Ex-narcotics cop sells DVDs on how to stash pot and beat the law

Booyah... fight the power! Legalize it!

 

Maybe he realized that pot doesn't cause tens of thousands of DUI accidents like alcohol does...?

...that it's not worthy of so much legal attention...?

...that it ought to be legalized...?

Unless he specifically signed a document which prevents him from doing what he's doing, I don't see the problem. He's following his beliefs...which shows more courage than lots of folks exhibit.

Would this be okay if the DVD's were about how to speed and not get caught? Does it have more to to with what he's doing...the principle of it...or is the problem that marijuana is involved?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Presto @ Jun 20 2007, 07:08 PM) [snapback]465504[/snapback]</div>

Yup. Legalize it. Hell give Philip Morris 100% rights to its production. That should streamline and grease the washington lobbying machinery to make it available to every 18 year old in the country.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Presto @ Jun 20 2007, 07:08 PM) [snapback]465504[/snapback]</div>

Yup. Legalize it. Hell give Philip Morris 100% rights to its production. That should streamline and grease the washington lobbying machinery to make it available to every 18 year old in the country.

 

Several possibilities. People can change. Maybe he changed his mind about whether or not pot is harmful. Or maybe none of the suggestions on the DVD will work. The cops will see the DVD also. "Hide your pot behind the clock." "Hey, Joe, lookee here: This hippie hid his pot behind the clock just like that DVD said. Okay, boy, you're under arrest." Maybe fox urine doesn't fool the dogs. Maybe the dogs were having a hard time sniffing pot sealed in plastic bangs, but if the drug users put fox urine on their tires the dogs can sniff for that, and the cops will know which cars to search more thoroughly.

Maybe the cop just got sick of the hypocrisy of a society where people with money get mind-altering drugs by prescription while poor people go to jail for using drugs that are no more harmful, and in some cases, much less harmful.

Or maybe he just decided he could make a buck.

 

Why??? WHY????

BECAUSE HE IS MAKING MONEY!!!!!

That's why.

Selling DVD's to Millions of Stoners = PROFIT

 

I say, legalize it, tax it. I have been a member of NORML for years. And I don't smoke it. I just think it's stupid to fight a war that can not be won; and why should the criminal element win?

 

He's not alone.
There are many former and current law enforcement men and women who don't agree with prohibition.
There's even an organization called LEAP (Law enforcement Against Prohibition).
And they are NOT pro-pot or out to make money. They have seen the futility of it all and have seen that pot is so much less harmful than the other drugs out there and even of alcohol. They want law enforcement to focus on meth, which is the real danger to our youth. Prohibition of pot is no difference than prohibition of alcohol. They are total wastes of the countries resources. They draw LE, judicial, and legislative effort away from more important LE work, they waste billions of dollars when taxation and regulation could rake IN billions as well as make the products more safe, properly taxed. Take the profit away from the criminals and put it into common taxpaying citizens and businesses. Without pot, drug dealers will have a MUCH harder time getting kids hooked on other drugs. Pot is more available to teenagers than alcohol BECAUSE of prohibition, not in spite of it, because of who controlls the distribution. Sell it in liquor stores, where we already have a good infractructure for preventing sales to minors. It takes away the profit from criminals.

It's also down right criminal to arrest cancer patients for using pot to quell nausea. My brother fought cancer for 6 years, and during the chemotherapy process, it was a godsend.
At the VERY least, this BS about "no medical value" has GOT to stop.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Jun 21 2007, 02:06 AM) [snapback]465623[/snapback]</div>

It will never be legalized because there are too many jobs, departments, and gov funding depending upon it being illegal. Many drugs were legal until prohibition was ended and the gov agency that was responsible for controlling alcohol suddenly had no purpose for existing. It was at that point in the 30's when they decided these drugs need to be controlled by the government. Imagine that. <_<

I do not encourage drug use for a variety of reasons, but there are a lot of people who's living depends on keeping it illegal.

 

Putting people in prison has become an industry in the U.S., with a very powerful lobby pressing for more laws and stiffer punishments for more crimes, whether or not those "crimes" have victims. There are lobbyists in D.C. and in state capitols working for the prison industry, urging lawmakers to put more people in prison and keep them there longer. It does not matter that pot is less harmful than caffeine. What matters is that it's a way to feed the profits of the prison industry at taxpayers' expense.

