::: shrug :::
If you say so.
Put me into the “deserve to be punished, but 20 years is completely fucking ludicrous” column. Maybe some hardcore community service and 15 days in jail, or something.
Yes, I read the entire article. It believe it was a prank, and since marijuana isn’t poisonous, I think the use of the word “poisoned” is inappropriate. Those people were tricked. I think what that kid did was incredibly stupid. Don’t get me wrong. If it really was a poison like cyanide or strychnine, I would be right behind you advocating more than 20 years as well.
I realize that nobody has been sentenced yet. What I’m wondering is why the prospective sentence is so high to begin with?
I imagine I can do far worse things than this, and get less time.
It’s poison to me. shrug I’d be in anaphalactic shock and dead.
Yeah, funny prank - ahahahaha. What a trick - what a hoot. :rolleyes:
Inky
PS I’m not saying 20 years per or anything just - it’s more serious than a prank.
I don’t remember ever saying that I thought the prank was funny. I don’t think the intention was to kill anybody. To take it one step further, I doubt the intention was to harm anyone, either. Then again, I only really have that article to go on.
I did read earlier that you are allergic to marijuana. If one of the victims was also allergic, went into anaphalactic shock, and died, I would have no problem with a higher sentence.
Any chemical that causes illness or injury can properly be described as a poison.
In cases like this involving young defendants and defenses of ‘stupid prank that could have gone really wrong’, I’d be in favor of a short jail sentence to be served, followed by a longer suspended sentence (30 days, plus 2-5 years suspended for another 5 years, perhaps). If they really didn’t mean any harm and just did something stupid, the jail time will scare the crap out of them, after which they can go on to live productive, law-abiding lives. If, on the other hand, they serve their time and go right back to their old behavior, then they’ve demonstrated that they don’t play well with others and the chips can fall where they may.
[QUOTE=Excalibre]
(a) Find a real cite. I’m not frankly inclined to trust NORML’s summaries of scientific results, especially given some familiarity with how the media distort such things. An advocacy organization is likely even worse.
From the same link (same page actually…had you bothered to read it thoroughly)…
…there was no significant increase in culpability for cannabinoids alone. While a relatively large number of injured drivers tested positive for cannabinoids, culpability rates were no higher than those for the drug free group…
REFERENCE:
Logan, M.C., Hunter, C.E., Lokan, R.J., White, J.M., & White, M.A. (2000). The Prevalence of Alcohol, Cannabinoids, Benzodiazepines and Stimulants Amongst Injured Drivers and Their Role in Driver Culpability: Part II: The Relationship Between Drug Prevalence and Drug Concentration, and Driver Culpability. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 32, 623-32.
…Patients testing positive for illicit drugs (marijuana, opiates, and cocaine), in the absence of alcohol, were in crashes very similar to those of patients with neither alcohol nor drugs. When other relevant variables were considered, these drugs were not associated with more severe crashes or greater injury…
REFERENCE:
P. Waller et al. 1997. Crash characteristics and injuries of victims impaired by alcohol versus illicit drugs. Accident Analysis and Prevention 29: 817-827.
…Evidence from the present and previous studies strongly suggests that alcohol encourages risky driving whereas THC encourages greater caution, at least in experiments. Another way THC seems to differ qualitatively from many other drugs is that the formers users seem better able to compensate for its adverse effects while driving under the influence…
REFERENCE:
H. Robbe. 1995. Marijuana’s effects on actual driving performance. In: C. Kloeden and A. McLean (Eds) Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety T-95. Adelaide: Australia: HHMRC Road Research Unit, University of Adelaide. Pp. 11-20.
b) Find evidence that a first-time marijuana user who doesn’t know they’re on marijuana isn’t any more dangerous a driver. Habitual pot-smokers all claim to be able to drive perfectly well while high, and I’ve seen enough of them do it that I don’t doubt that, in some cases at least, it’s true. However, assuming because habitual users can drive reasonably well while under the influence that cannabis-naive people intoxicated without their knowledge can properly compensate for its effects is patently ridiculous.
I agree that someone who doesn’t know they’re on marijuana could possibly become alarmed at the onset of its effects. I suspect they might have the same reaction to any “out of the ordinary” sensation, which could be brought on by any number of factors (excessive heat, food allergy, OTC drug reaction etc). I’m confident enough in my fellow humans to presume that they would not attempt to continue driving in a state of “unknown” awareness. Trying to “compensate” would be patently ridiculous.
…Some people get a completely dysphoric high - it’s not always fun…
Precisely why everyone, not just the 86 year old, was “rushed” to the hospital. At this point, no one knew it was weed. Not knowing caused everyone to panic, and rightly so.
…Potentially poisoning 18 people…
Marijuana is NOT poisonous. Unlike nearly every other drug known to humans, including most drugs made by humans, you CANNOT overdose on weed.
…And depending how much pot they used, it’s possible to consume far more than you could via smoking it, which means that people might have been very heavily intoxicated…
Please. :rolleyes:
THC is about three times more potent when smoked than when eaten. On top of that, weed can be up to 10 times less potent when eaten due to incomplete absorbtion from the intestine. In order to get “very heavily intoxicated”, most folks would need to choke down about three grams of weed. I doubt these kids were willing to pony up some $360.00 for their muffin batch ($20.00 a gram according to the DEA). I further doubt that anyone would tolerate a muffin from a batch that contained 54 grams of anything.
For the record, I do not smoke marijuana…anymore.
I do not condone this prank…it breaks down what little, if any, trust that is left between students and teachers.
However, I completely disagree with the proposed charges and their subsequent punishments.
Of course, ever since Columbine, every teacher out there might just be thinking that every student is out to kill them. Sad.
Anything can be a poison under that description. If you put too much nutmeg in someone’s eggnog it would be poisoning them too. Giving somebody too much water is poisoning them. Having said that I can’t argue with that definition.
In this case all but one person was examined and released from hospital. As far as I know the elderly lady had no serious medical difficulty.
One expects to encounter nutmeg in egg nog.
Good point :Þ
I wasn’t comparing putting nutmeg in someone’s eggnog to spiking muffins with marijuana. I was just pointing out that anything is a poison under definition provided by Otto. Perhaps I should have used a better example.
Perhaps you should’ve. For those who have an allergic reaction to nutmeg to consume egg nog would be stupid. For those who have an allergic reaction to marijuana to consume brownies doesn’t rise to that same level of stupidity.
Oh, I wasn’t refering to allergic reactions. If you consume enough nutmeg, it has a halucinatory effect. I believe it’s also toxic at high quanities. I’m probably being too nitpicky now. 
Everyone was released from hospital, no harm done. Great.
But it doesn’t change the fact that these kids deliberately spiked food that they gave to people with the express purpose of disturbing their mental state, without prior knowledge or consent. And that they had no idea if what they were doing could kill someone or not.
Someone mentioned peanut allergies before - Most people who are knowingly allergic to a food (like peanuts, or gluten, or lactose or whatever) will avoid foods that may potentially contain their allergen, especially if those foods are from an anonymous source. But people who know they’re allergic to dope wouldn’t think that some gift muffins would contain marijuana, and may not be as cautious.
As I said before, I do agree that 20 years is excessive. But I agree with the calls that these kids should be serving some kind of jail time.
It’s not my definition, it’s dictionary.com’s:
But yes, if the chemical causes illness or injury, even if it’s not something normally considered a poison, then it’s in that instance a poison. Including H[sub]2[/sub]O and nutmeg.
Okay. Aren’t all nuts toxic in large amounts? Perhaps we’re both being too picky.
They’re not kids. They’re 18 years old. That makes them adults.
I know, I wasn’t contesting it. I just said that you provided it. As in, looked it up and printed it out.
I understand, I agreed with you before.
I don’t believe that the marijuana in this case was meant to cause the sort of harm other poisons would. You can’t overdose on marijuana. I think the point was to have the teachers and students “trip out”. Of course I could be wrong, but if the point was to harm the teachers and students, I’m sure they would have used something else.
I still think it was monumentally stupid thing to do.
One angle that’s gone unaddressed (even in the news article) is the question of compensation for the victims’ medical costs and even compensation to the relevant law enforcement authorities for the costs of the investigation. From what I’ve read, even the simplest emergency room visit can get pretty expensive. You can bet the case of the 86-year-old woman who stayed for overnight observation will run into the thousands… Why should the victims or their insurers be stuck with the bill?
The matter of compensation for the law-enforcement costs may not be as far-fetched as it seems; the infamous “runaway bride” from last year was, IIRC, ordered to compensate police agencies for the costs incurred in their search for her (some $40,000, wasn’t it?). And in at least some egregious cases, lost mountain climbers (and I think also boaters, skiers, and others engaged in outdoorsy activities) are assessed the cost of the search-and-rescue efforts on their behalf, especially when the government racked up big expenses from using rescue helicopters and the like.
I think these punks should get a short jail term but be ordered to pay all the costs of those emergency room visits, minimum. Others with expertise in legal and police matters could chime in on the justice of having them pay also for the cost of the FBI terrorism-angle investigation, which was mandated by the public school setting of the incident, and for local police expenses.
Another “what-if” scenario that the perps were damn lucky didn’t happen: that apparently no one else suffered from delayed medical care in that ER (or area emergency rooms) that night when the flood of 18 poisoning patients came in…
Oh yes, time in the hospital can add up very fast. My roommate was in for 2 days for a heart infection (I forget the name), he had antibiotics and was in for two days. Total bill, $17,000.
If it had been me, I would have been in the hospital too. Pot messes with my body in very bad ways and it doesn’t take much of it. (which is why I only tried it twice). The first time I couldn’t move at all, even though I was consious. The second time I had much less and 15 minutes later lost muscle control in my legs and couldn’t stand. If I had to drive after/during the consumption I and others could have been killed easily.
I’d be filing a civil suit against them in addition to whatever criminal charges they face. I do agree that 20 years is probably a bit high, (hehe) but this calls for more than a slap on the wrist.