The Cost Of Addiction: R.J's Story

One Teenage Boy Was Born Addicted To Heroin; Now He's Out To Help Addicts With A Law

(CBS)  "Where's your iPod? Where's your phone? Where's your lunch?" he was asked.

It's a typical teenager's morning routine.

But R. J. Feild, a sophomore in Riverside County, is anything but a typical teenager, CBS News correspondent Sandra Hughes reports.

Everything about school is a struggle for R.J. He can barely read because his vision is so terrible. Only one hand works well. And walking is a major ordeal.

When he make new friends, do they ask him: "were you born like this?"

"Yea, which I'm fine with it. It's part of life. Like all my other struggles," he said.

What does he tell them?

"I tell them that my mom did drugs and she made me have to be born this way," R.J. said.

He was born addicted to heroin, with meth, alcohol and cocaine also in his system. Months premature, he weighed only two pounds. His birth mother, who was on public assistance, abandoned him in the hospital. No one expected him to survive.

But then again, surprising folks is what R.J. does best.

Now 16 years old, he just won an essay contest sponsored by California legislator John Benoit, called, "There ought to be a law."

Part of his essay reads, "For my entire life I will need assistance...."

What R.J. is proposing:

All welfare recipients would be randomly tested for drugs.

If they test positive, they'd be offered help.

If they refuse to enter rehab, they would loose their benefits.

It's not just about the human cost, says R.J., but the cost to taxpayers as well. The school district provides a full-time aide and special PE teacher. His medical bills are well into the millions.

At a Republican ladies luncheon, R.J. campaigned to turn his idea into a real law.

"What it's for is to stop other kids turning out like I did," R.J. said. One lady at the luncheon replied: "That's a brilliant idea, R.J."

"Why should there be a law, R.J?" Hughes asked.

"So that we can clean up the people and get babies so they don't turn out like I did, they don't have to go through what I went through, or what I'm going through," he said.

R.J.'s PE teacher is the same teacher who taught him how to walk - way back in kindergarten.

He's had nothing but encouragement from the foster parents who raised him.

"We've never told him there's something you can't do. We'd say you can do it. Just figure out a way," said Mary Beth Field.

Like earning a Varsity letter - in football - for assisting coach Peter McGowan.

"He has a great attitude," McGowan said. "He's a survivor, he's a warrior."

R.J. heads to Sacramento this week to introduce his bill to the California legislature. He knows that turning his idea into R.J.'s Law will be an uphill battle, but R.J.'s not even worried.

He's already conquered mountains.


© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Share:

Digg

Facebook

Yahoo! Buzz

Twitter

Video and Galleries from CBS Evening News

• Video Evening News Online, 07.04.09
• Video Thanks To Teddy
• Video National Mall Needs Work

Latest in CBS Evening News

National Mall Showing Its Age

Fans Clamor for Jackson Memorial Tickets

America's First Conservationist

Add a Comment See all 39 Comments

by azlisa February 20, 2008 8:42 PM PST

My 28 year old son is on the couch intears right now because you just perpetuated the myth that all children with disabilities are born that way because thier Mom took drugs. You never once clarified for your viewing audience that the vast majority of children born with disabilities have a genetic disorder and thier parents neither Mom nor Dad took drugs. Do you have any idea how many times he was told that on the school playground over the years? Mt son helped the human genome project isolate the gene that causes GCPS so he knows I wasn''t a drug abuser. For someone that didn''t smoke, drink or take drugs and planned pregnancies with early pre-natal car, I hit the genetic lottery with two children each having a different genetic disorder. While I admire RJ and support his efforts, I am deeply saddened by the pain you just caused many thousands of viewers including my own family that has faought against these steriotypes and lies forever. You really should run another story with the stats and truth about disabilities and birth defect causes.

Reply to this comment

by missingamerica February 20, 2008 9:29 PM PST

RJ''s proposed "be drug tested/be treated/or be cut off" triad is class discrimination.

I would project that an effort will be made to suggest that, since it is a government program spending taxpayer funds, then the government should be able to stipulate any qualifications that it wants.

If that happens, then I for one will be demanding that anybody who takes an income tax deduction or receives a tax credit of any sort should also be required to take drug tests - since the government is actually simply instantly disbursing taxpayer funds.

Likewise for anybody who receives a loan that has any kind of Federal backing, anybody who has funds in an FDIC-insured account of any sort, anybody who receives any government contracts, and on and on and on.

Now that would put a dent in drug use...and it wouldn''t be discriminatory.

Might be a good idea, eh?

Reply to this comment

by franelha February 20, 2008 9:29 PM PST

Absolutely inspiring story. I saw nothing in it which suggested that all handicaps are caused by drug and alcohol, and I don''t know of anyone who thinks that to be true. This young man, in overcoming monumental obstacles as well as the many prejudices that come with them, is using the lemons given him to make lemonade for thousands. His willingness to come into the public eye is inspiring. Why haven''t our legislators come up with as simple and effective an idea as this young man? R.J., you put them to shame. I am 100% behind this type of legislation.

Reply to this comment

by aussiebeader February 20, 2008 9:37 PM PST

Kudos!! to RJ. I am interning with our local CFS (used to be called Child Protective Services) and we have seen in the last eighteen months up to 35% of infants in the NICU were exposed to narcotics in utero. This has serious side effects for the newborn that are long term. Surprisingly they are addicted to opiates or pain killers that are prescribed to the pregnant mothers by their physicians. I agree whole heartedly with RJ''s proposal!!! I feel that our legislators will listen more to a person who is suffering the effects of being exposed than a lowly Social Worker. Good luck RJ I am so proud of you!!!

Reply to this comment

by aussiebeader February 20, 2008 9:39 PM PST

Kudos!! to RJ. I am interning with our local CFS (used to be called Child Protective Services) and we have seen in the last eighteen months up to 35% of infants in the NICU were exposed to narcotics in utero. This has serious side effects for the newborn that are long term. Surprisingly they are addicted to opiates or pain killers that are prescribed to the pregnant mothers by their physicians. I agree whole heartedly with RJ''s proposal!!! I feel that our legislators will listen more to a person who is suffering the effects of being exposed than a lowly Social Worker. Good luck RJ I am so proud of you!!!

Reply to this comment

by aussiebeader February 20, 2008 9:41 PM PST

Kudos!! to RJ. I am interning with our local CFS (used to be called Child Protective Services) and we have seen in the last eighteen months up to 35% of infants in the NICU were exposed to narcotics in utero. This has serious side effects for the newborn that are long term. Surprisingly they are addicted to opiates or pain killers that are prescribed to the pregnant mothers by their physicians. I agree whole heartedly with RJ''s proposal!!! I feel that our legislators will listen more to a person who is suffering the effects of being exposed than a lowly Social Worker. Good luck RJ I am so proud of you!!!

Reply to this comment

by aussiebeader February 20, 2008 9:43 PM PST

Kudos!! to RJ. I am interning with our local CFS (used to be called Child Protective Services) and we have seen in the last eighteen months up to 35% of infants in the NICU were exposed to narcotics in utero. This has serious side effects for the newborn that are long term. Surprisingly they are addicted to opiates or pain killers that are prescribed to the pregnant mothers by their physicians. I agree whole heartedly with RJ''s proposal!!! I feel that our legislators will listen more to a person who is suffering the effects of being exposed than a lowly Social Worker. Good luck RJ I am so proud of you!!!

Reply to this comment

by michellem99-2009 February 20, 2008 10:07 PM PST

My birth mum was 17 in 54. She was a girl who got thrown out of high school because of carrying me. She did not cause my legal blindness,C/P. I came too early. The docter that was handled me as I was being born did. I was barred from school the first 5 years. I was was 10 when a teacher took my left paw to show me by touch to print my name. I could not read,write,spell,do numbers. I was a foster child. This was per computer. I was a girl and teachers would not teach me. I was called evil by them holier then thou folks. That boy is cool. I HOPE HE CAN TEACH THEM BLOODY FOOLS THAT HIS MISSION IS FOR EDUCATING THE MUM TO BE AND OTHERS NOT TO DO DRUGS.. We who grow up with hanicaps never asked for them. WE MUST LIVE WITH THEM. I am 53.

Reply to this comment

by textynn February 20, 2008 10:20 PM PST

This is the most horrible idea I have ever heard. It singles out Welfare recepients as if they are some kind of low animal form. It cannot be assumed that this population, which consist primarly of single mothers trying to raise children without benefit or help from their children''s fathers, are probably drug users. The cost of child rearing is exstremely high, but men consistently get away with what amounts to a token child support payment or don''t pay at all. These women should not be allowed to be sterotyped this way, not only for their sakes, but their children''s. To color the welfare recipient as a probable drug user only makes rising above welfare and returning to a wage that is actually a living wage even more out of reach as people think, "hmmm Welfare recipents, ...drug addicts, criminals, low lifes."

RJ and children like him do need to be protected. All pregnant women should be tested for drug use as they see their doctors for prenatal care. Simple as that. When I had my daughter in California, they tested every baby for drugs-on-board at birth. Every baby, not just the so-called low lifes. Woman on welfare need to be recognized for what they probably are. That is women trying to do a two person job alone and with a pink collar wage in what amounts to a recession with absolutely nooooo affordable safety nets other than Welfare.

Reply to this comment

by textynn February 20, 2008 10:20 PM PST

This is the most horrible idea I have ever heard. It singles out Welfare recepients as if they are some kind of low animal form. It cannot be assumed that this population, which consist primarly of single mothers trying to raise children without benefit or help from their children''s fathers, are probably drug users. The cost of child rearing is exstremely high, but men consistently get away with what amounts to a token child support payment or don''t pay at all. These women should not be allowed to be sterotyped this way, not only for their sakes, but their children''s. To color the welfare recipient as a probable drug user only makes rising above welfare and returning to a wage that is actually a living wage even more out of reach as people think, "hmmm Welfare recipents, ...drug addicts, criminals, low lifes."

RJ and children like him do need to be protected. All pregnant women should be tested for drug use as they see their doctors for prenatal care. Simple as that. When I had my daughter in California, they tested every baby for drugs-on-board at birth. Every baby, not just the so-called low lifes. Woman on welfare need to be recognized for what they probably are. That is women trying to do a two person job alone and with a pink collar wage in what amounts to a recession with absolutely nooooo affordable safety nets other than Welfare.

Reply to this comment

by textynn February 20, 2008 10:21 PM PST

This is the most horrible idea I have ever heard. It singles out Welfare recepients as if they are some kind of low animal form. It cannot be assumed that this population, which consist primarly of single mothers trying to raise children without benefit or help from their children''s fathers, are probably drug users. The cost of child rearing is exstremely high, but men consistently get away with what amounts to a token child support payment or don''t pay at all. These women should not be allowed to be sterotyped this way, not only for their sakes, but their children''s. To color the welfare recipient as a probable drug user only makes rising above welfare and returning to a wage that is actually a living wage even more out of reach as people think, "hmmm Welfare recipents, ...drug addicts, criminals, low lifes."

RJ and children like him do need to be protected. All pregnant women should be tested for drug use as they see their doctors for prenatal care. Simple as that. When I had my daughter in California, they tested every baby for drugs-on-board at birth. Every baby, not just the so-called low lifes. Woman on welfare need to be recognized for what they probably are. That is women trying to do a two person job alone and with a pink collar wage in what amounts to a recession with absolutely nooooo affordable safety nets other than Welfare.

Reply to this comment

by textynn February 20, 2008 10:22 PM PST

This is the most horrible idea I have ever heard. It singles out Welfare recepients as if they are some kind of low animal form. It cannot be assumed that this population, which consist primarly of single mothers trying to raise children without benefit or help from their children''s fathers, are probably drug users. The cost of child rearing is exstremely high, but men consistently get away with what amounts to a token child support payment or don''t pay at all. These women should not be allowed to be sterotyped this way, not only for their sakes, but their children''s. To color the welfare recipient as a probable drug user only makes rising above welfare and returning to a wage that is actually a living wage even more out of reach as people think, "hmmm Welfare recipents, ...drug addicts, criminals, low lifes."

RJ and children like him do need to be protected. All pregnant women should be tested for drug use as they see their doctors for prenatal care. Simple as that. When I had my daughter in California, they tested every baby for drugs-on-board at birth. Every baby, not just the so-called low lifes. Woman on welfare need to be recognized for what they probably are. That is women trying to do a two person job alone and with a pink collar wage in what amounts to a recession with absolutely nooooo affordable safety nets other than Welfare.

Reply to this comment

by denn034 February 20, 2008 10:49 PM PST

My father was an alcoholic and my mother a tobacco smoker when I was born so, I have a genetic predisposition to alcohol and tobacco addiction. I''ve managed to avoid alcohol addiction by avoiding alcohol entirely (it killed my father after all) but, I smoke tobacco like my mother though. I don''t think there''s enough understanding of genetic addictions in society.

Reply to this comment

by j_flood February 21, 2008 3:19 AM PST

You go RJ! We need to condemn these parents behavior not who they are. Stop the behavior and children born to them will not go through what RJ has.

Reply to this comment

by keithle1 February 21, 2008 5:56 AM PST

If you can''t afford to take care of yourself, why are you having kids? Does the taxpayer & government have to assist you if you get pregnant & have a baby?

Why don''t women use something called BIRTH CONTROL? How stupid do you have to be not to use it? This is the 21st century not the 18th century.

Drug addicts don''t care about themselves. Pregnant drug addicts don''t care about themselves let alone the baby. We don''t need any more unwanted babies. We have enough.

Have all the *** you want, baby sister. But use your brain as well as the other parts of your body. Birth control is not that complicated.

Anyone think we should legalize heroin, cocaine & meth?

Reply to this comment

by keithle1 February 21, 2008 6:02 AM PST

IF YOU CAN''T AFFORD TO HAVE KIDS, DON''T HAVE THEM.

Don''t sit there & say, "Oops. I done got pregnant again. Ah well, guess I''ll put on my house slippers & go down to the welfare office. Praise the Lord for welfare. I don''t know what I would do without it. I''m too stupid to use birth control. People should forgive me when I make the same mistake over & over & over."

Reply to this comment

by marymcq February 21, 2008 7:02 AM PST

No where in this story did it say that all children who are born with disabilities were born to addicts, so don''t take it so personally, I do agree with drug testing for parents that get aid from the government, because alot of those people take their checks and spend it on drugs, sell the food stamps, etc., you read about it everyday, but again, it didn''t say all welfare recipeants were drug users. Unfortunately a few bad apples ruin it for everyone. I can''t tell you how many times I have been approached by someone on the street wanting to sell me their foodstamps. Giving a urine sample is no big deal if you are doing nothing wrong, if it will help unborn children, and poor children who don''t get the funds they are suppose to because mom or dad or both blow it on drugs and alcohol, then I think it''s a great idea, and I am deaf and disabled and get Medicare and Food Stamps, and my kids get Medicaid, it wouldn''t bother me one bit to give a urine sample once or twice a month. So again, don''t take it so personally. I found this story inspiring. Good Luck Young Man.

Reply to this comment

by j_flood February 21, 2008 7:15 AM PST

Too many people still do not understand the effects of an addictive person. The horrors of addiction not only produce pre-birth abused children but total effect can be for generations - ask adult children of addictive parents. This young man''s intent is to deal with the additions - I think anyone on any form of public assistance should be subject to random drug screening.

Reply to this comment

by candy-apple February 21, 2008 10:36 AM PST

Posted by Keithle1 at 06:02 AM : Feb 21, 2008

Birth control and the cost of raising children doesn''t just lie with the woman. It takes two to tango. As a mother of two children conceived while taking "the pill," I can personally attest to the fact that it is not a hundred percent. Granted, my children have both parents and neither of us rely on the welfare system, but they''re here none-the-less.
Don''t lay all of the BC responsibility at the feet of women, men dooe to wrap that thing up! If not, they should at lease take responsibility for what they
helped to create.

Reply to this comment

by azcagirl February 21, 2008 11:39 AM PST

I hope all the best for RJ. What a brave young man to make a stand. I agree with him 100% and I hope his law will be passed.

Reply to this comment

by livelymomof2 February 21, 2008 12:09 PM PST

First, never did the article say that all children with disabilities were born to drug addicted parents, just that there is a rising number of children with disabilities who are born to drug addicts. So, if your 28 year old developmentally disabled son is upset, you need to explain that to him, and re read the article.

2nd, I''ve used Family services for food assistance after my husband was disabled and before Soc. Security was approved. To say that drug testing welfare recipients is discrimination is incorrect. I''d have happily submitted to a test, because if I''m using taxpayers money, they deserve for me to be clean.

Yes, every woman should be drug tested when pregnant. I was.

Reply to this comment

by mswolfestock February 21, 2008 12:14 PM PST

RJ''s Law is a great idea, but it doesn''t go far enough. If a woman on welfare tests positive for drugs and refuses rehab, then she should have her tubes tied so she cannot bring any children into the world, drug-addicted or otherwise. I don''t think that women on welfare should be allowed to breed at all - they''re using my tax dollars and that''s always been wrong. They keep on breeding kids they don''t really want so they can get more welfare. I''m sick and tired of paying my taxes to these losers. And yes, textynn, welfare recipients ARE "some kind of low animal form." If they don''t want to be treated like animals they can get a life, go to rehab (on the tax-payers money), and then get a job.

Reply to this comment

by livelymomof2 February 21, 2008 12:17 PM PST

and the conclusion...I know plenty of single parents (male and female both) who are raising their children just fine, and don''t see the "only safety net" as being welfare. By the way, it''s not welfare anymore, it is Family Services. birth control doesn''t always work, but I know a sure fix for these young people (and older ones, too)...get fixed! If you want to play, don''t gripe to me when you have 1 or more children and are receiving assistance because your loser of a partner cannot take care of their responsiblities. Grab your self by the bootstraps, pull yourself up and move on! In this day and age, it doesn''t make sense not to take advantage of several programs for education, work training, etc. So, if you want assistance, be prepared to prove you don''t need rehab!

Reply to this comment

by livelymomof2 February 21, 2008 12:29 PM PST

mswolfestock: I pray that you NEVER have a situation where you need assistance. My husband and I were making over $90,000 annually when he was injured and eventually unable to work. Had it not been for family services, who provided food assistance and sports scholarships for our kids, we''d have been homeless in less than 2 months, because a family of 4 doesn''t survive on $25,000 a year. We had to use assistance until my promotion and raise came through, and his disability pay kicked in. so, contrary to your bigotted belief, MOST FAMILY SERVICES RECIPIENTS ARE NOT "some kind of low animal form." But, if you continue to believe that you are above everyone else, you will be wishing that you were a better person...Karma, man!

Reply to this comment

by dallyup2 February 21, 2008 2:04 PM PST

There could be so many things fixed in this country with this law. People say welfare is for the kids, if the parents are using the kids foodstamps and checks to buy drugs how is it for the kids?

Reply to this comment

by dallyup2 February 21, 2008 2:32 PM PST

Give me a break! descriminate? now i have heard it all... People make a choice to take that first hit or snort or whatever they do with drugs, there is enough education around for idiots to know they most likely will get hooked. I think we need much tougher laws and welfare reform. I am personally sick of busting my butt to support drug addicts and lazy people.

Reply to this comment

by candle10 February 21, 2008 3:28 PM PST

Millions for one person''s medical care, that''s a crime!

Reply to this comment

by trac73 February 21, 2008 3:51 PM PST

I would like to know what WE can do to help RJ in his fight to get this bill passed! From what I am reading here, I am not the only one that agrees with his take on the "system"...I think most of america would agree SOMETHING needs to change. Maybe this could be the start.....

Reply to this comment

by libsrweak February 21, 2008 6:45 PM PST

and the LIBERALS wants to legalize drugs..WELL I SAY TAX THE HELL OUT OF THEM AND LET THEM PAY FOR THIS

Reply to this comment

by dooder712 February 21, 2008 7:13 PM PST

For what it''s worth.. I am subject to random drug testing to earn my pay so I can pay taxes. My taxes support Family Services, so why shouldn''t people getting the assistance be subject to drug screening too?

Reply to this comment

by sdance1 February 21, 2008 7:17 PM PST

This is a powerful story and one brave man''s struggles and accomplishments should inspire all of us to honestly look at all of the issues involved with welfare and lives destroyed from drug abuse. Without attacking, we should be asking what can be done. Innocent victims need to be protected and in circumstances in which individuals are not acting responsibly but are enjoying the rights (to food, shelter, etc...)then the govt. needs to take more control. If individuals are receiving assistance then their freedoms are subject to a wiser authority. Pregnant women should be given assistance but in a more responsible way whether it is required living in facilities that ensure maternity care or frequent visits from social workers to insure that they are taking proper care of themselves and their unborn babies.

Reply to this comment

by jewwop1 February 21, 2008 7:40 PM PST

I agree with RJs Law and the others on here. Why shouldn''t ANY person not just woman, but men too who are receiving Public assistance be tested! They are receiving,cash, foodstamps and most importantly better healthcare then my own father who worked all his life and is now a retired Senior! Why shouldn''t they have to do something for our Working tax dollars! I live in Philadelphia, worst crime in the nation, mostly due to drugs not that our Mayor will admit it! So Im all for it! If these people are forced to get help then their off the drugs, the crime stops and then the free Methodone programs stop and we save more tax paying dollars! It would be a trickel affect. I Believe drugs are the root of all Evil and the reason we have soo much crime and craziness in the world today! Please let us know how we can help! Im sure the entire working nation would join forces with RJ! Im ready to do what I can! RJ your amazing, Keep Striving, Im praying and rooting for ya!

Reply to this comment

by jewwop1 February 21, 2008 8:06 PM PST

PS,. I forgot to mention the most important part of RJs story and thats the babies who would be saved! Its a win win situation.

Reply to this comment

by michellem99-2009 February 21, 2008 9:25 PM PST

I am for the mums to be to be tested for illgal drugs that may be in their system to handicap a child. It is not right. I DO FEEL THAT THERE ARE PERSONS THAT MUST BE FIXED TO THEY CAN''T BREED. I had to fight to have gotten my tubes tied at 28. I was in a blind centre but left with a friend 24+ years ago. I am on meds. I think it is something that need to be addressed. The non handicapped don''t want to think about what drugs will do the unborn. I have gone thru the change of life at 37. I am 53.

Reply to this comment

by keithle1 February 22, 2008 6:50 AM PST

Single women, assuming they have half a brain cell, need to use birth control AND demand that the Super Stud they''re sleeping with use a condom. If the man of your dreams doesn''t want to use a condom then the party is over. I''m sure you''ll be able to resist his charms.

It''s one thing for a married couple with kids to lose their jobs & end up relying on public assistance for a temporary period. No one has a problem with that.

It''s another thing for single women to have child after child & expect the government to pick up the tab. Single women have to take responsibility for birth control because they''re the ones carrying the baby for 9 months & will be doing most of the caregiving. Or their mother/grandmother will. Single men, especially black men, have an interesting habit of disappearing in such situations. It''s going to change your life in a HUGE way. Unless you get an abortion.

Reply to this comment

by keithle1 February 22, 2008 6:54 AM PST

Where do you think most violent criminals come from? Stable, loving families with a mother & father who make the kids the number one priority?

Reply to this comment

by paganmama February 22, 2008 11:39 AM PST

"What R.J. is proposing: All welfare recipients would be randomly tested for drugs."

It''s sad that this child has been brainwashed into believing that ALL people on public assistance are drug users. This is a classic exampling of stereotyping at it''s finest.

Reply to this comment

by libsrc0kskrs February 22, 2008 12:57 PM PST

For what it''''s worth.. I am subject to random drug testing to earn my pay so I can pay taxes. My taxes support Family Services, so why shouldn''''t people getting the assistance be subject to drug screening too?

Posted by Dooder712 at 07:13 PM : Feb 21, 2008
+ report abuse

****************

because your nieghborhood liberal WOULD NOT ALLOW THAT.

Reply to this comment

by sweetspuds1 February 22, 2008 11:44 PM PST

I am for this law..But I think everyone on welfare and SSI/SSD need to be drug tested. I used drugs for many years. What got me off the stuff was getting arrested. Was the best thing that ever happened to me. I got 6yrs clean from drugs, by the way no kids. I was smart in that area. I haven''t had a seizure in 6yrs. I got a job and I am slowly getting off social security and disability. I just can''t live off what I make a month on this income. So I am for this law. But I think all people need to be drug tested. It isnt just people on welfare. Its peeps on ssi/ssd too.

Reply to this comment

See all 39 Comments

Add a comment

Comment SUBMIT

Click here to add another comment.

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.

Comment reply

Submit Cancel

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.

Report offensive content:

If you believe this comment is offensive or violates the CBSNews.com Terms of Use, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the comment). Once reported, our staff will be notified and the comment will be reviewed.

Select type of offense:

Offensive: Sexually explicit or offensive language

Spam: Advertisements or commercial links

Disruptive posting: Flaming or offending other users

Illegal activities: Promote cracked software, or other illegal content

Comments (optional):

Report Cancel

E-mail this comment to a friend.

E-mail this to: (Separate multiple e-mail addresses with commas. Limited to 10 addresses.)

Your e-mail address:

Send me a copy of this message

Note: Your e-mail address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the e-mail and in case of transmission error. Neither your address nor the recipients's address will be used for any other purpose.

Add your own personal message: (Optional)

Hi, I found this user's comment on CBSNews.com and thought you might be interested in reading it. Send e-mail Cancel

[azlisa]

My 28 year old son is on the couch intears right now because you just perpetuated the myth that all children with disabilities are born that way because thier Mom took drugs. You never once clarified for your viewing audience that the vast majority of children born with disabilities have a genetic disorder and thier parents neither Mom nor Dad took drugs. Do you have any idea how many times he was told that on the school playground over the years? Mt son helped the human genome project isolate the gene that causes GCPS so he knows I wasn''t a drug abuser. For someone that didn''t smoke, drink or take drugs and planned pregnancies with early pre-natal car, I hit the genetic lottery with two children each having a different genetic disorder. While I admire RJ and support his efforts, I am deeply saddened by the pain you just caused many thousands of viewers including my own family that has faought against these steriotypes and lies forever. You really should run another story with the stats and truth about disabilities and birth defect causes.

[missingamerica]

RJ''s proposed "be drug tested/be treated/or be cut off" triad is class discrimination.

I would project that an effort will be made to suggest that, since it is a government program spending taxpayer funds, then the government should be able to stipulate any qualifications that it wants.

If that happens, then I for one will be demanding that anybody who takes an income tax deduction or receives a tax credit of any sort should also be required to take drug tests - since the government is actually simply instantly disbursing taxpayer funds.

Likewise for anybody who receives a loan that has any kind of Federal backing, anybody who has funds in an FDIC-insured account of any sort, anybody who receives any government contracts, and on and on and on.

Now that would put a dent in drug use...and it wouldn''t be discriminatory.

Might be a good idea, eh?

[franelha]

Absolutely inspiring story. I saw nothing in it which suggested that all handicaps are caused by drug and alcohol, and I don''t know of anyone who thinks that to be true. This young man, in overcoming monumental obstacles as well as the many prejudices that come with them, is using the lemons given him to make lemonade for thousands. His willingness to come into the public eye is inspiring. Why haven''t our legislators come up with as simple and effective an idea as this young man? R.J., you put them to shame. I am 100% behind this type of legislation.

[aussiebeader]

Kudos!! to RJ. I am interning with our local CFS (used to be called Child Protective Services) and we have seen in the last eighteen months up to 35% of infants in the NICU were exposed to narcotics in utero. This has serious side effects for the newborn that are long term. Surprisingly they are addicted to opiates or pain killers that are prescribed to the pregnant mothers by their physicians. I agree whole heartedly with RJ''s proposal!!! I feel that our legislators will listen more to a person who is suffering the effects of being exposed than a lowly Social Worker. Good luck RJ I am so proud of you!!!

[aussiebeader]

Kudos!! to RJ. I am interning with our local CFS (used to be called Child Protective Services) and we have seen in the last eighteen months up to 35% of infants in the NICU were exposed to narcotics in utero. This has serious side effects for the newborn that are long term. Surprisingly they are addicted to opiates or pain killers that are prescribed to the pregnant mothers by their physicians. I agree whole heartedly with RJ''s proposal!!! I feel that our legislators will listen more to a person who is suffering the effects of being exposed than a lowly Social Worker. Good luck RJ I am so proud of you!!!

[aussiebeader]

Kudos!! to RJ. I am interning with our local CFS (used to be called Child Protective Services) and we have seen in the last eighteen months up to 35% of infants in the NICU were exposed to narcotics in utero. This has serious side effects for the newborn that are long term. Surprisingly they are addicted to opiates or pain killers that are prescribed to the pregnant mothers by their physicians. I agree whole heartedly with RJ''s proposal!!! I feel that our legislators will listen more to a person who is suffering the effects of being exposed than a lowly Social Worker. Good luck RJ I am so proud of you!!!

[aussiebeader]

Kudos!! to RJ. I am interning with our local CFS (used to be called Child Protective Services) and we have seen in the last eighteen months up to 35% of infants in the NICU were exposed to narcotics in utero. This has serious side effects for the newborn that are long term. Surprisingly they are addicted to opiates or pain killers that are prescribed to the pregnant mothers by their physicians. I agree whole heartedly with RJ''s proposal!!! I feel that our legislators will listen more to a person who is suffering the effects of being exposed than a lowly Social Worker. Good luck RJ I am so proud of you!!!

[michellem99-2009]

My birth mum was 17 in 54. She was a girl who got thrown out of high school because of carrying me. She did not cause my legal blindness,C/P. I came too early. The docter that was handled me as I was being born did. I was barred from school the first 5 years. I was was 10 when a teacher took my left paw to show me by touch to print my name. I could not read,write,spell,do numbers. I was a foster child. This was per computer. I was a girl and teachers would not teach me. I was called evil by them holier then thou folks. That boy is cool. I HOPE HE CAN TEACH THEM BLOODY FOOLS THAT HIS MISSION IS FOR EDUCATING THE MUM TO BE AND OTHERS NOT TO DO DRUGS.. We who grow up with hanicaps never asked for them. WE MUST LIVE WITH THEM. I am 53.

[textynn]

This is the most horrible idea I have ever heard. It singles out Welfare recepients as if they are some kind of low animal form. It cannot be assumed that this population, which consist primarly of single mothers trying to raise children without benefit or help from their children''s fathers, are probably drug users. The cost of child rearing is exstremely high, but men consistently get away with what amounts to a token child support payment or don''t pay at all. These women should not be allowed to be sterotyped this way, not only for their sakes, but their children''s. To color the welfare recipient as a probable drug user only makes rising above welfare and returning to a wage that is actually a living wage even more out of reach as people think, "hmmm Welfare recipents, ...drug addicts, criminals, low lifes."

RJ and children like him do need to be protected. All pregnant women should be tested for drug use as they see their doctors for prenatal care. Simple as that. When I had my daughter in California, they tested every baby for drugs-on-board at birth. Every baby, not just the so-called low lifes. Woman on welfare need to be recognized for what they probably are. That is women trying to do a two person job alone and with a pink collar wage in what amounts to a recession with absolutely nooooo affordable safety nets other than Welfare.

[textynn]

This is the most horrible idea I have ever heard. It singles out Welfare recepients as if they are some kind of low animal form. It cannot be assumed that this population, which consist primarly of single mothers trying to raise children without benefit or help from their children''s fathers, are probably drug users. The cost of child rearing is exstremely high, but men consistently get away with what amounts to a token child support payment or don''t pay at all. These women should not be allowed to be sterotyped this way, not only for their sakes, but their children''s. To color the welfare recipient as a probable drug user only makes rising above welfare and returning to a wage that is actually a living wage even more out of reach as people think, "hmmm Welfare recipents, ...drug addicts, criminals, low lifes."

RJ and children like him do need to be protected. All pregnant women should be tested for drug use as they see their doctors for prenatal care. Simple as that. When I had my daughter in California, they tested every baby for drugs-on-board at birth. Every baby, not just the so-called low lifes. Woman on welfare need to be recognized for what they probably are. That is women trying to do a two person job alone and with a pink collar wage in what amounts to a recession with absolutely nooooo affordable safety nets other than Welfare.

[textynn]

This is the most horrible idea I have ever heard. It singles out Welfare recepients as if they are some kind of low animal form. It cannot be assumed that this population, which consist primarly of single mothers trying to raise children without benefit or help from their children''s fathers, are probably drug users. The cost of child rearing is exstremely high, but men consistently get away with what amounts to a token child support payment or don''t pay at all. These women should not be allowed to be sterotyped this way, not only for their sakes, but their children''s. To color the welfare recipient as a probable drug user only makes rising above welfare and returning to a wage that is actually a living wage even more out of reach as people think, "hmmm Welfare recipents, ...drug addicts, criminals, low lifes."

RJ and children like him do need to be protected. All pregnant women should be tested for drug use as they see their doctors for prenatal care. Simple as that. When I had my daughter in California, they tested every baby for drugs-on-board at birth. Every baby, not just the so-called low lifes. Woman on welfare need to be recognized for what they probably are. That is women trying to do a two person job alone and with a pink collar wage in what amounts to a recession with absolutely nooooo affordable safety nets other than Welfare.

[textynn]

This is the most horrible idea I have ever heard. It singles out Welfare recepients as if they are some kind of low animal form. It cannot be assumed that this population, which consist primarly of single mothers trying to raise children without benefit or help from their children''s fathers, are probably drug users. The cost of child rearing is exstremely high, but men consistently get away with what amounts to a token child support payment or don''t pay at all. These women should not be allowed to be sterotyped this way, not only for their sakes, but their children''s. To color the welfare recipient as a probable drug user only makes rising above welfare and returning to a wage that is actually a living wage even more out of reach as people think, "hmmm Welfare recipents, ...drug addicts, criminals, low lifes."

RJ and children like him do need to be protected. All pregnant women should be tested for drug use as they see their doctors for prenatal care. Simple as that. When I had my daughter in California, they tested every baby for drugs-on-board at birth. Every baby, not just the so-called low lifes. Woman on welfare need to be recognized for what they probably are. That is women trying to do a two person job alone and with a pink collar wage in what amounts to a recession with absolutely nooooo affordable safety nets other than Welfare.

[denn034]

My father was an alcoholic and my mother a tobacco smoker when I was born so, I have a genetic predisposition to alcohol and tobacco addiction. I''ve managed to avoid alcohol addiction by avoiding alcohol entirely (it killed my father after all) but, I smoke tobacco like my mother though. I don''t think there''s enough understanding of genetic addictions in society.

[j_flood]

You go RJ! We need to condemn these parents behavior not who they are. Stop the behavior and children born to them will not go through what RJ has.

[keithle1]

If you can''t afford to take care of yourself, why are you having kids? Does the taxpayer & government have to assist you if you get pregnant & have a baby?

Why don''t women use something called BIRTH CONTROL? How stupid do you have to be not to use it? This is the 21st century not the 18th century.

Drug addicts don''t care about themselves. Pregnant drug addicts don''t care about themselves let alone the baby. We don''t need any more unwanted babies. We have enough.

Have all the *** you want, baby sister. But use your brain as well as the other parts of your body. Birth control is not that complicated.

Anyone think we should legalize heroin, cocaine & meth?

[keithle1]

IF YOU CAN''T AFFORD TO HAVE KIDS, DON''T HAVE THEM.

Don''t sit there & say, "Oops. I done got pregnant again. Ah well, guess I''ll put on my house slippers & go down to the welfare office. Praise the Lord for welfare. I don''t know what I would do without it. I''m too stupid to use birth control. People should forgive me when I make the same mistake over & over & over."

[marymcq]

No where in this story did it say that all children who are born with disabilities were born to addicts, so don''t take it so personally, I do agree with drug testing for parents that get aid from the government, because alot of those people take their checks and spend it on drugs, sell the food stamps, etc., you read about it everyday, but again, it didn''t say all welfare recipeants were drug users. Unfortunately a few bad apples ruin it for everyone. I can''t tell you how many times I have been approached by someone on the street wanting to sell me their foodstamps. Giving a urine sample is no big deal if you are doing nothing wrong, if it will help unborn children, and poor children who don''t get the funds they are suppose to because mom or dad or both blow it on drugs and alcohol, then I think it''s a great idea, and I am deaf and disabled and get Medicare and Food Stamps, and my kids get Medicaid, it wouldn''t bother me one bit to give a urine sample once or twice a month. So again, don''t take it so personally. I found this story inspiring. Good Luck Young Man.

[j_flood]

Too many people still do not understand the effects of an addictive person. The horrors of addiction not only produce pre-birth abused children but total effect can be for generations - ask adult children of addictive parents. This young man''s intent is to deal with the additions - I think anyone on any form of public assistance should be subject to random drug screening.

[candy-apple]

Posted by Keithle1 at 06:02 AM : Feb 21, 2008

Birth control and the cost of raising children doesn''t just lie with the woman. It takes two to tango. As a mother of two children conceived while taking "the pill," I can personally attest to the fact that it is not a hundred percent. Granted, my children have both parents and neither of us rely on the welfare system, but they''re here none-the-less.
Don''t lay all of the BC responsibility at the feet of women, men dooe to wrap that thing up! If not, they should at lease take responsibility for what they
helped to create.

[azcagirl]

I hope all the best for RJ. What a brave young man to make a stand. I agree with him 100% and I hope his law will be passed.

[livelymomof2]

First, never did the article say that all children with disabilities were born to drug addicted parents, just that there is a rising number of children with disabilities who are born to drug addicts. So, if your 28 year old developmentally disabled son is upset, you need to explain that to him, and re read the article.

2nd, I''ve used Family services for food assistance after my husband was disabled and before Soc. Security was approved. To say that drug testing welfare recipients is discrimination is incorrect. I''d have happily submitted to a test, because if I''m using taxpayers money, they deserve for me to be clean.

Yes, every woman should be drug tested when pregnant. I was.

[mswolfestock]

RJ''s Law is a great idea, but it doesn''t go far enough. If a woman on welfare tests positive for drugs and refuses rehab, then she should have her tubes tied so she cannot bring any children into the world, drug-addicted or otherwise. I don''t think that women on welfare should be allowed to breed at all - they''re using my tax dollars and that''s always been wrong. They keep on breeding kids they don''t really want so they can get more welfare. I''m sick and tired of paying my taxes to these losers. And yes, textynn, welfare recipients ARE "some kind of low animal form." If they don''t want to be treated like animals they can get a life, go to rehab (on the tax-payers money), and then get a job.

[livelymomof2]

and the conclusion...I know plenty of single parents (male and female both) who are raising their children just fine, and don''t see the "only safety net" as being welfare. By the way, it''s not welfare anymore, it is Family Services. birth control doesn''t always work, but I know a sure fix for these young people (and older ones, too)...get fixed! If you want to play, don''t gripe to me when you have 1 or more children and are receiving assistance because your loser of a partner cannot take care of their responsiblities. Grab your self by the bootstraps, pull yourself up and move on! In this day and age, it doesn''t make sense not to take advantage of several programs for education, work training, etc. So, if you want assistance, be prepared to prove you don''t need rehab!

[livelymomof2]

mswolfestock: I pray that you NEVER have a situation where you need assistance. My husband and I were making over $90,000 annually when he was injured and eventually unable to work. Had it not been for family services, who provided food assistance and sports scholarships for our kids, we''d have been homeless in less than 2 months, because a family of 4 doesn''t survive on $25,000 a year. We had to use assistance until my promotion and raise came through, and his disability pay kicked in. so, contrary to your bigotted belief, MOST FAMILY SERVICES RECIPIENTS ARE NOT "some kind of low animal form." But, if you continue to believe that you are above everyone else, you will be wishing that you were a better person...Karma, man!

[dallyup2]

There could be so many things fixed in this country with this law. People say welfare is for the kids, if the parents are using the kids foodstamps and checks to buy drugs how is it for the kids?

[dallyup2]

Give me a break! descriminate? now i have heard it all... People make a choice to take that first hit or snort or whatever they do with drugs, there is enough education around for idiots to know they most likely will get hooked. I think we need much tougher laws and welfare reform. I am personally sick of busting my butt to support drug addicts and lazy people.

[candle10]

Millions for one person''s medical care, that''s a crime!

[trac73]

I would like to know what WE can do to help RJ in his fight to get this bill passed! From what I am reading here, I am not the only one that agrees with his take on the "system"...I think most of america would agree SOMETHING needs to change. Maybe this could be the start.....

[libsrweak]

and the LIBERALS wants to legalize drugs..WELL I SAY TAX THE HELL OUT OF THEM AND LET THEM PAY FOR THIS

[dooder712]

For what it''s worth.. I am subject to random drug testing to earn my pay so I can pay taxes. My taxes support Family Services, so why shouldn''t people getting the assistance be subject to drug screening too?

[sdance1]

This is a powerful story and one brave man''s struggles and accomplishments should inspire all of us to honestly look at all of the issues involved with welfare and lives destroyed from drug abuse. Without attacking, we should be asking what can be done. Innocent victims need to be protected and in circumstances in which individuals are not acting responsibly but are enjoying the rights (to food, shelter, etc...)then the govt. needs to take more control. If individuals are receiving assistance then their freedoms are subject to a wiser authority. Pregnant women should be given assistance but in a more responsible way whether it is required living in facilities that ensure maternity care or frequent visits from social workers to insure that they are taking proper care of themselves and their unborn babies.

[jewwop1]

I agree with RJs Law and the others on here. Why shouldn''t ANY person not just woman, but men too who are receiving Public assistance be tested! They are receiving,cash, foodstamps and most importantly better healthcare then my own father who worked all his life and is now a retired Senior! Why shouldn''t they have to do something for our Working tax dollars! I live in Philadelphia, worst crime in the nation, mostly due to drugs not that our Mayor will admit it! So Im all for it! If these people are forced to get help then their off the drugs, the crime stops and then the free Methodone programs stop and we save more tax paying dollars! It would be a trickel affect. I Believe drugs are the root of all Evil and the reason we have soo much crime and craziness in the world today! Please let us know how we can help! Im sure the entire working nation would join forces with RJ! Im ready to do what I can! RJ your amazing, Keep Striving, Im praying and rooting for ya!

[jewwop1]

PS,. I forgot to mention the most important part of RJs story and thats the babies who would be saved! Its a win win situation.

[michellem99-2009]

I am for the mums to be to be tested for illgal drugs that may be in their system to handicap a child. It is not right. I DO FEEL THAT THERE ARE PERSONS THAT MUST BE FIXED TO THEY CAN''T BREED. I had to fight to have gotten my tubes tied at 28. I was in a blind centre but left with a friend 24+ years ago. I am on meds. I think it is something that need to be addressed. The non handicapped don''t want to think about what drugs will do the unborn. I have gone thru the change of life at 37. I am 53.

[keithle1]

Single women, assuming they have half a brain cell, need to use birth control AND demand that the Super Stud they''re sleeping with use a condom. If the man of your dreams doesn''t want to use a condom then the party is over. I''m sure you''ll be able to resist his charms.

It''s one thing for a married couple with kids to lose their jobs & end up relying on public assistance for a temporary period. No one has a problem with that.

It''s another thing for single women to have child after child & expect the government to pick up the tab. Single women have to take responsibility for birth control because they''re the ones carrying the baby for 9 months & will be doing most of the caregiving. Or their mother/grandmother will. Single men, especially black men, have an interesting habit of disappearing in such situations. It''s going to change your life in a HUGE way. Unless you get an abortion.

[keithle1]

Where do you think most violent criminals come from? Stable, loving families with a mother & father who make the kids the number one priority?

[paganmama]

"What R.J. is proposing: All welfare recipients would be randomly tested for drugs."

It''s sad that this child has been brainwashed into believing that ALL people on public assistance are drug users. This is a classic exampling of stereotyping at it''s finest.

[libsrc0kskrs]

For what it''''s worth.. I am subject to random drug testing to earn my pay so I can pay taxes. My taxes support Family Services, so why shouldn''''t people getting the assistance be subject to drug screening too?

Posted by Dooder712 at 07:13 PM : Feb 21, 2008
+ report abuse

****************

because your nieghborhood liberal WOULD NOT ALLOW THAT.

[sweetspuds1]

I am for this law..But I think everyone on welfare and SSI/SSD need to be drug tested. I used drugs for many years. What got me off the stuff was getting arrested. Was the best thing that ever happened to me. I got 6yrs clean from drugs, by the way no kids. I was smart in that area. I haven''t had a seizure in 6yrs. I got a job and I am slowly getting off social security and disability. I just can''t live off what I make a month on this income. So I am for this law. But I think all people need to be drug tested. It isnt just people on welfare. Its peeps on ssi/ssd too.