Drug addicts offered cash to stop reproducing

Addicts are being offered up to £200 cash to be sterilised so they do not give birth to drug dependent children.
Now you can look on this in many ways but what interests me is this, how do you see it?
www.telegraph.co.uk...

reply to post by jazz10


Well it's just a charity...we can all give money to bribe whoever we disdain into getting sterilized...I do question the founder's premise being based on crack babies, I think the whole "crack baby" concept is less fashionable now, I think she's missed her moment...



[edit on 9-4-2010 by nine-eyed-eel]

I would take no less than a grand. Awful cheap.

I don't have a problem with this.

I don't see this working either.

Druggies don't have the best judgement.

200 Pounds? That's it? That's about 600 USD right? Crap dude that is nowhere near enough money to get me to permanently dismantle my baby batter plant. Plus, haven't we established by now that Eugenics is pretty much ineffective?

This woman wouldn't happen to wear brown shirts and eat from china that has a black spider kinda thingy logo inside a red square on the bottom, would she ?

Adolf would be very proud of Ms Harris given the Nazis loved nothing more than a good 'ol spot of eugenics

I really don't have words for this...I'd like to be able to put a radioactive suit helmet over my head like Homer (when Bart and co got stuck at the "grammar rodeo") and rant till my head explodes...

I honestly am lost for words...Best I can do is

Edit - understanding

[edit on 9/4/2010 by Retrovertigo]

reply to post by DeathShield


Thats a peach ha ha ha Baby batter plantRight now on a serious note where were we?

reply to post by jazz10


America needs to follow their lead. We really do. Even if you offered somebody $1,000, that would be a drop in the bucket compared to how much we taxpayers would have to shell out in the long term to help support the children of drug addicts who cannot even support themselves.

As long as it remains voluntary, I see no harm in this whatsoever.



Peace

I see this as a logical extension of the absolutely absurd and irrational drug policy and drug related collective consciousness of the western world.

Obviously, the idea is that children of addicts are less likely to succeed for whatever reason: bad parents, bad genes, bad childhood environment, ect. . .

So, in attempt to maximize success and minimize failure, we try to make it so that these children don't ever even come into the world. Is preventing them from existing - from ever even having a chance - really a victory in this department?

We want to make society conducive to success. This method is backwards. Don't prevent people you believe will fail from being born, that's not a good way to solve the problem. Treat addiction and all of its effects as solvable problems, not as the symptom of undesirable people who should be encouraged to die off.

Not to mention, offering an addict any legally binding contract in which you trade them money for them to make some permanent decision is totally unethical. They are under duress and not of sound mind, therefore they are unfit to make a legally binding life-altering decision.

I wouldn't permanently sterilize myself for any less than $15,000 USD... and that number goes up with inflation. Its a fine idea for controlling population, if it really needs to be cut down, though I'm not entirely convinced it does.

Sounds like a good start to me! I hope America will consider this. The world needs less breeders that creates burdens for the tax payer. Drug addicts cannot take care of themselves let alone little ones that need guidance, regular food on the table, cloths, proper housing, and a steady secure loving lifestyle.

Many posters here on ATS say that this is not enough money for them! Please remember you do not qualify for this aide as you guys are not drug addicts which are willing to sell everything they can steal for the next hit. The headlines in the UK have incredible tales of the system accepting that they knew a child was at risk and should have been removed but the system did nothing and the child is now dead under unbelievable circumstances! I don't think these horrible headlines make it to the Stateside news stand or TV reports.

IMHO The wrong people are having too many babies.

SnF OP thanks for posting this thread!

Originally posted by DeathShield
Plus, haven't we established by now that Eugenics is pretty much ineffective?

That's why farmers can't breed cows to give more milk, or chickens to lay more eggs...

Selective breeding is very generally successful and non-controversial, except when it comes to humans...(but we're getting off-topic, my bad.)

Originally posted by OnceReturned
Not to mention, offering an addict any legally binding contract in which you trade them money for them to make some permanent decision is totally unethical. They are under duress and not of sound mind, therefore they

are unfit to make a legally binding life-altering decision.

