Marijuana Mental Health

[Artificial Emotion]

I'd disagree, I just don't think marijuana was as strong or you could even find anything up to par in the 1800s as it would be in 2012

Given that many of the landrace strains have been preserved which have been tested and the fact that the strongest samples taken since records which began in the early 70s aren't really any significantly stronger than the strongest samples of herb today, I'd say you're mistaken - breeding has not produced strains significantly stronger, even if today we see stronger samples more often due to better growing conditions being more common. Anyway I'm done discussing this with you.

 

[yteek]

A lot of the landraces that are growing wild predominately also are pollinated... though there are some rural growers that try to prevent this its you can't always stop it. In jamaica you can find some potent weed but a lot of it is seeded, even when you ask for the sensi..I'd imagine to be even better if they could prevent it. Lets just say it like this...generally the weed is more potent today then years ago...in terms of its prevalence.

Just PM if you just want to shoot the shit with general pot discussion.

 

[justsayknow]

Given that many of the landrace strains have been preserved which have been tested and the fact that the strongest samples taken since records which began in the early 70s aren't really any significantly stronger than the strongest samples of herb today.

I would love to see this data. I often hear people believing the hype about how much stronger and crazy the strains are today and suspected that it wasnt so. Would like to see what the samples were like in the 70s and what the landrace strains test like? I remember reading somewhere that THC content in sensi samples seized from the Carribean in the 80s was similar to high grade samples tested in recent times.

I was in the pharmacy the other day and they had some antique medicine bottles on display. One of them was similar to this:
http://www.herbmuseum.ca/node/1943?size=_original

I would guess that the THC content in that stuff would be right up there with whats around in the present day. Active at 10mgs apparently not sure what that works out to be but I'm guessing strong.

 

[yteek]

Considering a lot of the popular strains of today are just crosses of various land races, I wouldn't doubt their potential whatsoever.

 

[Artificial Emotion]

Lets just say it like this...generally the weed is more potent today then years ago...in terms of its prevalence.

No offence but did you not read what I said above? You're just repeating what I stated.

I would love to see this data. I often hear people believing the hype about how much stronger and crazy the strains are today and suspected that it wasnt so. Would like to see what the samples were like in the 70s and what the landrace strains test like? I remember reading somewhere that THC content in sensi samples seized from the Carribean in the 80s was similar to high grade samples tested in recent times.

I was in the pharmacy the other day and they had some antique medicine bottles on display. One of them was similar to this:
http://www.herbmuseum.ca/node/1943?size=_original

I would guess that the THC content in that stuff would be right up there with whats around in the present day. Active at 10mgs apparently not sure what that works out to be but I'm guessing strong.

Here's an article that talks about the issue and gives some idea of the data from the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, Forensic Science Service data and the UN Drug Control Programme. If you want to find more of the raw data from these studies I'm sure you could find it with a simple search. As you can see improvements in potency are very modest.

So as you can see the increase is very modest and nothing like it's made out to be by the tabloids. The increases can easily be explained by better growing conditions or processing techniques. What it is not due to is 'genetically modified' skunk hitting the streets. The distinction is an important one imo.

Some of the heirloom landrace strains are still around, like Lebanese which I'm growing right now. For interest's sake, here's a photo of one Lebanese before harvest (not grown by me). If tested, a Lebanese homozygous THC allele genotype would kick out quite a high THC percentage.

NSFW:

 

[Chesh]

Last saturday I ended up really high and got a bit paranoid that I was going slightly crazy. Felt fine the next day though, however I'm taking a little break as I have been smoking it pretty much daily.

Realised I had been sort of using weed as a form of self-medication too. As in, I'm usually not happy when I'm alone and I'm pretty insecure/paranoid about certain things. But when I'm high none of it matters of course. So yeah I think if you repeatedly use weed to help you ignore problems those problems will only get worse and they'll manifest themselves somehow. Going to keep weed as a weekend thing, and I'm going to sort out my 'issues'.

Needed to vent all that because I don't like talking about this stuff to people I know.

 

[justsayknow]

^^ Nice looking Lebanese strain there. Its interesting to see the UK data. 17% THC in 1975 for that Thai strain is pretty high. You always hear the old timers over here in Australia reminiscing about the Thai sticks from the 70s and 80s. Looks like the other high THC sample they got was from Jamaica at 10%

The table from 95-05 still shows a decent increase in THC content but clearly its to do with prevalence of growing knowledge and skills rather than genetics as the average still doesn't touch that thai sample. The average content is never going to get up to what the pharmaceutical companies were pumping out 100 years ago although no doubt people making black market extracts will have similar percentages .

It seems like the link on that page has moved in case anyone is looking for it it is now here
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/bulletin/bulletin_1980-01-01_4_page006.html

 

[PeacePipeChief]

i havent really read through this so i dont know whats been covered , but things like psychosis being brought on by smoking marijuana is because there is either an underlying mental illness or a history or mental illness in the family . this is why seemingly perfectly healthy people can have this happen to them .

 

[Artificial Emotion]

I did a bit of research into psychosis and schizophrenia prevalence amongst cannabis smokers and according to the data (or a review of the data from all the studies available) suggests that you would have to prevent 30,000 people from ever smoking cannabis to prevent a single case of psychosis! I think the rate of psychosis was about 66667% higher for people drinking alcohol than for cannabis smokers (if I've done the sums right) so that gives us a bit of a reality check.

Also here are some odds of dying from various medical conditions:

Per lifetime odds:

Complications of medical and surgical care 1 in 1,313.
Hospital infections 1 in 38
Heart Disease 1 in 5
Cancer 1 in 7
Stroke 1 in 23
Intentional Self-harm (suicide) 1 in 121
Flu 1 in 63
Accidental poisoning 1 in 193
MRSA (resistant bacteria) 1 in 197
Dying from anthrax 1 in 500 million

Again, chance of getting psychosis from cannabis 1 in 30,000.

80-90% of schizophrenics smoke tobacco, but we don't see politicians warning of the dangers of smoking to our mental health. Why? For political reasons. Correlation does not equal causation!

 

[QuantumTheory_xx]

Riddle me this, riddle me that:

Is it that the use of marijuana can cause psychosis or schizophrenia... or is it that people whom are at risk for psychosis and schizophrenia are drawn to smoking marijuana?



Of course assuming it's not just total BS.

--------------------

@ Artificial - Care to share some links that show the accuracy of all these numbers you speak of?

--------------------

It's also been mentioned that strains today are no stronger than strains in the 60s and 70s. However consider the notion that these strong strains are far more common today than they were back then. It's probably true. I doubt your parents were smoking the equivalent of OG Kush everyday, although I'm sure some people were.

 

[Artificial Emotion]

Riddle me this, riddle me that:

Is it that the use of marijuana can cause psychosis or schizophrenia... or is it that people whom are at risk for psychosis and schizophrenia are drawn to smoking marijuana?

That's a very good question. From what I gather, we know that psychosis rates in countries and cultures where cannabis use is virtually non-existent is not lower than in countries where cannabis use is much more common. If cannabis use was a significant risk factor for the mental illness we would see higher rates of the illness in countries where cannabis use is far more common but we don't. You could say you can't compared different ethnic group to each other but as I understand it in the same groups of people rates of the mental illness don't increase when cannabis becomes more or less popular over time.

-------------------

@ Artificial - Care to share some links that show the accuracy of all these numbers you speak of?

--------------------

The research was done by professor Glyn Lewis with the university of Cardiff, who states no causal relationship between cannabis use and mental illness has been established. Another leading expert, Dr Stanley Zammit of the university of Bristol has also gone on record refuting the claim there is evidence of causality.

Here's the evidence you asked for:

Hickman et al 2009, a study of all published evidence, shows that the risk of a correlation between lifetime cannabis use and a single diagnosis of psychosis is at worst 0.013% and probably less than 0.003%. HERE is the link to the journal publication.

ABSTRACT

Background We consider how many cannabis users may need to be prevented in order to prevent one case of schizophrenia or psychosis [defined as number needed to prevent (NNP)].

Method Calculation for England and Wales using best available estimates of: incidence of schizophrenia; rates of heavy and light cannabis use; and risk that cannabis causes schizophrenia.

Results In men the annual mean NNP for heavy cannabis and schizophrenia ranged from 2800 [90% confidence interval (CI) 2018–4530] in those aged 20–24 years to 4700 (90% CI 3114–8416) in those aged 35–39. In women, mean NNP for heavy cannabis use and schizophrenia ranged from 5470 (90% CI 3640–9839) in those aged 25–29 to 10 870 (90% CI 6786–22 732) in 35–39-year-olds. Equivalent mean NNP for heavy cannabis use and psychosis were lower, from 1360 (90% CI 1007–2124) in men aged 20–24 and 2480 (90% CI 1408–3518) in women aged 16–19. The mean and median number of light cannabis users that would need to be prevented in order to prevent one case of schizophrenia or psychosis per year are four to five times greater than among heavy users.

Conclusions The number of young people who need to be exposed to an intervention to generate NNP and prevent one case of schizophrenia will be even larger. The public health importance of preventing cannabis to reduce schizophrenia or psychosis remains uncertain. More attention should be given to testing the hypothesis that cannabis is related causally to psychotic outcomes, and to considering what strategies will be the most effective in reducing heavy cannabis use among young people.

Also going back to the first point I made, you should take a look at this study funded by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) who commissioned scientists at Keele University to examine the evidence. They concluded that the rate and prevalence of schizophrenia was either “stable or declining”. HERE is the link.

It's also been mentioned that strains today are no stronger than strains in the 60s and 70s. However consider the notion that these strong strains are far more common today than they were back then. It's probably true. I doubt your parents were smoking the equivalent of OG Kush everyday, although I'm sure some people were.

^ if that's aimed at me please carefully read what I said again. Strains, genetically have not been bred to be significantly stronger than they've been historically in the 60s and 70s. It's just that better growing conditions are a bit more common. It's an important distinction to make. The achievements made in thousands of years of cultivation of high quality landraces has not been surpassed by modern breeding techniques, despite their marked improvement over the basic selection and rouging farmers used to employ. I would also add that the marginal increases in potency have been grossly overstated and exaggerated again and again in the media. The modest improvements in potency that are mainly due to better growing conditions only account for small increases in potency in general as you will see if you look at the data. Far from the 25x or more increase in potency banded about by the media.

By the way OG Kush is just a fad that most growers and 'connoiseurs' (I hate using that term because it sounds pretentious) are sick to death of hearing about all the time. It's not even that good of a strain and is certainly not the most potent. And yes, a lot of the best cannabis of the 60s (particularly import cannabis from places like SE Asia) was definitely stronger than 'OG Kush'. Take well grown and prepared Thai Stick for example and compare it to OG Kush and then tell is more potent and better quality.

 

[psychomimetic]

No offence but did you not read what I said above? You're just repeating what I stated.




Here's an article that talks about the issue and gives some idea of the data from the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, Forensic Science Service data and the UN Drug Control Programme. If you want to find more of the raw data from these studies I'm sure you could find it with a simple search. As you can see improvements in potency are very modest.

So as you can see the increase is very modest and nothing like it's made out to be by the tabloids. The increases can easily be explained by better growing conditions or processing techniques. What it is not due to is 'genetically modified' skunk hitting the streets. The distinction is an important one imo.

Some of the heirloom landrace strains are still around, like Lebanese which I'm growing right now. For interest's sake, here's a photo of one Lebanese before harvest (not grown by me). If tested, a Lebanese homozygous THC allele genotype would kick out quite a high THC percentage.

NSFW:

So, I don't really have an opinion on whether or not weed was weaker in the past, but those charts show considerable increase in THC.

The chart there says that in 1995 the mean THC level for sensi was 5.8%. A mere 10 years later, in 2005, the mean THC level was 14.2 %. That means that in 2005 the pot was almost 3 times as strong as in 1995.

So the charts you gave do indicate significant change. They show very little change in quality from the 70s and 80s, then they show a dramatic decrease in quality in the early 90s and a dramatic increase in quality (beyond even the highest means of the 70s and 80s) in the early 2000s.

But according to the charts, the mean % of THC in weed in the 70s and 80s was around 5-7%, and the mean in the 90s was 6-10% and the mean in the 2000s was 10-15%. That indicates steady and significant increase in potency.

I would also question the data because it is seized marijuana, so there are so many variables year to year that the numbers might mean very little.

It would be interesting to hear the opinion of some older heads on the board as to whether the weed in the 60s and 70s was the same quality.

 

[Artificial Emotion]

So, I don't really have an opinion on whether or not weed was weaker in the past, but those charts show considerable increase in THC.

The chart there says that in 1995 the mean THC level for sensi was 5.8%. A mere 10 years later, in 2005, the mean THC level was 14.2 %. That means that in 2005 the pot was almost 3 times as strong as in 1995.

14.2/5.8 = 2.4 times increase. This is about 1000% less than the 25x increase. More importantly though, you're looking at the mean THC % which is an average of all the samples. If you take the most potent sample from the 60s or 70s it will be just as potent as the most potent weed from today, which is the point I've been trying to make. The modest (2.4x instead of say 25x) increase is simply due to the better samples being more frequent due to better growing methods.

If the weed was both genetically more potent than it was in the 60s and there was better access to growing methods you would have a much larger increase than just a factor of 2.4.

psychotomimetic, in 1975 they had Thai samples testing as high as 17%. So obviously the genetics for that sort of potency existed back then. If you have say three 17% samples of Thai stick and eight of 4% crappy outdoor grown weed from the UK bringing the averate down to just over 7% it doesn't mean the weed is stronger in 2010 if there are 11 samples with the average being 14%, right? It just means the stronger samples are more frequent in 2010.

Try and grow out strains that have been preserved like oldtimers haze or any other haze well and have it tested and then decide whether the weed is significantly stronger. I guarantee you compared to the likes of 'OG Kush' it will knock your socks off If you actually look back at when strains like skunk #1 were actually bred they actually were developed in the 1960s well before the increases shown in the graph. So if the increases in the data don't coincide with the introduction of these strains then it can only be due to one thing.

 

[Artificial Emotion]

Just to add, the skunk #1 strain developed in the mid to late 60s has tested at 16-17%. Northern Lights was introduced by Neville in 1985 before the potency increase in the above data and has been known to test in at around 18-20%. All of the genetic potential to create potent marijuana was there before growing technology improved to a point where it was widely available. Take a modern strains and it won't necessarily test higher in potency compared to a lot of the old strains and that includes ganja landrace strains (not charas). Many of the modern breeders generally don't even select for potency. Things like taste, yield, resin count, height etc. are far more of a priority commercially. Not always but this is the case a lot of the time.

 

[psychomimetic]

14.2/5.8 = 2.4 times increase. This is about 1000% less than the 25x increase. More importantly though, you're looking at the mean THC % which is an average of all the samples. If you take the most potent sample from the 60s or 70s it will be just as potent as the most potent weed from today, which is the point I've been trying to make. The modest (2.4x instead of say 25x) increase is simply due to the better samples being more frequent due to better growing methods.

If the weed was both genetically more potent than it was in the 60s and there was better access to growing methods you would have a much larger increase than just a factor of 2.4.

psychotomimetic, in 1975 they had Thai samples testing as high as 17%. So obviously the genetics for that sort of potency existed back then. If you have say three 17% samples of Thai stick and eight of 4% crappy outdoor grown weed from the UK bringing the averate down to just over 7% it doesn't mean the weed is stronger in 2010 if there are 11 samples with the average being 14%, right? It just means the stronger samples are more frequent in 2010.

Try and grow out strains that have been preserved like oldtimers haze or any other haze well and have it tested and then decide whether the weed is significantly stronger. I guarantee you compared to the likes of 'OG Kush' it will knock your socks off If you actually look back at when strains like skunk #1 were actually bred they actually were developed in the 1960s well before the increases shown in the graph. So if the increases in the data don't coincide with the introduction of these strains then it can only be due to one thing.

I misunderstood the point you were aiming at I think. I thought you were arguing that weed back in the day was the same strength as today (as in, the average herb then was as good as the average herb now), instead you were saying that there has always been weed as strong as today's dank, I can't argue with that, great weed has always existed.

The charts made me assume that your argument was about mean potency, not max potency.

Anyone who has grown bag seeds in a good environment knows that growing great weed, even from schwag seeds outdoors, is quite easy. I've seen plants that were grown from random bagseeds of Mexican dirt weed that were glorious dank with very little effort on the grower's part. All these fancy growing methods don't amount to nearly as much as many people seem to think.

Anyway, a 25 times increase in THC potency would be absurd (I didn't know people even claimed that), but a 2.4 times increase is still substantial, the average weed being more than twice as strong as it was is a lot. But like I said, those numbers could mean anything. They could mean that people now buy better weed then before (more domestically grown stuff and less bricked import maybe). Or they could mean that the police seize more good weed then they used to. Or they could legit mean that the average weed now is better than it was. That's the problem with statistics based on police seizures, there's too many variables for the numbers to mean much.

Either way, I'm not arguing that there wasn't just as good weed back in the day. A good environment and good genetics (which you could get randomly, even in the 1800s or before) are enough to bring weed up to 15-20% or more, no hydroponics or fancy breeding required. A good grower in the 50s could have gotten product equal to a good grower now.

Good weed has always been around, but it may have been less common in the past, that's what I was saying. Back in the day I grew some herb from old school Latin American genetics, and I grew it outside (I always grew outside when I grew) and that stuff was easily some of the best weed I've ever smoked. Was probably similar genetics to a lot of the weed coming into the US in the 60s and 70s. As you say, Skunk, Haze and other classic strains are no better then they were when they were bred.

 

[Artificial Emotion]

I misunderstood the point you were aiming at I think. I thought you were arguing that weed back in the day was the same strength as today (as in, the average herb then was as good as the average herb now), instead you were saying that there has always been weed as strong as today's dank, I can't argue with that, great weed has always existed.

No not at all. We've obviously just had a miscommunication. What does piss me off is the media making wild claims about how the genetically engineered pot of today is nothing like the pot of the 60s and 70s and is 25x more potent (in one Fox 'news' report they claimed indoor cannabis is 200x more potent and is like pot on steroids because it's under light 24 hours a day unlike outdoor pot) so I feel an obligation to dispel myth. They take a fact or cherry pick the data and run with it, turning it into a completely exaggerated story. They try and conflate the relatively minor potency increase in the scheme of things with mental illness. In the unfair an unbalanced (pun intended) news report in the link they say and I quote 'this aint your grandfather's marijuana and this stuff will kill you'.

Good weed has always been around, but it may have been less common in the past, that's what I was saying. Back in the day I grew some herb from old school Latin American genetics, and I grew it outside (I always grew outside when I grew) and that stuff was easily some of the best weed I've ever smoked. Was probably similar genetics to a lot of the weed coming into the US in the 60s and 70s. As you say, Skunk, Haze and other classic strains are no better then they were when they were bred.

Yeah I think we agree after all.

 

[psychomimetic]

No not at all. We've obviously just had a miscommunication. What does piss me off is the media making wild claims about how the genetically engineered pot of today is nothing like the pot of the 60s and 70s and is 25x more potent (in one Fox 'news' report they claimed indoor cannabis is 200x more potent and is like pot on steroids because it's under light 24 hours a day unlike outdoor pot) so I feel an obligation to dispel myth. They take a fact or cherry pick the data and run with it, turning it into a completely exaggerated story. They try and conflate the relatively minor potency increase in the scheme of things with mental illness. In the unfair an unbalanced (pun intended) news report in the link they say and I quote 'this aint your grandfather's marijuana and this stuff will kill you'.



Yeah I think we agree after all.

Haha what a crazy report. Weed that was 200 times more potent would be powder THC. It wouldn't be your grandfather's weed, but I bet even that stuff wouldn't kill you.

Gotta either laugh or cry at the shit on Faux News (and pretty much every TV news network here), 24/7 garbage is all it is. Ya'll don't get Fox news over in Britain do you? That's lucky, the only decent TV news here is on public tv (and is made in other countries), but Fox is really above and beyond repulsive. Although I've heard that your news media is almost as bad as ours, Fox news is the champion of the shit heap. All they do is misinform.

 

[Artificial Emotion]

^ it's so bad it's entertaining IMO. No we don't have Fox news. Thankfully the BBC isn't that bad but I don't have a TV so I don't know about other channels. I know the Daily Mail is just as bad.

From what I've heard MSNBC is actually not that bad in comparison and go a long way to compensating for the Fox news propaganda machine. I may have got it mixed up but I think I saw a couple of cannabis reports done by them that were unbiased and showed medical cannabis in a positive light. It's just a shame Fox news are so popular when they resort to yellow journalism all the time. I've even heard of them photoshopping photos of people who's opinions they don't like to make them look ugly and goofy. Real journalists don't do that sort of bullshit.

 

[justsayknow]

Just out of intrest when did indoor growing take off in the UK? I know that over here in Australia it was going on for sure in the mid to late 90s and probably before. I would guess that if I was to look at similar data from 95-05 in Australia there wouldnt be as much of an increase. I remember seeing high thc hydroponic material (presumably grown indoors)on the market around 94 and it seemed like it was already popular. Also we already had access to reasonably high thc outdoor material so I would say there is no way we would have seen an increase in mean thc percentages like that. Perhaps the averages between the 1970s when Cannabis first became popular here to the 1990s may have increased due to increased grower knowledge but I doubt its gone up much in the last 10 years or even 20...

Its interesting to look at the data for other Cannabis products in the UK in the 70s (Resin and Hash Oil). Some of the products measured in at as high as 48% THC: if they included that in the mean data it might even look like the average percentage of THC in cannabis products on the market has gone down.

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/bulletin/bulletin_1980-01-01_4_page006.html

 

[justsayknow]

Some interesting research from NZ its a shame they arent quite as open minded on this side of the Tasman.

http://www.drugfoundation.org.nz/mythbusters/cannabis-potency

It doesnt say what the average was in the mid 90's just that the highest sample was 9.7% THC and the average of samples tested in 2010 was 10.9% THC. The most interesting point though is that as well as testing siezed cannabis they tried to grow high THC cannabis and most of their plants were at 7-8% THC with one freakish specimen that contained above 20% THC. It doesnt say anything about CBD levels though or what genetics they were using. I am trying to find the original report now.

Here is an abstract from the grow experiement.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20462712