Pa. boy, 13, ill after smoking synthetic pot, dies

alasdairm said:
i'm not sure why you're so determined to make the case you're making but to suggest that your conclusions are correct and then to trot out occam's razor as proof is, frankly, laughable.

alasdair
Click to expand...

I'm afraid that you have missed my point completely.
I was arguing that my hypothesis was worthwhile discussing, contra your assertion that I should not have mentioned it, since "harm reduction should be based on science."
I was arguing that my hypothesis best describes what we know, and that if we took your route, we would mostly have silence around here, since very little is completely known or back up-able with scientific studies.
I never argued that my conclusions are correct, but simply that they explain the data best, and therefore that it is worthwhile to include them in this discussion.
As for your comments about Occam's razor, you clearly read the whole wikipedia article. Good for you.
However, you didn't understand what I was arguing - that my comments were relevant, and worthwhile.
If new data comes in, I would be very happy to revise my understanding to account for that data as well.

Your hypothesis - "I don't know" - is not a hypothesis at all, but a refusal to take any stance, for fear that you might be eventually proven incorrect.
While there is nothing wrong with your position, you should recognize that others are allowed to offer hypotheses, even if they might be eventually proven wrong.
Otherwise, it seems that you are simply trying to quash all discussion.

You clearly refuse to stop harping on your point - that we cannot be 100% certain of what happened - despite my argument that such a perspective is unlikely to lead to anything positive, and despite the fact that to require 100% proof of all statements one makes is not realistic.

Therefore, I am finished with this discussion.
 
We can tell that, since smoking Spice (etc.) has not ever destroyed anyone's lungs.
Click to expand...
This is classic circular reasoning, Victor. This is a case in which it is being suggested that the use of synthetic cannabis killed someone. You can hardly say that this is impossible, because synthetic cannabis has never killed anyone- your conclusion is also your premise. In any case, this thread has strayed into P&S territory, perhaps you could all come and visit us if you'd like to discuss epistemology?
 
^ You are right, Vader. Let me rephrase it this way:
"We can tell that with reasonable certainty, since this would be the only case of smoking Spice destroying someone's lungs"
Not to say that it is impossible, but simply to say that it would require an extremely unusual event to have occurred.

When someone smokes something that thousands of other people have smoked without having their lungs destroyed, and smokes it out of plastic, which is known to destroy people's lungs, it makes sense to hypothesize that the plastic is responsible.
I may have overstated my case in my first post, and if I did, I apologize.
I will go edit it now.
 
13-Year-Old's Painful Death Proves Synthetic Pot Is Poison

Kids aren't supposed to die, so any death of a 13-year-old would feel tragically senseless. But the recent loss of Pennsylvania eighth-grader Brandon Rice feels especially senseless because it was a brutally painful, prolonged passing caused by just one random act. One instance of bad adolescent judgment.

Like so many other kids his age, Brandon decided to experiment with a relatively new drug, which, at the time, was fairly easy to get: Synthetic pot. Brandon smoked the synthetic pot out of a plastic Pez dispenser.

Gov. Tom Corbett signed a law banning synthetic weed in Pennsylvania a few days after Brandon smoked it out of that Pez dispenser, but it was too late. Brandon's lungs were so damaged by the chemicals in the drug (compounded, I can only imagine, by whatever toxins a Pez dispenser releases when heated) that he was put on a respirator in June.
Click to expand...

from http://thestir.cafemom.com/teen/128332/13yearolds_painful_death_proves_synthetic
 
14 YO Didn't Die From Smoking Synthetic Marijuana, He Died From Smoking Plastic From

Looks like this reporter, as well as the doctor interviewed, must have lacked sufficient skepticism in the same way (and direction) as me, eh alasdarim?

As much as the hodge-podge of chemicals in "synthetic marijuana" sound worse for you than the regular, extra-banned stuff, the recent grim headlines suggesting that a 14-year-old Pittsburgh boy died after smoking fake pot are not quite what they seem:

This wpxi.com story describes the boy's death:

The boy smoked the fake marijuana out of a plastic PEZ candy dispenser and suffered chemical burns to both lungs as a result. He was put on a respirator in June and had a double-lung transplant in September.

