# Drug milkshake still no match for abstinence



## MisterMike (Feb 14, 2005)

http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-usaids144145175feb14,0,6505213.story?coll=ny-health-headlines




> BOSTON - Massachusetts doctors have treated several HIV patients with a resistance to some of the most commonly prescribed treatments, raising further concerns about a possible new, drug-resistant strain of the virus.
> 
> The patients' resistance to drug treatment is similar to that in a New York City case that has sparked widespread concern among public health experts, the Boston Herald reported.
> 
> ...


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Feb 14, 2005)

Yup, another reason why a stash of condoms and blood-testing, the latter for those who think they're at risk, are good things to have.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Feb 14, 2005)

In the news tonight:

 -- Dog bites man

 -- Getting hit by cars decreases life expectancy

 -- HIV infection is bad


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 14, 2005)

Let me suggest a different title, in view of the well-known fact that ALL the countries in Europe with long-standing policies of needle exchange and addict maintenance, sex education for kids, condom distribution, etc. have far, far lower rates of unwanted pregnancy, HIV infection, and drug-related crime:

IDEOLOGY STILL NO MATCH FOR INFORMED CITIZENS AND RATIONAL SOCIAL POLICY


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Feb 14, 2005)

Minor, unimportant sidenote: is the phrase "drug milkshake" or "drug cocktail"?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Feb 14, 2005)

It's "drug cocktail".  You're not making a "milkshake", you're taking a large group of different pills.

 Robert, social policy is fer lib'rals.  Far easier to blame the sick.


----------



## MisterMike (Feb 14, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Let me suggest a different title, in view of the well-known fact that ALL the countries in Europe with long-standing policies of needle exchange and addict maintenance, sex education for kids, condom distribution, etc. have far, far lower rates of unwanted pregnancy, HIV infection, and drug-related crime:
> 
> IDEOLOGY STILL NO MATCH FOR INFORMED CITIZENS AND RATIONAL SOCIAL POLICY



"All" of 'em eh? So which one is it again? Norway or Sweden?

As for more social policy...suuuuure...just put it on my tab.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 14, 2005)

1. Both Norway and Sweden have similar social policies, and both have far lower rates of drug abuse and associated social problems than we do.

2. As for, "put it on my tab," the pragmatic reason for things like needle exchange is that it is cheaper. Which, in fact, it is. We do not have these policies in this country for political and ideological reasons, not because they don't work.

3. It remains remarkable that folks who associate themselves with religious and conservative viewpoints so consistently deny their moral obligations to others so insistently.


----------



## MisterMike (Feb 14, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. Both Norway and Sweden have similar social policies, and both have far lower rates of drug abuse and associated social problems than we do.
> 
> 2. As for, "put it on my tab," the pragmatic reason for things like needle exchange is that it is cheaper. Which, in fact, it is. We do not have these policies in this country for political and ideological reasons, not because they don't work.
> 
> 3. It remains remarkable that folks who associate themselves with religious and conservative viewpoints so consistently deny their moral obligations to others so insistently.



1. Yea, but you don't see everyone flocking over there on boats do ya? I wonder why that is?

2. Sure, needles are cheaper than shelling out the dough for HIV medicine. But who says I have to pay for either?

3. Being religous doesn't mean giving through your nose so someone else can have the pleasures of hookers, bath houses and heroine.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Feb 14, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 2. As for, "put it on my tab," the pragmatic reason for things like needle exchange is that it is cheaper. Which, in fact, it is. We do not have these policies in this country for political and ideological reasons, not because they don't work.


What's needle exchange?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 14, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> What's needle exchange?




Addicts turn in their needles to the government in exchange for clean ones.  This reduces the chance of their sharing the needles with another addict.  They stay clean and HIV free.

Some say this is bad because it promotes drug usage...though it saves lives.  I guess the rational is the only good addict is a dead addict.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 14, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> 3. Being religous doesn't mean giving through your nose so someone else can have the pleasures of hookers, bath houses and heroine.


 Naw.  No major religious figure has ever bled through the nose for someone else.  Never.  Nope.  Didn't happen.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Feb 15, 2005)

Hey now, let's be fair.  He bled through the feet and wrists, not the nose.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Feb 15, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Hey now, let's be fair. He bled through the feet and wrists, not the nose.


WWJD? Needle exchange! The so-called "gospels" make it a point to spotlight Jesus' propensity to hang out with the undesirable and untouchable elements of society...the "unclean", such as prostitutes, lepers and tax collectors. He broke bread with them, and shared the majority of his miracles with them.

Add a couple thousand years to the concept of that definition, and I think we'd see him playing Mother Theresa to the folks in AIDS hospices, rehab centers, and the like.  I think we'd also see him condemning a new generation of Pharisee's...Swaggart, the sweaty fat guy who mouthed off after 9/11 that America deserved it for harboring gays and the like, Benny Hin, Pat Robertson, Paul & Jan Crouch begging for our cash so they can build another station (instead of feed the poor, as was the function of tithes in the church unde the direction of Peter, according to Acts), and so on.

If we are to believe the messianic origin of Jesus of Nazareth, and accept his crucifixion as fact, then he bled outta pretty much every part of his body for the well-being of undesirables.

If you profess to be a Christian, than you, more than any other person on the globe, *ARE* your brothers keeper. You have enrolled in a commitment of faith to pick up where Jesus left off, an continue the compassionate work he started. And if the tax man asks you for one dollar to pay for services you disagree with (like needle exchange), remember the words of *your* chosen master: *Give $2.00*. Then get in line to help hand them out (how many miles do you carry the Romans shield?).

How easy the fundamentalist right forgets -- at times of convenience -- the major dictums of the teachings of their iconic Lord. Love. And love, lived, is compassion. And compassion is not convenient, nor is it meant only for those who live in accordance with how you think they ought to.

_Love is patient; love is kind_...do the words "judgemental" or "selective" enter in there anywhere? 

The fruits of the spirit are selfishness, avarice, pride, self-centeredness. Darn it; got it wrong again. Try this one; "...*love*, joy, *peace*, *patience*, *kindness*, *goodness*, *faithfulness*, *gentleness*..." etc.

"_For God so loved only the people who kissed his heiny in church, ..."_ Oh, wait. That ain't right. Oh yeah... _"...*the world*...(which happens to include HIV positive homosexuals, prostitutes, and drug addicts, in case you didn't notice)"._ Goes on to say _he did not come to condemn the world_. Guess someone forgot to tell Falwell & the like about that part. Professing to live in the image of Christ, not a sunday goes by that ain't full of condemnation for the people not in pews.

"_Beloved, let us love one another. For love is of God, and *everyone who loves is born of God*, and knows God, for God is love. He who loves not, does not know God."_ (1st John 4:7-8) 

***Note:* It does not say, "Only those who think the way you think are born of God". 

What would being compassionate to *all* people look like? Being kind? Being faithful to the principal tenets of your professed faith? Being faithful in service to others as is expected (remember...by your *fruits* shall they know you are his disciple, the greatest of which is *Love*)? Or is it easier to hide behind the excuse of _"by grace, through faith, and not by works"?_

It's your religion, not mine. At least have the stones to live it, or the courage to bail out if you can't embrace the parts you don't like. It's not a smorgasbord.

Sorry for the rant, all. I've been watching silly, spiritually myopic assertions rolling accross the boards for over a year now, pretty much choosing to ignore them. But when the echoes of that ethnocentric religiosity are used to defend positions that are unsupportable, even within the dogmatic cosomologies of the faith professed by the people spewing the garbage, it just gets to a point on my nerves where I can't sit comfortably by with hypocrisy unchallenged.

Regards,

Dave


----------



## MisterMike (Feb 15, 2005)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> WWJD? Needle exchange! The so-called "gospels" make it a point to spotlight Jesus' propensity to hang out with the undesirable and untouchable elements of society...the "unclean", such as prostitutes, lepers and tax collectors. He broke bread with them, and shared the majority of his miracles with them.



Although I don't see Jesus handing out needles I agree he would have spent time with them. It's interesting that the tax collectors are lumped in there with the unclean - taxes now being the way the needles are paid for.

If I want to be charitable, I'll do it my way, in private, and not at the gun of the IRS dictating how much and how often. That's my only gripe.


----------



## MisterMike (Feb 15, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Hey now, let's be fair.  He bled through the feet and wrists, not the nose.



Haven't seen the Passion have you? Or maybe read the Bible?


