Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Parenting
ParentingMothersSingle ParentsStep ParentsAdoptionTwinsSpankingChildren's Health
Pregnancy
PregnancyBreastfeeding
Marriage
MarriageDivorce
FamilyKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Re: teenage killers on prescription drugs



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.



You are accessing this site in a read-only mode. For full access to all member benefits, including message posting, please login or register. Registration is completely free, simple, and takes only a few seconds.

Login | Free FamilyKB.com registration | Whole discussion thread

The message you are replying to and its parents are listed in the reverse order with the most recent posts first. This might not be the whole discussion thread. To read all the messages in this thread please click here.

Re: teenage killers on prescription drugs

maggie_smythman@yahoo.com09 Jun 2006 06:03
eric harris, lead gunman in the columbine shootings, had therapeutic
doses of luvox in his system.........he had also taken zoloft until he
reported being homicidal/suicidal............kip kinkle, the
springfield, oregon murderer, had taken ritalin and
prozac................kinkle reported hearing "goddamn voices" in his
head..............

gregory understands the dangers of ritalin..................

Greegor07 Jun 2006 04:12
Kane:
Did you ever speak out about how the
system was hooking kids on RITALEN
and similar psychotropics?

Wasn't THAT more truly an epidemic?

Some states stopped it.

Some have not yet stopped it and
the Ritalin insanity still goes on!

What percentage of foster kids are put on Ritalen?

0:->06 Jun 2006 15:15
> Of the removed children, what percentage
> have been proven to have suffered blood,
> broken bones or sexual abuse?

Look it up.

> Certainly not the 40% portion the states
> admit have been removed for NO REASON..

Non sequitur

> Certainly not the NEGLECT portion...

You don't know, can't prove it, but you sure can babble.

> How big is the "AT RISK OF" portion?

I don't know. Depends on how many boyfriends with a sex offender
registry requirement are living in or visiting the household. That's one
 of the most common reasons for "at risk," offenders of various kinds
that can and do present danger to children.

Their parents, of course, should be horsewhipped for allowing such
dangerous thugs to hang about, but what can you do, with in fact the
hanging about has to do with sharing drugs, selling drugs, and even
making drugs.

> And how many have had actual injuries?

Why would an "at risk" child have to have had actual injuries to be at
risk? And who says they do not have or have had such injuries in the past?

> These are vicious questions, no doubt.

In the ongoing attempt to rationalize and deny your own culpability in
Lisa and her daughter's case with the state of Iowa, by focusing on all
the stupid insinuating questions to vilify the state, yes, I'd had to
say "vicious questions" would be one of the more fitting labels for your
questions, Greg.

Why don't you answer your questions to prove they have merit and are
based on events and conditions?

You find a tiny percentage of anecdotal events that you repeat over and
over again attempting to discredit a massive total number of agencies
and people that work for them.

That's not proof of anything but that one or two people were corrupt or
inadequate to their tasks.

0:->

Signature

"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)


Greegor06 Jun 2006 15:03
Of the removed children, what percentage
have been proven to have suffered blood,
broken bones or sexual abuse?

Certainly not the 40% portion the states
admit have been removed for NO REASON..

Certainly not the NEGLECT portion...

How big is the "AT RISK OF" portion?

And how many have had actual injuries?

These are vicious questions, no doubt.

maggie_smythman@yahoo.com06 Jun 2006 03:37
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.................

Doug04 Jun 2006 11:51
> 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.

maggie_smythman@yahoo.com02 Jun 2006 08:25
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............. 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"............."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....................beyond abc's findings, the per annum cost per
child in foster care would keep a child in a good boarding
school............

Quick links:

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage




©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.