A General Question to Those With Children

[Anonymous]

Please clarify something for me.  Are you saying you would condone your children using drugs?  You wouldn't at least attempt to discourage them from using them?  You would feed them the BS lines about "driving to the grocery store", "motocross", "skydiving" instead of pointing out the dangers of drugs too?  That seems irresponsible as a parent.

And yes, other things are dangerous too, but so are certain drugs.  I was in the program and I did use many drugs that began to alter my life in truly negative ways.  I wasn't forced into the program as some were on this site for simply experimenting or not even using at all; I actually ?had a past?.  I used drugs to my detriment.  I credit many things to my recovery and would never consider any straight-like programs to address a drug problem for my children.  I want to do my best to make sure that I do all I can to have my children avoid my pitfalls.  Listen, if my kid smokes pot, I'm not going to freak out, but if they did the things I did I would feel like a failure as a parent if I hadn't communicated the dangers of what can happen and what I experienced.

[Antigen]

On 2005-11-08 18:05:00, Anonymous wrote:

"Please clarify something for me.  Are you saying you would condone your children using drugs?  You wouldn't at least attempt to discourage them from using them?  You would feed them the BS lines about "driving to the grocery store", "motocross", "skydiving" instead of pointing out the dangers of drugs too?  That seems irresponsible as a parent.

Condone is a strong and absolute term. What are the other options on the table? Drugs are nowhere near as dangerous to an individual or to the public as we have been led to believe. I'd rather have my daughter take up smoking pot than, say, racecar driving. It's just less dangerous and, I think, associated w/ a better quality of people. And I'd tell her so, too. Would you have me lie about it to her?

I want to do my best to make sure that I do all I can to have my children avoid my pitfalls.  Listen, if my kid smokes pot, I'm not going to freak out, but if they did the things I did I would feel like a failure as a parent if I hadn't communicated the dangers of what can happen and what I experienced.

Well, I'm sure you have communicated those dangers. Hopefully, you haven't lost all credibility by exagerating them. But don't lose perspective. Damned near anything you can think of to do carries inherent risk as well as potential for benefit of some kind. Nothing is risk free and people wouldn't bother doing anything w/o that potential for some kind of benefit.

Drug use falls somwhere in that broad spectrum. But it's not any more useful or healthy to obsess on abstinance than it is to obsess on staying high.

God is the...refuge of the incompetent, the helpless, the miserable. They find no sanctuary in His arms, but...a kind of superiority, soothing to their...egos: He will set them above their betters.
--H. L. Mencken, American publisher

_________________
Drug war POW
Straight, Sarasota
`80 - `82

[Anonymous]

On 2005-11-08 18:19:00, Antigen wrote:

"

On 2005-11-08 18:05:00, Anonymous wrote:



"Please clarify something for me.  Are you saying you would condone your children using drugs?  You wouldn't at least attempt to discourage them from using them?  You would feed them the BS lines about "driving to the grocery store", "motocross", "skydiving" instead of pointing out the dangers of drugs too?  That seems irresponsible as a parent.

Condone is a strong and absolute term. What are the other options on the table? Drugs are nowhere near as dangerous to an individual or to the public as we have been led to believe. I'd rather have my daughter take up smoking pot than, say, racecar driving. It's just less dangerous and, I think, associated w/ a better quality of people. And I'd tell her so, too. Would you have me lie about it to her?

I want to do my best to make sure that I do all I can to have my children avoid my pitfalls.  Listen, if my kid smokes pot, I'm not going to freak out, but if they did the things I did I would feel like a failure as a parent if I hadn't communicated the dangers of what can happen and what I experienced.

Well, I'm sure you have communicated those dangers. Hopefully, you haven't lost all credibility by exagerating them. But don't lose perspective. Damned near anything you can think of to do carries inherent risk as well as potential for benefit of some kind. Nothing is risk free and people wouldn't bother doing anything w/o that potential for some kind of benefit.



Drug use falls somwhere in that broad spectrum. But it's not any more useful or healthy to obsess on abstinance than it is to obsess on staying high.

God is the...refuge of the incompetent, the helpless, the miserable. They find no sanctuary in His arms, but...a kind of superiority, soothing to their...egos: He will set them above their betters.

--H. L. Mencken, American publisher

_________________

Drug war POW

Straight, Sarasota

`80 - `82"

I sense a bit of prejudice towards a certain segment of society from you.  This surprises me and, sorry to say, disappoints a little as well.

Balance in communication is important, but what you call exagerations may not necessarily be so.  I'm talking about my experiences not a commercial on TV.

I'm just trying to do the right thing.

[Antigen]

On 2005-11-08 18:34:00, Anonymous wrote:

I sense a bit of prejudice towards a certain segment of society from you. This surprises me and, sorry to say, disappoints a little as well.

Prejudice toward whom, exactly? Sorry, but if you think pot is more dangerous than racecar driving, I'm not real keen on winning your approval.  

Balance in communication is important, but what you call exagerations may not necessarily be so. I'm talking about my experiences not a commercial on TV.

Yeah, balance, not hysteria. I don't know what actually happened to you. But I'm guessing that, if you think pot is more dangerous than Nascar, you probably view it through the prism of Program influence. Only around 1 in 100 ppl who use heroin recreationally wind up addicted. Think about that for a moment.

Look, landing up in Straight was not a result of your drug use. It was a result of your parents' stupidity, mine too.

I'm just trying to do the right thing.

I know.

History does not record anywhere or at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unkonwn without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it.
--Robert A. Heinlen, American science-ficiton author

[Anonymous]

"I'd rather have my daughter take up smoking pot than, say, racecar driving. It's just less dangerous and, I think, associated w/ a better quality of people."

This statement is what I mean. A "better qulaity of people"?  Did you really mean this the way it sounds?

Also, where do you get you statistics from.  While the anti-drug stats can certainly be skewed; the same can be said of the pro-drug stats.  Are there really "recreational heroine users"?  I find that hard to believe.

[Carmel]

On 2005-11-08 18:05:00, Anonymous wrote:

"Please clarify something for me.  Are you saying you would condone your children using drugs?  You wouldn't at least attempt to discourage them from using them?  You would feed them the BS lines about "driving to the grocery store", "motocross", "skydiving" instead of pointing out the dangers of drugs too?  That seems irresponsible as a parent.



And yes, other things are dangerous too, but so are certain drugs.  I was in the program and I did use many drugs that began to alter my life in truly negative ways.  I wasn't forced into the program as some were on this site for simply experimenting or not even using at all; I actually ?had a past?.  I used drugs to my detriment.  I credit many things to my recovery and would never consider any straight-like programs to address a drug problem for my children.  I want to do my best to make sure that I do all I can to have my children avoid my pitfalls.  Listen, if my kid smokes pot, I'm not going to freak out, but if they did the things I did I would feel like a failure as a parent if I hadn't communicated the dangers of what can happen and what I experienced.

"

I never ever said I would not point out the dangers of drug use to my children.  Of course its irresponsible as a parent. You need to be fair when asking questions.

Would I condone and encourage drug use? NO.  I would do exactly what you mentioned above about helping them to avoid pitfalls.  ALL I am sayin is that there is a great chance these kids are going to step into one or more of those pitfalls ANYWAY.  And yes, you would hope that you did your best....but failure is not what you should call yourself if this doesnt work out.

I am asking you to be certian of what "all I can" entails when taking on this issue.  

Those lines about motocross and driving are not BS, they are simply objective comparisons on the realities of danger and risk in the world.  

I think you have the right ideas, but I also think you may be clinging to the whole "drugs are bad, M'kay?" mentality that in the end, may negate your positive impact to your kids regarding this issue.

   

[ This Message was edited by: Carmel on 2005-11-09 07:23 ][ This Message was edited by: Carmel on 2005-11-09 07:33 ]

[Carmel]

On 2005-11-09 06:48:00, Anonymous wrote:

" "I'd rather have my daughter take up smoking pot than, say, racecar driving. It's just less dangerous and, I think, associated w/ a better quality of people."



This statement is what I mean. A "better qulaity of people"?  Did you really mean this the way it sounds?



Also, where do you get you statistics from.  While the anti-drug stats can certainly be skewed; the same can be said of the pro-drug stats.  Are there really "recreational heroine users"?  I find that hard to believe."

I think you should stop focusing on this comment, as it is just not important.  Whether or not Ginger thinks Nascar fans are a breed apart makes no difference.  And it doesnt have naything to do with her credibility.

