Turns out weed can kill you after all

[Mycophile]

^^^^

For some reason I can't quote you.

Ok, first of all, let me just compare weed to the substances you listed at the end cause that's the easiest:

Caffeine is more dangerous than weed because you can overdose on it and you cannot overdose on THC. Countless studies have shown this. Even if these people did die only from weed, it's not a THC overdose, but a raise in blood pressure, something excessive caffeine also causes.

Poppers aren't safe, they are heart medication, so I would assume they could cause heart attacks if done excessively.

Psilocybin and LSD by itself have never shown to be able to kill anyone, nor has Salvia, so they might be equally benign, but the psychological effects are more intense generally.

So yeah, Weed might not be the single most benign substance, there may be others equally unlikely to lead to death but all of which have their own risks just like weed does.

But the study still says the following: The other patients may have had unknown cardiovascular risk factors or a history that was not documented in the medical file."


It also says: This study shows a some preliminary evidence of cardiovascular harm from marijuana but isn't conclusive,” Dr. Allen Taylor, chief of cardiology at Georgetown University School of Medicine, told CNN in an e-mail. “The study's limitations are important in that we can't know how high the risk is,

So the researchers themselves are admitting that the study is not itself perfect, and that there could be some other reasons for the deaths which are not 100% weed related.

Also, COUNTLESS studies have shown that THC itself (not counting the smoke inhalation) cannot be overdosed on.

One study is just that: ONE study.

What about all the other studies out there which state that THC cannot be overdosed on?

So, since it most likely cannot be overdosed on, there must be some other reason it killed these people.

Most likely, that reason has to do with other factors besides the THC itself, and the other factors could very likely have to do with the people in the study.

If you can find me a study where all of the participants have been evaluated ahead of time and shown not to have any health conditions, then I will buy it.

But if they did in fact have prior health conditions, then the weed itself was not the primary cause of death.

 

[Mycophile]

I fucking hate how people have such a personal affinity for marijuana they feel the need defend it as if it were their children. Completely incapable of looking at things in a unbiassed rationale matter, it is almost sad to be honest.

I certainly know that weed isn't harmless.

My point is that this study alone, out of thousands of others, is not conclusive proof that weed can kill people with no prior health conditions, and the article itself mentions that the participants "may have had unknown cardiovascular risk factors".

Those are not my own words, they are in the article.

Lots of studies have shown THC can't be overdosed on...so what other factors could be involved that could have led to death is what I am asking?

 

[Mycophile]

+1 to this, although it's not just weed that this annoys me with, I get pissed when anyone defends a drug in this blind, zealous manner. Every drug has positive and negative effects, but some people portray weed to be this wonder drug that can do no wrong, and even when presented with evidence to the contrary they will immediately discount it, assuming that the study, or the sample, or the motives of the researcher are flawed rather than even consider that their precious plant could have a negative effect like any other drug in existence.

I absolutely know that weed has lots of risks and is no "wonder drug".

I am saying that this study is one of thousands and that thousands show that THC itself cannot be overdosed on, therefore, I am assuming there were other factors involved.

It might not be the case, but this one study doesn't prove it isn't the case either.

I'm not one of the people who refuses to acknowledge that weed has negative effects, hell, I don't even smoke anymore.

 

[Rio Fantastic]

I absolutely know that weed has lots of risks and is no "wonder drug".

I am saying that this study is one of thousands and that thousands show that THC itself cannot be overdosed on, therefore, I am assuming there were other factors involved.

It might not be the case, but this one study doesn't prove it isn't the case either.

I'm not one of the people who refuses to acknowledge that weed has negative effects, hell, I don't even smoke anymore.

That post wasn't directly addressed to you, mycophile, but to all zealous weed advocates. I replied personally to your rebuttal of my post above.

 

[Rio Fantastic]

Poppers aren't safe, they are heart medication, so I would assume they could cause heart attacks if done excessively.

