Texas Girl Was Taken Away From Parents Because They Smoked Pot, Killed in Foster Care

[_CY_]

Marijuana milestone
Almost half of American states have taken steps to legalise cannabis. The federal government should follow
http://www.economist.com/news/leade...en-steps-legalise-cannabis-federal-government

Nov 8th 2014

BESIDES choosing lawmakers, on November 4th voters in three American states and the District of Columbia considered measures to liberalise the cannabis trade. Alaska and Oregon, where it is legal to provide “medical marijuana” to registered patients, voted to go further and let the drug be sold and taken for recreational purposes, as Colorado and Washington state already allow. In DC, a measure to legalise the possession of small amounts for personal use was passed. A majority of voters in Florida opted to join the lengthening list of places where people can seek a doctor’s note that lets them take the drug. However, the measure fell just short of the 60% needed to change the state constitution. Even so, that such a big state in the conservative South came so close to liberalising shows how America’s attitude to criminalising pot has changed.

After this week’s votes only 27 states outlaw all sale or possession of marijuana. In the rest, a thriving “canna-business” is emerging (see article): trade in the drug is escaping the grasp of organised crime and becoming normal, just as alcohol did after the end of Prohibition. But even as moves to legalise and regularise the business continue at state level, the federal government and Congress remain dead set against the drug. A panoply of federal laws to curb the marijuana trade remain in place; and in recent months the Drug Enforcement Administration has raided cannabis dispensaries in California that are operating under state licences.

The cannabis industry is now in a legal no-man’s-land. In some states the distinction between medical and recreational use is hazy: just fake a back problem and you can join the ranks of licensed pot-heads. Entrepreneurs are creating a range of products that is, literally, mind-blowing: not just smokes, but cannabis cakes, chocolates and massage oils. Yet even where state governments allow people to partake of the weed for pleasure, growers and sellers face the constant threat of seizure or arrest by the Feds. National laws make it hard for them to open bank accounts or get credit, and thus to rent premises or invest in production. They cannot sell across state lines.

This makes it harder for the business to distance itself from the criminal underworld, which is one of the main purposes of legalisation. It also has safety implications. Smaller states will struggle to monitor quality standards and set safe doses for the huge variety of marijuana products coming to market. The federal Food and Drug Administration-the world’s foremost regulator of drug safety-refuses to inspect the cottage industry for fear of legitimising it. (Strangely enough, such qualms do not deter the Internal Revenue Service, which readily taxes the proceeds.)

Marlboro, man

Opponents of legalisation are happy to see the business stay small, amateurish and nervous. They argue that if it got into the hands of giant corporations with big marketing budgets, as tobacco and alcohol have, pot use would surge. However, the weed business is already vast-worth some $40 billion by one estimate-and it is largely in the hands of gangs that, unlike big, stockmarket-listed firms, would not hesitate to sell dodgy stuff, to youngsters as well as adults. A legal, well-regulated pot industry would be a safer, less crime-infested one, but it would not necessarily be a bigger one: tobacco use has plunged as regulation has been tightened and public education about its health risks has improved.

The federal government and Congress should face up to the reality that across swathes of America, pot is now all but legal-and voters want it that way. They should redirect their efforts to making it as well-regulated as booze and cigarettes.

 

[tntrex]

Still, had he not been a pot smoker, the chain of event would not have lead to her being in the foster care in the first place.

You mean had we not had big gov in our personal lives this wouldn't have happened. Cps is horrible

 

[Billybob]

All I can say is this is what you get when you grow government instead of growing personal responsibility. And I don't agree with removing a child from a home unless there's evidence of a direct threat to the childs safety.

Direct threat is a wide loop and could be very subjective. But aside from that what should be the standard for removal of a child, a "preponderance of evidence" in civil court or "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal court?
While we're considering that let's consider that the SC has long held children to be a fundamental liberty/Constitutional right of their parents.

 

[Billybob]

So they don't remove the child from the home and there's a medical emergency. Stoned parent attempts to drive to the ER and the kid is killed in the wreck along the way. You want to be the one solely responsible for your child instead of DHS, then you should be responsible and not get stoned every night.

Are you responsible if you drink every night? What about people who've gotten public drunk or DUI, are they irresponsible, should their kids be taken?

 

[stick4]

Are you responsible if you drink every night? What about people who've gotten public drunk or DUI, are they irresponsible, should their kids be taken?

A. Somenbody in the home needs to be responsible don't they? Or do you have a different opinion?
B. I don't see how being drunk in public or getting a DUI is endangering your child UNLESS the child was with you at the time then Hello Slammer.

 

[Billybob]

Here's another Texas case from 2013, should those who knowingly put this child in a known(not potential) dangerous situation be held accountable? Should the exercise of power over others include accountability for wrong acts or immunity from them?

"Lutheran knew that Salas, who has three biological children with Heather Hamilton, was a regular presence at the home, the state claims in its letter to the foster care agency.

Prior to Orion’s death, court records state, Salas had been arrested four times: twice for family violence, once for driving with a suspended license and once for theft. The theft case is pending; the other three charges were dismissed.

Salas also had a long history with Child Protective Services. In 2004, Salas was accused of medically neglecting a child with a fractured arm and swollen leg. CPS confirmed that case.

In 2005, Salas was accused of neglecting and abusing a baby when his son was born with drugs in his system. In 2012, he was accused of neglecting his children during an argument in which he pushed down a woman and punched a car taillight."

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/state-punishes-austin-based-foster-care-agency-in-/ncQM8/

 

[Billybob]

A. Somenbody in the home needs to be responsible don't they? Or do you have a different opinion?
B. I don't see how being drunk in public or getting a DUI is endangering your child UNLESS the child was with you at the time then Hello Slammer.

I think everybody should be responsible, we're debating what responsible is, some would contend public drunk or DUI indicate lack of responsibility or a substance abuse issue especially if it's happened more than once.
As to the point of endangerment in the case at hand would the child have been endangered if the parent was drunk in the home while the child was in bed as opposed to using pot?
Also what about the state and it's actors, is it responsible for them to put children in potentially dangerous situations? Why are they excused when they do so? Does the state have more rights concerning kids than parents do?

 

[stick4]

I think your reference to public drunk, etc is a red herring. We aren't discussing moral or proper behavior here. Half the world would fail that criteria IMO. All that should be on the table is whether someone in immediate custody of the child is capable of handling any of that childs needs. You sure would't hire the pot smoking neighbor kid to babysit your kids would you?

 

[farmerbyron]

I think your reference to public drunk, etc is a red herring. We aren't discussing moral or proper behavior here. Half the world would fail that criteria IMO. All that should be on the table is whether someone in immediate custody of the child is capable of handling any of that childs needs. You sure would't hire the pot smoking neighbor kid to babysit your kids would you?

This wasn't a pot smoking neighbor kid watching the kid. It was his biological parents. Instead the kid was transferred to a foster home that had criminal history and were clearly watching foster kids for money.

I too wonder what prompted a CPS visit but what if it were a harassment call by a nosey moral police minded neighbor that didn't approve of the kids parents? Also I wonder if there were no family of either parent available to watch the kids while this stupid law was dealt with.

These morality laws are so misguided. Mandatory minimums for weed possession, lose kids due to use of MJ, etc. Especially when the child was in apparent good health and care outside the MJ technicality.

Your criteria of "immediate custody of the child is capable of handling any of that childs needs" is very broad and very much could be interpreted to include alcohol impairment.

It was poor judgement by the state to remove a child in good health and care save for the caveat of MJ use. I for one hope these parents receive a ridiculous settlement but if it were my child, those foster parents had better hope they never get out of prison.

 

[Billybob]

I think your reference to public drunk, etc is a red herring. We aren't discussing moral or proper behavior here. Half the world would fail that criteria IMO. All that should be on the table is whether someone in immediate custody of the child is capable of handling any of that childs needs. You sure would't hire the pot smoking neighbor kid to babysit your kids would you?

I haven't said anything about morals at all, I draw no moral distinctions between pot and alcohol do you?



In your own words below

"So they don't remove the child from the home and there's a medical emergency. Stoned parent attempts to drive to the ER and the kid is killed in the wreck along the way. You want to be the one solely responsible for your child instead of DHS, then you should be responsible and not get stoned every night".

Now please explain how that statement would be different if you replaced stoned with drunk.

As to "whether someone in immediate custody of the child is capable of handling any of that child's needs", since Texas continues to knowingly put children in dangerous situations where they are abused and die how can they be considered more fit to have custody of a child than a parent who smokes pot when no harm has occurred? Do you contend the standards should be different between parents and the state?

As to the babysitter, no I wouldn't hire a pothead kid but I will also not defend or excuse the actions of a irresponsible system with a long history of failures they will not correct or be held accountable for.

Would it be a crime to hire a pothead babysitter, child endangerment? Then why isn't it a crime to put kids into other dangers like placement with criminal foster parent or a dangerous foster home like the one where a person had already been found to neglect kids?