Smoking high-strength cannabis may damage nerve fibres in brain | Hacker News Reader

Smoking high-strength cannabis may damage nerve fibres in brain

theguardian.com

38 pointsjiangmeng18 comments

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.

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 [2] http://www.druglijn.be/drugs-abc/cannabis/faq-is-er-een-verb...

> 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.)

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

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.

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 ;)

Prohibition causes the stronger strains to be selected, since they are smaller and easier to conceal and transport (as with spirits during alcohol prohibition). Another reason why we need to legalize and regulate things properly, and consider higher taxes on the stronger forms (of alcohol too).

Your statement is very misleading, as is the whole, "kids these days have stronger strains" argument that other people try to use. Potency collapsed as a result of prohibition. Before prohibition, only poor black people in the jazz scene smoked. They did this because it was cheaper (people would steal the flowers off hemp plants). Most everyone else in the country took extracts. 1 dose was commonly the equivalent of what a heavy user today might go through in 2-4 weeks. Prohibition may cause stronger strains to be selected, but in the case of cannabis, prohibition caused the strain to matter, and to be smoked in the first place. Additionally, legalization and regulation does not touch dabbing and edibles which are much more potent than smoking.

source: "The Emperor Wears No Clothes" by Jack Herer

More linkbait with a substantial lack of information and an obvious headline.

Legalise it, do real research, help humanity - vs - fear mongering and locking people up with problems.

The focus on the corpus callosum reminds me of the research that suggests men and women have variations there. [1] (Sexual dimorphism). This research is controversial [2], but there does seem to be evidence [3] for it.

I am curious how that relates to this research. i.e. It's easy to reach for the "damage" label when it's really about "different," which is why it's egg-shellish to discuss sexual dimorphism. A confounding factor is that this brain structure varies quite a bit among individuals and in age, but only in women and much larger study groups are needed. [4] It's possible these brain structures are more involved with personality and physical maturity and show up as defects under a normative mindset.

This writeup suggests possible less efficient information, but maybe that's what "feeling chilled out" means and maybe it's actually better for individuals and humanity to be chilled out once in a while.

So in conclusion, I wouldn't say this means we need to study cannabis more, but we need to study the brain more!

Also: How obnoxious is it of the Guardian to link to the journal, but not the article?! That undermines my trust in their write-up. If you consider the extra time the author could have made to get to the article itself, presuming he/she has actually read it and has a link somewhere, it must be near-zero. Then you consider the amount of time interested readers like me have to go searching for it, times the number of readers, the benefit/waste is just irresponsible. And this seems to be the norm for newspaper articles. It's a sad state.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_callosum#Sexual_dimorph...

[2] http://gormanlab.ucsd.edu/courses/files/psy222/Bishop.pdf

[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15891572

[4] http://www.jneurosci.org/content/11/4/933.short

> Also: How obnoxious is it of the Guardian to link to the journal, but not the article?!

That's standard practice. Indeed, by linking to the journal the guardian is doing better than most UK news sources.

Believe me, I know. I am expressing disdain for mediocrity.

* Sponsored by a known drug company

Someone is taking these researchers for a ride, selling them mids for the price of highs.

Load of bollocks

It probably is, but it would have been better to say why: The attempts to link cannabis to psychosis have been ongoing for decades. This theory is literally "reefer madness."
There are volumes of discredited research and researchers in this area, many of them with dubious funding sources. So now we are to believe that high-strength cannabis is qualitatively different and this previously discredited theory can be redeemed? Not very likely.

Just I am tired of writing this every time such garbage pops up. But thank you for doing that for me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com