Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Proof positive that cannabis is truly a deadly drug: two people dead after smoking it. That's right, TWO people out of an estimated 147 million users worldwide. PANIC to the right   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 218
    More: Fail, Mcintyre, Forensic Science International, smoking marijuana, Charles Lemos, toxicologies, marijuana  
•       •       •

7384 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Aug 2014 at 10:38 AM (29 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



218 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-06 11:04:37 AM  
There is nothing abnormal about an amphetamine/coke user with a bad ticker, sad to say. That damage was done.

If you're going to ban weed because a 23-yo with an undiagnosed heart condition collapsed and died, you're also going to have to outlaw college sports.
 
2014-08-06 11:04:52 AM  

hardinparamedic: F42: Oh yeah, the guy smoked meth and crack, but POT made his heart asplode.

That's some credible propaganda, Lou.

The article here isn't even accurate. They've gone through and cherrypicked the actual study to make it far more sensational and pants-wetting than it actually was.


From your link: "After exclusion of other causes of death we assume that the young men experienced fatal cardiovascular complications evoked by smoking cannabis.  "

I'm pretty sure that's what we're upset about.  What's the spin the article is giving?
 
2014-08-06 11:05:42 AM  
Actual paper here.

Dinki: Just a tip, prohibitionists- BS 'reports' like this only make you look really desperate and dishonest. If you want to prove there are links to marijuana and some health risk, do the science- double blind tests of randomly selected people, with extensive medical background checks to rule out any extenuating factors. Until you do that, STFU.


That's not how epidemiology usually works...not even close.

Dinki: nekom: I'm willing to accept that marijuana contributed to heart attacks.  But that same heart attack was just a climb of a flight of stairs away.

yep, this. There are million substances and activities that can increase heart rate. There is no evidence that Pot increases your heart rate any more than a lot of those.


Actually, there's a growing scientific literature that does link cannabis use to some cardiovascular risks. Examples:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24760961
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17712818

Heart palpitations are a common side effect of THC exposure, and cannabinoids are well-established to cause hypotension and other cardiac states that can be associated with cardiac events:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22022923

There's a lot more literature out there...
I present these not to argue that cannabis is very dangerous, or that it's currently properly regulated by the US government. Just simply to point out that there is research (not enough), and there are negative health effects of cannabis use, many that we don't yet fully understand.

Reflexively dismissing studies such as this one because they may undermine the image of cannabis being "harmless" is as stupid as the prohibitionists that will inevitably use this study to argue against legalization. Don't be stupid.
 
2014-08-06 11:05:54 AM  

Serious Black: Let's be generous and say both of these deaths were caused by marijuana. That would make them the first two in recorded history. Compare those deaths to those caused by alcohol or tobacco. Statistically speaking, they both killed over a hundred people yesterday in the US alone. Yet those are completely legal under federal law while marijuana is a Schedule I substance. Where is the logic in that situation?


This.

I've been saying it for years, and literally every time one of these threads pops up.

The whole situation is upside down and backwards.

It actually drives me nuts how the whole social stigma works too...  You could happily annouce to your coworkers that you are going to the bar after work, have a few drinks and drive home.  Every smiles.  But say you are gonna stop by a friends how to smoke a few, and you could literally lose your job and end up in rehab.
Where's the sense in that?
 
2014-08-06 11:05:55 AM  
"estimated 147 million users worldwide "

I can GUARANTEE you more than that smoke the good herb.

Which means this 'report' is fear-mongering.
 
2014-08-06 11:06:45 AM  
Welp, that settles it then. Weed causes heart attacks in former meth/coke/crack heads.

Lesson learned. Don't do weed if the former are your substances of choice.
 
2014-08-06 11:07:02 AM  

Dinki: Just a tip, prohibitionists- BS 'reports' like this only make you look really desperate and dishonest. If you want to prove there are links to marijuana and some health risk, do the science- double blind tests of randomly selected people, with extensive medical background checks to rule out any extenuating factors. Until you do that, STFU.


Just curious how you would propose to do a double-blind test of smoking pot? I mean sure you could give them pills or something but that's not really the same as smoking. Not that I disagree with you about the BS in this article, but it would be difficult to test the acute cardiovascular effects of smoking pot in a randomized trial type study, especially if one of the outcomes you are looking for is sudden death.

Researcher: "Here sir, smoke this unidentified plant substance that you and I totally don't know what it is."
 
