How much is a gram of hashish?

I don't know why I'm asking in this forum, other than there are probably some cops and lawyers here who might know the answer. (If you know the answer and you're not a cop or a lawyer, please don't feel the need to incriminate yourself ;-)

I am curious because of the recent case of a Canadian UN Narcotics Officer who was arrested in Dubai and sentenced to 4 years in prison for possession of "0.6 grams of hashish". (He was pardoned by the Emir as part of a general amnesty to mark the festival of Eid al-Adha.) Apparently hashish is sold by the gram; on the other hand, .6 grams of sugar is about 1/7 of a teaspoon, so it seems like a tiny amount.

I was reading some of the reader's comments on online news articles and I was really surprised by the number of Canadians who said things like "It's his own fault", "Who is he kidding?" "The Canadian government should have left him to rot in jail", and similar sentiments.

My opinion is that he was probably telling the truth. He was working with narcotics on a daily basis, as a UN adviser to the Afghan government. Part of his duties involved overseeing the destruction of narcotics, which in Afghanistan apparently involves building a large open bonfire and burning the stuff, so he was constantly exposed to "second-hand smoke". He also claimed that in parts of Afghanistan, small gifts of hashish were so common that it was impossible to avoid; the usual practice, according to him, was to accept it politely so as not to offend the village chief, then discreetly dispose of it at the first opportunity.

Just how big is the amount they are talking about? Is it like a couple of shreds that got caught in the lining of his pocket, or would it be about the size of a cigarette butt? A cigarette butt would be hard to miss if he was being reasonably careful; pocket lint would be almost impossible to eliminate completely, IMO.

He also was carrying two dried poppy bulbs (some stories said they were dried poppy heads) but supposedly these had zero value as narcotics; he claims he was bringing them back as props to be used in anti-drug lectures he had been asked to give. It was these bulbs which triggered a more thorough search by Dubai officials, which turned up the aforementioned "0.6 grams".

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071219.wpardon19/BNStory/National/home/

It's a minuscule amount and to think there are real criminals running around out there while the law chases down people with a little pot in their pocket makes my blood boil.

That seems like a tiny, tiny amount. Clearly he's not a drug dealer. As the fellow admits, he was a little bit sloppy, and happened to stop over in a country with a zero tolerance policy. The 'pardon' is usually a way for a third-world ruler/government to save face in a ridiculous case like this, under the guise of showing largesse. Glad he's free.

EDIT: The story I just read says "0.06 grams of hashish -- .002 ounces". If that's correct, the whole thing is a joke.
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=6e96f738-c8ff-45df-bc7a-32e5cb6811d1

that article contained information that I wasn't aware of - and I thought I had been following the story pretty closely!

I didn't realize he had been in prison for 8 months, that he had been passed over for an earlier amnesty in September, that his release cost his family tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, or that the "poppy bulbs" had been display items at the UN office - I got the impression from the CBC and Globe and Mail online articles that this had happened fairly recently, and he was released quickly due to pressure from the Canadian government. So if their coverage was that misleading, I would venture a guess that the ".06 grams" is more accurate, and pretty consistent with his story that he carefully went through his belongings to remove any traces of drugs before leaving Afghanistan. I mean, .06 grams is just pocket lint.

Okay, this guy was "caught" with tiny bit of hash in his pockets, and two poppy heads. The poppy heads were stupid, as he found out. There was no way he missed them.

Now, when he gets home and his kid drags him to school for Show & Tell, he'd dam**d better not have a steak knife in his lunch!

p.s. All the news articles except that one said it was 0.6gm of hash. One Lipton tea bag contains about 2 teaspoons of tea (which I'm assuming is something like hash), and it weighs 2.26gms, so he had about half a teaspoon of the stuff. So he didn't clean out his pockets THAT well. And he could have gotten the poppy pods at home, they're common enough.

This guy isn't criminal, he's just not very bright. Probably on par with our TSA people.

Sue

Hmmm… didn’t we just have a thread which emphasized how many “zero tolerance policies” turn into “zero intelligence policies”? I do believe we did… yes… it’s right there. I’m pointing my steak knife right at it.

May be I am missing something in the story here, how does this even remotely have anything to do with being Equipped to Survive?

Hi Aardwolfe,

Attitudes to Cannabis vary around the world. Some countries are more tolerant than others. Generally its not a good idea to have any what so ever when passing through any countries customs. Its also not a good idea to have any codeine formulations (even with a prescription) either as this is also reguarded as a controlled substance in many middle eastern countries.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/12/20/police.hash.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ghIhiymNNKw

http://www.hashmuseum.com/

Around The Campfire - A place for Chit Chat about life or subjects of interest other than Survival or Emergency Preparedness

Of course the answer is...a gram.

Or the correct answer is...enough to get you thrown in to a really nasty jail for a really long time in the wrong country...

1 gram is about 1/454th of a pound, or 1/1000th of a kilogram.

He is the poster boy for the "Don't let this happen to you" narcotics crowd now I reckon.

Kinda brings to mind the movie Midnight Express...

True, but on the other hand, he obviously knew they were there and made no attempt to hide them; they were several years old, they were dead, dried, and if I understand correctly, they contained less opium than a poppy seed bagel. They had been display items at the UN office where he worked and he asked if he could have them when he was leaving the country. I think his biggest mistake was assuming that customs officers in *any* country would have the brains they were born with. (Apologies to any customs officials reading this post.)

One thing that I find conspicuously missing from any of the news reports is how the hashish was being "carried". A tiny amount, wrapped in tin foil, would be suspicious no matter how small; if it was a couple of shreds trapped in the lining of his coat pocket, plus a couple more shreds trapped in the lint in his pants pocket, plus some that had soaked into his pant leg - well, that would be pretty easy to miss even if you were taking reasonable (but not obsessive) precautions.

The fact that most of the news articles describe it as "0.6" and not ".06" doesn't impress me that much - most of them are probably copying from each other, anyway, and I doubt many journalists today have the math skills to realize the difference. (Apologies to any journalists reading this post, as well.) One CTV article used the 0.6 number, which they then described as a "microscopic" amount. So it's obvious they got one of their facts wrong.

(I was going to insert a comment here about the recent UK Guardian article about the acquittal of suspected IRA bomber Sean Hoey, after an expert witness made the startling admission that "molecules used in LCN DNA (low copy number DNA tests) were the size of a millionth of a grain of salt" - something which shouldn't be news, let alone surprising, to anyone who stayed awake in high school biology. But I digress.)

I suspect that, from now on, many UN narcotics experts who have to travel through Dubai on their way home will buy a brand-new set of clothes for the trip home, keep them in plastic until it's time to leave for the airport, and donate everything else to the locals. Hopefully, the UN will be prepared to re-imburse them ...

It may be a stretch, but staying out of a Dubai prison because some overzealous customs official finds microscopic traces of cocaine on a US dollar that I got in my change from a souvenir that I bought on my last trip to Disney World three years ago counts as "survival" in my book. ;-)

Well, travelling abroad you rolls the dice and takes your chances. If'n someone wants to make an example out of you to boost their own ego or image, then it is going to happen and you are going to pay the price. Even if you are clean initially, they can plant something and you will be busted. You really are at the mercy of those who owe you nothing.

Another good reason for staying in the good old USofA...

Not to start a war, OBG, but there was that incident some years back of the pregnant woman who had her car confiscated at the US border after a customs officer decided that cigarette papers constituted "drug-related paraphernalia"

We in North America are far from immune to overzealous public officials with more power than brainpower.

For sure. Over the years, 'specially after they started the profiling and drug interdiction traffic stops, more than one horror story came up, usually about someones grandma who just bought a used car, got stopped for whatever reason, the drug doggie took a whif, a hidden compartment (empty, which was undoubtedly put in by the prior owner) was found, and off went the car forever. But even if granny went to jail, it would not be for 30 years, and US prisons are reportedly MUCH better than the ones in, say, Turkey...

Hash wrapped in tin foil...
That sounds like he knew what he was up too even if it was for a keep sake.
0.6 Gr of Hashish is nothing, it is about the size of a pencil eraser (how do I know? 100+ Grateful Dead concerts....).

Drug laws are stupid IMO and especially in the case of marijuana and hash (which is basically distilled pot).

In this case I am glad I live in USA/ California.

And what the hell is a UN narcotics force? That sounds like some sort of global police. I never want the UN telling me what to do. The UN has some plans to try and globally outlaw my 2nd Amendment rights. UN....yeh.
Bill

"Another good reason for staying in the good old USofA... "

"In this case I am glad I live in USA/ California."

Do you mean our government has revoked the illegal search and seizure rights given to the law without a trial? How did this happen and I missed it?

Representative Henry Hyde of Illinois noted in June 1993 that 80 percent of the people whose property is seized by the federal government under drug laws are never formally charged with any crime.

The war on drugs has been a farce since some bozo dreamed it up.

Sue

All I know is that in Ca the cops have better things to do than search people for drugs. Plus there is Proposition 215.
Don't get me started about the unconstitutional crap the US govt pulls.
Bill

Actually, we put them in jail for breaking the law. You may not like the current drug laws, you might not agree with them or believe they are necessary or effective and that is certainly within your rights. Working to change such laws, should you choose to do so, would equally be within your rights but ignoring the laws concerning illegal drugs is no more justifiable than ignoring any other law you don't agree with.

Some may rationalize it by thinking that "everybody" does it but the reality is that the vast majority of people don't use illegal drugs and the self-serving rationalizations of drug users doesn't change that fact or justify breaking the law. If someone chooses to use illegal drugs, they should have "the sack" to accept the consequences if they are caught (damaged and destroyed relationships, loss of jobs, possible denial of future employment and educational opportunities, fines and jail time), not whine about it being unfair.

IMO

One of my favorite quotes used to be "it's not illegal until you get caught". Kinda one of those tree falling in the woods philosophical thingies.

I recall an old axiom comparing a democracy to tyranny, goes something like this:

In a democracy, anything is allowed that is not specifically prohibited.

In a tyranny, everything is prohibited that is not specifically allowed.

Given the propogation of the laws and regulations in this country, it seems we are creeping ever closer to the latter. It might now be a shorter list in this country to identify all that we can freely do anymore.

I haven't posted for a while, because I was and am busy settling into a new job as a municipal prosecutor. Now, I've also been a criminal defense lawyer, so I think I see this issue pretty much in balance. That being said, I consider drug dealers to be on a level with murderers. The only difference is, they kill spirits and souls, not just bodies.

And most long-term addicts are indeed lost souls. I read about 6 new police reports a day on average, and at least 4 of them involve drugs. Not just possession for personal use, but stealing to buy drugs, mugging people to buy drugs, and, recently, bashing in your father's head with a hammer because he wouldn't give you money for drugs, then taking his cell phone and making three or four calls to drug dealers while he died in front of you. It's not a matter of personal choice and it's not a victimless crime. It is an exploitation of a genetic flaw in our species - a form of cannibalism, if you will. I respect and embrace the Constitution, but when a guy with no visible means of support gets busted in a brand new Explorer with 4 kg of marijuana and a couple of hundred Percocets rolling around in the back, you can believe we seize the vehicle and seek forfeiture. Interesting thing is, the druggies usually don't even try to oppose the forefeiture, because to do that you have to testify, and you don't necessarily want to answer questions under oath about how you were able to pay cash for a new vehicle when you haven't worked or filed a tax return in 5 years.

Sorry about the rant, but these people contribute nothing, they build nothing, and they add nothing to our community. Yes, they represent job security for me. I'd trade the job in a second for a drug-free town.

To a certain extent, the same could be said of certain weapons manufacturers, arms dealers (we're #1 btw), large tobacco companies, special interest lobbyists, pharmaceutical companies, etc. Its all a matter of perspective and whether or not the activity is sanctioned by the state. They're all in the business of making money and supplying a demand. I have no doubt that if 'illegal' drugs were to become socially acceptable the government would have no problem spending the tax revenue rolling in from those drug sales. So, while I agree drug dealing is a fairly despicable, its no more reprehensible to me than many legal enterprises.

"Actually, we put them in jail for breaking the law."

Our laws change on a daily basis, depending simply on who has the power to make them. Isn't a judge's decision in one case used as a weapon in similar cases?

And why are some laws enforced and others aren't? The same cops who (apparently) decided that Illinois police officer Drew Peterson's previous wife's death was accidental don't hesitate to arrest some guy with two joints in his pocket. The same cops who pull over middle-aged guys for speeding often let the pretty young women who were doing the same speed under the same conditions go with a warning. How many times have cops given an abusive husband or boyfriend the benefit of the doubt because he came up with some story and the woman was obviously too scared to argue? Is there still a law in NYC where no guy will be charged with rape unless the woman had a witness?

Do some officers make certain kinds of arrests because they look good on their record?

DUI is against the law, isn't it? So why are some people arrested for it 35 times or more, and still out there doing it again? If they're being arrested, why aren't they being convicted to the point where it will do them some good?

* * *
I overhead a conversation many years ago, where a man was saying, "Ninety percent of the price of drugs is the fact that they're illegal". That's the only part I heard, and I don't know what the context was.

So, what WOULD happen if all of them were legalized?

Is there anything to my theory (based on almost nothing) that:
1) Users want to use them -- no one is standing on their throat with a knife posed over their heart.
2) Users will always be users, legal or not. If you legalize drugs and make them cheaper, will the users be able to afford enough to become fatalities, and thus "reduce the surplus population" (it's that time of year, you know)?
3) If you legalize them, and that does take most of the profit out of them, will the pushers still be pushing? What would be the point?

There is a tremendous amount of "stuff" that I don't know and don't understand. But some "legal" things that go on in this country defy any rationalization, although many people work hard at it.

We have a really good set of basic laws, and have had them for over 200 years. And some people have been doing their utmost to get around those for about 150 of those 200 years, and (esp the last 50 yrs or so) succeeding quite well. So, why are some laws so much more important than others?

Sue

"...new job as a municipal prosecutor..."

Welcome to the bright side! I like the way you think!!!

"...its no more reprehensible to me than many legal enterprises..."

Legal is legal, illegal is illegal...

Bingo!

My attitude towards Drug Dealers is quite simple:

If they are dealing to support a habit then they get jailed.
If they are dealing to make money then they get hanged.

When it comes to hardcore addicts we should either:

Contain and control their habit by prescribing a controlled amount to them (which would come with enforced conditions with regards to conduct, where they live, place of work, probation etc)thus keeping them out of the dealers hands.

or,

Employ the "foot and mouth" option.


And yes, I expect that to upset a few people....

"...you can't overdose on marijuana..."

I'm not sure about that, but I do know (from experience), that smoking marijuana and driving kills just as fast as drinking and driving. Imparment is imparment.

And, if you can get one to answer truthfully, most (all) herion (or other drug) addicts will tell you that they started with marijuana, then moved on to the big stuff. And being hooked on the hard stuff causes robberies, burgularies, prostitution, you name it, anything to get the money for another fix...

You do make a good case why marijuana shouldn't be legalized. As you say, alcohol, which is legal, causes far more accidents. I can't imagine how many more accidents, and deaths, would be caused if marijuana were to be legalized.

I would be the last person to minimize the harm that people who abuse alcohol do in this country but I'll point out some facts that lend some perspective to an alcohol vs. marijuana debate.

