Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    There is a lot of literature availbe in bookstores on the issues
    you need to address.  One that I found helpful was book called 
    "Your Child and Drug Abuse"  I don't recall the author right now
    but it dealt with the problems of making a child aware of drugs
    and what they can do in terminology that they can understand.
    
    I've been using it with my 5 year old and for what it's worth I
    feel comfortable with the approach the book uses and recommends.
    
    And I am against telling my son that the reason he shouldn't do
    something is because I said so.  I grew up with that attitude and
    when I'd gotten old enough to question it, it caused a lot of arguments
    between my parents and myself.  Remember the biggest question a
    kid will ask is "Why?" and it works better to give a straight answer
    then to say "Because I said so."
    
    SKip

       	Of course one of the better ways to teach children is by the
    power of example - your example. The so called "walk your talk"
    idea. I think children are far more perceptive than we give them
    credit for, and they can tell when you're being sincere about something
    you ask such as "please dont get involved with it". They can also
    tell the discrepancy when a parent says "it's a drug - it's bad
    for you" while exhaling their last drag off a Newport Light or having 
    *their* after dinner drink.
    
    	When I was a child, I can clearly recall asking my parents why they 
    smoked cigarettes and the answer was "because I like the taste". Somehow, 
    I *knew* that was a crock! Regarding my first taste of beer, I remember 
    exclaiming to my Dad "How can anyone think that tastes good? - yecch!" to 
    which his answer was "Son, your tastes change when you get older". Uh-huh.
    
    	In this context, any "DON'T DO THAT - IT'S BAD FOR YOU!" message
    goes in one ear and right out the other...
    
    	Joe Jasniewski

    Tell 'em to just say No.
    
    Eugene

    Yes, there is much literature giving the physiological and
    psychological effects of most drugs. The Physicians Desk Reference
    refers to these negative or side effects as "contraindicative" signs.
    This reference mainly pertains to legal and previously legal drugs.  It
    gives the indicated (medical) use of each drug.  There are reference
    texts that describe, in a straight forward manner, the effects of
    illegal drugs.  These are meant primarily for counselors and therapists
    to help determine the signs of drug "intoxication" and  possible first
    aid for overdose. Right now, I can't think of a title.
    
    	As for social reasons of substance use,the reasons are complex.
    Probably, the primary one is the excuse of experimentation. Peer
    pressure (acceptance) plays a large part in a young person's
    motivations.  Experimentation in and of itself does not lead to abuse
    or addiction.  It seems that you are on the right track: Being open and 
    accepting is primary in that it allows the young person to trust and
    have a safe place to return to.  If you are open from the start, they
    won't need to wander far away and reach the point of "no return" with
    their use of drugs.  It is the nature of older kids and early teenagers
    to start searching for their own identities and it is a natural
    proclivity of the young person to assume roles almost diametrically
    opposed to any stance we adults might take.  Again, Being open and
    acepting of your youngster(s) is the primary key.  At the same time,
    help them understand that continued use of drugs is a very poor way of
    going about feeling good towards ourselves.  Help them develop a
    variety of interests, take an active part in their own interests and
    lives.  As they reach teenhood, This extra work on your part will
    likely pay off, because you will be enlarging their range of
    experiences in which they will feel good about doing.  If their range
    of experience is wide, then they likely will have less tendency of
    depending on drugs to fill in for their lack of identity.  this may not
    be a hard fact, but from what I've noticed, those who depend on drugs
    for personal "fullfillment" have a very limited range of interests,
    hobbies, etc.
    	What I'm talking about is active parenting.  what I'm talking about
    is a lot of work, a lot of psychic energy but it will likely pay off
     in the long run.   Because of the youngster's need of his or her own
    identity, and because of peer pressure, Education is not sufficient. 
    Even though it may help you understand the process that is going on 
    between you as the parent and your children, Education is probably the
    least effective method of changing someone's behavior, especially in
    the long run and especialy with young adults who are going through
    biological and emotional changes.
    
    I think you are on the right track by wanting to be open and accepting
    of your children continue to do so and also try to become more actively
    involved in their lives; not to control, but to enjoy.
    
    
    Ernie,
     

    I have taught my children to "Just say no". I have also taught by
    example. I have admitted to my children that I did try pot during my
    college days. I told them what it did to me. Not much. Just fell asleep
    and woke up devastatingly hungry. I also let them point out to them,
    when we're watching TV together, the antidrug commercials and what
    they're really saying. The fried egg as brains comes to mind. I like
    that one. Those who have died are, sorry to say, prime examples of what
    can happen to someone on drugs. They never see me drink beyond one or
    two beers or a glass or two of wine at holidays or one highball in a
    restaurant. I watch a John Belushi movie with them and afterwards while
    they are laughing at some of his jokes and antics, I remind them that
    he died from drugs. If the excuse is that he was fed them by someone or
    did to much at once. I say that he could have refused or never started
    or that no tied him up and injected them into his system and just how
    much is to much, anyway. Do you know? Amy, Kevin? I sure don't. Or else
    the old adage: One joint or drink is to musch and one hundred is not
    enough. The false highs, the severe crashes and depressions afterwards.
    What some are willing to go through to get more. Murder, theivery,
    vandalism, muggings, prostitution, these are all done in the name of
    the next high. Lay it on the line to them. If they are not old enough
    to understand all this, then start slow. Teach them how wrong it is
    what it can do to your system and what you can become. If they are over
    10 years old, then be tough lay it out like I did, watch the news,
    especially local and national news. Show them what it has done to the
    country and your own town or neighborhood. Just tell them. 
    
    I'm sorry to rant on like this, but I have this thing about children
    and you seem to want to do right by them. Sometimes scaring them is the
    best way. Just remember that afterwards you have to let them know that
    you're there for them and they can always come to you for help and
    advice and never have to be scared to talk to you or be afraid of your
    response. That is the biggest point of all. Love for them and wanting
    to see them succeed for their sake and happiness in life is most
    important to you. 
    
    Let them know that people out there who don't even know who they are
    love them also. I certainly do and will remember them in my prayers
    like I do for all children in the world.
    
    Thanks for letting me spout off like this.
    
    Phil

Re:       <<< Note 1065.6 by SCARGO::CONNELL "Amateur Engineering" >>>

>    Those who have died are, sorry to say, prime examples of what
>    can happen to someone on drugs. 

Let me turn this around a bit:  "Those who have died are, sorry to say, 
prime examples of what can happen to someone who drives.

>    They never see me drink beyond one or
>    two beers or a glass or two of wine at holidays or one highball in a
>    restaurant. 

So when you teach your children about drugs, you try scare the bejeepers 
out of them over cocaine, heroin, speed, etc. - drugs that cause about 
100 deaths a week in the U.S.  And there have been no reports of death 
caused by marijuana overdose...

But yet your children see you use a drug that causes *1000 deaths a 
week* in the US and severely affects 1 in 7 in the U.S.  A drugs that 
emotionally cripples both the abuser and the folks around them.  What do 
you tell them about alcohol?

And what do you say about a drug that is more addictive than cocaine or 
heroin or alcohol (90% addiction rate versus 10%) and kills *1000 people 
a *day!** in the U.S.?  What say ye to tobacco?

And what do you say about a drug - a central nervous system stimulant, a 
"speed" if you will - that is widely used on a daily basis all over the 
country.  I bet you wouldn't have to walk far from your office to find 
offically sanctioned drug dispensers?  What say ye to caffeine?

>    One joint or drink is to musch and one hundred is not enough. 

So why do you condone the use of alcohol and not marijuana?

But really, this quote only applies to those who for whatever reason, 
have drifted in to an habituation or addiction.  There are many folks 
who have the occassional drink - and there are many folks who smoke the 
occassional joint.  No big deal either way.

>   Show them what it has done to the
>    country and your own town or neighborhood. Just tell them. 

Yep.  Tell them that foolish prohibition laws on alcohol fueled violence 
and the explosive growth of organized crime.  Tell that a foolish 
prohibition on other intoxicants is pouring huge sums of money into 
organized crime, fueling greed, distorting the economy, and causing gang 
violence as people fight over the dealing rights on a particular piece 
of turf.

But don't tell them that crack and heroin are "ruining this country" 
because that's a crock.  

>    I'm sorry to rant on like this, but I have this thing about children
>    and you seem to want to do right by them. Sometimes scaring them is the
>    best way. Just remember that afterwards you have to let them know that
>    you're there for them and they can always come to you for help and
>    advice and never have to be scared to talk to you or be afraid of your
>    response. 

Scaring them is *never* the right thing to do.  Jeepers, didn't we learn 
anything with "Reefer Madness"?  Giving kids (of any age) horror stories 
of about drugs is just lying to them.  Give them the old "Reefer 
Madness" routine and soon enough they will find out it isn't like that.  
Then they deduce that either you're too stupid to know the truth or that 
you lied to them - in either case you've lost their trust and 
confidence.

Give kids the *truth*.  Drugs - be it alcohol, cocaine, tobacco, 
marijuana, caffeine, methamphetamine, heroin, valium - are a mixed bag. 
Sure some of them can induce good feelings and can be fun - but they
each have their price - a price paid with the mind and body.  And they
all have the potential for abuse.  None offer long term happiness.  That 
must be found within...

Bob

    Basenoter:
    
    There is a wonderful video - probably at all video stores called
    All-Stars Against Drugs (I think that's the name).  Anyway, the idea
    behind it is that all the cartoon characters...Pooh, Bugs, Daffy, Alf,
    Slimer, the Mutant Turtles,  etc all get together and help this kid get
    through that "tough peer-pressure" time...it's spectacular.  I showed
    it to my 6 year old nephew, and later thant day, he came up to me and
    said "Gee, Aunt Jill, aren't those things you're smoking drugs?"  Of
    course, I was smoking a cigarette. but boy....did it get me thinking.
    
    My video store rents the video for nothing....just prove you have kids
    to show it to.
    
    Good luck whatever you decide!
    
    Jill
    

Re .7

	You're ignoring one simple fact.  Alcohol, tobacco & certainly
caffeine are legal, pot is not.  You won't get arrested for merely
possesing a cup of coffee... pot, on the other hand...

re: .0

	Teach your kids that peer pressure is no reason to do anything.
Teach you kids to be responsible for their own actions. Teach your kids 
that everybody makes mistakes, and that you will back them when they do,
so long as they uphold their side of the responsibility.  Teach your kids
that they have to make their own decisions, and also live with the consequences
of those decisions.  Then teach them the facts about alcohol, tobacco and
drugs.

	There is no way to insure your children will turn out "perfect."
The best you can do is try, and give them the freedom to be their own
persons.

							--Doug

As a parent of a 6-year-old, I'll say that younger kids aren't very well
equipped to deal with rationalizations, and respond very well to simply
being told what to do or what not to do by their parents.  This doesn't work
so well with older kids.

My son has had various "Just say no" indoctrinations at school, with
reinforcement at home.  He accepts this, though is starting to ask related
questions, which I encourage.  I view this as similar to telling a child
not to cross the street without holding my hand, etc.  Younger kids need
direction.

If you start early, and, as others have said, set a good example, you'll
have few problems later.

One other important thing is that the child should have a strong sense
of self.  Kids who believe in themselves and know they are loved are much
less likely to succumb to pressure to try things they shouldn't.

					Steve

    re .7, I agree with you that the occasional drink is not a problem.
    When my kids see me drink, they know that I have not had a drink for
    more then a month. That's about it for my alcohol consumption.
    Generally less. I am a reformed smoker. They have never tried it. I
    quit 5 years ago. Yes I explain about alcohol related deaths and
    smoking related diseases. I let them know what a strangle hold
    cigarettes had on me. They still do. I would love one right now and
    will never have one again. They see the struggle I go through when I'm
    around someone who smokes and can smell that tobacco burning. That ole
    demon nicotine will hold me til the day I die.
    
    The alcohol isn't much of a problem around me because I have never been
    a heavy drinker. I do admit to having tied one on now and then. Never
    since I've been a father. I do explain all that can happen under the
    influence, both to someone just having a few to many one night and the
    severe alcoholic. 
    
    Caffeine. I'm on decaf now. I let them know that to much of this is
    also bad for you. Moderation in all. I tell them the effects of all of
    the previous and the more "hardcore" drugs. If I'm not sure then we
    look it up or ask the doctor. As far driving under the influence, no
    problem with me there. I don't own a car and gave up my driver's
    license over 10 years ago. Yes it was voluntary on my part. I was in a
    situation where I needed the money more then the state.
    
    I do belive that "scare tactics" are necessary on the drug issue. It's
    a frightening situation. I do believe that drugs are ruining this
    country and making it a sad place to live at times. It's still the best
    place to live in the world though. That is not an argument I use. The
    scare part is what these things can do to you, physically, mentally,
    and emotionally. Horrible addiction, painful death, even death while
    blissfully unaware of what's happening is a horrendous thing to go
    through. I don't tell them to hate these people, although they should
    hate what is happening to them and what they are doing to debase
    themselves and harm others. I try to teach them love and caring and
    offering assisstance where they can is the way to go and I hope others
    do the same. "Reefer madness" is not something I talk about. No
    falsehoods the truth is scary enough. If I don't know the truth then we
    search it out together. I hope this will clarify a few things for you
    and please, let's not turn this into a rathole on the pros and cons of
    teaching methods on drug education. I felt I had to answer you and we
    can start another topic or take it to MAIL. I'm not angry with you.
    Just feel this belongs elsewhere. Thanks for caring enough to take
    issue with my reply. We can all learn. I know I need to learn a lot
    more about this problem.
    
    Phil

    
    	You may also want to see if there is a bookstore in your
    	area which specializes in literature concerning substance
    	abuse and addictive behaviors (e.g. The Sober Camel stores).
    	A store of this type will probably give you a greater
    	selection of material to draw on than you would find in a
    	regular bookstore.
    
    ralph

    Re: .13
    
    I think you're missing the point behind the "Just say NO" propaganda. 
    Just say NO means that you have a CHOICE.  As a young teenager, I
    didn't feel that I had a choice.  My parents did not educate me in any
    way concerning drugs other than that "they are BAD".  (BTW - my father
    smoked pot when I was a kid).  All of my friends were smoking pot at
    the time, and the peer pressure was enormous to try it.  I never
    realized that I had a choice not to join in.  If I had - my life would
    have been much different.  I give you kudos for wanting to educate your
    children on drugs.  One of the things that was hard for me to
    understand was why something that made you feel better and deal with
    life better could be BAD.  As a teenager, I assumed my parents were
    wrong.  A little education on the effects of drugs (both the initial
    ones AND what happens after frequent use), and enough education to know
    that I had a CHOICE!, could have saved me from a few years of h*ll. 
    Good luck in your search for education - try your local library - I did
    lots of research there when I needed the help.
    
    And Just say NO means you have a choice!!!
    
    Sue

    My mom worked long and hard to get even the SMALLEST amount of
    alcohol/drug education info into the town where I grew up.  But it was
    worth it!  It was mostly a flyer about how you shouldn't drink and
    drive, how parties should have a parent chaperoning, not scare tactics,
    just straight information and where to call for more.
    
    If you're ready for a minor town skirmish, maybe you feel it might be
    worthwhile to support something like this in your town.  I mean, in our
    town, we had lost several young teenagers to drinking/driving accidents
    in the previous few years - I don't know about your town, though....
    
    Oh, and they had different information for the various grade-groups in
    the school too - like an hourlong presentation or something.....there
    must be some schools in Boston who have had to handle this too - with
    information packets and everything.  Maybe that would be a good place
    to start?
    
    -Jody

    .11> and please, let's not turn this into a rathole on the pros and
    .11> cons of teaching methods on drug education.  ...we can start
    .11> another topic or take it to MAIL.....  Just feel this belongs
    .11> elsewhere.
    
    Gee, I was enjoying the lively debate, and I think this IS the topic
    for it.  "Educating Children about Drugs"--what do you expect, given
    this title?  Is it just to tally a yea or nay vote, or is it (assuming a
    "yea" vote!) for us to *discuss* our preferred methods (and yes,
    sometimes BYO soapbox, as long as you turn off your flame on your way
    out)?
    
