Connect with us

Cannabis News

Cannabis Murder Mystery – Did a Hiker Die from a Marijuana Overdose or the Huge Gunshot Wound to His Chest?



cannabis murder mystery

Cannabis Murder Mystery: Why are the cops claiming that Aron Christensen died of a “marijuana overdose” when he was clearly shot in the chest?


The big question on everyone’s mind is – what exactly happened to Aron Christensen, a 49-year-old bearded dude from Portland. He was found dead in a remote trail in Washington’s Cascade Mountains. Next to him was the lifeless body of his 4-month old puppy.


When the Police informed the family, their initial report was that they suspected he had a “heart attack”. At a later stage, one of the detectives theorized that perhaps it was a “weed overdose”, as they had found some cannabis among his stuff.


When it was discovered that he had indeed a gunshot to the chest, one would think that the police would update their stories – but they didn’t.


Allegedly, they also had a suspect who pretty much admitted to shooting a gun in the vicinity of where the body was found, but since the kid is “connected” and from a “good family”, no one has been charged with anything.


Christensen’s family are left with questions that the police won’t answer, making one think – is this a cover up?


Well, let’s take a look at what we know…


A Body Was Found


In order to know why Aron was in a remote hiking trail. You first have to understand who Aron is. This bearded musician was deep into the Punk Rock movement. He was naturally an “outdoors” kind of guy and played the bass.


He even toured with Sublime before they blew up.


He had a tight-knit group of friends that would go camp every August. He would then splinter off from the group and go “solo hiking” sometimes for hours, and other times for days. Needless to say, the guy knew how to handle himself out in the wilderness.


According to his friend’s group, he was going to take a wilderness trail and would take about two days to get there. That was the last time they heard from him.


Roughly, a week after Aron left, his body was found by another hiker alongside his 4-month old puppy’s body.


The initial reports from the police indicate that it might have been a heart attack. However, it only became more absurd as time continued.


According to the Oregon Live;


 On one call with the family, a detective theorized that the 49-year-old Portland man – who was hiking the Walupt Lake Trail alone with his dog during a late August camping trip with friends – could have died from marijuana they found among his belongings. “What if it was laced?” the detective said. Another detective said Christensen had a “widow-maker’s heart.”


This begs the question – “What the actual F*ck!”


Firstly, these police detectives seem incredibly “chill” about the sudden death of a healthy man and to theorize that a lifetime stoner would be smoking “laced” weed, only goes to show how out of touch they are with the average cannabis user.


I have been smoking cannabis for 20-years. I can assume that Aron smoked probably 30-years or more. Weed is nothing new to a dude who played bass with Sublime.


As a seasoned stoner, you’d immediately know if your weed was “laced”. More importantly, you could easily rule out the “laced theory” by simply testing the weed in a lab. Considering that it’s a murder case, one would think that it would have priority in processing.


Nonetheless, this was the “working theory” of the detectives handling the case. When the family of Christensen kept on pushing for answers, they received no cooperation from the police. In one instance, they were even scolded by the police because “reporters were getting involved”.


Eventually, an article asking the very question, “What happened to Aron Christensen”, finally prompted the police to take some action publicly.


The Swine Decline…


It turns out that perhaps the cops did “know” something and chose to withhold the information from the public. As the article sparked public interest which forced them to reveal that they actually did have a suspect.


In fact, one could argue they had more than a suspect.



The sheriff’s office announced the cause of death – a gunshot – and that it was referring to the prosecuting attorney’s office first-degree manslaughter and first-degree animal-abuse charges against Ethan Michael Asbach, a 20-year-old from Tenino, Washington, and his 17-year-old girlfriend, who has not been publicly named.

Two days after Aron Christensen’s death, Asbach allegedly told detectives he and the girl were hiking on the Walupt Lake trail on the evening of Aug. 19, headed to Sheep Lake campground to meet up for a hunting trip with his father.

Asbach said that at around 9 p.m. he heard growling noises and saw the eyes of what he believed to be a wild animal, according to the Lewis County Sheriff’s Office. Asbach said he fired a single shot “out of fear,” the sheriff’s office said in the statement. The young couple said they checked the area and saw a dead man and dog. They hiked on, taking the wrong path and exiting the woods the next day, they said. Someone from the Asbach family apparently called the sheriff’s office on Aug. 21.

