16 yo Daughter knows of our drug use

[beecee]

Our daughter caught both of us using cocaine about 12 months ago and we now know she also read phone messages where we talked about drug use , very bad parenting we know . She is now at nearly 16 starting to push many of the usual boundaries and has mildly started to reference to what she know as a kind of blackmail/bargaining tool , I'm not sure how to go about this and any help with this would be great .

[daddydaddycool]

Aggh! I've looked back at mathaxiety's questions and can't stop myself, he or she is...

"Why did you decide to try cocaine (and ecstasy)?"
I was experimenting within reasonable bounds. That's what kids do when they're brought up well. I obviously had access to decent quality gear, because I'm very much still here. If my wider statistics are so unacceptable, then why not propose your own? Go on. You've been moaning about my statistics for several conversations, so at the very least it would be polite for you to provide your own. No?

"So you were a victim of peer pressure?"
Not at all, I made a conscious choice and don't regret it in the slightest. I'm genuinely not just saying that because we are arguing on an internet forum - it's done me OK, thanks. I have a broad perspective on life, I've been around the world and I will encourage my children to develop their own perspectives (they're only four and six).

How do you define peer pressure mathanxiety? Do you claim to be immune to it? Success measured by grades rather than overall quality of life? It's all relative.

"(And I will throw in, 'Why do you keep on using them?')"

Look at what I have said previously. Or shall we just discuss this over a 'tea party'?

"Do you think it is ok to break the law?"

You're becoming lazy, look at what I have said previously in relation to drug laws. I'm balanced. In global terms I don't claim to know! But if you do...then I will make light work of you in future.

"You claimed to have a solid family background. What precisely do you mean by that?"

I told you in detail some of the activities that were made available to be as a kid...I embraced them all, and others I didn't. But we were offered a choice. Which gives you an insight into my family background.

The rest is no business of yours, why is that an acceptable question to ask on an internet forum?

What else do you want, a picture of my house I was raised in?! It was a tiny terraced house in west london in the 1970's, look one up.

[itsbetterthanabox]

I have friends who parents regularly used drugs. When we were round there they would be smoking weed and harder stuff if they went out. It was still expected that as kids we shouldn't use drugs and they came down hard if we did. It was I suppose treated like alcohol and cigarettes.

[Sleepyfergus]

"I obviously had access to decent quality gear because I'm very much still here"

Nah, you've just been lucky so far.

[daddydaddycool]

Hakluyt - shall we talk about my footwear and what you envisage I do for a job, that I've already been upfront about a few posts ago?

What do YOU think?

[daddydaddycool]

Sleepyfergus - What's your point? You don't really seem to have much to add to the debate. Previously you added:

"Only yesterday one of the news headlines (central Scotland) was about how deaths from illegal highs have sharply increased. Some of it because people are mixing drugs and it has disastrous consequences. But mainly because no-one knows what's in them or what effect they will have. Like a lot of drugs."

Do you want to discuss illegal highs? Legal highs? What's your opinion?

[GnomeDePlume]

Oh bless you daddydaddycool, your tales of the summer of love remind me that every generation thinks that it has invented teenage rebellion!

I have teenagers. So far they have managed to develop interests without becoming regular smokers or drug takers. it is possible to be into music and not take drugs.

Whatever anyone feels about the illegality of different drugs the very fact that they are illegal is highly relevant. A criminal record including a caution can follow a young person through their future career like a bad smell.

Any sort of criminal behaviour will lead young people into bad company. I would rather my DCs avoided that.

[mathanxiety]

Again, do you think it's ok to break the law?
Yes or no will do. You keep on dodging this one.
You seem to be implying in your answers that if you feel some sort of compulsion you can't break, or some strong disregard for the law, then it's ok to break the law.
Would that be an accurate assessment of your opinion of law breaking?
Is this what you mean by 'balanced'?

How is breaking the law and using a class A mystery substance 'experimenting within reasonable bounds'?
We are back to your opinion of breaking the law here. The idea that class A narcotic use is in any way reasonable indicates to me that you do not respect the law. Or am I wrong -- is breaking the law something you consider unreasonable?

Since there is clearly some medical risk to your experimentation, the idea that using unregulated substances constitutes 'reasonable experimentation' harkens to the idea that you think you are immune to any serious consequences from your use of controlled substances, whether medical or legal.

You have a strong disdain for the statistics you provided (I'm perfectly happy with them btw and I haven't been moaning about them for several conversations) perhaps stemming from your misapprehension of how to apply them in calculating risk, so it seems to me you are not in any position to define 'reasonable experimentation'. You seem to think your belief in your own invincibility and past record ('I'm very much still here') are proof positive that nothing bad is ever going to happen to you as a consequence of breaking the law and taking serious medical risks.

How justifiable is this given that you have young children?
If you have life insurance, do you know if they will pay out in the case of death from use of illegal drugs? Some don't.

How are risking your life and breaking the law (and risking leaving your children fatherless) evidence that you have been brought up well?

Peer pressure = pressure to conform to groupthink or adhere to the values and style and behaviour of a group that presents itself as desirable to belong to, or to be thought of as 'balanced' or belonging in some other 'cool' category of people, the alternative perhaps being 'unbalanced', 'uncool', 'puritanical', 'ultra-conservative', maybe the sort of person who has tea parties as opposed to all the really cool fun that comes with (for example) enjoying the edgiest music and putting mystery substances into your bloodstream.

Another way to look at it is pressure brought by individuals who think they are really cool but would like to think they have company all the same, because they have a need for affirmation of their 'reasonable experimentation' from a like-minded group. Pressure of the sort that projects the problems of one person onto another, for instance 'I know I am on a hiding to nothing when it comes to my arguments in favour of continuing to use cocaine and ecstasy despite being the father of two young children so I will tell someone who is challenging me that she has sort of problem/is deeply uncool'. (It is 'she' btw).

I have enough of a picture of who you are, thanks.

Let's hope this 16 year old girl's death was not a senseless and completely avoidable one related to ecstasy.

