Three Kuwaiti drug addicts and their massive dog were in their car heading out of their capital when a police patrol waved them to stop after suspecting their behavior.
The three quickly put the narcotics in a plastic bag and hid it under the dog before asking it to lie on the bag and stay there.
When the cops told them to get out to search the car, one of them warned the police not to come near the dog on the grounds it is savage and could be easily irritated.
“But the police insisted on searching the car…they were surprised to find that the dog is very calm and obedient…when they led the dog out of the car, they found the bag which contained hashish and other drugs,” Alanba daily said. [Source]
I thought this was funny to share.
11 replies on “3 Kuwait addicts hide drugs under dog”
Obviously the dog was stoned and thought he was being led out to get some munchies.
Simply the dog is smarter than the addicts…. Maybe he is just fed up being used by those guys,,,, its payback time..hihihi
lol i was waiting on some heavy drug bust because of the use of “addicts” on the title.. ‘hashish and other drugs’.. really? 😛
Addicts need it and use it …. Doubt they’d have a large stash ..
Drug dealers would have a larger stash …
Hashish is not addictive, therefore hashish users should not be called addicts.
not chemically but maybe mentally. Dont kid yourself no drug is good
Agree with you till a certain extent. Hashish is in principle not addictive as long used by mentally stable people, basically the same as with alcohol.
Though a minority of less then 10% ( a guess of me based on personal experience, so by no means a scientific fact), it’s still a substantial number of people who smoke pot not to relax but to become in a perpetual state of being ‘high’. Physically there’re no side-effects if a person stops smoking of weed, but in certain groups of youngsters it has become a part of their culture, which causes a mental addiction. (Gang-) Members who stop smoking are labeled as outsiders. Not really cool.
Another group of people are those who are so used being ‘high’ all day, that they’ve become too scared to face the reality of everyday.
These are only two examples of exceptions which contradicts the widely spread opinion that weed or alcohol are totally without risks or never addictive. That’s a false assumption imo, because in many times it is addictive, without any doubt.
Questions which still remain open are:
1/ Is using drugs or alcohol not a personal matter and not one of the Government? If 90% of the people show that they are responsible people who just like to enjoy once in a while the relaxing effect of the for mentioned substances in their own home and free-time, is it then reasonable to prohibit them to do so because of a relative small group not blessed with that mental capacity?
2/ It’s a well-known fact that people are most attracted by things that are forbidden. I don’t have a judgement about that, but being a Dutch citizen, I’ve seen over the last decades a decline of drugs users/addicts. The approach introduced in the ’70’s to segregate soft from hard drugs has resulted that we now are a country with one of the lowest number addicts in the world. So my second question is that if prohibiting doesn’t work in contrary of information and treatment, why then stick to a system of prosecution of addicts/patients?
Isn’t it the result what counts in the end?
Note: I have no intention to promote drugs or alcohol, as already clearly stated in my comment. But I’m always interested in other opinions and visions.
There are two types of addiction. I’m not going into what they are.
As for the “90%” responsible question. If my kid gets hit by a car and killed, or worse left incapacitated in a vegetable form is it the fault of the intoxicated driver or the fault of the person who allowed him to become intoxicated by allowing easy access ?
As for number of addicts go around asking people if they are addicted, just simply ask them “are you addicted” without anything further added to the question. A good proportion of tobacco smokers will say no because it became a norm to smoke without being considered nicotine addicted.
Someone who drives a car while under the influence of alcohol or another substance is not a responsible person. I think my comment was clear on that part.
Btw. Why do people always use their kids as an example? Why not older people or handicapped? Are their lives of less value than of your child? Just wondering.
Another question which comes up due to your explanation is how it’s possible that Kuwait is one of the countries with the most (deadly-) traffic-accidents per citizen, while alcohol and drugs are prohibited?
By your statement (easy access) it would mean that in all countries where alcohol is allowed, there’s no development and productivity because the people are always intoxicated (?)..
Many traffic accidents in Kuwait are caused by alcohol and drug use.
Good one Marcel. Respect!