What a cool mom.

[Lou]

JCC agrees: I don't like what you suggest here, a lot of what you're talking about seems to be "Regardless of whether marijuana is bad, we're told by the government not to do it, so don't". I think teaching 'ask no questions' subservience is a far worse thing

Well, yes, that IS what I'm saying. They can ask questions about pot. They can rally to make it legal. If my kids want to discuss with me how to go about making pot legal (or change any other law), I'd be happy to discuss and help them look up information.

Encouraging them to BREAK the law, I will not do. I will also not sit and break the law WITH them. In fact, should the time occur that I decide I really must smoke a joint, I will NOT be involving my children in that at all.

I think there is a big difference between no questions asked subservience and teaching your children that if they want something they just take it. If they want the laws changed, they can work for that to happen. I won't tell them to just break the laws they think are dumb.

Knock back 4 beers and suddenly driving after drinking 4 beers seems PERFECTLY logical. Doesn't make it a good idea.

 

[itsxpaperdoll]

It's an interesting question, and till a certain degree I agree with everyone who says the mum's an idiot. especially since she apparently combined smoking with driving and underaged kids. However, since loads of kids nowadays get, one way or an other, in contact with pot I think it's good that if they want to try it, the first time they do it with someone who's more or less reliable, someone they can trust. Of course, 14 is terribly young and I think in this case the mum was wrong in doing what she did, in general I think it's good if children are introduced to these relatively harmless drugs (note, I say relatively. Which means, not as bad as, say, coke, or meth, to which loads of kids are introduced by their parents because they are addicted) in a relatively safe way (ie, not while driving cars, but with parents or older siblings).
With me being Dutch and talking about weed, it is naturally unavoidable to talk about the Dutch soft-drugs policy: but it is proven that if kids and young adults who want to use drugs (for whatever reason, even things like peer pressure) have the possibility to use weed or hash or whatever, it is less likely that they will switch to seriously harmful hard drugs. Simply because there is a difference between things you can more or less safely use and things that are properly out of the question. If all drugs are considered evil, there's no real different, subconsiously, between, say, hash and heroin since both have more or less the same effects with the difference that the latter is extremely bad and the former only a little bit, if there are cases of schizophrenia in the family and so on. However, if you're taught that some drugs are more or less okay, provided you don't do it to often and so on, like in the cases when parent suse weed, but no other drugs, there is a much clearer difference between different kinds of drugs. So if kids want to be cool and everything, they have the option of smoking pot.
You see what I mean? It's very late and I had some really strange cocktails so I'm not sure if what I just wrote is understandable, but I think I made my point clear, right?

 

[JCC]

Encouraging them to BREAK the law, I will not do.

How far does the law have to infringe upon your civil liberties without any scientific or logical justification before you do encourage your children to do something about it? Teaching your children that they are entirely impotent in their life choices and should just go along with what they're told is crippling, what reason what would they have to go waving their pro-pot banners if they've never even tried it because they're too scared to break a law that they never had a say in?

It's been scientifically proven that marijuana causes longterm paranoia. I deem such an effect harmful.

I'm sure you won't have any problem citing your pseudo-science.

 

[Blondie Bear]

How far does the law have to infringe upon your civil liberties without any scientific or logical justification before you do encourage your children to do something about it? Teaching your children that they are entirely impotent in their life choices and should just go along with what they're told is crippling, what reason what would they have to go waving their pro-pot banners if they've never even tried it because they're too scared to break a law that they never had a say in?

Breaking a law and trying to get it changed are not the same thing. I'm all for rallying to get laws changed. Breaking them is just stupid and completely negates any credibility you might have.

 

[JCC]

Breaking a law and trying to get it changed are not the same thing. I'm all for rallying to get laws changed. Breaking them is just stupid and completely negates any credibility you might have.

A law is simply a mandate of someone else's thoughts and to break them is only to go against what someone else thinks. Laws have encompassed a great many things and a great deal of infringements, if the law dictated that you're not allowed to be Catholic or Jewish or 6'0, you'd say "Yeah, fight those laws, fight the power!", because it's something that doesn't directly affect you, you're just sitting back and saying that lawbreakers are dumb. Not so.

 

[Lou]

How far does the law have to infringe upon your civil liberties without any scientific or logical justification before you do encourage your children to do something about it? Teaching your children that they are entirely impotent in their life choices and should just go along with what they're told is crippling, what reason what would they have to go waving their pro-pot banners if they've never even tried it because they're too scared to break a law that they never had a say in?

I'm not sure that not being able to get high infringes on their civil liberties as a child. If nothing else, pot does effect your general state of mind and slows down your reflexes at least as bad as having a couple of beers. That is also something they can't do until they're 21.
I never said anything I try will KEEP them from ever smoking pot. On the other hand, I've never smoked it and I would be more than happy to go wave banners saying it should be legal. With limitations, of course, at least limits like alcohol has.

Pot isn't HARMLESS. It does kill brain cells when smoked in great amounts, just like alcohol does. And it's certianly not safe to be driving on.
It may not have the effects that smoking meth does, but it DOES put you in an altered state and is against the law. There is no reason for a parent to offer to help put a growing mind in an altered state WHILE breaking the law, so that what? They know they should be for it being legal? Obviously, it's possible to be for it being legalized while having lived 33 years not smoking it.

 

[JenniferAlice]

Well, I'm gonna have a joint and watch how this interesting debate pans out. Thanks guys.

 

[Randy Giles]

The fact that someone would follow every law - even ones they don't agree with - just because it's the law is why this world is doomed.

If you don't agree with war, and they did a draft, and wanted you to go to war, would you go anyway, or would you fight it? Because if you went just because it was THE LAW, you're betraying yourself. Not to mention all those people you'd have a hand in killing. It's the same principle, basically.

Do you not EVER go a little above the speed limit? Because if you go 47 in a 45 zone you're breaking the law. Which I don't think is any more "wrong" than smoking pot in private if you'd so like.

 

[JCC]

Being Catholic or 6'0 isn't something I'd have a choice whether to break or not. When there ARE laws I don't think make sense, I don't go break them, I vote to fight them.

No, being openly Catholic is a choice. The 6'0 remark was a bad comparison, but the Catholicism was a pretty good one if I don't toot my own horn (or smoke my own joint may be more applicable). You're brought up to believe that your religion is your own business and you're entitled to it, but drug users are constantly neutered for no apparent reason and whenever they decide that they're fed up of it, people say "Breaking the law isn't the way to go!". Wait until they outlaw something important to you for absolutely no reason and then we'll see how much you feel like sitting back, waving banners and printing leaflets.

 

[Blondie Bear]

The trouble I'm having here is the potential for escalation. If you break one law just because you think it's stupid, who's to say you won't break a bigger law just because you think it's stupid? Or, how can you tell someone else that they can't break a bigger law because THEY think it's stupid? If we all just go with our "best judgment," the next thing you know, we have anarchy. And anarchy is bad.

On the other hand, if you fight the laws and get them changed, then you don't have to worry about it at all.

I agree that the drug laws are stupid. I mean, why should the government tell us what we can and can't put in our own bodies? It brings to mind the Stallone movie Demolition Man, in which "salt is bad for you, hence it is illegal" and other such stupid laws. I'm a libertarian. I think that as long as you're not hurting anyone else, you should be allowed to do pretty much whatever you want without government intervention. But other people don't see it that way, and those other people are a bigger majority in this country, so they get it their way. Breaking the laws they come up with just makes them ANGRY and want to strengthen the law, not go "well, that's not working. Let's get rid of it." So breaking laws just cause you don't agree with them is really counterproductive.

 

[Randy Giles]

You have a good point, but I don't think most people would have a problem with "escalation". I mean, there's a huge difference between smoking a plant and relaxing, and breaking that law since it only affects you, and then deciding you think it's stupid to steal and then going to steal something. I think most people are smart enough to know that laws that protect other people are different from laws telling you what you can personally do that has no effect on someone else. Which is exactly what those drug laws do. (I wouldn't disagree with some drugs being illegal, such as heroin and meth, but it's been scientifically proven that pot is much much safer and less addicting than those drugs.)

Basically, though, I think if someone is gonna steal, or kill, they'll do it regardless, but I don't think most people OK with breaking a drug law are just going to naturally start breaking more serious ones.

 

[Washburne]

Laws that say you can´t beat up people or even kill them are stupid! If I want someone dead he or she deserves! And I need money. So I´ll steal some or rob someone. What stupid law says I can´t?!!

Stupid internet to be slow...


Anyway. Doing drugs never effects anyone except the user? Yeah that sounds likely...

 

[JCC]

First of all:

If we all just go with our "best judgment," the next thing you know, we have anarchy. And anarchy is bad.

Identifying as an anarchist and recognising this as the biggest and most infuriating misconception about the political theory of anarchism, if you were here I would give you the biggest glare that a human being can muster, or facepalm so hard that my jaw splinters.

The trouble I'm having here is the potential for escalation. If you break one law just because you think it's stupid, who's to say you won't break a bigger law just because you think it's stupid? Or, how can you tell someone else that they can't break a bigger law because THEY think it's stupid?

Stealing is harmful to others. If marijuana is harmful, which is pretty doubtful and becomes even more of a hazy subject every day, it is harmful only to the user, and I think that it's your own business if you want to make a mess for yourself. If a law doesn't protect others, it's not needed, drug laws are one example of that.

Laws that say you can´t beat up people or even kill them are stupid! If I want someone dead he or she deserves! And I need money. So I´ll steal some or rob someone. What stupid law says I can´t?!!

When I smoke pot, the guy three blocks down dies!

 

[Randy Giles]

Laws that say you can´t beat up people or even kill them are stupid! If I want someone dead he or she deserves! And I need money. So I´ll steal some or rob someone. What stupid law says I can´t?!!

Stupid internet to be slow...


Anyway. Doing drugs never effects anyone except the user? Yeah that sounds likely...

Hmm. Kindly explain to me how exactly taking a toke hurts someone? Causes damage to someone else's body or mind? It doesn't. End of story.

 

[Blondie Bear]

Oh-kay. I can see we're in another dead-end conversation. I'm out.

 

[JCC]

A film that I recommend absolutely everyone sees is 'Grass', a documentary narrated by Woody Harrelson about the less than convincing basis for marijuana criminalisation and how it's rooted in racism amongst other silly things. Plus, there's bewbs in it, and who doesn't love those?

 

[Washburne]

Hmm. Kindly explain to me how exactly taking a toke hurts someone? Causes damage to someone else's body or mind? It doesn't. End of story.

Taking a beer doesn´t hurt anyone does it? What about 10 beers? 20? Getting in the car and drive? Oh no wait. That´s not legal is it? Who cares? It´s a stupid law anyway. I know what I´m doing. Nothing´s gonna happen... What about taking one beer everyday? 4? Is there a limit? There´s not harm in taking a drink or use drugs. And if there is it´ll only hurt myself and no one else. Same with steroids? Tell that to all the family and close friends of addicts. Or all the ones that did something "bad" the ONE AND ONLY time they tried "what ever". I´m not saying being a user has a guarantee to always make a bad impact on the user or people around them. But never? Oh please.

And yes I know drinking is legal (believe it or not but I haven´t lived under a rock my whole life. But admititly in Sweden. What ever that means for this discussion.) But it still has restrictions. But as your mantra goes. One xx don´t hurt anyone...

One discussion is about not having to follow stupid laws. Which is judged by everyone and can be seen differently. You say your (I´m talking in general not to one specific person now) judgement is the best, someone else says something differently. Whos´s right? The one with most people on their side or should everyone just ignore the law they think is stupid?

And another discussion is if marijuana is "dangerous" or in any way effects people. A discussion I haven´t gotten myself into. So I´nowhere near to say if it should be legal or not. I used the word drugs for a reason. But if it doesn´t effect people why do people enjoy it so much? Simply because of the tast? Oh no. My mistake. It does effect you. Just no in a bad way for anyone. Never.

 

[T.I.P]

^^I think i'll go watch that on youtube now.

 

[randiann]

There´s not harm in taking a drink or use drugs. And if there is it´ll only hurt myself and no one else. Same with steroids? Tell that to all the family and close friends of addicts. Or all the ones that did something "bad" the ONE AND ONLY time they tried "what ever". I´m not saying being a user has a guarantee to always make a bad impact on the user or people around them. But never? Oh please.

THANK YOU

To think that your decisions have no implications whatsoever on the lives of others is not only naieve, it is completely insane.

And about anarchy: I personally think that people should be smart enough to live without laws. I would like to think that my personal decisions are mine, and that the government shouldn't be able to dictate what I do or don't do. I think Joe Schmo should be able to not kill anyone without it being written on paper that murder is bad. But here's the catch: people in general are not smart enough to be able to live without a governing body to set boundaries for them. Therefore we have laws. They exist for this reason. Do I think pot is any worse than alcohol or tobacco: not really. Do I think it should be legalized: kinda gray on that one. Do I think that all drugs should be allowed simply so I can decide what to ingest? HELL NO. People as a whole aren't smart enough to create these boundaries on their own without some guidance from the government.

Back on the subject: This mom is stupid. She's a bad influence, a bad role model, and an idiot. She's the type of person that these laws exist for.

 

[Lou]

JCC:
You're not seeing the difference in a regular person smoking pot and a child being allowed and supported to do it by a parent.
Sure, if my kid hits legal age out on their own and says that he sits at home on the weekends and smokes a joint, I'm not gonna flip out and turn him in.
But, there is a difference between going out of your way to encourage a child that laws are only important if you get caught. Any law.
Sure, sometimes I find myself going over the speed limit and I slow down. I don't pass a speed limit sign and say, "Oh, I could handle this MUCH faster...watch this kids!" and floor it.
I HAVE however looked down and seen that I was going over the speed limit (doesn't happen often because I drive like a Grandma) and said, "OOPS! That's too fast" and slowed down.
That's not INTENTIONALLY breaking the law nor is it telling the kids that it's okay to do it. I guess I can't accidently smoke pot though.
If the mother wanted to smoke pot, she could have. If she wanted to be understanding about it if her kids came to her and wanted to talk to her about pot. That would have been okay too.
But, whether you see it or not, there is a difference between an adult choosing to break the law and a mother encouraging her children to do so.
ESPECIALLY in a car. Pot isn't harmless when it comes to things like that. Wanna sit outside and smoke, no the man down the street will probably not drop dead. Tell yourself it's utterly harmless and drive, or work heavy machinary and the guy next to you very well COULD die.

It's more about the mother than anything else. Her job is to teach her children and guide them. It's certainly NOT encourage them to do things she knows could get them arrested. And whether she thinks pot itself will hurt their bodies, she should know that you not supposed to DRIVE while doing it. And yet, she threw all that out the window.

Surely, there is a better way to get across your ideas on drug laws to your children without resorting to what she did.