Dude, I have to teach kids that kind of shit. Like "HEY KIDS DOPE IS FOR DOPES" and shit.

Good ol' PSHE!!!

If some of it is sinking in, as expressed by Juris over there, then that is good surely? Like it's a harsh fact but DRUGS ARE NOT FOR EVERYONE. Some people use them as an excuse to tear down the walls around their own sanity. There are a fair few weak minded people out there who should not under any circumstances ever touch drugs.

and who are you to decide who should and who shouldn't?

I'm not deciding anything myself. I'm doing my job. My post was in direct reference to the fact that, simply put, SOME PEOPLE SHOULD NOT FUCKING DO DRUGS.

I also really fail to see how I'm "deciding" for anyone. It isn't like I'm POSSESSING THEM.
Oh, although if I was, I'm a legally appointed AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT ​!!! That's where I draw my right to educate chidlren about drugs from really.

Its their decision to make and its no ones right to tell anyone they shouldn't do it.

I think this could be highly debated. Society/Legislation would state that, actually, it ISN'T your right to take anything you want. It IS however my 'right', and in fact my DUTY, to discourage drug taking amongst children.
As I say, it is totally NOT their right to take things that are illegal. Hence, you know, the whole legal system? Whether you agree with it or not, if you can be punished for doing something then it is not YOUR RIGHT to do it. We live in a time when people REALLY misrepresent the nature of what "rights" means.

Yeah if you aren't mentally capable of handling something that temporarily changes your state of mind then you prolly shouldn't be messing with it but who knows what you're mentally capable of taking and dealing with better than you?

I think you'll find that many people are very deluded concerning the strength of their own minds. I've known many individuals (including a few closer to home than others) who've thought they were perfectly capable of enjoying ecstasy, coke, crack and heroin. They weren't. One spent two months doing nothing but taking ecstasy, for example, which caused a deterioration in their lives like I'd never seen. Now AS STATED EARLIER I am not saying this happens to EVERYONE.

Also telling all the children to stay away from the shit because its evil and will kill you mind then hoping that bullshit works is naive as fuck and never works except with the incredibly naive few that buy it.

It DOES work with some. And, as I say, when you're a professional you have to work with the guidelines given to you. I have a friend who trained with me who was pretty much a born leader. Everyone loved him, he's a fucking MAJOR hit with kids, and he has a FANTASTIC beard. He had a high profile job before he decided to retrain, and he's pretty much on the fast-track accelerational promotion program at the moment. We had a conversation about drugs - he's scared shitless of them, thus won't try anything harder than a bit of pot. It works on other people than THE NAIVE few.

that's right coxswain, let's tell all the children it's a-okay to do drugs and expect to keep our jobs

Exactly. Whatever my true feelings, I have a RESPONSIBILITY. Oh, also, promoting drugs to children really makes you a scumbag.

This is a strawman coxswan just said it's their decision to smoke crack or not, not that people should tell their kids it's ok to smoke crack

The majority of points that are made at GW, or indeed ON THE INTERNET, are Strawmen. I fail to see why this one was worth picking up on!

You know the law means jack shit when it comes to actual drug use right? That the people doing the stuff don't take the law into consideration because they're already past that point? The "law" is completely hypocritical and riddled with bullshit when it comes to drug policy and if they've got you teaching and spreading those bullshit policies to kids. when they get a little older they'll remember that and throw everything you told them out the window.

The validity of the law wasn't the issue, or its affect on drug usage. We were talking about 'rights', even if that is a little abstract. My point was that, in the eyes of society and the legislative system, it IS in fact my 'right' to educate youngsters about the negative effects of drugs, and by the same token it is NOT the individual's 'right' to take any substance that is classed as illegal. As I say, it was a point about RIGHTS (as clearly mentioned in my post), thus whether it has an effect or not is a totally seperate issue.

In YOUR eyes maybe I don't have the right, but in that case what are you currently doing about it? Do you regularly campaign for the legalization of drugs at all? Have you ever been to a rally?  I have. However, as attempts have been unsuccessful at the present, I'm afraid that it is still not an individual's 'right' to take narcotics and find out for themselves. I know this is true of my country, and I know that it is true of your country.

