MPs call for addicts' children to be adopted (2 Viewers)

[Serius]

The government currently takes the stance that it is healthier for the child to be with its natural mother than any other carer no matter what. This is totally wrong thinking and its the reason child custody results in the crackhead mother getting the kids instead of the respectable father, or better yet the state.

 

[chicky_pie]

its a good idea, most addict children grow up getting f'kd up before they're 16.
Look in Mt Druitt fuckin addicts & child junkies everywhere...imagine that! those people from that area around us! ewww! total ban on junkies!

 

[sam04u]

That doesn't help anything it just causes more problems. What the government should really do is make people quit selling drugs. Once the drugs are gone (and any toxin that they can become addicted to and then be negligent to their children). Alot of these sorts of problems will be reduced substantially. But taking a child away from their parents ruins both the childrens and the parents lives substantially.

Re: Stolen Generation.


Solution?

1. Give drug dealers an alternative. (A real one, where they're paid the amount of money to give up the information on their suppliers.)
2. Same deal with suppliers.
3. Stop most drugs entering or being grown in the country. (with emphasis on hard drugs.)
4. Decriminalise marijuana.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

- Where does the confiscation of children end? Alcoholic parents?.

Why stop there? IMHO half the reason every generation of aussies is a bunch of uneducated bogans is because their parents were uneducated bogans. If we confiscate all bogan children we won't have this problem anymore

also i think you'd like the family first party

But what Australians do like is having a political party like Family First that can stand in the middle of the two big political parties and apply some good old fashion common sense. Imagine if decisions in Canberra were based on common sense – surely we would all get a fairer go.

 

[Graney]

Addicts children will be adopted. Addicts of what though? Why draw the line at any substance? And who do you class as an addict? Many people use heroin occasionally and never become addicted. Many succesfull people use cocaine.

Without a hard defintion, this policy seems dangerous. Will people with a single possestion conviction be at risk of losing their children?

How many children are abused by alcoholic parents. Why not take away alcoholics children?

I agree, Non-drug users are probally more often great parents than drug users. But drug users can still be good parents. And non-drug users can be awfull parents. Just because parents use drugs, doesn't mean abuse always occurs.

This is trying for a too simple solution to a complex problem. It's also "tough on drugs" political points scoring in the run up to the election.

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

If it can be proven that the child's parents are addicted to a drug to the extent that it looks unlikely that they will not be able to raise their child in a safe environment, or that they will be unable to beat the addiction, then i really don't see the problem. I mean, you can't prove one hundred percent that the parents won't be able to raise their child properly, but, well, tough shit. It's the child whose welfare is at stake, the parent's feelings really don't come into it as far as I'm concerned.

I think there should be a better support system in place for addicted parents, however. Something to help and encourage them to get clean. I'm no political genius, okay, so I don't know what, exactly. But something. An education program for parents. Medical assistance. Et cetera.

But imo the bottom line is that if you are addicted to drugs you can forget about raising a kid while you're not clean. It isn't fair on the child.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

The governments "tough on drugs"+"protecting your children online" ads etc. are really infuriating.

Both may give the impression that the government cares, but anyone with 2 brain cells sees the futility of it all.

The government is also partial to fear campaigns. Both the "tough on drugs" campaign, the "protect your children online" campaign, the "be alert but not alarmed" campaign, etc are all based on fear. It's what the Libs do best.

What an uncertain world we live in.
I'm glad the government is there to protect us from all these nasty unknowns. Predators online. Terrorists. Drug traffickers. Shit, what's happening to society. Lets place the government as central protector of us and our children.

So, umm, why would you wan to place such an inept organization in control of half the money you earn?

 

[Graney]

I mean, you can't prove one hundred percent that the parents won't be able to raise their child properly, but, well, tough shit. It's the child whose welfare is at stake, the parent's feelings really don't come into it as far as I'm concerned.

I can't prove 100% that your dad will be able to resist raping you, but, well, tough shit. It's your welfare that's at stake.

You're still making the assumption that all drug people are fucked all the time, with no self-control at all. Non-drug users are equally often shit parents. And shit people are often attracted to drugs, and would be shit people, with or without the drugs.

Taking away children is serious fucking business. You should have to prove the 100% the parents wont' be able to raise they're children properly.

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

I can't prove 100% that your dad will be able to resist raping you, but, well, tough shit. It's your welfare that's at stake.

You're still making the assumption that all drug people are fucked all the time, with no self-control at all. Non-drug users are equally often shit parents. And shit people are often attracted to drugs, and would be shit people, with or without the drugs.

Taking away children is serious fucking business. You should have to prove the 100% the parents wont' be able to raise they're children properly.

I'm not saying that drug addicts have no self control. But addiction is serious business as well. It's really really hard to get off drugs once you're on them. They fuck with you in all sorts of ways. It isn't fair to expose a child to that just because these people are their natural parents. It should be about raising the child where they will have the best chance to achieve their potential, and that place is not with parents who have a dangerous addiction that they can't break. These parents might be able to raise their kids, I never said they couldn't, but will they able to raise them as well as someone who has their head screwed on properly and doesn't have to battle an addiction at the same time?

 

[Graney]

I'm not saying that drug addicts have no self control.

I think you are. You're denying the possibility of a middle ground between the insane mindless junkie and occasional moderate drug use.

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

I think you are. You're denying the possibility of a middle ground between the insane mindless junkie and occasional moderate drug use.

You can't believe that someone who is addicted to drugs whether severely or otherwise has the same ability to control their actions as someone who isn't. Addiction is not something that you can just say 'oh I quit now' and then go do it. Drug addiction (or any addiction) takes away part of your self control. I'm not saying drug addicts have NO self control. I don't think they're as in control of themselves as non addicts, however.

Where did I deny that there were varying degrees of addiction? I did say that there should be proof that the parent is severely addicted enough to not be able to raise children. To my mind that means that if the parent has been using for a long period of time, has been using heavily, has attempted to quit and been unsuccessful or hasn't attempted to quit at all, then that parent lacks the self control to be able to get clean and raise a child in a drug-free environment, which is not fair to the child, thus = adoption.

 

[Anonymou5]

So many retards...I mean what kind of rubbish is this? "z0mg but where do you draw the line?" Use your brain moron, it's pretty obvious what a severe addiction is. It's politically correct (not to mention utterly stupid) fucktards like you who prevent society from improving.

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

So many retards...I mean what kind of rubbish is this? "z0mg but where do you draw the line?" Use your brain moron, it's pretty obvious what a severe addiction is. It's politically correct (not to mention utterly stupid) fucktards like you who prevent society from improving.

if that was directed at me, i know exactly what severe addiction means thankyou and i never said anything about drawing lines.

if it was directed at someone else then sorry.

 

[Anonymou5]

It wasn't directed at you, I just cbb quoting people.

 

[Graney]

It's politically correct (not to mention utterly stupid) fucktards like you who prevent society from improving.

Define improving.

 

[Graney]

If its severe addiction and its impacting on the kids welfare then the states already have provisions for the kids removal.

+1

I absolutely support removing kids from dangerous parents. But Bronwyn Bishop is just "Oh noes, Drugs!".

 

[Anonymou5]

Define improving.

You just illustrated my point. People who support the same view as you, thus far, have not addressed the actual issue with any substance. Taking the context of the issue into consideration, it's pretty obvious what I meant. Only an idiot would genuinely not understand.

Here's the simple formula which you've used again and again:

- make futile attempt at advocating the view that individuals who value drugs more than their children make good parents

- failing that, divert attention away from the actual topic and ask inane questions on side issues such 'what is the definition of improving' even though the definition is self evident

Although I can understand why you would endorse the illogical point of view in this issue. After all, you've experienced the same sort of drug abuse as has been mentioned in this thread (if not then you've been talking out of your ass). The loss of brain cells from the abuse would explain your inability to stick to the actual issue.

 

[Graney]

You just illustrated my point. People who support the same view as you, thus far, have not addressed the actual issue with any substance.

Okay, some substance. Abused children should be protected and abusive parents should be punished, including if necessary with having their kids removed.

Improving the current system can be achieved by greater monitoring and response to reports of abuse, more funding, resources, reducing beauracratic inneficiency etc...

I think the current system is ideologically fine, but could do better. Dealing with these problems is complex, extended, expensive and difficult. I'm wary of anything that sounds too easy.

The proposed system of addicts children being taken away, appears as though it will cause children to be taken not only from abusive parents, but also from parents who never have and never will harm their children. It may not be a perfect upbringing. But how many people, with or without drugs in their life, are raised perfectly, or have perfect parents?

Here's the simple formula which you've used again and again

I should change my arguements and be inconsistent?
I suppose if I'm learning how to debate from you, I should just call anyone I disagree with a retard, idiot, brain damaged, fucktard. Then I could feel like a big man over tha intarwebz.

- failing that, divert attention away from the actual topic and ask inane questions on side issues such 'what is the definition of improving' even though the definition is self evident

You made a general point, not just related to the topic at hand, but society in general, that knobs like me were preventing society in general from improving.

Obviously, in this issue, I understand that improving society is reducing child abuse. But I honestly wanted to know what your ideology is, and how if people like me weren't around society would be improved.

I understand what is "the definition of improving". I hoped you'd describe your hypothetical improved society.


Also, I did it for the lulz.

 

[AlleyCat]

People became too scared to take the more drastic options. It's not ideal to remove a child from their birth parents obviously, but there really are cases when it's warranted.
People just need to stop being soft. DOCS are pretty pathetic though.

why are DOCS pathetic? i think they do a lot of good. they just have a lot of red tape to jump through.

 

[Billy Corgan]

Because they don't do shit and they won't do shit because of the latest bugger up of the system. They are cowards. We may as well just get Centrelink to tell us how to parent our kids.

If DOCs failed to interfere into this situation, we may as well just go around and yell: "A DINGO'S GOT MY BABY!"