no.
JUST NO.
nope.
squamous gelatinous micro-fiber semi-articulated detachable mount-pointed battery-powered tentacular horrors
1 Like
nope nope nope nope nope
I have no personal interest in pot, but here’s another fine example of why it should be legalized.
It’s amazing how many of us think this way, despite having no interest in engaging in it ourselves. (My only personal interest would be that at least two people I love use it for actual pain relief. That RA is painful to watch, let alone experience.)
5 Likes
Reading what she went through, and thinking of how it would make me feel if I showed up at my house and got treated that way I’d seriously consider vehicular manslaughter a reasonable reaction at that point. Okay, not really, but seriously: you can’t get your kid’s meds, but if he goes into shock we’ll call an ambulance for you - WTF!?
These aren’t police and DCF acting in the public interest; they’re thugs and bullies getting off on their abuse of power. They’re tyrants unjustly abusing the law and making up their own interpretations of the law as they see fit to put anyone who questions their authority “in their place”. Their use of DCF in this instance is a blatant form of cruel and unusual punishment - effectively kidnapping a child as retaliation for daring to speak out against the cannabis laws. It is the worst form of maliciousness - going after the family of those you disagree with.
14 Likes
Give a new meaning to “General Population”…
I’m interested to know how you came to that conclusion seeing as how the child was interrogated at school for hours before the raid.
1 Like
So they take this woman’s kid but the sea org sails on, tax free.
1 Like
The headline is misleading because it implies a cause/effect connection between two events that is not supported in the factual account at the linked article, and the facts given in the article allow a more plausible explanation. The misleading is pointless, since the facts in the article still provide a clear story showing that prohibition is ridiculous and harmful.
How I came to the conclusion?
Given the sequence of events that we know took place from the article,
A) Kid says something like: marijuana use doesn’t destroy your life, my mom says so.
is much less likely than:
B) Kid says something like (A), and then backs it up with: my mom and her friends to it and they’re all fine.
(B) triggers the teacher to mando-report a dangerous and criminal child neglect, which means they can’t let him go home to such a high risk environment, triggers the police to come collect details about the “crime,” which gives them probable cause to get a search warrant, etc, etc. If the kid had limited his comments to hypothetical debate, none of the follow on would have been legally justified. I wouldn’t be surprised, at 11 years old, he’s probably savvy enough to start off in hypothetical, but after pushback from the teacher or classmates that he didnt know what he was talking about, ran out of debating points, and resorted to "I do so, my mom… "
Well, thankfully, this shit is finally starting to change, albeit slowly. It will finally change for real when this current generation of politicians is finally dead and buried! Good riddance, y’all!
Until then, you’ll keep seeing ‘horror’ stories like this. An innocent family torn apart by morons, starting with the so-called ‘educators’ who fueled the entire situation.
How about starting crowd-funding for these folks, to fuel their legal expenses and help them get their lives back? If shit like this makes you as angry as I am right now, there should be some way we can help these folks!
3 Likes
Maybe, but… it still would have started with the kid correcting his teacher. Whether the subsequent chain of events caused him to disclose the 2 ounces in the classroom, or after hours of interrogation, is not clear (though–if he disclosed it so readily–why the hours of interrogation?) In any case, the headline in this case is likely accurate and logical in that it summarizes the event with the initiating event, and the outcome.
5 Likes
Even so, that’s extremely feeble evidence for raiding somebody’s house. I could straight out tell a cop that I smoke weed, and not have them raid my house. This still usually reveals itself to be selective enforcement. If I say that a person has contraband in their house, police decide whether or not to act upon this according to who the person is, and if it is in police interests.
4 Likes
I’m surprised at the speed and expenditure in executing this search. I wonder if the same response would be given if a teacher reported an undernourished/abused child that might need shelter, food and clothing.
12 Likes
3 Likes
I only see one robot hand.
It really is bad here. You wouldn’t think it would be- there’s nothing here, for godssakes- but law enforcement seems to have stopped bothering to wrap the hammer in velvet anymore.
2 Likes
It’s Kansas. Federal law only matters when there are either injunctions to enforce them or they line up with the opinions of the administration. Otherwise, there’s a lot of vague “states’ rights” talk and Kansas just pretends like it didn’t hear or something. It’s how it’s been here for a looong time.
You guys should just nuke the whole shitty southern part of your country and start over.
1 Like
The other one is “the invisible hand” of market capitalism.
2 Likes
That’s been tried as a thought exercise; it didn’t end well.
3 Likes
Didn’t the Supreme court just rule that the police can’t hold you until the drug sniffing dog arrives if you were pulled over? Holding the mom till the judge signs the warrant would seem to be pretty analogous, right? Plus breaking the law about interviewing the child without a parent there? At this point holding the kid is just harassment because they are angry they messed up and can’t actually charge her for anything, right?
1 Like