It takes a bit more clicking to get the a much clearer story on the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review's website:

Dr. J. Douglas Bricker, dean of Duquesne University's Mylan School of Pharmacy, said that although he doesn't underestimate the danger of the ingredients in the man-made designer drug, smoking synthetic marijuana in a plastic PEZ dispenser would have been a "significant factor" in Brandon's death.

"It's (the drug) fairly potent, but nothing in the literature has been shown to cause any lung toxicity," he said. But Bricker said plastic -- such as that found in the candy dispenser -- heated at high temperatures will release highly toxic cyanide gas and carbon monoxide.
Click to expand...

Source:
http://reason.com/blog/2011/10/28/a-14-year-old-pittsburgh-boy-d
 
slimvictor said:
Looks like this reporter, as well as the doctor interviewed, must have lacked sufficient skepticism in the same way (and direction) as me, eh alasdarim?
Click to expand...
your sarcastic tone is noted. also, you misspelled my handle.
slimvictor said:
http://reason.com/blog/2011/10/28/a-14-year-old-pittsburgh-boy-d
Click to expand...
that article certainly seems to add support for the idea that the plastic was the cause but, again, this is just speculation and is not based on an examination of the facts of the case.

again, how much burned plastic did this boy inhale if any? you can't answer that question. we still don't know if he inhaled any at all. you assume he did. i prefer not to assume.

i think that you misunderstand my position. i am absolutely not saying, nor have i ever said, that this kid did not die from inhaling toxic smoke from the burning plastic. i am simply saying that i don't know and that to assume with limited facts is dangerous and is counter to harm-reduction principles. you believe it's acceptable to assume when the facts are limited. it's a difference of opinion and i'm not sure why you have to continue to berate me for being afraid to be wrong, and tell me the only possible reason i could have to have come to my position because i'm in a bad mood. now the sarcasm.

until the results of an autopsy are released, none of us - no matter how much we assume - will know the cause of this kids death. that's all i've been saying all along and it's not clear to me why i should come in for so much criticism, especially from a staff member, for simply asking us to base our work on facts.

:\

alasdair
 
Thank you, someone on here with a heart!! It's just a kid, sure it was stupid, but it's just a kid who lost his life - have a little respect!!!
 
We can conclude he probably inhaled some if he actually smoked out of it. It may be 1 picogram but you know something, probably vaporized off it with an open flame.

No we can't prove 1 picogram made it to his lungs but it's reasonable. We can also conclude that you shouldn't smoke stuff out of plastic pez dispensers without definitive proof, can we not?

My point is neither argument is entirely sound. I have a feeling if some one asked how to smoke out of a pez dispenser you would not say "no 100% proof it'll kill you, puff away."

What the hell are y'all arguing about?
 
^ is .000000000001g of the burned material enough to extensively damage this kid's lungs leading to infection and death?

there's a world of difference between "i don't know the facts and i'd rather not assume"

and

"i don't know the facts but the synthetic pot was certainly not responsible for this kid's death and, even though i don't know how much toxic smoke he inhaled if any at all but that was certainly the sole cause of his death".

isn't there?

which of the two is the more reasonable? perhaps you agree that the second is more reasonable but it's not at all clear to me why i should be so heavily criticised by the forum staff for my position.

:\

alasdair
 
alasdairm said:
i do invite others who read your comments to consider that, in my opinion, you're guessing. i further invite them to consider that, in my opinion, speculation flies directly in the face of what bluelight is all about...

alasdair
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you alasdair. I honestly thought that slimvictor was joking or being a smartass when I read his first post. I really think it is a shame that this kid died, trying to get high. Common sense did not tell him that smoking out of a plastic PEZ dispenser could possibly kill him, what may be common sense for a Bluelight mod may not be common sense for a 13 year old.

I am not trying whatsoever to argue with you, I just wanted to comment to show you that alasdair isn't the only one who feels that you are very wrong.
 
alasdairm said:
^ is .000000000001g of the burned material enough to extensively damage this kid's lungs leading to infection and death?

there's a world of difference between "i don't know the facts and i'd rather not assume"

and

"i don't know the facts but the synthetic pot was certainly not responsible for this kid's death and, even though i don't know how much toxic smoke he inhaled if any at all but that was certainly the sole cause of his death".

isn't there?

which of the two is the more reasonable? perhaps you agree that the second is more reasonable but it's not at all clear to me why i should be so heavily criticised by the forum staff for my position.

:\

alasdair
Click to expand...

Of course the first is more reasonable logic wise, but for harm reduction would you seriously not discourage some one smoking out of a pez dispenser due to the probability (which could be zero, but reasonably a net positive quantity no matter how small) that they could be harmful.

The only logical outcome to recommend when nothing is proven is don't smoke whatever synthetic cannabanoid he smoked, don't smoke it out of a pez dispenser, and dear fucking god don't do both.

btw: saw recycling expert guess they were made of #5 plastic, polypropylene. Melting point 130–171°C (266–340°F):

P olypropylene is liable to chain degradation from exposure to heat and UV radiation such as that present in sunlight. Oxidation usually occurs at the tertiary carbon atom present in every repeat unit. A free radical is formed here, and then reacts further with oxygen, followed by chain scission to yield aldehydes and carboxylic acids.
 
alasdairm said:
^ is .000000000001g of the burned material enough to extensively damage this kid's lungs leading to infection and death?

there's a world of difference between "i don't know the facts and i'd rather not assume"

and

"i don't know the facts but the synthetic pot was certainly not responsible for this kid's death and, even though i don't know how much toxic smoke he inhaled if any at all but that was certainly the sole cause of his death".

isn't there?

which of the two is the more reasonable? perhaps you agree that the second is more reasonable but it's not at all clear to me why i should be so heavily criticised by the forum staff for my position.

:\

alasdair
Click to expand...

You have misstated or misunderstood my position here.
I think that our disagreement actually may not be a disagreement, but a misinterpreting of one another's arguments.

I agree that it is silly to assume that the boy definitely died from inhaling plastic fumes, and that there is no chance that the synthetic pot was responsible.
I agreed earlier that my original comment overstated the case, and altered it to reflect the fact that such a situation, while very likely, is not definite.

Assuming that your intent is not to quash all discussion, but rather to point out that I overstated the case with my original comment (albeit slightly): point taken. Comment has been changed.
 
Last edited:
wiggi said:
I completely agree with you alasdair. I honestly thought that slimvictor was joking or being a smartass when I read his first post. I really think it is a shame that this kid died, trying to get high. Common sense did not tell him that smoking out of a plastic PEZ dispenser could possibly kill him, what may be common sense for a Bluelight mod may not be common sense for a 13 year old.

I am not trying whatsoever to argue with you, I just wanted to comment to show you that alasdair isn't the only one who feels that you are very wrong.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your comment, and your efforts to help smooth things out here.
I am not taking it as an attempt to argue.
However, I don't really understand your comment about common sense. Did you mean to say that it is common sense, at least for a BL mod, that smoking out of a plastic Pez dispenser could kill you?
I would agree with that.
 
If you don't know that smoking plastic is horrible for you and toxic, you're probably stupid enough you need the warning our overly litigious society now puts on to-go coffee cups "Caution: Hot!" lest you burn yourself. Running around carrying knives and scissors is also probably a hobby of yours.
 
the easy option here is to blame the boy for taking a dangerous substance
but the real problem lies in why the boy (and many others) took this unknown substance and in such an unsafe way.
the route lies in the fact its so easy and cheap to find dangerous drugs the "mimic" the real and researched drugs.
if pot was legal this may still have happend due to the costs and the fact that he may still try and smoke out a plastic container

the only way to prevent this is to provide unbiased education on the effects and dangers of drugs, and not to treat all drugs as though they were heroin
 
Never Knows Best said:
If you don't know that smoking plastic is horrible for you and toxic, you're probably stupid enough you need the warning our overly litigious society now puts on to-go coffee cups "Caution: Hot!" lest you burn yourself. Running around carrying knives and scissors is also probably a hobby of yours.
Click to expand...

Oddly enough if you are referring to the mcdonalds case, that is actually one of the few lawsuits which if referred to as frivolous but when read closely is really not. Mcdonalds heated the cup up like a hundred degrees hotter than every restaurant around, and they only had to pay out one days worth of profit on coffee.....
 
Never Knows Best said:
Really? I did not know that. You learn something new every day (I still wouldn't need to be told it was hot though).
Click to expand...
if you are interested, you should do some further reading on that mcdonalds case. it was a very polarising case and many people - on each side of the discussion - had trouble seeing it from the others' point of view.

it's a really instructive case which taught me, if anything, that one's initial reaction based on limited knowledge could change by learning more about the case - i.e. things are often different as they first appear.

alasdair
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top