    There may be a similar topic in PARENTING (V1 or 2 - I don't think the
    current V3 has one going now) but I vote to keep on keepin' on, here. 
    Mods?
    
    Leslie

    One tack that has been tried a couple of times in Holland is have an
    actual addict tell their story to a class of 10-12 year olds. The kids
    come up with all the sort of questions that you'd expect from children,
    and usually it turns out to be a *very* impressive session for both
    parties. From the reactions of the kids afterwards you could draw the
    conclusion that a  lot of the "attractive mystique" (for as far as it
    is there) has been shattered, and often it does encourage addicts to
    carry on with their drug free program. 
    
    Ad

    My daughter is 11.  I gladly welcomed the "Just say no" program and so
    did my daughter.  Not only because it teaches them to be strong and
    that they have a right to say no to pressure, but also because it
    opened a problem to society that was before NOT discussed.  Where did
    the kids of the 60's and 70's go?  To each other because there was
    no one of authority or real caring knowledge to go to.  Now they can. 
    And I thank Nancy Reagan for that.  I know that sounds funny but she
    headed it up nationally in public.
    
    To go a step further try and get your children's school to bring in the
    DARE program.  It is headed up by your local police department.  They
    work with the teachers.  How it works in my daughter's school is the
    officer comes to the classes as a regular part of their class time each
    week.  They learn about drugs, what they look like and what they do.  
    They get to know the officer as a "real" person and at the completion 
    they hold a graduation where they have skits to demonstrate different 
    tactics for saying no.  They get a diploma, parents attend and they
    have refreshments.  My daughter and the kids loved it!
    
    Also I talk to my daughter about drugs.  I tell her the realities of it
    how lot's of good people have died from them because they thought their
    lives were forever.  That she can talk to me about anything.  Her
    father died from drugs, and that's reality and that's what I tell her.
    She knows the pain, and what he lost.
    
    Talk to him.  But also listen, really listen to him.  Be realistic,
    don't tell him drug users are necessarily bad people.  And if you ever
    used drugs tell him and tell him why you don't anymore, why you were
    wrong, how maybe you felt cool, or whatever.  It will only make him
    respect you more and consider all aspects before he makes a choice. 
    And all we can do is cross our fingers after that and hope they use
    their best judgement.  And don't forget to check into DARE and get the
    school involved.  Be positive.
    

    One thing I forgot to mention that I think is important:
    
    Sometimes teens romanticize death.  The grief that will be shown to
    them, the love and caring.  But the reality is that it may happen at
    first, but then life goes on, this peron who died becomes a part of the
    past, forgotten in a sense because life goes on, people get on with
    their lives and achieve their goals while that person is left behind in
    the shadows.  Same as a drug addict that survives, eventually they are
    left behind and often die from their addiction or from something
    associated with it.  This is a good point to make.

    
    I would suggest you contact your local police department. They provide
    valuable programs to the community on drug education. Also contact
    the Girl Scouts and Boys Scouts about their programs. Make sure
    your local schools are doing something as part of their curriculum
    (there are state grants to school districts under the Governor's
    alliance on Drugs). In fact the GAD will come out and put on a program
    for the community.

    One resource not mentioned previously that would really be the place
    to start is the Parent Teacher Association at your child's school.
    I've gotten involved in several projects related to alcohol and
    drug abuse simply by bringing up the question of "what are you doing
    about it"  That was when I got the remark thrown back at me...
    "What are YOU doing about it?"  Seems it's always a great idea for
    so long as no one else is involved.  If you take the first step,
    then others will join in.  In other words.... address the problem
    with the PTA as well as at home... teachers and counselors used
    in the schools are a valuable resource for information on the problem
    and how to address it.  They can also stir you towards literature
    that will help you out in your efforts at home.  It was a teacher
    that suggested the book I recommended to me.  Also... corny as it
    sounds... write to some of the comic book companies (DC, Marvel,
    Disney) and ask them about literature as well. You'll find that
    they have a lot of the child's favorite "heros" in stories that
    explain it rather well.  Oh and about that vidio that was recommended,
    I was able to watch the program presented on TV with my son... believe
    me, it carried a lot of weight with him seeing Bugs Bunny and many
    of his other favorite characters (including the Ninja-Turtles) involved
    in helping a child make up his mind about drugs.  
    
    Skip

    Re. 18
    
>    I'd be interested in your opinions on whether you feel the pseudo
>    legalization of cannibas in Amsterdam has helped or made the drug
>    problem worse 
    
    I've commented on that before, I'm not sure whether it was in this
    forum - first off, let me clear up a couple of possible misconceptions.
    
    Current legislation in Holland defines possession of soft drugs, like
    hasj or marihuana, in quantities up to 30 grams, for personal use, as
    an offense, not as a crime. Officially possession of more than 30 grams
    and dealing are still a crime. There is a note to make on this, in
    theory you could be fined for possession of less than 30 grams, and I
    suppose this still enables bars or disco's that want to be "clean" to
    take action if people are smoking hasj there, but in practice you can
    virtually walk up to a policeman and ask for a light. They are more
    concerned with other problems. Also, especially in the bigger cities
    (and this is definitely not confined to Amsterdam), you'll find plenty
    of shops that sell different sorts of hasj and typically offer you
    10-12 varieties to choose from. These shops are closely watched by the
    authorities, and are bound to strict rules (no alcohol selling, no
    selling of harder stuff, no allowing harder stuff to be used in the
    shops, no advertising). Usually you can get a cup of coffee or a juice
    there (hence the "coffee shop" title they usually have). This stance of
    the Dutch autorities make hasj and marihuana virtually legal in
    practice.
    
    Use of this substances is maybe spread a little wider than in other
    countries, but there are a couple of good effects. First, people are
    less inclined to go for the "hard stuff" (stepping stone theory is a
    myth - there has never been any proof for that); second, since it's so
    easy to come by it has lost a lot of it's mystique and in schools
    doesn't have much "status" over the smoking of ordinary cigarettes -
    and that's definitely going down these days. Third, there is relatively
    little criminality involved - no need for a black market, and only the
    main trafficking is still a problem. 
    
    It might be a good thing to realise that neither hasj or marihuana is
    addictive!! It's always possible for people to become psychologically
    dependent, of course, but there is no physical addiction - no
    withdrawal symptoms, no "craving". . This in contrary to the "legal"
    drugs nicotine and alcohol which both *are* addictive, just as well as
    heroin, cocain, name it. Futhermore, the effects of hasj and marihuana
    are in general soothing, so someone who is under their influence in
    general is *less* agressive than usual, and also has a tendency to
    *under-estimate* say, their ability to drive a car. I don't want to
    sound like a commercial ;-) but this might illustrate what I have
    against the "just say no" track. It's easy to lump all drugs together
    but you'll never be able to get rid of the entire problem, so I think
    it's realistic to try to make it managable both in quality and
    quantity, and this is what Holland wants to do with this legislation.
    
    This is not the only factor in controlling the problem, but as it is,
    Amsterdam is now down to a "hardcore addicts population" of 15-20,000
    and this figure has remained stable for a couple of years. That doesn't
    mean it's not a problem, these addicts resort to petty crime
    (pickpocketing, stealing from cars) to get the money for their stuff
    and Amsterdam is notorious for this. Several drug programs are in
    place, like free needle exchange, methadon supply, "living-room"
    projects, but so far they've probably only helped to control other side
    problems of drug abuse. 
    
    Ad

    Re. 21
    
    Indeed - the impact of such a session is *huge*. It's usually part of a
    recovery project for the addict and I do believe it helps both sides.
    The addict is "forced" to go over his motivation to quit again, and
    it's also something positive for them to do "for society" which might
    help to take their normal place again. 
    
    Personally I think it's one of the best forms of education. This is no
    theoretical talk about what might happen to you, this is a direct
    confrontation with what *will* happen to you, and I don't think it's
    possible to make it clearer than that.
    
    Ad

re .4,

>    Re .3:  Advising them to "just say no" to me is not an option.  The
>    first word that will come out is "Why?".  There is no simple answer to
>    the drug problem.  To me, that's like telling a homeless person to
>    "just get a house."  I think Nancy Reagan had her head up her *ss when
>    she coined that one.
    
The Ten Commendments are simplistic too.  In a society of concilors and
therepy groups, sometime the simple axiomatic approach works the best.

Eugene

>The Ten Commendments are simplistic too.  In a society of counselors and
>therapy groups, sometime the simple axiomatic approach works the best.
    
    Well, the Ten Commandmants seem to be about as effective as deterrents
    as "Just Say No" --
    
    For some, a simplistic answer may work -- but for many, other
    approaches are necessary.
    
    As for the simplistic approach, I heard someone (a recovering addict,
    also a celebrity) say "Telling someone on drugs to `just say no' is
    like telling someone with clinical depression to `just cheer up'."
    
    					andrew

    The "Just Say No" campagin is not aimed at addicts.  It's aimed
    at non-addict children who are approached by "dealers" to buy drugs...
    or in most cases... "just try it" the first time.  Instead of taking
    it and becoming a possible addict... "Just Say No".  
    
    The campagin was not designed nor is it aimed at addicts who are
    already on drugs... it is designed and aimed at children who are
    not addicted or have not taken drugs.... it's meant to deminstrate
    that it isn't necessary to go along with peer pressure to be "cool".
     
    So, your statement about telling an addict to just say now... has
    no bearing... it doesn't and never has told an addict that.
    
    Skip

    Understood -- it was a semi-facetious remark. In some instances, a 
    simplistic approach works -- the point is that simplistic approaches
    are almost never adequate.  
    
    I do feel, however, that this simple beginning needs additional
    supporting material -- so that when a child asks "Why?" we can answer
    her/him.
    
    There is no simple answer, and there is no single answer.
    
    					andrew
    					andrew

    Gene, I fully agree with your point... I was just making a comment
    to the fact that not just Andrew but a lot of people here seem to
    be under the concept that the campaign was aimed at all drug users...
    It wasn't it purpose was to discourage that first time.  I don't
    feel it's necessarily the most effect means but coupled with other
    programs it might have some effect.  There actually has been a drop
    in drug use in the younger age groups over the past few years but
    I think a lot of it has to do with a more active role in the
    discouraging aspect of drug abuse by parents and teachers then by
    the slogans chanted over the TV, magazines, and billboards.  
    
    Skip

    
    Derek Sanderson gives an excellent talk about his experiences
    with alcohol. He spoke at our High School last year. I believe
    he does charge a fee but our local business association picked up
    the tab.
    

    I think my 10 year old son has just seen one of the best reasons why not 
    to get mixed up with drugs, a member of my extended family committed
    suicide two days ago mostly due to that exact reason.  She herself had
    and 12 year old son whom she left behind.  I try my best to explain to
    him why drugs are bad for you, but this said more than words could ever 
    say.  I only hope he remembers...   

    she committed suicide because of drugs, or she was in a terrible
    situation, turned to drugs to try and ease the pain, they didn't
    work so she committed suicide?
    
    

    
    re: .31
    
    you could have fooled me....i thought the campaign was aimed at all
    people, judging from the way that they hyped it up so much.
    
    "Just Say No" has always reminded me of "Let Them Eat Cake", for
    some reason...........
    

    One of the earlier replies touched on telling your child you used to
    smoke pot.
    
    What do you do when your children ask you, point blank, if you ever
    smoked pot?  If you did, and want to be honest, I suppose you try to
    make it look like a bad experience, but how do you really deal with
    that?  Of course the next question is, "What other drugs did you take?"
    
    How do you be honest without being hypocritical, and still get the
    point across that you shouldn't do it?
                        

    
    I'd guess that if you did smoke pot a while ago, and you did enjoy it,
    you can not only describe what was good about the experience, but also
    what was bad (it was illegal, it could have been cut with some other
    substances (and thus dangerous), it could have gotten you in a lot of
    trouble, you had some bad experiences with it which balanced out the
    good, etc).  In addition, tell them why you stopped.  Warn them it was
    a different era, and you were a different person then.  Also, penalties
    were less harsh then.  Nowadays it's an ENTIRELY different ballgame as
    far as risks go.  
    
    You don't have to lie.  There's plenty of truth to speak against it
    these days.
    
    I mean, they're going to do what they're going to do, whether you
    condone it or condemn it.  Equip them with the facts before they waltz
    out to make their own decision.....
    
    -Jody
    

Re:        <<< Note 1065.37 by LYRIC::BOBBITT "water, wind, and stone" >>>

>   it could have been cut with some other substances (and thus dangerous),

Yeah, like Paraquat herbicide dumped on it by your own government!

>   Also, penalties were less harsh then.  

Tell that to folks who in Texas who got a felony conviction with five 
years hard time for having a few seeds!

>   Nowadays it's an ENTIRELY different ballgame as far as risks go.

I don't agree.
    
>    You don't have to lie.  There's plenty of truth to speak against it
>    these days.

Yawn.  Reefer madness strikes again.  Like any psychoative substance - 
alcohol, caffeine, white sugar for some folks, tobacco - marijuana has 
its good and bad points.

IMO, there is nothing any more inherently evil about smoking a joint
than drinking a glass of wine.  And just as there are those who can't 
handle alcohol and shouldn't drink it all, there are those that 
can't handle marijuana and shouldn't smoke it all.  Every person has to
be responsible for themselves and judge what is right or wrong for them.
And no one else can judge what is right or wrong for me! 
   
>   Equip them with the facts before they waltz out to make their own 
>   decision.....

*This* is the key point and I heartily agree.

			***  JUST SAY KNOW! ***

Bob

I have to agree with .38 -

Nancy Reagan approach to drug control "just say no!" reminds me of the book 
burners -

"We disagree with this, so destroy it"

Education is the best defence anyone can have against any form of abuse.

Blatant blanket statements only serve to arouse curiosity in the ignorant and
those that think for themselves.

In other words - Teach your children to think for themselves, and not to accept
the pap that "Authority" tries to spoon feed us...

grins,

clark.

    Re: last two replies

    The only problem I have with Nancy's "Just Say No" campaign was that it
    was politically motivated and only started to make "Queen Nancy" look
    like a humanitarian.

    On the other hand, I disagree with the analogy that "Just Say No" is
    similar to burning books.  "Just Say No" is an attempt to persuade
    kids not to give into peer pressure and have enough self-esteem to
    avoid using illegal drugs in the first place.  I don't believe that
    should REPLACE knowledge of drugs.  Children are better off knowing
    what a crack vial is, what's the difference between depressants and
    hallucinogens, how cocaine is "cut", and with what.  All of this
    should be taught in the classroom, not out on the streets.

    If kids were more secure with themselves and more knowledgeable about
    what these drugs are, and what they can do, they'll avoid using them
    in the first place.  Maybe having a junkie visit the class,  a field
    trip to the county jail, or photos and testimonies of real lives destroyed
    by this garbage should give enough reason for most of the kids not to
    get involved with drugs.

       - Larry

    re .36 >What do you do when your children ask you, point blank,
           >if you ever smoked pot?
    
    I'd say "Yes, back when I was stupid." It's honest and expresses
    my opinion of drug use. It would also let them know that I'm not 
    talking from a zero-experience base. (I never respected my folks'
    views on pot, they hadn't *done* it.)
    
    Dana

    Back to the subject of .36, I think the proper answer is, "*That*, dear
    is none of your business."
    
    	Jon

    Brilliant.  They'd never suspect you don't trust them!  It would
    _never_ occur to them you might have a double standard stashed in your
    closet.  Wish I had thought of that one.
    
