Cannabis killed regular smoker, inquest finds

[LiviaOlivia]

January 20, 2004 - 4:57PM

A 36-year-old man is believed to have become the first person in Britain to die directly from cannabis poisoning, after smoking six cannabis cigarettes a day for 11 years.

The death of Lee Maisey, which was registered as having been caused by cannabis toxicity, led to new warnings about the drug, which is due to be reclassified this month as a less dangerous one.

"This type of death is extremely rare," Professor John Henry, a toxicologist at Imperial College, London, said after an inquest at Haverfordwest, west Wales.

"I have not seen anything like this before. It corrects the argument that cannabis cannot kill anybody."

<snip>


http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/01/20/1074360755990.html

[gandalf]

1. So we must strengthen our "war on drugs"!

Legalization is evil!
One single case is proof enough!

[UnAmericanJoe]

2. 6 a day??

And it took 11 years?
I don't feel like I'm in any danger.

That guy must have been spending a fortune on his stash.

[Flubadubya]

10. But he must have died happy...

:smoke:

[arcos]

3. After several centuries of use...

it finally causes a death in the 21st century.

Somehow, it sounds hard to believe.

[R Hickey]

15. Actually several milleniums, it was burned in incense by J. Christ

It's all holy smoke to me.

[Beaker]

86. how is that possible to determine?

when there's no proof that the guy actually existed, how can there be evidence that he used pot-infused incense?

[benburch]

4. REMINDER

An inquest is a legal proceeding, not a scientific one.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

6. Yeah, what bullshit.

they concluded that cannabis killed him because: " Michael Howells, the Pembrokeshire coroner, said Mr Maisey was free from disease and had not drunk for at least 48 hours. Post-mortem tests showed a high level of cannabinoids in his blood."

ummm, if you want to find the cause of death, you're gonna have to do an autopsy...

[shanti]

32. this IS bullshyt

and unless we see the autopsy results, i won't believe otherwise. they would just LOVE to demonize weed!

[sweetheart]

5. All part of the very current propaganda against reclassification.

I've been quite amused by all the conservative rag sheets and their use of the media to scream and rave now that cannabis is to be reclassified as a class C drug (read: "decriminalized")

The newspaper telegraph is the one experiencing an enron-like scandal where the ceo has taken millions out of the company and is under investigation by the SEC in the US.

David davis, whom the article quotes is the ignorant fool who related cannabis to proliferation of gun crime.

The media storm against cannabis this january is the last gasp of the hippie hater club and their ugly war on drugs that has killed thousands of kids and continues to kill... not because of the drugs, but because of the war.

The war is an utter failure, and anyone with the ability to observe empirical results would admit so. Addiction is up, trafficing and gangs are up, gun crime to protect illegal markets is up, and drugs purity is questionable and unknown that users cannot know what they are taking leading to sad cases like mentioned. Had the man had a legal supply, he surely would have been more aware of the dosages in his system, and would still be alive today.

http://www.whynot.net/view_idea.php?id=210

[indie_jones]

7. John Henry

The toxicologist John Henry has made a name for himself in the UK by claiming marijuana is a life-threatening substance. In 2003, he claimed that cannabis smoking caused 30,000 deaths a year, and his claim was completely debunked. He's just trying to prove he was right all along.

[Bhaisahab]

8. yeah right....

cannabis kills like bush speaks the truth.

[Nihil]

9. Interesting timing

It was only yesterday (on the drive home from work) that I heard a
spokesman pointing out how much heroin production had increased in
Afghanistan since the "War on Terra". Under the Taliban, the amount
of heroin exported had been seriously cut back (along with the limbs
of the producers I suspect) but since being "liberated", heroin output
has gone up several hundred percent.

Of course, having a single person *possibly* dying from cannabis that
he may have grown himself is far more important than worrying about
the dozens that die each week from the (proven addictive, toxic,
crime-generating) cash crop from our previous successful invasion.

Nihil

[chelaque liberal]

17. This will be talked about during Superbowl...

when the Whitehouse anti-drug ads, paid for by our taxes, air. Interesting timing indeed.

But the MoveOn anti-Bush ad is banned.

[gandalf]

22. Remark: Heroin under the Taliban was cut back only in 1999 or so

I.e. in their last years.
But this cut back was very effective, to only 5% of the old production. The occupation army cannot or doesn't want to reach the same effect?

[Beaker]

25. at least part of the taliban ban was due to profit motive.

There was a huge glut of raw opium in the "market", and prices dropped considerably- by cutting back on production for a year, the Taliban was able to increase the price of the existing stockpile of opium held by Afghani farmers.

[truthisfreedom]

11. make fat illegal!

[indie_jones]

12. Another article

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/content_objectid=13836296_method=full_siteid=50082_headline=-Cannabis-poisoning-kills-Welsh-addict-name_page.html


Lee Maisey, 36, smoked more than 25,000 reefers during his 11-year addiction to the drug, which is due to be reduced to a Class C drug later this month ...

...Dr Guy said death was more likely if the drug had been eaten instead of smoked.

"If you eat a large amount of it, it can be deadly. I would not be surprised if in this case the deceased had ingested a fatal amount of cannabis."

Dr Guy, who has researched cannabis-related deaths, said he had never come across such a case.

He said, "A lot of things can harm and even kill in the right quantities. I recall a man who ate two packets of regular tobacco and that almost killed him. To die from smoking cannabis is unheard of."

Since this happened in August (official death cert says "Probable Cannabis Toxicity"), I doubt there will be a REAL autopsy. Funny how they waited five months to release this story ... coincidentally one week before UK decriminalizes.

[GinaMaria]

35. Eating it could lead to toxicity

It's difficult to gage how much will get you high, or if using it medically, how much will relieve pain if you ingest cannabis. Smoking it gives almost immediate relief so patients know the right amount to take. Ingesting can be unpredictable and difficult for patients to regulate.

Part of the reason Marinol does not work well.

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. what makes you think there wasn't an autopsy?

They determined he was disease free, and found the alcohol and cannabis blood levels. They were obviously doing some tests.

The death was in August; what's being reported now is the coroner's inquest, ie the court case. Five months isn't an unusual wait.

[psychopomp]

41. make fatties legal!

Couldn't resist.
:smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke:

resist!

[truthisfreedom]

50. heh!

[rman]

13. i know people who smoke that much,

and more, for that long, and longer. As a matter of fact i come close to smoking that much myself.
We're still around.

[Beaker]

26. I smoke bunches of weed.

about a quarter-pound/month.
and that's just me, my wife doesn't smoke, and neither do my friends...for me, it's medicinal as well...and I've been at it for over 25 years.

Also- I DO NOT use tobacco in any form, and I VERY RARELY drink alcohol- maybe 1-2 glasses of wine/week, if that.

[mrbill]

14. cannibus is deadly.....

A month or so ago next to my little county in bumfuck, texas a guy actually died from the stuff. My first known marijuana kill.

When the cops stopped him for a burned out rear liscence plate bulb, the dude panicked and tried to eat an ounce and ended up chocking to death. True story.

[chenGOD]

16. That's not cannibus, that's stupidity..;)

If you have a news link (or even if you don't) you should submit that to the Darwin awards.

[Norquist Nemesis]

82. He died from the choking not

the weed. Geesh!

[treepig]

18. oh well, that's only 249,999 more deaths to go

until the toll from marijuana reaches that from over-the-counter and prescription pharmaceticals

[SlavesandBulldozers]

19. bullshit

wow, the pro police-state people are really reaching for more reasons to keep this stuff illegal. i mean, this is like scraping the bottom of the barrel.

You'd think they'd come up with more of the old "Marijuana makes Mexicans and Blacks want to rape white women".

[Fovea]

27. I thought it was because

it made white women want to have sex with Blacks and Mexicans.

I have had it wrong all these years...
I gotta start hitting the klan rallies/republican fundraisers more.

[shanti]

44. too late for that!!!

LMAO!

[Zhade]

59. Or like scraping the bottom of the bowl. Now THAT'S desperate! ;-)

NT!

[UnAmericanJoe]

67. Done it!

nt

[Zhade]

75. Likewise. Sad, huh?

:P

[UnAmericanJoe]

84. A sad state of affairs ;)

Part of me is always a little worried that it might one day actually become legal.

One of the few things that keep this from becoming a real problem for me is the sketchy supply. If I could get it whenever I wanted...
Whoa!

On the other hand, I'll take my chances. LEGALIZE IT!

[BiggJawn]

20. And Tobacco kills HOW many????

If the Distillers could control Weed, you'd see a huge push to legalize it.

