This kid must be high

[pkbites]

Not that it'll completely destroy his life or anything like that, but what kind of dumbass consents to let a major metropolitan newspaper quote you saying that you use illegal drugs, and seem to intend to keep using them? Used his full name and location too.

From THIS (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=406167) article:
Matt Muir, a 17-year-old high school senior from Michigan, objects to his mother's recent purchase of home drug tests. Muir says his occasional marijuana use causes no problems in his life and that his mother shouldn't worry. His grades are fine, he said. He's already been accepted into three good universities and he'll soon be living on his own. He doesn't smoke every day and never before school, and he's not turning to other "harder" drugs, he said.

At least don't let them use your full name, dipshit.

Duh!:smack::rolleyes:

[Revenant Threshold]

Hah. Gotta love this line;

Muir says his occasional marijuana use causes no problems in his life

Yeah, up 'til now, moron - surely this is reasonable ground for a police search of their house? I think we've found a new poster child for the anti-drugs campaign.

[duffer]

Well, he is 17. 17 year olds have all the answers.

I'd love to know the 3 Universities he's been accepted to, and if he actually attends any of them this fall. I'd ask if he pays his bills on time, but that's seemingly a moot point in this case.

The best part? I bet dollars to donuts that if his mother wandered into this thread she'd vehemently defend him as a good kid. It would be expected, but also would show why the kid is so damn arrogant. What a dumbass.

[pkbites]

Hah. Gotta love this line;
Yeah, up 'til now, moron - surely this is reasonable ground for a police search of their house?

Hmmmm. Not so sure about that.
But what I'm sure it is reasonable grounds for is that every time within the near future he tries to a job the boss man will say "we don't hire potheads".

The article was large, and started right on the front page too!

[Rhubarb]

... Yeah, up 'til now, moron - surely this is reasonable ground for a police search of their house? I think we've found a new poster child for the anti-drugs campaign.
No, it isn't. Marijuana use is a misdemeanor, and commission of a misdemeanor is not probable cause to suspect a felony, which would be required to obtain a search warrant.

I'd love to know the 3 Universities he's been accepted to, and if he actually attends any of them this fall. I'd ask if he pays his bills on time, but that's seemingly a moot point in this case. Because we all know that no one who has ever smoked pot attends a major University , or pays their bills on time.

Granted, it's not particularly wise to admit to committing a crime, albeit a minor one, in a public forum, but wisdom is not a common trait among 17 year olds, stoned or not. For example, at that age I thought joining the Navy was a good idea, and I had never smoked pot even once.

[duffer]

Because we all know that no one who has ever smoked pot attends a major University , or pays their bills on time.

Yup, that's exactly what I said. Or was it something along the lines of "I wonder which of the 3 he'll attend". As in I wonder which 3 he's talking about and which will be accepting him this fall. You do know that there are more than 3 major Universities, right?

As far as the bills? He's 17. I doubt he has a mortgage payment. Or an electric bill. Or a heating bill. Or health insurance deducted from his full-time job.


Put the bong down for a moment and let the adults speak. Here's a Twinkie to occupy your time. :rolleyes:

[mhendo]

Yup, that's exactly what I said. Or was it something along the lines of "I wonder which of the 3 he'll attend". As in I wonder which 3 he's talking about and which will be accepting him this fall. You do know that there are more than 3 major Universities, right?

As far as the bills? He's 17. I doubt he has a mortgage payment. Or an electric bill. Or a heating bill. Or health insurance deducted from his full-time job.


Put the bong down for a moment and let the adults speak. Here's a Twinkie to occupy your time. :rolleyes:It seems to me that your post clearly implied that someone who smokes dope (like this kid) would be unlikely to matriculate, and would be unlikely to pay bills on time.

I'm not sure how else to read your post, given the way it was worded, and the issues it was responding to.

[FlyingRamenMonster]

Yup, that's exactly what I said. Or was it something along the lines of "I wonder which of the 3 he'll attend". As in I wonder which 3 he's talking about and which will be accepting him this fall. You do know that there are more than 3 major Universities, right?

As far as the bills? He's 17. I doubt he has a mortgage payment. Or an electric bill. Or a heating bill. Or health insurance deducted from his full-time job.

And there we go, backpedaling away... :rolleyes:

[even sven]

If colleges started taking drug use in to account for their admissions, colleges would get a lot emptier.

Think about it- if for some reason someone associated with these colleges was reading the Milwaukee Journal and saw this...AND for some reason matched it up to one of the thousands and thousands of freshmen coming in during the fall, do you think they'd really bother to do all the steps (which would probably be a long process since he's been officially accepted) to get him kicked out? Why bother? It's hard enough to get my professors to recognize my name in their classes, much less from Milwaukee newspapers.

The police rarely bother to bust people even when they are caught with pot in person. Many of my friends have been told to flush their stash and scram. Why do you think our overburdened police departments would launch an investigation based on what some punk kid said? If they really wanted to throw all pot smokers in jail, they'd spend all their time making mass arrests at Phish concerts. But they don't. Because they have real dangerous criminals to take care of.

[Shakes]

Wow, I find it rather ironic that the people in this thread who want to automaticaly label this kid a dumb ass/never amount to anything; just because he smokes pot.

Like none of us have done anything stupid at 17. :rolleyes:

[Argent Towers]

You could think of this guy as a "dumbass" or a "dipshit" or any number of other demeaning terms.

Or you could think of him as someone who's honest and forthright and isn't ashamed of himself.

What if he had been quoted in an article about homosexuality and had admitted to being gay (and allowed his real name to be used?) Would you still feel the same way about him, knowing that just as many potential employers might not want to hire him (yes, technically illegal discrimination, but still an unfortunate reality in the job market)?

Don't start with the "but smoking pot is a crime!" either. Homosexual acts have also been criminalized in some states. And marijuana may well be de-criminalized in other states in the future. The laws are always subject to change.

[pkbites]

Wow, I find it rather ironic that the people in this thread who want to automaticaly label this kid a dumb ass/never amount to anything; just because he smokes pot.

I never said he would never amount to anything:

Not that it'll completely destroy his life or anything like that

He's STILL a dumbass.

Why do you think our overburdened police departments would launch an investigation based on what some punk kid said?

They won't. But....

The police rarely bother to bust people even when they are caught with pot in person.

Where is this happening? I made 3 pinches on it already this week and it's only tuesday.

[even sven]

Where is this happening? I made 3 pinches on it already this week and it's only tuesday.

Well, I am speaking as someone who lived in Santa Cruz for six years. They had to send in the feds to make our cops enforce those laws.

[pkbites]

Or you could think of him as someone who's honest and forthright and isn't ashamed of himself.

He's a minor living under his parents roof. They don't want him using illegal drugs, he seems to imply that he's going to anyway. He has total disrespect for their rules/standards in their own home.

You find an honorable quality in that?

[Mellivora capensis]

This is a subject that has puzzled me for quite some time. Why is it illegal to consume these drugs? The only person being harmed (and I use that term loosely) is yourself. I can understand if the effects of the drug cause you to have diminished driving capabilities, but then the offence should be just that, DUI. Moral or health issues aside, why is it a legal problem, punishable by incarceration, to sniff a line at home and watch TV?

[Argent Towers]

He's a minor living under his parents roof. They don't want him using illegal drugs, he seems to imply that he's going to anyway. He has total disrespect for their rules/standards in their own home.

You find an honorable quality in that?

If you wanted to draw pictures Batman in your room at night, and your mother forbid you from doing so, would you listen to her or would you draw the pictures?

You'd probably draw the pictures.

What if Batman were illegal?

You'd probably still draw the pictures.

Being that you are in law enforcement, we are simply not going to see eye to eye on this issue. Make no mistake, I respect police officers for keeping order and making our society safe. But someone who in good conscience would put a man in jail for possessing a plant is going to be very biased when it comes this issue.

I don't neccessarily find it honorable that he's disobeying his parents - but I do think that parents are not always right. If my son was smoking pot and it was causing him to be a lousy student and a lazy, unmotivated boy, I'd make sure to put an end to it. If he were a fine and upstanding young man, I wouldn't give a damn whether he chose to use a plant to temporarily enter a different mode of thought.

What is honorable is that he's not afraid of the unfair, ridiculous laws that punish people for using a plant. He doesn't feel the need to be afraid to use his real name or to make public the fact that he smokes marijuana. If people were not so afraid to admit their marijuana use, maybe this plant would finally be decriminalized and our government could free up a little prison space and take those billions of drug-war dollars and do something useful.

[pkbites]

This is a subject that has puzzled me for quite some time. Why is it illegal to consume these drugs? The only person being harmed (and I use that term loosely) is yourself.



Come to one of the Tough Love (http://toughlove.com/) meetings I help co-ordinate and I'll show you that it most certainly does harm more than the user.

[Mellivora capensis]

Come to one of the Tough Love (http://toughlove.com/) meetings I help co-ordinate and I'll show you that it most certainly does harm more than the user.

Fair enough, pkbites, but may I ask how you view the consumption of alcohol?

[Cerri]

Come to one of the Tough Love (http://toughlove.com/) meetings I help co-ordinate and I'll show you that it most certainly does harm more than the user.

Marijuana does? Bullshit. It might put a serious hurt on a bag of Cheetos, but that's about it.

Maybe I could see it if you're talking about the reprecussions stemming from cops like you arresting someone for having pot, even though it's a far less harmful drug than say...alcohol or tobacco.

Oh wait, those are legal.

Harder drugs I won't argue the point, because those are a completely different discussion in my opinion.

[Rigamarole]

He's a minor living under his parents roof. They don't want him using illegal drugs, he seems to imply that he's going to anyway. He has total disrespect for their rules/standards in their own home.

You find an honorable quality in that?

Since he is a minor, it's not like he has much choice as to whether to live under his parents roof or not.

I did lots of illegal drugs at 17. I would respect my parents rules in their own home by not doing said drugs in their house. But those rules didn't extend to my behavior outside of the house. And yes, I was caught eventually, but that didn't change my intention to continue using them either. (what eventually did change my behavior was my own realization that I didn't want to continue paying the price the drug use was costing me)

[irishgirl]

Oh there's evidence that marijauna can harm people, but it doesn't have to. Much like alcohol or tobacco.

Everyone knows at least one elderly person who smoked and drank too much their whole life and is still in the best of health with lots of loving friends, a close family and a good work record behind them. Same for pot, everyone knows some stoner who ended up psychotic, or just wasting their life blazing in a basement 24/7, but most other people know someone who gets stoned on a regular basis and still manage to do well at their day jobs and private lives.

For example, the fact that someone of my close aquaintance who gets stoned every night and still managed to get better results in his professional exams than any other employee at his company.

Still, I think the kid was nuts to let the paper use his name. Not smart buddy, not smart at all.

[Nancarrow]

Come to one of the Tough Love (http://toughlove.com/) meetings I help co-ordinate and I'll show you that it most certainly does harm more than the user.

Good point. Now, can you say selection bias ?

[Bricker]

No, it isn't. Marijuana use is a misdemeanor, and commission of a misdemeanor is not probable cause to suspect a felony, which would be required to obtain a search warrant.

Where did you find this rule?

I agree that commission of a misdemeanor is not definitively probable cause to suspect a felony -- although it could be, depending on the facts of the specific case. But what ever gave you the idea that a felony is required for a search warrant to issue? A search warrant may be issued to search for the fruits of a misdemeanor.

[SentientMeat]

I must say, as a 17 year-old drug user (not abuser - I did them properly) accepted to Edinburgh University, I could easily have been as naive as this chap. Indeed, the Milwaukee newspaper should really have granted him anonymity as a matter of course given that he might well be unaware just how negative the consequences might be. At that age, I thought the illegality of pot so preposterous that I genuinely had trouble believing that people really were so bothered about it that I might end up in any real trouble, or even inconvenience. And I'd certainly admire him if he deliberately used his name despite being aware of all the silly consequences I was unaware of at his age in honest civil disobedience of a law which is an ass. (Futile? Maybe, but if enough people bash their head against a wall, eventually it might come down.)

[SentientMeat]

And, I might add, if my ma had pulled this home-testing stunt (after, having found my bong, I told them gently but firmly that I simply would not stop because I didn't think I was doing anything wrong), I'd have suggested alternative housing until university given the certainty of failure of said tests.

[SentientMeat]

I also foresee a burgeoning economy in geek piss.

[VarlosZ]

The police rarely bother to bust people even when they are caught with pot in person.
Where is this happening? I made 3 pinches on it already this week and it's only tuesday.

In places that aren't West Allis, Wisconsin -- where cops routinely have more serious crimes to worry about. Here in New York, cops will often arrest you for possession, but it's frequently a pretense for some other bad act, and they just as often will tell you not to smoke on the street and send you on your way.

[Kalhoun]

Where is this happening? I made 3 pinches on it already this week and it's only tuesday.
Most cops realize that pot laws are for the most part STUPID laws (right up there with laws against homosexuality and (shudder!) shacking up. They don't stop most people from using. It's not a dangerous substance. It doesn't hamper a person's ability to be a productive member of society any more than booze, ativan, or zoloft do. I mean, when you take into consideration that the president of the most powerful country in the world smoked it, the argument pretty much starts to fall apart.

If governments were smart, they'd decriminalize it and start taxing it. After nearly five decades of open, regular use of pot, it's pretty apparent the people have it right and Reefer Madness had it wrong.

[Kalhoun]

Come to one of the Tough Love (http://toughlove.com/) meetings I help co-ordinate and I'll show you that it most certainly does harm more than the user.
These are parents who are misinformed and freaked out. Anyone who's attending Tough Love meetings because of POT use needs to understand that pot is not the problem. Disobedience, maybe. Disrespect for stupid laws, sure. But pot, in and of itself, is usually not the problem.

[Hamadryad]

Come to one of the Tough Love (http://toughlove.com/) meetings I help co-ordinate and I'll show you that it most certainly does harm more than the user.This is true of any activity which involves physical or monetary risk. Skydiving, kayaking, canoeing, bungee-jumping, snorboarding, surfing, gambling, playing the stock market, mountain climbing, paintball....

If anyone were to lose their savings, home, ability to work, health, or life from any of these their families would be just as badly damaged. Only difference is, someone whose husband spends thousands of dollars on his ski vacation, misjudges that last jump and ends up disabled will get sympathy; someone whose husband blows $50 on a quarter ounce of marijuana and is arrested for smoking a joint will get derision.

If it's only the illegality of the substance which makes it bad, mmkay, then I submit that its illegality is fucking ridiculous when compared with other substances with similar effects, and shouldn't be an objective consideration when discussing the morality of the situation in question.

[pkbites]

In places that aren't West Allis, Wisconsin -- where cops routinely have more serious crimes to worry about.

I'm not an officer for West Allis. I only live here.

Most cops realize that pot laws are for the most part STUPID laws


MOST? Not MOST that I know. A few? Maybe.


Marijuana does? Bullshit.

No, not bullshit. You should talk to the parents/spouses of people who smoke pot every single day, even multiple times a day.

[MessyPaint]

I know this is a little beyond where the conversation has gone, but couldn't it be possible that he used a fabricated name knowing of the possible consequences?

[Kalhoun]

MOST? Not MOST that I know. A few? Maybe.

Most cops in Chicago and the surrounding vicinity couldn't give a flying fuck if a guy is smoking a joint. They have scheduled and announced smoke days and no one out of the thousands who show up gets arrested. Most cops realize that it's a pointless battle.




No, not bullshit. You should talk to the parents/spouses of people who smoke pot every single day, even multiple times a day.[/QUOTE]
Most of the relationships in my life have been with regular (multiple times per day) smokers. The reason those relationships failed had nothing to do with pot.

[VarlosZ]

No, not bullshit. You should talk to the parents/spouses of people who smoke pot every single day, even multiple times a day.
I do think that a lot of people on this board underestimate the potential harm of marijuana use -- some people really do become psychologically addicted to it, and it can cause problems in their jobs, schools, and personal lives.

However, cases like that are undoubtedly the exception and not the rule. As Nancarrow pointed out, your experiences as a cop and with your Tough Love meetings lead to a selection bias. That is, your opinions are largely shaped by your experiences, and your experiences are with marijuana users who are having trouble with it. People for whom marijuana use doesn't cause any problems tend not to wind up in Tough Love meetings or to get arrested. Travelling in the circles that you do, you'll tend to run into problem users.

I went through period in college where I was smoking pretty much every day, and it didn't affect my grades (which, for unrelated reasons, were higher during that period than when I wasn't smoking), and caused no long-term or short-term problems for me. I knew several people with similar experiences, and only one whose use caused him difficulties.

Somewhat off-topic, but it is undeniable that marijuana is less harmful in nearly every way than alcohol or nicotine (excepting the threat of prosecution, of course).

[Miller]

Where is this happening? I made 3 pinches on it already this week and it's only tuesday.

I feel safer already.

[mhendo]

No, not bullshit. You should talk to the parents/spouses of people who smoke pot every single day, even multiple times a day.What about the parents of alcoholics, or the families of people dying of lung cancer?

The question is not really whether pot can do any harm at all—most people concede that it can—but whether its levels of harm (both to the user and to friends and family members) are substantively different from drugs that millions of Americans use legally every day.

I've never heard of anyone beating his wife unconscious after too many joints.

[Flyhalf]

No, not bullshit. You should talk to the parents/spouses of people who smoke pot every single day, even multiple times a day.

How do you explain the people who use every single day and have successful careers, happy families, and pay their mortgage every month and on time?

[Club 33]

Fair enough, pkbites, but may I ask how you view the consumption of alcohol?

I wouldn't mind hearing an answer to this question either.

[Excalibre]

Yup, that's exactly what I said. Or was it something along the lines of "I wonder which of the 3 he'll attend". As in I wonder which 3 he's talking about and which will be accepting him this fall. You do know that there are more than 3 major Universities, right?

As far as the bills? He's 17. I doubt he has a mortgage payment. Or an electric bill. Or a heating bill. Or health insurance deducted from his full-time job.


Put the bong down for a moment and let the adults speak. Here's a Twinkie to occupy your time. :rolleyes:
You know what's both witty and clever? When duffer backpedals without admitting it, and then implies that other posters are children because they were foolish enough to expect he'd have the balls to stand behind what he said.

It certainly reminds one that duffer is one of the smartest, most cogent, and all around most useful people on the SDMB. And funny - when he claims he didn't say http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=7170842#
Increase Sizewhat he clearly did, somehow that doesn't make him a liar, even though it would if someone else did it.


Wow, I find it rather ironic that the people in this thread who want to automaticaly label this kid a dumb ass/never amount to anything; just because he smokes pot.

Like none of us have done anything stupid at 17.
I agree, but I wouldn't use the plural here. duffer is the only person who has suggested that about the kid.


What if he had been quoted in an article about homosexuality and had admitted to being gay (and allowed his real name to be used?) Would you still feel the same way about him, knowing that just as many potential employers might not want to hire him (yes, technically illegal discrimination, but still an unfortunate reality in the job market)?
I think this is a good analogy, but I'd like to point out that discrimination against gay people on the job market is not illegal in most of the United States. I could be fired for being gay here in Michigan, for example.


He's a minor living under his parents roof. They don't want him using illegal drugs, he seems to imply that he's going to anyway. He has total disrespect for their rules/standards in their own home.

You find an honorable quality in that?
A minor has no real choice but to live with their parents. It's true that he potentially could get a job and be emancipated, but it would be incredibly difficult and likely involve compromising his future. Since he is not really choosing to live under his parents' roof by any reasonable definition, it's not logical to suggest he's honor-bound in accepting his parents' authority as absolute. It might be best for him to accept their rules, but it's not dishonorable for him not to. It would be stupid of him to treat his parents' rules as absolute - following your logic to its end, it seems like it would be dishonorable for a young girl not to cooperate if her father molests her, since it's under his roof. Not that his parents' actions are comparable, but they are indefensible in my opinion. Being a parent does not give you the right - not morally, anyway - to disrespect a child's autonomy as a person in that way. It's just my opinion, of course, but I can't imagine how you could possible ascribe "honor" to this child cooperating with his invasive, overbearing parents.


This is a subject that has puzzled me for quite some time. Why is it illegal to consume these drugs? The only person being harmed (and I use that term loosely) is yourself. I can understand if the effects of the drug cause you to have diminished driving capabilities, but then the offence should be just that, DUI. Moral or health issues aside, why is it a legal problem, punishable by incarceration, to sniff a line at home and watch TV?
The bottom line is that it's illegal because it's was and still is a politically viable strategy to stir up the public's fear over drugs, even if it involves grossly exaggerating the risks of drug use. This is something common to both major political parties in the United States, and it makes a rational public discussion of the nature of drug use and the (admittedly real) dangers it poses impossible.


No, not bullshit. You should talk to the parents/spouses of people who smoke pot every single day, even multiple times a day.
Marijuana is addictive, despite all the success of the marijuana crowd in convincing many people otherwise. But lots of substances are addictive. You're claiming, essentially, that marijuana laws are okay because some people become addicted to it and hurt themselves or others. If you believe that's a fair argument, you need to actually make the argument. After all, alcohol is not illegal, so it certainly is not the case that all dangerous, addictive drugs of abuse are outlawed. Why do you think marijuana should be? For bonus points, do you think alcohol should be illegal? If not, how can you reconcile that with your opinion about marijuana?

[Excalibre]

Well! Coding trouble, let's try that again.

You know what's both witty and clever? When duffer backpedals without admitting it, and then implies that other posters are children because they were foolish enough to expect he'd have the balls to stand behind what he said.

It certainly reminds one that duffer is one of the smartest, most cogent, and all around most useful people on the SDMB. And funny - when he claims he didn't say what he clearly did, somehow that doesn't make him a liar, even though it would if someone else did it.

[Neurotik]

In places that aren't West Allis, Wisconsin -- where cops routinely have more serious crimes to worry about. Here in New York, cops will often arrest you for possession, but it's frequently a pretense for some other bad act, and they just as often will tell you not to smoke on the street and send you on your way.
I'm not an officer for West Allis. I only live here.
pkbites: I work in Milwaukee. It's a city with a population of about a million people.
VarlosZ: So, there must have been a lot of hubbub when that cow got loose.

[D_Odds]

It would be stupid of him to treat his parents' rules as absolute - following your logic to its end, it seems like it would be dishonorable for a young girl not to cooperate if her father molests her, since it's under his roof. Not that his parents' actions are comparable, but they are indefensible in my opinion. Being a parent does not give you the right - not morally, anyway - to disrespect a child's autonomy as a person in that way. It's just my opinion, of course, but I can't imagine how you could possible ascribe "honor" to this child cooperating with his invasive, overbearing parents. I was appreciating your argument up to here. First, that is not following the logic, that is veering way off course.

A parent molesting or abusing a child is illegal. It is not dishonorable to put a stop to illegal activities. If daddy hands you a needle full of smack and tells kid to inject, there is also no dishonor in refusing. The most honorable thing to do would be to report parental behavior in these cases.

Possession and use of maryjane is illegal, for better or for worse. Any child who chooses to disrespect his parents by undertaking illegal activities in their home, when told not to, is an ASS of epic proportions. Doesn't matter that you don't think marijuana should be illegal. It is. There is no 'honor' in refusing to obey the law while under your parents' roof. On that, I agree with pkbites.

I am purposely addressing only actions inside the parents' home. Only use and/or storage of marijuana in the parents' home.

Lastly, Being a parent does not give you the right - not morally, anyway - to disrespect a child's autonomy as a person in that way. What the hell do you think the role of a parent is? It is called 'setting and enforcing boundaries'. It is one of our main functions that help shepherd a child into adulthood.

[phungi]

The question is not really whether pot can do any harm at all—most people concede that it can—but whether its levels of harm (both to the user and to friends and family members) are substantively different from drugs that millions of Americans use legally every day.

I've never heard of anyone beating his wife unconscious after too many joints.

Really, man! Nothing worse than stoners stopping for green lights!

[butler1850]

Yup, that's exactly what I said. Or was it something along the lines of "I wonder which of the 3 he'll attend". As in I wonder which 3 he's talking about and which will be accepting him this fall. You do know that there are more than 3 major Universities, right?

As far as the bills? He's 17. I doubt he has a mortgage payment. Or an electric bill. Or a heating bill. Or health insurance deducted from his full-time job.


Put the bong down for a moment and let the adults speak. Here's a Twinkie to occupy your time. :rolleyes:

Goodness knows that none of the adults I know that still smoke some herb have never paid those bills, or dealt with those issues... I'm sure all those professional friends that I have must be on the edge of losing their house, having the lights turned off, and the oil run dry, only to be kicked to the curb when they visit the ER. Yep, that must be what's happening to many of my friends. Oh ya, and all of our wives must be about to walk out the door too...

[Kalhoun]

I was appreciating your argument up to here. First, that is not following the logic, that is veering way off course.

A parent molesting or abusing a child is illegal. It is not dishonorable to put a stop to illegal activities. If daddy hands you a needle full of smack and tells kid to inject, there is also no dishonor in refusing. The most honorable thing to do would be to report parental behavior in these cases.

Possession and use of maryjane is illegal, for better or for worse. Any child who chooses to disrespect his parents by undertaking illegal activities in their home, when told not to, is an ASS of epic proportions. Doesn't matter that you don't think marijuana should be illegal. It is. There is no 'honor' in refusing to obey the law while under your parents' roof. On that, I agree with pkbites.

I am purposely addressing only actions inside the parents' home. Only use and/or storage of marijuana in the parents' home.

Lastly, What the hell do you think the role of a parent is? It is called 'setting and enforcing boundaries'. It is one of our main functions that help shepherd a child into adulthood. Defending stupid laws for the sole reason of following the letter of the law is ridiculous. If the boundaries are wrong (and marijuana laws are wrong), you're not shepherding...you're teaching your child to be a sheep. "Under their roof" should have nothing to do with it.

Would you say the same if your child brought home a boyfriend or girlfriend of another race back in the 50s? If your child was thirsty and drank out of a water fountain belonging to "the other side"? The "because I said so" argument doesn't hold water.

[Excalibre]

I was appreciating your argument up to here. First, that is not following the logic, that is veering way off course.

A parent molesting or abusing a child is illegal. It is not dishonorable to put a stop to illegal activities. If daddy hands you a needle full of smack and tells kid to inject, there is also no dishonor in refusing. The most honorable thing to do would be to report parental behavior in these cases.

Possession and use of maryjane is illegal, for better or for worse. Any child who chooses to disrespect his parents by undertaking illegal activities in their home, when told not to, is an ASS of epic proportions. Doesn't matter that you don't think marijuana should be illegal. It is. There is no 'honor' in refusing to obey the law while under your parents' roof. On that, I agree with pkbites.

I am purposely addressing only actions inside the parents' home. Only use and/or storage of marijuana in the parents' home.
I don't see why you equate honorable with legal so frequently.


Lastly, What the hell do you think the role of a parent is? It is called 'setting and enforcing boundaries'. It is one of our main functions that help shepherd a child into adulthood.
You have a very black and white view of the world - judging from this, you essentially view a parent's options as either completely neglect their child on one hand, or granting them no privacy and invading every aspect of their life.

Well, I don't buy that dichotomy. There's a great big ol' expanse between piss-testing your kid and neglecting him completely. I recommend you not reproduce until you figure that out.

[D_Odds]

In duffer's defense, I read his post initially as he said it was meant. I had to re-read it in a different 'tone' to inferences that Rhubarb and Excalibre and others made.

[Kalhoun]

This thread makes me chuckle. I smoked pot in my dad's house two weeks ago. I smoked it with him. He's 76.

[VarlosZ]

pkbites: I work in Milwaukee. It's a city with a population of about a million people.
VarlosZ: So, there must have been a lot of hubbub when that cow got loose.
I could talk about how I didn't know where he worked, and if I did I wouldn't have yada yada yada . . .

. . . but what's the point? You're right, I'm an urban snob.

[Excalibre]

In duffer's defense, I read his post initially as he said it was meant. I had to re-read it in a different 'tone' to inferences that Rhubarb and Excalibre and others made.
. . . right . . .

He asked what universities the kid got admitted to and whether he paid his bills on time apropos of nothing, right? It had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. It related in no way to the child's admission of drug use.

Wow, if I squint hard enough and hit my head against the wall enough times, it almost becomes sort of believable.

Why did duffer ask that about the kid? If it had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion, then what was the purpose of asking? Even if he was suddenly really, really curious, he certainly knew none of us in this thread knew the answer.

The only possible interpretation of what duffer said was that he was implying that the child was not meeting his personal responsibilities. If you can come up with another plausible interpretation of his comments - one that doesn't rely on the completely ridiculous idea that duffer simply asked those questions for no reason at all and had no idea what he was implying - feel free to offer it. But duffer didn't even manage to think one up, so I don't foresee you succeeding.

[Neurotik]

I could talk about how I didn't know where he worked, and if I did I wouldn't have yada yada yada . . .

. . . but what's the point? You're right, I'm an urban snob.
I don't know if he works in Milwaukee or not, but the exchange reminded me of a bit from [i]Newsradio[/b], which I reproduced and added your names to. In the actual version, it was Bill and Dave saying those lines.

[mhendo]

Defending stupid laws for the sole reason of following the letter of the law is ridiculous. If the boundaries are wrong (and marijuana laws are wrong), you're not shepherding...you're teaching your child to be a sheep. "Under their roof" should have nothing to do with it.

Would you say the same if your child brought home a boyfriend or girlfriend of another race back in the 50s? If your child was thirsty and drank out of a water fountain belonging to "the other side"? The "because I said so" argument doesn't hold water.Well, i don't want to get into the position of analogizing this particular situation to things like racial segregation, but i do want to respond to your first paragraph.

Despite my dislike for American law enforcement's draconian attitude to weed, and my belief that marijuana should be completely legal, i do think that the "Under their roof" argument is a legitimate one. After all, even people who fully support the legalization of marijuana might have perfectly good reasons for not wanting it in their house.

And, in fact, the draconian attitude that i mentioned above is one good reason. Given the way that some jurisdictions treat marijuana, i think that simple fear of prosecution is a pretty good reason for not wanting dope in the house. Some jurisdictions provide for seizure of assets in drug cases, and big items like cars, boats and even houses have been forfeited. I know that's probably unlikely in a case like this, but some people might feel "better safe than sorry."

I actually prefer that people don't smoke weed in our place when we have a party. In Australia, it never worried me at all. But i'm in America on a student visa, and (having married an American) am in the process of applying for residency. An arrest for marijuana could actually lead to me deportation, or to my residency application being refused. This is a big deal for me, and trumps my support for marijuana use right now. I don't want to risk my whole future in the US for the sake of somepot at a party. Especially considering i don't use the stuff myself.

[Kalhoun]

Well, i don't want to get into the position of analogizing this particular situation to things like racial segregation, but i do want to respond to your first paragraph.

Despite my dislike for American law enforcement's draconian attitude to weed, and my belief that marijuana should be completely legal, i do think that the "Under their roof" argument is a legitimate one. After all, even people who fully support the legalization of marijuana might have perfectly good reasons for not wanting it in their house.

And, in fact, the draconian attitude that i mentioned above is one good reason. Given the way that some jurisdictions treat marijuana, i think that simple fear of prosecution is a pretty good reason for not wanting dope in the house. Some jurisdictions provide for seizure of assets in drug cases, and big items like cars, boats and even houses have been forfeited. I know that's probably unlikely in a case like this, but some people might feel "better safe than sorry."

I actually prefer that people don't smoke weed in our place when we have a party. In Australia, it never worried me at all. But i'm in America on a student visa, and (having married an American) am in the process of applying for residency. An arrest for marijuana could actually lead to me deportation, or to my residency application being refused. This is a big deal for me, and trumps my support for marijuana use right now. I don't want to risk my whole future in the US for the sake of somepot at a party. Especially considering i don't use the stuff myself.
Well, in isolated, extreme cases such as yours, I would agree. But with regard to the garden variety American teenager who is using (not dealing, not growing) pot and who is functioning in school, at work, and in personal relationships (i.e., damn near all of them), and who is making a statement regarding the absurdity of marijuana laws, I applaud him. Every journey starts with one step.

[Ghanima]

I think the kid's mom is within her rights to drug test her son as long as he is being supported by her and lives under her roof. I also think it was pretty dumb of the kid to give his full name. But I don't think that makes him a poster child for the War on Drugs(TM).

Marijuana is about as habit forming as Coca-Cola. (And yes, before you jump on me, I have known people with serious Coca-Cola habits.) Yes, I have seen people who were otherwise capable of doing more "wasting" their lives by never pursuing anything beyond their 9-to-5 and getting high. But then again, I know people who don't do drugs that pretty much do the same thing with their Sony Playstation. The drug does not keep you from success, or prevent you from being able to function in society. All it does is make it easier to avoid doing what you already don't want to do. Everyone I know who smokes weed but wants to do more with their life goes out and does more with their life. The drug is a nice way to help you ignore things, it doesn't cause you to ignore them.

[Kalhoun]

I want to emphasize that I'm referring to the "parental power trip" attitude we're talking about; not reasoned, well thought-out reasons for forbidding something.

[Excalibre]

It's just sad that the laws surrounding weed are so draconian and so ridiculously disproportionate to its dangers that someone's property or potential residency would be risked by someone else getting high in their house.

[D_Odds]

I don't see why you equate honorable with legal so frequently.



You have a very black and white view of the world - judging from this, you essentially view a parent's options as either completely neglect their child on one hand, or granting them no privacy and invading every aspect of their life.

Well, I don't buy that dichotomy. There's a great big ol' expanse between piss-testing your kid and neglecting him completely. I recommend you not reproduce until you figure that out.Too late. As a parent of teenagers, I understand that quite well. I also understand that if I ask my children to comply with a reasonable edict (such as don't use illegal substances - whether or not I agree with the law - or such as don't keep dirty dishes hidden in your room until they become science experiments and I have to engage exterminators) and they choose to ignore me and throw it in my face, I have every right to step up enforcement.

I knew as I typed my previous post, some idiot would come in with the what-ifs. Probably should have started a pool to guess on what subject - it was going to be either racism or homosexuality, with alcohol during prohibition being the longshot. So, to answer the stupid query, I have not been a parent at any time in any place where interracial relationships are illegal. Nor have I had to deal with, as of yet, a homosexual child (although I don't thing homosexual relations are illegal in NY - I could be wrong about that). Thus, I will burn those bridges when I cross them and laugh at the inane what-if at its absurd face value. [Aside, being multiracial

Just one more bit: I would never "have" to administer a whiz quiz to my offspring. I've let them know, from their single digit years, that home life isn't a courtroom drama. I don't need "beyond a reasonable doubt" or even a "preponderance of evidence". If I have to administer a test to a child who has been stupid enough to publicly state he is using illegal substances just to 'prove' he is still using, it means I've already lost control. It would be up to my child to prove to me that he isn't.

[D_Odds]

It's just sad that the laws surrounding weed are so draconian and so ridiculously disproportionate to its dangers that someone's property or potential residency would be risked by someone else getting high in their house.
Here we agree. And that is not a fight I want to, nor can afford to, fund. I've other windmills I'd rather tilt at.

[Kalhoun]

Too late. As a parent of teenagers, I understand that quite well. I also understand that if I ask my children to comply with a reasonable edict (such as don't use illegal substances - whether or not I agree with the law - or such as don't keep dirty dishes hidden in your room until they become science experiments and I have to engage exterminators) and they choose to ignore me and throw it in my face, I have every right to step up enforcement.

I knew as I typed my previous post, some idiot would come in with the what-ifs. Probably should have started a pool to guess on what subject - it was going to be either racism or homosexuality, with alcohol during prohibition being the longshot. So, to answer the stupid query, I have not been a parent at any time in any place where interracial relationships are illegal. Nor have I had to deal with, as of yet, a homosexual child (although I don't thing homosexual relations are illegal in NY - I could be wrong about that). Thus, I will burn those bridges when I cross them and laugh at the inane what-if at its absurd face value. [Aside, being multiracial

Just one more bit: I would never "have" to administer a whiz quiz to my offspring. I've let them know, from their single digit years, that home life isn't a courtroom drama. I don't need "beyond a reasonable doubt" or even a "preponderance of evidence". If I have to administer a test to a child who has been stupid enough to publicly state he is using illegal substances just to 'prove' he is still using, it means I've already lost control. It would be up to my child to prove to me that he isn't.
Someone with your black-and-white view of the world would naturally not equate ridiculous marijuana law enforcement with other injustices, but that doesn't make the comparison any less valid.

[D_Odds]

The only possible interpretation of what duffer said was that he was implying that the child was not meeting his personal responsibilities. If you can come up with another plausible interpretation of his comments - one that doesn't rely on the completely ridiculous idea that duffer simply asked those questions for no reason at all and had no idea what he was implying - feel free to offer it. But duffer didn't even manage to think one up, so I don't foresee you succeeding.Obviously that is wrong, as I did come up with a different initial interpretation.

I don't read poster's names before reading a post, which helps me avoid pre-judging any post. Only if the post catches my attention do I look to who posts it. I say this so that you don't think I'm defending duffer simply for being duffer. duffer's initial post sailed completely beneath my radar. However, if duffer meant it as you think duffer meant it, I happen to agree. Marijuana isn't any more dangerous than cigarets and/or alcohol. It just happens to be illegal, for stupid reasons. For equally stupid reasons, it is illegal for me to buy a six-pack before noon on a Sunday. Doesn't make it right, but there are better causes to support.

[D_Odds]

[Aside, being multiracialArgh! Incomplete thought. Try this:

Aside, being multiracial, I might find that tackling statutes declaring multiracial marriages illegal far more worthy of civil disobedience than pot smoking or buying beer before noon on Sunday.

[D_Odds]

Someone with your black-and-white view of the world would naturally not equate ridiculous marijuana law enforcement with other injustices, but that doesn't make the comparison any less valid.New to reading comprehension, I see. I didn't start making the comparisons. Someone else started with the what-ifs. I found them to be rather absurd.

[Antinor01]

Every parent has the right to decide what goes on their house. Even as a non-parent I do not allow pot or guns in my home. One is legal and the other is not, yet I don't allow either....my home, my choice. As a minor he is subject to the decisions of his parents till he moves out, it is their home and their choice. If he really wanted to make a statement he would leave home.

Oh, as to the question of homosexual activity...all sodomy laws in the US were struck down by Lawrence v Texas. (US supreme court, june 2003)

[Kalhoun]

New to reading comprehension, I see. I didn't start making the comparisons. Someone else started with the what-ifs. I found them to be rather absurd.
Uh. That's my point. You're finding the comparisons absurd when in fact, they're pertinent to the discussion.

[Kalhoun]

Every parent has the right to decide what goes on their house. Even as a non-parent I do not allow pot or guns in my home. One is legal and the other is not, yet I don't allow either....my home, my choice. As a minor he is subject to the decisions of his parents till he moves out, it is their home and their choice. If he really wanted to make a statement he would leave home.

Oh, as to the question of homosexual activity...all sodomy laws in the US were struck down by Lawrence v Texas. (US supreme court, june 2003)
No one is arguing the "right" to decide what goes on in their own home. The discussion is about whether or not it's wise to exercise that right regarding things that aren't hurting anyone.

Regarding your comment about sodomy laws, all I can say is...sigh. Just...sigh...

[D_Odds]

Uh. That's my point. You're finding the comparisons absurd when in fact, they're pertinent to the discussion.We'll have to agree to disagree. I feel you are comparing an anthill to a mountain. You feel as if comparing banned interracial marriages to marijuana use is apropos. YM obviously V from my own.

[Excalibre]

Obviously that is wrong, as I did come up with a different initial interpretation.

I don't read poster's names before reading a post, which helps me avoid pre-judging any post. Only if the post catches my attention do I look to who posts it. I say this so that you don't think I'm defending duffer simply for being duffer. duffer's initial post sailed completely beneath my radar. However, if duffer meant it as you think duffer meant it, I happen to agree. Marijuana isn't any more dangerous than cigarets and/or alcohol. It just happens to be illegal, for stupid reasons. For equally stupid reasons, it is illegal for me to buy a six-pack before noon on a Sunday. Doesn't make it right, but there are better causes to support.
You really, really thought he just posted to ask out of curiosity? Did it seem strange that someone would ask such a completely irrelevant question, knowing that no one here would have the answer? Maybe you were reading quickly and didn't stop to think about every single post.

[Antinor01]

No one is arguing the "right" to decide what goes on in their own home. The discussion is about whether or not it's wise to exercise that right regarding things that aren't hurting anyone.

Regarding your comment about sodomy laws, all I can say is...sigh. Just...sigh...

I don't see any reason to believe it's not wise to exercise it. I came from a very conservative home and still retain the belief that a parents decision is law in the home. Obviously, I do not carry this over to illegal things like child abuse.

I must admit to confusion about your last line there, the question was asked in this thread if sodomy was still illegal and I provided a citation that it is not. why the sigh?

[Kalhoun]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I feel you are comparing an anthill to a mountain. You feel as if comparing banned interracial marriages to marijuana use is apropos. YM obviously V from my own.
I never said they were equal. But they are both pertinent to the conversation at hand.

[Excalibre]

Every parent has the right to decide what goes on their house. Even as a non-parent I do not allow pot or guns in my home. One is legal and the other is not, yet I don't allow either....my home, my choice. As a minor he is subject to the decisions of his parents till he moves out, it is their home and their choice. If he really wanted to make a statement he would leave home.

Oh, as to the question of homosexual activity...all sodomy laws in the US were struck down by Lawrence v Texas. (US supreme court, june 2003)
Irrational. A seventeen-year-old does not have the option of moving out of their parents' house - not without being emancipated and working full time (and thus not getting an education.) I already pointed this out - perhaps you missed it.

It's simply not the case that a teenager has the choice to move out. Thus, offering it up as an alternative is simply bluster. The situation is not comparable to other such circumstances - you are within your rights to ask your guests to respect "house rules" in that way, because a guest has the option of leaving.

A child does not enter into their familiar relationship by choice, and thus comparisons to other relationships are irrelevant. The situation is different. The parent is the one who makes the decision to have a child, and in doing so, they give up some rights. They give up some of their money, because they are obligated to provide for their child. They give up some of their time and freedom, because they have to devote some of their time to their children. Why is their autonomy over their home more sacred than those other things? When you have a child, you give up certain rights. Claiming that there's some special, magical right to absolute authority within your home strikes me as rather odd under any circumstances, but it certainly is not the case when you have children. You don't have the right to deny your kid a place to sleep, either - because as long as they're too young to move out on their own, they have a right to part of the house as their own. They have that right because they don't have any alternative.

[D_Odds]

No one is arguing the "right" to decide what goes on in their own home. The discussion is about whether or not it's wise to exercise that right regarding things that aren't hurting anyone.So if I have a rule of "No swearing" in my house (which there is, for residents and guests alike) and my child chooses to ignore it, I should do nothing? That is a far more appropriate analogy.

I know that outside my home, I cannot have 24/7 control of an older teen. But inside my home, it is NOT unreasonable to forbid swearing nor smoking - and this means cigarettes or marijuana. And I expect and demand both wishes to be respected, both by children 'stuck' in my house or by adults visiting.

[Kalhoun]

I don't see any reason to believe it's not wise to exercise it. I came from a very conservative home and still retain the belief that a parents decision is law in the home. Obviously, I do not carry this over to illegal things like child abuse.

I must admit to confusion about your last line there, the question was asked in this thread if sodomy was still illegal and I provided a citation that it is not. why the sigh?
The sigh is because the subject came up as a way to determine where the line would be drawn in a person's mind if the law still existed. We're looking at personal liberties here and a parent's willingness to accept their children and their decisions when they begin to assert themselves in the adult world. Personal marijuana use is a victimless crime and many people would still forbid that (as well as homosexual activity) regardless of the law. It's about interpretation. I thought that was clear throughout the thread.

