Live and Learn - All Comments

re: Call to Service

Sally Pla — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:35:27 GMT

Tami, I just found out the mlkday.gov link you offer is actually supposed to be sync'ed up with www.usaservice.org -- so they will be one and the same resource.

If you -- or any of our blog posters/commenter friends -- know of a good cause looking to advertise their need for volunteer help, please just send me an email. I am working with usaservice and can help post your charitable organization announcement online. Thanks!

re: Call to Service

Sally Pla — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 03:44:23 GMT

Thanks Tami! I'm sorry about the link being down. I don't know why it isn't workign throught he master control page of this blog -- I'm sure it's my fault, techno-challenged and all that, but you can try to cut and paste into your browser: www.usaservice.org and it should work! The Site just launched live today!

re: Call to Service

Tami Klink — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 01:26:32 GMT

Sally - The link that you have is down for some reason, here's another one for you. my.mlkday.gov/.../indexSearch.aspx This will take you to a map of the U.S. There you can pick a state and see where/what/when a volunteer opportunity is available. Hope that helps you out!

Have a great week!

re: Call to Service

Jim Hayett — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 21:38:13 GMT

Sally...I have acute "chronic volunteerism." I wish I could do more but only so much time in a day. Parents should also know that volunteering is in the curiously watchful eye of their children. My parents volunteered for all of my siblings’ functions and then some. Now we all do the same!!

re: "Grass"-Roots Governance?

Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 13:29:39 GMT

jmark: Obviously, you didn't read my entire comment. DARE revamped it's curriculum in 2007. They made adjustments to hopefully become more effective. I simply stated that there is no data yet regarding success/failure on how DARE is currently doing. Rather than bash DARE or programs that target stopping teens from having sex/babies, why not bash all the useless social programs that are so prevelant in our state and nationwide that do absolutely nothing to help anyone, but keep funneling money into the deep pockets of those in charge? Like the Milwaukee Career Youth Development Center or the Opportunities Industrialization Center of Greater Milwaukee Inc. Millions of dollars go to agencies like these. Yet, how much of those millions actually ends up helping the needy has been subject to question.

re: "Grass"-Roots Governance?

jmark — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 01:07:54 GMT

Amy: You're right. We don't need additional studies on tobacco. Nor do we need additional studies on the effectiveness of DARE. There's plenty of definitive data on both topics. But if a money sucking, ineffective program makes you feel good, "just say yes", ignore the studies, enjoy your delusion. Don't bother to wonder why the other school districts I mentioned don't utilize the program.

re: "Grass"-Roots Governance?

Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:07:33 GMT

jmark: Whether under the influence of alcohol or pot, or prescription drugs, etc., one's brain is not exactly as sharp as it could be when driving. Wouldn't you agree on that? Or do you think smoking pot makes one a better driver? If so, let's all light up before we drive! How stupid does that sound?

DARE began in 1983. And if you would look, many of the DARE studies that are available are from the mid 1990's. I couldn't find any from the past couple of years. However, there is a write-up mentioning that in 2007 the DARE program re-vamped it's curriculum and focus. Since it has changed course in 2007, one cannot say it's a failure or success anytime soon.

Your comment on tobacco has nothing to do with DARE. No studies need to be done on the dangers of tobacco use. It has been proven that cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health and can lead to death. How does that compare to the DARE program?

Alcohol is legal. Those aren't meant to be soothing words and your comment shows that you don't understand my point at all. Unfortunately, many people do abuse alcohol with sad and dangerous consequences. You missed (or ignored) my point concerning pot. Why would anyone want to legalize yet another dangerous and addictive drug like pot when we already have one (alcohol) that gives society enough problems as it is? That is what I don't understand.

Go have another hit and get back to me.

re: "Grass"-Roots Governance?

jmark — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:39:40 GMT

Amy: Given that the U.S. Department of Transportation actually conducted a study on the effects of driving while under the influence of thc and Woodward did not, suggests that they are a more credible source.

The "I just picked one" remark is typical. You could have picked one of the studies on DARE, but there were none recent enough for you. Never mind the program has been around for decades, and there is tons of data regarding its effectiveness, or lack there of. Gee, has there been a recent study on the ill effects of tobacco use? Perhaps we need an update.

