• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Waka Flocka Flame treated by paramedics after smoking too much marijuana

Re: Smoking too much Weed

toxic.jpg
 
again I never mentioned anything about this please stop strawmaning the argument.
I know it is hard for pot advocates but concentrate.

this has nothing to do with the fact that kids, pets and adults are being poisoned by
ingesting too much THC.

I was trying to be civil, but I guess you control freaks just cannot help yourselves. Not sure why you feel the need to resort to personal insults.

The alcohol angle is about as far from straw man as it gets where control freak pot prohibitionists are concerned. It is a perfectly logical and valid counterpoint. One which you and your ilk are guaranteed to run away from every time.
 
I was trying to be civil, but I guess you control freaks just cannot help yourselves. Not sure why you feel the need to resort to personal insults.

The alcohol angle is about as far from straw man as it gets where control freak pot prohibitionists are concerned. It is a perfectly logical and valid counterpoint. One which you and your ilk are guaranteed to run away from every time.

again please tell me what this has to do with people getting THC poisoned and that it is on the rise?
if you can't then you have 0 argument.

there was no personal insult. The fact is you can't make an argument against what I said.
so you have to make up an irrelevant argument and act like it is something.

If it was as simple as you say then whatever, but it isn't.
the fact is weed brings other trouble with it no matter what area you are in.

gangs, black markets, cartels are thriving in CO and CA where pot is legal.
they are bringing other drugs with them which is usually the case.
 
they have had to go to the hospital and have their system flushed.
that is where most people go when they are poisoned.

again the rest is irrelevant the fact is THC poisoning is on the rise.
this is a fact. everything else you attempt to bring up is irrelevant.

Links?

Are you talking about reefer tourists? Yes, there are people who haven't smoked or haven't smoked for years or haven't smoked legal weed who O'Dowd on weekend trips to Colorado. There are two kinds of OD. Are you talking about overdose or O'Dowd?

Who is it that is THC poisoned in Colorado? What constitutes THC poisoning? Is it an agreed medical condition? What are the long term effects? What did these people consume and how did they consume it? How many people and how old were they?

Are most of the reported incidents related to edibles?

On a trip to Denver I tried chocolate edibles 2 nights. I ate the suggested amount on the first night about 2 hours before bed. Nada. The next night I ate twice as much. Two hours later, bupkis. I went to sleep. In the middle of the night I woke up and stared at the telly for what seemed like 200 years. I giggled and smiled and went back to sleep. Great sleep. But you never know about edibles, as Maureen O'Dowd explained. In fact, Willie Nelson sat he has tried edibles twice and never again.

It's difficult to measure the even amounts of cannabis for each piece of section of edible. Plus it takes much longer to work and its effects last much longer. Finally, it depends on the strain in the edibles, the amount consumed over a given amount of time and the individual. We are all different.

How do we know that there has been an increase in THC poisoning as opposed to an increase in reported THC poisoning? There is a difference? Weed has not been legal in Colorado for almost a century. Can it be reasonable that heretofore, when pot was illegal, people who O'Dowd on pot were extremely reluctant to seek medical help?

When you make assumptions as you have in your post I for one would like to know where you are getting your "facts" and if those "facts" warrant the degree of your concern. At this point we have no idea how valid your "facts" are and what the implications are, if any.
 
your house of straw went <--- way.
no where did I mention dying from it or anything else.

however the fact is THC poisoning is becoming an issue in CO.
this is fact.

from adults to kids that got in their parents pot candy or cookies.
try and actually argue what people say instead of making crap up about what they didn't say.

strawman arguments are fallacies and not arguments at all.

An unexpected nap?

Ooooooh! Gotta do whatever it takes to make sure that never happens!

There are alcoholic drinks tasty enough for a child to drink a dose that could actually kill them.

So based on the principle of lenity, you should be arguing against alcohol more stridently than against pot.

There are issues, but lets compare apples to apples, m'kay?
 
again please tell me what this has to do with people getting THC poisoned and that it is on the rise?
if you can't then you have 0 argument.

there was no personal insult. The fact is you can't make an argument against what I said.
so you have to make up an irrelevant argument and act like it is something.

If it was as simple as you say then whatever, but it isn't.
the fact is weed brings other trouble with it no matter what area you are in.

gangs, black markets, cartels are thriving in CO and CA where pot is legal.
they are bringing other drugs with them which is usually the case.

Links?
 
again please tell me what this has to do with people getting THC poisoned and that it is on the rise?
if you can't then you have 0 argument.

there was no personal insult. The fact is you can't make an argument against what I said.
so you have to make up an irrelevant argument and act like it is something.

If it was as simple as you say then whatever, but it isn't.
the fact is weed brings other trouble with it no matter what area you are in.

gangs, black markets, cartels are thriving in CO and CA where pot is legal.
they are bringing other drugs with them which is usually the case.

Please answer my specific questions regarding "THC poisoning"
 
Re: Smoking too much Weed

First, I'm not a zealot. I'm a realist on this issue. I can make that claim because I have enough awareness to recognize that to claim something is dangerous, you have to measure that level of danger against other things that are both safe and very dangerous.

Water is "safe" compared to mercury. Water is "safe" compared to aspirin. Water is "safe" compared to kool-aid. Therefore, water is safe. But, that does not mean that water is not without its danger. Even so, I can safely say that water is safe because I'm comparing it to other things and coming up with a reasoned measure of how dangerous it is.

MJ is "safe" compared to mercury. MJ is "safe" compared to aspirin. MJ is "safe" compared to kool-aid (the dyes are well-known carcinogens). Therefore, MJ is safe. But, that does not mean that MJ is not without its danger. Even so, I can safely say that MJ is safe because I'm comparing it to other things and coming up with a reasoned measure of how dangerous it is.

Are you doing the same? Are others that claim MJ is dangerous doing the same? If not, then who's the zealot?

Whenever you're done beating up that strawman, which you've been doing the entire time you've been responding to me in this thread, let me know and I'll be happy to respond further.

Since you've demonstrated you've had a difficult time understanding what it is I've stated throughout this entire thread, let me break it down very simply.

This issue with WFF is of little concern or consequence as it relates to the "dangers" of pot, as it's not out of line with the potential "dangers" related to the drug that most who reasonably view the situation already understood to exist. The exception to this relates to those who erroneously attempt to claim that it is unequivocally and completely "harmless", as this is an example of why such a claim is wrong.
 
Last edited:
Links?

Are you talking about reefer tourists? Yes, there are people who haven't smoked or haven't smoked for years or haven't smoked legal weed who O'Dowd on weekend trips to Colorado. There are two kinds of OD. Are you talking about overdose or O'Dowd?

Who is it that is THC poisoned in Colorado? What constitutes THC poisoning? Is it an agreed medical condition? What are the long term effects? What did these people consume and how did they consume it? How many people and how old were they?

Are most of the reported incidents related to edibles?

On a trip to Denver I tried chocolate edibles 2 nights. I ate the suggested amount on the first night about 2 hours before bed. Nada. The next night I ate twice as much. Two hours later, bupkis. I went to sleep. In the middle of the night I woke up and stared at the telly for what seemed like 200 years. I giggled and smiled and went back to sleep. Great sleep. But you never know about edibles, as Maureen O'Dowd explained. In fact, Willie Nelson sat he has tried edibles twice and never again.

It's difficult to measure the even amounts of cannabis for each piece of section of edible. Plus it takes much longer to work and its effects last much longer. Finally, it depends on the strain in the edibles, the amount consumed over a given amount of time and the individual. We are all different.

How do we know that there has been an increase in THC poisoning as opposed to an increase in reported THC poisoning? There is a difference? Weed has not been legal in Colorado for almost a century. Can it be reasonable that heretofore, when pot was illegal, people who O'Dowd on pot were extremely reluctant to seek medical help?

When you make assumptions as you have in your post I for one would like to know where you are getting your "facts" and if those "facts" warrant the degree of your concern. At this point we have no idea how valid your "facts" are and what the implications are, if any.

https://news.vice.com/article/colorado-lawsuit-claims-marijuana-edibles-caused-people-to-overdose

most of it is from edibles.

the CO CDC blamed pot for a transfer student jumping to his death.
he ate all 5 of the cookies in 1 like 30 minutes after he ate the first one.
 
This planet just can't cope.
 
I already did go back and read.

No, you didn't. Statistics, specifics.

What is the toxic level of marijuana? How many people fatally overdosed in CO? How many were permanently damaged by MJ in CO?

Seriously, answer some questions. Show your work.
 
This is a big yawn for anyone who is even mildly realistic about weed and it's potential side effects/danger.

Seriously, the only thing this kind of story counters are the few people so far gone in their pro-weed zealotry that they declare it to be absolutely, completely, and utterly "harmless" simply based on whether or not people can die from an OD.

As I had to explain in another thread

DEATH != HARM

Something can cause you HARM and never have any chance to actually kill you. Something can potentially kill you, but rarely have the chance to do you harm. While these things are related, they are not exclusive. Talking about the potential for overdose as the singular discussion of "harm" is simply inaccurate and unrealistic; a pathetic talking point often propagated by pro-legalization zealots who, similar to the zealots on the other side, refuse to actually address things honestly and instead attempt to misdirect and function in a dishonest Machiavellian fashion, justifying it due to their ultimate goal.

Neither is harmful inherently or singularly a measure of "toxicity". While those two things are related, they are not the same.

All of which is irrelevant since there have been people who haven't been suggesting it's simply innocuous or not very dangerous or not very harmful, but have flat out, unapologetically, absolutely "harmless", which is what I was pointing out when someone claimed that "no one" says such a thing.

Are you claiming that MJ causes a lot of harm?

Here's your LOL response.

No. There's absolutely zero way you can come away with that impression unless you're basically so wrapped up in this issue and so zealous in your pursuing of it that anyone who isn't as absolutely strident and fervent as you MUST be a crazy person on the other side. There's literally zero reason you'd actually need to ask such a question if you were reading any of the posts I made in this thread honestly and without an assumption that I was somehow against MJ legalization.

How did I come away with the idea that you believe MJ causes harm? I came away with that idea by READING YOUR POSTS!

And the only strawman is the one you attempted to create that started with you assuming I thought you were against legalization. Also, it was you who made an assumption that I was the zealot, not the other way around.
 
I thought this couldnt happen ?

Waka Flocka Flame treated by paramedics after smoking too much marijuana


Rapper Waka Flocka Flame may have hit a new low — by getting way too high.
The "Game On" rapper performed at a concert in Seattle Sunday where he was treated by paramedics after smoking an excessive amount of pot.

He admitted to smoking 20 blunts.


http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/waka-flocka-flame-treated-paramedics-article-1.2607628

Honestly, after 20 blunts, he probably had trouble breathing more than anything. I forget who... but there was a comedian who once said, after a certain point, you can't get any higher, you just get lower on weed.
 
https://news.vice.com/article/colorado-lawsuit-claims-marijuana-edibles-caused-people-to-overdose

most of it is from edibles.

the CO CDC blamed pot for a transfer student jumping to his death.
he ate all 5 of the cookies in 1 like 30 minutes after he ate the first one.

Thanks. In reading a link from the article we discover that Kirk did shoot and kill his wife during an argument. He was found to have only a small amount of THC in his system. He was also reported to have been displaying a tendency toward violence weeks before the incident. Kirk and his wife were having financial and marital problems.

Did Kirk OD on cannabis and kill his wife? He did kill his wife. It does not appear that he was even high when he killed his wife.

The guy who "jumped" off the balcony may have fallen off the balcony. He did in fact eat an entire pot cookie which constituted 6 servings/doses. He was an out of state guy who with friends tried edibles. He did not die of an overdose.
 
Thanks. In reading a link from the article we discover that Kirk did shoot and kill his wife during an argument. He was found to have only a small amount of THC in his system. He was also reported to have been displaying a tendency toward violence weeks before the incident. Kirk and his wife were having financial and marital problems.

Did Kirk OD on cannabis and kill his wife? He did kill his wife. It does not appear that he was even high when he killed his wife.

The guy who "jumped" off the balcony may have fallen off the balcony. He did in fact eat an entire pot cookie which constituted 6 servings/doses. He was an out of state guy who with friends tried edibles. He did not die of an overdose.

again no where anywhere did I say anything about overdose.
I have said that THC poisoning is on the rise.

and the CDC attributes that boy that jumped his death to pot. as he ate all the cookies not just 1.
there was like 5 of them.

the article supports my statement.

At least 56 people called Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center to complain about marijuana-related scares last year. Children's Hospital Colorado admitted at least 14 children younger than 10 for eating marijuana-infused foods last year. Seven of those kids went to the hospital's intensive care unit.

the only people mentioning death and overdose are people strawmaning what I said. no where have I mentioned death or overdose.
 
How did I come away with the idea that you believe MJ causes harm?

The question wasn't how did you come away with the idea that MJ causes harm. Rather, the question was what in my posts made you question whether I was claiming it caused A LOT of harm.

Yes, every one of my posts has acknowledged that Marijuana isn't totally harmless. That has been well established. However, you asked me if I was claiming it caused "A LOT" of harm. I am asking you to show me what in my posts led you to question that.

Are you suggesting that unless someone thinks that marijuana is utterly harmless, then it can be assumed they think it is extremely harmful?

My original post was saying that the story in question isn't some kind of condemnation of Pot or some kind of evidence against it's legalization or any sort of counter to such a thing. Can marijuana have negative harmful side effects? Yes. This is well know and well accepted by the majority of people that address this issue honestly and intelligently. Thus the wakka flocka flame story was shrug and yawn worthy at best.

It provides no counter argument to any reasonable argument or person in favor of legalization of marijuana. The ONLY thing it stands as a counter to are the few people so crazily zealous in the pursuit of their agenda that they dishonestly and erroneously proclaim that marijuana is absolutely harmless.
 
Last edited:
Are you suggesting that unless someone thinks that marijuana is utterly harmless, then it can be assumed they think it is extremely harmful?

I asked you a question about your thoughts. That, in essence, means I'm not assuming anything.

If you believe it causes a little or a lot of harm, please elaborate. My stance is that even the harm it does cause would still mark it as a safe product to consume if we reasonably see it on the scale of things that are safe and things that are harmful.

If you believe aspirin is safe, then you MUST believe that MJ is also safe. If you don't, then I'd consider you a hypocrite.
 
Re: Smoking too much Weed

If they "were only minding their own bussiness " it wouldnt be an issue

No?

Than what exactly is the issue that you're concerned with?

If it's something other than simple substance use then address the behaviors that concern you.

Youre not actually suggesting that the effects of drug use start and stop at the users front door are you ?

I'm suggesting that in many cases the effects of drug use pose no harm, threat, danger or inconvenience to anyone.

That when they leave their appartment and or home they magically sober up ?

When a guy walks out of a bar after having two or three or more drinks does he magically sober up?

No, of course not.

But does his intoxication necessarially create some threat or concern to society at large?

Not usually.

And when it does it's because his behavior violates other laws.

Is he so drunk that he's violating public intoxication statutes?

Fine, then charge him with that.

Is he drunk behind the wheel of a car?

Again, charge him with that.

Did his intoxication contribute to, or directly lead to, some kind of violence, or property crime, or negligence?

Then charge him accordingly.

But if he just walks out of the bar, stops by the pizza place for a slice, heads over to the taxi stand, goes across town and does some shoe shopping, then climbs on a bus and heads home, what difference does it make to me whether he's had two or four or eight drinks?

Even if his intoxication leads him to buy God awful shoes?

The bottom line is that it doesn't effect me one little bit and doesn't concern me one little bit.

And the same goes for people who use (presently illegal) drugs.

I don't use them myself, but I'm not going to stand in the way of someone else's good time because I think that I know better.

If it doesn't create a real problem for me then it isn't a problem.

That their choice to " mind their own bussiness " has no effect on their Childrens education, on their Childrens future and no effect on the Schools or the community ?

I know plenty of people who use drugs and alcohol (really itself just another form of drug) recreationally and no, their drug use has no ill effect at all upon their children's ability to succeed, upon the local school system, or upon the community as a whole.

When the drug or alcohol use goes beyond recreation, and when it begins to create problems for the user, for the user's family, for other members of the community, or for the community as a whole, then it's a problem, and then it should be addressed.

But we don't need a government nanny telling us what we can or can't do if and when our behavior has no detrimental effect on anyone or anything.

The camapign to end ciggarette smoking among young people has really been stepped up in the last few years and thankfully theyre making great progress.

The rights and privileges we extend to consenting adults and the rights and privileges we extend to minor children are frequently very different.

I don't think children should have access to recreational narcotic drugs any more than I think they should have access to alcohol or tobacco, than they should be allowed to enter in to binding legal contracts of their own accord, or than they should be allowed to operate motor vehicles on public roadways.
 
again no where anywhere did I say anything about overdose.
I have said that THC poisoning is on the rise.

and the CDC attributes that boy that jumped his death to pot. as he ate all the cookies not just 1.
there was like 5 of them.

the article supports my statement.

At least 56 people called Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center to complain about marijuana-related scares last year. Children's Hospital Colorado admitted at least 14 children younger than 10 for eating marijuana-infused foods last year. Seven of those kids went to the hospital's intensive care unit.

the only people mentioning death and overdose are people strawmaning what I said. no where have I mentioned death or overdose.

Again......what is the toxic level of MJ to constitute "THC poisoning?

How many people died from this "poisoning"?
How many people were permanently damaged from this "poisoning"? (doing something stupid while high is an independent action, do you blame the gun when someone commits suicide with a gun?)

Give me some data, some statistics, some numbers. Show your work.
 
I believe it has the ability to cause some level of harm, which inherently makes it not "harmless". Anything more than that is entirely irrelevant to the point I was making and I was talking about.
 
I believe it has the ability to cause some level of harm, which inherently makes it not "harmless". Anything more than that is entirely irrelevant to the point I was making and I was talking about.

And I've never said it was harmless. I was pointing out to you that there is nothing that is completely harmless, including something that elemental to human survival like water. It is reasonably harmless when it's placed on a scale of things we as humans consume.

Basically, I believe you're being unnecessarily nitpicky and attempting to use the word harm to slander a product that's essentially safe.
 
Re: Smoking too much Weed

Blunts?

How 1990's

My Doc recommended using a vaporizer a year ago, no toxins, no inhaling a nasty burnt rolling paper, so much healthier, and pure THC.
 
Back
Top Bottom