WTF?should 13yr old be smokin pot w/ prnts

[HempKat]

I'll back it up if you like. Just PM me. Of course LSD isn't endogenous to our brain but there are natural receptors that it binds to. I implied that cannabis and LSD have similar physical safety profiles, not that they are similar in intoxicating nature.

No actually you said:

Pharmacologically LSD is just as safe as cannabis.

phar·ma·col·o·gy (färm-kl-j)
n.
1. The science of drugs, including their composition, uses, and effects.
2. The characteristics or properties of a drug, especially those that make it medically effective.


pharma·co·logic (-k-ljk), pharma·co·logi·cal (--kl) adj.
pharma·co·logi·cal·ly adv.
pharma·colo·gist n.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pharmacologically

Since Pharmacology includes studying the intoxicating effects. To say something is pharmacologically as safe as something else implies that they are similar. So either you're being false and misleading or you're throwing around words that you have no clue of their meaning.

Also why do you need to be PM'ed to share what you have that "backs up" what you are saying? I mean if it truely supports what you say then why not post it up? My guess is that it doesn't support what you are saying at all and that's why you don't post it. That or it does support it but obviously comes from an unreliable and biased source.

 

[jd4083]

No actually you said:





http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pharmacologically

Since Pharmacology includes studying the intoxicating effects. To say something is pharmacologically as safe as something else implies that they are similar. So either you're being false and misleading or you're throwing around words that you have no clue of their meaning.

Also why do you need to be PM'ed to share what you have that "backs up" what you are saying? I mean if it truely supports what you say then why not post it up? My guess is that it doesn't support what you are saying at all and that's why you don't post it. That or it does support it but obviously comes from an unreliable and biased source.

no doubt...homie should also look up the word "endogenous"

 

[pmoney]

you are so soooooo freakin naive if you think a 13 year old smoking cannabis WITH THEIR PARENTS is bad........ I teach kids around that age and shit they talk. I cant belive what they talk about. Shit, half of 13 year olds are already sexually active and doing way worse things when I was 13 (and i'm 23) Smoking weed isnt even bad. At all.. its completely harmless. Yea there are studies that say it could be harmful for a developing mind but thats HEAVY USE not once or twice. Teach your kids to have good morals, to be smart and to be kind human beings.. thats all that matters.

 

[BrainSellz]

Teach your kids to have good morals, to be smart and to be kind human beings.. thats all that matters.

that pmoney would put us in a perfect world...mo

 

[Duplicate]

No actually you said:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pharmacologically
Since Pharmacology includes studying the intoxicating effects. To say something is pharmacologically as safe as something else implies that they are similar. So either you're being false and misleading or you're throwing around words that you have no clue of their meaning.

Also why do you need to be PM'ed to share what you have that "backs up" what you are saying? I mean if it truely supports what you say then why not post it up? My guess is that it doesn't support what you are saying at all and that's why you don't post it. That or it does support it but obviously comes from an unreliable and biased source.

You're absolutely correct. I did say they are similar in their safety profile. The word pharmacology does include intoxicating effects but it is not limited to that either. I didn't feel the need to paste it because it wasn't really immediately relevant to the topic.

Toxicological Data

The LD 50 of LSD varies from species to species. The
most sensitive species is the rabbit, with an LD 50 of 0.3
mg/kg i.v. [52]. The LD 50 for rats (16.5 mg/kg i.v.) is
much higher [52,53], though mice tolerate doses of 46–
60 mg/kg i.v. [52,54]. These animals expired by paralysis
and respiratory failure. Monkeys (Macaca mulatta) have
been injected with doses as high as 1 mg/kg i.v. without
any lasting somatic effects [55].
There have been no documented human deaths from
an LSD overdose. Eight individuals who accidentally con-
sumed a very high dose of LSD intranasally (mistaking it
for cocaine) had plasma levels of 1000–7000 μg per 100
mL blood plasma and suffered from comatose states, hy-
perthermia, vomiting, light gastric bleeding, and respira-
tory problems. However, all survived with hospital treat-
ment and without residual effects [56].
In 1967, a report gave evidence for LSD-induced chro-
mosomal damage [57]. This report could not stand up to
meticulous scientific examination and was disproved by
later studies (for example, Dishotsky [58] and for com-
plete review Grof [31]). Empirical studies showed no evi-
dence of teratogenic or mutagenic effects from use of LSD
in man [59–61]. Teratogenic effects in animals (mice, rats,
and hamsters) were found only with extraordinarily high
doses (up to 500 μg/kg s.c.) [62]. The most vulnerable pe-
riod in mice was the first 7 days of pregnancy [63]. LSD
has no carcinogenic potential [31].

