If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Denver Post)   There is NO WAY this awesome prank straight from an '80s comedy will fail -- famous last words of two CU students   (denverpost.com) divider line 344
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

30282 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Dec 2012 at 8:41 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



344 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-09 07:22:58 PM  
dizziness and dropping in and out of consciousness

Asshats.
 
2012-12-09 07:25:39 PM  
The "awesome prank" is pretty stupid, then and now.
 
2012-12-09 07:33:09 PM  
Enjoy explaining your expulsion to your parents, asshats.
 
2012-12-09 07:34:48 PM  
"The Boulder County district attorney will review the case, at which time Cunningham and Essa may each face more than 10 felonies, Huff said."


Seems a bit harsh.

Then again, it is NEVER cool to offer any intoxicant to unwitting / unwilling participants.


/Except Rohypnol, of course
 
2012-12-09 08:04:43 PM  

Amos Quito: "The Boulder County district attorney will review the case, at which time Cunningham and Essa may each face more than 10 felonies, Huff said."


Seems a bit harsh.

Then again, it is NEVER cool to offer any intoxicant to unwitting / unwilling participants.


/Except Rohypnol, of course


Not really. I'm allergic to THC (I probably would have been hospitalized along with the professor). You shouldn't be drugging people without their knowledge, period. I think it rises to felony level.
 
2012-12-09 08:06:37 PM  

Amos Quito: Then again, it is NEVER cool to offer any intoxicant to unwitting / unwilling participants.


Except for your cat.
 
2012-12-09 08:10:00 PM  
See? Cannabis IS evil!
 
2012-12-09 08:24:01 PM  
Reminds me of the one (and only) episode of "ER" I ever watched (because it was directed by Quentin Tarantino). A bunch of kids end up in the ER after eating chocolates dosed with LSD. One of the nurses unwittingly eats one and wanders around all wide-eyed and pawing at the walls like a child. No. Just no. You'd think you were dying or had been poisoned.

Never watched that stupid show again.
 
2012-12-09 08:26:20 PM  

Lsherm: Amos Quito: "The Boulder County district attorney will review the case, at which time Cunningham and Essa may each face more than 10 felonies, Huff said."


Seems a bit harsh.

Then again, it is NEVER cool to offer any intoxicant to unwitting / unwilling participants.


/Except Rohypnol, of course

Not really. I'm allergic to THC (I probably would have been hospitalized along with the professor). You shouldn't be drugging people without their knowledge, period. I think it rises to felony level.



Hmmm...maybe that would explain why I've gotten a migraine everytime I've smoked pot in the past.  Don't smoke it anymore because migraines suck, no matter the cause. 
 
2012-12-09 08:44:40 PM  

fusillade762: Reminds me of the one (and only) episode of "ER" I ever watched (because it was directed by Quentin Tarantino). A bunch of kids end up in the ER after eating chocolates dosed with LSD. One of the nurses unwittingly eats one and wanders around all wide-eyed and pawing at the walls like a child. No. Just no. You'd think you were dying or had been poisoned.

Never watched that stupid show again.


You really showed them!
 
2012-12-09 08:45:19 PM  

Bob Falfa: Enjoy explaining your expulsion

sentence to your parents cellmates , asshats.

For you, it is fixed. 

/Even when pot is universally legal, that shiat ain't gonna fly
 
2012-12-09 08:45:50 PM  

Bathia_Mapes: Hmmm...maybe that would explain why I've gotten a migraine everytime I've smoked pot in the past.  Don't smoke it anymore because migraines suck, no matter the cause.


I couldn't agree with you more.

/migraines suck
//smoking pot kicks in an asthma attack
 
2012-12-09 08:46:06 PM  
You JUST GOT legalized weed. Don't go farking it up for everyone, jerkwads.
 
2012-12-09 08:46:59 PM  
Dick move by the students.

/I am curious to see what happens next though.
//I give it 3 days or less before the 'Its because pot is legal!' shiat starts.
 
2012-12-09 08:47:00 PM  
But I have been assured by Fark that pot is completely harmless and just legalize it already!
 
2012-12-09 08:47:04 PM  
CU?

CU?

I guess that's short for

"CU in court."

"CU try to talk your way out of this."

"CU in prison."

"CU in the rapetorium."
 
2012-12-09 08:47:14 PM  
"Amusing"? Not "Stupid" or "Dumbass"?
 
2012-12-09 08:47:15 PM  

Lsherm: Amos Quito: "The Boulder County district attorney will review the case, at which time Cunningham and Essa may each face more than 10 felonies, Huff said."


Seems a bit harsh.

Then again, it is NEVER cool to offer any intoxicant to unwitting / unwilling participants.


/Except Rohypnol, of course

Not really. I'm allergic to THC (I probably would have been hospitalized along with the professor). You shouldn't be drugging people without their knowledge, period. I think it rises to felony level.


We essentially have no-harm no-foul with drinking and driving, among other things.

I think felony is pushing it here. People have done and will do worse things, with malice no less, and gotten much less time.

When being an idiot about drugs is multiple felonies than hopefully battery is life in prison.
 
2012-12-09 08:47:15 PM  
I just assume every brownie inside Boulder city limits is made with weed.
 
2012-12-09 08:48:39 PM  
In defense of 80's... actually 70's sitcoms: Mr. Carlson did give everyone a Christmas bonus.
 
2012-12-09 08:49:33 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Amos Quito: Then again, it is NEVER cool to offer any intoxicant to unwitting / unwilling participants.

Except for your cat.



LOL!

CSB:

Back in the 80's a buddy had a cat that would follow a joint/bowl/bong as it was passed around the room, begging for hits.

/CSB
 
2012-12-09 08:50:20 PM  
From TFA: Cunningham and Essa are being held without bond at the Boulder County jail, Huff said.

Really? By all means, charge them, but no bond?
 
2012-12-09 08:50:25 PM  

Lsherm: Amos Quito: "The Boulder County district attorney will review the case, at which time Cunningham and Essa may each face more than 10 felonies, Huff said."


Seems a bit harsh.

Then again, it is NEVER cool to offer any intoxicant to unwitting / unwilling participants.


/Except Rohypnol, of course

Not really. I'm allergic to THC (I probably would have been hospitalized along with the professor). You shouldn't be drugging people without their knowledge, period. I think it rises to felony level.


LOLOLOL

But, seriously, it IS just a prank, but it's never cool to dose people without their knowledge. Ever. They deserve a moderate punishment.
 
2012-12-09 08:51:12 PM  
FTA:"Anybody who thinks this is cute, anybody who thinks this was funny, is going to face pretty serious sanctions, both criminally and potently within the student conduct process," said CU spokesman Bronson Hilliard.

Whoa... whoa... I understand going after the pricks who gave out laced brownies to people without telling them and for making them too strong, but I don't think your "you thought it was funny or cute" is going to hold up in the legal system as a valid reason for charging someone with a crime. I get it... you're mad, however, that is no reason to make wild ass claims like that. ;)
 
2012-12-09 08:51:15 PM  
There's a big difference between feeling dizzy/high/whatever after you know you've taken a dose of something, and having that all of a sudden come on. I smoke pot so rarely that if I was in class and suddenly the room was spinning, um, yeah, I might go to the ER as a precaution. My first thought might not be "oh, wait, it's just pot".

I just don't get why you'd want to waste good drugs on unsuspecting people. Either they came up with that idea, baked them, and handed them out while stoned off their ass, or they have enough money/connections/a big enough habit where using that much pot for a joke was worth it. In any case, pretty effing lame.
 
2012-12-09 08:51:20 PM  

Amos Quito: "The Boulder County district attorney will review the case, at which time Cunningham and Essa may each face more than 10 felonies, Huff said."


Seems a bit harsh.

Then again, it is NEVER cool to offer any intoxicant to unwitting / unwilling participants.


/Except Rohypnol, of course


I tried eating pot once. I ate a little, nothing happened, a little more, nothing. Screw it, I'll finish off this eighth. Nothing, for an hour or so, and then suddenly holy shiat. I staggered around for a bit, and passed out for 22 hours. When I came to my wife was trying to drag me into the car to go to the hospital.

Definately not a cool prank.
 
2012-12-09 08:51:33 PM  

Coyote Doyenne: Bathia_Mapes: Hmmm...maybe that would explain why I've gotten a migraine everytime I've smoked pot in the past.  Don't smoke it anymore because migraines suck, no matter the cause.

I couldn't agree with you more.

/migraines suck
//smoking pot kicks in an asthma attack


Ah, migraines. Who need hallucinogens when a nice sunny day can fill your vision with jaggedy illusions and render big chunks of your field of vision totally blind?
 
2012-12-09 08:51:43 PM  
It was funny on Barney Miller.

It really isn't when it happens to you. Informed consent is always the best choice.
 
2012-12-09 08:51:44 PM  

Smackledorfer: I think felony is pushing it here. People have done and will do worse things, with malice no less, and gotten much less time.

When being an idiot about drugs is multiple felonies than hopefully battery is life in prison.


Drugging someone without their consent could hurt them severely, both physically or legally. What if they tried to drive, not knowing this? Or if they never realized they had pot brownies and work in a place that they're subject to drug tests?

You want to fark up your own life, that's your own business. But if you want to end or ruin another person's life then you should do some serious time.
 
2012-12-09 08:52:04 PM  
On the other hand, it is permissible to feed people something...regional...under the guise of it being food.

My next younger brother made The Fabulous Souse Plate to work really early at Christmas, and slipped it into the executive pile. It was a work of art, it was, all sorts of expensive, fancy crackers and a very nice tray he had no intent of claiming afterwards (he got it at a yard sale for this very purpose).

Eventually, the upper crust elite managers were commenting on the wonderful pate arrangement. To which a secretary said "Honey, that's no pate, that's head cheese"

Ah. If only I had been there. Apparently it was Stephen King-esque, sort of like the blueberry pie contest. Women screamed, strong men cursed, and there was weeping and gnashing of teeth.

/head cheese isn't that bad, if you've got your mind right
 
2012-12-09 08:52:22 PM  

lewismarktwo:
LOLOLOL


Idiot.
 
2012-12-09 08:52:38 PM  
Came for the copper reference. Leaving disappointed.
 
2012-12-09 08:53:12 PM  
www.miloop.com
 
2012-12-09 08:53:29 PM  

lewismarktwo: Lsherm: Amos Quito: "The Boulder County district attorney will review the case, at which time Cunningham and Essa may each face more than 10 felonies, Huff said."


Seems a bit harsh.

Then again, it is NEVER cool to offer any intoxicant to unwitting / unwilling participants.


/Except Rohypnol, of course

Not really. I'm allergic to THC (I probably would have been hospitalized along with the professor). You shouldn't be drugging people without their knowledge, period. I think it rises to felony level.

LOLOLOL

But, seriously, it IS just a prank, but it's never cool to dose people without their knowledge. Ever. They deserve a moderate punishment.


Potheads usually insist that it isn't possible, but both times I tried pot I had a severe allergic reaction. The first time I was smoking it, the second time I ingested it.

I suppose I could carry out an experiment with an injection of pure THC, but what's the point? I'm also allergic to opiates, so no codeine for me at the hospital.
 
2012-12-09 08:53:59 PM  
s/made...to work/brought....to work/
 
2012-12-09 08:54:15 PM  
This is why we can't have nice things
 
2012-12-09 08:54:55 PM  
What '80s comedy are you talking about subby? I must have missed it.

The only thing I can think of is that episode of Barney Miller where Wojo's girlfriend made hash brownies and he brought them to the precinct but Wojo didn't intend to get everyone stoned.

Link

Feeding people drugs without their knowledge is evil - but that was a pretty funny episode.
 
2012-12-09 08:55:46 PM  

zamboni: CU?

CU?

I guess that's short for

"CU in court."

"CU try to talk your way out of this."

"CU in prison."

"CU in the rapetorium."



CU Next Tuesday
 
2012-12-09 08:55:49 PM  
FTA:"Anybody who thinks this is cute, anybody who thinks this was funny, is going to face pretty serious sanctions, both criminally and potently within the student conduct process," said CU spokesman Bronson Hilliard.

I see.

I think this is cute and funny.

COME AT ME, BRO!
 
2012-12-09 08:57:18 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: There's a big difference between feeling dizzy/high/whatever after you know you've taken a dose of something, and having that all of a sudden come on. I smoke pot so rarely that if I was in class and suddenly the room was spinning, um, yeah, I might go to the ER as a precaution. My first thought might not be "oh, wait, it's just pot".

I just don't get why you'd want to waste good drugs on unsuspecting people. Either they came up with that idea, baked them, and handed them out while stoned off their ass, or they have enough money/connections/a big enough habit where using that much pot for a joke was worth it. In any case, pretty effing lame.


This. Seriously expensive joke.

Such a tragic waste of weed... That's the real crime. Hang him.
 
2012-12-09 08:57:25 PM  
Yeah,

Pot is WAAAAAY more powerful when ingested. It takes on much stronger hallucinagenic properties and can last for hours and hours.

So, I have been told...
 
2012-12-09 08:58:19 PM  

whither_apophis: In defense of 80's... actually 70's sitcoms: Mr. Carlson did give everyone a Christmas bonus.


70's?

i-cdn.apartmenttherapy.com
 
2012-12-09 08:58:23 PM  

Bathia_Mapes: Hmmm...maybe that would explain why I've gotten a migraine everytime I've smoked pot in the past. Don't smoke it anymore because migraines suck, no matter the cause.


That's a real lose-lose situation...migraines really are teh suck (haven't had one in years - thank you, FSM). It's too bad you can't enjoy the benefits of a little herb now and then - it's very nice.

And those two asshats definitely deserve some jail time...dosing someone without their knowledge is a shiatty thing to do.
 
2012-12-09 08:58:39 PM  

AcneVulgaris: Amos Quito: "The Boulder County district attorney will review the case, at which time Cunningham and Essa may each face more than 10 felonies, Huff said."


Seems a bit harsh.

Then again, it is NEVER cool to offer any intoxicant to unwitting / unwilling participants.


/Except Rohypnol, of course

I tried eating pot once. I ate a little, nothing happened, a little more, nothing. Screw it, I'll finish off this eighth. Nothing, for an hour or so, and then suddenly holy shiat. I staggered around for a bit, and passed out for 22 hours. When I came to my wife was trying to drag me into the car to go to the hospital.

Definately not a cool prank.



Yeah, I was going to mention earlier that one of my nephews made a batch of brownies for his bachelor party (I missed it :-\) and EVERYONE who ate them got baked to the point of misery - and a lot of those guys have been all-day-every-day tokers for years.

Either he used WAAAY too much, or eating it must be a different experience.
 
2012-12-09 08:58:54 PM  
Oh, and the hash episode of Barney Miller aired in 1976. The '70s called. They asked that you stop confusing them with the '80s.
 
2012-12-09 08:59:18 PM  

iaazathot: Yeah,

Pot is WAAAAAY more powerful when ingested. It takes on much stronger hallucinagenic properties and can last for hours and hours.

So, I have been told...


Sort of true. The feeling is a bit stronger and it does last a little bit longer.

But I hate picking the stems out of my teeth.
 
2012-12-09 08:59:20 PM  
I can see people being really worried and scared. After all, think about how you feel when you are pretty stoned or drunk. Think about some of the symptoms, like dizziness, lack of coordination, trouble concentrating, changes in temperature perception and so on. Everything is, well, different. Now when you get high/drunk you know what you are doing and why it happens so no big deal. But if that started happening to you all of a sudden, for no apparent reason? You might well freak out because you have no idea what is going wrong and there are some serious medical problems that can present similar symptoms.

Also, not everyone has something to compare it to. Not everyone gets high. So it isn't like everyone could even say "Oh this feel like when I'm high, that is probably what happened," never mind that suppressing higher reasoning is one of the effects.

So I can understand why they are in so much trouble.
 
2012-12-09 08:59:44 PM  

Moron Police: From TFA: Cunningham and Essa are being held without bond at the Boulder County jail, Huff said.

Really? By all means, charge them, but no bond?


That's a typo. They meant "without bong." Damn pot smokers...
 
2012-12-09 08:59:58 PM  
they could get jobs as DJs in Australia
 
2012-12-09 09:00:19 PM  
Not in any way excusing the students who brought the brownies...but considering that many people live in filth and that you can never tell what "secret" ingredient that may have been used in making them that you could be exposed to...why would you ever eat something given to you by some random classmate or anyone else outside your immediate circle of friends and family? I used to do it, but one year I attended a potluck with some coworkers, and then drove one of said coworkers home because her car was in the shop...I was shocked to find out that her house was filthy, because she was a well dressed lady who made the kind of money that would pay for a housekeeper. I spent the whole evening wondering if I was about to come down with something from eating what was prepared in her home. It it made me realize that you can never tell simply based on how someone acts at work or school what their home may be like. I will never eat anything that was not either prepared myself, or prepared at a commercial establishment. Home cooked treats and dishes are off limits.
 
2012-12-09 09:00:42 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Smackledorfer: I think felony is pushing it here. People have done and will do worse things, with malice no less, and gotten much less time.

When being an idiot about drugs is multiple felonies than hopefully battery is life in prison.

Drugging someone without their consent could hurt them severely, both physically or legally. What if they tried to drive, not knowing this? Or if they never realized they had pot brownies and work in a place that they're subject to drug tests?

You want to fark up your own life, that's your own business. But if you want to end or ruin another person's life then you should do some serious time.


Intent matters, and actual damage caused matters.

In that regard the punishment should fit the crime, and years in pmita prison for being stupid with pot brownies doesn't strike me as serving justice.

Any time above expulsion and a few months jailtime will be unlikely to increase the preventative aspect of the punishment, on others or on these morons. Extra time isn't likely to help rehabilitate these idiots.

So what is the point? A revenge sentence that costs society extra money and gives it nothing in return? No thanks.
 
2012-12-09 09:00:49 PM  
Pot brownies existed long before Barney Miller aired. Hasn't anyone here ever heard of The Alice B. Toklas Cookbook.??
 
2012-12-09 09:01:09 PM  

Happy Hours: Oh, and the hash episode of Barney Miller aired in 1976. The '70s called. They asked that you stop confusing them with the '80s.


The source of the best Fish quote of all: "Why is it when I feel good, it has to be illegal?"
 
2012-12-09 09:01:46 PM  
cdn0.sbnation.com

DO YOU THINK I'M CUTE DO YOU THINK I'M FUNNY?
 
2012-12-09 09:02:12 PM  

fusillade762: Reminds me of the one (and only) episode of "ER" I ever watched (because it was directed by Quentin Tarantino). A bunch of kids end up in the ER after eating chocolates dosed with LSD. One of the nurses unwittingly eats one and wanders around all wide-eyed and pawing at the walls like a child. No. Just no. You'd think you were dying or had been poisoned.

Never watched that stupid show again.


you love George Clooney, we all know you love George Clooney, and a quick search on Amazon shows you have bought the ER Series box set three times, having worn them out from over-play, George Clooney lover.
 
2012-12-09 09:02:15 PM  
Double Secret Probation! Mister
 
2012-12-09 09:03:05 PM  

Bathia_Mapes:


Hmmm...maybe that would explain why I've gotten a migraine everytime I've smoked pot in the past.  Don't smoke it anymore because migraines suck, no matter the cause.


The first time I tried pot I had the same reaction. Many some farker can help a sister out here on this question. I smoke pot the first time with my sister who got it from a friend that grew it himself. Thought it would help my depression but it just gave me the migraine from hell, didn't touch it again until last year. Last year I was allowed to legally use medical marijuana to help with my side-effects from chemo. Never had a headache - was it just a different variety? Don't know much about the stuff outside of the fact it works like a charm for stopping nausea.
 
2012-12-09 09:05:52 PM  
This should have happened in Denver so we could make some Mile High City jokes...
 
2012-12-09 09:06:41 PM  
"Anybody who thinks this is cute, anybody who thinks this was funny, is going to face pretty serious sanctions, both criminally and potentially within the student conduct process," said CU spokesman Bronson Hilliard.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahaha*gASP*HAhahahahahahahahaha
/grabs crotch
//I got you hall pass right here, LADY!
/Asshole.Think, before you speak.
 
