"Where to hide them" as in trying to get them to hide drugs in places that the police will actually search (Which is tricking them.) or
"Where to hide them" as in "Here's how you can get away with drugs, kids!"?
Now that I think of it, what could be misinterpreted as "how to hide drugs" could feasibly have been a lecture on what rights the police have when it comes to searching you or your belongings. That is useful to know, but without a transcript of the talk, it's all just speculation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Go then, there are other worlds than these. - Stephen King I want to know God's thoughts, the rest are details. - Albert Einstein
Well, drugs should be discussed, but not extensively. As long as they know the dangers and side effects, that's it. No need to elaborate or get them curious about drugs.
I'm all for drug education, but I think that what happened in the instance we are discussing is pretty ridiculous. In my mind, kid's should be taught (A) the basics about different illicit substances and ( B ) the dangers and side-effects of said substances. I really don't think it should go beyond that, at least in school. As for teen sex, I tend to be in the middle of the two extremes you mentioned. I think that it's ok for kids to have sex, as long as they are responsible about it, and know the consequences that might result from it, both physical and mental.
Sometime last week during driving school my harebrained teacher got off topic and happened to mention some mishap at the local high school. I don't go to that school, but the other kids quickly filled in the details, apparently familiar with that description of the event. According to what was said, there was an assembly.The school invited some guy to talk about drugs, and he laid out tons and tons of paraphernalia in front of the children and told them to come up and look at it and touch it and stuff. Then he went on to talk about it, telling kids about common drugs, the laws about them, where and how to hide them, and so on.
The problem that arose was that the school didn't send out any waivers regarding this, they just took all the kids out of class that day and made them attend the assembly. A lot of parents were irate, thinking it was a bad influence on the kids. Long story short, it must've been a P.R. disaster for the high school.
What I'm getting at is that the parents were in an uproar because they considered such an assembly indecent. What do you guys think about stuff like that? Where are we supposed to draw the line? Here on this forum you'll see lots of extremes. There's posters like blaster who say let the kids have sex as soon as they're physically able, and on the other hand there's people like me who disapprove of illegal drug use and fornication entirely. Obviously these two positions are not the only ones to take—so where do you stand?
Although they may not be adults, they are in highschool. I mean, if this happened at my daughter's school, I wouldn't have a problem with it to be honest, but I've already given her the talk about drugs, alchohol etc.
Funny how people make a big fuss about things like that, but don't monitor their child's internet use. All you have to do is google "Drugs"....
In regards to "Hiding it" I have no idea what kind of idiot would teach that to children, was the person who did this drunk? Jeez...
I think it's fine. Teenagers need to be as informed about drugs as possible, since they're very likely to try them in the future. It's not as if pretending they didn't exist helped in any way.
There should be no line. Sex and drugs should be acceptable topics of discussion, regardless of age.
This isn't about drugs and sex being acceptable topics of discussion, that's pretty much the mild end of the scale. The point is that after we start discussing where do we stop? Do we show them the items? Okay, sure. Do we discuss the good and bad facts? Absolutely. Do we discuss how to not get caught using them? Probably not.
Being informed is definitely the way to go in this day and age, but assuming that kids will actually get into it anyway is stupid. If you inform them properly they shouldn't want to do it and if they do, they'll know where they're headed and it'll be entirely their fault decision.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When you glance up at the night sky, it looks like a mat filled with flickering lights of varying brightness. However, if you look, really stop and look, you can see the depth of reality.
Educating teens about drugs should start around 7th grade. It should entail teaching them how stupid and dangerous they can be and how people who use them are chavs and undesirables. It shouldn't teach teens how to hide them, which they already know how to do anyway.
Here's how I was taught about drugs in school: we spent an entire term of health class on it, one class a week, spending one or two classes on each type of drug, discussing positives, negatives, the actual chemical reactions and the statistics of people who used them. By the end I knew I wasn't ever going to use any of them (except alcohol, but never in excess) as did most other people, others just sort of shrugged it off, but I'm sure they sub-consciously took something away. Either way, we never discussed it in so much depth that it would encourage anyone, but just enough to know the side effects without sounding like a "DRUGS IS BAD!!!" lecture.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When you glance up at the night sky, it looks like a mat filled with flickering lights of varying brightness. However, if you look, really stop and look, you can see the depth of reality.
Here's how I was taught about drugs in school: we spent an entire term of health class on it, one class a week, spending one or two classes on each type of drug, discussing positives, negatives, the actual chemical reactions and the statistics of people who used them. By the end I knew I wasn't ever going to use any of them (except alcohol, but never in excess) as did most other people, others just sort of shrugged it off, but I'm sure they sub-consciously took something away. Either way, we never discussed it in so much depth that it would encourage anyone, but just enough to know the side effects without sounding like a "DRUGS IS BAD!!!" lecture.
