Sounds like teetotaler urban legend to me - have any evidence?
The crime stats will eventually tell the tale.
Homicide went down when Prohibition ended:
Posted on 04/07/2013 12:11:59 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
[UK] Labour's liberalisation of the cannabis laws was a disaster that pushed up drug use and crime and doubled the number of drug victims in hospital beds, two major research studies said yesterday.
They found that after police were told to go easy on cannabis smokers, there were increases in assaults, theft and car theft, burglaries, vandalism and anti-social behaviour.
The chance that a young person who had never smoked cannabis would try the drug went up by a quarter after it became unlikely they would get more than a warning if caught by police, one project found.
The likelihood that they would smoke it on a regular basis went up by 8 per cent.
According to a second study, an experiment in relaxing cannabis laws on the streets of South London led to a rise of 40 to 100 per cent in the numbers of men admitted to hospital due to their use of harder drugs.
That report, by researchers from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said: ‘We find the depenalisation of cannabis had significant longer-term impacts on hospital admissions related to the use of hard drugs.’
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I'll definitely be looking for evidence of this in Washington State. Have to admit I'm a little skeptical it's going to happen unless for other reasons entirely.
Whether or not you think premarital sex is OK is irrelevant to the discussion of promiscuity in today’s girls.
When I was in HS in the very early 80’s there were still plenty of girls who were virgins. And the ones who had had sex were in monogamous relationships with serious boyfriends. Many of them are still married to those same boys.
It wasn’t something anyone bragged about. And it certainly wasn’t something that was done before Jr or Sr year of high school. By and large. There were a few. Always have been. One girl had a rep of running the train with entire sports teams. Based on her behavior since it was probably mostly true.
Girls now start at 13, even earlier. The average 10yr old is WAY more knowledgeable about most everything regarding sex than the average 15yr old was when I was 15.
Case in point. I worked around the 14-17yr old age group a few years back at a local business. I was in the break room eating a late lunch about the time some of these little kiddies came in. They were talking and laughing and such. And didn’t realize I was just around the corner. The 14 and 15yr old had, what I determined to be, first hand knowledge of male anatomy and what, exactly happens to men. Ahem. This was from first hand experience or having watched porn. They were discussing their OWN exploits and such. No shame. No embarassment. No morals. Just discussing their own experiences and dislike of condoms and other b/c methods. But that was better than the pill making you fat. The idea that maybe NOT HAVING SEX was an option wasn’t even in their head.
And before the ‘they just need a 2 parent home and a trip to mass a couple times a week!’ posters chime in, one of these girls was from a devout catholic local family that DID go to mass every week. The other girl was an evangelical who went to church around the corner from the catholic girl. Both there every week or close to it. Both members of the associated church youth group. Both from intact homes.
However, both their moms work. From what I could tell, all that ‘fun stuff’ or most of it, happens in the afternoon after school is out while mom is still at work.
That’s one big difference between 1982 and 2012. The other is simply the promiscuity factor. In 1982 a lot of girls in long term relationships had probably had sex with their boyfriend. In 2012 there’s no pretence of long term anything. These girls will hook up with 2 or 3 different boys in any given weekend. And more besides during the week at their own homes while mom is at work.
The boys, of course, are just having fun with all this. There’s no committment involved for them. Just show up with the right equipment and do what teenage boys have always wanted to do...
And it isn’t always the unsupervised girls getting randy. A local pediatric specialist’s daughter ended up pg. She went on a blind date (as in never having seen this boy before) to a prom last year. Ended up pregnant. Had sex with this boy she just met, on the first date. That was unknown in my age group. There were, again, a few girls who did stuff like that. Not many. She was a mother at 17. Baby was given up for adoption. And it isn’t because this particular girl didn’t know how babies came to be or how to prevent them if she wanted to. She just didn’t bother. The mood apparently struck and that was the end of that discretion. She was from an intact home, mom stayed at home, and they are active members of my parents church.
However, I would bet, she was allowed unrestricted access to the current sociological norms of sex and sexual behavior. As portrayed in the media and from all the other girls in her age group. That programming is way stronger for kids in public and private school than it was in my age group 30 years ago. They are forced to socialize with the lowest common denominator. For 8+ hrs a day. Never a great idea IMHO.
