Hacker News Reader

Comment by aes256 | Hacker News Reader

This is about recreational, not medicinal use.

Edit: Don't know why this is being downvoted. Medicinal and recreational use are separate issues, with separate arguments for and against each.

To call cannabis prohibition "an attack on science and medicine" is also rather disingenuous. Cannabis may have valid clinical applications, but there are still dangers associated with its use, especially increased risk of psychotic symptoms [1]

Painting the issue as black and white, and conflating arguments for medicinal and recreational use, is not conducive to rational debate.

[1] http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d738

View on HN

The increased risk of psychotic symptoms only applies to strains which have a high ratio of THC to Cannabidiol (i.e. Sativa strains). Cannabidiol dominant strains (i.e. Indica strains), on the other hand, are anti-psychotic. Unfortunately, this fact has not yet reached common culture and people continue to treat the different strains as one homogenous drug, which is extremely inaccurate. I agree that the dangers of Sativa strains are not properly recognised by the drug using community. There is a lot of denial on both sides of the fence and relatively little objective truth. The problem is that everyone is arguing out of emotion instead of taking a sober look at the situation.

The line between clinical and recreational is arbitrary and subjective. Even in a recreational setting, people are, in fact, often using drugs to self-medicate. If someone feels perfectly balanced then they will not crave anything. That's not to say that there's anything wrong with self-medicating - personally, I believe that people should be responsible for their own health instead of deferring it to a third party in the first place if they are so capable.

Anyway, nobody should be downvoted for their opinion. This kind of behaviour is endemic in social media sites where there is a voting mechanism. Give people an inch of power and they will take a mile, responsibility be damned.

My understanding is that it takes longer to grow CBD-rich indica strains than THC-rich sativa strains, and thus most 'street' cannabis is the latter kind. It gets you 'high' but is devoid of any significant medical benefits, and may in fact negatively impact your mental health.

Many in the pro-legalization camp have been using medicinal cannabis as a kind of trojan horse for full-scale legalization. This is a dangerous, disingenuous strategy, and makes them no better than those on the other side of the fence pushing 'reefer madness' type arguments.

As with all things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

"My understanding is that it takes longer to grow CBD-rich indica strains than THC-rich sativa strains"

Other way around actually. Indica strains grow faster and are easier to grow. Most street cannabis strains are hybrid, where they are trying to get the high THC of sativa but with the favorable growing characteristics of indica.

It's fair to say I'm no expert on cultivating cannabis!

I think the idea more generally (can't remember where I heard this, think it was one of the many documentaries focussing on dispensaries) was just that those growing 'street' weed aim for high THC and don't care all that much about CBD, while those growing it for legitimate medicinal purposes aim for high CBD with as little THC as possible.

"those growing 'street' weed aim for high THC and don't care all that much about CBD"

People growing weed illegally for commercial purposes usually care more about weight and grow time than anything else. Of the actual breeders and geneticists who create the different strains, there are a variety of different factors that are optimized for. E.g. check out the webpage for apothecary genetics:

http://apothecary-genetics.spruz.com/

Most of the good breeders are in the Netherlands, but they are probably the top ones in the US.

"those growing it for legitimate medicinal purposes aim for high CBD with as little THC as possible."

That's definitely not true. The vast majority of medical marijuana is high THC. While many dispensaries are starting to carry high CBD weed and extracts, they'll usually only have one or at most two strains out of the 20+ they offer. In terms of actual medical use, different cannabinoids have different medical properties. So THC also has many medical uses, it's just not the only cannabinoid with medical uses.

I think I see where the confusion is. The Indica "brick weed" that's commonly sold is typically imported from countries where it grows naturally in the wild. The Sativa strains you're referring to tend to be grown in the setting of domestic indoor operations. The Sativa strains are more expensive and are in higher demand and are higher risk due to a) the time that it takes to grow them and b) the fact that it's being done in a high security and low corruption country. This provides motive to grow them as quickly as possible and make them hard hitters when smoked. You want to produce the most "bang for buck" in terms of the physical space you have available, so high concentrations of the most noticeable compound (THC) are favourable. There is also a higher correlation between hardcore drug use and those strong strains, whereas more casual users are likely to buy the Indica brick weed. All of those documentaries are probably referring to the hardcore users, not casual users. They are addressing a real concern but gloss over the fact that the reality is more complicated than it appears on the surface.

I'm actually startled that this might become the new debate: what strains of marijuana are 'good' and 'bad' and which in the cannabidiol group are 'good' and 'bad'. People actually have serious conditions that are treated specifically by THC, which is capable of adjusting serotonin levels. This is significant for a number of conditions such as migraines and depression.

Please do not generalize like this because it's actually harmful to active patients.

Wrong. Sativa strains take longer to flower and cultivate and they yield less. Indica is the typical street weed or sativa / indica hybrids.

That being said, sativa strains have more often an uplifting high and are therefore often preferred for recreational use while some indica / high cbd strains are actually cultivated to work as sedative or for pain relief.

e.g. http://www.resinseeds.net/Cannatonic,en.html

Noted, thanks for the info.

"The increased risk of psychotic symptoms only applies to strains which have a high ratio of THC to Cannabidiol (i.e. Sativa strains)"

no problem, just smoke Kush which seems to be very popular nowadays.

>> Cannabis may have valid clinical applications, but there are still dangers associated with its use, especially increased risk of psychotic symptoms

I'm not disputing cannabis has no dangers associated with it, but similar studies that reached that conclusion that I know of always mention that the increased psychosis risks are almost exclusively apparent in people who started using at very young age (up to 16). Similar effects are observed in alcohol use at young age, which is exactly why we have age limits on buying alcohol.

Lot's of other factors can contribute to the development of psychotic symptoms that are not prohibited by law by the way. I know this sounds like the 'broken window' fallacy, but of all the things with possible negative health effects, I think cannabis is really one of the least important ones to worry about.

>especially increased risk of psychotic symptoms [1]

AFAIK all studies on psychosis and marijuana have been cohort studies, which are essentially useless at determining the direction of causation. While the study you linked attempts to address the possibility of "reverse causality", it only addresses one specific hypothesis (self medication).

Let us repeat this to ourselves until we all remember: You cannot establish direction of causation with a cohort study.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com