Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Mad Poster
#51 Old 4th Oct 2010 at 11:06 PM
Quote: Originally posted by HystericalParoxysm
That's true... if abstinence is "100% effective contraception" then so is suicide. Or castration.


They're not? I would've thought castration was pretty darn effective...

Hey, I'm not advocating for abstinence-only education. I was just pointing out that if you don't have sex, you won't get pregnant.

Worked for the Shakers. (Or maybe it didn't. I guess they didn't consider the possibility that without sex, their sect would die out!)
Advertisement
Alchemist
#52 Old 7th Oct 2010 at 7:38 AM
the abstinence pledge: because as grossed out as kids are when they consider their parents having sex, parents are just as grossed out by the notion of their children having sex.

"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
Lab Assistant
#53 Old 8th Oct 2010 at 2:15 PM
Quote: Originally posted by pare321
Obviously you didn't get that I was saying the commercial portrayed stereotypes.

I got it the first time, it's bribery. I realize that the owner is saying "You did the right thing by refusing drugs, now here's your reward" But instead of informing teens of the risks associated with drugs, and giving them enough respect to make an informed decision (which is, ultimately all you can do, because you can't hold Johnny's hand forever) they use a not so clever metaphor to say that "Hey, drugs are a bad thing, and if you say no to them, you get a good thing! Way to go, slugger!"


I know! Its dumb. I never did drugs before and I wish I could go into a store and say that and get an ice cream cone.

true love is sim love.

twitter - sequoiaaaa_
tumblr - thefavoritelove
Instructor
#54 Old 10th Oct 2010 at 9:03 PM
I feel like I may be alone in here, but growing up I dabbled in everything. I experimented with drugs, I had my first drink at 15 and have been going strong with sex since my freshman year of highschool. I switched schools 3 times, so I got the D.A.R.E program more than once and let me tell you, it wasn't effective at all. Sure, they tell you drinking and drugs is bad, but with no proper or logical facts. "If you smoke weed, you could end up with epilepsy or brain damage, and all your friends will hate you!" and "If you drink, you'll end up driving a car and killing all of your friends and a family of 4!" Its complete and utter nonsense. Teenagers experiment... its what they do. These programs should instead give better advice, not on how they shouldn't do it, but if they're going to do it, what should they avoid etc.
Forum Resident
#55 Old 10th Oct 2010 at 11:05 PM Last edited by Element Leaf : 11th Oct 2010 at 2:08 AM.
Quote: Originally posted by jay_envy
I feel like I may be alone in here, but growing up I dabbled in everything. I experimented with drugs, I had my first drink at 15 and have been going strong with sex since my freshman year of highschool. I switched schools 3 times, so I got the D.A.R.E program more than once and let me tell you, it wasn't effective at all. Sure, they tell you drinking and drugs is bad, but with no proper or logical facts. "If you smoke weed, you could end up with epilepsy or brain damage, and all your friends will hate you!" and "If you drink, you'll end up driving a car and killing all of your friends and a family of 4!" Its complete and utter nonsense. Teenagers experiment... its what they do.
That's a bit generalizing. Scientists experiment, 'cause that's what they do.

I never smoked weed, cigarettes, or downed a drop of alcohol in high school. It's not that I was afraid of drugs, it was that I didn't care. We didn't have strong anti-drug campaigns in school, and it's funny how something loses its attractive qualities if it's mostly ignored. Fear-based classes don't work when information can be scary on its own. Of course, we wouldn't have a reasonable argument against marijuana, but that's hardly a bad thing. Similarly, if I'm going to have some alcohol, I'm going to wait until I'm 21. Not because I believe the age restriction is proper, but because if I want a beer, I'm going to buy it for myself.

Now, sex was another matter. Despite my liberal attitude about teens and other people being sexually active, I regret the few experiences I had when I was young. It isn't intimate if it feels necessary. Back then, that's what it was: something we did because it was cool and grown-up. That's not what it's about, and that's why we need to de-stigmatize it. It's not bad, it's not good, it's just a part of life. Today, I can have sex for the sake of wanting to have sex with someone. Does that make sense?