Personally, I can't think of a more legally binding life altering decision then that of choosing to have a baby. They are unfit to decide whether they should accept money for sterilization but yet they are fit to have a child? How does that work?

Besides which, have you ever heard of supply and demand? Get rid of the demand for drugs and you'll eventually get rid of the supply.

The bottom line is this. The U.S. simply doesn't have the money anymore to appease the bleeding hearts when they say "give everyone a chance, everyone has a chance in life". The cold,hard fact of the matter is, no they don't. There are some people born into this world who have absolutly zero chance of making a good, productive life for themselves or anyone else. You can ignore this truth all you want because it doesn't fit into your utopian world view, but it's still here and it isn't going away.

I really wish none of this were true and that we would have no need for this type of discussion, but sadly,it is and we do.



Peace

Originally posted by DeathShield
200 Pounds? That's it? That's about 600 USD right? Crap dude that is nowhere near enough money to get me to permanently dismantle my baby batter plant. Plus, haven't we established by now that Eugenics is pretty much ineffective?

More like 300 dollars lol.

Yeah it all seems wrong to me.

Originally posted by _Phoenix_

Originally posted by DeathShield
200 Pounds? That's it? That's about 600 USD right? Crap dude that is nowhere near enough money to get me to permanently dismantle my baby batter plant. Plus, haven't we established by now that Eugenics is pretty much ineffective?

More like 300 dollars lol.

Yeah it all seems wrong to me.

I calculated using the google.

Fine with me.
Most times, drug addiction is a symptom, not a problem. Usually a sign of mental illness. The drugs cover up pain. Most likelly because of unresolved trauma or family issues. And most likely it is not a situation a child should be born into.
If it is completely voluntary, then I say go for it.

I'm all for it! but if this were to be suggested here in the US, people would be screaming racism.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
Fine with me.
Most times, drug addiction is a symptom, not a problem. Usually a sign of mental illness. The drugs cover up pain. Most likelly because of unresolved trauma or family issues. And most likely it is not a situation a child should be born into.
If it is completely voluntary, then I say go for it.

Agree 100% Drug addicts create broken families. I witnessed a sociopathic, heroine-addicted mother teach her child well. Guess what my ex-"friend" became?? A sociopathic, heroine-addicted mother. End the cycle. The problem with sociopaths is that they tend to breed like rabbits. One of the reason's they're on the rise. Attack them at their weakness, their inability to think ahead. They want money for more junk, want to be the scum of humanity, they have no right to reproduce.

reply to post by unityemissions


I'm not so sure that there is enough commonality among "drug addicts" to make blanket statements...this is a disturbing program that could escalate. It could be used for anybody...homosexuals, aids sufferers, etc.

In Germany before the Nazi's took power, the communists wanted to take their country back...a bit patriotic? Sounds a bit like militias in the US? A poem was written by a communist that ended up in an extermination camp...he wrote something to the effect of...

they came for the jews, and I said nothing
they came for the homosexuals, and I said nothing
then they came for me

I know it sounds weird that he was a communist, but I will attempt to find this link...


[edit on 9-4-2010 by ibiubu]

reply to post by ibiubu


Trust me, I used to run around drug circles a long time ago. Many of them are sociopathic, especially the ones who would agree to something like this. It takes a certain type of mindset to give away your ability to reproduce for a few days of high.

The difference between what you mentioned and what's going on here is that this is voluntary. Nobody is forcing this on any group of people that I'm aware of.

Originally posted by Taupin Desciple
Personally, I can't think of a more legally binding life altering decision then that of choosing to have a baby. They are unfit to decide whether they should accept money for sterilization but yet they are fit to have a child? How does that work?

It's not legally binding, you can give the child up for adoption. I didn't say they were fit to have a child, I said that they were unfit to sign the contract. There are standards for what makes a person fit to sign a contract that the law has agreed upon. That's not a matter of opinion, it's a fact. Contracts are almost always voided in court if they are contested and they were signed when a person was intoxicated or suffering from mental illness which impairs their decision making. It seems clear to me that someone active in addiction is not making decisions that a sane, rational, or reasonable person would make.

Besides, as you well know, having a child is often not their intention. Babies can be made by mistake. It's a mistake which is easy to prevent, but the notion of "choice" implies intent. Often times people do not intend to have a child when they conceive one, it can be an unintended side effect of having sex. Of course it would be nice if everyone thought everything through, but they don't. Sometimes people have kids without making the conscious choice to have kids. People don't sign contracts without making the choice to pick up a pen and sign their name. A comparison between the two acts is inherently flawed.

Besides which, have you ever heard of supply and demand? Get rid of the demand for drugs and you'll eventually get rid of the supply.

Yes, I've heard of supply and demand. I'm not sure I understand you here though, you think that offering drug addicts a few hundred dollars to be sterilized will "get rid of the demand" for drugs? I'm hesitant to believe this is what you meant, as it makes so little sense, but no other meaning is self-evident to me.

If you do, indeed, mean to suggest that offering addicts money to be sterilized will get rid of the demand for drugs, you are sadly mistaken. They're not being paid to stop using drugs, they are only being paid to not have kids. If they want to have kids, they already can. If they want to use drugs, they already can. If they want both, they can have both. If they want money more than they want kids, they can accept this offer. There is no motivation whatsoever provided by this program to decrease their desire for drugs. "Drugs or kids" is not the choice they are being asked to make. The choice is a few hundred dollars or kids. Unless those few hundred dollars are the last possible way for them support their habit(making the money equivalent to drugs), they are not being asked to choose between using drugs and having kids. But, if this last situation is the case, just don't give them the money and they will have no way to keep doing drugs. Under no circumstances does this program have any effect at all on the people's motivation to do drugs. The offer is essentially, "You can do whatever you want, but if you're going to be an addict I'll give you money to not have kids."

I just realized that you might have meant that by discouraging addicts from having kids, that will get rid of the demand for drugs in the next generation. You could only mean this if you were operating under the assumption that most or all drug users are children of addicts, and that being children of addicts is the primary/only cause of drug addiction. This is silly though and I'm not going to argue it, because you can glance at any of the data that exists and find out that this is simply not the case. Many, many, users/addicts are the children of non-addicts.

This program does not get rid of the demand for drugs.

The bottom line is this. The U.S. simply doesn't have the money anymore to appease the bleeding hearts when they say "give everyone a chance, everyone has a chance in life". The cold,hard fact of the matter is, no they don't. There are some people born into this world who have absolutly zero chance of making a good, productive life for themselves or anyone else. You can ignore this truth all you want because it doesn't fit into your utopian world view, but it's still here and it isn't going away.

I really wish none of this were true and that we would have no need for this type of discussion, but sadly,it is and we do.

My worldview is not utopian. I don't support entitlement programs and do support conservative fiscal policy. The policy in question is not taking the hard line against socialist utopianism, it's the opposite. You want to give addicts more money that the government doesn't have(because you think that the children of addicts are the ones causing all the problems?). This isn't a even a conservative vs liberal issue, it's that your assessment of the situation is completely wrong. Many addict are not the children of addicts. Case closed; providing an incentive for addicts to be sterlized will not solve the drugs problem. The only drug problem that can be solved is the war on drugs and symptoms of the way on drugs, and the only solution to is recognize that no prohibition ever works - it's a complete failure now just like it was with booze - and we just have to immediately stop doing what we are doing.

It's not me that's being unrealistic. Of course it would be nice if we lived in a world where people didn't need or want mood-altering substances. After 5 minutes of living in this reality though, it becomes self evident that that is just not the world we live in. We don't have a choice to make that world; every attempt has been an absolute failure. The choices we have are to continue the war on drugs or treat drugs like alcohol. A good way of making decisions is to look at pros and cons. There are no pros to the war on drugs and an extensive list of cons. The situation stopped making sense a long time ago. Support of our current system can only be held in conjunction with a hopelessly unrealistic assessment of the situation. This new little gimmic described in the OP is an extension of that misguided understanding of the situation.