Mom charged with teaching toddler to smoke pot.

[Deluge Of Sound]

The source:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/09/16/....html?iref=NS1

An Ohio mother has been accused of teaching her 2-year-old daughter to smoke marijuana after prosecutors said she e-mailed to friends a video of the child puffing on a joint.
Jessica Gamble is charged with child endangerment, evidence tampering and "corrupting another with drugs," according to an indictment returned by a grand jury in Cincinnati. The 21-year-old mother could face up to 11 years in prison if convicted on all charges.
Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters told reporters that Gamble was indicted after someone to whom she sent the video reported it to authorities. The girl has been placed in the care of relatives "and is safe today," Julie Wilson, the chief assistant prosecutor for Hamilton County, told HLN's "Prime News" Thursday.
"Obviously, the case is just starting, so we're taking it very, very seriously," Wilson said. "She stands indicted on very serious felony charges. We'll have to see how it all plays out, but we're obviously very concerned about this little girl and we'll do whatever we can to make sure that she's safe."
Attempts to contact a lawyer for Gamble were unsuccessful.

Prosecutors released the grainy mobile phone video after Gamble's indictment this week. On it, the child appears to take a puff from a thickly rolled marijuana cigarette as a woman identified as Gamble laughs and tells her, "Don't blow on it."
When the girl brings the joint to her, the woman asks, "What is that? What is that?" Taking the pot from the child, she chuckles and says, "Bad."

Now, this is clearly, unquestionably, and totally a pathetic excuse for a human being who probably should have never been allowed to procreate in the first place. This woman is too reprehensible to be called... well anything. My vocabulary doesn't contain a word that expresses the severity of my disdain.

But I am a little lost, and so I turn to the minds of TBOT...

What exactly do they mean by charging her with "corrupting another with drugs?" Is this some kind of bassakwards Middle American law/wording that I'm unfamiliar with? What's the justification here? How exactly does one determine than a person has "corrupted another with drugs?"

[sloasdaylight]

My guess is it's similar to corrupting a minor, like when you feed them booze, or weed, but with a stiffer sentence.

[Deluge Of Sound]

I still don't follow that line of logic, unless it suggests that the victim (if you will) is/was too young to be aware of the consequences of his/her actions.

In that case, how do the fluctuating legal limits for, say, imbibing alcohol factor in to the alleged corruption?

[mwbonsall]

"corrupting another with drugs" is probably how the Ohio statute is written. If you look up the Ohio criminal statutes it is probabally self explanitory. Each State has different wording for various crimes.

Mark

[sloasdaylight]

Originally Posted by Deluge Of Sound

I still don't follow that line of logic, unless it suggests that the victim (if you will) is/was too young to be aware of the consequences of his/her actions.

In that case, how do the fluctuating legal limits for, say, imbibing alcohol factor in to the alleged corruption?

I'm almost certain that's what it suggests.

Also, at least here in the States, the minimum purchase age of Booze has been 21 for over 20 years now, the only exception being members of the military, and they're only allowed to drink under the age of 21 while on base.

[Deluge Of Sound]

Originally Posted by mwbonsall

"corrupting another with drugs" is probably how the Ohio statute is written. If you look up the Ohio criminal statutes it is probabally self explanitory. Each State has different wording for various crimes.

Mark

Firstly, thank you for the suggestion.

Secondly, I googled it, and found this:

2925.02 Corrupting another with drugs.
(A) No person shall knowingly do any of the following:

(4) By any means, do any of the following:

(a) Furnish or administer a controlled substance to a juvenile who is at least two years the offender’s junior, when the offender knows the age of the juvenile or is reckless in that regard;

(b) Induce or cause a juvenile who is at least two years the offender’s junior to use a controlled substance, when the offender knows the age of the juvenile or is reckless in that regard;

From here:
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2925.02

Answers my question quite nicely. Thanks again!

[mwbonsall]

You're welcome.

Mark

[sloasdaylight]

Originally Posted by mwbonsall

Your welcome.

Mark

GAH!!!

