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.
“Fifth child”…in the USA? Guess she must be filthy rich. In that case this problem probably solves itself in no time.
I have five kids. Definitely not filthy rich.
I am “don’t have to look at my bank account before buying groceries” rich, not “putting my kids through college” rich.
My wife and I are in our 30s with three degrees between the two of us and no kids and still aren’t “don’t have to look at our bank account before buying groceries” rich. It sounds like you might need to check your privilege.
Maybe it’s your crabs in a bucket mentality holding you down, bro.
So they’re wealthier than you. Why is that a problem? In the ongoing class war we’re all still on the same side. There’s no need for division over minor differences in wealth. Indeed that’s one of the tools of the owner class to keep workers from achieving class solidarity. Let’s not play into their hands.
The person I replied to is being an asshole and needs to remember their own privilege. This has nothing to do with a class war and everything to do with that commenter’s attitude to the person they replied to.
Believe it or not, no, you are being the asshole right now.
How?
Telling someone to check their privilege when they tried to accurately describe the level of rich they are?
Pretty sure it’s because they are saying being able to afford groceries without worrying about cost makes you rich. Which it really doesn’t.
Rich is relative. If you’re making $500k but have 10 kids, you’re almost certainly not rich. Kids are expensive. You just make a lot of money.
Potential disposable income is what differentiates. $500k as a single person with no kids is going to make you rich, even in the highest cost of living areas. You simply don’t have high expenses unless you purposefully get expense stuff.
In what way is that person being an asshole? Did they call you a poor loser?
I mean I didn’t say that was poor, right? It’s nice. I’m not complaining. But it’s not filthy rich.
We have a 15-20 years on you. I hope you get there. Fifteen years ago… we were barely scraping by. I think my wife was practically a professional couponer. We couldn’t afford for her to work. We had a car repossessed.
I really don’t think you are arguing what you think you are arguing. But good for you I guess.
I wasn’t trying to argue other than the idea that I don’t realize my privilege — I did still call not having to check my bank account for groceries “rich”, right?
We must be having two very different conversations.
I guess. My problem is with you trying to delineate varying levels of “rich” like “filthy rich” was anything other than an opinion to begin with. Adding in that my opinion is that if you can afford to feed 7 mouths without budgeting in this economy then you really shouldn’t be trying to defend yourself as not “filthy rich”.
…do you not think there are varying levels of wealth? I don’t have to check my bank account before I go shopping, but I’m also not getting a steak or stocking up on cocktails or anything like that. I can’t go out and buy a house. I can’t go out and buy a car. I can’t go out and buy a computer or a gaming console or a fancy purse. I simply am comfortable enough to afford basic foods without worry.
If that makes me FILTHY RICH, then I would love to know how you describe the people with actual generational wealth.
My initial comment was meant cynically. “Filthy rich” surely doesn’t apply to someone that can feed some people without budgeting. That is not living, that is survival. Here (Germany) we’d say you’d need about 250k for a kid til it gets 18. Working-class-level. It gets waaaay higher with private schools and such. And we don’t even pay for healthcare (unless you want to) nor college. 4 kids comes to a mil. And that’s just the kids. Parents are likely living some place and maybe even have hobbies besides working and kids (though probably not with that many kids)
I was referring to a level of “filthy rich” where you have that amount of cash for each kids AND yourselves. And in the case of the USA even another 100k (or whatever) for each kid’s college. And oh boy will all that money go to waste if one kid ends up sick. And maybe your kid wants to go to some famous school or want a pony or become a skydiver.
But hey, to each their own. I wouldn’t even find the time for a job with all my hobbies, let alone one single kid 😁
They said what kind of rich they were, and what kind they’re not. They know their privilege.
Still doesn’t mean they could afford to pay legal fees to get their child back due to overindulgence in poppies.
I’m curious how you can be in that situation but still have to watch what groceries you buy. I can only guess you live in a high cost of living area and/or have a lot of debt to pay off.
I’m single, no kids, have my own house, and also in my 30s. I don’t have to watch what groceries I buy but I do anyway. I’d rather spend that money on vacations.
I’m in an above average situation but definitely not rich by any stretch of the imagination. I still have to budget if I want to take most any vacation. That can get expensive even if it’s some place you drive to.
If we knew we probably wouldn’t still be in this situation.
The opposite. We live in a black hole of such low cost that it’s basically impossible to leave without already having a job offer from somewhere else.
We haven’t been able to afford a vacation in 15 years together there is always something else we must spend money on.
Then, this question comes to mind, why do you have 5 kids?
I’ve got way more money than I’d ever need but would still consider myself not loaded enough to have ONE kid, let alone two or even more. And I live in a place with universal healthcare and a social safety net. Kids are fucking expensive. And I would want my kids to have EVERY chance at this world. And this world, especially the USA, is made against the poor(-ish). They shall not rise.
Kill yourself, you classist eugenecist
Name checks out. But also wtf is wrong with you?
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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
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
Why are they drug testing in the first place? Wtf?
Because if a pregnant woman is on something chemically addictive, the baby is too, and that’s important to know when delivering a baby.
And you think this is normal? This is police state shit. I’m so glad I don’t live in that horrible country.
Oh, I remember you. You like baiting people into arguments and shit-talking America. LOL. Get some therapy, man. Rage-baiting online is a pathetic way to deal with your feelings.
I don’t know about their rage-baiting but it’s super easy to shit talk the US and, considering how much damage they do to everyone else, is pretty understandable.
It would be if the above post was about something related to bad actions by the U.S., but it’s not. People talking shit about America here are just using this post as a way to vent their anger about other issues, which is childish.
And before anyone accuses me of anything, I’m no Trump supporter and I understand why people are angry at America right now. Still, that’s no reason to disparage the entire country as a “shithole.”
This is literally a thing that happened in the US you bootlicking tool.
The US is a shithole and it’s not going to improve with you pretending that it isn’t just because it’s a gilded shithole.
Ah, another baiter. You should get some therapy too. When another country’s politics piss you off this much, and you resort to venting your rage online, that’s a pretty good sign you have some unaddressed issues going on in your life. It’s not uncommon for people to avoid dealing with their real problems by becoming willfully preoccupied with more trivial issues that don’t really affect them, like politics.
Thinking this is normal is pathetic. Thinking America is great right now is also pathetic. Maybe when they start rounding your friends up you will finally see the light. Who am I kidding you don’t have any friends.
OP might like to shit talk the US and try to find topics specifically to do so. But they are not wrong here.
You ought to understand liberal democracies don’t just routinely drug test their population without consent or at least clear indication of a crime and following a court order. There was a time where the US at least aspired to be in the liberal democracies club. That you guys defend this practice even on a left-leaning platform such as lemmy is seriously frightening.
Did you even read the article? She wasn’t tested without her consent. She just didn’t think the test would come back positive for opiates. The U.S. is no different from other countries: we don’t drug test people without their consent.
Jesus Christ, the caliber of commenter on this platform is seriously questionable.
Hospitals have no business testing for drugs without cause, which they do in the US per the article: “Hospitals across the country routinely drug test people coming in to give birth.” Screening people routinely for drugs is some police state shit.
You’re right, it doesn’t say that she didn’t consent. It also doesn’t say she did either, the article simply doesn’t address it.
However, I just cannot imagine a scenario, where someone would be consenting to a drug test without coercion, can you? Why would she? If you didn’t take drugs, there’s no benefit. If you did take drugs and you want the doctors to know, tell them. If you took drugs and you don’t want the doctors to know, you don’t consent. And that doesn’t even take into account false positives. I don’t see any conceivable reason why anyone would subject themselves to a drug test where no possible outcome would be positive for you. So, please enlighten me, how are these completely voluntary drug tests with zero benefit to the test subject so common?
Add to that, that these tests are not good enough for random testing. You have too many false positives, so you must have additional indicators of drug use to even consider them from a purely scientific perspective.
Having a baby is a cause for drug testing though.
The issue here is one of medical ethics.
It’s important for the doctors to know if the baby is going to suffer and possibly die from withdrawals after being born. The drug tests are important for knowing that.
However sharing that information with anyone else violates the trust with healthcare providers which results in significantly poorer health outcomes for everyone and pours gasoline on anti-intelluctual movements like antivax etc.
But why don’t they just ask the mother whether she took any medication or drugs she shouldn’t have? Given what happened in the article, the information provided by the mother would probably be more accurate anyway. Routinely not believing women is on brand, though. Again, we’re talking about women with absolutely no history of drug abuse. I’d seriously like to know how many women with no prior history of drug abuse start doing drugs just as they are getting pregnant to warrant routine testing.
Another problem with these kinds of tests is that they are not accurate enough. If you test urine samples routinely, the majority of your tests will be false positives. (Example: you test all pregnant women, 1% take drugs, the test is accurate 98% of the time. Congratulations, 2/3 of your tests are false positives.) That’s why you only do those tests if you have a suspicion based on other data and not just test everyone.
In the U.S. all healthcare professionals are “mandated reporters.” That means, if they find out about any form of child abuse while they’re on the job, they’re legally required to report it. Failing to do so can result in the loss of their professional license. Doing so is always considered an exception to confidentiality rights.
I suspect the hospital in question has a strict policy about reporting any pregnant mother who tests positive for drugs to CPS as a means of avoiding lawsuits. The problem is really with CPS systems in the U.S. They’re supposed to investigate reported instances of abuse and if it turns out there’s no cause for concern, close the case in short order; but CPS workers aren’t all of equal quality, and in my experience (I work in mental health), there’s a real problem with people who were abused as children becoming CPS workers and having a bias towards being overly suspicious of all parents. So, cases sometimes get dragged out, which ironically results in psychological harm to the children the CPS workers are supposed to be protecting.
Yes. Co-opting CPS a weapon in the “war on drugs” was a very intentional choice with extremely predictable outcomes.
While CPS is a good thing in concept it most often gets used as a weapon for class warfare. No angel investor is getting their kids taken away for getting busted snorting coke off a stripper.
Co-opting CPS a weapon in the “war on drugs” was a very intentional choice with extremely predictable outcomes.
That’s a nice sentiment until you look at the actual data. Drug-addicted parents are horrible for their children. Even if you want to make the argument that it was some intentional class warfare shit—and I’m not actually disputing that point here—it’s still a fact that SA parents tend to be shit parents. Every case should be evaluated on its own merits, that’s the point. And that doesn’t happen, and it sucks. But that doesn’t mean that drug testing pregnant mothers is a bad policy inherently. In fact, it’s a good policy, with sub-par implementation following it.
Why are they drug testing women during childbirth? What kind of fucked up shit is that?
Started to become common during the moral panic around drugs in the 80s and 90s here in the US. I don’t know how it’s legal but this country is very backwards.
Pointing out that a person has taken an illegal drug at some point is one of the top dehumanization tools of conservatives. It is a very potent catalyst when combined with non-whiteness. It has a rich history going back at least to the nixon days.
Like half the conservatives ik be sniffing their keys in the bathroom
Well sure. The Only Moral Addiction Is My Addiction, so to speak.
How common are psychedelics in the military? Some friends woul have me think its insanely common but I only know from sources outside myself in that case. Just be downing shrooms and/or acid since it’s not on drug tests.
Its…decently common. When I was at huachuca shrooms and acid would go around, there’d be a shakedown every six months at the TRADOC soldiers’ barracks . For long missions it was incredibly easy to run into Ritalin and such. No one I knew did anything like coke or heroin.
It has a rich history going back at least to the nixon days.
Before that… At least goes back to the “Reefer Madness” days
Oh yeah, and of course the underlying bigotry and tribalism goes back like all the way.
Honestly I think it would be helpful to know if the baby might go into withdrawal but the positive test would be more of a flag to do a few rounds of neonatal abstinence scoring at set intervals after birth. I don’t see why you’d need to call CPS if the baby doesn’t significantly withdraw, since that’s the actual harm that would be done to the baby. If their NAS values are negligible obviously either the test was a false positive or mom wasn’t doing enough to actually put the baby at risk.
In some states, testing and then notifying CPS of positives is required by law. The healthcare staff hate it as much as the patients, because it does more harm than good.
They should - but only for medical reasons kept confidential. It’s important info for the doctor for the health of the kid. But not the cops.
My dad had a story similar to this from when he worked at a bank. Someone brought in poppyseed muffins for the office, the same morning that the office got randomly selected for drug tests. The higher-ups were really confused when the entire office tested positive for opiates.
I also had a roommate fail to get a job over a poppyseed muffin.
I do think it’s kind of ridiculous that they apparently can’t tell the difference between poppy seeds and heroin. Seriously they can’t figure that out?
Heroin is made from opium poppy seeds, so, yeah, a residual small dose of heroin in your blood looks like the same opium from a serving of poppy seed muffins.
Might’ve been the muffin or it might’ve been the Fentanyl Friday team building exercise. We’ll never know!
I do love Meth Mondays.
I think Weed Wednesday is the perfect mid week pick me up.
Everyone loves the energy and productivity gains from weed.
How do you think civil engineers come up with the switchback interchange?
Someone knew there was a drug test and flooded the office with Poppy so they wouldn’t get caught.
That would be pretty genius/because even if they were positive for something else (not opiates) management would still be like “This whole batch of tests is totally scuffed, we can’t use it.”
I remember at one place I worked the boss was really dead against the drug test and argued against them saying they were unnecessary since there was no evidence of drug taking.
Guess who calmed down when it turned out management weren’t required to take the tests. Yep. Fortunately his whole spiel did delay things about 4 days, so it was still beneficial to us.
WTF is a poppy seed salad?
I’m guessing a salad with poppy seeds sprinkled on it.
I’m guessing poppy seeds with salad sprinkled on top.
Then she ate a salad from Costco: an “everything” chopped salad kit with poppy seeds.
Basically heroine
A female hero?
Yes… and her arch nemesis is Poppy Cock.
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.
A salad with poppy seeds in or on it. Like so.
Poppy seed dressing is available in grocery story.
How does it end?
“It’s a dangerous drug”: child services, probably
Absolutely horrible but they should absolutely warn people about foods that can make them false positive before any drug tests.
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.
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.
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
If the baby was born with obvious signs of drug use by the mother then you might have a case. But drug testing every single woman who gives birth is excessive and fascist.
If hospitals are doing this, women are going to stop trusting them to deliver their babies and start giving birth at home with the aid of a midwife instead.
No, the contrary: everyone should increase false positives to render these tests worthless.
This exact false positive has been known about for decades. It was in a Seinfeld episode.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
As long as CPS doesn’t leave the baby to die in a hot car in the sun.
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.
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?
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.
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…
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.
Cool anecdote.
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
