We must remember what we are being told persistently: "Pot is harmless." See Edibles and Illness (November 2023). If I had a nickel for every time I have been told "harmless," I would be able to buy a really nice value meal. Nonetheless, I do hear it a great deal. Everyone who tells me they use it says there are no side effects and it is really efficacious for whatever it is that ails them. Folks love pot. People seem to forget those assorted instances in which death occurs. I am not a scientist, but I have concluded that death is harmful to your health. I can accept you may feel differently and would love to hear your perspective.
California this week made the news. No, I am not talking about their $68 billion budget deficit. I am not talking about their plan to make people with money move to Florida and Texas. I am not even talking about an iconic California landmark closing its doors "due to a wave of car break-ins and robberies." California has had its share of problems. See Purpose (October 2023). No, those are interesting. I am talking here about dope, the "harmless" stuff.
There is only a modicum of research regarding pot. It has been studied here and there. However, the federal prohibition on cultivation and distribution is long-standing. That has inhibited research. While there are a great many voices today in the chorus of consensus - "harmless," there is a growing body of anecdotal evidence that suggests potentially otherwise. Consensus is not evidence.
An accountant in California is perhaps doubting the "harmless" label. Well, he might if he were among the living. The Los Angeles Times reports that a woman was prosecuted there for his death. After pondering her actions, we might decry Brian Wilson's sentiment "wish they all could be California girls." (California Girls, Beach Boys, Summer Days, 1965). This California Girl was in a relationship for a few weeks with Accountant Chad O'Melia. He apparently smoked dope with her at his apartment. NDTV reports that Mr. O'Melia "pressed her to take another bong hit after not getting high off the first hit."
Well, if you are not getting high from one, have another. The same works for alcohol and a variety of other chemical. One of the challenges is in our bodies' somewhat individualized processing of such influences. I have known many a person who went from coherent to black-out drunk in very rapid succession. It is possible for an accumulation of consumption to catch up with you somewhat suddenly.
Well, Mr. O'Melia's houseguest took "another bong hit" and then stabbed him. Well, perhaps "stabbed him" is not a fair description. The LA Times says she stabbed him "dozens of times." NDTV says it was over 100 times. But hey, who's counting, right? As a side note, the young Floridian who stabbed the cheerleader 114 times is spending the next 40 years of his life in prison.
The California woman will spend no time in prison for taking the life of Mr. O'Melia. She will serve "two years’ probation and 100 hours of community service." What is the difference? Well, admittedly there was discussion of premeditation in the Florida example. That may be a distinction. But, the California Girl also was in California. Some believe California to be "soft on crime" in a general sense. See CBS, Newsweek, and San Diego Tribune (the reports are not hard to find). The reader can judge whether the soft is descriptive or hyperbole.
After this California Girl inserted the knife repeatedly into the young accountant, she "repeatedly stabbed herself," though apparently less effectively. One news outlet alleged she even went after Mr. O'Melia's dog as well. The California Girl's attorneys argued that she was "involuntarily intoxicated," and suffered "a cannabis-induced psychosis." Some define that defense as involving "involuntary ingestion," like when someone's "drink(s) a spiked drink." But in California, it is involuntary if someone urges you to consume and you do so of your own accord (in some places that "own accord" part might seem more like "voluntary").
The California Girl's expert might be expected to reach such a conclusion. However, the "prosecutor’s medical expert agreed with a defense expert." The prosecution expert explained, "that the behavior was the result of cannabis-induced psychosis." You see, apparently, in California if you voluntarily intoxicate yourself you are not responsible for your actions or inactions thereafter. Whether the experts are correct about the psychosis or not, the whole "voluntary" analysis is intriguing.
If there is no responsibility for intoxicating yourself, does that mean that one cannot be responsible in California for any post-potting (or drinking) decisions? Is driving under the influence to be excused (if one is not responsible for the decision to pick up a knife, can she be responsible for the decision to start a car?). Well, perhaps only if someone told you to drink? In the end, the story is perhaps a mere flash in the headlines. But some may see it as a harbinger of things to come.
So what killed the accountant? Was it the psychosis? Was it the knife? Was it the pot? Or, was it the California Girl and her voluntary ingestion of a universally (in America) illegal substance? Perhaps the accountant's survivors will sue her for wrongful death in the spirit of Orenthal James Simpson?
Or, as dope is "harmless," according to the chorus, perhaps it is more Mr. O'Melia's fault for being in the wrong place with the wrong doper? Maybe if you encourage someone to voluntarily ingest drugs, you get what you get? Well, in any event, no one has seemingly ever self-harmed because of pot (though this California Girl did stab herself somewhat ineffectively). Harmless? It may become increasingly difficult to attribute that description.