[Antinor01]

Irrational. A seventeen-year-old does not have the option of moving out of their parents' house - not without being emancipated and working full time (and thus not getting an education.) I already pointed this out - perhaps you missed it.

It's simply not the case that a teenager has the choice to move out. Thus, offering it up as an alternative is simply bluster. The situation is not comparable to other such circumstances - you are within your rights to ask your guests to respect "house rules" in that way, because a guest has the option of leaving.

A child does not enter into their familiar relationship by choice, and thus comparisons to other relationships are irrelevant. The situation is different. The parent is the one who makes the decision to have a child, and in doing so, they give up some rights. They give up some of their money, because they are obligated to provide for their child. They give up some of their time and freedom, because they have to devote some of their time to their children. Why is their autonomy over their home more sacred than those other things? When you have a child, you give up certain rights. Claiming that there's some special, magical right to absolute authority within your home strikes me as rather odd under any circumstances, but it certainly is not the case when you have children. You don't have the right to deny your kid a place to sleep, either - because as long as they're too young to move out on their own, they have a right to part of the house as their own. They have that right because they don't have any alternative.

Please see my 2nd post in this thread.

I don't see any conflict between the right to make decisions for your home and spending time and money on your children. Denying them a place to sleep would fall under illegal which I addressed in my last post. I do agree that moving out is not an option in many cases, but it is possible. My feeling on it is, he's 17 and if I recall a senior leaving home this fall anyway. What's the big deal with him quitting until then? Of course at 17 that seems like an eternity.

[D_Odds]

Irrational. A seventeen-year-old does not have the option of moving out of their parents' house - not without being emancipated and working full time (and thus not getting an education.) I already pointed this out - perhaps you missed it.

It's simply not the case that a teenager has the choice to move out. Thus, offering it up as an alternative is simply bluster. The situation is not comparable to other such circumstances - you are within your rights to ask your guests to respect "house rules" in that way, because a guest has the option of leaving.

A child does not enter into their familiar relationship by choice, and thus comparisons to other relationships are irrelevant. The situation is different. The parent is the one who makes the decision to have a child, and in doing so, they give up some rights. They give up some of their money, because they are obligated to provide for their child. They give up some of their time and freedom, because they have to devote some of their time to their children. Why is their autonomy over their home more sacred than those other things? When you have a child, you give up certain rights. Claiming that there's some special, magical right to absolute authority within your home strikes me as rather odd under any circumstances, but it certainly is not the case when you have children. You don't have the right to deny your kid a place to sleep, either - because as long as they're too young to move out on their own, they have a right to part of the house as their own. They have that right because they don't have any alternative.Rational. A 17 y.o. still has a lot of growing up to do. If a 17 y.o. or a 13 y.o. thinks they can do whatever they want whenever they want because they want, they are still a long way from rational decision making. And thus, I am required to make decisions. Quite frankly, and fortunately I don't have this problem, if a 17 y.o. showed me that much disrespect, he would have to find a new home on his/her 18th birthday.

And yes, I do have near-absolute authority within my house, and whether you live there or visit there, I expect my authority to be respected. When I start making everyone call me 'Godfather' and kiss my ring, you can feel I'm abusing my authority. When I force you to strip naked upon entering my door, I'm abusing my authority. Simpler things, such as no smoking, no dirty dishes in the rooms overnight, no swearing, no controlled substances stored on premises - I don't see these as abuses. If you choose to allow them in your home, that is also your right. Hell, I'll come over and swear up a storm. I'll drop the f-bomb as a punctuation mark, and that's for starters. But I won't do it in my home, nor in front of my children. [And yes, I know they swear when I'm not around - I also know that they don't swear when I am around. That includes the girls volleyball team I coach. Push-ups are a wonderful deterent to swearing. Better they learn to keep it buttoned up in practice than lose points in a game.]

[Antinor01]

The sigh is because the subject came up as a way to determine where the line would be drawn in a person's mind if the law still existed. We're looking at personal liberties here and a parent's willingness to accept their children and their decisions when they begin to assert themselves in the adult world. Personal marijuana use is a victimless crime and many people would still forbid that (as well as homosexual activity) regardless of the law. It's about interpretation. I thought that was clear throughout the thread.

ah, I understand what you mean. I only brought up the SCOTUS ruling to answer a question that had been asked. But I do see your point.

[MelCthefirst]

I would really like to meet someone who smokes dope every day and who doesn't have their decision-making and/or their health and/or emotions impaired in some way.
I'm not talking about the occassional joint.
In NZ and Australia, dope is very easy to get hold of and not prosecuted unless you have over a certain amount which appears that you are selling.
I have family and friends who smoke it occassionaly and some who are addicted to it.
There is no correlation between a drop in intelligence and addictive dope smoking - you can pass exams well or gain excellent sales records or pay bills even with addiction.
Emotionally I think it fucks you over if you smoke it everyday. You become reliant on it in many ways. If you do smoke it every day, ask yourself what makes you need it - what does it do for you.
I think many are in denial about its effects.
If you are screwed emotionally, ofcourse it effects the other people in your life.
No, it is not particularly different in this respect to alcohol.

[D_Odds]

Irrational. A seventeen-year-old does not have the option of moving out of their parents' house - not without being emancipated and working full time (and thus not getting an education.) I already pointed this out - perhaps you missed it.

It's simply not the case that a teenager has the choice to move out. Thus, offering it up as an alternative is simply bluster. The situation is not comparable to other such circumstances - you are within your rights to ask your guests to respect "house rules" in that way, because a guest has the option of leaving.

A child does not enter into their familiar relationship by choice, and thus comparisons to other relationships are irrelevant. The situation is different. The parent is the one who makes the decision to have a child, and in doing so, they give up some rights. They give up some of their money, because they are obligated to provide for their child. They give up some of their time and freedom, because they have to devote some of their time to their children. Why is their autonomy over their home more sacred than those other things? When you have a child, you give up certain rights. Claiming that there's some special, magical right to absolute authority within your home strikes me as rather odd under any circumstances, but it certainly is not the case when you have children. You don't have the right to deny your kid a place to sleep, either - because as long as they're too young to move out on their own, they have a right to part of the house as their own. They have that right because they don't have any alternative.Rational. A 17 y.o. still has a lot of growing up to do. If a 17 y.o. or a 13 y.o. thinks they can do whatever they want whenever they want because they want, they are still a long way from rational decision making. And thus, I am required to make decisions. Quite frankly, and fortunately I don't have this problem, if a 17 y.o. showed me that much disrespect, he would have to find a new home on his/her 18th birthday.

And yes, I do have near-absolute authority within my house, and whether you live there or visit there, I expect my authority to be respected. When I start making everyone call me 'Godfather' and kiss my ring, you can feel I'm abusing my authority. When I force you to strip naked upon entering my door, I'm abusing my authority. Simpler things, such as no smoking, no dirty dishes in the rooms overnight, no swearing, no controlled substances stored on premises - I don't see these as abuses. If you choose to allow them in your home, that is also your right. Hell, I'll come over and swear up a storm. I'll drop the f-bomb as a punctuation mark, and that's for starters. But I won't do it in my home, nor in front of my children. [And yes, I know they swear when I'm not around - I also know that they don't swear when I am around. That includes the girls volleyball team I coach. Push-ups are a wonderful deterent to swearing. Better they learn to keep it buttoned up in practice than lose points in a game.]

[MelCthefirst]

Oh and seeing as how the OP is talking about 17 year olds and going to university - I work with these people. I couldn't tell you how many screw up their education by overuse of alcohol and drugs. You may want to think about who is paying for their education, either directly or indirectly (when parents or friends support them as they drop out.)
This doesn't account for the emotional stress they cause their loved ones- is it really a victimless crime? Young people who are given no boundaries by care givers are a danger to themselves.
Coming out as gay is not related to parents giving their children behavioural boundaries.

[duffer]

You really, really thought he just posted to ask out of curiosity? Did it seem strange that someone would ask such a completely irrelevant question, knowing that no one here would have the answer? Maybe you were reading quickly and didn't stop to think about every single post.

Dipshit, I've been known to take a toke from time to time. If the post didn't make sense, let it go. Or let it serve as a warning. Either way, I'm not here to justify myself to you.

Here's the thing. I make my payments on time. I provide a home for my family. I get to work 40+ hours a week.

I prove that very limited recreational use isn't any more dangerous than downing a 12 pack during the Super Bowl. My point is this kid is 17 and thinks he has all the answers.

When he makes a few housing payments, holds a job and can cover payments for all insurance policies, I'll take his opinion seriously.

When I was 17 I thought $10k a year was more than enough to live on. Of course, mom was providing the roof, heat, lights, food, insurance.

The fact that this kid is entering a major university (supposedly) makes me doubt the common sense of the new generation that will become the enlightened ones.

Whatever you think of me, state it as opinion. Quit assuming you know what the fuck you're talking about when discerning my ideas or motives.

There. That should give you plenty to work with.

[D_Odds]

Dipshit, I've been known to take a toke from time to time. If the post didn't make sense, let it go. Or let it serve as a warning. Either way, I'm not here to justify myself to you.

Here's the thing. I make my payments on time. I provide a home for my family. I get to work 40+ hours a week.

I prove that very limited recreational use isn't any more dangerous than downing a 12 pack during the Super Bowl. My point is this kid is 17 and thinks he has all the answers.

When he makes a few housing payments, holds a job and can cover payments for all insurance policies, I'll take his opinion seriously.

When I was 17 I thought $10k a year was more than enough to live on. Of course, mom was providing the roof, heat, lights, food, insurance.

The fact that this kid is entering a major university (supposedly) makes me doubt the common sense of the new generation that will become the enlightened ones.

Whatever you think of me, state it as opinion. Quit assuming you know what the fuck you're talking about when discerning my ideas or motives.

There. That should give you plenty to work with.I was with you except for the bolded piece (well, other than the toke - haven't had one of those since I was the kid in the articles age, give or take a year or two). I think kids (self-included) start having all the answers somewhere between 13 and 15, and they'll usually continue to have them all through the mid-20s. Around that time, depending on the person, one starts to realize that one knows less and less with each passing day ('yesterday, I knew everything, but today I know everything less this'; 'yesterday, I knew everything less this, but today I know everything less this and that'; and so on). Hell, at the rate I'm going, I'll probably be back to the sperm/egg point, knowledge-wise, in the next few months.

Surprisingly, that conversation works generation after generation after generation. My father heard it, and didn't believe it, when he was a kid. I heard it, and didn't believe it when I was a kid. My son has heard it, and doesn't believe it. I look forward to him having the same conversation with his offspring 20 or so years from now. Some "I told you so" are worth the wait.

[Excalibre]

I would really like to meet someone who smokes dope every day and who doesn't have their decision-making and/or their health and/or emotions impaired in some way.
I'm not talking about the occassional joint.
In NZ and Australia, dope is very easy to get hold of and not prosecuted unless you have over a certain amount which appears that you are selling.
I have family and friends who smoke it occassionaly and some who are addicted to it.
There is no correlation between a drop in intelligence and addictive dope smoking - you can pass exams well or gain excellent sales records or pay bills even with addiction.
Emotionally I think it fucks you over if you smoke it everyday. You become reliant on it in many ways. If you do smoke it every day, ask yourself what makes you need it - what does it do for you.
I think many are in denial about its effects.
If you are screwed emotionally, ofcourse it effects the other people in your life.
No, it is not particularly different in this respect to alcohol.
I wouldn't argue with any of this, except to say that my limited experience with weed (I smoke it every six months or so) would suggest that it does make you actively stupider as well. I certainly am stupid the day after - and even a few days after that.

One of my good friends is a daily smoker (at least.) He's also one of the most together people I know - he's always on top of his responsibilities in a way most people just aren't. I'm envious of him in that respect. But I suspect he'd probably be accomplishing even more without the weed - and he might not be struggling with chronic depression (a frequent side-effect of marijuana addiction.)

There's no question - according to what I've heard from scientific sources - that weed is genuinely addictive. And there's certainly no doubt that it can impair you when you overuse it. The question is whether that merits it being made illegal. I would personally say that it doesn't.



Whatever you think of me, state it as opinion. Quit assuming you know what the fuck you're talking about when discerning my ideas or motives.
Fine. Judging only from what I've seen, you're a chronic liar who constantly says things and then backpedals. Incompetently backpedals, I should say - since there's never any doubt about what you were saying. In that respect you're something like a small child who tells an utterly implausible lie but sticks by it, even when it's already been explained why it's not plausible. You know you're lying, we know you're lying, but you seem to believe you can save face somehow by continuing to lie. You are an utter coward who wishes to say inflammatory things and then take no responsibility for it - either to back them up or to admit when you're wrong.

The SDMB is lamentably cliquish enough that there are some who defend you when you engage in this type of behavior; others no doubt haven't noticed as this place is like a huge room full of people and if you take any two random members, pretty good odds neither one knows who the other is. So you can continue being a liar and a coward if you like, duffer. You'll get away with it; if you don't have enough pride in yourself to be honest and stand behind your words, it's you who you're hurting.

[D_Odds]

You really, really thought he just posted to ask out of curiosity? Did it seem strange that someone would ask such a completely irrelevant question, knowing that no one here would have the answer? Maybe you were reading quickly and didn't stop to think about every single post.No maybe about that. I read every post quickly (like the first time I overlooked this). If it sets off a bell, then I'll slow down. If I had read the post the way you did, then I might have taken notice. Probably still wouldn't have said anything; that post alone didn't flip my skip/post switch. To be fair to you and others I disagree with here, no single post in this thread would have pushed my initial switch (which, once flipped, often ends in diarhea of the fingers...hell, I can even double post over an hour apart!); rather, the general tenor of the thread got me going.

[duffer]

The SDMB is lamentably cliquish enough that there are some who defend you when you engage in this type of behavior; others no doubt haven't noticed as this place is like a huge room full of people and if you take any two random members, pretty good odds neither one knows who the other is. So you can continue being a liar and a coward if you like, duffer. You'll get away with it; if you don't have enough pride in yourself to be honest and stand behind your words, it's you who you're hurting.


You are one of the sorriest sacks of shit I've ever had to endure. Backpeddling? The only thing I've ever done that could be considered backpeddling was to concede points, see things from a different view or flat out retract something that was wrong.

I have never lied in any post. Not one. What I post is what I think or feel when I post it. There are consequences, and I have paid for them from time to time. Often I've moderated a stance based on not always reasonable responses. I live and learn. You, apparently, don't.

That's your issue to deal with. I don't see where the cowardice comes into this, but if you feel the need to project, go for it. No skin off my ass. It's obvious anything I say upsets you, but that's not enough for me to worry about.

You have an option to avoid reading my posts. Why not use it? If you get this worked up over a stranger in the room, it may help your mental health.


Just a thought.

[duffer]

The SDMB is lamentably cliquish enough that there are some who defend you when you engage in this type of behavior


I just had to give this little turd you shat a little closer attention.

I'm benefitting from the "cliques" here? Are you fucking insane? Have you read some of the responses to my posts? Your post feels like a blowjob compared to what I've read in other threads.

I'm a gay-bashing-homophobe to many. Completely untrue, but that's the general consensus. I don't even bother fighting it anymore. Anytime I breath a word about the issue, no matter the context, intent or explanation I get a shitstorm. I have one Doper that punked out and e-mailed I'm on his ignore list, and another (in this thread) that stated for once the post wasn't to attack me.

Yeah, I'm in complete control, shitstain.

If I have some sort of immunity because the Dopers defend me, I feel sorry for the sad sacks that aren't popular. That must be a living hell.

But if you want to focus on me, have at it. It may save the next person you have in your target from such weak ass shit.

Fucking punk.

[D_Odds]

I never said they were equal. But they are both pertinent to the conversation at hand.
Let me clarify my position.

Marijuana as a illlegal drug: dumb. Other things in this category: not being able to buy a six pack of beer before noon on a Sunday. Not being able to buy beer and wine in the same store in NY. Not being allowed to have an open beverage container on the NY subway (not that I've ever seen that enforced, and which I'm sure I've been guilty of on occassion).

Dumb, but not worth fighting for.

Now, let's travel into this wonderful land of what-if. This is tough land to navigate; very, very few people will say that they support slavery. Many of those opposing it want to believe they would have opposed it just as strongly 200 years ago. I'd like to believe I would have. I cannot say, with complete certainty, that had I lived (as a land-owning white) in colonial America, that would have been so. I firmly believe that many people who say they would have are lying to themselves about the effect overall soceital mores would have had on their decision. I can't even accurately predict what my feelings would have been if I were a Southern white adult male in the 1950s/1960s. I can only tell you how I wish I would act based on the person I am today.

However, if David Duke becomes our next President, dissolves Congress and starts issuing Executive Orders like:
- interracial/interfaith coupling is forbidden; current interracial people will be remanded to an enlightenment camp. Current interracial/interfaith couples must split or they will be remanded into an enlightenment camp
- any sex except between a married man and his wife in the missionary position is outlawed
-etc.
These, because of my background, how I was raised, and how I've developed, I would fight vehemently.

That is why I view your comparison what-if as apples-to-oranges. Pot's illegal, you can't import Cuban cigars, and you can't buy unpasteurized Stilton cheese. Life Officially Sucks.

[Mr2001]

Backpeddling? The only thing I've ever done that could be considered backpeddling was to concede points, see things from a different view or flat out retract something that was wrong.
Seriously, it was pretty obvious what you meant in your original post, and if you really didn't mean it ( :rolleyes: ), you sure did a poor job of conveying your true intent. Why on earth would you rhetorically ask whether a 17 year is paying his bills on time, knowing full well that he doesn't have any, unless you were trying to make a correlation between untimely bill payment and marijuana use?

[Antinor01]

Duffer may have been a bit over the top with it, but a 17 can most certainly have bills to pay. Car, insurance, cell phone, internet gaming..all kinds of possible expenses. When I was 17 I worked and payed for those kind of items myself.

[duffer]

Seriously, it was pretty obvious what you meant in your original post, and if you really didn't mean it ( :rolleyes: ), you sure did a poor job of conveying your true intent. Why on earth would you rhetorically ask whether a 17 year is paying his bills on time, knowing full well that he doesn't have any, unless you were trying to make a correlation between untimely bill payment and marijuana use?


I was talking about the broader idea of overall responsibility. I never said someone that smokes pot couldn't function in society.

I was referring to taking the opinion of someone with a mortgage, car payment, homeowner's insurance, a 401 (k) and retirement plan that tokes occasionaly over a kid that has little more than car insurance, gas and a cell phone bill. IF he even pays for those.

Kids are fucking stupid. Most are intelligent and some are brilliant. But they're still kids and that makes them stupid. There's a reason 17 year olds don't run major industry, can't hold office and get a pass when they do stupid shit.

We've all been there. When I was 17 I knew all the answers. And so did every one of you when you were 17. Doesn't make the kid any less of a dumbass for saying what he said to a reporter. If the kid was so damn bright, he would have known how the modern "gotchaya" press works.

But if he's that oblivious to how the world works, and he's seen it for years without recognizing it, he's ripe for higher education. Or he's not.

I have to ask. Is the lack of common sense on his part indicative of the Freshman class? At what point does a university look at a kid and say, "Um, yeah. We reviewed your essay, and you're a dumbass."?

Diversity is fine. But if you don't have the common sense to avoid admitting breaking the law, I can't work up any sympathy.

I've earned warnings here for talking about file sharing. I even picked one up asking about how to circumvent WebSense. (Figured that out on my own. :) )

The kid publicly admits to breaking the law. Defenders abound. Mention file sharing, and you damn well better word it just right. It just doeswn't make a lot of sense. And I'd apologize to anyone that doesn't like my opinion on it, but it's as valid as any other opinion. So I won't worry about it.



Wait, was I backtracking on that? What other clarification do I need to provide to those that are correct in this argument? Obviously I'm wrong, and haven't met the standards of the righteous.

[RaftPeople]

My point is this kid is 17 and thinks he has all the answers.


But it seems like the only "answer" he is proposing is that his marijuana use is not a problem for him.

[Excalibre]

I'm a gay-bashing-homophobe to many. Completely untrue, but that's the general consensus. I don't even bother fighting it anymore. Anytime I breath a word about the issue, no matter the context, intent or explanation I get a shitstorm. I have one Doper that punked out and e-mailed I'm on his ignore list, and another (in this thread) that stated for once the post wasn't to attack me.
You're right. You still haven't come up with any explanation for why you were so quick to leap to the defense of the homophobes at that school who kicked what's-her-pants out for being in Brokeback Mountain. You felt some real urge to stand up for them.


If I have some sort of immunity because the Dopers defend me, I feel sorry for the sad sacks that aren't popular. That must be a living hell.
No, you're not popular - not that I've seen anyway. It's just that there's enough sad sacks who will stick up for anyone with the same politics as them. Those few winners are the reason the consensus against your idiocy isn't completely unanimous.

[mhendo]

You're right. You still haven't come up with any explanation for why you were so quick to leap to the defense of the homophobes at that school who kicked what's-her-pants out for being in Brokeback Mountain. You felt some real urge to stand up for them.

They didn't kick her out. She's 25 years old, and finished school some years ago.

They disowned her and told her she wasn't welcome back.

[duffer]

Duffer may have been a bit over the top with it, but a 17 can most certainly have bills to pay. Car, insurance, cell phone, internet gaming..all kinds of possible expenses. When I was 17 I worked and payed for those kind of items myself.


Well, I need some clarification on this.

First, what states allow a 17 year old to own a car? There must be a few, I just don't know of them. Fight my ignorance.

Second, cell phone? Not if it's a traditional plan. That involves a contract and can't be entered into if under the age of 18. I suppose you can get around that if you have a pre-paid phone, but that hardly constitutes a monthly payment. If you don't pay for the minutes, you don't use the phone. It's not a steady bill.

