Curfew
jane
jane
WhansaMi
>
>jane
>
10 p.m. weeknights, midnight on weekends.
Sheila
_calinda_
I allowed my son to have an 11pm curfew on school nights.. and
midnight on weekends (we have a state driving curfew for teens of
midnight anyway). The time would be subject to negotiation
depending on what was going on, though.
My daughter can't stay up that late if she tried, so it's not an
issue. Last night (saturday night).. she was asleep by eight
thirty. (She's 16 btw).. she's always needed more sleep than most
people I know. She takes after her mother, lol.
IMO, a lot would depend on the temperment of the kid, as well. My
son can't/won't fall asleep much before 1- 2 in the AM regardless of
when he needs to get up. My daughter can barely make it to 10PM
when she has to, and if she gets less than nine or ten hours of
sleep, we *all* pay with her less than sunny demeanor ;-)
Cal~
Deborah M Riel
jane <janel...@aol.com> wrote:
>What do you guys consider appropriate for 16 2/3? Good grades. Driving.
>
>jane
Approximately 11pm on schoolnights, approximately midnight on
weekends. Depends on transportation, where he is, and what he's
doing. My rules are that he needs to be reachable by phone (cell or
otherwise) and if he's running late, I want to know about it.
Deb R.
Kathy Cole
> What do you guys consider appropriate for 16 2/3? Good grades. Driving.
Weekend, midnight or 1AM. Weeknights, 11.
Amy Lou
"jane" <janel...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040314213649...@mb-m29.aol.com...
> What do you guys consider appropriate for 16 2/3? Good grades. Driving.
I think what everyone else has said sounds reasonable. I don't have a set
time that I expect my 16y/o to be home because there are not that many times
when he goes out. On the rare occasion that there is a party he wants to go
to it tends to be an all nighter. There is an increasing trend over here to
have parties where everyone is invited to sleep over. With parents unhappy
about staying up late to collect their kids and kids not being capable of
driving home themselves at this age (you have to be 17) it tends to be
easier on everyone. I suppose I will have to start thinking about a curfew
very soon though as my son will be driving in a few months.
Amy
Wendy
In general, school nights aren't nights for going out here. If on the rare
occasion my daughter did at 16, I'd have expected her home by 11 ish,
subject to taxis, or lifts from parents, or I'd collect her for 11.
Basically, it was as much about the sleep needs of others in the house, like
me. My older daughter will be 18 on Wednesday. She does go out on
weeknights now, but it is quite rare if she gets back later than 11.30.
Weekends are a different story. Clubs close in our small town at 2 am, so
she could be as late as 2.30, before I'd worry. Yes, she did go and
succeed in getting into clubs at the age of 16. If it were a bigger city,
like London, Birmingham, or Manchester, clubs can be open til 6 am. I'm
not sure how I'd have felt about a 16 year old being out all night. I'd
probably have accepted it, provided I knew which club she was at and when
she was coming home, and that she hadn't gone off to chill at someone's
house after, leaving me to worry about her whereabouts.
Curfew for me, however, implies something set in stone. To be honest, we'd
set the conditions on the circumstance, rather than on an age. I'm not sure
that I'd behave in the same way in America, as I do here. Some of the gang
stuff and gun crime would make me feel far less comfortable.
Wendy T
Anne Robotti
wrote:
>
>"jane" <janel...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20040314213649...@mb-m29.aol.com...
>> What do you guys consider appropriate for 16 2/3? Good grades. Driving.
>
>I think what everyone else has said sounds reasonable.
Maybe because it doesn't seem like decent (passing?) grades are ever
going to be part of the equation around here, but I think you guys
must be on crack. 11pm?! On a school night? In your *dreams*!
SD is 15 now, not allowed to go out on school nights at all, and
better have her butt in the house convincing me she's studying by
9:30pm on weekends.
Now, if her grades were decent and she didn't have a history of stupid
and self-destructive behaviors and wasn't a pathological liar... well,
I have no idea what I'd be saying. Jane, in your shoes, I'd be saying,
"What the hell do I need a curfew for *Lee* for?" That's what I'd be
saying. She's getting what, straight A's? Good head on her shoulders,
never lies about where she's going to be, tells you up front if
there's any issue, doesn't ignore safety issues to be part of the
crowd, not sexually active and doesn't do drugs, I'd make sure she
always kept her cell phone charged and that she knew we were going to
revisit it if I ever had any cause for concern, and let it go.
It's such a personal thing.
Sheila, I can't believe you let your kids stay out until 11 on school
nights. You were going to be my peep who stuck with me on the "leaving
the house on a school night, you must be deranged" thing.
Anne
WhansaMi
>nights. You were going to be my peep who stuck with me on the "leaving
>the house on a school night, you must be deranged" thing.
>
>Anne
Anne, don't have time to Google, but I think I said 10:00 not 11:00. If I
didn't, that's what I *meant* to write! :-)
In large part, this is because I expect my kids to be working by then. If you
are working at the mall, the store doesn't close until 9:00, you don't get out
until 9:15 or 9:20. Figure in time to do an errand, travel.... yeah, I'd be
okay with 10:00.
Of course, as someone (Cal, I think) pointed out, it depends on the kid. The
kid in this situation sounds like she is responsible, getting good grades, and
I've never gotten the impression that she needs to be home early to get sleep.
My DS, for instance, never gets to sleep before midnight these days, no matter
how early I make him go to bed. (AAMOF, I made him turn off the lights at
10:30 last night, we came up to bed about an hour later, and after we'd had
sex, I see his light on again. Now I'm waiting to see his face this morning to
see if he heard us!!!! :-O Usually we wait until they go to their dad's!
Sheesh! But that is another post.)
OTOH, DD is grumpy by 9:30, and falls to sleep as soon as her head hits the
pillow. There might be a different rule for her, if she can't self-monitor.
Sheila
Vicki Robinson
>What do you guys consider appropriate for 16 2/3? Good grades. Driving.
>
In general, early on school nights (10:00 PM latest, but Laura starts
school at 7 AM, so she's up **early**), and 11:00 on weekends, but
that depends on the event. If it's a movie and coffee date, then
11:00 is fine (early show, two hours for coffee and a cookie), if
she's at a school-sponsored dance or party, then whenever the official
end time is plus half an hour or so.
It really depends on the day, the event and the other people involved.
Vicki
--
Just to think I used to worry about things like that.
Used to worry 'bout rich and skinny
'til I wound up poor and fat.
-Delbert McClinton
Deborah M Riel
Anne Robotti <arob...@deletemelscomm.net> wrote:
>Maybe because it doesn't seem like decent (passing?) grades are ever
>going to be part of the equation around here, but I think you guys
>must be on crack. 11pm?! On a school night? In your *dreams*!
>
>SD is 15 now, not allowed to go out on school nights at all, and
>better have her butt in the house convincing me she's studying by
>9:30pm on weekends.
>
>Now, if her grades were decent and she didn't have a history of stupid
>and self-destructive behaviors and wasn't a pathological liar... well,
>I have no idea what I'd be saying. Jane, in your shoes, I'd be saying,
>"What the hell do I need a curfew for *Lee* for?" That's what I'd be
>saying. She's getting what, straight A's? Good head on her shoulders,
>never lies about where she's going to be, tells you up front if
>there's any issue, doesn't ignore safety issues to be part of the
>crowd, not sexually active and doesn't do drugs, I'd make sure she
>always kept her cell phone charged and that she knew we were going to
>revisit it if I ever had any cause for concern, and let it go.
Good grades aren't part of the equation in my house either. I've done
the homework battle with my son since first grade, and now that he's
17, I'm happy to relinquish that responsibility to him. He does his
homework before I pick him up at school. If he doesn't do it, or
doesn't do it well, it's now his problem. He's just starting to show
glimmers of understanding that his low GPA might be a problem. His
grades have been a tad better this year. He's also done a bit of
experimenting here and there, and has a girlfriend with whom he spends
a lot of time. I still let him out. At 17, his curfew is more
relaxed than it was at 15--I've been loosening the reigns a little bit
each year. I think that couple of years difference in age make a
really big difference in how tight the reigns are.
I see the curfew as a way of getting him home approximately when I
want him home, and a way of keeping him aware that he has to touch
base with me when he's out. He's pretty good about it, as long as I
don't obsess with having him in at the precise minute I've stated as
his curfew. My son loves to argue and debate everything. If I want
him in at around 11, he will invariably say, no--11:30. I can then
make a big show of compromise and set the time at 11:15. He'll
usually go along with that grudgingly, but I've really gotten what I
want--that he be in at around 11. I think it was the book "I Hate
you, But First Can You Take Cheryl and Me to the Mall?" that gave me
the lightbulb moment about curfews. Before that, I was a maniac about
him being even a minute or two late, and it wasn't working well. Cell
phones have helped in that regard as well.
>It's such a personal thing.
>Anne
Deb R.
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
> What do you guys consider appropriate for 16 2/3? Good grades. Driving.
>
Bedtime around our house is 9pm, weekdays *and* weekends. The animals
want to be fed at sunrise, no matter what we've been doing the night
before. OS has a job at McD's now, though, so when he's worked late,
he gets to sleep in late. When he's saved up enough to pay for his
insurance and to fix the old minivan we're looking at letting him
drive, we're considering 9pm on weeknights and midnight on
Friday/Saturday (12:30 if he's closed at work).
Kitten
jane
>she could be as late as 2.30, before I'd worry. Yes, she did go and
>succeed in getting into clubs at the age of 16.
I just can't handle this. Not clubs, necessarily, but parties. I don't want
her going to parties with sex, drugs, and rock and roll. Or beer. I'm not
ready.
jane
>Wendy T
jane
>"What the hell do I need a curfew for *Lee* for?" That's what I'd be
>saying. She's getting what, straight A's? Good head on her shoulders,
>never lies about where she's going to be, tells you up front if
>there's any issue, doesn't ignore safety issues to be part of the
>crowd, not sexually active and doesn't do drugs, I'd make sure she
>always kept her cell phone charged and that she knew we were going to
>revisit it if I ever had any cause for concern, and let it go.
Did she pay you? She clearly briefed you - and all my friends here - on what
to say. It's a conspiracy.
jane
jane
One lone voice of sanity.
jane
>Vicki
WhansaMi
Good lord... are you saying I'm more permissive than you here???
Sheila
<thud>
Vicki Robinson
>Good lord... are you saying I'm more permissive than you here???
>
I think you have me confused with someone else. I'm Attila the Hun.
Just ask my girls.
The Watsons
>
> jane
any city curfew? we have one here-11 schoolnights, 12 weekend nights...
Jess
The Watsons
"Vicki Robinson" <vjr...@xcski.com> wrote in message
news:c35kmn$j6s$1...@allhats.xcski.com...
> In a previous article, whan...@aol.com (WhansaMi) said:
>
> >Good lord... are you saying I'm more permissive than you here???
> >
>
> I think you have me confused with someone else. I'm Attila the Hun.
> Just ask my girls.
*confuzzled blinks* wait, when did my mother show up?
;D
Jess
Anne Robotti
Well, what are you not ready for? Are you afraid she'll get talked
into something she doesn't want to do? Are you afraid she'll get her
drink spiked, or what?
Anne
WhansaMi
>>
>
>I think you have me confused with someone else. I'm Attila the Hun.
>Just ask my girls.
>
>Vicki
No, I'm talking about Jane, who pronounced you the voice of reason when you
said 11, while I said 12.
Sheila
jane
>into something she doesn't want to do? Are you afraid she'll get her
>drink spiked, or what?
>
>Anne
You know what I love about my kid?
My friend asked me what I thought could happen, and I said, "All sorts of
things could happen at parties. You could get drunk and throw up or be sitting
beside the guy someone shoots or have sex with someone and not remember why."
Lee said, "Well, this clearly isn't about me."
jane
The Watsons
> You know what I love about my kid?
>
> My friend asked me what I thought could happen, and I said, "All sorts of
> things could happen at parties. You could get drunk and throw up or be
sitting
> beside the guy someone shoots or have sex with someone and not remember
why."
>
> Lee said, "Well, this clearly isn't about me."
*snerks*
busted....;)
Jess
heather m.
Ahh, you've created a monster Dr. Janekenstein! What a cool teenager, wish
I'd had that kind of head on my shoulders way back when.
Heather
Wendy
> I just can't handle this. Not clubs, necessarily, but parties. I don't
want
> her going to parties with sex, drugs, and rock and roll. Or beer. I'm
not
> ready.
I'm more frightened by driving.
Wendy
Anne Robotti
Water spew!
I mean, the kid *has* a point...
Anne
Deborah M Riel
jane <janel...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>You know what I love about my kid?
>
>My friend asked me what I thought could happen, and I said, "All sorts of
>things could happen at parties. You could get drunk and throw up or be sitting
>beside the guy someone shoots or have sex with someone and not remember why."
>
>Lee said, "Well, this clearly isn't about me."
>
>jane
Lee is so refined. Ian just sticks his face right up into mine and
says "I'm not *stupid* Deb. You think I'm *stupid*?"
Deb R.
Vicki Robinson
>Lee is so refined. Ian just sticks his face right up into mine and
>says "I'm not *stupid* Deb. You think I'm *stupid*?"
My answer to that is "No, you're not stupid. You're seventeen."
The Watsons
> In a previous article, dr...@wpi.edu (Deborah M Riel) said:
>
> >Lee is so refined. Ian just sticks his face right up into mine and
> >says "I'm not *stupid* Deb. You think I'm *stupid*?"
>
> My answer to that is "No, you're not stupid. You're seventeen."
thank god i'm waiting for coffee to brew...*LOL*
Jess
ni...@impactwp.com
> What do you guys consider appropriate for 16 2/3? Good grades. Driving.
>
> jane
When the pubs close - midnight in the week, unless working later. Weekends
later, say 2?
Sorry!
N
WhansaMi
>later, say 2?
>
>Sorry!
>N
Nikki, maybe I'm interpreting the word "pub" incorrectly, but, to me, it is a
place people go to drink ---like a bar here in the U.S. Here in the States,
16/17 aren't allowed to drink, or even be in pubs, and most of us don't want
our kids in those situations, so "when the pub closes" would not be a defining
moment. ;-)
Are "pubs" more loosely defined there?
Sheila
ni...@impactwp.com
"WhansaMi" <whan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040318162035...@mb-m10.aol.com...
Heh. No. And that's precisely why I posted, to drive Jane crazy.
Heck, I just turned 30. Maybe it's harder to get served over here now. But
at 15 I was in the pub (read bar although they're not really) most nights.
But we English have a different attitude to alcohol. Many pubs are family
places. Don't think long seedy bar with long row of stools filled by
alcoholics. Pubs here are very social places, often running alongside a
restaurant. Alcohol is technically for over 18s but I never had trouble
getting served. Girls have it easier. When I went to New Hampshire on
business aged 20 and couldn't even go out for the evening unless I wanted to
go bowling it drove me crazy. Not because I needed alcohol but because to me
clubs, dancing etc was a way of life I'd participated in heavily for several
years.
I also used to go clubbing regularly from 16.
Jane, did Lee get served over here? Or do I need to ask Lee?
Nikki
_calinda_
> When I went to New Hampshire on business aged 20 and couldn't even
go out for the
> evening unless I wanted to go bowling it drove me crazy. Not
because
> I needed alcohol but because to me clubs, dancing etc was a way of
> life I'd participated in heavily for several years
Tell me about that!! When I was 18- it was legal in New Hampshire
to drink, which meant being able to get into clubs. Dating myself
here, but this was during the late 70's and disco was BIG in NH. My
friends and I spent every free night at this place called Club 777,
in Manchester.
Then they changed the legal drinking age, but didn't 'grandfather'
those of us already legal into the law, so all of a sudden our
entire social life was cut out from under us. We were stuck in this
no man's land. Ironically, neither my best friend nor I drank at
that time, we just wanted to dance, dammit..
Cal~
WhansaMi
Well, we all know I'm old-fashioned, so I don't think that I'll be basing my
curfew on pub-closings!
I'm hoping my kids don't drink during adolescence. My ex has a alcohol/drug
issue, and I really don't want to see them even experimenting until they are
old enough to handle it.
Sheila
The Watsons
<ni...@impactwp.com> wrote in message
news:10796464...@ananke.eclipse.net.uk...
> But we English have a different attitude to alcohol. Many pubs are family
> places. Don't think long seedy bar with long row of stools filled by
> alcoholics. Pubs here are very social places, often running alongside a
> restaurant. Alcohol is technically for over 18s but I never had trouble
> getting served. Girls have it easier. When I went to New Hampshire on
> business aged 20 and couldn't even go out for the evening unless I wanted
to
> go bowling it drove me crazy. Not because I needed alcohol but because to
me
> clubs, dancing etc was a way of life I'd participated in heavily for
several
> years.
>
> I also used to go clubbing regularly from 16.
>
> Jane, did Lee get served over here? Or do I need to ask Lee?
*snicker*
it was a culture shock when we walked into a grocery store here, and one of
my parents got carded for alcohol-i couldn't figure out why, 'cuz sis and i
used to be able to run down to the neumarkt and pick it up for them....and
then come to find out there's a drinking age, and that confused me too...*L*
Jess
ni...@impactwp.com
"_calinda_" <calinda...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c3d5vc$202idi$1...@ID-178943.news.uni-berlin.de...
Exactly! I was in Nashua. I'm away on *business*. And I can't even go out? I
wouldn't have minded being the driver and drinking coke, I liked to drive. I
just wanted an adult social life! They had one 'over 18 night' at the local
club and I went there but that meant a stamp on the hand so I couldn't get a
drink. Get a life people! There's better things to do than police the ass
off adults.
