Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome: Reports of Fatal Cases

Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (CHS) is one of the more clinically challenging effects of cannabis consumption. It is characterized by cyclic attacks of nausea and vomiting in chronic cannabinoid users and learned behavior of compulsive hot bathing. The deaths of a 27‐year‐old female, a 27‐year‐old male, and a 31‐year‐old male with a history of CHS are reported. The decedents had a history of cyclical nausea and vomiting, chronic cannabinoid use and negative laboratory, radiological and endoscopic findings. All presented to the emergency department with nausea and vomiting in the days preceding death and were treated symptomatically. Toxicological analysis revealed tetrahydrocannabinol in postmortem blood. The cause of death of two of the three cases was attributed to CHS. CHS was appreciated in the third case but was not the cause of death. These three cases demonstrate the importance of recognizing CHS as a potential cause or contributing factor to death in cannabinoid user.     

Naming Names: The Impact of Supreme Court Opinion Attribution on Citizen Assessment of Policy Outcomes

The manner in which political institutions convey their policy outcomes can have important implications for how the public views institutions' policy decisions. This paper explores whether the way in which the U.S. Supreme Court communicates its policy decrees affects how favorably members of the public assess its decisions. Specifically, we investigate whether attributing a decision to the nation's High Court or to an individual justice influences the public's agreement with the Court's rulings. Using an experimental design, we find that when a Supreme Court outcome is ascribed to the institution as a whole, rather than to a particular justice, people are more apt to agree with the policy decision. We also find that identifying the gender of the opinion author affects public agreement under certain conditions. Our findings have important implications for how public support for institutional policymaking operates, as well as the dynamics of how the Supreme Court manages to accumulate and maintain public goodwill.     

Beyond the "science of sophomores": does the rational choice explanation of crime generalize from university students to an actual offender sample?

Much of the criminological literature testing rational choice theory has utilized hypothetical scenarios presented to university students. Although this research generally supports rational choice theory, a common criticism is that conclusions from these studies may not generalize to samples of actual offenders. This study proceeds to examine this issue in two steps. First, a traditional sample of university students is examined to determine how various costs and benefits relate to their hypothetical likelihood of offending. Then the same data collection procedures are employed with a somewhat different sample of younger, adjudicated, and institutionalized offenders to determine whether the conclusions drawn from the student sample generalize to this offender sample. Results generally suggest that the content and process of hypothetical criminal decision making differ in the sample of known offenders relative to the university students. Limitations of the current study, as well as suggestions for future research, are discussed.