Author Topic: Why I Give My 9-Year-Old Pot (Read 16524 times)

Toastedturningtidelegs · « **Reply #50 on:** October 16, 2009, 09:29:36 AM »

Quote from: SherryBaby on October 16, 2009, 08:42:22 AM

Upon reading the entire article through (which I admit I should have done to begin with), it's clear the child only inhaled smoke once. They use tea as his delivery method.

Ugh! That has to taste like crap!

Chris_ · « **Reply #51 on:** October 16, 2009, 09:30:27 AM »

Quote from: Eupher on October 16, 2009, 09:26:47 AM

The 10th amendment has been routinely ignored since the days of John Marshall, Chief Justice of SCOTUS. Politicians on both sides of the political spectrum have completely caved in to the idea that the federal government must be the be-all, end-all.

The individual states have been relegated to the back pages of history, for all intents and purposes.

Hear, hear!

docstew · « **Reply #52 on:** October 16, 2009, 09:59:41 AM »

Quote from: SherryBaby on October 16, 2009, 08:15:16 AM

...and as a bonus, it also ignores the 9th & 10th Amendments!

unless they can prove the pot was grown 100% locally, they are dealing in interstate commerce and subject to federal law.

The Village Idiot · « **Reply #53 on:** October 16, 2009, 10:06:27 AM »

Quote from: docstew on October 16, 2009, 09:59:41 AM

unless they can prove the pot was grown 100% locally, they are dealing in interstate commerce and subject to federal law.

lol.

and this 'tea' or bong water, or whatever... was the water local? was the bong made locally?

Chump · « **Reply #54 on:** October 16, 2009, 10:18:10 AM »

Wait, now we support a broad scope of power interpretation for the Commerce Clause?

docstew · « **Reply #55 on:** October 16, 2009, 10:35:48 AM »

Quote from: Chump on October 16, 2009, 10:18:10 AM

Wait, now we support a broad scope of power interpretation for the Commerce Clause?

No, it's no broader than the current interpretation.

Chump · « **Reply #56 on:** October 16, 2009, 10:44:31 AM »

Quote from: docstew on October 16, 2009, 10:35:48 AM

No, it's no broader than the current interpretation.

I was referring to FGL's comment about the water, and I don't believe the current interpretation is too broad. If economic activity has a substantial effect on interstate commerce, Congress has the power to regulate it. Fine. With that said, I do believe that interpretation is applied too broadly, if that makes any sense.

The Village Idiot · « **Reply #57 on:** October 16, 2009, 11:37:44 AM »

Quote from: Chump on October 16, 2009, 10:44:31 AM

I was referring to FGL's comment about the water, and I don't believe the current interpretation is too broad. If economic activity has a substantial effect on interstate commerce, Congress has the power to regulate it. Fine. With that said, I do believe that interpretation is applied too broadly, if that makes any sense.

Maybe you missed the news. The GOP and Democrats have both voted for a new law that will give the fedgov control of all water in America. That little pond in your backyard will now be owned by the Army Corps of Engineers.

Chump · « **Reply #58 on:** October 16, 2009, 11:43:18 AM »

Quote from: FGL on October 16, 2009, 11:37:44 AM

Maybe you missed the news. The GOP and Democrats have both voted for a new law that will give the fedgov control of all water in America. That little pond in your backyard will now be owned by the Army Corps of Engineers.

Gotta have a link. I have a fair amount of experience with the Corps of Engineers' restrictions on navigable waters, and I haven't heard of any changes regarding the laws that give the Corps those powers.

At any rate, the initial implication from your post was that the water was controlled via the Commerce Clause. I obviously misunderstood.

SSG Snuggle Bunny · « **Reply #59 on:** October 16, 2009, 11:48:20 AM »

Quote from: Eupher on October 16, 2009, 09:26:47 AM

The 10th amendment has been routinely ignored since the days of John Marshall, Chief Justice of SCOTUS. Politicians on both sides of the political spectrum have completely caved in to the idea that the federal government must be the be-all, end-all.

The individual states have been relegated to the back pages of history, for all intents and purposes.

And, unfortunately, the electorate has bought into the myth.

