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.
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
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:
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
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]