MovieChat Forums > Politics > Thoughts on marjuana today? Are they cre...

Thoughts on marjuana today? Are they creating addictions if not psychosis?

posted 3 years ago by Rorikon (16427)
107 replies | jump to latest

https://cannabisandpsychosis.ca/what-is-psychosis/

Prior to the 1990's THC was less than 2%. In the 1990's 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.” 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.

The flower or leaves that are generally smoked or vaped are only one formulation. We now have concentrated THC products such as oil, shatter, dab, and edibles that have been able to get the THC concentration upwards of 95%. There is absolutely no research that indicates this level of THC is beneficial for any medical condition. The purpose of these products is to produce a high, and the increased potency makes them potentially more dangerous and more likely to result in addiction.

You think with the more potent increases in THC is having an affect to people that are more damaging?

[–] chilidoggg (13098) 3 years ago

Peter Tosh said it best: "Leave My Business and Mind Your Own."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xuNOj-c1fM

If I get high and fly like bird
You should never say a word
That's nobody's business but my own
And if you drink rum and tumble down
You alone go and have your fun
That's nobody's business but your own

[–] Padeen (6459) 3 years ago

Legalize it, as 68% of Americans are in favor of. I live in a legal State and the sky hasn't fallen. Yes, there is risk with any psychoactive substance, but when it comes to weed, its pretty benign compared to booze. We're all adults here who should be mature enough to practice personal responsibility. Continuing to keep it illegal, locking people up and ruining their lives is counterproductive. Concerning addiction, my morning coffee is literally more addicting. Mental illness, well if someone if prone to it, avoid weed, but the idea it causes schizophrenia or irreversible mental illness is reefer madness. If you take too much, don't freak out and go to the ER lol. Its literally impossible to fatally overdose and the unpleasant feeling will pass with time.

Anecdotally, I've been using cannabis regularly for over 15 years and live a perfectly normal life. I really don't think I should lose my freedom because I like to smoke a little weed at the end of the day.

[–] elcamino (15540) 3 years ago

I want everything brought to me and be free.

[–] TabbyS (1277) 3 years ago

Contact your congressman. We need insurance companies to cover medical cannabis costs, like $300 monthly. We also need people who are exposed to anxiety or high stressful work environments to be allowed to use it.

Like police officers - I think they would be a whole lot nicer if they could smoke weed. It would prevent them and EMT's from PTSD.

[–] chilidoggg (13098) 3 years ago

"medical cannabis costs, like $300 monthly"

Why does the conversation always go here?

If marijuana is 100% legal, what does it cost? It should certainly be less than beer, and if you have a $300/mo beer habit (grocery store retail) you've got a serious drinking problem.

backyard marijuana should cost close to nothing, some foreign exotic strain should be $0.60 an ounce (that's sale price promotion 12oz bag starbucks coffee beans)

[–] TabbyS (1277) 3 years ago

I'll be like Johnny Appleseed and throw seeds in various places across California...
just don't tell anybody.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

$0.60 an ounce?

LOL you obviously have no idea now the industry works. There's fees and licenses. There's a VAT tax pretty much from seed to the shop when you purchase it.

You could grow it yourself but its no as easy as it's made out be. There's indoor which requires alot of startup money as you'll need a secure, enclosure that is climate controlled and has large fans plus UV lighting. Water filtration.

Outdoor you have the elements to contend with and pests(be they insects, animals or sticky fingered humans)

You really think someone who makes this as a career choice is gonna do all that work and only charge $0.60 an ounce???

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

[–] chilidoggg (13098) 3 years ago

You must belong to a cartel or a prison guards union.

Everything agriculture is not a good career choice.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

No and No, I just know how legalizing this works and if someone could get high on lettuce or cabbage maybe those plants would be worth more.

You really think getting into this "new" legal business isn't a good career choice? Never mind don't answer since you seem to think making it legal means $0.60 and ounce

[–] Rorikon (16427) 3 years ago

I'm talking about higher THC potency folks, not about legalizing it or people who use it. I'm asking if the higher % will lead to psychosis or effects that lead to them doing something that can endanger others.

