I'm very sympathetic to Obama's less than perfect past. But I am also very wary of the effect of sharing these things with young people. It's something I still haven't sorted out with respect to my own life.
Is Mitt Romney's comment that Obama's coming out was inappropriate a Mormon thing, or do other conservatives feel the same?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't care about Obama's record on cocaine any more than I care about Bush's drinking in college.
Is he clean now? Is he sober now? Can he be relied upon not to fall off the wagon? That's what's important to me.
Also, I'm edging toward the idea that marijuana should be legalized anyway.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Seems like the story I saw on AOL dealt with him addressing young people about it.
Also, Bush lost my vote over the drunk driving allegations in 2000. I can handle someone having a problem. I understand that people have problems and it's good to overcome them. But drunk driving really bothered me.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
I prefer Obama's honesty to Bush's stance. Bush has stated that he was doesn't want to talk about marijuana because he doesn't want kids trying what he did. When asked if he'd denied using cocaine, he says that he never denied anything. Further, there's a lot of things that point to Bush having had a cocaine charge expunged from his record. And Clinton's statements on the subject were beyond ridiculous.
I feel like Obama is a man of integrity, and things like this are why. He doesn't evade the truth- he faces it. I'd much rather have somebody like that as my President than the reverse.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Some people, like the President, just seem to be stuck in the mindset that talking about an issue is equal to promoting it.
The answer is not to hide and pretend that it never happened. Bring it up, talk about it, and be honest with kids (and everyone).
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, I think it depends on whether he brought it up as an example of how you can overcome anything (which I would find not appropriate for a school age crowd) versus being frank when confronted.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:as an example of how you can overcome anything
With this and Scott's "off the wagon" comment, I just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing. I don't believe Obama ever said he was addicted to either pot or cocaine. He's said that he used them as a kid. There's a pretty big difference between the two. Please correct me if I'm mistaken about Obama's past.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Well, I think it depends on whether he brought it up as an example of how you can overcome anything (which I would find not appropriate for a school age crowd) versus being frank when confronted.
How come? I would think that demonstrating that drugs aren't the end of the world and won't necessarily ruin your life would give hope to the kids who are already doing drugs.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Yes, but will it open the minds of kids who otherwise avoid drugs to trying them? That's the concern. Should there be other settings where kids who are already involved in drugs can seek encouragement?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Yes, but will it open the minds of kids who otherwise avoid drugs to trying them? That's the concern. Should there be other settings where kids who are already involved in drugs can seek encouragement?
Not if they're really honest. And I speak as someone who has never done any drug. (I have had alcohol before, so I don't want to misrepresent myself.)
If they speak about it honestly they will have to say that yes, drugs can ruin your life. They can hurt you and change you for the worst.
Some are much more harmful than others. But some, and this may be scary to admit, are no more harmful than alcohol (which is to say, somewhat harmful) and if you don't become addicted and use them responsibly you won't destroy your life.
I personally don't think that would cause any kids who wouldn't have started using drugs otherwise to decide to start. But there should probably be a study to find out.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Well, I think it depends on whether he brought it up as an example of how you can overcome anything (which I would find not appropriate for a school age crowd) versus being frank when confronted.
How come? I would think that demonstrating that drugs aren't the end of the world and won't necessarily ruin your life would give hope to the kids who are already doing drugs.
But the concern is that it would take away caution that kids considering doing drugs might already have. The thought process changes from, "I shouldn't do drugs, because I might not be able to achieve the things later in life that I otherwise could" to "hey, if President Obama did it, I can too." Not advocating that concern over the need for transparency, just voicing the concern.
That said, with the strong evidence that Bush and Clinton did drugs, not to mention loads of other successful adults, I think that the idea that doing drugs == the end of the world is already well outside most young people's thought processes.
I agree there's a lot about the presentation. If Obama were to say, "I did drugs. It was stupid, reckless and self-destructive and I thank God that I stopped doing them before I became addicted, allowing me to live a full and productive life" I think that would be a positive message. If, however, what he said were more to the effect of, "hey, I did drugs, I know what you guys are going through. And look, I'm going to be the President" that's a whole different thing. To me, at least.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Well, I think it depends on whether he brought it up as an example of how you can overcome anything (which I would find not appropriate for a school age crowd) versus being frank when confronted.
Agreed. "Hey kids, you can do drugs in highschool and still become president!" is not the message we really want to be sending, to either users or non-users.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Senoj,
I would advocate a middle ground.
"Hey, I did drugs, I know what you guys are going through. And look, I'm going to be the President. But I would never have gotten this far if I had kept taking drugs and became addicted to them."
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: "Hey, I did drugs, I know what you guys are going through. And look, I'm going to be the President. But I would never have gotten this far if I had kept taking drugs and became addicted to them."
This still enforces the perception that experimentation is a good, safe, acceptable idea, which I'm not convinced is a good thing.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
These two quotes make me think Obama is taking the former tack of condemning the drugs and alcohol and expressing gratitude that he got out before the habit became too much for him. Or possibly Javert's middle road. But I agree with eros; inimating that dabbling in drugs is good, safe or socially acceptable is not something I would advocate.
quote:You know, I made some bad decisions that I've actually written about. You know, got into drinking. I experimented with drugs. There was a whole stretch of time that I didn't really apply myself a lot. It wasn't until I got out of high school and went to college that I started realizing, 'Man, I wasted a lot of time.'
quote:Junkie. Pothead. That's where I'd been headed: the final fatal role of the young would be black man
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Originally posted by Javert: "Hey, I did drugs, I know what you guys are going through. And look, I'm going to be the President. But I would never have gotten this far if I had kept taking drugs and became addicted to them."
