Cancer and the drug companies

[RDJ]

I am in the belief that those that use drugs and drive now ... will continue if and when it is a legal drug. But ... what sort of percentage of "new" users are you expecting when legal status arrives .. that start using it because it is legal .. ??



Not as frequently reported you mean ... it's just not as newsworthy as "Another Drunk Driver Kills" ...

Or do you just base your opinions on your own personal experiences ... ???

In other words ... if it hasn't happened to you already ... it probably won't ... maybe ... right .. ??

Fatal (including motorcycle) accidents are usually caused by a sequence of factors ... not always any of them being particulary dangerous on their own. But actual timing of them can make it serious. In particular ... one small error of yours in combination of one of the motorist coming towards you can and does turn fatal.


The last 35 years you've been lucky. Most will hope the luck continue. But please do not rely on luck ... or it being unlikely that another motorists mistake will never affect you.



I would say that more sober drivers are found to be at fault in accidents (than drink/Drug impaired ones) ... and ALSO need to be cared for. Blaming THEM is just as fruitless ... and I fail to see your point.



Maybe .... the drunk and drugged ones should be too ...

But ... their organs might not be in a good enough condition to be suitable for donation ...



Who is "Everybody Else" .. ???

Do you mean those that are not stoned or drunk getting priority treatment ... and not those needing priority treatment ... ???

I cannot see the medical fraternity agreeing to this.

I guess am just not writing clearly enough. So let me just address your last point. Yes, those that are stoned or drunk often get priority treatment simply because they are so demanding and difficult to deal with and basically interfere with the normal triage processes.

However, we try to work on the basis that those that are not stoned or drunk as well as those that are stoned and/or drunk, get treated on the basis of the priority of their injury severity - not on the basis of their degree of intoxication nor their state of obnoxiousness.

In a previous post, someone commented that he "didn't care about those who were stoned or pissed, just the ones they hurt". But hospital staff have to care for all comers whether sober, reasonable, stoned or pissed; again, in order of priority of severity of injury. Therefore there are a lot of sober taxpaying citizens waiting much longer than they should be, while the drunk'n'stoned consume resources. Hopefully that's clear.

The other problem is that regardless of severity of injury, the drunk'nstoned consume a lot of staff time simply keeping them quiet, stopping them from interfering with other patients, being obnoxious to the triage nurse and other staff, and in general behaving exactly as one would expect for people who were witless enough to get drunk'n'stoned in the first place, and wandering around with a load on board and no constraints on their misbehaviour.

One other point to make here based on statistical evidence: just under half of all drivers who died in a crash and tested positive for drugs also tested positive for alcohol (and so vice versa). Proportionately, sober drivers are less more likely to be involved in all accidents including fatal accidents, then drug or alcohol impaired drivers. that doesn't disprove your point that many sober drivers are responsible for fatal and serious injury accidents, but it does somewhat dilute it.

Well, now I'm going riding

[FJRider]

In a previous post, someone commented that he "didn't care about those who were stoned or pissed, just the ones they hurt".

Sounds like something I would say ...


Perhaps treatment of those not at fault first ... and those under the (any) influence needs a police escort before being treated.




Sorted ...

[Edbear]

I guess am just not writing clearly enough. So let me just address your last point. Yes, those that are stoned or drunk often get priority treatment simply because they are so demanding and difficult to deal with and basically interfere with the normal triage processes.

However, we try to work on the basis that those that are not stoned or drunk as well as those that are stoned and/or drunk, get treated on the basis of the priority of their injury severity - not on the basis of their degree of intoxication nor their state of obnoxiousness.

In a previous post, someone commented that he "didn't care about those who were stoned or pissed, just the ones they hurt". But hospital staff have to care for all comers whether sober, reasonable, stoned or pissed; again, in order of priority of severity of injury. Therefore there are a lot of sober taxpaying citizens waiting much longer than they should be, while the drunk'n'stoned consume resources. Hopefully that's clear.

The other problem is that regardless of severity of injury, the drunk'nstoned consume a lot of staff time simply keeping them quiet, stopping them from interfering with other patients, being obnoxious to the triage nurse and other staff, and in general behaving exactly as one would expect for people who were witless enough to get drunk'n'stoned in the first place, and wandering around with a load on board and no constraints on their misbehaviour.

One other point to make here based on statistical evidence: just under half of all drivers who died in a crash and tested positive for drugs also tested positive for alcohol (and so vice versa). Proportionately, sober drivers are less more likely to be involved in all accidents including fatal accidents, then drug or alcohol impaired drivers. that doesn't disprove your point that many sober drivers are responsible for fatal and serious injury accidents, but it does somewhat dilute it.

Well, now I'm going riding

Well said!

Sounds like something I would say ...

Perhaps treatment of those not at fault first ... and those under the (any) influence needs a police escort before being treated.

Sorted ...

Maybe just give them a shot to quiet them down and then go on to the most needy? Or have a rubber mallet on hand? Gag and handcuffs?

[Akzle]

Heart-breaking news but Alex Renton passed away this evening.

the fucken silly bint was dosing him while he was stikl being fed pharmaceuticals. Damn.

Weed works.

[Laava]

the fucken silly bint was dosing him while he was stikl being fed pharmaceuticals. Damn.

Weed works.

Didn't work for this poor little girl.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-a...ectid=11485558

[Katman]

Didn't work for this poor little girl.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-a...ectid=11485558

Keeping toddlers and children away from illicit drugs is no different to keeping them away from pharmaceuticals, cleaning products, weapons, unpredictable animals etc.

(Note though, the cannabis didn't kill her).

[husaberg]

Didn't work for this poor little girl.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-a...ectid=11485558

Reminds me of this...........

Or your toddler has got into your stash...........

The OP was what would justify a death sentence I don't think anyone has yet suggested dope possession.

I note that of the Bali 9 only two were sentenced to death, as they were the ring leaders.
I also note it was for 8.3 kg (18 lb) of heroin from Indonesia to Australia. Not for a few doobies.

Well like I said, leave Cannabis out of it (see what I did there) if you're looking for a danger to a toddler who can't roll a splif.

They should be safe as long as they can't roll a doobie.

They could eat it - but it wouldn't do them shit.

[Edbear]

Keeping toddlers and children away from illicit drugs is no different to keeping them away from pharmaceuticals, cleaning products, weapons, unpredictable animals etc.

(Note though, the cannabis didn't kill her).

That's a dumb thing to claim! It damn near did kill her, and it most likely would have had she not been taken to hospital in time!

[Katman]

Reminds me of this...........

Nice try but no cigar.

It sounds like the guy dealt in cannabis oil.

From the research I have done it appears that it is the heating process that turns THCA into the psychoactive variant THC.

http://www.cannabis.info/us/abc/3000...ylation&hloc=1

So it would appear that eating unheated cannabis leaf would do fuck all to you.

[husaberg]

Nice try but no cigar.

It sounds like the guy dealt in cannabis oil.

From the research I have done it appears that it is the heating process that turns THCA into the psychoactive variant THC.

http://www.marijuanagrowershq.com/de...thca-into-thc/

So it would appear that eating unheated cannabis leaf would do fuck all to you.

I am not the one that's trying to justify a pretty stupid statement made.
But go ahead if you try hard enough you should be able to find a link that says it probably good for them aye.

[Katman]

I am not the one that's trying to justify a pretty stupid statement made.
But go ahead if you try hard enough you should be able to find a link that says it probably good for them aye.

And I'm happy to stand by my statement that eating unheated cannabis product would do fuck all to you.

[husaberg]

And I'm happy to stand by my statement that eating unheated cannabis product would do fuck all to you.

True, but of course that was not your original statement at all, But goes with the normal Katman theme anyway, As being a pretty obvious hypocrite has never really worried you in the past, I don't realistically expect much to change in the future then either.

Note

Iperen and his partner separated in January but both shared custody of the child. Iperen initially told a paediatrician his daughter got hold of some cannabis but he did not think she had ingested any. He later told police she got up about 6am and went to the kitchen where it appeared she gained access to a box containing cannabis plant and played with it before consuming some of it.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-a...ectid=11485558

[bogan]

That's a dumb thing to claim! It damn near did kill her, and it most likely would have had she not been taken to hospital in time!

No Ed, Katman's claims had nothing wrong with them (this time). What is a dumb claim is that you say it most likely would have killed her if she hadn't been taken to hospital; what exactly is that claim based on?

[husaberg]

No Ed, Katman's claims had nothing wrong with them (this time). What is a dumb claim is that you say it most likely would have killed her if she hadn't been taken to hospital; what exactly is that claim based on?

Iperen said she looked fine for the rest of the day but he expressed concern in a text to his former partner that evening that the child appeared "all dopey".

She advised him to take her to the White Cross, but he did not despite later admitting that she could not stand, sit up, or do anything and was not to herself.
The toddler was semi-comatose, unresponsive to voice, and only responsive to stimuli by movement of her limbs when brought to the hospital on February 27
In sentencing Iperen, Judge Duncan Harvey said the skills of medical staff ensured the child made a full recovery

If medical attention had not been sought, there was a possibility the child could have stopped breathing.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-a...ectid=11485558

While it way seem knee jerk, the actual court statements (As reported)point to a strong risk of outcomes including fatality.

But as the child appears to have only ingested cannabis plant material desite what Katmans has subsequently backtracking and straw grasping............

Nice try but no cigar.
It sounds like the guy dealt in cannabis oil.
So it would appear that eating unheated cannabis leaf would do fuck all to you.

And I'm happy to stand by my statement that eating unheated cannabis product would do fuck all to you.

Note
Iperen and his partner separated in January but both shared custody of the child. Iperen initially told a paediatrician his daughter got hold of some cannabis but he did not think she had ingested any. He later told police she got up about 6am and went to the kitchen where it appeared she gained access to a box containing cannabis plant and played with it before consuming some of it.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-a...ectid=11485558

[bogan]

While it way seem knee jerk, the actual court statements (As reported)point to a strong risk of outcomes including fatality.

When it is a child, even 5% is a strong risk. It is not however, most likely.