Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => Straight, Inc. and Derivatives => Topic started by: Anonymous on November 07, 2005, 11:43:00 AM
-
We all agree that we would not put our kids through what we went through (i.e. Straight). What happens if our children do actually develop drug problems? It seems that almost any type of treatment mentioned here is immediately lablel as brainwashing or Straight-like. Are there any valid treatments that people know of or would support?
I'm just wondering how we as parents would really address our children's drug problem if one actually developed. Has anyone experienced this?
-
Actually, no. According to some very expensive government studies, which are supported by other studies, there is no known treatment for substance abuse that's any more effective than no threatment at all.
There are, however, effective ways for individuals to deal w/ unwanted substance dependency. Methadone, though it has it's down side, seems to be a very good replacement for hard opiate addicts who want to get off of heroin. But it takes a good long while to become so hooked on opiates as to even need a replacement drug. I don't know anyone under the age of about 30 who's needed methadone.
The best way for a parent to address drug issues w/ their kids is truthful, accurate education. Nothing more, nothing less. But, of course, in order to truthfully educate your kids you have to educate yourself. Forget everything that's come out of the government since Harry Anslinger. Before he and his buddies decided to solve America's drug problem we didn't have one to speak of. We had morphism, no doubt, especially among war veterans.
But there was no drug crime, no dirty needles and overdose was a rare and, usually, accidental thing. At that time, anyone, even a child, could walk into a drug store and purchase a dose of heroin for the same price as a dose of aspirin. Addiction rates among users were just about exactly the same as they are now; roughly 1% - 2% experience some difficulty quitting or moderating their use at some point.
In other words, aside from the typical, too often taken for granted unconditional familial love and support, you don't have to do anything to save your kid from drugs. They're not that big a threat to most people. And, for those rare few who do have serious problems controling their drug use, the very best thing in the world you can do for them is just the opposite of what the TOUGHLOVE hategroup tells you. At present there is not a single credible established religion in the world.
--George Bernard Shaw, Irish-born English playwright
-
Right on!! investigations into the nature of reality are normal. The desire to alter ones' consciousness is a natural instinct. Drug use is cool, it's the broader social context that seems mistaken. All drugs should be legal and accessible. i like the scenes in the book, "The Clan of the Cave Bear" when the clan gets into their rituals and they sit around their fire at night in some kind of an altered state drinkin' Datura tea. And the Mo-gur in his head-dress communicates in gesture and ritual his ancient memories...
-
On 2005-11-07 09:42:00, starry-eyed pirate wrote:
"Right on!! investigations into the nature of reality are normal. The desire to alter ones' consciousness is a natural instinct. Drug use is cool, it's the broader social context that seems mistaken. All drugs should be legal and accessible. i like the scenes in the book, "The Clan of the Cave Bear" when the clan gets into their rituals and they sit around their fire at night in some kind of an altered state drinkin' Datura tea. And the Mo-gur in his head-dress communicates in gesture and ritual his ancient memories..."
Whatever. Got any kids?
-
Yeah.
-
On 2005-11-07 10:04:00, starry-eyed pirate wrote:
"Yeah."
Seriously, do you express your views to them or are they too young still? I'm not judging just curious.
-
my son is 25 and I express my views to him directly.
-
On 2005-11-07 10:25:00, Anonymous wrote:
"my son is 25 and I express my views to him directly."
Thank you. I appreciate your openness. My children are 5 and 7. Haven't really had these types of discussions except for one time. I don't know if you are familiar with a basketball player named Len Bias from the University of Maryland who died back in 1985-86 of a cocaine overdose the evening after being drafted by the Boston Celtics. Well, my son asked me about it when a story about him came on television. I honestly explained to him that he simply took an amount this illegal drug that killed him (I had to qualify the "illegal" part because his second question was if he would die from taking medicine the doctor had given him when he was sick.) I also told my son what a shame it was as well because he was so young, intelligent and gifted. From time to time he mentions this discussion. It seems to have made an impression at least as much of one as a 7 year old can understand.
-
On 2005-11-07 10:07:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2005-11-07 10:04:00, starry-eyed pirate wrote:
"Yeah."
Seriously, do you express your views to them or are they too young still? I'm not judging just curious."
some of each. Once when my daughter, she's 10 now, and i were listening to some live Grand Funk RR, which is a real band, she asked me what he meant when Mark Farner made a reference to marijuana, and the oppressive use of the law against marijuana smokers. (in the song "Inside Looking Out") i explained to her that he was talkin' about how it's wrong to put people in jail for smokin' pot. i explained to her that it's worse for you(for a million reasons) to eat at Mc Donalds than it is to smoke pot. The establishment is built on lies and i do try to convey this to my daughter. But i try to be very careful and only give her what she can handle. i try to show her the contexts of the religious symbols, show her the different views. But i don' want to confuse her, i jus' want her to be able to see the wide patterns in life.
i have suggested to her that she question authority. Ask yourself: What are their motives ?? :smile:
-
On 2005-11-07 11:24:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2005-11-07 10:07:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2005-11-07 10:04:00, starry-eyed pirate wrote:
"Yeah."
Seriously, do you express your views to them or are they too young still? I'm not judging just curious."
some of each. Once when my daughter, she's 10 now, and i were listening to some live Grand Funk RR, which is a real band, she asked me what he meant when Mark Farner made a reference to marijuana, and the oppressive use of the law against marijuana smokers. (in the song "Inside Looking Out") i explained to her that he was talkin' about how it's wrong to put people in jail for smokin' pot. i explained to her that it's worse for you(for a million reasons) to eat at Mc Donalds than it is to smoke pot. The establishment is built on lies and i do try to convey this to my daughter. But i try to be very careful and only give her what she can handle. i try to show her the contexts of the religious symbols, show her the different views. But i don' want to confuse her, i jus' want her to be able to see the wide patterns in life.
i have suggested to her that she question authority. Ask yourself: What are their motives ?? :smile: "
Is she to be respectful while questioning authority or if she doesn't agree with something or someone is she to simply defy?
-
Teach her to defy authority. They allow mere "questioning" as sort of a release valve, they pretend to encourage "dissenting points of view". Read Noam Chomsky to find out how they control the scope of debate. Defy authority---it's never done anything to help you anyway.
-
I dunno, I have one child now....my daughter passed away when she was 5 years old, so we never really addressed it....however, I do often think about how I am going to handle this type of conversation.
I think firstly, being open and honest about it is mandatory. Answer questions objectively,and then proffer your own moral ethic or value to the explaination as an example of a viewpoint that can be discussed or questioned as well.
Secondly, the difference between being honest and informative can get clouded when your goal is to actually prevent all type of experimentation. i.e., Pot is not an addictive substance, and the fact that is illegal should be challenged, etc. BUT SO HELP ME IF I EVER CATCH YOU SMOKING IT ILL GROUND YOU FOR THE REST OF YOUR NATURAL LIFE.
My opinion is that its not unlike telling your toddler NOT to touch the stove, because if you make it forbidden....the very first thing they are going to do is run over and touch it.
Kids need to feel empowered to make their own judgement, and if they trust you and know they have your support....well, screwing around just doesnt hold as much enticement to them.
I want my kid to know that no matter what, his own saftey and health is paramount....and if he is going to mess with something, he needs to have enough brains to consider the risks. And he needs to know who to call if something goes wrong.
-
On 2005-11-07 11:39:00, Carmel wrote:
"I dunno, I have one child now....my daughter passed away when she was 5 years old, so we never really addressed it....however, I do often think about how I am going to handle this type of conversation.
I think firstly, being open and honest about it is mandatory. Answer questions objectively,and then proffer your own moral ethic or value to the explaination as an example of a viewpoint that can be discussed or questioned as well.
Secondly, the difference between being honest and informative can get clouded when your goal is to actually prevent all type of experimentation. i.e., Pot is not an addictive substance, and the fact that is illegal should be challenged, etc. BUT SO HELP ME IF I EVER CATCH YOU SMOKING IT ILL GROUND YOU FOR THE REST OF YOUR NATURAL LIFE.
My opinion is that its not unlike telling your toddler NOT to touch the stove, because if you make it forbidden....the very first thing they are going to do is run over and touch it.
Kids need to feel empowered to make their own judgement, and if they trust you and know they have your support....well, screwing around just doesnt hold as much enticement to them.
I want my kid to know that no matter what, his own saftey and health is paramount....and if he is going to mess with something, he needs to have enough brains to consider the risks. And he needs to know who to call if something goes wrong.
"
This is exactly how I feel. I have my opinions, of course, about drugs. I no longer use them, but I did and do not want to conceal that from my kids when the subject is brought up. But, contrary to some opinions expressed here, there are extremely dangerous drugs out there that even in experimental use can be deadly. That's just a fact and, as you said, kids need to be aware of that and have the basic common sense to hopefully avoid those things. I know, even possessing the common sense doesn't mean they'll use it, but you hope they will.
I do not think it is wise to teach my child to defy everything because there is a parental feeling "the world is out to get you" as was expresses elsewhere in this thread. I think this creates a paranoid personality and polarizes one from society. And yes, I believe we should strive to be a part of a society and not in a constant war with self-perceived enmemies. Just my opinion.
Carmel, I'm sorry for your loss. I cannot imagine the pain you feel.
-
[/quote]
But, contrary to some opinions expressed here, there are extremely dangerous drugs out there that even in experimental use can be deadly. That's just a fact and, as you said, kids need to be aware of that and have the basic common sense to hopefully avoid those things.
[/quote]
Well, there are quite a few extremely dangerous things in life that can be deadly with only experimental use. Example: Getting in your car and driving to the grocery store.
The reality is, there are 1001 LEGAL ways to get killed that dont involved altering your mind. Dont make a special exception for drugs based on a lingering, programmed idea about them being extra dangerous, its propoganda.
There are guys in motocross who spend their lives experimenting with stunts that can be deadly. You dont see society putting them in jail, you see them on ESPN.
Make sure your perspective is objective.
[ This Message was edited by: Carmel on 2005-11-07 12:44 ][ This Message was edited by: Carmel on 2005-11-07 12:45 ][ This Message was edited by: Carmel on 2005-11-07 12:46 ]
-
Good point, Carmel.
yer pal,
RTP2k3
-
On 2005-11-07 11:32:00, Anonymous wrote:
Is she to be respectful while questioning authority or if she doesn't agree with something or someone is she to simply defy?
For my kids? It depends on whether or not the person weilding the authority has earned it.
Religion is all bunk.
--Thomas Edison, American inventor
-
Got three kids (8, 12, 15) and will answer their questions, even relating what I went through, if they ask. So far, has seemed to work. Biggest thing I have learned is that I don't hide things from them, let them make mistakes and learn from those mistakes, and be a part of their lives and what they do on a day to day basis.
-
On 2005-11-07 11:32:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2005-11-07 11:24:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2005-11-07 10:07:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2005-11-07 10:04:00, starry-eyed pirate wrote:
"Yeah."
Seriously, do you express your views to them or are they too young still? I'm not judging just curious."
some of each. Once when my daughter, she's 10 now, and i were listening to some live Grand Funk RR, which is a real band, she asked me what he meant when Mark Farner made a reference to marijuana, and the oppressive use of the law against marijuana smokers. (in the song "Inside Looking Out") i explained to her that he was talkin' about how it's wrong to put people in jail for smokin' pot. i explained to her that it's worse for you(for a million reasons) to eat at Mc Donalds than it is to smoke pot. The establishment is built on lies and i do try to convey this to my daughter. But i try to be very careful and only give her what she can handle. i try to show her the contexts of the religious symbols, show her the different views. But i don' want to confuse her, i jus' want her to be able to see the wide patterns in life.
i have suggested to her that she question authority. Ask yourself: What are their motives ?? :smile: "
Is she to be respectful while questioning authority or if she doesn't agree with something or someone is she to simply defy?"
Well that's pretty much up to her. i hope that she treats all people with dignity and respect, even those who are criminals and authorities. i would counsel her to see the humanity in her enemy, even.
-
-
when i went inta straight i was a extremely depressed 14/15 yo and had allready been in 2 "mental" institutoins ,and also done a stint in a state school for boys.When aa says "hit bottom" I dont know what that maens. I do know that a cat has gotta do what you gotta do. I Myself am not dead not locked up etc... I ,in 1984 WANTED to stop putting my life(meaning all my $ up my arm/leg and DID.Methodone is a joke. I would smack thye shit out of any one who blindly thought that was an answer.Help your self.!!!!!
P.S. datura stramonium will fuck up your soul.[ This Message was edited by: seamus on 2005-11-07 16:42 ]
-
On 2005-11-07 12:44:00, Carmel wrote:
"But, contrary to some opinions expressed here, there are extremely dangerous drugs out there that even in experimental use can be deadly. That's just a fact and, as you said, kids need to be aware of that and have the basic common sense to hopefully avoid those things.
Well, there are quite a few extremely dangerous things in life that can be deadly with only experimental use. Example: Getting in your car and driving to the grocery store.
The reality is, there are 1001 LEGAL ways to get killed that dont involved altering your mind. Dont make a special exception for drugs based on a lingering, programmed idea about them being extra dangerous, its propoganda.
There are guys in motocross who spend their lives experimenting with stunts that can be deadly. You dont see society putting them in jail, you see them on ESPN.
Make sure your perspective is objective.
[ This Message was edited by: Carmel on 2005-11-07 12:44 ][ This Message was edited by: Carmel on 2005-11-07 12:45 ][ This Message was edited by: Carmel on 2005-11-07 12:46 ]"
Good perspective. Thank you.
-
Well, there are quite a few extremely dangerous things in life that can be deadly with only experimental use. Example: Getting in your car and driving to the grocery store.
The reality is, there are 1001 LEGAL ways to get killed that dont involved altering your mind. Dont make a special exception for drugs based on a lingering, programmed idea about them being extra dangerous, its propoganda.
There are guys in motocross who spend their lives experimenting with stunts that can be deadly. You dont see society putting them in jail, you see them on ESPN.
Make sure your perspective is objective.
Nice defelection. That why we learn how to drive legally. If kids could see the damage drugs can do to you ahead of time, even experimentally, it may make them think twice. The Len Bias reference was a good one. That had a huge impact on alot of people.
-
Or, look at all the drunk homeless people who screwed their liver and their brain up with alkie-hol. Better they should smoke weed. To bad we sent them off to wars and wouldn't even let them have a little weed material for free when they got back to deal with the haunting memories, anxiety, grief, and for real physical pain of injuries.
Give a vet a joint today. :smokin:
-
On 2005-11-07 12:44:00, Carmel wrote:
"
There are guys in motocross who spend their lives experimenting with stunts that can be deadly. You dont see society putting them in jail, you see them on ESPN.
Make sure your perspective is objective.
Damnd straight, gal! If you OD on heroin, our society views it as a pittiable tragedy, no matter what you've accomplished in life. Smear yourself all over the inside of a Nascar racer for the thrill and enjoyment of the viewing audience and you're a hero.
Our society is just SO warped that way!
The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.
--John Adams, U.S. President
-
On 2005-11-08 06:22:00, Anonymous wrote:
Nice defelection. That why we learn how to drive legally. If kids could see the damage drugs can do to you ahead of time, even experimentally, it may make them think twice. The Len Bias reference was a good one. That had a huge impact on alot of people.
Deflection? Where? But, since you bring it up, don't you think kids ta' day would have a more realistic and comprehensive understanding of the relative dangers of drug use if we didn't have DARE cops and the Ad Council feeding the a steady diet of bullshit while discouraging honest, open communication within the family?
Tell ya' what. You take up sky diving and I'll keep my feet firmly on the ground and toke up each time you jump out of a perfectly good airplane. Who do you think will live longer?As your attorney, it is my duty to inform you that it is not important that you understand what I'm doing or why you're paying me so much money. What's important is that you continue to do so.
--Hunter S. Thompson's Samoan Attorney
-
On 2005-11-08 11:37:00, Antigen wrote:
don't you think kids ta' day would have a more realistic and comprehensive understanding of the relative dangers of drug use if we didn't have DARE cops and the Ad Council feeding the a steady diet of bullshit while discouraging honest, open communication within the family?
"
Yeah, once they figure out you've lied to them about pot, they'll assume that your lying about other drugs that really are potentially dangerous. I did.
-
Yup, me too. I go to the Red Temple Cult for all the real info. :smokin: :wave:
-
On 2005-11-08 13:21:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Yup, me too. I go to the Red Temple Cult for all the real info. :smokin: :wave: "
As well you should, young Druggie, as well you should!
Truly the best source of information not only on psychoactives themselves, but also on arcane and esoteric, often forbidden, occult knowledge that "enables" one to make the most of the experience. Whether you're just outta "treatment" and lookin' for a fun way to relapse, or are seeking spiritual enlightenment, the RTC is your best bet.
-
On 2005-11-08 06:22:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
Well, there are quite a few extremely dangerous things in life that can be deadly with only experimental use. Example: Getting in your car and driving to the grocery store.
The reality is, there are 1001 LEGAL ways to get killed that dont involved altering your mind. Dont make a special exception for drugs based on a lingering, programmed idea about them being extra dangerous, its propoganda.
There are guys in motocross who spend their lives experimenting with stunts that can be deadly. You dont see society putting them in jail, you see them on ESPN.
Make sure your perspective is objective.
Nice defelection. That why we learn how to drive legally. If kids could see the damage drugs can do to you ahead of time, even experimentally, it may make them think twice. The Len Bias reference was a good one. That had a huge impact on alot of people."
Last time I checked, kids CAN see what drugs can do to them in the future. DFAF and DARE take care of that. Pictures of horrific ODs and your friendly neighborhood recovering addict speaker can tell you all you need to know about the effects of even THINKING you may have inhaled.
If anything the reality is far tamer than the propoganda BS available to every school child from sea to shining sea.
And learning to drive legally has just about zilch to do with whether or not driving is as risky as shooting dope. Its might every so slightly compare to the practice of not using anyones elses needle, but thats about it. It doesnt change the reality of danger in either situation. Talk about deflection, Anon.
-
That was me. Sorry
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
"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.
-
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 ]
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
oh my, isn't discussing children special?
-
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
-
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?
-
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."
Mark Twain, The Mysterious Stranger, 1916, Ch.9
-
So you are prejudice. Too bad. You had some credibility, but all the shit you spew about black kids being "subjugated" in other threads is complete bullshit. You have one purpose in your life and it's about how straight fucked you, me and everyone else. Well guess what. We know. You are not perfect, obviously, and your biases prevent you from seeing a whole different world that exists. It's not one that opposes your cause; it's one that's trying to find middle ground and compromise. You have something here on this website, but you're ruining it with shit like this. I thank you for your and everyone else's opinions, but do a reality check. You want power to overcome these institutions; moderate and then conquer.
Good bye and best to all. After all, we're not 14 years old anymore. Peace.
PS. I truly hate NASCAR.
-
Well, I don't know who's posts you were reading. Certainly not mine. But I suppose any excuse will do, eh? Same as it ever was.
Our friends and allies in the Middle East and Europe will soon be subject to forms of intimidation by an Iraqi government bent on dominating the Middle East and its oil reserves,
Project for the New American Century (were they talking about themselves?)
-
On 2005-11-09 17:00:00, Anonymous wrote:
" I truly hate NASCAR.
"
nascar...now isn't that special
-
-
On 2005-11-09 06:48:00, Anonymous wrote:
Are there really "recreational heroine users"? I find that hard to believe."
I have used heroin (and other powerful narcotics such as dilaudid, morphinne and oxycontin) recreationally about six or seven times in the last year or so. Admittedly potentially dangerous, these drugs can be used intelligently, responsibly, and, yes, recreationally. I didn't freak out and rob liquor stores to buy another bag after I had come down from shooting up (yes, I am in the "IV League" of drug-users), and had no ill effects from using heroin whatsoever. Just because you have never been able to do it safely, or don't know any one that can/does, doesn't mean it can't be done.
-
On 2005-11-10 06:06:00, dragonfly wrote:
I think Antigen derogatorily referred to "dumb rednecks" earlier in this thread. I have aspired to become a dumb redneck all of my adult life, so although I have not yet cultivated a love for Nascar or any type of racing, I am nearly a dumb redneck, so please know, we are everywhere.
Well, you're going about it all the wrong way, Dragonfly. In order to be a dumb redneck, you'll have to put down those books and drop the habit of intelligent, risky conversation. You should also take up the habit of insulting and, possibly even, threatening and hurting long haired, tie dyed hippies and liberals. You should not question any American war or military action nor any law or method of enforcement. Instead, just root for the Stillers or whatever your local team, plaster your car with magnets, put on camo and other mock military clothing and learn to view anyone who's not white, who's from the city or who is not ashamed to be seen in public with such people as the root of all evil. While you're at it, you should drink lots of beer or whiskey and chew and spit tobacco while deriding anyone who dares to use unauthorized drugs of any kind.
THEN, and only then, you'll be a dumb redneck. Nascar isn't even a requirement. However, a lot of Nascar fans seem to be dumb red necks.
Faith is believing something you know ain't true.
--Samuel Clemens "Mark Twain", American author and humorist