It's hard to nail down exactly what constitutes 'success' for children but I will try:
I have always encouraged the DCs to do their best in all areas of their lives, not to shortchange themselves, to always put their own individual best interests in the long term first even if this means sacrificing in the short term -- so never to dumb themselves down (four of them are girls and this advice comes into parenting girls because of pressure to conform to gender stereotypes that include sucking at maths and science and not taking harder classes in humanities and social sciences, but it applies to DS too) and to take responsibility first and foremost for their own health including sexual health. This often means asking girls to resist peer pressure, insist on a condom every time they have sex, and live with the consequences of being called the sort of names girls get called when they assert themselves and insist on conditions in a sexual situation, or reveal to a prospective partner that they carry a condom with them when he says he can't use one because he doesn't have one... It means for DS knowing that a condom is expected every time for him too. Two of the DCs have asthma and taking responsibility for their own inhaler use, managing their allergies and avoiding triggers of asthma have been taught. Above all I see them respecting themselves and others, which is the basic premise of all the advice I have given them. If they follow my advice I have every reason to believe they are going to be happy and healthy, which to me constitutes success. Everything else is gravy. Not that I disparage 'gravy' and the sort of enjoyable lifestyle it can buy, but self respect comes first and I don't think you can be truly happy without it.

[Sleepyfergus]

DDC - my point was, as I have pointed or before, that you don't know what exactly you are taking. You honestly cannot say, that you know 100% that the drugs you have taken are 'pure' and not cut or bulked out with something harmless.

The news article I happened to hear talked about how people perceive illegal highs to be less dangerous than class A drugs, but in actual fact, they are just as dangerous as they don't know what exactly they are taking. Additionally, these deluded people think that taking them at the same time as other drugs doesn't really matter but it does. And deaths have increased because of that.

I actually don't know how else to say it. You don't know WHAT you are taking.

[GnomeDePlume]

The so called legal highs arent really any such thing anyway. From my understanding most are legal only for purposes other than human consumption. Even if you know the chemical formulation of the substance you are taking it will hardly have been rigorously tested to ensure that it produces a safe legal high.

Talking to my teenage DCs about drugs from the standpoint of never having taken them does not mean that my DCs dismiss my thoughts out of hand. Not taking drugs is a legitimate standpoint in itself.

The problem for parents who have taken drugs like the OP or daddydaddycool is that either they have to justify their drug taking or they have to admit to their teenage children that they were stupid.

It is very hard for parents to justify drug taking. They may like to think that they were being cool or part of the in crowd. The problem is that teenagers are IME very strict moralists when they look at the sins of their parents.

[Sleepyfergus]

I've just realised I've been called legal highs, illegal highs. My error! I think have been quite wound up on this thread and certain opinions on it that I have illegal on the brain.

[Abilly72]

I admire you effrontery in raising this on here and utterly condemn all you say [ and others] in trying to explain,justify,lessen,get round your utterly disgraceful stance on drug use and diabolical parenting.Cildren are in care from this sort of parenting.Perhaps you could both take up being alcholics as well!!

[Hulababy]

My uncle died from drug abuse when I was a baby. I don't need to take drugs to know what they are and what they can do. Knowing my uncle died from taking drugs was sufficient to put me off tbh. I hope it will be for my own daughter too. So no, I won;t have the "advantage" of taking about drugs from my own experience, but I really don't think that is necessary either.

And mo, I don't think having the odd legal alcohol drink is the same as taking the odd illegal drug either.

[Claybury]

Hula - totally agree. DS16 thinks I have no right to an opinion on drugs esp weed as I have never tried it. That's an illogical argument. There may be some pleasurable side to smoking & taking MDMA but I think we need to refrain from things that are harmful to us, however pleasurable.
ALL my adult friends are worried about their kids using drugs, regardless of whether they themselves indulged in their youth. In fact some of my friends who were into drugs are more anti now, having seen first hand so many casualties among their friends ( often MH issues manifesting later in life)
I grew up with the message that drugs were bad. I don't know why. I still think that. DS does not agree, DD does. I am already educating my 9 year old. Despite the fact that school is awash with drugs I still find it a taboo subject among parents which is v unhelpful.

[LegoCaltrops]

It never fails to astonish me that people can blithely support an industry which causes so much harm in the world, & they feel able to justify themselves by saying it's obviously not that dangerous an activity as they are very much still here. So far. I saw some photos of the victims of colombian drugs gangs, linked through MN, I won't link or even try to find them as they were fairly horrific, TBH.

[daddydaddycool]

Apologies for the delayed response ‘mathanxiety’, I was on holiday with my family this week.

Contrary to your repeated assertions that I’m trying to avoid answering questions (a bit rich in my view if you revisit our history), I’m happy to address them:

“Again, do you think it's ok to break the law? Yes or no will do. You keep on dodging this one.”

Sometimes, yes. As it so happens, I broke the law just three days ago. My family was travelling in a campervan (our 1st time – no hippy clichés…) and due to traffic delays we couldn’t make a scheduled campsite arrival time before it closed, so we ‘wild camped’ - illegal in England but not so in Scotland (we were only just on the wrong side of the border). We had little choice, it was great fun and we left without a trace; but we BROKE THE LAW! Hey ho.

In general terms there are more examples than one could conceivably fit into a single post where it is acceptable to break the law. You think a revolution has never been just? You think that every law ever passed has been in the best interest of the population wherever and whenever it was passed? My faith in your intelligence (I’m genuinely not being facetious here) suggests that you should not require examples, but I would be happy to list some of the more universally accepted ones. I’m assuming, however, that you’re talking specifically about illegal drug use - for example, as admitted by the previous three US presidents (which doesn’t make it right of course, much like the laws they preside over aren’t all right, right? Rhetorical…).

You’ll no doubt understand that many laws are repealed, often because they’re counterproductive. Any example of this is the ‘Rockefeller Drug Laws’ (enacted in 1973), which mandated extremely harsh prison terms for the possession or sale of relatively small amounts of drugs in New York State. Supposedly intended to target major dealers, most of the people imprisoned under these laws were convicted of low-level, nonviolent offenses; many of them with no prior criminal record. The Rockefeller Drug Laws created stark racial disparities and exacted an enormous financial toll, until their repeal in 2009.

