said, however, there are also the “trashy” people on the train. These are the passengers who have no respect for others around them, talking loudly, and being rude in general. They will often also maintain an unkempt dirty appearance or smell that can immediately turn off others. Alcohol or other substance abuse is often apparent. Although there is most likely a correlation between the propensity towards being trashy and income level, it would be a gross error to confuse the two. You can be poor and still maintain respect for yourself and others. You can also be well off and still be rude in public. Unfortunately, many upper and middle class citizens fail to make this distinction, and instead find the concept of riding public transit somewhat insulting. Sometimes these thoughts make me feel judgmental. Who am I to say what is considered appropriate behavior? Maybe in their culture and background their actions are completely normal, and here I am referring to them as trashy. I recognize that these doubts can lead down the slippery slope of relativistic morality, however, and I take step back again. There are some standards that we should try to maintain, and being polite to those around you is one of them.
On a more empty train, people will choose seclusion while they sit in their own world, pretending not to notice what ever events take place. They’ll keep they’re head down, or staring out the window. It’s a natural response. By not acknowledging the run down appearance and lifestyles that can envelope the personalities on the train, they don’t have to admit that they might be part of it. When I’m faced with these situations, however, I instead try to embrace the atmosphere. Part of it is me feels the need to get by any subconscious prejudices I may have, and to see the people as just living their lives like everyone else. I condemn those who see themselves above public transit; therefore I must refute any negative claims they have about it. Part of it, though, is an egotistical side of me that wants to provide myself with a feeling of resilience.
So the train was crowded, and there was this kid sitting in front of me. (By kid I mean mid to late teens) He seemed pretty respectable, first napping, and then talking on his cell phone quietly. His conversation became louder eventually, and everyone around our half of the train could easily here it. It soon became evident that part of the conversation was revolved around some pot that a friend of the person on the other side of the line was trying to sell. It wasn’t in a real mischievous, dark, drug dealer kind of way, but more in the way a person might casually mention that a friend of theirs was selling a car. In a short amount of time, a couple sitting across the aisle from me chimed in that they would be interested in buying the pot, or “fire” as it was affectionately referred to. Connections were made, calls were placed, and everyone involved seemed much more excited the remainder of the ride.
Maybe I’m some what of a prude, but I think that kid was pretty retarded. Not only was he being loud (rude), but he was doing so while talking about drugs, which I would consider somewhat of a taboo subject to be discussing openly in public. Plus he was publicly getting involved in illegal acts, the selling of said drugs. Seriously, how stupid can you get? Although the chances of an off duty cop being on board is slim, what about a social service worker, or maybe one his neighbors? Here is the following information made available to anyone sitting around us:
his name
his brothers name
his brothers suppliers name
the buyers name
what was for sale
how much
where he lived.
Seriously, how stupid
As aforementioned, my first response was to just think how retarded he was. But then I realized that maybe drugs were just so much of his culture that it didn’t seem abnormal for him to be talking so openly about it. Kind of like speeding on the highway. Everyone knows its wrong, and you can get in trouble for it, but most people still do it, and its not that big of a deal. I wouldn’t think twice if I heard two people talking about how fast they drove to work in the morning.
In all honesty, it doesn’t surprise me to find that drugs are so ingrained in parts of our culture. They probably always have been, and always will be. Also in all honesty, I don’t think it’s as big of deal as everyone makes it out to be. Most drugs should be legalized, or at least be non-criminalized like in Holland.
Its not that I don’t necessarily think the government should have a role in regulating the sale of pharmaceuticals, although I do see personal freedom of choice as having a large part in the debate. It also isn’t that I think there aren’t huge social implications from having easy accessible drugs. It’s just a simple matter that the current drug policy DOES NOT WORK. Regardless if you think people have the inalienable right to live their lives in a hazy stupor, or if you are a straight edge republican demanding a god fearing, moral abiding society, it’s a stretch to say the war on drug has been much of a success, especially considering the side effects.
Drug abuse definitely hasn’t been stopped, although the illegal nature of it has risen prices so those afflicted by addiction are therefore also in increased financial difficulty. Drug related crime is also a huge problem. When I say drug related crime, I’m not talking about crimes committed by those on drugs, but crimes that result because the drug economy. I don’t know any statistics on it, but I’d be surprised if the majority of incarcerated prisoners aren’t there for drug related problems. Plus there’re the problems we’ve caused in other countries. Entire economies in South American countries have been affected because of the large power the drug cartels have do to their wealth.
It’s funny to hear the same people who proclaim the efficiencies of the free market then turn around and insist on trying to defeat the drug problem by eliminating the supply. (Making it illegal) Their own rhetoric says that as long as a demand exists, the supply will be created. Restricting it only makes it more profitable to get into the business, causing many problems to arise. Ugh, this is becoming another essay by itself.
posted by Frick at 10:35 PM
2 Comments:
Apparently I'm retarded too. I can't tell the difference between Wednesday and Friday. If I was real writer, I'd be very poor (financially)
Don't point the "L" word at me with that tone of voice. :)
Addiction is in the grey area between something like a real disease and state that you chose. Part of it is an actual physical dependancy. That is not to say, however, in any way, that someone with it is not responsible for it.
Who's worse, a drug lord or a large drug company? It's probably pretty easy to say the drug lord. That's not to say the drug companies are innocent though. You can't can't ignore smaller crimes with the excuse that there are bigger criminals. That's like saying you shouldn't enforce any traffic laws until all murders have been solved.
The large drug companies do have some deplorable businesses practices, most of which are legal though. Do we have an over litigious society? Yes, of course. Are people trying to not only pass their problems on to corporations, and then expect money for it. Doubly so. That doesn't mean the big companies are innocent in all cases.
My point was two fold. The cost of a full out war invadion war on drug countries would be too high in many ways. In lue of that, the war is not sucessful. Cutting off their funding is the most reasonable way.
I hung out with a guy from Columbia while I was in Berlin. He agreed that cutting them off would be a quick solution, however, there was one main thing that could make that a bad idea. The US and Columbian government has spent years trying to fix the Columbian economy. Right now there is still %50 poverty, with more people moving to the city every day. There are huge tracts of uncontrolled land where the government has no presence. Here, drug lords control everything and farmers are either forced to grow pot and opium either at gunpoint, or are simply offered more money to do so. As a result, these crops are raised rather than food, and more people abandon the country side to go to the cities, where there are no jobs, and cost of living is increasing. To legalize drugs would undermine all previous efforts to fix this, and potentially take away what crediability the government has left.
Post a Comment
<< Home