I think you misunderstand my post. I defininitely agree that CBD is not psychoactive. I have successfully treated back pain with CBD that had been purified using chromatography, and it did not have a psychoactive component. However, I find the THC is high CBD /low THC pot (one batch claimed by Harborside to be 18:1 CBD:THC still crashed my mood. It did so after using it several times throughout a day. It was an effect that seemed to build up over the course of the day, and unmistakably due to THC, a very familiar and unpleasant attack of anxiety and very low mood. Perhaps the claimed analysis of the pot was incorrect, or perhaps THC builds up in the body. I much prefer having purified and titrated pot products. The whole herb is too variable, then again, it’s a real pain to extract, separate, and determine concentrations of the THC, CBD, etc. I definitively understand the cost effectiveness of the whole herb. I just find that THC is far more dangerous on a emotional/psychological level. I also have a bit of an ax to grind about it. I was very depressed from college through my early 30’s, and a big component in that illness was frequent pot consumption. I have cut it out of my life, and doing so has made it much easier for me to change my life for the better. I think a certain breathless, uncritical evangelism for pot has blossomed as a response to the rabid, fear-and-hate-derived war on drugs. Pot is not a wonderdrug. It’s certainly an effective palliative, but it has very potent, and sometimes, very destructive side effects. THC is straight up dangerous for people suffering from depression and anxiety.
Now, I will definitely state my appreciation for Mr. Backes’ measured and well considered approach. Dosage of any drug is a very important aspect for folks to keep in mind. Also, vape-ing is much, much safer than smoking! Smoke is smoke is smoke. My mind reels at the stupidity of folks, and there are many, that claim that smoking pot is safe, especially safer than smoking cigarettes. Bullshit! Smoke is bad for you no matter what’s being burned. I can attest to this after being a cigarette smoke for 15 years and getting very close to having COPD. I generally agree with Mr. Backes, but would hope to hear even more frank discussion of the actual risks and dangers of pot. Pot is not a panacea. It can hurt people. It’s not all puppy dogs and rainbows.
THC does not have to directly cause death to be dangerous. Exacerbating depression and anxiety is enough of an ill-effect to be considered dangerous. As such, folks already suffering from depression and anxiety should perhaps consider avoiding THC. There’s a whole galaxy of other compounds to play with. How is it a bad thing for me to say this? Of course it effects each person differently. I’m just arguing that the depressive and anxiety inducing effects should be frankly discussed, not dismissed as anti drug ranting. I prefer other compounds, and I totally accept that tons of folks like their THC. It’s not about culture, here. I am very much pro-drug. However, it’s important for us to know how these drugs effect us so we can decide what to take.
Nicotine is not so bad. It causes heart problems in the long game, but it’s not a carcinogen. Tobacco smoke is the real culprit you may be referring to. Smoke is carcinogenic regards of the identity of the herb being smoked. Vaporization is much safer.
Ethanol is wicked dangerous. No argument here. Well, perhaps an argument for a nice glass of whistle pig.
Oh, no! I know entheogens are super dangerous too! It’s dangerous to step out your front door. I do so on a regular basis. I just like to be aware of all the dangers so I can negotiate them.
That’s correct. Not the BBS, but the main index page of BB.
And now there’s an advertisement for Shana Logic stuck in the second position, which is again forcing me to think harder about whether there is new content here or not. It’s a small annoyance, to be sure, but it’s unnecessary friction.
It’s not a bad thing. But you didn’t start with what’s quoted above. What you said first is below.
Those two statements are neither logically nor rhetorically equivalent. One is a nuanced statement of caution. The other is demonstrably false.
On balance, and in fairness, your posts in this topic advocate for education, awareness, and healthy skepticism. All of those are laudable, and I fully agree with policies that support them.
But you have also admixed quite a lot of your personal experience and opinion, and then freely generalized that as fact for all users. I replied to challenge the worst such examples.
I completely agree with your points about the use of THC with anxiety and depression. While I know many people with these conditions that have used high-THC cannabis with these conditions without adverse effects, I know plenty that have seen their conditions worsen. There very likely a genetic explanation for the difference in response, possibly linked to polymorphism in the COMT gene.
The problem with relying on dispensary claims for cannabis chemical constituency is that the laboratories that test these meds are not very good and their testing results are of questionable utility. Using chromatography to separate compounds is great, but such purification techniques are unavailable to most.
I subscribe to the idea that cannabis medicines that present an entourage of cannabinoids and terpenoids typically produce the fewest adverse effects. However, there is far too much inter and intraplant variation in CB and terp content to rely on flowers alone when precisely formulating cannabis medicines. I prefer to extract from several cultivars, then compound a formulation.
On the issue of smoking cannabis, there is unambiguous evidence supporting lung tissue changes from chronic inhalation of cannabis smoke. However, there is little connection between cannabis smoking and either COPD or lung cancer, provided the individual does not smoke tobacco. It is highly likely that moderate smoking of cannabis poses no risk to the lungs beyond bronchitis, or possibly fungal infections from dirty street cannabis.
Let me be crystal clear on this point, that my stance is based on as much evidence as I can glean. I cited over 300 recent papers in my book to present the best snapshot of efficacy and risks of using cannabis.
I do feel that there will be a link found between the chronic heavy use of bongs and increased incidence of lung adenocarcinomas.
