Two Year Old Toddler Smoking Pot

[Starke]

But in a 2 year old... Jesus. The kid is learning new things EVERYDAY. And it doesn't just apply to 'book learning.' Studies done a decade ago on the use of marijuana on autistic children showed a decrease in both book learning and social skills learning: basically, what little ability autistic children had to socialize was being lost. I can only speculate that it would do something similar to a normal child.

Sorry to chim in, a study I saw found that Nicontin(as in they used the patch) Reduced the effect of down sydrome and Austism. Not that has anything to do with pot, its just I thought It was an interesting fact. Oh and I don't belive pot can reduce mental capicty but it can make it harder to learn and such and cause short term memory loss.

So again, toddles shouldn't be taking any kind of recreational drug.

EDIT:Some grammar kind of.

They've found dozens of uses for nicotine that are beneficial. None of them, however, can overcome the fact that its highly addictive.

I read somewhere that the creation of a synthetic nicotine that has no addiction would be a godsend to medicine, even if not applied to tobacco products.

Well I hope they get on it then. Find some kind of non-addictive nicotine that doesn't cause all that cancer and such.

Off Topic some more: Cassita was the one going off about how birthdays and holiday are just another day, shes that rebel that goes against society man! Give toddlers pots and free tibet. /sarcasm

Actually, that's a funny side note. Tobacco isn't carcinogenic. All those years where the cigarette companies were claiming that tobacco didn't cause cancer? That was actually kind of true. Tobacco itself (and nicotine) don't cause cancer. It does mildly impede the body's immunological response to (and destruction of) cancerous cells, so its not something you want someone on chemotherapy using, but it isn't carcinogenic.

However, the pesticides they hose tobacco down with are toxic six ways to Sunday, and highly carcinogenic to humans. To the point that, after the plants have been washed off, cleaned processed and package, the plants themselves retain those carcinogenic qualities.

This was also the distinction the companies used for years to author studies saying there was no direct link. They'd commission a study, the plants would be grown in a controlled environment, (without pesticides) and then show that there was no significant deviation in occurrences of cancer in the test group vs. the control group.

 

[Starke]

I don't support it but I do understand why some do.

And yet another person to block.

Boy is my list hefty.

Eugenics =/= freedom.

Freedom > everything else.

/blocked

Don't reply.

I don't care.

If you don't care what other people have to say then you shouldn't try to contribute to any discussion.

Just sayin'

I care about what they have to say, right up until the point when they say something incredibly ridiculous, like eugenics not being a bad idea.

Funny thing, because someone we all know and whatever wrote something like this:

Tobacco kills more people than

Heroin
Crack
and Cocaine

[HEADING=3]Combined[/HEADING]

Pot has never killed anyone.

Ever.

Never ever has anyone ever died from pot. Period.

The more you know.

Except one of those is patently false. Heroin (by itself) is one of the only "hard drugs" that has no long term health repercussions from use. Now, Heroin is frequently laced with strychnine as a byproduct of shitty production techniques, and you can OD on it, but the actual death rate from heroin itself is pretty fuckin' low.

Oh, right, and chemically, heroin and pot are in the same drug family. They affect the brain in basically the same way. The difference is one is a hell of a lot more potent.

Then again, since you're counting cocaine twice, I guess that makes up for it?

Now, run along and post your "blocked ololol" response because you can't think of a rebuttal that's more urbane.

yea but if they are legal it goes under the same tampering with companies. what is in malboro brand heroin, pot, etc? arsenic? industrial byproducts? addictive chems to make it more marketable like they do with cigarettes? FDA wont help, they cant even regulate FOOD and you want them to regulate drugs that change depending on who's making it? yea right.

Sorry, what are you trying to say exactly?

 

[Arawn.Chernobog]

Parent's fault, punish parents, simple.

 

[Computer-Noob]

I'm no doctor, but im pretty sure that no matter what substance you give a two year old, be it pot, cigarettes, alcohol, hell even cough medicine, is going to be pretty damn unhealthy. Also the debates about how alcohol is more detrimental to your health than pot is are very old. Please complain to your government, not us.

 

[Starke]

You are welcome to see Post#174 for my views on drug use & abuse.
We shouldn't be quick to judge people and situations. If this was a one time occurrence -and if it is somehow possible to establish whether it was or not- then I believe the best thing is to not deprive the child of his her mother.

This is kind of what the court case is there to evaluate. The mother has been charged, but she hasn't been convicted yet. What we can (arguably) see in the video is her teaching her two year old daughter how to smoke and then laughing at her.

Now, if it is what it appears to be to an external, the video indicates that this woman's concern for the well being of her child is bankrupt.

At this point we're left with a question. Do we follow your suggestion, that this is a one time thing, which won't be repeated. Or do we say no, the risk is too great that the next time she does something like this it will cripple or kill her child.

That isn't an easy question to parse. But, if the mother is viewing this behavior as so permissible that she can post it online, then the implication is, that much worse things have already been done to her daughter, and she should not be allowed to harm her more.

The court will hear a tearful story about how this is a one time thing, but is it the truth and can we trust her?

I don't relish the idea of taking a child away from her mother. But, in this case, I think that is the reasonable response. An adult can defend themselves and get a restraining order against an abuser. A child who is abused by their parent is at the abusers mercy.

No, pot isn't bad for you.

All of pot's effects are positive.

It cannot kill you.

You cannot OD on it.

Never has there ever been a study (of trust) that can demonstrate weed causing any harm at all.

You know the ancient Greeks used to say "PAN METRON ARISTON" which loosely translated means that you can reach excellence through moderation.
Judging from your post, I assume that you have watched a documentary titled "The Union: The Business Behind Getting High [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9077214414651731007#]".

I am in favor of legalizing marijuana; marijuana is certainly less harmful than cigarettes or alcohol.
The things is, you are wrong. Not all of its effects are positive and you can certainly get fucked up if you overdo it. In other words, if you want to smoke a couple of joints a week you'll be fine. If you smoke ten a day -even though you might not OD- you will find it very difficult to function properly in society.
It is also immoral to give any drug to a kid; whether legal or illegal. Once an individual has reached a certain age where she/he can understand the risk and implications of the substances she/he is consuming I have no problem with him injecting or consuming any substance she/he wants in the privacy of her/his own home.

You suggested I look at this, but basically, I agree with you across the board here. Especially as to the second part.

 

[Starke]

i am saying the "shitty techniques" will only get worse and isn't affected by legality.

Okay. Yeah, in this case it kinda is. You can extract the strychnine with a basic titration (IIRC), and any trained chemist could do that. The problem is, the people making this shit don't really know what they're doing. Commercially produced heroin (from the sixteen seconds between it being patented and being classed schedule 1 because of abuse) is actually free of this.

 

[Starke]

I'm no doctor, but im pretty sure that no matter what substance you give a two year old, be it pot, cigarettes, alcohol, hell even cough medicine, is going to be pretty damn unhealthy. Also the debates about how alcohol is more detrimental to your health than pot is are very old. Please complain to your government, not us.

Hell giving them aspirin can be lethal at that age.

 

[Starke]

i am saying the "shitty techniques" will only get worse and isn't affected by legality.

Okay. Yeah, in this case it kinda is. You can extract the strychnine with a basic titration (IIRC), and any trained chemist could do that. The problem is, the people making this shit don't really know what they're doing. Commercially produced heroin (from the sixteen seconds between it being patented and being classed schedule 1 because of abuse) is actually free of this.

however it will only get worse since a bobby kotick wannabe will fuck with it. companies don't care what they are doing with the product since all they have to do (at least in California) is to slap a warning label on it and they are free of any liability.

Not really. There's two elements to consider. First is that if your name gets associated with something like this, as a company, you're fucked, and if its coming from media, you basically don't have a hope in hell of silencing them. You're probably too young to remember the bout with cyanide in Beyer Aspirin bottles, but Beyer lost big on that from lost sales. The second thing is, they can absolve themselves of civil liability (sometimes), but all the warning labels in the world can't protect you from criminal liability. If you sell a product that racks up 50 or 60 deaths, you can expect a federal investigation and you and your company's name to be dragged through the mud. You can also expect slap fights over who gets to indict you on manslaughter charges. So even if the families can't sue (which, in this case they would anyway), you'd still be in a really shitty position.

 

[Starke]

yet cigarettes are still going strong. add addictive chems and they will fall over each other to give you money to treat their addiction.

Yeah, cigarettes are a very different dynamic, and really in the range of the FDA's jurisdiction, something of an anomaly. In part because cigarettes are so goddamn addictive. In another because, generally speaking, it takes quite a while for them to kill their users. And finally because they are already in place with A LOT OF MONEY.

For a group like drug companies, easily assignable blame and being shoddy would get them into deep shit, and get them shut down. Their agenda tends to be, get older medications that have slipped out of patent banned for various health reasons, so they can tout their most recent round of meds.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

What is the world coming to...

 

[DazZ.]

Well check again because the government will take it as their business, and you don't have a say about it.

Yeah, just let the government shit all over you - why bother fighting injustice and standing up for your rights? -_-

Because of how extraordinarily unintelligent that statement was, this conversation is over.

You're blocked.

Don't reply.

I don't care.

D: ,lol.

