Mike Howard Killed by Thief Trying to Steal His Medical Marijuana

Where's all the QTV folks? Don't you want to smash this guys head in with your crowbars?

I for one, hope our vindictive justice system gives this murderer every charge they can. If I'm reading the story right, sounds to me like...Capitol Murder, Attempted Robbery, Criminal Trespassing, Use of a deadly weapon in commission of a felony, etc. I'd like to see this creep get a sentence that will at least pale in comparison to the harsh sentences handed down for marijuana possesion. On second thought, since he killed the owner, they should consider the pot his, and charge him with illegal possesion with intent to distribute too, that way he'd be guaranteed to serve a lengthy prison term.....

As I have indicated b4 weed seldom kills by use.In this case I think they should pile up the charges on this guy all of the above charges Bacon mentioned!

Has weed EVER killed by use?

@ brad Not that I know of. I just use the word SELDOM bcause someone may pull out some off the wall link where a person high on weed killed someone in a car wreck or some such shit as that, even though alcohol is probably the bigger cause, you know covering my bases :)))

Yeah, there's never been a death caused by smoking marijuana. There's no proof of it causing car accidents either, only speculation. Maybe if the shit were legal, people wouldn't kill each other over it. You don't hear about people getting killed over a pack of smokes or a bottle of booze. Just a thought.

Smoking weed can cause lung cancer you morons.

I would like to see the report that shows that smoking weed causes lung cancer. And really, let us talk about how cigarettes do the very same thing. Or how drinking does a crap load of different damages to your body or how it incapacitates you and you can damage others or other things.

Really, weed is less harmful than a host of other substances out there... I don't use it because I don't need it. However, if a time came that there was a need for it, for me personally, I would not have an issue in doing so...

Actually, mcr, there was a story on here where some guy got stabbed over some cigs. Now I acknowledge that he didn't die, but it could happen.

@ wondering1969 Y likes to call people morons when his own posts contradict each other all the time. He won't be able to show you a true report that smoking weed causes lung cancer because there is none. When they tried to test it in the past a large percentage of marijuana smokers also smoke cigarettes (which we know causes lung cancer) so it was hard to isolate the study to people who JUST smoked weed. But Y likes to make himself feel more important picking random fights and then on the next thread completley contradicting his own dumb ass arguements so I would'nt put alot of thought into what he says.

The carcinogens in marijuana smoke are far less than the amount in cigarettes. The whole "lung cancer" argument is silly, and feeble at the same time.

If the unjustified laws enacted by the Federal government were not in place, this would never have happened.

The only case I am aware of that a guy died as a direct result of Marijuana being introduced to his system, is the guy that choked to death with a baggie of it in his throat. That is how laughable the common misconception is, that "pot kills".

Pot didn't kill this guy, the Legislative branch of Congress, in 1937, killed this guy.

Sorry, you're wrong!!!!
Marijuana users suffering from the lungs more than regular smokers, researchers reported in a recent study. In fact, marijuana can cause more lung damage than 2.5 to five cigarettes. The researchers said that cannabis, the plant source of marijuana, was associated with a dose-related impairment of the large airways, causing airflow obstruction and hyperinflation. But unlike cigarette smoking, cannabis was rarely associated with macroscopic emphysema

Go buy yourself a vaporizer. It's smokeless. There, your lungs are clean and you get your weed:)

There is something about drinking beer out of a bottle,can or glass they way you want. It not just the beer that relaxes you; it is the "ceremony". If the government gave you beer in dixie cup as medicinal. You might drink it but it would ruin it. The atmosphere / ceremony is part of it. 10% , 20%, don't know.

Smoking for most people would be more relaxing than taking a marinal pill. Smoking would be more effective.

There should be good scientific studies coming out of Israel. There's a doctor there looking into dosage.

Try a new tack: anti-cancer.

http://cancer.about.com/od/smokingandcancer/f/marijuana.htm

Then again it is burning plant material that you inhale. That can't be any safer than cigarettes. If it is safer then the THC would make the difference.

Is marijuana not as dangerous due to the fact that people don't have the opportunity to smoke it as much as tobacco?

First of all John thanks for the link! But as for your last sentence if you know where to look weed is no harder to find than cigarettes.It is less dangerous than alcohol all the way around.

Bacon, love the comment. agreed.

iLLusions: I did not say or mean to imply that it was hard to find. Well maybe it is, for me. I know better than to look. I'd find the cop.

I meant to say that since it is illegal, mostly, that a significant proportion would use it less than if it were. So we may not see all the bad effect of inhaling burning plant products.

The THC having an anti-cancer effect & not merely anti-nausea is very intriguing!

The book How to win Friends & Influence People stated that health was people's #1 concern. So if the anti-cancer part panned out think about that on public opinion.

John No worries, sorry I misunderstood. I liked the link, I get what your saying now. You mean it makes it harder to find a pool of people to test because it is illegal, ah! See it hasn't killed all my brain cells.
LOL
Truthfully John I think that alot of the random tests that have been done lately are probably on the medical use patients, I do know in the past (maybe 4 years back) It was a article about how maybe 70% of marijauna smokers also smoke cigarettes as well and it makes it hard to isolate which causes what damage. Either way it was'nt fair for this man to die over, especially when it was LEGAL for him to have it. Kinda sad.

We're voting to make it legal in California later this year, and if this passes, much of the misinformation that has been used to preach against the use of marijuana, will no doubt be put to a trial-by-fire. Literally. In my lungs.

Tara -- Let's not get picky here. That was really just a useless comment. I know it probably has happened, but do you think there's anything out there that someone hasn't been wrongfully killed or assaulted over? Jeez.

And "Both Suck" -- You need to get your information from non-government websites, retard. You just recited pretty much word for word what was in every pamphlet passed around my high school about the "dangers" of smoking marijuana. There's no proof that marijuana smoke causes lung cancer any more than cigarettes. Did you know that people who never smoke anything in their lives get lung cancer? And that people who smoke their entire lives don't? It really doesn't matter in the end. Smoking anything can't be great for your lungs, but that's why they make vaporizers. What it comes down to is that if people are allowed to legally make the choice to drink, smoke cigarettes, or take prescription drugs, then there's no reason marijuana shouldn't be legalized, especially in this economy.

I also want to add that every time you get in a car, you have a higher risk of getting in an accident and dying than I do of getting lung cancer from smoking pot. Do some research...on a website that doesn't end in .gov.

Regardless of whether marijuana should be legal, I think you do a disservice to your readers by writing that Mr. Howard could "grow weed legally." He could not grow weed legally. He could grow weed without violating the laws of Washington state--but he was still violating federal law. By reporting that he legally possessed the marijuana, you are creating the false impression that residents of certain states can avoid criminal liability for marijuana possession. This is harmful for two reasons: (1) by relying on your reporting, people may end up in prison and (2) misinformed people are not very good advocates for change. Someone who thinks marijuana possession for medical purposes is legal in California, based on state law and federal inaction, doesn't realize that federal law needs to be changed (or should be enforced, depending on viewpoint).

@MCR I agree that searches should not be restricted to .gov.
The gov has an agenda whether it is institutional (mandarin) or due to whatever faction is in power. That said I would still look at .gov sites. My caveat is that I want to see the raw data set (minus personal info) & methodology. Having had statistics (among the millions of others) and modeling course for the government or government sponsored research do so is utterly PATRONIZING & putrid (for example the hockey stick climate model).

We all know about the federal law, Mike. Did you also know that the feds have pretty much agreed to stop fucking with marijuana dispensaries and growers in state's where it's been made legal or decriminalized? They tried in the beginning, it didn't work, and now they're done. It's only a matter of time before other states decriminalize it, too.

And yeah, Pete...you're doing us SUCH a disservice! Why didn't you go into a long, drawn out explanation of how it's not really "legal" in the eyes of federal law, but some states have decriminalized it? I mean, that's the main focus of the story, right? That one little word..."legally."

Again, Mike....totally useless comment. If you have something relevant to say, then by all means...
But if you're just here to nitpick at minor details, then no one will miss you when you go.

John -- In response to your above post that included the link the the anti-cancer article, I just want to point out that the main reason that cigarettes are so terrible for your health is not so much the smoking part, but the chemicals that are added to the tobacco. The chemicals can cause abnormal cell growth all over your body, not just the lungs. So while smoking is surely doing some damage to the lungs, it's not the main source of the abnormal cell growth that leads to cancer. Other lung diseases like emphysema, however, are caused more by the act of inhaling smoke over a period of time. But when you think about the average smoker who smokes 1/2-1 pack a day and the average pot smoker who smokes maybe a few bowls a week, it's going to have a much different effect on your lungs. Which brings me to my final point, and that is that there are many ways to smoke marijuana, some safer than others. I tend to smoke out of a little bong or pipe, which isn't terrible. Joints rolled with cigarette papers and blunts, on the other hand, involve inhaling foreign chemicals added to the paper. And then there's the almighty vaporizer, which I hope to one day purchase, that literally vaporizes the weed to make it easy on your lungs, and this is normally the way doctors recommend that cancer patients inhale it.

Sorry to type so much. That went on for a lot longer than I originally planned. I guess that's what happens when you wake n' bake. :P

This is the first I am hearing of these vaporizers mcr. Something I am gonna have to look into :)

You've never heard of a vaporizer, Girlie?!?!?! They're super expensive. The cheap ones run about $200.

I know mcr I been smoking for 15 years too! I actually think I literally saw one a few days back at a smoke shop called Pipe Dreams I just did'nt realize what I was looking at.