The War on Poppy Seed Bagels

[G-spotter]

"baby seized after mother eats poppyseed bagel"

 

http://www.torontosun.com/news/world/2010/10/31/15896226.html

[Nitrox]

Something isn't right about the article. What caused the hospital to run a drug screen?

 

 

[prole]

Something isn't right about the article. What caused the hospital to run a drug screen?

 

Edited October 31, 2010 by prole

[Crux]

 

Jameson Hospital in Pittsburgh has a standing policy of testing all newborns for the presence of any illicit drugs. While the threshold for a "positive" result is exceptionally low, per this hospital's policy (so that even a trace of poppy-seed bagel can be a bust), all positives are reported to child protective services (LCCYS), and are considered to be proof of child abuse. Immediately after being notified, LCCYS summarily seizes the infant for placement into foster care.

 

Of course, the policies in force here are entirely reasonable, especially given that we are in a WAR on drugs. Moreover, the parents should have known better, and should be taking, you know, a little personal responsibility. But predictably enough, the ACLU (pffft!) argues otherwise:

 

October 28, 2010: "ACLU-PA Files Lawsuit On Behalf Of Parents Whose Newborn Was Seized After Mom's Poppy-Seed Bagel Caused Positive Drug Test" -- ACLU Pressroom

Edited November 1, 2010 by Crux

[tvashtarkatena]

I think we'd all agree that if a few bagel loving mom's need to loose their newborns to end the scourge of drugs on our great country, so be it.

 

They can always have another kid once they've switched to sesame.

[Fairweather]

If she had only swallowed "poppy's seed" nine months earlier, she might have avoided this mess.

[sobo]

This is yet another example of this nations's "Zero Tolerance" policy on any number of behaviours.

It is sterling proof that ZT has not, does not, and will not work.

 

More on bullshit ZT: from Wikipedia

And from Randy Cassingham: This is True

 

Judges/schools/caregivers hands are tied by politicians/school boards/legislators that do not think, but rather just jerk a knee.

[mattp]

I think you are right, Sobo.

 

I think "zero tolerance" results from a combination of at least two factors: (1) legislators earn "points" with the electorate by being "tough on crime" (or other perceived violation of the public trust), and (2) judges are human beings and many think they are too prone toward granting lenience in circumstances where they should not do so.

 

I think that factor (1) is inarguable. Factor (2), on the other hand, is not so clear. I certainly agree that rules must be rules or we wouldn't know where we stand. Judges work very hard to apply the law and work hard to apoply the rule of law. But I don't know where anyone has ever shown that judges are overly lax or permissive in carrying out their duties as judge.

 

In the criminal context we have seen where Judges have set repeat offenders free and in the civil context we have seen where they have dismissed huge jury awards. But Judges are Judges. They have a role in the legal system. Are there studies "out there" who show that they are habitually lax, liberal, lenient, or anything like that?

 

My own experience as a practicing attorney and as a juror and as a judge suggests exactly the opposite: for the most part judges see the cases where things went wrong and this tends to make them think that something must have gone wrong if a case is brought before them. My guess is that the average judge is not likely to apply undue lenience without any kind of "zero tolerance" laws adopted in response to public attention to a particular issue.

 

In my opinion, "zero tolerance" may be a good political response to some issues but it rarely makes sense in response to human issues.