Originally Posted by
NinjaGator
I didn't take it as "if potheads are allowed to smoke freely, child rapists will be more active." I read it as, "This guy that can be very dangerious to children (due to his questionable charges) is allowed to go on about his business with his implements of rape while he's lit up." I think they worded it poorly, gave off the wrong intention, and obviously didn't relate the fine problem well with the man. If the law wasn't lax, I highly (lawlpun) doubt the man would be smoking in the open for cops to see and he was going to be driving around with his tools just the same.
Bad journalism imo, still, I understood what they meant to say because I can read between the lines. :O