There’s a lot of contradictory information spewed at us on a regular basis, and its hard to know the truth of things, especially when big corporations have reasons to want you to buy their products, and when governments take money from these entities. When it comes to vaping, tons of smear campaigns are out there, but are they saying anything useful? Unless vaping is tantamount to smoking, isn’t it automatically a better option? Let’s get into it, does vaping cause cancer or heart disease like smoking?
Does vaping cause cancer like cigarettes? While the obvious answer is no, there seems to be plenty of confusion on this matter. This publication covers news stories in the emerging cannabis and psychedelics spaces. Follow along by signing up for the THC Weekly Newsletter, which also nets you access to tons of deals on products like vapes, edibles, and other devices, as well as cannabinoids, like HHC-O, Delta 8, Delta 9 THC, Delta-10 THC, THCO, THCV, THCP & HHC. We do remind, no one should ever buy or use a product they are uncomfortable with.
The detriments of smoking
First off, let’s take a look at standard smoking, and the issues that go with it. The first thing to understand on this topic, is that it’s not actually about cigarettes. Or more specifically, it’s not actually about tobacco. Tobacco can be used medicinally when not smoked, and has been for millennia. No one was dying from it before the use of cigarettes. The term ‘smoke inhalation’ refers to breathing in too much smoke, and the detrimental effects this can have. This refers to anything lit on fire and breathed in, whether its trees, plants, plastics, or tobacco.
Cigarette smoking is simply constant smoke inhalation. It makes the idea of buying organic tobacco, or switching to herbal smokable concoctions, a bit of a joke in the end. Sure, it might get a person away from some of the chemicals of standard processed tobacco, but it won’t get anyone away from the dangers that come from lighting something on fire, and breathing it in. Smoking cigarettes, as constant smoke inhalation, comes with a myriad of health problems, particularly for long-time users.
The bottom-line numbers tell a compelling story when looking at the generals of smoking damage. Every year, approximately 480,000 people die from smoking-related causes. A massive 41,000 of these are from secondhand smoke. As in, 41,000 people a year die from someone else’s smoking habit. In comparison, the US is up-in-arms over the growing drug overdose issue and the rising number of opioid deaths. These deaths account for just over 100,000 a year according to new CDC numbers, which make even opioids pale in comparison to the dangers of smoking.
What about a comparison to vaping? Though vaping hasn’t been around as long as smoking, starting mainly in the early 2000’s, it simply isn’t linked to a large death toll. As of 2020, the CDC could only come up with 68 related deaths, and all deaths were attributable to additives in vape liquid, and not to whatever compound was meant to be vaped, or the vaping itself. It bears mentioning here, that a dry herb vape is not included in this, and that this issue is specifically related to the use of vape cartridges.
Cancer and heart disease from smoking
Smoking is related to a huge number of problems, but the main two which lead to premature death, are cardiovascular issues, and cancer. Just how much damage do cigarettes do in these arenas? The CDC put out information detailing yearly death numbers from examining the years 2005-2009. As smoking has been around well over a hundred years, and reached higher levels of popularity in previous decades to this one, these dates are perfectly fine for understanding the situation today.
In terms of smoking related cancer deaths, approximately 163,700 people die of cancer yearly from smoking. When looking at cardiovascular disease, which includes heart disease, diabetes, and vascular disease, there are 160,000 deaths a year from smoking. There is however, another major class of deaths from smoking, and its related to respiratory diseases like pneumonia, influenza, and COPD. From this grouping there are about 113,100 deaths per year.
Now, let’s make this worse. Remember how 41,000 people die a year just from sitting in the same room as smokers? Well, about 7,333 of these deaths are from lung cancer, and 33,951 are from heart disease. There are that many cancer and heart-related issues, even when the afflicted person isn’t the one with the bad habit.
Does vaping cause cancer?
There is a lot of weird, seemingly nonsensical, information out there trying to tell you vaping is bad. However, when it comes to the actual questions of how to measure this, the answer just leaves more questions. Like why are we being told vaping is dangerous when no statistics back this up? I mean, if it was true, it would be attached to some pretty bad death numbers, right? Well, not exactly…
To be fair, vaping hasn’t been around for as long as smoking. The main surge of e-cigarettes and cannabis vape carts started in the 2010’s. However, as someone with asthma, I can personally attest to the fact that smoking causes damage in me pretty fast, whereas vaping does not. And I know this from how my lungs feel, and how I breathe. Perhaps it is possible to tell if vaping can cause something like cancer or heart disease early on, or at the very least, if it starts to cause the damage that leads in these directions.
According to the site Cancer Research UK, the answer to the question, does vaping cause cancer, is no. While the organization certainly doesn’t rule out that there could be negative side effects, it specifically states that vaping related deaths so far are only attributable to additives, and are not related to the act of vaping in general. The organization says this:
“You may have heard about vaping causing an outbreak of lung illness in 2019 in the United States. An investigation found the cases were linked to contaminated illegal products. It was not linked to vaping regularly or in the long term. There was no similar outbreak in the UK, and the chemicals of concern are banned in e-cigarettes here. There is no good evidence that e-cigarettes bought from legal places cause lung disease.”
What about secondhand vaping damage, does that exist? According to the same organization, “There is no good evidence that second-hand vapour from e-cigarettes is harmful. As vapes are still relatively new, we can’t be sure there aren’t any long-term effects to people who breathe in someone else’s vapour. But this is unlikely to be harmful.”
The site does, however, go on to repeat the oft mentioned incorrect assertion that, “Passive vaping is not the same as passive smoking. This is because e-cigarettes do not contain tobacco.” E-cigarettes, of course, often do have tobacco, and tobacco was never seen as deadly until it was used in cigarettes. The line that tobacco itself is bad has been repeated so much, that the idea of what smoke inhalation is, is often bypassed, even by the organizations that should really know the difference. Even with this misunderstanding, the site does make clear that there is no link between vaping and cancer.
Does vaping cause cardiovascular disease?
So, does vaping cause cancer? Well, even a cancer organization doesn’t think so, but what about cardiovascular disease? When searching for vaping and cardiovascular issues, a lot of negative sounding articles come up. But what doesn’t, is literally any statistic that backs up an issue. Again, as vaping is a relatively new phenomenon, this doesn’t mean that vaping isn’t associated with cardiovascular issues in the long term. However, there isn’t one statistic right now that says it does. In this review, the most that can be said, is that:
“There are no long-term outcome studies on the cardiovascular risk of vaping electronic cigarettes, but the effects of electronic cigarettes on known risk factors for cardiovascular disease, including neurohumoural activation, oxidative stress and inflammation, endothelial function and thrombosis, have been studied.” It didn’t, however, offer anything more conclusive than saying that risk factors have been studied.
What’s incredibly troubling, is that the 2019 study that initially made the claim that vaping e-cigarettes leads to a higher risk of heart attacks, was retracted eight months later! Sounds like it was a smear campaign that couldn’t take the heat in the end, and sadly, that article is still referenced all over the internet. No one ever said vaping would be 100% risk-free, but if it requires putting out research so bad it must be retracted to make the point, it says a lot for the lack of real information available to confirm this point. There is currently no statistic that exists about vaping and increased risk of cardiovascular disease.
To take it one step further, this longitudinal analysis E-Cigarette Use and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease: A Longitudinal Analysis of the PATH Study (2013–2019), reported that “Two large cross-sectional studies reported no significant association between exclusive e-cigarette use and cardiovascular disease (CVD).”
Does vaping cause cancer or cardiovascular disease? Well, the jury is technically out until more time goes by and research for long-term use can be collected. What has been made pretty clear on nearly every level, is that vaping is considerably healthier than smoking cigarettes when it comes to both cancer and cardiovascular issues, both of which are increased by smoke inhalation, which vaping is not.
So why is there so much out there screaming about the dangers of vaping? And doing so while hiding or ignoring the incredible death rate of smoking? Perhaps it has more to do with what groups are funneling money into government representative pockets, and less to do with the facts.
