Puritanical U.S. has Mixed Messages for Teens by firefloozysuzie

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

It's not just for puritanical reasons, it's for business reason too.

A person might pay an adult ticket price but not be able to see an R movie.

Science has learned so much about brain development through life. Some things - drugs (including alcohol) and violence (including war and the fake TV kind) will form a brain up until about 22. That should be taken into account both for age restrictions and legal culpability.

OTOH it's not true that children suddenly get kicked out of the nest fully capable like birds. Even birds don't do that. There is a lengthy period of practice at being an adult. So there should be (IMHO) graded levels of independence and responsibility.

Many unwed mothers are teens who had sex with men who are at least 10 years older than they are. The problem is that these girls are naive and think that these men really love them, while their 'boyfriends' are not so innocent. There needs to be some accountability. *

So it comes down to a judgment call on each situation. Was this teen truly being exploited as does really happen, or was it a normal part of maturing which also happens?

* I have my own bottom line: no harm, no foul. But if disease is spread, or a child is not being supported, then the law needs to step in. And it makes sense to hold the older person accountable, who is usually (but not always) male. Personally, I would tattoo the offender in a private spot. Forewarned is forearmed.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 5, 2006 10:20 AM

SASSALICIOUS

As the product of a 21 year old military guy and a 17 year old, I must admit that I'm glad my grandparents are reasonable people.

And I agree with a lot of what you said.

It's funny, our brains aren't fully formed until we're 25, so it would seem car rental companies are the only ones that truly have it "right".

Another annoying thing about the U.S.: Alcohol is more socially destructive and has farther reaching consequences than marijuana, yet it is legal.

I DON'T GET IT!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 5, 2006 11:54 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

And when you think about it, doctors can prescribe morphine but not MJ. Isn't that strange?

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 5, 2006 12:36 PM

Though Marijuana can have some pretty nasty and drastic effects on some people that they'll have to deal with for the rest of their lives.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 5, 2006 1:06 PM

NOT to help hijack my own thread, but...marijuana is one of the least toxic and most useful plants that the human species has yet found.

I read that in my college ethnobotany textbook, circa 1978. The scientists who wrote the textbook concluded that hemp had proven itself for millenia as a source of safe, efficacious treatments for a host of ailments; that is has no known toxicity, unlike most manmade pharmaceuticals, and that it should be legally available, at least for study and medicinal purposes.

Just thought I'd pass that bit of information along!

BTW, I've done a bit of study myself on human brain development and on sociology. I'm aware that there are physiological, developmental reasons why adolescents behave as they do. And I'm aware that kids are leaving the nest and forming their own households at an older age than their parents did, or at least that's the trend in increasingly complex (expensive) industrial societies.

The problem is that we have factors colliding: We've got kids developing earlier, physically, but they've got so much longer to wait before they are ready for the responsibility of having kids. They've got the urges EARLIER, but the means of caring for the potential product of those urges LATER. Big trouble. Thank God for condoms.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 5, 2006 1:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Firefloozysuzie:
NOT to help hijack my own thread, but...marijuana is one of the least toxic and most useful plants that the human species has yet found.

I read that in my college ethnobotany textbook, circa 1978. The scientists who wrote the textbook concluded that hemp had proven itself for millenia as a source of safe, efficacious treatments for a host of ailments; that is has no known toxicity, unlike most manmade pharmaceuticals, and that it should be legally available, at least for study and medicinal purposes.

I don't mean to hijack your thread, but this is only half the story and I think giving only this half is dangerous. For some people canabis use can lead to depression, manic and clinical, severe paranoia and schitzophrenia.

I've done my own research on the subject and I've experienced it first hand.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 5, 2006 1:20 PM

FILTER

"Similarly, an eighteen-year-old can walk up to any military recruitment office and sign up for four years of blowing up people in foreign lands."

Dude, I understand your point, but those that joined the US military did not join to blow up people in foreign lands, we joined to save you from being blown up in your own land. I know, I serve. But I do agree with you about the drinking age.

Filter

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 5, 2006 3:01 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Though Marijuana can have some pretty nasty and drastic effects on some people that they'll have to deal with for the rest of their lives.
...
I don't mean to hijack your thread, but this is only half the story and I think giving only this half is dangerous.

That doesn't argue against medical use, rather than casual use.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&d
opt=Abstract&list_uids=16205721&itool=iconabstr&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_DocSum
Plant cannabinoids: a neglected pharmacological treasure trove.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&d
opt=Abstract&list_uids=15967965&itool=iconfft&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_DocSum
Conditional okay for cannabis prescription drug

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&d
opt=Abstract&list_uids=15857739&itool=iconabstr&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_DocSum
Cannabis use in HIV for pain and other medical symptoms

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&d
opt=Abstract&list_uids=15753439&itool=iconabstr&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_DocSum
Medical use of cannabis in the Netherlands

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&d
opt=Abstract&list_uids=15630971&itool=iconabstr&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_DocSum
Evidence for using cannabis and cannabinoids to manage pain

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 5, 2006 3:06 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Dude, I understand your point, but those that joined the US military did not join to blow up people in foreign lands, we joined to save you from being blown up in your own land. I know, I serve. But I do agree with you about the drinking age."

Too much violence at a young age truly does warp the mind, just as too much alcohol (or another drug) will. Joining the army in peacetime might be a safe route to college, but active wartime duty of younger people leads to higher rates of PSTD, violence, depression, drug use etc. Neither drugs nor war are good for anyone under (roughly) 22 years old.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 5, 2006 3:42 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
there are physiological, developmental reasons why adolescents behave as they do. And I'm aware that kids are leaving the nest and forming their own households at an older age than their parents did ... at least ... in increasingly complex (expensive) industrial societies.

The problem is that we have factors colliding: We've got kids developing earlier, physically, but they've got so much longer to wait before they are ready for the responsibility of having kids.

That is the crux of maturation in the developed world. And yet other developed societies seem to have a better handle on it than the US. In terms of unplanned pregnancies and STDs European teens are far better off than US teens. So this isn't an insoluble problem.

Partly, I think, the issues have to do with how business exploits teenagers and their hunger to be cool and - sexy. It also has to do with making poor teens throwaways. If these kids knew that good future was in sight, they wouldn't make default decisions. But most have few dreams b/c in reality, the economy doesn't have room for everyone to do well.

In terms of teenage years, just from the little I looked up on EEG interpretation - the brain is remodeled from about the midpoint forward to the frontal lobes. Messing around with brain development at this time (with violence and drugs - including alcohol and tobacco) has serious consequences.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 5, 2006 5:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Firefloozysuzie:
NOT to help hijack my own thread, but...marijuana is one of the least toxic and most useful plants that the human species has yet found.

I read that in my college ethnobotany textbook, circa 1978. The scientists who wrote the textbook concluded that hemp had proven itself for millenia as a source of safe, efficacious treatments for a host of ailments; that is has no known toxicity, unlike most manmade pharmaceuticals, and that it should be legally available, at least for study and medicinal purposes.

I don't mean to hijack your thread, but this is only half the story and I think giving only this half is dangerous. For some people canabis use can lead to depression, manic and clinical, severe paranoia and schitzophrenia.

I've done my own research on the subject and I've experienced it first hand.

Giving only half of WHAT story? This isn't the Reefer Madness thread. Did you mean to post your anti-pot spiel elsewhere? OK, so another poster mentioned marijuana, but that was more of an aside. I meant to raise the issue about how current law seems to want to define teenagers as adult enough to face adult consequences for misdeeds, yet too immature to make almost any other kind of decision, or to held accountable for sexual misadventures.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 5, 2006 10:43 PM

Just because this thread is about something else doesn't mean I'm going to let something that's wrong and is possibly a dangerous misconception pass by.

I'm not spewing anti-pot spiel, actually I think it should be legal, but people shouldn't be misguided into thinking it's completely safe for any use.

It can cause serious problems for some people, maybe you should know what you’re talking about before making an assertion like "Marijuana is completely safe but it's illegal!!!"

If you had said anything else untrue in your post that is potentially dangerous I'd of posted on that to. I understand what your motives were but your popular misconception is exactly that which gets people in to trouble with cannabis.

Oh and if you check someone posted an aside, but then so did I, I think I might of labelled it as such, if I didn't I apologise for that, I meant to. Your continued dogging of an issue you seem to be missing key facts on (that's the half the story I was referring too) is perpetuating this discussion, and thus hijacking your thread. SASSALICIOUS posted an aside, I posted an aside, but your pro-pot spiel won't let it rest.

Bye now.

Quote:
Originally posted by Rue:
That doesn't argue against medical use, rather than casual use.

I didn't say it shouldn't be used medicinally, I said it's not completely safe, which is the misconception perpetuated by people that causes problems. Arsenic can be used medicinally (I've done so) but that doesn't mean anyone should stand up and say "Arsenic is completely safe!"

