homebrew420
- 2,129
- 263
Oh, it will be covered as an overdose assuming the mass hysteria going on now. It's crazy to me that every news story that has any element of marijuana in it, puts total blame on the marijuana but not the booze or pills or anything else. Holy shit I hate politics.If they made ativan muffins I would smash them shits.
I think medibles should be restricted to medical patients to be honest. It makes sense for some people to do the delivery this way (some folks have trouble swallowing pills) if that's how they want it. Moreover, if they're doing it for a legit medical reasoning they're more likely to follow instructions and to be careful with their dosages.
Someone who just wants to get high can definitely take way too much.
You can't overdose in terms of toxicity without getting crazy--but you definitely can take so much that it causes systems of your body to fail via secondary effects (like tachycardia). The stuff also is psychoactive and your brain can only handle so much at a time before it starts getting all wonky.
As we concentrate this stuff more and more, and move towards higher dosages, you're going to see more dangerous reactions that people have not less.
It won't be more than 5 years till someone goes into cardiac arrest secondarily to intoxication. Strictly speaking this isn't an overdose, but you'll die all the same.
Oh, it will be covered as an overdose assuming the mass hysteria going on now. It's crazy to me that every news story that has any element of marijuana in it, puts total blame on the marijuana but not the booze or pills or anything else. Holy shit I hate politics.
That would be well and great, except that our government does not allow medical testing, clinical trials, etc, of any schedule 1 substances. Marijuana is schedule 1, opiates are not, therefore we have the testing on opiates.It's quite possible that it *is* an overdose, it's just that we've only recently discovered the endocannabinoid system in the first place (by scientific standards)--so it's tough to nail down what is/isn't toxicity relative to that system. We're not even sure on how the damn thing works just yet, but we're getting there.
It's easier to tease out toxicity in some of these other substances (opiates, alcohol, methamphetamines) because the ranges for acute toxicity are much lower and the effects are well understood.
50 years from now we'll probably have a value for acute toxicity of cannabinoids and there will be range where a THC overdose can be declared if someone dies. Right now, all we can say is they had the stuff in their system. Part of what prevents us knowing what the range is now is:
1. Doses until very recently almost certainly never reached the ranges required for acute cannabinoid toxicity in the general case. (Ranges would be much lower in susceptible individuals--the same way someone with a heart defect would be more susceptible to a cocaine overdose).
2. We don't understand the way the endocannabinoid system is reacting to particular cannabinoids.
3. We scarcely understand the endocannabinoid system at all.
As time goes on, #2 and #3 will come off the list. As potency and dosages go up, so likely will #1.
Our failure in understanding is largely a byproduct of prohibition. We'd likely be in a similar spot with heroin, for instance, if we didn't have such extensive testing of legal opiates (and such wide use of them even before heroin was illicit).
Come on Squig, Too much of everything is just enough LOL....I'd honestly be surprised as shit if marijuana hasn't already caused the death of a multitude of smokers.
People often say that marijuana has never caused a single overdose, but they take that statement further than it's meant to go.
An overdose has to do with acute toxicity. Because we do not KNOW the level of cannabinoids required to cause acute toxicity--a medical examiner cannot put cannabinoids down as a cause of death. Therefore, there have been no "overdoses".
That doesn't mean that people haven't smoked, experienced the predictable tachycardia that it causes and keeled over due to an unknown (or ignored) heart defect, blood pressure issue, or any other number of issues related to the cardiovascular system.
The stuff kicks your heart into high gear and does REALLY weird shit to a few systems of your body that we don't even fully understand yet.
There is a difference between saying something can't kill you and saying that a medical examiner can't legally say that it killed you. A huge difference.
That doesn't mean pot isn't safer than alcohol or what-have-you. There's a lot of evidence that it is.
A person who would be at risk at relatively small doses for a cannabis "overdose" would be equally if not more susceptible to risk from drinking alcohol.
Unfortunately these untrue and overall confusing statements that people go around saying are nothing but an effect of the lack of research, and of confusion about the reality of ingesting foreign substances into the body.
THC has marked effects on the cardiovascular system--often negative ones. That is something we DO know (its one of the few things that we know quite well about THC--there have been plenty of human trials even). It stands to reason between that and the its widespread use that people have died from smoking pot. I hate to burst everyone's bubble but that's the truth.
Too much of anything can kill you, as can just the right amount of something if you're at risk for effects it causes.
I am not aware of any human trials on cannabis due to it's schedule 1 status - no recognized medical benefits. Do you have a source to cite? Was it outside the US?THC has marked effects on the cardiovascular system--often negative ones. That is something we DO know (its one of the few things that we know quite well about THC--there have been plenty of human trials even). It stands to reason between that and the its widespread use that people have died from smoking pot. I hate to burst everyone's bubble but that's the truth.
Too much of anything can kill you, as can just the right amount of something if you're at risk for effects it causes.
I am not aware of any human trials on cannabis due to it's schedule 1 status - no recognized medical benefits. Do you have a source to cite? Was it outside the US?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?