[Rumor]

Teens busted with 'shrooms in Golden Gate cow pasture

Four teens were arrested Tuesday afternoon after a Collier County Sheriff's Office agriculture deputy found them gathering mushrooms in a cow pasture.

Zachary Lafrennie, 17, 3332 Timberwood Circle, was charged with possession of a controlled substance-hallucinogen and trespassing about 3:30 p.m. Tuesday at the east end of 16th Avenue S.W. in Golden Gate Estates. Lafrennie was carrying a plastic, zip-top bag containing mushrooms which are hallucinogenic and illegal to possess.


Zachary Lafrennie
In addition to Lafrennie, a 17-year-old boy, a 17-year-old girl and a 15-year-old boy with him were charged with misdemeanor trespassing. Their names are not being released because they are charged with misdemeanors.

The arrests occurred after a deputy was patrolling the area and saw a Jeep parked on the side of the road with footprints leading to a cow pasture. Other deputies arrived to help search for whoever was inside the pasture. Deputies located Lafrennie and the three other teens about 500 yards inside the fenced area.

Fairly typical of teenage kids.

This story includes the oldest kids mug shot:


Looks like he was eating them while he was picking them.

[Mel O. Drahmatik]

Kids to go hang out with wildlife and the police keep pushing em down.

So dramatic!

[Spook E]

i've got a feeling we're going to see a lot more of that photo, Farker's will love it.

[peeb]

First rule of 'shrooming - don't dress like ****ing hippies. Dress like hikers.

[moonmonkey]

I don't see what harm they were doing, release them!

[::maroma::]

This is daily news here in Oregon. Shrooms are everywhere!

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by peeb 

First rule of 'shrooming - don't dress like ****ing hippies. Dress like hikers.

I'm certain you merely forgot to post a source for this rule, since you can't possibly have personal experience with it.

[Sherman Homan]

The arrests occurred after a deputy was patrolling the area and saw a Jeep parked on the side of the road with footprints leading to a cow pasture. Other deputies arrived to help search for whoever was inside the pasture.

That must be a bad part of town.

[sek929]

Drug laws are so hilariously retarded.

Jimsom's Weed, aka Datura grows just about everywhere in the US and produces severe disjointed hallucinations (it's classified as a delirium) yet no law prohibits one from picking it where it grows.


That picture is pretty much what I thought those dudes would look like, classic hippie.

[air]

TRIPPY!!

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I had shrooms growing on my front lawn where I grew up. I remember the guy sitting next to me on the bus going to high school once bought a garbage bag full to sell for 20 bucks.

greg

[macintologist]

It's a freaking naturally growing plant. Drug laws are simply retarded. I can't put it any other way.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

It's a freaking naturally growing plant. Drug laws are simply retarded. I can't put it any other way.

Yes, because it grows naturally means it's good for you.

(Note that they're not being charged for possessing the mushrooms, they're being charged for trespassing. I don't think possessing mushrooms is illegal.)

[KeriVit]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Yes, because it grows naturally means it's good for you.

(Note that they're not being charged for possessing the mushrooms, they're being charged for trespassing. I don't think possessing mushrooms is illegal.)

Did you read the OP?

"Zachary Lafrennie, 17, 3332 Timberwood Circle, was charged with possession of a controlled substance-hallucinogen and trespassing about 3:30 p.m. Tuesday at the east end of 16th Avenue S.W. in Golden Gate Estates. Lafrennie was carrying a plastic, zip-top bag containing mushrooms which are hallucinogenic and illegal to possess."

Silly.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by KeriVit 

Did you read the OP?

"Zachary Lafrennie, 17, 3332 Timberwood Circle, was charged with possession of a controlled substance-hallucinogen and trespassing about 3:30 p.m. Tuesday at the east end of 16th Avenue S.W. in Golden Gate Estates. Lafrennie was carrying a plastic, zip-top bag containing mushrooms which are hallucinogenic and illegal to possess."

Silly.

Oh sorry. I was just reading from the bottom of the post and saw the trespassing charges.

[KeriVit]

It's all good. I was just wondering... how do they know they are "bad" mushrooms as opposed to any other. Like, in my backyard, do I have hallucinogenic shrooms? But I'm just unedjamacated on the subject.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Shrooms are fun.

[moonmonkey]

And legal in the UK as long as you don't sell them or try to inject them.
EDIT: sorry my facts were out of date, they illegal are to posses since 2005

these are the beauties
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...0mushrooms.jpg

[Cipher13]

What a load of crap. What they ingest is nobody's business but theirs.

Anyway, if they're smart, they'll get out of this fairly easily, since intent would be hard to prove... I'd just claim I was a fungologist (if that's a word).

[analogika]

If they were 'shrooming, I'd think "fungologian" might be a better term?

[moonmonkey]

Mycologist is the expression (I knew that without google).

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Cipher13 

What a load of crap. What they ingest is nobody's business but theirs.

And most certainly their parents' business, since they were all minors.

I'm amused that people think it's so unfair that some kid gets busted for possession. How hard is it to not do drugs? I mean, seriously. I'm 23 and I've never even seen marijuana in real life, let alone any other illegal substance.

They were idiots for trespassing on someone else's property to get their drugs, and deserved the charges they got.

[ghporter]

In a lot of cases, however stupidly they're worded or enforced, drug laws are there to keep people from ignorantly hurting themselves. Because you CAN hurt yourself with just about any "recreational" drug. Too much 'shroom and you could be both yacking your guts out AND suffering from extended hallucinogenic effects. And how certain are you that what you might (theoretically of course) buy from somebody that's selling illegal drugs would be both pure and safe? I'll tell you that the latter has kept me from even considering the use of just about anything "recreational".

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

And how certain are you that what you might (theoretically of course) buy from somebody that's selling illegal drugs would be both pure and safe? I'll tell you that the latter has kept me from even considering the use of just about anything "recreational".

That's usually an argument used for legalization.

[shinji]

Originally Posted by ghporter

In a lot of cases, however stupidly they're worded or enforced, drug laws are there to keep people from ignorantly hurting themselves. Because you CAN hurt yourself with just about any "recreational" drug. Too much 'shroom and you could be both yacking your guts out AND suffering from extended hallucinogenic effects. And how certain are you that what you might (theoretically of course) buy from somebody that's selling illegal drugs would be both pure and safe? I'll tell you that the latter has kept me from even considering the use of just about anything "recreational".

Well if you know someone else who has used that batch of whatever drug then it's fairly safe. Big difference between copping heroin on the street and buying a little pot from your friend who is likely smoking the same stuff.

I think pot and shrooms ought to be legal for adults- keep heroin, coke, etc. illegal. Obviously though, it shouldn't be legal to trespass on someone else's private property for any reason like what happened here.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

That's usually an argument used for legalization.

Legalization is the second half of the equation. To get past the first half, you have to show that use isn't any more damaging than other, legal materials. Grass causes more lung damage than tobacco. Heroin is very difficult to dose properly, and leads to tolerance. Cocaine, even in very low doses, can cause cardiac dysrhythmias and arhythmias. And so on... Currently the FDA is microns away from being able to regulate tobacco in the U.S., and I anticipate a LOT of fallout from that. With everything that is outside the somatic effects involved right now, "purity of recreational drugs" is NOT a convincing argument today for legalization.

As to the argument "what's it to anyone else what someone ingests," I am concerned from several standpoints. I do not trust drivers who are putatively "sober" to drive correctly as it is, so I should also expect these morons to not drive while impaired? I don't THINK so. Please keep in mind that a driver can not only cause his own demise, but can kill or maim many others in the vicinity, depending on his actions. (I want motorcyclists to at least wear decent eye protection so I am not put in the position of running one of them over when a big old junebug slams into their eye at 75MPH. You get the idea.) From a public health standpoint, the damage done by people using recreational drugs is extremely expensive. Right now we can't keep most Americans from gorging on Big Macs and double-sweet lattes, ballooning their body weight and putting them at high risk for IMMEDIATE cardiovascular damage, so do you think we could keep them from shooting up/snorting/otherwise ingesting materials that also have a proven record of harm? Not on your life.

In a perfect world, people would pay attention to what is good for them, what is mildly bad for them, and what is truly bad for them, and thus avoid most harmful substances. But in a perfect world most of us wouldn't find any psychological need for escape and thus wouldn't be terribly interested in the more potent recreational drugs in the first place. But this is far from a perfect world. Further, for the most part, at least some part of the path of illegal drugs from source to user is controlled by some form of organized crime. Huge gangs are organized exclusively to distribute drugs-not because they want to help people get high, but because they know it's very lucrative. I cannot sit by and say "go ahead and do what you want" because I know a good part of that involves helping VERY bad people chemically abuse, even enslave other people.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Legalization is the second half of the equation. To get past the first half, you have to show that use isn't any more damaging than other, legal materials. Grass causes more lung damage than tobacco. Heroin is very difficult to dose properly, and leads to tolerance. Cocaine, even in very low doses, can cause cardiac dysrhythmias and arhythmias. And so on... Currently the FDA is microns away from being able to regulate tobacco in the U.S., and I anticipate a LOT of fallout from that. With everything that is outside the somatic effects involved right now, "purity of recreational drugs" is NOT a convincing argument today for legalization.

To be fair, I'm not in favor of legalization of harder drugs.

As for grass causing more lung damage that tobacco, that is true. But people who smoke grass smoke less than cigarette smokers.

Edit:

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Further, for the most part, at least some part of the path of illegal drugs from source to user is controlled by some form of organized crime. Huge gangs are organized exclusively to distribute drugs-not because they want to help people get high, but because they know it's very lucrative.

Again, that's an argument for legalization.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

As for grass causing more lung damage that tobacco, that is true. But people who smoke grass smoke less than cigarette smokers.

Yeah, a heavy cigarette smoker goes through about 40 cigarettes a day, while a heavy marijuana smoker will do maybe 10 joints a day (if he doesn't use a more lung-friendly method like a bong or vaporizer).

[Dakarʒ]

I won't ask you how you know all that.

wink wink

[Rumor]

Less than five if they get their stuff from Nor Cal...

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Again, that's an argument for legalization.

Only if you can show that the demand for the drug is NOT specifically driven by those criminals in the first place. It often is. "Protection" in some neighborhoods is being a customer of a certain pusher...

Unless it can be unequivocally demonstrated that the specific drugs in question are "recreational" versus "escape-driven", then this legalization argument falls flat too.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Only if you can show that the demand for the drug is NOT specifically driven by those criminals in the first place. It often is. "Protection" in some neighborhoods is being a customer of a certain pusher...

If you could buy the shrooms at a pharmacy, the pusher would be out of business.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Unless it can be unequivocally demonstrated that the specific drugs in question are "recreational" versus "escape-driven", then this legalization argument falls flat too.

Why is the distinction important? Would you make the same argument about computer games?

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by peeb 

If you could buy the shrooms at a pharmacy, the pusher would be out of business.

Not really. You would just be buying them from the pusher with a license.

[peeb]

Right, but that 'pusher' would be subject to quality controls, and would be subject to sanctions for unsafe product, and bound by advertising standards.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Only if you can show that the demand for the drug is NOT specifically driven by those criminals in the first place. It often is.

For marijuana and shrooms? I'd be surprised.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

For marijuana and shrooms? I'd be surprised.

Smugglers and criminal gangs plant shrooms throughout the countryside.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Unless it can be unequivocally demonstrated that the specific drugs in question are "recreational" versus "escape-driven", then this legalization argument falls flat too.

I'm not sure I could prove any form of recreation isn't escape-driven.

[peeb]

Oops!

[sek929]

Shrooms (and most hallucinogens) are the least addictive drugs you can do. You don't trip balls for 5 hours and crave more, usually you're alright with them for a while.

They grew without anyone tending them, at best this is a case of trespassing and nothing else.

[peeb]

Theft of shrooms the landowner was cultivating for themselves, methinks?!

[sek929]

What is so bad about hippies tripping anyway?

Once this blows over they'll find more shrooms, take them, and have a great trip. You can OD on shrooms, but you'll puke em up first if you ate that many anyways.

I remember a Scientific American article in where they took a dozen religious people who have never used drugs and gave them a pill form of Pyslocibin. Over half of them recounted their mystical journey as "among the most meaningful experiences in their life."

But nope, they're bad!! Smoke cigs, drink beer, chug high fructose corn syrup by the gallon.....but don't experiment with one of nature's enigmas....who knows, you might just have the best time of your life

[peeb]

There's nothing bad about hippies tripping, so long as they take responsibility for knowing what they are taking and the risks. I'm all for it.

[Rumor]

Search youtube for Kneehigh Park.

[moonmonkey]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Why is the distinction important? Would you make the same argument about computer games?

I wish computer games could make rainbows come out my head.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by moonmonkey 

I wish computer games could make rainbows come out my head.

World of Warcraft, man, you gotta try it.

[Rumor]

Don't do if you value your social life.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Legalization is the second half of the equation. To get past the first half, you have to show that use isn't any more damaging than other, legal materials.

A stoned person is better than a drunk person any day of the week. As for lung damage, bake some brownies.

Unless it can be unequivocally demonstrated that the specific drugs in question are "recreational" versus "escape-driven", then this legalization argument falls flat too.

Certainly, pot is on the same level as alcohol in this regard.

[sek929]

Vaporizer all the way, though it's not a very social smoking apparatus (I prefer blunts)

[simplify3]

This happened in my town! In fact, as SOON as I heard the story, I posted a little tribute page here:

http://free.naplesplus.us/articles/v...look-like-this

Somebody needs to put his face on a tshirt that says "Actual Police Photo" and underneath in big letters, "Got Shrooms?" or "'shroomin"

Ken of Golden Gate Estates, Naples, FL (not far from shroom pickin' territory - I hear the cows moo - but I ain't doin' it - too old for that stuff), webmaster of Collier County, Naples FL News, Information

[ghporter]

Nowadays, it'd be hard to get aspirin past the FDA. And after decades of violence driven by drug distribution turf battles, it would be very hard to convince most people that anything but their particular "escape" method is safe.

As for tripping or stoned versus drunk, all are seriously impaired and all are potentially a threat to themselves or others. Plus a number of studies show that MOST hallucinogens produce lasting effects similar to psychotic episodes (not flashbacks, but brain damage), so maybe that's where the rainbows come from - billions of brain cells PERMANENTLY escaping.