On 2/8/14, 12:43 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/8/2014 10:27 AM, 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.




I took one oxycontin pill following oral surgery. The next morning I
flushed the rest of them down the toilet. I was in some degree of pain
but I sure didn't like the spaced out feeling that one little pill gave
me. I am not exactly a small person either.



I had a similar experience the one time I took a percodan. Didn't like
how I felt, switched to plain old aspirin.

On 2/8/14, 1:10 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/8/2014 10:57 AM, 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."

Where and who in this discussion every said or suggested that "sex is
dirty"? Freudian slip?

I get the impression that John is somewhat repressive on the subject.

On 2/8/2014 12:32 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/8/14, 11:59 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
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?



Having six alcoholic drinks a night puts you well into the
classification of being a heavy drinker, according to the CDC:

"What do you mean by heavy drinking?
For men, heavy drinking is typically defined as consuming an average of
more than 2 drinks per day, or more than 14 drinks per week. For women,
heavy drinking is typically defined as consuming an average of more than
1 drink per day, or more than 7 drinks per week."

http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/faqs.htm#excessivealcohol

Heavy drinking every night is a sure sign of alcoholism. Six beers a
night is 42 drinks a week.


Again, a heavy drinker by any definition isn't necessarily an alcoholic.
Alcoholism involves other factors and issues. Ask any recovering alcoholic.

On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 13:49:50 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/8/14, 1:10 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/8/2014 10:57 AM, 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."

Where and who in this discussion every said or suggested that "sex is
dirty"? Freudian slip?

I get the impression that John is somewhat repressive on the subject.

I'll confess, I've not done the job, as well as some here, of describing my sexual prowess!

(But, in Vietnam my First Sergeant made sure there was a box of condoms on his desk free for the
taking- up to three a day.)

On 2/8/14, 1:29 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 13:10:12 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 11:53:10 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

===

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.

===

Perhaps but I think you'd be surprised. A lot of these kids ride the
school bus and/or have older friends/cousins/brothers/sisters, etc.

I still maintain that teaching "abstinence" is mostly a feel good
thing for adults.

Here they ride elementary school buses until middle school, then middle school buses, and then high
school buses, for those few who don't have cars.



In I think the "better times" when I was in public school, I walked
three long blocks to elementary school, then four blocks to junior high.
We had sidewalks!

For high school, most of us took the buses, because the public high
school that served our part of the city was about five miles away. But
they weren't school buses...the board of education contracted with the
local transit company, which provided regular "city buses." We'd buy a
month's worth of bus tickets, which cost 7-/2 cents to ride each way,
and the drivers were instructed to allow any kid on the bus, whether or
not he or she had a bus ticket. There were "late buses" too, for kids
involved in afterschool activities.

Pretty decent school lunches in junior high for about a quarter. At high
school, they were 35 cents but the quality went way way down. Never
could figure out why.

In our group, we had one guy walk off the high school campus every
couple of days to pick up a bunch of Italian subs from a market about a
block away. It was "strictly forbidden" to do that, but...the assistant
principal, a Mr. Kennedy, who was responsible for school discipline,
would often be at the grocery to buy his lunch. We'd all pretend we
didn't see each other. Mr. Kennedy didn't like the cafeteria food very
much, either.

Oh, sex. In high school, everyone I knew practiced "safe" sex, and, as
far as I know, there were no pregnancies among our graduating class.

On 2/8/14, 1:53 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 13:49:50 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/8/14, 1:10 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/8/2014 10:57 AM, 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."

Where and who in this discussion every said or suggested that "sex is
dirty"? Freudian slip?

I get the impression that John is somewhat repressive on the subject.

I'll confess, I've not done the job, as well as some here, of describing my sexual prowess!

(But, in Vietnam my First Sergeant made sure there was a box of condoms on his desk free for the
taking- up to three a day.)


Everyone enjoyed your first sergeant, eh?

