|
Outstanding Video on drug use
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. |
Outstanding Video on drug use
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. |
Outstanding Video on drug use
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. |
Outstanding Video on drug use
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. |
Outstanding Video on drug use
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. |
Outstanding Video on drug use
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. |
Outstanding Video on drug use
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. |
Outstanding Video on drug use
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." |
Outstanding Video on drug use
On 2/8/2014 10:43 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
I understand that many Americans have sexual hangups. I managed to grow up without them. An amoral ass such as yourself isn't likely to have hangups about anything. |
Outstanding Video on drug use
On 2/8/2014 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. What's amazing is that he managed to grow up at all. |
Outstanding Video on drug use
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. |
Outstanding Video on drug use
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. |
Outstanding Video on drug use
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. |
Outstanding Video on drug use
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? |
Outstanding Video on drug use
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. |
Outstanding Video on drug use
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! |
Outstanding Video on drug use
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? |
Outstanding Video on drug use
|
Outstanding Video on drug use
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. |
Outstanding Video on drug use
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. |
Outstanding Video on drug use
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. |
Outstanding Video on drug use
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. Thee you go again quoting government publications and assuming them to be factual. |
Outstanding Video on drug use
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 10:53:10 AM UTC-6, John H. wrote:
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. Mine did. So did my brothers and my sisters kid. The ones that are of age are happily married, intelligent with good jobs. One niece isn't even looking for a mate or 'experimenting' till she gets her career lined out. She's 24. Contrary to some, not all kids 'experiment' with sex during their teen or young adult lives. And many of these same people believe that if a kid doesn't "fool around" , then there's something wrong with them.. |
Outstanding Video on drug use
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. |
Outstanding Video on drug use
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? |
Outstanding Video on drug use
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. |
Outstanding Video on drug use
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 12:19:55 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b5aW08ivHU Uh-huh. (That was the sarcastic version, but I hope you don't think it was a 'personal attack'!!!) |
Outstanding Video on drug use
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 12:52:41 -0500, HanK wrote:
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. Thee you go again quoting government publications and assuming them to be factual. Somehow he missed the pertinent sections. |
Outstanding Video on drug use
On Sat, 08 Feb 2014 13:10:30 -0500, "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? LOL! |
Outstanding Video on drug use
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. |
Outstanding Video on drug use
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. |
Outstanding Video on drug use
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. |
Outstanding Video on drug use
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.) |
Outstanding Video on drug use
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. |
Outstanding Video on drug use
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? :) |
Outstanding Video on drug use
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. |
Outstanding Video on drug use
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. |
Outstanding Video on drug use
"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. |
Outstanding Video on drug use
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:05 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com