abc's crisis of the foster care system (cross-posted)

wrote:
i agree with wade horn's statement that "governments ought to honor and
support the family as the most critical structure for insuring the
well-being of children who are, after all, our future" and have said
much the same thing............the state contrived divorcement of child
from parents (termination of parental rights) has not worked very
well.............the new reality is that the easy money for child
removal is drying up...........it also signals a withering of the "baby
snatching" arm of gov'ment that the anti-spanking forces used so freely
to threaten parents through the infamous mondale child abuse prevention
and treatment act............with the reduced need for foster care will
also come a diminished need for guardians ad litem and related
make-work jobs..........the 35-year-old war on drugs, used as a
springboard for the meth epidemic scare, is a bigger failure than
vietnam and iraq put together..............like foster care, it is
another example of a failed gov'ment boondoggle...........the 2004 pew
report addressed both the financing of foster care and the role of the
court system..........over a month ago, abc news devoted an hour to
step families in crisis............with the myth of the brady bunch is
busted the real question is whether adoption as an alternative to
foster care represents a shifting of the financial burden away from
taxpayers or is a workable solution.............

Doug's got to be pretty desperate to pick you up as yet another of his
little boot lickers, but hey, he was never known to discriminate before
when he found someone to agree with his bull****.

You are a fit toady, observer.

And if Doug was being looked at as credible in any way by posters
here....eheheheheh....you have taken care of that.

It becomes pretty obvious what he's about by looking at what you are about.

Post some more of these fantasies of yours.

0:-



Doug wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
abc's primetime did a june 1 story on "the crisis of the foster care
system"..............among abc's conclusions were 52 percent of foster
children suffered from post-traumatic stress (a rate twice as high as
soldiers returning from war).............thirty percent of the homeless
have been in foster care............ twenty-five percent of those in
prison are foster care alumnus
Hi, maggie,

Former and present foster children represent the most endangered population
in this country.

Child welfare experts contend that the only way to reduce the abuse in
foster care and the very poor outcomes for former foster children is to have
less foster care. And reform movements are underway in many states and, on
the federal level, to place less children into state custody and release
foster children to their families earlier.

Currently, the vast majority of children removed from their families were
not abused. 69,000 of children placed in foster care in 2003 were removed
from families CPS workers themselves unsubstantiated for risk of or actual
neglect/abuse. These non-victims represent 30% of the foster care
population. The majority of those who were substantiated were found to be
at risk of neglect or neglected. Of those children substantiated as victims
of abuse, the majority were substantiated because they were "at risk" of
abuse, not actually abused.

............. like welfare, foster care
is intergenerational (children growing up in foster care can become
mothers with children in foster care........... "the highest ranking
federal official in charge of foster care, wade horn of the department
of health and human services, is a former child psychologist who says
the foster care system is a giant mess and should just be blown
up"............
The most vocal of foster care critics are professionals who are directly
involved with it. Dr. Horn is one of the players in CPS reform efforts.

."there are no provisions for treatment, prevention,
family support, or aging out - just for supporting things as they
are"..........that status quo costs taxpayers $22 billion a year and
works out to $40,000 a year to keep a child in foster
care
The total cost of raising the child takes up about $14,000 of that. Foster
children's medical, dental and mental health needs are covered by Medacaid.
The remaining $26,000 goes to principals and workers in the child welfare
industry itself. Administrative costs are many times much higher than 2/3
of the funding going into foster care, although 66% is the general rule.
For each foster child, there is a battery of GALS, social service workers,
state caregivers, case managers, mentors, partridges, pear trees and the
trees in which they roost.

....................beyond abc's findings, the per annum cost per
child in foster care would keep a child in a good boarding
school............
....And pay for their college.

The overcrowded and abusive foster care system described by ABC news became
that way because of what the Pew Commission calls "the perverse funding
incentive" provided state CPS agencies to remove children from their
families. Federal Title IV-E Social Security Funding currently flows to the
states on the basis of how many poor children CPS takes into custody. As
long as the child stays in foster care, the state agencies pull down the
uncapped, on demand Title IV-E funding.

As the result of the Pew Commission report, Congress is currently at work to
remove the strings to Title IV-E funding. The money will become a capped
entitlement to the states, allowing CPS agencies to decide for themselves
how to spend the money. This will cut the foster population by as much as
80% across the country.

The reform legislation, partially because of Dr. Wade's support, will soon
be passed by Congress. This is the reform legislation the Organization of
American Counties and CPS attempted to defeat through a lobbying campaign
about the Meth "epidemic."

Meanwhile, individual states have reduced their foster care poplulation by
applying for and being granted exclusions from Title IV-E funding
restrictions. California, Iowa and other states were just granted Title
IV-E waivers. We can expect the state that harbors close to half of the
nation's foster children to reduce the population of state wards by 50% over
the next three years. Mamouth reductions in foster care populations have
occurred in Illinois, Oregon and other states granted Title IV-E waivers in
the past.

It won't be long, now.



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Former and present foster children represent the most endangered
population in this country.

And they came by it in the majority from their origins, the family they
were born into.

Hi, Kane,

Actually, they find themselves where they are through a multitude of
variables unfolding throughout their entire life. To determine the "why" of
the exceedingly poor outcomes, one must measure the entirity of their life
experiences, both before and during foster care. The removal itself, for
young children, often causes irreparable harm.

And some do not. Some believe that adequately funding the system for lower
caseloads WILL in fact move children through the system more rapidly to
permanency. Better funding will result in not just lower caseloads...a
problem pointed out BY EXPERTS even you have quoted, Doug, but allow for
hiring and training more qualified workers.

The key is in spending what money they already receive more wisely and in
ways that address the best interests of children, rather than the agency.

And reform movements are underway in many states and, on
the federal level, to place less children into state custody and release
foster children to their families earlier.

Which has NOT proven yet to be the safest course. Parents have been known,
as you know perfectly well, to re-abuse these same children. YOU quoted,
in another argument, figures showing high rates of re-offending.

I was not talking about children who were abused. The majority taken into
state custody were not. Since they were not abused in the first place, it
is impossible for them to be "re-abused."

I quoted, in another argument, the fact that substantiated families who
receive services are more likely to be re-substantiated than substantiated
families that received no CPS services.

Currently, the vast majority of children removed from their families were
not abused.

That is only true if you count raw numbers of removals...and ignore those
that are returned in short order.

The average stay in foster care is around 2.1 years -- down slightly from an
average of 2 1/2 years in 2002. That is not, in my opinion, "in short
order." A very small percentage of children are returned within the time
frame of an investigation.

69,000 of children placed in foster care in 2003 were removed
from families CPS workers themselves unsubstantiated for risk of or
actual neglect/abuse.

When you claim "not abused" you are ignoring the research I posted here
that shows that "not abuse" and "unsubstantiated for abuse or neglect" are
not the same thing, nor the same yardstick.

They are, in fact, the same thing, according to the federal folks that
compile the figures and pay for the research. However, "substantiated" does
not mean abused or neglected, but in the main "at risk" of abuse or neglect.

The USDHHS provides the criteria for each category and the definations to
state CPS agencies, who organize their data under the criteria before
reporting. Each of these state agencies follow state statutes that define
"substantiated" and "unsubstantiated" in the same way. If CPS workers are
operating under a different criteria, they are violating their state law.

"Substantiated" is an investigation disposition from the state CPS agency
that the allegation of maltreatment or RISK of maltreatment was supported by
state law or state policy. "Unsubstantiated" is a finding by the state CPS
agency that there was not sufficient evidence under state law to conclude or
SUSPECT that the child was maltreated or AT RISK of being maltreated.
http://tinyurl.com/g6on9

It's pretty simple, really. The state has to have a way of communicating a
finding of an investigation or assessment -- whether the allegations are
true or not. Children subject to substantiated dispositions are called
victims. Children subject to unsubstantiated findings are called
"nonvictims." In 2003, CPS removed 69,000 nonvictims from their homes after
a child abuse investigation or assessment determined the allegations were
unsubstantiated.

Here are the USDHHS definations:

a.. Substantiated: A type of investigation disposition that concludes that
the allegation of maltreatment or risk of maltreatment was supported or
founded by State law or State policy.
a.. Unsubstantiated: A type of investigation disposition that determines
that there was not sufficient evidence under State law to conclude or
suspect that the child was maltreated or at risk of being maltreated.
http://tinyurl.com/g6on9

Substantiation is a service needs driven assessment label, not a legal
definition of abuse.

Nope. Substantiation is a legal, investigation disposition that concludes
that the allegation of maltreatment or risk of maltreatment was supported
evidence required by state law. In each state, these state statutes define
the thesholds of evidence but do NOT address service needs.

In fact, the majority of CPS services are forced upon unsubstantiated
families.

These non-victims represent 30% of the foster care population.

"Victim" and "substantiated" are not interchangeable terms, as you
delusional claim. The study I provided you done for the USDHHS shows
clearly that you are not correct, and your insistence on ignoring it is
what earns you the title I give you of liar.

They most certainly are interchangeable. A victim is a child subject to a
substantiated disposition. A nonvictim is a child subject to an
unsubstantiated disposition. In 2004, 77,000 non-victim children were
removed from families CPS unsubstantiated for maltreatment or risk of
maltreatment.

Take a look at the table below. You see quite clearly that the number of
child victims is precisely the same as the number of children subject to
substantiated dispositions of investigations or assessments. Likewise, you
will see that the number of "non-victim" children corresponds precisely to
the number of children subject to unsubstantiated dispositions by state CPS
workers.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...4/table6_4.htm

The concept of upfront services has two major stumbling blocks, closely
related to each other.

The CPS reform package being considered by Congress allows states to spend
Title IV-E funding as they choose, rather than it being tied to foster care
services. This means the state agencies will simply provide more of the
in-home services they currently provide and much less of the more expensive
and often times abusive out of home services.

Those who NEED the up front services do NOT present themselves for those
services. Criminals, addicts/substance abusers, mentally ill.

CPS comes to them. They will continue to come to them, as they have in the
past. The difference will be that CPS can now use federal Title IV-E social
security funding to force parents to accept cheaper, in-home services rather
than take the child into state custody.

Do you think the general public knows that
when a family is "substantiated" for abuse
or neglect the vast majority are put in that
category under "AT RISK" and not from any
actual abuse or neglect at all?

Most people think if a family is "substantiated"
that they were actually found guilty of
abuse or neglect, by the agency goons.

Is there a category within the "substantiated"
group that is marked as having had genuine
actual proveable abuse?

How much of the "substantiated" group
are true actual abuse?

How many among the "substantiated" were
people who just fell for the "stipulation scam"
and were not guilty but were told it's easier
to "just go with the flow" than to stand up
for legal rights? These "surrenders" seem
to be part of this huge block of "substantiated"
cases that score the agency as far as FUNDING!

It is interesting that even the accepted meaning
of "substantiated" is so far from what the public
thinks that it's scary.

And 40% of removed kids don't even fit
that VAGUE classification????

I had known that the hardcore stuff was
some small buried portion, but I was thinking it
was like a pea in a snowball. The truth seems
to be that actual true child ABUSE among the
kids removed is less than one sand particle
in a snowball.

In Santa Clara (area) California, in 2003 the NAACP
was wondering why when they obtained data,
40% was missing and they met lots of resistance.
Only recently it was discovered that the agency
was reporting FRAUDULENTLY.
In one case 2 kids were removed but for the
purposes of FUNDING they reported that 5
were removed.

The FBI is actually investigating Santa Clara CPS!

Doug wrote:
Former and present foster children represent the most endangered
population in this country.
And they came by it in the majority from their origins, the family they
were born into.

Hi, Kane,

Actually, they find themselves where they are through a multitude of
variables unfolding throughout their entire life.

Which adds nothing to my comment, but is diverting babble, Doug. ‘Spin’
as usual.

I said, which is sufficient for the understanding of the reader of
normal intelligence who does not need your interpretation, “And they
came by it in the majority from their origins, the family they were born
into,” covering easily what you babbled on about to divert.

To determine the "why" of
the exceedingly poor outcomes, one must measure the entirety of their
life
experiences, both before and during foster care.

Then why has your and other’s emphasis, including The Casey Family
Foundation analysis ignored the family of origin in favor of focusing
only on the foster experience?

The removal itself, for
young children, often causes irreparable harm.

Riding in a car unbelted can cause irreparable harm. IF you have a wreck.

In foster care the risks of harm are far less than in the family of
origin the child was removed from.

95% of all harm to children that are the subject of open CPS cases comes
from OTHER than foster caregivers, and most from parents and family
members. That’s pretty good odds for children in foster care, compared
to being anywhere else.

My recent post from an Oregonian article quoted by an Oregon county
sheriff’s office pointed out that around 50% of all children that come
into foster care have such complex medical needs that they require a
medical foster placement...which of course is NOT available from lack of
funds.

If 50% have ‘complex medical needs’ then we can assume some of the
remainder have SOME more than average medical needs.

And some do not. Some believe that adequately funding the system for
lower
caseloads WILL in fact move children through the system more rapidly to
permanency. Better funding will result in not just lower caseloads...a
problem pointed out BY EXPERTS even you have quoted, Doug, but allow
for
hiring and training more qualified workers.

The key is in spending what money they already receive more wisely
and in
ways that address the best interests of children, rather than the agency.

Caseload size is directly tied to quality of casework Doug. You have
argued it and quoted Casey and Pew to that effect as well as other
sources favored by YOU. The feds know it, the states know it, and you
know it, but now you wish to change your story.

Quality casework has now become, by the logic of the little
propagandist, Doug, an “agency best interest” rather than a child’s best
interest. Do I understand you correctly?

And reform movements are underway in many states and, on
the federal level, to place less children into state custody and
release
foster children to their families earlier.
Which has NOT proven yet to be the safest course. Parents have been
known,
as you know perfectly well, to re-abuse these same children. YOU
quoted,
in another argument, figures showing high rates of re-offending.

I was not talking about children who were abused.

I was. YOU have. We debated issues that included it. YOU pointed out
re-abuse as a critical element in child protection casework quality, and
lack of quality. Stop your lying and dodging, and twisting and turning
and changing your story, Doug.

The majority taken into
state custody were not.

The same old misleading bull****, Doug. The majority are returned when
that is determined. There is a judicial hearing the determines
placement. The children not returned are either abused, neglected, or at
serious risk of harm.

Since they were not abused in the first place, it
is impossible for them to be "re-abused."

The logic appears correct. Problem is you base it upon a lie. I have
repeatedly proven that you are wrong. You simply ignore my posts to that
effect.

I quoted, in another argument, the fact that substantiated families who
receive services are more likely to be re-substantiated than
substantiated
families that received no CPS services.

Which would go to the opportunity to OBSERVE, not a claim that services
CAUSE the re-abuse.

Families that are substantiated and receive no services are no longer
clients. And CPS cannot march into their homes without a repeat
allegation. CPS doesn’t control those.

Currently, the vast majority of children removed from their
families were
not abused.
That is only true if you count raw numbers of removals...and ignore
those
that are returned in short order.

The average stay in foster care is around 2.1 years -- down slightly
from an
average of 2 1/2 years in 2002. That is not, in my opinion, "in short
order." A very small percentage of children are returned within the
time
frame of an investigation.

What most readers, if they are bothering to read, will miss is the use
of ‘average’ and what that really means.

In the context of CPS, it means that the number that pulls the length of
time upward is very large indeed compared to the number that returns
quickly. And that large number are the most abused and at risk of re
abuse. They stay in the system for a very long time.

And for more than just the reasons of abuse. Many of them are in fact
receiving rehabilitative services. Those take time. I worked with that
population. Most of the youth had been in and out of foster care for
years, re-abused by their parents.

Normally for inpatient care, which they were, the length of stay was
from 12 to 18 months. They were foster children. They usually came from
a foster home, and they usually returned to a foster home, because their
parents were incapacitated. Often by being confined. Themselves in
treatment, or prison, or parental rights removed.

69,000 of children placed in foster care in 2003 were removed
from families CPS workers themselves unsubstantiated for risk of or
actual neglect/abuse.
When you claim "not abused" you are ignoring the research I posted here
that shows that "not abuse" and "unsubstantiated for abuse or
neglect" are
not the same thing, nor the same yardstick.

They are, in fact, the same thing, according to the federal folks that
compile the figures and pay for the research. However,
"substantiated" does
not mean abused or neglected,

Excuse me? That’s MY LINE. The gambit is noted.

but in the main "at risk" of abuse or neglect.

Yes. You finally have told the truth. You are a good chess player, and I
recognize a move to be exploited later when I see it. Gambit noted.

The USDHHS provides the criteria for each category and the
definitions to
state CPS agencies, who organize their data under the criteria before
reporting.

And, according to the study I posted here, they do NOT MEET THE FEDERAL
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SUBSTANTIATED.

Each of these state agencies follow state statutes that define
"substantiated" and "unsubstantiated" in the same way.

No, they FAIL to follow it, just as the study pointed out. And YOU have
argued yourself the assessment methods FAIL.

Hence the numbers are NOT based on true abuse, nor true neglect, nor
true risk...though the last item is the one they are closest to meeting
according to federal definition.

If CPS workers are
operating under a different criteria, they are violating their state law.

You have said so. I have said so. And the study I posted said so.

I told you NOT to continue to argue the obvious agreed upon issue, but
to stick to the issue under discussion...how ACCURATE are the numbers.
You continue to beat the horse we both killed long ago to deflect
attention from what you cannot win – that the numbers do NOT reflect
reality so your claims are NOT based on fact.

The major point you continually avoid is that UNSUBSTANTIATED
undercounts the truth. The assessment tool is being used to determine
the likelihood of services being effective, not the facts of abuse or
neglect. A child can be abused, and still be unsubstantiated IF a worker
assesses that the family’s circumstances will be more likely to support
services being effective.

This WAS the finding of the study, and it stands today. This has not
changed.

"Substantiated" is an investigation disposition from the state CPS
agency
that the allegation of maltreatment or RISK of maltreatment was
supported by
state law or state policy. "Unsubstantiated" is a finding by the
state CPS
agency that there was not sufficient evidence under state law to
conclude or
SUSPECT that the child was maltreated or AT RISK of being maltreated.
http://tinyurl.com/g6on9

You post your ‘house-rules’ and I’ve posted the action at the table as
it really happens.

People are not playing by the rules. You get to use that for propaganda
purposes.


It's pretty simple, really. The state has to have a way of
communicating a
finding of an investigation or assessment -- whether the allegations are
true or not. Children subject to substantiated dispositions are called
victims. Children subject to unsubstantiated findings are called
"nonvictims." In 2003, CPS removed 69,000 nonvictims from their
homes after
a child abuse investigation or assessment determined the allegations
were
unsubstantiated.

