From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: What, Me Vote?
Date: 15 Nov 92 17:28:26 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1632@airgun.wg.waii.com> miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller X7114) writes:

>In article <1992Nov11.145949.27221@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>
>>That is a bad thing, because it doesn't take human nature into
>>account.  It's like the old 'drug education' they used to give, where
>>drugs were the ultimate evil.  Except when people tried them and
>>weren't struck by lightning, that immediately invalidated EVERYTHING
>>they'd been told about drugs, as far as they were concerned.  So even
>>in the places where the dangers they were told about were true, they
>>no longer believed what they were told.  And of course, drug use
>>skyrocketed. 

>I agree that it's silly to try to teach people to not use drugs and 
>give "because" as the reason. It wouldn't be very effective, partially for 
>the reasons you stated. On the other hand, I think we still need to be
>teaching people not even to try illegal drugs in the first place (which is
>what I've always thought "Just Say NO" means) because they can lead to
>serious addiction and/or death.

Whether they can lead to "serious addiction and/or death" sort of
depends on just which drugs you're talking about.  Whis was the
problem with the old scare tactics and the whole 'just say no'
philosophy.  People were told how horrible, dangerous, and addictive
drugs were.  They tried a little pot, and lo and behold, it felt good,
they didn't die, and they were less addicted than they were to coffee.
Then you get to the "hey, they lied about that -- they probably lied
about heroin, too" attitude.

TRUTH in education is probably a better and more effective method.

>>Sure you do.  Now then, shall we find out at what age everyone in this
>>group lost their virginity and whether they are still with that
>>person?  

>No, because it wouldn't serve any purpose. I'd be willing to bet that most
>of the people in this group lost their virginity before they'd ever heard of
>AIDS.

Do you really think that matters that much?  We had our own lists of
dire consequences.  Let's face it; the typical teen figures that it
just can't happen to THEM -- they're immortal, lucky, and smart.  It's
the same logic (or lack of it) that leads to them trying all sorts of
other things.

>>Sure, if you do all that you do a lot toward eliminating the
>>risk of things like AIDS; the unrealistic part is that MOST PEOPLE
>>WON'T DO THAT.  Every try to convince a 16-18 year old boy that he
>>SHOULDN'T try to have sex?  Good luck.  :-)

>Actually, it's entirely possible, and not at all improbable. Besides, your
>chances of success are greater nowadays since you can add AIDS to your list
>of reasons not to.

Yeah, and then they look at the incidence of AIDS and figure it won't
happen to them.  So they do it anyway, unprotected and she gets
pregnant or they get AIDS or something else bad happens.  You can't
stop it that way because the typical teen simply figures that that
sort of thing only happens to OTHER people.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: tx.politics