"And remember, alcohol is legal". Damn! I could have passed along those soothing words to the parents of a friend of mine who lost his life due to a drunk driver some years ago. The words just never come when you need them the most.

re: "Grass"-Roots Governance?

Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:34:58 GMT

jmark: And the U.S. Department of Transportation is an expert on pot use? There are lots of other websites reporting on how dangerous pot use and driving are. I just picked one. Look up the other ones yourself.

And remember, jmark, alcohol is legal. Pot is not. I sure hope you don't have children who see you smoking the occasional doobie. Do you toke before you write your comments? That would explain a lot.

re: "Grass"-Roots Governance?

jmark — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 05:22:57 GMT

Amy: I don't have any problem with admitting that I occasionally smoke pot. I do so, probably less frequently than you enjoy an alcoholic drink. Which makes me wonder. Now that you have been made aware of the link between alcohol and heroin, will you be clearing out the liquor cabinet anytime soon. You wouldn't want to send mixed signals to your children, would you?

Now that you have provided us with the highly acclaimed Woodward.edu marijuana pdf we can dismiss as irrelevant the findings of the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. After all, everyone knows, Woodward is the authority on such matters.

re: "Grass"-Roots Governance?

Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 01:32:15 GMT

Ellen Cherry Charles: So you cleaned a few homes and found drug paraphernalia in half of them. How many homes did you clean? Was it hundreds? Thousands? Were you doing a drug study at the time? Were there controls? Did you take into account all the variables? Did you evaluate each and every person and their lifestyles while you worked in their homes? I doubt that your casual observations about what you say you saw would lead to any realistic conclusions about anything.

And pot does indeed lead to more dangerous drugs, especially among teenagers: www.woodward.edu/.../marijuanadanger.pdf

I think the jury is still out on whether or not DARE and other anti-drug programs like it work. I couldn't find a recent study on the success and/or failure of DARE programs. Most studies were done in the 1990's. I'd be interested to hear about any study done recently. However, DARE is currently taught in our Merton Schools, and I think the students learn a great deal from it. Whether or not they chose to use drugs in the future is always their choice. (One thing mentioned in many of the anti-drug program sites I visited was that a child's family and upbringing play a key role in whether or not a child choses to use drugs.) But DARE helps open their eyes to the dangers of drug use and the effects it has on people and society. (On a side note, Ellen, why does any program against drugs or teenagers having sex seem to bother you?)

jmark: From the website I just mentioned: "There are also statistical studies, both in simulated driving conditions in the laboratory ,clearly indicating that marijuana is a danger when one is driving. In regard to marijuana and driving, a study in Great Britain determined that operating a motor vehicle under the influence of marijuana "makes you a worse driver". The researchers determined that accuracy in steering the car, known as "tracking ability," was impaired as a result of marijuana. In addition, hazard perception and braking responses were also impaired. The researchers noticed that the subject drove more slowly under the influence of marijuana in order to compensate for their intoxication, but this was not sufficient to al1ow them to operate a motor vehicle safely."

jmark: ..and the fact that you admit you smoke pot comes as no surprise.

And why in the world would anyone want to legalize yet another dangerous, addictive drug like pot? As many of you have said in your comments, look at all the problems we already have with alcohol - and alcohol is legal. Doesn't it make sense, then, to not legalize yet another dangerous drug and add to our problems even more?

re: "Grass"-Roots Governance?

jmark — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:56:19 GMT

The DARE program, by many accounts, is ineffective. K.M. School district dropped the program years ago. Do Waukesha and Oconomowoc School districts offer the program? If not, why not?

Amy: I don't believe pot smoking is the first step towards heroin addiction, anymore than I believe alcohol is the first step towards heroin addiction. Although if you read the story ('Ex-addict tells her story') on the front page of this site you may conclude differently: “But her life changed in fifth grade when she first drank alcohol. It was the first step toward a heroin addiction that nearly ruined her life.”

Ellen is spot on. Alcohol is a far greater problem to society than pot. UW Madison has a binge drinking problem, not a pot smoking problem. I dare say, the dean would probably prefer the latter.

When was the last time you heard of a marijuana-high-driver fatality?

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION EFFECTS OF THC ON DRIVING PERFORMANCE:

“Drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight in their performance and will compensate where they can, for example, by slowing down or increasing effort. As a consequence, THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small.”

A few have chimed in on this topic. I'm curious, am I the only occasional pot smoker amongst us?

re: "Grass"-Roots Governance?

Ellen Cherry Charles — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:01:50 GMT

Amy:

For a few months not long ago, I cleaned houses for a living. I serviced a pretty broad demographic, from the super-rich, to regular families, to single parents, senior citizens, college students, etc. What I found in my regular dust-and-wiping duties was that over HALF, yes, HALF of my customers had pot paraphernalia, not necessarily hidden. This tells me that "stoners" are not just high school or college students, or twentysomethings still living in their parent's basement. They are your neighbors, co-workers, parents, friends--people who don't fit the stoner stereotype (I guarantee you know at least one closet smoker).

Also, pot CAN lead to harder drugs, but it doesn't always. The danger of alcohol VASTLY outweighs the danger of marijuana. Just look at the drunk-driving statistics, especially in Wisconsin (binge-drinking capital of the nation).

And just so you know, DARE is a joke. Drug education that amounts to "DON'T DO IT!!!!1!!!" is not education at all: it's fear tactics and condescension, which usually don't work with kids.

re: "Grass"-Roots Governance?

Sally Pla — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 14:08:12 GMT

I agree with Amy in part; and with Victor in part. Amy says: "Why not address the root of the problem then (than) the later effects of the problem itself?" -- and I agree -- with one change. I would rather say: Why not address the roots of the problem AS WELL AS its later effects? We need DARE programs AND abstinence programs AND comprehensive sex education AND moral/character education AND condoms AND drug rehabilitation programs. etc. etc.

Amy, I agree that pot smoking is not a harmless recreational activity. I don't think it should be socially acceptable. Sorry, folks. I have seen enough pot-induced brain fog -- permanent brain fog, on the part of some of old high school acquaintances -- others who say it took them until their early thirties to shake off the mental apathy. Sure, there are people who evidently smoke pot with what they tell themselves is relatively little ill effect. Sure, plenty of people drink to excess with what they tell themselves is relatively little ill effect.( Until they crash their car one day, or end up beating someone or (hopefully) in AA.) It's a mixed up world.

But by legalizing a substance, we can CONTROL its use. (or, at least, do a better job trying to). We can restrict, drastically reduce the sale of the substance, as with tobacco. We can reform the punitive system to allow for addiction recovery/rehabilitation. We can start really early in the school system to teach how uncool pot is. How this stuff -- all addictive stuff -- stinks. It's worked to drastically reduce tobacco use with kids. Legalize, control, reform, eliminate through strong efforts of educational programs -- this could work.Couldn't it?

re: "Grass"-Roots Governance?

referee33 — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:46:08 GMT

Half price martinis at noon? Instead of happy hour, is it now happy half day?

re: "Grass"-Roots Governance?

Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:29:27 GMT

jmark: Most drugs have medicinal benefits. Look at morphine - a very dangerous drug, but a powerful one when it comes to dulling pain. Every drug has a potential for abuse. That is why certain drugs are subject to prescription-only status. As for "illegal drugs" like pot, I disagree that it is the harmless drug you seem to suggest. Even though it may help alleviate pain in certain people, overall pot in our society has been proven to damage the brains of young (and old) people who abuse it (and many do). I think the number of people who use pot for "recreational purposes" is much smaller than the many potheads we have in our high schools and society. High schoolers always knew who the "potheads" were - atleast when I went to high school. They usually were trouble, didn't care too much for school, and cared more about getting stoned. They didn't seem to be going anywhere in life, and didn't care. Do you think their lives changed much after high school? How many potheads got into great colleges? It's also been proven that pot use is a stepping stone for harder drug use. Leading to such things as cocaine and heroin. Pot use isn't the innocent drug you'd like us to believe, akin to alcohol. Alcohol is legal, and many people do use it in moderation with no ill effects. Of course we have a lot of people who abuse it, too. I guess there is no happy medium, but the fact is that alcohol is legal, pot is not.

