Police: Student ate more pot than recommended

wthr ^ | Apr 17, 2014 | SADIE GURMAN

[digger48]

DENVER (AP) - A Wyoming college student who jumped to his death at a Denver hotel had eaten more of a marijuana cookie than was recommended by a seller, police records show - a finding that comes amid increased concern about the strength of popular pot edibles after Colorado became the first state to legalize recreational marijuana.

Levy Thamba Pongi, 19, consumed more than one cookie purchased by a friend - even though a store clerk told the friend to cut each cookie into six pieces and to eat just one piece at a time, said the reports obtained Thursday.

Pongi began shaking, screaming and throwing things around a hotel room before he jumped over a fourth-floor railing into the hotel lobby March 11. An autopsy report listed marijuana intoxication as a "significant contributing factor" in the death.

Marijuana cookies and other edibles have become increasingly popular since Colorado allowed people 21 and over to buy recreational marijuana this year at regulated stores. Federal authorities don't regulate the edibles because marijuana remains illegal under federal law.

[newnhdad]

wait, he overdosed on pot? That can’t be true because potheads have been telling us for years that it’s unpossible.. “pfttt....dude, you can’t overda... wait wha? ohhh, riggggghhhhhttt.... you can’t take too muc..... wha?”

[tacticalogic]

Unfortunately, as a society, we are on the hook for supporting all those who become permanently brain damaged as a result of pot use. The evidence suggests that even a small use can cause permanent brain damage.

That establishes a premise that we will be "on the hook" for supporting them and circumvents any debate about whether we should be, and carries an implicit assertion that the perception of "risk" automatically creates a government power to act on it.

The validity of that premise needs to be challenged, IMHO.

[exDemMom]

That establishes a premise that we will be "on the hook" for supporting them and circumvents any debate about whether we should be, and carries an implicit assertion that the perception of "risk" automatically creates a government power to act on it.

I was simply stating the situation as it is. Whether you or I like this situation, it is what exists. We are subsidizing countless drug addicts already through welfare, food stamps, and generous disability programs and the push towards widely legalized marijuana can only result in more dependency.

Personally, I would like to see all of the redistribution programs scaled way back, but I'm afraid that won't happen until the entire economy buckles under the weight of all the give-away programs.

[tacticalogic]

I was simply stating the situation as it is. Whether you or I like this situation, it is what exists. We are subsidizing countless drug addicts already through welfare, food stamps, and generous disability programs and the push towards widely legalized marijuana can only result in more dependency.

Personally, I would like to see all of the redistribution programs scaled way back, but I'm afraid that won't happen until the entire economy buckles under the weight of all the give-away programs.

Indeed. We're presented with a conundrum. We have a situation where we have to choose between two possible courses of action to mitigate the problem. One solution will mean at least a temporary increase in human suffering and the political fallout from that, but less government dependence and a reduction in the size of the government in the long run. The other will mitigate the human suffering, and avoid the negative political optics in the short term, but at the cost of increasing the size of the government and acquiescing to more federal government authority and increasing control of our lives.

Choose wisely.