Sorry for downvoting, but celebrity stuff like this rather bugs me -- why would I care if he smoked or not?

upvoting the t-shirt

Arnold supports the war on drugs. A noble cause, but kinda hypocritical don't you think?

Not hypocritical at all. The Arnold shown in this clip isn't the same Arnold that is governor.

Time changes things, including opinions and beliefs. Let him be able to take a nobel stand.

Do you think its hypocritical for a parent to advise their children not to do drugs even if the parent has done drugs in the past?

By definition 'hypocrisy' means -

"The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess" (The American Heritage - http://www.answers.com/topic/hypocrisy)

And as you quite rightly state, opinons and beliefs can change, so I concede that phrase wasn't strictly appropriate in the general context I used it - unless he still uses recreational drugs on the quiet ;-)

But surely prominent people in a position of power should have a clean past to be effective role models? If a child discovers their idol didn't always practice what they preach, they could easily interpret that behaviour as hypocritical. In their eyes, why should they live by the present principles of their idol when they have done exactly the opposite before?

Politicians doing a war on drugs stance after a sordid history are hypocrites unless they can show a reasoned logical and solid defence of their new position. I haven't seen either Schwarzie or Bush do either. Not that I'd expect them to be Philosopher Kings either, of course.

It'd be nice if we actually had some of those, though. And I'm not referring to the band.

I certainly agree that an idol should have a clean record, but that shouldn't be a necessity.

[Here lies the ruins of a long post about a person who changed his life from a disreputable lifetime into a very helpful one]

I ended up deleting my analogy because, like all analogies, it was imperfect and I didn't want to risk another argument.

Anyways, Ill leave my final argument to point back to my first analogy. A child's role model should inherently be his parents, but if you say that a role model must have a clean past, then how could they be a role model if they made mistakes in the past? You may say that you are only referring to "prominent people in positions of power," but who holds more power of a kid in their adolescence? The parents.


A person isn't made up of the mistakes of the past, but of the accomplishments and desires of the present.

There's a difference between role models and politicians. Politicians are legislating laws, so they have to hold themselves up to a higher standard - to exemplify the fact that no one is above the law, etc.

Sadly, they often end up doing just the opposite, leading to people's disillusionment with the System.

Actually a person is made up of the mistakes of the past, it is generally the guiding force to his accomplishments and desires of the present. A lot of people get hung up on "protecting" everyone (especially kids) from dangers by not allowing them to indulge or make those "mistakes" but also denying that they themselves ever made those mistakes. True learning happens by a) careful observation and discipline or b) making a mistake and correcting it. The real teacher in b) is the pain/humiliation/whatever invovled in making the mistake.
Upvote for this only because it exposes something that Arnold might otherwise deny. Want your kids not to drink or use drugs? Tell them how bad it f'd you up when you were their age. Oh, it didn't? Perhaps that's the reason most people deny ever doing anything and sticking to the moral highground. Fear of their kids taking a worse path than they did is definetly a strong reason for parents (etc) to deny past activities.
Here's the solution: Talk to your kids about it. Talk to your nieces and nephews about it. Talk to your neighbors about it, but for God's sake don't take the moral highground and deny or get judgemental about it.