What Made you Smile/What Ticked you off Today?

[dsheinem]

Where's the failure in parenting? He had had "not condoned" smoking, apparently explained consequences of being caught smoking (including grounding), and he was upset enough to want to beat up the person who sold it to her (which of course turned out to be a gas station attendant who did so legally).

"Her stepfather, who has been in Emily's life since he saw her in the delivery room, hopes he can spare other people his family's pain."

He seems like a pretty decent guy who's just struggling with a bad choice his stepdaughter made despite his efforts to try and get her not to. This is a VERY common scenario for anything parents don't want kids to do. Am I missing something?

"not condoned" =/= explaining the effects it has on your body. Creating and understanding or awareness when combined with consequences for actions is a much better approach. Who knows how in depth their discussion went.

Was he supposed to punish her on the way to the hospital or after she slipped into a coma?

Wow. Even if the girl smoked marijuana, he clearly knew about it. And while there's health risks for smoking marijuana, the risks of using any synthetic drug are much more dangerous. There was (hopefully) some time to take a more proactive approach, I don't know, when Teenagers start to think about experimenting with drugs.

So essentially we are crucifying the guy becasue we don't know the extent to which he had tried to steer his daughter away from illegal drug use and so we are assuming he just didn't really care or that he didn't do a good job becasue she got herself hospitalized?

[dsheinem]

but if I had a teenage daughter that I knew was smoking pot "occasionally", that issue would have been nipped in the bud and she wouldn't have purchased synth weed. She should have already been grounded.

No offense, Luke, but you don't know shit about their situation and it is a bit insulting of you to make assumptions about what kind of parenting was in place or should have been in place. "Nipping in the bud" isn't always possible, nor is controlling a teenager's actions. Some kids will respond well to firm parenting, others will respond by doing worse things. YOU. DON'T. KNOW. what the situation was here.

WE DO KNOW that he is trying to bring awareness of the problems surrounding legislation of these drugs, so he clearly isn't some horrible lackadaisical dude. Given his response to the situation and the fact that he's a stepdad who's been in the picture since day 1, I'd be more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt than to assume he was a bad father.

Kids are going to do what they want and rebel, but after school hours, sometimes you do have to "follow her around" all day.

What a great way to build/teach trust! Overbearing parenting is always a good idea!

[Blu]

Nope, not at all. There's no sense rubbing the guys nose in what he did wrong, he already understands his shortcomings. K2/Spice and all that rubbish is still largely legal, especially when companies that produce it stay above the government on the laws when they ship it. However, if and until the government bans all these synthetic drugs, I think parents need to sit your children down and have that difficult conversation. If you put "x" into your body, "y" and "z" will happen to you. Just because it's uncomfortable doesn't mean you get to avoid the conversation altogether. Instead, you have a largely reactive response that ends in a tragedy.

EDIT: I'll be forthcoming and state that I don't have children. I don't know the mentality of being a parent yet. But I will say that designer drugs are pretty prevalent on campuses, and lots of students are hospitalized for this crap. We've found that a proactive approach tends to be a better deterrent than a "look what you've done, don't you feel horrible? way of looking at the issue.

[dsheinem]

I think parents need to sit your children down and have that difficult conversation. If you put "x" into your body, "y" and "z" will happen to you. Just because it's uncomfortable doesn't mean you get to avoid the conversation altogether. Instead, you have a largely reactive response that ends in a tragedy.

And we don't know:

A) if he knew anything about the drugs and their effects (I certainly didn't prior to reading the article) or
B) whether or not he did have the conversation you are alluding to

I just hear assumptions galore about this guy in the thread, all of which are unfounded.

[Luke]

So essentially we are crucifying the guy...

"Crucifying"? Really?

He could have been a better parent, that's all. And we're both using one of these.

[Erik_Twice]

I don't know why you guys care so much about an obviously sensationalist article much less care enough to judge someone based on it.

[Luke]

What a great way to build/teach trust! Overbearing parenting is always a good idea!

When trust is lost, aka my teenage daughter using drugs, trust has to be gained. Telling a teenager that you'll be watching them like a hawk is commonplace.

[Luke]

I don't know why you guys care so much about an obviously sensationalist article much less care enough to judge someone based on it.

I think it's because Dish and I are a bit bored.

[dsheinem]

So essentially we are crucifying the guy...

"Crucifying"? Really?

He could have been a better parent, that's all. And we're both using one of these.

I haven't jumped to any conclusions.

Maybe you don't like "crucify" but you said:

Father of the Year Award

he sure as hell is okay with his daughter getting high

Way to set some ground rules.

Another example of parents with the "kids will be kids" attitude.

THOSE are conclusions, and ones that paint the guy as a horrible dad. And all unfounded.

When trust is lost, aka my teenage daughter using drugs, trust has to be gained. Telling a teenager that you'll be watching them like a hawk is commonplace.

How do you know she hadn't regained it at some point? How do you know he hadn't told her he'd watch her like a hawk? AGAIN: stop making assumptions about his parenting and inferring fault from one fragment of one statement the guy made.

[Blu]

And we don't know:

A) if he knew anything about the drugs and their effects (I certainly didn't prior to reading the article) or
B) whether or not he did have the conversation you are alluding to

I just hear assumptions galore about this guy in the thread, all of which are unfounded.

I'm sorry, but "ignorance is bliss" doesn't fly considering these circumstances. Most people know the effect of marijuana on the body, even if they've never used it. You could definitely make a safe assumption that you'll have no idea what "x" does when you put it in your body and you shouldn't be your friend's guinea pig when it's time for the teenager drug experiment. I'm sure the guy most likely had a conversation, but isn't it a parent's responsibility to make children be aware of what's out there? Especially when the federal law is having a hard time keeping these substances out of storefronts. Hell, you can even do it in a way that isn't overbearing.

I get that the article at large is sensationalist but in spirit trying to create more awareness about these drugs that are advertised as "safe and legal". They're often cut with substances that cause horrible reactions, like the one this young lady experienced.

EDIT: I'm fine with moving on, but if you want to keep chatting about this Dave, we can.