Happy Haole
Member
No apology required. Very rare these days to see someone step up like this.....much respect.
-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Growers charged with child abuse
- Thread starter AmberTrykz
- Start date
No apology required. Very rare these days to see someone step up like this.....much respect.
T
Tr33
This is why a Responsible Parent should have their grow separate from their primary residence keeping the children away from the whole op.
MPE
MPE
Here is a more in depth article from Westword..........
The arrests of Joseph Lightfoot and Amber Wildenstein, both 29, on one count apiece of child abuse raised eyebrows in the medical marijuana community. After all, the charges against Lightfoot and Wildenstein are based solely on them growing marijuana in their home -- something they're authorized to do because of his status as a caregiver.
According to Lynn Kimbrough, spokeswoman for the Denver District Attorney's Office, the investigation into Lightfoot and Wildenstein began with "a domestic violence call. I think it was another family member who'd called the police and said, 'They're fighting. I can hear the kids. Can you check it out?'"
In the end, police determined that "it had only been a verbal argument, so no domestic-violence crime had been committed," Kimbrough continues.
That means the child abuse charge is solely due to the presence of a marijuana grow in the home. As Kimbrough points out, Colorado Revised Statute 18-6-401 states that "a person commits child abuse, if, in the presence of a child, or on the premises where a child is found, or where a child resides... the person knowingly engages in the manufacture or attempted manufacture of a controlled substance."
Lightfoot had the legal right to grow marijuana. As Kimbrough notes, "he has his paperwork from the medical marijuana registry, and paperwork that he is a caregiver."
But that doesn't mitigate the offense in the view of the DA's office.
"This is what's on the books right now," Kimbrough says. "It's state law, and we don't pick and choose the laws we enforce and prosecute. We have an obligation to go forward with what's on the books, and marijuana is a controlled substance."
That's not the way Sensible Colorado's Brian Vicente sees it. While the attorney isn't representing Lightfoot or Wildenstein, he sees their case as worrisome.
"Fundamentally, we encourage parents and caregivers to keep a real firewall separating minors, their children, from medical marijuana," he says. "But at the same time, marijuana is less harmful than alcohol or just about any prescription drugs out there. So this charge is not reflective of reality.
"What's the actual danger here? You've got people who are ostensibly following state law. They have the proper paperwork to lawfully engage in this action. So for the DA's office to be wantonly prosecuting them for doing this in their home, it's concerning."
Given the way the law currently reads, Vicente thinks a legislative solution may be in order -- "but I also think the right to grow marijuana in your home is enshrined in the Colorado constitution, and that's the highest law in the state. So I feel that, barring any exceptional circumstances, that should be the trump law we turn to in these cases."
The licensing situation during the transition period from the passage of HB 1284, the bill to regulate the medical marijuana industry, to its formal implementation only adds to the confusion, Vicente believes.
"Currently, the license for a grow operation would be exactly the same thing as having a red card," he notes. "In terms of the commercial side, cities and the state are starting to deal with this issue, but in Denver, at least, they have not issued such a license yet. But that doesn't mean these activities aren't protected under state law."
For her part, Kimbrough hopes members of the medical marijuana community will familiarize themselves with the statute being used against Lightfoot and Wildenstein.
"This isn't a new law, but I guess what may be new are some of the circumstances," she says. "Maybe there is some public awareness that needs to take place. On that front, having this discussion and having people become aware of exactly what the law is would be a good thing."
Vicente agrees that it's important to "really separate children's lives from the medicine in the same way you would with a bottle of vodka or a prescription of Xanax. And we're continuing to educate people on that topic."
Still, he hopes this case doesn't signal a new wave of child abuse charges against medical marijuana patients and caregivers with legal home grows who also have kids.
"People in all walks of life get sick -- anyone from parents to grandparents," he points out. "And I think we need to encourage the DA's office to use discretion, and not penalize people for being ill."
Here's the DA's office release on the arrest:
PARENTS GROWING MARIJUANA CHARGED WITH CHILD ABUSE Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey has formally charged a man and woman with child abuse, accusing them of running a marijuana growing operation in their home where they lived with three children.
Joseph Daniel Lightfoot (dob: 07-09-80) and Amber Brooke Wildenstein (dob: 04-26-81) are each charged with one count of child abuse (F3).
Colorado Revised Statute 18-6-401 states in part that a person commits child abuse, if, in the presence of a child, or on the premises where a child is found, or where a child resides... the person knowingly engages in the manufacture or attempted manufacture of a controlled substance.
The charges allege that Lightfoot and Wildenstein have been operating a licensed marijuana growing operation in their home in the 2600 block of S. Williams Street in which three children, ages 7, 9, and 11 also resided. The charges are the result of a Denver Police Department investigation that began in early June when police were originally called to the home on a report of domestic violence.
Lightfoot and Wildenstein have been released from custody on $50,000 bond each. Lightfoot is scheduled to appear in Denver County Courtroom 2100 on July 13, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. to be advised of the charge. Wildenstein will appear the following day, on July 14, 2010, at 1:30 to be advised.
http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2010/07/marijuana_cultivation_leads_to.phpJoseph Daniel Lightfoot (dob: 07-09-80) and Amber Brooke Wildenstein (dob: 04-26-81) are each charged with one count of child abuse (F3).
Colorado Revised Statute 18-6-401 states in part that a person commits child abuse, if, in the presence of a child, or on the premises where a child is found, or where a child resides... the person knowingly engages in the manufacture or attempted manufacture of a controlled substance.
