Anger at move to stop drug users having children

LABOUR leaders prompted an angry reaction from drug workers yesterday after it emerged that they were considering plans to prevent drug addicts from having children until they kicked the habit.

The plans, which will be considered by the Scottish Labour Party for its Holyrood manifesto next year, were dismissed as "cynical expediency" and derided for showing "a depressing lack of vision" by drug experts.

The proposals, drawn up by Labour MSP Duncan McNeil, would require addicts to sign a "social contract", under which they would only get benefits and methadone if they agreed not to have children while addicted to drugs.

If addicts agree, but then breach the contract, they face having their children taken into care, as well as the withdrawal of treatment and benefits.

Mr McNeil also wants to make it easier for children to be removed from the homes of addict parents.

While not as extreme as Mr McNeil's last proposal - that contraceptives should be added to methadone - these latest plans do represent an extension of the state's influence into personal liberty.

When Mr McNeil came up with his contraceptives plan, he was immediately isolated by the First Minister, who made it clear he would not even consider the suggestion.

This time, however, the reaction has been very different.

Instead of dismissing Mr McNeil's plans, the Labour leadership gave a cautious welcome to his suggestion.

A spokesman for the First Minister said Mr McNeil's plans would be considered by the party as part of its policy-making process and the First Minister would study them properly before making a decision.

"This is Duncan's submission to that. It's the individual view of Duncan McNeil MSP, but that's got as much legitimacy as anyone else's view," he said.

"Over the past few years, we've a fairly strong record in tackling drugs and anti-social behaviour. This is one suggestion that will be considered."

Labour has been looking for populist and effective policies on law and order for some time, aware that this approach goes down well with the voters, and Mr McNeil's plan might help it find that aggressive edge.

It could be that the Labour leadership is simply waiting to see what the reaction is to Mr McNeil's plans before rejecting them, but by even suggesting that it might accept his idea, it ran into a hail of criticism from drug workers.

A spokeswoman for the Scottish Drugs Forum, which brings together a range of different bodies working with drugs policy and information, said the plans were "dehumanising".

She said it was wrong for the state to tell anyone not to have children and worse to single out drug users for attack.

She said: "There is a vicious tenor to these proposals and the apparent hypocrisy surrounding them is deeply disquieting.

"What's proposed dehumanises people who are in need of help and support simply because their problems are seen as too difficult and complex for society to deal with.

"These proposals unfairly single out drug users for hardline treatment and are completely at odds with the patient-centred approach which is a basic and accepted principle applying to other groups in need of social and healthcare."

The spokeswoman said there were many more families affected by serious drink problems than by drugs but no-one would suggest putting them under pressure not to have children.

She said: "These proposals smack of cynical expediency and a depressing lack of vision.

"What's more, they conveniently overlook the role of poverty, lack of employment and other strategic issues far removed from the sphere of influence of the average drug user - yet which create the bleak environment and conditions which encourage drug problems to proliferate."

----------------------------------------------------------------

Anger at move to stop drug users having children

The Scotsman
HAMISH MACDONELL
Scottish Political Editor
9 July 2006

Link

I can't believe any country would even consider a proposal like that. Isn't the Labour Party left wing?


Talk about stepping backwards. Lets hope that doesn't come to pass. Old George W will love it. F'ing gibberish. Should toss that jerk out of parliament. WTF?

bullshit if u ask me..

It sounds reasonable to me. An addict has a much harder time being a responsable parent than a normal person (who has a hard enough time).

Parents shouldnt have a priority higher than their baby's well being, and drug habbits usually take higher priority than the addict's well being.

Plus its just a promise, not a neutering.

sounds like a good idea to me.

This is totally stupid. There are lots of unfit parents that have never even touched drugs. They should judge someones ability to be a parent by how they treat there kids and look after them, not by if they ingest certain drugs or not.

Ive seen kids go hungry because their parents drank all the money or gambled it away. Ive seen the same thing happen with parents on drugs to. The government is only picking out drug users because they are an easy target.