A lot of young women were simply not allowed to be alone with males prior to marriage. There wasn’t the same opportunity. The idea, in 1880, that a young man the father had just met would be allowed to take his daughter away from the home and supervision of the father for hours after dark just wasn’t even contemplated.
‘Dating’ wasn’t done prior to the invention of the auto. And even then a lot of times the young men would come to the womans house for ‘courting’ and they’d sit on the couch and talk (while mom dispatched a younger cousin or sibling to keep an eye on them) and have dinner and maybe visit some more after. And then the young man would go home.
It’s the reason that girls always had chaperones. Either an aunt, older married cousin, or older married sister. Young unmarried women were not, largely, doing business alone.
The idea that young unmarried women be given access to and time alone with young men is a new thing. In 1930 the young woman wasn’t allowed to leave her home with the young man. In the 1950’s she could. And the opportunity to have sex in the backseat of his car became a possibility. NOW, the moms actually let the guys spend the night in the girls bedrooms. Coed sleepovers are all the rage in more ‘enlightened’ circles.
Times change.
Is that a quote from obama?
It's the "arguement" of a veteran choomer, no doubt.
I tend to agree with you that young females of today are more promiscuous than they were even when I was in high school in the mid 80s. It used to be that there were a few “sluts” that made the rounds. I don’t know why males weren’t given the same label. My sons have told me that at their high school, about 70%+ of the girls are promiscuous. Their high school is made up of a majority minority population if that makes any sense. hah While there was shame involved when I was in high school, there does not seem to be any shame with the majority of these girls.
My mother’s generation (graduated from high school in mid 50s) was a lot less promiscuous. Of the four women in my childhood neighborhood who were the exact age as my mother, including my mother, I think it is safe to say that all of them were one man women for their entire lives. Only one is still living, and she married at 16 after eloping. :-) She is 76. That’s not to say that all four women had happy marriages. But we’re not talking promiscuous men . . .
Hubby and I were discussing this topic. He brought up the subject of money. Sex was tied to commitment and money. I’m sure my mother was taught to wait for religious reasons. And that the man she chose had better be able to support her. Her grandmother pushed her to graduate from college so she would be able to support herself if her man let her down. It was good instruction since my mother married a man 20 years older than she was. Other than my father being divorced, and that was not a subject discussed in my house, I cannot think of more than a few of my friends who had divorced parents. Maybe there were some divorces after we graduated from high school. I have a lot of friends from childhood who are divorced or will be soon. It is a different mindset for sure. There is a lot of Me-centric attitude today.
Actually my entire post was exactly the opposite of what you just described. You do that frequently given your steady argumentative way.
You blatantly misrepresent what folks say and then rail against your own lie you attributed to your adversary and you are frequently admonished for it
Just some advice...one day you will do that to a mod or someone close to one and that will be your last time posting under your moniker you so richly undeserve.
And once boomer Jim Thompson sees some of your irrational vitriol I doubt you'll get a lifeline
You truly are the most pathetic free per I have seen in my 13 years here
However....I pray literally you find a cure for your demons....someone very evil must have sorely damaged you and no matter the jackass you are here you could not have deserved it as a child. I am sorry for you. My 5 children and wife of 20 years are the things most precious to me. I wish whatever happened to you could be undone.
A good woman is the right cure to heal you but you'll have to be sweet
“You truly are the most pathetic free per I have seen in my 13 years here”
Well, bully for you then.
I’m not sure why you’d refer to a faithful conservative young catholic Freeper as ‘pathetic’, but I guess that’s par for the course.
I’m happy you have a steady and fulfilling life. Stop pulling up the ladder.
We used to call promiscuous men rakes and expect them to be responsible for spawn....even if bastard.
It is to some degree a double standard based mostly just because discretion and chastity are more valued in women than men....and women bear the fruit.
I think women today are rather unhappy....nothing has worked out...not promiscuity...not career....not competing with men.....not having a pliant hubby and so forth
Strong bright passionate women don’t need some hipster mamas boy who will let them drive
They need Steve McQueen meets John Wayne or Lee Marvin...a stronger man to envelope them and give them security but not cower or be intimidated by a head strong gal
Nor can girls do the sleep around thing like men....inevitably their heart will enter into it....its their nature and reflective of the invasive intimacy that is at the center of it all..
