it has nothing to do with the method of consumption. it's all in the THC levels and just it entering the system.

Why?

Once again, she does not deserve to go to prison. When the American judicial system wakes up and opens their eyes to the benefits of Hemp will this economy be in a better state.

Ugh, you hippies piss me off. You know why weed is bad? It might not be directly dangerous to your health, but it produces lazy ***** who sit on their ass all day smoking weed. While that is not the case for everyone, it is severely mentally addictive to those susceptible to it. One of my friends got into it, and now all he does is smoke weed, every day, all day. No, it might not be physically addictive, and no, it might not be dangerous to your health, but it spawns annoying, unproductive idiots with no skills or even any inclination to work. There's nothing wrong with the occasional bit of pot, in my opinion, if that's all it is, but hippies piss me off. Moreover, what the hell do you know about health that gives you the right to say that it's entirely non-dangerous to ten year olds? Are you a doctor? I don't think so. Did you know that Cola Light is dangerous to a good portion of children under six? Six might be younger than ten, but that does not mean that weed does not have potentially dangerous effects on children. Getting drunk(If not chronically, at least) is not dangerous either, but would you feed a ten year old scotch? I don't think so. Not only that, but none of the people in this thread seem to realize how young a ten-year-old really is. Sheesh, anyone thinking that a ten-year old would be responsible for his or her own choices is a moron.

While you have a point, the solution to having dangerous and addictive substances around is not having more dangerous and addictive substances around. Tobacco -should- be banned, I agree, and welfare -should- have acceptable limits put on it, but it won't be, because that would make it extremely hard for any politician to get elected - A large portion of people is against the banning of these things, that's the only reason they're still around. Your argument is nothing more than "But if they can do it, why can't I!?". Moreover, not everything growing from the earth is healthy, or good for you, you know. That's just a lousy argument. Note that I never said that weed is addictive to everyone, I specifically mentioned that it's only addictive to those susceptible to it. For that reason alone, it's a dangerous substance.

What rose colored glasses are you looking through? Do you honestly think no one has killed someone to score weed, shrooms or acid? Seriously? There are people who have killed someone just so they can have their freaking shoes and socks or a pack of cigs. I doubt that weed MADE someone kill someone, but I would bet my life on the fact that someone out there has been killed to get it because they had it and someone else wanted it. And shrooms and acid do not even belong on the same playing field as weed, they have completely different side effects which can cause serious mishaps. Someone who smoked a joint is walking around in the street thinking that the cars flying by are playing a game of tag with them or some stupid shit like that, shrooms and acid both make you hallucinate, weed does not.

I meant that someone on weed is NOT walking around in the street thinking that.

You can argue the validity of the law all you want - but that doesn't change the fact that the drug is illegal, and thus the person broke the law and therefore should be punished. Just because you don't agree with it, that doesn't mean that you get to do it anyway and then use your arguments as a defense. I'm sure many people could come up with arguments for why any law shouldn't be in place, but I'm also sure you wouldn't want them to just go ahead and break the law anyway. No one is above the law. Beyond that, this specific incident refers to a child coming into contact with the drug, which IS and SHOULD BE illegal. Whether it was on accident or not, the OP distributed drugs to a minor. (By the way, whether or not you think weed should be legalized, you surely would not think it should be legalized for use by a damn child.) That's called negligence, and while it sucks - it still lead to a crime having been committed. And no, weed may not be one of the violent drugs - but there are other ways it can cause you to kill someone. I've smoked it before, and I know how it can make you feel - and there have been documented cases of people, for instance, who have driven while under the influence and have injured or killed people because their reflexes were not up to par.

Actually, while I agree with almost your entire post, I would argue that laws are sometimes intended to be broken. If they were not we would never have laws that change in this country. We would still have slaves, women wouldn't be able to vote, there would still be prohibition, etc. To say that people would care if someone thought they were above the law is true, but often times people will support it in instances like the legalization of marijuana. No one is asking for something that is seriously wrong to be made legal (i.e. murder!), they are pointing out merely that a law prohibiting one substance that is not nearly as harmful as other substances which are legal is not a valid law. They have presented the history of these laws, the ways and reasons they were created. They have pointed out many possible benefits of repealing the laws the make marijuana illegal. With all of those arguments in mind I would agree that the law should be changed, it should be challenged and I do not hold it against anyone who has any part in smoking, selling, etc. I do agree that just like any other substance that can cause harm it should have certain regulations, such as not being legal for youth. Basically the exact same laws should apply to it that cover alcohol.

I also forgot to point out that NOT questioning laws actually goes against the entire idea of the constitution of our nation. The Constitution is a living document, it is intended to change with the needs of the people as well as with the changes in the world and the ways that we live. That is why things that were illegal before are now legal and vis versa (? is that even right, it doesn't look right when typed out). As American citizens it is not only our right to question laws but it is our duty. We live in a representative democracy, which means that our elected officials do not HAVE to go the way the people wish but they are intended to represent the people, act in our interest and represent our ideas and beliefs. I do believe that people should work on changing the laws (which they are obviously) rather than make excuses to do it illegally. However the idea that laws are laws and we should abide by them and adhere to them is actually not the American way, it is the opposite of what our country stands for. We are intended to question laws, to change laws and to grow by doing so.

Okay, I follow what you are saying now. I just took what you said a different way. I am certain that someone has killed to get their hands on these drugs (or any drugs for that matter) but I would not say that they have done it out of a NEED for that substance and the desire to use it. It would be for other reasons, such as being able to sell it back out for money (hence they would have killed for the MONEY not for the DRUG). Took me awhile, but I follow the train of thought now haha.

No, it is not a living document, you moron.

What words exactly were so big that you'd think that someone would need a thesaurus for them? Wow... This really sucks. I'd be so pissed if I were you, that probably cost a LOT of money. But you really should have put them in your room, especially if you have a 10 year old sister. Come on.