Am I old enough? A new booklet aimed at school kids

In Sunday's edition of the Herald Sun there was a front page story stating the anger that parents had over a new booklet released by the Victorian Legal Aid branch.
The booklet, a 62 pages guide on various things from abortions to drug use. It gave excuses on how to get abortions without your parents knowing, how to hide your drug use and excuses on how to carry weapons and not be charged.
I downloaded the booklet from the net and had a quick glance through it. I think the advice is good but it should not be used as an excuse to do something illegal. Kids shouldn't pick up the book and think hey we can do anything now.. because there seems to be a loophole to get out of anything.
The Herald Sun has labelled the book a 'louts guide' stating that it is basically a how to get out of jail book.
If you would like to see the article.. it can be found
HERE
The booklet can be found HERE
F

I have just read that whole booklet and I think the Herald Sun has jumped to a huge generalist conclusion (how unlike them!)
The book is a terrific little guide for young people often uncertain of their rights as far as health-care, accomodation, legal issues and even incest. It does not encourage drug use or violence, it simply states what you can and can't do.
It's true, you CAN own a sword or crossbow (not in NSW) if you have a permit or it's for display purposes. The article does not mention the fact the book puts far more weight on what weapons you CANNOT carry, for example, nunchucks and blades, etc.
There are several pages devoted to what can happen to you if you're found with drugs, and it even lets you know the police have a right to search your car for drugs without a warrant. A great detterent, in my opinion.
And if I was a young girl who was pregnant and scared, I'd be very grateful to know what councelling services were available should I be considering an abortion.
What is the problem? Do they think kids can't handle the facts? There are far worse influences out there than this.
[ 20 January 2003: Message edited by: Strawberry_lovemuffin ]

We all know what the media are like. The truth doesn't really matter (along with common sense). Im sure everyone who works at the Herald can see the value in this book, but announcing to the public that there's a great new resource available for young people is just plain boring. It wont sell papers.
There's no point going on and on about how fucked up the media are when we all know what they're like.......they will exploit the most controversial angle of any particular story, get people talking and ultimately buying more papers (preferably theirs).
IMHO anyway...

It seems the scrutiny facing this publication is similar to what Bluelight, Erowid and other resources of the sort face - that they present the facts on taboo subjects in a non-threatening manner.
I'm kind of putting ideas down as I go, rather than really fleshing out a proper post at this point, but perhaps this raises the ideas that;
* The message as a whole can be taken on board and used effectively by a mature person, but a little information can be dangerous in unprepared hands.
Clearly, drawing a parallel to Bluelight - the information as a whole comprises a general harm minimisation resource that could be used to help someone who needs information but is scared to ask. This kind of information can be confronting in itself, as it's honesty could seem like an acceptance of the taboo behaviour. Similarly, factual information on taboo subjects tends to demystify the 'consequences' implying encouragement.
* Some information may be deemed inappropriate or unnecessary for the audience it reaches.
Is it appropriate or necessary to teach -
- young teenagers ways to avoid the ramifications of pregnancy?
- school children safe ways to inject heroin, and avoid blood-borne diseases?
- grown adults ways to minimise the damage they may do to themselves with illegal drugs?
- people to dive shallowly or step into unfamiliar water?
I suppose the intent of the message is to help people avoid hurting themselves, but it could be seen as spelling out how far people can go. In an unbiased frame of reference, I suppose that means the same thing.
BigTrancer

PS: The best harm minimisation is abstinence, that's pretty much a given. That's what the Just Say No approach is based upon, and that's what the whole 'moral objection' to this book is based on IMHO. So the next step is 'if you didn't say no, learn about what you're doing and take responsibility for yourself'...

The just say no approach was doomed to failure the moment it was born. The simple reason is the way we humans are.
We're curious, usually hedonistic, and before we become "mature" we pretty much don't think about the consequences. I think a book like this acknowledges that and basically shows a deeper understanding of the kids mind than most other campagins. Thank god our governments policy is centralised around Harm Minimisation.