As far as statistics...you say yourself they can be skewed in either direction, however based on your reactions I would bet my right leg that you would be prone to agreeing with the anti-drug camp on them.

Please understand, no one here is condoning drugs or telling you to toke up with your kid or that their arent risks.  Its just important to keep in mind that a lack of objectivity can be derimental.

I have to be honest in saying that it sounds very much like you simply want to BELEIVE what you are fed about drugs.  I would be dissapointed if that were so.

[Anonymous]

On 2005-11-09 07:32:00, Carmel wrote:

"

On 2005-11-09 06:48:00, Anonymous wrote:


" "I'd rather have my daughter take up smoking pot than, say, racecar driving. It's just less dangerous and, I think, associated w/ a better quality of people."





This statement is what I mean. A "better qulaity of people"?  Did you really mean this the way it sounds?





Also, where do you get you statistics from.  While the anti-drug stats can certainly be skewed; the same can be said of the pro-drug stats.  Are there really "recreational heroine users"?  I find that hard to believe."

I think you should stop focusing on this comment, as it is just not important.  Whether or not Ginger thinks Nascar fans are a breed apart makes no difference.  And it doesnt have naything to do with her credibility.



As far as statistics...you say yourself they can be skewed in either direction, however based on your reactions I would bet my right leg that you would be prone to agreeing with the anti-drug camp on them.



Please understand, no one here is condoning drugs or telling you to toke up with your kid or that their arent risks.  Its just important to keep in mind that a lack of objectivity can be derimental.



I have to be honest in saying that it sounds very much like you simply want to BELEIVE what you are fed about drugs.  I would be dissapointed if that were so.
"

You would lose your leg.  

Why is it that people get so defensive here if the opposite point of view if offered up?  While you say you need to be aware that anti-drug propaganda is brain-washing material (which I agree to a large extent) you have to see the dangers of over simplifying drug use aa a casual teen-aged phase and and its POTENTIAL problems.

Listen to some of the people that post on this website.  They're not teenagers anymore.  Not all, but some of them sound like they use beyond casual use.  Whether that came before or as a result of Straight I cannot say.

Ginger's statment, if it is as it sounds, was a personal surprise to me.  All I have read from her seems very logical and fact-based.  If it is as it sounds, it is a personal disapointment that doesn't affect her credibility is anyone's eyes except mine.  Sorry, but that's how I feel about those type of things.

[Carmel]

What your missing is that I already agreed with you long ago about oversimplifying drug use.  I have nothing to be defensive about.The original attempt was to separate rational discourse from emotional.

Look, lets not argue.

In my first post I simply said beware of sending mixed messages. I guess what I am trying to do its remind you to be aware of the realities of danger when you tackle this stuff, NOT that its not DANGEROUS. M'kay?

[Anonymous]

On 2005-11-09 08:51:00, Carmel wrote:

"What your missing is that I already agreed with you long ago about oversimplifying drug use.  I have nothing to be defensive about.The original attempt was to separate rational discourse from emotional.



Look, lets not argue.



In my first post I simply said beware of sending mixed messages. I guess what I am trying to do its remind you to be aware of the realities of danger when you tackle this stuff, NOT that its not DANGEROUS. M'kay?    "

Okay.  Sorry.

[Antigen]

On 2005-11-09 08:22:00, Anonymous wrote:

Ginger's statment, if it is as it sounds, was a personal surprise to me. All I have read from her seems very logical and fact-based. If it is as it sounds, it is a personal disapointment that doesn't affect her credibility is anyone's eyes except mine. Sorry, but that's how I feel about those type of things.

Well, I'm sorry if you find it dissapointing. But Nascar is a cultural icon. It stands for many things that I just find repugnant. For instance, proud ignorance. They advertise tobacco and alcohol while just saying "NO" to certain other drugs. The military has lately been doing some heavy recruiting at Nascar events and, at the same time, they're accepting 2 to 4 times as many "cat 4" recruits. Coincidence? I think not.

Pot people, on the other hand, busy themselves w/ years long legal and public opinion strategies to corner DEA and the Health Department to obey the law wrt applying the Controled Substances Act accurately to cannabis.

Plus, racing around in circles at high speeds w/ a bunch of other dumb red necks doing the same is, by far and away, more dangerous than smoking pot.

