Accused Of Eating Man's Pot Brownies, Bragging About It .......

[Guest Zombie-Hunter]

Two Houston police officers could be asking "dude, where's my credibility?" after a suspect accused them of eating his pot brownies.

Nicholas Hill, 19, claims that Houston cops took his brownies, that they knew were laced with marijuana, and munched away after arresting the teen for pot possession.

ABC 13 found something more substantial than just Hill's claim. The station reports that it has obtained messages typed by the officers on their in-car computers after confiscating and consuming the baked goods.

"So HIGH... Good munchies," one officer supposedly wrote. "Everything should be open when we get done," the other responded.

One of Hill's defense attorneys, Daniel Cahill, told The Huffington Post that, if his client's accusations prove to be true, they could have very serious consequences.

"If what is alleged is true then it really calls into question everything that went on that day," Cahill said. "If we have police destroying evidence or maybe not following the rules that they need to be following, that brings into question the integrity of the system and everything these guys have done, possibly."

Houston Police Department spokesperson John Cannon told HuffPost that the department would not speculate on what penalties the officers would face if the accusations are found to be accurate.

"HPD is looking into the matter and will conduct a thorough investigation," Cannon said.

The officers remain on active duty while the investigation takes place, according to Cannon.

Cahill said that, until the investigation is finished, it's unclear what will happen with his client's case.

"We're waiting on the investigation before we can really move," he said. "We're stuck in a holding pattern."

Cops Accused Of Eating Man's Pot Brownies, Bragging About It

[mikegideon]

Don't they know that eating pot brownies will turn them into heroin addicts? Dumbasses.

[Pain103]

A simple drug test will answer the question depending on how long ago this supposedly happened.

[Dolomite_supafly]

A simple drug test will answer the question depending on how long ago this supposedly happened.

Hair folicle testing would be much better if time is a concern.

Dolomite

[monkeylizard]

Cops have hair?

[ls3_kid]

Don't they know that eating pot brownies will turn them into heroin addicts? Dumbasses.

This might show that I'm gullible but is that true?

Cops have hair?

Yes, use the mustache.

[mikegideon]

This might show that I'm gullible but is that true?

No

[ls3_kid]

No

LOL, well that makes it better.

[Murgatroy]

That standard line is that marijuana is a 'gateway' drug, that once you imbibe it, you will move on to harder drugs, and frankly, heroin is pretty much as hard as it gets.

[ls3_kid]

That standard line is that marijuana is a 'gateway' drug, that once you imbibe it, you will move on to harder drugs, and frankly, heroin is pretty much as hard as it gets.

Yeah but I just wasn't thinking clearly. Now looking back that was a brain fart and a half. Ridiculous story if proven true.

[mikegideon]

That standard line is that marijuana is a 'gateway' drug, that once you imbibe it, you will move on to harder drugs, and frankly, heroin is pretty much as hard as it gets.

Yep, and there's a ton of evidence to the contrary. The gateway effect is probably more related to the distribution channels. Drug dealers sell drugs. A lot of times, it's the stuff that has a lot less bulk than pot. I'm guessing the gateway effect is almost non-existent among the legal pot users in California. They go to the pot store, not the drug store.

[Murgatroy]

Yep, and there's a ton of evidence to the contrary. The gateway effect is probably more related to the distribution channels. Drug dealers sell drugs. A lot of times, it's the stuff that has a lot less bulk than pot. I'm guessing the gateway effect is almost non-existent among the legal pot users in California. They go to the pot store, not the drug store.

That has often been my opinion. The only reason it could be considered a gateway drug is the distribution, the legal ramifications and the social stigma.

In example:

A young kid is at a party, let's say he is sixteen. His friends are drinking beer, well daddy drinks beer, sure, he will try one. Next week, the friends are smoking a joint. Well, it was illegal for the young boy to drink a beer, so what is the difference in smoking a joint? The next week, the friends are snorting cocaine. Same concept, the young boy has already broken the law with underage consumption, then broken the law by smoking marijuana, what difference does it make if he snorts a line of coke? After all, he has already broken the law before...

In that example, and most any real world experience, I would accuse beer/alcohol as being the gateway. It is more easily accessible, legal, socially acceptable and as such more appealing to the young. The next step would be marijuana.

Once a youth gets to the point where he is regularly smoking pot, he will find a dealer. Many dealers only peddle pot, but just as many peddle a lot more. If the youth gets one of those dealers that peddles more, it is only a matter of time before he tries something else for recreational use. Again, it wasn't the marijuana that started the whole thing, it was the distribution channel. Once you break the law, it becomes easier and easier to do.

I agree, with just opinion of course, that in California, the recreational use of harder drugs is probably on the decline among kids that begin using marijuana, because of cleaner distribution channels, and less social stigma, the odds are less that they will be pressured, led or otherwise discover other recreational and more dangerous drugs.

I would like to see a study on the matter.

I am one of those that feels that alcohol is more dangerous and potentially life ruining (health and decision if not quite legally) than marijuana. I don't buy into the whole 'legalization and taxation' will balance the national debt, but I do feel that removing the legal penalties would in the end decrease crime rate padding. However the question then begging to be asked is would the taxations (think tobacco taxes) balance the legal fines already being raked in?

Now, before wrong conclusions are drawn, I neither drink, nor smoke marijuana. I do smoke tobacco. I do not take or abuse any drugs, and I have been known to turn down pain killers on the rare occasions I do go to the doctor. I am not straight edge or a teetotaler, but other than a Goody Powder here and there or a cold pill, it is rare that I consume any medication/drug/mood altering substance.

[mikegideon]

I drink, but don't use any drugs other than what's prescribed. With that said, I have believed that pot should be legal for a LONG time. It really is less toxic than alcohol. I'm not so sure it's any less damaging to somebody's life, but have known (still know) a number of folks that have smoked their entire lives, and have been plenty productive.

But, the laws aren't really about any of that. They're about money. As with anything else, there are plenty of lies to protect the flow of that money.

[ls3_kid]

Murgatroy, I agree with everything that you say except that alcohol is the gateway drug. From my experience when I was in high school, it was ten times easy to score some pot over some alcohol. Example if you know one person that smokes he will either get it from his dealer for you (probably upcharged) or he will hook you up with the dealer. The dealer doesn't care how old you are, color, sex, etc. For getting alcohol at this age you have to have an older brother, fake ID (which must are awful in the high school scene), steal from parents/other people, or just know somebody that is 21 that will purchase for you. Otherwise you can not buy it, few exceptions for stores that don't care/card.

[Guest justluck]

have known (still know) a number of folks that have smoked their entire lives, and have been plenty productive.

Do they think rationally?? Do they think like you?? Just asking.

Edited September 28, 2011 by justluck

[Guest justluck]

Murgatroy, I agree with everything that you say except that alcohol is the gateway drug. From my experience when I was in high school, it was ten times easy to score some pot over some alcohol. Example if you know one person that smokes he will either get it from his dealer for you (probably upcharged) or he will hook you up with the dealer. The dealer doesn't care how old you are, color, sex, etc. For getting alcohol at this age you have to have an older brother, fake ID (which must are awful in the high school scene), steal from parents/other people, or just know somebody that is 21 that will purchase for you. Otherwise you can not buy it, few exceptions for stores that don't care/card.

Now, looking back on your high school days, can you see any down side to using pot?? Again, just asking.

Looking back many many years, I can tell you about a lot of down side regarding alcohol use - even just recreational use, not alcoholism.. I've never used pot. So I'm just asking.

Edited September 28, 2011 by justluck

[ls3_kid]

Now, looking back on your high school days, can you see any down side to using pot?? Again, just asking.

Looking back many many years, I can tell you about a lot of down side regarding alcohol use - even just recreational use, not alcoholism.. I've never used pot. So I'm just asking.

A bunch of the guys that I ran around with are pretty much worthless these days. Now is it because of the stinking weed? I don't know, but their lives have gone down hill and have started to use a higher tier of drugs regularly. I am glad I don't run around with them anymore. I stopped caring about school, bettering myself, and this or that. On the flip side I know a student at UT that smokes more than a locomotive and he doesn't seem normal when he is sober (could this be a downside?), yet he is smart, rational, and sociable. He doesn't really drink much, he just likes to smoke. Does that mean he will be fine down the road? No idea.

Alcohol is just as dangerous but I can control that better, some can't control it at all. Too much of anything is bad is what I'm getting at and there is no real control variable to prove that the experimental variable (given drug) causes this or that.

On a side note I don't think pot should ever be legalized and I have no reason to really back it up. It is just my close ties to being a conservative that makes me feel that way.

