REEFER MADNESS!!!!!!

[Da6s]

Deadly as the democrats, that empty out our stores.

Doing my part to get to page 30.


Also, could someone explain to me how being a care provider for multiple individuals means you're allowed to have a huge grow operation in your garage that is so potent the smell wafts 3 houses away and the cops respond with a resounding meh?

Yes, I live up the hill from a huge grower. Hooray medicinal blue states!

[AFK]

Yes. 

So? 

Well, I've never heard of a pot fatality.  At least outside of a Jason Vorhees movie.

But, see, it has to be illegal because, um, won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!?

Hold the fucking phone.  Jesus dude, did you come up with that all by yourself?  I have to tell you, in all of the times I've discussed this topic here and elsewhere, that has to be singlehandedly the most original line I've ever heard.  I mean, shit, you completely slayed me with that.  That is some Grade A original satire right there.  I bet John Stewart calls you every night to check his jokes for him.  Am I right?

You're a goddamn rock star dude! 

[AFK]

Yes. 

So? 

Well, I've never heard of a pot fatality.  At least outside of a Jason Vorhees movie.

Well its only been used for 5000 years or so... maybe there isn't enough data yet?

Not a valid argument.  We used trephination since the neolithic age, and it's killed plenty of people.

Sorry perhaps that was unclear....

Well its only been used for 5000 years or so without any documented death... maybe there isn't enough data yet?

That isn't completely true:  In Massachussetts for example  https://dawninfo.samhsa.gov/files/ME2008/047_MA_State.html

Now, if you want to say that 80 marijuana involved deaths in 2007, really isn't a big deal.  That's your things.  But it isn't true to say that there aren't any documented marijuana-involved deaths. 

[AFK]

As far as the prohibitionists are concerned, there will never be enough data. The deity of your choice could come down to Earth tomorrow and say, "Hey, smoke this shit!" and they'd still say the matter needed to be studied more. They're not motivated by reason or science. They're motivated by profit and control.

Yep.  You should see the Mercedes in my yard from all of the mad bank I'm making.  Oh, and the Gold Plated toilet.  You've not taken a dump until you've sat on one of those babies. 

What I'm referring to is the argument that drugs should be illegal for adults to use in order to protect children. That's just asinine. Unfortunately, it's also an argument that a lot of people buy into. Not everything in the world has to be appropriate for the under-18 crowd, and it's passive-aggressive bullshit for adults to be labeled "bad role models" for exercising their right to live as they see fit so long as they're not hurting anyone. Children don't run this planet. They're not even the majority of the humans living on it. Society shouldn't cater to them at the expense of the freedoms of adults or "protect" people at one age by robbing them of rights once they reach another. But that's another subject entirely.

That's what happens when you live in an authoritative country.  You have freedom, within limits.  And it is precisely that way in order to promote a well functioning society.  Or, as well functioning as you can get given that you have a bunch of monkeys running the thing.  And the reality is that drugs aren't illegal solely because of children.  That does happen to be why I think they should remain illegal.  But I'm only one person in this fight.  In the end, we have to way the cost and benefit of any policy.  I personally don't think the benefit of adults being able to smoke up in their living room outweighs the costs that will be shouldered by our youth.  You can mock that line of thinking all you want, and just cast it off like its some bullshit Hallmark greeting.  But I would humbly suggest that you should volunteer some of your time at your local adolescent substance abuse treatment agency or residential facility, and talk to real kids who've been impacted by substance abuse.  It's easy to just sit back and throw out the usual cliches, but I think perhaps you'd see it a bit differently if you looked beyond the NORML line of thought.   

[LMNO]

I don't think kids should be smoking weed. At all. You don't need to be fucking with your brain chemistry when you're going through puberty.

You know, if you would just get over your self-righteous soapbox, you'd see that you agree with RWHN, and with what he's doing.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Yes. 

So? 

Well, I've never heard of a pot fatality.  At least outside of a Jason Vorhees movie.

Well its only been used for 5000 years or so... maybe there isn't enough data yet?

Not a valid argument.  We used trephination since the neolithic age, and it's killed plenty of people.

Sorry perhaps that was unclear....

Well its only been used for 5000 years or so without any documented death... maybe there isn't enough data yet?

That isn't completely true:  In Massachussetts for example  https://dawninfo.samhsa.gov/files/ME2008/047_MA_State.html

Now, if you want to say that 80 marijuana involved deaths in 2007, really isn't a big deal.  That's your things.  But it isn't true to say that there aren't any documented marijuana-involved deaths. 

Wow, very interesting. What is the basis for those numbers? Is there detail to that report?

[AFK]

Probably, but I don't really have the time to go digging for it right now.  I imagine you can find the information somewhere at DAWN. 

[Vaud]

I shouldn't be dragging myself back into the conversation, but I can't help but smell the bullshit.

As I read the numbers there, the key phrase seems to be SINGLE-DRUG DEATHS... Correct me if I'm wrong, but I interpret that as Marijuana ONLY, and of course the documented number remains at ZERO, as it has been forever.  Funny thing is, this is EXACTLY the same way that Anti-marijuana advertisements twist the numbers.  They don't mention the complete overlap in EVERY documented case in which death occurs; that there was another substance present.   

We spend over a billion a year to keep users in prison, and how many arrests are there a year now, just in the US?  Last I looked, it was nearing 1 mil a year.  What's gonna fix that?  More drug courts? 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Ah yep, found the full report... but I'm not sure what to think about it:

https://dawninfo.samhsa.gov/files/ME2007/ME_07_Complete.pdf

Findings in this publication focus on two major categories of drug-related deaths, based on the manner of death as
determined by the ME/C.
(1) Drug-related deaths (other than drug-related suicide deaths) include the following:
,, Natural or accidental deaths with drug involvement. These two categories capture deaths involving medical
use, nonmedical use, overuse, and misuse of prescription and over-the-counter medications and drug abuse.
,, Homicide by drug. This category was designed to capture malicious poisonings; that is, the decedent was
administered a drug(s) by another person for a malicious purpose.
,, Deaths with drug involvement when manner of death denoted by the ME/c was "could not be
determined" (cNbD). This manner of death is assigned by the ME/C when a definitive ruling of suicide,
homicide, natural, or accidental death is not possible.

(2) Drug-related suicide deaths include suicide deaths with drug involvement. The determination of suicide is
made by the ME/C. Because of the broad eligibility criteria for determining DAWN cases, drug-related suicide
deaths include more than deaths due to overdoses. A reported drug may not be the cause of the suicide death
even if only one drug was involved. Drug(s) must be a contributing factor, though.
Findings reported in this publication are based on concluded investigations that were submitted by May 12, 2008,
for deaths that occurred during 2007. Death investigations that were not concluded by the ME/C by the end of the
data collection period are excluded.

From what the report says, it appears that if someone dies and the tox screen tests positive for pot, DAWN lists it as a pot related death. Is that correct or am I missing something?

[AFK]

I think it would be dependent on the nature of the death.  For example, if it was an automobile accident, and there were high levels of pot in the system, then you can cite pot as a contributor to the death.  Or perhaps if someone drowned and they had high amounts in their system.  So there would have to be a logical link.  I mean, if someone were in a fatal bus accident, that they weren't driving, and they were found to have pot in their system, you wouldn't be able to attribute the pot to the cause of death because it obviously had no bearing on the death. 

[AFK]

I shouldn't be dragging myself back into the conversation, but I can't help but smell the bullshit.

As I read the numbers there, the key phrase seems to be SINGLE-DRUG DEATHS... Correct me if I'm wrong, but I interpret that as Marijuana ONLY, and of course the documented number remains at ZERO, as it has been forever.  Funny thing is, this is EXACTLY the same way that Anti-marijuana advertisements twist the numbers.  They don't mention the complete overlap in EVERY documented case in which death occurs; that there was another substance present.   

Actually, the dashes represent a number less than 4.  If it were zero, there would be a zero there as it is in other substances.  Also, the numbers are a rate.  So it is the number of deaths per 100,000 people.  So just keep that in mind. 

We spend over a billion a year to keep users in prison, and how many arrests are there a year now, just in the US?  Last I looked, it was nearing 1 mil a year.  What's gonna fix that?  More drug courts? 

[citation needed]

[Requia ☣]

I don't think kids should be smoking weed. At all. You don't need to be fucking with your brain chemistry when you're going through puberty.

You know, if you would just get over your self-righteous soapbox, you'd see that you agree with RWHN, and with what he's doing.

I (and I suspect Jude as well) support what RWHN does regardless of the legality of marijuana (medicinal or otherwise), it would make his job harder, but Jude's entire point is that the ends don't justify the means.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think it would be dependent on the nature of the death.  For example, if it was an automobile accident, and there were high levels of pot in the system, then you can cite pot as a contributor to the death.  Or perhaps if someone drowned and they had high amounts in their system.  So there would have to be a logical link.  I mean, if someone were in a fatal bus accident, that they weren't driving, and they were found to have pot in their system, you wouldn't be able to attribute the pot to the cause of death because it obviously had no bearing on the death. 

But pot stays in the system a long time... I haven't smoked in days and I'm sure that tests would show elevated THC. I mean, I'm not trying to naysay the data, I'm just not sure what the data is actually saying based on the report.

I was assuming, I guess, that these were instances where pot directly contributed to a death, rather than being present in the system of someone that died. I am sure a lot of depressed people smoke pot because they're depressed and then may go on to kill themselves, this report lists those as pot related death, but that doesn't really seem honest to me. It 'could' be a contributing factor, or it could be that the poor sod was gonna kill themselves anyway... it seems kind of ambiguous to me. Maybe I'm wrong though, I'm not an ME/Coroner or a drug expert.

[AFK]

I can only speak to Maine MEs, as part of my training for my profession involved a few presentations by the Chief ME for the State.  And the impression I got, is that if they can't conclusively say from the medical evidence and the police reports that something contributed to a death, they don't list it as part of the COD.  It certainly will still be part of the tox screen, but it only gets listed as a contributing factor if the evidence says it is.  And FTR, that same report for Maine did have zero deaths. 

[Requia ☣]

There's fairly good evidence that pot has a negative effect on cognitive abilities for up to a month after a user quits (especially for heavy users), so I'm not entirely sure its wrong to call a deadly accident weed related just based on the tox screen.