Cigarette smoking

[Packard]

I've never heard anything about Prednisone being dangerous? I have had it several times, for Poison Ivy infections. Two of those times as an injection, along with the "dose-pack" follow-up. The others were not as severe, so dose-pack only. The injection actually works so fast that it can be seen as well as felt.

The danger of Prednisone when you wean yourself off the drug. Taking Prednisone for an extended time will shut down your adrenal glands.  Abruptly ceasing the medication will find your body short of cortisol. Apparently, that deficit is dangerous.  So there is a weaning off of the drug to allow your body to ramp up production of the cortisol. 

If you are only taking the drug for a short period of time, that is not a consideration.  If you are taking it to treat some forms of arthritis, then the use is long term and weaning is critical.

Prednisone is like cortisol, a hormone naturally made by your adrenal glands. If you take prednisone for more than a few weeks, your adrenal glands decrease cortisol production. A gradual reduction in prednisone dosage gives your adrenal glands time to resume their usual function
https://www.mayoclinic.org/prednisone-withdrawal/expert-answers/faq-20057923#:~:text=Prednisone%20is%20like%20cortisol%2C%20a,to%20resume%20their%20usual%20function.

 

[rst]

Interesting that Prednisone is being discussed as, I just started an 8 day regimen for IT band friction syndrome.  Two weeks ago I was pulling fence stakes, the next day I had sore pain above my right buttock.  I assumed I had pulled a muscle. over the next weeks, the top of my quads started aching and I was getting sharp pains directly below a knee.  Pain was so sharp I initially thought I was cut and checked for bleeding.  The pain was beginning to wake me from sleep. I was belt sanding a glass table top pattern this morning and a pain severe enough to double me over and I starting speaking in extremely colorful expletives. Luckily our hospital has a walkin ortho dept.  I was hoping this, my right hip had not given up the ghost as my left hip was replaced 15 years ago.  Xrays  came back clear hence the ITB diagnosis.  Yah, Gonna be 72 in a month so I'm a happy camper!

 

[Packard]

Before my arthritis was diagnosed, Prednisone was the only thing that provided absolute relief.  But it is not used for long term treatments.

The methotrexate worked for a month, then lost its efficacy.

Embrel, an immunotherapy drug was the treatment of choice, but cost $1,400.00 per month, plus doctor visits and lab tests every 6 weeks (testing for kidney damage).

So about $20,000.00 per year.  The insurance company insisted I use the earlier drugs which did not work for as long as possible. 

8 years later the arthritis (psoriatic arthritis) was beaten into submission.  I liked to say it “tapped out” using the mixed martial arts lingo).

It would have been cheaper for the insurance company to hire a hitman and take me out.  You could probably get someone shot for $50,000.00.  Much cheaper that the $160,000.00 or so they spent for the 8 years of treatment.

 

[LoloJizz]

I’ve worked with suppliers in this space for a while, and having consistent lab-tested extracts and flowers makes life so much easier. Their range fits well if you need everything from isolates to ready-for-retail gummies, plus they’re easy to reach if you get stuck on product specs. CBD bulk options are solid here, especially if you’re trying to scale without juggling ten different vendors.

 

[luvmytoolz]

Sorry LoloJizz I can't add to your question, but I just read the post from @Packard above and those costs are just insane!

That Embrel here in Oz is about $32 for a prescription!

 

[derekcohen]

I drove to the nearby Starbucks for a cup of coffee that I am now drinking. I head-in parked next to a large SUV.

The driver alternately was smoking a cigarette, sipping an expensive drink from Starbucks and puffing on a vaping device.

At first, I thought, “Why would he smoke a regular cigarette and puff on a smokeless cigarette?”

Then I thought, “Maybe the smokeless device was for cannabis.”

And finally, I thought, “What is my responsibility here?”.

I settled on getting a cup of coffee.

I see out the window that he just pulled out.

Was my speculation that the smokeless device was for cannabis, likely to be correct?

It’s bugging me a bit (plus, nothing on my mind to post otherwise). (And hoping that the news has no accident reports involving a black Highlander.

I think he should be arrested for drinking Starbucks coffee.

Regards from Perth ... home of real coffee

Derek

 

[leakyroof]

I don't care if people want to sit in their basement playing video games and get stoned.
Unfortunately, there isn't a day that goes by that I don't have to smell weed while I am driving. Can't stand it. We should be treating driving while smoking the same as drunk driving.
No clue if the vape thing has weed or not.

I didn't see this post until now, but yes, here in Chicago, Skunk Weed is really prevalent and in your face whether driving or just walking on sidewalks, as it comes out of an Apartment Window or house window. My wife and I joke we'll end up getting a contact high at some point just being in close proximity.

 

[Packard]

They do. That's why it is called "Driving under the influence" in most places now. You can potentially blow 000 in a breath test, and still get arrested. Then they blood test you for "other" intoxicants.

The unintended consequence of legalizing weed (not every state has) is that the smell is no longer reasonable suspicion. Someone else, that you just dropped off, could have caused the smell. In that case, your driving performance has to be the cause, which is a bit harder to prove. That's where the "stupid human tricks" come into play. It gives them more evidence, to compel a blood test.

Smoking two different things at the same time is rather curious though?
Funny thing is the place I am most likely to catch the drifting smell is the grocery store.

One state even allows passengers to drink, as long as the driver isn't. (Maryland) at least they used to
Some others allow it with limos, where the driver is separated.

Another unintended consequence was the automatic retiring of (probably) thousands of police dogs.

The dogs were trained to detect drugs, including cannabis. An “alert” by a trained dog was sufficient to establish “probable cause” and allow the police officer to search a car or premises (but mostly cars). Once cannabis became legal, the “drug alert” by dogs that were trained to include cannabis, could no longer be used to execute a probable cause search.

Many of the dogs were trained to perform other tasks (search and rescue, apprehension, etc.) and could be kept on the job. But some were specifically used for probable cause alerts and had to be retired.

 

[luvmytoolz]

I think he should be arrested for drinking Starbucks coffee.

Regards from Perth ... home of real coffee

Derek

Yeah they didn't do too well here, surprise surprise!

 

[Crazyraceguy]

Another unintended consequence was the automatic retiring of (probably) thousands of police dogs.

The dogs were trained to detect drugs, including cannabis. An “alert” by a trained dog was sufficient to establish “probable cause” and allow the police officer to search a car or premises (but mostly cars). Once cannabis became legal, the “drug alert” by dogs that were trained to include cannabis, could no longer be used to execute a probable cause search.

Many of the dogs were trained to perform other tasks (search and rescue, apprehension, etc.) and could be kept on the job. But some were specifically used for probable cause alerts and had to be retired.

I am 100% fine with that! IMNSHO, they should never have been considered legal, under any circumstances, for two huge reasons. First, they are "trained" which means positive enforcement. They are "performing" for their handler. Even if they do an indication that anyone could see, which is not always the case, and very subjective, it is still done to please their handler.
Second, is purely a matter of law. Everyone has the right to cross-examine witnesses. This dog has to be considered a witness. Even accepting it is correct, and the handler relays it correctly, it is not only here-say (which is not admissible) the original witness cannot testify to it directly. How is any of that ok?

Use dogs to search for missing people, fine.

 

[Packard]

I am 100% fine with that! IMNSHO, they should never have been considered legal, under any circumstances, for two huge reasons. First, they are "trained" which means positive enforcement. They are "performing" for their handler. Even if they do an indication that anyone could see, which is not always the case, and very subjective, it is still done to please their handler.
Second, is purely a matter of law. Everyone has the right to cross-examine witnesses. This dog has to be considered a witness. Even accepting it is correct, and the handler relays it correctly, it is not only here-say (which is not admissible) the original witness cannot testify to it directly. How is any of that ok?

Use dogs to search for missing people, fine.

Interesting, is the fact that man-tracking can be offered in evidence in court proceedings, but has to be supported by other evidence.

And in drug cases, it can be used for probable cause to make a search, but not as actual evidence that there are drugs present.

The use of mantrailing dogs in police and judicial context, future directions, limits and possibilities – A law review - PMC

The extraordinary capabilities of the canine nose are increasingly being used by law enforcement agencies in many countries to solve and reconstruct crimes. As a result, this type of forensic evidence can be and is still being challenged in the ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The extraordinary capabilities of the canine nose are increasingly being used by law enforcement agencies in many countries to solve and reconstruct crimes. As a result, this type of forensic evidence can be and is still being challenged in the courts. So far, only a few publications have addressed the jurisprudence concerning mantrailing. We provide an overview of the jurisprudence in Germany and the USA, as well as insights from France. Relevant databases were searched, and 201 verdicts from Germany and 801 verdicts from the USA were analyzed. As a result, 16 published verdicts on the topic of mantrailing were found for Germany, and 44 verdicts since 2010 were found for the USA. The use of mantrailers and human scent discrimination dogs is employed in the investigative process in all three countries. The results derived from these methods are admissible as evidence in court, albeit not as sole evidence.


The U.S. Supreme Court has addressed that very issue regarding drugs. Apparently the canine indicating a drug scent is not proof that there are drugs, but provides reasonable cause to search for those drugs.

The dog-sniffing cases: Made simple

Editor’s note: During the Supreme Court’s summer recess, the blog will be publishing a series of posts that explain, in non-legal terms, some of the most important cases that will […]

www.scotusblog.com

Police can obtain a warrant to carry out a search only if they have a fairly strong reason to believe that the search will turn up evidence of crime. Police do not have to be absolutely certain that the search will lead to evidence, but rather that prospect must be “probable.” In some situations, a warrant is not needed, but police still need to show that a search “probably” will turn up criminal evidence. […]

It is clear, then, that the factual situation can make a difference constitutionally. And that is why the Supreme Court has had to return periodically to define the situations in which the police may use a drug-sniffing dog, without violating someone’s right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment. That issue arises, of course, because a well-trained drug-sniffing dog, by giving an “alert” to its police handler when the animal smells a specific drug, may actually lead the police to the discovery of evidence of a crime. If the Fourth Amendment does not apply at all, police may hand over that evidence to a prosecutor who pursues criminal charges. But if the Fourth Amendment might apply, the evidence might be valid or it might not be, depending upon the factual situation.