So how is that different from now with 215? Im pretty sure that if child services was called because you were hot boxing your house with cigs + booze cans laying all over your house (or pot), while you had kids in it, they would be trying to take your kids away..
You're "pretty sure"? Based upon what factual knowledge, exactly? And while you're at it, show me where in 215 there is language that says that if I smoke in the same
house (not just room, anywhere in the building, and mine is 2400'sq) as my grandchild she can be removed from our care by the state. You can't because it's not there. No, if your home is filled with cigarette smoke and beer cans, your kids are likely not going to be taken for that, and you're likely not even going to be investigated for that.
Beat your kids and leave 'em with bruises and cuts, you'll be investigated, but the kids won't be taken away.
But weed? I can guarantee you that it happens and Prop 19 attaches
jail time to that. Give it another try, hit us with facts instead of just what you think, please.
Same thing with myth #2 in that article. If i give a beer to someone thats 20, I face the same penalties as stated in prop 19.. should we keep beer illegal because 20 year olds are not allowed to drink too?
That is a portion of the language of the proposition I have no issue with. So, what's the myth? Where are you headed with it?
Lol, you funny girl. And yes child services will take your child if you have open containers, cigarettes, and any other harmful stuff lying around. They call it an unfit enviroment.
Open beers and ciggies, really? Cite a case. You've added "other harmful stuff". What other harmful stuff? Kitchen knives? Glasses? Lamps that use electricity? How about the cords of window shades?
What other "harmful stuff" are you alluding to?
No, the state will not interfere unless there are certain behaviors and street drugs present. Tobacco and alcohol alone are not enough. It would require egregious neglect or abuse by the parents for the state to interfere. Marijuana is still considered a street drug, that's why the language outlining jail time if there is *any* consumption on the same premises as children is there in the proposition.
I'm just curious, hbstoner and Illmind, how much experience with the state and children do you have? Because you both seem to be so firm in your convictions and, based upon your statements, I have to surmise you have no experience in this particular arena (having the state involved in issues of child abuse/neglect). I don't think you understand how, normally, the situation has to be pretty dire before the state will take any sort of action. Nor do I think you understand how right NOW people are being kept from their kids simply for being involved with pot, whether it be consumption or manufacture (growing), right here in California. I happen to know someone personally who can only have supervised visits with her kids, and she cannot initiate contact with them, not because she was ever abusive, but because she works for growers and her ex-husband uses the laws, state and local, for all they're worth.
And while we're at it, since y'all are so convinced this will lead to more openness in communities, wanna come on out to my little county and convince them to remove the outright ban on dispensaries? Would you like to talk to them about how they should, at the very least, be allowing a cooperative or collective model? Come on, wouldja? You make such convincing arguments and we could really use the help up here.