Hacker News Reader

Comment by bragr | Hacker News Reader

What it says on the tin: psychosis triggered by cannabis. Its rare, but not that rare, and well established scientifically and anecdotally. It's debated whether cannabis causes it, or just exacerbates it, but give 100 random people a super strong edible, a few will have a break from reality.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2424288/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3927252/

https://medicine.yale.edu/psychiatry/step/early-intervention...

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/mental-health/marijuana-induc...

https://www.brightquest.com/cannabis-induced-psychosis/

View on HN

The problem isn't cannabis, the problem is how it's dosed and flavored. Edibles are too strong, and taste too delicious.

> but give 100 random people a super strong edible, a few will have a break from reality

Give 100 random people 10-20 shots in a short period of time, and they will also have a break from reality.

The difference is that hard alcohol has a very clearly identifiable taste and causes stomach discomfort: If a child mistakes a glass of whiskey for a glass of apple juice, they aren't going to chug it.

In contrast, cannabis gummies (which I eat plenty of,) taste wonderful, and are often too strong.

When I made my own brownies, I would only have intense experiences if I ate a lot. In contrast, what appears to be a "normal" bite of a chocolate bar, or a handful of gummies, can end up being like an LSD trip.

> Give 100 random people 10-20 shots in a short period of time, and they will also have a break from reality.

Source? Remember that you are replying to a comment with 5 studies linked.

I watched plenty of alcohol abuse in college. People do weird things when they are blacked out drunk.

That is not a source.

With edibles, taking the right dosage is notoriously difficult. They are very prone to accidental over-consumption (e.g. becoming "higher" than desired).

The feedback loop is very slow. It can easily take 30-60 minutes after ingestion before you can start gauging how strong the overall effect will be and how it might peak.

A break from reality is a very mild way of saying THC induced schizophrenia

> well established scientifically and anecdotally

Those things don't go together.

(What are these downvotes, you all want your facts to be based on anecdotes?)

Scientists doing studies and people talking on forums can't notice the same thing? Seems pretty common in the healthcare field.

"Well established anecdotally" is like saying "poorly established".

Not at all. It’s saying that a lot of people have personal stories about it. This is in combination with scientific studies.

Why is it an argument for an effect being real that a lot of people have personal stories about it? For instance, a lot of people have stories about mentioning a niche interest while using certain software and that interest later appearing in Google results. That can happen for reasons related to statistics and confirmation bias. Consequently, a lot of people have stories. So what? Some software spies, some doesn't, the rumors aren't how we tell the difference, and "scientifically and anecdotally" is a terrible phase, as if those things were of equivalent merit. Lots of people have stories about bigfoot.

That’s cool. I’ll keep listening to my friends and family and trusting their word over some angry dude on the internet. Best of luck

Reply on news.ycombinator.com