This is a spin off froma thread here and in feedback. The debate which seems to be shot straight into is not the useage of drugs but the knowledge of drugs. Have drugs become such a large problem/part (delete as applicable) of society that people should be taught it in schools? Is it our generations sexual taboo? For the threads visit: http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=113837&page=1&pp=20 and http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=113630
"Should we make the knowledge of drugs more available?" Yes, if people know the effects, cost and useage of drugs then at least they've made an educated decision on whether to use them or not, and that'll probabily lead to less drug abuse.
If you're going to teach all those things you need one or two of two things first... First, you can't teach people about a barrell of drugs if they're illegal; legalize them firstly. Secondly, teach people to identify quality and signs that this is what they want, not an immatation.
Your logic is flawed somewhere. A teacher can explain why possession of some drugs is illegal and the damage they can do. Most schools should have literature giving factual information, either produced by the LEA or by organisations like TACADE. Unfortunately many schools in the UK have buried their heads in the sand, claiming drugs are not a problem in their particular school. Education has fallen behind as the problem's grown, and by the time kids hit puberty it's too late for education, they'll believe their mates over any grown-up.
"Drugs" have always been a problem... I say "drugs" because alcohol and tobacco are bigger "drugs" then marijuana. So if you see drugs as addictive substances which cause misery, then alcohol and tobacco should be illegal. But that wasn't the point of this thread. So they are a part of our society wetter we like it or not. But talking about marijuana specific, it's the opium of the current day and age. For me, teaching the kids (at the appropriate age) what "drugs" do (mentally, physically and socially)in an objective manner will make them more qualified to see what these substances do and cause. It will remove the urge for some to experiment with the substances. Others off course will be hard headed and will try it, but at least they know what to look for and won't get ripped off by the "distributors". Also, if you are educated about the symptoms you also notice them if you are in the position, and it will be easier to spot the moment when it gets out of hand. But I don't think it is a problem in society. Ok, excessive use of marijuana will influence your ability to preform your daily tasks, but that use is really excessive then. Most users use it to calm down before going to sleep, much like other drink a glass of wine or smoke a cigarette, and TBH, that's an innocent kind of use. Not speaking of the medicinal use, that's something completely different. But there's also a positive side. For some people the use of marijuana will result in a brighter look on a dark situation they face in life. Or a way of getting over certain events in their life. On a personal note, although I'm clean now, I've done my fair deal of experimenting with narcotics, and I must say, smoking a joint helped me dealing with the suicide of 3 of my best friends. It wasn't the main way of dealing with it, but at the time, it saved my life. One thing that has to be noted, although one does get addicted to marijuana, when you stop using marijuana you won't suffer from the sickness you get with alcohol or harder drugs. So stopping the use of marijuana is 100% mentally. If you want to stop using it, your body won't force you to use it (like with cigarettes [nicotine] or hard drugs [ex. Cold Turkey]) But I don't think it's our generation's taboo. I feel we live in a time and age where everything is discussable... That's the reason why I don't understand WireFrame and the likes... Censorship is crippling the minds. How can you expect one to judge things you have no knowledge about? I think the "taboo" of this day and age is the stance of the population about the diversity of the society, without being called a racist. But that's a whole different (endless) discussion. I understand you try to "protect" your children... But I do find that a short sighted point of view. You can protect them from everything, be their guardian so to speak, but what will they do when you aren't here any more? It's better to rationalise them, so that they make the right decisions, learn the difference between good and bad. And you don't accomplish that by shielding them from stuff, you accomplish that by letting them experiment, under supervision of course, and letting them learn from their fault. Because, lets face it, humans are hard headed. E.g.. If you like driving fast, and get caught (and have to pay enormous fines here in Belgium), you'll watch your speed for the rest of the month, but after that, you'll be happily speeding once again. But if you have a accident while you were speeding, and you loose someone precious to you, you'll remember the rest of your life. This to point out it's better to let them realise they shouldn't do drugs, instead of telling them. For me the