You're*

Sorry, my writers and english majors for grandparents and father kicked in.

[Deluge Of Sound]

Originally Posted by sloasdaylight

GAH!!!

You're*

Sorry, my writers and english majors for grandparents and father kicked in.

Beat me to it.

Can we all agree that this woman needs to be sterilized?

[mwbonsall]

Darn you guys are quick, posted it, saw the error, corrected it within a few seconds but you already slammed me. I agree, sterilization would be a great option, but unfortunately is never an option.

Mark

[scorpionldr]

Originally Posted by Deluge Of Sound

The source:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/09/16/....html?iref=NS1



Now, this is clearly, unquestionably, and totally a pathetic excuse for a human being who probably should have never been allowed to procreate in the first place. This woman is too reprehensible to be called... well anything. My vocabulary doesn't contain a word that expresses the severity of my disdain.

But I am a little lost, and so I turn to the minds of TBOT...

What exactly do they mean by charging her with "corrupting another with drugs?" Is this some kind of bassakwards Middle American law/wording that I'm unfamiliar with? What's the justification here? How exactly does one determine than a person has "corrupted another with drugs?"

by "corrupted" it typically means someone connected with something that they would have never encountered without outside influence. So at the age of two years old, as the average toddler has basically no awareness of her world, much less the fact that things like marijuana exist, it was felt that her mother corrupted her by confronting her with the command for interaction (smoking, in this case) with the pot.

I don't feel that anyone in their right mind could say that a toddler should have knowledge of pot whatsoever. It was an extremely early exposure.

[MatticusMania]

Sterilization should administered to anyone who perpetrates a crime involving children. There are some people who really shouldnt be allowed to procreate.

[thefruitfarmer]

1. There is an age below which you should n't spoke marijuana as the brain is still developing. AFAIK the minimum age is 15.

2. How has it been proven that there is marijuana in the "joint" that the 2 year old appears to be smoking?

It could be harmless herbal tobacco for all I know....

[Jim Nazium]

Originally Posted by mwbonsall

Darn you guys are quick, posted it, saw the error, corrected it within a few seconds but you already slammed me.

That's a nice looking Roscoe in you're avatar.


(see what I did there?)

[Yerf Dog]

IBTWeedSmokingBabyPic

[MatticusMania]

Originally Posted by thefruitfarmer

1. There is an age below which you should n't spoke marijuana as the brain is still developing. AFAIK the minimum age is 15.

I doubt that is conclusive, Id say for some the brain probably never finishes developing.

2. How has it been proven that there is marijuana in the "joint" that the 2 year old appears to be smoking?

It could be harmless herbal tobacco for all I know....

Regardless of what was in said joint, a 2year old should not be smoking anything. If there is evidence the child intook any sort of smoke the charges should still remain.

[Deluge Of Sound]

There's a video in the link. Wasn't there when I found the article, but you can draw your conclusions from there.

[thefruitfarmer]

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

I doubt that is conclusive, Id say for some the brain probably never finishes developing.

Regardless of what was in said joint, a 2year old should not be smoking anything. If there is evidence the child intook any sort of smoke the charges should still remain.

The brain is continually developing through life as you learn anything new but as a youngster everything is new so there is more development going on... the 15 year old is arbitary but the general point stands.

I would expect that this family were known to Social Services and there was a history prior to this event.

Like you say it is irresponsible to let a 2yr old smoke anything really. The video does look as if the child is toking on a reefer but little kids will imitate parents easily so the child could just be acting the part....

I think it is a jump of logic to assume there was pot in the joint from the video alone, IMO YMMV etc

[SteveC]

Either way...another example of how it's ridiculous that you need to take classes and get a license to drive, hunt, get a job, etc. but all you have to do to become a parent - arguably the most challenging/important thing one can do in this world - is make a bad choice. And who suffers - kids and the rest of us who have to take care of the kids once the parents are in jail or dead.

[Let It Fall]

I have heard of worse. Fathers taking sons out for their first hooker/group sex at ages 12-16.