Slashdot Mirror
Researchers: Alcohol Health Risks Underestimated, Marijuana Relatively Safe
schwit1 writes Compared to other recreational drugs — including alcohol — marijuana may be even safer than previously thought. And researchers may be systematically underestimating risks associated with alcohol use. They found that at the level of individual use, alcohol was the deadliest substance (abstract), followed by heroin and cocaine.
This is only news to those who have had their head in the ground, listening to fox news and government shills.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
No thanks.
This headline is based on a comparison of a recreational dose versus a lethal dose, not a study of long term health effects.
We've known this for many years. It doesn't matter in a dogmatic political system that profits from human suffering.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
FWIW, TFA talks about the therapeutic index (LD50 vs effective dose) of these drugs, not their long-term effects.
So no, this doesn't add more information to the "alcohol is good for you this week / alcohol is bad for you next week" debate. Just saying that we typically drink a significant fraction of the amount it would take to kill us.
Ratio between toxic dose and typical human intake? That's their scale. Pretty meaningless. Yeah, put water on that scale, and I'd bet it would be somewhere down around heroin's risk.
sig: sauer
We should also legalize heroin and cocaine.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The research about children and marijuana is pretty damning. The effects on the developing brain ain't good and shouldn't be minimized.
Alcohol is good for your health! Alcohol is bad for your health! Smoking is good for your health (says the 1940s doctor)! Smoking is bad for your health! Marijuana is bad for your health! Marijuana is good for your health! The only guarantee is that next year what is good will be bad and what is bad will be good.
Prohibition 2.0 coming up next. Because the first one was a total success and Al Capone was simply a businessman delivering the goods people wanted.
And the War on Drugs is also a resounding accomplishment too!
...is bad for you.
And brownies may lead to weight gain --but then again, pot alone does a good enough job by itself.
Using their science, I'm sure tobacco would be even "safer" than weed.
Sure, their facts might be correct - but they are extremely skewed, it's not based on overall safety or mortality rates.
Yes alcohol has long term health effects, so does any other substance. Eating has long term health effects. The real measurements are immediate risk, long term risk, and gain from consumption.
This addresses none of those in a useful fashion.
Silence is a state of mime.
This sounds like one of those "Listening to Mozart makes your kid smart, while listening to heavy metal makes them dumb" articles. As in, it's targetted to appeal to the audience. I'm guessing the majority of /. are hopheads? (no offence)
And no, I didn't RTFA.
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
It wasn't too long back that the government told us marijuana and homosexuality were such dangerous threats to the underlying moral fabric of society that people had to go to jail over them. What does this tell us about the government and the society we live in?
This is only news to those who have had their head in the ground, listening to fox news and government shills.
I've noticed that it seems to be mostly Republicans who are putting up the legalization legislation trial balloons.
(Can't speak about Fox. I don't follow 'em all that much since, during the (especially the last) presidential campaigns, they proved the right-hand side of their claimed "fair and balanced" coverage consisted of flogging the Neocon faction and ignoring or slamming the others - especially the "Liberty" faction and Ron Paul.)
But I haven't checked Thomas.gov to see whether this is accurate, or just an artifact of the media only covering it when a Republican does it, on the "man bites dog IS news" principle.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Do whatever you enjoy in life. Drink, smoke, eat meat, take drugs. Don't listen to the alarmists, everything is bad for you. Instead, learn to enjoy in moderation, at the right moments.
Just don't let it become a habit. There is no savor in habits, only self contempt and other bad things, like addiction.
'Even Casual Marijuana Use Harms Young Brain, Study Finds' http://www.elementsbehavioralh... Marijuana might not be dangerous in a fully developed brain, but it causes damage to a young one. Sure, many used it years ago and nobody became a depressed looser... Or, did they?
There is a tremendous amount of ignorance and stupidity the world over. People get ideas from random sources, make their choices, and are very prone to making the mistake of believing everything they think. So we have people who *still* swear by Laetrile as a cure for cancer, or Scientology as a cure for arthritis caused by grumpy souls stuck in their elbows.