52. Rothlin E, Cerletti A. Pharmacology of LSD-25. In:
Cholden L, ed. Lysergic acid diethylamide and mescaline in
experimental psychiatry. New York: Grune and Stratton,
1956, pp. 1–7.
53. Freedman DX. The psychopharmacology of
hallucinogenic agents. Ann Rev Med 1969;20:409–418.
54. Rothlin E. Metabolism of lysergic acid diethylamide.
Nature 1956;178:1400–1401.
55. Evarts EV. Some effects of bufotenine and LSD on the
monkey. AMA Arch Neurol Psychiatry 1956;75:49–53.
56. Klock JC, Boerner U, Becker CE. Coma, hyperthermia
and bleeding associated with massive LSD overdose. A
report of eight cases. West J Med 1974;120:183–188.
57. Cohen MM, Marinello MJ, Back N. Chromosomal
damage in human leukocytes induced by lysergic acid
diethylamide. Science 1967;155:1417–1419.
58. Dishotsky NI, Loughman WD, Mogar RE, Lipscomb WR.
LSD and genetic damage. Science 1971;172:431–447.
31. Grof S. The effects of LSD on chromosomes, genetic
mutation, fetal development and malignancy. In: Grof S.
LSD psychotherapy. Pomoma, CA: Hunter House, 1980,
pp. 320–347.
59. Robinson JT, Chitham RG, Greenwood RM, Taylor JW.
Chromosome aberrations and LSD. Br J Psychiatry
1974;125: 238–244.
61. Leuner H. Halluzinogene. Psychische Grenzzustande in
Forschung und Psychotherapie. Bern, Stuttgart, Wien:
Huber, 1981.
62. Idanpaan-Heikkila JE, Schoolar JC. 14C-lysergide in
early pregnancy. Lancet 1969;2:221.
63. Auerbach R, Rugowski JA. LSD: Effect on embryos.
Science 1968;157:1325–1326.

no doubt...homie should also look up the word "endogenous"

Why is that? Please tell me how stating that LSD is not naturally occurring in our brain like certain cannbinoids is incorrect.

 

[HempKat]

you are so soooooo freakin naive if you think a 13 year old smoking cannabis WITH THEIR PARENTS is bad........ I teach kids around that age and shit they talk. I cant belive what they talk about. Shit, half of 13 year olds are already sexually active and doing way worse things when I was 13 (and i'm 23) Smoking weed isnt even bad. At all.. its completely harmless. Yea there are studies that say it could be harmful for a developing mind but thats HEAVY USE not once or twice. Teach your kids to have good morals, to be smart and to be kind human beings.. thats all that matters.

That's a good point, just because the parents in question were seen once or twice sharing bong hits with their daughter, doesn't mean they all sit around together getting baked all day long, every day. For all we know from the original story this might have been the first time and was just intended to allow the daughter to know what it's like so as to persuade her to not use. I got caught smoking cigarettes by my Dad once when I was around like 8 years old. He tried to get me to not keep smoking by making me smoke so much that it made me nauseous. Maybe these parents were trying to do something similar? Sure it's unlikely but the point remains that you can't fairly judge the situation if you're not part of the situation.

Here's the thing, nobody is really going around advocating that young children be allowed to become stoners. What's really being said is that people shouldn't necessarily demonize someone because they allow their kid to get stoned with them. Sure, if they force the kid to do it or slip it to them unknowingly for grins and giggles, then yeah that should be punished harshly. If however the child has come to the parent about it then that should be something that is left to just the child and parents to judge privately. There are moral derelicts out there that create situations where it seems right to pry into people's lives but for the most part families should be allowed to govern themselves in private and not be judged so much by everyone outside the family.

