Marijuana

Police Warnings Save Children From Pot-Laced Halloween Treats Once Again

|

Denver Police Department

As I noted in a column a couple of weeks ago, law enforcement agencies have been warning parents for years that strangers with cannabis candy might try to get their kids stoned on Halloween by passing off marijuana edibles as ordinary treats. At that point no actual cases of such trickery had materialized, and apparently that is still true even in Colorado, where state-licensed stores have been selling THC-laced lollipops, chocolate bars, and gummy candies to recreational customers since January (and to patients for years).

"Fears that trick-or-treaters here might end up with marijuana-laced candy on Halloween appear to have been overblown," reports USA Today. "Children's Hospital Colorado reported no instances of accidental pot poisonings from Friday night." According to the Associated Press, "Denver-area authorities said Monday they received no reports of children accidentally eating pot-laced candies this Halloween." Once again, we see how effective officials warnings about this threat can be: Cops keep telling parents to be vigilant, and so far no trick-or-treater has accidentally gotten high. Imagine what might happen if police let a year go by without talking about the menace of marijuana-infused Halloween candy.

Alas, A.P.  cites some evidence that undermines this banana-vs.-alligators theory:

A Denver-based testing company offered 1,000 free kits to parents wanting to screen their trick-or-treaters' haul for marijuana's psychoactive chemical. However, only 45 parents took CB Scientific up on the offer as of Friday….

"My honest opinion is that's an overblown fear that was created by the police," said CB Scientific CEO Bill Short.

Police may have created the fear, but Short's company happily capitalized on it for publicity. Similarly, USA Today helped promote the scare it is now debunking. In an October 22 story headlined "Marijuana-Infused Candy Raises Colo. Halloween Concerns," the paper reported that "some Colorado parents are worried their kids might come home with something dangerous after trick-or-treating this Halloween: marijuana-infused candy." The story cited two examples of such parents: Rachel O'Bryan, founder of SMART Colorado, a group that lobbies for restrictions on marijuana in the name of protecting children, and Frank McNulty, a state legislator who is pushing for a regulatory crackdown on marijuana edibles. USA Today also quoted Patrick Johnson, the marijuana merchant who appeared in the Denver Police Department's video about pot in Halloween candy. The only skeptic was Dan Anglin, chairman of the Colorado Cannabis Chamber of Commerce.

"We see this as a problem," O'Bryan said, "and we don't believe it's being blown out of proportion." McNulty was a bit more cautious. "I don't think you're going to see a lot of marijuana candies in Halloween bags," he said, but "it is something that parents need to think about." Like Johnson, McNulty suggested that parents worried about this putative pot peril need not take any new precautions. After all, doesn't every parent carefully inspect Halloween candy for broken glass, razor blades, and other puported hazards to innocent trick-or-treaters? In other words, if you are already hypervigilant as a result of other baseless scare stories, what's one more phony threat?

Advertisement

NEXT: Cody Wilson of 3D Gun and "Ghost Gunner" Fame Has His Companies Booted from Online Payment Processor Stripe

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. They’ll still repeat the same breathless bullshit next year.

    1. If this hysteria prevents one hypothetical pot laced candy from poisoning one hypothetical child; it’s worth it!

      1. +1 Tiger-repelling rock

        1. *throws doughnut at EDG and Dances – whether “pot-laced” or not is indeterminate*

          1. It’s not pot-laced, it’s pot-crochetted!

            1. If you want pot-laced, don’t you have to learn the art of pot-tatting?

              1. Exposure to these comments has given me the munchies. Oddly, I want Salt Potatos. I don’t want to have to drag out my stock pot.

  2. Local paper reported that some guy claims to have found a sewing needle in a Snickers.

    1. My favorite claim is the guy who claimed that he found a dead mouse in a can of Mountain Dew.

      PepsiCo proved him wrong in court, but it was a PR disaster:
      http://www.scientificamerican……-dissolve/

      The Mountain Dew would have dissolved the mouse into a gelatinous blob.

      1. +1 Strange Brew

      2. Please, Mountain Dew guards its secret recipe much more closely than that.

      3. The Mountain Dew would have dissolved the mouse into a gelatinous blob.

        Kind of like what it does to the taste buds of whatever poor bastard puts that swill in his mouth?

    2. *Counting on fingers* Sarcasmic – local paper – some guy… 4th hand unsourced report? This totally justifies the same bullshit next year!

