Pot Ruins Lives
Especially when kids turn their pot-smoking parents in to the police. Via Radley Balko and @WalterOlson, there's another story of D.A.R.E. causing a kid to snitch on Mom and Dad. Jeff Rivenbark and Tom Roussey write for WBTV:
MATTHEWS, NC (WBTV) - Two parents are facing drug charges after their child took their drugs to school and told a school officer his parents were breaking the law.WBTV is not releasing the names of the parents or the name of the school to protect the child's identity.
The 11-year-old student is in 5th grade at a an elementary school in Matthews. Police say he brought his parents' marijuana cigarettes to school when he reported them.
Matthews Police say he reported his parents after a lesson about marijuana was delivered by a police officer who is part of the D.A.R.E. program, which teaches kids about the dangers of drugs, alcohol, and tobacco.
"Even if it's happening in their own home with their own parents, they understand that's a dangerous situation because of what we're teaching them," said Matthews Officer Stason Tyrrell. That's what they're told to do, to make us aware."
...Police say both the 11-year old and a sibling have been removed from the parents' house by social services. Police say they are staying with relatives.
Ridiculous!
Meanwhile, at a party last night, I just met a friend of one of the most brilliant and productive people I know, and he mentioned how they're very different, but the one thing they have in common is that they both smoke pot.
I don't smoke pot -- don't like how it makes me feel, and I don't want to smoke anything, because I really like my lungs -- but if you smoke pot, and don't drive or take the opportunity to go out and operate heavy machinery...why should I care any more than if you have a couple glasses of wine after work?
And P.S. My brilliant friend is brilliant enough to smoke pot through a vaporizer ("The Volcano"), which turns the pot smoke from smoke to water vapor.
Freackin' hilarious, actually. I doubt you're all gung-ho on parents being drunk while caring for their kids, Amy, so why is being stoned okay? Why is having drugs where a CHILD can access them OK? Where is your ire at these irresponsible parents, Amy? Yes, they didn't spit out 6 kids by 6 fathers, but a kid getting into your stash is NOT okay.
momof4 at October 24, 2010 8:13 AM
$539 for a vaporizer?
Eric at October 24, 2010 8:18 AM
I don't smoke pot, but my 20 yr old son does. And I'm so glad he does this instead of drinking to excess. Personally, I think pot has helped him immensely, calms his anxiety in social situations (from his Aspergers). He's never out of control or falling down drunk like so many kids his age. I only wish it were legal because it should be. I've lost so many tenants to alcoholism - dying horrible, bloated, painful deaths from liver failure - but I've never lost anybody to pot.
lovelysoul at October 24, 2010 8:18 AM
M4, if the kid had brought a beer to school, his parents wouldn't have been arrested and the children put in foster care. It's pretty absurd to remove kids for this. Obviously, the kid shouldn't have had access to the pot, but it sounds like he went looking for it after being encouraged by DARE, not like he just stumbled upon it.
lovelysoul at October 24, 2010 8:22 AM
I hate the DARE program. When my youngest daughter was in kindergarten she came home and wanted to call our local police after school one day. She was 5 and the DARE officer had been out to the school and talked to these 5 year olds and gave them all a coloring book. Her reason for wanting to call the police? Her step-dad and I drank and smoked...cigarettes. Which according to the coloring book were bad things that people shouldn't be doing. I was floored after she showed me the pictures in the book. There were several pictures with the red circle and the line through it...pills, a wine glass, cigarettes, a joint, lines of cocaine. I raised holy hell with the school the next day. Not that it did any good, but I felt better.
sara at October 24, 2010 8:42 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/10/24/pot_ruins_lives.html#comment-1770451">comment from momof4I doubt you're all gung-ho on parents being drunk while caring for their kids, Amy, so why is being stoned okay?
There's smoking pot and there's getting really stoned, just as there's having a glass of wine and getting really drunk. You have no idea when they smoke pot or how much or whether they're fit parents or not from the piece.
Another brilliant friend of mine, a professor who invented a medical device that saves a lot of lives, has a joint every night when he comes home from work, then walks across the street to go to dinner. If you didn't know him, and know that he has that joint before going to dinner, you'd never peg him as a pot smoker.
What counts isn't the substance, but how it's being used.
Amy Alkon at October 24, 2010 8:52 AM
If only people could just be responsible with this.
The Goddess writes: but if you smoke pot, and don't drive or take the opportunity to go out and operate heavy machinery
If only people would just do that, I wouldn't have an issue. But how often have we heard someone who's had one or seven too many and insist they're all right to drive?
Patrick at October 24, 2010 9:16 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/10/24/pot_ruins_lives.html#comment-1770456">comment from PatrickBut how often have we heard someone who's had one or seven too many and insist they're all right to drive?
I see it all the time, Patrick. I live near a bar. The other night, I called the cops repeatedly because asshole bar patrons were out in the parking lot, directly across from houses, SCREAMING, whooping, and yelling intermittently at the top of their lungs for about an hour. Only because the cops eventually came did the assholes not drive home. They left their silver Jag in the city lot and I hope they got a ticket.
Amy Alkon at October 24, 2010 9:20 AM
You shouldn't drive under the influence of alcohol or pot, but frankly the drunks scare me more. Someone drunk is more likely to drive fast and be agressive than someone high on pot.
William (wbhicks@hotmail.com) at October 24, 2010 10:14 AM
A sad story, but like, maybe the kid was tired of his parents being emotionally-removed, legally hypocritical, emotionally-removed assholes. Or something. Does it matter?
Amy, your chatter about some dope smokers being "the most brilliant and productive people I know" is as bogus an argument as you've ever made, and it's the same one you make about gay parenting too.
Sober parents are better. Anyone wanna doubt it?
Pot laws may indeed be disproportionate. But what we got here is a deeply troubled kid... And if the parents are nonetheless flagrantly smoking week, we know the kid is deeply troubled because the family is deeply trouble.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 24, 2010 10:15 AM
The point is that you can bank on people NOT using these substances responsibly. Nothing brings perspective like waiting for the Medical Examiner when, yet another drunk 18 year old tries to make his truck fly and is decapitated in the process. I don't think people can be trusted to use weed responsibly.
Richard Cook at October 24, 2010 10:16 AM
Smoking weed, not smoking week. Was up all night watching F1 from Korea.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 24, 2010 10:18 AM
> I think pot has helped him immensely,
> calms his anxiety in social situations
> (from his Aspergers).
Jesus Fucking Christ.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 24, 2010 10:33 AM
Upon reading that story, I think my tubes just tied themselves.
Pirate Jo at October 24, 2010 10:33 AM
I kept both of my kids out of D.A.R.E. I was the lone parent in the schools that they attended who did this. After taking to a criminal defense attorney who taught my criminal law class in law school I became convinced that D.A.R.E was at best a giant slush fund of unaccountable money for the police departments and at worst a NARC program with constitutional implications that encouraged small children to "report" their parents for illegal activities. Soviet Union anyone? My children are both fine by the way. Neither does drugs, or smokes and my son doesn't even drink. Isabel
Isabel1130 at October 24, 2010 10:51 AM
That's another excellent reason for birth control.
Tony at October 24, 2010 10:55 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/10/24/pot_ruins_lives.html#comment-1770493">comment from Pirate JoUpon reading that story, I think my tubes just tied themselves.
Comment of the day.
Amy Alkon at October 24, 2010 11:01 AM
"M4, if the kid had brought a beer to school, his parents wouldn't have been arrested and the children put in foster care."
Beer is legal. Like it or not. But, I'd think it GREAT if a kid of drunkards reported his parents. Do we know they're stoners? Okay, maybe not for sure. But the stash was where a kid could access it pretty easily, and the parents didn't notice. I'm pretty sure if my wine disappeared off my counter, I'd realize it nigh on immediately.
I've never met a smart pot smoker. I've met a LOT who sure thought they were brilliant. I'm not sure what's more annoying-a lsurring drunk or a "profound" pothead. And Amy, if your judge of "brilliant" is like the guy with the idea to give everyone $100 credit cards on the taxpayers, then you need help judging brilliant.
If you think there is ANY amount of pot you can smoke and still be responsible for a child's wellbeing AT THAT TIME, you need to read some more studies.
momof4 at October 24, 2010 11:04 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/10/24/pot_ruins_lives.html#comment-1770495">comment from momof4If you think there is ANY amount of pot you can smoke and still be responsible for a child's wellbeing AT THAT TIME, you need to read some more studies.
What about a glass of wine? Two? Where do you draw the line?
Do you know that they smoked when the kids were there? Were they having loud sex at the time with the kids home, or is it possible they did both when the kids were at Grandma's for the evening?
So, you can drink a lot of beer, and still keep your kids, but smoke pot, perhaps just occasionally, and they're taken away? Genius.
Amy Alkon at October 24, 2010 11:08 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/10/24/pot_ruins_lives.html#comment-1770496">comment from Amy AlkonGregg's contribution to the discussion: "As they say on beer commercials, 'drink responsibly.'" Same goes for smoking pot or taking any drug.
Amy Alkon at October 24, 2010 11:13 AM
Sober parents are better. Anyone wanna doubt it?
Me! Me!
I can't even count how many mothers I know who would be better if they'd have a glass of wine or a joint once in awhile. A whole lot calmer.
MonicaP at October 24, 2010 11:25 AM
Nope, don't be cute, say it in a sentence: "Sober parents aren't better."
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at October 24, 2010 12:09 PM
Well, I guess some are hearing this story and concluding that children are foul little imps who will turn in their parents over some innocent pot use...although no one has any idea how much the parents were using.
And others want to blame that vile, nasty, D.A.R.E. program with its diabolical mission of keeping children away from drugs.
But of course, the parents are just the innocent victims in this story. Nope. No responsibility on their end at all. Never mind that unless they're too stupid to be raising children in the first place, they know that pot is an illegal substance and ran the risk of getting busted, placing their child at the mercy of relatives or foster care while mommy and daddy sit in jail awaiting trial.
There's sufficient risk in day to day life. How about, when we make the decision to make babies, we just try to avoid doing things that might get us arrested, so the kids only contact with their parents isn't once or twice a week via webcam while mommy and daddy model orange jumpsuits?
When you become a parent, "If it feels good do it" is no longer your credo, because now because certain small people are depending on you for at least the first eighteen years of their lives. UNDERSTAND THIS!
Patrick at October 24, 2010 12:11 PM
> Where do you draw the line?
Where your kid is so [A] poorly-socialized or [B] flat pissed off that he gets your ass busted.
Again, the law may be wrong. But in this case, the law ain't the problem.... I'll never have time for parents who say their kids are too impatient with their need to torch up or drink down.
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at October 24, 2010 12:17 PM
Crid: Nope, don't be cute, say it in a sentence: "Sober parents aren't better."
As usual, Crid's M.O. is a lame attempt to box a person into an absolute, when absolutes don't apply.
Since when is a person who has a single glass of wine not "sober"? They way you make it sound, a thimble full of booze is the only thing standing between stone cold sobriety and becoming seven feet tall and bulletproof.
Patrick at October 24, 2010 12:17 PM
> Another brilliant friend of mine, a
> professor who invented a medical device
> that saves a lot of lives, has a joint
> every night when...
For fuck's sake, you sound like a sitcom...
"He SAVES A LOT OF LIVES!!! But he SMOKES DOPE, too!
"Saves lives! Smokes dope!"
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at October 24, 2010 12:25 PM
His medical device saves a lot of lives.
Love that shit.
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at October 24, 2010 12:26 PM
I might not have this right, but wasn't it Rodney King who said, "Can't we all just get a bong?"
Patrick at October 24, 2010 12:32 PM
Patrick, you can review if you want: The woman said sober parents aren't better... But she was very careful not to put it in a sentence. Much like Amy's afraid to say children don't need mothers or fathers. And there's a reason for that.
Amy's got frieds, though... MEDICAL friends! Medical friends who SAVE LIVES!
Because they put in all those hours at the Federal Public Library.
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at October 24, 2010 12:45 PM
The parents were damnfools to keep stuff in the house that could get them arrested and the kid taken.
At best they're irresponsible.
But with that understood, that doesn't make the law any more just, constitutional, or otherwise any better. The law is wrong too.
We don't know if the parents are any good or not one way or the other, but "they smoke pot" should not automatically dump them into the same category as career criminals. For fucks sake the welfare mom that takes up with drug dealer after drug dealer to put out a litter of kids from one absent crook after another gets to keep all her kids. The law considers her to be a more fit parent than the middle class folks who have a smoke after work or before bed.
Hell didn't that bitch that shot her sleeping husband in the back with a shotgun get her kids back after she got out of jail?
There is a problem with this logic.
And Crid:
Sober parents do not make better parents, if they are bad parents. A sober parent can be neglectful, abusive, cruel, violent or any other vice you can imagine. The absense of one vice does not indicate the pressence of all the other virtues.
A parent that is drunk or smoking a joint around their kid is not going to do a good job at parenting while they're drinking or smoking. But when they're not, are they still bad parents if they're helping the kid with his homework, teaching him right from wrong, getting him to school every day, and otherwise taking care of the parenting thing?
You can't just box in "parent" with one single quality, assume it applies 24/7 for 18 years, and that all will be well, or all will be FUBAR based on that one thing.
Robert at October 24, 2010 12:50 PM
Almost every tenant and guest I have here at my resort smokes pot. I'm in the minority for not smoking it. In fact, I have two ex-cops here who smoke pot. I bet the DARE cops even smoke it! The whole thing is hypocritical.
When they were passing around the joint on the beach - these ex-cops and all - and it came to my son, at first, he was hesitant to do it in front of his mom, but I said you're going to smoke it as soon as I walk away, so why pretend? I'd rather my son be honest with me. And, like I said, I've had many more people here totally destroyed by alcohol. I've never evicted or had problems with anyone who smoked weed. Compared to alcohol, weed is a much less dangerous substance.
My son has almost completely changed personality, in a positive way, in the last 2 years. I'm sure most of that is due to maturity, but I think at least some of it has been the result of his pot smoking. I've spoken to other people who have severe ADHD or other social problems, and they've benefited from pot. It helps them "chill out" and that's about the extent of it. Pot is no different - and probably a lot better - than alcohol. It's organic and relaxing. If we allow alcohol, we should allow pot.
lovelysoul at October 24, 2010 12:58 PM
1) Don't smoke pot in front of your kids, or in your house when your kids are there, and don't leave it where they can access it.
2) Why are we still funding DARE? It doesn't work.
3) What Robert said.
The worst parents I know aren't stoners; they're drunks, Xanex queens, and sober people with mental health issues.
ahw at October 24, 2010 1:07 PM
"A parent that is drunk or smoking a joint around their kid is not going to do a good job at parenting while they're drinking or smoking. But when they're not, are they still bad parents if they're helping the kid with his homework, teaching him right from wrong, getting him to school every day, and otherwise taking care of the parenting thing?"
The question really is: Do we have a better place for them? The answer is NO. People think foster care is this wonderful state of being for kids. It's not. The foster care system can be a lot worse than where they're starting from, and it's certainly not where an 11 yr old wants to be. I bet this kid is seriously regreting the day he made this report and wishing he was back home with mom and dad, who love him as their own, even if they smoke a little weed.
lovelysoul at October 24, 2010 1:10 PM
> A sober parent can be neglectful,
> abusive, cruel, violent or any other
> vice you can imagine.
The illiterate fuck-headedness of this line of thought, while popular on this blog, is so far removed from reality that....
One loses interest.
> The question really is: Do we have
> a better place for them?
Yes! The place WHERE THEIR PARENTS KEEP THEIR SHIT TOGETHER.
One again, LS aligns herself with evil and wretchedness.
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at October 24, 2010 1:15 PM
And, once again, Crid, you align yourself with some sort of absoluteism, where good parents never get tipsy at a holiday party. They never have one too many glasses of wine with friends, after a dinner party, while their kids are sleeping. Hey, let's take away their kids! And put them where? With strangers being paid by the government.
That's because you don't have kids and really don't care about them. You only want people to adhere to your moral code.
lovelysoul at October 24, 2010 1:24 PM
"evil and wretchedness,"... You're reaching, Crid. And your long-windedness is making ME lose interest.
ahw at October 24, 2010 1:24 PM
No idea how much the parents smoke this stuff, but isn't it kind of stupid to smoke an illegal substance at all in such a way that your minor children find out about it?
Maybe pot doesn't slow down the synapses of the brain, but well, based on the fact the kid knew about it, maybe it does.
Kris at October 24, 2010 1:41 PM
"Maybe pot doesn't slow down the synapses of the brain, but well, based on the fact the kid knew about it, maybe it does."
The kid only knew about it because of the DARE program, which, as Sara said, teaches kids that even a glass of wine or a cigarette is wrong. Wine certainly slows down our synapses, but do we really want kids turning in parents for that?
lovelysoul at October 24, 2010 2:03 PM
I'll admit to having difficulty finding anything positive about a parent approving their offspring's use of illegal substances because it makes them less socially awkward.
And as for the parents in the original story. They are dumb shits. There. I've said it.
LauraGr at October 24, 2010 2:04 PM
> where good parents never get tipsy at
> a holiday party.
Did I say that? Care to cite?
> They never have one too many glasses
> of wine with friends, after
> a dinner party
Did the kids BUST them for it? Did they have to?
> You only want people to adhere to
> your moral code.
Or not bother me with their dilemmas and the consequences thereof. Either way.
> And your long-windedness is making
> ME lose interest.
Pilgrim, read someone else's comments. If you find something of interest there, you won't even be bothered with having to tell them how bored you are! They, in turn, won't have to pretend that keeping you stimulated to your fullest degree is their highest purpose in life. This could still work out for everyone!
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at October 24, 2010 2:04 PM
Wow, Crid, people are sure piling their own ideas on top of what you wrote!
Guess what?
"Sober parents are better"
and
"Sober parents aren't better"
...are both being misrepresented here. Don't change the bar and then blame Crid for it. And by that I mean, don't pull your own scenario out of your ass, with your own set of circumstances included, and argue that like Crid said it. He didn't. And he doesn't need me to defend him, I'm just ticked to see it. Think!
You might be advocating drunkenness as a better state of mind for parents - without meaning to, I'm sure.
-----
I don't want to smoke anything, because I really like my lungs...
Hmm. So pot smokers damage themselves. Didn't we, as a society, decide that Big Tobacco owed people billions of dollars for killing them with smoke?
Be consistent. Against tobacco, because it hurts your lungs, be against smoking pot, same thing.
Radwaste at October 24, 2010 2:10 PM
"What about a glass of wine? Two? Where do you draw the line?"
Where do I draw it? I don't drink unless someone else is around to watch the kids. Period. Which means maybe I have a glass of wine after dinner while DH is here, or maybe he has beer while watching the game, but not both of us. I think there's some wiggle room here for reasonable people to differ- a mom who has some wine with dinner while her hubby has a beer if probably fine. But I've had to make that ER drive too many times to risk it, and I WON'T drive after drinking, period. Why should safeguarding my child's life be less important than driving?
But just so that we're clear-you think it's OK to smoke pot while in charge of little ones? Coming home to a glassy-eyed babysitter is something all parents should be okay with? Kids safety is less important than getting high?
momof4 at October 24, 2010 2:17 PM
"It's organic and relaxing"
How do you know pesticides weren't used on pot? Or do you think organic means something that is doesn't actually mean? Beer is made from wheat, vodka from potatoes, etc etc. They can be organic too. What does that have to do with the price of tea (organic or not) in china?
"And put them where? With strangers being paid by the government."
The kid's with relatives. And we don't know if he's happier or not. But if an 11 year old turned in his parents, HE WAS VERY UNHAPPY with the status quo.
"The kid only knew about it because of the DARE program,"
The kid only knew his parents smoked dope because of DARE? Did they search his house and show him? Or do you mean to say he only knew it was ILLEGAL because of DARE? DAMN those cops for informing people of the law! Damn them to hell I say!
momof4 at October 24, 2010 2:26 PM
"I'll admit to having difficulty finding anything positive about a parent approving their offspring's use of illegal substances because it makes them less socially awkward."
I'm guessing you probably don't have kids, but you're living in a fairyland if you think that 20 yr olds aren't trying all kinds of mind-altering substances to be less socially awkward. Sure, maybe they don't have the open dialogue I have with my son, but that's the problem. At least I know what my son is doing. Plenty of parents are clueless. They only find out when their kid is in the morgue.
Pot isn't going to kill my kid. In fact, it's less harmful to him than alcohol and the binge drinking that's prevalent on college campuses. Pot should be legal.
lovelysoul at October 24, 2010 2:27 PM
Oh yeah, and he's having sex too. OMG!!!! These kids today! Not like we did anything like that in college. We were virgins that didn't drink or touch drugs. Please! Hypocrites.
lovelysoul at October 24, 2010 2:31 PM
To me pot is just the mcguffin of this story - the payload is the Young Fascist aspect together with the state's ever-increasing insertion of itself into family life.
The deconstruction of the family by unrestrained and unaccountable CPS & family courts must be not only resisted, but rolled back.
[Insert 10,000 anecdotes of horrible destructive parenting here]
Don't care. Relearn the phrase "none of my business". The actual tangible loss of liberty isn't worth the notional payoff.
Off on a further tangent: I had a thought about the antique use of the word "bastard" as a pejorative.
Nobody ever called anyone "You C-Section!" or "You mother-killer". Why was that one natal circumstance considered so significant?
Could it have been part of the general knowledge base that someone raised without a father around was more dangerous to know? Is there evidence one way or another for this proposition?
--
phunctor
phunctor at October 24, 2010 2:31 PM
LS- I am a parent. I have a teenage son. One thing I have always told him and firmly believe is that the "other people are doing it too" defense is crap.
And LS, your son is of legal age to have sex, provided it isn't with a minor child or a duck or something. Why toss that into the ring to justify illegal behaviour?
LauraGr at October 24, 2010 2:39 PM
Well, LauraGr, I don't know how old your son is, but there's going to come a point where you're going to have to either expect him to lie to you or tell you the truth. I chose truth. I'd rather know who my son really is, and I'm proud of him. He's a great guy.
I know there are a lot of parents who'd rather believe their kids don't try illegal drugs, get drunk, or have sex. They'd rather not know. But that's a fantasy in this day and age (as it was in our age). You may think your son won't, but odds are, he will. I choose to be a parent my kids can talk to.
lovelysoul at October 24, 2010 2:49 PM
I guess we have to agree to disagree. I feel it is very important to continue to parent and encourage ethical behavior.
It is usually very simple. I ask him (or myself) "Is it the right thing to do?"
Permitting/approving/endorsing illegal actions is quite obviously across that line.
LauraGr at October 24, 2010 3:05 PM
I'd like to add that the open policy I have with my kids has paid off. I caught my daughter smoking pot last year. We talked about it, and she quit. She's even taken a drug test (for work) and passed.
Same with sex. She is one of only a handful of 11th grade girls in her school that is still a virgin. That's because we've discussed it in depth, during the times she's been "in love" or tempted, and I helped her come to the best decision regarding this issue, as opposed to just ignoring it, or being punitive. Ultimately, all these things are THEIR choices, not ours, and we, as parents, can only hope for them to come to the best decisions...or at least the better decisions. I honestly believe pot is better than alcohol. I'd rather my son not choose either, but if he must choose one (as many 20 yr olds do) I hope it's pot.
lovelysoul at October 24, 2010 3:08 PM
Crid: The illiterate fuck-headedness of this line of thought, while popular on this blog, is so far removed from reality that....
Speaking of fuck-headedness, dumbass, there was nothing illiterate about the statement you were replying to.
> A sober parent can be neglectful,
> abusive, cruel, violent or any other
> vice you can imagine.
Notice, it was spelled and punctuated perfectly.
That is what you call "literate."
Crid, are we going to go through this routine of yours regularly? If so, I'd like to repeat my request for Gregg to install a filter on this blog.
You insist on boxing people into your infinitesimally narrow parameters, then bray like a jackass when other posters recognize it for the unrealistic "all or nothing" proposition that it is.
And eschewing all reasonable arguments that explain why your parameters are so unbelievably fuck-headed (to borrow your term), you snarl like a beast that it's only because we supposedly no you're right.
Binary thinking, Crid, is for computers and self-righteous morons...and you are definitely not a commputer.
Patrick at October 24, 2010 3:51 PM
Someone: "It's organic..."
So is poison ivy.
Patrick at October 24, 2010 3:58 PM
"We were virgins that didn't drink or touch drugs. Please! Hypocrites."
Actually, I didn't smoke or do drugs and still don't.
Try having an alcoholic smoker in the house.
But don't be dishonest. Two wrongs don't make a right, even though you might be thrilled to excuse yourself, to do whatever you want.
Just in case I'm not being clear:
When someone does drugs as a teen and then says doing drugs as a teen is a bad thing, that's not being a hypocrite. That's real experience talking.
Radwaste at October 24, 2010 4:10 PM
Because I was getting almost daily migraines, I quit smoking AND drinking five years ago. (It's worked, btw, very few headaches these days.)
I'm sure there are people in my life who wish I did smoke and drink with my moods some days! (And I have to admit there times when I really miss it--just don't miss all that migraine pain.)But I agree with whoever said that sober parents are the best. I still remember the look on my neice's face a few years ago when she saw me a little tipsy. It pulled me up fast and I never drank around her after that. Call me sensitive, but I think clear-headed parents are best.
ie at October 24, 2010 4:22 PM
> people are sure piling their
> own ideas on top
Yeah... 'So you're saying anyone who looks at a psychedelic black-light poster can never be a good parent? Well, I just think that's not so!'
Patrick: Be angry!
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at October 24, 2010 4:23 PM
Well, Rad, my real experience tells me that most adults, including myself, like to enjoy a little mood altercation from time to time...whether that's a couple of glasses of wine or a toke (not even sure how to spell it) off a joint.
That happens pretty regularly among my friends, who are all productive, successful citizens in their 40s and 50s. So, it would be pretty hypocritical of me to say that my son, as an adult, can't do what almost all the adults around him do. Just as it would be silly of me to expect that he's not going to have sex at his age. Nor would I even want that. To the contrary, I think now is the time for him, as a young man, to be learning about sex, and certain other pleasures...in moderation.
What I want is for him to show good judgment, whether it's learning to only have a few cocktails, limit his pot usage, or wear condoms. That is what a responsible adult does, and therefore, it's the best we can hope for our children. It's living in denial to expect that they will only behave like lilly white choir boys. I think it's a parents job to show them how to live in the real world, not Mayberry, and the reality is that most adults enjoy either alcohol or pot in moderation. Those who want to cast pot as "evil" can act smug while they drink their wine, but it's stupid. If you're drinking alcohol as a way to unwind, you have no moral superiority to judge someone who uses pot the same way, or to assume that they can't handle it just as responsibly.
lovelysoul at October 24, 2010 4:41 PM
> my real experience tells me that
Your expreiences...! They're so... REAL!
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at October 24, 2010 5:14 PM
ie: Because I was getting almost daily migraines, I quit smoking AND drinking five years ago.
Pardon my curiosity but were these actual migraines, or simply bad headaches?
As one who works as a massage therapist in a chiropractor's office, it's been my observation that "migraine" is an extremely overused term. "Migraine" is a medical diagnosis, not merely a colloquialism for bad headaches. They are often so agonizing, they're debilitating.
What people often insisted were migraines were merely muscle tension headaches, and responded very well to a simple massage of the suboccipitals, four tiny muscles that go under the base of the skull that serve to balance the head.
When tension in these muscles gets high, they aggravate the nerves that go through them, and the afflicted develops a nasty headache. I don't dispute they can be nasty, but there is no comparison with a migraine.
Migraine sufferers generally do nothing until it goes away, because they can't; it's just that devastating. It's often accompanied by nausea and vertigo. It leaves them virtually helpless. They've described to me that they see spots, can't stand light or sound. Most patients say they lock themselves in their rooms away from all light or sound until it goes away.
Pardon my suspicion. It's just that I've seen "migraine" mentioned twice in this thread, and my experiences among those who self-diagnose and insist, "Oh, I have such a migraine today!" really have no idea what they're talking about.
But if you actually have migraines and it was alleviated by drinking, that will be the first time I've ever heard of that.
Patrick at October 24, 2010 5:25 PM
Since pot is as yet illegal, I would not have it around if I had a kid in the house. For my own security, as well as the kid's. As a commenter at the Radley Balko site said:
"Who wants to bet money that the 11 year-old was never told by DARE that if he reported his parents he would be snatched out of his home, his parents would be arrested and thrown in jail and he would be placed in custody of the State?"
Personally, I think the laws for marijuana should be the same as those for alcohol, but that's too easy for the powers that be to absorb.
That being said, I love pot, though I very rarely have access to it anymore. It costs too much and I don't run with a party crowd these days. The last time was over a year ago, and I enjoyed myself immensely.
And oh yeah, as I've mentioned before, you don't have to smoke it. Honey slides are wonderful. Thank you 'Child's Garden of Grass'!
Pricklypear at October 24, 2010 5:37 PM
Crid: Patrick: Be angry!
Why? I'm in an exceptionally good mood tonight. You be angry for me. It would be a refreshing change from pompous.
Patrick at October 24, 2010 6:01 PM
Ask any cop...ANY COP - who is more likely to become violent, abusive and not aware of their surroundings; someone who is stoned or someone who is drunk? Pretty easy answer, unfortunately not easy enough for the halfwit 11 year old who busted his parents.
I know people who have lost loved ones from alcohol, either drunk driving or long term abuse...not so with pot. The only death I have ever heard of related to cannabis is of a lorry driver in Pakistan who got into an accident and was crushed by the 7 tons of hash in the back! (may be an urban legend but the point remains.)
I am not saying that there are no deleterious effects from cannabis, but compared to what is legal (nicotine/alcohol) it is relatively harmless. Now, 'scuse me while I kiss the sky....
model_1066 at October 24, 2010 6:22 PM
Hi Patrick, yes I have genuine migraines. I have a neurologist and have for years, have had batteries of tests over the since I was a kid--you name it, I've had it--and I get Botox injections (mostly in my scalp, more's the pity!) and I use vascular restrictors (meds) to stop my migraines.
These became incapacitating, as you say, so I did everything I could to stop them. I don't touch foods, like dark chocolate, or drink alcohol or smoke. I also stay away from certain spices that seem to cause them to flare up. And you would do these things too if you felt like I did most days, so yes, in answer to your obvious doubts, removing these bad habits from my life has helped.
But, saying that, I do go for massages regularly and have been known to have the odd tension headache, so I understand where you are coming from.
ie at October 24, 2010 6:54 PM
"but you're living in a fairyland if you think that 20 yr olds aren't trying all kinds of mind-altering substances to be less socially awkward."
Newsflash: NOT everyone is "doing it". Your son is a grown-up, he can do as he likes, so it's a bit moot for you, but....permissiveness because "they'll just do it anyway" is a fucking LAZY ass way of parenting kids. When I was 20, I did not know a single person who did drugs. Yes, that changed at 22 when I got divorced and moved in with a druggie (random roomie match-ups) but no, NOT every kid tries drugs and no, you DON'T have to allow it in front of you so they don't sneak around.
momof4 at October 24, 2010 7:13 PM
"She's even taken a drug test (for work) and passed."
There are so many things wrong with the pride in your voice at this statement that I don't know where to begin.
"and the reality is that most adults enjoy either alcohol or pot in moderation"
Um, no. Maybe in your world, filled as it is with a trailer park and your....questionable....choice of spouses, but no.
I get migraines. What I like to call the "lightning bolt" across the vision (dr calls it an aura, I find that not particularly accurate, but hey) and insane pain. Complete inability to deal with my kids pain ( and I took nothing but advil after my c-section the first time, so I know pain). The Imitrex ain't cutting it, so I think I'm heading to a specialist soon. But I think what she said, Patrick, was she QUIT drinking due to migraines, not that she did it to help.
So, pot fanatics, what makes your plant-based drug o choice better than cocaine? Why should YOUR poison be legal but other's not? I've never personally seen a coker get violent, just talkative and a wee bit paranoid (as opposed to the potheads who just get really stupid), so why are you better?
momof4 at October 24, 2010 7:24 PM
What I want is for him to show good judgment, whether it's learning to only have a few cocktails, limit his pot usage, or wear condoms. That is what a responsible adult does, and therefore, it's the best we can hope for our children.
I guess I would consider a responsible adult using good judgment to be one that doesn't not use illegal substances and make themselves unemployable by the large majority of companies. Drug test, eh?
LauraGr at October 24, 2010 7:29 PM
Drat! A pesky double negative slipped by me.
LauraGr at October 24, 2010 7:31 PM
"If you're drinking alcohol as a way to unwind, you have no moral superiority to judge someone who uses pot the same way, or to assume that they can't handle it just as responsibly."
What? Just which one is now, according to people on this very blog, funding big drug wars and abetting the perversion of the Constitution?
That would be marijuana - the use of which you excuse because "responsible" adults do that.
That's just as nuts as anything else I've seen on here.
You simply made your own definition of "responsible" up.
Radwaste at October 24, 2010 7:35 PM
So, it's somehow better that you didn't do this until you were 22? And it's better that kids lie to their parents? Or is that just better for the parents, so they can keep pretending their kids are angels? Maybe if you could've been honest with your parents you wouldn't have found yourself in that situation at 22.
My son isn't a druggie. He uses pot in moderation. Eventually, you will find yourself with kids old enough to drink a beer in front of you...to become a part of the adult world you occupy. It's weird, but I'm getting used to it, and I'm glad I'm there with him - that he feels comfortable being himself around me. Getting all mommy-lecturing isn't going to stop him from smoking pot, and frankly, when even the EX COPS offer him a joint it would be lame for me to insist he not do it in front of me when he'll just do it behind my back.
Actually, I've stopped making anyone feel awkward about it because it's so prevalent. Silly for people to run and hide their pot-smoking from me. I'm in the tourist business. My guests are here to have fun. If I thought pot was hurting them, I'd stop it, but I honestly don't think it hurts anybody. Like I said, I've lost several tenants from alcoholism, but none from pot. I'd be more likely to lecture someone for having too many margaritas.
lovelysoul at October 24, 2010 7:38 PM
@momof4: I've used a few different meds over the last few years. Imitrex didn't work for me, but Axert did and now I'm on Relpax. I also take 1/2 a sandomigraine each night prophelactically (mind my spelling on that last word!).
Almost every doctor I saw recommended a "no alcohol or tabacco" diet for the migraine problem, so I'm a bit surprised that this is news to anyone.
ie at October 24, 2010 7:38 PM
By the way, the issue here should be the short-circuiting of the legal process. Fix that, and you not only fix a major problem with law enforcement and public attitude about it, you set the stage for discarding the double standards some have about their pet substance vs. others.
Radwaste at October 24, 2010 7:39 PM
"Um, no. Maybe in your world, filled as it is with a trailer park and your....questionable....choice of spouses, but no."
Interesting from somone who lived with a druggie. So, it only happened in your world until you became Miss Perfect?
I can't wait for your 4 kids to grow up. Enjoy your smugness now.
lovelysoul at October 24, 2010 7:41 PM
"If I thought pot was hurting them, I'd stop it, but I honestly don't think it hurts anybody."
If I thought tobacco was hurting them, I'd stop it, but I honestly don't think it hurts anybody.
I suggest that you don't have any idea what it does - that it's enough for you that someone feels good. Good enough to ignore the law and at least turn your head when others pay criminals to bring it in. This is "responsible"?
Is there anybody who doesn't get that this is simple rationalization?
Radwaste at October 24, 2010 7:45 PM
That's a BS comparison. A zillion studies have proven the negative effects of smoking cigarettes. Not the same with pot.
Nobody gets falling down stoned here. They do get falling down drunk a lot though. But it's a vacation...and alcohol is legal. Yes, I want them to have a good time at my vacation paradise, but a lot more damage occurs from too many Pina Coladas than ever occurs from pot.
lovelysoul at October 24, 2010 7:49 PM
About the legal issue: to disconnect this from the drug issue, try these variations:
Two parents are facing charges after their child took their guns to school and told a school officer his parents were breaking the law.
Two parents are facing charges after their child took their financial ledger, including tax returns to school and told a school officer his parents were breaking the law.
Two parents are facing charges after their child took pictures of their home to school and told a school officer his parents were breaking the law.
Two parents are facing charges after their child took another undocumented child to school and told a school officer his parents were breaking the law.
Radwaste at October 24, 2010 7:51 PM
"That's a BS comparison. A zillion studies have proven the negative effects of smoking cigarettes. Not the same with pot."
Not so about pot. You don't have the evidence.
If you're trying to show an unfiltered marijauna cigarette has no carcinogens, HCN or other harmful materials in it, you're on something right now.
By the way, "a zillion studies" is an appeal to popularity. It's only necessary to address the chemical effects of the ingredients. That way, you avoid citing editorial content which introduces bias. Like your posts.
Radwaste at October 24, 2010 7:55 PM
Rad, I'm not saying it's healthy, but pot is certainly not as bad as alcohol. No way shape or form. Probably not as bad as cigarettes. If alcohol and cigarettes are legal, pot should be. As someone who has had to deal all the time with the fallout of substance abuse - people falling down drunk, running jetskis into my jetty while intoxicated (and killing themselves at 21) and much much more - I can attest that alcohol is a far more dangerous drug.
It is largely because my son has seen all the alcohol abuse here that he has chosen pot as his recreational substance of choice, and I can't help but agree. Nobody in over 25 years has killed themselves at this resort from using pot.
lovelysoul at October 24, 2010 8:04 PM
M4: Um, no. Maybe in your world, filled as it is with a trailer park and your....questionable....choice of spouses, but no.
Part of me is mildly disgusted, but I guess it's something of a relief to know that I'm not the only one Momof4 insists on being horrid to.
That's the problem with confiding anything on these boards. Your personal information and experiences, once used to show your insight into a particular issue, then becomes a weapon in the hands of trolls.
Patrick at October 24, 2010 8:19 PM
Patrick, I never had a problem with M4 until a few months ago, then she got really personal and nasty. Not sure why. She can sure sling mud. But I try to consider she's overwhelmed with kids and let it go.
lovelysoul at October 24, 2010 8:31 PM
> Who wants to bet money that the 11 year-old
> was never told by DARE that if he reported
> his parents he would be snatched
> out of his home
Should it matter? You want a world where people don't go to jail for harmless servings of pot: We get that. Do you instead want a world whose implicit message to children, the one truly bad parents could recite to them, is 'Put up with this, little fucker, or you'll be out on the street with REAL monsters!'
> I'm in an exceptionally good mood tonight.
I was deceived by your deployment of "dumbass," "jackass", and "moron", which seemed pissy enough. But if that's your typical deportment....
> I am not saying that there are
> no deleterious effects from cannabis,
Good.
> Now, 'scuse me while I kiss the sky....
Yes, let's all pretend that stupidist fashions from forty (FIFTY!) years ago were actually a body of study-worthy integrity. Don't forget the tie-dyed t-shirts... Those were great!
> permissiveness because "they'll just do it
> anyway" is a fucking LAZY ass way of
> parenting kids.
Yes... Much stupidity and (parental) incompetence is excused by this "reasoning". This tawdry card trick is a part, but ONLY a part, of LS's continuing and debilitating psychopathology. (See also Robert 10:50pm, who can't be bothered with the rigors of elementary logic.)
> So, pot fanatics, what makes your plant-based
> drug o choice better than cocaine?
Yes. If teenagers are allowed to drug themselves witless in pursuit of pleasure, we of middle age should be permitted to select and consumer blood pressure meds without prescription.
Otherwise, the legalization people aren't for real. (Though anyone who's seen a "medical marijuana" shop in their neighborhood already knows that those people have integrity problems.)
> You simply made your own definition
> of "responsible" up.
Raddy, you're having a very good weekend.
> Actually, I've stopped making anyone feel
> awkward about it because it's so prevalent.
People did that for slavery, too. And hatred of gays. And on and on.
> Fix that, and you not only fix a major
> problem with law enforcement and public
> attitude about it, you set the stage for
Meaning not clear. Pretend you're talking to people you've never met and say it again.
> until you became Miss Perfect?
It seems you have make arguments like that terribly often.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 24, 2010 8:46 PM
Robert was 12:50pm, not 10:50pm.
Don't we all hate the little errors? Sure we do.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 24, 2010 8:49 PM
It is amazing how many people on this board are superficially libertarian until one of their pet boogie men pops up,( that we of course need the big ole benevolent government to save us from) and then, they're not. :-)
isabel1130 at October 24, 2010 9:45 PM
Ainnit?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 24, 2010 9:57 PM
It's somewhat ironic, Crid, since we're pretty much on the same side of this issue. When I read the story and the first responses, it seems like people were blaming D.A.R.E., and even the kid.
No blame where it belongs: on the parents who were stupid enough to bring pot into the house and leave it where the kid can find it.
Perhaps if the kid smoked the joint, instead of bringing it to school. Then some of the posters on this board might realize that the parents are not the victims in this drama.
You may remember (or not, if you typically pass over my posts) that I said that once you become parents, I feel the "better living through chemistry" needs to stop.
It doesn't make your insistence upon using your exact phrasing any less ridiculous. But despite your piss-poor debating tactics, at least you're on the right side.
Patrick at October 24, 2010 10:00 PM
FTA: "When we asked him how his kid got ahold of his drugs, he replied, "That's no one's business.""
Ya! If your kids know where your "stash" is, you just might be a stoner...
Seriously, who hear believes these people were smoking recreationaly? Bottom line: This kid doesn't trust his parents.
(Side note: I think this whole situation is crappy. Parents getting busted - but they don't really sound like responsible parents to begin with...)
Feebie at October 24, 2010 10:04 PM
Bllaaahhh.
Here not hear.
Feebie at October 24, 2010 10:05 PM
Every once in awhile a read about some type of drug bust at night that gets some kid shot, their dog shot or parents shot in front of the kids... (you think it's far fetched to have someone make a call to the police in retribution). You have illegal drugs you are on the loosing end of the battle.
Why on earth would a parent keep this in their home?
Let's be clear here. These are parents. With pot in the house, and kids...who don't trust them to do the right thing.
Feebie at October 24, 2010 10:18 PM
ie, well, I'm glad to know these medications work for you. And your symptoms do indeed sound like what migraine sufferers tell me. It's nothing personal. It's just that so many people come into my massage room saying something like, "Ugh! I have such a migraine today!"
I get the message, but that's no migraine. It kind of annoys me that people misuse the term. They have no idea of what a true migraine sufferer goes through.
When I took a seminar, the presenter suggested that migraine sufferers might also benefit from soaking their feet in hot water when they feel it coming on. Supposedly, this draws the blood toward the feet and away from the head.
Patrick at October 24, 2010 10:33 PM
I see a lot of people making arguments here that are completely irrelevant. The fact that pot is better for you than cigarettes and alcohol, or that you/your parents/your brilliant professor friend smoke pot, or that you think the DARE program sucks-none of these have anything to do with the fact these parents knowingly engaged in a seriously illegal activity in front of their child. An adult is capable of understanding the moral nuances of a law and making a rational decision to disobey laws he/she doesn't agree with. An 11 year old isn't. That's why good parents don't put their child in the position of seeing mom and dad break the law or engage in behavior that they don't understand and/or makes them uncomfortable.
For example, no one is suggesting that kinky sex should be illegal, but if Mommy likes to dress up like a Nazi dominatrix and whip Daddy, then she probably shouldn't do it in the living room when the kids are walking home from the bus stop. Or leave the whips, blindfolds, and chains anywhere that their 11 year old might find them. It's called using good judgement.
And cmon-I doubt that this kid tore apart the house like a DEA agent. More likely he saw the joints lying around, put two and two together, and didn't stop to think "hey maybe the government shouldn't have the right to regulate our consumption of relatively harmless drugs"-because, yknow, he's 11.
Shannon at October 25, 2010 12:23 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/10/24/pot_ruins_lives.html#comment-1770667">comment from Shannonthese parents knowingly engaged in a seriously illegal activity in front of their child.
You don't know that.
Amy Alkon at October 25, 2010 12:25 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/10/24/pot_ruins_lives.html#comment-1770669">comment from Amy AlkonAlso, are you opposed to pot smoking because it's illegal or for some other reason? Are you opposed to people drinking alcohol in front of their child?
Amy Alkon at October 25, 2010 12:27 AM
LS, you don't think the greater number of problems with alcohol is just because it is legal and freely available? You don't think that incidents with pot might increase once *it's* legal and as freely available?
You say you let your son smoke pot in front of you because he would just do it behind your back...are those the only two options? He could not promise you not to use pot and keep the promise? It seems that your reasoning is very black and white. If I said that my son has never used illegal substances, he must he lying to me? I don't follow your logic.
crella at October 25, 2010 1:18 AM
Booze is legal and pot is not. Is that fair? Probably not, but the fact is that's the reality.
And reality often sucks, which is something adults who are not drunk or stoned much of the time know. As a recovering alcoholic I know often says, "Sobriety is not for sissies."
If a kid sees his parents enjoying a glass of wine now and then--drinking responsibly, that is--it's no problem and he'll probably learn about drinking responsibly himself.
However, if he sees them smoking pot, he's got to keep it a secret because it's illegal. Now, it's the same thing if he sees one of his parents falling down drunk all the time. It's not illegal, but it's shameful, and he's got to keep it secret for the sake of the dignity of the parent.
It's not fair to ask young kids to keep secrets for his parents, ANY secrets, as this young kid who turned his parents in shows. It's too much pressure for a kid and probably engenders some resentment on the kid's part, although if you asked him, he probably wouldn't quite have the words to articulate that yet. He just "told" on them instead.
And I want to differentiate between keeping secrets and proper socialization. It IS okay to teach a kid that his genitals are his "secret" area, not to be shown in public because that's for his own good. Secrets like that, that are appropriate and protect him, are good things.
Learning to lie for his parents is a bad thing and until pot is legal, that's what these parents were expecting him to do. They got busted. So what?
ie at October 25, 2010 2:21 AM
"LS, you don't think the greater number of problems with alcohol is just because it is legal and freely available? You don't think that incidents with pot might increase once *it's* legal and as freely available?"
No. Pot is readily available too, at least here. I think it has to do with the effects. Pot just makes people mellow. The most radical effect it induces is the munchies, whereas alcohol can inspire extremely reckless, impulsive behavior...such as climbing on a jetski at night and running it at top speed.
I watched the divers pull that kid's body from the water the next morning. I've had tenants here with grossly destended bellies, swollen and yellow, who drank themselves to death. I've had intoxicated guests fall and break limbs and ribs.
That just doesn't happen with pot. Nobody really wants their kid to choose a recreational substance, but when we took my son to college, they gave us "helicopter parents" a lecture, citing all the high percentages for drinking/drugs/sex on campus, and they said, "You're probably sitting there thinking,'not my kid' but the statistics don't bear that out."
Kids do lie to their parents. Because my kids are open with me, and their friends feel more free to talk honestly around me, I know what's going on - who's sleeping with whom, who's gay, who smokes pot, who's huffing or into harder drugs.
The kids who do the most dangerous stuff are very often the ones with parents who are totally clueless...because they don't really know their kids. Perhaps they don't actually want to know them because then they might not live up to their ideal, and for those parents, kids are more a reflection of themselves than individuals.
They just want their kids to play a role that makes them look like good parents.
I'm transitioning into an adult-to-adult relationship with my son now. It's different from mother-child. He's hanging out around my adult friends now - as a fellow adult - and often, that involves a recreational substance or two. I'm not going to drink my glass of wine and chastise him for taking a toke off a joint. The only thing wrong with pot is that it's illegal, not that alcohol is better.
lovelysoul at October 25, 2010 2:51 AM
"Booze is legal and pot is not. Is that fair? Probably not, but the fact is that's the reality."
Exactly, and pot brings a whole 'nuther element into their vicinity that is quite different from a wine party. Not good for kids.
If it was legal, that would be different. But it's illegal. Stop and think about it...something is illegal and you have kids...which would be more important to you? Having the pot (even if you run the risk of loosing custody of your kids) or having the kids?
I don't like the govt involved in family affairs, but I certainly don't get a warm and fuzzy vibe from these parents either.
Feebie at October 25, 2010 3:04 AM
"No. Pot is readily available too, at least here. I think it has to do with the effects. Pot just makes people mellow. The most radical effect it induces is the munchies, whereas alcohol can inspire extremely reckless, impulsive behavior...such as climbing on a jetski at night and running it at top speed."
ITS ILLEGAL.
And I for one am for legalizing it...but until that happens don't give me this shit like it is a victimless crime.
Where do you think junior's money goes while you pat him on the head, huh? Drug gangs. Mexican drug gangs most likely. People who are involved in murders, decapitations, human trafficking and really, really horrid shit.
THAT is where your son's money goes. Yes, LS, you must be so proud.
Feebie at October 25, 2010 3:07 AM
Feebie, that's not true. Pot smugglers don't kill people. You're confusing pot with cocaine and heroine. There are not "cartels" or "gangs" for smuggling pot. After all, users can grow it themselves.
It's irrational fear-mongering. Acting like pot is so terrible and damaging doesn't make it true. If used occasionally and recreationally, it doesn't make someone an addict or poor parent.
I find it ridiculous that programs like DARE are encouraging kids to rat out their parents like this, much less that the state can come in an take the kids to foster care. It's frightening, nanny-state crap, especially when half the cops are doing it themselves off-duty. Hypocrisy.
lovelysoul at October 25, 2010 3:22 AM
> A sober parent can be neglectful,
> abusive, cruel, violent or any other
> vice you can imagine.
The illiterate fuck-headedness of this line of thought, while popular on this blog, is so far removed from reality that....
One loses interest.
- crid
Right, cause everyone knows an abuser HAS to have a substance abuse problem - at least according to crid.
But I can see why you'd lose interest. Didnt you imply that buse victims toil to find their abusers?
Which would mean that any kids being abused would work to get that reaction from their parents. Even sober parents - which means they brought it on themseves and you dont have to care
lujlp at October 25, 2010 3:23 AM
3 quick things
1. Drug raids where children get shot happen in houses that have no drugs in them
2. Coffee causes more long term damage and a far more noticable imediate biological response then pot.
3. Were it not for drugs, those of you protesting their use and legality would not even have a religion to hang your drug opinions on
lujlp at October 25, 2010 3:29 AM
The Goddess writes:
I've asked this before, but got no response. So, I'm asking again. What would happen if the child found the pot, and instead of bringing it to school, decided to smoke some of it?
Would you be seeing these parents as such innocent victims then?
Patrick at October 25, 2010 3:57 AM
> You don't know that.
Do the kids know the parents have weed, or were they fishing?
If they were fishing, why did a drug issue come to mind?
Why were they fishing against their parents?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 25, 2010 4:51 AM
I don't think I've seen quite so many twisted panties here.
Pot is illegal - but it shouldn't be. An argument from moral superiority (I don't smoke that 'cause it's illegal) is invalid.
A good argument is I don't smoke that because it causes ____.
A great argument is Hell yeah I smoke that because I enjoy it and it has proven medicinal value, and I'm discreet and conscientious about it. I recognize the risks involved and I'm careful to ameliorate them.
When I was in college, I sampled various substances, and I never felt even mildly "hooked" by any of them. Here are some I never touched: Quaaludes (who does those anymore?), Meth (not popular at the time, and obviously really awful stuff), Heroin (pure poison) and LSD (sounds like great fun but wasn't sure I'd make it back home).
DARE has been shown to be ineffectual. It's a symptom of the nanny state some Americans so desperately seek.
DaveG at October 25, 2010 5:20 AM
> Right, cause everyone knows an abuser
> HAS to have a substance abuse problem
> - at least according to crid.
Lou, don't be turdlike. Are you reading so half-heartedly, so superficially, that you can't discern Robert's faults? ARE YOU LOSING INTEREST?
Here's his argument, and it comes up here ALL THE TIME, from ninnies and from vipers:
> Sober parents do not make better parents,
> if they are bad parents.
And you find that argument compelling! You and the herd of turd burglers who patrol these regions... Makes perfect sense to you, and you can get behind it in a big way!
But who's arguing that they should be bad parents? People do that in the GM argument, too. You say kids need loving mothers, but what if the mother is a psychotic prone to violent rage, financial deceptions, and country music listening? Well, geez, turns out I don't think mothers should be that way. And there's no reason for you to believe that I would.
Nor do I think parents –sober or not– should be "neglectful, abusive, cruel, violent or any other vice you can imagine."
But THAT'S WHERE you little fuckers heads are at. You need THAT BADLY to compare apples and oranges. You need so badly to compare like with not-like. This is Logic 101. How could you be so confused?
I have a theory, and here it is:
Your life has darkness. Your family has brought you pain. (Maybe it's brought you some blessings, too. But dammit, this is the internet, and your wounded little secret identity is on a rampage, and your pain won't be denied... Not here, not where you have everyone convinced that in real life you're an emotional superhero in a cape and tights.)
So whenever these topics come up, you're compelled to present examples which describe your own horrific sorrows... Or at least, the sorrows of people who truly HAVE been enfeebled by bad luck and bad parenting. I mean, why NOT piggyback on their pain? Your superhero disguise is pretty good, so no one's going to call the bluff: The internet is anonymous! No one's going to point out that your parents were actually saints, there was just that one time when your Mom had her period or your Dad got carried away and snarled in the car.
Meanwhile, you must steer the conversation to these completely irrelevant realms. False analogy is the only chance for you to summon the miraculous empathic spirit you hope to encounter here on Planet Blogland... Some one who will share your ache and soothe your fevered brow.
It's not like you're concerned about policy, or what really happens to other people. What you, the burglers, are most concerned with is telling tales of your own suffering, the nightmares you saw up close.... Whether or not they're relevant. Screeching about the "neglectful, abusive, cruel, violent" will always get attention, like a firecracker in a bank lobby.
Or you could grow up. Meanwhile, don't pretend you've made a meaningful case.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 25, 2010 5:36 AM
That was FUN! Monday Morning!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 25, 2010 5:38 AM
"I've asked this before, but got no response. So, I'm asking again. What would happen if the child found the pot, and instead of bringing it to school, decided to smoke some of it?"
That would be about as bad as kids breaking into mom and dad's liquor cabinet and trying out the rum. Well, actually, that could be worse if they drink the whole bottle and get alcohol poisoning.
But, in either event, what shouldn't happen is that the parents go to jail and the kids go to foster care. As far as trauma, seeing your parents arrested and ending up in foster care is far more extreme than seeing mom or dad smoke a joint. If anyone really cares about the children they wouldn't be advocating this.
lovelysoul at October 25, 2010 5:55 AM
"Feebie, that's not true. Pot smugglers don't kill people. You're confusing pot with cocaine and heroine. There are not "cartels" or "gangs" for smuggling pot. After all, users can grow it themselves."
Bullcrap LS.
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/news/mexican-cartels-move-into-US-pot-growing
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/01/national/main6255189.shtml
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-08-08/justice/pot.eradication_1_marijuana-plants-drug-cartels-pot-production?_s=PM:CRIME
I put 3 sources, pick the one you trust most. In Juarez this weekend, a cartel opened fire into a 15 year old's birthday party. 13 were killed.THIS is where your son's money goes. Bravo. Maybe you SHOULD be proud your daughter passed a drug test.
momof4 at October 25, 2010 6:26 AM
"Maybe if you could've been honest with your parents you wouldn't have found yourself in that situation at 22."
Never said I did them then. I said I'd never known anyone who had, until I moved in with a druggie. I was an adult at 17, when I moved out. I frequently call my parents for insight on a problem I may have. They would have kicked my everlovin' ass if I'd smoked pot. My boyfriend all through college never did drugs either. His friends all did, starting in high school. He never did, because he knew his dad would have kicked his ass-quite literally. Most of his friends got their GED's, and have been in and out of jail for drug related crimes. Things like breaking into the parents house to steal stuff to pay for crack. I see quite a correlation there.
I think LS runs a trailer park-I'm pretty sure I've read that here. I'm saying the quality of people who tend to be in these places does not make one a good judge of what's normal elsewhere. Likewise, she had a shitty rough life with her ex. Our experiences color our ability to judge normal. Pointing out that her experiences weren't "normal" is a way to point out her "normal" now isn't really normal to most people. Most adults do not use pot.
I linked a bunch of articles about cartels and pot. Hopefully Amy will rescue them soon. Pot sure as hell IS largely connected with cartels and all their violence.
I can't wait to watch my kids grow into healthy adults either. It's a fantastic thing!
LS gets my ire up. It's all about feelings with her. No facts. So when the way she "feels" about something flat-out contradicts reality, I get irritated. Sue me.
momof4 at October 25, 2010 6:43 AM
There are ex-cops in jail for doing contract killings. Does that make those okay?
momof4 at October 25, 2010 6:45 AM
> Sober parents do not make better parents,
> if they are bad parents.
And you find that argument compelling!
-crid
Yes, I do - my step mother on drugs(nevermind the fact that they were legal) was less abusive then sober. I'd have jumped at the chance to have her drunk off her ass
And I'm not an emotional superhero in real life. I've said, with no shame over the fact, that I am an emotional cripple.
I am a misanthrope with a very small sene of empathy, or any emotion really, who if given the chance and power would most likely kill off a massive portion of humanity, if only to satisfy my own curiosity as to how people would behave if there was suddenly eonugh room that noone had to fight for resorces or be within a thousand miles of people they couldnt stand.
But given the only real power I have is to make noise(and annoying you occasionally is just a benefit) thats what I do. And sometimes it has an effect,
lujlp at October 25, 2010 6:51 AM
> LS gets my ire up.
That doesn't go away.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 25, 2010 6:52 AM
There are ex-cops in jail for doing contract killings. Does that make those okay?
Posted by: momof4
Who'd they kill?
lujlp at October 25, 2010 6:53 AM
> And sometimes it has an effect
Yes. It pisses me off.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 25, 2010 6:56 AM
Well, I ddn't know the Mexicans had taken pot growing over. I've been in South FL since the Miami Vice days of the 80s, and I knew a number of pot smugglers. They were harmless ex-hippies. None of this would happen if we just made it LEGAL.
Pot is not a dangerous drug, and, though it may be true that it's more prevalent here than in some other places, it is pretty widely used no matter where you live.
My experience running a trailer park should, if nothing else, have shown me the terrible, seedy side of pot-smoking. The lowest of the low. How people are killing themselves and ruining their lives with pot. But it hasn't. Because pot doesn't.
What I have seen is how alcohol kills people and destroys lives. If either of these two substances should be illegal, it's alcohol.
I'm proud of my son for having the intelligence to understand that a little pot smoking is far better and safer than the binge drinking idiocy happening on his and other college campuses. We allow that - even kind of celibrate it in movies - but get all upset over pot? C'mon, it's absurd.
lovelysoul at October 25, 2010 7:01 AM
>>Who wants to bet money that the 11 year-old was never told by DARE that if he reported
his parents he would be snatched out of his home...
Not sure who posted this (sorry), but that's my bet too.
Crid implied the consequences don't matter. I couldn't disagree more.
We are all commenting blind (since we don't know whether the 11-year-old brought in the joints only because, say, the basement meth lab was locked!).
But the quote from the local police is: "Even if it's happening in their own home with their own parents, they understand that's a dangerous situation because of what we're teaching them," said Matthews Officer Stason Tyrrell. That's what they're told to do, to make us aware."
It's certainly possible the kid thought he was simply showing "awareness" of illegal drugs by volunteering his parents' stash - without the faintest idea of the dire real-life consequences.
And that's a lesson that can backfire very, very quickly.
Jody Tresidder at October 25, 2010 7:22 AM
Also, as a vacation spot, I have guests coming here from all over the world, and a lot of them smoke pot. Same as when I've been in Jamaica, where, despite being one of their major enterprises, pot is still stupidly illegal. Boats drift just offshore, where guys will sell the guests pot.
Now, these are people from places like Idaho and Wisconsin, with families, and they are on vacation, so it's possible that it's the first time they've ever tried smoking weed, but I kind of doubt it.
My point is that you most certainly have friends and neighbors who smoke pot, you just don't know it. Most people are discreet, especially when they're around those who don't smoke it.
lovelysoul at October 25, 2010 7:22 AM
> Crid implied the consequences don't matter.
What the FUCK are you talking about?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 25, 2010 7:28 AM
The problem is that programs like DARE make almost every parent seem like a criminal. If you read Sarah's post, she said that even wine had a big "X" on it. They're making kids think that if their parents even enjoy a glass of wine with dinner, it's a "dangerous situation".
What if we had a program, designed by feminists, to go into schools and talk about porn? And even Daddy's "Playboy" has a big "X" on it because it debases women. That's pretty similar to what DARE is doing.
This is overreaching, and it should be of great concern that the police state is trying to recruit little informants from inside our homes.
lovelysoul at October 25, 2010 7:38 AM
Interesting use of words. Snitch. Informants.
Kids are supposed to tell about abuse and incest, which are illegal. But they are snitches if they tell about illegal substance use?
Mixed message much?
This is the same problem with reporting bullying. They are seen as snitches if they say anything.
LauraGr at October 25, 2010 7:51 AM
Me: "Crid implied the consequences don't matter."
Crid: What the FUCK are you talking about?
This is the fuck I'm talking about:
> Who wants to bet money that the 11 year-old
> was never told by DARE that if he reported
> his parents he would be snatched
> out of his home
Should it matter? You want a world where people don't go to jail for harmless servings of pot: We get that. Do you instead want a world whose implicit message to children, the one truly bad parents could recite to them, is 'Put up with this, little fucker, or you'll be out on the street with REAL monsters!'
Posted by: Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 24, 2010 8:46 PM
Jody Tresidder at October 25, 2010 8:02 AM
LauraGR, kids should tell about things that are personally hurting THEM. Certainly, bullying or molestation would apply, but mom and dad's recreational pot use shouldn't. Obviously, reasonable people disagree about how dangerous pot is, and in the absence that its usage is impacting the child, it shouldn't be an issue for the state. For DARE officers to go into schools and basically tell little kids, "We want to know if your parents are breaking the law," without giving them any idea of the consequences of revealing this information is wrong.
lovelysoul at October 25, 2010 8:08 AM
Jody— wake up, be clear. What is your complaint? What consequences are you talking about?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 25, 2010 8:10 AM
LauraGR, kids should tell about things that are personally hurting THEM.
So, they shouldn't tell if it is baby sister being molested? Or that their dad is beating the hell out of mom? Or shooting up? Or abusing the dog? Because it isn't personally hurting them?
I find myself disagreeing. Shocking, really.
The kids need a rule book about what is acceptable an unacceptable to "snitch" on according to their parents' flexible standards of morality?
If you think pot is harmless, then work to have the law changed. Choosing to ignore this particular law because you don't agree with it just makes me wonder what other laws you find inconvenient or victimless? Prostitution? Taxes? Car passing the smog test? Cheating on grades? Do they all get a pass too?
LauraGr at October 25, 2010 8:25 AM
LauraGR, when laws are unjust, people will break them. What's next, the IRS going into schools asking kids if they've ever seen mom or dad take cash that they probably didn't report?
The argument for giving the state these kind of powers because "it's ok if you just don't break any laws" defeats the whole purpose of having privacy or liberty. The reason we don't want the state to have these powers - to wiretap us, for instance - is because there may be times when breaking the law and rebeling against the state is necessary. There may be times you don't want the state listening in. So, unless they have some OTHER reason to suspect you are doing harm, they don't get to go searching...or recruiting information from little people in your homes.
lovelysoul at October 25, 2010 8:37 AM
As for breaking laws, I break every STUPID law I can - mostly absurd code laws. I just hung an "illegal" sign over the weekend. I didn't get a permit because I really shouldn't need one to hang a sign on my own freakin' building. My son helped me, and I will encourage him, if/when he and his sister take over this business, to break any and all similar laws as often as possible because that's the only way a small business can survive in this overregulated climate.
Good thing code enforcement doesn't have a DARE type program.
lovelysoul at October 25, 2010 8:48 AM
>>Jody— wake up, be clear. What is your complaint? What consequences are you talking about?
God you vex, Crid.
You asked "should it matter?" in response to a comment questioning whether the kid knew exactly what would happen as a result of obediently reporting his parents' pot use after an anti-drugs lesson in school.
I believe that, yes, the consequences (a key topic of this thread), specifically - the immediate break-up of the family, the pending charges against the parents which were the direct result of the kid's actions, matter very much.
Children (at that age - 11) are not great at thinking things through. At that age also, they have a strong, often a black & white, view of fair & unfair punishment.
You, Crid, have said here countless times that busted up families always damage tender young souls, forever & ever, amen.
Without knowing the full story, it is my impression the kid may well have been left with an appalling sense of guilt - & even outrage at being totally conned by unsuspected adult rules - by the shitstorm created.
Jody Tresidder at October 25, 2010 8:49 AM
The idea that pot is the harmless drug relative to the cartels and the killing is just plain ignorant. LS: Your son is supporting the cartels that kill and maim. However the problem of the cartels has one of two solutions.
1) Legalize it
2) Every user simply quiets.
Either would over time stop both the violence and the DEA.
Mo4: LS actually runs a business all you did was get pregnant 4 times. Your contributions to the society and economy are a future maybe. She's getting shit running today. Being a brainless broodmare bigot has erased any logic you may have picked up in Boston.
vlad at October 25, 2010 9:12 AM
>>However the problem of the cartels has one of two solutions.
1) Legalize it
2) Every user simply quiets.
Totally agree, vlad.
Users should keep as quiet as poss:)
Jody Tresidder at October 25, 2010 9:27 AM
I think we will see legalization of pot within the next 20 or 30 yrs, but only, in part, because of the rampant law breaking taking place now. Just like during prohibition, when it becomes almost mainstream to break the law, it's ineffective and absurd to keep prosecuting people for it. We have so many more people in prison now due to this drug war. It's just not cost effective to keep prosecuting pot smokers, who are neither violent or dangerous. I know little old men and women in their 60s and 70s who are being prosecuted just for having a few pot plants or a few ounces for pain.
When laws are unjust or unreasonable, it's almost our civic duty to break them. None of us would be able to freely enjoy a glass of wine or beer today if it weren't for the "criminals" daring to break the laws before us. Someday, pot will be viewed in the same way, as a substance that never should've been outlawed in the first place.
lovelysoul at October 25, 2010 9:43 AM
This is an interesting conversation because I spent most of last week feeling like crud and sleeping badly. Why? I was asked to do something illegal--break a law--but it was for a very good reason.
Our live-in no longer has a job because my mother was moved to a nursing home. He has to complete 24 months of live-in caregiving until he can apply for a residents permit. He has one year left to go.
Instead of looking for work seriously--he answered ads but always found something wrong with each potential job--he was in my kitchen begging me in various ways to keep him on my work permit and let him find a job under the table somewhere. I spent last week squirming over this. I want to help the guy, but not like this. Trouble is, he had trouble understanding why I was making this distinction when so much was on the line for him.
Now the laws governing people in his position are not great--they do seem somewhat unfair to me. And, my parents were immigrants and I'm sympathetic.
However, I just couldn't bring myself to break the law for this very good reason because it just doesn't feel right. Yes, it would make his life easier. Yes, 99% of the people who do break the law don't get caught. Yes, the worst that could happen to me is a small fine since it would be my first offense.
The problem is I have a conscience and I don't think I'm smarter than the rest of our society and government who have seen fit to make these laws to protect all of us. A lot of what I'm hearing here is about ego--I'm not following the laws because I know better.
Well, maybe you don't. And maybe a better way of spending time on this issue is to fight to make pot legal. I personally have some difficulty with it being legal. Why? Because until they come up with the equivalent of a breathalizer for it (and maybe there is one?) I don't want stoned drivers getting off where drunks ones aren't.
I read that in one of your states, police are now being trained to spot abusers of prescription pills because drivers high on those things cause just as many bad accidents. It's about obeying the law and keeping everyone safe.
ie at October 25, 2010 9:47 AM
The italics up there were unintentional. Sheesh...
ie at October 25, 2010 9:51 AM
"Pot is not a dangerous drug, and, though it may be true that it's more prevalent here than in some other places, it is pretty widely used no matter where you live."
Alcohol is not dangerous...unless of course your an alcoholic. Bacrtrim is not a dangerous antibiotic unless your someone who has an allergy to it. Pot is not dangerous but it's interaction with some peoples chemistry, prescription meds, or alcohol consumption (keeps you from throwing up if you've had too much to drink) can make it very dangerous for some people.
That is such a ridiculous statement LS. People will always misuse substances by virtue of addiction or lack of knowledge. I think people should be responsible for their own actions, but to say that pot is 100% safe (period) is just not accurate.
Keep in mind, I believe in legalizing pot (although I need to read through this latest proposition here in California because I don't know what is in it, and if its not written properly I'll vote against it) but while it is illegal...people who pay for it, use it, and sell it are giving money to some really unscrupulous people. I am not okay with that, on principle. Whether they be your son (with your enabling, you as well) or some brilliant professor.
Google "beheaded boarder agents" and go take another toke folks.
Feebie at October 25, 2010 9:53 AM
"Mo4: LS actually runs a business all you did was get pregnant 4 times. Your contributions to the society and economy are a future maybe. She's getting shit running today. Being a brainless broodmare bigot has erased any logic you may have picked up in Boston."
Vlad, aren't you the one that already has a preconceived notion of stay at home Mom's being lazy and unproductive or something? I'd put money, BIG money on the fact that M4's kids will turn out better than LS's (for several reasons).
Feebie at October 25, 2010 10:00 AM
>>Who wants to bet money that the 11 year-old was never told by DARE that if he reported
his parents he would be snatched out of his home...
"Not sure who posted this (sorry), but that's my bet too."
Jody, I copied that post over to this site from comments listed with the original story. No one had addressed that particular point.
A little later, I pondered a response to Crid, then decided life is too short as it is.
I do appreciate you picking up my dropped ball, though.
Pricklypear at October 25, 2010 10:01 AM
"The problem is I have a conscience and I don't think I'm smarter than the rest of our society and government who have seen fit to make these laws to protect all of us. A lot of what I'm hearing here is about ego--I'm not following the laws because I know better."
Sometimes, we do know better. We're not meant to blindly follow laws or have complete trust in government. That's just being sheep.
Some areas, such as the dilemma you describe, are more complex, but the reality is that breaking rules is not always harmful, and you have to weigh the benefits against the risks.
Government often makes laws to justify and perpetuate itself, not because they are sensible or solve any real social problem.
I had an employee like that for awhile. She was an illegal because she crossed the border at age 16, was raped during the crossing and got thrown out by the family that was supposed to take her in because she refused to marry a man she didn't know or love.
She came to me pregnant, with nowhere else to go. I gave her shelter and a job under the table. Screw the laws!!! It was an easy choice.
Ultimately, she married an American, became a resident, and she just, after 12 long years, got her citizenship. She's a productive person and a great mother.
I'd do it again because it was right, no matter what the law said.
lovelysoul at October 25, 2010 10:09 AM
"I'd put money, BIG money on the fact that M4's kids will turn out better than LS's (for several reasons)." Be my guest. Like I said it's a future maybe. The same can be said for all those welfare moches too. So she can stay home and parent her child is the main argument for all these perks single moms get. Those perks that are not available to men. When her kids do become doctors, lawyers, etc. ok then yeah she did the shit right. Till then she's just a narrow minded bigot getting a big fat fucking tax break.
"preconceived notion " You say preconceived notion I say observed reality. If you look back this was due to where I grew up, which I admitted. The moms did shit when they were home, since they had staff. I have come to accept that this is not indicative of the population as a whole.
vlad at October 25, 2010 10:21 AM
My kids are basically "turned out" already, and they are great kids. I have no doubt that M4's kids will be fine too, nor do I agree with vlad that she isn't contributing to society.
People can have different views on subjects such as this and still be good parents. Some (even M4) would probably call me a horrid mother for supporting gay rights and teaching tolerance rather than fire and damnation. They probably think the fact I let my kids have gay friends and view homosexuality as normal is terrible.
Likewise, some of you think I'm terrible for not going balistic over my son's pot-smoking. That's your opinion, but there's absolutely no evidence your view is better than mine or destined to produce better results. Plenty of pot-smoking hippie parents raised kids in the 60s who turned out just fine - sensitive, intelligent adults. This one viewpoint isn't what makes or breaks a child's character.
lovelysoul at October 25, 2010 10:24 AM
"Government often makes laws to justify and perpetuate itself" Actually most laws are a result of voters getting what they want, without thinking it through. Pot was banned for it's competition with cotton. Alcohol was banned at the insistence of the temperance movement. Enough people ask and not enough people scream no, shit gets passed. That's how democracy works. They we wake up with all these fucked up laws and wonder how we got here. All the gun bans were at the insistence of the voters. They believed (wrongly) that if guns were illegal criminals wouldn't have them. So I lay all this shit at the feet of the voters. Obama was elected by the voters and he said health care reform from day 1. Now everyone is shitting their pants about him doing exactly what he said. Every one thought he'd wave a magic wand and everything would fix itself.
vlad at October 25, 2010 10:29 AM
"Some (even M4) would probably call me a horrid mother for supporting gay rights and teaching tolerance rather than fire and damnation. They probably think the fact I let my kids have gay friends and view homosexuality as normal is terrible."
I'll speak for me, LS. I would never call someone a horrid parent for their politics. The two do not relate. What it gives me a small sense of (liberal vs. conservative)parenting style is who is teaching them responsibility and accountability. Liberal lefties USUALLY do not apply this basic principle anywhere in their lives nor do they expect it from others.
My judgement on your parenting skills has less to do with you politics or being a working mother. It's your pattern of not accepting responsibility or accepting it only when it suits you.
My statement was aimed at Vlad and was more to do with him and his view of stay at home Moms than it was meant to directly impugn you. It was used indirectly and was insulting however, for that I would like to apologize.
Feebie at October 25, 2010 10:40 AM
Also, the measurement of "good" and "bad" when it comes to childrearing depends a lot on what kind of kid you hope to raise. Vlad mentions becoming a doctor or lawyer as success. That means very little to me. Some christians want to raise kids who are, by my standards, bigoted zealots. Their idea of a "good kid" would make my skin crawl.
