Cannabis use linked to epigenetic changes, study reveals
sciencealert.com
sciencealert.com
Proponents often say that this drug is harmless but in some people it's use can trigger psychiatric illnesses esp. schizophrenia and related disorders. In others it can actually exacerbate anxiety (its somewhat counter intuitive, just like some antidepressants can cause suicidal thoughts). Some people are genetically more predisposed to the effects.
This is a personal topic for me because cannabis (ab)use triggered psychotic episodes in two of my close family members, they had to be hospitalized multiple times (psych ward is no joke) and put on antipsychotics (which are also very hard on you and drain the life out of you). Their actions during the psychotic/manic phase disrupted their family and work lives. Both people were unwilling to cease cannabis use, citing its public acceptability and reasons like "it's legal", "you literally can't overdose on it", "a(n) (internet) doctor prescribed it to me for anxiety so I can use it", "everyone uses it and is fine", "xyz (popular celebrity) uses it". After multiple stints in the psych ward and the threat of government mandated treatments they were finally able to drop cannabis use, it then took them many months to come back to normal functioning.
Studies and anecdotes agree that higher potency means more symptoms of the sort you discuss and most importantly more addiction and habit forming. So the industry does this on purpose out of greed, and the states have no clue how to stop it.
What do you think would happen if after the 1930s alcohol had been relegalized but suddenly only high proof vodka was available?
Because that is the disaster that has happened with legal weed. We thought we were legalizing the weed we knew and instead they used it as a door to carpet bomb us with ultra high potency products.
The cause of this fiasco is again, greed.
Looking at a couple of the studies linked to from the comments, seems like that broadly about right.
This had been going on for decades as a result of the prohibition on the substance and the criminal penalties associated with it.
> 5% was typical in the 1990s
What is your source for this assertion?
> vape instead
Is there a source for this as well?
> which is even more potent
The material used in vaporizers is typically from concentrated extracts. This is another product born out of the long standing legal status of the flower. The real question is, are users consuming _more_ when they vape as opposed to other methods, or is this simply a more efficient delivery mechanism for them?
> So the industry does this on purpose out of greed
You're ignoring edibles entirely. These products really didn't exist before legalization. A large segment of these products are much lower dose than the other specialty products and often have reduced THC in favor of higher CBD, CBG or CBN.
> but suddenly only high proof vodka was available?
Pure grain alcohol from stills has always been available.
> they used it as a door to carpet bomb us with ultra high potency products.
This single minded focus on potency of product and not on the impact of users is unusual. Why have you made this such a focus?
from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6312155/:
"Many people who have voted for legalization thought they were talking about the marijuana of the 1960s to 1980s when the THC content was less than 2%. ...
Prior to the 1990s it was less than 2%. In the 1990s it grew to 4%, and between 1995 and 2015 there has been a 212% increase in THC content in the marijuana flower. In 2017 the most popular strains found in dispensaries in Colorado had a range of THC content from 17–28% such as found in the popular strain named “Girl Scout Cookie.”2 Sadly these plants producing high levels of THC are incapable of producing much CBD, the protective component of the plant so these strains have minimal CBD. For example the Girl Scout Cookie strain has only 0.09–0.2% CBD."
from https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/not-your-grandmothers...:
"... In 1995, the average THC content in cannabis seized by the Drug Enforcement Administration was about 4%. By 2017, it had risen to 17% and continues to increase. Beyond the plant, a staggering array of other cannabis products with an even higher THC content like dabs, oils, and edibles are readily available—some as high as 90%."
What does that mean “the protective component of the plant”?
