Family Matters

More Kids Accidentally Ingesting Marijuana Following New Drug Policies

Thanks to more relaxed laws for medical marijuana users — and with the first states legalizing recreational pot — Junior may be more likely to ingest marijuana in dangerously high doses.

  • Share
  • Read Later
Getty Images

At least 18 states allow medical marijuana, and the likelihood that more kids will encounter it at home only increases with Colorado and Washington’s recent legalization of recreational marijuana.

Beginning nearly four years ago, the federal government decided not to investigate those involved in using and distributing medical marijuana who complied with state laws; the more lenient stand spurred a boom in dispensaries and requests for personal use in states where it was allowed.

But around that time, doctors at Children’s Hospital Colorado noticed kids were coming into the emergency room after accidentally ingesting marijuana. Were the cases directly due to the fact that young children were finding more marijuana at home, or were the doctors simply more aware of the exposures because of the more relaxed policies?

To find out, they analyzed emergency room visits for kids under 12 seen for poisonings and ingestions of any kind between 2005 to 2011, using the fall of 2009 — when new enforcement guidelines were issued — as a dividing line.

From Jan. 2005 through Sept. 2009, there were no marijuana-related visits among 790 patients, according to the research, which was published in JAMA Pediatrics. Between Oct. 2009 to Dec. 2011, however, 14 of 588 children were seen for marijuana exposure — eight involving medical marijuana and seven from food containing the drug.

The researchers say that homemade brownies speckled with pot may not pose a significant threat to kids, but commercial products formulated for medical use — as well as loose-leaf marijuana grown for medicinal purposes — could be more concerning, since they contain concentrated amounts of THC, the chemical that induces a high.

“They’re sold as edible products and soft drinks that kids will eat or drink because they don’t know it’s any different,” says Dr. George Wang, the study’s lead author and a medical toxicology fellow at the Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center. “If they’re going to eat a whole cookie with 300 mg of THC, they will get much more symptomatic and sick and have to be admitted to the hospital.”

Tracing the poisonings to marijuana, however, wasn’t always easy. In some cases, parents didn’t want to admit or didn’t know that their child had gotten into their marijuana stash; in several cases, the marijuana belonged to grandparents. Young children who are exposed to high levels of THC can hallucinate, be difficult to arouse and have trouble breathing — symptoms that can be hard to narrow down. At least one child had an unnecessary lumbar puncture and another underwent a CT scan while doctors tried to pinpoint the cause of the problems..

(MORE: Don’t Eat Daddy’s Cookies: How to Talk to Your Kids About Pot)

“We’re in this new age of allowing marijuana and we are seeing things we haven’t seen before,” says Wang, who is also a clinical instructor in the department of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital Colorado and the University of Colorado School of Medicine. “We need to educate families to keep it out of the reach of kids. Treat it like a drug because it is a drug.”

Parents aren’t the only ones who need to be more vigilant about the potential new risks of marijuana exposure, however. Researchers who wrote an editorial accompanying the study called for more training of pediatricians and emergency medicine physicians, who aren’t necessarily able to recognize toxic reactions to marijuana, particularly among young children, because they aren’t expecting high dose THC exposure in patients so young.

In Colorado, where voters recently legalized recreational marijuana use, Wang and a Poison Control colleague persuaded the legislature to include wording to require child-resistant packaging for edible marijuana products in a bill about marijuana regulation. If the bill passes, Wang believes Colorado would be the first state to require such measures, though a doctor from Boston Children’s Hospital recently testified to the Massachusetts legislature about the need for similar requirements. “It’s hard to argue with,” says Wang. “It’s common sense.”

More packaging could drive up costs, but Dixie Elixirs & Edibles, a Colorade-based medical marijuana purveyor, is on board with the proposal.

“As a parent and a businessperson, I wholeheartedly support the legislation,” says Christie Lunsford, who as Dixie’s marketing director is overseeing its plans for upgraded packaging. “We take this issue so seriously.”

In July, the state is expected to release its preliminary requirements for new packaging. But Dixie has already informed its packaging provider that it intends to place orders for child-proof containers so that no unsuspecting tots are tempted by its medicated chocolate truffles, which Dixie’s website describes as offering “sweet, creamy relief” or their crispy rice treats, in which the classic, nostalgic match of gooey marshmallow and crispy, puffed rice gets a euphoric lift.” With the range of tempting marijuana-laced foods likely to increase, such pre-emptive strategies for protecting young children from potentially dangerous exposures — just as they’re safeguarded from prescription and over-the-counter medications — seems to make sense.

(MORE: Pot Is Legal in Washington: Q&A with the Man Who Is Making Weed Legit)

438 comments
wannanah33
wannanah33

Yet again, another article to scare people. Not once in this article is it mentioned how a child was harmed. Not once. Going to the hospital is not - in and of itself - harmful to your health. 


Around the country, there are people with mental illness that believe they have been taken over by a demon... just because they go to a hospital and just because someone decides to count the number of cases of this doesn't make it real.


Concerned parents probably ought to take their kids to the hospital if they think they've ingested harmful substances, including marijuana. But that doesn't mean it's harmful. 


Another article preying on your fears.

USA1
USA1

this woman is crazy, misinformation about a benign, amazing gift from nature (marijuana) is why marijuana was stupidly, and unfairly made illegal. ALCOHOL is much easier for children to ingest, and FAR MORE DANGEROUS. Lady, you are clueless. It's close minded people like you who really hinder our society moving forward. Children can also easily ingest harmful household things like paint, nail polish/remover, make-up, cleaners , etc.. If you are opposed to cannabis, fine, but get real facts (good luck) to support your article. I can't believe you write for a magor magazine like this, last one ill read

Buzzby
Buzzby

It's fortunate for children and the rest of us that there is no practical lethal dose of marijuana.  While many drugs have lethal doses that are quite close to their effective doses, marijuana is one of the least toxic substances known to man.  To kill you, it is estimated that it would take between 20,000 and 40,000 times the amount necessary to get  a buzz.  No one knows exactly because in 5,000 years of recored medicinal and recreational use, the death toll for marijuana remains at zero.

TomSchneider
TomSchneider

@ Jason

Jason, my brother and I saved his best friend two years ago with Cannabis oil that we prepared ourselves. His doctors had diagnosed him with the most aggressive (fastest spreading) form of prostate cancer and it was already advanced/metastisized into many organs, lymph glands and bone. In short they said he should not expect remission from conventional treatment, no chemo, no radiation should be expected to save him, but could possibly delay his death by a year or so. Without it they said he would die within two years. 

So we gave him the oil which he took (60 grams) over three months, and before that was even fully completed his doctors pronounced him in full remission, and they were flabbergasted. One said "I've never seen anything like this in all my career with this kind of advanced stage cancer, and another said "this is not supposed to happen with this sort of cancer case". He is still in remission after two years. Believe it or not, Jason, it's no skin of my nose if you don't, but I want to be humaritarian in this. I am telling the truth.

MiklosLegrady
MiklosLegrady

I wrote the Times editor protesting this misinformation, suggesting Rochman needs to go back to journalism school.


Fokai1
Fokai1

"who aren’t necessarily able to recognize toxic reactions to marijuana" 

Toxic reaction? how about "uncomfortable experience that can be slept off" 

C'mon Rochman, get it together.



jesus.lying.christ
jesus.lying.christ

and jesus walked on water. B.S. pot consumption has not increased. in other words did you go out and buy pot today just because you can?

TYLERDERK
TYLERDERK

ALL they had to do was wait it out the THC will go away and it cant hurt them   nobody dies from Marijuana??

KevinHunt
KevinHunt

WEDNESDAY, May 29 (HealthDay News) -- Three-quarters of doctors who responded to a survey about medicalmarijuanasaid they would approve the use of the drug to help easepainin an older woman with advancedbreast cancer.

In a February issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, doctors were presented with a case vignette, as well as arguments both for and against the use of medical marijuana. Doctors were then asked to decide whether or not they would approve such a prescription for this patient.

The results now appear in the May 30 edition of the journal.

Seventy-six percent of the 1,446 doctors who responded said they would give the woman a prescription for medical marijuana. Many cited the possibility of alleviating the woman's symptoms as a reason for approving the prescription.

KevinHunt
KevinHunt

Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows

Apr. 17, 2007 — The active ingredient in marijuana cuts tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread, say researchers at Harvard University who tested the chemical in both lab and mouse studies.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm

JasonCornish
JasonCornish

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21132143

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20044454

"In a birth cohort of 1037 participants aged 21 years in Dunedin, New Zealand, a reduced ratio of FEV1 to FVC (using a threshold of < 80%) was found in a significantly higher percentage of participants who showed signs of marijuana dependency and did not smoke tobacco than in participants who smoked neither marijuana nor tobacco (36% v. 20%) (p = 0.04)."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22323502

Is that enough for you?  I can keep em coming.  Look, I am not trying to deny anyone marijuana, on the contrary, I would like to see it legalized in all 50 states and reclassified by the FDA (taken off schedule 1).  To get this done, current users are going to have to start being realistic about the health consequences of marijuana use and be responsible with it (keep out of reach of children).  What harm would child resistant packaging do???


Buzzby
Buzzby

@JasonCornish The first two studies you cite have to do with the effects of smoking.  Young children who accidentally ingest marijuana are probably not smoking it.  The third study is about the effect of marijuana on driving ability.  I have serious doubt these toddlers are driving themselves to the hospital.  Your citations are irrelevant to the discussion.

I have no problem with the idea of child-resistant packaging for marijuana and marijuana edibles, although marijuana is far less toxic than any other drug, legal or illegal.

KevinHunt
KevinHunt

@JasonCornish A similar study in New Zealand showed that while FEV1 to FVC values were affected, the overall effect on lung health was minimal:

In a convenience sample of 339 residents of Wellington, New Zealand, aged 18–70 years (mean age 43.4) comprising nonsmokers and smokers of either marijuana only, tobacco only or both substances, the authors reported that there was no association between use of marijuana and abnormalities in lung function (including lung volume and diffusing capacity).

However, regression analyses with marijuana as a continuous variable showed significant associations between lifetime cumulative use of marijuana and airflow obstruction (measured by both the ratio of FEV1 to FVC and specific airway conductance) and between use of marijuana and hyperinflation (measured by total lung capacity). 

The same study did not show an association between smoking marijuana and evidence of macroscopic emphysema, as shown by high-resolution computed tomography.

Source: Aldington S, Williams M, Nowitz M, et al. Effects of cannabis on pulmonary structure, function and symptoms. Thorax. 2007;62:1058–63.

RainyDayInterns
RainyDayInterns

@JasonCornish "Child resistant packaging"...is no substitute for "responsible parenting." If you don't want an eight-month old "accidentally" eating something they should not eat, put it some place out of their reach.

These types of "this COULD happen" article is just fear-mongering. Anything COULD happen.

TomSchneider
TomSchneider

Yes, HealTheWorld. The easiest thing to do is look at the really good instructions, which bro and I followed, in Simpson's "Run From the Cure" video that started it all. Rick Simpson should go down in history. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvosdIXyjWM 

Just make sure to drive off whatever solvent you use by heating it as the instructions say to do, but use no more heat than needed to decarboxylate (activate) the THC, else the THC can degrade to CBN, which isn't nearly as potent. As you're heating toward the end (getting close to all of it boiled down), you will notice bubbles coming up. Take it off the heat when these CO2 bubbles taper off or stop. In my opinion this is not very well explained in the video, but most ppl are successful making effective oil nonetheless. This is truly a do-it-yourself cancer cure.  I never would have believed it before I did it. And above all, work in an area with no flames, no sparks or pilot lights, and very well ventilated (put a fan in a window and work close to that) to keep the concentration of flammable solvent vapors down. Best yet, if possible work outside. Rick Simpson himself was injured once by vapor explosion or fire.  But as long as you follow the cautions in the video instructions, you should do fine.

TomSchneider
TomSchneider

@HealTheWorld Do what I did, Heal the World. Watch Rick Simpson's "Run from the Cure" video (1 hour long). It has the instructions for making the oil starting roughly at 29:40.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvosdIXyjWM  Read my added note about decarboxylation below though, I think is not so clear in Simpon's video.  All told Simpson is a hero to me, though.  Courage, guts, self-sacrifice and all that.

And Bob Knight - your instructions will make Cannabis oil, yes, but without heating it at some stage it will not be psychoactive or effective medicine for cancer, and neither will it bond with the cannabinoid receptors.  It needs to be heated (most convenient while while boiling off the solvent) and the carbon dioxide bubbles that leave the oil/solvent during heating need to be watched - stop the heat when they have tapered off rising up out of the oil. Additional heat at that point will degrade the THC, turning it into CBN. So heating drives off the carboxyl molecule COOH. But if it is joined still joined to the THC molecule as with raw Cannabis, the drug THC has no effect.

JasonCornish
JasonCornish

@Buzzby, you must have missed reading that I already conceded that child resistant packaging is not necessary.  As for my studies, I think you missed the context of the discussion they were in reply to.  They were to make the point that smoking marijuana is not benign as many make it out to be.  You need to read between the lined on the driving one to equate it to kids.  Driving takes both motor coordination and good mental judgement.  Increased accidents while driving high shows a inhibition of one or both of these functions.  Children with impaired motor function and or judgement are more prone to hurt themselves.  That was the point of that study.

My citations are completely relevant.

JasonCornish
JasonCornish

@KevinHunt , More studies are needed.  When in doubt, err on the side of caution.  As long as you know that smoking marijuana could cause you to have respiritory problems down the road I am fine with that, but don't spew nonsense that there is no significant effect.  It is obvious from the existing studies that there is an effect and it is logical that chronic  (lol chronic) smoke inhalation of any kind is not good for you.  We do not know the severity of the effect due to inadequate study.  I am not saying don't smoke marijuana because of this.  If you want to smoke it then smoke it.  Just be aware of the possible health consequences.

SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING:  Smoking marijuana may F you up, dog!

JasonCornish
JasonCornish

I agree with your statement about child resistant packaging.  In a perfect world everyone would be responsible.  Seat belts and airbags would not be needed,  Locks would not be needed...i think you get my point.  You cant count on parents to be responsible especially with a culture around marijuana that pretends that there are absolutely no consequences to its use.  That is why I have been posting the way I have been on this article; to try to stir some awareness and get people to be realistic about marijuana rather than treating it like a harmless natural herb that is good for you.

TomSchneider
TomSchneider

@BobWilliamKnight @TomSchneider  I don't dispute you really, it will eventually decarboxylate with no added heat.  But decarboxylate it must, or according to the many in vivo and in vitro studies posted on the web, the THCA (the initial acid form) is not able to bond with CB receptors, which would make it ineffective for inducing apoptosis (destroying individual cancer cells). If you have an oil which wasn't heated in the processing, at least submit a sample of it to a canna lab for analysis of THC and THCA, assuming your state has such a lab (all the MMJ states have them). As I recall the lab needs a liquid chomatograph to so this, a standard gas chromatograph unfortunately heats the sample and converts it to THC before charting THCA response.

BobWilliamKnight
BobWilliamKnight

@TomSchneider @BobWilliamKnight i agree oil made Ricks way works but my way is better. up to 20%of oil is terpenes and i think well see im rite .  time will tell. to me it was an epiphany learning what did . this means recipes will all have to be changed

TomSchneider
TomSchneider

@BobWilliamKnight Forgot to mention that all 15 patients who received their oil from Cannabiscancerproject and did not receive chemo and/or radiation, went into remission. Cannabiscancerproject does use the Rick Simpson recommended method to prepare the oil, which uses heating to decarboxylate. This is tried and true then (at least anecdotally).

TomSchneider
TomSchneider

@BobWilliamKnight @TomSchneider  Agreed, retaining all the terpenes is probably the most desirable thing when making Cannabis oil, but they are volatile and grnadually leave on their own. Using the method in making oil of heating to activate the cannabinoids, ensuring they are in non-acid, bonding form (bondable with CB receptors), has appeared so far to result in an oil product that, at least anecdotally, has put into remission many cases of cancer and even serious late stage metastisized cancer.  Please take a look at Michigan Cannabiscancerproject on Facebook, they say they have been involved with at least 15 cases of serious cancer, in which the patients refused conventional treatments (i.e radiation and chemo).

BobWilliamKnight
BobWilliamKnight

@TomSchneider High Times is in no way beholden to prove anything to you . you seem like a self appointed know it all that does'nt know too much . try researching more

BobWilliamKnight
BobWilliamKnight

@TomSchneider A weak argument lol  I read all about terpenes on the net .your attack on High Times was unecessarary .What u say flies in the face of common sense .  raw is best. weed thats dry is full of THC.  I've seen the oil. its way better so it would work on patients better .research it then come back

TomSchneider
TomSchneider

I need to stop posting here as we are way off the original topic.

TomSchneider
TomSchneider

THCA, or the raw, acid form, looks to have its own benefits as a highly anti-inflammatory substance and possessing possibly other mechansims of therapeutic action, according to Dr. William Courtney of California. It can be "juiced" and consumed that way. Here's the link seemingly most scientifically sound that I can find on it now. In the recent past no links existed on this subject that were not mostly anecdotal in nature.  I first read about this about two years ago.

As for High Times, the burden is on them to show they are not just a sensationalistic rag.

http://mijoint.com/juicing-raw-cannabis.html

TomSchneider
TomSchneider

High Times? You think those guys are experts? Not unless they simply cobbed an expert article from somewhere. They are dull as hell about Cannabis for the most part, with some exceptions. They write for appeal to the masses, which is their audience, and a normally stoned each & every day audience probably. Find some links on THCA; there are reems of lab reports that show its very high presence in dried Cannabis.  And Ethan Russo the Israeli scientist, definitely not High Times, is the acknowledged expert, leastways in academia, on the various constituents in Cannabis that are synergistic and possibly therapeutic. Terpenes are known to be instrumental in shaping the character of the psychoactive effect.  But, cancer patients tend not to care very much about the character of the psychoactive effects..

BobWilliamKnight
BobWilliamKnight

@TomSchneider @BobWilliamKnight i disagree about thca but believe wut you want ive read about terpenes and i heard how powerful in the latest high times .they said a sample with terpenes was better than a sample with no terpenes with twice as much thc . raw pot is a powerful medicine and has no thc till its heated

TomSchneider
TomSchneider

@BobWilliamKnight It's not full of THC when it's dried. But the THCA does begin to gradually convert to THC once it is. This can take months, longer than many smokers would still have their bags around. The exact amount of time needed to "auto-decarboxylate" is difficult to predict.. Apologies, I should have included that. 

I agree with you also that terpenes act synergistically with cannabinoids, and that it would be most desirable to retain to whatever extent possible in any oil that's made. Terpenes aren't unique though to Cannabis, they also occur in myriads of other plants. Mangoes for instance have relatively large amounts of Myrcene, said to be the number one occurring terpene in Cannabis. 

A lot remains to be discovered just how they may be therapeutic and how they affect the character of the Cannabis 'high'.  An Israeli academic, Dr Ethan Russo, is an authority on terpenes and interactions with cannabinoids, possibly the most quoted one in academia.  You might google one of his papers. A popular one has the phrase in the title "Entourage effects of Cannabis" or similar to that.

BobWilliamKnight
BobWilliamKnight

@TomSchneider @HealTheWorld absolutely wrong. pot thats dried is already full of thc. heating it destroys the terpenes which are profoundly medicinal  and which evaporate at 75degrees farenheit  you should'nt be giving people bad advice research it this is something new. Rick had it wrong too. i've seen the difference better smellier oil 

FilibertoRodriguez
FilibertoRodriguez

@BobWilliamKnight @FilibertoRodriguez @HealTheWorld @TomSchneider I went to school to learn about this stuff. I was taught to use grain alcohol in all circumstances. Besides, I don't see a contradiction here. I'm merely proposing a safer option. The last line in my statement reads "Most if not all of the alcohol will evaporate in either case, but better safe than sorry."

BobWilliamKnight
BobWilliamKnight

@TomSchneider tom i made some for a prostate cancer patient without cooking it it worked too. i figure well  have to wait and see . keep an open mind and remember were on the same team.new info is a  good thing 

TomSchneider
TomSchneider

Good thing Bob William because isopropyl alcohol is much cheaper than grain alcohol. I'm not afraid of tiny amounts of the isopropyl alc. that might be left over after the extraction is complete; this is what we used to to extract the oil that my bro's friend ate and through which he recovered from his advanced aggressive prostate cancer.  There are some though who get alarmed over even very slight risks so if I were to make it for someone else, I'd try to be reasonably considerate of even seemingly irrational feelings. Plus I am not medically trained so it may pay to use abundant caution.

BobWilliamKnight
BobWilliamKnight

@TomSchneider @BobWilliamKnight i looked it up poisons have a scale of toxidity from 1to5 .  5being the worse .  iso. was 1  if used correctly its safe if you drink any poison even hemlock its bad for you

TomSchneider
TomSchneider

@BobWilliamKnight  Yes isopropyl alcohol (rubbing alcohol) has been used to extract Cannabis oil many many times, but the substance itself is poisonous, in that drinking a half pint of it is reported capable of killing a person, and less can have highly deleterious effects.

FilibertoRodriguez
FilibertoRodriguez

@BobWilliamKnight @HealTheWorld @TomSchneider Isopropyl alcohol is poisonous. if the oil is being used topically isopropyl alcohol is fine, but if you plan on either smoking or eating it I'd strongly suggest using a grain alcohol. Most if not all of the alcohol will evaporate in either case, but better safe than sorry.

JasonCornish
JasonCornish

@FilibertoRodriguez,  Credentials are not always what they are cracked up to be if there are ulterior motives behind a person.  Just look at the Viox scandal of recent past; plenty of impressive credentials behind those studies.   Don't get me wrong, I am not saying anything bad about Tashkin.  I'm sure he is very respectable but thought that you could use that info...don't believe everything that you read.

Here comes the part that confuses me and makes me wonder what you are reading and why you are arguing with me.  Below is a quote from the article of his that you are citing: (Effects of marijuana on the lung and its immune defenses)

"The evidence for the harmful consequences of marijuana smoking is preliminary and requires long-term study. In the interim, prudent advice must serve where substantial clinical evidence is lacking. Habitual marijuana use, as often as one joint per day, may result in serious pulmonary consequences. In the short term, breathing may be restricted, coughing may be increased, and resistance may be lowered to opportunistic infections of the lungs such as pneumonia. Respiratory cancer is a likely result in the long term. Heavier use of marijuana is likely to have more potent, adverse health consequences."

Sounds like Tashkin is on my side so why are you asking for my credentials?

BS Psychology cum laude, gold key honor society

Dr. of pharmacy (PharmD) cum laude, Rho Chi, Phi Lambda Sigma

Currently an advanced practice clinical pharmacist in charge of anticoagulation services for a large health care system where I have been nationally recognized for advancements in patient care through the use of video telehealth.


Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. lol

 

JasonCornish
JasonCornish

@TomSchneider  ,  There are many trials out there and inconsistent results have been noted.  None of these trials are very strong including the Tashkin et.al. trial you refer to.  Being a PharmD, I have been trained in statistics and study design.  I have read more study articles than I care to admit and I must say that it is often not hard to pick holes in a study, especially if you try hard enough (some are easier than others to be sure).  You need to consider the body of work as a whole (all studies) along with using some common sense; i.e. inhaling smoke from burning plant mater is not good for you.  The most we can reliably tell from the body of work is that smoking marijuana is possibly bad for your lungs but more research is needed to tell conclusively.  Having said that, I do not feel that marijuana being bad for your lungs is a reason to not legalize it.

My purpose in this forum is to get people like you who pick and choose what they believe based on whether it suits their agenda or not to be more honest with themselves and others about the possible consequences of marijuana use.  If people keep spouting this "gift from God" nonsense and claiming that there are no negative consequences to marijuana use and in fact it will miraculously cure your cancer (i am aware of research but it was not smoked), no one is going to take you seriously.  If we want to get marijuana legalized we need to be honest and realistic about it's use to be taken seriously.

TomSchneider
TomSchneider

@JasonCornish By the way, I can't remember the criticisms that Dr Tashkin had for the New Zealand pulmonary function study vis-vis Cannabis smoking, but he has some and when you read (sorry you'll need to Google) you can understand they are pretty telling. To sum, Dr. Tashkin is a heavy weight researcher with very long experience in his resume.  He was able to show the problem with the New Zealand research.

TomSchneider
TomSchneider

@JasonCornish I'm afraid the times are passing you by, Jason. Your words after "rather than" are actually correct. The DEA and NIDA have been shooting nothing but blanks in their quest to extend prohibition.  Google "Donald Tashkin", NIDA's researcher at UCLA charged with finding the harm to the lungs from smoking pot. He fully expected that outcome of his multi-year research effort, but found instead that smoking Cannabis poses no threat to the lungs, in fact he determined there was a slight protective factor involved, that is, fewer light to the heaviest Cannabis smokers get lung cancer than people who smoke nothing at all. Cigarette smoking is manifold worse of course.  COPD faired similarly in his research. His was the largest study ever done and he is obviously an honest man. This is National Institute for Drug Abuse or NIDA, sworn to find the evil in the evil weed.

But I say it is not evil but the gift of God, requiring mainly some of our God-given intelligence to figure out how to use it best. Cannabis is already far beyond the "no demonstrated medical use" postion of the US government, which apparently suppressed that first 1974 study showing THC's probably utility against cancer..


JasonCornish
JasonCornish

@RainyDayInterns, You make a very strong argument.  This is why we have discussions about this sort of thing.  You have convinced me that child resistant packaging is not needed, at lease not at this time.  I still feel like some education on the real long-term effects of marijuana (which really have not been studied to the degree they need to be) is in order.

RainyDayInterns
RainyDayInterns

@JasonCornish You point of "protecting children" is always valid in theory. However, in practice, we don't require the resistant type of packaging for alcohol (jello shots, etc.) products, tobacco (chewing) products, caffeinated energy products, and other such potentially "bad for kids" items. 

Our point is not against things which MAY protect some "child," but these "warnings" against something which is not and has never been a problem.