2012-12-09 09:07:46 PM  

sycraft: I can see people being really worried and scared. After all, think about how you feel when you are pretty stoned or drunk. Think about some of the symptoms, like dizziness, lack of coordination, trouble concentrating, changes in temperature perception and so on. Everything is, well, different. Now when you get high/drunk you know what you are doing and why it happens so no big deal. But if that started happening to you all of a sudden, for no apparent reason? You might well freak out because you have no idea what is going wrong and there are some serious medical problems that can present similar symptoms.

Also, not everyone has something to compare it to. Not everyone gets high. So it isn't like everyone could even say "Oh this feel like when I'm high, that is probably what happened," never mind that suppressing higher reasoning is one of the effects.

So I can understand why they are in so much trouble.


This is what the big deal is. And why it's not funny. If you have no idea what's happening to you, you're going to be terrified, and that mental state is going to guarantee a bad trip. All those 70's and 80's comedies of people accidentally becoming stoned and wandering around in a beatific haze (which is what probably led to these idiots thinking "hey, this will be funny") are not real. If I was to get one of those brownies, my first thought would be to think I was having a psychotic break--since I'm bipolar, and I've had those before. Thinking you're losing your mind isn't really a happy-making experience.

Then there's the fact that you don't really know where your victims will be when the high hits. Driving along a busy highway? Taking care of their kids? Ha-ha, that will be really funny when they're taking an important final in a few hours and can't even remember how to spell their name! Or, you know, not.
 
2012-12-09 09:08:09 PM  

theteacher: You JUST GOT legalized weed. Don't go farking it up for everyone, jerkwads.


Somewhere in Colorado there's a staff DA who's done nothing but plead out nickel-and-dime possession charges for the last ten years. He's been wondering what he's going to do with all this extra time in his day. Guess what just became his full-time job?

That said, as a college professor, I would never, ever, ever eat any food prepared for me by a student. Ever. Are you kidding me?

/it'd have urine in it
//if I was lucky
 
2012-12-09 09:08:44 PM  
Idiots. Throw the book at them, twice, before they fark things up for everybody else.
 
2012-12-09 09:09:06 PM  

LDM90: But I have been assured by Fark that pot is completely harmless and just legalize it already!


None of these people were actually in any danger though. They just didn't know they were high, so they panicked and got help. But once it wore off in a few hours, there was no harm done.
 
2012-12-09 09:09:12 PM  

queen biatch of the universe: Bathia_Mapes:


Hmmm...maybe that would explain why I've gotten a migraine everytime I've smoked pot in the past.  Don't smoke it anymore because migraines suck, no matter the cause.

The first time I tried pot I had the same reaction. Many some farker can help a sister out here on this question. I smoke pot the first time with my sister who got it from a friend that grew it himself. Thought it would help my depression but it just gave me the migraine from hell, didn't touch it again until last year. Last year I was allowed to legally use medical marijuana to help with my side-effects from chemo. Never had a headache - was it just a different variety? Don't know much about the stuff outside of the fact it works like a charm for stopping nausea.


Pot has never given me a headache, but then again I hardly ever get headaches even when hung over. Usually if I do get a headache it's due to dehydration or completely unexplainable.

Pot doesn't cure them either - at least not in my experience.
 
2012-12-09 09:09:25 PM  
you'renothelping.jpg
 
2012-12-09 09:09:34 PM  

sycraft: I can see people being really worried and scared. After all, think about how you feel when you are pretty stoned or drunk. Think about some of the symptoms, like dizziness, lack of coordination, trouble concentrating, changes in temperature perception and so on. Everything is, well, different. Now when you get high/drunk you know what you are doing and why it happens so no big deal. But if that started happening to you all of a sudden, for no apparent reason? You might well freak out because you have no idea what is going wrong and there are some serious medical problems that can present similar symptoms.



Yeah, as an example of how bad things can go, the CIA played a little game called "Spike the Local Bread with LSD" on a small town in France back in 1951.

" In 1951, a quiet, picturesque village in southern France was suddenly and mysteriously struck down with mass insanity and hallucinations. At least five people died, dozens were interned in asylums and hundreds afflicted.

For decades it was assumed that the local bread had been unwittingly poisoned with a psychedelic mould. Now, however, an American investigative journalist has uncovered evidence suggesting the CIA peppered local food with the hallucinogenic drug LSD as part of a mind control experiment at the height of the Cold War.
"

Took 60 years to get to the bottom of the "mystery".

BAD CIA! BAD!
 
2012-12-09 09:10:13 PM  

fusillade762: Reminds me of the one (and only) episode of "ER" I ever watched (because it was directed by Quentin Tarantino). A bunch of kids end up in the ER after eating chocolates dosed with LSD. One of the nurses unwittingly eats one and wanders around all wide-eyed and pawing at the walls like a child. No. Just no. You'd think you were dying or had been poisoned.

Never watched that stupid show again.


You should really step back and see how foolish this post makes you look.

You claim to have never watched a particular show, save a single episode with a guest director, and yet somehow you formed the opinion that the show is stupid? Based in this, why should anyone, ever, give 2 shiats about your opinion about anything?
 
2012-12-09 09:10:23 PM  

Amos Quito: "The Boulder County district attorney will review the case, at which time Cunningham and Essa may each face more than 10 felonies, Huff said."


Seems a bit harsh.

Then again, it is NEVER cool to offer any intoxicant to unwitting / unwilling participants.


/Except Rohypnol, of course


As long as the eyes say yes, even when the mouth says no, you're fine with rohypnol.
 
2012-12-09 09:11:14 PM  

Gyrfalcon: All those 70's and 80's comedies of people accidentally becoming stoned and wandering around in a beatific haze (which is what probably led to these idiots thinking "hey, this will be funny") are not real.


Everyone who thinks this has to do with 70s or 80s comedies isn't thinking about when undergrads were born.

If you're 18, you were born in 1994 or so.
 
2012-12-09 09:11:54 PM  

Smackledorfer: Intent matters, and actual damage caused matters.

In that regard the punishment should fit the crime, and years in pmita prison for being stupid with pot brownies doesn't strike me as serving justice.

Any time above expulsion and a few months jailtime will be unlikely to increase the preventative aspect of the punishment, on others or on these morons. Extra time isn't likely to help rehabilitate these idiots.

So what is the point? A revenge sentence that costs society extra money and gives it nothing in return? No thanks.


If I were to give you spiked drinks with the intent that you have fun at a party and you end up getting in a fatal drunk driving accident, I'm going to go to jail. Because intent only matters to a certain extent. What also matters is what a reasonable person could expect to happen.

You drug someone against their will, you're responsible for the worst case scenarios of what can happen to them.

Putting someone in jail for years for smoking pot of their couch is retarded and yes, that is revenge sentencing. Putting someone in jail for years from drugging someone without their consent is just common sense.
 
2012-12-09 09:17:00 PM  

Dafatone: Gyrfalcon: All those 70's and 80's comedies of people accidentally becoming stoned and wandering around in a beatific haze (which is what probably led to these idiots thinking "hey, this will be funny") are not real.

Everyone who thinks this has to do with 70s or 80s comedies isn't thinking about when undergrads were born.

If you're 18, you were born in 1994 or so.


Pretty sure cable was around in '94.
 
2012-12-09 09:17:59 PM  

Smackledorfer: Intent matters, and actual damage caused matters.

In that regard the punishment should fit the crime, and years in pmita prison for being stupid with pot brownies doesn't strike me as serving justice.



Some companies, government contractors in particular, will take hair samples for drug testing, which can retain THC for 8-10 years. Depending on the chosen careers of the victims, this could seriously impact their job prospects for the next decade or so, perhaps longer if you count the damage caused by missing out on that good job straight out of college.

I'm not saying these guys should get life in prison for a prank, but I don't feel that 'time served' is sufficient for something that may continue to cause damage years in the future.
 
2012-12-09 09:19:24 PM  
Next on the list of 80s comedy film pranks to emulate, lets commit the crime of Rape by Deception!

www.tampabay.com
 
2012-12-09 09:19:32 PM  
Even if I knew what it felt like to be under the influence of marijuana, I think I'd really freak out if I just started feeling stoned and had no clue why.

Think about it--you'd just suddenly start feeling disoriented/etc., without knowing why you were feeling that way.

I mean, if someone dosed me with LSD without my knowing it, I wouldn't be like, "oh man, this is trippy and cool." I'd probably be like "someone call 911, I think I'm dying."
 
2012-12-09 09:20:45 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Dafatone: Gyrfalcon: All those 70's and 80's comedies of people accidentally becoming stoned and wandering around in a beatific haze (which is what probably led to these idiots thinking "hey, this will be funny") are not real.

Everyone who thinks this has to do with 70s or 80s comedies isn't thinking about when undergrads were born.

If you're 18, you were born in 1994 or so.

Pretty sure cable was around in '94.


Sure, and yeah, the "hilarity" of "get people high that don't realize it" stems from there. And other shows have made this joke since then. But I promise you neither of these kids know who Barney Miller is.
 
2012-12-09 09:21:44 PM  

Teresaol31: Home cooked treats and dishes are off limits.


I'm that way with bar food, God only knows whose grubby hands were in it before I got there.
 
2012-12-09 09:22:26 PM  

ambassador_ahab: Even if I knew what it felt like to be under the influence of marijuana, I think I'd really freak out if I just started feeling stoned and had no clue why.

Think about it--you'd just suddenly start feeling disoriented/etc., without knowing why you were feeling that way.

I mean, if someone dosed me with LSD without my knowing it, I wouldn't be like, "oh man, this is trippy and cool." I'd probably be like "someone call 911, I think I'm dying."


To make matters worse, eating pot will make you freak out way worse than smoking it.
 
2012-12-09 09:24:31 PM  
This reminds me of one of the urban legends at my high school.

There was a substitute teacher who just hated the students. He called everyone "genius" with dripping sarcasm and was just a huge tool.

The legend was that he had been a full-time teacher who was alright. Until someone slipped a hit of LSD into his coffee one morning.

Apparently, he ended up in the hospital after freaking out and that's why he went out of his way to be a dick to everyone.

Probably not true, but it was a great story to tell whenever someone asked why he abused everyone.
 
2012-12-09 09:26:07 PM  
I was expecting the "banana in the tailpipe trick".
 
2012-12-09 09:26:16 PM  
WTF are they doing holding a class for 12 pupils? No wonder higher Ed is so farked up.
 
2012-12-09 09:27:05 PM  

aninconvenienterection: fusillade762: Reminds me of the one (and only) episode of "ER" I ever watched (because it was directed by Quentin Tarantino). A bunch of kids end up in the ER after eating chocolates dosed with LSD. One of the nurses unwittingly eats one and wanders around all wide-eyed and pawing at the walls like a child. No. Just no. You'd think you were dying or had been poisoned.

Never watched that stupid show again.

You should really step back and see how foolish this post makes you look.

You claim to have never watched a particular show, save a single episode with a guest director, and yet somehow you formed the opinion that the show is stupid? Based in this, why should anyone, ever, give 2 shiats about your opinion about anything?


No one gives 2 shiats about my opinion anyway. How is this going to change anything?
 
2012-12-09 09:27:17 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Smackledorfer: Intent matters, and actual damage caused matters.

In that regard the punishment should fit the crime, and years in pmita prison for being stupid with pot brownies doesn't strike me as serving justice.

Any time above expulsion and a few months jailtime will be unlikely to increase the preventative aspect of the punishment, on others or on these morons. Extra time isn't likely to help rehabilitate these idiots.

So what is the point? A revenge sentence that costs society extra money and gives it nothing in return? No thanks.

If I were to give you spiked drinks with the intent that you have fun at a party and you end up getting in a fatal drunk driving accident, I'm going to go to jail. Because intent only matters to a certain extent. What also matters is what a reasonable person could expect to happen.

You drug someone against their will, you're responsible for the worst case scenarios of what can happen to them.

Putting someone in jail for years for smoking pot of their couch is retarded and yes, that is revenge sentencing. Putting someone in jail for years from drugging someone without their consent is just common sense.


So your response to "intent and actual damage caused matters" is to present a hypothetical with terrible results that outweigh the intent? Odd.

Are there any other crimes at all in which the penalty for an action is based on the worst possible outcome and ignores intent? I can't think of any.

You say your argument is based on common sense, which is a meaningless statement, and you ignore the entirety of the rest of the criminal justice system in the process.
 
2012-12-09 09:28:10 PM  

vice_magnet: WTF are they doing holding a class for 12 pupils? No wonder higher Ed is so farked up.


3/10
 
2012-12-09 09:28:48 PM  

vice_magnet: WTF are they doing holding a class for 12 pupils? No wonder higher Ed is so farked up.


I must be missing something...why is a class for 12 students bad?
 
2012-12-09 09:29:39 PM  
God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly.
 
2012-12-09 09:31:18 PM  
This happened to me in high school, except it was mushrooms in cheese sauce at a fiesta in Spanish class. Thankfully it was pretty late in the day.

Pretty good day actually, looking back.
 
2012-12-09 09:35:03 PM  

Bob Falfa: Enjoy explaining your expulsion to your parents, asshats.


With any luck the parents will keep in touch.
 
2012-12-09 09:35:31 PM  
Yeah, you just don't give that shiat to someone who hasn't consented or even knows. That's pretty farked up, 'cause that's a totally different high.

On the other hand, if anyone wishes to feed me pot brownies, please do. Please. No, really, please?
 
2012-12-09 09:37:19 PM  

Happy Hours: queen biatch of the universe: Bathia_Mapes:


Hmmm...maybe that would explain why I've gotten a migraine everytime I've smoked pot in the past.  Don't smoke it anymore because migraines suck, no matter the cause.

The first time I tried pot I had the same reaction. Many some farker can help a sister out here on this question. I smoke pot the first time with my sister who got it from a friend that grew it himself. Thought it would help my depression but it just gave me the migraine from hell, didn't touch it again until last year. Last year I was allowed to legally use medical marijuana to help with my side-effects from chemo. Never had a headache - was it just a different variety? Don't know much about the stuff outside of the fact it works like a charm for stopping nausea.

Pot has never given me a headache, but then again I hardly ever get headaches even when hung over. Usually if I do get a headache it's due to dehydration or completely unexplainable.

Pot doesn't cure them either - at least not in my experience.


It does depend on what you smoked. Recently someone told me that smoking weed that was green (ie home grown that hadn't been properly cured) results in headaches. Don't know if that's true, but it came up because I also get migraines and smoke pot.

I find that smoking a bit along with my painkillers and a cup of tea is the perfect formula to get me through the pain. 2 different types of painkillers. If any of those things is missing it just doesn't hit the sweet spot.

These days quite a lot seems to be known about what all the different varieties have in them and what they are good for ....

Oh and I sympathise with the person who sounds like they have a bona fide mj allergy (also allergic to codeine - have heard that elsewhere recently). I didn't take it seriously at first because the only person I heard that from before was some whiny biatch who had a psychological reaction they didn't like, parroting what some nurse told them. Psychotic reactions, paranoia, white outs and so on DO happen, but they are not the same as an "allergy".
 
2012-12-09 09:37:39 PM  

queen biatch of the universe: I smoke pot the first time with my sister who got it from a friend that grew it himself. Thought it would help my depression but it just gave me the migraine from hell, didn't touch it again until last year. Last year I was allowed to legally use medical marijuana to help with my side-effects from chemo. Never had a headache - was it just a different variety?


Homegrown may have been the problem. I've heard of people who don't have all their shiat together using things like fertilizers or bug repellants that are absolutely not intended for human consumption. You may have been smoking Raid or something. Presumably your source for the medial pot was professional and knew what they were doing.
 
2012-12-09 09:37:41 PM  

Amos Quito: sycraft: I can see people being really worried and scared. After all, think about how you feel when you are pretty stoned or drunk. Think about some of the symptoms, like dizziness, lack of coordination, trouble concentrating, changes in temperature perception and so on. Everything is, well, different. Now when you get high/drunk you know what you are doing and why it happens so no big deal. But if that started happening to you all of a sudden, for no apparent reason? You might well freak out because you have no idea what is going wrong and there are some serious medical problems that can present similar symptoms.


Yeah, as an example of how bad things can go, the CIA played a little game called "Spike the Local Bread with LSD" on a small town in France back in 1951.

" In 1951, a quiet, picturesque village in southern France was suddenly and mysteriously struck down with mass insanity and hallucinations. At least five people died, dozens were interned in asylums and hundreds afflicted.

For decades it was assumed that the local bread had been unwittingly poisoned with a psychedelic mould. Now, however, an American investigative journalist has uncovered evidence suggesting the CIA peppered local food with the hallucinogenic drug LSD as part of a mind control experiment at the height of the Cold War. "

Took 60 years to get to the bottom of the "mystery".

BAD CIA! BAD!


Holy shiat! Thanks for posting that link. I knew about the "tainted" bread, but not this story.

When I learned about Frank Olsen I found myself becoming increasingly uneasy about what our modern-day spooks must be up to. This story reminds me just how far it went at the time.

What the hell must be going on our there today?
 
2012-12-09 09:37:58 PM  

Smackledorfer: Are there any other crimes at all in which the penalty for an action is based on the worst possible outcome and ignores intent? I can't think of any.


Copyright infringement.
 
2012-12-09 09:38:35 PM  
Was a funny highdea at the time.
 
2012-12-09 09:39:53 PM  

Happy Hours: Oh, and the hash episode of Barney Miller aired in 1976. The '70s called. They asked that you stop confusing them with the '80s.


whispers: Mooshie mooshie.
 
2012-12-09 09:41:35 PM  

Smackledorfer: Satanic_Hamster: Smackledorfer: I think felony is pushing it here. People have done and will do worse things, with malice no less, and gotten much less time.

When being an idiot about drugs is multiple felonies than hopefully battery is life in prison.

Drugging someone without their consent could hurt them severely, both physically or legally. What if they tried to drive, not knowing this? Or if they never realized they had pot brownies and work in a place that they're subject to drug tests?

You want to fark up your own life, that's your own business. But if you want to end or ruin another person's life then you should do some serious time.

Intent matters, and actual damage caused matters.

In that regard the punishment should fit the crime, and years in pmita prison for being stupid with pot brownies doesn't strike me as serving justice.

Any time above expulsion and a few months jailtime will be unlikely to increase the preventative aspect of the punishment, on others or on these morons. Extra time isn't likely to help rehabilitate these idiots.

So what is the point? A revenge sentence that costs society extra money and gives it nothing in return? No thanks.


You're right.
Just execute them
 
2012-12-09 09:41:41 PM  
Leary's Two Commandments:

Thou shalt not alter the consciousness of thy neighbor without his or her consent.

Thou shalt not prevent thy neighbor from altering his or her own consciousness.
 
2012-12-09 09:41:45 PM  

theteacher: You JUST GOT legalized weed. Don't go farking it up for everyone, jerkwads.


This.
 
2012-12-09 09:41:47 PM  

Smackledorfer: Are there any other crimes at all in which the penalty for an action is based on the worst possible outcome and ignores intent? I can't think of any.


Well, I was going to say shoplifting a candy bar, but then you put all these conditions on it like ignoring intent. I'm pretty sure the intent of a shoplifter includes depriving the store of their property and a legitimate sale. And there's also that the store is the victim. Smoking pot victimizes nobody but the toker.

But what the hell do I know - I'm victimizing myself with beer right now.
 
2012-12-09 09:45:01 PM  
The only thing worse than forcing unwitting consumption of pot because it's baked into brownies is forcing unwitting consumption of organized religion because it comes with a roof, a warm blanket and a hot meal.

/yes, sir, I'll assume the position
 
2012-12-09 09:45:12 PM  
They should get the same punishment as the people in the CIA who dosed people with out their knowledge.
 