        1. This is just a pop-up ad.

          1. Works for me.

            1. I get a page that complains that I have “Cookies Disabled”.

            2. Got through. Entire story still reeks of bullshit.

              1. Hence why I phrased my original post the way I did.

  3. Has anyone talked to Maine’s governor to see if maybe we should have a lockdown next year instead of trick or treating? Just for 21 days. Just “to be sure”.

    #caring

  4. no instances of accidental pot poisonings

    Well there’s the problem right there. WE need to know how many people intentionally poisoned some kids with their own expensive pot candy.

  5. “Children’s Hospital Colorado reported no instances of accidental pot poisonings from Friday night.”

    Any reporting on instances of accidental chlamydia infections is conspicuous by its absence.

    1. True story:

      My sister-in-law got some clematis plants for her house. They did very well for her, and really put on a nice show.

      She kept referring to them as “chlamydia”.

      Hilarity ensued, as in:

      “Gosh, my chlamydia is doing so well. I may get some more.”

      Etc.

      1. Chlamydia does sound like it should be something nice rather than what it really is.

  6. How could you not report on Operation Porchlight?

    Through Operation Porch Lights Out, Virginia Department of Corrections officials are requiring offenders under probation and parole supervision to either remain home with their outside lights off and not answer the door or attend a meeting during the evening hours of Oct. 31.

  7. You fuckers can laugh all you want, but how many of you are MAN enough to go face Mrs. Dowd and tell her that her only daughter Maureen is now a reefer junkie because no one checked her edibles?

    1. Or because lots of people “checked her edibles”.

    2. Maureen Dowd has a mother?

  8. Better try ban them all.

    FTFY

  9. Lena Dunham is threatening to sue Truth Revolt for liable because they quoted her own book. Maybe Dunham will sue her publisher and herself as well.

    http://www.truthrevolt.org/com…..uoting-her

    I think this might actually torpedo her career. Incest is one of the few things that still skeeves out even our hedonistic society. Moreover, Dunham’s fan base consists of young women and Episiarch. If her fans were men, she might be okay since male reaction would likely be “sure she banged her sister but the show is still funny”. Women don’t generally think like that. Women are more likely to think “oh my God that is so gross I get wierded out just watching that show now” and stop watching it. I think maybe her generation will need to find a new voice.

    1. Moreover, Dunham’s fan base consists of young women and Episiarch.

      That’s cold, John, stone cold.

    2. “Hedonistic?” Really? We’re puritans, John, the focus has just changed slightly.

      1. Eh I think you could make the case that the puritanism and hedonism play off each other; the former just adds more fun to the latter via guilt and repression, and the latter just fuels the righteous indignation behind the former. Of course, what exactly is taboo changes from time to time, although I think a lot of it moves in cycles.

      2. Well, the original hedonists were surprisingly non-hedonistic. Their approach was to avoid unpleasantness by avoiding becoming accustomed to extravagant pleasures.

    3. Lena Dunham is threatening to sue Truth Revolt for liable because they quoted her own book. Maybe Dunham will sue her publisher and herself as well.

      God love ya, John. Don’t ever change.

      On a more serious note, I would like nothing more than for this shrill, dumpy harpy to go away. The sooner the better.

    4. What a fucking weirdo. I guess it is worse than I thought this morning. Still not sure that it is so out of the ordinary (which doesn’t necessarily make it OK), but you have to be some kind of special moron to publish it in a book under your own name.

      1. Publish it like you are proud of it. She is a complete wierdo.

  10. I can’t think of a single person I’ve ever known that would give his pot candy to a kid. It’s a waste of a good buzz and it’s probably going to get you in trouble. But, as we all know, the single most important job of any government agency is to justify it’s own existence…even if it has to invent a reason out of thin air.

  11. Honestly, even if someone did give pot candy to a kid (and I mean young kids, not teenagers who probably want it), what’s the worst that will happen? The kid might puke and then sleep for a long time. Possibly have a panic attack. Odds are that it won’t give them good feelings about trying pot again terribly soon. People talk about this as if it is going to do some permanent damage or something.

  12. There’s a report from Towamencin, PA that a razor blade was found sealed in a “fun size” candy bar. Trick or Treater was 13 y.o. boy. What are the odds it will turn out the kid sabotaged his own candy?

  13. However, only 45 parents took CB Scientific up on the offer as of Friday

    I’m willing to bet that all 45 were just looking for a free test kit so they could QC their supplier. Or maybe I’m the only one who would do that…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.