On 2/8/14, 11:13 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 07:36:10 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/8/2014 1:35 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 16:50:53 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

Bill, addictions don't get to a 'functioning member of society' stage and then remain constant. They
get worse, and worse, until the addict hits his/her bottom. The bottom might be a reckless driving
ticket, or it might be death, or somewhere in between.

At least that's been my experience with addicts.

How many people did you run into in the army who were addicted to
alcohol? I certainly saw plenty in the Navy and CG



I knew many heavy drinkers in the Navy. I was one of them. I know many
heavy drinkers now. I am not one of them, not because I don't like it,
but because as you age it doesn't like you as much. Most drinkers,
including myself never become alcoholics.

Alcoholism, like drug addiction, radically changes how a person thinks
and acts. His/her personality changes. Scientists have mapped areas of
the brain that responsible for cognizant thinking and routine awareness.
The inter-cell transmitters of electrical signals have been destroyed,
often permanently. A recovering alcoholic has to "re-wire" his/her
thought process to avoid relapses. Same with some drug addicts.

A heavy drinker isn't "the" definition of an alcoholic or one addicted
to alcohol. There is much more to it.


It depends on who is doing the defining.

I have heard lots of groups that set that bar pretty low.


If you drink a six pack every night, guess what...you're an alcoholic.

On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 11:01:29 -0500, HanK wrote:

Where did anyone say anything about *basing* sex education on 'abstinence', Harry?

When you were 16, as now, you were perfect.


What's amazing is that he managed to grow up at all.

===

There's a lot of evidence to suggest that he didn't. He just got
bigger.

On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 11:11:38 -0500, wrote:

People steal to buy all sorts of things and the guys who have guns are
not likely to be junkies stealing for a fix. They would just sell the
gun.

===

I think there are plenty of junkies who have used guns to steal. It's
called leverage assuming the proceeds of the crime are worth more than
the gun.

On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 10:51:21 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 10:23:16 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 09:22:22 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 08:02:34 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

We must be coming at it from different angles. I saw the abstinence being taught as the only
'foolproof' method of preventing pregnancies and STD's, which it is.

===

To me that's like saying that the only foolproof way of avoiding
automobile accidents is to not get in a car.

I agree. But if a kid thinks that rubbers, pills, IUDs, etc are the 'safe surefire way' to prevent
STDs and/or pregnancies, then this might be a worthwhile bit of information.

===

I think most kids are well aware already. Preaching abstinence is
mostly to make the parents feel good. The kids are under tremendous
biological and social pressure and already know waaay more than we
think they should.

I would think some 4th or 5th graders might not be as 'well aware' as you suppose.

It sure as hell can't hurt to mention that although other methods have a high probability of
preventing pregnancy or STDs, the *only* surefire way is abstinence.

It seems like some folks think that's a dirty word. There are, believe it or not, kids who in fact
practice abstinence from sexual intercourse.

On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 10:57:31 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/8/14, 10:52 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 10:43:47 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/8/14, 10:23 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 09:22:22 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 08:02:34 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

We must be coming at it from different angles. I saw the abstinence being taught as the only
'foolproof' method of preventing pregnancies and STD's, which it is.

===

To me that's like saying that the only foolproof way of avoiding
automobile accidents is to not get in a car.

I agree. But if a kid thinks that rubbers, pills, IUDs, etc are the 'safe surefire way' to prevent
STDs and/or pregnancies, then this might be a worthwhile bit of information.



Condoms are an effective way to prevent the transmission of venereal
diseases. The other methods you listed are not. Basing sex education
classes on the "wonderfulness" of abstinence tells the students you are
not taking the teaching of sex education seriously. Teaching students
that they need to use a condom every time to prevent the transmission of
disease and to prevent pregnancy while engaging in sex *is* taking the
teaching of sex education seriously. No, the condoms are not 100%
effective, but if used properly, they are damned close to it.

Teenagers are going to engage in sexual activity. There's no question
about that. The "science" on that is settled. What responsible adults
need to do is make sure that the teens know to use a condom.



Back when I was 16, one of my after school jobs was working at a small
pharmacy in a pretty rough neighborhood. I was the combination soda
jerk, delivery boy, and salesman of booze and condoms. The latter two
activities were illegal for a kid my age, of course, but the
pharmacist/owner said no one from the alcohol board had ever been in his
store. Condoms were a grey area back then in Connecticut. They were kept
behind the counter and when someone came in to buy some, I had to go
fetch them. Some of the buyers were high school kids. That made the
pharmacist smile because, he said, there would be fewer teen pregnancies
in the neighborhood if the boys were "wearing a raincoat."

I understand that many Americans have sexual hangups. I managed to grow
up without them.



Where did anyone say anything about *basing* sex education on 'abstinence', Harry?

When you were 16, as now, you were perfect.


Hardy, but no one taught or told me that "sex is dirty."

And where do you see anything that says that? Here? In the Fairfax County program?

On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 11:36:25 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 11:01:29 -0500, HanK wrote:

Where did anyone say anything about *basing* sex education on 'abstinence', Harry?

When you were 16, as now, you were perfect.


What's amazing is that he managed to grow up at all.

===

There's a lot of evidence to suggest that he didn't. He just got
bigger.

He does have a way of coming up with ideas out of the blue. Now it's the 'sex is dirty' refrain. He
must have picked that up from one of y'all.

On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 10:56:51 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/8/14, 10:54 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 10:27:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/8/14, 7:47 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 19:56:36 -0500, KC wrote:

On 2/7/2014 3:41 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 14:28:19 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

That's not the problem. The problem is with much more dangerous and
addictive opiates.

The most pervasive opiates these days come from doctors and drug
companies



They say you can get addicted by doing one oxy... I have seen it, it's a
fact...

That could be, if the person gets a little buzz, likes it, and keeps taking it. I've had both the
oxy's contin and codone recently. If actually taken for the pain, there isn't a 'high' that goes
along with it, just a reduction in pain. I think if a person is feeling a 'high', then either they
don't need the pain killer, or they're taking more than necessary.


It appears as if you are trying to extrapolate universal truths from
your limited, individual experiences with painkillers. Perhaps *you*
didn't feel a "high," or perhaps your "high" was masked by pain, or
perhaps not. But for you to state that if a person is feeling a "high"
from taking a pain killer, then they don't need the painkiller or that
they are taking more than necessary, has little if any basis in science.


Harry, perhaps you could read my paragraph. I think you'll find the words 'I' and 'I think' there. I
gave my opinion, and I didn't state what you said I stated.



You stated exactly what I quoted.

Yup, you're correct again. I used the word 'high'.

You got me there, little buddy!

On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 11:21:22 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/8/14, 11:13 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 07:36:10 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/8/2014 1:35 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 16:50:53 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

Bill, addictions don't get to a 'functioning member of society' stage and then remain constant. They
get worse, and worse, until the addict hits his/her bottom. The bottom might be a reckless driving
ticket, or it might be death, or somewhere in between.

At least that's been my experience with addicts.

How many people did you run into in the army who were addicted to
alcohol? I certainly saw plenty in the Navy and CG



I knew many heavy drinkers in the Navy. I was one of them. I know many
heavy drinkers now. I am not one of them, not because I don't like it,
but because as you age it doesn't like you as much. Most drinkers,
including myself never become alcoholics.

Alcoholism, like drug addiction, radically changes how a person thinks
and acts. His/her personality changes. Scientists have mapped areas of
the brain that responsible for cognizant thinking and routine awareness.
The inter-cell transmitters of electrical signals have been destroyed,
often permanently. A recovering alcoholic has to "re-wire" his/her
thought process to avoid relapses. Same with some drug addicts.

A heavy drinker isn't "the" definition of an alcoholic or one addicted
to alcohol. There is much more to it.


It depends on who is doing the defining.

I have heard lots of groups that set that bar pretty low.


If you drink a six pack every night, guess what...you're an alcoholic.

That's based on some scientific fact?

On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 11:29:11 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 10:27:54 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



It appears as if you are trying to extrapolate universal truths from
your limited, individual experiences with painkillers. Perhaps *you*
didn't feel a "high," or perhaps your "high" was masked by pain, or
perhaps not. But for you to state that if a person is feeling a "high"
from taking a pain killer, then they don't need the painkiller or that
they are taking more than necessary, has little if any basis in science.


I don't even accept the word "high" in this regard. These are called
downers for a reason. They dull your mind and your awareness. Some
people embrace that and can't stand to get "up".

I also think there is another reason pain killers are self
perpetuating. With the pain killer, you continue re injuring yourself.
When recovering from an injury or surgery, pain is good. It tells you
that you should not do that. Prescriptions should be given in a
decreasing dose regimen so after a few days you have tapered down to
half and eventually you are out. Renewals should be hard to get. If
your pain is still that bad, they should be looking for what went
wrong, not feeding your habit.

Yup.

On 2/8/14, 11:54 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 10:57:31 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/8/14, 10:52 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 10:43:47 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/8/14, 10:23 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 09:22:22 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 08:02:34 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

We must be coming at it from different angles. I saw the abstinence being taught as the only
'foolproof' method of preventing pregnancies and STD's, which it is.

===

To me that's like saying that the only foolproof way of avoiding
automobile accidents is to not get in a car.

I agree. But if a kid thinks that rubbers, pills, IUDs, etc are the 'safe surefire way' to prevent
STDs and/or pregnancies, then this might be a worthwhile bit of information.



Condoms are an effective way to prevent the transmission of venereal
diseases. The other methods you listed are not. Basing sex education
classes on the "wonderfulness" of abstinence tells the students you are
not taking the teaching of sex education seriously. Teaching students
that they need to use a condom every time to prevent the transmission of
disease and to prevent pregnancy while engaging in sex *is* taking the
teaching of sex education seriously. No, the condoms are not 100%
effective, but if used properly, they are damned close to it.

Teenagers are going to engage in sexual activity. There's no question
about that. The "science" on that is settled. What responsible adults
need to do is make sure that the teens know to use a condom.



Back when I was 16, one of my after school jobs was working at a small
pharmacy in a pretty rough neighborhood. I was the combination soda
jerk, delivery boy, and salesman of booze and condoms. The latter two
activities were illegal for a kid my age, of course, but the
pharmacist/owner said no one from the alcohol board had ever been in his
store. Condoms were a grey area back then in Connecticut. They were kept
behind the counter and when someone came in to buy some, I had to go
fetch them. Some of the buyers were high school kids. That made the
pharmacist smile because, he said, there would be fewer teen pregnancies
in the neighborhood if the boys were "wearing a raincoat."

I understand that many Americans have sexual hangups. I managed to grow
up without them.



Where did anyone say anything about *basing* sex education on 'abstinence', Harry?

When you were 16, as now, you were perfect.


Hardy, but no one taught or told me that "sex is dirty."

And where do you see anything that says that? Here? In the Fairfax County program?


No. From you.