Skip to comments.Police: Utah woman tried to trade salad for drugs
Posted on 05/17/2011 1:19:06 PM PDT by ConservativeStatement
SALT LAKE CITY A Salt Lake City woman has been charged with a third degree felony for allegedly asking an undercover police officer to give her drugs in exchange for an Olive Garden salad in a to-go box.
The 33-year-old woman approached the undercover officer who was working on the corner of 200 South and 300 West in Salt Lake, according to charging documents. The woman was carrying a white food container and asked the undercover officer for $10 worth of cocaine, according to the charges. She "stated that she wanted some cocaine, but she only had $2 and a salad," the charges state.
(Excerpt) Read more at deseretnews.com ...
This is a clear case to send in the Wookie for a good talkie.
When you’re offering a salad for drugs, it ain’t the kind that comes with croutons and diced tomatoes.
Did she mentioned it being tossed?
was this person born stupid... probably should blame the drugs for this but the libertarians would be upset.
Ya know, the term "salad" used to be a street term for money... but this is taking a step too far.
$2 salad... $10 drugs...
math is hard when your a druggie
“probably should blame the drugs for this but the libertarians would be upset.”
Drugs are fine! In the 1800s everyone used drugs and everyone was just fine. /s
I hear that. Buyer does the tossing. LOL
Now, that there is funny!
Seriously though, cocaine is an insidious drug, I've seen it destroy some good people....nasty, nasty stuff.
But,,it was a really good salad.
“Unless you succeed in buying a drug, or possessing one, there is no crime here (at least the first one).”
I would even question if it is a crime if she had possession of said drug (and no I’m not a user of anything other than an occasional beer or two, I just think the whole war on drugs is killing our freedom). Verdict, not guilt by reason of creative financing of drug habit!
Diced tomatoes? Would those be raw tomatoes? Who in the world eats raw tomoatoes??? After all, a woman who called in to Rush's show this morning with an anecdote about how Michelle Obama's "healthy" food campaign in the schools, including raw asparagus, raw beets, and *gasp* raw tomatoes ("Who eats raw tomatoes?" the woman asked Rush) was bombing.
Just goes to show ... I assumed that eating tomatoes raw was ... well, normal.
Sometimes I really have to wonder about Rush's callers. I know, it's off topic ... so pertinent to the thread, I'll admit: Rush's caller wasn't as dumb as this woman trying to barter an Olive Garden salad for some coke!
According to the US government's own numbers, addiction was higher in 2000 than in 1900.
"By 1900, about one American in 200 was either a cocaine or opium addict." [that's 0.5%]
The ONDCP estimate of the number of addicts to cocaine or heroin in 2000 was just over 4 million. In a population of 280,000,000 that works out to over 1.4%. See copy of table at this post:
That's a 0.5% rate in 1900 vs a 1.4% rate in 2000. An addiction rate 1.4% is greater than 0.5%, yes?
She should have robbed the cop with a Salad Shooter.
Sorry LV Ron, as nasty and insidious as coke is, those people destroyed themselves -- the cocaine didn't do it, they did it.
We conservatives stand for the concept of people taking responsibility for themselves and their actions. Blaming the drug, be it coke or alcohol, for someone's downfall is like blaming a gun instead of its wielder for an armed robbery.
By the way, I've been there. I ingested my share of coke and other drugs, along with booze, in my wicked and wanton youth; I, like most of my partners in "crime," grew out of it and are doing just fine now, including at a few very upstanding, outspokenly conservative and productive citizens and employERS I know who used to be in the same scene in those old days. WE know that of those in the scene who succumbed and whose lives were screwed up "by cocaine" or whatever, it wasn't the drug that screwed them up -- IT WAS THEMSELVES.
It isn't about taking the drug. It's about taking personal responsility.
Exactly. And in those days pure cocaine, heroin and opium was sold with less restrictions than today’s cough medicine.
Runaway addiction and drug abuse are just symptoms of a sick society, they do not cause it. Even if all drugs were somehow controlled(impossible even in a police state), these sick people would abuse things like paint, turpentine, etc. As my grandfather witnessed in a Soviet gulag, people will even use shoe/belt leather and cook it to get high.
Since you admittedly, and willingly admit to abusing it yourself, I would think you would know just what I meant.
Drugs are just as insidious as sin, it all leads to destruction of ones life.
And yes, I did my share in the days....
I heard that call. I think her point was that kids don’t eat tomatoes unless they are on hamburgers, pizzas or in spaghetti sauce. Even the teachers weren’t eating plain tomatoes, so her relative had plenty to take home for sauce-making. IIRC, the few times I ate school lunches, the tomatoes were unripe and nearly tasteless.
Personally, I like raw tomatoes with a little salt.
It’s virtually impossible to get good quality fresh tomatoes except from a local garden or farm stand. Everything else has been picked green so that it will stand up to the trip without bruises, and even though “ripened” by ethylene gas at its destination is still usually marginal and flavorless. Kids, whose sense of taste is more acute than that of adults, can especially sense the “greenness” of these commercial raw tomatoes. A canned product doesn’t need to worry about the tomatoes getting bruised before reaching the canning plant; they’ll cook up just fine anyhow.
“That’s a 0.5% rate in 1900 vs a 1.4% rate in 2000. An addiction rate 1.4% is greater than 0.5%, yes? “
Yes, if you trust the numbers.
I am not sure the canvassing methods of the 1900 were as thorough as the ones today.
Hard to prove either way, in my opinion.
I support laws whether they are deterrents or not.
For example, whether the death penalty is a deterrent or not, it is just, so I support it for murder, forcible rape, and kidnap.
It is impossible to say what “might have been.”
Had opium and heroin been illegal in 1900, maybe there would have been a .001 percent addiction rate. Who knows?
I extend a cyber-handshake! Aren't you GLAD we "did our share" and are here to write about it? My stars. I remember running into an old partner-in-wild-living many years after we'd each "grown up" and take better paths. We reminisced about the old days and folks we knew, some of whom were still even bigger losers than they were back then, some in jail, some dead ... on parting, my friend gave me a hug and, his eyes twinkling, said, "We survived!"
I had never really thought of it that way until he said that, and once again I found myself thanking God for all His putting up with my nonsense and helping me through.
Oh, maa-aa-aaaan, me too! I love tomotoes, especially sliced. With salt and nothing else. Or with salt and green onions and some slices of avocado, maybe a dash of balsamic vinegar ... yum ... or salt and a little sprinkling of Fines herbs or herbs Provence sprinkled on top ... I'm a tomato-lovin' fool.
Aren't you GLAD we "did our share" and are here to write about it?
Yes I am, we need to also extend the courtesy to those who have not yet seen the light and hope that they do.
I grew up in a time when certain things that are verboten here, but were part of my life.
I lived through them, am ashamed of them but am trying to go on with lessons well learned.
Guess that's what is called wisom.
MMMMMMM. Oregano and some Feta chesse goes well too!
Amen on that one, Brother FReeper. My heart weeps for such, especially for meth heads. Yikes ... that has to be the most cruel, evil drug ever. I've never done it (that I know of!!! *sigh*) but have sure known, and know even now, some people, some of the old friends I grew up with, who are killing themselves and causing untold pain to their loved ones, by using it. Such lost and sad folks, some of them actually gentle and loving in their true nature ... I mean it truly when I say that if Jesus Christ walked the earth today, I believe He could be found at the neighborhood meth hang-out. Saving souls.
Oh ... you just HAD to mention Feta, didn’t you!!! Mmmmmmmm ..... if I kept Feta in the house on a regular basis, I’d weigh 350 pounds.
The arresting officer was quoted as saying: “Lettuce toss you in the can!”
Has her attorney sprouted her yet?
These are the people charged with fighting the WOD. It's like having the prosecution's star witness give testimony against the prosecution's case. Why would the methods be less accurate? They kept records of opium imports & sales at the wholesale and retail level. Progressives had not yet gotten their hooks into this, so there was no reason to lie.
I support laws whether they are deterrents or not. For example, whether the death penalty is a deterrent or not, it is just, so I support it for murder, forcible rape, and kidnap.
So do you support the Wickard Commerce Clause? Or have you chosen to know nothing about Wickard so you don't have to own up to your contempt for the original Constitution?
“They kept records of opium imports & sales at the wholesale and retail level. Progressives had not yet gotten their hooks into this, so there was no reason to lie. “
Good point; I hadn’t thought of that.
As for your snarkiness about Wickard, I don’t appreciate it, I have not pretended to be an expert and I never so much as insinuated I knew about it. I am not going to go read a court opinion for you, and I am under no obligation to do so.
And I am not pretending anything.
You don't have to be an expert to know the gist of Wickard. It was the landmark Commerce Clause case during FDR's time that has allowed Congress to legislate over health care, education, the environment, etc.
I am not going to go read a court opinion for you, and I am under no obligation to do so.
You don't have to read the opinion to get the gist of it. I never read Roe v Wade, but I know the gist of it. I know enough about it to know it's not in keeping with original understanding.
And I am not pretending anything.
I said that you choose to remain uninformed, not that you pretended. Regardless, the fact that you advocate a fedgov policy without bothering to inform yourself of very basic facts shows contempt for the original Constitution.
“Regardless, the fact that you advocate a fedgov policy without bothering to inform yourself of very basic facts shows contempt for the original Constitution. “
I can advocate a policy without studying every court case that concerns it. I don’t have to dance to your tune. That is hardly contempt.
You should have enough respect for the Constitution to know the gist of the landmark case affecting the policy you advocate. Yet you claim total ignorance and refuse to inform yourself of the basics. That's a choice on your part.
I don't have to dance to your tune. That is hardly contempt.
Choosing to be uninformed about the constitutional basis for a policy you advocate IS contempt for the Constitution. And you have displayed it.
“Choosing to be uninformed about the constitutional basis for a policy you advocate IS contempt for the Constitution. And you have displayed it. “
Well, poopy poopy poop. You are a piece of work! Well, to the law books. Apparently I must study all case laws on all subjects to have an opinion on anything. . .
your standard for “contempt” is really really low. Sorry, can’t cite the case law on that one either.
That's your argument, not mine. I have said just the opposite. I've made the point numerous times that you need not be an expert, nor have any detailed knowledge of the case to know the gist of it.
I've already told you the gist at least a couple of times: Wickard was the FDR era case that expanded the reach of the Commerce Clause to allow fedgov control of health care, the environment, education etc.
Aparently, none of that matters to you. You want your Drug War, the Constitution be damned. It is laughable when you to claim you want it fought within the limits of the Constitution.
your standard for "contempt" is really really low. Sorry, can't cite the case law on that one either.
I'm arguing that you need not know the case in any great detail, nor be an expert to know the basics about Wickard.
And yes, the fact that you advocate a fedgov policy, but refuse to inform yourself at all about its constitutional basis is contempt for the Constitution. Deal with it.
One of the primary differnences between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives make an honest effort to understand the issues involved, and consider the potential unintended consequences of any legislation or policy before they agree to support it.
Liberals don't do this. They want what they want, and the want it now, by whatever means they can find to get it, and they don't give a damn about what the unintended consequences might be.
Please. At least make an effort to understand what the issues are, so you can understand what the consequences will be.
“One of the primary differnences between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives make an honest effort to understand the issues involved, and consider the potential unintended consequences of any legislation or policy before they agree to support it.”
I do. K. Ham likes to pretend I don’t.
I don’t need to read every court case ever on every Constitutional issue to have an opinion on it.
I oppose Roe v. Wade and have since the 1980s. Never read it! I have read some articles and listened to some learned speakers on it. So?
Am I allowed to oppose abortion in America? Or must I read every court case pertaining thereto first?
“Deal with it. “
You deal with it. Everyone is not going to do everything Your Way.
Do you have an opinion on the New Deal interpretation of the Commerce Clause, and the resulting expansion of the federal government under the "substantial effects" doctrine?
This is a basic issue of the fundamental Constitutional principle of a having a national government limited to strictly enumerated powers, and the division of power between the States and the national government that defines the republic. Surely that's worthy of serious discussion and careful consideration.
“Do you have an opinion on the New Deal interpretation of the Commerce Clause, and the resulting expansion of the federal government under the “substantial effects” doctrine?”
No I do not!
I agree. However, you should at least give some thought to the Constitution before advocating a fedgov policy, agreed?
Do you think fedgov's use of the Commerce Clause to impose national drug prohibition is in keeping with the clause's original meaning?
Is that because you do not know enough about the issue to have formed an opinion?
“I agree. However, you should at least give some thought to the Constitution before advocating a fedgov policy, agreed?”
Yes. I already told you. I’ve read the Constitution, several times. I am generally familiar with it.
“Do you think fedgov’s use of the Commerce Clause to impose national drug prohibition is in keeping with the clause’s original meaning? “
No, I think this power is left to the states. However, this portion is largely ignored in our current political reality. More is the pity.
Since the states CAN’T do much to exercise their constitutional obligations, our options are to have basically no drug abuse laws or let the feds do it.
My preference is to let the feds do it while working for a restitution of the properly delegated powers to the states.
I’d rather that the states’ responsibilities had not been eroded over the decades but there is nothing I can do about that except try to do what little I can to restore things back to the way they should be.
Take this principle to the notion of illegal immigration. I believe states have the right AND responsibility to police their borders. The feds have taken over (and are not doing much of a job). Would I like the borders unpoliced until the states take back over? No, I’d like the feds to police until the states get back on the job where they are supposed to be.
My “No I do not!” was a wrong response; should not have been addressed to you.
My opinion as to the New Deal is that it was a gigantic expansion of federal power, and most if not all of the expansion was unconstitutional.