You're doing a heckofa job, brownies
May 10, 2007 12:20 PM Subscribe
Another casualty in the War on Drugs "I think we're dying," he said in the 5-minute tape, obtained under the Michigan Freedom of Information Act.
mommy!
posted by quonsar at 12:22 PM on May 10, 2007 [3 favorites]
posted by quonsar at 12:22 PM on May 10, 2007 [3 favorites]
Another casualty in the War on Drugs
Looked like he got away scot free. Where's the casualty part? Oh, wait, cops get away with more than your average citizen? Somebody call the news.
posted by IronLizard at 12:24 PM on May 10, 2007
Looked like he got away scot free. Where's the casualty part? Oh, wait, cops get away with more than your average citizen? Somebody call the news.
posted by IronLizard at 12:24 PM on May 10, 2007
Wait--you can call 911 when you overdose on brownies? This changes everything!
posted by DU at 12:25 PM on May 10, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by DU at 12:25 PM on May 10, 2007 [1 favorite]
Where's the casualty part?
He also says he thinks he’s dead (at about 1:00 into the call) and asks the dispatcher for the score of the Red Wings game (at about 4:50 into the call).
$SOMETHING_FUNNY_ABOUT_THE_RED_WINGS_AND_THINKING_YOU_ARE_DEAD
posted by DU at 12:26 PM on May 10, 2007
He also says he thinks he’s dead (at about 1:00 into the call) and asks the dispatcher for the score of the Red Wings game (at about 4:50 into the call).
$SOMETHING_FUNNY_ABOUT_THE_RED_WINGS_AND_THINKING_YOU_ARE_DEAD
posted by DU at 12:26 PM on May 10, 2007
Where's the casualty part?
Dude lost his job - now he and the missus have to buy their drugs like everyone else. That's a crippling blow to a stoner who's used to getting it free.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:30 PM on May 10, 2007 [5 favorites]
Dude lost his job - now he and the missus have to buy their drugs like everyone else. That's a crippling blow to a stoner who's used to getting it free.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:30 PM on May 10, 2007 [5 favorites]
Moran said it is a criminal offense in Michigan for officers to fail to perform their duties.
No shit, Moran.
Ok, sorry, that was too easy. "Moran" seems like the only intelligent one there.
To the ex-officer: D000000d. You can't OD on weed!!!
posted by LordSludge at 12:30 PM on May 10, 2007
No shit, Moran.
Ok, sorry, that was too easy. "Moran" seems like the only intelligent one there.
To the ex-officer: D000000d. You can't OD on weed!!!
posted by LordSludge at 12:30 PM on May 10, 2007
Somebody should educate the cops better with regards to their drugs. Then we wouldn't have problems like this.
posted by IronLizard at 12:33 PM on May 10, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by IronLizard at 12:33 PM on May 10, 2007 [2 favorites]
Yeah, this is WAAYYY better than the deleted Kirk Cameron thread.
posted by interrobang at 12:40 PM on May 10, 2007
posted by interrobang at 12:40 PM on May 10, 2007
Just listened to the audio clip. Two things:
1. The guy was worried that there was "something in" the weed, so I suppose he could have ODed on that.
2. That clip is FUCKING FUNNY!!! The Redwings question is priceless. Need to work it into a song...
posted by LordSludge at 12:41 PM on May 10, 2007
1. The guy was worried that there was "something in" the weed, so I suppose he could have ODed on that.
2. That clip is FUCKING FUNNY!!! The Redwings question is priceless. Need to work it into a song...
posted by LordSludge at 12:41 PM on May 10, 2007
maybe it was ergot, and he was hallucinating "it had been over a year since he seized this marijuana" ...
posted by acro at 12:42 PM on May 10, 2007
posted by acro at 12:42 PM on May 10, 2007
You can OD on weed, it has some depressive effects. It takes a lot of weed though.
posted by Mister_A at 12:44 PM on May 10, 2007
posted by Mister_A at 12:44 PM on May 10, 2007
You can OD on weed, it has some depressive effects. It takes a lot of weed though.
No, you can't. Unless you can cite otherwise, I'm pretty confident there's never been a single documented case of death by overdosing on Marijuana in recorded history (seriously). If smoking it non-stop, you'd die of asphyxiation from the smoke before you'd die of an overdose. I'm pretty sure I've seen results from studies done in the Netherlands in which participants smoked upwards of 100 joints at one sitting without overdosing. Unless you count being really amused by stupid cartoons a kind of death.
posted by saulgoodman at 12:51 PM on May 10, 2007 [2 favorites]
No, you can't. Unless you can cite otherwise, I'm pretty confident there's never been a single documented case of death by overdosing on Marijuana in recorded history (seriously). If smoking it non-stop, you'd die of asphyxiation from the smoke before you'd die of an overdose. I'm pretty sure I've seen results from studies done in the Netherlands in which participants smoked upwards of 100 joints at one sitting without overdosing. Unless you count being really amused by stupid cartoons a kind of death.
posted by saulgoodman at 12:51 PM on May 10, 2007 [2 favorites]
Well, too much weed definitely does make some people (*cough*) puke.
And fall asleep happy.
posted by LordSludge at 12:55 PM on May 10, 2007
And fall asleep happy.
posted by LordSludge at 12:55 PM on May 10, 2007
she removed cocaine from her husband's police cruiser -- drugs purportedly earmarked to train police dogs
...or to plant on suspects. Even if Sanchez was a dog handler(didn't see this mentioned) is it standard practice for K9 cops to keep drugs in their cars to train dogs? Something about that sounds rather unlikely, no?
posted by well_balanced at 1:02 PM on May 10, 2007 [1 favorite]
...or to plant on suspects. Even if Sanchez was a dog handler(didn't see this mentioned) is it standard practice for K9 cops to keep drugs in their cars to train dogs? Something about that sounds rather unlikely, no?
posted by well_balanced at 1:02 PM on May 10, 2007 [1 favorite]
If smoking it non-stop, you'd die of asphyxiation from the smoke before you'd die of an overdose.
If smoking it non-stop, I bet you'd forget to keep smoking it before either of those things happened. In other words, you can't keep smoking it non-stop.
From here:
If smoking it non-stop, I bet you'd forget to keep smoking it before either of those things happened. In other words, you can't keep smoking it non-stop.
From here:
Marijuana Overdoseposted by Kirth Gerson at 1:02 PM on May 10, 2007 [1 favorite]
The Drug Awareness Warning Network Annual Report, published by the US federal government contains a statistical compilation of all drug deaths which occur in the United States. According to this report, there has never been a death recorded from the use of marijuana by natural causes.
The recording of the call is really awesome.
posted by Espy Gillespie at 1:07 PM on May 10, 2007
posted by Espy Gillespie at 1:07 PM on May 10, 2007
"Time is going by really, really slow..."
Damn... that 911 call really, really makes me want to try eating cannabis. I don't think you could envision a more ringing endorsement than this cop and his wife.
I've been pretty high in my life, but I don't think I can touch these two. I'd grab a brownie, a 40 and a bag of herb with this couple anyday.
posted by porn in the woods at 1:11 PM on May 10, 2007
Damn... that 911 call really, really makes me want to try eating cannabis. I don't think you could envision a more ringing endorsement than this cop and his wife.
I've been pretty high in my life, but I don't think I can touch these two. I'd grab a brownie, a 40 and a bag of herb with this couple anyday.
posted by porn in the woods at 1:11 PM on May 10, 2007
She tricked him? Isn't that sort of what Adam said about Eve. This all makes sense now. Allegory, anyone?
posted by Possum at 1:12 PM on May 10, 2007 [3 favorites]
posted by Possum at 1:12 PM on May 10, 2007 [3 favorites]
Wasn't there a story last month about a kid going to jail for life because they found a joint on him.
posted by doctorschlock at 1:13 PM on May 10, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by doctorschlock at 1:13 PM on May 10, 2007 [1 favorite]
Isn't that sort of what Adam said about Eve.
After he drove The Man out, he placed on the east side of the "unknown persons" cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way the tree of spliff.
posted by cortex at 1:24 PM on May 10, 2007
After he drove The Man out, he placed on the east side of the "unknown persons" cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way the tree of spliff.
posted by cortex at 1:24 PM on May 10, 2007
911 Dispatcher: "A quarter ounce into the brownies ... and you guys ate all the brownies?!?!?"
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 1:26 PM on May 10, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 1:26 PM on May 10, 2007 [1 favorite]
Wow. Wonder how many drug users' lives this guy has ruined over the course of his career... and then when he gets caught doing the same thing, they let him off scot-free? Law enforcement in this country is a sad and harmful joke.
posted by vorfeed at 1:26 PM on May 10, 2007 [3 favorites]
posted by vorfeed at 1:26 PM on May 10, 2007 [3 favorites]
This call is fantastic. He actually sounds surprisingly lucid for someone who's eaten an eighth and thinks he's dying. He even calls the operator on asking him twice about weapons -- dude isn't even properly stoned.
posted by uncleozzy at 1:28 PM on May 10, 2007
posted by uncleozzy at 1:28 PM on May 10, 2007
911 Dispatcher: "A quarter ounce into the brownies ... and you guys ate all the brownies?!?!?"
Well, of course. After the first couple, they got the munchies.
posted by IronLizard at 1:43 PM on May 10, 2007 [3 favorites]
Well, of course. After the first couple, they got the munchies.
posted by IronLizard at 1:43 PM on May 10, 2007 [3 favorites]
"I think we're dying."
I can't stop laughing and I haven't even had one of his brownies. I think they thought the dude was too pathetic to prosecute.
posted by caddis at 1:44 PM on May 10, 2007 [1 favorite]
I can't stop laughing and I haven't even had one of his brownies. I think they thought the dude was too pathetic to prosecute.
posted by caddis at 1:44 PM on May 10, 2007 [1 favorite]
....there has never been a death recorded from the use of marijuana by natural causes.
Um, what does that mean? Does it mean if you drink yourself to death (e.g., liver failure) you've died of "natural causes?" "Natural" doesn't seem like the right word...
posted by MarshallPoe at 1:50 PM on May 10, 2007
Um, what does that mean? Does it mean if you drink yourself to death (e.g., liver failure) you've died of "natural causes?" "Natural" doesn't seem like the right word...
posted by MarshallPoe at 1:50 PM on May 10, 2007
He even calls the operator on asking him twice about weapons...
But he gives a totally different answer the second time! That part was great -- it was like, "Ha-HA!! I'm smart, I'm alert, and.. oh shit... you got me there..."
My own suggestion for the War on Government Corruption*: Triple sentences for crimes facilitate by one's position of govt. authority, including law enforcement.
* That's a 'War on ____" meme most of us can support. Get the word out!
posted by LordSludge at 1:51 PM on May 10, 2007 [3 favorites]
But he gives a totally different answer the second time! That part was great -- it was like, "Ha-HA!! I'm smart, I'm alert, and.. oh shit... you got me there..."
