Warnings of pot in trick-or-treat bags still have no basis in reality.
Bureau County Sheriff's Office
On Monday the Bureau County, Illinois, sheriff's office issued a press release describing "an incident following Trick or Treat" in which "parents came forward with suspicious looking candy marked as Crunch Choco Bar," the wrapper of which "has small pictures of cannabis leaves on it." According to Bureau County Sheriff James Reed, "the substance was field tested and was positive for containing cannabis." The press release closed by urging parents (as always!) to be vigilant against tainted or sabotaged Halloween treats and asking for information about "which residence provided this candy," which supposedly was handed out in Manlius, a tiny town northwest of Princeton, the Bureau County seat.
Is this the long-awaited evidence that malevolent strangers really are trying to get your kids high by slipping marijuana edibles into their trick-or-treat bags? Nope. As an eagle-eyed blogger pointed out at Dankspace.com, the picture accompanying Reed's press release shows Japanese candy bars sold under the brand name Iroha Kaede, which is a kind of maple tree. That's right: Those "small pictures of cannabis leaves" are actually small pictures of maple leaves. If the candy bar really did come up "positive for containing cannabis" in a field test, that just shows how unreliable such tests are.
Although a Google search for "Crunch Choco Bar" would have quickly revealed this story as unfounded, several local news outlets, including WQAD (an ABC affiliate), the Dispatch-Argus, and the Bureau County Republican, credulously passed it along. In addition to the fact that Sheriff Reed's photo of cannabis candy does not actually show cannabis candy, several things should have given reporters pause.
First, the candy supposedly was received on October 30, which is not the traditional day for trick or treating. Second, someone trying to pass marijuana edibles off as ordinary Halloween candy probably would not hand out products marked with cannabis leaves, and he probably would not do it in a town with a population of 350. Third, this would have been the first verified example ever of someone trying to pull off such a prank. Fourth, there is little incentive for anyone to do so, given the high cost of replacing cheap candy with expensive marijuana edibles and the lack of a payoff. Even assuming a kid eats the candy, the effects would not be apparent for an hour or two, so what's in it for the prankster?
A search of the Nexis database turns up 13 warnings about marijuana candy in trick-or-treat bags published by newspapers since October 1. Nine of those warnings appeared in public disservice pieces that ran in Iowa and Nebraska under headlines such as "Tips to Stay Safe on Halloween Night" and "Don't Clown Around This Halloween." One story ran in the Salem, Oregon, Statesman Journal, which noted that Monday was "the first Halloween when recreational edibles were legal to sell in Oregon," although it conceded that "the Oregon Poison Center doesn't forecast anyone giving out candies with marijuana." Still, you can never be too safe, right? Similar stories, encouraged by propaganda from the Denver Police Department, appeared after legal recreational marijuana sales began in Colorado, where police reported no actual incidents of THC-tainted treats.
The four other 2016 stories about marijuana-infused Halloween candy, which appeared in The Miami Herald, the Orlando Sentinel, the Bradenton Herald, and the Las Vegas Review-Journal, reported warnings from opponents of initiatives that would legalize marijuana for medical use in Florida and for recreational use in Nevada. The Sentinel also ran a column by Scott Maxwell calling the scare tactic "hogwash." The only reports of an actual incident were the ones provoked by Sheriff Reed's press release, which was printed on stationery that proclaims "Honesty...Integrity...Trust," right below the photo of counterfeit cannabis candy.
[Thanks to Joshua Hotchkin for the tip.]
#1: Gatlin To: Deckard (#0)
Gatlin posted on 2016-11-03 07:03:33 Reply Private Reply
#2: Deckard To: Gatlin (#1)
Too bad the news media as well as the cops in Illinois get their "facts" from the movie "Reefer Madness"
For that matter, so do you.
Deckard posted on 2016-11-03 09:02:55 Reply Private Reply
#3: Gatlin To: Deckard (#0)
Can you?
Let’s do a test to find out.
A reasonable person would not expect a parent living in a small community of 350 people to know the difference in a marijuana leaf and a Jamanese maple tree leaf Acer palmatum.A reasonable person would expect a parent who has suspicions to take the candy bar to the police to check it out.
A rational police officer would do a field test to allay or confirm the parent’s fear.
Everyone knows that a person can fail a drug test for consuming marijuana. A lot of people are surprised to find out that you can also fail a drug test for being around too much second hand marijuana smoke (for an article about that, click this link here). So a pothead who had recently been handling marijuana could have transferred the pot smell to the candy bar consequently that caused the positive result on the field test.
The cops sent the candy for a lab test and they are awaiting the results.
Great job, parents and LEO….if there is to be error, then always err on the side of caution.
This yellow journalism POS author had a sole agenda to try and ridicule cops and parents for acting safely to protect children and some POS poster became his enabler by posting his article.
Noting here in this biased article, folks....move along.
Gatlin posted on 2016-11-03 09:13:21 Reply Private Reply
#4: Gatlin To: Deckard (#2)
Always be cautious!
Gatlin posted on 2016-11-03 09:20:52 Reply Private Reply
#5: Deckard To: Gatlin (#3)
some POS poster
Sod off you bloody tosser.
The article makes valid points about the dishonesty of cops.
The only reports of an actual incident were the ones provoked by Sheriff Reed's press release, which was printed on stationery that proclaims "Honesty...Integrity...Trust," right below the photo of counterfeit cannabis candy.
In other words, the cops lied and used this bogus incident as a scare tactic.
Honesty Integrity, Trust?
You (and these cops) possess none of those qualities.
Deckard posted on 2016-11-03 09:23:33 Reply Private Reply
#6: Gatlin To: Deckard (#5)
I didn't have that problem.
A parent in the small community had the problem and did the right thing....CHECKED IT OUT!
Gatlin posted on 2016-11-03 09:28:06 Reply Private Reply
#7: Gatlin To: Deckard (#5)
Here is a parent who was not careful: Three year old eats marijuana laced candy.
Gatlin posted on 2016-11-03 09:33:09 Reply Private Reply
#8: Gatlin To: Deckard (#5)
Absolutely!
And always be cautious! – A Positive Procrastinator!
Gatlin posted on 2016-11-03 09:36:07 Reply Private Reply
#9: Deckard To: Gatlin (#8)
Only in Gatlin "cops are gods" Bizarro World - posting a picture of a bogus pot candy bar is a display of honesty, integrity and trust.
Deckard posted on 2016-11-03 09:42:51 Reply Private Reply
#10: Gatlin To: Deckard (#5)
The cops didn’t lie. They did what they were trained to do, they acted on the best information available.
Hey, sport….crazy people do give kids candy laced with marijuana.
Mom arrested after kids eat candy laced with marijuana .
And some irresponsible people don’t seem to care.
Why don’t you care?
Gatlin posted on 2016-11-03 09:44:20 Reply Private Reply
#11: Gatlin To: Deckard (#9)
Cops are not Gods....neither are they the villains you CONSTANTLY agendize them to be.
Gatlin posted on 2016-11-03 09:47:51 Reply Private Reply
#12: Gatlin To: Deckard (#9)
Posting pictures of leaves on a candy bar that parents mistook as marijuana leaves is STUPID.
I will lay odds that the Japanese candy company is redesigning their wrappers as we post.
Gatlin posted on 2016-11-03 09:51:49 Reply Private Reply
#13: Gatlin To: Deckard (#5)
And YOU do?
ROTFLMAO!!!!
Gatlin posted on 2016-11-03 09:52:58 Reply Private Reply
#14: ConservingFreedom To: Deckard (#0)
Baseless hysteria is good for business.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-11-03 11:33:48 Reply Private Reply
#15: ConservingFreedom To: Deckard (#0)
That would not have served the interests of the sheriff's office.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-11-03 11:35:26 Reply Private Reply