When I was in my early 20s I would probably say I had a dependence on cannabis. Key for me in transitioning away from that was lower THC % products. It's was as if I wanted to enjoy a single beer after work but the only thing available was everclear. Most vape pens are billed as 85%+ THC. Now, I still enjoy cannabis, but I have a single puff of a vape pen that is around 3% THC (the rest is usually CBD) before bed. Or I take an edible that is 1.5mg THC (very low, edibles are usually sold at 5-10mg doses). It's a much different relationship. I don't feel like my mind is racing out of control, I don't build up a massive tolerance. I sleep fine without it. It's startling to think that a single puff of a 90% pen is literally 30x as much THC.
However, these products are disappointingly few and far between. When I walk into a CA dispensary, I actually have to hunt around for them, if they're even available. When I ask, staff members wonder if I'm buying it for my grandmother! It would be great to see the industry refocus on products that are designed to be consumed in moderation.
>It would be great to see the industry refocus on products that are designed to be consumed in moderation.
I feel that the legal weed industry is speedrunning the past decade of craft brewing. Craft beer focused on growing the scene while focusing on higher and higher ABV beers, but now is transitioning back towards beers that are a bit more sessionable and don’t get you blasted after 2 beers. Wouldn’t be surprised to see the weed industry start focusing on sessionable items sooner rather than later.
Underlying assumption is that moderation is the issue, however it's addiction for those that can't quit. In layman's terms, the brain's chemistry has been altered permanently. This can happen for some even after the first use THC, opioids, alcohol and you name it.
Obviously the progression doesn't happen as fast for some. However, the key being they can't quit in moderation or in excess. Some can abstain for 3 months, some for six, thinking they don't have a problem but then find themselves using even a little. There's a self-rationalization as well as self-centeredness that's part of the disease process of addiction. I would say it's not only a disease process but it is a huge factor. Cross addiction substituting one substance for another is also part of that self-rationalization.
I hear this claim often that your brain chemistry changes from substance use and it makes sense when you look at addicts. But with other things relating to addiction, I found claims to be hyperbole. An example is addiction is a disease no different than cancer. We don't want to tell addicts to just cut it out. But is it true? Are there scans of people before and after a while of chronic substance abuse that shows brain differences? Can we scan someone's brain and tell that they're addicts? Honest question, I don't know
I think a nuance that's lost is the difference in addiction between a pharmacological substance vs a behavior. "Brain scans" and their equivalents will do a much better job revealing the former than the latter. That doesn't make behavioral addictions any less damaging from a holistic view of the patient's health (i.e. their overall quality of life).
To me, I feel as though that behavioral addiction is completely disregarded by the medical community. If someone is lighting up every night / having a drink and want to stop, they need an alternative way of closing out the day. Otherwise of course it'll be difficult.
Well what's behavior and what's addiction? Let's go down a thought exercise. Imagine yourself in the following scenarios:
1. Imagine you're going to Walmart. You see a friend. "You say hi and raise your hand to draw attention" However, they walk right past you without even acknowledging your presence.
What is your first thought? Maybe "Jerk!", "he's busy?".
You don't have control over that first thought, but you do have control over that second thought and your actions thereafter. Addiction messes with your first thoughts and attention. Next scenario
2. A wife and a husband are driving down the road. The wife notices Kohl's is having a 50% off and the husband notices that Andy's liquor store has two six pack for the price of one.
In this case, due to addiction, the husband noticed that Andy's liquor store and that's a craving. His awareness was drawn to that sign with a subconscious cue influenced by addiction.
Therefore, someone who wishes to maintain sobriety has to be very self-aware of their thoughts and actions. They have to guard themselves from triggers, situations, people and then manage those other aspects they can't control.
It's important to acknowledge that addiction is a disease as framed in the above scenarios. However, it does require a conscience behavioral change maintaining a certain level of awareness of self to sustain sobriety.
It isn't helpful for people to view themselves as simply a character flaw when going through addiction because their brain is scarred. It doesn't mean they can't make poor choices and not choose to maintain to pursue sobriety. Their behavior matters and their disease matters.
I am not sure about other drugs, but in the case of alcohol the rewiring is certainly not hyperbolic and not even limited to the brain. Humans have a special physiological relationship to alcohol and the human body will literally rewire both its neurological and digestive system to accommodate the increasing intake of long term alcoholics. It takes months to years for these changes to be undone, if they can be undone at all.
You're talking about withdrawal which is semi-related to an underlying diagnosis of addiction. That is to say someone can go through quitting a substance without withdrawals symptoms yet still have an addiction.
Cannabis has an inverse relationship between potency and health as alcohol. Drinking a dozen beers is (marginally) less dangerous than a dozen shots, because it takes longer to process and alcohol is a toxin. THC isn't a toxin. The smaller amount you inhale, of smoke or vapor, the better. I'll take a puff of some 90+% vapor any day over having to smoke an entire joint for the same effect.
What we need is more accurate vapor delivery devices that can meter better.
Disagree. Those 12 beers contain a vast amount of carbs that will not be in the liquor.
Now, sure, if you slam 12 shots of Cuervo back to back you're going to have a bad time - 12 shots is an entire bottle if you're actually getting full pours.
But if you consumed one shot or one beer every hour... no difference in the effects.
Hah I've known a few people to sip shots at the bar. They don't get shunned for it. It just means people don't buy them a shot.
Also most people who take shots aren't trying to get wasted. Drinking a shot the normal way every half hour to an hour alongside always having a beer to sip until done for the night is fairly standard. e.g. about 6 beers and 3 shots over the course of 2 to 4 hours.
And of course there are plenty of zero-cal mixers (like seltzer water) that you can add to the liquor and make it as sippable as you want.
That's the real play... decent gin, soda water, maybe a splash of lime juice, served on ice in a pint glass (usually ordered as a double or else it's too watery).
You up with something as sippable as beer, with fewer calories and zero added sugar. (except a little from the lime, but lime doesn't have that much by fruit standards).
PS: Shot glasses are for college students. A glencairn (good luck...) or a rocks glass are far better. Much of the taste comes from smell so you really wanna get those vapors up your nose... at least if you're drinking something worth drinking, and not just trying to get plastered on the cheap.
When I was younger, I'd have about a shot an hour or so, and simply drink water or soda in between (4 drinks over the night). I'd meet with a group of people pretty regularly for Karaoke night at a local bar. Doing so, I could pretty much go the night without getting drunk (6'1", 280# at the time). In my own experience, when it's social activity, you generally won't be shunned for not drinking as long as you are participating, and aren't talking down to those that are.
Are these UK shots or US shots? A shot in the US is almost twice as much as a shot in England (1.5oz or 44 mL vs the 25mL shots in England).
In California, 6 beers (typical beers averaging 6% abv) + 3 shots (5.5oz of hard alcohol) over 2-4 hours would be straight up alcoholic levels of consumption.
All experiences differ of course, but I am going to be wasted if I drink 6 beers and 3 shots over 4 hours. The same volume over 2 hours would probably end up sending me to bed.
Inconsistency of dosing has, at least in the past, been a significant concern — especially with regard to medicinal use. Doctors for a long time preferred herb vaporizers (and may still) because it’s frankly just the best way to accurately gauge and dose.
Except vaporizing/smoking gives wildly different results depending on the type of plant and its potency. One puff can either do not much or send you spinning, and your supposed tolerance may not even matter. The flower you smoke looks the same no matter if it has 5% THC or 35% THC, so gauging the potency of inhaled THC is practically impossible.
Edibles are very consistent, at least today they are. The problem with them is that people are stupid and don't know how to find the right dose responsibly. They take a gummy, it tastes pretty good, and then after 15 or 20 minutes they don't feel anything so they take another, because yum, it tastes like candy so why not. Then it starts to kick in after 30 or 40 minutes and it's double the dose so they feel nauseated and sick.
The best way to gauge the effects of an edible dose is to take the edible on an empty stomach, wait about 20 minutes, then eat a meal, and do not take a second dose. After eating your metabolism will get that dose into your blood stream right quick and before you're done with the meal you will definitely be feeling the full effect if you took enough. And if you don't feel much, then the dose is too low. Try again tomorrow. Don't double up the dose in the same sitting, because then you're really not getting an accurate result. Take maybe 1/3 more the next day, try again. If it's still not enough then the next day try a little more. When you find the right dose, then stick to it.
> The flower you smoke looks the same no matter if it has 5% THC or 35% THC
I get what you’re saying - but this is not practically true. Weed that contains 35% THC has a lot to do with the conditions it’s grown in which affects a lot of the other physical qualities of the weed. Smell, color, size of nug, density, humidity all are very correlated with potency.
And none of that matters to 90% of people going into a dispensary these days. A lot of people who weren't "stoners" are going to legal dispensaries and buying whatever the girl at the counter is pushing. They can't tell the smell, color, size, density or anything from one strain to another. Then they smoke too much and get "the spins".
This feels like a negative summary with a lot of assumptions chained on.
Alternate take, dispensaries have enabled many people I know to get a reliable product that acts the same each time they buy it and use it, and let them dial in exactly what strain and quantity and method of ingestion works best for them. Before the commercialization one never had the diversity and reliability of product they have now.
Contrast that to the before times where people, as you put it, bought whatever the dealer was selling.
Excellent and well-outlined info correcting my outdated understanding — which is also why I noted “in the past” several times in my comment :). Sounds like regulation has allowed for greater edible consistency indeed. AND that people taking too much too quick is still a thing, regardless.
That being said, the other side of this (in a pre-legalized world) was that the plants you grew on your own tended to be within a certain potency range, which meant 1 puff roughly equaled another — as opposed to baked goods, where butter could end up spread throughout inconsistently. There’s also the swifter intake-to-feedback loop when smoking/vaping, which made “taking too much” easier to see coming and avoid. Thus my old fashioned POV.
Baked goods usually means pot brownies, but it doesn't matter what type. I fell victim to the delicious brown squares a few times. Then I learned that if I'm going to make a batch of pot brownies, that I need to make 3 batches of brownies with only 1 being "magic", or just 1 batch of pot brownies and 3 batches of chocolate chip cookies - because what do you do when you eat some pot brownies? You want to eat more pot brownies, because they're delicious and you have the munchies now.
But you're right, it's way easier to not "overdose" with inhaled THC than it is with edibles. People just need to approach the two methods differently. Inhaling is instant gratification, where as eating is delayed gratification. Not everyone is capable of delaying gratification because so many people are impatient and impulsive. Edibles are still vastly superior in terms of healthiness so long as they aren't just 95% sugar and 5% THC.
Personally, these days I use "Protabs" which contain 0 sugar, just THC and a binder (probably corn starch) and the high is extremely clean and clear and completely guilt-free. And the dosage is very reliable and repeatable. There's no guessing involved now that I know my tolerance.
Regulation has vastly improved the situation for edibles. You can generally get accurate dosages with precise mixtures in any form factor you desire. However different states have diferring regulation.
What you recently ate can have a big impact. I only bought from reputable brands that had consistent dosages, but my diet could make two doses of the same gummy feel quite different night to night.
For me it was primarily how “heavy” the meal was. Eating 1lb of brisket with some bread would result in the edible taking longer to get into my bloodstream than something like a modest salad and some fruit.
The legal status of cannabis, including edibles, varies widely across different countries and regions. In places where cannabis is illegal or tightly regulated, discussing edibles might be avoided to comply with the law or maintain a more conservative stance on the topic.
> Drinking a dozen beers is (marginally) less dangerous than a dozen shots
It's easy to drink 12 shots in succession, but it's very hard to take 12 beers in a reasonably comparable amount of time. This is not a good comparison. It's obviously much easier to poison yourself with strong alcohol.
I've had a severe lung infection for 3+ months due to vaping and am still recovering.
I know its just an anecdote but people YOU ONLY GET ONE PAIR OF LUNGS and they heal differently then other parts of your body (or they don't heal at all - COPD is TERMINAL).
Agreed. Quitting smoking (THC) and vaping have been the two healthiest decisions I’ve ever made. I was also having breathing issues, though thankfully never as acute an issue as you did.
Idk about cannabis but I hear this all the time with cigarettes vs vaping and I just know it's a bunch of FUD.
I can not smoke cigarettes, never liked them, always got headaches from them. With vaping quality liquid I have no issues and I'm a heavy user. Not saying it's good for you but claiming it is worse or the same as literal smoke is just wrong
I won’t argue thar vaping is worse, but I will say that having less immediate discomfort at the time of use is not a solid basis for concluding it is not.
I'm talking about cartridges, which often throw chunks of superhot oil onto the lungs. let's wait for the research in 20 years that says it's also terrible.
Not sure how cannabis vapes work, but for the "I enjoy and/or am addicted to nicotine, but would rather not inhale CO, tars, particulates, etc" type, if you are vaping any oils, you're doing something wrong.
That sort of vape liquid is nicotine in a suspension of food/medical grade PG/VG and likely some small bit of flavoring in the same. It's essentially a tiny version of the fog machines that blast out vapor in nightclubs.
Very much in agreement. Cannabis as a medicine means needing other cannabinoids other than THC. The minors all contribute in ways that we're just now really starting to study for a better understanding of the why.
I wonder what the impact of cannabis being illegal federally has on this sort of thing.
A lot of people went from drinking beer and wine when Prohibition was first enacted in the US and moved to liquor. This happened because many of the speakeasies would rather have a given volume of liquor versus beer because they can serve more customers and there is less of a concern about your product being large and conspicuous.
With illicit drugs you often find the producers making the drugs more and more concentrated so they can move more product in a smaller volume and then step on it to make up the bulk later down the supply chain.
It would make sense to me that dispensaries would be more interested in buying and receiving higher THC product because they can either do more with less or they can have customers come in less often and serve more of them.
When you put metrics on something. You see its limits... then you push them. Every industry does that till they find sky is the limit but its actually about balance.
I dug the initial intense craft beers that started coming out in the late 90s/early 2ks, but got sick of it pretty quickly. A highball with American whiskey is my goto chillout drink, but when I drink beer, I like subtlety-- European pilsners, really mellow dry stouts, brown ales, and things like that. Most US craft beer fans' palates, and the commensurate offerings from craft breweries, are so jacked up that they don't even realize how distant they are from something I'm interested in drinking. The styles of the same name offered by US craft breweries are so extra compared to their namesake styles that they're totally different animals.
I'm not going to lie-- I'm also put off by some vibes in the craft beer scene has taken on in the past 10 or 15 years. When many craft beer fans see me order a classic European pilsner, with shocking frequency they a) attempt to shame me for ordering such a 'boring' beer, b) assume they need to educate me about this amazing thing called craft beer that I've clearly never encountered before, or c) assume my palate is unsophisticated. Like... listen bro... I'm a classically trained chef-- I've spent more time actively developing my palate than you've spent even thinking about it. I can tell you things you didn't know about the beer you're drinking based solely on your breath. Some very big names in craft beer were my multiple-times-per-week drinking buddies for years. I'm glad you've cultivated a passion for a locally-made food/bev product... now go be smug about your foamy bug spray juice elsewhere. lol
An old strip from the newsprint comic Zits has always stuck in my mind. In the strip, the kid takes a sip of his father's wheatgrass smoothie and describes it as licking the bottom of a lawnmower.
That is how I feel about most of the overpoweringly strong IPAs that have been all the rage for so long.
That's wild. Sorry people were negative to you. That sort of reaction is very alien to me. I've had thousands of beers with many hundreds of people and never really encountered that.
No need to apologize for other people's bad behavior. Craft beer doesn't have more snobs than any other group of passionate people-- certainly not more than fancy food-- but the nerdy one-upsmanship is much more prevalent. I think for some of these guys it's their equivalent to trash talking about sports or other kinds of fandom, and for others, it's a way to quell insecurity about their own knowledge level in a realm that they consider competitive.
I worked in bars and restaurants as a side gig for about 15 years and full-time for a few so the sheer number of people I've encountered naturally means I'll have encountered more dinks than most. And because of my food/bev-industry-heavy social set, I've spent quite a lot of time in the more "serious" craft beer bars, and those are magnets for that type. That said, I've also spent a ton of time in high-end restaurants and wine bars and never had anyone make snide comments about, say, ordering a more straightforward wine or a cheeseburger (but in kitchens, I've definitely heard chefs talk shit about people ordering burgers... mostly because they're frustrated more people aren't trying their more creative offerings. And then they go home and eat hot pockets for dinner.) And most sommeliers I've encountered are so worried about coming across like snobs that they almost overcompensate.
I mean, I'd definitely try such a thing if someone offered it to me. You often can't predict how multiple complex flavors will snap together and sometimes weird-sounding things are counterintuitively amazing. That said, the chance I'd drink something like that regularly is zero.
While I'm classically trained, my focus is from-scratch bar food while keeping it at the same price point as the frozen food service shit. I used white truffles, beluga caviar, and things like that when working in fine dining and in culinary school, but never once have I purchased such things for my own menu.
Considering that I'm responding to other people's assumption that they are superior to me based on my beer order, I don't feel the slightest bit bad about taking a dig at them.
As an aside, how often do you offer unsolicited patronizing critique of other people's beer order?
Might be because there's a lot of people like me that only like that style of beer. I don't dislike other types of beer, but I'd rather drink something else than a lager, stout, porter, pilsner, etc. I've found that there aren't a lot of diehards for any other style, but IPA diehards are a dime a dozen.
Agreed, IPAs(west coast, hazy, etc) are pretty much the only beer I enjoy drinking(for taste). Occasionally, I'll take a lager on a hot day when I want something really "light".
I could drink a hazy pale or NEIPA anytime, it would be my desert island style for sure. Never liked the high IBU IPAs that were everywhere for a while because of the bitterness. (And I love all the Campari-adjacent cocktails)
I feel similarly about the store-bought THC products in Canada. They're like high ABV, hopped-up IPAs when really I just want a light, refreshing, repeatable beer with good flavour.
yep. I'm currently pretty fatigued with the offerings at bottle shops and taprooms....increasingly glad I committed to brewing my own a long while back. Currently sipping on a very delightful British Golden Ale - a style I haven't seen commercially available around me, but will now be a standard in my summer brewing.
Why would an industry that sells a addictive and harmful product do that? alcohol is more harmful and cannabis is more addictive (comparing how many say they try to quit), but apart from that they're not so different from the market perspective.
Craft beers are just a niche. I don't trust the industry to self-regulate towards less profit.
Gotta just be blunt here and let you know that yours id an awful take and those are awful reference points you're drawing from there. I'm stunned to find anyone this far removed from the release of "Reefer Madness" who believes that cannabis is more addictive than alcohol.
As a recovered addict who has spent many months in multiple rehabs and many hours at meetings -- with hundreds of other addicts, I can assure you that booze is EASILY more dangerous/unhealthy/addictive than weed. Across the board; worse by every general measure.
Dangerous/unhealth/addictive are three different things! I specifically said alcohol is more dangerous and unhealthy.
Judging from the number of users who say they would like to stop using it but can't, cannabis is more addictive, however. There are plenty of surveys of this, and I've seen even cannabis activists take them seriously, advocating offerings to cut down/quit similar to those we offer to smokers.
I don't know why, and this is just one possible measure of addictiveness, but it is what it is.
It seems difficult to measure this, as it's wildly varying in addictiveness depending on the wildly varying affects each human gets from the substances.
Yes, it's just one possible way to measure. But I think the number of users who say they've tried to cut down/quit and failed, is a pretty practical measure.
CBD is on its own an effective antipsychotic (comparable efficacy to one of the common treatment options in schizophrenia in a 2013 study), and has repeatedly been shown to balance out the psychotic effects of THC.
And I'd say easily 80% or more of the products I've seen in any dispensary I've walked into have ~0% of CBD compared to those heavy THC amounts.
It's no longer "just using something that grows as part of nature" if you completely disrupt the balance of the natural high with extreme levels of selective breeding and processing.
For starters, everyone’s goals for cannabis use are different. A person with Crohn’s for example, who uses cannabis for nausea relief will surely have a different ideal ratio of THC:CBD than a weekend warrior who uses it for muscle pain. There’s no one dosage or ratio that works for everyone and I think that you are greatly exaggerating the importance of weed's so-called "entourage effect" re: THC, THCA, CBD...prolly some terpenes floatin' around in there. I dunno...
Besides, pursuing greater THC "heights" and in process, pushing out CBD has been the way for decades. This is nothing new and those "80% of strains" you sneer at are borne of the same methodology as previous efforts before commercial outfits perfected it.
What's more, "CBD heavy" strains with only 0.3% THC are wildly in demand these days. The more "balanced" iterations with up to ~20-25% THC & ~6-12% CBD are also gaining in popularity.
I have a hard time finding 5mg dose edibles for my wife. Most are 10 plus. Was at the dispensary the other day and a girl who probably weighed 115lbs suggested I try capsules as they are stronger. Capsules are 30mg and she says she takes 2 at a time.
That dosage is insane to me. I'm 235lbs and 15mg is a solid, "I'm not driving" dose for me.
I'm not sure you want advice, but I use edible medicinally. I live in Washington and discussed it with my doctors. I also can pretty much only find 10mg doses. What I've found is that after a year I built a tolerance but because I'm regimented with my doctor, 10mg 1x every night, my tolerance has balanced out. It still affects me enough to put me to sleep but it doesn't drop below that. Before I talked to my doctor I was increasing my dosages and it felt like an endless uphill battle to get to the point I could sleep comfortably.
I'm not sure if you're looking for recreational or medicinal, but if it's medicinal the key is to have a regiment. If not, just cut the edible in half. If you're buying gummies they're well enough mixed that you can track the dosage by portioning them carefully.
Fuckin crazy. In Washington, you cant buy an individual serving over 10mg. Nothing stopping you from eating the whole bag really, but I've heard of other states having edibles up in the 200mg range which seems nuts to me!
Edibles at high doses are a completely different experience. a 60mg dose would be comparable to acid with heavy thought loops and perhaps ego death. Some people are looking for that I guess.
