Marijuana

Kansas Activist Could Face Felony Charges Because Her 11-Year-Old Son Challenged Anti-Pot Propaganda

Medical marijuana user fights for custody of her son after police find a few ounces of cannabis in her home.

|

YouTube

Today Shona Banda, a Kansas medical marijuana activist, faces a hearing at which she will try to stop the state from kidnapping her 11-year-old son. She may also soon face criminal charges that could send her to prison. All because her son dared to question the anti-pot propaganda dispensed by his school.

On March 24, Banda's son spoke up during a "drug education" lesson presented by school counselors, questioning some of their statements about marijuana. Banda, whose story was first reported by The Human Solution International (THSI), a support group for medical marijuana patients, told Ben Swann her son mentioned that she calls the plant "cannabis" and "he let them know how educated he was on the facts." That small act of skepticism resulted in a trip to the principal's office and a call to Child Protective Services, which contacted the police. Banda says her son was questioned "for hours," unbeknownst to her.

It's not clear what information was gleaned from that interrogation, but evidently a judge thought it was enough for a warrant to search Banda's home. Banda says police initially tried to get her consent for a search around 3 p.m. on March 24, then came back with a warrant three hours later. THSI says they found two ounces of marijuana and one ounce of cannabis oil, which Banda uses to relieve the symptoms of Crohn's disease. So far she has not been charged, but at a hearing on March 27 a family court judge awarded temporary custody to her ex-husband, noting that she could face felony charges. Banda worries that the state will try to put her son into foster care by arguing that neither she nor her ex-husband can provide a suitable home.

As the possibility of felony charges suggests, marijuana penalties in Kansas are pretty harsh. Possessing any amount of marijuana (for any purpose) is a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail. A subsequent offense is a felony with a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 months and a maximum of three and a half years. Cultivation of five or more plants is a felony punishable by 12 to 17 years in prison. Manufacturing a controlled substance, which might include production of cannabis oil from marijuana, is also a "drug severity level 1 felony," punishable by a prison sentence as long as 17 years.

Banda told Swann she can't fault her son for having the courage to question inaccurate statements about cannabis. "For him to have spoken up in class I can't be upset about because he hears me daily on the phone talking with people, encouraging people to speak up and speak out," she said. "We did have the talk about how it's not OK to bring this up in Kansas, because it's a different state [than Colorado]. It's very confusing for a child."

Not just for a child. It has always been outrageous to threaten people with jail or loss of their children based on peaceful behavior such as growing a plant. But with marijuana legal for medical use in nearly two dozen states, including four that also have legalized it for recreational use, the injustice is especially glaring.

[via Radley Balko, who notes that Banda's supporters are collecting donations for her legal defense]

NEXT: A. Barton Hinkle on Anti-Choice Liberals

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Banda says police initially tried to get her consent for a search around 3 p.m. on March 24, then came back with a warrant three hours later.

    Wait a sec… 3 hours, and she couldn’t hide her stash?!?

    1. She was barred from entering the house

      1. On what authority absent a warrant?

        1. No clue but I put this link in Fridays AM links…

          http://www.dailykos.com/story/…..E-officer#

          “When he failed to return home from school, Banda contacted the school only to be told that her son had be detained by authorities. She went to the station, where she was informed that she was not being detained, but that they were obtaining a search warrant on her home and that she would not be permitted to enter the residence until the search was executed.”

          1. Must be part of the invisible FYTW clause of the Constitution.

            1. The SC has ruled you can be detained for up to 24 hours as long as a cop has a hard-on for you. It’s in the penumbras and emanations, I’m sure.

              1. detained, sure, but they only barred her from entering the house

                in fact they even said she could leave

                that is NOT detainment

                my god, it could even be a violation of the 3rd amendment thingy about quartering troops

                as instapundit said last time that happened, which was pretty recently, you know you’ve got a civil rights problem in your country when you get 3rd amendment cases

                1. that is NOT detainment

                  These lines the police draw seem to exist entirely on paper.

          2. That is fucked up. I know it is something that happens, but it’s just nuts. They should need a warrant before they can restrict your use of your own property. I guess we all know that getting a warrant is just a formality at this point.

            Presumably this means that they put cops at her house to prevent her from entering. But again, before they get a warrant (which should mean before they find out if they will be able to get a warrant), by what authority can they do that? They would have to be trespassing to do that. (Yes, I know FYTW.)

            1. She should have tried to enter her own home and then had them forcibly stop her and arrest her for doing so, all without a warrant.

              It would have put any findings from the search post warrant into question.

              1. She got lucky, they could have just let her go in, then followed 2 minutes later with a swat raid “to prevent destruction of evidence”

                1. They would need a warrant for that. Unless the warrant shows up within 1-2 minutes of her entering, she would have enough time…

  2. Ridiculous and draconian.

  3. Banda says her son was questioned “for hours,” unbeknownst to her.

    So, illegal search. Let the lawsuits begin.

    1. The entire thing is so over the top that she should already have a lawyer working on this.

      I’m not a really litigious type of person at all, but in this case, sue their fascist asses off.

  4. The thuggery just keeps getting worse. And it’s going to continue to do so. When you let your political, law enforcement, and educational classes all get filled by the worst people who want to occupy them, this is what you get. This is what allowing people to have too much power gets you.

    1. Replace all cops with robots. Replace the public education system with an online system and use home schooling.

      Take money and power out of politics. This includes making cronyism a capital offense.

      Start eliminating wasteful and redundant government agencies and employees.

      There’s a hell of a start, but there’s lots more work to do.

      1. +1 ED-209

      2. Replace all cops with robots.

        I’ve seen that movie. Doesn’t work out well.

        How about replacing them with volunteer constables who have no qualified immunity or powers that any adult person doesn’t have?

        1. That was a movie. In real life, automatons do not do things they are not programmed to do. And they should not be programmed to use lethal force, only to neutralize a threat. Which you would think 6 fat cops sitting on top of someone would do, but the cops are too stupid to realize this.

          The problem is, you’re never going take qualified immunity away from a public union, except for by effectively dissolving the public union. That would of course solve the problem because then the psychopaths who are attracted to the job, will no longer be attracted to the job.

          I think the robocop idea has a better chance of success, once the technology is there. It’s way past the point that it’s been proven that human beings given no accountability cannot be trusted with the ability to legally use lethal force against other human beings.

          1. Even if they have a gun briefly and don’t comply within 20 seconds?

            1. No. That’s why I’m saying that cops should be replaced with robots. Robots who have ability to neutralize, but not use lethal force to do so. A court should be deciding someone’s guilt and punishment, not some roided up psycho with a uniform and badge.

              1. That is insane.

                The reality is a small group of control personal would now be able to dictate the use of force across everyone, with no independent questioning of orders.

                If you want to see what that looks like, watch the movie Divergent and see what happens when ~5 people are able to mentally take control over the police. It’s not pretty, but it is predictable.

                1. Or, you know – get your own robot police force.

                  State-controlled police is not the only way to do this.

          2. On the other hand, automatons do do things that they are programmed to do. And who is going to do that?

            I don’t think robots would solve and of the problems with police (joking about Robocop aside). The police cannot be reformed meaningfully until victimless crimes are off of the books. What police should be doing is investigating crimes against persons and property and maintaining some presence, as necessary, to provide a deterrent. Maybe some traffic patrol. The main reason why policing is so fucked up, in my opinion, is that so much of what they do is policing victimless “crimes” which requires them to have an adversarial relationship to the public.

            And you’d need to dissolve the union to replace cops with robots too, so it has the same problems that you mention in regard to getting rid of qualified immunity. In either case the political will needs to exist to say “fuck you” to police unions.

            I say that to get any meaningful police reform, we first need a whole lot of reform of the laws on the books. Police can’t be good when their job involves policing people’s private personal activities that harm no one.

            1. Haven’t you seen Chappie?

            2. Well, you’re going to have to eliminate all routine traffic stops then, for things like speeding, tail lights out, rolling a stop sign, etc, or you’re still going to have lots of these type incidents.

              I’m all in agreement to eliminate victimless crimes, but it won’t stop the cops from making up other excuses to fuck with people or stop the cops from escalating things to the point someone is killed just because they rolled a stop sign.

              1. No, legal reform won’t solve everything. But it needs to happen before anything can be improved.

                Immunity is a problem, as are people’s largely positive attitudes about the police.

                While it is possible, and it does happen that an ordinary traffic stop could escalate to a violent incident, most such incidents happen because there is more going on than a traffic stop. Usually something to do with drugs. Maybe weapons. If the worst (legal) thing that could happen to you when you get stopped is getting a ticket, then things aren’t as likely to escalate like that.

                I suppose “robots” like speed and red light cameras could replace most traffic patrol. But those traffic laws would need reform too. If the current traffic laws were strictly and consistently enforced, it would be terrible.

                1. people’s largely positive attitudes about the police.

                  That is going away. I have been on threads where even the usual police fellators were saying how overboard the police have become.

          3. remove ALL immunity? That sounds like a recipe for disaster

            here’s a crazy thought, we CAN have a police force that just ISN’T a bunch of fucked up sadists. It IS possible you know, we just need the legislation

            1. In theory that would work. Too bad qualified immunity invites sadists to join the police because they act out their natural tendencies and never face the consequences. Until qualified immunity is removed they will have no incentive to quit killing people for disrespecting their authority.

            2. here’s a crazy thought, we CAN have a police force that just ISN’T a bunch of fucked up sadists.

              Actually we can’t, when that’s everyone who applies for the job.

            3. No, that’s not possible.

            4. It IS possible you know, we just need the legislation

              Just one more try…

      3. Take money and power out of politics.

        That would be the end of politics.

      4. No, private cops, hired by victims as part of their own prosecution. Eliminates victimless crimes and makes the accountability crystal clear. Although there may be battles between the cops and their employer, it won’t let both off the hook.

      5. Hey, taking money and power out of politics would be nice… got any good ideas on how to do it?

    2. This is what allowing people to have too much power gets you.

      This is what handing your kids over to state agents for free babysitting gets you.

      1. I cover that below.

    3. The problem is that CPS has virtually no accountability.
      Once a child gets into their system, it’s all about the “best interests of the child”, and all of the parents rights and interests get tossed out the window.
      There is no due process for having a child taken away. You don’t have to be convicted of a crime.
      There is no reasonable doubt. There is no innocent until proven guilty.
      There is no jury trial. There are no miranda rights. There are no evidentiary standards.

      All it takes is for some judge to arbitrarily decide in his biased judgement that the child is better off in foster care, and boom, your parental rights are gone. Maybe he doesn’t like the color of your skin. Maybe he doesn’t like your lifestyle. Maybe he’s just in a bad mood that day. Maybe he’s an asshole who is in bed with law enforcement and thinks drugs are evil. Maybe he’s a hangin judge. it’s all arbitrarily dependent on one person.

      Yes, there’s a limited appeals process, but still no jury trial or presumption of innocence anywhere in the process. And once the child is out of your custody the presumtion tends to be to keep the child where it is, so you’re pretty much fucked.

      The one major reform I would make immediately would be to have jury trials for child custody.

      1. “The one major reform I would make immediately would be to have jury trials for child custody.”

        Given how well grand juries have worked for police murders, I’d question this.

        1. Juries, not grand juries.

  5. Yeah? – just wait until carnivorous marijuana plants are genetically grown.

    Hoo boy, just you wait….

  6. WTF happened to Tinker? There were a couple of cases recently that seemed to water it down, but it looks like they are just full-on going for overturning that case entirely. I guess free speech got a little too inconvenient.

  7. So the teacher, the principle, the police, and a judge all conspired to abduct a well-adjusted and bright little boy from his mother.

    Truly, it takes a village to raise kidnap a child.

  8. I had a good weekend. Reason is ruining my day. I may have to stop coming here and just live in oblivion in Iowa.

    1. I’m nursing a sunburn after putting together one of those wooden play sets for the kid. I must say, it was a pretty well made kit. Only had one part that was slightly out of alignment, but was able to muscle it into place with a little help.

      1. What brand ? Backyard Discovery ? I used to work for them.

        1. Yes, as a matter of fact. I need to figure out how to anchor down the a-frame.

          1. I can manage the accounting function for playsets…installation, not so much.

            1. Then why did you bring it up? Huh? Smart guy? Here I thought you were going to help me out but you’re just a fucking accountant? What good are you? Geez!

              1. You made it sound like you were done. Then you say you hadn’t anchored the a-frame. You call that done ?! I mean who doesn’t anchor their a-frame.

                1. People who buy shoddy kits that don’t come with anchors, that’s who.

  9. How DARE this kid contradict the anti-drug propagandist lies that were being presented to these children?

    1. Really, this is what makes this so bad. It’s so blatantly anti first amendment it’s like something straight out of a dystopian novel.

      So, what’s next? If a kid can be hauled off to the gulags and his family terrorized because he pointed out a fact, then where does it stop?

      I mean basically, this means that someone from the Democratic party can come there and say that Barak Obama is the greatest president in history and if some kids stands up and says, no Lincoln was, or Reagn was, then he can be arrested for saying that.

      1. I mean basically, this means that someone from the Democratic party can come there and say that Barak Obama is the greatest president in history and if some kids stands up and says, no Lincoln was, or Reagn was, then he can be arrested for saying that.

        Well, anything’s possible. But that’s not going to happen. This is all based on the special “drugs R bad” section of the constitution that regular people can’t see.

        1. Slippery slope.

          1. I think we are along way from political dissent being associated with any crime. With drugs it is different. And most people are either indifferent to or supportive of drug laws. Whereas roughly half of the parents at any school would be outraged if any child was treated similarly because they said their parents think Obama is a secret Muslim or something.

            1. I think we are along way from political dissent being associated with any crime.

              The DA in Wisconsin would disagree with you here.

              https://reason.com/blog/2015/04…..tions-that

            2. The IRS begs to differ with you.

              1. Oh, come on. You know what I mean. It there some prize on offer for being most pessimistic person or something?

            3. What started this was political dissent against the state’s dogma and it resulted in criminal charges. Maybe not directly, but still.

            4. The ghosts of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan disagree with you.

    2. I dare say I see what you did there.

    3. That’s the message isn’t it? – Conform to our view or we will arrest and imprison your mother.

  10. Outrageous actions like this are exactly why prohibition is losing support.
    This action will help no one; and harms the kid, the mom, damages the image of Kansas and wastes money.

    I guess pot really causes insanity, because this is insanity.

    1. This action will help no one

      A-*hem*! The salaries of drug warriors and their auxiliaries are spent in *many* communities!

  11. If they’re still doing DARE in a few years when my daughter reaches 5th/6th grade, she’s going to be sick those days. Either I’ll have taught her to say something or I’ll just want to keep her from the BS propaganda.

    1. Or you could sit her down and tell her the truth, so when the time comes for her to be presented with the lies, she’ll recognize them as such. But also make sure she knows to keep her mouth shut, or this same thing might happen to you.

      At least that’s what I plan to do with my kid.

      1. It must really be tough for some kids.

        “Now, I know some of you have been told the opposite by your parents or friends, but dare to think for yourself. However well-meaning they may appear, are *they* experts in positions of authority?”

        1. There is a strong case to be made IMO that teachers and administrators have played a big (but hardly exclusive) part in the breakdown of education in this country. So many of them have parroted lies for so long that is little wonder parents don’t respect them as much.

          1. parents and students

          2. Yep. I remember when I saw through the lies and woke up. Second year of high school. It was pretty depressing. Haven’t had much respect for authority since.

      2. As a parent I am dreading the day where I have to explain to my kids that “Your government and your society will lie to you and steal your soul inorder to subvert you to their way of thinking and the lifestyle they want you live. You can not trust them. You can not trust the poilice, you can not trust your teachers. You can not trust anyone. You must question everyone and everything. Now go clean your room. … oh… WHY do you have to clean your room?!?! BECAUSE I SAID SO THATS WHY. DON’T QUESTION MY ATHORITAHY!!!!!”

    2. If they’re still doing DARE in a few years when my daughter reaches 5th/6th grade, she’s going to be sick those days.

      Great! They call that truancy and they can throw parents in jail for that, or put the kids in juvie hall.

    3. I seem to recall posting something this weekend during the interminable conversion therapy thread about authorities intervening in purely familial affairs, particularly through the schools, to enforce the doctrinal legitimacy of the State. It’s a gambit with bipartisan support: take kids from homophobic parents, take kids from smot pokers.

      1. Isn’t this what Dewey meant by socialization ?

  12. Putting her child in foster care will be infinitely more damaging to her child than being around a mother who uses cannabis oil to treat Crohn’s disease–that much is certain.

    1. Damaging to the child? The real victims here are the drug warriors whose fragile egos were terribly bruised by that child’s harsh lies.

  13. Banda worries that the state will try to put her son into foster care by arguing that neither she nor her ex-husband can provide a suitable home.

    This is horrendous. Unless she were trying to convince her son not to be gay. Then, carry on like one has nothing to do with the other.

  14. Drugs are bad, which is why they are illegal. This lady had drugs around her child, and worse, filled the kid’s head with lies about the dope, which he repeated in school which is supposed to be a safe place. I guess she should of thought more about taking care of her family before she ruined it with drugs. The kid is better off in foster care than with some kind of dope fiend. And what the hell is Crohn’s disease anyway ?

    1. It’s where women get older and older, often on a timescale of decades.

      1. obvious pun is obvious

        1. I have Warty’s cellphone number.

          1. We really don’t care what is tattooed onto your ass.

            1. Butt dial.

              1. Scan your ass and it dials Warty? That would be almost cool if it wasn’t so disturbing.

              2. How many fingers used to dial THAT number?

                1. All of them and the palm too….really the whole fist.

                2. Normally, I just use Mainer2’s face.

                  1. So if I ask for a match it’s YOUR ass and MY face ? I don’t think that’s how the old joke goes.

                    1. “Why does your finger smell like his ass?”

                    2. I have a match: your embrace, and my collapse.

    2. It makes it difficult to digest food. An old girlfriend’s mom had it. The woman was skeletal from malnutrition because she just couldn’t eat. I could see how pot might help that.

      1. so your type of woman, eh? 😉

      2. Have a cousin who has it. She has a very restrictive diet in terms of what won’t upset her stomach. She manages it but it seems to be pretty damn miserable.

        1. It’s a living nightmare, from what I’ve been told. One of my cousins narrowly avoided committing suicide when it progressed and he ended up with a permanent colostomy bag, thinking he’d never meet a woman in his condition. My uncle introduced him to a therapy where he met a woman WITH his condition. They’re married with a kid now.

      3. Basically you can’t eat gluten or you start having bloody diharea and vomiting.

    3. It’s the thing that means you can’t eat gluten.

      1. I thought that was celiacs.

        1. Oh right. Chrons is something else.

    4. Crohn’s is an inflammatory bowel disease that more often involves the small bowel, sometimes the appendix, and most uncommonly, ano-rectal disease. They develop fistulas, sinus tracts to the skin, and intra-abdominal abscesses! It can be mild, presenting only as appendiceal disease, cured with appendectomy. Or, it can be severe, forming fistulas between loops of the small bowel and sinus tracts to the skin. It can destroy one’s ability to eat anything. I watched a patient die from it after he went to prison, where they had removed the feeding tube!

      I wonder why one so ignorant would come up with the conclusions that you did! Then, I have to consider the ignorance that I read about daily, here on the Internet! You fit right in, Mainer2

  15. Example #3,429 of why you never, ever send your kids to public school (I’m assuming this is a public school because I can’t see this happening anywhere else).

    1. I can absolutely see this happening at a pricy, sensitivity-inculcating granola factory in, say, California. It’s amazing that, no matter how avowedly liberal an institution, some things (like drug laws) remain unquestionable columns of good governance.

      1. I can’t. Even a goofy private school is dependent on its customers. Fucking them over like this is terrible for business. But a public school doesn’t give a shit because the “customers” are captive (even if you don’t send your kid to the school, you still pay the property taxes that support it), and so are totally immunized from unhappy parents.

        1. At dinner with some co-workers who were complaining about a particular teacher at the local high school (they all have kids about the same age). With a straight face, I suggested if they weren’t happy, they should send their kids to a different school. They assumed I was confused because I don’t have kids, and started explaining to me how they were stuck with the public school and private school is too expensive. When I kept asking why that was, eventually they realized I was being all libertarian and shit. And then THEY started defending the government run school they were bitching about not 5 minutes earlier.

          Absolutely stunning how indoctrination works.

          1. When we moved to our small town we never planned to have kids (she already had a couple), but we ended up having one. By chance we happened to pick one of the best districts in the state. The school was private before it was absorbed by the Borg, but it still retains some of that attitude. It’s that, a Baptist cult (women cover their hair, wear long dresses and makeup is forbidden) or a prep school that costs the same as my salary. Sadly, public schools it is.

          2. I think it’s less indoctrination and instead a stubborn, illogical desire to not face the fact that they’re getting fucked and they’re allowing it to happen. They wanted to complain, not be told (by you) that their purported beliefs on public school and the government were causing the very thing they were complaining about. In other words, you told them they were (at least partly) responsible for their own situation, and that was the last thing they wanted to hear or think about.

            The degree to which so many people are utterly allergic to personal responsibility is what’s stunning.

            1. Isn’t there a thing called “existence bias” or something ? They simply could not believe that schools can exist without the government running them. Also, I pointed out that the lousy teacher was protected by the union. You should have heard the outrage when I said the union cares about the teacher, not your kid.

              1. Seriously? Holy christ those people are fucking stupid. The union itself will state that its job is to look out for the teachers, not the students. Because…that really is its job. In what fevered dream do they think the union has any reason to look out for students?

                1. Once I criticized the status quo, I think all cognitive ability was lost to a “burn the heretic” conditoned response.

                2. The union itself will state that its job is to look out for the teachers

                  Not around election time they won’t.

        2. Sure, but on the other hand it sends a message to soccer moms: we’re protecting your child from the scourge of drug use.

      2. But California’s drug laws are rather different from Kansas’s when it comes to cannabis. And while I am sure most private schools toe the line on drugs for PR reasons if nothing else, I very much doubt they would be so fast to involve the police in something like this. No need to screw over your paying customers. Public schools are more and more acting like an extension of the police for reasons that don’t apply to private schools.

        1. “No need to screw over your paying customers. ”

          You are only a paying customer if you have a choice and make the transaction willingly.

          A better analogy is serfs (common people) paying their dues (taxes) to their lords and masters (public ‘servants’).

          1. Most people sending their kids to private schools have a choice of what school to use and willingly pay for the service.

            “Public” and “private” do both start with “p”, but many of the other letters are different.

            1. “Police” starts with “p”, too, but the sentences are different.

  16. They pulled my son out of school at about 1:40 in the afternoon and interrogated him. Police showed up at my house at 3? I let them know that they weren’t allowed in my home without a warrant? I didn’t believe you could get a warrant off of something a child says in school.”

    Well, Shona, this is the actual endgame:

    “Who denounced you?” said Winston.

    “It was my little daughter,” said Parsons with a sort of doleful pride. “She listened at the keyhole. Heard what I was saying, and nipped off to the patrols the very next day. Pretty smart for a nipper of seven, eh? I don’t bear her any grudge for it. In fact I’m proud of her. It shows I brought her up in the right spirit, anyway.”

    -1984

    1. +1 Instruction Manual

    2. My son is named Winston Smith. You know what I don’t get… why didn’t he just fucking live with the proles?

  17. To be fair, 2 ounces of MJ is kind of a lot to have just lying around. You have to smoke a LOT of weed to use that up before it gets dry and stale. Of course, it’s also too little to make them dealers. Probably they have like 3 friends that they are selling small amounts to. But the cops are probably going to try top charge them as dealers.

    That said, this is really cruel and unusual punishment. CPS all over the country is totally out of control in using child custody as a weapon to enforce compliance with drug laws. The government should NEVER seize people’s children as a punishment. And having a couple of ounces of marijuana in the home does not make that home “unsafe”, any more than having prescription pain killers in the medicine cabinet or lye under the sink or alcohol in a minibar. Also, it’s just not enough drugs to make their home a likely target of violence. MJ users aren’t violent, and two ounces of weed isn’t worth more than a few hundred bucks.

    But again it is absolutely unconscionable and appalling the way that CPS offices all ovver the country have taken to seizing children if their parents have the slightest amount of marijuana in the home.

    1. There are freezers and vacuum sealers.

      The ounce of oil is the big thing really. It probably is the equivalent of more than 2 ounces of weed. And for some stupid reason a lot of states make things like that a felony even when weed is a misdemeanor. Because it’s processed and purified.

      1. It is great to be an activist for decriminalization and all. But if you are, that makes you a target for searches. And once there could possibly be ANY POSSIBLE reason for your home to ever be searched, you should always keep any illegal amount perfectly hidden from a search.

        This case is horrible, but we do live under a violent and authoritative government, if you are going to go against this you need to take precautions.

        1. Yeah, I’m pretty sure professional drug dealers are way better at hiding shit from cops than the average pot smoker. The cops know about ALL the hiding places up to and including stuff shit inside the wals and sealing it with drywall. Plus they are going to have dogs.

    2. I’m not a user, but could one not simply vacuum seal the remaining amount using a basic food preservation machine?

    3. You can freeze weed if you want. I keep mine sealed in a ziplock bag in a closed mason jar and only open it when I am loading a bowl. It keeps quite well. Then I take my oldest stuff and grind it up and make THC-infused alcohol out of it, which lasts forever.

      1. Fair enough. I havn’t actually smoked weed in years and never really kept a “stash” when I did.

      2. THC-infused alcohol

        Oh mah gawds, the new super killer evil super drug! Hide the children… run!!!!!!!!!

        /local media and soccer moms

        1. “On the news at 11: weed-tinis, and how they’re going to destroy the world and all the children.”

          1. Let me guess: you butt-chug it, too.

            1. No, absolutely not. I make THC-infused suppositories for that.

    4. You’re also assuming that it was all for smoking, when it could have been for cooking. In that case, 2 ounces isn’t really a lot.

    5. If she doesn’t want to make the trip to CO often, it’s not much, especially if she medicates frequently. I knew guys in college who would go through an ounce in a week, no sweat. She probably has a month’s supply.

  18. What would happen, then, if she took her child and moved to a state where her activities are legal? Could she claim asylum? Of course not, but it would be nice if the state of Colorado took her in and kept her until the feds raided them.

    One can dream.

    1. Kansas is already trying to sue CO for legalizing weed. So they should do that just to piss off Kansas some more.

    2. What would happen, then, if she took her child and moved to a state where her activities are legal?

      If you are divorced then moving to another state is almost impossible. All parties have to agree, or the judge has to write an order permitting removal.

      1. That’s why my dad stole us. My mom didn’t like it, but he had custody and we just moved around the world and didn’t tell her where we were. It was horrible of him to do, but I understand it.

  19. I think that we need to send Shona some libertarian propaganda. In fact, I think that all of the victims in all of these stories need some libertarian propaganda. We should start a free book club for all of these people. I will donate. Maybe a good primer on how to NOT VOTE FOR statist scum candidates would be a good start.

    1. what are the odds that she’s also on government assistance?

      1. Damnit, there goes the libertarian moment again…

      2. And that would be relevant how, exactly? That comment is and ad hominem attack on a strawman, all wrapped up in a non-sequitur. Congratulations on you trifecta of rhetorical fallacies, completed in a mere 10 words.

        1. Roger, I don’t think Spencer meant that as an attack on her but more as a comment on how open she may be to non-statist ideas. After all, if your livelihood depends on something, it will probably be difficult to convince you to vote against it. So I think it’s a relevant comment.

          I see this more as an opportunity to show people that no matter how nice you want the world to be, voting for statists never works out. They can never usher in utopia and if the world becomes a “better place” it’s in spite of their statist policies, not because of them. However, they can totally achieve a Trail of Tears, forced sterilization, and seizing your children despite no danger to them.

      3. In the medical industry, having seen how severely Crohn’s disease affects some people, I will say there’s a chance she may actually not be able to hold down a job.

        I think Hyperion’s suggestion is a good one. It’s similar to the student group that passes out Hayek literature and stuff on campus, I think they’re called Young Americans for Liberty? Except with Hyperion’s plan, we don’t have to go anywhere, we can just mail people stuff.

  20. On a side note, I smell an unbelievably massive class action lawsuit in the future when marijuana finally gets legalized as tens of thouands of parents hwo have had children taken over MJ possession file suit against CPS in dozens of states where MJ has been legalized.

    There is going to be fucking hell to pay. This shit is going to be something we look back on like Japanese internment camps, the Tuskeegee experiment, and forced sterlizations.

    I mean, just look at the movie Philomena. Those nuns who took her kid were EVIL , and so are the CPS agents who are taking peoples children because they smoke weed. The public is NOT KIND to authority figures that take away people’s children unjustly. And MJ is just a hair-bredth away from becoming something people do not look on as a good reason for stealing people’s kids.

    They are going to die pariahs in nursing homes where everyone hates them.

    1. I would love to believe that but when we have judges telling a homeowner that they can’t smoke in their own home because it bothers the neighbor then I question society.

      1. Well, public attitudes towards gay marriage have shifted quite a bit.

        So I would expect in about 10 years that we’re going to have twitter flame wars where former CPS agents lives are ruined for having taken peoples kids over MJ.

        And in that case, I think I’ll be part of the mob.

        1. Too dangerous. You never want to get involved with the mob.

  21. There should be ZERO tolerance for acts of injustice by prohibitionists.

    Declaration of Rights of Cannabis Users

  22. Today I learned judges issue probable cause warrants based on the words of an 11 year old who was questioned for hours who was in all likelihood terrified and just wanted to see his mom

    1. Warrants based on the coerced statements of an 11-year old given during illegal interrogations are completely legit. FYTW.

  23. So no porky pig to tell us that rules are rules?

    1. No, Tulpa only goes after the real derelicts like people who donate food to homeless people and people of modest means who get fucked over by US tax laws.

  24. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week……………..

    http://www.Jobsyelp.com

  25. AH! You crossed our imiginary line, came into our kingdom, and speak of your magical plant?
    burn the witch already!

    1. +1 Wizard of 2 oz.

  26. Very biased reporting. I am dissapointed with this writing. Obviously Marijuana should be legal, but in some places it is not. That makes possession of marijuana a crime. When the state removes a child from his home due to the criminal activity of his parent(s) the correct term is not “kidnapping.” I read Reason because I share, at least in part, your political sensibilities, but with such slated reporting it is hard to take the facts as you present them seriously. When what you leave in is so blatantly biased I can’t help but wonder what you have left out. Please try to develope some journalistic standards.

    1. It’s a point of view publication, so you should expect to see a point of view.

      The facts aren’t really in dispute, so calling it kidnapping or something else doesn’t really matter. And it is kidnapping if you don’t think that prohibition is a legitimate use of government force. As far as I am concerned, all enforcement of drug laws involves kidnapping, assault and false imprisonment. And that’s when everything happens by the book.

      Making a law doesn’t magically change the actual facts on the ground. And forcefully removing a child from the custody of parents who aren’t seriously abusing him is kidnapping in my book, whatever the law might say.

    2. Actually the kidnapping part happened when the school called the police to detain a child for SPEAKING. The child nor the parent at this point had done anything wrong. Further the police don’t get to question the child without a parent present. The police then detained the women for several hours without arresting her just to wait on a warrant. You can argue everything past the point of the warrant being served but there were several violations of rights (including kidnapping) that happened before that.

    3. To kidnap is to take someone by force–especially a child. To go a step further and deprive them of life is killing. The killing can be judicial or extrajudicial depending on whether it was ordered by the People’s Court officials or performed in the line of duty by SS troopers. In this case, it was Child Schutzstaffel (Protective Squadrons) who dragged the kid off for enhanced interrogation.
      Even looter author Sinclair was honest enough to have his character describe military conscription as kidnapping, and it was to America’s shame that the Supreme Court could “not see” the nature of that use of naked force. Sinclair and Jack London did not get the income tax transferred from the Communist Manifesto the the U.S. Constitution through cringing, cowardly journalism. The LP eliminated the draft, abortion and contraceptive prohibitions by bluntly stating its platform in 1972.
      I was pleasantly surprised by the terse use of objective language to describe the situation, and hope to see more such courageous journalism in the future. –libertariantranslator

  27. Where do they find the scum who would do this to people?

    1. The world is full of them. As long as it pays well.

  28. Parsons was more grateful when his child drew the attention of the Thought Police: “thank you for saving me before it was too late”, said he to his neighbor and cellmate Winston, by way of explanation.
    Now the makers of Positive Christianity can ship one more child off for a proper Staatsjugend reeducation camp to learn to love Big Brother. God bless Kansas, and God bless Mabel Willebrandt!

  29. Don’t move to Kansas. Better yet, don’t even drive through there. Amazing how stiff their drug penalties are with the Koch brothers living there – I’m surprised they haven’t changed that.

  30. “Felony Charges” is the new way to enslave the masses. It sound silly, but there are tens of thousands of stupid-assed laws that come with “felony” sentences, that intimidate people, cause them the economic harm of paying for lawyers, and then they have to plea down and they are now felons with loss of gun rights or voting rights.

    It’s brilliant. Put the thumb of law on all the little shit’s necks and we won’t even need guns to control them.

  31. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,

    ————- http://www.work-cash.com

  32. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.incomejoin70.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.