• 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?!?

Here in Canada, it does not. Different jurisdictions may of course have different laws. Further, here CPS really has ZERO authority to do sweet fuck all, because the little dipshit Social Worker, no matter how much they would like it, are neither peace officers nor judicial officials, which carries forward to mean that they can not order a child removed (That's a judges call) Nor execute the court order to step the child into custody. (That is the job of law enforcement)

You have a link to the N.Y. State statute that allows a status crime? (for the mere fact of being an addict and having kids being criminal would be a status crime, which was ruled un-constitutional following a case in California. ;) Or the statue or case law that makes a drug offense into a child abuse offense? I'd love to read them if they exist.
 
He may not be the greatest parent in the world, and I think he should go to rehab, but I still think The State and its threat of, or actual use of violence and force should not be involved in this. Or why the hell not actually! *Grabs a selective fire carbine and some breaching charges* This is obviously the best technique and won't result in an undue stress or trauma for the kid at all!
 
That's way over the line obviously. A situation like this doesn't have to be an all or nothing case, but something obviously should be done. I think sending him to rehab is a good idea. He wouldn't be able to take care of his kids while in there, so.......
 
Nothing I suppose.. what do you if someones goes to inpatient and relapses after they leave? Same problem. Unless he's court ordered, there is little one can do, and if he is court ordered, it can be applied to in or outpatient exactly the same way.
 
rangrz said:
Here in Canada, it does not. Different jurisdictions may of course have different laws. Further, here CPS really has ZERO authority to do sweet fuck all, because the little dipshit Social Worker, no matter how much they would like it, are neither peace officers nor judicial officials, which carries forward to mean that they can not order a child removed (That's a judges call) Nor execute the court order to step the child into custody. (That is the job of law enforcement)

You have a link to the N.Y. State statute that allows a status crime? (for the mere fact of being an addict and having kids being criminal would be a status crime, which was ruled un-constitutional following a case in California. ;) Or the statue or case law that makes a drug offense into a child abuse offense? I'd love to read them if they exist.
Click to expand...

I think in the UK social services have a bit more power especially after the Baby P case (google it, basically a horrific balls up by social workers leading to the death of a child). Is your point that the kid's getting an education being exposed to hard drugs and its wrong to try and censor his life experiences? It's a point of view I suppose, but the UK's Children Act is a legislative power that describes when kids are in danger although doesn't specifically mention drugs, it's rather ambiguous. Anyway debating the legalities of the situation wasn't my intention. My pal needs help fast and the kids need to get out of that situation. I've contacted the mum's friend and we're meeting up so should have a plan soon
 
^

Yeah, CPS may have more authority there, I am going with my own locale cause I know it well. I would not say its an 'education' merely that it is a part of reality and trying to hide reality from someone could be considered censoring them from it.

In any event, I don't know him or the kid and don't actually give a fuck if they die, go to jail, end up in CPS care or anything else. I was just posting an opposing view to try and break up the circle jerk of everyone (esp Missy) standing around and fellating each other in written word format at the idea of having the kid taken away.
 
captaincaveman said:
Right, that has been my thinking to be honest. Asked on here to make sure there's no other alternative. Frankly, I can't see one. His late partner's best friend (who suggested care) actually works for the civil service so I can ring her and let her know exactly what's been going on. This works because then he can't accuse me of betraying him (he can be quite a scary bloke) and the woman knows the system and will be able to improve the kids situation. So thanks for the replies, I'm going to do something (been praying on my mind for a while tbh).
Click to expand...
Man I think this is a good decision. Especially if his late-partner's best friend is in the civil service, that's a great opportunity to let her in on the situation. Something really needs to be done.

I also agree with others that this man really needs to go to rehab. But it's obviously much more complicated than that, if he's not ready to quit or if he's in denial that he has a severe problem with drugs, it's possibly pretty unlikely that he'll complete treatment or even go at all. I hope I'm wrong.
 
I shant be quiet just because my opinion is not the popular one. I will defend my opinion for this issue is especially personal to me. It is not that I feel what he is doing is best, but no one is best at parenting. You do what you can. You talk about the rights of the children, I am concerned for them to, and I happen to feel that removing them from their father's care would undermine not only his rights but the children's rights, and I most certainly do not think it would be in the children's best interest. As I said, talk with the father calmly. Reason with him. If it is the case the he wants to absolve the custody he has over his children then that is his choice, but until such a declaration of absolution is made I find it highly unethical and immoral to remove his children from him. It would be a violation of his most basic rights. To force him to stop using is impossible as only he can make that choice, and perhaps you could discuss it with him. I am not trying to say he is a good parent. There a lot of bad parents, and there are always going to be risks in parenting, but one must respect the rights of others. I am defending him, but I feel he deserves such defense as certainly he is not getting any here. He is a person, you know.
 
rangrz said:
^

Yeah, CPS may have more authority there, I am going with my own locale cause I know it well. I would not say its an 'education' merely that it is a part of reality and trying to hide reality from someone could be considered censoring them from it.

In any event, I don't know him or the kid and don't actually give a fuck if they die, go to jail, end up in CPS care or anything else. I was just posting an opposing view to try and break up the circle jerk of everyone (esp Missy) standing around and fellating each other in written word format at the idea of having the kid taken away.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the majority in most civilizations are against giving 3 year olds drags off cigarettes while sitting there smoking heroin. Pretty sure both acts are illegal in the first place.

Your are an enforcer of the law, not an idea man.
 
^

Smoking heroin is not illegal. Possession is. So yeah, he may be guilty of an offense for possession of a controlled substance sans Rx (seeing as diamorphine is in the British Compendium)

As for cigarette... here, it is not a criminal/indictable offense, indeed it is not against any Federal law here. (And only Federal Parliament can enact Criminal Law here) It is a provincial offense, akin to a speeding violation or simple trespass, except unlike a speeding violation, a conviction for it can not be held against you in the future, and it carries no more penalty than the fine itself.

Enforcement carries with it discretion, one can decide to give someone a warning, or simply to ignore it, particularly when it presents no risk to life or limb of anyone. This how you know, we avoid filling cells up with people smoking pot, and why everyone still has their license... if it was obligatory, then everyone going even one kmh over the posted limit would be fined, and in a short time have their DL revoked. But the principal of discretion applies to everything in theory.
 
Aight, that's certainly sound.. Even if Canadian (not that Cali law is better), but how is smoking heroin not illegal but possession is? I don't see the sense in that. I would think that use of any sort would be illegal. It is schedule 1 here.

I would use those two acts alone for investigating negligence. I'm sure wrong doing can be found for most parents, but not to this degree. Child abuse? I guess not, but this is sickenening.

@mods: this is actually on topic.
 
Last edited:
The basic answer to why smoking it is not illegal, is the common law principal of "That which is not expressly forbidden is allowed" being that there is no statue expressly forbidding the act of smoking heroin (or anything else) it is allowed. There is no reason to outlaw smoking it... you have to be in possession before you can smoke it, and that is illegal already.

That principle of things needing to be expressly forbidden is very important to peoples freedoms. It prevents the authorities from just making shit up on the fly and detaining you as a result of something they made up for the lulz. Its related to the prohibition on ex post facto laws, since charging you with something that occurred before it was forbidden is functionally equivalent.

It's like, there is no law against playing music on a stolen stereo, but who cares, stealing something and possession of stolen goods are illegal, so it serves no real purpose to make using the stolen property also illegal.

The tobacco might even be covered by this, if they kid merely found the cigarette or picked up, then the other person is not guilty of supplying it to a minor, and as there is no regulations on the storage or duty of care when one possesses tobacco, he would not in that case have committed an offense.

Schedules for substances work different in different places... All opiates(okay, all the ones that are not obscure stuff in a lab, and not tramadol or tapenadol yet) are Schedule 1 CDSA in Canada, including those which are approved and marketed for medical use. (even codeine is sch 1 CDSA, but is sold OTC here) Ketamine and Cocaine are two others which a SCH1 CDSA but available upon Rx. I'm guessing the same is true in England, where they would be "Class A" drugs.

There is no U.S. law (Well no Federal U.S. Law) against the use of a drug either, its against manufacture, distribution and possession.
 
Under the influence of a controlled substance.

As for supplying to a minor: the dude is just sitting there watching. This goes beyond good samaritan laws imo, since it's the parent.
 
^

Under the influence is different, it outlaws the act of doing some X action <say driving a car> while under the influence of the substance at hand. Do not carry out the driving part, and no problem, and you can technically consume the substance wthout being under its influence, for e.g. taking a dose of 200 micrograms of heroin will not have you under the influence of it, but possessing 200 micrograms, or ANY amount, is still possession.

Being under the influence in the abstract is not illegal; you can not be charged with i.e. PUBLIC intox if you are at home intoxicated.
 
Don't drug tests circumvent this, and make any amount possession, since it's on your body and you can't get rid of it?
Timeline doesn't even matter for this. A sample can be kept in a cup long after something was outlawed.
 
Last edited:
^

in vivo and/or excreted is not considered possession. (But may form the basis for a fail to comply w court order if you where ordered to abstain as part of e.g. probation)

While not applying to drugs, it a related concept in our laws that regulate pathogenic Bacteria and Virus's that no person shall be found guilty of an offense by reason that he only has the pathogen present in vivo or by reason that he excreted the pathogen into his body fluids while infected with the pathogen. Its convoluted in drug law, its much clearer in this case, hence I used it. (And its a fitting analogy, as Possession, manufacture, and distribution of the scheduled pathogenic organisms are all regulated in a similar manner as drugs)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top