A conversation between a cynic and an optimist

Put me down under Cynic.

Another fine example of politicions playing 'pander bears' drumming up a lot of hot air hoopla to pad their 'resume' come election time.

Similar to the recent legislation packages concerning minors, sexual predators and the internet from Rep. Tom Cross and company. Endless examples across the boards that can be cited...when it comes to playing pnader bears, it's an open season, non-partisan roster.

Not like there are any significant budget issues, lack of approvals for infrastructure repairs/upgrade, underfunded education programs needing attns in the State.

Cynic

As multiple sources have reported
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meth/
it appears the key to controlling meth is controlling the availability of the raw materials used to produce meth. There seems to be a direct relationship to the 'quality' of the meth and the levels of abuse in an area.

From the bill

Amends the Children and Family Services Act. Provides that if (i) a child is found to be an abused minor under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987, (ii) the perpetrator of the abuse was the child's parent, (iii) the parent was convicted of aggravated participation in methamphetamine manufacturing, and (iv) the child who has been found to be an abused minor was the child who resided or was present at the place where the methamphetamine was manufactured or was endangered by the manufacture of the methamphetamine, then the Department of Children and Family Services shall cause to be filed a petition seeking termination of the parent's parental rights

It seems for someone to be punished by this law they have to not only be producing meth in front of their own children they have to be abusing their children as well (see i,ii,iii,iv). Then DCFS shall file a request to terminate parental rights. It seems to me that if you did (i,ii,iii,iv) DCFS would be able to do this (and have cause to do so) without this law.

Also if someone abuses their kids and produces meth around them, they are not likely to be deterred from producing meth by the risk of losing their kids.

It looks good in a Linda mailer but it doesn't really help reduce meth production.

Cynic. What an absolute crock of an issue.

Here's some more cynical questions:

How much money do the assembled social service agencies (quoted and non-quoted) get from the state and the city (directly and indirectly)?

How did soon-to-be-chief Thomas do in his debut as a prop for the Weisner re-election campaign?

Speaking of, just how much time and effort did the city spend on this transparent campaign stunt?

And here's the big question, when is the Beacon going to call Weisner on this stuff in print?

Where was Aurora Republican Chris Lauzen?
Why not tout these bills when proposed last month?
Hasn't Mayberry USA been attacking meth for five years now, so now it's an urban issue?
If this ever sees a vote how much you wanna bet it looks nothing like what's been suggested?

Optimist - My glass is always half full

Anything anyone does who holds an elected office can be construed as political pandering. I know, let's tell our elected officials not do anything because it might be considered political opportunism. Well with the exception that if the three of you (14 Dist Voter, OneMan & Clark Kent) approve the idea first. Because we all know unless an idea has your seal of approval it has no merit. NOT
What's wrong with any legislation that betters our community?

Optimist

I think the cynics are blind. They may not have been caught YET...but they ARE here. Meth is all over the place...wasn't there just a bust in Yorkville of all places? It's a lot closer than the "Chicago" bust. I believe in this law. Anyone who has such disregard for their own children should not be allowed to be a parent!

From what I have heard and read; meth production is mainly south of I80 as an issue; thus I find it very interesting that those representatives did not bring this bill forward. There is no meth labs in Aurora nor around Aurora; the density is too high and everyone would smell it for miles.

This is not a proactive measure; this is a reactive measure. You have to be arrested for this to have an effect; and people addicted to any drugs are incapable of understanding the consequences. Instead of passing worthless bills in our legislature; our representatives and senator should be trying to increase funding for drug rehab and real proactive measures.

B.Matilda:

Here, here...concisely stated and on point.

The NY Times had an article today concerning a far more serious situation in New Mexico and the local responses.

As you mention, proactive means to handle the rehab and related issues, along with effective preventive interactions, go a long way towards dealing with drug abuse in our communities.

Needle exchanges and Narcan distribution are opposed by federal officials, who say they amount to endorsing addiction. Bertha K. Madras, a deputy director at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, has said that Narcan, the trade name for naloxone, should be administered only by medical professionals and that it could make addicts feel safer and less likely to seek care.

But Bernard Lieving, director of the harm reduction program at the New Mexico Department of Health, said, “These programs have just the opposite result.” Mr. Lieving said studies elsewhere had shown that needle exchanges greatly increased the chances that users would enter recovery programs.

Ummm, Karen, Wes..

How in the heck does this law 'catch' anyone doing anything?

How in the heck does it provide a disincentive to doing something that is harmful to a person or their community? Do you really think Joe and Jill tweakheads are really going to stop making meth in the basement because if several other conditions are met DCFS will file to take away their parental rights?

Since according to Wes I am some sort of gatekeeper (cool) I think the questions that should be asked for any law is.

What is this law trying to accomplish?
Reduce meth production and protect kids.

