Should junkies be allowed to have children?

masculinist · 26-04-2020 8:13pm

corner of hells wrote: »

I'm not talking about children being born disabled, it's the posters comments about addicts straining the health system.

They strain every system they come into contact with. If resources are limited then I strongly oppose leaving your granny on a trolley for 2 days because junkies fell over ,sprained themselves and clog up A&E.
The pandemic taught us that when the chips are down , doctors choose who lives and who dies. We saw this in Italy. However for some reason its ok to put the responsible at risk to save the irresponsible.

end of the road · 26-04-2020 8:27pm

masculinist wrote: »

look what's happening at the moment in the name of public health.
Giving choices which involve an option of contraception/sterilisation is a viable option. Ignoring it as an option is pathetic cowardice. The unborn don't get any choice about not being born disabled to a junkie mother.

you must have missed the word enforced.

Cobalt17 · 26-04-2020 8:35pm

corner of hells wrote: »

Never in my wildest dreams would I call someone vermin regardless of their status in society.

What’s a more appropriate term for people who are a dangerous net-loss to society?

El_Duderino 09 · 26-04-2020 9:11pm

Cobalt17 wrote: »

What’s a more appropriate term for people who are a dangerous net-loss to society?

Depends on what we're talking about. A person who's addicted to drugs - a drug addict A person who had committed crimes a criminal. A person who's in prison - a prisoner. There are lots of ways to describe these people.

El_Duderino 09 · 26-04-2020 9:17pm

masculinist wrote: »

They strain every system they come into contact with. If resources are limited then I strongly oppose leaving your granny on a trolley for 2 days because junkies fell over ,sprained themselves and clog up A&E.
The pandemic taught us that when the chips are down , doctors choose who lives and who dies. We saw this in Italy. However for some reason its ok to put the responsible at risk to save the irresponsible.

If those systems are strained then those you're saying those systems are under resourced.

The first step is to resource those systems. Next step, invest in systems that treat addicts and reduce their number which in turn means we can save money on the other systems they come into contact with.

corner of hells · 26-04-2020 9:29pm

masculinist wrote: »

They strain every system they come into contact with. If resources are limited then I strongly oppose leaving your granny on a trolley for 2 days because junkies fell over ,sprained themselves and clog up A&E.
The pandemic taught us that when the chips are down , doctors choose who lives and who dies. We saw this in Italy. However for some reason its ok to put the responsible at risk to save the irresponsible.

They certainly dont clog A&E , homeless and and addiction services have there own medical services including psychiatric support.
To give you an example MQI has it's own doctors surgery and dental surgery.
Various other services have access to nurses and doctors on a daily.
A&E is a last resort for an addict.

Have a quick look st the Safety net services .

Jinglejangle69 · 26-04-2020 9:56pm

corner of hells wrote: »

They certainly dont clog A&E , homeless and and addiction services have there own medical services including psychiatric support.
To give you an example MQI has it's own doctors surgery and dental surgery.
Various other services have access to nurses and doctors on a daily.
A&E is a last resort for an addict.

Have a quick look st the Safety net services .

Yeah right.

So if some junkie in Swords overdoses in their house where do they go??

Merchants Quay?

At 3am in the morning?

Lie lie lie.

El_Duderino 09 · 26-04-2020 10:15pm

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Yeah right.

So if some junkie in Swords overdoses in their house where do they go??

Merchants Quay?

At 3am in the morning?

Lie lie lie.

An overdose does sound like "last resort" as the poster above said. They didn't say drug addicts never use A&E.

masculinist · 26-04-2020 10:22pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If those systems are strained then those you're saying those systems are under resourced.

The first step is to resource those systems. Next step, invest in systems that treat addicts and reduce their number which in turn means we can save money on the other systems they come into contact with.

I'm over taxed. I don't go to work 60 hours a week for charitable reasons.

Anytime I've been to A&E even during the last boom its been clogged with junkies and winos.
I don't believe its possible to be any better now.

