Hypocrisy: The Anti-Drug

The Office of National Drug Control Policy has a full-page ad in today's New York Times that shows a coffee mug labeled "#1 Hypocrite." The text below the photo reads:

So you smoked pot. And now your kid's trying it and you feel like you can't say anything. Get over it. Smoking pot can affect the brain and lead to other risky behaviors. So you have to set the rules and expect your kid to live drug free, no matter how hypocritical it makes you feel. Because to help them with their problem, first you have to get over yours.

Part of this message is unobjectionable, if hackneyed: People do stupid things when they're teenagers; that doesn't mean they shouldn't try to stop heir kids from making the same mistakes. But there's more to the dilemma of former pot smokers who become parents. It's not just that they themselves have tried marijuana; it's that they know from personal experience that the consequences are typically benign.

That doesn't mean there are no dangers. But legal consequences aside, the risks of smoking pot are not fundamentally different from those posed by drinking, which "can affect the brain" (the whole point, I always thought) and "lead to other risky behaviors." Yet parents know they're not supposed to counsel their kids about marijuana the same way they counsel them about alcohol. Their "problem"--the reason they feel dishonest, if not hypocritical, when delivering the government-approved message on drugs--is that no one has ever satisfactorily explained why.

Comments

[Warren]

"So you smoked pot. And now your kid's trying it and you feel like you can't say anything"

Or maybe you still smoke pot and feel like you have a lot to say. Like the risk/reward calculation of buying vs. growing your own, avoiding rip-offs and what to do if you're ever busted by the cops (say nothing, call home).

Perhaps instead of "getting over" being hypocrites, parents should consider not lying to their kids in the first place. Lies like, 'pot causes brain damage and makes you do things you'll regret'.

[dj of raleigh]

"...they know from personal experience that the consequences are typically benign."

Without taking issue with that mind reading conclusion,
I'd say the ad was for the parent who had used and stopped,
not the parents who believe pot is good for you,
and would pass their joint around to the kid anyway.
The reason a parent stopped, whatever that would be,
would be the reason the parent would give for not starting.

[dj of raleigh]

"pot = terrorism. Posted by Bongs Away!"

Bongs, you're stoned, dude! Potterrorism is a new word!
Why does everyone on here go joking when drug use comes up?

------------
"Let's just roll over and die already. I can't live with the guilt anymore."

Live, guilt, die....that could be an epitaph.

-------------
"heaping helping of caffeine Posted by alkali"

This is like a psychological test, I say pot, you say coffee.
I say cocaine, you say, alcohol.

------------
"Call me strange. I've done the odd line and even hit the occasional meth pipe in my day. But I still can't handle coffee."

OK, you're strange!

------------------
"Am I wrong to believe that these spots are funded by taxes?"

Yes.

[Pavel]

The reason a parent stopped, whatever that would be, would be the reason the parent would give for not starting.

I don't follow this at all.

Having stopped isn't the same as wishing you never started.

Maybe I quit pot because its use had run its course. Maybe the course wasn't bad in itself.

[joe]

I did some truly stupid things as a youth, things that I would have no problem telling my kid not to do, because I've learned how dangerous they are. I do not" feel like you can't say anything" about mouthing off to cops while drunk, or doing shot contests at age 16 that get above a dozen pops each. If "you fell like you can't say anything," it's because you don't think the warnings you're supposed to give are right.

[fyodor]

I bet it's easier to tell a kid not to drink (out of direct parental supervision) until you're old enough than it is to tell a kid the same about pot since there's no legal age for the latter.

[thoreau]

I would point my kids to some of my relatives and say "If you want to wind up like [insert loser relative here] then use drugs."

Just because I don't want to lock people up for using drugs doesn't mean I want my kids using drugs.

Of course, first my wife and I have to save up the dough for an adoption. Having kids the normal way is not an option due to various circumstances. I hear there are tax incentives...

[BaBar]

Sorry thoreau, but everybody uses drugs. I sure hope you want your kids using drugs if they become seriously ill, or have a medical condition that requires it. Whether or not you want them using drugs recreationally, odds are that they probably will even if it's "only" alcohol. I know most people in my Dept. are hooked on the performance enhancing drug caffeine. As for the family loser, I am pretty sure I've done more experimentation than anybody in my family and I am 100% sure that I'm the only one with a PhD in physics.
Seems like the best policy is to be honest with your children, and realize that if they want to experiment with a drug they are probably going to do it; figure out what steps you are willing to take to make the experience as safe as possible.

[Douglas Fletcher]

I was telling my kid to stop smoking pot when I suddenly remembered that I don't even have a kid. Goddamn pot.

[Larry Edelstein]

I actually like the commercial where the parents play-act talking to their kid about pot - with all the door-slamming and everything. I think it's the only halfway honest PSA on drugs I've ever seen, and it might actually be constructive, in that it gives parents an idea they might not have thought of - the play-acting.

Of course I don't see any reason why weed should be treated significantly differently from alcohol. They both can alter your judgement fairly significantly. (Tobacco and caffeine don't.)

[thoreau]

BaBar-

I'm working on my Ph.D in physics right now. I study optical materials. Judging from your name I'm guessing you do experimental particle physics?

When I said "drugs" I was mostly referring to the recreational use of anything other than a handful of "tame" drugs like caffeine and alcohol, both of which are manageable in small doses.

We can debate forever about pot, but I'd be wary of it. Yes, it should be legal, but in my family we have a bad history with drugs. There may be something in our genes that makes my relatives more susceptible to dependency. And I was referring to advice I'd give to my own kids, not everybody else's.

Then again, I did say that we plan to adopt. So maybe I don't need to worry about genetics...

(Yes, I know that the genetic basis of addiction isn't an airtight hypothesis yet, but it's a good working hypothesis. There's good reason to think that there might be a genetic component to how brains respond to certain chemicals.)

[BaBar]

In my experience, weed is way more tame than alcohol. Yes, everybody's chemistry is a little different; yet another argument against one size fits all drug policy.

[dj of raleigh]

"pot = terrorism. Posted by Bongs Away!"

Bongs, you're stoned, dude! Potterrorism is a new word!
Why does everyone on here go joking when drug use comes up?

------------
"Let's just roll over and die already. I can't live with the guilt anymore."

Live, guilt, die....that could be an epitaph.

-------------
"heaping helping of caffeine Posted by alkali"

This is like a psychological test, I say pot, you say coffee.
I say cocaine, you say, alcohol.

------------
"Call me strange. I've done the odd line and even hit the occasional meth pipe in my day. But I still can't handle coffee."

OK, you're strange!

------------------
"Am I wrong to believe that these spots are funded by taxes?"

Yes.

[dj of raleigh]

"I thought the ad wimped out on the "Should I lie to them?" question. I think a lot more parents are confused about that."

Parents are confused over what to say, when to say it,
not about "lying" or keeping person things private.
"Daddy, did you ever cheat on Mom?"
"Mom, did you ever do it on the first date
with someone you only knew the first name of?"
"Did either of you ever have sex with an animal?"
"Are you and mommy aliens from out of space, Daddy?"

Don't answer questions just because they're asked.
Don't ask questions you know the answer to.
Make a statement and get a denial, an argument, an I'm sorry.
Parents are not under oath, not hooked to a lie detector,
and should NOT unload on a kid stuff that won't help them.
"I betrayed my friend mommie, when I kissed her boyfriend."
"Don't be so down on yourself child. Time will heal all.
I once cheated on your daddy and he forgave me."
Now the kid is a bad friend and, worse, thinks less of mom."
A kid who considers their parent a "friend" is an orphan.

[thoreau]

BaBar-

You didn't answer my most important point. What kind of physics do you do? 🙂

Right now I'm writing an article on delocalization of light in certain types of random media, and beginning a project on designing antireflection coatings for nanoparticles. Once that's done I'll be able to graduate, supposedly.

[dj of raleigh]

> weed is way more tame than alcohol

[dj of raleigh]

> if they want to experiment with a drug they are probably going to do it; figure out what steps you are willing to take to make the experience as safe as possible.

[BaBar]

Damn right I would buy it for them and provide the paraphernalia and safe environment. And at the risk of setting back the cause, according to dj of raleigh, I'll say that I would provide my children weed at an earlier age than I would provide them alcohol, although both would likely happen before the age of 21 unless they were really honest to God not interested. Going to be hard not to be interested in what Daddy's got fermenting in the cellar though.
thoreau,
You are correct that I am in HEP. I am currently measuring rare radiative penguin decays in search of exotic loops (MSSP, Higgs, etc.), and also to put a constraint on the CKM unitarity triangle. I'll let you know when it's published.

[steve]

I tried it.
I liked it.
I did it a lot.
I did it a lot for a few years.

I met and married someone.
We bought a house and got jobs.
I still liked it but not as much.
I liked working and being married.
I liked them better than being stoned all the time.

Then we had kids.
The kids are older now.
We told them our story,
the whole story.

They've tried it.
My son seems to like it.
He liked it a lot for a couple of years.
We were worried.

Now he likes being at school.
He likes getting good grades.
He likes his girlfriend.
They're good, responsible, young adults.
Even if they like to smoke pot once in awhile.

So WTF is wrong with that?

[dj of raleigh]

They're good, responsible, young adults.
Even if they like to smoke pot once in awhile.
So WTF is wrong with that?----Posted by steve

Nothing is wrong with raising your children as you please.
The best thing a father can give a son -- a good example.
He's just like you, dad, as the song goes.
I think he sounds fine, and you are pleased.
He's your son, and you raised him the way you wanted.
He'll raise his kids as well. That's the way it goes.
I don't want to bring our own children in this discussion,
makes it get all personal. I made a lot of mistakes.

[edt]

Thoreau: "When I said "drugs" I was mostly referring to the recreational use of anything other than a handful of "tame" drugs like caffeine and alcohol, both of which are manageable in small doses."

Loads of drugs are managable in small doses, including but not limited to pot. There are people who try pot and their lives are destroyed, but a lot of people use it occassionally, without problem. Alcohol has destroyed more than its fair share of lives, but most people use it without serious incident.

I've tried pot, alcohol and vicoden and didn't like them that much. I tried methamphetamine, and liked it quite a bit. However, I've used it in moderation, and had relatively few problems with it. You might find it useful for those 30 hour workdays where you're watching your MBE system grow a crystal, or changing the oil in your vacuum system, or whatever it is you nanoparticle people do. 🙂

[Mona]

dj writes: "If one is truly for legalizing Pot,
don't ever say that line again.
Using alcohol is justify weed is not productive,
since it isn't an either/or question."

I am militantly in favor of legalizing all mood-altering drugs, and I use that "line" all the time; I plan to continue for the simple reason that it is true. I've lost an uncle and a brother to early deaths directly attributable to the diseases caused by alcohol dependency. By contrast, there is not one documented death from the toxicological properties of pot. While inhaling it can exacerbtate bronchitis and other lung problems, the drug itself does not, by all evidence, kill.

Doing almost anything to excess carries harms. But I've never seen any pot-smoker suffering with an analog to the DTs. That alcohol is legal while we have a "war" on pot is truly and utterly preposterous.

--Mona--

[SteveInClearwater]

Not sure about the tobacco ads, but the ONDCP ads most definitely are paid for with federal tax dollars....to the tune of $180 million per year.

For those who like DJ, "didn't like being stoned all the time", you should stop or not start pot.

For those who enjoy using pot and do just fine without being 'stoned', keep rocking.

My three teens all learned by age 12 that I enjoy marijuana. When asked, I've discussed the goods and the bads. For me, they are predominantly goods, which is why I still indulge. For others that may not be so. Your mileage may vary.

DJ, the reason why discussion of alcohol is relevant to marijuana, is that the former is by far the more destructive, addictive, and most commonly abused of the two. However, allowing legal access to alcohol has been - rightly - determined to be better than criminal Prohibition. Therefore, it makes criminal Prohibition of marijuana even more irrational.

Especially given that any support for marijuana Prohibition focuses on pot's supposed risks and dangers.

