Cannabis News
The Weed Made Me Do It
The Rise of the Weed Insanity Defense – WeedSanity!
The “cannabis made me do it” defense, once a bizarre footnote in legal history, is gaining alarming traction in courtrooms across the globe. When Bryn Spejcher, a California woman, successfully used “transient psychosis” as her get-out-of-jail-free card after brutally stabbing her boyfriend 108 times, it set a dangerous precedent. I warned then that this ruling would open the floodgates for more killers to claim “temporary insanity” induced by cannabis use.
Sadly, that prediction is becoming reality. In Ireland, Diego Costa Silva was found not guilty of murdering his wife, thanks to a “cannabis-induced psychosis” defense. Now, we’re seeing this strategy employed with increasing frequency, as murderers attempt to shirk responsibility for their heinous acts.
Let’s be clear: even if cannabis could induce a state of temporary insanity (a claim that deserves intense scrutiny), the capacity for such violent behavior should be cause for serious concern, not a ticket to freedom. The idea that a plant could transform someone into a remorseless killing machine is either a blatant lie or a red flag that the individual poses an ongoing threat to society.
This article delves into a recent case where this defense strategy didn’t pan out as the killer had hoped. It serves as a crucial message to future jurors: we must not allow cold-blooded murderers to walk free based on dubious claims about cannabis-induced psychosis. The stakes are too high, and justice demands better.
James Kilroy, a 51-year-old park ranger from Westport, Co Mayo, Ireland, shocked the nation with a brutal act of violence against his wife, Valerie French Kilroy. His defense? A claim that cannabis-induced psychosis led him to believe his wife was conspiring with Donald Trump’s bodyguards to capture, torture, and kill him.
The tragic events unfolded between June 13 and 14, 2019. Valerie, a mother of three, had been enjoying a night out with friends. Upon her return home, she encountered a nightmare. James Kilroy, in what he later claimed was a state of drug-induced paranoia, viciously attacked his wife. He beat her, stabbed her repeatedly, and ultimately strangled her to death. The brutality of the assault was evident, with signs of a struggle and the use of a ligature.
Hours after the murder, Kilroy was discovered wandering naked in a nearby field, a surreal scene that hinted at his disturbed state of mind. When questioned by gardaí and psychiatrists, he spun a web of delusional beliefs, centering on the bizarre claim about his wife’s alleged collaboration with Trump’s security detail.
Investigations revealed that Kilroy had a history of cannabis use. In 2001, he had experienced a previous psychotic episode related to drug use, a fact his defense team would later leverage in their strategy.
Kilroy’s legal team built their case around a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. They argued that their client had suffered from cannabis-induced psychosis or a form of acute and transient psychotic disorder at the time of the murder. This defense strategy mirrored recent high-profile cases where defendants had successfully used similar arguments to avoid conviction.
However, the jury at the Central Criminal Court was not swayed by this narrative. After careful consideration of the evidence presented during the trial, the eight women and four men unanimously rejected Kilroy’s insanity defense. Their decision came after just two hours of deliberation, a clear indication of their conviction in Kilroy’s guilt.
This verdict represents a significant moment in the ongoing debate about cannabis-related defenses in violent crime cases. By seeing through the smoke screen of alleged drug-induced psychosis, the jury affirmed the principle of personal responsibility. They sent a powerful message that such claims should not serve as a get-out-of-jail-free card for heinous acts of violence.
Kilroy now faces the mandatory sentence for murder in Ireland: life imprisonment. This outcome delivers a measure of justice for Valerie French Kilroy and her grieving family, who have endured the ordeal of three separate trials due to unforeseen difficulties in previous proceedings.
The case of James Kilroy serves as a stark reminder of the importance of critical thinking in jury deliberations, especially when confronted with novel defense strategies. It sets a precedent that may help curb the growing trend of using cannabis-induced psychosis as a shield against murder charges, ensuring that justice is served for victims and their families.
The notion that “transient insanity” induced by drug use can serve as a valid defense for murder is a dangerous precedent that threatens to undermine the very foundations of our justice system. This concept mocks the principles of law and order, creating a loophole that could potentially allow cold-blooded killers to evade justice. The stark reality is that millions of people consume various substances daily without resorting to violence. When an individual commits murder under the influence, it doesn’t negate their crime; rather, it may indicate underlying psychological issues that make them a continued threat to society.
The case of Bryn Spejcher, who received a mere two-year probation for a brutal murder, set a disturbing tone for future legal proceedings. This lenient sentence sent a message that drug-induced violence might be treated with undue leniency, opening the door for similar defenses. Indeed, since Spejcher’s case, we’ve seen this defense employed twice in Ireland alone, and it’s likely being attempted in courtrooms across the United States as well.
We cannot allow this to become a legal precedent. Murder remains murder, regardless of how intoxicated or mentally altered the perpetrator claims to have been at the time. Millions of individuals, myself included, have experienced altered states of consciousness through various substances without ever contemplating, let alone committing, violent acts. When someone drives under the influence and causes a fatal accident, we rightfully charge them with manslaughter, recognizing that their conscious decision to consume substances led to unconscious, yet deadly, actions.
It’s baffling, then, that taking a few hits from a bong could potentially absolve someone of responsibility for a gruesome murder. The idea that one could spin a tale of drug-induced delusions – like seeing “demons under the skin” or being transported to “the 11th layer of hell” – and use it as a get-out-of-jail-free card is not just absurd; it’s dangerous.
This trend towards accepting drug-induced “temporary insanity” as a defense for murder is, in itself, insane. It sets a perilous precedent that could be exploited by genuinely violent individuals to escape justice. As potential jurors, we must remain vigilant against these attempts to manipulate the legal system. When faced with such claims in a courtroom, it’s crucial to remember that the vast majority of drug users do not become violent, let alone murderous.
Our responsibility as members of society, and potentially as jurors, is to ensure that dangerous individuals are not released back into our communities based on dubious claims of drug-induced psychosis. We must weigh the evidence carefully, consider the broader implications of our decisions, and ultimately prioritize public safety. Murder, regardless of the circumstances or substances involved, remains one of the gravest crimes imaginable. Let’s not allow clever legal maneuvering to diminish its severity or the justice owed to its victims.
As we’ve seen with James Kilroy’s case, the “cannabis-induced psychosis” defense is far from disappearing. Until this dubious legal strategy is completely dismantled, we can expect more killers to attempt to exploit it, hoping to evade justice for their heinous acts.
However, there’s a more insidious consequence lurking beneath the surface. These cases risk reigniting the flames of prohibition, as opponents of cannabis legalization seize upon these isolated incidents to paint a false narrative of cannabis-induced violence. This tactic isn’t new; it’s a page torn straight from the playbook of Harry Anslinger, DuPont, and William Randolph Hearst. In the 1930s, they successfully leveraged sensationalized accounts of violent crimes, falsely attributing them to cannabis use, to sway Congress into passing the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act.
We must learn from history and not allow these isolated cases to derail the progress we’ve made in cannabis reform. Instead, let’s adopt a clear stance: regardless of whether one’s actions were influenced by cannabis or any other substance, the consequences for violent crimes should remain severe. Whether it’s incarceration or commitment to a secure psychiatric facility, we cannot afford to let murderers walk free based on claims of drug-induced temporary insanity.
By maintaining this firm position, we protect both the victims of violent crimes and the broader cause of sensible drug policy reform. Let’s not give prohibitionists new ammunition or murderers an escape route. Justice and public safety demand nothing less.
GETTING AWAY WITH MURDER BECAUSE OF WEED, READ ON…
Cannabis News
Latest Trump Weed Rumor – Trump Will Federally Deschedule and Decriminalize Cannabis, but Not Legalize It
In a recent interview, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie made headlines by asserting that President-elect Donald Trump will pursue significant reforms in federal policies regarding marijuana and cryptocurrency. As the nation grapples with evolving attitudes toward cannabis and the burgeoning digital currency market, Christie’s predictions have ignited discussions about the potential implications of such changes on both industries. This article delves into Christie’s insights, the current state of marijuana and cryptocurrency regulations, and the broader implications of these anticipated reforms.
The Current Landscape of Marijuana Legislation
Federal vs. State Laws
Marijuana remains classified as a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which places it in the same category as heroin and LSD. This classification has created a complex legal landscape where states have moved to legalize cannabis for medical and recreational use, while federal law continues to impose strict prohibitions. As of now, over 30 states have legalized marijuana in some form, leading to a burgeoning industry that generates billions in revenue.
