Three generations of families gripped by drug abuse

JaneEyre_A

Saw this today; and the i agree with the proposal to remove children from their parents care until they prove they can look after the children.

THE CYCLE OF drug abuse has gripped some Irish communities so viciously that three generations of families have now been affected by it.
Dermot King, director of the Ballymun Youth Action Project (BYAP), said that drug and alcohol problems have been passed down through each successive generation. The BYAP is the country’s longest-running community drugs project and marked the 30th anniversary of its foundation with a conference yesterday.
King said their work is more important than ever as the impact of drug misuse becomes compounded with each new set of young people caught up in it. He said:

We have witnessed an intergenerational pattern of drug misuse within some families in Ballymun, and similar patterns are being reported in other communities. In some cases, we are now treating the grandchildren of people who attended our service when it was first established 30 years ago.

Outside the impact on the families themselves, King noted that a community where drugs are a prominent issue experienced increased criminal activity, unemployment, poverty, ill-health and the “physical degeneration of neighbourhoods” as a whole.
King appealed for Government support of community drug projects. Pat Carey, then Minister for Community Affairs, told the Seanad last November that there were 464 people on waiting lists for opiate substitution treatment at that time. He confirmed that funding had been cut to some regional drugs task forces in 2009 and 2010 because of “the pressures on the public finances”.
The Irish Times reports today that social campaigner Fr Peter McVerry, who lives in Ballymun, said crack cocaine was now a problem in the area. He suggested that in the worst cases, children of drug-abusers should be removed from parents until they can properly take care of them.
“I’m just putting it out for debate”, he said, “I just see the children, young children, of ative drug-using parents and I just feel so sad for those kids.”

http://www.thejournal.ie/three-generations-of-families-gripped-by-drug-abuse-2011-03/

themadchef

I cant imagine how black the hole must be when youre a user. Intervention with the kids should be there (where both parents, and the childs life are in danger) The parents should also be supported in not only getting rid of the junk but in the rehab through the following years, job support, family support etc. ..and importantly community support.

Where are the social workers, where is the government? Who is going to protect the kids. This shouldint be something that's being proposed by a priest, it should be on going. Our system is so fúcked up though there are no facilities for the kids and even less for the poor egits addicted to the drugs in an endless cycle of poverty.

SEPT 23 1989

The children should be taken off them at birth and given to good parents who are unable to have children

old hippy

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

The children should be taken off them at birth and given to good parents who are unable to have children

How about more money, facilities, amenities and education pumped into the area, rather than that?

bonzodog2

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

The children should be taken off them at birth and given to good parents who are unable to have children

How will these good parents with no children be selected ?

SEPT 23 1989

bonzodog2 wrote: »

How will these good parents with no children be selected ?

An egg and spoon race

orourkeda

facking junkies

orourkeda

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

The children should be taken off them at birth and given to good parents who are unable to have children

How are the sex lives of junkies to be controlled in such a way as to render them sterile?

SEPT 23 1989

orourkeda wrote: »

How are the sex lives of junkies to be controlled in such a way as to render them sterile?

Chemicals added to the potions they consume would put an end to their sexing

Offy

orourkeda wrote: »

How are the sex lives of junkies to be controlled in such a way as to render them sterile?

Cut off their dangly bits!!! Brand them. Tattoo a serial number on their forehead and then send them off to live in a concentration camp!

SEPT 23 1989

Offy wrote: »

Cut off their dangly bits!!! Brand them. Tattoo a serial number on their forehead and then send them off to live in a concentration camp!

But why go for such a soft option?

Degsy

The reason junkies beget other junkies is because the only thing in thier lives that matters to them is getting stoned.

They push kids around in buggies as they meet their dealers,sell drugs from prams,leave drugs lying around in front of kids while they goof off and send thier kids out stealing to get money for drugs.

They dont give a shiit about thier kids,thier parents,thier siblings or thier fairy Godmothers..the only thing on earth a junkie values is thier next fix..not the one they're taking now..the next one.

The fact that this lifestyle choice is paid for by the taxpayer is doubly galling.

old hippy

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy

Overheal

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

The children should be taken off them at birth and given to good parents who are unable to have children

Yeah ask some psychologists how that will go.

enda1

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

An egg and spoon race

Nice idea but they've no eggs or else they'd have children :rolleyes::p

iPlop

Most drug addicts never become 100% clean.To see that 3 generations have been affected by drug abuse raises the question...Should Junkies be sterilized?

genericguy

seriously, with the seizures of hundreds of kilos of heroin every year, surely we could poison it and send it out - the whole dirty, useless shower of pricks would be gone in a very short time. There's no fcking excuse for trying Heroin now, so anyone who gets hooked deserves to die. If my dog was that sick I'd put him down.

genericguy

The Incredible Fridge wrote: »

Should Junkies be sterilized?

No, junkies should be neutralized.

sbsquarepants

I think it's one of the saddest things you can see, a child being dragged up by junkie parents, it's heart breaking in fact.
My missus was in the supermarket the other day (ash wednesday to be exact) when an obviously out of it junkie, with a girl about 8 or 9 stopped her and asked "when is pancake tuesday?", she told her it was yesterday and the kid burst out crying saying "see, i told you it was ma".
I was actually close to tears when she told me, i fúcking hate junkies! What a shítty life to inflict on your child.

Pauleta

I really despair when i see young children with heroin addicts. Its odds on the that child will end up also being a burden to society. I dont understand why the state are not intervening more. The public want the state to intervene more often. We live in a democracy, why is the will of the people being ignored? A friend of mine had a heroin addict for a mother and a non existent father. Her life was going downhill right into her teens, until i think she just fell in with the right crowd, which is usually the opposite. She was placed in the care of her grandmother, along with a couple of her siblings. Other siblings were fostered (there were a lot of kids). It has been a success despite the hardship of a split family and must be done more often.

stovelid

Are we advocating this for wealthy celebrity junkies as well?

ScumLord

stovelid wrote: »

Are we advocating this for wealthy celebrity junkies as well?

No, by junkie they mean poor people that are totally safe for abuse and scorn. We're in the social class above them so they don't count as people to us.

old hippy

Pauleta wrote: »

The public want the state to intervene more often. We live in a democracy, why is the will of the people being ignored?

Sorry to cherry pick but is it democracy when the state intervenes?

Pauleta

old hippy wrote: »

Sorry to cherry pick but is it democracy when the state intervenes?

I feel that the majority of the public want these kids to be housed by either the state or by foster parents. I could be grossly misjudging public opinion but it seems like the most common opinion.

southsiderosie

stovelid wrote: »

Are we advocating this for wealthy celebrity junkies as well?

ScumLord wrote: »

No, by junkie they mean poor people that are totally safe for abuse and scorn. We're in the social class above them so they don't count as people to us.

The kids of wealthy people with drug problems have probably seen some messed-up stuff. But they aren't condemned to living in horrible neighborhoods; they aren't being dragged across the city in prams to score drugs at all hours of the day and night, and their parents will not have to rob and steal to feed their habit and they can afford their own rehab should they choose to get their life together.

It would be nice to see a thread on drug use that didn't descent into 'junkies are scum' ranting, but let's also be serious about the class element here: the people in question cannot take care of their children, but don't have the connections or resources to somewhat insulate their kids from the fallout of their addiction. There is a big difference between the kids of a heroin addict in Ballymun and the kids of a heroin addict in Beverly Hills.

Milky Moo

It breaks my heart to see tinytots in buggies dragged around town with their parents out of it.

I am a pretty liberal person and would be a great advocate for family but their situation isn't a family in any sense of the word! The kids should be taken away from them.

Don't heroin addicts get a special kind of dole like sickness benefit if they are on methadone? I may be mistaken, but if this the case the pill should be mandatory!

As for pumping more money into deprived areas I would be cautious. Of course these areas need help, but with so many hard working people who obey the law and arn't a drain on the society struggling these days how is it justified to increase spending in an area which seems to be a money pit? I guess the squeaky wheel gets the grease!

iPlop

Milky Moo wrote: »

It breaks my heart to see tinytots in buggies dragged around town with their parents out of it.

I am a pretty liberal person and would be a great advocate for family but their situation isn't a family in any sense of the word! The kids should be taken away from them.
Don't heroin addicts get a special kind of dole like sickness benefit if they are on methadone? I may be mistaken, but if this the case the pill should be mandatory!

As for pumping more money into deprived areas I would be cautious. Of course these areas need help, but with so many hard working people who obey the law and arn't a drain on the society struggling these days how is it justified to increase spending in an area which seems to be a money pit? I guess the squeaky wheel gets the grease!

You're not mistaken, they're on disability benefit and there's a free bus pass too.Forced sterilization should be part of the deal as well.

old hippy

Milky Moo wrote: »

It breaks my heart to see tinytots in buggies dragged around town with their parents out of it.


As for pumping more money into deprived areas I would be cautious. Of course these areas need help, but with so many hard working people who obey the law and arn't a drain on the society struggling these days how is it justified to increase spending in an area which seems to be a money pit? I guess the squeaky wheel gets the grease!

It's a vicious circle. If you exist in the margins, have no prospects and are constantly under fire from "hard working people", is it any surprise you begin to despair and become part of the circle of poverty and drug abuse.

I don't advocate the lifestyle but I understand it.

I think it's one of the saddest things you can see, a child being dragged up by junkie parents, it's heart breaking in fact.
My missus was in the supermarket the other day (ash wednesday to be exact) when an obviously out of it junkie, with a girl about 8 or 9 stopped her and asked "when is pancake tuesday?", she told her it was yesterday and the kid burst out crying saying "see, i told you it was ma".
I was actually close to tears when she told me, i fúcking hate junkies! What a shítty life to inflict on your child. .

Not having pancakes on the designated day, a crime beyond crimes. Sickening. The poor child.

Offy

The Incredible Fridge wrote: »

You're not mistaken, they're on disability benefit and there's a free bus pass too.Forced sterilization should be part of the deal as well.

Can we have forced sterilization for discriminant twats also? I for one dont want to live in a cuntry full of hate filled people. You know the type that thinks their sh1t dont smell.

sbsquarepants

The Incredible Fridge wrote: »

You're not mistaken, they're on disability benefit and there's a free bus pass too.Forced sterilization should be part of the deal as well.

Bit harsh don't you think?
I mean where do you draw the line? Is it just heroin junkies, or should alcoholics (for example) be sterilised too, i know a couple of alcoholics and to be perfectly honest they are no better than the average junkie, it's just a change of addiction - the kids couldn't care less, they just wish their parents were nicer people.
It's all well and good to come out with sterilise them, hang them, boil them in oil and all that shíte, but it's not very realistic!

Milky Moo

old hippy wrote: »

It's a vicious circle. If you exist in the margins, have no prospects and are constantly under fire from "hard working people", is it any surprise you begin to despair and become part of the circle of poverty and drug abuse.

I don't advocate the lifestyle but I understand it.

I am from a working class background, I spent 3 years getting a degree, a year in a masters programme, 6 months in a prestigious internship and now have another another unpaid internship in a charity.

I feel for these people, however I am actively trying to work and improve my life to no avail. I would be lying if I said it would not anger me to see more money be pumped into areas where the people see living as a junkie as a legitimate lifestyle choice. Of course I don't want these people to live such a wretched lives but why should scarce government funds be pumped into their areas instead of using funds for job creation for those that want it?

It is a hard thing to do but choices have to be made where the funding goes and personally I believe it should go to the former.

chicken fingers

Cue vigilante becoming heroin distributor and mixing in sterilization chemicals to the "gear".

southsiderosie

bluewolf wrote: »

Not having pancakes on the designated day, a crime beyond crimes. Sickening. The poor child.

Aw, c'mon, that's not fair. Holidays are important for kids. A nine-year old is old enough to understand that her mom has a problem, and this means her family isn't like other families.

Growing up, one of my brother's friends was in a similar situation - his home life was so haphazard. A lot of people with past or present drug problems also have mental health issues, and these impact their kids as well, especially if they are depressed and have manic episodes. All of the moms in my brother's circle of friends saw this, and tried to include the boy in family activities, and by high school he had moved in with my brother's best friend's family.

stovelid

Milky Moo wrote: »

I am from a working class background, I spent 3 years getting a degree, a year in a masters programme, 6 months in a prestigious internship and now have another another unpaid internship in a charity.

I feel for these people, however I am actively trying to work and improve my life to no avail. I would be lying if I said it would not anger me to see more money be pumped into areas where the people see living as a junkie as a legitimate lifestyle choice. Of course I don't want these people to live such a wretched lives but why should scarce government funds be pumped into their areas instead of using funds for job creation for those that want it?

It is a hard thing to do but choices have to be made where the funding goes and personally I believe it should go to the former.

You do have a point.

Hopefully if you get a plum job soon so we can get back to trying to help the thousands and thousands of people from the same background as you (and me btw) that have slipped through the cracks.

prinz

old hippy wrote: »

How about more money, facilities, amenities and education pumped into the area, rather than that?

I understand where you are coming from, re the post that the above was a response to, but you are way off the mark.

More money, facilities, amenities and education projects are pumped into the area than most parts of the country. Where does it end? When will we as a society see a return on that investment? It's such a clichéd stock-answer-of-choice these days that it has lost all relevance.

barbiegirl

Do parents have rights, yep, but should those rights over shadow the right of the child to be raised in a safe, happy environment, with a decent roof over their heads, good food in their mouths, education, playtime and all the other things I took for granted growing up.
All the bleeding hearts for addicts is well and good, WHEN they are ready to make the changes needed. NOT BEFORE.
I say if the parent cannot provide properly for the child, yes they should lose them, they should then be given the chance to get clean, if they take it they can have kids back, on a monitored basis, if they can't then the kids go to long term foster care.
The kids come first ALWAYS

mcmoustache

bluewolf wrote: »

Not having pancakes on the designated day, a crime beyond crimes. Sickening. The poor child.

It's more than that. The poor child probably heard about it in school and was looking forward to it for ages. Things like that can mean a lot to kids. I'm sure that kid has a shítty life and an evening of licking the mixer and making pancakes would have meant the world to her. Not quite Christmas but along the same lines. For a kid to miss out on that when they know that all the other kids got to do it can be heartbreaking.

When I see things like the situation above I can't help but feel sad...

...and then angry.


Regarding the OP, I think I'll go with Degsy's solutions. They're a bit more moderate than mine but I like them nontheless.

old hippy

barbiegirl wrote: »

Do parents have rights, yep, but should those rights over shadow the right of the child to be raised in a safe, happy environment, with a decent roof over their heads, good food in their mouths, education, playtime and all the other things I took for granted growing up.

You had a lucky, loving childhood that worked out. Good for you. Not everyone has that privilege.

barbiegirl

old hippy wrote: »

You had a lucky, loving childhood that worked out. Good for you. Not everyone has that privilege.

No I agree not everyone does, but doesn't every child deserve to?? That is what I am saying, that children deserve a happy childhood, and if the parents are addicts they cannot give it, so they should lose the children, to give the children a better chance to get the happiness that I had.
By the way I am working class, remember my dad on the dole in the 80's the lack of money, rows over what bill got paid when, BUT I was loved, well fed, clothed and educated. Drink, drugs, cigarettes never came first, we did.
I'm not advocating sterilisation, just that until they recover they are not fit to mind a child. The child deserves better.

Feeona

prinz wrote: »

I understand where you are coming from, re the post that the above was a response to, but you are way off the mark.

More money, facilities, amenities and education projects are pumped into the area than most parts of the country. Where does it end? When will we as a society see a return on that investment? It's such a clichéd stock-answer-of-choice these days that it has lost all relevance.

I agree. It's very easy to say 'put money into....' but you need people with the experience, the foresight and the courage to implement the plans that arise from getting such money. Unfortunately things like elections get in the way, which forces politicians to put a band aid on the problem in order to get votes. Very few people in reality will stick their neck out and say 'We won't see results in two years, but wait til you see what happens in ten!', and very few people would vote for that.

The other thing is that the HSE comes under fire on a regular basis for letting someone slip through the cracks. I remember a case a few years back where the uncle of a fourteen year old girl (who had died while in the care of the HSE) was speaking to Gerry Ryan on the radio. He was complaining about how little the HSE had done for his niece. Gerry simply asked him 'How come you didn't look after her then?'. This stumped the uncle a bit before he replied 'We couldn't handle her' :rolleyes:

There seems to be a huge shift towards having a nanny state. ie it's up to the state to make sure everyone lives life right. On paper it sounds good, but the reality is far, far different. It's impossible to have a 'one size fits all' policy (which is what bureaucracy is when you come down to it) because there are endless numbers of personalities involved, all with their own peculiar problems and worries. And no doubt people will slip through the cracks-it's inevitable. Added to that, you would want to be damn sure that you're doing right by taking a child away from his/her parents.

Wolfe Tone

Lovely bunch of fascists who want the state to prevent people having kids.

Einhard

It's funny how people heap scorn and vitriol upon drug users, whilst being so compassionate about the children of such people. They seem to forget that, in many instances, the drug users they so hate were once those very children. How can people not be aware of this disconnect in their thinking?

Einhard

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Lovely bunch of fascists who want the state to prevent people having kids.

We prevent close family members from having kids too.

Wolfe Tone

Einhard wrote: »

We prevent close family members from having kids too.

huh?

Einhard

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

huh?

That the state would prevent certain people from having kids with one another is not necessarily fascist. The state alread strives to prevent incestuous relationships, because of the potential consequences for any children.

iPlop

Einhard wrote: »

That the state would prevent certain people from having kids with one another is not necessarily fascist. The state alread strives to prevent incestuous relationships, because of the potential consequences for any children.

Which is a good thing tbh.

Helix

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Lovely bunch of fascists who want the state to prevent people having kids.

youre not allowed to have a dog if you cant look after it, why should you be allowed to have a kid?

Wolfe Tone

Einhard wrote: »

That the state would prevent certain people from having kids with one another is not necessarily fascist. The state alread strives to prevent incestuous relationships, because of the potential consequences for any children.

No I meant physically remove peoples capability to have kids.

Einhard

The Incredible Fridge wrote: »

Which is a good thing tbh.

Not stating it isn't. Just responding to the notion that state intervention in the realm of reproductive rights is necessarily a "fascist" act.

mikemac

old hippy wrote: »

How about more money, facilities, amenities and education pumped into the area, rather than that?

Often the areas designated as disadvantaged have more facilities then supposedly better off areas

I don't know Ballymun but I know Ballyfermot.
A large park with GAA pitches, soccer pitches, a playground, basketball court and a pitch n'putt club.
Edit, I forget a massive leisure centre and swimming pool run by the council

For the older people there is a huge FÁS training centre and the local schools run nightcourses
An organization called Obair help the unemployed and give them confidence and skills like working with computers.
There was a large library
And I can keep going.....

Doesn't stop the little runts of kids hanging around shops hassling people and even firing beer bottles at you. Been done to me :mad:
And parents not giving at fook they are out at all hours.
I can see the path these kids are going to end up on and the sob stories they'll say in the District Court

You'll find so called better areas in Dublin or even throughout Ireland with none of these facilities and people turn out fine
Pumping in even more money will solve very little

People have to want to help themselves.