[LifeDuringWartime]

21. *coughbullshitcough*

damn, i need to get that cough checked


that's using the same logic that those anti drug ads use: if they had any in their bloodstream then THAT'S what caused it. hmmm... i guess they forgot it can stick around for quite awhile.

[radwriter0555]

23. 1+ pot Versus XMILLION + Cigarettes... Hmmmmm......

I think POT is the better way to go.

[Lost4words]

24. hell too much water can kill. do we make it illegal?

[treepig]

31. good, another potential convert to my anti-water crusade

check out all the gruesome details here:

http://www.dhmo.org


BAN DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE - THE INVISIBLE KILLER!
Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year.
What are the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide?
Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.
Dihydrogen Monoxide Facts
Dihydrogen monoxide:

is also known as hydric acid, and is the major component of acid rain.
contributes to the Greenhouse Effect.
may cause severe burns.
contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.
Dihydrogen Monoxide Alerts
Contamination is reaching epidemic proportions!
Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every stream, lake, and reservoir in America today. But the pollution is global, and the contaminant has even been found in Antarctic ice. In the midwest alone DHMO has caused millions of dollars of property damage.

Dihydrogen Monoxide Uses
Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:
as an industrial solvent and coolant.
in nuclear power plants.
in the production of styrofoam.
as a fire retardant.
in many forms of cruel animal research.
in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
as an additive in certain junk-foods and other food products.
Stop the horror - Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide
Companies dump waste DHMO into rivers and the ocean, and nothing can be done to stop them because this practice is still legal. The impact on wildlife is extreme, and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer!
THE HORROR MUST BE STOPPED!

The American government has refused to ban the production, distribution, or use of this damaging chemical due to its importance to the economic health of this nation. In fact, the navy and other military organizations are conducting experiments with DHMO, and designing multi-billion dollar devices to control and utilize it during warfare situations. Hundreds of military research facilities receive tons of it through a highly sophisticated underground distribution network. Many store large quantities for later use.

IT'S NOT TOO LATE!

Act NOW to prevent further contamination. Find out more about this dangerous chemical. What you don't know CAN hurt you and others throughout the world.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Visit DHMO.org

[Occulus]

36. roflmao

too funny. Each entry on the list of bad effects is true.... lol

[Zhade]

60. This is BRILLIANT!

Very funny stuff!

[treepig]

64. most ominous of all is the (possible) government cover-up

Dihydrogen Monoxide Conspiracy

Current allegations suggest that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may be conspiring to cover up the whole DHMO issue. Attempts by DHMO researchers to elicit comment from the EPA regarding the possible coverup were either ignored or dodged, leading researchers to infer the alleged coverup. Incredibly, the EPA then attempted to divert attention from the real issue onto talk of the aesthetics and layout of the EAC's DMRD web site!


EPA Refuses to Confirm or Deny Coverup

In spite of a direct query for information, the EPA refused to deny the existence of a coverup. The researcher, who reported to us under conditions of anonymity, sent correspondence asking if the EPA knows more about Dihydrogen Monoxide than it is telling us.

Point Blank Questions Ignored

The researcher went on to ask, point blank, "Are you asking me to participate in some sort of coverup?" And, "Do you deny that the EPA is purposely keeping quiet on the issue of Dihydrogen Monoxide?" For whatever reason, the EPA would not say, offering no comment on the questions at all.

EPA Saber Rattling

However, in a strongly worded reply, the EPA did seemingly go on the offensive with statements such as:

"The Agency would like to ask you to remove .",

"The point is, if your visitors are in any way led to the impression that EPA is endorsing your site, that is not good for either of us.",

"I hope you see our point of view",

"We take our mission of protecting the environment seriously", and

"We consider this a serious matter and would appreciate your help."

Some may find these heavy handed statements shocking. The wording of the EPA's correspondence with the researcher are filled with these sorts of anachronisms; one would expect such talk from a movie gangster, but not from a taxpayer-funded agency of the United States government.

Draw Your Own Conclusions

There is certainly no doubt that the Dihydrogen Monoxide issue touched a nerve at the US EPA. And while sources at the EPA admit to the benefits of freely distributing information to the public on DHMO, they stop short of admitting to a coverup. Perhaps there really is no coverup. Or maybe the EPA's silence confirms its existence. It is clear that the EPA is putting no effort into educating the public about the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide. It is also clear that the truth may forever be obscured, so for now the reader is left to reach his or her own conclusions regarding the possible conspiracy at the EPA to coverup the DHMO issue

[rocktivity]

70. Treepig, you've inspired me!

Ever since I witnessed a champange bottle get stepped on at a Jewish wedding, I've wanted to launch a campaign against champagne abuse. It's been to be drank, not slammed against ships, forced through fountains, or stepped on--and it contains DHMO, too!


rocknation

[discordian]

28. bad logic...

So, he died from no aparent reason and had a lot of THC in his system, therefore, the pot must have killed him. Have they checked to see if a witch had put a curse on him or whether he may recently have pissed off a leprechaun? They're just as likely to have killed him as the pot.

[HFishbine]

29. Stonned to death?

My gawd!

[dicknbush]

47. VERY FUNNY

THIS IS THE FUNNIEST ONE!

[sendero]

30. extraordinary claims...

... require extraordinary evidence. A real autopsy is in order.

Frankly, I don't necessarily think it is totally impossible that was the cause of death. You can O.D on water.

But when someone with an axe to grind makes such a judgement, well call me skeptical :)

[Mr.Green93]

33. carrots

did they check for carrots?

[SOS]

34. Easily disproved

    "The low toxicity of THC is best indicated by its widespread use with very few reports of anything even approaching an overdose.   Occasionally, people may get too "high" for their psychic comfort, but their bodies continue to function fairly normally.  The dosage sufficient to kill half of the organisms tested (LD50) for orally ingested THC is approximately 1 g/kg of body weight.  Simply interpreted, this means an average sized human would have to consume 50-100 g of pure THC to reach the LD50 level.  Since high-potency Cannabis contains approximately 10% THC, a person would have to eat at least 500-1,000 g of this marijuana before having a 50% chance of death.  A 1 g marijuana cigarette of 10% THC Cannabis contains 100 mg of THC.  Clinically effective oral doses for the relief of nausea start at 5-10 mg. "

So...for a 180 pound man to reach the LD 50 level he would have to smoke 810 1gram joints. That's 810 joints of potent cannabis in one sitting to have a 50% chance of dying.

Clearly this is drug war propaganda and junk science. Could this absurd claim have anything to do with Englands decriminalization of cannabis due next week?

[Ozirus]

43. Cannabis killed Bruce Lee

His official death certificate at one time stated he died from ingesting Cannabis but was later changed to death by misadventure.

[SOS]

48. Bruce Lee's death certificate

says death was caused by "allergic reaction to analgesics".

[Zhade]

61. Great breakdown of the math, thanks for posting it!

NT!

[chenGOD]

73. A person would die of smoke in halation before he died of smoking that muc

h pot.
810 grams? That's....almost 2 pounds....yikes. Smoking 2 pounds in one sitting?

[bobthedrummer]

37. "I have not seen anything like this before."

Me either.
:smoke:

[noonwitch]

39. He probably had a heart attack

There is some correlation between pot and heart conditions, although I don't know if the studies included exclusive pot smokers, or people who smoked pot but also smoked cigarettes, what their diet is, their excercise regime, etc., all the other factors that contribute to heart conditions.

[discordian]

40. Maybe he coughed too hard

and had a heart attack or anneurism?

[tinanator]

42. My calendar must be fucked up

I guess it's April 1 in Britain? This is garbage, NOT to be taken seriously.

[ohiosmith]

45. Actual cause of death was Oreo overdose.

[dicknbush]

46. OK LETS GIVE THIS TO THEM...ONE DEATH CAMPARED TO:

400,000 A YEAR FROM SMOKING CIGARETTS

400,000 A YEAR FROM DRINKING

THAT IS APROX. 800,000 A YEAR TIMES SAY TEN YEARS THAT IS 8 MILLION PER DECADE SINCE SAY 1940 SO THAT IS A TOTAL OF 48 MILLION DEAD FROM SMOKING AND DRINKING COMPARED TO------- "ONE"------- FROM SMOKING CANNABIS....HMMMMM WHICH WOULD YOU CHOOSE?????

[mainer]

49. Smoking is smoking -- not good for you

When I was in medical school, we were told that per dose, pot has more harmful immediate effects on the lungs and airways when smoked than does tobacco. But since no one smokes as many joints as they do cigarettes, the per-dose effects are pretty much irrelevant.

Basically, inhaling any kind of smoke isn't good for you, whether it be tobacco, pot, or wood smoke. But to point to this one death and say "see, pot's harmful!" is silly. Since tobacco kills so many, many more.

[Beaker]

57. not necessarily...

nicotine is a vascular constrictor, whereas THC acts as a bronchial dilator- Asthmatics can actually breathe better by smoking pot.

[Zhade]

62. Right. See, you were lied to.

Do you know why hemp and marijuana were declared illegal in the first place?

Two words: Hearst and DuPont. Check into it, it's very interesting stuff (the research, I mean, though the herb itself is very interesting as well).

Pot has been eaten and smoked for thousands of years, and NO ONE has ever died of an overdose - including this person. This is all bullshit.

[mainer]

65. I still say SMOKE of any kind is not healthy!

No one's talking about the benign effects of eating pot. I'm talking about the effects of smoke, with its multitude of chemicals sent straight into the bronchial tree. What else is going into your lungs with that smoke from a joint? Burning paper, with whatever chemicals were used to treat wood pulp? Stray contaminants? A myriad of other unidentified ingredients that are part of any plant.

Our lungs are meant to inhale air, not chemicals. A joint or two a day is not a problem for lungs. But continual inhalation of smoke of any kind (including the smoke from wood stoves) is not healthy.

Eat the cannabis. It's got to be safer.

[Beam Me Up]

72. VAPORIZATION is an alternate method to smoking

Vaporization is a good substitute for smoking because, unlike oral consumption, you can easily judge the desired level of your intoxication. Vaporizers do not BURN the leafy material. Rather, the application of heat turns the canabanoid crystals to steam.

[Zhade]

76. Sounds awesome!

NT!

[Beam Me Up]

78. It takes some getting used to.

Vaporization is best for people who are concerned about smoke inhalation. People used to smoking may find vaporization difficult to get used to at first. THERE IS NO SMOKE and none of the bong-hit-cough that choking smokers are used to. Because one is essentially inhaling steam, you have to consciously remember to WAIT a few minutes after you've taken two or three hits to evaluate the intoxication level before going further.

Sticky bud (or keef or hash oil) is best for vaporization. Even then the bud has to be chopped up into a 'powder' so the cannabinoid crystals are more evenly exposed to the heat source (small electric plate inside a glass dome).

Vaporization is NOT the most economical way to consume cannabis. Heating does not vaporize ALL the cannabinoids. Moreover, a good vaporizer will cost over $100.

[bubblesby2002]

79. I gotta try this

going to buy a vaporiser tomorrow.

[Beaker]

85. If you were in chicago-

you could have mine.

I went that route for a while, but ultimately went back to the bong.

more economical, better high.

and like 'beam me up' said- be prepared to spend over $100 for a good one, and like I said- be prepared to be disappointed.

[Beam Me Up]

81. HOW CONGRESS MADE HEMP AND MARIJUANA ILLEGAL

Read "The History of the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in the United States" by Charles Whitebread, Professor of Law, USC Law School. I recommend reading the entire presentation (link at bottom) it is quite interesting and humorous. Here are some excerpts to give you a taste:

When we asked at the Library of Congress for a copy of the hearings, to the shock of the Library of Congress, none could be found. We went "What?" It took them four months to finally honor our request because -- are you ready for this? -- the hearings were so brief that the volume had slid down inside the side shelf of the bookcase and was so thin it had slid right down to the bottom inside the bookshelf. That's how brief they were. Are you ready for this? They had to break the bookshelf open because it had slid down inside.

<snip>

Commissioner Anslinger (son-in law of the DuPont family, by the way) gave the Government testimony and I will quote him directly. By the way, he was not working from a text that he had written. He was working from a text that had been written for him by a District Attorney in New Orleans, a guy named Stanley. Reading directly from Mr. Stanley's work, Commissioner Anslinger told the Congressmen at the hearings, and I quote, "Marihuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death." That was the Government testimony to support the marijuana prohibition from the Commissioner.

<snip>

There were two pieces of medical evidence introduced with regard to the marijuana prohibition.

The first came from a pharmacologist at Temple University who claimed that he had injected the active ingredient in marihuana into the brains of 300 dogs, and two of those dogs had died. When asked by the Congressmen, and I quote, "Doctor, did you choose dogs for the similarity of their reactions to that of humans?" The answer of the pharmacologist was, "I wouldn't know, I am not a dog psychologist."

Well, the active ingredient in marijuana was first synthesized in a laboratory in Holland after World War II. So what it was this pharmacologist injected into these dogs we will never know, but it almost certainly was not the active ingredient in marijuana.

The other piece of medical testimony came from a man named Dr. William C. Woodward. Dr. Woodward was both a lawyer and a doctor and he was Chief Counsel to the American Medical Association. Dr. Woodward came to testify at the behest of the American Medical Association saying, and I quote, "The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marihuana is a dangerous drug."

What's amazing is not whether that's true or not. What's amazing is what the Congressmen then said to him. Immediately upon his saying, and I quote again, "The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marihuana is a dangerous drug.", one of the Congressmen said, "Doctor, if you can't say something good about what we are trying to do, why don't you go home?"

That's an exact quote. The next Congressman said, "Doctor, if you haven't got something better to say than that, we are sick of hearing you."

Now, the interesting question for us is not about the medical evidence. The most fascinating question is: why was this legal counsel to the most prestigious group of doctors in the United States treated in such a high-handed way? And the answer makes a principle thesis of my work -- and that is -- you've seen it, you've been living it the last ten years. The history of drugs in this country perfectly mirrors the history of this country.

So look at the date -- 1937 -- what's going on in this country? Well, a lot of things, but the number one thing was that, in 1936, President Franklin Roosevelt was reelected in the largest landslide election in this country's history till then. He brought with him two Democrats for every Republican, all, or almost all of them pledged to that package of economic and social reform legislation we today call the New Deal.

And, did you know that the American Medical Association, from 1932, straight through 1937, had systematically opposed every single piece of New Deal legislation. So that, by 1937, this committee, heavily made up of New Deal Democrats is simply sick of hearing them: "Doctor, if you can't say something good about what we are trying to do, why don't you go home?"

<snip>
The entire debate on the national marijuana prohibition was as follows . . .<snip>. . .Speaker Sam Rayburn called for the bill to be passed on "tellers". Does everyone know "tellers"? Did you know that for the vast bulk of legislation in this country, there is not a recorded vote. It is simply, more people walk past this point than walk past that point and it passes -- it's called "tellers". They were getting ready to pass this thing on tellers without discussion and without a recorded vote when one of the few Republicans left in Congress, a guy from upstate New York, stood up and asked two questions, which constituted the entire debate on the national marijuana prohibition.

"Mr. Speaker, what is this bill about?"

To which Speaker Rayburn replied, "I don't know. It has something to do with a thing called marihuana. I think it's a narcotic of some kind."

Undaunted, the guy from Upstate New York asked a second question, which was as important to the Republicans as it was unimportant to the Democrats. "Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support this bill?"

In one of the most remarkable things I have ever found in any research, a guy who was on the committee, and who later went on to become a Supreme Court Justice, stood up and -- do you remember? The AMA guy was named William C. Woodward -- a member of the committee who had supported the bill leaped to his feet and he said, "Their Doctor Wentworth came down here. They support this bill 100 percent." It wasn't true, but it was good enough for the Republicans. They sat down and the bill passed on tellers, without a recorded vote.

In the Senate there never was any debate or a recorded vote, and the bill went to President Roosevelt's desk and he signed it and we had the national marijuana prohibition.

Much more: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm

[Beaker]

87. HOW THREE RICH MEN HYPNOTIZED MAINSTREAM AMERICA

http://www.whutaworld.com/2conspiracy.html

It was William Randolph Hearst, Du Pont, and Andrew Mellon who gave cannabis a bad name when the plant threatened their private interests in timber, oil, and petrochemicals. It was Du Pont's financial backer, Andrew Mellon, who pushed the Marijuana Tax Bill of 1937 and it was Hearst who brought the word "marijuana" into this country via yellow journalism. Words for hemp are in the ancient languages of the Egyptians, Chaldeans, Greeks, and Romans (Rome's aqueducts were made from the woody core of the hemp plant). This is because hemp was the main agricultural product for most of the people on this earth until the 19th century when the cotton gin was invented. It was not that cotton was a better product, it was simply more cost effective to use than hemp because no one had yet invented a way to separate the hemp fibers from the woody core of the plant. And this is the crux of the story behind the Marijuana Tax Bill of 1937.

