Two Year Old Toddler Smoking Pot

[mageroel]

Except mind altering substances given to a toddler when their brain is actually forming is fucking stupid and can fuck them up severely.

In what way? No drug "alters" the brain. What it does is stimulate certain areas of it. Weed is not a very strong stimulant, in fact it's a mild one when compared to other drugs and as such the "damage" will mostly be related to the inhalation of smoke. On to that...

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.

The smoke will not harm her now. The dangers of inhaling nicotine smoke are inherently long term. Yes, the toddler might have inhaled smoke BUT this is no different than the air she's inhaling right now. Remember all that pollution? It doesn't magically avoid toddlers.

Was the mother irresponsible? I don't know. Should child protective services pay her a visit? Probably. Should she be fined? That depends a lot in what condition the toddler is.

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.

 

[ProfessorLayton]

What, none of you have ever wanted to see a high toddler?

Of course it was a stupid thing to do, but Gamble was probably baked, herself.

Never thought of that, but you are very right. No person would do that sober... and they especially wouldn't take a video of it...

But yeah this is pretty sick... this is why we need a lisence to have children.

 

[Mikeyfell]

who recorded this?
they couldn't have thought it was a good idea
unless they were high, that might explain it

 

[BlumiereBleck]

That is just sad.

 

[Starke]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBzp-CpHT0M&feature=player_embedded

You thought that video of a two-year-old smoking in Indonesia was upsetting? Well, Jessica Gamble of Ohio has been accused of providing marijuana to her 2-year-old toddler. On top of that she is accused of using her cell phone to record her two-year-old smoking pot.

Gamble, 21, was indicted on child endangering and other charges.

Jessica Gamble allegedly gave the two-year-old toddler pot sometime this summer. Authorities became aware of the situation after an unidentified person gave them a copy of a video showing the two year old toddler smoking marijuana.

Gamble is currently in custody. She could face more than 11 years in jail.

this just wrong, so my fellow escapists what do you think of the disturbing video?

The video is not disturbing at all.

I'm too bored to look into the details of this story but judging from the I don't think the mother should be imprisoned at all. Maybe get a couple of years on probation (at most). I guess the fact that the mother is black will also play a serious role in deciding the sentence.

I started drinking coffee and OUZO* before my 10th birthday, and I have no health problems, nor addictions - actually I have developed an immunity to caffeine.
The child needs his mother, and I believe the mother can learn her lesson even without going to jail.
Thats my 2c.

Spoiler: *OUZO PLOMARI

Caffine can do nasty things to your nervous-system if you're getting heavy doses at that age, but if it's a cup of coffee, that's not nearly as serious. Similarly, as a cultural thing, allowing children to drink isn't that uncommon, and actually does have some benefits later in life. Statistically you're at a lower risk to abuse alcohol as an adult, and your body's ability to filter toxins is (probably) slightly better than average.

That said, this woman thought it would be funny to give her two year old a joint. You're right, the girl needs a nurturing mother, but as her biological mother has demonstrated, she needs to find a new one to fill that role.

Could be worse, my first experience with alcohol was at a Pentecostal communion service. That was the wrong kind of grape juice.

 

[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.