Report First woman in Britain to DIE from cannabis poisoning

[FireCat]

A mother-of-three is believed to have become the first woman in Britain to die directly from cannabis poisoning.

Gemma Moss, a 31-year-old churchgoer, of Boscombe, in Bournemouth, Dorset, collapsed in bed after smoking a cannabis cigarette that led her to have moderate to high levels of the class B drug in her system.

Tests of her vital organs found nothing wrong with them although it was suggested she might have suffered a cardiac arrest triggered by cannabis toxicity. Miss Moss' death was registered as cannabis toxicity and a coroner has recorded a verdict of death by cannabis abuse.

Deaths directly from cannabis are highly unusual. In 2004 a 36-year-old man from Pembrokeshire became the first person in the UK to died from cannabis toxicity. David Raynes, of the National Drug Prevention Alliance, said: 'It is extremely rare and unusual for a coroner to rule death from cannabis abuse.

'In 40 years I have never come across deaths from cannabis alone. There have been cases where it has been combined with other drugs or alcohol.

Mum-of-three, 31, becomes first woman in Britain to DIE from cannabis

Gemma Moss, a 31-year-old churchgoer, of Boscombe, in Bournemouth, Dorset, was killed by the level of the drug in her blood, an inquest heard.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Such a waste!

 

[seph ir oth]

"cannabis cigarette" makes me wonder what else was in it besides pot.

I'd prolly put the blame on other chemicals.

 

[KMilz]

I just don't even see how this could happen, but who knows? I'm no doctor, but I can't imagine half a joint putting someone into cardiac arrest. Anyone have some convincing information to share on how this could happen to someone that is a habitual smoker?

 

[The Helper]

Just because she died smoking a joint doesn't mean that killed her or caused her to die. Crazy British.

 

[KMilz]

I mean, if that was the only chemical in her system at abnormal levels and everything else about her body was fine, you can't blame them for considering it as the cause. Still seems pretty suspect to me, though.

 

[BlueMirage]

Makes me wonder how many people die of nicotine poisoning.

 

[Snowbizzle]

This is so laughably absurd.


From another article (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...d-campaign-group_n_4695702.html?utm_hp_ref=uk):

Pathologist Dr Kudair Hussein told the inquest: "The physical examination and the examination of various organs including the heart and the liver showed no abnormality that could account for her death.
"The level of canabinoids in the blood were 0.1 to 0.15 miligrams per litre, this is considered as moderate to heavy cannabis use.
"I looked through literature and it's well known that cannabis is of very low toxicity.
"But there are reports which say cannabis can be considered as a cause of death because it can induce a cardiac arrest."

...And another (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/woman-dies-marijuana-overdose-impossible-article-1.1597236):

"...the rush or anxiety from toking up could potentially exacerbate an underlying heart condition, or similar ailment, that could kill a person. Again, that condition, not the marijuana, would be responsible for taking the life."

and

American Scientist, a prestigious science and technology magazine, published a report on the toxicity of recreational drugs. According to the study, a person would need to drink 10 times the average amount of alcohol it takes to get a buzz in order to overdose. But for marijuana, someone would need to consume more than 1,000 times the average amount it takes to get a little high in order to die.
"You would need to literally consume a third of your body weight in marijuana," Tvert said. "There are no acute marijuana deaths."

TLDR -- It is physically impossible to die from cannabis, and if cannabis caused an underlying condition to kill this woman (low or high blood pressure, cardiac arrest, whatever), then that condition killed her, not the cannabis. It is impossible to prove causality in this case. This is not science or news, it is propaganda.​

​

 

[FireCat]

then that condition killed her, not the cannabis.

I don't agree. Her death was/might caused by cannabis toxicity. Well, she didn't die a natural death. That's for sure!

 

[seph ir oth]

The Daily Mail has almost become a tabloid, its legitimacy is laughable.

Devout Christian? Single mother of 3? Party pictures? OK.

 

[KMilz]

It is physically impossible to die from cannabis, and if cannabis caused an underlying condition to kill this woman (low or high blood pressure, cardiac arrest, whatever), then that condition killed her, not the cannabis.