Tolerance varies insanely for edibles. Some people dont process them like others. Ive heard about people just not getting high from edibles at all, even high doses like you described. It‘d be curious if this phenomenon is backed by science or not.
One thing I've noticed is that a lot of edibles these days, especially stuff like the candies, don't have the same 'profile' as old school brownies and whatnot. The requirement for precise dosing means many edibles are made using some sort of extract that's been refined to a specific potency, but that can end up losing some of the other psychoactive compounds. But people are sensitive to different cannabinoids differently, which has led to a bigger variance in tolerance I think.
Edibles don't work for me, I'm so sick of hearing about edibles as the "fix all" to health issues. I vape loose leaf cannabis, I'm also sick of people assuming everyone who "vapes" uses cartridges.
Grow the plant, cut and dry the plant, heat the plant & breathe it in. It's pretty simple.
Edibles can definitely do the same, but not distillate made stuff from the store.
Even trying a firecracker (herb cooked in peanut butter on a tortilla chip) at home with your existing purchase of plant matter can show you the difference.
I'm one of those people for whom edibles don't really seem to work. Knowing this, last time I gave it a go I took 90mg followed by another 90mg an hour later. Didn't feel a thing. Don't think I'll buy any again.
It's so easy/cheap to use low-spectrum cannabis oil in edibles, and most uneducated/recreational users can't/won't feel the difference between how THC feels, compared with all of the compounds you're supposed to have together when using cannabis.
I had that problem too. I can usually eat like 40-60mg without anything... And yet one night I took a 10mg all by itself and had an amazing time! It makes no sense to me.
I've been using recreationally for 20 years and a 10mg edible still hits me plenty hard. 20 would hit me like a donkey kick, 60 would make me extremely uncomfortable to say the least.
Lucky. You can add a 0 on the end of those for me, more than that at the high end. I've done 1000mg over the course of ~12 hours before. Now, admittedly I wasn't DOING a whole lot in those 12 hours (mostly watching movies), but I was functional enough that if called upon to do so I could have had a coherent conversation.
I have to cut the 10mg gummies. 1.25mg is my happy place, and if I take more than 2.5mg the room will be rolling and I'll feel totally sick to my stomach for hours.
If you have a tolerance 50mg is nothing. That doesn't even get me high now, forget about when I took edibles every day (minimum 300mg). I'm not a genetic freak or anything either, my wife developed tolerance at the same pace as me.
Anecdotal, but at sufficiently high doses, I've noticed that you can make contact with extracorporeal entities. I perceive them as distorted cartoon characters. I have taken other psychedelics like LSD-25, but only edibles at very high doses give me this effect.
There is a hemp derived mixture called "purple berry" that is so e proprietary blend of a bunch of cannabinoids. I took a whole one, once, and it was a massive trip, so crazy I don't want to do it again. A quarter of one means I'm doing a movie (or nothing) for the night.
For me, 5-10mg of delta 8 is a good relaxing evening. On the low end, it's an anxiety reducer, on the high end of that, a bit of a giggle and indacouch feeling. 25 mg (one gummy) is a zonk the brain kind of night.
Honestly, for knowing I drink too much alcohol, d8 can be a great substitute on the way to quasi sobriety.
Grey market isolated canabanoids are not at all the same. I would use caution with all of them, and particularly their sources, processing, and purity.
Interesting, my wife takes a third to half of a 5mg edible and is good. I take 10mg and then another 5mg about 45 minutes later. I have taken 50mg over the course of a day before but I think the max single dose I have taken is 20mg and I was pretty high but still sociable. I like to maintain a solid sense of control.
It's easy to build a tolerance if you get high enough. I started smoking after years of not, and I was taking 2.5mg feeling toasssstty. But now I need +100mg to get me stoned off edibles.
Becoming a regular smoker is often a hunt for something that can get you just as high as the first time, but nothing will. (Concentrates can get you very high, though.)
With that said, I want to lower my usage -- and, admittedly, it has been hard. Especially if there's hardly anything disincentivizing me from not feeling good all the time. I also have ADHD and take Adderall every day, so it's a part of a routine that has a designated dopamine hit a least once every 1.5hrs, whether that be coffee, weed, whatever.
Being a regular smoker seems to require regular breaks or your tolerance is going to blow through your budget and you won't even have the advantage of being high while all your money disappears. A week or two off does wonders. A few months off and that first day back is really nice. I've never been very good at regulating my dosages. I find it much easier to switch between consuming all I want / not consuming anything at all than trying to maintain a consistent low dosage.
> Becoming a regular smoker is often a hunt for something that can get you just as high as the first time, but nothing will. (Concentrates can get you very high, though.)
At my peak, I was a half-gram, gram of concentrates a day smoker. There was always the option of taking three or four good dabs in a row and getting past the point of high and into psychedelic panic. The idea that "you can never get as high as the first time" is a total myth peddled by the same people who claim it's a "gateway drug".
Yeah but the first time you get high as fuck, you are high for hours and dont need more than a tiny smoke. Now you need to take 3 or 4 dabs to get that high? Certainly something has changed.
Since you take a single puff of that pen, is it an oil cart you’re hitting that has just 3% THC?
For those who want to try using low controlled doses like you said, I gotta recommend dry herb/flower vapes - the normie portable ones, not the $400 desktop vape with a fan and everything. It’s easier to find low-but-not-0 THC flower than oil cartridges IME, and if you can’t find them, you can just pack less. It’s also a lot easier on your lungs and having to take multiple hits per packed chamber allows you to control your dose a bit better. Low dose edibles also work but they can last a long time in your body due to being metabolized differently and are similarly hard to find.
You can also mix CBD flower with THC flower to reintroduce what has been bred out. People here might appreciate a setup with a dynavap and an induction heater built from parts and a bit of soldering.
Yeah, it's an oil cart. I've been recommended dry flower vapes before, but for me personally it's just more involved of a process than I'm looking for. The oil cart is zero setup, zero smell, zero cleanup. Hard to beat.
Yeah, I’m convinced that the concentration of THC found in products these days is unhealthy. I’m a weed user myself, but since legalization I haven’t had a great experience due to the high THC contents.
Where do you find the 3% THC in California? Hopefully, it’s someplace in the Bay Area.
This reminds me of spice. Synthetic cannabinoids started in 00s as a legal alternative to weed, but in a span of just around 10 years evolved into one of the most frightening drugs out there.
JWH-018, the first very widely available one seemed safer (based on my own limited research) than those that followed, but was banned. it's the same thing every time. chemical gets banned, more dangerous but legal chemical takes it's place, cycle continues.
Myself if I stay away from any cannabis projects for about two weeks I can almost forget that the stuff exists. However, if I have the stuff around I find it almost impossible to say no and I rapidly dose escalate. My guess is that cannabis smoking has both an irritating and anti-inflammatory effect so if I am smoking my breathing is OK and if I am away for two weeks I am OK but my breathing gets bad maybe 4-5 days after quitting. A vape just doesn’t do it for me.
Same for me, I am prescribed medical cannabis for neuropathic pain and by default they gave me 18% THC.
After a year of getting more and more anxious and panic I did some research and ecided to try 5% THC with 10% CBD, this is much better. No more couch lock, better sleep, more productive and waayyy less anxiety. Same if not better effect on pain.
>Look for federally legal hemp derived delta 9 products. They usually max out at 5 or 10mg per serving
So funny that that law didn't account for how edibles work. If you have a baked good (brownie, cookie, etc.) which weighs 100 grams, and it contains 29mg delta-9 THC, thats below the 0.3% legal threshold, and still a solid dose.
I always try to explain this to people, that the Republicans actually unwittingly legalized weed in 2017, but no one ever gets it. Fact is, delta-9 THC edibles are now federally legal (and can be ordered online) in all 50 states due to the Farm Bill loophole.
That's because the loophole doesn't exist. It's an obviously flawed interpretation of the 2018 Farm Bill which isn't likely to hold up in court when it's finally tested there.
The prefatory text to Schedule I(c) of the Controlled Substances Act removes all doubt: “[u]nless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or preparation, which contains any quantity of the following hallucinogenic substances” is a Schedule I substance.
A 12 mg THC extract infused into a 4-gram gummy consisting of non-cannabis isn’t a “hemp” gummy. It is a “material,” “mixture,” or “preparation” containing “marihuana,” which is a Schedule I controlled substance.
> That's because the loophole doesn't exist. It's an obviously flawed interpretation of the 2018 Farm Bill which isn't likely to hold up in court when it's finally tested there.
It's been tested somewhat (interestingly, in a trademark case which rested on whether the infringed trademark was for a legal product) and it has succeeded at the Circuit Court level. AK Futures LLC v. Boyd Street Distro, LLC, 9th Cir. No. 2-56113 (May 19, 2022):
Importantly, the only statutory metric for distinguishing controlled marijuana from legal hemp is the delta-9 THC concentration level. In addition, the definition extends beyond just the plant to “all derivatives, extracts, [and] cannabinoids.” 7 U.S.C. § 1639o(1). The use of “all” indicates a sweeping statutory reach. See Lambright v. Ryan, 698 F.3d 808, 817 (9th Cir. 2012) (“The common meaning of the word ‘all’ is ‘the whole amount, quantity, or extent of; as much as possible’ . . . .” (quoting All, Merriam-Webster (online ed., visited Oct. 4, 2012))). This seemingly extends to downstream products and substances, so long as their delta-9 THC concentration does not exceed the statutory threshold.
Of course, as this was on an appeal of a denial of a preliminary injunction, the ruling is framed in likelihood of success rather than absolute terms, but its a pretty strong negative indicator for your argument that this is a clearly incorrect interpretation that no court would take seriously, since both the District Court and the Circuit Court very much took it seriously.
Who would waste their time litigating such a case when the legalization trend is so clear? A solid majority of US citizens live in states which have already decided that federal marijuana laws are irrelevant.
As other commenters have said, I think "the train has already left the station" on this one, and considering even conservative states aren't trying to crack down on this, who's going to bring it to court?
For example, Florida recently was about to pass a state law limiting the total amount of THC in each individual edible, which would have killed the "legal D9 THC" market. They apparently got huge pushback from producers/consumers in the state and dropped any limits: https://floridaphoenix.com/blog/florida-senate-approves-hemp...
Edit: BTW, though, that link from Matt Zorn was great, thanks for posting.
>which isn't likely to hold up in court when it's finally tested there.
This is the key. Who will ever bring this in front of a judge? The "anti-weed" lobby has all but ceased to exist. Which leaves basically a small handful of deep red state attorney generals that would even have the standing to be able to attempt it.
And which side do you think has the funding (and incentive) to defend it all the way to the supreme court?
The floodgates have opened, and they're never going back. There's simply too much money and momentum behind it. Even the conservatives are on board at this point now that they've seen the tax revenues.
Apparently, an accused trademark violator, in the hopes of proving that, as it was not in legal use in trade, the trademark they are accused of violating was not valid in the first place.
> I always try to explain this to people, that the Republicans actually unwittingly legalized weed in 2017, but no one ever gets it.
It's because you're using the word wrong. Weed is illegal federally. The problem is that you think THC is weed, and Delta-9 is weed, and CBD is weed. Words have meaning. A caffeine pill isn't coffee, and beef steak isn't a cow. Something being derived from something doesn't make it that original thing.
I think they are using the word correctly in the commonly agreed upon wording. Republicans legalized hemp technically, then set the legal definition of hemp such that THCa flower fit under that definition. THCa flower does not have more than 0.3% THC by weight (well it might but that's another issue of allowing pre harvest testing), it can however have more than 0.3% THCa by weight. THCa converts to THC when exposed to heat (such as combustion in a joint, pipe, oven, etc.). In common word usage of weed as a plant that gets you high off THC when you smoke it then they did legalize 'weed'.
It was funny last year when Minnesota set a limit of 5mg/serving and 50mg/package. All this stuff in the news about MN legalizing edibles, but they just put a limit on potency of products that were already sold there. And now you can get cans of seltzer that have 10mg and call it 2 servings.
These guys are legit. I just toured their production facility last week and I was impressed enough that we chose them as our contract manufacturer for gummies.
Most people don't know about Delta-9 yet. It was brought to my attention when I saw a video about a business selling Delta-9 drinks in an illegal state.
Delta 9 is the long-known active ingredient in regular marijuana. You're thinking of delta 8, which is a new isolate.
This is kind of my point though. When I talk about this stuff, people assume I just mean delta 8, or CBD or whatever. Nope. Straight up delta 9 edibles are 100% federally legal now.
You could explain why it matters, instead of complaining that people don't understand. Delta-8 is also psychoactive and not well known so it's easy to mix up.
CBD has been legal for a while and is completely different than THC products so it shouldn't be compared.
Stating Delta-9 is legal, not Delta-8, is not that big of a difference. If you think it is, you should talk about why it matters because your attitude obviously hasn't worked thus far for dealing with people who just don't understand. Maybe, you're not concerned with people understanding as much as you state.
However, these products are disappointingly few and far between. When I walk into a CA dispensary, I actually have to hunt around for them, if they're even available. When I ask, staff members wonder if I'm buying it for my grandmother! It would be great to see the industry refocus on products that are designed to be consumed in moderation.