My goal was to have tolerant, creative, socially progressive yet fiscally conservative kids. That's basically what I've got. Some undoubtedly find that result undesirable, but you can raise your own kids however you see fit.
lovelysoul at October 25, 2010 10:48 AM
"Liberal lefties USUALLY do not apply this basic principle anywhere in their lives nor do they expect it from others."
Feebie, you have me so wrong if you think I'm a liberal leftie.
lovelysoul at October 25, 2010 10:51 AM
Your stance on issues (as noted above) follow the principle of accepting responsibility only when it suits you or not at all. You make up facts. Change directions, or call people bigots at every opportunity.
While you view yourself more conservative on your issues your arguments over and over depict dismissal of responsibility at any given opportunity. When you are conservative, you need to walk the walk.
I am not perfect, and this is just an observation of course...but your reasoning style is liberal.
"My goal was to have tolerant, creative, socially progressive yet fiscally conservative kids. That's basically what I've got. Some undoubtedly find that result undesirable, but you can raise your own kids however you see fit."
I don't have kids, but your goal sounds (sans fiscal responsibility because I would consider that more of a life skill then a "goal") a little self centered. What if one of your kids was an Alex P. Keaton type? What I find undesirable about your "goals" is that they are all your views. It seems a little imposing to place them on someone else, let alone your kids. Just sayin'.
Feebie at October 25, 2010 11:01 AM
I didn't say my kids held all my views. They certainly don't. They think for themselves. But my main goals were that they have empathy and, as somewhat privileged kids, NOT a sense of entitlement.
Both my kids work, and they don't expect things to just be given to them, so that's been accomplished. My daughter, for instance, volunteers at the soup kitchen once a week, and stands up for kids at school who are being bullied. My son is generous to others. Those are the things I'm most proud of - that they are contributing in positive ways.
All I'm saying is that wouldn't necessarily meet somebody else's version of success, but it doesn't matter because we're raising diverse individuals...just as we're all diverse individuals from different backgrounds and parenting styles.
My son's pot-smoking, to me, is a relatively minor issue. I honestly don't think pot is that bad, certainly not like alcohol.
I'm fully accountable for my opinion, and I think I probably speak for more parents than you know. Many probably wouldn't have shared that information about their kid, for fear of judgment, but I think others will likely be confronted with similar choices as their kids become adults, and they may find they'll loosen some of their beliefs and boundaries.
My brother-in-law, for instance, is a minister, and he told me that there was nothing like having teens and young adults to challenge his boundaries. He raised his kids with the "wait-till-you're-married" edict, but all but one of his children lived with others before marriage.
I mean, you have a choice. Do you push your child away because they're breaking a rule, or do you ask, "Is this really such a big deal? Is it worth straining the relationship with my child over?" I've asked and answered that for myself. Others will do the same when their time comes.
lovelysoul at October 25, 2010 11:33 AM
LS, the immigrant you helped sounds like she had a heart-breaking story. The problem is, like many people who deal with immigrants first hand, is that I at some point stop believing everything I'm told.
The fella working here made a good argument: He said he was the sole support for his family, his parents were my age, elderly, and he wanted to take care of them too; the laws are so unfair here we HAVE TO cheat, the rules of this program discriminate, yadda, yadda, yadda.
Like the woman you helped, he pulled out every single heart-breaking argument in the book. But I did my homework by stealth. In a subtle way I started asking for facts to support what he was saying. He said he had a loan. I asked for what? He turned red and ended the conversation, hoping I would be too embarrassed to keep up the questions.
Later, when I brought it up again, he finally admitted it was for property he and his girlfriend were buying back in his country. So...he's the sole support of elderly parents, huh? And so it went. Other "heart-breaking stories," other more mundane explanations for them.
I kept digging away and eventually the heart-breaking stories turned into something that looked a bit greedier. And its upsetting because I sure as hell do not want to risk a legal problem for someone who's buying HIS retirement home when I've got problems saving for mine.
The laws are there for a reason. And that's what this 11 year old kid had a problem with. We all need to be adults about this ourselves and give that young (probably pretty smart) kid a break. He probably turned them in because, as a lot of people have already posted, he was sick of having unengaged, stoned parents. Good for him.
ie at October 25, 2010 11:40 AM
"The problem is I have a conscience and I don't think I'm smarter than the rest of our society and government who have seen fit to make these laws to protect all of us." ie
-------
Your story illustrates that it was fear of getting caught breaking the law that drove your decision and not, in fact, your conscience.
Governments do not base their decisions on what is best for their people, they base their decisions on who's money is backing them, their own personal beliefs, who will be the biggest headache if they don't like the decision made and what decision, no matter how idiotic, will garner me support.
For some people breaking the law is necessary because they have a conscience (not that I would make that the case with pot) but the reason pot was made illegal had nothing to do with pot and everything to do with money and political pressure.
I know I am smarter than the average person and I absolutely do not want the average person having any power to make decisions that affect my life.
Ingrid at October 25, 2010 11:56 AM
I had an employee like that for awhile. She was an illegal because she crossed the border at age 16, was raped during the crossing and got thrown out by the family that was supposed to take her in because she refused to marry a man she didn't know or love.
She came to me pregnant, with nowhere else to go. I gave her shelter and a job under the table. Screw the laws!!! It was an easy choice.
Ultimately, she married an American, became a resident, and she just, after 12 long years, got her citizenship. She's a productive person and a great mother.
I'd do it again because it was right, no matter what the law said.
LS, I just have one question, did all this happen before or after she ran a marathon, became award-winning triathlete, ran for public officeand won, and then won the Publisher's Clearing House Lottery?
I'm joking of course. The point I'm making is about credibility. I initially interviewed two people for the job of live-in caregiver. Both of them obviously lied about their qualifications, so I went into over-drive and interviewed upwards of 40 candidates in person.
I now understand why Immigration Officials seem so cynical and cold-hearted. I heard the same, scripted, heart-breaking stories, over and over again until I felt almost zero compassion of any of these people. They script these stories for the ultimate sympathy effect and although there might be truth in some of the things I was told, the sheer repetition of certain motifs just made that possibility a statistical improbability.
It's nice you helped that girl, but something tells me she probably got pregnant the old-fashioned way and that there was a lot less drama to her story than you might want to believe. Why? Because believing and helping someone like that makes US feel like heroes. I wasn't looking for a hero, I was looking for a qualified employee and soon learned to compartmentalize the sad stories. I just felt too manipulated when I didn't.
ie at October 25, 2010 12:05 PM
Ie, I know her story is true. She did get pregnant by the husband of one of the women who paid for her to come over (he seduced her) So, they harassed her repeatedly when she worked for me, and we had to get involved legally with that. Somehow, the wife thought it was all her fault that her 40 yr old husband slept with a 17 yr old girl.
She actually had been given papers because she was a minor when she first entered the country, which gave her special status, but this wicked family tore up the papers when they kicked her out. For a long time, she was scared to pursue the matter with immigration.
I'm sure there are many immigrants who lie, so you have to go with your gut. I wouldn't help anyone that I didn't feel deserved it, but her story is proof that it can be worthwhile. She's very smart - taught herself English just from watching TV. I saw something very special and good in her, and fortunately, it's all worked out.
lovelysoul at October 25, 2010 12:22 PM
So you were there when the seduction took place? And you're sure it wasn't with the family's 17 year old son (like, did you check that there may have been a son or someone closer to her own age?). Or that she was the one who may have been hoping for privileges by sleeping with the husband? And you're sure the papers were ripped up and she just didn't lose them, possibly as the angry wife was busy throwing her out?
Sorry, but unless you were in the room when any of this stuff happened, you really don't know and that's the only part of your story that's a solid fact.
Last week, when my caregiver started in with the stories, I started, at unexpected moments (he wasn't suspecting anything) to ask for more information. I started, very nicely, to dig for more information.
He is the sole support of his destitute family that ekes out a living picking rice was the first version. (Then there were several versions in between.) The last version was that he had two more payments on a loan that he and his girlfriend had taken out to buy a home in his country for his retirement. He asked me for a two month severance payment (after working for 13 months) so he could pay it off. So much for those poor people in the rice paddies, huh?
The internet's like this too. People can make up stories to fit anything to win an argument.
ie at October 25, 2010 12:37 PM
I had an employee like that for awhile. She was an illegal because she crossed the border at age 16, was raped during the crossing and got thrown out by the family that was supposed to take her in because she refused to marry a man she didn't know or love.
Always with the drama.
She did get pregnant by the husband of one of the women who paid for her to come over (he seduced her)
Huh? I thought you said she was raped during the crossing. Now she was seduced? There's a difference between the two, you know.
kishke at October 25, 2010 12:47 PM
Look, she took the asshole to court. He had to pay child support, as he was proven to be the father. I was there for that - also when the wife would come over to us on the street and yell insults like, "Slut, why you sleep with my husband?" So, uh, yes, it was pretty well established. He should've been prosecuted as a sex offender, as far as I'm concerned.
For years, she was harassed by this family at my business as well as any place else she worked. Finally, her new husband adopted the boy, and that finally put a stop to it (he's a guitar prodigy at 12!)
Not sure why you have such a hard time believing this, except for your personal experiences, but this particular story is true. She really didn't tell me at first, so it wasn't like she was looking for sympathy; it was only as a result of these people harassing her that the full story came out.
lovelysoul at October 25, 2010 12:49 PM
LS: Wait you said rape then you said he seduced her. These are not the same, she 17 not 14. If it was seduction and not rape then I can see why the guys wife was pissed. BTW there are plenty of US citizens who are or have been in the same boat. There are plenty of staunch fundy parents who have thrown their pregnant daughter out. Same goes for their gay/lesbian daughter.
As far as the cynicism of immigration officials. Yup saw why they get like that in my own people. 99% of the stories are total bullshit. The big trick for Russian is being Jewish or gay. Given the rampant homophobia I never see the latter. The former commissar turned Rabi comes across moms desk several times per week.
vlad at October 25, 2010 12:51 PM
Did you know that in the US cops, local state or federal can file a legal action agiansnt your property(as though it were a person capable of appering)without informing you the owner - in that suit they can claim they beleive your property MIGHT(or might not) have ben used in the commision of a crime. At which point the cours can legally steal anything you own including your house - again without ever informing you.
Now that is perfectly legal - does that make it right? Do you think your too stupid to THINK about the implcations of such laws and try to change them?
Did you know that according to a recent 'human rights commision' ruling in canada that resturant owners can now be sued by employees who do not want to follow government health regulations like washing their hands after taking a dump.
Politicians work for us - they do what we say not the other way around
lujlp at October 25, 2010 12:55 PM
"Huh? I thought you said she was raped during the crossing. Now she was seduced? There's a difference between the two, you know."
She was raped during the crossing, but that's not when she got pregnant. She came from Honduras via Mexico. It was long trek. They pay guides to get them in. One of those guides raped her. She came with a gf, who was a part of this family. They paid for her to come across, which she believed they did out of friendship, but when she arrived, she learned they'd promised her for marriage to some old guy.
No, I wasn't there when she was raped, but I really see no reason she'd lie about that. She was ashamed of being rape. She's a dear friend and like family to me. I believe her unequivocally. I've never caught her in a lie in over 12 years. Geeeze.
lovelysoul at October 25, 2010 12:56 PM
LS, you have to hear 12 people in a row tell virtually the same heart-breaking story to understand where I and some of the other people are coming from. And why do I care? Because my tax dollars fund these people? I've known really decent people--lefties with total sympathy for immigrants--taken to court and accused of crazy stuff by their live-ins just so that the live-ins can gain privileges like, hey, a nice financial bonus to begin their lives in this new country.
Seriously, the girlfriend of my employee is in the process of setting HER employer up for some future trouble by making false claims. MY live-in let something about it slip and now the woman (whom I phoned and warned) is setting up a surveillance system in her father's livingroom (the woman lives and works in the man's home) to protect them from a lawsuit they KNOW she's working on. I'm sorry, but the abuses go both ways is all I'm saying.
ie at October 25, 2010 1:10 PM
> God you vex,
No, not really. You're not that stupid, you understand what I was getting at perfectly well. You're pimping for more raw text to fondle. If you can't convince me that I've been unclear, you'll pretend that you don't comprehend.... Squirt some ink and run like Hell. To wit:
> You asked "should it matter?"
> in response to a comment questioning
> whether the kid knew exactly
Ink.... Ink. If you had this much trouble expressing yourself in a grocery, you'd starve.
I said people who want children to fear speaking out when parents are incompent are monsters.
Meant it, too.
Anything else?
> it is my impression the kid
> may well have been left with
> an appalling sense of guilt
Yeah... But almost any kid who has to reach out beyond the household when parents drop the ball is going to have ugly feelings.
Definitely, though... Bad sitch over there. I blame the parents, mostly.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 25, 2010 1:19 PM
I'm sure it does, IE. There are good and bad people from everywhere, and I've certainly experienced that too. But, after a number of years, when someone has had multiple opportunities to lie or steal or exploit a situation, and they don't, I think you can have more trust in their character.
I also wonder if certain nationalities are more of a problem. Like Russians, and people from Eastern block countries, I find more duplicitious and scheming. Nothing against Russians, as a group, but that's just been my experience.
lovelysoul at October 25, 2010 1:25 PM
PS—
> You, Crid, have said here countless times
> that busted up families always damage
> tender young souls, forever & ever, amen.
You mischaracterize through piss-hearted reductionism. Find the 5:36am comment... Peruse it languidly, maybe with your feet up under you on the couch with cup of steaming coffee, in a big fluffy sweatshirt. Why is it you guys can never my rhetoric about families without saying that I must (ahem) think that children should have to put up with horrible parents?
I'll tell you why: 'Cause you got nuthin'.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 25, 2010 1:29 PM
"Like Russians, and people from Eastern block countries, I find more duplicitious and scheming." Yup that's why when asked my race I respond American. That's what socialism does to people. You lied to survive in those countries. Lying and kissing you bosses ass wasn't a way to advance it was the ONLY one. All this started to help the poor disadvantaged peasants, who were the ones usually dieing for lack of connivance.
vlad at October 25, 2010 1:59 PM
>>Bad sitch over there. I blame the parents, mostly.
I agree the parents are not entirely blameless, Crid.
But Prickly Pear was, I think, spot on to wonder whether the kid had the slightest clue about the consequences of this particular "show and tell".
Even an otherwise close-knit & functional family would find the fallout a strain.
Jody Tresidder at October 25, 2010 2:02 PM
>>Why is it you guys can never my rhetoric about families without saying that I must (ahem) think that children should have to put up with horrible parents?
Because some of us don't agree with your definition of "horrible"?
(Also, you missed a word in your comment there, Crid. Hope I got the general drift.)
Jody Tresidder at October 25, 2010 2:07 PM
close-knit & functional family would find the fallout a strain.
Point is, this would not likely have happened in a close-knit and functional family. Such as a family in which the parents are not a couple of stoners.
kishke at October 25, 2010 2:12 PM
> Even an otherwise close-knit & functional
> family would find the fallout a strain.
Otherwise of what? Oh wait a minute, Kishke got there first. (Way to block, #37!)
> Because some of us don't agree with
> your definition of "horrible"?
Riiiiiight. Or, you can't take the point... In a truly horrible family, your smirking admonitions to a troubled child would forestall any escape. It's been awhile since I was truly close to someone who was brutally abused throughout childhood. But I've got to imagine that in many such cases, the brutes scold their nestlings with exactly that threat: If you make it out of here, things will be even worse for you.
> you missed a word in your comment
So, this is going to continue to be a theme for you. How WOULD you rate your own reading comprehension? Answer carefully.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 25, 2010 2:23 PM
>>Point is, this would not likely have happened in a close-knit and functional family. Such as a family in which the parents are not a couple of stoners.
Then we shall have to disagree, kishke.
All we know is that the parents had a small amount of pot and the wherewithal to smoke it (the "paraphernalia" mentioned in the charge) in the privacy of their home.
In the absence of more information - we can only speculate about the couple's other qualities, depending on our views of current drug laws.
Jody Tresidder at October 25, 2010 2:50 PM
When my daughter was 8, she ratted out an adult friend of ours after a DARE lecture. We told the cops that the friend had been smoking tobacco, and they accepted that as a good enough excuse. Especially because it was obvious we weren't going to give her up, and my daughter didn't know the woman's last name.
Then I told my daughter that if she'd said it was us, the cops would have taken her away from us. And if we'd told the cops B____'s last name, they'd have put her in jail. My daughter was outraged.
I thought it was a cheap lesson, and I want to thank the DARE program for driving home to an eight year old in a way I'd never have been able to the point that you should never tell the truth to the police ever about anything without a lawyer present and that public school teachers are the police too.
The crap we have learned to put up with from our government....
P.S. If I were the parents of that 11 year old, I'd let the state keep him for a few years. Won't kill the little prig, but it will sure open his eyes about how the world really works.
Richard Mush at October 25, 2010 3:02 PM
Jody, the amount of pot they had is not really relevant. I think we can agree that when an 11-year-old rats out his parents, the family cannot be described as close-knit and functional. I'm guessing that the drugs had something to do with that. I think it's a reasonable assumption, but it doesn't really matter.
kishke at October 25, 2010 3:29 PM
kishke: I think we can agree that when an 11-year-old rats out his parents, the family cannot be described as close-knit and functional.
I don't know about that. He could have been convinced that his parents had a serious problem and that he thought he was helping them by turning them in.
Patrick at October 25, 2010 3:42 PM
He could have been convinced that his parents had a serious problem and that he thought he was helping them by turning them in.
Without ever even saying a word to them? I don't buy it. Not in a healthy family.
kishke at October 25, 2010 3:54 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/10/24/pot_ruins_lives.html#comment-1771027">comment from PatrickHe could have been convinced that his parents had a serious problem and that he thought he was helping them by turning them in.
That's what a certain person who's related to me claimed when she told my parents that I'd smoked pot (in 9th grade). Which she discovered by ransacking my drawers.
Amy Alkon at October 25, 2010 4:03 PM
A reminder folks: the kid's 11. Eleven! You ask anyone who's grown up in an alcoholic and/or druggie home and ask THEM if they don't think this is a cry for help.
Stop blaming the kid and the government. The parents are either slobs or idiots or both. Their wake-up call shouldn't be something we take out on the kid.
ie at October 25, 2010 4:21 PM
"Because some of us don't agree with your definition of "horrible"?"
Exactly, and what's more, you don't give a shit about that kid if you think, based on the limited evidence, that an 11 yr old kid is better off in foster care. You don't know foster care. You simply idealize it, when it should never be idealized. Foster care is the absolute last resort for a terribly abused child. There's nothing here to suggest these parents are that bad, and certainly nothing to suggest the kid is better off in foster care...where he'll never be adopted because he's too old and his chances of being abused and/or developing emotional issues is very high.
Tearing this child away from his parents without enough cause is a huge trauma. Anybody that claims to care about his well-being would never advocate that.
"kishke: I think we can agree that when an 11-year-old rats out his parents, the family cannot be described as close-knit and functional."
Totally untrue. This is a SOLICITATION OF INFORMATION. Not like the kid just goes to school and says to a teacher, "My parents are stoned all the time and neglecting me." No, this is the DARE officer saying, "Have you ever seen a joint in your house?....a cigarette?...a glass of wine?" If so, bring it to us.
It's amazing to me that those of you who are supposedly libertarian and support privacy rights aren't alarmed.
lovelysoul at October 25, 2010 4:21 PM
LS I don't know about the US, but in Canada, this kid would never go into foster care permanently. He might be placed for a few hours, days or weeks until the parents did something to either rectify the situation, apologize, pass a drug test, whatever.
The foster care system here is bulging as it is and I'm sure it's the same in the States. This kid isn't going anywhere permenently. As a matter of fact, up here I'm fairly certain they'd find a relative first before they placed the kid with strangers. And besides, it might make the parents smarten up.
ie at October 25, 2010 4:30 PM
So, IE, it's ok to put him in foster care? This kid apparently has family members to take him in, but many kids don't, and kids can end up indefinitely in foster care, as their parents fail to meet the bureaucratic standards of the system.
If every kid was guaranteed two loving, wonderful parents in foster care, who would adopt them and give them the perfect home, that would be one thing...even if they weren't already very attached and bonded to their birth parents. But we don't have enough foster parents or shelters for the kids who are being seriously abused....beaten the crap out of. So, to add the "my parents smoke weed" kids, as if they're just as in need is an absurd drain on the system, as well as an irreversable trauma to them.
This program takes advantage of young, impressionable kids, who are natural investigators and want to "help" authorities. They aren't told that their families will be ripped apart, and that is a huge detail to leave out.
lovelysoul at October 25, 2010 4:45 PM
> You don't know foster care. You simply
> idealize it
I never even MENTIONED foster care. Got that? Christ.
See the 5:36am comment, OK? — Attention, commenters! LS has some feelings about foster care which she needs to share with the group now, OK? We're talking this conversation in a personal new direction now!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 25, 2010 4:51 PM
I can only comment on my own country, but I also have some experience with drug addicts. I worked as a volunteer for two years at a rehab, and if the parents can't meet the bureaucratic standard, which by the way is pretty low here in Canada, then having a child raised by wolves is probably better. Sorry, but drug addicted parents are better than foster parents who aren't drug addicted? One of the reasons I stopped volunteering was because this got to me so much. It seemed that there was so little that could be done to protect these children from their own parents.
And, just about every parent I met in the rehab who was in trouble with the CPS (Child Protective Services) sounded just like you. The gov't should get out of our lives, it's our privacy we live in a communist state, get rid of big brother, blah, blah, blah...and of course the relapse rates for drug addicts, even with treatment, is about 90%.
What made it worse for us volunteers is that some of the parents were so obviously going to use again as soon as they got out, it was heart-breaking. And, of course, as CPS is so overtaxed as it is, the parents usually got the kids back. There were a few of these parents I felt like just marching out to the woods and shooting, they were so toxic on so many levels.
I'm sorry, I know it's a losing situation for the kid, no doubt, but who put them in that situation? An eleven year is too young to get himself into that kind of trouble, but a 35 year old is certainly old enough to do it to him.
As a society we owe to kids to keep them safe and not just from random predators on the streets. Drug addicts don't think straight period. And what thinking they do usually involves when and where they are going to get their next drink, fix, baggie, etc. The kids are usually at the bottom of their priority lists and if you don't believe me, spend some time at a rehab. There are things I think you need to see there.
ie at October 25, 2010 5:07 PM
It's amazing to me that those of you who are supposedly libertarian and support privacy rights aren't alarmed.
Posted by: lovelysoul at October 25, 2010 4:21 PM
You are a lovely soul.
Neil Schneiderhan at October 25, 2010 5:10 PM
"I know I am smarter than the average person and I absolutely do not want the average person having any power to make decisions that affect my life."
Wow. Copy that one down.
Gee, LS, south Florida? My boss got arrested in 1979 for being involved with a hundred-ton shipment seized offshore. I was out of a completely cool job shuffling his possessions (yachts, cars, etc.) around Lauderdale.
Oh, no, no drug cartel would ever ship pot anywhere. Home growers do it all?
You have your head in the sand. Apparently, you'll say anything to justify what you're already doing.
Repeat the two wrongs argument if you want. It remains fallacious (logically bogus).
Radwaste at October 25, 2010 5:12 PM
Don't blame the kid. Don'T blame DARE. Don't blame Uncle Nosey Sam. Put the blame firmly and squarely on the adults that had illegal substances in their house. Boo friggin hoo. They made their choices. They made bad ones, but let them own it.
LauraGr at October 25, 2010 5:51 PM
LauraGr,
I call BS. The parents failed to raise their son not to be a snitch.
DaveG at October 25, 2010 6:01 PM
IE, I'm a volunteer child advocate too, and there's a vast difference between kids who are removed from their homes because of neglect and/or abuse, which may indeed have substance abuse as a factor, and what is happening here.
This is solicitation of information. This is a suggested search of the home. There may be no problem whatsoever as far as the child is concerned. He/she may not be neglected or abused in any way. These parents may not be addicts at all, only using pot the same as many of us use wine or beer - recreationally.
I know those of you who are reactionary can't comprehend that people all across this country are using pot responsibly, without becoming addicts and child abusers, but it's true. If you believe you should be free, within your own home, to drink a glass of wine or a beer occasionally, without being branded a bad parent, then you should think very carefully about what you're proposing here.
True child abuse and neglect exhibits signs all its own and in a wider realm. Teachers and caregivers and relatives usually see this and make a report to CPS....not SOLICITED by anybody, least of all the government, but out of their own concern for the child.
This is entirely different. This is a police program asking kids if there's anything "suspicious" to report about their parents....after giving them pretty strong suggestions about what behaviors they should find "wrong" and REGARDLESS of whether whatever they're doing is negatively affecting the child.
That is not the same as a kid who exhibits signs of being neglected or abused due to living with an addict. This is a witchhunt, conveniently involving the child as a spy against his/her parents.
We know for sexual molestations that kids are highly suspectible to these "suggestions" of wrongdoing and the idea that they are being victimized, so to have a program that suggests that parents are putting their kids "in danger" by having a few ounces of pot in the house is the same thing.
There's no evidence that the pot...or cigarettes or alcohol...being used by the parents is hurting the child. As a child advocate and GAL for many years, I strongly disagree that this alone warrants removal of a child from its home.
lovelysoul at October 25, 2010 6:16 PM
You simply idealize it
Crid idealizes foster care? Look, you may not agree with him much, but if you can say that after reading his many, many comments on the absolute necessity for two-parent families, you are either a clueless twit or you just say any damn thing that pops into your head.
kishke at October 25, 2010 6:23 PM
@Amy: I would hope that your friends think twice about smoking weed, because, unless they explicitly purchased it from a local grower, their drug money is going to head-chopping lunatics who are killing thousands of innocent Mexicans, wrecking our national forests, and making portions of Arizona unsafe for travel.
They should think about this, and then they should vote yes on Prop. 19, which will hopefully diminish the cash flow going to the head-choppers.
mpetrie98 at October 25, 2010 6:24 PM
LS the problem with your arguments is that you seem to like going for the extreme answers every time someone disagrees with you. There are a lot of reasonable people here making reasonable points that aren't all at the extreme end of the scale and you don't seem to be listening.
The solution for this is going to be found in the middle of the road somewhere. Most kids do have relatives (sorry, but that's what I think) and even when they do go to foster care, they are there temporarily and go back, especially in cases like the one described.
Unless these parents are outlaw biker types who can't possibly present well in court, then the kid will be returned to them. And probably sooner than later. Stop exaggerating.
And you can't have it both ways: you seem to be saying these parents "aren't that bad," but then crank up the argument about how "families are going to be "torn apart." What,all family court judges are deaf, dumb and blind idiots who haven't completed grade 8?
I happen to think that the majority of decisions that get made in family court probably fall within a reasonable range of fairness. It's only the extremely bad judgements we hear about. The other 99% don't make it into the press because there's nothing to stop the press about.
The parents showed poor judgement. I showed poor judgement a few weeks ago when I got caught for speeding and was issued a $280 ticket. Was I happy about it. No, of course not. Was I speeding. Yes, I was (on a highway). Was a breaking the law. Yes.
I have 9 years of post-secondary education. So, yeah, I'm a smart person too. I could have argued with this cop about how he was interfering in my life and preventing me from experiencing the kind of freedom this country--Canada--is known for. But that education also taught me something else--not to argue a losing battle with a cop, and not to let my ego get the better of me. Sometimes being smart means knowing when to eat humble pie and STFU.
These parents f----- up. They made a mistake. They should say sorry to the kid and to the state and to the other people who had to take care of their kid while they were busy being idiots.
ie at October 25, 2010 6:28 PM
I never fuckin' MENTIONED foster care, let alone "idealized" it. These topics don't EXIST for some people until they can describe their personal traumas.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 25, 2010 6:33 PM
"Crid idealizes foster care? Look, you may not agree with him much, but if you can say that after reading his many, many comments on the absolute necessity for two-parent families, you are either a clueless twit or you just say any damn thing that pops into your head."
I don't really know if he idealizes it, but I don't think he gives much thought to what happens to the child after he deems their parents "rotten." He has no concept of lesser evil or better alternative. It's either have a great two parent family or he doesn't have a solution.
He doesn't care about the harm that occurs to kids who may not have ideal parents, but who do, in fact, have parents they love, imperfect as they are.
Frankly, for most kids, being in a home with their real parent(s), even if they smoke a joint now and again, or have various flaws, is far preferable to being in foster care with total strangers.
People who become foster parents are often shocked and disappointed by this. They think they are providing such a nice, clean home and kind environment, that the child should be thrilled, but almost every child, no matter how horribly abused, wants to go home. Many of them can't because it's too dangerous, but for those who just have moderately flawed parents, reuinification is the best thing.
lovelysoul at October 25, 2010 6:40 PM
LS--I made the point about the moderate use of alcohol being a sensible way to show kids how to use alcohol in moderation. I also made the point that pot is illegal and so by using it with kids around is encouraging them to hide something or to lie about it because of it is illegal. Those are plain fact circumstances I didn't create. And I didn't say pot shouldn't be legalized. Your pushing my points to the extreme again. I'm trying to be reasonable with you here.
ie at October 25, 2010 6:48 PM
"These parents f----- up. They made a mistake. They should say sorry to the kid and to the state and to the other people who had to take care of their kid while they were busy being idiots."
Like Amy says, you don't KNOW that. You have no proof whatsoever that these parents weren't properly taking care of their child, and you're blithely willing to let government step in and separate a family because of your inane belief that it'll all get put back together again...like the trauma of being removed from their home is insignificant to a child.
I know social workers like that. Remove first, ask questions later. That's scary. That's not how the system is supposed to work.
You all should be glad I don't rush to judgment. If it's your 5 yr old saying daddy has a joint or daddy "touched me", I don't immediately assume the worst and take your kids away. Thank God. It's my ability to be somewhat forgiving in my thinking that has saved a lot of families from being needlessly torn apart.
lovelysoul at October 25, 2010 6:50 PM
LS I'm dropping out of this argument. You are changing the goal posts too often without even trying to take in the middle-road argument. Go ahead. Have the last word.
ie at October 25, 2010 6:53 PM
I didn't change the goalposts. I don't know what you're talking about. There's no "middle ground" in this situation. Either the state can step in on a mere suspicion - one it initiated and solicited - or it can't. I vote it can't. The state needs more than this to tear apart a family. Arrest the parents for having an illegal substance, fine, but don't put the kids in foster care. The state needs a higher bar than that to prove unfit parenting, and it should alarm most of you that the state would directly solicit kids to spy and tattle on their parent's activities.
lovelysoul at October 25, 2010 7:03 PM
> I don't really know if he idealizes it
How then did those words come to you? What were you thinking?
> It's either have a great two parent
> family or he doesn't have a solution.
Well, I know what's best. You want what's best for kids or you want what's best for somebody else. You've made it clear which team you're on....
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 25, 2010 7:51 PM
"I didn't change the goalposts. I don't know what you're talking about. There's no "middle ground" in this situation. Either the state can step in on a mere suspicion - one it initiated and solicited - or it can't. I vote it can't. The state needs more than this to tear apart a family. Arrest the parents for having an illegal substance, fine, but don't put the kids in foster care. The state needs a higher bar than that to prove unfit parenting, and it should alarm most of you that the state would directly solicit kids to spy and tattle on their parent's activities."
Ironically enough, it may be the exact opposite that happens as in the criminal charges are dropped but the parents don't get the kids back. This could happen because there may be some constitutional grounds for throwing the criminal charges out. The evidence bar is much higher for criminal convictions and the kid may recant or lie before it ever gets to court after he realizes the consequences of his "good deed". Family court is a whole nother animal with no proof beyond a reasonable doubt and a broad range of discretion. If a case worker or a judge gets a case of the ass, they will make no distinction between a few joints of grass and running a meth lab in the kid's bedroom.
It does bother me that the state can do this. I believe it is a form of entrapment, especially pernicious because there is no Miranda warning before the nice D.A.R.E policeman (who asks the kids to call him by his first name) goes to work on their tender little psyches. There are no drugs in my house. There have never been any drugs in my house, but I kept my kids out of D.A.R.E because I believe a discussion group in a school with a police officer about what goes on in the home is not something I wanted my kids subjected to. Watch, in a couple of years it will be questions about whether daddy or mommy ever sits in the hot tub naked and next thing you know, you will have a record as a sex offender.
Isabel1130 at October 25, 2010 10:45 PM
Of course sober parents make better parents, all other factors being equal. Of course there are some parents who do small amounts of drugs who are perfectly great who raise great kids, just as there are some great single parents out there. That doesn't mean we want to encourage doped up parenting.
I agree if they were occasional smokers, the whole situation was handled excessively... do we know that? Maybe the cops found a whole huge greenhouse or something.
Who knows what the kid said to the cops. Maybe his parents were constantly high and he was sick of it. Maybe he'd tried to talk about it to someone before who had brushed him off, so he came in with the proof and was relieved someone listened.
Or maybe he's now freaking out because he certainly didn't intend to get taken away, maybe he thought his parents would get their wrists slapped or something.
We don't really know, do we.
NicoleK at October 26, 2010 3:03 AM
>>Jody, the amount of pot they had is not really relevant. I think we can agree that when an 11-year-old rats out his parents, the family cannot be described as close-knit and functional.
kishke,
I suppose I was thinking : misdemeanor amount=(almost certainly) not the neighborhood dealer!
As NicoleK wrote: "I agree if they were occasional smokers, the whole situation was handled excessively... do we know that? Maybe the cops found a whole huge greenhouse or something."
The story specifically states the possession charge against each parent was for a "misdemeanor" [personal - in lay terms] amount.
I'm just not convinced that "ratting out" is what the kid did/intended to do. It so much depends on what an 11-year-old child thought would happen after he responded so enthusiastically to the D.A.R.E lesson at his elementary school about drug awareness.
Lovelysoul: "You have no proof whatsoever that these parents weren't properly taking care of their child, and you're blithely willing to let government step in and separate a family because of your inane belief that it'll all get put back together again...like the trauma of being removed from their home is insignificant to a child."
ls,
I totally agree.
I see no evidence that a home assessment was done by social services before the kids were removed (hopefully, temporarily). The story implies the kid brought in the hard evidence - the joints - and by the end of the same week, the police were involved & the two children were removed from home by the authorities (and sent to stay with "relatives").
Isabel1130 writes: I believe it is a form of entrapment, especially pernicious because there is no Miranda warning before the nice D.A.R.E policeman (who asks the kids to call him by his first name) goes to work on their tender little psyches.
Nicely put, by the way, & I totally agree.
I am also amazed by this thread (in general).
I think it's hideously complacent to conclude it will probably all turn out for the best with no harm done.
And, fwiw, I am not remotely a stoner - nor is my husband. Which is NOT a virtue - pot simply doesn't agree with either of us. But, yeah, I have friends who do - totally responsible & otherwise upstanding types, salt of the earth blah blah....
Jody Tresidder at October 26, 2010 5:34 AM
Thanks, Jody and Isabel. Yes, this was a misdemeanor amount. We don't typically take kids away from their parents for commiting misdemeanors.
It would be like getting a speeding ticket and the cops taking your kids away because, obviously, you're a bad driver and unsafe for them.
That is the leap the state is making here, and it's disturbing how willing many of you are to let them. Even more worrisome, is how, in the event of absolutely no other evidence in the story to support the state's action, scenarios are just made up...ending with, "we just don't know."
Well, shouldn't we know? Is it truly ok for your neighbor's kids to be hauled off to foster care for reasons that "you just don't know?"
It seems like they're such a strong bias against pot, but, as this article below shows, pot has really gone mainstream in CA and other states - sold and used basically like alcohol. By the time M4's kids are my son's age, pot will probably be legal.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/25/prop-19-making-pot-legal-in-california.html?GT1=43002
lovelysoul at October 26, 2010 6:13 AM
Wow. Way to justify the potheads's selfish stupidity.
Pot is illegal.
They knew pot was illegal.
They chose to buy/have/use it knowing it was illegal.
They thought the risk of being caught was worth getting stoned for.
They probably even knew they had an 11 year old.
They left their shit where the kid not only knew about it but had access.
They were irresponsible parents.
No matter that some feel it may be legal at some undefined point in the future, it is illegal now.
They made their (obviously) piss-poor choices.
Anyone that chooses to buy illegal substances knowing it is illegal must have some teeny-weeny tiny clue that at some point they may get caught. Duh. These folks obviously didn't consider the consequences thoroughly. Or they flat out didn't care. Or thought the risk worth the reward. Nice way to prioritize.
My sympathies are with the kid. He didn't win the lotto in that department.
LauraGr at October 26, 2010 7:40 AM
I'm just not convinced that "ratting out" is what the kid did/intended to do.
He's eleven, not five. He had to have known that reporting his parents' crime to the police would get them in trouble. What kid doesn't know that? It's pretty clear that there was trouble in that house.
kishke at October 26, 2010 7:51 AM
LauraGR, you should be glad that CPS workers and GALs aren't trained to think like that. "Two joints = horrible, unfit parents."
That line of reasoning is all too easily carried into "Having porn = sex offender". Ask the men who've been falsely accused and had to fight for custody, visitation, or their very freedom.
If we start removing kids for misdemeanors, we're going to need a whole lot more shelters and foster families than we have now, and we don't have enough as it is.
When I talk about people idealizing foster care, this what I mean. Too little consideration is given to what is happening to the child during this moral outrage and rush to judgment of the parents. All you see is that taking the kid away is punitive for THEM...but it's a lot more punitive for the child.
Unless you know for a fact that child is in jeopardy from his/her parents, advocating removal as some sort of "they get what they deserve for being stupid" vigilantism is extremely irresponsible. Removal of a child from its home and parents is not something to be tossed about casually.
A proper case study needs to be done to determine if the parents are indeed unfit...and that's precisely what you would hope for in the event someone left a joint at your house or otherwise made a complaint to CPS. The kid finding the joint doesn't automatically equate with his parents being unfit.
lovelysoul at October 26, 2010 8:08 AM
LauraGR, you should be glad that CPS workers and GALs aren't trained to think like that. "Two joints = horrible, unfit parents.
That is not what I said and that is not what I meant.
The parents are responsible for their own poor choices. Period. Their kid is paying for that.
I believe in personal responsibility, integrity and accountability. Obviously you do not.
Maybe this will be a wake up call for them to grow the hell up, but I doubt it.
LauraGr at October 26, 2010 8:27 AM
>>He's eleven, not five. He had to have known that reporting his parents' crime to the police would get them in trouble. What kid doesn't know that? It's pretty clear that there was trouble in that house.
With respect, kishke, I am not sure you know what D.A.R.E. typically tells the kiddies?
How it seeks to "empower" them with easy slogans & shock horror anecdotes about drunks & addicts & criminals all in the cozy space of morning assembly?
Our youngest came back -after one of these D.A.R.E. sessions at his middle school - to inform us All drinking was bad, that Daddy shouldn't have beer in the house (I'm not a drinker, my husband is extremely moderate) and that alcohol kills people & destroys families.
We laughed, thinly. And we had a few words with our junior prohibitionist about moderation.
I have NO idea what was going on in the head of the kid in the story we are discussing. I even miss the days when my kids thought the police were always heroes who only caught bad people & prisons kept the monsters away.
Look, you MIGHT be right. The parents might be zonked shits. That kid might be the shining exception to all the evidence so far that the long-running D.A.R.E program is a well-intentioned (and I do allow its aim IS brimming with good intentions) total waste of time and funding.
I also know schools can over react cretinously.
I was called into the school office once to discuss why our eldest son - he was about seven - had been using highly inappropriate sexual language.
He'd been overheard singing: "I'm too sexy for my shirt...". Yup, the catchy lyrics to a fucking POP song!
And I had to listen, while I boiled inside, to some school officer lecturing ME - after the matter had been discussed & closed -how I must understand schools, obviously, have to take these things very seriously...even when - as in this case - it was a "simple misunderstanding".
Jody Tresidder at October 26, 2010 8:45 AM
Why do you believe they're not grown up? As a GAL, I don't go into someone's home, see a bottle of vodka on their shelf, and automatically assume that they are immature drunkards and unfit parents. I assume they enjoy a cocktail now and then.
These parents had some pot, like millions of other parents in this country. If this were my case, I'd first assume that they use it recreationally, the same as parents may drink a beer or enjoy a glass of wine when the kids are in bed or with a babysitter.
I'd interview their neighbors and the child's teachers, etc, and, unless someone told me they seemed stoned most of the time and didn't take proper care of their child, I would not draw that conclusion...anymore than I would for a social drinker.
Yes, I understand they broke the law, and there will be legal consequences for that, but those are SEPARATE and APART from their ability to parent! Taking accountability for breaking the law shouldn't result in the loss of parental rights. That's a huge leap.
lovelysoul at October 26, 2010 8:48 AM
Why do you believe they're not grown up?
Because of their actions. They prioritized their pleasures above their kids. That screams immature to me.
And bemoaning about CPS and horrid foster families is not relevant in this case since the original story clearly states they were placed with relatives.
If you are a GAL and consider using illegal substances the same as legal ones, perhaps your qualifications need to be checked.
LauraGr at October 26, 2010 9:07 AM
Quite the contrary, LauraGR. You would be the scary social worker here. Making the assumption that they "prioritize their pleasures above their kids" just isn't supported by the limited facts of this case.
You seem to equate that they broke a law - one that millions of people disagree with - as sole proof that they are bad parents.
Yet, if you were ever investigated by CPS, you would hope for a lot more objectivity than that. The fact you might enjoy a night out with your friends or a cocktail or two at a party shouldn't lead to the conclusion that you "prioritize your pleasures above your kids".
I once had an overzealous CPS investigator write up a foster parent for "having knives around the children". She had a knife block, like we all do, on her kitchen counter.
This is very serious, and drawing the wrong conclusions can really hurt the children involved. I'm very against substance abuse and have advocated termination of parental rights many times for it, but fortunately, I also understand and recognize the difference between recreational use and addiction. You don't seem to make that distinction.
lovelysoul at October 26, 2010 9:21 AM
The worst offenders are addicted to LEGAL drugs. The highest percentage of my substance abuse cases involve alcohol. Increasingly, they involve prescription drug abuse, or a combination of both.
Meth, of course, is a growing problem, and it's illegal, but I've still seen more damage and child abuse/neglect caused by legal drug abuse, so, to me, whether the substance is legal or not isn't what matters.
lovelysoul at October 26, 2010 9:47 AM
Jody, you're right that I am not familiar with DARE specifically, but I am familiar (as I assume every parent is) with the black-and-white messages kids bring home from school, and I know it's my job to introduce them to shades of grey. The thing is, though, that when my kids would see me acting contrary to what they were taught, they would always ask me about it. I can't imagine any of them running to tattle on me in school. Their loyalties lie at home. In your example too, your youngest informed you that drinking was bad - he didn't report you to the DARE cop. I don't know whether or not these people are stoners, but I'm pretty sure they weren't doing too well as a family.
And I totally sympathize with your reaction to lectures by school officials. I always hated them: you mostly have to just grit your teeth and bear it.
kishke at October 26, 2010 10:06 AM
>>And bemoaning about CPS and horrid foster families is not relevant in this case since the original story clearly states they were placed with relatives.
LauraGr,
It's true the "foster family" was a red herring in this thread - but presumably the two kids were "placed with relatives" by some sort of protective agency following the involvement of the police?
(And the placement at least appears to have gone ahead with peculiar haste. Either an appalling home situation was discovered - or someone has jumped the gun. We do not know.)
Jody Tresidder at October 26, 2010 10:12 AM
You seem to equate that they broke a law - one that millions of people disagree with - as sole proof that they are bad parents.
I equate their breaking this law to their being selfish fuckwits. No more, no less.
And I don't give a rat's patootie about the millions. "Everyone else is doing it" is a crap defense.
If the law gets changed, so be it. For now, pot is illegal. Not a gray area. Fairly black and white actually.
I hope that this experience makes the parents actually think about their actions and the consequences to their family.
LauraGr at October 26, 2010 10:23 AM
(And the placement at least appears to have gone ahead with peculiar haste. Either an appalling home situation was discovered - or someone has jumped the gun. We do not know.)
I agree.
The original story is decidedly lacking in details but it is long on opinion. But blaming DARE for the problem is disingenuous.
LauraGr at October 26, 2010 10:27 AM
"If the law gets changed, so be it. For now, pot is illegal. Not a gray area. Fairly black and white actually."
Yes, but the legality or illegality of the substance has nothing to do with their parenting.
Look, we've got parents out there high as kites on oycontin, driving around loopy on zanax and other prescription drugs, or wasted on alcohol.
The pertinent question is: How impaired and dysfunctional are they?
They don't get special points from me just because their drug of choice is legal. A mind-altering substance is a mind-altering substance.
We've got to get away from the old-fashioned notion that an illegal drug is necessarily worse than a legal one. They all can be abused.
lovelysoul at October 26, 2010 10:49 AM
We've got to get away from the old-fashioned notion that an illegal drug is necessarily worse than a legal one. They all can be abused.
And that has no bearing on this news item. We are not comparing levels or fuckwittery among dysfunctional families.
These parents chose freely to buy/use/have a known illegal substance not only in their house but where their offspring had access to it. They got caught and now they they are finding out the consequences are severe.
This is like blaming the cop for giving you a speeding ticket when it was your own lead foot on the pedal. "Lots of people speed there and we think the speed limit should be changed" is not going to sway the judge.
Oh, and other parents can also be irresponsible asses. I don't restrict that label for only stoners.
LauraGr at October 26, 2010 10:58 AM
@LauraGr: I would give up. Lovelysoul's not even bothering to read the opposing posts thoroughly and she obviously thinks 11 year-olds are being recruited by the DEA.
Talk about seeing bogeymen everywhere. Gee, I guess I'll go out and Taser the mailman. He might be thinking I'm discussing pot on my computer and report me.
And she's a child advocate? No wonder the system's so messed up.
nancyD at October 26, 2010 11:01 AM
More on where LS's sons money goes (with her approval) as well as the Brilliant Professors:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8079876/Cannabis-debate-Mexican-drug-cartel-violence-spills-into-San-Diego.html
"Imperial Beach may look like a relaxed beachside town, but behind the wooden porches and screen doors lie stories of kidnapping and torture linked to the smuggling of marijuana."
Watch the video. Pot is a victimless crime. Victimless!
Until it is legalized, this is what you are supporting.
Feebie at October 26, 2010 11:18 AM
And you can't have it both ways: you seem to be saying these parents "aren't that bad," but then crank up the argument about how "families are going to be "torn apart." What,all family court judges are deaf, dumb and blind idiots who haven't completed grade 8?
-ie
Spoken like someone who has never personally experianced familly court
lujlp at October 26, 2010 11:19 AM
> Of course sober parents make better parents,
> all other factors being equal. Of course
> there are some parents who do small amounts
> of drugs who are perfectly great who raise
> great kids, just as there are some great
> single parents out there. That doesn't mean
> we want to encourage doped up parenting.
Hey, LS! Nicolek obviously idealizes foster care! Aren't you pissed off? It couldn't be any clearer!
Gosh, Nicolek, are youin trouble now!....
(Pssssst — I agree with every word.)
> If you are a GAL and consider using illegal
> substances the same as legal ones, perhaps
> your qualifications need to be checked.
LauraGr? My new heroine. Love this kid, love her to death.
> And she's a child advocate? No wonder
> the system's so messed up.
NancyD, too. This is a great new clutch of blog-babes we got showing up here. Logical, stoic, compassionate, clear-speaking... And their noses react sharply to bullshit pathologies.
Maybe we should start a new political party and see what we can get going for 2016. Which of you wants to be the candidate? (Me? I'll handle the money.)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 26, 2010 11:25 AM
>>And I totally sympathize with your reaction to lectures by school officials. I always hated them: you mostly have to just grit your teeth and bear it.
Thanks, kishke.
>>but I am familiar (as I assume every parent is) with the black-and-white messages kids bring home from school, and I know it's my job to introduce them to shades of grey.
Again, yes. Absolutely.
I so wish we had more info.
LauraGr: But blaming DARE for the problem is disingenuous.
I don't put all the blame on D.A.R.E by any stretch, Laura.
But since my own experience is that D.A.R.E appears to encourage kids to point shaming little fingers at their own parents, I don't feel the program is without flaw.
Also, something Isbael1130 wrote earlier has just left me gobsmacked: "There have never been any drugs in my house, but I kept my kids out of D.A.R.E because I believe a discussion group in a school with a police officer about what goes on in the home is not something I wanted my kids subjected to."
I've remembered that we had to sign a parent permission slip for D.A.R.E participation - and that my sons both gossiped at the time that some of their friends were absolutely NOT allowed to attend.
I had always vaguely assumed it was because the parents were so uptight about drugs & drink they didn't want their kids' minds polluted - like the kids who were kept out of Sex Ed!!
But I'm a total idiot.
It's much more likely they were much smarter about their own privacy than we were!
Jody Tresidder at October 26, 2010 11:27 AM
The system is messed up because people aren't involved and don't care if the state is overstepping. You should be relieved that there are child advocates like me that are ever vigilant to assure that the strong arm tactics of the state don't needlessly destroy families or harm children.
I'm assuming (hopefully) that there were some other grounds for taking this child away from his parents. However, the article doesn't say that, and I think it should be encumbent on them to clarify that this child was not yanked from his parents just because they had less than an ounce of pot, which is a misdemeanor.
And it doesn't matter that this particular child went to relatives because plenty of kids don't have relatives to take them in, and that's not the point.
The point is that the state apparently took away their child for a misdemeanor.
I wouldn't let that happen to you, or any other parent, and thank goodness I'm in a position to watch out for such abuses of power because social workers and police DO get it wrong sometimes.
Yet, you guys don't even care. You're so complacent and trusting. It doesn't alarm you in the least, and that's really how abuses of power occur.
The reality is that a parent who regularly uses a legal drug to excess is a far worse parent than one who uses an illegal drug on occasion. And we cannot, in any way, tell from this story that these parents are unfit enough to have their child removed from their custody.
lovelysoul at October 26, 2010 11:45 AM
I'll bet these parents are wishing about now that they had never signed that permission slip.
kishke at October 26, 2010 11:45 AM
And it doesn't matter that the kid will likely be given back by a judge. Since when is that our standard of liberty? Oh, eventually, someone will catch the abuse of power, so it's ok?
lovelysoul at October 26, 2010 11:51 AM
"I'll bet these parents are wishing about now that they had never signed that permission slip."
They may not have needed to sign a permission slip. Being in the D.A.R.E program in my children's schools was the default position. I needed to sign paperwork to get my kids OUT of it, and I was the only one that I know of that did it, at least the year that they were in the 6th grade which is where my local schools had the program. AS I stated before, one conversation with my very ethical and libertarian Criminal law professor was enough for me to realize that D.A.R.E was not a program that I wanted my kids in. Never mind that all studies indicate that at best it is totally ineffectual, and at worst counter productive.(actually encourages experimentation with drugs)
I was pretty mild mannered and non confrontational when I was in my late 30's. Now at 54 if I had to face some of the things that went on in public schools, I would be such a bitch, that the principal would run out the back door every time he saw me coming. :-)
Isabel1130 at October 26, 2010 12:39 PM
I wouldn't let that happen to you, or any other parent, and thank goodness I'm in a position to watch out for such abuses of power because social workers and police DO get it wrong sometimes.
Do you want to carry that cross now, or wait till after dinner?
~~~
Watch the video. Pot is a victimless crime. Victimless!
No problem, mine comes from Canada
Megan at October 26, 2010 1:16 PM
> a parent who regularly uses a legal drug
> to excess is a far worse parent than one
> who uses an illegal drug on occasion.
Maybe, and only maybe, depending on the drug and the use. But even then, that's a deeply twisted rendering of this topic.
It's like that with everything on this blog... People are so eager to choke everything down to these very precious, wickedly detailed, (imaginary) narratives where the superheroic beauty of their own loving hearts shimmers in bold relief:
> Yet, you guys don't even care.
Iddinat sumpthin'?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 26, 2010 1:26 PM
"It's like that with everything on this blog... People are so eager to choke everything down to these very precious, wickedly detailed, (imaginary) narratives where the superheroic beauty of their own loving hearts shimmers in bold relief:
> Yet, you guys don't even care.
Iddinat sumpthin'?"
Welcome to human nature Crid, What you have pointed out is the primary reason libertarianism will never work as a political party. Too many people think that "they" and the pet boogieman is the exception to every rule, and that their "feelings" will lead them to some sort of sublime Utopian universe run on common sense with natural justice. Millions of people think there "otta be a law" just one, or two of course,(for the children!!) but piled all together you have the makings of creeping dictatorship. It is a political tragedy of the commons.
Isabel1130 at October 26, 2010 2:06 PM
"Maybe, and only maybe, depending on the drug and the use. But even then, that's a deeply twisted rendering of this topic."
Then, more specifically, a mother wasted on alcohol every afternoon, or popping oxcontin like candy all day, is a far worse parent than one who occasionally takes a hit from a joint.
Why is that a twisted rendering? That is the kind of very real evaluations that must be made, and those who make them don't have the luxury of treating it all the same.
There's a scale of parenting. Not every parent is great. Some are just good. Some are mediocre but not particularly harmful. Their parenting may not be very laudable, but their sins clearly don't rise to the level of losing their kids.
We're supposed to reserve that level for the truly horrible, highly dangerous ones because removing a child is really the last resort, for a number of reasons.
This kid is 11 yrs old. He's already survived that long with his parents either being total potheads, or occasional pot smokers (we can't know), but the likelihood is that he wasn't in immediate danger - at least not from the pot. Why tear him away from his home - his room, his clothes, his belongings, everything that's familiar to him - unless the parents pose an imminent threat?
His parents will probably be ordered to some parenting classes, substance abuse counseling, and/or other family interventions, and the situation will be monitored...all of which could happen without the trauma of removing the child from his parents and his home.
lovelysoul at October 26, 2010 2:35 PM
...all of which could happen without the trauma of removing the child from his parents and his home.
And all of which could have been prevented by the parents using common sense and/or discretion. Consequences are a right bitch at times.
Shifting the blame to anyone except the parents is bull. Stay focused. Be mad at THEM.
LauraGr at October 26, 2010 3:19 PM
a mother wasted on alcohol every afternoon, or popping oxcontin like candy all day, is a far worse parent than one who occasionally takes a hit from a joint.
What are you talking about? What is this, a zero-sum game? Yes, yes, alcoholics and painkiller addicts can make bad parents. This has nothing to do with the argument being made in this case, which is that parents who smoke pot are lousy parents, b/c (a) they could be stoned when their kid needs them, (b) they risk being locked up, leaving their kid parentless, (c) people who worry more about getting high than parenting make poor parents, (d) they impart bad lessons to their offspring regarding the law. You may agree or disagree with these arguments, as you please, but it is entirely off point to respond by saying that use of other substances too can lead to poor parenting. That may be true, but it tells us nothing at all about parents who use pot.
kishke at October 26, 2010 3:39 PM
LauraGR, you don't know that they didn't use discretion. Kids can be sneaky. They spy on their parents, when they're supposed to be in bed asleep. They ramble through closets and drawers. Kids are natural explorers. For all we know, the kid was exploring, found the joints, tucked away somewhere - or saw a parent put them away - and didn't even know what they were until DARE.
You're assuming that these parents left the joints out in the open, and if so, I agree it was stupid and irresponsible, but that's not clear by any means. What is clear is that they didn't have a lot of pot on the premises, or the charges would've been much worse.
And, even if they foolishly left it out, punishing the child by removing him from the home, isn't appropriate. It has nothing to do with their responsibility or consequences. You're suggesting this be done as a punitive measure against THEM.
That's not why we remove children. It's never to punish the parents because it hurts the child as much or more. There's absolutely nothing to be gained by traumatizing a child in order to teach parents a lesson.
The parents will surely face legal consequences, and that is how they are held accountable.
lovelysoul at October 26, 2010 3:40 PM
This kid is 11 yrs old. He's already survived that long with his parents either being total potheads, or occasional pot smokers
Is your reasoning applicable to other cases of abuse? For example:
**This kid is 11 yrs old. He's already survived that long with his parents being total sadists, who beat him for refusing to eat his mashed potatoes. Keep him home!
**This kid is 11 yrs old. He's already survived that long with his parents being heroin addicts who feed him nothing but Cocoa Puffs when they remember he exists. Keep him home. Sure.
An irresistible argument. Yeah.
kishke at October 26, 2010 3:47 PM
Kishke, I was only making the point that a mind-altering substance is a mind-altering substance. As far as my role is concerned, it makes no difference whether the substance is legal or not. My concern is how impaired or dysfunctional the substance makes the parent, and how that affects their day-to-day parenting.
A parent's recreational use of pot is hardly the threat to kids that many other drugs are. Alcohol is by far the most prevalent choice of child abusers.
lovelysoul at October 26, 2010 3:53 PM
Kids can be sneaky
LS, So you agree that the 11 year-old is the problem here? That sneaky little brat! Oh and the poor, poor parents who have to put with him.
Pass me that joint, will you?
Oh and congratulations on your daugher passing her drug test. Me, I feel that way after my kid's done well on a math test, but different strokes, right Ms Advocate?
nancyD at October 26, 2010 3:54 PM
And, no, to your examples. Those are all clear cases of physical abuse or neglect which would pose immediate danger. But this doesn't apply if the parent is only abusing their own body with drugs are alcohol. In that case, intervention can be made without removing the child.
lovelysoul at October 26, 2010 3:58 PM
Nice Nancy. My daughter is an A student too.
And I'm not blaming the kid. Don't be a moron. I just said he could've found the pot, particularly if the nice DARE officer suggested he look for it.
lovelysoul at October 26, 2010 4:01 PM
But this doesn't apply if the parent is only abusing their own body with drugs are (sic) alcohol.
It's okay kids, as long as I'm abusing MY OWN BODY, passed out on the floor here, while you get your own breakfast, get yourselves off to school and don't forget now, DO NOT MENTION my little "spells" to anyone...you don't want to get taken into foster ya effin little brats, do ya?
Lovelysoul, it's official. You're a moron.
nancyD at October 26, 2010 4:17 PM
Look, the bottom line is that we can't give this kid different parents. Unless he's in serious danger, the court is going to work to keep him with these parents whether you agree with their habits or not.
I think, sometimes, people unfamiliar with the system assume it's different...that there's a better home or better place for this kid to go to...and what's more, that he'll be grateful and happy to be there.
But, fact is, this is his family, dysfunctional as it might be, and, in all likelihood, he doesn't want to be removed. After 11 years, he's pretty attached to them, pot-smokers or not, so the best child advocacy can do is intervene to try and help the parents develop better skills or address whatever is lacking.
Yet, the system probably isn't going to be able to turn them into the kind of parents you'd approve of...or think the child deserves.
I know that's disappointing to those who want to teach lessons and so forth, but there's a limit to what can be done without emotionally harming the child even more by interfering with his family attachments, or leaving him to languish in the foster care system.
Certain outcomes are worse than having parents with two joints in the house.
lovelysoul at October 26, 2010 4:22 PM
LS, why do keep giving the parents a pass and blaming the kid, the cops, the school and the CPS??
I find it deliciously ironic that you expect all of the commentators on this blog, the police and social services to care about the emotional welfare and long term effects of this situation on these kids than you demand from their own parents!
LauraGr at October 26, 2010 4:25 PM
I'm 27 so my memory may be a little foggy, but I don't remember the D.A.R.E. program being this nefarious plot to get kids to snitch on their parents. Most of the info about pot, from what I remember, was mostly true-I know because partake. Did they go a little overboard in blasting it? Yes, but it was no Reefer Madness. Basically the officers explained the symptoms the drugs induced and the reasons why they are bad for your health. That's it.
They never painted them all with one broad stroke as being evil-just not conducive to good health. I was far from indoctrinated; lord know I've tried many things. One point that did stick with me was that alcohol is drug, a legal one, but a drug nonetheless.
Sorry for the slightly off topic post-blame it on the dope
LL at October 26, 2010 4:29 PM
Nancy, if the child is being neglected, that's another matter, and there will be other signs of that. But ALL we know here is that these parents had TWO joints....just TWO joints.
That doesn't scream big druggies to me, no matter how people project that on to the situation.
lovelysoul at October 26, 2010 4:29 PM
"LS, why do keep giving the parents a pass and blaming the kid, the cops, the school and the CPS??"
I'm not giving them a pass. I just don't know that they're bad parents yet. It's called innocent until proven guilty.
If they're big druggies, I'll be the first before the judge suggesting removal of their child from their custody, but I'm not going to say that based on these limited facts....two joints does NOT make hardcore druggies. Heck, we don't even know if it's their pot.
Why do you have to be so quick to judge?
lovelysoul at October 26, 2010 4:34 PM
...two joints does NOT make hardcore druggies
The news story does not indicate two joints. It said marijuana cigarettes, drug paraphernalia and pot of a misdemeanor quantity. Nor does it indicate that the pot was the reason the kids were removed from the home.
You are quick to assume (another word for judge) that the parents are maligned, spied upon innocents that might have been arrested for somebody else's stash of weed. Oh Noes!
LauraGr at October 26, 2010 4:56 PM
"The reality is that a parent who regularly uses a legal drug to excess is a far worse parent than one who uses an illegal drug on occasion."
Do you even know what a straw man is?
I think not, considering you've been using Two Wrongs all thread long.
Radwaste at October 26, 2010 5:04 PM
My kids did DARE, and I agree with what Isabel said - it seemed to prematurely increase their knowledge of drugs that they had no reason to learn about yet. I think my daughter was only 9 or 10. We didn't live in the inner city, so some of it seemed too much too soon.
And I don't like how they scare them so much about wine or beer, so that parents like Jody would have to explain that these things can be consumed in moderation. It's like that thought is completely left out...the concept that substances can be consumed moderately. They're all "bad".
After that experience, I can certainly imagine how a child could go home and search the house for "bad" things. It's not farfetched at all. The libertarian in me is alarmed by that.
I don't know exactly what transpired here...but neither do you. And, when it comes to taking kids away from their parents, I prefer to err on the side of reasonable doubt.
lovelysoul at October 26, 2010 5:09 PM
LS--you know sweet f--- all about addiction and that is so clear from your posts it's not funny. Oh...it's only affecting the parent's body? Are you serious?
And look at the amount of posting you've done in favour of the parents who left the dope lying aorund. I'm guessing it's because you've done it too and now this is your way of exoricising your own demons or proving (to way ridiculous lengths) that you are right.
And have you noticed that it IS all about you? You, Your ideas, how You are the only one who really "understands" the system because you're an advocate (which, btw, I don't believe--I know a few and they would set your ass on fire if they had the misfortune of having to work with you). And here we are, the rest of us dumb nuts who need educating in civic matters by an idiot who appears to have zero compassion for an eleven year old who is trying to tell his parents something?
It's called narcissism, Lovelysoul, the same problem drug addicts have--it's all about them and all this posting is pure vanity on your part--it's all about you.
nancyD at October 26, 2010 5:09 PM
>>It's called narcissism, Lovelysoul, the same problem drug addicts have--it's all about them and all this posting is pure vanity on your part--it's all about you.
I disagree with every syllable, nancyD.
(And I'm not a parent who smokes dope, fwiw.)
Jody Tresidder at October 26, 2010 5:27 PM
That's your opinion, Nancy. You're entitled to think what you want. I don't smoke pot or take any sort of drugs.
You just don't get that it's because I care about the 11 yr old boy that I don't want him ripped away from his parents needlessly. Anybody who has ever witnessed the trauma of removing a child from his/her home, takes it seriously.
The bar for that needs to be set very high. Maybe you'd have no qualms doing it with just this flimsy evidence...or made up evidence (such as they left it "lying around", which you don't know), but I wouldn't feel comfortable doing that to a child when there are other alternatives.
There are great in-home intervention programs in many places. There are ways to keep the family intact and still help them. That should be the first response, not pulling the boy away from the people he loves.
lovelysoul at October 26, 2010 5:35 PM
And I don't like how they scare them so much about wine or beer, so that parents like Jody would have to explain that these things can be consumed in moderation. It's like that thought is completely left out...the concept that substances can be consumed moderately. They're all "bad".
How do you know this? Were you in the DARE class when it happened? You don't answer a lot of the tougher issues that have been raised here, the most important one being that you don't know anything about addiction. Since you know so little, it's , highly, highly unlikely that you are an advocate. If you are one, why don't you post your real name and county on this site, so someone like me, who actually does know a thing or two about addiction, can call whoever administers over you to suggest you either take courses in addiction or give up whatever advocating you are doing.
A lot of people on this thread have listed some great viewpoints, and challenges to your thinking. You have pointedly answered off topic (avoiding their points) almost everytime. And that's why I think this is all about your and your narcissism. I've seen you post before and you seem to have a prediliction for always having to be "right".
You know your way around words and, like any slimy politician, you know how to avoid direct challenges to your viewpoint. But you DO NOT KNOW what is best for that kid and you certainly have got f--- all going on when it comes to knowing addiction. People like you, when they are in the system, are just plain dangerous.
nancyD at October 26, 2010 5:56 PM
@Jody. So you disagree with every syllable and you're not a pot smoker yourself. Wow, lots to be proud about there...you know how to spell "syllable" and you, like Lovelysoul's daughter, would pass a drug test. Hurray!
nancyD at October 26, 2010 6:13 PM
Nancy, I was a volunteer guardian ad litem for over 20 years. I don't think I need to prove that to you or have you harrass me, but I've never said I was an expert on addiction.
By the time I was assigned to cases, addiction counselors were usually already at work. My task was merely to interview everyone involved and make recommendations, as a lay person, to the judge about whether the family could be reuinified, or what would be in the best interest of the child. Mine was just one of the opinions, but I usually found myself in agreement with the addiction counselors as to how much progress, or lack thereof, the parent or parents were making.
And one thing my experience taught me was that kids want to be with their parents if at all possible. I remember my first interviews with kids who had been removed from their homes. It was surprising that they weren't saying, "Whew, I'm so glad to be safe and sound, and well cared for." But, almost without exception, their first question would be, "When can I go home?"
Even kids whose parents were extremely violent said this. Of course, I knew, in those cases, it wasn't possible, but I think anyone who has been in child advocacy for any length of time starts seeing reunification and helping the family remain intact as the ultimate goal. When it's possible, keeping the family together usually produces the best outcome.
It certainly seems possible in this case. That's my take, and I'm sorry so many here view it as a lost cause and wish to argue with me. You may be right - we don't have all the details - but that's my point. I was taught to be cautious rushing to judgment, and I still follow that.
lovelysoul at October 26, 2010 6:23 PM
> libertarianism will never work as
> a political party.
One problem with Americans, cited to often to be readily dismissed, is that we're compulsive joiners... Always forming alliances for this or that, our rolodexes fattening by the hour.
But some of us aren't looking for a "party". As a school of thought, libertarianism has no peers. Indeed, one of its most powerful charms is that 'libertarian party' is essentially a contradiction in terms.
___________________________
Nance, LGr— Total hugs and kisses. You're fighting the good fight.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 26, 2010 7:03 PM
I was taught to be cautious rushing to judgment,
So, what, you rush to judgment cautiously?
kishke at October 26, 2010 8:52 PM
By the time I was assigned to cases, addiction counselors were usually already at work. My task was merely to interview everyone involved and make recommendations, as a lay person
That's right LS, so why bother brushing up on addiction when it was probably THE central matter when it came to whether or not kids could go home.
You take the cake. You should never have been advocating for anyone if you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of this problem. You are grossly unqualified, but I can see that your need to be a hero--it seems to be a complex you have--is the dominant determinant here and your county was probably desperate.
Like I've said before, it's all about you. And I've seen your type before. You're the "the road to hell is paved with good intentions type," the type that goes around wreaking havoc without even a basic understanding of what that havoc is.
As a recovering alcoholic of 30 years and lay counsellor in a local detox, I think I know what I'm talking about. You might want to see Amy's blog about voluntary sterilization for addicts...she seemed to think THAT was a good idea, and you seem to agree with her a lot of the time, so I'm not sure about all these civil libertarian rights you keep yammering on about. What about the kid's rights?
He has rights too, as so many people are telling you. But apparently you have a very thick skull--so I'll say it again.
You have the same narcissism I see in the addicts I counsel. It's their way or the highway, and you fit right in. Gotta be right, gotta be right, gotta be right--at all costs. I bet all the addicts you found yourself in contact with loved you because you were someone they could totally play. 'Oh here she comes, the one I can get around and get my kid back."
That's if you even were an advocate. The jury's still out on that one. I for one think you are lying. And btw, did you know that when it does come to addicts, a lot of them want their kids back because they are on some form of assistance, government or child support, and when the kid goes, so does their drug money? You never saw that, really?
Everytime someone makes a good point, you keep either minimizing or maximizing the story to suit your argument. Now, it's 'only two joints' the parents may not be that bad, etc. Then in the next breath it's how none of us 'know.' You're right, none of us know, but I'm betting this kid wasn't motivated because he needed a good laugh.
Sounds like you're not advocating anymore and believe me, that's a good thing. Save your sap for those poor suckers at your trailer park. You're exactly where you need to be.
nancyD at October 27, 2010 3:24 AM
Well, I think you fit your own description more than me. You're hostile and bitter and obviously think you know it all.
As a so-called addiction specialist, you assume that a parent couldn't have possibly just made a mistake and left a small quantity of recreation pot out? That this automatically proves they're a full-blown addict and must have their child taken away? I suspect you're one of those who sees addictive behavior and "narcissism" everywhere.
I've recommend parental rights be determinated several times due to a parent's substance abuse. Honestly, I've never had just a pure pot-smoker abuse or neglect their child. They're usually alcoholics where I live. They typically drink and/or use much harder drugs than pot.
You're supposing that I have a problem saying that a child shouldn't return to a drunk, abusive parent, but that's innacurate. And, whenever addiction was involved, I certainly deferred to the experts. If a counselor told me that this parent was not making sufficient progress to be safe around their child, then I never recommended the child return.
My point is that good parents make mistakes sometimes. Maybe most here don't smoke pot, but I'll bet some take pills, drink too much occasionally, or have a gun in the house that their kid might find and take to school (this was one case I had when a cop's child got ahold of his gun).
There are a lot of ways that the state could end up on your doorstep to investigate child abuse, and if that happened, you'd want an investigator who refrained from immediately jumping to the conclusion that you were a bad parent...or an "addict" just because that's what they normally see.
You obviously can't be objective about this because you're mired in addiction all day long, so that's going to be your default assumption about these parents.
lovelysoul at October 27, 2010 5:20 AM
I meant "terminated" not "determinated"
lovelysoul at October 27, 2010 5:23 AM
>>"As a recovering alcoholic of 30 years and lay counsellor in a local detox, I think I know what I'm talking about...
"Save your sap for those poor suckers at your trailer park. You're exactly where you need to be."
NancyD,
This hostile snobbery of yours - is that something you find useful in your work as a lay detox counsellor?
And do you consider D.A.R.E a worthwhile program?
Jody Tresidder at October 27, 2010 5:30 AM
Perhaps I refer you back to LS's comments about Russian immigrants:
"I also wonder if certain nationalities are more of a problem. Like Russians, and people from Eastern block countries, I find more duplicitious and scheming. Nothing against Russians, as a group, but that's just been my experience."
So how does that kind of prejudice help you in your position as advocate? And just because you say it in a nice, poncy way doesn't change the content. At least I'm giving you the straight goods.
Seeing half-baked information being passed off as the truth--especially when it comes to addicts who have kids--pisses me off mightily because I have a lot of GENUINE compassion for those kids. I've worked in the trenches and you haven't.
nancyD at October 27, 2010 7:01 AM
Oh, please. Who's trying to be heroic now?
I applaud your service to addicts, and sharing your own experience as one. It's a very good thing you're doing, but there's no reason to demean my service as a GAL. They're both "trenchs" of sorts, though there's no need to be so dramatic.
Your snobby put down of trailer park people was far worse than my observation of Russians, none of whom I've had as GAL parents, so whatever bias I might have there was never relevant. But I think your bias against poor people (as most trailer park dwellers are) could very well negatively affect your work as a substance abuse counselor. How can you help people pull themselves up if you're so disgusted by them?
Most of all, I suspect that many recovering addicts, such as yourself, have a real hard time wrapping their minds around the idea that others can enjoy alcohol or other substances in moderation. It's fairly common that people in recovery become dogmatic about what others are drinking or using, etc, and tend to see or predict substance abuse problems where none exist. You can't handle it, so you assume no one else can.
So, I think you just can't imagine that these parents might be moderate, recreational pot-smokers, rather full-blown addicts.
And, if they happen to live in a trailer...
lovelysoul at October 27, 2010 7:23 AM
>>And just because you say it in a nice, poncy way doesn't change the content. At least I'm giving you the straight goods.
What self-serving piffle, nancyD.
I was also curious about something ls mentioned:
"Most of all, I suspect that many recovering addicts, such as yourself, have a real hard time wrapping their minds around the idea that others can enjoy alcohol or other substances in moderation."
From your comments, it appears you won't even entertain the possibility suggested by the bare details we know of the main story Amy linked.
That the kid has gotten into a situation he never remotely anticipated by trotting into school with his parents' marijuana smokes after a D.A.R.E indoctrination session.
And that the parents might NOT be trashy addicts who need their children taken away?
Jody Tresidder at October 27, 2010 8:03 AM
No matter how entertaining I find LS's heart-string-tugging entreaties about not breaking up nuclear families, and her complete lack of expectation/acknowledgment regarding the responsibility of the parents..... I must say that neither the story nor the comments on here have advocated removing the kid from the home. Merely saying that the parents need a swift kick you-know-where to get them to act responsibly is not advocating breaking up the family.
In fact, if you read the very thin news story again (this time for comprehension) it doesn't say the reason or the duration of the kids being sent to a relative's care. It might (we have no way of knowing) have been for as short a time as Mumsy and Daddikins were in the lock-up, since they were apparently arrested at the same time.
