How We Protect At-Risk Kids.

[Don Coyote]

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-use-disorders

Alcohol use disorders are medical conditions that doctors can diagnose when a patient's drinking causes distress or harm. In the United States, about 18 million people have an alcohol use disorder, classified as either alcohol dependence—perhaps better known as alcoholism—or alcohol abuse.

Alcoholism, the more serious of the disorders, is a disease that includes symptoms such as:

Craving—A strong need, or urge, to drink.
Loss of control—Not being able to stop drinking once drinking has begun.
Physical dependence—Withdrawal symptoms, such as nausea, sweating, shakiness, and anxiety after stopping drinking.
Tolerance—The need to drink greater amounts of alcohol to feel the same effect.

It's all rather couched in soft terms. They can talk about symptoms but not a concrete diagnosis. I've been cruising around and I find lots of information about what happens AFTER it has been determined there is an alcohol or substance abuse issue. I see a lot of things that MAY denote such an issue. But I've yet to see one single concrete statement that says "This is exactly what it is and every time you see this situation it means alcoholism or alcohol abuse."

To sum up : Sure there are check lists and protocols and handbooks. But in the end it comes down to subjective judgement. It all depends on interpretation, the human element. Which leads to horrible fuck-ups at least a small part of the time.

Yep.

Not that RWHN will ever acknowledge that.

Of course, if he had even the first fucking clue about what he's talking about, and I mean the very first hint of one, which he obviously doesn't, he would no that exactly no child ever has been removed from parental custody with "alcoholism" as a reason. While illegal drug use in and of itself can lead to removal of children from a home, because alcohol use in itself is not illegal, there MUST be other contributing factors for CPD to remove a child from parental custody. Those factors are usually results of alcohol abuse, but they are not, in themselves, "alcoholism" per se. There are so many problems with his statements about "alcoholism" that it is absolutely not in the least little bit funny... for example, a child services investigator could certainly refer a parent for evaluation for alcoholism, but they could not diagnose them. Nor could a diagnosing specialist share that diagnosis with CPD, due to this crazy little rule we like to call "HIPAA" http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/index.html.

In fact, due to alcoholism's classification as a "disease", whether you agree with it or not, there are even more interesting little rules around it. These are not rules that make it legal or OK for people to abuse or neglect their children, but they are rules that specifically forbid things like, say, taking someone's children away due to a diagnosis.

The bottom line is, unlike the illegal act of consuming marijuana, the completely legal act of consuming alcohol, even to excess, is not enough in and of itself for CPD to legally remove children from the parental home. 

But then, chodeworthy there isn't terribly bright, so it's not like we can expect him to understand the difference when he's talking about a field he is clearly almost entirely ignorant of.

I'm not sure how people are in Maine, but I imagine that we all grew up with some friend whose parent, in retrospect, was clearly an alcoholic, but was otherwise a pretty good parent, and didn't let the booze get in the way of them being a pretty good parent. Some people get really nice when they're drunk. Others turn into raging abusive assholes. It's not the alcohol that's causing that, it's the alcohol that's removing the behavioral filter.

My dad beat the shit out of me after doing lines of Folgers, and injecting milk into his veins.

clearly we need to ban milk

[Ben Shapiro]

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-use-disorders

Alcohol use disorders are medical conditions that doctors can diagnose when a patient's drinking causes distress or harm. In the United States, about 18 million people have an alcohol use disorder, classified as either alcohol dependence—perhaps better known as alcoholism—or alcohol abuse.

Alcoholism, the more serious of the disorders, is a disease that includes symptoms such as:

Craving—A strong need, or urge, to drink.
Loss of control—Not being able to stop drinking once drinking has begun.
Physical dependence—Withdrawal symptoms, such as nausea, sweating, shakiness, and anxiety after stopping drinking.
Tolerance—The need to drink greater amounts of alcohol to feel the same effect.

