im inpartal on pot, but i started doing hardcer drugs real soon i was a heroine junkkie. how do i stop my own son?????:banghead:
Printable View
im inpartal on pot, but i started doing hardcer drugs real soon i was a heroine junkkie. how do i stop my own son?????:banghead:
I'm sorry to hear about your son adm. :-( There are many factors that can affect treatment of your son so I would recommend getting in touch with a professional in your area that is trained to help in chemical abuse. AA/NA inter groups are also excellent resources and can help guide you. Your son is very lucky to have a dad that cares so much. Best of luck.
i dont know if you will stop him, just make sure he is open with you, its better you know what he is doing. I would tell him about your experiences and explain why he shouldn't get into harder drugs.
It could be a phase man, most teenagers, especially nowadays like getting high, eating doritos and watching tv. I know I did but I gave it up at the age of 19 to do better things because for me it made me lazy and I wasn't doing anything with my life. At a certain point I think people either grow out of it, or they're smoking doobies for life. The problem with pot is that it's a gateway drug. I was trying other drugs after I started smoking pot but thank God I didn't get hooked on anything.
I would just sit him down and let him know you care about him and love him. On the other hand you could go out and find some street junkies and drive by them with him explaining to him that is what the drugs lead to and ask him if he wants to live his life with a sign that says "Hungry Hungry Hobo" with a bottle of listerine. In any case I think you'll know the right thing to do, after all he is your boy.
Well for me it depends on how old your son is and how much pot he is smoking. On the west coast there is a very high tolerance for people and left handed cigarettes. I too have smoked more than my fair share. The issue in my mind is not the pot, I would have the same concerns about drinking. To me it is all about responsible consumption. My kids are all adults now, but when they were young and in their early teens and probably preteens I would talk to them about responsible consumption and what that means. At this point some of the kids have the odd wobbly pop and some choose not to participate, one of them smokes on occasion but the others do not, but everyone experimented. So to me, and I choose to not consume due to my inability to consume responsibly, it is fairly complex, however I do believe open, and honest communication with our children from a very young age is important. It helps a lot when these issues come up.
Yes keep the lines of communication open and honest. You can tell a kid not to spit in the fan but you know they have to see for themselves.
He has to be the one to control or stop it. You can only guide him through the process.
I'd be looking into his friends and who he's hanging with. That will probably tell you if this is a harmless phase or a prelude into something more serious.
The fact you had a drug problem could mean there is a genetic factor too.
We all smoked dope in the 60s,nobody I hung with went to other drugs,as above is most likly just a phase in his life.
Would rather my kids smoke MJ than cigs and Vodka.
True but the pot today is WAY different. They have wax which is like hash on steroids and synthetic marijuana that is killing people and burning their lungs. Even the good stuff from yesteryear would be considered ditch weed by the kids today.Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelfixed
Three things you can do:
reinforce his internal locus of control. He should be comfortable growing into making his own choices about how he will behave and what substances he will choose to take into his body. Teenagers are too easily swayed by their peers or popular advertising or any number of external influences outside themselves. So are adults.
Reinforce his sense of self-esteem. Drugs (read any addictive behavior and the most common is political power by the way) are external to his sense of how much he values himself. Kids/adults who do not see themselves as worth something are more susceptible.
Reinforce his sense of identity. "I am different from other people because..." but this also ties into his self-esteem and making his own choices. And then being responsible for those choices.
I suggest all parents begin in preadolescence to prevent the problem in teen years. If not, start when you can. Strengthen these three and you can protect anyone from an addiction. They will not work magically and may take time until a eureka moment occurs and he sees the value of these things for himself. It will not prevent experimentation but can support the idea that "I don't need drugs to make me more valuable to my friends and this is not what I imagined growing up to be as an adult (in the gutter etc.)" It also requires loving support from those who care about him. But if he turns down the wrong path, you have to know the difference between caring about him and caring for him. One attitude will eventually free him if he lives through it, the other will simply maintain the addictive process.