The only women I have ever seen content for simply sex for sex sake have been married mommy type women ignored by their husbands and made to feel undesirable at home and just thrilled to feel desired again
Otherwise girls can’t help getting attached to who they sleep with pretty fast
Males can indeed....keep it sexual only...which is lamentable
I believe we did not have the customs we had since Mt Sinai by accident
But because...largely they worked
That younger freepers think women were always this loose is the zaniest notion I have ever seen here
Given the fact that unlike them I was there seems to have little effect on their heartfelt canards
Truly amazing
Women are likely 30-40 times more likely to have sex in high school now than in 1949
My mom told me maybe 2 girls out of 40 in her sr class lost their virginity then before marriage
My folks engaged in 51...married after dad finished VMI in 55
No sex...but as mom said...extremely heavy petting
It was different world...not perfect but far better than now esp for kids
This is a major diversion from leftism
They view that era as evil. Sexist and oppressive
Well I suppose that is possible. As you say we do not know. But for sure in 17th-18th century Western world pregnancy out of wedlock was very rare.
My own grandmother told me when she and my grandfather were ‘courting’, he’d come to her house on Sunday after church. Eat dinner with the family and they’d sit around on Sunday afternoon and talk. Always with family present. Or, the whole family would pile into a car and they’d go visiting.
That was really her only opportunity to have time with ‘a boy’. Not that they didn’t see each other at church. And the occasional large gathering like a family reunion or revival.
She certainly wasn’t allowed to leave with him, alone.
Once they got engaged, he DID take her to town for ice cream. Her kid brother, 8 years younger IIRC, was allowed to go also. None of this alone in a car with a boy business. And her daddy knew exactly how long it took to go to town, buy ice cream and return to the house.
Older people weren’t under the impression that every kid did it so it’s ok if yours does it too. The whole ‘we can’t stop them we might as well just accept it’ idea was not even in their brain cells. The parents knew exactly what would happen if their boys were alone with girls. And vice versa. Biology happens. Not all the kids, certainly. But why chance it?
There wasn’t this whole ‘I don’t want her to think I don’t trust her’ business I’ve heard from kin. Of COURSE you don’t trust her. She’s FIFTEEN. She can’t vote, drive, own property in her own name, sign a lease, sign a contract or rent a car. Why on earth would you trust her to make sound decisions about sex as well? Geeze. She’s got all the hormones and none of the judgment yet. Why have a parent if they’re not going to be a parent?
Sounds like teetotaler urban legend to me - have any evidence?
The crime stats will eventually tell the tale.
Homicide went down when Prohibition ended:
Is that a quote from obama?
It's the "arguement" of a veteran choomer, no doubt.
It's called "humor" - you might want to look into it.
They'll be deprived of easy big profits just as rumrunners were when Prohibition ended:
"The lush traffic in alcohol beverages during the violent years of 1920 to 1933 had laid the base of organization for a number of criminal gangs. The termination of the ban on liquor deprived these gangs of their most lucrative source of money" - Special Committee to Investigate Organized Crime in Interstate Commerce
Laws against consensual "crimes" work drastically less well than laws against real crimes that violate actual rights; the FBI reports that two-thirds of murders get solved, whereas the proportion of drug "crimes" that are even made known to law enforcement is assuredly several orders of magnitude lower/
Over 40% of Americans have used marijuana - do you really think executing them all is a good idea?
Hey Toastie!
Someone “roll” you out, so to speak? A day late & a doobie short?
Choomer humor—thanks for the (puff-puff-wheeze-snort-snicker-hack-hack-hack) “heads”-up!
lol...
And note that decriminalization, by leaving the supply end illegal, misses the greatest practical benefits of full regulated legalization: an end to the hyperinflation of drug profits and the channeling of those profits into criminal hands.
You would need to come up with a study that has a wholly separate cause for the documented rise in crime and drug use, so as not to be wasting people’s time with your predictable defense of drugs.
You would need to come up with a study that has a wholly separate cause for the documented rise in crime and drug use
No I wouldn't - I would only need to note that all sorts of factors influence crime rates and drug use ... and that the press reports don't even say that crime rates and drug use hadn't been increasing before depenalization of cannabis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.