"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 2/8/2014 1:33 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 16:32:09 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Make drug use legal. Hmmm... We'll solve our problems by making
extremely addictive drugs like heroin legal? This country is going
down the tubes fast.

Drugs have been illegal for close to a century and usage has not
changed much. Certainly it goes up and down but not in relation to the
effects of the law.



and ?

Are you suggesting that therefore they should be made legal?

What the hell. May as well decriminalize rape, murder, assault and
virtually every other illegal act as well. They've been around for eons
despite laws against them.

I think there's enough evidence that suggests that pot is relatively
harmless when responsibly used for medical or recreational purposes.
Deaths due to pot overdose are .... zero. You don't find potheads
stealing, robbing or assaulting to get their weed, driven by a physical addiction.

Not so with the addictive drugs like heroin.

Murder, rape and assault are not crimes against yourself. Same reason I do
not care about gay marriage. Personal choice.

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 2/7/2014 10:48 PM, Califbill wrote:
KC wrote:
On 2/7/2014 2:49 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/7/2014 12:39 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 11:19:50 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

Poco Loco wrote:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 10:59:47 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/7/14, 10:50 AM, Tim wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2014 9:46:00 AM UTC-6, F.O.A.D. wrote:

Yeah, what we have created in this country is a growth industry
for the

privatization of penal institutions. The corporations pressure the

legislators to pass more laws and stiffer sentences so more
people can

be imprisoned for longer periods of time and so the private slams
will

be guaranteed more income. It's a wonderful system and requires a
lot

less brainpower than something that might actually work.



What would you do to handle the drug problem?



I don't claim to have *the* solution, but I do know that creating a
growth industry in prisons for the private sector ain't it. I think
decriminalizing simple possession for personal use would be a good
starting point, though.

I suppose that's for all the drugs up through heroin? I suppose you
disagree with the idea of
marijuana being a stepping stone to the 'better' stuff. So where
would you draw the line?

Heroin is actually not a really bad 'hard' drug. Lots of heroin addicts
were functioning members of society. Lots turned to crime because of
the
costs to procure, but heroin may kill you in the end because of
paranoia.
Ray Charles was a heroin addict for years. Lots of other examples.
There
are drugs too nasty to legalize, but the country will not come to an end
with most drugs available. Alcohol probably causes more deaths than
hard
drugs. Including the drug wars for sales territory. You have a
friend, I
think it was you, who is hooked on OxyContin. Is he still a functioning
member of society? What the hell is accomplished by sending someone to
prison for use? Puts their family in the welfare system, costs to
incarcerate, and ruins any prospect for a decent job later. If they
commit
a crime to pay for the drugs, then jail them. But if costs are low
enough,
they will work and pay for the drug, just like alcohol. This was
supposed
to be a free country. We are being controlled more, and observed
more than
a lot of western countries these days. And it is both major parties
responsible, not just one side or the other.

I'm no expert on drugs, and don't have an oxycontin hooked friend,
that I know of. I suppose the
cost of incarceration are more than the costs for emergency OD care,
so stopping the incarceration
may be a good idea. It's obviously not much of a deterrent.


I have a good friend who's daughter got hooked on oxycontin and then
went to heroin because it's cheaper. I have a niece who has followed
the same path. Both started as teenagers in high school. Both have
been through rehab, one twice, the other three times. Both have stolen
money, jewelry and other items from their parents, grandparents, other
relatives and former friends to fund their addictions. Failed
marriages, abortions, and heartbreak for the parents. My 61 year old
sister-in-law (mother of the niece) is now in therapy and is taking
anti-anxiety pills because she's coming apart emotionally due to her
daughter's lifestyle.

Anyone who tells me heroin is "not a really bad hard drug" has a lot of
convincing to do to me.



We are on the same page with that....

It is a bad drug, but an addict can still function. You already admit they
can not kick the habit, so let them get a drug that will let them function,
until they die. Sounds cruel, but why is it the rest of society's job to
take care of them? We have spent trillions on the war on drugs. We lost
the war. Let the wounded die.


I'll go suggest that to my sister-in-law. I am sure it will bring her
some solace and peace of mind.

