Home | « Prev Next »

News This Week on Drugs

Posted by on April 14 at 12:19 PM

not_pot.jpg

You say, “tomato,” and Pullman police say, “You have the right to remain silent.”

You say, “pot,” and Australia says, “It mightn’t kill you, but it could turn you into a dickhead.”

Great Leaks: Michigan water tainted with birth-control hormones.

Great Looks: Kirsten Dunst wants you to smoke more pot.

Who Let the Dogg Out? Snoop beats jail rap.

Who Let the Clips Out? Vigilantes behead drug lords on YouTube.

Gonorrhea: Resisting treatment.

Bitter Pill to Swallow: Washington pharmacists have to sell Plan B.

CommentsRSS icon

1

Mightn't? What an awkward contraction.

2

holden it down for another week--nicely done once again. thanks for keeping the people educated and the puns flowing. who let the dogg out? very enjoyable.

3

It's not a bitter pill for women that need it.

If religious pharmacists want to take a stand for their religious beliefs maybe they should make a real sacrifice: quit their jobs and find new jobs. Take a stand. But no. Being religious today is about inconveniencing others, never yourself.

4

Right, the ruling is a bitter pill for pious pharmacists who think they, not the FDA or a person's doctor, should decide what medicines are morally acceptable. As for the bitterness of the Plan B pill itself, well, I'm a fag so I've never tasted one.

5

I'm a fag too. The Bitterest Pill is hard to swallow. 6/24/07 can't come soon enough, totally stoked, although my dad's got me on a curfew so I won't being staying late for Savage's Pride Awards.

6

It's not just Michigan water that is tainted, and it's not just birth control hormones. A 2002 USGS study found

a broad range of chemicals found in residential, industrial, and agricultural wastewaters commonly occurs in mixtures at low concentrations downstream from areas of intense urbanization and animal production. The chemicals include human and veterinary drugs (including antibiotics), natural and synthetic hormones, detergent metabolites, plasticizers, insecticides, and fire retardants. One or more of these chemicals were found in 80 percent of the streams sampled. Half of the streams contained 7 or more of these chemicals, and about one-third of the streams contained 10 or more of these chemicals.
One or more chemicals were detected in 80 percent of the streams sampled, and 82 of the 95 chemicals were detected at least once. Generally, these chemicals were found at very low concentrations (in most cases, less than 1 part per billion). Mixtures of the chemicals were common; 75 percent of the streams had more than one, 50 percent had 7 or more, and 34 percent had 10 or more.
The most frequently detected chemicals (found in more than half of the streams) were coprostanol (fecal steroid), cholesterol (plant and animal steroid), N-N-diethyltoluamide (insect repellent), caffeine (stimulant), triclosan (antimicrobial disinfectant), tri (2-chloroethyl) phosphate (fire retardant), and 4-nonylphenol (nonionic detergent metabolite). Steroids, nonprescription drugs, and insect repellent were the chemical groups most frequently detected. Detergent metabolites, steroids, and plasticizers generally were measured at the highest concentrations.
Knowledge of the potential human and environmental health effects of these 95 chemicals is highly varied; drinking-water standards or other human or ecological health criteria have been established for 14. Measured concentrations rarely exceeded any of the standards or criteria. Thirty-three are known or suspected to be hormonally active; 46 are pharmaceutically active. Little is known about the potential health effects to humans or aquatic organisms exposed to the low levels of most of these chemicals or the mixtures commonly found in this study.
Now, our testing capabilities may be such that we can detect substances in concentrations that are meaningless from a biological perspective, and there's nothing of concern here. But who knows -- this was the first time anyone had done such a study, and AFAIK nobody has looked at effects these contaminants might have in the environment (or to human health). Sperm count is dropping in the US among otherwise healthy males (as has the rate in male births vs female births), and nobody knows why -- just to give one example.

7

Supremes have already said "tomato, tomahto":

"Petitioners also claim the officer's misidentification of tomato plants as marijuana was unreasonable and thus provided no probable cause to issue the warrant. They quote United States v. Carmichael, 489 F.2d 983, 989 (7th Cir. 1973), to support this position:


HN4If an agent reasonably believes facts which on their face indicate that a crime has probably been committed, then even if mistaken, he has probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed.



(Italics added in Brief of Petitioners, at 17-18).

HN5 WA(3)[3] The concept of probable cause requires the existence of reasonable grounds for suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to warrant a man of ordinary caution to believe the accused is guilty of the indicated crime. State v. Henker, 50 Wn.2d 809, 811, 314 P.2d 645 [*907] (1957). It is only the probability of criminal activity and not a prima facie showing of it which governs the standard of probable cause. State v. Patterson, 83 Wn.2d 49, 55, 515 P.2d 496 (1973). [***17]

The determination of whether there is probable cause to issue a warrant must be made by the issuing judge. "His is the duty to ascertain whether the warrant sought is being reasonably requested and on reasonable grounds." State v. Patterson, supra at 53. The determination of probable cause should be given great deference by reviewing courts. Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 270-71, 4 L. Ed. 2d 697, 80 S. Ct. 725, 78 A.L.R.2d 233 (1960); State v. Smith, 93 Wn.2d 329, 610 P.2d 869, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 873, 66 L. Ed. 2d 93, 101 S. Ct. 213 (1980). "[I]f in the considered judgment of the judicial officer there has been made an adequate showing under oath of circumstances going beyond suspicion and mere personal belief that criminal acts have taken place and that evidence thereof will be found in the premises to be searched, the warrant should be held good." State v. Patterson, supra at 58.

[**50] Here, the issuing judge was furnished with an affidavit which stated the affiant was a police officer who had observed marijuana both in plant and crushed leaf form for the past 8 years. After reiterating the circumstances of being on the property, the affiant [***18] stated he noticed the "hot house" with what appeared to be heavy drops of moisture on the inside of the plastic, and that through a 2-inch area of clear visibility on the plastic he observed what appeared to him as growing marijuana plants inside the hothouse. The affidavit was legally sufficient in that it stated more than a mere personal belief. It also stated the factual, underlying circumstances upon which that belief was premised. See State v. Helmka, 86 Wn.2d 91, 542 P.2d 115 (1975); State v. Smith, supra. The issuing judge found this to be factually sufficient and issued the search warrant. In doing so he did not abuse his discretion.

WA(4)[4] Petitioners assert, however, that even if the affidavit was facially sufficient to justify issuance of a search warrant [*908] it must be quashed because of the misidentification. Their position ignores the holding and rationale of Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 57 L. Ed. 2d 667, 98 S. Ct. 2674 (1978). In Franks the court held that HN6material factual inaccuracies which were "deliberate falsehood" or which were made in "reckless disregard for the truth" would result in the voiding of a warrant, but that lesser [***19] factual inaccuracies would not. "Allegations of negligence or innocent mistake are insufficient." Franks, at 171. See also United States v. Carmichael, supra; accord, State v. Goodlow, 11 Wn. App. 533, 523 P.2d 1204, review denied, 84 Wn.2d 1012 (1974); see generally LaFave § 4.4. This is wholly logical. The Fourth Amendment does not proscribe "inaccurate" searches only "unreasonable" ones. Kipperman, Inaccurate Search Warrant Affidavits as a Ground for Suppressing Evidence, 84 Harv. L. Rev. 825, 832 (1971).

There is nothing in the record to suggest the instant misidentification was other than an innocent mistake. There is no evidence the error was the product of intentional falsehood or the reckless disregard of facts. Indeed, petitioners have not contended such was the case. Given the undisputed facts and the clear direction of Franks v. Delaware, supra, that innocent or even negligent mistakes are insufficient to void a warrant or suppress the evidence, we conclude there was no error in admitting the results of the search.

The judgment is affirmed."

State v. Seagull, 95 Wn.2d 898, 906-908 (Wash. 1981)

8

Hi, my name is Jonney, I am from Zaire.
Just like your resource :).

9

Hi, my name is Jonney, I am from Zaire.
Just like your resource :).

10

Hi, my name is Jonney, I am from Zaire.
Just like your resource :).

11

Hi, my name is Jonney, I am from Zaire.
Just like your resource :).

12

Hi, my name is Jonney, I am from Zaire.
Just like your resource :).

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).