I get that cannabis OD is impossible, but if her smoking weed caused an underlying condition to suddenly come forth (since I can't think of a better fucking way to put it right now, that shit is chronic) and cause her death, this definitely isn't something that should be ignored. I'm not trying to say this is the first death or a death directly caused by cannabis, but if cannabis actually can cause/exacerbate these sorts of problems, whether underlying or apparent, then we need to be taking that information into consideration. Just because it goes against what we've experienced and researched before doesn't mean that we should brush aside new information that contradicts what we know. In those cases, we should be even more critical to make sure we have a better understanding of what they're trying to present.

I'm still not convinced that weed caused whatever happened to her. It'd be nice if there were a more definitive means of knowing one way or the other, but I doubt that's really feasible. The way its all been publicized, it does seem more like propaganda and a lowly coroner trying to get his name in the headlines than anything substantive. Still, I think it does warrant a closer look than a snort and casual dismissal.

 

[Snowbizzle]

I mean...quite a number of things can cause underlying conditions to surface, and I would still argue that the condition, rather than the thing triggering that condition, would be to blame. The person imbibing these substances (or whatever) should be aware of their condition and not do anything to exacerbate it -- more likely, though, the person will say fuck it and do whatever he or she wants anyway, or the person will not be aware of any serious condition and will continue to live life as usual, again saying fuck it to any potential consequences because they assume the chances of experiencing those consequences are minimal.

There is already evidence that suggests smoking cannabis alters blood pressure among having other side effects (for example, this forum provides some useful discussion http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=172645), so if this is even a peripheral concern to someone, I imagine that person would already not be smoking cannabis. Especially if (as other people have said) she's a "devout Christian." I completely agree with you that we should know the exact side effects of cannabis, particularly as it pertains to medicinal usage as well as interference with known (government-regulated) medicinal treatments/conditions...but articles like this one only serve to further demonize cannabis in a way that maintains its illegal status. And as long as it's illegal, thorough testing won't be done on it to determine its possible interference with medical conditions, etc...vicious cycle.

To overstate my point...over-the-counter medications, prescription medications, LSD, traumatic experiences, shock, certain foods, lack of oxygen from high altitude...all these are things we're familiar with, but all can exacerbate or draw out underlying medical symptoms that may or may not lead to death. We do not necessarily make these things illegal because of that, nor do we necessarily blame these things when they are involved in someone's death. We may, as you said, advise against using or experiencing these things if one has a known condition that may interfere -- but if we do not have a life-threatening condition (and how many people get tested for all this shit as often as they could/should?), then why would we not continue using/experiencing these things? It's like saying that the water killed someone who drowned when the motherfucker didn't know how to swim in the first place.

Moreover, without having researched it any further, I'm particularly interested in which cannabinoid these researchers found at such "dangerous" levels in this woman's body. For example, simple drug tests can determine whether a user has THC in his or her system, but these tests do not tell you when the THC was imbibed -- sometimes they detect THC from over a month ago. So how can we say that she was even under the influence of the drug during the time of her death without knowing the half-life of the cannabinoid under question?

 

[KMilz]

I mean...quite a number of things can cause underlying conditions to surface, and I would still argue that the condition, rather than the thing triggering that condition, would be to blame. The person imbibing these substances (or whatever) should be aware of their condition and not do anything to exacerbate it -- more likely, though, the person will say fuck it and do whatever he or she wants anyway, or the person will not be aware of any serious condition and will continue to live life as usual, again saying fuck it to any potential consequences because they assume the chances of experiencing those consequences are minimal.

As to the bolded part, if we think that cannabis is a perfectly safe miracle drug like so many people want to say it is, how would she know that she was exacerbating the condition? Maybe due to misinformation supporting cannabis as a cure-all medicine, she thought that it would actually help improve her underlying condition. As to the remainder of the paragraph, people that don't care just aren't gonna care. Just because they know it could hurt them and they continue to do it doesn't relinquish blame from the substance. Yeah, they did it to themselves, but they'd have done it with the weed if that's what triggered the death. Same applies to any other thing you can hurt yourself with. The chances of experiencing them minimal? Absolutely. But I guarantee that more people will ignore it entirely than actually consider that the drug they love could pose even the slightest potential risk to their health.