My own suggestion for the War on Government Corruption*: Triple sentences for crimes facilitate by one's position of govt. authority, including law enforcement.
* That's a 'War on ____" meme most of us can support. Get the word out!
posted by LordSludge at 1:51 PM on May 10, 2007 [3 favorites]
Eating pot is dangerous -- not dying dangerous, just, whoa, I'm too fucking high dangerous. I think even Hunter S. Thompson said that eating pot was too difficult to do well for him to do it.
posted by Bookhouse at 1:53 PM on May 10, 2007
posted by Bookhouse at 1:53 PM on May 10, 2007
There isn't anything about this that isn't funny.
posted by found missing at 1:54 PM on May 10, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by found missing at 1:54 PM on May 10, 2007 [1 favorite]
"Natural" doesn't seem like the right word...
It read weird to me as well. I presume it means no record of dying from the natural biological processes brought on by the weed. If you get stoned and fall down an elevator shaft while disoriented, you didn't die of a marijuana overdose, anymore than a drunk driver who kills himself on a telephone pole dies of alcohol poisoning.
posted by cortex at 1:55 PM on May 10, 2007
It read weird to me as well. I presume it means no record of dying from the natural biological processes brought on by the weed. If you get stoned and fall down an elevator shaft while disoriented, you didn't die of a marijuana overdose, anymore than a drunk driver who kills himself on a telephone pole dies of alcohol poisoning.
posted by cortex at 1:55 PM on May 10, 2007
In the movie version of this, Will Ferrell is going to be great in the lead role of Edward Sanchez. (Uma Thurman as barely-breathing Stacy Sanchez; Sandra Bullock as vexed 911 operator.)
posted by found missing at 2:02 PM on May 10, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by found missing at 2:02 PM on May 10, 2007 [1 favorite]
MarshallPoe writes '....there has never been a death recorded from the use of marijuana by natural causes.
'Um, what does that mean?
It means there's never been a death attributable to the toxic effects of marijuana. There may well have been deaths due to driving while stoned, etc. but there's never been a death attributable to the effects of the drug itself.
And unless I'm mistaken (I haven't kept up with the research lately) no deaths from throat cancer, lung cancer, cardio-pulmonary disease and all the rest of the various dire consequences attributed to it.
As for the purported growth in psychiatric illness due to high potency strains that a couple of moral entrepeneurs keep on pushing -- well, despite the huge growth in prevalence of marijuana use, there's no correlated increase in psychiatric morbidity, and the various scientific experts that contribute to the British government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs didn't think this evidence was at all persuasive when they were recently asked to reverse their decision to reschedule the drug.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 2:05 PM on May 10, 2007
'Um, what does that mean?
It means there's never been a death attributable to the toxic effects of marijuana. There may well have been deaths due to driving while stoned, etc. but there's never been a death attributable to the effects of the drug itself.
And unless I'm mistaken (I haven't kept up with the research lately) no deaths from throat cancer, lung cancer, cardio-pulmonary disease and all the rest of the various dire consequences attributed to it.
As for the purported growth in psychiatric illness due to high potency strains that a couple of moral entrepeneurs keep on pushing -- well, despite the huge growth in prevalence of marijuana use, there's no correlated increase in psychiatric morbidity, and the various scientific experts that contribute to the British government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs didn't think this evidence was at all persuasive when they were recently asked to reverse their decision to reschedule the drug.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 2:05 PM on May 10, 2007
found missing: The movie title, naturally, "Dirty Sanchez".
posted by LordSludge at 2:05 PM on May 10, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by LordSludge at 2:05 PM on May 10, 2007 [1 favorite]
That recording was NUTS. Honestly, considering his career choice, you'd think he'd know what pot does to you & that IT MIGHT JUST MAKE YA A LITTLE PARANOID. As for his wife, damn I'd take 5 vicodin a day too if I was married to that much of a freakin' idiot.
Also, I'm just trying to imagine how special that must've been for his mother-in-law... driving up for a visit only to find her daughter & son in law rolling around the floor stoned out of their gourds & 911 cops pulling into the driveway.
Good times.
posted by miss lynnster at 2:07 PM on May 10, 2007
Also, I'm just trying to imagine how special that must've been for his mother-in-law... driving up for a visit only to find her daughter & son in law rolling around the floor stoned out of their gourds & 911 cops pulling into the driveway.
Good times.
posted by miss lynnster at 2:07 PM on May 10, 2007
This just made my day— my roommate works at a rehab center, and I can't wait to send this to him.
The "we're dying" part was the best by far.
posted by klangklangston at 2:08 PM on May 10, 2007
The "we're dying" part was the best by far.
posted by klangklangston at 2:08 PM on May 10, 2007
... 6:30 pm, began baking; 8:12 pm, thought it would be good idea to call mother in law; 8:30 pm, called mother in law; 9:48 pm, police respond to 911 call. There's a lesson here.
posted by acro at 2:08 PM on May 10, 2007
posted by acro at 2:08 PM on May 10, 2007
Love it. The story elegantly summarizes the idiocy of the nation's drug laws, it's offenders and it's enforcers.
posted by milarepa at 2:10 PM on May 10, 2007
posted by milarepa at 2:10 PM on May 10, 2007
The fucking disparity, hipocracy and ignorance in the war on drugs is not funny.
Who watches the watchers, indeed!
Cops eating weed brownines and thinking they're dying, priceless!
posted by winks007 at 2:11 PM on May 10, 2007
Who watches the watchers, indeed!
Cops eating weed brownines and thinking they're dying, priceless!
posted by winks007 at 2:11 PM on May 10, 2007
"Time is going by really, really slow..."
"What's the score of the Red Wings game?"
HAHAHAHAHAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAAAA HAHAHAHAHAAA HAHAHAAAA HAHAHAAAHAA
Many, many of the people assigned to fight the War on Drugs have no idea what they're fighting over and we rely on them to educate the public? Doomed, dooooomed, I tells ya.
posted by unixrat at 2:16 PM on May 10, 2007
"What's the score of the Red Wings game?"
HAHAHAHAHAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAAAA HAHAHAHAHAAA HAHAHAAAA HAHAHAAAHAA
Many, many of the people assigned to fight the War on Drugs have no idea what they're fighting over and we rely on them to educate the public? Doomed, dooooomed, I tells ya.
posted by unixrat at 2:16 PM on May 10, 2007
dydecker writes "god what a shitty drug marijuana is."
Hey, thanks for the input.
posted by krinklyfig at 2:22 PM on May 10, 2007
Hey, thanks for the input.
posted by krinklyfig at 2:22 PM on May 10, 2007
They would have never been busted if they just hadn't
copped to it.
(Thanks, I'll be here all week.)
posted by Benny Andajetz at 2:26 PM on May 10, 2007 [1 favorite]
copped to it.
(Thanks, I'll be here all week.)
posted by Benny Andajetz at 2:26 PM on May 10, 2007 [1 favorite]
His friends call him “Filthy” Sanchez
And y’know, rightfully so.
And I don’t really have a problem with drug use. Although I’d never smoke it, I’d would eat marijuana. Of course, I’d have to get up of the couch, find my keys, open the garage...find a dealer... a th’hell with it.
Y’know, were it more accessible, I’d probably do it. I knew a bunch of people who smoked when I was growing up but I didn’t do it (serious about athletics). They seemed to enjoy it.
And I’d rather see my kid smoking dope than, say, watching Carlos Mencia.
But - taking the stuff off of criminals - ok, that’s bad, but as long as it doesn’t affect cases it’s not big time bad. Not as bad as the bank robber analogy (since it’s illegal to own the stuff in the first place - it’s not anyones “property” really, and you’re not taking anything away from a victim by proxy). But still - y’know, you shouldn’t be a cop bad. Prosecutable bad, but not ‘WTF is wrong with you’ bad.
But this guy rats out his wife - who’s basically his partner in this - to try to save himself. And he lies in the investigation, and it’s discovered, and still nothing happens.
That there’s the ‘WTF is wrong with you and your whole department’ bad part.
“Where's the casualty part?”
First casualty of war? (no googling) Anyone? Anyone? Aeschylus? Hiram Johnson? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone? Sun Tzu? Anyone?
posted by Smedleyman at 2:40 PM on May 10, 2007
And y’know, rightfully so.
And I don’t really have a problem with drug use. Although I’d never smoke it, I’d would eat marijuana. Of course, I’d have to get up of the couch, find my keys, open the garage...find a dealer... a th’hell with it.
Y’know, were it more accessible, I’d probably do it. I knew a bunch of people who smoked when I was growing up but I didn’t do it (serious about athletics). They seemed to enjoy it.
And I’d rather see my kid smoking dope than, say, watching Carlos Mencia.
But - taking the stuff off of criminals - ok, that’s bad, but as long as it doesn’t affect cases it’s not big time bad. Not as bad as the bank robber analogy (since it’s illegal to own the stuff in the first place - it’s not anyones “property” really, and you’re not taking anything away from a victim by proxy). But still - y’know, you shouldn’t be a cop bad. Prosecutable bad, but not ‘WTF is wrong with you’ bad.
But this guy rats out his wife - who’s basically his partner in this - to try to save himself. And he lies in the investigation, and it’s discovered, and still nothing happens.
That there’s the ‘WTF is wrong with you and your whole department’ bad part.
“Where's the casualty part?”
First casualty of war? (no googling) Anyone? Anyone? Aeschylus? Hiram Johnson? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone? Sun Tzu? Anyone?
posted by Smedleyman at 2:40 PM on May 10, 2007
god what a shitty drug marijuana is.
You aren't buying it from the right students.
posted by Thorzdad at 2:40 PM on May 10, 2007
You aren't buying it from the right students.
posted by Thorzdad at 2:40 PM on May 10, 2007
How come you can hear him talking and hear it ringing the 911 number? That's freaking me out.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:41 PM on May 10, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:41 PM on May 10, 2007 [2 favorites]
I am just stunned by this fuckhead. Marijuana is not harmful. Period. One cannot directly harm oneself by consuming it. While I am willing to entertain arguments, it has been my experience that any (fucking ANY!!!) negative effects of marijuana use are related to our extremely fucked up social policies about marijuana/drug use rather than related to marijuana itself. That something so beneficial (ask my mom about her MS!) is illegal is disgusting to me in and of itself.
This fucking prick asshole goes to work everyday where his job is to throw people in jail for doing something this stoner enjoys (probably more frequently than he lets on). How does one resolve that kind of inner conflict? "My job is to fuck people up for doing the things I do.... now how do I feel about my life? Does my job make me feel like a good person?
Furthermore, stoned or not, this nitwit thinks pot can kill you? NOBODY this misinformed about drugs should be responsible for enforcing drug policy.
