Baby tests positive for cocaine

[devoe364]

Just now, Grimalkin said:

        I was not the person who originally made that comment. I defended the person who did. You have taken a comment blown it out of proportion and twisted it to make yourself a victim. Guess what, it's not all about you. 

        I think it is a shame you don't go to meetings or a support group. As difficult as it is to work a program it's worth all the hard work and uncomfortable feelings. I feel you would benifit from working steps because you seem to be holding on to resentment and. Resentment and anger is like acid and it will eat away at its own container.Here is something to consider, this happend five days ago and it seems to still really bother you. While this has been bouncing around your head, I have not given it another thought. I went about my business. Five days later you bring it up again, and try to engage me with self righteous indignation. 

              So someone on the internet thinks a woman who accidentally exposed thier baby to cocaine, then did not let the doctors take a blood sample in order to help the baby, because they didn't want to get caught, an animal and you make it about you. That is just another excuse. Some people would say "shit, that could be me if I continue."" Or shit, yeah I did that and don't want anything like that to ever happen again. I am going to do whatever it takes to be better." 

          Take this however you want to take it. It's up to you.

               

             

I did not twist it. I told you how recovering addicts feel. I am not alone in this. Other recovering addicts have spoken up in this thread and said the same.

As for your unsolicited advice, I will take that and it put it where it belongs, in file 13. 

I brought it up again, because I was quoted in the thread, and someone agreed with me, that's when I saw your reply. This hasn't been bouncing around in my head for 5 days - I have been active in many other threads during that time, most of which are about the fact that I am expecting a baby. That, actually has been my focus for the last 5 days, we clearly just frequent different threads.

You said and I quote:

 

Quote

 i don't think we are doing a disservice to addicts calling them animals and stupid. 

I disagree, vehemently, as someone who has gone through it.

I have acknowledged the pain that my actions have caused my family and friends. I don't need to go to a love and hugs support group for that. 

[AmazonGrace]

On 30.6.2016 at 7:50 PM, devoe364 said:

Wow. I know how painful miscarriages can be. I've lost two babies and I wish instead that I had an almost 8 year old and a 6 and a half year old. While I am not defending her choice in regards to her baby (because duh, stupid, and I have not once said that someone on coke should be left caring for a child while they are high), I do understand how painful loss can be and how it can lead you to seek an escape.

My hope here is that the baby is okay, and that the parents get treatment, if they want it, which I think, after this, they hopefully will. 

I'm just cynical enough to wonder if the mother happened to use cocaine during those pregnancies. It seems like she's not overly concerned with the effects on the baby.  It increases the risk of miscarriage and fetal death. It would be so sad if anyone took cocaine to escape from the pain caused by a miscarriage due to cocaine... 

[Grimalkin]

          I think you don't go to support groups because you don't want to be held accountable for your actions and don't like being called out on your crap.

       You left out the rest of my paragraph. I wonder if the reason you are hung up on this is because you don't want to be accountable for your own actions and any harm you may have caused the people in your life while using. People who have family members and loved ones that are addicts or alcoholics suffer. It's a fact. They often put up with crap because they feel sorry for thier suffering addict. Things won't change for them until they get angry and do what they need to protect themselves. It's not an easy decision and incredibly painful to go through with it. The fact that a person suffers from an addiction does not lessen the harm caused by them. In fact people often enable them because They know they suffer, and they know the good in them. The fact that someone suffers from a terrible disease does not justify the harm done to that baby or in any way make it okay. They are separate issues. 

          

[Maggie Mae]

My experience with "support groups" is that they are an excellent place to buy drugs and find someone to drink with. No offense to those that found help in one, that was just not my experience. 

It seems to me that there should be a sort of "amnesty" in regards to what you tell your doctor. I'm also really opposed to the fact that the police searched their house for more drugs. Why not treat the baby, educate the parents, and treat drug use as a medical concern instead of a legal one? These stories are why people lie to doctors and why people with addiction problems just don't go until it's too late. 

 

 

[SpoonfulOSugar]

6 minutes ago, Maggie Mae said:

It seems to me that there should be a sort of "amnesty" in regards to what you tell your doctor. I'm also really opposed to the fact that the police searched their house for more drugs. Why not treat the baby, educate the parents, and treat drug use as a medical concern instead of a legal one? These stories are why people lie to doctors and why people with addiction problems just don't go until it's too late. 

There is not and should not be amnesty for child abuse.  Doctors are mandated reporters.  The fact that the child was exposed is criminal.  