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 6, 2006 2:27 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

When I hear marijuana described as “one of the least toxic and most useful plants that the human species has yet found” by legalization proponents, I’m not inclined to be very open to the idea of legalizing it for recreational use. That’s such a deceptive and uninformed statement; it’s like putting marijuana in the same category with spinach or lettuce. I’m not trying to pick on any one person, because I hear proponents of legalizations making grandiose and completely absurd statements about marijuana all the time. A friend of mine who is also a legalization proponent described it as “the safest and greatest advance in medicine in 200 years [paraphrased].” (Did we even know about marijuana 200 years ago?) It is reminiscence of the disinformation campaign that was waged by proponents of the use of cocaine during the 19th century. It was touted as a wonder drug by people like Sigmund Freud, but presumably, countless lives were irrevocably damaged by the blissfully ignorant use of cocaine. Today we know about the disastrous effects of cocaine, and marijuana certainly doesn’t rise to that level, but that seems to be just happenstance, because the legalization proponents don’t seem to have any clue how toxic marijuana is or isn’t. I get the impression that they believe that it has no toxicity at all, and if this is representative of the maturity of the society that we would be releasing legal marijuana to, I’d just as soon not legalize it for recreational use.

As for the underage sex thing: when I was 24 I dated a16 year old girl for a while, but in the whole time that I dated her, we never had sex, largely because we both held to what some people might describe as “puritan” beliefs, although I would simply say that we had traditional values concerning sexuality and mature prospective on what could realistically be gained from our relationship. The same values I agree with today, which don’t including using 16 year old girls as sex objects. If I could believe that everyone agreed with those values, then I would be inclined to think that many laws concerning statutory rape are probably unnecessary, but I don’t think that is the case, and as long as there are 24 year old men out there who might use underage girls as sex objects, then I don’t think it is untimely to have some degree of deterrent. The issue is about protecting impressionable young girls, which I don’t think is a bad thing.

And things like that are always skewed to fit one agenda or another in the media. In the Catholic priest sex scandal, 80% of the incidences were male priests having sex with post pubescent teenage boys. These priests were not pedophiles, but rather they were adult males using the priesthood to take advantage of underage boys, which is no different from taking advantage of underage girls, except that in this case, the aggressors were largely homosexual or homosexual acts. But this was something that the media generally wanted to suppress out of concern, one imagines, that it would have damaged the gay rights movement that was picking up so much steam at the time, so they framed it as pedophilia instead. Distortions by the media are not uncommon and have nothing particularly to do with puritan beliefs, in fact trying to frame all of this as being the provocateur of so-called “puritans” is itself a distortion.

The very use of the term ‘puritan’ is pejorative. America is not puritan, and it is absurd to describe it as such. The closest thing to “puritans” that exist in the US today are groups like the Amish, and they have nothing to do with any of this. There are not enough of them to influence opinion in the US one way or the other and most Americans don’t have much in common with them, although some might could learn a lot from them.

Another issue that I picked up here is that of state’s rights concerning the age of consent. As an avid federalist, I support state’s rights. I think Tony Blair said it best when he said that power should be exercised as close to the people in affects as possible. This is particularly true of civil issues such as the age of consent.

It occurs to me that this has been an uncharacteristically verbose reply for me, but I’ve been away on business for a while, so maybe I feel the need to catch up.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 6, 2006 4:36 AM

In the sci-fi novel "This Perfect Day", children are naturally introduced to sex as soon as they become sexually 'awake', in a 'junior prom' kind of way, matching children with like personalities.
When I read that, I rember thinking "Wow. That would have released a LOT of anxiety back then, and helped me concentrate on my schoolwork."

Distracted Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 6, 2006 4:43 AM

DERANGEDMILK

Quote:
Originally posted by Sassalicious:
It's funny, our brains aren't fully formed until we're 25, so it would seem car rental companies are the only ones that truly have it "right".

Our brains may still be maturing but most people never advance much in intelluctual capacity (they can still learn new things of course) and maturity levels beyond what they are in the 8th grade.
-e

"Storms getting worse."
"We'll pass through it soon enough."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 6, 2006 4:47 AM

DERANGEDMILK

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
In the sci-fi novel "This Perfect Day", children are naturally introduced to sex as soon as they become sexually 'awake', in a 'junior prom' kind of way, matching children with like personalities.
When I read that, I rember thinking "Wow. That would have released a LOT of anxiety back then, and helped me concentrate on my schoolwork."

Distracted Chrisisall

Right on Chrisisall! Repression just leads to things coming up later in nastier ways and causing a whole world of trouble. Thats why the U.S. has the greatest occurances of rape and the most porn in the entire world. If we would stop viewing sex as a sin and start embracing it as part of our identities, we would see a lot less of the nastier and troublesome side of our sexualities.
-e

"Storms getting worse."
"We'll pass through it soon enough."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 6, 2006 5:18 AM

Sex Ed for me was like Home Economics. We baked cakes, but didn't learn squat about the pitfalls of having a credit card. That is to say, the important stuff was glossed over.
Telling kids "You really shouldn't do this.." only makes 'em curious. Why have an urge for sex, if you shouldn't do it? Making something acceptable is the first step towards making sure it's handled safely.
Why should girls wear pants so low, they have to shave northern bits of pubic hair, and then be told sex is a no-no?
It's all around us, yet verbotten. That make sense to you?
Mixed message is putting it lightly.