    - M

    I think most teenagers today realize that most people of "our
    generation" (I'm 40) at least *tried* pot at one time or another when
    we were young.  It seems rather foolish to me to try to convince my
    daughter that I was one of the minority who *never* tried it, even way
    back when pot was cheap and we didn't think it could be dangerous.  I
    have told my daughter what *I* believe to be the truth about pot.  That
    I don't think it is any more dangerous than alcohol, and that, in my
    opinion, if alcohol is legal marijuana should be also.  But, to
    remember that marijuana *isn't* legal and that she could potentially
    get into a lot more trouble with it than with alcohol.  I have tried to
    convey that smoking a joint once or twice a year at a party, or having
    the occasional social drink is relatively harmless, and that the
    problem is when people either drink or smoke on a daily basis and can't
    get along without it.  Of course, I have also tried to convery that
    other drugs are much more addictive and harmful, as well as a waste of
    money.  (Wouldn't you really rather have a new dress than buy drugs or
    booze??)   Luckily for me, my daughter can't stand smoking of any sort,
    and won't even sit in a smoking section in a restaurant, and is also
    one of the organizers of the SADD chapter in her high school.
    
    But, I have always felt that I want my daughter to really know the
    person I am.  I don't want to be a hypocrite and try to present a false
    picture of perfection.
    
    Lorna
    

    ref. 1065.42
    
    In my opinion, if you aren't honest with them and don't level with them 
    then you can expect they probably will not level with you.  I would 
    rather an open line of communication so my child will level with me and 
    know she can discuss the facts and her feelings with an adult source rather
    than being afraid or feeling she cannot approach me on this subject and
    turn to other kids who may not have the facts correct or wisdom to
    respond the way an adult could.  Just a few years ago it wasn't
    accepted to discuss this subject and look what happened.  Now we are
    trying to correct and stop this drug situation from growing more and
    now we CAN discuss it.  Since so many people have tried marijuana it
    makes it easier to bring it into light, but in the right context.
    
    This doesn't mean they have to know all the details and I'm sure they
    will respect your confidentiality if you ask them.
     

    Gene,
    
    How do you define "abuse" when it comes to drugs or alcohol......
    
    When people drink alcoholic beverages, most people never stop at just
    one drink - I know I don't.
    
    It's been proven over and over again with drugs - "one thing leads to
    another".  In my opinion, when my children are old enough to make their
    own decisions, then what they do with their lives is their own - of
    course we will always worry about our children.  But teenage children
    are so prone to peer pressure, I'm sure you remember, that when
    involving drugs or alcohol - they never stop at "just one"....teens
    tend to take things to an extreme, as they don't know how to define the
    lines, thats why there are more kids brought in on OD cases in the 
    hospitals and rehab centers than there are adults - kids do not have the
    maturity to handle adult situations such as drugs
    and alcohol.
    
    We as parents must be the ones to set the example for our children - we
    as adults set a mirrored image to our children.  Sure, occasional use
    of pot may be ok for some adults, as most adults know when they can or
    cannot cross the line, but most kids don't see that line.
    
    -Lynn
      

    re: .46
    
    Gene, I agree with Lynn's response that parents are an image for their
    children.  They are a role model, and as such anything they say will be
    reinforced, or INVALIDATED by their actions.  If a parent uses drugs,
    his/her children have a much higher chance of also using drugs.  They
    are seeing their role model using something illegal and thus assume its
    okay for them also.  Even if the parent only uses drugs on an
    "occasional" basis, the child will not understand the limits of
    "occasional" use.  As a child, I remember my father smoking marijuana
    (although he had already quit by the time I was SIX - and supposedly
    never smoked around me!!!)  Although I was a teenager before I
    understood what he had been doing, it stuck in my mind.
    I always felt that if my father did it, it was okay for me too.  I also
    felt that since I was so much younger than him, I could handle drugs
    better and that I could take more drugs, and I would not have any ill
    effects!  As an adult, this logic seems crazy - but as a teenager, it's
    pretty normal.  As teenagers, we always think we can do better than our
    parents did.  
    
    I agree with prior responses that suggest the parents be honest with
    their kids.  However, if a child's parents continue to use drugs as
    their children are growing, you can BET the children will also use
    drugs.  Remember the commerical about the father catching his son
    smoking pot in his son's bedroom... the father screams "where did you
    learn to do this?"  Then the son replies "From you Dad".  
    
    For your sake, I hope this doesn't happen to you...
    
    Sue   

    Re:  .45
    
    My opinion is that even though I've tried to be honest with my children
    and to level with them, they probably don't level with me.  Some of the
    time, yes, some of the time, no.  I used to think if I could just
    figure out which time was which I'd be a whiz of a mom.  Now I think of
    another meaning for the word whiz.  :)
    
    aq
    

    RE: .34
    
    She's always been into drugs as far as I can remember, I guess she was 
    caught dealing and was slapped with something like a $20,000. fine. 
    Her son and husband (he's not his real father) argued all the time, she
    had trouble finding a job (she used to be a temp here), and all these
    things just got to be too much so she turned to alcohol and heavier use
    of drugs.  She finally did admit herself into a hospital and I
    understand she was attending AA classes faithfully but something
    snapped in her mind this day and told her to end it all.... she hugged
    her husband goodbye, went to her room and shut the door and that was it.
    The worst part about it was that her 12 year old was in his room right
    next door and found her.
    

    Perhaps we should be telling children what their government did with
    drugs. Like the army guys they gave acid to, without telling them, just
    to see what happened. Or maybe the ones they exposed to radiation for
    the same reason.

    And then we should explain how the war on drugs is used to reduce their
    personal liberties, about how the cops can break in and shoot their
    parents, just in case they might have drugs in the house. How they take
    away personal property with no trial and no grounds for arrest.

    Yes, drugs can harm you. I was a valium addict and it was all nice and
    legal (most of the time). Doctors used to give them out like candy to
    women, all the while saying you can't get addicted. I can tell you for
    a fact that valium (legal and all) harmed me more than pot ever did.

    The current attitude does not tell the truth. The dangers of certain
    drugs, like nicotine, are played down while the unapproved drugs are
    painted with a blackness that Edgar Allen Poe would have appreciated.
    If you want kids to believe you, then tell the truth. Anything can be
    become an addiction. Some things are very much more likely than others
    to cause a problem. You snort crack, you may be in great danger. You
    smoke a joint and it's not going to hurt you any more than a pack of
    cigaretts. Can smoking either be good for you? Maybe not, but they
    won't turn you into a TV stealing addict from one experiment. liesl

    re .52, well said, Liesl.
    
    Lorna
    

    Re: .51
    
    On the contrary, he WAS honest with me when we discussed it.  And I
    felt it was okay to use drugs.  After all - he did.  Irregardless of
    what he said about why he quit, and the bad effects it has.  His prior
    actions had a much larger impression on me than the education.  When 
    parents ACTIONS condone the use of drugs - you better believe their 
    children will pick up on that and follow suit.  
    
    As a teenager, I also found it hard to tell the difference between 
    occasional use and abuse.  Take a look at ADULTS who can't tell the 
    difference.  I know several people that think they are occasional users
    whom I (and others) would consider abusers.  Can we expect children to
    be able to tell this difference when we can't??  
    
    I agree with educating children about drugs and their effects (both
    good and bad), including the effects of abuse.  It helps them make a 
    better decision on whether to use drugs or not.  However, if a parent 
    gives a lecture on the bad effects of pot (and contrary to an earlier 
    reply - there ARE some) and why the child shouldn't smoke pot, and at
    the same time continues to use the drug, the child is NOT going to listen 
    to the lecture.  That is the point I was trying to make in my earlier 
    reply.  Of course, the same goes for alcohol, cigarettes, and any other
    drugs both legal and illegal.
    
    The bottom line is:
    
    If you expect your children not to use drugs - 
      then don't use them yourself!
    
    
    Sue

    re: .55
    
    i don't think anybody said there are NO bad effects to pot, just that
    the effects are quite frequently blown out of proportion.  take a look
    at the movie "Reefer Madness", which was made in the thirties to scare
    people away from using marijuana.
    
    compared to nicotine, pot could be a relatively safe substance.
    
    

    re: .56
    
    My mistake!  Sorry everyone.  
    
    However, smoking ONE joint of pot is about equivalent to smoking one
    pack of cigarettes as far as your lungs are concerned, so I don't think
    you can call pot safer than nicotine.  Irregardless of the other
    effects...
    
    Sue     

    re .57, but a joint of pot can be smoked *without* inhaling very much
    at all, and anyone who smoked a whole pack of cigarettes would have
    definitely inhaled them, so I don't think it's always as bad to smoke
    one joint as a whole pack of cigarettes.
    
    Lorna
    

    Oh c'mon.......you all are starting to sound like a bunch of
    hypocrites.  It's all bad for you - so why sit and argue which is worse
    "the joint or the cigarette"......
    
    For the most part cigarettes are not euphoric in the regards to a
    mind altering state such as pot.......cigarettes also do not cause
    lapses of memory, however cigarettes do cause lung cancer as does
    smoking pot..........
    
    Lets get back to the subject - in my personal feeling, children at a 
    certain age will do whats most exciting to them.  Yes, you can "teach"
    them about drugs and the effects drugs have........in regard's to
    Gene's notes about "in the privacy of your own home" - if you feel its
    ok to get high, with moderation of course - than thats your right, but
    if your children witness this - they will also feel its ok too, and 
    obviously would be wrong to condem them for it.  You are your childs
    tutor, what you do in your life will effect them.
    
    -Lynn
    

    
    I haven't read all the replies, but after reading the last few... as to
    smoking a cigarette or a joint... it is black and white in one
    respect...
    
    One is against the law while the other is not.
    
    		-dwight

    re .61, adults should be allowed to choose their own poisen.
    
    (if they insist on being poisened)
    
    Lorna
    

    re: .60
    
    Obviously Gene - you don't read any medical reports on the effects of
    smoking pot - not just as a drug.
    
    re: .61
    
    BRAVO!!!!  If its against the law and seems to cause war-like states
    within countries, obviously there must be something wrong with it......
    
    Pot alters your mind's thinking process and that has been proven Gene.
    You get drug test from the workplace - because its not wanted at the
    work place due to safety above all.......you don't get raided for
    having liquor at your home, but it is illegal to be drunk in public.
    
    My personal opinion as far as one's own privacy of the home - is
    completely up to each individual as far as what takes place at your
    home.....but the FACT remains, it is illegal - like it or not and I
    certainly wouldn't want my kids to see a search taking place in or
    around my home for illegal substances.
    
    re: .60 Hypocritical........I was trying to make a point as to the
    noters trying to decifer which was better or worse - pot or cigarettes.
    
    -Lynn
    

    Re: .60

>    re: a couple back, one joint = 20 cigarettes?  Huh?  Must be using the
>    Cheech and Chong album cover paper, or watching Reefer Madness...
    
    Gene, that's a pretty cheap shot.  If you disagree - say so.  No need to 
    act so hostilely.  

    My information came from medical reports I researched while doing a paper
    on illegal drugs in college.  I'd be perfectly happy to go to the
    library with you and show you these reports in person.  If the new 
    medical information contradicts what I've said (after all it's been 8 
    years), then I will gladly eat humble pie, and report it in this topic.


>                                     Stay on one side of the line and
>    you're okay.  Step over it, even recreationally, and get ready for
>    invasions of privacy, ruined reputation, peeing in bottles, search and
>    seizure, all in the name of the crusade.  It's a bunch of bullsh*t.
>    So, is it "okay" to get high?  Sure, if you do it on the "Right" side
>    of the line.  Talk about hypocritical!!!

    When we make a conscious decision to do something illegal, we also are 
    making the decision to accept the CONSEQUENCES of our actions.  I don't 
    find that hypocritical.  If you disagree so much with the current laws, 
    then do something productive about changing them instead of whining in 
    this conference.

    Sue

    I've read everything in this file to date... and it looks to me
    that it breaks down to several different things... one is the topic
    which seems to have been lost.  Talking with children about drugs.
    As to everything else that's been said... it comes to this....
    If you break the law and get caught you are going to pay the price
    regardless of your own opinion about the law.  The laws are (for
    the most part) but up on ballots and voted on.  If you don't like
    the law, campaigne to change it, and if enough people agree with
    you it will be changed.  Until then, you are responsible for your
    own choice of if you are going to break the law or not, if your
    choice is to do so then you have to be ready for jail, fines, or
    whatever the penalty is, if you choice is to stay within the boundries
    of the law, then you have nothing to worry about.  If you don't
    like search and seizure then you should have voted against it and
    if you felt strongly enough about it, you should have campaigned
    against it.  If you didn't then YOU are to blame not the law that
    passed.
    
    Skip

    Re: 65
    
    Well said.
    
    -Lynn
    

Re:     <<< Note 1065.65 by WR1FOR::HOGGE_SK "Dragon Slaying...No Waiting!" >>>

What planet do you live on?  Certainly none with which I am familiar...

>    If you break the law and get caught you are going to pay the price
>    regardless of your own opinion about the law.  

Wrong.  The result of getting caught breaking the law has much to do
with one's personal wealth, the color of one's skin, who you know in the
government, who your lawyer knows in the government, whether you are in
the government.

For example, I doubt that many police officers who are caught speeding 
when not driving in the line of duty are cited.  I'm sure that police 
officers give each other "professional courtesies" routinely.

> The laws are (for the most part) but up on ballots and voted on.  

Not any ballot I get to vote upon.  

> If you don't like the law, campaigne to change it, and if enough
> people agree with you it will be changed.  Until then, you are
> responsible for your own choice of if you are going to break the 
> law or not, if your choice is to do so then you have to be ready 
> for jail, fines, or whatever the penalty is, if you choice is to 
> stay within the boundries of the law, then you have nothing to 
> worry about.  

Tell that to the guy from Hudson NH who was shot in front of his wife 
and family in a "drug bust".  The police had some tip that this guy was 
"dealing drugs" so they break down the door of his apartment in the 
middle of the night andd go charging in.  As he's trying to reach for 
his glasses and get out of bed, the police jump on him, and shoot him.

There are many. many examples of out civil liberties being taken away by 
this war on drugs.  The worst of this is that innocents are being 
arrested, harassed, jailed, and even shot by police - generally with 
little or no recourse to recover damages.

Just because you don't break the law is *no* guarantee that your life 
won't be ruined by overzealous, propaganda muddled, misinformed law 
enforcement officials.  The Amercian system of law creation and 
enforcement can hardly be called a "justice system" - "injustice system" 
is more appropriate.

> If you don't like search and seizure then you should have voted 
> against it 

Hmmm.... when was I ever given a chance to vote on this?  This goes back 
200+ years - that's why we have the Foruth Amendment prohibiting 
unreasonable search and seizure.  Read the history - the colonists were 
terrorized enough by random violence by the occupying British forces 
that they made this a part of our Constitution.

Ben Franklin once said (paraphrased): "Those who would give up liberty
to get safety, get neither".  Wise words these are...

> and
>    if you felt strongly enough about it, you should have campaigned
>    against it.  If you didn't then YOU are to blame not the law that
>    passed.
 
Yup, and I can shovel against the tide all I want.

Yep, I'm totally cynical and sarcastic.  I'm angry, I'm frustrated, I 
feel totally powerless.  I see the United States headed down a path that 
leads only to its downfall.  Yes, as an individual I can make an impact 
and I do my best to do so.  Writing notes like these is one of thsoe 
little efforts to educate and awaken to people to what's happening.

Why do we ignore the real problems of greed wrecking the economy, the 
homeless, epidemics of violence, the cesspool we call an education
system, the alienation in our society that fuels drug addiction in the
first place and focus on issues like flag burning and stopping people
from getting high and invading tiny little islands?  Someday, maybe
we'll have a rational and compassionate government... 

Bob

    Alright folks.  Time for a little education.  According to a recent 
    article, the answer to the pot/lungs question is as follows:
    
    "Marijuana burns at a higher temperature than tobacco and contains
    irritants that may cause chronic bronchitis in frequent users. 
    Marijuana smoke is also higher in tar than tobacco smoke.  Although
    most people who use marijuana don't smoke nearly as much or as often as
    cigarette smokers, a number of studies suggest that heavy marijuana use
    may increase lung-cancer risk."
    
    My only question is this.  If we as adults don't have the correct
    information (ref. .60) then how can we expect to educate our children
    on the effects (good and bad) of drugs?
    
