cannabisnews.com: Editorial: Drug Legalization Not Child's Play 





Editorial: Drug Legalization Not Child's Play 
Posted by CN Staff on August 01, 2002 at 08:25:21 PT
Opinion
Source: Amarillo Globe-News 
One of the mantras of the drug legalization crowd is that individuals should have the right to use whatever substances they choose in the confines of their own homes, specifically the perceived non-threatening drug of marijuana.If only society had a guarantee that drug legalization would result only in individuals using illegal drugs in the sanctity of their own homes and without harming others.
But that is not reality.Oftentimes the side effects of drug use affect more than just the user.For this reason, any form of drug legalization could have tragic consequences for children - a distinct possibility that should supersede the questionable rights of people to use illegal drugs.Anne Friemel, executive director of the Panhandle Assessment Center, estimates that 85 percent of the kids in the PAC program have parents with substance abuse problems, and many of these parents refuse treatment.The PAC, which began in 1990, provides emergency shelter and long term foster-care for children who have been removed from the home.Jim Craig, a foster parent in the PAC and outpatient program director for the Amarillo Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, said that children are often overlooked when it comes to substance abuse."Any kind of addiction is a family disease," Craig said. "The parenting skills are not there when they are doing drugs. Children get abandoned, neglected, that sort of thing, and there can be physical and sexual abuse."While drug legalization may remove the criminal element, it does not address the suffering of children whose parents cannot or will not take responsibility. Drug legalization will only make drugs more available and exacerbate the problem.The debate of incarceration vs. treatment continues, but in the case of drug legalization, the argument has to be expanded from individual rights to personal responsibility and the welfare of children.Note: Substance abuse endangers many.Source: Amarillo Globe-News (TX)Published: Thursday, August 1, 2002Copyright: 2002 Amarillo Globe-NewsWebsite: http://www.amarillonet.com/Contact: letters amarillonet.comRelated Articles:Time for a Change? http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13597.shtmlJohn Stossel Takes on the Drug Warhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13579.shtmlJust Say No: Government’s War on Drugs Failshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13578.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #24 posted by FoM on August 02, 2002 at 08:43:35 PT
Way To Go Dan!
Make sure you send it into Map when it is published. If you don't know how to do it let me know and I will send it in for you. Just tell me the name you would want to be used as Newshawk.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by Dan B on August 02, 2002 at 08:34:01 PT:
Got Phone Call This Morning . . .
The LTE I have posted below will be printed in an upcoming edition of the Amarillo Globe-News. Thought I'd let you know.Dan Bhttp://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread13602.shtml#11
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by Zero_G on August 02, 2002 at 00:23:14 PT
p4me
Write On!Zero G
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by dddd on August 01, 2002 at 21:56:44 PT
...ghost opinion....author unknown..
...of course,,this article from the "opinion" page,,does not have an author......and that is typical for this type of rubbish story.....Why do you suppose no one takes credit for writing this crap?,,the writers of this piece dont seem to have any problem listing the names of other people,,but for some reason,whoever was responsible for writing this "opinion",didn't feel that it was necessary to include their own name(s).??????
 ................................p4me....."Maybe I am an extremist (an extremist to fascism) so if anyone can set me to a path of a more correct understanding,
      I can handle the truth."