For that matter, governments shouldn't be deciding which drugs their citizens can use and which they can't. (And on the federal level, it's unconstitutional!)
posted by krash2fast at 2:42 PM on May 10, 2007
This fucking prick asshole goes to work everyday where his job is to throw people in jail for doing something this stoner enjoys (probably more frequently than he lets on). How does one resolve that kind of inner conflict? "My job is to fuck people up for doing the things I do.... now how do I feel about my life? Does my job make me feel like a good person?
Furthermore, stoned or not, this nitwit thinks pot can kill you? NOBODY this misinformed about drugs should be responsible for enforcing drug policy.
For that matter, governments shouldn't be deciding which drugs their citizens can use and which they can't. (And on the federal level, it's unconstitutional!)
posted by krash2fast at 2:42 PM on May 10, 2007
I thought I was pretty informed about drugs, but I'm surprised at these assertions that pot has zero toxicity. I would have expected that you could make yourself at least seriously ill by ingesting large quantities, or, at the least that THC is toxic at some high dosage. But, yeah, they didn't even start with that much and from his response, I don't think he even ate very much of what they did prepare, either.
At any rate, I thought the dispatcher did a very good job. I've not listened to many, if any, 911 calls and I didn't realize how well-trained they were to elicit relevant information.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:52 PM on May 10, 2007
At any rate, I thought the dispatcher did a very good job. I've not listened to many, if any, 911 calls and I didn't realize how well-trained they were to elicit relevant information.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:52 PM on May 10, 2007
"Oh, wait, cops get away with more than your average citizen? "
I didn't see the article mention that there was any evidence at all other than what the couple admitted to/claimed to have done.
But I guess any excuse to spew cop hate and "rah rah rah drugs are so great" is as good as any around here.
It's quite likely that they knew they'd never have enough evidence for a successful prosecution and decided against it.
"I'm surprised at these assertions that pot has zero toxicity"
bligh: we had a story here a while ago about a bunch of kids in Berkeley getting pot & making different foodstuffs out of them.. and then calling 911 en masse at a party because they didn't feel so good afterwards.
posted by drstein at 3:03 PM on May 10, 2007
I didn't see the article mention that there was any evidence at all other than what the couple admitted to/claimed to have done.
But I guess any excuse to spew cop hate and "rah rah rah drugs are so great" is as good as any around here.
It's quite likely that they knew they'd never have enough evidence for a successful prosecution and decided against it.
"I'm surprised at these assertions that pot has zero toxicity"
bligh: we had a story here a while ago about a bunch of kids in Berkeley getting pot & making different foodstuffs out of them.. and then calling 911 en masse at a party because they didn't feel so good afterwards.
posted by drstein at 3:03 PM on May 10, 2007
I think I just pissed myself laughing. I'm enamored with the idea that one would call the boys in blue because one got high. A normal person wouldn't do this, but it's so much better that it's a cop. It's also a nice touch that he repeatedly calls it marijuana as if to give forewarning that he is in fact an officer of the law. This story is delicious.
posted by ob at 3:08 PM on May 10, 2007
posted by ob at 3:08 PM on May 10, 2007
Marijuana is not harmful. Period.
I have some people I'd like you to meet....
posted by MarshallPoe at 3:17 PM on May 10, 2007
I have some people I'd like you to meet....
posted by MarshallPoe at 3:17 PM on May 10, 2007
The first casualty of war? Baked goods? Herbal supplements? Truth?
posted by effwerd at 3:21 PM on May 10, 2007
posted by effwerd at 3:21 PM on May 10, 2007
drstein writes "bligh: we had a story here a while ago about a bunch of kids in Berkeley getting pot & making different foodstuffs out of them.. and then calling 911 en masse at a party because they didn't feel so good afterwards."
That may be true. There was no reason for them to do so, however. Marijuana eaten can be more potent than if it's smoked, but it's not toxic. They panicked and called 911, which is not unusual in the US, but it's not necessary.
posted by krinklyfig at 3:22 PM on May 10, 2007
That may be true. There was no reason for them to do so, however. Marijuana eaten can be more potent than if it's smoked, but it's not toxic. They panicked and called 911, which is not unusual in the US, but it's not necessary.
posted by krinklyfig at 3:22 PM on May 10, 2007
"I'm surprised at these assertions that pot has zero toxicity."
It's hard to counter decades of propaganda, even if you're a reasonably well informed citizen.
posted by 2sheets at 3:23 PM on May 10, 2007
It's hard to counter decades of propaganda, even if you're a reasonably well informed citizen.
posted by 2sheets at 3:23 PM on May 10, 2007
The first casualty of war? Peace?
posted by found missing at 3:28 PM on May 10, 2007
posted by found missing at 3:28 PM on May 10, 2007
More cannabis facts than you can shake a tray of brownies at. [Via]
posted by mosk at 3:29 PM on May 10, 2007
posted by mosk at 3:29 PM on May 10, 2007
How come you can hear him talking and hear it ringing the 911 number? That's freaking me out.
I got the impression that he might have been transferred. Maybe he didn't originally call 911 and was redirected there?
posted by katillathehun at 3:30 PM on May 10, 2007
I got the impression that he might have been transferred. Maybe he didn't originally call 911 and was redirected there?
posted by katillathehun at 3:30 PM on May 10, 2007
“It's hard to counter decades of propaganda, even if you're a reasonably well informed citizen.”
No propoganda about it. Many, many things are toxic when ingested in sufficient quantities, including water. Most psychoactives come from plants that evolved to include these psychoactive chemicals because they are toxic. It would be the exception to the rule if it really is the case that a person can't eat enough marijuana to do themselves significant harm. I'm not saying it's impossible, because it may have evolved to be toxic to some insect and for a large mammal the toxicity is so low that it's just not practically possible to ingest enough of it to matter. Or there are other possibilities, as well. But the point is that this is the exception. Hell, you can make yourself very sick by just ingesting large quantities of a few commonly used herbs.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:33 PM on May 10, 2007
No propoganda about it. Many, many things are toxic when ingested in sufficient quantities, including water. Most psychoactives come from plants that evolved to include these psychoactive chemicals because they are toxic. It would be the exception to the rule if it really is the case that a person can't eat enough marijuana to do themselves significant harm. I'm not saying it's impossible, because it may have evolved to be toxic to some insect and for a large mammal the toxicity is so low that it's just not practically possible to ingest enough of it to matter. Or there are other possibilities, as well. But the point is that this is the exception. Hell, you can make yourself very sick by just ingesting large quantities of a few commonly used herbs.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:33 PM on May 10, 2007
P.S. I love Erowid.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:35 PM on May 10, 2007
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:35 PM on May 10, 2007
"I'm surprised at these assertions that pot has zero toxicity."
Here's the wikipedia page on cannabis toxicity for y'all, the short version is you have to smoke 21 grams or ingest 1 pound of 15% THC (very strong) cannabis to reach the LD50:
Here's the wikipedia page on cannabis toxicity for y'all, the short version is you have to smoke 21 grams or ingest 1 pound of 15% THC (very strong) cannabis to reach the LD50:
According to the Merck Index,[52] the LD50 (dosage lethal to 50% of rats tested) of Δ9-THC by inhalation is 42 mg/kg of body weight. That is the equivalent of a 165 lb (75 kg) man inhaling the THC found in 21 one-gram cigarettes of extremely high-potency (15% THC) marijuana all in one sitting, assuming no THC is lost through smoke loss or absorption by the lungs. For oral consumption, the LD50 for male rats is 1270 mg/kg, and 730 mg/kg for females—equivalent to the THC in about a pound of 15% THC marijuana.[53] The ratio of cannabis material required to saturate cannabinoid receptors to the amount required for a fatal overdose is 1:40,000.[54] There have been no reported deaths or permanent injuries sustained as a result of a marijuana overdose. It is practically impossible to overdose on marijuana, as the user would certainly either fall asleep or otherwise become incapacitated from the effects of the drug before being able to consume enough THC to be mortally toxic.posted by MetaMonkey at 3:40 PM on May 10, 2007
But I guess any excuse to spew cop hate and "rah rah rah drugs are so great" is as good as any around here.
WTF are YOU smoking?
This particular cop is a hypocrite. Who the hell needs more evidence? This fucker admitted it on tape. If you think that police don't get away with a great deal due to their position, you need to read the news. Maybe you should stop with the kneejerk defense in the face of all reason and evidence.
I hate pot, personally, but it's not up to me to judge whether or not you should smoke/eat/insert it anally.
posted by IronLizard at 3:42 PM on May 10, 2007
WTF are YOU smoking?
This particular cop is a hypocrite. Who the hell needs more evidence? This fucker admitted it on tape. If you think that police don't get away with a great deal due to their position, you need to read the news. Maybe you should stop with the kneejerk defense in the face of all reason and evidence.
I hate pot, personally, but it's not up to me to judge whether or not you should smoke/eat/insert it anally.
posted by IronLizard at 3:42 PM on May 10, 2007
Most psychoactives come from plants that evolved to include these psychoactive chemicals because they are toxic. It would be the exception to the rule if it really is the case that a person can't eat enough marijuana to do themselves significant harm.
Well, you just need to understand why cannabis is motivated to make THC. It's not to ward off animals.
posted by effwerd at 3:42 PM on May 10, 2007
Well, you just need to understand why cannabis is motivated to make THC. It's not to ward off animals.
posted by effwerd at 3:42 PM on May 10, 2007
Being too high can lead to a very spinny, nauseatingly unpleasant experience known as a "whitey". Luckily, when smoked you get a decent control over the dose, and it clears out of your system fairly quickly, so it's the sort of thing which calls for a 10 minute lie down rather than a call to the ER.
When eaten, it takes longer to ramp up, and longer to dissipate, so you need to be more careful about how much you consume.
posted by Freaky at 3:44 PM on May 10, 2007
When eaten, it takes longer to ramp up, and longer to dissipate, so you need to be more careful about how much you consume.
posted by Freaky at 3:44 PM on May 10, 2007
God, how many times have I seen this party foul?
Dude, you eat a brownie and WAIT FORTY MINUTES. No exceptions. After forty minutes, assess your high, and proceed accordingly. Eating an entire tray of pot brownies will get you crushed by the ol' "green avalancheTM" and then you've got no one to blame but yourself.
And everyone hates your guts for annoying them with your paranoid OMGIMDYINGSRSLY horseshit.
posted by quite unimportant at 3:44 PM on May 10, 2007 [4 favorites]
Dude, you eat a brownie and WAIT FORTY MINUTES. No exceptions. After forty minutes, assess your high, and proceed accordingly. Eating an entire tray of pot brownies will get you crushed by the ol' "green avalancheTM" and then you've got no one to blame but yourself.
And everyone hates your guts for annoying them with your paranoid OMGIMDYINGSRSLY horseshit.
posted by quite unimportant at 3:44 PM on May 10, 2007 [4 favorites]
Ethereal Bligh writes "It would be the exception to the rule if it really is the case that a person can't eat enough marijuana to do themselves significant harm."
That's a novel theory, but it doesn't match the pharmacology of THC and other cannabinoids. IOW, your intuition doesn't substitute for science.
posted by krinklyfig at 3:48 PM on May 10, 2007
That's a novel theory, but it doesn't match the pharmacology of THC and other cannabinoids. IOW, your intuition doesn't substitute for science.
posted by krinklyfig at 3:48 PM on May 10, 2007
Red Wings 3, Edmonton Oilers 2. "Hockeytown exhaled when the Detroit Red Wings beat Edmonton in double overtime in Game 1 of their first-round series."
posted by kirkaracha at 3:48 PM on May 10, 2007
posted by kirkaracha at 3:48 PM on May 10, 2007
In my continuing efforts to make this stupid war on drugs fair, I have this idea: Find out what the most stringent sentence that has ever been issued in that area for marijuana, that is what the cop and his wife get. For any of his superiors that were found to be allowing leniency on this because he was a cop, they get the sentence times two.
God forbid any politician gets caught using weed, they get this sentence times three.
Because it's illegal, and they are the ones that need to be seen as beacons of virtue. Good for the goose and all that.
And if they can't be that, then they need to get rid of the worthless laws.
posted by quin at 3:50 PM on May 10, 2007 [2 favorites]
God forbid any politician gets caught using weed, they get this sentence times three.
Because it's illegal, and they are the ones that need to be seen as beacons of virtue. Good for the goose and all that.
And if they can't be that, then they need to get rid of the worthless laws.
posted by quin at 3:50 PM on May 10, 2007 [2 favorites]
Um, I think your definition of harm might be a little off.
posted by The World Famous at 6:22 PM on May 10 [+]
[!]
Wow.... what, exactly, is my definition of harm, o psychic one?
posted by krash2fast at 3:54 PM on May 10, 2007
posted by The World Famous at 6:22 PM on May 10 [+]
[!]
Wow.... what, exactly, is my definition of harm, o psychic one?
posted by krash2fast at 3:54 PM on May 10, 2007
Dudes stop arguing, you're totally twisting my mellow bro.
posted by ob at 4:00 PM on May 10, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by ob at 4:00 PM on May 10, 2007 [1 favorite]
“That's a novel theory, but it doesn't match the pharmacology of THC and other cannabinoids. IOW, your intuition doesn't substitute for science.”
Well, the comment referencing the LD50 of marijuana seems to validate my intuition. It's the practical reasons that no one dies from a THC overdose, not that it's not theoretically possible and not that THC isn't toxic in sufficient quantity.
And my "intuition" is based upon the science that most psychoactives evolved for toxicity. So it's not a "novel" theory. Spare me the ironically uninformed condescension.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:01 PM on May 10, 2007
Well, the comment referencing the LD50 of marijuana seems to validate my intuition. It's the practical reasons that no one dies from a THC overdose, not that it's not theoretically possible and not that THC isn't toxic in sufficient quantity.
And my "intuition" is based upon the science that most psychoactives evolved for toxicity. So it's not a "novel" theory. Spare me the ironically uninformed condescension.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:01 PM on May 10, 2007
Bowling balls would also be toxic. Theoretically. If you could eat enough of them. So, spare me!
posted by found missing at 4:04 PM on May 10, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by found missing at 4:04 PM on May 10, 2007 [1 favorite]
Eating pot is dangerous -- not dying dangerous, just, whoa, I'm too fucking high dangerous. I think even Hunter S. Thompson said that eating pot was too difficult to do well for him to do it.
It's just too difficult and time consuming to get the dose right when you eat pot. You eat half a cookie, wait half an hour; eat another quarter cookie, wait twenty minutes; eat another quarter, wait twenty minutes; eat another half, smoke a spliff; forgot you ate that last half and eat another half; and ten minutes later you are totally regretting ever eating any cookies, ever, in your entire existence.
Six hours later you still can't find your car keys, and everyone else has gone home or passed out. It's really not a very scintillating experience.
posted by oneirodynia at 4:06 PM on May 10, 2007
It's just too difficult and time consuming to get the dose right when you eat pot. You eat half a cookie, wait half an hour; eat another quarter cookie, wait twenty minutes; eat another quarter, wait twenty minutes; eat another half, smoke a spliff; forgot you ate that last half and eat another half; and ten minutes later you are totally regretting ever eating any cookies, ever, in your entire existence.
Six hours later you still can't find your car keys, and everyone else has gone home or passed out. It's really not a very scintillating experience.
posted by oneirodynia at 4:06 PM on May 10, 2007
Thanks for the skinny on eating pot... myself, as a "special ops agent" will continue to do his part in keeping this illegal contraband off the streets by incinerating it under high temperatures in a glass chalice.
posted by porn in the woods at 4:12 PM on May 10, 2007
posted by porn in the woods at 4:12 PM on May 10, 2007
Many years ago, after eating sushi and drinking sake, we smoked some weed back at my place. She became pretty ill and demanded that I call 911. I was hesitant because I didn't know if they could bust you or not, but they were cool about it (this was Seattle). One of the techs told us of the dangers of mixing alcohol and marijuana, and recommended not drinking next time!
She fell asleep while they were there, and I was told to just watch her to make sure she didn't vomit and choke on it. The good news: since I had to stay up, I turned on HBO, and discovered Mr. Show.
posted by king walnut at 4:14 PM on May 10, 2007
She fell asleep while they were there, and I was told to just watch her to make sure she didn't vomit and choke on it. The good news: since I had to stay up, I turned on HBO, and discovered Mr. Show.
posted by king walnut at 4:14 PM on May 10, 2007
But I guess any excuse to spew cop hate and "rah rah rah drugs are so great" is as good as any around here.
WTF are YOU smoking?
Low-hanging fruit, but well-played nonetheless.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:20 PM on May 10, 2007
WTF are YOU smoking?
Low-hanging fruit, but well-played nonetheless.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:20 PM on May 10, 2007
“If you could eat enough of them. So, spare me!”
Nice pun. But it's a bad analogy. Bowling balls are not (for the purposes of your argument) pharmacologically toxic, while THC is. It's abundantly clear from that LD50 data referenced above that one could poison oneself, even to death, with cannabis if one tried hard enough. No one does. And because of its effects, no one ever does it accidentally. Neither of those truths support the contention that cannabis isn't toxic. They do support the argument that it's safer than almost anything comparable and safer than, as I said, some things you might find in your spice rack. But completely non-toxic and impossible to OD on? No. To assert either of those things is just being dogmatic. I can understand why someone would have a chip on their shoulder because of the anti-drug propoganda we get all the time. But mine was an informed supposition that turned out to be correct and wasn't motivated in the least by a desire to slander marijuana. I agree that it's more benign than a great many legal drugs, and especially more benign than alcohol, and that the anti-drug policy against it is really stupid.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:24 PM on May 10, 2007 [1 favorite]
Nice pun. But it's a bad analogy. Bowling balls are not (for the purposes of your argument) pharmacologically toxic, while THC is. It's abundantly clear from that LD50 data referenced above that one could poison oneself, even to death, with cannabis if one tried hard enough. No one does. And because of its effects, no one ever does it accidentally. Neither of those truths support the contention that cannabis isn't toxic. They do support the argument that it's safer than almost anything comparable and safer than, as I said, some things you might find in your spice rack. But completely non-toxic and impossible to OD on? No. To assert either of those things is just being dogmatic. I can understand why someone would have a chip on their shoulder because of the anti-drug propoganda we get all the time. But mine was an informed supposition that turned out to be correct and wasn't motivated in the least by a desire to slander marijuana. I agree that it's more benign than a great many legal drugs, and especially more benign than alcohol, and that the anti-drug policy against it is really stupid.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:24 PM on May 10, 2007 [1 favorite]
Find out what the most stringent sentence that has ever been issued in that area for marijuana
You'd probably want to find out what the max sentence issued for marijuana + possession of multiple loaded firearms was. Then you would want to work out any additional charges that might be involved for a cop who is pilfering evidence. Might want to look at why he had blow in the trunk of his car and why his wife was helping herself to it. Then make sure that both he and his wife were charged with all of the above. Or you could just let them go.
posted by well_balanced at 4:27 PM on May 10, 2007
You'd probably want to find out what the max sentence issued for marijuana + possession of multiple loaded firearms was. Then you would want to work out any additional charges that might be involved for a cop who is pilfering evidence. Might want to look at why he had blow in the trunk of his car and why his wife was helping herself to it. Then make sure that both he and his wife were charged with all of the above. Or you could just let them go.
posted by well_balanced at 4:27 PM on May 10, 2007
Neither of those truths support the contention that cannabis isn't toxic.
Would you agree that for practical lay definitions of "toxic", something that you could not possibly OD on under any plausible circumstances isn't likely to be considered toxic? Because that seems like the spirit in which the word came up, strict pharmacological definition notwithstanding.
posted by cortex at 4:27 PM on May 10, 2007
Would you agree that for practical lay definitions of "toxic", something that you could not possibly OD on under any plausible circumstances isn't likely to be considered toxic? Because that seems like the spirit in which the word came up, strict pharmacological definition notwithstanding.
posted by cortex at 4:27 PM on May 10, 2007
Get a brain, Moran.
posted by sharksandwich at 4:39 PM on May 10, 2007
posted by sharksandwich at 4:39 PM on May 10, 2007
well_balanced : Or you could just let them go.
More than happy to. Just as soon as everyone else in the area who has been charged with a similar crime is released as well.
I've come to realize that the only way we are ever going to get these drug laws repealed is to have them start effecting the policy makers themselves.
We need to demand a higher standard. That way, when they fail and claim to be 'only human' we can nod and say "exactly. Now lets talk about all the other people out there who are locked up for beign 'only human' as well."
posted by quin at 4:46 PM on May 10, 2007
More than happy to. Just as soon as everyone else in the area who has been charged with a similar crime is released as well.
I've come to realize that the only way we are ever going to get these drug laws repealed is to have them start effecting the policy makers themselves.
We need to demand a higher standard. That way, when they fail and claim to be 'only human' we can nod and say "exactly. Now lets talk about all the other people out there who are locked up for beign 'only human' as well."
posted by quin at 4:46 PM on May 10, 2007
im n yr prowlcar eatin yr stash
now im on yr fone beggin fer help
posted by BitterOldPunk at 4:51 PM on May 10, 2007 [1 favorite]
now im on yr fone beggin fer help
posted by BitterOldPunk at 4:51 PM on May 10, 2007 [1 favorite]
"But completely non-toxic and impossible to OD on? No. To assert either of those things is just being dogmatic."
