If this bill passes it will be child abuse to possess mj with a child in your home

[FlyLikeAnEagle]

Here we go again.......


Proposed legislation cites federal law in defining when a child is endangered by a caregiver's use or possession of drugs, potentially trumping Colorado law and making it illegal to possess, smoke or grow pot near children or in their homes.

Senate Bill 278, which was introduced Thursday and assigned to the Senate Health and Human Services Committee, would create a legal definition of a drug-endangered child in the context of abuse and neglect.

Under the proposal, any child whose well-being is endangered by the use, possession, distribution or manufacture of a controlled substance could be a victim of child abuse or neglect.

That definition could include the use and possession of marijuana, which is legal under Colorado law, but still considered illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act, which the bill cites.

Colorado's passage of Amendment 64 in November legalized the use and limited possession of the drug by people 21 and older. It also allows people to grow six plants in their homes.

The bill is intended to create consistency in practice between law enforcement, child welfare services and other agencies, said one of its sponsors, Sen. Linda Newell, D-Littleton.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_23065986/bill-introduced-colorado-senate-define-drug-endangered-children

​

 

[chef c]

Fuck those fucking fuckers. I knew that we would be seeing shit like this pop up. Even if this bites the dust it won't be the end of politicians taking shots at the community. Fuck the sponcers and god dammit, why the fuck did it have to be legal again? Didn't we have a good thing going w the red card? Now its on everyones radar and those greedy ass representatives are going to take advantage of it (us) to forward their career in politics. Chef shakes his head in unfortunate disappointment. Now what did I do w that time machine??

 

[Jus Naturale]

For those interested: http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2013a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/89713CEDC65825EE87257B2F00530486?Open&file=278_01.pdf

After reading the short 4 pages, it may not be as bad as it sounds. What really concerns me is the child's access thing. Will that mean that I can no longer keep prescription medicine in the medicine cabinet/mirror thing, which doesn't have a lock? What about the kid's prescription diaper cream?

 

[420circuit]

No problem, if you have kids just lock it up, no big deal. Just like the booze, bet yours is in a cupboard over the fridge where they can't reach it. But as far as laws go, it is none of the gov's business. I doubt that there will be any citations or issues unless the situation is bad and a hazard already, so the access law could get dragged out to hammer the parents. Just take care of your kids and all is fine, like it is now for 99.99% of us. They are over-reaching again so as to exert control. Fucking fuckers are fucking with the fucking laws to secure their place in the world. Fuckers.

 

[chef c]

Hahaha, ya, those fucks.

 

[DankInMyBrain]

Fkn chef mad love to u dawg you tell it like it is .

 

[remyaz0]

Itll be used primarily as a weapon in divorce and CPS custody cases but you could always get fucked by nosy religious neighbor. Keep it secret, dont change anything because its legal... you wouldn't brew beer with children access and i bet there is laws against it? Its common sense taken to the extreme and should be reworked a lot imo.

 

[FlyLikeAnEagle]

Itll be used primarily as a weapon in divorce and CPS custody cases but you could always get fucked by nosy religious neighbor. Keep it secret, dont change anything because its legal... you wouldn't brew beer with children access and i bet there is laws against it? Its common sense taken to the extreme and should be reworked a lot imo.

So basically you're saying its legal but keep it quiet because you could get in trouble?

 

[FlyLikeAnEagle]

For those interested: http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2013a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/89713CEDC65825EE87257B2F00530486?Open&file=278_01.pdf

After reading the short 4 pages, it may not be as bad as it sounds. What really concerns me is the child's access thing. Will that mean that I can no longer keep prescription medicine in the medicine cabinet/mirror thing, which doesn't have a lock? What about the kid's prescription diaper cream?

Sounds pretty bad to me.

(44.7) "DRUG-ENDANGERED CHILD" MEANS A CHILD:
21 (a) WHOSE HEALTH OR WELFARE IS ENDANGERED OR THREATENED
22 AS A RESULT OF THE USE, POSSESSION, DISTRIBUTION, OR MANUFACTURE,
23 OR THE ATTEMPTED USE, POSSESSION, DISTRIBUTION, OR MANUFACTURE,
24 OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED IN THE FEDERAL
25 "CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT", 21 U.S.C. SEC. 801 ET SEQ., IN THE
26 PRESENCE OF A CHILD, ON THE PREMISES WHERE A CHILD IS FOUND, OR
27 WHERE A CHILD RESIDES.

 

[Jus Naturale]

Sounds pretty bad to me.

(44.7) "DRUG-ENDANGERED CHILD" MEANS A CHILD:
21 (a) WHOSE HEALTH OR WELFARE IS ENDANGERED OR THREATENED
22 AS A RESULT OF THE USE, POSSESSION, DISTRIBUTION, OR MANUFACTURE,
23 OR THE ATTEMPTED USE, POSSESSION, DISTRIBUTION, OR MANUFACTURE,
24 OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED IN THE FEDERAL
25 "CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT", 21 U.S.C. SEC. 801 ET SEQ., IN THE
26 PRESENCE OF A CHILD, ON THE PREMISES WHERE A CHILD IS FOUND, OR
27 WHERE A CHILD RESIDES.

There are at least two elements that must exist: (1) endangered or threatened welfare, and (2) the controlled substance under the CSA. There is also an element of causation (i.e, the controlled substance must cause the danger or threat). This is basically unchanged from the prior law, but broadens the scope of covered "controlled substances." It does not, however, affect its applicability to mj, which was already listed (under Colo. Rev. Stat. 18-18-102(5), which was the reference this language this section would replace).

The second clause (after the language you quoted) is what concerns me. "THE ACCESSIBILITY TO THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE BY A CHILD MAY ESTABLISH ENDANGERMENT AND ENDANGERMENT MAY ALSO BE ESTABLISHED BY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN A CHILD'S HEALTH OR WELFARE IS THREATENED BY THE DRUG ACTIVITY[.]" "Accessible" isn't defined and is clearly subject to abuse.

In a similar vein, this very may well violate disability rights laws if it's passed, such as the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, but that's another matter!

 

[remyaz0]

If you have anything to lose for at least the next 10 years or so id keep it out of sight out of mind and pretend its completely illegal, if you have nothing to lose grow 10 foot trees in your back yard. But, just like if you were growing illegally if you do it out in the open someone might steal it, report it, sabotage it, etc, etc. So do what ya want, but if you do it openly it makes you a target. This law makes it much easier to take down people who have targets on them, think it will have to be your kids who have access? I wonder about that...