There are any number of threats to validity in the studies that suggest a genetic connection and I discount those heavily. Addictive behavior always involves voluntary muscles (biceps).
I think Genetics has alot to do with Adictive behavoir.
https://ncadd.org/for-parents-overvi...y-and-genetics
Yes, I have 3 kids and one of them is into it as well as drinking. I have told all of them of my experiences and problems/costs incurred and have flatly advised them that they do, indeed, possess the gene. I try to make them responsible for their actions and take my fair share as well. Then, I threaten to kill them.....;)
Only to broaden the perspective a little, and because it seems logical in some circumstances like alcohol dehydrogenase deficiencies that are genetic, I will argue/debate slightly differently.Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelfixed
A good many alcohol is genetic studies are based in their root arguments on twin studies. Slate provides a simpler explanation that I would give: The methodological confusion of twin studies. If the basic premise is flawed we need to look elsewhere for better explanations. Please give this article some consideration.
My argument follows this line and is based on the oft neglected environment or developmental psychology principle. If a child grows up in a household where the major parental (role modeling) examples are dependent on substances, the child will model those behaviors. If parents use drugs to de-stress or compensate for life issues, the child will see that as a means to deal with their stressors. I.e., if it's good for mom or dad, it must be okay for me.
Okay, that seems that dependent behaviors are genetic. Mom and Dad had the problems therefore it must be that apples don't fall too far from the tree. But the behaviors in this example are entirely learned behaviors. They happened in a household and there appears to be what is called face-validity for the explanation. However, face validity does not explain all the potential variables and is weak all by itself.
Our modern society wants a pill to fix everything, e.g. fast food treatment. They want it to be something that they can't really control like their DNA, then they do not have to be responsible for their behavior or their choices. Being responsible is hell, difficult, the lesser path but far more rewarding to those who achieve it. If you really want to get confused, look deep into AA/NA or "twelve step" programs. There are individuals that AA considers dry drunks. AA cannot explain why they chose to quit drinking, but according to AA, if they did not complete a 12 step program, they are still drunks. But they are not drinking and by definition an addict is deeply involved with a substance. In this case, my thesis (yes, I wrote about this stuff) suggests that the individual can simply tire of addictive behavior, does not want to grow up as an addict, their self-image/identity and self-esteem do not support these continued behaviors and they simply choose not to behave as an addict. The statistical fact remains that some people (strangely enough at about midlife, an important developmental stage) just choose to quit. No one of the genetic theorists can explain that behavior as if it is genetic the behaviors should not extinguish. A developmental approach allows this as a choice and explains more of the populations behaviors than the genetic one. If you allow that genetic studies are flawed, all you have left is the developmental choice approach.
We (treatment folks) may have been wrong all along. Except that economic inertia is heavily invested in keeping the system of sick people going. It would be far cheaper to "treat" children in elementary schools before the addictions began. There would be a lot less dysfunctional addicts to treat later. But then, no one would be making any money on acute/reactive treatment programs.
This does not imply that treatment programs do not save lives. They do. I just have more questions that I can answer about human behavior than they can.
If this discussion makes any one uncomfortable, I am slightly sorry for that, but I am not afraid to question everything. Like so many things, beliefs can be errant.
How hard it must be to raise kids in this world today. It was bad enough in the '60s when the counter culture became a dominant force with young people, but there was no internet then, as fast as it was life was much slower then.
Today with the internet, social media, the perversion of morals in this country, and around the world. How do you influence your children ? Even if parents are offering positive role modelling to their kids, how much time do the kids spend with the parents ?
Peer pressure, relativism .......... there is no right or wrong ........ only what is right for you, or for me, in our own eyes. This is what people are up against. Before the '60s there was a country called the USA where the majority of people were on the same page. That country is a distant memory. Pray for your son. That still does work, even if the majority of the world thinks it doesn't.
I remember when I was younger my father talking to me about the perils of alcohol. He was sober at that time about 10 years (remains so today),
my oldest sister was an active alcoholic (sober today about 11 years) and we have a history of the disease in our family. He basically told me just don't
drink and left it at that. Not very realistic advice.
I've told my kids (13, 11 and 10) that the day will come when they will most likely drink, but to keep in mind that the effect it may have on them
could be different than others. I'm a recovering alcoholic myself (7 years sobriety) and they know that. I've told them that it's a good possibility they
may be alcoholics in waiting and to keep in mind that if and when they start they really need to be aware of where it takes them.
Summed up, let your son know your history and the fact that his buddies may be able to smoke some pot without it leading to anything else, but those of
us who are addicts and a lot of our offspring can never settle for less, it's always "If this makes me feel this way, imagine what more or bigger and
better will do."
The best advice comes from looking back at how we felt in the depths of our addiction, even with family members who have experienced it. The shame,
guilt, remorse etc. Let him know you'll always love him and will always help him if he wants help. Best of luck. I'll think of you and your son
when I hit my knees tonight.
John
Sound advice. whom he hang out with is a very important factor in all this. If they are a couple of fellow students trying out pot, that's one thing. If he hangs out with small time criminals with a habitual pot use, that's much worse, and changes how you can deal with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
When I was 19, I drank quite a bit, especially on Friday and Saturday nights. At the time, usually whenever I ended up in bed, the room started spinning like mad. I kinda had to time my drop to make sure I hit the bed when it swung by:) At my peak alcohol consumption, I drank about 15 Belgian beers per night. Then again, drinking beer is more or less expected from youths in Belgium. After a couple of years I seriously decreased my consumption when I started working.
Also, if you got into trouble, it might be a good idea to tell your son about it.
Agree with Ed here. He'll stop when he chooses to not when you want him too.Quote:
Originally Posted by edhewitt
Of the few smack users I knew in my 20's, 2 died & another 2 got 10 years for armed robbery.
I think most of the dope smokers I knew ended up married with kids living 'normal' lives. I stayed single so remained far form normal.
I would say you are better off being open. I think half the reason it seems so scary is because society has mad it scary. I have smoked my fair share and I have friends that still do. Of them, none of them use any hard narcotics. Many dont even drink. Not a big deal in my opinion.
Open two-way communication pays off much better in the long run. We have to learn to talk to our kids without turning them off, and they have to learn how to have an adult conversation at some point. If we are their teachers, better us because we love them and care about them, instead of their peers or questionable companions who may have a different agenda.
After a certain age we are not our childrens teachers,we become a pain in the Azz to them,this to will pass,when the kid gets into the workforce and realizes he cannot be stoned all the time,he/she will stop..Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Blue
Not much to add that hasn't been said. I experimented with pot for a few years growing up. After a certain point you either want to move on in life or you don't. I'm in my late 30s and I would say 80% of my peers at least tried it out. Most everyone moved on. As was stated above, I would be more concerned with the type of friends and excessive alcohol consumption.
I hope things work out for your son.
I don't see the facts supporting a "moral decline of the society" argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyHAD
Attachment 197734
The peak for cigarettes and marijuana is in the late 70s which is the children born around 1960 i.e. to parents who were brought up in the 50s which seems to be viewed as the moral hight of america.
And another graph for all illicit drugs and alcohol but since 1994 again a pretty steady decline or somewhat leveled. All data is from NIH
Attachment 197735
The perversion of morals argument is a slippery slope. One generations "normal" is the previous generations definition of deviant and the next generations definition of boring.
I think we all know our kids personalities, let that be your guide. Some people have little self control, and others seem to think their actions through, yet others follow the crowd, lead, or some even just observe.
Either way, I would let him know you disapprove (if that's the case) not sure of his age. Be a parent not a friend, when he's older he will need you to be both but now is not the time to be a friend. Personally I don't have an issue with pot, whether I'm right or wrong seems no worse to me than alcohol if not abused.
Lots of good advice but as someone as already said the difference between the old resin based stuff and the new super skunk Kids smoke today is like water & Whisky, and the link between mental health and smoking skunk is a massive problem today it's certainly something you need to know.
