TX cops raid farm for marijuana only find tomatoes

Status
Not open for further replies.
I once had an idea for a law it goes like this:

Once you solve every murder, every rape, and locate every missing person, THEN you are allowed to get into someones personal life.

It got some interesting responses from other people who read it.
 
Wait...I thought from reading the 9/11 thread that our Gov't loves us and only does what is in our best interest?
 
Plenty of folks have woken up in the middle of the night thinking they were being robbed...grabbed there personal weapon only to be shot to death by a SWAT team raiding the WRONG house or being 100% mistaken about there being a crime committed. Land of the free...
 
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Cigarettes are far, FAR more deadly than marijuana will ever be.


That is a dubious statement at best.

"Cannabis smoke contains many of the same carcinogens as tobacco smoke, including greater concentrations of certain aromatic hydrocarbons such as benzopyrene, prompting fears that chronic marijuana inhalation may be a risk factor for tobacco-use related cancers. However, marijuana smoke also contains cannabinoids such as THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) and CBD (cannabidiol), which are non-carcinogenic and demonstrate anti-cancer properties in vivo and in vitro. By contrast, nicotine promotes the development of cancer cells and their blood supply. In addition, cannabinoids stimulate other biological activities and responses that may mitigate the carcinogenic effects of smoke, such as down-regulating the inflammatory arm of the immune system that is responsible for producing potentially carcinogenic free radicals (unstable atoms that are believed to accelerate the progression of cancer).

Cannabis smoke – unlike tobacco smoke – has not been definitively linked to cancer in humans, including those cancers associated with tobacco use. However, certain cellular abnormalities in the lungs have been identified more frequently in long-term smokers of cannabis compared to non-smokers. Chronic exposure to cannabis smoke has also been associated with the development of pre-cancerous changes in bronchial and epithelium cells in similar rates to tobacco smokers. Cellular abnormalities were most present in individuals who smoked both tobacco and marijuana, implying that cannabis and tobacco smoke may have an additive adverse effect on airway tissue. The results suggest that long-term exposure to cannabis smoke, particularly when combined with tobacco smoking, is capable of damaging the bronchial system in ways that could one day lead to respiratory cancers. However, to date, no epidemiologic studies of cannabis-only smokers have yet to reveal such a finding. Larger, better-controlled studies are warranted.

Cannabis consumers who desire the rapid onset of action associated with inhalation but who are concerned about the potential harms of noxious smoke can dramatically cut down on their intake of carcinogenic compounds by engaging in vaporization rather than smoking. Cannabis vaporization limits respiratory toxins by heating cannabis to a temperature where cannabinoid vapors form (typically around 180-190 degrees Celsius), but below the point of combustion where noxious smoke and associated toxins (i.e., carcinogenic hydrocarbons) are produced (near 230 degrees Celsius). Because vaporization can deliver doses of cannabinoids while reducing the users intake of carcinogenic smoke, it is considered to be a preferred and likely safer method of cannabis administration than smoking marijuana cigarettes or inhaling from a water pipe. According to the findings of a recent clinical trial, use of the Volcano vaporizing device delivered set doses of THC to subjects in a reproducible manner while suppressing the intake of respiratory toxins.
"Our results show that with the Volcano, a safe and effective cannabinoid delivery system seems to be available to patients,"investigators at Leiden University's Institute of Biology (the Netherlands) concluded.

"The final pulmonal uptake of THC is comparable to the smoking of cannabis, while avoiding the respiratory disadvantages of smoking."

Head, Neck and Lung Cancers

While a handful of anecdotal reports and one small case-control study associate heavy marijuana use among younger adults with increased incidents of head, neck and lung cancers, no large scale population studies have replicated these results. Investigators at John Hopkins University in Baltimore reported that neither "lifetime use" nor "ever use" of cannabis were associated with head, neck or lung cancer in younger adults in a large, hospital-based case-control study of 164 oral cancer patients and 526 controls. Researchers concluded, "The balance of evidence from this, the largest case-control study addressing marijuana use and cancer to date, does not favor the idea that marijuana as commonly used in the community is a major causal factor for head, neck or lung cancer in young adults."

More recently, the results of a 2004 population-based case-control study of 407 individuals diagnosed with oral squamous cell carcinoma and 615 healthy controls found "no association" between cannabis use and incidents of oral cancer, regardless of how long, how much or how often individuals had used it. A second 2004 case-control study of 116 oral cancer patients and 207 matched controls also failed to identify any association between self-reported cannabis use and oral cancers in adults age 45 years old or younger, although only 10 percent of patients in the study identified themselves as heavy users of cannabis.

