Pregnant people don’t have the same rights as everybody else and it’s not just abortion. Reactionaries need to control what they don’t understand and absurdity is inevitable outcome.
just stop having kids
problems all over resolved
That’s exactly what’s happening. Birthrate dropping everywhere.
obviously not everyone has gotten the memo yet
It’s birthrates dropping below replacement rates, not a re-enactment of Children of Men.
But even in Africa, the birthrates are dropping. The biggest exception at the moment is Israel.
if the early indication of plastics impact on hormones is right children of men isnt so far off
This is how we lose to retarded conservatives and have Trump corruption again
you can leave the retards out of it ^_^
They voted to end democracy, they are retarded as fuck
voted end democracy
i get it, still sounds funny. I’d also remove the r-slur from your vocabulary 🤗
I’m not protecting conservatives for being mentally retarded.
The neurodivergents catching strays but aite
WTF is a poppy seed salad?
It’s probably in the dressing. Weird to call it poppy seed salad though.
That’s what I’m saying.
Now I’m imagining a spoon full of poppy seeds topped with tiny bits of tomatoes, carrots, and bacon bits.
Crrrrunch. Crrrrrruuunch. No. It’s good! Yummmm
Don’t breathe while eating or you’re gonna choke.
Basically heroine
A female hero?
Yes… and her arch nemesis is Poppy Cock.
Then she ate a salad from Costco: an “everything” chopped salad kit with poppy seeds.
“It’s a dangerous drug”: child services, probably
Poppy seed dressing is available in grocery story.
How does it end?
I’m guessing a salad with poppy seeds sprinkled on it.
I’m guessing poppy seeds with salad sprinkled on top.
A salad with poppy seeds in or on it. Like so.
There was a guy who was jailed at Dubai Airport because he had eaten a poppy-seed bagel at Heathrow some 8 hours earlier.
How does that even happen? They do drug tests in airports now?
Meanwhile foster services took a baby away from a good family I know who wanted to adopt it. They gave it back to the drug addicted mother. A month later the mother ended up strung out and back in jail, and they wanted the foster family to take the baby in again.
I suspect the poppy seed story is an outlier.
addiction in the family is a no win scenario. such difficult times for all of you, sorry. some people really do get clean but addiction is a chronic condition
Cool anecdote.
Anyone who listened to the 50 minute podcast can tell us whether she fought the decision and what the outcome was? Written article had no closure. Must have closure!
It was shitty of them not to link to the proper story with transcript. Seems a link was hidden away in the share button of the podcast player.
Just got a box of poppy seed almond muffins from Costco. Guess my whole family, kids included, would test positive for both heroin and cyanide.
When I was a teenager, I found out that some of the packs of poppy seeds at grocery stores had seeds that were shinier and oilier than the other grey/blue/dusty ones. And they sat in clumps, not loose seeds. Turns out there was a lot of opium on those.
Good times were had, for about 2 weeks, followed by ~10 years of bad times.
Yep. Drug screen popped for heroin. Happens all the time. You’d think they would have figured out a way around it by now in the screening.
But it’s only the poor that have to take drug tests. So there’s no incentive to not ruin their lives.
There is a way around it. Check again after 72h.
How long does it take for normal opiates to pass through? Because if they’re the same it doesn’t really indicate that it was from Poppy seeds.
Plus failing a drug test is an automatic disqualification from future employment. Nobody is going to give you multiple chances to pass.
I stayed up all night studying for this drug test! You gotta give me a 2nd try!
That’s why you don’t tell them they tested positive the first time. You can also likely tell by the levels in their system.
Mmm that salad was good, let’s get another.
If a opiate addict went clean for 72 hours for a drug test they would be in very bad shape by the time they get tested again. It would be completely obvious that they are in withdrawal. They would be very anxious, shivering, vomiting, and shitting.
Retesting after 72 hours is a pretty good indicator that someone isn’t using so long as you also observe physical symptoms.
Plenty of jobs for non-poor have random drug testing as well, for instance some jobs that are DOT regulated in the US, like flight crew.
You misunderstand. To the people making these decisions, flight crews are “the poor”.
We’re all just filthy poors to them.
Fresh out of high school I got a job working in the same grocery store as my then girlfriend (now wife), i had to take a drug test to finish the hiring process. I stopped at the grocery store to grab the paperwork and a I walked past the bakery they had fresh poppy seed bagels, my absolute favorite. I grabbed one and then went the next morning for my drug test, failed for opiates.
If it’s how it’s being made out, I’m seriously concerned. However, it’s different if she was already on the CP radar for drug use, and her taking the baby home depended on her providing clean tests. The child needs to come first
No, even if there was an existing agreement. You can’t have your kids taken away for eating healthy food.
Drug addicts don’t have less rights than the rest of us.
Eating a salad isn’t the same as endangering your child even if the test can’t tell the difference.
If she’s already been found to be a risk to her child due to substance misuse issues and she’s failed a drug test, then the child should be taken. Further analysis can be done on the sample, but in the short term the newborn needs to be safeguarded. Babies under a year are particularly at risk of death from CP issues, and the child’s needs come first.
This is exactly the arguments used to ban abortions.
If she’s already found at risk of having an abortion she should be held in a safe birthing room until she gives birth then further analysis can be done, but in the short term the fetus needs to be safeguarded…
That’s what you sound like.
Sorry mate, you can’t just take people’s children because you’re worried, even if you’re well meaning. If you want data here you go: children fare immeasurably better in abusive homes than in the child welfare system:
Turns out being with your family (regular, abusive, or adoptive) is FAR better than any other transient arrangement of care provider, almost universally, even for terrible abuse and neglect.
The analogy doesn’t work because we aren’t talking about forced bodily resource donation. Long term foster care benefits is different when we’re talking about a newborn, especially as they’re particularly at risk of unlawful death.
If you have a mother who was known to be a risk to children due to her substance misuse and tested positive for opiates after birth, how do you suggest the baby is safeguarded?
Apparently even if the mother is neglectful because of drugs and the men in her life are beating her and molesting the kids that’s “better” than foster care lmao
Edit: also apparently being addicted to a substance is the same as… Hiding abortions?
So I went and clicked on the study this article is written about, and it does not conclude that children going into the system are more likely to suffer abuse, or turn out worse, than those left with their abusers. It even cautions that “he point estimates are large and relatively imprecisely estimated, with only the delinquency and earnings results statistically significantly different from zero and none statistically different from the conditional mean comparison”
They also said that CS investigators who have higher rates of child removals, have higher rates of long term placement of the children, but that this is more of a function of how much work they do vs colleagues, rather than some sort of personal bias. They further say that the estimates against the median statistics for the general population are not far off from those of kids within abusive households, in terms of long term wealth, and delinquency, which they mention another paper that concludes that most of the long term affects are achieved in early childhood, so by the time the system receives them they are already statistically more likely to end up this way from the abuse already suffered.
Then also spend a portion of the study explaining how there are major problems with their study, but that is because most of the data they would need is either very difficult to get, or can only be gotten via unethical means. (laws around privacy make it difficult to get data from organizations, and solid experimental evidence would require knowingly allowing a group of children to be abused)
So this study isn’t saying what you are making it to say. Really even the article from a organization against government interventions of families is saying, which isn’t really surprising either.
The article sites 4 studies not one.
Even at that, lower earnings and higher delinquency rates are exactly the kinds of data point that shows unnecessary intervention, like taking a child from the mother over poppy seeds, which maybe you’ll remember is what we were disagreeing about, is bad for children.
It’s clear that the “take the kids from the parents and investigate later” attitude you’re recommending causes more problems than it solves, even though it’s “well meaning” at first glance.
Eating food isn’t a reason to have your kids taken away from any parent, even one who was at risk of drug abuse. This is a known problem with the tests and they should have confirmed it BEFORE acting, not taken the baby and investigated later.
There are actually 7 studies in that article, and a link to more, however this particular article was written because of the one study that was done, and cited, 3 times.
All of these studies have the same problems, and have lots of criticism about their methodology, particularly in how to get this data. One of the biggest critiques being that they studied kids in bad homes the CS decided to not take in, vs ones they did. This is how they know a child is in a bad home, but not being ethically responsible for them staying. This automatically selects for less severe cases being the stay at homes, and the more severe being the ones taken. Then there are this issues in my last comment, like their estimations being wide. There are also many more when I started finding when putting the titles of these studies into google scholar and adding critique.
Basically these studies aren’t particularly useful because the data is hard to get (privacy laws, parents not wanting to participate, retraction of participation agreements before conclusion of data gathering, etc), the different groupings are already selected based on a varying scales of abuse severity, that it would not be ethical to select groups in a different fashion, and any experimental trials would be unethical. These foundational problems also make meta research faulty from the start. While they can pose some interesting questions, they are not able to make reliable qualitative calls on kids being removed from abusive homes because the ability to conduct this research is just not there in a way it would need to be.
You’re clearly putting a lot of effort into your responses and are being respectful. I don’t think I’ve given you the same respect so far so I’ll try my best.
I agree with the nuances you brought up. I understand you feel it’s better to intervene and be safe than sorry. I see the appeal of that.
I take the opposite stance. I know that the welfare of the child is closely tied to the stress and trauma they endure. In most families that at least nominally love their children that’s related to the stress of the parents. Stressed out parents are bad parents (all else being equal). Taking a child from their parents is a big stressor, that alone will make the child’s life worse.
