For the Simple Crime of Smoking Marijuana, the Government Ruined This Man's Family Forever

It's amazing these people were approved as foster parents. The local news station said:

There was an episode of Law and Order where a little girl bashed in another kid's
skull with a rock. Prior to that, she had killed cats and tried to bring them back
to life with a battery.

She was obviously mentally ill and had no idea what she was doing was wrong
after the whole episode played out.

So the DA made a petition to have the girl committed to an institution. For
whatever reason, the judge felt that the state institution was not the place
for this girl just because there was a chance that she might kill again. So the
judge ruled that the girl be released into the mother's care and that the mother
was responsible for getting the girl help privately and that she'd have to report
to the judge each month.

At the end of the show, the girl walks out of the court room, sees another
little boy and gives him a look like "Oh boy wouldn't I love to see if I can
bring YOU back to life with a battery."

The point I'm making, as it applies to this story, is at what point do we weigh
the potential harm to society or another person and say "Yes, this needs to
be done" and we take action like the action that was taken in this story,
even though the consequences were unfortunate?

I don't have the answer. Law and Order was a great show and lasted 20
years because it always addressed complicated issues like this. And many
times I would watch the end and get so made because of how it ended.

It's tragic that the girl died. Maybe her parents were very responsible. Maybe
not. I don't have all the facts. None of us do. So I won't pass judgment. And
yes, sometimes the govt gets it wrong.

But every once in a while, they get it right.

If posts go "over the line" they may be deleted. That's how it works on a moderated forum.

Wow - that's a reasoned argument.

That's a good point Thom - but a terrible reason to make other drugs legal.

Mammals are not 'addicted' to water. Water is the most abundant chemical compound in the body and is (like oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, calcium and a host of other elements) 'essential' to life as we know it.

Nicotine and caffeine are NOT 'essential' and ARE addictive (lab tests prove it) - but they don't impair mental processing (judgement) to the degree marijuana and alcohol do. If you want to 'toke' in the privacy of your room - go ahead. But just like alcohol - don't dare operate machinery in the presence of others or where you could do harm to others.

I have no qualms on other people driving their vehicles over a cliff or into a tree ('suicide') so long as they don't involve others who are not so inclined. Then such behaviour becomes 'murder'.

WHY is marijuana criminalized and alcohol legalized while both were legal years ago? Both DO have recognized health benefits but 'abuse' (over use) of one or the other leads to harm (everything in moderation) so both were criminalized until alcohol was re-legalized. The same will be true of marijuana. Remember; Elvis was addicted to cough syrup.

Many people in nations (other than the USA) permit 'children' to drink wine with meals. Growing up drinking a glass of wine with their meals - most of these children do not become alcoholics or 'binge drink'. When children are prohibited from this practice the view becomes one of 'forbidden fruit' - enticing some (thrill seekers) to imbibe covertly. This can lead to binge drinking and eventual addiction. The same applies to any chemical compound (alkaloids, chocolate, sugar, adrenalin, etc) which triggers 'reward' centers in the brain OR reduces pain/discomfort.

That's why I say it's not a crime.........it's just illegal. In my mind there is the difference between "crime" and "illegal". Our "authorities" seem to illegalize anything that benefits them financially to rule against.

And, yes, there are very good medical uses for pot - with NO harmful effects - other than when you're stoned, you can actually be pretty useless. At least I am. I'm not one of those people who function well with a buzz, however, I know a lot of people that are perfectly capable of it. But then, my system doesn't handle ANYTHING that has any qualities of a sedative. Chamomile tea puts me straight to sleep for cripes sakes. :rolleyes:

Pot was used as a means for the "authorities" to illegalize hemp - an action that has resulted in destroyed forests which were felled for paper, wood for housing, etc -- when we could have used hemp and been much more environmentally friendly. We could have used it for natural fiber for durable clothing, and instead we have toxic synthetic fiber and tons of toxic waste from the manufacturing process to make it - companies like DOW couldn't compete with hemp fiber. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

If you want information about how and why this stuff was illegalized, or medical benefits, ThomM is the most knowledgeable person I've ever met on the subject. He's had decades of study on the subject.

None of that means that the government has the right to take away someone's child. How many parents are perfect? By that criteria, they could seize kids whose parents were smokers, were diagnosed with any type of mental illness (by current DSM standards, that's something like 50% of the population I believe), provided poor nutrition, etc.

The truth is, life is seldom ideal. Institutionalizing kids or putting them into a foster care system doesn't make it any more perfect. I agree if parents are abusive or completely irresponsible drug addicts or the like it could be justified. But not for common character flaws or bad habits.

While it's true there are carcinogens in MJ, it's believed these are offset by the possiblity that THC seems to have an anti-cancer affect.

Also, using a vaporizer instead of buring MJ greatly reduces much of the carcinogens.

Yes, I work with a lot of non-profits and among them are a handful of drug rehab centers. When people think of drug rehab, they picture some junkie strapped to a chair with an IV pumping suboxone into their arm or whatever the appropriate treatment is depending on their addiction. But there's a whole other side to drug use that's a little less Hollywood... the loss of productivity.

Chronic marijuana users suffer from perception distortions of time, impaired coordination, difficulty problem solving, and impairment in memory, reduced cognitive ability, etc. There's also a correlation with some of the "premium" marijuana between schizophrenia and psychosis, because modern growing tactics have increased THC levels to 9%-25%, vs a mere 3% just ten years ago.

And guess who pays for most of their counseling, pays for the roof over their heads, buys their meals, as they can't hold a job with a high enough pay to support themselves or work out their addiction issues? The taxpayers. If legalized, it would happen more often and would merely transfer the expense from one government department with another, creating more problems in the process. I know every pro-legalization person likes to talk like they're a medical expert, but lets be honest unless you've worked with some of these non-profit treatment centers or done your own laboratory tests, you're just regurgitating talking points that were fed to you by others in the pro-legalization lobby. Just like the pharmaceutical companies do when they don't want to talk about the damaging side effects of their drugs. It's a business, plain and simple, and there are a handful of companies that stand to make billions if it's legalized. So take any positive medical information you've come across with a grain of salt, I've seen the realities of it. It's not all peace and hippy shit, the new marijuana isn't our parents weed from the 60's anymore...

That's one state. And mark my words, even in that state that portion of the law will be overturned at some point in the future. Once enough people actually are fired, they will band together and initiate a series of class action lawsuits and work to have that repealed. Their argument will be that there should be no law that allows an employer to fire someone for using a legal substance in their personal time. Count on it.

One of my hobbies is building offroad vehicles, and in recent years I've found myself spending more time rock crawling than playing in the mud. The reason is because the complications caused by mud aren't immediately visible, you discover them later. If I bust an axle on a rock, it's broken - I know it's broken right that moment and I deal with it. But mud doesn't work that way... it's a slow break. It sits in crevices eating away at paint and powdercoat, drying up seals, etc. And then one day your driveshaft comes apart 7 months later when you're driving down the interstate with your kids in the Jeep because the U-joint seized up.

My employees are writing software and, when this other venture goes through, building cars. I don't have time for half-baked software with problems that aren't discovered until months down the road, and certainly don't have time for burnouts working on cars and potentially skipping important safety issues, all because some dude who should have known what he was doing didn't reason things out properly.

But like I said before, there are plenty of "responsible" users too which is why I'm on the fence about it. Casual users won't have any medical or addiction side effects, and the risk of poor job performance is reduced. The problem is that "legalization" without it being at least a controlled substance, doesn't have any limits... and as long as there aren't any limits, then the rights of the taxpayer and the employer must be considered.

Well, I don't smoke or drink or do drugs so I can't comment on what any of
that stuff does to anybody.

For the record, I am either for making alcohol also illegal, though prohibition
was a disaster, or legalize everything. I'm serious. Let the corporations make
all the drugs there are to make. It'll sell cheaper than the stuff you get on
the street and it'll be regulated.

But also make the crimes under the influence of anything, whether it be
alcohol, drugs, pot, whatever, more severe. The laws are too lax. When
somebody recklessly gets behind the wheel of a car when they can just
about walk a straight line and ends up killing somebody, the penalties should
be more severe.

And no, it's not the same as drinking a bottle of pop and burping and killing
somebody because you swerved off the road. In one case you're being
reckless (especially if tests can prove beyond any doubt that you were
impaired). In the other it was an unfortunate accident. Hell, for that matter
I could sneeze from my allergies and swerve off the road. Should we put
everybody in jail who has allergies and gets into an auto accident? At some
point the excuses for driving impaired and comparing them to soda pop and
sneezing are absurd.

Again, I am all for legalization of all drugs. But if you hurt another person and
it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the harm to that person
came because of the use of that drug, you should be punished for it.

My point is this. People can't have the privileges of a thing without the
consequences of having that thing if they hurt another person. I mean that's
why we have drunk driving laws and alcohol is legal.

That's all I'm saying. Again, I don't know if pot does anything to your senses
or not but if it does and you harm another person, you should be punished.