Synthetic Brand of Marijuana Hospitalizing Some in Denver Metro Area

[AuH20]

I don't have alot of sympathy for those hospitalized. In a totally free society, they should be left to die in they don't have healthcare. Why should any of us have to pay for someone's bad decisions whether it's being 500 pounds or ingesting engine coolant?

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2013/09/01/bad-spice-continues-to-be-problem-in-the-denver-metro-area/

[orenbus]

Lesson to be learned, stay natural or go home.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnZb5wi_jsU

[AuH20]

Lesson to be learned, stay natural or go home.

That's what the one commenter said.

"You guys have legal herb there! Why are you messing with this deadly man-made garbage? Unbelievable."

[Cabal]

It's misinformation to refer to this stuff as synthetic cannabis.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Paraquat... part deux

[torchbearer]

It's misinformation to refer to this stuff as synthetic cannabis.

were you living in new orleans in the past?

[kcchiefs6465]

It's misinformation to refer to this stuff as synthetic cannabis.
A pet peeve of mine as well.

Maybe kids wouldn't be so quick to smoke it if instead of calling it synthetic marijuana they called it: Canavalia maritima, Nymphaea caerulea, Scutellaria nana, Pedicularis densiflora, Leonotis leonurus, Zornia latifolia, Nelumbo nucifera, and Leonurus sibiricus.

A product of the drug war.

[noneedtoaggress]

I don't have alot of sympathy for those hospitalized. In a totally free society, they should be left to die in they don't have healthcare. Why should any of us have to pay for someone's bad decisions whether it's being 500 pounds or ingesting engine coolant?

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2013/09/01/bad-spice-continues-to-be-problem-in-the-denver-metro-area/

In a totally free society they wouldn't have been ingesting something that was specifically developed to emulate a "prohibited drug" with massive demand behind it.

In a totally free society, healthcare would be organized differently and assuredly would be far more accessible.

I find saying "in a totally free society they should be left to die" a pretty disturbing concept about what a free society is all about. You certainly shouldn't be coerced into providing for them, but that's completely different than saying that they "should be left to die".

Putting it into this context is a disservice to what a free society is all about and reinforces the concept that government is necessary to provide for a "social safety net" and that it's the only organization in society who can because people are "greedy" and "selfish".

[KEEF]

Lesson to be learned, stay natural or go home.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnZb5wi_jsU
Did Brilla tear on off at the 40 sec mark? I was always told that girls don't fart or poop...:D

[AuH20]

In a totally free society they wouldn't have been ingesting something that was specifically developed to emulate a "prohibited drug" with massive demand behind it.

In a totally free society, healthcare would be organized differently and assuredly would be far more accessible.

I find saying "in a totally free society they should be left to die" a pretty disturbing concept about what a free society is all about. You certainly shouldn't be coerced into providing for them, but that's completely different than saying that they "should be left to die".

Putting it into this context is a disservice to what a free society is all about and reinforces the concept that government is necessary to provide for a "social safety net" and that it's the only organization in society who can because people are "greedy" and "selfish".

Why are you making excuses for them? I didn't put a gun to their head. If someone wants to ingest drain cleaner, so be it. The problem with those who advocate for full freedom never conclusively come around to the full responsibility part. We all have a choice. If someone wants to ignorant of what they're taking as well as being reckless, then there is a grave waiting for them. Enough with the safety nets. Society would be better off as a trapeze act without nets and experience would ultimately be the great teacher.

[twomp]

In a totally free society they wouldn't have been ingesting something that was specifically developed to emulate a "prohibited drug" with massive demand behind it.

In a totally free society, healthcare would be organized differently and assuredly would be far more accessible.

I find saying "in a totally free society they should be left to die" a pretty disturbing concept about what a free society is all about. You certainly shouldn't be coerced into providing for them, but that's completely different than saying that they "should be left to die".

Putting it into this context is a disservice to what a free society is all about and reinforces the concept that government is necessary to provide for a "social safety net" and that it's the only organization in society who can because people are "greedy" and "selfish".

I agree. Seems like in his "free society" everyone is sitting in front of their house with a shotgun waiting for the next person to come so they have an excuse to shoot em. My free society would be a lot more like yours.

[noneedtoaggress]

Did Brilla tear on off at the 40 sec mark? I was always told that girls don't fart or poop...:D

That was a laughing snort

(or maybe she was doing some cocaine off camera, lol)

[kcchiefs6465]

Why are you making excuses for them? I didn't put a gun to their head. If someone wants to ingest drain cleaner, so be it. The problem with those who advocate for full freedom never conclusively come around to the full responsibility part. We all have a choice. If someone wants to ignorant of what they're taking as well as being reckless, then there is a grave waiting for them. Enough with the safety nets. Society would be better off as a trapeze act without nets.
If someone ingested drain cleaner around any sane individual, the person still wouldn't "leave them there to die."

While their decision may be idiotic, that doesn't mean I wouldn't, or a person with any semblance of a conscious wouldn't, go out of my/their way to save them.

Especially children, who a large part of the hospitalized are.

Your attitude could be described as somewhat sociopathic. It certainly doesn't help the argument of getting the government out of healthcare. The way I envision it, services would be better, more readily available, strictly between a doctor and the patient, and cheaper. Compassion would be higher as well when people who are bitter that they must pay can decide for themselves what their money goes toward.

In short, while I don't appreciate the medical industrial complex and what passes as medicine today, I would never "leave [someone] there to die."

[noneedtoaggress]

Why are you making excuses for them? I didn't put a gun to their head.

I'm not making "excuses" for anyone and I didn't claim you forced anyone to do anything. I'm not saying it's your responsibility to help anyone or that you should be coerced into help anyone.

I'm saying that it's not a binary choice between "We should be coerced into providing healthcare" and "they should die".


If someone wants to ingest drain cleaner, so be it.

And if someone wants to help someone who ingests drain cleaner, so be it.


The problem with those who advocate for full freedom never conclusively come around to the full responsibility part. We all have a choice. If someone wants to ignorant of what they're taking as well as being reckless, then there is a grave waiting for them.

"Full responsibility" doesn't mean that the responsibility can't be shared by those who voluntarily choose to take it upon themselves.


Enough with the safety nets. Society would be better off as a trapeze act without nets and experience would ultimately be the great teacher.

You do realize that there will be things like insurance and charities in a free society, right? Health insurance is a "safety net".

Whether health insurance would be such a prominent part of the healthcare industry without all this government intervention is a different question.

[presence]

Why are you making excuses for them? I didn't put a gun to their head. If someone wants to ingest drain cleaner, so be it. The problem with those who advocate for full freedom never conclusively come around to the full responsibility part. We all have a choice. If someone wants to ignorant of what they're taking as well as being reckless, then there is a grave waiting for them. Enough with the safety nets. Society would be better off as a trapeze act without nets and experience would ultimately be the great teacher.

"AM I MY BROTHER'S KEEPER?" (http://executableoutlines.com/text/gen4_9.htm)

[Occam's Banana]

I find saying "in a totally free society they should be left to die" a pretty disturbing concept about what a free society is all about. You certainly shouldn't be coerced into providing for them, but that's completely different than saying that they "should be left to die".

Disturbing - but not really surprising (coming as it does from someone who advocates that Gitmo hunger-strikers should just be shot in the head).

[AuH20]

"AM I MY BROTHER'S KEEPER?" (http://executableoutlines.com/text/gen4_9.htm)

Not my brother's babysitter. I've had bad experiences with drug addicts manipulating others over and over again. If someone wants to voluntarily help someone cope with with their addiction so be it. But as a society I don't think it's particularly wise to waste precious resources and time helping those who don't want to help themselves.

[AuH20]

Disturbing - but not really surprising (coming as it does from someone who advocates that Gitmo hunger-strikers should just be shot in the head).

Gitmo hunger stikers. Boo hoo. Eff em. Somehow when someone intentionally denies themselves of sustenance, ergo leading to possible death, we're supposed to feel sorry for them? Really? But they're trying to make a political statement? <More laughter> The lesson learned is to not get caught and get sent there.

[Working Poor]

Is this Monsanto's new product?

[noneedtoaggress]

Not my brother's babysitter. I've had bad experiences with drug addicts manipulating others over and over again. If someone wants to voluntarily help someone cope with with their addiction so be it. But as a society I don't think it's particularly wise to waste precious resources and time helping those who don't want to help themselves.

Manipulation is hardly reserved to drug addicts, and we've got as many addicts as we do because politics (http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/) is essentially the art of manipulation. "Illegal" drug users have been on the receiving end of this with prohibition.

Imagine if caffeine or tobacco were 10,000x the price due to black market premiums, could land you in jail, and carried social stigma backed by years of state-sponsored propaganda. There would be millions of "manipulative drug addicts" out to get their black market coffee and cigarettes fix (caffeine and nicotine both being more dangerous than some of the prohibited drugs).

The people harming themselves by ingesting these "marijuana alternatives" are a direct result of the more healthy and natural alternatives being prohibited. The situation that the less harmful substance is the one that's illegal is where the absurdity lies.

[AuH20]

The people harming themselves by ingesting these "marijuana alternatives" are a direct result of the more healthy and natural alternatives being prohibited. The situation that the less harmful substance is the one that's illegal is where the absurdity lies.

So you're implying that they are so 'addicted' that they would risk death with a more toxic alternative? That doesn't sound like a logical course of action.

[noneedtoaggress]

So you're implying that they are so 'addicted' that they would risk death with a more toxic alternative? That doesn't sound like a logical course of action.

No, what I'm implying is that those alternatives wouldn't exist if it weren't for prohibition.

Also it's absurd for the state to make the healthier, natural drug prohibited and that the implication of that is the alternatives are safer and less toxic, which is untrue.

On top of which the prohibited, healthier drug also involves state sanctions for possession. You may find yourself on a receiving end of a SWAT raid.

It's logical to avoid being on the receiving end of the state's wrath, and the state prohibition scheme implies that the healthier substances are in fact the more dangerous ones.

[AuH20]

No, what I'm implying is that those alternatives wouldn't exist if it weren't for prohibition.

Also it's absurd for the state to make the healthier, natural drug prohibited and that the implication of that is the alternatives are safer and less toxic, which is untrue.

On top of which the prohibited, healthier drug also involves state sanctions for possession. You may find yourself on a receiving end of a SWAT raid.

It's logical to avoid being on the receiving end of the state's wrath, and the state prohibition scheme implies that the healthier substances are in fact the more dangerous ones.

I agree with you, but I'm still perplexed why anyone would risk their life as opposed to sticking with the natural blend.

[noneedtoaggress]

I agree with you, but I'm still perplexed why anyone would risk their life as opposed to sticking with the natural blend.

Propaganda and misinformation, possession laws, youthful naivete, ease of access, pricing, risk-seeking or adventurous behavior...

there's a few, unfortunately.

I'd venture to guess that a significant number who take it don't know exactly how it's different from real marijuana or the risks involved. I'm sure some of them take it for granted that marijuana is safe and this is the "legal version" that you can pick up off the counter (so it's probably just as safe if not safer).

[Occam's Banana]

Gitmo hunger stikers. Boo hoo. Eff em. Somehow when someone intentionally denies themselves of sustenance, ergo leading to possible death, we're supposed to feel sorry for them? Really? But they're trying to make a political statement? <More laughter> The lesson learned is to not get caught and get sent there.

No one said anything whatsoever about "feeling sorry for them" - "not feeling sorry for them" != "shooting them in the head."
(Just like "not having sympathy for synthetic drug users" != "they should just be left to die.")

Making yourself look like such a bloodthirsty jackass is just cherry. Thank you for proving my point.

[better-dead-than-fed]

I agree with you, but I'm still perplexed why anyone would risk their life as opposed to sticking with the natural blend.

I have known a lot of people who did it for two reasons: they could buy it and possess it without committing a crime, and they could use it without being detected by standard drug tests. They all would have smoked weed instead, if it were not for weed-prohibition.