ONE'S GOOD; TWO'LL GET YOU OFF.

I guess I don't have to tell you about David Brooks' stay-in-school-don't-do-drugs column, and assume most of you are of the same mind about it. However, let us spare a moment for an outlier or two -- like former National Review drone David Freddoso, writing at Conservative Intelligence Briefing. which seems to be some kind of Young Fogey clubroom reeking of chrism and nocturnal emissions. So what'll it be, young gents -- Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, or --

What would Aquinas say about legalizing weed?

No, come back -- well, actually, we can't blame you for running. Freddoso's okay with legal weed, unlike stupid Big Gummint liberals:

You wouldn’t know it from the way some of our politicians talk and legislate, but government doesn’t exist for the sake of making us all the best possible competition for China, or to press us single-mindedly toward whatever it deems to be the moral pinnacle at any particular moment (ahem).

Anyone who's totalitarian enough to want universal health care will be a drag about weed, amiright? Oh, and if any wingnuts out there think this Freddoso fellow is pushing the wrong kind of libertarianism, don't worry:

Brooks’ smaller error, I believe, is his assertion that the states legalizing pot are “encouraging” its use. I’m not necessarily saying they made the right choice, but I don’t think this follows. This isn’t like gay marriage...

Both Brooks and Freddoso to be "encouraged" into lockers immediately.

UPDATE. Oh Jesus, I forgot Kathryn J. Lopez:

I’d probably be less dismayed by the Colorado move if we were falling over modern-day Rembrandts.

Not unrelatedly, I just got done reading Instapundit Glenn Reynolds’ new book, The New School...

Don't bother, guys, the link doesn't make it any clearer. Nice try, K-Lo, but Buñuel remains my favorite Catholic surrealist.