Colorodo Doctors suspect Marajuana in cause of death of 11 month old - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=Hilton;52895206]You seem to be getting super hostile over just the implication of the possibility that your experience on the internet is tailored based on how you use it. [/QUOTE] You seem to be suggesting that people only can receive their news information from echo chambers and are merely telling themselves that they're not. [quote]Simply thinking a variety of sources would change that is incorrect, because you still only view things you are interested in, from sources that you personally trust, and Google will base news on that.[/quote] That's still irrelevant if you don't use Google exclusively to get your news. [quote]It's not some kind of purposeful echo chamber like how you see Tudd, but it is input based on what you output, which is partially an echo chamber whether you like it or not.[/quote] Input you can choose to ignore, which many people do, which means they're not in the echo chamber you're suggesting they must be. Google doesn't make me click buttons on my mouse. It doesn't change the bookmarks in my browser. If I don't look at Google News I'm also not getting whatever their algorithm would push on me. People's political stances and whatnot aren't 'an echo chamber'. Just because I like banana-flavored ice cream doesn't mean I'm 'in a banana-flavored ice cream echo chamber' because Google popped up a 'hey do you like banana-flavored ice cream?' advert/news result - and that still relies on my caring about whatever Google has to say to begin with. I'm not hostile to your overall argument - I'm just incredulous that you're stating 'man, we're [I]all[/I] in echo chambers'. [quote=Cyke Lon Bee]I get it you vehemently have to defend weed no matter what, but can you really not understand the logic of "hey maybe lets not make pot brownies look delicious to kids". The same was done with flavored cigarettes and other drugs "directed" at kids. Why treat weed any differently?[/quote] I don't have to vehemently defend it and I don't. But this is just a sensationalist headline that people are going to take as 'proof them scientists were lyin'! that stuff's dangerous, just like the guys who put it on the schedule one list have said all this while!' Sugar is directed at kids. It's directed at them hard. Where's your argument that 'maybe lets not make sugar/honey look delicious to kids'? I'm just saying that calling for tightening of regulations regarding edible cannabis due to this means that surely you've got a hypersensitive reaction for whenever literally anything kills a kid and ask for tighter regulation on it resultingly. The reason to treat weed differently, in other words, is right there in the title of this dang article: "First overdose death"

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52895221]You seem to be suggesting that people only can receive their news information from echo chambers and are merely telling themselves that they're not. That's still irrelevant if you don't use Google exclusively to get your news. Input you can choose to ignore, which many people do, which means they're not in the echo chamber you're suggesting they must be. Google doesn't make me click buttons on my mouse. It doesn't change the bookmarks in my browser. If I don't look at Google News I'm also not getting whatever their algorithm would push on me. People's political stances and whatnot aren't 'an echo chamber'. Just because I like banana-flavored ice cream doesn't mean I'm 'in a banana-flavored ice cream echo chamber' because Google popped up a 'hey do you like banana-flavored ice cream?' advert/news result - and that still relies on my caring about whatever Google has to say to begin with. I'm not hostile to your overall argument - I'm just incredulous that you're stating 'man, we're [I]all[/I] in echo chambers'. I don't have to vehemently defend it and I don't. But this is just a sensationalist headline that people are going to take as 'proof them scientists were lyin'! that stuff's dangerous, just like the guys who put it on the schedule one list have said all this while!' Sugar is directed at kids. It's directed at them hard. Where's your argument that 'maybe lets not make sugar/honey look delicious to kids'? I'm just saying that calling for tightening of regulations regarding edible cannabis due to this means that surely you've got a hypersensitive reaction for whenever literally anything kills a kid and ask for tighter regulation on it resultingly. The reason to treat weed differently, in other words, is right there in the title of this dang article: "First overdose death"[/QUOTE] If I tell you i'm not cool with anything being marketed at kids, does that change your perspective on my argument at all? Why can't we look at edibles more closely and also tackle things like sugar and pop? Also, wouldn't it be strange if I came into this thread saying "we should make it illegal to market sugary products to kids!". I'm discussing whats relevant, quit deflecting it with irrelevant arguments. You're ignoring my whole argument (and even going as far to say everclear is tasteless lmfao) to avoid any discussion about minor regulation increases on weed. Ill say it again so we're clear; Im not wanting edibles or weed overall banned. Its just this humble mans opinion that edibles might need some marketing or packaging tweaks to make it less desirable to kids. Not something as extreme as banning candy cigarettes or banning flavored cigarettes.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52895259]If I tell you i'm not cool with anything being marketed at kids, does that change your perspective on my argument at all? Why can't we look at edibles more closely and also tackle things like sugar and pop?[/quote] It does actually, yes. It makes your argument redundant to the extreme (not to mention irrelevant to the topic at hand besides). You're basically saying 'well, fine, let's just ban advertising to kids whatsoever'. That's not productive at all - helps nobody usefully - and harms the economy a lot. Kids want things. Marketing merely suggests that they want particular things. Banning marketing that targets kids doesn't make kids not want things. It just makes them want things that they're familiar with. See the problem as it relates to the thread? It wouldn't have changed anything. The kid didn't buy the brownies. They didn't ask their parents to buy the brownies. How do you change the appearance of something edible so that it looks bad to eat to a child who has no comprehension of what 'bad' is? Are you suggesting that we deliberately make particular food products look like they're made of slime and fungus just 'because of the children' who'd still put them in their mouths anyway because they're 10 months old and don't know any better to begin with? In any case: I would never assume you meant 'we need to change how these things are marketed' by the thread and the story in question - because the story in question has no 'marketing' component other than the actual appearance of the food item in question - which isn't marketing so much as it is [I]food[/I]. [quote]Also, wouldn't it be strange if I came into this thread saying "we should make it illegal to market sugary products to kids!". I'm discussing whats relevant, quit deflecting it with irrelevant arguments. You're ignoring my whole argument (and even going as far to say everclear is tasteless lmfao) to avoid any discussion about minor regulation increases on weed.[/QUOTE] Please show where I have 'ignored your whole argument'. I believe I've carefully responded to, directly, each and every one of your posts with detailed and precise statements with counter-arguments that go directly against your arguments and which attempt to point out the flaws underpinning those arguments. If I'm ignoring what you're writing, it's because you're writing it in white or not putting it in your posts.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52895276]It does actually, yes. It makes your argument redundant to the extreme (not to mention irrelevant to the topic at hand besides). You're basically saying 'well, fine, let's just ban advertising to kids whatsoever'. That's not productive at all - helps nobody usefully - and harms the economy a lot. Kids want things. Marketing merely suggests that they want particular things. Banning marketing that targets kids doesn't make kids not want things. It just makes them want things that they're familiar with. See the problem as it relates to the thread? It wouldn't have changed anything. The kid didn't buy the brownies. They didn't ask their parents to buy the brownies. How do you change the appearance of something edible so that it looks bad to eat to a child who has no comprehension of what 'bad' is? Are you suggesting that we deliberately make particular food products look like they're made of slime and fungus just 'because of the children' who'd still put them in their mouths anyway because they're 10 months old and don't know any better to begin with? In any case: I would never assume you meant 'we need to change how these things are marketed' by the thread and the story in question - because the story in question has no 'marketing' component other than the actual appearance of the food item in question - which isn't marketing so much as it is [I]food[/I]. Please show where I have 'ignored your whole argument'. I believe I've carefully responded to, directly, each and every one of your posts with detailed and precise statements with counter-arguments that go directly against your arguments and which attempt to point out the flaws underpinning those arguments. If I'm ignoring what you're writing, it's because you're writing it in white or not putting it in your posts.[/QUOTE] You're confusing "being against" with "banning outright". This is your fundemental issue with why you cant understand why its reasonable to make drugs less desirable to kids. I give in, you win. Thanks for your time.

[quote]You're confusing "being against" with "banning outright". This is your fundemental issue with why you cant understand why its reasonable to make drugs less desirable to kids.[/quote] My problem with it is that you don't get to decide what is desirable to kids, and especially less so to 10 month olds. That 10 month old likely had no idea that there was cannabis in those brownies - they probably could smell and taste the sugar and chocolate though - which is why they were enthusiastic in eating it. So I guess you're against putting sugar and chocolate into things? In other words: What you're against is entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Also, that's not 'giving in'. You conceded no points therefore you're 'giving up'. Not giving up what you believe mind, giving up in trying to debate your points.

[QUOTE]If correct, the phenomenon Dr. Hoyte claims to have documented would remain the only time a marijuana overdose is known to have caused a human death. Other doctors are deeply skeptical of the strong language used in the report. “That statement is too much. It’s too much as far as I’m concerned,” said Dr. Noah Kaufman, an emergency medicine specialist based in Northern Colorado. “Because that is saying confidently that this is the first case. ‘We’ve got one!’ And I still disagree with that.”[/QUOTE] :thinking: [quote]While the study notes that the child tested positive for marijuana and that his case involved [b]“an unstable motel-living situation and parental admission of drug possession, including cannabis,”[/b] the doctors admit in their published report, the myocarditis could have been caused by something doctors can’t test for. [/quote] Basically, never forget to keep drugs out of reach of kids, period. Also, how does an 11 year old overdose on weed? Did the parents leave out a giant tray of brownies? Did they leave the fucking childproof safety cap off a cannabis capsule container? How about a bowl of gummy bears? Don't tell me the baby struck up a fat blunt after his parents left, for real how does this even happen? One thing is for sure, these parents deserve to go to jail. [editline]15th November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Penultimate;52895188]Just as a clarification for anyone who's curious, I don't think dispensaries here are legally allowed to give you anything that's not in some kind of child-proof container. This really does seem like a terrible case of parental neglect.[/QUOTE] It couldn't be more obvious unless it came with its own marching band and announcers.

Really the only major problem I see with the articles and the paper would be people pulling things out of it that aren't there.

[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52895639]11 [B]month[/B] old. My guess is residual pesticides if it wasn't grown legally.[/QUOTE] Oh sorry bud I was asleep, but you're going to have to point out the exact part of my post where I said they [I]weren't[/I] 11 months old.

[QUOTE=reedbo;52895028]I thought this was a very interesting point. Also something to note is that the child died from myocarditis that they presume is linked to the THC ingestion. myocarditis is caused by an infection, allergic response or otherwise unknown reason, it'd be interesting to know if there is a link there especially since the death occurred some time after ingestion.[/QUOTE] I wonder what the link between pesticides and myocarditis is. [editline]16th November 2017[/editline] Because I find it hard to believe someone can die from it, from the millions of years it's been here.

Hold on a second, from what I remember, most of the active chemicals in cannabis are not bioavailable without heat? Something about removing a carboxyl group from the chain of THC or other cannabinoids otherwise they don't really do anything? This is why you can't just eat the plant and get high, it requires smoking, or cooking, or some other method of chemical extraction to cause the chemicals to become bioavailable. I wouldn't be surprised if small amounts of it were enough to cause damage to an 11 month old, but I would certainly like to see more investigation into the method of action for how this happened if that ever becomes available. Regardless of that, this is tragic and sadly something that could have easily been prevented.

[QUOTE=BANNED USER;52897013]Oh sorry bud I was asleep, but you're going to have to point out the exact part of my post where I said they [I]weren't[/I] 11 months old.[/QUOTE] This part? [QUOTE=BANNED USER;52895538]how does an 11 year old overdose on weed? [/QUOTE]

Weed kills babies, so we should ban that, and since honey kills infants too, perhaps we should look into banning honey :thinking: Think of the children!

[QUOTE=phygon;52897463]This part?[/QUOTE] He means in general, not directly referring to the victim in the OP, but it's a silly argument to make regardless, and backpedaling over an obvious typo or misread.

[QUOTE=phygon;52897463]This part?[/QUOTE] [I]Whoops...[/I] totally meant month old, not used to going that low on the age bracket to be honest, especially for things like this that shouldn't even happen in the first place.

[QUOTE=BANNED USER;52897615][I]Whoops...[/I] totally meant month old, not used to going that low on the age bracket to be honest, especially for things like this that shouldn't even happen in the first place.[/QUOTE] Yeah, the fact that it's a 11 month old does make this even stranger. What did the parents do, leave a tray of weed brownies [I]on the floor[/I]?

[QUOTE=phygon;52897652]Yeah, the fact that it's a 11 month old does make this even stranger. What did the parents do, leave a tray of weed brownies [I]on the floor[/I]?[/QUOTE] I think the gummy bear theory is the best we got so far. It would have to be something small and concentrated that the kid would pig out on. One brownie wouldn't do it, I think. I suppose it depends on the strength, but gummies can pack quite a punch. [editline]sigh[/editline] I suppose it could have been thc oil but those taste like shit so I doubt an 11 month old would be very keen on it. Perhaps he got it all out before he could react to the taste?

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52895035]Comparatively, weed is more deadly to children than alcohol and tabacco, in specific forms. A pot brownie or other edibles is far more palatable, and potent, than a budweiser or a Marlboro red. A toddler will probably have a tough time lighting a cigarette, and theyre not likely to eat an entire pack. Nor are they likely to down enough beer or liquor to get alcohol poisoning. Obviously this isn't an arguement to ban edibles or weed all together. But like flavored cigarettes, its important to tightly regulate certain forms of these drugs so theyre not desirable to children. It also helps if parents aren't huge pieces of shit who leave weed where kids can get it.[/QUOTE] Someone does not understand active dosage/overdose threshold. [t]http://i.imgur.com/i0NZYJ3.jpg[/t]

FOLLOW UP - Mods please update title. [url]https://news.vice.com/story/those-headlines-about-a-babys-weed-overdose-death-are-totally-wrong?utm_source=vicenewsfb[/url] [quote]Hoyte and Nappe found that the child died from an inflamed heart muscle, a condition known as myocarditis — and they think exposure to cannabis triggered the event. They pointed to other cases of marijuana seemingly triggering myocarditis in patients, though the other patients made full recoveries. Even the DEA acknowledges marijuana has never caused a fatal overdose, so the baby’s death would indeed be the first of its kind. But the doctors’ report only posits that “there exists a plausible relationship” between marijuana and the death that “justifies further research.” Other experts and advocates for marijuana legalization say that pointing to this boy as a definitive example of death by weed overdose is jumping the gun. “There has to be more information to show that this link is real,” Dr. William Checkley, an associate professor of medicine, international health, and biostatistics at Johns Hopkins University, told VICE News. “Any purported link between cannabinoid ingestion and myocarditis is, at this point, both premature and speculative,” said Paul Armentano, deputy director of NORML, a nonprofit marijuana legalization advocacy group. Even a Colorado health official admitted the report is not a slam-dunk. Daniel Vigil, director of the state’s Marijuana Health Monitoring and Research Program, said that still doesn’t mean the doctors are wrong. Case reports like theirs are meant to inform about possible connections, and it’s certainly possible that there’s a link between marijuana exposure and the heart condition that killed the baby boy, he said. One thing is certain: No one is certain.[/quote]

snip