How old is old enough?

[Riconoen {UGC}]

How old do you swimmers think is old enough to take alcohol and other drugs assuming they are/were legal, legally?

Reputation Comments on this post:

Great question. id like to here your views on this as well though

[allyourbase]

maybe 18 for pot, at very least 21 for everything else (including tobbaco IMO)

[Forthesevenlakes]

19-20, based on the fact that at this point, hormonal fluctuations and brain changes associated with adolescence are largely over. studies have shown that heavy drug/alcohol use during adolescence is associated with long-term changes in the brain, and not for the better. now, experimentation might be fine, but who's to make sure that the kids would ONLY be experimenting if they're allowed to use these things at least part of the time? And no causal link has been proven, where I could say "drugs CAUSE long term brain change if used in adolescence", but why take chances?

[stoneinfocus]

8-10 years, but in minimum quantities only.

[fatal]

^you, die. now honestly though. i want to know from allyourbase and for the sevenlakes, when did your swim start? it seems hard to believe that dabbling in drugs did not take place until; this age. now in the likely scenario that you both did start using before 18 then why is it you should expect that others should have to wait until then to be doing drugs? any human at any age should be allowed to do whatever they wish. big into the freedom thing personally. besides alot of kids start smoking pot at 12-13 or younger. not saying thats necessarily good. im just trying to present both sides here. btw swim was already using exotic RCs at the age of 15. first use of alcohol at 11 first trip at 13 first pot at 13.

Reputation Comments on this post:

good point!

[Nature Boy]

18 for alcohol and cigarettes. 21 for everything else.

The reasoning behind this would be for the extra three years to work as a barrier between high school age, at 18 or below, and a more independent adult sense of responsibility, at 21. The barrier would work to disassociate drugs from idiotic teens who would abuse them or people that are still in school, under their parents' eye, and likely to get caught and put said drugs into disrepute.

If all currently illegal drugs were legalised I have no doubt that they would be put under pressure to be criminalised again. Careful steps would have to be made so that this could be avoided.

[old hippie 56]

Swim didn't use pot till he was 18, started smoking cigs also. Drinking when he was 17. But, also that was in 1974 in a rural setting. Pot was hard to find, booze was easy to find.

[Forthesevenlakes]

In response to fatal, SWIM was actually going to put when he started, but forgot to! Must be the years of use, heh heh.

Anyway, SWIM first tried a drug when he was 14, before he even drank. He snorted ritalin and loved it. At 15 he started drinking occasionally, and smoking weed. By 16 he had tried DXM.

In retrospect though, SWIM wishes he had waited a couple years to try these things. He doesnt regret any decisions he made, but he did get himself burnt out on a few types of drugs by the time he was 18. Had he been more mature when he started, and not overdone things, he might still enjoy, alcohol, marijuana and DXM more than he does now.

However, on the plus side, his curiosity about how drugs worked on his brain kindled his interest in psychology and neuroscience, which is how he got where he is today. So thats nothing to regret. But SWIM suspects that would not be the case with many people.

While SWIM stands by his 19-20 statement, he'd say that trying drugs around 15 wouldnt be a huge travesty, although he thinks that people that young would be wise to limit themselves to marijuana.

[Bajeda]

Swim started with pot when he was 13. He messed around with drinking to get drunk for the first time when he was that same age. Didn't start smoking until 17. Swim was comfortable with alcohol though as his parents let him have small quantities of wine with dinner when he was young.

Actual drug use didn't start happening until about 15-16. Swim feels that it didnt really adversely affect him, and in fact helped him in many ways (particularly MDMA), but he didn't do much research and did stupid things that could have potentially killed him if he wasnt so lucky. By the time he was almost 17 swim started to really research drugs and be safe about that.

So 18 would be a good age. Don't think you should separate age limits for certain substances. If you can be held responsible to recreationally use one substance at a certain age, you should be allowed to try responsibly using every other recreational substance at that age. It will either be a learning experience or you will die, but hey... thats life. You should be free to live it. And thats why drugs-forum is here.

[Nagognog2]

According to the school systems in the USA, 6 or 7 years of age is old enough for drugs like Ritalin and Adderal - as well as anti-psychotics and tranquilizers.

Personally, I believe the age for being allowed to use drugs is dependant on the individuals' understanding and knowledge about what these things do. So with the D.A.R.E. program providing education, I would say that no one should be allowed to use any drugs at all. Including alcohol or caffeine. Unless they can display a working knowledge of such that they recieved outside of the public educational system.

[Forthesevenlakes]

Nagog, I like your comment. I feel like much of America is over-medicated now, even children, without they or their parents (or even, sometimes, doctors) having a full understanding of the long-term implications of these drugs. Or the hypocrisy of some drugs being "okay" and others off limits.

