Said Beatriz Carlini, a research scientist at the University of Washington’s Addictions, Drug and Alcohol Institute, quoted in From "Potent cannabis strain ‘causing psychosis time bomb’ in US" (London Times).
What's available now has a THC level "as high as 90 per cent." What people were thinking about when they voted for legalization had something more like 5 per cent.
When I started reading this article, I was expecting to see some impressive evidence connecting high-potency cannabis to psychosis, so I was dismayed to encounter low-potency stuff like: "[E]xperts have warned of a possible mental health crisis after the emergence of super-strength marijuana products and states are scrambling to study a link between heavy use and psychosis."
ADDED: "As we cruise into the 1980s... 1978, going on 1981, what you see before you is a 10... no, wait... 12! — 12-foot-long, burning [indecipherable] of marijuana..."
Posts
61 comments:
You know who's really waiting for the flood gates to open? Who benefits most from federal legalization if this administration does move in that direction to bolster their disastrous approval numbers at the ballot box?
The tobacco majors.
Your Phillip Morris, Reynolds, and Lorillard, etc. They will swoop in with hundreds of billions in capital, buying up the minis and minors - crushing most angel invested firms - to get the tech and methods they've invented to boost that THC content while using their R&D on advanced delivery systems and 'impact' science to take that "90%" to 1000%.
In it's natural form, I've always considered Marijuana to be generally benign, though not harmless. But people forget that it is a hallucinogen, as well as a depressant. That hallucinogenic effect, amplified God knows how many times ceases to be benign, and puts it on par with the you name its of heavy psychotropic medicines and narcotics.
That can't be good. And it's also exactly the plan if federal legalization occurs.
You might be automatically skeptical of anything having to do with Alex Berenson but he made his bones on this issue before anyone had ever heard of "COVID".
I was expecting to see some impressive evidence connecting high-potency cannabis to psychosis, so I was dismayed to encounter low-potency stuff like: "[E]xperts have warned
This is exactly how multi $billion class action cancer settlements happen. So don't feel so disappointed.
Alex Berenson, a former journalist at the NYT, has written an entire book on this subject. His wife is a doctor in NYC and she told him what she seeing. Berenson drills down into the evidence like an NYT writer can do.
Title? Tell Your Kids.
What's available now has a THC level "as high as 90 per cent." What people were thinking about when they voted for legalization had something more like 5 per cent.
============
that is like getting as high as 90% abortions when they leglized something like "Abortion should be legal, safe, rare and a woman’s choice"
'Experts' again, huh? Who are all these 'experts' we keep reading about in these stories? Do they have names?
"While a link between the drug and mental illness has not yet been conclusively proven, experts including Stuyt argue the data is clear."
So, kinda like the science on masking. We have been trying to prove causation, cannot, but still are sticking to our talking point as anti-drug crusaders.
Nowhere is mentioned how pot sticks in tbe system up to a month, so those suicide cases might also have other more serious addictions also going on ... just ones that are undetected as their metabolites don't stick around for ages.
Well, others beat me to this, but there is this: Tell Your Children: The Truth About Marijuana, Mental Illness, and Violence, by Alex Berenson back when he was a science reporter for the New York Times. Before he fell out of favor for not advocating the approved science.
And not for nothing, but the last few school shooters and other mass shooters did have a fondness for their cannibis. And today's pot is far more potent than the typical dime bag we were using in the 60s, 70s.
You can, of course, order Berenson's book through the....
the WSJ had This Article a few days ago.
I was curious How Long it would take before a comment there about:
"I smoked pot in the '60's and i was fine, so there's No Problem Now!!"
it didn't take long there, i don't suppose it will take long here.
’…if they would stick with medical that’s less than 10 per cent THC levels…’
The last medical marijuana I saw was 27%, and good recreational weed in the US has been in the upper-teens for decades. At less than 10%, they’re getting Oaxacan ditch weed in the UK. Wankers.
Camel's nose, meet tent.
