Prohibitionists Say Bogus Candy Scare Proves Legal Pot Endangers Trick-or-Treaters

The Drug Free America Foundation claims an imaginary prank "highlights the very real dangers legal marijuana has on children."


Protecting Nevada's Children

The Drug Free America Foundation, which is fighting a medical marijuana initiative in Florida by warning that it will lead to cannabis candy in trick-or-treat bags, has latched onto a bogus report of such an incident in Illinois to show the threat is more than a figment of prohibitionists' imaginations. "The cruel and unfortunate incident highlights the very real dangers legal marijuana has on children," the organization says in a press release published yesterday. "These children were intentionally targeted by adults that were not their parents with the malicious intent of poisoning them."

Calvina Fay, the foundation's executive director, elaborates on the threat to trick-or-treaters. "This shows that the potential for children accidently ingesting marijuana is a real danger," she says. "It also shows that this is not just a problem for children who have parents that use marijuana and leave it unsecured and accessible around the house and it is not something we can simply blame on bad parenting. This makes it clear that children, even with the best parenting, can be exposed to marijuana. These children were unsuspecting and taken advantage of by a mean-spirited person or persons with no regard for their safety or well-being."

Actually, this incident shows none of those things, because it involved Japanese candy that the Bureau County Sheriff's Office misrepresented as THC-laced treats. The "small pictures of cannabis leaves" that Sheriff James Reed perceived on the wrappers of Crunch Choco Bars were actually small pictures of maple leaves, a symbol of the Japanese candy brand Iroha Kaede (a kind of maple tree). And unless Iroha Kaede is secretly doping its Japanese customers, the field test that supposedly showed the candy bars contained marijuana was erroneous, as such tests often are.

In an interview with U.S. News reporter Steven Nelson yesterday, a spokesman for the sheriff's office was not quite ready to concede the embarrassing mistake. "I'm not making any official statement right now," said Sgt. Gary Becket. "A follow-up press release will be sent out once the final lab testing has been done."

It has been two decades since California became the first state to legalize marijuana for medical use, and in that time two dozen states have followed suit. Four of them have also legalized marijuana for recreational use. Yet Sheriff Reed's Crunch Choco Bar confusion is the best example prohibitionists can find to substantiate their concern that strangers with candy are trying to get your kids high by passing off marijuana edibles as ordinary Halloween treats. The complete lack of actual cases, of course, does not stop opponents of legalization from continuing to warn parents about the mythical menace of marijuana in trick-or-treat bags, as illustrated by this TV spot from Nevada:

NEXT: Brickbat: Squirelly

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Florida friends remember: No on 1, Yes on 2!

    1. I’m not Floridian, so please tell me what you mean by that.

      1. I believe it’s about when you can relieve yourself in the yard or the woods. It is Florida.

        1. I think they want to ban eating puffers (fish, not porn preparators). It’s about all I caught last time I went fishing there (though I’d prefer the other kind)..

          1. ‘Fluffers’, not ‘puffers’ is the porn term.

            1. spend a couple hours suckin cock and you’d be huffin and puffin too.

    2. What’s your issue with 1?

      1. I’m late here obviously, but Amendment 1 is terrible. It’s a utility-sponsored amendment (all the money behind it is FPL and Duke Energy) that does real damage to use of solar power in Florida.

  2. Japanese Maple Candy might just get a bump in US sales after this, but the customs people might alert the DEA and confiscate it all.

    1. No-knock warrants for Japanese candy.

  3. So the Japs have stolen the maple leaf for profit? Does Rufus know?

  4. Like I said on a thread a few days ago, no respectable pothead is going to waste a $20 sucker on your obnoxious child. I mean, what’s the point of drugging a child if you can’t bear witness to the hilarity that ensues?

    1. That is reality check number one. Reality check number two is that kids know at whose house they got what candy; if kids are given heroin in their snickers or razor blades in their apples, they will be able to lead the authorities straight to the culprit.

      1. Don’t forget the fish hooks. Bring your kids’ candy to the airport for an X-ray.

  5. my Aunty Mackenzie just got a new black Infiniti G Convertible IPL only from parttime off a
    computer. this link>>>>>>>>>>>

    1. There once was a lady named Aunty Mackenzie
      Who worked part time and not in a frenzy
      She was a lazy bitch
      Who could have been rich
      But the lack of “full time” denied her a Benzie.

    2. All I want is a 1991 Honda Civic Hatchback with a carburetor and 5-speed manual transmission. Can I get that for working only a few minutes a week?

  6. Calvin Fay is a vile, wretched person.

    And hipster, amendment 1 partly states things that are already true, and partly provides a legal basis for power companies to slap fees on those who dare to generate their own power.


      1. Calvina Fay is a vile, wretched, horrible, mean, awful, nasty person.

        I’d come up with some better ones but I’m still waiting for the coffee to kick in.

  7. Recycle, kids. It’s good for the environment. HyR sets a shining example.

    1. I always try to recycle my kids, but somehow they always end up back on my doorstep.

      1. #PunctuationMatters

  8. “This shows that the potential for children accidently ingesting marijuana is a real danger.”

    “This shows that the reality for children accidently ingesting marijuana is a potential danger.”

    “This shows that the ingesting for children dangerously accidenting marijuana is a real potential.”

    “This shows that the accident for children potentially ingesting danger is a real marijuana.”

    1. + several permutations

  9. “These children were intentionally targeted by adults that were not their parents with the malicious intent of poisoning them.”

    Is this person saying it would be less awful if the person doing the targeting was their own parent? Also, how do you poison someone with something that is not poisonous?

  10. First off, who cares? If my kid ate weed candy, we’d have a hilariously fun time. Second, when he/she came down I’d ask which house that candy came from, we’d report them, they get arrested. Done and done.

  11. Nearly everyone agrees that it’s unlikely that people would hand out marijuana infused candy, but it still highlights everyone’s issue with edibles: how do identify it outside the package?
    Requiring marijuana edibles manufacturers to put a safety symbol on the actual food product prevents situations where a child or adult might eat a marijuana infused product because they had no way of knowing it contained cannabis.

    Cannacals? can be quickly and easily applied to gummies, hard candies, and more! Not only do they make sense, they cost cents!

  12. Shades of LBJ’s daisy commercial…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.