Opinionated Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 6, 2006 5:49 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Our brains may still be maturing but most people never advance much in intelluctual capacity (they can still learn new things of course) and maturity levels beyond what they are in the 8th grade.

The kind of remodeling that goes on in the brain/ psyche has to do in part with setting social and sexual roles. The conflation of aggression/ sex often takes place around this time. And people do mature past 8th grade. Among other things they eventually develop adult relationships with their peers. And they acquire a sense of mortality. Under the influence of oxytocin, they often develop a protective caring feeling toward offspring.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 6, 2006 5:55 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

It's all around us, yet verbotten. That make sense to you?
Mixed message is putting it lightly.

I do belive that part of this is due to exploitation by business. Teens naturally want to belong to peer groups. AND they acquire sexual feelings. If you're a business and want to hawk your wares, what better hooks than those?

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 6, 2006 6:00 AM

Sexual urges + business + religion = a recipe for unpleasantness.

Sex sells Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 6, 2006 6:09 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

That's hot.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 6, 2006 6:33 AM

I'd show you what's hot, but Haken wants this forum to be accessable to kids, too.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 6, 2006 7:16 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Yeah, the whole smackin some 18yr old kid with a sex offender bite cause his girlfriend is 16 and her parents are pissed is downright ludicrous..

Supposedly that's what judges and juries are FOR, right - but that neither has been mentioned is a good case example of how little trust anyone here has in them, and rightfully so.

Think - those that are SUPPOSED to fix problems like this, don't.
And you're still paying their salaries with your tax dollars... why ?
Something to think about come Apr 15.

A few responses, too.

Fire

Quote:
They've got the urges EARLIER, but the means of caring for the potential product of those urges LATER. Big trouble. Thank God for condoms.

Till the repuglicans outlaw them.

Between trying to ban abortion, morning-after pills, and shovelling the abstinence factor while simultaneously trying to absolve men of any responsibility for their actions, it sure smells like an eventual attempt to ban birth control is gonna follow the rest of this garbage soon, you'll see.

Guy fawkes is a pretty good example of what thoughts enter the minds of folk when the government tries to ram relgious crap down the throats of people who, unlike congress, live in the REAL world.

Not tryin to sidetrack, but what kind of message DOES it send when the Gov tries like hell to absolve men of any personal responsibility related to sex, and then denies women any means to guard against, and/or terminate, the end result ?

People have sex - it's normal, it's natural, it's not evil, sinful or vile, and any philosophy or theology that says different is twisted and warped.

This one's an issue for parents, and women as a whole - believe me, you wanna make a social change to stem this chauvanistic tide ? stop puttin out till the men play ball.

That'll learn em!
(historically, it works, you think it was just marches that got women the right to vote?)

------------------------
Filter

Quote:
Dude, I understand your point, but those that joined the US military did not join to blow up people in foreign lands, we joined to save you from being blown up in your own land. I know, I serve. But I do agree with you about the drinking age.

Um, actually that WAS why some of us signed up, especially back in my days, aggressive males who wanted to kill other aggressive males, and get PAID for it - it had jack diddly to do with honor, dignity or the defense of the nation, it had to do with the way our society produces hateful and pyschotic people after they're run the mental and emotional trauma gauntlet called 'high school' .. what a joke.

Ask some of these 17/18 yr olds who are signing up, get them to talk to you as a person, and not an authority figure, and they'll stop parroting the 'right answers' they've been told and start being honest with you.

What prospects do they HAVE without a student loan, scholarship, or family influance ?
Some of em might get lucky, yeah, but they look at the social and economic cliff that awaits them when the folks gleefully boot them out the door at 18, and then start to realize what society has done to them, and the rage and hate builds, and the army starts looking like a good idea to them.

Not ONE of 4th Platoon, Bravo company was there "to defend our country" - they were there cause they had damned few choices left, and wanted to expend their rage in a fashion our messed up society approves and encourages.

Our platoon motto, ironically (the real one, not the one the DI handed us) was "Old enough to die for it, not old enough to drink in it!"

--------------------------
Rue

Quote:
In terms of teenage years, just from the little I looked up on EEG interpretation - the brain is remodeled from about the midpoint forward to the frontal lobes. Messing around with brain development at this time (with violence and drugs - including alcohol and tobacco) has serious consequences.

You'd be seriously interested in the CITIVAS initiative down at Baylor U.
The child trauma academy and most especially Dr Bruce D Perry - are light years ahead of anyone else in this research, concentrating on how to fix or mitigate the damage.
http://www.childtrauma.org/

Set aside a lot of time, it's heavy reading and there's a LOT of it, especially if you follow down Doc Perry's work specifically.

