Cannabis News The November Coalition
  Cannabis is Blamed as Cause of Man's Death
Posted by CN Staff on January 19, 2004 at 23:50:11 PT
By Richard Savill 
Source: Daily Telegraph  

cannabis A man of 36 is believed to have become the first person in Britain to die directly from cannabis poisoning.

Lee Maisey smoked six cannabis cigarettes a day for 11 years, an inquest heard. His death, 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," Prof John Henry, a toxicologist at Imperial College, London, said after the inquest at Haverfordwest, west Wales.

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

The inquest heard that Mr Maisey had complained of a headache on Aug 22 last year. Next morning he was found dead at the house he shared with a friend, Jeffrey Saunders, in Summerhill, Pembrokeshire.

Michael Howells, the Pembrokeshire coroner, said Mr Maisey was free from disease and had not drunk alcohol for at least 48 hours. Post-mortem tests showed a high level of cannabinoids in his blood.

He recorded a verdict of death by misadventure because Mr Maisey had died while taking part in an illegal activity. The death led to a warning about the changing strength of cannabis, which is to be reduced to a Class C drug on Jan 29.

Dr Philip Guy, a lecturer in addictions at the University of Hull, said: "Cannabis is not the nice hippy drug it used to be. It has been experimented with to produce stronger varieties."

Dr Guy said that death was more likely if users ate the drug rather than smoked it. "I would not be surprised if in this case the deceased had ingested a fatal amount of cannabis."

Last autumn police issued a warning that big consignments of strong cannabis were being smuggled in from Africa. On Jan 29, cannabis will be reclassified from a class B to a class C drug.

The shadow home secretary, David Davis, said last night: "This highlights what we have been saying about the effects of cannabis all along. When will people wake up to the fact that cannabis can be a harmful drug?

"By reclassifying the drug David Blunkett has shown he has lost the war on drugs. In my eyes, it's nothing more than an admission of failure."

Tristan Millington-Drake, the chief executive of the Chemical Dependency Centre, a charity that provides treatment for people with drug problems, said: "We have always taken the view that cannabis is an addictive drug, unlike the pedlars who try to persuade us that it is harmless. The Government's decision to reclassify cannabis is a mistake."

Source: Daily Telegraph (UK)
Author: Richard Savill
Published: January 20, 2004
Copyright: 2004 Telegraph Group Limited
Contact: dtletters@telegraph.co.uk
Website: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

Related Articles:

End The Confusion Over Cannabis
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18159.shtml

Haze of Confusion Hangs Over Dangers To Health
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18158.shtml

So Just How Potent Are Our Street Drugs?
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18157.shtml


Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help

 
Comment #74 posted by Virgil on January 26, 2004 at 19:37:07 PT
thc4MS.org responds with info on cannabis toxicity
This could not have been up to long and I would think it would be a response to the ganjaganda in this article that mentions a fabled death due to cannabis toxicity, which is something that is not going to happen.

Anyway thc4MS thought it important enough to address the issue with extensive literature on the subject on its homepage. This is the HTML version- http://www.parklandtrading.com/users/thc4ms/toxicity.php

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #73 posted by jose melendez on January 25, 2004 at 19:58:03 PT
great response to such reefer madness
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/PO0401/S00065.htm

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #72 posted by FoM on January 21, 2004 at 20:27:21 PT
gloovins
He has contact information on Mapinc. We have their banner on CNews. They host CNews.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #71 posted by gloovins on January 21, 2004 at 20:19:31 PT
k thanks for that 72 reference I knew of it but it
is 2004 now NV got 39% and Billy Rogers is who orchestrated that drive so we are looking to locate him and Richard Lake now too, we will try to locate him..thx for that Virgil...& everyone for the input...

cheers...must go

bye all & c ya's 4 now..

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #70 posted by John Tyler on January 21, 2004 at 20:17:34 PT
Insane article
Over 400,000 people die from smoking cigs. and nobody seems to worry too much. Over 2,000 people die from aspirin of all things and no one is concerned. Yet, if one person in the whole world out of 4 billion people is suspected of having had a cannabis related death its stop the presses we have a story here. Come on, get a grip.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #69 posted by Virgil on January 21, 2004 at 09:53:54 PT
One more thing Gloovins
In 1972 a lawyer named Paoli got 500,000 votes to put the California Marijuana Iniative on the ballot. It would be Prop. 19 and would receive 34% approval.

Richard Lake was involved in that iniative and is now a resident of Michigan. I am sure he has interest in any initiative anywhere with triple interest for Michigan. I am sure he is busy with his work at MAPinc, but he would be the first person I contacted.



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #68 posted by jose melendez on January 21, 2004 at 07:55:21 PT
In my opinion . . .
. . . we need to get fans of Jennifer Aniston, Courteney Cox, Lisa Kudrow, Matt LeBlanc, Matthew Perry and David Schwimmer to encourage them to expose drug war as fraud that benefits those who would harm us. Sure, some don't admit they watch T.V., but they've all smoked pot, or love someone who does!

In my mind that truth is the fastest route to a better world where we fight real crimes, and let kids grow up as kids, not amphetamine zombie freaks.

For example, Ashton Kucher went on NBC's Today show and talked about his good works and bragged about how his 70's Show co-workers are his family but made no mention of Tommy Chong's unfair incarceration for drug delivery device sales.

That says to me these people don't realize that if they got together and decried these latest reefer madness entertainment industries, 'average Joe' citizens would also be emboldened to speak out.

One of the reasons I started posting comments here in cannabisnews is that I was able to confirm the veracity of comments posted by someone who was brave enough to post his real name and title, a man who continues to expose such hypocrisy to this day, even as we learn that marijuana use is the gateway FROM more dangerous drugs:

http://www.gwpharm.com/research_withdrawel.asp

for more substantial evidence cannabis laws are unjust, see also:

http://www.gwpharm.com/research_cri.asp

wage peace - jm



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #67 posted by irie-eyed on January 21, 2004 at 06:15:34 PT:

Comparison
http://www.jackherer.com/comparison.html

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #66 posted by gloovins on January 21, 2004 at 03:09:53 PT
here is also the Iowa results
Look county to county & Kucinich got 27% in Jefferson Co. but he did tell everyone to throw their support behind Edwards BUT ONLY FOR IOWA..see his site for details. I almost may vote for him...Kucinich that is, we'll see how it goes...

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #65 posted by gloovins on January 21, 2004 at 01:27:41 PT
hey btw ya'll see this? SOMEone has friends @ the
Warner lot...or, did.

TV Friends in drug swoop Last series ... the cast of Friends By VICTORIA NEWTON Showbiz Editor

TV hit Friends is at the centre of a drug scandal after cops seized two suspected dealers on set.

The pair were arrested at Warner Bros studios in Los Angeles within feet of where the comedy is recorded.

Ricardo Jacobo, 46, and Wilman Martinez, 33, were handcuffed in front of stunned actors and producers.

It is alleged the pair sold cocaine and marijuana to various people at Warners, but police have refused to confirm if any major celebrities were involved.

Sergeant William Barry said: “There are all sorts of rumours that cast and crew of such shows as Friends and ER, as well as high-profile producers, were involved in this bust.

“However, I cannot confirm or name anyone that helped police with their enquiries and gave officers any leads that led to the arrests of the two suspects.”

The arrests followed a two-month investigation, said police.

The last series of Friends is being filmed after ten years, with stars Jennifer Aniston, Courteney Cox, Lisa Kudrow, Matt LeBlanc, Matthew Perry and David Schwimmer getting £700,000 each per episode.

But they are to be reunited for a final 90-minute special — for a whopping £1.1MILLION each.



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #64 posted by gloovins on January 21, 2004 at 01:03:48 PT
spree instead of free, sorry in below paragraph
Support the FREE MARIJUANA/CANNABIS amendment. You won't see cannabis covering the landscape or more pot than is already smoked at many Michigan residents homes or at music concerts. Kids will learn that cannabis is an adult vice, somewhat like tobacco and alcohol and is can be abused as such. IT'S NOT WORTH SENDING INNOCENT AMERICANS TO JAIL! We pay taxes, have productive families and live otherwise normal, peaceful lives, yet we are mercilessly persecuted for using/utilizing a PLANT that, at least, could help ease alot of sick people, and help alieveate many of our energy and deforestation problems and raise millions of legal tax dollars to pay for an out of control debt-ridden state legislature on a spending SPREE gone crazy! Are Michigan residents really felons for growing and/or otherwise possessing this plant? You decide.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #63 posted by gloovins on January 21, 2004 at 00:58:05 PT
response
whew Okay z harris whos email addy is at the apublicservice.com (refrenced at the top of pg....don't want to get it harvested here) i'll give it harvest proof howz that? zharris248 a@t comcastdotnet..eliminate the obvious...after reading alaska's wording I know that z says in his email to me that he will:

"probably be dropping the specific references to “right of privacy” and “right of intrastate commerce” while working it through the amendment. We’ll still support medical marijuana for under-21 folks, the outright legalization of hemp and the legalization of marijuana for adults over 21. Since this amendment only permits Michigan marijuana, it looks like it can work, if we get it on the ballot."

Yes and back to typos..they are recognized. here is my amended w/ typos I found as well as Virgil's (thx 4 that btw) edited by I once more.

INITIATIVE PETITION AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

A PETITION TO RE-LEGALIZE MARIJUANA/CANNABIS IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN BY AMENDING ARTICLE 1 OF THE MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION TO ADD A SECTION 25 AND SECTION 26 AND ARTICLE 4 TO ADD A SECTION 55 WHICH WOULD READ AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1, Section 25 The right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed.

Article 1, Section 26 The right of the people to regulate intrastate commerce is recognized and shall not be infringed.

Article 4, Section 55

No person who has reached the age of 21 years shall be fined, arrested or otherwise be denied the enjoyment of his or her civil or political rights for the personal cultivation or possession of cannabis/marijuana or cannabis/marijuana products. A cannabis/marijuana product is any product containing cannabis/marijuana plant parts.

"Industrial hemp" is defined as cannabis plant parts or products containing less than 0.3% THC and shall not be regulated by any governmental body or agency of Michigan.

Medical cannabis/marijuana may be provided patients under age 21 for treatment prescribed and/or recommended by their licensed, supervising physician.

Any Michigan resident who has reached the age of 21 years may apply to the liquor control commission for a certificate to cultivate cannabis/marijuana in Michigan for sale to authorized retailers and manufacturers within Michigan. The cost of such certificate shall not exceed $1,000.00 and may not be denied except for age or residency.

Any Michigan resident who has reached the age of 21 years may apply to the liquor control commission for a certificate to manufacture cannabis/marijuana products in Michigan, from cannabis/marijuana grown in Michigan, for sale to authorized retailers within Michigan. The cost of such certificate shall not exceed $1,000.00 and may not be denied except for age or residency.

Any retailer legally authorized to sell alcoholic beverages is authorized to sell cannabis/marijuana, grown in Michigan, or cannabis/marijuana products, from cannabis/marijuana grown in Michigan, to any person who has reached the age of 21 years, during the hours so authorized to sell alcoholic beverages.

No governmental body or agency of Michigan shall set prices on cannabis/marijuana or cannabis/marijuana products and total taxes shall not exceed thirty-five percent of retail prices. The liquor control commission shall require retailers of cannabis/marijuana and cannabis/marijuana products to have a copy of the growers’ and manufacturers’ certificates on hand and manufacturers of cannabis/marijuana products to have a copy of the growers’ certificates on hand.

No governmental body or agency of Michigan shall utilize any state or local resources or personnel investigating, notifying or enforcing any other agency's or government's laws or regulations affecting cannabis/marijuana possession or distribution.

What the Amendment to the Michigan Constitution will accomplish

It legalizes the personal possession and cultivation of marijuana in Michigan. State, county, city, township, and village agencies will no longer arrest people for having marijuana on their person, in their home or in their garden. Irresponsible behaviors regarding the consumption of marijuana, such as driving while impaired or even public smoking can still result in a ticket or arrest.

It allows commercial cultivation through certificates issued by the liquor control commission. Most cannabis today is grown indoors or in remote fields. This is not only done to avoid arrest but to avoid people stealing the crop for their own use. Commercial farmers will most likely use greenhouses and basements. The quality will be outstanding and satisfy consumer demand -- the one thing which each side of the "war on drugs" agrees, will always exist.

Retailers who have a liquor license will decide if they want to sell cannabis grown in Michigan during the hours they can sell booze.

Since this amendment only legalizes cannabis grown and sold in Michigan it also puts Michigan cannabis consumers out of the reach of the federal government. The Supreme Court ruled in May 2001, that the federal government can shut down California clinics that distribute cannabis to aids and cancer patients because the federal government can regulate interstate commerce. That cannabis could come from Ohio or Columbia. NEW>(possibly mention of 9th Circuit ruling Raich v Ashcroft here?)

Since Michigan liquor retailers will only be selling cannabis grown in Michigan, the federal government will be out of the picture. As long as the Supreme Court respects the right of Michigan to regulate it's own intrastate commerce, the federal government won't be able to arrest anyone.

This amendment also avoids the whole issue of medical marijuana. Since marijuana would be available at liquor retailers, doctors are kept out of the middle and won't have to write prescriptions. And dying cancer and aids patients won't have to wait 6-8 months for their marijuana crops to grow. Aspirin kills more people per year than cannabis, yet it has been legal for over 100+ years.

A legal system to sell cannabis through liquor retailers will make it tougher for kids to get. Kids report that it is easier to obtain marijuana than beer.

And cannabis smokers will no longer be going to the black market, and to dealers who sell heroin, cocaine, LSD, just to name a few. The police can concentrate their efforts on drug dealers and with much less illegal demand for marijuana, a lot smaller black market.

And tax it. Use the money for treatment programs, and save a piece of the $1.5 billion Michigan spends each year on its prison system.

Support the FREE MARIJUANA/CANNABIS amendment. You won't see cannabis covering the landscape or more pot than is already smoked at many Michigan residents homes or at music concerts. Kids will learn that cannabis is an adult vice, somewhat like tobacco and alcohol and is can be abused as such. IT'S NOT WORTH SENDING INNOCENT AMERICANS TO JAIL! We pay taxes, have productive families and live otherwise normal, peaceful lives, yet we are mercilessly persecuted for using/utilizing a PLANT that, at least, could help ease alot of sick people, and help alieveate many of our energy and deforestation problems and raise millions of legal tax dollars to pay for an out of control debt-ridden state legislature on a spending free gone crazy! Are Michigan residents really felons for growing and/or otherwise possessing this plant? You decide.

Richard Nixon created the D.E.A. & the War on Drugs, our "creator" gave us cannabis, who do you trust?

Z. Harris will be consulting with an Michigan lawyer this Friday Jan 23 so, I was asked to come but cannot. Anyone know a cannabis sympathetic Michigan and/or Detroit area lawyer email Harris & put it in the subject line. Here is more of Harris's position:

"I suspect [the wording] may change after the 23rd....Phase 1: finalize the wording. Phase 2: get the volunteers (grow our 600 to 5000) thru feb and march. We’ll be doing a lot of traveling through out the state and hitting the campuses. Phase 3: get the 300,000 signatures from feb thru june. Our goal is to do what ever it takes to get it on the ballot. Once then, we look to national support and promoting the truth to get it passed. An all-out debate is still a victory, but with 75% supporting medical marijuana and 43% legalization, I believe we have more than a shot. Marijuana is a legal term, cannabis is very general, cannabis sativa is too specific. I don’t think this is an issue where the wording matters; it’s not going to have the same aspect as “gay marriage” vs “civil union”. Pot has a much more derogatory tone. I don’t think we should waste time worrying about the impact of the word “marijuana” but focusing on getting the truth out."

Ok all well, we are all going to have differences on the wording considering the national & state current unresolved conflict on cannabis current scheduling (1, as we all know) under the 1970 CSA. But that HAS been recently injuctified, no? So...it's so grey now legally it's hard to keep up! Will keep you posted..! Also want to get in touch with Nevada's ballot people for their advice in there unfortunately unsuccessful bid (not that bad, 39% but we want to win!) I believe they were call Nevadians For Responsible Law Enforcement, they got their's on the ballot in NEVADA! So, if anyone knows or could help, I think their leader there was a maverick Texan...I'll look it up and get back thanks again for everyones input...anymore would be appreciated, just post. will kit...



[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #62 posted by FoM on January 20, 2004 at 21:36:25 PT
Virgil While Your Helping Gloovins
I found this on MPP about Alaska.

http://www.mpp.org/AK/index.html

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #61 posted by Virgil on January 20, 2004 at 21:31:43 PT
Gloovins- The Alaska Initiative
Full text of Initiative from Free Hemp in Alaska http://www.freehempinak.org/

AN INITIATIVE TO DECRIMINALIZE AND REGULATE CANNABIS (HEMP INCLUDING MARIJUANA) BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA:

I. Add the following section to the criminal code of the State of Alaska, any laws or policies to the contrary notwithstanding:

(1) Persons, 21 years or older, shall not be prosecuted, be denied any right or privilege, nor be subject to criminal or civil penalties for the possession, cultivation, distribution, or consumption of:

(a) Industrial hemp products. Hemp farmers and manufacturers of industrial hemp products shall not be subject to any special zoning or licensing fees that are discriminatory or prohibitive.

(b) Hemp medicinal preparations.

(c) Hemp products for nutritional use.

(d) Hemp products for personal use in private. The State or any political subdivisions thereof may not require a permit or license for non-commercial cultivation, transportation, distribution or consumption of any hemp product.

(2) Definitions:

(a) The term "hemp" means hemp, cannabis, or marijuana, or any part or preparation of the plant Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica, Cannabis americana, or any species or variety of plant of the genus Cannabis.

(b) The term "industrial hemp products" means all products made from hemp, cannabis, or marijuana, that are not designed or intended for human consumption, and includes, but is not limited to: paper, fiber, fuel, plastics, paint, seed for cultivation, animal feed, veterinary medicine, oil, plants used for crop rotation, erosion control, or weed control.

(c) The term "hemp medicinal preparations" means all products made from hemp, cannabis, or marijuana, that are designed, intended, or used for human consumption, for the treatment of any disease, the relief of pain, or for any healing purpose including the treatment or relief of asthma, glaucoma, arthritis, anorexia, migraine, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, nausea, stress, for use as an antiemetic, or as any healing agent, or as an adjunct to any medical procedure or herbal treatment.

(d) The term "hemp products for nutritional use" means the use of any hemp product intended for human consumption as food, for example, but not limited to: seed protein, seed oil, seed cake, or gruel, or any preparation thereof.

(e) The term "personal use" means the use of any product, preparation or potency of hemp, cannabis, or marijuana, intended for any relaxational, ritual, spiritual, or other personal purpose.

(f) The term "hemp intoxicating products" means any hemp product other than industrial hemp products, hemp medicinal preparations, or hemp products for nutritional use.

(3) Hemp medicinal preparations are hereby restored to the available list of medicines in Alaska. Licensed physicians shall not be penalized for or restricted from prescribing or recommending hemp preparations for medical purposes to patients of any age.

(4) Nothing in this bill prevents the regulation of hemp intoxicating products in a manner similar to alcohol or tobacco.

(5) The manufacturing, marketing, distribution or sales between adults of equipment or accessories designed or marketed for use in the planting, cultivation, harvesting, curing, processing, packaging, storing, analyzing, consumption, or transportation of hemp, industrial hemp products, hemp medicinal preparations, hemp products for nutritional use, or hemp products for personal use shall not be prohibited.

II. Nothing in this Act will bar the State or any political subdivisions thereof from enacting legislation, using reasonable standards to determine impairment, to regulate or prohibit persons under the influence of hemp from operating a motor vehicle, heavy machinery, or otherwise engaging in conduct which may affect public safety.

III. Nothing in this Act will bar the State or any political subdivisions thereof from limiting the use of intoxicating hemp products in public places.

IV. No part of this initiative shall be so construed as to nullify any prevailing laws concerning possession, use or manufacture of hemp intoxicating products by minors, nor any prevailing laws concerning a sale, barter or gift of hemp intoxicating products by or to minors.

V. Severability: If any provision of this initiative, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance, shall be held invalid by any court, the remainder of this initiative to the extent that it can be given effect, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby, and to this end the provisions of this initiative are severable.

VI. If any rival or conflicting initiative regulating any matter addressed by this initiative receives the higher affirmative vote, then all non-conflicting parts of this initiative shall become operative.

VII. Purpose of Initiative: Construction. This initiative is an exercise of the powers of the Alaskan citizenry for the promotion and protection of the safety, welfare, health and privacy of the people, and the environment of the State, to allow for the industrial and medicinal type uses of hemp, to eliminate the evils associated with an illicit market for cannabis, and to promote temperance in the consumption of cannabis. It is hereby declared that the subject matter of this initiative involves in the highest degree, the economic, social, environmental and moral well-being and the safety of the citizens of Alaska and the State. All provisions of this initiative shall be generously interpreted for the accomplishment of these purposes.

VIII. Effective Date. This initiative shall be effective when enacted according to law.

Free Hemp In Alaska, Scot Dunnachie-Chair, 2603 Spenard Rd, Anchorage, AK 99501 http://www.freehempinak.org/hemp2002.htm

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #60 posted by Virgil on January 20, 2004 at 21:17:44 PT
I really hate saying this gloovins
A PETITION TO RE-LEGALIZE MARIJUANA/CANNABIS IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN BY AMENDING ARTICLE 1 OF THE MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION TO ADD A SECTION 25 AND SECTION 26 AND ARTICLE 4 TO ADD A SECTION 55 WHICH WOULD READ AS FOLLOWS:

I think Re-legalize is a little fancy and every letter that is not needed needs to be removed. “Legalize should be fine.” But it seems like some lawyer would have crafted this with particular attention to the Alaska wording as they have learned their lessons on choosing words.

the liquor control commission- seems like there should be a proper name that requires capital letters.

the one thing which I put this document in word and it brings this up. It offers the suggest of “thing that” and is better

No governmental body or agency of Michigan shall utilize any state or local resources or personnel investigating, notifying or enforcing any other agency's or government's laws or regulations affecting cannabis/marijuana possession or distribution. That is just not right and can be conveyed more simply. Now I challenge the wording of the whole thing as it sure seems like NORML or MPP would at least offer some help in drafting the words of the initiative. It seems like a lawyer would be in on the drafting. What got me started was when I read “to aids and cancer” and AIDS is not even in capital letters. Then I saw “regulate it's own” and was in a state of disbelief. It is “its own” and not a contraction of it is.

. You won't see cannabis covering the landscape or more pot than is already smoked at many Michgian- It does not seem like a person would even use contractions and would say “will not” . Michagan is misspelled. And the whole paragraph sentence is messed up. Why would you not just say “Cannabis plants will not be planted on public lands and …

Starting paragraphs with AND is just strange.

I am not an Initiative critic or anything, but this thing needs work. Believe me, I am not trying to be mean and if this is a one-man effort, it is commendable.

I hate even to respond, but nobody else has said anything and with the proper wording the Initiative seems like it would have a chance of getting a simple majority. I just cannot believe NORML or MPP or the PRAYES people did not iron out what they wanted.

Could you tell us who is behind getting this initiative started? There is a compelling argument to be made for any state to withdrawal from CP. The words are critical and I thought that experts would hammer out every word.

Please respond.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #59 posted by FoM on January 20, 2004 at 20:10:19 PT
gloovins
Yes that is more then fine and I appreciate it.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #58 posted by Virgil on January 20, 2004 at 20:06:05 PT
Gloovins-They should use cannabis in the wording
First, marijuana does not describe hemp and I would read my comment about that in the LA Time article of Saturday.

The right to privacy thing does not really seem to be needed and the more words and more points you take the easier it is to shoot down. The fundamentalist thinks you can use a privacy rule to have sex with children and anything else, not that they are not demented in that belief. You can read this thread on the iniative I put up at FreeRepublic and see what I mean- http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1054816/posts

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #57 posted by gloovins on January 20, 2004 at 18:53:40 PT
the MI petition..I want opinions
the one as far as I know thats ago is linked below but I'm going to post what I thought it should read like. I removed no language of the actual wording of the amendment but rather substituted or added it w/ the word "cannabis". Its more reader friendly. "Marijuana, unfortunatly, the word itself has been unfairly demonized imho., so thats why I tweaked it to read like this :

INITIATIVE PETITION AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

A PETITION TO RE-LEGALIZE MARIJUANA/CANNABIS IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN BY AMENDING ARTICLE 1 OF THE MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION TO ADD A SECTION 25 AND SECTION 26 AND ARTICLE 4 TO ADD A SECTION 55 WHICH WOULD READ AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1, Section 25 The right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed.

Article 1, Section 26 The right of the people to regulate intrastate commerce is recognized and shall not be infringed.

Article 4, Section 55

No person who has reached the age of 21 years shall be fined, arrested or otherwise be denied the enjoyment of his or her civil or political rights for the personal cultivation or possession of cannabis/marijuana or cannabis/marijuana products. A cannabis/marijuana product is any product containing cannabis/marijuana plant parts.

"Industrial hemp" is defined as cannabis plant parts or products containing less than 0.3% THC and shall not be regulated by any governmental body or agency of Michigan.

Medical cannabis/marijuana may be provided patients under age 21 for treatment prescribed and/or recommended by their licensed, supervising physician.

Any Michigan resident who has reached the age of 21 years may apply to the liquor control commission for a certificate to cultivate cannabis/marijuana in Michigan for sale to authorized retailers and manufacturers within Michigan. The cost of such certificate shall not exceed $1,000.00 and may not be denied except for age or residency.

Any Michigan resident who has reached the age of 21 years may apply to the liquor control commission for a certificate to manufacture cannabis/marijuana products in Michigan, from cannabis/marijuana grown in Michigan, for sale to authorized retailers within Michigan. The cost of such certificate shall not exceed $1,000.00 and may not be denied except for age or residency.

Any retailer legally authorized to sell alcoholic beverages is authorized to sell cannabis/marijuana, grown in Michigan, or cannabis/marijuana products, from cannabis/marijuana grown in Michigan, to any person who has reached the age of 21 years, during the hours so authorized to sell alcoholic beverages.