A 1997 retrospective cohort study examining the relationship of marijuana use to cancer incidence in 65,171 men and women 15 to 49 years of age in California found that cannabis use was not associated with increased risks of developing tobacco-use related cancers of the lung and upper aerodigestive tract, and in fact, no cases of lung cancer were identified among men and women who used marijuana but did not smoke tobacco. Critics charge that volunteers in the study were relatively young and that the follow up period was fairly short, arguing that "such a study could not have been expected to detect any relationship between marijuana and lung cancer if the lag period were comparable to that seen with tobacco," which typically occurs after at least 20 years of smoking cigarettes and/or among adults over age 60. The study’s author responds: "n contrast to users of tobacco and alcohol, most cannabis users generally quit using cannabis relatively early in their adult lives. … Therefore, even diseases that might be related to long-term use of cannabis (e.g. lung cancer) are unlikely to have a sizeable public health impact because most people who try cannabis do not become long-term users."

Government reviews investigating a possible link between cannabis use and lung cancer have also failed to find a definitive causal connection between the two. A 1998 report by the British House of Lords Science and Technology Committee concluded, "There is as yet no epidemiological evidence for an increase risk of lung cancer" in cannabis smokers, though authors did concede that studies have revealed cellular changes in the airways of cannabis smokers that could potentially be pre-cancerous. An 18-month study by the US National Academy of Science Institute of Medicine also concluded, "There is no conclusive evidence that marijuana causes cancer in humans, including cancers generally related to tobacco use," but added that cellular studies and a handful of poorly controlled case studies suggest that cannabis smoke may be "an important risk factor" for the development of upper aerodigestive or lung cancers. A 2002 Canadian Senate review further commented that among the small number of case studies present in the literature: "[N]one compare the prevalence of cancer with a control group or evaluates the use of cannabis in a standardized way. Interpretation is also limited by the fact the patients smoked tobacco and drank alcohol."

http://norml.org/component/zoo/category/cannabis-smoke-and-cancer-assessing-the-risk
 
Pulling ANY smoke in your lungs is not healthy, but if people want to do it, the .gov should not be in the way. But of course if they are calling the shots on health care......
 
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Pulling ANY smoke in your lungs is not healthy, but if people want to do it, the .gov should not be in the way. But of course if they are calling the shots on health care......


I agree. Adult humans should be allowed to "police" what they consume and put in their body's. But by the same token they should not be allowed operate machinery until the adverse effects are flushed our of their systems. If someone wants to shove junk in their blood vessels or up their noses and it is only destroying the user let them destroy themselves.
 
I don't mix with pot smokers, but can't imagine them dropping out every half hour of so to have a smoke, like many of the regular cigarette smokers do.

I've always assumed that the chemical effects on the lungs would be the same, but pot smokers are generally less exposed....thus the lower risk.

Interesting take in New Scientist some many years ago was that filters mean that the pockets in the lungs are more "open" during a draw, and allow smaller particles in deeper.
 
Originally Posted By: Chris142
This happens more than you think. A neighbor near me runs a legal business in a shop behind his house restoring cars and the cops broke the door down woth guns drawn thinking it waa a chop shop.

At the same time they held his wife and 5 yr old in the house at gunpoint. Eventually cuffing the wife and kid! Kid got zip ties.

After finding nothing everybody was released. The pd bought a new door and a lawyer was notified. The pd settled out of court as long as the news was not notified.


He's lucky they didn't KILL the wife and/or the kid!
 
Originally Posted By: artificialist
I once had an idea for a law it goes like this:

Once you solve every murder, every rape, and locate every missing person, THEN you are allowed to get into someones personal life.

It got some interesting responses from other people who read it.


There is NO money I solving rapes, murders and finding missing children.

There is money is picking on raiding drug houses, processing child support (matching funds from feds under title iv-d match.

Here in GR, in Kentwood the cops have the time to outside lowes to issues tickets if you are packed bit over the yellow line (faded) near the pickup lanes. That is after the cop is done eating the doughnut :-)
 
I'm sure the reason this farm was raided is because it's an organic farm run by "alternative" people. Therefore a huge assumption was made these must be "pot smoking drug dealers" and we got 'em.

Several years back, I was visited by the police one evening and was accused of dealing in stolen bicycles. At that time, our local landfill had a deal of putting bicycles people were throwing away off to the side and if you wanted one, you could buy one for a dollar. What I would do is buy 10 or 15 bicycles, take them home and use the parts off some to repair others then donate them to various charities in our area. On one of these trips, I found a bicycle with a chrome frame and fixed it up to give away. When I was finished I had it in the driveway of my house along with others to take to charity when a young boy walked by on the street. He walked up and asked me how much I wanted for the bike. I asked him if he had one. He said he didn't, so I gave him the bike. He was overjoyed and it made me feel good. Apparently, he rode it home, showed his parents who called the police saying their son had just been given a stolen bike by a man down the road who has a garage filled with stolen bicycles.

Long story short, I'm in my garage fixing bikes and the next thing I know, the police are in my driveway asking all kinds of questions. They're looking at these piles of bikes, bike frames, bike parts and simply would not believe I got them all from the dump. They pulled out all the frames and recorded all the serial numbers from every frame to check to see if they were stolen. I'll admit I was a little worried as I didn't know if any were stolen in their journey to the dump. Thankfully, none of them were. I kept telling the police to call the dump and ask them what they did with bicycles they received but they wouldn't make the call. I told them to call the various charities to verify that I brought repaired bicycles on a regular basis to give away for free, but they wouldn't call.

The police kept asking me questions like "why would you do this?" "Why do you repair these and give these away for free?" "Where is your paper work?"

They then informed me it was against code to run a business out of my home but I told them it wasn't a business as I made no money whatsoever from these bikes, in fact, it cost me money.

I told them it was a hobby of mine. I don't play golf or hunt or fish or collect stamps. I do this because I enjoy it and it makes me feel good.

As you can imagine, this all took some time with police cars parked all over my yard with lights flashing, bikes and frames laid out on my driveway, neighbors standing outside watching the whole thing - it was embarrassing. When they finally determined none of the bikes were stolen, the police got in their cars and left with bikes and bike parts spread everywhere and me to clean up the mess.

The sad thing about all this was about a month later, the local dump stopped their "bike for a dollar" deal so my supply of cheap bikes dried up. I can't help but wonder if my "police investigation" was somehow related to this. And all because someone made the assumption that there is no way a person would do something like this for free.
 
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Why does our government get so exited about marijuana?
...Money!! whether its taxing pot or throwing people into the industrial prison $$ complex that illegally grow/sell it.
 
Originally Posted By: GreeCguy
I'm sure the reason this farm was raided is because it's an organic farm run by "alternative" people. Therefore a huge assumption was made these must be "pot smoking drug dealers" and we got 'em.

Several years back, I was visited by the police one evening and was accused of dealing in stolen bicycles. At that time, our local landfill had a deal of putting bicycles people were throwing away off to the side and if you wanted one, you could buy one for a dollar. What I would do is buy 10 or 15 bicycles, take them home and use the parts off some to repair others then donate them to various charities in our area. On one of these trips, I found a bicycle with a chrome frame and fixed it up to give away. When I was finished I had it in the driveway of my house along with others to take to charity when a young boy walked by on the street. He walked up and asked me how much I wanted for the bike. I asked him if he had one. He said he didn't, so I gave him the bike. He was overjoyed and it made me feel good. Apparently, he rode it home, showed his parents who called the police saying their son had just been given a stolen bike by a man down the road who has a garage filled with stolen bicycles.

Long story short, I'm in my garage fixing bikes and the next thing I know, the police are in my driveway asking all kinds of questions. They're looking at these piles of bikes, bike frames, bike parts and simply would not believe I got them all from the dump. They pulled out all the frames and recorded all the serial numbers from every frame to check to see if they were stolen. I'll admit I was a little worried as I didn't know if any were stolen in their journey to the dump. Thankfully, none of them were. I kept telling the police to call the dump and ask them what they did with bicycles they received but they wouldn't make the call. I told them to call the various charities to verify that I brought repaired bicycles on a regular basis to give away for free, but they wouldn't call.

The police kept asking me questions like "why would you do this?" "Why do you repair these and give these away for free?" "Where is your paper work?"

They then informed me it was against code to run a business out of my home but I told them it wasn't a business as I made no money whatsoever from these bikes, in fact, it cost me money.

I told them it was a hobby of mine. I don't play golf or hunt or fish or collect stamps. I do this because I enjoy it and it makes me feel good.

As you can imagine, this all took some time with police cars parked all over my yard with lights flashing, bikes and frames laid out on my driveway, neighbors standing outside watching the whole thing - it was embarrassing. When they finally determined none of the bikes were stolen, the police got in their cars and left with bikes and bike parts spread everywhere and me to clean up the mess.

The sad thing about all this was about a month later, the local dump stopped their "bike for a dollar" deal so my supply of cheap bikes dried up. I can't help but wonder if my "police investigation" was somehow related to this. And all because someone made the assumption that there is no way a person would do something like this for free.


Wow, what can you say but no good deed goes unpunished. That's how the police (and that kid's parents) are. They'd rather punish and harass an innocent, do gooder than go after a real bad guy. And I bet the dump did stop selling bikes for a dollar because of the "police investigation".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom