The Volokh Conspiracy

it's hard to isolate what the funniest part of this call is. other than the obvious "what's the score of the red wings" and "my mother in law just got here" non sequiters, i think the operator's insistence on knowing how many brownies contained the 1/4 oz is pretty strange.

that's what the cops get when they do the pot. he probably saw the "this is your brain on drugs" commercial with the extraordinarily hot girl.

The cop doesn't have any weapons in his house?

The police officer thought he was going to die from taking too much pot? Aren't these people trained at all?

He says later that he has some in the closet. You fail for posting before listening to the whole thing. :(.

The cop thought the marijuana may have been laced with something else and his wife was on the floor barely breathing. It is not so unreasonable that he called 911. Taking the pot in the first place is another story.

To be fair, I have consulted with those who have more extensive knowledge than I of illicit drugs and current events in the area, and am informed that lacing pot with more potent substances is now a fairly common practice. So it is quite possible that they were put down by something more potent than pot, and his calling 911 may not have been irrational. That would tie in with his saying that he'd done it before but never with this effect, and with his wife being down on the floor.

I have consulted with those who have more extensive knowledge than I of illicit drugs and current events in the area, and am informed that lacing pot with more potent substances is now a fairly common practice. So it is quite possible that they were put down by something more potent than pot, and his calling 911 may not have been irrational.

Actually, eating marijuana or hashish laced pastry can get you into some trouble. You won't die or anything, but you can consume quite a large amount of the drug before it has any noticable effect. When you smoke it, the high is pretty immediate and the sedative effect limits the dosage. Most people will fall asleep before they can get near the dose you can consume by eating the whole tray of brownies. At those levels, marijuana can be a moderately potent hallucinogen. If you had only toked before, the effect could be disconcerting at the very least.

Or so I've been told. I have no firsthand knowledge of such things. A friend of a friend told me about it. Barely an acquaintance, really.

not to lapse into surfer patois, but come on dudes.

those of you speculating about the severe chemical effects of marijuna needed to spend less time reading books about it and more time in high school.

however, in regards to the strong effects, it is also true as dave pointed out, that marijuana is sometimes laced. i have seen it laced with PCP and formaldehyde and LSD among other things.

Formaldehyde would give marijuana a highly detectable and decidedly unpleasant aroma. Pot dealers aren't interested in making their product unusable, so there would be no point in "lacing" (or rather, contaminating) it with formaldehyde. But see below -- you've been taken in by an urban legend.

LSD is destroyed by heat. LSD is actually rather unstable as drugs go; smoking it would entirely destroy it. (So, by the way, would adding it to running water. The old legends about hippies putting LSD in the water supply were just wishful thinking on the part of straights who wished they were hippies.)

PCP, on the other hand, can be consumed by smoking -- and frequently is consumed by adding it to marijuana, tobacco, or other smokable herbs. However, PCP is much rarer than marijuana, and users who desire the effects of marijuana are not likely to welcome the effects of PCP.

By the way, PCP distributed in liquid form has been known in slang as "embalming fluid", thus giving rise to the urban legend of formaldehyde marijuana.

It's a shame that private attornys can't convene grand juries and prosecute cases against government wrongdoers.

"His wife, Stacy Sanchez, admitted to police investigators that on another occasion she removed cocaine from her husband's police cruiser -- drugs purportedly earmarked to train police dogs -- and used it during a three-week binge. She, too, has not been charged criminally."

look, i have charged over 200 drug cases. i have never charged ONE, let along got a conviction (wait for it)... without the ACTUAL DRUGS. she can admit to stealing 600 lbs of cocaine and snorting it over a 6 year period. so what? it's not enough to charge. you need the ACTUAL drugs. i believe you lawyer types call this "corpus delicti" or something. whatEver.

prosecutors don't (in the jurisdictions i've worked) charge people for possessory offenses without the underlying contraband.

if and when you have the drugs, you have to TEST them to make sure they ARE drugs. how do you test them - if they are GONE?