2014-08-06 11:07:27 AM  

vicioushobbit: From your link: "After exclusion of other causes of death we assume that the young men experienced fatal cardiovascular complications evoked by smoking cannabis.  "

I'm pretty sure that's what we're upset about.  What's the spin the article is giving?


TFarticle sensationalizes an otherwise unremarkable study intended to be used in the field of medicolegal death investigation, and presents a rather narowly applicable study as if it should be used to guide any kind of policy or legal decisionmaking.

We know smoking anything causes cardiovascular disease. This isn't really a new concept.

I wish I was at work today, I could pull the full study and post it on FARK.
 
2014-08-06 11:07:34 AM  
Meh, I buy it.  When I first started smoking weed I didn't have issues, but after a couple years of light smoking my heart would start beating so hard every time I smoked that it would worry me; could literally watch my chest thumping.  Ended up stopping because of it.

Never heard anyone else complain about such things though.
 
2014-08-06 11:08:53 AM  
In the second case described in the report, a 28-year-old man was found dead at home by his girlfriend. An ashtray, rolling paper and a sealable plastic bag containing remnants of marijuana were found next to the body. The man had occasionally used cannabis, the researchers wrote. He had also abused alcohol and drugs, such as amphetamines and cocaine until about two years before his death, they wrote.

"Vas is das?"

"A supposedly former heavy tweaker alcoholic coke head who died of a heart attack.  We found the murder weapon. This bag of shake.  His girlfriend found the body. She's beside herself.  Totally hysterical.  You might want to blood test her for cereal and cartoons.  There was a plate with trace amounts of queso dip in the sink.  She might fall victim to marijuana at any minute."

In one of the deaths, a 23-year-old man without a history of health problems suddenly collapsed while using public transportation, and died after 40 minutes of unsuccessful resuscitation efforts, according to the case report based on postmortem investigations.


4.bp.blogspot.com


"I think this guy's dead."


cms.qut.edu.au

"Keep trying. Pizza won't be here for at least 40 minutes.  Detective Schmidt found weed in his pockets, maybe even enough for a bowl."


Detective Schmidt (from other room):  "Hey, get a load of this guy's medical records!  How was this guy even alive!?  Hereditary heart problems, diabetes, kidney disease, hepatitis, arthritis, asthma...This is what happens when you keep trace amounts of marijuana in your pockets!"
 
2014-08-06 11:08:54 AM  

big pig peaches: They banned ephedrine for pretty much the same statistics.


No. There were many, many more documented problems. Not even close; apples and oranges anyways.
 
2014-08-06 11:09:15 AM  

durbnpoisn: Serious Black: Let's be generous and say both of these deaths were caused by marijuana. That would make them the first two in recorded history. Compare those deaths to those caused by alcohol or tobacco. Statistically speaking, they both killed over a hundred people yesterday in the US alone. Yet those are completely legal under federal law while marijuana is a Schedule I substance. Where is the logic in that situation?

This.

I've been saying it for years, and literally every time one of these threads pops up.

The whole situation is upside down and backwards.

It actually drives me nuts how the whole social stigma works too...  You could happily annouce to your coworkers that you are going to the bar after work, have a few drinks and drive home.  Every smiles.  But say you are gonna stop by a friends how to smoke a few, and you could literally lose your job and end up in rehab.
Where's the sense in that?


Or

 Hey, I am buying enough alcohol to kill everybody that comes to my party. "Cool, I'll be there."

We are going to smoke a bowl and lose our train of thought telling a dumb story. "LOSER!!"
 
2014-08-06 11:09:50 AM  

hardinparamedic: vicioushobbit: From your link: "After exclusion of other causes of death we assume that the young men experienced fatal cardiovascular complications evoked by smoking cannabis.  "

I'm pretty sure that's what we're upset about.  What's the spin the article is giving?

TFarticle sensationalizes an otherwise unremarkable study intended to be used in the field of medicolegal death investigation, and presents a rather narowly applicable study as if it should be used to guide any kind of policy or legal decisionmaking.

We know smoking anything causes cardiovascular disease. This isn't really a new concept.

I wish I was at work today, I could pull the full study and post it on FARK.


Fair enough. I'll wait if you get around to it.
 
2014-08-06 11:10:09 AM  

TabASlotB: Actually, there's a growing scientific literature that does link cannabis use to some cardiovascular risks


Any honest smoker can confirm these effects. My first few times of smoking pot and disrupting my endocannabinoid system, I first A. didn't get high then B. got high as hell and had my heart racing then C. heart raced and I puked then D. All was good.

