Skip to comments.
Marijuana activist dies following explosion
Ottawa Citizen ^
| November 1, 2003
| James Gordon
Posted on 11/01/2003 9:04:19 AM PST by Loyalist
![](http://media.canada.com/scripts/locate.asp?id=f662a82c-560b-4ae0-b65f-d59ef488064c)
CREDIT: Jonathan Hayward, The Canadian Press
Don Appleby died of his injuries suffered in an Oct. 12 explosion while he was trying to make a concentrated oil using marijuana and butane.
Don Appleby's fight against the aids virus that was sapping him was made more difficult by a tragic paradox. While the Ottawa man was one of the few Canadians who could legally smoke marijuana for medicinal purposes, he could rarely afford it due to his minuscule disability pension.
In the end, he was killed in the struggle to produce the drug that was helping him survive.
On Oct. 12, Mr. Appleby was in the bathroom of his Blake Boulevard apartment, trying a dangerous method to get some use out of the non-smokable parts of his marijuana plants.
By injecting butane into a plastic container with the plant in it, he hoped to make a concentrated oil he could use. Friends suspect he then tried to light a joint, igniting an explosion that blew the bathroom door off its hinges.
Residents of the apartment above his heard the explosion, and rushed him to the Ottawa Hospital's General campus. It's where he remained in intensive care since the incident, and where he died Thursday morning.
Ron Whelan was Mr. Appleby's close friend, and was living under the same circumstances. He said yesterday that Mr. Appleby never should have died the way he did.
Both 44, they received about $900 a month on disability, not nearly enough to pay for both marijuana and food. While the government would pay for the $1,500-$2,000 of aids medication Mr. Appleby needed, they wouldn't pick up the cost of the marijuana. Nausea was a side-effect of the pills, and without the drug, he couldn't keep them down.
Forced to buy marijuana himself and pay rent, his friends say Mr. Appleby was reduced to scrounging through dumpsters to find the food he could no longer afford. He would go searching behind restaurants late at night so nobody would see him. At the same time, he wasn't shy about asking people with marijuana gardens to help him.
"You do what you have to do to survive, whether it's beg, borrow or steal," Mr. Whelan said. If one had a bag of dry macaroni from the food bank, he would often go to the other's place to share.
Mr. Appleby decided to try and save some money by growing his own marijuana, and after two failed gardens, things were starting to work out for him. Still, the cost to grow was still high. With no other source of medicine, he resorted to the butane method. He never recovered from the burns that covered 75 per cent of his body and his scorched lungs.
Mr. Whelan said although Mr. Appleby experienced difficult times in the past, he really blossomed after meeting people similar to him. He loved participating in marijuana rallies, and helping others.
"The world needs more people like Donny," he said. "He was there for the underdog, and it's a terrible loss for everyone who knew him."
Mr. Whelan said he doesn't blame the government for what happened to his friend, but said it should take more responsibility and provide for people like him.
© Copyright 2003 The Ottawa Citizen
TOPICS: Canada; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: 420; chronic; darwin; darwinaward; donappleby; explosion; ganja; grass; hippylettuce; marijuana; maryjane; pot; puffthis; reefer; spliff; warondrugs; weed; wod; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 321-333 next last
To: Conservative til I die
The argument about medical services for potheads being due to drug legalization is a strawman. The issue here is socialized medicine in general. There are hundreds of other things that people get treated for on the taxpayer dole, illegal and legal, drug-involved and non-drug involved. One can support legalization and still believe that drug use shouldn't be subsidized. I agree with you -- just like you can support decriminalization without legalization, etc., etc. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a lot of potential on these threads to discuss those nuances without descending into a cage match. I find that discussing future what-ifs often ends up going in circles for lack of (future) evidence on either side. On the other hand there is plenty of hard evidence about the federal welfare program for convicted drug offenders...so I like to discuss that angle when pro-criminalization people rightfully complain about taxpayer $$$ for drug users.
181
posted on
11/02/2003 6:53:45 PM PST
by
ellery
To: Conservative til I die
Most drug-warriors on FR gasp when you bring up ending socialized medicine. To his credit, robertpaulsen is one of the few who does not.
182
posted on
11/02/2003 7:55:00 PM PST
by
jmc813
(Michael Schiavo is a bigger scumbag than Bill Clinton)
To: jmc813; robertpaulsen
I can't give him much credit, because he twists and distorts and relies as much on the ad hominem attack as the others.
He's very childish.
To: Cultural Jihad
You're criticizing others for their calumny? Now if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black.
To: Conservative til I die
The is a problem with legalizing drugs that I haven't seen previously mentioned. The drug companies have to keep it illegal . If it is illegal and people are obtaining drugs illegally then there is no one to sue.
If drugs for pleasure are legalized then every drug company that manufactures either an opiate, a synthetic opiate is open to lawsuit for wrongful death the same way the cigarette companies have been sued for the wrongful deaths of smokers. Legal product, legal use, despite the years of warnings and the years of education that the stuff kills.
The legal maxim has been that addiction absolves one of individual responsibility. There is the addiction aspect here in aces. No one can control ones self in the face of opiate addiction. The addict is not at fault it must be the evil drug manufacturer that is at fault.
THC might be available in pill form but do you actually think RJ Reynolds is going to step up and want to produce mary jane cigs. In 15-20 years the lung cancer suits start with this product. The smoke from marijuana is every bit as carcinogenic as tobacco. The one difference is that most smokers work their hind ends off for 50 years and die at about retirement age. Most pot smokers that are daily drug users are not exactly productive members of society.
There is only one winner in the entire situation and that is trial lawyers. All of the rest of us loose.
To: Loyalist
Good riddance.
186
posted on
11/02/2003 9:06:55 PM PST
by
TamiPie
To: TamiPie
Matt. 7
[2] For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
To: Conservative til I die
>>Yes, I must have missed it. So please, show me where Jesus endorsed drunkenness and was a drunkard Himself. I'd really be interested to know this.
I did not say or intimate that Jesus was a drunkard (that was your statement/question). I did say I think He approved of drinking wine, since He made some. The wedding party had already received plenty of wine before He changed the molecular structure of water, into a bubbly, alcolholic wine, and they commented on its quality. IT WAS A PARTY!
I also did not say that I believed in some type of moral anarchy. I stated that moral relatism is what our world is about.
In your zeal, you obviouly failed to read the posting in its own light. You are still trying to make up rules. Join the temple priests, and you could help them ignore Scripture, as well.
It is easy to accept something we have paid for, with our toil, or minds. Most of us have a hard time accepting a free gift, without strings.
Jesus did everything for us. Our salvation does not come from our actions, it is a direct result of His action (living, dying, resurrected). Our salvation comes as a result of our FAITH in those actions,NOTHING ELSE.
Our actions will get us nothing in God's economy. When we accept Him, He has placed an umbrella over us, and all He sees is His Son reflected back.
He allows us to make mistakes, and then picks us up, dusts us off, and pats our fannies. ( "Go and sin no more".)
But His Spirit, indwelling within us, leads us to change our old BAD habits. He is the motivating power, not us. WE CAN'T DO IT OURSELVES!
IMO, most "religious" activity is pretty whacked, when it leaves out the Creator. There is great moral anarchy in the church. It is not based on God, but on man. I did not condone it in my post, nor do I condone it. I personally reject it, but noted it. (For a prime example, look at the Episcopal Church in the US. Yesterday, my father's last sermon was preached in Grifton, NC. Yesterday, they consecrated a queer Bishop in NH. The two acts are connected.He is/was an Episcopal Priest.)
"Faith without works is dead"
If you become Christian, do you no longer sin? If you sin, do you go to Hell? Is there a Hell? Many questions can be posited, but only one answer works for them all.
Jesus lived a perfect life. He committed NO sin. He did not deserve to die, but was crucified. He was buried, but was seen walking and talking with His friends, and compatriots, three days after being intombed. All of this happened to allow us to see our unworthiness. It is God's plan.
"All have sinned and come short of the Glory of God" Then it says BUT!
Read it in the Greek (or a good translation), and tell me what you think. (If you can't find it in your concordance, I can give the reference, but would like to see how much you use your Bible. If you prefer, I have the NIV (and 14 others, including Greek and Hebrew). I usually quote from the more familiar KJV)
I posted originaly because I thought the words referencing this guy were pretty callous. They were without compassion. They were downright offensive to my Chrisitan sensibility.
I call a queer a queer. I call any sinner a sinner. I believe God loves them, and just don't choose to participate in this name calling.
But any chance to speak about His love should be taken.
188
posted on
11/03/2003 4:06:50 AM PST
by
pageonetoo
(In God I trust, not the g'umt!)
To: pageonetoo
You were the one that said Christ endorsed drunkenness. I only haqve your words to go on. It's possible you made a typo.
To: Conservative til I die
"Then what are us pro-dopers fighting for, then?"You're fighting for legitimacy. You want society to endorse your irresponsible, selfish, self-centered, nihilistic, hedonistic, childish, lifstyle choice by making drugs legal.
You say that you accept personal responsibility but you don't -- you fully expect and demand that society pick up after you ["... but said it (the government) should take more responsibility and provide for people like him].
To: ellery
"You still haven't answered my question about why you're against criminalizing butane, as it can be used to produce drugs."Why punish the rest of society for the actions of a few doper a$$holes?
I'm in favor of keeping butane legal. I also favor the industry voluntarily placing additives in the butane that would render the hash oil unusable.
Ooh. I bet that pi$$es you off now, doesn't it?
To: robertpaulsen
Ah, rocket man's thread is still going.
I haven't seen anyone wearing a black arm band around here. I could always check the garage to see if the boy's have any bottle rockets left and fire a couple off in salute to him.
To: ellery
"Of course I want to deter drug dealers ... I propose that education and treatment are the way to deter."This is the part where you lose credibility (with me, anyways).
It must be that touchy-feely side of you that believes that an education and treatment program will deter drug dealers. I'd love to see the curriculum for this program.
Day 1
I. Getting to know each other
a) What kind of drugs do you deal?
II. Drug dealing hurts others
a) Learning how to give a $hit
III. How to apply for a job at McDonalds
a) How to survive a 6000% pay cut ... and love it!
You get the idea.
To: CWOJackson
Rocket man?
To: robertpaulsen
Just a little knick name I gave this spontaneously self-igniting rocket scientist.
To: robertpaulsen
Uh, no. Again, you're making quite a leap. I wonder at your intellectual honesty on this issue when you deride an idea before you've bothered to understand it. Who said anything about education deterring people who are already drug users and dealers? Education is an effective way to prevent people from becoming users and dealers in the first place.
196
posted on
11/03/2003 7:50:33 AM PST
by
ellery
To: robertpaulsen
(laughing at rp's continued hostile tone and sticking to the issues...)
Why punish the rest of society for the actions of a few doper a$$holes?Oh! So you've changed your mind about dual-use technologies/products being illegal because of the actions of a few people? Cool!
I'm in favor of keeping butane legal. I also favor the industry voluntarily placing additives in the butane that would render the hash oil unusable.
Is this possible? Or is this a dodge like bio-identifiers on guns? If the science supports this idea, then why voluntary? If it's voluntary, there will still be plenty of butane out there that can be used to make drugs, right?
197
posted on
11/03/2003 7:56:45 AM PST
by
ellery
To: robertpaulsen
(laughing at rp's continued hostile tone and sticking to the issues...)
Why punish the rest of society for the actions of a few doper a$$holes?Oh! So you've changed your mind about dual-use technologies/products being illegal because of the actions of a few people? Cool!
I'm in favor of keeping butane legal. I also favor the industry voluntarily placing additives in the butane that would render the hash oil unusable.
Is this possible? Or is this a dodge like bio-identifiers on guns? If the science supports this idea, then why voluntary? If it's voluntary, there will still be plenty of butane out there that can be used to make drugs, right?
198
posted on
11/03/2003 7:56:45 AM PST
by
ellery
To: ellery
"Oh! So you've changed your mind about dual-use technologies/products being illegal because of the actions of a few people? Cool!"No. I'm saying that there is no need to ban butane. A better way would be to add impurities. From the link I posted (which you obviously didn't read - I wasted my time again):
"Try to use at least a 8oz can of butane. Some good folks tried the following butanes, Ronson, Colibri and Lite-it. Reportedly Ronson worked good , but Colibri says its 99% free of impurities and in medicine we don't want any leftover butane residues or impurities in the final medicines. The other brand (Lite-it, rp) was horrible, it left a weird taste to the oil so was never heard from again."
Simply sell butane with the impurities in Lite-it. Problem solved.
I said "voluntary" because that's the way I'd like it to be. I'd prefer that over "government mandated".
BTW, your reference to dual-use technologies/products? Tell me you weren't referring to bongs. Nothing "dual-use" about the way they were being marketed, was there?
To: ellery
"Education is an effective way to prevent people from becoming users and dealers in the first place."Fine. It certainly doesn't hurt to educate people in the hope that they will be deterred from becoming a user or dealer. I'm all for that.
Now, if a user or dealer is then caught with marijuana, I assume it will then be OK to lock them up since "effective education" was less than effective?
Or does this "effective education" go on and on and on and on, arrest after arrest after arrest .... Um, when does this "effective education" stop?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 321-333 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson