A Fetus Doesn't Need Its Own Medical Marijuana License, Oklahoma Court Says
The ruling means it's not child neglect for a pregnant woman prescribed medical marijuana to use it. But some judges say it should be.

Oklahoma resident Amanda Aguilar was arrested after using marijuana while pregnant. Though Aguilar had a medical marijuana prescription, prosecutors reasoned that her fetus did not. They charged the mother of five with child neglect, a felony.
Now, the state's highest criminal court says prosecutors had no basis to do that.
The ruling should be good news for women who use marijuana to help with morning sickness and other pregnancy ailments. But the opinions in this case make clear that some Oklahoma judges would like to see pregnant marijuana users criminalized.
"The baby has no medical marijuana license," wrote Judge Gary L. Lumpkin in a dissenting opinion.
Even Judge Scott Rowland, who wrote the majority's opinion, stressed that the court does not "condone marijuana use by an expectant mother" and urged Oklahoma lawmakers "to consider an addition to the law making clear when, if ever, the licensed use of marijuana may constitute child neglect."
Aguilar's Arrest Is Not an Isolated Incident
Aguilar isn't the only Oklahoma mother who has been charged for exposing a fetus to marijuana that she was using legally. According to the nonprofit Pregnancy Justice, "at least eight women have been charged under this theory since 2019."
Another Oklahoma mother, Brittany Gunsolus, is one such woman. After her son tested positive for marijuana at birth, she—like Aguilar—was charged with felony child neglect, despite the fact that she also had a medical marijuana prescription and that child welfare workers investigated and deemed her fit.
Gunsolus' lawyers argued that using prescription marijuana while pregnant should be treated just like taking any other prescription drug during pregnancy. But Comanche County prosecutors apparently disagreed. "At a court hearing in Comanche County in August [2023], a prosecutor argued Gunsolus broke the law because her unborn child did not have its own, separate state license to use medical marijuana," The Frontier reported.
With the help of Pregnancy Justice, Gunsolus asked the Oklahoma Supreme Court to hear her case and rule that pregnant marijuana users with a valid medical marijuana license cannot be criminally charged. The Court declined.
Charged With 'a Crime Which Does Not Exist'
Aguilar's case got its day in court thanks to an overzealous Kay County prosecutor.
After being charged with child neglect, Aguilar filed a motion to quash for insufficient evidence, arguing that using medical marijuana while pregnant is not illegal. "There's so many moms that are going to take these charges just because they're terrified," Aguilar told The Frontier. Not her.
A judge granted Aguilar's motion and the case against her was dismissed. But Kay County District Attorney Brian Hermanson pressed on, appealing to Oklahoma's highest criminal court.
On July 18, the Oklahoma Criminal Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Aguilar.
"For us to find that Aguilar's marijuana use, fully authorized by her medical marijuana card, became illegal due to her pregnancy, would require us to rewrite the statutes in a way we simply do not think is appropriate for courts to do," Rowland wrote in the court's opinion, affirming the lower court's granting of Aguilar's motion to quash.
Oklahoma law includes in its definition of child neglect "the failure or omission to protect a child from exposure to…the use, possession, sale, or manufacture of illegal drugs." In Aguilar's charging documents, police say she was guilty of exposing a child to "controlled dangerous substances."
"Thus, the charging document accuses Aguilar of a crime which does not exist," Rowland writes. He points out that controlled dangerous substances and illegal drugs are not synonymous terms, since many controlled substances are legal to possess and use with a prescription. In this case, Aguilar had a prescription for marijuana, which means that she was not possessing or using it illegally.
Under the Influence of Fetal Personhood
In a dissenting opinion, Lumpkin argued that Aguilar's marijuana use should have been illegal because "only [she] has a permit to use it, not her baby." Thus, "the baby's exposure to [Aguilar's] use and possession of marijuana, a Schedule I drug, is illegal."