If you have a phone under contract, it's almost certainly co-signed if under 18. That means the account holder is responsible. Not the 17 year old.

Third, internet gaming.If we're talking casinos, that's 18+ territory by default. I'll venture to say you mean online gaming like WoW and Ever Quest. Every site I know of requires payment by credit card or direct payment from a bank account. 17 year olds need an adult signer for any bank accounts, and they need that signer to authorize withdrawals for the services. The 17 year old still needs permission from an adult.

In any of the above cases, the 17 year old may be, in theory, responsible for the bills. But when it comes time to pay, it isn't the kid the creditor comes after.


Again, I don't have anything against the kid smoking a bit. It's better than partaking in the devil weed that is tobacco. At least the kid is trying to save me money by smoking pot rather than a cigarette. I applaud him for making the healthy choice.

My main point, as I've tried to state before, is that this kid is an idiot for being so proud about smoking pot and letting everyone know about it. I was 14 when I got busted for hitting a bong the first time. Even as dumb as I am according to a lot of Dopers, I had better sense than to talk to a reporter about it. And I sure as shit wouldn't try to defend it to a reporter while I had standing offers to "3 major Universities."

So what we have is little ole me with more common sense at the age of 14 than a 17 year old on the brink of making the University (whichever one it may be) working with his "intelligence" a stalwart of enlightenment.


I prefer to have someone at work teach me shit about different OS's. I can learn the same at University, but that entails required classes that have nothing to do with what I can use in the job market. I hold nothing against "higher education". In fact, I hope the ever growing eclectic course requirements keeps people out of the job market.

Keeps me in demand, and I've never been asked in an interview what my views are on the feminist movement in film over the last 50 years of cinema.*




* I know that's going to piss some of you off. It was the first example that came to mind. I can come up with many more, but I trust you'll understand what I meant by it. And if you're honest with yourselves, you could probably come up with more than I can.

[Mr2001]

Kids are fucking stupid. Most are intelligent and some are brilliant. But they're still kids and that makes them stupid. There's a reason 17 year olds don't run major industry, can't hold office and get a pass when they do stupid shit.
Heh. Unless the prosecutor doesn't like the particular stupid shit they did, in which case they suddenly become "adults lite" with all of the responsibilities, but none of the rights.

Doesn't make the kid any less of a dumbass for saying what he said to a reporter. If the kid was so damn bright, he would have known how the modern "gotchaya" press works.
Sure, he's a dumbass for admitting it in public, although it's hardly the worst thing he could've admitted. A lot of reasonable people rank smoking pot up there next to speeding, jaywalking, and ripping tags off of mattresses. Granted, the college admissions board probably isn't made up of people from that group, but I doubt this will have any real effect on his life.

Even if it was a stupid move, though, it doesn't excuse his mother's invasiveness. Subjecting your kids to piss tests for pot is just ridiculous.

The kid publicly admits to breaking the law. Defenders abound. Mention file sharing, and you damn well better word it just right.
Well, I'm with you on that. Maybe you just need to start use loaded terms so you can fallaciously compare this kid to a real criminal - it seems to work wonders for the anti-sharing crowd.

You know, like "He's RAPING the rules of his house and KILLING his poor mother! You wouldn't stick up for someone who raped a woman off the street and then killed her, would you? But you think it's OK to rape and murder as long as you're stoned at the time, is that it?"

Every site I know of requires payment by credit card or direct payment from a bank account. 17 year olds need an adult signer for any bank accounts, and they need that signer to authorize withdrawals for the services. The 17 year old still needs permission from an adult.
Maybe in your state. I had a checking account at 17 with no co-signer. They even gave me a Visa debit card, which I could use at various web sites as proof that I was older than I really was.

[VarlosZ]

It's just that there's enough sad sacks who will stick up for anyone with the same politics as them. Those few winners are the reason the consensus against your idiocy isn't completely unanimous.
I don't have even remotely similar politics as duffer, but I'll stick up for him. I haven't seen him backpedal or lie, either in this thread or any other. His initial post in this thread was ambiguous. That you refuse to abandon your interpretation of it even after his clarification speaks either to your hubris or (more likely) your grudge.

Just take him at his word and move on. If you are unable to do that, then further discussion between you and him can never be productive, and you should cease responding to his posts entirely.

[duffer]

You're right. You still haven't come up with any explanation for why you were so quick to leap to the defense of the homophobes at that school who kicked what's-her-pants out for being in Brokeback Mountain. You felt some real urge to stand up for them.

Well, if you want to drag in other threads to get your digs in, I can't stop you.

I will say it's assholish, but that doesn't matter to you, I guess.


I never said I was defending the school. I was offering a counter-view to the OP in that thread. Granted, that was the first time a Pit OP had a response that was counter to what was posted, but I'm a rebel like that.

Did you notice my post about realizing it was a bitch thread? I posted something that was apparently unpopular, admitted I was mistaken in the purpose of the thread, and left.

But that wasn't good enough for you.

So you bring it into this thread. Good on you. You win. :rolleyes:



No, you're not popular - not that I've seen anyway. It's just that there's enough sad sacks who will stick up for anyone with the same politics as them. Those few winners are the reason the consensus against your idiocy isn't completely unanimous.

Well, if I'm not popular, tell me who belongs to this "clique" you're talking about. Fucking douchebag. You really like to talk about backpeddling, but never mention the frontpeddling* you're doing to now come up with the "clique" of those that hate me.

Care to mention those you associate me with? You're so fucking adamant about keeping this going I'm curious if you have the balls to mention them? On second thought, I'm not. You're opinion doesn't really matter. I just wonder if yu have the guts to call out everyone that agrees with me.







*If I'm backpeddling by answering these absurd accusations, I can make up a new word. Frontpeddling. I've retired 'douchebag" to Excalibre. There is no way anyone is more deserving.



To the OP, I apologize personally pkbites. I never intended my posts to derail your rant.

[Miller]

Hey, duffer, if you haven't been back to it, there's an apology waiting for you.

Also, if you don't mind a vaguely personal question, but did you go to college at all? Or did you join the workforce straight out of high school?

[Miller]

Hey, duffer, if you haven't been back to it, there's an apology waiting for you...

...in the "War on Fat" thread.

Gah. :smack:

[Ensign Edison]

Hey, duffer, if you haven't been back to it, there's an apology waiting for you.


Maybe what the BBQ Pit needs is an offshoot boad called "The Vegan Section" where we all sit around and give each other fucking backrubs and listen to Enya. This place is turning into a goddamn hippy orgy these days, everybody's crying and hugging, you and duffer are BFF all of a sudden, I just don't know where I am anymore.




:p



Sorry, Miller, I guess it's just my day to give you a hard time. ;j

[Ogre]

I feel safer already.Sometimes, Miller, just sometimes, it seems like you have the ability to reach into my head and pull exactly what I was thinking out.

[duffer]

Also, if you don't mind a vaguely personal question, but did you go to college at all? Or did you join the workforce straight out of high school?

Not really vague, but yes, I've attended college. U of WI-Milwaukee and U of North Dakota. Thankfully the ADD and bipolar went undiagnosed and my days revovled around finding ways to pass classes after getting bored with them after 2 weeks. That, unfortunately, isn't a classic form to follow in getting a degree. Now I have to fight the university to allow me back in to take the courses in Women's Studies and Sociology to get my degree in computer programming. Those courses, I'm sure, will help in my carreer.

For the record, since 4th grade I was in all the advanced placement programs offered. I just didn't give a shit about it. I'd like to say the ADD and bipolar was an issue then, but I don't like to make excuses. I just didn't care at the time. Thinking back on those days, even if those two things were an issue, I'd likely ignore them and skip classes anyway.

Anyone that wants to think of me as an idiot or uneducated, take the above as fodder to feed on. Doesn't matter to me. An opinion doesn't change who I am. Blame the people in charge of educating me for how I turned out. They, having degrees, knew what was best. They saw someting in me that I didn't.

Now it's probably too late. Lamentable, to be sure, but lack of the sheepskin doesn't invalidate any of my opinions. At least in my little world. And it's a nice little world. Blue skies, 80 degrees, full sun, comp'd margaritas. I invite you to join me.



Way too much info for this thread, but if it has to be said, it'll be said here and save the boredom of reading it in another thread.

As far as getting a degree from a University, it doesn't hold a lot of weight these days to me. It's the new technical certificate.


Take a person today that is in high school learning CNC programming and how to work a metal lathe. Compare that person in 10 years to a classmate that spent 4-7 years in a University learning art history.

Which one will have a bigger impact on your life? The person with a degree in social sciences may have the face time on TV when it comes to causes, but you don't need a degree to demonstrate. The guy that can turn a lathe and make a new engine block is likely to make more of an impact on you personally.

Years ago when a college education meant something special, it held a premium. Upon graduation you were a doctor, or a lawyer, or a teacher. These days you can study medieval art and get a degree that is somehow respected as much as the above 3. Based on the available degrees, a degree doesn't carry as much weight as it used to. It's not that hard to acheive any more.

I'll get my degree someday. At least one that will actually do me some good. This time, though, I'll work for one that will benefit me in the real world.

The funny thing is, I'd make more money if I went back to welding than going to school.

[Uzi]

Even if it was a stupid move, though, it doesn't excuse his mother's invasiveness. Subjecting your kids to piss tests for pot is just ridiculous.

I don't see why not. The kid says he will continue to do pot when he wants to. She doesn't want him to and wants to know if he does. We don't really know what the mother's reasons are as they aren't indicated in the article. Only the kids side of the story is.

Parents are allowed to make reasonable (note I didn't say rational) rules that their kids must follow. If they don't there are consequences. In this case the mother doesn't feel she can trust her son to follow the rules she set. Even the son wonders what his mother should do:

"I've given a lot of thought to what she's supposed to do," Muir said. "It's really tough. I guess look the other way, but not approve of it. It strikes me that parents that are OK with it are not good people."

It doesn't look like he is smoking pot to protest its illegality or because he has glaucoma, but just because he wants to. When he is 18 and out of the house he can then do whatever he wants. While living at home I guess he has to follow a few rules and one of them, it seems, is not to do illegal drugs, something easily accomplished by said kid.

[Mr2001]

I don't see why not. The kid says he will continue to do pot when he wants to. She doesn't want him to and wants to know if he does.
Good for her, but just because she wants to know something doesn't mean she gets to search his body to find the answer. He's a human being, not a fucking cabinet.

While living at home I guess he has to follow a few rules and one of them, it seems, is not to do illegal drugs, something easily accomplished by said kid.
Did he ask to live in that home or follow those rules? No. It is therefore unreasonable to subject him to such invasive measures to find out whether he's following them.

[Uzi]

Good for her, but just because she wants to know something doesn't mean she gets to search his body to find the answer. He's a human being, not a fucking cabinet.

Yes he is a human being. See, human beings can make choices. One of them is to listen to your mother and not do drugs when she tells you to do so when you live in her house.

Did he ask to live in that home or follow those rules? No. It is therefore unreasonable to subject him to such invasive measures to find out whether he's following them.

No he didn't ask to live in that house. But he is 17, not 7. He can move out. I had joined the army by the time I was 17, so I really have little sympathy for his predicament.

[Mr2001]

Yes he is a human being. See, human beings can make choices. One of them is to listen to your mother and not do drugs when she tells you to do so when you live in her house.
Yes, he sure can choose to do what she says - or he can choose not to. Either way, he still deserves the same basic dignity as anyone else. He doesn't forfeit the right not to have his body invaded just because he doesn't follow his mother's rules.

No he didn't ask to live in that house. But he is 17, not 7. He can move out. I had joined the army by the time I was 17, so I really have little sympathy for his predicament.
So, because he's choosing to continue his education instead of following in your footsteps, you don't mind that his mom thinks he's a piece of property to be searched at her whim?

[FWorld]

He's a minor living under his parents roof. They don't want him using illegal drugs, he seems to imply that he's going to anyway. He has total disrespect for their rules/standards in their own home.

You find an honorable quality in that?

No siree, heck no! Back in my day...

[FWorld]

Uzi, in no way do I mean to belittle your personal experience. But I have to do this

One of them is to listen to your mother ...


"I should've listened to what my mother told me"

"What did your mother tell you"

....

And apologies for the sequential posting. I shall now get off my lazy arse and go to work.

[Uzi]

Yes, he sure can choose to do what she says - or he can choose not to. Either way, he still deserves the same basic dignity as anyone else. He doesn't forfeit the right not to have his body invaded just because he doesn't follow his mother's rules.

Certainly. Pee in the toilet bowl, or pee in the cup. Hmmm.... No body violation there that I can see. Jab a needle into your arm is another matter entirely, of course. We cross the reasonable line there, I'd think.

So, because he's choosing to continue his education instead of following in your footsteps, you don't mind that his mom thinks he's a piece of property to be searched at her whim?

Hey, If I'm paying for his education then he will damn well listen to my wishes. If he doesn't like it then I'm sure that there are many people out there who would pay the freight for lil' junior here.
It is quite simple: Mom doesn't want the kid to do drugs whether because they are illegal or dangerous (in her eyes). He says he will continue to do so. She is taking measures to assure that he doesn't. Are those measure illegal? Nope. Is his entirely voluntary pot smoking activities illegal? Yep. So, why shouldn't Mom do what she thinks is necessary to stop her minor child from doing things she thinks could harm him? Would you object to her taking his bike away from him if he refused to wear a helmet? Should she trust that he won't ride the bike when she isn't watching or put a lock on it to make sure.
Once the little darling reaches 18 then he can smoke crack or pot or drink himself silly to his hearts content... unless mom puts some caveats to the money he gets for college. In which case as an adult he can choose what he values more - getting high, or an education.

[Uzi]

"I should've listened to what my mother told me"

"What did your mother tell you"

....


Are you asking me what my mother told me?

Nothing in words, but listening to her cry after my alcoholic drunken father beat her told me quite a bit. I don't drink alcohol and I don't do drugs. Never have, never will. Simple pointed lesson really.

[FWorld]

Are you asking me what my mother told me?


I'll explain myself, and again, I was not trying to be an asshole and disrepsectuful to your personal experiences. I was referring to this (http://www.listen.org/quotations/quotes_humorous.html) fourth quote.

[Uzi]

I'll explain myself, and again, I was not trying to be an asshole and disrepsectuful to your personal experiences. I was referring to this (http://www.listen.org/quotations/quotes_humorous.html) fourth quote.


Ah.

Homer : A joke! he he he ... I get jokes ... he he he.

[Kalhoun]

Look, I'm not here to say that parents shouldn't have expectations of their children. I guess my point is that the government has created a false paranoia about the dangers of marijuana. Sure, some people can get sucked down into the bowels of the bong and become waste-oids. This also applies to videogames, sports, sex, food, etc. Others, like this kid seems to be saying, can use pot and maintain a productive lifestyle. There are bigger battles to fight when you're trying to raise kids. If it's not a problem, don't turn it into one.

[Mr2001]

Certainly. Pee in the toilet bowl, or pee in the cup. Hmmm.... No body violation there that I can see.
I can't imagine what kind of freaky childhood you must've had if you don't see anything wrong with a mother demanding her son's pee.

Hey, If I'm paying for his education then he will damn well listen to my wishes.
Uh huh. And if your employer's paying for your health insurance, I suppose you'd listen to all of his wishes without question, no matter how "exotic" or unrelated to health care they might be? (Pretend, for the moment, that this person has been your employer all your life, and you can't resign.)

So, why shouldn't Mom do what she thinks is necessary to stop her minor child from doing things she thinks could harm him?
Because there's a difference between what she thinks could harm him, and what actually could. She has no right to make him to submit to something so humiliating and invasive based only on her own suspicions and beliefs.

Would you object to her taking his bike away from him if he refused to wear a helmet?
Depends. Is "taking his bike away from him" a euphemism for "sifting through his excrement"?

Once the little darling reaches 18 then he can smoke crack or pot or drink himself silly to his hearts content... unless mom puts some caveats to the money he gets for college.
You assume she's giving him money for college at all. There's no evidence for that in the article, and I have to wonder whether someone as paranoid as this woman would really spend a dime to let her son go off someplace where she can't watch over him. (I hear some students even use drugs at college! :eek: )

[Uzi]

I can't imagine what kind of freaky childhood you must've had if you don't see anything wrong with a mother demanding her son's pee.

Well, if she was drinking it I'd see your point! :eek:

Uh huh. And if your employer's paying for your health insurance, I suppose you'd listen to all of his wishes without question, no matter how "exotic" or unrelated to health care they might be? (Pretend, for the moment, that this person has been your employer all your life, and you can't resign.)

Did you note on my first post where I said 'reasonable'? I just don't think that if you say you are going to smoke pot and the person responsible for you doesn't want you to and takes actions to find out that your are following their wishes is wrong. The correct action is, "Look, Ma. I know how important this is to you so I promise not to smoke pot anymore. I mean I only did it occasionally and it isn't a bid deal giving it up. I love ya, Ma!" hehe.


Because there's a difference between what she thinks could harm him, and what actually could. She has no right to make him to submit to something so humiliating and invasive based only on her own suspicions and beliefs.

And the belief of society that says it is wrong enough to make it illegal. We don't know if she wants him not to smoke pot because she thinks it is bad for him, or because it is illegal and she doesn't want to see him in jail , or just because she is a control freak (probably at least a little of the latter given that I probably wouldn't do this if it he was only occasionally smoking. Of course that is his story, isn't it?).

[D_Odds]

You assume she's giving him money for college at all. There's no evidence for that in the article, and I have to wonder whether someone as paranoid as this woman would really spend a dime to let her son go off someplace where she can't watch over him. (I hear some students even use drugs at college! :eek: )You assume she's a paranoid, overbearing bitch. I assume she's a good mother of a 17 y.o. who thinks he has all the answers, and that she wants to protect him, as most parents want to do for their children, from stupid mistakes. Mistakes like a potential criminal record for drug possession. Those never look good on job applications. Sure, the majority of recreational pot users never get caught or get criminal records, but I long, long ago decided that wasn't a chance I wanted to take - nor is it a chance I want my children to take. A good parent wants their child to succeed, and getting into and completing college are important early steps.

We can all project our own feelings and opinions based on a few lines of text. We have no idea, based on the article, what steps have been taken by mother or how the situation may have escalated.

For the record, I do not drug test my teens. They have given me no reason, although I do have trust issues with one of them. Nor would drug-testing be a first option for remediation for any drug, including marijuana, use.

[Kalhoun]

You assume she's a paranoid, overbearing bitch. I assume she's a good mother of a 17 y.o. who thinks he has all the answers, and that she wants to protect him, as most parents want to do for their children, from stupid mistakes. Mistakes like a potential criminal record for drug possession. Those never look good on job applications. Sure, the majority of recreational pot users never get caught or get criminal records, but I long, long ago decided that wasn't a chance I wanted to take - nor is it a chance I want my children to take. A good parent wants their child to succeed, and getting into and completing college are important early steps.


Would your feelings about your children change if you found out at, say age 22, that they've chosen to smoke pot? Just curious.

[Mellivora capensis]

Mistakes like a potential criminal record for drug possession. Those never look good on job applications.

D_Odds, this is the part I'm not understanding. Is your decision not to use drugs based entirely on the premise that it is illegal to do so? And I'm going to ask you the same question I asked the OP, how do you feel about alcohol?

[Mellivora capensis]

D_Odds, this is the part I'm not understanding. Is your decision not to use drugs based entirely on the premise that it is illegal to do so? And I'm going to ask you the same question I asked the OP, how do you feel about alcohol?

Fuck, apologies D_Odds, asked and answered and page 2.

:smack:

[D_Odds]

Would your feelings about your children change if you found out at, say age 22, that they've chosen to smoke pot? Just curious.
First step is counsel them to stop. The biggest danger, IMHO, is the possibility, slim though it may be, of a criminal record. That closes lots of potential doors. The risk/reward profile, again IMHO, is skewed. Too big a risk for too little a reward. At 22, go to a bar and get drunk (just make sure you are walking home or taking a cab). The physical danger is comparable; pot carries a much bigger penalty.

So let's assume my 22 y.o. doesn't stop, and is still living at home. Under no circumstances will I knowingly allow pot or other illegal drug storage in my home (they'll also still have to abide by the no dirty dishes in rooms overnight and no swearing rules). I doubt that I would apply boot to seat of pants the first time I found out, but a child (and they will always be 'my children' - something my own mother keeps reminding me every time she offers advice...but I digress) who would repeatedly show me so little respect will find themselves fending for themselves. I have tried to teach and I hope they have learned that their decisions have consequences, and the older they get, the greater the consequences they must bear of their bad decisions. I do try to ameliorate the consequences of some bad decisions as I expect children to make bad decisions and (hopefully) learn from them; I don't, however, make them just go away.

You might think I'm fire and brimstone because I believe that children should have discipline and respect for their parents and reasonable rules. In our home, however, I'm often the mediator. Mrs. D_Odds is the real fire and brimstone, over-the-top parent. I often joke with her (and the in-laws, who share our roof) about how she must have been the perfect child, as she doesn't understand that kids make dumb decisions...repeatedly. Me, I made tons of dumb decisions - still do, although at least now, I tend not to make the same dumb decision twice...usually.

[D_Odds]

Fuck, apologies D_Odds, asked and answered and page 2.

:smack:Thanks, but for those who missed it, Marijuana isn't any more dangerous than cigarets and/or alcohol. It just happens to be illegal, for stupid reasons. For equally stupid reasons, it is illegal for me to buy a six-pack before noon on a Sunday. Doesn't make it right, but there are better causes to support.

[Mr2001]

I just don't think that if you say you are going to smoke pot and the person responsible for you doesn't want you to and takes actions to find out that your are following their wishes is wrong.
She isn't responsible for his pot use. He is.

And there are reasonable ways to find out whether he's following her wishes - like asking him. He obviously isn't ashamed to admit that he smokes pot, right?