Marijuana only carries this stigma of being a "drug" by virtue of the failed prohibition against it and the more recent recognization of marijuana's medical applications. Had it not been pitched as the demon weed of reefer madness everyone would have a different view of this plant. We take drugs to cure things, eating certain friuts and vegtables can cure and prevent some illnesses. Should we therefore start classifying fruits and vegtables as "drugs"?

When a 13 year old is wanting to do drugs, I'd say the thing to focus on isn't whether or not they are doing the drug or drugs but rather why the feel such a compulsion to be high. At 13 for most kids there is not enough going on to where the kid should feel a compelling need to unwind or decompress. So if they are showing such a need then it's a fair bet there is a more serious issue behind it.

 

[HempKat]

You're absolutely correct. I did say they are similar in their safety profile. The word pharmacology does include intoxicating effects but it is not limited to that either. I didn't feel the need to paste it because it wasn't really immediately relevant to the topic.

It wasn't relevent, that's the point. It's also still not relevent because no where in there does it compare effects to marijuana. So you're statement is still unsupported. I'm not saying LSD is necessarily more harmful, I'm just saying it's man made and the brain was not designed to work with it while marijuana is 100% natural and the brain is designed to work with it. Therefore to say it is pharmocologically as safe as marijuana is false and misleading.

 

[Duplicate]

All I was saying is that I don't think the brain, or your lungs, will suffer from ingesting a normal dose of LSD.

I think we are probably closer to the same page then we think and we have some wires crossed.

Have a good one!

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Indeed. But do you think it would've been the same at age 3? Your father waited for a time when it would be educational and fun.

obviously at age three I was not physically capable of steering.
any point in time after I was physically capable of steering (no power steering back then), it would be educational and fun.

You seem to be stretching things a bit in attempting to justify your stance... Nobody here ever suggested letting three year olds smoke herb.

 

[Duplicate]

obviously at age three I was not physically capable of steering.
any point in time after I was physically capable of steering (no power steering back then), it would be educational and fun.

You seem to be stretching things a bit in attempting to justify your stance... Nobody here ever suggested letting three year olds smoke herb.

No, not really. I was just saying that to me, it seemed your post illustrated my point about there being a time and place for everything. I never put a timeline on anything really. If you look at my original question I was just asking, for the people who say they would allow their children use at home, where do you draw the line as far as which substance the minor is using, and why. I never even said it was wrong. I'm just looking for some opinions.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

No, not really. I was just saying that to me, it seemed your post illustrated my point about there being a time and place for everything. I never put a timeline on anything really.

and so then it only logically follows that any time after the child has become capable of acquiring and consuming their own marijuana, proper guidance and education becomes appropriate, up to and including providing a safe environment in which to conduct the experimentation they'd otherwise conduct in potentially dangerous environs.


don't forget we're talking about kids who are already smoking, not about parents calling their kids in at 13 and forcing them to try it.

 

[Duplicate]

^ Cool man. Thanks for your opinion.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

btw... how old are you and how old are your kids?
roughly....

 

[HempKat]

All I was saying is that I don't think the brain, or your lungs, will suffer from ingesting a normal dose of LSD.

I think we are probably closer to the same page then we think and we have some wires crossed.

Have a good one!

Well having taken normal doses of LSD dozens of times myself, I'm inclined to agree with this statement. We don't really have wires crossed but I'd agree our positions aren't terribly different. You originally posed the question Well if you let your kid smoke pot at home because it is safer, then what about LSD or Ecstacy?

My point in response was that marijuana is reasonable to allow a child because it's natural, the brain is adapted to it from birth and therefore it is not likely to cause harm. LSD and Ecstacy are not reasonable because the effects are much more profound psychologically and they are manufactured drugs that can bind to certain receptors and trigger effects but the brain is not designed to work with it naturally. A more correct statement would be these things are designed to work with the brain rather then the brain work with these things. I know it sounds the same but it's a critical difference.

I know this, if I had the same experience I did on my first bad trip, but at the age of 13 rather than 19, I probably would have been psychologically scarred by it. At 19 though I was able to handle it and while still freaked out by it I was able to laugh about it at the same time and come out of it unharmed. In contrast my memories of my early years of smoking pot as early as age 11 are some of my fondest memories because life was so much easier back then in many ways.

 

[Duplicate]

btw... how old are you and how old are your kids?

27 and two under two.

My point in response was that marijuana is reasonable to allow a child because it's natural, the brain is adapted to it from birth and therefore it is not likely to cause harm. LSD and Ecstacy are not reasonable because the effects are much more profound psychologically and they are manufactured drugs that can bind to certain receptors and trigger effects but the brain is not designed to work with it naturally. A more correct statement would be these things are designed to work with the brain rather then the brain work with these things. I know it sounds the same but it's a critical difference.

Gotcha. 100%. To me it doesn't really matter how natural it is, just what the bottom line safety is. Just like how datura is natural and mushrooms containing muscarine.

I also agree with you about these drugs being more profound. I threw in the safety part for consideration in the question of "where do you draw the line and why?". Is it just a physically safety issue? Is it psychological like many have said? I'm sure many parents around here would be more inclined to let their 15 year old try mushrooms than they would heroin. But the question remains, where and why? From cannabis to booze to shrooms to coke. Would you let them try any drug they threatened to do outside of the home if you didn't let them?

When I ask these questions I'm looking for opinions because I want to know what people are thinking, not try and change someone's opinion over the internet lol.

Your last reply made everything clear though, thanks for taking the time.

 

[SacredTHCRitual]

Originally Posted by SacredTHCRitual
if my 13 year old came to me determined that a hard drug was something they wanted to do. I would pull them aside and see why they wanted to do such a thing? I would explain to them they should enjoy being the age they are and show them why they'll be glad they waited to make the decision at a wiser age. Kids feel trapped these days, they don't feel anyone knows or tells the truth. so just be honest...
Thank you, this is the type of response I was looking for. =)
Dublicate said:
Or even if you said "I would let my kid shoot heroin in front of me" that's also the type of response I'm looking for. I just want to hear the reasoning behind such decisions.

Personally I have had positive and negative experiences with hard drugs specifically opiates. Yes, They can be a very dangerous drug. It's use is definitely not something to glorify because these substances are used by many as a form of escapism. The bad drug experiences are all that's ever really told. The flip side, good drug trips, are rarely heard about at large. I would acknowledge to the kid that at first the opiates seem like the best thing in the world.
Ultimate physical bliss, no pain, no care, no worry, no self. Opiates set the happiness bar real high chemically in the users head. The user keeps using. Then as time goes on the user starts to feel like they cannot for the life of them get chemically happy without opiates. There are important lessons to be learned here. Man is a dopamine addicted animal by default. Dopamine is the chemical that is naturally released in small amounts during normal body function. In larger amounts when stimulated. Opiates become the norm and the body stops producing the happy chemical on its own. Opiates provide one of the worst trade off's...experience heaven but then you are going to live in hell. So, moral of the story is there is a time a place, opiates as well as all other substances should be respected and understood whether you do them or not. The emphasis should be for the child to be encouraged to do things naturally that make them happy and create a sense of well being, enjoying being young and experiencing the good the world has. The western world is fortunate in many ways but we NEED more creative young people and less diluted young people. amen.

That's a good point, just because the parents in question were seen once or twice sharing bong hits with their daughter, doesn't mean they all sit around together getting baked all day long, every day. For all we know from the original story this might have been the first time and was just intended to allow the daughter to know what it's like so as to persuade her to not use. I got caught smoking cigarettes by my Dad once when I was around like 8 years old. He tried to get me to not keep smoking by making me smoke so much that it made me nauseous. Maybe these parents were trying to do something similar? Sure it's unlikely but the point remains that you can't fairly judge the situation if you're not part of the situation.

Here's the thing, nobody is really going around advocating that young children be allowed to become stoners. What's really being said is that people shouldn't necessarily demonize someone because they allow their kid to get stoned with them. Sure, if they force the kid to do it or slip it to them unknowingly for grins and giggles, then yeah that should be punished harshly. If however the child has come to the parent about it then that should be something that is left to just the child and parents to judge privately. There are moral derelicts out there that create situations where it seems right to pry into people's lives but for the most part families should be allowed to govern themselves in private and not be judged so much by everyone outside the family.

Marijuana only carries this stigma of being a "drug" by virtue of the failed prohibition against it and the more recent recognization of marijuana's medical applications. Had it not been pitched as the demon weed of reefer madness everyone would have a different view of this plant. We take drugs to cure things, eating certain friuts and vegtables can cure and prevent some illnesses. Should we therefore start classifying fruits and vegtables as "drugs"?

When a 13 year old is wanting to do drugs, I'd say the thing to focus on isn't whether or not they are doing the drug or drugs but rather why the feel such a compulsion to be high. At 13 for most kids there is not enough going on to where the kid should feel a compelling need to unwind or decompress. So if they are showing such a need then it's a fair bet there is a more serious issue behind it.

Well said

different view of this plant? maybe a shamanic view?

why the feel such a compulsion to be high? exactly. is it a compulsion? an escape? curiosity? there are many reasons to take these things but either way the parent should be someone that the kid feels will be honest with them. Growing up, the biggest drug users were always the ones that didn't have open communication with their parents on multiple levels. How can this be a surprise? the lack of communication and connectedness creates the behavior.

 

[SacredTHCRitual]

Originally Posted by SacredTHCRitual
if my 13 year old came to me determined that a hard drug was something they wanted to do. I would pull them aside and see why they wanted to do such a thing? I would explain to them they should enjoy being the age they are and show them why they'll be glad they waited to make the decision at a wiser age. Kids feel trapped these days, they don't feel anyone knows or tells the truth. so just be honest...
Thank you, this is the type of response I was looking for. =)
Dublicate said:
Or even if you said "I would let my kid shoot heroin in front of me" that's also the type of response I'm looking for. I just want to hear the reasoning behind such decisions.

Personally I have had positive and negative experiences with hard drugs specifically opiates. Yes, They can be a very dangerous drug. It's use is definitely not something to glorify because these substances are used by many as a form of escapism. The bad drug experiences are all that's ever really told. The flip side, good drug trips, are rarely heard about at large. I would acknowledge to the kid that at first the opiates seem like the best thing in the world.
Ultimate physical bliss, no pain, no care, no worry, no self. Opiates set the happiness bar real high chemically in the users head. The user keeps using. Then as time goes on the user starts to feel like they cannot for the life of them get chemically happy without opiates. There are important lessons to be learned here. Man is a dopamine addicted animal by default. Dopamine is the chemical that is naturally released in small amounts during normal body function. In larger amounts when stimulated. Opiates become the norm and the body stops producing the happy chemical on its own. Opiates provide one of the worst trade off's...experience heaven but then you are going to live in hell. So, moral of the story is there is a time a place, opiates as well as all other substances should be respected and understood whether you do them or not. The emphasis should be for the child to be encouraged to do things naturally that make them happy and create a sense of well being, enjoying being young and experiencing the good the world has. The western world is fortunate in many ways but we NEED more creative young people and less diluted young people. amen.

That's a good point, just because the parents in question were seen once or twice sharing bong hits with their daughter, doesn't mean they all sit around together getting baked all day long, every day. For all we know from the original story this might have been the first time and was just intended to allow the daughter to know what it's like so as to persuade her to not use. I got caught smoking cigarettes by my Dad once when I was around like 8 years old. He tried to get me to not keep smoking by making me smoke so much that it made me nauseous. Maybe these parents were trying to do something similar? Sure it's unlikely but the point remains that you can't fairly judge the situation if you're not part of the situation.

Here's the thing, nobody is really going around advocating that young children be allowed to become stoners. What's really being said is that people shouldn't necessarily demonize someone because they allow their kid to get stoned with them. Sure, if they force the kid to do it or slip it to them unknowingly for grins and giggles, then yeah that should be punished harshly. If however the child has come to the parent about it then that should be something that is left to just the child and parents to judge privately. There are moral derelicts out there that create situations where it seems right to pry into people's lives but for the most part families should be allowed to govern themselves in private and not be judged so much by everyone outside the family.

Marijuana only carries this stigma of being a "drug" by virtue of the failed prohibition against it and the more recent recognization of marijuana's medical applications. Had it not been pitched as the demon weed of reefer madness everyone would have a different view of this plant. We take drugs to cure things, eating certain friuts and vegtables can cure and prevent some illnesses. Should we therefore start classifying fruits and vegtables as "drugs"?

When a 13 year old is wanting to do drugs, I'd say the thing to focus on isn't whether or not they are doing the drug or drugs but rather why the feel such a compulsion to be high. At 13 for most kids there is not enough going on to where the kid should feel a compelling need to unwind or decompress. So if they are showing such a need then it's a fair bet there is a more serious issue behind it.

Well said

different view of this plant? maybe a shamanic view?

why the feel such a compulsion to be high? exactly. is it a compulsion? an escape? curiosity? there are many reasons to take these things but either way the parent should be someone that the kid feels will be honest with them. Growing up, the biggest drug users were always the ones that didn't have open communication with their parents on multiple levels. How can this be a surprise? the lack of communication and connectedness creates the behavior.

 

[jeffie]

13yo smoking? good bad? who are u to judge, all-knowing freak? is non of your f***ing business thats for sure. mind your own business thats my best advice.

 

[moresntoil]

That's a good point, just because the parents in question were seen once or twice sharing bong hits with their daughter, doesn't mean they all sit around together getting baked all day long, every day. For all we know from the original story this might have been the first time and was just intended to allow the daughter to know what it's like so as to persuade her to not use. I got caught smoking cigarettes by my Dad once when I was around like 8 years old. He tried to get me to not keep smoking by making me smoke so much that it made me nauseous. Maybe these parents were trying to do something similar? Sure it's unlikely but the point remains that you can't fairly judge the situation if you're not part of the situation.

Here's the thing, nobody is really going around advocating that young children be allowed to become stoners. What's really being said is that people shouldn't necessarily demonize someone because they allow their kid to get stoned with them. Sure, if they force the kid to do it or slip it to them unknowingly for grins and giggles, then yeah that should be punished harshly. If however the child has come to the parent about it then that should be something that is left to just the child and parents to judge privately. There are moral derelicts out there that create situations where it seems right to pry into people's lives but for the most part families should be allowed to govern themselves in private and not be judged so much by everyone outside the family.

Marijuana only carries this stigma of being a "drug" by virtue of the failed prohibition against it and the more recent recognization of marijuana's medical applications. Had it not been pitched as the demon weed of reefer madness everyone would have a different view of this plant. We take drugs to cure things, eating certain friuts and vegtables can cure and prevent some illnesses. Should we therefore start classifying fruits and vegtables as "drugs"?

When a 13 year old is wanting to do drugs, I'd say the thing to focus on isn't whether or not they are doing the drug or drugs but rather why the feel such a compulsion to be high. At 13 for most kids there is not enough going on to where the kid should feel a compelling need to unwind or decompress. So if they are showing such a need then it's a fair bet there is a more serious issue behind it.

Yes they smoke every day with their daughter. Its all they have ever done her entire life, its all she knows. In short the family is a fucking mess for alot a reasons. I just spent an hour typing a lengthy thread for you all and it somehow got deleted when I went to post it, very fucking pissed so Ill try again tomorrow. with more to details for you, its bed time.

 

[moresntoil]

13yo smoking? good bad? who are u to judge, all-knowing freak? is non of your f***ing business thats for sure. mind your own business thats my best advice.

How do you know its not my business? You now nothing about me or that family, If you see a post you dont like go on to one you do Im judging people I have known my hole life!!! you are judging someone you know nothing about! douche bag sounds like this hit a personal button of yours, wounder why??