House full of pot plants raided; crop seized

[ZombieBabe]

Shiiiiiiiiiit. SO sad.

As gardens go, this is not what the occupant of this Liverpool house wanted to see - a million dollars worth of marijuana plants stacked neatly on his front lawn by police.

Following an anonymous tip-off, Liverpool police raided the house in Medley Avenue at 8am, arresting a 39-year-old man and discovering large marijuana plants growing in every room of the house.

"The people that live in the street have taken great interest in, of course," Inspector Paul Kitley from Liverpool police said of the cannabis plants stacked neatly in rows on the front lawn of the drug house.

The bust - 355 plants in total which police value at $1 million - was one of the biggest Inspector Kitley had seen in such a built-up area, he said.

"The whole house, every room, was just chock-a-block full of plants," he said.

Source

[Dark Star]

OMFG What a beautiful lawn......what a bummer.

[kakihara]

Hahaha! Fucking potheads!

Rape a child, beat a woman, leave your whiney little snot/shit factory at the mall, rob a Girl Scout and you cry for their heads. One fucking deviant is busted in an illegal drug ring and you mourn the loss.

Hahaha! Fucking potheads!

Yours truly,

One jealous (not really) former pothead

[swivel]

Agree, kakihara. I'm laughing my ass off at these miserable fucks.

People see pretty plants. All I see are kids that will end up like my brother. Mid-30's and no motivation. Smoking daily and just wanting to sleep through life. Kids that found something better than school, better than family, better than the friends that really cared for them... and wasted their lives on an easy happiness.

Pot-heads disgust me. They pretend to be all about enlightenment, but can't find it without artificial aid. Happiness, transcendence, is something they have to steal because their wasted, devoid lives were never given the chance to learn how to earn or achieve it.

[kakihara]

Now don't get me wrong, I would maybe take the occasional toke if I could, but my pothead days are LONG gone. I used to think that getting high was the bees knees and would smoke weed everyday, all day...in my early twenties. Growing up, getting married and having real life responsabilities have changed that view drastically.

Seeing the world through haze free eyes is...Invigorating!

[ZombieBabe]

Agree, kakihara. I'm laughing my ass off at these miserable fucks.

People see pretty plants. All I see are kids that will end up like my brother. Mid-30's and no motivation. Smoking daily and just wanting to sleep through life. Kids that found something better than school, better than family, better than the friends that really cared for them... and wasted their lives on an easy happiness.

Pot-heads disgust me. They pretend to be all about enlightenment, but can't find it without artificial aid. Happiness, transcendence, is something they have to steal because their wasted, devoid lives were never given the chance to learn how to earn or achieve it.

So because your brother is a worthless cad, that means we all are?! I'm a responsible adult and a productive member of society who pays taxes and goes to work everyday. I'm not hurting anyone by taking a couple of bowl tokes outside when I get home from work, am I?

I don't pretend jack shit. I like the five minutes that I get at the end of a long day that affords me a little shred of peace and quiet and a chance to get my thoughts together and give me a fast burst of energy. Pot does the opposite to me. I look around and see things that need to be done and I can't stand it, so I get my ass up and do them. :neutral: Maybe I'm just weird.

[Pirelli Jones]

Inspector Kitley said the pot haul would be taken to a secure evidence room before being burnt in about a week.

Oh the Humanity!-

[Dark Star]

Oh shit, here we go.

"Pot-heads disgust me. They pretend to be all about enlightenment, but can't find it without artificial aid. Happiness, transcendence, is something they have to steal because their wasted, devoid lives were never given the chance to learn how to earn or achieve it."

