Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 106
  1. #41
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,339
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: drugs, teens, and being realistic

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It's not a gateway drug. That theory has been debunked.

    My Dad drank beer in front of me and I didn't grow up to be an alcoholic. I do drink beer but I don't use is irresponsibly (seriously, I never drink more than two in an evening and don't drink more than once a week on average).

    So there really is a difference between use and abuse so the blanket statement that either the father or son will be "pot-heads" is an unwarranted assumption. As far as I know, Lucidly did not claim to use pot with the kind of regularity that would result in the term being accurately applied to him. And I think the unvarnished truth approach is best as opposed to trying to convince the child something unscientific about pot (like it's use is inherently irresponsible). And he did not say that he wants his child to use pot or that he would try to influence the child to do it. He said IF the child is going to (so whether he does not is not is no longer an option), he'd prefer it happen in as safe an environment as possible.

    And I won't assume your position either way, but do you think that whatever a parent does regarding pot they should also do regarding alcohol? For example, if you hold that it's wrong for a parent to smoke pot in front of his child you would hold that it's equally wrong to drink a beer in front of his child? If not, why not?
    First, we are not talking about beer/alcohol. So, if you want to post a thread on using those things, do it. We are talking about marijuana.

    In terms of being a gateway drug:
    http://addictions.about.com/od/legal...teway-Drug.htm
    "The social aspects of the gateway drug theory are supported by evidence that cannabis users socialize with drug-using peers in settings that provide more opportunities to use other illicit drugs at an earlier age, and that this forms an illicit drug subculture with positive attitudes toward the use of other illicit drugs."

    In terms of it being a predicator of drug use as an adult, recent research suggests pot and illicit drug use does not strongly correlate. In other words, kids who smoke pot and drink alcohol tend to do harder drugs as well.

    Finally, let's be clear here. Do you know anyone with a medical marijuana card that only smokes pot occasionally?
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  2. Likes Aspoestertjie liked this post
  3. #42
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    641
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: drugs, teens, and being realistic

    All drugs are a gateway to harder drugs. Asprin is a gateway to oxy.


    Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

  4. #43
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,339
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: drugs, teens, and being realistic

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    First, we are not talking about beer/alcohol.
    But we are talking about a parent's influence on his/her child. If we hold that it is wrong to consume that which we don't want our children to consume, then we must be against drinking beer in front of children.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    In terms of being a gateway drug:
    http://addictions.about.com/od/legal...teway-Drug.htm
    "The social aspects of the gateway drug theory are supported by evidence that cannabis users socialize with drug-using peers in settings that provide more opportunities to use other illicit drugs at an earlier age, and that this forms an illicit drug subculture with positive attitudes toward the use of other illicit drugs."
    The gateway drug theory typically forwards that the use of pot will make one desire stronger drugs.

    The theory you forward is a different one and has more merit but it lays no claim on the effects of the marijuana itself but instead is about a social aspect and that can be removed. In fact, what Lucidy advocates would remove it. If you smoke with your dad then you aren't getting exposed to those who might have harder drugs.

    So I guess he's got a valid point. If your kid is going to smoke, it's better to do it at home.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    In terms of it being a predicator of drug use as an adult, recent research suggests pot and illicit drug use does not strongly correlate. In other words, kids who smoke pot and drink alcohol tend to do harder drugs as well.
    But it does not show a causal correlation. The kind of person who is inclined to take hard drugs will be more likely to take soft drugs first. But that does not mean that the person would not have taken hard drugs if he never had access to soft drugs.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Finally, let's be clear here. Do you know anyone with a medical marijuana card that only smokes pot occasionally?
    Since I don't monitor my associate's smoking habits, I have no answer for you.

    And while I don't use medicinal marijuana, I take other prescription drugs and I take them daily or twice a day. So assuming one is treating a medical condition with pot, it can be assumed that they are taking their medicine daily or multiple times a day, especially if they are taking it to relieve pain and the pain flairs up regularly.

    ---------- Post added at 04:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:27 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Mdougie View Post
    All drugs are a gateway to harder drugs. Asprin is a gateway to oxy.
    For a drug to truly be a gateway drug it has to be shown that it's use influences one to be more likely to take the other drug.

    So if I take an aspirin one day and oxy another day, it does not mean that the aspirin lead to the oxy.
    Last edited by mican333; December 27th, 2013 at 01:02 PM.

  5. #44
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,339
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: drugs, teens, and being realistic

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But we are talking about a parent's influence on his/her child. If we hold that it is wrong to consume that which we don't want our children to consume, then we must be against drinking beer in front of children.
    You are insisting on nothing more than perfection being a barrier to good. I can be inconsistent if I choose. It has nothing to do with the issue we are discussing.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    The gateway drug theory typically forwards that the use of pot will make one desire stronger drugs.
    That is one aspect of the theory and I agree with you on it. The other aspect is a social one. I disagree with you that pot does not serve as a gateway drug due to the social groups formed when using it.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    The theory you forward is a different one and has more merit but it lays no claim on the effects of the marijuana itself but instead is about a social aspect and that can be removed. In fact, what Lucidy advocates would remove it. If you smoke with your dad then you aren't getting exposed to those who might have harder drugs.
    First, you are assuming Lucidy, himself, does not do harder drugs. Perhaps, he will choose to expose his son to cocaine under the same premise. Second, Lucidy merely said he wanted his son's first time to be with him. It does not mean the hypothetical son wouldn't then go out and get high with his friends later. So, no, Lucidy's proposal does not solve this issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But it does not show a causal correlation. The kind of person who is inclined to take hard drugs will be more likely to take soft drugs first. But that does not mean that the person would not have taken hard drugs if he never had access to soft drugs.
    Again, we get into the social groups and their influence on drug behavior.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Since I don't monitor my associate's smoking habits, I have no answer for you.

