General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGerman doctors: Cannabis can kill you
German doctors: Cannabis can kill you
Marijuana can be deadly, according to German researchers, who claim to have discovered the first deaths caused by cannabis.
The researchers in Düsseldorf, North-Rhine Westphalia, have been investigating cannabis-related deaths since 2001 and performed post-mortem examinations on 15 people whose deaths were linked to the drug.
They believe two of those deaths could not have been caused by anything other than cannabis, according to a study published in Forensic Science International this month under the title Sudden unexpected death under acute influence of cannabis.
One of the men was an athletic 28-year-old found dead by his girlfriend next to an ashtray containing cigarette paper and marijuana. The autopsy found that there were no pre-existing medical conditions.
The second case was a healthy 23-year-old man.
Benno Hartung from the University Hospital in Düsseldorf said he and his colleagues performed autopsies and toxicological tests to rule out other causes of death such as liver disease and alcohol use.
http://www.thelocal.de/20140225/german-doctors-claim-cannabis-can-kill
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Fozzledick
(3,860 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)bowens43
(16,064 posts)spanone
(135,844 posts)brush
(53,787 posts)deutsey
(20,166 posts)has become so corrupted by corporate sponsorship that we even have to raise this question?
I find myself doing that with a lot of research I hear about today. I used to work at NIH as an editorial assistant and use to help the researchers in our lab prepare their papers for publication. Back then, based on my inside view, there really wasn't the degree of corporate influence over research as there is today.
MindMover
(5,016 posts)Last edited Wed Feb 26, 2014, 02:23 AM - Edit history (1)
Jetboy
(792 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)gerogie2
(450 posts)that doesn't mean it isn't stupid to prohibit it then to put users and dealers in jail in a futile attempt to stop people from using it. The Prohibition in the 1920's and 30's of alcohol proved that such laws are fruitless and counterproductive for society.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)rdharma
(6,057 posts).."however this assumption does not rule out the presence of predisposing cardiovascular factors."
Another great "Man bites Dog" story from the original OP.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)They have not reproduced a causal mechanism in which cannabis leads to death. All hype, no substance.
Warpy
(111,273 posts)How many young male athletes have died from sudden cardiac death on the field or during a game? Quite a few. Add to them the young guys who aren't famous or all that good at sports. The phenomenon is well known.
In all cases they passed physicals and were proclaimed in excellent health.
There needs to be a lot more study done than these two guys. For instance, were they also tobacco smokers?
It's well known that cannabis can cause tachycardia in some people. It's uncomfortable but mercifully short lived. It's an incredible leap of illogic to assume this was the cause of death in two young males.
Zambero
(8,964 posts)assures future mortality at some unspecified point in time. Oh, the horrors!
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)knowing the problems that have grown with alcohol consumption, as a culture we might have made efforts to discourage binge drinking before it became popular. Understood the nature of impairment better. Understood relationships to violence, drunk driving, etc.
But, it was believed to be harmless and marketed that way by advocates for repeal of prohibition.
Why is it that supporters of legalization want to believe and convince the public that marijuana is absolutely, completely harmless.
There are no doubt, benefits which lead me to believe it should be legal. But, denying any possibility that there could be anything negative is narrow minded and short sighted.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)what they thought was the violence created by trying to prohibit a substance that was part of the culture of many Americans was bad policy that was passed in a fever of anti-immigrant (Germans, Italians, mostly) sentiment spurred by the KKK and people who waged morality campaigns as a way to enter into the political discussion (suffragettes).
In a cost/benefit analysis - prohibition was more costly than the negative effects of alcohol on the society.
The effect of overturning alcohol prohibition was the beginning of a move in the Democratic party away from rural populist (and racist, often) sentiment to a view of human rights for everyone.
Cannabis was legal until prohibited in 1937. It was first made illegal in CA in response to anti-immigrant sentiment with immigrants from Mexico after political turmoil in that nation. (Sound familiar?)
Nixon wanted to keep it illegal, he noted, to punish his political enemies. Reagan made this sort of anti-left sentiment into a war.
Warpy, who commented in this thread, is a nurse, iirc. I think her statement makes sense. Maybe they will find cannabis should not be used by people with certain heart conditions, etc. That's okay - that's why we need to do more research. But, over thousands of years, cannabis has demonstrated it is relatively harmless for humans to consume. The analogy would be peanuts, in this case.
Peanuts cause allergic reactions and death in some people. We do not make peanut butter illegal, but we warn those who are allergic to avoid it.
Many people are rightly skeptical of this sudden eureka moment - finding that cannabis was in someone's system as a condition of death brought on my heart attack. Maybe that happens.
In a cost benefit analysis, it's better to have legal marijuana. But I understand your reaction to people's dismissal to the claims.
The point, really, is to emphasis responsible actions by adults. Don't drink and drive. Don't toke and drive.
Even knowing alcohol's relation to violence in some people, I wouldn't want alcohol to be illegal. I do want people to consume alcohol to do so responsibly.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)Did we have any idea how people would over-consume alcohol? Did we understand the problems it would cause with driving accidents?
