Two Year Old Toddler Smoking Pot

[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?