Judge David B. Lewis takes up a similar theme in his dissent, writing that "a medical marijuana license is certainly not a legal authorization to share, transfer, or distribute marijuana to others who have no license, especially those for whom its use or possession is unauthorized by law." And "who could really doubt that a licensed marijuana consumer would face legal consequences for willfully sharing, distributing, or permitting the unlicensed ingestion of marijuana by children for whose welfare they are responsible?"
Rowland rejects these assertions. By this logic, it would be "unlawful for any expectant mother to ever be prescribed any controlled dangerous substance by any doctor," he points out.
But the majority does not seem convinced that it should be legal for pregnant women to use marijuana with a prescription. "We understand [Lumpkin's] obvious desire to discourage marijuana use by pregnant women," Rowland writes at one point, asking the Legislature "to address the problem."
And both the majority and dissenting opinions are steeped in the language of fetal personhood, a concept that sees the fetus as a person with legal rights separate from the mother carrying it.
Fetal personhood is most often invoked as a justification for banning abortion. But it also can be used to justify all sorts of restrictions on pregnant women or criminal penalties for those who do anything that the state says isn't in a fetus' best interests. It's grounds for everything from charges against women who do drugs while pregnant (something Rowland generally endorses, writing that "an expectant mother who exposes her unborn child to illegal methamphetamine could be convicted of child neglect") to punishing a pregnant woman for getting shot because she put herself in harms' way.
It also paves the way to more closely monitoring all pregnant women and regulating a broad range of their activities.
Those who want to criminalize all pregnant drug users are not only waxing that slippery slope but also failing to act in the best interest of children. Fear of arrest generally isn't going to stop someone who's addicted to drugs from using, but it might stop them from seeking substance abuse treatment, receiving proper prenatal care, or delivering in a hospital—things that might compound any ill effects of prenatal drug exposure.
And the matter gets even more murky when we're looking specifically at marijuana.
Unlike the ill effect of excessive alcohol during pregnancy—which is well documented—the effect of the use of marijuana during pregnancy is much less certain. There's no clear evidence that it produces any negative effects, and many studies purporting to find as much suffer from serious flaws (like marijuana-using mothers in their sample also using other drugs, including cocaine.) Meanwhile, many women report that using marijuana while pregnant helps with morning sickness and other pregnancy maladies.
As with so many issues concerning women's bodies, decisions about marijuana use during pregnancy are best left up to pregnant women and their doctors.
Let's hope Oklahoma legislators agree.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Maybe an education campaign to teach fetuses the risks of being a fetus?
https://x.com/restoreorderusa/status/1818359956615344250?t=vlZ5DcX5RuaySkDenZHvtw&s=19
Guy faces year in jail because he told someone he was "acting like a (n word)." Disorderly conduct + hate crime modifier.
This is happening in America, not Europe or Canada. We used to have an understanding that offensive speech was protected in America. Not anymore it seems.
[Link]
There’s no physical difference between a pregnant mother consuming drugs or alcohol and giving them directly to her newborn.
Why is there a legal difference?
What do you base the contention that the effects of alcohol and THC are identical on a fetus? This sort of "reefer Madness" inspired misinformation is why so many minor drug users are in prison today. Get some facts before spouting anything this stupid. Please....just cite one study supporting this "fact" that you just made up. Just one. We'll wait.
It’s called logic fuckwit.
The physical effect of chemicals in the bloodstream are logically identical one day before birth as one day after.
And science.
“ Available studies on marijuana exposure in pregnancy were reviewed and support some degree of developmental disruption, including an increased risk of fetal growth restriction and adverse neurodevelopmental consequences.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7090387/
“Specific drugs have been linked to specific problems in the baby. These problems may include:
Heroin and other opioids, including methadone, can cause serious withdrawal in the baby. Some symptoms can last as long as 4 to 6 months. Seizures may also occur in babies born to opioid users.
Amphetamines can lead to low birth weight and premature birth.
Cocaine use can cause poor growth. It also makes complications such as placental abruption more likely.
Marijuana use may cause lower birth weight, as well as later learning and behavior problems.
Alcohol use can have major effects on babies before and after birth. Growth during pregnancy and after birth is slowed. It can also cause certain problems of the head and face, heart defects, learning problems, and mental problems.