Furthermore as a true Dub, the vast majority of ambulances and scenes Ive seen with ambulances around Grafton Street, Henry Street, O Connell Street, Thomas Street etc have been exactly this : Junkies and Winos . 20 Years of observation. The vast majority of time its been a junkie in a coma with a whinging partner making a scene on the street and Gardai have been there half the time too .

El_Duderino 09 · 26-04-2020 10:29pm

masculinist wrote: »

I'm over taxed.

Anytime I've been to A&E even during the last boom its been clogged with junkies and winos.
I don't believe its possible to be any better now.

Furthermore as a true Dub, the vast majority of ambulances and scenes Ive seen with ambulances around Grafton Street, Henry Street, O Connell Street, Thomas Street etc have been exactly this : Junkies and Winos . 20 Years of observation. The vast majority of time its been a junkie in a coma with a whinging partner making a scene on the street and Gardai have been there half the time too .

I take your word for it, but only because you're a true Dub.

Of course services could be better. What you're saying is you don't want to pay any more to improve the services. If you're happy with the situation as it is, that's fine. Just say so.

I'd say it would be a good investment to improve services for drug addicts to reduce the number of drug addicts.

corner of hells · 26-04-2020 10:33pm

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Yeah right.

So if some junkie in Swords overdoses in their house where do they go??

Merchants Quay?

At 3am in the morning?

Lie lie lie.

That's a nice skill you have there , being able to read a post and not have clue what's being said.

uch · 26-04-2020 11:37pm

Cobalt17 wrote: »

What’s a more appropriate term for people who are a dangerous net-loss to society?

uch

I done me time and cleaned up after years of abuse, net loss for years I can't remember, raised two lovely children who hate drugs, but for some reason, even though you've never met me you think I shouldn't have had these kids, grow up and look at the world, we don't all come from those rosy places you are preaching from

El_Duderino 09 · 27-04-2020 10:59am

uch wrote: »

uch

I done me time and cleaned up after years of abuse, net loss for years I can't remember, raised two lovely children who hate drugs, but for some reason, even though you've never met me you think I shouldn't have had these kids, grow up and look at the world, we don't all come from those rosy places you are preaching from

Fair play on sorting out your situation.

What are your thoughts on the option for active drug users to get medical procedures like the coil to prevent them getting pregnant for a few years?

masculinist · 27-04-2020 1:22pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I take your word for it, but only because you're a true Dub.

Of course services could be better. What you're saying is you don't want to pay any more to improve the services. If you're happy with the situation as it is, that's fine. Just say so.

I'd say it would be a good investment to improve services for drug addicts to reduce the number of drug addicts.

To what extent am I my brother's keeper ?

Back in the 80s there were a few genuine "tramps" who would sleep in doorways even when it snowed.
Now we have a lot of lifestyle choices supported by generous welfare and free food. I'm regularly approached by people chain-smoking waving a cup in my face.
I cant afford to smoke. Why should I pay for someone else's good time and all its consequences while I am being responsible ?

JeffreyEpspeen · 27-04-2020 1:27pm

It shouldn't even be a question.

27-04-2020 1:31pm

Wow!

Forced neutering and controlled sex of the population.

There is so much wrong with this, not least of which is the reality of actually enforcing it.

(Fyi, most of their children are in the care of the state. It's not great solution.)

JeffreyEpspeen · 27-04-2020 1:37pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Wow!

Forced neutering and controlled sex of the population.

There is so much wrong with this, not least of which is the reality of actually enforcing it.

(Fyi, most of their children are in the care of the state. It's not great solution.)

It's common in this country for young women to literally get pregnant in order to avoid a custodial sentence.

It's also common for people who don't work to have 7 or 8 or more children in order to game the welfare system.

And then you have young people having children knowing fully well they do not have a future together.

It's an awful cynical way for someone to be brought into the world.

El_Duderino 09 · 27-04-2020 1:46pm

masculinist wrote: »

To what extent am I my brother's keeper ?

Back in the 80s there were a few genuine "tramps" who would sleep in doorways even when it snowed.
Now we have a lot of lifestyle choices supported by generous welfare and free food. I'm regularly approached by people chain-smoking waving a cup in my face.
I cant afford to smoke. Why should I pay for someone else's good time and all its consequences while I am being responsible ?

You're your brother's keeper to the extent that we all live in a society together. Drug addiction is associated with all kinds of costs to society. Crime and breakdown in communities, legal system, justice system and punishment with prison alone coating am average of over €70k per year. So you're already your brothers keeper whether you know it or not.

That being so, I'd say it makes great sense to invest in services to help reduce the number of addicts and save spending the money we spend on them when they commit crimes - both financial costs and the impact of crime on individuals such as being mugged. That's without even getting into the benefit of helping the addict to get back to living a normal life.

El_Duderino 09 · 27-04-2020 1:49pm

JeffreyEpspeen wrote: »

It shouldn't even be a question.

Yeah I agree. It's a service that is available to anyone who can afford it already. Of course it should be offered to those who can't afford it. If some drug addicts can't afford to live their life without stealing then how can they care for a child?

Definitely makes sense to give them the option to control reproduction while living such a chaotic life.

El_Duderino 09 · 27-04-2020 1:51pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Wow!

Forced neutering and controlled sex of the population.

There is so much wrong with this, not least of which is the reality of actually enforcing it.

(Fyi, most of their children are in the care of the state. It's not great solution.)

Yeah I'd have no time for enforcing any of this. But as an option for the addict to vhoose, it's a great idea.

ldy4mxonucwsq6 · 27-04-2020 2:02pm

uch wrote: »

uch

I done me time and cleaned up after years of abuse, net loss for years I can't remember, raised two lovely children who hate drugs, but for some reason, even though you've never met me you think I shouldn't have had these kids, grow up and look at the world, we don't all come from those rosy places you are preaching from

Well done to you for digging yourself out of that hole and for raising your kids well.

I think you'll admit though that you are an exception, a rarity even.

I have worked with recovering addicts before and while there are a few that are the best parents they can be despite the addiction there are others that simply cannot function as parents and can't look after themselves never mind someone else.

That said if the supports are right (and yes sometimes in some cases children in care is the better option) then I don't think it's up to anyone else to decide who gets to reproduce.

Kylta · 27-04-2020 2:34pm

There is no such thing as a perfect society, all societys have their dregs, junkies/beggars/criminals etc, so most people see the vunerable and then decide to blame them on the problems of society. I was born and reared around drug addicts, I still have friends.(childhood/teens) that are recovering addicts. I do often think back and wonder how the fu©k they ended up that way in the first place (I suppose its the path they took) all of them ended up in prison, most unfortunately are dead. To be honest you can never trust an addict (once they rob their own I believe theirs no trust) they'd rob anybody. I can understand why people dont want them near them. I personally find them annoying at times( begging/A+E/ goofing/ jay walking etc )and also funny ( arguing). But none of these people when the took their first turn on or chase their first dragon, would've thought that there life in the future would be carnage. I personally have seen families destroyed by heroin fathers/mothers/sons/daughters burying love ones grannies and grandads rearing grandkids. I know when addiction issue's have no immediate effect on individual people they become removed from other peoples plights. I thought at one point if the goverment legalised heroin and distributed it throught doctors and chemists it might have got the addicts away from the criminal element and the hanging around the streets etc. But if you walk along the quays their selling their methadone. I don't know what the solution is to the drug addicts issue's. I work with a man who believes that the solution is to shoot them all. But this man is an alcoholic. So I asked him a question? If we shoot all the junkies today, what's to stop them shooting all the drunks tomorrow.

27-04-2020 2:56pm

JeffreyEpspeen wrote: »

It's common in this country for young women to literally get pregnant in order to avoid a custodial sentence.

It's also common for people who don't work to have 7 or 8 or more children in order to game the welfare system.

And then you have young people having children knowing fully well they do not have a future together.

It's an awful cynical way for someone to be brought into the world.

And your solution is forced castration and neutering?

I have no desire to form part of a system that once again forces evil upon young women thanks

27-04-2020 2:58pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah I'd have no time for enforcing any of this. But as an option for the addict to vhoose, it's a great idea.

Choose being the word.

corner of hells · 27-04-2020 3:15pm

JeffreyEpspeen wrote: »

It's common in this country for young women to literally get pregnant in order to avoid a custodial sentence.

It's also common for people who don't work to have 7 or 8 or more children in order to game the welfare system.

And then you have young people having children knowing fully well they do not have a future together.

It's an awful cynical way for someone to be brought into the world.

Pregnancy will not avoid a custodial sentence in Ireland, the sentence is in relation to the crime and previous history.
Women are having children in custody and keeping them up to 3 to 4 months.

El_Duderino 09 · 27-04-2020 4:09pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Choose being the word.

Absolutely. And my typo aside, it has to be about choice. But as an optional service for drug users, I think it's a great idea. It's win-win-win for the addict, the child and community. When they choose to get the coil removed and hopefully when they have sorted their life out, they could be in a much better position to have children.

It's just extending family planning services to people who's lives are likely too chaotic to reliably use the pill, condoms or raise children.

corner of hells · 27-04-2020 4:26pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Absolutely. And my typo aside, it has to be about choice. But as an optional service for drug users, I think it's a great idea. It's win-win-win for the addict, the child and community. When they choose to get the coil removed and hopefully when they have sorted their life out, they could be in a much better position to have children.

It's just extending family planning services to people who's lives are likely too chaotic to reliably use the pill, condoms or raise children.

I work in a low threshold environment and it would be a conversation we would have with women from time to time about contraception in a kind of wider harm reduction setting. The majority do listen and take on board what's being talked about obviously there are some who dont.
I think a couple of posters have mentioned children going into care , it does happen often shortly after birth.
The majority are voluntary.

27-04-2020 4:49pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Absolutely. And my typo aside, it has to be about choice. But as an optional service for drug users, I think it's a great idea. It's win-win-win for the addict, the child and community. When they choose to get the coil removed and hopefully when they have sorted their life out, they could be in a much better position to have children.

It's just extending family planning services to people who's lives are likely too chaotic to reliably use the pill, condoms or raise children.

Yes but in reality, the vast majority of users have medical cards and access to free birth control already. I'm unsure how we could increase the uptake levels without force coming into play.

El_Duderino 09 · 27-04-2020 5:13pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Yes but in reality, the vast majority of users have medical cards and access to free birth control already. I'm unsure how we could increase the uptake levels without force coming into play.

The same way we increase voluntary uptake in every other area of life: education about the benefits and all aspects of the procedures, outreach to the target groups, availability of the service and then repetition - basic advertising.

So for example, instead of waiting for the drug user to come to the doctor, the family planning service go to the users and reach them there.

Why do you think force is needed?

Rubberchikken · 27-04-2020 5:40pm

No. But there are lots of non junkies who shouldn't be allowed either.

Rubberchikken · 27-04-2020 5:42pm

And no also to improved services for junkies/addicts etc.
They choose their own road, I've no sympathy.

El_Duderino 09 · 27-04-2020 6:22pm

Rubberchikken wrote: »

And no also to improved services for junkies/addicts etc.
They choose their own road, I've no sympathy.

Sure. As long as you're happy to pay more for all the other costs associated with addicts then that's fine but those are the options. Additional services such as health and rehabilitation are probably massive money savers.

You don't have to want to "hug-a-thug" as another poster put it. It's much more about helping yourself by investing in services for addicts. Fewer addicts means fewer crimes committed by addicts and fewer addicts being incarcerated (average over €70k a year) without considering police, solicitors and court time. If you pay tax, you already pay for all this stuff

ldy4mxonucwsq6 · 27-04-2020 6:37pm

Rubberchikken wrote: »

And no also to improved services for junkies/addicts etc.
They choose their own road, I've no sympathy.

I don't know that anyone chooses to become an addict, it's more a series of smaller choices and circumstances. Anyone can go in that direction.

There's a huge epidemic of people addicted to prescription pain meds now, that's a downward spiral.

Some of the addicts I've known have had unbelievably traumatic backgrounds, you would find it hard not to have sympathy.

The supports and services are for the benefit to the wider community too, imagine what things would be like without them.

debok · 27-04-2020 6:54pm

There was junkie got a tribute show on rte last night. He had load of children too and the taxpayer was paying for them. Still paying a couple of them.

Cobalt17 · 27-04-2020 7:02pm

Diego Straight Month wrote: »

Il

There's a huge epidemic of people addicted to prescription pain meds now, that's a downward spiral.

Maybe in America, but certainly not here. You basically need to be dying to get prescribed OxyContin in Ireland.

corner of hells · 27-04-2020 7:04pm

Cobalt17 wrote: »

Maybe in America, but certainly not here. You basically need to be dying to get prescribed OxyContin in Ireland.

Theres an astonishing amount of tablets on the streets now , its unusual to have an addict just using heroin .
A lot would be classed as poly drug users addicted to benzodiazepines, lyrica , tramadol and so on.

ldy4mxonucwsq6 · 27-04-2020 7:59pm

Cobalt17 wrote: »

Maybe in America, but certainly not here. You basically need to be dying to get prescribed OxyContin in Ireland.

Plenty of people in Ireland addicted to pain medications and benzos solpadeine/codeine, Xanax etc.

Usually starts with actually needing the medication in the first place and slowly realising you REALLY need them or can't function without them or use them up too quickly before your prescription is due.

Then the lies to your gp/pharmacist start so you can get more, I lost my prescription/the pain is worse etc it's quite sad actually and can happen to anyone.

If anyone needs a bit of perspective I would recommend reading about Brian Pennie a chronic heroin addict for 15 years.

https://www.brianpennie.com/about/

27-04-2020 8:29pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The same way we increase voluntary uptake in every other area of life: education about the benefits and all aspects of the procedures, outreach to the target groups, availability of the service and then repetition - basic advertising.

So for example, instead of waiting for the drug user to come to the doctor, the family planning service go to the users and reach them there.

Why do you think force is needed?

Wow!

Did you just jump in and grab that post without reating the thread.?

Foweva Awone · 27-04-2020 8:32pm

Diego Straight Month wrote: »

If anyone needs a bit of perspective I would recommend reading about Brian Pennie a chronic heroin addict for 15 years.

https://www.brianpennie.com/about/

Thanks for that, my current addiction is addiction memoirs! :pac: Always on the lookout for recommendations!

El_Duderino 09 · 28-04-2020 10:03am

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Wow!

Did you just jump in and grab that post without reating the thread.?

No. I thought it was a pretty relevant post to be honest.

What do you mean?

28-04-2020 11:19am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

No. I thought it was a pretty relevant post to be honest.

What do you mean?

You asked me why I think we should use force.

If you read my posts you would see I am completely opposed to using force.

El_Duderino 09 · 28-04-2020 11:38am

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

You asked me why I think we should use force.

If you read my posts you would see I am completely opposed to using force.

Humm, no. You said this to me: "I'm unsure how we could increase the uptake levels without force coming into play". And I replied with the normal ways we increase voluntary uptake in health programmes (as with most programmes):
"The same way we increase voluntary uptake in every other area of life: education about the benefits and all aspects of the procedures, outreach to the target groups, availability of the service and then repetition - basic advertising.

So for example, instead of waiting for the drug user to come to the doctor, the family planning service go to the users and reach them there.

Why do you think force is needed?"

I'm really not sure why you're confused.

rodDaly69 · 13-05-2020 9:27pm

Was going to add more to this but whatever I say I'm an evil no gooder, so my solution is thus:

one chance to get clean, then the gas.

El_Duderino 09 · 13-05-2020 9:31pm

rodDaly69 wrote: »

Was going to add more to this but whatever I say I'm an evil no gooder, so my solution is thus:

one chance to get clean, then the gas.

LOL. Gas has such a bad reputation since the Nazis. Maybe you could try to rehabilitate the idea of gassing in the public conscious - if you'll pardon the pun.

branie2 · 13-05-2020 9:34pm

The kids should be taken into care or adopted then if the parents relapsed

rodDaly69 · 13-05-2020 9:35pm

branie2 wrote: »

The kids should be taken into care or adopted then if the parents relapsed

This country still seems to regularly prioritise the 'rights' of the parents over kids.

El_Duderino 09 · 14-05-2020 8:53am

rodDaly69 wrote: »

This country still seems to regularly prioritise the 'rights' of the parents over kids.

Well, yeah. That's how parenting works. Parents are in charge of children, children are not in charge of parents so obviously parents take precedent.

It's only when there's a serious breach of the child's human rights that the state steps in. That's about right. I can only imagine the uproar if the state could pre-emptively take children away from their parents.

weldoninhio · 14-05-2020 10:05am

elperello wrote: »

Removing children from their families was tried before in this state and ended badly for all involved.

Contribute something useful or close the thread.

So if sonething doesn't work once, we should never try it again?? Fcuk the children, leave them in their personal hell?

weldoninhio · 14-05-2020 10:14am

IAMAMORON wrote: »

This is not necessarily true. A lot of parents who suffer from heroin addiction are perfectly capable of raising a child when they are sober. Indeed even when they are using they would be able to raise children, especially if they are getting support in doing so.

I am not fully convinced that you are grasping the concept off heroin addiction and how it afflicts its' victims. As of 2019 stats there are about 19,000 persons admitting to have become exposed to heroin use in their lifetime. That is around 1 in every 260 citizens in the republic. Of these 19,000 potential users there are currently over half on methadone treatment, over 10,000, about 1 in 500 citizens. So officially we have around 10,000 serious heroin users who are attempting treatment. Hopefully for them they get some sort of success out of it and can manage to improve their options and help them to cope better as a result.

Your belief that users have families and that both parents are active users is a little cynical. Yes it does happen, but it is in no way prevalent. More often than not families will be affected by one user in the family. But your hypothetical dystopia of two strung out parents hopelessly trying to raise a child is extremely uncommon. It happens , but it is not really that prevalent.

Where social services become aware of a one parent family being mismanaged by a user they will intervene. This does and will happen, but we have a system in place around it. It can be extremely difficult for a one parent family if the active parent is also suffering from addiction issues.

To be honest I find your suggestion both extremely naïve and quite frankly abhorrent. The most vulnerable members of our society deserve the most attention, they need support. Your concept of removing citizens human rights based on some value system you have invented in your own mind is frankly disgusting. I get the distinct impression from your op that you are possibly more interested in persecuting sufferers of heroin addiction than protecting the future of their off-spring. Get a grip and get a life.

Monkey see, monkey do. Look at the stats of prisoners in Irish prisons. Most dragged up in dodgy areas. A junkie by definition cannot look after themselves, never mind a child. All they want is the next hit. We don't live in Utopia, everyone is not equal, we need to stop pretending that they are.

weldoninhio · 14-05-2020 10:16am

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The alternative is forced sterilisation. Now think through how setting up a system of forced sterilisation might work, and see where it takes you. Don't force me to do your thinking for you.

Offer €500 per sterilisation, you'll have a queue of junkies before you know it getting it done of their own free will. €500 is a drop in the ocean of what their kids would cost us. Childrens allowance, schooling, courts etc.

Should junkies be allowed to have children?

Comments