---------------------------
Finn

Quote:
an avid federalist, I support state’s rights.

That would be ANTI-Federalist, Finn.

Federalists, like Lincoln and others, wanted complete subjugation of states rights and authority to the Federal Government - that's WHY they called em Federalists.

I really wish some of ya would crack a history textbook open once in a while....

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 6, 2006 7:56 AM

FANTASTICLAUGHINGFAIRY

Well I live in the UK, and have noticed that (and been annoyed by) there is a growing amount of 'teenagerism'. This may sound strange, but many people either treat us as children, which is both annoying and degrading, but also tends to make (the more immature among us) lash out. There are others of course, who just treat us all as yobs, to the extent that when we leave school at dinner-time, we are banned completely from some shops (for no reason that I know of) and others make us queue up outside for up to 1/4 hour (whilst other - older customers, are allowed straight in) - a third of the time we are given for lunch;we often barely have time to get back to school in time to register, and are often told off for being late.
I even heard of a shopping centre further south using a device that emmitted a loud,annoying high-pitched sound, which was discernable by most under 20s, but hardly any of the over 30s, as a measure against vandalism or some-such. This particularly annoyed me, as it discriminates against the whole age group.
I also find it frustrating that at 16, though you are allowed to join the army, killing others and possibly yourself, leave home, get married and pay taxes, we are still unable to vote or drink alcohol. I feel that as we can contribute to the government's wealth, we should have a say in how it is run. I also feel that alcohol being completely denied till 18 is bad, as, let's be honest - it doesn't stop us obtaining alcohol. It is amazingly easy to obtain fake IDs, and there are always plenty of people who are either older or who can pass for it, who will be willing to buy it for you. I think that the worst thing about all this is that it drives people out into the streets - where they commit these crimes, such as vandalism etc. Surely it would be better for us to drink in pubs, where landlords can keep an eye on us, to make sure things don't get out of hand etc. I also think that rules on alcohol should possibly be lessened at a younger age - looking at most European countries (France and Italy for example) children are drinking moderate amounts at a much younger age (a glass of wine with a meal etc.) so that when they are of an age to drink seriously - they have more experience of alcohol and it's effects and are less likely to binge than their British (or American) counterparts.
I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, but the increasing binge-drinking culture says that something's wrong.
I also agree with the original poster's statement, if a 15yr-old girl and her 16yr-old boyfriend had consenual sex, then it would be classed as statutory rape, no matter how mature th 15yr-old was mentally. If the girl's parents decide to press charges, her boyfriend could be put on the sex-offenders' list for 7 years or more (there have been cases of this). This significantly affects his chances of geting into any college and university, and would also prevent him getting any job in the public sector. I feel this is wrong, and that something should be done about it, although I agree that many people aren't psychologically ready for this under the age of 16, (or even older) there are also those who are, however, it is also true that children need the full protection of the law- particularly when it comes to this.

Sorry for my ramble, but I thought it needed saying.

'Just say no' prevents teen pregnancy in the same way that 'Have a nice day' prevents chronic depression.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 6, 2006 8:15 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Frem

The old double standard - men play and women pay - happened b/c historically while it was never possible to know who the father was, it was always possible to know who the mother was. Thank the scientists for modern technology that makes fatherhood ID indisputable.

Unfortunately the laws have not kept up. Look at child abandonment. The person nailed with it is simply the person who walked away LAST - the mother. Biological fathers aren't even accounted for in that scenario. And the old male-dominant culture is fighting back.

Personally I have no problem with teen sex - or even sex between teens and much older partners, as long as nothing illegal happens like rape or intimidation, and as long as no one gets stuck with a life changing issues - like STDs or pregnancy. No harm, no foul.

But older people who create problems for younger people more than once should be seriously punished. They are obviously intentional abusers.

And I am enraged by businesses that prey on teens' need to be accepted and their sexuality. It's impossile to grow up with a sexuality untainted by commercialism.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 6, 2006 9:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by fantasticlaughingfairy:

'Just say no' prevents teen pregnancy in the same way that 'Have a nice day' prevents chronic depression.

LOLROTF!!!!
Well, well said, FLF!!!
When I was sixteen, I made a fake (but real-looking) ID, but never bought beer or ciggarettes, it was for getting into R-rated movies and purchasing Playboys...

Another tragic tale of wasted youth Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 6, 2006 9:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

And I am enraged by businesses that prey on teens' need to be accepted and their sexuality. It's impossile to grow up with a sexuality untainted by commercialism.

Girls, you must dress like hookers, but not engague in sexual relations.
...I guess that doesn't seem right to you. Me neither.
My seventeen year old co-worker just told me (seriously) she's getting breast implants for her 18th birthday, as a present from her mom.
She's quite attractive and doesn't need them, but she said all her cousins have them, so...

