Posted on 01/17/2003 8:01:41 AM PST by robertpaulsen
Parents in the high-desert say it's not what they expected their six year old' to learn in school, but police say teachers at Yucca Valley Elementary noticed one of their first graders doing a show-and-tell with marijuana they say he brought to school. The boy's parents are under arrest for child endangerment.
In elementary school, kids are thinking about recess and what's for lunch. You don't think drugs are even in the picture. But yesterday, police say drugs were at school, brought there by a first grader.
It's not what you'd ever expect a six year old to bring to school, a bag of marijuana, a pipe to smoke it in, and a lighter. But police say a first grader at Yucca Valley Elementary had all three of these things on campus, showing them off to his young classmates
Jennifer Whittemore's son Caleb is seven years old. Too young, she thought, to understand what marijuana is. Now she says it's a topic she's going to have to tackle
“I've warned my kids, but they don't know what it looks like. He would think it was candy.”
Police say a teacher found the boy with the drugs Tuesday morning, and quickly took them away and called the San Bernardino Sheriff's Department. Sgt. Fred Gonzales says the 6 year old knew what the drugs were, and told them exactly where he had found them.
“He told police he picked the marijuana up at his home,” says Sgt. Gonzales.
After police interviewed the boy, they came here, where they say they found even more drug paraphernalia inside the home.
The boy's father, Douglas Ballard, and his live-in girlfriend, Heather Peterson, were arrested for willful cruelty and child endangerment. And police say they've been to their home before to search for drugs. Both are now behind bars, on $100,000 bail.
As for the boy, he is now living with relatives.
We did speak with school officials, but they did not want to comment on the incident.
So here actuall harm was done. You have made a great case for why we should have a war on guns.
You've decided to ignore the point of my posting which was, contrary to your statement, there are worse fates than becoming a ward of the state. And that we should intervene in these cases before actual harm is done.
I can understand why you ignored my points. You wouldn't know what to say to the parents of Kayla Rolland.
And later that day,uncontrolable ,hysterical laughter could be heard coming from the Teacher's Lounge as smoke come rolling out under the door as the pizza delivery guy was standing outside.
Much the same as you ignored my points in my previous post to you. All you could get out of my post was that it was my opinion that becoming a ward of the state was not a good thing. However, just to clarify for you, I do believe that there are fates worse than death. That was not even a point but more of an opinion, but you still decided not to address any of my points.
"And that we should intervene in these cases before actual harm is done."
And so what intervention are you proposing should have been done here?. It would seem to me, because the main culprit of the story was a gun, that you are proposing that we should get rid of guns. I mean since your previous post concerning the posted article was that because a child was exposed to marijuana that they were somehow harmed, although no provable harm was present, then it would stand to reason that your point with this story, since a firearm did actual harm, is that we should have a war on firearms.
Perhaps if you ever got around to making a point I would more clearly be able to refute it.
It would be better for the kid and the parents if the kid had sex on the school bus, then they would give him a condom and drop the whole issue to protect kids "privacy".
I made my point in post #37. I stated that it was my point in plain english. I said "That's my point". What could possibly be clearer?
Now, in your post #39, you start rambling about alcohol, prohibition, the constitution, medical marijuana, etc., then finally state, "But to get back to the subject at hand....".
My reponse to your post was the subject at hand. Did you want to talk about something other than the subject at hand? Fine. Maybe we can do that sometime on a relevant thread. But, as you say, back to the subject at hand:
".. because the main culprit of the story was a gun, that you are proposing that we should get rid of guns."
Where did you get that crazy idea? Dedrick Owens could just as easily used a switchblade or a knife or an iron bar to kill his 6-year-old classmate. Why do you insist on turning a child endangerment issue into a gun issue? Trying to stir the pot and change the subject (again)?
The story illustrates what can happen if a child is not removed from an environment which endangers the child. That we should not wait until the child is injured or injures another.
I don't agree with the Libertarian position that a crime needs a victim. Yes, I believe in child endangerment laws. But I also believe in sensible drunk driving laws, speed limits, leash laws for dogs, laws against murder-for-hire, laws against terrorist plots, and a whole bunch of others that don't have victims.
As a conservative, they make sense to me. If someone is shooting a gun at you, are you going to wait until you're shot before you take action? Until you're hit, where's the victim? Stupid Libertarians.
I can tell, which has been my point all along. For the socialist, all you need is a cause.
See ya,
Because they're both mind-altering drugs. Why do you insist on evading my question: "If the kid had come to school with a 6-pack, would you say that was evidence that alcohol harms its users' children?"
Alcohol is more addictive and more deadly than the illegal Schedule I drug marijuana. If leaving the latter laying around for a 6-year-old child to find is child endangerment, then isn't leaving the former laying around for a 6-year-old child to find even greater child endangerment?
Is alcohol dangerous in the hands of a 6-year-old? Of course. But so is liquid drano, a switchblade, sulphuric acid, a gun, and a whole host of legal products.
What is your hangup with alcohol, for crying out loud?
I see nothing in post 40 that supports your claim; please elaborate.
What is your hangup with alcohol
It's a testing ground for Drug Warriors' professed principles.
If you can't (or won't) see the increased risk to a 6-year-old posed by a guardian engaged in an illegal, and dangerous, activity, them I'm the last person to explain it to you.
Increased risk from dangerous activities is obvious; what is not obvious is how an activity becomes dangerous simply by being illegal. Were Soviet readers of illegal dissident literature endangering their kids?
I have no idea. Were the parents drinking alcohol at the time?
But I do know that the parents in the article (remember, the article?) were endangering their kids by their illegal activity.
I have no idea.
Then I''l help you out: of course they weren't---any more than the parents in the article endangered their kid.
But I do know that the parents in the article (remember, the article?) were endangering their kids by their illegal activity.
You "know" it but you have yet to provide any support for your "knowledege."
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.