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  
•       •       •

7400 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Aug 2014 at 10:38 AM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



218 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-08-06 08:03:12 AM  
Sounds like the study basically concludes "We ruled out other stuff, so it must have been the pot!"

Also, they should ban exercise.  Have you heard how many people with pre-existing heart conditions die during exercise?  And sex!  Ban the sex!
 
2014-08-06 08:18:23 AM  
Germans always bogart - the puff-puff-pass method just isn't part of their doob culture. If you yell at them for bogarting, they'll roll you another one, but they don't share well.

Perhaps that has something to do with it.
 
2014-08-06 08:21:32 AM  
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.
 
2014-08-06 08:25:31 AM  
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.
 
2014-08-06 08:43:32 AM  

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.
 
2014-08-06 08:47:46 AM  
If your argument is so important true and valid why do you have to lie to support it?
 
2014-08-06 08:53:03 AM  
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?
 
2014-08-06 08:57:03 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?


Meanwhile cocaine is schedule II.  Yeah, perfectly sensible drug policy there.
 
2014-08-06 09:14:27 AM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: Sounds like the study basically concludes "We ruled out other stuff, so it must have been the pot!"

Also, they should ban exercise.  Have you heard how many people with pre-existing heart conditions die during exercise?  And sex!  Ban the sex!


"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the doob."

Wise man, that Doyle.
 
2014-08-06 09:17:05 AM  
"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
 
2014-08-06 09:20:51 AM  

Diogenes: Three Crooked Squirrels: Sounds like the study basically concludes "We ruled out other stuff, so it must have been the pot!"

Also, they should ban exercise.  Have you heard how many people with pre-existing heart conditions die during exercise?  And sex!  Ban the sex!

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the doob."

Wise man, that Doyle.


And Doyle would be one of the last ones who should be critical of drugs, 'specially the cocaine.

Incidentally, there are a lot of people who suddenly have health complications who were previously healthy.  I think that's how it works.
 
2014-08-06 09:58:44 AM  
Yahoo! is turning into the Daily Mail of US media companies.
 
2014-08-06 10:41:42 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Yahoo! is turning into the Daily Mail of US media companies.


That's sexist.
 
2014-08-06 10:42:55 AM  
I would want to note that one of the individuals had a known issue with amphetamine abuse - that probably tore their heart a new one or weakened it severely.  Not to mention, the body's had "THC" which isn't metabolized thoroughly from the body for up to 30 days because it hangs out in your fat cells.  Cocaine metabolites are found only within 3-days after use.
 
2014-08-06 10:44:09 AM  
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.

"After exclusion of other causes of death, we assume that the young men died from cardiovascular complications evoked by smoking cannabis," the researchers wrote.



Uh huh.  It was teh evil pot
 
2014-08-06 10:45:05 AM  
I thought I was going to die from the marijuanas once because my throat closed up from a bong hit and I couldn't breathe.  But then my airway opened up and I was sooooooo high and my brain shifted from "OH GOD I'M GOING TO DIE" to "I want pancakes" and then I won the lottery and saved the president and had sex with three chicks at once so everything worked out.
 
2014-08-06 10:47:03 AM  
In both cases, the deaths were related to cardiovascular complications.

Well smoking pot makes you eat a lot of taco bell. I can see the link
 
2014-08-06 10:47:19 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Marcus Aurelius: Yahoo! is turning into the Daily Mail of US media companies.

That's sexist.


Heh.  I like you sometimes.
 
2014-08-06 10:47:34 AM  

I_Am_Weasel: Diogenes: Three Crooked Squirrels: Sounds like the study basically concludes "We ruled out other stuff, so it must have been the pot!"

Also, they should ban exercise.  Have you heard how many people with pre-existing heart conditions die during exercise?  And sex!  Ban the sex!

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the doob."

Wise man, that Doyle.

And Doyle would be one of the last ones who should be critical of drugs, 'specially the cocaine.

Incidentally, there are a lot of people who suddenly have health complications who were previously healthy.  I think that's how it works.


Watson actually regularly chewed Holmes' ass for doing the doing the coke. Doyle was not a fan.

This report is a big old piece of crap, though. A sample size of 2? These guys should be laughed out of their respective professions.
 
2014-08-06 10:48:17 AM  
Panic on the streets of London.
 
2014-08-06 10:48:42 AM  
Tylenol killed 140 people last year through fulminant hepatic failure, out of nearly billions of uses.

I don't see (sane) people rallying to have people thrown into prison for 10 years because they have a gel cap in their pocket.
 
2014-08-06 10:48:47 AM  
FUD AF
 
2014-08-06 10:49:19 AM  
Two people died driving to work today.  Better ban jobs!
 
2014-08-06 10:49:19 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


Checkmate, potheads!
 
2014-08-06 10:49:44 AM  
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)
 
2014-08-06 10:50:11 AM  
that's more deadly than tobacco!
 
2014-08-06 10:50:28 AM  
Possible.  And that same night, just in the USA alone...1,205 people died from complications of cigarettes and 219 from booze.

GIGO - That is to say, logic can lead to some absurd results as well as relevant and rational ones.

No, I don't think I'll be checking into Rehab today.  Think I'll get ripped and go play some golf.

/Pants-Wetters are gonna wet
//Absence of proof is not
///Proof of absence.
 
2014-08-06 10:50:43 AM  
It sounds like these two degenerates injected one too many marihuanas. I am sure that their mothers are so proud of their little snowflakes ending up in the news as just another casualty of rampant liberalism.
 
2014-08-06 10:50:47 AM  
FTA:
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. [
"After exclusion of other causes of death, we assume that the young men died from cardiovascular complications evoked by<a data-rapid_p="11" data-cke-saved-href="http://www.livescience.com/24558-marijuana-effect s.html" >smoking="" cannabis,"="" the="" researchers="" wrote.


Are you farking kidding me? You think those earlier drugs didn't cause any lasting damage? I'm going to guess he smoked cigarettes, too, which have a MUCH higher contribution to cardiovascular conditions.

But that doesn't help their "Marijuanna BAD!" theme, does it?
 
2014-08-06 10:52:09 AM  
I love the correlations that "experts" make when trying to force their agenda of fascism on free people.
 
2014-08-06 10:54:36 AM  

nekom: Meanwhile cocaine is schedule II.  Yeah, perfectly sensible drug policy there.


Cocaine, like Marijuana, also has medical uses. Unlike Marijuana, however, it's very physiologically addictive. The form used in medicine is, literally, 100% pure liquid cocaine.

This is the actual published study.
 
2014-08-06 10:55:07 AM  
I'm not a pot smoker, but I love that our puritan culture is swiftly sliding toward every kitchen having a little pot plant next to the basil and the marjoram.

Pfizer stockholders will be anxious, but then they might chill with a visit to the kitchen...
 
2014-08-06 10:56:01 AM  
They banned ephedrine for pretty much the same statistics.
 
2014-08-06 10:56:13 AM  
Looking forward to hearing about the joint this guy smoked one time in college when he has his inevitable heart attack.
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-08-06 10:56:27 AM  

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.


Yup.
 
2014-08-06 10:56:50 AM  
Annual US Deaths
Tobacco related: 480,000
Motor vehicle accident: 33,000
Alcohol related  (not including accidents): 26,000
Firearm related homicide: 11,000

Just for quick reference.
 
2014-08-06 10:56:54 AM  
So recapping:
Tobacco causes 5,000,000 smoking-related deaths (per year).
Marijuana causes 2 smoking-related deaths.

So marijuana is about 0.00004% as dangerous as tobacco?
 
2014-08-06 10:56:55 AM  

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.
 
2014-08-06 10:57:29 AM  
strrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrretch
 
2014-08-06 10:57:40 AM  
Legal pot will eventually have a dosage amount, similar to proof or percent for booze. Betty Crocker Brownie Mix lobbyists don't want people overdosing and disparaging their good name.
 
F42
2014-08-06 10:57:41 AM  
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. "After exclusion of other causes of death, we assume that the young men died from cardiovascular complications evoked by smoking cannabis," the researchers wrote.

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

That's some credible propaganda, Lou.
 
2014-08-06 10:58:23 AM  

bmwericus: Possible.  And that same night, just in the USA alone...1,205 people died from complications of cigarettes and 219 from booze.

GIGO - That is to say, logic can lead to some absurd results as well as relevant and rational ones.

No, I don't think I'll be checking into Rehab today.  Think I'll get ripped and go play some golf.

/Pants-Wetters are gonna wet
//Absence of proof is not
///Proof of absence.


I wonder what the results would be if Pot usage was wide spread as cigarettes and booze.

Pot is not harmless as some people would say.. it probably has an equivalent in killing cells in your lungs as booze does with killing/enlarging your liver.

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.
 
2014-08-06 10:58:24 AM  
I'll agree that weed is bad for you in the same way that unfiltered cigs are bad for you.

/I know, I know, edibles.
 
2014-08-06 10:58:45 AM  

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.
 
2014-08-06 10:59:46 AM  

dwrash: bmwericus: Possible.  And that same night, just in the USA alone...1,205 people died from complications of cigarettes and 219 from booze.

GIGO - That is to say, logic can lead to some absurd results as well as relevant and rational ones.

No, I don't think I'll be checking into Rehab today.  Think I'll get ripped and go play some golf.

/Pants-Wetters are gonna wet
//Absence of proof is not
///Proof of absence.

I wonder what the results would be if Pot usage was wide spread as cigarettes and booze.

Pot is not harmless as some people would say.. it probably has an equivalent in killing cells in your lungs as booze does with killing/enlarging your liver.

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.
 
2014-08-06 10:59:47 AM  

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.


Yes, this. I'm sure in the future they will find that there needs to be a very specific set of pre-existing conditions, not to mention previous drug abuse - especially of cocaine/meth.

Otherwise people would have been dropping dead from weed all over the place for a few hundred years.

I'm also curious to know if in people with these conditions it matters by strain or by smoke v edibles.
 
2014-08-06 10:59:52 AM  
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.
 