Thanks for joining us! We appreciate you stopping by CBDtesters.co / Cannadelics.com, a top internet offering for independent news covering the growing cannabis and psychedelics industries. Read-thru the site frequently to stay informed on everything going on, and subscribe to The THC Weekly Newsletter, so you never miss an important story or awesome product deal.
2022 Cannabis Ballot Measures: Up to Six States Voting for Recreational
They’re not there yet, and they might not get there, but this coming November, at least three states, (and possibly six), are putting it up to voters in yet more cannabis ballot measures for recreational legalizations. Will we get up to 25 legal states by the end of elections?
2022 elections are going to be exciting with up to six states voting on recreational cannabis ballot measures. This could mean that by the end of elections, half the states of the US will be legal! This independent news platform specializes in reporting on the cannabis and psychedelics industries of the US and beyond. Check out the Cannadelics Weekly Newsletter for daily updates and access to tons of product promotions, from vapes and edibles to cannabinoid products including the highly popular Delta 8 & HHC. Check out our ‘best of’ lists for details, and only choose the products you’re most comfortable using.
Missouri and Amendment 3
On Tuesday August 9th, the state of Missouri announced that in November elections, it will hold a ballot measure so voters can decide if they want to legalize recreational cannabis. This ballot was not a for-sure thing in the beginning, with activists originally looking like they couldn’t get enough petition signatures to get the initiative on the ballot. By law, at least six out of eight congressional districts need to reach the signature minimum to make it on. As of Tuesday, the petition was certified by Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft.
The activist group Legal Missouri 2022 was behind the initiative. Said campaign manager John Payne in a press release Tuesday, “Our campaign volunteers collected 100,000 signatures, on top of paid signature collection. That outpouring of grassroots support among Missourians who want to legalize, tax and regulate cannabis made all the difference.”
Should it go through, this Amendment 3 forces a change to the constitution of the state, amending its policy on marijuana so that residents 21 and above can purchase and use the drug. In fact, should it go through, it would go into effect as early as the end of this year. This is an incredibly fast implementation, because the amendment is already written, instead of a measure instructing the legislature to come up with laws.
The new amendment includes the following guidelines for the cannabis industry:
- Drop prohibition laws for purchase, possession, use, manufacture, sale, and transport of the drug for adults 21+
- Require a card for home-growing
- Allow those who are currently incarcerated for certain marijuana crimes, or who have incarceration histories, to petition for release/expungement
- Institute a lottery for licenses and certificates
- Ensure each congressional district gets an equal number of licenses
- Implement a 6% sales tax on cannabis products
The reason for this ballot measure is because Missouri’s republican-led congress has repeatedly killed previous marijuana reform bills. As ballot measures are kind of the new thing in weed legalization, advocates decided it was best to take it to the people. Like many other cannabis bills, this one comes with a provision to erase past cannabis convictions for non-violent marijuana crimes, and for those who didn’t sell to minors, or get arrested for marijuana-related driving infractions.
Explained Legal Missouri 2022’s Alan Zagier, “We’re talking about people who may still be on probation or parole or even had a conviction and did their time and paid their fine but yet it still comes up and is a hindrance in housing or employment.” He said the bill would “Provide a fresh start and wipe the slate clean for really tens of thousands of Missourians who each year find themselves arrested for low level drug offenses.”
South Dakota ballot measure
Missouri isn’t the only state letting the people decide the fate of recreational cannabis in November. Another state is South Dakota, and for this state, it means voting on such a measure for the second time. In the November 2020 elections, South Dakota voters passed two ballot measures to legalize both medicinal and recreational cannabis on the same day, via Measure 26 and Amendment A.
And though the story should have ended there, Governor Kristi Noem proceeded to conspire with law enforcement to bring a case against the win, in order to reverse it on the grounds that Amendment A broke the state’s law of only allowing single-measure ballots.
Noem’s participation was made clear when she made an executive order on February 8th, 2021. When this was appealed, it went to the Supreme Court. As the court is helmed by Noem appointee Christina Klinger, the ruling predictably upheld Noem’s order, ending the recreational legalization, and ostensibly taking away a voted-in win by her own constituents.
Now, the state has a new ballot measure ready to go this November, and considering the last one went through, there’s a pretty good chance this one will too. Initiated Measure 27 would legalize recreational use, as well as allowing the possession and distribution of up to one ounce. Individuals would be allowed to have three plants each, with a max of six plants per household. More than other states, this is an important ballot measure, because it works to offset a horrible injustice done to the people of the state, by their own governor.
The third state with a confirmed ballot measure to legalize recreational cannabis in the upcoming November elections, is Maryland. On November 8th, residents of Maryland can vote on the Maryland Marijuana Legalization Amendment, which would allow residents 21 and above to access recreational cannabis starting in July 2023. The measure orders the State’s legislature to come up with laws to govern this new cannabis industry.
Maryland already has a decriminalization policy in place from 2014, which allows the possession of up to 10 grams or less without criminal sanctions. The state also has a medical program, instituted back in 2013.
The current measure stated as House Bill (HB) 1, and was approved in the House by a vote of 96-34 in February of this year. Less than two months later, the Senate also passed the bill with a vote of 94-39, showing overall mass support in all of the State’s legislature. For whatever reason, instead of simply allowing the bill to pass into law, the legislature decided to pass the vote onto the people; similar to what happened in New Jersey, which subsequently voted in its own recreational bill in 2020. This means, should the measure get a positive vote, it was passed by both the state congress, as well as the people.
More cannabis ballot measures: Arkansas, North Dakota and Oklahoma too?
On August 3rd it was reported that the Arkansas State Board of Election Commissioners rejected a measure to allow a recreational legalization measure from appearing on the 2022 ballot. The board approval was a second stipulation, as activists already turned in more than enough signatures to get the measure on the ballot. Then, in a turn of events, the State’s supreme court ordered the initiative to be allowed. The case was brought by the group Responsible Growth Arkansas in response to the Board of Election Commissioners refusal to certify the measure.
What’s the new stipulation? The case isn’t over. So though the measure now must be on the ballot, whether the votes get counted remains to be seen until the case is officially settled. The placement on the ballot is because the case was expedited to force the certification from the Board in time for elections, though the Board can still argue its case for merit of its denial. Should the board ultimately win, the vote will be null and void. Responsible Growth Arkansas turned in over 193,000 signatures which is over twice the number of necessary signatures for the ballot.
North Dakota already turned in more signatures than necessary for the North Dakota Marijuana Legalization Initiative, which would legalize recreational cannabis for adults 21+. The state requires 15,582 signatures, and the group New Approach North Dakota collected 25,762. Currently the signatures are awaiting verification in order for the initiative to get certified. Unless a major issue comes up, it looks like North Dakota will let its people choose the fate of cannabis in the state come November. This is the second time such a vote was put to the people, as a 2018 measure for the same thing, did not pass.
Oklahoma is also trying to get an initiative on the ballot this November. The group Oklahomans for Sensible Marijuana Laws collected more than 164,000 signatures, much more than the necessary 94,911. The state is awaiting the verification of these signatures. In the meantime, the attorney general’s office released a revised version of the ballot in order to make it comply with applicable laws. The signature verification was outsourced to third-party company Western Petition Systems, and it looks like, once again, unless something weird comes up, Oklahomans will decide themselves if cannabis should be legalized in November.
Recently, cannabis ballot measures to legalize recreational use have been mainly positive, indicating a strong likelihood that as many as six new states might join the recreational crew come fall elections. If that happens, the number of legalized states increases to 25, officially signaling that 50% of states are going against federal mandate. Though its not often reported this way, this will likely force the federal government to quickly legalize, so as not to look weak compared to its states. This should be a very interesting election when it comes to both state recreational cannabis legalizations, as well as federal government reaction.
Thanks for stopping by! You’ve made it to Cannadelics.com, the place to go for fully-rounded independent news covering the expanding cannabis and psychedelics industries. Stop by for daily updates, and head over to the Cannadelics Weekly Newsletter, to ensure you’re always in the loop of what’s going on.
Another Study Says Legalizations Don’t Increase Cannabis Use
The line is old and never made sense in the first place, but politician after politician like to extol the fear that if they legalize cannabis, everyone will become a pothead. As it turns out, study after study say the opposite, that legalizations don’t increase cannabis use, particularly in younger populations. Take a look.
Yet another study now shows that legalizations don’t increase new cannabis use in kids, so why do we keep hearing that it will from politicians? Remember to subscribe to The Cannadelics Weekly Newsletter all the latest news and industry stories, as well as exclusive deals on flowers, vapes, edibles, and other products. Also save big on Delta 8, Delta 9 THC, Delta-10 THC, THCO, THCV, THCP & HHC products by checking out our “Best-of” lists!
The question of whether legalizations do or don’t increase use comes up a lot in debates over legalization measures. A study published a couple weeks ago called Estimating the effects of legalizing recreational cannabis on newly incident cannabis use, investigates the estimated occurrence of new cannabis users in the below 21 years-of-age grouping, versus those 21 and above. The study sought to find estimates representative of all US states, as well as Washington, DC, and used the data of 819,543 US residents (non-institutionalized) from the years 2008-2019.
Information was collected via audio computer-assisted self-interviews, as part of National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) surveys. These surveys were cross‐sectional, and conducted with “multistage area probability sampling to draw state-level representative samples and to over-sample 12-to-17‐year‐olds.”
It should be noted that this entire study draws from information taken from semi-unrelated research, and was not designed and carried out specifically for its purpose. As stated by the investigators in the write-up, “As this research used publicly available and anonymized data, the research was determined as not human subjects research by the Michigan State University Institutional Review Board on 8/26/2021.” This is not an uncommon practice, and though often used to create associations that really don’t exist, in many situations its a perfectly fine way to collect and asses data.
Investigators used DiD event study models (difference-in-difference) to make inferences on policy effects that were implemented in a staggered way over a period of time. These models are regularly used to show treatment effects from before and after treatment sessions, in medicine, and are used similarly here to see the difference in cannabis use, pre and post legalization.
The results of the study indicate “no policy-associated changes in the occurrence of newly incident cannabis onsets for underage persons, but an increased occurrence of newly onset cannabis use among older adults.” So, basically, its saying that legalizations didn’t lead to more underage people starting to smoke, but did lead to more people of legal age starting to smoke.
They go on to stipulate, “These results show consistent evidence of an increase in the occurrence of newly incident cannabis use for adults aged 21 years and older after the removal of prohibitions against cannabis retail sales. For those aged 12-20-years-old, the study estimates support the hypothesis that RCLs did not affect the occurrence of newly incident cannabis use for underage persons.”
And that “We offer a tentative conclusion of public health importance: Legalized cannabis retail sales might be followed by the increased occurrence of cannabis onsets for older adults, but not for underage persons who cannot buy cannabis products in a retail outlet.” As dispensaries are meant for adults to use at will, and are only barred to underagers, this hardly presents a problem, while backing up that legalizations really don’t increase cannabis use among younger residents.
Are new adult smokers a problem?
This study shows that legalizations don’t increase use in kids, and don’t result in every kid running out to start smoking weed. In fact, it maintains that this isn’t a reason for worry at all. What it does point to, is the possibility that more adults 21 and above might start to smoke after legalizations.
I expect this will be enough for some politicians to latch onto in their quest to link legalizations with a pothead culture. But the problem with this, is that a legalization, and legal dispensaries, are meant to allow this very behavior, indicating that its not a dangerous enough behavior to warrant concern. In fact, not only is it not dangerous, but the array of states with medical legalizations might argue that cannabis is beneficial, which makes it not only not a bad thing for more adults to use cannabis, but possibly an overall beneficial one.
Plus, having an issue with adults smoking, is silly at best when considering how many bars there are, and retail locations to buy alcohol, the drug with one of the highest death counts, and overall global rates for death and disability. And one of the only drugs (along with the idea of smoking in general) that regularly hurts those not partaking, in the form of drunk driving incidents. And though legislators like to point at cannabis for causing danger on roadways, this too has been evaluated in studies, which actually found lower incidence rates of driving accidents in states with medical legalizations.
Should we care that a legalization measure meant to make something completely available to adults…is being used by those adults? Even if in higher numbers than before? I mean, that is the purpose of the industry, right? And given how excited everyone is about the tax value of the cannabis market, it kind of seems like increasing adult smokers, was always the goal.
Uruguay study already showed similar results
Though investigators in the study mentioned above say “This cannabis policy evaluation project adds novel evidence on a neglected parameter”, referring to research on how prevalent new underage smokers are post legalization; this is not correct. Other investigations about whether legalizations do or don’t increase use are already published on this topic, including a recent one from Uruguay.
Uruguay was the first country in the world to go against global mandate and legalize the recreational use of cannabis back in 2013. So it easily has the longest running data stream for how a legalization effects smoking onset in different age groups. In May of this year, a study was published, which “measured whether Uruguay’s non-commercial model of recreational cannabis legalization was associated with changes in the prevalence of risky and frequent cannabis use among secondary school students.”
The study used collected cross-sectional surveys filled out by both Uruguayan and Chilean secondary school students (8th, 10th, 12th grades), from 2007-2018, with a total of 204,730 persons for which data was collected. They used a full range of kids in the 12-17 age range, as well as a specific group in that range that mentioned past-month or past-year use, as well as another group of 18-21 year olds.
They particularly looked at changes in frequent or risky cannabis behavior in past-month and past-year models, with special interest in changes just after the legalization kicked in, in 2014. Investigators used the Cannabis Abuse Screening Test for risky cannabis behaviors, and established frequent use as 10+ days in the last month.
Study results found that there was not an increase, but a decrease in both past-month and past-year use directly following the start of the industry, in the 12-17 range. Though there was a slight uptick in the 18-21 range right after the market opened, risky use quickly decreased soon after. In fact, risky use decreased in all the following samples: participants who used in the past-month, who used frequently in the past-year, and those that claimed frequent use from the entire sample.
Not only does this study indicate no issue with raised cannabis use in the underage community after legalization, but it shows a decrease in overall risky use for all groups. Plus, this is the second study of this nature out of Uruguay. In 2020, the study The impact of cannabis legalization in Uruguay on adolescent cannabis use was published, which came to its own conclusion that “We find no evidence of an impact on cannabis use or the perceived risk of use. We find an increase in student perception of cannabis availability (58% observed vs. 51% synthetic control) following legalization.”
This indicates that students are wholly aware of the increased availability of cannabis, yet aren’t running out to go get it. The study sought to “estimate the impact of legalization in Uruguay on adolescent past year and month cannabis use, perceived availability of cannabis and perceived risk of cannabis use.”
How long will we keep hearing the line that we’re all going to be pot junkies if a legalization occurs? And how many more studies must show that legalizations don’t increase cannabis use in younger communities, before the powers that be get the point? As the line sounds like an excuse to begin with, I’d say we’re not even close to that backwards sentiment being wiped off the boards, and it will take time for the logic to fully filter down. Luckily, the process is most definitely underway, thanks to recent research.
Welcome all! We appreciate you stopping by Cannadelics.com, a premiere independent news publication covering the exciting and expanding cannabis and psychedelics landscapes. Come by daily for regular updates on important happenings, and cruise over to the Cannadelics Weekly Newsletter, so you’re never late on getting a story.
THC Limit: The Point That You Don’t Get Higher
Our standard way of thinking about drugs is that the more drugs you take, the more intense an experience you’ll have. In this model, not only does more mean more intensity, but it also means the possibility of taking too much, and overdosing. Can this happen with cannabis? According to research, THC has a limit, and if you keep smoking past it, you don’t get higher. Take a look.
Do we have THC limits within us? Is there a point of smoking when we don’t get higher, no matter how much we smoke? According to research (and life), yes, there is! Our 100% independent news publication focuses on stories in the growing cannabis and psychedelics spaces. We provide the Cannadelics Weekly Newsletter for readers to stay updated, and offer tons of deals for a range of products, from smoking devices to cannabinoid products like HHC-O, Delta 8, Delta 9 THC, Delta-10 THC, THCO, THCV, THCP & HHC. You can find deals in our ‘best of’ lists, for which we ask you only buy products you are comfortable with using.
Before getting to the study, and the ‘official’ documentation, let’s first think about smoking behavior. Sure, not everyone is a giant pothead, but there are plenty of giant potheads out there, and even lower-level smokers might encounter a specific time period of mass smoking whereby they can assess the situation of what happens with increased amounts of THC.
If you keep taking opioids, you’ll get super high, and then eventually, you’ll take too much for your system to handle the depressive aspects of the drug, and your body will shut down. We call that an overdose. Many drugs lead to death when too much is taken, by essentially flooding the body with a compound it can’t remove fast enough, or balance the effects of, for regular function. Some drugs are more likely to kill than other drugs, but even a non-fatal reaction can result in a seizure, unconsciousness, or bodily injury of some kind.
However, this isn’t the case for all drugs. And technically, for pot, we know this doesn’t happen fatally because there are enough smokers out there, that this kind of information is understood. We know people don’t die from pot because no death statistics exist. And because no one has seen it happen before. But what does that mean for super heavy smokers? Are they simply never getting to the death limit, or is there no limit to get to? And if it won’t cause death, does that mean it stops working at some point?
Standard life tells us, yes. As a regular smoker myself (and a sometimes full-out pothead), I’m well aware that if I take toke after toke after toke, that eventually, I’m not going to feel any difference anymore. After a certain point, my brain will remain at the same level of mush, and I don’t get higher, despite possibly smoking way, way more. I might burn my throat if I’m smoking joints or pipes, or set my asthma off (both things that are avoided by vaping), but I’m not going to enter into some new high headspace with each new drag.
Technically, every smoker knows this, even if they never thought about it logically. For one thing, if we did continue to get to higher points, it would be written about extensively, and its not. At all. And for another thing, that seeming inability to die from it indicates that at a certain point, there is no further bodily response. A couple years ago, a study came out that helped show this logic, and which backs up the idea that with THC, there is a limit. And after that limit, smokers don’t get higher.
The study in question, is called Association of Naturalistic Administration of Cannabis Flower and Concentrates With Intoxication and Impairment. The goal of the study was to assess if there is an “association of legal market cannabis flower and concentrates with cannabis intoxication and neurobehavioral impairment?”
In order to do this, study researchers designed a cohort study with 121 cannabis flower and concentrate users. The participants were in groups per their choice of general product (flower or concentrate), and then randomly split within user groups into two groups, a higher-THC product group, and a lower-THC product group. The study used legal market cannabis flowers for the flower group, with a range of 16-24% THC, and concentrates with 70-90% THC for the concentrates group. 55 of the participants used cannabis flower (41.4%), and 66 of the participants used concentrates (49.6%).
Investigators measured plasma cannabinoid levels, as well as subjective drug intoxication of the users, and performance results on a range of neurobehavioral tasks to test attention, memory, inhibitory control, and balance. Researchers found that it didn’t matter which product the participants used (flower vs concentrate), as users showed similar behavior on a neural level after acute use.
The concentrates caused uniformly higher THC blood plasma levels across the board (.32 vs .14 μg/mL). In nearly all metrics, though, neurobehavioral measures were not changed by short-term cannabis use. There was a delay in impairment of verbal memory and balance in general, but apart from these factors, there was no different outcome based on the type of product or potency level.
Researchers concluded that though cannabis concentrates provide higher THC exposure, that the difference in subjective and neurobehavioral impairments in the short term, is not specifically associated with the strength of the product used.
According to researchers, “In general, across most cognitive measures, acute performance changes following cannabis use were minimal. In 1 exception, delayed verbal recall performance was impaired after use, which is consistent with prior work demonstrating reliable cannabis-associated impairment in this memory domain.” And that “across forms of cannabis and potencies, users’ domains of verbal memory and proprioception-focused postural stability were primarily associated with THC administration.”
One limitation of the study, was that there was no control group used, so all participants received THC, with no group which did not. Investigators were also required to go by federal mandate, which restricted drug dosing, as well as control of other aspects of administration. A last restriction, they had to pre-assign the major groups of flower-users vs concentrate-users based on pre-existing user behavior, due to ethical limitations. Even with these limitations, the results still say a lot about how little the effect changes when a person has more THC.
What it means
The researchers weren’t testing to see at what level a person stopped breathing, or keeled over and died. However, the research pointed out why we don’t worry about these things with cannabis. If low and high THC users essentially show the same functional reactivity, it indicates that past a point, no further effect is felt by increasing THC.
Though this doesn’t provide a direct answer as to whether a person can die from too much THC, or too much cannabis in general, it does imply this is unlikely. Death results from the body being pushed past a limit, for which stronger and stronger doses of a compound will show a leveled increase in whatever is being measured. After the point the body can no longer handle this, it shuts down, or changes in some way.
This study implies that though THC plasma levels increase, and though some neurobehavioral change occurs (mainly in verbal memory and balance), that results are effectively the same regardless of THC amount. This means that even if the THC in the blood continues to increase, it shouldn’t show any further change with neurobehavioral activities. This study did not asses effects on heart rate, breathing rate, or blood pressure.
If one was to make the assumption that such changes in these other processes would be indicated by differing brain behavior, then it could be assumed (while still requiring official testing), that increased levels of THC intake, past a point, do not alter other body functions like respiration, heart rate, or blood pressure, either. Once again, this study did not attempt to answer these questions, but as cannabis isn’t associated with a death rate, the implication is that these factors don’t increase out-of-range either.
This study backs up why there’s no death count for marijuana. It might not explain why the body reacts the way it does, but it does show a certain ability to withstand increased amounts of THC. This leaves plenty more questions for the future, but does elucidate why when we get to the point of smoking joint after joint, or taking vape hit after vape hit, or bong rip after bong rip, that the end result, is about the same. And that somewhere along the way, we hit a THC limit, whereby we don’t get higher.
This is not to say that a user won’t experience bad effects from using cannabis, even if death isn’t one of them. However, having said that, there is also no indication that these negative responses accumulate with use, either, indicating that there is also a limit to the bad feelings that can come from smoking marijuana.
Hello and welcome! We appreciate you joining us at Cannadelics.com, a primary location for cannabis and psychedelics reporting of the independent variety. Give the site a read-thru regularly to keep updated on important events, and check out the Cannadelics Weekly Newsletter, so you never miss a single thing.
- smoking1 year ago
A look inside Jim Belushi's 93-acre cannabis farm in Southern Oregon
- benefits of thcv1 year ago
BREAKING: MASSIVE FOOD SHORTAGE ACROSS THE USA – GOVERNMENT WARNING ON CROP LOSS AND WATER SHORTAGE
- Cannabinoids12 months ago
Legal Loophole? Everyone is Buying Legal Delta 9 THC Gummies Online…
- Deals11 months ago
Have You Tried The New High-Potency THCP Vape Cartridges?
- CBD11 months ago
North Carolina Medical Marijuana Legalization Bill Approved by Senators in Committee
- food1 year ago
Cannabis Infused MCT Oil Tincture FOR HIGH THC EDIBLES
- Cannabinoids1 year ago
What Is HHC (Hexahydrocannabinol) and Is It Safe To Use?
- CBD1 year ago
Federal Cannabis Legalization Will Happen Before 2022, According to Rohrabacher
- Education1 year ago
6 milestones in the CBD industry
- smoking12 months ago
THESE CARDANO PROJECTS WILL 100X IN 2021 🚀 (Get In ASAP)