It's one of the top Drug War Distortions

#15 People Only Smoke Pot To Get High, Whereas They Drink Alcohol To Be Sociable

http://www.drugwardistortions.org

[SteveInClearwater]

Oh, and of the $180 Million per year that the ONDCP spends on advertising spots, guess how much is allowed to be used for messages about alcohol use/abuse?

Zero.

The two spots that ran in this year's Super Bowl which included cautions about alcohol were paid for by the Partnership for a Drug Free America.

As for the comment above about 'parents who think pot is OK and would pass the joint to their kids', I would say yes, that now that they're all 16, no problem. It seems little different to me than allowing them to drink wine at meals and or holidays. In fact, given the accurate context I used in last post, it's far less scary.

Alcohol was by far the most destructive drug in my own family history which is why my father stopped drinking at age 46 (20 years ago) and I stopped at age 33 (11 years ago). But I can still tell my kids about my alcohol use and my abuse.

Unlike many parents (perhaps those the ONDCP ads are written for) I think my kids are pretty damn smart. If I can just remove the chance of their being put into a cage and given a lifetime criminal record based solely on their choice of drug, I'll trust them to deal with the other consequences of drug use just fine.

[Frank]

The need to micro-manage others' affairs is the most destructive addiction of all.

[Bongs Away!]

They forgot to mention that pot = terrorism.

[alkali]

I like the coffee mug. As we all know, it's difficult to warn your children about the dangers of mind-altering drugs without a heaping helping of caffeine.

[Joe Majsterski]

Oh, Jacob, why do we even try anymore? Let's just roll over and die already. I can't live with the guilt anymore.

[Jennifer]

Good point, Alkali! When I read the first sentence of the article, about "hypocrite" written on a coffee mug, I thought that the DEA was gunning for caffeine now.

[Jennifer]

Good point, Alkali! When I read the first sentence of the article, about "hypocrite" written on a coffee mug, I thought that the DEA was gunning for caffeine now.

[Jennifer]

My apologies for the double post. For parents who want to counsel their children away from drugs, the best, most reasonable anti-drug argument I ever heard was on South Park, of all places. To paraphrase: "Most drugs won't kill you or turn you into a psychopath or anything; the problem with drugs is that they make you feel okay about being bored, and it's when you're bored that you should be learning new things, developing new hobbies or otherwise improving your life."

[Brian]

"Daddy, why is pot dangerous?"

"Because it's illegal, son. You might end up associating with unsavory people or get in trouble with the law."

"Oh. So why is pot illegal?"

"Because it's dangerous, son."

[Pavel]

I can't get over the layers of irony.

If I remember correctly, an early draft of the Harrison Act included coffee or caffeine. One little accident of history and maybe you too would Warning Your Kids about the Dangerous of The Bean.

Call me strange. I've done the odd line and even hit the occasional meth pipe in my day. But I still can't handle coffee.

[JimInNoVA]

Dude, were you using domestic bean or the stuff they import from south america? Because those instant Columbian crystals will mess you up!

[Pavel]

Hypocrisy: The New Crack

[joe]

I thought the ad wimped out on the "Should I lie to them?" question. I think a lot more parents are confused about that.

[Pete Guither]

As a two-pot-a-day junkie (I mainline Italian roast, black, no sugar), I can attest that coffee affects the brain (for me, it makes it actually start up) and leads to other risky behaviors (burns from spills and shorting out the computer keyboard). No other drug has ever held the same level of dependence/addiction for me.

The closest was tobacco, which I finally quit.

[James Merritt]

Has anyone else seen the anti-tobacco ad that shows a toddler in a car seat, blowing (or surrounded by) bubbles? The final caption says "undo tobacco everywhere."

Am I wrong to believe that these spots are funded by taxes? Isn't it a fundamental violation of the first amendment to tax people in support of speech with which they disagree?

In a climate when the spending of PRIVATE money on political speech is being so thoroughly controlled via McCain-Feingold and other measures, I find it not only ironic, but also hypocritical, that the ONDCP spots and those fatuous anti-smoking ads can remain on the air. What's especially heinous about the latter, is that the taxes used to pay for such "educational material" (i.e., propaganda) are probably extracted from the smokers themselves. Talk about being sent to the woods to fetch the switch that daddy'll use to whip you...

[Jean Bart]

And people tell me that the state isn't like a parent in America. 🙂

[joe]

"Isn't it a fundamental violation of the first amendment to tax people in support of speech with which they disagree?''

In theory, Big Tobacco agreed to fund this speech. They freely decided to give money a private anti-tobacco group to spend on these messages, in order to avoid lawsuits.

Don't bother explaining to me how it wasn't really a freely-made decision, I already know. But technically, the tobacco money is not a tax, it's part of an agreement they enterred into.

[M. Simon]

Isn't it about time the government started ads warning kids about the danger of aspirin?

It could go something like this:

"I know you are worried about the dangers of pot son and that is good. But aspirin can kill you. There is enough aspirin in a two dollar bottle to put you in the morgue. For life. So the next time you go to the grocery store just skip the aspirin isle. Sure aspirin can make you feel good. But it can kill too." Fade to black.

[Brendan Perez]

If, as the ONDCP contends, marijuana is so dangerous and destructive to the brain, why should any kid trust his parents' judgement if they've used MJ before? Isn't their judegment suspect now because they did drugs when they were young?

If drugs destroy lives and all that, then it should be obvious, along the lines of "show me, don't tell me."

If MJ is indeed so damaging, these former drug using parents aren't to be trusted delivering any messages to their kids, much less ones related to drugs. Moreso, the ONDCP should be ashamed, encouraging these people with messed up brains to lecture kids. Who knows what kind of damage they could do to the minds of the future of this country?

If the damage is so subtle as to not affect that parents life and not be noticeable to the kid, that goes against the portrayal of MJ as an extremely dangerous life destroyer.

Like some of the more prolific drug warriors have pointed out, the casual users are the most dangerous as they make it seem OK.
In this case, parents who used before and don't fit into the media junkie stereotypes are dangerous because they show that a person can use drugs and still be a normal (however that's defined) parent and be loved by their kids. What kind of message does that send?

[M. Simon]

My contention is that people in chronic pain chronically take drugs. i.e. peole take pain killers for pain. Doh!

Now the fact that the pain might be PTSD which currently is not recognized as pain makes no difference. The whole idea of addiction is a myth. It is actually a function of trauma (child abuse, war etc.) and genetics. In fact in Mass. police are told that chronic drg use by children may be a marker for child abuse.

I have written about it at some length here:

http://windsofchange.net/archives/003370.html

The science on this is getting more definitive all the time. There is coming a time when we will be deeply ashamed as a culture for persecuting people in pain.

In fact it is already happening for people whose pain is well established from physical causes. The DEA now believes that they know better than doctors who treat pain what the proper dosage and length of treatment are.

So in fact aside from PTSD our drug warriors are at war with people in pain. Well it's a job.

[SteveInClearwater]

JAMES, see my posts above which answer your question. In fact, DJ is incorrect. The ONDCP ad campaign is totally funded by taxpayer dollars, to the tune of $180 million per year. Also none of the ads can mention alcohol use/abuse.

[dhex]

beyond pain, beyond psychiatric truth or dare, beyond the DEA and the constitution and all that gloss and glossalia, there's this very simple, unappealing issue. do you own your body?

the answer is no. both stations of our two band political spectrum are interested in further decreasing the amount of ownership you have over your own body. and until this concept actually begins to mean something to americans as a whole - because at this point it obviously doesn't mean jack squat - we will continue to have wars on drugs, fat, porn, fingernails, rusty nails, tennis shoes, coffee, sugar, cream, half and half and any other inanimate objects the government can shake legislation at.

i'd love to be able to blame it all on the money and the seizures. but i have a continually sinking feeling that people genuinely believe this shit about mental slavery and the power of the inanimate over the barely animated.

[dhex]

and most obviously control over your stuff stems from control over your body, and probably vice versa. though not necessarily. but we would hope...

[James Merritt]

James asked, "Am I wrong to believe that these spots are funded by taxes?"

DJ answered, unhelpfully: "Yes."

Almost sounds like you work in HP Tech support, DJ. Please be a little more forthcoming about the source of funding for ONDCP ads. Or if DJ won't, then would someone who knows the facts please share?