This still enforces the perception that experimentation is a good, safe, acceptable idea, which I'm not convinced is a good thing.
I disagree. It is being honest. We know some of the kids are going to experiment. Probably most of them according to some statistics. And we really can't stop them unless we lock them away and watch them every second of every day. We're not going to do that. But we also shouldn't lie and suggest that if they try one drug it will kill them or make them instantly addicted.
Now, that being said, there are some drugs that could cause irreparable harm on the first use (ecstasy is one, IIRC), and we can show that scientifically, and should address that honestly.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I agree with you guys. I don't think we should promote experimentation. But we also shouldn't pretend that it doesn't happen, and we shouldn't vilify the kids who do so.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: I disagree. It is being honest. We know some of the kids are going to experiment. Probably most of them according to some statistics.
I'm not convinced this means we should say "hey, it's okay!" We know that many, perhaps most people will drink underaged. That doesn't mean we should imply it's okay to do so, and for the most part, we don't.
quote:And we really can't stop them unless we lock them away and watch them every second of every day. We're not going to do that. But we also shouldn't lie and suggest that if they try one drug it will kill them or make them instantly addicted.
For the most part, I'm not in favor of making up fantasies about what happens when you use drugs, either, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about giving kids the implicit idea that it's okay to do drugs.
quote:Now, that being said, there are some drugs that could cause irreparable harm on the first use (ecstasy is one, IIRC), and we can show that scientifically, and should address that honestly.
Actually, ecstacy (assuming you're talking about actual MDMA) is one drug that has been demonstrated to be non-lethal, even in excess, even the first time. Deaths resulting from ecstacy use are almost universally related to drug interactions from impure doses and/or lack of care for the body during use (e.g. dehydration deaths at clubs).
But here's an example of a useful lie we've encouraged. How many people are going to bother doing the rigorous testing of their drugs to ascertain exactly what they're taking? How many people are even going to bother studying the published effects of a drug so they know exactly what effect it will have on their bodies? How many people will ensure they understand the necessary precautions they need to take in order to use a drug as safely as possible? We can't even count on people not to drink and drive, and that should be a no-brainer.
In that sense, the "ecstacy can kill you" myth we perpetuate is a useful one. Similarly, "drugs are bad, don't experiment, it can ruin your life" is a useful message to encourage.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:In that sense, the "ecstacy can kill you" myth we perpetuate is a useful one.
I disagree. I think these types of lies do far more harm than good. Most of the people that believe them probably wouldn't do drugs. When people that would be more likely to do drugs find out that things like this are lies (which they probably will), I think they're more inclined to be distrusting of the other drug information they've received. If you're honest from the start, you don't have to deal with that.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
If I got my facts wrong, I apologize. I seem to remember reading a study that ecstasy can severely effect your brain chemistry as early as on the first use. I will search for it, and if I'm wrong I'll gladly admit it.
That being said, I am against lying even when the intent is good. The truth about what drugs can and do do to you, I think, is useful enough.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
And what Amanecer said. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Originally posted by Javert: [qb]"Hey, I did drugs, I know what you guys are going through. And look, I'm going to be the President. But I would never have gotten this far if I had kept taking drugs and became addicted to them."
This still enforces the perception that experimentation is a good, safe, acceptable idea, which I'm not convinced is a good thing.
I have a slightly different take. The problem is that Obama has already taken the drugs, now his choice is what to do now. He essentially has three choices:
A) Preemptively come clean about it B) Hide it until someone finds out and then stonewall it B) Hide it until someone finds out and then come clean about it
Unless I'm missing a choice, I think that A) is the lesser of the various evils, both from a political POV and from an ethical POV.
This way he preemptively stops a potential scandal, gives people that have taken drugs hope for the future, is still telling people that it was a bad idea, and does not have to lie about it.
Certainly its better than the current model of doing it, hiding it and giving the perception that one can do drugs, become the president, and get away with lying about it Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Most of the people that believe them probably wouldn't do drugs.
I've seen far, far too much anecdotal evidence that suggests the polar opposite is true, and no studies that prove otherwise.
quote:When people that would be more likely to do drugs find out that things like this are lies (which they probably will)
Again, way more anecdotal evidence that this isn't true, and no studies proving otherwise.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Yes, it is anecdotal and I know of no studies on the subject. I still think that when you find out something you've been told is false, you become less trusting of the source. I think that's a truism beyond drug information.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
But there are various ways of coming clean. He wrote about his drug use in his book (which I had seen a summary of and knew about, though to be honest I'd kind of forgotten).
Well, I guess at this point none of us knows what he actually said to this particular school- aged audience.
It is odd to realize that youthful drug experimentation in presidential canditates no longer causes us to bat a lash. It is not the drug use that is an issue to me, but the manner of discussing it.
I think that may change again in a few years, when folks weren't young in the 60's. Of course, by then, maybe Senator Craig will be running Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
My high school principal was very frank with us about his past drug use and problems with school and the law. I appreciated his honesty, and I personally felt it helped us that were having problems with school, authority, drugs, and/or the law to approach him without having to hide what was really going on in our lives, and it also discouraged staying on that path. (drugs, not anti- authority )
I guess it all depends on the specific audience and the context.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: If I got my facts wrong, I apologize. I seem to remember reading a study that ecstasy can severely effect your brain chemistry as early as on the first use. I will search for it, and if I'm wrong I'll gladly admit it.