Cigarette smoking may cause low birth weight. It may also put babies at higher risk for premature birth and stillbirth.”
https://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=neonatal-abstinence-syndrome-90-P02387
"Marijuana may cause..."
Well, does it or doesn't it? So there isn't enough evidence to even attribute causality (ie "can")? And you still want to make it criminal?
What a nanny fuckwit you are
Drinking and driving may cause accidents. Are you a fan?
Possessing personal nuclear weapons only may result in the destruction of earth.
In fact drinking while driving DOES result in preventable accidents, just as drug use during pregnancy does result in long and short term suffering of the baby, just not in all cases.
If taking drugs while pregnant isn’t illegal, there will be death and suffering, it’s easily prevented. Punishing irresponsible people doesn’t undo the harm their actions caused.
https://x.com/DissidentSoaps/status/1818300405266399712?t=ZAllp3NEVz8jsj4lbTwnTg&s=19
The QTs are full of leftists cheering this guy going to prison for using a naughty word.
Despite SCOTUS repeatedly ruling there’s no such thing as hate speech, blue states continue to lawfare their political enemies thusly.
There’s no living with these people.
[Link]
Hey, get with the times. My county declared 2nd hand fentanyl smoke 100% safe and effective with no downsides.
Meanwhile, many women report that using marijuana while pregnant helps with morning sickness and other pregnancy maladies.
So does a double martini, up, with a twist.
And abortions.
Wait for the next study, by Dr. S. Dogg.
That helps with anything.
Unlike the ill effect of excessive alcohol during pregnancy—which is well documented—the effect of the use of marijuana during pregnancy is much less certain. There's no clear evidence that it produces any negative effects, and many studies purporting to find as much suffer from serious flaws (like marijuana-using mothers in their sample also using other drugs, including cocaine.)
FYI, don't fall into this trap. Example:
We did a study on the effects of cocaine use on pregnancy, but there were flaws because often times, cocaine-using mothers were also using other drugs, like Marijuana.
Why is that a trap?
It's a construction that can be applied to every potential cause leaving an effect but nothing responsible for it.
That's basically it. I wouldn't begin to suggest that the study is correct, or those flaws weren't actually flaws. But what I find interesting is we assume the cocaine part of the equation is the harmful part, and therefore the marijuana part of the equation is automatically off the hook.
Both may be harmful.
There’s also that stupid, might I even say, excessive, “excessive” in there.
The effects of excessive water are well documented.
The effects of excessive government are well documented.
The effects of excessive verbiage are well documented.
ETA: And note it's only excessive alcohol, but pot is just pot. Stop using words you don’t understand, ENB.
Fetal personhoodColored personhood is most often invoked as a justification for banningabortionslavery.If she can kill it, she can get it high - - - - - - - - -
Is that like offering the firing squad target a last smoke?
Those two situations are not comparable.
If you kill the fetus there is no possibility of it suffering for 80 years from the damage done by the act of killing it.
If you ingest a chemical to get "high" while you're pregnant there is the possibility that will cause damage to the fetus in a way that cause the baby, when born, to suffer for their entire long life from the damage.
But its just a clump of cells, not a person.
Unlike the ill effect of excessive alcohol during pregnancy—which is well documented—the effect of the use of marijuana during pregnancy is much less certain.
So let's cross our fingers and hope for the best, I guess? (Also, I LOVE how you drug addicts always try to use alcohol as a comparative subject, but try to get it both ways. "Well alcohol is legal, so why shouldn't drug use be? It's the same thing!" But then when it's inconvenient to your degenerate stoner narrative, "Well, we know alcohol is dangerous during pregnancy, but that's not the same thing!" lol, maybe if you worthless junkies put down the crack pipe once in awhile, you'd realize your cognitive dissonance.)
Look, this isn't complicated. In no way shape or form is marijuana - medical or otherwise - EVER a "necessary medication". It's not like friggin' insulin or LTC medicines or an epipen. You're taking it because you want to get high. That's it. Any claim to any other reason is pissing down our backs and telling us it's raining.
That is not the same as this: By this logic, it would be "unlawful for any expectant mother to ever be prescribed any controlled dangerous substance by any doctor," he points out.
Nonsense. There are PLENTY of prescription drugs that have been thoroughly tested and deemed either harmless or an acceptable risk to fetal life. Antihistamines, antacids, tylenol, etc. They even categorize them as safe, risky, and dangerous. Heck they do the same thing with certain foods - there's certain fish you should avoid completely while pregnant, while plenty of other foods that should be encouraged because they're "healthy for the baby."
The "logic" asserted here is idiotic. It attempts to skirt the question that we don't really know with a reasonable degree of certainty whether taking bong rips is safe for a baby in utero, because the people asking it - jonesing for their high - desperately want the answer to be no. Common sense, however, suggests probably IS dangerous for the baby, but it's not up the the Court to answer that question.
But the opinions in this case make clear that some Oklahoma judges would like to see pregnant marijuana users criminalized.
And what this article SHOULD have been about is an admiration for the Courts and their judicial restraint, and them unequivocally saying "This is a legislative decision. Period." Because they clearly were against what they were ruling on, but they weren't going to step in and declare their authority on the subject. That is to be commended. That's how Courts are supposed to work.
And the buildout of the article should have been on emphasizing the need for the Oklahoma Legislature to take up the issue.
Instead, as is her wont, ENB instead decided to extol the virtues of *checks notes* using recreational drugs while pregnant. Because like, if they're not getting high they might not take their prenatal vitamins or whatever. *eyeroll* And, of course, unsubtly intimating her loathing of considering the in utero as humans. Highly vulnerable ones, at that.
“Well alcohol is legal, so why shouldn’t drug use be? It’s the same thing!” But then when it’s inconvenient to your degenerate stoner narrative, “Well, we know alcohol is dangerous during pregnancy, but that’s not the same thing!”
I don’t think you have this quite right. The argument is: compared to marijuana, alcohol is more dangerous in terms of addiction, the behavior it causes and its health effects, yet it is legal which defies common sense and a sense of justice. That’s my degenerate stoner narrative at least.
This is why the stoners should really just avoid the comparison all together. It's apples and zebras.
In either case, it seems to be not worth the risk.
But if an expectant person wants to be saddled with a potential water head , smoke em if ya got em I say.
Fair enough.
This is why the stoners should really just avoid the comparison all together. It’s apples and zebras.
I think you're missing the point. The government is the one lumping them all in together under the mantle of "controlled substances." By every rationale for why any controlled substance is illegal, alcohol should also be illegal.
This is unrelated to the decades of unrelenting attempts to find something harmful about marijuana, all of which have failed.
By every rationale for why any controlled substance is illegal, alcohol should also be illegal.
Not every rationale. Just the ones that are convenient to the stoner narrative. When they're not, they just take the opposite position and pay no mind to the dissonance.
Like ENB did here.
Not every rationale. Just the ones that are convenient to the stoner narrative. When they’re not, they just take the opposite position and pay no mind to the dissonance.
What rationales for legal alcohol do not apply to cannabis? I’m curious.
Because if alcohol was discovered tomorrow, I have no doubt it would be Schedule I because it has no medical uses and a high potential for abuse. Same with nicotine. They're only legal because when they're used by respectable white people, so they got a pass when laws were being written.
edit: remove that first "when"
when they’re used by respectable white people, so they got a pass
There it is. lmao.
You wokes really have no capacity for this sort of thing, do you. It's always just "omg white people bad" for anything and everything.
What rationales for legal alcohol do not apply to cannabis? I’m curious.
Apparently the "safe for use during pregnancy" ones. But don't feel bad for not noticing despite its repeated emphasis. You're probably high as a kite and not thinking straight, am I right?
Drug laws were explicitly racist in their conception. The first laws against opium were made to target Chinese (who were also targets of the first immigration laws). The first laws against marijuana and cocaine were made to target Blacks and Mexicans.
Alcohol and tobacco got grandfathered in because those were the white people drugs.
That’s just historical fact.
By the way, you didn't respond to my question. What are the reasons for keeping cannabis illegal that don't apply to alcohol? Or, conversely, what are the reasons to keep alcohol legal that don't apply to cannabis?
I'm hoping you can answer without being a dick.
Drug laws were explicitly racist in their conception.
lmao, stop. I'm going to fall off my chair lol.
You guys really have nothing but oMg RaCiSm in your deck, do you.
Racism was normal, accepted, and institutionalized until only sixty or so years ago. That’s just a fact. But laws made with that in mind still persist.
Do you know the story of minimum wage? It was created when eugenics was all the rage. Lawmakers and white union people didn’t like competition from blacks and feebs who would work for lower wages. So they created a wage floor. This way undesirables would starve to death because they couldn’t get a job. This was before welfare. Look it up.
I just criticized minimum wage. Strange for one of "them".
Are you talking about bad (white superiority) racism? Or good (POC superiority) racism? Or the universal human treatment of outsiders that emerged in every era on every continent racism?
But laws made with that in mind still persist.
Name them.
Lawmakers and white union people didn’t like competition from blacks
It's OK, you can just call them Democrats.
This way undesirables would starve to death because they couldn’t get a job. This was before welfare. Look it up.
Yes, I'm quite familiar with the left-wing Marxist approach to equity in its earliest forms, manifested by The New Deal. There's not a single educated and rational person in America who doesn't acknowledge, without hesitation, that FDR was the worst president in American history for precisely this reason.
He hated minorities more than Hitler hated Jews. He was a prime voice in the Eugenics movement. We all know this. This is recorded history. But unlike Hitler's desire to exterminate the undesirables, FDR - who was far more evil than Hitler - machinated for a perpetual dependency class, exploiting the people Hitler (and Stalin) would have just killed outright, knowing that "once the people discover they can vote themselves money," the Republic would be his.
Honestly, no lie - for all those folks who entertain the idea of a time machine and going back to stop Hitler to redeem history and make the future a better place? Forget about it. Skip past him and Stalin, and go c-block FDR's dad on date night.
Name them.
I just did. Minimum wage. Drugs. Immigration.
It’s OK, you can just call them Democrats.
That was generations ago. Doesn’t matter which party did it.
You Jesse or ML?
You think minimum wage exists to... perpetuate racism.
Put down the bong dude.
I guess we need to assume history, and laws, did not exist before, what, 1800?
"what are the reasons to keep alcohol legal?"
We tried banning it, and that ban did far more damage to our society than all the drunks and binge drinkers ever had. But I truncated Sarc's question?
"what are the reasons to keep alcohol legal that don’t apply to cannabis?"
Idiots and politicians (redundant!) thought that somehow Pot Prohibition would have different results. They were wrong. Anyone who can look at the last 80 years and not see that is either power-mad and should be kept from having power over other humans at all costs, or so mentally dysfunctional that he or she should never hold any position of responsibility.
You aren't sounding like a degenerate stoner but like someone who actually is in command of facts
Common sense, however, suggests probably IS dangerous for the baby
Why?
Because THC/CBD interferes with brain development, disrupts neural activity, and screws with oxidative levels and hormones. We know this for young/adult humans already. And we've seen verified evidence of this in breastfeeding as well.
We also know that it crosses the placenta. Meaning, that the drugs ARE making their way to the baby - and we can impute that they do the same destructive things, likely to a much worse degree since they're still in development, that they do to anyone else.
And even if we didn't know ANY of that - there's STILL nothing medically redeeming about marijuana. Nothing. It is a drug that is used for the singular purpose of getting high. That's it. It does NOTHING beneficial for any bodily system. There is no upside to it for the user, and by extension for the baby. Only downsides.
And even if we didn’t know ANY of that – there’s STILL nothing medically redeeming about marijuana. Nothing. It is a drug that is used for the singular purpose of getting high. That’s it. It does NOTHING beneficial for any bodily system. There is no upside to it for the user, and by extension for the baby. Only downsides.
I'm not going to defend using any substances while pregnant. That defies common sense. However you say that it gets users high then claim there is no upside. From their point of view, that is the upside. Also there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that heavy drinkers consume much less alcohol when they use cannabis. I would call that an upside because the booze causes much more harm to the body.
Because THC/CBD interferes with brain development, disrupts neural activity, and screws with oxidative levels and hormones. We know this for young/adult humans already. And we’ve seen verified evidence of this in breastfeeding as well…
there’s STILL nothing medically redeeming about marijuana. Nothing.
Show your citations, boomer.
Obviously, you’ve never seen someone use cannabis with cancer or after chemo.
Yea, that’s called pain relief. Again, not medically necessary. And there are plenty of alternatives well-known to be safe to fetal development.
But the lmao lol of “medical marijuana” is in the gaslighting. We all know there isn’t anything medical about it. It’s just about getting high and feeling good. Trying to make it seem “medical” is just you all lying to yourselves and rationalizing recreational drug use as somehow reasonable.
In this case, at the expense of another life in utero who gets to suffer the consequences of your pathetic addictions.
Show your citations, boomer.
I mean, dude, just google it.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33551817/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7027431/
https://www.cdc.gov/cannabis/health-effects/brain-health.html
https://www.iflscience.com/new-study-reveals-cannabis-interferes-development-brain-connections-37883
That’s like the top four links bro. It screws with the brain – especially in developmental stages. No positives are noted, just its degenerative effects.
Pharmaceutical sponsored studies disparaging MJ. Color me surprised. Just follow the money.
For the record, I'm not talking about fetuses, I'm talking about adults using medical marijuana.
I get it, you don't like it, but to say we all KNOW there isn't anything medical about it has never watched someone dying of cancer use cannabis to vastly improve their quality of life. It goes way beyond pain management. It improves appetite after chemo. It allows them to function whereas opioids just create zombies. Cancer patients in remission have to be weaned off opioids, not the case with cannabis. Cancer patients OD on opioids, OD's NEVER happen with cannabis. NEVER.
I can tell you had to lose someone close to you to learn this, and I'm sorry for your loss.
I get it, you don’t like it, but to say we all KNOW there isn’t anything medical about it has never watched someone dying of cancer use cannabis to vastly improve their quality of life.
*singsongy voice* That’s not meeeedical. It's juuuuust gettin' hiiiigh.
So does a poor diet.
Right, so your position is that pregnant women should smoke drugs and eat poorly, regardless of its effects on her baby, is that it?
Don't be a Jesse.
I don't know what that means.
Look - should pregnant women be smoking drugs, yes or no?
I don’t know what that means.
It means you're being a dick and arguing against things the person never said.
Look – should pregnant women be smoking drugs, yes or no?
I lean towards no. However government should only get involved if there is real harm being done. I'm not a big fan of the precautionary principle.
arguing against things the person never said.
I didn't argue anything. I asked if that was his position.
I lean towards no. However government should only get involved if there is real harm being done.
There is clear evidence that harm is being done. The Courts intimated heavily towards this fact, but restrained themselves knowing it's not their place to make that determination.
I asked if that was his position.
Sure.
There is clear evidence that harm is being done.
I'm skeptical about evidence related to cannabis, because for the last fifty years the only research that has been legally allowed is research that shows harms. That creates an incentive to show harm, because that's how you as a researcher gets paid. Same principle as climate change research, of which I am also skeptical.
I just criticized climate change zealots. Pretty strange for a "woke".
I’m skeptical about evidence
Yea, I know. You're skeptical about anything that challenges your narrative. Facts really get in the way of keeping and advocating dumb stupid social/political/cultural/ethical/moral positions, doesn't it.
At the end of the day, you don't want evidence. You want politicized science. That which is convenient towards the agenda you'd like to push.
"Don't smoke crack."
"But I want to smoke crack."
"Here's all the science behind why you shouldn't smoke crack."
"Yea, I'm skeptical about that."
"The angry sun god is baking the planet."
"I am against baking the planet and want to show my fealty to the sun god."
"Here's all the science why the planet isn't baking and your sun god isn't real."
"Yea, I'm skeptical about that."
You're not a skeptic, sarc. You're a willfully ignorant dolt. You are a slave to politicized science so long as it affirms the things you want to believe.
I'm starting to think you're a Jesse sock. And a desperate one at that.
You seem to be quite skilled at believing in nonsense while ignoring facts that don't fit with your narrative.
No, the point is that people and governments should mind their own business unless there is real, demonstrable harm to another person.
This is the part where you deny that the in utero are people, isn't it.
Don't be a Jesse.
Again, not an argument. Just an anticipation of where he's taking his.
Zeb is a good guy who will be very clear about what his arguments are. No need to put words into his mouth to argue against.
That's why I asked him where he was going.
You're not very good at this.
What additional taxes will you pay to lock up every pregnant woman who smokes, drinks alcohol, uses drugs, or eats poorly? We are probably talking about doubling the prison population in the US.
Obviously, the fetus should be prosecuted for using marijuana without a prescription.
Like it had a choice.
Like that matters anymore. It possessed illegal drugs, so lock it up.
Come on, man, no immigrants are illegal.
Having children means that there are certain legal restrictions on what the parent can do that may affect their children's welfare, because the children are their own individual beings and not the parent's property, to be disposed of as the parent wishes.
Again, we have this notion that Marijuana is a wonder medicine that cannot possibly have negative side effects.
we have this notion that Marijuana is a wonder medicine that cannot possibly have negative side effects
And we have this notion because no significant negative side effects have ever been found.
Should we also pass laws against pregnant women eating fish?
My state issues advisories against pregnant women eating certain kinds of fish, or how much they should eat. I suppose it's conceivable that a woman could be prosecuted for ignoring them if something went wrong with the baby as a result.
Well, smoking isn't good for you and being stoned all the time is counterproductive for a lot of people. But aside from that there isn't much that's been shown to be particularly harmful. I agree there is a place for others to get involved if parental actions amount to real abuse. But I want to see some solid evidence that it is sufficient harm to warrant interfering with people's private lives.
Whichwould be fine, but that is not what ENB is arguing.
The ruling means it's not child neglect for a pregnant woman prescribed medical marijuana to use it. But some judges say it should be.
It is child neglect to intentionally ingest substances that can harm your unborn child. Except abortifacients, then there never was a child, just a clump of cells.
You may have a point. At what point is she legally carrying a child? There are some who say that it isn't a child until it's born. If that is the case then she isn't guilty of "child endangerment" because there is NO child. I'm not sure of Oklahoma's laws on abortion, but, they may be the answer here. An example would be that if an abortion is legal, say, up to 24 weeks, then before 24 weeks it isn't child endangerment, but after 24 weeks it is.
It doesn't seem to me like the people saying it should be outlawed are in the Pro-Choice crowd.
That's because they're already in the death cult.
That said, it is stupid to outlaw this while there is no evidence but the evidence (for or against) of potential harms needs to be generated.
Which begs the question what if you don’t ingest substances like vitamins which can harm the fetus? Is that neglect, a bad diet?
Yeah, that's the thing. You need to be careful here. There are tons of things that people think are bad for kids (including homeschooling and going to church if you ask the right people). It's not a good idea to open the door to more and more interference in how people bear and raise their kids.
STATES RANKED BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
(includes territories; 52 jurisdictions ranked)
HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA
Oklahoma 41
COLLEGE DEGREE
Oklahoma 45
ADVANCED DEGREE
Oklahoma 48
SUPERSTITIOUS SLACK-JAWS
Oklahoma 5
BIGOTED CLINGERS
Oklahoma 3
Arthur Kirkland fuckhead ranking: 2
Carry on, clingers.
So far as your betters permit.
Thank you for your continuing compliance with our preferences, and for getting your asses kicked in the culture war.
You’re nobody’s better Artie.
Eat a bullet, Snirkland.
It's no coincidence of course that the pregnancy hawks mentioned here are all men--who will never, ever endure the misery of morning sickness. But hey, "Pregnant, barefoot, and in the kitchen" might soon enough become law, as it was in John Calvin's Geneva.
Pregnant, barefoot, in the kitchen, and vomiting.
You're a dishonest and retarded piece of shit.
Take your pill gutter trash.
I know that every time I feel nauseous I just want to smoke a whole bunch of crack.
Well, I mean, I want to smoke the crack regardless of whether I'm nauseous or not. The nausea is just the excuse I use to rationalize it.
Boy I sure do love that crack.
I know that every time I feel nauseous I just want to smoke a whole bunch of crack.
The fact that you keep equating marijuana and crack shows that you don't have enough knowledge on this subject for your opinion that it should be banned to be taken seriously.
Marijuana has been demonstrated to be one of the most harmless, least addictive substances known to humanity that has a wide array of legitimate medical uses including (famously) getting people through chemo. The fact that you've decided that this doesn't meet your personal definition of 'medical' doesn't mean a lot given your demonstrated ignorance of what different drugs do.
Says the guy who calls himself "square = circle." lol.
If it's being used recreationally, then no, there's no meaningful difference between marijuana and crack. Or heroin. Or meth. Or fentanyl. Or cocaine. And slapping the prefix "medical" on it doesn't change that - because at the end of the day, they're all just being used to chase a high.
Tell that to my 71 year old cousin who smokes to keep from bazooka barfing after his chemotherapy, you peckerhead fascist.
Is he self-medicating following treatment, or is he under direct physician supervision to control intake while it’s administered and until after the high wears off and then not allowed to take any home?
Because if it’s the former, then he’s just getting high to feel good instead of bad, and using “medical” as an excuse. And, really, what does it matter what he’s using to do it in that case – whether it’s marijuana, fentanyl, oxy, heroin, or whatever else.
People keep trying to bring up chemo like it’s supposed to make recreational drug use more sympathetic. But at the end of the day, what’s the difference between that and stubbing my toe? Gosh, it’s really unpleasant and I don’t like how I feel right now – guess I’ll get high to abate that! That’ll make it “medical!”
*eyeroll*
You feel free to CC him on this reply. Because I WILL tell him that. I'll tell him straight to his face.
The problem with the charges is that a fetus isn’t legally a person and has no rights. That’s the entire basis for legal abortions. If abortion isn’t murder using cannabis isn’t neglect.
But if the pregnancy results in a live birth, then a person exists who could have been harmed by the expectant mother.
a fetus isn’t legally a person and has no rights. That’s the entire basis for legal abortions.
No, it isn’t. The basis for the legality of abortion is that the pregnant woman does not cease to be person with the right to control her what goes on inside her own body when she becomes pregnant.
Well, the basis for legality is that some people wrote the laws that way and got them passed (or previously because the court said so). But I think you have the right philosophical argument.
Technically the fetus isn't inside the woman. You can reach up there and touch it.
So, there's no such thing as rape?
When a law says that a person isn’t a person, it’s wrong.
Fuck off slaver.
Even the law that defines the word "person"?
>The ruling should be good news for women who use marijuana to help with morning sickness and other pregnancy ailments.
*That's* your takeaway ENB?
Not the whole - the mother would need to get a separate prescription for the child *for any prescription medication*? Just 'this allows uterus-havers who choose to not abort their clump of cells to continue to use marijuana'?
You never know when a woman of child-bearing age might be pregnant. To really protect the 'fetal persons' you need to legislate that periodically all the women of child-bearing age must submit pregnancy tests to the government at least once a month. Then if they are pregnant and have used any drug that might harm a fetus during that month, prosecutors can jail them until they give birth for the protection of the fetus. That'll do it. There are cases that where this has been done already.
https://reason.com/2022/09/09/this-alabama-woman-was-jailed-for-3-months-because-she-smoked-pot-while-pregnant/
Proactive monitoring of the incubator-humans is the only way to really protect those zygotes.