Posted on 05/07/2008 5:22:15 AM PDT by MoreGovLess
The mother of a two-year-old Wisconsin boy shared a marijuana blunt with her child as friends laughed, filmed the child smoking, and asked, "Hey buddy, are you stoned?" Krystle Leigh Weber, 20, was charged yesterday along with two male friends with pot possession and contributing to the delinquency of a minor (Weber was also hit with a child neglect rap, also a misdemeanor).
Obviously, a two year old smoking anything or ingesting mind altering drugs is ALWAYS terribly wrong. When they showed it on the news, they had the reaction of a mother, expressing her horror, sitting in an ice cream parlor with oversized servings for herself and two daughters, all of whom were incredibly obese. And they were portrayed as the "good" mother and kids.
Again, don;t get mne wrong, this idiot stoner mom did a terrible thing, but I wonder, which mother is causing more long term damage and taking more years and quality of life from her kids? The irony and hypocrisy in the media's framing of this story is really interesting.
Personally, I'd be as much concerned anout the tobacco in the blunt as the marijuana.
Anyone else notice this?
Just more trash that I probably support.
The mother needs to be stoned. With large rocks.
“(Weber was also hit with a child neglect rap, also a misdemeanor).”
She was hit with a “rap”? Was she hit with a song by Snoop Dog? Does this paper have no editiors or is street slang permissible in a news story?
So, you’re leaning in toward the “lock up fat people” and the “free the drug users” arguments?
Don’t get you wrong? You just suggested that giving your kids ice cream is worse than giving them drugs.
I didn’t get you wrong...you are wrong.
It is not.
Am I? No. Do I think people should try to stay in shape? Only if they want to.
I'll tell you what, if we stop paying each others medicals bills and we stop trying to socialize medicine (which means we each pay for every one else's medical bills), then we'll all stop telling each other how to live.
You want to spark up in the privacy of your home? Go ahead. Want to eat a Big Mac and follow it with an ice cream sundae? Go ahead.
But if you are trying to equate serving ice cream to children (who may or may not be obese) with child abuse, then you are the enemy, a socialist, a dictator. That family can live as they choose. Who knows whether one of them had been diagnosed with cancer and they were celebrating the joy and brevity of life. It is their CHOICE.
Forcing the toxic smoke of a drug into the lungs of an innocent child is criminal and abusive.
If you want an analogy, think of what the Catholic priests have been under fire for. It is a destruction of innocence of those who are not capable of making a mature, rational, ADULT decision.
Where do I say (or even imply) that? Ridiculous!
I do think drug abuse is its own punishment and adults should be free to choose what they care to put in their bodies.
That being said, I favor health insurance that is (in a sense) actuarily fair: if you smoke pot, smoke cigarettes, drink alchol (which I do), are obese (I am a bit chunky but very fit), don’t exercise, etc., your health premiums should reflect that(i.e., be higher). If you abstain, exercise, etc., your reward (other than feeling good) is to enjoy lower premiums.
Simple moral hazard prevention.
My mistake.
We agree.
See my previous post in this thread on incentives and insurance premiums
::::shaking head::::
I sure don't want to pay for your knee surgery because of the damage you did exercising.
“It appears you’ve bought into the anti-American, anti-Western Leftist BS that being fat is a crime against humanity.”
Unfortunately it too often seems to be a crime on FR, not just a leftist thing. Freepers might not want to outlaw obesity, but numerous posters regularly make fun of overweight people. It gets old.
Only if you're wearing spandex.
LOL
Interesting point.
I don’t know how we’d ‘measure’ promiscuity: maybe “tax” STDs somehow?
And I bet exercising has net positive benefit despite injuries.
One more thing: don’t forget government’s role in obesity and ill health. Foods that everyone agrees are good for us, fruits and vegetables, get zero subsidies. Raw materials for unhealthy foods (corn and soybeans, which go to livestock feed, high fructose corn syrup and soybean oil, among other things) get mega-subsidies, distorting the market and incentive structure.
Crap food is cheap, good food is expensive.
Doesn't mean I should pay for your knee replacement because YOU chose to exercise. If you choose to do it, YOU pay for the consequences.
After all, that is the philosophy you were espousing, right?
I don’t need a knee replacement. I eat healthy, excercise regularly. hardly ever visit a doctor.
What do you propose?
Strange crowd today. I cannot believe how your words are being twisted to foster outrage.
If you ever injure yourself while exercizing, you wouldn't expect other insureds to pick up your tab, would you? After all, you CHOSE to exercise, right? (Or are you the arbiter of which choices are acceptable to be subsidized and which aren't?)
What do you propose?
I propose you be consistent in your philosophy.
I’m asking, how what health care system do you propose? Are there incentives? How do they work? Who pays?
Attacking is always easier than proposing...
I’m asking, what health care system do you propose? Are there incentives? How do they work? Who pays?
Attacking is always easier than proposing...
I propose that we stop trying to set ourselves up as arbiters of whose life choices are better when it comes to whose health care will be subsidized by other insureds. Otherwise, only those behaviors that are approved as politically correct (i.e. homosexual sex, promiscuity) will be subsidized, while those that are not approved (i.e. eating more or exercising less than some standard set by some person driven by political correctness) will not be subsidized.
In other words, we either set rates so that no behavior is singled out to pay increased premiums or everyone pays their own health care costs.
Attacking is always easier than proposing.
I see. . .so expecting you to be consistent in your philosophy is 'attacking'? Weird.
“we either set rates so that no behavior is singled out to pay increased premiums or everyone pays their own health care costs.”
Again, which do you propose?
From the age of fifteen until well into my twenties, I used drugs every day--roughly ten years. I will go to my grave regretting those wasted years, regretting all of the foul, evil choices that I made while on drugs.
If you honestly believe that ice cream is more dangerous to a child than drugs, you are without a doubt the most clueless person I have come across today. But fear not! The day is only half gone.
Since I don't want to shut down an entire industry (health insurance), I'd propose that we eliminate the current trend of political correctness driving who gets 'subsidized' and who doesn't and charge rates that subsidize everyone in the same way.
OK, thanks for the reply. You think moral hazard concerns are not sufficiatly important?
Who makes the decision as to what is defined as a 'moral hazard' and how do we ensure those decisions aren't motivated by political correctness? I don't think we can.
I believe the original poster was making a point about obesity.
Is the mother who gives her kid pot worse than the mother whose kid has a BMI of, let’s say 35 or so? People automatically would say the former is much worse, but I honestly think a mom who feeds their children nothing but junk is just as bad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.