Educating children about recreational drugs

Maybe. I think the point is that relative availability to children (vs. availability of alcohol) is a product of how thriving the black market is. Just as a matter of market economics, it seems that legal availability to adults will crowd-out black market distribution. In the case of alcohol, that is pretty much the case. To the extent that kids get their hands on alcohol, it is because someone entitled to buy it does so and gives it to them, or they defraud the sellers. They generally don’t obtain it from bootleggers.

So the question is, if MDMA were to become legal for adults, would that sufficiently crowd-out the black market sellers such that the only feasible way to get it would be the same ways alcohol is obtained now. I don’t know the answer, but it doesn’t seem obvious to me.

Exactly. The current “what could possibly go wrong” attitude of so many kids is a counter-reaction to the (obvious) scaremongering coming from authority. If a more realistic picture of the risks were presented, then at least the kids would be informed, since they wouldn’t have reason to doubt the truth of what was being told (given that all of it would match up with real-world experience).

In addition to the risks you mention, Ecstasy seems to be a type of drug where the risk level increases enormously as the dosage goes up (and particularly for young users). I’ve met people who have experienced (what they consider) possibly permanent or at least multi-year harm from a single large Ecstasy dose (though of course it could have been cut with something, so who knows…). Despite this being seen again and again, a lot of users don’t think that there’s actually a huge risk there. Why? Because they are numb to the scaremongering, so it’s easier for them to pretend that it’s all completely safe. This really needs to end.

Dance Safe has provided this service at Raves for free for years. Unfortunately it’s problematic because it’s admitting that you know people are doing drugs at your party.

There are a few good websites out there for those who have the knowledge/experience to know what to believe. But there are also tons of sites with twisted information (in both directions). In the general case, people won’t be getting their story straight until messages from gov’t agencies and the school system start matching reality.

Oh, on edit, I see that you were talking about the test kits. Still, I think this stuff should be more generally available. Most ravers (that I’ve encountered at least) don’t even seem to know about the existence of test kits.

Back when I was regularly going to raves in the Netherlands (late 90s), we had services like that at many of the larger parties. Costed about a Euro to get a pill tested, and it only takes a minute or so - and they usually also told you a bit about what to do, like drink lots of water etc. Great initiative, and I have no doubt it prevented a lot of problems. For some reason the Powers That Be didn’t like this going on and all “official” testing services were stopped (IIRC you just wouldn’t get a license to host a party or run a club if there was any XTC testing provided) and the policing of clubs etc was dramatically increased, leaving every user to just take the gamble with stuff bought on a street corner somewhere. Plenty of people I know from that time have spent a night high on E in a police cell, though.

That’s why Dance Safe exists. They promote awareness of what you are putting into your body. They’re a good organization.

I’m in favor of full legalization, and I often wonder what I am going to say to my daughter because I have extensive experience and so can be frank with her but also run the risk of her saying, “Well if it was good enough for you, it’s good enough for me.”

I’ve been thinking, and I believe that a lot of my internal confusion on the issue comes from conflicted feelings/beliefs. On one hand, I’m sympathetic to the arguments of drug legalizers. OTOH, I think about my young nephew, and I can’t imagine telling him, “sure, go ahead, use all the drugs you want, as long as you’re educated in X, Y, and Z.” I can’t think of a single person whom I know uses drugs, and is (in my eyes) better off for it, or even unaffected. (Of course, all I can think of are some potheads I knew who really fit the stereotype, and for whom my opinion dropped drastically because of the way they behaved.)

It’s a complex set of thoughts and emotions, and may be off-topic for this thread. Still, I’m thinking that similar conflict is why legalization doesn’t get more support.

ETA: Added in is the (completely unreasonable) feeling that education (which would presumably include the message “drugs aren’t as bad as the government and your parents would tell you”) is the complete equivalent of handing them a joint and some pills and telling them, “Do it. C’mon, do it! It’ll make you feel good! Another month’s supply is in your room.”

I’m concerned too—I haven’t had a source for good ecstasy in 15 years. Maybe I should plan ahead and have kids.

I don’t see how proper education is equivalent to sanctioning poor behavior. How would lying to your nephew be better for him?

Well legalization doesn’t get more support because people are irrational about drug policy. They are taught that it’s the worst thing in the world, even though we are worse off because of prohibition.

The close your eyes and think of England approach is clearly not working.

No, explaining that ecstacy can result in permanent seratonin depletion but that it isn’t catastrophic is hardly the same as telling people it’s costless. No one is advocating encouragement, we are against lying to people. What do frying eggs have to do with drugs really?

I can get it pretty easily still even though I don’t participate in that scene anymore. It was never available when I was in HS 15 years ago.

Sorry if I play some devil’s advocate here; it’ll help clarify, in my mind, why I think the way I do, and may do good in relieving some of the knots in my head about this issue. I hope you, or someone else, will play along. (If this is better in another thread, I’ll make one.)

Thus the internal conflict. See below for the visceral reaction.

Then what consequences, in the listener’s mind, is there to worry about? Are they really going to make the distinction between “the consequences aren’t as bad as you hear” and “they said it’s okay!”? (“Seratonin? Who cares? Nobody knows what it is anyway, and they already said the effect isn’t a huge deal. I’ll just stop first.”)

Edited to clarify: What I THINK I’m saying is that basically, it comes down to “drug use isn’t as big a deal as you think,” which, in my mind, seems to be equivalent to “isn’t a big deal,” period. I mean, if we say there IS such a thing as safe drug use, if we’re arguing that people can use drugs and not ruin their lives, isn’t that precisely what’s being said? Isn’t that a carte blanche to future generations to go ahead and use, it won’t kill you, and we have no right to stop you?

Factual question: is there something about illegal crystal meth creation that makes it more dangerous than if its making were professional and regulated?

So we should lie to them because they are too stupid to think for themselves then?

But you CAN use drugs and not ruin your life. That’s a fact. That’s right, it PROBABLY won’t kill you and we have no right to stop you.

Crystal Meth should not be legalized.

So how is this NOT, as you put it, “advocating encouragement”?

Factual question 2: What is it about crystal meth that makes it, as I’ve seen it put on past threads, the drug that actually IS as bad as the anti-drug commercials say?

You’re asking me to prove a negative. It’s not advocating encouragement in that it’s not advocating anything. Telling people the truth isn’t advocation. Basically your logic is that because people have been lied to for decades we need to keep lying because if we stop it will encourage drug use. I think that examining the real problems drugs cause is far more effective than silly commercials comparing fried eggs to a brain on hypothetical ‘drugs’ that doesn’t even specify which drugs they are talking about.

Part of the problem here is you claim ignorance as a defense. If a 12 year old does not know what Seratonin is that is evidence of the failure of our educational system. Every teenager should have a full understanding of anatomy. If they don’t you can say, “It will be more difficult for you to be happy later in life.”

Your argument rests on the idea that the educational system as a whole is a failure, which it obviously is, so because we are not properly teaching kids anatomy we lie to them with silly soundbite commercials that they make fun of while smoking pot.

That’s simply a matter of a list. There are many reasons why Crystal Meth IS as bad as people say it is. Horrifically addictive, gives you paranoid hallucinations, rots out your teeth, eats away your muscles. I mean just look up the adverse effects of it, it’s really nasty shit. Putting MDMA and Crystal Meth in the same category doesn’t discourage XTC use, it encourages Crystal Meth use. “Oh if they were lying to me about how bad E is they must be lying about how bad Glass is too.”

Like I said, I’m still working out my thoughts on this issue, which are confusing even to me. It’s very frustrating, because I feel like your characterization of my thoughts (I won’t call it an “argument,” because I realize it’s too pathetic to even be called that) is wrong, but I can’t say why, or what I think they really are. Maybe it’s mostly emotional; maybe if ice weren’t such a scourge where I’m from, or if pot didn’t make those people I mentioned before so much stupider (in my opinion), I wouldn’t have this conflict. I dunno.

There’s an analogy that keeps running through my head. It is, however, completely idiotic, and may not even express what I really think at all. I’m going to put it in a spoiler box just so I don’t feel like a TOTAL dunce for even putting it into words. You don’t have to address it at all if you don’t feel like it:

[spoiler]It feels like giving kids access to a very large 80’s and earlier style playground… with one or two small land mines randomly placed somewhere. It’s very fun, has some hazards - as all playgrounds did back then - that are harmful but not very seriously, and a fairly small chance of being ruinous/fatal.

Yes, to apply the analogy to the drug issue, there is no fence other than disapproving glares, and kids can already just wander in and possibly blow themselves up anyway, and maybe if they knew where the land mines were, they could enjoy it with much reduced risk of blowing themselves up. It just doesn’t feel like a GOOD thing to me to give access to the playground, even if we SHOULD. At the least, it doesn’t feel like something we should be HAPPY about.[/spoiler]

I hate to break it to you but kids are already doing drugs. You put up the fence with concertino wire and they saw beyond it saw that yes it’s dangerous but not THAT dangerous, and so they cut the fence and play on the playground anyway. Then when they get hurt they are terrified to go to the hospital for fear of legal repercussions. Yeah, much safer that way.

Actually, that brings up a question: where can I find the latest, most accurate (as far as we can tell) stats on drug use among young people these days, and in the past? Everyone likes to say that “everyone is doing it” when it comes to whatever, both parents and kids, and I’d like to know how many people “everyone” is.

I don’t know where the best stats are.

Try this:

First of all, I think there is a distinction between what is taught as truth vs. what we decide is legally tolerated (hence the phrasing of my OP). I didn’t really want this thread to turn into a legalization debate but I guess there’s no avoiding that.

Regarding, “we’re arguing that people can use drugs and not ruin their lives,” well, as mentioned by mswas, that’s clearly the truth. Most of my friends have dabbled in some illegal drugs or others at some points in their lives, and all of them are healthy, successful, and responsible people. My contention is that when we tell children that drugs = homelessness/poverty/death/etc, they can see for themselves that it’s clearly not true, and hence ignore other warnings that might in fact have a basis in truth.

I also don’t see why you equate teaching children the truth about the dangers of drug use with advocating drug use. I plan to teach my (future) children the truth, but I also plan to do my damnedest to make sure that they don’t touch any recreational drugs before they’re 18 (or whatever age we think they become responsible for themselves). It might not work, but I think it has a better chance of success than trying to direct them through misdirection.

That’s only because anti-drug rhetoric in recent years has been so hysterical and irrational. If there were fewer urban legends about people on LSD jumping off roofs and microwaving babies, it would be easier to imagine a rational conversation about the risks and potential good qualities that different drugs have. As it is, the conversation is so badly out of whack that some people are risking jail when they smoke marijuana for chemotherapy nausea or glaucoma pain.

It’s true. You can use drugs safely, or at least relatively safely. You can use drugs and not ruin your life.

If it won’t kill them, what’s the benefit of telling them it will?