"Human studies have shown that long-term (>10 years) and heavy (>5 joints per day) cannabis use compared with age matched non-using controls resulted in bilaterally reduced hippocampal and amygdala volumes (p=.001) and significantly worse performance on measures of verbal learning (p<.001).14 There is evidence that recovery is possible in humans as well. ... They found that cannabis users had smaller hippocampal volumes compared to controls but the users not exposed to CBD had an even greater (11%) reduced volumes (CBD appears to be somewhat protective). In the former users the hippocampal integrity was comparable to controls. ..."
summary: THC-only users had smaller hippocampal and amygdala volumes (HAV) than THC+CBD users, while former users had HAV similar to control subjects.
High THC and low CBD you'll going to be higher off the ground than say a strain with equal or more CBD.
As an anecdote, in the late 90s and early 00s, the higher potency stuff was quite prevalent in my circles. The low potency dirt weed was was basically worthless and we would only get it if we were desperate, but it was readily available.
The key article reference is "Sevigny, E. L. (January 01, 2013). “Is today’s marijuana more potent simply because it’s fresher?”. Drug Testing and Analysis, 5, 1, 62-7."
> Is there a source for this as well?
Lol. Do you really doubt this? Have you been out in the world recently? It's become a major problem in the schools. It can be done discretely, much like nicotine vapes, in a way that is impossible for smoked cannabis or smoked tobacco.
Thank you.
> It's become a major problem in the schools
In my entire life this statement has never been true and has never materially contributed to society by being entertained.
> in a way that is impossible for smoked cannabis or smoked tobacco.
Have _you_ been out in the world?
Only tangentially related, but I’ve realised I should really think thrice before advocating for something because the way things become is pretty much never the way advocates had in their mind while advocating.
I see this in many contexts but I won’t make other examples because it would get controversial…
There are additional risks for those experiencing psychotic episodes over and above the obvious as they can fall afoul of other social problems like police brutality.[1] So, if you have a family history of mental illness, but especially a history of psychotic episodes related to cannabis use (!!!), it’s very foolish to use cannabis.
Rescheduling is a start for more research into whether weed is causing these episodes or highlighting other underlying causes.
It seems like your friends arguement that it's legal for continued use is asinine. Plenty of prescription drugs are legal per se but would have adverse effects for some.
But it's not an argument to prove that weed is harmless. Its definitely not.
What is considered 'safe' to use, or 'unsafe' -- is debated at the level of a layman (a person without specialized knowledge in chemistry, biology, immunology, etc).
We cannot all be specialists in human biology, finance, internet security / etc. And that's being exploited by powerful organizations.
When the above happens, and we feel taken-advantage-of we tend to 'default' to our 'localized' experiences and instincts.
For me, and I am sure many others I do 2 things
a) I trust the NIH positions and articles before 1994 or so, much more than the most recent ones (on the topics that rely on observational statics)
b) I tend to do research on these topic across countries (especially if I can translate, of non-English speaking countries).
Forums like this one, may amplify just one side of the view (recently publish observational stats, English-speaking ).
My suggestion, if I may offer one -- continue to be cautious and use information sources that are 'balanced'.
Not a big fan of cannabis. But, did Cannabis trigger a psychosis or are psychotic people more likely to smoke cannabis?
Why do patients with schizophrenia smoke? [Cigarettes, not dope] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20051860/
For anxiety something like diazepam might be less risky (more risky for average people, less for those with a history of schizotypal), or a beta-blocker. For pain there aren't many great options. There's opioids, which some people are going to need but which have significant issues with addiction and bowel health. Managed/staged consumption of ibuprofen and paracetamol can help deal with mild to moderate pain if your liver is functioning well and being monitored, but there are some risks with NSAIDs (like ibuprofen) and bowel health that you should be aware of. Non-pharmaceutical interventions like the use of hot packs, massage (be mindful of massage with MAST cell disorders), hot showers etc can all be useful in managing pain.
For my defense attorney, I chose a well-recommended private attorney (futureMe: I would use the public defender because it would have been the same outcome). His services cost me around a pound of "top shelf" kush. I was broke.
Ultimately I "served my time" [2mo. probation + community service]. Just a few years ago this attorney said to me, in private: "but if we didn't have this legislation [prohibiting marijuana] then I would be out of the job!"
I guess I was supposed to feel bad for his archaic legal practice/funding?
You could also interpret this by saying that the legalization of cannabis is allowing researchers to actually study its effects more widely in clinical environments.
If they are indeed finding extra symptom not previously known I think it's something the public should know about.
I’m not going to defend long-term high-level cannabis usage - I’ve got eyes - but I’d suspect we’re going to find more things in the “causes epigenetic effects” bucket than not.
My other concern for legal states: I think a lot of people using weed are doing it every single day. This is because it gives a relaxing 'weight off your shoulders' feeling at lower doses. At higher doses you get 'faded' and it can be scary. Using daily means the high becomes your new normal, affecting memory and reasoning.
It definitely helps with exercise (much less boring) and sleep for me, but at what cost?
A lot of stories with no studies or experiments. I hope the rescheduling helps this in the USA.
If you don't get that, then you don't understand epigenetics
My impression of this thread is "I don't know the difference between genetics and epigenetics, so here is my opinion on weed..."
The only reason I know the difference is because I used to use the gym at the same time as an epigeneticist.
In short, all genes can be flipped on/off based on their environment.
And reading HN does impact the environment in which your genes live
I feel like we may not fully understand what these changes really signify.
Despite the lecture I've gotten from every stoner on this, I've never been convinced by people claiming that weed doesn't have side effects. It always seemed like it would make my friends' personalities frustrating, even when they weren't stoned. A lot of this could just be attributed to the fact that "teenage boys are just kind of insufferable anyway", but it always seemed like weed exacerbated things. [2]
Obviously this isn't a study, just vibes on my end, so it can reasonably be dismissed immediately, but it does seem like my feelings on this stuff is being a little validated.
[1] I still think it should be legal since I think enforcing it is worse than doing it, but I think it'll always make me uncomfortable
[2] I was always terrified of doing any illegal drugs because I was always afraid that drug dealers would cut it with something horrible, so I to this day have never done any drugs that weren't federally legal.
My pet theory is that people relying on substances to emotionally regulate can neglect to develop the regular skills that everybody who doesn't rely on substances use for emotional regulation. And that's why some 40 year old stoner's will seem to have the emotional maturity levels of teenagers.
Your statement appears to be passing judgement to an adult using marijuana as a coping mechanism. Do you also have the same feeling for someone who takes a prescribed medicine for similar emotional regulation? I get there is a line here with certain mental disorders but if someone finds themselves better off (in their own opinion) by using marijuana who are you, or I to judge?
Similarly, I don't judge the person who picks up their monthly Rx at the pharmacy, if it makes them feel good. At the end of the day people are just trying to live their life and be comfortable.
[1]Sure, he’s out there with religion and stuff but he’s pretty clear-headed there.
If you're taking something like an antidepressant or something, it's because a mental health professional has indicated that they think you'll be better-able to deal with your issues with this thoroughly-tested, regulated item. At least in theory, the professional will be much better-suited to find the exact medication that will help you emotionally regulate.
I've never done weed, but I have gotten drunk plenty of times when I was young (though not in quite awhile), especially when I got dumped by a girl that I really liked. Alcohol can be great in a very temporary sense to make you feel better and ignore your problems, but it's terrible at actually addressing the core issues, and it has a ton of other awful side-effects that might even make the underlying problems worse.
I already said that I have a hatred of weed culture, and I stand by that, but as someone who does take mental health meds for depression, I do understand how appealing coping mechanisms can be, and I absolutely sympathize, but I think there are enough differences between prescribed meds and recreational drugs to where I don't think it's fair to claim that the former is a coping mechanism.
It just becomes a problem when your dependence on it causes you to become anti-social and/or generally a burden upon the people around you. For example you end up in the psychiatric hospital, costing the tax-payer 100's of thousands of dollars to baby-sit you whilst you recover from your latest meth bender.