In a truly ideal society where there was no prohibition, perhaps a demonstration of harm-reduction and knowledge of drugs would be required to purchase and use them. Sort of the opposite of the DARE program. Actually, it would be nice if people took it upon themselves to learn these sorts of things today, find out a bit about their own brain chemistry and how drugs can affect it, as well as the pros and cons of such use. But society is not likely ready for that mature of an attitude.

[Akewstick]

SWIM had his first drink prolly around 10-12, but in amounts enough to be considered perception or mind-altering, he was about 14. The first time he ever got well and truly smashed was the week before his 17th birthday, SWIM got plastered once or twice a week for the following couple of months and tried salvia about 2 months after turning 17, and weed for the first time after that.

By the time SWIM was 17 and 6 months, SWIM was a regular coke, ecstacy, speed, weed, DXM and alcohol user. SWIM dived into speed abuse and lost almost a stone in a pretty short period of time.

SWIM's over that dirty stage in his life, it was never a big problem, just a stupid kid doing too much of a stupid thing because he thought The Libertines wanted him to.

SWIM thinks kids should be able to drink around 16-18, and smoke weed from 12 or 13, in their parent's company, and after it's been explained that you don't do it all the time, limit to once or twice a week, and not during the daytime.

I think Psychedelics and Dissasociatives should be compulsary, like national service, at the age of 18, along with ecstacy.

I think stimulants (with the exception of exstacy) i.e. coke and speed, you're never old enough to do, but i think under 18 would be an exceptionally bad place to start.

Having said all of this, everyone is different, SWIM knows some 10-14 year olds who he thinks would handle certain drugs quite responsibly, and he knows for a fact that if he'd have gotten onto sally or weed at the age of 12, he would have lost all of his adolescence in a smokey haze (or at least, more of his adolescence).

SWIM also knows two 18-19 year olds who consume drugs like kids consume chocolate bars, with the same immature smiles and greedy pointless reasons. These people probably won't be old enough to do drugs ever, even though it's far too late now. That's assuming the weed and pills don't keep them at this horrible age for the rest of their lives...

[Citizen Kane]

Originally Posted by Riconoen {UGC}

How old do you swimmers think is old enough to take alcohol and other drugs assuming they are/were legal, legally?

At the time of full legal capacity. I believe society has an interest in guiding adolescents and deterring those that take advantage of the latter's immaturity, but the state has no business in regulating the appetite of men.

[StigmataLectron]

18 for pot, definitely. How many of us know people who have been smoking since around the time they were ten, and are now incredibly burned-out? I rest my case.

19 maybe for alcohol and tobacco. Though, in my experience, the fact of how addictive tobacco is means that age limits on the sale and posession don't matter at all.

21 for hard drugs like cocaine, *amphetamine, heroin, etc.

Anywhere between 18 and 21 for any other soft drugs I missed, like Magic Mushrooms, LSD, and phenethylamines. Also Ketamine.

[bewilderment]

I don't think that age should necessarily be a factor but rather one should be able to use whatever substance whenever some sort of minimum of understanding the implications of using a particular substance. Also to be taken into consideration is the person's rational ability to properly weigh the pros and cons of trying the substance and make a responsible decision. Some people will never reach this level and for all the rest the age will vary wildly.

[Jimmeh]

If there was anything interesting for teenagers to do in today's society I'd set limits of 18-21 for everything.

The fact is, depending on situation and friends, from about 14/15/16 onwards life gets boring, that's the whole reason teens try drugs.

I'd set an alcohol limit of 15/16 with parents' permission for beer/wine and 17/18 for spirits.

18-21 for anything else.

[Creeping Death]

I've been getting high since forever, i'm healthier than most people i know who stay sober. Laws really dont mean shit.

[Hlucn8]

Hi guys, I'm brand new, but saw this post and thought it a worthwhile topic for my first open forum discussion.
SWIM started using Alcohol at 11, MJ at 12, and LSD by the age of 13. After that you can imagine, the sky was NOT the limit, the universe was. He will be 31 soon, and this is what hew has learned and wishes he had been directed to do. Untill emotional maturity, (around 20 or so for most of us,... um... mabey), nothing should be used but for medical nescessity. After that, one should be careful and fully educated on whatever he is going to do, always have a reason other than "boredom", and be careful not to fall into habitual use. Always at least listen to what your elders have to say, and never take anything for granted.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Nice post from a natural SWiMmer! Welcome aboard!

[Voices]

I agree with all who said that age doesn't really reflect anything real as far as maturity. As for the topic of this thread, I think it's outrageous that we give people the label of 'ADULT' just because they turn 18, as if living that many days (not dying from stupidity) is reason enough to be handed the keys to the kingdom.

Also, I wish more stupid people would do dope, whatever form they choose, over having children.

I was relatively old the first time I had sex (with a woman), yet I was relatively young the first time I tried LSD. And neither fact means anything outside of the subjective. I see replies like "I smoked pot for the first time when I was 7" and wonder what am I supposed to conclude objectively from that?

Age is relative; we've done a dis-service to a lot of people by assuming that everyone develops at the same emotional clip.

[El Calico Loco]

SWIM first got drunk at the age of four, but that was unintentional. He tried his first three cigarettes at 14, then stopped. He's been a caffeine addict since the age of 16.

He didn't drink or smoke again until he was 21. He didn't become a habitual smoker until he was 25.

He didn't use any illegal drugs or research chemicals until he was 30.

How old should someone be? I dunno. Swim is glad he waited until he was older; he feels that he can appreciate it more than he could have when he was young. He thinks there should be two criteria:

1. The person's brain is fully developed
2. The person can pass a test of logic and critical thinking

The first is probably accomplished by the age of 20 for most people.
I don't think the average person ever accomplishes the second - if they did, we wouldn't have The War on Some Drugs.


ECL
(I'm cynical, at times.)

[fatal]

a few people wrote about kids trying drugs in the company of their parents. that is terrible. drugs and parents dont mix. parents are just as bad as the dare programs most of the time anyways. exploring altered states is something you should learn about yourself IMO. theres just too much of a likelihood for anyone involved to lie. even the drug users. a dealer will tell you drug X is not bad for you and that it will make you feel good etc even if it is fentanyl, PMA, etc. on the other side the antidrug people are telling you that any drug you try will have you addicted and robbing for dope money or dead within minutes of first ingestion. people should just try seeking out their own info instead of going through middlemen for enlightenment. even if it is tim leary or something.

Reputation Comments on this post:

negative because I don't agree. Positive becsause of the last two line

[London_Bloke]

Originally Posted by fatal

a few people wrote about kids trying drugs in the company of their parents. that is terrible. drugs and parents don't mix.

Is this the voice of personal experience or just an academic opinion?

[Bajeda]

Originally Posted by fatal

a few people wrote about kids trying drugs in the company of their parents. that is terrible. drugs and parents dont mix.

Sorry to disagree, but the few people swim knows whose parents introduced them to psychedelics are the most repsonsible recreational drug users swim knows. By introducing proper perspective and techniques before others could influence them these kids (well not anymore) were much safer than all their peers.

I really have to disagree. With many parents it can be bad, but if the parents are responsible, mature, and have an open mind towards drugs they can be an unbelievably positive influence on a kid's attitude towards drugs, instilling good attititudes about proper drug use at a reasonably young age.

Swim hopes in the future he can teach his kids about drugs when they are ready. Better than DARE, other kids, and even drugs-forum when you think about it.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Thanks- you said that a lot nicer than I was going to!

[London_Bloke]

SWIM too, disagrees heartily. And this is the voice of experience.

Parents hold a position of enormous responsibility and influence over the developing minds we are trusted to make ready for the world. Should we leave our beloved offspring to be schooled by peers with decades less experience and knowledge?

Parents have 1 job, and 1 job only: to make ready young adults who are able to navigate the real world and make good choices while doing so. SWIM made a commitment and has an incredible 19 year old young woman with a great head on her shoulders to show for it. Why would SWIM sacrifice the thing she loves most to the street?

Never.

Reputation Comments on this post:

	whhooooaaaahhhhh
	agree totally! love the Invader Zim thing, too

[mick mouse]

SWIM's opinion is that this is not necessarily true. It stands to reason (man, doesn't that leave SWIM wide open!) that parents, as those with the closest contact with their children (by this, SWIM means RESPONSIBLE parents!) serve as role models. If one does ones substance of choice in a responsible manner, then ones children would pick up on this and do likewise. For instance, just because one does heroin, does that mean that one would want ones children to start out on the same? A responsible parent MIGHT be understanding of the childs choice in smoking MJ, but until said child understands the dangers inherant in opiate use, the parents responsibility is to deny the child that "pleasure". SWIM's opinion is that parents who use drugs and their children most certainly DO mix! Would one rather have ones child learn from the guy down the road whose principle motivation is to make money or from the parent who has learned both the pleasures as well as the dangers of substance use? It all boils down to honesty and trust. Both are basic to any successful relationship, wether it be between consenting adults or between a parent and a child. The D.A.R.E. program is based on severing the bond of trust between a parent and a child for the good of "society" When was the last time the thought police in charge of society did something positive for you?

Originally Posted by fatal

a few people wrote about kids trying drugs in the company of their parents. that is terrible. drugs and parents dont mix. parents are just as bad as the dare programs most of the time anyways. exploring altered states is something you should learn about yourself IMO. theres just too much of a likelihood for anyone involved to lie. even the drug users. a dealer will tell you drug X is not bad for you and that it will make you feel good etc even if it is fentanyl, PMA, etc. on the other side the antidrug people are telling you that any drug you try will have you addicted and robbing for dope money or dead within minutes of first ingestion. people should just try seeking out their own info instead of going through middlemen for enlightenment. even if it is tim leary or something.