Yup, definately smokin...
Posted on 10/29/2002 6:00:57 AM PST by Living Free in NH
Actor's Son Is Now Recovering Addict
POSTED: 3:32 p.m. EST October 28, 2002
NEW YORK -- Melanie Griffith is now sorry she smoked pot with her son Alexander.
Griffith told More magazine that she thought if she smoked with her son he wouldn't buy drugs on the street. She said that philosophy "backfired" because he got hooked on drugs anyway.
Griffith said Alexander is now a recovering addict. She said she definitely won't share drugs with her other two kids.
A mother smokes this non-harmful drug with her son, he goes and get's addicted to harder drugs, and she laments that she even tried this approach.
Response? The drug isn't the problem, after all I have ancedotal evidence to prove it's not a gateway drug. And besides, I have seen a trend that cigarettes are a bigger danger.
Just got to try to legalize your drug of choice, right? Evidence and common sense be damned, you want to get high.
Would you agree that someone who smokes marijuana is more likely to try harder drugs than someone who doesn't?
Yup, definately smokin...
Indie film director Tom Kalin, who directed the Leopold and Loeb flick Swoon back in '92, has teamed up with lesbian producer Christine Vachon to bring another twisted tale to the big screen. Savage Grace is based on the 1992 book by Natalie Robins and Steven M. L. Aronson and examines the dark family secrets (including incest) of a young man who is the heir to the Bakelite fortune. Savage Grace is expected to hit theaters in early 2002.
(The book was a gripping read.)
Will she share a bottle of wine with dinner with her kids? Drug addiction is a lot more complicated than sharing a joint with your kid. Is that a good idea? No. Will that cause your kid to become a drug addict? No.
If someone is using a substance that impairs their judgement, why do you think that their ability to make the judgement "I shouldn't be driving" would not also be impaired?
I look forward to this answer.
This is what happens when people without brains try to think.
I never mentioned addiction.
No.. growing up in California, having hundreds of pot smoking friends, a very very small percentage of them went on to try harder drugs, and a fewer number of them went on to abuse them.
That's not what I asked. Out of the hundreds of non-pot smoking friends you had growing up, what percentage tried drugs harder than marijuana without trying marijuana first, and out of them, how many became addicted. I'm sure it's less then the number that smoked pot first.
No... I just don't buy the "government says its bad so it must be" argument on anything... drugs included.
I never mentioned the government.
Better for your kids to do it at home where you can see them than out in the street where you can't, the theory goes.
Also known as the "we give up" school of parenting ethics.
You're stretching here....your position would then be that alcohol should also be unavailable, because someone tipsy or drunk would not be able to make a coherent judgement. The choice is made before the action. Will there be morons out there who abuse this? Of course, but the legalization of these substances changes exactly what?
Obviously as illegal substances they can be abused just the same...are you alleging that their illicitness creates an atmosphere whereby the offender is hyper sensitive to the possibility of arrest, and therefore takes precautions?
My point remains, that the criminilization of the acts increases the peripheral criminal activity to acquire the substances. It is this peripheral activity which has a direct effect on the public, not the act itself.
Criminal action (as defined by them: harm to another) must take place before society has a right to seek retribution against the criminal according to liberterian philosophy.
This is their prime objection to drunk driving checkpoints. "The drunk driver hasn't killed anyone yet, so we shouldn't take any action to prevent their behavior until they do."
Likewise their push to legalize drugs. We are told time and time again by these political pot heads that marijuana is not a gateway drug. That is a false statement. We are told time and time again by these same licentious libertarians that pot is no more harmful than nicotine. That is a false statement. They defend the indefensible because they have no regards for society (which they disdain on the philisophical ground that they should answer to no one) or for others who might believe their false rhetoric.
Their biggest lie of recent years has been that marijuana should be legalized because it has some medicinal benefits. Do we likewise then allow valium to be distributed to anyone who wants it? Do we likewise then allow codiene to be distributed to anyone who wants it? Some drugs are very dangerous that are used for medical application. Just because a drug has medicinal benefits when used properly doesn't mean that it should be widely available.
But again I'm talking about the good of society, something you may not care about.
"But what about Holland? They have a very nice society with legalized pot." True, but the libertarians who admire their pot stance hate their 55% tax rate stand. If you have legalized drug use, you must have a socialist society to pay for the healthcare, free housing, free internet use of those who don't want to work and just want to get high. Are you willing to trade your freedom and liberties just to get high? Are you willing to trade your freedom and liberties just to allow the right of your neighbor to get high? We live in a society, and we must view our actions from a societal standpoint.
When prohibition was lifted, organized crime switched from running booze to running drugs. Do you honestly believe that if pot and other drugs were legalized that organized crime would just throw up it's hands and say "Well, we are out of business!", or would they find something even more sinister and nefarious to move into. What about organ smuggling, or child slavery? Would you then blame inner city crime on our ill advised "War on Child Slavery"? Would you push for legalization to do away with the "the peripheral criminal activity to acquire the [child slaves]"?
Think long term about unintended consequences of getting what you want.
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.
