Your Kid Is 136 Times More Likely To Be Poisoned By Diaper Cream Than By Weed

Shandar

New Member
The most politically potent arguments against marijuana legalization have focused on the effects of looser marijuana laws on teens and children. Opponents say that legalization will lead to increased use among teens (so far it hasn't), and recite the drug war mantra that it will "send the wrong message" (if so, it appears that kids aren't listening).

Colorado's market for edible marijuana products, pot-infused baked goods, candies, beverages and the like, has been a particular area of concern. The accidental ingestion of edibles by kids has received a huge amount of media attention. One widely-reported study found that the number of kids under 12 who were admitted to the E.R. for accidental pot ingestion in Colorado jumped from zero to 14 after the state liberalized medical marijuana laws in October 2009. More recently, the Denver Post reported on a "surge in kids" accidentally eating pot from 2013 to 2014.

Stories like these are a big part of the push for tougher packaging requirements on Colorado's edibles, the Associated Press's Kristen Wyatt reported this weekend. The Colorado Health Department is planning to recommend that new edible projects are subject to "pre-market approval" by a new commission. Previously, the department had recommended a total ban on the sale of edible products, only to hastily withdraw the proposal shortly after it was made public.

According to the AP, the department wrote that it "remains concerned that there are products on the market that so closely resemble children's candy that it can entice children to experiment with marijuana." These concerns are understandable, but they're blown far out of proportion to the actual numbers.

Marijuana baked goods have been around for nearly as long as marijuana. And marijuana candy has been around for well over a decade, at least. And regardless of the delivery method - whether via edibles or smokes - cases of children being unintentionally exposed to marijuana are vanishingly rare.

Let's zoom out to the national picture to take a look. The American Association of Poison Control Centers maintains the National Poison Data System, a near-realtime database of literally every call made to a poison control center in the U.S. Their most recent annual report, reflecting data from 2012, allows us to see the number of reported poisoning cases for marijuana, and to compare this to other common drugs and household substances, including over the counter painkillers, diaper creams, and contact lens fluid. I've charted a handful of these below.

baby_graph.png


What you can see is that for kids 12-and-under, cases of marijuana poisoning are incredibly rare. There were 254 such calls in 2012. By contrast, there were about 1,000 calls related to kids ingesting energy drinks, 1,600 for kids drinking contact lens fluid, and over 4,000 for children who ate birth control pills.

Calls for caterpillar stings were twice as common as calls for marijuana exposure, and ingestions of liquid fabric softener were nearly three times as common.

Thirty-five thousand concerned parents called poison control when their offspring ate diaper creams, nearly 40,000 calls were for ingestion of acetaminophen, and 50,000 were related solely to kids eating too much ibuprofen. Across all substances, the vast majority of cases were for kids 5 and under.

These numbers don't tell us about the disposition of these calls - that is, whether parents were told to bring their kids to the hospital, or to just take it easy and put the diaper cream on a higher shelf in the future. They also shouldn't be construed to mean that pot is safer for your kids than say, ibuprofen or diaper cream. As a parent of one-year-old twins, I would be much more worried if my kids ate a pot cookie than if they snuck a dab of toothpaste when nobody was looking.

The numbers are partly a function of the fact that ibuprofen and diaper cream are much more common than marijuana in households with small kids. But they suggest that parents who do smoke weed are, generally, doing a pretty good job of keeping it out of kids' reach.

Even drilling down to the Colorado numbers, let's recall that the most widely-cited study unearthed a grand total of 14 kids going to the E.R. for accidental marijuana ingestion between October 2009 and December 2011. That represents about 2.4 percent all ingestion-related E.R. visits for that age group over that period. While nobody wants to see a kid go to the hospital, every single one of the 14 was sent home, and "none of these exposures resulted in permanent morbidity or mortality," according to the study.

These numbers are almost certain to inch up as Colorado's marijuana market matures. Frankly they have nowhere to go but up, as they are almost literally at rock-bottom now. Legalization opponents will continue to use them as fodder for their arguments, and as evidence of the need for tougher regulations. But it's important to keep them in perspective: nationwide, kids are 136 times more likely to be poisoned by their diaper cream than by pot, yet nobody is calling for stricter labeling requirements on Desitin.

Baby36.jpg


News Moderator: Shandar @ 420 MAGAZINE ®
Source: Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News & Analysis
Author: Christopher Ingraham
Contact: https://www.washingtonpost.com/actmgmt/help/
Website: Your kid is 136 times more likely to be poisoned by diaper cream than by weed - The Washington Post
 
I subcribe to Reason magazine, so I read this originally on the site but I'm glad its here (as hoped). My point with that is many folks are fighting to get the truth out against all the ridiculous straw men and lies put forth by the loyal opposition.
 
I'm concerned about the number of incidents related to birth control pills. I mean, don't most BC pills come in child resistant packaging? So has the packaging proven to be ineffective? And maybe BC pills -- really, all pills -- look a little too much like candy (or is it the other way around?)... We should do something about that.

And what's with the antacids and laxatives? Looks like these drugs need better packaging too. Plus, they also look (and are flavored) just like candy... We should do something about that too.