Brilliant. In a thread where you have picked holes in a study that proves weed can cause heart attacks by resorting to all sorts of stretches of logic, you then casually pull out your ass the assumption that poppers of all things can cause heart attacks with zero proof. I have seen absolutely no studies or articles or anything of the like that shows that amyl nitrate can cause heart attacks if used to excess or not.

Psilocybin and LSD by itself have never shown to be able to kill anyone, nor has Salvia, so they might be equally benign, but the psychological effects are more intense generally.

So yeah, Weed might not be the single most benign substance, there may be others equally unlikely to lead to death but all of which have their own risks just like weed does.

Since when does intensity of psychological effects relate to how benign a substance is? Thank you however for acknowledging that you were wrong and that I was right.

But the study still says the following: The other patients may have had unknown cardiovascular risk factors or a history that was not documented in the medical file."


It also says: This study shows a some preliminary evidence of cardiovascular harm from marijuana but isn't conclusive,” Dr. Allen Taylor, chief of cardiology at Georgetown University School of Medicine, told CNN in an e-mail. “The study's limitations are important in that we can't know how high the risk is,

So the researchers themselves are admitting that the study is not itself perfect, and that there could be some other reasons for the deaths which are not 100% weed related.

Also, COUNTLESS studies have shown that THC itself (not counting the smoke inhalation) cannot be overdosed on.

One study is just that: ONE study.

What about all the other studies out there which state that THC cannot be overdosed on?

So, since it most likely cannot be overdosed on, there must be some other reason it killed these people.

Most likely, that reason has to do with other factors besides the THC itself, and the other factors could very likely have to do with the people in the study.

If you can find me a study where all of the participants have been evaluated ahead of time and shown not to have any health conditions, then I will buy it.

But if they did in fact have prior health conditions, then the weed itself was not the primary cause of death.

My understanding of the article was that in the cases where they didn't attribute the death to a pre-existing heart condition (putting aside your tenuous claim that the majority of the group had a mysterious heart ailment that wasn't on their medical record and that in fact weed had nothing to do with it) that it was the weed that had caused the heart condition, and thus was the direct cause of death. Would you similarly say that when methamphetamine kills people with a heart defect that meth wasn't too blame for the death? Or that when people overdose on heroin the heroin isn't to blame but their low tolerance?

 

[Mycophile]

That post wasn't directly addressed to you, mycophile, but to all zealous weed advocates. I replied personally to your rebuttal of my post above.

Cool.

I'm just saying that I think we both know that science is as valid as it is because studies need to be repeated countless times under countless circumstances before something is finally considered to definitively be true.

There are so many studies out there saying so many things, but one common thread is that THC itself doesn't seem to be something human beings can overdose on.

It does however raise blood pressure, and we know that if blood pressure is raised too much, it becomes dangerous, possibly fatal.

I find it UNLIKELY, that people without health conditions or on other drugs could have their blood pressure raised to the point of heart attack by THC alone.

It's not IMPOSSIBLE...but this study alone doesn't prove it to be the case.

 

[Rio Fantastic]

Cool.

I'm just saying that I think we both know that science is as valid as it is because studies need to be repeated countless times under countless circumstances before something is finally considered to definitively be true.

There are so many studies out there saying so many things, but one common thread is that THC itself doesn't seem to be something human beings can overdose on.

It does however raise blood pressure, and we know that if blood pressure is raised too much, it becomes dangerous, possibly fatal.

I find it UNLIKELY, that people without health conditions or on other drugs could have their blood pressure raised to the point of heart attack by THC alone.

It's not IMPOSSIBLE...but this study alone doesn't prove it to be the case.

Please see my above post. It doesn't matter how unlikely you personally find it, and while you're right that the study would need to be repeated in order to have a DEFINITIVE answer, the evidence at the moment is definitely pointing towards cannabis causing heart problems and being potentially fatal.

