4 ms·

I did a deep literature dive about it in the spring of 1986 and was amazed about how little negatives there was at that time. The biggest positive was that THC

I did a deep literature dive about it in the spring of 1986 and was amazed about how little negatives there was at that time. The biggest positive was that THC protected neurons from hypoxia, almost the opposite of damage. The other interesting finding was the Jamaican study, near zero negative effect for the heaviest use cohort. 5 or more fat joints per day for 35 or more years had basically zero negative vs the other groups. No real positives but zero negatives beyond a slightly larger percent of phlegmy lungs, like a few percent more.

galdosdi 3y ago
1986? I am guessing even the heavy users were light -- perhaps even by an order or more of magnitude! -- compared to what today's concentrate user can easily get into with stuff bought at the state legal store. Maybe the same findings would still hold to a great degree, but I wonder and worry, if we are going to find out in 20 years that this ultraconcentrated high dose cannabis that never existed before is going to cause long term effects that were unanticipated by generations who were familiar with the proverbial weak 1970s "ditch weed." After all, it happened with alcohol in the 19th century, when cheap distilled spirits were introduced, wreaking havoc on society accustomed to coping with the mild intoxication of beer, not yet accustomed to how to treat something radically different in concenctration. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Street_and_Gin_Lane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Street_and_Gin_Lane