And that's what we were talking about, wasn't it? The relative dangers?

And yes, people have and do use heroin recreationally. I suppose you probably have the Program ideal about what a heroin user looks like and how they act. But the truth is that, except for those few who have a really difficult time w/ it to the point of losing the ability to take care of themselves, you wouldn't know a heroin user if he walked up and gave you life saving surgery. No joke. "Off lable" opiate is very common among Medical doctors and clinical staff. Almost as common as stimulant use among law enforcement personnel and legal professionals.

But not everyone gets hooked. That was a lie. That was the lie that, when it fell apart, gave birth to the bogus "gateway theory". See, when Bobby DuPont first started tossing Federal NIDA funds around (Art Barker got over a million of that The Seed) his primary mission, as given him by the Nixon admin, was to set up enough rehab space to accomodate the expected wave of heroin addicts returning from Vietnam. Well, it didn't pan out. Although many American soldiers regularly sampled the inexpensive local heroin supply while surviving the intolerable conditions of war, most of them simply didn't bring their habits with them when they got back home.

So here we were in 1970 with all these rehabs set up and ready to go and no damned junkies! So you and I got tossed in the hopper instead on the pretense of saving us from certain death, insanity or incarceration due to the heroin habit that (our gullibe, frightened parents believed) would necessarily grow out of our pot habits.  :rofl:

The drug war places Leo in a round room and instructs him to piss in a corner.
--Antigen

[Anonymous]

oh my, isn't discussing children special?

[Anonymous]

But not everyone gets hooked. That was a lie. That was the lie that, when it fell apart, gave birth to the bogus "gateway theory". See, when Bobby DuPont first started tossing Federal NIDA funds around (Art Barker got over a million of that The Seed) his primary mission, as given him by the Nixon admin, was to set up enough rehab space to accomodate the expected wave of heroin addicts returning from Vietnam. Well, it didn't pan out. Although many American soldiers regularly sampled the inexpensive local heroin supply while surviving the intolerable conditions of war, most of them simply didn't bring their habits with them when they got back home.



So here we were in 1970 with all these rehabs set up and ready to go and no damned junkies! So you and I got tossed in the hopper instead on the pretense of saving us from certain death, insanity or incarceration due to the heroin habit that (our gullibe, frightened parents believed) would necessarily grow out of our pot habits.  :roll:

I have been following this thread and have refrained from adding my 02 until now. When my father was in Vietnam he said him and his buddies were actually encouraged to use heroin to numb the reality of what was going on over there. That's exactly what he did too. Apparently drug use is only acceptable when you are a govt pawn assigned to kill people.

wc

[Anonymous]

I don't think anyone can stop thier kids from being drug adicts. Controlling other people is a problem all our parents had. If they could have controlled us than we would have never been a problem for them, we would have not been put into Straight. I think children need to be told what can happen if they choose to do drugs or anything illegal. Than hope you have raised them well enough to make good decisions. Knowing that my kids can be taken away if I use drugs is one reason why I dont use them. Why would I even risk using drugs if a simple drug test could take my kids away? I know whats most important to me and if I am smart I wont risk losing it. My 15 year old has told me about her trying snuff, she told me it was nasty and she aint never doing that again. She also told me about her drinking until she puked, she learns from her own experiences. I cant control her but she knows that its not worth the risk if she can get thrown off her swim team that she loves so much. I dont think any teen can be labeled a drug adict or alcoholic. They are too young, they are searching still for who they are. They want to belong, but to what? Teens are finding who they are, its scary, who wouldnt try drugs while going through finding yourself?

[Antigen]

On 2005-11-09 12:56:00, Anonymous wrote:

 Knowing that my kids can be taken away if I use drugs is one reason why I dont use them. Why would I even risk using drugs if a simple drug test could take my kids away?

Me? Cause I fucking HATE bullies!

What kind of sadistic, sanctimonious son of a bitch would hold someone's children hostage to force compliance w/ arbitrary rules? Answer: The kind of person promoted and lionized by the likes of the Semblers, that's who.

Self rightious, sadistic little tin gods, in other words.

Quit paying them and quit obeying them.

Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked,  and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that  the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque  self-deception."  
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0517150735/circlofmiamithem' target='_new'>Mark Twain, The Mysterious Stranger, 1916, Ch.9