Witness: how much energy is put into presidential campaigns as if the president is the beginning of all things policy wise. We need only consult the preisdent for matters of war and foreign policy. General and chief ambassador.

If we--as conservatives--focused more on congressional races ala Newt's Contract with America, we would be putting the focus back on legislature...particularly as it impacts each state. As long as we keep fighting over the WH we support the myth. Focus on the states and the temperment we want for a POTUS will naturally follow suit.

Chris_ · « **Reply #60 on:** October 16, 2009, 11:49:21 AM »

Quote from: Mr Snuggle Bunny on October 16, 2009, 11:48:20 AM

And, unfortunately, the electorate has bought into the myth.

Witness: how much energy is put into presidential campaigns as if the president is the beginning of all things policy wise. We need only consult the preisdent for matters of war and foreign policy. General and chief ambassador.

If we--as conservatives--focused more on congressional races ala Newt's Contract with America, we would be putting the focus back on legislature...particularly as it impacts each state. As long as we keep fighting over the WH we support the myth. Focus on the states and the temperment we want for a POTUS will naturally follow suit.

Ever thought of running for office?

The Village Idiot · « **Reply #61 on:** October 16, 2009, 11:59:56 AM »

Quote from: Chump on October 16, 2009, 11:43:18 AM

http://www.blueoregon.com/2009/10/dirty-waters-cleaning-up-the-clean-water-act.html?cid=6a00d8341c2c3f53ef0120a63d809b970c

They basically removed the word "navigable" from their power over navigable water in the Clean Water Act.... now they'll have power over any they want.

The bill is S. 787

Chump · « **Reply #62 on:** October 16, 2009, 12:06:16 PM »

Quote from: FGL on October 16, 2009, 11:59:56 AM

http://www.blueoregon.com/2009/10/dirty-waters-cleaning-up-the-clean-water-act.html?cid=6a00d8341c2c3f53ef0120a63d809b970c

They basically removed the word "navigable" from their power over navigable water in the Clean Water Act.... now they'll have power over any they want.

The bill is S. 787

Sigh...

I forsee "unintended consequences."

RobJohnson · « **Reply #63 on:** October 16, 2009, 04:51:47 PM »

Quote from: SherryBaby on October 16, 2009, 08:42:22 AM

Upon reading the entire article through (which I admit I should have done to begin with), it's clear the child only inhaled smoke once. They use tea as his delivery method.

I read that they tried to have him smoke it at least twice, and if it would of worked, the kid would still be smoking!

Of course, in the picture it shows the author baking cookies like a good mommy.

About the author: Marie Myung-Ok Lee teaches at Brown University and is the author of the novel Somebody's Daughter, and is a winner of the Richard Margolis award for social justice reporting.

The Village Idiot · « **Reply #64 on:** October 16, 2009, 05:45:33 PM »

Quote from: RobJohnson on October 16, 2009, 04:51:47 PM

I read that they tried to have him smoke it at least twice, and if it would of worked, the kid would still be smoking!

Of course, in the picture it shows the author baking cookies like a good mommy.

About the author: Marie Myung-Ok Lee teaches at Brown University and is the author of the novel Somebody's Daughter, and is a winner of the Richard Margolis award for social justice reporting.

We have a name for this person?? Giving pot to their kid? Maybe someone should let the local police know about this. You know DU would do it to you.

Chris · « **Reply #65 on:** October 16, 2009, 05:53:57 PM »

Quote from: FGL on October 16, 2009, 05:45:33 PM

We have a name for this person?? Giving pot to their kid? Maybe someone should let the local police know about this. You know DU would do it to you.

It's at the article.

AllosaursRus · « **Reply #66 on:** October 16, 2009, 10:07:22 PM »

I gotta believe there has to be another alternative than givin' your kid something that gets him high. Sorry thats just me. MJ slows down reaction and thought patterns. I don't think that's a good idea for a child still developing grey matter.

debk · « **Reply #67 on:** October 16, 2009, 10:09:50 PM »

Quote from: AllosaursRus on October 16, 2009, 10:07:22 PM

I gotta believe there has to be another alternative than givin' your kid something that gets him high. Sorry thats just me. MJ slows down reaction and thought patterns. I don't think that's a good idea for a child still developing grey matter.

What do you think ritalin and it's comparable drugs do to a kid?

If the kid really has ADD/ADHD ...it semi-sedates them. If the kid doesn't really have it, but the school or some shrink thinks so...the kid is high....with a high comparative to cocaine.

RobJohnson · « **Reply #68 on:** October 20, 2009, 03:08:11 AM »

U.S. attorneys told to go after pot traffickers, not patients

It appears that in many states, unless those that need the Rx weed grow it, they have to buy it off the street from drug dealers...that does not sound very safe to me!

debk · « **Reply #69 on:** October 20, 2009, 10:07:37 AM »

A close friend used marijuana for several months, due to chemotherapy and it helped with the nausea and lack of appetite.

It had to be purchased from a dealer.

Not a very safe way to acquire it.

RobJohnson · « **Reply #70 on:** October 20, 2009, 10:52:17 AM »

Quote from: debk on October 20, 2009, 10:07:37 AM

A close friend used marijuana for several months, due to chemotherapy and it helped with the nausea and lack of appetite.

It had to be purchased from a dealer.

Not a very safe way to acquire it.

I agree.

So it's legal for the patient to buy and use, but it's illegal for the dealer to obtain, posess & sell? It's all so contridictary. What if the medical weed patient is caught in the middle of the drug sting? Or is at a dealer's home when it's raided or some bad stuff goes down there? Sure they eventually might get out of the charges, but how many days will they spend in jail first? How much will the lawyer cost? How much will the bail be? What if it's a major federal raid?

There is a legal Rx drug (synthetic weed) that helps with both nausea and lack of appetite, although going to CVS could be just as dangerous as trying to find a drug dealer in the "hood" to buy weed.

RobJohnson · « **Reply #71 on:** October 20, 2009, 10:57:52 AM »

By reading this thread, I can tell who the stoners are here.

debk · « **Reply #72 on:** October 20, 2009, 10:59:43 AM »

Quote from: RobJohnson on October 20, 2009, 10:52:17 AM

I agree.

So it's legal for the patient to buy and use, but it's illegal for the dealer to obtain, posess & sell? It's all so contridictary. What if the medical weed patient is caught in the middle of the drug sting? Or is at a dealer's home when it's raided or some bad stuff goes down there? Sure they eventually might get out of the charges, but how many days will they spend in jail first? How much will the lawyer cost? How much will the bail be? What if it's a major federal raid?

There is a legal Rx drug (synthetic weed) that helps with both nausea and lack of appetite, although going to CVS could be just as dangerous as trying to find a drug dealer in the "hood" to buy weed.

I always wondered if my friend wasn't concerned about driving home with it in the car and getting stopped for a brake light being out, or something comparable....and ending up in jail for possession.

I think it should be legalized and tax the hell out of it....just like liquor and cigarettes. Both have a 17% sin tax added on here....

FYI....I have never even taken one puff of the stuff.

Had a severe reaction the two times I tried cigarettes....I was always afraid if I tried marijuana ....my throat would close and not be able to breathe and everyone else would be too stoned to realize I was in trouble.

RobJohnson · « **Reply #73 on:** October 20, 2009, 11:08:13 PM »

Quote from: debk on October 20, 2009, 10:59:43 AM

I always wondered if my friend wasn't concerned about driving home with it in the car and getting stopped for a brake light being out, or something comparable....and ending up in jail for possession.

I think it should be legalized and tax the hell out of it....just like liquor and cigarettes. Both have a 17% sin tax added on here....

FYI....I have never even taken one puff of the stuff.

Had a severe reaction the two times I tried cigarettes....I was always afraid if I tried marijuana ....my throat would close and not be able to breathe and everyone else would be too stoned to realize I was in trouble.

I don't want to see any thing taxed, including the stuff that already is taxed.

Quote

everyone else would be too stoned to realize I was in trouble.

That made me laugh.

News:

Author Topic: Why I Give My 9-Year-Old Pot (Read 16524 times)