Chrisislost

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 6, 2006 9:31 AM

Quote: When I hear marijuana described as “one of the least toxic and most useful plants that the human species has yet found” by legalization proponents....that's such a deceptive and uninformed statment..."

Please reread my post. I'm quoting an ethnobotany textbook here, not a pro-legalization tract.

The chapter on cannabis reports that human populations have been relying on that plant for THOUSANDS of years, and that archeological evidence suggests that hemp was one of our first "domesticated" crops.

Hemp has been used for millennia. It has centuries and centuries of history as food, sacrament, medicine, oil and fiber source, a history stretching back long before the plant became associated with jazz musicians. You might want to look up a few facts about the hemp plant. It would surprise you. Perhaps if you spent a little while engaged in unbiased research, YOU would sound a bit less uninformed, Finn.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 6, 2006 9:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

And I am enraged by businesses that prey on teens' need to be accepted and their sexuality. It's impossile to grow up with a sexuality untainted by commercialism.

Girls, you must dress like hookers, but not engague in sexual relations.
...I guess that doesn't seem right to you. Me neither.
My seventeen year old co-worker just told me (seriously) she's getting breast implants for her 18th birthday, as a present from her mom.

She's quite attractive and doesn't need them, but she said all her cousins have them, so...

Chrisislost

EWWWW. Oh, God, and I just read an article about how middle-aged and older women are having such a time with removing their old breast implants and needing reconstruction. Eventually those implants can develop leaks and cause all sorts of trouble before the doctors fish them out again. Has that girl's mother ever checked into what the expected lifespan of those implants will be? She could be giving her daughter the "gift" of surgical complications, followed by breastfeeding complications, followed by midlife surgery to correct the wandering, leaking old implants she got as a teenager. ((((Shudder)))

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 6, 2006 10:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by firefloozysuzie:
Has that girl's mother ever checked into what the expected lifespan of those implants will be?

I guess she's getting the new ones (100,000 mile/50 yr warrantee).

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 6, 2006 12:10 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
That would be ANTI-Federalist, Finn.

Federalists, like Lincoln and others, wanted complete subjugation of states rights and authority to the Federal Government - that's WHY they called em Federalists.

I really wish some of ya would crack a history textbook open once in a while....

No. That would be federalist. “Complete subjugation of states rights and authority to the Federal Government,” as you say, would be called Centralism, NOT federalism. Lincoln was not a centralist; he was a federalist. A federal government is one in which a central government presides over constituent semi-autonomous governments.

Maybe those history books would make a little more sense to you if you cracked open a dictionary once in a while.

Federalism. The distribution of power in an organization (as a government) between a central authority and the constituent units -- compare CENTRALISM
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/federalism

Centralism . The concentration of power and control in the central authority of an organization (as a political or educational system) -- compare FEDERALISM
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/centralism

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 6, 2006 12:46 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by firefloozysuzie:
Please reread my post. I'm quoting an ethnobotany textbook here, not a pro-legalization tract.

I read your post, though I’m not sure what to think of it. Are you misinterpreting the author or did the author of this text book actually state unqualifiedly that marijuana has no known toxicity? Either way it is a bit of an eyebrow raising statement. Why would the author of a textbook on botany suggest, unqualifiedly, that marijuana has no toxicity? Aspirin and Acetaminophen have a known toxicity, hell even water has a toxicity. You can die from drinking too much water, but not from too much marijuana? Maybe the authors point was to claim that we don’t actually know the actual concentration at which marijuana causes death or adverse health effects, though I find it remarkable, to say that least, that this author can find no information on that. In fact I’ve read of health risks associated with marijuana use that runs the gambit from depression to cancer and heart disease, yet none of these studies made into this textbook? A textbook on botany with a whole chapter on marijuana can’t find any room to discuss in more detail the toxicity of marijuana? I don’t guess it would surprise me. Whoever this author is he probably doesn’t have any better credentials then Sigmund Freud, and some of the things Freud said about cocaine are just as full of flowery nonsense.

Though, it does sort of argue my point.

However the legalization issue was something I added, mostly because of the remark my friend made a few days ago, which I found strange, and it seemed timely to comment on it in this thread. It wasn't my intent to define you as pro-legalization.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 6, 2006 2:55 PM

Finn:
This is what I'm talking about. Canabis is toxic. THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) is the main active ingredient of Canabis, with a lethal dose of between 50 and 86g for a human adult.

So you know it does have a toxicity.

Canabis does have detrimental effects, I've seen and experienced them first hand and I have to say I'm not impressed by the knowledge of someone who read a chapter of a book written a quarter of a century ago once.

Argue whether it should be legal or not fine but don't do it based on how it's the only non-toxic safe drug, because your wrong.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 6, 2006 6:19 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Though Marijuana can have some pretty nasty and drastic effects on some people that they'll have to deal with for the rest of their lives.

So can plenty of prescription drugs. Or cigarettes. Or legally obtainable alcohol. Or fattening or otherwise unhealthy food, for that matter. In the pantheon of dangerous substances, pot is pretty far down the list. Should everything that might be harmful if indulged in improperly or to excess be made illegal?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 6, 2006 10:34 PM

Try reading my posts Geezer, yeah, does that sound like a fun game?

I didn't say it should be illegal did I, in fact I stated quite clearly that I believed the opposite. Missed that didn't you, that would be because you didn't read my posts before replying

.

My rebuke was aimed at the "Canabis is completely safe and never causes any problems ever" argument, something your own post kinda supports.

Oh and one last thing, the major substance that causes problems in cigarettes is Tar. There's more tar in Cannabis than there is in Tobacco, cannabis also contains more carcinogens than Tobacco. Wouldn't you say that Cannabis is at least at about the same position as Tobacco on your list?

Quote:
Should everything that might be harmful if indulged in improperly or to excess be made illegal?

You don't have to indulge in Cannabis improperly or to excess to experience problems.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 7, 2006 5:35 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

While it is true that cannabis is in the class of hallucinogens it is relatively mild stuff. But some is spiked with more powerful hallucinogens or other drugs.

Personally, I think most drugs including alcohol and tobacco - but with some exceptions - should be legal and standardized, and sold by the government in drab buildings in drab containers. No ads, no glamour, and no big money involved.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 7, 2006 6:16 AM

Rue:
I have to agree. In fact there are some much stronger Hallucinagens that are legal, for instance Salvia Divinorum. But it's not completely safe, anymore than Tobacco was back when doctors were recomending people to smoke.

Thing is Cannabis has been cultivated to be hundreds of times stronger than it used to be during the sixties and seventies, we don't know what the long term effects could be of these newer strains.

But anyway I really didn't mean to spark off a major debate, so I'll leave it there.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 7, 2006 9:35 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Most natural drugs in their native form and in their native culture are reasonably innocuous. Coca leaves, qat (pronounced chaht), cannabis, even poppy seeds. My BIL (from rural eastern Europe) talks of how they used to eat poppyseed paste with noodles at night because it helped everyone sleep even if they were hungry and in pain from hard physical work.

Ethanol naturally occurs at about 3% by volume, and while I'm sure there are plenty of alcoholics who got their start on beer, people tend to graduate to more purified forms to get a better buzz. And there are plenty of businesses more than willing to make what they can, advertize it, and sell as much as possible for $$.

If you look at Afghanistan (considered by many to have quickly become a failed narco-state), it was an area where poppy naturally grew. But serious in-country addiction didn't become an issue until it became a billion dollar business controlled by warlords and lenders.

If you get the money out of the equation the problem becomes simpler - as simple as individual addiction can be anyway.

AKA as 'adult child of an alcoholic"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 7, 2006 10:15 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Try reading my posts Geezer, yeah, does that sound like a fun game?

I didn't say it should be illegal did I, in fact I stated quite clearly that I believed the opposite. Missed that didn't you, that would be because you didn't read my posts before replying .

I was just responding to:

"Argue whether it should be legal or not fine but don't do it based on how it's the only non-toxic safe drug, because your wrong."

Quote:
My rebuke was aimed at the "Canabis is completely safe and never causes any problems ever" argument, something your own post kinda supports.

Not really. I agreed in my post that other substances can have, as you stated "nasty and drastic effects" like pot, but that pot is less damaging, based on general observation of usage vs. bad effects.

Quote:
Oh and one last thing, the major substance that causes problems in cigarettes is Tar. There's more tar in Cannabis than there is in Tobacco, cannabis also contains more carcinogens than Tobacco. Wouldn't you say that Cannabis is at least at about the same position as Tobacco on your list?

Pot may have more tar but is (generally) consumed less frequently and in less volume than cigs. I'd have to do some research to determine which way the cancer risk actually goes.

Quote:
You don't have to indulge in Cannabis improperly or to excess to experience problems.

Never heard that. Please let me have a reference.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 7, 2006 10:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I was just responding to:
"Argue whether it should be legal or not fine but don't do it based on how it's the only non-toxic safe drug, because your wrong."

You're wording of your post was asking me why I thought Cannabis should be illegal. I apologise if that wasn't the case.

I was originally replying to the assertion that Cannabis is completely safe, which it’s not.

Quote:
Pot may have more tar but is (generally) consumed less frequently and in less volume than cigs. I'd have to do some research to determine which way the cancer risk actually goes.

Erm so? You said (or at least alluded to) Cannabis being less toxic than tobacco. How does the frequency with which people use it change the toxicity?

Arsenic is less toxic than potatoes because people eat more potatoes?

Quote:
Never heard that. Please let me have a reference.

No. My assertion is based on experience. They're maybe references, but I'll have to look them up.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 7, 2006 3:05 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

There are very few human studies on pot. However, PubMed had a few that indicated psycotic patients who smoked pot developed more atypical psychoses, more severe symptoms, were harder to treat, and required second and third line medication more often than non-users. And there is indication in the data that pot was the cause of these differences, not the effect.

But it still makes NO sense to me that doctors can't prescribe it. They can whip out the old 'script pad for oxycontin, but pot ?? God forbid.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 8, 2006 9:37 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

So anyway, I was thinking about where these mixed messages are coming from. And it comes down to from the republican party which is a grab-bag of mixed messages, depending on who materially benefits from the ideology.

Business benefits from pushing sex to advertize. It benefits from charging adult price for 12 year olds. The 'entertainment' industry benefits by hooking into sex and violence. The war machine benefits by taking advantage of the 'immortality' of young people. The earlier you introduce drugs especially alcohol and nicotine the stronger the addiction. And then the old white guys who want to run your personal life benefit by pushing their own agenda of religion, ignorance and punishment. That gives them power to dictate your life.

But that's the republican party for you. Gun toting, death penalty, war-mongering, anti-abotion, pro-business rich christians, who completely ignore the message of christ

How much better to love those that hate you
Turn the other cheek, forgive 100 plus one times
Remove the log from your own eye
He who is without sin
You cannot serve two masters
It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 8, 2006 10:07 AM

ROCKETJOCK

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Thing is Cannabis has been cultivated to be hundreds of times stronger than it used to be during the sixties and seventies, we don't know what the long term effects could be of these newer strains.

Can't help but laugh a little. This urban legend, willingly promulgated by those who think lying to the public is the best way to ensure good behavior, has been floating around since the early 1980's.

The baseline chosen for that "Hundreds of times" stronger fallacy is a shipment of Mexican Dogweed confiscated by the DEA in the 1970's, during the height of the paraquat affair, when a lot of contaminated not-yet-ready-for-market marijuana was being cut down and shipped out before it had a chance to die "on the vine" so to speak. The THC level of this stuff was so mild that you would have had to have smoked two-three joints to get even a mild buzz.

Now the DEA knew perfectly well that this sample was of pathetic strength, but it suited their purpose to declare officially that this headache weed was of average street strength, and has based all its figures since on that assumption. The equivalent of declaring beer to be as strong as whiskey, and then claiming modern whiskey is 20-30 times stronger than it used to be.

The truth is, while modern domestic American marijuana is considerably stronger than it was during the glory days of the 60's-70's, the multiple is closer to 5-10 times more THC, not 100X. And many believe that increase is actually healthy for users, as they smoke less for the same effect, therefore reducing the amount of secondary chemicals (such as tar) brought into the lungs.

Personal note: Back during the late 80's, my son brought home a flyer from a D.A.R.E. presentation in his grade school classroom that claimed modern marijuana was one thousand times more powerful that it had been in 1972! (You wouldn't need dope sniffing dogs to find weed that strong, you could just use a geiger counter.)

When I called the local DARE headquarters on this, it turned out that they didn't know the difference between 1,000 times and 1,000 percent! (1,000% = a multiple of 10).

Needless to say, they did not correct their fliers. Their purpose was to scare the kids away from the deadly killer weed that leads to murder and communism, not to promulgate piddling facts.

Small side note, in the interest of accuracy: While marijuana does contain carcinogens such as tar, they can be greatly reduced by the simple expedient of smoking through a water pipe or bong--and Cannibis contains no nicotine. (My late cousin had AIDS, and relied on me to keep him upgraded as to the facts, both medical and legal, of medicinal marijuana.)

"Beer leads to heroin, there's no doubt about it. And mother's milk leads to everything." -- George Carlin

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 8, 2006 10:27 AM

Quote:
Can't help but laugh a little. This urban legend, willingly promulgated by those who think lying to the public is the best way to ensure good behavior, has been floating around since the early 1980's.

It *IS* a hell of a lot stronger than it used to be. Then you have things like Skunk.

Quote:
While marijuana does contain carcinogens such as tar, they can be greatly reduced by the simple expedient of smoking through a water pipe or bong--and Cannibis contains no nicotine.

No one said it did contain nicotine. It does contain other toxic compounds though.

A Bong will cool the smoke and remove some of the heavier tar elements, but not the carcinogens. That's one of the reasons it should be legal, so that information like how best to actually take it is freely available, it doesn't suddenly make Cannabis completely safe.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 8, 2006 10:30 AM