Time for another round of this old story, eh? It's difficult to take this at all seriously when I've been hearing versions of the same complaint my whole life.
What's new, and better, is that the products you can buy in a legal store have labels which tell you what's in them, and you can now make informed decisions about what you ingest.
> The potency of marijuana in the United States has, in fact, increased dramatically since 1970. Some suggest the more potent marijuana of the 1980s is a fundamentally different drug than that of the 1960s and 1970s. They argue that claims of marijuana’s relative safety are based on tests with the older, less potent product and that the "new" marijuana poses new risks (Inaba, 1987; Inciardi & McBride, 1989). While marijuana in the 1980s is more potent by as much as a factor of five, it is unclear whether this hurts or helps the health of the typical smoker. Users may become more intoxicated with the new marijuana, making them less safe drivers, for example. It is also true, however, that less smoke is inhaled to reach intoxication, which would clearly be a health benefit from more potent marijuana. However this question resolves itself, Mikuriya and Aldrich (1988) convincingly argue that highly potent marijuana has a long history of recreational use and that calling it a "new drug" is misleading. They also suggest that although new marijuana may be more potent per pound the practice of autotitration, or the self-regulation of doses, means that users are not necessarily becoming more intoxicated. This, too, is an issue that merits further study.
>In 1989 the THC content of sinsemilla averaged about 7 percent. This is double the concentration of THC in "commercial-grade" marijuana, which contains some buds (NNICC, 1985-86; 1989), and is substantially higher than the 3 percent THC reported in standard marijuana (DEA, 1988). Potency has also increased over time from an average .5 percent THC level in 1974 (Mikuriya and Aldrich, 1988). According to the NNICC, the highest concentration of THC reported to date was found in a 1986 sample of marijuana, which contained 18.3 percent THC (NNICC, 1988)."
However, they are taken from 'cannabis products distributed in the illegal marijuana marketplace in the United States', as submitted by the DEA and police agencies, and I can't help but wonder about possible sample biases.
Like, if the cops find "ditchweed" - low-potency hemp plants - did they used to send that in for testing, while nowadays they don't? If so, that would result in the observed trend, but not reflect what people actually used to get high.
I tried to figure that out, but quickly gave up, since the part I quoted 'unclear whether this hurts or helps the health of the typical smoker' was more relevant.
Fundamentally it doesn't matter since, as The Atlantic piece mentioned, you can buy products with higher THC levels ("better living, through chemistry!"), and are not limited to what the plant can make.
It's literally fine. I know tons of people who smoke and none of them have issues. Obviously some percentage of the population will react poorly to drugs. That doesn't mean weed is gonna start making everyone go psychotic. This is anti weed propaganda at its best.
6 comments
[ 245 ms ] story [ 1616 ms ] threadWhat's new, and better, is that the products you can buy in a legal store have labels which tell you what's in them, and you can now make informed decisions about what you ingest.
> The potency of marijuana in the United States has, in fact, increased dramatically since 1970. Some suggest the more potent marijuana of the 1980s is a fundamentally different drug than that of the 1960s and 1970s. They argue that claims of marijuana’s relative safety are based on tests with the older, less potent product and that the "new" marijuana poses new risks (Inaba, 1987; Inciardi & McBride, 1989). While marijuana in the 1980s is more potent by as much as a factor of five, it is unclear whether this hurts or helps the health of the typical smoker. Users may become more intoxicated with the new marijuana, making them less safe drivers, for example. It is also true, however, that less smoke is inhaled to reach intoxication, which would clearly be a health benefit from more potent marijuana. However this question resolves itself, Mikuriya and Aldrich (1988) convincingly argue that highly potent marijuana has a long history of recreational use and that calling it a "new drug" is misleading. They also suggest that although new marijuana may be more potent per pound the practice of autotitration, or the self-regulation of doses, means that users are not necessarily becoming more intoxicated. This, too, is an issue that merits further study.
>In 1989 the THC content of sinsemilla averaged about 7 percent. This is double the concentration of THC in "commercial-grade" marijuana, which contains some buds (NNICC, 1985-86; 1989), and is substantially higher than the 3 percent THC reported in standard marijuana (DEA, 1988). Potency has also increased over time from an average .5 percent THC level in 1974 (Mikuriya and Aldrich, 1988). According to the NNICC, the highest concentration of THC reported to date was found in a 1986 sample of marijuana, which contained 18.3 percent THC (NNICC, 1988)."
They come from https://nida.nih.gov/research/research-data-measures-resourc... which shows a clear rise.
However, they are taken from 'cannabis products distributed in the illegal marijuana marketplace in the United States', as submitted by the DEA and police agencies, and I can't help but wonder about possible sample biases.
Like, if the cops find "ditchweed" - low-potency hemp plants - did they used to send that in for testing, while nowadays they don't? If so, that would result in the observed trend, but not reflect what people actually used to get high.
I tried to figure that out, but quickly gave up, since the part I quoted 'unclear whether this hurts or helps the health of the typical smoker' was more relevant.
Fundamentally it doesn't matter since, as The Atlantic piece mentioned, you can buy products with higher THC levels ("better living, through chemistry!"), and are not limited to what the plant can make.