Super strong cannabis responsible for quarter of new psychosis cases - Telegraph
"It's the drug, it's the drug..." How many times we blame the external influence as part of the problem. There is no question that potency has increased. That seems typical human nature as well. If a razor shaves well, it's bigger brother has to be better, right? If chewing the leaves calms us, then smoking is better, then extracting the active compounds and concentrating them is better, right? We are smarter, I suppose, than our ancestors.
Cannabinoid Receptors
Each of us has cannabinoid receptors (and opiate and coca and other) in our body. They didn't get there by accident. Human beings are predisposed to react to this set of chemicals, if they ingest them because their nervous system and other tissues have these receptors. The anti inflammatory and anti cancer potential of these chemicals will always get buried in the social politico-economic forces that drive the arguments about them. Opiates do relieve pain and are addictive. My suggestion remains to develop the human being as a richer source of protection from behaviors that do not promote adaptation.
Perhaps a matter of perspective. I think that there are those that agree with your view, and others, generally from an older generation perhaps, that agree with mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by gugi
This all stems from Nixon, and his ridiculous war on drugs crusade. We grow up hearing drugs are bad, don't do drugs. Then you find out half of your friends, family members, doctors, lawyers, school teachers, and parents all smoke weed. Marijuana is only considered a gateway drug because we have put it into a grouping called "drugs". Pot has been cultivated for thousands of years, it's nothing "new". Personally, my dad, both my uncles, my siblings etc all smoke pot on a regular basis. All these people are successful in life. Nicotine, caffeine, alcohol are all considered worse drugs than pot in my family. Be honest and let them decide for themselves...
Mike made some valid points. There is a combo here...nature and nurture. I feel this a genetic predisposition to addictive behaviors, BUT their environment has a profound effect on whether some experiment or become life long addicts. I smoked weed and drank a lot in high school and I see now it was more due to the friends I hung with and boredom. I still partook of the occasional beer and "j" every blue moon into my sophomore year in college. I started finding hobbies and became more serious with my music. As some have said it was a light bulb moment. I realized I could spend money on pot and sit around and be high and bored or buy a new bass or amp or other things to further my hobbies. I"m 32 now, and may have a beer once every 4-5 months with a friend b/c its just not fun getting wasted or buzzed and I would much rather spend time working out, playing music, restoring razors. Find some hobbies and other likes of his to do together. Show him there are way better and funner things than getting high and laying around to spend his time and money on.
I'm curious as to why caffeine is worse than pot. The rest of the stuff, I'm agnostic on - I can't see a reason to do any of it in excess. there's not a great deal of tracked data on pot smoking, but I would imagine that in the long run, it will probably reduce life expectancy just like anything else done regularly that isn't otherwise outwardly healthy. It takes many decades to get actual data on that stuff, and unlike cigarettes, a lot of people smoke it just for part of their life, so the data won't be consistent.Quote:
Originally Posted by prodigy
I'm assuming caffeine is mentioned as delivered by coffee, but I've never seen any real great data about coffee reducing life expectancy, nor does it (when used moderately) have a negative effect on mental proficiency (actually the opposite).
I hope this will help as most of what can be said,has been said. I have two boys,25 and 20,the 25 year old is smoking a lot less than he did than when he was twenty, and the twenty year old is in collage getting good grades and smoking more grass than I would like, but I remember when I was that age and A. nothing I say will stop them B. I think he will grow out of it as the other one did, and C. I was more worried about other things and told them both a long time ago that if I ever found out that the put something up their noses I would in no uncertain terms kill whomever gave it to them, and they could visit me in prison for the rest of my life,...and they really believed me, and I have to say I haven't had any problems with them. They don't even drink, so just be honest with him and tell him to get it out of his system and become a man, like most of the rest of us have.
Caffeine was mentioned because it is not regulated by the FDA, so anyone can buy it online in bulk powdered form. Many people have died because they overdose so easily on it. One kid for example, took like 50 red bulls worth of caffeine and died almost instantly. No one has ever died from the consumption of pot... There are so many things in life that can hurt us, removing choice is oppressive and will not create a better way of life.
Your belief that by smoking pot makes someone less of a man is quite disturbing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grizzley1
How so? The data in the graphs shows declining use of drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. I don't understand how less use can be described as more use by a change of 'perspective'.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyHAD
May be you think the data is completely wrong, but that's something very different and I still don't see why older people would be less willing to believe the data than young people. I mean, according to the government the population of USA is increasing; do older people tend to believe it's instead decreasing?
I think the data start is chosen to make it look as favorable as possible. If you started it in the 1930s or 1950s, it would look like a long trend of higher drug use.
The other change to then vs. now is that it's becoming more mainstream for pot and less so for excessive drinking. An alcoholic who couldn't work would've been viewed in the same frame as a drug user in the 1950s. A drug user now is considered to be relatively OK as long as it's recreational, but recreational alcoholics are seen as a threat to kill someone on the roads.
It's not quite as simple as that chart makes it out to be.
Again, I'm agnostic on all of it. I don't know why, I kind of see myself and my opinions as a bystander view of society because I don't drink much and don't do any drugs more as a money of matter and productivity than anything else.
I'm pretty sure the start of the graphs corresponds to the start of data collection, i.e. surveying students on these topics. I thought that's the most consistent and reliable data with well defined methodology and so any correlation of 'societal moral decline' with increased drug use should be pretty clear. And the claim is not only for strong correlation but for causation - less parenting and children being more influenced by the 'changed society norms' means that this particular data would be even more correlated than for any other groups or the general population.
The NIH also publishes data on alcohol consumption that starts earlier - different methodology and all.
Attachment 197877
It may be that the data was started for pot smoking because that's the start of when it was becoming done in public by more than just the literary and free living crowd.
But I think if you asked many people who grew up in the 1950s or earlier when the moral decline of society started, they'd say in the 1960s. Apparently alcohol consumption went up following that, too, but the chart exaggerates it a little bit by having the y axis start at 1.
As I said, the data for children is from a government survey program - I don't know the details of the politics of why it was started then and not earlier or later but it's comprehensive and consistent and that's very important if we're looking for these correlations.
The 'moral decline' seems to be presented as something that's been going on steadily from the 1960 and getting worse and worse. But in the various data for alcohol/tobacco/drugs consumption we see peak and then decline. The only way you can get correlation is if the morals got worse in the 60s/70s and then got back to good in the 80s. You know - the Democratic presidents destroy America and the Republican fix it - narrative (of course Nixon and G.W.Bush are more like Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton than like Eisenhower, Reagan, and G.H.Bush). Now, that's a really good correlation with the data.
Living in the US, I don't know that the moral decline associated with drugs is seen as getting worse. You may see news articles that say that, but I've never heard the general sentiment of such. I think if you asked most folks, they'd suggest that more drugs were done in the 1960s and 1970s than are done now.
Split from the drugs, the decline in information presented in literature and media, and the reduction of the number of people with a religious identity is probably a separate thing from the drugs themselves. Mainstream items like legalization of pot in colorado and washington probably strike some people as decline, but those of us more agnostic wouldn't couple it directly to drugs.
I don't know, I guess I missed the beginning of this conversation. I don't know how many hard drugs were done in the 1960s and 1970s, but I would have guessed that the 1980s would've been the peak of hard drugs, as well as the peak of alcohol consumption, and that for as long as I can remember, cigarette consumption has been on the decline (I can only remember back to the early 1980s).
Well this tangent started in post 14 which I understood to suggest a causation between much worse moral norms in today's society and the use of drugs by children.
Of course, I'm younger than Jimmy and interact with a far more younger people than he does, plus they are representative of the 'best-and-the-brightest' not of the general population, but because of the bubble I live in I try to derive generalizations from representative data instead of from my personal experience.
