Three generations of families gripped by drug abuse

Milky Moo · 25-03-2011 04:39PM

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 · 25-03-2011 04:45PM

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

southsiderosie · 25-03-2011 04:50PM

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 · 25-03-2011 05:15PM

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 · 25-03-2011 05:24PM

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 · 25-03-2011 05:48PM

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 · 25-03-2011 06:03PM

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 · 25-03-2011 06:27PM

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 · 25-03-2011 06:38PM

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 · 25-03-2011 06:38PM

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 · 25-03-2011 06:40PM

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

Einhard · 25-03-2011 06:48PM

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 · 25-03-2011 06:52PM

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 · 25-03-2011 06:53PM

Einhard wrote: »

We prevent close family members from having kids too.

huh?

Einhard · 25-03-2011 06:55PM

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 · 25-03-2011 06:57PM

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 · 25-03-2011 06:58PM

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 · 25-03-2011 06:59PM

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 · 25-03-2011 06:59PM

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 · 25-03-2011 07:01PM

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.

iPlop · 25-03-2011 07:02PM

Einhard wrote: »

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

It would be a humanitarian act to protect the lives of children.Children of drug addict parents have no life.

UsernameInUse · 25-03-2011 07:08PM

Drugs are not the problem - probation is.

Nobody can stop a market, regardless of the commodity if there are willing buyers and willing sellers - that is basic economics. Forbidding something is not the issue, it only increases the problem.

I would be in favour of the legalisation of all drugs - we just need a better response to it.

Einhard · 25-03-2011 07:12PM

UsernameInUse wrote: »

Drugs are not the problem - probation is.

Nobody can stop a market, regardless of the commodity if there are willing buyers and willing sellers - that is basic economics. Forbidding something is not the issue, it only increases the problem.

I would be in favour of the legalisation of all drugs - we just need a better response to it.

Prohibition you mean?

Although probation is a problem too sometimes!

If a junkie is unfit to look after his/her kids, how will making the drugs legal change any of that?

barbiegirl · 25-03-2011 07:20PM

Einhard wrote: »

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?

I don't think we're forgetting but now they are aduts and as such must take responsibility for themselves in order to get clean. What i want is to stop the cycle now by giving the kids a chance at a normal life. Like I said let your heart bleed when they are ready to get clean in the interim protect the innocent before they lose that innocense.

Dudess · 25-03-2011 07:20PM

I find it really ironic the way there's so much concern for the children from those who view their parents as sub-human and not fit for living, when many (if not all) of those parents had exactly the same childhood and many of these children for whom there is so much concern here will end up as the same kind of adults who get pilloried (including to the point of their deaths being celebrated - by people who think they're decent and civilised...)

jonnny68 · 25-03-2011 07:21PM

Indeed children of junkies mothers and fathers should definitely be taken away from them into care until it is proved that they have kicked their habit and they should be monitored closely and have to go for regular urine and blood tests to ensure that they are not using Heroin or whatever it is they are using,if the tests come back positive they should only get one chance and their kids should go into care.

It sickens me to see these cretins walking around with their eyes pinned pushing their kids around, there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever thesedays for getting addicted to heroin, it was different in the 70's and 80's when people didn't really know what it was all about and started experimenting with heroin and before you know it they are hooked, nowadays everyone knows the dangers of heroin therefore there is no excuse.

southsiderosie · 25-03-2011 07:23PM

Offy wrote: »

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.

Forced sterilization is a sickening idea.

But I think the proposal to offer women with drug problems long-term birth control in exchange for cash is worth debating. Something like an IUD doesn't require daily maintenance, can be in place for 5+ years, and can be removed when and if a woman gets clean.

I do not think a woman in the throes of a serious addiction has the capacity to make a rational decisions to sign away her fertility for life, especially if there is cash involved. But she also does not have the capacity to raise a child. I think the birth control for cash option may be the least-worst option for dealing with addicts and kids in the short to medium term.

Dudess · 25-03-2011 07:25PM

Offy wrote: »

Can we have forced sterilization for discriminant twats also? I for one dont want to live in a cuntry full of hate filled people.

"Cuntry" - intentional or no? :pac:

Milky Moo · 25-03-2011 07:29PM

feelingstressed wrote: »

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.

I am so glad that someone has stood up and said this.

It is so easy to stand there and denounce efforts for the reduction of junkies having kids(oh human rights etc) but that is the ideal...do you really want an out of it individual to have a kid, a person who couldn't give a damn about a child to procreate.

I think ideally all of us wants a minimum of government intervention and good bit of funding to disadvantaged areas, but that is not the world we live in.

We live in a world were junkies unknowingly have unexpected sex, they have kids,the kids then have a horrible standard of living 'cause their mom and dad care more about the fix then they do about them...stand upon your lofty high horse and say that contraception among a careless and selfish class is not the right thing to do..then in a year or two look at the unloved and emotionally and physically damaged kids and say the same thing!

Offy · 25-03-2011 07:37PM

Dudess wrote: »

"Cuntry" - intentional or no? :pac:

An effort at a pun

I was trying to be a smartass!

Three generations of families gripped by drug abuse

Comments