I guess we could try to re-package all the items in this chart to make it harder for kids to get at (and harder for those with arthritis), or we could just try some more education. (Oh wait, Republicans are probably dismantling the Department of Education as we speak...)

(In the chart, "ibuprofen" is misspelled.)
 
And the DEA weighs in:

"Bleach is very dangerous, and kids are abusing it left and right. We have anonymous reports of kids sniffing it, and next, they'll be mixing it with food coloring and injecting it between their toes. Millions of kids will end up as bleach addicts, living in the gutter...

Well, we don't know if all of that is true, but just in case, we're moving bleach to Schedule I. If you want clean laundry, you'll have to go to an expensive specialist and get a prescription.

Yes, reclassification may be a hassle, but the result will be that it save lives. I mean, restrictions and prohibition haven't proven to be successful, just the opposite. But that's what we were taught in DEA school, so that's what we're paid to believe."

And from a headline in 2025: "Congress has finally disbanded the DEA.... And nothing smells quite like freedom."
 
And from a headline in 2025: "Congress has finally disbanded the DEA.... And nothing smells quite like freedom."
You have to wonder when people will realize that a nanny state agency like the DEA has absolutely no positive outcome for the economy. There's nothing that helps the economy less than draconian security. Locking someone in jail is a drag on human prosperity. A security officer doesn't have a multiplier effect like a teacher does, yet one of these areas is a growth industry and the other is pilloried.
 
You have to wonder when people will realize that a nanny state agency like the DEA has absolutely no positive outcome for the economy. There's nothing that helps the economy less than draconian security. Locking someone in jail is a drag on human prosperity. A security officer doesn't have a multiplier effect like a teacher does, yet one of these areas is a growth industry and the other is pilloried.

The business of war is one of the few business that does not act as a multipier on the economy. Gambling (including the stock market) is another.
 
Turns out, most people who suffer from a gambling addiction at some point in their lives usually recover on their own. And gambling is a type of entertainment, no? (I mean, I don't think so, but a ton of other people do.)

No, gambling isn't necessarily a good thing, but it's a huge industry that employs a lot of people. Like the military industrial complex. Like the coal, fracking, oil, and gas industry. Like the drug war...

(Wow, America sure has some unhealthy addictions. We should do something about that.)

Like the multi-billion-dollar addiction and rehabilitation industry...

Yes, I think it's official: America is addicted to addiction. Paging Dr. Drew!

:surf:
 
No, gambling isn't necessarily a good thing, but it's a huge industry that employs a lot of people. Like the military industrial complex. Like the coal, fracking, oil, and gas industry. Like the drug war...

(Wow, America sure has some unhealthy addictions. We should do something about that.)

So, what's interesting about industries like military and the drug war is that they have deflationary tendencies, which, in a debt-obsessed economy like our own, is totally counterproductive.

For instance:

You work for Lockheed, and build a nice cruise missile. Let's say that costs a million dollars to the consumer, and you put in 3/4ths of that.

What happens to the cruise missile? Does it go out and create anything? Do the natural resources you put into creating that missile then generate more stuff for other humans to consume?

Not at all. That cruise missile explodes. The million whatever dollars that went into it did nothing. The natural resources are expended, with no economic value.

Same goes for security/police.

Guy stands outside the movie theater, doing... whatever it is that movie theater guards do. He doesn't teach anyone anything. Nobody benefits from his presence. It's insurance against... whatever threat that a movie theater has. But it's a drain on the resources of the theater, and it's a drain on the overall economy.

Anyway, ending my uninformed rant!
 
You have to wonder when people will realize that a nanny state agency like the DEA has absolutely no positive outcome for the economy. There's nothing that helps the economy less than draconian security. Locking someone in jail is a drag on human prosperity. A security officer doesn't have a multiplier effect like a teacher does, yet one of these areas is a growth industry and the other is pilloried.

A brilliant point RW and welcome aboard. How many Americans actually believe we're the land of the free? In very recent data on the Personal Freedom Index: "According to the-2014 Index-(pdf) released earlier this month, in the measure of personal freedom, the United States has fallen from 9th place in 2010 to 21st worldwide—behind such countries as Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, Uruguay and Costa Rica.:

Yeah we started out in 9th and are now 21st. Anyone who still believes we're the land of the free *ISN'T* smoking pot.
 
I guess it says something about our country that most of our money is spent on protection -- from ourselves and others. Too bad we don't spend as much in protecting the environment. (Grow more hemp!)

But I wouldn't say that these industries provide no economic value whatsoever -- after all, being protected feels really good. And having the energy to keep warm this evening feels really good too.

On the other hand, the stock market is all about gambling. And I don't think you need to be an economist to see that the current stock market is unsustainable, although I'm not sure it's ever been sustainable. (Repeat, I am not an economist or market specialist.)
 
Everyone is waiting for the long overdue 10% market correction. We survived October, which means a lot. There's a great piece in the NYT by Neil Irwin about the contradicting sigals in our economy. The stock market is a cooperative investment. Many of our nation's retirement vehicles are tied to its performance.either directly or indirectly. So, making sure Wall Street does well is actually a great thing for American wealth.

Our nation's economic strength is making Germany's, Japan's and the EU look flimsy. We've simply performed so well though the Great Recession and the Keynesians looked brilliant. America has a tremendous head wind that can change direction really quick. Look for the markets and economy to take that correction and dip in the lead up to the 2016 presidential election. I see the first half or three quarters of 2015 as decent, and in the shit until 2017.
 
to 21st worldwide—behind such countries as Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, Uruguay and Costa Rica.:

Thanks for the warm welcome!

Let me be frank and a little incredulous here: how the heck are we even at 21st? We have a dysfunctional justice system and a government that chases down whistleblowers with a vengeance.

Our incarceration rate alone should be enough to put us down there with the tinpot dictatorships and other loony countries.
 
J9BLACK said: "Many of our nation's retirement vehicles are tied to its performance."

I was unfamiliar with the word "retirement," so I looked it up, and it appears to be something Americans looked forward to back in the good old days (when there was something called pensions and it was said that most employers actually gave a damn). But here in 2014, retirement is mostly a myth, at least for the majority of Americans.

I know some people who lost it all in the dot.com crash, some who lost everything in the housing crash, and others who had 401(k) plans that were decimated by the 2007 stock market crash. Grandma is a greeter at Walmart, and grandpa is delivering pizza.

Experts agree that 401(k) plans were the wrong move for Americans to make from the pension system, but now that the conversion is all but complete, there's no turning back. We were sold the privatization of our retirements and many purchased their tickets on Wall Street. And yet, there's not too many people who even understand how the market works.

I'm sure the system works for some, I just don't know anyone that's it working for now. Or am I the only one who cashed out their 401(k) to pay for medical bills or to support a period of unemployment?

"So, making sure Wall Street does well is actually a great thing for American wealth."

As you can see, I'm not convinced. Maybe if I buy a magic ball, and concentrate real hard while rubbing it, I might also come to believe that gambling is a way to save for retirement. Anyone know of a good magic shop?
 
It's not gambling when the major retirement vehicles like the stock market and real estate have been at 10% and 4.3% annually *over the last 30 years* including real estate and financial system crashes. That's why you see bond yields so low, foreign flight to safety is foreign flight to US markets. It's American economic resilience that makes us the pre-eminent super power.

Pension programs are bankrupting the institutions that are offering them, including many in the labor loving and friendly state of illinois. As of last year, unfunded pensions for just state run programs were at 2.5 Trillion. States and other municipalities are desperately trying to reform those programs because they are bankrupting.

It's hard for me to agree with the argument that the free markets are inferior.
 
"It's American economic resilience that makes us the pre-eminent super power."

It's the fact that we print our own money that makes us look like a super power. To other countries, it also looks like cheating.

We know why pension programs are having problems -- their administrators don't know what they're doing, they believed whatever Goldman Sachs was selling, and they really, really, really like risk. The higher the risk, the bigger the return -- greed at its finest. And while the pension administrators learned their lesson after 2007, it seems they didn't learn it for very long.

But that's not the only reason pensions are having problems... They are often run by state governments that, in league with the Big Banks, made a complete mess of things. Giving corporations (and religions) immense tax breaks, while under-funding pensions. Trying to move money around, behind closed doors, to make their bottom lines appear better than they actually are...

I've thought about it, and I have a proposal: If Warren Buffet agrees to generously fund an advocacy group for pain patients, I will never again say anything negative about the casino that calls itself Wall Street.
 
I read that the economy is going to take a big dump, another collapse, in April because of the same crap in 2008. We'll see.

:peace:
 
Well, I'm not a gambler -- never even bought a lottery ticket. But I don't see why we can't start a "pretend" casino, and place bets for when the next crash will happen.

Let's see, the market for education loans appears ready to bust soon, and the low price of oil is something the market absolutely hates... There's also concern in the auto loan market, and credit card debt is on the rise again, after having fallen and then been flat... And I suppose a trader working for Jamie Dimon could go hog-wild again...

The Big Banks and Wall Street haven't learned their lesson, and they haven't been stopped... And the boom-and-bust cycle usually occurs around the 7-year mark, if I'm not mistaken, so we're about due...

April is a good guess. But I'm going to pick September 2015.

And whoever wins gets to publish their own article on 420 Magazine :D
 
I'm colorful-come lately to this story...but it is an interesting and important issue. My understanding is that average sized adult would have to consume quite a bit of concentrated cannabis before being at risk of any damaging effects caused by overexposure. I'm curious if there has been discussion/development of say for example a universal lethal dosage/probable effects criteria. I think nearly every other substance on that list does have a scientifically developed LD criteria.
I also think it's important to take a closer look at the data. One doesn't know if the 'calls' were concerned parents acting on the safe side or if the 'calls' were connected with an actual life-threatening exposure and/or a trip to the emergency room. Also, I think folks are going to be more hesitant to make an emergency call when an illegal substance is involved. This issue of cannabis toxicity and exposure criteria is an important one and needs good science and data to inform the public as well maintain sensible management guidelines. I wonder if other legal states like CO and WA have/are developing these...next thing to research :)
 
Back
Top Bottom