However, science offers a way out of the maze: the idea that ideas are only as valuable as they can be *validated* by peer review and experimentation. Validating ideas is painful, costly, and time consuming, so it takes *time* to find all the stupids and work them out, one by one. Combine that with the often significant economic interests in the ideas being cross-checked, and you can see it often takes even more time and expense to get the word out.
The change of tune that you point out is perhaps the single biggest strength of science, not some evidence of *ahem* irrational design.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
...thank God.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Western civilization has been around marijuana for only the last 100 years, so it has not been completely tested, unlike alcohol, which has been around for thousands of years. Marijuana has been much more tested, than it was 50 years ago. Marijuana might lower IQ 10 points, and make people less motivated, especially in young people. So, for older adults, in jobs that don't need high IQs, marijuana is safe enough. For younger people, or in higher IQ jobs, it is still unknown.
Marijuana, and maybe LSD, should just be legal for people over 40.
I'm glad that you don't think for yourself, and instead read the news headlines to know what's right and wrong. And thank you for not investigating the stories past the headline level, so we don't have to worry about an educated citizen's opinion.
Woman drinks 30 - 40 glasses of water and dies. * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
You're 'supposed' to drink 8 glasses a day. A 5x increase of water intake can lead to death.
Women are 'supposed' to limit themselves to 2 standard drinks per day. Drinking 10 standard drinks does not result in death.
Aside from the limitations in data, our results should be treated carefully particularly in regard to dissemination to lay people. For example, tabloids have reported that “alcohol is worse than hard drugs” following the publication of previous drug rankings. Such statements taken out of context may be misinterpreted, especially considering the differences of risks between individual and the whole population.
I doubt very many people here understand what MOE is. I sure don't based on what I read in the article and linked abstract. But their conclusions seem to be based on a lot of assumptions .
I don't think anyone is advocating that young people should be getting intoxicated. I mean, how would they even be able to pay for it? No mooching off my stash.
Reminds me of an old cartoon: Fellow presenting to a large auditorium full of people announcing "After many years of research, we have finally discovered the primary cause of cancer in rats: scientists!"
Pointing out that MJ is relatively safe (from accidental overdose) after decades of propaganda showing it to be a "dangerous" drug and comparing it to other "dangerous" drugs is a pretty important message.
Especially when you drop alcohol underneath the really nasty stuff.
It's making a really valid point. You put alcohol abuse up against MJ and the others for long term health affects you will probably see smoking climb the chart and fight alcohol for top run while MJ stays the same.
The assessment of toxicological endpoints and BMD for the selected known and suspected human carcinogens was generally based on literature data, as own doseâ"response modeling would have gone beyond the scope of our study. Suitable risk assessment studies including endpoints and doseâ"response modeling results were typically identified in monographs of national and international risk assessments bodies such as WHO IPCS, JECFA, US EPA and EFSA. For substances without available monographs or with missing data on doseâ"response modeling results, the scientific literature in general was searched for such data. Searches were carried out in September 2011 in the following databases: PubMed (US National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD), Web of Science (Thomson Reuters, Philadelphia, PA), Scopus (Elsevier B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands) and Google Scholar (Google, Mountain View, CA).
The BMD/MOE approach was used for risk assessment.13, 14 In short, the BMD is the dose of a substance that produces a predetermined change in response rate (benchmark response) of an adverse effect compared to background based on doseâ"response modeling.14 The benchmark response is generally set near the lower limit of responses that can be measured (typically in the range of 1â"10%). The result of BMD-response modeling can then be used in combination with exposure data to calculate a MOE for quantitative risk assessment. The MOE is defined as the ratio between the lower one-sided confidence limit of the BMD (BMDL) and estimated human intake of the same compound. It can be used to compare the health risk of different compounds and in turn prioritize risk management actions. By definition, the lower the MOE, the larger the risk for humans; generally, a value under 10,000 used to define public health risks.15
So really, this is about the overall health risks of a substance. Certainly important but that is far from being an endorsement of any of the substances for routine use.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Sorry, you got stoned and you missed it.
I hear it affects spelling. Not sure if it improves it or impairs it though, or what effect on grammar?
I am curious. How much does alcohol damage a young persons brain. And which damages it more?
See your argument is pointless. Alcohol is indisputably worse. On top of that its moot. No one is suggesting you give it to kids without a Drs prescription.
Kinda rolled right by...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
FTFA "A comparative risk assessment of drugs including alcohol and tobacco using the margin of exposure (MOE) approach was conducted. The MOE is defined as ratio between toxicological threshold (benchmark dose) and estimated human intake ....The benchmark dose values ranged ...to 531mg/kg bodyweight for alcohol (ethanol)"
So that's 1/2 a g per kg, or say 50g for me. A bottle of wine masses 750g, and at 13% would contain 97.5 g of alcohol
So according to this paper if I drink half a bottle of wine without excreting I am in danger of toxicological thresshold
Alarmist nonsense.
Actually, as far as I remember (when asking the same question) alcohol causes more deaths (out of car accidents and violence), so yes, it is more dangerous, but it doesn't cause brain damage. Can you find your source?
It is not advocacy. It is unintended consequences. I know about many teens that celebrate each time that the media asserts that cannabis is safe. Safer than tobacco and alcohol? It is even legal in some states, so it must be very safe, regardless of what adults say. They kids that I'm talking about are a special case (each one have a mental disorder diagnosis, in addition to their substance abuse problems), but the same logic applies to the general population. If it is safe, then it is safe. Period. Unless it is not.
In the 70s, I found out that 1 joint ( about $3 then, good stuff) was a LOT cheaper to get women than 4 or 5 bar drinks...
And they never puked up on my shoes, or in my car, or passed out, or had diarrhea in the morning...
Me neither.
So who wins? both, with the herbal alteration,
maybe neither, with alcohol...
No Shit!!!
There are two dangers:
First, marihuana is mainly smoked, together with tobacco. So the health danger comes from the tobacco.
Secondly, canabis does not only contain THC but also Cannabidiol, which partly counteracts the effect of THC and partly is psychoactive.
Modern breeds have mainly emphasized THC, so the 'compensation' of CBL is missing.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
A drug conviction can ruin your life, or at least, substantially alter your possible outcomes.
Yes, I understand the difference. Does it matter?
..don't panic
You know who else thought of the children?
Allowing consumers to self medicate with marijuana for depression, pain, MS, cancer, etc, etc isn't in the interests of the Pharmaceutical Industry.
With it's deep pockets and lobbying power common sense just doesn't stand a chance against it's power and money.
Are you actually serious?
2 things about that link;
1- You cannot take a site seriously when they feel they have to pad out the article using SUCH A BIG FONT!
2- Half of the damage they describe, can easily be seen in young minds that are indoctrinated into religious beliefs.
In our school, we had very easy access to pot.
The biggest users, the top echelon of the students.
Football players, valedictorian, the upper 10 percentile of the school.
I must say, that it really is more a matter of the person using it and their mental discipline, rather than the substance.
Three of my friends went downhill fast, becoming complete stoners and basement dwellers using it as an escape.
Many more, including myslef, all graduted at or near the top of our respective classes.
caveat: Canadian Education. We actually learned about drugs and alcohol in our school district, and how to experiment with them.
More importantly, how to understand and/or deal with the effects you'll be experiencing (mindfullness, grounding self into reality, having music around to keep time flowing well, how to clear your mind and focus on this reality (for psychedelics), how to escape mental traps/holes)
I assume it was a much different an experience than places where kids are basically throwing a dart and then crawling around in the dark from there.
When people tell me that smoking pot doesn't affect their ability to drive, do their jobs, or most anything, I have to ask them, "If it has so little effect on you, why do you smoke it? Kinda defeats the purpose.".
I know about many teens that celebrate each time that the media asserts that cannabis is safe.
I know about many adults that do the same! To us, it suggests a time when we might collectively agree to re-prioritise the energies spent on policing the substance.
So in this group *I* may very well be a drop-kick but the other people I'm referring to are not. None are under 40 years in age, several of them own and manage businesses and are doing very nicely for themselves. All are good people leading productive, healthy lives. All happen to enjoy Mary Jane.
I will admit one of my friends in this group did give up marijuana but apparently it was purely to do with her quit-smoking campaign; reportedly it wasn't helpful to smoke anything at all when trying to give up cigarettes. Incidentally it took her several years to fully chase the need for nicotine out of her system but she never seemed to miss the MJ.