only problem is the illegal nature of soft drugs. It's proven they are less addictive then alcohol or tobacco, there are strong indications they are "healthier" then the 2 fore mentioned, certainly tobacco, yet still our governments fail to take the logical step and allow the use of soft drugs (although, here in Belgium there are steps taken in the right direction). But I kinda understand the governments. If they would legalise soft drugs, a lot of the (mainly elder) voters will judge them for it, because, like it or not, they have preconceptions, just because they weren't educated about the subject. I say legalise it, take the distribution into the legal circuit and hell, even tax it. It loses a lot of it's appeal to influence-able kids if it's legal. If you can't do it, it's more appealing Hmmm, this post ended up a fair bit longer then intended, but it's a subject that's close to me
In this day and age there seem to be certain teenage circles which view ilegality as something "cool". Therefore, by legalising soft drugs, this appeal is reduced. More importantly, however, is the fact that by legalising soft drugs their quality can be monitored, age restrictions can be enforced and the revenue generated contributes to the economy thus stopping it from financing more crime. -ed out P.S: OT http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=113630 says that I "do not have permission to access this page"
It's always been this way. Human nature is to rebel against boundriesand do things because they tell you you can't. Lets face it, this part of out nature is what drives us to achieve and discover. The current anti-drug programs, here at least, have a pretty serious credibility issue. They tell you "Drugs are ba, they'll kill you" and at the same time we probably all know people who use drugs and aren't dead yet, or even having any problems associated with them. they tell us smoking is bad for you, but we also all know people who do it. Same for alcohol. Now of course, all these substances certainly can be bad for you, but that's more of a nuanced position that most people want to deal with, so they just say "Drugs are bad. Period" (Or full stop over there ).
I myself, am a weed smoker. BUT, I know many many under 18 kids who smoke cannabis for all the wrong reasons. Some kid who found out from her brother that i smoke, got my number off her brothers phone, and literally phoned and asked me if i would sell her some because (and i quote here, no ********) "i really need some weed man, i haven't smoked for 2 weeks, you don't understand, i'm dying here!". Obviously i didn't get involved because not only is she underage in my opinion, but those sort of people shouldn't be smoking in the first place, if that's the psychological effect it has on them. Oh and the whole dealing thing. But people like said girl, if it was legal, she would still do it I think because she obviously enjoys the effect. Even if she knew more about it. But then you get the double edge sword effect of if more information is there and force fed to you when you are younger so you know about drugs, they are still illegal, and then there is the "badass attraction" as i call it. I guarentee, once she meets people that do coke at a party, and gets her hands on some, she'll do it. Then she'll do speed because she can't afford coke. She'll pop a few pills, take a bit of acid and probably end up on a concoction of meths and crack. All because everyone has told her not too, and seeing herself as a badass makes her feel good. Now where this lies, is definetly in the parenting. Her parents drink every night, and more often than not get fairly wasted. Think about if you saw your parents for the majority of you childhood, wasted. Psychologists are convinced that people mimick their parents to a point...so it's just bound to happen. So my theory is, the legality of drugs should stay where it is, and the open information to the public should stay where it is. However, parents should become more educated in educating their children about it, or if they have a previous knowledge, don't be so bloody irresponsible. As i've always said, it starts in the home guys, mmmkay?!
Dunno... it seems to me that you are generalising. From what you are saying one could come to the conclusion that your parents drink every night blah.. blah... I think that people are less likely to be influenced into taking drugs if they have solid knowledge about them. It does start in the home, but most parents only say "Drugs are bad." and that is exactly what appeals to the rebel. "my parents say it's bad, tv says its bad, therefore if I do it i'm BAD -cool". As I said before, knowledge is power. -ed out
This is your friendly mod stepping in to remind you all of our recent discussion in the feedback forum, and conclusions reached therein. I'm keeping an eye on this (undoubtedly Nexxo is, as well) to make sure it stays in line with what we've discussed. Normally we'd just sit back and handle things once they're out of line, but I'd rather just start this one off with a pre-emptive reminder of our presence. Please keep to Doug's question...it's a good one. Let's not stray into too much other terretory, though (ahem, Glider).
