As someone in recovery, I don't think any teen would take a book about drugs seriously that didn't portray the "positive" aspects of it. People take drugs (and drink!) because it's fun. Until it isn't. If you want to write credibly about addiction, you need to depict the reasons it felt good, which then leads addicts to continue chasing that feeling despite all the consequences. Also, as someone who volunteers with teen addicts, I've yet to meet one who fell into drug use because they read about it. It's often family members who get them started. Which is a whole other problem.
I am unsure exactly when I first got the book and read it (I read a lot when I was a teen) but definitely around it's 2004 release maybe a year or two later. I then had it assigned to me my by Junior year English teacher (spring 2008, he was one of my favorite teachers from HS), we had to source the book ourselves, I already had a copy.
I am going to be honest I don't remember the class discussion very well because I found it deeply upsetting (and frankly triggering) because I was a suicidal teen with a history of sexual abuse which I didn't want to talk about in class.
What I can confidently say is at no point ever even reading it on my own was my takeaway remotely drugs are good and even if I did, I definitely had no idea how to score meth. Obviously your mileage may vary, this is my experience but I am also pretty sure books will never be the issue here.
Also added context since I am here and thinking about drug use was definitely in my school but the closest I came to it was knowing some people who smoked cigarettes and I was a goth kid so associated with the "bad kids." I have a hard time believing there wasn't weed, but again I never saw it.
The main drug use in my wealthy CT public school definitely was coke and prescription pills but that was from the prep/jock crowd and I didn't associate with them. (not because of subculture because those kids fucking sucked, just the worst broiest teen boys imaginable)
The degree to which people fret about "inappropriate" passages or books is frustrating. I clearly remember reading things in books that were inappropriate, too advanced, etc. and them just washing over me because I wanted to follow the story that had gotten me hooked. SEEING sex acts or drug taking on a screen is, I think, more potentially harmful because the glamor and the allure are the point of putting it on a screen. Reading about it, when you don't really understand it, usually results in curiosity that is fruitful, like you go find out what it is; or disinterest because not of interest, which means you ignore and move on. I don't mean that no harm could imaginably come from reading about, say, violent sex or abusive behavior, but I do think that kids reading should be given lots of tools and then trusted to figure out if they need some guidance or can move on and be fine. And reviewing books in context as if these book-banning authoritarian clowns ever read an entire book and paid attention to its context takes them way, way too seriously. Libraries' job is to provide access to stuff and parents' job is to limit access from material they do not wish their child to access yet, full stop. If you don't want your kid stumbling on something you don't like at the library, go to the library and browse with them and model what to check out and what to pass on by.
My instinct (honed in pre-history, in the 1900s, haha) tells me that girls who read novels and girls doing drugs and engaging in other high-risk behavior are not often the same girls. In cases where these groups did overlap, the cultural influence most obvious was from rock musicians, back in day. At any rate--as a non-mom--I would be uncomfortable concluding that the risk of coming upon a few "positive" lines about meth would be enough to result in a kid seeking it out.
As someone in recovery, I don't think any teen would take a book about drugs seriously that didn't portray the "positive" aspects of it. People take drugs (and drink!) because it's fun. Until it isn't. If you want to write credibly about addiction, you need to depict the reasons it felt good, which then leads addicts to continue chasing that feeling despite all the consequences. Also, as someone who volunteers with teen addicts, I've yet to meet one who fell into drug use because they read about it. It's often family members who get them started. Which is a whole other problem.
Oh this ask is laser targeted to me.
I am unsure exactly when I first got the book and read it (I read a lot when I was a teen) but definitely around it's 2004 release maybe a year or two later. I then had it assigned to me my by Junior year English teacher (spring 2008, he was one of my favorite teachers from HS), we had to source the book ourselves, I already had a copy.
I am going to be honest I don't remember the class discussion very well because I found it deeply upsetting (and frankly triggering) because I was a suicidal teen with a history of sexual abuse which I didn't want to talk about in class.
What I can confidently say is at no point ever even reading it on my own was my takeaway remotely drugs are good and even if I did, I definitely had no idea how to score meth. Obviously your mileage may vary, this is my experience but I am also pretty sure books will never be the issue here.
Also added context since I am here and thinking about drug use was definitely in my school but the closest I came to it was knowing some people who smoked cigarettes and I was a goth kid so associated with the "bad kids." I have a hard time believing there wasn't weed, but again I never saw it.
The main drug use in my wealthy CT public school definitely was coke and prescription pills but that was from the prep/jock crowd and I didn't associate with them. (not because of subculture because those kids fucking sucked, just the worst broiest teen boys imaginable)
Good article, *great* title!
The degree to which people fret about "inappropriate" passages or books is frustrating. I clearly remember reading things in books that were inappropriate, too advanced, etc. and them just washing over me because I wanted to follow the story that had gotten me hooked. SEEING sex acts or drug taking on a screen is, I think, more potentially harmful because the glamor and the allure are the point of putting it on a screen. Reading about it, when you don't really understand it, usually results in curiosity that is fruitful, like you go find out what it is; or disinterest because not of interest, which means you ignore and move on. I don't mean that no harm could imaginably come from reading about, say, violent sex or abusive behavior, but I do think that kids reading should be given lots of tools and then trusted to figure out if they need some guidance or can move on and be fine. And reviewing books in context as if these book-banning authoritarian clowns ever read an entire book and paid attention to its context takes them way, way too seriously. Libraries' job is to provide access to stuff and parents' job is to limit access from material they do not wish their child to access yet, full stop. If you don't want your kid stumbling on something you don't like at the library, go to the library and browse with them and model what to check out and what to pass on by.
My instinct (honed in pre-history, in the 1900s, haha) tells me that girls who read novels and girls doing drugs and engaging in other high-risk behavior are not often the same girls. In cases where these groups did overlap, the cultural influence most obvious was from rock musicians, back in day. At any rate--as a non-mom--I would be uncomfortable concluding that the risk of coming upon a few "positive" lines about meth would be enough to result in a kid seeking it out.