They would never get away with a proposal that wouldnt let gamblers have kids or restrict alcoholics from having kids.

To me, this would just be another reason why addicts might choose NOT to go into rehabilitation/methadone clinics, and continue with their status quo drug use.

The government should be looking for incentives that would motivate an addict to join these programs, rather than introducing new deterrents/barriers to them.

paranoid android said:

This is totally stupid. There are lots of unfit parents that have never even touched drugs. They should judge someones ability to be a parent by how they treat there kids and look after them, not by if they ingest certain drugs or not.

Ive seen kids go hungry because their parents drank all the money or gambled it away. Ive seen the same thing happen with parents on drugs to. The government is only picking out drug users because they are an easy target.

They would never get away with a proposal that wouldnt let gamblers have kids or restrict alcoholics from having kids.

Click to expand...

So you're saying that if ya can't stop all unfit parents from having kids, we shouldn't stop any of them? I dunno about that... And they aren't talking about parents who relax after work with a joint or a few vicodin pills, they're talking about heroin addicts.

Upon further thought this does sound like a nonsense plan, maybe it would work if high level dealers put sterility drugs into thier product, but it does just seem like a plan to keep addicts from seeking treatment.

There are so many parents who shouldnt be having childern besides people who use or abuse drugs, they cant start putting lables on who can or cannot have childern.

Skyline_GTR said:

LABOUR leaders prompted an angry reaction from drug workers yesterday after it emerged that they were considering plans to prevent drug addicts from having children until they kicked the habit.

Click to expand...

This, in theory, seems like a good idea to me.

The proposals, drawn up by Labour MSP Duncan McNeil, would require addicts to sign a "social contract", under which they would only get benefits and methadone if they agreed not to have children while addicted to drugs.

If addicts agree, but then breach the contract, they face having their children taken into care, as well as the withdrawal of treatment and benefits.

Click to expand...

This, however, is entirely ludacris. Sure, I understand taking the kids away until the parents have cleaned up again. But obviously someone who relapses absolutely needs help and treatment. Why would you take it away from them? Not only is that bad for the addict, but what about the kids who need their REAL parents - and need them as soon as possible.

Perhaps the people coming up with these ideas should take a look at the realities of both addiction and foster care. Addiction can be conquered. And even my fiance, who is adopted, agrees with me that adoption/foster care generally turns out really screwed up kids who have issues their whole lives. And from what I've seen, it seems like a very large percentage of adoptee and foster parents psychologically, physically and sexually abuse the children.

But as usual, lawmakers are idiots. And the lobbyists are insane. If anyone was really serious about helping addicts, the state would provide in-patient treatment centers that didn't look like lock-ups, provide real therapy and stop pushing the 12-Step bullshit (sorry, anyone that needs to rely on a group and a "higher power" to stay clean will NEVER be fit to raise a child), and offer a work program to get people reintegrated into society and functioning in a self-reliant and responsible manner.

Taking children from an "unfit" parent is one thing, but just cause they have a drug addiction and relapse doesn't make them a bad parent. Personally I don't think people should use any drugs around their kids, but thats my opinion, I never raised any kids so what the fuck do I know. I know a lot of fucked up parents, and most of them weren't drug addicts. One other thing, if a person is that committed to be a parent that they try to kick and get treatment, that shows they have some dedication, to take their kid away is the worst thing you can do, its like taking away their only reason to exist, the only positive thing they have in their life. The other thing is who the fuck is anyone to judge a parents action, as long as they don't harm the child? Noone's business but the parent and the kids.

To me, this would just be another reason why addicts might choose NOT to go into rehabilitation/methadone clinics, and continue with their status quo drug use.

Click to expand...

That is a good point. People's parenting skills should be the only test. Whether they are addicts is partially irrelavent. Admittedly some, if not most, addicts are abysmal parents and I feel for those kids. They can't choose their parents.

However, for those that would rather/need to indulge in their drug of choice than care for their children, does anyone think this will make a significant difference? Maybe for a few.

Unfortunetly this is just an election ploy as stated in the article. The world, to some of the obviously younger posters, is completely filled with self centred individuals who don't give a second thought as to how their 'ingenious' ideas effect anyone but themselves. Polititions lead the pack in this area.

This is an antidiluvian idea. I find it rather hard to process this. DOES NOT COMPUTE!

Next maybe we can draw and quarter them at noon at city hall! Yippee!

Intoxo said:

So you're saying that if ya can't stop all unfit parents from having kids, we shouldn't stop any of them?

Click to expand...

Im just saying that they shouldnt base a parents ability to look after their child on what drugs they take. A unfit parent is a unfit parent it doesn't matter what they do.There are lots of unfit parents who have never taken a drug in their life.

If addicts agree, but then breach the contract, they face having their children taken into care, as well as the withdrawal of treatment and benefits.

Click to expand...

Why not just shoot them? 8)

For fuck's sake, it's the thin end of the wedge; next it'll be smokers & fat people being punished for having kids. The logical extreme of that sort of thinking is to have a 'breeding elite' - none of us ugly fuckers allowed to breed.

Now I'm sure I've heard of somewhere that used to do something like that...

This is a bigger issue than just drugs, IMO.

Procreation is a fundamental right for all humans that no form of government has any authority to regulate. Period. Government's power is derived from the people, not the other way around. As society progresses, rule is supposed to play a progressively diminishing role in the lives of individuals; this is a step backwards.

We need to re-introduce velociraptors to the ecosystem. Cull the slow and weak ones, and keep natural selection going strong. I mean I not supporting HItler's ideas, but down the line were all gonna end up nearsighted, asthmatic, fat, and with tons of other genetics imperfections.

Were all gonna die.

Fuck, my post turned into one of those "the human race is doomed anyways" ones again.

There should be a test required to have children. Intelligence, genetic traits, ability to care for a child, tolerence, enough money to support a family, etc.

I mean YOU have the freedom to have children, but were having too many, and what about the kids born into families that can't take care of them? Whether its the rich parents who are never home, or the poor parents who can't nourish the children, or the dumb ones who smoke while pregnant, or the abusive ones, Some people should not have kids.

I agree govenment should'nt intervene, but if people are too evil or stupid to make a concoius descision to not have kids because they cannot care for them, someones gotta.

Sounds like Nazi Germany. Sterilizing those deemed unworthy of reproducing.

^They're not being sterilized.

NameTaken said:

We need to re-introduce velociraptors to the ecosystem. Cull the slow and weak ones, and keep natural selection going strong. I mean I not supporting HItler's ideas, but down the line were all gonna end up nearsighted, asthmatic, fat, and with tons of other genetics imperfections.

Were all gonna die.

Fuck, my post turned into one of those "the human race is doomed anyways" ones again.

There should be a test required to have children. Intelligence, genetic traits, ability to care for a child, tolerence, enough money to support a family, etc.

I mean YOU have the freedom to have children, but were having too many, and what about the kids born into families that can't take care of them? Whether its the rich parents who are never home, or the poor parents who can't nourish the children, or the dumb ones who smoke while pregnant, or the abusive ones, Some people should not have kids.

I agree govenment should'nt intervene, but if people are too evil or stupid to make a concoius descision to not have kids because they cannot care for them, someones gotta.

Click to expand...

Hey man, are you serious? Freedom of thought and choice are one of the defining traits of humanity, and you would like that taken away? I cannot begin to comprehend that opinion . . . .

I feel compassion for addicts (I've been one for a while ) and take umbrage at this idea of 'culling' the poplulation.

What if that had happened to YOU? You would never have existed.

Adolf certainly would have found a friend here . . . Idiot.

Oh fuck, my mum smoked while she was pregnant, that explains it . . . I should NEVER HAVE EXISTED!

...

Sweet, that re-assures me.

Your a twit NameTaken blah blah blah