Oh, on the side note of your 'LAWS DON'T MEAN SHIT MAN' point: You'd be surprised at the number of people who avoid taking part in crime because of the fear of punishment.  You're right, some kids think "Fuck society" and throw whatever they've learnt out of the window. However, they aren't the majority by a LONG way.

In my opinion if we're going to do drug education in schools we should wait until the kids are old enough to understand what drugs actually are and why people use them before driving hypocritical policy into their heads. Then, actually teach them the REAL harmful effects that can be caused by SOME substance abuse and not the made up bullshit they teach kids now to scare the living shit out of them.

In actuality we have very well balanced drug teaching here. We explain the positive effects, as well as the negative. Then we give personal advice. If the kids respect you, they take your advice on board. And, as I say, I know a fair few people who won't try drugs based on what they learnt at school. The 'leader' guy I mentioned earlier even firmly believes that a single pill of ecstasy can kill. He's totally wrong, of course, but education he received has therefore totally put him off even experimenting with harder drugs than cannabis.

I was a little lighthearted in my 'DOPE IS FOR DOPES' earlier. We actually give a very balanced view in PSHE here. WITH that balanced view, there are a lot more negatives to drug taking than not. Bearing in mind, we were actiually discussing coke, crack and heroin.
Even so, to condone drug taking is to receive disciplinary action, as it should be. People in positions of responsibility who suggest breaking the law as a viable option are punished, as they should be. Have you heard of a thing called 'Section 28'? It was a piece of legislation here that made it illegal for teachers to 'promote' homosexuality as a valid 'lifestyle choice'. Many teachers disagreed with the policy, as it was quite homophobic in its nature. However, they were forced to OBEY THE LAW in order to keep their jobs, including doing nothing about homophobic attacks and bullying. People campaigned against it, and eventually it was repealed. So, like I say, campaigning is ALWAYS an option in this argument - if you don't like how it is, go and change it. Otherwise, you can't expect people to risk their jobs just to enforce an agenda that you personally believe in.

We do not know enough about most of these substances and addiction and mental outcome rates because they're ALL FUCKING ILLEGAL and research can't even be conducted. If we don't know exactly whats going on with this stuff and the people using it then by my understanding, we have no right "as a society" to preach the maliciousness of it.

Again you come back to 'right'. My government actually DOES do research on how drugs effect people, and they're able to do this due to the fact that drug users don't really go to jail here unless they are also dealing it, or caught with a substancial amount. They receive treatment and counselling, or a lot of the time a very small fine. So yeah, we get a fair amount of research done. To the point where we even had a popular documentary that showed three heroin addicts in a treatment centre. One died pretty horribly.
We had the same documentary with alcoholics, so it isn't like BIASED AGAINST DRUGS or anything.
Even if you believe the government ideas to be absolute bullshit, like with the recent reclassification of cannabis from a Class C to a Class B over here, and the idea that it CAUSES psychosis (rather than activates it in certain individuals), there's a fair amount of anecdotal evidence available concerning harder drug users. For every younger drug user I speak to who is having a blast and doesn't see any negativity in drugs at all (aside from the old morishness and comedown), there's another who has been affected in an extremely negative way. My cousin, for example, who has had his house and our grandmother's house raided after completing the cycle heroin user - heroin dealer. Or an older friend of mine (in his 50s now) who stabbed another friend about a year back while on a ketamine binge. Thankfully he got some community service, as the guy who was stabbed testified that it was entirely down to the drug, but he has a criminal record now and has still not really forgiven himself. How about a guy I know who was doing a law degree, smoked pot throughout (which has the effect of making a person blissfully content to just relax) and then had to become a teacher instead? I think that education probably wouldn't have helped that guy, but it can't hurt right?  I could go ON AND ON with this list. The point I'm making isn't ALL DRUGS ARE BAD TO ALL PEOPLE. It's that there's pretty extensive evidence that drugs often cause severe problems for people. Thus, a balanced education when it comes to drugs must INCLUDE these problems.

It isn't 'scare tactics' - it's the truth. Scare tactics would be "E WILL KILL YOU". Scare tactics ISN'T "You'll be on the street sucking people off for smack money" when it comes to heroin, as you only have to walk the streets of any major city here at night to find that this has unfortunately come true for a fair few people.

However, in closing, nothing that has been said has detracted from my original point like at ALL: Some people aren't cut out to handle drugs. They can really fuck their lives up. Who am I to decide who should and who shouldn't? I'm not deciding for them -they'll make their own mnds up. I'm just giving them a helping hand in order to hopefully avoid screwing their lives up.


As I say, based on your posts, it seems that I inhabit an entirely different system to yourself. But I sincerely believe that you cannot teacher children about drugs without relaying the negative effects with aren't purely related to the physical effects.

He's not naive, he just thinks that any amount of drugs can kill you/ruin your life immediately after taking them? okay.

It's naive to believe something a respected elder tells you? So if this is the ONLY thing he took on face value, that still makes him naive? Even though he's cold and cynical when it comes to religion, for example?
And no, he believes that a single ecstasy tablet can kill. There's a huge difference between that and what you said. We had a huge awareness campaign here over a girl named Leah Betts, who died after taking a single pill. Fair enough, that was pretty much because of overheating and then overdrinking rather than the drug itself, but it was a pretty huge campaign, obviously backed up by teaching in schools. Therefore, despite your sarcasm (which added a lot, by the way, go you!), I would actually agree with your statement that he isn't naive at all.

also rights and legal rights are different things.

Care to expand upon that? We have human rights due to legislation. In fact, all rights we have are ONLY rights because they are enshrined in legislation. Unless you're using some abstract concept of 'rights', with no meaning outside of the subjective.

Like I could say that it is my right to be naked 100% of the time. That wouldn't stop me being arrested and maybe jailed if I turned up to school naked. I could say that it's my right to eat sushi every day. If I didn't have the money, I couldn't afford to. As I say, can you expand upon your point there? The single sentence fraction you posted doesn't really explain your belief on this matter very well, or really add to our discussion.

Like I say - either campaign to change the law, and do what you want with a free conscience, or sit on your ass talking about 'rights'. Either way is good.

The argument wasn't whether or not you'd break the law. It was about 'rights'. Saying you have the 'right' to do whatever you want doesn't make it so.

Naivity is a character trait, much like gullibility. It seems like it's being used negatively in this context - that he is somehow wrong for being naive. If you'd used the word 'ignorant', I'd totally agree with you. However, the word 'naive' was used. I don't believe him to be a naive person at all, although I understand what you're saying.

What about the rest of my post?

Also by "rights". I mean it is my right as a human being to take whatever the fuck I want and put it in my veins or my mouth or my lungs if I so choose it despite the law if need be and despite whoever thinks I'm killing myself or trying to eat away my sanity or whatever the hell.

However unjust the law, you cannot say "IT IS MY RIGHT TO DO IT!" It isn't enshrined in human rights law is it?

As I say, if you are campaigning to change the situation then fair enough. As you don't seem to be though, how can you sit around and say 'it's my right to do it'. It's also the government's right to throw your ass in jail if caught right? By that logic, it must be! After all, we all have the right to do whatever we want!

I don't approve of drug users being given custodial sentences, and thankfully my government doesn't tend to do that really. However, yours does - would you agree that it is your government's right to throw you in jail if they catch you? Or are these universal self proclaimed rights only for yourself?

The law is a guidline for people to follow to remain peaceful and civil, I don't need it (and I personally don't think anyone needs it until its reformed) when it comes to drug awareness and policy, so fuck it I'm breaking the law.

Did you learn that in lawschool!?!?!? I think you'll find that the POINT of the law is, in fact, to HAVE a society, not just for people to be civil. You don't need the law in any form until it's reformed? Or were you specifically talking about drug law?

Dude, if your argument is that you CAN do it then we have no cause for disagreement. I'm only really disagreeing with the definition of 'right'. If we're talking self-given rights then yeah.

I hope you notice that AT NO POINT I said that anyone was an idiot for doing drugs, or definitely shouldn't do drugs. I was merely positing that many can't actually 'handle' them, as well as defending my position with regards to drug education.

Like if you DO do drugs then that's totally your own choice. I personally don't believe you should be punished for it, but like I say - I don't make the laws. I don't agree with a lot of them either, truth be told, and like I say - I have taken part in rallies, so I think that we're very similar in terms of the 'morality' of this issue.

I just don't like the term 'rights' banded about, as if they are universal and should be recognised by everyone.

I can also understand that legalisation movements are probably not as forthcoming over there as they are here. They aren't BRILLIANT here to be fair, but at least there's SOME trying hehe.