That's not what I'm saying at all. You can't compare doing something that is legal to do to something that is illegal. If the person is a drunk, they shouldn't have their kids. I've already said as much. Not sure what you're looking for.

 

So an alcholic should have their kids taken away even if they do nothing to endanger the child? Or are you just talking about an alcholic on government assistance?

We're talking about the children of drug-addicts though. If they're living off our dime, they don't have the ability to support their drug habit and the children properly. If the parents aren't using drugs, those children have nothing to worry about. I would also support them taking the children away from those that test positive as well.

 

:thumb: I agree completely with this.

So it's not a matter of "what's good for the child" with you but ,rather, a matter of following the law?

 

Let's not compare drunks to meth making, pill-popping animals. Neither is good for the child, but finding the line between someone who likes to drink beer and someone who has to have beer is a lot harder to determine than someone who is shooting stuff into their arms or sniffing something up their nose.

So an alcholic should have their kids taken away even if they do nothing to endanger the child? Or are you just talking about an alcholic on government assistance?

 

Just those on government assistance.

So an alcholic should have their kids taken away even if they do nothing to endanger the child? Or are you just talking about an alcholic on government assistance?

 

Where is the alcoholic who does not endanger their child? Neglect can be just as dangerous as physical abuse in the long-run IMO.

When we take the aid away from parents that test positive for drugs how much will we end up spending when we have to put the children in the state's care?

 

IMVHO I would rather spend it directly on care of the children then give it to a drug abusing parent that may not spend in for their kids.

Where is the alcoholic who does not endanger their child? Neglect can be just as dangerous as physical abuse in the long-run IMO.

 

To some yes, but as a rule no. The fact is the system is setup to handle the volume you would be talking about. If you want to start removing kids because their parents drink too much I hope you are have some extra bedrooms.

That's not what I'm saying at all. You can't compare doing something that is legal to do to something that is illegal. If the person is a drunk, they shouldn't have their kids. I've already said as much. Not sure what you're looking for.

 

All I'm looking for is your issue/primary concern. Is it the welfare of the child? Is it the "fairness" of tax dollars going to someone breaking the law? IT seems to be the latter based on your previous posts. I don't care which one it is. I'm just trying to nail down the issue in your mind.

IMVHO I would rather spend it directly on care of the children then give it to a drug abusing parent that may not spend in for their kids.

 

How do you define "drug abusing?"

Short term no, long term you might be able to raise more children no dependent on wel fare because they aren't exposed to such horrible realities as drugged out parents as children.

 

I like your premise that in the long term it could provide for a healthier nation, populace and budget.

 

But considering our current financial issues, could we even financially make it to the future if these costs drain the present?

sorry

I don't have to that's what we have legislators for. How do you define it? Or better yet how do you not define it?

 

I don't define it as simply using drugs. You?

How do you define "drug abusing?"

 

I don't have to. That's what we have legislators for. How do you define it?

Legal use of drugs no. Use of any illegal drug, yes.

Legal use of drugs no. Use of any illegal drug, yes.

 

First time offender who smoked weed deserves to have their child removed? We're going to remove a child for a misdemeanor?