3 ms·

> The average THC content of cannabis seized by the Drug Enforcement Administration was 15% in 2021, up from 4% in 1995. Many products advertise THC concentrati

> The average THC content of cannabis seized by the Drug Enforcement Administration was 15% in 2021, up from 4% in 1995. Many products advertise THC concentrations of up to 90%. This is really the key here as it means that previous studies that showed health benefits are completely irrelevant now. This isn't like the image of smoking pot in the basement from the 70's anymore. I'm watching the descent of my BIL's mental health from smoking American marijuana and it's really sad.

doubt_me 3y ago
[dead]
dragonwriter 3y ago
> This isn't like the image of smoking pot in the basement from the 70's anymore This line has been in use (with a different antecedent period) as a prohibitionist staple since at least the 1980s. You know how we would not have this issue? If there was legalization and regulatory standadization.
- happymellon 3y ago
  I'm not sure of your point. Are you saying that all previous studies of marijuana are still valid, and that strength hasn't gone up?
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    There is no hidden message. There are two sentences, and they mean exactly what the words in them say, and that’s it.
    - happymellon 3y ago
      And I am not disagreeing with any of it, your phrasing is just very aggressive which made me wonder. As an outside observer it is classic "over the top" Americanism. You like a large vehicle, we will make comically large vehicles! You like hops in your beer? We will increase hop usage by 1000%! (Honestly some of the American independent IPA beers I tried in the 2000's practically required straining through your teeth) You like strong weed?... And that's where we are at, it would also explain why Musk went from jerk to unhinged.
      - cassianoleal 3y ago
        I believe what they meant is that all studies on safety have been made before TCH got so predominant - which may make such studies irrelevant in the current scenario. Furthermore, the lack of regulation in the black market has allowed growers to make their weed stronger (which makes them more competitive). The proposed solution is to bring weed back into above board society and regulate it so the THC content needs to be at least disclosed but likely limited - or create different classes of weed based on that (and perhaps other criteria). It's true that legalisation alone won't stop this behaviour though - it needs to be properly regulated which is something the US seem to have a bit of an aversion to.
        happymellon 3y ago
        > I believe what they meant is that all studies on safety have been made before TCH got so predominant - which may make such studies irrelevant in the current scenario. Well that's what I originally said, but it was blasted as being propaganda from people who wanted to ban it. Which isn't what I said, I don't care if you ban it or regulate it, it's just overdosing on anything has side effects. However if you have weak, medium, strong, very strong, how many Americans are going to be sensible and go for the weak to medium levels? It's just not in the American culture and not the sort of thing I observe in my brother in law.
        NopeNoWay 3y ago
        You're assumptions and extrapolations about American culture are on par with picking the "very strong" version of a stereotype...maybe go for the weak to medium level yourself. Where are you from?
dns_snek 3y ago
Is anyone controlling for how much people smoke today vs in the 70s, quantity-wise? Strength is relatively meaningless on its own, except for first timers who might get caught out. Our baseline genetic tolerance hasn't changed since the 70s. People generally take/drink/smoke as much as it takes to get to where they want to be. I might drink a 0.5L of beer, or I might have a shot of liquor, but I won't have 0.5L of vodka because I'm a thinking human being who realizes that vodka is much stronger than beer. Ditto for low potency 70s cannabis vs fancy 90% extracts today.
- NopeNoWay 3y ago
  How would anyone control it? That's more than kinda Big Brother. And the inverse issue with legalization, or even just legalization for medical use, is that it drives down the price, thus increasing the accessibility of the product still being sold illegally...you know, the totally unregulated stuff.
  - dns_snek 3y ago
    I meant "control" in a scientific sense, it's the second most important variable that these articles never mention. Dosage of actives = Potency x Quantity. If you say that potency of cannabis is 3x higher than it used to be, that's significant, but you need to qualify that by saying how much a typical user would consume in 1 sitting. 1) If people smoke as much as they did in the 70s then they're ingesting 3x as much THC. I believe that this can cause more mental health issues, but it has everything to do with the total consumption of THC, not potency of the product. 2) If they're smoking 1/3rd as much as they did in the 70s then their total THC intake hasn't changed and there must be other explanations for increased mental health issues. Perhaps most notably, severe mental health issues have been on the rise since the dawn of social media. This lack of nuance makes the article alarmist rather than genuinely informative. It only serves to further perpetuate myths and simplistic takes like "cannabis is unsafe because it's too strong".

doubt_me 3y ago

[dead]

dragonwriter 3y ago

> This isn't like the image of smoking pot in the basement from the 70's anymore This line has been in use (with a different antecedent period) as a prohibitionist staple since at least the 1980s. You know how we would not have this issue? If there was legalization and regulatory standadization.

happymellon 3y ago
I'm not sure of your point. Are you saying that all previous studies of marijuana are still valid, and that strength hasn't gone up?
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  There is no hidden message. There are two sentences, and they mean exactly what the words in them say, and that’s it.
  - happymellon 3y ago
    And I am not disagreeing with any of it, your phrasing is just very aggressive which made me wonder. As an outside observer it is classic "over the top" Americanism. You like a large vehicle, we will make comically large vehicles! You like hops in your beer? We will increase hop usage by 1000%! (Honestly some of the American independent IPA beers I tried in the 2000's practically required straining through your teeth) You like strong weed?... And that's where we are at, it would also explain why Musk went from jerk to unhinged.
    - cassianoleal 3y ago
      I believe what they meant is that all studies on safety have been made before TCH got so predominant - which may make such studies irrelevant in the current scenario. Furthermore, the lack of regulation in the black market has allowed growers to make their weed stronger (which makes them more competitive). The proposed solution is to bring weed back into above board society and regulate it so the THC content needs to be at least disclosed but likely limited - or create different classes of weed based on that (and perhaps other criteria). It's true that legalisation alone won't stop this behaviour though - it needs to be properly regulated which is something the US seem to have a bit of an aversion to.
      - happymellon 3y ago
        > I believe what they meant is that all studies on safety have been made before TCH got so predominant - which may make such studies irrelevant in the current scenario. Well that's what I originally said, but it was blasted as being propaganda from people who wanted to ban it. Which isn't what I said, I don't care if you ban it or regulate it, it's just overdosing on anything has side effects. However if you have weak, medium, strong, very strong, how many Americans are going to be sensible and go for the weak to medium levels? It's just not in the American culture and not the sort of thing I observe in my brother in law.
        NopeNoWay 3y ago
        You're assumptions and extrapolations about American culture are on par with picking the "very strong" version of a stereotype...maybe go for the weak to medium level yourself. Where are you from?

dns_snek 3y ago

Is anyone controlling for how much people smoke today vs in the 70s, quantity-wise? Strength is relatively meaningless on its own, except for first timers who might get caught out. Our baseline genetic tolerance hasn't changed since the 70s. People generally take/drink/smoke as much as it takes to get to where they want to be. I might drink a 0.5L of beer, or I might have a shot of liquor, but I won't have 0.5L of vodka because I'm a thinking human being who realizes that vodka is much stronger than beer. Ditto for low potency 70s cannabis vs fancy 90% extracts today.

NopeNoWay 3y ago
How would anyone control it? That's more than kinda Big Brother. And the inverse issue with legalization, or even just legalization for medical use, is that it drives down the price, thus increasing the accessibility of the product still being sold illegally...you know, the totally unregulated stuff.
- dns_snek 3y ago
  I meant "control" in a scientific sense, it's the second most important variable that these articles never mention. Dosage of actives = Potency x Quantity. If you say that potency of cannabis is 3x higher than it used to be, that's significant, but you need to qualify that by saying how much a typical user would consume in 1 sitting. 1) If people smoke as much as they did in the 70s then they're ingesting 3x as much THC. I believe that this can cause more mental health issues, but it has everything to do with the total consumption of THC, not potency of the product. 2) If they're smoking 1/3rd as much as they did in the 70s then their total THC intake hasn't changed and there must be other explanations for increased mental health issues. Perhaps most notably, severe mental health issues have been on the rise since the dawn of social media. This lack of nuance makes the article alarmist rather than genuinely informative. It only serves to further perpetuate myths and simplistic takes like "cannabis is unsafe because it's too strong".