TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- USA - West Coast / Las Vegas
-- 'Pot Tarts' and 'Buddafingers' Manufacturers Busted

'Pot Tarts' and 'Buddafingers' Manufacturers Busted

'Pot Tarts' and 'Buddafingers' Manufacturers Busted

DEA arrests 12, seizes marijuana-laced candy and soft drinks in San Francisco Bay Area

MAR 16--OAKLAND, CA � Drug Enforcement Administration (�DEA�) Special Agent in Charge (�SAC�) Javier F. Pe�a announce today the arrest of Kenneth AFFOLTER, 39, of Lafayette, CA, and eleven other individuals on charges of distribution of marijuana. Agents served five federal search warrants on March 16, 2006, without incident. Three warrants were served at warehouses located in Emeryville (on the Oakland border), one in Oakland and one at AFFOLTER�s residence in Lafayette. All searches conducted were at locations associated with AFFOLTER. As a result of the searches law enforcement seized four sophisticated indoor marijuana grows, thousands of marijuana plants, a large amount of U.S. Currency, two semi-automatic weapons, one revolver, and hundreds of pot laced candy and soft drinks.

SAC Pe�a stated, �In a way, this case sort of answers the question, 'What will they think of next?' What so many people don't realize is that innocent children may somehow get their hands on these products and think they are just normal candy or soft drinks - thus, making this action not only illegal, but potentially tragic.�

This investigation began in October 2005, when the DEA Oakland Resident Office obtained information that AFFOLTER was operating Beyond Bomb, a manufacturer of marijuana candy in Oakland, CA. The marijuana laced candy and other edibles manufactured by the company mimic the name and appearance of well known name brand candies and products. Some of the product labels seized by investigators include Stoney Ranchers, Munchy Way, Rasta Reece�s, Buddafingers, Pot Tarts, Double Puff Oeo, Tri-Chrome Crunch, Keef Kat, Twixed, Budtella, Puff-A-Mint Pattie, Puffsi, Bong�s Root Beer, and Toka-Cola.

This investigation was conducted with the assistance of the Richmond Police Department, Oakland Police Department, Vallejo Police Department, Lafayette Police Department, Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement, Contra Costa County Narcotics Enforcement Team (CCNET), and the Alameda County Narcotics Task Force (ACNTF).

This case is being prosecuted by the United States Attorney�s Office in the Northern District of California. The charges are only allegations and the defendants are presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

rofl i have seen some of that stuff before!

That's awesome, I want some. Stupid DEA

quote:

Originally posted by dj_bas That's awesome, I want some. Stupid DEA

I love the DEA. Forgive me if I sound ignorant, can't say I've ever used marijuana, but nothing I've never seen anything good come of the stuff. It bugs me to see so much money wasted on the stuff, and with my expereince I've seen really capable people dumb themselves into thinking that there is no consequences from using marijuana.

Everything in moderation.

Caffeine is a drug. Alcohol is a drug. Alcohol affects every cell in your body, and is one of the more destructive, universally damaging inebrients avaiable. Yet it's legal and is socially acceptable.

I've never seen a stoner or somebody on e pick a fight...or get into their car and drive like a maniac (but I have seen plenty of drunks do both).

Alcohol leads to a false sense of confidence and reduces judgment, characteristic of a dopamine agonist.

Personally, and I'm not sure that this will make sense, but I'd rather feel more fucked up than I am, than be more fucked up than I feel. This is why people smoking dope have the misfortune of being pulled over for driving too slow.

I like mind altering, mind expanding substances, which I don't believe are inherently dangerous, damaging, sinful or evil. I've got a lovely wife, a lovely daughter, a son on the way, and a career that puts me in an upper income strata nationwide.

Politically, I'm a libertarian, and I believe people should be able to make educated decisions about what to ingest, so long as they take responsibility for their actions and are informed as to the possible consequences.

Bottom line, legality or illegality says very little about the potential and actual harm caused by a particular substance. At the end of the day, if we were really concerned about harm reduction, there are other substances that are far less harmful than alcohol that could be made legal. Our jails are full of non-violent people whose only crimes are taking or trafficking in illegal substances.

The war on drugs is hypocritical, wasteful, and a complete failure.

Just my 2 cents.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefe928 Everything in moderation.

Agreed!!! Legality doesn't say very much about how harmful something is... however, many times it's not so much what the substance does as to where it leads.

I would go so far to say that the majority of the population has no concept of moderation though. Not only in illegal substances, but also with alcohol, coffee, tv, and 100 other things... All things in moderation is a great motto, but in practice doesn't seem to happen. I have seen this in my friends who are self-proclaimed "recreational users", their usage has always escalated over time, and often led to other more permantantly harming substances.

Trafficking drugs is a profitable business but by no means is it a 'peacefull' business as is illustrated by the two semi-autos found with the drugs.

I had a buddy that worked for the DEA, and he described some of the people he arrested for trafficking. They were killers, not to say that drugs made them that way, but just the lifestyle of most, I would say is quite ruthless (at least for the ones that are 'high up' so to speak; no pun intended). They are not the kind of people that I would ever want my (future) children to be influenced by.

quote:

Originally posted by djnaeblis I love the DEA. Forgive me if I sound ignorant, can't say I've ever used marijuana, but nothing I've never seen anything good come of the stuff. It bugs me to see so much money wasted on the stuff, and with my expereince I've seen really capable people dumb themselves into thinking that there is no consequences from using marijuana.

this could be argued for days and days.
you didnt like it thats personal choice. but the effects of it are proven so you get something out of it.

its also proven that alcohol is more harmful than marijuana. plus marijuana normally consumed is as bad as cigarettes.

on top of that, we would save so much money by not having DEA and having drug legal. plus we would have less people smoking marijuana if its was legalized but enforced by regulations.

Jefe928, I guess you've never lost anyone (directly or indirectly) to a drunk driver or someone who was under the influence.

those oEo's look good

quote:

Originally posted by Jefe928 Everything in moderation. Caffeine is a drug. Alcohol is a drug. Alcohol affects every cell in your body, and is one of the more destructive, universally damaging inebrients avaiable. Yet it's legal and is socially acceptable. I've never seen a stoner or somebody on e pick a fight...or get into their car and drive like a maniac. Alcohol leads to a false sense of confidence and reduces judgment, characteristic of a dopamine agonist. Personally, and I'm not sure that this will make sense, but I'd rather feel more fucked up than I am, than be more fucked up than I feel. This is why people smoking dope have the misfortune of being pulled over for driving too slow. I like mind altering, mind expanding substances, which I don't believe are inherently dangerous, damaging, sinful or evil. I've got a lovely wife, a lovely daughter, a son on the way, and a career that puts me in an upper income strata nationwide. Politically, I'm a libertarian, and I believe people should be able to make educated decisions about what to ingest, so long as they take responsibility for their actions and are informed as to the possible consequences. Bottom line, legality or illegality says very little about the potential and actual harm caused by a particular substance. At the end of the day, if we were really concerned about harm reduction, there are other substances that are far less harmful than alcohol that could be made legal. Our jails are full of non-violent people whose only crimes are taking or trafficking in illegal substances. The war on drugs is hypocritical, wasteful, and a complete failure. Just my 2 cents.

2-CI (2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodophenethylamine) is still legal. Get it while you can. It is grey list, it is a close cousin of 2-CB but hasn't been around long enough (2001) to be put on a schedule.

quote:

Originally posted by Electrophile 2-CI (2,5-dimethoxy-4-iodophenethylamine) is still legal. Get it while you can. It is grey list, it is a close cousin of 2-CB but hasn't been around long enough (2001) to be put on a schedule.

IT'S FUCKING LEGAL!? How? That shit messed me up! I thought I was on the Death Star...turns out it was just Avalon

ANALOGS MY FRIEND! Just take an existing drug and swap out functional groups (ex. swap out a bromine with an iodine or swap a methyl with an ethyl) until you can get a rat fucked up, then you take it. Since no one has ever used the drug how can it be illegal?

~`

quote:

Originally posted by Cool Xone Jefe928, I guess you've never lost anyone (directly or indirectly) to a drunk driver or someone who was under the influence.

I think the point I was trying to make was that alcohol (the consumption of which is pretty much a prerequisite of driving drunk) is dangerous (indeed moreso) than many other substances because of its ability to increase confidence while concurrently clouding judgment.

The city of Denver recently passed a law decriminalizing (perhaps even making legal, I'm not a lawyer and I don't live in Colorado so I haven't followed it particularly closely) marijuana and the rationale was harm reduction--if people want a non-sober experience, they're less likely to do something stupid when they're stoned than when they're drunk.

I happen to concur with this philosophy.

And I'm sorry for your loss or any resulting pain--and I think it's perfectly reasonable to outlaw and have stiff penalties for endangering other people while under the influence of any mind-altering substance. Yet ingesting the substances themselves doesn't have to necessarily be dangerous or endanger others.

But where do you draw the line? Numerous studies have concluded that people talking on cell phones while driving are at least as dangerous as drunk drivers. Should we outlaw cell phones? I had an uncle who developed lung cancer from a lifetime of smoking...and I still think cigarettes should be legal for anyone stupid enough to want to smoke them.

And what about junk food? Heart disease is probably the leading preventable killer in developed countries. Should french fries be next? Where do you draw the line? Since every law results in a loss of liberty, I simply believe that we should draw fewer lines.

The original rationale behind public policy to make illegal dangerous behavior at least partially hinged on the idea that the savings (in loss of life, etc.) eclipse the cost of enforcement. I believe the war on drugs is prosecuted in a financially wasteful fashion, using non-factual propaganda as justification. You can look into the history about how MDMA was scheduled as a wonderful example of nonsensical policy.

Scientifically, LSD or psilocybin from mushrooms are probably the safest to ingest, simply because so few molecules are required to produce a powerful effect, and they target very specific neurotransmitter pathways in the brain. And although there are stories (more likely urban legends propagated by those with an anti-drug agenda) of people jumping from balconies because they thought they could fly, I can't imagine being under the influence of a hallucinogenic and wanting to climb behind the wheel of a car and drive home. Perhaps I overestimate the general public's ability to responsibly pre-arrange a safe mindset and setting.

I think my life and perspective has been enriched by having a number of different experiences. Not everyone need feel this way, and it's clear others have had very negative experience compared to my positive ones. I guess I and the friends I've chosen to share experiences with have been lucky.

I Love Pot Tarts

quote:

Originally posted by Jefe928 I think the point I was trying to make was that alcohol (the consumption of which is pretty much a prerequisite of driving drunk) is dangerous (indeed moreso) than many other substances because of its ability to increase confidence while concurrently clouding judgment. The city of Denver recently passed a law decriminalizing (perhaps even making legal, I'm not a lawyer and I don't live in Colorado so I haven't followed it particularly closely) marijuana and the rationale was harm reduction--if people want a non-sober experience, they're less likely to do something stupid when they're stoned than when they're drunk. I happen to concur with this philosophy. And I'm sorry for your loss or any resulting pain--and I think it's perfectly reasonable to outlaw and have stiff penalties for endangering other people while under the influence of any mind-altering substance. Yet ingesting the substances themselves doesn't have to necessarily be dangerous or endanger others. But where do you draw the line? Numerous studies have concluded that people talking on cell phones while driving are at least as dangerous as drunk drivers. Should we outlaw cell phones? I had an uncle who developed lung cancer from a lifetime of smoking...and I still think cigarettes should be legal for anyone stupid enough to want to smoke them. And what about junk food? Heart disease is probably the leading preventable killer in developed countries. Should french fries be next? Where do you draw the line? Since every law results in a loss of liberty, I simply believe that we should draw fewer lines. The original rationale behind public policy to make illegal dangerous behavior at least partially hinged on the idea that the savings (in loss of life, etc.) eclipse the cost of enforcement. I believe the war on drugs is prosecuted in a financially wasteful fashion, using non-factual propaganda as justification. You can look into the history about how MDMA was scheduled as a wonderful example of nonsensical policy. Scientifically, LSD or psilocybin from mushrooms are probably the safest to ingest, simply because so few molecules are required to produce a powerful effect, and they target very specific neurotransmitter pathways in the brain. And although there are stories (more likely urban legends propagated by those with an anti-drug agenda) of people jumping from balconies because they thought they could fly, I can't imagine being under the influence of a hallucinogenic and wanting to climb behind the wheel of a car and drive home. Perhaps I overestimate the general public's ability to responsibly pre-arrange a safe mindset and setting. I think my life and perspective has been enriched by having a number of different experiences. Not everyone need feel this way, and it's clear others have had very negative experience compared to my positive ones. I guess I and the friends I've chosen to share experiences with have been lucky.

DITTO. Thank you for saying what I've been thinking for years.

That sux.... Buddahfingers were awesome!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.