7 ms·

Exactly. The narrative of the "stronger, more dangerous(!) weed" falls short because consumers have always, and will always, micro-dose. That's just the human w

Exactly. The narrative of the "stronger, more dangerous(!) weed" falls short because consumers have always, and will always, micro-dose. That's just the human way to do it. You don't drink 1l of water when you are thirsty, you drink until the body tells you it is enough. You don't eat until the food is empty (ok well, sometimes we do..), you eat until you are full. I find it disappointing the same'ol propaganda reappear still today for MJ...now all left to do is to find out who sponsored the study this time and dictated the outcome...

haswell 5y ago
To be fair, if someone gets to the point that they’re dabbing concentrates, the minimum dose is pretty damn high, and it’s easy to overdo it. If a casual smoker made the mistake of smoking a dab, they might be in for a surprise. Many of the vape pens are also extremely potent, and it’s even easier to overuse those. I’m not saying the old propaganda has any value, but I do think it’s a lot easier than many think to level up to “heavy use” very quickly with modern offerings. But even at insanely high concentrations, you’re still most likely to just have a bad time, not get seriously injured. This should be addressed by education though, not regulation/propaganda.
- jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
  Ok I was commenting on the false narrative of stronger weed strains causing overdosing. If we talk about concentrates that's a different situation I agree.
PhasmaFelis 5y ago
That's very much not universal. Some people use moderation, some people go crazy on it. It's always been that way, for anything. There are drinkers who will have a couple of drinks, get pleasantly buzzed, and enjoy their evening, and there's people who get completely smashed every time. Same thing for food--over 40% of Americans are obese now. It would be very surprising if there weren't (at least) a substantial minority of weed-smokers who have trouble knowing when to stop.
- jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
  Reckless people abusing substances is not a sound argumment against the substances. With food the issue is how our body is tricked to not feel full when in fact through more sugar and fat he got way too much calories. Then getting addiced to sugar and fat. While of course very problematic, that's a different matter, not directly comparable.
  - PhasmaFelis 5y ago
    I'm not making an argument against marijuana. I'm saying that "humans always consume in moderation" is an nonsensical argument for anything.
    - jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
      Well...depends. If moderation is absolutely needed and only slight overdose leads to death, then yes, do not count on moderation and common sense as an absolute. In general though, by nature's design, people start to consume everything unknown slow and increase the amount/dosage. That is how we function. The fact some people do not know moderation, for various reasons, is not a sound argument for prohibition. Some will always abuse anything. You can die of drinking too much water, and certainly people did in the past. Can you prevent that from happening, by controlling the access to water somehow? No. In my opinion the more nonsensical idea is to try to forcefully protect people from doing harm to themselfes, when common sense and normal behavior will do on its own. There is free will and autonomy over the own body. That's the limit of regulation. The better aproach is education in a honest, factual way.
- asdff 5y ago
  That wouldn't change with a more or less potent strain, though. People will use until desired effects are reached. An alcoholic might drink a liter of vodka in a sitting to get hammered, but they aren't going to drink only a liter of beer if they were drinking beer, they will drink an entire case of beer to get to the desired effects.
bjourne 5y ago
I find it disappointing and disheartening that you are dismissing peer-reviewed studies as "propaganda". Your argumentation is not that different from the one used by climate change deniers. The first study is commissioned by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction and the second was funded by a Senior Academic Fellowship from the Society for the Study of Addiction.
- watwut 5y ago
  Peer reviewed studies disagree and dismiss each other all the time. Peer reviewed studies are often "propaganda". Peer review guarantees certain minimal bar and that your general structure is sane. Reproducibility and actual results are not necessary validated. The larger scientific discussion where study is confirmed is after peer review. On HN, they are specifically disagreed with super often. Especially anything "softer" It is not like it was taboo.
  - bjourne 5y ago
    It's sad that science denial is now the norm even on Hacker News.
    - watwut 5y ago
      First, nothing changed, HN people were always treating studies that way. And second, it is not scientific behavior to treat a single study as gospel. It is scientific when consensus emerges from many different studies and when those are reproduced and verified. Pearl clutching over "peer-review" mostly suggests people don't know what peer review can or can not do.
    - jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
      This specific study contradicts other studies before that came to a different conclusion. It's kind of a hen-egg problem, in which I firmly believe this study got it wrong. No "science denial". Questioning of this specific study and disregarding your appeals for authority.
- 5y ago
pmoriarty 5y ago
"The narrative of the "stronger, more dangerous(!) weed" falls short because consumers have always, and will always, micro-dose. That's just the human way to do it. You don't drink 1l of water when you are thirsty, you drink until the body tells you it is enough." That's not always true -- especially among new, naive users. I knew someone who for their first time smoked an entire joint because they thought that was a single dose. Unsurprisingly, they had a bad time because they basically overdosed... and that was more than a decade ago, when cannabis was significantly less potent than it is now. I'm sure there are plenty of new users today who repeat the same mistake with dire (psychological) consequences.
- jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
  Right, I made more hidden assumptions, I was not thinking of first-timers. If legalized, this could be better controlled, similar to alcohol. The information could also be more honest. Of course there are also alcohol first-timers who get abolutely shit-faced, that's a really bad trip as well. Probably also some who die of alcohol poisoning. I'm curious, why did you say "dire (psychological) consequences", what do you mean by that?