Quote:
These programs should instead give better advice, not on how they shouldn't do it, but if they're going to do it, what should they avoid etc.
I disagree. In the case of drugs and booze, we should always fight hard drugs. We've had a local meth problem for a long time, and it needs to remain banned. Pot, tobacco, and alcohol shouldn't be fought with one-sided information, though. What are we saying now? "It's very bad until you turn 21, then it becomes very good"? That's stupid.
Top Secret Researcher
#56 Old 11th Oct 2010 at 3:03 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Element Leaf
In the case of drugs and booze, we should always fight hard drugs. We've had a local meth problem for a long time, and it needs to remain banned. Pot, tobacco, and alcohol shouldn't be fought with one-sided information, though.


But fighting hard drugs also means not using one-sided information, and educating about harm minimization if there is a chance that someone is going to use drugs.
Forum Resident
#57 Old 11th Oct 2010 at 3:28 AM
Quote: Originally posted by simbalena
But fighting hard drugs also means not using one-sided information, and educating about harm minimization if there is a chance that someone is going to use drugs.
That's thing about hard drugs, though. They're unpredictable. Any "safe use" education we throw at it is pretty much moot, because every person will react to it in totally different and sometimes violent ways. One person could use heroin for years without catastrophic side effects, while another can have a heart attack on their first try. Nicotine, pot and alcohol are separate because though everyone's reaction is different, they sit closely together on the same spectrum (i.e. we all get drunk to a different degree.)

Isn't that why LSD is illegal? AFAIK, it isn't addictive and the physical effects are minimal, but every once in a while we'll have someone on a bad trip screaming their lungs out and trying to kill themselves. There's no way to predict or prevent a bad trip, either. It just happens.

That's not to say we shouldn't learn about possible lifesaving techniques if we encounter someone being affected by hard drugs, and I'm all for that. A shot of vodka saves you from antifreeze, another shot makes you forget you drank it.
Top Secret Researcher
#58 Old 11th Oct 2010 at 4:40 AM
But harm minimisation education teaches that there is no "safe use".
Instructor
#59 Old 11th Oct 2010 at 9:04 AM
Quote: Originally posted by simbalena
But harm minimisation education teaches that there is no "safe use".


Exactly. Which results in a number of accidental overdosing with teenagers, who are unaware of how much their body can handle. Yes, some teens may be scared enough not to try anything, but there are always a whole group that aren't fazed by any of it.



Teenagers will experiment, and telling them lies to scare them, that all drugs are habit forming and will cause some sort of death, its ridiculous. Lighting up and smoking a blunt is about as deadly as picking your nose. So when you tell kids that smoking pot and drinking is deadly, and they go out and discover, "HEY! This isn't dangerous at all! In fact, its really f***ing fun!" they're more likely to experiment with harder drugs.

As for sex, its never really been an intimate thing for me. And I never did it to be "cool and grown-up." It has always just been fun. But I do get what you're saying, and I'm sure thats the case for a lot of teenagers. I just graduated back in 08', so the health classes weren't too bad. My teacher would always bring a basket of condoms to every class. Sure, we learned about STDs and teenage pregnancy, but Mr.Perry sure as hell knew it wouldn't stop any of us, so he simply just gave us the means to be safe when going about it.
Alchemist
#60 Old 15th Oct 2010 at 11:24 PM
Quote: Originally posted by jay_envy
Exactly. Which results in a number of accidental overdosing with teenagers, who are unaware of how much their body can handle. Yes, some teens may be scared enough not to try anything, but there are always a whole group that aren't fazed by any of it.



Teenagers will experiment, and telling them lies to scare them, that all drugs are habit forming and will cause some sort of death, its ridiculous. Lighting up and smoking a blunt is about as deadly as picking your nose. So when you tell kids that smoking pot and drinking is deadly, and they go out and discover, "HEY! This isn't dangerous at all! In fact, its really f***ing fun!" they're more likely to experiment with harder drugs.