No governmental body or agency of Michigan shall set prices on cannabis/marijuana or cannabis/marijuana products and total taxes shall not exceed thirty-five percent of retail prices. The liquor control commission shall require retailers of cannabis/marijuana and cannabis/marijuana products to have a copy of the growers’ and manufacturers’ certificates on hand and manufacturers of cannabis/marijuana products to have a copy of the growers’ certificates on hand.

No governmental body or agency of Michigan shall utilize any state or local resources or personnel investigating, notifying or enforcing any other agency's or government's laws or regulations affecting cannabis/marijuana possession or distribution.

What the Amendment to the Michigan Constitution will accomplish

It legalizes the personal possession and cultivation of marijuana in Michigan. State, county, city, township, and village agencies will no longer arrest people for having marijuana on their person, in their home or in their garden. Irresponsible behaviors regarding the consumption of marijuana, such as driving while impaired or even public smoking can still result in a ticket or arrest.

It allows commercial cultivation through certificates issued by the liquor control commission. Most cannabis today is grown indoors or in remote fields. This is not only done to avoid arrest but to avoid people stealing the crop for their own use. Commercial farmers will most likely use greenhouses and basements. The quality will be outstanding and satisfy consumer demand -- the one thing which each side of the "war on drugs" agrees, will always exist.

Retailers who have a liquor license will decide if they want to sell cannabis grown in Michigan during the hours they can sell booze.

Since this amendment only legalizes cannabis grown and sold in Michigan it also puts Michigan cannabis consumers out of the reach of the federal government. The Supreme Court ruled in May 2001, that the federal government can shut down California clinics that distribute cannabis to aids and cancer patients because the federal government can regulate interstate commerce. That cannabis could come from Ohio or Columbia.

Since Michigan liquor retailers will only be selling cannabis grown in Michigan, the federal government will be out of the picture. As long as the Supreme Court respects the right of Michigan to regulate it's own intrastate commerce, the federal government won't be able to arrest anyone.

This amendment also avoids the whole issue of medical marijuana. Since marijuana would be available at liquor retailers, doctors are kept out of the middle and won't have to write prescriptions. And dying cancer and aids patients won't have to wait 6-8 months for their marijuana crops to grow. Aspirin kills more people per year than cannabis, yet it has been legal for over 100+ years.

A legal system to sell cannabis through liquor retailers will make it tougher for kids to get. Kids report that it is easier to obtain marijuana than beer.

And cannabis smokers will no longer be going to the black market, and to dealers who sell heroin, cocaine, LSD, just to name a few. The police can concentrate their efforts on drug dealers and with much less illegal demand for marijuana, a lot smaller black market.

And tax it. Use the money for treatment programs, and save a piece of the $1.5 billion Michigan spends each year on its prison system.

Support the FREE MARIJUANA/CANNABIS amendment. You won't see cannabis covering the landscape or more pot than is already smoked at many Michgian residents homes or at music concerts. Kids will learn that cannabis is an adult vice, somewhat like tobacco and alcohol and is can be abused as such. IT'S NOT WORTH SENDING INNOCENT AMERICANS TO JAIL! We pay taxes, have productive families and live otherwise normal, peaceful lives, yet we are mercilessly persecuted for using/utilizing a PLANT that, at least, could help ease alot of sick people, and help aliveate many of our energy and deforestation problems and raise millions of legal tax dollars to pay for an out of control debt-ridden state legislature on a spending free gone crazy! Are Michigan residents really felons for growing and/or otherwise possessing this plant? You decide

Richard Nixon created the D.E.A. & the War on Drugs, our "creator" gave us cannabis, who do you trust

I don't know....what do you think all? Again below is the link to the actual sig drive by Z Harris...

This is on topic, no FoM? Hope so...



[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #56 posted by FoM on January 20, 2004 at 18:45:08 PT
BGreen
And thank you too. We do have a good team here. It means a lot to me.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #55 posted by BGreen on January 20, 2004 at 18:20:43 PT
Thanks for the kind words, FoM and Virgil
I'm glad to be a part of this team.

The Reverend Bud Green

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #54 posted by mayan on January 20, 2004 at 18:14:07 PT
Suuuure...
The timing of this is almost comical. I think everyone with something resembling a brain in their head will notice the same.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #53 posted by gloovins on January 20, 2004 at 15:46:11 PT
All this talk of a new "death by cannabis"...
Is a crock. Timing is very suspicious w/ the downgrading in the UK just days away, this is just that Henry guy spewing BS to further his agenda at a dead mans expense.

Tell me, how many "alcohol toxicity" and "Tobacco-smoke" related deaths are there per year? Oh wait, that study may take years to document with accuracy.

The anti's just can't deal with the fact that we have two killers in the house (alcohol & tobacco) but the killers built it so they run the show.

I want UK figures of deaths in England, attributed to alcohol abuse/misuse & tobacco use.

Why don't you print those figures alongside this "possible" cannabis death????!!!! Uhhhh??? Too much work for ya? Don't worry, the pub is open late.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #52 posted by FoM on January 20, 2004 at 15:08:00 PT
john wayne
I still haven't made it thru the whole dvd. I will though. Yes there are good comments. I really appreciate them.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #51 posted by john wayne on January 20, 2004 at 15:03:46 PT
cnews'ers
actually talking about the posted news story instead of high-fiving each other about how cool that new grateful dead DVD is? Wierd. And welcome.

Lotsa great counter-point comments here. But count on this "pot caused death" story to be repeated ad nauseum by the prohib press. For the next few years the prohibs will be quoting this study as showing how dangerous pot is and how much we need to ruin peoples lives by imprisoning them and seizing all their assets because "pot caused death".

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #50 posted by Matt Elrod on January 20, 2004 at 13:52:32 PT
Slasher used pot
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v04/n116/a08.html

cannabislink.ca uses a MAP newsfeed so articles don't persist there for long.

Matt

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #49 posted by IBL on January 20, 2004 at 13:35:38 PT
Read Marijuana Author Greg Green's Telegraph reply
http://www.cannabisbook.com/forums/viewthread.php?tid=179

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #48 posted by goneposthole on January 20, 2004 at 13:34:02 PT
Nuevo Mexican
I won't disagree with you about Scorpio. The moon went into Scorpio on March 20, 2003, the day the US so foolishly invaded Iraq. Although, I am very skeptical of astrology, I have observed over the years that strange things take place and people behave in the most absurd ways when the moon goes into Scorpio.

Some things are hard to explain.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #47 posted by jose melendez on January 20, 2004 at 13:13:53 PT
like they would publish this anyway . . .
Here's what I sent to them via the Daily Telegraph's letters to the editor online form at:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml?view=CUSTSERV&grid=P9

Please thank hard hitting Telegraph journalist Richard Savill for using Professor John Henry as a source in 'Cannabis is Blamed as Cause of Man's Death'.

No better evidence exposes the hypocrisy and fraud of cannabis prohibition than quoting someone who once attributed 30,000 U.K. deaths to the weed as saying, "I have not seen anything like this before. It corrects the argument that cannabis cannot kill anybody."

What bunk. Exactly how many cigarette and beer addicts would properly be offered incarceration and asset forfeiture as "treatment"?

Considering that the lethal dose of the active ingredient would weigh about half as much as the user, you would have to eat about as much hashish as you weigh to die from it.

Anti-drugs professionals and enthusiasts ought to behold green, seed bearing herbs as good food, as God commands in Genesis 1:29, but to do that they would have to actually open those well thumped Bibles.

Jose Melendez

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #46 posted by mamawillie on January 20, 2004 at 13:11:34 PT
What did he actually die from?
My problem is that nowhere does it say what he actually died from. I realize ultimately, everyone dies because their heart stops beating.. but what I mean is.... did he have a heart attack, stroke, kidney failure, liver failure, etc. If the first cannabis death in recorede history just happened, then the least they can do is detail *how* they arrived at this conclusion. For instance, did the dude get stoned, trip and then hit his head on a brick and sustain irrepairable brain damage? Did the "toxic THC level" cause him to go into such a slumber that his major organs fell asleep too? Did he get the munchies so severely that his stomach exploded?

Joking aside, I hope his family is calling bullshit on this. These two idiot doctors are using this man's death to further their cause...

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #45 posted by FoM on January 20, 2004 at 13:01:53 PT
Here's The Link
I was making dinner and my husband came to read the news and said what does this have to do with the article. This article is about a mentally sick child. The link is ok for those who want to read it.

http://www.nsnews.com/issues04/w011104/013304/news/013304nn4.html

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #44 posted by Nuevo Mexican on January 20, 2004 at 12:56:01 PT
Blame it on the Stars, death was in his chart!
Blame it on his mother, its her fault, she gave birth to him knowing someday he would die, CRIMINAL!

Thanks for all the instant exposes on this huge lie that will put to rest all future accusations that 'pot kills'.

With the info provided on his birthdate, I ran a chart (surprise!) and I assumed the potential for death was in his chart, since he died, these things always show up!

Well, guess what, (non-believers close your eyes and do not read this!), Mars (ruler of Scorpio, sign of death and renewal), entered Scorpio, the sign it 'rules' in his progressed chart, (a yearly upgrade on your birthday, like a new version of windows), and indicates the likelyhood of an accidental death, (though I use the term accidental loosely, I don't believe in accidents, everything happens for a reason.)

Bingo! If this goes to trial, ring me up, I'll testify on behalf of this man that something other than cannabis caused this mans death!

As E.J. mentioned in an earlier post, this looks suspicious, and I would say the stars indicate foul play!

Murder, she wrote!

You're on the right track E.J., lets solve this mystery here at C-News, it wouldn't be hard with the great slueths that lurk about here!



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #42 posted by ron on January 20, 2004 at 12:29:37 PT
Presstitutes are everywhere!
Ever since this article was posted I've been looking for a piece posted yesterday on

http://cannabislink.ca/

It was from the North Shore News in BC and the headline was something like "Thirteen Year Old Slasher Used Pot"

The article went on to describe this troubled boy's use of alcohol, suspension from school for four years, and extremely dysfunctional parents. No attempt was made to establish any connection between his attack on another student and cannabis usage, but the headline is all these persecutionists want.

I don't know why Cannabislink dropped it, and I couldn't find it in the North Shore News archives, but I thought it was appropriate to this discussion.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #41 posted by Virgil on January 20, 2004 at 12:23:39 PT
HempCity comment says alcohol withdrawal
The following is a response to this story at HempCity- http://www.hempcity.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=348&highlight=

This man who supposedly died from cannabis poisining, , really probably died of withdrawl from alcohol, known in shorthand as DT. He was supposedly a complete alcoholic and had been for many years. I will give links at the bottom so you can read for yourselves. Side effects of DT can range from hallucinations to seizures and strokes.

Link to side effects of alcohol withdrawl http://www.alcoholism.about.com/cs/withdrawal/a/aa000125a.htm just cut and paste it into your address bar if the link doesnt turn blue*

link to article saying he was an alcoholic who hadnt drunk for 2 days (2 days is when DT starts to set in) http://www.tenby-today.co.uk/news/newsdetail.cfm?id=71730

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #40 posted by BigDawg on January 20, 2004 at 12:15:47 PT
BG took the words outta my mouth
My first thought was, "Death by misadventure?" All because he was taking part in an illegal activity when he died.

Where does misadventure tie into toxicity?

Only death by misadventure I've ever seen connected to cannabis... is when the DEA shoots another round.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #39 posted by FoM on January 20, 2004 at 12:03:38 PT
BGreen
I saw your comment last night and thought how good it was. Thanks! I was too tired to comment then.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #38 posted by BGreen on January 20, 2004 at 11:53:57 PT
Cannabis is to blame because cannabis is illegal
(Michael Howells, the Pembrokeshire coroner,) recorded a verdict of death by misadventure because Mr Maisey had died while taking part in an illegal activity.

This is the real reason for this bullshit. Cannabis MUST cause death because it's illegal, Mr Maisey consumed some of this illegal substance, therefore this illegal substance MUST be the cause of death and no other tests are needed.

The Reverend Bud Green

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #37 posted by jose melendez on January 20, 2004 at 11:50:01 PT
great work, druid
Nice expose.

Let's see the Daily Telegraph's Richard Savill publishes an apropriate correction. Contact them directly here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml?view=CUSTSERV&grid=P9

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #36 posted by IBL on January 20, 2004 at 11:37:21 PT
EXPOSED! --- IT IS A FALSE POSSITIVE!
http://www.cannabisbook.com/forums/viewthread.php?tid=179

THE TRUTH ABOUT "CANNABIS KILLED SMOKER" LEE MAISEY

On Tuesday 20th of January I came across the following article on Sky News. It seemed that for the 100th time Sky News had claimed that the First Cannabis Victim had been found… again.

CANNABIS KILLED SMOKER

A man who smoked six joints a day for 11 years is believed to have become the first person in Britain to have overdosed on cannabis. Lee Maisey, 36, was a long-term, heavy cannabis smoker who used large quantities of the drug, an inquest heard. He complained of a headache last summer and was found dead a day later. The inquest was told his death had been caused by "cannabis toxicity". Doctors said it was an highly unusual case. "This type of death is extremely rare," Prof John Henry, a toxicologist at Imperial College, London, told the Daily Telegraph. "I have not seen anything like this before. It corrects the argument that cannabis cannot kill anybody." Mr Maisey was found dead on August 26 in the home he shared with Jeffrey Saunders in Summerhill, Pembrokeshire. Pembrokeshire coroner Michael Howells said Mr Maisey had been free from disease and had not drunk alcohol for at least 48 hours beforehand. He recorded a verdict of death by misadventure because Mr Maisey had died while taking part in an illegal activity. Cannabis will be declassified from class B to class C on January 29.

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

Please note the following about this article:

This is just an inquest. Let us see what the Coroner actually listed as the cause of Mr. Maisey’s death.

http://www.pembrokeshirecoroner.org/coroner/view_details.php?autoid=46

Surname MAISEY Forename Lee John Age 36 DOD 24/08/2003 Gender male Address Windcrest Church View Summerhill Narberth DOB 15/06/1967 Inquest Opened 27/08/2003 Inquest Concluded 18/12/2003 Circumstances Found dead at home address Current Status Concluded Verdict Misadventure Medical Cause of Death Probable Cannabis Toxicity

PROBABLE CANNABIS TOXICITY!

PROBABLE means the same as possible. This means that it is not a conclusive cannabis toxicity finding.

This is NOT the “FIRST” PROBABLE CANNABIS TOXICITY FINDING!

But then we have Professor John Henry to back up the statement -

quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "This type of death is extremely rare," Prof John Henry, a toxicologist at Imperial College, London, told the Daily Telegraph. "I have not seen anything like this before. It corrects the argument that cannabis cannot kill anybody." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THIS IS A NOT TRUE!

This is what Prof John Henry said in 2003.

quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cannabis kills 30,000 every year in the UK Source: Daily Express Date: 02/05/2003 Researchers at Imperial College, London, say that cannabis is a major health hazard, causing schizophrenia, depression, chronic bronchitis and emphysema. The drug is also said to be a major cause of lung cancer. Cannabis could be killing 30,000 people a year, a prediction that flies in the face of the Government's plans to downgrade it from a Class B to a Class C controlled drug. Professor John Henry, from Imperial College, said, 'Even if the number of deaths attributable to cannabis turned out to be a fraction of the 30,000 we believe could be possible, cannabis smoking would still be a health hazard.' This story is also covered in most of the other national newspapers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And the month before that he said…

quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cannabis 'damages mental health' The health effects of cannabis are controversial An expert on the health effects of cannabis says that there is growing evidence that the drug is responsible for mental health problems. Professor John Henry, a consultant in toxicology from St Mary's Hospital in London, told the BBC that studies from Sweden and elsewhere pointed to an increase in schizophrenia among regular cannabis smokers. The mental health effects of smoking cannabis are a controversial area, with any evidence of harm strongly disputed by some. People who want to smoke cannabis ought to be aware that it has equal effects to cigarettes on the body and worse effects on the mind However, Dr Henry is planning to tell a conference at the Royal Society of Medicine on Monday that it appears likely that some cases of schizophrenia are attributable to the consumption of cannabis, rather than the alternative explanation that patients prone to mental illness are more likely to be drawn to use the drug. Dr Henry says that the strength of cannabis on sale now far outstrips the strength of the drug sold during the "flower power" era of the 1960s and 1970s. He told the BBC: "There's no government health warning against cannabis but there are all kinds of warnings about tobacco. "People who want to smoke cannabis ought to be aware that it has equal effects to cigarettes on the body and worse effects on the mind. "You've got the fact that regular cannabis smokers develop mental illness. "There's a fourfold increase in schizophrenia and a fourfold increase in major depression. "That is something very very different from what smoking does to you. "There's a lot of epidemiological evidence from as far apart as Sweden and New Zealand that cannabis actually causes these problems." According to a review carried out by UK drugs information service Drugscope, evidence of long-term mental health effects of cannabis is far from clear-cut. It points to criticism of the Swedish study mentioned by Dr Henry - and says that while cannabis consumption is increasing, the incidence of schizophrenia is not, which would suggest that cannabis may not be to blame. It is possible, says Drugscope, that cannabis precipitates schizophrenia in people who would have developed it anyway. Currently, the number of cannabis users in the UK is estimated at more than three million. The drug is due to be "downgraded" this summer from a Class "B" to a Class "C" drug by the government. This means that while possession of small quantities of cannabis remains illegal, it is not an "arrestable" offence unless there are aggravating factors, such as use of cannabis near children. Lesley King-Lewis, chief executive of charity Action on Addiction, said: "This evidence further demonstrates that cannabis use can be dangerous. "The public should be made more aware of the risks involved with using this illicit drug. "As many as one in 10 cannabis users become addicted. Cannabis use is associated with cancers of the mouth, tongue, throat, oesophagus and lung and reductions in fertility, as well as with mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and depression. "Chronic cannabis use clearly involves significant costs to society as well as to the individual user. Many of these problems are shared with alcohol and tobacco. "Therefore more research is needed to provide effective education highlighting the relative dangers of different substances and targeting those most at risk." Chief Executive of the British Lung Foundation (BLF), Dame Helena Shovelton, chief executive of the British Lung Foundation, described smoking cannabis as a "health time bomb". She said: "Over 3 million regular users in the UK could end up with chronic lung failure. "It is vital that the public know the damage smoking cannabis can cause." Dame Helena said a BLF lung consultant recently gave a lung transplant to a young patient who had only ever smoked cannabis. "Unfortunately, cases like this will become more and more common if public awareness of the dangers is not raised." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Soon enough Dr. Henry’s role in this ordeal with be exposed and we will learn the full truth. The fact is that Dr. Henry is merely reacting to what HE WANTS TO HEAR. We also know that many groups will be wanting to see the coroners full report for themselves.