Nikki
ni...@impactwp.com
OK. I really, really don't want to scrap about this. I find that the subject
of alcohol is one of the most difficult american/english things to
reconcile. And I respect your decision and your feelings. But my view is, I
want to teach my kids how to drink. Maybe mainly because they ARE going to
grow up around so much alcohol because we do live here. My view is that
restricting something just means that a person wants to rebel. The same year
I went to Nashua some of the kids from there (also aged 19 or 20, no
younger) came to England. What happened? They're allowed alcohol here so
they practically poison themselves by 9pm. And I mean they were more drunk
than I think I have ever been. They could not walk. We were all totally
bemused. Sure we had plans to have a few, but a few before 2am, not a few
between 8 and 9 that left us totally incapacitated. But, I do think it's
different if you grow up in the States or in the UK/Europe.
My SS's BM had a drug/alcohol issue and I regard it as part of my
responsibility to ensure that he knows what to do and what not to do. But
again, I expect his exposure to alcohol will be that much higher than your
kids.
To keep this on a light and friendly note (because that's where I am, I
swear) I have to tell you I was first tipsy aged 4. Have I freaked you out
enough yet?!
Nikki
The Watsons
<ni...@impactwp.com> wrote in message
news:10796491...@ananke.eclipse.net.uk...
> OK. I really, really don't want to scrap about this. I find that the
subject
> of alcohol is one of the most difficult american/english things to
> reconcile. And I respect your decision and your feelings. But my view is,
I
> want to teach my kids how to drink. Maybe mainly because they ARE going to
> grow up around so much alcohol because we do live here. My view is that
> restricting something just means that a person wants to rebel. The same
year
> I went to Nashua some of the kids from there (also aged 19 or 20, no
> younger) came to England. What happened? They're allowed alcohol here so
> they practically poison themselves by 9pm. And I mean they were more drunk
> than I think I have ever been. They could not walk. We were all totally
> bemused. Sure we had plans to have a few, but a few before 2am, not a few
> between 8 and 9 that left us totally incapacitated. But, I do think it's
> different if you grow up in the States or in the UK/Europe.
>
> My SS's BM had a drug/alcohol issue and I regard it as part of my
> responsibility to ensure that he knows what to do and what not to do. But
> again, I expect his exposure to alcohol will be that much higher than your
> kids.
>
> To keep this on a light and friendly note (because that's where I am, I
> swear) I have to tell you I was first tipsy aged 4. Have I freaked you out
> enough yet?!
*giggles* not me, says the flea....;)
Jess
WhansaMi
>swear) I have to tell you I was first tipsy aged 4. Have I freaked you out
>enough yet?!
>
>Nikki
Yep. That will do it!
Seriously, though.... if you were living in the States, where underage drinking
is illegal, how would you reconcile that with your kids? I mean, I suppose
that in cases of true violations of civil rights, I might support civil
disobedience, but for drinking alcohol? How would I let them/encourage them to
do that without feeling that I am implicitly telling them that they should
choose which laws they want to obey and which they don't want to? Would your
approach change if you were living in a place where it was illegal to buy or
drink alcohol as a minor?
Sheila
Vicki Robinson
>Seriously, though.... if you were living in the States, where underage drinking
>is illegal, how would you reconcile that with your kids? I mean, I suppose
>that in cases of true violations of civil rights, I might support civil
>disobedience, but for drinking alcohol? How would I let them/encourage them to
>do that without feeling that I am implicitly telling them that they should
>choose which laws they want to obey and which they don't want to? Would your
>approach change if you were living in a place where it was illegal to buy or
>drink alcohol as a minor?
I'm not sure that the liquor laws in the US forbid a parent giving
his/her child alcohol in their home. It's certainly illegal for a
minor to buy alcohol or for and adult to buy it for them, but I'm not
so sure about supervised consumption in the home.
And, actually, I'm all for teaching kids which laws to obey and which ones
not to, to discern the spirit of the law and not worry about the
letter of the law, and where the limits are.
The law prevents kids from buying alcohol, drinking it unsupervised
and then killing themselves or someone else. I have not had one
tremor of guilt about allowing my 19-year-old a Mike's Hard Lemonade
in our own home.
WhansaMi
>drinking
>>is illegal, how would you reconcile that with your kids? I mean, I suppose
>>that in cases of true violations of civil rights, I might support civil
>>disobedience, but for drinking alcohol? How would I let them/encourage them
>to
>>do that without feeling that I am implicitly telling them that they should
>>choose which laws they want to obey and which they don't want to? Would
>your
>>approach change if you were living in a place where it was illegal to buy or
>>drink alcohol as a minor?
>
>I'm not sure that the liquor laws in the US forbid a parent giving
>his/her child alcohol in their home. It's certainly illegal for a
>minor to buy alcohol or for and adult to buy it for them, but I'm not
>so sure about supervised consumption in the home.
Me either.
>
>And, actually, I'm all for teaching kids which laws to obey and which ones
>not to, to discern the spirit of the law and not worry about the
>letter of the law, and where the limits are.
I **might** be more persuaded for an adult to take that approach, but with
kids, I don't think they (generally) have the ability to get beyond what they
"want to do", rather than what the law means. For me, this means that kids
need to know that the law is there, and I'm not going to condone them breaking
it.
>
>The law prevents kids from buying alcohol, drinking it unsupervised
>and then killing themselves or someone else. I have not had one
>tremor of guilt about allowing my 19-year-old a Mike's Hard Lemonade
>in our own home.
I, personally, don't think that adults who can vote and go to war should have
restrictions made on their drinking. However, as long as it is against the
law, I'll not encourage my kids to break it. If I don't think it is a fair
law, and if it means that much to me, I should work to change the law (IMO),
not demonstrate that I think I am above it.
Sheila
Vicki Robinson
>I **might** be more persuaded for an adult to take that approach, but with
>kids, I don't think they (generally) have the ability to get beyond what they
>"want to do", rather than what the law means. For me, this means that kids
>need to know that the law is there, and I'm not going to condone them breaking
>it.
Of course. My kids know that drinking is the fastest way to lose
their driver's licenses and their car keys.
>>The law prevents kids from buying alcohol, drinking it unsupervised
>>and then killing themselves or someone else. I have not had one
>>tremor of guilt about allowing my 19-year-old a Mike's Hard Lemonade
>>in our own home.
>
>I, personally, don't think that adults who can vote and go to war should have
>restrictions made on their drinking. However, as long as it is against the
>law, I'll not encourage my kids to break it. If I don't think it is a fair
>law, and if it means that much to me, I should work to change the law (IMO),
>not demonstrate that I think I am above it.
Nope, just checked it out. In New York I'm in the clear giving my
minor children alcohol in our home. NYS Penal Law, Section 260.20, is
clear about parents being the exception to "don't give booze to kids"
laws, although "A parent or guardian may be arrested if they knowingly
provide unreasonable amounts of alcoholic beverages in a manner likely
to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child
less than seventeen years of age."
And, you know, working to change a law is a *huge* proposition. If it
means a lot to me, fine, it's probably worth it, but if I understand
its role in maintaining a civilized society and my breaking it will
not breach the reason that the law was made, then I will go ahead and
break it. It's like the cell phone rule at my kids' middle school.
They weren't allowed to have them because of the chance for major
disruptions, and I understood that entirely. So my kids were told to
keep their phones turned *off* until they left school at the end of
the day. But I wanted them to have the phone *with* them; what good
does a cell phone sitting on my kitchen counter do for a kid who needs
to call 911 when she's walking home? The phone was a safety issue for
me. I didn't bother leading a campaign to change things, I just told
my kids to obey the spirit of the law (don't cause any disruptions at
school) while I OK'd their disobeying the letter of the law.
Wendy
<ni...@impactwp.com> wrote in message
news:10796464...@ananke.eclipse.net.uk...
> Heh. No. And that's precisely why I posted, to drive Jane crazy.
It made me feel reassured that I'm not the only one who sees things so
differently from others on this newsgroup.
> Heck, I just turned 30. Maybe it's harder to get served over here now. But
> at 15 I was in the pub (read bar although they're not really) most nights.
It happens in Canada too. I was 16 in Grade 13 and had borrowed ID so I
could go out with my 18 yo friends. I think Ontario has increased the
drinking age to 19 now.
> But we English have a different attitude to alcohol. Many pubs are family
> places. Don't think long seedy bar with long row of stools filled by
> alcoholics. Pubs here are very social places, often running alongside a
> restaurant. Alcohol is technically for over 18s but I never had trouble
> getting served. Girls have it easier. When I went to New Hampshire on
> business aged 20 and couldn't even go out for the evening unless I wanted
to
> go bowling it drove me crazy. Not because I needed alcohol but because to
me
> clubs, dancing etc was a way of life I'd participated in heavily for
several
> years.