We have known for a long time that tobacco causes lung cancer. But, the connection to heart disease was not understood until fairly recently.
Even with all we know, I still hear talk about grandpa who smoked and drank everyday and lived to be 100. There are people who believe that alcohol should not have the reputation it now has because they heard about the benefits of red wine. Anecdotes like that perpetuate ignorance.
I'm not defending the article. I'm just saying that questions and possibilities should not be dismissed altogether because it has not been legal and has not been well evaluated. Obviously the only way for that to happen is legalization, and I do believe that is the way to go. Pandering a belief that it is a cure all with zero negative properties is not the most convincing argument. I think that advocates should be able to do better.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)People knew others died from alcohol consumption, or their lives were destroyed by alcohol consumption. But others also knew alcohol consumption was possible in moderation. Of course earlier times didn't have the medical knowledge of today - but they had knowledge, just not as much.
What people didn't know is that some people are more inclined to addictive behaviors - for some substances (which may vary from individual to individual), or just in general. Before we developed the science to view behaviors more dispassionately, every negative action was attributed to moral flaws rather than issues of addiction or whatever else. There is a timeline, in a way, for this seen in the move from viewing epilepsy as demon possession to viewing alcoholism as an action with a basis in biochemistry, not sin.
As far as cigarettes - they have also existed throughout history in various cultures. It's a sacrament in Native American cultures. Not consumed casually, but within certain parameters. Peyote, which is illegal to use as a mind-altering substance, is also part of certain N.A. nations' religious practices.
The Turks introduced cigarettes to the west during the Crimean War, though people used tobacco in pipes long before that. The increase in longevity and the increase in population, as well as liberation for women made a lot more smokers out there. So we never made tobacco illegal - it has always been legal for certain age groups.
Likewise, cannabis has been part of many different cultures, over thousands of years, in various parts of the world. It was used as medicine in every part of the world until the 1930s. It was popularized as a recreational substance, like alcohol, in the 20th c. with interactions between different cultures (Mexican, musicians and other arts), until, by the 1960s, it became part of white youth culture on a scale never seen previously.
All that to say - substances that alter consciousness in some way or another are part of humans' interactions with this earth. It has been that way forever. It will always be that way. Our curiosity is part of what makes us who we are.
Once we can acknowledge this reality, we can work on creating a culture that emphasizes the dangers, for those who need to know them, and the upsides - because, honestly, the reality is that tobacco helps people to concentrate or stay awake, and helps their memories. For all the downside to tobacco, beyond it being an addictive substance, there are reasons that people have used it in the past and continue to do so.
As you note, someone can find an anecdote that disproves the norm - but I think the reality is that people will find ways to rationalize, no matter what. Others cannot simply hear a statement like that and say... well okay then! I think it's more like people take their chances because they don't have the motivation or capacity to change a behavior at a particular time. The reward for changing a behavior needs to be high enough to motivate - and when people look at a short term "want" in relation to long term outcomes - it's hard to have that ability to postpone current gains for future ones. That's where education helps to inform - but it can't provide the entire impetus to change behaviors sometimes.
I agree with you about not simply dismissing any questions or possibilities and that legalization will make this possible, not hinder it.
As I've noted here before, though, it's a response I understand because the history of this issue in the U.S. has centered on lies and propaganda by those opposed to cannabis, rather than honest appraisals. But, as I said, I think it's important to keep in mind that we may find cannabis use is counter indicated for people with certain medical issues.
I do think a cost/benefit analysis is a good way to go. The cost/benefit, of course, is not just based upon financials. It's also based upon the knowledge that prohibition of cannabis has been used in a way that targets minority populations and recreates Jim Crow, as Michelle Alexander has noted. The cost/benefit analysis also has to take into consideration our governing philosophy - and we claim (although our history shows how selective this view has often been, based upon race, class, etc.) anyway, we claim that liberty and happiness are important to our philosophical basis as a nation. We hold equality (not sameness) as a "natural law" that is one of the primary reasons for democracy.
The fundamental tension in our society is the need to both maximize the conditions of liberty and equality for all.
But, yeah, we're in agreement, overall.
brush
(53,787 posts)It might mellow you out, make you hungry, make you laugh a lot, be not as aggressive not an entirely bad thing but kill you?
Nah, unless as another poster surmised, a few kilos of it fell on your head.
That a bullsh_t study. It claims to have been investigating cannabis-related deaths since 2001 and performed post-mortem examinations on 15 people whose deaths were linked to the drug.
The post claims that 15 peoples' death since 2001 have been linked to the drug but doesn't say how the deaths were linked. Huh . . . wonder how many people since 2001 have died from alcoholism and alcohol-related car accidents? We all know that's in the tens of thousands, way more than 15.
Makes one thing the booze industry benefits most from a study claiming that marijuana kills. If people get high off weed they won't need to drink as much booze.
What a laughable study. I'm chuckling about it now and haven't even toked up.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)The liquor industry shows up at every hearing for medical MJ in my state.
Do you really believe that there is anything but anecdotal evidence to suggest that MJ is absolutely without any doubt harmless?
I'm saying it's a weak talking point. People certainly didn't know the true danger of cigarettes or the what kind of extreme damage alcohol could bring.
A more convincing assertion is that legalization would enable the processes that would reveal the benefits AND any problems or contraindications. Medical MJ use is becoming so common that those facts need to be determined.
brush
(53,787 posts)I'm talking experience.
Apparently you seem to have none.
And the report 15 alleged examples over 14 years, c'mon. There are millions and millions of marijuana smokers so to such a weak claim that 15 people died over 14 years from it's use is laughable.
If people were dying of marijuana use we would have heard about many, many years ago.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)or even a collection of people not gathered under controlled conditions is anecdotal evidence.
brush
(53,787 posts)Last edited Fri Feb 28, 2014, 10:04 AM - Edit history (1)
But if many people (certainly not an alleged 15 over 14 years) were OD'ing on marijuana we'd have heard about such it long ago like Hoffman and Ledger's deaths from heroin. Now there's a drug that you can OD on . . . marijuana, not so much.
And judging from the great majority of other posters responding, I'm not the only chuckling over this report.
And here's something else. Check out this video that explains that one needs to smoke 20-40 thousand joints in 15 minutes to get enough thc in one's system to OD on marijuana.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017178146
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)He was only 102.
Tragic.
rocktivity
(44,576 posts)Under the right circumstances, FEATHERS can kill you!
rocktivity
Fozzledick
(3,860 posts)but they choose to blame marijuana anyway because post hoc ergo prompter hoc and appeal to ignorance.
So much for logic.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...when there's half a joint sitting in the ashtray only seven feet away from them.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)... but what you've actually done is to correctly state the reasoning behind their findings.
MADem
(135,425 posts)answer!!!
jmowreader
(50,559 posts)Heinrich and Maria are Polizei officers assigned to make undercover drug buys. One fine day they are about to finalize a buy of 1000 kilos of marijuana when one of the perpetrators figures out who they are. "Schweine! Sie sind getöten!" is screamed, seconds before the drug gang pumps enough lead into them to make an anchor for an aircraft carrier.
They arrive at the morgue.
"Cause of death?"
'Marijuana.'
B Calm
(28,762 posts)you don't see anymore posts from me, you know I'm dead! Wish me luck. . .
B Calm
(28,762 posts)seveneyes
(4,631 posts)Rather than using it. Or die an early death from the stresses of legal harassment and punishment.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)What a a wonderful drug for euthanasia for old folks just sick and tired of MRI's and Cat Scans, shots, medicines with side effects that don't kill you or help you, all delaying death and bankrupting medicare.
I wouldn't mind going out like that.
After May, when the trees and shrubs that I planted in the fall come out into blossom, and the orioles and hummingbirds have come back, I'd go for it.
Now all we have to do is have it approved for old folks like me (75-1/2) and progress will have finally been made. Most people are not happy in nursing homes or living with family. When I get to that, gimme the weed....
Javaman
(62,530 posts)when Schultz comes in with the Red Cross man and shows him the "ham-hock soup" as a "nutritious meal". he then stirs the soup looking for the non-existent ham-hock. "Where es de ham-hock? Der should be a ham-hock!"
unblock
(52,253 posts)Zambero
(8,964 posts)Most anything done to excess will have negative consequences, and this is not limited to alcohol or tobacco use. Sugar consumption has hastened the demise of millions and continues to do so. Even the outside air is unhealthy on some days, but no one is suggesting passing laws requiring one to hold their breath until the situation improves. Looks like the cherry pickers are at it again.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)or Doc Martin (actually I would prefer to be The Doctor), but even I can see that this "diagnosis" has holes big enough to drive the entire M*A*S*H 4077 through.
burfman
(264 posts)The only person I've ever heard of dying from marijuana anywhere (actually hashish) was Bruce Lee - the martial arts expert. Even though Walter Cronkite announced that was the cause of his death on the TV there is no conclusion that is what did Bruce Lee in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_lee#Death
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)I used to get an occasional heart arrhythmia after smoking it. Not anything serious, but clearly linked to consumption of weed. I suppose it could be a problem for someone with an underlying, but undetected heart rhythm problem.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)COULDN'T POSSIBLY have caused these deaths...........
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Okay, someone had to say it.
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)TeamPooka
(24,229 posts)LostOne4Ever
(9,289 posts)Wow, what amazing use of the scientific method. If you can't explain it blame it on Marijuana. Roger and Francis Bacon would surely approve...
LeftishBrit
(41,208 posts)Anything can kill you, if you take too much or have an unusual sensitivity to it.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)people would not have just discovered the first deaths it's caused.
Liberal Veteran
(22,239 posts)That's really not enough time to determine if the effects are commonly dangerous.
madinmaryland
(64,933 posts)same time period.
I'm glad that you finally are admitting that cigarettes are a death stick!!
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)1. "We could find no apparent cause of death"
2. "We know that the person in question consumed cannabis"
ergo 3. "Cannabis in some way - that we cannot reproduce - killed this subject"
This is why emprical scientists should be forced to take philosophy classes (and vice versa).
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)There will be people who have very bad reactions to marijuana as well.