There is already evidence that suggests smoking cannabis alters blood pressure among having other side effects (for example, this forum provides some useful discussion http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=172645), so if this is even a peripheral concern to someone, I imagine that person would already not be smoking cannabis. Especially if (as other people have said) she's a "devout Christian." I completely agree with you that we should know the exact side effects of cannabis, particularly as it pertains to medicinal usage as well as interference with known (government-regulated) medicinal treatments/conditions...but articles like this one only serve to further demonize cannabis in a way that maintains its illegal status. And as long as it's illegal, thorough testing won't be done on it to determine its possible interference with medical conditions, etc...vicious cycle.

Not to be a dick, but a single 'death by cannabis' with as little information surrounding the event as is presented here will do practically nothing one way or the other toward legalization efforts. You're thinking that terrible writers that survive on sensational headlines actually alter the public's perception. News flash: people that support weed will still support weed after this, while people that are against it will still be against it. It only serves to make their own arguments more convoluted when potheads refuse to acknowledge this as a possible, if unlikely, weed-related death, and anti-drug nuts start spouting off, "Weed kills!" It just leaves both parties thinking the other is retarded, and for half a good reason.

And for the record, Christians can go both ways - they were given all seed-bearing plants, but Lucifer placed all the weeds across the world. So depending on how you look at it, God put it there for us to enjoy and utilize or Lucifer put it there to try to deprave man. That's the horror of religion - you can twist anything to fit your ideals and still feel morally justified.

To overstate my point...over-the-counter medications, prescription medications, LSD, traumatic experiences, shock, certain foods, lack of oxygen from high altitude...all these are things we're familiar with, but all can exacerbate or draw out underlying medical symptoms that may or may not lead to death. We do not necessarily make these things illegal because of that, nor do we necessarily blame these things when they are involved in someone's death. We may, as you said, advise against using or experiencing these things if one has a known condition that may interfere -- but if we do not have a life-threatening condition (and how many people get tested for all this shit as often as they could/should?), then why would we not continue using/experiencing these things? It's like saying that the water killed someone who drowned when the motherfucker didn't know how to swim in the first place.

I don't even know how to respond to this.
Underlined - I agree with everything but the very end of this statement. You'd be hard-pressed to find a cause of death unrelated to drugs when drugs are found in the person's system. We don't make all these things illegal because the benefits are considered to outweigh the detriments. Same rules should apply to cannabis, no argument here.
Bold - I have no idea where this question comes from. I never implied anything contrary to what you said here.
Normal - I mean, the water did kill them. They were either stupid or ignorant for going into the water without the proper knowledge, but if the water wasn't there they wouldn't be dead from it. No? And then if your argument is that they died because they were uninformed, why are you against people trying to learn more about this situation? That would be actively trying to stay uninformed if you're purposefully ignoring information, whether factual or fictitious, which is choosing ignorance. Always a poor choice. If you can move past the headline and consider the facts, there's certainly some kind of possibility that weed did attribute to the woman's death.

Moreover, without having researched it any further, I'm particularly interested in which cannabinoid these researchers found at such "dangerous" levels in this woman's body. For example, simple drug tests can determine whether a user has THC in his or her system, but these tests do not tell you when the THC was imbibed -- sometimes they detect THC from over a month ago. So how can we say that she was even under the influence of the drug during the time of her death without knowing the half-life of the cannabinoid under question?

Now you're talking out your ass even harder than me. Piss tests don't test for THC, they test for one of weed's non-psychoactive cannabinoids, THC-COOH. Blood tests are far more accurate and help measure the 'active' half-life of the active chemicals - that is to say, they no longer detect THC/CBD and what not after it's been fully absorbed into the fat cells. And it is important to know the specific cannabinoid that may or may not cause such an event to transpire, but that doesn't mean she'd even have to be under the influence of the drug to experience this issue. Maybe it happened after the immediate effects and as the body was continuing to reabsorb and metabolize all the varied chemicals. Maybe it had nothing to do with the weed at all. As I've said, that seems like the most likely case. But if we just ignore the stuff about weed that we don't agree with and vigorously support the stuff we do agree with, we'll be doing the exact same thing as the ignorant fucks on the other side of the field - spouting misinformation and half-truths that neither help nor convince anyone of the truth of the matter. We all think we're on the high ground.

Your biggest argument seems to be in support of legalization, when that's not even the issue at hand. Anyone that's actually in a position of power to do something about legalization won't be swayed by something as flimsy as this because there's nothing in the article to stand behind. The only people whose opinions will be influenced by it are the people we already don't care about the opinions of, so I feel as if you're worried over nothing. I'd be very interested to find out if the weed directly attributed to the fatal complications she experienced, and that's all I've been concerned about since I started reading it. It won't affect the way I use it today - it probably wouldn't ever, even if I did acquire some sort of problematic condition. But the more you know, ya know? 'Cuz knowledge is power!

 

[Snowbizzle]

if we think that cannabis is a perfectly safe miracle drug like so many people want to say it is, how would she know that she was exacerbating the condition? Maybe due to misinformation supporting cannabis as a cure-all medicine, she thought that it would actually help improve her underlying condition. As to the remainder of the paragraph, people that don't care just aren't gonna care. Just because they know it could hurt them and they continue to do it doesn't relinquish blame from the substance. Yeah, they did it to themselves, but they'd have done it with the weed if that's what triggered the death. Same applies to any other thing you can hurt yourself with. The chances of experiencing them minimal? Absolutely. But I guarantee that more people will ignore it entirely than actually consider that the drug they love could pose even the slightest potential risk to their health.

To the bold -- there are actually very few people spouting such misinformation (google things like "cannabis as a cure-all," "cannabis a panacea," whatever...it's mostly cannabis as a cure for cancer, and cannabis for use as a tincture, which would be significantly safer than smoking at least, and both of which are legitimate areas of study). If she believed cannabis was a miracle drug (which she didn't, she believed it helped her sleep, which it did [ooohhh...]), then she made the decision to remain ignorant to whether cannabis could be harmful or not -- she would have ignored the research and discussion surrounding the subject, and that ignorance would have been entirely her own fault. You can blame the cannabis if you want, but again, I would argue against it.

the water did kill them. They were either stupid or ignorant for going into the water without the proper knowledge, but if the water wasn't there they wouldn't be dead from it. No? And then if your argument is that they died because they were uninformed, why are you against people trying to learn more about this situation?

I'm not against people trying to learn more about this situation. What I'm against is doctors and/or government officials and/or reporters spinning things in outlandish ways in order to facilitate an agenda that goes against existing scientific research. I think people should know as much as they can about any substance they put in their bodies, which is why it appears to you that I'm arguing for legalization. In the United States, anyway, legalization is the only way we're going to be able to document, in a legitimate and scientific way, the benefits and consequences of cannabis use. Otherwise it's illegal to do so (except maybe now in CO and WA, not sure about how that's all going to work out honestly). Legalization is not my argument, information and knowledge is my argument. In this case the two are inextricable, as history has shown over the past 75-odd years.

I also still seriously have a problem with the logic that the water killed the drowned person. I can barely even argue against it. Let me simplify my analogy. The person is lying face down in a bath tub full of water. The person drowns. I blame the person because the way I see it, if you can manage to do that, you probably would have just lied there even if there was only an inch of water in the tub, or until you starved to death, whether the water was there or not. It just happened in this case that the water was there when your dumb ass was lying face down not doing shit and dying. The water is immaterial.

You're thinking that terrible writers that survive on sensational headlines actually alter the public's perception. News flash: people that support weed will still support weed after this, while people that are against it will still be against it.

Dude. That is EXACTLY the sort of shit that alters the public's perception. If we can't agree on that then this is clearly going nowhere because we're looking at the whole situation from completely opposing viewpoints. I mean, completely disregarding this article, you have to know of someone (if not yourself personally) whose opinion has been swayed by an article, by a TV report, whatever, that was poorly written/organized/analyzed/researched/etc., simply because it was a shocking and/or convincing and/or emotional article/TV report/whatever. Perhaps that person has gone on to research the issue (whatever it is) further, or perhaps not, but the point remains that a fundamental reason these articles exist at all is to sway public opinion. They often don't just reflect society, they form it, and again, if we can't agree on that then this whole argument is absurd.

I don't care about the religious argument. I just find it hilarious that they call her a devout Christian, note that she was a single mother of three, and then to finish it off, as our pal sephiroth up there noted, dotted the entire article with an absolutely excessive number of glamorous party pictures of the dearly departed. That's what we in the business of skepticism call pathos.

You'd be hard-pressed to find a cause of death unrelated to drugs when drugs are found in the person's system. We don't make all these things illegal because the benefits are considered to outweigh the detriments. Same rules should apply to cannabis, no argument here.

What are you considering a drug in this case, though? Is cannabis a drug because it's illegal? Caffeine is a drug as well as nicotine, so when people crash their cars or have heart attacks or, fuck, I don't know, get shot? and they have caffeine or nicotine in their systems, should we blame those drugs partially? Entirely? Not at all? Again, I would argue that the caffeine/nicotine/cannabis is incidental, but be my guest and argue against that. Just because there was no other obvious cause of death to be found in this woman's case does not mean the cannabis, or the hypothetical nicotine or caffeine, killed her. Maybe it was the ricin.

And it is important to know the specific cannabinoid that may or may not cause such an event to transpire, but that doesn't mean she'd even have to be under the influence of the drug to experience this issue. Maybe it happened after the immediate effects and as the body was continuing to reabsorb and metabolize all the varied chemicals. Maybe it had nothing to do with the weed at all. As I've said, that seems like the most likely case. But if we just ignore the stuff about weed that we don't agree with and vigorously support the stuff we do agree with, we'll be doing the exact same thing as the ignorant fucks on the other side of the field - spouting misinformation and half-truths that neither help nor convince anyone of the truth of the matter. We all think we're on the high ground.

Dude I completely agree with you, and that's why I'm so fuckin' angry. That is almost word for word what the doctor/sheriff/reporter did in this case -- spout half-truths that do not reveal the whole story. You just ranted about the chemicals that drug tests pick up, but that's exactly my point. If you only test for one chemical, or even for a few, you're going to miss a HUGE spectrum of chemicals that may or may not be relevant to the discussion. That's what the coroner did in this case, and that's what many drug tests do -- but really, what the fuck kind of logic or justice is there in getting in trouble for driving stoned when the test you took actually detected residual chemicals in your system from two weeks ago rather than anything that's actively altering your perception? How do we know that isn't exactly the sort of test that was conducted here? How do we know the cannabinoid they detected wasn't actually keeping her alive, and that a different cannabinoid that they failed to test for was in fact the one she overdosed on? Am I making sense yet?

 

[KMilz]

To the bold -- there are actually very few people spouting such misinformation (google things like "cannabis as a cure-all," "cannabis a panacea," whatever...it's mostly cannabis as a cure for cancer, and cannabis for use as a tincture, which would be significantly safer than smoking at least, and both of which are legitimate areas of study). If she believed cannabis was a miracle drug (which she didn't, she believed it helped her sleep, which it did [ooohhh...]), then she made the decision to remain ignorant to whether cannabis could be harmful or not -- she would have ignored the research and discussion surrounding the subject, and that ignorance would have been entirely her own fault. You can blame the cannabis if you want, but again, I would argue against it.

Your argument sounds to me to be that since she decided not to learn more about something that killed her, then that thing didn't kill her but her own ignorance did? I won't try to argue that it played a major contributing factor in the events leading to and including her death, but ignoring the physical cause? Or maybe I'm hearing you wrong.

As to the miracle drug thing, it's more of a denial of anything that could possibly be bad about it that seems to be widely argued by the majority of smokers that take the time to argue.

I'm not against people trying to learn more about this situation. What I'm against is doctors and/or government officials and/or reporters spinning things in outlandish ways in order to facilitate an agenda that goes against existing scientific research. I think people should know as much as they can about any substance they put in their bodies, which is why it appears to you that I'm arguing for legalization. In the United States, anyway, legalization is the only way we're going to be able to document, in a legitimate and scientific way, the benefits and consequences of cannabis use. Otherwise it's illegal to do so (except maybe now in CO and WA, not sure about how that's all going to work out honestly). Legalization is not my argument, information and knowledge is my argument. In this case the two are inextricable, as history has shown over the past 75-odd years.

I don't think I disagree with anything here...? Right? Or did I say otherwise? 'Cuz I think we're on about the same page on this one.

I also still seriously have a problem with the logic that the water killed the drowned person. I can barely even argue against it. Let me simplify my analogy. The person is lying face down in a bath tub full of water. The person drowns. I blame the person because the way I see it, if you can manage to do that, you probably would have just lied there even if there was only an inch of water in the tub, or until you starved to death, whether the water was there or not. It just happened in this case that the water was there when your dumb ass was lying face down not doing shit and dying. The water is immaterial.

Whether they were going to die one way or the other does not change what caused the death. If she died by drowning, the water killed her; of hunger, starvation. You claim these things are immaterial, but if none of them were factors then the death would never come. And then your analogy is of a person that not only lacks any sort of common sense or discipline but even that of the basic instinct of self-preservation. And you're comparing that to ignorance? I just don't see it.

Dude. That is EXACTLY the sort of shit that alters the public's perception. If we can't agree on that then this is clearly going nowhere because we're looking at the whole situation from completely opposing viewpoints. I mean, completely disregarding this article, you have to know of someone (if not yourself personally) whose opinion has been swayed by an article, by a TV report, whatever, that was poorly written/organized/analyzed/researched/etc., simply because it was a shocking and/or convincing and/or emotional article/TV report/whatever. Perhaps that person has gone on to research the issue (whatever it is) further, or perhaps not, but the point remains that a fundamental reason these articles exist at all is to sway public opinion. They often don't just reflect society, they form it, and again, if we can't agree on that then this whole argument is absurd.

Well, that is a problem 'cuz we are seeing things from different perspectives. Ignoring how readily available information is and how many sources we have to gather this information from given the internet's constant presence in our lives, I truly believe that there isn't a single person that read or will read this article with an opinion on the matter that had their viewpoint swayed one way or the other. If you approach any forums that represents the masses discussing this subject (cannabis and cannabis reform in general), you will only find two kinds of people: those that still support it and those that are still against it. No one read this and changed their mind. This could be used as an additional argument by the opposition, alongside their battery of other mostly absurd arguments, to convince someone that's uninformed that cannabis is wrong or bad or whatever. It's possible that people could still be swayed by others in active discussion where they're forced to realize the flaws in their own arguments and may not be able to come up with satisfactory counterarguments fast enough, but I can't imagine even someone totally uninformed and unbiased on the subject to read this article and say no to weed. They either wouldn't care one way or the other or they'd care enough to look at least a little further into things and realize, "Say, one death that (theoretically) can be directly attributed to this cannabis thing over the entire course of human history? Well, that sounds safer than anything else mankind has ever consumed. Hot dog!"

Really, the point I'm trying to make is that these headlines will only sway your opinion if you didn't have one in the first place and don't know any better than what they tell you. And if you're in that boat then you have nothing to do with the reform or debate on it anyway so I don't see the issue.
And to your point, : "[...]but the point remains that a fundamental reason these articles exist at all is to sway public opinion."
I completely agree. That doesn't necessarily mean that they succeed at their goal.

What are you considering a drug in this case, though? Is cannabis a drug because it's illegal? Caffeine is a drug as well as nicotine, so when people crash their cars or have heart attacks or, fuck, I don't know, get shot? and they have caffeine or nicotine in their systems, should we blame those drugs partially? Entirely? Not at all?

A car accident with a DUI and a heart attack spurred by OD are two completely different things. You have to see that. And in all of these cases you need to consider all the evidence available to make that sort of conclusion. Maybe the nicotine in his system had nothing to do with his ability to avoid the car barreling toward him, or maybe the caffeine made him so jittery that he couldn't sit still and focus on the road properly which resulted in the crash. Do I consider those drugs that could attribute to death? Obviously, because that's what both of them are. Are they the cause of death just because they were in the person's system? Absolutely not. Should we consider them as a possible factor in the death? Certainly, unless we have reasons to believe otherwise. Is the fault ever entirely on the drug? No, because it takes more than just some drugs to kill someone, it takes a person to do those drugs. Can the drug kill someone? Yes, it can. It takes the person to make it happen, but it's the drugs what do it sometimes.

Again, I would argue that the caffeine/nicotine/cannabis is incidental, but be my guest and argue against that. Just because there was no other obvious cause of death to be found in this woman's case does not mean the cannabis, or the hypothetical nicotine or caffeine, killed her. Maybe it was the ricin.

I agreed, and still do. My intention was to find out more information about what actually happened so I could make a reasonably educated guess on what most likely actually happened. Problem is, there's nothing more to it. All the 'facts' that I can find about it are in the article, and they just paint a finished picture that seems so incomplete. I was just interested in learning whether or not it did carry this potential risk because it's good to know as much as you can about things you're gonna try to argue about.

Dude I completely agree with you, and that's why I'm so fuckin' angry. That is almost word for word what the doctor/sheriff/reporter did in this case -- spout half-truths that do not reveal the whole story. You just ranted about the chemicals that drug tests pick up, but that's exactly my point. If you only test for one chemical, or even for a few, you're going to miss a HUGE spectrum of chemicals that may or may not be relevant to the discussion.

That's true when that's how it's done. A proper forensic toxicology report will consider as much environmental evidence as they can and will actually continue testing for things until there's a legitimate cause of death. Did they run through a whole gauntlet of chemicals and find nothing, or did they stop after the first three because they knew that she had smoked a joint before it happened and they made a stupid call? There's a lot of people involved in the entire process of one of these, and you'd hope that between these different kind of professionals that you'd get a well-reasoned final result. That hope is likely unfounded, but that's just what I'm trying to confirm.

That's what the coroner did in this case, and that's what many drug tests do -- but really, what the fuck kind of logic or justice is there in getting in trouble for driving stoned when the test you took actually detected residual chemicals in your system from two weeks ago rather than anything that's actively altering your perception?

Totally agree.

How do we know that isn't exactly the sort of test that was conducted here? How do we know the cannabinoid they detected wasn't actually keeping her alive, and that a different cannabinoid that they failed to test for was in fact the one she overdosed on?

We don't, we don't, we don't! Who are you arguing against? I never suggested that we knew these things, I pointed out that that's what was in the article and that I'd like to know more about the situation because it didn't seem right. But at the same time, we don't know for certain that things didn't happen the way they said (well, the title is BS, but I agreed with you on that from the get). You came in here talking about how this whole article and situation should be completely disregarded altogether just because it's sensationalist garbage. As I said before, that's the most likely scenario, the one that fits the easiest, but that's like saying God don't exist just because you don't have proof that he does. Do you have proof that he doesn't? Do you have proof that the weed didn't attribute to her death? So why are you arguing so hard against me wanting to know more about it?

Am I making sense yet?

I'm beginning to think that neither of us are.

Basically, I'm arguing that this article is good because it gets you asking questions about it.

You're arguing that this article is bad because it sways opinions in a misinformed direction.

I see where you're coming from. Fact is, one of us is more right than the other one but I doubt either of us could come up with any hard figures to back our claims and we're mostly going off of anecdotal evidence. I can't find a way to measure peoples' shift of opinions after reading an article, and without knowing for sure which one of us is right, you are right - at least in the way that you called this is an absurd argument. Are you at least understanding where I'm coming from now?

 

[Varine]

Dude... tl;dr.

 

[FireCat]

Just saying that! She might have had an allergic reaction! Maybe even her potcrap was laced with something? Well, seriously, Nothing Is Impossible with any drugs, medicine etc... It can hurt you bad

Whether they were going to die one way or the other does not change what caused the death. If she died by drowning, the water killed her; of hunger, starvation. You claim these things are immaterial, but if none of them were factors then the death would never come. And then your analogy is of a person that not only lacks any sort of common sense or discipline but even that of the basic instinct of self-preservation. And you're comparing that to ignorance? I just don't see it.

+1

 

[Accname]

Dude... tl;dr.

my thoughts exactly.

 

[Snowbizzle]

+1

Firecat agrees with you. For me, that's a satisfying conclusion to this debate.

Yeah, I understand where you're coming from. There are really only a few points about which we disagree here, and I still completely disagree with you on those points, but oh well. Happens once in a while I guess.

The rest of you...go read a book.

 

[KMilz]

Yeah, it's like... my point is only valid if this event wouldn't have happened if she hadn't smoked, and since the data is so incomplete and there's so much left unconsidered, it's like... should you even be considering such a big maybe? And when it doesn't really prove things one way or the other, what is it actually informing anyone of? But I didn't really think that aspect of it through 'til after I'd already talked a lot. So I guess that since it doesn't really offer any 'real' good and it has this meager potential to do some harm, I've gotta concede to you the argument. But I still think you're giving an article like this credit for a type of power it really doesn't have. Again, though, one of those things we're just gonna disagree on.

Thanks for the chat, though. Enjoyed it.

 

[seph ir oth]

Here's a nice little addition to this discussion, enjoy!

http://io9.com/what-can-we-actually-learn-from-the-uks-first-weed-ov-1513393117