SOURCE: OREGON LIVE (Full Article on Reddit)

Once it became apparent that there was no mistake in the fact that Aron was shot, and this Asbach kid basically admitting to him shooting Aron or “some animal sounds at night”, the police decided to put on their “creative thinking caps” to come up with more plausible stories such as.


The sheriff’s office has not made clear if detectives or the coroner had discovered the gunshot wound before Asbach’s family contacted authorities. Nor have they said if, after realizing Christensen had been shot, they returned to the scene to search for additional evidence. The necropsy report for Christensen’s dog has yet to be released, so it’s still unknown what exactly happened to him.

 On Aug. 29, the coroner called the family to say that a bullet had been found inside Aron Christensen, Corey Christensen wrote in notes he rigorously scrawled during phone calls with officials.

Yet, the next day, a deputy still speculated that Aron Christensen might have died from a heart attack, possibly before he was shot, according to Christensen’s brother.


Yep, you read that correctly – he conveniently had a heart attack right before he got shot in the chest. It makes total sense!


The Grunting noises…like an animal! The cops figured it out!


Except, when the Lewis County Prosecutors Office looked at the case files, they sent it back to the cops citing, “Missing lab reports” and documents.


So at this point we either have the most useless cops on the planet, or they know exactly what happened and are covering for the Asbach kid because he comes from a “good family”.


However, if the shooter was a random kid named Joe from “Nowhere’s Ville USA” – you’d probably have the dude in jail by now. Which goes to show that being sociable with the “right kind of people” goes a long way when it comes to manslaughter.


Unless of course, you’re Jeffrey Epstein (who did not kill himself BTW).



The Peasant Class


This murder mystery seems to be a tale as old as time. A peasant died and a noblemen was responsible. There are some people who are “above the law” and while there has been no legal action taken against Asbach, there never might be.


This is because some people can “resolve” issues without having to go through the “proper channels”. If you have enough money and influence, your threshold for breaking the law is very different.


Of course, sometimes even money and influence can’t shield you from the horrors of your crimes, however the story of Christensen vs Asbach seems to elude to the 2-Tier Society we live in today.


This 2-tier society is divided into a class that makes up “lifer politicians” and “mega corporations” expanding over all sectors of society. No, they aren’t organized as such – however, they are aligned with their own benefit in mind, and therefore these “mega corporations” spend billions on lobbyists pandering to the “lifer politicians” who pass laws on behalf of the billionaire class.


The politician is essentially an avatar to make the individual believe that they have “power” at the big boys table…except, the politician is imply smoke and mirrors. They serve the billionaire class who shape government and law to benefit their bottom line.


We – the consumers of the world – exist in Tier 2. All of the laws apply to you, you are the cog in the machine. You’re being led by the carrot, but if shit gets bad – the stick will do! If you die, the public enforcers will not give too much of a shit about resolving the issue. However, if one of these “top dogs” die – rest assured that all available resources will be used to “resolve it as quickly as possible”.


And with just enough money – they can even make it all disappear! Like Magic!


We the Product!


The first thing you need to learn from the Aron Christensen story is that some people have more privilege than others do – and their skin color isn’t the reason.


It is true that there are some class of citizen in the whole world that benefit from the labor of the many. These are the people at the top of the “social food chain” and have no issue sacking thousands to protect their bottom lines.


As of now, there is no one charged with anything in the Aron Christensen case, in spite of someone  basically admitting that they shot him…yet the police is dicking around…fumbling the case.


If it was flipped, and Asbach was the victim – how do you think the cops would have handled the case? Probably a whole lot different.


If this makes you mad – GOOD!


The truth of the matter is that you should be mad. You’re living in the illusion of freedom, yet in reality, you do not live in an “equal playing field”. The ruling class wants you to believe that it’s about race – but there’s plenty of poor white people everywhere as well.


The truth is that there is a ruling class that keeps the peasants (er the product) in check. They keep us fighting each other by pretending there’s a “right and a left” when in reality it’s a two headed beast with the same body.


The reason I wrote about this story is because it serves as a means for people to ‘wake up’. It also honors the life of Aron who seemed like a pretty chill dude.