----------



## MA-Caver (Feb 15, 2005)

The topic of taking drugs to combat HIV vs abstinence is what we are talking about. It would be appreciated to focus back on the main subject and not go off on a religious tangent here. Thank you. 
There are other topics in the Study better suited for that type/line of discussion. Or feel free to create one of your own. 
------------
Back on topic.... 
Absinence is probably the better of the two choices. It seems that our FDA, AMA, the pharmacutical kings among others ("*they*") want people to be taking the easy way out and do DRUGS DRUGS DRUGS (the irony of it doesn't escape you does it??) instead of teaching abstinence (whose who already have HIV/AIDS) which would eliminate the chances of HIV/AIDS from spreading... at least in theory. 
But no, *they* wish to make more money by promoting unsafe/unprotected sex so they can sell more of *their* *ahem* cocktail. 
What really gets me is that *they* most likey HAVE A CURE but are witholding it for the almighty dollar. 
I've stated my stance on the drugs *they* continually push everywhere on every form of mass media out there. Anti-depressants, libido enhancers, lupus repressors, arthritis <sic> meds, etc. etc. etc. Now an HIV cocktail. Sure why not? Something new for them to concoct and sell. 
It's a waste of time IMO and also IMO basically *they* are the ones we really need to worry more about, not the spread of HIV. People have been educated and need to be continually educated about how the disease spreads and what steps are needed to prevent the spread. At least until *THEY* decide to release their cure when *they *think *they've* made enough money off the placebos they're peddling.  Unfortunately... it'll *never* be enough... money.


----------



## MisterMike (Feb 15, 2005)

MACaver said:
			
		

> Absinence is probably the better of the two choices. It seems that our FDA, AMA, the pharmacutical kings among others ("*they*") want people to be taking the easy way out and do DRUGS DRUGS DRUGS (the irony of it doesn't escape you does it??) instead of teaching abstinence (whose who already have HIV/AIDS) which would eliminate the chances of HIV/AIDS from spreading... at least in theory.
> But no, *they* wish to make more money by promoting unsafe/unprotected sex so they can sell more of *their* *ahem* cocktail.
> What really gets me is that *they* most likey HAVE A CURE but are witholding it for the almighty dollar.
> I've stated my stance on the drugs *they* continually push everywhere on every form of mass media out there. Anti-depressants, libido enhancers, lupus repressors, arthritis <sic> meds, etc. etc. etc. Now an HIV cocktail. Sure why not? Something new for them to concoct and sell.
> It's a waste of time IMO and also IMO basically *they* are the ones we really need to worry more about, not the spread of HIV. People have been educated and need to be continually educated about how the disease spreads and what steps are needed to prevent the spread. At least until *THEY* decide to release their cure when *they *think *they've* made enough money off the placebos they're peddling.  Unfortunately... it'll *never* be enough... money.



That's right, and now the drugs don't work, which was the intent of what the article tried to get across. Seems some can't get past their own moral crusade.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 15, 2005)

Mister Mike in bold.

*That's right, and now the drugs don't work, which was the intent of what the article tried to get across. Seems some can't get past their own moral crusade.*

That particular strain of HIV has been found in one person out of hundreds of millions of infected people.

*Haven't seen the Passion have you? * 

Wow.  Now _there_ is a reference we can rely on.  "The Gospel According to Mel."  If it happened to Jim Cavaziel, it MUST be true.  We'll have to start listing that as a source on the thread dealing with the historicity of the Bible.

I find it amazing how you can cite the Gospels and then lambast progressives for their "moral crusade."  You suggested RP700 read the Bible.  Might I suggest you turn to Matthew, chapter 25?

_Then the righteous will answer him, Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you? 

The King will reply, I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."_


Regards,


Steve


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Feb 15, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Haven't seen the Passion have you? Or maybe read the Bible?


God forbid I make a joke on this forum.  My point, or more accurately sheshula's point, was just that the very person you espouse as your savior believed in charity even for the "morally blameworthy", a far cry from "why should I have to pay out the nose"?

No, haven't wasted my money on "Passion of the Christ," nor spent the time to read the Bible cover to cover.  I'll agree with MACaver on this point though: if you'd like to bring up my biblical expertise, or lack thereof, start a new thread.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Feb 15, 2005)

MACaver said:
			
		

> It seems that our FDA, AMA, the pharmacutical kings among others ("*they*") want people to be taking the easy way out and do DRUGS DRUGS DRUGS (the irony of it doesn't escape you does it??) instead of teaching abstinence (whose who already have HIV/AIDS) which would eliminate the chances of HIV/AIDS from spreading... at least in theory.


 Can you point out a single instance where the FDA, AMA, or pharmaceuticals suggest NOT avoiding HIV through sexual contact and instead relying on the drug cocktails?  This suggestion is so asinine as to be beyond belief.


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 15, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> _Then the righteous will answer him, Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?
> 
> The King will reply, I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."_


 I have this on my fridge and bedside table and read it every day.  Interesting, isn't it, that a bible scripture should be the mantra of the liberal left?  Yet you won't see too many Democrats thumping the bible, just acting on it.  Curious.  Hmmmm.

 Abstinence will always be hard to come by (no pun intended).  And then there is always the issue of breastmilk being an HIV carrying body fluid.  What next?  Breastfeeding made illegal or a vast promotional by the babyfood and formula industries?

 I still want to know why we insist upon keeping our children so ignorant on a national level about HIV infection.  The materials presented to our children are clearly not frank enough, nor explicit enough.  

 All organisms either evolve or die out suddenly and quickly.  For a long time, HIV did neither.  It has now, apparently, made its choice.


----------



## MisterMike (Feb 15, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Mister Mike in bold.
> 
> That particular strain of HIV has been found in one person out of hundreds of millions of infected people.



Axly, if the numbers are right and there are only 1 million HIV positives inthis country, it has been found in several people across several cities.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Wow.  Now _there_ is a reference we can rely on.  "The Gospel According to Mel."  If it happened to Jim Cavaziel, it MUST be true.  We'll have to start listing that as a source on the thread dealing with the historicity of the Bible.
> 
> I find it amazing how you can cite the Gospels and then lambast progressives for their "moral crusade."  You suggested RP700 read the Bible.  Might I suggest you turn to Matthew, chapter 25?
> 
> ...



Sorry but I've yet to cite Gospels on this thread. It was other posters who immediately brought religion into this whole thing and of course, it had to be Christianity.



			
				randomphantom said:
			
		

> My point, or more accurately sheshula's point, was  just that the very person you espouse as your savior believed in charity even for the "morally blameworthy", a far cry from "why should I have to pay out the nose"?
> 
> No, haven't wasted my money on "Passion of the Christ," nor spent the time to read the Bible cover to cover. I'll agree with MACaver on this point though: if you'd like to bring up my biblical expertise, or lack thereof, start a new thread.



Again, where did I espopuse this? Did you deduce this because I have taken up some threads in defense of the Christian right?

If you'd therefor like to take up *my* religion as a topic, come say it to my face. (not antagonistic, but I'd rather not discuss such things in public)


----------



## JPR (Feb 15, 2005)

I have a question.  One of the reservations some have to such programs as a needle exchange is that it does nothing to help a person change a destructive habit.  It only makes the habit safer in some regard (in this issue the reduce risk of contracting HIV through a drity needle).  

 Supposing that you institute such a program, do you simply believe that X number of people are going to shoot up so accept it and make it as safe as possible?  Or do you couple the needle exchange with something else to help disuade them from using?

 Please don't read any bias or loading into these questions, I mean none.  

 JPR


----------



## PeachMonkey (Feb 15, 2005)

JPR said:
			
		

> Supposing that you institute such a program, do you simply believe that X number of people are going to shoot up so accept it and make it as safe as possible? Or do you couple the needle exchange with something else to help disuade them from using?


 Ideally, you couple needle exchange programs with separate drug treatment programs to help people who want to break the cycle of addiction.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Feb 15, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> If I want to be charitable, I'll do it my way, in private, and not at the gun of the IRS dictating how much and how often. That's my only gripe.


 This is where I always break with the libertarian position, which is, in essence, a cop-out.  "Being good to people is nice and all, but social contracts aren't important -- we should choose whether or not we live in a world of crap."


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 15, 2005)

In the first place, Mike, are we talking about "The Passion," that Gibson directed? Last I checked, that's kind of a Christian movie, and bringing it up would therefore be bringing uyp Christianity.

Second, the word, "abstinence," and the associated idea of, "abstinence-only," education--they're both specifically linked in this country to a) the Christian Right, b) conservative politics. You might want to check into the history of these words and the associated ideas--they appeared as part of a demand by Christian conservatives that sex education classes stop, "encouraging," sexual activity and promiscuity, and were made part of the school curriculum in this country. What's more, the same idea has been pushed world-wide, as the Bush governement has forbidden US-supported health program workers to so much as mention abortion and in some cases contraception. 

In other words, "abstinence," has been loaded by right-wingers and fundamentalist Christians. This is, in my opinion, part of an ongoing suite of attacks on science (also visible in attacks on teaching biology and geology) and upon women's rights.

The fact remains that sensible sex and drug education programs--not the shrill propaganda kids get now, but programs that actually and matter-of-factly pass on accurate information as well as offer kids help on making decent choices--well, they work.

And so do needle exchange programs. It's just that we're so busy passing judgement, passing off demogogery as discussion (listen to ANY episode of Hannity or Savage, if you'd like to hear out-of-control, dimwit screeching and mean-spirited bullying passed off as, "discussion!"), and thumping the Bible, that we simply won't get real, let alone do what's right.

Nor is this going to change, with our current crop of fools, ideologues, spoiled rich boys, bullies, and greedy creeps. Far as I can see, when Colin Powell left, we lost the last one with a brain and some moral fiber.


----------



## davidg553 (Feb 15, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> I have this on my fridge and bedside table and read it every day. Interesting, isn't it, that a bible scripture should be the mantra of the liberal left? Yet you won't see too many Democrats thumping the bible, just acting on it. Curious. Hmmmm.


 This made me laugh. Just to be upfront, I'm too lazy to bother looking up references or citing sources so don't bother asking me to or lambasting me for not "proving" my words. 

 The only real problem that the liberal left has is that they are trying to "act" on it via the government and forced redistribution. I thought the New Testament in large part was concerned with the actions of individuals not governments. I'd be much more impressed if they were trying to "act" on it using their own dollars. The comparisions between how much "liberals" and how much "conservatives" give to charity is quite interesting. IIRC the amount given by President Bush compared to his two presidential opponents combined is also quite interesting


----------



## MisterMike (Feb 15, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> In the first place, Mike, are we talking about "The Passion," that Gibson directed? Last I checked, that's kind of a Christian movie, and bringing it up would therefore be bringing uyp Christianity.
> 
> Second, the word, "abstinence," and the associated idea of, "abstinence-only," education--they're both specifically linked in this country to a) the Christian Right, b) conservative politics. You might want to check into the history of these words and the associated ideas--they appeared as part of a demand by Christian conservatives that sex education classes stop, "encouraging," sexual activity and promiscuity, and were made part of the school curriculum in this country. What's more, the same idea has been pushed world-wide, as the Bush governement has forbidden US-supported health program workers to so much as mention abortion and in some cases contraception.
> 
> In other words, "abstinence," has been loaded by right-wingers and fundamentalist Christians. This is, in my opinion, part of an ongoing suite of attacks on science (also visible in attacks on teaching biology and geology) and upon women's rights.



Well Robert, bringing up Christianity, if we're going to follow a chronological order, was brought up by either you or someone else around post 3. My mentioning it afterwards does not constitute bringing it up.

Secondly, I seem to recall Janet Reno telling kids it's better to go flog the dolphin thne have unsafe sex. Doesn't sound like something I heard from the conservative Christian right wingers you rant about destroying this country's freedoms and enslaving women.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Feb 15, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Again, where did I espopuse this? Did you deduce this because I have taken up some threads in defense of the Christian right?
> 
> If you'd therefor like to take up *my* religion as a topic, come say it to my face. (not antagonistic, but I'd rather not discuss such things in public)


I'm talking about the following, posted by you earlier in response to rmcrobertson:

"3. Being religous doesn't mean giving through your nose so someone else can have the pleasures of hookers, bath houses and heroine."

As for bringing up each other's religions, I just don't see how whether I've watched "Passion..." is relevent.  The thread's about AIDS prevention, social policy, and awareness, not whether board members have watched some 3-hour fundamentalist propaganda flick.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 15, 2005)

Well, Mike, I'd thought that you were in fact writing from a conservative and fundamentalst position. If I was wrong, my apologies.

Second--and as I noted--the word, "abstinence," is itself entwined with right-wing and fundamentalist thought. The only reason we use the word in debating these issues, in fact, is that--for good or ill--Christian conservatives pushed it. And so has the Bush administration. It's code for their claim that "liberals," have corrupted kids and our schools, in fact--obvious nonsense, but that's the screeching claim.

As for needle exachange programs, the well-documented fact of the matter is this: they work. They cut HIV and Hep 3 rates, they cut down drug-related crime, etc. And, they save everybody money. Sorry about reality.

Incidentally, Janet Reno was Att'y General. You're thinking of Jocelyn Elders, who was Surgeon General under Clinton. And she was talking about masturbation.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       talking about masturbation.


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 15, 2005)

davidg553 said:
			
		

> I thought the New Testament in large part was concerned with the actions of individuals not governments. I'd be much more impressed if they were trying to "act" on it using their own dollars.


 Our government is made up largely of representatives of the people - individuals who have been given license of voice. The people are supposed to be represented by their government.

  And those government dollars ARE our dollars.  They're called taxes.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Feb 15, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> And those government dollars ARE our dollars.  They're called taxes.


 Welcome to the world of conservative doublespeak, shesulsa.

 Government money is our money when it's being "pickpocketed by the man", to prove how evil liberals want to spend everyone else's money on their precious social experiments.

 Government money isn't our money when it's used as a cudgel in some poorly-backed point about how much more "generous" conservatives are than liberals.


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 15, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Welcome to the world of conservative doublespeak, shesulsa.
> 
> Government money is our money when it's being "pickpocketed by the man", to prove how evil liberals want to spend everyone else's money on their precious social experiments.
> 
> Government money isn't our money when it's used as a cudgel in some poorly-backed point about how much more "generous" conservatives are than liberals.


 Ah yes.  why should the average middle-aged white collar white male have to pay his hard-earned dollar to government programs he wouldn't dream of supporting - but when people of another opinion wouldn't put their money to the cause of war, it's too bad because it's not their money to spend.

 One can call it whatever one wishes.  But facts are facts - it's still the people's money.  

 And anyone of any spritual persuasion who doesn't think we are under a moral obligation as spiritual persons to be our brothers' keepers is a member of a misplaced religion IMHO. 

 Back on topic - question:  how does one teach abstinence if one refuses to teach what one is supposed to abstain from?


----------



## MisterMike (Feb 15, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> I'm talking about the following, posted by you earlier in response to rmcrobertson:
> 
> "3. Being religous doesn't mean giving through your nose so someone else can have the pleasures of hookers, bath houses and heroine."
> 
> As for bringing up each other's religions, I just don't see how whether I've watched "Passion..." is relevent.  The thread's about AIDS prevention, social policy, and awareness, not whether board members have watched some 3-hour fundamentalist propaganda flick.



It's because I didn't catch your "joke" and thought that if you had actually read the Bible or watched the Passion, you would see that there was a lot more bleeding than from hands and feet. You don't have to be Christian to read or watch either of them. I've read books on Budhism. So it was not to bring up your own religious viewpoint. But if you were going to talk on the issue, I assumed that you might be a little well-read in the matter. Call it what you like.


----------



## MisterMike (Feb 15, 2005)

davidg553 said:
			
		

> The only real problem that the liberal left has is that they are trying to "act" on it via the government and forced redistribution. I thought the New Testament in large part was concerned with the actions of individuals not governments. I'd be much more impressed if they were trying to "act" on it using their own dollars. The comparisions between how much "liberals" and how much "conservatives" give to charity is quite interesting. IIRC the amount given by President Bush compared to his two presidential opponents combined is also quite interesting



Yea, it's nice to tell others to be charitable just because you are too.

You know, I'm so far from Boston I really don't want to have to give money for needles, abortions, welfare, Big Digs (no that's not some kind of abortion but itlooks like it)or whatever else they think is good for Boston.

Time for a little more local control.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Feb 15, 2005)

Local control?  The spread of HIV isn't a local problem, it's quite national.  People move from state to state, people go on vacations, HIV stays dormant for quite a few years after reception.  How are any of these better dealt with on a local level rather than nationally?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 15, 2005)

Skipping over all that Biblical jazz about one's duty to one's fellow human beings, there is the minor fact that when you are born into a society, you are born into a social contract from which you profit in innumerable ways. Despite the extent to which right-wing political correctness says that you and only you count, you actually took advantage--and you still do--of the labor of a helluva lot of people. Or do you not have water, sewer, electricity, roads, medical care, etc.?  

In other words, you're part of society whether you like it or not. And as was mentioned, sometimes that means helping to pay for things and projects that no one person could possibly afford. Some of us have to help pay for manifest stupidities like the useless B-2 bomber (or, sorry, looks great at parades and airshows...and only 2 billion a copy!)--and some of us are asked to help pay for schools.

Then, there's the minor fact that things like needle exchange programs work. They save society, and the government money in all sorts of ways. They are cheaper. They help cut crime and illness. How many ways are there to say it?

Folks who are stuck in rightist political correctness don't seem to want to face it: sex ed, support for the addicted, WORKS. It's cheaper. It helps cut crime.

Sorry; some of us just prefer reality.


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 15, 2005)

davidg553 said:
			
		

> The only real problem that the liberal left has is that they are trying to "act" on it via the government and forced redistribution. I thought the New Testament in large part was concerned with the actions of individuals not governments.



Actually, at face value, the "New Testament" advocates a type of theologically-based communal socialism we see earlier from the likes of Pythagoras and Plato. Its very much anti-Judaic in orientation, and reflects the prevalent philosophy of the educated at the time.

It also advocates paying one's taxes ("give unto Caesar what is his") without question or resentment.

Just sayin'.


----------



## modarnis (Feb 15, 2005)

>>Folks who are stuck in rightist political correctness don't seem to want to face it: sex ed, support for the addicted, WORKS. It's cheaper. It helps cut crime.

Sorry; some of us just prefer reality.>>

Well as someone who works in the criminal justice system you could have fooled me.  But who cares about the minor externalities like an elderly victim bilked out of $20,000 by someone supporting their habit, or the inconvenience of coming home after a hard day at work to a burglarized home where your heirloom jewels were stolen and fenced for $30.  There are plenty of people I would characterize as working poor who are victims of crime, who live paycheck to paycheck, often without renters insurance or health insurance who eat a great deal of the costs of crime.  Add those figures in to the supposed savings of treatment programs and jail will seem like a bargain

Despite the litany of programs available here in Connecticut as alternatives to incarceration that include long term 12-18 month residential addiction programs, sober houses, and adult risk reduction programs, there is greater than 65% recidivism rate, which usually includes escalating criminal activities like Robbery and Burglary to support habits.  Needle exchanges may impact HIV transmission rates, but I highly doubt they would affect crime unless they included free narcotics with those needles.

Funny thing about jail, it allows people to detox and it keeps people from stealing to support their habits.  They get cleaned up, and other citizen's life and property is protected.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 15, 2005)

Again: political correctness is no substitute for rational social policy based upon reality. Here, it's led you to completely skip the point in favor of the usual accusations about some liberal or another who doesn't care about the victims of crime.

The topic of this thread has to do with "abstinence," vs. what I would consider reasonable policy. What I wrote was that countries in Europe with decent drug education, needle exchanges, support for addicts (including maintenance meds) have far lower HIV and hepatitis infection rates, far lower IV drug user rates, far lower drug-related crime rates. 

If you think that's wrong, document your claim. If you think we STILL shouldn't do these things, make your argument. But if all you can do is to write that them "liberals," just don't care bout no victims, then all you have to offer is right-wing political correctness.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 15, 2005)

Hmmm...Ive read and re-read Modarnis' post and cant find a reference to either "liberal" or "conservaive". Why does any dissenting opinion have to be pidgeonholed into those terms? Or associated with Rush, Hannity (SP?) or some other media show?


----------



## MisterMike (Feb 15, 2005)

You can't see the words because it's *their* "Reality," remember? Not ours.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 15, 2005)

When a writer quotes you, then proceeds to avoid the point and go off about the victims of crime as though you did not care about them, it is reasonable to make some guesses about why that might be. 

I see, too, that two of the more-outspokenly rightist/conservative posters immediately responded. Are you arguing that the post was not motivated as I suggested? After all, you have as little evidence against such a claim as you claim I have for making it.

I say again: if you have better facts, present them. If you have a moral argument to make, make it. If you must keep avoiding the topic and making the usual Savage/Limbaugh/Hannity et all comments, then I will continue to identify that as mere p.c.

Incidentally, I'm still waiting for a further explanation of why, when we live in a sociaty as we do, we have no responsibility to others in that society. Or if not that, please explain how the buzzword, "abstinence," made part of current legislation at the specific insistence of the right wing, has nothing to do with the right wing.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 15, 2005)

IMO, I have no poblem with my tax money going to programs that the government approves of. However it is MY tax money too and I should have my say on what I think it should be spent on. If Im "outvoted" thats fine. If Im with the majority than the rest of you just have to "suck it up". (Note I have made no statement of what exactly I believe my money should be spent on. Any assumptions will be your own.)


----------



## Tgace (Feb 15, 2005)

So its logical and acceptable to make assumptions about a persons intent as long as you dont agree with or like what is stated...I get it now.

I admittedly do make assumptions too, I just always thought they were my own personality flaws.......


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 15, 2005)

Then again, it could have more to do with modarnis' reliance on anecdotal "evidence" and "personal experience" in the face of publicly-verifiable statistics than anything else.

*shrugs* Of course, it could be a bit of both. Who knows??  :idunno:


----------



## Tgace (Feb 15, 2005)

"statistics" and "studies" are just as open to interpretation and question as "anecdotal" evidence. I wouldnt dismiss the hard numbers any more (or less) than I would dismiss the observations of the people who are out there where the rubber meets the road. Otherwise we have a bunch of cloistered egg heads who mistake their books for "reality".

Other than that Im amused at the people who pop up and complain about thread drift (talk about the proverbial pot calling the kettle...). Sometimes its interesting and even necessary to see how one thought leads to another as long as they can be tied together in a logical progression.


----------



## dubljay (Feb 15, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Other than that Im amused at the people who pop up and complain about thread drift (talk about the proverbial pot calling the kettle...). Sometimes its interesting and even necessary to see how one thought leads to another as long as they can be tied together in a logical progression.


 Here and I thought thats what the point of a forum (aka threaded discussion) was for.  Silly me thats what I get for trying to use that erratic misfiring hunk of junk I refer to as a brain.


 Ahem on the topic, super viruses and bacteria are nothing new.  Over prescription of antibiotics have led to many strains of super viruses and bacteria.  Should we find it all that shocking that HIV is that different?


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 15, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> "statistics" and "studies" are just as open to interpretation and question as "anecdotal" evidence. I wouldnt dismiss the hard numbers any more (or less) than I would dismiss the observations of the people who are out there where the rubber meets the road. Otherwise we have a bunch of cloistered egg heads who mistake their books for "reality".



Actually, there are correct ways and incorrect ways of interpreting statistics --- looking for things like biases, non-random sampling, limited samples, confounding variables, and so on.

The only way to interpret "anecdotal" evidence is "something some guy says that we have no way of verifying". You may not question such claims. I do. I expect proof, especially when the claim runs contrary to existing evidence.

The main reason why the hard numbers are preferable in cases like this is because the "observations of people who are out there" can be horridly skewed with bias, selective memory, motivated forgetting, or just plain lies. This is why it helps to have the data available, ready for all to verify themselves.

In fact, available studies that have gotten into these sorts of things have indicated that even "eyewitness" accounts are not as accurate as many people would like them to be.

"Anecdotal" evidence can be useful if acquired from multiple sources all studying the same phenomena. However, as in statistics, they are horridly useless when acquired from a single source (akin to making generalizations about the population from a non-random sample segment).

Laterz.


----------



## davidg553 (Feb 15, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Welcome to the world of conservative doublespeak, shesulsa.


 
 Hmm, I seemed to miss the part of the thread where I used doublespeak.  



> Government money isn't our money when it's used as a cudgel in some poorly-backed point about how much more &quot;generous&quot; conservatives are than liberals.


 Cudgel? I didn't realize that my comments were so antagonistic as to deserve such a harsh characterization. I'll try to tone it down in the future.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 15, 2005)

1. At the risk of totally agreeing with the "Heretic's," last post, I totally agree with the Heretic's last post.

2. I repeat: when someone uses a term--"abstinence," that is specifically, avowedly linked to the Bush government's adoption of right-wing Christian policies about sex and drug education, and proceeds to cite their experience with "real," crime as opposed to ivory-tower types, and is supported by people who make remarks about "cloistered eggheads," it is reasonable to assume that they are at least Republicans.  Similarly, when posters recite the same old tired accusations that can be heard any night on Savage and Limbaugh about people they do not know being eggheads, or unaware of reality, it is reasonable to assume that they are recycling the same old tired rightist politically-correct ideas and words that have been thrown around since the early twentieth century. Looks like duck; walks like duck; quacks like duck--is duck, comrade.

3. If it's incorrect to identify certain posters and certain claims as Republican, conservative and rightist, or as being inspired by conservative Christianity, just say so. I do note, however, that other folks' repeated explanations of their politics seem to get met with the dreaded, "YOU'RE A LIBERAL!" claim over and over and over. But personally, I must say that I find the sheer inaccuracy of calling me an ivory-tower liberal truly, monumentally funny.

4. I also see that once again, requests for either a) better facts about drug policy, or b) explanations of one's moral position against rational, pragmatic policies that work elsewhere, are met with accusations and complaints. 

As, I dare say, this post will be. So can we go back to the topic now?


----------



## Tgace (Feb 15, 2005)

Science is a useful tool, however I wont bow down at its alter just yet...

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~taflinge/evistats.html
http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/users/rice/Stat2/AdairLair.htm
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19981112120006data_trunc_sys.shtml


----------



## davidg553 (Feb 15, 2005)

> It also advocates paying one's taxes ("give unto Caesar what is his") without question or resentment.
> 
> Just sayin'.


 Unlike the average joe on the street back in the day, we have the privilege of having a say in what is or isn't Caesars. In my opinion, one of the modern equivalents to giving without resentment is not cheating on ones taxes and only taking the deductions that one is ethically, legally, and morally entitled to.


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 15, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Science is a useful tool, however I wont bow down at its alter just yet...
> 
> http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~taflinge/evistats.html
> http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/users/rice/Stat2/AdairLair.htm
> http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19981112120006data_trunc_sys.shtml



And just think, Tgace, of how much you'd actually learn if you'd actually take a statistics class or two. 

Seriously, this isn't news to anyone that's studied the subject. Things like designer biases, non-random samples, selective experimental treatments, confounding variables, inexact wording, and so forth are among the first things you learn in applied statistics.

And, I should mention, by no means is statistics (whether theoretical or applied) anything resembling a subject that is my forte. At best, I have a rudimentary knowledge of the field. Its just that, very simply, these sorts of issues are intrinsically so basic, so elementary, so learn-on-your-first-day that its not much to hoo-hah about.

The point being, that these complaints are not a problem with "statistics" or with "science". Good statisticians are taught to spot these sorts of things. Rather, they're a problem with certain individuals that either don't know what they're doing or are consciously warping the facts to fit a political agenda (gee, sound familiar?).

One remembers the saying: "Statistics don't lie, but liars can do statistics."

'Nuff said.


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 15, 2005)

davidg553 said:
			
		

> Unlike the average joe on the street back in the day, we have the privilege of having a say in what is or isn't Caesars. In my opinion, one of the modern equivalents to giving without resentment is not cheating on ones taxes and only taking the deductions that one is ethically, legally, and morally entitled to.



Well, that's all well and good and groovy and all, but its not very Christian...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 16, 2005)

Funnily enough, these concerns about biased studies and the inadequacy of statistics never seemed to come up when the posters were discussing the NRA's claims about having "scientific," studies to prove that lots and lots of guns make us all safer. Huh. I wonder why that is?

The question, here, is why people who claim to be pragmatists are cheerfully willing to throw pragmatism right out the window the instant their politically-correct theories are at stake. 

Needle exchange works. If anybody takes at least a cursory glance at the histories of such programs, they will discover that the reason we don't do them has everything to do with ideology and dogmatism rather than what's good, practical social policy.  

But then, if guys like Savage and Hannity would get out of the mass media, self-congratulating world they inhabit, and quit preaching to a choir copmposed entirely of their ivory-tower political, academic and think-tank buddies, they'd know that. And so would their acolytes.


----------



## modarnis (Feb 16, 2005)

>> Needle exchange works. If anybody takes at least a cursory glance at the histories of such programs, they will discover that the reason we don't do them has everything to do with ideology and dogmatism rather than what's good, practical social policy.>>

And I addressed several reasons why, other than the marginal benefit to reducing disease transmission why they don't, and you attacked my politics.  You put the quote out there, don't get pissy when someone counters

While needle exchange programs may reduce shared needle transmission of a variety of diseases, they facilitate criminal conduct to wit:  possession and use of narcotics, which are illegal.  These programs certainly don't address other modalities of disease transmission like high risk unprotected sexual behavior which is often exchanged for the drugs shot though the needle.

You indicated that one of the realities of treatment was a cost savings.  I pointed out that there are numerous externalities (those are costs outside the primary variable) that arise when treatment fails.  I used victims of crime as one example, since it is one I deal with directly on a daily basis.  Non addiction-reduction related health care costs are another obvious one since things like cellulitis,abcesses, endocarditis, overdose, and violence based injuries impact drug users even with clean needles

One of the most conservative voices in America, Bill Buckley has argued since the 1980's that legalization is the answer that minimizes externalities.  By making drugs regulated, safe, cheap and easily available, market forces will take over.  While that would cut down on some of the external costs I mentioned, it still doesn't address the root causes of drug use

As for the more broad social issues that impact HIV transmission.  Regardless of the number of programs, educational opportunities or amount of dollars you throw at a problem, if individuals to not avail themselves of ways to reduce risk, no amount of policy will help.  Why did rates of HIV infection plummet in the gay community with education and outreach about condom use?  Why despite significant mainstream media attention to these issues are those rates on the rise in inner cities, some of which have active needle exchange and condom distribution programs?  

There are cultural issues here in the states that aren't defined by political sides that distinguish us from northern european countries.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 16, 2005)

Beyond heaving a sigh about the inability to argue without these hallucinations about other people's emotions, the issue's this:

Exchange programs, rational support for addicts, and decriminalization have been proven to cut disease, crime, and social cost. That's the reality. Arguing that these steps do nothing to address, "root causes," of drug abuse simply identifies where the ideology kicks in. 

Buckley and a few other conservatives have been pretty much kicked to the side of the road by the current crop of neo-cons. That's because despite what I consider to be their repressive ideas about people and politics, they at least read books, think about ideas, and try to look at reality as often as possible. The current neo-cons do not.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 16, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> "statistics" and "studies" are just as open to interpretation and question as "anecdotal" evidence. I wouldnt dismiss the hard numbers any more (or less) than I would dismiss the observations of the people who are out there where the rubber meets the road. Otherwise we have a bunch of cloistered egg heads who mistake their books for "reality".




Statistics and studies are intended to be challenged by peer review.  Anecdotal evidence at best leads to an hypothesis, which can then lead to proper evaluation.

An example: If a police officer offers his expertise concerning crimes and a specific minority he might well give his biased view that the minority in question is corrupt and immoral.  If for twenty years he works that particular neighborhood and arrests mostly minority suspects, his bias is understandable.  He's shaped his view of the minority on his extensive experience with one minority sub-group.  We should not accept his evaluation of that minority as accurate, however, as it has been tainted by his limited experience with that one sub-group.  Elsewhere that minority might set a standard of excellence and responsibility.  An individual's world view is not subject to measured evaluation.  A much larger test sample is required involving many sub-groups of that minority.

If I say my experience with vitamin intake clearly indicates that vitamins cure a specific ailment, one shouldn't trust that to be true.  The aspirin I take with that vitamin regimen might be easing the symptoms of that ailment, and I'm incorrectly assuming that the vitamins are responsible for my relief.  Time and the body's natural healing processes might also be skewing my perception.

Folk remedies involving willow bark lead to anecdotal reports of relief of pain.  Studies of the isolated salicylates in willow bark lead to solid evidence of its efficacy and voila!...we have aspirin.  The hypothesis is born out through proper testing and evaluation.  The anecdotal reports of the healing power of crystals and pyramids haven't enjoyed that measure of success, however.

I'd take anecdotal evidence with a measure of skepticism.  It's perhaps interesting, and might lead to eventual illumination, but most likely not without reasoned examination and trial.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## modarnis (Feb 16, 2005)

>> Exchange programs, rational support for addicts, and decriminalization have been proven to cut disease, crime, and social cost. That's the reality.>>

Proven by whom and when?  As a criminal justice professional I'd be happy to have my workload cut.  My reality is these programs don't work, crimes escalate as addictions deepen and the social costs of these failed programs and there externalities are staggering.  Any martialtalk member who wants to come review the hard evidence in 5,000 sq ft plus of disposed files here in this jurisdiction is welcome to do so.  Of todays 207 cases on my docket 98 were for repeat drug offenders/theives supporting drug habits who all had 2 or more previous opportunities at long term treatment, funded by the state, who now have new pending charges.  Not a statistic, raw data.  Rational support for addicts doing wonders here artyon:


----------



## Tgace (Feb 16, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Statistics and studies are intended to be challenged by peer review. Anecdotal evidence at best leads to an hypothesis, which can then lead to proper evaluation.
> 
> An example: If a police officer offers his expertise concerning crimes and a specific minority he might well give his biased view that the minority in question is corrupt and immoral. If for twenty years he works that particular neighborhood and arrests mostly minority suspects, his bias is understandable. He's shaped his view of the minority on his extensive experience with one minority sub-group. We should not accept his evaluation of that minority as accurate, however, as it has been tainted by his limited experience with that one sub-group. Elsewhere that minority might set a standard of excellence and responsibility. An individual's world view is not subject to measured evaluation. A much larger test sample is required involving many sub-groups of that minority.
> 
> ...


Thats exactly what I mean...Instead of dismissing peoples personal experience out of hand because its "anecdotal" (and a cheap argument winning ploy), perhaps they should just be listened too and wait and see how many others experience the same thing. That persons experience IS their reality and thats what (in a large part) they are going to base their politics, opinion, and votes on, so it is relavent to that extent....when that one police officer is echoed by 1,000's of others around the nation, perhaps there is something going on (which is by far more about economics and culture than race BTW). The constant cry for studies and stats is tiring. I post my opinion and experience and whatever research I can find or feel interested enough to dig up. I note that a lot of people claiming that they know things to a scientific "fact" and demanding stats arent even presenting any of their own first, other than "everybody knows that Europe has better......"


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 16, 2005)

I would be very interested to see information on where it is in this country that we've applied a large-scale experiment in reality based sex and drug education, decriminalization of drugs, and programs such as needle exchange coupled with addict support on anything resembling a European scale for an extended period of time.

I was under the impression that we'd simply adamantly fought against sex and drug ed that worked, needle exchanges, decriminalization, etc., pouring more and more money into enforcement, cutting counseling and other programs, and locking up more of a percentage of our population that Russian and China, only to watch drug rates soar.

Please explain exactly where this has been different.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 16, 2005)

The U.S. stance on adopting European Drug policy, which is tied to the AIDS issue...

*http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/09so.htm*


----------



## Tgace (Feb 16, 2005)

Heres a more balanced (realistic) opinion of European drug policy (as drug use is tied to AIDS rate)..I realize that the DEA's data will be pooh-poohed by some here...

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19991101faresponse1027/joris-vos-joseph-a-califano-jr/dazed-and-confused-smoke-and-mirrors-over-dutch-drug-policy.html

http://www.drugpolicy.org/global/drugpolicyby/westerneurop/sweden/


----------



## modarnis (Feb 16, 2005)

>>large-scale experiment in reality based sex and drug education>>

With respect to drugs have you heard of the DARE program or MADD or SADD?  Children have grown up over the last decade and a half with widespread education about drugs of abuse and alcohol abuse as it relates to drunk driving.  Despite this widespread and mainstream education at an early age, there is still growing percentage of teens and young adults using and abusing drugs and alcohol.  Ecstacy, methamphetamine, and a variety of inhalants are an evergrowing problem despite these education efforts.  MADD and SADD have been around since the 80's.  I'm 21 years out of high school and remember these programs in their infancy.  Drunk driving behavior among young adults has remained constant despite those long term efforts that focus on people before they have acute or chronic addictions.  Are we to glean from this that education doesn't work?  

As for sex education, this varies based on community standards and is impacted by parent's perspectives on religion and morality.  Certainly mainstream media sources have hammered the condom message home for a very long time.  College campuses and places like planned parenthood, community based health centers have the resources available for people to avail themselves of.  At some point people must become responsible for their own conduct. How much education or how many attempts at treatment are enough before more draconian measures need to take place?  Buracracy, pharmecuticals, or hollow rhetoric from any political viewpoint can't replace common sense or the swift kick in the rear type consequence many people need to alter their behavior


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 17, 2005)

1. Fair enough about Sweden. However, the other article is a rebuttal of attacks on drug policy in the Netherlands.

2. The claim that, "a swift kick," or whatever will solve all problems is ludicrous, though I agreed with much of the remainder of that paragraph. More to the point, this is a highly-ideological and probably rightist theory, NOT a simple reflection of practical reality--though of course everybody always claims that they're just tellin' it like it is, and it's always the OTHER guy who's ideological.

3. How "draconian," do ya wanna get? We have more of a percentage of our citizens in jail than just about anybody else on the planet; we have Mandatory Minimum sentence rules, we have three strikes here in California too. We've cut treatment, pushed zero tolerance--and on and on, and on, and drug use and jailed numbers keep climbing, we're told. What's recommended? Automatic public executions?


----------



## Ray (Feb 17, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Anecdotal evidence at best leads to an hypothesis, which can then lead to proper evaluation.
> 
> Folk remedies involving willow bark lead to anecdotal reports of relief of pain. Studies of the isolated salicylates in willow bark lead to solid evidence of its efficacy and voila!...we have aspirin.


The folk remedy didn't just lead to anecdotal reports of relief of pain, it also lead to actual relief of pain.

The studies which allowed for isolated and identification of the active ingrediant allowed for better understanding of the risks & benefits, as well as, the ability to better control dosage.

Yes, we can do well to make use of science and technology to improve our lives.  But I don't need a scientific study to know that eating oreos all day is going to make me fat (oops...I'm mean fatter).


----------



## Ray (Feb 17, 2005)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> WWJD? Needle exchange! The so-called "gospels" make it a point to spotlight Jesus' propensity to hang out with the undesirable and untouchable elements of society...the "unclean", such as prostitutes, lepers and tax collectors. He broke bread with them, and shared the majority of his miracles with them.


Do not forget that this loving Jesus you describe also expected those people to repent and to live their lives differently. A couple of examples:

John 5:14:  Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.

John 8:11 - 12: When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?  She said, No man, Lord.  And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condem thee: go, and sin no more.

Why is it that we (and I don't excuse myself from this) only want to put forth items that support our views and ignore the "inconvenient" things that our sources say?


----------



## modarnis (Feb 17, 2005)

>>2. The claim that, "a swift kick," or whatever will solve all problems is ludicrous, though I agreed with much of the remainder of that paragraph. More to the point, this is a highly-ideological and probably rightist theory, NOT a simple reflection of practical reality--though of course everybody always claims that they're just tellin' it like it is, and it's always the OTHER guy who's ideological.>>

I don't believe I ever said a swift kick would solve everything.  I did say that people need some consequence for their inappropriate behaviors and likened it to the swift kick (whether physical or verbal) that when I was growing up people wanted to avoid.  At some point it fell out of favor for people to take any responsibility for their actions.

  If our jails are more full than other places and that doesn't serve as the kind of consequence most people would want to avoid, what does that really say about our society?


----------



## Ray (Feb 17, 2005)

modarnis said:
			
		

> The claim that, "a swift kick," or whatever will solve all problems is ludicrous, though...


What, then, is all the bag work for if not to develop a swift and powerful kick.



			
				modarnis said:
			
		

> If our jails are more full than other places and that doesn't serve as the kind of consequence most people would want to avoid, what does that really say about our society?


Either our jails are too soft or the things that put us there are too fun?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 17, 2005)

The rise and rise in jail populations appears to be directly linked to the rise and rise in harsher and harsher anti-drug laws, and these in their turn appear to be largely ideologically driven. 

Behind the latest comments are another set of ideological propositions: particularly, the problem with our society is that we're too soft on crime, that jails are too easy, etc.


----------



## Ray (Feb 17, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Behind the latest comments are another set of ideological propositions: particularly, the problem with our society is that we're too soft on crime, that jails are too easy, etc.


Let me try to restate my proposition:  The "punishment" of jail must be inferior to the "reward" of the act that put us there.  A contrived example: the high (reward) that we get from smoking crack is worth taking the chance of going to jail (punishment) for.

If random reward schedules (like slot machine payoffs) do encourage a behavior (putting quarters in) then doesn't the lack of punishment with every single instance of criminal behavior seem to be something of a reward?  

So: either the jails are too easy (to endure to stop the behaviors classified as crime) or the things we do to get put there are too fun (to make us stop doing the behaviors classified as crimes).

Do I personally think that jail is the best way to stop some of these behaviors.  No.  Do I think that legalizing recreational drug use is a wonderful idea.  No.

My solution, I don't use drugs.  My older brother's solution: die homeless.  Anecdotal?  Yes.  True? Yes.  Would legalization have helped my brother?  Nope.

Does it require a scientific study?  No.  Those who wish to take the risk in favor of a violation of a crime (a more with serious, official consequences) may do so.  Those who wish to try to legalize some of this stuff may also do so.  Me? I'm not going to use drugs by choice; my brother also quit by consequence.

Consequences.  Lets find a way to eliminate them from our behaviors rather than modify our behaviors to avoid undesirable consequences?


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 17, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Instead of dismissing peoples personal experience out of hand because its "anecdotal" (and a cheap argument winning ploy)



'Fraid you got it the other way around, Mr. Kettle Pot Black.

Trying to make a public discourse into a personal and emotional matter --- or using one's professional "authority" as a basis for truthfulness --- is the logical fallacy, not pointing out ancedotes just don't constitute very good evidence. For elaboration on these themes:

Appeal to Authority
Appeal to Emotion
Biased Sample
Burden of Proof
Misleading Vividness
Slippery Slope
Spotlight



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> perhaps they should just be listened too and wait and see how many others experience the same thing.



So is this selection process as to how many of X believe in Y going to be acquired through random sampling?? Or, are we going on the appeal to common practice here??



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> That persons experience IS their reality and thats what (in a large part) they are going to base their politics, opinion, and votes on, so it is relavent to that extent....when that one police officer is echoed by 1,000's of others around the nation, perhaps there is something going on (which is by far more about economics and culture than race BTW).



Ah, the appeal to common practice  it is, then.



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> The constant cry for studies and stats is tiring.



If you find the burden of proof to be such a, well, _burden_, then its perhaps best not to make unsubstantiated claims based on the "personal experiences" of a few anonymous individuals.

Ta ta.


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 17, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Why is it that we (and I don't excuse myself from this) only want to put forth items that support our views and ignore the "inconvenient" things that our sources say?



Because, the vast majority of individuals do not possess a worldview that can support seemingly different or conflicting claims and positions.


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 17, 2005)

modarnis said:
			
		

> I don't believe I ever said a swift kick would solve everything.  I did say that people need some consequence for their inappropriate behaviors and likened it to the swift kick (whether physical or verbal) that when I was growing up people wanted to avoid.  At some point it fell out of favor for people to take any responsibility for their actions.



It should be noted, however, that the negative punishment tactic from the school of behaviorism has limited utility against adults. In fact, its pretty much intended wholly for pre-pubescents.



			
				modarnis said:
			
		

> If our jails are more full than other places and that doesn't serve as the kind of consequence most people would want to avoid, what does that really say about our society?



That, perhaps we shouldn't continue to practice legal policies established by the Reagan administration??


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 17, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Let me try to restate my proposition:  The "punishment" of jail must be inferior to the "reward" of the act that put us there.  A contrived example: the high (reward) that we get from smoking crack is worth taking the chance of going to jail (punishment) for.



Not necessarily.

Its just, very simply, that the "reward" vs "punishment" schema is very, very ineffective against adults.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 17, 2005)

Read (or read into) things however you want...I note that Hardhead states pretty much what I believe as well...anecdotal evidence isnt to be ignored but isnt to be accepted as "fact" or "proof" either. As to discussion here and "demanding" stats and proof to back up your opinion...what is this place anyway? A discussion board. I dont sit around the coffee shop with my friends with a stack of studies and reports to back up what I talk about. If thats going to be your standard for discussion then go back to the classroom. Ill say again that personal experience ISNT "fact" but to the person who had those experiences its how they view "reality" and how they base their actions, decisions, political views and votes and on that basis alone shouldnt be ignored or used as a tool to "win" (is there any winning around here anyway?) a debate in an internet forum.

I wonder what a Zen master would say about this debate and the relationship between academic/scientific and presonal experience??


----------



## Tgace (Feb 17, 2005)

Probably that neither approach is "reality"......

Personally, if somebody has a view contrary to mine and I believe I have scientific "proof" for my stance, Ill show that proof and let the other person either debate that proof, show a contrary study or just ignore it...I dont start out by saying "Oh yeah? Show me some proof for that, otherwise Im right and I win!" Which is the way many people come off. If you believe you have the goods, show them and let them stand for themselves......if its not worth the time then just let the discussion remain a friendly difference of opinion.


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 17, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Read (or read into) things however you want...I note that Hardhead states pretty much what I believe as well...anecdotal evidence isnt to be ignored but isnt to be accepted as "fact" or "proof" either.



I don't recall saying anything about "ignoring" anything. I'm just not going to blithely accept the word of an anonymous source as the gospel truth. Its not that difficult of a concept.



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> As to discussion here and "demanding" stats and proof to back up your opinion...what is this place anyway? A discussion board. I dont sit around the coffee shop with my friends with a stack of studies and reports to back up what I talk about. If thats going to be your standard for discussion then go back to the classroom.



I would appreciate you not telling me what to do.    

And, you can discuss here however you want, but when you make an unsubstantiated claim, expect the burden of proof to be leveled against you.

And, furthermore, when you engage in the any of the logical fallacies linked before, expect those to be leveled against you, as well.



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> Ill say again that personal experience ISNT "fact" but to the person who had those experiences its how they view "reality" and how they base their actions, decisions, political views and votes and on that basis alone shouldnt be ignored or used as a tool to "win" (is there any winning around here anyway?) a debate in an internet forum?



No, there are no "winners" in an unofficial debate (although some people have tried to tell me otherwise on ocassion).

In any event, what so-and-so's "reality" is nice and all, but fairly irrelevant in a public discourse if they can't argue it beyond making authoritative claims about their "profession" or "experience".



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> I wonder what a Zen master would say about this debate and the relationship between academic/scientific and presonal experience??



If you don't think there's peer review in Zen, you obviously don't know too much about Zen.


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 17, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Personally, if somebody has a view contrary to mine and I believe I have scientific "proof" for my stance, Ill show that proof and let the other person either debate that proof, show a contrary study or just ignore it...I dont start out by saying "Oh yeah? Show me some proof for that, otherwise Im right and I win!" Which is the way many people come off. If you believe you have the goods, show them and let them stand for themselves......if its not worth the time then just let the discussion remain a friendly difference of opinion.



Appeal to Pity


----------



## Tgace (Feb 17, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Appeal to Pity


http://www.jimhopper.com/abstats/#s-statistics
http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/5653.html


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 17, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> http://www.jimhopper.com/abstats/#s-statistics



Been there, done that.   

What did I say before, Tgace?? This is the kinda stuff you learn _the first day_ in an applied statistics class. This most assuredly isn't news to anyone that has experience in the field, not even to a pathetic neophyte such as myself.

I know this may come off as a shock, as you apparently haven't been trained in these sorts of things --- but this is a problem with the statistician, not the statistic. 

Just as, for example, a researcher (whether intentionally or not) conducts a quasi-experiment (meaning, he or she did not randomly assign the treatment groups) and passes it off as "good science" --- that is a problem with the scientist, not the science.

Yes, things like non-random sampling, incomplete wording, experimental bias, confounding variables, correlation versus causation, and so on are all important things to take into account. And, again, its something that any statistician or research worth his (or her) salt does already.

This is why it is important that I stress the value of _peer review_. The kinda "bad statistics" you're citing --- the politically-motivated questioning, leading the participant tactics, non-random sampling, and so on --- all gets sniped down in peer-reviewed journals. Only in things like popular newspapers, media outlets, and non-journal websites do these things go by without worry. 

Why, you ask?? Simple. The statistician that puts them forward in such mediums doesn't have to worry about fellow statisticians analyzing his methods and data. That shiznatch don't fly in the scientific journals, though.

No cigar, methinks.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 17, 2005)

Some bottom lines:

Emotions and moral commitments influence everyone's reasoning and judgement to some extent.

Any experts who claim to be without bias are fooling themselves or trying to fool you.


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 17, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Some bottom lines:
> 
> Emotions and moral commitments influence everyone's reasoning and judgement to some extent.
> 
> Any experts who claim to be without bias are fooling themselves or trying to fool you.



Thus, once again, the importance of _peer review_. Replicability, too. :ultracool


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 17, 2005)

To echo the heretical:

My FIRST day in stats, Univ. of Colorado, John Forward presiding:

"What you folks need to understand is that if you have one foot in a fire, and the other in a bucket of liquid oxygen, statistically speaking you're perfectly comfortable."


----------



## Tgace (Feb 17, 2005)

"Any experts who claim to be without bias are fooling themselves or trying to fool you."

Even those who believe that science and statistics are a perfect model of reality?


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 17, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Even those who believe that science and statistics are a perfect model of reality?



Would you mind directly quoting when and where anyone on this thread said that science and statistics are "a perfect model of reality"?? Or is the burden of proof too much of a burden for you??  :shrug:


----------



## Tgace (Feb 17, 2005)

Just following the "thread" of thought here which seems to be heading into how much we should trust science as an accurate model for the setting social policy is all....
:asian:


----------



## Tgace (Feb 17, 2005)

http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC32/Fickesn.htm


> *If we demand certainty from science before setting policy,*
> *we ask too much of science and too little of policy makers*


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 17, 2005)

In other words, dodge the question with a link and thinly-veiled accusations. Guess it _is_ too much of a burden, after all.

All too familiar with the "science is not ultimate!" poo-bahs, I'm afraid. Much of which, by the way, I happen to agree with. Critiques of "representational truth" are surely to be applauded, but shouldn't overextend themselves. I consider myself a contextualist moreso than an objectivist, but whatever.

Sorry, tgace, the myth of the given is nothing new here. People have been tossing that one around for more than a half-century. But, in this case, I suspect its being superficially used in a rather roundabout fashion to get this monkey (namely, the burden of proof) off of somebody's back.

Oh, pshaw.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 17, 2005)

What was it "I" was supposed to be proving here??? Ill look for it if you can point it out.

:asian:


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 17, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Even those who believe that science and statistics are a perfect model of reality?



No one on this thread ever made this claim.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 17, 2005)

I'm not sure I understand why the nature of a mode of understanding reality--science--that has been part of popular discussion for well over a century and a half, been popularized againn and again by guys like Carl sagan, and been made part of pop culture via movie like, "Jurassic Park," and, "Contact," should be considered surprising to everyone.

But to make a sharp left turn--and I do mean Left--back onto track, I will take drug policies based on repeatable observation and experiment to support theories that are subsequently checked and rechecked, whatever the extent to which results and theories are in the end based upon probabilities and fallible human thought, over drug policies generated by an administration (Ronald Reagan's) that relied upon fundamentalist Christian ideology and right-wing dogma as put on the President's agenda according to the whims of the astrologer that Nancy Reagan apparently hired.

And I will take them any day.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 17, 2005)

Cant really argue against that....other than politics, unfortunately, involves a lot of @#$% other than the issue at hand.

:asian:


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 17, 2005)

Mod Note:

Folks, let us please return to the topic at hand.

Thank you.

-Dan Bowman-
-MT Moderator-


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 18, 2005)

Well, I assume condom usage is on topic, as we're talking about abstinence, AIDS and whatnot.  I'll return to it if I may.

As has been claimed, condom use, for those who refuse sexual abstinence, is one of the most effective methods for preventing pregnancy and the and spread of STD's...HIV included, regardless of the ridiculous  "latex pore" suggestions we noted earlier.  

For those of you willing to accept research, and there's a wealth of it, this notion of efficacy has been born out by a number of studies.  Condom use is endorsed by the National Institute of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, and the United States Agency for International Development.  Those organizations met in July of 2001 after having pored over 138 peer reviewed studies before coming to their conclusions.  Since then further research has confirmed their findings.

The CDC sums up these findings thus, "The body of research on the effectiveness of latex condoms in preventing sexual transmission of HIV is both comprehensive and conclusive. In fact, the ability of latex condoms to prevent transmission of HIV has been scientifically established in real-life studies of sexually active couples as well as in laboratory studies."

It further states, "Epidemiologic studies that are conducted in real-life settings, where one partner is infected with HIV and the other partner is not, demonstrate conclusively that the consistent use of latex condoms provides a high degree of protection."

Will people use them?  They're no fun, after all.  In Thailand in 1991 an aggressive pro-condom program was instituted which increased usage nearly four fold to 94%.  STD rates in clinics dropped dramatically, and HIV infection among Thai military recruits dropped.  Conclusion?  Condoms work for the sexually active, and people will use them if properly educated as to their practicality.

AH!  But if we teach our youth to use condoms, they'll start having sex earlier, correct?  Nope.

The World Health Organization evaluated 47 programs worldwide and found in fifteen studies sex education had no effect on STD transmission and pregnancy rates.  Another 17 studies showed it decreased STD and pregnancy rates, reduced the number of sexual partners a sexually active person had contact with, and _delayed the age of sexual activity._


But these studies tell some of us what we don't want to believe, and ought therefore be ignored.  Right?



Regards,


Steve

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/dmid/stds/condomreport.pdf

Baldo M, et al. Does Sex Education Lead to Earlier or Increased Sexual Activity in Youth? Presented at the Ninth International Conference on AIDS, Berlin, June 6-19, 1993. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 1993. 

Alan Guttmacher Institute. Sex and America's Teenagers. New York: The Institute, 1994. 

Committee on HIV Prevention Strategies in the United States, Institute of Medicine. No Time to Lose: Getting More from HIV Prevention. Washington, DC: The Institute, 2000. 

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3323101.html


----------



## Tgace (Feb 18, 2005)

Heck I was taught about condoms in school back in 84-85, good old health class, a rubber and a bannana...have they stopped?


----------



## Ray (Feb 18, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Heck I was taught about condoms in school back in 84-85...have they stopped?


As in the words of Archie Bunker:  ...kids should have to learn about sex on the street corner, like I did.


----------



## Tgace (Feb 18, 2005)

Pretty good article about sex ed. in todays schools...

http://www.caps.ucsf.edu/sexedtext.html


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 10, 2005)

This just in ... 


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8470845/



			
				excerpt said:
			
		

> *Doctors denounce abstinence-only education*
> 
> *Teens need access to birth control, pediatrician group says*
> 
> ...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 11, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> This just in ...
> 
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8470845/


It's a catch-22.  If you teach "safe-sex", you increase the likelyhood that teens will become sexually active, but larger numbers of them will engage in "safe-sex".  If you teach abstinence only, smaller numbers will likely become sexually active early, but those that do run higher risks of STD's.  decisions, decisions.  No easy answers from me.


----------



## qizmoduis (Jul 11, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> It's a catch-22.  If you teach "safe-sex", you increase the likelyhood that teens will become sexually active, but larger numbers of them will engage in "safe-sex".  If you teach abstinence only, smaller numbers will likely become sexually active early, but those that do run higher risks of STD's.  decisions, decisions.  No easy answers from me.



Unfortunately, you're basing your decisions on two completely unsupported assumptions.  It has not been shown that teach safe-sex increases teen sexual activity, and it has not been shown that abstinence instruction decreases teen sexual activity.  Support your premises first, then make your decisions.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 15, 2005)

qizmoduis said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, you're basing your decisions on two completely unsupported assumptions. It has not been shown that teach safe-sex increases teen sexual activity, and it has not been shown that abstinence instruction decreases teen sexual activity. Support your premises first, then make your decisions.


  Of course not, teaching children that sexual activity is perfectly acceptable in no way would increase sexual activity.  It's also not been proven that supplying intoxicants to minors increases underage drinking, but it seems clear none-the-less.


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 17, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Of course not, teaching children that sexual activity is perfectly acceptable in no way would increase sexual activity. It's also not been proven that supplying intoxicants to minors increases underage drinking, but it seems clear none-the-less.


It seems to me that a more reasonable approach would be to integrate abstinence teaching with safe sex education.  The truth is, youngsters will continue having sex irrespective of what you teach them; as it they who choose whether or not to have sex in the first place.  Is it not preferable that they possess an adequate base of knowledge prior to doing so?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 17, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> It seems to me that a more reasonable approach would be to integrate abstinence teaching with safe sex education. The truth is, youngsters will continue having sex irrespective of what you teach them; as it they who choose whether or not to have sex in the first place. Is it not preferable that they possess an adequate base of knowledge prior to doing so?


 We have discovered, when dealing with another teenage issue, underage drinking, that the mindset taken by parents in the later 1980's and early 1990's, i.e. "responsible" underage drinking (you remember, call your parents if you need a ride, or better yet, party at your parents house and they'll take the keys), the idea being that "teenagers are going to drink anyway (sound familiar). The belief was that, by teaching kids to "drink responsibly" that they would do so.  

The effect was far different. What actually occurred was an INCREASE of not only dangerous binge drinking, but also an INCREASE in DWI related fatalities by youth.  The lesson learned was that telling teenagers to "drink responsibly" really just encouraged them to drink more, and more often.

The message was clear that drinking underage was ok, as long as you "drank responsibly". The problem became, however, that teenagers, by and large, aren't capable of "responsible drinking". The message that teenagers were receiving was that it's ok to drink.  They didn't get the responsible part.  Moderation and responsible behavior are not traits that often translated well to teenagers.  

A model that has been currently put in place that has reduced underage drinking, and the associated injuries and deaths caused by underaged drinking, has been the opposite of "drink responsibly", which is zero-tolerance. 

Many states have instituted laws making operating vehicles with even small quantities of alcohol by minors an administrative offense resulting in the loss of licenses. Further, schools have taught a policy whereby any underaged drinking is discouraged, and that NO alcohol use is the only acceptable "responsible" decision. 

This has resulted in a drastic reduction in deaths and injuries from DWI's and alcohol related incidents. 

Now, some wit is going to say that drinking and sexuality are not the same thing (despite the fact that one has a lot to do with the other oftentimes), but the reality is that both are high-risk behavior engaged in by teenagers. Telling a teenager it's ok to engage in high-risk behavior, as long as they do so "responsibly" has been found to often times lead to MORE high-risk behavior, not responsible behavior. 

So, again, the answer is not as clear cut as it would at first appear.


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 17, 2005)

There is a very clear difference between educating youth regarding the risks, and ways to mitigate the risks involved in sexual relations, and endorsing "responsible" sex.  Any argument that suggests witholding education from anyone for any reason holds no credibility with me.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 19, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> There is a very clear difference between educating youth regarding the risks, and ways to mitigate the risks involved in sexual relations, and endorsing "responsible" sex. Any argument that suggests witholding education from anyone for any reason holds no credibility with me.


 Which of the above includes handing out condoms?  Furthermore, there is often a big difference between the message sent and the message received.  Parents that were endorsing designated driver's and save drinking thought they were simply helping to mitigate risks involved in underaged drinking.  That backfired.  I'm merely pointing out that the issue is far more complicated than simply "Lets teach them, and they'll make the right decisions".


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 19, 2005)

Sex is a fundamental human drive, trying to supress it and pretend it doesn't exist is not going to work.  Without a strong sex drive humans wouldn't exist.

 And right from that it is very different then drinking, which is not something biology dictates we have a strong desire to do in order to survive as a species.

 Now from my own annecdotal experience from when I was underage, it was always the people who's parents said "No drinking ever, no questions about it" that got too drunk, too often and had the problems.  Perhaps it was just the way it got handled?


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 19, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Which of the above includes handing out condoms? Furthermore, there is often a big difference between the message sent and the message received. Parents that were endorsing designated driver's and save drinking thought they were simply helping to mitigate risks involved in underaged drinking. That backfired. I'm merely pointing out that the issue is far more complicated than simply "Lets teach them, and they'll make the right decisions".


You're correct in that "Let's teach them, and they'll make the right decisions" is a non-sequitur.  Regarding condom distribution, it's quite clear that a teenager will not usually go out of their way to protect themselves from anything, as teens are, by nature, risk takers.  By increasing the accessibility of condoms, the likelihood that they will be used increases. 

 I think that on this issue, we as adults need to follow the path of the lesser evil.  There is just no way to prevent young people from having sex.  Misinformation or promotion of "ethical values" will not fix the situation.  Its best to provide them with all the tools available in order to facilitate reasonable decision making, and have faith that they won't make too many mistakes.


----------

