Cannabis seems like it isn't all its hyped up to be -- and the $MJ cannabis ETF is down 70% since its 2019 peak.
Every time a substance is put on schedule 1 it means basically no research will be conducted on the biochemical pathway that it uniquely activates, which means banning substances is ultimately holding back our progression into neuroscience and other biochemical fields. I say legalize all the “drugs” and let people decide for themselves whether or not to be morons. At least then people will know what they are getting.
> I say legalize all the “drugs” and let people decide for themselves whether or not to be morons.
Is probably a bit too spicy. You say the government robs us of agency but you know what else does? Addiction. It’s not bad for a government to put regulations in place for dangerous substances. I do, however, agree with the subtext that it should be _decriminalized_.
Nothing quite robs one of agency like death.
Before fentanyl, I don't think I would be for full legalization. At this point though non-legalization seems immoral.
Well, yeah. Hiding a Jew in 1940s Germany or a native child in 1960s Canada was totally illegal. Democracy functions when the individual is the moral authority because large groups reliably become sociopathic. I suspect that's baked into our biology to some degree, why would we historically form a very large group absent the kind of existential crisis that might require sociopathic behaviour?
Also for anyone who is unaware of what was meant by sheltering native children in Canada: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixties_Scoop
It can do great things like alleviate seizures in children, but they showed it has issues as well. One example was that those who smoke small amounts to help with PTSD will eventually become desensitized and have to increase their dosage and at higher doses, it could make the patient worse off.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1774264/
[2] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=cannabinoid+hyperemesis...
Cannabis use simply is not fatal, or even highly dangerous, under all normal conditions. Sure, yes, you can find a few 1 in 10,000,000 or 1 in 100,000,000 exceptions. You can probably find some of those for chocolate ice cream, too.
Three ice-cream deaths in a single state in a single incident! Nothing is free of risk, but despite the fearmongering, I still think cannabis is not very risky compared to many other things.
ERs have been flooded with severe cases of CHS over the past two decades. It's not just three people dying in rare cases, it's potentially 2.75 million[1] Americans experiencing CHS episodes every year which, given the 35 million[2] "regular" cannabis users, means that approximately 7% of users are susceptible.
For you to dismiss this horrific illness as "not fatal" and even "not dangerous" is outrageously arrogant and ignorant of a very real condition. You're essentially saying that those people did not matter, or did not exist, and that the pain and suffering I have experienced is irrelevant just because it's not the same experience as your own.
It is beyond disturbing that you feel so comfortable making medical claims about something you clearly have no understanding of. Shame on you.
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29327809/
"Among 2127 patients approached for participation, 155 met inclusion criteria as smoking 20 or more days per month. Among those surveyed, 32.9% (95% CI, 25.5-40.3%) met our criteria for having experienced CHS. If this is extractable to the general population, approximately 2.75 million (2.13-3.38 million) Americans may suffer annually from a phenomenon similar to CHS."
[2] https://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/national/article145...
"Close to 35 million are what the survey calls "regular users," or people who use marijuana at least once or twice a month."
That is insane.
Don’t you think there might be something else going on there?
1. Cannabinoid content is through the roof. Legalization created a marketing arms race between growers to develop hybrids which yield the highest possible THC and CBD content (the only two cannabinoids listed on the labels), and that resulted in nearly every available strain now containing more than triple[1] the average THC since the 1990s. Plants are effectively now at their maximum potential levels, and that's not even considering the advancements in oil production leading to levels as high as 99% THC, while also being extremely easy to over-consume.
2. We thought it was strictly a childhood disease for hundreds of years[2]. In the early 19th century, documented reports of cyclical vomiting were largely from children experiencing migraines and an unexplained slowing of GI motility resulting in prolonged vomiting. Any cases reported by adults were presumed to be a continuation of their childhood cyclical vomiting syndrome. This presumption lasted until the 1980s, so until the past few decades there hadn't been a motivation to consider other possible culprits.
3. We thought cannabis increased GI motility. Until the research flood gates opened over the past couple of decades, there was a presumption that cannabis "improved" the digestive process. I've only ever found research that refutes this idea, so it seems to be a Berenstain Bears situation where everyone thinks we had done the research and came to a determination, but we've actually been operating entirely on the anecdote that weed "makes you hungry." In reality, cannabis slows GI motility[3a] and the "hunger" is actually a combination of reduced psychological inhibition and a reduction of PYY hormones[3b]. We think we're hungry, but we're actually overfilling our stomachs to extremes.