 

[Mycophile]

Brilliant. In a thread where you have picked holes in a study that proves weed can cause heart attacks by resorting to all sorts of stretches of logic, you then casually pull out your ass the assumption that poppers of all things can cause heart attacks with zero proof. I have seen absolutely no studies or articles or anything of the like that shows that amyl nitrate can cause heart attacks if used to excess or not.

Ok, you can have this one, I'm not going to go searching for proof that Amyl Nitrate is more dangerous than weed, I could be wrong, there are substances as safe as weed, it could possibly be one of them.

Since when does intensity of psychological effects relate to how benign a substance is? Thank you however for acknowledging that you were wrong and that I was right.

I acknowledge that you are right that there are other substances as benign as weed, not that this this study alone proves that THC can be overdosed on and kills otherwise healthy people without any other factors being involved.

My understanding of the article was that in the cases where they didn't attribute the death to a pre-existing heart condition (putting aside your tenuous claim that the majority of the group had a mysterious heart ailment that wasn't on their medical record and that in fact weed had nothing to do with it) that it was the weed that had caused the heart condition, and thus was the direct cause of death. Would you similarly say that when methamphetamine kills people with a heart defect that meth wasn't too blame for the death? Or that when people overdose on heroin the heroin isn't to blame but their low tolerance?

The article seems to CLAIM that the heart conditions were caused by Marijuanna, but in no way discusses anything else that these people put into their bodies that may have caused the heart problems. It doesn't say if they smoked cigs. It doesn't say if they were obese or drank or did heroin or even mixed other drugs with the cannabis before having the heart attacks.

So why are we to assume that weed was the single only factor in their heart conditions?

Everyone knows that heroin itself can cause respiratory depression without any prior health ailments.

Also, everyone is aware that meth is a much more powerful stimulant than weed, so this LIKELY means it poses more cardiovascular risks.

I will not say I know for sure, and again, I'm not going to search the internet for studies right now, but I am sure they are out there proving that meth poses serious cardiovascular risks.

There are studies which state just about everything.

There are studies that seem to "prove" that vaccines cause autism...but then the next day a new study will come out showing that the last one was flawed.

Countless studies show that THC itself can't be overdosed on.

But THC DOES raise blood pressure.

So yes, it's POSSIBLE that smoking weed could raise a healthy person's blood pressure to dangerous levels.

It's also very possible that a lot of other factors are involved, and this study doesn't account for any of them at all.

 

[Mycophile]

Please see my above post. It doesn't matter how unlikely you personally find it, and while you're right that the study would need to be repeated in order to have a DEFINITIVE answer, the evidence at the moment is definitely pointing towards cannabis causing heart problems and being potentially fatal.

In 9 people.

And we don't know anything about those 9 people and their health habits or lifestyle so we don't know if other factors were involved.

All we know is that they smoked weed, had heart attacks and there seems to be SOME relationship between the two, which I will accept because weed raises blood pressure.

But that alone and this one study vs thousands of others doesn't seem to me to be definitive proof that weed can by itself kill perfectly healthy people without other factors being involved.

I am sure that WITH other factors involved it most definitely can but that's not quite the same thing as weed by itself being lethal.

 

[Rio Fantastic]

In 9 people.

And we don't know anything about those 9 people and their health habits or lifestyle so we don't know if other factors were involved.

All we know is that they smoked weed, had heart attacks and there seems to be SOME relationship between the two, which I will accept because weed raises blood pressure.

But that alone and this one study vs thousands of others doesn't seem to me to be definitive proof that weed can by itself kill perfectly healthy people without other factors being involved.

I am sure that WITH other factors involved it most definitely can but that's not quite the same thing as weed by itself being lethal.

You keep changing the debate to make yourself right. Did I ever say "Weed kills 100% healthy people!"? Did I ever say "With no other factors involved, weed will kill you!"? No. I said "Weed CAN kill people", which was always thought to be untrue, until the publication of this study.

