Mother died from 'marijuana overdose': coroner

[Jesus Malverde]

A coroner found that 31-year-old Gemma Moss might have died from an elevated level of cannabis leading to cardiac arrest last October when she collapsed in her bed after smoking a joint.

An autopsy of the avid church-goer found nothing wrong with her vital organs, although it was suggested her heart attack may have been caused by the moderate-to-high levels of cannabis in her system.

Due to the elevated levels of marijuana toxicity, the coroner recorded Ms Moss's verdict as death by cannabis abuse, the Daily Mail reports.

While fans of the plant often claim that no one has died from overdosing on marijuana directly, Ms Moss is the second instance case of cannabis toxicity being recorded as the sole cause of death in the UK.

In 2004 a 36-year-old man became the first person in Great Britain to have a cannabis toxicity recorded as cause of death.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2014/01/31/05/44/uk-mother-died-from-marijuna-overdose-said-coroner

Pictured: Mum-of-three Gemma Moss is first woman in UK to be poisoned to death by cannabis
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/gemma-moss-mum-of-three-first-woman-3094902

First Woman in UK Dies From Smoking Marijuana: What is Cannabis Poisoning?
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/first-woman-uk-dies-smoking-marijuana-what-cannabis-poisoning-1434510

[LordGlenconner]

1. Was the autopsy sponsored by Anheiser Busch?

[PumpkinAle]

2. Lazy ass coroner n/t

[RainDog]

49. It's irresponsible of the coroner

just as it was irresponsible in the other coroner in the UK who made the claim about the man dying from cannabis.

But, again, we can expect to see this sort of bullshit in the press as we come closer to worldwide legalization.

[wercal]

82. This is why it is absolutely impossible to discuss Marijuana with Pot Proponents

The coroner must be lazy right? A coroner you have never met, and know nothing about....he (she?) just MUST be lazy.

What justifies this gross characterization? Well you are convinced that 'Pot Never Kills Anybody'.

Ok...its accurate to say that pot is 'safe' and cases of death from it are 'very rare'. But nope - in a world where very few things are 100% consistent (save death and taxes, the saying goes), you cannot stand to have a world where there is an infinitely small chance of dying from pot.

Do you have access to the coroner's notes and report? Been to medical school? Maybe you have access to the body. Do you think the 'Lazy ass' went to the woman's home and found a roach clip?...or is it possible that the coroner did blood work - and came up with a high level of THC?...nah, too lazy - he probably made it up.

I don't like pot. You are probably going to tell me that you function fine with it and are not addicted.

Fine. But let me to explain something to you. A lot of 'addictive' drugs are only addictive to a fraction of the population...sometimes as low as 15%. That's right - I could go try heroin and odds are I would not get addicted. I'm still not going to try it though...because its addictive. Same goes for pot.

Legalize it - I really don't care. But don't fucking insult people's character because they don't worship at the cannabis alter.

[Bjorn Against]

95. Your post is absolute nonsense

You said "I could go try heroin and odds are I would not get addicted. I'm still not going to try it though...because its addictive. Same goes for pot". There is so much ignorance in that statement it is hard to know where to begin, heroin is not even remotely similar to marijuana and to make such a comparision is dangerous. Kids could read such a statement and think they are just as likely to get addicted to heroin as pot when nothing could be further from the truth. Pot is less addictive than coffee, even potato chips are probably more addictive than pot. To compare it to heroin is absurd.

It also absurd to take one coroner's word over thousands of years of history, no one has been able to conclusively link marijuana to a single death in the past 10,000 years, yet somehow one coroner's opinion should be automatically accepted despite the lack of peer review to back him up? Please.

[Drahthaardogs]

109. As a toxicologist I know there is a lethal dose for everything

Including tap water. I am sure cannibas has one as well although it must be a very large dosage.

[Bjorn Against]

114. Sure, but it is a dose so large that no one has ever consumed that much

Unless this lady set a world record for most pot consumed in a night then I think it is hard to believe she hit the lethal dose.

[Major Nikon]

140. Some things are self limiting

Theobromine poisoning (literally death by chocolate) requires such a high quantity that while it is theoretically possible for humans, the amounts involved are high enough that the practical limits make the possibility pretty remote.

[Chan790]

110. Counterargument.

Every substance known to humanity--including water, sucrose and Vitamin C--has a toxicity level above which it becomes potentially lethal.

THC has a known LD50 of 1260mg per kg. (We know this because there are scientists whose job has been to pump these substances into rats and monkeys until they drop dead. Oddly LD50 ratios tend to remain stable between different species of mammals.) I have no idea what the LD1 of THC is...but there is a quantitative amount where you'd have a 1% chance of lethality. This woman may have been the 1%.

If you smoked/ingested 1.26g of pure THC for every kg of body-weight, you'd have a 50% chance of dying of THC toxicity. The lack of anybody ever doing it, possibly exclusive of two individuals in the UK, in no way rebuts the scientific fact that it is possible to OD on THC which would cause death by cardiac arrest. (This is far larger than the LD50 of alcohol, caffeine and nicotine, meaning it is harder to OD on THC.)

[RainDog]

116. cannabis LD 50 for humans: 1500 lbs. in 15 minutes

[bravenak]

151. DAMN!!

Is that a contest? Where's the sign up list??

[RainDog]

154. LOL

I don't know that that's one I'd want to win...

[bravenak]

155. I'd never win.

But I might get second place before I fall asleep.

[RainDog]

156. The glory is in the trying...

or something like that...

[wercal]

113. Nonsense....chuckle :)

Marijuana is addictive to ten percent of people who try it...heroin is addictive to 25 percent. They are in the same ballpark. Don't mistake an absence of physical withdrawal symltoms to mean an absence of psychological withdrawal symptoms.

And btw, heroin and marijuana actually very similar in how they affect the brain. Sorry to burst your bubble. The canniboid receptors are similar and c lose to the opiod receptors. And there is a growing body of evidence that activation of the canniboid receptors makes the opiod receptors more open to opiates....ie the 'gateway drug' theory may have a basis in chemistry.

Trust me...you don't want to believe me, but you know I'm right. The 'absurd' statement on this thread is the one that reflexively accuses tbe coroner of being wrong. As pointed out on this thread, you can OD on anything, to include fucking water. But oh no....not marijuana....that would be impossible. Do you understand hiw absurd that sounds.

[Bjorn Against]

117. No you are not right in comparing heroin and marijuana

Where do you even get this crap from? Heroin and marijuana are completely and totally different drugs, heroin is far more dangerous and the addiction symptoms are not even remotely comparable. Marijuana does not cause physical withdrawal symptoms, it is completely false to suggest the addiction is similar in any way.

Sure there is a lethal dose of THC, but that does not mean anyone has ever actually consumed the lethal dose. I am pretty sure this woman did not set the world record for most pot smoked in a night. The lethal dose is such a huge amount that no one ever consumes that much no matter how hard they might try.

[RainDog]

120. whatcha got?

I'd be interested in seeing the studies that back up your claims since it's generally accepted that the "gateway hypothesis" is something invented by drug warriors that has no scientific validity. But maybe the scientists are wrong. So, whatcha got?

Predictors of Marijuana Use in Adolescents Before and After Licit Drug Use: Examination of the Gateway Hypothesis
Tarter, et al. American Journal of Psychiatry (2006) –

“This evidence supports what's known as the common liability model ... [which] states [that] the
likelihood that someone will transition to the use of illegal drugs is determined
not by the preceding use of a particular drug, but instead by the user's individual
tendencies and environmental circumstances,” investigators stated in a press release. They added,
“The emphasis on the drugs themselves, rather than other, more important factors that shape a
person's behavior, has been detrimental to drug policy and prevention programs.”
– http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?Volume=163&page=2134&journalID=13

Reassessing the Marijuana Gateway Effect

Morral, et al. British Journal of Addiction (2002) – “We've shown that the marijuana gateway effect is not the best explanation for the link between marijuana use and the use of harder drugs ... An alternative, simpler and more compelling explanation accounts for the pattern of drug use you see in this country, without resort to any gateway effects. While the gateway theory has
enjoyed popular acceptance, scientists have always had their doubts. Our study shows that these doubts are justified.”
– http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB6010/index1.html

Marijuana as a Gateway Drug: The Myth That Will Not Die

Scientists long ago abandoned the idea that marijuana causes users to try other drugs: as far back as 1999, in a report commissioned by Congress to look at the possible dangers of medical marijuana, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences wrote:

Patterns in progression of drug use from adolescence to adulthood are strikingly regular. Because it is the most widely used illicit drug, marijuana is predictably the first illicit drug most people encounter. Not surprisingly, most users of other illicit drugs have used marijuana first. In fact, most drug users begin with alcohol and nicotine before marijuana — usually before they are of legal age.

In the sense that marijuana use typically precedes rather than follows initiation of other illicit drug use, it is indeed a “gateway” drug. But because underage smoking and alcohol use typically precede marijuana use, marijuana is not the most common, and is rarely the first, “gateway” to illicit drug use. There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs.
- http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/29/marijuna-as-a-gateway-drug-the-myth-that-will-not-die/#ixzz2rwLxwvCC

[wercal]

126. Sigh

http://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-addiction/201001/is-marijuana-addictive-you-can-bet-your-heroin

You do understand that the burden of proof on this thread should fall on the people who impugne the coroner with no firsthand knowledge of any aspect of this case, right?

Anyway, there are a gazillion places to find info in the link between thc and heroin. I have attached a link to one.

[RainDog]

127. LOL

To claim that opiod receptors are activated by x or y proves nothing about causality.

When someone runs, their bodies release dopamine. Which also does not prove a causal link between running and heroin.

Junk. pretending to science.

You fail to address that there is no scientific acceptance that marijuana is a gateway drug, however, by your link, and, I would imagine by any other link you can produce since this hypothesis is considered junk science.

I think the the coroner's statement is bullshit based upon the evidence of the toxicity level of cannabis and the events related. If the woman had had coffee in her system, the coroner, you would rightly state, was spouting bullshit to claim the coffee made her have a heart attack.

It's the same thing with cannabis. Except that cannabis is more benign in relation to the function of the heart than caffeine.

[RainDog]

129. and just to note - your source has no medical background

maybe your source has some medical bg, but I would assume someone who writes about addiction would indicate this about himself since it would lend credence to his claims.

His doctorate, however, is in psychology.

You can, though, find quite a few drug warriors who make all sorts of unsubstantiated claims. But their claims are routinely debunked.

So, yes, sigh.

[Bjorn Against]

131. Actually the burden of proof is on the coroner as he made the claim

You have no first hand knowledge of the case either yet you seem totally willing to accept it despite the fact that it is only one person's word with no peer review to back it up. The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim, that is basic logic 101.

You are just embarrassing yourself with the comparision between marijuana and heroin, only the most rabid drug propagandists believe those two drugs have similar effects.

[RainDog]

132. Based upon the article

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/first-woman-uk-dies-smoking-marijuana-what-cannabis-poisoning-1434510

Gemma Moss, from Bournemouth, Dorset, collapsed in bed after smoking a cannabis cigarette. An investigation revealed Moss had moderate to high levels of cannabis in her body as a result.

Wut? What sort of sloppy sentence construction is that? As a result of an investigation, she had moderate to high levels of cannabis in her body... but that does not indicate death was a result of those levels. Oh, they mean to say that, because she had inhaled cannabis, cannabinoids were in her bloodstream at the time of death.

A mother-of-three is the first woman in the UK who is believed to have died from cannabis poisoning.

...It is understood she might have suffered a cardiac arrest after smoking the class B drug, as none of her vital organs showed anything wrong. A coroner noted cannabis toxicity and cannabis abuse as the cause of death.

Wut? She died of cannabis poisoning, but no, she actually died of a heart attack... therefore the claim of cannabis poisoning is, de facto, a lie, since poisoning indicates toxicity based upon a toxic level of a substance, not a heart attack. If she had had a cup of coffee before she had a heart attack, would a reasonable person say she died of coffee poisoning? No. They would say she died of a heart attack, possibly precipitated by the ingestion of caffeine.

Dr Kudair Hussein, a pathologist, told the inquest in Bournemouth: "I looked through literature and it's well known that cannabis is of very low toxicity. But there are reports which say cannabis can be considered as a cause of death because it can induce a cardiac arrest."

Oh, so now we get to the heart of the article with the pathologist acknowledging that he had no evidence of cannabis poisoning at all. However, he made the causal connection without establishing cannabis use as the cause of death.

In the UK, the government listed five deaths from cannabis between 1993 and 1995, yet an investigation revealed the deaths had been due to inhalation of vomit.

So, previous claims of cannabis as cause of death were also wrong. I wonder if these were the reports the pathologist read? The ones that were incorrect.

As reported by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, a study following 1600 Australian school-children revealed those who used cannabis regularly were five times more likely to develop depression and anxiety in later life.

Similarly, it was found that an individual was four times more likely to develop schizophrenia if they started smoking cannabis before the age of 15.

In the first claim, there is, again, no indication of causality. People who are depressed may seek out cannabis to lift their moods. That does not mean cannabis caused depression or anxiety (although THC can cause temporary anxiety in some people, or at certain levels, that goes away when the cannabis is no longer psychoactive)

The second claim, that cannabis is causally related to schizophrenia, has been disproved by researchers in the UK. Is this newspaper too stupid to know about research done in its own country? A meta analysis of all studies of cannabis and schizophrenia have indicated that cannabis is only related to schizophrenia in those who already had a family history (and, therefore, the person was at risk before cannabis use), and not a danger to the general population.

In addition, Roger Pertwee, the leading pharmacologist in the UK, at a fairly recent important convention on drugs in the UK, noted that cannabis does not present a danger of schizophrenia to anyone who is not already at risk.

Recently Harvard published a paper that also indicated no link between cannabis and schizophrenia.


http://psychcentral.com/news/2013/12/10/harvard-marijuana-doesnt-cause-schizophrenia/63148.html

Harvard: Marijuana Doesn’t Cause Schizophrenia
By JOHN M. GROHOL, PSY.D.
Reviewed by John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on December 10, 2013

...The new study is the first family study that, according to the researchers, “examines both non-psychotic cannabis users and non-cannabis user controls as two additional independent samples, enabling the examination of whether the risk for schizophrenia is increased in family members of cannabis users who develop schizophrenia compared with cannabis users who do not and also whether that morbid risk is similar or different from that in family members of schizophrenia patients who never used cannabis.”

...The researchers recruited 282 subjects from the New York and Boston metropolitan areas who were divided into four groups: controls with no lifetime history of psychotic illness, cannabis, or any other drug use; controls with no lifetime history of psychotic illness, and a history of heavy cannabis use during adolescence, but no other drug use; patients with no lifetime history of cannabis use or any other drug and less than 10 years of being ill; patients with a history of heavy cannabis use and no other drug use during adolescence and prior to the onset of psychosis.

Information about all first-, second-, and third-degree relatives was obtained, as well as information about any other relative who had a known psychiatric illness. This resulted in information on 1,168 first-degree relatives and a total of 4,291 relatives. The study gathered together information regarding cannabis use, and family history regarding schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression and drug abuse.

...“While cannabis may have an effect on the age of onset of schizophrenia it is unlikely to be the cause of illness,” said the researchers, who were led by Ashley C. Proal from Harvard Medical School.

“In general, we found a tendency for depression and bipolar disorder to be increased in the relatives of cannabis users in both the patient and control samples. This might suggest that cannabis users are more prone to affective disorders than their non-using samples or vice versa.” Future research is needed to understand this relationship.

As I stated, below, and many other times here - anyone who has a family history of schizo-affective disorder should not use cannabis. And, as I noted, above, the link between depression or bipolar disorder and cannabis would seem to follow the same non-causal relationship by the number of family members who did not use cannabis but had bipolar or depressive disorders.

[RainDog]

138. This is why it is absolutely impossible to discuss Marijuana with Drug Warriors

They huff and they puff then run when anyone challenges the propaganda.

[RainDog]

121. oh, and Carl Hart's research

His credentials are sterling: Hart has studied addiction and the brain for the last 25 years. He has tenure in Columbia's Psychology Department. He's on the National Advisory Council for Drug Abuse. His book, High Price, questions the War on Drugs. But his insistence on using lab research to advocate for changes in how drugs are dealt with in courts like this one is what makes him stand out.

“Drugs are not as dangerous as we have made them out to be,” Hart says. “I'm trying to get people to use the data, the empirical evidence, and when you do that, you realize that we have been lied to, the public has been lied to.”

Hart says the belief that casual marijuana use impairs your parenting has no scientific basis — and pot use that isn’t excessive is on par with having a drink now and again: “We don’t remove children because their parents drink alcohol,” Hart points out. “My kids would be removed if that was the case.”

And marijuana seemed relatively harmless — far less addictive than nicotine or alcohol. He insists even long-term users don’t necessarily see memory damage: “When you look at the data carefully, there aren’t any consequences of marijuana use that is not excessive,” he says.

http://www.wnyc.org/story/298365-drugs-neuroscience-and-current-drug-policy-according-dr-carl-hart/

Hart does note, however, that our drug policies are harmful to people and families.

[RainDog]

122. oh, and I also noted the toxicity level for cannabis

which means it was physically impossible for that woman to overdose on cannabis. She seems to have had a heart attack and she had cannabis in her system. That does not indicate causality and, with the knowledge of the massive amount of cannabis necessary to overdose, the coroner's statement, in fact, does appear absurd.

If the coroner found 1500 lbs of cannabis in her body, the coroner would have reason to make such a claim. Otherwise - bullshit.

[RainDog]

124. according to your logic, coffee and heroin are in the same ballpark

since coffee is considered as addictive as marijuana.

but, again, if you have any actual evidence to back up your claims, I am more than willing to read them and compare them to other research.

eta: coffee and marijuana are considered addictive for 9% of the population, not ten.

Here's a scale of dependence and harm for a variety of substances. The claim that heroin and marijuana are comparable is absurd.

[icymist]

134. Instead of preaching about the dangers of cannabis, try reading that first sentence again:

A coroner found that 31-year-old Gemma Moss might have died from an elevated level of cannabis leading to cardiac arrest last October when she collapsed in her bed after smoking a joint.

Now take into account the source of this 'article'; The Daily Mail. That's the equivalent of The National Enquirer in the US.

I don't have much faith in the credibility of this piece of reporting.

[TexasTowelie]

3. What a way to go!

I have one wish though

[1000words]

4. Outliers and anomalies exist for everything

I don't doubt it is a possibility cannabis attributed to her death, however it is an extremely rare occurrence. It could be something as simple as a chemical or fertilizer used during growth.

[notadmblnd]

51. Or it could be the synthetic cannabis

That stuff will kill you. Has the UK outlawed it yet?

[MADem]

5. You can overdose on ANYTHING. Sugar....even WATER.

However, I think the coronor was a "lazy ass" as someone said.

I guess the Brits are trying to stem (not seed) the tide rolling in from over the pond...?

[frwrfpos]

20. plus 1

[joeybee12]

22. My death will be an overdose of Diet coke...nt

[Scootaloo]

107. What's that, a half-can?

You know they make that out of pigeon vomit, right?

[vt_native]

108. Now that's poison

aspertame

[Fumesucker]

6. Good, I'm cold, a nice flame war will distract me from my numb(ish) toes

[TBF]

13. ...

[hlthe2b]

7. Perhaps... But so rare that I'd like to see evidence there was nothing else contained--no spiking

of the pot AND nothing else in her system AND no other concomitant medical complication.

There is such a strong motivation by some to demonize pot that I think all should be a bit skeptical when these reports start "flowing"...

That said, any drug that increases my appetite is already bad news to me--LOL

AND

Pot is dangerous for pets.... the 'safe' threshold appears far far lower than for humans.

[tridim]

14. Cannabis saved my epileptic dog's life.

Cannabis is safe for every mammal on Earth.

[SidDithers]

23. Ever see the Flight of the Conchords episode about epilieptic dogs?...

Kristen Wiig had an epileptic dog, and the boys were trying to impress her, so they held a benefit concert, with the predictable results.

Maybe the flashing light show, in a room full of epileptic dogs, wasn't such a good idea.



Sid

[hlthe2b]

26. Safe at very low thresholds... Veterinarians are facing an epidemic of poisonings/death in CO

with owners not realizing.

I can assure you that your comment is wrong when it comes to dogs/cats who lack the enzyme need to break down THC... Veterinarians are very very cautious about its use for that reason.

Marijuana poisoning on the rise in PETS as more states legalize medical and recreational pot

Dogs and cats who ingest pot can land in a coma because they lack liver enzyme that breaks down THC
Pot brownies pose greatest risk because they combine THC with chocolate, which is a nervous system stimulant in dogs
Experts say stoned pooches become listless, agitated, woozy and incontinent



One of the unintended consequences of the legalization of marijuana in a growing number of states has been a rise in pot-related poisonings involving pets.

Animal Poison Control Center has reported a 30 per cent jump in the number of calls reporting dogs and cats suffering from marijuana poisoning between 2009 and 2013.

According to veterinary experts, the vast majority of the incidents are accidental; dogs tend to rummage through trash and, being indiscriminate eaters, they scarf down anything they come across.

Scroll down for video
Stoner dogs: Animal Poison Control Center has reported a 30 per cent jump in the number of calls reporting dogs and cats suffering from marijuana poisoning between 2009 and 2013
+4

Stoner dogs: Animal Poison Control Center has reported a 30 per cent jump in the number of calls reporting dogs and cats suffering from marijuana poisoning between 2009 and 2013

Dr Matt Booth, of Colorado – a state that legalized recreational marijuana this year - told NBC News his veterinary emergency service sees about a case of pet poisoning a month.

According to veterinarians, dogs and cats react very differently to the effects of cannabis compared to their human counterparts.

If pets consume a small amount of pot, for example in the form of marijuana butter, they become listless or depressed.

When ingesting higher doses, our four-legged friends - who lack a liver enzyme needed to break down THC - can lose coordination, become incontinent, turn hyperactive and experience body tremors.

'They stagger around dribbling urine everywhere,' said Dr Tima Wismer, of the Animal Poison Control Center.
Munchies: Dogs being indiscriminate eaters, they wolf down anything they come across, including marijuana-laced products that can leave them listless, and in some cases land them in a coma

Munchies: Dogs being indiscriminate eaters, they wolf down anything they come across, including marijuana-laced products that can leave them listless, and in some cases land them in a coma

Other symptoms of marijuana poisoning in dogs include high blood pressure, a drop in heart rate and body temperature, seizures, and in some of the more serious cases, even coma and death.

That is what happened to San Francisco veterinarian Jill Chase's Tibetan terrier, who effectively overdosed on cannabis-infused butter he had found in the trash, San Francisco Chronicle reported in December.

The pooch spent three days in a coma, but eventually recovered after being treated with IV fluids.

Pot brownies can be especially harmful to fido because they combine marijuana-infused butter boasting high levels of THC - the main ingredient in cannabis - with chocolate, which is a known heart and nervous system stimulant in dogs.


A study by Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care Society cited by The Coloradoan found that cases of marijuana poisoning in pets has increased fourfold at two Colorado hospitals between 2005 and 2010 - a time span that coincided with a rise in the number of registered medical marijuana users.

The study looked at 125 cases involving stoned pets at Wheatridge Veterinary Specialists in Denver and Colorado State University Veterinary Teaching Hospital.

Only two incidents included in the report resulted in fatalities: a dog and a horse died after eating marijuana-infused baked goods and choking on their own vomit.

The Pet Poison Hotline, which accepts calls from around the country and Canada, has seen a 200 per cent increase in poisoning cases in the past five years.

Experts say dogs can get high from ingesting bong water (left), but it is baked goods like pot brownies (right) that pose the greatest risks because they combine THC with chocolate, which is inherently harmful to pets

A 2002 study by the American SPCA's Animal Poison Control Center found that 96 per cent of accidental marijuana poisonings occurred in dogs, with 3 per cent in cats and the remaining 1 per cent in other animals.

If a dog has ingested marijuana, veterinarians say one of the ways to treat the sickened pet would be to induce vomiting, or feed it activated charcoal to absorb the THC in the pooch's system.

In some cases, IV fluids may be required to get rid of the toxins.

Veterinarians urge pet owners to avoid leaving marijuana-laced edibles, such as cookies and brownies, unattended.

http://www.petpoisonhelpline.com/poison/marijuana/

24/7 Animal Poison Control Center

800-213-6680

$39 per incident fee applies

Emergency Instructions

Poison List quickly find a poison
For Owners a guide to pet safety
For Vets events and information

Home
News & Blog
About Us
Contact Us


Poisonous to: Cats, Dogs

Level of toxicity: Moderate to severe

Common signs to watch for:

Severe depression
Walking drunk
Lethargy
Coma
Low heart rate
Low blood pressure
Respiratory depression
Dilated pupils
Coma
Hyperactivity
Vocalization
Seizures

Cannabis sativa is a member of the Cannabaceae family. Slang terms include pot, weed and Mary Jane, just to name a few. Marijuana, or THC, affects receptors in the brain which alter normal neurotransmitter function. Dogs and cats can be poisoned by marijuana from second hand smoke exposure, or from direct ingestion of marijuana or baked foods (e.g., pot brownies, pot butter, etc.) laced with THC. In dogs and cats poisoned by marijuana, clinical signs can be seen within 3 hours, and include severe depression, walking as if drunk, lethargy, coma, low heart rate, low blood pressure, respiratory depression, dilated pupils, hyperactivity, vocalization and seizures. Vomiting is often seen with dogs despite the “anti-emetic” (anti-vomiting) qualities of THC.

If your dog or cat ate marijuana, call your veterinarian or Pet Poison Helpline immediately for life-saving treatment advice.

[tridim]

33. Yes, reefer madness is still in effect. Cannabis is non-toxic to all mammals.

It will not kill your dog or cat. It will make him stoned, just like humans.

That said, please don't get your pets stoned for fun.

[hlthe2b]

36. I am not promoting "reefer madness"aguments. Cannabis CAN be toxic at human doses in dogs/cats

Please don't be irresponsible... I know you would not wish to be responsible for the death of a pet from someone who took YOUR advice.

Dr. Boothe referred to a study from a 2012 issue of the Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care that found the number of marijuana toxicosis cases at two Colorado veterinary hospitals quadrupled during a five-year period when the number of state medical marijuana registrations substantially increased. Researchers reported two dogs died after eating baked goods containing marijuana.

https://www.avma.org/news/javmanews/pages/130615a.aspx

[tridim]

37. The dose doesn't matter, Cannabis is non-toxic in all mammals. nt

[hlthe2b]

38. You are wrong... and highly IRRESPONSIBLE. I agree with the silliness long projected with re: humans

But, dogs and cats are quite different.

A single tylenol, for instance, can kill a cat... Dogs, as you SHOULD know, are highly sensitive to chocolate. And, yes, there HAVE been increased deaths in dogs seen at emergency clinics in CO due to cannabis.

Don't be IRRESPONSIBLE.... Dogs and Cats are NOT equivalent to humans in terms of their physiology.

[former9thward]

40. You are not going to convince that poster.

The anti-science woo is high, to use a word, with the cannibis can do no harm crowd. Any science based report is scorned as fake and now "lazy."

[tridim]

44. Please don't change the subject, we're talking about Cannabis. Focus...

All mammals have cannabinoid receptors in their brains and other major organs.

These receptors make up what is called the Mammalian Endocannabinoid System.

You can begin learning about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocannabinoid_system

[hlthe2b]

45. You are changing the subject, which is marijauna and its toxicity to non-human pets

While all mammals have cannabinoid receptors, there are wide differences in the ability to break down marijuana as evidenced by the toxicities and deaths CO veterinarians are now seeing among dog and cat pets.

And, you are so very irresponsible to promote what you are poorly educated about and totally unqualified to provide veterinary advice.

[tridim]

53. So non-broken-down THC is toxic?

Gawd, how high are you?

[hlthe2b]

54. I care that DUer's not be given highly dangerous, irresponsible advice such as this...

I DO care that their dogs and cats not be inadvertently poisoned by someone who has NO understanding of veterinary toxicology.

[RainDog]

47. The vets are not saying the dogs don't have cannabinoid receptors

The finding was that dogs lack the enzyme to break down THC in their livers. The combination with chocolate seems to be harmful for dogs.

apples and oranges.

[tridim]

52. I can't find any links making the claim that dogs lack a liver enzyme that breaks down THC...

Other than the article posted. There is no cite in the article.

Even if this is true, cannabis and THC are still non-toxic to mammals, they will just leave through the urine, un-broken-down.

[RainDog]

57. I haven't looked for it

I was just responding to the article posted here.

It's true, tho, that we evolved the endocannabinoid system back when animals were pretty simple. Since scientists didn't even know of the existence of the endocannabinoid system prior to the end of the 20th c., that's where so much research is ongoing at this time - to understand how our own body uses its own cannabinoids to regulate and control functions.

Maybe you could contact a veterinarian school to ask about this claim.

It would be something useful to know. And, yes, I agree that the THC molecules would be excreted... but... THC itself immediately begins to break down when it is digested by the stomach... so, yeah, some questions all around. It wouldn't be THC that would need the enzymes, but rather a metabolite of THC.

[hlthe2b]

61. It is true that we do not have sufficient studies--given THC has been illlegal for decades, but we

do have evidence for increasing cases of toxicity in a state where pot is medically and now publicly available. With legalization in CO and WA, veterinary schools are sure to ramp up some much needed additional studies.

See the linked peer-reviewed articles linked below.


Thank YOU for trying to get the other poster to stop dispensing seriously deleterious and mis- mal-informed veterinary advice.

[RainDog]

65. It is rarely fatal, tho

according to the vet sites that I looked at concerning the claim.

trimdim's dog was helped by cannabis - so I think the initial response to disbelieve the claim is normal - trimdim's dog had an entirely different experience.

It seems like the best treatment for a dog in such a case would be to administer some CBD cannabis to interfere with the effects of the THC. Vets should be able to see the effect within minutes.

[hlthe2b]

66. I am not saying it can not possibly be helpful, but toxicity potential is much greater than with man

We lack the therapeutic studies to safely use in veterinary medicine at this point. With legalization in the two states, that will hopefully allow veterinary research community the legal ability to do these therapeutic studies, but unfortunately, to do so now, would risk DEA action and like physicians, veterinarians are dependent on that DEA license to use many of the drugs necessary for practice today .

Telling a lay audience that pot holds no hazard to their pets is as irresponsible as it comes. While we can have such academic discussions, please don't echo the other poster in doing so.

[RainDog]

67. excuse me?

I noted that THC, which is the cannabinoid that is credited by the Vets whose work I read in your posts and on Vet sites, is "tempered" by CBD.

If a human or animal consumes too much THC, CBD will offset the "inebriating" effects. That's established.

Whether it's established for animals or not is another subject - but it's the THC, not anything else, that is the subject of toxicity.

I'm not echoing another poster - I'm noting that the antidote to the toxicity is CBD.

And, it's important to note that every Vet site online I read that discussed this emphasized that it is RARELY LETHAL.

The doctors said that, not me.

If that's what you object to, you can take it up with them.

[hlthe2b]

83. First of all, we don't know if there is a synergistic relationship between THC and other components

of the vehicle used to deliver since some of these toxicities were in baked goods, bong water, and other.

Second, it is extremely rare and sporadic that veterinarians--outside a large veterinary school setting are able to publish--so to assume the death rate in one article is representative of the real world occurrence is an incredible fallacy... Most veterinarians--like most physicians in clinical practice relate such cases or case series findings to others clinical professions via professional forums, at major meetings or via referrals to academic centers... They may also relate such findings directly to poison control centers.The truth is that we really don't know the fatality rate... However, to suggest that fatality is the only outcome to be concerned about is likewise an incredible fallacy. We know from the toxic episode of Chinese jerky treats--where the contaminants were not fully established, that the 102 confirmed deaths were the tip of the iceberg. Chronic long term renal insufficiency has been established in a significant proportion of the survivors. Death is not the only outcome of concern in any toxicity.

Making light of what we do and DO NOT know with respect to pot exposure in animals is what we all should be taking issue with. Clearly those with no training in the subject have no business telling DUers that there is NO risk to their pets.

[RainDog]

89. we do know there is a synergistic relationship b/t THC and CBD

look it up.

The veterinarian sites online that I looked up, all of them, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM stated that death is RARE from cannabis toxicity (i.e. cannabis poisoning).

So, again, that's the reality behind my statements.

If you don't like it that every vet says deaths are extremely rare, again, take it up with them, not me. The vets are the ones you can argue with on this issue because I will accept that when every single vet site online talks about this and mentions death is extremely rare, I'll accept what they say.

[hlthe2b]

94. The reality is it is rare thus far in what has been published..That does NOT equate to not toxic nor

not harmful...as the other poster has clearly maintained--and you, at least earlier, seem to be lending support. I'm glad if that is not the case...

Second, I am very aware of the relationship between THC and CBD--that is not the issue at this point. But since you claim to know all,what, if any is the relationship between THC and theobromine--the toxic component of chocolate and which could clearly be but one factor--one example in those eating food items. Ingestion of bong water is another source of reported toxicities--that could include any number of cofactors.

[RainDog]

96. LOL

so, really, you have no argument with what I said, but you're arguing about it. okay.

because I didn't say it was not toxic nor that it could not be harmful. (really. I didn't. go back and read.)

and, you agree that there is a synergistic relationship between THC and CBD, even tho you said there wasn't any in your post to which I responded. okay. that's not the issue - so, you didn't need to bring it up.

however, I don't claim to know all.

yet I did note that chocolate was a problem for dogs.

so, basically, you're arguing about nothing.

take care.

[hlthe2b]

97. You apparently are reading someone else's posts and attributing their comments to me

or totally misconstruing what I have said.

I think we are generally in agreement, yes... But your insistence that a low reported death rate in the published literature (which can be very deceptive in terms of the true incidence of such deaths) implies low toxicity potential is BS.

[RainDog]

98. okay

tell that to the vets, not me.

since I repeated what you said, but that was reading someone else's posts... I think I'm done with this "discussion."

I have said nothing other than what the doctors said concerning the reality that in their practices they report that such incidents have rarely been fatal.

Rarely fatal. That's what the vet docs say. If you think you know more about the subject than they do, again, I think you should address them and not me.

As I have said to you more than 4 times now.

eta: proof of said conversation for future reference:

hlthe2b (49,396 posts)
83. First of all, we don't know if there is a synergistic relationship between THC and other components

RainDog (26,586 posts)
89. we do know there is a synergistic relationship b/t THC and CBD

hlthe2b (49,396 posts)
94. ...Second, I am very aware of the relationship between THC and CBD--that is not the issue at this point.

hlthe2b (49,396 posts)
97. You apparently are reading someone else's posts and attributing their comments to me
or totally misconstruing what I have said.

ftr

[DragonBorn]

142. Why are we talking about cannabis' letality in animal?

I mean chocolate is lethal to dogs but we aren't trying to out law that. Is their a point in all this that I'm missing?

[RainDog]

143. People are concerned about pets

I don't think it has anything to do with legal or illegal - it has to do with making sure pets don't eat things that aren't good for them - like chocolate, or large amts. of cannabutter.

[DragonBorn]

145. Ok I get that

You shouldn't let your pet eat any thing except food approved for their consumption, or raw meats and vegetables. I'm still confused why were talking about cannabis use in pets though.

Its not like I give my cat tylenol or cough medicine intended for humans or why anyone would think that's a good idea. Animal cant even eat many foods meant for human consumption such as cows milk and cats.

[RainDog]

147. Apparently dogs have been getting into the trash

and, because of this there has been an uptick in vet visits because the dogs have too much THC in their systems from cannabis products that were tossed. Or something.

I just got into this subthread b/c I do think there's a toxic dose for small animals, but, when I read up, vets said it was rarely toxic, so.... here we are.

This reminds me of the story of the guy in Kentucky who was the basis for a story on the TV series Justified. The guy bailed from a single engine plane near the Smokies, his parachute didn't open, and, splat, in someone's backyard in Knoxville. The crashed plane had bricks of cocaine, but not all was accounted for.

Sometime later, park rangers found a brown bear, deceased, wearing a polyester shirt, gold chains, and with a disco ball hanging from pine trees overhead. (okay, that last part was made up, but they did find a bear who od'd on cocaine.)

[DisgustipatedinCA]

112. Relax. I've conducted a 30-year experiment. It's all good.

The science shows that bong water indeed tastes terrible, but it isn't toxic.

[hlthe2b]

118. So, are you feline or canine... and what breed?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

119. I never hallucinated and thought I was a domestic animal.

That's more of an acid kind of thing anyway.

[tridim]

74. I specifically said, DO NOT GET YOUR PETS STONED FOR FUN.

[tridim]

68. I already know it works.

And I already know dog livers process THC just fine.

But obviously research is needed.

[RainDog]

70. But Veterinarians have reported increases

in dogs brought in for treatment who have consumed too much cannabis - and, again, mention this is a problem when combined with chocolate.

The toxicity rate for cannabis would be, theoretically, one third of some animal's body weight consumed within a 15 minute period. A dog, therefore, could in theory consume enough cannabis to equal a third of its body weight if the cannabis had been reduced from its initial weight as a plant into a liquid added to butter.

So, I think it's possible for small animals to overdose, given the right set of circumstances - i.e. not from smoke, but from ingestion of concentrated cannabinoids suspended in food.

[tridim]

73. Maybe. I'll wait for the research.

And not research that says some unnamed person saw a dog die once because of Cannabis toxicity, and didn't bother reporting it.

By all means, keep your stash away from your pets and your kids.

[hlthe2b]

86. You are not being truthful... I have posted two peer review articles from veterinary scientific lit

Post #59

[OwnedByCats]

111. Yeah I think if you're giving your dog

correct dosages, in the correct manner, for epilepsy or some other type of condition or illness, it's most likely ok. I have read about a few other cases of pets being given proper doses and getting good results. I think it's possible for pets to have a toxic effect when they have been overdosed, as an increase has been noted in Colorado, but that's not someone giving their pet a therapeutic dose on the direction of a vet or at least having some knowledge of what the best delivery and dosages are. It's either accidental or as you say, people trying to get their pets high. Maybe there is also another catalyst, such as the chocolate. It's hard to know for sure, but I've not heard of small appropriate doses hurting a dog/cat yet.

More research needs to be done, but if your dog is being given a correct dosage and it's helped your dog and no other problems have occurred, I think it's worth continuing.

[hlthe2b]

59. I know you won't read what literature is available, but here is a start.

1. Janczyk P, Donaldson CW, Gualtney S: Two hundred and thirteen cases of marijuana toxicoses in dogs. Vet Hum Toxicol 2004 Vol 46 (1) pp. 19-21.
1. Shell, L: Marijuana Poisoning. Veterinary Information Network, 2006.

And, since you undoubtedly do not have access to the most recent:

J Vet Emerg Crit Care (San Antonio). 2012 Dec;22(6):690-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1476-4431.2012.00818.x.
Evaluation of trends in marijuana toxicosis in dogs living in a state with legalized medical marijuana: 125 dogs (2005-2010).
Meola SD, Tearney CC, Haas SA, Hackett TB, Mazzaferro EM.
Author information
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:

To report a correlation between the increased number of medical marijuana licenses and marijuana toxicosis in dogs in a state with legalized marijuana for medical use.
DESIGN:

Retrospective case series from January 1, 2005 to October 1, 2010.
SETTING:

Private specialty referral hospital and a university teaching hospital.
ANIMALS:

A total of 125 client-owned dogs presenting for known or suspected marijuana toxicosis with or without a urine drug screening test (UDST).
INTERVENTIONS:

None.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:

During the study period, 125 dogs were evaluated including 76 dogs with known marijuana exposure or a positive UDST (group 1), 6 dogs with known marijuana ingestion and a negative UDST (group 2), and 43 dogs with known marijuana ingestion that were not tested (group 3). The incidence of marijuana toxicosis presenting to both hospitals increased 4-fold, while the number of people registered for medical marijuana in the state increased 146-fold in the last 5 years. A significant positive correlation was detected between the increase in known/suspected marijuana toxicosis in dogs (groups 1-3) and the increased number of medical marijuana licenses (correlation R coefficient = 0.959, P = 0.002). Two dogs that ingested butter made with medical grade marijuana in baked products died.
CONCLUSIONS:

A significant correlation was found between the number of medical marijuana licenses and marijuana toxicosis cases seen in 2 veterinary hospitals in Colorado. Ingestion of baked goods made with medical grade tetrahydrocannabinol butter resulted in 2 deaths. UDST may be unreliable for the detection of marijuana toxicosis in dogs.

© Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care Society 2012.

Top Companion Anim Med. 2013 Feb;28(1):8-12. doi: 10.1053/j.tcam.2013.03.004.
Marijuana poisoning.
Fitzgerald KT, Bronstein AC, Newquist KL.
Author information
Abstract

The plant Cannabis sativa has been used for centuries for the effects of its psychoactive resins. The term "marijuana" typically refers to tobacco-like preparations of the leaves and flowers. The plant contains more than 400 chemicals but the cannabinoid ?-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the major psychoactive constituent. "Hashish" is the resin extracted from the tops of flowering plants and generally has a much higher THC concentration. Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug in the United States. Currently, several states have passed legislation to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana for both medical and personal use and several other states have similar legislation under consideration. The most common form of marijuana use in humans is inhalation of the smoke of marijuana cigarettes, followed by ingestion. In animals, although secondhand smoke inhalation is possible, the most common source of exposure is through ingestion of the owner's marijuana supply. The minimum lethal oral dose for dogs for THC is more than 3 g/kg. Although the drug has a high margin of safety, deaths have been seen after ingestion of food products containing the more concentrated medical-grade THC butter. There are two specific cannabinoid receptors in humans and dogs, CB1 (primarily in central nervous system) and CB2 (peripheral tissues). In animals, following oral ingestion, clinical effects begin within 60 minutes. All of the neuropharmacologic mechanisms by which cannabinoids produce psychoactive effects have not been identified. However, CB1 activity is believed to be responsible for the majority of cannabinoid clinical effects. Highly lipid soluble, THC is distributed in fat, liver, brain, and renal tissue. Fifteen percent of THC is excreted into the urine and the rest is eliminated in the feces through biliary excretion. Clinical signs of canine intoxication include depression, hypersalivation, mydriasis, hypermetria, vomiting, urinary incontinence, tremors, hypothermia, and bradycardia. Higher dosages may additionally cause nystagmus, agitation, tachypnea, tachycardia, ataxia, hyperexcitability, and seizures. Treatment of marijuana ingestion in animals is largely supportive. Vital signs including temperature and heart rate and rhythm must be continually monitored. Stomach content and urine can be tested for cannabinoids. Gas chromatography and mass spectrometry can be utilized for THC detection but usually may take several days and are not practical for initiation of therapy. Human urine drug-screening tests can be unreliable for confirmation of marijuana toxicosis in dogs owing to the interference of a large number of the metabolites in canine urine. False negatives may also arise if testing occurs too recently following THC ingestion. Thus, the use of human urine drug-screening tests in dogs remains controversial. No specific antidote presently exists for THC poisoning. Sedation with benzodiazepines may be necessary if dogs are severely agitated. Intravenous fluids may be employed to counter prolonged vomiting and to help control body temperature. Recently, the use of intralipid therapy to bind the highly lipophilic THC has been utilized to help reduce clinical signs. The majority of dogs experiencing intoxication after marijuana ingestion recover completely without sequellae. Differential diagnoses of canine THC toxicosis include human pharmaceuticals with central nervous system stimulatory effects, drugs with central nervous system depressant effects, macrolide parasiticides, xylitol, and hallucinogenic mushrooms.

Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PMID:
23796481
[PubMed - in process]

[tridim]

72. "deaths have been seen after ingestion of food products containing the more concentrated

medical-grade THC butter"

Deaths have been seen by whom? Where is this reported? Where is the data? Why is it not front page news in every conservative/prohibitionist newspaper in the world?

There is no mention of dog livers not being able to process THC in either of those studies. What study are you citing?

The rest of your highlighted quote goes on to describe a stoned dog. I don't dispute that. I specifically said, "Don't get your dog stoned for fun". Yes, feeling stoned is a side effect of Cannabis ingestion, the primary effect in my dog was an immediate 95% reduction in seizure activity. She gets a pinch once every thirty days.

She is not dead, she is happy and youthful at age 12, thanks entirely to Cannabis.

[hlthe2b]

84. I posted two studies from peer review literature you conveniently ignored #59!

[wercal]

85. The minimum lethal oral dose for dogs for THC is more than 3 g/kg

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23796481

[hlthe2b]

87. Thank you... I had already posted this (#59), but the Duers refuses to respond to actual evidence

Perhaps your pointing it out again might make some difference.

[wercal]

88. I missed your earlier post

By my calculation, 13.5 grams (around a half oz.) would kill a 10 lb dog.

[yawnmaster]

62. Are you suggesting that because mammals have an endocannabinoid system, that...

there is no danger in taking in a large amount of external cannabinoids (THC)?

Humans also have opiate receptors.

Just because an animal has an internal system of ligands that is similar to an external molecule, does not automatically make the external molecule safe.

[tridim]

75. No.

I said you should not get your pet stoned for fun.

[yawnmaster]

104. Ahhh...I guess I was misled by these quotes of yours...

"Cannabis is safe for every mammal on Earth."
"Cannabis is non-toxic to all mammals."
"All mammals have cannabinoid receptors in their brains and other major organs."
"These receptors make up what is called the Mammalian Endocannabinoid System. "

Now...that said...I think I am just arguing against your first broad statement and how you make the connection between safety and the cannabinoid system in mammals, not against you and your dog's success with it.

[Hestia]

157. I'll agree to the extent that I've been around a cat that smoked

I dated a guy for a bit and went over to his house and sat in the cat's chair. The cat sat on the chair arm next to me. We're sitting around passing around ahem a cigarette and the cat starts mouthing. I asked what's wrong the cat and he said that I was passing her up and that she like to smoke too! What?!? Sure enough, I held the smoking cigarette end up to her and she inhaled the smoke on her own. In fact, whenever a human smoked she smoke too - rules of the house. Not one person had ever forced her to smoke - she was highly loved since a kitten but when she got older is when she wanted to smoke.

Now, this was an older cat - over 13 y/o and she may having been using it for arthritis but who's to know. I just know I really saw a cat inhaling smoke and it still flabbergasts me to this day, especially since our cats run at the sight of smoke.

Just to add - she never ate it just smoked it.

[kestrel91316]

148. Science FAIL. THC, like all other pharmaceuticals, has a scientifically established LD50 of

1260 mg/kg body weight. That's in humans, of course.

Dogs and cats are metabolically different, and there is no established safe limit of it in domestic animals. So giving it to them is playing with fire.

My own patients might benefit from it, but if I recommended it for them I'd probably lose my license.

My own personal experience tells me that too much can be a very scary and potentially dangerous thing. I won't elaborate, but it involved a single hard candy with THC in it from a local legal dispensary here in SoCal.

[AngryAmish]

39. I saw one stoned cat in my life.

Some cruel fuckers blew smoke in a bag with a cat inside.

Cat obviously freaked out and stayed freaked out for two hours.

Assholes.

[lob1]

56. I saw a stoned cat once, too.

Like your story, we were smoking and a friend put his cat in a bag and blew smoke into it, then put the bag on the floor. After a minute, the cat slowly walked out of the bad, then he laid down in the middle of the room and seemed to enjoy our conversation. After a couple of hours we decided to light up again. When the joint was lit, the cat got up, stretched, then walked back into the bag and waited his turn.

It looked funny, but I would never get one of my pets stoned. Since you can't tell them what's going on, I think it's cruel and could freak them out.

[1000words]

102. Cool cat

[jaysunb]

130. Despite the stupidity, (cat in bag) I love this

story.

[defacto7]

63. This is right on the mark.

Just because we can do it does not mean your animal can. Tylenol and Ibuprofen can be deadly to dogs, Aspirin in the wrong dosage is also deadly. Chocolate can be deadly to many dogs. We are not all compatible with the same chemicals.

[tridim]

77. Except there are no specific chocolate or tylenol receptors in the mammalian brain.

There is a huge difference.

An no, I didn't claim that the toxicity of compounds is constant for all mammals.

Do not give your dog Tylenol, Advil, Chocolate, or Cannabis for fun.

[defacto7]

80. hmmm..

" I didn't claim that the toxicity of compounds is constant for all mammals. "

I didn't claim you did.. I am simply claiming people should not just give an animal something just because it's OK for a human. No more, no less. The specifics of the workings of receptors in the mammalian brain don't always communicate the basic message that people need to make reasonable decisions. The basics help.

[tridim]

81. True.

Obviously I did exhaustive research before I gave her the medication. Everyone should, don't take this as medical advice.

She used to have severe, crippling epilepsy, and is now labeled as "controlled" by her vet, "She hides her age well, keep doing whatever it is you're doing!"

...One tiny pinch in food every 30 days does it.

[OwnedByCats]

115. Oh that's very little

By all means, I would keep doing it. With a dose that small, I don't think you could go wrong.

[dionysus]

101. i've had it raise my heart rate sometimes, perhaps there was an underlying heart condition, but

there is 0% chance thc alone killed that woman.

[sharp_stick]

8. I'd like to know what the toxicity was

and I ask that as a Toxicologist. Exactly what systems were being impacted and by how much would be a nice start.

I know these are just news stories but it kind of sounds like he picked Marijuana Toxicity because he couldn't find anything else and that kind of gets my hackles up as a scientist.

[tridim]

10. Cannabis isn't toxic, there was no toxicity. Reefer fucking madness.

[sharp_stick]

18. I hate it when coroners

use the term toxicity like this.

When I read it I automatically wonder if the guy is actually even a physician because it's just plain laziness and a misuse of the language.

[tridim]

9. LOL

[hootinholler]

11. Elevated level of cannabis?

WTF does that even mean? I know we are 2 countries separated by a common language, but damn.

Ooooo, she smoked a joint and elevated her cannabis to lethal levels?

A heart attack?

This is lazy reporting compounded by possibly lazy postmortem analysis.

[Rex]

12. Yes she died from Reefer Madness I tell you!

Well that settles it! They painstakingly worked hard over a decade to find two people that died from pot in the U.K.!

Better keep it illegal.

[Politicalboi]

15. Maybe it was the fear of being arrested

And her paranoia became overwhelming she had a heart attack and died. That I would believe.

[Electric Monk]

16. Inhaling smoke of any sort is hard on the cardio-pulminary system.

She'd have been better off vaporizing or eating her mj.

This is anecdotal, but I knew a guy who knew a guy who.... made a batch of brownies, enough to get a dozen people high, and then he went and ate the whole thing. He slept for two days, but it didn't kill him.

[reddread]

35. if anyone was gonna die from that sort of smoke inhalation, she wouldnt be the first by millions

and having the experience of overdosing on intentionally deadly brownies,
all it does is keep you from doing anything. not that much fun at all.
Its very interesting how edible dosages impact.
the right amount is tricky to find, but at almost any point
the urge to smoke is curtailed, and with a good dose driving is not really the best idea.
whereas under the effects of normal smoking, driving is rarely a problem.
Unless something especially powerful is combined with other factors.

[RainDog]

123. Inhaled THC has different effects than ingested THC

Ingested THC goes through “first pass metabolism” and is converted to a different substance called 11-hydroxy-THC. In this form, it is 10x more psychoactive that delta-9-THC from inhaled cannabis.

This is why people should be careful with edibles.

[marlakay]

17. Let me see even if they can prove this 2 to ????????? billions from other stuff!

Talk about over reaching....this is pathetic!

[Bandit]

19. "might have died from an elevated level of cannabis"

Key word here is might. Might have been from too much TV just as easily.. Might have been from anything; but from pot I find EXTREMELY improbable...

[Fozzledick]

69. I'm not saying it was ALIENS

but it MIGHT have been!!1!

[In_The_Wind]

21. What a wonderful way to go.

[img][/img]

[frazzled]

24. Heck, I can die from eating a peanut

This may be true for the individual in question. All kinds of things that are fine for some people can cause a toxic reaction in others.

Remember when women were dying from toxic shock syndrome from Tampax? Obviously, it was a minuscule minority of the women who employed the product, but it didn't mean it wasn't true.

[Half-Century Man]

25. All the articles claim a high level of christian devotion by the victim.

So...cannabis is lethal for christians? Cannabis is conducting a war on christianity (as it will be spun by faux).

The death is tragic. Her level of devotion is not a mitigating factor.

[Bluenorthwest]

27. The Daily Mail.....

What absolute rubbish.

[postatomic]

28. What incredible junk journalism

Why was it necessary to say that she was a devout Christian?

And the "coroner" recorded it as cannabis abuse??!! Not specifically mentioning the part or parts of cannabis that apparently killed her.

I'm calling bullshit on this entire story. I know there is still a reefer madness crown out there but really?

[cherokeeprogressive]

29. Paraquat!

Hooyah! (That's the sound of the paraquat cough)

[Iggo]

34. And plblfflblfflblffffftbrrrt...

...is the sound of the other paraquat side effect, if I remember correctly.

[mike_c]

30. this is an incompetent coroner....

"Cannabis toxicity?" That is absurd.

[nyquil_man]

31. Was there a fan in the room, too?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_death

[VanillaRhapsody]

32. I have to go with Willie Nelson on this...

he knows a guy that was injured by Marijuana use....when a bale fell on him!

[Uben]

41. Any elevated level of cannabis can be easily remedied

Coupla bags of tater chips, some ding-dongs, and a quart of milk....voila!

[longship]

58. Correction: chocolate milk! nt

[Uben]

90. I was going to edit to say that.......

.....but I wuz too lazy.

[fredamae]

42. Well, we may not have had

very much research in the US--but there is likely some other cause---
The LD-50 for Cannabis is 1:20,000-40,000 because they've Tried to kill lab animals and couldn't.


"6. By contrast aspirin, a commonly used, over-the-counter medicine, causes hundreds of deaths each year.

7. Drugs used in medicine are routinely given what is called an LD-50. The LD-50 rating indicates at what dosage fifty percent of test animals receiving a drug will die as a result of drug induced toxicity. A number of researchers have attempted to determine marijuana's LD-50 rating in test animals, without success. Simply stated, researchers have been unable to give animals enough marijuana to induce death.

8. At present it is estimated that marijuana's LD-50 is around

1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in onemarijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.

9. In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity."

http://www.ccguide.org/young88.php

[RainDog]

50. This is the real science n/t

[spanone]

43. BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!! little late to start this shit

[Incitatus]

92. Yes, the tipping point has passed.

But I do expect to see an increase of such articles posted here. A lot of people have heart attacks for a lot of reasons. I wonder what makes the coroner so sure it was the marijuana when there has only been one apparently one other case that claimed it was the cause, out of the tens of billions of joints smoked.

[Kurska]

48. LD50 (amount of substance needed to kill 50% of animal test subjects) for cannabis is astronomical

It sounds to me like this lady smoked weed, had a heart attack and now the coroner is saying that smoking weed may have been contributing factor (smoking anything can cause heart difficulties).

Add in a little sensational journalism and...

[Glassunion]

55. WOW!!!! OMGZ!!!!!

And only about 100,000 people died in the same time period from alcohol in the UK.

2 people in 10 whole years. Wow. Now that's a statistic.

[KansDem]

60. This is an epidemic! Surpassed only by the epidemic of voter fraud!!!

From Mother Jones

Between 2000 and 2010, there were:

649 million votes cast in general elections
47,000 UFO sightings
441 Americans killed by lightning
13 credible cases of in-person voter impersonation

A whole 13 out of 649,000,000??!!! AIEEEEEE!!! More voter suppression laws...NOW!!!

[RandiFan1290]

64. Bye bye, druggies! Bye bye!

http://www.big1059.com/cc-common/blogs/paulandyoungron.html?article=12020185

[Jesus Malverde]

99. OMG that recording is so funny....nt

[morningfog]

71. Lol.

[Warpy]

76. While cannabis is well known to induce tachycardia in some people

it's not the lethal kind.

This coroner was just loath to put "sudden cardiac death" on the certificate and the only thing he found on autopsy was cannabis in her system. QED, she had to have died from cannabis.

[Beringia]

78. First person in Great Britain

There are probably people who have died from everything imaginable, like sucking the nectar out of lilacs.

[Blue Owl]

79. How "timely"

I'm sure the results are conclusive

[kentuck]

91. Luweezy, it's the big one!

I just smoked a joint and I think I'm having a heart attack!

And I'm getting very hungry...

[Lunacee_2013]

93. While I don't doubt people have made mistakes under the influence of pot, or

possibly even died in very, very small numbers, I don't think that justifies the war on MJ that's still going on today. How many have died because of smoking, or drinking, or by od'ing on Rx drugs? Even if you follow doctor's orders, still some of those regulated drugs are way more dangerous then pot. Wasn't there a weight loss pill back in the 90's that made some people's hearts beat backwards? Phen-phen, IIRC. And most of that shit's still legal!

We need to grow-up already and legalize marijuana and since I've been thinking about this particular subject these past few months I've come up with an outline on how to handle legalization.

1) Split marijuana use/production/selling into two separate groups: Medical and Recreational.

2) Medical Marijuana: The FDA and Big Pharma can take their pound of flesh, therefore getting rid of their objections to legal pot, by taking over the Medical Marijuana group. This group will be closely monitored and tested to prevent people who are already ill, like cancer patients, from obtaining marijuana that is tainted or otherwise defective. The chemicals in this pot will be highly regulated to better meet the needs of the ill. People will need a doctor's Rx to get this type of marijuana.

3)Recreational Marijuana: Adults, 21 and over, not currently in prison can grow, buy, sell, and use pot in private places. Mostly at home and NO driving or giving it to teens! I'm thinking that maybe we allow people to grow 1-2 plants for their own personal use and NOT to sell. Anymore than that and you have to get a grower's permit that comes with taxes. If you want to sell MJ, then you need to get a seller's permit, which yes, comes with taxes. The last layer of taxes will be tacked on when the buyer pays for their pot. This recreational part of the pot program can be run by small farmers, mom & pop shops and people who enjoy more free, less corporate jobs.

Like I said, it's just an outline and I'm still working on it, but if anyone has anything to add, please do!

[TroglodyteScholar]

100. "it was suggested her heart attack may have been caused by the moderate-to-high levels of cannabis"

Any science behind that?

If you can find the drug in the body of the deceased and use its very presence as "proof" of its role in the death, then what's to say caffeine or something else didn't do it?

This is totally bunk, and this coroner should be fired.

[RainDog]

125. thank you.

yes, it's bullshit and, likely, someone wanted to be able to make this claim and that coroner was willing to be the asshole who supplied the false information.

[Little_Wing]

103. I <3 science

Plus points for Jackie Gleason in a checked suit

[Iggo]

105. Um, yeah.

Except, No.

[Separation]

106. Don't be surprised

With the use of marijuana becoming more accepted, expect more negative attacks.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

128. When I lived in England 40 years ago

things were different. Almost everybody seemed to smoke pot and it was no big deal.

Now it seems they have watched 'Reefer Madness' one too many times.

[BainsBane]

133. You've done it now

You've struck at the heart of all that is sacred on DU. It's okay to attack Obama, Clinton, and the party itself, but never ever the pot.

[Rex]

135. Mmm...I think Obama is still more sacred than pot.

[BainsBane]

137. No way.

Not even close. There are dozens of threads everyday criticizing Obama. I know of two total criticizing pot.

[Rex]

139. And there are always people in those threads defending Obama and trying to shame

whoever made the thread. I think he is much more popular than pot on the DUs.

[Comrade Grumpy]

144. Well, it is an incredibly stupid article, based on an incredibly stupid finding.

The coroner couldn't figure out a cause of death, but he knew she smoked pot before she went to bed. Ergo, she died of marijuana.

The coroner is an embarrassment to his profession.

This is the kind of Reefer Madness crap that is plaguing Britain these days. The tabloids there are always running crap like this.

That said, I wouldn't try to tell you that there are no possible harms from using marijuana, but dying of an overdose after smoking half a joint isn't one of them.

[frylock]

149. It's okay to attack Obama, Clinton, and the party itself using facts..

people have posted the level of toxicity required to OD on pot. do you disagree with those numbers?

[BainsBane]

150. about what?

Depends on the issue and the nature of the criticism.

[liberal_at_heart]

136. yeah okay.

[B Calm]

141. More BS

[L0oniX]

146. About as many people died from consumption of dirt.

[rdharma]

152. Trash this thread activated! nt

[Lint Head]

153. She had pot in her system when she died. OK. Did they check for aspirin?

What other stimuli may have been involved? Coca Cola? Maybe she was allergic to her clothes. Or. Maybe she just had heart disease and it was time for her to go. It's all ridiculous. There are constant false comparisons regarding pot and this is no different. A judge said "affluenza" was responsible for a teenager killing four people while intoxicated. I guess the "experts" new what they were talking about then too. Or, is that just another false comparison. Experts are experts right? Wrong.