No, I haven’t had her eyes checked. I probably would if it was more common. It’s just something that she does when she is being dorky, which, admittedly, is much of the time. I’m a first time Mom and she isn’t exposed to many other children and I tend to think either she’s completely normal, or pathological in every way. Most days I think she’s just a kid and is much better at it than I am.
Here are two news articles that give details on this. They have identified the people in the minivan, and the two year old girl. ETA: At the least they have proof that two young toddlers/babies were unrestrained in a moving vehicle, and I think they should file charges for that at least.
Please forgive me for skimming the thread, but as a veteran ecstacy user (hey, it’s been a few years), I say undoubtedly, “Yes. That poor child had been given MDMA”.
When I first got a hold of some “good X”, I first realized it because of the bartender walking past me in a “flash…flash…flash” motion. I mean… she was on my right flash she was in front of me flash she was on my left. Not unlike a film slowed down.
That, to me is the marquee of “good X”. I should say now, that “X” means MDMA. Not some idiot’s combination of things he or she calls “X”.
When you are “rolling” (that means you’re feeling the effects of “X” really hard), your eyes do have the tendency to roll back into your head. That’s the effect of basically giving up your mental acuity because the whole thing is so overwhelming, and it just feels so good, there’s not really any reason to hold back. It can also be difficult to stay focused even when you do try, sometimes with all your will.
I do not doubt for one instant that that little girl was trying to maintain consciousness.
It also explains why every time her eyes rolled back, her mother would hold her face and basically “shake her back into reality”.
It was not a joke, it was real, and it was fucking very disgusting.
I know many here are disgusted with the whole thing, but if I personally witnessed it, I’d first call the cops, then probably be the first one arrested when they showed up.
Not ecstasy but there was a baby in Poland recently that was born drunk.
That’s not so much a baby, as a pickle she birthed. 
:mad:
Did you read DDG’s post? She points out how the girl is able to stop and start it at will. She voluntarily stops and turns away at the end when she’s tired of playing. If she were actually on Ecstasy, I don’t think she could’ve just stopped of her own accord.
I hate that I need to add this… but even most REAL ecstacy today is around 40 mg… a REAL hit should be 80-100 mg.
So even those here who have actually taken the real thing, which is assuredly minimal, have not experienced an “OD on MDMA situation”.
That poor child probably weighed 40 pounds. One weak-ass hit that barely reached 30mg, which I could hardly even feel, would FUCK HER UP.
Again, that was real.
DId you read mine?
She did NOT start and stop at will.
She started and stopped upon external stimulation by her mother (an obvious experienced user) who “brought her back” again and again.
I won’t argue.
It was real, and the poor girl was OBVIOUSLY, to anybody who’s been there, on methylenedioxymethamphetamine.
While I think **Duck Duck Goose ** has made a very good argument, I really think that we can’t really know for sure until those test results come back.
Agreed.
But I am personally 99.44% certain, based on years of experience.
Well, I have been there, and I completely disagree. The girl was totally aware of what was going on, and was playing for the “adults”. At 1:50 she clearly looks around, grins and carries on. At multiple points during the video she’s looking around, perfectly aware, before rolling her eyes back. At 2 minutes she’s clearly had enough of play acting, and is acting completely normally. I don’t know what sort of methyleneblahblah you’ve ever taken, but I’ve never seen it switch on and off every ten seconds.
I’ve also “been there,” and I’m not convinced it’s obvious. When I started this thread (after watching the video once) I thought it really looked like she might be under the influence (or at very least thought the kid was having a seizure of some kind) but watching it again carefully, I interpret it quite differently.
I think the adults’ dumb comments about the kid “rolling” are, probably as they’ve since claimed, just jokes about the girl’s appearance, which does somewhat resemble someone on ecstasy. The nystagmus and “eye-wandering” caused by MDMA are (in my own experience, anyway) usually lateral, and the girl is rolling her eyes upward, in the same direction each time, as if trying to focus on one person (probably her mother) in the seat above her. It looks like she might be tired or bored, possibly from riding in the car for a while.
While it’s true that someone on ecstasy can frequently “zone out” and then return to relative normalcy, what I really think we’re seeing is just the kid playing with her eyes while the rocket scientists in the car joke that she’s on drugs, until the mother makes her stop doing it.
Time will tell, but my money right now is on the kid’s tox screen coming back clean except for Flintstone’s Chewables.
Time will tell.
If she comes out clean, I’ll say, “I was wrong”.
… though in my own mind I’ll retain lingering doubts.
Wait…
It’s been, what two or three weeks?
Now that I consider it, I highly doubt the likely 30mg of MDMA would even show up in any drug test now.
Definitly not in her pee.
One dose won’t be in her hair.
What TF are the testing, exactly?
Some think the toddler likely has been given more than one dose, over time. IF this is the case, then it will show up in her hair…
As indicated in the linked news article, they are not only testing the girl, but also everyone else in the car with her, including the baby in the back seat, the rationale being that if they find evidence of past drug use in those around her, they will take a closer look at the whole incident.
So if any of the seven other people in the van are in the habit of taking drugs, it will turn up in their hair or urine, and ultimately it won’t really matter whether they actually gave the kid drugs or not, because the full force of Child Protective Services will then be unleashed, and the mothers involved will be lucky if they ever see their kids again.
I think the likelihood that at least one of the van’s occupants will test positive for some kind of drug is near 100%. Whether it has anything to do with the kid at that point, as DDG said, probably won’t matter.
If nothing else, this is another good example of why people should think hard about what they’re posting to YouTube (etc.)
I never even noticed this story from 7/13, suggesting there’s no initial evidence the kid was given ecstasy. I guess unlike the fifty news stories suggesting the kid might’ve been drugged, this wasn’t deemed particularly newsworthy.
(It doesn’t explain how they made the determination, though, saying that a hair follicle test was still under consideration.)
I thought she meant this, too. But I think she didn’t so much mean “people who listen to Christian radio stations are automatically good” but more likely “people who are already doing bad things probably aren’t listening to Christian radio stations at the time”, meaning it probably would bore/irritate them or something.
One of the reasons people do Ecstacy is so that they can feel like a kid again. To a bunch of teenage girls, that sort of behavior fits the paradigm they know, and that’s drugs. I don’t know how many times my friends and I when talking about the strange behavior of a child or a pet said that they looked, ‘High’.
That would explain why they’d talk like that.