UncleCharles's Blog

Loosely translated, the "mistake" she's referring to is the "mistake" of getting caught.

Uncle Charles, liberal/Democratic ideology has lowered the bar significantly in issues like this. It has done nothing but create a generation of children who have no appreciation of consequences. Success is based on a firm understanding of consequences. Not only is grwoing pot in your chold's room very very wrong, but possessing it alone is bothillegal and wrong. To find a way to dilute this woman's responsibility is dumbassed.

What reaches "ivory tower" level is your judgment of a young woman who you know nothing about. Condemn the act, but you climbed right into her head with your comments about what she called "a mistake." She never said it was on the level of "forgetting the lunch money." She said (in tears that most certainly weren't faked) that it was a mistake.
For her to be 26 and her son to be 11 means that she had him when she was 15. Obviously she had a very misguided upbringing and is doing what she was taught.
I think it's sad that people can't wait to pick up their stones and start casting them every time a story like this pops up in the news. That's a very sad commentary on society when they react in such an angry, hateful, knee-jerk way.
It's not productive at all to just spew a bunch of hateful venom at a person you know so little about. Has she ever said anything hateful to you? What do you know about her? You've defined a person by her mistakes. I hope nobody defines you the same way.

Graham_Cracker, your response goes exactly to defining a mother that was probably in the same situation, having had no intervention at an early age-particularly parental intervention. The result is exactly the situation that we discussed. What exactly do we need to understand? It is hardly "knee jerk" or "hateful" to react to a situation, or a cycle that probably has gone on for a generation and is being taught to the current generation? I don't know what is in the mother's head, nor do I need to understand why psychologically it was "okay" for her to grow pot in her kid's bedroom. I know that it shows incredibly poor judgement and immaturity and teaches another generation to behave criminally. That's my concern-activity that directly or indirectly, now or in the future, will effect my wallet, my safety or my standard of living. To me, it is enormously productive, not angry and not hateful to dispense with the ingratiation and stem the tide.

Whether or not this was a "mistake", there is NO excuse for her behavior!!! She knew exactly what she was doing!!!!!! What kind of message is she sending her son? She is a mother and her first and foremost responsibility is to lead her child in the right direction, and obviously, as a mother, she is not doing that. Her tears--PLEASE--she was crying because she got caught, period, end of story!!! Her son deserves far better than what she can offer him!!!

"Whether or not this was a "mistake", there is NO excuse for her behavior!!!"

I never said it was. I just don't think everyone should run to cast stones at her. The authorities are making her pay for her actions. Why do the rest of us need to jump in here? I just don't see why it's necessary to condemn a person who is already paying a heavy price and has already apologized in tears. It seems pointlessly hateful and cruel.

And Chip, since you love to quote scripture;

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

That being said, there is the hardened criminal element who is not sorry the grow sell and deal drugs with violence and hate, only being sorry because they were caught. Thinking only of themselves and the money. These people we can judge by their actions alone. If we make hasty judgments on people based on only some of the facts we usually get into trouble. There is a need to make judgments sometimes, but not unrightously or hastily. After behaviors and actions have been analyzed I think then it's OK to make observations and judgments in a spirit of helping. If criminal behavior is evident then in a spirit of strong condemnation. Otherwise our society would be turning a blind eye to everything and nothing would be corrected and none would be helped.

UncleCharles,

That scripture was clearly about judgment, not adultery. Jesus was making a very important point; since nobody is without sin, you aren't fit to punish another human being for theirs.
And you didn't address the fact that the bigger part of the point that I was making before that was that she was ALREADY being punished, therefore required no further castigations from strangers.
I wasn't saying she shouldn't have consequences, only that since she's clearly already paying consequences that she doesn't need any additional crap from the lynch-mob of society.

I just want to make one point:

I'm willing to bet that to a child there is no inherent difference between a cannabis plant and any other plant. My childhood home in Needham had a solarium that my mom filled with all kinds of plants--I didn't know what any of those plants were, and frankly, if I had known they were illegal I don't think that concept wouldn't have made sense to me. Actually, plant that grows naturally almost everywhere in the world being illegal still doesn't make sense to me... It would be like making corn illegal because high fructose corn syrup has been closely linked to obesity (and diabetes), leading causes of death in America. Or making tobacco illegal because cigarettes are the other leading cause of death in America.

I'd consider parents who smoke cigarettes around their kids, or who let their kids eat a lot of junk food much more irresponsible than parents that grow pot in the home... not that that is an acceptable practice either, but I think people make a big deal out of it when, compared to a lot of the stuff we consider acceptable, it's actually not that harmful. Illegal, yes, and the law is the law, but in terms of empirical harm... high fructose corn syrup = WAY MORE HARMFUL. Something to think about, or maybe not.

I'm sorry... I guess I went off on a tangent.

Ok...gauntlet time: Any of you who are saying that we should give this girl a "mulligan", take the following short quiz:

You are walking down an alley in an urban area (or a cow pasture in the country, for that matter) and you come upon a man, about 35 years old trying to get the 8 year old girl who is with him to touch his private parts. Now apply the Biblical principle "Let him without sin cast the first stone."

The theory used to absolve a mother from having her child participate in illegality, even unknowlingly is used to absoolve the parent who rapes?

"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" is a lesson about the horrible effects of hatred, not about a society's right to police itself.