Two Year Old Toddler Smoking Pot

[BlackIronGuardian]

Has anyone made the ''Hey baby, what you doing out on the street corner at 2 in the morning?'' joke yet? I'm too lazy to go though it all.

 

[FallenJellyDoughnut]

Se's proof that people shouldn't be allowed to have kids without taking a test or something.

Cool, another statement so ridiculous that I get to block you and don't have to bother with an argument.

Eugenics - supporting it makes you a bad person.

You're blocked.

Don't bother replying.

I don't care.

Blocking people who do not agree with you and then telling them that they're blocked is not a particularly mature or clever way of going about forum use..

Oh you're so getting blocked for that!

 

[mrpenguinismyhomeboy]

It depends on whether or not she forced the child too, or the child did it on their own accord and she just happened to have weed lying around.

 

[mrpenguinismyhomeboy]

SHE'S WASTING WEED

DOOD, YOU ARE TOTALLY RIGHT, LETS GRAB THAT SHIT BEFORE THAT DAMN KID SMOKES IT ALL!

 

[Antonio Torrente]

This is pretty shocking, not because it's pot but because it's smoke in general. Pot should be legal but developing minds and bodies need to be protected from potentially harmful substances by their parents, not given them.
Hopefully the child is given to parents fit to raise it.

And wow talk about bile in this thread, I truly didn't think extreme liberalism could offend me as much as extreme republicanism but wow (referring to a certain suspended poster).

I never expected this kind of reaction to the thread I posted

 

[Kortney]

Regardless of whatever you believe about marijuana, giving it to a two year old is wrong. First of all, they don't need the smoke in their lungs. Secondly, it's a mind altering substance. A two year old mind is not in the state to be experiencing a drug high.

793 posts...she's a very dedicated troll if she is indeed one.

She's probably just having a bad day and became an idiot. We've all done it. However, I don't know her posting history so maybe she is just a dedicated troll.

 

[sativa121]

Really dumb of the lady but yeah 11 years for something that wont have actually cause any harm seems a bit harsh although i guess its better to look at this almost like a Darwin award but with jail time not death for being balls to the wall stupid.

 

[Lullabye]

So we can at least all agree this child smoking pot is a bad thing. Right?

 

[Primate]

Funny, considering no one has ever died from pot.

Ever.

Oh wait, that's right, it's not taxed.

Go back to drinking and smoking, people, nothing to see here.

Except mind altering substances given to a toddler when their brain is actually forming is fucking stupid and can fuck them up severely. Not to mention the fact that they're inhaling smoke. The danger of the smoke is debatable, but the fact that smoke is going into the infants lungs is true, which is still fucking despicable.

Except for the fact that while the kiddo is at that age, the brain is so active that is "self heals" almost all injuries any ways.
Which is why a kid that age taking a nasty blow to the head ( example : falling down stairs ) will 99% of the time not gain any permanent injuries, except it will produce a screaming kiddo.

In practice, you're mostly right. Human beings under the age of about six are idiotically resistant to physical trauma, including head wounds. (Fun fact, if you lop off a toddler's finger up to the first knuckle, the finger will regenerate, complete with a new nail (unless you cauterize the wound.))

Now, that's physical trauma. Chemical trauma is a different story altogether. When it comes to the effect of various chemicals on the brain, a child's mind is extremely susceptible. And chemical exposure at that age can alter at a very fundamental level how the brain develops.

Key word is "could", what you are describing is all theoretical, and is to my knowledge not proven in any way.
Therefore, I can't really see how we can take that into account..

However, Kudos to you sir, I was expecting a nasty response to my post, and you responded in a very polite manner.

 

[Angerwing]

Funny, considering no one has ever died from pot.

Ever.

Oh wait, that's right, it's not taxed.

Go back to drinking and smoking, people, nothing to see here.

Except mind altering substances given to a toddler when their brain is actually forming is fucking stupid and can fuck them up severely. Not to mention the fact that they're inhaling smoke. The danger of the smoke is debatable, but the fact that smoke is going into the infants lungs is true, which is still fucking despicable.

Oh I see.

Shoot, guess everyone better have their baby in a bubble, aye.

Holy crap. Strawman anyone? I've read the thread, so I see others have already argued my points, so I won't bother.

Seriously? How immature do you want to be?

Block me, ignore me. It only makes you look dumber. I think we're done here.

Edit: Oh, and I'm pro-legalisation, despite seeing what it's done to people and being opposed to it personally. Your argument of "The government won't endorse something they don't tax." is bullshit. In that case, why don't they legalise and tax it?

 

[Angerwing]

Funny, considering no one has ever died from pot.

Ever.

Oh wait, that's right, it's not taxed.

Go back to drinking and smoking, people, nothing to see here.

Except mind altering substances given to a toddler when their brain is actually forming is fucking stupid and can fuck them up severely. Not to mention the fact that they're inhaling smoke. The danger of the smoke is debatable, but the fact that smoke is going into the infants lungs is true, which is still fucking despicable.

Except for the fact that while the kiddo is at that age, the brain is so active that is "self heals" almost all injuries any ways.
Which is why a kid that age taking a nasty blow to the head ( example : falling down stairs ) will 99% of the time not gain any permanent injuries, except it will produce a screaming kiddo.

In practice, you're mostly right. Human beings under the age of about six are idiotically resistant to physical trauma, including head wounds. (Fun fact, if you lop off a toddler's finger up to the first knuckle, the finger will regenerate, complete with a new nail (unless you cauterize the wound.))

Now, that's physical trauma. Chemical trauma is a different story altogether. When it comes to the effect of various chemicals on the brain, a child's mind is extremely susceptible. And chemical exposure at that age can alter at a very fundamental level how the brain develops.

Key word is "could", what you are describing is all theoretical, and is to my knowledge not proven in any way.
Therefore, I can't really see how we can take that into account..

However, Kudos to you sir, I was expecting a nasty response to my post, and you responded in a very polite manner.

I didn't ignore you by the way. I was at work for over 12 hours, so I didn't get a chance to respond. Anyway, basically everything I have to say has been said, so I shall say no more.

 

[Megacherv]

Funny, considering no one has ever died from pot.

Ever.

Oh wait, that's right, it's not taxed.

Go back to drinking and smoking, people, nothing to see here.

People have died from smoking pot, trust me, I've done the research.

 

[Chameliondude]

Funny, considering no one has ever died from pot.

Ever.

Oh wait, that's right, it's not taxed.

Go back to drinking and smoking, people, nothing to see here.

People have died from smoking pot, trust me, I've done the research.

Go on then, show a single example of someone overdosing on pot in the 4000 recorded years of its use from your research, it was estimated that an average of the amount of 20000 spliffs in about 20 minutes is barely enough to kill you, THC wouldnt even be the thing killing you, it would be low blood pressure caused by it.

Yes people have died while high but people die every day crossing the street or in car accidents so you cant exactly argue it was the weed doing it can you...

 

[Lt. Vinciti]

-SIGH-

 

[mageroel]

It is proven that smoking pot is indeed bad for children, as it disrupts their growing brain. This is why it is forbidden for all people younger than 18 in Holland... otherwise we'd have it legal for babies too.

In what way and who proved this?

I don't know who proved it, I do know that many researchers have researched after the effects of pot, and came up with the fact that it's very addictive [not for all but for most] (duh) and I know that smoking pot slows down the process of dividing brain cells, leaving you with less brain cells when you are 20-something.. 23 I think. The brain grows fastest before 18, so they banned it before 18. After 18 the effect is much smaller, almost undetectable (too little to notice during tests and MRIs).

 

[AndyFromMonday]

It is proven that smoking pot is indeed bad for children, as it disrupts their growing brain. This is why it is forbidden for all people younger than 18 in Holland... otherwise we'd have it legal for babies too.

In what way and who proved this?

I don't know who proved it, I do know that many researchers have researched after the effects of pot, and came up with the fact that it's very addictive [not for all but for most] (duh) and I know that smoking pot slows down the process of dividing brain cells, leaving you with less brain cells when you are 20-something.. 23 I think. The brain grows fastest before 18, so they banned it before 18. After 18 the effect is much smaller, almost undetectable (too little to notice during tests and MRIs).

Very addictive? Look, dude, if you want to support your point then do so by linking to actual studies instead of just claiming crap. I mean by your logic I can say bread is addictive then instead of citing sources I'll just say "many/some researchers".