I am so sorry that I disgust you, damn that is a shitty judgment toward everyone who smokes marijuana. A wasted, devoid life? Oh, Swivel. I've been a daily marijuana smoker for years. I smoke for medical reasons. Maybe when I was a teen it didn't start that way. Hell, I even quit for some years and resumed, because it is good "for me". Why is at that as an adult I cannot choose what to ingest into my system in the privacy of my own home? I can assure you before I became disabled that I worked. I graduated nursing school and managed to practice nursing for over 20 years. I've been a productive member of my community. I am raising two beautiful children, one that I home schooled from 1st-4th grade. She is making A's & B's in public school. I now home school my 5 year old. So it's not like my pot-smoking has numbed my fucking brain cells. I manage to read and even write, holy fuck. :D

I try not to be judgmental with people. I try to be kind. I try real fucking hard to be peaceful to ignorance. I find it ignorant to group all people into one little box. Pot-smokers aren't all disgusting, wasted people, with devoid lives.

That is just plumb silly, and would seem to be entirely judgmental.

[swivel]

Yeah, Hippie, it is judgmental. You seem to be against all judgmental people. Is that correct?

I am for some judgmental people. If I agree with their judgment. Guess I'm just diverse like that.

I have zero tolerance for recreational drug use. I also don't think people should drive under the speed limit in the left hand lane of an Interstate under normal road conditions. I frown on every member of both of these groups.

Doesn't mean that I can't love those people. I do. I empathize with them. I try to see the world from their point of view. But I still hate the behavior. The choice. I really frown on the decisions these people are making.

Even back when I smoked cigarettes, I didn't like it about myself. I was judgmental about myself. But I still loved myself. Why do things have to be so black and white with you guys? Can't you compartmentalize your nasty addiction, and still love the other part of you just fine? Do you really have to make excuses for your faults in order to accept yourselves? Because doing so is dangerous. It leads to a confusion of what is right and wrong.

When we start justifying our bad behaviors to ourselves, we start generalizing this moral laziness to the rest of society. We forgive more and more until we don't truly care about people anymore. We SAY we care, but we support them hurting other people and themselves. How can this be moral or sane?

I set high standards, even knowing that I will fail them. To do otherwise is to guarantee myself a hollow success.

[gprime]

Like Hippie and ZB, I am outraged by this. That isn't because I smoke pot; I don't, and have no plans on changing that. Rather, I respect the rights of individuals. That means I support the right of a person to use pot if they desire, and in this case, the rights of the house owner to grow pot.

As far as drugs go, pot is mild. In many respects, it is less of a danger than tobacco or alcohol. We allow both of those though. How can a society be just when its governing policies are so arbitrary and random? It it hadn't been a Mexican transplant, but instead a longstanding American product, would we really treat it as we do now? I sincerely doubt it, as do many others.

At the end of the day, this sort of stunt is expected. Law enforcement officers are assigned to make raids like this, rather than catch true criminals, just so that they have something to show the press at the end of the day, while bitching about a lack of proper funding. The growers knew the risks, and the police knew the rewards, but none of that makes it right.

[swivel]

Like Hippie and ZB, I am outraged by this. That isn't because I smoke pot; I don't, and have no plans on changing that. Rather, I respect the rights of individuals. That means I support the right of a person to use pot if they desire, and in this case, the rights of the house owner to grow pot.

As far as drugs go, pot is mild. In many respects, it is less of a danger than tobacco or alcohol. We allow both of those though. How can a society be just when its governing policies are so arbitrary and random? It it hadn't been a Mexican transplant, but instead a longstanding American product, would we really treat it as we do now? I sincerely doubt it, as do many others.

At the end of the day, this sort of stunt is expected. Law enforcement officers are assigned to make raids like this, rather than catch true criminals, just so that they have something to show the press at the end of the day, while bitching about a lack of proper funding. The growers knew the risks, and the police knew the rewards, but none of that makes it right.

That is not the growing of someone who plans on keeping the product in their house. They are growing to sell to the community. That is nothing resembling privacy. Might as well say that a person has the right to build nuclear bombs in their house. Take some of these ideas to the extreme to see that they fail. This helps you realize that a line must be drawn somewhere, and then have a reasonable discourse on where that line lies. Don't say, "Inside the house == What-the-fuck-ever".

Yes, pot is one of the mildest drug offenses. So. Let's go across the board and legalize anything that pales in comparison to the "worst" offenses. Running a stop-sign? Who cares. Yelling at your wife, maybe just a little slap once a year? Sure. Not as bad as raping and killing her. Counterfeiting? Only if it is "Ones", right?

The relative banality of a crime doesn't mean we laugh about it, or ignore it. If you want the law changed, go through the process of getting it changed. Don't lobby for anarchy.

[gprime]

Yes, he did intend to sell it outside of his home. But this is a question of whether or not these people would have a right to purchase his pot. I realize that as American law stands, they don't. But I take great issue with that, as it violates their basic liberty.

I point out that pot is mild only to show the absurdity of the law. However, in this case, mildness is not the primary issue at hand. It is, as often the case, a concern regarding freedom. I support the right to buy, sell, or use any sort of drugs.

[swivel]

Yes, he did intend to sell it outside of his home. But this is a question of whether or not these people would have a right to purchase his pot. I realize that as American law stands, they don't. But I take great issue with that, as it violates their basic liberty.

I point out that pot is mild only to show the absurdity of the law. However, in this case, mildness is not the primary issue at hand. It is, as often the case, a concern regarding freedom. I support the right to buy, sell, or use any sort of drugs.

What is it with you Libertarians that think that all "rights" are equal? That isn't how it works.

The vast majority of us do not want drunks driving on the road. It increases our danger, with no way for us to minimize that danger by our own actions. We don't have to wait for something bad to happen to enact laws that protect society.

Same goes for the purchasing and selling of cocaine, heroin, and crack. These are substances that are sold in "victimless" acts of free trade. Society has a right to determine that some harmful behaviors are not allowed. Because of the costs to society as a whole.

No different than punishing a polluter, even though the pollution remains on their own land. Their action is still inherently wrong, and society has the right to restrict these "liberties".

I swear. I'm having a hard time telling this new breed of Libertarians from the anarchists and the extreme-PC ACLU. Don't you guys realize you have to pick a side when two liberties collide, and there is an objective moral truth that can guide you on these decisions?

[gprime]

Swivel, when we're talking about actual rights, not expected rights, then they are all equal. Until another person is harmed, no crime has been committed. So to punish a person for it is wrong. Drunk driving can have dangerous consequences, but so can driving while text messaging, something a great many people do. If you punish pre-emptively and without cause, where do you draw the line?

The difference we "Libertarians" (though I'm merely a Neo-Objectivist) and anarchists is huge. We want law and order, but only so much as is required to safeguard liberty. Most of our laws are pointless, unwarrented, and based on subjective moral standards or half-baked safety efforts rather than reasonable and purposeful.

The difference between me and the "extreme-PC ACLU" is, for starters, the lack of political correctness. I'll call a spade a spade and say things that are controversial or offensive. You know this. And I would happen to be on a different side than them on a number of issues, from gun control (they are anti-second amendment there) to enemy combatants (I don't think they have the same legal standing as you and I do). I don't have a bleeding heart, and I won't temper my views to stay politically correct.

[swivel]

Swivel, when we're talking about actual rights, not expected rights, then they are all equal. Until another person is harmed, no crime has been committed.

So, you think that the rest of the drivers do not have a right to expect every other driver to be sober?

I'm not sure if you saw my bullet-into-the-crowd analogy (Morbid came up with the idea), but it is the same thing here. You can't fire a bullet into a crowd, even if you assure authorities that you are taking careful aim to not hit anyone. The reason is the rights of the members of the crowd to not feel endangered.

You are choosing the rights of an immoral minority over the rights of a moral majority, which is why you deserve the ACLU slam. That's what they do.

[CPL CHUD]

You are choosing the rights of an immoral minority over the rights of a moral majority.

That pretty much narrows it down to the crux of the arguement. I never understood being proactive in protecting the rights of people obviously in the wrong from an objective moral standpoint. It's just not the same as protecting the rights of minorities and I think people are getting that muddled up. I guess there is also confusion between what the objective moral good really is, which can hopefully be put to rest by weighing the postive and negative aspects of each given situation.

[swivel]

That pretty much narrows it down to the crux of the arguement. I never understood being proactive in protecting the rights of people obviously in the wrong from an objective moral standpoint. It's just not the same as protecting the rights of minorities and I think people are getting that muddled up. I guess there is also confusion between what the objective moral good really is, which can hopefully be put to rest by weighing the postive and negative aspects of each given situation.

Well-said. One paragraph to sum up the debates taking place in several threads right now. Thanks.

[taintfutcha]

I have zero tolerance for recreational drug use. I also don't think people should drive under the speed limit in the left hand lane of an Interstate under normal road conditions. I frown on every member of both of these groups.

what about alcohol consumption, gambling, porn, road rage. what are your judgement calls on those-out of curiosity?

Doesn't mean that I can't love those people. I do. I empathize with them. I try to see the world from their point of view. But I still hate the behavior. The choice. I really frown on the decisions these people are making.

do you mean you TRY and empathize with *them*?

Even back when I smoked cigarettes, I didn't like it about myself. I was judgmental about myself. But I still loved myself. Why do things have to be so black and white with you guys? Can't you compartmentalize your nasty addiction, and still love the other part of you just fine? Do you really have to make excuses for your faults in order to accept yourselves? Because doing so is dangerous. It leads to a confusion of what is right and wrong.

what is right and wrong can be black and white for some-but not all.
picking ones nose can be a nasty addiction. in the end, will a nose picker confuse
right and wrong? and to what end? humans, by nature, are wrought with faults set in place by our own reasoning. acceptance is very different for each of us when dealing with our "faults". is eating too much sugar, wrong? how much is too much?
what about spitting on the ground in a public place? right or wrong? is it ever ok?

When we start justifying our bad behaviors to ourselves, we start generalizing this moral laziness to the rest of society. We forgive more and more until we don't truly care about people anymore. We SAY we care, but we support them hurting other people and themselves. How can this be moral or sane?

the torch you carry is high and mighty indeed. you say *we* when you mean *I*-yes? " justifying bad behaviors" or accepting ones believed faults?

what you say here is your take on a situation and it is not without merit-however it is not fact but merely your feelings. to say that this is how "we "*all believe the same way* is erroneous.

I set high standards, even knowing that I will fail them. To do otherwise is to guarantee myself a hollow success.

to set an unobtainable goal is foolish and proves nothing but a lack of practicality.
setting high goals is, indeed, admirable.

just my 2 sense.
__________________

[Morbid]

Yo, taintfutcha. There is a quote button you should use when you are replying back to someone, sentence by sentence. It makes it a LOT easier to read.

[taintfutcha]

Yo, taintfutcha. There is a quote button you should use when you are replying back to someone, sentence by sentence. It makes it a LOT easier to read.

yes dear

[swivel]

what about alcohol consumption, gambling, porn, road rage. what are your judgement calls on those-out of curiosity?

I think alcohol should be phased out, the same way we are working to phase out tobacco. Get rid of advertisement, raise taxes 200% or more, youth campaigns, public shame, etc...

I frown on gambling. I do not think it should be legal. Wagering between friends is another matter. This is a big topic that you can start a thread on if you want to debate it (hell, all of these are)

I think porn is the opposite of these other things. It is a benefit to society. I think it allows safe release of dangerous desires.

Road rage is pathetic and I try to shame those who exhibit it.

do you mean you TRY and empathize with *them*?

That is what "empathize" means. To try to feel what another feels. It would be pure hubris to assume that we can "KNOW" what someone else feels. The word contains this limitation.

what is right and wrong can be black and white for some-but not all.
picking ones nose can be a nasty addiction. in the end, will a nose picker confuse
right and wrong? and to what end? humans, by nature, are wrought with faults set in place by our own reasoning. acceptance is very different for each of us when dealing with our "faults". is eating too much sugar, wrong? how much is too much?
what about spitting on the ground in a public place? right or wrong? is it ever ok?

Are you arguing that since these limits are difficult to gauge, we shouldn't even try? That the boundary between picking one's nose and habitual cocaine use is too confusing for us to differentiate?

the torch you carry is high and mighty indeed. you say *we* when you mean *I*-yes? " justifying bad behaviors" or accepting ones believed faults?

what you say here is your take on a situation and it is not without merit-however it is not fact but merely your feelings. to say that this is how "we "*all believe the same way* is erroneous.

Elaborate. When I refer to human nature, I use "we". Not sure I see the complaint here.

to set an unobtainable goal is foolish and proves nothing but a lack of practicality.
setting high goals is, indeed, admirable.

just my 2 sense.

Disagree. This isn't about trying to run a 3-minute mile. It is trying to determine what is "right" and what is "wrong". We have to use, as our metric, a perfect example. I don't see the problem here.


(sorry for the quote-and-response style. I hate it to death, but your posting style forced my hand)

[taintfutcha]

empathy is by definition the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another. it means you can identify with another's feelings-you do not identify (by way of your statement) - my point is that while you may try and be empathetic you are not by definition.
----


Are you arguing that since these limits are difficult to gauge, we shouldn't even try? That the boundary between picking one's nose and habitual cocaine use is too confusing for us to differentiate?
----
no-only that right and wrong is different for each person. will you say what is right or wrong for another? may i say what is right or wrong for you? i'm not speaking of murder, i'm speaking of more mundane ills.

---

we as opposed to I because you do not speak for me-you are speaking for yourself.
---

my statement on setting unobtainable goals stands
---
while i do not think porn is "wrong" it most assuradely has been a barometer of the state of mind of men towards women and the aggression and dominance that is omnipresent. and the direction it is going bodes ill for both sexes.

--
apologies for being choppy-i should have waited to finish my phone dealings before tapping awa on here-

[taintfutcha]

growing, selling marijuana is against the law, therefore the law must be upheld.

i do not agree with this law. i do agree with laws being lived with.

i do not like the political implications marijuana lives under. i don't appreciate it being used as a way for the government of my country to seize possession of all assets of a person found growing/selling marijuana.

i don't like the instances of law enforcement being found to have confiscated marijuana and sold it, pocketing the money. where i hear of one case of this-i can only think there are at least 10 more instances of it happening the same day.

drugs of all kinds are used as leverage by law enforcement and government. this i find abhorrent.

as govenor swarzenegger has said; marijuana is not a drug, it is a plant.

[swivel]

growing, selling marijuana is against the law, therefore the law must be upheld.

i do not agree with this law. i do agree with laws being lived with.

i do not like the political implications marijuana lives under. i don't appreciate it being used as a way for the government of my country to seize possession of all assets of a person found growing/selling marijuana.

i don't like the instances of law enforcement being found to have confiscated marijuana and sold it, pocketing the money. where i hear of one case of this-i can only think there are at least 10 more instances of it happening the same day.

drugs of all kinds are used as leverage by law enforcement and government. this i find abhorrent.

as govenor swarzenegger has said; marijuana is not a drug, it is a plant.

I don't know if quoting the Terminator is going to help your cause, but I can admire the effort.

People don't smoke pot because of the plant, they smoke it because of the THC. And THC is the drug. If you want to develop a THC-less pot, and market it for smoking, I support you. But I don't think that is what you are trying to do, I think you are just trying to be clever. Again, I so admire the effort.

Now, as for the rest, are we supposed to be shocked that you find a law distasteful, when said law prevents you from fulfilling your hedonistic desire to get fucked up? I frankly expect it. Pot smokers hate pot laws. Cool. What they never can articulate is a reason that these laws are unjust, except an appeal to privacy (which doesn't protect self-immolation), an appeal to the cool things you can do with hemp (which synthetics do better), an appeal to the naturalistic fallacy (when arsenic is also a naturally-occurring substance), and an appeal to lesser or greater evils (alcohol or cocaine).

So, fire one up and see if you can't come up with something new.

[taintfutcha]

I don't know if quoting the Terminator is going to help your cause, but I can admire the effort.

danke

People don't smoke pot because of the plant, they smoke it because of the THC. And THC is the drug. If you want to develop a THC-less pot, and market it for smoking, I support you. But I don't think that is what you are trying to do, I think you are just trying to be clever. Again, I so admire the effort.

coffee is the most widely used drug and i do partake. i don;t smoke pot-i just don't like the leverage angle used. full stop.

Now, as for the rest, are we supposed to be shocked that you find a law distasteful, when said law prevents you from fulfilling your hedonistic desire to get fucked up? I frankly expect it. Pot smokers hate pot laws. Cool. What they never can articulate is a reason that these laws are unjust, except an appeal to privacy (which doesn't protect self-immolation), an appeal to the cool things you can do with hemp (which synthetics do better), an appeal to the naturalistic fallacy (when arsenic is also a naturally-occurring substance), and an appeal to lesser or greater evils (alcohol or cocaine).

sorry to blow your theory into the hopper-but again-i don;t smoke the kind. i have. i do resent my physicians recommending it-"off the record", because it works better than many pharmaceuticals for several maladies. must be something worthwhile to it.



So, fire one up and see if you can't come up with something new.

i'm a adrenaline junky-can you find fault with that? sparky.

i havnt had liquor for over 20 yrs, don't smoke, don't gamble, do pick my nose on occaison, do watch porn on occaison but i am a mighty buzz hungry creature on the hoof. not many of us are without some indulgence-i love a hot cuppa in the morning. i like my coffee like i like my men; small and bitter

[taintfutcha]

bologna-

this is why i keep an editor on staff

[swivel]

i'm a adrenaline junky-can you find fault with that? sparky.

i havnt had liquor for over 20 yrs, don't smoke, don't gamble, do pick my nose on occaison, do watch porn on occaison but i am a mighty buzz hungry creature on the hoof. not many of us are without some indulgence-i love a hot cuppa in the morning. i like my coffee like i like my men; small and bitter

Sorry if you take offense with my opinions. I'm discussing larger issues than just you, or I, or any one person. I'm talking about laws that apply to all.

No offense meant. Ever.

[taintfutcha]

no offense taken-at all.

i like a decent debate on topics of my interest-i don't need everyone to agree with me.

your arrogant stance and provocative posts entice someone like me to tryst.

but what of your angle of attack now that it is found i am not a grower/smoker?

i agree that it is the laws and consequences of the marijuana laws that are of importance. it appears the laws provide the government liberties and those liberties are in short supply to the general public these days.

i would indeed rather see law enforcement dwell on the trafficing of other drugs and
violent crime.

marijuana is a cash crop for the government and that is why it is still illegal.

when "they" have sorted out the control and taxing of pot to a point where "they" make as much $ as "they" do keeping it illegal; we shall see a change in the laws.

[CPL CHUD]

marijuana is a cash crop for the government and that is why it is still illegal.

when "they" have sorted out the control and taxing of pot to a point where "they" make as much $ as "they" do keeping it illegal; we shall see a change in the laws.

I see these points brought up all the time but have never seen any actual evidence of it. I actually see the opposite becoming true. I see tobacco and alcohol being phased out in the future; that at least seems to be the trend. I don't see the majority accepting the legalization of more drugs. How else would you explain the increase in anti-smoking campaigns?

[swivel]

marijuana is a cash crop for the government and that is why it is still illegal.

when "they" have sorted out the control and taxing of pot to a point where "they" make as much $ as "they" do keeping it illegal; we shall see a change in the laws.

The opposite is true. Pot is not a cash crop for the US. Tobacco is. Alcohol is. Heavily taxed and pure-profit.

Pot is the opposite of a cash crop. In 2004, it cost the US government 4 Billion dollars to fight marijuana.

What's funny is that pot-smokers drag this stat out to explain decriminalization, and then posit that pot is a cash-crop.

Typical conspiracy-theory reasoning.