[–] B1cKsurN (14873) 3 years ago

They'll vape themselves straight.

[–] moviechatterer (13436) 3 years ago

I'm asking if the higher % will lead to psychosis or effects

well , maybe im weird , but i can give myself the correct amount.
If I buy vodka , i dont drink it by the bottle , like a do with beer.
If the weed is twice as strong, smoke half the amount.

seems blindingly obvious to me

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

The only thing you'll attack violently is the fridge and you'll develop an interest in Jazz.

The horror!!!

[–] kspkap (13055) 3 years ago

Prior to the 1990’s I would much rather be a passenger in a vehicle being driven by someone who had a joint than someone who had a few drinks. (adult beverages) I worked with people who smoked before coming to work. Great workers, no problems and happy all the time.

[–] Kowalski (58946) 3 years ago

I THINK ITS AWESOME...IM SMOKING SOME RIGHT NOW.🙂

[–] chilone (17284) 3 years ago

I'm sorry....

[–] Kowalski (58946) 3 years ago

WHY?...ITS STILL AWESOME...AND IM STILL SMOKING SOME RIGHT NOW.🙂

[–] chilone (17284) 3 years ago

And I'm still sorry. 😉

[–] Kazak (2007) 3 years ago

No. THC is benign and harmless. The hysteria behind this totally harmless substance in now VERY tired. Human beings have an entire secondary nervous system that has EVOLVED in order to be able to metabolize the compound, the endocannabanoid system. Consider what that suggest about how long humans have been using this totally beneficial substance (before the racist-based lies of the 1940's). The continued prohibition serves only one purpose, to artificially prop up a host of really rather loathsome industries, Big Tobacco, Big Alcohol, Big Pharma, the private prison industrial complex, to name a few. This coming from the same folks that'll scream "FREE MARKET" when it comes to any other issue.

[–] chilone (17284) 3 years ago

It's not benign, especially if you smoke it and it turns people into idiots.

[–] Kazak (2007) 3 years ago

People definitely turn into idiots whenever I smoke it...

[–] chilidoggg (13098) 3 years ago

NICE!

[–] Kazak (2007) 3 years ago

Thought experiment time! Suppose, for the sake of argument, that extensive testing showed beyond doubt that your every single assumption about how marijuana affects the minds and bodies of users were entirely emperically factually incorrect? That, counterintuitively, it actually caused people to behave MORE cautiously and therefore more competently, on average, of course. How would your attitudes change then?

[–] chilone (17284) 3 years ago

My attitude wouldn't change. People are at their best when they're unimpaired. "Impaired" should give you a clue.

[–] Kazak (2007) 3 years ago

Wouldn't the above definitive result imply that people were actually, granted counterintuitively, in no way "impaired?" If they, in fact, behave more cautiously, and thereby more competently, then they would be whatever the opposite of impaired is, right?

Let me ask you, why do we allow driving while under the influence of nicotine? Or, caffeine? Or, acetaminophen? You like people unimpaired, right?

[–] chilone (17284) 3 years ago

Those have not been shown to impair people.

[–] Kazak (2007) 3 years ago

Where has THC “been shown to impair people?” Where?!!

[–] chilone (17284) 3 years ago

Have you ever heard of Google?

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/does-marijuana-use-affect-driving

https://www.livescience.com/56932-marijuana-use-impairs-motor-skills-coordination.html

https://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/the-effects-of-marijuana-on-your-memory

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-athletes-way/201307/does-long-term-cannabis-use-stifle-motivation

https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/addiction/marijuana-use-and-its-effects#1

[–] Kazak (2007) 3 years ago

"Several meta-analyses of multiple studies found that the risk of being involved in a crash significantly increased after marijuana use13—in a few cases, the risk doubled or more than doubled.14–16 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."

it would seem we’re still inconclusive. It's helpful to know and understand how these "studies" are funded since there's high stakes in ensuring the HARMLESS PLANT remains prohibited.

[–] chilone (17284) 3 years ago

It's also helpful to know that people who like something (or think they do because they're addicts) will defend it with their last breath, despite any and all evidence.

[–] Kazak (2007) 3 years ago

Sure. Try prohibiting caffeine and see how that goes for you. I hardly see how it's in any way relevant, of course!!

[–] chilone (17284) 3 years ago

I'm really not for prohibiting anything.

[–] chilone (17284) 3 years ago

What definitive results? People can speculate all day long about some "miracle" drug that makes people better in every way, with absolutely no downsides but as of yet, they don't exist. If they did, I'd definitely be willing to evaluate it. I'm sure there's "evidence" that weed and whatever other substances zealots are in love with are indeed those "miracle" drugs just as there is evidence to the contrary. I go by what I've experienced and what I see which is, I don't know a SINGLE person who has benefited from "impairing" drugs, including alcohol but I know MANY who were/are/will be harmed (ruined families, lives, illness, crime, prison, death, etc., etc., etc.). It's really just not worth it. NOTHING I've ever done/tried even comes close to experiencing every day and circumstance with a clear, sharp, unimpaired mind and body.

Obviously I'm not speaking about medical uses.

[–] Kazak (2007) 3 years ago

If you don't adjust your attitudes and opinions in the face of hard data, then I believe I may have stumbled onto a fundamental difference between you and me, Mr. chilone.

[–] snepts (11123) 3 years ago

But we all should listen to and trust Michael Savage, right?

[–] chilidoggg (13098) 3 years ago

Red Diaper Doper Babies!

I really believe that Michael Savage doesn't believe all the crap he spews. He's a really intelligent guy. He probably needed the money. Same with Dennis Miller and P.J. O'Rourke.

[–] snepts (11123) 3 years ago

No shit. He sees the Rush playbook and figures he can replicate it, moving a whole bunch of dummies to follow his line of Idiocy, make money the way Vacuums get Dirt, and leave his Soul at the Curb.

More Power To Him? Nah, I'm not going that far.

[–] Kazak (2007) 3 years ago

I don’t know who that is.

I pay such little attention to main stream media that the name is really only just vaguely familiar to me.

[–] snepts (11123) 3 years ago

He's an extension of Limbaugh, although this may be a facile observation.
What I heard on the rare occasion I stopped on his radio show (our local NCAA teams share a station with right-wing radio nut cases), is some hateful jerk who bends his arguments with sophistry, trying to convince people that neon yellow and psychedelic purple make a lovely color scheme when we all can see it's horrid, then some flat voiced nasal caller congratulates him for being such a beacon of light in this dark world.
What a bunch of barnacles.

[–] chilidoggg (13098) 3 years ago

In Los Angeles in the 2000's (the aughts?) AM radio was monopolized by right wing talk. I grant you, Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly have a certain talent (on loan from Satan.) That's 3 guys, 12 hours. There were 2 (actually 3) talk radio stations, you need at least 5 more guys to fill the clock, bunch of talentless shmucks ("Gee, Bob, liberals are sooo stupid...")

I was convinced there was some nefarious behaviour by Turd Blossom or somebody, to effect "You don't get Rush unless you slot Larry, Moe, and Curly too."

Michael Savage would frequently stray from pure "liberals are so stupid" and go off on tangents where he recounted researching flora in some jungle, or women's fashion in the 1950's, etc.

[–] andreaahr (2333) 3 years ago

They are creating addictions in my opinion. Marijuana is very addictive.

[–] Kowalski (58946) 3 years ago

FOR WHO?🤔

[–] snepts (11123) 3 years ago

Oh ? Have you no addictions?

[–] Kazak (2007) 3 years ago

Psychologically addictive, sure, just like almost anything else. Physically addictive? Near zero. In other words, you’re dead wrong.