The bizarre effect MDMA has on your dopamine levels and the breakdown process thereof can radically alter your brain chemistry, yes, but not in any permanent way from a single use, regardless of the amount taken, IIRC, unless you have a pre-existing condition. MDMA also has the potential to have lingering neurotoxic effects stemming both from the aforementioned dopamine breakdown and from the serotonin imbalance that induces the drug's effects.
There are also potentially serious complications if you're taking MDMA with SSRIs, MAOIs, Ritonavir, Viagra and/or other stimulants, among other things, but this relates to using MDMA in combination with other drugs.
This all comes back to me re-emphasizing that "ecstacy can kill you" is a useful myth. Why? There are so many ways that misusing MDMA can kill you. I've never heard of a way to present all of the information on safe MDMA use in a cogent, absorbable way to minors that doesn't come off as implicit encouragement.
This doesn't even begin to touch on the purity issue: what people buy on the street or in the club as "ecstacy" is often not (or not just ecstacy), leading to even more potential complications, including death. Testing kits aren't readily available, and not very useful if you're purchasing on a dose by dose basis (since the dose is consumed in the testing process). Impure doses require you to be aware of the potential complications not only from drug interactions, but from the use of any other drugs contained in the dose by themselves.
With all of that to consider (and this is a very, very simplistic summary), I maintain that "ecstacy can kill you" is a useful myth.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Testing kits aren't readily available, and not very useful if you're purchasing on a dose by dose basis (since the dose is consumed in the testing process).
Not to mention that the testing kits that are available will test for MDMA, but won't tell you what else may be in the pill.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I look at this similar to sex ed and teen pregnancy.
Teen pregnancy rates are at or near recorded lows, and have been dropping as sex ed becomes more common. This despite theoretically negative factors rising, like divorce. Or smoking and cigarettes. You don't say, "No, because I said so." You say, "This is what smoking can do to you." As more education has occurred, the rates, particularly among young folks, has gone down.
Some are going to experiment, and some that otherwise might not will try it. However if the above issues are any indication, more than that will likely not try it, even though they might have, had the issue been shrouded in stigma and mystery and misinformation.
Drugs aren't some mysterious magical thing. Some people have used them, and almost all end up regretting it. It's never a bad thing to hear that message, which is what Obama appears to be doing.
-Bok
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Agreed with what Scott said at the beginning, and what Bok just said.
I think we should start off NOT assuming that kids are stupid. They aren't. Assuming that kids are stupid, or that they have zero self-control takes a hell of a lot of responsibility away from them and puts it with parents, which isn't a good idea.
It's part of a bigger argument, I think, about teens and responsibility. I think they should be made more responsible for their own actions, and should be given more, not less responsibility in their teen years, I think it's part of why you get so much wild behavior when they get to college, because they feel free and want to do everything all at once.
But specific to this argument, when Obama says "I did drugs, and it was stupid and I wasted time, but I worked my way past it and now I'll be president," kids are smart enough not to take that as tacit approval of drug use. Obama isn't saying it with a wink and a nudge, he's saying it with an earnestness that I haven't seen in my lifetime from a major politician. Why are we working with the assumption that people need to lie to kids? Haven't we had enough lying? How about we try a little truth and see how it flies. I think the people in this thread and in general that think Obama's admission is sending a bad message to kids are sending the wrong message themselves. That message is, that kids are stupid and not responsible, because not only will they not take Obama's words at face value, but they'll intentionally misconstrue them to make drug use sound okay. That's crap.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:That's crap.
See, the thing is, it's really not.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The same argument was used on sex education. Bok just went through all this. The side that said we should teach abstinence only said that if we taught all that had to be taught about sex and handed out condoms that kids would have sex willy nilly, and disease and pregnancy would run rampant. Turns out every study I've seen on the subject says that giving them all the information on it lowers pregnancy and disease rates, and that's what has happened since comprehensive sex ed has been taught in schools.
The problem with the other side is that they assumed kids were stupid and irresponsible by nature, and that they'd take that information and only use it to reinforce decisions they want to make anyway. And you know, some teens WILL make bad decisions, so will some adults, but giving them all the information makes them better able to make decisions.
Move over to the drug debate. Pretending drugs don't exist or just saying NO DRUGS isn't going to do it. When you explain to them the problems with drugs and give them all the information, they make better decisions. And when a politician stands up and honestly tells kids about his experience with drugs, and says it was a mistake, then I think they are smart enough to get what he is really saying, and not take it as some sort of magic wand.
Part of what I never got with the Clinton sex scandal is the idea that Clinton having oral sex would make kids want to do it too. You really think teens are thinking about a 45 year old man and his unattractive mistress when they are thinking about sex? In that same vein, I don't think the average teen is going to say "hey Obama did it, and even though he says it was a bad idea, I think I should get to do it too." If they are going to use that as a reason, then they've already decided and just looking for some thin justification, it isn't really going to change someone's mind.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: You don't say, "No, because I said so." You say, "This is what smoking can do to you." As more education has occurred, the rates, particularly among young folks, has gone down.
Some are going to experiment, and some that otherwise might not will try it. However if the above issues are any indication, more than that will likely not try it, even though they might have, had the issue been shrouded in stigma and mystery and misinformation.
The problem being: the above issues may not be an indication.
Most drugs are an infinitely more complicated matter than tobacco and cigarettes. Tobacco and cigarettes are legal: as a result, there is fairly strict quality control, product consistency, licensing, etc. - an entire segment of our government is dedicated to regulating these substances. We've performed far more extensive testing on tobacco and alcohol than we have on any other illegal drugs.
These factors alone make legal and illegal recreational drugs incomparable.
