• The Dark Side 💕 Welcome Guest 💕
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Notable Threads Urgent Hotlines
    Bereavement Mindfulness
    Suicide Support Anger Management
  • TDS Moderators: AlphaMethylPhenyl | paranoid android

Drugs in front of kids?!?

So walking across state lines with a gob of heroin in your ass shouldn't be possesion. Something wrong is going on here.
^I guess this is a poor example.

-In vivo is certainly used to intoxication laws. The timeline on when it's still considered intoxication is what gets me. What does it matter if someone legally smokes weeds at home, but then gets tested the next day... even hair tested 2 months later at their job and gets fired?
 
Last edited:
DexterMeth said:
So walking across state lines with a gob of heroin in your ass shouldn't be possesion. Something wrong is going on here.
^I guess this is a poor example.

-In vivo is certainly used to intoxication laws. The timeline on when it's still considered intoxication is what gets me. What does it matter if someone legally smokes weeds at home, but then gets tested the next day... even hair tested 2 months later at their job and gets fired?
Click to expand...

In your ass in a condom is not in vivo, its not dissolved in tissue or body fluid... its just a way of carrying the drug.

In vivo is used in intoxication laws and such, but it is not sufficient for the offense of possession.

Going back to my analogy with the pathogens. A condom full of anthrax in your rectum does not constitute an infection, which is the exemption on those laws, and being infected with a pathogen is a defense to the charges relating to the infectious materials law. (Possession) but is a defense to aggravated sexual assault when a person with HIV has sex with someone with out telling them. (This can be seen as analog to driving under the influence, but as 'fucking while infected')
 
By that logic, smuggling drugs in your ass, while partially absorbed, without a condom should be the ultimate loop hole.
I'm starting to get the odd feeling that we're being watched.

-So anyways, about that guy. His kids should be taken away.
 
DexterMeth said:
By that logic, smuggling drugs in your ass, while partially absorbed, without a condom should be the ultimate loop hole.
I'm starting to get the odd feeling that we're being watched.

-So anyways, about that guy. His kids should be taken away.
Click to expand...

That which is not forbidden is allowed: Where is it forbidden explicitly to be a substance user and a parent? Child abuse, negligence and imminent danger are all separate and the simple fact that someone is a substance user is neither sufficient nor necessary to any of those conditions that allow a child to be removed by The State. Ergo, its irrelevant.
Now, on the reverse, the exercise of authority by The State is to follow the idea of "That which is not allowed is forbidden" By which statute or ruling would the Peace Officer attending the call have basis to step the child into custody?

*Pins his L.E.A.P button on his BPV* :p
 
DexterMeth said:
lol
On multiple counts. Being a heroin addict simply opens the door. Then they can start counting.

Hrm.. why what else is he hiding? Look what I found.
Click to expand...

Of all things, a person from California advocating for someone to be charged with a 'status offense'?

I think you guys had landmark court case in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that it violates the 8th amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment to make the mere status of being a drug addict (or a homeless person or anything like that) an offense.

Such a thought process is held in pretty much every western democracy. Since it is not illegal to be a drug addict, knowing or thinking someone is one is not probable cause for anything. i.e. being a heroin addict does not 'open the door'
 
The law is obviously bent all the time.
Cops around here used to show up in their cars if I got near certain areas, even if I was just getting food.

Your past tends to follow you and most people don't forget.

It sure helps to know your rights, but that does jack shit when those that enforce them, don't. Then again, I guess it's up to the individual to really know their rights, even though the cops are the ones that always tell them what they are.

-Thanks for that Robinson v. California link. I'm going to read that.
 
^

Strictly speaking, it would not be bending it, it would be committing perjury. Why? If I tell the Judge that I want a warrant based on the fact he I have an information that he is a drug addict, it well be denied. I'd have to make something up and tell it to a court of law. Or, if I kicked his door in and arrested him, the next day at the show cause procedure (arraignment in USA) I'm going to have to tell the Judge why I kicked in his door. When I say "Cause I suspected he was an addict" It's going to be tossed right there. I'd have to lie.

Sure, it happens every day, but that does not make it right, and I personally will not partake in such actions.

lol, I gotta head off to work now, this has been a fairly interesting thread tho.
 
I don't remember the case name, but the US supreme court just recently ruled that LE agents can't put a GPS tracker on a person's car without a search warrant. The reason being that a person's car is private property, just as their house or cell phone. I don't know about other states, but in California, your car is subject to search when it is on any public street, or I guess technically even when you have the keys in the ignition, even on your own driveway.

This bridges the gap between car, house, cellphone. Does it not?
 
Perhaps the dad will be really motivated to get it together for his children sake, in the event that they are taken from him. Kids know what is happening, and kids who grow up with needles and such think that all families are the same way. Even if no one says anything, eventually the kids will say something to someone and suspicions will surface.

I hope if the child goes into protective custody, that the caretakers are well schooled in the situation.

Kids grow up so fast, you know? He can go back to using once they are grown. Right now he's pulling down a brutal fail on the whole family. Its devastating.
 
Op, I think that your gut level feeling is to get social services involved and I definitely feel that this is in the best interest of a three year old. Going through your friend (the woman that works in the field) would be best for everyone. That is my opinion.

I want to remind EVERYONE that while debates are good and are always welcome, personal attacks have no place in this forum. I know that when it comes to family issues we all hold very strong opinions and these are usually emotionally charged from our own experiences. Please respect that everyone is entitled to their opinions without being attacked and that the OP is looking for a discussion to help him make up his mind about what to do. Ultimately it is his friend, life and conscience and we are simply stating our opinions. Debating amongst ourselves in the thread is great as long as it doesn't take the form of personal attacks. So, let's keep it civil.<3

Op, good luck, and here's to you for getting involved and trying to help both your friend and his child. <3
 
Thanks for the replies everybody, I didn't feel any personal attacks although was somewhat bemused (and enlightened!) by the in depth debate about the legalities of drug possession (California vs Canada). As I said the Childrens Act in the UK does not make any specific reference to drug use, its open to interpretation. This said the main issue is that children going into care often lead miserable lives. The statistics show there is an increased likelihood of being homeless and a substance abuser once leaving care. This is why I wouldn't just ring up the 'faceless' authorities and luckily I know someone who can help. Good thing is the kids are young enough to go into temporary foster care while the dad sorts himself out, which he does want to do. He's worried about the stigma of rehab though which could be a problem!
 
captaincaveman said:
He's worried about the stigma of rehab though which could be a problem!
Click to expand...
I guess it will possibly come down to whether he's more concerned about the stigma of rehab, or about not having his kids around anymore.
I sincerely wish him all the very best, and that he makes the right choices for him and his kids <3
 
wow...what a position you are in OP...You could effectivly change several lives for the better OR the worse by one call...Ummmmm..8o..Ive done a quick search for around a half hour and i couldnt find a rehab or detox place that takes families in London...We have several here in Australia...He definately shouldnt be administering drugs in front of his boy..Or finding him smoking amusing...

I once had a fradulent call result in my only daughter being taken away from me. The claim against me was absurd and false...Docs (dept of community services) removed my child within 2 hours of the call...They certinally didnt want to hear my side, see my proof they were wrong or listen to any member of my family...They removed my child as a FIRST resort instead of a LAST resort. A judge ordered her returned to me within 15 mins from the end of the court session 5 days later, and i got her back....

Since her false removal almost 1 year ago i have spent countless hours on various site reading horror stories about similar situations...It is reported CPS in the UK have one of the absolute worst reputations in the world for removing children from loving homes without proving they are in danger..

If you were to make the call i am sure they would remove the child immediately...I am not condoning the behaviour of the dad in any way....Talk to your friend and see what she says...I wish you all the best in this very tough decision you have to make...<3
 
Update. Some good news. The kids are going to stay with the mum's best friend this week while my pals going to hole up in a caravan (trailer) to 'rattle' it out. He's taking a large number of temazepam with him which he swears by to get thro withdrawal. The best thing is that the mum's best pal has already spoken to the disabled kid's social worker and explained that the dad (my pal) has become overwhelmed and needs to 'decompress' (is the word I think she used). She knows the situation and is going to closely monitor it, when her friend was dying of cancer apparently she promised to keep an eye on the family. Up to him now, he's kicked loads of times so he can do it. I also think he knows I had something to do with the suggestion but he seems set so here's hoping. Cheers guys
 
@Kirsty. That sucks! It's like that here too, and is part of the reason I dislike CPS. They piss me off when I am working with them because they do not even do a cursory investigation, like looking at the kid for signs of impacts or asking the kid whats going on.
 
captaincaveman said:
Update. Some good news. The kids are going to stay with the mum's best friend this week while my pals going to hole up in a caravan (trailer) to 'rattle' it out. He's taking a large number of temazepam with him which he swears by to get thro withdrawal. The best thing is that the mum's best pal has already spoken to the disabled kid's social worker and explained that the dad (my pal) has become overwhelmed and needs to 'decompress' (is the word I think she used). She knows the situation and is going to closely monitor it, when her friend was dying of cancer apparently she promised to keep an eye on the family. Up to him now, he's kicked loads of times so he can do it. I also think he knows I had something to do with the suggestion but he seems set so here's hoping. Cheers guys
Click to expand...

It's what happens after he goes through withdrawal that matters most. Is it entirely outside the realm of possibility for him to go to treatment? This may be buried in this thread somewhere but does he have a job?
 
Last edited:
I am glad to hear that his kids will not be taken from him, though I don't think CPS should have gotten involved in any way. I don't doubt he can kick it, but he may very well relapse. If he does relapse, I still urge you to leave him be with his kids unless they truly are subject to clear and present danger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top