Is it right, if I am a parent, to offer my child one joint and only one joint of marijuana so they can experiment in a controlled environment?
This is somewhat inspired by last night's House; the parents gave their kid a joint in the past (not a factor in the show or diagnosis) and my parents, when I was in high school (1998-99ish), said they were OK with me smoking weed at home or with friends, just so long as I got home safe and nobody did really bad drugs like cocaine, heroin, etc.
I am a total victim of DARE. I won't touch the stuff myself for fear of health concerns, but I disagree with the War on Drugs as it pertains to casual use of marijuana. There's worse things out there and we could use the boost in tax revenue. I want my kids to understand that as far as I'm concerned, when they're teenagers, they're basically young adults, and if they want to make the choice to break the law, they should know both sides, good and bad. They need to realize that if they risk their future, they should have a safe shot at it from me, their father, and not from some stranger or dealer with ill will in mind.
Opinions? This is just a thought that popped into my brain. (I don't have kids, don't worry)
>>19
Nice statistics out of your ass.
And even if someone does get addicted, so what? That doesn't hurt anyone else.
For the most part, people use drugs multiple times because it’s enjoyable. They are just as addictive than mittens or bacon cheeseburgers. Only a few drugs are physically addictive (like tobacco or heroin.)
I used drugs, and I didn't get addicted. Neither did any of my friends. I can therefore extrapolate that nobody ever gets addicted to drugs!
My statistics are better than >>19's, because mine are based on actual observations!
>>19
"between 1 percent and 20 percent of people in the general population experience a period of addiction to some substance, depending primarily on characteristics such as age, stress, family history of addiction, and mental illnesses."
That is a really wide margin. It makes me wonder what definitions the author was using: http://november.org/stayinfo/breaking2/Accidental.html
I find this classic:
That is to say, only between 1 percent and 20 percent of people in the general population experience a period of addiction to some substance... If you rule out prior abusers, the rate settles at the low end, in single digits.
Non sequitur. Experiencing a period of addiction during a lifetime has nothing to do with repeated abuse. You either had a period of addiction, or you didn't.
"I hate it when people say doing drugs is a "victimless crime." Maybe if they just lived in isolation in a little glass box it would be. But other folks have to deal with people who are drunk and high, and often drug users will commit crimes when high and not thinking straight, and if not that, they'll get addicted and lose their jobs and become a drain on the community. All of society is a victim in these cases. So I'll take none of that "victimless crime" nonsense." - some bozo.
Doing drugs is a victimless crime becasue there is NO VICTIM. If i smoke a fatty or shoot scag then I am at risk, and I alone. If I need health care then thats my buisness - if drugs were taxed then It could be payed for. Why cant I chill out with a joint or feel the love on Es and yet I can get wasted and beat up my girlfriend evry night? If you can justify making drugs illigal than you can justify making alcohol and tobbaco illigal. I blame all the problems associated with drugs on the prohabition of drugs, the lack of a constant affordable supply of drugs, and the stigma attached to drug users. Only actions resulting in the direct harm or reduction in safety of another being should be considered illigal.
By any reason,People should not do drugs.
>>27
Thank you for the excellent reasoning you provided for your statement of opinion. Oh wait.
Let the stupid be stupid, but don't let it affect children because even the most intelligent person was stupid an naive when they were a child.
Drugs cause brain damage, and that is reason enough not to use them. After using a drug you are worse off than you would have been if you had not used a drug.
Drugs are not a temporary fix; they are a temporary distraction. Your problem will still be there after you come off your drug trip. You will just be in worse physical and mental shape to deal with your problem. Offering your child drugs is a very bad thing to do. Will drug use make your child successful? No. Will drug use make your child more mature? No. Are you teaching your child an important life lesson by getting them high? No.
Any drug that can be burned, and is thus AIRBORN, can be inhaled in "second hand" form by an involuntary party. This is why these drugs are not legal.
Even if you are "not hurting anyone but yourself" - a society is only as strong as its people. You are pulling down society and the advancement of the human race by using these harmful substances.