    And while I don't use medicinal marijuana, I take other prescription drugs and I take them daily or twice a day. So assuming one is treating a medical condition with pot, it can be assumed that they are taking their medicine daily or multiple times a day, especially if they are taking it to relieve pain and the pain flairs up regularly.
    Right. That kind of makes my point. A medical marijuana user would almost, by definition, be someone who smokes regularly. Considering pot is considered an addictive drug, probably not the best medicine to take for chronic pain.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  6. #45
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,339
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: drugs, teens, and being realistic

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    First, you are assuming Lucidy, himself, does not do harder drugs.
    Since the odds are that he does not, it is a reasonable assumption. I likewise figure that you probably don't do hard drugs based on the odds.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Perhaps, he will choose to expose his son to cocaine under the same premise.
    We have to go by his stated position and his position did not involve exposing his son to anything, even grass. He said if his son wanted to smoke (so the son's decision to smoke has been made on his own), he'd want him to smoke at home. So it's his son's choice and Lucidy would not attempt to influence him to smoke.

    And since one can justifiably hold that there should be different rules for marijuana and cocaine (many who support pot legalization still want cocaine to remain illegal) you would need to support that he would do that before it can be accepted as a fact that he would.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Second, Lucidy merely said he wanted his son's first time to be with him. It does not mean the hypothetical son wouldn't then go out and get high with his friends later.
    Maybe he will. But then maybe he won't. And even if he did, his home experience would be at least one time he didn't smoke with peers and likewise since he would feel safe doing it at home (as opposed to kids who feel they must do it outside of the house to avoid being "busted" by their parents), he's less likely to do it outside the home than the average teen smoker. So even if it doesn't remove smoking with peers entirely, it would decrease its frequency (and absolutely guaranteed to decrease it by at least one occasion) and therefore decrease, even if slightly, the odds of the child being influenced by peers to do harder drugs.

    So while it provides no guarantees, Lucidy's plan would clearly decrease the odds of his child being exposed to harder drugs by his peers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Right. That kind of makes my point. A medical marijuana user would almost, by definition, be someone who smokes regularly. Considering pot is considered an addictive drug, probably not the best medicine to take for chronic pain.
    "Addictive" means that it's difficult to stop using the substance in question. If one suffers from chronic pain for the rest of his life and therefore will use cannabis to treat it for the rest of his life he will never quit using it so it doesn't matter if it's addictive.

    And assuming one does choose to quit, how problematic the situation is is directly proportional to how addictive it is. And while I won't challenge the notion that it's technically addictive, I should say the issue is up for debate - an article in Time is titled "It depends how you define addiction" which indicates that even if we allow that it is addictive, it's a very mild addiction and IMO not an addiction that warrants much concern. Anecdotally, I know people who had to quit using while job hunting and they had no problem staying off it - the withdrawal symptom was that they wanted to smoke but had to refrain although I've heard temporary insomnia is a withdrawal symptom as well. And since it's less addictive than many prescribed painkillers (Vicodin, Codeine) the concern for addiction makes it a more desirable drug than many, perhaps all, alternatives to it.

    In short, I don't see the addictive properties of cannabis to be something that warrants much concern.
    Last edited by mican333; December 31st, 2013 at 09:19 AM.

  7. #46
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,339
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: drugs, teens, and being realistic

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Since the odds are that he does not, it is a reasonable assumption. I likewise figure that you probably don't do hard drugs based on the odds.
    I don't know the odds for this and you're just guessing at this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    We have to go by his stated position and his position did not involve exposing his son to anything, even grass. He said if his son wanted to smoke (so the son's decision to smoke has been made on his own), he'd want him to smoke at home. So it's his son's choice and Lucidy would not attempt to influence him to smoke.

    And since one can justifiably hold that there should be different rules for marijuana and cocaine (many who support pot legalization still want cocaine to remain illegal) you would need to support that he would do that before it can be accepted as a fact that he would.
    When a parent is accommodating to a child and gives the child permission to do some activity, then the parent is exposing his son to that activity. More importantly, the parent is telling the child that the activity in question is acceptable. By asking the child to perform the activity at home, the parent is not merely accepting that the child will perform an activity that is unhealthy, but the parent is actually participating in that child's unhealthy behavior.

    It is up to Lucidy to explain why the rules would be different for different drugs. I mean, neither you nor I could properly explain his rationale for accepting his child's drug use for some drugs but not others.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Maybe he will. But then maybe he won't. And even if he did, his home experience would be at least one time he didn't smoke with peers and likewise since he would feel safe doing it at home (as opposed to kids who feel they must do it outside of the house to avoid being "busted" by their parents), he's less likely to do it outside the home than the average teen smoker. So even if it doesn't remove smoking with peers entirely, it would decrease its frequency (and absolutely guaranteed to decrease it by at least one occasion) and therefore decrease, even if slightly, the odds of the child being influenced by peers to do harder drugs.
    You are making a ton of assumptions, but none are based on facts. The fact is that if he sees his father smoking pot and he has been given permission by his father to smoke pot, then it is most reasonable to assume the child will smoke pot freely and find no moral reason not smoke wherever he is and desires it.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So while it provides no guarantees, Lucidy's plan would clearly decrease the odds of his child being exposed to harder drugs by his peers.
    Of course it doesn't. He is going to find friends who smoke pot and, knowing he has permission to smoke pot, he'll do so without reservation. Since he is exposing himself to a group of friends who are into drugs, the odds increase (and the research demonstrates this), that he will be exposed to peers who do harder drugs. This exposure obviously increases his risk of doing harder drugs.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    "Addictive" means that it's difficult to stop using the substance in question. If one suffers from chronic pain for the rest of his life and therefore will use cannabis to treat it for the rest of his life he will never quit using it so it doesn't matter if it's addictive.
    Sigghhhhh. This is terrible logic. You do not want to put a patient with chronic pain on addictive medication. Responsible doctors do everything they can to try to avoid using opiates, as an example, to treat chronic pain. Why? You don't need to give someone with chronic pain an entirely new problem. The pain will require more and more of the medication which is an effect of the addiction. Eventually, the addiction becomes a worse problem than the pain.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And assuming one does choose to quit, how problematic the situation is is directly proportional to how addictive it is. And while I won't challenge the notion that it's technically addictive, I should say the issue is up for debate - an article in Time is titled "It depends how you define addiction" which indicates that even if we allow that it is addictive, it's a very mild addiction and IMO not an addiction that warrants much concern. Anecdotally, I know people who had to quit using while job hunting and they had no problem staying off it - the withdrawal symptom was that they wanted to smoke but had to refrain although I've heard temporary insomnia is a withdrawal symptom as well. And since it's less addictive than many prescribed painkillers (Vicodin, Codeine) the concern for addiction makes it a more desirable drug than many, perhaps all, alternatives to it.
    I have known people who had no problems with quitting pot. I have known people who had to lose just about everything and did not get clean until they went to rehab.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    In short, I don't see the addictive properties of cannabis to be something that warrants much concern.
    That is a different issue entirely now, isn't it?
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  8. #47
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,339
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: drugs, teens, and being realistic

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I don't know the odds for this and you're just guessing at this point.
    I can easily support that most marijuana users don't use cocaine. And if most marijuana users don't use cocaine then odds are that any particular marijuana user is not a cocaine user.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    When a parent is accommodating to a child and gives the child permission to do some activity, then the parent is exposing his son to that activity.
    Exposing requires the person being put in proximity of the thing that he/she is being exposed to. So giving a child permission to do something is not the same as exposing them to that something.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    More importantly, the parent is telling the child that the activity in question is acceptable.
    Again, we have to go my what Lucidy says and he said he would give the child the unvarnished truth about pot, good and bad. And therefore the message given would be neutral (just the facts) and not advocate any particular course of action.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    By asking the child to perform the activity at home, the parent is not merely accepting that the child will perform an activity that is unhealthy, but the parent is actually participating in that child's unhealthy behavior.
    But the scenario is that the child will smoke either way so the permission to do it at home does not effect whether the child will smoke.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    It is up to Lucidy to explain why the rules would be different for different drugs. I mean, neither you nor I could properly explain his rationale for accepting his child's drug use for some drugs but not others.
    And therefore you have no support for the claim that he would do any particular thing in regards to cocaine. So we should drop the issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You are making a ton of assumptions, but none are based on facts. The fact is that if he sees his father smoking pot and he has been given permission by his father to smoke pot, then it is most reasonable to assume the child will smoke pot freely and find no moral reason not smoke wherever he is and desires it.
    That assumes that this will have an effect on how often the child smokes and the effect is an increase in use. But that's just an assumption.

    Perhaps the child will think that pot smoking is not particularly cool since Dad allows it and actually smoke less (and anecdotally I believe I've witnessed this).
    Perhaps the child will smoke the amount he desires and whether Dad approves or not will not have much effects (this is the assumption that I think is most likely btw)
    And perhaps the child will smoke more because of lack of parental disapproval.

    Assuming any of the above three scenarios will be more likely to occur than the other is indeed nothing more than an assumption.

    So I will stick with my assumption that the second one is most likely and therefore will not accept that either of the other two are more likely without support that it is so. That does not mean that my assumption is correct (I admit that I have not supported it) but likewise any criticism of Lucidy based on the first assumption will need to be supported with solid evidence or it likewise is just an assumption.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    He is going to find friends who smoke pot and, knowing he has permission to smoke pot, he'll do so without reservation. Since he is exposing himself to a group of friends who are into drugs, the odds increase (and the research demonstrates this), that he will be exposed to peers who do harder drugs. This exposure obviously increases his risk of doing harder drugs.
    You are assuming that it will lead to an increase in smoking with peers. It might but then it might not. If you can show which it is with factual evidence, then you have left the realm of assumption.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Sigghhhhh. This is terrible logic
    No, it's very solid logic. And please don't editorialize.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You do not want to put a patient with chronic pain on addictive medication. Responsible doctors do everything they can to try to avoid using opiates, as an example, to treat chronic pain.
    Why? You don't need to give someone with chronic pain an entirely new problem. The pain will require more and more of the medication which is an effect of the addiction. Eventually, the addiction becomes a worse problem than the pain.
    That is a problem with addiction to opiates. But then we are not discussing opiates but marijuana.

    And if you are claiming that a marijuana addiction has all of the same problems as an opiate addiction, I ask that you support or retract that assertion.
    Last edited by mican333; January 3rd, 2014 at 06:57 AM.

  9. #48
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,339
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: drugs, teens, and being realistic

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I can easily support that most marijuana users don't use cocaine. And if most marijuana users don't use cocaine then odds are that any particular marijuana user is not a cocaine user.


    Exposing requires the person being put in proximity of the thing that he/she is being exposed to. So giving a child permission to do something is not the same as exposing them to that something.
    1. Most people don't smoke pot. Most people wouldn't allow their kids to smoke pot in their house. So, he is already atypical of most parents. Odds or not, we know nothing about him.
    2. I think inviting the child to smoke dope with dad in the house qualifies as exposure.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Again, we have to go my what Lucidy says and he said he would give the child the unvarnished truth about pot, good and bad. And therefore the message given would be neutral (just the facts) and not advocate any particular course of action.
    Neutral? He smokes pot. He isn't a doctor giving an objective opinion. He is a pot smoker who has admitted he allow his son to smoke in his house.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But the scenario is that the child will smoke either way so the permission to do it at home does not effect whether the child will smoke.
    Again, this poor logic. Not giving a kid permission to do something, and teaching them the importance of not doing something, actually has an important role in preventing bad or dangerous behavior. That's why its called parenting.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And therefore you have no support for the claim that he would do any particular thing in regards to cocaine. So we should drop the issue.
    You have no support that he wouldn't. All we know is that he would encourage his son to experiment with a particular drug at home and there is no reason to believe he would limit the type of drug use his son preferred to experiment with.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    That assumes that this will have an effect on how often the child smokes and the effect is an increase in use. But that's just an assumption.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2758661/
    "asserts that children often acquire substance using behaviors through modeling of the parent's own behaviors"

    It is quite reasonable to assume the kid will smoke pot because his father does and, even more likely because the father invites the kid to do it with him.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Perhaps the child will think that pot smoking is not particularly cool since Dad allows it and actually smoke less (and anecdotally I believe I've witnessed this).
    Perhaps the child will smoke the amount he desires and whether Dad approves or not will not have much effects (this is the assumption that I think is most likely btw)
    And perhaps the child will smoke more because of lack of parental disapproval.

    Assuming any of the above three scenarios will be more likely to occur than the other is indeed nothing more than an assumption.
    As the research shows, your hypotheses are flawed.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    You are assuming that it will lead to an increase in smoking with peers. It might but then it might not. If you can show which it is with factual evidence, then you have left the realm of assumption.
    Again, what we know about teens and drug use leads us to conclude the child in question is much more susceptible to smoking pot with his friends than a child whose parent does not model pot smoking behavior.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No, it's very solid logic. And please don't editorialize.



    That is a problem with addiction to opiates. But then we are not discussing opiates but marijuana.

    And if you are claiming that a marijuana addiction has all of the same problems as an opiate addiction, I ask that you support or retract that assertion.
    I am not editorializing. I am noting that pot, being an addictive drug, may be a poor choice to relieve chronic conditions. I used opiates as an example to demonstrate why your theory is incorrect. You made general statement about addictive drugs and chronic conditions which was absolutely false.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  10. #49
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,339
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: drugs, teens, and being realistic

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    1. Most people don't smoke pot. Most people wouldn't allow their kids to smoke pot in their house. So, he is already atypical of most parents. Odds or not, we know nothing about him.
    2. I think inviting the child to smoke dope with dad in the house qualifies as exposure.
    If his actions make no difference in whether the son smokes or not, whether we call it "exposure" or not doesn't mean anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Neutral? He smokes pot. He isn't a doctor giving an objective opinion. He is a pot smoker who has admitted he allow his son to smoke in his house.
    Which in no way renders him incapable of gathering all of the hard facts of marijuana and presenting them in an unbiased manner (and the speech may precede any allowed smoking so he has not necessarily allowed his son to smoke in his house at that point).

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Again, this poor logic. Not giving a kid permission to do something, and teaching them the importance of not doing something, actually has an important role in preventing bad or dangerous behavior. That's why its called parenting.
    That is not a valid rebuttal. Again, the scenario establishes that the son is going to smoke pot so the parent is powerless to prevent it from happening.

    The scenario where the son has not smoked pot but is considering and could be influence by parental attitude or activity it is not the scenario under discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You have no support that he wouldn't. All we know is that he would encourage his son to experiment with a particular drug at home and there is no reason to believe he would limit the type of drug use his son preferred to experiment with.
    And there is no reason to believe that smoking at home will lead to the use of other drugs.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2758661/
    "asserts that children often acquire substance using behaviors through modeling of the parent's own behaviors"

    It is quite reasonable to assume the kid will smoke pot because his father does and, even more likely because the father invites the kid to do it with him.
    But that is not the scenario under discussion. The scenario is the son is going to smoke so bringing up the likelihood of the son smoking is an irrelevant issue.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    As the research shows, your hypotheses are flawed.
    The research does not address whether a child who has already made the decision to smoke will smoke more, less, or as much.

    Remember, we are discussing the viewpoint "If he's going to smoke I'd like his first time to be at home" so we are talking about a kid who already has smoked.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Again, what we know about teens and drug use leads us to conclude the child in question is much more susceptible to smoking pot with his friends than a child whose parent does not model pot smoking behavior.
    Remember, we are referring to someone who already uses. And I've seen no evidence that such a person will be more likely to smoke with peers if they are smoking at home and/or their parents allow them to smoke and/or the parents smoke themselves.

    So I hold that any claim either way is based on assumption.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I am noting that pot, being an addictive drug, may be a poor choice to relieve chronic conditions. I used opiates as an example to demonstrate why your theory is incorrect.
    Your example is flawed because it is comparing a narcotic (opiates) to a non-narcotic (marijuana). I assume that no doctor wants a patient using an opiate for the rest of their lives but if there isn't a similar concern for using marijuana for the rest of one's life (and you have not supported that there is) you are comparing apples and oranges.

    So if you are going to continue with the opiate argument, you will need to spell out specifically why doctor's don't want one using opiates long-term.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You made general statement about addictive drugs and chronic conditions which was absolutely false.
    No, it was absolutely correct.

    Again, if a drug is hard to quit but one is never going to quit it, it doesn't matter if the drug is hard to quit. That is solid logic and I Challenge to support a claim. you to show me how that statement is incorrect.
    Last edited by mican333; January 4th, 2014 at 11:47 AM.

  11. #50
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,339
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: drugs, teens, and being realistic

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If his actions make no difference in whether the son smokes or not, whether we call it "exposure" or not doesn't mean anything.



    Which in no way renders him incapable of gathering all of the hard facts of marijuana and presenting them in an unbiased manner (and the speech may precede any allowed smoking so he has not necessarily allowed his son to smoke in his house at that point).



    That is not a valid rebuttal. Again, the scenario establishes that the son is going to smoke pot so the parent is powerless to prevent it from happening.

    The scenario where the son has not smoked pot but is considering and could be influence by parental attitude or activity it is not the scenario under discussion.



    And there is no reason to believe that smoking at home will lead to the use of other drugs.




    But that is not the scenario under discussion. The scenario is the son is going to smoke so bringing up the likelihood of the son smoking is an irrelevant issue.
    We are arguing into the wind here. You are assuming the child is smoking pot (or will smoke pot) and you are calling that decision the beginning of our debate. I believe the son's decision is based on, in part, the father's own pot smoking behavior. The son's insistence on smoking pot is a decision which will be influenced by the father's own stance on pot. So, understanding the father is permissive and smokes daily himself, then the chances of the son smoking pot are also increased. That the father would insist on his smoking at home for his first use simply is indicative of an environment that permits and encourages drug use.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Remember, we are discussing the viewpoint "If he's going to smoke I'd like his first time to be at home" so we are talking about a kid who already has smoked.
    We are talking about a kid who has already decided to smoke, but has not actually smoked yet. One has to wonder if the father could still make a case to the child to avoid using drugs versus accepting as fait accompli that the child will use drugs. Its seems, should the father choose to attempt to dissuade his son, then there is something less than 100% chance that his son will smoke pot. Yet, if the father allows him to smoke in the house, as father and son, and no attempt to dissuade his son is made, then we can expect that there is a 100% chance that the child will use drugs. It seems, mathematically, if we believe that all drugs are, to some degree harmful, then we'd have a better outcome overall if drugs are not accepted by parents. Of course, we cannot state whether such an attempt would be successful in this case.



    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Remember, we are referring to someone who already uses. And I've seen no evidence that such a person will be more likely to smoke with peers if they are smoking at home and/or their parents allow them to smoke and/or the parents smoke themselves.
    Once the kid uses at home, then it seems a pretty fair assumption that he'd feel free to smoke outside the home, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Your example is flawed because it is comparing a narcotic (opiates) to a non-narcotic (marijuana). I assume that no doctor wants a patient using an opiate for the rest of their lives but if there isn't a similar concern for using marijuana for the rest of one's life (and you have not supported that there is) you are comparing apples and oranges.
    Marijuana, as we are discussing it (a treatment for chronic pain) is a narcotic.
    http://www.bing.com/search?q=definit...E9TR&pc=MDDRJS
    "1.drug: a typically addictive drug, especially one derived from opium, that may produce effects ranging from pain relief and sleep to stupor, coma, and convulsions
    2.illegal drug: a drug whose use is illegal, whether it is addictive or not
    3.soothing thing: something that soothes, induces sleep, relieves pain or stress, or causes a sensation of mental numbness"

    No doctor (no good doctor) would prescribe an addictive drug to treat a non-terminal chronic condition. I mean, if we are talking about treating a dying cancer patient, that's one thing (or even a patient of an advanced age). Treating someone decades from end of life with any addictive drug is simply irresponsible. The issue is not merely that a drug is addictive or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Again, if a drug is hard to quit but one is never going to quit it, it doesn't matter if the drug is hard to quit. That is solid logic and I Challenge to support a claim. you to show me how that statement is incorrect.
    The problem is that addictive drugs provoke tolerance (leading to increased usage) combined with negative side-effects that accumulate over time and dosage. This is true for pot and opiates. You are demonstrating a misunderstanding of addiction since addiction means far more than simply being "hard to quit".
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  12. #51
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,339
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: drugs, teens, and being realistic

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    We are arguing into the wind here. You are assuming the child is smoking pot (or will smoke pot) and you are calling that decision the beginning of our debate. I believe the son's decision is based on, in part, the father's own pot smoking behavior. The son's insistence on smoking pot is a decision which will be influenced by the father's own stance on pot. So, understanding the father is permissive and smokes daily himself, then the chances of the son smoking pot are also increased. That the father would insist on his smoking at home for his first use simply is indicative of an environment that permits and encourages drug use.
    Maybe in comparison to a household that explicitly forbids it and that IS a maybe. A rebellious teen might react in the opposite way you assume teens would act.

    I personally found drinking much more fun when I was still a minor and the forbidden aspect made it "cooler" and probably increased peer pressure to do it (so I could be cooler as well).

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    We are talking about a kid who has already decided to smoke, but has not actually smoked yet. One has to wonder if the father could still make a case to the child to avoid using drugs versus accepting as fait accompli that the child will use drugs. Its seems, should the father choose to attempt to dissuade his son, then there is something less than 100% chance that his son will smoke pot. Yet, if the father allows him to smoke in the house, as father and son, and no attempt to dissuade his son is made, then we can expect that there is a 100% chance that the child will use drugs.
    Again, you have to work with the scenario presented, not an alternative scenario of your choosing.

    Regardless of how he got to the situation where he has a son that, to the best of knowledge, WILL smoke pot for the first time in the near future, we have to address his decision to let him smoke in the home or let his first time be with friends. If you don't want to weigh the benefits and problems with those two choices, we should drop the issue of weighing those two choices.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Once the kid uses at home, then it seems a pretty fair assumption that he'd feel free to smoke outside the home, right?
    No less so than if he wasn't free to smoke inside the home.

    And assuming that instances of smoking inside the home decrease the instances of smoking outside of the home (and that is a reasonable assumption) he will smoke with peers less than he would if he was forbidden from smoking within the home.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    No doctor (no good doctor) would prescribe an addictive drug to treat a non-terminal chronic condition. I mean, if we are talking about treating a dying cancer patient, that's one thing (or even a patient of an advanced age). Treating someone decades from end of life with any addictive drug is simply irresponsible. The issue is not merely that a drug is addictive or not.
    Then your argument is contradictory. You said the issue was about prescribing an addictive drug and now you are saying that the issue is not merely whether a drug is addictive or not.

    And I agree with your second statement but then you need to spell out what those other issues are.

    The problem with your argument is incredibly vague. You say that "addictive drugs" are not good medicine without specifying why. And now you say the issue is not merely whether the drug is addictive which indicates that there are other issues and yet you don't specify what those issues are. So give me specifics (such as how more harm than good is happening) about how marijuana is bad medicine. Any issue you raise that does not give me such specifics will probably be met with "So what?"

    As an example. Marijuana is hard to quit - so what? One eventually needs to smoke more marijuana to get high - so what?



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    The problem is that addictive drugs provoke tolerance (leading to increased usage) combined with negative side-effects that accumulate over time and dosage. This is true for pot and opiates. You are demonstrating a misunderstanding of addiction since addiction means far more than simply being "hard to quit".
    I agree that addictive drugs often, if not always, have a tolerance (as in regular users will feel the effects less than casual users) but that does not necessarily mean that a user needs ever-increasing amounts to feel the effects. I'm sure Tommy Chong (as an example of someone who has smoked all of the time for most of his life) needs more to get high than a weekend smoker but I doubt he needs to smoke more this year than he did last year to get high.

    But I disagree that "negative side effects" are part of "addiction". A drug that is hard to quit and has a tolerance but has no negative side effects is still an addictive drug (and if you disagree, then we need to establish a solid definition of "addictive" - feel free to forward one if you want). So if we accept that marijuana is hard to quit and one develops a tolerance to it, I still don't see any rational for calling it bad medicine that no doctor should prescribe. And even if we allow that there are some negative side effects, it's surely not the case that no doctor would prescribe medicine that has negative side effects - they do it all of the time. The only issue with negative side effects is if they are worse than the disease the drug is treating.

    And besides that, the tolerance one develops for pot is a tolerance against getting high, not a tolerance for the medical benefits. If a glaucoma patient needs two puffs to relieve eye pressure then I assume that's all they will ever need to relieve the pressure. And then it's probably a good thing that they don't get as high when they smoke (so they can stay more sober).
    Last edited by mican333; January 8th, 2014 at 07:58 AM.

  13. #52
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,339
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: drugs, teens, and being realistic

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Maybe in comparison to a household that explicitly forbids it and that IS a maybe. A rebellious teen might react in the opposite way you assume teens would act.
    Would you assume parenting matters?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I personally found drinking much more fun when I was still a minor and the forbidden aspect made it "cooler" and probably increased peer pressure to do it (so I could be cooler as well).
    That's nice.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Again, you have to work with the scenario presented, not an alternative scenario of your choosing.

    Regardless of how he got to the situation where he has a son that, to the best of knowledge, WILL smoke pot for the first time in the near future, we have to address his decision to let him smoke in the home or let his first time be with friends. If you don't want to weigh the benefits and problems with those two choices, we should drop the issue of weighing those two choices.
    I am working with the scenario presented. The guy's son has not actually smoked pot yet (as far as we know). We are debating whether, if the son shows a desire to smoke pot, should the father explicitly allow it or attempt to be a parent and dissuade his son. If your view is that parenting is irrelevant, then I suppose the father's behavior is irrelevant. However, if you believe parenting can affect outcomes, then we are forced to the conclusion that the parent has a chance to dissuade the child from smoking pot at all. However, this chance is absolutely lost if the father invites his son to smoke pot with him in the house.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No less so than if he wasn't free to smoke inside the home.
    Would you conclude that someone's odds of smoking a second time are increased dramatically once he has smoked the first time?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And assuming that instances of smoking inside the home decrease the instances of smoking outside of the home (and that is a reasonable assumption) he will smoke with peers less than he would if he was forbidden from smoking within the home.
    Why is this a reasonable assumption? If the son believes there is nothing wrong with smoking pot, then why would he limit to inside his home. In addition, is the only hazard here smoking outside the home? Let's be honest, smoking in his own home is only marginally better than smoking anywhere else. It isn't like pot becomes less unhealthy or less addictive.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Then your argument is contradictory. You said the issue was about prescribing an addictive drug and now you are saying that the issue is not merely whether a drug is addictive or not.
    My argument is not contradictory. Your understanding of addiction is lacking.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And I agree with your second statement but then you need to spell out what those other issues are.
    My second statement is based around the actual meaning of addiction which is more than implying something is hard to quit.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    The problem with your argument is incredibly vague. You say that "addictive drugs" are not good medicine without specifying why. And now you say the issue is not merely whether the drug is addictive which indicates that there are other issues and yet you don't specify what those issues are. So give me specifics (such as how more harm than good is happening) about how marijuana is bad medicine. Any issue you raise that does not give me such specifics will probably be met with "So what?"

    As an example. Marijuana is hard to quit - so what? One eventually needs to smoke more marijuana to get high - so what?
    Again, addiction does not, in this context, simply mean something is hard to quit.

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/addiction
    compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful

    http://www.asam.org/for-the-public/d...n-of-addiction
    a.Inability to consistently Abstain;
    b.Impairment in Behavioral control;
    c.Craving; or increased “hunger” for drugs or rewarding experiences;
    d.Diminished recognition of significant problems with one’s behaviors and interpersonal relationships; and
    e.A dysfunctional Emotional response.


    Notice that both definitions are much more than noting a substance is difficult to quit. As I stated before, there are tolerance issues (i.e. the need for more to do less). There are emotional issues that result from prolonged use of addictive drugs. There are behavioral issues as well. Obviously, as a long term remedy, using any addictive drug tends to be a poor choice. Marijuana included.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I agree that addictive drugs often, if not always, have a tolerance (as in regular users will feel the effects less than casual users) but that does not necessarily mean that a user needs ever-increasing amounts to feel the effects. I'm sure Tommy Chong (as an example of someone who has smoked all of the time for most of his life) needs more to get high than a weekend smoker but I doubt he needs to smoke more this year than he did last year to get high.
    Please support this or retract. Offering some anecdotal example without any personal knowledge of his lifestyle is far from evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But I disagree that "negative side effects" are part of "addiction". A drug that is hard to quit and has a tolerance but has no negative side effects is still an addictive drug (and if you disagree, then we need to establish a solid definition of "addictive" - feel free to forward one if you want). So if we accept that marijuana is hard to quit and one develops a tolerance to it, I still don't see any rational for calling it bad medicine that no doctor should prescribe. And even if we allow that there are some negative side effects, it's surely not the case that no doctor would prescribe medicine that has negative side effects - they do it all of the time. The only issue with negative side effects is if they are worse than the disease the drug is treating.
    You are free to believe anything you wish. Addiction is a medical condition and has a medical definition which I supplied above.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And besides that, the tolerance one develops for pot is a tolerance against getting high, not a tolerance for the medical benefits. If a glaucoma patient needs two puffs to relieve eye pressure then I assume that's all they will ever need to relieve the pressure. And then it's probably a good thing that they don't get as high when they smoke (so they can stay more sober).
    Why do make this assumption? You are making a lot of assumptions. It seems your assumptions are based on a complete misunderstanding of addiction.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  14. #53
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,339
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: drugs, teens, and being realistic

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Would you assume parenting matters?
    Yes. But I don't assume that making "don't do it" the primary message will always do more good than harm.

    I think it's safe to assume that there are teens who got plenty of "don't do it" at home and did it anyway (and in some cases it's possible the message had the opposite effect via the "forbidden fruit" aspect) and those teens would have been better served if they had instead been instructed on how to do it safely.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I am working with the scenario presented. The guy's son has not actually smoked pot yet (as far as we know). We are debating whether, if the son shows a desire to smoke pot, should the father explicitly allow it or attempt to be a parent and dissuade his son. If your view is that parenting is irrelevant, then I suppose the father's behavior is irrelevant. However, if you believe parenting can affect outcomes, then we are forced to the conclusion that the parent has a chance to dissuade the child from smoking pot at all. However, this chance is absolutely lost if the father invites his son to smoke pot with him in the house.
    And that's only a bad thing if the father would have succeeded in dissuading his son. But if the Father doesn't think he can succeed in dissuading his son and is correct in his assumption, then the "do it safely" route is the right one.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Would you conclude that someone's odds of smoking a second time are increased dramatically once he has smoked the first time?
    Yes.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Why is this a reasonable assumption? If the son believes there is nothing wrong with smoking pot, then why would he limit to inside his home. In addition, is the only hazard here smoking outside the home? Let's be honest, smoking in his own home is only marginally better than smoking anywhere else. It isn't like pot becomes less unhealthy or less addictive.
    We were discussing gateway effect of smoking with peers.

    If a person is going to smoke, say, 100 times in one year and 25% of those times is at home, then there are 25 times when one is avoiding the peer-gateway effect when smoking.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    My second statement is based around the actual meaning of addiction which is more than implying something is hard to quit.
    I will accept, for the sake of argument, that my definition was faulty (although I do believe that there are various definitions of "addictive" and my definition is a valid one). But since my concession that marijuana is addictive is based on my "faulty" definition, I withdraw my concession that marijuana is addictive.

    So whether marijuana is addictive is still a topic of debate.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Again, addiction does not, in this context, simply mean something is hard to quit.

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/addiction
    compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful.
    I'm not sure marijuana is addictive by this definition because I'm not sure that there are "well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal" so I will say maybe it qualifies as addictive and maybe not.

    But leaving that issue aside, I think your argument that addictive drugs are not acceptable for medical use does not add up. Going by that definition, addiction has two aspect

    1. Compulsive use (I'm combining tolerance with this)
    2. Harm.

    As I've argued, it doesn't matter if one will always use a drug (because they have a compulsion) if they intend to use it for the rest of their lives. And even if they do choose to quit, if the compulsion isn't that strong, then they are uncomfortable for a while while they quit which isn't a big problem. As far as "harm" goes, that's only a problem if the harm is greater than the condition that is being treated. So if the medical benefits are significant and the compulsion and harm are minor, then the drug is just fine for use.

    So you can't just say "compulsion + harm = bad medicine". The correct formula is "Compulsion + harm > medical benefit = bad medicine".

    So you will need to show that the addictive properties of marijuana are bad enough to override the medical benefits of its use before you can argue that it's not good medicine.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    http://www.asam.org/for-the-public/d...n-of-addiction
    a.Inability to consistently Abstain;
    b.Impairment in Behavioral control;
    c.Craving; or increased “hunger” for drugs or rewarding experiences;
    d.Diminished recognition of significant problems with one’s behaviors and interpersonal relationships; and
    e.A dysfunctional Emotional response.
    And this is a different definition than the prior one and I prefer the prior one as it fits the definition that people generally think of when they hear the word "addiction".

    Also I don't think that this definition does apply to marijuana and if you are going to argue that it does, I ask that you support or retract that it does.

    If no such support is provided, then the position that marijuana is addictive (by that definition) is not supported.

    But I will entertain (although not concede) the notion that the prior definition does apply so let's stick with that and drop this one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Notice that both definitions are much more than noting a substance is difficult to quit. As I stated before, there are tolerance issues (i.e. the need for more to do less). There are emotional issues that result from prolonged use of addictive drugs. There are behavioral issues as well.
    The first definition does not mention emotional and behavioral issues.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Please support this or retract. Offering some anecdotal example without any personal knowledge of his lifestyle is far from evidence.
    It's not about Tommy per se. I'm just saying that a heavy use needs to use more than a light user but does not need to use an ever-increasing amount.

    If you are asking me to support or retract that, then I will retract it. But if you are going to claim the opposite (that users DO need an ever-increasing amount) I ask that you support or retract in advance.

    If no such support is provided, then the position that one needs to use ever-increasing amounts of cannabis to get high is not a supported position.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Why do make this assumption? You are making a lot of assumptions. It seems your assumptions are based on a complete misunderstanding of addiction.
    It's not a complete misunderstanding. The first definition completely concurs that an addiction means that it's hard to quit. If you want to say that I needed to add a bit more, fine. But calling it a complete misunderstanding relays either a misunderstanding or willful ignorance of what I was saying.

    And if you want to pull the "it's an assumption" card, it's an assumption that tolerance is at all a problem when it comes to medical treatment. NO evidence has been presented that the tolerance issues applies to anything other than getting high on pot and therefore there is no evidence that one would need to use more pot to gain the non-high (medical) benefits of pot.

    So if you are going to claim that a glaucoma patient will need to smoke more pot than he/she used to because of "tolerance" to receive the medical benefits, I ask that you support or retract that in advance.
    Last edited by mican333; January 9th, 2014 at 10:00 AM.

  15. #54
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,497
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: drugs, teens, and being realistic

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It's not a gateway drug.
    It sure was a gateway for some of my friends in high school.

    Here’s how the gate chain generally went:

    1. One joint makes me feel good.
    2. Two joints makes me feel better.
    3. Three joints removes all my problems.
    4. Four joints intensifies all of the above.

    "This is a pleasant experiment and for that reason, I want to experiment with some other stuff."
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  16. #55
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,339
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: drugs, teens, and being realistic

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    It sure was a gateway for some of my friends in high school.

    Here’s how the gate chain generally went:

    1. One joint makes me feel good.
    2. Two joints makes me feel better.
    3. Three joints removes all my problems.
    4. Four joints intensifies all of the above.

    "This is a pleasant experiment and for that reason, I want to experiment with some other stuff."
    But how do you know that they wouldn't have experimented with that other stuff anyway?

  17. #56
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,497
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: drugs, teens, and being realistic

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But how do you know that they wouldn't have experimented with that other stuff anyway?
    Because when I went to HS:

    1. Grass was easily available, other stuff was not.
    2. Grass was almost free, other stuff was not.

    And most importantly:

    3. There was no experiential incentive for other stuff. Grass was the open door. It gave some level of new information to the young developing mind. It was the bait. Since grass was easily available to teenagers, almost free, created a first-time experimental pleasant physical and emotional experience, the experience logically made many teenagers ask: If this easily available stuff can make me feel very good, perhaps other stuff that is not easily available can make me feel even better.

    In life, we start out crawling, then from that experience, we learn to walk; then we learn to run. We don’t start out running first, because most humans can’t run until we experience and learn to walk. Crawling allows us to experience the first sensations of mobility. From that experience our biology and drive naturally seeks out more mobility.

    In my HS days, grass often gave teenagers their first experience of something they perceived to be pleasant. Since humans are humans our reasoning faculties logically can justify, "if this easily available stuff can make me feel this way, I wonder what would happen if I experiment with other stuff and how good that will make me feel." Unfortunately, it was a logical argument at that time, just as it is probably a logical argument now.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  18. #57
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,339
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: drugs, teens, and being realistic

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Because when I went to HS:

    1. Grass was easily available, other stuff was not.
    2. Grass was almost free, other stuff was not.
    I don't see how that shows that they wouldn't have done the other stuff if they didn't smoke grass. I mean if they did the other stuff anyway then obviously it was available enough for them to do it.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    3. There was no experiential incentive for other stuff. Grass was the open door. It gave some level of new information to the young developing mind. It was the bait. Since grass was easily available to teenagers, almost free, created a first-time experimental pleasant physical and emotional experience, the experience logically made many teenagers ask: If this easily available stuff can make me feel very good, perhaps other stuff that is not easily available can make me feel even better.
    That's a theory. If you prove it's at all valid, feel free.



    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    In life, we start out crawling, then from that experience, we learn to walk; then we learn to run. We don’t start out running first, because most humans can’t run until we experience and learn to walk. Crawling allows us to experience the first sensations of mobility. From that experience our biology and drive naturally seeks out more mobility.

    In my HS days, grass often gave teenagers their first experience of something they perceived to be pleasant. Since humans are humans our reasoning faculties logically can justify, "if this easily available stuff can make me feel this way, I wonder what would happen if I experiment with other stuff and how good that will make me feel." Unfortunately, it was a logical argument at that time, just as it is probably a logical argument now.
    Again, just a theory. And it were particularly valid, it would stand to reason that most pot smokers would try harder drugs. But most pot smokers don't try harder drugs.

  19. #58
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,497
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: drugs, teens, and being realistic

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I don't see how that shows that they wouldn't have done the other stuff if they didn't smoke grass. I mean if they did the other stuff anyway then obviously it was available enough for them to do it.
    The other stuff wasn’t on the radar in my HS years for most of my friends or even sought, until the bait of the marijuana experience. That was the open door for a number of my HS buddies. Marijuana told me and my teenage friends for the first time in our lifetime: “Hey, smoking this makes me have a unique pleasant experience–- what other stuff is there that can make this experience even better? “ It’s a logical question -- would you agree?

    Without the marijuana experience, there was no experiential incentive for me and my HS friends for even seeking other stuff. We didn’t even know it was possible. The marijuana experience informed our young naive minds that the possibility of getting high existed and we could experiment with other stuff.

    That's a theory. If you prove it's at all valid, feel free.
    My comment is from personal experience, observation and living my HS years with my friends. There’s theory and then there’s reality.

    Again, just a theory. And it were particularly valid, it would stand to reason that most pot smokers would try harder drugs.
    So did you want to change your comment from: "It's not a gateway drug" to: "It's a gateway for some teenagers?"
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  20. #59
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,339
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: drugs, teens, and being realistic

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    The other stuff wasn’t on the radar in my HS years for most of my friends or even sought, until the bait of the marijuana experience. That was the open door for a number of my HS buddies. Marijuana told me and my teenage friends for the first time in our lifetime: “Hey, smoking this makes me have a unique pleasant experience–- what other stuff is there that can make this experience even better? “ It’s a logical question -- would you agree?

    Without the marijuana experience, there was no experiential incentive for me and my HS friends for even seeking other stuff. We didn’t even know it was possible. The marijuana experience informed our young naive minds that the possibility of getting high existed and we could experiment with other stuff.
    Since you are using your example of pot being a gateway to harder drugs, I have to assume that you did take harder drugs. If you did not, then your scenario automatically fails as a gateway story for pot use did not lead to harder drugs.

    So assuming you did take harder drugs, weren't you aware of the dangers of those other drugs and didn't those known dangers scare you away from harder drugs? Because most pot smokers don't take harder drugs so while they are aware that they can get "higher", they decide that those drugs are too risky to use. So assuming you did take them in spite of the risks, you apparently had an unusual desire to get higher than you can get from just smoking pot. And it stands to reason that a person who seeks ever-increasing highs will gravitate towards hard drugs regardless of whether they smoked pot or not.

    And I will say that I am not seriously implying that you, Eye4magic, have personally taken hard drugs. I have no idea how true your anecdotal story really is and you did not even say that you did take harder drugs. But when you forward yourself as an example, the issue has to be raised for debate purposes. But again, I am making absolutely no claim about you personally.


    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    So did you want to change your comment from: "It's not a gateway drug" to: "It's a gateway for some teenagers?"
    No. Because there's no support for the position that the use of harder drugs was caused by the use of pot.
    Last edited by mican333; January 9th, 2014 at 03:33 PM.

  21. #60
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,497
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: drugs, teens, and being realistic

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I have to say that this doesn't make much sense. If one is the kind of person who would take, for example, LSD, they WILL hear about it from others before they take it.
    It actually does make sense, which is unfortunate. It wasn’t about LSD. In high school as a 16-year old, my friends and I were rather clueless about LSD and what it did. On the other hand, M. was easily available at parties and in school. It was almost everywhere. It was a culture. Other stuff was not -- at least not with my circle of friends. From the practical side, we didn't ask or seek other stuff until we realized and experienced the reality of the pot experience which informed us that there was something else to ask about. Doesn't this make sense to you?

    So assuming you are the kind of person who would enjoy LSD, when you hear of it from whoever tells you about it, you will gain your experience of it then.
    That’s not the way it actually worked in practice for many of my friends in HS. What drove some of us to other stuff was not what people said or what we heard, but we were driven to experiment with other stuff from the personal experience of using pot. The pot experience was the motivating incentive to experiment with other stuff.

    Consider the analogy of downhill skiing. Someone can start skiing. They may enjoy it a lot and keep doing it and enjoying it. Then there are some people who will take that experience of downhill skiing and want more of thrill, a high. So they will get involved in extreme sports (skiing) because they want more of thrill then they get from basic downhill skiing. One experience of downhill skiing becomes the motivating incentive (gateway) to the next more extreme experience. Not all downhill skiers will become extreme downhill skiers, but some will allow the skiing experience to gateway them to the next extreme experience.

    Anecdotal evidence is not proper support and your evidence doesn't even convincingly back up your theory.
    Personal experience is personal experience. Theory is not necessarily practice or reality.

    No. Because there's no support for the position that the use of harder drugs was caused by the use of pot.
    There’s also no conclusive support that proves some teenagers don’t turn to other stuff because of their marijuana experience.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

 

 
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •