Are You Supposed To Smoke It, or Make Love to It?

Radley Balko | July 8, 2008

Police in Ohio discover some really premium weed.

Comments

anarch|7.8.08 @ 10:32PM|#

Caveat lector.

|7.8.08 @ 10:47PM|#

Yep, that's the shit that drives me to drink. The drug warriors just vomit up whatever they think sounds best, and the lapdog press prints it word for word.

Elemenope|7.8.08 @ 10:59PM|#

On the other hand, it drives me to smoke...

|7.8.08 @ 11:15PM|#

Are You Supposed To Smoke It, or Make Love to It?

Is the making-love-to-the-giant-bag-of-weed-scene better in the first Harold and Kumar movie or the second?

I'd have to say the first takes the cake, despite the addition of the hot girl in 2.0

jtuf|7.8.08 @ 11:24PM|#

Q: Why didn't the baby boomers end the War on Drugs?

A: No draft.

|7.8.08 @ 11:36PM|#

Are You Supposed To Smoke It, or Make Love to It?

Neither. You are supposed to give it to me. OK, I'll settle for just a pound.

|7.8.08 @ 11:38PM|#

I haven't smoked dope in ages, but $2,000 per ounce stuff might lure me back. I'm assuming its like acid, X, cocaine and bad elevators farts all at once.

|7.8.08 @ 11:50PM|#

I blame speculators.

Anon

Naga Sadow|7.9.08 @ 12:09AM|#

Love . . . smoke . . . can't one do both?

Raționalitate|7.9.08 @ 12:59AM|#

Perhaps to crack down on the speculators we can impose some sort of tax. Perhaps we could draft some sort of "Marihuana Tax Act"?

Kolohe|7.9.08 @ 1:25AM|#

You know, Howard Schultz made a fortune selling a product for almost 10 times the prevailing retail price, so maybe this dude was just following that business model.

JMR|7.9.08 @ 6:14AM|#

I call it the "hook, line, and sinker syndrome," Warren. Media bias busting groups & late-night shows need to catch-on, or the media will continue to do it.
JMR

|7.9.08 @ 6:32AM|#

These idiots have weighed the whole lot together - buds, stalks, young leaves, old leaves - and counted it as if it were all prime bud. Of course these guys know better, but they must figure the general public doesn't.

|7.9.08 @ 7:07AM|#

Christoff,

In Kentucky, a cheap marijuana paradise, they love the press conference marijuana bonfire. I have never seen them burning plants that already weren't topped. They might as well be burning a couple of hundred feet of hemp rope seized from Lowe's.

|7.9.08 @ 8:46AM|#

A specially trained, narcotics-detecting dog was brought to the scene, and its reaction to the car signaled the presence of drugs, the statement said.

There are many steps to ending the WOD, but a good start would be made if someone would end this "specially trained, narcotics-detecting dog" bullshit.

"Well, Officer Fluffy is licking he's balls, that means his detected mari-ju-ana. We're gonna have to search your car Mr [dark-skinned/foreign looking/longhaired guy driving a too expensive looking car]."

And if the dog actually is specially trained and actually can smell dope isn't bring one to your car in a routine traffic stop searching your motherfucking car?

Oh that's right. The Supreme Court said it was A-OK, didn't they.

But really, has anyone ever challenged the validity of this bullshit about "specially trained, narcotics-detecting dogs"?

Episiarch|7.9.08 @ 8:55AM|#

But really, has anyone ever challenged the validity of this bullshit about "specially trained, narcotics-detecting dogs"?

You answered your own question:

The Supreme Court said it was A-OK, didn't they.

I will bet anyone one billion dollars (pinkie in corner of mouth) that the dogs, while probably trained to actually smell certain substances, are also trained to give the "signal" when prompted by the K-9 officer--whether there is anything there or not.

|7.9.08 @ 9:17AM|#

"I will bet anyone ... that the dogs,.. are also trained to give the "signal" when prompted by the K-9 officer--whether there is anything there or not."

See Clever Hans the Math Horse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans

|7.9.08 @ 9:37AM|#

Last time I crossed the border from Windsor into Detroit, I was sitting in line when a huge guard dog came up to my car and put its paws right up through my open driver's window.
"He likes you," said the border guard, and waved me on without batting an eye. If I'd been carrying pot or even Cuban cigars, I probably would have had a stroke and died on the spot.

|7.9.08 @ 10:01AM|#

But really, has anyone ever challenged the validity of this bullshit about "specially trained, narcotics-detecting dogs"?

Actually, dogs can be extraordinarily good at finding stuff by smell.

Which doesn't mean c-mace @ 9:17 am isn't also on target.

|7.9.08 @ 10:17AM|#

I will bet anyone one billion dollars (pinkie in corner of mouth) that the dogs, while probably trained to actually smell certain substances, are also trained to give the "signal" when prompted by the K-9 officer--whether there is anything there or not.

You don't even have to train them to give the signal when the officer wants it.

Remeber reading/hearing about Clever Hans?

|7.9.08 @ 10:18AM|#

cmace beat me to it.
Damnn!

Episiarch|7.9.08 @ 10:32AM|#

I know about Clever Hans. I am implying active malice on behalf of the police, not passive triggering of the dogs. I'm saying they do it on purpose. Big difference.

|7.9.08 @ 11:17AM|#

I started doing the math years decades ago. It's all bullshit and anyone with a modicum of drug experience and minimal math skills knows it.

|7.9.08 @ 11:46AM|#

R C Dean

I realize that dogs can be trained to locate stuff by using their sense of smell.

But they can also bee manipulated and you only have their tender's word for what a response means.

I have no problem with them being used for tracking, locating corpses, explosives and the like.

But determining probable cause for a search, I call shenanigans.

It's like making a search to determine probable cause for a search.

If I (or my property) have been sniffed by a dog, I have been searched.

If the supremes had any guts they would have told the cops they need a warrant to subject your car to K-9 inspection.

|7.9.08 @ 11:48AM|#

I realize none has actually disagreed with me (my tone may have suggested otherwise), I was just trying to spell out my position on the matter.

Syd|7.9.08 @ 11:59AM|#

If I (or my property) have been sniffed by a dog, I have been searched.

Isn't that a bit like a driver bitching because the cop sniffed his breath for booze?

|7.9.08 @ 12:02PM|#

Is the making-love-to-the-giant-bag-of-weed-scene better in the first Harold and Kumar movie or the second?

Definitely the first. It was genuinely clever, especially the "happy domestic scene" that it caused with Kumar. It also fit perfectly with the plot. The second one just seemed like they were shoehorning in an obligatory reference to the first movie.

|7.9.08 @ 12:05PM|#

Isn't that a bit like a driver bitching because the cop sniffed his breath for booze?

Umm, no, it isn't. Not a bit. Think about it for a while.

If you can't figure out the difference, it's probably not worth trying to explain it.

this guy|7.10.08 @ 11:58PM|#

After talking with a different reporter at Pioneer Press about this story, I have a variety of theories about it ranging from not giving a damn because he needs to get more work done, all the way to noticing the absurdity of the number and accepting it in order to discredit the paper.