The charges allege that Lightfoot and Wildenstein have been operating a licensed marijuana growing operation in their home in the 2600 block of S. Williams Street in which three children, ages 7, 9, and 11 also resided. The charges are the result of a Denver Police Department investigation that began in early June when police were originally called to the home on a report of domestic violence.
Lightfoot and Wildenstein have been released from custody on $50,000 bond each. Lightfoot is scheduled to appear in Denver County Courtroom 2100 on July 13, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. to be advised of the charge. Wildenstein will appear the following day, on July 14, 2010, at 1:30 to be advised.
I don't see what one thing has to do with the other. A locked room should be sufficient to meet the "responsible parent" standard, whatever that is.
Or it could just have been a rouse to get in the front door. A domestic violence complaint gives LEO the right to enter a premises if they think the other person is in danger or IF they won't come to the door and talk with them....they have to make sure ALL in the house are safe.
However, in the past, I had LEO come to the front door with such an accusation....only I didn't live with anybody else, nor was their another single person in the residence. Soooooo....where was my domestic issue?
LEO can and will try anything to serve their misguided purpose. What really bothers me is that this is in rather established med state...
dank.Frank
E
evrchaning
Yes, A locked area should be okay right? A place they cannot get to??
T
Tr33
Not in this day in age, with the mass mind dead set against cannabis atm.
a locked room is not enough.
I could pick my parents door locks when I was 8.
Nothing could keep me out of anything at home.
It's the same with all children...
It's my choice, and I do not want my kids anywhere near my grow op, the wife and I discussed this many times over, why even take a chance at losing your kids to the Feds. and why anyone would put their kids at risk of being taken away for such a harmless plant is beyond me, why traumatize them with LEO and the FEDS removing them from their secure environment?
Growing at your primary res with children at home is just plain stupid IMO.
a locked room is not enough.
I could pick my parents door locks when I was 8.
Nothing could keep me out of anything at home.
It's the same with all children...
It's my choice, and I do not want my kids anywhere near my grow op, the wife and I discussed this many times over, why even take a chance at losing your kids to the Feds. and why anyone would put their kids at risk of being taken away for such a harmless plant is beyond me, why traumatize them with LEO and the FEDS removing them from their secure environment?
Growing at your primary res with children at home is just plain stupid IMO.
Dorje113
Member
Well, not everyone has the luxury of being able to afford a separate space just to grow.
I think it wouldn't be hard to keep a kid out of a locked space. Use a normal door lock, not the one you can stick a nail in and open it. Add a deadbolt if you feel better. It's just not that hard.
As long as your kids can't get into your grow unsupervised I don't see a problem. And I don't even have kids.
PolishPotFarmer
New member
I agree 100%.. Just like a gun safe...
Well sorry but in my state a locked room is enough.That is what the law here says.And in the law here they had the forsight to address any child protection issues and they found there where not any.
But for those states where they havent addressed it yet.It needs to be.Because they will allways be somebody trying to start trouble using the childeren as an avenue to get at growers.
Its a plant not a meth lab.Do tomatoe plants and cucumbers traumatize anybody?Its B.S.
SnowGro
Member
The automobile is the most dangerous household item statistically.
Your car keys, sitting on the kitchen counter, are within the reach of your 7yo right now.
/Rational argument.
Smaller government, less legislation, less unintended consequences.
I reserve the right to be stupid.
On another note...
-Because the fed carries the big money carrot|stick.
Until a few years ago, it was legal to have an open container of alcohol in a moving vehicle in two states, as long as it wasn't in possession of the driver. Standard DUI laws were still in effect. TN and another (MO?). The feds came in and threatened to pull highway funds if the laws weren't repealed. Both of the states buckled. What's wrong with me having a beer on the way to the game while my buddy is driving?
Your car keys, sitting on the kitchen counter, are within the reach of your 7yo right now.
/Rational argument.
Smaller government, less legislation, less unintended consequences.
I reserve the right to be stupid.
On another note...
Why is this ethos not applied when the feds attempt to override state law? It is the states' obligation to protect their citizens from federal powers not enumerated in the Constitution.
-Because the fed carries the big money carrot|stick.
Until a few years ago, it was legal to have an open container of alcohol in a moving vehicle in two states, as long as it wasn't in possession of the driver. Standard DUI laws were still in effect. TN and another (MO?). The feds came in and threatened to pull highway funds if the laws weren't repealed. Both of the states buckled. What's wrong with me having a beer on the way to the game while my buddy is driving?
The same could be said about growing, period. We are all taking risks, whether it be from cops and DA's that don't agree with the law or the Feds. Since you're so willing to give into the fear mindset that some anti's project why do you even grow at all?
But baddog, that's not a 'fear mindset'... that's just reality... it really happens.
I don't have kids, but shit, can't imagine anything that 'should' be more important to me.
I've quite smoking for a job.
I'd likely quite growing for my kids... push come to shove. BUT, i'd go through all sorts of extreme measures to make sure i could safely manage both... before it came to that extreme. Separating the grow from the kids would be a minor measure, in my book! ;-)
Hard to imagine not growing though...
or alcohol, or prescription drugs..
C
cannagirl
far worse for children to get ahold of...yet consider perfectly ok
E
evrchaning
SweetHempSeeds
Member
Does anyone have any updated information on this case? Ive searched and havent been able to find any developments in the press.