2012-12-09 09:45:17 PM  

Happy Hours: Smackledorfer: Are there any other crimes at all in which the penalty for an action is based on the worst possible outcome and ignores intent? I can't think of any.

Well, I was going to say shoplifting a candy bar, but then you put all these conditions on it like ignoring intent. I'm pretty sure the intent of a shoplifter includes depriving the store of their property and a legitimate sale. And there's also that the store is the victim. Smoking pot victimizes nobody but the toker.

But what the hell do I know - I'm victimizing myself with beer right now.


If someone doses you with psychoactive chemicals without your consent or knowledge, it isn't a "victimless crime."
 
2012-12-09 09:46:50 PM  

Amos Quito: sycraft: I can see people being really worried and scared. After all, think about how you feel when you are pretty stoned or drunk. Think about some of the symptoms, like dizziness, lack of coordination, trouble concentrating, changes in temperature perception and so on. Everything is, well, different. Now when you get high/drunk you know what you are doing and why it happens so no big deal. But if that started happening to you all of a sudden, for no apparent reason? You might well freak out because you have no idea what is going wrong and there are some serious medical problems that can present similar symptoms.


Yeah, as an example of how bad things can go, the CIA played a little game called "Spike the Local Bread with LSD" on a small town in France back in 1951.

" In 1951, a quiet, picturesque village in southern France was suddenly and mysteriously struck down with mass insanity and hallucinations. At least five people died, dozens were interned in asylums and hundreds afflicted.

For decades it was assumed that the local bread had been unwittingly poisoned with a psychedelic mould. Now, however, an American investigative journalist has uncovered evidence suggesting the CIA peppered local food with the hallucinogenic drug LSD as part of a mind control experiment at the height of the Cold War. "

Took 60 years to get to the bottom of the "mystery".

BAD CIA! BAD!


Vault 106, right?
 
2012-12-09 09:47:54 PM  
robertdavidsullivan.typepad.com

Knows all about it.

/link not as hot as Marilu Henner back in that day.
 
2012-12-09 09:48:22 PM  
Too much, guys, too much. Should have just gone with the half eighth for that batch of brownies.
 
2012-12-09 09:50:20 PM  

queen biatch of the universe: Bathia_Mapes:


Hmmm...maybe that would explain why I've gotten a migraine everytime I've smoked pot in the past.  Don't smoke it anymore because migraines suck, no matter the cause.

The first time I tried pot I had the same reaction. Many some farker can help a sister out here on this question. I smoke pot the first time with my sister who got it from a friend that grew it himself. Thought it would help my depression but it just gave me the migraine from hell, didn't touch it again until last year. Last year I was allowed to legally use medical marijuana to help with my side-effects from chemo. Never had a headache - was it just a different variety? Don't know much about the stuff outside of the fact it works like a charm for stopping nausea.



That's a good question.  On those rare past occasions when I smoked pot it was my sister's homegrown.  Never tried any other variety/variation. 
 
2012-12-09 09:53:47 PM  
About 10 years ago,my roommate at the time baked some chocolate chip cookies.He was going to Vegas that morning.I was going to work.I don't normally eat sweets,but I was hungry.I ate two cookies.Started driving to work and then it creeped on me.I called my boss and told him what was going on and he told me to take the day off.I called my roommate and told him I ate 2 cookies,he laughed and said you only need one.
 
2012-12-09 09:55:33 PM  

Bathia_Mapes: That's a good question.  On those rare past occasions when I smoked pot it was my sister's homegrown.  Never tried any other variety/variation.


We should talk.
 
2012-12-09 09:55:46 PM  
They should be expelled, immediately. Regardless of whether they actually spend any time in jail, they should be required to put the following on every resume or application they submit for anything:

"I am such a stupid, arrogant piece of shiat that I think my sense of humor is more important than the health, safety, or education of anyone around me. If you hire me, be aware that I am such a selfish asshole that I enjoy damaging other people for laughs."
 
2012-12-09 09:56:13 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Amos Quito: Then again, it is NEVER cool to offer any intoxicant to unwitting / unwilling participants.

Except for your cat.


Cats tripping on Melatonin is even funnier.
 
2012-12-09 09:57:16 PM  
My cleaning crew ate one of my brownies last week. I got an email asking for my private email (I usually use my work one) as they had a pressing personal matter to ask about". I called, and the husband answered, and said he was totally embarrassed (at this point I'm wondering if they found my meth lab or sex slave dungeon) but he asked if there was anything special in them, because there better be or something is wrong. I told him there was, he apologized for eating my food. He said his wife was passed out, and he quit smoking 20 years ago, but "I guess I'll enjoy this while I can"

/csb
 
2012-12-09 09:57:22 PM  

gonegirl: They should be expelled, immediately. Regardless of whether they actually spend any time in jail, they should be required to put the following on every resume or application they submit for anything:

"I am such a stupid, arrogant piece of shiat that I think my sense of humor is more important than the health, safety, or education of anyone around me. If you hire me, be aware that I am such a selfish asshole that I enjoy damaging other people for laughs."


We don't know that they did it "for laughs." It's possible they thought this would be welcomed, or that other kids wouldn't mind getting high without their consent.

They're idiots, and should suffer serious legal consequences, but their thought process might not have been "haha other kids will get high and won't realize it and that's funny."
 
2012-12-09 09:58:33 PM  

Smackledorfer: Are there any other crimes at all in which the penalty for an action is based on the worst possible outcome and ignores intent? I can't think of any.


If you're pirating software/music/movies for personal use you can be punished as though you intended to profit off of it (selling the things you acquired). Does that count?

Or in the same vein, if you're busted with your drug of choice in a quantity beyond a certain threshold, you can be charged with intent to sell even if it's for personal use.
 
2012-12-09 09:59:41 PM  

topcon: To make matters worse, eating pot will make you freak out way worse than smoking it.


Yeah, this too. Even when intentionally smoking it, the effect kicks in pretty fast, so you can stop smoking once you've had enough. But when you eat it, if you don't know the dose, by the time it kicks in, it's too late and you could be really messed up for hours. And that's even if you eat too much and know why you're feeling so strange.

Sure, some will argue that THC is basically non-toxic and I'm sure everybody is now medically fine, but I'm sure some of those people felt terribly ill and extremely paranoid for hours--not knowing what the fark happened to them. So just because nobody got permanently hurt doesn't make it any better.
 
2012-12-09 10:00:24 PM  
The brownies were brought as part of a "bring food to class" day. Police said the brownies and orange juice were the only items brought to class.


So nobody else even brought the Doritos? Lazy bastards.
 
2012-12-09 10:01:14 PM  

eraser8: vice_magnet: WTF are they doing holding a class for 12 pupils? No wonder higher Ed is so farked up.

I must be missing something...why is a class for 12 students bad?


Hope he doesn't find out that lots of graduate-school seminars often have six or fewer.
 
2012-12-09 10:01:20 PM  

gonegirl: "I am such a stupid, arrogant piece of shiat that I think my sense of humor is more important than the health, safety, or education of anyone around me. If you hire me, be aware that I am such a selfish asshole that I enjoy damaging other people for laughs."


This is basically my personal ethics code and even I wouldn't do something like what these assclowns did.
 
2012-12-09 10:01:25 PM  

Polyhazard: If someone doses you with psychoactive chemicals without your consent or knowledge, it isn't a "victimless crime."


I agree with that.

I think the person I replied to was talking about people taking drugs of their own free will.

CSB time - my grandfather (who was not a drinker) when he was young was at a party one time on a hot summer day. He asked for a glass of water which at the time when people still wore onions on their belts was apparently slang for vodka. So they poured him a glass of vodka - how he didn't notice that they poured him a vodka and not water is something I didn't think to ask when I heard this story.

He eagerly gulped the glass of "water" down and needless to say immediately realized it wasn't water.
 
2012-12-09 10:03:44 PM  

St_Francis_P: The "awesome prank" is pretty stupid, then and now.


Especially since cooking thc gives it effects close to LSD and some people will suffer hallucinations after ingestion.
 
2012-12-09 10:06:41 PM  
Either that was toxic pot, those 2 are awful cooks, are college students are pot pussies these days. Probably NOT the latter.
 
2012-12-09 10:08:42 PM  

Polyhazard: Amos Quito: sycraft: I can see people being really worried and scared. After all, think about how you feel when you are pretty stoned or drunk. Think about some of the symptoms, like dizziness, lack of coordination, trouble concentrating, changes in temperature perception and so on. Everything is, well, different. Now when you get high/drunk you know what you are doing and why it happens so no big deal. But if that started happening to you all of a sudden, for no apparent reason? You might well freak out because you have no idea what is going wrong and there are some serious medical problems that can present similar symptoms.


Yeah, as an example of how bad things can go, the CIA played a little game called "Spike the Local Bread with LSD" on a small town in France back in 1951.

" In 1951, a quiet, picturesque village in southern France was suddenly and mysteriously struck down with mass insanity and hallucinations. At least five people died, dozens were interned in asylums and hundreds afflicted.

For decades it was assumed that the local bread had been unwittingly poisoned with a psychedelic mould. Now, however, an American investigative journalist has uncovered evidence suggesting the CIA peppered local food with the hallucinogenic drug LSD as part of a mind control experiment at the height of the Cold War. "

Took 60 years to get to the bottom of the "mystery".

BAD CIA! BAD!

Holy shiat! Thanks for posting that link. I knew about the "tainted" bread, but not this story.

When I learned about Frank Olsen I found myself becoming increasingly uneasy about what our modern-day spooks must be up to. This story reminds me just how far it went at the time.

What the hell must be going on our there today?



Heh.

I think it's safe to assume that work has "progressed", and that they are getting better at achieving the desired results.

A complacent, cooperative and non-resistant populace is the dream of ANY government.

No?
 
2012-12-09 10:08:45 PM  

puckrock2000: The brownies were brought as part of a "bring food to class" day. Police said the brownies and orange juice were the only items brought to class.


So nobody else even brought the Doritos? Lazy bastards.


//this

OK, yeah, but what's the alternative?

"Hi, everybody, I brought orange juice that I stole out of the co-op refrigerator and it only expired a few weeks ago."

"Hi, I brought hummus from my bio lab."

"Hi, I brought homemade cottage cheese with cultures from my roommate's vag."

"Hey, I brought BROWNIES!"

You... make... the call!!!
 
2012-12-09 10:11:14 PM  

AcneVulgaris: Amos Quito: "The Boulder County district attorney will review the case, at which time Cunningham and Essa may each face more than 10 felonies, Huff said."


Seems a bit harsh.

Then again, it is NEVER cool to offer any intoxicant to unwitting / unwilling participants.


/Except Rohypnol, of course

I tried eating pot once. I ate a little, nothing happened, a little more, nothing. Screw it, I'll finish off this eighth. Nothing, for an hour or so, and then suddenly holy shiat. I staggered around for a bit, and passed out for 22 hours. When I came to my wife was trying to drag me into the car to go to the hospital.

Definately not a cool prank.


Oh yeah, never eat a lot, when I cooked it down to butter form I used half of what the recipe called for and its probably a good thing I did since that shiat had us farked up for hours. If I had used what the recipe suggested I am sure one of us would have wound up in jail/hospital/mental ward.
 
2012-12-09 10:14:11 PM  

the ha ha guy: Some companies, government contractors in particular, will take hair samples for drug testing, which can retain THC for 8-10 years.


Yeah, I hadn't even thought of the drug testing angle. One of those students might be up for a job, or in ROTC, or on an athletic scholarship, or on probation, or trying to get a student teaching appointment. Any one of those might or will require you to hand over a piss sample, and if these asshats hadn't got caught... yikes.

Hell, someone might be screwed regardless. A lot of the people who test your piss aren't going to care how gold-plated your excuse is for testing positive.

Well, like I said, there are going to be a lot of bored drug-case prosecutors in Colorado anyway, so at least they won't slip through the cracks. Go get 'em, boys!
 
2012-12-09 10:16:09 PM  
Dosing anyone, with anything at all without their knowledge is horrible practice. I'd freak the fark out just wondering what was happening to me....then become totally unglued because I was way too high.
 
2012-12-09 10:18:54 PM  

queen biatch of the universe: Bathia_Mapes:


Hmmm...maybe that would explain why I've gotten a migraine everytime I've smoked pot in the past.  Don't smoke it anymore because migraines suck, no matter the cause.

The first time I tried pot I had the same reaction. Many some farker can help a sister out here on this question. I smoke pot the first time with my sister who got it from a friend that grew it himself. Thought it would help my depression but it just gave me the migraine from hell, didn't touch it again until last year. Last year I was allowed to legally use medical marijuana to help with my side-effects from chemo. Never had a headache - was it just a different variety? Don't know much about the stuff outside of the fact it works like a charm for stopping nausea.


You had dirt weed, basically from a weak ass strain of thc that barely gets anyone high, usually its cut with something else today as well so the other chemicals make it worse. When you have good weed the difference is like drinking 36 year old scotch compared to old grandad, sure both may get you drunk but one is also gonna make you violently sick.
 
2012-12-09 10:21:22 PM  

gonegirl:
"I am such a stupid, arrogant piece of shiat that I think my sense of humor is more important than the health, safety, or education of anyone around me. If you hire me, be aware that I am such a selfish asshole that I enjoy damaging other people for laughs."


That coulda also encompass so many public officials and political leaders,
 
2012-12-09 10:22:24 PM  
Rocky mountain High-larity, Colorado.

These two asshats deserve expulsion but no jail time for this admittedly "pants-on-head/WTF-were-you-thinking?' stunt.

Hash brownies or pot cookies prepared by someone who knows what they are doing are awesome.

Not so cerebral it's a nice trippy body high that generally brings on a case of munchies that puts regular pot smokin' munchies to shame when ingested by people who have figured out their tolerances for this kinda stuff previously.

Done wrong and ingested by people who aren't aware what's going on brings nothing but misery all around.
 
2012-12-09 10:26:18 PM  
You DO NOT dose someone without their consent. I think that was one of Tim Leary's rules. Or something. Such as.
 
2012-12-09 10:28:26 PM  
You've got to be kidding me.

I've been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like.

It's just common sense.
 
2012-12-09 10:31:26 PM  

Sticky Hands: I've been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like.


Wut?
 
2012-12-09 10:32:41 PM  

Robots are Strong: Smackledorfer: Are there any other crimes at all in which the penalty for an action is based on the worst possible outcome and ignores intent? I can't think of any.

If you're pirating software/music/movies for personal use you can be punished as though you intended to profit off of it (selling the things you acquired). Does that count?

Or in the same vein, if you're busted with your drug of choice in a quantity beyond a certain threshold, you can be charged with intent to sell even if it's for personal use.


Fair enough, but the latter is because having that much shows intent.

The former is a law I, and most folks here, disagree with copywrite laws for the precise reason that the penalty is so unrelated to the crime.

For that matter most disagree with the drug example too.

I am not defending slipping drugs to people. I just look at criminal laws and see getting years for it, when things resulting in more damage and done with malice don't rise as high on the penalty scale. So I think the calls for blood here are misguided.
 
2012-12-09 10:38:11 PM  

Dafatone: gonegirl: They should be expelled, immediately. Regardless of whether they actually spend any time in jail, they should be required to put the following on every resume or application they submit for anything:

"I am such a stupid, arrogant piece of shiat that I think my sense of humor is more important than the health, safety, or education of anyone around me. If you hire me, be aware that I am such a selfish asshole that I enjoy damaging other people for laughs."

We don't know that they did it "for laughs." It's possible they thought this would be welcomed, or that other kids wouldn't mind getting high without their consent.


True. It's just as possible they did this with the intent to poison and harm their classmates.
 
2012-12-09 10:42:03 PM  
If you slip pot to me without my knowledge, be prepared for me to kick your ass when it wears off. I will take it no differently than if you tried to poison me.

Actually, I wouldn't kick your ass, but I would press charges and sue you into oblivion. I'd let the cops and courts kick your ass for me.

It's about choice and taking away my free will. You might as well be raping someone if you drug them against their will or without their knowledge. You are violating their body and taking away their right to say "no."
 
2012-12-09 10:45:04 PM  

Sticky Hands: I've been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like.


So true my friend... so true.

/I'll have whatever what he's having
 
2012-12-09 10:46:50 PM  

ZeroCorpse: You might as well be raping someone if you drug them against their will or without their knowledge. You are violating their body and taking away their right to say "no."


I don't know if it's exactly the same as rape-rape, but I generally agree with your statement.

/Also, God's Will.
 
2012-12-09 10:48:11 PM  

LDM90: But I have been assured by Fark that pot is completely harmless and just legalize it already!


No you weren't. You were assured that jailing hundreds of thousands of non-violent drug offenders is stupid.

It is.
 
2012-12-09 10:50:46 PM  

LGeezer: DO YOU THINK I'M CUTE DO YOU THINK I'M FUNNY?


Why, yes I do! And I just ate a jelly donut.

/No really, I was still chewing the last bite when I scrolled down to this pic. Weird coincidence.
 
2012-12-09 10:53:41 PM  

Sticky Hands: You've got to be kidding me.

I've been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like.

It's just common sense.


Stoner confusion trolling..Brilliant.

//too lazy to link the beer guys..
 
2012-12-09 10:54:29 PM  

Kibbler: No you weren't. You were assured that jailing hundreds of thousands of non-violent drug offenders is stupid.

It is.


Yep. And that's not the issue.

The people who used the drugs aren't under arrest, nor should be. It's the people who drugged them without their consent that are in jail, as well they should be.

Smackledorfer: So your response to "intent and actual damage caused matters" is to present a hypothetical with terrible results that outweigh the intent? Odd.

Are there any other crimes at all in which the penalty for an action is based on the worst possible outcome and ignores intent? I can't think of any.

You say your argument is based on common sense, which is a meaningless statement, and you ignore the entirety of the rest of the criminal justice system in the process.


Yes, because that makes sense and how the law works. You can't allow people to drug others without their consent and just treat it like it was nothing.
 
2012-12-09 11:01:15 PM  

Kibbler: LDM90: But I have been assured by Fark that pot is completely harmless and just legalize it already!

No you weren't. You were assured that jailing hundreds of thousands of non-violent drug offenders is stupid.

It is.


As far as what has been assured by Fark, spin the wheel and call out the first thing that comes to mind.
 
2012-12-09 11:03:18 PM  
Where did I say anything about treating it like it was nothing?
 
2012-12-09 11:04:33 PM  
Those students are awful human beings.

I was a chronic smoker from 1989-2007 (I'm old). Good stuff, ditch weed, whatever we could get. It was never scary, and I really loved it - I've never taken to alcohol, so it was my version of an after-work cocktail. I stopped when I married a teetotaler, which was fine by me. No withdrawals, just an occasional yearning.

A year ago, I went to a party and my friends wondered if I wanted the tiniest piece of a brownie I'd ever seen. They told me I should start with half. I laughed - I'm an old-school smoker with ears of experience under my belt, right? So I ate the whole thing. Thus began my first medical-grade adventure.

I was farked. So very, very farked. It took an hour to noticeably creep in. About 3 hours in, I (almost literally) crawled into their guest room, locked the door, and laid on the bed. Utterly immobilized. It took about 8 hours after eating the thing until I felt mostly normal. It was nothing like any pot experience I'd had, and my brain was on overdrive - more of an acid sensation than weed. Blech.

If my friends were dicks, and I if was naive and under the impression that it was a regular brownie (not recognizing the smell or whatever), I would have definitely gone to the ER. I would have been terrified. Luckily, I knew it would wear off eventually and I'd be OK. I kept having to remind myself of that, though, which was a bummer.

I still miss the fun weed, but I have no will to try the current stuff. That makes me sad.
 
2012-12-09 11:11:23 PM  
This is why we can't have nice things. Put the blame in the proper place. It has very little to do with pot and a lot to do with human stupidity.
 
2012-12-09 11:11:41 PM  
I worked for a Renaissance Faire and we (actors) were required to attend a cook-out one week, meet and greet event. We all thought it was hilarious that there were peaches served in brandy, and had several portions each. There was also a really nasty Greek dish filled with spinach that just looked off and very few people ate it.

