Wednesday, January 2, 2019

Drug Legalization? I'm On the Fence

In part because, as a public school teacher, I know what legalization will bring. The dealers will lose legal-age customers. Oh, Noes! What's an enterprising Scumbag to do?

Move down in age, and target the younger ones - who will NOT be able to partake harmlessly without penalty. You're not cleaning up the problem, you're just moving it to a new demographic.

Raconteur Report agrees - click here to read the perspective of a nurse on this 'victimless crime'.

He may go a little far with the punishments. But, they have to be made severe enough that the prospect of being caught is a deterrent.

No, it's not victimless. The poor kids that grow up in a house with an addict are some of the most wretched victims. Society hasn't the guts to pull them out of there, except for a few. By the time the social workers stop falling for the tearful "I'm going to change my ways, don't take my kids!" line, the kids have been damaged by their parents' crap, and are less likely to be adoptable.

What I think?

Pull them out the first time for 6 months. Return is based on both a clean urine/blood sample AND a job. Not school - a job.

The second time, put them up for adoption. All parental rights severed for good. Do NOT let the grandparents take them - in many cases, they're the ones whose failed parenting contributed to their kid's screwups. With that threat, grandparents will work harder to keep that kid straight.

This all started when Elite, monied, connected parents found their kids were drug users. They could not bring themselves to cut them off from support if they continued using, nor to allow them to face the legal consequences of their acts.

So, they started this 'victimless' idea. They argued for leniency in the courts, publicly-paid-for rehab centers (more like hospitals, really, with amenities and soft-spoken people to tell the addict that it wasn't his fault), and misdemeanor status for first offenses (and further offenses), or 'only a user, not a dealer' offenders.

It largely worked - for them. They kept their kid out of the system, managed to use their money to deal with the health, legal, and addiction problems, and often managed to get little Courtney or Kurt back on track eventually.

For the less wealthy, less connected, it was a disaster. For them, for their families, for their neighborhood. They used in public, had to deal to afford their own drugs, and screwed up their own, formerly stable, but poor, neighborhoods. Multiple generations were screwed up, intellectually, academically, culturally, morally, and religiously. Those are the kids that are scoring at the bottom of the scale, often turning to drugs themselves, and often sexually exploited by the lowlifes coming and going from their homes, or others in their neighborhood who took advantage of their parentless situation.

Today's addicts? More of them are now driven by doctor-facilitated pain meds, then refusal to prescribe more, because "you'll get addicted'.

Get addicted? They ARE addicted. And, it's the medical establishment, AND the drug companies that profited from their addictions, that has a responsibility - morally and legally - to clean up the mess they made.


One year of serious addiction treatment for any addict that wants it, including clearing up their legal messes, as much as can be done.

After that carrot, the stick. jail time - 2-5 years, NOT to be forgone because of expensive lawyers or another round of treatment. Yes, they will have a record. After 5 years of clean living on the outside, they can apply to have it wiped out, and restore their voting rights, ability to work around kids, etc.

That 'clean living' thing? Includes alcohol use, ANY further rehab visits, and any violent crime.

Second time, they're incarcerated for a decade or more.

Third time, life.

It's tough love, guys. It's the only thing that's worked. Consequences, no acceptance of their B$, and a willingness to have them face the mess they've made of their lives, and the people they've hurt.


Brian E. said...

I understand where you are coming from, but disallowing grandparents the ability to raise their own grandkids - as opposed to dumping the kid(s) into foster care is often dumping them out of the frying pan and into the fire.

I know from whence I speak here - i’m raising two of my grandkids - and it was either us, or a system that (around here at least) is nearly as disfuntional and as likely to turn out severely damaged kids as leaving them to “raise themselves”. We had temporary custody of the older one of them earlier, before their mom & dad married and they fought to get him back. After they snookered the system into getting him back, they had a second child - before eventually falling back into their addictions. Yes - both parents were opioid / heroin addicts. If it wasn’t for heroin being found in the baby’s blood (from mom’s using), and the parents habitual failing to comply with requirements for drug testing and family preservation counseling - they’d still be in their parent’s care. Well - one of them, at least. The father OD’ed shortly after the kids were removed into our care. Their mom went through a period of homelessness but has cleaned herself up, but it’s too late from the court’s view. She lost custody and only has limited visitation rights.

I only say this to point out that not allowing grandparents to take the kids can be unfairly barring the children from a loving, healthy, and stable environment - when finding such via foster care and/or adoption is often so difficult.

I believe that considering extended family as a resource allows a potentially less disruptive placement for the kids, while sparing the social services folks the problem of finding a suitable home for them.

I know - YMMV, and I appreciate your passion in being sure the children are placed in a better (if not perfect) situation. Just try not paint with such a broad brush such as to make the perfect the enemy of the good.

Linda Fox said...

Yes, grandparents can be a stable resource. IF they are stable, and healthy enough to provide for those children, OK. But, too many are themselves psychic wrecks, financial morons, and even addicts themselves.

I prefer orphanages myself, with strong management, as opposed to the foster care system. Too many in the system are in it for the money, and are not providing oversight to the kids. Some of the abuse is perpetrated by the older kids on the younger ones.

There is no perfect system. But, allowing the kids to be adopted while they are still young enough to be resilient is better than the current system.

cmblake6 said...

Weed is not a drug, per se. It is an herb which has a multitude of benefits.