
Britain's 'Super Strength' Cannabis Could Be Causing Mental Health Problems - ytNumbers
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/02/27/britain-flooded-super-strength-cannabis-could-driving-mental/
======
snarfy
It's all purely anecdotal, but as a cannabis smoker of 30+ years that lived in
an area with a large variety of cannabis types and strengths, there is
definitely truth to 'skunk' causing problems.

I don't believe there is anything special about the makeup of it, other than
it's too strong for the way people smoke today. The tolerance range for
cannabis is very large. A new smoker can take a single tiny puff and need to
take the rest of the day off. A long term user can smoke 5 grams, probably
100x the quantity the new user did, and feel sober within an hour. It's too
much build up over time that your brain is never really cleared out. And then
you go crazy.

~~~
madaxe_again
So.... it's OK for you, but not for the kids?

I don't think _anyone_ can smoke five grams in one sitting - and if they do,
then that's their problem - not the strength of the stuff. I smoke the strong
stuff, but I'll usually put _0.1g_ in a joint, not 5. I can't even envisage a
5g joint.

~~~
snarfy
That's about 5 large bowls in a pipe.

~~~
wavefunction
Very large bowls. In my heaviest usage periods of cannabis I smoke bowls by
myself and I get a lot more than four bowls out of an eighth/3.8g.

~~~
snarfy
You are correct. My estimation is off quite a bit. More like 1.5-2g for 5
bowls.

------
nailer
Reading from [https://hightimes.com/culture/how-much-thc-is-in-a-dab-a-
bow...](https://hightimes.com/culture/how-much-thc-is-in-a-dab-a-bowl-and-a-
joint/)

> A pinner with 0.4 grams of weed should deliver roughly 36 mg of THC, while a
> gram joint will dish out 90 mg of THC.

How much THC would be in a skunk joint?

Edit: 14 / 9 * 90 = 140mg for a gram joint.

This is excellent reason for the government to sieze control of cannabis by
regulating, taxing, and controlling it. In Nevada recently cannabis stores
have the potency marked and clearly visible. if you want to ingest 20 grams,
eat two gummis or two squares of chocolate.

~~~
dorcus_maximus
It would be exactly the same if you just put less of it in the joint. Since
you can't seem to do the math, the article you refer to would be using weed
that is 9% THC. 14% (in that skunk joint) is hardly a quantum leap in
strength. Take two puffs instead of three, was that so hard? Or would you
advise people that inhaling more smoke from burnt plants is actually better?

~~~
nailer
No, I'd advise them to use edibles or vape. There's not much reason to ingest
actual smoke anymore.

'Two puffs instead of three' doesn't really fix that joints aren't granular
enough for most people: 10mg is fine for a casual cannabis user.

------
swarnie_
Completely anecdotal but i saw friends who moved on to long term use of
"skunk" in the UK change a lot. They never kept up with the pack or reached
close to their potential and ended up drifting away from the friendship group.

~~~
madaxe_again
When you say "potential" and "screwed with minds", what do you mean? They
decided that career and kids and a two bed semi weren't the most important
things in life?

~~~
swarnie_
I fell there was a correlation between the use of this heavier strain of
cannabis and still not having a job at 28 years old.

~~~
rainbowmverse
There's a reason "correlation does not equal causation" is such a popular
heuristic.

~~~
swarnie_
Maybe so, but i did prefaced my comment with "Completely anecdotal"

I can only speak for a sample size of 3 people out of 40.

------
madaxe_again
"sinsemilla, also known as skunk" ... by Telegraph readers, and absolutely
nobody else. In the UK press "skunk" is a term used to refer to, well,
everything from hash to weed, to sometimes heroin - and they're all the same
thing, don't you know.

In Uruguay, 9% THC content is what _the government_ sell. [1]

Oh, and here's a crazy thing - if it's really strong - you _smoke less_ ,
because it's not like you're not in control of what you roll into a joint -
and in the UK, almost everyone rolls with tobacco or a rolling mix.

“If the cannabis market is saturated with higher potency cannabis this
increases the risk of younger and more naive users developing problems as they
are less likely to adjust the amount of cannabis they ingest than more
experienced users.”

This is what we call "utter tripe". If that young and naive first-time-user
decides to roll a fat joint, and then smokes the whole thing - well, they're
going to first of all turn grey, then sweat, then lose control of their
bowels, and feel pretty horrible for a few hours - and they won't make that
mistake again.

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/10/how-uruguay-
ma...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/10/how-uruguay-made-legal-
cannabis-work)

------
econ_th0
14% is pretty weak marijuana.

There are many other factors.

I believe this piece is biased.

~~~
wcchandler
I wouldn’t consider it weak but yeah, you can easily get that on the streets
in the US.

This piece is poorly informed and definitely trying to be overly sensational.

------
dekhn
This article is a bit of joke and shows how far behind Britain is, in terms of
cannabis use, compared to a place like the Bay Area.

10% THC cannabis was routine 10 years ago in the BA. Now, you can get 99.5%
THC- a medicinal extract with extensive purification and attestable quality-
although it is pricey (you pay for purification). It's consumed with a
vaporizer, no combustion products if you set the heater low enough.

Most of this product is purchased by well-heeled techies and other successful
business and industry types; one of the nice things about mostly pure THC is
that it's not completely debilitating (for experienced users).

Whether there is an actual medical situation with high concentration THC would
require much better studies.

------
skate22
"Latest figures shows there were 7,545 hospital admissions in 2016/2017 for
drug-related mental health and behavioural disorders, 12 per cent higher than
in 2006/2007."

Why provide a stat that includes all drugs in an article about one specific
drug

~~~
pmden
It's a newspaper - not an academic journal. Interesting figures, even if not
directly related (or just flat-out misleading), are commonplace.

~~~
lovemenot
It's not just any newspaper, it's The Telegraph. Where nothing is ever as good
as it used to be. Apparently now dope too.

------
nukeop
While marijuana is a dangerous drug that ought to be illegal, this has all
signs of a moral panic.

~~~
redblacktree
I have two questions for you, and I ask them in earnest:

1) Why do you believe marijuana to be a dangerous drug?

2) Have you had any personal experience with marijuana?

~~~
JoeAltmaier
There's this:

[https://www.webmd.com/pain-management/features/is-
marijuana-...](https://www.webmd.com/pain-management/features/is-marijuana-
safe-web#1)

------
celticninja
'Super Strength' is a relative description, it is comparing professionally
bred and grown strains against bush weed from the 1970's. It is no more super
strength that the strains available in the US right now. The telegraph is
essentially a right wing tabloid these days, little better than the Daily
Mail, im suprised to see such a poor article so high on HN.

~~~
pennaMan
It also uses the telling tabloid scare-word "skunk" as if it's some kind of
devilish genetic engineered superdrug when actually skunk cannabis is just a
indica-sativa hybrid that has a strong smell, not necessarily a strong THC
concentration.

As a sad parallel, in Romania around 2008 when we had a massive influx of
"legal high" synthetic THC analogs , the media scare-word for these highly
dangerous synthetic research chemicals was literally "ethnobotanics".... Even
now I can't contain my anger at this kind of willful ignorance spewed by what
is supposed to be public information..

~~~
senorjazz
"skunk" used to a be a general catch-all term for buds with no seeds,
regardless of strain. Higher quality, higher strength. Which is why the media
use the word.

Whether the term is still used by users, no idea.

~~~
pennaMan
Sensimillia, Spanish for "without seeds", was the term used before the 1930s
craze when the US government rebranded it "marijuana". Buds with seeds were
never in the history of human cannabis use considered for smoking, exactly
because the THC content is extremely low when the plant produces seeds.

~~~
redblacktree
> Buds with seeds were never in the history of human cannabis use considered
> for smoking

I can assure you that this is simply not true. It may be less potent, but
beggars can't be choosers.

