What Happens When Pregnant Women Are Criminalized For Drug Use

a reply to: Krazysh0t

For two, who would think it would be a good idea to separate a mother from her child because she used drugs during pregnancy?

The question is how can you justify not removing a child from parents that are addicted to drugs?

a reply to: Scouse100

Nobody wants to be a drug addict.

I do want to, I choose not to because I have responsibility's that go beyond myself. AND know the consequences from first hand experience. My hands still sweat when i come around any of it.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Scouse100

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Typically when a person forces another person to do drugs to the point where they go through withdrawal, the person forcing the use gets in trouble.

Would we be crying if this was about some heroin addict handcuffing a woman to a toilet and forcing drugs into her? Still no big deal, they just need some help?

Well unless the woman is intravenously connected to the addict whereby the drugs have to pass to her by default every time he needs a fix then there is no comparison.

Cute.

Is an addict forcing another person to ingest narcotics the same as an addict forcing another person to ingest narcotics?

Yep.

Nice deflection though.

Nope. In order for pregnant mother to take a hit it has to pass it to baby. Your guy doesn't have to stick the woman to get his fix.

originally posted by: DOCHOLIDAZE1
a reply to: Scouse100

Nobody wants to be a drug addict.

I do want to, I choose not to because I have responsibility's that go beyond myself. AND know the consequences from first hand experience. My hands still sweat when i come around any of it.

No, you want the high, you don't want to be an addict.

a reply to: Scouse100

are you telling me what I want?

what makes you even think you know what i want?

dp

a reply to: DOCHOLIDAZE1

Fair enough. So I know the benefits of getting a high, but what is enjoyable about being addicted?

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

That's horrible, but let's try and break the cycle by helping these people, not perpetuate it by manfacturing all the risk factors required to.

originally posted by: Scouse100

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Scouse100

originally posted by: Shamrock6

Typically when a person forces another person to do drugs to the point where they go through withdrawal, the person forcing the use gets in trouble.



Would we be crying if this was about some heroin addict handcuffing a woman to a toilet and forcing drugs into her? Still no big deal, they just need some help?

Well unless the woman is intravenously connected to the addict whereby the drugs have to pass to her by default every time he needs a fix then there is no comparison.

Cute.



Is an addict forcing another person to ingest narcotics the same as an addict forcing another person to ingest narcotics?



Yep.



Nice deflection though.

Nope. In order for pregnant mother to take a hit it has to pass it to baby. Your guy doesn't have to stick the woman to get his fix.

In order for a pedophile to get his "hit", he has to rape a child, doesn't he?

originally posted by: BiffWellington

originally posted by: Scouse100

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Scouse100

originally posted by: Shamrock6

Typically when a person forces another person to do drugs to the point where they go through withdrawal, the person forcing the use gets in trouble.



Would we be crying if this was about some heroin addict handcuffing a woman to a toilet and forcing drugs into her? Still no big deal, they just need some help?

Well unless the woman is intravenously connected to the addict whereby the drugs have to pass to her by default every time he needs a fix then there is no comparison.

Cute.



Is an addict forcing another person to ingest narcotics the same as an addict forcing another person to ingest narcotics?



Yep.



Nice deflection though.

Nope. In order for pregnant mother to take a hit it has to pass it to baby. Your guy doesn't have to stick the woman to get his fix.

In order for a pedophile to get his "hit", he has to rape a child, doesn't he?

Yes of course, I was not arguing that that makes it OK, but that the comparison was not the same.

a reply to: marg6043

I live in NC, which has historically been considered in the south. I teach at a local community college, and my aunt teaches at a local middle school, and I have not seen or heard of anything you are talking about. There is a major problem with methamphetamines in North Carolina, but all of the mothers I know(and I know a lot) are drug-free.

As for crack babies, I am wondering whose job it was to research the history of the children and find what drugs their mothers were on so as to properly label them 'crack babies'.

My aunt(the 8th-grade English teacher) says most kids are hopped up on prescription drugs to combat ADD and ADHA, but never once did she say a child was on prescription drugs to combat a crack addiction they gained invitro.

