Worried for our children Loc: Massachusetts

This is the last time, Ve'hoe. My statement was - "there has never been anyone that died from OVERDOSING on marijuana." - you tried to tell me that that was wrong because, some kid ate marijuana cookies, jumped off the roof of a building and died. It's not the same thing!!!! Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend.

If you want to change the parameters of my statement, and say the cookies were causal, fine, maybe they were, good luck proving that. You say you're a doctor, so, let me ask you for your professional opinion; what would the coroner's report read as cause of death, marijuana overdose, or suicide?

Ve'hoe

The beauty of the internet is that we dont have to guess:

"the Denver coroner released a report concluding that Thamba’s death was caused by “multiple injuries due to a fall from height.” The coroner also listed “marijuana intoxication” from cannabis-infused cookies as a significant condition contributing to the death. The report classifies the death as an accident.

Accident,,, that would be NOT a suicide.....


"'This is a sign from God that this has happened, that I can't control myself,'" Pongi told his friends, according to the reports. "'It's not because of the weed.'"

Pongi's friends tried to restrain him before he left the room and jumped to his death, police said. One of his friends told investigators it may have been his first time using the drug - the only one toxicology tests found in his system. All three friends said they did not purchase or take any other drugs during their stay."

Michelle Weiss-Samaras, a spokeswoman for the coroner’s office, said the office often lists alcohol intoxication as a significant contributing factor in a death — for instance, in an alcohol-related car accident. She said the office also has seen cases involving apparent marijuana-impaired driving, but she said she believes this is the first time it has listed marijuana intoxication from an edible product in such a way.

Weiss-Samaras said Thamba had no known physical or mental-health issues, and toxicology tests for other drugs or alcohol came back negative.

“We have no history of any other issues until he eats a marijuana cookie and becomes erratic and this happens,” she said. “It’s the one thing we have that’s significant.”

What do you think now Dr? Drug reactions are significant enough to get a jury verdict in civil court...if a patient had a bad reaction to a drug, as a Dr YOU are responsible,,,,,,,whether its the first time of the 500th.....what is the difference when if comes to pot cases....

Worried for our children Loc: Massachusetts

And NOT an overdose, either. The key word there is CONTRIBUTING. Like I said, maybe it was, the point is that it was not the sole cause.

I think you don't understand the definition of overdose. (an excessive and dangerous dose of a drug)

If I shot up a bunch of heroin, overdosed and died on my couch, what other CONTRIBUTING FACTOR could there be for my death, other than the heroin?

The point is, that ya can't overdose and die from marijuana, like you could with just about every other street drug out there.

Yes, but not criminal court.

If marijuana were legalized and prescribed, there wouldn't be much difference at all. The doctor that prescribed the marijuana could still be sued civilly, if, the plaintiff can make their case. Statistically, I don't think you doctors would have much to worry about though.

Just put it on the label, like every other drug.

Ya know those big pharma ads on TV? Like the one for Chantix? To "help" you quit smoking...(for example) They not only verbalize the side effects such as "may cause suicidal thoughts, or tendencies", (I wonder how they found that out) they also by law, have to PRINT a disclaimer, that's the really small writing at the bottom of the screen that disappeares before any human could possibly read it.

It's not physically addictive - (as you acknowledged and pointed out in your other thread) like nicotine in legal cigarettes, which are proven to kill hundreds of thousands of people every year, or legal alcohol, which kills tens of thousands of people every year according to the statistics. The same statistics that list the number of deaths from marijuana at zero. So, why am I legally allowed to buy those two, proven to be physically addictive killers, but, not the one that has been proven to not be physically addictive, and doesn't even register in those same statistics?

Ve'hoe

Well,,, there are much worse things they prescribe,,, I dont know why it was restricted,, including Hemp.... but it was....

Look at the opium wars,, in china, it was over drugs,,, whether you look at it as British Drug trade or the British intervention to save china from dying from a drug epidemic.. the end result was, the drug took over an entire society and wrecked it..and finally it was decided to intervene...because the secondary effects of crime, death, and social decay are factual.

But giving it a free pass is what you are doing,,, I get everything you said, however, illegal drug trade is still going strong, crime is up, and deaths involved with marijuana are also on the rise.........

And the govt did not, totally legalize it,,, that is a misnomer,,,,, you only get so much,,, but I think it is unenforceable....

I'm with you on govt intervention,,, but if we pick and choose which laws we like and dont like, I have a few I would like to get rid of too.... since the drug is related to crime, and casual in deaths,,, including car wrecks,,, then it effects other people...
and it harms them too. Just like the point I made about mexican illegal immigrant crime, the news media WILL not report.

I have been to war in countries, where the law was wishy washy,,,, and people began to ignore it,,, it turns to chaos quickly... cant expect people to sit by and be victims forever, there will be a backlash,,, just like Trumps election, it is the last exit, before war breaks out...... People will then wish they had stopped, but in all the world travels I have been on, I never observed many people who decided to curb their addictions physical or psychological (which you seem to want to trivialize) the tendency, is to increase it, as the thrill and newness of the high wears off....

pafret Loc: Northeast

While I agree in general with most of what you wrote, the Chinese were the victims of an imposed drug culture.

Opium Wars (1839-42, 1856-60), The Opium Wars arose from China’s attempts to suppress the opium trade. Foreign traders (primarily British) had been illegally exporting opium mainly from India to China since the 18th century, but that trade grew dramatically from about 1820. The resulting widespread addiction in China was causing serious social and economic disruption there. In March 1839 the Chinese government confiscated and destroyed more than 20,000 chests of opium—some 1,400 tons of the drug—that were warehoused at Canton (Guangzhou) by British merchants. This precipitated the Opium wars, designed to punish China for destroying an illegal substance which was British property.

This was somewhat reminiscent of the Boston Tea Party, but the Americans were part of the forces attacking China. After each war the western powers extorted territories and commercial concessions from China and this culminated in the Boxer Rebellion in 1900 when China declared war on all western nations with Embassies in China. This rebellion was suppressed by all of the western powers plus Japan; China was forced to pay 330 million in reparations and became an occupied nation

The destruction of Chinese society from the forced opium trade illustrates the dangers of all intoxicants, whether they are physically or psychologically addictive. Once again, commercial interests are in pursuit of the wealth to be derived by pandering to our most base desires. The costs to our entire society in destroyed lives and debased people are not factored into the profitability equations. Everyone has a story about how it "didn't hurt me" and the legends of widespread use are as nothing to the flood gates which are being opened. With legal use, the incidence of destruction will inevitably increase

Worried for our children Loc: Massachusetts

It wasn't restricted until the 1930's, officially when the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act banned its sale and use for years, until it was deemed unconstitutional. Read more here...
http://www.drugpolicy.org/blog/how-did-marijuana-become-illegal-first-place

Agree. Opium is some nasty stuff, most addictive drugs are, and all that you say about it is factual. Turning the focus on our own country, this is very similar to the crack epidemic that happened here in the 1980's... spawning real crime like murder, rape, robbery, along with social decay. Same with the opioid crisis today. (Watch this short video of Boston, which is a pretty small city) https://youtu.be/IT4MSAZGYa4
In contrast though, turning our focus back to marijuana, which has been around for a very long time, its use peaking in the 60's and 70's with the hippie culture, but the crime associated here was referred to as quality-of-life crime, or, common vice crimes, which consist of disorderly conduct, vagrancy, loitering, possession, sale, and use of controlled substances. Quality-of-life crimes are often based on moral or value judgments, these offenses tend to target the poor and downtrodden. If the conduct prohibited involves an individual’s status in society, assembling, or speech, the First and Fourteenth Amendments require a narrowly tailored statute supported by a compelling government interest. This creates a conflict between legislators trying to ensure peace and tranquility for citizens and judges upholding the many individual protections included in the Bill of Rights.

Ok, I don't see any sense in arguing whether crime and death are going up, or staying pretty much the same. I think that those are things where we can agree to disagree.

I'm not giving it a free pass. I'm saying treat it no differently than we do prescription drugs IF you have a prescription for it, or, treat it like alcohol if you don't have a prescription for it. The illegal drug trade isn't ever going to go away. Prescription drugs, for example, have been around a long time, obviously they're legal with a prescription, however, they are ranked at number 3, as the most sought after drug illegally traded on the street, (at least here in MA.) particularly OxyContin, (really popular here in the late 90's and early 2000's) but really, almost any prescription opioid. OxyContin was a huge problem at least up and down the east coast. This actually started with a group of kids from South Boston & Charlestown that were able to scam clinics in Florida. I'll share the details of that scam with you if you're interested. OxyContin was selling on the street for a dollar per milligram, this can get pretty expensive, when we're talking about one 60 or 80 milligram pill, especially once the body builds up a tolerance for it, and then the user needs two or three a day, and so on, some people had a habits as much as 8 to 10 pills a day. This is what leads to the real crime, armed, and/or unarmed robbery, assault & battery, theft etc. etc....in order to satisfy that physical addiction, and avoid the painful withdrawal symptoms of those substances. You don't get this kind of violence on the same scale when we're talking about marijuana, because that physical addiction isn't there, there's no fear of pain from withdrawal, because, there are no withdrawal symptoms; except maybe you're in a bad mood for a day or two, similar to caffeine withdrawal. It doesn't cost as much as opioids either, I think $10 can still buy a user enough for two joints today, and the user is set for a while depending on how often they smoke, of course. Heck, in my state, that's cheaper than a pack of cigarettes.

If by "the government" you mean "the federal government", then I agree. But my "state government" has, with restrictions that are not much different than the ones applied to alcohol, which are most definitely enforceable. Nobody would say alcohol is illegal in this country simply because it has restrictions. I don't think I understand what you mean by unenforceable. Are you referring to the amount somebody can actually get? If so, I'd probably agree, if there's a way around something, it will most likely be found. In my state, a person can carry up to an ounce legally, a "red flag" gets raised if that ounce in possession is divided into smaller individual baggies, because this can imply an intent to sell, which is still illegal, but still is not enough to constitute an arrest, not anymore, according to Mass. Supreme Judicial Court, there are separate and distinct factors that need to be met in respect to this. I was just about to start rambling about what those are, but I caught myself, lol, sorry, it's just that I enjoy discussing this issue, it's similar to what I did for 20+ years. Just wanted to say that the laws are enforceable. Selling it, or growing more than is allowed, or possession with intent in a school zone, or driving while under the influence, are things that are still illegal, and violations are enforced.

The same can be said for alcohol, right? I don't know why you won't acknowledge that marijuana has been around just as long as alcohol, statistically proven to be causal in more deaths than marijuana, but yet marijuana legalization opponents think marijuana is the boogyman. When are these people going to object to alcohol being legal if they're so concerned about people dying? I won't say anything about cigarettes, opponents of cigarettes have done just about all they can, falling just short of criminalizing them, at least in my state. (I wish they would though) Today, marijuana legalization opponents are only about 30% of US citizens, while 60% think marijuana should be legalized nationwide. Times, they are a changing, my friend. The truths about the government's smear campaign since the 1930's, are being exposed and ridiculed. Out of curiosity; what laws would you like to get rid of?

I agree with you about the aspect of chaos. I disagree with you about the aspect of backlash. There wasn't any victim backlash throughout almost two decades (60's & 70's) of peak marijuana use, that I'm aware of, and I don't see it happening anytime soon, not with 60% of the population in favor of legalization.

I'm not trivializing it, I'm rationalizing it. Anyone can increase their use of marijuana all they want, nothing happens, the person doesn't get any "higher" if they smoke five joints one after another, than they would after smoking the first one. The tendency to increase the use of a drug comes from building a level of tolerance, that doesn't happen with marijuana, like it does other drugs. The "thrill" & "newness" quickly disappears for routine marijuana smokers because predominantly they find something they like, and somebody they trust to get it from and stick with that. Or at least that's how it used to be. Legalizing it may change that at first, I'll admit, because more choices will become available to them, and the fear of getting in trouble will subside for many, especially when the dispensaries open up and offer more variety, but they will eventually find a strain they like and stick with that. No different than anyone that has a favorite beer or bottle of hard liquor.

I know you like my use of the word strain. So here's a list of the most potent strains of marijuana that were entered into the 2016 Cannabis Cup. (Thought you might get a kick out of it)

http://hightimes.com/strains/the-strongest-strains-on-earth-2016/