Abuse of legal drugs is the primary indicator as to whether someone will abuse illegal drugs. This seems to be some anecdotal evidence to support that theory.
How does it seem to support the theory? We do not have any evidence of history or patterns of use - we do not know, for instance, whether the mother, or, indeed, the children, started on abusing liquor and fags and progressed to other drugs, or whether the first drug of abuse was an illicit one. Perhaps the mother drank in moderation when she was young, progressed onto a heavy drug abuse with something like cocaine, heroin or methamphetamine, and then dulled back down to alcohol and marijuana. Or it may be as you describe, or any of a large variation of possibilities - the fact is that even anecdotal evidence has to have some direct point to make on the question (in this case theory) at hand. You have described a relatively simple theory and so it is easy to find reason to exclude this evidence as being insufficiently complete and comprehensive to give backing to this theory as it simply does not give the required history to support that point.
I am some what concerned that some of the children - in particular the 13 year old as mentioned - had better connections with dealers than the mother had ("The 13-year-old was even sent on a neighborhood mission with $5 to buy her mother a “nickel bag of weed,” the report said. She later smoked the marijuana with her mother...The 17-year-old didn’t smoke marijuana with her mother but told police she and her siblings have purchased the drug on their mother’s behalf over the last four years because they are more familiar with the dealers in the area."), which suggests that drugs are nothing new to them and that they have established connections with dealers by at least the age of 13 (the implication being that some of them may have been even younger when they were asked to do these things). It is difficult to untangle this mess without time and a lot more evidence, but from the prima facie evidence given it is easy to conclude that the mother has probably directly led her children at a young age into the world of drugs, at a time before thier bodies and minds are likley to have been promperly formed, and that this will most likely have a long term impact of some sort or another upon them, most probably drug abuse and mental health problems later in life, although they may get off far more lightly than this.
The assumption would be that she began abusing tobacco and getting drunk long before she had done the same to marijuana and began giving her children enough liquor to become intoxicated, as this trend tends to be the case the vast majority of the time. Yes, it could be otherwise, but Occam's Razor leads me to my initial assumption.
But the fact that it is an assumption (and, no less, an assumption on the behalf of a third party) with serious possibility of being incorrect means it cannot be taken as evidence. If it said somewhere in the article that she started on booze then moved her way up to harder drugs then you would have anecdotal evidence, otherwise this isn't anything more than an opaque assumption.
That is why I said "seems" to be evidence, not "is" evidence. My original statement was hardly meant to be taken as a declaration of fact, and I think I implied its factual ambiguity well enough. Also, I did say it was an assumption in my second post, did I not?
regardless of that, i personally don't see much of a problem with the womans actions, at 13, a child could decide whether or not to do drugs, i KNOW that at 13 i could have easily made the decision to abstain, and in fact did on several occasioins, Oh, NO...POT AND BEER!!!! its ridiculous, the only thing bad was that she let the kids leave the house intoxicated, or that the kids didn't have the decency to tell her they were leaving...
there are far worse things a parent can do............
one of the best turned out kids swim ever knew used to get stoned with her mother from the age of about 12. she wound up a delightful person who does charity work and all sorts. she'd never have grassed (squealed) on her mother like that though, and the fact the kids did suggest the relationship is broken...
Swim agrees that maybe the kids didn't have a good relationship with the mother and the mother may have thought that being "cool" and doing drugs with them would improve this when it in fact appears they turned on her and ratted her out to their father. Swim wouldn't them for HER kids! Of course, the father may have scared them into saying those things and backing him up but still...kids can be manipulative, conniving, and downright evil at times, causing many parents to lose it altogether. No matter how good a parent one tries to be, there is always the possiblity of raising a selfish ingrate. "Parents" aren't supposed to have a life but be a slave to their kids, fulfilling their every need, or so some kids think. Of course mothers condition kids to act that way sometimes because from the moment they are brought hpme from the hospital, they are hanging over the child's crib at the least little cry or grunt and who could resist, they look so sweet and innocent but after awhile, the baby KNOWS how to manipulate the parents to get what they want, when they want it, UNLESS steps are taken to teach them otherwise. Swim has 3 kids of her own and she admits to spoiling them until she realized what was going on. When swim was growing up, kids had NO rights. Now, kids have ALL the rights. It sounds as if this mother was trying to connect with her kids in some way, maybe the only way she thought she could, and they betrayed her. If the kids had better drug connections than the mother or knew the dealers in the area better, then they certainly aren't as innocent as they might try to look or as the father tries to make them look. They could have ratted her out to cover their own butts.
Honestly, one is led to believe that most that see this in a total negative light will be those from countries whose governments are based on Christian ethics(sadly, there are quite a few). Being from one of these "lands of lemmings", SWIM must say he has always noticed that anything that deviates away from the man-made doctrine of religion is illegal or immoral. Laughable. Especially when these religions(especially the one and you know who you are) would often push for marriage of girls as young as 12 and 13. So, SWIM thinks that age should not be the issue here as much as it is the drugs and alcohol. Throughout history, drugs and alcohol(unless they pertain to ritual and serve their own purposes), pornography, premarital sex, and general human behavior have been denounced by religions. SWIM says that god is always the biggest buzzkill.
Regardless. The 'gateway drug' theory is complete bullshit and scientific research confirms such. Please educate yourself before posting Big Daddy propaganda rumors around here. We all know better and your not helping educate anyone with such statement. Ambiguous or not it was misleading, false, and unappreciated.
Try again Mr. Police Officer.