LauraGr at October 27, 2010 8:44 AM
>>In fact, if you read the very thin news story again (this time for comprehension) it doesn't say the reason or the duration of the kids being sent to a relative's care. It might (we have no way of knowing) have been for as short a time as Mumsy and Daddikins were in the lock-up, since they were apparently arrested at the same time.
Yeah, I can read too, LauraGr.
And right from the start, I've wondered at the EFFECT ON THE KID of these consequences.
Despite your puerile refs to "Mumsy and Daddikins ...in the lock-up" (is that meant to be funny?), it has struck me as quite a big burden for an 11-year-old to know he caused the authorities to break up his family home because he did a spot of show-and-tell with their spliffs.
Sure, we don't know the duration of the siblings' placement with relatives. So what?
From the POV of a kid, the immediate consequences could appear horrendous.
But apparently you smugly approve of the law being used for a "swift kick you-know-where".
You sound like the worst sort of curtain-twitching suburban fascist.
Jody Tresidder at October 27, 2010 9:04 AM
I only mentioned that by being in a trailer park you were in the right place. I assume you agree with that because you live there?
You're the one reading a put down into the comment, not me. And I'm not the one who called Russian and Eastern Block immigrants "scheming." You did that all by yourself.
What's wrong? Don't like having your own prejudices exposed?
@Jody. And you say: "That the kid has gotten into a situation he never remotely anticipated by trotting into school with his parents' marijuana smokes after a D.A.R.E indoctrination session."
So you were there reading the kid's mind? Like you know he "never remotely anticipated" what would happen? You don't think we see kids turning their addict parents in EVER? What planet are you from?
It happens all the time, especially now that kids get the message that addiction is a problem and speaking up about it is okay, just like speaking up about sexual abuse is okay.
Yeah, that's the damage DARE has done...given kids the right to speak about addiction in an understanding environment. Wow, get out the tasers and attack those DEA-recruiting bogeymen.
And just out of curiosity: Have you actually attended one of these "indoctriation sessions"? Can you give us a report about their methods? I'm sure there are a few of us who like to hear about these things. Might help us get our kids to do their homework!
nancyD at October 27, 2010 9:04 AM
"...big burden for an 11-year-old to know he caused the authorities to break up his family home.."
Still blaming the kid...
"And right from the start, I've wondered at the EFFECT ON THE KID of these consequences.
Yes! And wouldn't it be better if his parents had the same concern for their own children!
LauraGr at October 27, 2010 9:13 AM
NancyD, I own a trailer park, or used to. It's mostly sold now, though I still have 6 or 7 trailers here. Your comment that it's where I "need" to be is condescending and strange.
lovelysoul at October 27, 2010 9:15 AM
That's a good point, LauraGR. It might've been voluntary, while they were in jail, but, like Jody said, it's still very traumatic for a child.
One of the main things I remember about my advocacy training was them saying, "You'll be going into homes that are not like yours," meaning most of us with time to volunteer are fairly affluent. We have nice homes, with fully-stocked pantries, and our kids have clean clothes, books, study materials...well, everything.
The message was basically (and I know people like Crid hate this) but it was, "lower your standards" because, if not, we'd be wanting to take most kids away from their parents.
We certainly want to give them a swift kick in the butt, at times. For instance, I'm a home-cooked meal person. It really upsets me to see kids basically fed fast food every night. But that is what these families can afford...or, actually not, they could do better, but it's not an issue warranting major consideration in the grand scheme of things.
So, when I comment on this, it's because I want people to consider that we can't necessarily use our own standards of parental conduct when viewing these situations. It's not that we don't genuinely care for the child - quite the opposite. That child loves his/her family, even if they aren't ideal parents. Obviously, they're probably not ideal parents, or they wouldn't be in the system.
Unfortunately, as an advocate, it becomes more about keeping the child reasonably safe than striving for the dream that every child will have the best possible environment in which to grow up.
The system simply can't fix all these parents' problems. In reality, we probably won’t even get them to stop smoking pot long-term (they'll just complete the required counseling and be more careful next time). It sucks, but that's the only practical way to view things.
lovelysoul at October 27, 2010 9:20 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/10/24/pot_ruins_lives.html#comment-1771996">comment from nancyDI only mentioned that by being in a trailer park you were in the right place.
I've got TV people coming to tape me at my house (yay!) so I can't comment in any substantive way on this discussion now (I was on deadline yesterday), but don't make assumptions about people who live in trailer parks. Here, trailer park homes go for 1.6 million. I know, because I thought I'd get clever and buy a place I could afford. Hah. I couldn't afford the doghouse in front of the thing.
Amy Alkon at October 27, 2010 9:49 AM
>>@Jody. And you say: "That the kid has gotten into a situation he never remotely anticipated by trotting into school with his parents' marijuana smokes after a D.A.R.E indoctrination session."
So you were there reading the kid's mind? Like you know he "never remotely anticipated" what would happen? You don't think we see kids turning their addict parents in EVER? What planet are you from?
LauraGr,
I use some care when I write my comments. Not always enough, of course! But some. Might you extend the same courtesy when you read them?
I NEVER said I could read the kid's mind.
I asked whether you might "even entertain the possibility suggested by" the spare outline we have of the story Amy linked, that the kid had not intended to break up his own family by his actions.
I could hardly have been clearer.
This is going to become incredibly boring if I have to repeat everything for you - especially when it appears you're in snotty defensive mode because you've been outed as a crashing snob.
But, because of your own personal experience and your lay pastoral work in a detox facility, maybe you see ONLY patterns of addiction/denial/a basis for intervention where some of us - using the same information about a family in crisis - wonder about an alternative interpretation?
Has that ever occurred to you, y'know, on your planet?
Jody Tresidder at October 27, 2010 10:11 AM
Jody, next time you use "some care" to write your comments, attribute the quotes to the correct author.
LauraGr at October 27, 2010 10:14 AM
Jody, next time you use "some care" to write your comments, attribute the quotes to the correct author.
LauraGr,
Huge apologies. That was careless of me.
Jody Tresidder at October 27, 2010 10:41 AM
>>@Jody. And you say: "That the kid has gotten into a situation he never remotely anticipated by trotting into school with his parents' marijuana smokes after a D.A.R.E indoctrination session."
So you were there reading the kid's mind? Like you know he "never remotely anticipated" what would happen? You don't think we see kids turning their addict parents in EVER? What planet are you from?
NancyD,
I use some care when I write my comments. Not always enough, of course! But some. Might you extend the same courtesy when you read them?
I NEVER said I could read the kid's mind.
I asked whether you might "even entertain the possibility suggested by" the spare outline we have of the story Amy linked, that the kid had not intended to break up his own family by his actions.
I could hardly have been clearer.
This is going to become incredibly boring if I have to repeat everything for you - especially when it appears you're in snotty defensive mode because you've been outed as a crashing snob.
But, because of your own personal experience and your lay pastoral work in a detox facility, maybe you see ONLY patterns of addiction/denial/a basis for intervention where some of us - using the same information about a family in crisis - wonder about an alternative interpretation?
Has that ever occurred to you, y'know, on your planet?
Jody Tresidder at October 27, 2010 10:51 AM
it has struck me as quite a big burden for an 11-year-old to know he caused the authorities to break up his family home because he did a spot of show-and-tell with their spliffs.
That might be true, depending on what the kid's family situation was. (As I've said, I suspect it was dire.) But either way, I think the blame should be assigned to the parents. They're the ones at fault.
kishke at October 27, 2010 11:02 AM
>>But either way, I think the blame should be assigned to the parents. They're the ones at fault.
Kishke,
This is only for you (because you're polite & funny, even though we disagree violently.)
I just wrote to my 19-year-old son (at college, the one who was so -briefly -snooty about his father's moderate drinking after a D.A.R.E assembly? Which is so ironic -given the middle teenage hellraising years of this son!).
I sent him the link to Amy's story - and asked his opinion. (Yes, I did happen to mention - with some heat - that I thought the parents were the victims as well as the poor kid...). Also, my son believes -vehemently that possession of pot should be decriminalized.
This is what he wrote back.
I am totally fucking crushed!!
(Typos are because he sent it from his phone...)
"...In all seriousness though, if the kid actually got hold of the plant droppings then i would say that maybe the parent's aren't the smartest in the world. In regards to the parents, your not a teen/young adult anymore and a child is a serious responsibility. Sure pot isn't addictive and it's natural but this is during what child physiologist's are called the "peer developmental stage" where parent's need to really reflect the proper behavior that is necessary in today's society. If you smoke pot around your "children" your fucking asking for it. Wait at least till the kids can recite, spell and give the organic chemical breakdown of THC (btw is Tetra-Hydra Canibinol Delta 9).
D.A.R.E to keep America from becoming too stupid? Not going to happen anytime soon. As long as we emphasize Lady Gaga's Chachki all over the 5 o'clock news then our intellectual gears, as a nation, won't be churning anytime soon...."
Jody Tresidder at October 27, 2010 11:25 AM
Jody... I read it even though tho it was just for Kishke. Your kid is one smart cookie. ;-)
LauraGr at October 27, 2010 11:31 AM
Jody... I read it even though tho it was just for Kishke. Your kid is one smart cookie. ;-)
No, no!
I've FAILED as a liberal parent, Laura:)
Jody Tresidder at October 27, 2010 11:34 AM
I check in every day just to see if anyone has won this argument yet.
At this point, Jody, I'd say it's your son.
Pricklypear at October 27, 2010 11:38 AM
> because he did a spot of show-and-tell
> with their spliffs.
Why are you so eager to run the scenario in that direction? Why are so you monstrously EAGER? Again, again, again... When a child really is facing a troubled sitch at home –whether its drugs or whiskey bottles bouncing of off skulls or something even worse– but is dissuaded from seeking (or having access) to relief because of this argument, how proud will you be of your sniveling sarcasm in this hour? You come across like bloodthirsty vipers. It ain't cute. It ain't compassionate.
Y'know, it's just not in my heart to care about DARE. I think of all such enterprises as a joke, the crippled undying spawn of Nancy Reagan's grotesque undead husk...
...Because I have no kids. Not my problem. I wasn't at the school board meetings where this tomfoolery was budgeted, and don't see why I should have to drive downtown to make it stop.
Y'all are the parents, OK? If you're going to put up with programs like that, you're going to have to prepare your children to deal with them... To give them the sophisticated understanding they'll need about the social forces at work so that a two-hour lecture in a school gymnasium doesn't cause them shatter their dear family before lunch break. For parents with the leftover candlepower to smoke dope around their children, this should be no problem.
Or cancel the program. Lord knows we need the money for other things. But either way: No tears. Got it? Don't come crying.
____________________
19 is technically a teenager, so the kid gets pass on the error. But we shouldn't put up with this from adults:
> As long as we emphasize Lady Gaga's Chachki
> all over the 5 o'clock news then our
> intellectual gears, as a nation, won't be
> churning anytime soon..
Lady Gaga is only "emphasized" by and for people who care about Lady Gaga. More importantly, nobody ever said the 5 o'clock news was a "gear" in anyone's "intellectual" operations. And the people who watch it know this, no matter how upset they pretend to be about what they see on it.
I think people who watch TV news are wasting their time. But I think people who read the newspapers are usually wasting their time, too.
People who complain about this-or-that news source (including Fox) are backhandedly daydreaming of how great it would be to have the power to tell people what to think about. Such egotistical reveries are forgiven in the young, but that's where it ends.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 27, 2010 12:27 PM
To wit.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 27, 2010 12:31 PM
My question as to anyone on this list has actually attended a DARE meeting at a local school lately still stands.
nancyD at October 27, 2010 1:02 PM
Considering how many articles I've read through the years about 19-year-old guys busily killing themselves & others in new and inventive ways, I'm too impressed with this one to care about the Lady Blah Blah crap.
Pricklypear at October 27, 2010 1:08 PM
Yeah, that. Rather than further isolating children who truly are in troubled homes and might responsibly reach out to the community for assistance, why don't you guys care enough to just extinguish or rehabilitate this one goofy program?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 27, 2010 1:10 PM
Jody, you're son's a smart boy (I'd expect nothing less).
The controversial question is whether stoners can raise kids successfully, and I'd have to say yes (not in my capacity as a volunteer of the court, obviously). I know too many who have and do. The evidence is overwhelming, really, and I don't even live in CA.
There's an ex-hippie living on my property whose college-age son is wonderful - bright, articulate, and a great student. Father and son are very close. I'm sure the dad smoked pot all through his son's childhood, and probably, not hiding it either, as he doesn't hide it now. If there was an ill effect to having a pot-smoking dad, it's hard to see it.
And before anybody starts in with all the dire addict-parent scenarios, I'm not talking stoned to the point of negligence or the inability to function. That is equally bad whether the result of pot, alcohol, or pills. I'm talking about parents who use pot in the same moderate way many others use alcohol.
At 11, the main trauma for this kid regarding his parents pot-smoking is likely not in their being negligent or bad parents, but in the fact he knows (or just learned) that it's illegal. Kids see things very black and white at that age. They don't want their parents to be law-breakers.
But this changes as they get older and can comprehend that some laws are simply stupid and wasteful.
lovelysoul at October 27, 2010 1:18 PM
>>Lady Gaga is only "emphasized" by and for people who care about Lady Gaga. More importantly, nobody ever said the 5 o'clock news was a "gear" in anyone's "intellectual" operations. And the people who watch it know this, no matter how upset they pretend to be about what they see on it.
You come across as a grotty old fart bag sometimes, Crid.
LauraGr, Pricklypear and lovelysoul: I've really cherished your generous comments.
It's a risk (and a breach of taste) to quote one's own kid here & I don't imagine I'd ever do it again! Awful behavior.
But I was utterly sand bagged by his opinion.
And since - and I have admit it - I was soliciting his agreement with my take on this issue, I had to come clean.
(Also, I think it's pretty funny how totally wrong I read him. And that's probably a useful lesson - for me, I mean.)
Jody Tresidder at October 27, 2010 1:53 PM
My question as to anyone on this list has actually attended a DARE meeting at a local school lately still stands.
nancyD at October 27, 2010 2:01 PM
> You come across as a grotty old
> fart bag sometimes
Criticism without a critique.
> I think it's pretty funny how totally
> wrong I read him.
'K. Now let's imagine a parent –perhaps a distracted, less-attentive one– who, like, was "totally wrong{ about what his dope-smoking, and the emotional disengagement thereby, meant to his child.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 27, 2010 2:04 PM
Besides, Jody, the kid's shooting fish in a barrel... It's like a standup comedian making fun of airline food. Or a 'music columnist' at a school newspaper saying the latest Gaga album isn't quite up to snuff (in 800 words).
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 27, 2010 2:11 PM
"My question as to anyone on this list has actually attended a DARE meeting at a local school lately still stands."
NancyD, our kids are too old now to be in DARE, but both Jody, Sara, and I have shared what it was like for our kids - how they villanized alcohol and made the kids wonder if mom or dad was an addict just for having a glass of wine or a beer. I can't imagine it's gotten less like that in the 7 or 8 yrs since my youngest did the program.
Maybe someone here has younger kids that can answer that.
lovelysoul at October 27, 2010 2:19 PM
because you're polite & funny, even though we disagree violently.
I agree with the first two (and thank you), but not with the third. There's been no violence on either side! At least not yet.
Your son's on target. Trust a smart kid to hold the adult's feet to the fire when they start acting like children. Which, come to think of it, is pretty much what the 11-year-old under discussion did.
kishke at October 27, 2010 2:21 PM
As for Gaga (no lady she), she tries awfully hard to be strange, but she has written a catchy tune or two.
kishke at October 27, 2010 2:23 PM
Well, please note, kishke, that the smart kid, just like my smart kid, of the same age, believes pot should be legal. So, it's not quite that he believes parents shouldn't smoke pot, just that during this impressionable age they should be modeling society's expectations and obeying the law.
But if pot were legal, that wouldn't be an issue.
lovelysoul at October 27, 2010 2:26 PM
> but both Jody, Sara, and I have shared
> what it was like for our kids
Both? The thing is, you didn't go to that meeting Nance was talking about.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 27, 2010 2:29 PM
> As for Gaga (no lady she)...
She's always spoken highly of your deportment.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 27, 2010 2:31 PM
Ah, Crid, I only threw Sara in at the last minute when I remembered her sharing too. The three of us then.
lovelysoul at October 27, 2010 2:36 PM
Actually, do they allow parents to attend DARE? Or wouldn't that interfere with them getting our little ones to spy on us?
lovelysoul at October 27, 2010 2:37 PM
I bet parents are discouraged from attending under the guise that they want kids to feel free discussing their own drug usage...and ours.
lovelysoul at October 27, 2010 2:43 PM
Well, please note, kishke, that the smart kid, just like my smart kid, of the same age, believes pot should be legal. So, it's not quite that he believes parents shouldn't smoke pot, just that during this impressionable age they should be modeling society's expectations and obeying the law.
No, you please note that this was one of the arguments I made above, that they set a bad example for their children by doing illegal stuff. And for all you know, I too believe pot should be legal. I haven't weighed in on the question, because contrary to what you seem to think, it is not relevant to the matter at hand. Ya hear, not relevant!
kishke at October 27, 2010 2:46 PM
She's always spoken highly of your deportment.
Well, naturally she has. I am polite and funny, and I enjoy some of her tunes.
kishke at October 27, 2010 2:47 PM
Did anyone read the stats in the article I posted about CA? 400,000 people in CA use pot legally, and it's estimated that another 2 MILLION use it illegally. That's a lot of people "breaking the law," and I'm sure many are parents. I also bet they teach their kids that stupid laws are meant to be broken.
lovelysoul at October 27, 2010 2:51 PM
As one who has lived life...at a distance...that is, more as observer than participant; I must say that children who survive to adulthood often go in unexpected directions.
I have three nieces of varying ages who grew up in different states, under different social and financial conditions. All grew up in two-parent households. All three got pregnant. All three knew better. None are on welfare, at least. Two of them married the fathers.
I have two nephews who grew up to be hardworking, devoted husbands and fathers despite having a mean, drunk, wife-beating sonuvabitch for a father. I was kind of worried about what sort of men they would turn out to be, but apparently they are exceptions to the "children of abusers grow up to be abusers" theme.
(And no, I'm not saying I guess it's all right to beat up the wimmin then, hur-hur-hur.)
Actually, their father was a good example of that theme. His whole attitude came from the fact that his dad beat his mom "when she needed it", and his brothers beat their wives, so if there was a problem, it was with her, not him.
So--nurture, nature, or crapshoot? Even with the trauma, this boy will probably be fine. Or maybe not. Anybody read about "hic-cup girl"?
Pricklypear at October 27, 2010 2:53 PM
> Actually, do they allow parents to attend DARE?
You have to ask? There was no public input when scourge came into being, it just appeared before us one day? A secret cabal of hooded monsters were introduced to the convocations and told to go for it? No meetings where this program had to be sold to the school board or the PTA? If that's the way you let your schools work, you shouldn't be sending your kids there anyway. What if they actually HAD told the kids to murder you in your sleep?
Actually, let me be a-cogitatin' on that one for awhile.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 27, 2010 2:55 PM
>>Besides, Jody, the kid's shooting fish in a barrel... It's like a standup comedian making fun of airline food. Or a 'music columnist' at a school newspaper saying the latest Gaga album isn't quite up to snuff (in 800 words).
Actually, Crid you DO have a point about the Gaga bit.
I thought about scrubbing it, because it was an overly cute dig at me from my son. Problem was - and you'll see if you read back - he linked the Gaga bit to D.A.R.E (which was on topic.)
So I was left with an editing quandary.
I once made the mistake of getting enthusiastic about Gaga (I expect you follow your chum Paglia on the subject!). My son has never forgiven me for going to Ramones gigs, back in my sorta-punk days.
He actually likes some of the Ramones stuff & would vastly prefer if I'd always had awful, vapid, middle-of-the-road taste in music - as parents are meant to do! (Y'know, like Frank Zappa?).
So he never misses a chance to swipe at Gaga being "hip" & newsworthy for crumbling old people!
Jody Tresidder at October 27, 2010 2:58 PM
@nancyd-i shared my experience w/ the D.A.R.E. program yesterday, I think.
It was many years ago so I'm not sure how relevant my experience was. I'm 27. It was not as bad as people are making it out to be. I asked my S.O. and his experience was very similar to mine. He said
if anything, D.A.R.E. made him want to try certain drugs because it was so honest.
Maybe our experiences were similar because we lived in metropolitan cities-N.Y. and Chicago. Maybe the officers there were more real about it, or maybe it's just because it was a while back. I have no idea what the program is like now.
Also, he remembered being taught that caffeine is drug, but again not something evil-just something that wasn't great for your health.
LL at October 27, 2010 3:59 PM
Actually, do they allow parents to attend DARE? Or wouldn't that interfere with them getting our little ones to spy on us?
Yeah, and we've got a camera trained on your trailer right now. Because you're that important.
nancyD at October 27, 2010 4:32 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/10/24/pot_ruins_lives.html#comment-1772186">comment from nancyDP.S. I wish I owned a trailer park -- or even just a trailer.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9401E4DF143EF933A25757C0A9639C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
Amy Alkon at October 27, 2010 5:01 PM
Actually, do they allow parents to attend DARE? Or wouldn't that interfere with them getting our little ones to spy on us?
Whoa! How's that rampant paranoia thing you have going on?
My son is 16 and a junior in high school. I attended all the Sex ed stuff, all the drug ed stuff and volunteered in his class or at the school every year since he was in kindergarten.
My son's schools welcome parents and beg them for input both before the presentations and afterward, for feedback. They are blamed for prevalence of drugs in the schools are are also blamed when they get programs in that are meant to help with that problem.
Fergawdsake get involved! If you know of a better program, suggest and endorse it. But don't expect the schools to pay for it DARE comes 'free' from the police.
LauraGr at October 27, 2010 5:03 PM
I inadvertently capitalized the word "sex" in my previous message. I am sure that there is a deep, mysterious (and hopefully kinky) reason for that, I'm just not certain what that reason may be.
LauraGr at October 27, 2010 5:10 PM
I don't come on to a site like this and throw in the fact that I live in a 1950s brick bungalow in a suburb adjacent to a big city. I also drive a mini-mini-van, a Mazda 5, which I like very mcuh. Why don't I volunteer this information on this site and on this thread? Because I don't think anyone gives a hoot about those things and neither do I. This place is supposed to be opinions, or did I miss something.
But I find it interesting that LS shows up at a site like this, spouts off reams and reams of text and, btw, throw in that she lives in a trailer park. You'll have to forgive me for being unforgivably snobbish, but that just strikes me as a bit of a disingenuous badge of honour. Look at me, I come from a trailer park and I can write grammatical sentences with big words, so there.
Puleeeeze! Kids are sneaky, so apparently are Russian and Eastern block immigrants. No, sorry, they're SCHEMERS. And anyone who has the real credentials to talk about addiction is a show off and not to be trusted because she is probably still jealous of people who can drink in moderation. I'm an addict who knows nothing about addiction, apparently, and am rude and bitter because I'm not agreeing with village idiot.
Ah America. Land of the free.
nancyD at October 27, 2010 5:31 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/10/24/pot_ruins_lives.html#comment-1772194">comment from nancyDlovelysoul didn't just show up here -- she's been a regular commenter for quite some time. I find it interesting that she lives in a trailer park -- a talented writer friend of mine, Samantha Dunn, also grew up in one.
"And anyone who has the real credentials to talk about addiction is a show off and not to be trusted because she is probably still jealous of people who can drink in moderation."
Huh? In addiction treatment, I favor the work and thinking of Stanton Peele, who writes that addiction is not a disease, but a choice -- for short-term over long-term goals. I wish he were more of a "show off," because then his work would have wider acceptance and influence. Sadly, he is not.
"and am rude and bitter because I'm not agreeing with village idiot."
Well, calling her the village idiot isn't winning you points for civility or civilized disagreement.
Amy Alkon at October 27, 2010 5:41 PM
You misunderstood the part of my text you quoted. Look again.
I'm not trying to win points for civility. Civility is a waste of time with some people, LS being a good example. She didn't answer any direct challenges to her views, just wrote around those challenges. Sorry, I just prefer straightforward honesty. You'll have to forgive me.
I've read Stanton Peele and there's a very good reason why his work hasn't gained a wide acceptance.
I know of an addict who took online counselling sessions with him that were very pricey and scant and unsubstantial. I know because he let me read the correspondence. Peele's thinking on addiction is shallow and propelled forward by a lot of anger. That's it. He's not necessarily wrong, he's just not in possession of a theory or set of theories that are potent enough to counter addiction. He's fighting it with a wet noodle. And, I think he likes the money he's making counselling addicts who don't want to quit the hard way. Lots of money to be made there.
I care about the children I see hurt by addiction. And when I see people like LS in a position to do damage, it raises my ire. She knows nothing about addiction, but is acting like she does. No way she should have been in a courtroom acting as an advocate.
