• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

‘Crack Babies’: The Epidemic That Wasn’t

23536

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
7,725
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/20/b...ack-babies-epidemic-that-was-not.html?hp&_r=0

This week’s Retro Report video on “crack babies” (infants born to addicted mothers) lays out how limited scientific studies in the 1980s led to predictions that a generation of children would be damaged for life. Those predictions turned out to be wrong. This supposed epidemic — one television reporter talks of a 500 percent increase in damaged babies — was kicked off by a study of just 23 infants that the lead researcher now says was blown out of proportion. And the shocking symptoms — like tremors and low birth weight — are not particular to cocaine-exposed babies, pediatric researchers say; they can be seen in many premature newborns.

The worrisome extrapolations made by researchers — including the one who first published disturbing findings about prenatal cocaine use — were only part of the problem. Major newspapers and magazines, including Rolling Stone, Newsweek, The Washington Post and The New York Times, ran articles and columns that went beyond the research. Network TV stars of that era, including Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings and Dan Rather, also bear responsibility for broadcasting uncritical reports.

A much more serious problem, it turns out, is infants who are born with fetal alcohol syndrome.

Retro Report tells the story of the epidemic that wasn’t through firsthand accounts by some of those at the center of things: the researcher who put out the alarm, a pediatric expert who originally cast doubt on his findings and one of the original cocaine-exposed research subjects, a young woman whose life helped disprove the myth of what these infants would become.

cont. (with video): http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/20/b...ack-babies-epidemic-that-was-not.html?hp&_r=0
 
Nothing new, but I like that it's finally getting exposed, better late then never

Personally I have dated a "crack baby" one of the smartest girls I have ever met.
 
Well i think that while it was blown epically out of proportion its still probably best if pregnant women dont smoke rock
 
It is still important for myths like these to be dispelled. The stigma against drug users is already bad enough - getting rid of the untruths and half-truths may help to reverse that.
 
Aren't there women who get charged with murder for testing positive for cocaine after a stillbirth?
 
Nothing new, but I like that it's finally getting exposed, better late then never

Personally I have dated a "crack baby" one of the smartest girls I have ever met.

Yeah my best friend is a "crack baby" and both of her parents smoked.
She is so smart and you would never know.
She was born at a low birth rate..however.

Anyways smoking crack is bad during pregnancy, but what is just as bad is having crack addicts around your baby or while you're pregnant. My mom was pregnant with me and had to dodge the can opener ect every now and then when she was pregnant with me. My dad was a crackhead smh. Stupid stupid.
 
Last edited:
Personally I have dated a "crack baby" one of the smartest girls I have ever met.

I've seen the same phenomenon with the young ladies I've dated that smoke crack. Crack makes you smart! I'm glad the truth is finally coming out about this!:D

This just goes to show, you can't take the findings of every little flimsy study on the effects of certain drugs as gospel. One group of people's findings extracted from a study that was probably out to prove someone's biased opinion in the first place should never be taken as fact!
 
Aren't there women who get charged with murder for testing positive for cocaine after a stillbirth?

I'm curious, is there? Would be interesting to do a little research on.

10 years or so ago I worked in a pediatric rehabilitation hospital (not rehab for drugs...it was called that due to the kids we received needed a little more long term care than over at the regular Univeristy Childrens Hospital that it was affiliated..they needed specialized care but generally were past the acute part of their illness/injury).
We would frequently get the newborn babies that were born to addicted moms particularly to meth though to other things also.

I was always surprised at the lack of any charges against the moms or the fact that some of the moms were there with the babies and the state had not taken custody of them. Of course the number of moms who took off and had nothing to do with the babies and the state went ahead and did take custody them were even higher, much so.

I don't know if this was particular to this stae or if that is true in a lot of places. I just always thought that if your baby was born addicted to an illegal substance that it would be taken away from you.

Anybody have any comments?
 
I've seen the same phenomenon with the young ladies I've dated that smoke crack. Crack makes you smart! I'm glad the truth is finally coming out about this!:D

This just goes to show, you can't take the findings of every little flimsy study on the effects of certain drugs as gospel. One group of people's findings extracted from a study that was probably out to prove someone's biased opinion in the first place should never be taken as fact!

I know tons of people who smoke crack too who are dumb as bricks. Crack doesn't make you smart or stupid persay... you either were or weren't.
 
I'm curious, is there? Would be interesting to do a little research on.

10 years or so ago I worked in a pediatric rehabilitation hospital (not rehab for drugs...it was called that due to the kids we received needed a little more long term care than over at the regular Univeristy Childrens Hospital that it was affiliated..they needed specialized care but generally were past the acute part of their illness/injury).
We would frequently get the newborn babies that were born to addicted moms particularly to meth though to other things also.

I was always surprised at the lack of any charges against the moms or the fact that some of the moms were there with the babies and the state had not taken custody of them. Of course the number of moms who took off and had nothing to do with the babies and the state went ahead and did take custody them were even higher, much so.

I don't know if this was particular to this stae or if that is true in a lot of places. I just always thought that if your baby was born addicted to an illegal substance that it would be taken away from you.

Anybody have any comments?
I think it would have to do with the drug, but I'm sure if they are in a long term care facility then it probably wasn't just pot. I would charge them with a crime yes, but at that point only make them complete a rehab, and parenting classes while they are at the facility if they want to keep their kids. I think it really should be more rehabilitative than punitive because in the long run, having a stable home would be better for the children.
 
We would frequently get the newborn babies that were born to addicted moms particularly to meth though to other things also.

This strikes me as odd, I don't know anything about this subject, however I think I know that meth is not a substance that one can get physically dependant to. Therefore, are these babies craving meth at birth? If so, do they prefer to smoke or inject their meth?
 
I was always surprised at the lack of any charges against the moms or the fact that some of the moms were there with the babies and the state had not taken custody of them. Of course the number of moms who took off and had nothing to do with the babies and the state went ahead and did take custody them were even higher, much so.

I don't know if this was particular to this stae or if that is true in a lot of places. I just always thought that if your baby was born addicted to an illegal substance that it would be taken away from you.

Anybody have any comments?

I guess it depends on the jursidiction. I am sure alot women get still babies taken away when they test positive for drugs.
 
States are broke. Like, I know Florida will give a bad mom many many many chances because they'd really rather not pay for the upbringing of a child.
 
^does it really come down to that? fuck, in one case the mother is a psychotic drug addict the child grows up in a shitty environment and in the other case the child is put into foster care, they will also grow up within a fucked up environment. So the gov't goes with what's cheaper? One of my philosophy profs used to do mathematical calculations to see if a policy would be more cost effective compared to the social damage it may cause. He made tons of money but had to quit because it was so fucked up ethically.

As for meth being not physically addictive, that's sort of not true, it's certainly physically addictive in a sense as it changes the brain and creates compulsions to use. There are also physical withdrawals to it as well. Dependence isn't a huge issue like with opiates but there is definitely a withdrawal, that is mostly the inverse of the effects of the drug itself. It's probably more psychologically addictive than physically but nevertheless you take someone off stims all of the sudden, they are going to have issues for months, if they were a long time user.
 
^does it really come down to that? fuck, in one case the mother is a psychotic drug addict the child grows up in a shitty environment and in the other case the child is put into foster care, they will also grow up within a fucked up environment. So the gov't goes with what's cheaper?

Like, just saw this in the newspaper today:

6 months before boy’s death, DCF said he was safe

Catalina Marista Bruno had been arrested three times on charges involving drugs or alcohol. She had been drinking last July when police arrested her husband for beating her in front of her children. And she was deemed to be drunk in November when she reportedly clipped several walls before passing out with her infant son untethered in the front seat with her.

Still, state child welfare administrators concluded then that there was no evidence that Bruno’s drinking endangered the life of her baby son, Bryan Miguel Osceola. They closed their November case without requiring the mother to undergo alcohol treatment, parenting classes or any other services designed to protect her children.

Six months later, Bryan would again fall victim to the dangerous mix of cars and the presence of alcohol.

On Thursday, Bruno drove to her Kendall home at noon in her Chevrolet Impala, and left her purse, a beer can and her 11-month-old in the car, prosecutors say. Hours later, when Bryan’s father noticed he was missing, Bryan was found unconscious in his baby seat. His body temperature was 109 degrees. Bryan was pronounced dead at Kendall Regional Hospital.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/20/3407563/6-months-before-boys-death-dcf.html#storylink=cpy
 
god damn those people should be sterilized.

100% agree. It just tears me up to hear of instances like this. Just had one here locally at the end of summer several months ago (this past year). I could hardly stand to read about it in the paper. That's why I had to quit working at the pediatric hospital. The majority of those kids were there because of something parents did (mostly types of abuse resulting in brain damage).

How the hell do you forget your kids?? I mean if you are effed up I guess I could see how, but the case here she just forgot, no drugs or alcohol involved!

(Sorry, just kept thinking about it)
:?

I think it would have to do with the drug, but I'm sure if they are in a long term care facility then it probably wasn't just pot. I would charge them with a crime yes, but at that point only make them complete a rehab, and parenting classes while they are at the facility if they want to keep their kids. I think it really should be more rehabilitative than punitive because in the long run, having a stable home would be better for the children.

No, it was never for pot by any means. Babies aren't born with any physical signs of addiction to MJ and its not something that is usually known by the docs (if moms been smoking pot). I mean they don't usually test for pot.

It also wasn't necessarily a long term care facility. I mean some kids were there long term but some wwre only there 5 or 6 days, just depended.

I also agree that criminal charges are not always appropriate but many of these moms were in no shape to take care of a newborn baby. They definitely did not need to go home right off the bat.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top