Is it just me, or does it seem a little dodgy that there's a law that enables a special charge to be laid against someone who grows marijuana because a child was 'exposed' to the marijuana cultivation?
Now, I can understand it being illegal to expose a kid to the manufacture of certain other drugs- a meth lab comes to mind- but the growing of marijuana? Maybe I'm missing something, not ever having had a massive hydroponics setup growing in my house, but it doesn't actually sound dangerous- more like a horticultural experiment. Unless there is something in there that is actually going to physically harm the child, I think that sounds like a really, really stupid law, just designed to tack another year or two onto the sentence of someone unlucky enough to get busted growing commercial quantities of pot.
4 comments:
Having now worked in Community Services for a while i see what they're getting at. Exposing kids to drug manufacturing(probably what the law is - more general than just pot) isn't good for development, knowing right from wrong and the shady secrecy around it all. Being told 'this is our secret' is pretty unhealthy too. Similarly it gives kids the impression that drugs are ok, even if the says otherwise. I'd be suprised if plenty of kids who grew up with a hydro set in the garage didn't somehow end up pot heads at Weedy at age 14.
Maybe it's because if a kid picked off a bud and ate it, the kid might die (or just end up with a very bad case of the munchies.....)
Phil, your argument about the influence of such a situation on a child makes sense, but I still don't think the law does. I mean, it's a law that seems to be more about the kids' future moral wellbeing... there's no law against someone letting their kid see them hop behind the wheel after a few beers- hell, as far as I know there's no extra charge that can be brought against someone who bashes their spouse in front of their kids as opposed to when the children aren't around. Although in those two examples we're talking about adults engaging in activities that put other peoples' physical wellbeing at risk, and setting an example that the kid *might* follow is probably worse than exposing them to growing a bunch of pot.
It really seems odd for the government to take that kind of extreme moral-guardianship stance on the issue of drugs and nothing else. Or are there similar laws related to other offences?
Drugs are a funny area at law where they go to great lengths to include just about anything to do with them as fulfilling the offence so those involved actually get pinged. I guess what I'm saying is they're often hard to prove so they go to town.
In the ACT Drugs of Dependence act they go so far as to say: cultive, possess, administer, sell, supply, participate in, be knowingly concerned with, advertise, or pass off something that isn't a drug, as a drug...
I see your point though, but in a difficult to prove area, tacking on one of everything is always a good idea so people don't get off on technicalities.
Post a Comment