Babysitting while high... Wrong?

[GumbyClaymation]

For me, as a parent, all I'd really want from a babysitter is for my kids to be alive and unharmed. If you're sober enough to call 911 if there's an emergency and also sober enough to not do anything that will negatively impact my child, then we're good. I'd also like to not discuss it, especially in front of my wife. Kind of an ignorance is bliss situation.

I may take flak for this, but that's my true feelings as a parent.

 

[Mel22]

i think babysitting while high is pretty irresponsible. i'm sure you had a positive, even fun. experience this time. but, if and when something terrible happens, just tell the kid's parents that you were high. i'm sure they'll understand...

i don't think people should drive high. i think taking care of a child while high is more serious.

$0.02

alasdair

^ Absolutely.

You're being paid to supervise and care for something utterly irreplaceable. Agreeing to take on such a responsibility while high is completely unacceptable imo.

 

[Foreigner]

The OP was already high with two hours to spare before having to go over. Does the intensity of weed last longer than that for most people? I find it makes my actions more intuitive and therefore more appropriate in a different way than I would normally reason things out. If pot makes you stupid and incapable, then yeah it's probably a really bad idea. I don't drive while high because I know I suck at it, but I've done other status quo activities while high. It doesn't make me less functional it just makes me function differently.

As an example, at the festivals I do HR at, it's common for people on shift to smoke. It's how we let down our tensions and flow into our long, 12 hour work shifts. I've dealt with emergency situations in that state. I've rescued people from death in that state. And I know that I could give CPR or do other life saving measures in that state.

Consider functional users vs. non-functional ones. It would be different if she was at the house babysitting already and deciding to toke up, but it sounded like a unique situation. Pot may not make people "safer", but it can make people uselessly overanalytical and considerate. It doesn't mean that they'll make the right choice but it does tend to mean they're thinking about it more. After all, the OP did come here freaking out which demonstrates that she was concerned about propriety, capability, etc.

I agree that if the parents knew they'd have a problem with it, but is it necessarily any of their business? How many people on are prescription drugs to treat medications, like anti-depressants, etc, all mind altering? And their disagreement with it would almost certainly be on principle, because kids + drugs = bad all the time, right? We all know what it's like to be a functional user but be told that we're incapable by the people who find out, all because they have an axe to grind against getting high.

Some people use cannabis to medicate anxiety, which makes them *more* functional and capable.

I don't think it's black and white, and it's only negligence if something actually goes wrong. And even then, it can't be assumed that it's because the person is high, but it does make a universally convenient scapegoat. After all, a sober person is more qualified than a high person automatically, right?

 

[Mel22]

What is it exactly that makes you "suck" at driving while high? If you consider yourself too impaired to drive while high, I can't imagine why you would be so confident that it couldn't impact the way you administer first aid in a life and death situation? How could you possibly be sure of this?

 

[Bagseed]

I worked with (mentally disabled) children professionally for two years, and I went there high all the time. I always could handle myself and nobody ever said anything, because I did my best (even though working with little autists is very tough, no matter if you're sober or not). Sometimes I even had to supervise the whole group because the real therapist was sick and we couldn't get somebody else to fill in. I wouldn't recommend anybody to do as I did, but what I'm getting at is that in my opinion it matters most if you're capable to do your job and be responsible.
I mean there are so many kinds of medications (anxiety meds, antidpressants, antipsychotics, pain medication,...) which can impair cognitive function, but in these cases it's accepted to take this while working a job like that, unless you're not functional enough to handle it. what if a kindergarten teacher in a medical state gets concentrates for whatever medical reason and works his job? if he is perfectly able to perform, would you say that it is still unacceptable? and if it's acceptable, what is the difference between a recreational user who is using the same drug? the only differnce is a moral point of view, because if they take the same drug, they shoud be similarily impaired (and to be honest, lots of legitimate medical users seem to have a much higher intake than I do), regardless of if one gets it's medicinally or not.

 

[Mel22]

I mean there are so many kinds of medications (anxiety meds, antidpressants, antipsychotics, pain medication,...) which can impair cognitive function, but in these cases it's accepted to take this while working a job like that, unless you're not functional enough to handle it. what if a kindergarten teacher in a medical state gets concentrates for whatever medical reason and works his job? if he is perfectly able to perform, would you say that it is still unacceptable? and if it's acceptable, what is the difference between a recreational user who is using the same drug? the only differnce is a moral point of view, because if they take the same drug, they shoud be similarily impaired (and to be honest, lots of legitimate medical users seem to have a much higher intake than I do), regardless of if one gets it's medicinally or not.

The difference between taking something medicinally vs. recreationally is that medically, one would hopefully be using the medication to be able to function better. The functioning is impaired by an illness, and the medication is supposed to improve the condition. Someone just getting high for the fuck of it is quite different, as they are intentionally altering and likely impairing their functioning just because they feel like getting high and have chosen not to wait to do it in their own time.

Quite simply, if I were trusting someone to care for my (hypothetical) child, I'd expect them to be as alert and functional as possible.

 

[Bagseed]

what you say is still a moral point of view (getting high because of getting high is morally wrong in certain situations). if somebody takes cannabis for pain, he'll be more functional without the pain, but theoretically less functional than being sober without an illness. so you could extend your argument to the point of opposing to somebody doing this job because he has an illness which requires certain impairing medications. the fact that someone is using a drug for medicinal reasons does not change the fact that said person will be high as well (if the drug is psychoactive).

 

[Mel22]

what you say is still a moral point of view (getting high because of getting high is morally wrong in certain situations). if somebody takes cannabis for pain, he'll be more functional without the pain, but theoretically less functional than being sober without an illness. so you could extend your argument to the point of opposing to somebody doing this job because he has an illness which requires certain impairing medications. the fact that someone is using a drug for medicinal reasons does not change the fact that said person will be high as well (if the drug is psychoactive).

You're right. Morally, I don't feel that it's okay to take care of someone else's child if you're intentionally impairing your functioning simply because you feel like it.

And sure, you could extend that argument to someone with an illness that requires medication that impairs them, and depending on the situation, I would absolutely not hesitate to do so.

 

[alasdairm]

what you say is still a moral point of view...

of course. lots of people here have an opinion and that opinion is viewed through the prism of their own moral code. so how to resolve? i think if you're looking after a child, then then only opinion which really matters is that of the child's parents.

so, if you're in any doubt, just ask them? "hey, is it ok if i'm high on marijuana when i babysit your kids?". if you can't or won't discuss it with them, you probably already have your answer.

if somebody takes cannabis for pain, he'll be more functional without the pain, but theoretically less functional than being sober without an illness. so you could extend your argument to the point of opposing to somebody doing this job because he has an illness which requires certain impairing medications.

right. but the op doesn't take cannabis for pain. he takes it to get high. manufactured hypothetical examples which make a point so well are of limited, if any, value because, for every made-up example that makes the case, another can be made up to counter it.

alasdair

 

[thujone]

You're right. Morally, I don't feel that it's okay to take care of someone else's child if you're intentionally impairing your functioning simply because you feel like it.

Adults have been drinking alcohol then looking after kids for many years, why suddenly is there a need to draw a hard line when it comes to cannabis? Where is the evidence to even support the notion that cannabis alone causes judgment to be impaired? I still haven't heard of cannabis being blamed in deadly car accidents or "bath salt" style tragedies, considering how commonplace its usage is, wouldn't it be commonly known by now if babysitting while high has been putting anyone at an elevated risk of danger?

 

[Mel22]

Adults have been drinking alcohol then looking after kids for many years, why suddenly is there a need to draw a hard line when it comes to cannabis? Where is the evidence to even support the notion that cannabis alone causes judgment to be impaired? I still haven't heard of cannabis being blamed in deadly car accidents or "bath salt" style tragedies, considering how commonplace its usage is, wouldn't it be commonly known by now if babysitting while high has been putting anyone at an elevated risk of danger?

I don't care if you smoke a bit of weed or have a few glasses of wine while at home with your own kids. I just don't think you should get high before/while taking care of someone else's, unless they're okay with it. I also never stated that cannabis alone causes judgement to be impaired - of course that's not true. What makes you think I'm drawing a hard line only when it comes to cannabis? I certainly wouldn't want someone drinking alcohol while being paid to care for my kid either.

 

[NerdSlayerXO]

If it's only weed, then honestly it depends. I enjoy getting high before watching my little sister because it makes the situation generally more enjoyable. However, it's important to keep in mind whose kid it is, how old they are, whether or not any other teens or adults are around, etc. Bad case scenario, it's uncomfortable and you feel paranoid. Worst case scenario, you get caught. It should go without saying that smoking around kids or on their parents property is a big no no.

But if you're worried about inflicting any psychological damage on the child, then don't. Under normal circumstances, weed doesn't make you and weirder than most people naturally are.

EDIT: For sanity's sake though, I'd avoid mixing concentrates and children.

 

[jammin83]

Like with anything else, it comes d9wn to who is watching your kid. Some will be ok every time, better even, some will get your kids head caught in a blender.

It c9mes down to the individual, weed has nothing to do with it.

 

[vacuole]

What about coffee? Drinking it is "intentionally impairing your functioning simply because you feel like it."

 

[Tanner Blaze]

I think you already know the answer to this one. Yeah, it's wrong. It reminds me of people that say "Actually, I drive better when I'm stoned." Maybe that's true, but it's still a bad idea. I know a girl from my high school who works as an in-house care giver for this 80 yr old guy and she always smokes weed when she's watching him. I feel like if he has a heart attack she might not be able to respond as well. This isn't going to class stoned, you are in charge of someone's life so yeah you should be sober imo.

 

[thujone]

I don't care if you smoke a bit of weed or have a few glasses of wine while at home with your own kids. I just don't think you should get high before/while taking care of someone else's, unless they're okay with it. I also never stated that cannabis alone causes judgement to be impaired - of course that's not true. What makes you think I'm drawing a hard line only when it comes to cannabis? I certainly wouldn't want someone drinking alcohol while being paid to care for my kid either.

Neither would I... generally, but who is this in reference to: an untrusted [paid] acquaintance or a trusted guardian? I expect just about any parent would think twice about trusting their kid to a neighbourhood babysitter who shows up not sober, but how about to a trusted uncle who has an open bottle of wine in his kitchen? There's a couple variables to this issue that don't reasonably have anything to do with whether a person is stoned or sober, and relying on unsupported generalizations naturally lead to gems like this statement:

I know a girl from my high school who works as an in-house care giver for this 80 yr old guy and she always smokes weed when she's watching him. I feel like if he has a heart attack she might not be able to respond as well.

So... is this the crux of people's worries, that someone who is stoned must be at half their initial level of intellect and just can't cope if SHTF? As for the driving stoned bit, for fuck's sake, this is not a question of whether people function better while inebriated, this is about whether or not people function worse enough stoned to a point where they become untrustworthy. FWIW the evidence says:

This study examined sex differences in the acute effects of marijuana on driving performance using a realistic, validated driving simulator. Eighty-five subjects (n = 50 males, 35 females) participated in this between-subjects, double-blind, placebo controlled study. In addition to an uneventful, baseline segment of driving, participants were challenged with collision avoidance and distracted driving scenarios. Under the influence of marijuana, participants decreased their speed and failed to show expected practice effects during a distracted drive. No differences were found during the baseline driving segment or collision avoidance scenarios. No differences attributable to sex were observed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3033009/

So there it is. Does being stoned make you a worse driver? No, despite what we all assumed, in practical experience it does not. Does being stoned make you a worse babysitter? Well, nobody has tested that, but clearly there's already a pre-existing bias amongst people to think that being stoned leads to spontaneous mental retardation, which is a generalization that in other situations has been shown to be incorrect.

 

[hydroazuanacaine]

Does being stoned make you a worse driver? No, despite what we all assumed, in practical experience it does not.

this study may suggest being stoned does not impair driving ability, but that doesn't make it true. and being in a test environment is significant. how someone drives stoned on saturday morning while trying to find their radio station is way different than how they drive while being observed on a closed course, even if part of their task is finding a radio station or however the study attempted to simulate a distracted environment.

bias amongst people to think that being stoned leads to spontaneous mental retardation

i've seen someone stoned have to pause the conversation for several rounds of explanation because they couldn't process the "rushin'" as in "quit rushin' me" as anything other than "russian." that's anecdotal, but pretty typical of someone high as fuck. if i had to operate a defibrillator for the first time in a life and death scenario, i'd prefer not to be stoned.

none of that means i think OP was wrong in agreeing to babysit in the described scenario.

 

[Bagseed]

i've seen someone stoned have to pause the conversation for several rounds of explanation because they couldn't process the "rushin'" as in "quit rushin' me" as anything other than "russian." that's anecdotal, but pretty typical of someone high as fuck. if i had to operate a defibrillator for the first time in a life and death scenario, i'd prefer not to be stoned

well of course it is also relevant how stoned a person is. if you're incoherent because you smoked too much, you certainly shouldn't drive a vehicle or even bicycle... it's the same as driving after one beer vs drving after five. most people who just smoke a few small bowls or joints over the day are not fucked up like that. I ride my bike stoned all the time, often in rush hour, when the street is very busy, and to be honest, being tired and/or stressed out has a far bigger impact on how safe I drive than having smoked some weed prior.

 

[thujone]

this study may suggest being stoned does not impair driving ability, but that doesn't make it true.

The study doesn't suggest, it uses a trusted methodology to assess. This is exactly my problem with some of the responses in this thread, they are just based purely on generalizations and gut reactions and lack any reasonable evidence that could possibly explain why someone would or should be concerned about a babysitter being stoned.

and being in a test environment is significant. how someone drives stoned on saturday morning while trying to find their radio station is way different than how they drive while being observed on a closed course, even if part of their task is finding a radio station or however the study attempted to simulate a distracted environment.

what do lapses of judgment have to do with cannabis? studies have been done categorizing distracted driving at the same level of risk as drunk driving. similarly a stoned babysitter holding a child's hand while crossing the street may very well protect that child from harm that could have occurred had the babysitter been sober but looking at their smartphone instead of paying attention to the child.

i've seen someone stoned have to pause the conversation for several rounds of explanation because they couldn't process the "rushin'" as in "quit rushin' me" as anything other than "russian." that's anecdotal, but pretty typical of someone high as fuck. if i had to operate a defibrillator for the first time in a life and death scenario, i'd prefer not to be stoned.

and I'd prefer not to be dyslexic if someone's life depends on me reading the instructions off a box that emits high-voltage shocks.

 

[hydroazuanacaine]

being tired and/or stressed out has a far bigger impact on how safe I drive than having smoked some weed prior.

likewise. that doesn't mean being stoned doesn't negatively impact a person's ability to drive. and i don't know about you, but i make an effort to not drive when tired and/or stressed out.

This is exactly my problem with some of the responses in this thread, they are just based purely on generalizations and gut reactions and lack any reasonable evidence that could possibly explain why someone would or should be concerned about a babysitter being stoned.

i said in my post "none of that means i think OP was wrong in agreeing to babysit in the described scenario." i chose to address your comment because often people allow their efforts to find support of their opinion to cause them to make black and white comments about other complicated issues. i'm having trouble finding the words to explain what i mean and am in a rush, but along the lines of people saying "there's no choice in sexuality" to support gay rights. i'm not saying i do or don't think there is choice in sexuality, but i think people do not give proper consideration to the issue because being decided supports something else they believe. even though the two issue are not inexorably connected.

The study doesn't suggest, it uses a trusted methodology to assess.

a methodology that's recognized as fallible.

what do lapses of judgment have to do with cannabis? studies have been done categorizing distracted driving at the same level of risk as drunk driving.

cannabis increases the likelihood of being distracted.

and I'd prefer not to be dyslexic if someone's life depends on me reading the instructions off a box that emits high-voltage shocks.

right. and unlike being dyslexic, you have control over whether or not you are stoned before going to your work shift.