[QUOTE=D_Odds]
[Aside, being multiracial
[/QUOTE]
Argh! 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.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
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)
[QUOTE=D_Odds]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Uh. That’s my point. You’re finding the comparisons absurd when in fact, they’re pertinent to the discussion.
[QUOTE=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)
[/QUOTE]
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…
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Uh. That’s my point. You’re finding the comparisons absurd when in fact, they’re pertinent to the discussion.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=D_Odds]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
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…
[/QUOTE]
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?
[QUOTE=D_Odds]
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.
[/QUOTE]
I never said they were equal. But they are both pertinent to the conversation at hand.
[QUOTE=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)
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Antinor01]
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?
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Excalibre]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Excalibre]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.]
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
[QUOTE=Excalibre]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.]
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.
[QUOTE=Excalibre]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=duffer]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.