The difference is that WHEN kids screwed up in decades past, there were parents present to kill them for doing it. Now, the parents are FAR more likely to be absent and NOT kill them when they need it.
Marijuana = alcohol
- Thread starter LDB
- Start date
Yes, parents were there, and consequences were paid, but the issue still continued to manifest itself. The family structure had nothing to do with it, even in our golden years of the complete family.
Things weren't as great when you were young or as screwed up today as you seem to believe when it comes to the youth in our society. The big majority of today's kids are just as stand up as they ever were.
sent from my Fisher Price - ABC123
The family structure had and has everything to do with it. With the developing social tendencies toward hedonism over the years, we're seen the decline in that quaint concept of personal responsibility and consequences for one's actions. Children are now taught from birth that they're SPECIAL, and that SELF ESTEEM is something naturally bestowed upon them regardless of their lack of accomplishments that might develop said self esteem. There are scores of studies that show the decline of our morals and the concept of the amount of effort given being proportional to the rewards reaped in life. Instead, we now have a prevailing sense of entitlement among the younger generations combined with no sense of responsibility whatsoever. This all ties in with the deterioration of the traditional family structure, and the presence of two married parents available to properly raise their children.
I never said things were great when I was young. I DO know that youth crime was not a problem in the town where I grew up and it very much is now. I don't know how "stand up" kids are now. You would have to prove that to me. My experience tells me different. I don't know if there is any way to quantify that idea.
Decades? Try centuries. These are not new issues.
Ok, fine! Centuries.
My point is the break down of the family structure has nothing to do with the issue.
Well DUH. Obviously the alcohol. Jeff Spicoli is living proof the smoking is harmless.
Proof is evident, due to the fact that even in the glory days of the 2 parent family, the issue was prevalent.
I don't think that you can prove that either. There is, at least a statistical correlation, between increase in crime and the increase in single parent homes. As time without parental supervision increases, so does the available amount of time for screwing up.
But crime and single parent homes, is not the issue at hand.
The issue is, is marijuana equivalent to alcohol?
Assuming that a parent is WATCHING their kids, and do not allow or assist them in the "bad things", there is less time time, and therefore less opportunity, for a kid to do those things.
It is my opinion that in the homes with the greater levels of parental involvement, including supervision, that it is less likely that kids will get involved with drugs and/or booze. I don't know how to prove that.
Growing up in the 1960's, even with 2 parent households, pot and booze use was an issue.
Anybody that doesn't think so, is looking at the past with rose colored glassed. IMHO, of course.
Demonizing them as "bad things", when they aren't, is part of the problem.
Growing up in the 1960's, even with 2 parent households, pot and booze use was an issue.
Anybody that doesn't think so, is looking at the past with rose colored glassed. IMHO, of course.
I never said it was not an issue. I said that when a kid is watched that kid is not going to do it.
EXAMPLE:
Liitla Johnny lights up a doobie or drinks a beer in front of Dad. When Dad gets done with Littla Johnny the local Home Depot names a wall paper pattern after Littla Johnny. If he does it in front of mom, mom kills Littla Johnny, THEN she tells dad what he did, Dad teaches the corpse of Littla Johnny a lesson about what for, and the Home Depot names a wall paper pattern after Littla Johnny.
Littla Johnny then tends to think twice about what he does when he is with his friends because Littla Johnny has learned that, even though it is HIS name on that wall paper pattern, he gets NO royalties for his pain and suffering.
Last edited:
What you been smoking?
First, you've taken the position that smoking pot causes brain damage, and you've now used the same extreme example of abuse three different times as the basis for your argument. In the history of studies there has been but a single study that shows brain damage with heavy use, and that's the one you've latched on to, and you've posted three different articles about the same study. That's a logical fallacy, simply restating your case in different ways, as if each restatement is somehow additional support for your position.
I don't think anyone, and certainly not me, would disagree that overuse and abuse of pot, or most anything else, during your growth years is going to cause problems of one sort or another.
Second, the paragraph above introduces two distinct false premises as fact: making pot legal would increase "enormously" the amount of pot readily available for consumption, and that it would be more readily available on a "much" larger scale. The use of "enormously" and "much" is the problem with your assertions, as there is no evidence for either, and in fact there is historical evidence for just the opposite. Pot has been around for a really long time. It's a natural plant. It's been cultivated and used by humans for medical, ritual and recreational use since at least 2727 BC, and has been cultivated since at least 4000 BC. Of the last 6000 years, it's been illegal for about 100 of those years.
Throughout it's brief stint of illegality, it has remained ubiquitous. It's Kentucky's #1 cash crop. Corn, soybeans and tobacco are chump change. State and federal officials seize half a million pot plants a year in Kentucky, and they estimate that number represents about 10 percent of the actual crop that is grown, harvested and sold. And Kentucky is second to California in pot production. Nationwide, pot still reigns. It doesn't take much driving around this country to see just how much corn and soybeans are grown, yet marijuana production outstrips both corn and soybeans combined. This country grows three times more pot that it grows table vegetables for consumption. Five times the wheat, seven times the cotton.
Because of the false premise, you conclude I "would agree that 'very small number' would grow into a much larger number," yet I wouldn't agree with that at all. It is right now already everywhere, on a large scale, and it is readily available, on a large scale. It can't get much more readily available or widespread. There are 4000 years of recorded history that says it just ain't that big a deal. There is also more recent evidence that shows when you make illegal that which is already ubiquitous, people want and abuse it more. Prohibition told us that. Recent changes in French laws regarding the drinking age has told us that. In France in 2004 teenagers (13 and older) could buy beer and wine, and hard liquor at 16. Prior to that, binge drinking (abuse) was almost unheard of by French teenagers. In 2009 a new law restricted beer and wine to 16 and hard liquor to 18. About 20 percent of French 17-year-olds are drunk at least three times a month now, compared to about 1 percent prior to 2004. Admissions of French teenagers to hospitals for alcohol poisoning is now at just stupid levels. Binge drinking is up, so naturally they want to further restrict the drinking age to 21, just like it is in the US and the UK (where, you know, we don't have a binge drinking problem).
The war on poverty has created even more poverty. There are more people living in poverty today than at any time in the past. The war on illiteracy has created a population of stupid people who can't comprehend what they read. The war on drugs has created more widespread drug abuse in 100 years than in the combined 4000 years past. Many drugs should be tightly controlled because it requires a significant amount of specialized education in order to understand how to properly use and administer them. But pot ain't one of them.