3 ms·

Honestly, what's alarming is how they are defining "strong" cannabis. "While traditional forms of cannabis contain 2 to 4 % THC, the more potent varieties (of

Honestly, what's alarming is how they are defining "strong" cannabis. "While traditional forms of cannabis contain 2 to 4 % THC, the more potent varieties (of which there are about 100), can contain 10 to 14% THC, according to the DrugScope charity." Here on the west coast, 10-14% is not high and 2-4% is so weak that you only find it in strains that focus on CBD rather than THC. High end strains have a little more than 20% THC, usually hovering somewhere around 22%. These strains are tested by labs. This is not hearsay. If we talk about dabs, then we're talking about double, triple, quadruple the potency. Then you have edibles which are a completely different beast. So it is important to realize that they were not testing with potent cannabis at all. Potent for England? Sure, but American cannabis is on a whole nother level. The results seen from this are hardly compelling. More than half the sample size were chosen BECAUSE they had reported an episode of psychosis. Still, I hope this encourages more research to figure out exactly what's happening, if anything.

wjnc 11y ago
I agree and while I have no reason to doubt the science regarding measurement, this quote is telling: "“It is possible that these people already have a different brain and they are more likely to use cannabis.” That point is, AFAIK, the current state of science in addiction related research. Cannabis is not addictive, unless you have a predisposition for addiction. That predisposition correlates with a higher chance of psychosis and such. I totally have no sources other than being Dutch and having seen a documentary. Will search for sources. See sources below (sorry for the Dutch links). I am amazed that you can publish research "because MRI", with a disclaimer that stands at 180 degrees with current information from public health policies. The only point that I see being made taking this into account is: "56 people that smoke daily and got a psychosis, differ from 43 people that don't smoke and didn't get a psychosis, MRIs show." (small lol) Sources (update): [1] THC-monitor in Dutch (20%!! THC avg. in Netherlands in '04, somewhat lower since) [2] Belgian drug information site states my point too: "Use of cannabis can amplify development of psychological trauma in people that have a natural disposition" (my translation) [1] https://www.trimbos.nl/actueel/nieuws/bericht/?bericht=1586 https://www.trimbos.nl/actueel/nieuws/bericht/?bericht=1586 [2] http://www.druglijn.be/drugs-abc/cannabis/faq-is-er-een-verband-tussen-cannabis-en-psychose.aspx http://www.druglijn.be/drugs-abc/cannabis/faq-is-er-een-verb...
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
corin_ 11y ago
> Potent for England? Sure, but American cannabis is on a whole nother level. Even in England, I know many weed smokers, but nobody who would buy "bush weed". Strains might not be as strong as the west coast in US, but something like skunk is a fairly typical thing to get, not a shockingly stronger surprise like the UK press paint it. (Admitedly I'm going of anecdotes - albeit lots of anecdotes, but doesn't necessarily mean there aren't huge numbers of people in England who are happy smoking shitty weed... I've no idea, but I've never met any of them.)
- such_a_casual 11y ago
  Yeah, I seriously doubt most English tokers are putting up with 4% and 2% THC like the article is trying to claim.
Raphmedia 11y ago
Wouldn't people consume lesser quantities of high % strains in order to get more high, spend less money and keep a low tolerance? That's like comparing beers with whiskey. Of course if you drink a 12-pack of whiskey, you would get pretty sick.
- cinitriqs 11y ago
  Now that's sensible, approach it like any other drug out there and inform the people of the different percentages of thc, cbd (and whatever else that actively influences anything). At least then we would have an educated society, using substances as they please KNOWING what good (or bad) certain substances could do. But just putting out studies suggesting "brain damage" is just witch hunting. Terrorism kills 100 procent more brain cells than THC does ;)

wjnc 11y ago

I agree and while I have no reason to doubt the science regarding measurement, this quote is telling: "“It is possible that these people already have a different brain and they are more likely to use cannabis.” That point is, AFAIK, the current state of science in addiction related research. Cannabis is not addictive, unless you have a predisposition for addiction. That predisposition correlates with a higher chance of psychosis and such. I totally have no sources other than being Dutch and having seen a documentary. Will search for sources. See sources below (sorry for the Dutch links). I am amazed that you can publish research "because MRI", with a disclaimer that stands at 180 degrees with current information from public health policies. The only point that I see being made taking this into account is: "56 people that smoke daily and got a psychosis, differ from 43 people that don't smoke and didn't get a psychosis, MRIs show." (small lol) Sources (update): [1] THC-monitor in Dutch (20%!! THC avg. in Netherlands in '04, somewhat lower since) [2] Belgian drug information site states my point too: "Use of cannabis can amplify development of psychological trauma in people that have a natural disposition" (my translation) [1] https://www.trimbos.nl/actueel/nieuws/bericht/?bericht=1586 https://www.trimbos.nl/actueel/nieuws/bericht/?bericht=1586 [2] http://www.druglijn.be/drugs-abc/cannabis/faq-is-er-een-verband-tussen-cannabis-en-psychose.aspx http://www.druglijn.be/drugs-abc/cannabis/faq-is-er-een-verb...

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

corin_ 11y ago

> Potent for England? Sure, but American cannabis is on a whole nother level. Even in England, I know many weed smokers, but nobody who would buy "bush weed". Strains might not be as strong as the west coast in US, but something like skunk is a fairly typical thing to get, not a shockingly stronger surprise like the UK press paint it. (Admitedly I'm going of anecdotes - albeit lots of anecdotes, but doesn't necessarily mean there aren't huge numbers of people in England who are happy smoking shitty weed... I've no idea, but I've never met any of them.)

such_a_casual 11y ago
Yeah, I seriously doubt most English tokers are putting up with 4% and 2% THC like the article is trying to claim.

Raphmedia 11y ago

Wouldn't people consume lesser quantities of high % strains in order to get more high, spend less money and keep a low tolerance? That's like comparing beers with whiskey. Of course if you drink a 12-pack of whiskey, you would get pretty sick.

cinitriqs 11y ago
Now that's sensible, approach it like any other drug out there and inform the people of the different percentages of thc, cbd (and whatever else that actively influences anything). At least then we would have an educated society, using substances as they please KNOWING what good (or bad) certain substances could do. But just putting out studies suggesting "brain damage" is just witch hunting. Terrorism kills 100 procent more brain cells than THC does ;)