Yeah, not all spinach. And a few actors began acting strangely, we didn't know what they had ingested, and the producers made the call to take them to the ER. Just pot, and our people were okay, but we were all pretty angry that some stranger had decided, oh, actors are all crazy people, they'll think this is awesome! NO.

Also at the party-- a nine-year-old child and a pregnant woman. The kid got dosed. Spent the night crying to his parents that he felt "weird". Not funny at all.

Want to get high? Great, good for you. Be my guest. But drugging people without their consent is a complete dick move.
 
2012-12-09 11:12:23 PM  
Q&D
i45.tinypic.com
 
2012-12-09 11:14:00 PM  

Smackledorfer: Where did I say anything about treating it like it was nothing?


Given the possible repercussions of their crime, simple expulsion and time served is nothing, especially compared to the punishment for spiking food or drink with any other drug.
 
2012-12-09 11:15:14 PM  

Sticky Hands: You've got to be kidding me.

I've been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like.

It's just common sense.


How is bbong smooked?
 
2012-12-09 11:15:47 PM  
Side note and ITG:
For the last 12 years I've worked with explosives. I'm a mining engineer with multiple licenses and make a comfortable living. I'm also subject to random drug tests. Any drug use would directly affect my ability to earn a living.

If anyone ever did this to me, you BETTER hope they arrest you and keep you in jail. Because if I found you before the police did...
 
2012-12-09 11:16:28 PM  
only 8 out of 12? at least we know who smokes.
 
2012-12-09 11:18:32 PM  
i.ytimg.com
Typical reaction to being too high
 
2012-12-09 11:22:38 PM  

The Whore Of Mensa: I worked for a Renaissance Faire and we (actors) were required to attend a cook-out one week, meet and greet event. We all thought it was hilarious that there were peaches served in brandy, and had several portions each. There was also a really nasty Greek dish filled with spinach that just looked off and very few people ate it.

Yeah, not all spinach. And a few actors began acting strangely, we didn't know what they had ingested, and the producers made the call to take them to the ER. Just pot, and our people were okay, but we were all pretty angry that some stranger had decided, oh, actors are all crazy people, they'll think this is awesome! NO.

Also at the party-- a nine-year-old child and a pregnant woman. The kid got dosed. Spent the night crying to his parents that he felt "weird". Not funny at all.

Want to get high? Great, good for you. Be my guest. But drugging people without their consent is a complete dick move.


Who the fark just cooks up a bunch of buds like they're collard greens?

This is why we need more pot culinary shows on TV.
 
2012-12-09 11:26:31 PM  

the ha ha guy: Smackledorfer: Where did I say anything about treating it like it was nothing?

Given the possible repercussions of their crime, simple expulsion and time served is nothing, especially compared to the punishment for spiking food or drink with any other drug.


Agreed, but where did I say time served?
 
2012-12-09 11:36:20 PM  

Amos Quito: "The Boulder County district attorney will review the case, at which time Cunningham and Essa may each face more than 10 felonies, Huff said."


Seems a bit harsh.

Then again, it is NEVER cool to offer any intoxicant to unwitting / unwilling participants.


/Except Rohypnol, of course


Hehe
 
2012-12-09 11:36:55 PM  

Tourney3p0: lewismarktwo:
LOLOLOL

Idiot.


ROFLCOPTERLOLOLOLOL
 
2012-12-09 11:43:14 PM  

Amos Quito: AcneVulgaris: Amos Quito: "The Boulder County district attorney will review the case, at which time Cunningham and Essa may each face more than 10 felonies, Huff said."


Seems a bit harsh.

Then again, it is NEVER cool to offer any intoxicant to unwitting / unwilling participants.


/Except Rohypnol, of course

I tried eating pot once. I ate a little, nothing happened, a little more, nothing. Screw it, I'll finish off this eighth. Nothing, for an hour or so, and then suddenly holy shiat. I staggered around for a bit, and passed out for 22 hours. When I came to my wife was trying to drag me into the car to go to the hospital.

Definately not a cool prank.


Yeah, I was going to mention earlier that one of my nephews made a batch of brownies for his bachelor party (I missed it :-\) and EVERYONE who ate them got baked to the point of misery - and a lot of those guys have been all-day-every-day tokers for years.

Either he used WAAAY too much, or eating it must be a different experience.


Although i have enjoyed all my eating ganj experiences, there is usually a half hour or so that I really think I will die.
 
2012-12-09 11:45:22 PM  
Drop the hammer on them for being stupid.
 
2012-12-09 11:46:36 PM  

Lsherm: lewismarktwo: Lsherm:

Potheads usually insist that it isn't possible, but both times I tried pot I had a severe allergic reaction. The first time I was smoking it, the second time I ingested it.

I suppose I could carry out an experiment with an injection of pure THC, but what's the point? I'm also allergic to opiates, so no codeine for me at the hospital.


I'm pretty sure you aren't allergic to THC specifically, but anything is possible. You should mug a wealthy cancer patient and try some of their Marinol to see if it makes you itchy.
 
2012-12-09 11:56:40 PM  

Lsherm: lewismarktwo: Lsherm: Amos Quito: "The Boulder County district attorney will review the case, at which time Cunningham and Essa may each face more than 10 felonies, Huff said."


Seems a bit harsh.

Then again, it is NEVER cool to offer any intoxicant to unwitting / unwilling participants.


/Except Rohypnol, of course

Not really. I'm allergic to THC (I probably would have been hospitalized along with the professor). You shouldn't be drugging people without their knowledge, period. I think it rises to felony level.

LOLOLOL

But, seriously, it IS just a prank, but it's never cool to dose people without their knowledge. Ever. They deserve a moderate punishment.

Potheads usually insist that it isn't possible, but both times I tried pot I had a severe allergic reaction. The first time I was smoking it, the second time I ingested it.

I suppose I could carry out an experiment with an injection of pure THC, but what's the point? I'm also allergic to opiates, so no codeine for me at the hospital.




Allergic reactions aren't symptomatic on the first exposure.
 
2012-12-09 11:59:25 PM  
www.kzum.org
 
2012-12-09 11:59:52 PM  
Some uptight farkers in here ... if only there was something to mellow them out.
 
2012-12-10 12:02:43 AM  

Sticky Hands: You've got to be kidding me.

I've been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like.

It's just common sense.


gifsforum.com
 
2012-12-10 12:18:16 AM  

Ahhh_Ennui: Those students are awful human beings.

I was a chronic smoker from 1989-2007 (I'm old). Good stuff, ditch weed, whatever we could get. It was never scary, and I really loved it - I've never taken to alcohol, so it was my version of an after-work cocktail. I stopped when I married a teetotaler, which was fine by me. No withdrawals, just an occasional yearning.

Meh, you're not that old - I'm probably older. Then again I'm pretty sure there are older people than me on Fark who would laugh when I said I was old

A year ago, I went to a party and my friends wondered if I wanted the tiniest piece of a brownie I'd ever seen. They told me I should start with half. I laughed - I'm an old-school smoker with ears of experience under my belt, right? So I ate the whole thing. Thus began my first medical-grade adventure.


Despite my ears of experience too, you do lose your tolerance after a while. When a long-term abstainer runs into an everyday toker and they get high one oh them will end up very farking high and the other will just be experiencing a typical day,
 
2012-12-10 12:28:57 AM  

Gyrfalcon: s

This is what the big deal is. And why it's not funny. If you have no idea what's happening to you, you're going to be terrified, and that mental state is going to guarantee a bad trip. All those 70's and 80's comedies of people accidentally becoming stoned and wandering around in a beatific haze (which is what probably led to these idiots thinking "hey, this will be funny") are not real. If I was to get one of those brownies, my first thought would be to think I was having a psychotic break--since I'm bipolar, and I've had those before. Thinking you're losing your mind isn't really a happy-making experience.

Then there's the fact that you don't really know where your victims will be when the high hits. Driving along a busy highway? Taking care of their kids? Ha-ha, that will be really funny when they're taking an important final in a few hours and can't even remember how to spell their name! Or, you know, not.


As someone else with bipolar, I'd have the same freakout too. (Also prone to dissociation etc. too)

Farking stupid thing to do. If you're at an event where it might be appropriate, sure I can get that (assuming everyone knows what they're consuming/being dosed with when they consume the foods/drinks in question). But it'd lead to a serious freakout for me, which could possibly act as a trigger for all the other awesome insanity that I have.

/Not that crazy
//99% of the time...
 
2012-12-10 12:28:57 AM  
ROBOT HOUSE!!!!
 
2012-12-10 12:43:33 AM  

Smackledorfer: Robots are Strong: Smackledorfer: Are there any other crimes at all in which the penalty for an action is based on the worst possible outcome and ignores intent? I can't think of any.

If you're pirating software/music/movies for personal use you can be punished as though you intended to profit off of it (selling the things you acquired). Does that count?

Or in the same vein, if you're busted with your drug of choice in a quantity beyond a certain threshold, you can be charged with intent to sell even if it's for personal use.

Fair enough, but the latter is because having that much shows intent.

The former is a law I, and most folks here, disagree with copywrite laws for the precise reason that the penalty is so unrelated to the crime.

For that matter most disagree with the drug example too.

I am not defending slipping drugs to people. I just look at criminal laws and see getting years for it, when things resulting in more damage and done with malice don't rise as high on the penalty scale. So I think the calls for blood here are misguided.


You seem to think that it's a foregone conclusion that these guys are going to be convicted on all 10 counts and given the maximum sentence. This will not happen. There is no point in wringing your hands about the punishment not fitting the crime until there is actually a punishment to talk about. There is almost always a huge difference between the theoretical maximum sentence that someone is facing, and the actual sentence that is handed down after plea deals, sentencing guidelines, etc.
 
2012-12-10 12:45:59 AM  

Amos Quito: "The Boulder County district attorney will review the case, at which time Cunningham and Essa may each face more than 10 felonies, Huff said."


Seems a bit harsh.

Then again, it is NEVER cool to offer any intoxicant to unwitting / unwilling participants.


/Except Rohypnol, of course


"Hey there hot chick... does this cloth smell like chloroform to you?"
 
2012-12-10 12:46:12 AM  

Happy Hours: What '80s comedy are you talking about subby? I must have missed it.

The only thing I can think of is that episode of Barney Miller where Wojo's girlfriend made hash brownies and he brought them to the precinct but Wojo didn't intend to get everyone stoned.

Link

Feeding people drugs without their knowledge is evil - but that was a pretty funny episode.



Ignatowski during his college days
 
2012-12-10 12:46:36 AM  
"Anybody who thinks this is cute, anybody who thinks this was funny, is going to face pretty serious sanctions, both criminally and potentially within the student conduct process," said CU spokesman Bronson Hilliard.

por-img.cimcontent.net

/come at me bro
 
2012-12-10 12:59:02 AM  

angryjd: Ignatowski during his college days


Holy shiat - that was Tom Hanks in a Taxi episode?

That was awesome.
 
2012-12-10 01:08:14 AM  

StashMonster: Happy Hours: queen biatch of the universe: Bathia_Mapes:


Hmmm...maybe that would explain why I've gotten a migraine everytime I've smoked pot in the past.  Don't smoke it anymore because migraines suck, no matter the cause.

The first time I tried pot I had the same reaction. Many some farker can help a sister out here on this question. I smoke pot the first time with my sister who got it from a friend that grew it himself. Thought it would help my depression but it just gave me the migraine from hell, didn't touch it again until last year. Last year I was allowed to legally use medical marijuana to help with my side-effects from chemo. Never had a headache - was it just a different variety? Don't know much about the stuff outside of the fact it works like a charm for stopping nausea.

Pot has never given me a headache, but then again I hardly ever get headaches even when hung over. Usually if I do get a headache it's due to dehydration or completely unexplainable.

Pot doesn't cure them either - at least not in my experience.

It does depend on what you smoked. Recently someone told me that smoking weed that was green (ie home grown that hadn't been properly cured) results in headaches. Don't know if that's true, but it came up because I also get migraines and smoke pot.

I find that smoking a bit along with my painkillers and a cup of tea is the perfect formula to get me through the pain. 2 different types of painkillers. If any of those things is missing it just doesn't hit the sweet spot.

These days quite a lot seems to be known about what all the different varieties have in them and what they are good for ....

Oh and I sympathise with the person who sounds like they have a bona fide mj allergy (also allergic to codeine - have heard that elsewhere recently). I didn't take it seriously at first because the only person I heard that from before was some whiny biatch who had a psychological reaction they didn't like, parroting what some nurse told them. ...



For the record I'm allergic to codeine myself.
 
2012-12-10 01:10:15 AM  

lewismarktwo: Lsherm: lewismarktwo: Lsherm:

Potheads usually insist that it isn't possible, but both times I tried pot I had a severe allergic reaction. The first time I was smoking it, the second time I ingested it.

I suppose I could carry out an experiment with an injection of pure THC, but what's the point? I'm also allergic to opiates, so no codeine for me at the hospital.

I'm pretty sure you aren't allergic to THC specifically, but anything is possible. You should mug a wealthy cancer patient and try some of their Marinol to see if it makes you itchy.


Each of the several times I tried it in my youth, I experienced vomiting, breathing problems, and severe swelling around the eyes/face. Worse yet, no real "high", and just wanted to sleep. When I'd wake up the next morning, I'd still be sick as a dog and bloated.

Fortunately, I had no problem with booze, peyote, shrooms, or LSD.

That being said, I still say it should be legalized: just because it's not for me doesn't mean it's not ok for someone else. However, these 2 ass clowns deserve the 10 felony charges
 
2012-12-10 01:11:21 AM  

ScreamingHangover: However, these 2 ass clowns deserve the 10 felony charges


10? Really?
 
2012-12-10 01:12:25 AM  

angryjd: Feeding people drugs without their knowledge is evil - but that was a pretty funny episode.

Ignatowski during his college days


Classic Taxis is classic. Love that one.

Along a similar line anyone remember the Latka cocaine cookie episode?
 
2012-12-10 01:12:46 AM  
3.bp.blogspot.com

You're making a fool of yourselves. Handle your shiat, folks, please.
 
2012-12-10 01:17:42 AM  

whidbey: ScreamingHangover: However, these 2 ass clowns deserve the 10 felony charges

10? Really?


Really. And the civil suits from the professor and students who had to be hospitalized: Let them cough up the bills for the Emergency services, hospital resources and pain and suffering.

You don't fark with another human being's cognitive functions without their consent.
 
2012-12-10 01:20:34 AM  

Bathia_Mapes: For the record I'm allergic to codeine myself.


Okay, I'll bite - what does it do to you?

I hear people say they're allergic to things all the time and quite often it's BS. Does codeine make you break out in hives? Does it make your sinuses act up? What?

The only side effects I've ever experienced from codeine are that it made me itchy and somewhat oblivious to pain, like I could walk into a wall and bang my head but I didn't really care because I wasn't feeling any pain at that point anyway.

I'd call those side effects. I wouldn't say I'm allergic to codeine. 

I must admit, I like the ability to run into walls and not feel any pain, but that's why I avoid long-term use of pain killers. I like them too much. If I ever got a long-term supply of them I'd probably turn into an addict very quickly.
 
2012-12-10 01:23:17 AM  

ScreamingHangover: whidbey: ScreamingHangover: However, these 2 ass clowns deserve the 10 felony charges

10? Really?

Really. And the civil suits from the professor and students who had to be hospitalized: Let them cough up the bills for the Emergency services, hospital resources and pain and suffering.


What "pain and suffering" actually occurred? I read an article about people getting dizzy and using the Emergency Room.

Tell me you're not trying to blow this up into something stupid.

And honestly, the most these guys should have to do is some extensive community service. Tell me you're not in favor of wasting resources just to throw the book at them. Gotta say you sound a bit Nazi.
 
2012-12-10 01:26:30 AM  

Lsherm: Not really. I'm allergic to THC (I probably would have been hospitalized along with the professor). You shouldn't be drugging people without their knowledge, period. I think it rises to felony level.


There is no known allergy to THC.
 
2012-12-10 01:34:00 AM  

whidbey: ScreamingHangover: whidbey: ScreamingHangover: However, these 2 ass clowns deserve the 10 felony charges

10? Really?

Really. And the civil suits from the professor and students who had to be hospitalized: Let them cough up the bills for the Emergency services, hospital resources and pain and suffering.

What "pain and suffering" actually occurred? I read an article about people getting dizzy and using the Emergency Room.

Tell me you're not trying to blow this up into something stupid.

And honestly, the most these guys should have to do is some extensive community service. Tell me you're not in favor of wasting resources just to throw the book at them. Gotta say you sound a bit Nazi.


Pain and suffering: umm... according to the article, dizziness, sickness, painic attacks. unconsciousness...

You ever seen an Emergency room bill? figure 1,000 to 3,000 per person, plus EMS services for the ambulance: all together easily over $5k in medical expenses alone.


That being said, you actually believe that if someone drugs you and/or your family, it's no big deal? Seriously?
 
2012-12-10 01:35:57 AM  

ScreamingHangover: That being said, you actually believe that if someone drugs you and/or your family, it's no big deal? Seriously?


Not for something as innocuous as pot brownies, sorry. Again, you're talking about leveling TEN FELONIES at someone. Police state much?
 
2012-12-10 01:36:49 AM  

whidbey: Lsherm: Not really. I'm allergic to THC (I probably would have been hospitalized along with the professor). You shouldn't be drugging people without their knowledge, period. I think it rises to felony level.

There is no known allergy to THC.


But they didn't dose the food with pure hash oil, now did they.

And if you're gonna tell me there's no such thing as an allergy to cannabis, then I'm just gonna have to say you're full of shiat.

/probably full of shiat on the "no allergy to THC" thing too, really
 
2012-12-10 01:38:17 AM  

Mithiwithi: And if you're gonna tell me there's no such thing as an allergy to cannabis, then I'm just gonna have to say you're full of shiat.


You're welcome to provide me with a link.

I didn't find one.
 
2012-12-10 01:40:49 AM  

whidbey: Mithiwithi: And if you're gonna tell me there's no such thing as an allergy to cannabis, then I'm just gonna have to say you're full of shiat.

You're welcome to provide me with a link.

I didn't find one.


Then you didn't look. At all.
Link #4 on Google for "marijuana allergy": Link
 
2012-12-10 01:43:23 AM  

ScreamingHangover: You ever seen an Emergency room bill? figure 1,000 to 3,000 per person, plus EMS services for the ambulance: all together easily over $5k in medical expenses alone.


Maybe they should sue the ER,

I don't mean to say drugging anyone else without their knowledge or consent is okay, but medical expenses are seriously out of control, so much to the point that people avoid getting medical attention until it reaches a crisis level.
 
2012-12-10 01:43:43 AM  
You people must be the hits of your respective parties.
 
2012-12-10 01:45:49 AM  

Mithiwithi: Then you didn't look. At all.
Link #4 on Google for "marijuana allergy": Link


Oh please. Your link isn't any more conclusive that what I've been Googling.

Are you just seriously anti-drug or what?
 
2012-12-10 01:51:20 AM  

whidbey: ScreamingHangover: That being said, you actually believe that if someone drugs you and/or your family, it's no big deal? Seriously?

Not for something as innocuous as pot brownies, sorry. Again, you're talking about leveling TEN FELONIES at someone. Police state much?


(the charges include assault in the second degree and inducing consumption of controlled substances by fraudulent means) x 10 = 10 felonies. Yep. That's how it works. What's police state about that? If I shot 10 people, I'd expect them to charge me with 10 counts of murder. Same goes for littering. I'm curious though: how do you think this is this in any way related to a police state?
 
2012-12-10 01:52:33 AM  

whidbey: Mithiwithi: Then you didn't look. At all.
Link #4 on Google for "marijuana allergy": Link

Oh please. Your link isn't any more conclusive that what I've been Googling.

Are you just seriously anti-drug or what?