And, no, I do not smoke pot. I also don't drink alcohol or smoke tobacco. I do drink coffee, in very small amounts, and I'd probably be better off if it was illegal.

 

i always find it amusing how people that agree with legalization are accused so frequently of being a pothead that they learn to immediately state that they don't smoke pot.

i was actually thinking about posting a topic for discussion the other day about a 2006 ruling by the fda that there is no medical value in marijuana despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary. maybe i will. seems we might get some constructive conversation out of it before people come in cracking the jokes.

for the record, i see immense value in marijuana/compounds derived from cannabinoids/the endocannabinoid system for therapeutic uses.

 

I wouldn't say pot is less harmful than caffeine. Less addictive than caffeine, yes. Caffeine is a suprisingly addictive substance, all "uppers" are. But the pharmacology of caffeine is pretty mild, though the withdrawal headaches do SUCK! Long term coffee use is only a risk for those with heart or weight problems.
It is pretty clear that pot is less harmful than alcohol, though. Socially, one decreases inhibition and increases agressiveness (including behind the wheel, as well as the typical bar fights, abusive spouse problems, etc), while the other increases inhibition and reduces aggressiveness (but leads to twinkies and paranoia instead). Long term pot use can lead to anxiety problems and possibly memory issues (debatable). Long term alcohol use leads to cirrosis of liver, definate memory problems, stomach and digestive problems, and many other problems.

Moderation in everything is the key to life!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Jun 21 2007, 09:08 AM) [snapback]465694[/snapback]</div>

Very true. I studied behavioral neuropyschology, and there is un unmined wealth of health benefits. Unfortunately for the pharma companies, they can't seem to get those compounds in a marketable form that works better than smoked or vaporized (Despite ongoing efforts). Which BTW, is why the pharma industry is the BIGGEST supporter of prohibition. They view it as a competitor to their business model. A plant you can grow yourself that alleviates a myriad of problems? EGAD! We can't have that!
Look at marinol. What a joke that is! It's a nice attempt, but what good is a pill to someone who can't stop heaving due to chemotherapy? Besides, you can't properly titrate the dose in pill form, as it takes up to 30 minutes to take affect. Glaucoma, arthritis, MS, IBS, flu, AIDS wasting, chemotherapy side effects, etc. It could be the new aspirin, if it were not culturally tied to all those dirty hippies!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Jun 21 2007, 10:33 AM) [snapback]465708[/snapback]</div>

the fact that marinol made it through the approval process seems promising to me, though yeah it's not the optimal delivery route for that particular drug. somehow, IP injection seems less patient-friendly though... (that's how our rats get it) and you still have to wait the 30 minutes before evaluating their behavior.

smoking in general has a pretty negative view in terms of health benefits- people tend to think cigarettes. besides, the co2 and other junk you end up inhaling (benzo-a-pyrenes, anyone?) aren't exactly healthy. there is some research into vaporizing it but i don't really know how well that will work.

the main problem with marijuana is that subpopulations of receptors will downregulate sooner than others- you can see this tolerance develop regionally in the brain as well. unfortunately, the pain relief is about the first thing to go, and as you ramp up the dose to maintain the pain you also ramp up your cognitive impairment. see my other thread, where i bring up a nature neurosci paper that discusses the potential for a non-BBB-crossing cannabinoid in chronic pain. i hope that gets big pharma's attention...

 

Vaporization is essentially baking it. The desired drug is located in opaque glands on the surface and will vaporize at a lower temperature than what fire produces. So rather than burn the whole flower portion to get the drug effect (as well as burning plant matter you do't want) you bake it at a lower temperature until the outer glands can be sucked off without ever burning the plant itself. It eliminates all of the carcinogens associated with smoking. Medical users in CA often use these small machines to heat it up, and then fill a baggy attached to it with the vaporized "smoke", then they can inhale a little at a time until they reach the ED. This obviously wouldn't halp you with rat studies, as you still can not effectively measure the dosage. I think for rats, a sublingual tincture would be the most effective route, which offers a faster absorption as well as better dose mearuement.

GW Pharma in the UK was developing such a delivery device.