While researchers studied 15 people whose deaths were allegedly linked to marijuana use, 13 of those deaths were confirmed to be caused by other factors. Researchers said, however, that the drug was to blame in two isolated cases of two seemingly health people, one 23 years old and another 28. Autopsies found that younger had a serious undetected heart problem, suggesting that people with cardiological issues should be aware of marijuana risks, and the older had a history of alcohol and drug use.

“To our knowledge, these are the first cases of suspected fatal cannabis intoxications where full post-mortem investigations… were carried out,” researchers said in the study, published in Forensic Science International this month. “After exclusion of other causes of death we assume that the young men experienced fatal cardiovascular complications evoked by smoking cannabis.”

http://time.com/10372/marijuana-deaths-german-study/

But I see it as the media jumping over themselves at any chance to demonize the new legality.

How so "to your knowledge", Time? What is the toxin?

Load of bunk right there, times two.

If it is legalized. I'll see if I can find the article. Comparing it to smoking cigs and the dangers posed therein.

I can not tolerate the increased heart rate.

EVERYTHING YOU DO in life changes your blood pressure, including going to the doctor to have your blood pressure checked. It is a normal function of the body.

(i'm assuming percentages work that way when you start from zero)

If it's from zero, technically it's an infinite percentage increase (divide by zero)...

I think it was. A guy was allegedly hit on the head by large quantities of hash, and subsequently died. But it was probably just an Internet myth

I'm surprised you managed to get a page to load up in order for you to read that story.

A crewman on a smuggling trawler was down in the cargo hold when they hit some rough waters, and two tons of stacked 50 lb bales came crashing down on him.

There were no other cars involved, and neither I nor my passenger were hurt.
But it was kind of a bad accident and it only happened because I was totally baked.
Ironically, it happened in Death Valley.

I think it's just as bad to say or attempt to imply that "there are no harmful effects to marijuana use," as it is to go all Reefer Madness and Devil's Weed. Like everything else, moderation is the key, and there is a proper time and place. Driving is not one of those times or places. It impairs your senses and judgement, and that's kind of the point, isn't it?

This, from someone who has smoked weed if not daily, certainly weekly for about 40 years now...

it's to compare the level of danger with other substances.

And I totally agree with that approach.

Of course, the OP is titled "Pot death toll still at zero."
So I do think there is a purposeful implication there that it is harmless.

Individual humans sometimes have the strangest allergies, and a reaction to cannabis by someone is not out of the question.

But "overdose" death is extremely unlikely unless there are preexisting conditions.

So a cannabis death here or there is not to be unexpected, but to call that a result of a dangerous substance is not a reasonable conclusion. Cannabis is used in millions of doses without consequence and is 99.99999% safe, and cannot be logically compared to other substances like alcohol with proven scientific fatal overdoses.

It is an anomaly. The profits and taxes that would be made legalizing pot are enormous, and you would think your true-blue capitalist would consider that above all things. The irony is that compared to the big vices like tobacco and alcohol, marijuana is positively benign from the standpoint of physical health. While "vested interests" could be used to explain the anti-pot crusade (booze and tobacco companies not wanting competition, etc -- and also the collateral links to the MIC and the prison and health industries), capitalism can usually find room for new products when the potential for profit is as high as it is with pot. Kind of a mystery, to me. I suspect the reasons are not wholly related to economics.

-- Mal

Bog knows, the amount of time and law enforcement resources spent on enforcing "vice" laws is enormous. But after all, we disposed of Prohibition after damage had been done in creating organized crime despite the fact that rigorously-enforced Prohibiition laws could criminalize a large portion of the population. Whereas we have not nationally repealed laws against marijuana and other non-harmful drugs despite similar damage. And it's not like the ruling class was inconvenienced by Prohibition and therefore protested enough to force repeal.

However, the difference could be that in the period of Prohibition after the Depression, we had less surplus labor to warehouse in prisons than we did when marijuana became a scheduled drug. Obviously the later '30s are a different period from the early '70s. Even if this were the case, though, I still find it curious that true capitalists have been willing to forego the profits which would accrue to legalization for so long. But then, we've had prostitution laws much longer, and there's surely a lot of money to be made there.

-- Mal

joke ....sorry .