Ach, EB, quit bein' the pedant. You could, indeed, grind up a bowling ball and eat it, and I'll bet that you'll find the LD50 of whatever polymers used to make bowling balls significantly lower than that of pot. Unless you're taking the position that everything is toxic, because it's possible to overdose on everything possible to consume, you'd be better not standing on this one. And it's not dogmatic to say so— it's common sense. Unless you want to go calling salt and sugar and chocolate and flour and butter toxins too, since it's theoretically possible to overdose on any of them, just not practical.
posted by klangklangston at 4:58 PM on May 10, 2007
Ach, EB, quit bein' the pedant. You could, indeed, grind up a bowling ball and eat it, and I'll bet that you'll find the LD50 of whatever polymers used to make bowling balls significantly lower than that of pot. Unless you're taking the position that everything is toxic, because it's possible to overdose on everything possible to consume, you'd be better not standing on this one. And it's not dogmatic to say so— it's common sense. Unless you want to go calling salt and sugar and chocolate and flour and butter toxins too, since it's theoretically possible to overdose on any of them, just not practical.
posted by klangklangston at 4:58 PM on May 10, 2007
Though I won't weigh in on MJ's toxicity, I will say that MJ often makes people do dumb things and that can lead to increased morbidity...
posted by MarshallPoe at 5:04 PM on May 10, 2007
posted by MarshallPoe at 5:04 PM on May 10, 2007
Oh, pompom, when will you learn to express yourself in something aside from cheerleader chants?
posted by klangklangston at 5:13 PM on May 10, 2007
posted by klangklangston at 5:13 PM on May 10, 2007
Would you agree that for practical lay definitions of 'toxic', something that you could not possibly OD on under any plausible circumstances isn't likely to be considered toxic? Because that seems like the spirit in which the word came up, strict pharmacological definition notwithstanding.
That would hinge on "plausible". I think you could get a pound of 15% THC marijuana into someone's stomach. Someone could manage it themselves if they were motivated. The fact that the practical effects of the intoxication (including that the experience ramps out long before the toxic dose is achieved) mean that no one ever gets even seriously ill doesn't mean it's not toxic.
Look, the same argument almost applies to alcohol. You have to work really, really hard to kill yourself from pure alcohol intoxication in one sitting. Given how much and often people drink, and how few (relatively) deaths there are because of this, indicaetes the same practical constraints. In fact, circumventing these practical constraints via injection or even via rectal administration makes the mortal danger of alcohol intoxication much, much higher and accounts for a number of these types of deaths. That's because alcohol is, in fact, toxic.
An extreme example is H2O. It's actually toxic. It's awfully hard to ingest enough water to kill you, but it's possible and people do it very occasionally. And it doesn't kill you because, say, it makes your stomach explode, or you drown. It kills you because it so upsets the bodies osmotic balance that it interferes with cellular processes. It's actually toxic. If someone had claimed that water wasn't toxic, I'd have argued with them.
You could, indeed, grind up a bowling ball and eat it, and I'll bet that you'll find the LD50 of whatever polymers used to make bowling balls significantly lower than that of pot.
Yes, but that's not what the commenter had in mind. That's why I said "relevant to your argument".
Unless you're taking the position that everything is toxic, because it's possible to overdose on everything possible to consume, you'd be better not standing on this one.
No, I'm not taking that position but your argument is faulty. Some things are pharmacologically toxic, other things are "toxic" because of secondary effects. It is the latter that applies to "everything", including bowling balls in the example of the first comment which mentions it. But not everything is pharmacologically toxic, not even at any amount (noble gases, say), and especially not everything that it is possible to, say, ingest in one sitting. Even so, there are lots of things which it is theoretically possible to OD on, even fatally, that we ingest in smaller quantities safely. Marijuana is in this category. So is, say, saffron (or perhaps my memory fails me).
It didn't seem to me that people were claiming that it would be so difficult as to be entirely unlikely for someone to OD by eating cannabis brownies, it seemed to me that people were claiming that nothing in marijuana was toxic at all, or toxic enough that anyone could ever possibly eat enough of it to be dangerous. Maybe I was wrong. But it seems to me to be more likely that it was other people who were confused, not me. That is to say, they were aware that you "can't" OD on marijuana and assumed that this meant that you can't. Which isn't really true.
Toxic means something in everyday language. It doesn't mean merely that something will hurt of kill you because of some effect, including secondary effects. It means it might do so as a primary effect. I once saw a science writer, no less, claim that carbon dioxide is toxic. Now, unless there's a mechanism whereby our bodies metabolize atmospheric carbon dioxide in some way that I'm not aware of, CO2 kills people only because it environmentally starves them of oxygen (unlike CO, which is actually toxic). That's not toxicity, that's a secondary effect. THC, like ethanol, has a primary physiological effect that is toxic at a sufficient dosage.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:48 PM on May 10, 2007
That would hinge on "plausible". I think you could get a pound of 15% THC marijuana into someone's stomach. Someone could manage it themselves if they were motivated. The fact that the practical effects of the intoxication (including that the experience ramps out long before the toxic dose is achieved) mean that no one ever gets even seriously ill doesn't mean it's not toxic.
Look, the same argument almost applies to alcohol. You have to work really, really hard to kill yourself from pure alcohol intoxication in one sitting. Given how much and often people drink, and how few (relatively) deaths there are because of this, indicaetes the same practical constraints. In fact, circumventing these practical constraints via injection or even via rectal administration makes the mortal danger of alcohol intoxication much, much higher and accounts for a number of these types of deaths. That's because alcohol is, in fact, toxic.
An extreme example is H2O. It's actually toxic. It's awfully hard to ingest enough water to kill you, but it's possible and people do it very occasionally. And it doesn't kill you because, say, it makes your stomach explode, or you drown. It kills you because it so upsets the bodies osmotic balance that it interferes with cellular processes. It's actually toxic. If someone had claimed that water wasn't toxic, I'd have argued with them.
You could, indeed, grind up a bowling ball and eat it, and I'll bet that you'll find the LD50 of whatever polymers used to make bowling balls significantly lower than that of pot.
Yes, but that's not what the commenter had in mind. That's why I said "relevant to your argument".
Unless you're taking the position that everything is toxic, because it's possible to overdose on everything possible to consume, you'd be better not standing on this one.
No, I'm not taking that position but your argument is faulty. Some things are pharmacologically toxic, other things are "toxic" because of secondary effects. It is the latter that applies to "everything", including bowling balls in the example of the first comment which mentions it. But not everything is pharmacologically toxic, not even at any amount (noble gases, say), and especially not everything that it is possible to, say, ingest in one sitting. Even so, there are lots of things which it is theoretically possible to OD on, even fatally, that we ingest in smaller quantities safely. Marijuana is in this category. So is, say, saffron (or perhaps my memory fails me).
It didn't seem to me that people were claiming that it would be so difficult as to be entirely unlikely for someone to OD by eating cannabis brownies, it seemed to me that people were claiming that nothing in marijuana was toxic at all, or toxic enough that anyone could ever possibly eat enough of it to be dangerous. Maybe I was wrong. But it seems to me to be more likely that it was other people who were confused, not me. That is to say, they were aware that you "can't" OD on marijuana and assumed that this meant that you can't. Which isn't really true.
Toxic means something in everyday language. It doesn't mean merely that something will hurt of kill you because of some effect, including secondary effects. It means it might do so as a primary effect. I once saw a science writer, no less, claim that carbon dioxide is toxic. Now, unless there's a mechanism whereby our bodies metabolize atmospheric carbon dioxide in some way that I'm not aware of, CO2 kills people only because it environmentally starves them of oxygen (unlike CO, which is actually toxic). That's not toxicity, that's a secondary effect. THC, like ethanol, has a primary physiological effect that is toxic at a sufficient dosage.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:48 PM on May 10, 2007
That would hinge on "plausible".
Acquiring and ingesting a solid pound of high quality weed in any other context than a willful and bizarre (and apparently unprecedented) suicide bid seems pretty damned implausible.
posted by cortex at 6:04 PM on May 10, 2007
Acquiring and ingesting a solid pound of high quality weed in any other context than a willful and bizarre (and apparently unprecedented) suicide bid seems pretty damned implausible.
posted by cortex at 6:04 PM on May 10, 2007
If someone had claimed that water wasn't toxic, I'd have argued with them .. ["Toxic"] doesn't mean merely that something will hurt of kill you because of some effect, including secondary effects.
Mildly pedantic point here...
I agree that CO2 is not toxic, although it can be fatal. But isn't water just the same, by your definition? Water can kill you by diluting the sodium in your bloodstream. CO2 kills you by replacing oxygen in the air you breathe. Dilution and oxygen-starvation seem essentially analogous; neither CO2 nor water are directly harming you. In both cases, the harmless substance is passively reducing the available quantity of some other substance your body requires.
posted by Aloysius Bear at 6:19 PM on May 10, 2007
Mildly pedantic point here...
I agree that CO2 is not toxic, although it can be fatal. But isn't water just the same, by your definition? Water can kill you by diluting the sodium in your bloodstream. CO2 kills you by replacing oxygen in the air you breathe. Dilution and oxygen-starvation seem essentially analogous; neither CO2 nor water are directly harming you. In both cases, the harmless substance is passively reducing the available quantity of some other substance your body requires.
posted by Aloysius Bear at 6:19 PM on May 10, 2007
C'mon guys - Everybody knows the chronic is not toxic, but it can be killer.
Chill.
And pass the Cheetos, please.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 6:28 PM on May 10, 2007
Chill.
And pass the Cheetos, please.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 6:28 PM on May 10, 2007
"Toxic means something in everyday language. It doesn't mean merely that something will hurt of kill you because of some effect, including secondary effects. It means it might do so as a primary effect."
Really? Got a cite on that? Far as I can tell, toxic means poisonous (really, it means an arrow of poison if we get all lexicographic). Further, should we be wearing our pedant hats, a toxin is regarded in medicine as an organically produced agent which harms life or health (which would exclude water but include THC and a fair number of other compounds).
Now, I understand what your meaning is, in that intoxication comes from THC, but you're coming across as needlessly dickish and would, in a middle school, be subject to indian burns for your divergence from common understanding (especially without accurately illuminating the correct medical usage).
posted by klangklangston at 6:36 PM on May 10, 2007
Really? Got a cite on that? Far as I can tell, toxic means poisonous (really, it means an arrow of poison if we get all lexicographic). Further, should we be wearing our pedant hats, a toxin is regarded in medicine as an organically produced agent which harms life or health (which would exclude water but include THC and a fair number of other compounds).
Now, I understand what your meaning is, in that intoxication comes from THC, but you're coming across as needlessly dickish and would, in a middle school, be subject to indian burns for your divergence from common understanding (especially without accurately illuminating the correct medical usage).
posted by klangklangston at 6:36 PM on May 10, 2007
“I agree that CO2 is not toxic, although it can be fatal. But isn't water just the same, by your definition? Water can kill you by diluting the sodium in your bloodstream. CO2 kills you by replacing oxygen in the air you breathe. Dilution and oxygen-starvation seem essentially analogous; neither CO2 nor water are directly harming you. In both cases, the harmless substance is passively reducing the available quantity of some other substance your body requires.”
Yeah, when I wrote that I realized there's ambiguity. I bet, though, that a lot of classically "toxic" substances that aren't considered toxic in the way you and I don't consider CO2 toxic, nevertheless "passively" interfere with some similar metabolic process as water intoxication does. I guess my intuitive sense of what that "pharmacological" distinction means and where the ambiguous line is drawn is between macroscopic and microscopic things. The CO2 displacement of O2 is macroscopic, it displaces O2 as a gas and not because of a chemical reaction. CO, in contrast, actively displaces the O2 when it binds to the hemoglobin. Water intoxication is in this sense more like CO2 than CO, but it seems to me that since it happens in the bloodstream and then throughout the tissues in the body, that the effect is better understood at the microscopic level.
I don't know. Maybe you're right and H20 is a bad example of the distinction I'm trying to make.
“which would exclude water but include THC and a fair number of other compounds”
Yeah, see that previous paragraph of mine. My water argument is probably flawed. I'm aiming for that medical definition. But how am I being “needlessly dickish”? My initial comment didn't argue the point and accepted what had been already written, I wasn't antagonistic to anyone, and I've always included lots of qualifications and such. And it was other people who got mildly antagonist toward me.
You write “and a fair number of other compounds”. But I've repeatedly said the same thing. Again, it was my impression that people were claiming that THC just isn't toxic at all, which turns out to not be true. I was never arguing against the point that its toxicity is low enough to not be a concern.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:49 PM on May 10, 2007
Yeah, when I wrote that I realized there's ambiguity. I bet, though, that a lot of classically "toxic" substances that aren't considered toxic in the way you and I don't consider CO2 toxic, nevertheless "passively" interfere with some similar metabolic process as water intoxication does. I guess my intuitive sense of what that "pharmacological" distinction means and where the ambiguous line is drawn is between macroscopic and microscopic things. The CO2 displacement of O2 is macroscopic, it displaces O2 as a gas and not because of a chemical reaction. CO, in contrast, actively displaces the O2 when it binds to the hemoglobin. Water intoxication is in this sense more like CO2 than CO, but it seems to me that since it happens in the bloodstream and then throughout the tissues in the body, that the effect is better understood at the microscopic level.
I don't know. Maybe you're right and H20 is a bad example of the distinction I'm trying to make.
“which would exclude water but include THC and a fair number of other compounds”
Yeah, see that previous paragraph of mine. My water argument is probably flawed. I'm aiming for that medical definition. But how am I being “needlessly dickish”? My initial comment didn't argue the point and accepted what had been already written, I wasn't antagonistic to anyone, and I've always included lots of qualifications and such. And it was other people who got mildly antagonist toward me.
You write “and a fair number of other compounds”. But I've repeatedly said the same thing. Again, it was my impression that people were claiming that THC just isn't toxic at all, which turns out to not be true. I was never arguing against the point that its toxicity is low enough to not be a concern.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:49 PM on May 10, 2007
Given the enormous desire of the U.S. government to demonize marijuana and the enormous stupidity of the human race, there should have been a marijuana overdose death reported by now if marijuana was toxic in any real sense. There has not been one: LSD is similar. You can take enough to make you trip for a very, very, very long time, but it won't kill you.
Alcohol on the other hand is actually relatively easy to overdose on-- you can see alcohol poisoning cases at every hospital near a college virtually every weekend during the school year.
The dose makes the poison, but as one of our earliest drug czars put it, the only way to overdose on marijuana is to be hit on the head by a bale of it.
Theoretically toxic isn't toxic: if it hasn't killed after thousands of years of use by millions of people, it just doesn't count.
posted by Maias at 6:55 PM on May 10, 2007
Debating the LD50 of bowling balls? Here's a plate of beans. Eat.
posted by trondant at 7:07 PM on May 10, 2007
posted by trondant at 7:07 PM on May 10, 2007
Theoretically toxic isn't toxic: if it hasn't killed after thousands of years of use by millions of people, it just doesn't count.
Two separate positions there:
- if it hasn't killed anyone, it can't be toxic: false
- if it hasn't killed anyone, it shouldn't count as a danger: true
I'll do you one further than your initial statement and say that not only might it not have killed anyone, it might not be possible for a person to willingly kill themselves with it and it still could be toxic.
The fact that people can't seemingly get past a word and into context is partly why we have the level of dialogue as a society that we do. Words do not simply mean whatever you want them to mean. Maybe folks will have to get off their anti-intellectual asses and find out that "toxic" isn't the whole story. Or not.
Now let's talk about whether the government is or is not fascist. That'll be fun.
posted by dreamsign at 7:11 PM on May 10, 2007
Two separate positions there:
- if it hasn't killed anyone, it can't be toxic: false
- if it hasn't killed anyone, it shouldn't count as a danger: true
I'll do you one further than your initial statement and say that not only might it not have killed anyone, it might not be possible for a person to willingly kill themselves with it and it still could be toxic.
The fact that people can't seemingly get past a word and into context is partly why we have the level of dialogue as a society that we do. Words do not simply mean whatever you want them to mean. Maybe folks will have to get off their anti-intellectual asses and find out that "toxic" isn't the whole story. Or not.
Now let's talk about whether the government is or is not fascist. That'll be fun.
posted by dreamsign at 7:11 PM on May 10, 2007
"But how am I being “needlessly dickish”?"
Ascribing a common view of toxicity to pot-warrior dogmatism?
posted by klangklangston at 7:38 PM on May 10, 2007
Ascribing a common view of toxicity to pot-warrior dogmatism?
posted by klangklangston at 7:38 PM on May 10, 2007
Sorry, but CO2 is toxic. All by itself, not just because it displaces oxygen. From that last link: And when the CO2 hits about 7% to 10% of your ambient air, you DO die. Even if the rest is O2. It's CO2 narcosis, and it shuts you down.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:49 PM on May 10, 2007
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:49 PM on May 10, 2007
All arguing about toxicity aside, listening to that 911 call was by far the funniest thing I've heard all week.
posted by hangingbyathread at 8:02 PM on May 10, 2007
posted by hangingbyathread at 8:02 PM on May 10, 2007
Yeah, it looks like you're right and I'm wrong about that, though none of the links really substantiate this. From the last, it seems like there could be two factors at work in CO2 toxicity: pH imbalance and the ability of the body to get rid of the CO2 it produces. I'm a little confused about how the former would occur, except as a result of the latter. I should have suspected the latter possibility—I was trying to think of what happens in the lungs. I didn't think (though was unsure—I did include a qualification) that CO2 was taken-up by the lungs, even in high concentrations, but I should have thought about how it, um, excretes it.
Still, though, this seems to me more like the water toxicity than CO toxicity. It's still "passive" in the way Aloysius Bear describes it.
The writer that used the word toxic as applied to CO2 did so in the context of one of those African lakes turning over catastrophically and suffocating a nearby village. In that case, the death resulted not from CO2 narcosis, but from the displacement of the O2. I don't really believe that this writer was aware of the distinction and he wrote in such a way that indicated a belief in the toxicity of CO2 as if it were a poisonous gas, like chlorine gas or CO.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:04 PM on May 10, 2007
Still, though, this seems to me more like the water toxicity than CO toxicity. It's still "passive" in the way Aloysius Bear describes it.
The writer that used the word toxic as applied to CO2 did so in the context of one of those African lakes turning over catastrophically and suffocating a nearby village. In that case, the death resulted not from CO2 narcosis, but from the displacement of the O2. I don't really believe that this writer was aware of the distinction and he wrote in such a way that indicated a belief in the toxicity of CO2 as if it were a poisonous gas, like chlorine gas or CO.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:04 PM on May 10, 2007
"WTF are YOU smoking?
This particular cop is a hypocrite. Who the hell needs more evidence?"
Absolutely nothing, but it sounds like just an admission of guilt is enough for you, and prosecutions should be based on that alone. Hmm?
You're the one that's smoking some bad shit if you think that it's a good idea to ram something like this through the courts without a hell of a lot more evidence than just him saying "Yeah, I did it."
"He's a $whatever. Who the hell needs more evidence?"
That kind of thinking is pathetic.
posted by drstein at 8:14 PM on May 10, 2007
This particular cop is a hypocrite. Who the hell needs more evidence?"
Absolutely nothing, but it sounds like just an admission of guilt is enough for you, and prosecutions should be based on that alone. Hmm?
You're the one that's smoking some bad shit if you think that it's a good idea to ram something like this through the courts without a hell of a lot more evidence than just him saying "Yeah, I did it."
"He's a $whatever. Who the hell needs more evidence?"
That kind of thinking is pathetic.
posted by drstein at 8:14 PM on May 10, 2007
Comedy_Acapulco_Gold!
Dude was probably out of the paranoid stage soon after the 911 call. I picture the CMTs arriving to find him sitting on the couch in front of Ren and Stimpy sans pants with an empty bag of chee-tos and an orange stain on his underwear. Too pathetic to prosecute.
posted by HyperBlue at 8:29 PM on May 10, 2007
Dude was probably out of the paranoid stage soon after the 911 call. I picture the CMTs arriving to find him sitting on the couch in front of Ren and Stimpy sans pants with an empty bag of chee-tos and an orange stain on his underwear. Too pathetic to prosecute.
posted by HyperBlue at 8:29 PM on May 10, 2007
so what's the ld50 of reading dumb arguments on metafilPLONK
posted by pyramid termite at 8:42 PM on May 10, 2007
posted by pyramid termite at 8:42 PM on May 10, 2007
Who the hell trains these 911 operators?
This is how the call should have gone:
Sanchez: I think we're dying. We made brownies and I think we're dead, I really do.
Operator: Sit down man, find your neutral space. You have done something to your brain. You have made it high. If I lay 10 mills of diazipan on you, you will do something else to your brain, you will make it low. Why trust one drug rather than the other? That politics ain't it?
Sanchez: I'm going to eat some sugar.
Operator: I recommend you eat some more grass.
Sanchez: No way, no fucking way.
Operator: That is an unfortunate political decision.
Sanchez: What are you talking about, operator?
Operator: If you are holding onto a rising balloon you are presented with a difficult political decision - let go while you've still got the chance or hold onto the rope and continue getting higher? That's politics, man.
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:02 PM on May 10, 2007 [1 favorite]
This is how the call should have gone:
Sanchez: I think we're dying. We made brownies and I think we're dead, I really do.
Operator: Sit down man, find your neutral space. You have done something to your brain. You have made it high. If I lay 10 mills of diazipan on you, you will do something else to your brain, you will make it low. Why trust one drug rather than the other? That politics ain't it?
Sanchez: I'm going to eat some sugar.
Operator: I recommend you eat some more grass.
Sanchez: No way, no fucking way.
Operator: That is an unfortunate political decision.
Sanchez: What are you talking about, operator?
Operator: If you are holding onto a rising balloon you are presented with a difficult political decision - let go while you've still got the chance or hold onto the rope and continue getting higher? That's politics, man.
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:02 PM on May 10, 2007 [1 favorite]
What an amateur.
posted by ageispolis at 10:29 PM on May 10, 2007
posted by ageispolis at 10:29 PM on May 10, 2007
AND THE SOUND, SUDDENLY AND STRANGELY, OF THE VOICE OF
posted by acro at 11:15 PM on May 10, 2007
I don't really care whether CO2 meets your closely-defined definition of "toxic," my point is that you guys are going around in circles that are about a mile away from anything useful. Maybe you've all had too much 'coffee.' The real lesson here is that you can't smoke enough weed to off yourself, and you'd have to go to extreme (and for all practical purposes, impossible) lengths to do it by eating the stuff. If you really wanted to do suicide by drugs, there are a lot of cheaper, better-feeling ways to do it. [NOT KEVORKIAN]
posted by Kirth Gerson at 2:54 AM on May 11, 2007
posted by Kirth Gerson at 2:54 AM on May 11, 2007
MetaMonkey writes 'Here's the wikipedia page on cannabis toxicity for y'all, the short version is you have to smoke 21 grams or ingest 1 pound of 15% THC (very strong) cannabis to reach the LD50'
That doesn't seem right to me. The psychoactive effects of cannabis tend to be much greater when eaten than they are when smoked. I'd have thought the LD50 would be lower for cannabis when eaten than when smoked.
"For oral consumption, the LD50 for male rats is 1270 mg/kg, and 730 mg/kg for females—equivalent to the THC in about a pound of 15% THC marijuana."
So what this is saying is that it would take the equivalent of a pound of weed to kill a rat? Presumably therefore, a man would also have to eat his own bodyweight in weed before running the risk of death through overdose?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 3:06 AM on May 11, 2007
That doesn't seem right to me. The psychoactive effects of cannabis tend to be much greater when eaten than they are when smoked. I'd have thought the LD50 would be lower for cannabis when eaten than when smoked.
"For oral consumption, the LD50 for male rats is 1270 mg/kg, and 730 mg/kg for females—equivalent to the THC in about a pound of 15% THC marijuana."
So what this is saying is that it would take the equivalent of a pound of weed to kill a rat? Presumably therefore, a man would also have to eat his own bodyweight in weed before running the risk of death through overdose?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 3:06 AM on May 11, 2007
Absolutely nothing, but it sounds like just an admission of guilt is enough for you, and prosecutions should be based on that alone. Hmm?
If voluntary confessions are good enough to convict anyone else, why the hell not? Or did you not know that a confession is enough to convict someone of damn near anything? Why do you have a problem with cops being held to the same standards as everyone else?
posted by IronLizard at 3:46 AM on May 11, 2007
If voluntary confessions are good enough to convict anyone else, why the hell not? Or did you not know that a confession is enough to convict someone of damn near anything? Why do you have a problem with cops being held to the same standards as everyone else?
posted by IronLizard at 3:46 AM on May 11, 2007
Pot makes you argue about stupid things.
Also makes you hungry. Eat.
posted by trondant at 4:51 AM on May 11, 2007
Also makes you hungry. Eat.
posted by trondant at 4:51 AM on May 11, 2007
This particular cop is a hypocrite.
everybody is, you douchebag.
posted by quonsar at 5:20 AM on May 11, 2007
everybody is, you douchebag.
posted by quonsar at 5:20 AM on May 11, 2007
How does it feel to be a morbidly obese, middle aged, balding troll? Just out of curiosity.
you poor, poor man
posted by IronLizard at 5:58 AM on May 11, 2007
you poor, poor man
posted by IronLizard at 5:58 AM on May 11, 2007
I'm surpised that this thread has gone on so long without anyone suggesting that the pot might have been tainted. TAINTED, as in additives like PCP or formaldehyde, common additives that some chemists use to enhance their marijuana.
I suspect that 'fried' brownies might have somewhat less of a pleasant effect on its consumers...
posted by vhsiv at 6:08 AM on May 11, 2007
I suspect that 'fried' brownies might have somewhat less of a pleasant effect on its consumers...
posted by vhsiv at 6:08 AM on May 11, 2007
I'm going to go get some 'coffee'.
Also, ur all poopyheads.
posted by LordSludge at 6:13 AM on May 11, 2007
Also, ur all poopyheads.
posted by LordSludge at 6:13 AM on May 11, 2007
Absolutely nothing, but it sounds like just an admission of guilt is enough for you, and prosecutions should be based on that alone. Hmm?
When the consequences are a jail sentence, a trial is necessary.
When the consequences are me thinking you're a hypocritical piece of shit, a simple taped message of you saying that you ate all the pot you confiscated from people you arrested for possessing pot will do. I think the court systems are clogged enough without private individuals having to try someone every time they want to come to a conclusion about how they feel.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 6:26 AM on May 11, 2007
When the consequences are a jail sentence, a trial is necessary.
When the consequences are me thinking you're a hypocritical piece of shit, a simple taped message of you saying that you ate all the pot you confiscated from people you arrested for possessing pot will do. I think the court systems are clogged enough without private individuals having to try someone every time they want to come to a conclusion about how they feel.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 6:26 AM on May 11, 2007
As referenced earlier, "whitey"/"green avalanche" was just crushing this dudes world, if you've never geeked out on enough chronic there's really no way to explain it.
However, it's a relative psychological trifle compared to most major "recreational" overdoses you could encounter as far as psychedelics are concerned. If this dumbass pig thought he was dying from eating an eighth of chronic that had been stored in the trunk of his cruiser for a fucking year I would like to see his reaction 45 minutes after ingesting a quarter ounce of mushrooms or 10 hits of acid... what a fucking joke!
This has never been proven and remains a highly debatable topic among most people who study these substances, but thanks for the sweeping generalization that supports your rambling nonsense. The sheer fact that it takes such large physical quantities to reach LD50 completely debunks this argument in every sense outside of "pure" manufactured derivative chemical doses, and even that is twice removed from a natural state as a defensive mechanism for the organism.
posted by prostyle at 6:35 AM on May 11, 2007
However, it's a relative psychological trifle compared to most major "recreational" overdoses you could encounter as far as psychedelics are concerned. If this dumbass pig thought he was dying from eating an eighth of chronic that had been stored in the trunk of his cruiser for a fucking year I would like to see his reaction 45 minutes after ingesting a quarter ounce of mushrooms or 10 hits of acid... what a fucking joke!
"The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."And my "intuition" is based upon the science that most psychoactives evolved for toxicity
-Hunter S. Thompson
This has never been proven and remains a highly debatable topic among most people who study these substances, but thanks for the sweeping generalization that supports your rambling nonsense. The sheer fact that it takes such large physical quantities to reach LD50 completely debunks this argument in every sense outside of "pure" manufactured derivative chemical doses, and even that is twice removed from a natural state as a defensive mechanism for the organism.
Phallolysin, a protein from Amanita phalloides with cytolytic effects in vitro, was highly toxic when given intravenously to rats, mice, rabbits and guinea pigs:So how 'bout that science, EB?
LD50 in rats was 0.05 mg/kg
Psilocybin:
LD50 in rats was 280 mg/kg
posted by prostyle at 6:35 AM on May 11, 2007
If this dumbass pig thought he was dying from eating an eighth of chronic that had been stored in the trunk of his cruiser for a fucking year I would like to see his reaction 45 minutes after ingesting a quarter ounce of mushrooms or 10 hits of acid...
But would you pay to see it? The guy's out of work, and probably looking for a new career.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:58 AM on May 11, 2007
But would you pay to see it? The guy's out of work, and probably looking for a new career.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:58 AM on May 11, 2007
But would you pay to see it?
In the context of taxpayers we have already funded and facilitated his endeavors quite readily up to this point, so I find that question particularly amusing.
The guy's out of work, and probably looking for a new career.
If there was an justice in the world that would be the least of his worries right now. No sympathy vote here...
posted by prostyle at 7:10 AM on May 11, 2007
In the context of taxpayers we have already funded and facilitated his endeavors quite readily up to this point, so I find that question particularly amusing.
The guy's out of work, and probably looking for a new career.
If there was an justice in the world that would be the least of his worries right now. No sympathy vote here...
posted by prostyle at 7:10 AM on May 11, 2007
There is next to no chance this was tainted pot.
Pot is the least expensive street drug going. Why would dealers add a comparitively expensive substance like cocaine or formaldehyde to their product? If a drug dealer has laced pot, you can bet he'll be informing you of this, and charging you extra.
Unless this cop managed to pull a Denzel Washington in Training Day and confiscated some PCP-laced cannabis, I think it's safe to say this was just MJ at work in the brownie.
posted by porn in the woods at 7:21 AM on May 11, 2007
Pot is the least expensive street drug going. Why would dealers add a comparitively expensive substance like cocaine or formaldehyde to their product? If a drug dealer has laced pot, you can bet he'll be informing you of this, and charging you extra.
Unless this cop managed to pull a Denzel Washington in Training Day and confiscated some PCP-laced cannabis, I think it's safe to say this was just MJ at work in the brownie.
posted by porn in the woods at 7:21 AM on May 11, 2007
Oh, I wasn't suggesting sympathy, so much as saying he's probably open to the idea of breaking ground on a new form of entertainment, if people will actually pay to see it.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:23 AM on May 11, 2007
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:23 AM on May 11, 2007
I know I'm late to the party, but the cop's not a hypocrite (on the weed, anyway). If you read the article, it says:
Stealing people's pot isn't cool, but it's better than the cop arresting you (especially if you had a quarter ounce on you).
posted by Crash at 7:29 AM on May 11, 2007
Sanchez also said he took the marijuana "off the street from unknown persons,"So it sounds like he didn't arrest them, just took the pot (which explains why the evidience room never asked where the pot was). See? He's not a hypocrite, because he clearly doesn't think pot possession should send people to jail.
and
"I questioned him in detail about how many times and what types of narcotics he seized without arrest," the report said.
Stealing people's pot isn't cool, but it's better than the cop arresting you (especially if you had a quarter ounce on you).
posted by Crash at 7:29 AM on May 11, 2007
I think we're dead, I really do,
I've so been there. 911 and everything. Talk about overthinking a plate of beans
It was four squares of acid and a buttload of loneliness, though.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 8:34 AM on May 11, 2007
I've so been there. 911 and everything. Talk about overthinking a plate of beans
It was four squares of acid and a buttload of loneliness, though.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 8:34 AM on May 11, 2007
"Dave's not here."
posted by ericb at 8:38 AM on May 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by ericb at 8:38 AM on May 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
"Or did you not know that a confession is enough to convict someone of damn near anything"
Hrm. it's not, but you go ahead and keep thinking that.
"Why do you have a problem with cops being held to the same standards as everyone else?"
Uh, I don't. You're the one that's going there. This guy isn't a cop anymore anyway, so he's "everyone else." I'm done wasting my time arguing with you.
posted by drstein at 9:34 AM on May 11, 2007
Hrm. it's not, but you go ahead and keep thinking that.
"Why do you have a problem with cops being held to the same standards as everyone else?"
Uh, I don't. You're the one that's going there. This guy isn't a cop anymore anyway, so he's "everyone else." I'm done wasting my time arguing with you.
posted by drstein at 9:34 AM on May 11, 2007
Hrm. it's not, but you go ahead and keep thinking that.
Any jury would convict, hands down with that tape. So would you. You just deny for the sake of argument.
This guy isn't a cop anymore anyway, so he's "everyone else."
But he wasn't when this occurred. So your assertion has no point.
I'm done wasting my time arguing with you.
Well, I'm glad you've seen the light, Frank. You should have seen from the beginning there was no point in defending a man who already incriminated himself on tape.
posted by IronLizard at 10:18 AM on May 11, 2007
Any jury would convict, hands down with that tape. So would you. You just deny for the sake of argument.
This guy isn't a cop anymore anyway, so he's "everyone else."
But he wasn't when this occurred. So your assertion has no point.
I'm done wasting my time arguing with you.
Well, I'm glad you've seen the light, Frank. You should have seen from the beginning there was no point in defending a man who already incriminated himself on tape.
posted by IronLizard at 10:18 AM on May 11, 2007
Whichever one they felt like at the time, of course.
You forget there were drugs in his car, right? Probably enough leftover from the brownies inside for a second possession charge.
posted by IronLizard at 10:32 AM on May 11, 2007
You forget there were drugs in his car, right? Probably enough leftover from the brownies inside for a second possession charge.
posted by IronLizard at 10:32 AM on May 11, 2007
So it sounds like he didn't arrest them, just took the pot (which explains why the evidence room never asked where the pot was). See? He's not a hypocrite, because he clearly doesn't think pot possession should send people to jail.
He is a hypocrite for confiscating their pot. He believes that other people shouldn't have the right to smoke pot, while he (in virtue of being a police officer?) should get to smoke pot. That's pretty darned hypocritical.
posted by decathecting at 12:00 PM on May 11, 2007
He is a hypocrite for confiscating their pot. He believes that other people shouldn't have the right to smoke pot, while he (in virtue of being a police officer?) should get to smoke pot. That's pretty darned hypocritical.
posted by decathecting at 12:00 PM on May 11, 2007
I didn't notice anything in the article or the 911 call about his beliefs about people's rights. Where did you get that? He wanted the pot, he took the pot, he ate the pot. He didn't think about who should have the right to smoke pot generally. He didn't tell the people he took the pot from that he was taking it because he believed that they did not have the right to have it but that he did.
Why are we imagining that he's some kind of James Bond super-villain, motivated not by greed but by a subversive view of human rights and an iron will to force his worldview on others?
posted by The World Famous at 12:28 PM on May 11
Okay, then, he's a thief. And police officers who are also thieves are hypocrites. You're wrong either way.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:43 PM on May 11, 2007
Why are we imagining that he's some kind of James Bond super-villain, motivated not by greed but by a subversive view of human rights and an iron will to force his worldview on others?
posted by The World Famous at 12:28 PM on May 11
Okay, then, he's a thief. And police officers who are also thieves are hypocrites. You're wrong either way.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:43 PM on May 11, 2007
Why are we imagining that he's some kind of James Bond super-villain, motivated not by greed but by a subversive view of human rights and an iron will to force his worldview on others?
Did you forget: He's a cop. (or... was.) That's what they do. With guns and more cops, if necessary.
A cop confiscating your property under threat of imprisonment vs. some asshole snatching your stash from your sock drawar are two very different things.
posted by LordSludge at 12:49 PM on May 11, 2007
Did you forget: He's a cop. (or... was.) That's what they do. With guns and more cops, if necessary.
A cop confiscating your property under threat of imprisonment vs. some asshole snatching your stash from your sock drawar are two very different things.
posted by LordSludge at 12:49 PM on May 11, 2007
Well, sure, he's a bit of hypocrite when it comes to stealing (and that whole upholding the law thing), just not about sending people to jail for marijuana possession (which is what everyone's so upset about, that he didn't get prosecuted). I don't know his views on smoking pot, but he didn't smoke any, so it's irrelevant.
posted by Crash at 1:19 PM on May 11, 2007
posted by Crash at 1:19 PM on May 11, 2007
I don't know his views on smoking pot, but he didn't smoke any, so it's irrelevant.
He didn't smoke any this time. From what he told the dispatcher, he'd smoked it other times.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:28 PM on May 11, 2007
He didn't smoke any this time. From what he told the dispatcher, he'd smoked it other times.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:28 PM on May 11, 2007
Well, sure, he's a bit of hypocrite when it comes to stealing (and that whole upholding the law thing), just not about sending people to jail for marijuana possession (which is what everyone's so upset about, that he didn't get prosecuted).
He never sent anyone to jail for MJ possession?? I must have missed that.
I don't know his views on smoking pot, but he didn't smoke any, so it's irrelevant.
Now you're being pedantic.
posted by LordSludge at 1:35 PM on May 11, 2007
He never sent anyone to jail for MJ possession?? I must have missed that.
I don't know his views on smoking pot, but he didn't smoke any, so it's irrelevant.
Now you're being pedantic.
posted by LordSludge at 1:35 PM on May 11, 2007
On MSNBC-TV -- former prosecutor Susan Filan comments on the case:
"I think the State's Attorney is going to get wind of this and talk to the Chief-of-Police and say 'What the heck is going on here?.' Unless there is some kind of evidentiary issue or statue-of-limitations issue this case should go forward. The evidentiary issue I think has gone out the window...I mean...the evidentiary is...yea...'We don't have the pot.' You don't need it because you've got the confession. And, the cocaine, you don't have that either. You know what? I don't think it's going to be that hard to prove that there was cocaine in the car that was for the drug-sniffing dog that she admitted she took. You know, this is not brain surgery here."posted by ericb at 3:41 PM on May 11, 2007
As a betting man, I'll go with Susan Filan's interpretation of the situation and not those who think the cop gets off scott-free.
posted by ericb at 3:43 PM on May 11, 2007
posted by ericb at 3:43 PM on May 11, 2007
Smedleyman writes "First casualty of war? (no googling) Anyone? Anyone? Aeschylus? Hiram Johnson? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone? Sun Tzu? Anyone?"
Ou! Ou! Pick me! Pick Me!
Ethereal Bligh writes "It would be the exception to the rule if it really is the case that a person can't eat enough marijuana to do themselves significant harm. I'm not saying it's impossible, because it may have evolved to be toxic to some insect and for a large mammal the toxicity is so low that it's just not practically possible to ingest enough of it to matter."
I've seen goats after they've hit the weed, it's a pretty good defense mechanism as they didn't get all that far before they couldn't eat anymore.
vhsiv writes "I'm surpised that this thread has gone on so long without anyone suggesting that the pot might have been tainted. TAINTED, as in additives like PCP or formaldehyde, common additives that some chemists use to enhance their marijuana."
Legalise home grow ops, protect the citizenry from evil drug dealers.
posted by Mitheral at 7:25 PM on May 11, 2007
Ou! Ou! Pick me! Pick Me!
Ethereal Bligh writes "It would be the exception to the rule if it really is the case that a person can't eat enough marijuana to do themselves significant harm. I'm not saying it's impossible, because it may have evolved to be toxic to some insect and for a large mammal the toxicity is so low that it's just not practically possible to ingest enough of it to matter."
I've seen goats after they've hit the weed, it's a pretty good defense mechanism as they didn't get all that far before they couldn't eat anymore.
vhsiv writes "I'm surpised that this thread has gone on so long without anyone suggesting that the pot might have been tainted. TAINTED, as in additives like PCP or formaldehyde, common additives that some chemists use to enhance their marijuana."
Legalise home grow ops, protect the citizenry from evil drug dealers.
posted by Mitheral at 7:25 PM on May 11, 2007
dude...
er I ate pot brownies once without realizing what they where while on a kayaking trip. At no point did I think I was ODing, but it certainly was a strange experience, suddenly thinking "Oh, I'm stoned".
posted by edgeways at 9:07 PM on May 11, 2007
er I ate pot brownies once without realizing what they where while on a kayaking trip. At no point did I think I was ODing, but it certainly was a strange experience, suddenly thinking "Oh, I'm stoned".
posted by edgeways at 9:07 PM on May 11, 2007
UbuRoivas: Thank you, thank you. I think this thread in dire need of a Withnail quote.
posted by ob at 9:07 AM on May 12, 2007
posted by ob at 9:07 AM on May 12, 2007
I mean...the evidentiary is...yea...'We don't have the pot.' You don't need it because you've got the confession.
which possibly may be withdrawn ... and of course, you still have to prove it was pot ... and no, a tape of some guy thinking he's going to die of a pot overdose is not proof ... maybe it was oregeno and he had an allergic reaction and THOUGHT it was from pot
people make up crimes to confess to all the time ... you still have to prove that a crime, in fact, was committed
tough to do without the pot
posted by pyramid termite at 9:23 AM on May 12, 2007
which possibly may be withdrawn ... and of course, you still have to prove it was pot ... and no, a tape of some guy thinking he's going to die of a pot overdose is not proof ... maybe it was oregeno and he had an allergic reaction and THOUGHT it was from pot
people make up crimes to confess to all the time ... you still have to prove that a crime, in fact, was committed
tough to do without the pot
posted by pyramid termite at 9:23 AM on May 12, 2007
Then you should drive over to that McDonald's in Ottowa, IL and get a Very Happy Meal.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:55 AM on May 16, 2007
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:55 AM on May 16, 2007
« Older Way Better Than Recycling | Post Apocalyptic Tokyo in Lithograph Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
"Cpl. Sanchez was insistent that he would never ingest marijuana or any narcotics intentionally," an investigator wrote.
But in a subsequent interview, Sanchez acknowledged he fetched the marijuana from his car, put it in the brownie batter, and ate the brownies.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:21 PM on May 10, 2007