You're... joking, right? There are people who are allergic to pretty much every damn plant that was ever grown. You can't seriously be saying that cannabis is a magic plant that no one is allergic to. Without the slightest shred of support for such an extraordinary claim.

You are joking, right? You aren't actually insane enough to seriously believe that cannabis is completely and universally hypoallergenic without the slightest shred of support, right?
 
2012-12-10 01:54:38 AM  

whidbey: Lsherm: Not really. I'm allergic to THC (I probably would have been hospitalized along with the professor). You shouldn't be drugging people without their knowledge, period. I think it rises to felony level.

There is no known allergy to THC.


No, but there's adverse drug reactions to THC

whidbey: Lsherm: Not really. I'm allergic to THC (I probably would have been hospitalized along with the professor). You shouldn't be drugging people without their knowledge, period. I think it rises to felony level.

There is no known allergy to THC.


You're a pretty well known troll from the posts I've seen, but I'll bite...

A lot of people (mis)use the term 'allergy' when referring to a reaction to things.

But you do know that there's adverse drug reactions and contraindicators for pretty much every drug under the sun right?
And people with pre-existing conditions can be negatively affected by the effects cannabinoids. (Although this is somewhat debated unsurprisingly)
 
2012-12-10 01:55:11 AM  

Happy Hours: Bathia_Mapes: For the record I'm allergic to codeine myself.

Okay, I'll bite - what does it do to you?

I hear people say they're allergic to things all the time and quite often it's BS. Does codeine make you break out in hives? Does it make your sinuses act up? What?

The only side effects I've ever experienced from codeine are that it made me itchy and somewhat oblivious to pain, like I could walk into a wall and bang my head but I didn't really care because I wasn't feeling any pain at that point anyway.

I'd call those side effects. I wouldn't say I'm allergic to codeine. 

I must admit, I like the ability to run into walls and not feel any pain, but that's why I avoid long-term use of pain killers. I like them too much. If I ever got a long-term supply of them I'd probably turn into an addict very quickly.



A combination of things.  Hives and a nightmare so severe that I wake up drenched in sweat.  And it's always the same damned nightmare every single time.
 
2012-12-10 01:55:56 AM  

ScreamingHangover: Yep. That's how it works. What's police state about that? If I shot 10 people, I'd expect them to charge me with 10 counts of murder.


Because giving pot brownies to the unwitting=murder

Do you have a newsletter?
 
2012-12-10 01:57:05 AM  

Mithiwithi: whidbey: Mithiwithi: Then you didn't look. At all.
Link #4 on Google for "marijuana allergy": Link

Oh please. Your link isn't any more conclusive that what I've been Googling.

Are you just seriously anti-drug or what?

You're... joking, right?


No. There is no know allergy to THC. We both Googled it, and there is no conclusive proof. You are starting to sound hysterical, and I'm not going to get into a pointless discussion with you.
 
2012-12-10 01:57:47 AM  

whidbey: ScreamingHangover: Yep. That's how it works. What's police state about that? If I shot 10 people, I'd expect them to charge me with 10 counts of murder.

Because giving pot brownies to the unwitting=murder littering

Do you have a newsletter?


0/10.

It's like you're not even trying.
Is it amateur hour for the trolls tonight?
 
2012-12-10 01:58:41 AM  

Legios: There is no known allergy to THC.

You're a pretty well known troll from the posts I've seen, but I'll bite...



Thanks for the vote of confidence. See above.

If you can provide me with a study that conclusively proves the claims being made here, I'll check it out. No PDFs, please.
 
2012-12-10 01:59:13 AM  

whidbey: Lsherm: Not really. I'm allergic to THC (I probably would have been hospitalized along with the professor). You shouldn't be drugging people without their knowledge, period. I think it rises to felony level.

There is no known allergy to THC.



Really?  Are you a doctor?  An expert on the subject?  The reason I'm asking is that you can be allergic to anything, including THC. 
 
Of course, if you're a doctor or an expert you'd know that already. 
 
2012-12-10 01:59:24 AM  

ScreamingHangover: whidbey: ScreamingHangover: Yep. That's how it works. What's police state about that? If I shot 10 people, I'd expect them to charge me with 10 counts of murder.

Because giving pot brownies to the unwitting=murder littering

Do you have a newsletter?

0/10.

It's like you're not even trying.
Is it amateur hour for the trolls tonight?


This is stupid. You don't have an argument here. Please stop replying to me.
 
2012-12-10 02:00:39 AM  

whidbey: Mithiwithi: whidbey: Mithiwithi: Then you didn't look. At all.
Link #4 on Google for "marijuana allergy": Link

Oh please. Your link isn't any more conclusive that what I've been Googling.

Are you just seriously anti-drug or what?

You're... joking, right?

No. There is no know allergy to THC. We both Googled it, and there is no conclusive proof. You are starting to sound hysterical, and I'm not going to get into a pointless discussion with you.


OK, fine. Did you know there's no such thing as peanut allergy?
 
2012-12-10 02:01:03 AM  

Bathia_Mapes: whidbey: Lsherm: Not really. I'm allergic to THC (I probably would have been hospitalized along with the professor). You shouldn't be drugging people without their knowledge, period. I think it rises to felony level.

There is no known allergy to THC.


Really?  Are you a doctor?  An expert on the subject?  The reason I'm asking is that you can be allergic to anything, including THC. 
 
Of course, if you're a doctor or an expert you'd know that already.


Look, I asked for a link. Nobody has yet been able to provide one.

I really respect you Bathia, but please. Come on. Tell me you're not just going to base your opinions on hearsay.
 
2012-12-10 02:02:02 AM  

Mithiwithi: No. There is no know allergy to THC. We both Googled it, and there is no conclusive proof. You are starting to sound hysterical, and I'm not going to get into a pointless discussion with you.

OK, fine. Did you know there's no such thing as peanut allergy?


What does that have to do with what we're talking about?
 
2012-12-10 02:02:22 AM  

whidbey: Look, I asked for a link. Nobody has yet been able to provide one.


Begging your pardon, but I did. You arbitrarily dismissed it as inconclusive. I let that pass before, but this time I'm going to insist that you explain why you found it inconclusive.
 
2012-12-10 02:03:02 AM  

whidbey: Mithiwithi: No. There is no know allergy to THC. We both Googled it, and there is no conclusive proof. You are starting to sound hysterical, and I'm not going to get into a pointless discussion with you.

OK, fine. Did you know there's no such thing as peanut allergy?

What does that have to do with what we're talking about?


Am I wrong? Can you provide me a conclusive link that there's such a thing as peanut allergy?
 
2012-12-10 02:03:25 AM  

whidbey: ScreamingHangover: whidbey: ScreamingHangover: Yep. That's how it works. What's police state about that? If I shot 10 people, I'd expect them to charge me with 10 counts of murder.

Because giving pot brownies to the unwitting=murder littering

Do you have a newsletter?

0/10.

It's like you're not even trying.
Is it amateur hour for the trolls tonight?

This is stupid. You don't have an argument here. Please stop replying to me.


I'm still waiting for your reply when I asked how you believed this somehow reflects a police state. You ignored it and went for the amateur hour troll. I'm still waiting for an answer, I know I'm not going to get it because even if you had an actual opinion, it would look so pathetic once you wrote it out, you wouldn't submit it. Hence, you troll.

So: justification on how being charged with 10 felonies = police state or STFU.
 
2012-12-10 02:05:42 AM  

Mithiwithi: whidbey: Look, I asked for a link. Nobody has yet been able to provide one.

Begging your pardon, but I did. You arbitrarily dismissed it as inconclusive. I let that pass before, but this time I'm going to insist that you explain why you found it inconclusive.


Read it for yourself. While the writer supposes that it's possible that the person asking the question might be affected by certain factors like pesticides or other residual elements, there was no smoking gun.

Now, again, if you have a study or something from the Journal of Medical Science, I'd be willing to look at it. Not some blog that ultimately agrees with my take on it.
 
2012-12-10 02:06:25 AM  

whidbey: There is no known allergy to THC.


There are people allergic to water. If something exists, out of 7 billion people, odds are someone is allergic to it.
 
2012-12-10 02:07:17 AM  

whidbey: Now, again, if you have a study or something from the Journal of Medical Science, I'd be willing to look at it. Not some blog that ultimately agrees with my take on it.


No, sorry, I'm done playing your game. You made the extraordinary claim, you back it up.
 
2012-12-10 02:07:36 AM  

astrochelonian: whidbey: There is no known allergy to THC.

There are people allergic to water. If something exists, out of 7 billion people, odds are someone is allergic to it.


It's kind of like Rule 34, but with allergies.
 
2012-12-10 02:08:01 AM  

ScreamingHangover: I'm still waiting for your reply when I asked how you believed this somehow reflects a police state.


You shouldh't have had to wait in the first place. I objected to the absurdity of 10 separate felonies and you seem to think that such draconian wastes of legal resources are justified. For pot brownies.

Obviously there is a severe disconnect between us.
 
2012-12-10 02:09:08 AM  

Mithiwithi: whidbey: Now, again, if you have a study or something from the Journal of Medical Science, I'd be willing to look at it. Not some blog that ultimately agrees with my take on it.

No, sorry, I'm done playing your game. You made the extraordinary claim, you back it up.


I didn't make the claim at all. You're the one who thinks that people are magically allergic to THC despite the lack of any evidence.
 
2012-12-10 02:11:20 AM  

astrochelonian: whidbey: There is no known allergy to THC.

There are people allergic to water. If something exists, out of 7 billion people, odds are someone is allergic to it.


That's probably the most unscientific thing I've heard all day. Thanks.
 
2012-12-10 02:11:25 AM  

St_Francis_P: The "awesome prank" is pretty stupid, then and now.


I consider involuntary dosing to be a violation in the same category (though a lesser degree) as rape or non-consensual body modification.
 
2012-12-10 02:11:43 AM  

whidbey: Mithiwithi: whidbey: Now, again, if you have a study or something from the Journal of Medical Science, I'd be willing to look at it. Not some blog that ultimately agrees with my take on it.

No, sorry, I'm done playing your game. You made the extraordinary claim, you back it up.

I didn't make the claim at all. You're the one who thinks that people are magically allergic to THC despite the lack of any evidence.


Thank you for admitting that you have no idea how allergies work and conceding the argument to me. Goodbye.
 
2012-12-10 02:11:55 AM  
Are we done with this thread now?
 
2012-12-10 02:12:09 AM  
This is like the time i gave whidbey's mom the dick when she was asleep. teehehheeeheee!
 
2012-12-10 02:14:08 AM  

muck4doo: This is like the time i gave whidbey's mom the dick when she was asleep. teehehheeeheee!


Oh look, dueling trolls.
 
2012-12-10 02:15:23 AM  

Mithiwithi: muck4doo: This is like the time i gave whidbey's mom the dick when she was asleep. teehehheeeheee!

Oh look, dueling trolls.


Hey, no harm no foul. She wasn't allergic.
 
2012-12-10 02:15:42 AM  

Mithiwithi: Thank you for admitting that you have no idea how allergies work and conceding the argument to me. Goodbye.


Wow, that's some serious derp there, Mithiwithi. So, let's just recap: you can't actually prove your point, but it's me that's actually taken the wrong turn here. M'kay.
 
2012-12-10 02:17:37 AM  

whidbey: Mithiwithi: Thank you for admitting that you have no idea how allergies work and conceding the argument to me. Goodbye.

Wow, that's some serious derp there, Mithiwithi. So, let's just recap: you can't actually prove your point, but it's me that's actually taken the wrong turn here. M'kay.


Let's fix that recap. You can't prove YOUR point, so despite the fact that my claim is the more plausible - and I've supplied more links supporting mine than you've provided for yours - I'm the one who's...

actually, yes, I am the one who took the wrong turn here. I tried to have a discussion with you. I promise you I won't make that mistake again.
 
2012-12-10 02:18:29 AM  

whidbey: ScreamingHangover: I'm still waiting for your reply when I asked how you believed this somehow reflects a police state.

You shouldh't have had to wait in the first place. I objected to the absurdity of 10 separate felonies and you seem to think that such draconian wastes of legal resources are justified. For pot brownies.

Obviously there is a severe disconnect between us.


I'm looking at the draconian waste of Emergency Medical Services caused by these 2 asshats along with the time and suffering the individuals went through.

As for feeding For feeding people mind altering drugs without their consent, not only is a felony in Colorado (and the other 49 states), but even Timothy Leary agreed that was off limits: "Thou shalt not alter the consciousness of thy neighbor without his or her consent" Yet you seem to have little problem with this. I think this has more to say about you and how you perceive and respect you fellow human beings more than it has to do with the state of police affairs in Colorado.
 
2012-12-10 02:21:41 AM  

Mithiwithi: Let's fix that recap. You can't prove YOUR point, so despite the fact that my claim is the more plausible - and I've supplied more links supporting mine than you've provided for yours - I'm the one who's...


"More plausible," aside from also not being any sort of evidence, isn't the case, either.

I did a bunch of Googling. There is no known allergy to THC. You claimed there was. I asked for proof, you did not provide it.

When confronted, you threw a fit. And saying people can be allergic to "anything" isn't proof, either.

Why are you being so obnoxious?
 
2012-12-10 02:23:29 AM  

Happy Hours: Ahhh_Ennui: Those students are awful human beings.

I was a chronic smoker from 1989-2007 (I'm old). Good stuff, ditch weed, whatever we could get. It was never scary, and I really loved it - I've never taken to alcohol, so it was my version of an after-work cocktail. I stopped when I married a teetotaler, which was fine by me. No withdrawals, just an occasional yearning.

Meh, you're not that old - I'm probably older. Then again I'm pretty sure there are older people than me on Fark who would laugh when I said I was old

A year ago, I went to a party and my friends wondered if I wanted the tiniest piece of a brownie I'd ever seen. They told me I should start with half. I laughed - I'm an old-school smoker with ears of experience under my belt, right? So I ate the whole thing. Thus began my first medical-grade adventure.


Despite my ears of experience too, you do lose your tolerance after a while. When a long-term abstainer runs into an everyday toker and they get high one oh them will end up very farking high and the other will just be experiencing a typical day,


Experience has nothing to do with it, when you cook it down it winds up concentrating the thc more and makes it really strong and more potent than anything you've smoked. When I ate the brownies I made, and granted I'm a rookie at that, it farked me up hard and this was when I would easily smoke an ounce or more a month, a buddy who would smoke a lot more than I did took the same brownie batch. Both of us talked later and agreed it was close to LSD but in a lot more mellow way, if you don't know what's going on though it would be easy to freak out.
 
2012-12-10 02:24:37 AM  

ScreamingHangover: I'm looking at the draconian waste of Emergency Medical Services caused by these 2 asshats along with the time and suffering the individuals went through.


Again, what "suffering?" The article mentioned dizziness and passing out. I really object to your making this situation more than it actually was.

You're basically talking about Emergency Room resources, which I would agree should be paid by the people responsible.

But sheesh drop the police state crap. You want to throw the book at someone for doping someone with pot brownies. For fark's sakes.
 
2012-12-10 02:25:57 AM  

whidbey: Mithiwithi: Let's fix that recap. You can't prove YOUR point, so despite the fact that my claim is the more plausible - and I've supplied more links supporting mine than you've provided for yours - I'm the one who's...

"More plausible," aside from also not being any sort of evidence, isn't the case, either.

I did a bunch of Googling. There is no known allergy to THC. You claimed there was. I asked for proof, you did not provide it.

When confronted, you threw a fit. And saying people can be allergic to "anything" isn't proof, either.

Why are you being so obnoxious?


Why are you such an authoritarian douche bag? I love the way you admit here you have no problem with tricking others into doing your stupid bidding. You really need help.
 
2012-12-10 02:27:14 AM  

whidbey: I did a bunch of Googling. There is no known allergy to THC. You claimed there was. I asked for proof, you did not provide it.


Complete with citations from medial journals.
 
2012-12-10 02:29:43 AM  

whidbey: ScreamingHangover: I'm looking at the draconian waste of Emergency Medical Services caused by these 2 asshats along with the time and suffering the individuals went through.

Again, what "suffering?" The article mentioned dizziness and passing out. I really object to your making this situation more than it actually was.

You're basically talking about Emergency Room resources, which I would agree should be paid by the people responsible.

But sheesh drop the police state crap. You want to throw the book at someone for doping someone with pot brownies. For fark's sakes.


So here's the next question for you: if one of the victims got behind the wheel of a car and got into an accident causing serious injury, would you consider the asshats culpable?
 
2012-12-10 02:31:49 AM  

ScreamingHangover: whidbey: ScreamingHangover: I'm looking at the draconian waste of Emergency Medical Services caused by these 2 asshats along with the time and suffering the individuals went through.

Again, what "suffering?" The article mentioned dizziness and passing out. I really object to your making this situation more than it actually was.

You're basically talking about Emergency Room resources, which I would agree should be paid by the people responsible.

But sheesh drop the police state crap. You want to throw the book at someone for doping someone with pot brownies. For fark's sakes.

So here's the next question for you: if one of the victims got behind the wheel of a car and got into an accident causing serious injury, would you consider the asshats culpable?


If it gets one person to agree with his political views, it's worth it.
 
2012-12-10 02:33:56 AM  

muck4doo: If it gets one person to agree with his political views, it's worth it.


?
Please make sense. 
It was a pretty simple question.
 
2012-12-10 02:35:17 AM  

ScreamingHangover: muck4doo: If it gets one person to agree with his political views, it's worth it.

?
Please make sense. 
It was a pretty simple question.


Wait... sorry: i was waiting for whidbey
 
2012-12-10 02:35:36 AM  

ScreamingHangover: whidbey: I did a bunch of Googling. There is no known allergy to THC. You claimed there was. I asked for proof, you did not provide it.

Complete with citations from medial journals.


While there is not currently a commercially available test for Cannabis pollen allergy, research laboratories could create a RAST allergy test, and many allergists could use pollen and other plant parts to make a homemade skin test extract. Treatment of allergy caused by Cannabis pollen would be identical to that for other pollen allergies.

Vague article is vague. They're trying to lump in smoking marijuana with the sorts of known allergies from pollen and not having a lot of success.

I'm not convinced, and there certainly isn't a standard.
 
2012-12-10 02:38:32 AM  

ScreamingHangover: But sheesh drop the police state crap. You want to throw the book at someone for doping someone with pot brownies. For fark's sakes.

So here's the next question for you: if one of the victims got behind the wheel of a car and got into an accident causing serious injury, would you consider the asshats culpable?


But they didn't, and your assumption is a bit absurd.

The here and now is that the prank didn't cause any real harm, and it's probably likely that the Emergency Room trips weren't even necessary.

People panicked. But it's disturbing to me how you'd go full Nazi along with the school and the authorities.
 
2012-12-10 02:43:10 AM  

Bathia_Mapes: whidbey: Lsherm: Not really. I'm allergic to THC (I probably would have been hospitalized along with the professor). You shouldn't be drugging people without their knowledge, period. I think it rises to felony level.

There is no known allergy to THC.


Really?  Are you a doctor?  An expert on the subject?  The reason I'm asking is that you can be allergic to anything, including THC. 
 
Of course, if you're a doctor or an expert you'd know that already.


I guess, I'm a bit skeptical of people who claim allergies probably because I believe there are a lot of people who cry wolf too often (e.g. those who cough whenever they even see a cigarette even if it is not lit).

But if you break out in hives and have night sweats from codeine I must admit that is probably an allergic reaction. I've only had hives once and I have no idea what caused them but I'm all too familiar with night sweats. Usually my nightmares are hardly ever reruns though so they're always interesting. For a while I actually kept a spare change of nightclothes by my bed because if you wake up in the middle of the night soaked in sweat you're probably going to be very cold and want some dry clothes.
 
2012-12-10 02:50:44 AM  
whidbey, what about the argument that the damage done is akin to being raped? Your mental chemistry is altered, psychologically invaded, without your consent. That sounds like a serious offense to me.
 
2012-12-10 02:54:12 AM  

whidbey: Again, what "suffering?" The article mentioned dizziness and passing out. I really object to your making this situation more than it actually was.


