On the up side, I guess, it's a benefit to other Western countries that we get to see the effects of slack regulation in the US and hence avoid problems before they can happen here.
I mean, this is just kinda nuts, isn't it:
Although recreational cannabis is illegal in the United States for those under 21, it has become more accessible as many states have legalized it. But experts say today’s high-THC cannabis products — vastly different than the joints smoked decades ago — are poisoning some heavy users, including teenagers.
Marijuana is not as dangerous as a drug like fentanyl, but it can have potentially harmful effects — especially for young people, whose brains are still developing. In addition to uncontrollable vomiting and addiction, adolescents who frequently use high doses of cannabis may also experience psychosis that could possibly lead to a lifelong psychiatric disorder, an increased likelihood of developing depression and suicidal ideation, changes in brain anatomy and connectivity and poor memory.
But despite these dangers, the potency of the products currently on the market is largely unregulated.
In 1995, the average concentration of THC in cannabis samples seized by the Drug Enforcement Administration was about 4 percent. By 2017, it was 17 percent. And now cannabis manufacturers are extracting THC to make oils; edibles; wax; sugar-size crystals; and glass-like products called shatter that advertise high THC levels in some cases exceeding 95 percent.
Meanwhile, the average level of CBD — the nonintoxicating compound from the cannabis plant tied to relief from seizures, pain, anxiety and inflammation — has been on the decline in cannabis plants. Studies suggest that lower levels of CBD can potentially make cannabis more addictive.
THC concentrates “are as close to the cannabis plant as strawberries are to frosted strawberry pop tarts,” Beatriz Carlini, a research scientist at the University of Washington’s Addictions, Drug and Alcohol Institute, wrote in a report on the health risks of highly concentrated cannabis.
Although cannabis is legal for recreational use in 19 states and Washington, D.C., and for medical use in 37 states and D.C., only Vermont and Connecticut have imposed caps on THC concentration. Both ban concentrates above 60 percent, with the exception of pre-filled cartridges, and do not permit cannabis plant material to exceed 30 percent THC. But there is little evidence to suggest these specific levels are somehow safer.
I have been saying for a while: if you're going to legalise cannabis based products, why wouldn't you set regulations about the apparently protective part of it - the CBD levels?
And really, why would you let such a plethora of cannabis containing products exist in the first place - like candies and cookies, with their obvious potential risk of being eaten by little kids?
5 comments:
I recall, back in the '80s, an older teacher telling me a story about her nephew who used pot and then developed schizophrenia. Maybe there was something to it, notwithstanding the counter arguments that occurred to me after - ie, the schizophrenia might have happened anyway, or the drug use may have been a form of self-medication for developing mental health issues.
There is much to unpack here. There are physiological and epidemiological studies which highlight the risk of psychosis and possibly schizophrenia but there is this interesting conundrum:
"In spite of all of this supposed evidence of a causal relationship - or suggestion of a causal relationship - between cannabis and psychosis, the general population statistics shows no increase in psychosis incidence rates in any developed country over the last 50 years, in spite of a five-fold increase in cannabis use rates. To quote Macleod et all 2004: “Cannabis use appears to have increased substantially amongst young people over the past 30 years, from around 10% reporting ever use in 1969–70, to around 50% reporting ever use in 2001, in Britain and Sweden. If the relation between use and schizophrenia were truly causal and if the relative risk was around five-fold then the incidence of schizophrenia should have more than doubled since 1970. However population trends in schizophrenia incidence suggest that incidence has either been stable or slightly decreased over the relevant time period.”[42]"
I can place a number of caveats around that argument but to understand those you need to be familiar with the etiology of schizophrenia.
I don't know why people think CBD is not psychoactive. It clearly reduces anxiety, a mystery I could not understand until I read a cell culture study which indicated CBD increased GABA concentrations x4. GABA is the principal inhibitory neurotransmitter and in schizophrenia, autism, anxiety, and possibly depression, GABA deficiency does appear in the literature. CBD has been demonstrated to act as an antipsychotic and should be explored for that purpose because the current drugs to treat psychosis are neurotoxic, causing up to a 10% loss in gray matter volume. Continued ...
THC and CBD have consistently demonstrated neuroprotective properties. THC inhibits protein aggregation, evenly dementia genetically prone rodents will have better outcomes with low dose THC. A Mole Pharm 2006 study found THC was better at binding the relevant site on a key enzyme implicated in driving amyloidosis. In PNAS July 1998 Hampson et al found both THC and CBD to be potent antioxidants superior to vitamins C and E and to be comparable to the best laboratory antioxidants available at the time. So it isn't just CBD that has therapeutic value, THC also has. However the best strategy is to design a chemical that has the binding properties of THC to that enzyme but does not occupy the CB 1 receptor.
The increase in potency occurred long before legalization and will continue. The big rise in THC and reduction in CBD does raise the psychosis risk; at least in theory. In the shops people can choose a variety of cannabis types to consume. Another important consideration is that it is not just about THC and CBD, other cannabinoids contribute to the experienced of being stoned.
Cannabis is dangerous not because cannabinoids are neurotoxic but because of the changes in dopamine-glutamate-GABA interactions. Most of the studies I read place qualifications around the cannabis-schizophrenia linkage, as does the Volkow study you provided. However there is too much focus on the psychosis when the much bigger problem which affects most cannabis users is reduced motivation. For adults over 30 I couldn't care less. If they can do their job that's enough for me. For people over 60 years of age getting stoned once a fortnight might even have a neuroprotective effect because with age the endocannabinoid system declines and it is a primary defense against inflammation and protecting the brain. It's a difficult issue to resolve but given the pernicious effect of protein aggregation on aging brains there might be some value in it.
"And really, why would you let such a plethora of cannabis containing products exist in the first place - like candies and cookies, with their obvious potential risk of being eaten by little kids?"
Because as a legal product it can be provided in any form, just as vaping, and many alcohol products, are clearly aimed at teenagers and young adults. I don't agree with it but then I don't agree with lollies and fast food advertising being aimed at kids. Those two do far more damage to the general population than cannabis ever will. Therein lies the dilemma. Do we allow another evil when most adult users will not experience ill effects? As a public health strategy, if we want to go all in on social control for the greater good, there are lots of things that shouldn't be on the market.
I kind of agree with the tenor of this. You want a bunch of drugs that give you what you need to get by. Not to get high. Get by not high. Once you go for this ultra-buzz you are washing out your brains ability to look after itself with normal serotonin and dopamine et al levels. People go for the weed because in the medium term its a kind of panacea. Good for most problems. But if its going to be super powerful thats a big issue. Thats like comparing mid-strength organic beer to whiskey. Virtually a different drug for all practical purposes. We want people to have many ways to help solve their problems at low cost. But injecting caffeine would not be equivalent to the morning coffee.
You could potentially make very healthy cookies with some weed extracts in it. Instead of sugar you have honey. big chunks of dark chocolate. The best ingredients, and right amounts of these various weed extracts could make it a very healthy package.
So called "essential oils" are not essential and often not even oils. But they can be very healthy because what they are is essentially plant distillates. Weed should NOT be excluded here. Just some level of care needs to be extended.
Post a Comment