haswell 5y ago

To be fair, if someone gets to the point that they’re dabbing concentrates, the minimum dose is pretty damn high, and it’s easy to overdo it. If a casual smoker made the mistake of smoking a dab, they might be in for a surprise. Many of the vape pens are also extremely potent, and it’s even easier to overuse those. I’m not saying the old propaganda has any value, but I do think it’s a lot easier than many think to level up to “heavy use” very quickly with modern offerings. But even at insanely high concentrations, you’re still most likely to just have a bad time, not get seriously injured. This should be addressed by education though, not regulation/propaganda.

jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
Ok I was commenting on the false narrative of stronger weed strains causing overdosing. If we talk about concentrates that's a different situation I agree.

PhasmaFelis 5y ago

That's very much not universal. Some people use moderation, some people go crazy on it. It's always been that way, for anything. There are drinkers who will have a couple of drinks, get pleasantly buzzed, and enjoy their evening, and there's people who get completely smashed every time. Same thing for food--over 40% of Americans are obese now. It would be very surprising if there weren't (at least) a substantial minority of weed-smokers who have trouble knowing when to stop.

jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
Reckless people abusing substances is not a sound argumment against the substances. With food the issue is how our body is tricked to not feel full when in fact through more sugar and fat he got way too much calories. Then getting addiced to sugar and fat. While of course very problematic, that's a different matter, not directly comparable.
- PhasmaFelis 5y ago
  I'm not making an argument against marijuana. I'm saying that "humans always consume in moderation" is an nonsensical argument for anything.
  - jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
    Well...depends. If moderation is absolutely needed and only slight overdose leads to death, then yes, do not count on moderation and common sense as an absolute. In general though, by nature's design, people start to consume everything unknown slow and increase the amount/dosage. That is how we function. The fact some people do not know moderation, for various reasons, is not a sound argument for prohibition. Some will always abuse anything. You can die of drinking too much water, and certainly people did in the past. Can you prevent that from happening, by controlling the access to water somehow? No. In my opinion the more nonsensical idea is to try to forcefully protect people from doing harm to themselfes, when common sense and normal behavior will do on its own. There is free will and autonomy over the own body. That's the limit of regulation. The better aproach is education in a honest, factual way.
asdff 5y ago
That wouldn't change with a more or less potent strain, though. People will use until desired effects are reached. An alcoholic might drink a liter of vodka in a sitting to get hammered, but they aren't going to drink only a liter of beer if they were drinking beer, they will drink an entire case of beer to get to the desired effects.

bjourne 5y ago

I find it disappointing and disheartening that you are dismissing peer-reviewed studies as "propaganda". Your argumentation is not that different from the one used by climate change deniers. The first study is commissioned by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction and the second was funded by a Senior Academic Fellowship from the Society for the Study of Addiction.

watwut 5y ago
Peer reviewed studies disagree and dismiss each other all the time. Peer reviewed studies are often "propaganda". Peer review guarantees certain minimal bar and that your general structure is sane. Reproducibility and actual results are not necessary validated. The larger scientific discussion where study is confirmed is after peer review. On HN, they are specifically disagreed with super often. Especially anything "softer" It is not like it was taboo.
- bjourne 5y ago
  It's sad that science denial is now the norm even on Hacker News.
  - watwut 5y ago
    First, nothing changed, HN people were always treating studies that way. And second, it is not scientific behavior to treat a single study as gospel. It is scientific when consensus emerges from many different studies and when those are reproduced and verified. Pearl clutching over "peer-review" mostly suggests people don't know what peer review can or can not do.
  - jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
    This specific study contradicts other studies before that came to a different conclusion. It's kind of a hen-egg problem, in which I firmly believe this study got it wrong. No "science denial". Questioning of this specific study and disregarding your appeals for authority.
5y ago

pmoriarty 5y ago

"The narrative of the "stronger, more dangerous(!) weed" falls short because consumers have always, and will always, micro-dose. That's just the human way to do it. You don't drink 1l of water when you are thirsty, you drink until the body tells you it is enough." That's not always true -- especially among new, naive users. I knew someone who for their first time smoked an entire joint because they thought that was a single dose. Unsurprisingly, they had a bad time because they basically overdosed... and that was more than a decade ago, when cannabis was significantly less potent than it is now. I'm sure there are plenty of new users today who repeat the same mistake with dire (psychological) consequences.

jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
Right, I made more hidden assumptions, I was not thinking of first-timers. If legalized, this could be better controlled, similar to alcohol. The information could also be more honest. Of course there are also alcohol first-timers who get abolutely shit-faced, that's a really bad trip as well. Probably also some who die of alcohol poisoning. I'm curious, why did you say "dire (psychological) consequences", what do you mean by that?