In getting the TN law passed the legislators and their friends in the prison system used a few isolated studies of "crack babies" to sway the legislators. New evidence in larger, longer studies have proven the early ones to be wrong.

healthland.time.com...

“The ‘crack-baby’ scare from the ’80s was overstated and was not substantiated,” says the study’s lead author Maureen Black, professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at the University of Maryland School of Medicine.
The research included around 5,000 11- to 19-year-olds involved in 27 studies from nine different groups of prenatally coc aine-exposed children and children from similarly disadvantaged neighborhoods who weren’t exposed.
Eleven studies explored behavioral problems and nearly two-thirds of these found differences between the coc aine-exposed youth and the others. However, all of the differences were small and within the normal range — and two studies that looked at illegal behaviors such as juvenile delinquency, property damage and violence found no effect of the in utero coc aine.
“We did not find any differences that were of clinical importance,” says Black. “There were not more kids dropping out of school. They were not more likely to be arrested.”

Legislators just love making laws. It appears that they care. It appears they are doing something to combat a problem. They love the money those private prison lobbyists provide. They love the money BigPharma lobbyists provide so they just look the other way when it is pointed out to them that BigPharma is a a large part of the underlying problems. At least 80% of the addicts started with legal pharmaceuticals which are known to be highly addictive.

Lock 'em all up and throw away the key! Give those babies to the state who can "raise them right"! are the cries of those who have no clue or those who have a financial stake in the matter.

For a non-governmental, critical look at the system, read a bit here: www.liftingtheveil.org...

or have a chat with an overloaded social worker. The honest ones will tell you it's more about state control than children's welfare.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

For two, who would think it would be a good idea to separate a mother from her child because she used drugs during pregnancy?

Really? did you really just say that?
How about that it shows she is not fit to be a mother in the first place? Hell, she even showed shes not fit for it and up to the job Before she became a mother endangering the childs live and birth.

Next to that doing drugs is simply illegal, deal with it. We all have to. And if a mother or a mother to be is into those sort of things her ability for parenthood become questionable, period.

I am super ambivalent about this.

I know of women who have had multiple children, all with different men, used drugs of various kinds with all of them, the children are seriously F'd up for life, they are being raised by other people in every case except one -- the one where the kids are fairly healthy it seems but the doctor (seriously) began prescribing ritalin et al to the children at AGE TWO so they wouldn't stress out the mother. They'll be seriously F'd up by teenagehood is my prediction...

I feel like the first child evidenced to have been exposed to any drug stronger than marijuana when in the womb should probably get a woman sterilized, but that is horrible and the other half of me is shouting no, you can't do that, and she's off on some leftist lecture about saving the world and drug addicts and treatment now so I'm ignoring her... the meaner half of me thinks that utterly destroying the ENTIRE LIFE every single day week month season year decade ENTIRE LIFE of another human being by using hard drugs when pregnant ought to have some serious consequences and if it doesn't -- because apparently it really doesn't for many people! -- at the least should never be allowed to happen again.

originally posted by: RedCairo
I am super ambivalent about this.

I know of women who have had multiple children, all with different men, used drugs of various kinds with all of them, the children are seriously F'd up for life, they are being raised by other people in every case except one -- the one where the kids are fairly healthy it seems but the doctor (seriously) began prescribing ritalin et al to the children at AGE TWO so they wouldn't stress out the mother. They'll be seriously F'd up by teenagehood is my prediction...

I feel like the first child evidenced to have been exposed to any drug stronger than marijuana when in the womb should probably get a woman sterilized, but that is horrible and the other half of me is shouting no, you can't do that, and she's off on some leftist lecture about saving the world and drug addicts and treatment now so I'm ignoring her... the meaner half of me thinks that utterly destroying the ENTIRE LIFE every single day week month season year decade ENTIRE LIFE of another human being by using hard drugs when pregnant ought to have some serious consequences and if it doesn't -- because apparently it really doesn't for many people! -- at the least should never be allowed to happen again.

But do you want it to stop? Then scratch what has been ingrained about consequences and ask what is actually going to stop this.

It has already been shown that this threat is causing mothers to skip prenatal care and go out of state to give birth, evidently they do take the threat seriously but can't break the addiction.

Those that do get caught are then going to be submerged in conditions that perpetuate substance abuse. Same goes for the kids who are removed.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Well that's fine then. I like the idea of rehabilitation instead of jail.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Well if you don't even give them an attempt to turn their life around, that isn't right. Why can't you try to help these people and contingent on remaining clean, they keep the child? Why jail immediately?

originally posted by: RedCairo
I am super ambivalent about this.

I know of women who have had multiple children, all with different men, used drugs of various kinds with all of them, the children are seriously F'd up for life, they are being raised by other people in every case except one -- the one where the kids are fairly healthy it seems but the doctor (seriously) began prescribing ritalin et al to the children at AGE TWO so they wouldn't stress out the mother. They'll be seriously F'd up by teenagehood is my prediction...

I feel like the first child evidenced to have been exposed to any drug stronger than marijuana when in the womb should probably get a woman sterilized, but that is horrible and the other half of me is shouting no, you can't do that, and she's off on some leftist lecture about saving the world and drug addicts and treatment now so I'm ignoring her... the meaner half of me thinks that utterly destroying the ENTIRE LIFE every single day week month season year decade ENTIRE LIFE of another human being by using hard drugs when pregnant ought to have some serious consequences and if it doesn't -- because apparently it really doesn't for many people! -- at the least should never be allowed to happen again.

Keep in mind, alcohol is a drug stronger than marijuana. As are cigarettes.

originally posted by: everyone
a reply to: Krazysh0t

For two, who would think it would be a good idea to separate a mother from her child because she used drugs during pregnancy?

Really? did you really just say that?
How about that it shows she is not fit to be a mother in the first place? Hell, she even showed shes not fit for it and up to the job Before she became a mother endangering the childs live and birth.

But the child wouldn't be confiscated if the mother drank alcohol during pregnancy. Alcohol is one of the most destructive drugs you can imbibe. Some think it is more destructive than heroin. Alcohol withdrawal can actually kill you.

Next to that doing drugs is simply illegal, deal with it. We all have to. And if a mother or a mother to be is into those sort of things her ability for parenthood become questionable, period.

Deal with it? I want the law to change, it isn't going to change if I'm just "dealing with it". It requires speaking out about how it doesn't work, getting people to notice, and voting when the time is right. Don't lecture me on "dealing with it". People in jail for drug usage is by FAR one of the most inhumane things we've done to our citizenry in this country. If you cannot see that then I truly feel sorry for you...

originally posted by: Krazysh0tKeep in mind, alcohol is a drug stronger than marijuana. As are cigarettes.

Yes but I said "hard drugs" in the post you responded to. I wouldn't address those three.

Alcohol is legal (no matter its consequences) as are cigarettes, and marijuana should be, where it's not. They are all damaging (esp. alcohol) but there is a dose makes the poison situation there too.

I am referring to drugs like coc aine, meth, heroin, and so on where ANY dose is pretty horrific as a result. We have generations of people whose parents smoked cigarettes and drank a little alcohol and it's likely not for the best but the kids were relatively ok it seems. We have a couple generations where at least some percentage have some pot use, who knows the detail results of that.

But the results on babies for things like meth I don't even want to think about. I'm less worried about the mother's rights in those cases than I am the fact that the baby might be a disaster we could debate the merits of giving birth to at all. Boy I bet that will upset people. No I am not saying babies with health issues should be killed, gods no, but I am saying there are types of damage and degrees going on with hard drugs and the womb that probably make terminating the pregnancy worth serious consideration.

Most women I've known of who did hard drugs with babies ended up never raising their own kids anyway, someone else like parents of the man got stuck raising them, and they were often special needs to the extreme. What a freaking tragedy for everyone involved but especially the child.

And the state usually ends up paying for the medical complications, birth and often social security for life for the "problems" the child may have on top of it all. All of this disaster for the detail every-minute life of a human being, for lots of people involved, for the effect on the larger society with the cost (and LOSS of a potential contributing human being who wasn't so damaged) and that's it -- no consequences for the mother? Nothing?

I'm not sure what they should be. If they should be. How bearing the child or raising it might be involved. I just know that no consequences for what is such a terrible cascade of impact seems... injust.