Privileged white guy describes police raid on his backyard pot plants


#1

[Read the post]


#2

In fairness to his privilege, it’s the only reason we’re hearing anything about a pot raid at all.


#3

Black, white, yellow or brown, the real constant in all of these cases?
Empowered, militaristic assholes with badges who are perfectly happy to kill you if it means saving you from the scourge of drugs, speeding, copyright infringement, or any number of infinite laws.

Oh and the really funny part? Those cops don’t even have to know their own laws. They can rough you up, break your shit or kill you, and their system backs them up.


#5

Agreed, but to be fair, marijuana has royally screwed up a whole lot of lives. I know its not exactly a popular thing to say, but measuring harm purely in terms of deaths doesn’t communicate the entire issue. I know more people who are completely useless in so many ways because they smoke much too much pot. I know the correlation hasn’t been proven yet, but hopefully now that our scientists are (presumably) able to study the plant and its effects a bit more we can quantify what has been pretty obvious to anyone who spends a lot of time around stoners.

And I’m not saying pot should be illegal mind you, just that its far from harmless.


#6

Hhaha - OMG, they actually said that? That is ridiculous.


#7

Well, if you were planning to come onto the property to steal the plants and shoot any witnesses, it wouldn’t be a bad thing to mention that anyone doing such a thing would be from a different part of town and match a different description than you do…


#8

So the ‘harm’ is that they don’t meet your desired level of usefulness? Do they meet your minimum standards for being useful when not on pot?


#9

In light of that headline, I’m not sure what the take home message is.

Maybe nothing was meant by using “privileged?” Maybe it was used, to the extent that the current zeitgeist proscribes that white people are privileged, as simply a statement of (redundant) fact? Or prepended as satire of said zeitgeist?

Did it mean to imply that being white invalidates one’s actual harassment by the police? Or that being fortunate enough to attend Harvard and to therefore actually know the laws makes one’s use of that knowledge reprehensible because…what, not everyone knows the law and that’s just so damn unfair?

It’s not quite victim blaming, but it does come off as marginalization of his woes.


#10

“I simply can’t believe,” she told me, “that a cop would lie.”

How´s the weather today in La-La-Ping-Pong-Ding-Dong-Land? Beautiful and sunny as always? Oh, that´s so good to hear!


#11

/jaw hits floor

I simply can’t believe that anybody this naive has the life skills to be alive.


#12

So, it’s not the marijuana (or alcohol, TV, driving, sex, internet, food), so much as the misuse of it.

I’ve never heard anyone who thinks marijuana (like those other things) is generally a good thing ever suggest that it can’t be harmful when abused.


#13

Agreed.
Just look at the guy in the article - Harvard Law degree and he’s only renting? Psssh.


#14

I fully agree with your point, but do find lots of people, especially lately, who claim that pot is 100% totally harmless. I don’t blame them, its easy to get caught up in celebrating the prohibition getting lifted after all these years. Just trying to throw out a reminder that it doesn’t come without its effects, even if they’re not measured on the life and death scale.


#15

If you could link to one or two, I’d appreciate it. It would be a very silly thing to claim.


#16

Ah, but are they really useless because they smoke too much pot or do they smoke too much pot because they are useless?


#17

Agreed, its a very hard thing to quantify. But when potheads I’ve known have quit or slowed down on their smoking they’ve become much more functional. I know its all very subjective and hard to measure, and I’m certainly not arguing that it should be a factor in its legalization, but to ignore that pot doesn’t have a really devastating effect on some people’s lives strikes me as willfully ignoring a mountain of anecdotal evidence. And I see that argument getting made very often now.


#18

You need to go home and read about confirmation bias, write a report and come back and explain to the class that you are being willfully dense.

(Hint, the most successful people that I personally know are chronic and unapologetic pot heads. Not all of them, but many.)


#19

The take home is: Don’t go back into the house as it’ll add to the area deemed legal for evidence.


#20

That is a good tip!


#21

Of course, if you don’t go into the house, that makes a prima facie case for immediate search.

Note that there isn’t a third alternative where your home doesn’t get searched?