At a town hall event at Youngstown State University in Ohio, the Democratic presidential candidate’s daughter told a crowd full of students about the “anecdotal evidence … from Colorado,” showing “some of the people who were taking marijuana for those purposes, the coroner believes, after they died, there was drug interactions with other things they were taking.”

When did Chelsea start posting here?

OK, which one of you prohibitionists is her?

You are really acting stupid....but that is nothing new for you.

Is that you Chelsea?

At a town hall event at Youngstown State University in Ohio, the Democratic presidential candidate’s daughter told a crowd full of students about the “anecdotal evidence … from Colorado,” showing “some of the people who were taking marijuana for those purposes, the coroner believes, after they died, there was drug interactions with other things they were taking.”

[...]

Tom Angell, the founder of Marijuana Majority, addressed the issue, claiming“[a]nyone who has experience with marijuana or is even vaguely familiar with the research knows that cannabis has never [led] to an overdose death in recorded history.”

[...]

“While discussing her and her mother’s support for rescheduling marijuana to allow for further study of both its medical benefits and possible interactions with other medications, Chelsea misspoke about marijuana’s interaction with other drugs contributing to specific deaths.”

I prefer living to dying. I even prefer living to getting high.

I would never take medical advice from morons.

The dosage of inhaled marijuana is variable and unknown. The safety (or danger) of marijuana in combination with other substances or in combination with certain medical conditions is not readily known. However, the document in the Federal Register by which rescheduling of marijuana was denied last month documents certain dangers that have led to fatalities.

81 Fed. Reg. 156; 12 August 2016

Department of Justice

Denial of Petition To Initiate Proceedings To Reschedule Marijuana; Proposed Rules and Applications To Become Registered Under the Controlled Substances Act To Manufacture Marijuana To Supply Researchers in the United States; Policy Statement

Marijuana smoking, particularly by those with some degree of coronary artery or cerebrovascular disease, poses risks such as increased cardiac work, increased catecholamines and carboxyhemoglobin, myocardial infarction and postural hypotension (Benowitz and Jones, 1981; Hollister, 1988; Mittleman et al., 2001; Malinowska et al., 2012). However, electrocardiographic changes were minimal after administration of large cumulative doses of D9-THC (Benowitz and Jones, 1975).

The DEA notes two recent reports that reviewed several case studies on marijuana and cardiovascular complications (Panayiotides, 2015; Hackam, 2015). Panayiotides (2015) reported that approximately 25.6% of the cardiovascular cases from marijuana use resulted in death from data provided by the French Addictovigilance Network during the period of 2006–2010. Several case studies on marijuana usage and cardiovascular events were discussed and it was concluded that although a causal link cannot be established due to not knowing exact amounts of marijuana used in the cases and confounding variables, the available evidence supports a link between marijuana and cardiotoxicity. Hackham (2015) reviewed 34 case reports or case series reports of marijuana and stroke/ ischemia in 64 stroke patients and reported that in 81% of the cases there was a temporal relationship between marijuana usage and stroke or ischemic event. The author concluded that collective analysis of the case reports supports a causal link between marijuana use and stroke.

Well well, you're catching on, nolu chan. I noticed you referenced a statute from the Federal Register. You finally acknowledge this as having legal juxtaposition. Although I would show my personal dissent on the issue, because I'm for sweet mary jane, I have to say I'm impressed with your sense of rationale.

Well well, you're catching on, nolu chan. I noticed you referenced a statute from the Federal Register.

No dumbass, 81 Fed. Reg. 156; 12 August 2016 is not a statute.

That Volume 81, no. 156 of the Federal Register. There are two denials of petitions to reschedule marijuana there on that date.

GPO link

Proposed Rules

Denial of Petition To Initiate Proceedings To Reschedule Marijuana Pages 53687 - 53766 [FR DOC # 2016-17954]

Denial of Petition To Initiate Proceedings To Reschedule Marijuana Pages 53767 - 53845 [FR DOC # 2016-17960]

At 53687, the denial of petition is to Ms. Raimondo and Mr. Inslee. It is DEA Docket No. 426.

At 53767, the denial of a petition is to a Mr. Krumm. It is DEA Docket No. 427.

If you really think that a DEA "Denial of Petition To Initiate Proceedings To Reschedule Marijuana," addressed to a petitioner, is a Federal Statute, you are truly demented.

"claiming“[a]nyone who has experience with marijuana or is even vaguely familiar with the research knows that cannabis has never [led] to an overdose death in recorded history.”

But that's not what she said. She said, "... the coroner believes, after they died, there was drug interactions with other things they were taking.”

And what's worse is that we have so-called "doctors" recommending marijuana to their patients and they don't have a clue about drug interactions.

And what's worse is that we have so-called "doctors" recommending marijuana to their patients and they don't have a clue about drug interactions.

They know they can get rich "documenting" that "patients" they may, or may not, have seen, have have some disabling or terminal condition so they can get a state-issued "medical" marijuana license.

Nolu chan obviously you are not familiar with the Federal Registers and Code of Federal Regulations; both of which are part of our American jurisprudence practice.

You need to go visit your local law library, preferable one that has a tax court appeals section as well as the federal register law sections. Because that is where all of our Presidential Decision Directives and very first Executive Orders are documented.

The purpose of CFRs is to acknowledge other federal statutes that are annotated with the CFR which complement the FR's. But of course, you knew that already didn't ya?

Me a dumbass? Get over yourself. I've been researching, writing, preparing and arguing before state and federal judges on legal briefs since 1993 all the way to the United States Supreme Courts. No bullshit from at all from me. When I read of some of those cases you referenced in your other thread, I just have to take a breather because it is not so much you that is at fault for believing such tripe that a judge would (or rather should I say law clerk) would draft up but that you don't even check the facts.

What is the very first thing you are taught in law school after reading a brief? Let me give you a clue:

I

R

A

C

Finally, just because a law clerk writes for a judge does not mean they know what the hell they are talking about. In many instances, they use their position to practice judicial activism which is contrary to what the law is stipulated to mean and is unAmerican.

Mr. Chan has a lot of tyme on his hands. It is obvious since he finds jurisprudence a "past tyme."