Posted on Jan 15, 2016
PTSD-afflicted veteran deprived of his 5 children over medical marijuana use
3.23K
28
25
7
7
0
The family of a Gulf War veteran suffering PTSD lost custody of their youngest kids after moving from Colorado, where treatment with medical marijuana is legal, to Kansas, where pot is illegal. They have seen their children three times since last April.
PTSD-afflicted veteran deprived of his 5 children over medical marijuana use
Posted from rinf.com
PTSD
Marijuana
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 6
9
9
0
Unfortunately the story is much more complex after reading the article. The wife/mother turned the children in as "abandoned" which started the domino effect, and brought child protective services into the mix. This made this a Legal matter in addition to a Family matter.
Although I empathize with him, he is in violation with the "laws of the land" (Kansas & Federal). That doesn't make it morally or ethically wrong, but it does make it LEGALLY wrong, which creates a conflict with the Officials of Kansas who are sworn to uphold those laws, and to protect the children. The fact that they are planning to move back to Colorado, where the laws are different is technically irrelevant.
Yes, Cannabis may be the best way to treat his condition. I'm not debating that specific issue, but that is a separate issue from the children or State Law/Powers issue. When he chose to move into Kansas he chose to accept the Laws of Kansas.
Although I empathize with him, he is in violation with the "laws of the land" (Kansas & Federal). That doesn't make it morally or ethically wrong, but it does make it LEGALLY wrong, which creates a conflict with the Officials of Kansas who are sworn to uphold those laws, and to protect the children. The fact that they are planning to move back to Colorado, where the laws are different is technically irrelevant.
Yes, Cannabis may be the best way to treat his condition. I'm not debating that specific issue, but that is a separate issue from the children or State Law/Powers issue. When he chose to move into Kansas he chose to accept the Laws of Kansas.
(9)
(0)
4
4
0
I guess I am going to be the bad guy. First, is he a 'Gulf War' Vet if he served from '94-'96? Apparently, his mother-in-law is to blame for taking the kids to the police saying that they were abandoned. It is crappy that child services didn't return the children immediately after the allegations were unsubstantiated. Now he needs to make a decision, does he give up his pot use for the next four months in order to get his kids back, or is pot more important? Life is about decisions and responsibilities, actions do have consequences. It is sad that his kids are the ones who are suffering.
(4)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Gulf War cease-fire was still going into 1998~ if I recall correctly. I was originally classified by the VA as a Gulf 1 Vet (Southern Watch), before all the date range changes.
The Child Services has a specific mission, and HE is outside of that mission. I really can't call them the bad guys in this because as far as they are concerned, he is an illegal drug user and they can't turn the children over to illegal drug users.
As for the is pot more important than the kids.. we get real trick, because without the cannabis, he may not be functional. If he's not functional, he's useless to the kids. We run into chicken & egg argumentation.
The Child Services has a specific mission, and HE is outside of that mission. I really can't call them the bad guys in this because as far as they are concerned, he is an illegal drug user and they can't turn the children over to illegal drug users.
As for the is pot more important than the kids.. we get real trick, because without the cannabis, he may not be functional. If he's not functional, he's useless to the kids. We run into chicken & egg argumentation.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Sgt Gus Laskaris Without looking at his records, both Service or Medical. I don't know, and I'm not going to judge. As for WHY he has PTS, we don't know whether it is combat related or whether he had a boiler blow up and he lost three buddies in a fire. We just don't know. All we know is timeframe of service. Trying to apply our mentality to someone else's service is the kind of divisive BS that makes Vet's our own worst enemy. He may have also been in Somalia (Same timeframe), but classified as Gulf war.
Now, as I said in my own post, he's in violation of the laws of the land. It's really that simple. I empathize with him (because he feels he's not functional without it), but that doesn't change the facts of the case. My response above merely clarified the 94-96 timeframe issue as it applied to Gulf War 1 Vet status.
Now, as I said in my own post, he's in violation of the laws of the land. It's really that simple. I empathize with him (because he feels he's not functional without it), but that doesn't change the facts of the case. My response above merely clarified the 94-96 timeframe issue as it applied to Gulf War 1 Vet status.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Sgt Gus Laskaris No, you're throwing around "He was in the Navy" like our Navy folks have no reason to have PTS at all. Or that being in during 94-96 we didn't have a whole messload of things he could have been involved in, like Somalia, the entire mop-up in the mid-east, Bosnia time-frame, etc. You are speaking from a position of ignorance. You are making an uninformed assessment. You are reflexively assuming he's wrong without applying any reason or critical thought or looking at the historical timeframe.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Sgt Gus Laskaris - I'm not saying he isn't full of it. I'm saying WE are lacking the facts to make that assessment either way.
1) He's a Vet.
2) He served in the Era that was classified as the "Gulf War Era" (94-96), which is an "Administrative Bucket" and part of that "VA Definition" vs "Common Sense Definition."
3) The VA awards Disability, and they are stingy about it. They have a track record of "deny, deny, deny." If he has been awarded any %, that's on them, not on him.
4) He broke Kansas Law - Which I have never denied, and which my own post reiterates. That's the issue at play here. Until he conforms to Kansas (& Federal Law), the issue is VERY clear. Child Protective Services won't give his kids back.
Those are the facts of the case.
1) He's a Vet.
2) He served in the Era that was classified as the "Gulf War Era" (94-96), which is an "Administrative Bucket" and part of that "VA Definition" vs "Common Sense Definition."
3) The VA awards Disability, and they are stingy about it. They have a track record of "deny, deny, deny." If he has been awarded any %, that's on them, not on him.
4) He broke Kansas Law - Which I have never denied, and which my own post reiterates. That's the issue at play here. Until he conforms to Kansas (& Federal Law), the issue is VERY clear. Child Protective Services won't give his kids back.
Those are the facts of the case.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google