What's Going On: How a new law can make drugs less dangerous to kids

 Two Red Oak residents were arrested last week after police seized a large amount of marijuana, cash and a weapon from their residence.

In addition to the various drug charges, the accused are also facing an additional charge of child endangerment related to smoking marijuana in front of two children at the house during the time of the raid.

I’ve written stories about a lot of marijuana possession arrests and every time there’s a child present, I can almost guarantee there will be a child endangerment charge in tow. In my experience, those additional charges are more bargaining chips than anything else, giving the prosecutor something to drop during a future and likely plea bargain.

And while these charges seem automatic, it’s curious to consider what isn’t. 

There are several criteria for child endangerment in Iowa, including not feeding a child or leaving them unattended for long periods of time, or allowing them to be sexually abused. But the provision that seems to meet the pot smoking criteria is the first one, and it reads: “Knowingly acts in a manner that creates a substantial risk to a child or minor’s physical, mental or emotional health or safety.”

Most likely by design, that’s a very broad-reaching statement that can apply to a lot of different situations, like smoking an illegal substance or selling it out of the living room. 

However, this charge can also apply to a lot of other situations in which it is seemingly disregarded. 

When Red Oak police entered this residence last week, if they had encountered two adults chain smoking cigarettes instead of smoking a marijuana pipe, no child endangerment charge would have been filed. This despite the fact that the adverse affects of second hand smoke is much more severe on children than adults, causing problems such as severe asthma attacks, respiratory infections, ear infections and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).

Had the officer walked in and the children’s parents had been in a heated argument, swearing at each other and calling each other names, no charges would have been filed. 

Had the officer walked in and the parents’ were watching an R-rated film littered with violent scenes, no charges would have been filed. 

Obviously, the big difference is watching violent movies, smoking cigarettes and calling your husband/significant other a no-good-blankety-blank is legal while smoking marijuana isn’t, at least not in Iowa. 

But that’s the wrinkle in this entire scenario. Smoking marijuana in your home in Colorado or Washington is on par with drinking alcohol. 

I don’t know if Iowa will ever follow suit and legalize marijuana usage in this state, but if that ever does happen, it will certainly put a different light on the seeming automatic child endangerment charge scenario. 

So the question becomes, does a change in the law somehow make marijuana usage somehow less of a “substantial risk” to children?

I would argue it doesn’t. But until the child endangerment charge is applied to drunk chain-smokers who like to verbally abuse their spouse, that legal technality can make all the difference in the world. 

Gregory Orear is the General Manager/Editor of the Red Oak Express and Glenwood Opinion-Tribune. He can be contacted at publisher@redoakexpress.com.