Teens have access to vastly more potent cannabis than their parents had at their age. Parents need to understand the risks, including psychosis
Teens have access to vastly more potent cannabis than their parents had at their age
Oh FFS. I’ve been hearing this same bullshit for the last 25 years and it’s still irrational Reefer Madness conservative fearmongering.
So what? If anything, more potent weed is less harmful because you are putting a smaller amount of burned plant material into your lungs to get the same effect.
It’s not like people just… consume one marijuana and however high that gets you, that’s what you’re going with today. No, you’re going to continue smoking until you get sufficiently stoned and then stop and put it out.
It doesn’t take long for anyone to figure out how high is too high and how much it takes to get there, and plan accordingly.
It might be a vape pen with 92% THC hash oil in it so you take a couple of sippy little puffs and get mildly buzzed and you’re fine with that. Or conversely you can pack up a handful of that leafy brown prohibition-era crap and do gravity bongs until you cough your lungs out, and get a lot higher, because that was your goal.
They sell those oil-soaked kif-encrusted joints here. You do not want to finish one in one sitting. The point of these isn’t to get insanely baked, it’s that one good hit will do it and you can put it out and save it in the glass jar it came in.
As others have explained already- if you have the kind of brain prone to psychosis, weed is likely to push you over the edge- and that’s likely to happen when you’re a teenager, because lots of people try it at that age- but something else would have triggered it a few years later. And yes it’s just universally worse for adolescent brains. It is already illegal, everywhere it’s legal, for people under 21, which is reasonable. But parents need to parent.
The idea that we can and should protect the kids who are predisposed to go schizo by keeping the available cannabis weak enough that no one can smoke enough of it to ever get really high is just absurd when you phrase it that way but that’s exactly what anyone pushing this “It’s so much more potent now!” pearl-cluching FUD is trying to sell you.
If anything, more potent weed is less harmful because you are putting a smaller amount of burned plant material into your lungs to get the same effect.
Yes. The actual issue is the THC/CBD ratio, CBD being antipsychotic as well as blocking the metabolisation of THC into more psychoactive variants.
Add to that criminalisation and the desire of dealers to impress clueless customers with head highs and you get selective breeding for high-THC strains. I’d say the main reason I stopped back in the days was because there was essentially nothing but white willow on the market, ~20% THC ~1% CBD. And that’s not even the worst of the strains.
Hopefully legalisation cuts back on that BS, with every satchel coming with test results showing people how off-kilter or balanced the weed is. There’s certainly no shortage of CBD-heavy seeds available, the market is obviously there.
He “dabbled” with other substances as well (Xanax, Ecstasy)
Yeah sure it’s cannabis… I have no words.
The link between diabetics and insulin is real
I worked inpatient psych for a long time, and can tell you first-hand the link between psychosis and cannabis is real. No, this does not mean “if you smoke weed you’re going to get psychotic!” What it does mean is that if you’re someone with a genetic predisposition for schizophrenia (e.g. you have a known family history) weed is a potential trigger for a psychotic episode. If someone has already developed schizophrenia, smoking weed can make their symptoms worse and more difficult to manage with medications.
80% of people coming through the psych hospital, whatever, I don’t care if you smoke weed. Honestly, I wish people would smoke weed rather than use meth, K2, or a bunch of other drugs that fuck people up. But for that subset of people prone to psychotic episodes, the conversation centers around “some people can smoke weed and be fine, and you are not one of those people.”
The most common ages for men to develop first episode psychosis are 18-25, and while it’s dumb that this article focuses on teenagers, the risk in that age group is genuinely higher. This article really is dumb overall and does not explain any of this well
Help me out here. I read the symptoms of psychosis, and I’ve definitely experienced those a couple times but only when I get super baked. But when it wears off I’m normal again.
What am I missing? To me this sounds like there’s a link between bad driving and people that drink which is like “duh” to me.
Wikipedia will be a much better source, but my understanding is that psychosis can be a temporary symptom, or it can be a permanent health condition that calls for medical treatment.
Psychoactive drugs like marijuana, mushrooms, LSD, etc. can trigger permanent psychotic health condition on people who have genetic traits predisposed to such conditions.
It’s like a genetic game of roulette whenever any of us smoke it-- it could be the beginning of a very difficult health condition to manage for the rest of our lives.
For me it’s real simple: I talk to my kids about drug use and its negative impact on their growing minds and bodies. Like any growing organism, they need good food, fresh air, plenty of water, and exercise. Smoking, drinking, and drugs do not provide any of that, and all I ask of them is to wait until they are older.
Still true for adults tho
Remember not all studies on the health effects of substance use are there to advocate that the substance be made illegal. Smoking as a example is still around and there are countless studies available to the public to make informed decisions.
Substance use should be up to the individual like all choices that can effect you directly, “my body my choice” so to say. All individuals should have access to all knowledge available freely and without prejudice.
Studies on cannabis use becoming more common should be seen as a good thing, as cannabis use has become less taboo and thus easier to study without researcher receiving backlash.
Now you may disagree with some studies, and that is your right. But to advocate against studies related to the substance IMO at least is hypocritical, as it advocates against the very thing that made the substance legal.
I am a non-smoker and have not tried cannabis, but believe people should have the freedom to choose
Wow they fail basic science. Correlation does not equal causation. More gateway drug scare in its modern form.
Correlation does not equal causation.
And cutting and pasting isn’t a reasoned argument, either.
Without correlation, there is no causation. So correlation can be taken to be an an indication that causation is not ruled out.
This article blows. “Genetically modifying” cannabis for higher THC content? You mean breeding, like every other plant grown for consumption?
Listen, I tell my countrymen all the time: we want to legalize, but only "low grade* to “mid grade”. I.e not high grade. We’re kind of strict though, almost dry state. Why?
Skunk and the likes have been bred to maximize THC content at the cost of the CBD content. The problem there being that THC is psychoactive and in strong amounts can even be sort of psychedelic, whereas CBD is an antipsychotic that counteracts the negative effecta THC has.
The bigger nut though - and this is the frustrating part - THC can never actually cause psychosis, but can bring out latent psychotic tendencies or be part and parcel of bringing onset psychosis - but a drunken stooper or even an intense run could do that too.
When it comes to high grade tho: do not fuck around with it. If you’ve never tried cannabis, make sure you don’t get a skunk type strain or anything that is deemed “heavy”. It’s not necessary anyway, it’s just a stupid trend between bros to try to out stone or out high each other. “Ooo, I’m the most high! ha ha ha ha”
It’s been an arms race between breeder for decades now regarding maximizing THC content, but let me just say gtfo here with that noise. Give me a working man’s spliff any day, thank you very much. We’re supposed to function as well.
That’s fine to have your own opinion but don’t restrict my rights to grow the stickiest of the icky. Sometimes I want to roast a fat joint and be functional. Sometimes I just want to sleep without toking for a half hour. One hit shit absolutely has its place, and with accurate labeling, you can be the judge.
It’s not opinion, you irresponsible doofus, but verifiable fact at this point - hence the article.
You can’t prevent people from growing it themselves at home no, but selling high grade over the counter? Heeeell no. Not in my country.
That would get cannabis super banned almost instantly after legalization, which would be dumb, counter productive - and irresponsible.
And if you went around distributing it without clearly informing of it’s THC/CBD ratio and the implications thereof?
Straight to jail - because it could be a costly, irresponsible form of stupid, that could cause harm to someone else and lasting damage to them - all because “that shit be hype”?
One year in prison. Same as when selling ethanol. No exceptions.
“One hit shit”. You mean noisy, loud, tweak head shit. Why not skip a step and go straight to meth? Maybe synthesize a concentrate you can inject straight into your groin even. Call it groinnabis. Smh.
I said it should be tested and labeled properly so consumers can make their own decisions. The article sucks, it’s not “verifiable fact”. Hit me with those peer reviewed studies in a journal worth a shit if it’s such a fact.
You can’t prevent people from growing it themselves at home no, but selling high grade over the counter? Heeeell no. Not in my country.
You want people who would like to use strong cannabis have to go to the black market instead of buying something tested and labeled over the counter and making an informed decision.
Are you in full honest making the argument equivalent to “people should only drink beer and wine. Even imagining spirits is equivalent to jumping off a bridge”?
Me? No, I’m not. That’s the argument of the person I’m responding to.
Dammit I hit the wrong guy
he had had persistent delusions for more than six months. Sam was fully convinced that the government was following him and constantly surveilling him
That’s not a delusion tho.
not anymore it isnt
