'Millions of lethal doses' of heroin were actually 99.999% water in federal 'drug' bust
'Millions of lethal doses' of heroin were actually 99.999% water in federal 'drug' bust
您正在查看单个线程.
136 留言
-
Doing a little napkin math here, that's about a half an ounce of heroin mixed into 385 gallons of water.
That seems more like the 55 gallon drums had previously been filled with heroin, but were drained and refilled with water, and just a little residue was leftover.
-
Or a false positive to begin with in the cops don't want to admit they made a mistake. False positives are way higher sometimes with Trace Amounts. Plus the drug testing Labs try to give the results the cops want.
-
I doubt a false positive here. Clearly something weird about the cargo to begin with - what the hell else are a couple of dudes going across states in a uhaul doing with 55 gallon drums of water? The water wars aren’t set to start for another few decades, I think. Not really a commodity that needs to be shipped, and if it were I doubt it would be shipped by uhaul.
I mean seriously, just look at the situation and analyze it with some common sense. ACAB, but not every single interaction with them is a conspiracy.
-
I think it definitely warrants independent testing of the barrels. It seems pretty odd that the police would be tipped off about barrels with Trace Amounts of heroin in them. Given the authorities' penchent for not admitting when they made a mistake.
It is quite odd otherwise.
-
-
Plus the drug testing Labs try to give the results the cops want.
Source? That's a strong claim...
-
When State drug labs are run by the state police running tests for police you will get that. For instance any amount of THC in the blood can get an impaired driving charge. Unless it is a legalized state in which case it minuscule tiny amount that could have resulted from smoking 14 week days ago is still enough. With the smallest amounts, one nanogram per milliliter, false positives are as high as 40%, but when they go into court they don't say that. They make it sound like this is what it is science. We could speak of a dozen different types of junk science they have been involved in as well. Like hair analysis.
-
For instance any amount of THC in the blood can get an impaired driving charge. Unless it is a legalized state in which case it minuscule tiny amount that could have resulted from smoking 14 week days ago is still enough.
Sure, that's just the law.
With the smallest amounts, one nanogram per milliliter, false positives are as high as 40%, but when they go into court they don't say that.
I don't think the lab techs attend the court cases to provide details about how testing works...
If you know that, you don't think a decent defense lawyer knows that?
What I asked for was a source for your bold claim that:
drug testing Labs try to give the results the cops want.
Interesting that you'd downvote me just for asking for a source for your strong claim though...
-
You want a solid source over their feelsies? Gods you’re so demanding.
(/s for the illiterate)
-
-
So no source then, just making things up. Got it!
-
If you need a source to explain the inherent conflicts of interest and having the Police lab run by the state police for the police, it would not make a difference anyway. Likewise since you are unaware, and keep scorn on the idea, it shows that you either do not follow the news very closely, or are dishonest about it. Either way think what you want.
-
I agree with the principal idea, but if this is as much of a prevailing issue as you’re making it out to be, it shouldn’t be too hard to produce even a single solid source beyond your own convictions of, “Well that’s just how the world works!”
-
It's common knowledge, does somebody asked politely I might have gone to the trouble, or you could just search for Crime Lab people get caught cheating and find pages of results. Or you can search for any number of junk Sciences like hair test analysis. Or not I don't care what you think. Someone coming from a place of it is preposterous the police would do anything improper is not worth talking to, and as such good day.
-
Your issue is you think it's all or nothing. I never said I didn't think police would do anything improper. Obviously many of them do. But I'm also not just going to take your assertion based solely on the idea that it's "common knowledge." Common knowledge is a term for assumptions people make with no other proof of than, "Yeah, that sounds right to me."
-
You can take my tangential comment that police crime Labs try to give police the results they are looking for or not I don't care. My point was there should be independent testing of the barrels given the odd circumstances.
-
Demanding sources for something you disbelieve on points tangential to the point is something people that want to derail your argument do to put you on the defensive without cause.
As if I care that you believe the cops are trustworthy or not. The barrels should be tested independently.
-
-
-
-
Not sure why you felt the need to come back and double-down on having nothing of substance to back up your bold claim whatsoever, but thanks.
-
Because you are purposely being obtuse here because you have an ax to grind defending the police apparently.
That State Police labs are biased in favor of the police is common knowledge and doesn't need a source.
I don't know why I would waste time with someone that heaps scorn on the idea that the cops would be anything less than forthright.
-
Tripling down on it now!
Wow...
We get it. You don't have even a single example of this to point to.
-
-
-
-
There was a pretty famous case of this in the Boston area recently(last decade or so) and there is a Netflix series about it.
-
I'm gonna guess you don't know the details, do you?
-
Off the top of my head I’d be summarizing, let me see if I can find a link.
The Netflix documentary is called “how to fix a drug scandal”
Here’s an article about the documentary and the scandal: https://www.bostonherald.com/2020/03/30/netflix-spotlights-mass-lab-debacle-in-how-to-fix-a-drug-scandal/
-
Thanks -- that one lady seems like a total sociopath, but it's at least an example of something close to what OP was claiming.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
How many lethal doses of water is that?
-
with an LD50 exceeding 90,000 mg/kg (90 g/kg) body weight in rats; drinking six liters in three hours has caused the death of a human
Doesn't say the size of the human but guestimating 3 gallons should be enough for most people, would make that 130 lethal doses or so from 385 gallons of water.
-
Let's call that 1500 liters of water. Assuming that drinking 10 liters of water in a short timeframe will almost certainly kill you somehow or another, 150 doses?
-
-
136 留言