
Smoking high-strength cannabis may damage nerve fibres in brain - jiangmeng
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/nov/27/smoking-high-strength-cannabis-skunk-may-damage-nerves-brain
======
such_a_casual
Honestly, what's alarming is how they are defining "strong" cannabis.

"While traditional forms of cannabis contain 2 to 4 % THC, the more potent
varieties (of which there are about 100), can contain 10 to 14% THC, according
to the DrugScope charity."

Here on the west coast, 10-14% is not high and 2-4% is so weak that you only
find it in strains that focus on CBD rather than THC. High end strains have a
little more than 20% THC, usually hovering somewhere around 22%. These strains
are tested by labs. This is not hearsay. If we talk about dabs, then we're
talking about double, triple, quadruple the potency. Then you have edibles
which are a completely different beast. So it is important to realize that
they were not testing with potent cannabis at all. Potent for England? Sure,
but American cannabis is on a whole nother level.

The results seen from this are hardly compelling. More than half the sample
size were chosen BECAUSE they had reported an episode of psychosis. Still, I
hope this encourages more research to figure out exactly what's happening, if
anything.

~~~
corin_
> _Potent for England? Sure, but American cannabis is on a whole nother
> level._

Even in England, I know many weed smokers, but nobody who would buy "bush
weed". Strains might not be as strong as the west coast in US, but something
like skunk is a fairly typical thing to get, not a shockingly stronger
surprise like the UK press paint it.

(Admitedly I'm going of anecdotes - albeit lots of anecdotes, but doesn't
necessarily mean there aren't huge numbers of people in England who are happy
smoking shitty weed... I've no idea, but I've never met any of them.)

~~~
such_a_casual
Yeah, I seriously doubt most English tokers are putting up with 4% and 2% THC
like the article is trying to claim.

------
rwmj
Prohibition causes the stronger strains to be selected, since they are smaller
and easier to conceal and transport (as with spirits during alcohol
prohibition). Another reason why we need to legalize and regulate things
properly, and consider higher taxes on the stronger forms (of alcohol too).

~~~
such_a_casual
Your statement is very misleading, as is the whole, "kids these days have
stronger strains" argument that other people try to use. Potency collapsed as
a result of prohibition. Before prohibition, only poor black people in the
jazz scene smoked. They did this because it was cheaper (people would steal
the flowers off hemp plants). Most everyone else in the country took extracts.
1 dose was commonly the equivalent of what a heavy user today might go through
in 2-4 weeks. Prohibition may cause stronger strains to be selected, but in
the case of cannabis, prohibition caused the strain to matter, and to be
smoked in the first place. Additionally, legalization and regulation does not
touch dabbing and edibles which are much more potent than smoking.

source: "The Emperor Wears No Clothes" by Jack Herer

------
Loque
More linkbait with a substantial lack of information and an obvious headline.

Legalise it, do real research, help humanity - vs - fear mongering and locking
people up with problems.

------
chillingeffect
The focus on the corpus callosum reminds me of the research that suggests men
and women have variations there. [1] (Sexual dimorphism). This research is
controversial [2], but there does seem to be evidence [3] for it.

I am curious how that relates to this research. i.e. It's easy to reach for
the "damage" label when it's really about "different," which is why it's egg-
shellish to discuss sexual dimorphism. A confounding factor is that this brain
structure varies quite a bit among individuals and in age, but only in women
and much larger study groups are needed. [4] It's possible these brain
structures are more involved with personality and physical maturity and show
up as defects under a normative mindset.

This writeup suggests possible less efficient information, but maybe that's
what "feeling chilled out" means and maybe it's actually _better_ for
individuals and humanity to be chilled out once in a while.

So in conclusion, I wouldn't say this means we need to study cannabis more,
but we need to study the brain more!

Also: How obnoxious is it of the Guardian to link to the journal, but not the
article?! That undermines my trust in their write-up. If you consider the
extra time the author could have made to get to the article itself, presuming
he/she has actually read it and has a link somewhere, it must be near-zero.
Then you consider the amount of time interested readers like me have to go
searching for it, times the number of readers, the benefit/waste is just
irresponsible. And this seems to be the norm for newspaper articles. It's a
sad state.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_callosum#Sexual_dimorph...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_callosum#Sexual_dimorphism)

[2]
[http://gormanlab.ucsd.edu/courses/files/psy222/Bishop.pdf](http://gormanlab.ucsd.edu/courses/files/psy222/Bishop.pdf)

[3]
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15891572](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15891572)

[4]
[http://www.jneurosci.org/content/11/4/933.short](http://www.jneurosci.org/content/11/4/933.short)

~~~
DanBC
> Also: How obnoxious is it of the Guardian to link to the journal, but not
> the article?!

That's standard practice. Indeed, by linking to the journal the guardian is
doing better than most UK news sources.

~~~
chillingeffect
Believe me, I know. I am expressing disdain for mediocrity.

------
cinitriqs
__* Sponsored by a known drug company __ _

------
AC__
Someone is taking these researchers for a ride, selling them mids for the
price of highs.

------
elcct
Load of bollocks

~~~
Zigurd
It probably is, but it would have been better to say why: The attempts to link
cannabis to psychosis have been ongoing for decades. This theory is literally
"reefer madness."

There are volumes of discredited research and researchers in this area, many
of them with dubious funding sources. So now we are to believe that high-
strength cannabis is qualitatively different and this previously discredited
theory can be redeemed? Not very likely.

~~~
elcct
Just I am tired of writing this every time such garbage pops up. But thank you
for doing that for me.