And for Victor to suggest: The "war on drugs" is a waste of time and money, money better spent on rehabilitation of abusers, and less so on the building of prisons and hiring of cops to arrest slit-eyed, hungry, Dorito-starved potheads." Well, what comes first? The abuser or the prisons? Get the abusers before they start and you won't need more room in the prisons. At our schools we have a project called "Dare" which really hammers hard at the kids about the dangers of drugs - all drugs. Cigarettes, pot, alcohol, etc. and it teaches them the evils of all. Continuing such programs is a great tool in stopping people before they start using such drugs. Why use money to address a problem AFTER the fact? Why wait for people to become abusers, so we can spend money on rehabilitation? Why not spend the money addressing the problem before it becomes a problem? Same as with sex education? Why not promote abstinence rather than throwing condoms at kids and making it seem like it's OK to have sex as long as they practice safe sex? Why not address the root of the problem then the later effects of the problem itself?

And I know I'm going to hear - oh, but that doesn't work! What kind of world do you think we live in? Well, the best we can do is try. Our world and society is not perfect, but to continue to accept the results of bad choices, illegal drug use, and all the other activities associated with it (like theft and murder), is also wrong. People make bad choices and society coddles them with program after program to try to rehabilitate them. So we give in and legalize drugs? I think that is crazy.

re: "Grass"-Roots Governance?

jmark — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:25:53 GMT

We criminalize a drug that has known medicinal benefits, one that millions of Americans recreate with on occasion, without serious adverse effects to themselves or society. We legalize drugs that we know kill us (tobacco), and we glorify the use of a drug that ruins careers, families, kills and injures thousands every year. I'd say our priorities are bit screwed up. Oh, gotta run. I see it's the lunch hour. Martinis are half price!

re: "Grass"-Roots Governance?

Victor Ponelis — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 13:05:18 GMT

The solicitation of opinions at the Change.gov site is probably an attempt to collect and collate "direct" opinions that otherwise would be filtered out by government representatives that cannot express such opinions if they want to be elected, or re-elected. That said, as a democratic republic, our opinions are represented, in distilled fashion, by our elected officials. THAT said, there needs to be a continued tension between the "mass" opinion of the populace and the "expert" opinion of the people's representatives. Democracy is messy, and gloriously so. As for drug policy....it's all ca-ca. The original anti-Marijuana laws were a combination of anti-Mexican legislation and an attempt by the alcohol industry to forestall competition as they arose from the ashes of Prohibition. The "war on drugs" is a waste of time and money, money better spent on rehabilitation of abusers, and less so on the building of prisons and hiring of cops to arrest slit-eyed, hungry, Dorito-starved potheads. Marijuana is a major issue. Dude.

re: "Grass"-Roots Governance?

Sally Pla — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 23:58:10 GMT

projects.latimes.com/mexico-drug-war

Unbelievable. I am doing a little reading around on this issue -- how could I have been so blind? Mexican President Felipe Calderon on the drug violence in Mexico : "IT'S A WAR." Almost 7,000 people have died in drug-related violence this year alone -- that's more than the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq. Guns and money flood south, as gangs fight for dominance and control of the US illicit drug market.

How could I have thought marijuana was a minor issue?

Marijuana is a MAJOR ISSUE.

re: "Grass"-Roots Governance?

Sally Pla — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 21:09:39 GMT

I agree that the question of legalization of drugs is profound -- INCLUDING its moral implications. What would our world be like-- what would economy and social mores be like without the taint of illicit drug trade? Would there be schools and tradespeople and social order developing in Colombia and Mexico, much less opium money - for -guns in the Middle East, half the number of prisons, perhaps, in the US? Instead of a prison industrial comoplex, maybe the US would have grown a jobs industry in drug-regulation-related healthcare.

I remember walking around the red light district in Amsterdam back when I was a college student, and making eye contact with one of the perfectly legal, state-certified and inspected prostitutes in a store window. She was about my age.

I don't know. Was she better off?

There are moral implications, too. How to properly weigh them against the pragmatically attractive economic/social issues of legalization -- that's the key.