“Why not orchestrate a social movement around natural highs: around people getting high on their own brain chemistry—because it seems obvious to me that people want to change their consciousness—without the deleterious effects of drugs?”

If you want an answer to why not, because drugs are not intrinsically bad and can give you more than a life without drugs IMO. Or they can destroy you, I grant.

“We learned through the studies that we need to create circumstances in which kids can lead healthy lives, and they do not need to use substances, because life is fun, and they have plenty to do—and they are supported by parents who will spend time with them.”

'Because they have plenty to do' Hmm - I did spend part of my childhood on some crappy estates and there wasn't things to do, and no money to do it. And you didn't much want to go outside because it didn't feel safe. It wasn't. 'and they are supported by parents' - another presupposition that parents are good and nurturing. Not always. Perhaps in a rich and wise society you can mostly make this possible though.

I like their way of trying to take the pressure off kids so as to reduce the "rat park" effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park) and I think it's great. Kids don't develop properly in a pressure cooker. Overall, they're doing the right thing. Just don't overdo it.

No, they're not. They can be but they don't have to be.

But keeping drugs away from kids (a good thing) was being mixed up with a general anti-drugs message which I didn't like and which may prove counterproductive in the same way the extreme view put around in the US about no sex before marriage just didn't work.

There was a case in the UK a few years ago of a man who allowed his kids and their mates to smoke weed in his house. His reasoning was that they wee going to do it anyway so he'd prefer to have it happen somewhere safe and where he could monitor it. The judge didn't look kindly on that I recall. I'm really not sure where I stand on that either.

[0] Not in my case I add, the kids around me were getting pissed, smoking, smoking mj, trying other stuff, I didn't.

Of greater import, if you have something to say about my post, disagreement included of course, I'm happy to listen.

You're comment was already downvoted before I saw it, by the way.

When people do identify themselves here it's almost always some relevant context. The move to hiding vote totals probably helped, too.

I distinctly remember it being past midnight, and there was an 8 year old kid, sitting on his bike, along, going nowhere on the corner of the gas station.

I also remember thinking WTF? If there is one, small seemingly innocuous thing that could 'tell you a whole lot' about a neighbourhood, it's definitely children wandering around at night. Forget curfew that kid should have been in bed.

They may as well just be told you can't be outside during curfew.

According to the law the child is not at fault, the parents are for not providing adequate care.

Do you really think it's unreasonable to ask that children out after 10pm (midnight during the summer months) have someone looking after their safety?

EDIT: I'll clarify. You refer to safety. I grew up in a place where being outside as a teenager was perfectly safe, also at night. I want the same for my kids, and it's totally achievable. I think the whole idea that the world is somehow "unsafe" and that the parents need to constantly helicopter to guard their offspring from all the evil pedos and thieves and lunatics, is a fundamentally harmful idea.

Now, I do recognize that America is pretty scary, with their gun laws ensuring that either a gang member of a cop can shoot you dead on the spot if you dare take a snickers out of your pocket while they see it, but not all places are like that. Iceland sure isn't.

There's no good reason, in affluent places at least, for "the outside" to be dangerous. And if it is then that's the problem that needs to be addressed, not parents who want to allow their kids to learn their own life lessons.

I think this article has plenty good ideas but I don't think legally enforced helicopter parenting is one of them.

But kids out and about consistently, let alone not in bed by 10 pm ... this is not good. Those are extended boundaries allowing kids to get themselves into trouble.

As per my note above - have a drive through a ghetto at night - what you see is kids, and it's spooky.

Btw I don't think Iceland has ghettos.

EDIT: I think that the 10pm/midnight cutoff point is less about some danger switch getting flipped at midnight and more about there being some well-defined point where CPS need to step in and ask the parents why their children are unsupervised. If it's vaguely defined it makes enforcement of the law more difficult or will cause the law to be unevenly applied (something like poor kids get neglected because CPS can't prove neglect).

Through their 17th birthday? You bet your ass I do.

Don't get me wrong I remember what I was like at those ages. But the experiences and pain I had during those years when I had a much larger safety net have paid back many times over in avoiding or safely navigating those same types of experiences without nearly as much support.

I was not always safe during those years. But without those experiences I would have made much more irreversible mistakes.

Eventually children have to grow up, and part of growing up is being responsible for your own health and safety. Robbing children of practice in a safer environment is not keeping them safe, even if it feels like it in the moment.

If you snuck out, knowing you're breaking the law and will be punished for doing so, that's one more very large barrier preventing you from seeking help.

To get back to what I was saying in my previous post, I had some... unpleasant situations when I was 14. (and many other ages)

But my family trusted me, and I knew that even if they weren't going to be very happy, if I needed to call and get help I wasn't going to face any meaningful consequences for doing so. In fact I was much more likely to face those consequences if I didn't reach out.

So there are a few times I called and got an uncomfortable ride and a few lectures. But I was safe, and I learned how to better take care of myself.

Curfews make kids feel like they have fewer options when things already aren't going well. The curfews certainly aren't in place to keep them safer.

You'll get into the same type of trouble for truancy as for breaking this curfew so I would argue that the curfew shouldn't extend beyond the mandatory education period.

EDIT: That type of trouble being you'll have to go with your parents to see a psychiatrist to see if everything is OK at home.

> Do you really think it's unreasonable to ask that children out after 10pm (midnight during the summer months) have someone looking after their safety?

Depends. If it's a _child_ proper, like under the age of 14-15 at the _highest_, then no. If they are old enough to be their own person, then yes, absolutely.

> Depends. If it's a _child_ proper, like under the age of 14-15 at the _highest_, then no

The law applies to children aged 16 and younger.

Same still applies for anyone who is not one of the threeish people I had in my close circle at that point.

> The law applies to children aged 16 and younger.

I said I disagreed with what the law states, and listed my reasons. I know it's 16 and younger, I said that I believe it should be 14, or 15 at the absolute highest.

I think that this cutoff point is in there to make sure that the law gets evenly applied. Otherwise CPS would have to make a judgement call and you can't guarantee that everyone gets equal treatment that way.

I think most of the disagreement in this thread comes from when is someone no longer considered a child.

According to the applicable laws, anyone under 18 is still a child, and needs to be treated as such.

Most people in the thread are arguing that 18 is to high of an age for this, while others are arguing that it is the proper age.

I personally believe that setting this age at 18 detrimentally affect those youth, who will become adults who are less individualistic and less capable. I may or may not be wrong about this. Read reificators comment for a better phrasing of this.

Those who believe that this is the proper age believe that this is protecting those youth and allowing them to grow into the adults they have potential to become. They may or may not be wrong about this.

One of my favorite childhood memories from elementary school (I was probably 9 or 10) was me sleeping in a tent in the backgarden of a classmate. We'd go out exploring the town late at night. This was in a ~2000 people town mind you. Do I think having laws prohibiting something like this is overreaching? Damn right I do.

It just says "children age 12 and younger may not be outside after 20:00 unless accompanied by an adult. Children ages 13 to 16 may not be outside after 22:00 unless they're returning home after an approved school-, athletic-, or youth-program function. Between may first and september first children may stay out an additional two hours"

Even though it's not stated the "accompanied by an adult" applies to ages 13 through 16 as well.

No I'm not asking for the law to be subtle. I'm asking for the law to not put its nose into things it has no business doing so.

Elementary school education (which is mandated by law) ends after 15 years of age so I think that would be a more natural cutoff for this law and I think that any curfew after that age should be up to the parents.