posted
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?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
"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."
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
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.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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 Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3936 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
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."
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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
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."
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.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
