https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/11/01/parents-injected-children-with-heroin-as-feel-good-medicine-police-say/
QuoteParents injected children with heroin as 'feel good medicine,' police say
A Washington state couple is facing numerous charges after police said the parents kept their three young children in a home littered with rat droppings and drug needles and injected them with heroin, which they called "feel good medicine."
Ashlee Hutt, 24, and Mac Leroy McIver, 25, have been charged with unlawful delivery of a controlled substance to a person under 18, criminal mistreatment in the second degree and assault of a child in the second degree, according to a probable cause affidavit filed in September in Pierce County Superior Court.
Hutt appeared in court Monday for her arraignment, according to the News Tribune. Booking records show that she is being held on $100,000 bail.
McIver, who was arraigned in September, is also being held on $100,000 bail.
"The kids lived in deplorable conditions," Pierce County Sheriff's Department spokesman Detective Ed Troyer told The Washington Post on Tuesday. "It wasn't a good living situation even without the issue of heroin."
"We unfortunately find kids living in deplorable conditions all too often, but we don't see parents intentionally putting drugs into kids," he added.
The three children have been placed into protective custody, Troyer said.
Troyer said both Hutt and McIver have pleaded not guilty. It's unclear whether the two have attorneys.
Last November, when social workers removed the children — ages 2, 4 and 6 — from the home outside Tacoma, the children were living in squalor, according to the court documents.
"Aluminum foil rolls and cooker heroin were observed in the bedroom on the dresser next to the bed," according to the probable cause affidavit. Child protective services reported "multiple individuals lived at the resident and everyone was using heroin."
Social workers discovered bruises on the 2-year-old's body that appeared to be from drug injections, according to the court documents.
The 6-year-old told social workers that McIver had choked him and his siblings and that the couple gave them "feel good medicine."
"He described the 'feel good medicine' as a white powder which was mixed with water," according to the probable cause affidavit. "His parents then used a needle to inject the 'feel good medicine' into him and his sisters."
He said he and his sisters would fall asleep after the injections.
Two months after the children were taken into protective custody, authorities performed hair follicle tests on the children, according to the court documents. The 6-year-old tested negative for heroin; the 4-year-old had heroin in her system but not enough to result in a positive test; the 2-year-old tested positive for the drug.
Both Hutt and McIver admitted to being heroin users, though McIver told authorities he believed the babysitter was responsible for injecting the children with heroin, according to the court documents.
Children have become victims in an opioid epidemic ravaging the nation — watching their parents shoot up, and sometimes, overdose and die.
In September, a chilling photograph captured the innocence lost on a 4-year-old's face in East Liverpool, Ohio. A man and woman were slumped over after overdosing in a vehicle; the boy was still strapped into his car seat in the back.
A week later and 600 miles away at a Family Dollar store in Lawrence, Mass., a hysterical toddler trying to wake her mother after an apparent drug overdose was captured on a cellphone video.
Then last month, a 7-year-old girl in McKeesport, Pa., told her school bus driver that she hadn't been able to wake the adults in her house for days and that their bodies were beginning to change colors; she had been caring for three other children in the home, 5 years, 3 years and 9 months old, and had gotten herself to school, police said.
A new study suggests that children in the midst of the nation's drug war are battling more than psychological consequences.
The findings, published earlier this week in the medical journal JAMA Pediatrics, show that from 1997 to 2012, 13,052 children were hospitalized for poisonings from opioid prescriptions, such as Oxycodone, Percocet and codeine.
And 176 of them died.
The Post's Ariana Eunjung Cha reported:
The numbers show that hospitalizations for prescription opioid poisonings in children doubled during those years.
Report author Julie R. Gaither, an epidemiologist at the Yale School of Medicine who has also studied the injuries to children from firearms, drew parallels between the need to store guns safely and the need to make sure opioid pills are stored safely.
"These children are getting into their parents' or grandparents' medication. Opioids are now ubiquitous in millions of U.S. homes," Gaither said in an interview. "They are like guns — you have these dangerous things, and we need to keep [them] out of the hands of the most vulnerable."
In Washington state, Hutt and McIver are due back in court Nov. 18, according to the Pierce County prosecutor's office. Hutt's trial begins Dec. 20, and McIver's starts Feb. 16.
What the fuck is wrong with people? :(
Statist.
Yeah I used to see things like this. Drugs do some fucked up shit to families.
I have come to the conclusion that the inescapable root cause of poverty in the US is parents who are incapable or unwilling to provide for their children.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2016, 03:13:22 PM
I have come to the conclusion that the inescapable root cause of poverty in the US is parents who are incapable or unwilling to provide for their children.
What an odd conclusion.
But inescapable.
Quote from: Jacob on November 02, 2016, 03:40:56 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2016, 03:13:22 PM
I have come to the conclusion that the inescapable root cause of poverty in the US is parents who are incapable or unwilling to provide for their children.
What an odd conclusion.
It's a one size fits all, rather like a onesie for those who are well off.
Quote from: mongers on November 02, 2016, 03:52:29 PM
It's a one size fits all, rather like a onesie for those who are well off.
:lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2016, 03:13:22 PM
I have come to the conclusion that the inescapable root cause of poverty in the US is parents who are incapable or unwilling to provide for their children.
I agree. But this coin has two sides. The other one (and not very often talked about) is how our culture treats child bearing - as a crutch, an ersatz, something to improve your life, make you feel good about yourself. A lot of people should be told they shouldn't have children - but no politician would ever say that.
So the reason there are poor people is that their parents fucked up; and to solution to this is that we should let politicians determine whether any given couple should have children or not?
Quote from: Jacob on November 02, 2016, 04:48:54 PM
So the reason there are poor people is that their parents fucked up; and to solution to this is that we should let politicians determine whether any given couple should have children or not?
That would be *a* solution. I don't favor it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2016, 04:51:13 PM
That would be *a* solution. I don't favor it.
Do you have a favoured solution?
Quote from: Jacob on November 02, 2016, 04:55:05 PM
Do you have a favoured solution?
We should pretend we can change things and throw some money at various programs once in a while.
I disagree that there are large numbers of people "unwilling" to take care of their children.
Unable? Sure. Not having proper parenting skills (perhaps because none were ever modelled to them by their own parents)? Absolutely.
I don't directly work on child abuse/neglect files, but a lot of my files do touch on it. And I can tell you almost universally those parents do care deeply about their own children. Doesn't mean they aren't neglecting / abusing them, but they are definitely not indifferent to their children.
"They care, they don't really want to abuse them. Not really."
Fuck that. Battered society syndrome. You are what you do.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2016, 03:13:22 PM
I have come to the conclusion that the inescapable root cause of poverty in the US is parents who are incapable or unwilling to provide for their children.
One cause of many surely, but the root cause? All poverty derives from there? Not really.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2016, 04:57:45 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 02, 2016, 04:55:05 PM
Do you have a favoured solution?
We should pretend we can change things and throw some money at various programs once in a while.
Seems pretty realistic.
Huh. I give my kids Sutafed and whisky.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2016, 03:13:22 PM
I have come to the conclusion that the inescapable root cause of poverty in the US is parents who are incapable or unwilling to provide for their children.
I think this is very plausible, though obviously there are other causes as well.
Quote from: Jacob on November 02, 2016, 03:40:56 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2016, 03:13:22 PM
I have come to the conclusion that the inescapable root cause of poverty in the US is parents who are incapable or unwilling to provide for their children.
What an odd conclusion.
Remember, he's just talking about the inescapable root cause of poverty in the US, mind you. All the other numerous root causes of poverty are valid everywhere else.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2016, 03:13:22 PM
I have come to the conclusion that the inescapable root cause of poverty in the US is parents who are incapable or unwilling to provide for their children.
Then, the reachable root solution to poverty in the US is parents who are capable or willing to provide for others' children.
Quote from: Jacob on November 02, 2016, 04:48:54 PM
So the reason there are poor people is that their parents fucked up; and to solution to this is that we should let politicians determine whether any given couple should have children or not?
I didn't say "determine". I think it should be more of a PSA campaign, not law. But yeah, politicians (and other leaders of public opinion) should go out and say that if you have a minimum wage job, then perhaps having that fifth kid is not such a great idea.
I am calling for a change of cultural mindset. As it is now, even if you are the biggest loser, there are two occasions in your life that the society around you treats you like a hero - getting married and getting a baby. The former is half the problem - yes, people ruin their own lives through marriage very often, hoping that it will somehow improve their failed relationship, but that's just them, fair enough. But the latter ruins the life of a new baby as well if the decision to have one is based on false premises (such as "saving my marriage", "giving my life a meaning" etc.). So yeah, people who should never be given care of a pet are actively encouraged by the society to have kids. This should change.
Quote from: Zanza on November 02, 2016, 05:23:47 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2016, 03:13:22 PM
I have come to the conclusion that the inescapable root cause of poverty in the US is parents who are incapable or unwilling to provide for their children.
One cause of many surely, but the root cause? All poverty derives from there? Not really.
Most of it. Our social safety nets (even in America) are meant to help people who just fall on hard times due to a stroke of bad luck that it is impossible to predict or prevent.
But I would say that in an overwhelming majority of cases, it is an outcome of a series of bad choices - sadly, first done for the kid by its parents (first of which being having the kid in the first place), and then repeated by the kid. It's really a vicious cycle.
Quote from: The Brain on November 02, 2016, 05:09:47 PM
"They care, they don't really want to abuse them. Not really."
Fuck that. Battered society syndrome. You are what you do.
This.
I expect parents to take care of their children. I expect people to not have a kid unless they can do that. I think a person who gets a puppy without being able to take care of it is acting irresponsibly, and a kid is a much bigger commitment than a puppy.
I don't think that some kids deserve less than this just because their parents are trash with a sob story.
Yup. It all boils down to personal responsibility and respecting other adult people by treating them - including as to the expectations - as adults. Pity and "bigotry of low expectations" are among the most socially destructive emotions.
So eradicate the poor by encouraging them not to have kids? I guess that is at least less active than sterilizing them.
Quote from: garbon on November 03, 2016, 03:20:17 AM
So eradicate the poor by encouraging them not to have kids? I guess that is at least less active than sterilizing them.
Being poor is not a racial or ethic trait, it's a personal condition - and eradicating poverty is a worthy goal right?
I mean we encourage people with transmittable genetic diseases not to have children either - and this is not about eradicating the sufferers but the disease itself.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2016, 03:46:07 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 03, 2016, 03:20:17 AM
So eradicate the poor by encouraging them not to have kids? I guess that is at least less active than sterilizing them.
Being poor is not a racial or ethic trait, it's a personal condition - and eradicating poverty is a worthy goal right?
I mean we encourage people with transmittable genetic diseases not to have children either - and this is not about eradicating the sufferers but the disease itself.
Efforts to reduce poverty generally work on premise of helping people up out of poverty not calling for their eventual disappearance via abstinence. That's apalling even before we get to how it would disproportinately affect certain racial groups and ethnicities that have been kept in economic bandage.
You really are distorting this argument.
Nobody is calling for apalling "disappearance through abstinence". And nobody is also saying that people who are less well off than the average not to have children - often people who are poor can be some of the best and responsible parents.
Rather, the crux of the argument is simple - people should not have children (or more children) if they lack sufficient mental, financial and moral capacity to take care of them. Hopefully for most people such situation of deprivation is transitory. There are those, however, for whom it is permanent or semi permanent - such people should not be encouraged to have children.
Again, I will repeat - I am not calling for any legal or medical means of preventing this, but rather through encouraging responsible parenting. Isn't this what planned parenthood is all about?
Why do you want to reopen Birkenau for poors?
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2016, 03:12:27 PM
Yeah I used to see things like this. Drugs do some fucked up shit to families.
I think there is something happening in the US that is not in line with the typical drug problems we have seen over the last few decades.
Heroin use has become a huge, huge issue. I have a friend whose son is an addict, just fucking out of nowhere. He was a top scholar in high school, got a full ride to an excellent school. He is a freshman, this year.
He went off, his dad said his demeanor changed, stopped going to class, all that in hindsight obvious shit. Then it all became clear when his roomate ODed and died, and he told his dad he had tried Oxy and then heroin, and was an addict.
This is fucking crazy. Heroin? HEROIN? That was a drug that fucked up poor people and hard core addicts had problems with - not middle class kids fucking around in college with pot and booze.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2016, 04:37:38 AM
You really are distorting this argument.
Nobody is calling for apalling "disappearance through abstinence". And nobody is also saying that people who are less well off than the average not to have children - often people who are poor can be some of the best and responsible parents.
Rather, the crux of the argument is simple - people should not have children (or more children) if they lack sufficient mental, financial and moral capacity to take care of them. Hopefully for most people such situation of deprivation is transitory. There are those, however, for whom it is permanent or semi permanent - such people should not be encouraged to have children.
Again, I will repeat - I am not calling for any legal or medical means of preventing this, but rather through encouraging responsible parenting. Isn't this what planned parenthood is all about?
I think the shift we need is more that humans should not be fertile except by conscious choice, rather than the opposite.
Yeah I don't get it. Why would you use something that is 100% guaranteed to fuck up everything? But then people continue to take up smoking despite most of society going through hell to try to stop smoking. So who knows?
Humanity needs more babies. A rapidly shrinking population won't do the economy any good.
I think Marty is NOT saying "Poors should not be allowed to procreate!"
He is saying "Parents unprepared to raise children are a leading cause of those children growing up in poverty, and then having children of their own in poverty".
Trying to break that cycle by making it less likely for unprepared parents to have children they cannot care for is a goal we should work towards, within the bounds of our liberal ethics.
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2016, 08:59:24 AM
I think Marty is NOT saying "Poors should not be allowed to procreate!"
He is saying "Parents unprepared to raise children are a leading cause of those children growing up in poverty, and then having children of their own in poverty".
Trying to break that cycle by making it less likely for unprepared parents to have children they cannot care for is a goal we should work towards, within the bounds of our liberal ethics.
The difficulty is that it is a razor thing edge to then stepping outside of our ethics when linking to poverty.
Obviously, I think at least theoretically, we can agree that only fit parents who are happy to have children, who are willing and able to support them. What exactly are the details that make up those items though...that's the landmine.
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2016, 08:51:17 AM
This is fucking crazy. Heroin? HEROIN? That was a drug that fucked up poor people and hard core addicts had problems with - not middle class kids fucking around in college with pot and booze.
how do you think these people became poor?
Heroin addicts have always been from all classes. More often than you think among college kids.
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2016, 08:53:13 AM
Yeah I don't get it. Why would you use something that is 100% guaranteed to fuck up everything?
Yeah, why do people keep doing dangerous things purely for seeking pleasure?
some of the crazier parenting techniques I've read are spanking babies / suppressing babies' instinct to explore by placing them on a blanket and swatting them if they crawl off it until they learn to stop exploring
Quote from: viper37 on November 03, 2016, 09:31:19 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2016, 08:53:13 AM
Yeah I don't get it. Why would you use something that is 100% guaranteed to fuck up everything?
Yeah, why do people keep doing dangerous things purely for seeking pleasure?
Well there is a difference between doing something dangerous and something nearly absolutely bad.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2016, 04:37:38 AM
Isn't this what planned parenthood is all about?
Yes. Boy has it made them a popular and loved institution.
Quote from: viper37 on November 03, 2016, 09:29:07 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2016, 08:51:17 AM
This is fucking crazy. Heroin? HEROIN? That was a drug that fucked up poor people and hard core addicts had problems with - not middle class kids fucking around in college with pot and booze.
how do you think these people became poor?
Heroin addicts have always been from all classes. More often than you think among college kids.
I think it is radically worse in the last decade in the US.
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2016, 10:31:15 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 03, 2016, 09:29:07 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2016, 08:51:17 AM
This is fucking crazy. Heroin? HEROIN? That was a drug that fucked up poor people and hard core addicts had problems with - not middle class kids fucking around in college with pot and booze.
how do you think these people became poor?
Heroin addicts have always been from all classes. More often than you think among college kids.
I think it is radically worse in the last decade in the US.
Opiate addiction is on the rise everywhere in North America.
The reason isn't too hard to find: physicians have become far more willing to prescribe opiate-based painkillers, as a result of philosophical changes in modes of treatment (briefly: medical practice is far more concerned than it was to prevent patients from experiencing pain; opiate-based painkillers work; patients have grown to expect pain-freedom, and will shop around until they get it).
The unfortunate result: an increase in addiction, for a bunch of reasons (some get addicted after a legitimate prescription of painkillers; more opiates around to be "diverted" into non-medical use).
People rarely if ever start out injecting themselves with heroin or other street drugs. More usually, they get addicted to properly prescribed painkillers (either prescribed to themselves or 'diverted'). Then, when they can't get that, or the pharmaceuticals no longer deliver a high because of developing tolerance, they turn to street drugs.
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2016, 08:51:17 AMThis is fucking crazy. Heroin? HEROIN? That was a drug that fucked up poor people and hard core addicts had problems with - not middle class kids fucking around in college with pot and booze.
I read somewhere that heroin is making a big comeback in the west amongst young people because the current younger generations have not seen the wreckage it created amongst the older junkies. Over here heroin was almost epidemic in the 80s, but most of those junkies have already died out a good while ago, so young people nowadays have not seen first hand the human zombies it created.
We need a comprehensive drug policy reform. Basically right now most of the anti-drug education is based on the principle that all drugs are, fundamentally, equally bad - whether it is marijuana, peyote, LSD, ecstasy, cocaine, ketamine or heroin. This is as effective in preventing drug abuse as abstinence-only sex education is effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies and STDs. Sadly, there is too much vested interest from big pharma, big alcohol and big tobacco in keeping the situation as it is for things to drastically change any time soon.
Quote from: The Larch on November 03, 2016, 11:02:46 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2016, 08:51:17 AMThis is fucking crazy. Heroin? HEROIN? That was a drug that fucked up poor people and hard core addicts had problems with - not middle class kids fucking around in college with pot and booze.
I read somewhere that heroin is making a big comeback in the west amongst young people because the current younger generations have not seen the wreckage it created amongst the older junkies. Over here heroin was almost epidemic in the 80s, but most of those junkies have already died out a good while ago, so young people nowadays have not seen first hand the human zombies it created.
Yeah, I recall the 80s radio reporting dead ODed junkies in Hamburg regularly on the morning news, usually adding, "The xxth drug death so far this year."
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2016, 11:10:09 AM
We need a comprehensive drug policy reform. Basically right now most of the anti-drug education is based on the principle that all drugs are, fundamentally, equally bad - whether it is marijuana, peyote, LSD, ecstasy, cocaine, ketamine or heroin. This is as effective in preventing drug abuse as abstinence-only sex education is effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies and STDs. Sadly, there is too much vested interest from big pharma, big alcohol and big tobacco in keeping the situation as it is for things to drastically change any time soon.
Why is big pharma invested in not wanting people to take those drugs? :unsure:
Quote from: garbon on November 03, 2016, 11:12:33 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2016, 11:10:09 AM
We need a comprehensive drug policy reform. Basically right now most of the anti-drug education is based on the principle that all drugs are, fundamentally, equally bad - whether it is marijuana, peyote, LSD, ecstasy, cocaine, ketamine or heroin. This is as effective in preventing drug abuse as abstinence-only sex education is effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies and STDs. Sadly, there is too much vested interest from big pharma, big alcohol and big tobacco in keeping the situation as it is for things to drastically change any time soon.
Why is big pharma invested in not wanting people to take those drugs? :unsure:
Because it provides the closest legally available substitute. :huh:
Quote from: Syt on November 03, 2016, 11:11:16 AM
Quote from: The Larch on November 03, 2016, 11:02:46 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2016, 08:51:17 AMThis is fucking crazy. Heroin? HEROIN? That was a drug that fucked up poor people and hard core addicts had problems with - not middle class kids fucking around in college with pot and booze.
I read somewhere that heroin is making a big comeback in the west amongst young people because the current younger generations have not seen the wreckage it created amongst the older junkies. Over here heroin was almost epidemic in the 80s, but most of those junkies have already died out a good while ago, so young people nowadays have not seen first hand the human zombies it created.
Yeah, over here heroin used to be super common back then, and there were lots of junkies, you still see some of the most resillient ones around, but most of them were killed off by ODs, and in the 90s lots of anti drug programs were established, with lots of methadone distribution points being opened. In some villages almost the entire young generation of that time was wiped out. In my hometown it was not unusual to see used needles on the floor in the seedier streets or in parks. When I was a little kid I once found a used needle in the playground where my mother took me, and when she saw me picking it up she freaked out and took me home to wash my hands with industrial grade disinfectant.
Yeah, I recall the 80s radio reporting dead ODed junkies in Hamburg regularly on the morning news, usually adding, "The xxth drug death so far this year."
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2016, 11:14:26 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 03, 2016, 11:12:33 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2016, 11:10:09 AM
We need a comprehensive drug policy reform. Basically right now most of the anti-drug education is based on the principle that all drugs are, fundamentally, equally bad - whether it is marijuana, peyote, LSD, ecstasy, cocaine, ketamine or heroin. This is as effective in preventing drug abuse as abstinence-only sex education is effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies and STDs. Sadly, there is too much vested interest from big pharma, big alcohol and big tobacco in keeping the situation as it is for things to drastically change any time soon.
Why is big pharma invested in not wanting people to take those drugs? :unsure:
Because it provides the closest legally available substitute. :huh:
Eh we can drink ourselves into oblivion and big pharma has always been alright with that.
Not the same thing - only meds can get you high. Plus the attempts to ban alcohol failed. Unlike with drugs which has been a full success.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2016, 11:31:09 AM
Not the same thing - only meds can get you high.
I have to say if this is the market pharma is going for their marketing methods are really bad. 'Cialis will get you so high you will not give a damn you cannot get it up anymore'
So you never heard of people getting addicted to prescription painkillers?
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2016, 11:39:39 AM
So you never heard of people getting addicted to prescription painkillers?
Of course I have.
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2016, 08:59:24 AM
I think Marty is NOT saying "Poors should not be allowed to procreate!"
He is saying "Parents unprepared to raise children are a leading cause of those children growing up in poverty, and then having children of their own in poverty".
Trying to break that cycle by making it less likely for unprepared parents to have children they cannot care for is a goal we should work towards, within the bounds of our liberal ethics.
Personally I think a more ethical and more efficient approach would be to help people care for their children. Eugenics has not had a place in liberal thought for a while, and it would be a mistake to bring it back now.
Quote from: viper37 on November 03, 2016, 09:29:07 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2016, 08:51:17 AM
This is fucking crazy. Heroin? HEROIN? That was a drug that fucked up poor people and hard core addicts had problems with - not middle class kids fucking around in college with pot and booze.
how do you think these people became poor?
Heroin addicts have always been from all classes. More often than you think among college kids.
Yeah, I was in Vancouver in the 90s during the then epidemic the and there were a number of junkies in my extended social scene. They came from all sorts of backgrounds, though of course they tended to end up as fucked up poor people and hard core addicts (or just plain dead).
Quote from: Jacob on November 03, 2016, 12:04:31 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2016, 08:59:24 AM
I think Marty is NOT saying "Poors should not be allowed to procreate!"
He is saying "Parents unprepared to raise children are a leading cause of those children growing up in poverty, and then having children of their own in poverty".
Trying to break that cycle by making it less likely for unprepared parents to have children they cannot care for is a goal we should work towards, within the bounds of our liberal ethics.
Personally I think a more ethical and more efficient approach would be to help people care for their children. Eugenics has not had a place in liberal thought for a while, and it would be a mistake to bring it back now.
See, that is a total bullshit response. Nobody said anything about eugenics.
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2016, 12:27:30 PM
See, that is a total bullshit response. Nobody said anything about eugenics.
Determining who can and cannot have children based on their perceived fitness is what Marty proposed. That's pretty close to Eugenics as I understand it.
On a second reading on your post I realize that you're not supporting that, but proposing some sort of "we should leave avenues open for unfit parents to not have children of their own accord"; my apologies for the misunderstanding. I assume - but please correct me if I'm wrong - that you mean something like increasing availability of counselling, birth control, abortion, and sex education to reduce the rates of accidental and early pregnancies will help here? If so, then I'm completely in agreement.
As for "poors should not be allowed to procreate", I think that's pretty much exactly what Marty is saying and you misunderstood him; alternately I misunderstood him and he's just saying we need better programs to support poor people have access to better quality family planning.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2016, 11:10:09 AM
We need a comprehensive drug policy reform. Basically right now most of the anti-drug education is based on the principle that all drugs are, fundamentally, equally bad - whether it is marijuana, peyote, LSD, ecstasy, cocaine, ketamine or heroin. This is as effective in preventing drug abuse as abstinence-only sex education is effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies and STDs. Sadly, there is too much vested interest from big pharma, big alcohol and big tobacco in keeping the situation as it is for things to drastically change any time soon.
To solve the opiate addiction crisis in particular, what is needed is better alternatives and approaches to medical pain management. No amount of anti-drug education, even if it quite properly identifies the relative dangers of different street drugs, can solve this problem alone (although admittedly, shitty education is worse than good education).
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2016, 11:53:00 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2016, 11:39:39 AM
So you never heard of people getting addicted to prescription painkillers?
Of course I have.
And apparently now my industry is gung ho about getting people addicted to them. Nevermind that we're not supposed to even look at off-label usage...
Quote from: Jacob on November 03, 2016, 12:37:30 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2016, 12:27:30 PM
See, that is a total bullshit response. Nobody said anything about eugenics.
Determining who can and cannot have children based on their perceived fitness is what Marty proposed. That's pretty close to Eugenics as I understand it.
I think that is strawmanning his argument. I am hardly Marty's cheerleader, but I think if you asked him "Hey, are you proposing eugenics?" he would pretty clearly say he was not making any such proposition.
My post, which you responded to (rather than responding to his) was an attempt to state what I thought he was saying in terms that we could all agree on - if you didn't disagree with my post, then please don't respond to my post and throw out words like "eugenics", which cannot possibly have any useful place in the discussion - certainly nothing useful in the point I was trying to make.
It is pouring gasoline on a fire to throw out that term.
My understanding is the current opiate problem is directly connected to the massive over-prescription of opiates like oxycontin over the last decade, which was followed by a restriction on such drugs when we realized we had been over-prescribing them, addicts turned to the street.
That, plus the rise of chinese pharmaceutical labs which are turning out all kinds of synthetic opiates (such as fentanyl). So an increase in both supply and in demand led to the current crisis.
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2016, 12:53:33 PM
I think that is strawmanning his argument. I am hardly Marty's cheerleader, but I think if you asked him "Hey, are you proposing eugenics?" he would pretty clearly say he was not making any such proposition.
You have more faith in him than I do.
QuoteMy post, which you responded to (rather than responding to his) was an attempt to state what I thought he was saying in terms that we could all agree on - if you didn't disagree with my post, then please don't respond to my post and throw out words like "eugenics", which cannot possibly have any useful place in the discussion - certainly nothing useful in the point I was trying to make.
I misunderstood your post.
QuoteIt is pouring gasoline on a fire to throw out that term.
I agree, it was a mistake to respond to the sub-topic.
Quote from: Barrister on November 03, 2016, 12:56:32 PM
My understanding is the current opiate problem is directly connected to the massive over-prescription of opiates like oxycontin over the last decade, which was followed by a restriction on such drugs when we realized we had been over-prescribing them, addicts turned to the street.
That, plus the rise of chinese pharmaceutical labs which are turning out all kinds of synthetic opiates (such as fentanyl). So an increase in both supply and in demand led to the current crisis.
I wouldn't characterize the issue as "massive over-prescription". The problem is more difficult than that - it is that standards of medical pain management shifted, for some very good reasons (or at least reasons that
appeared good): that physicians decided pain management was to have a higher priority than formerly.
The problem is this: patients have become conditioned to thinking that pain can be managed and "inadequate pain management" is simply unacceptable: it has been built into physician guidelines in some places as "pain is the fifth vital sign". Yet adequate control of pain apparently requires opiates in some cases (at least, so far). The use of opiates leads to a risk that a certain number of users, or those that have access to granny's pills, will develop addiction problems. The "reward" (superior pain management) comes with the "risk" (addiction).
Just this summer, the AMA has dropped "pain as the 5th vital sign" - to massive controversy.
QuotePain was first recognized as the fifth vital sign in the 1990's, giving pain equal status with blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate and temperature as vital signs. The policy encourages healthcare providers to ask patients about their pain.
But critics say pain is not a vital sign, but more of a symptom, and cannot be measured like a patient's temperature or blood pressure. They also claim The Joint Commission, a non-profit that accredits hospitals and other U.S. healthcare organizations, sets pain management standards too high, which contributes to opioid overprescribing.
"Just as we now know (the) earth is not flat, we know that pain is not a vital sign. Let's remove that from the lexicon," James Milam, MD, an AMA delegate said in MedPage Today. "Whatever it's going to take to no longer include pain as a vital sign ... Let's just get rid of the whole concept and try to move on."
"I am astounded that physicians don't believe we should assess pain on a regular and ongoing basis. That is exactly what removing pain as a vital sign means," said Lynn Webster, MD, past president of the American Academy of Pain Medicine and vice president of scientific affairs at PRA Health Sciences.
Webster says dropping pain as a vital sign would setback pain care three decades.
"The problem is that too many physicians and policymakers equate assessing pain with giving opioids," he said in an email to Pain News Network. "It appears that advocates for removing pain as a 5th vital sign are suggesting that if we just ignore pain then we won't have to deal with pain and opioid abuse will disappear. That is not only fantastical thinking, it is harmful to millions of people in pain."
http://www.painnewsnetwork.org/stories/2016/6/16/ama-drops-pain-as-vital-sign
The issue: this is a problem without any good solution, until non-addictive methods of pain management become as good as addictive ones.
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2016, 08:59:24 AM
I think Marty is NOT saying "Poors should not be allowed to procreate!"
Yup. To quote one of my posts again:
QuoteNobody is calling for apalling "disappearance through abstinence". And nobody is also saying that people who are less well off than the average not to have children - often people who are poor can be some of the best and responsible parents.
Rather, the crux of the argument is simple - people should not have children (or more children) if they lack sufficient mental, financial and moral capacity to take care of them. Hopefully for most people such situation of deprivation is transitory. There are those, however, for whom it is permanent or semi permanent - such people should not be encouraged to have children.
Again, I will repeat - I am not calling for any legal or medical means of preventing this, but rather through encouraging responsible parenting. Isn't this what planned parenthood is all about?
I expressly said that I am not for imposition on any medical or legal bans and also said that it is not about poverty but rather general capability of taking care of a child. Thanks for sticking up for the truth - unfortunately, I am no longer interested in debating some posters here because they are quite shameless in their intellectual dishonesty.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2016, 01:27:46 PM
intellectual dishonesty.
Oh I haven't heard that one in awhile.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2016, 01:27:46 PMI expressly said that I am not for imposition on any medical or legal bans and also said that it is not about poverty but rather general capability of taking care of a child. Thanks for sticking up for the truth - unfortunately, I am no longer interested in debating some posters here because they are quite shameless in their intellectual dishonesty.
I apologize for misreading your post and assuming you were saying something monstrous when you were not.
Quote from: Jacob on November 03, 2016, 01:31:25 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2016, 01:27:46 PMI expressly said that I am not for imposition on any medical or legal bans and also said that it is not about poverty but rather general capability of taking care of a child. Thanks for sticking up for the truth - unfortunately, I am no longer interested in debating some posters here because they are quite shameless in their intellectual dishonesty.
I apologize for misreading your post and assuming you were saying something monstrous when you were not.
Apologies accepted. :hug:
So do you agree or disagree with Mart on the issue?
Quote from: The Brain on November 03, 2016, 01:58:59 PM
So do you agree or disagree with Mart on the issue?
We can probably find some nuance to argue about if we try, but I don't think it's worth the effort to be honest.
:(
Mart agrees with me. :(
Only I should be allowed to procreate.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 03, 2016, 05:44:10 PM
Only I should be allowed to procreate.
Likely unconstitutional.
OK, OK! Jesus.
Quote from: Jacob on November 03, 2016, 01:31:25 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2016, 01:27:46 PMI expressly said that I am not for imposition on any medical or legal bans and also said that it is not about poverty but rather general capability of taking care of a child. Thanks for sticking up for the truth - unfortunately, I am no longer interested in debating some posters here because they are quite shameless in their intellectual dishonesty.
I apologize for misreading your post and assuming you were saying something monstrous when you were not.
I'm not sure. He's not calling for government intervention but instead calling for some change in cultural beliefs that ends in same result of those in poverty not having children. So the means are not monstrous but not sure the end state differs significantly. How is this cultural change going to come about?
Quote from: garbon on November 03, 2016, 06:06:15 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 03, 2016, 01:31:25 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2016, 01:27:46 PMI expressly said that I am not for imposition on any medical or legal bans and also said that it is not about poverty but rather general capability of taking care of a child. Thanks for sticking up for the truth - unfortunately, I am no longer interested in debating some posters here because they are quite shameless in their intellectual dishonesty.
I apologize for misreading your post and assuming you were saying something monstrous when you were not.
I'm not sure. He's not calling for government intervention but I'd calling for some change in cultural beliefs that ends in same result of those in poverty not having children. So the means are not monstrous but not sure the end state differs significantly. How is this cultural change going to come about?
:yes: Facts don't matter.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 03, 2016, 05:44:10 PM
Only I should be allowed to procreate.
And you've already done that for the whole board.
Quote from: The Larch on November 03, 2016, 11:02:46 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2016, 08:51:17 AMThis is fucking crazy. Heroin? HEROIN? That was a drug that fucked up poor people and hard core addicts had problems with - not middle class kids fucking around in college with pot and booze.
I read somewhere that heroin is making a big comeback in the west amongst young people because the current younger generations have not seen the wreckage it created amongst the older junkies. Over here heroin was almost epidemic in the 80s, but most of those junkies have already died out a good while ago, so young people nowadays have not seen first hand the human zombies it created.
Meth went through a similar cycle.
Heroin never went anywhere; it's just that people didn't start noticing until it started hitting white kids in the suburbs.
We need to encourage people to have more kids. How to raise them well is another matter. Humanity's social and economic systems are not designed for a shrinking population. A lot of growth and progress comes with population increases. With a decreasing population, deflation will kick in, real estate prices will drop, pension schemes will implode, etc. Not having enough babies is worse than having unqualified parents raise kids.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 03, 2016, 07:54:29 PM
Heroin never went anywhere; it's just that people didn't start noticing until it started hitting white kids in the suburbs.
I knew when this thread started up you would show up and say precisely that.
Quote from: Berkut on November 03, 2016, 09:50:50 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 03, 2016, 07:54:29 PM
Heroin never went anywhere; it's just that people didn't start noticing until it started hitting white kids in the suburbs.
I knew when this thread started up you would show up and say precisely that.
That's awesome.
Which is weird because, based on my personal experience, white people in the suburbs tend to keep to themselves. One would think a more social population would be the ones attracting attention.