Challenges Faced by the Cannabis Industry
Despite its legality in many states, the cannabis industry faces significant hurdles due to federal restrictions. These challenges include:
-
Banking Access: Many banks are hesitant to work with cannabis businesses due to fear of federal repercussions, forcing these businesses to operate largely in cash.
-
Taxation Issues: The IRS enforces Section 280E of the tax code, which prohibits businesses engaged in illegal activities from deducting normal business expenses, leading to disproportionately high tax burdens for cannabis companies.
-
Interstate Commerce: The lack of federal legalization prevents cannabis businesses from operating across state lines, limiting their growth potential.
Chris Christie’s Perspective on Marijuana Reform
Christie, a former presidential candidate known for his tough stance on drugs during his tenure as governor, has evolved his views on marijuana over the years. In his recent statements, he emphasized that Trump is likely to pursue descheduling cannabis, which would remove it from the Schedule I classification. This move would not only provide clarity for businesses operating in legal markets but also open avenues for banking and investment.
Christie highlighted that descheduling would allow for a more regulated market where safety standards could be established, thus protecting consumers. He believes that this approach aligns with a growing consensus among Americans who support legalization and recognize the potential benefits of cannabis use for both medical and recreational purposes.
The Future of Cryptocurrency Regulation = The Rise of Cryptocurrencies
Cryptocurrencies have surged in popularity over the past decade, with Bitcoin leading the charge as the first decentralized digital currency. The market has expanded to include thousands of alternative coins (altcoins), each with unique features and use cases. As cryptocurrencies gain traction among investors and consumers alike, regulatory scrutiny has intensified.
Current Regulatory Challenges
The cryptocurrency market faces several regulatory challenges that hinder its growth and adoption:
-
Lack of Clarity: Regulatory frameworks vary significantly across states and countries, creating confusion for investors and businesses.
-
Fraud and Scams: The rapid growth of cryptocurrencies has led to an increase in fraudulent schemes targeting unsuspecting investors.
-
Consumer Protection: Without clear regulations, consumers are often left vulnerable to risks associated with volatile markets.
Christie’s Vision for Crypto Regulation
Christie believes that under Trump’s leadership, there will be an effort to find a “sweet spot” for cryptocurrency regulation balancing innovation with consumer protection. He argues that overly stringent regulations could stifle growth in this emerging sector while too little oversight could expose consumers to significant risks.
In his view, a balanced regulatory framework would include:
1. Clear Definitions: Establishing clear definitions for different types of cryptocurrencies and tokens to differentiate between securities and utility tokens.
2. Consumer Protections: Implementing measures to protect investors from fraud while promoting transparency within the market.
3. Encouraging Innovation: Creating an environment conducive to innovation by allowing startups to thrive without excessive regulatory burdens.
Christie’s insights reflect a growing recognition among policymakers that cryptocurrencies are here to stay and that appropriate regulations are necessary to foster growth while safeguarding consumers.
Implications of Proposed Reforms
Economic Impact
The potential reforms proposed by Christie could have far-reaching economic implications:
-
Job Creation: Legalizing marijuana at the federal level could lead to significant job creation within the cannabis industry—from cultivation and production to retail sales.
-
Investment Opportunities: Descheduling cannabis would open up investment opportunities for institutional investors who have been hesitant due to federal restrictions.
-
Boosting Local Economies: Legal cannabis markets have proven beneficial for local economies through increased tax revenues and job creation.
Similarly, clear regulations around cryptocurrencies could stimulate investment in blockchain technology and related industries, fostering innovation and economic growth.
Social Justice Considerations
Both marijuana legalization and sensible cryptocurrency regulations have social justice implications:
-
Addressing Past Injustices: Legalizing marijuana could help rectify past injustices related to drug enforcement policies that disproportionately affected marginalized communities.
-
Financial Inclusion: Cryptocurrencies offer opportunities for financial inclusion for those underserved by traditional banking systems, particularly in low-income communities.
Political Landscape
The political landscape surrounding these issues is complex. While there is bipartisan support for marijuana reform among certain lawmakers, challenges remain in overcoming entrenched opposition. Similarly, cryptocurrency regulation has garnered attention from both sides of the aisle but requires collaboration to establish effective frameworks.
Conclusion
Chris Christie’s predictions about President-elect Donald Trump’s approach to federal marijuana descheduling and cryptocurrency regulation suggest a potential shift in U.S. policy that could significantly reshape both industries. As public opinion evolves on these issues, lawmakers have an opportunity to enact meaningful reforms that promote economic growth while ensuring consumer protection. The anticipated changes could foster a more robust cannabis industry that contributes positively to the economy and addresses social justice concerns, while clear regulatory frameworks for cryptocurrencies could encourage innovation and protect consumers in the digital economy. Stakeholders in both sectors are closely watching these developments, eager to see how potential reforms might impact their futures. While the realization of Christie’s predictions remains uncertain, it’s clear that the conversation around marijuana and cryptocurrency regulation is ongoing and far from settled.
TRUMP 2.0 ON CANNABIS REFORM, READ ON…
TRUMP 2.0 ON FEDERAL CANNABIS REFORM – WHAT DO WE KNOW?
“How Long Does One Puff of Weed Stay in Your System?”… This topic can be difficult to answer since it is dependent on elements such as the size of the hit and what constitutes a “one hit.” If you take a large bong pull then cough, it might linger in your system for 5-7 days. A moderate dose from a joint can last 3-5 days, whereas a few hits from a vaporizer may last 1-3 days.
The length of time that marijuana stays in the body varies based on a number of factors, including metabolism, THC levels, frequency of use, and hydration.
Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, is the primary psychoactive component of cannabis. THC and its metabolites, which remain in your body long after the effects have subsided, are detected by drug tests.
Since these metabolites are fat-soluble, they cling to bodily fat molecules. They could thus take a while to fully pass through your system, particularly if your body fat percentage is higher.
THC is absorbed by tissues and organs (including the brain, heart, and fat) and converted by the liver into chemicals such as 11-hydroxy-THC and carboxy-THC. Cannabis is eliminated in feces at a rate of around 65%, while urine accounts for 20%. The leftover amount might be kept within the body.
THC deposited in bodily tissues ultimately re-enters the circulation and is processed by the liver. For frequent users, THC accumulates in fatty tissues quicker than it can be removed, thus it may be detectable in drug tests for days or weeks following consumption.
The detection time varies according to the amount and frequency of cannabis usage. Higher dosages and regular usage result in longer detection times.
The type of drug test also affects detection windows. Blood and saliva tests typically detect cannabis metabolites for shorter periods, while urine and hair samples can reveal use for weeks or even months. In some cases, hair tests have detected cannabis use over 90 days after consumption.
Detection Windows for Various Cannabis Drug Tests
Urine Tests
Among all drug tests, urine testing is the most commonly used method for screening for drug use in an individual.
Detection times vary, but a 2017 review suggests the following windows for cannabis in urine after last use:
– Single-use (e.g., one joint): up to 3 days
– Moderate use (around 4 times a week): 5–7 days
– Chronic use (daily): 10–15 days
– Chronic heavy use (multiple times daily): over 30 days
Blood Tests
Blood tests generally detect recent cannabis use, typically within 2–12 hours after consumption. However, in cases of heavy use, cannabis has been detected up to 30 days later. Chronic heavy use can extend the detection period in the bloodstream.
Saliva Tests
THC can enter saliva through secondhand cannabis smoke, but THC metabolites are only present if you’ve personally smoked or ingested cannabis.
Saliva testing has a short detection window and can sometimes identify cannabis use on the same day. A 2020 review found that THC was detectable in the saliva of frequent users for up to 72 hours after use, and it may remain in saliva longer than in blood following recent use.
In areas where cannabis is illegal, saliva testing is often used for roadside screenings.
Hair Tests
Hair follicle tests can detect cannabis use for up to 90 days. After use, cannabinoids reach the hair follicles through small blood vessels and from sebum and sweat surrounding the hair.
Hair grows at approximately 0.5 inches per month, so a 1.5-inch segment of hair close to the scalp can reveal cannabis use over the past three months.
Factors Affecting THC and Metabolite Retention
The length of time THC and its metabolites stay in your system depends on various factors. Some, like body mass index (BMI) and metabolic rate, relate to individual body processing, not the drug itself.
Other factors are specific to cannabis use, including:
– Dosage: How much you consume
– Frequency: How often you use cannabis
– Method of consumption: Smoking, dabbing, edibles, or sublingual
– THC potency: Higher potency can extend detection time
Higher doses and more frequent use generally extend THC retention. Cannabis consumed orally may remain in the system slightly longer than smoked cannabis, and stronger cannabis strains, higher in THC, may also stay detectable for a longer period.
How Quickly Do the Effects of Cannabis Set In?
When smoking cannabis, effects appear almost immediately, while ingested cannabis may take 1–3 hours to peak.
The psychoactive component THC produces a “high” with common effects such as:
– Altered senses, including perception of time
– Mood changes
– Difficulty with thinking and problem-solving
– Impaired memory
Other short-term effects can include:
– Anxiety and confusion
– Decreased coordination
– Dry mouth and eyes
– Nausea or lightheadedness
– Trouble focusing
– Increased appetite
– Rapid heart rate
– Restlessness and sleepiness
In rare cases, high doses may lead to hallucinations, delusions, or acute psychosis.
Regular cannabis use may have additional mental and physical effects. While research is ongoing, cannabis use may increase the risk of:
– Cognitive issues like memory loss
– Cardiovascular problems including heart disease and stroke
– Respiratory illnesses such as bronchitis or lung infections
– Mood disorders like depression and anxiety
Cannabis use during pregnancy can negatively impact fetal growth and development.
Duration of Effects
Short-term effects generally taper off within 1–3 hours, but for chronic users, some long-term effects may last days, weeks, or even months. Certain effects may even be permanent.
Bottom Line
The amount of time that cannabis remains in your system following a single use varies greatly depending on individual characteristics such as body fat, metabolism, frequency of use, and mode of intake. Frequent users may maintain traces of THC for weeks, whereas infrequent users may test positive for as little as a few days. Hair tests can disclose usage for up to 90 days, while blood and saliva tests identify more recent use. Urine tests are the most popular and have varying detection durations. The duration that THC and its metabolites are detectable will ultimately depend on a number of factors, including dose, strength, and individual body chemistry.
PEE IN A CUP COMING UP, READ ON..
Latest Trump Weed Rumor – Trump Will Federally Deschedule and Decriminalize Cannabis, but Not Legalize It
Webinar Replay: Post-Election Cannabis Wrap – Smoke ’em if You’ve Got ’em
I Had Just One Puff
Marijuana firms Eaze, Green Dragon find new life after $10 million capital infusion
Get some rest on Modified Grapes—November’s Leafly HighLight
Is Kratom Addictive? Understanding Dependence, Risks, and Safe Usage
New Rule, December 5: Oregon Cannabis Retailers, Processors and Labor Peace Agreements
The CBD Dog Treat Guide
Trippin’ Golf Balls – Can Magic Mushrooms Help Your Golf Game?
Australian Broadcasting Corp Alleges Military Veterans Have Been Targeted By Medicinal Cannabis Companies Via Social Media & Offered Free “Product”
Distressed Cannabis Business Takeaways – Canna Law Blog™
United States: Alex Malyshev And Melinda Fellner Discuss The Intersection Of Tax And Cannabis In New Video Series – Part VI: Licensing (Video)
What you Need to Know
Drug Testing for Marijuana – The Joint Blog
NCIA Write About Their Equity Scholarship Program
It has been a wild news week – here’s how CBD and weed can help you relax
Cannabis, alcohol firm SNDL loses CA$372.4 million in 2022
A new April 20 cannabis contest includes a $40,000 purse
Your Go-To Source for Cannabis Logos and Designs
UArizona launches online cannabis compliance online course
-
Cannabis News2 years agoDistressed Cannabis Business Takeaways – Canna Law Blog™
-
One-Hit Wonders2 years agoUnited States: Alex Malyshev And Melinda Fellner Discuss The Intersection Of Tax And Cannabis In New Video Series – Part VI: Licensing (Video)
-
Cannabis 1012 years agoWhat you Need to Know
-
drug testing11 months agoDrug Testing for Marijuana – The Joint Blog
-
Education2 years agoNCIA Write About Their Equity Scholarship Program
-
Cannabis2 years agoIt has been a wild news week – here’s how CBD and weed can help you relax
-
Marijuana Business Daily2 years agoCannabis, alcohol firm SNDL loses CA$372.4 million in 2022
-
California2 years agoA new April 20 cannabis contest includes a $40,000 purse