IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New just to clarify
The woman I described (whose daughter will be, I think, 34 next year, and who has a couple of graduate degrees) was an "outlier" in my circle, most of whom have kept discreetly inhaling the past four decades and change. Among those who became parents, I think they were inclined to prefer their wee bairn avoid intoxicants during the formative years, but at least a few now enjoy a relaxing doobie with their grown children now and again. I am certain that your own daughters, mmoffitt, have always been far too tactful to raise the subject.

cordially,
New Bingo
I've seen it go both way.

Hippie couple (peace, love, etc) raised their 2 kids in a totally open honest somewhat permissive environment.

Both kids died of drug overdoses.

They reinvented themselves as a 100% straight laced couple, lied to the next pair of kids for 20 years, and the kids turned out ok.

But most put it on a shelf for a while, and are terrified their kids will find it and take it to school for show-and-tell. They won't smoke in their own house for fear of their own kids informing on them.

It is a magic moment when your kids grow up and you can be honest with them if you live that kind of life. And pass the doobie to them.

I quit everything at age 18 and spent the next 27 years being "good" (legally). So that meant I was not a hypocrite on the subject with my kids. I didn't even drink until they were around 15. Did't start really enjoying until they were both 18. I satisfied my responsibilities and then could move on.

How about you MM? When was the last time you had a drink? Was it in front of the "kids"? How's your personal control? How many years can you keep up the "good" example?
New I remember a few years ago with my son then 16yo Joe
we were visiting friends when the doobs came out. I passed on the joints while my son watched from the floor as it was on a porch and that is where he and I were going to camp out. On our way home I asked him if he noticed that I wasn't partaking. He had noticed and asked me why not. I told him I didn't want to. Simple answer, no judgement being made. Just a note that its not mandatory to participate and no foul if you don't.
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
New Re: I remember a few years ago with my son then 16yo Joe
Nicely done, Box!


"No known species of reindeer can fly. BUT...there are 300,000 species of living organisms yet to be classified, and while most of these are insects and germs, this does not completely rule out flying reindeer.

Believe."


— New Mexico Tech's Office of Advancement 2010 Christmas card.
jb4
New Actually, we have discussed it.
At length even. And I was honest, as I have always tried to be with them. I told them that my personal experience was witnessing two children becoming orphans, four motherless and my own mother having head trauma, her femur jammed up under her collar bone, staying in hospital initially for two years and then spending a lifetime of return trips to hospital for additional surgeries all directly due to someone using the "harmless" illicit drug marijuana. I told them that since my own childhood was disrupted in a very negative way by that drug, it was impossible for me to speak about this issue without great emotion. But, I said, we could certainly agree on a few facts. First, it is illegal. Second, a positive drug test on their records could forever preclude them from pursuing some professions. Finally, because of its illegal status, using it would mean involving themselves with criminals. That is not an opinion. It is a fact. Using an illicit substance requires that you become involved with people in an illegal undertaking; criminals in other words.

Interesting that you noted your "outlier" produced a child with "a couple of graduate degrees". How many of the "grown children" whose parents "enjoy a relaxing doobie" with them have graduate degrees?
New Every single one of your points is based on illegality
Every single one.

Remove the illegality and there are no points.
New Read in New Scientist today:
Legalizing medical marijuana in Colorado led to a 14% drop in drunk driving accidents.
Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
New Yeah, and people like MM will say it is WORSE
Sigh.
New Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.
"Research" done by a former (or current) stoner, doubtless.
Expand Edited by mmoffitt Dec. 12, 2012, 08:36:14 AM EST
New Ad hominem
--

Drew
New I knew I shouldn't have added a comment. ;0)
New Re: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.
http://healthland.ti...e-traffic-deaths/

http://www.ncbi.nlm....2956/?tool=pubmed
Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
New Thanks.
New The Time Mag article is verification of the fallacy I stated
New So what?
Do more research.
Don't worry, we'll keep the light on for you.
New That would be dumb
He's got a great career going, no graduate degree required.

He pays for the house that I live in.

When he walks through the door after a tough day at the office I have his version of a martini ready. No pearls or heels required, that's for when M gets home 2 hours later.

Obviously, you've done it wrong.
New hmm, picturing you in pearls and heels....
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
New Re: hmm, picturing you in pearls and heels....
http://www.flickr.co...7@N02/1328268295/




Satan (impatiently) to Newcomer: The trouble with you Chicago people is, that you think you are the best people down here; whereas you are merely the most numerous.
- - - Mark Twain “Pudd’nhead Wilson’s New Calendar,” 1897
New Watch it
I actually CAN post a pic like that from my Rocky Horror days.

Heels, lingerie, and fishnets as well.

Once seen, you can't unsee it. No matter how much bleach.
     rc lectures bho - (rcareaga) - (135)
         WH replies can take months - (Another Scott) - (27)
             those 70yo were 25 in 1967, -NT - (boxley) - (26)
                 precisely - (rcareaga) - (22)
                     I would suspect you are correct sir -NT - (boxley)
                     Reminds me of that old ad. - (mmoffitt) - (20)
                         just to clarify - (rcareaga) - (18)
                             Bingo - (crazy) - (2)
                                 I remember a few years ago with my son then 16yo Joe - (boxley) - (1)
                                     Re: I remember a few years ago with my son then 16yo Joe - (jb4)
                             Actually, we have discussed it. - (mmoffitt) - (14)
                                 Every single one of your points is based on illegality - (crazy) - (9)
                                     Read in New Scientist today: - (malraux) - (8)
                                         Yeah, and people like MM will say it is WORSE - (crazy)
                                         Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. - (mmoffitt) - (6)
                                             Ad hominem -NT - (drook) - (1)
                                                 I knew I shouldn't have added a comment. ;0) -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                             Re: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. - (malraux) - (3)
                                                 Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott)
                                                 The Time Mag article is verification of the fallacy I stated -NT - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                                     So what? - (crazy)
                                 That would be dumb - (crazy) - (3)
                                     hmm, picturing you in pearls and heels.... -NT - (boxley) - (2)
                                         Re: hmm, picturing you in pearls and heels.... - (lincoln) - (1)
                                             Watch it - (crazy)
                         Nicely programmed - (crazy)
                 Yeah? - (Another Scott) - (2)
                     make up your mind or read what you write :-) -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                         Agreed you found a nit - doesn't change the bigger point. :) -NT - (Another Scott)
         excellent! -NT - (boxley)
         Well.. if he sees it-- - (Ashton)
         victims of federally legalized pot - (boxley) - (1)
             Awwww - (crazy)
         Very sincere... - (folkert) - (94)
             Or kill someone else. - (mmoffitt) - (93)
                 neither a junkie or a user of weed, harmless - (boxley)
                 Where does... - (folkert) - (3)
                     No acknowledgement? - (folkert) - (2)
                         You need to reread your post and my follow up. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                             Was inferred by the alcohol comment. - (folkert)
                 Remind me: do you drink? -NT - (rcareaga) - (87)
                     Red Herring much? -NT - (mmoffitt) - (86)
                         Nope - (rcareaga) - (85)
                             Steeper? Well, perhaps. - (mmoffitt) - (84)
                                 I don't know offhand about the advanced degrees - (rcareaga)
                                 yup, right up there with fluoride never hurt anybody - (boxley) - (82)
                                     [citation needed] -NT - (pwhysall) - (2)
                                         Re: [citation needed] - (boxley) - (1)
                                             That's not "fluoridation is bad" - (pwhysall)
                                     Red herring. - (Another Scott) - (78)
                                         Assumes facts not in evidence. - (mmoffitt) - (77)
                                             Mixing up cause and effect - (drook) - (4)
                                                 So, the chicken came first? ;0) -NT - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                                     According to the chicken, the rooster did -NT - (drook) - (1)
                                                         Yabut the rooster didn't care. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                                 lrpd that sucker -NT - (boxley)
                                             criminalize (public) conduct, not chemistry - (rcareaga)
                                             It's a quagmire! -NT - (pwhysall) - (1)
                                                 No. - (mmoffitt)
                                             "how many years ago was that?" - (rcareaga) - (68)
                                                 That was a good thread. Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                                     Too bad about the faulty text wrap, though. - (rcareaga) - (2)
                                                         Probably something long in one of the posts. - (malraux) - (1)
                                                             I think it was me. - (Another Scott)
                                                     Seconded. And I'm glad to see... - (mmoffitt)
                                                 After all that... - (folkert) - (1)
                                                     Yup. I chuckled at that. -NT - (rcareaga)
                                                 Holy smokes. Thanks. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                                 Wow - (crazy) - (59)
                                                     dunno about anyone else but - (boxley) - (6)
                                                         You show the female response - (crazy) - (5)
                                                             not nesting, invigourated -NT - (boxley) - (3)
                                                                 Then you are not done. - (crazy) - (2)
                                                                     2-5 no difference, after 5 too sore -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                         Longer delay, more prolactin - (crazy)
                                                             nope -NT - (boxley)
                                                     So why not cut out the middleman? - (Another Scott) - (38)
                                                         Because THC alone is BAD - (crazy) - (17)
                                                             Read that link again. - (Another Scott) - (16)
                                                                 Remember, even if you find it - (crazy) - (4)
                                                                     My goals: Rational, sensible policy. - (Another Scott) - (3)
                                                                         Seems the right time for this one - (drook) - (2)
                                                                             Excellent. Thanks. - (Another Scott)
                                                                             Seen that one before... - (folkert)
                                                                 Phhh - (crazy) - (9)
                                                                     Here's a couple. - (mmoffitt) - (8)
                                                                         2007 - (crazy)
                                                                         #2: Research CBD - (crazy) - (6)
                                                                             Can't have anyone curing cancer now... - (folkert) - (5)
                                                                                 Hmm... - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                                                                     Puhleeze - (crazy) - (3)
                                                                                         Ad hominem. -NT - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                                                                             Point to something specific for me to prove or disprove and - (crazy) - (1)
                                                                                                 Pick your poison. - (Another Scott)
                                                                 Please don't assume my words - (crazy)
                                                         Better question: Why? - (drook) - (19)
                                                             Because he is terrified of side effects that he can't - (crazy) - (2)
                                                                 Project much? :-p - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                                                     Hokay - (crazy)
                                                             Just asking the question. - (Another Scott) - (15)
                                                                 But the laws now prohibit doing the science - (drook) - (14)
                                                                     That's an easier law to change than the others. - (Another Scott) - (13)
                                                                         Heh. Even its advocates have questions about its safety. - (mmoffitt) - (12)
                                                                             Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott)
                                                                             Your straw man, not mine - (crazy) - (10)
                                                                                 You talking to me? - (Another Scott) - (9)
                                                                                     I didn't say it was your job - (crazy) - (8)
                                                                                         And how would that work, exactly? - (Another Scott) - (7)
                                                                                             Easy - (crazy)
                                                                                             View it from the other side - (drook) - (5)
                                                                                                 Thought experiments are easy. - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                                                                                     That's a crock - (crazy) - (2)
                                                                                                         Read me in my posts. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                                                                                             But the statement is wrong - (crazy)
                                                                                                     Different part of the issue - (drook)
                                                     In a nutshell, then, your argument goes ... - (mmoffitt) - (12)
                                                         Did I expect an actual reponse - (crazy)
                                                         hey during that timeperiod - (boxley)
                                                         You were probably right - (crazy) - (9)
                                                             Oh come on... - (folkert) - (8)
                                                                 Hey, he went attempted personal WAY before me - (crazy)
                                                                 Also, interesting - (crazy) - (6)
                                                                     Do as you wish. Matters not to me. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                                                     You're both coming across as mardy twats - (pwhysall) - (4)
                                                                         twats is a gendered insult -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                             Not when I say it, it's not - (pwhysall)
                                                                         kiss kiss -NT - (crazy)
                                                                         You didn't like the Quagmire picture? -NT - (mmoffitt)
         Looks like my letter did the trick - (rcareaga) - (6)
             Woot! -NT - (Another Scott) - (5)
                 Ok, I'm done - (crazy) - (4)
                     Finally! - (Another Scott) - (3)
                         hehe - (crazy) - (2)
                             Don't assume you know the future. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                 Good point - (crazy)
         Another excellent IGM thread! - (Ashton)

Ooops, I'm ranting again... time to get more coffee.
148 ms