Those effects don't happen any longer, but I see it happen all the time in first/second timers.
 
2014-08-06 11:10:52 AM  

vicioushobbit: dwrash: bmwericus:
Which comes down to the fact that our bodies are pretty much geared to handling most things in moderation and excessive usage is never a good thing.

So smoke em if you got em... just be smart about it.

Hate to break it to you, but it pretty much is.


No it's not.  Tobacco isn't magically carcinogenic.  Inhaling the smoke of any burning organic matter is carcinogenic. Marijuana claims that it's safer because frequency of use  is lower.  I suspect most Marijuana smokers either use cigarettes in between tokes or smoke weed at cigarette quantities.
 
2014-08-06 11:11:11 AM  

vicioushobbit: Fair enough. I'll wait if you get around to it.


Although I do find it funny that the coroner they quoted in TFA has a published study on using "foot length" to identify bodies.

Odd things you find when you plug names into PubMed.
 
2014-08-06 11:11:18 AM  

Zizzowop: More interesting are the comments on Yahoo:

"You know it is so funny that all these dreadlock wearing, bloodshot eyed and smelly marijuana people are using pointless comparisons of "Oh alcohol kills more", "Oh it is not the cause of these two people's death", and other pointless arguments is laughable. 

Look they are doctors. Doctors go to school for years to be doctors. Doctors don't need to lie because they are going to get paid no matter what. Doctors have a moral code not to lie. If they misdiagnosed something they can get sued and get their medical licenses suspended. Therefore when a doctor said that those marijuana drug burnouts died from smoking that smelly marijuna stuff guess what? They died. 

So please marijuana burnout people don't change the story so you can have an excuse to smoke that smelly stuff." -smelly marijuana people, because, doctors.


You're understanding of human nature and ethics is... naive.
 
2014-08-06 11:13:12 AM  

durbnpoisn: Serious Black: Let's be generous and say both of these deaths were caused by marijuana. That would make them the first two in recorded history. Compare those deaths to those caused by alcohol or tobacco. Statistically speaking, they both killed over a hundred people yesterday in the US alone. Yet those are completely legal under federal law while marijuana is a Schedule I substance. Where is the logic in that situation?

This.

I've been saying it for years, and literally every time one of these threads pops up.

The whole situation is upside down and backwards.

It actually drives me nuts how the whole social stigma works too...  You could happily annouce to your coworkers that you are going to the bar after work, have a few drinks and drive home.  Every smiles.  But say you are gonna stop by a friends how to smoke a few, and you could literally lose your job and end up in rehab.
Where's the sense in that?


It's kind of funny how legal a substance is when they donate hundreds of millions of dollars to political figures.
 
2014-08-06 11:14:10 AM  

tbeatty: pute kisses like a man: wait, what?

they don't even know if they had any in their system?  this is just a guess because some was nearby?

Another perfect example of "Correlation is not causation."

It's quite clear that while death and marijuana use were correlated but in no way did marijuana cause death.

In fact, the real underlying causative event is Darwinism "weeding out" the stupid people which is quite strongly correlated to "dead by 30" and "marijuana user."

P.S. Does anyone know a meth or heroin addict that turns down weed?  Didn't think so.


I've known several meth users who wouldn't smoke weed. If your preferred way of being high is to run in circles, and grind your teeth, and take your toaster apart looking for CiA mind control transmitters, well, marijuana just ain't cutting it, is it?
 
2014-08-06 11:14:22 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: "We assume the deaths of these two young men occurred due to arrhythmias evoked by smoking cannabis," but this assumption does not rule out that the men were predisposed to cardiovascular risks, they wrote.

Yep

/absolute, iron-clad, proof positive


When you ASSUME

s10.postimg.org

You make an ASS outta U and ME
 
2014-08-06 11:14:44 AM  
... we assume ...

Stopped there.
 
2014-08-06 11:19:58 AM  

pute kisses like a man: wait, what?

The man had a small amount of marijuana in his pockets when he was found, according to the researchers at the Institute of Legal Medicine, University Hospital Duesseldorf in Germany, who reported the case.

In the second case described in the report, a 28-year-old man was found dead at home by his girlfriend. An ashtray, rolling paper and a sealable plastic bag containing remnants of marijuana were found next to the body.

they don't even know if they had any in their system?  this is just a guess because some was nearby?

is this a joke/onion article?

(I'm sure someone actually did some tests, but the article just provides the above as evidence of pot smoking)


Yeah I'd be more interested in seeing a medical examiner's report and a toxicology report than the word of some study. Still this isn't the first time I've heard about this link.
 
2014-08-06 11:23:54 AM  

hardinparamedic: special20: I love the correlations that "experts" make when trying to force their agenda of fascism on free people.

The "experts" are Forensic Toxicologists in Germany - a country with fairly liberal drug laws compared to the US - who published a study intending to help in forensic death examinations where a contributing cause might escape an investigator. The journal it was published in has nothing to do except with the medicolegal aspects of death investigation.

If you read the actual study, there was nothing in it towards drug policies or control.


Yeah, wow - that's as dry as a fart, and far less relevant to my interests. Thanks.
 
2014-08-06 11:28:38 AM  
"147 million users worldwide "

media.giphy.com
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-08-06 11:28:59 AM  

Zizzowop: More interesting are the comments on Yahoo:

"You know it is so funny that all these dreadlock wearing, bloodshot eyed and smelly marijuana people are using pointless comparisons of "Oh alcohol kills more", "Oh it is not the cause of these two people's death", and other pointless arguments is laughable.
Look they are doctors. Doctors go to school for years to be doctors. Doctors don't need to lie because they are going to get paid no matter what. Doctors have a moral code not to lie. If they misdiagnosed something they can get sued and get their medical licenses suspended. Therefore when a doctor said that those marijuana drug burnouts died from smoking that smelly marijuna stuff guess what? They died.
So please marijuana burnout people don't change the story so you can have an excuse to smoke that smelly stuff." -smelly marijuana people, because, doctors.


You wouldn't go to an astronomer to find out your horoscope, you'd go to an astrologer who is an expert on the subject, right? And wouldn't go to a meteorologist to learn about global warming, you would go to a climatologist, right? So naturally you would go to a Cheetos-stained burnout to learn about marijuana, and not some doctor that, although brilliant in their own field of stidy, is completely out of his depth when it comes to smoking weed, right?

/just get your information from whoever tells you what you want to believe
//that's what all the smart people do
///only deniers pay attention to critics
 
2014-08-06 11:31:52 AM  

Tatterdemalian: You wouldn't go to an astronomer to find out your horoscope, you'd go to an astrologer who is an expert on the subject, right?


People believe in that shiat?
 
2014-08-06 11:35:51 AM  
Kind of like how one nutball goes on a shooting spree and everyone on fark piles on to condemn 50 million legal gun owners.
 
2014-08-06 11:37:50 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-08-06 11:38:50 AM  
I found this story, linked from the thread article, to be absolutely ghastly, and absolutely more discussable than this dreck.
 
2014-08-06 11:39:20 AM  
Did anyone else get this from the article:

 In one of the deaths, a 23-year-old man without a history of health problems suddenly collapsed while using public transportation, and died after 40 minutes of unsuccessful resuscitation efforts, according to the case report based on postmortem investigations. The man had a small amount of marijuana in his pockets when he was found,

So someone with a history of health problems does something that may result in harmful side affects.


Quick, someone shut it down, shut it all down. Everything.
 
2014-08-06 11:39:42 AM  
Actually, it's still zero. There is no established link here.
I had to reread it until I cleared something up for myself. What we are reading here are NOT the coroner's reports. They are independent "research" papers by independent "researchers" whose provenance and employers we do not know.
They cherry picked the actual coroner's reports, which we don't get to see. The issue of medical history is carefully skirted.
 If you even give this two second's consideration, you just got your face jacked off in.
This isn't science - it's dildos.
 
2014-08-06 11:46:16 AM  
Did they find the empty syringes they used to shoot it up into their eyes? They really are scraping the bottom of the barrel now.
 
2014-08-06 11:46:52 AM  

jso2897: They are independent "research" papers by independent "researchers" whose provenance and employers we do not know.


I'm not linking the pubmed of the actual research/case study. I've done it three times already in the thread. (not that anyone would be bothered to read it.)

They actually did nothing of that. You might actually want to read the pubmed citation as well (if you're willing to pony up 35 bucks) as the actual paper for the scope and methodology of their paper.

Also, their employers were actually stated in TFA: They're forensic scientists with the Federal German government.
 
2014-08-06 11:48:41 AM  
the really good stuff can make my heart pound a little sometimes.
 
2014-08-06 11:48:42 AM  

LazyMedia: Checkmate, potheads!

i.imgur.com

Check YOU. I'm not even playing mate. I'm playing pot.

khyberkitsune: Any honest smoker can confirm these effects. My first few times of smoking pot and disrupting my endocannabinoid system, I first A. didn't get high then B. got high as hell and had my heart racing then C. heart raced and I puked then D. All was good.
Those effects don't happen any longer, but I see it happen all the time in first/second timers.


Maybe pot is too strong for novices now. I've been smoking pot since I was a teen, and the old stuff didn't do that to anyone. In fact, I didn't even feel it for the first several times I tried it. It was like it had to build up in my system first (like we know that it does in regular smokers) before I got the effects. You guys settle down, stop taking room-choking bong hits your first time out. It really isn't necessary. Even now if I'm smoking "a lot" for me, I have one hit and that shiat just about takes the top of my head off. Then maybe one more small hit a few minutes later.

I'm serious. The medical stuff is not the same drug that we used to roll up into joints. Calm the fark down, stoners, and quit ODing to show how hardcore you are. It's not cool to drink alcohol fast until you puke either, but guess what underage drinkers do, all the goddamned time?
 
2014-08-06 11:49:41 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: "We assume the deaths of these two young men occurred due to arrhythmias evoked by smoking cannabis," but this assumption does not rule out that the men were predisposed to cardiovascular risks, they wrote.

Yep

/absolute, iron-clad, proof positive


Lets not forget this little fact from the article: "The man had occasionally used cannabis, the researchers wrote. He had also abused alcohol and drugs, such as amphetamines and cocaine until about two years before his death, they wrote. "

But, yeah, it was totally the occasional joint, and not the history of meth and cocaine abuse that did him in...
 
2014-08-06 11:53:04 AM  
In both cases, the deaths were related to cardiovascular complications


Toxicological examinations concluded that the men were under the influence of cannabis before they died, and traces of THC were found in their blood and brain.


/failmitter fails
 
2014-08-06 11:57:22 AM  

lindalouwho: Zizzowop: More interesting are the comments on Yahoo:

"You know it is so funny that all these dreadlock wearing, bloodshot eyed and smelly marijuana people are using pointless comparisons of "Oh alcohol kills more", "Oh it is not the cause of these two people's death", and other pointless arguments is laughable. 

Look they are doctors. Doctors go to school for years to be doctors. Doctors don't need to lie because they are going to get paid no matter what. Doctors have a moral code not to lie. If they misdiagnosed something they can get sued and get their medical licenses suspended. Therefore when a doctor said that those marijuana drug burnouts died from smoking that smelly marijuna stuff guess what? They died. 

So please marijuana burnout people don't change the story so you can have an excuse to smoke that smelly stuff." -smelly marijuana people, because, doctors.

You're understanding of human nature and ethics is... naive.


I don't know, I kind of agree with the comment. If doctors release a report about people whodied and say marijuana was a contributing factor. You can be reasonably safe to assume that the people actually died. Even if you are lying about the marijuana part, not using actual dead people would be stupid.

That said, it isn't unreasonable that marijuana was a contributing factor where heart conditions already existed. But almost anything can be a contributing factor to push a weakened heart into failure. Now, an otherwise healthy person probably has very little to fear from this.
 
2014-08-06 12:02:13 PM  

cryinoutloud: LazyMedia: Checkmate, potheads!
[i.imgur.com image 350x550]

Check YOU. I'm not even playing mate. I'm playing pot.


31.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-08-06 12:03:33 PM  

tbeatty: No it's not.  Tobacco isn't magically carcinogenic.  Inhaling the smoke of any burning organic matter is carcinogenic. Marijuana claims that it's safer because frequency of use  is lower.  I suspect most Marijuana smokers either use cigarettes in between tokes or smoke weed at cigarette quantities.


The first "suspicion" I can't speak to, because I've never smoked cigarettes regularly- nicotine/tobacco nauseate me. It is true that many of the smokers I know also smoke cigarettes, but not all. (some dip, some don't do anything.)

The second is almost certainly untrue- there are just shy of 3/4 oz. of tobacco in your regular 20-pack. If you're smoking ditchweed absolutely constantly, MAYBE you'll go through that in a day- but who does that? Most "regular" smokers I know don't even bother with crappy stuff anymore, and good stuff is usually at least $40 for 1/8th/oz, which should last you a couple days (personally), even if you want to be high constantly.

I've NEVER heard of a single person smoking such a volume in a single day (under normal circumstances, I'm not talking about smoking a quarter pound joint at a hemp festival); you rapidly get to the point where smoking another J or bowl just doesn't do anything for you, and won't make you feel any different, so it's a waste. Even on the rare occasion where a few folks go in on a zip or a half and insist that they're gonna kill it all at this party invariably end up smoking about a quo and realizing they don't need any more.

What IS true about smoking bud is that unless you're vaping, you're smoking unfiltered smoke, which is bad. A filtered cigarette is probably slightly less bad for you than an unfiltered J, but by how much, after factoring in additives and such, I cannot possibly say. What I'm more curious about is whether 3 unfiltered one-hit bat rips are as bad for you as a whole cigarette, since that's about all it takes- and even then, if they're completely equal in harm-factor, I'd only be smoking 2-3 "cigarettes worth" every day. A "2 pack a month" smoker? I can live with that.
 
m00
2014-08-06 12:04:48 PM  

TabASlotB: Heart palpitations are a common side effect of THC exposure, and cannabinoids are well-established to cause hypotension and other cardiac states that can be associated with cardiac events: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22022923


I can substantiate this with anecdotal evidence.
 
m00
2014-08-06 12:07:33 PM  

tbeatty: No it's not. Tobacco isn't magically carcinogenic. Inhaling the smoke of any burning organic matter is carcinogenic. Marijuana claims that it's safer because frequency of use is lower. I suspect most Marijuana smokers either use cigarettes in between tokes or smoke weed at cigarette quantities.


No, but the additives are. All smoke is carcinogenic, but they add some nasty stuff to cigarettes in addition to make it "smooth" (doesn't burn your throat) so you can smoke more.
 
2014-08-06 12:11:51 PM  
The prohibitionists are getting desperate.  Good.
 
2014-08-06 12:13:54 PM  

dywed88: lindalouwho: Zizzowop: More interesting are the comments on Yahoo:

"You know it is so funny that all these dreadlock wearing, bloodshot eyed and smelly marijuana people are using pointless comparisons of "Oh alcohol kills more", "Oh it is not the cause of these two people's death", and other pointless arguments is laughable. 

Look they are doctors. Doctors go to school for years to be doctors. Doctors don't need to lie because they are going to get paid no matter what. Doctors have a moral code not to lie. If they misdiagnosed something they can get sued and get their medical licenses suspended. Therefore when a doctor said that those marijuana drug burnouts died from smoking that smelly marijuna stuff guess what? They died. 

So please marijuana burnout people don't change the story so you can have an excuse to smoke that smelly stuff." -smelly marijuana people, because, doctors.

You're understanding of human nature and ethics is... naive.

I don't know, I kind of agree with the comment. If doctors release a report about people whodied and say marijuana was a contributing factor. You can be reasonably safe to assume that the people actually died. Even if you are lying about the marijuana part, not using actual dead people would be stupid.

That said, it isn't unreasonable that marijuana was a contributing factor where heart conditions already existed. But almost anything can be a contributing factor to push a weakened heart into failure. Now, an otherwise healthy person probably has very little to fear from this.


Yep.and I said as much in a post farther upthread ;-)
 
2014-08-06 12:14:01 PM  

durbnpoisn: Serious Black: Let's be generous and say both of these deaths were caused by marijuana. That would make them the first two in recorded history. Compare those deaths to those caused by alcohol or tobacco. Statistically speaking, they both killed over a hundred people yesterday in the US alone. Yet those are completely legal under federal law while marijuana is a Schedule I substance. Where is the logic in that situation?

This.

I've been saying it for years, and literally every time one of these threads pops up.

The whole situation is upside down and backwards.

It actually drives me nuts how the whole social stigma works too...  You could happily annouce to your coworkers that you are going to the bar after work, have a few drinks and drive home.  Every smiles.  But say you are gonna stop by a friends how to smoke a few, and you could literally lose your job and end up in rehab.
Where's the sense in that?



No... I'd be just as annoyed by someone who can't get through their day without having a few drinks (and pissed that they intend to drive afterward). When I was in management, I would have kept my eye on someone who constantly announces they're stopping for drinks, and I would have written them up or fired them if I saw anything that made me believe they were bringing their bad habit into the workplace. For the record, I'd also fire someone who kept stepping out during the work day to have a 10-minute smoke break. If your habits interfere with work, you're out on your ass.

I see no reason for you to announce to the workplace that you're going to indulge in whatever taboo habits you enjoy.

How would you like it if Bob from accounting announced he was going to go home and take a big dump, clip his toenails over the sink, and then strip down and jerk off while watching Big Chunky Asses Dumping #13?

Exactly. Ugh. Who needs to hear that?! Who wants to know what Bob's doing outside of work?  Nobody.

In the same way, nobody else cares or wants to know what you do to yourself, with yourself, or with your other drunkard or stoner buddies. Why make it a public issue at all? Do you really need everyone else to approve of your habits? Is there some deep-seated need to not only do the drugs, but have everyone ACCEPT that you do drugs and legitimize your choices for you?

I'm in favor of legalization.  If you want to do it, DO IT. Just don't expect everyone else to change their opinion of you. Go home, get high, and leave everyone else out of it.

Be happy. You're getting it legalized in many places. You're officially less of a social pariah than a crackhead, but if you expect you're going to be more accepted than a smoker or a drunkard, you're dreaming. That's not going to happen any time soon. Keep your odious personal habits to yourself and all will be well. Bob won't talk about his love of perfectly-legal German scat porn featuring 500-lb women, Sheila won't talk about her pica making boogers taste awesome to her palate, and you can refrain from telling everyone in the office that you like to get farked up on this-or-that substance. Because honestly: Nobody wants to know, and nobody gives a shiat. Work in a head shop if you want to talk about pot.
 
2014-08-06 12:14:11 PM  
www.stretcharmstrongworld.com
 
2014-08-06 12:14:15 PM  
Paraquat poisoning the pot again? (See 70's.)
 
2014-08-06 12:21:41 PM  

Tatterdemalian: Zizzowop: More interesting are the comments on Yahoo:

"You know it is so funny that all these dreadlock wearing, bloodshot eyed and smelly marijuana people are using pointless comparisons of "Oh alcohol kills more", "Oh it is not the cause of these two people's death", and other pointless arguments is laughable.
Look they are doctors. Doctors go to school for years to be doctors. Doctors don't need to lie because they are going to get paid no matter what. Doctors have a moral code not to lie. If they misdiagnosed something they can get sued and get their medical licenses suspended. Therefore when a doctor said that those marijuana drug burnouts died from smoking that smelly marijuna stuff guess what? They died.
So please marijuana burnout people don't change the story so you can have an excuse to smoke that smelly stuff." -smelly marijuana people, because, doctors.

You wouldn't go to an astronomer to find out your horoscope, you'd go to an astrologer who is an expert on the subject, right? And wouldn't go to a meteorologist to learn about global warming, you would go to a climatologist, right? So naturally you would go to a Cheetos-stained burnout to learn about marijuana, and not some doctor that, although brilliant in their own field of stidy, is completely out of his depth when it comes to smoking weed, right?

/just get your information from whoever tells you what you want to believe
//that's what all the smart people do
///only deniers pay attention to critics


I cut and pasted a comment on the Yahoo page, it wasn't MY comment, I just thought it was funny.
 
2014-08-06 12:22:41 PM  

lindalouwho: Zizzowop: More interesting are the comments on Yahoo:

"You know it is so funny that all these dreadlock wearing, bloodshot eyed and smelly marijuana people are using pointless comparisons of "Oh alcohol kills more", "Oh it is not the cause of these two people's death", and other pointless arguments is laughable. 

Look they are doctors. Doctors go to school for years to be doctors. Doctors don't need to lie because they are going to get paid no matter what. Doctors have a moral code not to lie. If they misdiagnosed something they can get sued and get their medical licenses suspended. Therefore when a doctor said that those marijuana drug burnouts died from smoking that smelly marijuna stuff guess what? They died. 

So please marijuana burnout people don't change the story so you can have an excuse to smoke that smelly stuff." -smelly marijuana people, because, doctors.

You're understanding of human nature and ethics is... naive.


It wasn't MY comment, I cut and pasted it from the Yahoo page.
 
2014-08-06 12:22:43 PM  

WilderKWight: You're officially less of a social pariah than a crackhead, but if you expect you're going to be more accepted than a smoker or a drunkard, you're dreaming. That's not going to happen any time soon.


This Colorado resident laughs at your ignorance. It might not be "more" accepted, but it is not a big deal. Nobody cares.
 
Displayed 50 of 218 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report