State Taking Kids Away From Med Pot Users

mistercrabby

Senior member
Mar 9, 2013
962
53
91
http://michiganradio.org/post/medical-marijuana-advocates-decry-state-removal-children

Child0917-foto-2.JPG


Medical marijuana activists rallied in Lansing Tuesday to protest the removal of six-month-old Bree Green from her family last week. The activists say the state Department of Human Services (DHS) has targeted a number of medical marijuana users by taking away their kids.

Bree’s mother, Maria Green, is a state licensed medical marijuana caregiver. Her father is a patient and outspoken advocate.

Steve Green says he was elated that dozens of people showed up in support.

“A lot of people have seen how we’re parents and what we do for our kids, and they can’t ignore that,” said Green at the rally outside the DHS offices in Lansing. “They know there’s been a misjustice done here, and so they had to come out and show their support.”

Ready... Set...

Go!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,575
126
Well, I would also wonder who is looking after the kids if/when the parents are high on pot?

But I am thinking of the states where pot is legal, not necessarily people using medically.

Is that a stupid question?
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,464
2
0
The question is, would they have taken the kids off the parents had been taking morphine or vicodin. If so, I see no issue.

I wonder if they were containing the fumes or if they were getting to the baby.

ETA: Called it, by choosing to not prosecute marijuana use charges but still leaving it schedule 1 the Obama administration is still leaving a number of potential issues for users. This is only one example.
 
Last edited:

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
People choose to commit federal crimes and then complain when the government steps in to protect the children? Problem not found.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
People choose to commit federal crimes and then complain when the government steps in to protect the children? Problem not found.

Remember that the next time you are in violation of a federal or state law. You comit a felony about every day due to the shear amount of laws on our books. Luckily for you the vast majority are not enforced. If they were, you may lose you kids. I mean you broke the law right?
 

Broheim

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2011
4,587
2
81
People choose to commit federal crimes and then complain when the government steps in to protect the children? Problem not found.

*checks the constitution* hmmm... that's funny, it seems like this is a classical states' rights issue... *reads the 10th amendment again* yup, none of the federal government's business.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
People choose to commit federal crimes and then complain when the government steps in to protect the children? Problem not found.

Gawd that's lame, on many levels.

State authorities are not empowered to enforce federal law. Federal authorities have allowed de facto MMJ since 1996.

State law in Michigan allows MMJ.

State authorities took the child. Their reasoning is pure bullshit, having nothing to do with federal law-

http://www.wilx.com/topstories/head...-Fight-to-Keep-Infant-Daughter-224146811.html

Not that you're capable of noticing the mental disconnect allowing you to reach your usual highly judgmental authoritarian conclusions.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,198
18,669
146
Well, I would also wonder who is looking after the kids if/when the parents are high on pot?

But I am thinking of the states where pot is legal, not necessarily people using medically.

Is that a stupid question?

Don't swallow all those stereotypes hook, line, and sinker. Plenty of people function just fine while using medicines of all kinds, including medical MJ.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,198
18,669
146
People choose to commit federal crimes and then complain when the government steps in to protect the children? Problem not found.

You need to rethink this post, if you have any mental capacity to do so. This is a state allowing medical MJ, putting a process in place, and then taking someone's kids away for no valid reason.

This is not a Federal issue.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,464
2
0
Don't swallow all those stereotypes hook, line, and sinker. Plenty of people function just fine while using medicines of all kinds, including medical MJ.

And I didn't make a judgment call. My point was, if MMJ is legal it should be held to the same standard as any other legal narcotic. Right?
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,198
18,669
146
And I didn't make a judgment call. My point was, if MMJ is legal it should be held to the same standard as any other legal narcotic. Right?

I didn't quote you. MJ is not a narcotic.

Until they figure out exactly what the standard for MJ is, there's not going to be a resolution.

I also agree with your statement about MJ being Federally enforced as Schedule 1.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,464
2
0
I didn't quote you. MJ is not a narcotic.

Until they figure out exactly what the standard for MJ is, there's not going to be a resolution.

I also agree with your statement about MJ being Federally enforced as Schedule 1.

I know you didn't, but I said practically the same thing. Should I wait for you to call on me? :D

Leaving it schedule one is a total cop out on Obama's part. It leaves scores of Americans at risk the moment the winds shift. It's especially troubling considering two federal agencies control the narcotics schedule.

President Obama could literally pick up the phone and drop marijuana to schedule 2 or lower Right Now. He wouldn't even have to put pen to paper (although he would probably want to).

I don't think marijuana is good for you, and I don't use it, but I don't have an issue with those that do responsibly. I do have serious concern with how the government is approaching this problem from a legalities standpoint. Specifically as it relates to asset forfeiture.
 