Parents are also equipped to inform their kids about tobacco and alcohol. They're also prepared, to less common extent, to inform them about marijuana, shrooms, acid and other drugs that were common a generation ago. But how many parents here could tell their kids about what risks they face if they try DXM? How about DMT? How about why most people who use DMT also use MAOIs? How about kids who misuse prescription drugs like adderall for any number of reasons? Do you know what the common reasons are? Do you know how kids most commonly obtain the above substances? Do you know what OTC medications can be manipulated to produce the above substances, similar substances, or substances that are similar but fatal?
If you find a bag of pills, powder or plants in your kid's bag, what do you think the odds are you'd know what it is? What do you think the odds are THEY know what it is? Do you really think you can educate your kids sufficiently for them to be able to make completely informed choices about drugs that come in five thousand different variants, none of which are the same, half of which can be dangerous or fatal?
Some lying is a necessary component of drug education. These lies include ones like "ecstacy can kill you," unless you plan on being able to say "ecstacy comes in several dozen forms. Here are the details on each, plus information on drugs that look like ecstacy but are not. Here is how they interact with all known drugs, both legal and illegal. Here is how to identify what is and isn't ecstacy. Here is how to differentiate between different kinds of drugs that resemble ecstacy. Here is how to test for purity in pills that may contain ecstacy. Here is how to behave to ensure you do not hurt/kill yourself while on ecstacy" and not have it sound like implicit permission to experiment.
Oh, and comparing drug education to sex education is ludicrous. Sex is part of being human. It is required to reproduce. Every human being can engage in sex at almost any time. Sex is legal. Sex will be engaged in by the overwhelmingly vast majority of people.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Most of the people that believe them probably wouldn't do drugs.
I've seen far, far too much anecdotal evidence that suggests the polar opposite is true, and no studies that prove otherwise.
quote:When people that would be more likely to do drugs find out that things like this are lies (which they probably will)
Again, way more anecdotal evidence that this isn't true, and no studies proving otherwise.
I don't see how you can have anecdotal evidence for a negative.
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:That's crap.
See, the thing is, it's really not.
On the basis of what? A thought experiment?
I've watched numerous videos of drug addicts in my junior and senior health classes, and the nearly universal reason for starting drugs was bad friends.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: Oh, and comparing drug education to sex education is ludicrous. Sex is part of being human. It is required to reproduce. Every human being can engage in sex at almost any time. Sex is legal. Sex will be engaged in by the overwhelmingly vast majority of people.
That doesn't address or invalidate Lyrhawn's point.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Parents are also equipped to inform their kids about tobacco and alcohol. They're also prepared, to less common extent, to inform them about marijuana, shrooms, acid and other drugs that were common a generation ago. But how many parents here could tell their kids about what risks they face if they try DXM? How about DMT? How about why most people who use DMT also use MAOIs? How about kids who misuse prescription drugs like adderall for any number of reasons? Do you know what the common reasons are? Do you know how kids most commonly obtain the above substances? Do you know what OTC medications can be manipulated to produce the above substances, similar substances, or substances that are similar but fatal?
If you find a bag of pills, powder or plants in your kid's bag, what do you think the odds are you'd know what it is? What do you think the odds are THEY know what it is? Do you really think you can educate your kids sufficiently for them to be able to make completely informed choices about drugs that come in five thousand different variants, none of which are the same, half of which can be dangerous or fatal?
What this says to me is that parents need to seriously work on becoming more informed in order to protect their kids. It's not an argument against being informative to teens.
And it's not ludicrous, hell it's not even legal for kids of some ages. You're talking about sex as if age didn't matter, but specifically talking about drugs in a way that makes age the biggest factor. I don't think you're being fair there. What you said, well, it isn't totally true, but true enough, but that doesn't really matter when it comes to sex education. If I used your rationale, I'd be arguing against sex education in its entirety.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I don't see how you can have anecdotal evidence for a negative.
...are you being serious?
quote:I've watched numerous videos of drug addicts in my junior and senior health classes, and the nearly universal reason for starting drugs was bad friends.
Trusting a high school health class video about drug addicts to provide you with a complete, realistic picture about drugs & drug use is like trusting white house press announcements to give you a complete, realistic picture about the status of your country.
quote:That doesn't address or invalidate Lyrhawn's point.
Sure it does.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: Some lying is a necessary component of drug education. These lies include ones like "ecstacy can kill you," unless you plan on being able to say "ecstacy comes in several dozen forms. Here are the details on each, plus information on drugs that look like ecstacy but are not. Here is how they interact with all known drugs, both legal and illegal. Here is how to identify what is and isn't ecstacy. Here is how to differentiate between different kinds of drugs that resemble ecstacy. Here is how to test for purity in pills that may contain ecstacy. Here is how to behave to ensure you do not hurt/kill yourself while on ecstacy" and not have it sound like implicit permission to experiment.
Nonsense. "There is no quality control for illegal drugs and some of them may be cut with substances even more dangerous than the drugs themselves. If you get a bad batch it could kill you."
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:What this says to me is that parents need to seriously work on becoming more informed in order to protect their kids. It's not an argument against being informative to teens.
Sure, that's part of it. Too bad the information is evolving so constantly that keeping up to date is nearly impossible, both for parents and users.
Also, I don't think anyone's said it's a bad idea to be informative to teens. If you're implying I did, you should go back and read my posts, since I actually implied, repeatedly, the exact opposite.
quote:And it's not ludicrous, hell it's not even legal for kids of some ages. You're talking about sex as if age didn't matter, but specifically talking about drugs in a way that makes age the biggest factor. I don't think you're being fair there.