Do you have any kids?

I have 2 daughters and 3 grandaughters. I would help them try to overcome
addiction. Just as you would your kids. But is it society's place to
rescue someone from bad lifestyle choice?

On Saturday, 8 February 2014 14:53:02 UTC-4, John H. 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.)

Was their use restricted to the officer's showers?

On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:53:02 PM UTC-6, John H. wrote:

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.)

Those were great for stretching over an m-16 barrel to keep out water and dirt!

On 2/8/14, 2:38 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
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.


Well, there might have been a few, male or female, who couldn't find a
partner, but they didn't talk about that. Seriously, a lot of seniors in
my graduating class became sexually active in the 9th and 10 grade. The
ones I knew weren't dumb enough, male or female, to risk pregnancy.



--
There’s no point crying over spilled 4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol.

On Sat, 8 Feb 2014 11:52:26 -0800 (PST), True North wrote:

On Saturday, 8 February 2014 14:53:02 UTC-4, John H. 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.)

Was ***their*** use restricted to the ***officer's*** showers?

No Don, the officers didn't have their own showers, and there was no restriction on their use.

(And, if you're going to make a smart-assed post, at least spell and punctuate properly. What
initiated your smart-assed post, Don? Did I say something to you which you found bothersome?)

There was nothing wrong with my post, Johnny.
I was just asking a simple question that you seem to be very uncomfortable with.

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 7 Feb 2014 14:46:45 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Friday, February 7, 2014 11:42:42 AM UTC-6, Wayne. B wrote:

There's no clinical reason for it to be considered a "stepping stone"

but it does bring kids into contact with the drug culture in general,

and that is not a good thing. Best thing for parents is to let their

views be firmly known, and to keep track of their friends. "Friends"

are where a lot of the mischief starts. Make sure the kids are kept

occupied with wholesome activities and reward them for success in

those endeavors. A bit of luck helps also.



That's a good thought, Wayne, but what if the kids parents are stoners?


===

That happens of course, probably more often than we'd like to think.
Those parents however are probably not the ones concerned about their
kids getting into drugs (unless it's their drugs). :-)

How do you mark the level of your dime bag?

In article , says...

On Fri, 7 Feb 2014 19:11:47 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:

On Friday, February 7, 2014 6:58:03 PM UTC-6, Wayne. B wrote:
On Fri, 7 Feb 2014 14:46:45 -0800 (PST), Tim

That's a good thought, Wayne, but what if the kids parents are stoners?


That happens of course, probably more often than we'd like to think.

Those parents however are probably not the ones concerned about their

kids getting into drugs (unless it's their drugs). :-)


agreed,Wayne. But it can go for lesser than that with two instances. A local gal threw a kegger for her son on his 16th birthday.(obviously bad parenting) And I was really mad at the chaperones at a local prom because a 17 year old showed up wobbling drunk. They kicked the kid out but watched him get in his car and drive away w/o calling the law. (obviously poor judgement for a school!)

Not good at all!

When our school puts on a dance, there is always a cop present along with all the 'volunteer'
teacher chaperones. When I went to high school, we had proms in the school, not off-campus at some
hotel ballroom. It wouldn't bother me a bit to see on-campus proms become the norm again.

My Prom was at the O-Club at Fort Belvior on a Monday night. Funniest thing was a guy, Matt
Smith, drove up to the front door and pulled into one of the General Officers reserved
parking spaces across from the main enterance. He got out of his car, walked around the car
and opened the door for his date to get out and proceeded to walk in. The Principal was out
front and told him he couldn't park there and he had to go park in the big lot. He told the
principal to call the MP's and ask them if he needed to move his vehicle. His dad was a one-
start Army general and the car had the star next to the sticker. I got to watch the whole
event while walking in from the big parking lot and just laughed.

On 2/8/2014 2:48 PM, Califbill wrote:
"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.


Never thought of that. But I really wonder how much 9 pills flushed
into a 2500 gallon holding tank and then eventually leached into a
leaching field can contaminate the water supply. If it does, the whole
concept of a septic system is questionable to start with.