duh

i've had hundreds of criminals admit to all sorts of drug crimes. without THE ACTUAL drugs, it's not a case. it's "interesting info"

i know you think the cops got special treatment. sorry. again, this is my area of expertise, and at least in the jurisdictions i've worked in (three different states) - no DRUGS, no crime.

hope that helps

"Dearborn police declined to pursue criminal charges against an officer last year, even after the cop admitted to taking marijuana from criminal suspects and, with his wife, cooking it up in brownies."

and why is this surprising? let's look at facts, not rhetoric.

first of all (at least in my jurisdiction), admitting ANYTHING about drugs is not enough for a charge/conviction. you must (wait for it) RECOVER THE DRUGS to make a criminal case.

if he cooked it up, did they have any drugs left to charge him WITH?

as for the stealing the drugs part? well, they'd have to get the ADMITTED drug users to admit that they were in possession of marijuana, which he then stole. and even then, without the actual marijuana, it's not a provable case.

so, how do you charge a crime without evidence? let me know.

i prefer to let justice rule. cases are not charged if they cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Whit, nice try. But let's not forget this part:

When later questioned by police investigators, Sanchez said his wife took the marijuana out of his police vehicle while he was sleeping, and she told investigators she tricked him into eating a pot-laced brownie.

and

But in a subsequent interview, Sanchez acknowledged he fetched the marijuana from his car, put it in the brownie batter, and ate the brownies.

Leaving aside the improbable notion that there was no evidence anywhere in the house (of the marijuana, at least, if not the cocaine)... that's at least one lie to the police, perhaps two. Are you going to claim that lying to LEOs who are conducting an investigation is not a crime? What we might call "dereliction of duty" is also a crime in Michigan. ("Willful neglect to perform such duty.") His confession, his admitted false statements, along with his wife's statements, may not be sufficient for drug charges, but it certainly is for that. (Because we don't need to test the substance to see whether it was "real" marijuana to know he's not allowed to confiscate it and keep it.)

Drug users usually aren't charged, anyway (aside from stretching larger amounts into a "dealing" charge without any evidence that the drugs weren't for personal use). The only people I've ever heard of charged with stealing illegal drugs were cops - when it was much larger quantities, stolen to sell at a profit, and they were caught by an investigation into missing drugs rather than by confessing to the use.

OTOH, it isn't at all hard to find much better examples of cops getting special treatment - e.g., what seems to me a clear case of felony murder charged as manslaughter (Kathryn Johnston), or never charged at all (Waco - the original warrant was obtained with lies).

Does the police department decide whether or not to pursue criminal charges, or does whatever passes for the DA there?

As far as no material evidence being found, from the account it seems that not all of the brownies were eaten. There's your source for evidence. Furthermore, if the marijuana was taken from criminal suspects, this would comprise destruction of evidence and obstruction of a criminal investigation. Were the suspects who contributed the herb to Cpl. Sanchez's bakery charged with possession? If so, can they be convicted now?

"Furthermore, if the marijuana was taken from criminal suspects, this would comprise destruction of evidence and obstruction of a criminal investigation"

again, you are assuming.

if the marijuana was taken FROM evidence, it would. if it was taken in the streeet it would not be, since it's not evidence, since no criminal investigation was opened. do you see the distinction?

i said this (months ago) that cops frequently destroy marijuana when they catch people with small amounts. that's not destruction or obstruction. it's called officer discretion

if a cop arrested a guy for mj, THEN stole some of the mj, that would be.

was that the case here?

i'm not gonna assume that

Whit - Please explain why he isn't being Federally charged under 18 USC§ 922(d)(3) for being a forbidden person in possession of a firearm.

uh clem says: "1270 milligrams per kilogram? That's 1.27 times the rat's body mass."

Uh, no. That would be 1.27 kilograms drug/kg body mass.

Instead, the LD-50 is said to be 1.27 thousandths of the body mass. Still a heck of a dose, though.

I'd just like to second Adeez (2):

(2) It probably wasn't even laced. But the guy's an amateur, and most here know that the effect from eating it is much stronger and more hallucinagenic (sp?) than smoking it. It's not the substance itself, but the psyche and mental makeup of the user. That's why some people can trip and smoke herb regulalrly and enjoy it, while others can go batty.

Half the people I know that have ever gotten stoned recount a funny story about how they were that guy who thought the weed was laced the first time they smoked it. The officer is "that guy." Who says "uses pot" anyways? That's up there with "marijuana cigarette" as far as terms that reveal the speaker doesn't know what he's talking about.

fwiw, i know of two cases where an officer who was using mj (while an officer) was given drug counseling, and not fired or anything

at least in two agencies i worked for, use is not (usually) a firing offense.

stealing it from suspects DEFINITELY would be

"This guy's reputation and life is over. Good. That's Karma baby. He's a pawn in an unjust system doing Big Brother's evil bidding"

oh for pete's sake. look, i don't think mj should be illegal either, but why is it "big brother's" fault?

why is it this cop's fault? does being a cop mean you buy into every stupid law on the books?

i hope not.

fwiw, i think there are far more egregious issues regarding privacy, and civil rights being curtailed in regards to domestic violence laws than drug stuff, but that's another issue

we elect representatives (and in many states we have an initiative process)

nevada put legalized mj as a ballot initiative a while back.

it failed.

i would have voted for it.

regardless, we get the reps we elect. it's as much our fault for electing these people and not making our opinions known.

what i think IS big brother'ish is when the feds enforce mj laws contrary to state medical mj laws.

"USING drugs is not illegal. possession is." If it's in your bloodstream, you're in possession of it, aren't you?

i knew you would miss this

why?

because many drug dealers (and users) don't read wikipedia and snopes to check out the veracity of drug myths. much like beavis and butthead smoking banana peels, they hear that lacing mj with PCP etc. is efficacious, so they DO it.

it's really not that hard to understand. drug dealers (and users) believe all sorts of myths about drugs. i recall several drug dealers told me (when i was undercover) that all they had to do was ask people who they were going to sell drugs to, if they guy was a cop. if he said no, then bought the drugs, it's entrapment.

seriously

the issue isn't "can LSD be smoked" (and still have pyscho-active effect)?

the issue is DO SOME DRUG USERS AND DEALERS ***think*** it will work and thus do it?

clearly, the answer is yes, since i have tested mj that did have LSD on it.

what you are assuming (wrongly) is that drug users and dealers don't buy into the myth.

since it's clear that many people have heard about this, and don't know it's a myth (that it works), it's understandable that many druggies would try it.


"1. Why put it on? Since it is not efficacious (when consumed- marijuna must be heated/cooked- or when marijuna is smoked) there is no value added, so why is marijuana laced with LSD? See also:
Wikipedia Entrtry on LSD lacced Marijuana Hoax
See also
LSD cannot be smoked despite uninformed reports
The formaldehyde is a hoax as well.

PCP-laced marijuana does exist.

If you have a source, I'll be happy to recant. If you just have anecdotes, I call shennannigans."

1270 milligrams per kilogram = 1.27 grams/1,000 gram. That's about 3 ounces (a hamburger patty) for a 150 pound person. But remember, that's pure refined THC. At 10% THC content, it would be two pounds of prety good weed (almost a kilo). In hash brownies, I think the chocolate would kill you first.

PCP laced pot exists, also cocaine and other uppers, among other things. It may also be laced with some pretty nasty chemicals. OTOH it could have just been a strong batch and they at a few too many brownies. Brownie creep can make it tough for the uninitiated to recognize the high as just a high and not something more dramatic. This guy just sounded stoned and paranoid. His wife, though, was in a slightly more dangerous situation if she'd taken 5 Vicodin.

Still, seemd like he's just a young foolish police officer. Not surprising, kind of funny, and he deserves the mockery a bit since he went and cooked the drugs he confiscated.

in many of the lab tests i have seen, coke is laced with speed. many of the people who attribute jitteriness to coke are actually jittery from the speed (which is much cheaper than coke on agram per gram basis) which the dealers use to stretch their coke out with. people will snort it and feel the instant rush (from the speed) and thus think that its "good coke".

Another cop who is above the law. This guy reminds me of soon to be former police chief, Jim Kesterke, of Berrien Springs, Michigan.

whit wrote at 5.11.2007 9:40am:

in no case, in any jurisdiction i work can people be charged for having drugs in their system (i am aware that in some jurisdictions, with some drugs , they can - california comes to mind).

In California "some drugs" means most scheduled drugs, but does not include marijuana. The typical charge is Health and Safety Code Section 11550, which doesn't specify 11054(d)(13) or (20) (marijuana and extracts). Schedules are at 11053 and following. Available for lookup here.

Conviction of H&S 11550 is sustainable on no more evidence than arresting officer's "expert testimony" (ie: "yup, he looked to me like he was stoned on something illegal"). No lab test is necessary.

Defendant has burden of proof that any non-schedule I drug charged was administered under direction of a licensed prescriber.

here's the link on seattle's pot initiative. forgot to add


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/249424_marijuana23.html

i believe you lawyer types call this "corpus delicti" or something. whatEver.

Uh, Whit, if you are in the business of "charging" people for crimes, you might want to familiarize yourself with the concept of a "confession". That is what it is called when someone admits to a crime like, say, stealing cocaine from a police cruiser.

Psssst, you don't need that fancy latin word when you have a confession.

Keep up the work protecting the public.

Whit,

Can you cite a single case where the sentencing for marijuana possession was increased because testing found the presence of LSD on the marijuana*? I was unable to find it on either google or westlaw, but perhaps your research skills or better than mine. Again, do you have any evidence you can cite other than your colorful stories?

*penalties for LSD possession as a function of weight are greater

btw, here's some legal type references for you...

"The corpus delicti rule requires that any statement made by the defendant be corroborated by independent proof; in other words, the confession of a defendant taken alone is not enough to convict her of a crime. State v. Aten, 79 Wn. App. 79, 89, 900 P.2d 579 (1995), aff'd, 130 Wn.2d 640, 927 P.2d 210 (1996); State v. Meyer, 37 Wn.2d 759, 763-64, 226 P.2d 204 (1951). "

"Can you cite a single case where the sentencing for marijuana possession was increased because testing found the presence of LSD on the marijuana*? I was unable to find it on either google or westlaw, but perhaps your research skills or better than mine. Again, do you have any evidence you can cite other than your colorful stories? "

who said you could cite for it?

you are creating a strawman. i never said somebody was cited for it. i said i have seen lab analysis of MJ return with various other drugs adulterating the MJ to include PCP.

but how is that relevant. you would have to show that the defendant knew (or should have known) there was PCP, LSD etc. on their mj.

like i said, i've found all kinds of weird stuff return on lab tests. if somebody is in possession of mj, you can prove pretty easily that they knowingly possessed it. if you use fancypants chemical tests to show traces of LSD, PCP whatnot on their mj you would need to prove they had some kind of idea these drugs were on their mj

Somewhere, Alice B. Toklas smiles...

I have to say that I tend to find Whit's anecdotes perfectly believable. Having lived in a small, poor, southern town on a major freeway for a couple of years, I've learned many criminals are criminals and not good members of society for a reason-they're not exactly rocket scientists. I'm not sure why it's hard to believe that people would put substances on mj (or other drugs) that actually have no effect.

whit wrote at 5.11.2007 1:28pm:

you CANNOT convict somebody of ANY crime based solely on confession.

Absolutely correct. Minor nit: confession must be extrajudicial (ie: unsworn) to invoke the corpus delicti rule.

It's rarely invoked but I've seen once. When dinosaurs roamed the earth my crim law prof handled a case where an officer got a report of a car driving erratically on an offramp but no specific description. For some reason he decided he knew who was driving the car, who lived near the offramp. He went to the defendant's house and asked "have you been driving today?" Defendant was both drunk and he answered "yes". Defense raised corpus delicti rule. Case dismissed.

you CANNOT convict somebody of ANY crime based solely on confession.

Here you have the confession. Presumably you would also have evidence sign out sheets or chain of custody documents establishing that the cocaine was in the husband's possession. If not that, presumably you would have testimony of evidence sargeant or custodian who gave the husband the cocaine to be used in the "dog training"

Also, regarding the marijuana - you have the 911 call, the fact that paramedics responded, and also presumably there were tox screens performed at hospital. This - coupled with the confession of theft - would be sufficient for a convictions.

I know that smug, self-righteousness is the first line of defense whenever anyone in law enforcement is caught commiting a crime, but you might want to distance your emotions for how you look at the law - if you do have any responsibility for protecting the public, that is.

"whit, You didn't answer my question, so let me phrase it more specifically. Why do cops EVER test for LSD if they can't use the results against the offender? As has been noted here, heat destroys LSD; it's therefore imposssible for someone to get "totally wacked out" on pot b/c it's laced with LSD, which seemed to be your only explanation for why tests would be done."

at least where i work, there is a checkbox type of system when you test for drugs. if you suspected the mj was adulterated you would have the lab test for a cross-section of psychotropics, etc. which would include LSD (PCP, peyote, etc.).

you're not going to say "test for every psychotropic EXCEPT LSD cause LSD gets destroyed by heat, so it obviously is not LSD". you just test the frigging box

i remember one incident where a guy found a white hard chunk of god knows what. sent it off to the lab with the boxes checked, and it returned with a long winded explanation, ending with "commonly known as boneless, skinless chicken breast"

it had been there a while.

Oops, should be "so as to save" and "why would they even."

among other things, if the tox screens were performed at the hospital for medical purposes, they would not be admissible.

What are you talking about? DUI drivers who cause accidents are routinely prosecuted using their tox panels. Are you for real?

And, I notice that you don't mention anything about cocaine prosecution. Well, nevermind.

btw, ARE YOU FOR REAL?

a guy gets admitted to the hospital for drug use, and you think the cops can use his tox screen against him for criminal prosecution????

amazing

i'm not rtying to convince you with my anecdotes. i know what i've seen

that's one of the great things about shows like cops. if it wasn't for skeptics like you actually seeing people do the stuff they do, it would be even harder for civilians to understand how incredibly moronic criminals can be and some of the stuff they do.


btw, way to backpedal. what you said was
i have a " very, very limited perspective on law enforcement techniques."

that's false. ESPECiALLY in regards to drug investigations, in which i have more extensive experience than the vast majority of cops.

Prufrock765 wrote at 5.11.2007 1:39pm:

Fub
I have spent more time defending than prosecuting. The Cali statute referenced above looks like another "public intoxication" statute---what our fathers called "drunk and disorderly" before we discovered better living through advanced chemistry. Moreover the Cali statute looks more like a formalization of a "lets get these junkies into rehab" policy.

Except that H&S 11550 does not specify "public". It states "No person shall use, or be under the influence of any controlled substance which is (1) specified in ..." It specifies misdemeanor penalties.

The statute existed for decades before California's recent Prop. 36 provided for rehab.

Although it is likely most charges are the result of a defendant being in public since that's where most police encounter people generally, being in public is not an element of the crime under H&S 11550.

The point at issue was "possession" charges, since that is what all the people on here were saying that the cop should get hooked for. The cop was not in public, so no PI charges are in order.

I'll not quibble about whether calling 911 makes his act "in public", so I'll agree that if the jurisdiction's statute requires "public", then he was not "in public" until he stepped out his front door. But the California statute does not specify "public".

As for possession charges, leftover brownies, or brownie pan scrapings, or even crumbs on the table, could be sufficient to make possession charges stick, depending on meeting usable quantity threshold.

I'm even more certain that possession of drug paraphenalia would stick. A brownie pan (or anything else used to prepare or ingest illegal drugs) is considered "drug paraphenalia" if the paraphenalia holds testable drug residue.

Since he gave a brownie to his wife, he could be charged with transportation or supply. There is evidence of that besides his confession. I've seen that charged for passing a joint at a concert.

I agree with whit that the drug should be legal. But until that day comes I see no reason not to throw the same book at police or prosecutors who violate the law that police and prosecutors throw at civilians.

witness.

ok, fine. my experience is extensive, much more extensive than the average cop, but it is not UNlimited, therefore it is limited.

is that your point?

it's pretty absurd imo. everybody's experience is thus "limited" in that sense, unless they are the omniscient being (tm).

that's not what people mean when they say you have "limited experience" merely that is not unlimited.

not to mention your whole "very very limited" thang. but whatEver

a guy gets admitted to the hospital for drug use, and you think the cops can use his tox screen against him for criminal prosecution????

same thing here. The crime is that he stole marijuana from someone, and no doubt doing it while acting as a police officer makes him all the more worthy of prosecution.

Here you have a confession made on a 9/11 tape and the proof that he actually stole it would be the traces in his system. Other than the fact that this guy is a rotten cop, why would you have a problem prosecuting him?

whit, I also think it's worth noting that your perspective, experience, and anecdotes are worthless as long as you're posting behind the cloak of anonymity. Anyone could easily make up an account on here, claim to have even more experience than you, and then say that you're full of it. Would you take their word for it? I doubt it, so why expect us to take yours? Reveal who you are so we can verify your bona fides.

whit wrote at 5.11.2007 2:57pm:

again, what book would that be?

there are several assumptions here.

1) that this type of crime is routinely prosecuted (it aint in my jurisdiction. when people call for OD's etc. it's dealt with almost exclusively as a medical problem
2) that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute

I agree that we both make assumptions and those assumptions may be erroneous. But I don't think there is a good standard for "routinely prosecuted". I've seen transport and delivery charges filed for passing a joint at a concert. I've seen drug paraphenalia charges filed for possession of a match with MJ residue on it (a so-called "Jefferson Airplane roachclip"). I've seen under the influence charges stick on nothing more than an officer's testimony that in their expert opinion defendant was under the influence of an illegal drug.

So, I hope we can agree that, depending on this officer's jurisdiction's laws, and upon facts suggested by the news report, there are several possibilities for criminal charges. Any of those possibilities may be negated by more specific facts that are not in the news report.

the cali statute does not apply to MJ btw. (under influence of drugs).

True. I already said that.

what i am saying is that, based on the facts i have seen thus far, no book would be thrown at anybody else (civilian) in my jurisdiction for th same behavior, and that's assuming it's even provable.

I am certain that you have more professional experience in these matters than I. But in my limited experience I have seen multitudes of charges heaped on defendants for things you say aren't prosecuted in your jurisdiction. I think we can agree that states, and even counties, differ in what they prosecute, and how they prosecute.

fub

exactly right. i can only speak specifically on the three jurisdictions i have worked in regards to this and that it how it works there.

i just see this constantly and not just in regards to cops (see: rush limbaugh and oxycontin) that when certain classes of people are found in circumstances like this, that all of a sudden, there's a "hang em out to dry" attitude combined with the (mistaken belief) that cops routinely get cut breaks on criminal matters ( i readily concede they get cut breaks on speeding) and are dealt with less harshly. ime, the opposite is true. they get dealt with more harshly, especially in politically correct crimes.

Whit,

In my (apparently more limited experience, and from the courthouse) than yours:

1. Seized marijuana is not routinely tested for adulterants.
2. LSD is not tested for.
3. LSD has never been used to adulter marijuana.

I have provided links showing why LSD is never used to adulter marijuana. I have been unable to find one (1) case where a person was sentenced for having LSD-laced marijuana. You have provided attacks and unsubstantiated (and increasingly bizarre) rants.

At this point, I will believe my experience &research, instead of the anecdotes of an anonymous supercop with extensive undercover experience and tons of federal joint task-force responsibilities who has "stared numberous results" from the state crime lab saying otherwise (yet cannot point to a single case resulting from these numerous results... perhaps it would blow your deep cover?)

Again, find a source if you want any credibility.

That cop had to be an amateur if he watched a hockey game while stoned. Every stoner I know watches Sponge Bob or Adult Swim.

kelvin, we can agree on one thing. the war on drugs sux and is a failure.

as for the LSD laced mj.

like i said, criminals are idiots. they don't check wikipedia. criminals do ALL kinds of things based on urban myths. the issue is not 'does it work'?

the issue is - are some criminals dumb enough to TRY it?

that is the case.

but i already explained that.

-burp-

Oren,

The reason you mention for the lack of LSD-laced marijuana is also the reason for the scarcity of PCP-laced marijuana. PCP (costing money and being desirable) is a plus selling point for marijuana. Therefore, laced marijuana will sell for considerably more and will be marketed as such.

The many anecdoatal stories you hear (man, I must've had some laced weed) are just that- stories, used to explain an atypical reaction to the psychotropic properties of regular (albeit sometimes stronger) marijuana. Unless the marijuana is truly of unknown providence (like, say, stolen from the police evidence room), the buyer will be well aware that the pot is laced- heck, the seller will go out of his way to tell him, because he will be charging more for it.

Whit,

I just wanted to say thanks for some illuminating comments. Despite some people here giving you a hard time, it really is good to see a different perspective on this. I may not agree with every single point you made, but the discussion was informative. No snark - just thanks.

whit, You didn't answer my question, so let me phrase it more specifically. Why do cops EVER test for LSD if they can't use the results against the offender? As has been noted here, heat destroys LSD; it's therefore imposssible for someone to get "totally wacked out" on pot b/c it's laced with LSD, which seemed to be your only explanation for why tests would be done.

The explanation is simple: Cops are usually smarter than crooks, but most of them still "aren't exactly rocket scientists". Especially the one that set up Whit's checkbox for a tox screen to include LSD...

As a current prosecutor, I can tell you that whit's observations re "corpus delecti" and MJ in a system are absolutely correct, at least in my jurisdiction. Pot in your system, combined with any sort of "confession," will get you exactly squat in terms of a prosecutable case.

some of you are apparantly so consumed with criticism for the "war on drugs" (perhaps justifiably so) and law enforcement that you've overlooked basic criminal law.

Typical ivory-tower law prof mentality.

What the hell whit? I was talking about the cop who stole and ate the pot brownies. The guy is a police officer who stole dope from a suspect and baked it in his home. His wife steals coke meant for training the local drug dog and snorts it up. The reason he has ethical/professional lapses here is BECAUSE HE IS A COP. Its one thing to be a citizen, protest the war on drugs, and eat pot laced brownies. Thats called civil disobedience. Its another to be a cop, who hypocritically enforces the laws against others, but ignores the law when it comes to himself. If stealing pot or coke is not an ethical or professional issue in your jurisdiction, your entire force needs help.

Around these parts, (Oregon) "possession by consumption" is a crime. If it is in your blood, you are in possession of the drug. But of course, that was in Detroit, but even here, the cop would have gotten off with a wink and a nod. Of course, unions for correctional staff and cops prevent random drugs tests, so it shows just how much anyone wants to look for evidence of "possession by consumption"

On the lacing topic, I have heard from SWIM that Raid (yes, the insecticide) is being sprayed on weed. Way cheaper than PCP and a bunch of insecticide eaten just might make one believe the Red Wings game was tied 3-3.