Sure, it's illegal for a fairly small subset of kids. Compare to drugs, which are illegal for everyone, all the time. The comparison is still ludicrous.
And actually, the references to age in my posts are there specifically because people happened to be talking about drug education for kids, but the points are universal for people of all ages. Replace "parents" with "friends."
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: Some lying is a necessary component of drug education. These lies include ones like "ecstacy can kill you," unless you plan on being able to say "ecstacy comes in several dozen forms. Here are the details on each, plus information on drugs that look like ecstacy but are not. Here is how they interact with all known drugs, both legal and illegal. Here is how to identify what is and isn't ecstacy. Here is how to differentiate between different kinds of drugs that resemble ecstacy. Here is how to test for purity in pills that may contain ecstacy. Here is how to behave to ensure you do not hurt/kill yourself while on ecstacy" and not have it sound like implicit permission to experiment.
Nonsense. "There is no quality control for illegal drugs and some of them may be cut with substances even more dangerous than the drugs themselves. If you get a bad batch it could kill you."
Okay. Where in what you just said do you account for the possibility that your kids may do drugs, and prepare them to make those decisions safely, which is kind of the whole point of this discussion?
Edit: leaving the office, so there'll be a lapse in my responses.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
That's not the point of the discussion as far as I'm concerned. My point is that you don't have to lie to kids to get across the idea that drugs are dangerous.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: That's not the point of the discussion as far as I'm concerned. My point is that you don't have to lie to kids to get across the idea that drugs are dangerous.
Okay, but your point is a non-sequitur, and does nothing to invalidate any part of the post you responded to.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Sure, it's illegal for a fairly small subset of kids. Compare to drugs, which are illegal for everyone, all the time. The comparison is still ludicrous.
No, it's not. And since I don't think wishing makes it so, I don't see what your point is. Sex amongst many teens in most states is not illegal, but we don't want them doing it. Drugs are illegal, and we don't want kids doing them. We educate them in the hopes that they'll make smart choices for themselves. And yet kids have sex, and kids do drugs. For the ones that do it, they either don't care that they are illegal, or think it is worth the risk, so what exactly is your point?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Originally posted by dkw: That's not the point of the discussion as far as I'm concerned. My point is that you don't have to lie to kids to get across the idea that drugs are dangerous.
Okay, but your point is a non-sequitur, and does nothing to invalidate any part of the post you responded to.
Except this part:
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: Some lying is a necessary component of drug education.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Excuse me. To say, "I'm Obama. I did drugs and I'm doing great." would be a terrible thing to say. What Mr. Obama is saying is, "I did drugs and had to fight like the devil to get where I m. Its not ok. Don't do it."
The problem is?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:I don't see how you can have anecdotal evidence for a negative.
...are you being serious?
Yes. That comment was specifically addressed towards your second claim, but I'll address both.
You said:
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Most of the people that believe them probably wouldn't do drugs.
I've seen far, far too much anecdotal evidence that suggests the polar opposite is true, and no studies that prove otherwise.
The polar opposite of that would be "most of the people that believe the statistics would probably do drugs". That just doesn't make sense.
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:When people that would be more likely to do drugs find out that things like this are lies (which they probably will)
Again, way more anecdotal evidence that this isn't true, and no studies proving otherwise.
The complete phrase by Amanecer was "When people that would be more likely to do drugs find out that things like this are lies (which they probably will), I think they're more inclined to be distrusting of the other drug information they've received." The opposite of that would be along the lines of "when people find out that certain drug statistics are lies it does not affect their trust of other drug statistics". The only way I know of to validate that claim is to perform a poll.
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:I've watched numerous videos of drug addicts in my junior and senior health classes, and the nearly universal reason for starting drugs was bad friends.
Trusting a high school health class video about drug addicts to provide you with a complete, realistic picture about drugs & drug use is like trusting white house press announcements to give you a complete, realistic picture about the status of your country.
That's really a false analogy. In my class we watched numerous documentaries and investigative journalism (most were recorded from TV) that contained real drug users. They weren't censored. One documentary showed everything about the people it was following including how they prepared the heroin and how they shot it up. These people had no reason to lie to the camera and make up some BS reason for why they were doing drugs. If they were motivated by celebrities they would have said so. Most said they got into drugs because their friends were into drugs. Over half ended up in jail so I find it dubious that the documentary makers were bribing them to lie.
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:That doesn't address or invalidate Lyrhawn's point.
Sure it does.
Thankfully Lyrhawn already addressed why it doesn't.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
There are case reports in the literature of very serious sequelae after the first use of MDMA/Ecstasy: ischemic stroke, intracranial bleed, and heart attack, to name just a few (likely secondary to the direct effect of spiking heart rate and blood pressure, which is not prevented by adequate hydration). Myelopathies and (sometimes fatal) cardiac arrhythmias have also been reported. These were in people without underlying medical issues.
This is an amphetamine derivative, and amphetamines are potent drivers of autonomic hyperactivity. It doesn't need a contaminant to cause a severe stress on the body.
There are longer-term studies on populations of people, and if it matters to someone's opinion, I will look it up.
Regardless, it is certainly not true that first-time use of MDMA/Ecstasy is problematic only if it is impure or you have an underlying medical problem. Often people get away with it without immediate complications, but not always.
[ November 21, 2007, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I am the same age as Obama. I've never used recreational drugs but I am in the minority for people my age. According to studies by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, 69% of people my age (Obama's age) report having used illegal drugs atleast once in their life. Since that is self reporting of an illegal activity, 69% is probably lower than the real number.
Based on my experience, I'd guess that around 90% of the white men my age have tried illegal drugs at some point in their life. The number is lower for women, perhaps closer to 50%. I haven't been able to find any gender related stats, but my guesses are consistent with an overall 70% drug use in people my age.
The bottom line is that the dilemna faced by Obama about what to say or not say about his youthful indiscretions, is the same dilemna facing millions of parents, teachers and public figures. Do you tell the truth or try to hide it? You don't want your kids to get involved in drugs but you don't know how to tell them not to do something that you did. You don't want to lie to your kids, but you're afraid that being truthful will make them respect you less.
As a Mormon and Christian, my bias is for honesty and openness. Both the Bible and LDS scriptures are clear that we must confess our sins and forsake them in order to fully overcome them. Hence I believe that those who are dishonest about their past sins, will continue to be handicapped by them. I find it interesting that many psychological analyses of addictive behavior, arrive at this same conclusion.
As a result, I am far more disturbed by G.W. Bush's refusal to talk about his youthful drug use than I am about Obama's openness.
Those who think that some lying is a necessary component of drug education are seriously mislead. If you think its necessary to lie to defend a position, then you ought to seriously reconsider the position. Truth has never needed lies to defend it.
In my rather extensive experience working with young people in their teens and twenties, I have found that adults must be open and honest with young people in order to earn their respect. Its surprising how savvy kids are to lies and exagerations when they are used by adults, particularly considering how naive they are to lies told by their peers and the media.
For this reason, many of the traditional drug education programs fail horribly. I have several friends who were turned on to drugs by their schools anti-drug programs. The problem is that when you exagerate the dangers of something, you cast a doubt not only on your details but on the message itself. Add that to the rebellious nature of many kids (i.e. my mommy said not to put beans in my ears, so I did) and you have a recipe for encouraging drug use.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Is Mitt Romney's comment that Obama's coming out was inappropriate a Mormon thing?
I think that any Mormon who finds Obama's confession inappropriate lacks an clear understanding of the Mormon doctrines regarding repentence and the virtue of honesty. I would like to hear how Romney justifies his views within the context of Mormon doctrine. He may have some reasonable explanation but I fail to see how his comment is consistent with the 13th article of faith which begins, "We believe in being honest, true . . .", and D&C 58:43 "By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them."
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: No, it's not. And since I don't think wishing makes it so, I don't see what your point is. Sex amongst many teens in most states is not illegal, but we don't want them doing it. Drugs are illegal, and we don't want kids doing them. We educate them in the hopes that they'll make smart choices for themselves.
You had a very different sex ed program than the one I had. The sex education I got from my parents, community members, elementary school, middle school and high school had absolutely NO focus on "we don't want them doing it." Sex was not discouraged, at all. If it was in your programs, you grew up in a much more rigid environment than I did.
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Except this part:
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: Some lying is a necessary component of drug education.
You're under the false impression that the people I was responding to consider "drugs are dangerous" to be a sufficient drug education. Do you consider "drugs are dangerous" to be a sufficient drug education?
quote:Originally posted by Threads: The polar opposite of that would be "most of the people that believe the statistics would probably do drugs". That just doesn't make sense.
Does it matter whether it makes sense or not? It's what the anecdotal evidence I have strongly suggests.
quote:The opposite of that would be along the lines of "when people find out that certain drug statistics are lies it does not affect their trust of other drug statistics". The only way I know of to validate that claim is to perform a poll.
Remember the part where I said this is based on anecdotal evidence? The claim isn't validated either way: we're pointing out that our anecdotes have led us to different conclusions.
quote:That's really a false analogy. In my class we watched numerous documentaries and investigative journalism (most were recorded from TV) that contained real drug users. They weren't censored. One documentary showed everything about the people it was following including how they prepared the heroin and how they shot it up. These people had no reason to lie to the camera and make up some BS reason for why they were doing drugs. If they were motivated by celebrities they would have said so. Most said they got into drugs because their friends were into drugs. Over half ended up in jail so I find it dubious that the documentary makers were bribing them to lie.
When you're watching programs like that, you're watching through several filters: the people putting together the documentary/report are hand picking what evidence to show you, the people they've interviewed are, by necessity, people who are willing to be interviewed. Just because the individuals interviewed aren't lying doesn't make the conclusions the documentary draws or the picture it presents true. All it is is an assemblage of anecdotal evidence - exactly what you seem to be objecting to above.
------
CT, I have yet to see a study on the effects of MDMA that adequately controlled for behavior variables. Proper use was implicit in my statement; if that wasn't clear, I apologize.
Edit: minor cleanups
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Originally posted by Threads: The polar opposite of that would be "most of the people that believe the statistics would probably do drugs". That just doesn't make sense.
Does it matter whether it makes sense or not? It's what the anecdotal evidence I have strongly suggests.
It matters because it doesn't make sense in general. Most of the people who believe the statistics would probably do drugs, while those who don't believe the statistics probably don't? If that's your conclusion then its probably safe to assume that you have an extremely skewed sample.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: CT, I have yet to see a study on the effects of MDMA that adequately controlled for behavior variables. Proper use was implicit in my statement; if that wasn't clear, I apologize.
I have no idea what this means.
However, this is clearly false:
quote:Actually, ecstacy (assuming you're talking about actual MDMA) is one drug that has been demonstrated to be non-lethal, even in excess, even the first time.
And the qualifications on this statement make it false:
quote:There are also potentially serious complications if you're taking MDMA with SSRIs, MAOIs, Ritonavir, Viagra and/or other stimulants, among other things, but this relates to using MDMA in combination with other drugs.
--
Edited to add: amphetamines in sufficient quantities put the autonomic system in overdrive, and this can be disasterous from a cardiovascular standpoint. Straight MDMA has caused cardiovascular deaths at first time use.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
If the Rabbit's stats are correct and 69% have done illegal drugs, then both categories (those who believe "drug myths" and those who don't) more than likely have tried drugs. If the 90% for males is true, it's definitely true for them that large fractions of both categories have tried drugs. The categories are next to useless as determinants of behavior.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
CT: This was assumed, given how much emphasis I've put on it elsewhere in this thread, but insert "alone" after ecstacy.
quote:Straight MDMA has caused cardiovascular deaths at first time use.
I have never seen a documented case where other variables--e.g. physical activity--were accounted for.
Posted by 777 (Member # 9506) on :
That was slightly disturbing--for a short while, I was reading it as Osama on drugs.
Talking to high school kids.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: CT: This was assumed, given how much emphasis I've put on it elsewhere in this thread, but insert "alone" after ecstacy.
I still do not know what you are talking about. In my second quotation of your words, it was the implication of "alone" that I was pointing to. You said it has not happened with MDMA alone, but it has.
quote:
quote:Straight MDMA has caused cardiovascular deaths at first time use.
I have never seen a documented case where other variables--e.g. physical activity--were accounted for.
I am under the impression that any of the case studies I might post would be responded to you as having variables "not sufficiently accounted for," regardless of how rigorous such studies may be. This seems to me to be a matter more of belief than knowledge.
No matter. We do not need to agree on this. I am satisfied with just making the disagreement explicit, and should it make a difference to anyone's opinion, I offer to go dig things up.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: CT: This was assumed, given how much emphasis I've put on it elsewhere in this thread, but insert "alone" after ecstacy.
quote:Straight MDMA has caused cardiovascular deaths at first time use.
I have never seen a documented case where other variables--e.g. physical activity--were accounted for.
Erso, even if we grant your premises and conclusions, so what? Outside of clinical trials, the millions of doses of MDMA consumed regularly are not pure, are often contaminated with a variety of other drugs and chemicals, and are often accompanied with hours of vigorous dancing. Testing doesn't address this, for the small percentage of users that bother.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
What Morbo just said too, of course, and it's important.
My point is that MDMA synthesized under controlled circumstances (say, some college lab student Hatracker with his chemical engineering buddy) is not a guaranteed safe high. Amphetamines work on the autonomic system, and they drive up heart rate and blood pressure in sufficient doses. They also can cause fatal arrythmias. None of this is new, and frankly, none of it is specific to MDMA out of the whole amphetamine class.
---
Edited to add: such cardiovascular complications are rare. They are not frequent, but they do exist, and that is worth knowing.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Erso, even if we grant your premises and conclusions, so what? Outside of clinical trials, the millions of doses of MDMA consumed regularly are not pure, are often contaminated with a variety of other drugs and chemicals, and are often accompanied with hours of vigorous dancing. Testing doesn't address this, for the small percentage of users that bother.
The whole reason I got into this tired debate is to demonstrate that lies can be useful tools in drug education. If you grant my premise and conclusions--that MDMA, in and of itself, is a non-lethal substance--you're basically agreeing that "ecstacy can kill you" is a useful lie in drug education, because, as I pointed out in one of my first posts in this thread on the subject, there are so many variables to account for that telling the truth about ecstacy is an exercise in futility. To give you a more concise example: blaming ecstacy as the cause of death when someone takes a pill that contains MDA, DXM and speed, then dances for three hours, is a useful lie, as it warns people away from taking random pills and, because this is how the vast majority of people will be exposed to ecstacy, helps keep people from using the drug at all.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
In realistic terms, ecstasy = random pills, so the distinction is academic. It's not a lie, it's shorthand. If someone's intent was to get high on ecstasy (which I have, a Long Time Ago) but they get something entirely different, ecstasy + X, then are dead as a result, then taking street ecstasy killed them.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: In realistic terms, ecstasy = random pills, so the distinction is academic. It's not a lie, it's shorthand.
See, this is a legitimate quibble. I disagree, but working from your premise, your conclusion makes sense, and I'd agree.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
OK, erso.
My brother is going through the open adoption process, and he recently told me that heroin taken by expecting mothers is not catastrophic for fetal development, and that alcohol is far worse. I find that shocking.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I am satisfied with just making the disagreement explicit, and should it make a difference to anyone's opinion, I offer to go dig things up.
For example, this case series covered fatalities in some young MDMA-users who were not dancing, doing other strenous exercise, or dehydrated:
quote:These cases illustrate that hyperthermia associated with MDMA use cannot be solely attributed to rave parties (high ambient temperatures, excessive dancing, dehydration, and overcrowded conditions), drug contaminants, or co-ingestants.
This person was using with a friend alone in an apartment (usually it is renal failure secondary to dehydration that causes hyperkalemia, or high potassium levels, but that was ruled out in this case):
quote: Acute and severe toxic effects following MDMA ingestion include hyperthermia, arrhythmias, rhabdomyolisis, disseminated intravascular coagulation, hepatotoxicity and even death. Recently, we treated a patient in whom hyperkalemia, in the absence of renal failure, aggravated the expected toxic complications of MDMA, becoming the immediate cause of his death.
In this case, there was a single dose of MDMA, there were no other drugs on the toxicology screen or history, and her blood and urine showed her not to be dehydrated:
quote:There are an increasing number of reports of MDMA-induced toxicity that exhibit features of the serotonin syndrome. We report a case of severe hyperthermia, altered mental status, and autonomic dysfunction after a single recreational ingestion of MDMA.
This man had a fatal overdose on the MDEA form of ecstasy alone before he had a chance to enter a rave party:
quote:A 19-year-old man died after the intake of ten tablets of Ecstasy containing 3,4-methyl-enedioxy-N-ethylamphetamine (MDEA) as the main active ingredient. According to an eyewitness the symptoms of intoxication were strong sweating, sudden aggressiveness followed by hallucinations, subsequent failure of motoric coordination, severe spasms of arms and back, complete depression of the respiratory system, unconsciousness, and collapse. Resuscitation by an emergency doctor failed. Major autopsy findings were severe vascular congestion of all internal organs, liquid post-mortem blood, numerous subpleural and subepicardial petechial haemorrhages. By GC/MS analysis, MDEA was found in large amounts in serum (12 mg/l in femoral vein, 22 mg/l in heart blood serum), urine (201 mg/l), brain (18 to 28 mg/l) and in other tissue samples. Scalp-hair was highly positive for MDEA (17 ng/mg). Besides MDEA and its metabolites only trace amounts of MDMA could be found in urine and blood; no other drugs were detected. It can be concluded that the cause of death was a monointoxication by overdosage of MDEA.
---
Edited to add: I did not go back through the cardiology literature, but as I recall there is a case series of fatal arrythmias and intracranial bleeds out of Austria.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Yay for CT!
Boo for lying. Lying is a terrible way to interact with your kids. They will know, then they will quite rightly quit trusting you. Lying destroys relationships.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(Tatiana, I have found the message, and I'll get back to you in the morning. )
---
Edited to add: as to the topic, I care about this point in particular because I suspect we have at least a few Hatrackers with the knowledge and facilities to make Ecstasy on their own. I don't want that to be thought of as a recreational event without any dangers. Admittedly, cases like these are rare compared to the typical user's experience, but you can't guarantee you won't have serious complications just by thinking you can take it safely, that you are smart enough to use it in ways that have no associated risks. It doesn't work that way.
[ November 21, 2007, 11:39 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Posted by eros: You had a very different sex ed program than the one I had. The sex education I got from my parents, community members, elementary school, middle school and high school had absolutely NO focus on "we don't want them doing it." Sex was not discouraged, at all. If it was in your programs, you grew up in a much more rigid environment than I did.
Where the hell did you grow up? I didn't grow up at a monastary, but I also wasn't told that sex was a smart idea as a teenager. Are you seriously of the opinion that parents generally DON'T tell their kids that sex isn't a good idea at their age and that they aren't discouraging it? I think you have an extremely skewed vision of what the average American parent wants for their child when it comes to sex.
Parents might not just be stopping at "just say no" when it comes to sex, but come on, look at the debate that's happening right now over sex ed, and look even at the discussions we've had on this board about teen sex. Among the young crowd it's generally accepted, but it's NOT something parents want to happen. The debate is over the best way to prevent teen sex, not over whether or not it should be going on.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Is Mitt Romney's comment that Obama's coming out was inappropriate a Mormon thing?
I think that any Mormon who finds Obama's confession inappropriate lacks an clear understanding of the Mormon doctrines regarding repentence and the virtue of honesty. I would like to hear how Romney justifies his views within the context of Mormon doctrine. He may have some reasonable explanation but I fail to see how his comment is consistent with the 13th article of faith which begins, "We believe in being honest, true . . .", and D&C 58:43 "By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them."
I've been away all day, but I wanted to respond to this (as a Mormon).
Confession, for the purpose of repentence as discussed in that scripture, is not about public confession. While public confession can be appropriate (but I don't believe it often is), we as Mormons are encouraged, particularly when placed in positions as exemplars (i.e. missionaries, Priesthood leadership positions, etc.) not to discuss past sins, for the exact reasons mentioned previously in the thread.
While I would be bothered with anyone lying about their past when confronted with a question, I think there are more appropriate ways and forums for discussing Obama's history of drug use than during an informal discussion in a middle school. The more I think about it, the more I feel his comments were inappropriate.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm glad I live in a culture which does not forbid the frank public discussion of past mistakes for fear of making those mistakes sound too appealing.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Seconded.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:While public confession can be appropriate (but I don't believe it often is), we as Mormons are encouraged, particularly when placed in positions as exemplars (i.e. missionaries, Priesthood leadership positions, etc.) not to discuss past sins, for the exact reasons mentioned previously in the thread.
That's a not a definition of exemplars I share. For me, I'd be more likely to point to someone who has made and learned from mistakes than someone who pretends or conceals that they ever made them.
If someone makes mistakes, but realizes they were mistakes and overcomes them, I think that them frankly discussing those mistakes is going to be hard to take as endorsing those mistakes for others. Likewise, being able to address the situations and temptations that people are going through from the perspective of "This is what that is a bad idea" or understanding what they are going through and maybe knowing what would have helped you seems to be a better position then pretending you don't know what it's like or not addressing it because you'd have to admit your own faults.
edit: I'm also wary of any organization that holds up its leaders as better than human.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
To clarify, perhaps. The intent is not to imply perfection in leaders. An understanding that all people are working toward perfection, but none (other than Christ) have or will achieve it in mortality is a core element of LDS doctrine.
Leaders are instructed not to discuss, in detail, past sins. The rationale for this is not to pretend to perfection, and a (public) recognition of our imperfections and weaknesses is also part of a leader's or examplar's role. Rather, the intent is to prevent impressionable audiences, particularly youth, from taking away (rationally or not) the idea that since this person they admire did this thing, it is alright on some level for them to do so, too.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)