This question has had a clear answer for millennia, although one too uncomfortable for modern feelgood relativists: confronting your problems with strength and willpower.
I think there's a point where it becomes clear use of the drug is leading to sufficiently negative life outcomes that the drug's doing more harm than good. Alcohol's an easy case here (and a trigger word, so: I'm not comparing alcohol to weed from a health perspective) - many of us will have a pint or a glass of wine now and again to relax, but when you start drinking enough that it's regularly preventing you from meeting your obligations (or desires), you should re-evaluate. It can happen with prescription drugs, as well - a friend of mine was prescribed something for anxiety that wound up effectively rendering them homebound. At that point, it's not really serving its purpose as a coping mechanism.
We don't need to go even that far. Upwards of 50% of people in the US, and some 20-30% people on the planet[0] are emotionally self-regulating with coffee. 13% of the world[1] regulates themselves emotionally on tobacco. And let's not even look at alcohol consumption rates. Or sugar.
This is not to demonize any of it - just to point out that approximately every adult[2] uses some mind-altering substances in a ritual of emotional self-regulation. The drugs I mentioned above are some of the more potent ones, but they're so deeply embedded in our cultures, that we don't even notice it.
--
[0] - If we go with random stat I found here: https://coffee-rank.com/world-coffee-consumption-statistics/. I'm taking it at face value, since it feels close enough, and the exact number doesn't change my argument, unless it's a fraction of a percent.
[1] - As of 2019, via https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6..., going with 1 billion smokers over 7.7 billion people on the planet.
[2] - The numbers I gave above may not feel impressive, but note that the averages in the west are much higher, and then all those numbers are dragged down by including people aged 0-18 in the denominator.
I've never really drunk coffee because it always tasted like an ashtray to me, but I've had other things that gave me an unhealthy dependence on it. I don't drink caffeine anymore and it did force me to acknowledge a lot of bad sleep habits (both physiological and self-imposed) that I was able to (mostly) solve them as a result.
I still think there's a physiological element to the weed stuff as well, and I do think that the research seems to indicate that, but I don't know anything about medicine so I don't really know what I'm reading with the research.
I got off it fairly recently and am slowly rebulding giod habits. But yeah fuck amphetamines.
Similar deal with xanax, opiates. They often mask underlying problems.
I guess I just think that self-diagnosis is usually a very bad idea, that's what I was trying to get at. At least if a doctor gives you the drug, there's at least some trained professional that believes you'd be better off with the drug than without. Obviously there's a ton of abuse that happens with the medical system and it leads to people getting addicted ending up really fucked up, so I'm not claiming it's perfect, I just think it's better than people randomly grabbing their own drug to get some temporary relief.
I didn't try adderral until I was 31 (prescribed), and it really messed with my sleep, which is bad enough as it is; even taking a relatively small dose at 8am, I wouldn't be able to get to sleep until 3:30am. Not entirely sure why I had such a horrible reaction and I decided it was definitely not worth it for me, but I could also see why people get hooked on it. In a way, I'm kind of glad I didn't like it.
And yeah I agree self diagnoses and self medication is pretty bad
As I understand it, this is basically taken as a given in substance use therapy - there's some reason you're using this (to the degree it's having a negative impact), and it's probably to deal with some kind of emotional or psychological issue, and part of reducing substance use is working through those issues and building up strategies for dealing with them that don't include the drug.
― South Park, Season 6 episode called "My Future Self n' Me"
That much caffeine was definitely very bad for me, hence why I eventually quit cold turkey (that was one hell of a headache!), but for years it was something I very much depended on, in no small part because of my at the time undiagnosed sleep apnea, which the caffeine helped me ignore for many years, which is bad for obvious reasons.
I sympathize with habitual weed users, basically any addictive drug is something we should be understanding of. Weed culture really bothers me because people let "stoner" become their entire identity.
Well okay then.
The correct response to this article is a shrug