[mikegideon]

Now, looking back on your high school days, can you see any down side to using pot?? Again, just asking.

Looking back many many years, I can tell you about a lot of down side regarding alcohol use - even just recreational use, not alcoholism.. I've never used pot. So I'm just asking.

I'm guessing he didn't try to whip anybody's ass, and probably ate way too many Cheetos .

[mikegideon]

The more you drink (or smoke), the more it is going to set you back. Either can be overdone. It's not easy to drink yourself to death, and as far as I know, it's impossible to smoke yourself to death.

Best I have been able to tell, they're about the same for casual users.

[Guest justluck]

I'm guessing he didn't try to whip anybody's ass, and probably ate way too many Cheetos .

That's a non-answer to my question. I'm quite candid in my questions.

Didn't see your next reply. Drinking is actually very easy to drink yourself to death. You may be walking around, but might as well be dead. I don't know about the effect of pot on lung cancer, but i know it's easy to smoke yourself to death on regular cigs - it just takes a while.

Edited September 28, 2011 by justluck

[mikegideon]

That's a non-answer to my question. I'm quite candid in my questions.

Sorry Mr. Luck. Lighten up

[TMF]

I'll be honest, I used to smoke weed a lot when I was younger all the way up until having a job with random drug screening. I liked marijauna but was mature enough at a young age to stop using so I could have a good job. I never used anything harder than that (even though in my late teens and early twenties I had many friends that used some harder stuff) simply because I knew narcotics to be inherently dangerous to use. I knew lots of people like that, so I think the idea of marijuana being a "gateway drug" is only true for weak minded people who can't make their own good decisions. I haven't smoked pot since, but if it was legal I would see no problem with smoking from time to time. I have the ability to do it now, but I have kids so I'm not into breaking the law and setting a bad example.

[Murgatroy]

Growing up pot and alcohol were big. I grew up in a dry county, so you had to go to the bootlegger to get anything stronger than beer, and the stores didn't card you.

There were two groups, those that smoked pot, and those that drank.

The two groups intermingled, and a lot participated in both.

Now, the hard part for me is telling you what happened to the groups. When meth came through in the late nineties things went downhill fast, and I left town. Of the folks that I ran with, an honest half of them are either dead, in jail or failures in life. The other half, like me, grew up and realized that there was more to life than sitting around and drinking/smoking pot. We went on to college, started careers, made families.

I know several 'old hippies.' These are folks that are in their late fifties, early sixties. They have smoked pot habitually since youth. Their memories aren't as sharp as they used to be, but they are peaceful and friendly. Some of them are well off, some of them aren't.

I know several 'old drunks.' Same age, similar lifestyle. They look twice the age of the 'old hippies,' they have twice the medical problems, they have had equitable legal issues, but most are without a driver's license. They aren't as friendly (some are, but most aren't,) they are more prone to violence and fits of rage and irrationality, and they have the same memory issues that the 'old hippies' have.

Again, I can't quote a study that will back up these figures, I can only speak from personal experience.

[mikegideon]

A lot of people smoked weed when they were younger. I wouldn't smoke if it was legal, but not because of the harm it would do.

[mikegideon]

Growing up pot and alcohol were big. I grew up in a dry county, so you had to go to the bootlegger to get anything stronger than beer, and the stores didn't card you.

There were two groups, those that smoked pot, and those that drank.

The two groups intermingled, and a lot participated in both.

Now, the hard part for me is telling you what happened to the groups. When meth came through in the late nineties things went downhill fast, and I left town. Of the folks that I ran with, an honest half of them are either dead, in jail or failures in life. The other half, like me, grew up and realized that there was more to life than sitting around and drinking/smoking pot. We went on to college, started careers, made families.

I know several 'old hippies.' These are folks that are in their late fifties, early sixties. They have smoked pot habitually since youth. Their memories aren't as sharp as they used to be, but they are peaceful and friendly. Some of them are well off, some of them aren't.

I know several 'old drunks.' Same age, similar lifestyle. They look twice the age of the 'old hippies,' they have twice the medical problems, they have had equitable legal issues, but most are without a driver's license. They aren't as friendly (some are, but most aren't,) they are more prone to violence and fits of rage and irrationality, and they have the same memory issues that the 'old hippies' have.

Again, I can't quote a study that will back up these figures, I can only speak from personal experience.

It's YOUR study, and the results are close to mine.