 

[Mycophile]

You keep changing the debate to make yourself right. Did I ever say "Weed kills 100% healthy people!"? Did I ever say "With no other factors involved, weed will kill you!"? No. I said "Weed CAN kill people", which was always thought to be untrue, until the publication of this study.

Ok, well maybe we are just having a misunderstanding then.

Usually when people say "X--can kill you" at least I PERSONALLY assume they are talking about the substance or thing itself without anything else related.

Heroin, alcohol, benzos, opiates, meth, barbiturates, etc etc are all examples of substances where someone could be 100% healthy, not mix any other substance with them, and these substances ALONE would kill them.

I assumed that you were trying to say that this study proves that without other factors, weed is in such a league as these, that by itself, it can cause death.

If that's not what you were saying, I kind of don't know why you would post the article??


I thought everyone knew that if someone mixed weed with meth, or had a heart condition, or hot boxed a 150 degree sauna, or was heavily obese, that perhaps ALONG with these factors, weed could potentially cause a death????

If anyone didn't think that, they are silly.

OF COURSE something that raises your blood pressure like weed could be dangerous with other factors involved.

How anyone could debate that seems ludicrous and I very much doubt this is the first study to state this.

But like I said in my first post, ANYTHING can be dangerous if the wrong factors are mixed with it.

Only certain things are dangerous IN AND OF THEMSELVES and most studies indicate that cannabis is not one of them.

I can't believe we never even disagreed and we spent this long debating hahahha.

Sorry dude...I assumed you meant otherwise.

But seriously, the title is sensationalistic, and I really don't get the point in posting an article called "weed can kill you afterall" while silently acknowledging that there could be and probably WERE lots of other factors that needed to be combined with marijuanna to cause these deaths.

 

[Rio Fantastic]

Ok, well maybe we are just having a misunderstanding then.

Usually when people say "X--can kill you" at least I PERSONALLY assume they are talking about the substance or thing itself without anything else related.

Heroin, alcohol, benzos, opiates, meth, barbiturates, etc etc are all examples of substances where someone could be 100% healthy, not mix any other substance with them, and these substances ALONE would kill them.

I assumed that you were trying to say that this study proves that without other factors, weed is in such a league as these, that by itself, it can cause death.

If that's not what you were saying, I kind of don't know why you would post the article??


I thought everyone knew that if someone mixed weed with meth, or had a heart condition, or hot boxed a 150 degree sauna, or was heavily obese, that perhaps ALONG with these factors, weed could potentially cause a death????

If anyone didn't think that, they are silly.

OF COURSE something that raises your blood pressure like weed could be dangerous with other factors involved.

How anyone could debate that seems ludicrous and I very much doubt this is the first study to state this.

But like I said in my first post, ANYTHING can be dangerous if the wrong factors are mixed with it.

Only certain things are dangerous IN AND OF THEMSELVES and most studies indicate that cannabis is not one of them.

I can't believe we never even disagreed and we spent this long debating hahahha.

Sorry dude...I assumed you meant otherwise.

But seriously, the title is sensationalistic, and I really don't get the point in posting an article called "weed can kill you afterall" while silently acknowledging that there could be and probably WERE lots of other factors that needed to be combined with marijuanna to cause these deaths.

You don't think that its worthy of a thread that weed can kill you? Lets be clear here, the main point of the article was that weed caused heart problems that lead to death. Your claim that "there were probably lots of other factors" is totally unfounded. You're projecting a lot of extra details onto the article that aren't there. The facts are that weed can cause severe heart problems and in rare cases this can lead to death. Anything else is unfounded speculation.

 

[Mycophile]

You don't think that its worthy of a thread that weed can kill you? Lets be clear here, the main point of the article was that weed caused heart problems that lead to death. Your claim that "there were probably lots of other factors" is totally unfounded. You're projecting a lot of extra details onto the article that aren't there. The facts are that weed can cause severe heart problems and in rare cases this can lead to death. Anything else is unfounded speculation.