I send my condolences to the family and my dissatisfaction to the police.






Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Cannabis News

California Large Licensing Gets Really Small




California law required the state Department of Cannabis Control to begin accepting large license applications on January 1, 2023. Earlier this year, DCC published proposed large licensing regulations (which I described here). As usually happens, on December 5, 2022, DCC dropped its second set of modifications to the proposed regulations. When DCC’s rules take effect, they will make it very difficult for people to get large licenses.

The new DCC rules and large licensing

To summarize my earlier post, the state will allow cultivators to apply for larger licenses than were previously available. Up until now, larger farms had to aggregate small licenses, which they can now convert into large ones. One of the key issues here though – which state law mandated years ago – was that large license holders couldn’t own testing labs, microbusinesses, and distributors. More on that below.

The big change though concerns prohibitions on license ownership. When I wrote my original post, the original proposed regulations said that “holders” of large licenses were ineligible to hold the other license types referred to above. This was an incredibly vague term. Did it mean that a business that holds a large license couldn’t hold the other types? Did it extend to owners of a business that had a license? It wasn’t clear at all.

On August 30, 2022, DCC did its first set of modifications to the proposed regulations. It expanded the definitions here by saying that any person that holds an ownership or financial interest in a large license cannot hold a prohibited license type. While this definition is also a bit vague, it is now incredibly expansive due to the inclusion of financial interest holders.

For reference, DCC defines financial interest holders as:

(1) A person with an aggregate ownership interest of less than 20 percent.

(2) A person providing a loan to the commercial cannabis business.

(3) A person entitled to receive 10 percent or more of the profits of the commercial cannabis business . . . .

The final category is too long to copy but can include things like employees with profit-share plans, lenders, brokers, etc. These changes are not exactly consistent with state law, which says only “A Type 5, Type 5A, or Type 5B licensee shall not be eligible to apply for or hold a Type 8, Type 11, or Type 12 license.” The expansion to beyond the licensee will be a huge issue for large and small businesses alike.

Since the DCC’s rules will forbid financial interest holding in both large licenses and distribution licenses, they will likely make life difficult for large cannabis companies rolling up small licenses into cultivation licenses. This is because large companies tend to have distribution licenses within their chain. Even if they don’t, they tend to have larger lists of stockholders or members, and if even one of those members holds a small financial interest in a distribution licensee, that will prevent a large license for cultivation.

The new DCC rules affect players large and small

These changes won’t just affect large cannabis businesses and MSOs. Smaller cannabis companies that need loans, want to enter into IP license agreements, want to engage with independent contractor brokers or salespeople, etc., will need to be very careful before applying for large licenses.

As a result of these rules, cannabis companies that don’t have financial interest barriers when they apply for large licensing will need to vet new stockholders/members as well as third-party contract relationships to determine whether they hold financial interests in prohibited license types. This can be an incredibly difficult process, which is likely to impose a greater burden on smaller businesses without robust compliance programs.

Get your comments in

DCC noted in its email announcing these new modifications that:

The DCC is currently accepting comments on the further modifications to the proposed text of regulations. Any interested person, or the interested person’s authorized representative, may submit written comments relevant to the proposed regulatory action to the DCC. Please limit your comments to the modifications to the text.

All comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. on December 21, 2022.

In all likelihood, this will be DCC’s final round of modifications and it won’t change them again. Unfortunately, the broadening of state law here will make life more challenging for large and small cultivators alike. Stay tuned for more updates on California cannabis licensing.

Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

CBD is Safe Even If You Tried to Overdose On It Says New Study




cbd high dosage

New Research Says CBD Is Safe, Even At High Doses – High Doses More Effective Than Low Doses


Cannabidiol (CBD) is a therapeutic compound in marijuana that is found in almost everything these days.


From capsules to oils, tinctures, topicals, edibles, drinks, and everything in between, it’s become easier than ever to medicate when and how we need to. However, there are people who need to consume higher amounts of CBD than normal in order to find relief. Some conditions such as crippling anxiety, PTSD, addiction treatment, and pain require high-strength medications, including CBD, at least for patients who are starting their healing journey.


But consuming high amounts of opioid medications, antidepressants, and other drugs is notoriously dangerous. There is always a risk of overdosing or becoming fatally addicted to your medications.


Is the same true for cannabidiol?


New research from scientists at the Lambert Initiative for Cannabinoid Therapeutics located at the University of Sydney has found that CBD is safe even at very high doses. They reviewed existing literature to determine the safety and efficacy of oral CBD products when taken as much as 400mg per day.  For the study, they particularly analyzed 29 double-blind and placebo-controlled trials as well as 6 open label research studies studying low CBD doses. They found that CBD was found to be exceptionally safe, noting only a ‘few concerns’ even when patients were taking as much as 6,000mg, sometimes the equivalent of several 1,500mg doses – which was 15 times more than the highest dose that was set for the study.

The study’s authors also discuss that Epidiolex, which is prescribed by the NHS for rare epilepsy, is typically dosed at around 3,000mg a day for adults 62kg and up. This is because Epidiolex dosing is based on body weight.


“The current review found few concerns around safety across the 45 studies analysed. Where side effects were reported they were typically minor, and often in studies that lacked a placebo control, and therefore could not be unambiguously attributed to CBD itself,” they said. “Few adverse events were reported in any of the studies considered, even at the 300-400mg dose range where efficacy was most often reported,” they added.


It was also interesting that they discovered how CBD was more effective at doses of 400mg and up. On the contrary, there was little evidence for CBD’s efficacy under 400mg, suggesting that this is not one of those medications you may have success with at microdosing. In addition, the review honed in on 5 specific conditions where CBD was known to be effective in treating: anxiety, addiction-related disorders, chronic pain, and insomnia. For anxiety, 300-400mg CBD was most effective though these studies were conducted on otherwise healthy participants.


The study authors call for more quality trials assessing the efficacy of low oral doses of CBD urgently. “The currently sparse evidence base around low doses of CBD may be improved by future clinical trials that better validate efficacy at this dose range,” they concluded. “The current evidence suggests CBD at doses of 300-400mg has promise, especially as an anxiolytic and anti-addiction agent, and larger randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials are required to reinforce these data,” they added.


Meanwhile, an older study from 2017 found that CBD is well tolerated in doses of as much as 1,500mg per day. Most CBD oil formulations are made in 300 to 1,500mg doses.



What Is The Lethal Dose Of CBD?


All substances and medications known to man have a toxic dose. This means that scientists have been able to determine how much of a drug will increase the chance of a fatal overdose, causing toxic poisoning symptoms in the human body.


Surprisingly, the toxic dose is said to be at 20,000 mg of CBD. But even then, CBD is not lethal. According to the World Health Organization, even in extremely high doses, CBD will probably make you lazy, fatigued, and cause other uncomfortable side effects including diarrhea and nausea but not death. The World Health Organization also states that CBD is one of the few substances we know of that have zero major side effects and doesn’t come with a risk of addiction.


Take note that this is not a note of encouragement to play around with the toxic dose of CBD.


It is, however, good news for people who have been hesitant to medicate with high amounts of CBD because they have a condition that necessitates it.


Word of Caution


CBD products on the market are not made equally. If they are not derived from the hemp plant, they may contain higher amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the substance that can get you high. Some individuals are much more sensitive to the effects of THC, so accidentally ingesting some may not be pleasant for others.


It is always best to buy from reputable manufacturers, even if you have access to a great array of CBD products on the internet and in your local dispensary. Always do your own research, but for peace of mind, ask for a Certificate of Analysis or COA. This document is produced by a third party testing laboratory, verifying the accuracy of components in the CBD product you are consuming.



Now we know that CBD is truly safe to consume and medicate with, even at high doses. Cannabis has never killed anyone, unlike alcohol, tobacco, and other pharmaceutical drugs especially opioids. We finally have a safe, all-natural medicine that can improve our overall wellbeing.






Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

Update: DOJ and SAFE Banking Act




As we blogged about last week, the SAFE Banking Act is trying to claw its way back from the dead during this lame duck session of Congress. Interestingly, on December 2, Punchbowl News reported that the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a memo outlining its “issues” with the SAFE Banking Act. Here’s the memo (“Memo”).

Whenever we get a cannabis-related memo from DOJ, I get pretty excited. Mainly because we get a tiny peak into the minds of enforcement and what their priorities are at the time. This five-page memo is of particular import because it deals with cannabis financial crimes and enforcement. Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you know that two of the biggest problems for the cannabis industry overall are access to financial institutions and I.R.C. Section 280E.

DOJ “issues”

The SAFE Banking Act neither legalizes cannabis nor reschedules it on the Controlled Substances Act. Given that fact, the memo starts out by saying that

Because marijuana would remain illegal under federal law, Congress should ensure efforts to provide access to financial services for state-legal businesses does [sic] not unintentionally erect obstacles to prosecution of other illicit activity or activities involving money laundering of proceeds of other illegal drugs or sales of marijuana that do not comply with state requirements

The DOJ’s first beef then is that the bill would technically immunize from prosecution cannabis businesses or providers that fall into certain legal classifications under the Act, rather than examining the types of legal or illegal activities in which those entities are engaged. The example provided in the Memo is that the DOJ could not go after a “cannabis-related legitimate business” that’s engaged in state licensed commercial cannabis activities but also fraud. Luckily, the DOJ instructs Congress in the Memo on how to fix the offending language by suggesting that immunity be limited to:

“the state-legal activities in which entities engage (again, ensuring those activities are in conformity with state law), rather than basing it on their classification as a particular business type, i.e., a ‘cannabis-related legitimate business’ or a marijuana-related ‘service provider.’”

The DOJ also thinks that the SAFE Banking Act is too broadly drafted to immunize cannabis companies from existing money laundering statutes, basically for the same reasons above. The DOJ also bemoans the fact that such a broad protection would put an additional burden on prosecutors to show the difference between legal and illegal activities in the cannabis trade. The DOJ provides the example that “a marijuana-related business could be laundering proceeds from fentanyl sales on the side, or from marijuana sales conducted outside of the state regulatory framework”, and that the SAFE Banking Act, as written, wouldn’t allow law enforcement or prosecutors to do their jobs effectively.

The DOJ also takes issue with the fact that the SAFE Banking Act doesn’t do much to solve the issue of total compliance for financial institutions with the Bank Secrecy Act, existing anti-money laundering laws, and countering-the-financing regulations to collect—or verify—information demonstrating that a particular business is operating in accordance with applicable state law. This is definitely an issue with these piecemeal cannabis bills: there will always be collateral effects regarding compliance with other, existing federal laws. The DOJ also opined that there will be forfeiture issues related to depository institutions’ interests in collateral, because the SAFE Banking Act doesn’t also amend current forfeiture laws.

Technical comments

Helpfully, the DOJ then trots out a list of technical assistance comments, pointing out to lawmakers where legal and interpretive inconsistencies will exist if the SAFE Banking Act is passed “as-is”. These mainly touch on things like definitions in the bill, the use of the term “cannabis” versus “marijuana” as compared to existing federal laws, and enforcement ambiguities.

Notable concern

Towards the end of the Memo, the DOJ states that

Section 3 and 14 (“Definitions”) read together result in interpretive uncertainties. The
definition of “cannabis-related legitimate business” is ambiguous. For example, this Section says nothing about how states will determine compliance with state law or what happens when state laws conflict – e.g., some states have different restrictions on movement of marijuana within or out of the state, or different registration and compliance regimes. Nor does it explain how to deal with fraudulent declarations of alleged compliance with state laws (many states do not have the bureaucratic capability to ensure full compliance yet, and DEA has law enforcement intelligence demonstrating that criminal organizations are exploiting the marijuana industry in states where the industry is legalized).

This is a somewhat troubling observation by the DOJ, but probably an accurate one.

What happens now?

Without a doubt, Congress will listen to the DOJ on technical changes to the bill. The fact that the DOJ isn’t entirely fighting the legislation is a good development. On the whole, the suggested changes are mostly helpful (from a legal/technical standpoint to avoid conflict) and they strike a compromise in that the DOJ still needs to be able to do its job if the SAFE Banking Act passes. To date, politics have played a big role in the SAFE Banking Act going nowhere, but now that we have DOJ weigh-in on the bill, we may actually be crossing into a phase of serious consideration. So, stay tuned.

Source link

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2021 The Art of MaryJane Media