8 ms·
How do we know they are false positives? Of course someone being reported for neglect is going to lie. What proof do they have that it was poppy seeds? Do they
by MagicMoonlight 4y ago
How do we know they are false positives?
Of course someone being reported for neglect is going to lie. What proof do they have that it was poppy seeds? Do they have hair tests etc showing zero opiate use?
- ergonaught 4y agoSo, that’s your takeaway? You’re not concerned about nonconsensual drug testing and reporting to state agencies. You just think maybe the women are liars?
- jklinger410 4y agoFocusing on the wrong part of the problem, lol
- veec_cas_tant 4y agoIt's in the article: >The day after Kate learned that she was suspected of using opioids—five days after she gave birth—the hospital "refused to discharge" her, the complaint says. That afternoon, DCPP caseworkers separately interrogated Kate and her husband, Jesse. Kate agreed to a second urine test, which came up negative. She was finally released that evening, but her baby did not come home until October 1, "ten days after her birth and five days after DCPP cleared Kate to bring her baby home." > Although the DCPP "cleared Kate and Jesse to take baby A.L. home," the hospital kept the baby for another five days, and the agency's investigation continued. It included a "Certified Alcohol and Drug Counseling evaluation" and yet another urine test, which was "negative for all substances." In November, Kate received a letter saying the DCPP had concluded that "the allegation of neglect was 'unfounded.'"
- Hizonner 4y ago>The day after Kate learned that she was suspected of using opioids—five days after she gave birth—the hospital "refused to discharge" her, the complaint says. That was unlawful detention, by the way. By fraud, under false color of authority, and/or by force. They have no authority to hold anybody against their will (with very specific exceptions having to do with mental state and not applicable here). > She was finally released that evening, but her baby did not come home until October 1, "ten days after her birth and five days after DCPP cleared Kate to bring her baby home." That was kidnapping, by the way. We're talking about actual felonies here. Not that you can get prosecutors interested in that kind of crime, but it's still true.
- klyrs 4y agoPresumption of guilt, demanding proof of innocence, is not justice.
- 10000truths 4y agoBecause the presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of our legal framework. It's been well known for a while now that poppy seeds can trigger false positive results in a drug test, and it's not a particularly uncommon component of foodstuffs, so it constitutes reasonable doubt.
- Xorakios 4y agoIn the cases mentioned in the Reason article, all 3 mothers had hair tests showing zero opiate use.
- thriftwy 4y agoThere's much worse problem that when the poppy seed false positives get enough exposure, real criminals are going to use poppy seed doubt, and get away with it it their lawyers are good enough. You are not winning with this.
- swayvil 4y agoActually, that's a damn good idea. Have a urine test hanging over your head? Eat some poppy bagels. So if you get flagged then you have plausible deniability.
- anonymouskimmer 4y agoThat's works until the prosecution is asking the jury to consider why you refused a subsequent opiate hair test.
- JaimeThompson 4y agoMuch the same level of reasoning has been used as a justification to remove anonymity from the Internet.