Last edited:

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,306
3
0
Who wants to bet there is more to this situation than what the parents are saying?
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,198
18,669
146
I know you didn't, but I said practically the same thing. Should I wait for you to call on me? :D

I didn't interpret it the same way. Where the other poster is obviously influenced by stereotypes, your post wasn't of the same caliber. The concerns you put forth: children exposure and monitoring prescription drug use. Those I feel are valid, and the States do to.

The stereotype that MJ users are lazy and non productive, and to apply that same stereotype of MMJ users is what I was replying to.

Leaving it schedule one is a total cop out on Obama's part. It leaves scores of Americans at risk the moment the winds shift. It's especially troubling considering two federal agencies control the narcotics schedule.

President Obama could literally pick up the phone and drop marijuana to schedule 2 or lower Right Now. He wouldn't even have to put pen to paper (although he would probably want to).

I don't think marijuana is good for you, and I don't use it, but I don't have an issue with those that do responsibly. I do have serious concern with how the government is approaching this problem.

Agree with this part. It seems that no politician dare take this action...yet. Whether it's money, elections, back scratching/political massage....whatever, they're too scared even though it's what a growing number of constituents want.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,464
2
0
I didn't interpret it the same way. Where the other poster is obviously influenced by stereotypes, your post wasn't of the same caliber. The concerns you put forth: children exposure and monitoring prescription drug use. Those I feel are valid, and the States do to.

The stereotype that MJ users are lazy and non productive, and to apply that same stereotype of MMJ users is what I was replying to.



Agree with this part. It seems that no politician dare take this action...yet. Whether it's money, elections, back scratching/political massage....whatever, they're too scared even though it's what a growing number of constituents want.

Fair enough. :beer:
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
Gawd that's lame, on many levels.

State authorities are not empowered to enforce federal law. Federal authorities have allowed de facto MMJ since 1996.

State law in Michigan allows MMJ.

State authorities took the child. Their reasoning is pure bullshit, having nothing to do with federal law-

http://www.wilx.com/topstories/head...-Fight-to-Keep-Infant-Daughter-224146811.html

Not that you're capable of noticing the mental disconnect allowing you to reach your usual highly judgmental authoritarian conclusions.

They said it was about the number of plants in the house. If every room was carpeted with MJ plants, then I can see their point. If it was one or two, then the state is in the wrong here.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
Actually there is more to the story, the baby is being cared for by the Grandmother.

The baby is now in the care of Maria's mother. Mrs. Green says The Department of Human Services is "stealing" her baby. The Greens insist their home is a safe and loving environment.

A referee made the decision to have Michigan Child Protective Services remove baby Bree, saying the Green's home is unsafe. "They were worried about the possibility of a break in or armed robbery, that kind of thing," said Maria Green.

Tim Skubick reports that the state of Michigan will not comment about details on cases like this because of privacy issues but the Director of Human Services said this: "The safety and the well being of the child is paramount for any of our investigators when they are doing their job," said DHS spokesman David Ackerly.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,198
18,669
146
The real question is whether or not she was abiding by the laws provided for caregivers. If she is, then the fact that dishonest people will break into your house is not the state's problem.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
People choose to commit federal crimes and then complain when the government steps in to protect the children? Problem not found.

so state employees in a state took kids away from parents for a legal activity in the state? So MI state employees also enforce federal laws? damn they must get paid a lot for working for 2 government agencies.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,198
18,669
146
What's totally irritating to any proponent is the fact that there are actually real drug dealers out there that are not "on the books". Selling drugs like heroine, cocaine, meth, prescription pills, and even MJ that are not the focus of this DHS pressure. These people are just as likely, if not more likely, to be broken into....AND they have kids. Sure, when they're found out the kids are taken away, but for every 1 child found in a real criminal environment, how many are not?

With the additional information in the last couple links, this is a huge breach of trust between people trying to legitimately comply with MMJ and a misdirected DHS.

It still feels like there is more to this story.
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
so state employees in a state took kids away from parents for a legal activity in the state? So MI state employees also enforce federal laws? damn they must get paid a lot for working for 2 government agencies.

I would think there are plenty of legal activities (state or federal) that might constitute a danger for children.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,198
18,669
146
I would think there are plenty of legal activities (state or federal) that might constitute a danger for children.

Yes, everytime I see someone driving with the windows up, smoking a cigarette with children in the car, I rage.
 

Smoblikat

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2011
5,184
107
106
Well, I would also wonder who is looking after the kids if/when the parents are high on pot?

But I am thinking of the states where pot is legal, not necessarily people using medically.

Is that a stupid question?

Yes, who looks after the kids when their parents are drunk/on pills?