Interesting...last semester I taught a class in which the students researched and discussed all sorts of issues about drugs, including the ones raised. All had had experience with DARE and almost all dismissed it as a "crock". The problem with scaring the bejesus out of kids about, say, pot is that it doesn't take long for the kids to realize that the "authority figure's" statements don't hold up. Then they don't believe ANYTHING they're told about drugs, including true stuff. One guy told me that his DARE officer told him that if he smoked pot, he'd become gay - talk about losing credibility! Almost everyone in the class had smoked pot and was still in school...some graduated in May cum laude and better. Almost all knew people whose lives were destroyed by drugs and we tried to figure out what made the difference between the occasional smoker and the "hooked" user.

It became clear as we slogged through data that most kids who smoke pot at a young age have already engaged in antisocial activity of some sort (an amazing similar finding was that pregant teen women were more likely to smoke cigarettes than non-pregnant teen women, obviously because similar forces contributed to smoking and early unprotected sex) This suggests that some pre-existing trait or condition led to the pot smoking, not vice versa. Another finding was that a huge "protective factor" was knowing that peers and your community in general were not in favor of drug use. A kid whose community and friends accepted drugs as the norm was almost destinied to use drugs. This suggests to me that lecturing to kids individually or in a small group about drugs is an exercise in wishful thinking if the community accepts drug use, especially if the kid has little supervision (another risk factor) A better technique would be aimed at improving the community...but that would be hard, complicated, and expensive and would not have immediate payoffs. Programs like DARE look and sound good, are relatively simple and have voter appeal. Add all this to the fact that adolescents think that nothing bad will happen to them and you can see that simply lecturing to them is futile.

It was a great class.

So anyway, scare tactics don't work very well. The idea that pot smokers end up as dirtbags is silly anyway. Successful people who do or did smoke pot don't advertise that fact, so you usually only know about those with little to lose. I personally know a LOT of those successful people, many much more successful than me.

I also have an extremely immature younger brother who is almost 40, thinks he's a genius although he has only done manual labor throughout his life, and can turn any conversational topic around to himself. (I know manual labor doesn't mean you're dumb, but If I were brilliant, 40 and putting up siding in all weather, I'd turn that genius to an indoor job). I refer to him as the world's most grizzled three-year-old. After an evening that culminated in his being extremely verbally abusive to me, I have written him off for all practical purposes, and have never looked back. I miss his wife though.

The LW's comments make me think that the brother is not interested or knowledgeable about the LW's life at all, and the brother assumes that the LW will make all the moves. If the brother is fun and interesting once you get him there, or is kind and compassionate once he realizes how stressful the life of a new dad can be, then it might be worth working through things. But if every interaction with the brother is negative and makes the LW furious, is it really worth that expenditure of time and emotional energy? It might not be. If not, maybe check in with the brother a year from now to see how things are. You don't have to enjoy someone's company just because he is your brother.

"Coulter is Al Zarqawi in a mini-skirt."

We wish.

It's my experience that people who are extremely opposed to a friend's choices are usually reacting to a need for affirmation of their own choices, because their choices are not well-founded. Of course, a person with confidence in his/her wise choices can live without constant affirmation. Basically, I would doubt the wisdom of anyone with such a knee-jerk reaction to marriage.

The kicker is: these people are reacting to a diverse institution as though it were still "man works outside home, woman wipes dishes and kids' noses and does housework in pearls". Criticizing and commenting on marriage in general is like saying that you like weather in general. Marriage is what you make it and who you make it with and it can be great and wonderful, or lonely and sad, or boring, or scary.

If you have found someone that you look forward to having a life with (and not just having a wedding) and trust and love, go for it! And while 21 is young, it's an age where there is great diversity in maturity (Trust me on this: I see 21-year-olds every day for nine months of the year). It can be an extended period of being 13 years old, or a time of maturity normally seen much later. Just being 21 shouldn't keep you from entering an engagement, and you're showing maturity by not rushing things and being level-headed. I wish you the best.

If Ann Coulter and Fred Phelps (you know, the godhatesfags.com guy who organizes those protests at military funerals) got into a fight, who would win? And how much would you pay to see that fight?

Yeah, Johnalive, that was not Time's shining moment but remember how weird that photo cover was..she looked like a giant pair of witch shoes with a person stuck behind them.