Hearst and Du Pont knew about a new hemp harvesting machine being developed in 1936. This new state of the art machine threatened Hearst's timber investments (the pulp for his newspapers) and Du Pont's petrochemically based oils and synthetics. The way in which they got rid of the hemp threat is the story the American public needs to know because it was precisely there the general public began to be hypnotized by the marijuana myth...

The public was being ambushed. William Randolph Hearst's "yellow journalism" (the use of cheaply sensational or unscrupulous methods in media to attract and influence readers) that had inflamed the Spanish American War was now being utilized as a force against hemp production. Beginning in 1916-the year the USDA Bulletin #404 reported that one acre of hemp produce as much pulp for paper as 4 acres of trees-Hearst used his newspapers as a weapon in his campaign to have hemp outlawed. As an example, the front page story of a car accident where a marijuana cigarette was found dominated headlines for weeks, while alcohol-related car accidents that outnumbered marijuana ones 1,000-1 made the back pages. Hearst burned the marijuana car accident theme into the minds of Americans between 1916-1937 by showing marijuana related car accident headlines in movies such as "Reefer Madness" and "Marijuana-Assassin of Youth."

But it wasn't the THC in the buds he was after, it was the drug-less stalks. It was Hearst who brought the word "marijuana" into the English language in the first place. The actual Spanish word for hemp is "canamo". But Hearst chose the Mexican Sonoran colloquialism "marijuana" for his newspaper headlines, which guaranteed that no one would realize the world's chief natural medicine and finest industrial resource was being slandered...

good reading at the link.

[msmcghee]

51. Any body who thinks pot is OK . .

. . should be forced to smoke pot regularly over a period of many years as a way of showing them how dangerous it can be. They'll be sorry . . . someday . . . maybe.

Well, at least I think I might be.

This might be an especially good form of punishment for people in prison.

[methinks2]

53. Can I volunteer for you program?

I promise to smoke every day!!!! :hippie:

[DrWeird]

63. Sign me up.

The only thing preventing me from conducting this experiment myself is fiding a reliable supply/

[benburch]

66. If it were dangerous...

... I would be dead already.

[XNGH]

52. Right

What an absolute total crock of Bull Shit

[Entente]

54. Too much of anything can kill you

even excercise, water, and certain vitamins and minerals.


The body prefers moderation.

[Cronus Protagonist]

55. Don't forget that in Britain, they use TOBACCO in their joints

Due to the difficulty in getting fresh weed, they tend to use oil and hashish instead of actual fresh weed. Joints are made by splitting a cigarette and mixing the good stuff with the bad stuff, the bad stuff being the tobacco.

I wonder why the inquest ignored the known lethal compounds in the tobacco and focussed on the pot.

Actually I take that back. I do know why they did that.

"FUCK Bush" Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[yellowcanine]

56. This Dr. Guy is real believable.

...Dr Guy said death was more likely if the drug had been eaten instead of smoked.

"If you eat a large amount of it, it can be deadly. I would not be surprised if in this case the deceased had ingested a fatal amount of cannabis."

Ok. Doc - we've established that you don't surprise easily. But can you say that the cannabis killed him?
6 joints a day - no way. The THC does not build up in the body. It is eventually metabolized. Liver failure after years of chronic use - I could buy that (maybe). But acute toxicity from 6 joints? - No Way.

[Ashcroft Kutcher]

58. poppy cock!

I smoke blunt after blunt of High Grade Dank Kind Buds, and I am doing lovely.

[spanone]

68. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahbwahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahahahaha

bwahahahahbwhwhwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhbwahahahbwahahahahahahahdude

[Gman]

69. You can also drink water until you die

anything in very extreme amounts would likely be toxic.

[durutti]

71. This will be debunked in a few days.

Watch.

[SemperEadem]

74. you don't say...

" It corrects the argument that cannabis cannot kill anybody."

Water can kill a person, too, but you don't see anyone advocating doing without it...

Too much of anything is bad for you.

[BadGimp]

77. looks like I might need to cut back

1 joint a day to be safe

but only 1 ok!

:smoke::smoke::smoke::smoke::smoke:

[bubblesby2002]

80. ok, me too

[spindoctor]

83. Way to go!

Is that what you call a public stoning?

[mike1963]

88. "...and the gunshot wound to the upper thoracic region wasn't considered

to be significant..."

:eyes: