In this Discussion
- circlenepal20 September 2007
- DJRose September 2007
- doctor5cap August 2007
- hail9fat August 2007
- jedi_grrlie August 2007
- kissteam1 September 2007
- manx9shrine August 2007
- moveadvice72 September 2008
- plane8order August 2007
- recordwolf57 September 2007
- sweetness August 2007
- target35ghost July 2008
- tune1shade September 2007
- women60banana August 2007
- yak63geese September 2007
Comments
I do think that parents should tell their kid to call them, but I also think that they should have some sort of punishment, or else they might not learn.
I hate to be mean, but as someone who didn't really start going to concerts until after they turned 18, I have very, very little sympathy for teenagers who can't get into shows. I really do. I was under 21 for a while there, and yes, there were several concerts I couldn't get into. (Had I been in the US for it, there was a good chance I wouldn't have been able to get into the Scamper/OK Go show in Boston last November, because that was 21+ - and six days before my birthday.) You know what I did? I dealt with it. You win some, you lose some.
And really, the last show I went to was the Siren Music Fest at Coney Island. It was all ages, free, and the crowd was a huge mix of adults, kids my age, and teens. And you know what? Nobody was dancing. Not a goddamned person. We were watching We Are Scientists, for chrissake! And everyone, including those younger kids, was just standing there, arms folded, doing nothing. I think it's really unfair to say that only kids like to dance at shows.
Besides, everyone reacts to the music differently. Maybe that's just how some adults get into the music or what they're comfortable with. It bothers me more to see these teenage hipsters who don't dance or don't even look happy, completely on purpose, than an adult who's enjoying themselves but grew out of the "dancing like a nutter" phase.
I agree with your point, here: safety is priority. If I had a teenager who called me and was drunk, I would pick them up every time, and let them know they did the right thing in calling me. The first time: talk with me. It's a good learning experience. We always had a code word growing up that was like a one-time get out of jail free card - if I was into something over my head, I could use that word and mom and dad would help without my getting in trouble, but the chance expired after that. So, no coming home drunk twice. I used it a couple of times, and it was pretty vital.
If my kid called me a second time: talk, and some trouble - maybe a grounding or some volunteer work. There's a boundary there that's being crossed, and it's about trust, not even drinking. Doing self-destructive things is just that - self destructive, and curiosity only works as an excuse the first time. I just couldn't see myself letting that go, or I think trust would suffer on both sides: My trust in my child's judgement, and their trust in mine.
It does suck that some shows are 21+. there's no debate there. But anticipation never hurt anyone. either.
Do you think that parents should let their kids taste alcoholic beverages, or maybe have a glass of wine on special occasions, like say for New Years? And how much/often should they allow?
Yes. Completely. I do agree with Wolf though in terms of the limits; when it's done to show how to drink responsibly, it's great. When it's done to impress their kids, it can be dangerous. I first got tipsy around my family (I am classy). I've always felt I could talk to my parents, my mom especially, about what's going on. Maybe that's what's most important. Though we argue, I feel very close to my parents. I was able to tell my mom that I got sick on whisky (though I left out that it landed me in a webcomic) and her response was, "whisky does that to me too!"
(For that reason, I listen to her opinions, especially about drugs and alcohol and often weigh them heighly in terms of how I feel about certain things.)
It's a tough discussion since it is such a different experience for each person.
Which webcomic?
It all comes down to responsible parenting. Some parents take an active role in their kids' lives, some don't take enough of a role, and others go way overboard. No one's perfect. The government just needs to find a proper niche in all of that, which really is not an easy job. I don't envy them that.
wow, ive heard really bad storys of pot and how it screws people up. It takes guts to spill your story like you just did right there. I wish you luck in battling addiction as well.
To Jedi
I dont know... i guess its just me growing up in Toronto. I really didnt start having fun until ive strarted going to shows. I mean, i could get into the zoo, but that gets old after a while
and yeah... ive been to MANY show where there is no age limit, and no one dances (usually outdoor and fee concerts) but the ones i really enjoy involve the kids who actually arnt afraid to dance. I even end up having fun when i go to see bands that my little sister likes because the young kids really arnt afraid to just have fun as soon as the music starts.
I'm not a screw up and I'm not "battling" my addiction anymore than I'm battling my coffee addiction. I realize it's not good for me (same with the coffee) and do plan to stop someday (maybe not the same with the coffee) but at this point in life I don't really see the need to. I think when it's time to settle down and have a family, it'll be easy to quit.
i didnt mean to offend you. And i wasnt really refering to you when I said "screwed up". I didnt mean to sound prechy, and you're right, Im in no position to judge you.
a comic called Least I Could Do.
If I may add a couple pennies (it's not to argue, it's just to chime in with personal experience), what was forbidden and allowed to me as a kid really didn't seem to have the most bearing on what I did and do now. The emphasis in my education and upbringing were more about, "Here's how this can be bad, either at your age, or if you overdo it".
I had access to a liquor cabinet but I really just don't like liquor. If I'd wanted to badly enough, I still could've been a bad girl and helped myself to the forbidden fruit, so to speak, even though it was understood that this was forbidden (except one or two glasses of champagne at New Year's). But I just didn't want the yucky stuff, and the champagne gave me enough of an idea of what alcohol was like, not to be too curious. My parents also talked about alcoholics they knew, and when you're a kid, stories like that are powerful. So in a way I had a certain respect for myself as well as for alcohol--a good thing that can still be abused. That handed me a power, and it was less about "You shall not". Looking back, I can recall at least one time of drinking with my cousin, but it wasn't "to be bad," and I can't say I condone what I did. I knew I was doing something against the rules, but I can't say that's why I did it. I simply wanted to have fun. And I drank my share in college, but stayed out of trouble with it, and now when I drink, I can drink a lot and as often as I want to. But again, it's not to be "bad"--at my age that doesn't make any sense. So I don't think it's "forbidding things" that automatically makes things tempting, for everyone. Sometimes you just desire the object itself, and permission is irrelevant. But you can still know enough, for example, not to put yourself in danger (behind a wheel or whatever).
When it came to sex, I was apparently taught a balanced approach that worked very well, where the focus wasn't centered on permission. I went to a parochial school, and it may surprise you that we did cover the various forms of artificial birth control and STDs, though pre-marital sex was certainly not condoned. I think what made the big difference would have been two things: 1.) They did not approach it from a "You're going to do this anyway, so..." approach. It was an approach coming from a desire for us not to be ignorant, and to be able to talk about these things intelligently. The suggestion, "You're going to do this anyway," would have insulted me greatly--both my integrity and my intelligence. That's because 2.) They also taught us from an intelligent approach, to have a profound respect for sex. It was beautiful, it was powerful, and we could be open about it. Just because we were a parochial school doesn't mean we were repressed and ashamed and scared to death of sex. Don't believe those lies. It's just that the fact that sex is so powerful, meant that I didn't even want to abuse it by having it under circumstances which were any less than right. I had the same raging hormones, and interest, as anyone else. But I was given a mature and respectful attitude about it, a "healthy fear" of the very real risks for someone in my situation. Seeing the reasons behind why it could not be permitted, made it less about a forbidden temptation and more about handing me power. Only two students in four years of high school got pregnant--a stellar rate from what I hear.
I think somehow we have to work in a way to talk to kids intelligently, and in a way that emphasizes respect for themselves, respect for good things that can be abused, and the dangers of abuse. I don't think many approaches take into account kids' intelligence--they're smarter than the system assumes, and kids detect this and resent it. Maybe THAT is what makes them want to "rebel" in other cases where all they hear is "No", while lowering their expectations of themselves when they hear "Yes but...". At the same time, we want to instill a maturity and certain "healthy fears", and make it clear to them that they're being given a power. Instead, we just put them down and either say "NO!" or else we lower our expectations and say, "Nevermind, you're gonna do this, so...". I think both of those messages insult kids. If you have parents that seem to say "No" a lot, maybe they're just not able to articulate what they want, and come off the way you need to hear. It's because you're the most precious thing in the whole wide world to them, so try not to want to rebel against love. :-)
Since it was legal there, and pot is generally considered very gentle and low-risk, I do not think I did anything "immoral". I was too ignorant to consider myself "at fault". It's not that. But now I don't know about something like legalizing pot. I used to have no problem with it. I guess my experience puts a confusing light on things for me, but I refrain from judgment on the issue for now. If I could know this never happens to anyone else, and can't, I'd say "Sure, what's the fuss". This was in Amsterdam, though, where you'd think the quality control would have kept me safe. I don't know what happened, though. Did I develop a sudden allergy? Or is "good pot" so easy to over-do, that we should have a little more respect for it as potentially dangerous?
I don't know, but I wanted to make something good out of this experience, even if it's just to inform others who could go into it, thinking it's a perfectly safe thing to do--and be wrong. We always hear that people don't die of pot, but now I doubt that statistic and whether causes of death have been properly attributed. Maybe it's rare, but now I can definitely see it happening. And in my case it was just three puffs! How could I know that this could happen, when all I hear is how safe pot is? When there was an experienced, pro-pot expert right there with me? I was supposed to giggle and have fun--legally. Not feel probably as terrible and terrified as a person is capable of feeling. It makes me angry that I was so ignorant, that somewhere out there, people must know this can happen, but they don't say. It was hard to bring up here because I don't want arguments about it, or to come off as judgmental when I'm not. Warning others, though, just seems like the right thing to do. And now the pot debate for me is not purely a matter of freedom and responsibility anymore. It's a matter of, "Should we legalize something if three tiny puffs might kill you, especially when so many people don't know this."
So, my friends, be careful what you ingest, legal or not, even in Amsterdam where you'd expect to be safer. Right now, where it comes to pot, I just say "Screw it, it's just not worth it." No giggly high is worth that risk for me, now. If some moron in my future wants to think that's uppity of me, well, it's not their business, and I have the best excuse you could have, and that'll be my defense. I won't pass judgment on anything; I just think people have a right to know. I'm not lying and I have no agenda here. I'm pretty apolitical, actually. I'm afraid you guys are going to think I have some kind of wacko agenda when I really do not. And on some level, I wish I could advocate something that I thought was harmless, but now I don't know. Almost dying is a powerful, confusing experience, and I don't want people to mistake "dangerous risk-taking" for "responsible freedom" because they're kept from information.
It's about your rights to information. XO
You could be allergic. Or maybe it was something you ate or something else? I haven't heard any other stories like that. Not discrediting their possibility, but I've just never heard about it.
I'm sorry that happened though, that sucks!!
Or maybe I'm allergic. The possibility of food as a cause, can be eliminated with a little reasoning. If pot ever becomes legal, then I would want accompanying research into it as a potential allergen so that, if warranted, we could see about making allergy tests available--and maybe even standard--too. It's just that in pot's case, unlike with cat dander or pollen or something, such an allergy can be there for years and years and you wouldn't know a life-threatening allergy was there till it was too late, and I'd want every allergic person to be able to know they're allergic, if pot is going to become as common and available as alcohol. In the case of an allergy, a person might want to stay away from the second-hand smoke, too.
The only other thing I can add is that second-hand smoke did not have this effect on me, so it might just be the case that this stuff is more strong and dangerous when smoked first-hand, than it has a reputation for being. I don't know, maybe someone else can try to make sense of this for me. All the "expert" had to say was that I "overdid it"--I overdid something I just didn't think you could overdo with three puffs.
It's an upsetting memory for me, and anyway, thank you very much for your sympathy.
Pot seems to be worst when consumed with alochol, even in small amounts. That's what's caused me to throw up and many of my friends have had the same experience. Not only that, but pot just ups any emotion you might have. If you're happy, suddenly you're extra-happy. If you're feeling a little uncomfortable, it's the worst thing in the world. I once had a couple of hits at a party and convinced myself that I was about to die because I had taken Tylenol at around 3 in the afternoon and drank that evening. It wasn't logical at all, but I was convinced something was going to go wrong. My friend took me back to my room and I sat around eating an apple and calming down.
People automatically think that pot is going to make you giggly and happy after a couple of hits. However, like any drug, people can have "bad trips," especially if you're in a situation where you're uncomfortable.
Really? Pot MADE you throw up? Odd. Where I've found the combination to be dangerous is that it supresses the urge to vomit (and otherwise settles your stomach). So when you've had too much and NEED to throw up you can't.
Combining the two just makes me sleepy. It's not fun at all. I just zone out and fight to stay awake. But of course tell me that after I've had a couple