Like you never get angry Amy? I think your column on voluntary sterilization of addicts was quite powerful. And didn't you quote a recovering drug addict to support your views?
nancyD at October 27, 2010 6:31 PM
"Peele's thinking on addiction is shallow and propelled forward by a lot of anger. That's it. He's not necessarily wrong, he's just not in possession of a theory or set of theories that are potent enough to counter addiction."
Oh, so you're more of an expert than the experts. Now, I don't feel so bad. NOBODY would know enough about addiction to be in courtroom in your opinion. Only you.
Anyway, I didn't have to know about addiction. I was a volunteer guardian ad litem. I was only there to give a lay opinion to the judge, after interviewing everyone involved with the child INCLUDING THE ADDICTION SPECIALISTS...who were also there...so if we "did damage" it was a group effort. You give me credit for way too much power.
And I'd like you to share where you think I didn't answer challenges. I gave my opinion, which differs from yours, and you didn't like it, so you became hostile.
I mentioned my trailer park only because they are frequently inhabited by substance abusers, so it was RELEVANT to the conversation. It wasn't like I just thought I'd mention where I live.
However, for the record, I don't live in a trailer. My house was near the trailer park we own, which is on the water. Amy's right; trailers here also have become quite expensive - some go for half a million. But mine are still affordable housing, and, as such, many of my tenants are substance abusers.
So, I see addiction every day from that end. I just had to hospitalize a tenant that was so bad off from alcoholism he was bleeding from his rectum. Extremely sad. He will die soon, I'm sure. Through the years, I've lost several tenants and friends to addiction.
But I'm not an expert like you. Quit acting like I've somehow let you and the world down by not being something I've never claimed to be.
lovelysoul at October 27, 2010 7:52 PM
Btw, every one of the tenants I've had die did so from alcoholism, not pot-smoking...and that was why I brought it up...to compare the lethal nature of alcohol to the comparatively minor (in my view) danger of pot.
Both drugs can be abused, but pot seems to be far less abused than alcohol. I bet your detox center is full of alcoholics, not so much pot-smokers.
Of course, I could be wrong. I'm not an expert.
lovelysoul at October 27, 2010 8:06 PM
> he never misses a chance to swipe at Gaga
> being "hip" & newsworthy for crumbling
> old people!
And he's kind of right about that. Paglia is wrong: G & Madonna are the same act.
Lord knows I've complained about the NYT often enough, but I think it's bad mental hygiene to imagine that one can best decide what information sources others should credit. Lefties love to prattle on about how Fox tells "Lies!". But it's obviously just a demented (if imaginary) power play.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 27, 2010 10:47 PM
IJS— TV news is for crumbling old people, too. Seriously, what would you expect from such a source?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 27, 2010 11:36 PM
Here's a con-veeeeeeeeen-ient example from Reynolds.
I mean, that's where their heads are at. The meatless fuckhead woman is so self-righteous that she has to mock "CNNBC" as NOT LIBERAL ENOUGH.
Again, teenagers are forgiven. But could it BE more obvious that this sanctimoniousness is just self-aggrandizing twaddle?
'If only Pamela Anderson weren't so alluring, the American people would FINALLY see what's going on... It's the CORPORATIONS, man, it's the CORPORATIONS...
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 28, 2010 1:00 AM
But mine are still affordable housing, and, as such, many of my tenants are substance abusers.
"and, as such" - So you're saying people living in affordable housing are more likely to be substance abusers? Isn't that the very bias you were complaining about earlier?
kishke at October 28, 2010 9:51 AM
I don't think it's a bias when it's factual. Are you suggesting that poor people are not more likely to be substance abusers?
I'm not looking down on them or being snobby and condescending like NancyD. She was trying to be hurtful saying I "belonged" in a trailer park, using it as a put down.
lovelysoul at October 28, 2010 10:13 AM
I don't think it's a bias when it's factual
Y'mean, like when they say it's not racist if it's true.
kishke at October 28, 2010 10:33 AM
No, it's a bias to dislike black people just because they're black...or poor people just because they're poor.
It's not a bias to say most NBA players are black, or that many poor people turn to drugs. Studies will likely prove both those statements true.
A higher percentage of trailer park dwellers are substance abusers. It could be that living in a trailer park breeds hopelessness which leads to substance abuse...or it could be the reverse. Their substance abuse may create the poverty that leads them to a trailer park. Either way, it's just a fact.
lovelysoul at October 28, 2010 10:52 AM
"or that many poor people turn to drugs. Studies will likely prove both those statements true."
Uh, not just the poor sweetie, if you do any reading about Hollywood starlets and dudes, its rampant...one of the main differences is that they have the money and power to keep their consequences at bay a lot longer than someone who is poor. Meaning, they have more resources available to them.
Like a millionaire who just happens to be an alcoholic - you are much more likely to have your family put up with your shit if they stand to inherit a fortune instead of a cardboard box.
Other than that, there really isn't that much difference.
There are people who abuse substances and those who don't. That is one thing that does not discriminate. You just read about and see the poor peeps. The rich have more resources at their disposal to conceal it.
Feebie at October 28, 2010 1:40 PM
And LS. I do so loathe when you pull the fictitious studies card out. Studies will prove.....
Find one.
Feebie at October 28, 2010 1:41 PM
The detox I work at has a budget for resource materials. Since a lot of the counsellors don't have time--or they would rather spend their spare time reading other things--I often vet books for them. The latest string of books I've read have been about opiate blockers and the controversy over their use.
I often speak to the authors of these books directly because I phone them up when I have a question. A lot of them post their workplaces in their author's blurbs (or I go through the publisher). And I'm not shy-if I have a question I phone or email. When they know they're talking to someone from a detox, they usually take the call.
I've spoken on the phone to Stanton Peele. He sounds like a nice enough man, but my opinion on his theories stands.
So am an expert on the experts? I think the counsellors here would say yes. Which is why I find your posturing so annoying.
I've finally isolated your real problem. You're too ignorant to understand just how ignorant you are. And that was not a dig about the trailer park, although you took it that way. Stop mentioning where you live if it bugs you so much.
nancyD at October 28, 2010 2:33 PM
I've isolated your problem. Obviously, this is your whole life, and I'm happy for you, but there's no need to assume that everyone else should know as much about substance abuse as you. It's not our job; it's yours.
I believe you genuinely care about children, and because of that, you completely misunderstood my role, believing that I'm like a CPS worker, and you got really upset about that...falsely assuming that I'm somehow responsible for leaving/placing kids with substance abusers.
That's just not the case, Nancy. GALs are volunteers who don't need any special qualifications beyond a clean criminal record and a training program. GALs are there to report to the judge about how the child is doing and what the accumulated evidence (involving all opinions, including substance abuse counselors) suggest would be in the best interest of the child.
The state has its attorneys. The parents have their attorneys. So, the GAL program arose because there was a need to have the child's interests and wishes better presented. It's a wonderful program.
Yet, ultimately, the judge decides the fate of the child. And almost none of them would rule to return a child to a neglectful/abusive substance abuser, no matter what I said (and I've never suggested that, but, if I had, I'd have been ignored).
So, you can stop worrying about my "ignorance" about substance abuse. I've conceded you're the expert. I've never claimed to be an expert. Substance abuse is your whole life. It's not mine.
lovelysoul at October 28, 2010 3:06 PM
One more thing - you never addressed my comment. How many pure potheads do you see in detox? That is relevant to this discussion.
lovelysoul at October 28, 2010 3:09 PM
> It's not our job; it's yours.
Turtledove; If you're going to offer as many certifiably demented proscriptions for social conduct as you do —especially for circumstances of debilitating incompetence, by which you seem so fascinated (or at least familiar)– it is indeed incumbent upon you to demonstrate some meaningful grasp of the particulars. As it is, we see a blithe, years-old disregard for integrity, rationality and warmth in your commentary. It tires us.
> How many pure potheads do you see in detox?
Not nearly enough. Went to the bagel shop today. Saw that kid in there, bright blue eyes, friendly, about 20 years old. He's been there for about a year. Sweet kid! He always TRIES to remember what my order is (toasted poppyseed with lox spread, large coffee, $4.67, and thanks for asking).
Today he was wearing a t-shirt shirt with The Leaf on it that said "Addict". It was grotesque. I know EXACTLY what his life is going to be like in five years: I can predict his hourly wage within 30 cents.
But he knows how sweep up the sesame seeds from the floor. The place is always spotless.
I'm not his Dad or nuthin'... I'm not even his friend.
Like, whatever.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 28, 2010 4:13 PM
"Obviously, this is your whole life."
Nope. I have a career I enjoy and it has nothing to do with addiction.
"there's no need to assume that everyone else should know as much about substance abuse as you. It's not our job; it's yours."
It's not a job; it's volunteer work. I know a lot, see a lot and I always give the kids in the middle a break. I've seen plenty of people, male and female, get their kids taken away and that's the thing that sobers them up. The displacement for the kids is temporary--the solution for the family is long term.
I don't assume that everyone else should know as much, I just don't like pretenders. And a lot of people are filling up detox centers because they have problems with THC. It's a drug.
NancyD at October 28, 2010 4:40 PM
"Went to the bagel shop today. Saw that kid in there, bright blue eyes, friendly, about 20 years old. He's been there for about a year. Sweet kid! He always TRIES to remember what my order is (toasted poppyseed with lox spread, large coffee, $4.67, and thanks for asking)."
Well, then, that proves it! Pot is a terribly destructive drug, akin to alcohol. Or perhaps that kid just isn't very bright.
The problem is that most of us have been indoctrinated to believe that legal drugs are "good" and illegal drugs are "bad".
The only truly valid objection to pot in this whole thread is that it is illegal. No one has successfully argued that pot, itself, is more dangerous than alcohol.
And I was like that too. I tried pot in college. I tell people that I didn't really like it, but the truth is, it scared me...purely beacause it was illegal. I was too much of a goody two shoes to use an illegal drug, so, I chose the more socially acceptable recreational drug - alcohol.
I never gave it much thought until my son came of age and gave it some thought. He's a lot like Jody's son, very smart, and he can give an impresssive discertation on pot vs alcohol.
These kids today aren't just consuming drugs that are put in front of them. The intelligent ones are evaluating this issue and, increasingly, choosing pot.
It's hard to argue with their logic. As a parent, all I can offer is that it's illegal...or that it's killing people through gangs in Mexico (which I didn't know). Yet, my son has seen the many lives that alcohol has ruined, so these arguments seem lame to him. In truth, they are kind of lame.
Yes, it would be great if no one needed a recreational drug, but, as is being discussed in another thread, alcohol is the "social lubricant" of our generation. Recreational drugs are as old as cavemen.
I think pot will ultimately be legalized, and then we'll gradually have to accept that it isn't such a bad substance...at least not compared to its legal counterparts.
lovelysoul at October 28, 2010 5:36 PM
"Went to the bagel shop today. Saw that kid in there, bright blue eyes, friendly, about 20 years old. He's been there for about a year. Sweet kid! He always TRIES to remember what my order is (toasted poppyseed with lox spread, large coffee, $4.67, and thanks for asking)."
Well, then, that proves it! Pot is a terribly destructive drug, akin to alcohol. Or perhaps that kid just isn't very bright.
The problem is that most of us have been indoctrinated to believe that legal drugs are "good" and illegal drugs are "bad".
The only truly valid objection to pot in this whole thread is that it is illegal. No one has successfully argued that pot, itself, is more dangerous than alcohol.
And I was like that too. I tried pot in college. I tell people that I didn't really like it, but the truth is, it scared me...purely beacause it was illegal. I was too much of a goody two shoes to use an illegal drug, so, I chose the more socially acceptable recreational drug - alcohol.
I never gave it much thought until my son came of age and gave it some thought. He's a lot like Jody's son, very smart, and he can give an impresssive discertation on pot vs alcohol.
These kids today aren't just consuming drugs that are put in front of them. The intelligent ones are evaluating this issue and, increasingly, choosing pot.
It's hard to argue with their logic. As a parent, all I can offer is that it's illegal...or that it's killing people through gangs in Mexico (which I didn't know). Yet, my son has seen the many lives that alcohol has ruined, so these arguments seem lame to him. In truth, they are kind of lame.
Yes, it would be great if no one needed a recreational drug, but, as is being discussed in another thread, alcohol is the "social lubricant" of our generation. Recreational drugs are as old as cavemen.
I think pot will ultimately be legalized, and then we'll gradually have to accept that it isn't such a bad substance...at least not compared to its legal counterparts.
lovelysoul at October 28, 2010 5:36 PM
> Or perhaps that kid just isn't very bright.
We'll never know.
But I understand how –when he's so proudly inebriated– you have doubts.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 28, 2010 5:45 PM
No one has successfully argued that pot, itself, is more dangerous than alcohol.
The reason no one has made this argument is that the differences between pot and alcohol are not the subject of the article or the thread, notwithstanding the many, many times you have repeated this utterly irrelevant point.
kishke at October 28, 2010 6:29 PM
How is it irrelevant? If the kid had taken his parent's beer to school, they wouldn't have been arrested, nor would he have been removed from his home.
And so many here are like, "oooooh, they were smoking pot...they must be horrible parents!". Yet, if it was about them having a bottle of wine in their fridge - or a fully-stocked bar even - nobody would be rushing to that judgment. Nobody would automatically assume they were alcoholics.
The difference is that we stupidly spend billions each year prosecuting low level drug crimes like this, putting parents in jail like this, breaking up families like this, over a drug that has no worse, and probably better, effects than alcohol.
lovelysoul at October 29, 2010 4:21 AM
How is it irrelevant? If the kid had taken his parent's beer to school, they wouldn't have been arrested, nor would he have been removed from his home.And so many here are like, "oooooh, they were smoking pot...they must be horrible parents!".
I am still surprised by your complete lack of understanding on the whole "pot is illegal" concept.
LauraGr at October 29, 2010 6:39 AM
I get that it's illegal, LauraGR. What surprises me is that people assume it's so much worse just because it's illegal.
Parents break laws all the time. They cheat on their taxes, speed, ignore zoning ordinances. However, we don't normally assume that extends into their parenting. We treat those aspects separately.
But with pot, there's this, "omg, they're lawbreakers, therefore they must be bad parents" theory...even though it's a misdemeanor amount.
And I think it's because we have this bias about pot. We've grown up believing it's bad because the state has told us it's bad...and that people who smoke it are bad. We don't step back to consider if this is true or not, or that someone who smokes pot is not inherently more of a druggie than someone using alcohol.
lovelysoul at October 29, 2010 7:12 AM
How is it irrelevant? If the kid had taken his parent's beer to school, they wouldn't have been arrested, nor would he have been removed from his home.
It's irrelevant b/c he didn't take their beer to school. He took their pot. The question is who is to blame, the kid for ratting them out, the parents for smoking pot, or DARE for encouraging the kid. Alcohol doesn't come into it.
kishke at October 29, 2010 7:37 AM
I get that it's illegal, LauraGR. What surprises me is that people assume it's so much worse just because it's illegal....Parents break laws all the time. They cheat on their taxes, speed, ignore zoning ordinances. However, we don't normally assume that extends into their parenting. We treat those aspects separately.
Wrong. I will try again.
They are bad parents because they knowingly bought/ used/stored where their kids could see/ be aware of/ have access to a substance that is against the laws of region in which they live.
By breaking those laws, they put their family at risk when they got caught for breaking those laws. It really isn't about the cosmic scale of parenting and whether pot is worse than something else.
The parents chose their actions knowing the illegality of them and are facing consequences.
By making a choice to do things that are against statutes and have the possibility of arrest, THE PARENTS are responsible for the disruption to their family.
If they broke other laws that had the possibility of arrest, and then got arrested, the result would be the same. Their choices have consequences. They did not consider the effect their choices and the consequences of their choices upon the health and well-being of their family.
LauraGr at October 29, 2010 8:05 AM
Of course, the parents are responsible. The question is whether the state reaction is appropriate.
A couple of years ago, one of my daughter's friends brought a gun to school - actually to a school field trip. She didn't mean to. She grabbed a bag out of her parent's closet, packed her stuff in it, then discovered the gun that her father had stowed there.
She immediately took it to the chaperones, which was the appropriate thing to do. But she had to leave the field trip and was SUSPENDED from school for a week, like she was some sort of school shooter because of the inane laws we have now about weapons (even plastic knives) at school.
I don't know what charges her parents had to face either. Personally, I think it's much less dangerous and parentally irresponsible for a kid to find a joint in the house than a loaded gun.
lovelysoul at October 29, 2010 8:50 AM
> How is it irrelevant?
It's irrelevant because beer and pot aren't the same thing and aren't used in the same ways and mean different things to people, which is why they have separate names. Also. one of them is completely illegal.
> I think it's much less dangerous and parentally
> irresponsible for a kid to find a joint in the
> house than a loaded gun.
That's irrelevant, too.
> there's this, "omg, they're lawbreakers,
> therefore they must be bad parents" theory...
You're unable to depict opposing arguments in properly-weghted characterizations. You don't even want to.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 29, 2010 9:05 AM
That has certainly been the opposing argument, Crid. That these are bad parents because they're choosing to break the law, and because they did so, it's obvious they don't care about the consequences to their family...meaning they don't really care about their child.
By that logic, the girl who found the gun must have parents who don't care about her either. Why else would they leave a gun where a child could get it?
The thing is, all the kids on that field trip learned a valuable lesson that day: If you find a weapon, don't say anything. The consequences for doing the right thing were so out of proportion.
I agree with Jody that this kid probably regrets going to the school with this, and any child who knows him has learned the lesson that turning to school officials won't just get your parents in trouble. It will likely get you removed from them and your home, plus you'll end up in the news.
It would be nice if we still lived in a world where there was some...well, discretion. Where a child could turn to a trusted teacher or school counselor and have them evaluate the situation using some common sense.
Ideally, if these are good parents who simply made a mistake, the consequences would be different than if they were stoners who passed out at the kitchen table with their pot out in the open.
But we've lost any discretion. Just like with the weapon. It didn't matter that the girl was not a threat. She had to be treated like one because those are the rules.
lovelysoul at October 29, 2010 10:41 AM
That these are bad parents because they're choosing to break the law, and because they did so, it's obvious they don't care about the consequences to their family...meaning they don't really care about their child....By that logic, the girl who found the gun must have parents who don't care about her either. Why else would they leave a gun where a child could get it?
Un. Freaking. Believable.
Anyone that has both firearms and children is and complete utter irresponsible idiot if they do not keep the firearm locked up securely. Period. Full stop.
LauraGr at October 29, 2010 12:17 PM
They simply made a mistake. Good parents make mistakes too. Just like the cop who came home tired and hung his holster on the door and forgot. Could've been tragic, yes, but it was a mistake. Same as good parents who get in a rush and forget their child is in the backseat (which happens at least several times a year in my state). Or the ones who turn their back for a few seconds and their kid falls into the pool.
If most parents are honest, they'll admit they've had at least one or two close calls or idiot moments like that during their childrearing.
That's why we need the ability to make a distinction between parents who habitually and negligently put their child at risk from those who just had a momentary lapse of judgment.
Yet, apparently, we've lost the ability to make those distinctions - we want to treat it all the same. We don't trust our school authorities to make the right judgment call, which is why a toy gun gets treated like a real gun, a plastic knife gets treated like a real knife, or possessing a misdemeanor amount of pot is the same as being a major druggie.
These things aren't the same. They don't mean the same thing or pose the same risk, yet this thread has been instructive as to why the concept of using common sense and discretion is a thing of the past.
lovelysoul at October 29, 2010 1:18 PM
...this thread has been instructive as to why the concept of using common sense and discretion is a thing of the past.
If either of the sets of adults (the pot smokers and the gun in the gym baggers) had used any common sense or discretion, this thread would be moot.
LS, you are either an extremely illogical, willfully obtuse person, or a troll tossing out baiting remarks hoping for a bite.
LauraGr at October 29, 2010 1:30 PM
I'm taking immense comfort in the fact that others here have been fighting the good fight with LS.
Despite my (past) earnest attempts to pull her from the bog of insanity -it has only proven to be a wasted effort every time.
Good luck!
Feebie at October 29, 2010 1:59 PM
Yeah, it's just insane to believe good parents ever make mistakes. It's plain illogical to think that pot could be used in moderation, like alcohol. It's totally ignorant to consider the ramifications of a national school program that encourages kids to rat out their parents (guess Amy is ignorant too, since she brought it up).
I'm just such a radical!
lovelysoul at October 29, 2010 2:47 PM
@Feebie and LauraGr: she's baiting because she needs attention. She must be out of work. Look at the reams and reams of nonsense she's written.
nancyD at October 29, 2010 2:52 PM
LS- there are no mistakes with firearms. There are only safety and negligence.
LauraGr at October 29, 2010 3:10 PM
"She must be out of work. Look at the reams and reams of nonsense she's written."
Geeze. You have no reading comprehension. I own my businesses, so I work for myself, largely on the computer. And I don't live in a trailer. I live in a house on the water. Got it?
lovelysoul at October 29, 2010 4:11 PM
For all those dumping on lovelysoul(a pleasure even I indulge in form time to time)
There were a couple of cases here in AZ that are releavent to this thread - one made national headines when CPS showed up and took away a cuples children on child pornography charges when the photo attendent turned over pics of the kids playing in the bathtub.
There was another where a diner called the cops on a mother for ordering one mimosa which, due to the scrapes in her mouth from a dental appointment, she didnt even finish. They arreseted her, it took the weekend for her husband to pry the child out of CPS's clutches and they had to deal with 'random' inspections as conditions of the mothers bail.
She had passed the breathalyzer at .04 even after the results were thrown off by her use of an inhaler(only to still be arrested) passed the blood test at .02 and had it witheld for over five months(only to still be booked on a friday night in a blatant attempt fot her to miss the last bail hearing of friday afternoon) even after two years and being found not guilty as far as child services was concerned they still needed to be checked out occasionally
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/content/printVersion/733637/
Say what you want about the parents and their habits but lovelsoul isnt wron about the overreaction by athourites
lujlp at October 29, 2010 4:49 PM
Some authorities in some places at times overreach. There flat out is not enough info in the meager news article for this story to know if this is one of those times. Plus, in both of your stories, the parents didn't do anything illegal! Like keep pot in the house.
LauraGr at October 29, 2010 6:20 PM
> That these are bad parents because they're
> choosing to break the law, and because
> they did so, it's obvious they don't
> care about the consequences to their
> family...meaning they don't really care
> about their child.
Where the argument being made HAS drifted, however briefly, into your mischaracterization of it, you nonetheless lose the point.
> either an extremely illogical, willfully
> obtuse person, or a troll
After a few months of this, I ticked that OTHER checkbox for her: "psychopath". She will always, always come down on the side of negligence, heartlessness, debilitation, and the kind of preventable woundings which weep for a lifetime. Sometimes you see someone who's so oblivious, and so cold, and so WORDY about it, that you realize there's no explanation. Maybe somebody got to her in early days... Maybe some unusual tuft of brain tissue folded in an unusual pattern during random fetal development (VERY random): Doesn't matter. Whether in her dearest heart she understands what she's saying is just not relevant.
Still takes my breath away, though.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 29, 2010 8:56 PM
Thanks, Luj, for coming to my defense. Those cases are disturbing, and very revealing about how our system does overreach sometimes, and often once they have, it takes months and even years, plus thousands in legal fees, to set things right.
These folks apparently have no appreciation for that. They are sheep, black and white "good and bad" thinkers, believing what the state says/does is always correct.
After all this debate, I reread the article more closely and am even more disturbed. These parents were not jailed, so there was no voluntary relinquishing of custody. In fact, it states that the children were removed by CPS and placed with relatives (which means they would've gone to foster care if some relatives, whoever they may be, hadn't volunteered to take them).
The fact that the parents were not jailed strongly indicates there were no other factors found in the home to suggest abuse or neglect, nor any greater degree of pot or other drug possession, since surely the home was searched.
So, these parents immediately lost custody of both their children for posessing a misdemeanor amount of pot. Those are the facts, and I can't see how these guys are ok with that. How can any rational person be unconcerned by that?
The ironic thing is that I'm usually the defender of the system. Whenever guys here tell of stories of the state overreaching or denying their parental rights, I usually try to defend the state's actions, as I believe that most social workers, judges, and people involved in family court are well-intentioned. But it doesn't mean they're infallible, and that there aren't the overzealous types who do damage.
Tearing a family apart like this..over something as minor as this...when there are other, more appropriate interventions that could be employed to minimize trauma to the children is unconscionable, and anybody who blithely supports it in an effort to dump on me just doesn't care about kids.
lovelysoul at October 30, 2010 5:10 AM
"These folks apparently have no appreciation for that. They are sheep, black and white "good and bad" thinkers, believing what the state says/does is always correct."
Un-fucking-believable.
Feebie at October 30, 2010 4:46 PM
That's YOU, Feebie! She was talking about YOU! And everyone knows it!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 30, 2010 7:47 PM
Leave a comment