They taught us what drugs looked like, and told us they were bad because they rot your brain.
Then Google was invented, and i researched away, you'd be surprised what you find.
I think it was wrong for the school to do it, the parents should have been informed, I'm not saying teaching kids about drugs is bad, but they should have told the parents, because, The teachers aren't the parents of the kids, and if the parents think that drugs are good, well, let them and their kids think that.
I do think it's good that the person was talking about how drugs are bad, and I think it's good he let them try to identify them, but to teach them how to hide them, is wrong.
If any of those kids were going to be cops, they could learn where to look for them, when they ARE ADULTS not kids, because the person was just helping troubled kids...
They taught us what drugs looked like, and told us they were bad because they rot your brain.
Then Google was invented, and i researched away, you'd be surprised what you find.
Unless you mean marijuana, you need to do more research. Marijuana doesnt have the same extremity of bad side effects as the heavier drugs, but the heavier ones do cause damage. Pot does put you under the influence, though, and can potentially have same/similar behavior effects as alcohol(driving under the influence, for example), which they discourage as well. Its lack of physical addictive properties also gives the mistaken idea to many young users, that drugs in general dont cause addiction or that they cant be addicted. That leads to being more willing to take other drugs that are much worse in nature. Discouraging the use of marijuana isnt a bad thing.
Sometime last week during driving school my harebrained teacher got off topic and happened to mention some mishap at the local high school. I don't go to that school, but the other kids quickly filled in the details, apparently familiar with that description of the event. According to what was said, there was an assembly.The school invited some guy to talk about drugs, and he laid out tons and tons of paraphernalia in front of the children and told them to come up and look at it and touch it and stuff. Then he went on to talk about it, telling kids about common drugs, the laws about them, where and how to hide them, and so on.
The problem that arose was that the school didn't send out any waivers regarding this, they just took all the kids out of class that day and made them attend the assembly. A lot of parents were irate, thinking it was a bad influence on the kids. Long story short, it must've been a P.R. disaster for the high school.
What I'm getting at is that the parents were in an uproar because they considered such an assembly indecent. What do you guys think about stuff like that? Where are we supposed to draw the line? Here on this forum you'll see lots of extremes. There's posters like blaster who say let the kids have sex as soon as they're physically able, and on the other hand there's people like me who disapprove of illegal drug use and fornication entirely. Obviously these two positions are not the only ones to take—so where do you stand?
Subversive. Was this in Oregon? In some circles, it is believed that any restriction on drug use is effectively immoral/unethical, so the idea of 'accidentally' teaching kids to subvert the law in this area is consistent with this mindset. And bear in mind, these people are not, in other fashions, criminals! They are intellectuals, civil servants, etc. It's an ideology that is not uncommonly ascribed to! It is more common among those in 'the left' politically, and places like Oregon / San Fran where this kind of 'counter-culture' is very popular.
As to the topic, morals are very tricky, because they represent a particular set of 'oughts' which are culturally influenced. The general issue is that though there is a general 'pattern of the Tao' (as Lewis would put it) - obviously universal morals, this set of discernible universals is never sufficient to create a complete working morality. There are too many non-universals that are significant enough to life to require a moral ruling.
Given this, this is a question perhaps of power, and the desire (in general) of certain section of the population to use education as a form of power over the majority of the population, by manipulating what they know and how the information is presented to them. To a certain extent whenever morality or ethics are decreed from on high there is always going to be an aspect of power and control present. The question that needs to be asked is for what reason, and to what end?
When it comes to conflicts of moral standards, one could be dealing with a conflict of two subcultures; one more 'traditional' and the other more 'fringe' or 'liberal' in which case we're looking at the desire of parents to be able to not have their kids exposed to things they don't wish to have them exposed to (either yet or ever) and the desire of an administrator, intellectual or educator somewhere to mold children's minds in the way they think is best.
To make matters worse, this particular assembly was more or less encouraging children towards illegal and anti-social behaviors, which is 100% fail for government schools.
It is very hard to determine 'the correct point' at which a child should be exposed to something. Sometimes children seem traumatized and other times, not, by things which would traumatize an adult. The reason I would have to side with the parents on this, despite the incompetency of many parents is that the only one with the possibility of knowing whether a particular child could handle a particular thing would be the parents.
And for those of you who read and are still minors, I hope to God when you decide to be rebellious (which you probably will, I did myself) that you don't decide to do something really stupid. Because I've seen it! Anyway, here's hoping that stupid assembly doesn't inspire 100 illegal drug charges ... but the damage is already done no doubt.