The correct action is, "Look, Ma. I know how important this is to you so I promise not to smoke pot anymore. I mean I only did it occasionally and it isn't a bid deal giving it up. I love ya, Ma!" hehe.
Blind obedience is only the "correct action" for sheep.

You assume she's a paranoid, overbearing bitch.
No need to assume. It's pretty obvious from her actions.

[Mellivora capensis]

Damn, D_Odds, you're gonna think I'm stoned, sorry, but another question or two.

You say you would not tolerate illegal drug storage at your home. Would you tolerate it if it were to be legal? And another twist, would you tolerate your kid getting stoned elsewhere, as long as he didn't store it at home?

I'm just trying to understand whether it's the possession of it that irks you, or the effect.

[D_Odds]

I will never condone illegal drug use or underage drinking from my children. That said, I do not have 24/7 control. I would take countermeasures to stop them from doing so, if it were a problem (thankfully, it does not appear to be a problem with my son, who I wish would actually get out more and do more things outside the home; and my daughter is young enough to still require a chaperone in most circumstances). I'm not going to make it easy for them. However, I remember going behind my parents' backs and doing things I shouldn't be doing. The level of control necessary to prevent that will also stifle life learning experiences, which are necessary to their development.

If it were opened up to a national referendum, I would vote for marijuana to be treated like tobacco. Both would still be forbidden in my home; among other reasons, both my in-laws cannot handle second-hand smoke well. I like to think I would treat an addiction to pot no differently than an addiction to alcohol.

[D_Odds]

Just to clarify, if pot were legal, use would still be forbidden in my home. While I'm not going to like the way the clothes reek from either pot or cigarettes, it will at least be limited to those items and not embedded on every couch, curtain, and rug in my home.

[D_Odds]

No need to assume. It's pretty obvious from her actions.Only in your interpretation of three lines of text from one side of the story.

[Antinor01]

answer to Duffer's question about car ownership, in Ohio I bought my first car at 16, had a checking account etc. Minors can get a credit card co signed by a parent in many cases, but that doesn't mean they don't have a regular bill. As to if they are legally responsible for those costs in the end, of course the parents have the final responsibility. But that is true of ANYTHING a minor does. Your minor child breaks the law, you can be held responsible to varying degrees in different areas.

In the end my opinion is that, within the bounds of the law, a parent has the right and responsibility to make decisions for their home and the right and responsibility to enforce behaviour they deem appropriate. To answer a few things raised in this thread, if that means not allowing illegal drug use, fine. If that means not allowing minors to have sex in your home (hetero or homo), fine. If that means not allowing minors to drink or smoke, fine. Did I miss any others? I believe that children should learn to take responsibility and to learn to make decisions, but that must be balanced with guidelines given by the parent.

[Mellivora capensis]

Thanks for the thoughtful responses D_Odds, much clearer to me now (no, I'm not stoned :D ).

Maybe I also need to state where I'm at, since all I've done in this thread is ask questions. I'm a recovering alcoholic, my last round was on 16 December 1999. Since then I have become increasingly uncomfortable in the company of intoxicated people. Merrily tipsy is still borderline okay, but beyond that I just cannot tolerate. To put it bluntly, drunk people simultaneously annoy me and put me on edge. They become unreasonable and unpredictable, and I avoid them like coughing chickens. I struggle to communicate with them, and they operate at a different wavelength when drunk. Same goes for stoned folk, I just cannot relate to them, and trying to converse is an extreme effort. I'm lazy that way.

A woman I loved deeply once (maybe on some level I still do), used to smoke dope. It broke my heart, I don't know exactly why, it just did.

During the 80's I dabbled once or twice with marijuana, or dagga as it is known here, and even resorted to cough mixture to relieve the boredom of military life. But alcohol was essentially my mainstay, primarily because it was legal and freely available, and as is seemingly the norm in South African society, even actively encouraged.

My current postion is this. Each to his own. If you want to get drunk, do so on your own time, far away from me, and stay away from cars. If you want to get stoned, do so on your own time, far away from me, and stay away from cars. If you want to do lines, etc etc etc. In short, leave me the hell alone, and stay the fuck off the roads.

Having said that, I strongly disagree with the criminalization of social drugs. It doesn't compute. If you want to criminalize them, then you need to criminalize alcohol possession as well. Period.

[Kalhoun]

First step is counsel them to stop. The biggest danger, IMHO, is the possibility, slim though it may be, of a criminal record. That closes lots of potential doors. The risk/reward profile, again IMHO, is skewed. Too big a risk for too little a reward. At 22, go to a bar and get drunk (just make sure you are walking home or taking a cab). The physical danger is comparable; pot carries a much bigger penalty.

So let's assume my 22 y.o. doesn't stop, and is still living at home. Under no circumstances will I knowingly allow pot or other illegal drug storage in my home (they'll also still have to abide by the no dirty dishes in rooms overnight and no swearing rules). I doubt that I would apply boot to seat of pants the first time I found out, but a child (and they will always be 'my children' - something my own mother keeps reminding me every time she offers advice...but I digress) who would repeatedly show me so little respect will find themselves fending for themselves. I have tried to teach and I hope they have learned that their decisions have consequences, and the older they get, the greater the consequences they must bear of their bad decisions. I do try to ameliorate the consequences of some bad decisions as I expect children to make bad decisions and (hopefully) learn from them; I don't, however, make them just go away.

You might think I'm fire and brimstone because I believe that children should have discipline and respect for their parents and reasonable rules. In our home, however, I'm often the mediator. Mrs. D_Odds is the real fire and brimstone, over-the-top parent. I often joke with her (and the in-laws, who share our roof) about how she must have been the perfect child, as she doesn't understand that kids make dumb decisions...repeatedly. Me, I made tons of dumb decisions - still do, although at least now, I tend not to make the same dumb decision twice...usually.
I was referring to a 22 year old who is no longer under your roof. Would you think less of them because they're breaking a (mostly) misdemeanor law that is unjust in their opinion? Does the law always trump the personal obligation to protest when it's something you believe in?

[Kalhoun]

Just to clarify, if pot were legal, use would still be forbidden in my home. While I'm not going to like the way the clothes reek from either pot or cigarettes, it will at least be limited to those items and not embedded on every couch, curtain, and rug in my home.
What about out in the back yard?

[D_Odds]

What about out in the back yard?He could joing my non-filtered cigarette-smoking father out in the backyard, if it is legal. Probably wouldn't happen twice :D
I was referring to a 22 year old who is no longer under your roof. Would you think less of them because they're breaking a (mostly) misdemeanor law that is unjust in their opinion? Does the law always trump the personal obligation to protest when it's something you believe in?Yep. IMO, it's screwed up priorities. As I said, there are far better battles to fight. If you want to protest a law, protest it. Don't just toke quietly in your bedroom. That's not a protest.

[Kalhoun]

He could joing my non-filtered cigarette-smoking father out in the backyard, if it is legal. Probably wouldn't happen twice :D
Yep. IMO, it's screwed up priorities. As I said, there are far better battles to fight. If you want to protest a law, protest it. Don't just toke quietly in your bedroom. That's not a protest.
I agree. But you can protest effectively in addition to the scofflaw thing.

[Maus Magill]

Disclaimer: I do not support current marijuana laws. I also am of the opinion that marijuana is no more dangerous than tobacco and alcohol.

A question for the people folks who think not allowing your children to smoke dope in the house is "draconian": Why should I as a parent have to assume the risk and responsibility for my child's toking it up in my house? As the home owner, I could be held liable for any controlled substance on my property, so I don't want it there. What, exactly, is wrong with that?

The kid (yes - at seventeen he is still a kid) in the article has a choice. He could get a job and apartment and leave home, or he could refrain from smoking dope. One option totally sucks, but the choice is there. Not smoking dope is an option, too.

When I was in college, my father told me that if I get good grades, he'd pay for my education. Two semesters in a row, I decided to fuck about and I didn't make good grades. He didn't pay my tuition the following semester. After working two full time jobs and going to class full time, you bet your ass I started getting good grades again. I made a choice; I suffered the consequences; I didn't make that choice again.

I like low premiums on my health insurance, but one condition of these premiums is that I do not smoke. So I do not smoke. Do I want to? Every goddamn day, but I don't, because I want to afford my health insurance.

Same sort of situation. The kid has a rule: Don't smoke dope. He has a choice: He could follow the rule, or he could live somewhere that rule doesn't apply.

[Homebrew]

A question for the people folks who think not allowing your children to smoke dope in the house is "draconian":
The rule isn't draconian; it's making a kid take a piss-test.

[D_Odds]

The rule isn't draconian; it's making a kid take a piss-test.Earlier, my son had some pretty draconian measures imposed upon him. I'm sure, for sympathy, he would tell his school mates how evil we were by doing XYZ. What he probably left out of the equation was everything that led to XYZ; how we, with a psychologist's help, drew up a list of measures with XYZ being near the bottom (fortunately, he didn't quite get to the bottom); and how we tried at every step of the way to avoid getting to the GHI stage, let alone the XYZ stage.

The story is one-sided and far from complete. There is no way, from a few sentences, to tell if the measures against that particular kid are warranted or not. Drug tests alone are a tool; they can be used, not used, or abused.

[D_Odds]

He could joing my non-filtered cigarette-smoking father out in the backyard, if it is legal. Probably wouldn't happen twice
I agree. I see you've met my father :cool:

[Miller]

What I don't get about the piss test is, what's the point? The kid's being pretty open and upfront about his intent to continue smoking pot despite his mother's wishes, so why is the piss test even necessary? How's this going to go down?

"Son, you failed your drug test again."
"Gee, mom, maybe it's because of all the drugs I said I was doing?"

[D_Odds]

I was thinking about that Miller. I had to fill in a few blanks to come up with a way where it makes sense. It would have to be tied to a series of rewards/punishments, with the whiz quiz being the determinant. Something like losing car or computer privileges, and/or receiving bonuses for time clean. A drug test alone for a recalcitrant child won't serve as a deterant.

[duffer]

I don't think the reward system would be very constructive. For some kids, maybe. But overall it's a reward system for the kid to do what he should be doing anyway. Or not doing, as the case may be.

[D_Odds]

You might be right. Didn't work at all with my son, either. Works well with my step-daughter. Sometimes you just have to find the proper carrot/stick combination. Unfortunately, kids arrive poorly documented, and there is a lot of trial and error.

[duffer]

True. We don't have kids yet, so I'm basing a lot of it on my own childhood. i don't claim to be an expert on parenting. I sometimes wonder if my mom distracted me with the carrot while beating me with the stick if things would have been different.

[Uzi]

She isn't responsible for his pot use. He is.

Actually, she is responsible as he is still a minor.

And there are reasonable ways to find out whether he's following her wishes - like asking him. He obviously isn't ashamed to admit that he smokes pot, right?

As indicated in the later portions of this thread, why is she doing testing if he is willing to tell her that he is doing drugs and not going to stop? What is the rest of the story here?

Blind obedience is only the "correct action" for sheep.

Because if someone who loves you and you supposedly love back asks you to give up an illegal habit that you only do occassionally then by doing so you'd be a sheep? I see... Well actually I don't, but whatever.

[Argent Towers]

Why is it that so many of you assume that the 17-year-old "thinks he has all the answers?"

[Mellivora capensis]

Why is it that so many of you assume that the 17-year-old "thinks he has all the answers?"

Yeah, I don't get that either. When I was 17 I knew I had all the answers.

:p

[Argent Towers]

Honestly, not every adolescent is arrogant. There are just as many haughty know-it-all schmucks in every age group, all the way up to the elderly.

[Mellivora capensis]

Honestly, not every adolescent is arrogant. There are just as many haughty know-it-all schmucks in every age group, all the way up to the elderly.

Agreed.

<<reaches for walking stick>>

GERROFF MY LAWN!!!!!

[Mr2001]

Because if someone who loves you and you supposedly love back asks you to give up an illegal habit that you only do occassionally then by doing so you'd be a sheep? I see... Well actually I don't, but whatever.
Interesting use of the word "supposedly". I guess you think you can't really love someone unless you do whatever they ask you to do.

[Uzi]

Interesting use of the word "supposedly". I guess you think you can't really love someone unless you do whatever they ask you to do.

If my mother asked me to give up an illegal and purely voluntary habit, a habit I have claimed I only do occasionally at best, and it will make her happier if I did so, why would I not do it? Are you saying you are so ignorant of the feelings of those of your family that you wouldn't do so? Remember she is not asking him to stop taking insulin for his diabetes here (for which he would rightly refuse her request).

[Homebrew]

My mom wishes I wouldn't drink alcohol, or cuss or look at porn or have sex with men. I lover her; but I'm not give up any of the above (even if one of those was illegal in Texas while I lived there until Lawrence). What difference does the "illegal" or "voluntary" have to do with it? Why should I give up something that pleases me and doesn't harm her just because she asks?

[Mr2001]

If my mother asked me to give up an illegal and purely voluntary habit, a habit I have claimed I only do occasionally at best, and it will make her happier if I did so, why would I not do it?
Because as it made her happier, it would also make you less happy. Even though you only do it occasionally, maybe you still enjoy it enough that the pleasure you derive from it outweighs the pleasure someone else might feel at your cessation. It is OK to think about your own happiness once in a while, you know.

Are you saying you are so ignorant of the feelings of those of your family that you wouldn't do so?
It has nothing to do with ignorance. It's called balancing one person's desires against another's.

Would you call a mother "ignorant" of her child's feelings if she didn't let him eat ice cream for dinner? It'd make him happy, after all, and it wouldn't be unhealthy if he only did it once in a while.

[D_Odds]

My mom wishes I wouldn't drink alcohol, or cuss or look at porn or have sex with men. I lover her; but I'm not give up any of the above (even if one of those was illegal in Texas while I lived there until Lawrence). What difference does the "illegal" or "voluntary" have to do with it? Why should I give up something that pleases me and doesn't harm her just because she asks?Respect is a two-way street between adults, even parents and children. My great aunt (in-law) thinks it is a sign of disrespect when someone stands up to her lunacy (for example, left-handed people serve Satan and should learn to be right-handed - I am not making this up). It can be a give-and-take process. If those items make your mother uncomfortable, you shouldn't show up at her doorstep with a bottle of whiskey, a stack of porn DVDs, and your lover(s). Nor should you bring them up / gloat about them.

Assuming two adults, if you were to move in with her, I would consider it a sign of respect to your mother if you were very, very discreet about your activities or, better yet, kept them out of the home altogether. In return, she should respect you by biting her tongue and withholding comment.

However, if she were to move in with you, the dynamic changes, and she should respect who you are and what you do (assuming, of course, that what you do is not running a meth lab in the garage). In return, you should keep your activities on the somewhat more discreet.

The dynamic changes radically if you are a minor. Minors are notorious for sometimes making very bad and very short-sighted decisions. And it is not like there is a magic switch that flips once one reaches 18; all that really happens is that one loses many of the protections offered minors. A 15 y.o. having sex with a 24 y.o. might think "Why should I give up something that pleases me and doesn't harm her just because she asks?", but that is a bad and short-sighted decision (on both the 15 and 24 y.o.'s parts). You might not like the mother's reasoning for telling you, "Don't do it!" and erecting roadblocks, but it is a more rational, more thought-out decision. (This example works well whether you are the 24 y.o., the 15 y.o., male, or female.)

Of course, much of this assumes decent parenting. We all know there are many, many cases of people who shouldn't, in any circumstance, have ever attempted to raise kids. We know there are parents who have less compassion than a rock. We know there are parents whose actions towards their children and in general are far more criminal than any joint-smoking. I'm not addressing these situations, in this or in any of my previous posts. I'm addressing the majority of situations of parents trying their hardest to produce good, decent next generation.

[Mr2001]

The dynamic changes radically if you are a minor. Minors are notorious for sometimes making very bad and very short-sighted decisions. And it is not like there is a magic switch that flips once one reaches 18; all that really happens is that one loses many of the protections offered minors.
Exactly. That doesn't really seem to support his mother's position, though. His age doesn't disqualify him from making his own decisions. Adults can make bad, short-sighted decisions too, but no one steps in to take control of their lives. Apparently the idea is that it's OK to make your own mistakes as long as you've orbited the sun at least 18 times, but as you said, there's no magic switch that flips at age 18 - there's no reason this 17 year old shouldn't be allowed to make his own decisions just as a 19 year old would.

A 15 y.o. having sex with a 24 y.o. might think "Why should I give up something that pleases me and doesn't harm her just because she asks?", but that is a bad and short-sighted decision (on both the 15 and 24 y.o.'s parts).
Assuming "she" means the 15 year old's mother, not the 15 year old herself, then I'd say the only thing wrong with that decision is the potential for legal trouble (in most states).

[D_Odds]

Exactly. That doesn't really seem to support his mother's position, though. His age doesn't disqualify him from making his own decisions. Adults can make bad, short-sighted decisions too, but no one steps in to take control of their lives. Apparently the idea is that it's OK to make your own mistakes as long as you've orbited the sun at least 18 times, but as you said, there's no magic switch that flips at age 18 - there's no reason this 17 year old shouldn't be allowed to make his own decisions just as a 19 year old would.If a 17 y.o. is not willing to emancipate himself, then I read it as 'he wants his cake and he wants to eat it, too". Maybe the mother is a reactionary, going way overboard after a single offense. Of course, maybe the mother is at the end of her rope having tried other ways to get her son stop smoking dope. Maybe the son's assessment of occassionally means 4 times/week (an expensive habit). Maybe the son is not accurately characterizing the effect smoking dope is really having.

And yes, the way laws are written, age is a big disqualifier in a person's decision making. Life doesn't have a magical 18 switch; the law does (it also has that magical switch at 21 where one becomes 'mature' enough to drink).

Assuming "she" means the 15 year old's mother, not the 15 year old herself, then I'd say the only thing wrong with that decision is the potential for legal trouble (in most states).Yes, the mother. And a lifetime registering as a sexual offender should be a pretty big deterrent, but no one thinks about that in the heat of the moment.

[Bongmaster]

This is a subject that has puzzled me for quite some time. Why is it illegal to consume these drugs? The only person being harmed (and I use that term loosely) is yourself. I can understand if the effects of the drug cause you to have diminished driving capabilities, but then the offence should be just that, DUI. Moral or health issues aside, why is it a legal problem, punishable by incarceration, to sniff a line at home and watch TV?

Drugs remain illegal because there is too much tied up in the "War on Drugs" to make an easy exit IMHO. Billions of dollars, millions of police, DEA, and other government officials, and the vested interests of millions of civilians who have been mislead by the government about what drugs are and why they are bad make it almost impossible for the jaggernaught to stop.

[D_Odds]

Why a mother might want to try to protect her son from himself (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/internetprivacy/2006-03-08-facebook-myspace_x.htm). Again, this isn't a case about whether it is right or wrong that possession and use of marijuana is illegal. It is illegal. If you want to protest, then protest. Have letter campaigns, coordinate smoke-ins, etc. Recreational use is not a protest.

[Uzi]

Because as it made her happier, it would also make you less happy. Even though you only do it occasionally, maybe you still enjoy it enough that the pleasure you derive from it outweighs the pleasure someone else might feel at your cessation. It is OK to think about your own happiness once in a while, you know.

This is ridiculous. The mother feels it is necessary to collect piss from her son because she is so worried about his welfare vs. the son's fleeting pleasure of having a toke. He is 17 and he doesn't get to do everthing he wants to do. It is his mother in this case telling him to stop. It could well be the police telling him to stop. So, my advice to him is to suck it up, Sunshine. He can wait the year until he is 18 and do what the fuck he wants then, as in tell his mom she can put her drug test where the sun don't shine, and face the consequences. The jeapardy of his future vs. having the occasional toke. Yep, this kid sure knows about priorities and has demonstrated a good ability to make sound decisions. Yessir, he sure has.

[Mr2001]

This is ridiculous. The mother feels it is necessary to collect piss from her son because she is so worried about his welfare vs. the son's fleeting pleasure of having a toke.
You're right, that is ridiculous. She's worrying far too much when a reasonable person would realize there's no significant threat to his welfare. He's just smoking pot; he's not smuggling it across the border.

He is 17 and he doesn't get to do everthing he wants to do.
He is a human being and his mother doesn't get to subject him to everything she wants to.

It is his mother in this case telling him to stop. It could well be the police telling him to stop.
If it were the police instead of his mother, it would make a little more sense for him to listen to them, because then his welfare actually would be at stake.

[duffer]

I'm guessing this is no different than the kid downing a few beers, correct? Both being an illegal act for him, at least the booze is a legal product. If there's no problem with a 17 year old smoking a joint, I can't see justifying it being illegal for him to hit the bars on Saturday night.

Lower the drinking age to 16. Let's give these kids access to a heightened Prom experience. After all, they're responsible enough to handle the consequences of their actions. Why are parents so concerned with drug use?

At least he's not smoking cigarettes. We should celebrate his choice in using pot. Sounds like a healthy alternative.

[Mr2001]

I'm guessing this is no different than the kid downing a few beers, correct? Both being an illegal act for him, at least the booze is a legal product. If there's no problem with a 17 year old smoking a joint, I can't see justifying it being illegal for him to hit the bars on Saturday night.
Agreed.

Lower the drinking age to 16. Let's give these kids access to a heightened Prom experience. After all, they're responsible enough to handle the consequences of their actions.
Indeed. The US has the highest drinking age in the world. Other countries (http://www.reconsider.org/issues/public_health/Legal_Drinking_Ages.htm) allow teenagers to drink, and they seem to get along just fine.

[duffer]

Shit, add to that the increased sales tax revenue allowing that age group to spend all that disposable income on booze, and we have a winner here! The only drawback I can see is my age group paying higher taxes as the rate will increase to deter teens from drinking. But I've never seen that happen with other legal products, so maybe I'm just being paranoid.

Also, by lowering the drinking age, we can ferret out the kids that will have a problem with alcohol a few years later. This is sounding better and better.

Let the kids that will develope a problem be weeded out before they turn 18. That will have an ancillary benefit of freeing up some seats in Universities that would normally have been occupied by people that develope the problem around Junior year and drop out.

All those years could be saved, and give a chance to those that won't become dependant/addicted.

I wish I could say I'm being snarky. I'm not. This sounds like a good idea. Where's the downside? Any downside is already apparent, I can't see lowering the age adding to any problems.

[duffer]

This one I've never understood. (From the above link)

Germany: 16 for beer and wine, and 18 for spirits.

Related to that, didn't Louisiana have a similar set up? Beer and wine at 18 and spirits at 21? Or maybe it was 18 and 19 y/o's could drink in a bar but not purchase off-sale. Before they changed it for the Federal Highway Funds? ( Iswear this is the case, but can't find any cites in my laziness to actually look for one) :)


Why allow beer but not whisky? In a controlled (and sometimes not so controlled) ongoing experiment that has lasted for years, I've proven that beer and whisky will get you just as drunk as the other.

And that, for the most part, was using Miller Lite as the control for beer. (Yes, it is beer. I've had a few drunks off it.) :dubious: I tried incorporatinig German beers into it, but it threw the curve off the cliff.

[Argent Towers]

Just because it's easier to drink too much whiskey than to drink too much beer, since you have to drink a physically larger amount of beer, and your stomach can only handle so much before you puke.

[xkoolkacix]

[/QUOTE]At least he's not smoking cigarettes. We should celebrate his choice in using pot. Sounds like a healthy alternative.[QUOTE]

exactly! compared to cigaretts, and even alcohol.. pot is a great thing! Has anyone ever died from overdosing on pot?? i dont think so! i personally commend this kid for stepping up and not being afriad to admit that he smokes pot, and that nothing is wrong with it! if we had more people stepping up like that, then marijuana wouldnt be illegal anymore and we could all enjoy!! =)

[Uzi]

exactly! compared to cigaretts, and even alcohol.. pot is a great thing!

Well other than pot smells like ass and I'm not likely to get drunk walking into a room full of people using alcohol, I'd argree with you.

He is a human being and his mother doesn't get to subject him to everything she wants to.

When the activity is illegal she should be allowed to do forbid him from doing it. This includes such activities as smoking, drinking, or doing drugs.
Maybe you have misunderstood my argument here. I don't think drugs should be illegal. If you want to inject radiator fluid directly into your veins then I think you should be allowed to. The more the better the quicker the rest of us don't have to walk over you while you're sitting on the corner begging for change. But until that day a parent has the right and the responsibility to prevent their minor child from doing illegal activities to the best of their ability.

[Miller]

Well other than pot smells like ass and I'm not likely to get drunk walking into a room full of people using alcohol, I'd argree with you.

I love the smell of pot, but that's obviously subjective. However, the idea of a "contact high" is pretty much a myth. Unless the room is literally filled with pot smoke, you're not going to get high just by being in the same room as someone smoking pot.

[Uzi]

I love the smell of pot, but that's obviously subjective. However, the idea of a "contact high" is pretty much a myth. Unless the room is literally filled with pot smoke, you're not going to get high just by being in the same room as someone smoking pot.

So, you're saying that like second hand smoke from cigarettes, it is perfectly harmless? :dubious:

[duffer]

So, you're saying that like second hand smoke from cigarettes, it is perfectly harmless? :dubious:


Well, I doubt that this is going to be a good argument. Though I'm in agreement with you.

You're up against some fervent anti-tobaccoists here. You will actually see how some kinds of smoke entering your lungs is OK, while other forms of smoke are inherently evil. I don't get it either. But the fact remains, it's well established on these boards the pot is harmless while tobacco is the end of mankind.

[SmartAleq]

I would really like to meet someone who smokes dope every day and who doesn't have their decision-making and/or their health and/or emotions impaired in some way.
I'm not talking about the occassional joint.
In NZ and Australia, dope is very easy to get hold of and not prosecuted unless you have over a certain amount which appears that you are selling.
I have family and friends who smoke it occassionaly and some who are addicted to it.
There is no correlation between a drop in intelligence and addictive dope smoking - you can pass exams well or gain excellent sales records or pay bills even with addiction.
Emotionally I think it fucks you over if you smoke it everyday. You become reliant on it in many ways. If you do smoke it every day, ask yourself what makes you need it - what does it do for you.
I think many are in denial about its effects.
If you are screwed emotionally, ofcourse it effects the other people in your life.
No, it is not particularly different in this respect to alcohol.

Pleased to meet you, everyday pot smoker here. Second in three generations of regular pot smokers. We all hold down good jobs, my mother runs her own company, my dad retired from IBM after 30 years. None of us drink much, and some of us are using pot as a substitute for anti-depressants which produce way too much zombie effect and other deleterious side effects. My partner prefers pot to other medications he could be taking for high blood pressure and anxiety issues because he really likes having a sex drive and the ability to do something about it.

When times come that I can't afford weed, I just don't smoke any. No withdrawals, no side effects, no huhu. Can't say the same of what happens when you have to go off Prozac or Paxil or Zoloft, and if you're talking not able to afford something--try paying full price for that crap when you don't have health insurance.

I supervise a team of ten, have excellent relationships with family and friends, my kids and grandchild love me and I them, I have a house (and mortgage) which I manage to pay for along with all my other bills and quite frankly I think all this yap-yap about the imaginary "side effects" of pot smoking is ridiculous. Losers lose, marginal people will always be marginal, stupid people remain stupid, and absolutely NONE of this can be attributed to any substance they're ingesting or inhaling. Pot just tends to magnify what's already there, while enhancing the more mellow, cheerful and joyful aspects of a personality while making the more angry, difficult and troublesome parts of the personality seem like too much trouble to bring out on a regular basis. You might think this is a bad thing, but I beg to differ. As for making people stupid, all I can say is that I know how to spell "occasionally" and know the difference between "affect" and "effect." Even when I'm stoned.

The therapeutic ratio of marijuana closely approaches zero, which means that it's basically impossible to hurt yourself with it--unless someone drops a bale of it on you from a very great height. It's been in use for some ten thousand or so years (based on grave goods digs) with no DOCUMENTED, RESEARCHED, OR ESTABLISHED instances of ill effect that can be directly attributed to the drug itself. The shrill assertions of the Chicken Littles of the world about how they just "know" that pot is addictive in some way or that they "know" it causes some bad side effect or the endless anecdotal stories of their roomate's brother's aunt's second half brother three times removed and how he had a reefer madness moment and killed six people don't amount to a fart in a fuckhouse, scientifically speaking. Pot is not bad for you, in most cases it's good for the people who use it--which, amazingly enough, tends to be the main reason why they use it.

And in case you're imagining me sitting in a constant haze with my rasta dreadlocks dangling in the bong water, get over it. I smoke an amount of weed per day that is probably about the size of the last joint of your thumb. That's it. About the same volume of plant matter as one half of a standard cigarette. How much refined sugar do YOU pound down in a day? Drink more than one alcoholic beverage a day? How about coffee--more than a cup or two? Can't get through the day without your chocolate bar? Go bongo if you miss your anti-psychotics or tri-cyclic antidepressants? How pissy do you get if you can't have your cigarette every hour or so? Gosh, seems like the colander is insisting the sieve leaks a bit.

Here's a deal--I won't bug the rest of you about your bad habits and you get off my dick about mine. Legalize MY drug of choice so I don't have to be a felon by definition and I won't help pass more legislation making it a crime to smoke tobacco or drink coffee or be fat as a pig or have a drink, deal? I have my opinions about people who drink alcohol and smoke and overeat but I'll keep them to myself as long as the rest of you self righteous idiots stop flapping your lips about habits you don't like. We'll all just get along and leave our neighbors to go to hell in whatever way they choose, mm'kay?

[xkoolkacix]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uzi
Well other than pot smells like ass and I'm not likely to get drunk walking into a room full of people using alcohol, I'd argree with you.

i doupt you could ever get high from walking into a room full of pot smoke, unless there was some serious smoking going on in the room!

[FinnAgain]

But the fact remains, it's well established on these boards the pot is harmless while tobacco is the end of mankind.

I wonder why that is...
And is anybody else hungry?

[MelCthefirst]

SmartAleq - thanks for that. Like I said, ask yourself why you smoke it - and you have. I don't believe that large amounts of refined sugar or coffee etc etc have the same effect ofcourse, but I also don't think it is healthy to consume these in great amounts either.
I'm very aware that dope smokers come in every guise and are not limited to bong smoking hippies.
You are using it as self-medication, seem aware of the effects and are able to limit yourself to the same amount every day - in my experience you are somewhat of a rarity amongst daily dope smokers.
I find it a very American attitude to look out for oneself and let others do as they please - well and good if they have attitudes like yours to a mind altering substances, however, most don't. People also have issues with personal control when it comes to other substances that are bad for your health etc - leaving society to pay to pick up the pieces. I never know where we should draw the line but I know that rampant supply and demand is not the answer neither is massive governmental control and total ignorance of others' issues only leads to societal problems such as mass poverty and ghettos, crime, obesity etc etc. But way more than scope of this thread!!

[Ensign Edison]

You are using it as self-medication, seem aware of the effects and are able to limit yourself to the same amount every day - in my experience you are somewhat of a rarity amongst daily dope smokers.

In my experience, s/he's the norm amongst daily dope smokers. See why experience doesn't count for much?

[MelCthefirst]

In my experience, s/he's the norm amongst daily dope smokers. See why experience doesn't count for much?

Yes I know annecdotal evidence is a difficult thing to qualify - peoples' experiences are important and interesting though, and if nothing else, help us to make sense of the world around us. BTW if you are a daily dope smoker, you have a very strong vested interest in seeing it in a certain way.
We could find evidence for anything to support any arguement in fact.

[SmartAleq]

I live in a state which has legalized medical use of marijuana. Both of the states to the north and south of me have done the same. A bit further north of me is a whole country with a pretty sensible attitude toward the "killer weed." In spite of all the shrill rhetoric to the contrary, society has failed to fall into disrepair, dirty hippies are not pushing crack to kindergartners on every street corner, and those who use pot for their personal medical needs bind themselves to the same ethic most of the recreational users do--namely, "don't be an asshole." I know shitloads of pot smokers, both medically sanctioned and those who just like smoking pot and both groups are about the same; responsible, bill paying, job holding, kid raising, politically and socially aware, intelligent, involved human beings. Who like smoking a naturally occurring plant which produces congenial effects, generally more than they like drinking a more socially sanctioned drug which impairs all motor functions, can and frequently does result in death from overdosing and usually causes those who use it regularly to be unpleasant people. Oh, and which (distinctly UNLIKE marijuana) does build tolerances to the point where huge amounts are necessary to achieve the desired effect, destroys many bodily functions and organs and is prohibitively expensive. And makes people vomit in public and become unconscious. And loud. And smell gross. And believe that everyone they fancy wants to have sex with them. :rolleyes:

Another Chicken Little prediction which has also failed to materialize is that people will fabricate illnessess in order to get prescribed pot. Oddly enough, recreational users tend to remain recreational and refrain from muddying the political waters by getting pot cards when they don't legitimately qualify for them. Responsible pot smokers don't want to be the ones who cause the knee jerks to clamp down on the medical users who are just trying to maintain a decent standard of life by using their drug of choice.

And you mistake me--I am a 100% recreational user, aside from occasional migraine prevention and mitigation. Others in my family use pot instead of other more debilitating drugs which are prescribed for depression and chronic pain.

Yes, it is a peculiarly American attitude to keep our damned noses out of things which don't concern us--it's the reason why the country was founded in the first place and I wish more Americans could remember this basic fact. As for worrying about how we're going to pay for the end results of what heedless stupid people do to themselves, we'll do it like we always do. Tax it and spend the money to fix the problems the irresponsible people create. It has nothing to do with substances and everything to do with personal responsibility or the abdication thereof. Some people can control their own desires in order to balance their lives and do so. Others can but won't. Some are too fucking stupid to even essay the exercise of responsibility. Since they won't let me shoot the stupid ones and the rest of the people in this country seem hell bent on wrapping the fuckers in cotton wool to ensure they breed prolifically and replicate themselves ad infinitum, I say tax their bad habits and that way those who overuse any substance are also paying a proportional amount towards amelioration of ill effects.

Personally I say let 'em kill themselves--I don't think ANY drug should be illegal. Let the addictive personalities (who are a minority despite all brainwashing attempts by 12 step program junkies to convince us otherwise) take themselves out of the gene pool as soon as they can, thereby improving the breed. The majority, who are perfectly capable adults who know how to limit their intake of anything and decide for themselves what risks they wish to accept will then go on with their lives just like they do now, shaking their heads at the stupid who just will not learn.

And good, responsible people will no longer be put into prisons with murderers, rapists, thieves and child molesters for the grave and heinous infraction of growing a plant in order to consume it. :smack:

[MelCthefirst]

Yes but your system isn't working is it - you've created great poverty in one of the richest countries of the world, with huge health problems and a sueing culture where people don't take responsibility for their actions.

[Uzi]

It still smells like ass.

If the mother is reading reports like these then who can blame her for trying to get her son to stop smoking?
National Institute on Drug Abuse (http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html)

[Miller]

So, you're saying that like second hand smoke from cigarettes, it is perfectly harmless? :dubious:

Absolutely.

[Argent Towers]

Yes but your system isn't working is it - you've created great poverty in one of the richest countries of the world, with huge health problems and a sueing culture where people don't take responsibility for their actions.

Who has "created" the poverty?

[duffer]

I live in a state which has legalized medical use of marijuana. Both of the states to the north and south of me have done the same. A bit further north of me is a whole country with a pretty sensible attitude toward the "killer weed." In spite of all the shrill rhetoric to the contrary, society has failed to fall into disrepair, dirty hippies are not pushing crack to kindergartners on every street corner, and those who use pot for their personal medical needs bind themselves to the same ethic most of the recreational users do--namely, "don't be an asshole."

I'm not going to tell you you're wrong in what you believe. If you smoke pot and can handle it as well as a drinker can handle booze, more power to you. I've been known to toke a time or two every few months. Never more than 2, as my tolerance is very low, but I inhale the Devil Smoke just the same.

If it can ever be shown that pot smokers are benign to society, or at least no more a risk than drinkers, we'd have a leg to stand on.

What you're forgetting is the inherent rights that Americans proclaim. Every American, no matter the issue. The vocal, insistant pot smokers argue that since pot is OK, so is peyote. It's argued that peyote is smoked by Native Americans, therefore should also be legal. And since Native Americans can smoke peyote, mushrooms should be legal. And mushrooms, being hallucinogenic mean LSD should be legal.

Based on LSD being man-made, cocaine and heroin should be legal since they're natural substances.

Then we get into meth. Made from legal ingredients, why should the government decide what we can do with them?

All of the above is bullshit, of course. But it's how the various legalization groups seem to trend. A good idea is promoted, then a few dozen other groups try to take it 8 steps further. And the ideas are all lumped together guaranteeing it won't get any traction.

I blame the expected acknowledgement of anyone that wants to declare themselves an advocacy group. Once you get recognition for something, 19 other groups will try to glom on and overtake what you were fighting for in the first place.

For all the problems we have in the US, we have no shortage of people with enough comfort in their lives to spend their free time fighting for whatever cause takes their fancy in any given week.

[Mr2001]

What you're forgetting is the inherent rights that Americans proclaim. Every American, no matter the issue. The vocal, insistant pot smokers argue that since pot is OK, so is peyote. It's argued that peyote is smoked by Native Americans, therefore should also be legal. And since Native Americans can smoke peyote, mushrooms should be legal. And mushrooms, being hallucinogenic mean LSD should be legal.
[...]
All of the above is bullshit, of course.
Is it? The logic is flawed, but the conclusions are sane enough. There really isn't much of a reason for drugs like peyote, mushrooms, or LSD to be illegal. A person who uses hallucinogens responsibly is no more dangerous than a person who takes sleeping pills before bed - they're not going to be of much use in an emergency for several hours, but if you leave them alone, they'll be fine.

[SmartAleq]

duffer, if you'll notice at the end of my last post I make it pretty clear that I don't support the criminalization of ANY drug. They should all be legal, every damned one of them. Cocaine, heroin, crack, meth, hallucinogens, club drugs, the lot. I don't think it's the government's business to decide what sovereign adults put into their bodies. Even if it's bad for them, even if it costs society, even if kids find out--don't care. All drugs should be legal, easily obtained, reasonably priced, pharmaceutically pure and duly taxed. The taxes should be spent EXCLUSIVELY on education, diversion and rehabilitation of those who fuck themselves up with it. If people die because they're unable to govern their own habits, too bad, tough shit, don't care. If they kill someone ELSE or otherwise harm them while rocking their favorite drug, they get their asses nailed to the wall, and they are personally on the hook for reparations to those they damage. This includes serial drunk drivers, too, who ought to be indentured servants paying off the bill for damages they incur.

What do we lose by taking this approach? We lose a large percentage of our crime rate. No huge profits or risks in drugs means no incentive for criminals to get into it. No drug dealer will be able to undercut the pharmaceutical companies in price or quality--they'll be out of business in days. We lose a large percentage of the population of our prisons, people who are incarcerated for non-violent drug related crimes--possession, trafficking, etc. We also lose the bill for warehousing these "criminals." We lose the good opinion of some countries who profit heavily by feeding our drug habits. Some arms dealers will be a little pissed I suppose, but screw them. We lose our "reputation" as a "moral" "Christian" country--no big loss as far as I'm concerned. Who gives a fuck what people think anyway? This is about pragmatism, not global opinion or social ostracism.

What's going to save us from the fearsome threat of rampant addiction? Same thing that's reduced the overall percentage of smokers from 42% to 22.5% between 1965 and 2002--it became unfashionable. We educated people about the dangers of smoking, made it more difficult for unethical companies to market their wares and stopped tolerating smokers being assholes in public areas. Upshot, the public acceptance of cigarette use is very low and tobacco fiends pretty much have to refrain from indulging their bad habit outside of their own houses, which is as it should be for any personal bad habit. Keep it home, don't shove it in people's faces, because there's a time and a place for everything which has very little to do with legality. Good example of this: ass fucking should be legal, ass fucking on a table at the library, not so much.

I'll be the first to admit that the US is chock full of stupid meddling assholes who want to make a shitpot of money doing whatever they want while campaigning like mad for laws preventing any activity they don't like. I just think it's time to stop freaking out over so-called morals and ethics when determining how to handle personal responsibility issues like drug use, sexual habits and risk seeking behavior and just take a fucking sensible, pragmatic approach to amelioration of effects. I don't really care WHY people do things, and it shouldn't matter. All I care about is maximizing personal freedoms, minimizing government meddling in private affairs and mitigating negative effects to innocent bystanders of bad personal choices.

Why is this so so hard to to comprehend? :smack:

[duffer]

If they kill someone ELSE or otherwise harm them while rocking their favorite drug, they get their asses nailed to the wall, and they are personally on the hook for reparations to those they damage. This includes serial drunk drivers, too, who ought to be indentured servants paying off the bill for damages they incur.

I'll go one step further. Drunks and addicts shouldn't be punished at all for what they do under the influence. Ingestion of mind-altering substances impairs your judgement. If a guy wants to go on a 3 day coke binge, I have no problem with it. As long as he locks himself in his house and doesn't interact with anyone, nobody is hurt. I can concede that point.

Of course, he'll need more health care than a non-user, which will add to the health care problems, which are cited as one of the main reasons the Evil Weed TobaccoTM neds to be eradicated. I can smoke a heater and drive to work just fine. Coked up? Probably not a good idea. I'll take second-hand smoke over a tweaker in a Buick anyday. YMMV.

But if the guy does want to go out and party? If he's stoned he's too impaired to know better than to drive. So wiping out a family on thier way to Disneyland shouldn't be punished. If he were sober he would probably realize that some actions such as shooting up then getting behind the wheel is a bad idea. If he's already shot up? Probably not thinking about that.

If some crack-addled guy decides to break into a car to get the money for tomorrow's hit? Meh. He's stoned and has a brain rotting by the day. I can't fault him for that. It's not his fault, it's the drugs. It would be immoral to prosecute him. Sure, he's negatively affecting other people, but it's not his fault. The addiction and active use are the cause of the problem, but the drugs are legal.

Of course, if the drugs were legal, the above situations wouldn't be an issue, right?

Oh sure, if a person gets out of control a court can mandate treatment. But that's one of the dumbest things I've ever seen done. I've known people that were ordered into AA after a 2nd or 3rd DUI. 6 of the 7 I know went for, get this, the ordered number of meetings. Not a single one after that. The 8th went for 3 more months. Rehab is for quitters, not for people that don't want to be there.

But we don't have enough problems. I can't see legalizing heroin and meth adding to them. :rolleyes:

On the other hand, as an Evil Straight White Male Republican ConservativeTM, I should probably be on your side on this issue. Based on statistics, legalizing the hard narcotics would affect for the most part minorities. Much like my recent enlightenment on the abortion issue, it would help weed out the lower-class and misfits. This could be a very good thing for the American economy.

Not only can we help accelerate the death rates, we can tax the shit out of them on the way out the door.

You make a very compelling argument.

[MelCthefirst]

SmartAleq - I actually like the way you think, to a point. People in social services tend to see that money currently spent on law enforcement and hospitals for example, would be far better spent on education in order to change the proverbial ambulance at the bottom of the cliff phenomenon.
I used to have this very idealistic view as well. I still think we need to spend more resources on education, but only looking out for number one and educating as many people as possible will not eliminate idiots. We also have to work with what we already have created, we can't go back to square one with society.

[SmartAleq]

Thing is, MelC, idiots are best eliminated by themselves--it's actually pretty cool! Idiots tend to wipe themselves out unless well meaning social worker do-gooder types protect them from the consequences of their decisions. Me, I say screw that noise. If you're an adult you're responsible for everything you do and if it kills you all the better then--you are demonstrably too stupid to live. The Darwin fish I'd put on my vehicle would probably sport a machine gun (the better to hasten the effects of evolution, don'tcha know) and have a "Go, Lemmings, Go" sticker right next to it.

The other great thing about my plan is that the more idiotic a person is, the less controlled and disciplined, the more s/he will pay for the privilege of chemically assisted suicide! I'd be spending about fifty bucks every two weeks for my drug of choice (at current prices) which wouldn't be fattening the public coffers much, while also not racking up a lot of health care or other social debts. Joe Gimme Another HeroinMethCocaineCocktail Guy on the other hand will be contributing a large shitload of cash to the education efforts and also paying for his eventual need for an iron lung! If he OD's without need for heroic measures or life support we can be right good sports and bury him in Potter's Field on the public arm and then use the fuckpot of resources he left behind to teach some marginally smarter three year old that Drugs Is Icky-Poo.

Sometimes the best way to make things foolproof is to set lethal fool traps all around...

[duffer]

SmartAleq, I know what you're getting at in theory. The problem is that theories rarely are applicable to real life situations. In a scientific experiment, with controls to study the results, a theory can be proven or disproven. However, you're bringing into the equation people. 6 billion of them assuming you're not talking about a certain sub-set. Heroin has the same physiological effect on all humans.

So we need to then take into account the actions of people. This is where your idea of legalizing all chemical ingestion and allowing the state to sponsor it falls apart.

There is a very small number of people that would oppose free use, IF the person holed up in a room away from anyone else.

"But that person should be able to interact with others even if he's stoned!"

Fine, let him interact with others that are using. When a 6 year old kid is present, though, I tend to have a problem. Do you know any meth addicts? I don't, but I do know a woman that is married to one. She would prefer he not have any interaction with her when he uses.

Again, if someone wants to use, isolate yourself. That should help in holding personal relationships together. If your use only affects you and it's your personal choice, make damn sure nobody else is affected by it.

Those AA people are full of shit. Booze is legal and taxed. People everyday drink to excess and avoid jail while enjoying a legal product. They even hold jobs for years and get the bills paid on time. They raise families and hold marriages together long enough to celebrate a diamond anniversay. They don't get into fights, abuse family members or destroy property.

Often times they have children that resent them for being distant and uninvolved due to choosing booze over obligations, and a spouse that resents them for the same reasons.

For all I drink, my wife and I made a promise to each other that if my drinking ever became a hint of an issue, it would be dealt with immediately. Because of our work schedules we really only get to spend time together on the weekends. Most of my drinking is done during the week when she's at work. A sign of alcoholism? Yup. But I choose to imbibe when nobody is around. I couldn't start an argument or get into a fight if I wanted to. I get to work on time without a hangover (and if I am hungover it's slight and nobody has noticed it in over a year). My job is done well, I've been commended a few times, and life keeps ticking along.

I keep my chemical abuse to myself. I do everything I can to avoid causing negative effects on anyone else. If we go out on the weekend, the 3rd drink means we're taking a cab home. Even if I know I'm under the limit, the risk isn't worth saving the 10 bucks. I don't want that one miscalculation to be the reason somebody is maimed or killed.


Now, if you're talking about legalizing all drugs and can reasonably expect people to be as hyperactively aware of avoiding any harm to others as I am, let's legalize tomorrow.

Based on posts to this thread and other threads we've had on this topic, I'm in a very small minority. Some would say I'm blessed or lucky or the exception to the rule. And I am. I don't know if it's luck, or active choices, or the fact I'm a cyborg. (Just making sure you're still with me) :) The point is after more than a decade I haven't suffered the typical consequences that just about everyone else that drinks as much as I do suffers. Sometimes I wish I would. Some blood work that shows something wrong or a few stints in jail years ago would have netted me a Lamboghini by now. (Just the thought of what I've spent on booze is reason to drink. Let me grab a beer before finishing.) ;)

The tax aspect is ridiculous for legalizing drugs in reality. I don't see a meth addict showing up for work 40 hours a week consistantly. They can't pull it off now, and the shit is tax free! And if they can't work, who's going to pay for it? Who's going to pay the taxes? They'll have to do what they do now. Negatively affect society through theft, robbery and deceit. Problem solved, huh?

One argument I can entertain is that meth can be made safely if it's legalized. That would help avoid the labs exploding and killing children of the cookers. On the other hand, if these people are risking the lives of family for the drug, should we expect them to be responsible if they get the drug at a pharmacy?

Is the danger in the drug being illegal? Or is the danger in the effect of the drug? When you honestly remove the simplistic view and think about it, legalization starts to lose it's luster for many reasons.

But hey, if we can come up with some public funding to allow people to be cut off from society and give them a sufficient amount of drugs to make them a non-factor, I'm all over that. I'll write a check right now.

Where the hell did I put the stamps?

[Mr2001]

I'll go one step further. Drunks and addicts shouldn't be punished at all for what they do under the influence. Ingestion of mind-altering substances impairs your judgement.
I disagree. When you decide to ingest a substance that will impair your judgment, you take responsibility in advance for whatever you might do while intoxicated.

If some crack-addled guy decides to break into a car to get the money for tomorrow's hit? Meh. He's stoned and has a brain rotting by the day. I can't fault him for that. It's not his fault, it's the drugs.
Again, it's his fault for taking the drugs in the first place. Just like if, say, a nuclear power plant operator decides to take a nap in the middle of the day, and while he's asleep, he's unable to notice a warning light and press the "prevent core meltdown" button in time. You can't blame him for not reacting in his sleep, but you can blame him for going to sleep in the first place.

The tax aspect is ridiculous for legalizing drugs in reality. I don't see a meth addict showing up for work 40 hours a week consistantly. They can't pull it off now, and the shit is tax free! And if they can't work, who's going to pay for it? Who's going to pay the taxes? They'll have to do what they do now. Negatively affect society through theft, robbery and deceit. Problem solved, huh?
Not quite. The price of illegal drugs is kept artificially high (no pun intended) by their very illegality.

Marijuana is far more expensive per ounce than tobacco, for example. Not because it's harder to grow--just try growing tobacco in your dorm room closet!--but because there's risk in growing and distributing it. If it were legalized, a pack of joints could sell for $20 and still (1) be profitable to the growers and distributors, (2) be far cheaper than it is today, and (3) include 75% tax or more.

The same would presumably be true of other drugs like meth. Even if they were taxed heavily, they could still be cheap enough that addicts wouldn't need to resort to theft, robbery, or deceit to scrounge up the money to buy them.

[duffer]

The same would presumably be true of other drugs like meth. Even if they were taxed heavily, they could still be cheap enough that addicts wouldn't need to resort to theft, robbery, or deceit to scrounge up the money to buy them.

Assuming the meth addict actually holds a job and can pay his bills, feed himself, any family he has, and spends disposable income on meth? Sure.

I may be going out on a limb here, but I don't see any reason to think that would last long. Are there any cases of meth addicts that are living well and showing they're using responsibly? I can clog the board with cites of the opposite, but if you can show me even one cite that meth is benign to someone that uses it for more than 6 moths, I'll eat my socks.

And don't tell me you can't cite because the drug is illegal. There are dozens of stories (current) in any given year about high-profile people getting busted for drugs. Some are downright proud of thier use.

Oh, by the way, the reason we read about them isn't because they used an illegal drug. It's because of what they were doing after taking the drug.

Drugs being illegal isn't the problem. It's what happens after taking the drugs. If you sit in your house and shoot heroin all day, you're probably pretty safe. The Narcs aren't sitting outside your house peeking through the blinds watching you 24/7. When other laws are broken (and that's impossible because drug use is benign), then you'd risk getting caught.

If the dealer has current tags, car insurance, drives the posted limit and makes a full stop at red lights WHILE NOT CARRYING A LOADED WEAPON, I can't see a visit to your house by him to be any reason to suspect you. Nothing to worry about there. Just hope his rival isn't following him and decide to have at it while you're sealing the deal. And if there is trouble, I hope your neighbors have the good fortune of a junkie firing off a few rounds with good aim. Because we all know the dealers and thier lackeys are crack shots. (Heh.)

And taxes aren't the be-all-end-all. We tax the shit out of cigarettes and booze. There's still a healthy black market in smuggling them. Know why? Because the taxes raise the price to a point that it becomes profitable to sell them on the black market. There is a healthy number of people that kill and maim each other over these two commodities.

Legalize drugs and the price comes down. Doesn't mean there still won't be people that circumvent the law to sell them. Or make them.


Take a meth cooker. Do you honestly think he's going to declare moral victory that the drug is legal and sit back while the government produces the drug at a highly taxed rate? Fuck no. His profits bring in the money for him to buy the products to make the stuff. He uses part of the product, and sells the rest to buy more ingredients. To make the drug he needs. Then sells the excess to get ingredients for a new batch. To make the drug he needs, then sells the excess to buy the ingredients for another batch. Shit, this sounds like a pattern. Easily broken by the county providing the drug.

Of course, the meth addict's income is the sale of the drug. Now that the government is selling it, he lost his income. That should give him plenty of money to buy the drug with.

[Mr2001]

The Narcs aren't sitting outside your house peeking through the blinds watching you 24/7. When other laws are broken (and that's impossible because drug use is benign), then you'd risk getting caught.
Your snark is unwarranted here (at least I think it's snark - you glide as effortlessly between seriousness and sarcasm as Paul Harvey does between news and commercials). No one is suggesting that no drug users ever break other laws. It's undeniable, however, that most of the crime associated with drugs today is caused by the market situation created by the laws themselves.

And taxes aren't the be-all-end-all. We tax the shit out of cigarettes and booze. There's still a healthy black market in smuggling them. Know why? Because the taxes raise the price to a point that it becomes profitable to sell them on the black market.
Yes. Now think about how that works: people go to a place where taxes are low, buy cigarettes, then cart them across the border to a place where taxes are high. They don't grow their own tobacco, roll their own cigarettes, or defend their turf against rival gangs of cigarette makers.

Take a meth cooker. Do you honestly think he's going to declare moral victory that the drug is legal and sit back while the government produces the drug at a highly taxed rate? Fuck no. His profits bring in the money for him to buy the products to make the stuff.
What profits? Who's going to buy it from him when he can't compete with the price of the legally produced, taxed drug?

Of course, the meth addict's income is the sale of the drug. Now that the government is selling it, he lost his income.
Gosh, he might have to get another job, or enter rehab. Are you trying to suggest that the small minority of meth users who make their money by producing meth will cause an equal or greater amount of trouble than the majority who simply buy it at inflated black market prices already do?

Most meth users don't produce it themselves (cite: the fact that there are still houses in Spokane that haven't blown up). Some of them resort to crime to get the money to buy their drug, others don't. Even supposing they all do, it's hard to imagine how lowering the price could not lead to a drop in such crime - an addict who mugs one old lady per week to support his $X/day meth habit will only need to mug one old lady every ten weeks to support a $0.1X/day habit.

[duffer]

Most meth users don't produce it themselves (cite: the fact that there are still houses in Spokane that haven't blown up). Some of them resort to crime to get the money to buy their drug, others don't. Even supposing they all do, it's hard to imagine how lowering the price could not lead to a drop in such crime - an addict who mugs one old lady per week to support his $X/day meth habit will only need to mug one old lady every ten weeks to support a $0.1X/day habit.

If someone can be a responsible meth addict, they can have at it. If the government takes over production and the cost is cut to a tenth, the addict still needs to produce that lower amount to buy the drug.

Meth addicts aren't known for their marketable skills and dependability. They need to get the money somewhere.

There are plenty of doctors that state pot, while a risk, is a drug that should probably be decriminalized. I haven't seen anyone, other than those that suggest the adbsurd notion of full legalization, suggest meth is a drug that can be used with a low risk of seriously fucking up your life.

My ADD med is pretty much a marriage of meth and coke. I take the prescribed amount daily and have never taken more to see what it feels like. There is a medical use for these drugs. But I'd prefer it done under a doctor's care to treat a specific problem. Not readily available for recreational use in unlimited amounts.

[SmartAleq]

If someone can be a responsible meth addict, they can have at it. If the government takes over production and the cost is cut to a tenth, the addict still needs to produce that lower amount to buy the drug.

Meth addicts aren't known for their marketable skills and dependability. They need to get the money somewhere.

There are plenty of doctors that state pot, while a risk, is a drug that should probably be decriminalized. I haven't seen anyone, other than those that suggest the adbsurd notion of full legalization, suggest meth is a drug that can be used with a low risk of seriously fucking up your life.

My ADD med is pretty much a marriage of meth and coke. I take the prescribed amount daily and have never taken more to see what it feels like. There is a medical use for these drugs. But I'd prefer it done under a doctor's care to treat a specific problem. Not readily available for recreational use in unlimited amounts.

Once again, you're totally missing the point. Who CARES if the meth freak fucks up his life? What, you think you can STOP him from fucking up his life? No, you can't, and you shouldn't. Addictive personalities are called that because they have a drive to be addicted to something, and they by the gods WILL be addicted to something, and no force on earth or off it will change the fundamental nature of the addict. If someone continues to fuck up his life in the face of jail time, social ostracism, family and friends bailing out, ill health, loss of job, home and all other creature comforts in order to support an addiction, what the hell makes you think any stupid artificial barriers you place in his way are going to deflect him from his path by so much as one iota?

Much more sensible and merciful in the long run to just keep the stupid addicts from fucking over OTHER PEOPLE who did not make the choices which lead to addiction and mess up their lives. Let the stupid addicts kill themselves quickly, cleanly, and fairly painlessly in order that they be removed from the gene pool and spare the rest of us from having to deal with them and the sequelae of their stupidity. Better to grieve over the dead than to deal with the long drawn out and completely pointless agony of trying to stop a stupid addict from being a stupid addict.

I'm just sick and tired of having MY freedoms abridged because of Big Daddy protectionist laws aimed at saving the stupid from themselves. Get the government out of our lives and our bladders and let them do the job we actually WANT them to do, which is to keep criminals of the violent type safely locked away from those they want to victimize. That, and maintaining the roads in good order--but they can shove all the rules that keep soveriegn adults from doing what they want "for their own good." I don't think anyone but me is entitled or capable of deciding what my own good is, because that's MY job and I don't take kindly to anyone else patting me on the head and telling me what to do.

[Mr2001]

If someone can be a responsible meth addict, they can have at it. If the government takes over production and the cost is cut to a tenth, the addict still needs to produce that lower amount to buy the drug.
Which you agree would be an improvement over the situation as it exists today, yes?

There are plenty of doctors that state pot, while a risk, is a drug that should probably be decriminalized. I haven't seen anyone, other than those that suggest the adbsurd notion of full legalization, suggest meth is a drug that can be used with a low risk of seriously fucking up your life.
I'm not going to make any claims about the riskiness of meth or other drugs, but I don't think full legalization is absurd at all. Most of the problems surrounding all illegal drugs are caused by the black market they've been forced into.

[duffer]

Which you agree would be an improvement over the situation as it exists today, yes?

Well the difference being that the meth addict isn't going to sustain employment to earn the money to pay for the drug for any considerable time. He or she will ultimately turn to stealing and harming you and I to get the drug.

When he or she finally has to resort to illegal activity, I'd rather he face charges brought about by an illegal drug than one sanctioned and taxed by the very government that prosecutes.

I'm still waiting for anything, anything at all, that indicates a meth addict can keep his shit together, earn a living, and not destroy everything around him. Don't worry, I'm patient. I'll wait.

[Mr2001]

Well the difference being that the meth addict isn't going to sustain employment to earn the money to pay for the drug for any considerable time. He or she will ultimately turn to stealing and harming you and I to get the drug.
Why are you calling that a difference? Isn't that what they do already? They'd simply be doing a lot less of it.

When he or she finally has to resort to illegal activity, I'd rather he face charges brought about by an illegal drug than one sanctioned and taxed by the very government that prosecutes.
The charges would be brought about by "stealing and harming you and I", not by the drug.

I'm still waiting for anything, anything at all, that indicates a meth addict can keep his shit together, earn a living, and not destroy everything around him. Don't worry, I'm patient. I'll wait.
I take it you've never worked in a call center. Even an addict can hold down a job that involves talking on the phone all day.. my girlfriend and I have both seen them.

[SmartAleq]

I don't know why I'm still trying to get through to you, duffer, but here goes one more shot. The way things are right now is this:

A person is addicted to an illegal drug. This drug is very expensive because of the risk involved in making, distributing and possessing this drug. Many, many people go to prison because they make, possess and distribute this drug. The addict has to come up with a sizable chunk of change every day in order to keep himself supplied with the drug he has addicted himself to. The addict is de facto a felon just by reason of his very existence as an addict, commits felonies every time he feeds the monkey. What deterrent is there to refrain from committing more felonies to support the existing felony of being a user of an illegal drug? None, is the answer to this question. Once one accepts that one is outside of society in one way, it becomes ever so much easier to go outside the law in other ways. Add in that the addict has very strong incentive in place to keep the monkey fed and you have a situation that pretty much ensures that more felonies WILL be committed to keep this addict fed. The chances of this felon being caught and punished for these felonies is very small, because the cops (a small group) are very, very busy arresting people who use illegal drugs (a huge group), and the prisons are full of people who were arrested for using drugs. We throw away shitpots of money aimed at enforcing unenforceable morality laws while the real criminals rake in the bucks hand over fist and never get caught or punished. If by some chance one does get put away, another takes his place immediately, because the money is too good to pass up.

Scenario two: All drugs are legal, clean, safe and taxed. At current prices, pot is going for about forty bucks an eighth ounce--about three grand a pound or so with volume discount. A very small personal grow operation can turn out two to five pounds in four months at a price of less than a grand in electricity and supplies. This gives you some idea of the magnitude of the markup that illegality has forced onto a very benign, low risk, easily produced drug. Meth is running around a hundred a gram according to Frontline, but can vary depending on purity and scarcity. Let's make the reasonable assumption that the price could be brought in at about a quarter of that, even taxed pretty heavily. I'm extrapolating this from the prices of materials for a home cook--the most spendy item is the pseudoephedrine in large amounts, the rest of the chemicals are pretty inexpensive and would be way less so in a factory environment.

We can see that the addict is now much less burdened cost wise using legally manufactured drugs, not to mention he isn't running the risk of a bad cook poisoning the batch, which happens more often than we'd like to think. Neighborhoods don't have toxic waste dumps where people's houses used to be, the dopers aren't hanging around the drug houses causing trouble--the addicts walk into the Rite-Aid just like citizens and purchase their drug and take it out in a little bag, just like regular people. Less upfront cost means the addict can probably support his habit just by simple means like cadging spare change, cashing in pop bottles or doing plain old manual labor part time. Figure most addicts might just think this is a good trade off from the old way? Especially if they know for a fact that any time they want help to get out from under the monkey all they have to do is walk into a clinic and it's rehab city, already paid for by the taxes on his drug? Think regular citizens would benefit from less crime in their neighborhoods and increased police presence since the cops are no longer preoccupied busting people for victimless crimes? Think that once the addict is repatriated as a regular citizen and not a de facto criminal he might like to keep it that way, just so's not have to look over his shoulder and be worried all the time--especially since it's a bitch keeping the monkey fed while you're incarcerated.

So, less crime, fewer criminals, huge swaths of current issues swept away in one fell swoop by the simple expedient of removing the profit motive and the danger factor involved in drug use. Fewer deaths from drugs, too, since dosage is absolutely standardized and there's no OD'ing on unexpectedly pure street dope. No dying from weird substances used to cut drugs to increase the profit margin. Greatly increased tax revenue which is earmarked to teach kids the truth regarding drug use, not the sensationalized bullshit propaganda teachers are forced to tell the kids in order to "scare them straight," what a fucking crock. Kids who're taught truth rather than shit are better able to make good judgements regarding whether or not they'll use drugs at all or if they do to what extent is tolerable and safe.

I'm failing to see the downcheck here, and so far I've seen nothing from the other side that makes anywhere near as much sense as my scenario. Actually, with seizure and forfeiture laws in effect the government has a substantial stake in keeping drugs illegal, but I suppose it would be churlish of me to assume this is the major roadblock to a sensible drug policy. So I'll just continue to chalk it up to the morons who still think they can legislate morality and enforce prohibition of substances that sizable percentages of the population want being in charge. Anything else would brand me a cynic, I suppose.

[pkbites]

Jeezus Gawd!:smack:

I go away for a few days and you guys turn my "the kids a dumbass" thread into a "let's legalize everything" debate?:rolleyes:


He should follow the rules of the household (not partaking in illegal activities) until he is old enough to move out. Then he can do what he wants, take his own chances with the police, have his own rules of his own home, vote for Pols that see things his way on dope, and raise his own kids the way he wants. Then when his kids say fuck you to whatever the rules are in the home he's paying the mortgage on, the delicousness of the irony will be his to choke on.
(hey, I remember hearing my old man laughing all the way from hell the first time I told one of my kids to cut their hair! ;) )

[SmartAleq]

Sorry for the hijack, but you have to admit it's THOROUGH!

Drove that baby AAAALLLL the way off the cliff, we did... :D

And yes, the emergency brake was on at the time, why do you ask?

[bhamlaxy]

So I know this is an OLD thread, but considering I am the topic of the discussion I felt it was appropriate to bump it. I wanted to clear some things up and defend myself a tiny bit.

but what kind of dumbass consents to let a major metropolitan newspaper quote you saying that you use illegal drugs
I was a bit ignorant then, and didn't know the meaning of "off the record" with papers. I had no idea they would use my full name or location, although I'd bet there are several people with my name in Michigan.

Yeah, up 'til now, moron - surely this is reasonable ground for a police search of their house? I think we've found a new poster child for the anti-drugs campaign.
You've got to be kidding me if you think this would lead to any type of police response. They have MUCH bigger things to worry about than tracking down some kid that said he occasionally smokes. Needless to say those comments have never caused the slightest bit of negative impact.

I'd love to know the 3 Universities he's been accepted to, and if he actually attends any of them this fall. I'd ask if he pays his bills on time, but that's seemingly a moot point in this case.

Yes, I attended the best of the 3, graduated in 4 years with a high GPA, a glowing resume, and had a perfect job lined up before I graduated.

I also pay my bills on time, every time.

I bet dollars to donuts that if his mother wandered into this thread she'd vehemently defend him as a good kid. It would be expected, but also would show why the kid is so damn arrogant. What a dumbass.
To put it simply, no. She's glad that things have turned out so well, but at the time she would have been quite upset.

But what I'm sure it is reasonable grounds for is that every time within the near future he tries to a job the boss man will say "we don't hire potheads".
Not happened once, and I've worked some rather high profile jobs.

Or you could think of him as someone who's honest and forthright and isn't ashamed of himself.
Thank you.

He's a minor living under his parents roof. They don't want him using illegal drugs, he seems to imply that he's going to anyway. He has total disrespect for their rules/standards in their own home.

You find an honorable quality in that?
It was not honorable at all. It was an idiotic result of me being a stupid 17 year old.

but couldn't it be possible that he used a fabricated name knowing of the possible consequences?
I wish! Would have been a good idea.

Well, in isolated, extreme cases such as yours, I would agree. But with regard to the garden variety American teenager who is using (not dealing, not growing) pot and who is functioning in school, at work, and in personal relationships (i.e., damn near all of them), and who is making a statement regarding the absurdity of marijuana laws, I applaud him.
Not trying to toot my own horn but I would certainly fall under that group.

Oh and seeing as how the OP is talking about 17 year olds and going to university - I work with these people. I couldn't tell you how many screw up their education by overuse of alcohol and drugs. You may want to think about who is paying for their education, either directly or indirectly (when parents or friends support them as they drop out.)
This doesn't account for the emotional stress they cause their loved ones- is it really a victimless crime? Young people who are given no boundaries by care givers are a danger to themselves.
Coming out as gay is not related to parents giving their children behavioural boundaries.
My education was not screwed up one bit, and my parents became okay with it as long as my grades were fine, my health was maintained, and I stayed out of trouble, all of which were accomplished.

When he makes a few housing payments, holds a job and can cover payments for all insurance policies, I'll take his opinion seriously.
I'm not making housing payments or paying for insurance yet, as I'm renting and am covered under my parents insurance (thanks Obama), I'm easily covering rent, utilities, and student loan payments large enough to almost represent the size of a housing payment. Since graduation I've worked several high profile jobs, and am extremely happy with the direction my career is going in.

The fact that this kid is entering a major university (supposedly)
It's not "supposedly", it was a fact. It was a top tier university as well.

Not sure if the people that posted are still around, but I'd be glad to answer any questions you may have.

[Hal Briston]

Just to be clear, you're saying that you're Matt Muir, the kid quoted in the article in the OP?

Assuming that's the case and you're on the level, thanks for dropping by and participating. Glad things have turned out ok for you.

[Oakminster]

I heard that Zombie Bud is da bomb :D

[bhamlaxy]

Yes I am. I had posted on a forum for a group called Students for Sensible Drug Policy and a reporter emailed me. I was so enamored with the idea of being in the paper that I didn't think about the fact that they may use my name, or that it would forever be on the internet. Although so far I don't really regret it. No one has ever mentioned the article to me, and I feel that the comments I made weren't damning in any way, especially since it was 5 years ago. I stand by my views on marijuana use, and if someone didn't want to hire me because I believe it can be used in a responsible manner, I would rather not work for them.

[Argent Towers]

Good on you for standing up against the fascist, insane drug laws in this country.

[Southern Yankee]

How did you happen upon the thread in question? Assuming you're telling the truth, I find it fascinating that you found the thread and popped in to offer your experience. So, thanks!

[Lemur866]

How did you happen upon the thread in question? Assuming you're telling the truth, I find it fascinating that you found the thread and popped in to offer your experience. So, thanks!

People google their own name from time to time. Like, if you google my name (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22darryl+shannon%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a), I find that I'm a professional hockey player. Except that's a different guy who shares my name.

[Derleth]

People google their own name from time to time. Like, if you google my name (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22darryl+shannon%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a), I find that I'm a professional hockey player. Except that's a different guy who shares my name.Well, there goes all my respect for you.

(You probably don't even have a brother named Darryl.)

[clairobscur]

Deleted

[digs]

He's a minor living under his parents roof. They don't want him using illegal drugs, he seems to imply that he's going to anyway. He has total disrespect for their rules/standards in their own home.

You find an honorable quality in that?

Yes, I think honesty is an honorable quality.

Our strict Judeo-Christian household somehow raised a pothead. Hard to believe, I know :rolleyes:.

But I do admire my kid's refusal to lie about it.

[bhamlaxy]

Kind of a funny story that led me to find this.

I was at work when a coworker was lamenting the fact that when he googles his name, the 3rd result is a facebook group, complete with his picture, titled "<His name> closed his car door on his dick". Apparently he was unloading his car with something and "humped" at the door to swing it shut. Something happened and the tip of his penis got pinched pretty hard. His friends thought it was so funny they made a facebook group.

So I remembered the article and searched my name with the applicable terms. Then this came up and I was fascinated that such a long conversation had been started by it.

[Inner Stickler]

You would not believe the length of the discussions we've had on topics as mundane as appropriate drinks to order at a bar and footwear in houses. There is no nit so picky a doper will not die on that hill.

(Me, I don't particularly care if people smoke pot. I don't see the benefits of a lot of the drug prohibition, yadda yadda yadda, yay we're still on topic.)

[Hal Briston]

"<His name> closed his car door on his dick". Not for nothing, but redacting his name doesn't really do much if you put the rest of the group name in there. It's not like there are a ton of "So-n-so closed his car door on his dick" groups on facebook. :)


Oh yes: ow.

[Toxgoddess]

[/QUOTE]I've never heard of anyone beating his wife unconscious after too many joints.[/QUOTE]

(From upthread: coding difficulties today)


Kevin Artz

http://www.thc-ministry.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=58004

[Ogre]

I've never heard of anyone beating his wife unconscious after too many joints.[/QUOTE]

(From upthread: coding difficulties today)


Kevin Artz

http://www.thc-ministry.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=58004[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and put this out there: pot did NOT cause him to murder and eat his wife.

[Derleth]

I've never heard of anyone beating his wife unconscious after too many joints.

(From upthread: coding difficulties today)


Kevin Artz

http://www.thc-ministry.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=58004

Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and put this out there: pot did NOT cause him to murder and eat his wife.Even if we assume the premise, you should not be able to forge a diminished capacity defense for yourself based on something you deliberately did to yourself. If anything, a finding that you committed the offense due to deliberately putting yourself in an altered state ought to vastly increase the punishment handed down.

[bhamlaxy]

And EVEN IF pot was the pure cause of this, how many people have been beaten, raped or murdered by someone under the influence of alcohol? Those crimes happen on a daily basis by those who drink.

[Toxgoddess]

Even if we assume the premise, you should not be able to forge a diminished capacity defense for yourself based on something you deliberately did to yourself. If anything, a finding that you committed the offense due to deliberately putting yourself in an altered state ought to vastly increase the punishment handed down.

He's serving life without parole. The jury was not impressed by the marijuana psycosis argument either, although it was not disputed that the guy was a daily pot smoker.

As for alcohol, with respect to the OP, a 17-year-old who bragged to the papers that he drank every day and against his parents' wishes would be just as stupid and self-deluding as this kid.

[Toxgoddess]

And EVEN IF pot was the pure cause of this, how many people have been beaten, raped or murdered by someone under the influence of alcohol? Those crimes happen on a daily basis by those who drink.

An awful lot of date rapes happen while the victim is under the influence of alcohol or pot or both. Those are your two most common date-rape drugs. Pot increases your chances of being in a fatal car crash by 2 - 6x. In absolute numbers there are no doubt more crimes committed where alcohol is involved than marijuana, because there are probably a lot more people who drink regularly than who smoke pot regularly. But that doesn't mean pot is harmless.

[Clothahump]

I'd love to know the 3 Universities he's been accepted to, and if he actually attends any of them this fall.

Or whether he lasts more than one, possibly two, semesters if he does.


What a maroon!

[Inner Stickler]

Umm, what? did you stop reading the thread three posts in? He graduated.

[guizot]

Kind of a funny story that led me to find this....Then this came up and I was fascinated that such a long conversation had been started by it.So you googled yourself only to find that five years ago a bunch of total strangers were avoiding their work responsibilities by conjecturing on-line to all ends about the possibilities connected to the (to them) unknown circumstances tied to some minor event in your life that is long past, in the process coming to solidly reasoned conclusions regarding drug legalization, small-town law enforcement, filial duty, the social costs of addiction, the merits or non-merits of THC, and whether you were fool when you were 17. Hm.

[Derleth]

So you googled yourself only to find that five years ago a bunch of total strangers were avoiding their work responsibilities by conjecturing on-line to all ends about the possibilities connected to the (to them) unknown circumstances tied to some minor event in your life that is long past, in the process coming to solidly reasoned conclusions regarding drug legalization, small-town law enforcement, filial duty, the social costs of addiction, the merits or non-merits of THC, and whether you were fool when you were 17. Hm.The Internet's a Hell of a drug.

[Fuji]

An awful lot of date rapes happen while the victim is under the influence of alcohol or pot or both. Those are your two most common date-rape drugs. Pot increases your chances of being in a fatal car crash by 2 - 6x. In absolute numbers there are no doubt more crimes committed where alcohol is involved than marijuana, because there are probably a lot more people who drink regularly than who smoke pot regularly. But that doesn't mean pot is harmless.

"Paging Dr. Dio! Paging Dr. Dio! Please pick up the white Courtesy Phone."

[WhyNot]

Pot increases your chances of being in a fatal car crash by 2 - 6x.

Where does this number come from, please?

[bhamlaxy]

An awful lot of date rapes happen while the victim is under the influence of alcohol or pot or both. Those are your two most common date-rape drugs. Pot increases your chances of being in a fatal car crash by 2 - 6x. In absolute numbers there are no doubt more crimes committed where alcohol is involved than marijuana, because there are probably a lot more people who drink regularly than who smoke pot regularly. But that doesn't mean pot is harmless.
I disagree with many points. I don't think pot is a date rape drug or is one of the "two most common". I'd be thinking roofies, GHB, or alcohol come way before that.

Now with issues like this it's tough because I don't think there are that many studies. I'm not sure where you got that "2-6x more likely to have a fatal car crash", but here are some specific studies.
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2010/jun/04/marijuana_study_finds_minimal_ch
According to clinical trial data published in the March issue of the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, subjects tested both before and after smoking marijuana exhibited virtually identical driving skills in a battery of driving simulator tests. Researchers in the double-blind, placebo-controlled trial tested 85 subjects -- 50 men and 35 women -- on simulated driving performance. The subjects had to respond to simulations of various events associated with vehicle crash risk, such as deciding whether to stop or go through a changing traffic light, avoiding a driver entering an intersection illegally, and responding to the presence of emergency vehicles. Subjects were tested sober and again a half hour after having smoked a single medium-potency (2.9% THC) joint or a placebo.
The investigators found that the subjects' performance before and after getting stoned was virtually identical. "No differences were found during the baseline driving segment (and the) collision avoidance scenarios," the authors reported. Nor were there any differences between the way men and women responded.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/03/990325110700.htm
Recent research into impairment and traffic accident reports from several countries shows that marijuana taken alone in moderate amounts does not significantly increase a driver's risk of causing an accident -- unlike alcohol, says Smiley, an adjunct professor in the department of mechanical and industrial engineering. While smoking marijuana does impair driving ability, it does not share alcohol's effect on judgment. Drivers on marijuana remain aware of their impairment, prompting them to slow down and drive more cautiously to compensate, she says

I'd say the most important fact is summarized in this study
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/dot78_1g.htm
* Drivers under the influence of marijuana tend to over-estimate the adverse effects of the drug on their driving quality and compensate when they can; e.g. by increasing effort to accomplish the task, increasing headway or slowing down, or a combination of these.

* Drivers under the influence of alcohol tend to under-estimate the adverse effects of the drug on their driving quality and do not invest compensatory effort.

I think many people have experienced this. While driving under the influence of marijuana, the user is acutely aware that they are intoxicated and work to focus much more than usual. You say to yourself "whoa, I'm a little high, I really need to concentrate".

The thing with alcohol is that it often has an opposite effect. You may have experienced or witnessed the increased confidence a drunk person has, whether it involves dancing or talking to a member of the opposite sex. This applies to driving as well, where you underestimate the problems you are having and fail to compensate.

And in the end, this is all besides the point. Most, if not all of marijuana legalization proponents would argue that driving under the influence of marijuana is unacceptable, as those who believe alcohol should be legal are against drinking and driving.

As far as crimes go, I would bet that in addition to having a higher instance of crimes while under the influence of alcohol, there is a higher percentage as well. Just think of someone who is high compared to someone who is drunk. A stoner would tend to stay at home, giggle at some stupid TV show and kill a bag of cheetos. A drunk is probably at the bar with friends getting stupid and causing problems. Drunks get in fights, hippies don't.

Or whether he lasts more than one, possibly two, semesters if he does.
Already went over this. I didn't complete one semester. Or two. I completed 8 and graduated on the deans list in 4 years at an exceptional university. My career is on an excellent path as well.

So you googled yourself only to find that five years ago a bunch of total strangers were avoiding their work responsibilities by conjecturing on-line to all ends about the possibilities connected to the (to them) unknown circumstances tied to some minor event in your life that is long past, in the process coming to solidly reasoned conclusions regarding drug legalization, small-town law enforcement, filial duty, the social costs of addiction, the merits or non-merits of THC, and whether you were fool when you were 17. Hm.
Pretty much. Kind of interesting.

[Hero From Sector 7G]

I'd ask if he pays his bills on timeHave you paid all your bills on time?

I've you've ever missed a bill once, that must mean you are an irresponsible human being. :rolleyes:

[bhamlaxy]

Have you paid all your bills on time?

I've you've ever missed a bill once, that must mean you are an irresponsible human being. :rolleyes:
I paid that one cable bill a week late. I just got so high for such a long period of time that I felt this urge to neglect all responsibilities!

[Cat Whisperer]

Where does this number come from, please?
83% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

[Cat Whisperer]

I have to say, this is a very interesting resurrection of a zombie thread. For what it's worth, the drinking age in Alberta is 18, and pot use is very much a non-issue. I find a drinking age of 21 and moral and legal outrage about smoking a little weed to be strange ideas.

[Lemur866]

Or whether he lasts more than one, possibly two, semesters if he does.

It is literally incredible to me that people think that marijuana use and college attendance are incompatible.

College is just about the best time to smoke pot.

It's true that if you're kind of an idiot, you can't really afford to make yourself any stupider by smoking pot or drinking alcohol. Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life. But come on.

[mhendo]

It is literally incredible to me that people think that marijuana use and college attendance are incompatible.
I know; it's hilarious.

I think it somehow feeds their basic belief that marijuana is Bad. And because it's Bad, it must cause you to fail at college (or your job, or whatever). The fact that many people use marijuana and don't fail is never accepted as evidence that marijuana might not be a big problem, but every single instance of a marijuana smoker fucking up is taken as incontrovertible proof that marijuana is Bad.

Most of the people i hang out with not only passed college just fine, but went on to get Masters and/or PhD degrees in fields ranging from English and History to Computer Science and Biology. And plenty of these people smoked weed during their undergraduate and graduate degrees, and afterwards.

[Cat Whisperer]

Heh - that reminds me of a "How I Met Your Mother" episode I watched last night - Marshall was having a party with a bunch of law students (I think they were just graduating, or further on in the courses, anyway), and it showed them being drunk and stupid, and stopped the picture to tell us what they're currently doing - "Congressman;" "Current Attorney General;" etc. :)

[Enderw24]

83% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Cite?

[Ogre]

Or whether he lasts more than one, possibly two, semesters if he does.Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

*gasp*

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!

Good lord, that was funny.

[Cat Whisperer]

Cite?
Here ya go. (http://www.thebereancall.org/node/8045) :)

[Little Nemo]

Well, he is 17. 17 year olds have all the answers.And a fine grasp of consequences.

"You do realize that you've just publicly admitted to a crime and that your family, your friends, everyone in your school, everyone at the universities you've applied for, any future employer, and law enforcement agencies can all read this?"
"Oh shit! My mom can read it?"

[Little Nemo]

College is just about the best time to smoke pot.Drugs weren't my thing. I was more interested in having sex with lesbians.

[bhamlaxy]

And a fine grasp of consequences.

"You do realize that you've just publicly admitted to a crime and that your family, your friends, everyone in your school, everyone at the universities you've applied for, any future employer, and law enforcement agencies can all read this?"
"Oh shit! My mom can read it?"
Luckily, none of that ever happened. I think the only people that read this article and really delved into this random kid were you guys!

[jesuslynch]

I paid that one cable bill a week late. I just got so high for such a long period of time that I felt this urge to neglect all responsibilities!




So, you spaced on the date? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n2MqPpWKnY)

:smack:

[Little Nemo]

Luckily, none of that ever happened. I think the only people that read this article and really delved into this random kid were you guys!Really? Because all I said had happened was that he publicly admitted to a crime. And I'm pretty sure that's true. It's the point of the thread after all.

All of the rest were things that could happen. Are you saying they can't happen?

[Argent Towers]

A stoner would tend to stay at home, giggle at some stupid TV show and kill a bag of cheetos.

Or write the next great novel, or compose the next great album, or create a great painting or drawing or write a paper for a class comparing the medieval Talmud to modern day case law which would earn an A+ (the latter, I actually did, in my sophomore year of college.) Not everyone instantly becomes dumb when they get high. For a lot of people, it enhances their creativity and productivity. I know the quote above is actually defending marijuana, so I'm not attacking its intent, but it perpetuates an unfortunate stereotype that should be allowed to die. Pot has the power to greatly accelerate the mind; it doesn't just make people laugh and watch TV.

[Nancarrow]

Or whether he lasts more than one, possibly two, semesters if he does.

Heh. A most amusing fail. Your bugs bunny quote is right on, ironically.

[bdgr]

Mr Muir had an excuse here, being 17. But I interview adult musicians all the time that say even dumber things. One in particular told me the following:
"And you should print this: I can get girls, but I can't keep them," he said "and I have certain habits, narcotics related, that fuel songs. To be honest, I'm admittedly a very self destructive person, and with relationships ... it's not that I try to fuck it up, but it just happens."

My editor killed the quote, but when I read it back to the guy a few days later he said "wow...I shouldn't do interviews when I'm drunk"

I was interviewing a fairly famous rock star one time who made a remark about lynching that would have caused a shit storm if we had printed it -- and if he meant it the way it came out I would have. People say a lot of dumb things into a voice recorder.

[bhamlaxy]

Really? Because all I said had happened was that he publicly admitted to a crime. And I'm pretty sure that's true. It's the point of the thread after all.

All of the rest were things that could happen. Are you saying they can't happen?
No, just that I said what I said with near certainty there would be no consequences, and I was correct.

[Toxgoddess]

Where does this number come from, please?

OH Drummer et al, Accid. Anal. Prev., 2004, 36(2):239-248.

Ramaekers JG et al, Drug Alcohol Dept, 2004, 73(2):109-19.

PubMed Central has the abstracts, but the full papers aren't on-line that I know of.

[Nancarrow]

OH Drummer et al, Accid. Anal. Prev., 2004, 36(2):239-248.

Ramaekers JG et al, Drug Alcohol Dept, 2004, 73(2):109-19.

PubMed Central has the abstracts, but the full papers aren't on-line that I know of.

I wonder how many completely inappropriate case studies get sent to that first journal.

Or for that matter, how many catalogue and price enquiries the second receives.

[Shot From Guns]

Accidental Anal Prevention is no laughing matter.

[WhyNot]

OH Drummer et al, Accid. Anal. Prev., 2004, 36(2):239-248.

Ramaekers JG et al, Drug Alcohol Dept, 2004, 73(2):109-19.

PubMed Central has the abstracts, but the full papers aren't on-line that I know of.

Neither of those studies support your claim, which was:
Pot increases your chances of being in a fatal car crash by 2 - 6x.

Both of the studies you linked to establish a fairly strong culpability for drivers who have THC in their blood and get into auto accidents. I don't doubt that. What I asked was where you got your numbers about "fatal car crashes". Those studies say nothing about fatalities - they could be fender benders, for all I know from the abstracts.

[bhamlaxy]

I know it's been awhile, but I laugh every time I google my name and this pops up.

To all those who said this was an idiotic thing to say and that it would destroy my life- I am 2 years out of college and have had a very successful career, and currently hold a governmental position.

But actually, I do not smoke weed anymore! Just kind of grew out of it.

So yea, probably a dumb quote to say to the paper, but it hasn't affected anything.

[Covered_In_Bees!]

That's very sweet of you to give us an update. You may go now.

[Vinyl Turnip]

A likely story. Here to panhandle for a reefer "fix," aren't you, Cheech? Well, you can take your Mary Jane crackpipe and your Firesign Theater LPs and push your VW Microbus right back to Skid Row. This is a family forum.

[Inner Stickler]

Fuckin' right, Turnip.

[Lemur866]

I'm still laughing at the people who imagined that smoking Marijuana would make it impossible to stay in college for more than a semester. I mean, honestly.

One of my college room-mates grew a pot plant in his closet. He was an education major. :smack:

[Vinyl Turnip]

My college offered all students a short-term, interest-free loan of a few hundred bucks every quarter for books or incidentals. Guess what everyone I knew used it to buy?

[Darth Panda]

I'm still laughing at the people who imagined that smoking Marijuana would make it impossible to stay in college for more than a semester. I mean, honestly.

I have to imagine that the opposite would actually be closer to the truth.