To me, that’s enough motivation to say that on average the damage you cause through intervention has to be less than the life improvement you gain from intervention.
That’s a hard balance to strike. It can be appealing to say that damage to 100 families is worth it to save one child from irreparable harm.
My personal ethics say that you’re only responsible for your actions. If you don’t act and something bad happens then that’s on the people who did the bad things. On the other hand, if you do act then it’s important to validate that your actions match your intentions to improve the world, using the data you have access to, as best as you can.
I know other people have a value system that compels them to act because not acting can be as much a choice as acting. This type of value system would definitely lead you to intervening more often. I have a hard time internalizing these types of value systems because they’re very problematic at large scale and at edge cases.
I can live in a world with interventionists. But it doesn’t mean I don’t feelthe damage unnecessary interventions cause such as the one in this article.
This was my first thought. It’s sticky because unfortunately for her this is the type of thing an opiate addict would lie about.
Yep exactly. It may be a fuck up by CPS but it may be that she’s already flagged as a risk so they’ve put the child first.
As long as CPS doesn’t leave the baby to die in a hot car in the sun.
America’s fixation on drugs is beyond psychotic. God forbid someone actually enjoys their shitty life a little bit. When does congress get its random drug tests? Oh, that’s right, the rules don’t apply there…
This is literally a bit in Seinfeld, except its a bagel and Elaine doesn’t get to go on her work trip. Guess our collective memory is very very very short.
Ffs there was a Seinfeld episode on this issue. 30 years later and we have nothing better?!
There was a MythBusters episode too!
Yep. Authorities have basically just refused to admit how unreliable drug tests are, no matter how many times it’s proven
It’s standard war on drugs tactics… They don’t care how many people they hurt, gotta keep that slave prisoner population up
The drug war is and has always been primarily a class war.
Many such cases
Honestly at this point we should stop offering Poppy seeds in normal goods.
No. That’s the wrong change.
Honestly at this point we should stop using drug tests we know to be extremely faulty to dictate people’s lives.
agreed… it consistently has caused problems in drug tests. as long as drug tests are viable for any population, poppy seeds are a nuisance. does it really even add to the flavour of anything?
I love the flavor. Poppy seed cake has been my favorite since I was a kid. My mom used to make it for my birthday every year.
What? Eat a poppy seed muffin and come back. That shit is delicious.
From a non-American: the crazy bit seems to be routinely drug testing mothers giving birth, not letting people eat salads with poppy seeds. And then sharing the drug test result with other authorities. Is it just another American ruse to oppress women, especially poor women? Other countries don’t do this.
Honestly at this point we should stop
offering Poppy seeds in normal goods.drug testing people in most cases.It just reenforces the notion that drug use is a moral failing.
Child Services took “her” baby? I think you mean “OUR” baby. If you think “your” children don’t belong to the state, you haven’t been paying attention.
Absolutely horrible but they should absolutely warn people about foods that can make them false positive before any drug tests.
She had a salad, an “everything” salad. Poppy seeds are just a minor everyday ingredient and it would to just not even think of them. Even knowing. Even being warned.
Warning is not enough.
Or maybe we should stop drug testing people and exit the fascist fucking police state.
Happy to be corrected but if someone is operating heavy machinery or doing something you might not want them to be impaired due to drugs.
That is such an American take. In my country there are three professions in which the employer can mandate a drugtest: train operator, pilots and captains. Everybody else is in their legal right to (and should) deny a drugtest. What you do in your spare time is none of your employers business.
Wait, bus drivers don’t get drug tested?
Nope. By law only employees within the three professions I described above have to comply when asked to take a drugs test. No other profession can be forced to take one.
That’s not to say that a bus driver driving irratically will never be tested - the police can still mandate a drugs test when suspected of DUI and you’d have to comply.
Commercial truck drivers absolutely should be on that list as should anyone in an armed guard position.
Was this woman operating heavy machinery immediately after giving birth?
The factor in common is public safety. In the case of giving birth there is a new extremely vulnerable member of the public. It’s at least reasonable that the hospital needs to know
Driving, taking school kids on a trip, surgeries, Mars mission, secret weapon testing, etc.
Are you insane? This whole thread is insane. The fact that you are OK with this makes this insane.
I was just covering my bases in case there was something I was missing.
No, the contrary: everyone should increase false positives to render these tests worthless.
It’s like how I just read that 300+ people were arrested at a protest (of I think 500). Either way, when is it that just everyone in town is arrested?
That’s when the share values of private prison companies go to the moon.
This exact false positive has been known about for decades. It was in a Seinfeld episode.