The vast majority of people that use alcohol on a regular basis (weekly or more) do not drink to the point of impairment while the same can not be said of marijuana users. In fact, marijuana users always use to the point of impairment if possible.

Less than 5% of people that use alcohol regularly become problem drinkers or alcoholics and even less ever go on to use other drugs. Not so with marijuana, the majority of people that use even occasionally will go on to use other more obviously addictive and harmful drugs.

The number of convicted criminals of ALL kinds that have never used marijuana is statistically insignificant while less than 1% of people that use alcohol will ever be convicted of any type of crime.

"The number of convicted criminals of ALL kinds that have never used marijuana is statistically insignificant while less than 1% of people that use alcohol will ever be convicted of any type of crime."

(Just arguing to be arguing)
Other than manslaughter? I guess 16,000-17,000 dead per year isn't much in the overall scheme of things, unless you're their victim, or a member of your family is. How about counting the quarter-million that were just injured? Being turned into a quadraplegic is an injury, they say.

Personally, I think people should be allowed to ingest anything they want, in any amount they want, as long as they stay put to do it and don't hurt anyone else. If they overdose and kill themselves, so what?

Suppose DUI offenders had their vehicles automatically confiscated if they fail a breath or blood test? "That isn't fair," shriek the drinkers. Fair? EXCUSE ME???

And suppose that meant ANY car they were driving, no matter who the owner was? If it's their own car, great! How many can they afford to lose? And if it's their wife/SO's? Tough luck, sweetie. Ever heard of the word 'enabling'? Hide the keys next time. Borrow a friend's car? HA! Take that one, too! How many times will that friend loan out a car to a drunk or known-drinker friend?

Prohibition didn't work. The War on Drugs didn't work. Let them have the crap, but if they hurt someone, THEY HAVE TO PAY. No exceptions, no plea bargains. And they should have to pay their victims, too. Like child support. The current business of drink/drive/kill/no penalty/repeat is totally insane.

Of course, this would never happen, because the people who make the laws drink and drive. They don't want to pay the piper. They need a good introduction to the real world, which is outside that fantasy land they live in now.

And if you drink and drive... that... means... you... too.

Sue

Well said...

"...as long as they stay put to do it and don't hurt anyone else..."

I'll buy that.

"...THEY HAVE TO PAY. No exceptions, no plea bargains..."

I would love to see that one, but fat chance of it happening in my lifetime, or until all county jails are Army tents like Sheriff Joe uses.

"...the people who make the laws drink and drive..."

Sad but pretty much true...

You have a lot of questions Susan and I don't have all the answers but I'll take a shot at a couple.



Because active alcoholics have lost the ability to choose whether or not they will drink alcohol and when or how much they will drink (in much the same way that drug addicts have lost their ability to choose regarding the use of drugs). They live with the delusion that they still have a choice, can "control" it or that they "quit forever" the last time they got into trouble. No matter the consequences or harm they cause to others, that delusion is unshakable in some.



Not enough good to mitigate the harm that would result.



People start out "wanting" to try drugs, addicts and alcoholics use regardless of what they "want".



Recovery is possible for any alcoholic or addict possessing the ability to learn to be honest with themselves and the willingness to do what it takes to recover. There will always be some people who abuse drugs and alcohol, legalizing drugs would just dramatically increase the number of non-abusers that will suffer because of the actions of abusers as well as the costs to society.



Some pushers will still push, they'll just focus their marketing on those that can not legally obtain the drugs like kids or those that want more than regulations will allow.

As I stated previously Susan, "I would be the last person to minimize the harm that people who abuse alcohol do in this country..."

I agree with you that the less than 1% of drinkers that do cause harm should be prevented from ever causing harm again and made to pay restitution to those they have harmed.

I do not agree that drugs should be legalized. If drug users would "stay put" now while using or impaired, it's unlikely that they would ever be arrested but the fact is that they don't and they won't if drugs are legalized. The other problem is that drug users are rarely much in the wage earning department and the fact that some burger-flipping stoner is court ordered to pay you $100,000 for killing your child in an accident would be of little comfort or actual compensation.

Plus, that burger flipper doesn't make enough money to buy what he/she wants, so here come the robberies, burgularies, etc etc etc...

In answer to that:
1) Something like 80% of crime (in the U.K.) is drug related.
2) All too many addicts are incurable. That means that they cannot or will not be weaned off their addiction. Which leaves you with a limited number of options.
3) There have been experiments in providing heroin (not methadone) to incurable 's in at least on European country. Those experiments have proved quite successful.

I should add that the reason the drugs are provided to them is:
1)destruction of the pushers market.
2) Reduction of crime.

The nasty part of me would not be unhappy to see your average addict O.D. them self out of the gene pool, thus doing the human race a favour. The rest of me feels that they need help, not punishment.

In the U.K. an addict who seeks help is automatically prosecuted. Which means a jail sentence, which means a serious criminal record, which means unemployable.

Which means turning to crime both to support himself and his habit. A vicious circle.

I personally think that Tom Clancy had the right idea in "Clear and Present Danger" when it comes to the supplier's. Difference being that I would have openly proclaimed my intention to pursue them with all the means available to the state. That means diplomatic, political and military. Arrest,try (scrupulously fairly) in absentia if necessary, execute.

That would be next to impossible today. Over 90% of the worlds heroin comes from a US, UK, NATO occupied nation where farmers openly grow poppy. You can't realy declare a war on drug suppliers, while being the steward of a narcostate. Well, I guess you can, but you know what I mean.

Short version of Clear and Present Danger, the US sent troops secretly into a drug producing country to eyeball, and later take out druggies. They had a fighter intersepting suspiscious flights heading toward the US from the Gulf of Mexico, if the pilot would not follow the fighter to a landing he got splashed...

Re Sheriff Joe, he does have a few stange ideas from time to time, but his jail undoubtedly keeps badguys locked up at the least cost to the taxpayers of any other in the country. They can watch all of the TV they want, as long as they like the Disney and Weather channels. They don't steal underware anymore 'cuz all they can have is pink. They get to sleep in the same tents I stayed in when I was in the service. Sounds like a great plan to me. They want exercise, they can volunteer for the chain gang. I have no doubt that there are repeat offenders, but I'll also bet most of them go to another county to pull their crimes. Not so good for that county, but Joe is paid to protect his county, not someone elses. Maybe if EVERYONE had tent jails???

"Treatment/therapy is what's proven to work, and it's also the hardest thing to get."

I was working for a woman in CA who discovered that her SO was hooked on cocaine. He finally admitted he needed help to quit, so she went with him on his initial visit to a treatment center. She asked the head guy what the success rate was, and was shocked to hear him say, "Something less than four (4) percent".

A few years ago, we had seven meth houses in my neighborhood. Some schoolteachers down the street invited some county narc guy to do a show and tell in their back yard. With the above conversation in mind, I asked what the success rate was for meth.

"Less than one (1) percent."

Sue

By which remark may I presume that you are referring to Afghanistan?

1) Opium has a legitimate pharmaceutical use. Its used as the pain suppressive component in a lot of drugs. Including off the shelf medications.
2) Something like 30% of the population of this planet does not have access to even the most basic pain killers.
3) Opium is grown under license for pharmaceutical use in most western country's.
4) Afghanistan grows sufficient to meet the needs of the whole planet.
5) To a subsistence farmer in Afghanistan, opium is simply a subsistence crop that can be grown and then sold.
It has been suggested that the best way to prevent drug pushers from obtaining opium is to purchase the crop at a fair (to the farmer) price. Which could then be put to good use.

Naturally, the Holier Than Thou All Drugs Are Evil Brigade have rejected that option.