Hacker News Reader

Thank you. A big factor that excarbates this issue is that the legal cannabis industryha greedily amped up THC potency by an order of magnitude. 5% was typical in the 1990s. Today it's hard to find lower than 20%. And that's just plain flower, whereas many users vape instead which is even more potent and way easier to abuse by using all day at work and school secretly.

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.

Is there a way to dilute it?

yes. consume less of it.

No, because the high potency stuff merely increases THC but does not increase and in fact often decreases other psychoactive compounds like CBD. It will not be the same.

Well you can also just take CBD on the side when using high THC strains...

I had nothing scientific to go one, but have long felt that mixing 50/50 with CBD specific flower may be putting it a lot closer to the old school stuff.

Looking at a couple of the studies linked to from the comments, seems like that broadly about right.

(Hypothetically, if I was a Marijuana user) I (would) exclusively use edibles for this exact reason. Dosage is labeled on individually wrapped pieces with the exact amount of thc/cbd/cbg/cbgb on the packaging

> greedily amped up THC potency

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?

inserting myself into this thread...

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%."

> 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

What does that mean “the protective component of the plant”?

from later in that article:

"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.

I see CBD as the governor of THC.

High THC and low CBD you'll going to be higher off the ground than say a strain with equal or more CBD.

None of those links give actual references for the percents (unless I missed it).

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.

Yeah, as a Canadian who grew up in this time, it's comical to hear people talk about 5% THC levels in weed. The only time I've experienced something like that was down in Arcata when someone gave me some Mexican brick weed.

You have to follow the links for a couple of hops.

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."

Well good for you, but some people couldn't get the fancy stuff and didn't mind and actually liked the "dirt weed" and are sad it can no longer be gotten for love or money. You can't even grow your own either because in many of the legal states, it's still illegal to grow but legal to buy from a large cannabis corporation. What a boring dystopia and not at all what the punky hippy "LEGALIZE IT" types of yore can possibly have had in mind!

>> vape instead

> 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.

> Lol.

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?

When was the last time you worked in a public school then?

> A big factor that excarbates this issue is that the legal cannabis industryha greedily amped up THC potency by an order of magnitude. 5% was typical in the 1990s. Today it's hard to find lower than 20%.

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…

"This is a personal topic for me because cannabis (ab)use triggered psychotic episodes in two of my close family members"

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/

We live in the time when there is sharp decline in trust of public institutions and academia.

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'.

Weed is not harmless. The question I always ponder is if it's more harmful than X. Alcohol, methamphetamines, etc.

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.

Good call, here cannabis damaging effects are usually minimised and hidden under the rug. And you will always, always find someone telling you “what about alcohol”

I get the "what about alcohol" argument from the standpoint of being able to make your own decision to do a drug without the government interfering.

But it's not an argument to prove that weed is harmless. Its definitely not.

As soon as someone says "what about" in a serious debate like discussion they've lost whatever respect and trust I had in them as a person.

Eh, "I don't believe your claimed reasons because your actions don't seem consistent with them" can be a valid things to bring up. Of course it becomes less so if you then refuse to hear any explanations that aren't the one you came up with.

It messes with the brain. I'd be careful about using it for non medical purposes, even whe it's legal.

> 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)

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.

1. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna149646

And why does anyone need to fuck with their brain like this without a doctor’s supervision? I get some people have glaucoma or cancer. But that doesn’t require normalizing yet another psychoactive substance. As if we don’t have enough problems with alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, not to mention all the other toxins we’re pumping into our bodies (BPAs, PFAs, microplastics, etc).

Yeah. I know someone who uses cannabis without much issue (for pain management, every day, partaking for years with no significant issues), but I also know someone who had been smoking cannabis for a few months and had one instance trigger a psychotic/schizotypal episode which still hasn't subsided a decade later. They had a family history of schizotypal disorders on both sides. My strong recommendation to anyone with a family or personal history of any sort of schizotypal or psychotic illness is to avoid cannabis as a treatment, because the risk of an extremely debilitating outcome is not worth it. There is the possibility that it's just triggering earlier an illness which would have struck you in your thirties anyway, but A) it can still make it worse and B) triggering an illness that would have happened at 35 when you're 15 or 20 is still losing 15-20 years of health and inflicting a lot of suffering. It's not worth it. Talk to a doctor about other treatment options.

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.

how do you know that they were just using cannabis?