I'm simply saying the parent is in control of their child, not the school.
think what you may, but, I'll raise my kids, how I want them, not how the school governs me to do so.
If you want to raise kids telling them that if they want to do crack, thats fine with you go ahead, you shouldnt have custody. Ill tell my kids that if they want to break into houses and steal peoples computers, thats fine with me. Its my choice after all, not like it affects anyone else.
The "how I want" thoughts are only accepted when it affects only you.
As to the topic, morals are very tricky, because they represent a particular set of 'oughts' which are culturally influenced. The general issue is that though there is a general 'pattern of the Tao' (as Lewis would put it) - obviously universal morals, this set of discernible universals is never sufficient to create a complete working morality. There are too many non-universals that are significant enough to life to require a moral ruling.
Lewis who?
A bit off-topic, but I'd like to know in what you're referring to in this 'pattern of the Tao'?
On topic: I think this is probably just blown out of proportion, as most stories of this type. Most likely it was just a drug-talk and the person mentioned where the police often find hidden drugs, or some such thing. The silly kids, who only half-listen, probably thought "Oh I should try that". Misconceptions are like that...
Anyway, I don't think it's a big deal. If my kids went to that school I'd be a little angry about the school not informing me about it first, but that's probably the only issue I'd have. And I would have that quickly corrected and assured.
However, I see no other problems with this.
Kids learn their morals at home. They don't learn them at school. The parents' responsibilities should include teaching the children morality and outside things, like school, should have no bearing on that. If a parent has properly done their job then no amount of school assemblies would ever change that.
This isn't about drugs and sex being acceptable topics of discussion, that's pretty much the mild end of the scale. The point is that after we start discussing where do we stop? Do we show them the items? Okay, sure. Do we discuss the good and bad facts? Absolutely. Do we discuss how to not get caught using them? Probably not.
Being informed is definitely the way to go in this day and age, but assuming that kids will actually get into it anyway is stupid. If you inform them properly they shouldn't want to do it and if they do, they'll know where they're headed and it'll be entirely their fault decision.
I really, really, doubt that those who attended were being taught how to use and hide drugs without being caught. Things like this certainly get blown out of proportion more often than they don't. It's probably more likely that he was listing examples of people hiding drugs, and then being caught by teachers or parents. But even if they were, I fail to see any reason as to why they shouldn't. Drug laws often do more damage than the act of taking drugs. They disrupt families, they kill careers, and all in the name of protection. If a man sees it fit to help teenagers avoid having their lives ruined by the state (and themselves, as he was probably informing them of the dangers of drugs too) then I for one fully support him.
Creating a line, and pretending things don't exist, does absolutely nothing to protect the vulnerable. Informing them of the dangers of acts prior to their doing it makes the most sense.
[simg]http://i54.tinypic.com/4zzw1z.png[/simg]
"Where to hide them" as in trying to get them to hide drugs in places that the police will actually search (Which is tricking them.) or
"Where to hide them" as in "Here's how you can get away with drugs, kids!"?
Because those are both pretty awful.
I want to know God's thoughts, the rest are details. - Albert Einstein
Although they may not be adults, they are in highschool. I mean, if this happened at my daughter's school, I wouldn't have a problem with it to be honest, but I've already given her the talk about drugs, alchohol etc.
Funny how people make a big fuss about things like that, but don't monitor their child's internet use. All you have to do is google "Drugs"....
In regards to "Hiding it" I have no idea what kind of idiot would teach that to children, was the person who did this drunk? Jeez...
This isn't about drugs and sex being acceptable topics of discussion, that's pretty much the mild end of the scale. The point is that after we start discussing where do we stop? Do we show them the items? Okay, sure. Do we discuss the good and bad facts? Absolutely. Do we discuss how to not get caught using them? Probably not.
Being informed is definitely the way to go in this day and age, but assuming that kids will actually get into it anyway is stupid. If you inform them properly they shouldn't want to do it and if they do, they'll know where they're headed and it'll be entirely their
faultdecision.They taught us what drugs looked like, and told us they were bad because they rot your brain.
Then Google was invented, and i researched away, you'd be surprised what you find.
I do think it's good that the person was talking about how drugs are bad, and I think it's good he let them try to identify them, but to teach them how to hide them, is wrong.
If any of those kids were going to be cops, they could learn where to look for them, when they ARE ADULTS not kids, because the person was just helping troubled kids...
Unless you mean marijuana, you need to do more research. Marijuana doesnt have the same extremity of bad side effects as the heavier drugs, but the heavier ones do cause damage. Pot does put you under the influence, though, and can potentially have same/similar behavior effects as alcohol(driving under the influence, for example), which they discourage as well. Its lack of physical addictive properties also gives the mistaken idea to many young users, that drugs in general dont cause addiction or that they cant be addicted. That leads to being more willing to take other drugs that are much worse in nature. Discouraging the use of marijuana isnt a bad thing.
No. A thousand times no. The kid would need to be educated, not overlooked because their parent has misconceptions.
I'm simply saying the parent is in control of their child, not the school.
think what you may, but, I'll raise my kids, how I want them, not how the school governs me to do so.
Subversive. Was this in Oregon? In some circles, it is believed that any restriction on drug use is effectively immoral/unethical, so the idea of 'accidentally' teaching kids to subvert the law in this area is consistent with this mindset. And bear in mind, these people are not, in other fashions, criminals! They are intellectuals, civil servants, etc. It's an ideology that is not uncommonly ascribed to! It is more common among those in 'the left' politically, and places like Oregon / San Fran where this kind of 'counter-culture' is very popular.
As to the topic, morals are very tricky, because they represent a particular set of 'oughts' which are culturally influenced. The general issue is that though there is a general 'pattern of the Tao' (as Lewis would put it) - obviously universal morals, this set of discernible universals is never sufficient to create a complete working morality. There are too many non-universals that are significant enough to life to require a moral ruling.
Given this, this is a question perhaps of power, and the desire (in general) of certain section of the population to use education as a form of power over the majority of the population, by manipulating what they know and how the information is presented to them. To a certain extent whenever morality or ethics are decreed from on high there is always going to be an aspect of power and control present. The question that needs to be asked is for what reason, and to what end?
When it comes to conflicts of moral standards, one could be dealing with a conflict of two subcultures; one more 'traditional' and the other more 'fringe' or 'liberal' in which case we're looking at the desire of parents to be able to not have their kids exposed to things they don't wish to have them exposed to (either yet or ever) and the desire of an administrator, intellectual or educator somewhere to mold children's minds in the way they think is best.
To make matters worse, this particular assembly was more or less encouraging children towards illegal and anti-social behaviors, which is 100% fail for government schools.
It is very hard to determine 'the correct point' at which a child should be exposed to something. Sometimes children seem traumatized and other times, not, by things which would traumatize an adult. The reason I would have to side with the parents on this, despite the incompetency of many parents is that the only one with the possibility of knowing whether a particular child could handle a particular thing would be the parents.
And for those of you who read and are still minors, I hope to God when you decide to be rebellious (which you probably will, I did myself) that you don't decide to do something really stupid. Because I've seen it! Anyway, here's hoping that stupid assembly doesn't inspire 100 illegal drug charges ... but the damage is already done no doubt.
If you want to raise kids telling them that if they want to do crack, thats fine with you go ahead, you shouldnt have custody. Ill tell my kids that if they want to break into houses and steal peoples computers, thats fine with me. Its my choice after all, not like it affects anyone else.
The "how I want" thoughts are only accepted when it affects only you.
Lewis who?
A bit off-topic, but I'd like to know in what you're referring to in this 'pattern of the Tao'?
On topic: I think this is probably just blown out of proportion, as most stories of this type. Most likely it was just a drug-talk and the person mentioned where the police often find hidden drugs, or some such thing. The silly kids, who only half-listen, probably thought "Oh I should try that". Misconceptions are like that...
Anyway, I don't think it's a big deal. If my kids went to that school I'd be a little angry about the school not informing me about it first, but that's probably the only issue I'd have. And I would have that quickly corrected and assured.
However, I see no other problems with this.
Kids learn their morals at home. They don't learn them at school. The parents' responsibilities should include teaching the children morality and outside things, like school, should have no bearing on that. If a parent has properly done their job then no amount of school assemblies would ever change that.
I really, really, doubt that those who attended were being taught how to use and hide drugs without being caught. Things like this certainly get blown out of proportion more often than they don't. It's probably more likely that he was listing examples of people hiding drugs, and then being caught by teachers or parents. But even if they were, I fail to see any reason as to why they shouldn't. Drug laws often do more damage than the act of taking drugs. They disrupt families, they kill careers, and all in the name of protection. If a man sees it fit to help teenagers avoid having their lives ruined by the state (and themselves, as he was probably informing them of the dangers of drugs too) then I for one fully support him.
Creating a line, and pretending things don't exist, does absolutely nothing to protect the vulnerable. Informing them of the dangers of acts prior to their doing it makes the most sense.
news.infoshop.org/
C.S. Lewis, I think. He was an Anglo-Catholic writer in his later years.
@River:
Not Oregon, but rather North Central Ohio.
You heard that, green and red.