I don’t think that this should surprise anyone. Many of us tried pot in our callow youth, but gave it up when entering adulthood, or in the case of my friends, within a year or two of graduating from college. Most gave it up, but not all. That was 50 years ago, and, sadly, most of those who did keep smoking pot whom I have known, have not survived that long. And maybe more importantly, most of their lives haven’t been that happy. For one thing, most of the long term potheads I have known had extremely reduced tolerance for environmental issues, such as smells and sounds. Not surprisingly, this seems often to be accompanied by a bit of paranoia - after all, why do these smells, sounds, etc follow them around, if no one is after them? Except, that it isn’t a plot against them, but that the rest of us just don’t notice them, likely because we don’t have unnaturally low filters on our environment due to the action of the pot.
Product liability lawsuits against Marijuana, Inc.
Weed as asbestos.
Remember when casinos were the financial salvation for cash strapped states. Now we have ads for "Gambling problem? Call 1(800)-Loser". And the states states still have a financial problem.
Now we have the states legalizing mind altering drugs. Sweet.
Here's a study (from back in the olden days of 2009)
High-potency cannabis and the risk of psychosis
National Center for Biotechnology Information:
Our findings are the first to suggest that the risk of psychosis is much greater among people who are frequent cannabis users, and among those using sinsemilla (this form of cannabis is estimated to contain between 12% and 18% Δ9-THC)..
which was HIGH, back in aught 9
here's one more recent (2020)
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/your-brain-food/202104/can-marijuana-cause-psychosis
marijuana available today contains far higher concentrations of THC than ever before. Most of the available epidemiological data become moot when we try to compare data collected during the past few decades. Dose matters. How often someone uses marijuana each day also matters. Some of the original studies on the connection between marijuana and psychosis found that heavy users were more likely to develop symptoms of psychosis.
Anyone could see this coming a mile away.
States like Illinois and Michigan are gleefully gloating about a tax bonanza, not figuring at all the costs of higher levels of psychosis as the drugs roll out. That the Times's article is fact-light is not surprising. The medical establishment has been much more worried about keeping kids from vaping (gateway to smoking tobacco, they say, looking concerned) than looking at what MaryJane does to kids' brains.
My cousin is a cop in Denver, which legalized early. He told me about the psychosis problem six years ago.
Anyone with a brain could see this was coming.
Anyone but Dem politicians that is.
“Experts” is a necessary convention in this rhetoric. It may include an actual name with a sound-bite (to add immediacy as well as shifting responsibility away from the writer) or may simply be “Experts say” or “studies show” without citation.
It is not intended to shed light or supply data in a form that can be interrogated. Rather, it is the handiest formulation of a command: “What I am telling you is beyond question, so shut up and do what I say.”
I'm at Cape Cod where weed is legal. I spent 120 bucks on Wednesday and bought waaaaaay too much THC just because I could. Can't fly back to NC with it, so my brother is getting a surprise gift tomorrow morning before we depart. I'm sure he'll make use of it.
High THC pot has been a goal of growers since at least the era of Cheech & Chong, when their excellent bud turned Stacy Keech into a giant lizard. So I don't take all this sudden alarm as anything more than a money grab by researchers, who have known forever that higher potency cannabis buds impact users more strongly than dried up stems & leaves.
Correlation is not causation, but the U.S. has certainly gotten more screwed up since recreational pot use was legalized. In fact, legalized is understating what is happening. Here is Western Massachusetts, opening cannabis dispensaries seems to be the only growth industry. The state and cities like them for their revenue potential. So, the government is dealing with epidemics of mental illness and drug overdoses by encouraging drug use.
"I was dismayed to encounter low-potency stuff"
Fair enough. But I'll suspend judgment. If more pot is sold with a very high THC level, that is likely to have some major effects, even if "the evidence" is not fully clear yet.
Should 151 proof rum and 190 Everclear be banned? They will "intoxicated" and even kill you. Intoxicated because unlike mj, alcohol is actually toxiv/poison
Mj is not toxic in the medical sense. It can make you stupid and crazy, perhaps even psychotic. It won't poison you though.
So how many people actually use the high potency stuff? And how much do they use? How much thv are they getting.
If the weed was weak, you just smoke more until you reach the desired state. I suspect I would be better off smoking a small bowl of potent pot than a Havana size joint of weaker stuff. Less smoke particulate in my lungs.