>>1, Tell your children not to do drugs, and tell them why. Drugs will potentially fuck up your life. If drugs dont fuck up your life, they will put you in a worse physical/mental position than you were in before the drug use.
Do you want your child to be successful? Then dont encourage him to do stupid things by "giving him the choice". Children/Teenagers have brains that are not fully developed; the frontal lobe in particular, which controls most of the descision making process.
>>1,
Be a fucking parent and look out for the well-being of your child.
Why do you want your child to breathe in smoke?
Wow, you sure like swallowing your propaganda whole, don't you?
>>32 more like untainted observation. I dont have an agenda, unlike current "users"
I understand that they are unhealthy for your brain... yet a lot of very intelligent people are drug users, and seem no worse for wear, even possibly have benefited intelectually from their experiences. Maybe drugs just twist the fixed, and fix the twisted. This is something i think about a lot, being a frequent cannabis user; now i understand that there are serious health risks... but lets face it, being alive is a health risk. Anyway, as to the original question... i think it makes sense to allow your children to experience Weed in a controlled enviroment, i personally would much rather my children (as yet unborn) to smoke the occasional doobie that to be either hooked on cigarettes, or to drink regularly.... or god forbid to become hooked on seriously addictive narcotics such as crack. I think the key here is education, but i really would only take issue with the law on the point of cannabis, as i feel this is not in the same class as other substances with which it is lumped. It is only psychologically addictive, and with proper education and enough other wholesome activities to stop you getting bored it can be a pleasure and a great way to chill out.
You are incredibly tainted by anti-drug propaganda. You can't say things like "Drugs cause brain damage" and except it be taken seriously. Which drugs? What dosages? Under what circumstances? Are you including tobacco, alcohol and caffeine? Why, or why not?
I think drugs are stupid. But I also don't think stupid things should be illegal. You wanna ride a motorcycle on one wheel in the snow without a helmet, fine. Just don't come crying to me when your brain is splattered on the concrete.
Now being that I class drugs in the "really really stupid" department, I wouldn't do things that would give my kids the message that I approve. And I'd probably be mad as hell if someone passed a joint around to my kids without my permission.
Now what you do in your free time is your business. Unless you're going to be doing surgery, or maybe opperating heavy machinery, it just doesn't concern me in the least. And the only reason I'd be concerned about the sergeon or the machinery opperator is because there are certain jobs that can't be done safely by an impaired person. In short, it's only the business of the public when it presents an actual danger to the public, not when the public decides that your activity is "immoral".
Would you be mad as hell if somebody passed your kids a beer without your permission?
Answer this questio nor you lose the debate.
Why do you want your child to breathe in smoke?
That has nothing to do with this debate. That's a question for a debate about banning smoking of any kind in public. It applies far more to tobacco than to illegal drugs, and doesn't apply to smoking in private.
A beers isnt really harmful. And if its no big deal for your kids to drink one, I.E. you dont actively prevent them trying it, well then they wont be tempted to test the rules by accepting one of a stranger. If you teach them rather that its not too good an idea to take anything off someone they dont know, but that if they really want a beer all that badly they are welcome to it then they hopefully will grow up with a mature attitude towards the stuff. As for smoking... i dont think anyone wants their children to breathe smoke, but its something a lot of people enjoy, maybe because it is a little bit dangerous and so if they do it its really their decision. Our society makes it quite clear what the dangers of smoking are, obviously parents usually do a lot to support this and so i feel the individual should be allowed to decide for themselves. If you demonise, drugs or alchohol it will only make kids want to do it more just as a way to rebel, if you let them make their own choices and their own mistakes, with the help of your advice hopefully they can choose well. But ultimately its their life. Also, if your going to come into contact with these things i think its better to do it comfortably at home.
I fail to see the distinction between "hard" and "soft" drugs. Some drugs are more addictive for certain personality types then others are.
You might be surprised to find that alot of "hard" drugs are actually not neurotoxic (cocaine, heroin) check pubmed.com if you are looking for references. What it really comes down to is self-control and taking responsibility, there are those who hate to do that and just blame the drug and the everyone just eats it up.
It seems to me that alot of people are misinformed regarding drugs because of propoganda or real-life experiences that have shaped their views on them.
>>37
Explain the relevance. Nobody here is saying ANYTHING about children.
>>38
Get the fuck out of my thread. "Answer this questio nor you lose the debate."? No.
As for your question: nice bait-and switch. Nobody wants their children to breathe in smoke, and nobody says they should have to. This argument has nothing about second-hand smoke, it's about whether or not people should be able to use drugs in the privacy of their own homes.
Several posts including >>1 have mentioned (somewhat hypothetical) children.
My two cents: The point of offering a single cigarette or joint is so they can learn early on that there's nothing mysterious about them, and that they generally taste like shit. Perhaps then the peer pressure won't hit so hard later on.
>>40
Beer is harmful. Compare the CATscan of a casual drinker with that of a non-drinker. Several key areas such as the cerebellum and frontal cortex show damage, yes, even in the "responsible, casual, social drinker" - (I'll post sauce for this)
In almost all cases, you are better off (ex; healthier, sharper, more alert, smarter) before drug use than after drug use. When I say drugs, I mean Illegal substances; meth, marijuana, cocaine, crack, acid, LSD, heroine, extasy, etc. When I say "drugs" I also mean LEGAL substances like beer and painkillers.
Societal Heath > Personal Freedom
Needs of many > Wants of few
You get points for being consistent, but I am not sure if you are the person who made any of the claims earlier in the thread.
How do you feel about caffeine?
I can't read this entire thread (tl;dr) but I've picked up on enough and I'd like to share my angle.
Should drugs be legal? Yes.
Is it moral to use most of them? Yes, but in appropriate doses.
People have a right to choose their own path in life. If that person wants to use drugs like pot or ecstasy or whatever, then that's his prerogative.
There isn't a direct connection of cause and effect between drug use and harm to others. Therefore, illegalization is a "social cure," an indirect solution to an undefined or nonexistent problem. For example, we say that illegalization is important because it stops crime; however, if drugs were openly regulated, then the criminal cartels would cease to exist and users could toke or shoot up in a controlled atmosphere such as a bar. Another example, we say that illegalization curbs harmful addiction. Addiction is often caused by high doses of drugs, sold by a dealer intent on getting a new customer. If we could regulate the dosage just like the FDA regulates medicine, that facet of the problem could be solved.
My point is, in essence, "one problem, one solution." Blanket solutions are nonexistent in real life.
Should Drugs be Legal? No.
Should everyone who does drugs be castrated? Yes.
Should Law Enforcement be able to shoot drug dealers and traffickers on sight and forego their 4th amendment and 6th amendment rights? Yes.
Trollings? No.
I'm sorry but not everyone believes in legalized drug use and state funded hippies.
How about we leave the political discussions to mature and sane human beings who have something actually worthwhile to say, and you just go back to whereever? I tire of you.
So a mature and sane human being wants to get fucked up and high?
A mature and sane human being presents a rational basis for his opinion instead of declaring "kill all druggies/criminals/politicians/jews/palestinians/niggers/yuppies/humans" and expecting everyone to agree.
You want a rational basis? Fine.
Your brain was designed to certain specifications by the manufacturer. There are certain chemicals that can adversely affect the brain and, by a side effect of their use, produce an euphoric sensation.
Naturally this feels pleasurably, however it does alter the brains natural function and eventually, addiction sets in.
You no longer have the same brain chemistry, you lose memory, you lose higher thought process. You become a danger to others.
You become a danger to others because of your chemical dependence.
Let's be realistic, even if drugs were legal, they would not be free. More people would be open to using them, nothing productive would get done, crime would increase in order to pay for the legal "fix". Through illegalization, mainstream drug use is highly marginalized. It exists among all levels of society, but is kept in the minority. Most people value their freedom, lives, and property more than they value getting high. Those that don't are caught and prosecuted. This marginalization keeps the standards high. I would not suspect that most people want surgeons, air traffic controllers, pilots, or other such people who enjoy recreational drug use that does affect motor function, cognitive thought, and rational behavior.
This includes anything psychotropic, including that "harmless" drug marijuana. The effects of marijuana last for 90 days after initial use. This is compounded by regular use. This causes a loss of short term memory, a highly important brain function. It also causes some spatial disorientation and slowed reaction.
Would you want an airline pilot with slowed reaction? The fact is, most humans can react only so fast to begin with, and there are still plane crashes. With even slower reaction than normal that increases the risk.
Most of society, which I normally show disdain for, has agreed that drugs are a scourge and should be highly discouraged and illegalized. I agree with this. I would go a step further and say that once you alter your brain in such a fashion, you are no longer good to anyone. You cannot be trusted. You have displayed weakness in the name of recreation.
By killing all of the drug traffickers and users, we send a message. It will not be tolerated.
> There are certain chemicals that can adversely affect the brain and, by a side effect of their use, produce an euphoric sensation.
Truth!
I have discovered that the agricultural and pharmaceutical industries have been covertly cooperating to introduce several highly psychoactive substances into the most basic of foods that sustain us and our children. It is fact that many of these substances are terminally addictive and, when removed from the diet of a known druggie, cause them to waste away inexorably- sometimes fatally- until consumption of the drugs is resumed.
I cannot disclose the full list of substances at this time, but two of the most common are known in the scientific literature as "glucose" and "fructose."
Please join me in my crusade to ban these dangerous drugs from our food immediately.
Don't be stupid.
Have you ever heard of "choking highs"?
It's where people who cannot afford drugs, but are hopelessly addicted nontheless, choke each other almost to the point of unconsciousness in order to get that same "high".
Oxygen deprivation to the brain causes it to release painkilling chemicals.
Doesn't mean it's good for you. Sugar and candy are hardly in the same category as pot and heroin.
>>58
Plenty of people who aren't addicted do that trick, too. In fact, it's most notorious as a schoolyard phenomenon among boys (8th grade and younger) who I doubt are a majority, or even a statistically significant portion, of junkies.
I also have a lengthy response to your earlier suggestions which the spam filter does not care for. Please read it at http://4-ch.net/wiki/59-sans_drug_rant
Do you want to kill all people who drink beer, too? Most of the dangers you point out apply as well, or even better, to them.
>if drugs were legal, they would not be free. More people would be open to using them, nothing productive would get done, crime would increase in order to pay for the legal "fix".
But there are countries where drugs are legal, such as the Netherlands, and none of this has occurred.
But nothing productive happens in the Netherlands, disease is still rampant.
Plus there aren't quite as many black people there.
Besides, if you really want to be high all the time then you must wish to escape reality.
Spoiler: Alcohol only has addictive properties if you drink 10 times more than average.
The amount of alcohol needed to get an alcohol high doesn't get you addicted, conversely the amount of marijuana needed to get you addicted doesn't give you a high. So you can drink alcohol and get a temporary high with no side affects that last more than a night of sleep, but this is impossible with marijuana.
Complete nonsense. If you want to stand by those claims, cite sources.
There is no magic one-time use limit that gets you addicted to a substance, that's pure fantasy. It is furthermore likely that cannabis is significantly less addictive than alcohol. Furthermore, cannabis addiction is far less dangerous than alcohol addiction. All of what you said sounds like the usual completely made-up claims that pass for "facts" in anti-drug propaganda.
Here's a fairly unbiased report by the WHO on the comparative dangers of cannabis and other common drugs: http://www.sky.org/data/who/library/study/
Fun fact: alcohol and barbiturates can have lethal withdrawals.
Alcohol keeps good company.
>>67
Even funnier fact: alcohol and barbiturates can cause disinhibition to the point where you assault people out of an impulse you cannot or do not wish to control and don't remember anything afterward.
It's the perfect combination for people who drink so that they've got an excuse to make total and complete asses of themselves. ("Asses" may be a bit weak expression here, but my limited english cannot adequately express the true degree of my contempt towards that sort of a person.)
Interned at Kass, Shuler Law Firm for a year. Direct experience with scheduling litigations/court dates, file work (on and off the computer), and assitant work.
Specialties
Typing, blogging; Facebook, Twitter, Blogger, Word, Excel, Powerpoint.