.
They kids that I'm talking about are a special case (each one have a mental disorder diagnosis, in addition to their substance abuse problems)
Eek. I hope you don't think that's the only type of person who wants to see some intelligent marijuana law reform! :)
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
What hogwash.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Another study found that children who start with a daily joint at 6 years old develop cognitive and emotional function at a faster rate and reach higher levels than the non-smoking control group.
Studies are a dime a dozen and one can be found that proves anything you like. The best plan is to follow scientific and medical consensus... which is that pot is harmless if not weakly beneficial.
Sure. Source please. I agree on following consensus of sound studies. Those using proper scientific method and having statistical power ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...). Also, those that are valid for current context, like the much more potent concentration of the active ingredient of cannabis that exists today. Ignoring activism, there is huge amount of poor studies. Serious scientists read and evaluate them. You propose a consensus of all studies, the good and the bad together. What PhD program did learn this from? :-D
I really don't care how you do your decision making or whether you smoke with your 6 yo children. But I don't want my taxes to be paying welfare to those loosers because their brain is too damaged to learn how to fry potatoes at a McDonald. Finding jobs is going to be difficult without having brain damage, anyway.
I assume that you will not be interested to evaluate studies and create public policy based of statistical or simulation-based forecasts, but Nate Silver's 'The Signal and the Noise' is excellent advise on evaluating scientific advise. As he says, averaging results of sound studies is wise as you can expect most times (not always) to obtain better results than when siding with one study (which could be right or wrong). Consensus.... blind consensus as proposed above? Of course not.
Protip advises to eat/drink/smoke anything that you happen to enjoy, just don't let it become a habit and exercise some moderation. This is very vague advice. Surely one should determine what things should be avoided, what things should be only lightly used, what things may be freely indulged in. If there are dangerous things out there, one should surely know about them.
It's true that anything can kill you. Drinking too much water for example is dangerous, it can cause swelling in the brain and death. Should one avoid water, of course not, but there is some limit to how much water one should drink. Competitions where one should drink as much as possible are dangerous and often result in people dying as a result.
So anything can kill you. This should tell you something, the human body is fragile. One of the peculiar aspects of our culture is that we believe we are invulnerable, it won't happen to us. Drink anything, smoke anything, it won't happen to you. But the human body is a finely balanced chemical environment that agents and pathogens can upset. It's not for nothing that there is a blood-brain barrier, this is because the brain is a very finely balanced organ that can be affected by things like drink and drugs.
Do you really want to be messing with your brain, how it operates? If even water can kill you and your body needs a blood-brain barrier to maintain correct operation, and this barrier must have evolved because it was necessary, do you really want to be messing with how your brain operates? And that is what happens when you get drunk, when you get high, your brain is malfunctioning. It's not operating according to specifications.
So the idea that anything in moderation is okay has to be evaluated in this light. If I can induce my brain to operate in a way that it shouldn't, what is the impact of that? Could it not cause trouble down the line? Surely one must take the approach that less is more.
The other thing to think about is the so-called lifestyle effects of drink and drugs. You may be hanging out with the wrong friends, getting into bad habits, not being focused enough on work or self improvement, etc. Where is your life going, where is it headed? Is it getting better, is it developing to where you want it to reach? Are you going to become what you want to become? Partying and all that is not going to take you there.
The main thing to realize is, we are all fragile, even Protip acknowledges this. He says, don't listen to the alarmists, do what you like and don't worry. What he is saying is, don't worry about messing yourself up, we all die eventually. Does this sound like a successful attitude to have?
I am just fine with people who want to smoke pot. After all, I have no right to tell them what to do, so long as they are not infringing upon my rights.
That all changes the second they ask government to give them some of MY money when they can't get or keep a job. Then again, libertarians want to abolish welfare anyway, so it's a win win just the same. In the meantime we can just deny welfare benefits to pot users.
This is not my field of expertise, so I do not know the literature. But I know that I read more or less an identical assessment in a scientific report that was created for the Australian legislators in the 1980'ies upon which i stumbled by chance. I read similar assessments in a number of books on recreational drugs later, so this cannot be new at all and must already be backed by dozens, if not hundreds of studies?
Could we not finally start to just accept these insights as facts?
...I'm sure all that smoke you inhale, and try to hold in as long as possible, is great for you...all those fun carcinogens and all.
Notice a massive uptick in marijuana studies since states have been legalizing? This is all propaganda for the marijuana movement.
Weed can be a MASSIVE demotivator. And it can set the mindset of "things are OK; I don't need to do anything that requires effort."
I've seen too many people who got caught in this trap, never graduated high school and went on to lead dead end lives.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
the novel "Brave New World" implied that Government would find a way to force people to drug themselves into complacency, apathy, and harmlessness.
the reality? People are fighting, and DEMANDING their Soma be legalized so they can pay for it themselves.
In the UK it is. In the US, it's a DEA Schedule I drug with no (legally) accepted medical/therapeutic use. My understanding is that the UK NHS almost exclusively uses diamorphine for end-of-life / terminal pain management, where the addiction risks aren't a concern.
There are some studies showing that addicted people often aren't able to distinguish heroin from other strong opioids like morphine and hydromorphone. I don't know if it's been done with opioid-naive subjects. I suspect not. Of course, just the subjective experience of using those drugs doesn't tell the whole story.
Anecdotally, and without having done a whole lot of research in to it yet, I think there's likely a strong genetic factor underlying opioid addiction. Maybe someday we'll have a test that could tell people in advance if they're at risk. Of course, then there'd be very valid concerns about receiving inadequate pain management with that sort of result in your health record. An interesting time to be alive.
More reading: http://www.nature.com/news/1998/980813/full/news980813-6.html
http://www.songlyrics.com/old-dogs/still-gonna-die-1998-lyrics/
I looked up some information about your statement. Having never used it myself, I speak only from talking to others and from research. Found some interesting facts to support your text:
Why is marijuana illegal
From reading a couple articles (including the linked one above, it appears that there was a perfect storm of 'enemies' to the use of the plant including:
Not only did opinion turn against the plant in the early 20th century, but it actually turned opposite of the historical stance. There was a point in certain colonies that people were punished if they did not grow the plant.
Most people would agree that this is not a "poison" as some see it. They would also acknowledge that classifying meth as less dangerous than pot can't be attributed to science in any way. Clearly, the schedule system imposed by the FDA and DEA is flawed and influenced by politics. Even for someone who feels it should be banned, they could at least be intellectually honest enough to say their ranking of pot as more dangerous than meth is flawed.
But on the other hand, the drug war is big business right now. According to the Bureau of Justice, drug offenses account for about a quarter of all reasons for incarceration. Not only that, but 1 in 8 state employees in the country are employees of a corrections agency.
It seems to me that there are a lot of people with a vested interest in not reexamining the issue and in keeping the status quo. Obviously, people have important concerns about health and what you put in your body. I just wish we could focus on more facts and less politics so people could make the decisions based on more than just waves of political opinion.
Lots of scientific studies turn out to be wrong in their conclusions. It's in the nature of how we do science: individual papers can easily be wrong, but the problems can be rectified later. Most papers are correct, but there's lots and lots of scientific papers, and some bad or unlucky ones will get through.
Moreover, you're linking to a site that says "Study Finds", meaning you aren't dealing with science at all but with science journalism, which is in a disgraceful state. Marijuana is a hot political topic, which means that people are interested in presenting studies that favor their views, and so we have no reason to think that study wasn't cherry-picked and/or misinterpreted.
So, you'll excuse me if I pay no attention to your cite.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Actually, a heroine is more like a person that eats the hero, than the sandwich itself. As it should be.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Can you imagine what rules the fox would put in place, given the authority to guard the henhouse?
Welcome to how the US government operates, in direct opposition to article five. Article three does not assign article five powers, or anything remotely resembling them, to the judiciary.
Any legislation or ruling contrary to the constitution is unauthorized use of power by definition. There's a great deal of it. A good argument can be made that our government is pathologically out of control based on this alone.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Congress shall make no law. Congress makes a law. We should send the congresspersons home and tear the law up. No third party required. No delay required. No court required.
[thing] shall not be infringed upon. Congress makes a law that infringes. We should send the congresspersons home and tear the law up. No third party required. No delay required. No court required.
All other rights and powers go to the states. Congress makes a law that takes some of those powers unto itself. We should send the congresspersons home and tear the law up. No third party required. No delay required. No court required.
Congress nor states may make ex post facto laws. They make ex post facto laws. We should send the makers home and tear the laws up. No third party required. No delay required. No court required.
Search and seizure may not be pursued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, which allows a judge to choose to issue a warrant, which in turn must specify the things to be searched for and the place(s) to be searched. Congress or a state (or a TLA, effectively) makes a law that breaks this chain: We should send the makers/breakers home and tear the law/rule up. No third party required. No delay required. No court required.
Authority? The US constitution, which lays out the limits of government, barring use of article five. As these people are all obviously in violation of the limits, they are no longer qualified to be a part of it, and sending them home amounts to no more than the courtesy of paying for their ticket. They clearly didn't belong where they were.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Just the way a circuit judge exercises the power of laws at his/her level: By enforcing them. Not by re-defining or ignoring for some trumped-up "cause."
INTRASTATE commerce. Make NO law. shall NOT infringe. ...powers not assigned here SHALL go to the states. NO ex post facto laws, state OR federal. Warrant REQUIRED. And so on. Where's the (honest) controversy? This stuff is forbidden, plain and simple, and any time it comes up, and I mean *any* time, the whole thing is an exercise in constitutional violation and unauthorized use, or attempted use, of power.
The constitution wasn't written for sophist lawyers to dance on the head of a pin. It was written to restrict and define the role of government in plain English, by and for the citizens. Step outside that, it's not government -- it's just a banana dictatorship -- "because the government says so." Yeah, we're neck deep in this crap and sinking fast, but that does not, and never will, make it right.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
That is NOT the responsibility of the individual. It is the responsibility of the legislature that decided they were going to pay for it. The taxpayers have recourse, too -- tell their legislators they don't accept paying for it. If enough do so, it'll stop. You see the government paying for housing for those the taxpayers are happy to see living under a bridge? No. Think about it.
On the other hand, if the representatives get the message that we're compassionate enough to offer to help those who want to be helped? Well then, that's how it'll go. And of course, there is some small chance that private charity will address a problem. Very small.
It still doesn't give anyone the right to tell another person what to do, or not do, with their own body or those of others who consent (and even if you try to arrogate such a right, you will inevitably find that it won't "take." Witness the failure of prohibition and the drug war and the sex worker / sex client war and the pro-heterosexuality war and slavery.)
These things have two obvious things in common: First, the laws themselves, far more than the things they make illegal, cause immense harm. The second is that they make legislators look incredibly stupid in front of anyone who can think their way out of a paper bag. The former is a damned shame. The latter, I'm afraid, we already had ample proof of.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
There are only three ways you can easily kill someone with pot.
First, put them in jail. Rape and murder are potential outcomes. Then, once released as a felon, suicide may get them when they find the doors of (legal) opportunity have closed and they are permanently ranked lowest-class-irredeemable by society's permanent retribution stick. Finally, if they try to make it in the underground economy, the system will likely get another whack at them in its rape-and-murder parlors. Also, as the government has created a violent black market in pot with its laws, competition in the underground economy is also a potential source of death.
Second, stuff enough pot into their windpipe to completely block their breathing. That'll do it.
Third, drop a 100 kg bale of pot on their head from about 100 meters above. That'll do it pretty much every time. See? Pot can be dangerous.
There are other ways, but they are more difficult to set up and generally require many bales of pot and restraint of the victim.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Its pretty much common sense that you can smoke a pound of marijuana and survive, where you drink a pound of 190 proof Everclear, you're probably dead.... I don't think we need an article to point that out
Long term pot use is disastrous for your ability to function emotionally, but hey at least your liver will still be working. So go ahead and smoke up. I will be LOLing when nobody worthwhile wants to deal with your addled mentality at 40 years old while my Alcohol greased social life will be fully functional. Protip:it's the addiction that is bad with any drug.