    Sue

re .67  The executive branch is the president (& cabinet, I believe).
        Congress (Senate and House of Representatives) is the 
	legislative branch.

	The comments about teenagers not knowing the line between abuse and
	non-abuse sure gives me something to think about.  Thank you!

	Good luck to those of us who are trying to keep our kids from
	making some of the same mistakes we made (drug-related or otherwise)!

	- Paula

    Re: .70 
    
    Geesh!  Don't know what I did to deserve that!  And what was this
    nothing personal nonsense? (sounded pretty personal to me) 
    
    But, in response to your flame:
    
    I think the things you mentioned in your reply are important too.  I
    was only addressing what was already discussed.  If we're going to 
    educate our children, we need to know the facts.  And from what I've
    read in here, we need to do a little research to get those facts (yes,
    me included!).  
    
    
    Sue

    re: .68 & .70

    In most of your replies, the resounding message that I get is that 
    narcotics should be legalized.  All your talk about civil liberties being
    abashed and legalized drugs and pollution claiming more lives than
    pot smoking is your attempt at rationalizing marijuana use.  The fact
    remains that marijuana use has no nutritional benefits, is harmful to
    the body, and its only "benefit" is that it gives the user the sensation
    of being "high".

    You can argue that smoking and drinking pose the same dangers, and
    maybe you're right.  But rather than hop on the "Personal Liberties"
    bandwagon, try to give some sensible arguments as to why we, as a society,
    should adopt the legalization of marijuana use.

    And Bob, before you ridicule Skip, ask yourself what steps you have
    taken (other than write in Notes) towards changing this law that you
    are not fond of.  Have you tried to organize a lobbying group, have you
    written letters to politicians, have you tried to get drug legalization
    propositions on the November ballot?  Have you taken any steps within
    the system to change the existing laws?
    
        - Larry

    Disclaimer:  This message is *not* directed at any specific note and/or
    noter.
    
    I've noticed ;) that when the dangers or disadvantages of a
    given practice are mentioned, this is sometimes followed by
    direction to consider many other practices in need of [at least]
    examination and [possibly] rectification.
    
    Puts me in mind of a Farside cartoon, which shows two scientists
    at an equation-filled (so, I exaggerate) board.  One says to the other:
    
    "Yes, yes, I *know* that, Sidney...*every*body knows *that*!...But look:
     Four wrongs to the fourth power, divided by this formula, *do* make a
     right."
    
    aq
    
     
     

Re:          <<< Note 1065.73 by QUIVER::STEFANI "Turn it on again" >>>

>    In most of your replies, the resounding message that I get is that 
>    narcotics should be legalized.  

	Absolutely.

>   The fact
>    remains that marijuana use has no nutritional benefits, is harmful to
>    the body, and its only "benefit" is that it gives the user the sensation
>    of being "high".

	This is different than alcohol, caffeine, tobacco, or refined sugar?

>    You can argue that smoking and drinking pose the same dangers, and
>    maybe you're right.  But rather than hop on the "Personal Liberties"
>    bandwagon, try to give some sensible arguments as to why we, as a society,
>    should adopt the legalization of marijuana use.

	One simple argument:  Prohibition doesn't work - it only serves
	to fuel violence.

	We tried this experiment with alcohol in the 20's.  The result
	was the birth of organized crime - and lots of violence as
	gangsters fought over turf.  We tend to glamorize the 1920's
	gangster car wheeling around the corner with machine guns
	ablazing - but there's no difference between that and gun 
	battles between crack dealers...

	Second argument - it's not up to me to control what another 
	person chooses to do with their body.  This is true whether it's
	a junkie wanting to shoot heroin or a woman wanting an abortion.

	I've said this before but I'll say it again:

	- All narcotics and intoxicants should be legal.

	- Sale or supply to minors should strictly prohibited.  Those
	  who argue making drugs legal only makes them available to
	  children are fooling themselves.  Ask your self, is it easier
	  for a junior high school kid to get cocaine or whiskey?

	- Milder drugs (tobacco, alcohol, cannibinoid derivatives)
	  should be sold through licensed outlets.   Higher power
	  power drugs to be sold through pharmacies.

	- Tax revenues from the sale go into health care and 
	  education.  It's important not to set the price so high
	  as to activate the black market.

	- Being under the influence is not a defense against criminal
	  or civil action.  For example, I would suggest that the
	  first DUI loses the license for a year + 30 days in jail,
	  second offense: 5 years loss of license + one year in 
	  jail.  Third offense: loss of license for life +
	  5 years in jail.  And all these assume that there was no
	  accident or injury...

	- Treatment upon demand is universally available.

	The problem is not drugs, the problem is the violence fueled
	by greed for the money illegal drugs pump into the black
	market.  The same old theme - "the love of money is the root
	of all evil".

	Make drugs legal, remove the black market, and the violence
	goes away...

	Bob

    
    
        re.75
    
                     Oh Noooooooooooo not again????
    
    
                That's all we ne   More...addictive mind altering drugs
       legally and readily available to anyone with a few dollars.
    
                It's a can of worms, Bob White.  It couldn't be done.
    
                
    
                The best response I've read so far was about learning the
       facts ourselves before trying to teach someone else.  
    
    
                Legalize........BULL!

    Re: .77
    
    "Social conditions" was the excuse of why a group of boys gang-raped a 
    woman in Central Park not too long ago.  I'm sorry, but it just doesn't
    wash.  Aside from individuals who cannot distinguish right from wrong,
    it's not social conditions, but personal decisions that allow a person
    to commit an illegal act.
    
    For every kid that decides to deal drugs because it's a way to get rich
    quick, there are a lot more kids in worse social conditions that decide
    to get real jobs, albeit for less money, but are nonetheless legal.
    
    Legalizing narcotics would give the message to kids that it's all right
    to get high.  It shouldn't be.  It's enough for a kid today to grow up
    with a decent education, a healthy body, and a good sense of values,
    without hearing from adults "Well, you can't snort cocaine now, but
    when you're older, you can make the decision to snort all of the coke
    you want."
    
    Gimme a break...
    
        - Larry
               

Re:           <<< Note 1065.78 by QUIVER::STEFANI "Turn it on again" >>>

>    Legalizing narcotics would give the message to kids that it's all right
>    to get high.  

No more than than permitting the sale of alcoholic beverages conveys the 
message that it's OK to get high on alcohol, ie, drunk.

>   It shouldn't be.  It's enough for a kid today to grow up
>    with a decent education, a healthy body, and a good sense of values,
>    without hearing from adults "Well, you can't snort cocaine now, but
>    when you're older, you can make the decision to snort all of the coke
>    you want."

This is any different than telling someone underage that "You can't buy
a drink or cigarettes now but when you're older you can make the
decision to drink or smoke all you want"? 

The difference escapes me...

Bob

    I still maintain that if YOU don't like the situation then YOU should
    stop blathering in notes about it and get off your duff and do
    something about it.  The marijuana laws in California have been
    written so that possision of less then 1 ounce is a mis-di.  Subject
    to a fine... over an ounce is considered intent to sell much more
    harsh.  The law was changed by the people who voted on a ballot
    for it.  It's been in effect for some time now.  It was changed
    by people getting off there duffs who stopped gripping that the
    laws were too harsh and got it on the ballot for a vote... they
    advertised the benifits of such a law... and won.  So take you're
    hype about the injustice of judical systems and realize that the
    only way it's going to change is to do it yourself.  You talk a
    good fight... now get out and MAKE a good fight.  Your reaction
    seems to be that the judical system has no provisions for change
    in it.  That is BULL!  If it weren't then it would still be illegal
    to drink.  Yes I read about the man who was shot during a drug raid
    and turned out to be innocent... I also read what happened to the
    people invovled in it and especially the two gentalmen who were
    brought up by AI for not checking there facts more throughly...
    Neither one is on the police force now.  One is in jail for his 
    involvment.  It doesn't always work... but the only way it will
    change is if YOU stop pointing fingers and YOU start taking action.
    Otherwise, like so many other people in this world who maintain
    they have a right to complain but refuse to put forth any effort
    to change a situation, you are only blowing smoke.
    
    SKip 

    .78 Larry:
    
    	Are you then saying that the postulate of Social psychology that
    states; The values, opinions and mores of a person are influenced by
    ones's social context: The movement is from society to the
    individual and never the reverse- is totally wrong? If so, what grounds
    do you base this theory of yours.  As it takes a very self actualized
    person to act outside the influences of his or her society, My thesis
    would be that the (micro)society has inadvertently created the drug
    situation.  It has done this by default of the fact that Society
    continues to look elsewhere, pointing it's fingers instead of doing the
    work wher it is required:  Society, as a (collective) organism needs to
    do some of it's own self assessment.  An individual would not think of
    casting off a part of the body that offended that person unless after
    extensive and intensive evaluation, it has been determined that
    amputation would be the ONLY effective means of saving the individual. 
    Why does the social organization automatically assume that without this
    self assessment of it's own existence, it can indiscriminately cast
    off, or hide or conceal the blemishes (poor, addicts, homeless,
    etc) that it refuses to deal with. Probably because from a social
    perspective, it would have to wait for a compassionate leader that
    woulde have enough power to alter the social norms of our society. 
    When one speaks oaf social conditions motivating ones actions, whether
    it be gang violence or a gang against violence, those actions are the
    result of the influences of a MICRO society.  This is a small microcosm 
    created by the social, political, or economic aspects the larger
    society. This larger society looks the other way because it has other 
    "more important" problems to deal with such as the arms race, protection 
    of our exhaustible energy sources, or whatever.  I'm not placing a value 
    judgement on the priorities of our society, the point is that this society
    places a very low importance on the parts of its own (collective) body. 
    If it neglects it's own health, how can that society continue to flourish?
    If it continues to hide the blemishes instead of dealing with them in a
    self-evaluating manner, how long before the body of that society
    becomes cancerous and self-destructive? If the overall societal 
    organization has to continually amputate parts (incarceration, death 
    sentences)of its body even at a cell (person) at a time, how long will it 
    be before the social body itself is completely incarcerated.  this also
    becomes self destructive? This is exactly what is happening.  We are
    spending so much money incarcerating those outside social norms that we
    cannot build jails fast enough.  This fact is an example of societies
    tendency to hid its faults, blemishes; those things that it really
    does not want to deal with because in it's collective opinion, there
    is more important stuff that needs to be dealt with. Not a very healthy
    attitude in my own opinion.
    
    
    Ernie
     

    re: .79

>>This is any different than telling someone underage that "You can't buy
>>a drink or cigarettes now but when you're older you can make the
>>decision to drink or smoke all you want"? 

    Bob, in my reply (.73) I mentioned the possible comparisons between
    illegal drugs and cigarettes and alcohol because that's always the
    question that comes up.  Why are cigarettes and alcohol legal, and
    marijuana illegal?  I can't really give you a straight answer on that.
    Even though most narcotics are more harmful than cigs and alcohol, a
    person who takes a "hit" once a week is surely better off than the
    alcoholic who drinks two six-packs a day.
                                                   
    I'm not for the legalization of drugs because it would increase the
    availability and legitimacy of using drugs.  I believe that a lot of
    kids that would otherwise NOT start using drugs, would start because
    of that legitimacy.

    re: .80

    >>Obviously you've never seen the tenements in Harlem.  I'm not talking
    >>about making money dealing drugs (which legalization, by the way,
    >>would solve).  I'm talking about total lack of hope for any kind of
    >>advancement in life, no adult role models, freezing in the winter.
    >>Sure, there is the occasional ghetto youth who breaks out, but thinking
    >>all those kids in the "worse social conditions" have much other choice
    >>than to turn to drugs (or suicide) is fantasy.  In my opinion of
    >>course.  :^)

    First of all, it's a myth that most drug dealers are poor, black youth
    from Harlem.  I agree that poverty causes people to do things that
    better judgment would otherwise dictate. But some drug dealers "deal" not
    to put food on the table, but to get that new car phone for the BMW. 
    While schoolchildren sell dope to their friends because it's a way to
    make an easy grand a week.

    Maybe those people in the absolute worse conditions feel that there is
    no other choice than dealing drugs, but I feel that the majority of
    drug dealers made that choice for themselves, excluding other options
    which paid less $$$.

    re: .82

    I'm not going to pretend that I've studied social psychology, but I
    believe I understand the message you're trying to convey.  This "theory
    of mine" is not a theory at all, and I'm not dismissing the premise
    that people are influenced by their place in society.  I don't feel
    it's right to simply place blame on society for an individual's
    actions, even though the individual's place in society DID in fact
    influence them.

       - Larry

    Guess I wasn't clear in my comment..... also it gets me upset when
    I hear someone complain about a law being "unjust" and do nothing
    more then complain, because that's all they have time to do.  When
    I said YOU... meant you... me, him, her, and any/all who are old
    enough to vote.  The only way laws change in this country is for
    someone to take the initiative to change them.  Instead of complaining
    or blathering about the problem to friends/associates.
    
    I didn't mean not to discuss ideas, ask for suggestions, discuss
    problems... I meant that if he had a problem.... do something about
    it.  Ultimatly THAT is the idea of Notes... to give suggestions
    and exchange information so the requestor can DO something about
    a situation/problem.  Don't misunderstand that either... I enjoy
    noting in a couple of conferences that are meant to be nothing more
    then "goof off" conferences... but even they serve as informational
    resources at times.
    
    Skip

    I have been reading this notesfile for last 20 minutes.  In my
    opinion, you are ALL right.  No one person is wrong here.  Every-
    one backs up their opinion with valid facts.
    
    It is so apparent in this day and age, the Universe is unfolding
    as it should.  Things aren't getting better, they are getting
    worse.  Satan is having a field day, and it is destined to be.
    
    Number one, set a good example for your kids by not using substances
    yourself.  Our children look up to us.
    
    Love them alot and spend quality time with them.  Get them interested
    in many hobbies/sports/activities no matter how expensive.
    Statistics have shown, most kids turn to substance out of boredom.
    
    Teach them a relationship with God, whatever you/your religon perceive
    Him to be.
    
    Pray alot and hope for the best.
                                   

re: .86
    
>>    It is so apparent in this day and age, the Universe is unfolding
>>    as it should.  Things aren't getting better, they are getting
>>    worse.  Satan is having a field day, and it is destined to be.
    
    What a bleak outlook.  I agree with you that parents should spend more
    quality time with their kids, but I don't believe the future is as
    dim or hopeless as you suggest.
    
       - Larry

                          I agree with you that parents should spend more
>    quality time with their kids,

      Can someone tell me what quality time is. and how does it differentiate
      itself from non quality time.
      Rgds,
      

    
      Quality time is what you do with the time you're with your kids.
    
    i.e. take them out to play, tell them stories, talk to them, 
         listen to them, 
    
      where as non-quality time is being there but not really being
    there...
    
    i.e. you're watching TV while their upstairs listening to the radio
         they're talking to you while you're trying to make dinner and 
         aren't really paying attention to what they're saying....
    
    
      Is that understandable......
    
                                          Beth
    

    RE: 87   I never used or suggested dim or hopeless.  Just "things
             aren't getting any better.  I believe the future may be
             dim, but as long as there is life, there is hope.  What
             we do with our children will bring hope.  They are our
             future leaders and will be taking care of us/the world,
             when we get old.
    
    Re:  88  See .89 for an excellent example of quality time.  I couldn't
             have said it better.
    
    Re:  90  Agnostic (ag-nos-tik) n.  One who believes that there can
             be no proof of the existence of God BUT DOES NOT DENY THE
             POSSIBILITY THAT GOD EXISTS.
    
             That is why I added "whatever you/your religion perceive
             Him to be."

    re: .91
    
    I'm not going to argue the point with you.  I fail to see the
    difference between "things aren't getting better, they are getting
    worse.  Satan is having a field day, and it is destined to be." and
    "the future looks dim and hopeless".
    
    I think a more positive outlook is in order here.  Let's teach our
    children to help one another to make the world a better place, and
    not take away their hope for the future.
    
       - Larry