It's all rather couched in soft terms. They can talk about symptoms but not a concrete diagnosis. I've been cruising around and I find lots of information about what happens AFTER it has been determined there is an alcohol or substance abuse issue. I see a lot of things that MAY denote such an issue. But I've yet to see one single concrete statement that says "This is exactly what it is and every time you see this situation it means alcoholism or alcohol abuse."

To sum up : Sure there are check lists and protocols and handbooks. But in the end it comes down to subjective judgement. It all depends on interpretation, the human element. Which leads to horrible fuck-ups at least a small part of the time.

Yep.

Not that RWHN will ever acknowledge that.

Of course, if he had even the first fucking clue about what he's talking about, and I mean the very first hint of one, which he obviously doesn't, he would no that exactly no child ever has been removed from parental custody with "alcoholism" as a reason. While illegal drug use in and of itself can lead to removal of children from a home, because alcohol use in itself is not illegal, there MUST be other contributing factors for CPD to remove a child from parental custody. Those factors are usually results of alcohol abuse, but they are not, in themselves, "alcoholism" per se. There are so many problems with his statements about "alcoholism" that it is absolutely not in the least little bit funny... for example, a child services investigator could certainly refer a parent for evaluation for alcoholism, but they could not diagnose them. Nor could a diagnosing specialist share that diagnosis with CPD, due to this crazy little rule we like to call "HIPAA" http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/index.html.

In fact, due to alcoholism's classification as a "disease", whether you agree with it or not, there are even more interesting little rules around it. These are not rules that make it legal or OK for people to abuse or neglect their children, but they are rules that specifically forbid things like, say, taking someone's children away due to a diagnosis.

The bottom line is, unlike the illegal act of consuming marijuana, the completely legal act of consuming alcohol, even to excess, is not enough in and of itself for CPD to legally remove children from the parental home. 

But then, chodeworthy there isn't terribly bright, so it's not like we can expect him to understand the difference when he's talking about a field he is clearly almost entirely ignorant of.

I'm not sure how people are in Maine, but I imagine that we all grew up with some friend whose parent, in retrospect, was clearly an alcoholic, but was otherwise a pretty good parent, and didn't let the booze get in the way of them being a pretty good parent. Some people get really nice when they're drunk. Others turn into raging abusive assholes. It's not the alcohol that's causing that, it's the alcohol that's removing the behavioral filter.

My dad beat the shit out of me after doing lines of Folgers, and injecting milk into his veins.

clearly we need to ban milk dads.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

People drink and get drunk in different ways, for different reasons. Some alcoholics are functional, responsible parents. Some abusive drunks aren't alcoholics. It's complicated.

One of my good friends for many years could easily meet the diagnostic protocol for alcoholism as defined by a great many treatment programs (drinking daily, drinking alone, often drinking three or more drinks in a sitting, drinking to relax), but fails to meet DSM-IV and DSM-V criteria for alcohol abuse, which include the critical element that alcohol use interfere with normal activities and responsibilities.

Go figure.

Personally, I find that it takes surprisingly little alcohol to "interfere with normal activities and responsibilities". Any, pretty much. But when I was younger I could literally drink daily and function at a very high level compared with those around me. It's all incredibly subjective. If I started drinking three beers a night it would fuck me completely, other people do that without even being phased at all.

Again... it's subjective. There is no cut and dried, one-size-fits-all; to be responsible, it HAS to be subjective, it HAS to take into consideration individual variation in response; otherwise it's just bad medicine.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

People drink and get drunk in different ways, for different reasons. Some alcoholics are functional, responsible parents. Some abusive drunks aren't alcoholics. It's complicated.

One of my good friends for many years could easily meet the diagnostic protocol for alcoholism as defined by a great many treatment programs (drinking daily, drinking alone, often drinking three or more drinks in a sitting, drinking to relax), but fails to meet DSM-IV and DSM-V criteria for alcohol abuse, which include the critical element that alcohol use interfere with normal activities and responsibilities.

Go figure.

Personally, I find that it takes surprisingly little alcohol to "interfere with normal activities and responsibilities". Any, pretty much. But when I was younger I could literally drink daily and function at a very high level compared with those around me. It's all incredibly subjective. If I started drinking three beers a night it would fuck me completely, other people do that without even being phased at all.

Again... it's subjective. There is no cut and dried, one-size-fits-all; to be responsible, it HAS to be subjective, it HAS to take into consideration individual variation in response; otherwise it's just bad medicine.

That's entirely logical. I wonder if these case by case metrics could be applied to something like marijuana. Or coffee.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Also, drinking to relax? Everyone who has drank on more than a few occasions has done that at least once. If it's self-medication it's one thing, but if your nerves are shot and you take a shot, and that's it, that seems like a poor qualifier.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

People drink and get drunk in different ways, for different reasons. Some alcoholics are functional, responsible parents. Some abusive drunks aren't alcoholics. It's complicated.

One of my good friends for many years could easily meet the diagnostic protocol for alcoholism as defined by a great many treatment programs (drinking daily, drinking alone, often drinking three or more drinks in a sitting, drinking to relax), but fails to meet DSM-IV and DSM-V criteria for alcohol abuse, which include the critical element that alcohol use interfere with normal activities and responsibilities.

Go figure.

Personally, I find that it takes surprisingly little alcohol to "interfere with normal activities and responsibilities". Any, pretty much. But when I was younger I could literally drink daily and function at a very high level compared with those around me. It's all incredibly subjective. If I started drinking three beers a night it would fuck me completely, other people do that without even being phased at all.

Again... it's subjective. There is no cut and dried, one-size-fits-all; to be responsible, it HAS to be subjective, it HAS to take into consideration individual variation in response; otherwise it's just bad medicine.

That's entirely logical. I wonder if these case by case metrics could be applied to something like marijuana. Or coffee.

They could, absolutely.

I dated someone once who was an absolute nightmare when he was in coffee withdrawals. He definitely met the criteria for abuse under those circumstances. Caffeine is one of the most addictive drugs on the planet.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I wonder what RWHN's undergraduate training was in... it seems fairly clearly not to have been a hard science or a social science. That leaves... what? Maybe history, art, or literature?

Not that there's anything wrong with that, it just leaves him uniquely unqualified when it comes to taking part in these conversations.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

People drink and get drunk in different ways, for different reasons. Some alcoholics are functional, responsible parents. Some abusive drunks aren't alcoholics. It's complicated.

One of my good friends for many years could easily meet the diagnostic protocol for alcoholism as defined by a great many treatment programs (drinking daily, drinking alone, often drinking three or more drinks in a sitting, drinking to relax), but fails to meet DSM-IV and DSM-V criteria for alcohol abuse, which include the critical element that alcohol use interfere with normal activities and responsibilities.

Go figure.

Personally, I find that it takes surprisingly little alcohol to "interfere with normal activities and responsibilities". Any, pretty much. But when I was younger I could literally drink daily and function at a very high level compared with those around me. It's all incredibly subjective. If I started drinking three beers a night it would fuck me completely, other people do that without even being phased at all.

Again... it's subjective. There is no cut and dried, one-size-fits-all; to be responsible, it HAS to be subjective, it HAS to take into consideration individual variation in response; otherwise it's just bad medicine.

That's entirely logical. I wonder if these case by case metrics could be applied to something like marijuana. Or coffee.

They could, absolutely.

I dated someone once who was an absolute nightmare when he was in coffee withdrawals. He definitely met the criteria for abuse under those circumstances. Caffeine is one of the most addictive drugs on the planet.

But did he have a one or sometimes two cup a day habit?

Sorry to be harping on this, but RWHN's supposed caffeine addiction is either pretty sad or pretty laughable. But, yeah, it is a pretty addictive substance, that is largely considered benign because of it's legality and lack of sever health consequences. Hell, it's a drug that RWHN can consume while at work. To feed his addiction.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I wonder what RWHN's undergraduate training was in... it seems fairly clearly not to have been a hard science or a social science. That leaves... what? Maybe history, art, or literature?

Not that there's anything wrong with that, it just leaves him uniquely unqualified when it comes to taking part in these conversations.

He's policy, rather than health, so yeah, actually some sort of arts degree, like history, would seem to fit.

Not knocking that either, but he's coming from a position of politics, not science.

[Cardinal Pizza Deliverance.]

I was gonna write another post but I decided I didn't give a fuck. RHWN isn't going to stop being a delusional dickbag who believes laws and lectures can cure all ills if he just yells loud enough. Everyone else is either going to be saddened or infuriated by his tunnel vision.

I'm gonna go work on my story instead.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

I wonder what RWHN's undergraduate training was in... it seems fairly clearly not to have been a hard science or a social science. That leaves... what? Maybe history, art, or literature?

Not that there's anything wrong with that, it just leaves him uniquely unqualified when it comes to taking part in these conversations.

Not to pick a fight here, but I find it somewhat offensive to say that because one lacks (or may lack) a formal education in a specific field, he is disqualified automatically from meaningfully contributing to a discussion about that field. If that's the case then I have no right to talk about anything at all, because my formal education stopped at a high school diploma.

In fairness to RWHN (whether or not he deserves fairness will not be discussed here), if he's really employed as he claims to be then I'd be surprised to find out he had no formal training in at least some kind of social science. Or whatever passes for social science in Maine, anyway. Surely they wouldn't let a complete amateur loose at the state legislators to push a blatantly blind and ignorant agenda with absolutely no science behind it. That just wouldn't happen. Not in my America.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I wonder what RWHN's undergraduate training was in... it seems fairly clearly not to have been a hard science or a social science. That leaves... what? Maybe history, art, or literature?

Not that there's anything wrong with that, it just leaves him uniquely unqualified when it comes to taking part in these conversations.

Not to pick a fight here, but I find it somewhat offensive to say that because one lacks (or may lack) a formal education in a specific field, he is disqualified automatically from meaningfully contributing to a discussion about that field. If that's the case then I have no right to talk about anything at all, because my formal education stopped at a high school diploma.

In fairness to RWHN (whether or not he deserves fairness will not be discussed here), if he's really employed as he claims to be then I'd be surprised to find out he had no formal training in at least some kind of social science. Or whatever passes for social science in Maine, anyway. Surely they wouldn't let a complete amateur loose at the state legislators to push a blatantly blind and ignorant agenda with absolutely no science behind it. That just wouldn't happen. Not in my America.

I can see your point, but meaningful conversation is one thing. In a meaningful conversation, one who is not versed in the subject can learn. You and I could have a meaningful conversation on, I dunno, rudimentary Latin grammar if you'd want to talk about something so dry (assuming you haven't taken Latin). Meaningful conversation also includes questions, and a-ha!'s. Policy is a different thing. Policy is not a meaningful conversation between people who are both versed and unversed in a subject, but rather something that should be talked about with people who have the prerequisite backgrounds in the topic at hand. And this topic requires just as much health and science input as policy input, when talking about programs that affect society. In fact, it should involve more health and science. And RWHN has shown an aversion to contradictory data. In fact, so much so that he won't even click the links that are used as a rebuttal, and flat out dismissing them as being biased.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

I wonder what RWHN's undergraduate training was in... it seems fairly clearly not to have been a hard science or a social science. That leaves... what? Maybe history, art, or literature?

Not that there's anything wrong with that, it just leaves him uniquely unqualified when it comes to taking part in these conversations.

Not to pick a fight here, but I find it somewhat offensive to say that because one lacks (or may lack) a formal education in a specific field, he is disqualified automatically from meaningfully contributing to a discussion about that field. If that's the case then I have no right to talk about anything at all, because my formal education stopped at a high school diploma.

In fairness to RWHN (whether or not he deserves fairness will not be discussed here), if he's really employed as he claims to be then I'd be surprised to find out he had no formal training in at least some kind of social science. Or whatever passes for social science in Maine, anyway. Surely they wouldn't let a complete amateur loose at the state legislators to push a blatantly blind and ignorant agenda with absolutely no science behind it. That just wouldn't happen. Not in my America.

I can see your point, but meaningful conversation is one thing. In a meaningful conversation, one who is not versed in the subject can learn. You and I could have a meaningful conversation on, I dunno, rudimentary Latin grammar if you'd want to talk about something so dry (assuming you haven't taken Latin). Meaningful conversation also includes questions, and a-ha!'s. Policy is a different thing. Policy is not a meaningful conversation between people who are both versed and unversed in a subject, but rather something that should be talked about with people who have the prerequisite backgrounds in the topic at hand. And this topic requires just as much health and science input as policy input, when talking about programs that affect society. In fact, it should involve more health and science. And RWHN has shown an aversion to contradictory data. In fact, so much so that he won't even click the links that are used as a rebuttal, and flat out dismissing them as being biased.

Certainly when it comes to "meaningful conversation," RWHN wouldn't be having it even if he'd graduated sixteen times from every Ivy-League school on the planet. I'm just objecting to the notion that it is his lack of proper education that disqualifies him, when in fact it is his self-imposed myopic worldview. And, it's a safe bet, all that coffee.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I wonder what RWHN's undergraduate training was in... it seems fairly clearly not to have been a hard science or a social science. That leaves... what? Maybe history, art, or literature?

Not that there's anything wrong with that, it just leaves him uniquely unqualified when it comes to taking part in these conversations.

Not to pick a fight here, but I find it somewhat offensive to say that because one lacks (or may lack) a formal education in a specific field, he is disqualified automatically from meaningfully contributing to a discussion about that field. If that's the case then I have no right to talk about anything at all, because my formal education stopped at a high school diploma.

In fairness to RWHN (whether or not he deserves fairness will not be discussed here), if he's really employed as he claims to be then I'd be surprised to find out he had no formal training in at least some kind of social science. Or whatever passes for social science in Maine, anyway. Surely they wouldn't let a complete amateur loose at the state legislators to push a blatantly blind and ignorant agenda with absolutely no science behind it. That just wouldn't happen. Not in my America.

I can see your point, but meaningful conversation is one thing. In a meaningful conversation, one who is not versed in the subject can learn. You and I could have a meaningful conversation on, I dunno, rudimentary Latin grammar if you'd want to talk about something so dry (assuming you haven't taken Latin). Meaningful conversation also includes questions, and a-ha!'s. Policy is a different thing. Policy is not a meaningful conversation between people who are both versed and unversed in a subject, but rather something that should be talked about with people who have the prerequisite backgrounds in the topic at hand. And this topic requires just as much health and science input as policy input, when talking about programs that affect society. In fact, it should involve more health and science. And RWHN has shown an aversion to contradictory data. In fact, so much so that he won't even click the links that are used as a rebuttal, and flat out dismissing them as being biased.

Certainly when it comes to "meaningful conversation," RWHN wouldn't be having it even if he'd graduated sixteen times from every Ivy-League school on the planet. I'm just objecting to the notion that it is his lack of proper education that disqualifies him, when in fact it is his self-imposed myopic worldview. And, it's a safe bet, all that coffee.

I think the difference in what I and presumably Nigel as well are thinking is that this is his job, and that his undergrad background does have a bearing on that. Not that he couldn't pick up the prerequisite knowledge on his own, but how did he get there in the first place? Is his undergrad degree relevant to his current position?

I mean, the myopia probably helped, since they want policy wonks who came to a conclusion and stopped thinking.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

I think the difference in what I and presumably Nigel as well are thinking is that this is his job, and that his undergrad background does have a bearing on that. Not that he couldn't pick up the prerequisite knowledge on his own, but how did he get there in the first place? Is his undergrad degree relevant to his current position?

I mean, the myopia probably helped, since they want policy wonks who came to a conclusion and stopped thinking.

If I were forced to hazard a guess as to the nature of RWHN's educational background, I would say he majored in public policy and minored in never getting invited to any of the good parties.