 
...The truth,,in my opinion,,is that you are right on!...your understanding needs no correction!..your comments are excellent!..I dont think that your views are 'extremist',,I think you are saying things that need to be said, in a balanced,and eloquent way.......dont stop...............dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by freedom fighter on August 01, 2002 at 21:54:31 PT
All about the mantras! (LTE)
Dear Editor,One of the mantras of the drug prohibitionist crowd is that individuals should have NO right to use whatever substances they choose in the confines of their own homes, specifically the perceived threatening drug of marijuana.If only society had a guarantee that drug prohibition would result only in individuals using legal drugs in the sanctity of their homes and without harming others.But that is reality.Oftentimes the side effects of both, legal and illegal drug use affect more than just user.For this reason, any form of drug prohibition could have tragic consequences for children- a distinct possibility that should supersede the questionable rights of people to keep up with prohibition.This is the reality, the parent caught with a joint in their pocket in their home will loose children. Most likely, the parent will end up in a cage rather than the parent who drink red wine. The parent will be fired from their job. The parent will not have the "right" to live in your community.This is reality, drug prohibition will only make drugs more available and exacerbate the problem especially for children. People are being put to prisons for certain substances, especially this perceived threatening drug of marijuana, even if the personal responsibility and welfare of the children were proper.The argument has to be expanded from what is your and my individual rights to personal responsibility and the welfare of children. Is it my individual right to be a parent of your children? Is this your individual right to put me, a parent in a cage because of a certain perceived threatening drug of marijuana within the confine of my own home because I forgot to take my little Johnny to his soccer game?ff
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by trainwreck on August 01, 2002 at 16:12:49 PT
pee test article
Wow this was just posted elsewhere. I never thought testing could get this draconian.http://www.mapinc.org/newscc/v02/n1429/a08.html?397
pee testing the kids
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by xxdr_zombiexx on August 01, 2002 at 15:04:16 PT:
prohibition and poverty
drugs in combination other social problems can add to and increase the problems of poverty. Ending prohibition could help to reduce some of the problems, but the greater availibility of drugs would have a counter effect, maybe even outweighing the benefits for some parts of society . This is an argument that says "many people are not experimenting with or regualrly using drugs simply because the Law and the Man say "don't"". This leads to the assumption that when "drugs are legalized" those who are not doing them now will stop what theya re doing and start "using drugs". It's a warmed-over version of the old "domino theory" that used to be applied to anything. I think its a ridiculous, indefensible argument. Many people use drugs now and laws have nothing to do with it. People speed, cheat on their taxes, shoplift, even tell lies. Many people use alcohol. Cigarettes and alcohol kill 10 times as many people as "illicit drug overdoses", and alcohol fuels MOST of our violent crime (that is not directly fueled by the "war on drugs"). The point here is that the War on drugs affects the poor very disproportionatly. They are power-screwed by the "system". The compliants in this article attribute problems cased by prohibition to be caused by drugs themselves.Drugs are a complicated health and social issue - at best. All these punative and hateful laws just keep the poor under siege.Secondly, from the article:any form of drug legalization could have tragic consequences for children - a distinct possibility that should supersede the questionable rights of people to use illegal drugs.That is standard prohibitionist line. The implication, meaning that it is not concretely or plainly stated, is that people who make an argument for any change in the status quo, is tacitly threatening children with "harm". I meant what I said. He is working partly for the PAC program as a foster parent, which is fine and dandy, and other parts of his time are spent with a prohibitionist agency, which is swell. I am saying he is a part-time mouthpiece for an apparatus with a set agenda and key arguing points, and I am just a person who has seen all the same ugly stuff he doesn't like. Prohibition is built on lies and I can talk in detail about how it makes my job and their lives harder. He doesn't see it that way, I guess.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by p4me on August 01, 2002 at 14:56:28 PT
Final entry
The last thing that I will mention about Hollings debate? on the Senate floor is something we all know. He talked about how the multi-nationals have no allegiance to this country and are only concerned about profit for their shareholders.
I will end the day with two entries from Arianaonline.[ Previous Message ] [ Next Message ] [ Next Subject ] [ Back to list ] Ariana says:
"A key indicator of just how bad things have gotten for the little guy is the record number of Americans -- 1.5 million -- who filed for personal bankruptcy in the year ending March 31st. That's one out of every 69 U.S. households." Link: http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/files/ 072902.htmlAriana says at http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/files/072502.html
"So, I suspect, would many, many others. This defiant arrogance is still the order of the day in Washington. Witness the shameless attempt by House Republicans to turn the public outrage over corporations that avoid paying taxes by getting a PO Box in Bermuda into a massive windfall for corporate America. Cloaking themselves in the mantle of reformers, they have brazenly crafted a bill that temporarily closes the $6.3 billion Bermuda-loophole while creating two much larger -- and permanent -- loopholes that will net American multinationals a combined $60.8 billion. The new bill would also create incentives for companies to invest and create jobs overseas rather than here at home." 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by p4me on August 01, 2002 at 14:49:21 PT
new coffeshop in UK
http://212.129.240.114/upload/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3665 From Hempcity mb: There is a picture of the newpaper announcing the shop in the second entry of the thread. The first entry follows:New cafeWeed friendly cafe open from tomorrow in BlackburnDavid Wilson, supports medi-use and recreational useWest Indian cuisineThe Real Jerk
150 Bolton Road
Blackburn
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by p4me on August 01, 2002 at 14:30:38 PT
Dan B.
Thanks for the link. I added to my favorites. I realize that most people will not go there but I have a "relevant" comment to make. "Alcoa’s High-tech Sweatshop in Mexico" is the first link presented. Just two days ago Alcoa announced that it would shut down a plant in the County just east of Charlotte and put 377 people out of work.The manufacturing base of the country is being exported. Senator Hollings today held up several papers with one of them being the LA Times with a headline similar to "US exports high paying jobs." He also talked about how Jack Welsh, the retired bigshot of GE, called all of the suppliers and told them they better move to Mexico and get their cost down or they would no longer be suppliers.By the way, my BS degree is in accounting and that may explain why my BS has so many numbers. But this number is critical. 38% of all workers work for the government. We have an overloaded bureaucracy that is now reaching for retirement checks with more and more frequency. We have a declining manufacturing base with excess workers pushing working wages and taxes from those wages down. We have corporate tenacles sucking money from the treasury through all means possible with huge amounts in defense and HUD in particular. We have politicians that wouldn't recognize the term "We the people" if it were branded on the backside of their check endorsing hand. We have money moving offshore never to come back and last week Bill Moyer on his Now program said that figure was at least $800 billion in the Camen Islands alone. The ship is sinking fast.I think the Brazalian economy is the 9th largest in the world and it is in meltdown just like Argentina went through. It is like a scene from "It's a Wonderful Life" where they are in the building and loan and talking about Potter will give them 50 cents on the dollar for their shares. Huge sums of wealth have been lost in Brazil as people trade in their government debt for I believe 56% was the last figure I read. Some of that money help boost our stockmarket in the last week I feel sure.Someone has to finance the trade deficit and the national debt. What Hollings said was that Wall Street is acting the way it is because they know with all the deficits the federal government will be competing with its "elbows" for borrowed money pushing up rates. The only thing that has proped up the economy is government spending and low interest rates. The rich are wanting all the valves open so that the Republicans can control Congress and give them their most highly desired payback, no estate taxes forever.
The interest rates are low and construction is carrying the economy. When interest rates are forced up by the need for huge borrowing it will kill what is sustaining millions of people now.I do not regard this as off topic at all because we have to understand political reality and I would not even mention it there were such a thing as a free press because everyone would already know and I wouldn't want to bore people with common knowledge.Now what would happen if we killed the $5.9 billion drug testing business or the $40 billion federal and state WOSD. People used to fat paychecks would be competing for low paid jobs against millions of people that are probably more qualified because of past experience and they surely do not want that. I have said for about a year now that someone needs to write the article "It's the money, stupid." My comments often follow that theme. I think my new theme will differ because the money is going to dry up. My new theme will probably be more along the lines of "It is a matter of survival." And in a new age of survival marijuana will be legalised because all the crooks that now control everything will have their palaces in the Caymens and will not worry about the impoverished Americans that have learned the lessons of greed and corruption. We are like an addict that has not recognized our problem and will only be able to see our troubles when we hit bottom.The course of things seems to be set. It is a question of where is the bottom and how many friends will we have left when we try to get back up and recovering addicts are not known for their long lists of friends.Maybe I am an extremist (an extremist to fascism) so if anyone can set me to a path of a more correct understanding, I can handle the truth.1,2
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by Dan B on August 01, 2002 at 13:00:56 PT:
p4me
I know exactly what you mean. If you (or anyone else) want to see what is being done by American businesses oversees, check out the contents of the following web site:http://www.nlcnet.org/The conditions you described are not at all unusual for American businesses overseas. Wal-Mart, K-Mart, JC Penney, Nike, Liz Claiborne--the list is almost endless, and I could go on. The point, though, is that it makes sense to find out about these companies and boycott their products as much as possible. This actually is not far off topic. The companies that treat their employees worse than they treat barnyard animals are some of the same companies that favor prohibition. Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by p4me on August 01, 2002 at 11:22:43 PT
I could almost cry
I submit what will follow as being relevant because it shows the control the multi-nationals have over Congress and that Congress collectively could care less about the well-being of the citizenry.I have talked before about the target of the Republican spearhead was to get removal of the estate tax permanently or use their marketing term of death taxes if you like. Now the House voted for removing this tax permanently and the Senate followed with 56 votes for its permanent status. Thank goodness it needed a supermajority of 60 votes to pass. Now the reason I hold this up first is because of the canary theory to expose poison. There is no way the average American is going to have enough by working to meet the present threshhold of $750,000 or a million dollars and that threshold will be going up to almost $4 million over 10 years. And by the way you can give money to your children while you are alive if you think you might go over the threshhold. They could raise the numbers and lower rates but to do away with this source of revenue completely is totally and sincerely ludicrous. So the House passes and 56 Senators vote and the canary is dead. And the Republicans want control of the Senate so that they might still reach their primary goal of no estate taxes that mainly affect the richest 3000 families.I will try to be brief in regards to what I just saw on Cspan in regards to the Fast Track trade bill that has already passed the House and now is being debated? in the Senate. I think the House vote was 225 to 222 with the 225 being agents of the multi-nationals and the 222 trying to do what was right if you will allow me to use only black and white in coloring the situation.The best speech I ever saw was Nixon when he delivered a memorized speech maybe 10 years after being out of office where he said that communism had failed and would soon collapse. I think today I saw on Cspan a great performance that rivaled Nixon's speech bythe former Governor of South Carolina and presently a Democratic Senator for SC.Senator Hollings spoke before almost an empty Senate Chamber and he said it was empty because there is no real debate because "the fix is on," a term he used several times over about 15 minutes.The fast track authority that Dim Son wants would mean that any trade agreement reach in secret rooms in secret locations, to paraphrase Hollings, could only go to Congress for a yes/no vote. There could not be any amendments. He said that according to Article 1 Section 8of the Constitution that Congress was assigned the duty of regulating foreign trade.But basically he was Davy Crockett at the Alamo with his position subject to eminent fall and that is what made it so great. He gave the traitors that have sold out to the rich a good dose of truth. He called up on Busch rhetoric when he said "Infectious greed, no. Infectious fraud."He said accounting scandals didn't start with Enron, they started with Congress twenty years ago. He went into detail about Social Security being taken out of budget in 1990 by law of Congress. It was a subject he elaborated on for several minutes before he held up a budget that said the government would have a deficit of $165 billion. He said no. It is a lie. Then he went to a page where the trust fund surpuses were taken out and said we are talking about a $412 billion dollar deficit.He blamed the fraud for continuing on the press. He had earlier spent some time detailing imports by segments of the economy to support his claim that half of everything we buy comes from oversees. For example 36% of autos,62% motorcycles, 70% tvs, 50% petroleum. He used the phrase "We are going out of business" several times meaning we are losing our manufacturing base. One variation said "We are going out of business- selling fast food to each other." Near the end, he said the way to fix things was to import our press and our politicians and he was deathly serious.He spoke historically of the first Congressional legislation. When England wanted the colonies to export raw goods such as timber and coal and buy English goods because they were great manufacturers, it was Alexander Hamilton that called for America to become an industrial state. Now remember there were 13 presidents before Washington as the states had representatives for 1 year under the Articles of Confederation. So the first Constitutional congress first piece of legislation on July 9, 1789 was the seal. The second piece of legislation had to do with tariffs.He started out early calling on the President to "come back to work and cut out the fund raising." Toward the end he would talk of the need of "how to win the economy and save the country. They are more interested in the next election." Now you know my quotes could be a word or two off but I am not twisting words when I quote that we "have to rebuild the industrial base. We are in serious trouble."I would like to add that Senator Paul Wellstone from Minnesota went on to oppose Fast Track and spoke of how the fast track would seek out the lowest wages for goods despite child labor, working conditions, and any kind of environmental pollution. The phrase he built his speech on was "The workers are getting pounded." He would talk of a Chinese phrase used in their papers about people falling over dead from working 16+ hour days and did the human face thing of exampling a 19 year old girl that went to sleep after 16 hours of work on the factory floor, went to sleep, woke up spitting up blood, and died. My attempt at his closing words are "I feel sorry for working families. They are getting pounded and I think we should do a better job of protecting them."I will close by adding that Hollings used the word corrupt many times. And for myself, I would say that we are not going to hell in a handbasket. We are already there and I could almost cry.1,2 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by cltrldmg on August 01, 2002 at 11:17:53 PT
Prejudice works both ways
This guy has a point, whether he is a prohibitionist or not."Poverty creates stresses at the most basic level of life and those preclude focusing on climbing the corporate ladder as a measure of success in life.Non-poverty-stricken families, middle-class families, upper-middle class families and all the way to the cream of society - the Bush Family - have substance abuse problems. (I saw a gossip report recently describing Jenna Bush drinking like a fish in France...) But they aren't the focus of the Amarillo Council for Alcohol and Drug Abuse.They, as always, want to blame "drugs" for the problems of drug prohibition. The Drug war focuses mainly and harshly on the poor (except when the wealthy have desireable land) fanning flames of a fire it set."It's true that middle class drug abuse is not the same as drug abuse in poorer families. I also agree with you that poverty is the root of many of the problems mentioned, rather than drugs being inherently bad. But I think the author still has a point, that drugs in combination other social problems can add to and increase the problems of poverty. Ending prohibition could help to reduce some of the problems, but the greater availibility of drugs would have a counter effect, maybe even outweighing the benefits for some parts of society (even if in general legalisation has a positive effect).You're also right that it is wrong that different standards are used with regards to alcohol abuse, but that doesn't make the problems drugs can cause 'less bad', it only shows the defects of the law and the hypocrisy of the political class." This also appears to want to send the message that any "legalization or liberalization"" will simply harm children. Therefore, if you are for legalization, you are "baaaad". Baaaad legalizer...shame...shame. "To be fair the author didn't actually say that in this article, though his tone suggests that he thinks that way. But if you're saying that he's trying to discredit any argument against prohibition by using people's prejudices, you're no better. Prohibitionists aren't always wrong, just as not everything 'legalisers' say is always right." Who is a government agency (or private entity that exists to gain business contrats from them) to tell anybody anything about thier parenting?? "They're not. They're only pointing out one of the potential problems of legalisation. If you could get over the fact that he's for prohibition and that you're point of view has been criticised, it would be more constructive if you could instead look for a solution, to use in future arguments.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by Dan B on August 01, 2002 at 11:15:00 PT:
My LTE
I am writing in response to your editorial, “Drug Legalization Not Child’s Play.” For the state to remove a child from the home of an alcohol abuser, evidence of actual abuse must exist. The same should be true for those who use other drugs. It is not; the state can remove a child from the home of a parent who smokes the occasional joint simply if the parent refuses to get therapy, regardless of parenting skills. Child abuse and drug use are separate issues, as is evidenced by the very small percentage of drug users who do abuse their children (the number is comparable to those who do not use illegal drugs). You also misrepresent the drug policy reform movement by assuming that legalization means a free-for-all. Those who advocate legalization also advocate regulation. Drugs should not be sold to minors, people should not be allowed to drive while impaired by drugs including alcohol, and people should know what they are getting when they do buy these substances. All of these are impossible to regulate as long as these drugs remain illegal. As a result, people die; children end up parentless.Near the end of your editorial you write, “the argument has to be expanded from individual rights to personal responsibility and the welfare of children.” Yet, you advocate a system that ascribes individual actions to substances they take, that makes the government responsible for its citizens’ decisions with regard to some drugs, thereby negating your own argument for personal responsibility. Further, you have not convinced me that drug use by adults in itself harms children. If a parent abuses a child, go after the parent. But don’t go after parents simply because they choose to relax with a joint rather than a glass of wine.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by John Tyler on August 01, 2002 at 10:18:23 PT
Neglected Children
Years ago I was a social worker in a Housing Project ghetto. The place was full of poverty, dispare, and hopelessness. Kids were abused and neglected all of the time and drugs were not the cause. It was ignorance, poverty, and frustration. People were dealing with forces beyond their control. They got ground down an worn out. From an anti point of view though it is better to throw the parent in jail and put the kids in foster care until they are 18 or until they run away. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by kaptinemo on August 01, 2002 at 10:13:21 PT:
Another link
Police dogs hunt drugs on ferries
http://www.canada.com/national/story.asp?id={D5832AF9-A751-4833-832D-A1C28D96590C}
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by FoM on August 01, 2002 at 10:08:47 PT
herbdoc215, Let's See If This Works
This is one of the canadian papers I have to snip so posting the link makes it work ok I think.http://www.canada.com/search/site/story.asp?id=A1D242E0-9FCB-4FC8-B59F-F5BD70F8065B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by herbdoc215 on August 01, 2002 at 10:02:43 PT
The Pigs are busting people here with DOGS...
ON the ferry's now. This is just another example of the US exporting their hate and drug war up here. These communities are going to dry up and blow away on islands out here, US has done stolen all the other jobs there. Does US want this to be a third world country so they can make money off our resources? Read this tripe. Peace, Steven Tuck in exile
http://www.canada.com/vancouver/story.asp?id={D5832AF9-A751-4833-832D-A1C
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by Dan B on August 01, 2002 at 09:57:38 PT:
Correction
I used "exacerbated" improperly, as I was not paying attention to what I was saying closely enough. In fact, the problems are exacerbated by prohibition.And some of the problems have absolutely nothing to do with drug use or prohibition.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Dan B on August 01, 2002 at 09:50:47 PT:
Assumes a False Foundation
This argument assumes that prohibition corrects all the problems cited. In fact, prohibition causes many of those problems, and others are in no way exacerbated by prohibition. You want dealers selling these substances to kids? Then keep on keeping these substances illegal and completely unregulated. When selling products on the black market, nobody asks for ID.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by observer on August 01, 2002 at 09:25:24 PT
Hiding Behind ''The Children''
Please notice several things here.Notice the way that our demands that cannabis users not be jailed is turned into legalization of (all) drugs. This is called "changing the subject". It is helpful when you're on the losing end of an argument. If you can't defend the proposition at hand ("marijuana users should be jailed or forced-treated with threat of jail"), then slide on over to safer ground: "drug legalization" ... the "legalization": (whatever that means) of "drugs." Notice the way that "legalization" is punched and emphasized over and over. This prohibitionist knows well that "legalize," "legalization," etc. have been tainted to mean, roughly, 'giving crack to kiddies,' or are our R. Weiner put it, generating: "murders, domestic violence, and date rapes." That's what "legalization" means (to prohibitionists and the sheep); that is why they attack it. When you, as a reformer, defend "legalization", you are (by definition) put on the defensive. See how that works?Notice also: no mention of jails, prisons, etc. They are not defended by that shrew prohibitionist. Why? That would put her on the defensive, by definition. She doesn't so that. Instead, she attacks "legalization."This seems so simple, so fundamental; yet, many reformers cannot resist defending "legalization". For all the reasons why yet again we see another prohibitionist not mention jail or prison, reformers should attack the jailing of adult cannabis users. Rub prohibitionists' nose in the jailing of cannabis users. Don't fall into the trap of defending "legalization." Attack the jailing of potheads, instead.Oftentimes the side effects of drug use affect more than just the user.The same can be said of cars, sticks, and body parts and even words. Abuse is not an argument against use.If you say, "Would there were no wine" because of the drunkards, then you must say, going on by degrees, "Would there were no steel," because of the murderers, "Would there were no night," because of the thieves, "Would there were no light," because of the informers, and "Would there were no women," because of adultery. 
-- St. John Chrysostom, "Homilies," circa 388
The debate of incarceration vs. treatment continues, but in the case of drug legalization, the argument has to be expanded from individual rights to personal responsibility and the welfare of children.Prohibitionists, in their intemperate rage over the possibility of an adult enjoying a marijuana cigarette, constantly accuse us of "hiding behind patients" when gains are made for medical marijuana users. Of course, we know that prohibitionists never hide behind the children in their lust to scapegoat and jail adults.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by darwin on August 01, 2002 at 09:19:43 PT
idiot
Replace the word drugs/MJ with alcohol and reread this piece of crap. Would it be better for children to grow up with an alcoholic parent or a parent in jail and living in a foster home? With mj, the answer is more obvious as alcohol, not pot, lead to violence. Little Johnnie gets beat, yelled at, and neglected by an alcoholic father. Little Harry's father smokes too much pot and forgets to take Harry to soccer practice. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by xxdr_zombiexx on August 01, 2002 at 09:09:13 PT
Prohibition Exacerbates Poverty.
The PAC, which began in 1990, provides emergency shelter and long term foster-care for children who have been removed from the home.Jim Craig, a foster parent in the PAC and outpatient program director for the Amarillo Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, said that children are often overlooked when it comes to substance abuse."Any kind of addiction is a family disease," Craig said. "The parenting skills are not there when they are doing drugs. Children get abandoned, neglected, that sort of thing, and there can be physical and sexual abuse."I wonder.....what percentage of the familes/cases referred to PAC are poor?Poverty and "severe economic challenge secondary to disenfranchisement" (poverty) are unlisted here and often are overlooked in my field simply because it has been so pandemic. Poverty creates stresses at the most basic level of life and those preclude focusing on climbing the corporate ladder as a measure of success in life.Non-poverty-stricken families, middle-class families, upper-middle class families and all the way to the cream of society - the Bush Family - have substance abuse problems. (I saw a gossip report recently describing Jenna Bush drinking like a fish in France...) But they aren't the focus of the Amarillo Council for Alcohol and Drug Abuse.They, as always, want to blame "drugs" for the problems of drug prohibition. The Drug war focuses mainly and harshly on the poor (except when the wealthy have desireable land) fanning flames of a fire it set.This also appears to want to send the message that any "legalization or liberalization"" will simply harm children. Therefore, if you are for legalization, you are "baaaad". Baaaad legalizer...shame...shame.Who is a government agency (or private entity that exists to gain business contrats from them) to tell anybody anything about thier parenting??How good are they at keeping track of them kids there in Texas? I heard Bush made it pretty tough to do anything right in terms of child assistance for the poor, especially those that might qualify for Medicaid. Hope it's beter than Florida. And I hope it's better than here in ATlanta. DFACS and Child PRotective Services are soooo pathetic it HAS to be criminal negligence. Kids die right and left here - one is in the hospital right now brain-dead. Her mom sent to jail, she was left with a poverty-stricken family, some 9 people living in a small house without power. Somebody was bathing the child and left an 11 year old to supervise her and she was found floating in the bathtub.Neighbors are on TV complaining they did everything but set a fire at the DFACS building and nobody did anything. I have seen this way way way too much since I began working here. Its inexcusable. They have even been investigated for the death of another child that was found dead wearing a bloody and broken dog collar.I have interacted with a few of the people in the DFACS AGencies as well as their little private spin-offs: they were uniformly breathtakingly incompetent.The cloudbrains in Amrarillo need to shut their mouths and focus on helping children, drugs or no drugs.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by bongathon on August 01, 2002 at 08:36:29 PT
not
It is the character of the individual in question, don't try to blame that on the drug. When children are neglected and abused , it isn't the drug that is doing it. It is a person whose character was mis-shapen by their upbringing, it has nothing to do with a drug they might be taking now.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment