Contaminated cannabis

frank reynolds

Sofiztikated wrote: »

You do know your debating style is abrasive and abrupt?

ah it's not all the time. i usually only get like that with people who are getting too big for their boots.

anyway, im not getting drawn into an argument.

The thread is invalid now anyway, as it transpires that the two women had taken another substance which caused the organ failure.

Maybe they are SO against weed that they blamed it so it would get bad press? who knows. there's a lot of weirdos out there.

Boombastic

Thread title needs changing....

I Heart Internet

frank reynolds wrote: »

eh yes you did.

OK Frank. Please show me and the world where I said that I "wished for stoners to be dying."

Off you go and find it Frank. It shouldn't take you long. You seem to be very certain of your facts.

mangochavez

I'd contaminate the face of anyone who believes that poisonous ****E should be legalized.

Hoop66

mangochavez wrote: »

I'd contaminate the face of anyone who believes that poisonous ****E should be legalized.

GRRRRR! GRRRRR!

You should try it, you might calm down and stop making empty threats on the internet.

withless

mangochavez wrote: »

I'd contaminate the face of anyone who believes that poisonous ****E should be legalized.

Aerosols are legal already.

Temptamperu

So two people got sick, two! if there was dodgey gear going around there would be far more cases. This story has nothing to do with weed its more to do with having a big bad plant hurting people. what about the kids what if they smoke the "contaminated" weed oh they probably have already.
This has anti drug propaganda all over it.

mangochavez

Hoop66 wrote: »

GRRRRR! GRRRRR!

You should try it, you might calm down and stop making empty threats on the internet.

Smoked it once and got into a long-winded argument with my dog. Safe to say it didn't have the effect you claim. He ended up scuttering on my face after I passed out. When I woke up I had the "munchies" yet no food to eat in the house to eat. You don't want to know what I did next.. Let's just say my breath smelled of recycled dog food.

Mod Edit Banned for trolling.

I Heart Internet

Temptamperu wrote: »

This has anti drug propaganda all over it.

Yeah. If it wasn't the weed put two women in intensive care it was the anti drug propaganda. I hate that stuff.

120_Minutes

mangochavez wrote: »

Smoked it once and got into a long-winded argument with my dog. Safe to say it didn't have the effect you claim. He ended up scuttering on my face after I passed out. When I woke up I had the "munchies" yet no food to eat in the house to eat. You don't want to know what I did next.. Let's just say my breath smelled of recycled dog food.

ah foulton crown/flutterin bantam you're back i see.

Thatnastyboy

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Yeah. If it wasn't the weed put two women in intensive care it was the anti drug propaganda. I hate that stuff.

In fairness, both are about as likely to put you in intensive care.

UrbanSea

Not reading the whole thread, but what's the latest?

I Heart Internet

UrbanSea wrote: »

Not reading the whole thread, but what's the latest?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0603/454299-cannabis-louth/

Cannabis ruled out as cause of the women's illness. Rumours online of a link to other (legal) substances.

frank reynolds

I Heart Internet wrote: »

OK Frank. Please show me and the world where I said that I "wished for stoners to be dying."

Off you go and find it Frank. It shouldn't take you long. You seem to be very certain of your facts.

im not going to try and find your post, which you may have edited in the meantime.

anyway, stop arguing with me. it's annoying

I Heart Internet

frank reynolds wrote: »

im not going to try and find your post, which you may have edited in the meantime.

anyway, stop arguing with me. it's annoying

Go on though, in the interests of clarity, please link to where I said I "wished for stoners to be dying."

I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd like to see it. If you can't back-up what you said, you can always choose to do the decent thing and retract your statement. That's not a nice thing you've accused me of doing (wishing people dead). If I did it, you'd be right to call me on it. But I didn't, so how about acknowledging that?

frank reynolds

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Go on though, in the interests of clarity, please link to where I said I "wished for stoners to be dying."

I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd like to see it. If you can't back-up what you said, you can always choose to do the decent thing and retract your statement. That's not a nice thing you've accused me of doing (wishing people dead). If I did it, you'd be right to call me on it. But I didn't, so how about acknowledging that?

In the interests of stopping you from moaning at me, i retract then, go on.

BUT.... someone said it (maybe not those exact words, but it was something along the lines of serves them right for messing with drugs". maybe...MMMMAAAAYYBE i quoted the wrong person? i might have, and if so, apologies.

anyway, at least our little argument has kept this otherwise dead thread going an extra day.

Temptamperu

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Yeah. If it wasn't the weed put two women in intensive care it was the anti drug propaganda. I hate that stuff.

its the same as the story about the guy who thought he could fly bull**** and the same anti drug bull**** the drag out every few years. The lad in the ar last year was laughable, the researcher didnt even know the "symptoms" of some one smoking weed.

Horse **** the lot of it.

I Heart Internet

MJ23 wrote: »

Hopefully it will wipe out a few smelly greasy stoners.

Mod note: Banned

Thanks Frank. Appreciate your retraction.

For the record, this guy^^^ said something along those lines and was rightly banned for it.

yoyo

I think it's possible for cannabis to be contaminated with something dodgy though given that you generally don't really know the quality of what your buying and where it was cultivated, what chemicals may have been used in the vacinity of it. If it was legal these things wouldn't be an issue of course as there would be quality control and regulation.. Not saying this from an anti drug pov, and you would be equally more likely to get a "dodgy" batch of counterfeit vodka or cigarettes on the black market which could also cause health problems.

Nick

becost

crimewave wrote: »

Where are you getting this information from?
Did you not see the post which outlines the size of our huge unmonitored coastline?

None of the large shipments of Cocaine ever seized off our coast were destined for the Irish market. Yeah, you might get a few kilos concealed in a shipment at Dublin port or in the luggage of a passenger at one of our airports but it's naive to think drugs don't regularly come into the country up some down and outs pooping shaft. To answer your question, My dealer told me all of this. :pac:

There's an interesting article on drug mules in the UK here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4261934.stm

We don't have many Jamaicans here but plenty of Nigerians and with the recent revelations that Nigerians are sending nearly €500 million home a year, it certainly seems plausible that they are being used as drug mules here as well.

Technoprisoner

becost wrote: »

None of the large shipments of Cocaine ever seized off our coast were destined for the Irish market. Yeah, you might get a few kilos concealed in a shipment at Dublin port or in the luggage of a passenger at one of our airports but it's naive to think drugs don't regularly come into the country up some down and outs pooping shaft. To answer your question, My dealer told me all of this. :pac:

There's an interesting article on drug mules in the UK here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4261934.stm

We don't have many Jamaicans here but plenty of Nigerians and with the recent revelations that Nigerians are sending nearly €500 million home a year, it certainly seems plausible that they are being used as drug mules here as well.

they would want to have a very large digestive system to mule cannabis into ireland in any sort of profitable way

SB2013

It was the right call to put out the warning if there was a chance of a bad batch. It was the right thing to recall the warning when it was found to be caused by something else. i don't know waht exactly everyone is getting their knickers in a knot for.

Seachmall

Technoprisoner wrote: »

they would want to have a very large digestive system to mule cannabis into ireland in any sort of profitable way

Not to mention it would be far less costly and far less risky to just grow the cannabis here.

SB2013 wrote: »

It was the right call to put out the warning if there was a chance of a bad batch. It was the right thing to recall the warning when it was found to be caused by something else. i don't know waht exactly everyone is getting their knickers in a knot for.

The issue is with the media falling into the old BS of demonising the Devil's weed.

Thwip!

Am I the only one who misread the title as "Constipated Cannibals"?

crimewave

SB2013 wrote: »

It was the right call to put out the warning if there was a chance of a bad batch. It was the right thing to recall the warning when it was found to be caused by something else. i don't know waht exactly everyone is getting their knickers in a knot for.

No it wasn't right. Cannabis is non-toxic. It cannot cause overdose. It cannot cause multiple organ failure. People who are educated about the drug accept these as facts. Cannabis is almost unique in its lack of toxicity.

These were the only two people that needed to be hospitalised. How in the name of god could a "batch" have been contaminated? The smallest batch possible... a batch of two?

if the gardai/newspapers didn't know what caused these women to go into comas, they should have kept their mouth shut. If the women were found lying in empty bottles of smirnoff, the gardai/media wouldn't come out and speculate by saying "it was smirnoff vodka that did it". They would wait for the toxicology reports etc.

**Vai**

Seachmall wrote: »

Not to mention it would be far less costly and far less risky to just grow the cannabis here.

Dead right, unfortunately its the scumbags and criminals who cottoned onto that fact before the government. Most of whats around now is "homegrown" or sold as such when its probably from a growhouse controlled by a criminal gang who don't care what in their cannabis. Fibreglass used to be used regularly to make it weigh more. Another argument for legalisation.

**Vai**

crimewave wrote: »

How in the name of god could a "batch" have been contaminated? The smallest batch possible... a batch of two?

The rest didn't inhale

SB2013

crimewave wrote: »

No it wasn't right. Cannabis is non-toxic. It cannot cause overdose. It cannot cause multiple organ failure. People who are educated about the drug accept these as facts. Cannabis is almost unique in its lack of toxicity.

These were the only two people that needed to be hospitalised. How in the name of god could a "batch" have been contaminated? The smallest batch possible... a batch of two?

if the gardai/newspapers didn't know what caused these women to go into comas, they should have kept their mouth shut. If the women were found lying in empty bottles of smirnoff, the gardai/media wouldn't come out and speculate by saying "it was smirnoff vodka that did it". They would wait for the toxicology reports etc.

I never said it was toxic or could cause an overdose. Save your misplaced outrage for your blog. It's very possible due to the lack of regulated production and the methods of importing and distribution that cannabis can be contaminated with something toxic before it gets to the user.

Very easily. If you are a dealer and you think your stash just put two people in a coma you'll probably bin the rest of it. Or perhaps others didn't smoke theirs straight away. Plenty of reasons why only two people would be affected by a bad batch.

Smirnoff vodka is quality controlled. A bottle can be traced to it's supplier and manufacturer. Cannabis cannot. Your joint is only as safe as your dealer is trustworthy. If there was a chance someone was dealing toxic stuff then a warning is the right thing to do. better that than have more people go into a coma. Who exactly is hurt by a warning anyway? The dealers? Boo ****ing hoo.

crimewave

SB2013 wrote: »

I never said it was toxic or could cause an overdose. Save your misplaced outrage for your blog. It's very possible due to the lack of regulated production and the methods of importing and distribution that cannabis can be contaminated with something toxic before it gets to the user.

Very easily. If you are a dealer and you think your stash just put two people in a coma you'll probably bin the rest of it. Or perhaps others didn't smoke theirs straight away. Plenty of reasons why only two people would be affected by a bad batch.

Smirnoff vodka is quality controlled. A bottle can be traced to it's supplier and manufacturer. Cannabis cannot. Your joint is only as safe as your dealer is trustworthy. If there was a chance someone was dealing toxic stuff then a warning is the right thing to do. better that than have more people go into a coma. Who exactly is hurt by a warning anyway? The dealers? Boo ****ing hoo.

So, your rationalisation is: "it can't hurt to have the whole country misinformed about a certain drug?"

The problem is not that it makes cannabis appear more dangerous than it is.
After all, we don't want to encourage people to use cannabis.
The fear, however, is that it will make killer drugs such as alcohol and tabacco appear less dangerous.

A huge amount of people will be left with the impression that cannabis can cause organ failure/put people in comas from this. This will happen because many arseholes who only half read/scaned this article in the redtops will be paraphrasing and bastardising the story when recounting it to their friends in the pub.

Who exactly is hurt by a warning you ask?

You don't issue warnings unless you're certain. You just don't.
As an ex-journalist I can tell you that within that industry it is a mortal sin to speculate as to the facts of a story. If people read something in a newspaper, it often gets passed on as fact.

Here's the thing: In this country we have a particularly warped perception of the harm associated with various drugs. The way the media reports on these drugs is key.
It is very important in my opinion that stories concerning drugs should be reported accurately, and without hysteria.

I would argue that the harm to society caused by drugs is magnified when there is a warped perception of the harms associated with certain drugs.

people look at the legal drugs versus the illegal drugs, and many automatically assume that the illegal drugs must be more harmful then the legal ones, hence the different categorisation.

In fact alcohol causes more than four times more deaths in ireland than all of the legal and illegal drugs combined. But because Ireland's media and cultural traditions have whitewashed the recorded stark figures and painted alcohol as "great fun for everyone", Irish citizens don't even see it as a drug anymore.
Alcohol is still treated as a drug in other countries, and their deaths from it are lower.

Stories such as this one serve to further warp the perception of harmfulness associated with cannabis, and will no doubt be misconstrued in a thousand different myths going forward.

In a paper I read before written by a scottish PHD student, newspaper reports relating to drug deaths over a 10 year period were examined.
in this period, almost every single death from ecstasy in scotland (approx 26 iirc) was published, while only one in approximately every 260 (iirc) deaths from paracetamol was published.

This gave the impression that ecstasy was a very dangerous drug. Even though the data suggests it is relatively safe, and much safer than paracetemol.
More importantly, however, this unbalanced reporting of drugs has created a dangerous lack of awareness regarding how dangerous paracetemol can be.

My point in all this is that although no-one will die as a direct result of the reporting in this case... it does feed into a very dangerous culture of misinformation regarding the harmfulness associated with various drugs.
This culture of mis-information contributes to addiction and ultimately death on a daily basis.

Seachmall

crimewave wrote: »

So, your rationalisation is: "it can't hurt to have the whole country misinformed about a certain drug?"

No. The point is if there is contaminated cannabis going around it is best to make cannabis smokers aware of this fact.

It has nothing to do with misinforming people of the dangerous of cannabis, and everything to do with informing them of potential contamination.

Are you opposed to informing people about contaminated water supplies lest they interpret it as water itself being dangerous?