Sharon Stone’s Stone-Cold Marijuana Withdrawal

Letter to Philippians: Consider that Sharon Stone’s stoned cold withdrawal from marijuana (or any potentially addictive drug) is arguably a lesson on how medicine, psychiatry, religion & LAW can intersect …

The thought occurred to me as I was reading Fox News story titled, “Sharon Stone’s terrifying weed withdrawal sparks warning about today’s potent marijuana.” The gist was that the Hollywood icon had a health scare after quitting marijuana. We’re told it entailed symptoms “so intense that she turned to a neurologist.” Stone told Variety, she wanted a drug-free life, but when she quit cold turkey, she got seriously sick for a month and noted, “It’s not like you’re pulling [marijuana] out of the ground anymore … like when we were kids.” As Chris Tuell, director of addiction services at the Lindner Center in Cincinnati, the THC levels in marijuana have surged from 3% to 5% in the 1980s to as high as 30% in today’s cannabis products, while concentrates can exceed 90%. While many health experts do not believe cannabis is addicting, he does, “especially with high levels of THC.” The withdrawal symptoms are seldom life threatening, the article reminds. Yet the aftermath of quitting the stuff, like any addictive or quasi-addictive drug, can be a daunting life-long effort. Ask AA member Sherlock Holmes in the popular show “Elementary.” Or not.

The point is, Sharon Stone’s ordeal highlights the potentially problematic medical & psychiatric repercussions regular pot users can be saddled with. The possible loss of “free will” suggests the religious dilemma involved. But how about the increased exposure of tort liability the cannabis producers may now have to deal with as research (and high profile cases like Stone’s) is revealing the serious medical & emotional harm that high level THC products can deliver to their customers? The plaintiffs’ bar is undoubtedly inhaling that research and readying to blow it in their targets’ face. Already, there's been a wave of mutli-state class actions against the largest producers alleging deceptive if not fraudulent marketing practices. And some of the biggest tort shops have already won some landmark cases against them ala the industry-changing "tobacco litigation."

Davd Soul