Seized Six-Month-Old Infant Returned to Michigan Parents Who Use Medical Marijuana, Child Will Have to be Submitted to Drug Tests

Medical marijuana legal in Michigan

Facebook

Child Protective Services agents in Michigan, where medical marijuana was legalized by voter initiative in 2008, seized six-month-old Bree Green from her parents, with cops looking on, after a "referee" decided the parents were putting the baby in danger by having marijuana in the home. The house could, for example, be robbed, the referee suggested.

At an evidentiary hearing last week the judge expressed doubts about the allegations in the CPS petition for custody, and on Friday ordered that the child be returned to her parent's custody. But the government did extract concessions from the Greens. Via USA Today:

"We said we're going to let the parents medicate (with marijuana) but not around the children, just what they've been doing all along, and allow some type of regular testing of the baby, maybe a mouth swab," to prove that Bree was not being exposed, [family attorney Joshua] Covert said.

As part of the order, the Greens will also be allowed to resume growing marijuana for their use, something they were facing felony charges for. Opponents of Michigan's marijuana law (usually those whose job is to enforce laws) claim medical marijuana is a cover for drug dealers. "I've seen it first hand," one local police chief insisted.

Nationwide statistics on how many children the government takes away from their parents are, unsurprisingly, not available, but it appears to happen regularly.

Bree's father, Steve Green, says there's been talk about introducing "Free Bree" legislation that would add protections to the medical marijuana law to stop cases like his, which drew statewide attention to the issue.

Comments

[SugarFree]

Is sarcasmic still bitching about Lou Reed?

[sarcasmic]

Is SaccharineMan still bitching about sarcasmic?

[SugarFree]

Is sarcasmic going to continue to talk about himself in the third person?

[sarcasmic]

You're always going 'sarcasmic does this' and 'sarcasmic does that.' That's simply not something sarcasmic does!

[SugarFree]

When you decided to join the rest of them in their post-Reed dystopia, you became happier for a brief moment, then lapsed into you usual funk. You will never be happy. You believe that happiness is for other people. You sit down to pee and brush your teeth in the shower. You are comfortable in your myriad perversions.

[sarcasmic]

You sit down to pee

That's only because I've got a boner that never goes away. Got no choice.

[SugarFree]

If you've been sitting on a toilet for more than four hours, consult a healthcare provider.

[sarcasmic]

Twenty one seconds.

[Bob Dole]

Bob Dole does not swipe other peoples' styles.

[Brandon]

Sarcasmic is gettin' upset!

[Loki]

Sarcasmic doesn't do what sarcasmic does for sarcasmic. Sarcasmic does what sarcasmic does sarcasmic is sarcasmic.

[PD Scott]

The house could, for example, be robbed.

Isn't that true of every house? Are the only people that are safe to have children so poor that no one would rob from them or so wealthy they have armed guards roaming the grounds?

[tarran]

Poor people generally are not worth robbing.

My understanding is that there are these places called banks where poor people keep money that isn't properly invested.

[sarcasmic]

Cops think all robberies are drug related.

[R C Dean]

Only because robberies perpetrated by cops tend to be. See, also, asset forfeiture.

Projection. Is there anything it can't do?

[Scarecrow Repair]

Get a decent movie now that they are converting to digital.

[Night Elf Mohawk]

That's some SCOTUS-level working backwards from a desired outcome to reach some moronic justifications.

[Francisco d Anconia]

Isn't that true of every house?

But the caliber of person robbing your house for teevees and jewelry is clearly higher than those that would rob you for...

...marijuana.

And so it follows the child would be in more harm.

[Art Vandelay]

I hope that baby learned a valuable lesson.

[Dweebston]

So much this. Tell me this isn't Michigan continuing the flex its pinky since it was prevented from clobbering the parents outright.

[SugarFree]

It's the same as spinning blindly in a public park while firing a machine gun.

[Elspeth Flashman]

There's a lot of confusion in Michigan courts on how to handle this law, as far as people with cards go.

[Hyperion]

Isn't big tyrannical government just da chit?

OT: But we knew it was coming. The progressives are freaking out.

It's Republicans fault!

Don't read the comments unless you are ready to start drinking this early.

The ACA which passed without one vote is all Republicans fault and, and we wanted single payer, but mean old Republicans (who didn't even cast one vote for the ACA), wouldn't let us have it.

The progs are beyond redemption. They can't even get this to work, refuse to accept any of the blame for it, and now they want to put the fedgov in charge of the entire health care system of the US and think that will work! You really can't cure stupid.

[sarcasmic]

Shhhhhh! Don't tell John!

He thinks that the ACA will cause Democrats to abandon Obama and the Party!

Don't fuck with his reality! Don't do it!

[Hyperion]

I think that John agreed they were going to do this. The really hardcore progs will continue to insist that a big centralized government and their ideas will work, no matter how many times they fail, which is every time.

If they want single payer, they will have to get another super majority, and that's not going to happen, at least not in the midterms. They could very possibly lose the Senate.

[John]

Yes, this is what they are going to tell themselves. And for some of them "but the Republicans" will allow them not to have to face the horrid reality that Obama might not have been a good President. But even among the Progs, admitting this thing is a failure is going to be devastating. According to sarcasmic they should be popping campaign corks because their signature program failing is going to make them worshiped and love in places they never have been before. But they seem not to think that.

[Lord Humungus]

they won't be poppin' corks since this program has Obama's name written all over it. They must protect the Queen Bee. However, once the dust settles, and ACA becomes a failure, it will be time for the rallying cry: "Single Payer!"

If that doesn't happen, it won't be repeal. Instead it will be time for "Common Sense reforms" to tweak the ahem "bad parts".

The Amazing Kreskin Lord Humumgus has spoken!

[Lord Humungus]

*Humungus

[Brett L]

Please, this will be named Sebeliuscare by 2015 and they'll be leading the 2 Minutes Hate against her every day.

[Brandon]

This. Sebelius will get the Lerner treatment, and agree to be publicly excoriated as an evil/incompetent rogue agent in exchange for massive financial compensation.

[John]

To advocate for single payer you have to admit this thing is a failure. To do that you have to go after Obama. That will not happen. If you don't go after Obama, you have to claim the Republicans made it fail. That, as I said below, makes you sound like a complete loser to anyone but a hardcore prog. You can't run for President on the platform of "our program would have been great had the Republicans no sabotaged it."

[John C. Randolph]

I think you underestimate the typical progtard's capacity for self-delusion. They won't admit shit, they'll just say "Obamacare is awesome, and now we need single-layer because that will be PERFECT!"

-jcr

[John]

No JCR, I don't. I fully expect most of them to be that delusional. The majority of this country are not hard core progs. The issue is not what these morons tell themselves. It is what the rest of the country is willing to believe. And no one outside of the real defender progs is going to believe "the Republicans did it".

[Killazontherun]

The bar for what you can run for president on was lowered beyond the capacity of Earth's gravity well to maintain within normative physics last year when Obama ran on free shit for middle class lady parts.

[sarcasmic]

If they want single payer, they will have to get another super majority

Remember that Republicans were for universal health care before they were against it. They might flip again.

[Hyperion]

Remember that Republicans were for universal health care before they were against it. They might flip again.

I don't see it. Some of the RINOs are going to get primaried in the midterms. Mitch McConnell could be on of them.

[John]

The GOP establishment would love to have supported Obamacare. Only the revolt of the base in 2009 prevented them from jumping on board. But as bad as they are, and they are bad, they are not going to support single payer. If they wouldn't vote for Obamacare, why the hell would they vote for single payer?

[Hyperion]

The won't. Even if they wanted to, they are quite obviously scared of the libertarian movement within the party. They're going to be more scared after the midterms.

[John]

This is what they will tell themselves. But that doesn't mean the rest of the country will believe them. Not everyone is a prog.

And why are they freaking out? This thing failing is going ensure the country loves them right? Why are they so unhappy about this? You keep telling me that they are set up for a thousand year Reich thanks to this failing. They don't seem to have gotten the memo. In fact they seem a little panicked that the low information voters you keep telling me are finally going to embrace them, are instead going to be pissed. For being evil geniuses who own America and have set up a system whereby the more they fail the more powerful they become, they don't seem very happy or to understand their good fortune like you do.

[sarcasmic]

You keep telling me that they are set up for a thousand year Reich thanks to this failing.

I don't know where you got that. All I've said is that when this fails, the failure will be blamed on markets, not government, and the solution will be more government, not markets. Just like everything else the government fucks up. Wash, rinse, repeat.

[John]

I don't know where you got that. All I've said is that when this fails, the failure will be blamed on markets, not government, and the solution will be more government, not markets

Which means it will ensure people blame markets and thus embrace progs right? If that is true, Obamacare failing is better for Progs than it succeeding. Had it worked people might have moved on and voted on other issues. But now that it is failing, people will just want more. In fact, Progs really should be out making sure everything they do fails and fails in a really known way. That way everyone will understand how great they are and how they need more power, because it will always be blamed on the market.

Again, they don't seem happy here. But from what you are saying they should be really happy. It is going to ensure people finally stop believing in the market.

[sarcasmic]

Obamacare hasn't had a chance to fail yet. A poorly designed website is not a failure of a policy.

[John]

There is a lot worse things happening than a website. Hundreds of thousands of people are losing their health insurance. I know know, that is just the market and will cause people to love Obama more. But at least for now, the people losing their insurance don't see it that way.

[sarcasmic]

But at least for now, the people losing their insurance don't see it that way.

How many of them know why? Seriously.

[John]

How many of them know why? Seriously.

Like every single one the media is talking to. Think about it sarcasmic, if people were blaming the markets and insurance companies for this, don't you think the media would be plastering them everywhere? No one is blaming anything but Obamacare for this. It is so bad that even the media has to report it.

[Francisco d Anconia]

Obamacare hasn't had a chance to fail yet. A poorly designed website is not a failure of a policy.

Ding, ding, ding...we have a winner.

This whole implementation failure is a red herring. Who cares? It will get ironed out and we'll still be stuck with ACA.

Harping on this issue wins the Reps some short term political gains. It really doesn't affect the country in the slightest. Failure of implementation doesn't get rid of the ass fucking that's ahead because of the welfare program itself and THAT'S what true opponents of this travesty should be focusing on.

[John]

Failure of implementation doesn't get rid of the ass fucking that's ahead because of the welfare program itself

No is not. That is what even the people on the Right don't understand. It is not a welfare program. First, not that many people get subsidies. Second, even the ones who do, don't get a check. They get a voucher to buy insurance that there is a good chance they either don't want at all or even if they do want still won't want it at the price they are paying.

For the five hundredth time. This program is not social security or medicare. It neither a conventional welfare program and it in no way benefits the middle and upper middle class the way those programs did.

You are a smart guy Francisco. Why do you insist on believing shit that is just not true? Maybe people will grow to love Obamacare. But if they do, it won't be because it is a welfare program or that it is anything like the programs that have come before it.

It just amazes me how even the worst critics of obamacare seem to have no idea how it actually works. The right is just as bad as the Progs in that regard. People on the right just scream "welfare!!" and think that passes for an argument or usually a valid prediction of doom. This program was built by people who were totally detached from reality. It is not even a proper welfare program and will thus never be popular even among the people it is supposed to benefit.

[Francisco d Anconia]

John

Is there or is there not a provision in ACA that tells "insurance" companies that they cannot turn down people for having pre-existing conditions?

Yes or no?

Because IF your answer is yes, the program ceases to be insurance and becomes welfare.

Why would any sane person pay into an insurance policy for 30 years when they can sign up for it after they get sick? Do you understand how insurance works? This will send premiums through the roof. To the point it will force more and more out, exacerbating the problem.

This IS NOT health insurance. It is WELFARE!

[John]

Is there or is there not a provision in ACA that tells "insurance" companies that they cannot turn down people for having pre-existing conditions?

Another red herring. That is another one of those things that sounds like a big deal until you think though it.

First, notice how the media, despite being desperate to print good news about Obamacare, hasn't come up with any examples of people with pre-existing conditions? That is because they are not that many of them. The whole "just wait until you get sick and then buy insurance" only makes sense if getting cancer or some other expensive and long term disease is your only risk. If I break my leg or get in a car accident, buying insurance later isn't going to cover the cost. And young poor people have always put off buying insurance because it didn't make sense. But if I have something to lose and am older and have kids or assets, the risk of the initial cost is going to cause me to buy insurance. So the number of people who actually will ever benefit from this is greatly exagerated.

[John]

Second, even if I do have a pre-existing condition, it still might not make sense to buy insurance. Insurance doesn't cover a 100% of the costs. Suppose I need a knee replacement. Well, buying insurance sounds great, provided I have the money for the premiums and for the co-pay that will come with my knee replacement. If I don't, I am not buying insurance and even if I do, I am still not getting my knee replaced. So even with universal insurance, a lot of people still won't get their pre-existing conditions treated because they won't have the money for the copay.

The bottom line is that the world is not as simple as you think it is. I would encourage you to think through these issues and do a bit of economic analysis rather than just screaming "welfare" and "doom".

[John]

This IS NOT health insurance. It is WELFARE!

Call what you like. But that doesn't mean people will like it. My paying for half the cost of a new car you don't want is welfare. But if you don't want the car or the car at that price, my welfare program is not going be popular with you.

come on Fransisco. You are smarter than this. Think about it.

[robc]

Francisco didnt say it will be popular, he said it is welfare. Stop arguing with the voices in your head and actually read what people post.

[John]

Rob,

Fransisco said

Failure of implementation doesn't get rid of the ass fucking that's ahead because of the welfare program itself and THAT'S what true opponents of this travesty should be focusing on.

Fransisco, I think, was saying because it is welfare it will be popular and never be repealed. I don't know if it will ever be repealed. But I will say that it will never be popular. Fransisico like a lot of people has internalized the lie that everyone wants health insurance. No, actually they don't all want health insurance. A large number of the "uninsured" were uninsured by rational choice. And no amount of welfare is going to make them want health insurance.

[robc]

Fransisco, I think, was saying because it is welfare it will be popular and never be repealed.

No. What Francisco is sayings is "Failure of implementation doesn't get rid of the ass fucking that's ahead because of the welfare program itself and THAT'S what true opponents of this travesty should be focusing on."

Nothing about popularity.

Although I do think that the medicare expansion portion will be much harder to get rid of than they rest of the law.

I can see the rest of the ACA getting repealed under the next President with bipartisan support, but the medicare expansion portion staying.

And that is just plain welfare. And is a much more hidden destruction. Which, if I have understood your argument correctly, is the difference between Obamacare and "regular welfare". But that part falls much more under regular welfare with much more hidden costs.

[robc]

It is welfare.

Its not typical welfare, but it is still welfare.

BTW, I heard something interesting this morning...you know the success of the KY exchange? Something like 80% of them have been enrolled in medicare.

So the successful exchange isnt finding people private insurance, its finding people eligible for the expanded medicare program.

[John]

That makes sense Rob. People will take free shit. But most of them who don't already have insurance are not going want to buy insurance even if it is subsidized.

[robc]

True. But the free shit is going to be damn tough to repeal.

Much tougher to repeal than the mandate.

[John]

There is a lot less free shit in this bill than its critics believe. The heart of the bill is the mandates on both employers and employees and the mandated changes in coverage along with all of the regulation. Kill off all of that and 90% of the damage done by this bill is undone.

Like I said, the bill is so confusing and insane even its critics seem to not understand it.

[Dweebston]

It doesn't matter whether progs, who will never cast a vote for anyone with an "L" or "R" after their names, cop to this. It matters whether voters in 2014 will take notice. I think they might.

Unfortunately, they'll vote in droves more R's than L's, but that's another story. Or the same story.

[John]

That is the problem. The Republicans will get up there and fuck things up or fix them a little bit but not enough to keep the media from blaming them for all of the problems and then allow the Prog vampire to rise from the dead.

But that is long term. The immediate future is pretty grim for progs if this thing fails like it looks like it will.

[BakedPenguin]

I wonder how they are going to spin the fact that Obamacare urges doctors and patients to be of the same race.

This is amazing. It's just one clusterfuck after another.

[John]

It is only going to get worse. And it is killing people who vote and matter, not just poor people.

[Brett L]

I guess, "like watching a monkey fucking a football" would be perceived as racist?

[BakedPenguin]

John - I'm betting there are going to be quite a few Democrats who'll wish they found out what was in it prior to voting for it. Pelosi will be fine, with her progtard district, but quite a few others won't.

Brett - That statement is both funny and accurate, and it's anti Obama, so of course it's racist. But telling patients and doctor to not misce-health-ate is totally fine.

[John]

Give you another counter factual. What if they had never passed it? I bet the Dems keep the House in 2010. And without Obamacare, what is the Tea Party's reason for existence? The deficit? No one to my knowledge has ever won an election because of the deficit. People don't care.

They really were kind of set up in 09. They had a black President and a discredited Republican Party. All they had to do was not fuck up too badly and not give the GOP base a reason to unite and they were set. And they fucked it up.

[Francisco d Anconia]

Obamacare urges doctors and patients to be of the same race.

Racists! (no, really this time) RACISTS!

[Hyperion]

The immediate future is pretty grim for progs

The progs have no viable future, as far as success goes. The more power they get, the more big government programs they push. The bigger the government grows and the more programs they have, the more fucked up and unmanageable things become. Not to mention that it will eventually destroy any economy, no matter how strong the markets were at one time. They are one giant disaster waiting to happen, it's just a matter of time.

[SugarFree]

Reich is just firing the first salvo in the single-payer wars. He's doing exactly what is expected of him and other glassy-eyed partisans.

[John]

That can only work if they can pin some of the blame on Republicans. And "but they didn't help us enough" isn't going to feed the bulldog.

When you think about it, we should all thank God that Romeny lost. Had Romney won, he would have been able to repeal Obamacare and this disaster would be unfolding under his watch. The progs could have then blamed the failure of Obamacare on him, which would have worked since he would have been President when it happened, and ran in 2016 on single payer. I am not totally sure that would have worked. But it would have had a lot better chance of working than they will have now. They own this thing.

Suppose Hillary runs on full on single payer in 2016. If Romney were President, she could savage Obamacare while attacking Romney. With Obama President, she can't do that without attacking Obama, which is not going to work. The problem with "the Republicans sabotaged it" is that while it appeals to hardcore Progs, it makes the person saying it sound like a loser to the rest of the country. And sounding like a loser is not the way to get elected President.

[Emmerson Biggins]

Had Romney won, he would have been able to repeal Obamacare and this disaster would be unfolding under his watch.

That is a actually a pretty compelling counter-factual.

[John]

I forgot the word "not". But you know what I meant. I spent about half or more of the 2012 election thinking that electing Romney would be a very bad thing because he wouldn't fix the mess Obama left and would just allow the Dems to avoid the full blame they deserve. And it really looks like that was the correct view.

[Hyperion]

All Hillary has to do is keep repeating some stupid braindead slogan like 'We're in it to win!', and the low information freeper minions will cheer and translate that into 'more free shit for me!'.

Congress on the other hand, that's a different story. The Dems are in real danger of losing both houses, and the GOP is in even more danger of giving up more seats to libertarian leaning candidates. If the Dems think Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are a pain in the ass now, wait until there are a dozen of them and the Dems have lost both chambers.

So, a Hillary win might be the best thing we could hope for. She could be sitting there for 4 years with no power to do anything and being constantly harassed and ridiculed by the wack-o birds in congress.

[John]

And as President blamed for everything. But Hillary is not going to win in 2016. The problem is that there are huge divisions in the coalition that elected Obama. The "vote for a black man" cult of personality papered over those division. But the "its the woman's turn" isn't going to do that. I don't see any way that Hillary gets the kind of black turnout that Obama got. And if the Republicans take Congress, it is going to be very difficult for the Dems to suppress Republican turnout the way they did in 2012. It is pretty clear in retrospect that the IRS did a whole lot to keep the GOP grassroots in check. It is doubtful they will be able to pull off that kind of effort again.

The other problem is that since Obama is black and such a cipher, he could motivate the hard core progs to come out without actually campaigning for any prog programs. He could appear like a moderate to the average low information voter and not worry about Prog turn out. Hillary will not have that luxury. A lot of the left really don't like her or her husband. No amount of scare tactics is going to get them to come out for her like they did for Obama, especially after Hillary trashes Warran or Cuomo or whoever their champion is in the primaries.

[Hyperion]

I think that national elections are lost for now, to the Dems.

Hillary will get the majority of women votes and all of the freepers. That's all it will take. There are more people on welfare now than there are full time workers. That is unsustainable, but it will last long enough to get Hillary elected.

[John]

The Dems always get the women votes. And the majority of the country's voters are not freepers. That is just another idiotic lie, like "everyone in America is retarded and will love the government more after it fails", that people on here tell themselves to feel better. It makes you feel good to think every Dem voter is on welfare and voting for free shit. But it is not true.

The national elections are not lost. If they were, Congress would be lost too. While they may all be local elections, when you add them up and see who controls what, they are national elections. If the Dems had a permanent hold on the White House, they would have a permanent hold on the Congress too. And they clearly don't.

The great black Prog hope is self destructing before our very eyes and all you people can do is sit around and feel sorry for yourselves.

[Francisco d Anconia]

Don't read the comments unless you are ready to start drinking this early.

Comments? Hell, I couldn't make it past the headline.

We are well past the point where we should have just started calling liar, liars.

This aversion to calling people out as bald faced liars started back in the PC 90s. The media adopted the word "spin" because they were too fucking chicken shit to say it like it was for fear of offending some crybaby pussy. Lying is wrong...spinning is somehow acceptable?

Attempting to blame the Republicans for this mess is, CLEARLY, an outright attempt at deception. They don't even try to mask it anymore. The media can outright LIE to the public without fear of ramification. They have lost any shred of credibility they've ever had.

And the sad part...50% of the people in this country have no problem with it.

Fuck these miserable, immoral cocksuckers!

(That made me feel better.)

[John]

I would say it is more like 40% don't have a problem with it. The remaining 12% that voted for Obama believed the lie but do have a problem with being lied to like this. Lies are great when they make the person being lied to feel good about themselves and don't directly affect them. But when the lie causes them to be worse off, all bets are off.

[Rich]

a "referee" decided the parents were putting the baby in danger by having marijuana in the home.

FFS, a "referee" could decide the parents were putting the baby in danger by having practically *anything* in the home. 8-(

[Dweebston]

Something about gallows, first against the wall, string 'em up, etc. I need to stop visiting reason before Wednesday.

[Lord Humungus]

what happens on Wednesday?

[Dweebston]

It's no longer Monday or Tuesday.

[Lord Humungus]

good point.

[Brian D]

what happens on Wednesday?

HUMP DAAAAAAAAY, YEAH!

[The Late P Brooks]

Mistah Reed, he DAID.

[The Late P Brooks]

what happens on Wednesday?

I'll tell you what doesn't happen: humping.

Not at my house, anyway.

*sniffs morosely*

[Dweebston]

That's because it's humptyday. You sit on a wall munching hardboiled eggs.

[Jordan]

The house could, for example, be robbed, the referee suggested.

Or it could be raided by trigger happy narcotics cops.

[Almanian Channeling Lou Reed]

I'm fucking DEAD. Will you please let me RIP? All I can hear is that goddamned crack marijuana baby wailing.

Way to sell that baby down the river of hopelessness, Michigan.

SHUT THE FUCK UP! I'M TRYING TO REST! IN PEACE!

[Brett L]

Fuck. As the friend who linked this article to me said, "We are the bad guys, now."
(and not just for linking to Gawker)

These effects [PTSD, alcohol abuse, suicidal ideation] appeared to spike at the exact time of Bryant's deployment, during the surge in Iraq. (Chillingly, to mitigate these effects, researchers have proposed creating a Siri-like user interface, a virtual copilot that anthropomorphizes the drone and lets crews shunt off the blame for whatever happens. Siri, have those people killed.)

[Loki]

...after a "referee" decided the parents were putting the baby in danger by having marijuana in the home.

Referee? WTF? It's like I recognize the word but I have no idea what it means in this context. Is that anything like a "busybody asshat who should mind their own fucking business?" I think I'd prefer that instead. This Orwellian newspeak bullshit is really starting to get on my nerves.

[Elspeth Flashman]

A referee is a judge's "second" in Michigan circuit courts. The referee can do hearings, motions, etc. that the judge assigns to him/her, and his/her rulings have the same effect as a judge's, for the most part.

[HazelMeade]

Nationwide statistics on how many children the government takes away from their parents are, unsurprisingly, not available, but it appears to happen regularly.

It's interesting how we have hordes of statistics on things like breast cancer rates, rapes, and number of uninsured people, but no statistics on how many kids are taken away from parents by CPS, or for what reasons.

[Hyperion]

but no statistics on how many kids are taken away from parents by CPS, or for what reasons.

We don't need statistics on good things done by the all benevolent government. We just need to be thankful for them and keep quiet. The little people don't need to know or question what their betters are doing.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

I'm sorry that Bree's parents are pot smokers, but it's not a justification for child abduction.

[Gindjurra]

Any number of things found in a typical American home can be dangerous to a child, from cleaning supplies to prescription medicine, from electrical outlets to stairs.

Most of them are many times more dangerous than cannabis, which is all but impossible to overdose on. But for some reason, child protective agencies have no problems with ammonia or bleach, so long as they are locked up where the kid can't get at them. But for some reason, any amount of cannabis, even if it's secured in an armored vault, is seen as an immediate danger to children.