As for sex, its never really been an intimate thing for me. And I never did it to be "cool and grown-up." It has always just been fun. But I do get what you're saying, and I'm sure thats the case for a lot of teenagers. I just graduated back in 08', so the health classes weren't too bad. My teacher would always bring a basket of condoms to every class. Sure, we learned about STDs and teenage pregnancy, but Mr.Perry sure as hell knew it wouldn't stop any of us, so he simply just gave us the means to be safe when going about it.


the bolded areas indicate where my brain exploded. seriously--WHAT?

first off; i would HOPE that anyone with half a brain in their skull would take "there is no safe use" to mean that taking it at all is a risk. there are no guarantees that youll die, yeah, but theres no guarantee that youll live through it either. thats what "no safe use" means. basically, its russian roulette when you screw around with dangerous substances. that would be a warning sign, not a "go ahead" signal.

also, "fun" and "dangerous" do not mean the same thing. something can be QUITE dangerous in nature, but fun to do. sky diving, for example. if done right, the danger is MINIMAL; read: not eradicated. there is always room for a situation to change.
but it is always dangerous and it may also be a lot of fun for whoever enjoys such endeavors. and no, i have nothing against sky divers. or bungee jumpers, or skiiers, or potheads; but when they end up flat on the pavement, or wrapped around a tree, or trying to reach a pool from a rooftop and missing, it DOES cost. dearly.

im no math whiz, but even i know that every time you repeat a dangerous action (with a chance of no negative repercussion), that chance of getting screwed up increases. it doesnt go away. it doesnt stop being dangerous, just because whee, we're a-havin' SO much FUN~!

reality is scary. complaining about scariness being in drug education is like complaining about scariness being present in anything except for horror movies. ever been by someones side as they died horribly of drug misuse? pretty damn scary, i would say.

on the other hand, i strongly believe that if someone wants to risk their life for a thrilling 15 minutes, they are wholly entitled to do so.

as long as they know what theyre doing and are aware that, yes, it COULD be your last 15 minutes.
im not advocating living in fear. but awareness? yes, i would say thats a good idea. thinking that just because last time nothing horrible happened, the next time will also be 100% safe? naive, at least.

but as far as opinion goes, i think drug use (aside from purely medicinal reasons) is foolish and uncreative. why take such a huge risk on something you could find somewhere else? maybe not in THAT form, but hell, access your imagination and you could have all the entertainment you could ever want. and hell, it doesnt take that much effort to do, even.

"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
Instructor
#61 Old 16th Oct 2010 at 6:49 PM
Quote: Originally posted by SuicidiaParasidia
also, "fun" and "dangerous" do not mean the same thing. something can be QUITE dangerous in nature, but fun to do. sky diving, for example. if done right, the danger is MINIMAL; read: not eradicated. there is always room for a situation to change.
but it is always dangerous and it may also be a lot of fun for whoever enjoys such endeavors. and no, i have nothing against sky divers. or bungee jumpers, or skiiers, or potheads; but when they end up flat on the pavement, or wrapped around a tree, or trying to reach a pool from a rooftop and missing, it DOES cost. dearly.

im no math whiz, but even i know that every time you repeat a dangerous action (with a chance of no negative repercussion), that chance of getting screwed up increases. it doesnt go away. it doesnt stop being dangerous, just because whee, we're a-havin' SO much FUN~!.


My whole point was that they should incorporate things like safe drug use in these classes, because when teenagers go out and do them and they have fun they believe that they'll be fine, and its 'too much fun' to not do again. I'm not advocating drug use ffs, I'm just saying you can't have a program that is telling you not to do drugs, without a side that tells you, "Hey, look, even though I told you not to do them and what will happen if you decide to do them, I'm sure some of you will probably go out there and do them anyway. So I'll give you some advice on some ways you can safely do them."

I know all about drug related death. A friend of mine OD'd when I was 16, because she was having 'so much fun.' My good friends brother was in a car with people who were drunk driving and the car ended up wrapped around a tree.

Like I said, I'm not advocating drinking or using drugs, I'm simply saying that a lot of teenagers WILL do them, regardless if a drug program is in place. I did, and a lot of my classmates and friends did. So these people who teach these classes should give them advice on what to do if they find themselves in a situation where they took too much, how much to take etc. without advocating for it.
Scholar
Original Poster
#62 Old 16th Oct 2010 at 8:16 PM
Quote: Originally posted by SuicidiaParasidia
i have nothing against sky divers. or bungee jumpers, or skiiers, or potheads; but when they end up flat on the pavement, or wrapped around a tree, or trying to reach a pool from a rooftop and missing, it DOES cost. dearly.


Pot doesn't make you suddenly want to do something stupid like jump off a rooftop, you make you want to jump off a rooftop.

In my opinion, there are only a few ways pot can have a negative effect on you.
You're ignorant and drink the bongwater, so you get a stomach ache.
You have asthma and you smoke it instead of eating it or using a gravity bong or vaporizer.
You smoke too much and feel shitty.
You smoke too much and do something you normally could do, know you shouldn't do, but do it anyway. Like driving after you smoked so much your muscles get weak. You never get so high on marijuana that you have no idea that driving when you can barely stand is a bad idea.

It does have an inherent risk, like chopping vegetables, but it becomes deionized because people like about it.

"You're born naked, and everything else is drag."
dA
Last.fm
tumblr
Alchemist
#63 Old 16th Oct 2010 at 10:10 PM Last edited by SuicidiaParasidia : 16th Oct 2010 at 10:26 PM.
really, now?

JAMIE WATERS, 24, was driving to his grandmother's home for Christmas in December 2001 when his car was hit by a BMW BMW
in full Bayerische Motoren Werke AG

German automaker. Founded as an aircraft engine manufacturer in 1916, the company assumed the name Bayerische Motoren Werke and became known for its high-speed motorcycles in the 1920s. travelling on the wrong side of the road.

The BMW careered over his car, crushing it and killing Mr Waters instantly.

At the wheel of the BMW was 46-yearold Matthew Crooke, who was high on cannabis.

Crooke, a former art lecturer from Stroud, Gloucestershire, who also died outright, had cannabis in his pocket. An inquest in May last year revealed the drug was in his blood.



aaaand negative health reprocussions as well?

bottom line: there is no "all good" or "all bad" drug out there. thinking in black and white terms will turn you blue and red (all over).

swollen tongue, difficulty breathing sound pretty life-threatening to me.

"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
Mad Poster
#64 Old 16th Oct 2010 at 10:37 PM
I agree with SP: cannabis isn't safe. Sure, it's not as bad as cocaine or heroin, but it still isn't harmless. I've had friends with people who smoke(d) weed recreationally. On more than one occasion they've "spun out" from smoking too much, making them hallucinate. I also have an ex with major problems with paranoia due to smoking too much weed, and a friend whose brother has drug-induced psychosis. It's also proven (in addition to being obvious to anyone who's smoked it or been around someone smoking it) that cannabis reduces your reaction times, decision making abilities, and perceptions of time and distance. There are also plenty of people who get caught driving whilst high on it. So I reject the notion that the worst that can happen is:
Quote:
...driving after you smoked so much your muscles get weak. You never get so high on marijuana that you have no idea that driving when you can barely stand is a bad idea.


Whilst I definitely advocate educating people about safety there isn't really a safe way to take drugs, because they're illegal.
Instructor
#65 Old 17th Oct 2010 at 1:35 AM
Quote: Originally posted by el_flel
Whilst I definitely advocate educating people about safety there isn't really a safe way to take drugs, because they're illegal.


Yet alcohol is the most dangerous drug of them all, and its legal.
The safety is in the moderation.
Field Researcher
#66 Old 17th Oct 2010 at 1:38 AM
Erm, no, I'm pretty sure heroin and other drugs can do a heckuva lot more than alcohol.
Instructor
#67 Old 17th Oct 2010 at 1:41 AM
Alcohol ranks up there with heroin and meth. But for anybody who regards alcohol as anything other than a drug, that is just stupidity.
Mad Poster
#68 Old 17th Oct 2010 at 1:48 AM
Let's keep pot illegal. But then let's also ban alcohol. It's dangerous, too. You can get alcohol poisoning, or get really drunk and get some girl pregnant, or drive your car and wrap it around a tree! (Note: I'm being sarcastic. I actually think the stuff should be legalized... and then taxed.)

What we're really arguing against here is stupidity... not drugs. And you can't ban stupid people (no matter how much we'd like to).
Instructor
#69 Old 17th Oct 2010 at 2:07 AM
Quote: Originally posted by fakepeeps7
What we're really arguing against here is stupidity... not drugs. And you can't ban stupid people (no matter how much we'd like to).


Exactly.
Mad Poster
#70 Old 17th Oct 2010 at 2:24 AM
Quote: Originally posted by jay_envy
Yet alcohol is the most dangerous drug of them all, and its legal.
The safety is in the moderation.
Firstly, alcohol isn't the most dangerous drug, that would be heroin (linky). It's not even the second. When people talk about the dangers of alcohol they are usually ignoring the fact that simply by being legal you will get many more people who consume it. It's a logical inference to make that the more people that take a drug the more people will suffer ill-effects of it. It's not really objective to say, "there are more alcoholics than heroin addicts and that must mean alcohol is more dangerous/addictive" because it's ignoring important factors that lead to those differences.

And secondly, that's not my point. My point is: if something is illegal it will never be safe to do it because every time you do you are running the risk of being caught. The rule of moderation isn't always going to work. Heroin, for example, is highly addictive, it doesn't take long.

Lastly, I actually think if we're going to legalise alcohol and tobacco then I don't see why we don't legalise some other low-harm drugs. It's a bit silly to me. If certain drugs were legalised then they could be regulated meaning taking them would be safer, and you'd have a reduction in crime rates.
Instructor
#71 Old 17th Oct 2010 at 2:56 AM
Quote: Originally posted by el_flel
I actually think if we're going to legalise alcohol and tobacco then I don't see why we don't legalise some other low-harm drugs. It's a bit silly to me. If certain drugs were legalised then they could be regulated meaning taking them would be safer, and you'd have a reduction in crime rates.


I completely agree with you on that.

But in terms of heroin use, I have never met someone who started out dabbling with drugs with heroin. When you get to the point of using heroin, you've most likely been screwing around with drugs for awhile and know very well what you're getting into. I mean I've experimented with plenty of drugs before, but never have I tried heroin, nor have I had the desire to. That stuff will mess you up.
Alchemist
#72 Old 17th Oct 2010 at 2:58 AM
okay, totally different swing in topic here, but ive heard/read it implied that abstinence is practically impossible.
sex is natural, yes.
NEEDING to have sex is natural, yes. (for most; for some, its also perfectly natural to not want/need sex. asexuals, for instance.)


but where is it dictated that you need to have sex with someone to reap the benefits of sexual pleasure?

do we not have vibrators? do we not have hands?

dont know about you, but ive never heard of someone getting pregnant from a pocket rocket or their fingers. granted those fingers were cleaned properly before usage...

but what annoys me is that people seem to think that abstinence, or abstaining from sex with fellow humans (oh god that sounds wrong, but bear with me) means you arent having any sort of sexual ...er... release at all.

why arent teens educated on ALTERNATIVES? why must it always be sex with another person or no sex at all?

"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
Field Researcher
#73 Old 17th Oct 2010 at 3:16 AM
You know, I have absolutely no experience with this, but I would think it's a lot more fun when you do it with an actual person.
Theorist
#74 Old 17th Oct 2010 at 3:39 AM
Quote: Originally posted by SuicidiaParasidia
why must it always be sex with another person or no sex at all?


Because teens most care about complying with the rules of teendom. Have sex before age X or else you are lame. This, of course, is just angsty competition.
Forum Resident
#75 Old 17th Oct 2010 at 4:09 AM
"When the lights go out, the only business is the business between two consenting people." "Or one!" "Or six!" "Oh, my."
 
Page 3 of 4
Back to top