Cocaine found in Boone County apartment

Friday, May 22, 2009 | 2:37 p.m. CDT

 COLUMBIA — The Boone County Sheriff’s Department found a "significant quantity of cocaine" in an apartment Thursday, Sgt. Britt Shea said.

Law enforcement officers searched 7711 Sharidan Blvd. Apt. C, which is located between Hallsville and Columbia between Highway HH and Route B, after citizen information led to an investigation of drug trafficking, according to the Sheriff's Department.

No one was home at the time, Shea said, but numerous items were seized, including cocaine packaged for distribution, items associated with cocaine distribution and a loaded handgun.

No arrests were made at the scene. The investigation continues.


Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Mark Montgomery May 23, 2009 | 3:45 a.m.

Cocaine should be legal. Mexico just legalized possession of small amounts of all drugs. Switzerland just legalized heroin. Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001 and their experience has been positive. Now if you are caught with a 10 day supply of your drug or less you face an administrative court, not a criminal court, but in practice they are just not arresting people. A group of 10,000 very serious policemen, prosecutors, attorneys and citizens have formed a group to legalize ALL drugs, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition ( ) They see what happened when we legalized alcohol in 1932 as a good example of how drug legalization would work. This foolish war on drugs has lasted 37 years and cost us over a TRILLION dollars and we are not an inch closer to stopping drugs. How many millions of Americans are we going to lock up in prison for decades? Mark Montgomery

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley May 23, 2009 | 10:13 a.m.

No, cocaine should NOT be legal! This is where I draw a line. Marijuana? Okay I can go for the arguments on legalizing it. But cocaine?

Cocaine is physically addictive. Cocaine ruins lives. People steal, rob, and even worse to get their cocaine "fix" once addicted to it. You can't make the same arguments for legalizing cocaine that you can for marijuana. I have never seen anyone that was physically addicted to marijuana. I have never seen anyone that would pimp out their own child for marijuana. I have never seen a violent "pot head". I have seen ALL of these things in regards to cocaine addiction.

Cocaine is a bad drug. One has to have a place in which they will draw a line.


(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr May 23, 2009 | 3:32 p.m.

Rick I have seen people addicted to pot as well as other drugs. It can and does happen.

(Report Comment)
Anton Berkovich May 23, 2009 | 6:17 p.m.

I'm sure you have, Charles. Pretty hard-hitting, convincing evidence you got there.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley May 24, 2009 | 12:27 a.m.

No Chuck, you have not EVER seen anyone PHYSICALLY addicted to marijuana......

Tell me about the person going "cold turkey" from smoking marijuana that has DTs? Tell me about the person that is going "cold turkey" from marijuana that has the "shakes"? Have you REALLY seen this, Chuck?

Perhaps you know people that were psychologically addicted to marijuana and had trouble sleeping, or certain food cravings, but the person's body itself was not physically dependent on marijuana.

Wiki Answers:

Does marijuana have a physical or psychological addiction?
In: Marijuana

There are no substances within cannabis that have physically addicting properties, however a heavy long-term user of cannabis may be described as psychologically addicted, and may also receive slight withdrawal symptoms if the cannabis was removed.

"According to the Institute of Medicine's 267-page report, fewer than 10 percent of those who try cannabis ever meet the clinical criteria for a diagnosis of "drug dependence" (based on DSM-III-R criteria). By contrast, the IOM reported that 32 percent of tobacco users, 23 percent of heroin users, 17 percent of cocaine users and 15 percent of alcohol users meet the criteria for "drug dependence."

No Chuck, you have NEVER seen anyone PHYSICALLY addicted to marijuana...


(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking May 24, 2009 | 4:03 a.m.

Actually cocaine is not physically addictive either, at least in the way that heroin, benzodiazepines, and nicotine are. There is a tremendous psychological depression when one is coming off of a cocaine binge (same with amphetamines), and this leads users to seek more of the drug. The user has to sleep eventually (or die), and there are no other physical symptoms after they wake up, other than perhaps a psychological craving from more of the drug.

I've known people that could use cocaine responsibly, but there aren't very many of them.


(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr May 24, 2009 | 5:01 a.m.

>>> Ricky Gurley May 24, 2009 | 12:27 a.m.
No Chuck, you have not EVER seen anyone PHYSICALLY addicted to marijuana......
Tell me about the person going "cold turkey" from smoking marijuana that has DTs? Tell me about the person that is going "cold turkey" from marijuana that has the "shakes"? Have you REALLY seen this, Chuck? <<<

Yes Rick I have.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley May 24, 2009 | 5:25 a.m.

REALLY, Chuck? Because ALL credible research, from Doctors, from Health Facilities, EVEN from Counselors indicates that marijuana has NO properties that make it physically addictive.

Now, I did not know that cocaine was in the same category as marijuana as far as physical dependency goes, but hat does not negate that fact that EVERYONE but you says that marijuana is not physically addictive. And, I trust Mark's opinion in this area over anyone's, even mine. Because that man KNOWS! He has the experience, education, credentials, and qualifications behind him that convince me that I can take his word in regards to matters like this.

But, I'll let Mark elaborate to you as to why you have NEVER seen anyone physically dependent on marijuana. Because, NO; CHUCK YOU HAVE NOT! It is impossible. It is kinda like saying you can get fat from drinking nothing but water. can't do it, not gonna happen, and I can promise you that you have never seen a fat person that has drank nothing but water all their life.



(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking May 24, 2009 | 7:37 a.m.


Addiction to heroin (for example) is mediated by receptors, little "keyholes" in the brain that opiate molecules (and native ones, called endorphins) fit, and cause effects. If the receptors are chronically filled with opiates, the body stops making endorphins, and if opiate use is abruptly discontinued, the lack of receptor signalling causes the classic withdrawal symptoms.

While there are also cannabinoid receptors, the endogenous "ligand" (binding molecule) is regulated differently. The ligand, called "anandamide" has many functions in the body besides the effects it produces in the brain, and is not downregulated much by THC intake. In fact, physical withdrawal symptoms can only be produced by administering a specific antagonist to animals that have been given dosages of THC that are hundreds of times higher than humans get from smoking pot.

From : P 2.32

"Physical dependence on cannabinoids has only been observed under experimental conditions of "precipitated withdrawal", in which animals are first treated chronically with cannabinoids and then given the CB1 antagonist, SR141716A.3, 166 The addition of the antagonist accentuates any withdrawal effect by competing with the agonist at receptor sites; that is, the antagonist helps to clear agonists off and keep them off receptor sites. This suggests that, under normal cannabis use, the long half-life and slow elimination from the body of THC, and the residual bioactivity of its metabolite, 11-OH -THC, may prevent significant abstinence symptoms. The precipitated withdrawal effects produced by SR141716A have some of the characteristics of opiate withdrawal, but are not affected by opioid antagonists and affect motor systems differently."


(Report Comment)
Matt Y May 24, 2009 | 11:06 a.m.

Chuck, you're outmatched. You may want to stick your tail between your legs and go back to commenting on humane society stories.

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr May 24, 2009 | 11:46 a.m.

Rick yes I have. Have fun beating your head against the wall some more.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley May 24, 2009 | 11:52 a.m.

You seem to be the one beating your head against the wall.. Ask Matt Y, or Mark Foecking, or virtually anyone on this thread but you... What's sad about it is that you are making a clown out of yourself while doing it... LOL.


(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr May 24, 2009 | 12:36 p.m.

Rick who is the one here making the fool out of themselves by making your long drawn out posts?

Have fun hurting yourself Rick.

(Report Comment)
Anton Berkovich May 24, 2009 | 1:33 p.m.

Rick, don't bother replying to Charles' posts on this subject since his original point was clearly made-up to begin with. You're just feeding the troll, as they say on the internet.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley May 24, 2009 | 4:36 p.m.

Of course you are right, Art. Thank you helping to stop more senseless argument with a person that just wants to argue for the sake of argument.

Take care and enjoy your Memorial Day, Art.

Wish you the best too, Chuck. Just not gonna argue with you over this anymore.


(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking May 25, 2009 | 8:57 a.m.


Cocaine is not physically addictive, but it is one of the most psychologically addictive drugs known.

"Reinforcement" is where animals (or humans) will keep pressing a lever (or other task) in order to receive more of the drug. Rats and monkeys will reliably kill themselves by repeatedly giving themselves more and more cocaine. It's probably the most reinforcing drug ever discovered - methamphetamine runs a close second.


(Report Comment)
Anton Berkovich May 25, 2009 | 11:36 a.m.

Here's an interesting graph depicting mean harm ratings of inidividual drugs:

According to that, cocaine and heroin are among the most harmful drugs, while alcohol and tobacco are rated more harmful than cannabis. Interestingly, cannabis is rated more harmful than LSD, which itself is rated more harmful than ecstasy.

(Report Comment)
Anton Berkovich May 25, 2009 | 11:55 a.m.

Here is a better visual of the above info, ranking both physical dependence and physical harm.

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr May 25, 2009 | 1:49 p.m.

A drug is a drug is a drug and all drugs no matter in what form can be physically addictive.

(Report Comment)
Anton Berkovich May 25, 2009 | 2:33 p.m.

Nope. There are plenty of drugs that are not physically addictive. Please know what you're talking about before you post, Charles. If there is no chemical in the drug to create a physical addiction (like LSD, for example), then the drug is not addictive.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking May 25, 2009 | 4:00 p.m.

Chuck, one drug is not another drug. Addictive drugs addict though specific biochemical mechanisms. Most drugs are not addictive, other than some people like them.

You're talking more about addictive personalities. People get "addicted" to lots of things - sex, food, relationships, excitement, etc. that are not biochemically addictive.

Marijuana can fill a desire for some people that they may feel they "need". That does not mean it is physically addictive.


(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr May 25, 2009 | 4:47 p.m.

Wrong Mark as alot of chemicals put into different food products can be physically addicting like Sugar and Caffeine for instance.

We can go farther too with other chemicals but your test tube views on things hamper your thought processes.

Think bigger than a test tube Mark and then you might see where I come from in my views but until that time no matter how much book education you have you will never be able to see the forest through the trees.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley May 25, 2009 | 11:46 p.m.

Wanna see something funny?

Charles Dudley's Qualifications to give advice on narcotic's addiction: Self Admitted Former Drug Addict.

Mark Foecking's Qualifications to give advice on narcotic's addiction:

Chongju Normal School
Senior Research Specialist
Senior Research Specialist

MU Health Care
Position, Department of Microbiology and Immunology

Doctorate, biochemistry
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill

Master's degree, physical chemistry
Seoul National University

Bachelor's degree, chemistry
Seoul National University

Research Fellow (past)
Harvard Medical School

Chuck's got a lot of nerve saying "wrong Mark" on this topic.

Who do YOU think it is wise to listen to?


Just ignore Chuck, he does not have the first clue here....


(Report Comment)
Jason Entermyer May 26, 2009 | 8:41 a.m.

"Ignore Chuck" (Charles Dudley) is the best advice I've ever seen on his site! Way to call him out Mark!

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking May 26, 2009 | 8:42 a.m.

That information on me is wrong, BTW. I've seen that website, and what seems to have happenend is they took a lot of information from papers I was a co-author on, from other co-authors. Seoul National University is where Jeong Im went to school, for example. We have a paper together, and the bots that harvest info for that site don't know the difference. I even asked them to change it - guess they didn't.

Anyway, Chuck, please show me a credible source proving that sugar (for example) is physically addictive. It should describe a mechanism, and a withdrawal syndrome, and should give some idea of how much sugar a person has to eat to become addicted.

Good Luck


(Report Comment)
Anton Berkovich May 26, 2009 | 8:59 a.m.

Chuck doesn't need credible sources! He got his education at the most credible school around; the school of hard knocks!

(Report Comment)
Jason Entermyer May 26, 2009 | 10:22 a.m.

Oh yea, that's just the qualifications I want for medical advice.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley May 26, 2009 | 11:17 a.m.

I just pulled it off of "Zoom Info", Mark: but, I think it is close enough to qualify you as the one to listen to here on this forum, on these issues; over Chuck.


(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr May 26, 2009 | 12:12 p.m.

Mark I still say you are wrong and will stand by it.

Have fun beating your head on your keyboard.

(Report Comment)
Hannah Jane July 28, 2009 | 7:47 p.m.

Something that I found from that study: "Thirty current marijuana users and 30 controls (16 former heavy users and 14 light users) participated in the study. Before the beginning of the abstinence period, the current marijuana users were not different from the former users or the light users on any of the items assessed in the diaries except for the ability to concentrate item."

If light users are experiencing the same symptoms as heavy users, it's probably more than a habit.
Why are light users experiencing withdrawal symptoms, the same as heavy users?
That's suggestive of a physical substance addiction; not solely a habit.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.