Does this law help accomplish this goal?
No, because the penalty is not sufficient to prevent someone from making meth around their kids.

Is there other laws that can get the job done?
There are already laws covering abuse that can deal with this issue.

I will give you an example of a proposed law that worked on these questions and one that didn't If I am recalling this correctly.

-- Linda Chapa-LaVia had a bill at one time that gave legal protection to engineers who did emergency work on levees. So if their was a flood or something work could be done quickly without the engineer being afraid of getting sued if it failed.

So

What is the goal of this law.
To allow for quick response by engineers to levee problems.

Does it accomplish this goal.
Yes, because they can help without the threat of getting sued.

Is there other laws that can get the job done?
No

Now the Video Game Violence law. (one that didn't meet the tests), that played well in the media and the governor got some attention for. The one we ended up spending a load of money to defend unsuccessfully and spent more money paying the attorneys who sued us over it.

What is it trying to accomplish?
Protect kids from games that may rot their brains or something

Does it accomplish this goal?
Sort of it will keep some violent games away from kids but not all because of the 'humanoid' requirement that was in the law. Also it would punish the person who sold it, so it would have gone after the clerk at best buy.

Is there another law that accomplishes the same goal?
Yes, Illinois already has a 'harmful materials to minors' law! A law that was already constitutionally tested, so if it was felt that a game was harmful and it was sold to a minor then a charge could be filed under existing law.

So there is the test, feel free to use it.

OneMan aka Gatekeeper ;-)

What is this law trying to accomplish?
Reduce meth production and protect kids.

Does this law help accomplish this goal?

Yes, this law can accomplish both goals.

You make a large assumption that if you are involved in illegal production of drugs and have children, that you care not for your children. Maybe more true than not, but even if one child is removed from this type of environment and set on a better path has the goal of protecting a child not been accomplished? Not all people who get involved in illegal drugs start out being monsters. I'm sure many do become that, but just maybe that parent child bond is greater and will win out.

One Man,
Good examples. We do not need more laws on the books; we need to strive for some solutions. Too many laws can actually be counter productive, as you mentioned.

Wes, look at the law

Amends the Children and Family Services Act. Provides that if (i) a child is found to be an abused minor under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987, (ii) the perpetrator of the abuse was the child's parent, (iii) the parent was convicted of aggravated participation in methamphetamine manufacturing, and (iv) the child who has been found to be an abused minor was the child who resided or was present at the place where the methamphetamine was manufactured or was endangered by the manufacture of the methamphetamine, then the Department of Children and Family Services shall cause to be filed a petition seeking termination of the parent's parental rights

In order for anything to happen you have to be the parent, be convicted of agravated production and the minor has to be found to be abused.

If you produce meth around your kids you can already be charged with child endangerment

http://www.goedwardsville.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18573809&BRD=2291&PAG=461&dept_id=473648&rfi=6

Which one would assume would cost your your parental rights.

Production of meth in Illinois has minimums from anywhere from 6 to 15 years in jail.
http://law.justia.com/illinois/codes/chapter53/2733.html

So again, we have laws that deal with the child endangerment portion, why do we need to add a new one?

So you are saying that 9 years in jail may not keep someone from producing meth at home but the risk (again the law says they have to start proceedings, that's all) of losing rights to their kids would?

Do you think DCFS wouldn't try to do this anyway in this situation without a law. Again this isn't even a penalty, it doesn't say 'you lose your parental rights' it says " cause to be filed a petition seeking termination of the parent's parental rights"

You make a large assumption that if you are involved in illegal production of drugs and have children, that you care not for your children. Maybe more true than not, but even if one child is removed from this type of environment and set on a better path has the goal of protecting a child not been accomplished? Not all people who get involved in illegal drugs start out being monsters. I'm sure many do become that, but just maybe that parent child bond is greater and will win out

If you care about your kids you don't go around committing felonies in your house that will get you 6 to 50 years in jail.

I don't think my assumption is all that large.

OneMan,

This law wasn't meant to "catch" any one it is meant to get the kids to a safe place..out of their pathetic parents reach. Do you really believe DCFS does their job well? How many kids have died because of DCFS NOT doing their job. This law does have a flaw...it should REQUIRE parental rights be eliminated immediately! Get the kids out permanently, no second chances.

Karen,

If the parent is in jail, they don't have custody of the child so they are out of the parents reach (again only the parent involved and convicted of the aggravated production may lose their rights). If you are convicted of aggravated production you will be doing serious jail time. So after conviction the children are 'out of reach'.

Yes I agree with you that DCFS has issues, but again proper leadership from the administration as well as leadership from local prosecutors could get this done without yet another law. The question stands, does this have to be done with a law (that should be another part of the test I set out earlier).

As for your call to REQUIRE parental rights to be revoked, I think that could be workable.