[Maggie Mae]

Just now, SpoonfulOSugar said:

There is not and should not be amnesty for child abuse.  Doctors are mandated reporters.  The fact that the child was exposed is criminal.  

I think it was a mistake, not deliberate, and I think that they would have mentioned the cocaine earlier if they weren't worried about the police searching their house and drug charges, which are way worse than child abuse charges.  

[Grimalkin]

14 minutes ago, Maggie Mae said:

My experience with "support groups" is that they are an excellent place to buy drugs and find someone to drink with. No offense to those that found help in one, that was just not my experience. 

It seems to me that there should be a sort of "amnesty" in regards to what you tell your doctor. I'm also really opposed to the fact that the police searched their house for more drugs. Why not treat the baby, educate the parents, and treat drug use as a medical concern instead of a legal one? These stories are why people lie to doctors and why people with addiction problems just don't go until it's too late. 

 

 

     I wont disagree with you. The messed up people stand out the most. It takes time to find the right people/group. Sane reasonable people don't stand out as much and tend to draw less attention to themselves.

      There are lots of options these days and different recovery programs. Lots of different therapy choices. Some do well on thier own. Few people get make much progress without at least someone who you can bounce ideas off and get honest feedback from, at least at first. Of course there are exceptions to every rule.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

17 hours ago, devoe364 said:

I did not twist it. I told you how recovering addicts feel. I am not alone in this. Other recovering addicts have spoken up in this thread and said the same.

As for your unsolicited advice, I will take that and it put it where it belongs, in file 13. 

I brought it up again, because I was quoted in the thread, and someone agreed with me, that's when I saw your reply. This hasn't been bouncing around in my head for 5 days - I have been active in many other threads during that time, most of which are about the fact that I am expecting a baby. That, actually has been my focus for the last 5 days, we clearly just frequent different threads.

You said and I quote:

Quote

 i don't think we are doing a disservice to addicts calling them animals and stupid. 

I disagree, vehemently, as someone who has gone through it.

I have acknowledged the pain that my actions have caused my family and friends. I don't need to go to a love and hugs support group for that. 

I think that there is a big misunderstanding here. @davoe thinks that the "them" in the quoted bit is referred to "all the drug addicts ever", while @Grimalkin reference was to "those two idiots this thread is about (too lazy to look up their names)".

[laPapessaGiovanna]

Full disclosure: I am an educator (not a teacher,  what I do is similar to occupational therapy but the methods and the theories are completely different) and I work in a facility for addicts (drugs, alcohol, gambling). I understand that there are big differences between here and the USA. Here drug abuse is fully decriminalised (only drug dealing is a crime); NHS treats everyone who is diagnosed with an addiction; convicted inmates who are also addicts are treated by the NHS; NHS sponsors people into very costly rehab programs like the one I work in; the individualised program in our facility lasts on average 2,5 years; addict parents are offered the chance to heal while their children live with the non addict partner or gramparents/kins. All what I described makes the odds of succeeding in healing for addicts here much better than in the USA.

This said I still think that these two braindead are shitty people and awful parents. They don't belong to a discriminated minority that has learned to fear authorities for good reasons, they very probably have the education and the financial means to seek real treatment so no excuse for not seeking it. And most of all no excuse for not consenting to potentially life saving tests on their baby. They have selfishly chosen their drug above their child. And yes it's their illness, their relationship with their drug leaves them no choice but being selfish, paranoid and dangerous parents but this being an illness is no reason to leave a child in a situation where his/her life is at risk. Being a drug addict is no excuse for being a shitty parent. Addicts can be good parents when they choose to protect their child from their addiction, when they seek help and keep their child safe even if it means far away from them because they understand that they are the biggest threat to their child. Many of my patients fit in this category and they thank every deity every day because their children are safe. 

I am sorry but I think a child's right to a life snd a healthy and happy life totally trumps his/her parents right to be parents. If the parents don't or can't understand this then society has duties towards these children, we need to protect them if their parents don't. This means searching a house for drugs because these parents have already demonstrated that they are a danger to their baby or do we need that the future toddler ingest some nice looking white powder before acting? Educating (in the english sense of the term) them is not equal to treat them, it won't make them any less selfish or paranoid or violent. I agree that the USA's approach to drug addiction is shitty but children shouldn't be the ones paying for it.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

19 hours ago, devoe364 said:

I did not twist it. I told you how recovering addicts feel. I am not alone in this. Other recovering addicts have spoken up in this thread and said the same.

<snip>

You may not be alone in how you feel, but you aren't speaking for recovering addicts as a whole.  I know some who absolutely understand people having very visceral and negative reactions to those who put others in danger due to their using.

i just read this thread for the first time today and to me as soon as you were dismissive of the dangers of caring for a child while high you lost credibility on this.  And your initial posts absolutely were.  Stimulent, good teachers do it, etc.. Totally downplayed the danger...its hard to believe that someone with as much experience with people who have a coke problem as you say you do wouldn't know about the paranoia, impatience, rage, volitile moods, and erratic behavior which goes along with it.  

If people are fragile enough that comments online will cause them to use or not get help that's on them...everyone has stuff to which they are more sensitive.  We all need to manage our own exposure and deal with our own issues and not expect the entire world to protect our feelings.

 

[devoe364]

7 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

You may not be alone in how you feel, but you aren't speaking for recovering addicts as a whole.  I know some who absolutely understand people having very visceral and negative reactions to those who put others in danger due to their using.

i just read this thread for the first time today and to me as soon as you were dismissive of the dangers of caring for a child while high you lost credibility on this.  And your initial posts absolutely were.  Stimulent, good teachers do it, etc.. Totally downplayed the danger...its hard to believe that someone with as much experience with people who have a coke problem as you say you do wouldn't know about the paranoia, impatience, rage, volitile moods, and erratic behavior which goes along with it.  

If people are fragile enough that comments online will cause them to use or not get help that's on them...everyone has stuff to which they are more sensitive.  We all need to manage our own exposure and deal with our own issues and not expect the entire world to protect our feelings.

 

I didn't say I thought they were good teachers - I said they were VIEWED as good teachers. That is twisting my words. Also, cocaine is a stimulant, that is a fact, so sorry, you can't twist FACTS to suit your needs. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

Just now, devoe364 said:

I didn't say I thought they were good teachers - I said they were VIEWED as good teachers. That is twisting my words. Also, cocaine is a stimulant, that is a fact, so sorry, you can't twist FACTS to suit your needs. 

It is a stimulant.  So is chocolate.  Your tone in the way you referred to it as a stimulant and referring athletes using it and being more alert was dismissive.  Saying its a stimulant is a meaningless neutral statement on its own.  Some stimulants are okay some not.  It's also white.  So is marshmallow fluff.  No relevance.

I wasn't twisting your words.  Saying that these people can be on cocaine and be considered good teachers absolutely implies that you can be functional and safe while using it.  

Danger to school children (in a well populated place with other adults) if a teacher slips off the fine line of functional to erratic not even in the same ballpark as danger to kids in the home if the one watching them slips that line.

 

[devoe364]

Just now, HerNameIsBuffy said:

It is a stimulant.  So is chocolate.  Your tone in the way you referred to it as a stimulant and referring athletes using it and being more alert was dismissive.  Saying its a stimulant is a meaningless neutral statement on its own.  Some stimulants are okay some not.  It's also white.  So is marshmallow fluff.  No relevance.

I wasn't twisting your words.  Saying that these people can be on cocaine and be considered good teachers absolutely implies that you can be functional and safe while using it.  

Danger to school children (in a well populated place with other adults) if a teacher slips off the fine line of functional to erratic not even in the same ballpark as danger to kids in the home if the one watching them slips that line.

 

I don't think they are good teachers, if you knew anything about my experience as a teacher, you would know that when I said viewed as good teachers, I was being as sarcastic as possible. I reported it, and I got my hand slapped, not them.

[iweartanktops]

36 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

You may not be alone in how you feel, but you aren't speaking for recovering addicts as a whole.  I know some who absolutely understand people having very visceral and negative reactions to those who put others in danger due to their using.

i just read this thread for the first time today and to me as soon as you were dismissive of the dangers of caring for a child while high you lost credibility on this.  And your initial posts absolutely were.  Stimulent, good teachers do it, etc.. Totally downplayed the danger...its hard to believe that someone with as much experience with people who have a coke problem as you say you do wouldn't know about the paranoia, impatience, rage, volitile moods, and erratic behavior which goes along with it.  

If people are fragile enough that comments online will cause them to use or not get help that's on them...everyone has stuff to which they are more sensitive.  We all need to manage our own exposure and deal with our own issues and not expect the entire world to protect our feelings.

 

I also read all of this for the first time, this morning. @devoe364, in my opinion, absolutely tried to downplay the fact that cocaïne is a harmful stimulant. 

I'm also surprised that Devoe claims to have so much experience with other users, but isn't aware of how volatile people can become while using. I have minimum experience with cocaïne users, but the limited experience I have had has shown me how anxious and aggressive people can become as they come down. 

On 6/29/2016 at 8:02 AM, devoe364 said:

As an FYI, cocaine is a stimulant. They were likely perfectly capable of taking care of the baby while on it. 

Cocaine is not like meth or crack. You don't sit in the corner starring at nothing.

Its the drug of choice for professional athletes and partiers, because it keeps them awake and alert longer.

This post and subsequent posts imply that cocaïne is more like coffee. Sure, it's not like meth or crack, but that doesn't make it safe to use around children (or ever). I've seen people get into blind rages on cocaine. 

Sorry to double post, but I'm still incredulous at, "They were likely perfectly capable of taking care of a baby while on it [cocaine]." 

@devoe364, I'm curious what your definition of "perfectly capable of taking care of a baby is." Please elaborate. 

[MyMilkshake]

41 minutes ago, iweartanktops said:

 

This post and subsequent posts imply that cocaïne is more like coffee. Sure, it's not like meth or crack, but that doesn't make it safe to use around children (or ever). I've seen people get into blind rages on cocaine. 

Cocaine psychosis is a real thing. People have been known to die from heart attacks on occasion during a bad cocaine psychosis event.

[devoe364]

54 minutes ago, iweartanktops said:

I also read all of this for the first time, this morning. @devoe364, in my opinion, absolutely tried to downplay the fact that cocaïne is a harmful stimulant. 

I'm also surprised that Devoe claims to have so much experience with other users, but isn't aware of how volatile people can become while using. I have minimum experience with cocaïne users, but the limited experience I have had has shown me how anxious and aggressive people can become as they come down. 

This post and subsequent posts imply that cocaïne is more like coffee. Sure, it's not like meth or crack, but that doesn't make it safe to use around children (or ever). I've seen people get into blind rages on cocaine. 

Sorry to double post, but I'm still incredulous at, "They were likely perfectly capable of taking care of a baby while on it [cocaine]." 

@devoe364, I'm curious what your definition of "perfectly capable of taking care of a baby is." Please elaborate. 

I'm not going to argue this anymore. My experiences are clearly different from yours. Since I've seen coke heads take care of a class of 30 Grade 1's (and I'm the one who got my hand slapped for complaining about it), I assume they are perfectly capable of providing basic care for an infant if they are recreational users.

Everything I said was about recreational use, not addiction. That's where the twist came, 

[Fundie Bunny]

2 minutes ago, devoe364 said:

I'm not going to argue this anymore. My experiences are clearly different from yours. Since I've seen coke heads take care of a class of 30 Grade 1's (and I'm the one who got my hand slapped for complaining about it), I assume they are perfectly capable of providing basic care for an infant if they are recreational users.

Everything I said was about recreational use, not addiction. That's where the twist came, 

A high school friend of mine had to be internated in a mental hospital following a cocaine induced psychotic break. Just a recreational user.

[Meridae]

2 minutes ago, devoe364 said:

I'm not going to argue this anymore. My experiences are clearly different from yours. Since I've seen coke heads take care of a class of 30 Grade 1's (and I'm the one who got my hand slapped for complaining about it), I assume they are perfectly capable of providing basic care for an infant if they are recreational users.

Everything I said was about recreational use, not addiction. That's where the twist came, 

Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD do something.

[ester]

There isn't a difference between"recreational" use and addiction with regard to the effect of cocaine. It makes people paranoid and inclined to anger. It reduces executive function and stimulates the amygdala. If one were to use cocaine a single time in one's life, that time would be one in which the user would be incompetent.

[iweartanktops]

25 minutes ago, devoe364 said:

I'm not going to argue this anymore. My experiences are clearly different from yours. Since I've seen coke heads take care of a class of 30 Grade 1's (and I'm the one who got my hand slapped for complaining about it), I assume they are perfectly capable of providing basic care for an infant if they are recreational users.

Everything I said was about recreational use, not addiction. That's where the twist came, 

I don't think there is a "twist." I'm not specifically talking about addiction. I'm wondering how you define "perfectly capable of taking care of a baby." 

In my world, there's "physically able," which, sure, one may be physically able to care for a child while under the influence of cocaine. And there's "perfectly capable," - your words, not mine - which I have a long list of requirements for. I would not classify anyone under the influence of illicit drugs as perfectly capable to care for an infant. I guess we just don't agree on that. 

I tried to edit this because apparently I can't form coherent sentences today. I failed, but hopefully the majority of you understand my point. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

13 minutes ago, ester said:

There isn't a difference between"recreational" use and addiction with regard to the effect of cocaine. It makes people paranoid and inclined to anger. It reduces executive function and stimulates the amygdala. If one were to use cocaine a single time in one's life, that time would be one in which the user would be incompetent.

This - an addict would be more frequently dangerous due to using more frequently, but while impaired a recreational user isn't any more competent.

I rarely drink...but when I do I would be just as dangerous behind the wheel once impaired as any alcoholic.  

 

 

23 minutes ago, devoe364 said:

I'm not going to argue this anymore. My experiences are clearly different from yours. Since I've seen coke heads take care of a class of 30 Grade 1's (and I'm the one who got my hand slapped for complaining about it), I assume they are perfectly capable of providing basic care for an infant if they are recreational users.

Everything I said was about recreational use, not addiction. That's where the twist came, 

And there is a danger in anyone making broad assumptions out of anecdotal evidence.  Because there will always be instances where something bad could have happened and didn't.  People drive drunk every day and get home without killing people...that's luck and would be irresponsible to use that to minimize the dangers of driving under the influence.

I believe that's why you're getting this reaction in this thread...because language that minimizes the danger left unrefuted seems more credible to some who come and read later.  The whole 'maybe there is truth to this if no one said otherwise' thing.

If you were arguing that green was a better color than pink I would think you were ridiculously wrong but I wouldn't care because no one would be harmed if they took your word for it.

Minimizing the danger of drug use while caring for children...that's scary.  

[Mecca]

Working in a Level I ER, I have had patients that claimed one-time use or recreational use present to the ER displaying symptoms of paranoia, panic, extreme anxiety and aggression. I also worked on addicts with the same symptoms. Both sets of patients could not take care of themselves much less an infant. I would hope we can all agree being high on cocaine would not be in the best interest of a child.

I am not about throwing people under the bus. I do believe people should receive the help they need with their addiction so they can get in a better place and live a stable life, but we also cannot ignore the wake drugs leave behind to others involved. This story is an example of just that. This child could have died. We can argue all day long about the other stuff, but these parents failed by refusing care for their very ill child. The system should have taken the child away and that child should remain in the custody of a guardian until the parents can get their act together. The system's goal is to reunite children with parents. Despite what some of the people we follow on here say, they are not in the business to kidnap children. I am not saying the system is perfect in all cases, but in this case it worked. 

[laPapessaGiovanna]

On cocaine. Cocaine is neurotoxic, it wrecks your vascular system (it's a primary cause of heart attacks, ictuses etc), it causes irritability chronic inflammation and then necrosis of the tissues that are directly touched by it (nose, mucoses, breath ways etc). It makes people paranoid (like very very paranoid), irritable and violent, it leads them to underestimate dangers and situations. Even the very first time. All this worsens the more you use it.

And yes it is the drug of choice of professionals and players until they lose control, become too violent and unreliable and screw up so bad that's the end of their career. 

Cocaine is often used at parties together with alcohol.  This makes it much more dangerous because the combined use makes the liver produce cocaethilene that's much more dangerous than cocaine and alcohol on their own. 

In the end cocaine isn't a recreational drug, marijuana is.

[FundieFarmer]

4 hours ago, devoe364 said:

if you knew anything about my experience as a teacher, you would know that when I said viewed as good teachers, I was being as sarcastic as possible.

We don't know anything about your experience, and sarcasm doesn't read well over the internet. You really have to be as explicit as possible and explain it all, otherwise we will never know. 

2 hours ago, devoe364 said:

Since I've seen coke heads take care of a class of 30 Grade 1's (and I'm the one who got my hand slapped for complaining about it), I assume they are perfectly capable of providing basic care for an infant if they are recreational users.

...if you complained about them taking care of a class of 30 first graders, why would you be alright with them taking care of an infant, recreational or not? If you disagreed with it the first time, wouldn't you still disagree with it the second time unless the hand-slapping convinced you otherwise? 

[Grimalkin]

2 hours ago, devoe364 said:

I'm not going to argue this anymore. My experiences are clearly different from yours. Since I've seen coke heads take care of a class of 30 Grade 1's (and I'm the one who got my hand slapped for complaining about it), I assume they are perfectly capable of providing basic care for an infant if they are recreational users.

Everything I said was about recreational use, not addiction. That's where the twist came, 

      You know you are right. We don't know if they are recreational users or not. When someone called them animals for knowingly endangering that baby you told them it was offensive to you as a person in recovery. They were reacting to what these people did. Would it be okay to say that if they were recreational users? We can't criticize thier actions because they are addicts? That was my point. 

@devoe364 would you be okay if I sent you a pm?