On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 14:05:27 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/8/14, 1:53 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 13:49:50 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/8/14, 1:10 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/8/2014 10:57 AM, 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."

Where and who in this discussion every said or suggested that "sex is
dirty"? Freudian slip?

I get the impression that John is somewhat repressive on the subject.

I'll confess, I've not done the job, as well as some here, of describing my sexual prowess!

(But, in Vietnam my First Sergeant made sure there was a box of condoms on his desk free for the
taking- up to three a day.)


Everyone enjoyed your first sergeant, eh?

He was an absolutely spectacular guy. Lived in Philly. Have to admit I was a bit nervous driving
through the neighborhood. Great individual. He's been dead for about 20 years, but we still enjoy
contact with his wife.

On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 14:02:49 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/8/14, 1:29 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 13:10:12 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 11:53:10 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

===

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.

===

Perhaps but I think you'd be surprised. A lot of these kids ride the
school bus and/or have older friends/cousins/brothers/sisters, etc.

I still maintain that teaching "abstinence" is mostly a feel good
thing for adults.

Here they ride elementary school buses until middle school, then middle school buses, and then high
school buses, for those few who don't have cars.



In I think the "better times" when I was in public school, I walked
three long blocks to elementary school, then four blocks to junior high.
We had sidewalks!

For high school, most of us took the buses, because the public high
school that served our part of the city was about five miles away. But
they weren't school buses...the board of education contracted with the
local transit company, which provided regular "city buses." We'd buy a
month's worth of bus tickets, which cost 7-/2 cents to ride each way,
and the drivers were instructed to allow any kid on the bus, whether or
not he or she had a bus ticket. There were "late buses" too, for kids
involved in afterschool activities.

Pretty decent school lunches in junior high for about a quarter. At high
school, they were 35 cents but the quality went way way down. Never
could figure out why.

In our group, we had one guy walk off the high school campus every
couple of days to pick up a bunch of Italian subs from a market about a
block away. It was "strictly forbidden" to do that, but...the assistant
principal, a Mr. Kennedy, who was responsible for school discipline,
would often be at the grocery to buy his lunch. We'd all pretend we
didn't see each other. Mr. Kennedy didn't like the cafeteria food very
much, either.

Oh, sex. In high school, everyone I knew practiced "safe" sex, and, as
far as I know, there were no pregnancies among our graduating class.

It's good to know that no one you knew practiced abstinence and were 100% lucky.

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 2/8/2014 10:27 AM, 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.




I took one oxycontin pill following oral surgery. The next morning I
flushed the rest of them down the toilet. I was in some degree of pain
but I sure didn't like the spaced out feeling that one little pill gave
me. I am not exactly a small person either.

Do not flush drugs down the toilet! Take to the police station or other
drug drop off points. Contaminates the water supply. How much of this
girls having periods at 9 years old, or even the ADD from the estrogens and
other crap in the water.

Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 20:21:00 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:

On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 16:59:47 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

See my response earlier. Oh hell, I'll post it again. This is what is
taught in Fairfax County.

Family Life Education
Program Overview

===

I'm OK with that as far as it goes but the emphasis on abstinence,
especially for older kids, is probably wishful thinking. Many of them
are already, or soon will be, in "committed" relationships and need
good solid birth control and disease prevention information more than
anything else. It's largely a waste of time to preach abstinence to a
bunch of raging hormones and it can cast the credibility of the whole
program into doubt.

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.
There is a lot more emphasis on
STD's and substance abuse. By the junior and senior years the 'sex
education' is pretty much over,
except for some more on STD's.

Yes, there could probably be lots of improvements. But for the most part
those take classroom time.
We wouldn't want to take away any of the liberal arts classes. In any
case, there *is* education
taking place, contrary to what some would believe.

And the best program I saw was my oldest daughter in high school. They had
to take care of an egg like a baby for 10 days. Write down feeding and
changing times. Showed the girl exactly the results of having a baby.