Time will tell the full truth but my BET is that is just another FALSE POSSITIVE and that the coroner has made a mistake. Everything will be refuted in time. I await to hear the full exposure of this "hack" excuse for a cause of death.

Every year hundreds of people die with traces of cannabis in their system. It is not the first time that people have died with cannabis filed in the toxicology report. However the link between cannabis and cause of death has yet to be established.

It certainly was not established here today. They merely claim to have found another dead person with cannabis in his system.

Greg Green

Author of "The Cannabis Grow Bible" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1931160171/ref=pd_ecc_rvi_1/102-4921007-4541742 http://www.cannabisbook.com

January 20th 2004

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #35 posted by E_Johnson on January 20, 2004 at 11:16:42 PT
This sounds SO Agatha Christie
Found at home dead, no sign of disease. And no autopsy?

It's very fishy that they're basing all of this on such sketchy evidence.

It's the typical setup for a typical English village murder mystery, I swear.

Miss Marple and Hercule Poirot have been all over this territory.

I can imagine David Suchet as Hercule Poirot:

"A death by poisoning with the cannabis? This conclusion reached without the autopsy? Mais non! Mes amis, it is well known that the cannabis is non-toxic. If it could kill a grown man like this, then every user of the hashish in London, they would be dead, non?

Therefore, mes amis, my little grey cells tell me this must be a case of murder!"



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #34 posted by Max Flowers on January 20, 2004 at 10:34:47 PT
oops
Should have been "Let us SEE what we can do"

Why oh WHY doesn't this site have post-editing functionality???

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #33 posted by Max Flowers on January 20, 2004 at 10:33:01 PT
DEA/Bush-British plot
It probably went something like this:

Bush goons (to Brits): "We're losing very badly here, and if we don't do something big and decisive, we may lose altogether on the marijuana issue. We can't fake anyone out in the US, the damn activists are way too sharp these days for that. Can you guys pull it off? Maybe you can start an anti-grass wave in your country with the world's first pot death."

Brits to Bush goons: "Let us wee what we can do. We have our man John Henry who wil say anything we want him to. How much is this worth to you guys anyway?"

Bush goons: "How does 10 million sound?"

Brits: "Sounds about right. You have our Cayman account numbers. When we get the funds confirmed, our man Henry will spew some beautiful disinformation just for you."

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #32 posted by druid on January 20, 2004 at 09:34:54 PT
insight on this death
http://www.cannabisbook.com/forums/viewthread.php?tid=179&page=1#pid243

This is just an inquest. Let us see what the Coroner actually listed as the cause of Mr. Maisey’s death.

http://www.pembrokeshirecoroner.org/coroner/view_details.php?autoid=46

Surname MAISEY

Forename Lee John

Age 36

DOD 24/08/2003

Gender male

Address Windcrest Church View Summerhill Narberth

DOB 15/06/1967

Inquest Opened 27/08/2003

Inquest Concluded 18/12/2003

Circumstances Found dead at home address

Current Status Concluded

Verdict Misadventure

Medical Cause of Death Probable Cannabis Toxicity

PROBABLE CANNABIS TOXICITY!

PROBABLE means the same as possible. This means that it is not a conclusive cannabis toxicity finding.

This is NOT the “FIRST” PROBABLE CANNABIS TOXICITY FINDING!

But then we have Professor John Henry to back up the statement -

"This type of death is extremely rare," Prof John Henry, a toxicologist at Imperial College, London, told the Daily Telegraph. "I have not seen anything like this before. It corrects the argument that cannabis cannot kill anybody."

THIS IS A NOT TRUE!

This is what Prof John Henry said in 2003.

Cannabis kills 30,000 every year in the UK

Source: Daily Express

Date: 02/05/2003

Researchers at Imperial College, London, say that cannabis is a major health hazard, causing schizophrenia, depression, chronic bronchitis and emphysema. The drug is also said to be a major cause of lung cancer. Cannabis could be killing 30,000 people a year, a prediction that flies in the face of the Government's plans to downgrade it from a Class B to a Class C controlled drug. Professor John Henry, from Imperial College, said, 'Even if the number of deaths attributable to cannabis turned out to be a fraction of the 30,000 we believe could be possible, cannabis smoking would still be a health hazard.' This story is also covered in most of the other national newspapers.

And the month before that he said…

Cannabis 'damages mental health' The health effects of cannabis are controversial An expert on the health effects of cannabis says that there is growing evidence that the drug is responsible for mental health problems. Professor John Henry, a consultant in toxicology from St Mary's Hospital in London, told the BBC that studies from Sweden and elsewhere pointed to an increase in schizophrenia among regular cannabis smokers. The mental health effects of smoking cannabis are a controversial area, with any evidence of harm strongly disputed by some. People who want to smoke cannabis ought to be aware that it has equal effects to cigarettes on the body and worse effects on the mind However, Dr Henry is planning to tell a conference at the Royal Society of Medicine on Monday that it appears likely that some cases of schizophrenia are attributable to the consumption of cannabis, rather than the alternative explanation that patients prone to mental illness are more likely to be drawn to use the drug. Dr Henry says that the strength of cannabis on sale now far outstrips the strength of the drug sold during the "flower power" era of the 1960s and 1970s. He told the BBC: "There's no government health warning against cannabis but there are all kinds of warnings about tobacco. "People who want to smoke cannabis ought to be aware that it has equal effects to cigarettes on the body and worse effects on the mind. "You've got the fact that regular cannabis smokers develop mental illness. "There's a fourfold increase in schizophrenia and a fourfold increase in major depression. "That is something very very different from what smoking does to you. "There's a lot of epidemiological evidence from as far apart as Sweden and New Zealand that cannabis actually causes these problems." According to a review carried out by UK drugs information service Drugscope, evidence of long-term mental health effects of cannabis is far from clear-cut. It points to criticism of the Swedish study mentioned by Dr Henry - and says that while cannabis consumption is increasing, the incidence of schizophrenia is not, which would suggest that cannabis may not be to blame. It is possible, says Drugscope, that cannabis precipitates schizophrenia in people who would have developed it anyway. Currently, the number of cannabis users in the UK is estimated at more than three million. The drug is due to be "downgraded" this summer from a Class "B" to a Class "C" drug by the government. This means that while possession of small quantities of cannabis remains illegal, it is not an "arrestable" offence unless there are aggravating factors, such as use of cannabis near children. Lesley King-Lewis, chief executive of charity Action on Addiction, said: "This evidence further demonstrates that cannabis use can be dangerous. "The public should be made more aware of the risks involved with using this illicit drug. "As many as one in 10 cannabis users become addicted. Cannabis use is associated with cancers of the mouth, tongue, throat, oesophagus and lung and reductions in fertility, as well as with mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and depression. "Chronic cannabis use clearly involves significant costs to society as well as to the individual user. Many of these problems are shared with alcohol and tobacco. "Therefore more research is needed to provide effective education highlighting the relative dangers of different substances and targeting those most at risk." Chief Executive of the British Lung Foundation (BLF), Dame Helena Shovelton, chief executive of the British Lung Foundation, described smoking cannabis as a "health time bomb". She said: "Over 3 million regular users in the UK could end up with chronic lung failure. "It is vital that the public know the damage smoking cannabis can cause." Dame Helena said a BLF lung consultant recently gave a lung transplant to a young patient who had only ever smoked cannabis. "Unfortunately, cases like this will become more and more common if public awareness of the dangers is not raised."

Soon enough Dr. Henry’s role in this ordeal with be exposed and we will learn the full truth. The fact is that Dr. Henry is merely reacting to what HE WANTS TO HEAR. We also know that many groups will be wanting to see the coroners full report for themselves.

Time will tell the full truth but my BET is that is just another FALSE POSSITIVE and that the coroner has made a mistake. Everything will be refuted in time. I await to hear the full exposure of this "hack" excuse for a cause of death.

Every year hundreds of people die with traces of cannabis in their system. It is not the first time that people have died with cannabis filed in the toxicology report. However the link between cannabis and cause of death has yet to established.

It certainly was not established here today. They merely claim to have found another dead person with cannabis in his system.

January 20th 2004



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #31 posted by E_Johnson on January 20, 2004 at 09:26:41 PT
Stop posturing for a moment
and write letters and ask why there was no autopsy. Seriously.

What if this guy was murdered by his partner and this is some kind of coverup?

I guess I've read too much Agatha Christie.

But an overzealous coroner jumping to hasty conclusions without an autopsy is never a good sign.



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #30 posted by E_Johnson on January 20, 2004 at 09:23:14 PT
Any Agatha Christie fans here?
A village cornoer attributing a mysterious death to a suspicious cause is an important feature of many of these mysteries.



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #29 posted by Ron Bennett on January 20, 2004 at 09:22:47 PT
Collective Psychosis! Technology may be cure?
Cannabis prohibition in my view is a text book example of a collective psychosis...many people believe it should be illegal, but when pressed on why, they are not exactly sure...

One often hears "well because it's illegal"...but "why is it illegal?"..."it just is"..."why?"...one could go on and and on...the only real way out, sadly, is likely going to be technology.

I say sadly above, because likely such future technology will probably allow one to create nearly any mind altering effect they want with minimal effort...and people think addiction is bad now...one ain't seen anything yet!

Moderation is really the best way...it would be better for the U.S. government (which the entire world for the most part follows) to allow people to grow and use cannabis.

To force people to resort to new technologies is likely to create for more addiction and problems in the longrun...in short, it would be better for governments to deal with "knowns" rather than lots of new "unknowns" - for that's what we are going to get if technology ends up being the way out...

I sincerely keep hoping the U.S. Congress (the folks who really dictate things - the U.S. President alone has minimal power) will come their senses and help break America's collective psychosis in regards to the drug war...but so far it's not happening...sure hope it does soon...for technology that allows one to *easily* generate their own "highs" without traditional illicit substances/plants is nearly here, such as from their own body!

In essence, technology will eventually combine supply and demand in a matter of speaking, giving most everyone the ability to get "high" without much effort at all...

Ron

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #28 posted by E_Johnson on January 20, 2004 at 09:20:25 PT
Write letters
Ask why there was no autopsy.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #27 posted by BigDawg on January 20, 2004 at 09:12:05 PT
Here's a poison for ya
An avg sized adult non-drinker would die of alcohol poisoning if they drank a fifth of liqour and weren't fortunate enough to get sick and regurgitate it before dying. That is if said adult didn't die of asphixiation while regurgitaing.

Why are they so concerned about POSSIBLE and untested toxicity of MJ?

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #26 posted by The GCW on January 20, 2004 at 09:01:21 PT
Tabloid news
For the ignoid.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #25 posted by Sam Adams on January 20, 2004 at 08:23:51 PT
Amen Marc
Don't forget: 100,000 deaths per year in the US from prescription drug "side effects". 16,500 deaths per year from non-steriodal anti-inflammatory meds like Advil - mostly elderly people bleeding to death internally.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #24 posted by Marc Paquette on January 20, 2004 at 07:57:53 PT:

CANNABIS KILLS NOW..."poppycock"!
Hi my Friends;

Quite a shocking story from Great Britain..hey? In fact, this whole story is so obscure that it will probably create a few more cannabis prohibitionists. The only possibility that cannabis could kill someone would be either by mold and mildew poisoning..."OR" maybe it was laced with a poison or toxic chemical? Did they analyze his "toxic" cannabis?

The reason I'm saying this is because I have been smoking both cigarettes and cannabis since 1969. Therefore I have smoked both of these substances for 35 years now and if I would have had to die of cancer or cannabis poisoning, I would have died a long time ago. Also, with all my other health conditions that brought me to be a medical marijuana Exemptee since March 2000, I am not amused by this story of disinformation AT ALL!

Alot of us very ill and dying in Canada are consuming many grams of marijuana per day in order to improve our quality of life and also increase our quantity of life. Some of us Exemptees has a daily prescription of cannabis of well over 10 grams and NONE of us died of cannabis poisoning YET!

Peace,

Marc



[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #23 posted by afterburner on January 20, 2004 at 07:52:52 PT:

A Companion Piece
UK: Ban Tobacco, Legalise Cannabis - Are We Barmy? 19 Jan 2004 Daily Telegraph (UK) http://www.mapinc.org/ccnews/v04/n122/a04.html "Hand-in-hand with this health-conscious campaign goes a determined crusade to legalise the smoking of cannabis. It is grossly unfair, these crusaders declare, to license tobacco and alcohol yet deny pleasure to those who enjoy an occasional spliff.

In the days when I knew something about dangerous drugs, sat on government committees dealing with them and talked to schools about them, I learnt a bit about cannabis. In truth the occasional spliff does most people no more harm than the occasional cigarette or cigar.

But cannabis as a habit will affect different people in different ways, some of them harmfully. Most of the stuff on sale now is stronger than it was in the days I studied it, and some of the girls we interviewed mentioned that relations with the boyfriend had become eerily estranged since he took it up.

...

If the next generation chose to smoke cannabis, some of them excessively, we have no way of telling what the consequences might be for our national health. I think it unlikely that we would become a fitter nation."

So what is the answer? Lock people in cages because of some possible harm?

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #22 posted by sam Adams on January 20, 2004 at 07:51:54 PT
More lying
It's very easy to lie. Try it - A man in Spain recently died after ingesting 2 pounds of jellybeans. He apparently died of jellybean toxicity. Authorities should do something!

There, it only took about 15 seconds. Luckily, London has the Guardian Observer and the Independent to counter the lying of the prohibitionist papers like the Telegraph. Here in the US, even the "liberal" papers print the Drug Czar's lies verbatim, with no dissenting information.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #21 posted by goneposthole on January 20, 2004 at 07:33:19 PT
some science from way back when
http://www.ibiblio.org/herbmed/eclectic/usdisp/cannabis.html

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #20 posted by SystemGoneDown on January 20, 2004 at 07:10:15 PT
We all...
should be outraged at this propaganda. Finally, after thousands of years someone dies. So finally we have assurance that it is justifiably illegal...

Crap.

And they're going to say it's because it's "today's" high level of potency. What makes today's soil any different than the other thousands of year's cannabis has been around? Is it because of all the pollution that has sunk into our cannabis soil?

Crap.

PROPO -MUTHA****IN GANDA.

I will be livid if even peeks at mainstream news. No credibility. DEA probobly plotted this.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #19 posted by Virgil on January 20, 2004 at 07:06:42 PT
The guy was lied to death
He tried for 11 years to commit suicide with what he thought was a dangerous and addictive drug. He first doubted the addictive part as he continually had to force himself to keep puffing. He knew he wanted to go and figured he might as well go happy. Then he figured the stuff was not dangerous like he was told. What did him in was his disbelief in the system and an overdose of lies.

The story was so absurd that the people that think they can stack enough information on people in defense of CP in the SmokeyBackRoom at FreeRepublic have not put this stupidity up.

It did go up at DU and you would think that someone had read BGreen's response. It got laughed at.

It has been about two weeks since any WOD article has gone up and they almost always get sent to the SBR. There is WOD call to summon the Drug Warriors and they throw up stuff and of course the conversions from prohibition to freedom keep coming. They pile on as you can see in the last WOD article that was up on Jan.4- http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1051422/posts

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #18 posted by afterburner on January 20, 2004 at 07:04:13 PT:

Propaganda, Harmless???
The new official standard of harm:

1. Demonize cannabis by claiming loudly and stridently that it causes harm.

2. Ignore all evidence to the contrary. Prosecute those who provide facts that any harm is low and mitigatable.

3. Ignore the harm labels (side effects) of prescription and over-the-counter drugs approved by the FDA.

4. Manufacturers of herbs, vitamins and mineral supplements may be commanded to prove that they are harmless.

5. Harm must now be proven to be zero for cannabis and anything the FDA wants for pharmaceuticals.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #17 posted by jose melendez on January 20, 2004 at 06:57:37 PT
oops
that should have read, " . . . Guy Geoffrey at G.W. Pharmaceuticals . . . "

I was not sure know how to spell intravenous, either.

That's still no reason to categorize all cannabis use as abuse.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #16 posted by goneposthole on January 20, 2004 at 06:56:04 PT
more lies
what else is new?

After thousands of years of use, one would think that a known toxic amount of 'cannabis poisoning' would have been quantified by now. It would have been discovered long, long ago.

There just isn't such a thing as 'cannabis poisoning'.

Prohibition is the toxin, not cannabis.

Those prohibitionists sure know how to be reactionary.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #15 posted by jose melendez on January 20, 2004 at 06:53:20 PT
Can we please hear from other Dr. Guys?
Re: Dr Guy said that death was more likely if users ate the drug rather than smoked it. "I would not be surprised if in this case the deceased had ingested a fatal amount of cannabis."

OK, I'll admit I might be too stoned to calculate this today, but some more info on toxicity is claimed at:

http://projekt.pinknet.cz/~martin/drogy/MSDS-thc.html

I'm wodering how many kilos of hashish Dr. Guy is suggesting the deceased swallowed? Does Guy Jeffries at G.W. Pharmaceuticals have any input on this yellow journalism?

Even if the guy (the deceased one, not either of the doctors) drank a gallon of honey oil in one sitting, does this mean anti-drugs professionals and enthusiasts would also prohibit pints of liquor?

Methinks criminalizers are *grasping at straws.

wage peace,

- jm

*(Visualize drunk at convenience store fumbling with self serve soda dispenser, stoner(s?) clerk and paying customer roll their eyes as the latest ONDCP political anti-marijuana ad plays on TV in background while said drunk spills the straw dispenser, scattering paper-wrapped plastic caffeine delivery devices everywhere. Cut to Budweiser's True commercial. )

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #14 posted by jose melendez on January 20, 2004 at 06:33:32 PT
I get it now: BECAUSE poison is legal, pot is not!
sorry for the all caps, the whole page is that way . . .

from: http://nepenthes.lycaeum.org/Drugs/THC/msds.html

TOXICITY

TETRAHYDROCANNABINOL: TOXICITY DATA: 666 MG/KG ORAL-RAT LD50; 482 MG/KG ORAL-MOUSE LD50; 525 MG/KG ORAL-DOG LDLO; 29 MG/KG INTRAVENOUS-RAT LD50; 42 MG/KG INTRAVENOUS-MOUSE LD50; 128 MG/KG INTRAVENOUS-MONKEY LDLO; 373 MG/KG INTRAPERITONEAL-RAT LD50; 168 MG/KG INTRAPERITONEAL-MOUSE LD50; REPRODUCTIVE EFFECTS DATA (RTECS); MUTAGENIC DATA (RTECS); TUMORIGENIC DATA (RTECS). CARCINOGEN STATUS: NONE. ACUTE TOXICITY LEVEL: MODERATELY TOXIC BY INGESTION. TARGET EFFECTS: CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM DEPRESSANT. POISONING MAY ALSO AFFECT THE RESPIRATORY, CARDIOVASCULAR AND IMMUNE SYSTEMS. ADDITIONAL DATA: THE USE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES MAY ENHANCE THE TOXIC EFFECTS. POISONING MAY IMPAIR THE PERFORMANCE OF TASKS REQUIRING ALERTNESS. INTERACTIONS WITH MEDICATIONS HAVE BEEN REPORTED.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #13 posted by jose melendez on January 20, 2004 at 06:29:22 PT
caution: sarcasm ahead
Not mentioned in the article was the hemp oil i.v. drip.

The deceased may have also abused Dr. Bronner's castille soap, by washing his feet twice a month.

No ammonia, arsenic, bovine spongiform encephalitis or Polonium-210 was harmed in the process of researching this post.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #12 posted by lag on January 20, 2004 at 06:14:27 PT
What I find interesting...
...is that they are pointing to the ingested version as the possible culprit. That is the supposed the safest way to utilize it, and now they are trying to discredit that. Although, the man smoked 6 joints a day. When did he have time to eat it? What, did he dunk a cannabis donut into his cannabis coffee that he drank with his cannabis cigarette?

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #11 posted by The GCW on January 20, 2004 at 06:04:34 PT
Without autopsy
could it equally be concluded that THC deficiency was the cause of death?

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #10 posted by kaptinemo on January 20, 2004 at 05:28:01 PT:

And one last thing
Odd, isn't, that the anti forces would be dragging this old case up (they've had 4 months to find anything out; what's been done since?), the only known one of it's kind, and CAUSE OF DEATH STILL NOT DETERMINED CONCLUSIVELY, at a time when the reclassifictaion is certain?

Talk about 'going out on a limb'! Someone is really, really stretching on this one. It's sad to see people so desperate that they'd do something this transparent.



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #9 posted by kaptinemo on January 20, 2004 at 05:16:09 PT:

The Coroner's Website
And the specific case mentioned: http://www.pembrokeshirecoroner.org/coroner/view_details.php?autoid=46

Please note the most important factor: The cause of death is listed as "Probable cannabis toxicity".

Need I point out that "Probable" does not equal "Proven"? There's a universe of difference between those two words, and no amount of supposition can bridge them.

Until such time as the actual mechanics of 'cannabis toxicity' have been worked out...and none have, as yet, despite a century of opportunity...the findings of this particular inquest remain inconclusive at best, and subject to withering criticism at worst. Any bureaucrat or pol who attempts to stand upon this house of cards will get that awful sinking feeling just before it collapses around them.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #8 posted by Robbie on January 20, 2004 at 02:27:36 PT
yeah...uh-huh...riiiight
This article specifically avoids the actual result of the autopsy.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #7 posted by breeze on January 20, 2004 at 01:53:22 PT
so- where is the autopsy?
Wouldn't there have to be an autopsy report? Lab work? The guy could have been poisoned by Sushi, a bad salad, MAD COW disease! What has his clinical history shown of high blood pressure? Headache? Any number of things- including heart attack. He smoked a lot, yeah, okay. Given this, coupled with high BP, and being overweight- it leads to other problems, just like smoking regular cigarrettes and eating lots of red meat. A headache could truly mean anything. And with the 29th just days away- I smell a real big fish... and a nasty one at that.



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #6 posted by billos on January 20, 2004 at 01:47:45 PT:

John PEE.................
how much money did this cost the DEA petty cash fund to get this story fabricated? (and printed, no less)

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #5 posted by prop203 on January 20, 2004 at 01:35:53 PT
BeeeeeSsssss
With out autopsy..

Thier are about a million things it could of been..

clog artiers// anurizm// ilergic reaction..

This is BS

PEACE

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #4 posted by E_Johnson on January 20, 2004 at 01:04:34 PT
Prison certainly kills people
The LA Times continues it series of investigative articles exposing the brutality and corruption in our state prison system:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-guard20jan20,1,36737.story?coll=la-home-local

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #3 posted by Virgil on January 20, 2004 at 00:21:45 PT
I call bullshit.
This was published so people could site it as an example that the statement,"Cannabis has never killed anyone" is false. The link to this article can be expected to appear at FreeRepublic repeatedly every time the above statement is mentioned.

Thanks BGreen for putting a swift stake threw the heart of this lie.

Dr. Russo will be speaking at the Emery sponsored event in BC this Saturday and will address the issue of the Schedule 1 classification of Miracle Plant.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #2 posted by E_Johnson on January 20, 2004 at 00:10:45 PT
No autopsy? Very suspicious
How can they claim anything was toxic without an autopsy?



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #1 posted by BGreen on January 19, 2004 at 23:56:52 PT
John Henry Is A Regular Here At Cannabisnews
Remember this?

Cannabis Smoking Could Cause 30,000 Deaths a Year

With an estimated 3.2 million users of cannabis in the UK doctors have calculated the death toll based on the 120,000 deaths among the 13 million smokers of tobacco. Professor John Henry of Imperial College, London, and colleagues say in the British Medical Journal.

This nut is trying to prove his implausible and discredited theory.

Health Risks of Cannabis 'Probably Overstated'

http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17352.shtml

Recent estimates that cannabis causes up to 30,000 deaths a year - a quarter of the number caused by smoking tobacco - are likely to be exaggerated, Stephen Sidney, associate director of clinical research at the California health maintenance organisation Kaiser Permanente, said.

One mention of the name "John Henry" immediately discredits ANY information.

The Reverend Bud Green

[ Post Comment ]

  Post Comment
Name:        Password:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comment:   [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]

Link URL:
Link Title:


Return to Main Menu


So everyone may enjoy this service and to keep it running, here are some guidelines: NO spamming, NO commercial advertising, NO flamming, NO illegal activity, and NO sexually explicit materials. Lastly, we reserve the right to remove any message for any reason!

This web page and related elements are for informative purposes only and thus the use of any of this information is at your risk! We do not own nor are responsible for visitor comments. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 and The Berne Convention on Literary and Artistic Works, Article 10, news clippings on this site are made available without profit for research and educational purposes. Any trademarks, trade names, service marks, or service names used on this site are the property of their respective owners. Page updated on January 19, 2004 at 23:50:11