ITT: News that makes you pop a blood vessel

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by johnnyshaka

Most certainly they affect their children's actions...and so they should and that's why I agree with Jon's statements. Show your kids what's right and wrong and make sure they completely understand the consequences...not just at home, but in the "real" world, too. If those "warnings" aren't enough of a deterrent then hopefully their first interaction with the law will be.

I absolutely agree with that statement. However, Jon's statements in this thread include literally that kids should be put to death for pot possession, not "Show your kids what's right and wrong and make sure they completely understand the consequences, at home, and in the real world". You don't see a disconnect there? Anyhows, as mentioned we've already beat this horse to death a million times, and I'm certainly not bringing anything new to the party, my apology for derailing the thread.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I absolutely agree with that statement. However, Jon's statements in this thread include literally that kids should be put to death for pot possession, not "Show your kids what's right and wrong and make sure they completely understand the consequences, at home, and in the real world". You don't see a disconnect there? Anyhows, as mentioned we've already beat this horse to death a million times, my apology for derailing the thread.

I have lived longer than you and have heard the anti-drug message ever since the early 1970s. In all of those years, I have not experienced much difference between family life and "real life". If one is grounded and have been brought up with love, integrity and character, then going out to the "real world" shouldn't cause you to suddenly change what you have been taught. Still haven't done any drugs, never wanted to because it's stupid despite society's glamorization of them.

[thesloppy]

Again, I'm not disagreeing with that, and just to be super-duper clear, I wasn't at all arguing against telling kids not to take drugs, either. I'll just retract my original statement, and I apologize for not articulating my thoughts better. I don't wanna get pushed in the corner and have to argue against parental/family values and for teen drug use, or discredit my upbringing or Jon's child-rearing, because that wasn't my intent in the slightest. Sorry.

[Autumn]

To defend what I think was thesloppy's point, research has shown that parents who lay down the law on drugs, sex, whatever, in an authoritarian way do not have the long lasting impact on their children that they want. People do in fact have a great deal of trouble as young adults if they were parented by fear of disobeying, rather than understanding the rules.

A great deal of strict rules is *only* effective if it's paired with a great deal of explaining those rules, devoting time and attention to the child, and having a reasonable and flexible approach to the rules that takes into account the child's side of things. Children with parents like this sometimes experiment with drugs but rarely get hooked. Children of authoritarian parents often don't experiment early, as thesloppy says, but as young adults have not adopted the reasoning of their parents, and once outside of that authority,experiment more heavily and can become addicted.

That's well demonstrated by research. Strict rules are very, very important in parenting, but they only work if they're paired with the attention, affection and flexibility, which I find a lot of parents forget about.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Autumn

That's well demonstrated by research. Strict rules are very, very important in parenting, but they only work if they're paired with the attention, affection and flexibility, which I find a lot of parents forget about.

Not mention love, integrity and character.

[Autumn]

Right. My point is simply that it's not all one or the other. The fact that you received that message, with love, integrity and characer, made it stick. If presented in an authoritarian fashion, it most likely would not have. Children who are simply scared into staying away from drugs don't develop the understanding and willpower to stay away long-term.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Drake

The fact that it took a hot 25-y.o. cop a year to get a 17 y.o. kid to buy her pot tells me more about her mad policing skillz than his penchant for crime.

Srsly. And by the way, if I found out that a 25 y.o. tramp was exchanging sexual, flirting banter with my minor child, I'd file charges.

Pretty much this. Look, if there really is a large drug ring at a school, I have zero problems with the cops going undercover and filing charges. IF and that's a big IF the story is true, I'm stunned at the ineptitude of the police in this situation. You manipulate a 17 year old into falling in love with you so he gives you pot? Seriously?

I was an awkward geek in HS. Had an attractive girl started spending a lot of time with me and made an emotional connection, I would have done just about anything for the girl. No, I wouldn't have hurt someone for her. I wouldn't have stolen. But if she wanted a little bit of pot or alcohol? Give me a break.

Go to any school in the country and you'll find more than a few kids like I was. But I'm the guy that society should be worried about? I mean if your a ref and are sensitive to message board posts, I'm certainly not on your Christmas card list. But a felony charge? This is abuse of the law. And believe me, as a parent I would go through all of those text messages and if there were ONE where a 25 year old was sexting up my kid? That small felony would cost them more than they ever dreamed.

[Young Drachma]

The best part of this thread are all the statists rushing to the defense of this shit. Government is bad, except when it's doing shit they approve of.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

The best part of this thread are all the statists rushing to the defense of this shit. Government is bad, except when it's doing shit they approve of.

Look, to be fair, it goes the other way too, right? Government is terrific until the it starts violating your rights. Perfectly acceptable for government to hand out welfare, but if they decide to drug test it's time to flip the hell out.

The government should stay out of our lives, unless it involves regulating gay marriage, then it's ok.

I don't think the left or the right can hold themselves up as beacons of consistency. Hell, I don't think I can do it all the time and I can slide from left to right depending on the issue at hand.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

The best part of this thread are all the statists rushing to the defense of this shit. Government is bad, except when it's doing shit they approve of.

Who are "all" the "statists" rushing to defend it?

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

it's liberal media rocket fuel to be sure. no reasonable person thinks they set up a sting to ensnare honor roll students. but it's problematic for a thousand other reasons.