Ignore laws if you want, hope you don't get caught.

god "she" got suspended so i can't reply to him about what a loser "she" is.

just wanted to make sure you know that.

"fact": weed has never killed anyone.
fact:weed makes 90% of the people who smoke it douches, just like the "chick" who smokes weed backs up parents that give a 2 year old weed

What part is aimed at me?

 

[Starke]

yet cigarettes are still going strong. add addictive chems and they will fall over each other to give you money to treat their addiction.

Yeah, cigarettes are a very different dynamic, and really in the range of the FDA's jurisdiction, something of an anomaly. In part because cigarettes are so goddamn addictive. In another because, generally speaking, it takes quite a while for them to kill their users. And finally because they are already in place with A LOT OF MONEY.

For a group like drug companies, easily assignable blame and being shoddy would get them into deep shit, and get them shut down. Their agenda tends to be, get older medications that have slipped out of patent banned for various health reasons, so they can tout their most recent round of meds.

and you think pot wont get shit tons of money? cigarettes started "naturally" and look how bad it got. you said it yourself, its the additives that cause problems not the plant in its natural form.

Honestly, my motive on suggesting legalization has always been an economic one. If its legal, it can be taxed. If its legal, you will decriminalize a chunk of the prison population (keep in mind that the US has the largest prison population in the world). Some money that's currently spent on enforcement and prosecutions is reclaimed for other uses.

Now, the down side is higher medical expenses.

 

[AugustFall]

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).

 

[Starke]

but the economy cant live on pot alone. America has bigger problems than not enough markets. our biggest issue is lack of education which stems the higher level jobs, and manufacturing which leads to crime. America has very little industry and what is left is quickly leaving for china, or other cheaper countries. America is bleeding from the throat and pot is only a tiny band aid. Unless we fix our education, replace dirty industry with manufacturing and high tech industry, pass laws to help small businesses, and fix our infrastructure things wont change. taxation isn't a substitute for a real economy with real export.

I wasn't trying to offer a holistic solution through the legalization of pot. I'm saying it is an additional expense we cannot afford, for most of the reasons you cite.

Though, it's not a "lack of education," the problem is qualitative, not quantitative.

 

[pwnzerstick]

I support the legalization of Marajuana, but this is just stupid. Although not that much different from giving babies a little bit of wine, before a circumcision. (Which happened to me). This is still much worse though, comparing a sip of wine, and a whole joint.

 

[usafwolf22]

I don't think you need many reasons to describe why giving a toddler a drug is stupid...but what the hey...

A kid under the influence of a substance such as that or alcohol is going to have some serious equilibrium problems. Considering the parent is most likely under the influence of the same substance, when that kid trips and busts its head open because it's under the influence and parent is too stoned to do anything about it(or realizes that the hospital might realize the stupid crap they've been doing...so they don't do anything about it), what then?

As for all the arguments about how "Not one person has ever died from smoking pot!"...that may be true...but how many people have died from the stupid crap they were doing while smoking pot? How many have been killed BECAUSE of someone that was smoking pot?

I'm not saying whether or not it should be legal or not...but don't be so zealous with a busted argument.

 

[Kenko]

11 years in jail seems a bit excessive but I think a (very) hefty fine and a visit from the child protection service would probably do the trick.

For the record im not defending her, irresponsible idiots like her shouldn't be allowed to have children.

11 years sounds about right. That and a hefty fine and loss of care for the child.

11 years is longer in jail than running someone down in england and killing them, is someones life worth less than a kid smoking a bit of pot?

In my country the only time you get proper jailtime for a crime is if you cheat with your taxes. Otherwise you can rape someone and get maybe a year or two tops. So im in favour of long punishments and heavy fines. Running someone over with a car is an accident. Getting a two-year old two do drugs is pants on head retarded and borderline an evil act.

 

[TheBoulder]

I don't support it but I do understand why some do.

And yet another person to block.

Boy is my list hefty.

Eugenics =/= freedom.

Freedom > everything else.

/blocked

Don't reply.

I don't care.

Wow, solipsistic much...

Ot: That's just wrong, who in any kind of mind would let a toddler smoke pot?

 

[Jumplion]

Wow, solipsistic much...

Ot: That's just wrong, who in any kind of mind would let a toddler smoke pot?

I just learned a new word! Thanks!

[img=http://www.eddieoneverything.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/the_more_you_know2.jpg]

OT: This is disgusting and pitiful, no responsible parent under their right mind would give any kind of drug to their toddler. I don't care if marijuana never killed anyone on overdosing, or if it's healthier than tobacco, or whatever, you do not give a 2 year old any unstable substance like that.

I hope the kid turns out okay.

 

[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?