2014-08-06 11:00:48 AM  

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.
 
2014-08-06 11:03:07 AM  
Over 1,000 people died from alcohol abuse world wide while that headline was written, but yes, let's ban the evil weed!
 
2014-08-06 11:03:41 AM  
Well, TFA is a load of Shiat.

There's reporting facts and there's just flinging poo at a webpage.
 
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.
 
2014-08-06 12:25:47 PM  
I once knew a guy who drank a Pepsi and then died of a heart attack shortly after.  Now, despite the fact that he had been drinking Pepsi in moderation all his life without problems, it was clearly the Pepsi that killed him.
 
2014-08-06 12:30:37 PM  
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


Clearest case of marijuana I've ever seen.
 
2014-08-06 12:31:27 PM  

tbeatty: I suspect most Marijuana smokers either use cigarettes in between tokes or smoke weed at cigarette quantities.


Why? Because you're 0 for 2.
 
2014-08-06 12:35:43 PM  
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
 
2014-08-06 12:35:47 PM  
amandacobb.co.uk

hotlinked
 
2014-08-06 12:37:00 PM  
FTFA: "Deaths due to cannabis use are usually accidents that are not caused by the substance, but to the circumstances of use," Leune said.


Good thing the point of that sentence didn't make it anywhere near the headline!
 
2014-08-06 12:38:24 PM  
When you assume you make an ass out of you. Just you. Not me. You and you alone.
 
2014-08-06 12:39:46 PM  
Do these people believe Reefer Madness was a documentary too? "Traces" of cannabis didn't kill anyone.
 
2014-08-06 12:43:50 PM  
How's Colorado's Cannabis experiment working out? "Largely Successful."
 
2014-08-06 12:46:07 PM  
lol.

Toxicologists need to make the wording more sensitive so that they don't incur the stoner butthurt backlash. "Post mortem tissue tested positive THC - BUT THAT PROBABLY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING AND MARIJUANA IS THE SAFEST THING *EVER* AND DON'T YOU DARE EVEN HINT AT ONE BAD THING ABOUT SMOKING LOTS AND LOTS OF SHIAT BECAUSE STONERS WILL, LIKE, GET ALL SELF-RIGHTEOUS AND STUFF.

okay now?
 
2014-08-06 12:46:10 PM  

cryinoutloud: 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.


Uh, my first times were back in the 90s. Pot then was roughly as strong as it is now (we had 20+% THC strains back in the 70s according to my father.) The difference is nowdays we have the same crap that hasn't been compressed and oxidized and wasted via the packaging process, and is fresher, which means more delivered potency.

cryinoutloud: I'm serious. The medical stuff is not the same drug that we used to roll up into joints


Yes, it is. Just speaking as a High Time PotC featured grower, medical patient, and landrace cannabis genetics preservation specialist for a Dutch seedbank.
 
2014-08-06 12:46:20 PM  

Stoker: Paraquat poisoning the pot again? (See 70's.)


Paraquat toxicity is well documented, and quite easily identifiable by the lung sections which are full of swiss-cheese looking vacuoles.
 
2014-08-06 12:47:03 PM  
I must have died a thousand deaths by now.
 
2014-08-06 12:48:18 PM  

khyberkitsune: Yes, it is. Just speaking as a High Time PotC featured grower, medical patient, and landrace cannabis genetics preservation specialist for a Dutch seedbank.


Dude, you live in California. I'm not saying I doubt your esteemed qualifications, but....yeah,  I doubt you're telecommuting.

And yes, the medicinal stuff is quite different - especially when it comes to specialized uses, such as oil for Dravet's syndrome, than the recreational stuff, as they select to grow strains high in the specific THC or CBD compounds they are targeting for that condition.
 
2014-08-06 12:51:22 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: lol.

Toxicologists need to make the wording more sensitive so that they don't incur the stoner butthurt backlash. "Post mortem tissue tested positive THC - BUT THAT PROBABLY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING AND MARIJUANA IS THE SAFEST THING *EVER* AND DON'T YOU DARE EVEN HINT AT ONE BAD THING ABOUT SMOKING LOTS AND LOTS OF SHIAT BECAUSE STONERS WILL, LIKE, GET ALL SELF-RIGHTEOUS AND STUFF.

okay now?


It's not the toxicology reports that irk people. Those reports are based on facts. The personal spin people place on said toxicology reports are what piss people off. A toxicologist would report that traces of alcohol were found in the system of a person that was killed by a detailed train. Would anyone with a working brain arrive at the conclusion that the alcohol detected was the cause of death? No. They wouldn't.
 
2014-08-06 12:52:47 PM  

mooseyfate: It's not the toxicology reports that irk people. Those reports are based on facts. The personal spin people place on said toxicology reports are what piss people off. A toxicologist would report that traces of alcohol were found in the system of a person that was killed by a detailed train. Would anyone with a working brain arrive at the conclusion that the alcohol detected was the cause of death? No. They wouldn't.


Actually, it has more to do with people who haven't done any research other than TFA raging and gnashing at what they think a report with narrow implications in medicolegal death investigation is going to be used for.
 
2014-08-06 12:52:55 PM  
Derailed, not detailed. Stupid smart phone.
 
2014-08-06 12:54:24 PM  

WilderKWight: 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.


Who said anything about it affecting work? Such a situation isn't normally about alcohol, it is about socializing with coworkers.

It certainly isn't uncommon in most of the western world for coworkers to go out for a drink after the work day (actually in a lot of places not doing so would be unusual), which often involves a general invitation.

But if the equivalent were to occur with pot (even where I am in Vancouver), you would face issues in most work places.
 
2014-08-06 12:55:33 PM  

hardinparamedic: Dude, you live in California. I'm not saying I doubt your esteemed qualifications, but....yeah, I doubt you're telecommuting.


They send me the seeds via post. I'm registered with the CA Dept. of Ag. for this.

hardinparamedic: as they select to grow strains high in the specific THC or CBD compounds they are targeting for that condition.


Those strains were already naturally that high (we've got the seeds in our bank, it comes from China for the CBD and THC-Vivarin content, and regular THC comes from the more sativa-dominant landrace genetics from the Afghan areas.)
 
2014-08-06 12:56:03 PM  

hardinparamedic: mooseyfate: It's not the toxicology reports that irk people. Those reports are based on facts. The personal spin people place on said toxicology reports are what piss people off. A toxicologist would report that traces of alcohol were found in the system of a person that was killed by a detailed train. Would anyone with a working brain arrive at the conclusion that the alcohol detected was the cause of death? No. They wouldn't.

Actually, it has more to do with people who haven't done any research other than TFA raging and gnashing at what they think a report with narrow implications in medicolegal death investigation is going to be used for.


TFA was actually filled with facts that point away from weed as a killer plant. The headline of said article didn't. But yet that hasn't stopped any anti-pot people from taking away exactly what they wanted to from the article. I wonder why that is.

/probably because they're not starting from a logical or fact-based position to begin with
 
2014-08-06 12:59:44 PM  
What strain?
 
2014-08-06 01:02:34 PM  
Youtried.jpg
 
2014-08-06 01:03:38 PM  

Epic Fap Session: What strain?


Bullshiatacus Sativa. BS for short.
 
2014-08-06 01:05:27 PM  
I've tried to have some form of this discussion with my teen, who's battling a pre-natal addiction,  As long as pot possession/distribution was illegal, research could not occur.  So, there was no conclusive proof as to the harmfulness or harmlessness of pot.  Now that some sense has arrived on the scene, researchers can actually begin to document either the users' claims, or refute them.  As noted upthread, there is a trickle of research, just starting.  Just as we stopped trusting the marketing research about tobacco, we'll learn soon enough if these researchers are on the up and up. If they are shills, it will come out.  If they are unbiased, it will worth the wait to make an informed decision about consuming pot.
 
2014-08-06 01:17:05 PM  

TabASlotB: 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.


 I was talking about actual science related to identifying the possible effects of the active ingredients in marijuana. If you think this 'report', or most studies that have come out lately about the relative dangers of pot are actual helpful, you need to do more research. To wit- The very first ' scientific literature' you link is a well debunked french study that tried to link cannabis use to heart attacks and even death. Some interesting facts about that french study- Research was funded by the French InterMinisterial Mission for the Fight Against Drugs and Addiction and the French Drug Agency. also, part of the authors' conclusion is that a death rate of 25.6% exists in cases of cardiovascular complications related to cannabis. If those aren't warning signs about the legitimacy of the report you are fooling yourself.
 
2014-08-06 01:19:27 PM  
so 2 people with heart conditions had heart attacks while using or having just used pot.

So pot might have helped the heart attack but it didn't kill them. The Heart attack killed them.

And pot definitely changes blood pressure. that is a FACT. So I could very easily see it as a contributing factor but to say it killed these people is complete and utter BS.
 
2014-08-06 01:20:08 PM  
Were the researchers Kolansky and Moore?
 
2014-08-06 01:21:51 PM  

cherryl taggart: I've tried to have some form of this discussion with my teen, who's battling a pre-natal addiction,  As long as pot possession/distribution was illegal, research could not occur.  So, there was no conclusive proof as to the harmfulness or harmlessness of pot.  Now that some sense has arrived on the scene, researchers can actually begin to document either the users' claims, or refute them.  As noted upthread, there is a trickle of research, just starting.  Just as we stopped trusting the marketing research about tobacco, we'll learn soon enough if these researchers are on the up and up. If they are shills, it will come out.  If they are unbiased, it will worth the wait to make an informed decision about consuming pot.


Marijuana was extensively studied when it was (and still is at the federal level and in 48 states) illegal. Schedule 1 drugs can be used for research and/or compassionate use with approval as an experimental drug. Hence its efficacy and safety in the treatment of several disorders is well documented. What is also wee documented is that it is virtually impossible to overdose on smoked marijuana. To date, no death as a direct result of smoking marijuana has ever been identified. There have been some rare instances, such as the ones covered in the FA where someone has died and had THC or its metabolites in their system, but this does not mean that the drug killed them. large doses of THC can lower blood pressure and sometimes dramatically so. So someone who has an undiagnosed cardiovascular problem may theoretically be at risk, since a rapid drop in blood pressure in such individuals may lead to cardiac arrhythmias.
 
2014-08-06 01:22:01 PM  

khyberkitsune: Uh, my first times were back in the 90s. Pot then was roughly as strong as it is now (we had 20+% THC strains back in the 70s according to my father.) The difference is nowdays we have the same crap that hasn't been compressed and oxidized and wasted via the packaging process, and is fresher, which means more delivered potency.


And you said you had bad effects, right? So my point stands. I started smoking in the late 70's. It was nothing like it is today. And your dad is sort of right--there WERE very strong kinds of pot then, but very few people ever got any. We were usually smoking stuff like grows in the ditches in Kansas. Your average pothead wasn't touching the stuff that came from Amsterdam, or Maui Wowee, or whatever the fark was around then. I just don't think it's the same now. Barely even the same drug, the way it's been modified and genetically altered to do different things.

It's like comparing driving a 1970 Volkswagen to driving a late-model [insert name of super-fast car here.] Well, what do I care? You young stoners keep smoking modern pot like it's the 70's, until your brain fogs up for three days, your mouth falls open, and you barf, while I'll keep taking my tiny little hits and saving a lot of money.
 
2014-08-06 01:22:30 PM  

Dinki: The very first ' scientific literature' you link is a well debunked french study that tried to link cannabis use to heart attacks and even death. Some interesting facts about that french study- Research was funded by the French InterMinisterial Mission for the Fight Against Drugs and Addiction and the French Drug Agency. also, part of the authors' conclusion is that a death rate of 25.6% exists in cases of cardiovascular complications related to cannabis. If those aren't warning signs about the legitimacy of the report you are fooling yourself.


Well, I'm settled. Someone who is deliberately misstating and lying about the published research and linking to an individual's blog seems more trustworthy than the JAMA.

You do realize that outright lying about something like smoking - well, anything - having a major cardiovascular risk factor doesn't help your cause, right? It actually gives anti-decriminlization and anti-legalization people ammunition to use against you?

mooseyfate: TFA was actually filled with facts that point away from weed as a killer plant. The headline of said article didn't. But yet that hasn't stopped any anti-pot people from taking away exactly what they wanted to from the article. I wonder why that is.


Do you know what shuts that down?

Pointing out the actual implications of the case study, and it's applications. The actual case studies presented in the study are towards marijuana use as a contributory cause in cardiovascular events. Not that pot kills.
 
2014-08-06 01:27:39 PM  

JackieRabbit: Marijuana was extensively studied when it was (and still is at the federal level and in 48 states) illegal.


img.4plebs.org
 
2014-08-06 01:30:09 PM  

hardinparamedic: Well, I'm settled. Someone who is deliberately misstating and lying about the published research and linking to an individual's blog seems more trustworthy than the JAMA.


Really, and what lie did I state about the JAMA study? Was it not funded by the French InterMinisterial Mission for the Fight Against Drugs and Addiction and the French Drug Agency ? Did the auor of the JAMA report not state "However, despite poor exhaustiveness, it has already been shown that the spontaneous reporting (as, for example, in thefield of pharmacovigilance) is the cornerstone to identify signals. In the context of our study, the increasing reporting of cardiovascular complications related to cannabis, and their extreme seriousness (with a death rate of 25.6%) could indicate cannabis as a possible risk factor for cardiovascular disease in young adults, in line with previous findings."

Please, Show me where I lied.... or STFU.
 
2014-08-06 01:30:41 PM  

cryinoutloud: And you said you had bad effects, right? So my point stands.


No, it does not. Learn about the endocannabinoid system first before talking.

You had to break it first before Weed works. That's been proven. It explains the 'first time smoke non-stoned' issues.

You may be older but you lack my education and experience in this field.

And since you don't practice, quit acting like you do.
 
2014-08-06 01:32:34 PM  
cryinoutloud:
And you said you had bad effects, right? So my point stands. I started smoking in the late 70's. It was nothing like it is today. And your dad is sort of right--there WERE very strong kinds of pot then, but very few people ever got any. We were usually smoking stuff like grows in the ditches in Kansas. Your average pothead wasn't touching the stuff that came from Amsterdam, or Maui Wowee, or whatever the fark was around then. I just don't think it's the same now. Barely even the same drug, the way it's been modified and genetically altered to do different things.

It's like comparing driving a 1970 Volkswagen to driving a late-model [insert name of super-fast car here.] Well, what do I care? You young stoners keep smoking modern pot like it's the 70's, until your brain fogs up for three days, your mouth falls open, and you barf, while I'll keep taking my tiny little hits and saving a lot of money.


Have you given any thought to the fact that your age might be the difference and not necessarily (or at least not exclusively) the pot?  When I was 19 I did LSD and mushrooms, I know for a fact that at 34 that would be a BAD idea.  I could not handle it these days, I'm sure of this.  I know it's sort of apples and oranges but your body has changed.

/with you on the tiny hits though
//too much gives me bad side effects
///I also like saving money
 
2014-08-06 01:32:38 PM  

Dinki: hardinparamedic: Well, I'm settled. Someone who is deliberately misstating and lying about the published research and linking to an individual's blog seems more trustworthy than the JAMA.

Really, and what lie did I state about the JAMA study? Was it not funded by the French InterMinisterial Mission for the Fight Against Drugs and Addiction and the French Drug Agency ? Did the auor of the JAMA report not state "However, despite poor exhaustiveness, it has already been shown that the spontaneous reporting (as, for example, in thefield of pharmacovigilance) is the cornerstone to identify signals. In the context of our study, the increasing reporting of cardiovascular complications related to cannabis, and their extreme seriousness (with a death rate of 25.6%) could indicate cannabis as a possible risk factor for cardiovascular disease in young adults, in line with previous findings."

Please, Show me where I lied.... or STFU.


The word 'cornerstone' is a weasel word. Until they can not use those, that study plus 15 years of unbeaten and totally unchallenged cannabis research by me is BULLshiat AND SUSPECT.

Come back when you can identify reliable sources.
 
2014-08-06 01:35:26 PM  
Once I smoked so much pot, I turned into a giant lizard.

/I got better
 
2014-08-06 01:37:40 PM  

mooseyfate: Derailed, not detailed. Stupid smart phone.


Ah. I thought you meant a really clean train.

So clean that its Cd was so low and it didn't make any noise, so the guy got hit by it since he didn't hear it coming.
 
2014-08-06 01:38:44 PM  

F42: 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. "After exclusion of other causes of death, we assume that the young men died from cardiovascular complications evoked by smoking cannabis," the researchers wrote.

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

That's some credible propaganda, Lou.


This cant be stressed enough. Ignore the drug that makes your heart go THUMPTHUMPTHUMPTHUMPTHUMP, and go straight for the pot excuse. Nice logic there.
 
2014-08-06 01:41:11 PM  
Funny thing about all the people touting these anecdotal reports of Pots harmful effects. If you talk about pots beneficial effects, they will scream "But you don't know what is in that weed you bought on the street!! You don't know the percentage of THC or CBD or if it has been mixed with other more dangerous substances!!" Yet they will point to someones past use of pot as if it alone must be the reason for that persons malady.
 
2014-08-06 01:44:22 PM  

italie: Ignore the drug that makes your heart go THUMPTHUMPTHUMPTHUMPTHUMP,


You're obviously not paying attention to the thread, otherwise you'd have noted my responses to pot pulled form my personal written journal.

So shut the hell up.
 
2014-08-06 01:51:14 PM  

hardinparamedic: Dinki: The very first ' scientific literature' you link is a well debunked french study that tried to link cannabis use to heart attacks and even death. Some interesting facts about that french study- Research was funded by the French InterMinisterial Mission for the Fight Against Drugs and Addiction and the French Drug Agency. also, part of the authors' conclusion is that a death rate of 25.6% exists in cases of cardiovascular complications related to cannabis. If those aren't warning signs about the legitimacy of the report you are fooling yourself.

Well, I'm settled. Someone who is deliberately misstating and lying about the published research and linking to an individual's blog seems more trustworthy than the JAMA.

You do realize that outright lying about something like smoking - well, anything - having a major cardiovascular risk factor doesn't help your cause, right? It actually gives anti-decriminlization and anti-legalization people ammunition to use against you?

mooseyfate: TFA was actually filled with facts that point away from weed as a killer plant. The headline of said article didn't. But yet that hasn't stopped any anti-pot people from taking away exactly what they wanted to from the article. I wonder why that is.

Do you know what shuts that down?

Pointing out the actual implications of the case study, and it's applications. The actual case studies presented in the study are towards marijuana use as a contributory cause in cardiovascular events. Not that pot kills.


No arguments here. And might I also add a "Yeah, you right!".
 
2014-08-06 01:53:13 PM  

Dinki: Funny thing about all the people touting these anecdotal reports of Pots harmful effects. If you talk about pots beneficial effects, they will scream "But you don't know what is in that weed you bought on the street!! You don't know the percentage of THC or CBD or if it has been mixed with other more dangerous substances!!" Yet they will point to someones past use of pot as if it alone must be the reason for that persons malady.


So smoking pot doesn't increase cardiovascular risk factor? Despite contradictory evidence published in high impact journals? Or the past 70 years of knowledge?

See, it's things like this that don't help. This is why people accuse you of lying.

It has nothing to do with THC or CBD content. It has to do with the fact you're inhaling products of combustion, tar, and mechanical\chemical irritants. And the fact that many people who smoke also concurrently smoke tobacco doesn't help.
 
2014-08-06 01:54:05 PM  
I heard about this kid that smoked pot, and the pot made him think he was a bird, so he jumped out a window and he died.
 
2014-08-06 02:01:06 PM  

hardinparamedic: Despite contradictory evidence published in high impact journals?


Just to be fair, a few of those 'high impact' journal shave been proven to be bullshiat.

So until several double-blind studies are performed, you can kiss your sources good-bye.
 
2014-08-06 02:04:28 PM  

khyberkitsune: hardinparamedic: Despite contradictory evidence published in high impact journals?

Just to be fair, a few of those 'high impact' journal shave been proven to be bullshiat.

So until several double-blind studies are performed, you can kiss your sources good-bye.



Just to be counter-fair, there have been decades of controlled studies which demonstrate massive cardiovascular risk between smokers and non, that have held up quite well despite well funded attempts to prove otherwise.

It's not at all a leap to believe that the magical presence of cannabinoids makes that suddenly different.

Epidemiological studies don't work like you seem to think they do.
 
2014-08-06 02:05:59 PM  

hardinparamedic: So smoking pot doesn't increase cardiovascular risk factor?


You want to show me where I ever said that? try looking up the thread a bit-

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.


And I completely agree that smoking pot is probably the worst way to ingest it. Smoking anything is bad for you. The problem I have with these reports (which you characterize as "The actual case studies presented in the study are towards marijuana use as a contributory cause in cardiovascular events. Not that pot kills. " When in fact, the people paying for most of these studies are looking for exactly that kind of justification, looking for anything they can take out of the report and scream "LOOK- WE TOLD YOU POT WOULD KILL YOU" Maybe the scientists doing the studies have that same view, maybe they are simply naive. We don't know, and because of this, the rest of us need to parse the studies and extract what the science really says. And scientists stating things like a 25.6% death rate in the body of their report do not lend to rational discussion.
 
2014-08-06 02:06:50 PM  

hardinparamedic: Just to be counter-fair, there have been decades of controlled studies which demonstrate massive cardiovascular risk between smokers and non, that have held up quite well despite well funded attempts to prove otherwise.


Yea, tobacco. Now take into account the other mitigating factors such a genetics. Oh, you don't have that knowledge, and that isn't listed in those studies.

False science without testing every avenue. Gimme a break. Versus 10K+ years of known usage....
 
2014-08-06 02:09:28 PM  

Dinki: maybe they are simply naive


Given the drop in educational standards in the 90s, this is the exact reasoning, behind being easily-bribed by third-parties outside of the scope of the study.

Or have we forgotten all the fake ass journals disguised as ads this past decade?

Hardin is a paramedic. Not a licensed doctor, not a licensed doctoral assistant. Until he gets a medical doctorate (to beat my MS) he's not talking about anything from any position but from that of a lowly EMT.
 
2014-08-06 02:09:28 PM  

hardinparamedic: khyberkitsune: hardinparamedic: Despite contradictory evidence published in high impact journals?

Just to be fair, a few of those 'high impact' journal shave been proven to be bullshiat.

So until several double-blind studies are performed, you can kiss your sources good-bye.


Just to be counter-fair, there have been decades of controlled studies which demonstrate massive cardiovascular risk between smokers and non, that have held up quite well despite well funded attempts to prove otherwise.

It's not at all a leap to believe that the magical presence of cannabinoids makes that suddenly different.

Epidemiological studies don't work like you seem to think they do.


We already have a partial solution.
uploads.medicaljane.com
 
2014-08-06 02:12:22 PM  

hardinparamedic: Just to be counter-fair, there have been decades of controlled studies which demonstrate massive cardiovascular risk between smokers and non, that have held up quite well despite well funded attempts to prove otherwise.


Yea, SMOKING. How many different avenues are there for cannabis ingestion? Quite a few, from IV tinctures in a lipid-saline solution to vaporization.

Quit grasping at straws. You give me the feeling you're the idiot paramedic that thought it'd be a good idea to give me (an opiate-allergic person with a farking wrist band) morphine while I'm sitting around crushed by a truck, half-dead.
 
2014-08-06 02:17:52 PM  
Well, that escalated rather slowly over the course of the thread.
 
2014-08-06 02:20:44 PM  

Dinki: Funny thing about all the people touting these anecdotal reports of Pots harmful effects. If you talk about pots beneficial effects, they will scream "But you don't know what is in that weed you bought on the street!! You don't know the percentage of THC or CBD or if it has been mixed with other more dangerous substances!!" Yet they will point to someones past use of pot as if it alone must be the reason for that persons malady.


If the major risk is from unknown concentrations and additives, isn't that a great argument for legalize and regulate?

That is the argument for restricting moonshine, the safety concerns from the lack of oversight and risk of contamination. You legalize marijuana and 95% of that issue disappears.
 
2014-08-06 02:21:03 PM  

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?


An expert on made-up nonsense?
 
2014-08-06 02:26:54 PM  

khyberkitsune: Yea, SMOKING. How many different avenues are there for cannabis ingestion? Quite a few, from IV tinctures in a lipid-saline solution to vaporization.


Congradulations. You're arguing against something I never said or even approached.

Speaking of, as a "MS", I'm curious about your peer reviewed, published research on the topic; especially based on your claims in this thread. Would you mind linking to them?
 
2014-08-06 02:27:31 PM  

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


That's nice, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the comment you're responding to.
 
2014-08-06 02:29:15 PM  

hardinparamedic: Would you mind linking to them?


They're not published and kept under NDA by my former employer.

Primarily because it'd upset all of you and crash their own stock portfolio.
 
2014-08-06 02:29:57 PM  

khyberkitsune: They're not published and kept under NDA by my former employer.


Oh, speaking of, if you do want the info, my NDA expires in 76 days. Wait?
 
2014-08-06 02:30:30 PM  

Dinki: TabASlotB: 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.

 I was talking about actual science related to identifying the possible effects of the active ingredients in marijuana. If you think this 'report', or most studies that have come out lately about the relative dangers of pot are actual helpful, you need to do more research. To wit- The very first ' scientific literature' you link is a well debunked french study that tried to link cannabis use to heart attacks and even death. Some interesting facts about that french study- Research was funded by the French InterMinisterial Mission for the Fight Against Drugs and Addiction and the French Drug Agency. also, part of the authors' conclusion is that a death rate of 25.6% exists in cases of cardiovascular complications related to cannabis. If those aren't warning signs about the legitimacy of the report you are fooling yourself.


I am 'swayed' by your 'excessive' use of 'scare quotes' and link to a 'debunking' article by a guy who claims "I have beliefs that if a Higher Power puts a disease on this Mother Earth, he also put a plant or herb that is here that can cure it."

Your response has definitely convinced me that my actual day-to-day research on drug addiction and the many physiological effects of psychotropic substances doesn't qualify me to evaluate the literature properly. I shall now slink away in shame.
 
2014-08-06 02:33:44 PM  

nekom: cryinoutloud:
And you said you had bad effects, right? So my point stands. I started smoking in the late 70's. It was nothing like it is today. And your dad is sort of right--there WERE very strong kinds of pot then, but very few people ever got any. We were usually smoking stuff like grows in the ditches in Kansas. Your average pothead wasn't touching the stuff that came from Amsterdam, or Maui Wowee, or whatever the fark was around then. I just don't think it's the same now. Barely even the same drug, the way it's been modified and genetically altered to do different things.

It's like comparing driving a 1970 Volkswagen to driving a late-model [insert name of super-fast car here.] Well, what do I care? You young stoners keep smoking modern pot like it's the 70's, until your brain fogs up for three days, your mouth falls open, and you barf, while I'll keep taking my tiny little hits and saving a lot of money.

Have you given any thought to the fact that your age might be the difference and not necessarily (or at least not exclusively) the pot?  When I was 19 I did LSD and mushrooms, I know for a fact that at 34 that would be a BAD idea.  I could not handle it these days, I'm sure of this.  I know it's sort of apples and oranges but your body has changed.

/with you on the tiny hits though
//too much gives me bad side effects
///I also like saving money


Why do you think this?  I'm 44, and didn't do LSD or shrooms until a few years ago.  I do acid once or twice a year now, with no ill effects.
 
2014-08-06 02:35:21 PM  

khyberkitsune: hardinparamedic: Would you mind linking to them?

They're not published and kept under NDA by my former employer.

Primarily because it'd upset all of you and crash their own stock portfolio.


Dude, a little self awareness goes a long way.  That is some self-important, insufferable shiat right there.
 
2014-08-06 02:37:13 PM  

hardinparamedic: The whole point of my response to you was that attempting to deflect or minimize the cardiovascular risk profile of smoking marijuana


I'm only attempting to prevent the hyperbolic use of anecdotal data as settled science. There is a huge leap from "Pot can cause increased heart rates that may effect those with preexisting cardiovascular conditions" (Which nobody is seriously arguing against) to "OMG if you use pot, even if you are a normal healthy human being, you are going to die!!!" Where this report of two deaths falls apart is the implication that Pot MUST be responsible for their deaths, simply because we can't find any other cause. It's bad science, and given the political climate around pot these days, can lead to bad public policy.
 
2014-08-06 02:37:22 PM  

GnomePaladin: That is some self-important, insufferable shiat right there.


Oh? So refusing to violate my legally-bound contract is self-important.

So much for your idea. Come back when you understand relevant laws.
 
2014-08-06 02:39:59 PM  

TabASlotB: Your response has definitely convinced me that my actual day-to-day research on drug addiction and the many physiological effects of psychotropic substances doesn't qualify me to evaluate the literature properly.


Hmm, impressive- exactly how many studies relating to the use of Pot and its effects on health have you published? I'd like to read them!
 
2014-08-06 02:40:00 PM  
I would be remiss in not pointing out that this story is a repeat from February.

http://time.com/10372/marijuana-deaths-german-study/
 
2014-08-06 02:42:33 PM  

Dinki: Where this report of two deaths falls apart is the implication that Pot MUST be responsible for their deaths, simply because we can't find any other cause. It's bad science, and given the political climate around pot these days, can lead to bad public policy.


I just tried to VPN to the work network just to gain access to the CINAHL and UT Medical journal system so I could get the PDF of the actual study. I somehow doubt that the intent of authors in a small impact medicolegal forensic journal is to use an N=2 Case Study as the basis for policy changes internationally on marijuana legalization or availability.
 
2014-08-06 02:47:10 PM  

hardinparamedic: I somehow doubt that the intent of authors in a small impact medicolegal forensic journal is to use an N=2 Case Study as the basis for policy changes internationally on marijuana legalization or availability


Oh I agree. But don't you agree that given the current political climate around pot, there are many that will use that study for exactly that purpose? Shouldn't scientists be aware of the political implication of their work, and take extra care that their work not be easily misused for a political agenda?
 
2014-08-06 02:48:00 PM  
CheekyMonkey:
Why do you think this?  I'm 44, and didn't do LSD or shrooms until a few years ago.  I do acid once or twice a year now, with no ill effects.

I've had some bad panic attacks under the influence of nothing.  I don't want to know what a panic attack on LSD is like.
 
2014-08-06 02:54:30 PM  

Dinki: hardinparamedic: I somehow doubt that the intent of authors in a small impact medicolegal forensic journal is to use an N=2 Case Study as the basis for policy changes internationally on marijuana legalization or availability

Oh I agree. But don't you agree that given the current political climate around pot, there are many that will use that study for exactly that purpose? Shouldn't scientists be aware of the political implication of their work, and take extra care that their work not be easily misused for a political agenda?


I would think that the current "political climate" around pot is drastically changing, and that people aren't quite as gullible as the heartland-foundation crackpot/DARE types think they are. Even if the increase in CV risk factor is comparable to tobacco use, it doesn't justify a climate of criminalization.

I would LIKE to think that pointing out the case study's intent, sample size, and narrow implications would tend to shut down any drive to use this to make policy changes across the atlantic.
 
2014-08-06 03:08:32 PM  
Caffeine, and other methylated xanthines, are far more effective in ruling out underlying cardiovascular `weaknesses'.

In 1986, Dronabinol/Marinol (synthetic Delta 9 THC) hit the market as a Schedule II medication.  A couple of decades later it was reduced to a Schedule III medication.  The FDA/DEA/ONDCP/NIDA have had very little to say about a spike in deaths from infarctions, in the premorbid, who are being dosed with Marinol (assume vanishingly small cohort).  Delta 9 does increase heart rate/BP.  The FDA did curry comb the mortality & morbidity reports (1986-2009) and could only discover 4 deaths attributable to Marinol/Dronabinol, alone.  All four were overdoses from this pill form of the single most `cardiac intensive' of the 300+ components identified in the marijuana bred at Uncle Sam's pot farm at the University of Mississippi.

Smoking the stuff?  Sure, hypoxia can't be discounted, along with the Delta Nine stimulation, yes?  Good luck with the regression given the data...

/still legal to mail out seeds from the Castor Bean plants, yes?
 
2014-08-06 03:19:55 PM  
I've smoked pot my whole adult life and I've never died.......yet.
 
2014-08-06 03:22:33 PM  
This thread has been lulzworthy. Thanks for the memories, FARK! :)

Crazy Lee: The FDA did curry comb the mortality & morbidity reports (1986-2009) and could only discover 4 deaths attributable to Marinol/Dronabinol, alone.  All four were overdoses from this pill form of the single most `cardiac intensive' of the 300+ components identified in the marijuana bred at Uncle Sam's pot farm at the University of Mississippi.

Smoking the stuff?  Sure, hypoxia can't be discounted, along with the Delta Nine stimulation, yes?  Good luck with the regression given the data...


Marinol is an amazing and apt case study in how profit motivation, moral busybodying, and racism can create the perfect derpstorm. I mean, sure, it's a synthetic form of D9THC, costs about 5 times what the same compound would cost naturally cultivated and compounded, and has less outright effectiveness, but at least the Mississippi blacks aren't dancing to Jazz with it.

It's interesting how when cheap 5HT3 Serotonin agents became available, Marinol suddenly got a new FDA indication for anorexia.
 
2014-08-06 03:23:56 PM  

khyberkitsune: GnomePaladin: That is some self-important, insufferable shiat right there.

Oh? So refusing to violate my legally-bound contract is self-important.


No.  Statements like "Primarily because it'd upset all of you and crash their own stock portfolio." are self-important.

So much for your idea. Come back when you understand relevant laws.

What idea?  What laws?
 
2014-08-06 03:41:13 PM  

GnomePaladin: khyberkitsune: GnomePaladin: That is some self-important, insufferable shiat right there.

Oh? So refusing to violate my legally-bound contract is self-important.

No.  Statements like "Primarily because it'd upset all of you and crash their own stock portfolio." are self-important.

So much for your idea. Come back when you understand relevant laws.

What idea?  What laws?


The more likely explanation is that the paper never existed, or never even passed a rudimentary peer review versus the fact that it "would have embarassed" the JAMA because someone "paid more" to be published. Especially since the names he gave either showed no results in publication, or were for papers that didn't even apply to his stated field of research.

 This same person has made some very tenuous claims in the past on FARK when challenged, either in a display of narcissism, or to troll.

The fact he basically made up many "qualifications", went from having one degree to another, claimed computer networking and technology certifications were medical and scientific in nature, and then didn't even know basic terminology of thing like a Physician vs. Medical Assistant, or what a Hazmat Technician was called add to the ability to call shenanigans.
 
2014-08-06 03:41:41 PM  

khyberkitsune: hardinparamedic: Would you mind linking to them?

They're not published and kept under NDA by my former employer.

Primarily because it'd upset all of you and crash their own stock portfolio.


smells like FLYNAVY
 
2014-08-06 03:47:57 PM  
Resident Farker with neuropharmacology background here (read: published papers on preclinical models of substance abuse).  Haven't read the thread but I assume that many Farkers have already mentioned this article is full of shiat.

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?


Supposedly because marijuana has no medicinal uses.  Which is bullshiat.  The US pharmacopoeia categorizes these drugs according to two factors 1.) medicinal value and 2.) abuse liability (shoutout).  These guys really have their heads up their asses in that while they made THC (the active molecule in marijuana) schedule I, they failed to schedule other synethetic cannabinoid agonists for YEARS which are more potent and have more diverse binding properties (i.e., effects on dopamine transporters and adrenergic receptors).  If you hear any seminars by some of todays 'scientists' touting that cannabinoids will kill you, they're really only referencing deaths from the synthetics.

hardinparamedic: nekom: Meanwhile cocaine is schedule II.  Yeah, perfectly sensible drug policy there.

Cocaine, like Marijuana, also has medical uses. Unlike Marijuana, however, it's very physiologically addictive. The form used in medicine is, literally, 100% pure liquid cocaine.

This is the actual published study.


The FDA actually has strict guidelines including (and probably most importantly) safety that limit the passage of a number of molecules that could potentially be beneficial in the clinic.  Oddly enough, many drugs like cocaine, acetaminophen  and morphine were grandfathered in (already shown to have medicinal uses) even though some of these drugs have an ED50/LD50 ratio (therapeutic index) that would never make it through phase I now-a-days.
 
2014-08-06 03:52:18 PM  

Abuse Liability: Resident Farker with neuropharmacology background here (read: published papers on preclinical models of substance abuse).  Haven't read the thread but I assume that many Farkers have already mentioned this article is full of shiat.


I think I get your name now. :)

Love it.

Abuse Liability: The FDA actually has strict guidelines including (and probably most importantly) safety that limit the passage of a number of molecules that could potentially be beneficial in the clinic.  Oddly enough, many drugs like cocaine, acetaminophen  and morphine were grandfathered in (already shown to have medicinal uses) even though some of these drugs have an ED50/LD50 ratio (therapeutic index) that would never make it through phase I now-a-days.


I'm actually surprised at the amount of grandfathered BS that the FDA lets people get away with - and the fact that congress has increasingly hobbled the way the FDA is allowed to act in terms of regulation of substances since the 1970s. (Hint: Delicious Pharma/Dietary Industry $$$ to congress).

The fact that APAP laces many opiates not as an adjunctive synergist, but as a way to kill off addicts and the FDA allows it is kind of a downer.
 
2014-08-06 03:52:41 PM  
A lot of people die.  Some of them smoke weed and then die.  Weed causes death.  Got it.
 
2014-08-06 03:57:36 PM  

WilderKWight: 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.


I'll take "missing the point" for $500, Alex.
 
2014-08-06 04:02:18 PM  

JackieRabbit: cherryl taggart: I've tried to have some form of this discussion with my teen, who's battling a pre-natal addiction,  As long as pot possession/distribution was illegal, research could not occur.  So, there was no conclusive proof as to the harmfulness or harmlessness of pot.  Now that some sense has arrived on the scene, researchers can actually begin to document either the users' claims, or refute them.  As noted upthread, there is a trickle of research, just starting.  Just as we stopped trusting the marketing research about tobacco, we'll learn soon enough if these researchers are on the up and up. If they are shills, it will come out.  If they are unbiased, it will worth the wait to make an informed decision about consuming pot.

Marijuana was extensively studied when it was (and still is at the federal level and in 48 states) illegal. Schedule 1 drugs can be used for research and/or compassionate use with approval as an experimental drug. Hence its efficacy and safety in the treatment of several disorders is well documented. What is also wee documented is that it is virtually impossible to overdose on smoked marijuana. To date, no death as a direct result of smoking marijuana has ever been identified. There have been some rare instances, such as the ones covered in the FA where someone has died and had THC or its metabolites in their system, but this does not mean that the drug killed them. large doses of THC can lower blood pressure and sometimes dramatically so. So someone who has an undiagnosed cardiovascular problem may theoretically be at risk, since a rapid drop in blood pressure in such individuals may lead to cardiac arrhythmias.


It's not just smoked marijuana.  I've met researchers at conferences who have injected body cavities to bursting with 100% (intraperitoneally), and these rodents didn't overdose.  It is true that genetics can predispose some people to having an exaggerated response to some of the adverse effects of THC, but that's pretty rare.
 
2014-08-06 04:03:20 PM  

Dinki: TabASlotB: Your response has definitely convinced me that my actual day-to-day research on drug addiction and the many physiological effects of psychotropic substances doesn't qualify me to evaluate the literature properly.

Hmm, impressive- exactly how many studies relating to the use of Pot and its effects on health have you published? I'd like to read them!


I'm pseudonymous for a reason, so I won't link to my faculty profile or PubMed author list. Since 2013, I've published six papers on addiction biology (4 1st-author). I'm more of an expert on psychostimulants, but I have done some cannabinoid work, am currently starting a project on the "CB3" receptor (gpr55), and am moderately-well-acquainted with the literature. Of course, you can take this or leave it, 'cause I ain't gonna prove it.

My background doesn't mean I'm right, but it does allow me some ability to assess a growing, changing field, which has been rather woefully understudied thus far. I also have no reason to expect you'd know my background. My snark was merely directed at the fact that sometimes snarling "maybe you should do some research" in the internet may actually--occasionally--be directed at someone who actually does the research.

Then again, I could just be a dog.
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-08-06 04:10:01 PM  

TabASlotB: Dinki: TabASlotB: Your response has definitely convinced me that my actual day-to-day research on drug addiction and the many physiological effects of psychotropic substances doesn't qualify me to evaluate the literature properly.

Hmm, impressive- exactly how many studies relating to the use of Pot and its effects on health have you published? I'd like to read them!

I'm pseudonymous for a reason, so I won't link to my faculty profile or PubMed author list. Since 2013, I've published six papers on addiction biology (4 1st-author). I'm more of an expert on psychostimulants, but I have done some cannabinoid work, am currently starting a project on the "CB3" receptor (gpr55), and am moderately-well-acquainted with the literature. Of course, you can take this or leave it, 'cause I ain't gonna prove it.

My background doesn't mean I'm right, but it does allow me some ability to assess a growing, changing field, which has been rather woefully understudied thus far. I also have no reason to expect you'd know my background. My snark was merely directed at the fact that sometimes snarling "maybe you should do some research" in the internet may actually--occasionally--be directed at someone who actually does the research.

Then again, I could just be a dog.
[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x335]


I was enjoying the masters guy and the paramedic going at it,  I kind of want to know who you are considering our field is a fairly small one (someone from Kalivas' group maybe?).  My name is right in my profile so you can pubmed me.  Just did a short stint at Vanderbilt and have done research on GABAA modulators, psychostimulants and cannabinoids.
 
2014-08-06 04:12:12 PM  

Abuse Liability: Just did a short stint at Vanderbilt and have done research on GABAA modulators, psychostimulants and cannabinoids.


This is going to sound creepy, but were you in the Research tower between the hospital there and the VA?
 
2014-08-06 04:15:03 PM  

hardinparamedic: Abuse Liability: Just did a short stint at Vanderbilt and have done research on GABAA modulators, psychostimulants and cannabinoids.

This is going to sound creepy, but were you in the Research tower between the hospital there and the VA?


Yep.  Like I said, I'm a pretty open book.  Maybe I shouldn't be, but I'm not faculty like tabAslotB, just a mere post-doc who's submitted a number of grant applications (a few being scored and a few more being triaged).  I don't see a facutly position for me in the near future, but who knows?
 
2014-08-06 04:17:20 PM  

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.


Yes, because fraud never happens in medical science... http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/07/12/drug-co m panies-on-scientific-fraud.aspx
 
2014-08-06 04:18:00 PM  

Abuse Liability: hardinparamedic: Abuse Liability: Just did a short stint at Vanderbilt and have done research on GABAA modulators, psychostimulants and cannabinoids.

This is going to sound creepy, but were you in the Research tower between the hospital there and the VA?

Yep.  Like I said, I'm a pretty open book.  Maybe I shouldn't be, but I'm not faculty like tabAslotB, just a mere post-doc who's submitted a number of grant applications (a few being scored and a few more being triaged).  I don't see a facutly position for me in the near future, but who knows?


Heh. I think I might have held the door for you and not realized it. I was there in September for a semester doing some education with LifeFlight there. Your picture looks familiar. We used to walk through the building on the way to the helipad elevator.

Beautiful campus, crappy parking.
 
2014-08-06 04:20:27 PM  

chadwick1982: Yes, because fraud never happens in medical science... http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/07/12/drug-co m panies-on-scientific-fraud.aspx


Point of order: When discussing anything, it is not a good idea to use Joseph Mercola's website for anything. He ranks up there with "The Health Ranger" Mike Adams and NaturaNews.com with tabloid science. It's a great way to poison the argument, and really light on actual facts compared with actual spin.
 
2014-08-06 04:21:44 PM  

hardinparamedic: Abuse Liability: hardinparamedic: Abuse Liability: Just did a short stint at Vanderbilt and have done research on GABAA modulators, psychostimulants and cannabinoids.

This is going to sound creepy, but were you in the Research tower between the hospital there and the VA?

Yep.  Like I said, I'm a pretty open book.  Maybe I shouldn't be, but I'm not faculty like tabAslotB, just a mere post-doc who's submitted a number of grant applications (a few being scored and a few more being triaged).  I don't see a facutly position for me in the near future, but who knows?

Heh. I think I might have held the door for you and not realized it. I was there in September for a semester doing some education with LifeFlight there. Your picture looks familiar. We used to walk through the building on the way to the helipad elevator.

Beautiful campus, crappy parking.


Damn. Small world. Me and a buddy used to talk about  getting to the helipad, but we figured you need some sort of special key.  Yeah, i mostly traversed the fifth or first floor to get back and forth from the animal facility.
 
2014-08-06 04:26:46 PM  

Abuse Liability: TabASlotB: Dinki: TabASlotB: Your response has definitely convinced me that my actual day-to-day research on drug addiction and the many physiological effects of psychotropic substances doesn't qualify me to evaluate the literature properly.

Hmm, impressive- exactly how many studies relating to the use of Pot and its effects on health have you published? I'd like to read them!

I'm pseudonymous for a reason, so I won't link to my faculty profile or PubMed author list. Since 2013, I've published six papers on addiction biology (4 1st-author). I'm more of an expert on psychostimulants, but I have done some cannabinoid work, am currently starting a project on the "CB3" receptor (gpr55), and am moderately-well-acquainted with the literature. Of course, you can take this or leave it, 'cause I ain't gonna prove it.

My background doesn't mean I'm right, but it does allow me some ability to assess a growing, changing field, which has been rather woefully understudied thus far. I also have no reason to expect you'd know my background. My snark was merely directed at the fact that sometimes snarling "maybe you should do some research" in the internet may actually--occasionally--be directed at someone who actually does the research.

Then again, I could just be a dog.
[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x335]

I was enjoying the masters guy and the paramedic going at it,  I kind of want to know who you are considering our field is a fairly small one (someone from Kalivas' group maybe?).  My name is right in my profile so you can pubmed me.  Just did a short stint at Vanderbilt and have done research on GABAA modulators, psychostimulants and cannabinoids.


Heh. I looked you up last time one of these threads came around. I will say that based on your mGluR5 work, you're probably vaguely familiar with my name...and I reviewed a paper from the Conn/Lindsley/Emmitte group very recently. Hope you've landed in another good lab.

The last time my pseudonymous ID could be traced to anything resembling an employer, I had a true nutjob stalk me and try to get me fired for no apparent reason. So that's as much personal info as I'll spread into the aether.
 
2014-08-06 04:35:25 PM  

TabASlotB: Abuse Liability: TabASlotB: Dinki: TabASlotB: Your response has definitely convinced me that my actual day-to-day research on drug addiction and the many physiological effects of psychotropic substances doesn't qualify me to evaluate the literature properly.

Hmm, impressive- exactly how many studies relating to the use of Pot and its effects on health have you published? I'd like to read them!

I'm pseudonymous for a reason, so I won't link to my faculty profile or PubMed author list. Since 2013, I've published six papers on addiction biology (4 1st-author). I'm more of an expert on psychostimulants, but I have done some cannabinoid work, am currently starting a project on the "CB3" receptor (gpr55), and am moderately-well-acquainted with the literature. Of course, you can take this or leave it, 'cause I ain't gonna prove it.

My background doesn't mean I'm right, but it does allow me some ability to assess a growing, changing field, which has been rather woefully understudied thus far. I also have no reason to expect you'd know my background. My snark was merely directed at the fact that sometimes snarling "maybe you should do some research" in the internet may actually--occasionally--be directed at someone who actually does the research.

Then again, I could just be a dog.
[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x335]

I was enjoying the masters guy and the paramedic going at it,  I kind of want to know who you are considering our field is a fairly small one (someone from Kalivas' group maybe?).  My name is right in my profile so you can pubmed me.  Just did a short stint at Vanderbilt and have done research on GABAA modulators, psychostimulants and cannabinoids.

Heh. I looked you up last time one of these threads came around. I will say that based on your mGluR5 work, you're probably vaguely familiar with my name...and I reviewed a paper from the Conn/Lindsley/Emmitte group very recently. Hope you've landed in another good lab.

The last time my pseudonymous ID could be ...


I have, my wife really wanted to come home so I'm back where I belong.  They offered me a drug discovery position there, but I'd never be able to publish anything.  shiat, I have an entire manuscript using drug discrimination, self-administration and conditioned place preference doing an in depth analysis of the NAMs.  I don't think it'll ever see the light of day even though I wrote the whole manuscript, had someone else help me edit it, and submitted to my PI.  It may have had to do with the fact that the mGlu5 NAMs may have an abuse liability all their own, and partially substitute for CNS stimulants.  The truly stupid thing about it was, they developed a partial that had none of these properties, but I guess even the suggestion that NAMs have an abuse liability is a big no no.
 
2014-08-06 04:35:42 PM  

TabASlotB: I had a true nutjob stalk me and try to get me fired for no apparent reason. So that's as much personal info as I'll spread into the aether.


Heh. I tend to have a pretty argumentative personality on FARK, and I've had people try to harass me or my employer in real life because of it. It's been about three years, but it's still odd how people want to try to ruin the lives of others over something online.
 
2014-08-06 04:37:06 PM  

hardinparamedic: Abuse Liability: hardinparamedic: Abuse Liability: Just did a short stint at Vanderbilt and have done research on GABAA modulators, psychostimulants and cannabinoids.

This is going to sound creepy, but were you in the Research tower between the hospital there and the VA?

Yep.  Like I said, I'm a pretty open book.  Maybe I shouldn't be, but I'm not faculty like tabAslotB, just a mere post-doc who's submitted a number of grant applications (a few being scored and a few more being triaged).  I don't see a facutly position for me in the near future, but who knows?

Heh. I think I might have held the door for you and not realized it. I was there in September for a semester doing some education with LifeFlight there. Your picture looks familiar. We used to walk through the building on the way to the helipad elevator.

Beautiful campus, crappy parking.


Also, please don't kill me.  I'll mail you a pair of underwear if that'll sate your stalking proclivities.

/ :-)
 
2014-08-06 04:37:30 PM  

nekom: Have you given any thought to the fact that your age might be the difference and not necessarily (or at least not exclusively) the pot?  When I was 19 I did LSD and mushrooms, I know for a fact that at 34 that would be a BAD idea.  I could not handle it these days, I'm sure of this.  I know it's sort of apples and oranges but your body has changed.
/with you on the tiny hits though
//too much gives me bad side effects
///I also like saving money


Naw, I don't think so. Pot IS much stronger. And it's been chemically changed in a lot of ways. I've always been kind of a lightweight with drugs, but I think I could still handle shrooms or acid. The medical pot is just--its farking strong. I can't believe it when I even smell some of the stuff. There is a pot shop right down the street from where I work. They have maybe one fan for ventilation and you can smell it a block away. And that's just the growing plants.
 
2014-08-06 04:38:10 PM  

chadwick1982: 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.

Yes, because fraud never happens in medical science... http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/07/12/drug-co m panies-on-scientific-fraud.aspx


Fraud happens in every profession; science is no exception. That's not an excuse, it's a sad reality, and the risk increases with financial incentives. That said, Joe Mercola is quite possibly the worst possible source you could have linked to. That man is some combination of Gordon Gekko and batshiat crazy. Mostly batshiat. Greedy motherfarking batshiat.

In the future, go with someone like this guy:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/
 
2014-08-06 04:40:32 PM  

nekom: CheekyMonkey:
Why do you think this?  I'm 44, and didn't do LSD or shrooms until a few years ago.  I do acid once or twice a year now, with no ill effects.

I've had some bad panic attacks under the influence of nothing.  I don't want to know what a panic attack on LSD is like.


OK.  Sounds prudent to avoid it, then.
 
2014-08-06 04:47:55 PM  
Ah. More expert 'studies' and analysis by people who have never smoked pot.

Just like idiot heterosexual experts on homosexuality.
 
2014-08-06 04:51:54 PM  

Abuse Liability: TabASlotB: Heh. I looked you up last time one of these threads came around. I will say that based on your mGluR5 work, you're probably vaguely familiar with my name...and I reviewed a paper from the Conn/Lindsley/Emmitte group very recently. Hope you've landed in another good lab.

The last time my pseudonymous ID could be traced to anything resembling an employer, I had a true nutjob stalk me and try to get me fired for no apparent reason. So that's as much personal info as I'll spread into the aether.

I have, my wife really wanted to come home so I'm back where I belong.  They offered me a drug discovery position there, but I'd never be able to publish anything.  shiat, I have an entire manuscript using drug discrimination, self-administration and conditioned place preference doing an in depth analysis of the NAMs.  I don't think it'll ever see the light of day even though I wrote the whole manuscript, had someone else help me edit it, and submitted to my PI.  It may have had to do with the fact that the mGlu5 NAMs may have an abuse liability all their own, and partially substitute for CNS stimulants.  The truly stupid thing about it was, they developed a partial that had none of these properties, but I guess even the suggestion that NAMs have an abuse liability is a big no no.


I'm glad to hear you've landed OK. The CPP studies and the reported psychotomimetic side effects of some of the NAMs are definitely sitting out there, clouding that field...did you test your NAMs in drug discrimination? Other studies appear to have ruled out strong PCP-like, THC-like, benzo-like, etc. effects of the mGluR5 NAMs, (e.g., recent papers by Swedberg & Raboisson) so it's an open question what the subjective effects of some of these NAMs are and whether that abuse liability is real or measurable by current techniques. I hope you can get your paper published...
 
2014-08-06 04:58:41 PM  

cherryl taggart: I've tried to have some form of this discussion with my teen, who's battling a pre-natal addiction,  As long as pot possession/distribution was illegal, research could not occur.  So, there was no conclusive proof as to the harmfulness or harmlessness of pot.  Now that some sense has arrived on the scene, researchers can actually begin to document either the users' claims, or refute them.  As noted upthread, there is a trickle of research, just starting.  Just as we stopped trusting the marketing research about tobacco, we'll learn soon enough if these researchers are on the up and up. If they are shills, it will come out.  If they are unbiased, it will worth the wait to make an informed decision about consuming pot.


Look, addiction is not usually a good thing, be it tobacco, alcohol, weed, caffeine or cocaine.  If you have an addictive personality to begin with, you are at greater danger.

Anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that smoking Cannabis is not nearly as harmful to the average person as either tobacco or alcohol.  Or Peanuts, for that matter.

As to research:  The amount of GOOD research on cannabis is almost, but not quite zero, because for years the only funding you could get was for studies to prove how addictive and how deadly cannabis is.  Since it's NOT, that research was trashed for not fitting the Panjandrums Agenda for population control.  So to say we "need more study" by the pants-wetting prohibitionists is disingenuous since they have been prohibiting real research for more than 40 years.

Look, the fact is that if pot was a killer, we would have thousands of dead pot smokers every year, just like we do with Tobacco, yet those numbers DON'T EXIST.  They would long ago have shown up in the epidemiology.

When my son was old enough, I told him that I though pot would be better for him, but that he would be best off not doing either.  He's a drinker in moderation as far as I know.  He went thru a party phase, he's 32.
 
2014-08-06 05:02:20 PM  

TabASlotB: Abuse Liability: TabASlotB: Heh. I looked you up last time one of these threads came around. I will say that based on your mGluR5 work, you're probably vaguely familiar with my name...and I reviewed a paper from the Conn/Lindsley/Emmitte group very recently. Hope you've landed in another good lab.

The last time my pseudonymous ID could be traced to anything resembling an employer, I had a true nutjob stalk me and try to get me fired for no apparent reason. So that's as much personal info as I'll spread into the aether.

I have, my wife really wanted to come home so I'm back where I belong.  They offered me a drug discovery position there, but I'd never be able to publish anything.  shiat, I have an entire manuscript using drug discrimination, self-administration and conditioned place preference doing an in depth analysis of the NAMs.  I don't think it'll ever see the light of day even though I wrote the whole manuscript, had someone else help me edit it, and submitted to my PI.  It may have had to do with the fact that the mGlu5 NAMs may have an abuse liability all their own, and partially substitute for CNS stimulants.  The truly stupid thing about it was, they developed a partial that had none of these properties, but I guess even the suggestion that NAMs have an abuse liability is a big no no.

I'm glad to hear you've landed OK. The CPP studies and the reported psychotomimetic side effects of some of the NAMs are definitely sitting out there, clouding that field...did you test your NAMs in drug discrimination? Other studies appear to have ruled out strong PCP-like, THC-like, benzo-like, etc. effects of the mGluR5 NAMs, (e.g., recent papers by Swedberg & Raboisson) so it's an open question what the subjective effects of some of these NAMs are and whether that abuse liability is real or measurable by current techniques. I hope you can get your paper published...


I did indeed test it against a psychostimulant in a drug discrimination assay and the results are... interesting.  I'll email you the manuscript if you shoot me an email. Tzschentke's group even alluded to the fact that there might be substitution (but didn't do the study).  People have put MPEP in a syringe and found it was self-administered.  I couldn't do that with the compounds I was using because of solubility issues, but the CPP data speaks for itself (though we both know how difficult it is to interpret CPP data given the fact that it relies on memory, which is notoriously fickle when combined with drugs e.g., state dependent learning).
 
2014-08-06 05:08:21 PM  

TabASlotB: Abuse Liability: TabASlotB: Heh. I looked you up last time one of these threads came around. I will say that based on your mGluR5 work, you're probably vaguely familiar with my name...and I reviewed a paper from the Conn/Lindsley/Emmitte group very recently. Hope you've landed in another good lab.

The last time my pseudonymous ID could be traced to anything resembling an employer, I had a true nutjob stalk me and try to get me fired for no apparent reason. So that's as much personal info as I'll spread into the aether.

I have, my wife really wanted to come home so I'm back where I belong.  They offered me a drug discovery position there, but I'd never be able to publish anything.  shiat, I have an entire manuscript using drug discrimination, self-administration and conditioned place preference doing an in depth analysis of the NAMs.  I don't think it'll ever see the light of day even though I wrote the whole manuscript, had someone else help me edit it, and submitted to my PI.  It may have had to do with the fact that the mGlu5 NAMs may have an abuse liability all their own, and partially substitute for CNS stimulants.  The truly stupid thing about it was, they developed a partial that had none of these properties, but I guess even the suggestion that NAMs have an abuse liability is a big no no.

I'm glad to hear you've landed OK. The CPP studies and the reported psychotomimetic side effects of some of the NAMs are definitely sitting out there, clouding that field...did you test your NAMs in drug discrimination? Other studies appear to have ruled out strong PCP-like, THC-like, benzo-like, etc. effects of the mGluR5 NAMs, (e.g., recent papers by Swedberg & Raboisson) so it's an open question what the subjective effects of some of these NAMs are and whether that abuse liability is real or measurable by current techniques. I hope you can get your paper published...


Also, I used PCP as my control in the drug discrimination assay, and also found no substitution-like effects.  It's interesting for sure.  After reading a bit of the literature, I'd say that mGlu5 NAMs effects on cocaine self-administration may be more specific to cocaine, whereas their effects on reinstatement may be more generic (contrary to popular belief).  There's a paper out there  using sweetened condensed milk (by Weiss' group I think), where they successfully block reinstatement.  Kalivas told me (when he was visiting Vandy) that he had discussed the issue with Friedbert and believes it's because SCM is incredibly reinforcing, much like a drug of abuse (I remain skeptical).
 
2014-08-06 05:31:26 PM  

The Southern Dandy: I heard about this kid that smoked pot, and the pot made him think he was a bird, so he jumped out a window and he died.


I heard about this one kid, he was looking at his face in hubcaps and got run over, turned out he'd shot up two marijuana at a party the night before!
 
2014-08-06 05:46:58 PM  

Thai_Mai_Xhu: The Southern Dandy: I heard about this kid that smoked pot, and the pot made him think he was a bird, so he jumped out a window and he died.

I heard about this one kid, he was looking at his face in hubcaps and got run over, turned out he'd shot up two marijuana at a party the night before!


content.mydamnchannel.com
 
2014-08-06 06:16:55 PM  
i.imgur.com

"A little bit of weed never hurt anybody."
 
2014-08-06 06:33:07 PM  

hardinparamedic: chadwick1982: Yes, because fraud never happens in medical science... http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/07/12/drug-co m panies-on-scientific-fraud.aspx

Point of order: When discussing anything, it is not a good idea to use Joseph Mercola's website for anything. He ranks up there with "The Health Ranger" Mike Adams and NaturaNews.com with tabloid science. It's a great way to poison the argument, and really light on actual facts compared with actual spin.


Point of order: When trying to refute the facts of a post, it's a good idea to actually refute the facts of the post and not the messenger. I assume the University of Illinois at Chicago's Center for Pharmacoeconomic Research is fairly legitimate, so you might want to address their study, which is the first study Mercola cites.
 
2014-08-06 06:45:11 PM  
I did some research, and every single person who smoked pot between in the 1850's has died.  Every damn one of them.  And it gets worse.  Due to the risks of second-hand-high, everyone that ever even *met* a stoner has also died!

/dude
 
2014-08-06 07:11:56 PM  

Dinki: hardinparamedic: chadwick1982: Yes, because fraud never happens in medical science... http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/07/12/drug-co m panies-on-scientific-fraud.aspx

Point of order: When discussing anything, it is not a good idea to use Joseph Mercola's website for anything. He ranks up there with "The Health Ranger" Mike Adams and NaturaNews.com with tabloid science. It's a great way to poison the argument, and really light on actual facts compared with actual spin.

Point of order: When trying to refute the facts of a post, it's a good idea to actually refute the facts of the post and not the messenger. I assume the University of Illinois at Chicago's Center for Pharmacoeconomic Research is fairly legitimate, so you might want to address their study, which is the first study Mercola cites.


Point of order: when presenting something, don't use a source which has a documented history of spinning legimiste studies to support their own agenda, and as a bonus sell you their all natural homeopathic placebo for three easy payments of 58.99

Mercola.com is not a reliable source of information, even on published and legitimate studies. Sorry.

You're defending the equivilant of using DARE to argue drug policy.
 
2014-08-06 07:23:42 PM  
Personally know 3 people about 50 years old, whom i grew up with, died of heart problems, pretty quick. Heavy pot smokers, since 16 years old, you know the kind, have to get high every single day and often digging for roaches in the ashtray. Have to get high before work, go outside in the vehicle for lunch and get high ,before they go to the store, before they go hunting, whatever it may be. There is 1 or 2 more, lots of gray peppered hair now, who are most likely on the list for being next. I should write their names down with my thoughts before it happens. I think it's the crap they mix with it or spray on it. Ever seen bags with white powder on the bottom?
 
2014-08-06 07:29:03 PM  
I miss the old days of weed, when threads would have people posting their pot porn. It was so illicit. Now we have.....scientists discussing their work. It's like it's respectable or something. Now hand me my cane so I can get out of here.
 
2014-08-06 08:52:06 PM  

khyberkitsune: italie: Ignore the drug that makes your heart go THUMPTHUMPTHUMPTHUMPTHUMP,

You're obviously not paying attention to the thread, otherwise you'd have noted my responses to pot pulled form my personal written journal.

So shut the hell up.


I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt, went back and read all of your posts. To summarize what I saw:

-Article is scaremongering
-Yeah, heart raced a few times
-My dad says/Pot grower for a Dutch firm
-Registered with CADOA/Afghan stuff about potency
-May or may not agree with bad effects, couldn't tell/ Explaining the weed hymen / Professing expertise -without citing anything
-Something about you being a doctor now/15 years of "unchallenged" research without citing anything


So from this I get that your heart raced a few times, and that is supposed to be the magic link between heart disease and pot. This is also supposed to completely negate the alcohol, cocaine, and meth factor mentioned in the article, as well as the whole "had prior cardiovascular risks".

In plain English: Pot did NOT cause these men to die. The article is claiming, as it should, that pot triggered a preexisting condition that led to their death. Going for a jog, sex, or running up to one of these men and shouting "BOO!" could have done the same. This might be just me, but I haven't seen all that many death certificates that list cause of death as "Jogging".

To profess you have proof that weed causes some sort of heart degradation is fine. If you are going to make that claim though, put something up that actually backs up the claim with a study. Probably better make it a very solid study too, exclusively looking at if pot smoking can cause cardiovascular trauma. If you can't say that, you can't list the cause of death as pot.

//Also, when trying to get people to believe you, maybe tone down the anger a bit.
 
2014-08-06 09:41:43 PM  

italie: -Something about you being a doctor now/15 years of "unchallenged" research without citing anything


You missed many quality posts before the mods stepped in.

Basically put, you're talking to FLYNAVY, the pot version.
 
2014-08-06 09:48:19 PM  

wataga123: Personally know 3 people about 50 years old, whom i grew up with, died of heart problems, pretty quick. Heavy pot smokers, since 16 years old, you know the kind, have to get high every single day and often digging for roaches in the ashtray. Have to get high before work, go outside in the vehicle for lunch and get high ,before they go to the store, before they go hunting, whatever it may be. There is 1 or 2 more, lots of gray peppered hair now, who are most likely on the list for being next. I should write their names down with my thoughts before it happens. I think it's the crap they mix with it or spray on it. Ever seen bags with white powder on the bottom?


That's the crystals falling off the leaf.  Aka "kief".  Not really white, but off-white, brownish.

My mom had her first heart attack at 35.  She was a heavy smoke since 16, too. Only, hers were cigarettes.
 
2014-08-06 09:53:07 PM  
http://www.internationaljournalofcardiology.com/article/S0167-5273%28 0 6%2900778-9/abstract

" Here, we will discuss the physiologic effects of marijuana and include a comprehensive review of the studies and case reports that provide supportive evidence for marijuana as a trigger of adverse cardiovascular events, including tachyarrhythmias, acute coronary syndrome, vascular complications, and even congenital heart defects.

Not causation. Not even correlation. Only evidence that might support a hypothesis. No studies have ever been done, let alone controlled studies with test subjects and controls. This is all that's out there.

(Italics mine. I just love those things!)
 
2014-08-06 11:26:22 PM  

wataga123: Personally know 3 people about 50 years old, whom i grew up with, died of heart problems, pretty quick. Heavy pot smokers, since 16 years old, you know the kind, have to get high every single day and often digging for roaches in the ashtray. Have to get high before work, go outside in the vehicle for lunch and get high ,before they go to the store, before they go hunting, whatever it may be. There is 1 or 2 more, lots of gray peppered hair now, who are most likely on the list for being next. I should write their names down with my thoughts before it happens. I think it's the crap they mix with it or spray on it. Ever seen bags with white powder on the bottom?


theregulatortoo.files.wordpress.com
 
m00
2014-08-07 12:23:30 AM  
Seriously guys, I think it's an absurdity weed is a controlled substance under federal law. But I think when confronted with an argument that "well it may cause a cardiac event in people with pre-existing heart conditions" it's silly to try to debate that. Just say "okay, call me when Red Bull is illegal."
 
2014-08-07 07:05:03 AM  
"After exclusion of other causes of death, we assume that the young men died from cardiovascular complications evoked by  ,"

Well, that's hardly compelling at all.
 
2014-08-07 11:59:42 AM  
DNRTFA, saw "...an estimated 147 million users worldwide ...", estimated I don't have the time to waste on the rest of the Bull Carp.  #DeptOfMakingNumbersUpDepartment
 
2014-08-07 12:41:50 PM  

hardinparamedic: 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?


You can even get a Ph.D. in it. And why not, astrology is just as subject to peer review as climatology.

/astrology: determine what the star patterns were during historic events, and assume similar patterns will trigger similar events in the future
//climatology: determine what the balances of atmospheric gases were during historic climates, and assume similar balances will trigger similar climates in the future
///and of course, in both cases the world will end if you don't do exactly what they say
 
2014-08-07 12:45:06 PM  
estimated 147 million users worldwide

Worldwide?  How about just in the US?
 
2014-08-07 05:59:16 PM  
I love that the "researchers" cite their own bs studies. Don't get me wrong, I'm a researcher and we love to cite our own stuff the most, but in this case I can't imagine is truly peer reviewed, and accepted by the community. This is more of I think pot kills, somebody died and they smoked pot, as a researcher I should be objective and totally not employ confirmation bias to my own ideas, oh wait I should do that.

A mother (CHRISTIAN!!! as the article slammed down its readers throats) died in England not terribly long ago, they couldn't find a cause of death so ruled it pot. This is the worst, not only does it show a lack of understanding and competence of the medical examiner, but it creates a dangerous precedence that spreads like wild fire to anti marijuana advocates. I can only assume these so called people of science are only furthering their own agendas.
 
Displayed 218 of 218 comments

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