I have enjoyed reading the opposing views on the prohibition of marijuana in the letters to the editor section over the years.
There have been good arguments expressed on both sides.
Listening to a podcast recently, I heard two points of the argument that seem germane to the issue, especially in South Carolina: self-determination and unintended consequences.
The argument does not simply center around getting high, as some would like you to believe. It’s about “recognizing the sovereignty of adults to make decisions over their own bodies, their own health and their own consciousness, while doing no harm to others.
“If a society does not recognize adult sovereignty over one’s body and consciousness, then that can not be a free society in any meaningful way.”
The other issue was about how prohibition has unfairly penalized one portion of our citizenry over another.
From 2001 to 2010 there were 8 million marijuana arrests. Almost 9 out of 10 due to possession.
African-Americans during this time were 3.73 times more likely to be arrested than white Americans.
It seems that prohibition was a bad idea the first time around and is proving the same a century later.
I was excited about having the National Medal of Honor Museum at Patriots Point in Mount Pleasant.
I was excited about the proposed building designed by renowned architect Moshe Safdie.
I saw it as an interesting design that fully exemplified the soaring exceptionalism of our Medal of Honor winners.
Mount Pleasant’s politicians rejected it for being too tall.
Now, the town has proposed a new design of their own choosing, according to a June 29 Post and Courier editorial.
The Mount Pleasant design is not too tall, not too modern and definitely does not “soar.” Goldilocks would love it.
Overall, the design is horizontally symmetrical. Vertically, it is reminiscent of a layer cake ... a low layer cake.
If you missed the architect’s drawing in The Post and Courier, a quick internet search of “19th-century commercial architecture” will bring up a multitude of similar or identical architectural design features that will give you a good idea of what the Mount Pleasant design looks like.
The National MOH Museum Foundation, completely baffled I’m sure, has announced that instead of Mount Pleasant, it will be locating the museum in either Denver or Arlington, Texas. Either of those is a long drive from Charleston, but at least I won’t have to go through Mount Pleasant.
TERRY W. RYAN
It seems to me that a number of Democrats seeking to be president are somewhat desperate and seeking votes by using the words such as free, socialism, reparations and the oxymoron democratic socialism.
The question I have is how many of them ever passed Economics 101?
Let’s contrast socialism and democracy:
• Socialism is a government in which the means of planning, producing and distributing goods is controlled by a central government that theoretically seeks a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor; in actuality, most socialist governments have ended up being no more than dictatorships over workers by a ruling elite.
• Democracy is a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people but which is usually exercised indirectly through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed.
In America, the people, not the governing body, get to choose.
Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said it best: The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.
Your editorial on July 4th is heartening with one caveat.
How anyone can read those 36 precious words with the phrase “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” and then describe them as a secular catechism is beyond me.
Maybe those words have endured all this time because they touch the spirit inside each of us.
It is the inherent desire of humans to be free from oppression, to dream, to build, and live their own lives as the unique individual God created.
It is truly sad as a society that we don’t seek to understand the nature of that spirit, let alone nurture it.
West Main Street
Due to a condition that has kept me couch-ridden for more than a month, I have been subjected to a lot of hours of television.
During this month of inactivity, I have seen hundreds of commercials about drugs that treat every ailment known to mankind. At the end of each commercial, there is a disclaimer about the advertised drug that always states, “If you are allergic to this drug, don’t take it.”
Excuse me, but why would anyone take something they were allergic to? I’m sure some lawsuit has required this to be part of the disclaimer, but for the life of me, I can’t see why anyone would take a drug they are allergic to.