Exreality.NET

Before the Internet, parenting was a darn near impossible task. Clearly, individuals from years past were poorly raised because their parents couldn’t look for a solution to every problem they had raising their children on the Internet. I mean, those morons who started that whole American Revolution thing were raised so badly that they thought splitting from the King was a good idea. If only they had been able to research uprisings on the Internet. The worst possible thing that you can look up on the net as a parent is drug abuse. Because as we all know, any moron can publish on the web. And they do, under the guise of being productive, informative organizations.

This represents a collaborative effort on the part of two of our editors, edited in real-time using a collaborative text editor, or, as distorted put it, “multiplayer notepad!” For the sake of clarity, Nyarlathotep’s edits are in red and distorted’s are in blue. Statements from the website are in bold, or “quoted and in bold.”

Indeed, and morons are dangerous. Especially morons who have a vested interest in keeping certain things in the status quo. But certainly, there’s no organization which is indebted to tobacco companies, the pharmaceutical industry an–oh wait. Today kiddies we’ve got a special treat for you: spurred on by an advertisement floating atop CNN.com, an established liberal organization, mind. We took a look at the “PARENTS: THE ANTI - DRUG” website (www.theantidrug.com).

First off, let’s take a look at the banner located on the Drug Information Page…a charming little flash “doohickey.”

“Marijuana is [some number] times more potent today than it was 20 years ago.”

Wow, amazing. That’s completely believable…it’s certainly not like Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, [one of] the active components in marijuana oxidizes or something. Oh wait? It does? Wow, then there’s /no way to prove that statement!/ Perhaps by some act of God the marijuana plant evolved into a more potent plant in just 20 years. Everything we know about evolution suggests that such a feat is entirely impossible. Describe to me the scientific nature by which that phenomenon could ever occur. Let’s also let alone that just like tobacco, dozens of environmental factors influence the yield/potency of any plant…but marijuana isn’t just any plant, it’s Satan’s reedy friend.

“Marijuana delivers 4x as much tar as smoking a cigarette.”

A fun fact from the same government that cheerfully is funded by Big Tobacco. Very nice. Clever, eh? Of course, it ignores the growing body of evidence that the main cause of cancer is not actually the tar (though benzopyrenes are carcinogenic) but the polonium in cigarette tobacco being held against your lungs by the tar. In all honesty, if tar caused cancer, I doubt it’d be readily used in roof construction. There’s also the fact that burning any organic matter produces carcinogens like benzopyrenes, and if one checks the medical literature, burnt toast is actually really high in carcinogens (I am not kidding here, there are studies published!). Again, this is totally honest and impartial reporting from ‘THE ANTI DRUG’, which tells “the truth” about marijuana. Unless you count lying by omission. Polonium, menthol, what is the difference really?

“Smoking marijuana decreases ambition”

Ambition was measured in the standard scientific unit here, I’m sure. Yes, I believe the official unit is motivation over hours squared (or stoned, in this case). I have a wild idea here, since we’re purporting to be able to measure the abstract: maybe people who are likely to be lazy are likely to smoke marijuana. Perhaps those who lack ambition and use marijuana are simply more readily cataloged than those who have ambition and use marijuana. Because there’s no evidence for example that an addictive personality in the family increases your odds of being an alcoholic or anythi–what’s that science? It does? Well shit. But weed is evil kiddies, believe me!

Next up, I couldn’t help but make a few selections from this section called “testimonials.” But before that even, one little statistic that I found particularly hilarious:

“Research has now established that marijuana is addictive. Each year, more kids enter treatment with a primary diagnosis of marijuana dependence than for all other illicit drugs combined.” (’Now established?’ What an absurd statement; the discovery isn’t recent at all. Hell, behaviors can be addictive, but substances? Stop the presses!) So true…who here is “addicted” to masturb–never mind.

Humour aside, this one actually pisses me the fuck off…here is what this actually means, o’ reader dear: If you’re caught using marijuana in most states, treatment is MANDATORY. Addiction is defined as the continuation of a behavior even in the presence of severe consequences. Getting caught with marijuana at a party and being sent to rehab is NOT addiction. Even if it isn’t mandatory, your first offense you usually have a choice: go for drug rehab, or do a dime in Sing Sing. Which one would you rather do? Get a human booster shot from a guy named Moe, or sit in a room and cry to a state worker about how the devil weed ruined you? It’s a loaded statistic. It’s just like the one about emergency room visits and police reports for marijuana: if you even MENTION marijuana, it is enough to let the Drug Control Policy Office use you in their statistics. Maybe they’re the ones smoking the ganja.

Anyway, on to the testimonials…

Cory (http://www.theantidrug.com/ei/transcripts/Cory04.pdf)
Well, my parents really weren’t home all the time so it was easy to hide it from them. My dad was kind of upset and my mom kind of guessed that I was smoking weed, because of my attitude change.

1. What dumbass smokes at their house? I don’t know, but Al Gore’s son apparently smokes in his Prius. Fitting, don’t you think?
2. Attitude change? What, you were mellow and personable? Note the name…Cory is a dickwad name. Ever met a Cory you liked? Didn’t think so.

Dr. Mark Gold (http://www.theantidrug.com/ei/transcripts/DrMark01.pdf)
The first thing that a parent should do in trying to recognize drug use is spend time. The biggest mistake is to think that any one thing will happen — like red eyes or a runny nose. It will mostly be subtle changes.

Right, so they have this, yet take a look at the “changes to look for.” Is inhalant abuse subtle? Keep in mind they’re basically saying this guy is a credible source by including him so prominently on their page of testimonials. I wonder if he’s really even a doctor. Seems like the type to have his own TV show. Move over Dr. Phil.

Watch List for Parents (http://www.theantidrug.com/ei/signs_symptoms.asp)

* Changes in friends
* Negative changes in schoolwork, missing school, or declining grades
* Increased secrecy about possessions or activities
* Use of incense, room deodorant, or perfume to hide smoke or chemical odors
* Subtle changes in conversations with friends, e.g. more secretive, using “coded” language
* Change in clothing choices: new fascination with clothes that highlight drug use
* Increase in borrowing money
* Evidence of drug paraphernalia such as pipes, rolling papers, etc.
* Evidence of use of inhalant products (such as hairspray, nail polish, correction fluid, common household products); Rags and paper bags are sometimes used as accessories
* Bottles of eye drops, which may be used to mask bloodshot eyes or dilated pupils
* New use of mouthwash or breath mints to cover up the smell of alcohol
* Missing prescription drugs—especially narcotics and mood stabilizers

Half of this stuff — changes in friends (these days, it’s more likely that a change in friends would be precipitated by a child coming out of the closet), “coded” language (isn’t that what all kids speak these days?), [and] increased secrecy – is just absurd and vague. By that logic, “teenager” is in fact a synonym for drug user. And they’re basically implying that anyway, they even refer to the term “420″ as “stoners [sic] lingo from the 70s.” A neutral term like “marijuana user” is out of the question. I also hear if you look at the Department of Immigration’s website, it contains alot of information about “Those fucking Spics” — wait; that would be discrimination? Nice double standard.

Speaking of 420, I like the page on Drug Lingo (http://www.theantidrug.com/ei/drug_lingo.asp) too…here’s what it has to say:

“Have you ever heard your teenager reference the time “4:20?” Many parents don’t realize that 420 (pronounced “four-twenty”) [what moronic parent would need clarification as to ‘4:20’s pronounciation?] is a “secret code” [so secret that everyone knows it…even they admit it] for a time to get high. The reference to 420 presumably dates back to ’70s stoner lingo but is still widely recognized by the youth of today [Shouldn’t the possessive be employed?]“

“If you hear your teenager reference 420, see that he is using the term while instant messaging with friends or has a 420 sticker on his car or backpack, call him on it. Let him know you know what he’s talking about and set up a time for a longer conversation about your family’s no tolerance policy for drug and alcohol use.”

The conversation should go something like this:

“Son, I’d like to schedule an appointment to talk with you about the implications of the number combination ‘420′”
“Call my office. We’ll do lunch.”

I myself imagine some poor kid in band trying to explain to redneck parents that he does infact have some band practice at 4:20. (Even though anyone who schedules something at such a time should be shot in the face, but at 4:30, when normal people meet.) And then his parents discern that his trombone is actually a very large brassy pipe. Then they beat him when the school bills him for it. Then they phone up the drug control people and have the kid put into rehab…”he hurt himself! It’s the mar-ee-joo-awn-a!”

“Even good kids occasionally pester their friends into skipping a class or lying about why they were out together so late. But if friends or acquaintances entice your children to try tobacco, alcohol, or drugs, the consequences can be more serious. The best way to prepare children to succeed in these encounters is to role play.”

Because EVERY 13-to-18-year-old wouldn’t at all be angry or offended if their parents asked them to role-play with them. Also, if they admit that good kids will occasionally stray, then why is that an issue? Whatever happened to “everyone errs?” I’d call the police. I wonder what nutjob thought that role-playing would be a good idea. I’d like to call the police and complain about him. Some poor daughter having daddy ask her that…ewch. And what role is a parent who has beer laying around the house? Because I remember more than one anti-drug superparent guilty of that sin. Unfortunately, while smoking a joint will get you a federal 10 year mandatory minimum possibly, being a douche bag hypocrite is not similarly legislated against. Probably because it’d put most lawmakers out of work.

They even offer advice on role-playing at http://www.theantidrug.com/advice/advice_role_playing.asp.

“She’ll need to be prepared for protests. She can meet them with the “broken record” technique, in which she repeats her reason for not drinking over and over until attempts at persuading her cease.” Repeating yourself is obnoxious, especially when you refuse to listen to LOGICAL REASONING as to why repeating yourself makes you a douchebag.

Don’t get me wrong, not wanting to do something is admirable and everything, but have a good reason, damnit. “Drugs are bad, mmmkay” just makes you look like a tool.

“Take the role of a boy she likes and try to persuade her to share a six-pack of beer with you. What can she say? “You’re such a jerk!” is alienating. “I don’t know…” leaves the door open and sounds like she could be coaxed.” [and as a parent, you may want to be worried if your daughter accepts your offer, walks to the fridge, and cracks open a cold one]

Because you shouldn’t be able to be coaxed via a well-reasoned argument, that would be a bad precedent. After all, if you could be coaxed by things like logic, you might have things like the gays marrying or an absence of soldiers dying in “the ‘raq.”

“Make your position clear when it comes to dangerous substances like alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs. Don’t assume that your children know where you stand.” (http://www.theantidrug.com/advice/advice_clear_position.asp)

Alcohol and tobacco: substances so dangerous that you can buy them almost anywhere. But adults are responsible enough to use them, that’s why there are no adults addicted to nicotine or alcohol.

“Tell your children that you forbid them to use alcohol, tobacco, and drugs because you love them. (Love what? Drugs?) (Don’t be afraid to pull out all the emotional stops. You can say, “If you took drugs it would break my heart.”) Make it clear that this rule holds true even at other people’s houses.” (Ibid.)

Actually, it’s more likely that the drug user’s heart would break, especially if they happen to be using cocaine. Who needs that pesky mitral valve anyway?

I love that bit about pulling out all the stops: it’s okay to be emotionally manipulative, but it isn’t okay to let your child logically explain his/her position on the usage of drugs, alcohol or tobacco.

About setting rules:
“The rules must be consistently enforced; every time a child breaks the rules the parent should enforce a punishment.” (like a good old fashioned LASHING!)

This here is the cornerstone of the US justice system, which is, as you know, the world’s most effective. Second only to that bastion of freedom and glory, the People’s Republic of China.

“Call parents whose home is to be used for a party. On party night, don’t be afraid to stop in to say hello (and make sure that adult supervision is in place).”

Yes, so your child can be beaten up and then made a social exile, forever known as the “fucker whose mom stops by.” Then your child, being depressed, turns to the hard drugs and finally blows his/her brains out one lonely Friday evening. And furthermore, what gives you the right to barge into someone else’s home because you don’t trust your child? It’s simply unacceptable to be a bad parent and accuse someone else of being a bad one as well. Hey, at least he/she died without being a hashishan!

“Teens can also be alerted to a text in very discrete ways, either by downloading a ring tone that is out of pitch range of most adults [See Associated Press news article: Thank you for visiting theantidrug.com. You are now leaving the site. The Office of National Drug Control Policy is not responsible for the content or information gathering practices of other websites you are linking to.] or by putting their phones on vibrate. Newer cell phones enable teens to capture the moment with photos, ring tones or short video clips – a fun and mostly harmless feature – except when inappropriate images are captured and shared for all to see.” (http://www.theantidrug.com/E-Monitoring/cell-phones-usage.asp)

Shit like this should be illegal. Suggesting baseless invasion of privacy is absolutely absurd. Trust your kid for one day in your life. This reminds me once on a forum where a teenager complained that his father was putting a camera in his room to monitor him. The recommendation? Masturbate in front of the camera, loudly. That’ll serve them right. And moreover, sifting through my text messages would give people the wrong idea. Or no idea. Things like “METR 4PM || JUFFO WUP!!” and “En route.” don’t exactly shed much light on one’s doings. It’s not uncommon to find messages like ‘Gay. 72. Sunny.’ in my phone. Most teenagers have enough in-jokes to be entirely incomprehensible to their parents if they put their minds to it. Heck, anyone with half a brain can use shared experiences to create a metaphor based language. What can a parent do if the message reads: “In Paris happiness shall reign. Awaiting a brother at the airport?” Nothing, because it makes no sense to anyone who doesn’t recognize a dim reference to the animated “Anastasia,” a kenning for being “elated”, and so forth. Heck “meet me at the forest high upon the mountain” would be just as doable, or even “bring tomatoes for the BBQ” — that is code indeed, but not obvious enough for any parent to figure something’s up.

A final note:
“Let your teen know that, on occasion, you’ll be checking the text message outbox (review your cell phone manual for instructions on how to do that) [although, if you can’t figure it out, you shouldn’t be allowed], and the monthly bill for any unknown incoming and outgoing numbers. It won’t seem like an invasion of privacy if you state upfront that you’ll be monitoring intermittently. ” (http://www.theantidrug.com/E-Monitoring/cell-phones-reduction.asp)

I love that logic: “Honey, it isn’t assault if I tell you in advance that I’m going to punch your lights out!”

In summary, it’s better to be a paranoid, controlling tool/watchdog than a carefree hippy. Because there are no rich hippies [cough Steve Jobs cough].

This collaboration, we hope, has done its part to expose the blowhards that are behind these anti-drug campaigns. Sitting around taking in donations and then instructing parents to blatantly invade the privacy of their children is a truly despicable cause. The bottom line here is this: Trust your kids. Don’t waste your energy trying to micromanage their lives. Because if you do, chances are, they’ll want payback. And stumbling in at 3 AM, barely coherent and smelling of weed is a great way to do that. You may even consider going to the court ordered treatment with them.