It was a response to the comment about someone not understanding inflating zero cases by 150%, though, since that was a case.
Ah, the “real” reason pot and LSD were made illegal is because one of the side effects is a greater empathy to your fellows. This can lead to a movement leftward in one’s politics, just like a good education, which the right has also worked hard to destroy our right to.
A dime bag of Colorado’s finest says that both our abusive husband and our visiting college student also happened to be drinking alcohol at the time…
“After our conversation today I realized that my statement about children’s deaths in Colorado is in error. There have been admits to ICUs for children who have eaten edibles and were hospitalized. I was in error and deeply regret any consequences of my actions. As a physician I make every effort to be honest with my patients and myself. When wrong I try to promptly admit it and make amends whenever possible.”
Not great, but a lot better than I would expect of a prohibitionist, honestly. Of course, you’d think it might be a good idea to educate yourself on the issue and the releveant LD50 data before you go shooting your mouth off.
Dude should just get it printed on a t-shirt.
Oh boy! Time to whip out my favorite argument ever: what they said was “not Intended to be a factual statement”.
But you can only use that one when you have a black belt in bullshit.
Yeah, I’m not completely normal.
I believe the argument is exactly what you said: THC was the trigger. (And that it was a lot of THC, not just that it was present.) Exactly the same as your alcohol related event. Alcohol was a contributing factor to whatever happened; not the sole cause.
“Weed Prohibitionists Caught Telling Lies.”
You call that news?
Here’s an idea for a story: “Prohibitionists Will Never Stop Telling Lies Because [fill in the blank]”
Then you can go on to explain what their vested interests in prohibition are, which in turn will explain why they’re willing to pronounce obvious lies in public. That might be something not everybody knows.
May be as simple (and out of the box of rational-thinking requiring objective reasons) as just identifying with the group that has such idea as one of its distinguishing features.
Group-identification is a very strong built-in instinct that we often forget about when explaining such behaviors.
There is also the question of the cognitive schemata ingrained in such people, and their unwillingness (and associated feeling of being threatened) to change them even in face of facts.
Most likely all of the above.
I agree. The problem for me is that this sort of group-identification is what I recognize as the most significant threat to my life, and way of life. Not to mention society, the ecosystem, etc. I tend to refute identification as a general principle, because I have found it to be an obstacle to clear thinking, dynamic groups, and even effective risk assessment. If my goals are based upon a life of reason (as it so happens they are!), then I prefer for group-identification to be compartmentalized, so that they can have their clubs and not bother other people who are trying to grow up beyond some monkey-see, monkey-kill impulse.
Here’s the thing, though. Almost all of these prohibition apologists have direct ties to the rehab industry, and benefit directly from the court system feeding them unwilling “marijuana addicts.” Obviously, that source of revenue ends with legalization. Knowing that, doesn’t their lying make more sense than that they might actually believe what they’re saying? They know perfectly well what they’re saying isn’t true.
The “Won’t Somebody Think of the Children?” line seems to be the new bulwark for prohibitionists. Tom Ashbrook’s On Point radio show happens to be a favorite of mine, and a recent show was centered on the aftereffects of Colorado’s legalization laws. One of the “con” speakers was an ICU doctor who seemed mostly concerned about children eating unlabeled, or mislabeled edibles.
IIRC, another guest was the sheriff of Telluride and I believe he indicated that it had been both good for business as well as dropping his arrest/incarceration rate dramatically.
There is an ongoing ProPublica/NPR/Frontline series about the questionable nature of coroner’s offices. I know nothing of this particular office, but in general the field seems to have some problems, including unlicensed, or poorly qualified staff, politically motivated appointments, and horribly insufficient budgets.
Randall Munroe = National Treasure
I’d expect that the final outcome of a child of any age accidentally ingesting a large (>1g <1pound) amount of clean (by which I mean unlaced) marijuana would, at worst, be a scary night. At best, they’d probably just never remember it. I don’t see how edibles could possibly pose a medical toxicity risk other than from sugar and cholesterol.
I’m all for keeping pot out of reach of children, but the theraputic index for stuff like hash oil and budder is astronomical. Briefly, from Wikipedia, it’s “1000:1”. Taking into account the effective doses involved, you’d have to eat a thousand “doses” before toxic effects become a concern. As far as I can tell, all this intensive care nurse would be doing is providing emotional support for a confused kid who likely doesn’t need any kind of medical attention.
I’m not some big proponent of weed. It’s a drug. It’s a good choice for a few indications, such as chronic pain. It is by no means a panacea, and it’s not particularly healthy for your brain to use it long-term, but it’s not the boogeyman that prohibitionists waste their time making it out to be. Anyone who has had some experience with it knows that it’s much safer, from a public safety perspective, than alcohol, and overindulgence doesn’t necessarily wreck your body the same way alcohol does.
If it’s legal for me to get slammed, and then I go out and start fights and puke on everything and ruin everyone’s night, why shouldn’t it be legal to smoke up, stay at home, eat half a wedding cake, and watch the same episode of The Simpsons a few times?
I’m not a doctor (although I do play one on TV), but I recall the doctor explaining that one problem with edibles is that they cause some temporary gastrointestinal problems. Back in the day, I made “special” brownies with friends that were intended to be strong since we were all regular users (that is, smoking multiple times a day). I didn’t expect the brownies to do much, but they knocked me on my ass. I was nauseous and, as a friend likes to say, able to shit through a screen door–it was definitely an unpleasant experience.
I would argue that basic labeling of THC content in edibles should be the norm, so that a consumer can make an educated guess as to how much to ingest. Given that it’s a new industry and in flux, I’m sure these things will shake out in time. If I eat Edible One today and feel nothing, then eat another Edible One tonight and am relegated to the couch for 8 solid hours, I’m probably going to look for Edible Two or Three to find something that’s better modulated so I can enjoy it to the level and time I’d prefer.
As for these jackasses and their fearmongering, that seems to have become a staple of our political discourse today. Seems to me that they could actually contribute to the discourse with factual, non-screeching arguments that would help us all instead of going straight for the “we’re all doomed” nonsense.
Ah, but there’s the rub; facts are not on the prohibitionist’s side. All they have is nonsense.
I’m definitely onboard with labelling pharmaceuticals including cannabis based edibles.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.