4. CHS can be induced on demand. A person susceptible to CHS needs only to consume cannabis for a prolonged period and then stop suddenly, at which point a vomiting episode is almost guaranteed to start. Unfortunately, "stopping" doesn't necessarily mean quitting, as all it takes to induce a CHS episode is eating a meal without smoking afterward and then going to sleep. At some point during the night, any previously smoked cannabis will no longer have an effect, but it takes a long time (typically days) for the body to restart producing the required endocannabinoids to replace the marijuana cannabinoids that the system had previously been flooded with -- which is why CHS sufferers often report of waking up unexpectedly early preceding an episode. All of this temporarily results in the upper intestine and stomach valve becoming virtually non-functional, but because the stomach is still producing digestive fluids, it eventually becomes overfilled. The vomiting starts because the stomach is desperately pumping and convulsing in an attempt to push its contents through a valve that has effectively become a brick wall.
[1] https://wayofleaf.com/blog/average-thc-content-over-the-year...
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2886424/
Your case does not seem very credible. Pushing an agenda? :-)
The titles of the research I linked to literally say "Cyclical Vomiting Syndrome" and "the effects of cannabis on appetite hormones". But you're claiming they don't have anything to do with cyclical vomiting or how cannabis affects appetite? You're claiming the exact opposite of reality.
> and the first one pushes ads for mushroom NFTs
A website had an ad? Stop the presses and shut down the internet! After all, we can't be having websites trying to pay their bills, right?
> Pushing an agenda?
You are performing the most ridiculously blatant case of gaslighting I've ever come across. You're trying to tell me that I don't experience the things I experience, and that I'm not reading the things I'm reading, and that ALL of my doctors are directly lying to me (and hundreds of thousands of other people), and that hundreds of scientists and medical professionals are wrong and creating fake research. But you're not making these claims because you actually know better or even bothered reading the things I linked to, but instead because a website had an ad that offended you, and for some insane reason you saw that as an opportunity to troll someone.
What's even more absurd is that you think I have an anti-marijuana agenda, while I'm sitting here actively smoking a bowl right now, knowing full well that I put myself at risk for CHS. I never said I was anti-marijuana, I said marijuana isn't perfectly safe.
So, you concocted an entire scenario in your head, and absolutely none of it is true. You are a shockingly disturbed individual, and the exact embodiment of what makes this place a toxic community.
I wish all the scheduled drugs had lists of side effects from actual studies and clinical trials to the FDA standard, just like every other crazy deadly poisonous substance they approve over there. The states aren't cutting it, its just embarrassing at this point that even as recreationally available that this substance cant be at the same standard as other drugs and relies on conjecture.
Correct. And of those two extremes, it's probably closer to the negative side than to the greatest thing ever. Unfortunately, the greatest thing ever has not been found yet.
I would say it’s both and it will depend on the users genetics and the quality of the cannabis. The pesticides used on illegal cannabis productions is not something to be ignored.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666027X2...
You have never experienced the joy of a cardboard box.
What's interesting is this applies to many FDA approved drugs too. The body has amazing homeostasis ability, which unfortunately leads to "rebound" effects from many drugs, e.g. when the PPI (heartburn drug) wears off, you might have even more heartburn because your body saw an unusually low acid level in your stomach and declared an emergency increase in acid production.
Like, I enjoy psilocybin and MDMA, but I'm going to upvote everything that claims it is good and I'm going to contribute my part to making it sound like the discovery of antibiotics. You know why? Anything less than that and the puritans won't let me have fun.
So I gotta lie. But you know I'm lying, I know I'm lying. It's just that when we make the argument in aggregate, you can't prove it. And there's enough dodgy science that I can invent all sorts of stuff. "There's some evidence for" is a quick trick to take a nonsense study and Gish Gallop someone with it. But that's the game. You made the game. I just play it.
but it works great for a lot of other folks. it just depends.
As if drinking straight moonshine is somehow a better experience than a bottle of wine because the proof is higher.
One could even argue that stronger marijuana is good, since that means you need to smoke less to get an effective dose, and that reduces any adverse effects from inhaling smoke.
The analogy to "moonshine" is also a poor one. The increased potency of marijuana that is competently grown these days is also accompanied by superior aromas/flavors and an increased ability to customize your experience by selecting known strains. It's a superior product, not merely a product with more THC.
That's pretty much how it works with pot, too. That fragrant little bud of hydro is going to put you to bed after a couple of puffs, while all-day smokers can burn an eighth or more a day of mids.
Black market weed is expensive because every step in the chain adds a risk premium to account for the legal risk of possessing and selling cannabis (and the physical risk of being robbed, etc). If it’s legal, that risk premium evaporates and the price (and profit margin) goes way down.
You’d think this fact would be readily apparent for something with a nickname like weed.
What does this mean?
as far as how that can be used as a soothsaying device, i'm not a trader. I presume it's to be considered related to the public's interest and consideration towards the growth of the particular industry.
I notice a number of smart investors are starting to accumulate cannibis stocks. The trigger might be a repeal of the federal ban, which seems to be on the cards, even though (sic) Joe Biden promised to do it.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/willyakowicz/2021/07/14/senator...