Don't tell them it's the dancing, Nikki, they'll be wanting to prohibit that
too.
Wendy T
Wendy
> Seriously, though.... if you were living in the States, where underage
drinking
> is illegal, how would you reconcile that with your kids? I mean, I
suppose
> that in cases of true violations of civil rights, I might support civil
> disobedience, but for drinking alcohol? How would I let them/encourage
them to
> do that without feeling that I am implicitly telling them that they should
> choose which laws they want to obey and which they don't want to?
People choose the laws they're prepared to obey all the time. Have you ever
gone over the speed limit in your car, for example? I've never understood
this compulsion to create laws for everything.
Would your
> approach change if you were living in a place where it was illegal to buy
or
> drink alcohol as a minor?
It is illegal to buy and drink alcohol under the age of 18 in England.
Wendy
Geri and sometimes Brian
>this compulsion to create laws for everything.
Interesting POV from a person who likes the socialist (i.e.nanny state) type of
government.
~~Geri~~
[Deep behind enemy lines in Pac-10 Country]
ni...@impactwp.com
I don't know all of the laws here, but my understanding goes something like
this. It is illegal for a person under 18 to purchase alcohol. Drinking it
I'm not sure about. I believe for example that some alcohols can be served
in a restaurant setting to an underage person, but this bit could even be
urban myth now that I think of it! I do know that it's not illegal for a
minor to drink in their own home, presumably with adult supervision.
So I do live in a place where underage drinking is illegal. But I think it
would be fair to say that it is much easier to duck around that law here
than in the States. It's like we have the same laws pretty much, but
dissimilar attitudes. For example, I can go to any grocery store and buy
alcohol at any hour that store is open. And I mean wine, beer and spirits of
all kinds. The 'brown paper' attitude in some States is just weird to me. I
also think our laws are not as strongly enforced.
I think I'm in the camp of 'laws are there for guidance'. I don't want my
children blindly obeying any law, some of them are totally dumb. 'Because it
is illegal' is not something I consider a major motivating factor. I'd
prefer to think in terms of personal responsibility. Take drink driving.
Don't not do it because the gov't says so, but because it's stupid and you
could die and/or kill another person. I don't see a major issue in an
otherwise responsible 17 year old occasionally having a drink in a correct
social context (which admittedly they'd find in England but probably not
over there). If they were lying about their age in order to purchase some
liquor in a brown paper bag in the US and then hide in the park to consume a
bottle on their own a couple of times a week - that I have a problem with.
It's the same with drugs, IMO. Not taking heroin ever in your life needs to
be a decision that you make because you value the quality of your life, not
because it's illegal. Not taking cannabis ever, is something I feel less
strongly about - but again, make a considered decision based on
circumstances and personal responsibility. There are some kids that if I
found them occasionally smoking a joint I wouldn't worry so much (bear in
mind over here it's smoked with tobacco as it's much more expensive than in
the US) but if I found my SS doing it I'd be more concerned because both of
his parents have addictive personalities - his mother was addicted to
heroin, amphetamine and alcohol. What the government says or doesn't say I
guess is fairly irrelevant to me, and I'm ok with that because it could be
that one day they do implement something that violates civil liberties (take
a look around the world) and so I want my children to be questioning of what
any govt says always.
YMMV
Nikki
WhansaMi
I'm not surprised. It makes sense.
But because I don't think drinking alcohol is a particularly important or
valuable activity, it isn't something I want to encourage. I'm not a
teetotaller. I drink alcohol maybe... I dunno... once every 2 or 3 months, a
glass of wine or a sweet drink (like a pina colada). But, it is good to know
that if I decided I wanted to let my 19 year old have a half a glass of
champagne with us at New Year's Eve, I wouldn't have to worry that I was going
against the law!
>
>And, you know, working to change a law is a *huge* proposition.
18, 19, and 20 year olds can vote. There are huge numbers of them. If they
were to organize sufficiently to form a decent voting block on the issue, maybe
I'd be convinced that they were responsible enough to join in myself! ;-)
If it
>means a lot to me, fine, it's probably worth it, but if I understand
>its role in maintaining a civilized society and my breaking it will
>not breach the reason that the law was made, then I will go ahead and
>break it. It's like the cell phone rule at my kids' middle school.
>They weren't allowed to have them because of the chance for major
>disruptions, and I understood that entirely. So my kids were told to
>keep their phones turned *off* until they left school at the end of
>the day. But I wanted them to have the phone *with* them; what good
>does a cell phone sitting on my kitchen counter do for a kid who needs
>to call 911 when she's walking home? The phone was a safety issue for
>me. I didn't bother leading a campaign to change things, I just told
>my kids to obey the spirit of the law (don't cause any disruptions at
>school) while I OK'd their disobeying the letter of the law.
What would be your response if one of their friends called them during class?
Would you argue with the punishment they recieved at school? Would you find
that fair, or unfair?
Sheila
WhansaMi
>this. It is illegal for a person under 18 to purchase alcohol. Drinking it
>I'm not sure about. I believe for example that some alcohols can be served
>in a restaurant setting to an underage person, but this bit could even be
>urban myth now that I think of it! I do know that it's not illegal for a
>minor to drink in their own home, presumably with adult supervision.
>
>So I do live in a place where underage drinking is illegal. But I think it
>would be fair to say that it is much easier to duck around that law here
>than in the States. It's like we have the same laws pretty much, but
>dissimilar attitudes. For example, I can go to any grocery store and buy
>alcohol at any hour that store is open. And I mean wine, beer and spirits of
>all kinds. The 'brown paper' attitude in some States is just weird to me. I
>also think our laws are not as strongly enforced.
I expect you are very right about that.
>
>I think I'm in the camp of 'laws are there for guidance'. I don't want my
>children blindly obeying any law, some of them are totally dumb.
I don't like some laws too. As I said, I don't agree with the drinking age in
the US being 21. I don't think marijuana should be illegal. Some communities
have rules about the color of houses and how high fences should be, which seems
silly to me. But, I think there are (and I'm going to use a word here that is
probably going to inflame folks here, and I don't mean to, but if I spend time
trying to find a less problematic one, I'm going to be late to work!) more
"honorable" ways of dealing with those laws, and less honorable ways. I'm
using "honorable" in the Mirriam Webster definition: 4 a : attesting to
creditable conduct b : consistent with an untarnished reputation. And, given
my view about laws, in order to achieve that, one should follow the laws the
vast majority of the time.
Whereas many here feel that they should not follow the law unless there is a
good and compelling reason **TO** follow it, I take the opposite perspective:
I think that one *should* follow the laws unless there are good and compelling
reasons **NOT** to. Those situations where "because I want to" is the reason,
well... for me, that isn't compelling --even if the behavior is something I
agree with.
If marijuana were legal, I'd probably smoke it once a month or so. I used to
like the feeling MUCH better than the feeling I got by drinking. But, I do not
smoke it, at all. I disagree with the law, but the fact that I like the way
the stuff makes me feel is not, IMO, a good and compelling reason to break the
law.
As you said, YMMV.
Sheila
WhansaMi
>
>Would you argue with the punishment they recieved at school? Would you find
>that fair, or unfair?
>
>Sheila
Oooh! I thought of a better example: what if your middle schooler got in
trouble because she got a call during class from a wrong number? She had no
control over it (obviously, unlike my first example where she may have had some
influence over her friend). But, nonetheless she disrupted the class. Would
you agree with the school that she should accept the consequences, or not?
Sheila
Vicki Robinson
If the phone was on so that it rang, I'd tell them to take their
medicine. *My* rule was to keep it turned off all day, and
to not switch it on until they were out of the school building at the
end of the day, just for that reason. No disruptions. However, they
were to check their messages the instant they got out the door, in
case I had left them a message about taking the bus.
I had absolutely no quarrel with the school not wanting phones or
pagers going off every three seconds, or kids calling each other
between each and every class. I understood that perfectly. But I
didn't think the school should have the right to say that my kids
couldn't even *have* a cell phone, turned off and inert, in their book
bags. My kids had them for *my* convenience, not theirs. It worked,
too. The administration and teachers turned a blind eye to
responsible kids who resisted the temptation to use their phones
during the day. If they'd gone around confiscating inactive phones,
I'd have gone to the school board.
In fact, I remember telling my daughter to check and see if I'd left
her a message during her lunch period. (Some fraught thing was going
on, I don't remember what it was.) She looked at me severely and said
"Mom, if you need to get hold of me during the school day, you can
call the office."
And now, it's a moot point. I believe that the official policy is
that phones and pagers must be off, but not absent.
I think that it worked so well for us in that my kids *were* able to
discipline themselves. I'm quite sure that there were other kids in
that school who wouldn't have been able to resist the temptation. I
was lucky that my kids aren't big phone gabbers anyway; I have a
stepdaughter who's on her cell phone the *instant* evening minutes
take over (6 PM) and it doesn't get detached from her ear until 11 PM.
I just don't get that.
Vicki Robinson
>Oooh! I thought of a better example: what if your middle schooler got in
>trouble because she got a call during class from a wrong number? She had no
>control over it (obviously, unlike my first example where she may have had some
>influence over her friend). But, nonetheless she disrupted the class. Would
>you agree with the school that she should accept the consequences, or not?
Of course. The phone was supposed to be *off*. That was the rule
that I imposed on them, so as to satisfy the school's need for order,
which was the reason for the "no cell phones/pagers" rule in the first
place.
I had no quarrel with the spirit of the rule. I just thought that
they were using an elephant gun on a bunny.
Anne Robotti
Robinson) wrote:
>I think that it worked so well for us in that my kids *were* able to
>discipline themselves. I'm quite sure that there were other kids in
>that school who wouldn't have been able to resist the temptation. I
>was lucky that my kids aren't big phone gabbers anyway; I have a
>stepdaughter who's on her cell phone the *instant* evening minutes
>take over (6 PM) and it doesn't get detached from her ear until 11 PM.
>I just don't get that.
SD text messages me all day. All during both her free periods, and
sometimes in the middle of the day too. I always text back, "It's
11:15, I *know* you're in Biology, cut the shit."
I don't think she's alone in that though, if she's not texting me
she's texting her friends. She knows that if they confiscate her phone
she won't be getting it back, the rule is that if they confiscate the
phone for using it during class they only return it to a parent, in
person. And I'd be taking my own sweet time getting over there too...
Anne
Vicki Robinson
>I don't think she's alone in that though, if she's not texting me
>she's texting her friends. She knows that if they confiscate her phone
>she won't be getting it back, the rule is that if they confiscate the
>phone for using it during class they only return it to a parent, in
>person. And I'd be taking my own sweet time getting over there too...
I'd take my time getting there, and then she *still* wouldn't get it
back for some time.
Paul had to take his daughter's phone away, because she went over her
peak minutes by some huge amount. She has since managed to keep her
long conversations confined to the evening hours.
Melissa
>>I've never understood
>>this compulsion to create laws for everything.
>
>Interesting POV from a person who likes the socialist (i.e.nanny state) type
>of
>government.
>
>~~Geri~~
Have you read Wendy's posts? She's a huge nonconformist libertarian type.
Love,
Melissa
jane
>
>Nikki
She said that she never ordered alcohol without an adult. It's funny over
here. When I was growing up, if the parents didn't object, the waiter would
serve the kids. Nowadays, you can have wine with dinner at home, but not in
restaurants.
jane
jane
>do that without feeling that I am implicitly telling them that they should
>choose which laws they want to obey and which they don't want to?
Which, of course, they should.
jane
_calinda_
>> For example, I can go to any
>> grocery store and buy alcohol at any hour that store is open. And
I
>> mean wine, beer and spirits of all kinds. The 'brown paper'
attitude
>> in some States is just weird to me. I also think our laws are not
as
>> strongly enforced.
>
> I expect you are very right about that.
MA finally just changed the "blue laws" so that buying alcohol on
Sundays is no longer illegal this past January.
>
>>
>> I think I'm in the camp of 'laws are there for guidance'. I don't
>> want my children blindly obeying any law, some of them are
totally
>> dumb.
>
> I don't like some laws too. As I said, I don't agree with the
> drinking age in the US being 21.
If you can go to war, if you can get married and vote, if you are
considered an adult in every other way then you should be able to
have the right to drink (and smoke- though I hate smoking and don't
even like to follow a smoker in a car, if their windows are open,
that's how sensitive I am to it)
>I don't think marijuana should be illegal.
>Some communities have rules about the color of houses and
> how high fences should be, which seems silly to me.
It is illegal to hang your laundry out to dry in my town. It can
not be visible from any angle from the road, or you can be fined.
Personally I hate hanging my laundry so I don't anyway, but that law
just blows my mind.
>But, I think
> there are (and I'm going to use a word here that is probably going
to
> inflame folks here, and I don't mean to, but if I spend time
trying
> to find a less problematic one, I'm going to be late to work!)
more
> "honorable" ways of dealing with those laws, and less honorable
ways.
> I'm using "honorable" in the Mirriam Webster definition: 4 a :
> attesting to creditable conduct b : consistent with an untarnished
> reputation. And, given my view about laws, in order to achieve
that,
> one should follow the laws the vast majority of the time.
>
> Whereas many here feel that they should not follow the law unless
> there is a good and compelling reason **TO** follow it, I take the
> opposite perspective: I think that one *should* follow the laws
> unless there are good and compelling reasons **NOT** to. Those
> situations where "because I want to" is the reason, well... for
me,
> that isn't compelling --even if the behavior is something I agree
> with.
Agreed. If I felt strong enough about a law that I thought needed
changing, I would do what I could to change it. If I wanted to hang
my laundry for instance, I would do something to change it.
Cal~
jane
>Of course. The phone was supposed to be *off*. That was the rule
>that I imposed on them, so as to satisfy the school's need for order,
>which was the reason for the "no cell phones/pagers" rule in the first
>place.
Lee's is supposed to be on vibrate, but she usually doesn't have network at her
school anyway.
On a related note, cell phones used to be banned here. Then they had those
shootings at high schools here, and they rescinded the rule.
jane
rebecca
"Anne Robotti" <arob...@deletemelscomm.net> wrote in message
news:iusl509pf0pkedkk7...@4ax.com...
>
> SD text messages me all day. All during both her free periods, and
> sometimes in the middle of the day too. I always text back, "It's
> 11:15, I *know* you're in Biology, cut the shit."
I think it's sweet that she texts you, Anne. She _LIKES_ you.
rebecca
_calinda_
> What would be your response if one of their friends called them
> during class? Would you argue with the punishment they recieved at
> school? Would you find that fair, or unfair?
If their phone was off, it'd just go to voice mail anyway. If they
didn't turn it off, they should lose the phone till the end of the
school day. I don't think confiscating the phone beyond that is
appropriate. If the cell was simply a convenience item it would be
one thing. I think having a cell phone has surpassed being simply a
convenience item, though.
One good thing that came out of that "you can't access your children
from MY resources" was getting them each a phone. Of course, I've
allowed him to access the kids from the cell phone I pay for, but
I'm not petty & vindictive like he is.
Cal~
Geri and sometimes Brian
I never got the idea she was libertarian, though I did get the idea she is a
total nonconformist. I don't see how socialism and libertarianism can be
compatible, and she totally has socialist leanings.
_calinda_
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:55:44 +0000 (UTC), vjr...@xcski.com (Vicki
> Robinson) wrote:
>
>
>> I think that it worked so well for us in that my kids *were* able
to
>> discipline themselves. I'm quite sure that there were other kids
in
>> that school who wouldn't have been able to resist the temptation.
I
>> was lucky that my kids aren't big phone gabbers anyway;
My DD is like that. She always forgets to turn the damn thing on,
at the end of the school day, unless She wants to make a call. So
forget about anyone calling her. Some months there are less than
10/15 minutes of usage on her phone.
She does however, use the text messaging quite a bit. I make her
pay for those, as it's 10cent for outgoing and 2 cent for incoming.
That can add quite a bit. My son once set up his IM program to
forward to his phone.. he rang up over $40. of fees. He paid for
that and cancelled the forwarding. It taught him a quick lesson on
reading the fine print!
>>I have a
>> stepdaughter who's on her cell phone the *instant* evening
minutes
>> take over (6 PM) and it doesn't get detached from her ear until
11
>> PM. I just don't get that.
hehe.. that would be me.. I once spent 13 hours in a 24 hour day
talking to someone on the phone in blocks of anywhere between 3 and
four hours. Kids were away and we were both home alone, but too far
for a face-face visit. We chatted, watched TV together, went to a
chatroom and talked privately in the background while chatting with
a whole group of people. Was fun.
I pay for and use up 1200 peak minutes that are shared by the four
of us. We also have unlimited moblie minutes to anyone on verizon.
The four of us average about 6000 minutes a mon/ with my daughter
using about 15. <shrug> We're big on reaching out and touching
someone ;-)
> SD text messages me all day. All during both her free periods, and
> sometimes in the middle of the day too. I always text back, "It's
> 11:15, I *know* you're in Biology, cut the shit."
It's surprising that her teachers isn't aware of what she's doing,
if she's text messaging that often. That would tick me off, if they
are aware and letting her do it anyway.
> I don't think she's alone in that though, if she's not texting me
> she's texting her friends. She knows that if they confiscate her
phone
> she won't be getting it back, the rule is that if they confiscate
the
> phone for using it during class they only return it to a parent,
in
> person. And I'd be taking my own sweet time getting over there
too...
See, I am the type of parent that would go to the teacher in the
class that she's been text messaging from and telling them to take
the damn thing away already. The only way the kid will learn is for
the consequences to be enforced. It's just like parenting, if you
have a rule but don't enforce it, kids are going to know they can
get away with it.
Cal~
> Anne
_calinda_
> In a previous article, Anne Robotti <arob...@deletemelscomm.net>
> said:
>
>> I don't think she's alone in that though, if she's not texting me
>> she's texting her friends. She knows that if they confiscate her
>> phone she won't be getting it back, the rule is that if they
>> confiscate the phone for using it during class they only return
it
>> to a parent, in person. And I'd be taking my own sweet time
getting
>> over there too...
>
> I'd take my time getting there, and then she *still* wouldn't get
it
> back for some time.
>
> Paul had to take his daughter's phone away, because she went over
her
> peak minutes by some huge amount.
Did he make her pay for the overage? I would have. But then, my
kids tell me I'm a meanie :-D
>She has since managed to keep her
> long conversations confined to the evening hours.
Our evening minutes don't start till 9:01 PM. The kids know they
have to confine their long conversations to that time period as
well. Sometimes, you'll have the three of us all on calls to our
"SO's" all at the same time. Head sets are a godsend.
Cal~
>
> Vicki
Anne Robotti
<calinda...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>See, I am the type of parent that would go to the teacher in the
>class that she's been text messaging from and telling them to take
>the damn thing away already. The only way the kid will learn is for
>the consequences to be enforced. It's just like parenting, if you
>have a rule but don't enforce it, kids are going to know they can
>get away with it.
Yeah, I'm more the type of parent that makes other people enforce
their own rules. Rushing around the world making sure everybody else
is enforcing rules they set for their own convenience isn't really my
style.
Now, if she was text-ing me during an Elks or school board meeting, or
during parent-teacher conferences or something, I'd be all over that.
When I leave the house and say "Call me if there's an emergency"
that's what I mean. That I'll enforce.
Anne
Anne Robotti
<calinda...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Did he make her pay for the overage? I would have. But then, my
>kids tell me I'm a meanie :-D
Isn't that the very first rule of having a cell phone? If the bill is
big enough to make it onto my radar, you're paying it. SD racked up
$80 in peak-time charges last month, she paid them. She also had $15
in text messages that should not have been billed, I made her call
Cingular and straighten it out or pay me, her choice. She made the
call.
>
>>She has since managed to keep her
>> long conversations confined to the evening hours.
>
>Our evening minutes don't start till 9:01 PM. The kids know they
>have to confine their long conversations to that time period as
>well. Sometimes, you'll have the three of us all on calls to our
>"SO's" all at the same time. Head sets are a godsend.
I think our off-peak minutes start at 7, which is good because I
usually take the phone at 10. Nine when she's being a pissy bitch
which is usually.
Anne
ni...@impactwp.com
"jane" <janel...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040319094602...@mb-m29.aol.com...
She never ordered alcohol without an adult. With any other kid I'd roll my
eyes and say 'yeah right' but this is Lee we're talking about. And you're
having a curfew issue because? She wasn't even on the same continent as you
and she STILL did the right thing. I didn't do the right thing as soon as I
was a 2 minute drive away from my parents. Mind you their attitude was 'hey
go to the pub and drink if you like but when the police bring you home we
have no clue you were doing something illegal so be prepared to take the
consequences'.
Nikki
Wendy
"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.comGOBIGRED> wrote in message
news:20040319101253...@mb-m17.aol.com...
> >Have you read Wendy's posts? She's a huge nonconformist libertarian
type.
>
> I never got the idea she was libertarian, though I did get the idea she is
a
> total nonconformist. I don't see how socialism and libertarianism can be
> compatible, and she totally has socialist leanings.
Socialist leanings?! Geri, I've been on the list for years, as have you.
We've done the Political Compass Survey before - remember Left ---Right,
Libertarian ---- Authoritarin. (www.politicalcompass.org)
My scores are -8.62 on the Economic Left/Right spectrum and -7.69 on the
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian. I'm more left wing and libertarian than
Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama. I believe fundamentally in the right to
personal choice and the need to hold the interests of humanity and society
higher than those of commerce.
Wendy T
PS Thanks for your awareness, Melissa.
Geri and sometimes Brian
>personal choice and the need to hold the interests of humanity and society
>higher than those of commerce.
I don't see how those things reconcile, really. What if the "interests of
humanity and society" are greater than "your right to personal choice"?
Melissa
Anytime. :)
Love,
Melissa
jane
>Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama.
And me IIRC.
jane
Wendy
"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.comGOBIGRED> wrote in message
> >I believe fundamentally in the right to
> >personal choice and the need to hold the interests of humanity and
society
> >higher than those of commerce.
>
> I don't see how those things reconcile, really. What if the "interests of
> humanity and society" are greater than "your right to personal choice"?
People should have the right to personal choice, so long as it doesn't harm
anyone else. There are questions of degrees of harm that we could go into,
and certainly there are people and things which need protection (children
for example). What doesn't reconcile?
Wendy T
Wendy
> > I'm more left wing and libertarian than
> >Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama.
>
> And me IIRC.
Good point.
Wendy T
Wendy
"WhansaMi" <whan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040319065110...@mb-m03.aol.com...
> I don't like some laws too. As I said, I don't agree with the drinking
age in
> the US being 21. I don't think marijuana should be illegal. Some
communities
> have rules about the color of houses and how high fences should be, which
seems
> silly to me. But, I think there are (and I'm going to use a word here
that is
> probably going to inflame folks here, and I don't mean to, but if I spend
time
> trying to find a less problematic one, I'm going to be late to work!) more
> "honorable" ways of dealing with those laws, and less honorable ways. I'm
> using "honorable" in the Mirriam Webster definition: 4 a : attesting to
> creditable conduct b : consistent with an untarnished reputation. And,
given
> my view about laws, in order to achieve that, one should follow the laws
the
> vast majority of the time.
If you take cannabis and follow your approach, no one would smoke it, so
there would be no reason to change the law. It is the fact that so many
people do smoke it, regardless of the law, that shows the law needs to be
changed.
Laws should be a reflection of the values of people, rather than a
determiner of people's values on the whole.
Wendy T
Wendy
> Now, if she was text-ing me during an Elks or school board meeting, or
> during parent-teacher conferences or something, I'd be all over that.
> When I leave the house and say "Call me if there's an emergency"
> that's what I mean. That I'll enforce.
But texting is like emailing, just because the message gets delivered to
your mailbox doesn't mean that you have to read it until it is convenient.
In fact, text messages can arrive instantly, but they can take hours to
arrive also. Texting can't be relied upon for urgent communications, any
more than email can.
With my work mobile, if I'm in meetings I either turn it off, or switch it
to silent so that I can seem missed calls but don't disrupt the meeting.
Wendy T
ni...@impactwp.com
> >nik wrote:
> >I think I'm in the camp of 'laws are there for guidance'. I don't want my
> >children blindly obeying any law, some of them are totally dumb.
>
> I don't like some laws too. As I said, I don't agree with the drinking
age in
> the US being 21. I don't think marijuana should be illegal. Some
communities
> have rules about the color of houses and how high fences should be, which
seems
> silly to me. But, I think there are (and I'm going to use a word here
that is
> probably going to inflame folks here, and I don't mean to, but if I spend
time
> trying to find a less problematic one, I'm going to be late to work!) more
> "honorable" ways of dealing with those laws, and less honorable ways. I'm
> using "honorable" in the Mirriam Webster definition: 4 a : attesting to
> creditable conduct b : consistent with an untarnished reputation. And,
given
> my view about laws, in order to achieve that, one should follow the laws
the
> vast majority of the time.
Cal's comment about the washing was just classic!! I was going to say that
whether something is illegal or not doesn't even come on my radar really.
But now that I think of it, I'm not sure that's true. I think I probably
work the law to my advantage and totally ignore it when it doesn't work for
me. Fortunately, I'm essentially a highly moral person so this doesn't give
me licence to go around killing or stealing.
>
> Whereas many here feel that they should not follow the law unless there is
a
> good and compelling reason **TO** follow it, I take the opposite
perspective:
> I think that one *should* follow the laws unless there are good and
compelling
> reasons **NOT** to. Those situations where "because I want to" is the
reason,
> well... for me, that isn't compelling --even if the behavior is something
I
> agree with.
I'd probably be horrified by someone telling me they only followed the laws
they wanted to follow. But then I realise that's precisely what I do. oh
well!
>
> If marijuana were legal, I'd probably smoke it once a month or so. I used
to
> like the feeling MUCH better than the feeling I got by drinking. But, I
do not
> smoke it, at all. I disagree with the law, but the fact that I like the
way
> the stuff makes me feel is not, IMO, a good and compelling reason to break
the
> law.
I've smoked pot as and when I've wanted to, with little regard for the law.
It's been moved down a classification in England. Most people are assuming
it's been made legal, but that's not true. It's now a class c drug which
means you'll just get a caution for possession, but any supply of it (even
offering someone a toke) is still highly illegal. I just want to go to
Amsterdam for the sheer fun of choosing what type you want off a menu and
being able to smoke it in a certain cafe. That strikes me as highly
entertaining.
Thanks for making me realise what an immoral and non-law-abiding bitch I am!
lol
Nikki
Vicki Robinson
>I've smoked pot as and when I've wanted to, with little regard for the law.
>It's been moved down a classification in England. Most people are assuming
>it's been made legal, but that's not true.
This is another aspect of choosing the laws to follow, and that is the
risk. I'll risk a speeding ticket. I won't risk a felony conviction
for drugs because I've got a joint in my purse. (OK, it's not that
bad for a first offense, but the Rockefeller-era drug laws, still on
the books, are *insanely* punitive here in New York.) I've told my
kids that marijuana is probably less damaging to their bodies than
alcohol, but not to their lives if they get caught.
Here we go, from the drugpolicy.org site:
"Under the Rockefeller Drug Laws, the possession of four ounces or
sale of two ounces of a narcotic substance is a Class A felony and
carries a penalty of 15 years to life in prison. Possession of two
ounces or the sale of half an ounce of a narcotic mandates three years
to life in prison." The worst part of the Rockefeller Laws is that
judges **must** impose minimum sentences, cannot take into
consideration background, character, role in the offense, or threat to
society. Judges are also restricted in their ability to divert
offenders into treatment programs.
That's more than I'm prepared to risk, and I've driven that point home
to my kids, too, I hope.
_calinda_
> Cal's comment about the washing was just classic!!
lol. laugh if you wanna but that's the God's honest truth. It IS
illegal to hang laundry. Can you imagine? We have other snobby
laws like that as well. Can only have one unregistered vehicle on
your property and it must be out of sight, in a garage or behind a
fence. That one I like, because well.. I've seen a few places that
become junk yards as someone buys old cars for 'parts' and drags the
property values down.
We do have some pretty silly laws around here.
Cal~
The Watsons
"_calinda_" <calinda...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c3hutt$26ckt8$1...@ID-178943.news.uni-berlin.de...
> We do have some pretty silly laws around here.
:D
Jess
Wendy
"Vicki Robinson" <vjr...@xcski.com> wrote in message
news:c3htva$i0a$1...@allhats.xcski.com...
> Here we go, from the drugpolicy.org site:
>
> "Under the Rockefeller Drug Laws, the possession of four ounces or
> sale of two ounces of a narcotic substance is a Class A felony and
> carries a penalty of 15 years to life in prison. Possession of two
> ounces or the sale of half an ounce of a narcotic mandates three years
> to life in prison." The worst part of the Rockefeller Laws is that
> judges **must** impose minimum sentences, cannot take into
> consideration background, character, role in the offense, or threat to
> society. Judges are also restricted in their ability to divert
> offenders into treatment programs.
Ounces! Ounces?
People in England buy it in grams. My point is 4 ounce is a quarter of a
pound and if you had that much there is an assumption that you're dealing.
Wendy T
Wendy
"_calinda_" <calinda...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c3hutt$26ckt8$1...@ID-178943.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > Cal's comment about the washing was just classic!!
>
> lol. laugh if you wanna but that's the God's honest truth. It IS
> illegal to hang laundry. Can you imagine?
This may be an urban myth, but I heard that there is at least one American
state which prohibits women masturbating. Is that true?
We have other snobby
> laws like that as well. Can only have one unregistered vehicle on
> your property and it must be out of sight, in a garage or behind a
> fence. That one I like, because well.. I've seen a few places that
> become junk yards as someone buys old cars for 'parts' and drags the
> property values down.
Wouldn't work in England. No basements, so garages substitute and land is
prohibitively expensive, so lots are small.
Wendy T
The Watsons
"Wendy" <we...@hundredakerwood.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c3i38p$pjn$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> This may be an urban myth, but I heard that there is at least one American
> state which prohibits women masturbating. Is that true?
there's a city here in arizona that prohibits more than two dildos in the
same house....it's illegal in another for women to wear pants...:D
Jess
Vicki Robinson
And should you go to prison for life if you are carrying enough
marijuana that a reasonable person could think you might be planning
to sell it? This isn't for distribution, it's for possession.
I have a problem with sentencing people to prison because there's an
assumption that you're selling. I think the state should have to
prove that you *are* selling, and even then... **LIFE** for the sale
of two ounces of marijuana?
Vicki Robinson
>And should you go to prison for life if you are carrying enough
>marijuana that a reasonable person could think you might be planning
>to sell it? This isn't for distribution, it's for possession.
>
>I have a problem with sentencing people to prison because there's an
>assumption that you're selling. I think the state should have to
>prove that you *are* selling, and even then... **LIFE** for the sale
>of two ounces of marijuana?
By the way, a conviction for violent rape in NY state gets you, with no
prior convictions, 5 - 25 years. So a rapist *convicted* of his crime
can get a max of 25 years, and a person convicted of holding 4 ounces
of marijuana goes to jail for life?
New York jails are jam-packed with drug offenders, most of whom have
no record of violent behavior at all. Yet, we're paying to support
them and their families are living without them. I can't quite figure
out why.
_calinda_
> We have other snobby
>> laws like that as well. Can only have one unregistered vehicle
on
>> your property and it must be out of sight, in a garage or behind
a
>> fence. That one I like, because well.. I've seen a few places
that
>> become junk yards as someone buys old cars for 'parts' and drags
the
>> property values down.
>
> Wouldn't work in England. No basements, so garages substitute and
> land is prohibitively expensive, so lots are small.
>
> Wendy T
The town I live in mandates that no house can be built on less than
one acre of land. Only lots that were in existence before that
ordinance can be grandfathered in. They also mandate the shape of
that acre with a minimum measurement in diameter, so as to minimize
what they call the pork chop effect.
Our state has instituted what they call Anti-snob laws to counteract
these local ordinances, which prevent lower income housing. The
requirement is each city or town must have at least 10 % set aside
as low income housing. Last I heard, we only had three percent. I
read that the average home price locally exceeded $400,000. last
year.
Cal~
Looking forward to moving somewhere a bit more reasonable!
_calinda_
I think there's a woman who was arrested because it's illegal to
sell vibrators in Texas . Let me see if I can find the link:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/12/16/MNGEA3O52I1.DTL
It's amazing what they'll waste our tax monies on.
Cal~
ni...@impactwp.com
"Wendy" <we...@hundredakerwood.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c3i38p$pjn$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> news:c3hutt$26ckt8$1...@ID-178943.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > ni...@impactwp.com wrote:
> > > Cal's comment about the washing was just classic!!
> >
> > lol. laugh if you wanna but that's the God's honest truth. It IS
> > illegal to hang laundry. Can you imagine?
>
> This may be an urban myth, but I heard that there is at least one American
> state which prohibits women masturbating. Is that true?
OK well in that case I'm FUCKED!
lol
n
ni...@impactwp.com
"The Watsons" <warped...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Yq07c.19953$Nj.13953@fed1read01...
>
> "Wendy" <we...@hundredakerwood.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:c3i38p$pjn$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > This may be an urban myth, but I heard that there is at least one
American
> > state which prohibits women masturbating. Is that true?
>
> there's a city here in arizona that prohibits more than two dildos in the
> same house....
does that include the husband as one of the dildo's?
>it's illegal in another for women to wear pants...:D
Well now that just makes me mad.
n
>
> Jess
>
>
_calinda_
> "Wendy" wrote:
>> This may be an urban myth, but I heard that there is at least one
>> American state which prohibits women masturbating. Is that true?
>
> OK well in that case I'm FUCKED!
>
> lol
> n
Okay Nikki, but if you're fucked.. then whaddya need to masturbate
for? <EG>
Cal~
(thinking this thread has certainly taken a turn...) <g>
Deborah M Riel
Wendy <we...@hundredakerwood.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Ounces! Ounces?
>
>People in England buy it in grams. My point is 4 ounce is a quarter of a
>pound and if you had that much there is an assumption that you're dealing.
>
>Wendy T
Hmmm--back in the day, if you had 4 ounces, the assumption was that
you and your friends were going to have a good couple of weekends.
4 ounces wouldn't even have been a blip on a dealer's radar screen.
Deb R.
Deborah M Riel
_calinda_ <calinda...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>lol. laugh if you wanna but that's the God's honest truth. It IS
>illegal to hang laundry. Can you imagine?
You must live in one of those rich and fancy Massachusetts towns :-)
Here in Worcester, we're full of those 3 deckers, all with rotating
clotheslines on the porch of each floor.
Deb R.
>
>
ni...@impactwp.com
"Deborah M Riel" <dr...@wpi.edu> wrote in message
news:c3i9f4$18tm$1...@bigboote.WPI.EDU...
In the UK pot is generally smoked with tobacco. I used to smoke as a
teenager. Went to the States aged 20 and found out they smoke it neat. Two
puffs and I was away with the fairies.
So maybe the perception of how much is how much is different here than
there. IME 4 ounces would be a lot. A regular smoker might buy an ounce at a
time and it would last a good while.
I agree with Vicki though I think that some proof of distribution ought to
be implemented, especially when such strong sentences for distribution are
concerned. The whole rape/marijuana smoking thing is ridiculous. Half our
planet is addicted to caffeine but we don't mind that as it's socially
acceptable.
Nikki
The Watsons
<ni...@impactwp.com> wrote in message
news:1079812...@localhost.localdomain...
> does that include the husband as one of the dildo's?
*snickers*
>
> >it's illegal in another for women to wear pants...:D
>
> Well now that just makes me mad.
i thought it was funny, myself-one of those passed when we weren't even a
state yet.....just like the one that says you can't ride your horse up the
steps of city hall.....*L*
Jess
Anne Robotti
>
>"Wendy" <we...@hundredakerwood.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:c3i38p$pjn$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> "_calinda_" <calinda...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:c3hutt$26ckt8$1...@ID-178943.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> > ni...@impactwp.com wrote:
>> > > Cal's comment about the washing was just classic!!
>> >
>> > lol. laugh if you wanna but that's the God's honest truth. It IS
>> > illegal to hang laundry. Can you imagine?
>>
>> This may be an urban myth, but I heard that there is at least one American
>> state which prohibits women masturbating. Is that true?
>
>OK well in that case I'm FUCKED!
God, me too! I hope it's not NJ!
Anne
Anne Robotti
>So maybe the perception of how much is how much is different here than
>there. IME 4 ounces would be a lot. A regular smoker might buy an ounce at a
>time and it would last a good while.
Oh for God's sake, I've never even smoked it, how many ounces in a
joint?
>
>I agree with Vicki though I think that some proof of distribution ought to
>be implemented, especially when such strong sentences for distribution are
>concerned. The whole rape/marijuana smoking thing is ridiculous. Half our
>planet is addicted to caffeine but we don't mind that as it's socially
>acceptable.
Of course, people don't drive their cars into trees (or other people)
because they just drank a big cup of coffee and got on the road
either.
Anne
Vicki Robinson
>Oh for God's sake, I've never even smoked it, how many ounces in a
>joint?
The web tells me that medical marijuana is used at 0.5 g to 4 g in a
joint. There are 28 grams in an ounce, so we're talking 56 to 7
joints per ounce.
It seems that there is about 0.8 grams of tobacco in a cigarette, so
one ounce would make 35 cigarettes. I've never met a joint as big as
a cigarette.
Tracey
Vicki Robinson wrote:
> It seems that there is about 0.8 grams of tobacco in a cigarette, so
> one ounce would make 35 cigarettes. I've never met a joint as big as
> a cigarette.
Piker.
Tracey
heather m.
> In a previous article, Anne Robotti <arob...@deletemelscomm.net> said:
>
> >Oh for God's sake, I've never even smoked it, how many ounces in a
> >joint?
>
> The web tells me that medical marijuana is used at 0.5 g to 4 g in a
> joint. There are 28 grams in an ounce, so we're talking 56 to 7
> joints per ounce.
>
> It seems that there is about 0.8 grams of tobacco in a cigarette, so
> one ounce would make 35 cigarettes. I've never met a joint as big as
> a cigarette.
>
> Vicki
> --
Blunts are big here with black people. I have *no* idea why it seems to be
such a divided thing, any white people I know that smoke weed have always
smoked a joint here and there, but every single black person I know that
smokes weed here will smoke a blunt. It's a cigar unwrapped, then filled to
the max with marijuana and re-rolled.
Heather
Lori
"Geri and sometimes Brian" <gple...@aol.comGOBIGRED> wrote in message
news:20040319162921...@mb-m19.aol.com...
> >I believe fundamentally in the right to
> >personal choice and the need to hold the interests of humanity and
society
> >higher than those of commerce.
>
> I don't see how those things reconcile, really. What if the "interests of
> humanity and society" are greater than "your right to personal choice"?
>
> ~~Geri~~
> [Deep behind enemy lines in Pac-10 Country]
Also, where does personal responsibility (in all ways, including financial
responsibility) for one's own personal choices fit in?
Lori
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.634 / Virus Database: 406 - Release Date: 3/18/04
Rupa Bose
> WhansaMi wrote:
> >
> > I don't like some laws too. As I said, I don't agree with the
> > drinking age in the US being 21.
>
> considered an adult in every other way then you should be able to
> have the right to drink (and smoke- though I hate smoking and don't
> even like to follow a smoker in a car, if their windows are open,
> that's how sensitive I am to it)
>
I dunno. I agree with most of what you said, but I think the idea on
drinking is that if kids start to experiment with alcohol and driving
at about the same time -- and that at an age when it is now accepted
that their brains are still in process -- they are a danger not just
to themselves but to others. I think this particular legislation is
targeting that behaviour, though with what success I can't say. (I
think the research indicated that girls' accident rates fell from
their teens into their twenties, while for boys it started or falling
or remained flat, then spiked again in the early twenties, as they
became legally able to drink in public.)
> > Whereas many here feel that they should not follow the law unlessb
> > there is a good and compelling reason **TO** follow it, I take the
> > opposite perspective: I think that one *should* follow the laws
> > unless there are good and compelling reasons **NOT** to. Those
> > situations where "because I want to" is the reason, well... for
> me,
> > that isn't compelling --even if the behavior is something I agree
> > with.
>
> Agreed. If I felt strong enough about a law that I thought needed
> changing, I would do what I could to change it. If I wanted to hang
> my laundry for instance, I would do something to change it.
I agree with this, completely -- even when it is not possible to
change the law. We have moved around a lot, and my own policy is, Obey
the law of the country you're in. It keeps you out of trouble, and it
shows respect to the country you're living in at the time.
Rupa
ni...@impactwp.com
"Anne Robotti" <arob...@deletemelscomm.net> wrote in message
news:fpjp505trhjb273vk...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 21:56:08 -0000, <ni...@impactwp.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >So maybe the perception of how much is how much is different here than
> >there. IME 4 ounces would be a lot. A regular smoker might buy an ounce
at a
> >time and it would last a good while.
>
> Oh for God's sake, I've never even smoked it, how many ounces in a
> joint?
Honey you put ounces in a joint and you're going to fly away and never come
home!! A regular smoker friend who is your one or two a day type informs me
that an eighth of an ounce a week is what he gets through - which is about
4g a week if that's how you count. I remember seeing a woman on Ricki Lake
years ago who said she did a quarter of an ounce a day - I guess one could
consider that high usage!
>
> >
> >I agree with Vicki though I think that some proof of distribution ought
to
> >be implemented, especially when such strong sentences for distribution
are
> >concerned. The whole rape/marijuana smoking thing is ridiculous. Half our
> >planet is addicted to caffeine but we don't mind that as it's socially
> >acceptable.
>
> Of course, people don't drive their cars into trees (or other people)
> because they just drank a big cup of coffee and got on the road
> either.
Is this a comparison between caffeine and alcohol or marijuana? I see your
point but I wasn't really talking about the risk taking side of usage of a
substance, of course driving under a substance isn't smart. I would argue
that being on caffeine when you're totally out of your brains isn't going to
make for a good driving experience - I wonder how much road rage is due to
the caffeine coursing through someone's veins prompting a level of urgency
that might not have been there otherwise or just aggravating a natural
aggressive tendency? Even though, not the same, you're right. What I was
saying is about what is socially acceptable or not - and the fact is the
line between what is and isn't socially acceptable in terms of any substance
abuse is an arbitrary one. Heroin and cocaine used to be prescribed by
doctors, they were withdrawn, which created a black market for them that
still exists today. Marijuana was outlawed so as to not upset the tobacco
companies.
I would like to live my life free of any substance. I want to live on my own
natural energy - I'm not even comfortable with the idea of taking Korean
Ginseng for energy in the long-term because it gives me a buzz and I don't
want to live buzzed up. I have experimented minimally with strong drugs but
not for a very, very long time now. Right now I'm managing not to smoke
tobacco or marijuana, my caffeine consumption is a cup of coffee in the
morning and the occasional Starbucks (one every few days max), my sugar
consumption is pretty minimal and my alcohol consumption is up to 2 glasses
a day with a couple of days off a week. I've had totally caffeine and
alcohol free periods in the last year lasting up to a couple of months - and
I mean not a drop. I don't feel the need now to be that strict about them
because I do find I can take or leave them and I'm comfortable with that.
Although I'm planning to get pregnant so I will keep the caffeine low and go
back to a couple of glasses of alcohol a week maximum.
So interesting, to keep within the topic of laws etc, that I'm actually much
harder on myself than our laws would be, which proves to me that my own
internal radar is a better moral guide for me than any pattern laid down by
any Government.
Nikki
>
> Anne