John LGKTQ Henry
Do states require labeling of thc content? Do I as a customer have a way of knowing in advance how strong my weed is?
Lot's of experience in the 60s.none since.
John LGKTQ Henry
I guess the FDA is going to start inspecting pot. Or maybe we get a new agency. Maybe we subsidize users so that they go to licensed and regulated dispensaries? Or the dispensaries get permission to sell to under 21s?
This seems to be a common problem. By the time "harmless" drugs are legalized they are so adulterated that the street versions are no longer harmless by any stretch of the imagination. Similar situation with ecstasy.
"We were betrayed into thinking...."
No you weren't. This is exactly what you voted for. And what was entirely foreseeable. And why wise people rejected it.
I have known 2 high potency pot users very well. One got wierd for a year or so, then toned it down and is just fine.
The other, who already had significant psych issues, acted like an addict (intolaable to be around when his suply was interupted) and went into a downward spiral that led to his death.
So, yea, while I support decriminalization it is clear to me that there will be terrible consequences for some people. Best to limit the potency.
Those that want legal pot will say, "Harmless. Maybe even essential for a variety of health issues".
Those that don't will say, "Oh the horror".
Studies to follow.
But who can trust the "studies" today? There is (lots of) money to be made. There are many taxes to be levied.
Once the state gets into the business of "legalizing" then maybe like alcohol they can set the allowed content proof.
She knew exactly what was coming. The wildly increased strength of today's marijuana has long been well known, indeed a commonplace observation. She's just hoping to get out of the way of the backlash.
Whatever may be the issue with potency, here in suburban MD where I live, the problem is ubiquity. I swear, one out of three times I drive on Rockville Pike (the main shopping drag), I smell weed. Once, the smell was so strong, I thought I had somehow hit a skunk at Rockville Pike & Nicholson Ln!
There are LOTS of people smoking while driving. LOTS. That's DWI. It worries me that so many people around me are driving while toasted. I wonder if the MD police have any records on DWI arrests for weed.
Ask yourself this question- would you want your teenage son or daughter smoking pot all the time? Would any evidence that it is harmless convince you otherwise if your answer to my question was, "No"?
If both answers are no, then why care about the evidence? Of course, one could read "Tell Your Children" by Alex Berenson. I haven't read it, but I have heard it does a good job of examining the evidence that the mind-altering properties of THC are dangerous, something I didn't really need convincing of since it is, after all, a mind altering drug.
Its astounding how difficult it is to find medical studies on MJ use. Or how many emergency room admissions are due to it. Or how many auto accidents or "DUI" there are.
As for the higher THC content. Doesn't that just mean you can use less of it, and get the same affect? Scotch vs. Beer.
Funny story. A good friend retired from a major airline as a Captain. He stopped using marijuana well before he became a pilot in the mid 1980's. Hadn't touched stuff for almost 40 years. Decided he wanted to see what he was missing. He procured a joint from his college aged grandson, took two puffs and literally got lost in his driveway for two hours. Immobilized. He later commented that pot had come a long was since those 1967 $5 matchboxes of Mexican dirt weed. Needless to say he didn't Bogart anything.
My partner was an emergency psychiatrist at a very large urban hospital. She has seen a lot of psychosis from pot heads. None have recovered. They are extremely heavy users.
It's strange that whenever a school shooting or other mass shooting occurs, whether the shooter was a user (or not) of marijuana is never reported, nor are the results of any drug screen done as part of the autopsy. The question isn't even raised by any reporter. Marijuana is certainly a possible explanation for these terrible and inexplicable events, and perhaps a reason they seem to be happening more now than in previous generations.
In addition to Alex Berenson, Peter Hitchens in England has seriously reported on this subject.
It's strange that whenever a school shooting or other mass shooting occurs, whether the shooter was a user (or not) of marijuana is never reported, nor are the results of any drug screen done as part of the autopsy. The question isn't even raised by any reporter. Marijuana is certainly a possible explanation for these terrible and inexplicable events, and perhaps a reason they seem to be happening more now than in previous generations.
In addition to Alex Berenson, Peter Hitchens in England has seriously reported on this subject.
"As for the higher THC content. Doesn't that just mean you can use less of it, and get the same affect? Scotch vs. Beer."
The Times is misleadingly comparing wax-like cannabis "concentrates" with the bagged leafy marijuana that you guys smoked when you were cool back in the day.
But I'm not so sure there is such a thing as "less" if you're using almost pure THC.
matthew49 points out something intriguing. When WA and OR legalized MJ, I saw one or two stories about DUI arrests where the driver was considered impaired. I don't think I've seen anything reported in recent years. I knew guys in high school (early 70's) that got into pot and burned out. We all know people like that. Some folks are pre-disposed to addiction. There may be an existing pathology that's exacerbated by the use of their drug of choice. There's a definite disconnect between the effects of using MJ and societal outcomes, when it comes to reporting. It's being treated like 3.2 beer.
So much easy to blame a substance instead of the government for the breakdown of public order in their state. They blame the guns too.
Puff the Hallucinating Dragon... with carbon deposits deep in the pulmonary tissue. It's like the guy who ingested the herbicide, then lawyers sued in a class action for his Choice and others with linked (e.g. modeled) conditions.
whenever a school shooting or other mass shooting occurs, whether the shooter was a user (or not) of marijuana is never reported
Or medical antipsychotic prescriptions, which are known to cause rage events, especially in a young male minority.
I heard it on the radio news this week that Snoop Dogg gave his blunt roller a pay raise because of inflation.
It was actually a news story.
The downside of any potential revenue source for government is always buried. As bad as pot is, imagine when they advertise it like legalized gambling. Here in PA, we are bombarded with ads for on-line casino games with “live” dealers. Just like the real thing except you can lose your rent money in 10 minutes in your pajamas on your couch. It’s fun!!!!!
In this brave new world, any personal weakness will be exploited for money as long as the state benefits. If you don’t have a weakness they will create one.
a couple of things
Its astounding how difficult it is to find medical studies on MJ use.
That's because it's been EXTREMELY HARD to get a permit to study marijuana because of its schedule class
One (the ONLY ONE) of the advantages of federal legalization would be the ease of study
WHEN that happens, hello lawsuits!!!
(currently, people can even say "pot don't cancer" because NO ONE has done those tests)
secondly. The 'new thing' is 'edibles', which are candy spiked with synthetic THC.
synthetic THC is expensive.. You know what's CHEEP? Fentanyl.
unscrupulous vendors are ALREADY spiking their edibles with Fentanyl
It makes it seem "knockout" and users develop a REAL HABIT for the edibles
It's a Brave New World out there
Mentally ill people frequently self medicate - often with alcohol or marijuana. You could have strong correlation without causation.
Restraint of people behaving badly in public is part of civilization. I remember a study cited by Thomas Szasz - some name like Bragg-Rinsky - which demonstrated that diagnosed psychotics could control their behavior - producing symptoms if told they were being evaluated for possible release or not if being told they were being evaluated for a more punitive setting.
Access to asylum care (as mentioned in yesterday's post about the Kavanaugh would-be assassin) would be compassionate but expensive. Think a multiple of prison costs if it's not to be inhumane. That's why we took the path of closing the asylums down though you could blame Ken Kesey for creating the cover for it.
"I was dismayed to encounter low-potency stuff . . . ."
I know just how you feel. Reefer may not be harmless, but it's nothing near as dangerous as booze. Take it from me, who has abused both.
Blogger rcocean said...
Its astounding how difficult it is to find medical studies on MJ use. Or how many emergency room admissions are due to it. Or how many auto accidents or "DUI" there are.
The only thing more difficult to find are studies of children raised by gay parents.
"I was dismayed to encounter low-potency stuff . . . ."
I know just how you feel. Reefer may not be harmless, but it's nothing near as dangerous as booze. Take it from me, who has abused both.
"I was dismayed to encounter low-potency stuff . . . ."
I know just how you feel. Reefer may not be harmless, but it's nothing near as dangerous as booze. Take it from me, who has abused both.
Rabel said...
But I'm not so sure there is such a thing as "less" if you're using almost pure THC.
don't bother trying to convince the people here!
They smoked back in the '60's or '70's; and THEY made it through fine..
So there CAN NOT BE ANY PROBLEMS NOW
example:
Narr said...
Reefer may not be harmless, but it's nothing near as dangerous as booze. Take it from me,
when was the last time, Narr? how much of What, and for how long?
Personally, i smoked opium* a few times and was fine; SO there CAN'T be ANYTHING wrong with Heroin?
smoked opium* good luck proving gilbar did this... gilbar buried his trax pretty good
I have known several pot users long term in my life. None are what I would call successful people (people who held down steady jobs and/or raised healthy children, and stayed out of jail), and at least two them died fairly young (mid to late 50s). Sure, causation isn't proven by correlation, but it looks increasingly likely to be provable in this case.
The closest recreational marijuana dispensary to me is across the Mississippi River in Western Illinois.
If you check their website, they list the THC content in all of their products.
They also describe the kind of "high" you will get with each product, describing it in some detail.
Things are sure different than when I was in college.
It worries me that so many people around me are driving while toasted. I wonder if the MD police have any records on DWI arrests for weed.
So can you cite any studies that say mj impairs driving?
Here's a few that say it doesn't.
Sorry, pdf, can't clip
https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/1558
However, a large case-control study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found no significant increased crash risk attributable to cannabis after controlling for drivers’ age, gender, race, and presence of alcohol.17
https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/does-marijuana-use-affect-driving
While fewer studies have examined the relationship between THC blood levels and degree of
impairment, in those studies that have been conducted the consistent finding is that the level of THC in
the blood and the degree of impairment do not appear to be closely related
https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/812440-marijuana-impaired-driving-report-to-congress.pdf
’Doesn't that just mean you can use less of it, and get the same affect?’
Very much so. When I used to be a regular user - decades ago - we’d pass around joints the entire night. Now, on the rare occasion that I partake, it’s a few hits and I’m good for the evening. In summary: you can only get so high. Stop with the reefer madness, please.
That's good ol' Dan Aykroyd introducing the good ol' Grateful Dead at Winterland. (Blues Brothers had performed earlier in the evening.)
Surprised nobody has mentioned it-
Prepubescent boys that use marijuana daily and developing schizophrenia at age 17-19 is well documented.
Have one in the family. He'd kill everyone in his immediate family given the chance.
Sandy Hook.
Same deal.
None of your bidness, gilbar. Enough of both, recently enough, to make the comparison.
Besides which, I've been close enough to observe long-term potheads and long-term drunks, and the drunks are much worse off. Some people I knew were both, plus some, but they're all dead now.
it’s a few hits and I’m good for the evening. In summary: you can only get so high
you Mean.. You (YOU!) only Want to get 'so high' people today don't stop at 'a few hits'
There is something about old people; that makes them think that things don't change..
But, you know what? Things DO.
Indeed, things do change. I'm old now but learned the lesson at an early age, and had it reinforced in ways that mark me to this day.
One thing that hasn't changed is the human search for pleasure and release. Some people like to fish and ride motorcycles, some can't stand either. Booze vs pot, same principle.
"secondly. The 'new thing' is 'edibles', which are candy spiked with synthetic THC.
synthetic THC is expensive.. You know what's CHEEP? Fentanyl.
unscrupulous vendors are ALREADY spiking their edibles with Fentanyl"
Show me any evidence that dispensaries are spiking their products? Every state I have visited with them requires quite serious testing of edibles legally sold.
And the THC they used is extracted from plant, not synthetically created. It is not hard to find this info out ...
But keep at it with the reefer madness argument. Quietly ignored in all these 17-19 year old gunmen is the various pharmaceuticals their parents fed them for years....
Mark says, at 724AM, "Quietly ignored in all these 17-19 year old gunmen is the various pharmaceuticals their parents fed them for years . . . "
Bingo. Parents and medical professionals enriching Big Pharma, which does more damage to American kids than booze, pot, and stupidity put together.
Criticizing Big Pharma in public like this may garner some attention from the disinformationalists.
Post a Comment