Oregon man spiked smoothies for daughter's 12-year-old friends with sedatives, affidavit says
Michael Meyden is accused of making the smoothies with benzodiazepine, a drug typically prescribed for anxiety, according to a probable cause affidavit.
An Oregon man accused of spiking smoothies with sedatives and giving them to his daughter’s pre-teen friends has been charged with multiple felonies, according to court documents.
Michael Meyden, 57, of Lake Oswego, allegedly drugged three of his daughter’s friends while they slept over on the night of Aug. 25, 2023, according to court documents and a probable cause affidavit filed this week in Clackamas County.
The girls, all 12 years old, were hospitalized and tested positive for benzodiazepine, described in the affidavit as a drug typically prescribed for anxiety, with common prescriptions under the names Valium, Xanax and Klonopin. Benzodiazepines are a depressant that produces sedation, sleepiness and a relaxed mood, the affidavit said.
This seems to be more serious that what have been suggested by other comments.
Luckily one of the girls didn't like the smoothie and didn't take much. She didn't fall into deep sleep and was the one who suspected something fishy going on when the man kept coming to the basement. The man even tried to separate the girls. Again, the girl protected her friends by pulling them closer to her. She finally managed to contact her family friend, when the man went outside, messaging them to come and bring her home, and once she was saved, the other families followed suit.
Given a different scenario where everyone took the smoothies, I speculate with high degree of confidence someone would get sexually assaulted or worse.
This is like the plot of the movie Happiness.
I haven't been able to find a good copy of this one yet, it's somewhat obscure nowadays
Took me 10 seconds to find a DVDrip, you must not be looking very hard
Emphasis on "good"
And this is why we don’t allow our kids to participate in sleep overs.
Edit: Downvote all you want, sleepovers are weird and too risky.
Edit 2: Ok I wasn’t going to include this context but since you are all so ignorant I feel the need to. My son went on a sleep over when he was 14 and ended up getting molested. So for the rest of my kids (yes they are teen girls), there is a zero sleep over policy.
So for all of you judgmental assholes, fuck off.
Sleepovers were a huge part of my childhood.
Waking up in the morning at your best friends house and playing Nintendo with the volume on the tv way down before their parents are awake who then make us pancakes are core memories.
Should be a said though that my friends parents were reasonable close friends with my own parents and my friends slept over at my place regularly as well.
You raise your kids however you want but don’t underestimate the small experience of independence a sleepover can give a child.
And this is why you have the weird kids who can't function
Do you also not allow your kids to set foot in a car? Much more dangerous than sleepovers
Car rides are necessary, sleep overs are not.
How many of your car rides are really necessary?
Kids get abducted if you allow them to go outside, never let them go outside.
Stranger danger. Better to not let them talk to any people or use the Internet either.
That's not the solution
Your child is going to hate you for smothering them and unfairly limiiting their ability to be a child because of your misplaced anxieties. This sort of shit is an exception to the normal, and your hurting your children by cowering in fear over something that's a very low probability.
I hope you don't drive your kids anywhere, that's waaaaaaay too risky and dangerous for them if you think sleepovers are risky.
Yes, yes, restrict and police rather than educate and enable personal agency. All children need is to live in an impermeable bubble of perfect safety, not learn any life skills at all... 🤦🏼♂️
Fucksake. Your kids are going to be stunted adults that require $$$$ of therapy to function in the real world. Congrats.
I grew up with a guy that was stunted by his parents. Study, don't go out except on a few select occasions, do this sport, no girls.
He did really great at school, great student, good guy, good athlete. Then he had to live home for university and went completely overboard. Overweight, stuck with a controlling woman who took advantage of him, failing in his studies. It's really sad.
You're their parent, who cares what rando internet strangers think. You do what you feel is best for your kids.
Weirdly specific. I had an argument about this exact thing on a post a few weeks ago. There was someone who had a friend who
lostwas divorced by his wife (phrasing issue) and couldn't understand why other parents were wary of him hosting a sleepover for his daughter. He had done so many times as a married man but suddenly couldn't.So the argument was about how women in general, especially parents of little girls, can't blindly trust every man they meet. There were some salty males insisting that line of logic is sexist.
Anyway, banning all sleepovers isn't the solution. Properly chaperoned sleepovers with two parents present should be fine.
[Edit: Yes, I realize that it's technically sexist. The fact that it is is beside the point that it's necessary for women to be wary of men. If you don't understand why, ask literally any woman in your life to explain it for you]
[Edit #2: I'm not engaging anyone else on the subject from this point. I have successfully fallen into the same trap of holding dudes' hands who don't understand that strange men do, in fact, pose a risk to women, and now my morning has been wasted.
I already elaborated this point more than enough. If you still feel the need to express how this offends you after you read down this thread, I would urge you to look elsewhere into women's perspectives on the subject before you just handwave it like these guys are trying to do.]
Explain to me how that is not sexist?
Here's the Oxford Dictionary of sexism:
To burst your bubble, some of the most famous rapists and child molesters I know of had their wives help them. Women can be monsters too.
99% of sexual assault cases are perpetrated by men, and 91% of the victims are women
I really don't wish to rehash this. For the sake of simplicity, yes. It fits the technical definition of sexism. However, arguing that women shouldn't be wary of men they don't know because it might hurt someone's feelings is completely ridiculous, especially when the thing at stake is a woman or girl's safety.
I understand, believe me because I had to reassure several people multiple times, that women can also be monsters. That doesn't change the fact that perpetrators of sexual assault cases are overwhelmingly men.
This cannot be overstated. Even sexual assault against men is perpetrated 86% of the time by other men. See Page 32
I hesitate to even engage you on this because there's a fine line between logically arriving at the point that it is in fact sexist, and blindly extending the claim to the connotation that discrimination in that sense shouldn't exist at all. If you are going to argue the latter, I'm not going any further than this.
It is a difficult problem because using statistics like that you end up supporting people who say you should be wary of blacks because 14% of the population is black yet commit 53% of the murders.
Imo it's more important to look at the percentage of crime in general. Googling says around 12,000 pedos out of 330 million people. If you live your life by your statistics you shouldn't let your kids inside a car. Driving them to a sleepover is far more dangerous than the sleepover.
The reality is that women do.
No, this is a different thing. People who espouse that line of logic are explicitly using it to justify racism. There are several other factors that play into that specific statistic, including the population density of black people in areas where crime is already high, and the likelihood of being economically disadvantaged just by being in a black family from generational poverty.
That stat specifically is simplified to a bare number and used as a bludgeon by racists.
I understand how you misinterpreted the point, given the actual subject of the post, but those statistics are about sexual assault in general. 1 in 3 women experience unwanted sexual contact in their lifetime. I'd say that's high enough number to warrant being aware of a situation where you, as a woman, might be vulnerable to that.
To relate to the point you're trying to make about comparing this to justifying racism with black crime stats, would you choose to walk through a neighborhood where the crime rate was high? Regardless of the demographic makeup of the neighborhood, is it morally wrong to arrive at the conclusion that you are not safe in certain areas because the statistical likelihood of being assaulted is higher?
Does the sentence "If I don't walk through this neighborhood then I must be prejudiced against the people here who don't commit crimes" make sense to you?
If the answer to all of those is no, then you can at least recognize the line of logic women have to be conscious of when they are faced with potentially being in a precarious situation around a man who they don't know.
Just as you use your statistic to justify sexism. You don't consider the factors that cause men to be sexual predators. Because to you, the cause isn't your problem, being attacked is your problem. You can't have it both ways.
100% of women will experience a car crash in their lifetime. (3-4 accidents per lifetime).
I have said several times already that it's sexism. That doesn't make it wrong to be cautious, nor is it justifying the fact.
Sexism in its barest definition exists in benign circumstances all around us. Why do men and women have different bathrooms? Different sports leagues? Different car insurance rates?
Arguing that sexism shouldn't exist for the sake of it in this specific case is selectively pushing equality in the face of women's safety.
Let's extend your logic on this: is it wrong to wear a seat belt given, statistically, that you will experience a car crash at some point? Because in effect, that's what this line of logic is.
Or are you just being obtuse? Because in order for this point to make sense, you'd have to argue against practicing safety in the face of statistical likelihood. Which is literally what this is about
Oh, please do educate me on what causes men to sexually assault women. Yes, the fact that women are being attacked is the problem. The cause should not preclude women from taking measures to ensure their safety.
As long as I have spent clarifying this point, besides the misguided notion that we should push equality in a situation that is fundamentally unequal, I seriously don't understand how people don't get it.
The patriarchy and culture of toxic masculinity. Added to that many religions teach that men are more important than women.
Again if you live your life by those statistics, you would also be wary of black people. Saying "yeah it's sexism but it's justified because statistics show men commit more sexual assaults" is no different than saying you are wary of blacks based on the same statistics.
And because of this, it's not important for women to protect themselves? We should denounce the fact that women protect themselves because society has conditioned men to be violent?
Look, I'm all about addressing the root cause, but just pointing at one injustice in society doesn't make another just disappear.
You really need to stop saying "well if you're taking precautions based on statistics you must also be racist"
Because that's a really transparent fallacy that essentially just boils down to you asserting "women shouldn't protect themselves because what about black people?"
These are separate points, and putting the words in my mouth that I must be racist is nothing more than deflection to avoid addressing the actual point.
Additionally, I know very many people who wear seat belts because of the statistical chance of being in a wreck. According to your fallacy, all of those people must also be racist.
The fallacy I'm trying to elaborate is mismatched risk. Cars are far more dangerous but you ignore that risk. You could choose to not be sexist just like you currently choose to ignore the statistics to not be racist.
That sounds much more reasonable, but don't forget these numbers are also skewed by sexism, on many levels. Victims might not even realize they are victims. In many jurisdictions a woman having nonconsensual sex with a man isn't even considered rape.
Now, I don't believe the numbers are even close to 50/50 or that women don't have the right thing being wary. But being wary is one thing, simply banning all sleepovers at the house of single male parents is another. I'd still call that sexist.
It wasn't defined as rape in the US until 2013. The FBI only considered "penetration" to be rape until the definition was revised, so national statistics didn't represent ANY female-on-male rapes, unless the female used a body part or object on the male victim's anus.
I appreciate that you even understand that what you're saying is sexist and are self aware enough to realize it is and had to come up with a goalpost moving reason why your statement isn't actually sexist, really.
If you don't understand why people would be upset that people lost trust in their ability to not be a rapist just because their wife died, I think you need to take a full college course in empathy. This isn't "blindly trusting every man they meet" this is specifically "I no longer trust you because you don't have a woman in the house who would prevent you from being a pedophile", and is 10000% a sexist statement.
Fellas, is it wrong to fear for the safety of your children?
It's quite ironic of you to take that stance, on this post.
Yeah, it's sexist. That doesn't make taking precaution wrong. If you want clarification on that subject, go read the essay I wrote for the other guy. Or maybe ask a lady friend. Most women tend to understand this concept pretty well, given they have to live with it.
Yeah, no. None of my lady friends would tell me they'd stop trusting a dude to watch their kids because his wife died. Because I've seen how they treated a friend who had that happen after he lost his wife young to cancer. They supported the dude and he still got to let his daughter and friends hang out at his house and sleep over. Maybe that's just because they're not secretly sexist? Not everyone is so afraid of their own shadow that they'd abandon a friend like that.
Also, I'm only aware of 1 or 2 ladies in my friend group who haven't told me about being sexually assaulted, so believe it or not, I understand how common this is. But hey, what do I know about it, I'm just some guy whose had to comfort a partner and multiple friends after being assaulted. I haven't had to truly experience it.
Every racist and misogynist thinks their -ism is justified too. It's not that they know it's wrong and do it anyway.
To be clear, the man in question was divorced. Unknown reasons. Not widowed.
Also, I'm not over here saying that no man should ever be trusted in that situation. Just that I won't blame parents who do look at that situation and don't want their girls at that sleepover.
In any case, I'm pretty tired of arguing against the "secretly sexist" accusations. Call it what you want. The concept is out there, and you clearly understand it.
People are down voting you, but I've heard about a lot of inappropriate behavior at sleepovers from people close to me, boys and girls. Me and my siblings were not allowed to go to sleepovers. Nobody thought we were weird. Once my parents grew a relationship with a friend's parents, that rule got broken once in a while. Other than that, we were allowed to invite a friend over for a sleepover if we wanted one 🤷🏼♀️ I'm an adult now with my own child, and I'm really glad my parents protected me. I will have the same rule
Genuine question, what makes your house safer for a sleepover than other parents'? Of course you know your house is safe, but other parents could feel the same way.
Yeah but it's you who has to make the decisions about your kid's safety, not them. And you don't know what you don't know. I wouldn't blindly 100% trust strangers with my kid just because of a logical fairness any more than I would lend my car to random person off the street because I have no evidence they would steal it.
I think it's best if you can get to know people first. Even if it's just for your own peace of mind and so that it's visibly clear to them that there will be someone holding them accountable.
They did say that the rule gets broken on occasion if the parents knew the other parents really well.
Which is kinda funny, because people are sexually asaulted way more by people they know vs. people they don't know.
My God, I would have an absolute panic attack if my kid ever texted me this. I would be shaking with fear and rage the entire drive over.
Id be at that door in 10 mins with a felony tucked in my waistband.
That could be phrases differently.
It's completely unreasonable too.
Buy a proper holster, people, it's stylish and functional 😤
You also won't accidentally shoot yourself in the inner thigh where a lot of important things are like your circulatory system.
Fun fact: femoral artery: ~45 seconds to bleed out.
As a primary (elementary) teacher I once had a grade 2 kid with scolded fingers from her mum. My principal ordered me to go home and paid for a taxi that day. Fortunately I have never crossed paths with that mother again.
Huh?
Scolded?
Probably scalded
Burying the lede here:
"Eventually two parents went to Mayden’s home to get the other two girls, but Meyden was reluctant to let them leave, the affidavit said. "
The guy that drugged the girls didn't want them to leave with their parents?!
I think he was expecting the benzos to wear off before parents had any chance to inspect their kids. They showed up too early, and the effects of the benzos would have been quite evident, and he'd be in a fuckload of trouble. Which is exactly what's happening.
benzos have a long half life, i think it's like 3 day.
Diazepam, yes (~100hrs). Xanax, no(~5hrs). Clonazepam, mid(~20hrs)
Yeah, i mean, even just based on what we know this guy's plan had a lot of flaws in it
Any explanation for this is going to be horrible
Not that actually doing it isn’t absolutely horrible but wait till you have children, at about 7yo they invite 8 of their friends in your house and it’s pouring outside.
The idea of sedating them will eventually come in mind. Then obviously you’ll discard it.
And come the moment of cleaning the mess they inevitably leave you’ll wonder if you should have done it.
Yeah, there's a big difference between using melatonin as a "sedative" so they don't stay up all night and wreck the house, and using a powerful sedative to knock them out and abuse them.
Granted, I am NOT advocating using melatonin on other people's kids, especially without consent from the parents, but one of those scenarios is considerably more evil than the other.
This guy gave the kids adult anxiety meds in smoothies, that makes this particular scenario much worse than a misguided attempt to make them go to bed early.
The motive here appears to be much more sinister. If you haven't read the article in full...
Giving any psychoactive substance to anyone and especially kids without a specific prescription from a licensed practician is absolutely insane.
Beside recreational drugs when an adult wishes to obviously.
Apparently, since the article didn't bring up any sort of sex crimes, he did not discard it.
Where did he get the Benzos from?
I'm not sure but it does sound fishy as fuck.
I don't disagree. But you'd think the article would be more explicit if he was suspected of sexually assaulting the girls.
The parents showed up before he could. Also, one of the girls wasn't affected as much and was able to run defense.
He was trying to sexually assault them. There's no question here.
He has something fishy in mind - that's for certain.
But how can you say "there's no question" about whether he wanted to sexually assault them?
Maybe he wanted to kill them or something.
Might just be written with context they were given and not insinuation. Which is good. But yeah. It seems he was trying to be a predator here from the context.
They can't say for sure because, thank goodness, it didn't happen. But there are very few good explanations for heavily drugging children and attempting to physically move them.
Some news places wouldn't want to assume and put it in writing since that might "taint a jury pool" of they read about it before trial. Or a libel suit if the news places was wrong in their assumption.
I believe that sexual assault/rape was 100% his goal, but I'm not a new organization.
One of the girls didn't have any smoothie. She said he came downstairs multiple times to check if they were asleep.
Sounds fishy.
Sounds to me like one girl not wanting smoothie saved all her friends.
The article doesn’t mention that either but I read often that benzos are really common in the states, so likely a prescription.
Did you read the article? It seems like predatory behavior... gross
One girl drank at least twice as much as the others, and the guy drugged his own daughter, too. What a piece of shit.
I know they’re only 12, but how much did he put in there I wonder?
And did the girl who didn’t drink much of the smoothie just not like the flavor or whatever, or did she think it tasted weird because she could taste whatever he spiked it with?
It's possible it tasted fine but subliminally she knew something was wrong about the drink because of his behavior. Everyone should listen to their instincts like that child, she followed her instincts again later that night and saved herself and her friends.
Or, maybe she didn't like banana.
Well, he probably rightly assumed his daughter would not want him assaulting her friends and would tell someone.
I occasionally take alprazolam under the tongue, and it does taste awful. Leaves a sort of metallic aftertaste.
This was recently in an episode of The Bear.
Catering a party of hyperactive kids and made spiked smoothies to sedate them. Wow.
Didn't they do that on accident?
Yup
They never explicitly show how it happened. I'm still not 100% convinced it wasn't an "accident" from Ritchie.
Shitty article writing. He didn't spike their drinks with 'benzodiazepine', he spiked them with 'a benzodiazepine'.
'Benzodiazepine' isn't any specific drug, it's a structural class of drugs
Looks like you're right. I was expecting it to be like amphetamine, where it's both a class and a specific compound.
The poor writing is academic, the story is horrifying. But the horror of the story had already been commented on, so I was nitpicking.
Amphetamine is a shortening of a specific structural name, and is the example for the class of similar drugs, while benzodiazepine is a more general structural name for drugs that have linked benzene and diazepine rings; all of the drugs of interest have different functional groups, and there's no 'base' drug that they're modifications of
Bill Cosby is NOT a role model!
That is seriously fucked up.
Wasn't this the plot of an episode of bear?
And Happiness
Some people go to the extreme about annoying kids..
Is it possible that the girls wanted to get rid of the father of their friend, spiked their own smoothies, and now an honest man is being pitchforked?
Did that man do anything else than being present? Playing with the girls? Taking part in the sleepover? Did he have the drugs on hand? Did any of the girls have access to that drug at all? Was there a grudge?
How single-sided can this reporting be?
But after reading the initial article, yeah, probably a predator. Still. A thorough investigation should take place. There are well-meaning and involved people who don't have an interest in abuse. It's still possible the daughter was sick of her hyper-involved dad, and planned the whole thing. :')
What the actual F, dude?
When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, and not zebras. The guy needs to have an investigation done, and a proper trial, yes of course. And if something else happened, hopefully it'll come out during that, but that's a bit of a weird thing to gravitate towards first, man.
I'm not gravitating to that first at all. The other side of the story has been already told. I'm just saying what if. And things like that have happened. Why woulda nyone jump to the conclusion that it might be my first thought? It's my last one. But one that has to be completely discussed and dismissed. Innocent until proven guilty. That article didn't even hint at the possibility, it is an atrocity of journalism.
Seems most likely that he wanted the girls to chill out and go to sleep, so he gave them benzos.
I have 2 year old twins... I get it.
I mean it's wrong and I would never do that, but I get it.
He went down and tried to separate the girls in their sleep while putting his hands on them.
One girl describes how unsafe she felt for her drugged friends when he was trying to separate them.
You'd rape the underage friends of your daughters? The fuck?
That's obviously not what they meant.
They get the desire to make a group of kids chill out and sleep.
The blurb and headline make no insinuation of sexual abuse.
Oh yeah, the good man just wanted them kids to be quiet with that drug cocktail. Jesus fucking Christ dude, stop being so naive.
I'm not a dude and I was talking about the commenter not the person in the story.
The person probably didn't read the article, and you did. You can enlighten them politely.