Tell you what. If you have a stroke don't call EMS because the same effects apply. Enjoy your dirt nap.
 
2012-12-10 02:57:42 AM  
STOP FEEDING THE TROLLS.
 
2012-12-10 03:00:09 AM  

Happy Hours: Bathia_Mapes: whidbey: Lsherm: Not really. I'm allergic to THC (I probably would have been hospitalized along with the professor). You shouldn't be drugging people without their knowledge, period. I think it rises to felony level.

There is no known allergy to THC.


Really?  Are you a doctor?  An expert on the subject?  The reason I'm asking is that you can be allergic to anything, including THC. 
 
Of course, if you're a doctor or an expert you'd know that already.

I guess, I'm a bit skeptical of people who claim allergies probably because I believe there are a lot of people who cry wolf too often (e.g. those who cough whenever they even see a cigarette even if it is not lit).

But if you break out in hives and have night sweats from codeine I must admit that is probably an allergic reaction. I've only had hives once and I have no idea what caused them but I'm all too familiar with night sweats. Usually my nightmares are hardly ever reruns though so they're always interesting. For a while I actually kept a spare change of nightclothes by my bed because if you wake up in the middle of the night soaked in sweat you're probably going to be very cold and want some dry clothes.



And to make things clear, tests were done that showed I was allergic to codeine. 
 
Some people who react to a substance have a sensitivity/intolerance to it, but not a true allergy.  The trouble is that a lot of people don't know the difference between a sensitivity and/or intolerance and a true allergy.  I have both.  Some substances like canola oil wreak havoc on my digestive tract, but that's a sensitivity, not a true allergy.   But my reactions to shellfish and peanuts are full-blown allergies. 
 
2012-12-10 03:00:12 AM  

Sgygus: whidbey, what about the argument that the damage done is akin to being raped? Your mental chemistry is altered, psychologically invaded, without your consent. That sounds like a serious offense to me.


It sounds like a huge stretch, honestly. So...feeding someone something almost benign like pot brownies now equates to rape. Wow.

I honestly cannot believe I'm still in this thread.
 
2012-12-10 03:07:22 AM  

whidbey: feeding someone something almost benign


Intentionally feeding any intoxicating substance to an unsuspecting person is nowhere near benign. Ever.
 
2012-12-10 03:11:11 AM  

Radioactive Ass: Intentionally feeding any intoxicating substance to an unsuspecting person is nowhere near benign. Ever.



Agreed. 
 
2012-12-10 03:14:39 AM  

whidbey: Legios: There is no known allergy to THC.

You're a pretty well known troll from the posts I've seen, but I'll bite...


Thanks for the vote of confidence. See above.

If you can provide me with a study that conclusively proves the claims being made here, I'll check it out. No PDFs, please.


No offence intended (well, a little...)

Sadly, This PDF is all I could find. But instead of having to read it, here's the important bit:

Results: We recruited 23 participants (mean age 45.4 [stan-
dard deviation 12.3] years, 12 women [52%]), of whom 21
completed the trial. The average daily pain intensity, mea-
sured on the 11-point numeric rating scale, was lower on the
prespecified primary contrast of 9.4% v. 0% tetrahydro-
cannabinol (5.4 v. 6.1, respectively; difference = 0.7, 95% con-
fidence interval [CI] 0.02-1.4). Preparations with intermediate
potency yielded intermediate but nonsignificant degrees of
relief. Participants receiving 9.4% tetrahydrocannabinol
reported improved ability to fall asleep (easier, p = 0.001;
faster, p ity of sleep (less wakefulness, p = 0.01) relative to 0% tetrahy-
drocannabinol. We found no differences in mood or quality
of life. The most common drug-related adverse events during
the period when participants received 9.4% tetrahydro-
cannabinol were headache, dry eyes, burning sensation in
areas of neuropathic pain, dizziness, numbness and cough.
 
2012-12-10 03:28:46 AM  

whidbey: Sgygus: whidbey, what about the argument that the damage done is akin to being raped? Your mental chemistry is altered, psychologically invaded, without your consent. That sounds like a serious offense to me.

It sounds like a huge stretch, honestly. So...feeding someone something almost benign like pot brownies now equates to rape. Wow.

I honestly cannot believe I'm still in this thread.


Neither can the rest of us. I think you've actually managed to set the legalize pot movement back several years.

If you can't understand that messing with someone's brain without their consent is just as bad -if not worse- than messing with someone else's body without their consent, then there's really nothing more that can be said. To say "It's just pot brownies" is about as valid a defense as "it's not like she was a virgin".
 
2012-12-10 03:32:59 AM  

Bathia_Mapes: Radioactive Ass: Intentionally feeding any intoxicating substance to an unsuspecting person is nowhere near benign. Ever.


Agreed.


Well... except for you. Tell me, does this rag smell like perfume or chlorofo....

/runs off with wallet
 
2012-12-10 03:33:32 AM  

steamingpile: Experience has nothing to do with it, when you cook it down it winds up concentrating the thc more and makes it really strong and more potent than anything you've smoked. When I ate the brownies I made, and granted I'm a rookie at that, it farked me up hard and this was when I would easily smoke an ounce or more a month, a buddy who would smoke a lot more than I did took the same brownie batch. Both of us talked later and agreed it was close to LSD but in a lot more mellow way, if you don't know what's going on though it would be easy to freak out.


This is the dumbest thing I've read all year. I can only assume you've never had LSD and are just talking out of your ass.

I've smoked pot and I've eaten pot. I've also dosed on LSD and there isn't even a comparison to be made there. They aren't even close to the same thing unless you're talking about some of the weak-assed LSD I was getting about 10 years ago.

Let's see if I can come up with an analogy. Good pot will get you as high as a 747. Shiatty weak-acid might get you into orbit. Some good liquid LSD will propel you to another galaxy. Even every-day blotter LSD will take you to another solar system.
 
2012-12-10 03:36:34 AM  

Bathia_Mapes: For the record I'm allergic to codeine myself.


I'll take yours. I love that stuff.
 
2012-12-10 03:39:45 AM  

Radioactive Ass: Bathia_Mapes: Radioactive Ass: Intentionally feeding any intoxicating substance to an unsuspecting person is nowhere near benign. Ever.


Agreed.

Well... except for you. Tell me, does this rag smell like perfume or chlorofo....

/runs off with wallet


Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls.
Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed.
 
 
2012-12-10 03:42:09 AM  

whidbey: ScreamingHangover: However, these 2 ass clowns deserve the 10 felony charges

10? Really?


There were multiple victims. They will face a separate set of charges for each victim.
 
2012-12-10 03:44:59 AM  

Bathia_Mapes: Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls.
Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed.



Whatever... Woo-Hoo Drinks are on me!
 
2012-12-10 03:45:34 AM  
Nobody got seriously hurt.

But they really should have assumed the worst would happen before trying to prank their classmates, though. What if the professor started having gigglefits while on the road?
 
2012-12-10 03:49:05 AM  

whidbey: It sounds like a huge stretch, honestly. So...feeding someone something almost benign like pot brownies now equates to rape. Wow.


I'm not going to try to compare it to rape, but it is a violation of someone that should not be accepted. I've been very drunk and very stoned and even tripped a few times, but every time I did I knew I was ingesting some sort of substance. If I suddenly were stoned out of my mind and had never smoked pot before and didn't know why I felt like that I would probably go to the emergency room too and I would certainly consider it a huge violation of my mind and body.

Even having willingly partaken in various drugs in the past, I would be mad as hell if you dosed me without my knowledge and consent.


So take your stupid attitude of "it's just a little pot" and shove it up your ass.
 
2012-12-10 04:06:32 AM  

whidbey: Sgygus: whidbey, what about the argument that the damage done is akin to being raped? Your mental chemistry is altered, psychologically invaded, without your consent. That sounds like a serious offense to me.

It sounds like a huge stretch, honestly. So...feeding someone something almost benign like pot brownies now equates to rape. Wow.


Sex is almost benign, too. Does that make rape okay?

The issue is consent, dumbass.

I honestly cannot believe I'm still in this thread.

I don't think anyone would miss you.
 
2012-12-10 04:09:40 AM  

Happy Hours: If I suddenly were stoned out of my mind and had never smoked pot before and didn't know why I felt like that I would probably go to the emergency room too and I would certainly consider it a huge violation of my mind and body.



As would most people.  While it's in no way comparable to rape, giving someone an intoxicant of any kind without their knowledge is still a violation. 
 
If you can't understand that then there is something seriously wrong with your thinking processes. 
 
2012-12-10 04:21:05 AM  

Bathia_Mapes: Happy Hours: If I suddenly were stoned out of my mind and had never smoked pot before and didn't know why I felt like that I would probably go to the emergency room too and I would certainly consider it a huge violation of my mind and body.


As would most people.  While it's in no way comparable to rape, giving someone an intoxicant of any kind without their knowledge is still a violation. 
 
If you can't understand that then there is something seriously wrong with your thinking processes.


While I agree that it is wrong to dope someone as a prank, but I am a bit taken aback to hear it compared to being raped, and I am appalled at the severity of the crime per the drug laws. But I'm just repeating myself again. I'm more taken aback at how conservative Fark can be sometimes.
 
2012-12-10 04:22:30 AM  

Bathia_Mapes: Radioactive Ass: Bathia_Mapes: Radioactive Ass: Intentionally feeding any intoxicating substance to an unsuspecting person is nowhere near benign. Ever.


Agreed.

Well... except for you. Tell me, does this rag smell like perfume or chlorofo....

/runs off with wallet


Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls.
Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed.


Noice.

I always liked the next bit too.

"Poor and content is rich, and rich enough,
But riches fineless is as poor as winter
To him that ever fears he shall be poor.
Good heaven, the souls of all my tribe defend
From jealousy!"

S'truth, innit?
 
2012-12-10 04:26:24 AM  

quisph: dumbass.


I'm sorry-- Where exactly did I personally attack you?
 
2012-12-10 04:30:15 AM  

whidbey: It sounds like a huge stretch, honestly. So...feeding someone something almost benign like pot brownies now equates to rape.


Rape is generally just the insertion of a penis into a vagina. Most insertion of penis into vagina is benign; hundreds of millions of people around the world do it every day for fun.

Now, I wonder what the possible parallels could be between giving someone a generally harmless drug without their consent and inserting a generally harmless penis without their consent?
 
2012-12-10 04:32:23 AM  

orbister: Now, I wonder what the possible parallels could be between giving someone a generally harmless drug without their consent and inserting a generally harmless penis without their consent?


I don't know. Why don't you take it to some ridiculous extreme like some of the other posters in here? Because that would be lulzy.
 
2012-12-10 04:32:28 AM  

whidbey: Bathia_Mapes: Happy Hours: If I suddenly were stoned out of my mind and had never smoked pot before and didn't know why I felt like that I would probably go to the emergency room too and I would certainly consider it a huge violation of my mind and body.


As would most people.  While it's in no way comparable to rape, giving someone an intoxicant of any kind without their knowledge is still a violation. 
 
If you can't understand that then there is something seriously wrong with your thinking processes.

While I agree that it is wrong to dope someone as a prank, but I am a bit taken aback to hear it compared to being raped, and I am appalled at the severity of the crime per the drug laws. But I'm just repeating myself again. I'm more taken aback at how conservative Fark can be sometimes.



Maybe you should re-read my comment.  The part where I said, "it's in no way comparable to rape", because it isn't.  But it's still a crime, it's still a violation of another person's body and mind to give someone drugs without their knowledge. 
 
As to being conservative....I don't give a rat's ass if you smoke marijuana, but you don't have the right to trick someone into ingesting it unknowingly.  And that's what these two assholes did.  Thankfully no one got seriously ill or was involved in an accident that injured or killed them or someone else, but there's always the possibility of that happening.
 
And please answer me this.  If you had never smoked or ingested pot before and ate one of these brownies without knowing they contained marijuana, wouldn't you freak out too?  I know I would if I started having strange symptoms out of the blue and didn't know what caused them.  That would be a normal reaction for most people. 
 
2012-12-10 04:34:24 AM  

whidbey: quisph: dumbass.

I'm sorry-- Where exactly did I personally attack you?


Where did I say you did?
 
2012-12-10 04:37:48 AM  

Bathia_Mapes: And please answer me this. If you had never smoked or ingested pot before and ate one of these brownies without knowing they contained marijuana, wouldn't you freak out too? I know I would if I started having strange symptoms out of the blue and didn't know what caused them. That would be a normal reaction for most people.


I might, but i don't think it would be worth charging someone with ten different felonies. That's absurd for an experience that caused a bit of dizziness. It wasn't meth or heroin or even a huge dose of LSD. It's Nazi bullshiat. That's the surprisingly huge disconnect I'm having with this thread.
 
2012-12-10 04:44:28 AM  

quatchi: Bathia_Mapes: Radioactive Ass: Bathia_Mapes: Radioactive Ass: Intentionally feeding any intoxicating substance to an unsuspecting person is nowhere near benign. Ever.


Agreed.

Well... except for you. Tell me, does this rag smell like perfume or chlorofo....

/runs off with wallet

Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls.
Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed.

Noice.

I always liked the next bit too.

"Poor and content is rich, and rich enough,
But riches fineless is as poor as winter
To him that ever fears he shall be poor.
Good heaven, the souls of all my tribe defend
From jealousy!"

S'truth, innit?



Indeed.
 
2012-12-10 04:55:58 AM  

whidbey: Bathia_Mapes: And please answer me this. If you had never smoked or ingested pot before and ate one of these brownies without knowing they contained marijuana, wouldn't you freak out too? I know I would if I started having strange symptoms out of the blue and didn't know what caused them. That would be a normal reaction for most people.

I might, but i don't think it would be worth charging someone with ten different felonies. That's absurd for an experience that caused a bit of dizziness. It wasn't meth or heroin or even a huge dose of LSD. It's Nazi bullshiat. That's the surprisingly huge disconnect I'm having with this thread.



They're being charged with conspiracy to commit assault, which is a class 4 felony in Colorado.
 
This is what it entails under Colorado law:
Offenses Involving Fraud
 
Controlled substances - consumption by fraudulent means. Any person who fraudulently causes another person to unknowingly consume or receive
the direct administration of any controlled substance commits a class 4
felony.  18-5-116 (2)
 
2012-12-10 05:01:19 AM  

whidbey: I might, but i don't think it would be worth charging someone with ten different felonies. That's absurd for an experience that caused a bit of dizziness. It wasn't meth or heroin or even a huge dose of LSD. It's Nazi bullshiat. That's the surprisingly huge disconnect I'm having with this thread.


It's not Nazi bullshiat. I'm very pro-marijuana legalization but "The charges include second- degree assault and inducing consumption of controlled substances by fraudulent means." Sounds about right to me. I really can't argue against the charges.

It's not like they just sprinkled hot pepper on their classmates tacos when they weren't looking. I'm sure they intended no harm, but it's still serious shiat. Would it be acceptable to spike the punchbowl at a high school prom? What if the kids who drank that punch drove home drunk? Felony?

I have to wonder how it was like when the assholes who did this realized their "prank" had gone wrong. Awkward doesn't even cover it.

I remember being in college and I remember discussing the idea that if everyone would just smoke pot or drop LSD that the world would be a better place (as stupid as that idea is) but even if we had pot and LSD to spare we never would have dosed everyone else without telling them.
 
2012-12-10 07:29:02 AM  
I like my pot, but if anyone ever dared to feed me laced food or drink, no matter if it was pot, PCP, acid or just booze, I'd kill and feel no remorse.
 
2012-12-10 07:34:46 AM  
I had pot brownies once then I got the munchies and ate more pot brownies. Vicious circle
 
2012-12-10 08:27:15 AM  

whidbey: ScreamingHangover: But sheesh drop the police state crap. You want to throw the book at someone for doping someone with pot brownies. For fark's sakes.

So here's the next question for you: if one of the victims got behind the wheel of a car and got into an accident causing serious injury, would you consider the asshats culpable?

But they didn't, and your assumption is a bit absurd.

The here and now is that the prank didn't cause any real harm, and it's probably likely that the Emergency Room trips weren't even necessary.

People panicked. But it's disturbing to me how you'd go full Nazi along with the school and the authorities.


No, no, no, no, no. When someone breaks the law, you don't punish them because of the actual consequences. You punish them because of the reasonably potential consequences. You know what your logic says to me? "Oh, so he drove drunk. Big deal! He got home fine!" Repeat ad nauseam until someone is dead.
 
2012-12-10 08:54:11 AM  
robertdavidsullivan.typepad.com

Hey Barney... let's go down to the beach and shoot some clams!

/Barney, Barney, Barney... was your mother from Killarney?
 
2012-12-10 09:09:29 AM  
Smackledorfer: the ha ha guy: Smackledorfer: Where did I say anything about treating it like it was nothing?

Given the possible repercussions of their crime, simple expulsion and time served is nothing, especially compared to the punishment for spiking food or drink with any other drug.

Agreed, but where did I say time served?


Smackledorfer: Any time above expulsion and a few months jailtime will be unlikely to increase the preventative aspect of the punishment, on others or on these morons.

Unless you expect this case to be over in under a week, a sentence of a few months in jail would essentially amount to time served.
 
2012-12-10 09:15:40 AM  

whidbey: Bathia_Mapes: And please answer me this. If you had never smoked or ingested pot before and ate one of these brownies without knowing they contained marijuana, wouldn't you freak out too? I know I would if I started having strange symptoms out of the blue and didn't know what caused them. That would be a normal reaction for most people.

I might, but i don't think it would be worth charging someone with ten different felonies. That's absurd for an experience that caused a bit of dizziness. It wasn't meth or heroin or even a huge dose of LSD. It's Nazi bullshiat. That's the surprisingly huge disconnect I'm having with this thread.


You're dismissing a panic attack and symptoms severe enough for an ER visit as "a bit of dizziness?" You've got to be trolling.

Anyway, the harm to the victims is largely irrelevant. A crime is defined by the actions and mental state of the perpetrator, not by the consequences.

If you drive drunk, it's a crime even if you manage to avoid an accident. If you grope or sexually assault an unconscious person, it's a crime even if the victim has no direct awareness of it and suffers no physical or psychological harm. If you take a swing at someone's nose, it's a crime even if you miss. If you give food laced with drugs to unwitting people, it's a crime even if they just get a little bit dizzy (which is a gross understatement in this case).

I happen to agree that drugging people without their consent should be a felony. Obviously, there are many different situations in which someone might do this, with different levels of malicious intent The fact that this was meant as a prank, and they didn't mean to cause any real harm to anyone, WILL eventually be taken into consideration. But now is not the time. They haven't even been indicted yet. You're losing your shiat over nothing.
 
2012-12-10 09:51:32 AM  

whidbey: Bathia_Mapes: And please answer me this. If you had never smoked or ingested pot before and ate one of these brownies without knowing they contained marijuana, wouldn't you freak out too? I know I would if I started having strange symptoms out of the blue and didn't know what caused them. That would be a normal reaction for most people.

I might, but i don't think it would be worth charging someone with ten different felonies. That's absurd for an experience that caused a bit of dizziness. It wasn't meth or heroin or even a huge dose of LSD. It's Nazi bullshiat. That's the surprisingly huge disconnect I'm having with this thread.


"Overcharging" is a common prosecutorial tactic to get a plea bargain. As others have said, In this case, I have no problem with the charges, even though the actual harm was minimal, and I'm pro-legalization.
 
2012-12-10 10:26:48 AM  
weknowmemes.com
 
2012-12-10 10:34:37 AM  
"Anybody who thinks this is cute, anybody who thinks this was funny, is going to face pretty serious sanctions, both criminally and potentially within the student-conduct process," said CU spokesman Bronson Hilliard.

They can arrest you for thinking something's cute and/or funny?
ircimg.net
 
2012-12-10 10:41:48 AM  

the ha ha guy: Smackledorfer: the ha ha guy: Smackledorfer: Where did I say anything about treating it like it was nothing?

Given the possible repercussions of their crime, simple expulsion and time served is nothing, especially compared to the punishment for spiking food or drink with any other drug.

Agreed, but where did I say time served?

Smackledorfer: Any time above expulsion and a few months jailtime will be unlikely to increase the preventative aspect of the punishment, on others or on these morons.

Unless you expect this case to be over in under a week, a sentence of a few months in jail would essentially amount to time served.


Except they will doubtless have bail.

Sometimes time served is a few months, other times it isn't, and when one bails out while awaiting trial and gets sentenced to months in jail they get tossed in jail.

If you have to be dishonest and substantively change the words I use then you don't have much of an argument.
 
2012-12-10 10:45:01 AM  

quisph: whidbey: Bathia_Mapes: And please answer me this. If you had never smoked or ingested pot before and ate one of these brownies without knowing they contained marijuana, wouldn't you freak out too? I know I would if I started having strange symptoms out of the blue and didn't know what caused them. That would be a normal reaction for most people.

I might, but i don't think it would be worth charging someone with ten different felonies. That's absurd for an experience that caused a bit of dizziness. It wasn't meth or heroin or even a huge dose of LSD. It's Nazi bullshiat. That's the surprisingly huge disconnect I'm having with this thread.

You're dismissing a panic attack and symptoms severe enough for an ER visit as "a bit of dizziness?" You've got to be trolling.

Anyway, the harm to the victims is largely irrelevant. A crime is defined by the actions and mental state of the perpetrator, not by the consequences.

If you drive drunk, it's a crime even if you manage to avoid an accident. If you grope or sexually assault an unconscious person, it's a crime even if the victim has no direct awareness of it and suffers no physical or psychological harm. If you take a swing at someone's nose, it's a crime even if you miss. If you give food laced with drugs to unwitting people, it's a crime even if they just get a little bit dizzy (which is a gross understatement in this case).

I happen to agree that drugging people without their consent should be a felony. Obviously, there are many different situations in which someone might do this, with different levels of malicious intent The fact that this was meant as a prank, and they didn't mean to cause any real harm to anyone, WILL eventually be taken into consideration. But now is not the time. They haven't even been indicted yet. You're losing your shiat over nothing.


If you drive drunk the penalty absolutely hinges on the damage caused.

If no one gets hurt you are out the next day, winding up with fines,and community
 
2012-12-10 10:45:42 AM  
Winding up with fines, restricted driving, and community service.
 
2012-12-10 10:49:33 AM  

St_Francis_P: The "awesome prank" is pretty stupid, then and now.


Especially when you consider they could have sold those "magic brownies" to all their buddies the next time Phish was in town for a dandy profit.
 
2012-12-10 11:19:35 AM  
They'll be fine, and won't go to prison...assuming their records are clean. It's enough that their college years will be ruined by their new best friend, Probation Officer Skagnetti. No legal pot or alcohol for at least two years. Random hair and urine testing. Having to ask for permission to leave the county for Spring Break, and being told "no", just because. That's justice.
 
2012-12-10 11:37:20 AM  

Smackledorfer: Are there any other crimes at all in which the penalty for an action is based on the worst possible outcome and ignores intent? I can't think of any.


Attempted murder. Even if nobody is injured you can still get a very long prison sentence.
 
2012-12-10 11:42:52 AM  
The biggest problem with making pot brownies is that you can wind up WAY too stoned for WAY too long and it can feel like something is very wrong with you, especially if you didn't know what was going on.

That was phenomenally stupid, kids. Consider this, Pot is a medicine. Would you have done that with Advil?
 
2012-12-10 11:46:22 AM  

Jument: Smackledorfer: Are there any other crimes at all in which the penalty for an action is based on the worst possible outcome and ignores intent? I can't think of any.

Attempted murder. Even if nobody is injured you can still get a very long prison sentence.


Duh, sorry, never mind. That requires intent. I need sleep. :(
 
2012-12-10 12:02:12 PM  

Jument: Smackledorfer: Are there any other crimes at all in which the penalty for an action is based on the worst possible outcome and ignores intent? I can't think of any.

Attempted murder. Even if nobody is injured you can still get a very long prison sentence.


Uhh, attempted murder "ignores intent and is based on the worst possible outcome"?

The worse outcome is murder, for which we have a separate charge, and if you think it ignores intent you are crazy.
 
2012-12-10 12:04:13 PM  

Jument: Duh, sorry, never mind. That requires intent. I need sleep. :(


And I couldn't have read 2 more posts before replying :)
 
2012-12-10 12:32:53 PM  

Smackledorfer: quisph: whidbey: Bathia_Mapes: And please answer me this. If you had never smoked or ingested pot before and ate one of these brownies without knowing they contained marijuana, wouldn't you freak out too? I know I would if I started having strange symptoms out of the blue and didn't know what caused them. That would be a normal reaction for most people.

I might, but i don't think it would be worth charging someone with ten different felonies. That's absurd for an experience that caused a bit of dizziness. It wasn't meth or heroin or even a huge dose of LSD. It's Nazi bullshiat. That's the surprisingly huge disconnect I'm having with this thread.

You're dismissing a panic attack and symptoms severe enough for an ER visit as "a bit of dizziness?" You've got to be trolling.

Anyway, the harm to the victims is largely irrelevant. A crime is defined by the actions and mental state of the perpetrator, not by the consequences.

If you drive drunk, it's a crime even if you manage to avoid an accident. If you grope or sexually assault an unconscious person, it's a crime even if the victim has no direct awareness of it and suffers no physical or psychological harm. If you take a swing at someone's nose, it's a crime even if you miss. If you give food laced with drugs to unwitting people, it's a crime even if they just get a little bit dizzy (which is a gross understatement in this case).

I happen to agree that drugging people without their consent should be a felony. Obviously, there are many different situations in which someone might do this, with different levels of malicious intent The fact that this was meant as a prank, and they didn't mean to cause any real harm to anyone, WILL eventually be taken into consideration. But now is not the time. They haven't even been indicted yet. You're losing your shiat over nothing.

If you drive drunk the penalty absolutely hinges on the damage caused.

If no one gets hurt you are out the next day, winding up with fines,and co ...


We're not talking about penalties. We're talking about charges. The fact that you can't see the difference is probably 99% of the reason why you started arguing in the first place.
 
2012-12-10 12:53:57 PM  

Smackledorfer: Except they will doubtless have bail.

Sometimes time served is a few months, other times it isn't, and when one bails out while awaiting trial and gets sentenced to months in jail they get tossed in jail.

If you have to be dishonest and substantively change the words I use then you don't have much of an argument.


They have not made bail yet, and it's possible they won't make bail at all. In that context, I used the term 'time served' in reference to the time that would have been spent in prison awaiting trial.

Regardless of whether they make bail, you want them to serve a few months, for a crime that will almost certainly hurt the victims for years to come. Given the severity of the damage caused, a few months really is nothing.
 
2012-12-10 01:43:52 PM  
should have used mushrooms
 
2012-12-10 01:56:27 PM  

quisph: Smackledorfer: quisph: whidbey: Bathia_Mapes: And please answer me this. If you had never smoked or ingested pot before and ate one of these brownies without knowing they contained marijuana, wouldn't you freak out too? I know I would if I started having strange symptoms out of the blue and didn't know what caused them. That would be a normal reaction for most people.

I might, but i don't think it would be worth charging someone with ten different felonies. That's absurd for an experience that caused a bit of dizziness. It wasn't meth or heroin or even a huge dose of LSD. It's Nazi bullshiat. That's the surprisingly huge disconnect I'm having with this thread.

You're dismissing a panic attack and symptoms severe enough for an ER visit as "a bit of dizziness?" You've got to be trolling.

Anyway, the harm to the victims is largely irrelevant. A crime is defined by the actions and mental state of the perpetrator, not by the consequences.

If you drive drunk, it's a crime even if you manage to avoid an accident. If you grope or sexually assault an unconscious person, it's a crime even if the victim has no direct awareness of it and suffers no physical or psychological harm. If you take a swing at someone's nose, it's a crime even if you miss. If you give food laced with drugs to unwitting people, it's a crime even if they just get a little bit dizzy (which is a gross understatement in this case).

I happen to agree that drugging people without their consent should be a felony. Obviously, there are many different situations in which someone might do this, with different levels of malicious intent The fact that this was meant as a prank, and they didn't mean to cause any real harm to anyone, WILL eventually be taken into consideration. But now is not the time. They haven't even been indicted yet. You're losing your shiat over nothing.

If you drive drunk the penalty absolutely hinges on the damage caused.

If no one gets hurt you are out the next day, winding up with fines,and co ...

We're not talking about penalties. We're talking about charges. The fact that you can't see the difference is probably 99% of the reason why you started arguing in the first place.


Actually people were arguing that this guy deserves years in prison. I was disagreeing with them.

If you were paying attention to this thread you'd see that.
 
2012-12-10 01:59:28 PM  

the ha ha guy: Smackledorfer: Except they will doubtless have bail.

Sometimes time served is a few months, other times it isn't, and when one bails out while awaiting trial and gets sentenced to months in jail they get tossed in jail.

If you have to be dishonest and substantively change the words I use then you don't have much of an argument.

They have not made bail yet, and it's possible they won't make bail at all. In that context, I used the term 'time served' in reference to the time that would have been spent in prison awaiting trial.

Regardless of whether they make bail, you want them to serve a few months, for a crime that will almost certainly hurt the victims for years to come. Given the severity of the damage caused, a few months really is nothing.


When i say x specifically and you insist on changing x to a more general y which is only sometimes equal to x, you are being dishonest and creating unnecessary confusion.

Do you have any evidence that these victims are almost certainly to be hurt for years to come?

What a silly assumption to make.
 
2012-12-10 02:23:33 PM  

Smackledorfer: Actually people were arguing that this guy deserves years in prison. I was disagreeing with them.

If you were paying attention to this thread you'd see that.


You replied to me, dipshiat, in a comment that was directed at someone else, who said the following:

Smackledorfer: whidbey: I might, but i don't think it would be worth charging someone with ten different felonies.


He was talking about charges. So was I.

And so were you, in your very Weeners in this thread:

Smackledorfer: I think felony is pushing it here.


"Felony" is not a penalty.
 
2012-12-10 02:25:24 PM  
*&%&*%$@, filter!
 
2012-12-10 02:30:20 PM  

quisph: You replied to me, dipshiat,


You're just all about the personal attacks, aren't you?
 
2012-12-10 02:35:35 PM  

whidbey: quisph: You replied to me, dipshiat,

You're just all about the personal attacks, aren't you?


cdn.inquisitr.com
 
2012-12-10 02:36:01 PM  
quisph, you know that people who are charged with a felony but don't get sentenced to a year or more in prison aren't considered felons, right?

So yes, when you are saying something should be a felony, you are calling for a sentence of a year or more in prison.

If your new argument is 'X should be a felony, but don't tell me I think they should get a year or more in prison' then you are being either stupid or disingenuous.

As for your recent post, what a cherry-picked pile of rubbish that shows you haven't read the thread. I don't even know where to begin explaining what is wrong with you making a post, me responding to it, then you calling me out on the bulk of my posts (made before you ever entered the thread), and finally you coming back with "nope, you were responding to me, so the only context that matters is what I felt like discussing and points I was making". How ridiculous.
 
2012-12-10 02:38:00 PM  

Smackledorfer: Do you have any evidence that these victims are almost certainly to be hurt for years to come?


The failed drug tests alone will put them out of the running for many jobs for the next ten years or so.
 
2012-12-10 02:38:20 PM  

quisph: whidbey: quisph: You replied to me, dipshiat,

You're just all about the personal attacks, aren't you?

[cdn.inquisitr.com image 500x375]


Um, you do know that you can get a timeout for posting like you've been doing?

Stop calling people dipshiats and focus on your arguments. I insist.
 
2012-12-10 02:42:15 PM  

whidbey: quisph: whidbey: quisph: You replied to me, dipshiat,

You're just all about the personal attacks, aren't you?

[cdn.inquisitr.com image 500x375]

Um, you do know that you can get a timeout for posting like you've been doing?

Stop calling people dipshiats and focus on your arguments. I insist.


LOL! You're the one who is taking my insults out of context. They are accompanied by actual arguments, I assure you.
 
2012-12-10 02:43:09 PM  

quisph: LOL! You're the one who is taking my insults out of context. They are accompanied by actual arguments, I assure you.


I just really don't care for your tone in here.

So we disagree. So what. So you disagree with Smackledorfer. So what?

Who the fark are you anyway?
 
2012-12-10 02:47:48 PM  

the ha ha guy: Regardless of whether they make bail, you want them to serve a few months, for a crime that will almost certainly hurt the victims for years to come. Given the severity of the damage caused, a few months really is nothing.


Um, wat?
 
2012-12-10 02:49:50 PM  

whidbey: the ha ha guy: Regardless of whether they make bail, you want them to serve a few months, for a crime that will almost certainly hurt the victims for years to come. Given the severity of the damage caused, a few months really is nothing.

Um, wat?


I just answered that less than fifteen minutes ago...
 
2012-12-10 02:51:44 PM  

the ha ha guy: whidbey: the ha ha guy: Regardless of whether they make bail, you want them to serve a few months, for a crime that will almost certainly hurt the victims for years to come. Given the severity of the damage caused, a few months really is nothing.

Um, wat?

I just answered that less than fifteen minutes ago...


I thought that was a joke. But since pot exits the body after 21 days or so, it just didn't seem that funny to me.
 
2012-12-10 02:59:34 PM  

the ha ha guy: Smackledorfer: Do you have any evidence that these victims are almost certainly to be hurt for years to come?

The failed drug tests alone will put them out of the running for many jobs for the next ten years or so.


Assuming their employers are doing tests that go back for ten years, and not just a piss test. Also assuming they don't respond to the accusation of drug use by bringing up this event which is now going to have clear legal documentation. You mentioned federal contractors as being the ones who use hair samples. I work for the federal government and admitted pot use in my past. I'm now a gs-12. All I had to take was a piss-test. I also know that federal agents only have to take a piss test. I admit to not knowing the hiring specifics of every aspect of the federal government though. Which ones are using hair samples and have hiring process that would deny them the ability to include an explanation along with their application paperwork (which for my job was over 100 pages, involved a background check that took months and included middle school teachers, and a polygraph)? I doubt anyone in a less important job than mine is having both a higher degree of drug-test while at the same time a lower degree of complexity in the hiring process. Though stupider things have happened in government and government-related work :D

But beyond drug tests, do you have any other support for your statement that it is

the ha ha guy: a crime that will almost certainly hurt the victims for years to come

?

Or is potential future drug testing your only issue in this regard?
 
2012-12-10 02:59:43 PM  

whidbey: I thought that was a joke. But since pot exits the body after 21 days or so, it just didn't seem that funny to me.


Body, yes. Hair, no.

As of earlier this year, I still tested positive for morphine that I had in 2004. And given that it was a government contractor who ordered the test, that was an automatic fail, regardless of the medical records clearly explaining that it was legitimate.
 
2012-12-10 03:02:59 PM  

Smackledorfer: You mentioned federal contractors as being the ones who use hair samples. I work for the federal government and admitted pot use in my past. I'm now a gs-12. All I had to take was a piss-test.


Northrop Grumman (a major defense contractor) has a zero-tolerance policy. If ANY drugs can be detected in ANY test, it's an automatic fail, period.
 
2012-12-10 03:04:55 PM  

the ha ha guy: whidbey: I thought that was a joke. But since pot exits the body after 21 days or so, it just didn't seem that funny to me.

Body, yes. Hair, no.


You're stretching. Most tests are swabs. You're making the assumption that any of the victims of this prank are going to apply for high-security government jobs. What are the odds of that, and no, I sure don't think whatever miniscule percentage of chance figures into charging the perpetrators with 10 felonies.

As of earlier this year, I still tested positive for morphine that I had in 2004. And given that it was a government contractor who ordered the test, that was an automatic fail, regardless of the medical records clearly explaining that it was legitimate.

Then obviously that law needs to be changed.
 
2012-12-10 03:13:38 PM  

whidbey: You're making the assumption that any of the victims of this prank are going to apply for high-security government jobs.


Very well. I propose that if any of the eight victims fail to get a job due to this prank, the criminals have to pay their salary at a rate they would have been paid, until such time as the drug test comes back clean. If they do not fail a drug test, the criminals walk free.

Does that sound fair? After all, the criminals would only be paying for actual provable damages, not just the possibility of future damages.
 
2012-12-10 03:21:16 PM  

whidbey: Then obviously that law needs to be changed.


Whether or not you think the law needs to be changed, the damage was done under current law. Ergo, until the law changes, the damage has been done, and the guilty parties are liable for all damages both current an future.

Meanwhile, you still seem to think that drugging a person against their will and without there consent is a negligible offense. That' pathetic.
 
2012-12-10 03:23:01 PM  

the ha ha guy: whidbey: You're making the assumption that any of the victims of this prank are going to apply for high-security government jobs.

Very well. I propose that if any of the eight victims fail to get a job due to this prank, the criminals have to pay their salary at a rate they would have been paid, until such time as the drug test comes back clean. If they do not fail a drug test, the criminals walk free.

Does that sound fair? After all, the criminals would only be paying for actual provable damages, not just the possibility of future damages.


Since I don't believe drug tests for pot are "fair," no.

I have a huge problem with the concept of "future damages," too.
 
2012-12-10 03:33:02 PM  

whidbey: I have a huge problem with the concept of "future damages," too.


So if someone attacks you and leaves you unable to walk, they should only be liable for the medical bills, but not your inability to work?
 
2012-12-10 03:45:38 PM  

the ha ha guy: whidbey: I have a huge problem with the concept of "future damages," too.

So if someone attacks you and leaves you unable to walk, they should only be liable for the medical bills, but not your inability to work?


I was talking about this instance.
Pretty sure your example doesn't involve dosing people with pot brownies.
 
2012-12-10 03:48:23 PM  

whidbey: the ha ha guy: whidbey: I have a huge problem with the concept of "future damages," too.

So if someone attacks you and leaves you unable to walk, they should only be liable for the medical bills, but not your inability to work?

I was talking about this instance.
Pretty sure your example doesn't involve dosing people with pot brownies.


So where did you get your medical degree?
 
2012-12-10 03:51:12 PM  

ScreamingHangover: whidbey: the ha ha guy: whidbey: I have a huge problem with the concept of "future damages," too.

So if someone attacks you and leaves you unable to walk, they should only be liable for the medical bills, but not your inability to work?

I was talking about this instance.
Pretty sure your example doesn't involve dosing people with pot brownies.

So where did you get your medical degree?


So I need to be a doctor to know that marijuana is a relatively harmless drug?
 
2012-12-10 03:55:09 PM  

whidbey: I was talking about this instance.
Pretty sure your example doesn't involve dosing people with pot brownies.


So you only disagree with "the concept of future damages" when it's someone else getting paid...
 
2012-12-10 03:55:37 PM  

whidbey: ScreamingHangover: whidbey: the ha ha guy: whidbey: I have a huge problem with the concept of "future damages," too.

So if someone attacks you and leaves you unable to walk, they should only be liable for the medical bills, but not your inability to work?

I was talking about this instance.
Pretty sure your example doesn't involve dosing people with pot brownies.

So where did you get your medical degree?

So I need to be a doctor to know that marijuana is a relatively harmless drug?


[Citation Needed]
 
2012-12-10 03:59:44 PM  

the ha ha guy: whidbey: I was talking about this instance.
Pretty sure your example doesn't involve dosing people with pot brownies.

So you only disagree with "the concept of future damages" when it's someone else getting paid...


It still kind of bothers me.
 
2012-12-10 04:02:02 PM  

whidbey: the ha ha guy: whidbey: I was talking about this instance.
Pretty sure your example doesn't involve dosing people with pot brownies.

So you only disagree with "the concept of future damages" when it's someone else getting paid...

It still kind of bothers me.


Very well, then would you mind answering my original question? Namely, would you let a criminal off the hook if it was your own salary on the line?
 
2012-12-10 04:04:36 PM  

ScreamingHangover: So I need to be a doctor to know that marijuana is a relatively harmless drug?

[Citation Needed]


A simple Googling shows no major adverse effects. I honestly don't know why you're so hellbent to equate pot to dosing someone with crystal meth, but throughout this whole exchange you've presented yourself quite irrationally, and you are not bringing anything worthy to this discussion.
 
2012-12-10 04:05:15 PM  

the ha ha guy: whidbey: the ha ha guy: whidbey: I was talking about this instance.
Pretty sure your example doesn't involve dosing people with pot brownies.

So you only disagree with "the concept of future damages" when it's someone else getting paid...

It still kind of bothers me.

Very well, then would you mind answering my original question? Namely, would you let a criminal off the hook if it was your own salary on the line?


What does that have to do with this particular discussion?
 
2012-12-10 04:08:45 PM  

whidbey: the ha ha guy: whidbey: the ha ha guy: whidbey: I was talking about this instance.
Pretty sure your example doesn't involve dosing people with pot brownies.

So you only disagree with "the concept of future damages" when it's someone else getting paid...

It still kind of bothers me.

Very well, then would you mind answering my original question? Namely, would you let a criminal off the hook if it was your own salary on the line?

What does that have to do with this particular discussion?


You say that the victims should not have any consideration for future damages, even when those damages can be proven. I'm only asking if you would apply that same standard to yourself.

Since you're being so defensive, I think it's safe to say that the answer is no.
 
2012-12-10 04:13:49 PM  

the ha ha guy: What does that have to do with this particular discussion?

You say that the victims should not have any consideration for future damages, even when those damages can be proven. I'm only asking if you would apply that same standard to yourself.

Since you're being so defensive, I think it's safe to say that the answer is no.


More like I don't really see the relevance. I also have problems with the whole "what if" round of questions. Especially when we're talking about pot brownies and absurdly draconian Reagan-era drug tests.

You're trying to pigeon hole me, and I don't feel like being put in a box, especially when I've expressed reservations about your scenario.
 
2012-12-10 04:19:45 PM  

whidbey: ScreamingHangover: So I need to be a doctor to know that marijuana is a relatively harmless drug?

[Citation Needed]

A simple Googling shows no major adverse effects. I honestly don't know why you're so hellbent to equate pot to dosing someone with crystal meth, but throughout this whole exchange you've presented yourself quite irrationally, and you are not bringing anything worthy to this discussion.


Ok: that's it.

You've been going up and down this thread for over a day, playing resident expert on marijuana, it's short term effects, long term effects, allergies, and possible reactions as well as what the law and liability should be. You have asked anyone who disagrees with you for extensive sourcing, and when provide, you exhibit an level of selective reading comprehension that boggles the mind. Yet you still keep spewing an opinion based on nothing but your own personal hubris.

You're lazy and you're blowing smoke out your butt. So I'm calling you here and now to shiat or get off the pot: what are your qualifications to spout such bullshiat? And if non can be provided, please provide studies that you are familiar with that validate your position. Unlike you, I find PDFs perfectly acceptable. However, I have one caveat: provide studies that you have previously examined: do not just link to the first thing found in a google search.
 
2012-12-10 04:21:10 PM  

ScreamingHangover: Ok: that's it.

You've been going up and down this thread for over a day, playing resident expert on marijuana, it's short term effects, long term effects, allergies, and possible reactions as well as what the law and liability should be. You have asked anyone who disagrees with you for extensive sourcing, and when provide, you exhibit an level of selective reading comprehension that boggles the mind. Yet you still keep spewing an opinion based on nothing but your own personal hubris.


*blinks*

You're lazy and you're blowing smoke out your butt. So I'm calling you here and now to shiat or get off the pot: what are your qualifications to spout such bullshiat? And if non can be provided, please provide studies that you are familiar with that validate your position. Unlike you, I find PDFs perfectly acceptable. However, I have one caveat: provide studies that you have previously examined: do not just link to the first thing found in a google search.

Man you are one angry Farker. Here. Have a pot brownie. Maybe it'll settle you down.
 
2012-12-10 04:22:37 PM  

whidbey: the ha ha guy: What does that have to do with this particular discussion?

You say that the victims should not have any consideration for future damages, even when those damages can be proven. I'm only asking if you would apply that same standard to yourself.

Since you're being so defensive, I think it's safe to say that the answer is no.

More like I don't really see the relevance. I also have problems with the whole "what if" round of questions. Especially when we're talking about pot brownies and absurdly draconian Reagan-era drug tests.

You're trying to pigeon hole me, and I don't feel like being put in a box, especially when I've expressed reservations about your scenario.


It's a simple question. Are "future damages" never acceptable, or are they sometimes acceptable?

And regardless of the acceptability of the drug tests themselves, it's a fact of life that we have to endure them. Thus, any damages should be based on reality rather than fantasy.
 
2012-12-10 04:26:04 PM  

the ha ha guy: You're trying to pigeon hole me, and I don't feel like being put in a box, especially when I've expressed reservations about your scenario.

It's a simple question. Are "future damages" never acceptable, or are they sometimes acceptable?


My gripe is whether they are always acceptable, which you seem to believe. I think a court should be the one who decides. I don't want to make any statements that might sign someone's life away.

And regardless of the acceptability of the drug tests themselves, it's a fact of life that we have to endure them. Thus, any damages should be based on reality rather than fantasy.

Just saying "that's the way it is" really isn't an acceptable answer. Otherwise, we'd still be enjoying slavery.
 
2012-12-10 04:28:01 PM  

whidbey: ScreamingHangover: Ok: that's it.

You've been going up and down this thread for over a day, playing resident expert on marijuana, it's short term effects, long term effects, allergies, and possible reactions as well as what the law and liability should be. You have asked anyone who disagrees with you for extensive sourcing, and when provide, you exhibit an level of selective reading comprehension that boggles the mind. Yet you still keep spewing an opinion based on nothing but your own personal hubris.

*blinks*

You're lazy and you're blowing smoke out your butt. So I'm calling you here and now to shiat or get off the pot: what are your qualifications to spout such bullshiat? And if non can be provided, please provide studies that you are familiar with that validate your position. Unlike you, I find PDFs perfectly acceptable. However, I have one caveat: provide studies that you have previously examined: do not just link to the first thing found in a google search.

Man you are one angry Farker. Here. Have a pot brownie. Maybe it'll settle you down.


Still waiting on the studies.
 
2012-12-10 04:30:35 PM  

whidbey: Just saying "that's the way it is" really isn't an acceptable answer. Otherwise, we'd still be enjoying slavery.


So get the laws changed, don't take it out on innocent victims who have absolutely nothing to do with the laws.

In my perfect world, food, healthcare, and basic housing would be free. But that doesn't mean I would let someone off the hook for fraud, on the basis that the victim shouldn't have needed that money in the first place.
 
2012-12-10 04:31:58 PM  

ScreamingHangover: Man you are one angry Farker. Here. Have a pot brownie. Maybe it'll settle you down.

Still waiting on the studies.


You know what? It isn't up to me to prove anything here.

You are the one who believes there are adverse effects. If anything, it's up to you to prove it.

Either do it, or put me on ignore. I'm not going to continue weaving and bobbing around your shrill irrational posting style.
 
2012-12-10 04:34:51 PM  

the ha ha guy: So get the laws changed


That was my point earlier. Drug test laws geared to test people who do dangerous drugs are totally unfair to people who smoke a relatively harmless substance like marijuana. It's been pointed out that pot is on the same schedule as much harder and more dangerous drugs, and yes, it is all about changing the law.

In my perfect world, food, healthcare, and basic housing would be free. But that doesn't mean I would let someone off the hook for fraud, on the basis that the victim shouldn't have needed that money in the first place.

I'm not following you here. Who's committing fraud, exactly? How does that fit into our earlier exchange about "future damages?"
 
2012-12-10 04:37:26 PM  

whidbey: ScreamingHangover: Man you are one angry Farker. Here. Have a pot brownie. Maybe it'll settle you down.

Still waiting on the studies.

You know what? It isn't up to me to prove anything here.

You are the one who believes there are adverse effects. If anything, it's up to you to prove it.

Either do it, or put me on ignore. I'm not going to continue weaving and bobbing around your shrill irrational posting style.


Just what I said: lazy piece of shiat spewing off crap for his own hubris. The reason you're weaving and bobbing is you have no position besides the fact you like to do pot and will manufacture any argument to defend it, yet can supply no facts, no studies, no evidence to back your position. And I say this as someone who thinks it should be legalized. It's people like you who set the whole legalization movement backwards. Do the rest of us a favor and shut your pie hole: you're an embarrassment.
 
2012-12-10 04:38:03 PM  

ScreamingHangover: personal attacks


Well isn't that special.
 
2012-12-10 04:40:05 PM  

whidbey: ScreamingHangover: personal attacks

Well isn't that special.


Still waiting on the studies.
 
2012-12-10 04:42:25 PM  

whidbey: That was my point earlier. Drug test laws geared to test people who do dangerous drugs are totally unfair to people who smoke a relatively harmless substance like marijuana. It's been pointed out that pot is on the same schedule as much harder and more dangerous drugs, and yes, it is all about changing the law.


Exactly. The victims are not at fault, but the law is. So why punish the victims due to a problem with the law?

whidbey: I'm not following you here. Who's committing fraud, exactly? How does that fit into our earlier exchange about "future damages?"


My point was that it's irresponsible to measure damages, current or future, against some fantasy realm that only exists in our imaginations.
 
2012-12-10 04:44:04 PM  

ScreamingHangover: whidbey: ScreamingHangover: personal attacks

Well isn't that special.

Still waiting on the studies.


Again, you are the one who believes there are adverse effects. It is your job to prove your contention, and in the context of this article.

I am challenging that assertion. I don't have to provide anything. In good faith, I Googled, and found nothing.

In other words, the same thing you would find. Now this is ridiculous. Stop attacking me, and act like an adult.
 
2012-12-10 04:46:57 PM  

the ha ha guy: whidbey: That was my point earlier. Drug test laws geared to test people who do dangerous drugs are totally unfair to people who smoke a relatively harmless substance like marijuana. It's been pointed out that pot is on the same schedule as much harder and more dangerous drugs, and yes, it is all about changing the law.

Exactly. The victims are not at fault, but the law is. So why punish the victims due to a problem with the law?


Who's "punishing" the victims? I've already agreed that whoever dosed the class should have to pay for the emergency room charges. I also stated that it's a huge stretch that anyone in the group would be hair-tested for pot to get a job. It's rather Nazi to give them a maximum punishment as some sort of insurance against your hypothetical "future damages." Bonus: first offense.
 
2012-12-10 04:49:43 PM  

whidbey: ScreamingHangover: whidbey: ScreamingHangover: personal attacks

Well isn't that special.

Still waiting on the studies.

Again, you are the one who believes there are adverse effects. It is your job to prove your contention, and in the context of this article.

I am challenging that assertion. I don't have to provide anything. In good faith, I Googled, and found nothing.

In other words, the same thing you would find. Now this is ridiculous. Stop attacking me, and act like an adult.


You're the one claiming that feeding a group of people a mind altering drug without their knowledge or consent is no big deal. I disagree: and apparently the law are on my side (as per the charges leveled). Therefore, the burden of proof is on your end. You have to prove that no short or long term harm could have possibly been committed.
 
2012-12-10 04:53:08 PM  

ScreamingHangover: Therefore, the burden of proof is on your end. You have to prove that no short or long term harm could have possibly been committed.


Well, seeing as there isn't any evidence, I don't know what you expect.

There isn't going to be any study or PDF that answers your question.
 
2012-12-10 04:55:06 PM  

whidbey: ScreamingHangover: Therefore, the burden of proof is on your end. You have to prove that no short or long term harm could have possibly been committed.

Well, seeing as there isn't any evidence, I don't know what you expect.

There isn't going to be any study or PDF that answers your question.


How did I already know that was going to be your answer?
 
2012-12-10 04:59:00 PM  

ScreamingHangover: whidbey: ScreamingHangover: Therefore, the burden of proof is on your end. You have to prove that no short or long term harm could have possibly been committed.

Well, seeing as there isn't any evidence, I don't know what you expect.

There isn't going to be any study or PDF that answers your question.

How did I already know that was going to be your answer?


Because it's the correct one. Now, it's your turn.

Prove to me that a one-time ingesting pot brownies causes long-term damage. Keep in mind that you already failed to prove earlier contentions like allergies to THC.

Also: appealing to authority is not evidence. Assuming that "the law is on your side" is fallacious.

Again, not holding my breath. For someone who claims to be in favor of legalization, you sure have an over-the-top view of what constitutes a "harmful" substance. And I do take quite a bit of objection to that.
 
2012-12-10 04:59:06 PM  

whidbey: Who's "punishing" the victims? I've already agreed that whoever dosed the class should have to pay for the emergency room charges. I also stated that it's a huge stretch that anyone in the group would be hair-tested for pot to get a job. It's rather Nazi to give them a maximum punishment as some sort of insurance against your hypothetical "future damages." Bonus: first offense.


Which is why I proposed "if the victims fail to get a job due to this prank, the criminals have to pay. If the victims have no damages, the criminals walk free."

No hypotheticals, no maximum allowable punishment, just a straight 1:1 payment for actual proven damages. The criminals do not pay one penny more in damages or spend one second more in jail than they have to, and the victims are all able to continue their lives just as they would had this prank never happened.
 
2012-12-10 07:37:48 PM  

whidbey: Prove to me that a one-time ingesting pot brownies causes long-term damage. Keep in mind that you already failed to prove earlier contentions like allergies to THC.


allergies: 1, 2, 3.


And a nice abstract that explains why you are the way you are.
 
2012-12-10 07:46:08 PM  

whidbey: So I need to be a doctor to know that marijuana is a relatively harmless drug?


You know, it's dipshiats like you why it's going to take another 20 years to legalize pot.
 
2012-12-11 12:26:37 AM  

ScreamingHangover: whidbey: Prove to me that a one-time ingesting pot brownies causes long-term damage. Keep in mind that you already failed to prove earlier contentions like allergies to THC.

allergies: 1, 2, 3.




LOL go away, troll. None of your links have anything to do with an allergic reaction to THC, and most importantly they do not have ANY references to eating it. Yes, all 3 links. Bored, much?

And a nice abstract that explains why you are the way you are.

I'm going to go with "Project much?"
Better luck next time.

Satanic_Hamster: personal attacks.


That's nice.
 
2012-12-11 12:50:57 AM  

whidbey: ScreamingHangover: whidbey: Prove to me that a one-time ingesting pot brownies causes long-term damage. Keep in mind that you already failed to prove earlier contentions like allergies to THC.

allergies: 1, 2, 3.

LOL go away, troll. None of your links have anything to do with an allergic reaction to THC, and most importantly they do not have ANY references to eating it. Yes, all 3 links. Bored, much?

And a nice abstract that explains why you are the way you are.

I'm going to go with "Project much?"
Better luck next time.


I knew you were a shiat beforehand, but you've just decided to ignore 2 studies published in the International Archives of Allergy and Immunology, and a study published by the National Institute of Health.

There's sticking your head in the sand.
And then there's sticking your head up your ass.
And then there's sticking your head so far up your ass, it loops around back in on itself and your pate starts tickling your uvula.

Seriously, you shove it up there much further, you're going to collapse inward upon yourself, creating an in.
 
2012-12-11 01:02:37 AM  

ScreamingHangover: personal attacks


That's nice dear.
 
2012-12-11 02:02:12 AM  

whidbey: ScreamingHangover: personal attacks

That's nice dear.


You know, I was going to come back with another snarky comment about how much of a narcissitic idiot you were. But I stepped back, went, played some backgammon, came back, thought about it, reflected on it... played some more.... the wife came around and showed me pictures from her students... and I wondered if you were really that dumb, or just trolling. Now, I like a good argument. I admit arguing just for arguing sake: point, counterpoint, etc... However, that's not what you've been doing.

Reflecting back on your comments to myself and others, I realize you're not an idiot: you're just really trolling for some kind of emotional response from other human beings. And for some reason, I really can't get mad at you for it. If you're so starved for human emotion, you feel the need to act like a dumbass just to have others hurl abuse at you I just can't get mad at you.

I wish you well, and I hope some day you find the intimacy and emotion you find lacking in your life.
 
2012-12-11 06:59:13 AM  

italie: Lsherm: lewismarktwo: Lsherm: Amos Quito: "The Boulder County district attorney will review the case, at which time Cunningham and Essa may each face more than 10 felonies, Huff said."


Seems a bit harsh.

Then again, it is NEVER cool to offer any intoxicant to unwitting / unwilling participants.


/Except Rohypnol, of course

Not really. I'm allergic to THC (I probably would have been hospitalized along with the professor). You shouldn't be drugging people without their knowledge, period. I think it rises to felony level.

LOLOLOL

But, seriously, it IS just a prank, but it's never cool to dose people without their knowledge. Ever. They deserve a moderate punishment.

Potheads usually insist that it isn't possible, but both times I tried pot I had a severe allergic reaction. The first time I was smoking it, the second time I ingested it.

I suppose I could carry out an experiment with an injection of pure THC, but what's the point? I'm also allergic to opiates, so no codeine for me at the hospital.



Allergic reactions aren't symptomatic on the first exposure.


Bullshiat. It's usually just a less severe reaction.
 
2012-12-11 07:43:42 AM  

ScreamingHangover: I realize you're not an idiot: you're just really trolling


He's obviously trolling, yes... But, that doesn't mean he's not also an idiot... In fact, I would submit that all trolls are inherently idiots, because it's such an idiotic thing to waste your time doing...

But, yes, his schtick lately seems to be pretending to be an ultra-lefty in order to try making them and liberal views in general look ridiculous by association... In addition to this stupid "pot is safer than water!" thread, he's also trolling the sexist hallmark card thread, pretending to be some ultra-feminist, despite the fact that other posters have already outed him for posting his own sexist remarks in various other threads... Yet, people still keep biting...
 
2012-12-11 12:40:29 PM  

RobSeace: ScreamingHangover: I realize you're not an idiot: you're just really trolling

He's obviously trolling, yes... But, that doesn't mean he's not also an idiot... In fact, I would submit that all trolls are inherently idiots, because it's such an idiotic thing to waste your time doing...

But, yes, his schtick lately seems to be pretending to be an ultra-lefty in order to try making them and liberal views in general look ridiculous by association... In addition to this stupid "pot is safer than water!" thread, he's also trolling the sexist hallmark card thread, pretending to be some ultra-feminist, despite the fact that other posters have already outed him for posting his own sexist remarks in various other threads... Yet, people still keep biting...


Yeah... I've just gotten to the point where I'm not even angry with these idiots: just sad. It's like you know this guy doesn't really have anyone he can really talk to and will spend the rest of his life going to bed alone. Maybe we should all chip in and get him a dog or something.
 
2012-12-11 12:51:48 PM  

RobSeace: ScreamingHangover: I realize you're not an idiot: you're just really trolling

He's obviously trolling, yes... But, that doesn't mean he's not also an idiot... In fact, I would submit that all trolls are inherently idiots, because it's such an idiotic thing to waste your time doing...

But, yes, his schtick lately seems to be pretending to be an ultra-lefty in order to try making them and liberal views in general look ridiculous by association... In addition to this stupid "pot is safer than water!" thread, he's also trolling the sexist hallmark card thread, pretending to be some ultra-feminist, despite the fact that other posters have already outed him for posting his own sexist remarks in various other threads... Yet, people still keep biting...


Frankly, he deserves some sort of trolling medal, given the number of bites he got, and the fact that he prompted some pretty terrible arguments from the people who are clearly right. I mean, the word "rape" should be nowhere near this thread. If you have to make that comparison to prove your point, the troll is winning.

If nothing else, ignoring the whole "10 people were dosed, therefore 10 charges" point was brilliant.
 
Displayed 344 of 344 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report