Sorry to labour the point about legislation, but you seem to have a thing about it. I just learnt that one in every 31 adults in the United States is in prison, in jail or on supervised release. The United States represents about 5 percent of the world's population, yet it houses around 25 percent of the world's prisoners, making it the highest incarceration rate in the world. And at an average of $23,876 dollars per state prisoner, is that money well spent mathanxiety? With so many of its citizens in prison compared with the rest of the world, there are only two possibilities: either the US is home to the most ‘wrong’ people on earth, or it is doing something vastly counterproductive. Which would you suggest, mathanxiety?

Back my own situation, and before my comments are taken out of context again:

• I rarely take illegal drugs
  
• I do not condone or encourage the use of any drugs, whether legal or illegal;
  
• I wouldn’t expose my children (either as minors or adults) to, or encourage them to enter an environment where the partaking of illegal substances is overtly acceptable.
  
  But your blind faith in/respect for the law per se is misguided, in my view.
  
  Anyway,
  “You have a strong disdain for the statistics you provided (I'm perfectly happy with them btw and I haven't been moaning about them for several conversations)”
  
  Wow, that’s a sudden, indirect and somewhat baffling U-turn. This comes following your previous, consistent stance that my stats weren’t worth a jot and now you suggest that I am discounting them; the only meaningful figures anybody has bothered to provide? What’s changed? That you now realise I genuinely had no bias? Please enlighten me (that’s a direct question by the way).
  
  Then…
  “…perhaps stemming from your misapprehension of how to apply them in calculating risk, so it seems to me you are not in any position to define 'reasonable experimentation'. You seem to think your belief in your own invincibility and past record ('I'm very much still here') are proof positive that nothing bad is ever going to happen to you as a consequence of breaking the law and taking serious medical risks.”
  
  That’s just too mealy-mouthed for me to pass meaningful comment on (I’ve really tried).
  
  I previously set out a (fairly high level) counter-argument for the regulation of illegal drugs, which you seemed to have barely failed to acknowledge let alone attempt to counter, i.e.:
  
  Regardless of my own opinion, devising a sensible drug policy that reduces the harm drugs cause while recognising that a lot of people will take drugs no matter what, is becoming an increasingly pragmatic route for governments in the face of increasing economic challenges.
  
  You ask me,
  “How is breaking the law and using a class A mystery substance 'experimenting within reasonable bounds'?We are back to your opinion of breaking the law here. The idea that class A narcotic use is in any way reasonable indicates to me that you do not respect the law.”
  Perhaps you and your peers enjoy the odd glass of wine, whereas on the balance of probabilities someone else in your peer group is an alcoholic. By ‘reasonable bounds’, I mean I make a choice to break a law (existing but for how long…) every now and again (in terms of years in my case), all the while conscious of the relative risks to my children becoming ‘fatherless’. And this is where I get cross – all this uninformed, disproportionate, broadly unsubstantiated, emotionally-led drum-beating around ‘mystery substances’ and ‘you take the same risk every time’, etc. etc.
  
  According to Drugscope (a UK charity which is ‘the primary source of independent information on drugs and drug related issues’),
  
  “While impurities and dilutents can, in themselves, be dangerous to consume the likelihood of this happening has often been exaggerated. While rumours circulate about drugs cut with rat poison, strychnine and brick dust such contamination is very rare. It is not in the dealer’s interest to have customers dropping dead from deliberately contaminated drugs. In contrast people will return to get drugs from dealers who offer good quality substances.”
  
  Now again, please realise that I’m not providing this quote to justify anything; just in the hope of providing a little balance. And on the rare occasions that I do partake it’s never procured from a random individual down a dark alley, and is previously tested for impurities and adulterants (again, this is in mutual best interests - call me an early blueprint for regulation).
  
  As an aside, nightclubs in the UK increasingly provide facilities for their punters to test the composition of controlled substances they have procured. For example, Manchester's ‘Warehouse’ launched testing scheme supported by a wider partnership that includes the police, the council, drug charity The Loop, and Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS trust. It has faced little public opposition. Would YOU oppose it, mathanxiety?
  “How are risking your life and breaking the law (and risking leaving your children fatherless) evidence that you have been brought up well?”
  A good upbringing is clearly subjective, isn’t it? I know people who were brought up well and who have made poor individual choices, as well as others who were raised ‘badly’ and who have come good. Personally speaking, my idea of subjecting my children to (and by your own admission) pretty relentless study-based activities throughout their formative years is unbalanced, but each to their own.
  
  And thanks for the definition of ‘peer pressure’, I get it but I tend to make my own choices, e.g. I’m probably in the vast minority of UK early middle-aged males (yep, I am male for what it matters) that has never supported a football (soccer) team.
  
  Tea parties can be cool (where did I use the word ‘uncool’ other than referring to myself?) but my little pun was in relation to the Tea Party Movement and your own apparent staunch conservatism, not the ‘uncoolness’ of actual tea parties.
  
  “'I know I am on a hiding to nothing when it comes to my arguments in favour of continuing to use cocaine and ecstasy despite being the father of two young children so I will tell someone who is challenging me that she has sort of problem/is deeply uncool'. (It is 'she' btw).”
  
  Pot calling the straw man…
  
  “I have enough of a picture of who you are, thanks.”
  
  You choose to misinterpret and warp what I’m saying to suit your agenda; ‘twill ever be thus.
  
  “Let's hope this 16 year old girl's death was not a senseless and completely avoidable one related to ecstasy.”
  
  Let’s hope so too, but a day after your quoted article (so 18 Aug) the schoolgirl's aunt “urged people not to jump to conclusions and claimed she could have died from a hereditary heart condition”.
  
  Her aunt wrote: “I’m her aunt, and she passed away nothing has been proven yet we have a heart condition in the family so if u can’t send ur condolences then keep ur comment to yourself.”
  
  Seems quite balanced in my view, and a thankfully rare occurrence either way but a tragedy nonetheless.
  
  “It's hard to nail down exactly what constitutes 'success' for children but I will try: I have always encouraged the DCs to do their best in all areas of their lives, not to shortchange themselves, to always put their own individual best interests in the long term first even if this means sacrificing in the short term -- so never to dumb themselves down (four of them are girls and this advice comes into parenting girls because of pressure to conform to gender stereotypes that include sucking at maths and science and not taking harder classes in humanities and social sciences, but it applies to DS too) and to take responsibility first and foremost for their own health including sexual health. This often means asking girls to resist peer pressure, insist on a condom every time they have sex, and live with the consequences of being called the sort of names girls get called when they assert themselves and insist on conditions in a sexual situation, or reveal to a prospective partner that they carry a condom with them when he says he can't use one because he doesn't have one... It means for DS knowing that a condom is expected every time for him too. Two of the DCs have asthma and taking responsibility for their own inhaler use, managing their allergies and avoiding triggers of asthma have been taught. Above all I see them respecting themselves and others, which is the basic premise of all the advice I have given them. If they follow my advice I have every reason to believe they are going to be happy and healthy, which to me constitutes success. Everything else is gravy. Not that I disparage 'gravy' and the sort of enjoyable lifestyle it can buy, but self respect comes first and I don't think you can be truly happy without it.”
  
  I can’t argue with any of that, but who would?
  
  The trouble is, mathaxiety, that there will always be people like you who assume that because something was prohibited over the course of the 20th century, the fact of the prohibition is itself justification for it to continue to be prohibited. But what is the point of it? Exactly what is prohibition meant to achieve? We all know (including you) what happened when alcohol was prohibited in the States: smuggling, ‘speak-easies’ and the creation of an organised crime network to manufacture and distribute increasingly lethal concoctions, with all the associated violence one would expect.
  
  The justification for drugs prohibition changes every time it is questioned - which leads to the suspicion that the "reasons" are not so much justifications as rationalisations. And the reason these rationalisations keep changing is because if they can be pinned down to specifics, then the question can be asked "but has prohibition actually worked?"
  
  The primary difference between us is a). your own unerring support for the established consensus regardless of whether it is actually right or wrong, and b). your unerring belief that your children have lived in some kind of utopian moral bubble as a direct result of your parenting. Assuming they have, then lucky you and them, but for you to suggest that such a parenting framework can be applied with equal success is simply patronising to those parents out there that are having to pragmatically deal with life’s everyday realities AFTER the event.
  
  Of course (and whether you believe it or not- I sincerely doubt it) like your own, my number one priority is the safekeeping of my family, both now and in the future. But nothing you have said has caused me to feel that I have taken disproportionately uncalculated decisions based on my own circumstances. My own situation is being generalised, snowballed and pigeon-holed to (mis)represent the story the majority on here wish to purport. I don’t wish to denigrate the perspective of those who have negative experiences with illegal substances and for the umpteenth time,
  I’m not supporting their use. But I accept that they are used, and always will be, and stating either the bleedin’ obvious or (more often than not) downright misinformation gets us nowhere.
  
  No doubt I will get slated again, based on emotionally-led arguments rather than rational thinking, but do you know what? I think it’s important that someone is willing to provide a balanced counter-perspective to some of the deconstructive moral arm-flailing going on here.

[FreckledLeopard]

This is a very interesting thread and I'm impressed with the thoughtful and rational comments made by daddydaddycool.

I don't believe in black and white thinking when it comes to drug taking. I know many very good parents who occasionally indulge in various substances, including doctors, lawyers and homeopaths. Most of the parents I know who take drugs are caring, dedicated and committed to their children. There are also a couple whose parenting skills I find questionable, but that's not down to the fact they take drugs, but to a whole host of other reasons.

Quite why taking drugs is seen as a moral issue, I don't know. I can't personally distinguish between the morality of drinking a bottle of champagne or smoking a joint. Both are substances, designed to elicit a pleasant reaction in the user, which have been used by individuals around the world for centuries. The fact that one is legal and the other (for the most part) illegal is somewhat nonsensical. Further, if one were to use cannabis in Colorado for example, where it's legal, does this mean it's no longer immoral? But then if the user crossed the state line into Utah and smoked the same substance, it's suddenly a moral issue? This kind of arbitrary rule making seems utterly ridiculous to me.

I am aware that drugs can destroy lives. But then so can alcohol. I don't think a knee jerk reaction is helpful in either case.

I'm honest and open with DD. She knows I've taken drugs in the past. She knows I had fun when I did. I don't encourage her to take drugs or to drink. I hope she doesn't succumb to peer pressure. She doesn't have the same insatiable curiosity about things as I did when I was her age, so I think she'd probably be quite content not to take drugs. They don't hold a huge taboo for her. However, I can't see that lying or stating categorically that all drugs are terrible will be particularly helpful, whichever choices in life she makes. All I can do is to keep open lines of communication and encourage discussion and honesty.

[Claybury]

Discussing the pros and cons of drug law isn't really relevant on this thread where we we principally talking about teenagers who, presumably even in countries with her most liberal laws cannot legally purchase cannabis if they are under 21.
I agree drug use not a moral issue at all, unless you consider all matters of breaking the law to be immoral.
I, for one, am glad of the Law to back me up. The bottom line for me is not to say to my son 'don't smoke weed because I think it is harmful to your health ' ( a grey area, drinking Pepsi is also harmful as is watching TV all day ). I feel there is more weight to saying he must not break the law of the land in which he lives. We should bring up our children to obey the law.

[mathanxiety]

It seems by your example of camping wild out of necessity that you are trying to compare that peccadillo that arose from necessity to breaking the law related to class A narcotics, which initially in your case was a voluntary and completely unnecessary choice made as a part of your deliberate engagement with a counter-culture that included drug use.

People being human, no -- laws are not always just. Nevertheless, while they are on the statute books, breaking them is nothing to be proud of.

People being human, revolution often seems a desirable thing. People being human, no revolution has ever taken place without things turning really ugly really fast, however.

People being human, and drugs having their well known harmful qualities, people probably shouldn't do drugs, and thus the government regulates narcotics.

It seems to me that the US is keeping many criminals off the streets very effectively with its high rate of incarceration, but incarceration is of course not the only prong in the fight to maintain law and order. There is probation and community service. Certain crimes disqualify those convicted from probation and community service. There is no way of knowing how many people are forced by the prospect of prison to rethink any inclination they may have to commit those crimes or get involved in drug use or the organised crime groups that distribute and sell drugs, so I think damning a high incarceration rate out of hand is possibly premature, and possibly unwarranted.
By contrast, Britain uses the ASBO and distinguishes between ASB and misdemeanours. The effect is a culture where a lot of citizens have little or no confidence in the ability of the police to protect them or their property effectively, high insurance costs for businesses and property that are borne by everyone, including the victims of ASB, in the form of higher prices for consumers and less money available to business owners for more hiring or expansion of business.
No matter where criminals are, society pays.
$23,876 per prisoner sounds like a bargain to me as a female taxpayer and consumer and mother of daughters.

Women especially bear the brunt of living in an area where ASBOs are the preferred method of dealing with what would be classed as misdemeanours or criminal behaviour in the US -- women of all ages get harassed, catcalled, feel physically threatened and modify their lives greatly in a society where the perception is that being out on the streets going about normal business will result in trauma.

I can't be bothered going back over whatever stats you provided, to refute your mistaken allegation that I never accepted them..
Here's what I was talking about:
You provided stats on risk associated with drug taking, and made the mistake of assuming that past avoidance of the dangers (OD, buying and ingesting rat poison) indicted you stood a high chance of continuing to avoid adverse outcomes from drug-use. I pointed out that each and every time you use illegal mystery substances that are concocted in possibly unsanitary places by unscrupulous individuals whose only motive in being involved in manufacture and sale of drugs is profit you stand the exact same risk no matter what your previous history has been.

I see you are mad with me for this but I am going to repeat it:
*You really do run the same risk every single time you use drugs.
*You are playing Russian roulette every single time.
*You are risking making your children fatherless.
There is nothing 'so-called' with quotation marks around it about the fact that Peaches Geldof's two little boys are now motherless.
Not 'motherless' in some abstract sense, but really and truly living their lives without their mother, now and forever more, just as she lived without her mother, and was motherless, not 'motherless'.

The family of the 16 year old girl in Scotland may well be trying to salvage their daughter's reputation.
It is clear from the remarks of the aunt that people have not been kind in their messages on FB about her death. This is heartless in the extreme, and unwarranted. Their heartbreak over her death would be just as painful no matter how she died, and they are just as daughterless no matter the cause. Not 'daughterless' in some abstract, theoretic, 'so-called' sense.

You are no doubt aware that ecstasy use is sometimes associated with a long QT interval (because you made a conscious and informed choice that had nothing to do with peer pressure) - 'Acquired forms of QTc prolongation and proarrhythmia, particularly related to drug therapy, are frequently related to drug effects on the same ion channels involved in genetic forms of LQTS. As is true for genetic forms of LQTS, there is a wide spectrum of potential drug effects on the QTc interval ranging from trivial to potentially lethal.' circ.ahajournals.org/content/122/14/1426.long I am sure you have gone over the pros and cons of all this with your doctor and know exactly what risks you are running.

As I said, I hope if you have life insurance you have checked if your insurer will pay out to your beneficiaries in case you kill yourself putting mystery substances into your bloodstream. Many do not pay out if you die while engaged in criminal activity. Whether you think of yourself as some sort of balanced, avant garde, legal theorist who is ahead of conventional wisdom, a sophisticated punter whose drugs always come from reliable sources and whose dealer is above reproach, your life insurance company may well see things in a different light.

You seem very, very let's say 'invested' in this recreational 'choice' of yours for an occasional user. You also seem very invested in an image you have of yourself as some sort of really balanced individual who makes his own choices, is not bound by the obligation mere mortals have to obey the law, is not subject to the same statistical chances everyone else who uses drugs is living with (and you have invented a persona for me by which to compare yourself favourably) with your drug use front and centre as an element in your persona that is a hallmark of your sophistication. Strange.

As for me, I will stick with what works for my children, and you can try your best to explain to yours why they should do what you say but not as you do. If you allow yourself the freedom to break the law then all bets are off as far as your children go.

[daddydaddycool]

Hello again mathanxiety.

'Dialogue' with you is like talking with an automaton.

[mathanxiety]

I see you are very averse to being reminded that you are still breaking the law no matter how you try to dress it up.

I find it really odd that a grown adult would use terms like 'ultra conservative', and its ilk, and hint at Tea Party affiliation for someone who has done nothing more extreme than obey the law and instill in her children the idea that breaking the law is not acceptable. It's a glimpse into the mindset of the sort of tween or teen who hangs with the cutting edge crowd I suppose.

As for the idea that I live in some sort of bubble -- another erroneous assumption. I recognise reality and live my life accordingly. One of the realities that I recognise and accept is that human societies make laws because we recognise that society needs the legal framework in order to keep our worst instincts from overwhelming the good. I think we need laws and we need the concept of law and we also need respect for the concept of law and respect for individual laws. I hold a pessimistic view of human nature. I don't think it improves over time. I think we need law and I think those who treat it with disrespect are taking for granted a good thing that benefits them enormously for the most part.

I think the person living in the bubble might be you, since you seem to believe the law doesn't apply to you, to believe your illegally imported, distributed and sold recreational drug of choice will never be contaminated and never have an adverse effect on your system, and that your children are never going to be exposed to your illegal activity or any of its effects. Since you are so good at predicting the future, maybe you could tell me the chances of a two year old called Toogoodtobetrue running in the 2.35 at the Curragh on Saturday?

In the interests of responsible parenting, have you checked with your life insurance company about their policy on death while committing a crime? Have you run your drug use past your doctor in case there are individual risk factors you need to be aware of?

[GnomeDePlume]

On the illegality of drugs I do think that this alone is an excellent reason to be saying to our teens that they should not be taking them.

A caution for possesion could make it impossible to use the ESTA scheme for entering the US. Doesnt mean you cant get in but may make it more difficult .

Not planning to go to the US? I wasnt in my teens but once in work opportunities for travel (often at short notice) did come up.

Sorry boss I cant go on that trip because I cant use the ESTA scheme

Not exactly career enhancing is it?

[daddydaddycool]

Hi mathaxiety.

This is the last time I’m bothering to respond to you, you're the equivalent of eating Macdonalds food (no justification/no benefit/energy sap, etc.)

“It seems by your example of camping wild out of necessity that you are trying to compare that peccadillo that arose from necessity to breaking the law related to class A narcotics…”

How so? I made a clear distinction in that I was initially referring to the principle of breaking the law in general, but then spoke separately – with crystal clear distinction - on drug use laws. You continue to waste our mutual time (well, did – no more.)

“It seems to me that the US is keeping many criminals off the streets very effectively with its high rate of incarceration…$23,876 per prisoner sounds like a bargain to me as a female taxpayer and consumer and mother of daughters”
Really?

• According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the recidivism (relapse into criminal behaviour following prison release) rate in the US is over 76%;
  
• 51% of all US federal state prisoners are serving time for drug-related offences;
  
• Only 7 to 17 percent of prisoners who meet the criteria for alcohol/drug dependence or abuse actually receive treatment in jail or prison;
  
• Effectiveness studies have shown that inmates who participate in residential treatment programs while incarcerated have 9 to 18 percent lower recidivism rates and 15 to 35 percent lower drug relapse rates than their counterparts who receive no treatment in prison.
  
  Works wonders…
  
  On a related note, the ex-head of the US Drug Enforcement Agency (Asa Hutchinson) recently told a Canadian legislative committee,
  
  “We have made some mistakes, and I hope you can learn from those mistakes.”
  
  The main mistake, he said, was jailing non-violent drug offenders. He argued that a low-profile but fruitful move toward “drug courts” in the U.S., which aim to rehabilitate rather than punish offenders, was the way to go. American drug courts have mirrored some of the positive results from wholesale drug decriminalization — which Portugal, for example, resorted to a decade ago.
  
  In the absence of full regulation of drugs as opposed to full prohibition, to me this seems like a step in the right direction based on available evidence. Yes or no?
  
  You then said,
  
  “You really do run the same risk every single time you use drugs.”
  
  Let’s try and clarify this once and for all because you keep on raising it. I previously demonstrated (based on available stats - again totally open to anybody refuting them) that there was a 1 in 9000 chance of dying of cocaine use, and a 1 in 60,000 chance of dying of ecstasy use (based on UK stats).
  
  Now, I am acutely aware that when I toss a coin there is an equal chance of me obtaining a head or a tail no matter how many times I do it; 50% plain and simple. But you appear to be assuming, mathanxiety, that the chance of me dying from cocaine use remains constant regardless of the frequency of use.
  
  In simple terms, the more ‘opportunities’ there are the more likely it is that an event will occur. The more often a person takes cocaine, the greater the person’s chances of dying. To use an (admittedly oversimplified) example to highlight probability in general terms, if the odds of winning the lottery are one in 10 million and you buy 1000 tickets, your odds of winning are reduced to one in 10000. Obviously we can’t make a direct correlation in relation to the 1 in 9000 chance of dying from cocaine because we don’t know the relationship between frequency of use and probability of dying. All I’m trying to demonstrate is that one does not run the SAME risk if one does something (anything) less than more. Again, I’m not arguing my case for logic the purpose of any justification, but what you’re saying is flagrant bollocks and serves only to lay bare your fundamental argument.
  
  Then you say,
  
  "There is nothing 'so-called' with quotation marks around it about the fact that Peaches Geldof's two little boys are now motherless. Not 'motherless' in some abstract sense, but really and truly living their lives without their mother, now and forever more, just as she lived without her mother, and was motherless, not 'motherless'.”
  
  What’s with all the sudden reference to quotation marks? I’m clearly missing something, please explain. In the meantime you highlight a singular family tragedy involving a young mother who died of excessive heroin use, much like her own mother who died under similar circumstances.
  
  No surprise she karked it, then. But I guess that you’re indirectly demonstrating the stark and tragic effect excessive drug use has on families and in doing so, attempting to draw some parallel between such stories and my own life in the hope that I may finally ‘see the light’?
  Between us, we could fill these pages with similar stories of how drug use brings families to their knees, but I return yet again to the concept of proportionality. I vividly remember the last time an illegal drug was (knowingly) in my home; it was seven years ago last month, when my wife’s young Australian cousin was staying with us and he had some weed with him. As for the last time that I actually actively sought to procure illegal drugs myself as opposed to being offered them in a social situation (and sometimes accepting the offer, sometimes not), I haven’t got a clue but it’s certainly more than seven years ago (what a fucking tightwad, eh?).
  
  See, the above might seem trivial or even inconsequential to you but it is really, REALLY fundamental to the discussion we’re having. I happen to be open on here about my drug use, and I accept that I am extremely fortunate in relation to others in that it plays such a minor, even diminishing role in my life (indeterminate risk notwithstanding).
  
  But then knee-jerk absolutits (sic) like you come along to pound your moral drum, and castigate others, with the likely potential to discourage others from being honest otherwise they will equally be on the receiving end of a whole heap of shitty moralistic feedback (however well intended, but totally misinformed nonetheless).
  
  On which note, I tell you what - let’s find another singular but really recent tragic drug death story – such as a young Scottish girl that ‘died of ecstasy’ - only to find that there may actually be no causal link between her death and ecstasy after all? But in the meantime, let’s throw the moral kitchen sink at those tarnishing her ‘reputation’ before the verdict is clear. How convenient for you to alter the trajectory of your aim in order to suit your own cause, mathanxiety.
  
  Then, somewhat randomly – as if you had been trawling the net for negative facts involving ecstasy use (I can find some too) - you say,
  “You are no doubt aware that ecstasy use is sometimes associated with a long QT interval…I am sure you have gone over the pros and cons of all this with your doctor and know exactly what risks you are running.”
  I wasn’t previously aware of what a QT interval was and in the absence of any supporting explanation of your own I looked it up. Thanks for the signpost. Following my recent (April) successful ‘middle-age MOT’ with my doctor, it’s not something that I have any immediate concern about.
  “As I said, I hope if you have life insurance you have checked if your insurer (etc.)”
  
  This is clearly something else that you think I am avoiding. I’ve just learnt that ‘urinalysis’ is becoming an increasingly popular means for employers, insurers and government agencies to determine the risk profiles of the individuals with whom they interact. Did you know that most illegal substances are detectable in hair samples as much as 90 days following their intake? In which case, I’d be off to the clinic today brandishing my piss-pot without a care in the world. You’re focussing too much on me as an individual, mathanxiety, at the sacrifice of the bigger picture. I’m fast losing confidence in your ability to rationalise on any level
  
  (this is the first of two posts, the other is below mathanxiety)

[daddydaddycool]

Pretty much you alone, mathaxiety, are the reason why I come across here as so ‘particularly invested in this recreational choice’. In reality it’s a topic that rarely arises either in my own mind or as a discussion point in my wider social circles nowadays, let alone the act of physical indulgence itself. I never knew I felt so strongly about the subject until you came along.

Homo sapiens have imbibed unhealthy substances for thousands of years
and will continue to do so whether we agree on the underlying principles or not. Opinion on what’s ‘acceptable’ at any one point in time is clearly subject to change, even in our own timeframe. The primary question is how to best manage the issue from the perspective of wider society, is it not?

On the balance of probability some mums and dads will continue to take illegal drugs; a proportion of which will be caught out by their kids, and a proportion of those caught out will occasionally be brave enough to seek constructive advice on social networking sites - only to be (near) universally vilified by deconstructive moral naysayers.

How is your own general understanding and feedback in any way constructive in the grand scheme? As far as you’re concerned I’m highly likely to die from my drug use, thereby rendering my daughters fatherless and that’s about the size of it. As far as you’re concerned, let’s continue to pile people in prison for relatively minor drug offences only for the cycle to become even more acute as a direct result. How is that constructive in the grand scheme?

I truly, truly believe that as long as people like you have any future stake in the matter, then exponentially more human suffering will occur than if you and your like did not have a say in the matter. Now that’s a lofty claim: am I insinuating that you and your ilk are indirectly responsible for hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths? Of course not – but I AM insinuating that you are a small-minded halfwit.

Cue random Daily Mail (rofl, etc.) headline from only a few months ago:
“Sugar, not fat, is real heart disease killer: We got it wrong on diet advice, claims expert”

I can’t help but envisage you lapping up this sort of bullshit headline with maximum vim, mathanxiety. But perhaps I’m wrong and you grasp the universal concept of ‘everything in moderation’, at least as long as you’re bothered to scrutinise the detail. And perhaps you understand way more than I do that markets are ultimately driven by consumer demand. But let’s face facts: the ’Developed World’ consumer will always demand the provision of substances to alter their perception, whether it be pain or pleasure, and who better to supply than the ‘Developing World’ producer at lower cost?

This is an interesting article, which I will summarise below because, what with you being a halfwit and all, I sincerely doubt that your motive to engage in a balanced debate extends to clicking on a link provided by some random internet ‘adversary’ and absorbing the content accordingly:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/25/war-on-drugs-heroin-trade-afghanistan

In summary, the article is written by the British ambassador to Afghanistan between 2010-2012 (not exactly the kind of bloke to rue the demise of the ‘summer of love’ I’d wager…). He says - and I quote directly:

• In 2001 the prime minister linked heroin use in the UK with opium cultivation in Afghanistan: "The arms the Taliban buy are paid for by the lives of young British people buying their drugs. This is another part of the regime we should destroy." Yet after 10 years of effort with tens of thousands of troops in the country, and having spent billions trying to reduce poppy cultivation, Afghans are growing more opium than ever before.”
  
• In 2012 the International Institute for Strategic Studies published Drugs, Insecurity and Failed States: The Problems of Prohibition, concluding that "the present enforcement regime is not only failing to win the 'war on drugs', it is also a major cause of violence and instability in producer and transit countries". Afghanistan exemplifies this in spades.
  
• In short, the war on drugs has failed in Afghanistan, and without removing the demand for illicit opium, driven by illicit heroin use in consumer countries, this failure is both predictable and inevitable. If we cannot deal effectively with supply, then the only alternative would seem to be to try to limit the demand for illicit drugs by making a supply of them available from a legally regulated market.
  
• I am not the first former ambassador who has served in a drug-producing country to call for an end to prohibition. In 2001 my colleague Sir Keith Morris, the former UK ambassador to Colombia, told the BBC that if drugs were legalised and regulated the "benefits to life, health and liberty of drug users and the life, health and property of the whole population would be immense".
  
• Many more have made the same plea. In 2002 the home affairs select committee called on Britain to initiate a debate at the United Nations on alternatives to drug prohibition – including legal regulation. One of its members was David Cameron MP.
  
• I understand why some politicians are reluctant to take up this debate. Before going to Afghanistan my own instincts told me that it could not be right to decriminalise drugs. But my experience there has convinced me that all political parties need to engage seriously, without trying to score points off each other [YOU wouldn’t be more interested in scoring points would you, mathanxiety?[
  
• Putting governments in control of the global drugs trade through legal regulation will remove the incentive for those in fragile, insecure regions to produce and traffic drugs. Putting doctors and pharmacists in control of supply in the UK will save lives, improve health and reduce crime. Ultimately we could improve the underlying lack of wellbeing that drives so many in the UK and Afghanistan into lives of degradation and misery.
  
• For the sake of both Afghans and British citizens, senior politicians must take responsibility for the failings of global prohibition, and take control of the drug trade through legal regulation.
  
  Let’s return to the subject in question. You continually argue that illegal drug use is wrong but when have I ever argued that illegal drug use is right? Not once. It’s a GROWING reality, though. I just happen to (indirectly) represent a significant proportion of society that will continue to do what they do for myriad reasons, and you will continue to lambast them no matter what, with NO positive impact whatsoever.
  
  After all, you:
  
  “Know for a FACT that it is my parenting approach that has yielded the excellent results I see, and in more aspects of life than merely avoiding drug use”.
  
  That’s a lofty claim to put it mildly. ‘God’ (in clearly inverted commas) forbid you ever decide to pursue being a child counsellor in any shape or form, mathanxiety, but thankfully your head’s probably too far up your own arse to consider pursuing such a worthy vocation. You adopt a ‘closed door’ approach to your parenting in relation to drugs, and whilst I may be wrong there’s no evidence that to suggest that you adopt a counter-approach to broader issues.
  
  In contrast to your own approach, my own perspective is simply that nothing is out of bounds. “Love is an open door”.
  
  I’m sure you have heard the related song and I hope it is now stuck in your head; it’s the least you deserve.

[mathanxiety]

you're the equivalent of eating Macdonalds food
Now that's a bit harsh...

What’s with all the sudden reference to quotation marks?
You used the term 'fatherless' [sic] in your post, as if there is something abstract to death of a father and living life without a father. Hence my comments about Peaches Geldof's two motherless little boys as opposed to 'motherless'.
Terribly sad I am sure you'll agree.
I'm not sure the term karked it is really appropriate

to highlight probability in general terms, if the odds of winning the lottery are one in 10 million and you buy 1000 tickets, your odds of winning are reduced to one in 10000
Each individual ticket has the same chance of winning, i.e. 1/10,000,000, and the same chance of not winning, i.e. 9,999,999/10,000,000.
Each time you use cocaine or MDMA you run the same risk of buying a substance that is not what you think it is. It is unregulated, and its manufacture and distribution are in the hands of criminals who are interested in profit, so there is quite a risk.

Since hitting the jackpot and accidentally killing yourself with rat poison are not quite comparable as outcomes go, I don't know why you use the analogy. It seems pretty poorly thought out. You accept this yourself:
In simple terms, the more ‘opportunities’ there are the more likely it is that an event will occur. The more often a person takes cocaine, the greater the person’s chances of dying.
What you are saying, if I am reading correctly, is that the more buying events you participate in, the higher your chances of buying rat poison, right?
Why do you therefore not remove the mental block that keeps you from applying your own logic to your own choices?

Furthermore, in the case of risk in the long term, because there is a cumulative effect, use of cocaine or ecstasy will do increasing damage to your system, and therefore your risk of slowly killing or weakening yourself by gradual damage mounts as time rolls on.

I am pretty sure you would be wary of buying used cars or genuine Rolex watches from criminals, or eschewing life insurance despite the fact that you are apparently the father of two small children (but maybe those assumptions are giving you more credit that you deserve)...
It is therefore unfathomable to me that you would consider taking your chances with an illegal and unregulated substance and introducing it into your body where its effects might be fatal. It is really hard for me to understand how you come to believe you can ingest even (best case scenario) unadulterated narcotics with impunity over the course of many years when you have stated that you are aware of the dangers both short term and long term of even regulated drugs such as alcohol.

I don't think I have advocated jailing of non-violent drug offenders. I spoke of the US doing a pretty good job keeping criminals off the streets without specifying non-violent drug offenders. A huge proportion of criminals who are jailed are in fact dealers, or gang enforcers. Of course there remains a lot to be done in taking criminals off the streets and keeping them there, and jail isn't the only approach used in tackling organised crime. There are a lot of initiatives aimed at nipping gang activity in the bud.

How is your own general understanding and feedback in any way constructive in the grand scheme? As far as you’re concerned I’m highly likely to die from my drug use, thereby rendering my daughters fatherless and that’s about the size of it.
Oooohhh, you got so close to nailing it down, but of course your mental block keeps you from pursuing the thought to its logical conclusion.

The answer is of course to take a long, hard look at your obligation to obey the law and commit to doing that, making no exception for yourself when it comes to recreational drug use, and accepting that you are not exceptional or a member of some rarified breed either where this obligation is concerned or where your chance of seriously damaging yourself to the point of death by drug use, or dying in a catastrophic drug related accident are concerned.

Practical steps you can take include seeking treatment if you think you are addicted or if you decide that you would prefer a healthier lifestyle.
There are residential as well as drop-in treatment options, and Narcotics Anonymous is there if you feel a voluntary, very low-cost, community accountability approach would be up your alley.

Ultimately it's really simple.
You stop thinking you area special case.
You stop committing crimes.
You commit to your own health.
You commit to being a good parent to your children.
In short, you grow up.

(And further to that last point, you do have life insurance, right? And you are sure it will pay out in case of a drug related death?)

[mathanxiety]

As for this, regarding the untimely death of Peaches Geldof that left her two little boys motherless just as she herself was left motherless:

I guess that you’re indirectly demonstrating the stark and tragic effect excessive drug use has on families and in doing so, attempting to draw some parallel between such stories and my own life in the hope that I may finally ‘see the light’?
Between us, we could fill these pages with similar stories of how drug use brings families to their knees, but I return yet again to the concept of proportionality. I vividly remember the last time an illegal drug was (knowingly) in my home; it was seven years ago last month, when my wife’s young Australian cousin was staying with us and he had some weed with him. As for the last time that I actually actively sought to procure illegal drugs myself as opposed to being offered them in a social situation (and sometimes accepting the offer, sometimes not), I haven’t got a clue but it’s certainly more than seven years ago (what a fucking tightwad, eh?).

See, the above might seem trivial or even inconsequential to you but it is really, REALLY fundamental to the discussion we’re having. I happen to be open on here about my drug use, and I accept that I am extremely fortunate in relation to others in that it plays such a minor, even diminishing role in my life (indeterminate risk notwithstanding).


It is very common for an addict to engage in cognitive dissonance of this sort that you have engaged in continuously on this thread (aka pretzel logic that renders you incapable of reading what I actually wrote about the 16 year old who probably died from ecstasy use)
Bad things only happen to other people, whereas you are completely balanced, in control, able to laugh at what a tightwad you are, lol, (blah blah blah) while further on in the same screed you take issue with me for being by comparison to you a square and a wet blanket, frightening off delicate, sad souls who may have problems, with what is clearly a most unwelcome dose of reality.

('Knee-jerk absolutits' -- there you go again with the early-teen style baboon-house poo-throwing. I bet your peers without exception remember you as a lovely classmate).

Did you know that most illegal substances are detectable in hair samples as much as 90 days following their intake? In which case, I’d be off to the clinic today brandishing my piss-pot without a care in the world.
LOL. There's a logic for you . Is there a lot of hair in that piss sample of yours?

I used the term 'invested' before but now I'll be more direct:
Do you think you might be addicted?