Uggg, ok I think we've done this long enough.

No other factors were accounted for.

That doesn't mean they weren't there and there's a good chance they were.

It's also "speculation" that there were no other factors involved just as much as it is "speculation" that they weren't.

It would be the same IMO to start a thread "running can kill you" talking about heart attacks people have had while running, without going into detail about why this lead to death when it usually doesn't.

Weed isn't like heroin or barbiturates in that sense that it has been proven to be capable of killing otherwise healthy people with no other factors involved and there's going to be a lot more studies necessary to prove that it is.


We can just agree to disagree.

 

[Rio Fantastic]

Uggg, ok I think we've done this long enough.

No other factors were accounted for.

That doesn't mean they weren't there and there's a good chance they were.

It's also "speculation" that there were no other factors involved just as much as it is "speculation" that they weren't.

It would be the same IMO to start a thread "running can kill you" talking about heart attacks people have had while running, without going into detail about why this lead to death when it usually doesn't.

Weed isn't like heroin or barbiturates in that sense that it has been proven to be capable of killing otherwise healthy people with no other factors involved and there's going to be a lot more studies necessary to prove that it is.


We can just agree that I'm wrong and you're right.

I accept your apology.

 

[ghostandthedarknes]

I'm just glad that I survived the tons of weed I smoked. Now I'm gonna have a Coke with sugar and caffeine. If I don't wake up, tell my wife that I loved her.

 

[yteek]

Yes yes yes.. water is a good thing but ingest to much of it and you die.

Lol, come on dude ahaha.

Even, I myself have probably said the same thing, but it is kinda silly, true, but I'm sure we can see the point I'm sure we can see the point I'm getting at.

 

[Mycophile]

I accept your apology.

LOL...we just disagree, no need to act like that, I was trying to politely end this debate.

I have a very clear point that I think is very valid.

If I'm ever shown studies that prove weed as a primary cause of death without secondary factors, like there are so many of with heroin for example, I will change my tune, but the fact is there is a difference between something causing death by itself in a healthy person and something doing it when there could be other factors.

You don't have to acknowledge the point I'm making, but I think many intelligent people would and might question whether or not there were other unaccounted for issues in this study.

The most I'll concede is that perhaps I shouldn't assume there ARE other factors, nor should you assume that their AREN'T. Neither of us knows, all we know is that weed was ONE factor and I concede that weed can, along with other factors, depending on what they are of course, cause death.

Peace

 

[Joshua#5]

If I may? I have never heard of cannabis induced blood pressure increase any more than caffeine. However, one must be taught on the danger of "The Fear". This fear, or paranoia, can scare one so bad... they think they WILL die. They just never do. In my research I have concluded that Cannabis is involved in human evolvement. It increases visual acuity. Of course Neaderthals ate or smoked it. They were a successful species for 300,000 years. We are a mere approx. 40,000 year old species. And it's against the law! It couldn't get any wierder or more lame.

 

[yteek]

If I may? I have never heard of cannabis induced blood pressure increase any more than caffeine. However, one must be taught on the danger of "The Fear". This fear, or paranoia, can scare one so bad... they think they WILL die. They just never do. In my research I have concluded that Cannabis is involved in human evolvement. It increases visual acuity. Of course Neaderthals ate or smoked it. They were a successful species for 300,000 years. We are a mere approx. 40,000 year old species. And it's against the law! It couldn't get any wierder or more lame.

Oh brother, god help us all lol.

 

[sinclair1984]

This is an insane discussion. Did anybody out there really think that inhaling smoke over the course of twenty to thirty years wouldn't cause health problems. It's stupid to allow the only non-addictive and safe drug that actually does something to be discredited by propaganda. (I'm a heroin addict and I couldn't imagine even an ancient hippie that's been smoking since the dawn of time having the health problems I have, and I'm still sort of young. In years anyway.) By the way does anyone know how many people die each year from bullshit poisoning, I think that's what need's to be looked into.