Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

NEWS: Mother Sentenced To Five Years For Giving Toddler a Marijuana "Bong"

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Calling her daughter "a little stoner" and saying that pot helped the childs appetite Jessica Durham has been sentenced to 60 months jail for encouraging her 18 month old daughter to smoke marijuana through a water pipe called a "bong". Brandi Nichols, an admitted drug user turned Durham in to authorities after photographs were taken of the toddler smoking from the "bong" while her mother was holding it.
 



www.helenair.com
Nichols said the toddler ran for the bong. When she tried to waive the toddler away, the child threw a fit.

Durham told Nichols that her daughter wanted the bong and proceeded to light the residue in the pipe. Durham sucked marijuana smoke into the pipe and gave the bong to her daughter, Nichols testified. ‘‘She (the toddler) put her mouth on it and took a big hit,'' she said.

Nichols then took a turn inhaling from the pipe, Durham smoked again and gave her baby the pipe again. Nichols testified she got a buzz from the smoke, went outside and got sick. ‘‘I was freaking out,'' she said.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Tests on the child three days after the incident were negative for marijuana and the child is now in foster care with the mother working on getting her parental rights restored.

Durham is appealing the conviction.

It is idiots like this that take the case for legalization back by about 20 years. It seems clearly established by the court records that this was not the first time the child had been given "pot".




posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Whatever my personal opinions on the drug, that is ridiculously ridiculous. There seems to be an "underclass" of people that are not simply uneducated, but are actually on a different moral wavelength, totally oblivious to their own vulgarity and heinousness. And the sad thing is, they are growing in number by the day, such a sad sight.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 05:18 PM
link   
This is crazy! I support marijuana legalization for adults, but you should no more give a bong hit to a child than give them a glass of scotch on the rocks.

I'm glad they threw the book at her.

[edit on 8/5/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 05:21 PM
link   
There's something wrong here:


Cain further argued that no quantity of marijuana had been established and no tests were conducted on the residue. Tests on the child within days of the incident were negative for marijuana, he said
.

This sounds like a trash piece by the anti-drug league.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 05:24 PM
link   
I agree wholeheartedly with the rest of you.

Developing lungs can be severely damaged by inhaling smoke, pot smoke or otherwise.

This woman displayed a stunning degree of criminal negligence. Despite the fact that the baby tested negative for THC, the admission of guilt is enough to justify the sentence. This is no different than a mother who places her child in a burning building. It's dangerous and thoughtless.

One other thing, this showcases quite nicely one of the main problems I see with modern parenting in Western societies. Toddler throws a fit, mommy placates child by giving in to the demands. Whether it's toys, sodas, television, or the bong, just because your kid wants it, doesn't mean you have to give it to them.

Knowing when, and how, to say 'No' is a critical part of parenting that's fallen by the wayside.

What a shame, truly.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Even if the child didn't actually inhale any marijuana smoke, the fact that the mother was smoking a bong in her child's presence is sick enough. The child should be taken away just based on that alone. I think smoking cigarettes in the same room or vehicle with a child isn't right, and smoking weed is infinitely worse.

Some people just shouldn't be allowed to reproduce...



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Did everyone miss my post? Am I wrong here?

no quantity of marijuana.

and no tests were conducted on the residue.

Tests on the child within days of the incident were negative for marijuana.

Doesn't this scream out?

Please, tell me if I'm wrong here. This seems like propaganda to me.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 05:49 PM
link   
no intrepid, i didn't miss that, very odd isn't it?

I thought marijuana stays in the human body for at least a month, how could the child not be positive? even if she didn't hit the bong, and was only exposed to second hand smoke from being around her mother, I would think traces of thc would be in her system. It doesn't make sense.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Intrepid
No, I didn't miss your post, I'm just not sure that the lack of a positive test indicates that the event never happened. Two reasons: babies metabolize everything quickly, if I'm not mistaken, and the dose was probably very tiny. Second reason is that I've known plenty of pot-heads who tested negative, the tests are really very innaccurate.

Rasputin
Some people shouldn't be allowed to breed? So you're espousing the benefits of genetics? Do I get to choose who doesn't breed as well, or are you the ultimate judge? You might be shocked who I would drop the hammer on...

Point being, it's not our call, because we can't be trusted to make it.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by worldwatcher
... was only exposed to second hand smoke from being around her mother, I would think traces of thc would be in her system. It doesn't make sense.


That's actually not true, at least according to all the cops I've ever spoke with. The only time it shows up on a test is if you physically inhaled. Why that is, I can't say, so I won't press it too hard. But I know if you test positive, you can't just say "nah, my friends were smoking while I was at their house."

Then again, the cops could've just been pulling my leg so I wouldn't think about using that excuse if I ever tried it...



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Smells like an anti-"war on drug" set-up to me.

I mean it's written like an urban legend designed to get the most outrage out of people. Hey did you hear about that woman who…

My conspiracy senses started tingling when I saw this...



Tests on the child three days after the incident were negative for marijuana


Now (correct me if I'm wrong) THC stays detectable in urine tests for days, for about 30-60 days in blood tests and several months in hair tests.

This 18-month-old baby tests negative for THC days after the incident.

"Brandi Nichols, an admitted drug user" says she saw an 18 month old pot smoking baby? "Nichols said the toddler ran for the bong." Ran? An 18-month-old? And I suppose he/she got "hooked" because they started at what 12 months? How long before the first incident and the photo session? Long enough for the pot crazed baby to withdraw from its pot habit and test clean?

I mean look at the rest of the story, it's all based on what this Nichols said and "Durham did not testify at trial and the defense called no witnesses"?

Why not?

Well there was that picture of her putting the bong to the baby's mouth. I bet these two potheads thought that was a funny pose when they took that.

Kind of like these:
images.google.ca...

Hard to fight that in court when the person who took the picture is making up stories.

"Assistant U.S. Attorney Marcia Hurd said Durham:… called her daughter "‘a little stoner,'' she said.

Oh and did you notice this little gem from the court?



this is a statute that is confusing... [judge]... Shanstrom said.


And she’s appealing here case?

But… but… there was irrefutable photographic evidence and sworn testimony! She didn't even testify on her behalf or call witnesses! She even admitted it!

If this goes trough to appeal watch a get tough on crime politician introduce a bill to harden a "confusing" anti-drug statute supported by outraged political pundits and the anti-drug crowd.

How's that for a conspiracy theory?

.

[edit on 8/5/2005 by Gools]



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 05:57 PM
link   
you got me McCory, i don't know, I thought that traces would show up if you were constantly around others who did it too...i'm sure the level of thc for a smoker is much higher than that of a bystander, but something should be there, it's the same basis for what second hand smoking of cigarrettes should be shouldn't it?

and according to the above, it seems that mom was always smoking around her child, at least that's how they make it sound.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Seems exceedingly strange that this went down, and yet all tests that were taken came back negative...

And then there's the fact that we have an admission of guilt.

It's quite an oddity.


There's probably quite a bit more to this story than we're being told.


THC Does stay in the body for anywhere from 30-60 days after use, and I'd think it'd be easily detected in the system of one so young...I'd like to know whether they used a urine test or a hair folicle test. Folicle tests generally yield positive results if marijuana was used anywhere from 3-6, and even more months after use.


It's troubling from either standpoint,

be it that of 1. Negligence on the mother's part of allowing such a young child to smoke,

or 2. A piece of hard-hitting anti-drug propaganda.


I can't honestly say that I have a solid opinion on it right now, I have to wait and see how (if at all) it plays out further.

Looking at the negative test results, I will say that I'm skeptical about the story, but with the admission of guilt, I feel ashamed for my race that another human being would allow an 18 month old child to hit the bong...

So....Should I use this smiley:

or this one?


Either way, I'm scratching my head.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Interpid-

The source seems credible, a local site for Montana. Furthremore, I can see something like this happening.

I wouldn't necassarily expect tests to show traces....a five year old most likely does not understand the concept of inhaling smoke into the lungs. In my opinion, considering the points of argument by Cain, the child was merely participating with Mom by trying to copy......

Which doesn't make it any more acceptable, btw. Unacceptable by a long shot.


Originally posted by WyrdeOne
One other thing, this showcases quite nicely one of the main problems I see with modern parenting in Western societies.

Knowing when, and how, to say 'No' is a critical part of parenting that's fallen by the wayside.


I agree with you on this one, but I would simplify it further by pointing out the lack of applied thought on behalf of the parent(s). We live in a society that has an answer for everything along with an accepted authority associated. If there isn't, then there is a department set up instead.

Point is, that noone has to try to think anymore. We have a routine that we were encouraged into without any real considerations and the rest is usually pleasure seeking. Or lethargy. At any rate, I can't seem to stretch myself to be surprised. A society that discourages thought is just asking for idiocy like that which we have presented before us here in the form of this news story.

[edit on 5-8-2005 by MemoryShock]



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 06:05 PM
link   
However it comes down Loki, nice to see you btw, the inconsistancies are too big to ignore. You could drive a rig through this one. This is a setup imo.

I smell propaganda, I'd use the second and nineteenth letters but this is the news forum.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Federal defender Zachary Cain urged Shanstrom to sentence Durham to a year of probation with her conviction to be vacated if she successfully completed the term. He said the statute that applied dealt with personal-use quantities and that the maximum sentence by law was two years.



Assistant U.S. Attorney Marcia Hurd said Durham deserved the maximum punishment, which in her interpretation of the law was 10 years in prison.



Shanstrom calculated a sentencing guideline range of 78 months to 97 months, which reflected enhancements because the child was very young and vulnerable, then sentenced Durham to five years in prison.

‘‘Jessica, this is a statute that is confusing


You may be right about the propaganda of anti drug laws, seeing how it states in the quotes above that the particular section she was charged with is "confusing"

I am sure a few new laws passed and toughening down on those statutes will "unconfuse" issues somewhat.

Yes Marijuana stays in the bloodstream for at three weeks for blood test and urine tests purposes unless kidney flushing medications are used. I doubt very much the mother then went and dosed her child up on Urals to clear the tests. Also flushing is caught out on most tests because of the clearness of the samples.

However all this has only been tested to my knowledge on adults. Perhaps a childs bloodstream breaksdown the THC and clears it alot quicker than an adult who has more impurities and a greater job for the kidneys to undertake.


[edit on 5-8-2005 by Mayet]



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 06:12 PM
link   
It's likely they did a urine test, and as I said, they're woefully inadequate.

Plus, as I've said, infants/toddlers have a huge liquid intake, and they pass things through their systems much faster.

www.jdaross.mcmail.com...



Metabolic rate.

The rate of metabolism in infancy is significantly higher than in adulthood because of the larger surface area in relation to the mass of active tissue.


This could explain the negative test, since one of the best ways to beat a drug test is to drink a lot of liquids and urinate frequently.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 06:13 PM
link   
The story says that they have a photograph of the child with a bong, so I don't think this is a complete fabrication. The negative test results are interesting though.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mayet
I doubt very much the mother then went and dosed her child up on Urals to clear the blood tests.


Why do you doubt it? Despite the clear level of intelligence displayed by the mother, I'm sure she could put 2 and 2 together after watching her pal take pictures of the scene. A quick panic and a few phone calls would turn up the suggestion if she didn't come up with it on her own. The knowledge is fairly well known; 'Detox' combos are sold next to the glassware in tobacco shops. Not a difficult step....



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Double Post........

[edit on 5-8-2005 by MemoryShock]





new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join