Faulty logic. We call it “spin,” when done deliberately to deceive.

The “way of communicating” has been proven by research to NOT be
matching the criteria of the USDHHS definitions.

Thus what children are “called” no longer can be proven to match what
the facts are.

You have avoided again that in households where their has been a victim,
there are likely sibs. The nature of the abuse or neglect can often be,
and often is, that if that child victim is removed and the others are
not, they too would be at risk of the same abuse the “target child” was
subjected to. Hence they are removed, but by definition, not ‘victims.’

Do you think that is not a large number and that I make up this scenario?

I speak to workers about it. Who do you speak to, God?

Here are the USDHHS definations:

a.. Substantiated: A type of investigation disposition that concludes
that
the allegation of maltreatment or risk of maltreatment was supported or
founded by State law or State policy.

House rules. Not field practice.

a.. Unsubstantiated: A type of investigation disposition that determines
that there was not sufficient evidence under State law to conclude or
suspect that the child was maltreated or at risk of being maltreated.
http://tinyurl.com/g6on9

House rules. Not field practice.
Just as I’ve said before, and provided the study to prove.


Substantiation is a service needs driven assessment label, not a legal
definition of abuse.

Nope. Substantiation is a legal, investigation disposition that
concludes
that the allegation of maltreatment or risk of maltreatment was
supported
evidence required by state law.

You speak to the word, I to the actual field practice. House rules. Not
field practice.

In each state, these state statutes define
the thesholds of evidence but do NOT address service needs.

The worker and their supervisor do that. They often find that real life
and “house-rules” conflict to the endangerment of the child. They go
with the safety of the child. Naturally.

In fact, the majority of CPS services are forced upon unsubstantiated
families.

And you want to argue that families that need services will come
running, you and your buddies.

These non-victims represent 30% of the foster care population.
"Victim" and "substantiated" are not interchangeable terms, as you
delusional claim. The study I provided you done for the USDHHS shows
clearly that you are not correct, and your insistence on ignoring it is
what earns you the title I give you of liar.

They most certainly are interchangeable. A victim is a child subject
to a
substantiated disposition.

Because of actual field practice, and I’ve proven this in prior argument
with you, many times, they are NOT. A victim is a child that has been
injured, or is at substantial risk of harm. A substantiated disposition
can include NON VICTIMS from the same family that would be at risk.

A nonvictim is a child subject to an
unsubstantiated disposition. In 2004, 77,000 non-victim children were
removed from families CPS unsubstantiated for maltreatment or risk of
maltreatment.

Again with the spin. Siblings, returns from shelter hearings. They are
counted as non-victims, are temporarily in foster care, so are counted
as “removed,” even if for 48 hours.

Take a look at the table below. You see quite clearly that the
number of
child victims is precisely the same as the number of children subject to
substantiated dispositions of investigations or assessments.
Likewise, you
will see that the number of "non-victim" children corresponds
precisely to
the number of children subject to unsubstantiated dispositions by
state CPS
workers.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p...4/table6_4.htm

And this supports what portion of your argument that I have not defeated
before?

The concept of upfront services has two major stumbling blocks, closely
related to each other.

The CPS reform package being considered by Congress allows states to
spend
Title IV-E funding as they choose, rather than it being tied to
foster care
services.

In other words, my dire commentary when we first met, that YOU agreed
with, concerning the need to fund better educated and trained workers,
preferably MSWs in child and family specialty, is about to be overcome
by the states doing that.

They will have quality casework now, and children will be better
protected and either not be in out of home placement or get up-front
services that their parents will welcome with open arms.

Let’s see how one state views child welfare, shall we...from an
editorial TODAY, in the Oregonian. See if you don’t hear echoes from my
comments three years ago on the lack of will of society to do what is
right – the failure by trusting political solutions to social problems:

http://www.oregonlive.com/editorials...370.xml&coll=7

You may have to go through a sign in routine. Search on “Oregonian”
“Editorials” and click on “For many kids, Oregon is a state of neglect”
each time you see it. You’ll get to this:


For many kids, Oregon is a state of neglect
Oregon must confront the alcoholism, drug abuse and parental failures
driving more children into foster care
Monday, June 05, 2006
The Oregonian

T here is no barometer that better measures the health and safety of
kids than the rise and fall in the number of children in foster care. In
Oregon, the numbers show that far too many of its kids are caught in a
tragic storm of alcohol, drugs, abuse and neglect.

The Oregonian's Bill Graves reports that the number of children entering
foster care in Oregon has ballooned by 25 percent in just the past two
years. For three years running now, more children have been taken from
homes of violence or neglect and put in foster care in Oregon than went
back to their families, turned 18 or otherwise left the state-supervised
care.

Oregon is losing ground on kids, in spite of the best intentions of
Oregon's top elected officials and all their rhetoric about putting kids
first. Thousands of children in Oregon are less safe and more vulnerable
to abuse today than they were even a few years ago. To balance the state
budget, the Legislature has hacked away at drug and alcohol treatment,
Healthy Start and other programs for children and families.

The Legislature even decided in 2003 that maintaining one of the
nation's lowest beer taxes was a higher priority than finding more money
for alcohol treatment. That year Oregon cut its drug and alcohol
treatment programs by 18 percent to help balance the shrunken state budget.

Now two years later, state officials report that drug and alcohol abuse
was a key factor in a sharp rise in child abuse and neglect cases in
Oregon. Drug and alcohol abuse was involved in nearly half of the 11,255
substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect in fiscal year 2005, they
say. Moreover, alcohol and illegal drugs, mostly methamphetamine, were
factors in nearly every one of the 18 Oregon child deaths from abuse or
neglect last year.

All those people now chattering about whether the meth epidemic is
little more than media hype ought to visit with some of those abused and
neglected kids carrying their few belongings into Oregon foster homes.
In Jackson County, about six out of every 10 children placed in foster
care are taken from their parents because of meth abuse in the family,
according to Carin Niebuhr, director of the county's Commission on
Children and Families. Meanwhile, a national report next week is
expected to detail the strains that meth abuse has put on the entire
nation's foster care system.

It is frustrating that so many Oregon leaders -- and the voters who put
them in office -- still seem unable or unwilling to see the clear
connections between such things as cuts in drug and alcohol treatment
and increases in child abuse and neglect. When the Legislature debated
the beer tax increase, most of the talk was about protecting the state's
craft-brew industry and virtually none was about protecting children by
funding alcohol treatment for their drunk and abusive parents.

Even now, as this state prepares to send back more than $1 billion in
tax revenues to comply with its kicker law, and girds for a likely vote
on a new state spending limit, all the noise is about taxes and schools
and what's good or bad for business. While Oregonians holler for their
kicker, they all but ignore the cries of thousands of abused children.

©2006 The Oregonian
............

And Oregon residents are no different really than people anywhere in
this country. Wallet first, social programs second. Or third. Or less.

This means the state agencies will simply provide more of the
in-home services they currently provide and much less of the more
expensive
and often times abusive out of home services.

You are naive beyond perception. Time and again you have put up
arguments like this. And I have pointed out my very long history with
observing and interacting with CPS. People who neglect and abuse their
children do NOT step up for services. They WILL try to refuse them. They
will, AS YOU YOURSELF HAVE POINTED OUT, pretend to comply and move on,
and will have changed nothing.

You claimed that when services were FORCED that would be the outcome.

How do you, presuming you wish children to be safer and are NOT the
child hating family hating fool I believe you to be, propose to get the
very families that most need “services” to volunteer instead of be forced?

What will be the bait? Free meth?

Those who NEED the up front services do NOT present themselves for
those
services. Criminals, addicts/substance abusers, mentally ill.

CPS comes to them.

In other words, the very thing YOU have argued in the past with claims
that forced services do not work.

They will continue to come to them, as they have in the
past. The difference will be that CPS can now use federal Title IV-E
social
security funding to force parents to accept cheaper, in-home services
rather
than take the child into state custody.

“Force?” FORCE!!!!???

Do you recall your arguments about the certain failure of forced
rehabilitative services, Doug?

Did you know it is illegal to “spin” a car’s odometer backward?

R R R R R R...lucky you, it’s not illegal to spin your spin backwards.

And I have a surprise for you and your cronies, and the “experts”
including political appointees you cite as your authority.

An injured child, a developmentally delayed child, an emotionally
traumatized child, a child that cannot learn like others, cannot
socialize safely, is NOT LESS EXPENSIVE TO HELP IN HOME THAN OUT OF HOME.

Now I have a new prediction....and you helped open my eyes to this high
probability likelihood.

THIS IS GOING TO BE AN HORRIFIC BOONDOGGLE, should it come to pass, more
terrible in cost to our treasury AND THE LIVES OF CHILDREN, and to their
parents, than anything we’ve seen so far.

Yes, little man, it most certainly won’t be long now.

0:-

PS I've not seen you post this sloppily in some time. I hope things are
well with you and you are not living with undue stress. Even your
spelling, something I don't often concern myself with -- except jokingly
-- has become so bad as to make me wonder.

You know I'm right, Doug, and it's getting to you. No one can sustain,
unless they are pathological, a continuous string of dishonest claims
without it effecting them. K

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

On Sun, 4 Jun 2006, Ron wrote:


"0:-" wrote in message
news:MJydneVtqeFYix7ZnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@scnresearch. com...
Doug wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
abc's primetime did a june 1 story on "the crisis of the foster care
system"..............among abc's conclusions were 52 percent of foster
children suffered from post-traumatic stress (a rate twice as high as
soldiers returning from war).............thirty percent of the homeless
have been in foster care............ twenty-five percent of those in
prison are foster care alumnus

Hi, maggie,

Former and present foster children represent the most endangered
population in this country.

And they came by it in the majority from their origins, the family they
were born into.

Child welfare experts contend

Some do.

that the only way to reduce the abuse in
foster care and the very poor outcomes for former foster children is to
have less foster care.

And some do not. Some believe that adequately funding the system for lower
caseloads WILL in fact move children through the system more rapidly to
permanency. Better funding will result in not just lower caseloads...a
problem pointed out BY EXPERTS even you have quoted, Doug, but allow for
hiring and training more qualified workers.

And reform movements are underway in many states and, on
the federal level, to place less children into state custody and release
foster children to their families earlier.

Which has NOT proven yet to be the safest course. Parents have been known,
as you know perfectly well, to re-abuse these same children. YOU quoted,
in another argument, figures showing high rates of re-offending.

Currently, the vast majority of children removed from their families were
not abused.

That is only true if you count raw numbers of removals...and ignore those
that are returned in short order.

Doug is quite correct, the majority are not removed for abuse. They are
removed for neglect. And as figures point out, neglect is by far the
greater killer of children.


So the claim made by Kane has been proven to be false? Here is the exact
quote:
"About a thousand children a year that die at the hands of their parents
do so because of "discipline" that escalated to murder. In other words,
two thirds of the total each year were "disciplined to death." "

Figures show that 2.1 kids per thousand were abused, but 7.4 per thousand
were neglected.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/p.../figure3_3.htm

69,000 of children placed in foster care in 2003 were removed
from families CPS workers themselves unsubstantiated for risk of or
actual neglect/abuse.

When you claim "not abused" you are ignoring the research I posted here
that shows that "not abuse" and "unsubstantiated for abuse or neglect" are
not the same thing, nor the same yardstick.

Substantiation is a service needs driven assessment label, not a legal
definition of abuse.

Doug does not care about facts, they get in the way of his agenda.

Funny, the exact sambe thing can be said about Kane and his anti-spanking
agenda!

Doan

Ron

Greegor wrote:
Do you think the general public knows that
when a family is "substantiated" for abuse
or neglect the vast majority are put in that
category under "AT RISK" and not from any
actual abuse or neglect at all?

I can't say what the general public knows. Frankly I think it knows
little and wishes it knew less, when it comes to child abuse and
neglect. With the help of those such as you and Doug, they seem to be
getting their wish.

Most people think if a family is "substantiated"
that they were actually found guilty of
abuse or neglect, by the agency goons.

I don't believe you are right when you lead off with "most people," as
most people are unconcerned about this issue. Society fails children.
But, in this country, less than in many. More than some.

Is there a category within the "substantiated"
group that is marked as having had genuine
actual proveable abuse?

I do not believe so, unless you have access to actual case records and
can read the narrative yourself and draw your own conclusions. There
are, for instance, police reports, medical reports from emergency rooms,
and or the child's own physician, that sort of thing. It's not just what
the worker finds and reports. It's what they collect as well, both from
official sources, as above, and from interviews with witnesses.

How much of the "substantiated" group
are true actual abuse?

The difficulty I have in answering you is based solely on my failure to
obtain from you a set of standards to define abuse.

If you can supply them, I'll answer.

"Substantiated" also includes "at serious risk of abuse and dangerous
neglect." You do know, and Ron posted yet again what we all know (why
you and others simply ignore is beyond me). That is that neglect is more
often the cause of serious injury and death than 'abuse.'

Intelligent people (and professions) refer to neglect as another form of
"abuse."

And it's for that very reason. It's deadly, and can do very high levels
of damage to a child, developmentally, and to their health, for life.

How many among the "substantiated" were
people who just fell for the "stipulation scam"
and were not guilty but were told it's easier
to "just go with the flow" than to stand up
for legal rights? These "surrenders" seem
to be part of this huge block of "substantiated"
cases that score the agency as far as FUNDING!

Substantiated is based on an assessment, not what the "people," "just
fell for."

Well, since you asked the question, then answered it erroneously
yourself, your conclusion is flawed. That means, Greg, you are wrong.

Shall I define "wrong" for you?

It is interesting that even the accepted meaning
of "substantiated" is so far from what the public
thinks that it's scary.

Well, you managed three strikes in one sentence there.

One, the public doesn't think about this at all. They believe what the
media, and the captured media tell them. I consider the captured media
those sources that derive from special interest groups, like you, and
Doug and others that are antiCPS goons.

Two, the public has no concept of what is or isn't "substantiated" (for
further understanding, see item One.

Three, anything you create yourself, as you did in the few previous
paragraphs is, by your own scary nature, "scary."

To anyone that actually studies, objectively, and digs deeply into such
questions as these, the findings are "interesting," and or
"challenging," but not the least bit scary.

What IS scary is that there are thugs so depraved they will take
portions of the whole, that appear to mean one thing, that when combined
with the other elements of whole, do NOT mean that at all, and use those
portions to mislead, no matter what it costs children and their parents
in the long run.

Injuries, lives lost, children taken...nothing seems to faze them.

But then, there's Greg, eh?

And 40% of removed kids don't even fit
that VAGUE classification????

Since you don't understand that "classification," that according to Doug
is NOT vague at all, and to me it is something other than the official
definition (which would be closer to your loonytoons view of the
world...I must be slipping) what would the 40% actually mean, in the
real world?

Yoohooo...over here, the real world, Greg. When children bleed and die,
where their hearts are broken because some self centered little ****ant
moves in with mom and engineers a removal and they lose their mother and
their mother loses them for their childhood? THAT REAL WORLD GREG.

I had known that the hardcore stuff was
some small buried portion, but I was thinking it
was like a pea in a snowball.

You have a nullifying piece or two in that statement. The words "known"
and "thinking." Sorry. You neither know nor think.

The truth seems
to be that actual true child ABUSE among the
kids removed is less than one sand particle
in a snowball.

That depends.

What IS abuse?

It unnecessary grief abuse? Like Lisa's child has and probably still
suffers?

Is gross disruption of developmental work by the child abuse?

Is it abuse for a child to live in a house with unpredictable terrors
visiting now and then?

Much abuse can't be easily seen by the lay person. But a profession
testing a child can see it. The 9 year old that has the social skills of
a 3 year old...a most dangerous situation to the child and to the
society he or she is entering soon as an adult. (Three year olds aren't
ready to "share their toys" and tend to be self centered and unaware of
the needs of others...as is normal for that age).

Is carrying a brain that has been stunted because of drug ingestion abuse?

Is dysfunctional dangerous sexual behavior learned from family sexual
molesters abuse?

The list could go on, but you are probably totally confused at this
point. Why punish you?

In Santa Clara (area) California, in 2003 the NAACP
was wondering why when they obtained data,
40% was missing and they met lots of resistance.
Only recently it was discovered that the agency
was reporting FRAUDULENTLY.
In one case 2 kids were removed but for the
purposes of FUNDING they reported that 5
were removed.

The FBI is actually investigating Santa Clara CPS!

Would you mind posting a source for your claim? Or would that spoil the
effect of your insinuations?

For instance, how did the case come out, and was it a case of agency
malfeasance, or was it a single person or a small group acting
criminally without the knowledge of the CPS administration?

Yes, tell us all the dirty details, but let us also see your source.

Can we expect a reply to this request soon?

0:-
--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

with the notable exception of oklahoma, meth is mostly a west coast
phenomenon..........just as florida is known for its bizarre news
stories, oregon is known for its meth labs..........that may be why
oregon made pseudoephedrine, a key ingredient in meth manufacture,
available only by prescription...........nationally, pharmaceutical
giant pfizer reformulated a version of sudafed without pseudoephedrine
and chain stores began limiting sales of over the counter pills
containing pseudoephedrine..........the combination of state laws and
corporate willpower helped cut the number of meth labs, which can be
easily setup in motel rooms (never use the microwave) and rv's, found
in early 2006...........despite dozens of sponsors for the legislation,
there isn't enough of a meth problem nationally for a conservative
congress to make the proposed "methamphetamine epidemic elimination
act" the law of the land ...............

]:^ runs around her dog lot barking about the number of meth labs
found in oregon...............

the real drug epidemic in the united states isn't meth..............it
comes from abuse of alcohol, use of tobacco, and popping prescription
medications like candy.................

wrote:

.....yet another attempt at minimizing the meth issue.....

How very sad.

with the notable exception of oklahoma, meth is mostly a west coast
phenomenon..........

No, you are very wrong, sir. It is rolling across the country and has
been for some time now.

http://www.dea.gov/pubs/pressrel/pr083005b.html

I thank you, observer, and cohort, for motivating me to give you and
others better information. In full from the DEA, 2005:

"Prepared Remarks of DEA Administrator Karen P. Tandy at Operation
WildFire Press Conference
August 30, 2005
Washington, D.C.

Over the past week, DEA agents and diversion investigators, state and
local law enforcement, and prosecutors undertook the first coordinated
nationwide methamphetamine enforcement sweep. We arrested and put out of
business 427 meth cooks, dealers, and transporters in 200 cities across
the nation, and specifically targeted meth cooks and repeat offenders
removing 120 of them out of our neighborhoods. And, behind all these
numbers….:

*

We saw -- and rescued -- meth’s youngest victims, like the
Missouri infant and 6 year old girl we pulled out of a bug-infested home
where meth was being cooked. The children had no beds to sleep in and no
food to eat – they didn’t even have electricity – but the guard dog out
front was well-cared for.
*

We saw a toxic meth lab set up in a hotel room in Minneapolis—a
hotel that is across the street from an elementary school.
*

We saw in Missouri a sophisticated biker gang running a meth lab
where three of the five manufacturers were repeat meth offenders. Their
operation was surrounded with hi-tech video surveillance equipment that
allowed them to detect any law enforcement a quarter of a mile away.
*

We saw a mailman in Michigan delivering more than letters—he
delivered meth to houses on his route and was a user himself.
*

We saw meth cooks operating in an assisted living home in
Pennsylvania. Two of the 90-year-old patients had to be hospitalized as
a result of exposure to the meth lab.

Those are just some of the examples of what we put an end to this past week.

True to this operation’s name, meth has spread like wildfire across the
United States. It has burned out communities, scorched childhoods, and
charred once happy and productive lives beyond recognition.

In addition to the arrests in Operation Wildfire, we closed down 56 meth
labs and seized 208 pounds of meth – that’s enough to give a hit of meth
to more than 284,000 people – roughly the population of Newark, New
Jersey. We also seized more than a quarter million dollars of drug money.

This focus on meth isn’t new to the DEA. Meth is America’s Own –
homemade, cheap and readily available – we are making progress but this
is going to be a long haul, which we have been fully committed to along
with our state and local partners.

Here in our neighborhoods, our courageous DEA agents are arresting meth
cooks and traffickers—5,500 of them in the past year.

*

We have prioritized and deployed DEA’s Mobile Enforcement Teams
to take down meth trafficking rings.
*

We are training our state and local partners to safely dismantle
these toxic, volatile meth labs -- 9,300 of them since 1998 -- and
arming each officer with $2,200 worth of equipment to raid meth labs.
*

Last year, DEA administered more than $18 million in funding for
more than 10,000 meth lab cleanups
* Together, U.S. and Canadian law enforcement and U.S. Attorneys
drove most of the largest “super” meth labs out of America by arresting
and prosecuting those who were supplying the bulk chemicals needed to
manufacture pound quantities of meth.

As a result, 65% of meth now sold in America is manufactured by Mexican
trafficking organizations, and DEA is working with Mexican officials to
block that flow.

*

The Justice Department and DEA are providing meth training to
Mexico investigators and prosecutors.
*

DEA is attacking international meth cartels by denying them
necessary chemicals, profits, and trafficking routes; by seizing their
drugs and dismantling their U.S. distribution cells; and by working with
our international partners to target meth kingpins themselves.
*

A little over a week ago, we concluded Operation Three Hour Tour
where we targeted high-level Colombian and Mexican drug traffickers in
the U.S. We dismantled three major transportation cells and 27
distribution groups and seized 155 pounds of meth – enough to give a hit
of meth to more than 200,000 people.

On a related front -- in the U.S. and beyond our borders -- we’re
denying meth manufacturers—large and small—the necessary precursor
chemicals they need to make their poison, particularly pseudoephedrine.
In Operation Wildfire alone, we seized more than 400,000 tablets of
precursors as well as 336 pounds of pseudoephedrine powder — which would
produce more than 350,000 hits of meth.

*

Over the past 7 years, more than 2,000 pseudoephedrine-related
chemical registrations and applications have been denied, surrendered,
or withdrawn as a result of DEA investigations.
*

We’re taking this fight around the globe, because to win against
meth in places like St. Louis or Sacramento, we have to go to places
like Hong Kong—which is too often where meth cartels go for bulk
pseudoephedrine.
*

In one international operation, we worked with partners from Hong
Kong, Mexico, and Panama and prevented 68 million pseudoephedrine
tablets from reaching meth cartels, which could have produced more than
2 metric tons of meth.
*

To continue that kind of success, DEA is forging international
agreements -- between Mexico, Hong Kong and other countries -- to
jointly pre-screen pseudoephedrine shipments to ensure they are going to
legitimate Mexican companies for legitimate use and to stop those that
aren’t.

Finally, the American family room and classrooms are our most important
fronts.

*

Today, DEA launches “justthinktwice.com” a cutting-edge website
devoted to and designed by teenagers to give them the hard facts about
meth and other drugs in “teenspeak,” with graphic photos and personal
stories – about how meth will steal their future and their looks, and
take control of their life. This straight forward website is aimed at
stopping young people from going down the dark road of meth.
*

DEA’s Justthinktwice.com website is exclusively aimed at our
teenagers and young adults for good reason: according to a recent study,
nearly half of meth users began during high school.
*

The good news is that, since 2001, meth use has declined 25%
among our teenagers. DEA’s website will help continue that downward trend.
*

Tomorrow morning, Channel 1 will broadcast a demonstration of the
new DEA website in 12,000 middle and high schools, reaching 8 million
teenagers and 400,000 educators.

America has been scorched by the wildfire grip of meth. We cannot expect
a cure overnight. But, with this nationwide operation, we extinguished
some of those fires. And, DEA is fully committed to a sustained effort,
here and abroad, to beat meth back. Our country and its children deserve
nothing less. "

just as florida is known for its bizarre news
stories, oregon is known for its meth labs..........

You were as routinely behind the times when you posted as observer as
you are now. Possibly you are even worse today.

that may be why
oregon made pseudoephedrine,

"Oregon?" You think Oregon is the only place? Hell, they are working
right now in DC on a bill for nationwide limits.


a key ingredient in meth manufacture,
available only by prescription...........

Geez you are stupid. Medications with pseudoephedrine can be bought
right NOW in any grocery store with a cold remedy section. My local
grocer is a friend of mine, and I do meth education for my area, and he
is ON the same panel as I. He reports regularly about people coming in
and trying to buy more than the limit from his locked cabinet requiring
ID to purchase. But there is NO perscription required.

Imagine if you are a stupid and ignorant about this as you are, how
ignorant and stupid you are about other issues.

Determinedly miss- and underinformed, observer as maggie marches on with
pronouncements and proclamations. **** man, you ARE stupid.

nationally, pharmaceutical
giant pfizer reformulated a version of sudafed without pseudoephedrine
and chain stores began limiting sales of over the counter pills
containing pseudoephedrine..........

Yep, and you can buy the old cold remedies still with the
pseudoephedrine in them. You must identify yourself and they are no
longer on open shelves.

Not that what you are posting isn't a good thing, and not that it's not
coming about over time, but stop making a total fool of yourself. Your
POINT is pointless, given that the meth issue, even by YOUR words, is
obviously a very serious issue.

Or were you trying to help me get the word out, "maggie?"

the combination of state laws and
corporate willpower helped cut the number of meth labs, which can be
easily setup in motel rooms (never use the microwave) and rv's, found
in early 2006...........

I have posted about six or seven times already that there are people
making money providing disposable kits for cooking a one shot batch of
meth ($3, 5K profits on per batch) out of the trunk of a car.

despite dozens of sponsors for the legislation,
there isn't enough of a meth problem nationally for a conservative
congress to make the proposed "methamphetamine epidemic elimination
act" the law of the land ...............

Where is this "methamphetamine epidemic elimination act" you are talking
about?

The "meth" problem, as was pointed out in the press release from the DEA
has been moving, even prior to 2005, from labs to imports.

" As a result, 65% of meth now sold in America is manufactured by
Mexican trafficking organizations, and DEA is working with Mexican
officials to block that flow."

About 5% of the US population used meth at least once. The source I
cited yesterday, if anyone bothered to read it, showed that it is now
becoming the drug of choice over both cocaine and heroin combined.

And it's a popular youth drug, something neither were before...and I
mean YOUTH. Kid of 10 years old and up, have used.

"NPR : Federal Cuts May Hamper Efforts to Close Meth Labs in Tenn.
In 2004, Tennessee ranked second nationwide in the number of meth labs
seized. From member station WUOT in Knoxville, Matt Shafer Powell reports.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4674925

"Oregon," observer? "West coast," observer?

Then how did Tennesee manage the above, dummy?

How has Missouri become the hottest spot in the nation for Meth use?

[PDF] Methamphetamine Impact: Nationwide Statistics
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Meth making operations have been uncovered in all 50 states. 2.
Methamphetamine Lab Busts on the Rise. • In 2004, 17033 methamphetamine
labs were seized, ...
http://www.montanameth.org/documents...t_US041906.PDF


17,003 Met lab busts in ALL 50 STATES in 2004, Drag-maggie?

]:^ runs around her dog lot barking about the number of meth labs
found in oregon...............

It's down. Not that that matters much to the overall picture. Meth use
is down slightly, but we don't know, countrywide if that's real or just
an overwhelm of law enforcement and they aren't making as many busts.

The reason for the question? Because meth addicts presenting at rehab
HAVE GONE UP. UP. UP.

My tri-county are Psychiatric Hospital says they have nearly 8 times as
many meth related psychosis patients now than they did five years ago.
That kind of psychosis is a horror show for the victims. And for their
caretakers and therapists.

I think of it as fried brain.

And a terrible loss, and often these people are parents. The loss, of
course, is also to the children.


You given a fine demonstration again, observer, of just how stupid you are.

0:-

Ref:
KVOA News 4, Tucson, Arizona - Study shows methamphetamine #1 drug ...
Peter Busch Reports Study shows methamphetamine #1 drug problem
nationwide ... Before, meth was a problem only in the West and Midwest. ...
http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=3559062 - 77k - Cached - Similar
pages

Hospitals Say Meth Cases Are Rising, and Hurt Care - New York Times
In July, the association reported that an overwhelming number of
sheriffs polled nationwide declared methamphetamine their No. 1 law
enforcement problem. ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/18/na...&ei=5 088&par...
- Similar pages

Indianz.Com News Meth blamed for increase in child abuse on ...
Meth is a nationwide problem but the drug, often manufactured in Mexico
but also produced in labs in reservations, ... Copyright © 2000-2006
Indianz.Com ...
http://indianz.com/News/2006/013012.asp - 22k - Cached - Similar pages

August 2005 - Pushing Back - ONDCP
Bullet, Bush Administration Announces Huge Nationwide Meth Bust ...
Putting the meth problem in a national perspective, ONDCP Director John
Walters said, ...
http://www.pushingback.com/archives/05aug.html - 75k - Cached - Similar
pages

Unified Judicial System
In 1998 rural areas nationwide reported 949 meth labs. ... One of the
ways the UJS is addressing the meth problem in South Dakota is by
implementing a pilot ...
http://www.sdjudicial.com/index.asp?..._report&nav=39
- 42k - Cached - Similar pages

MATR News: Burns plans to spread Montana Meth project nationwide ...
Burns plans to spread Montana Meth project nationwide - "Not Even Once".
February 17, 2006, View for printing. Sen. Conrad Burns introduced a
bill Thursday ...
http://www.matr.net/article-18212.html - 16k - Cached - Similar pages

Tribes across nation confront horrors of meth
Despite such efforts, Native American officials nationwide report a
meth-induced ... The rest of America can't even deal with the Meth
problem it has do you ...
http://www.azcentral.com/specials/sp...dian-meth.html
- 77k - Cached - Similar pages

Nevada Appeal - Opinion
The meth epidemic is so serious in Carson City and vicinity that Mayor
Marv ... drug problem in a majority of communities nationwide," the Bee
warned. ...
http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/...=7324635539073
- 20k - Cached - Similar pages

[PDF] LISA MADIGAN
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
RSVP by September 20, 2006. New Developments in the Investigation and
Prosecution of ... nationwide. To help you address the meth problem in
your community, ...
http://www.ptb.state.il.us/pdf/methinvite0406d.pdf - Similar pages



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

wrote:
the real drug epidemic in the united states isn't meth..............it
comes from abuse of alcohol, use of tobacco, and popping prescription
medications like candy.................

All problems.

The last is the most serious of all. Unquestionably. But YOU don't know
why, and YOU don't provide proof.

I, in fact, posted recently that the state asst dir of substance abuse
planning had told me that very same thing. Prescription drugs are the
most serious problem, but not far ahead of meth as it turns out.

I'd like to assume you post the above because you really care, observer,
something you have never done in the past.

In that vein here's a question for you:

Would you want your doctor, should you have a suporrating rash on your
butt, a compound fractured broken finger, severe high blood pressure,
and gangrene in your left foot, to treat the first three and ignore the
last?

Well, meth is gangrene already UP TO YOUR ASS, dummy.

0:-


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)