re: OT potheads, what's your opinion of "wax?"

quote:

---

Point taken. I don't disagree. However, this has nothing to do with my point, which is the effects on full-to-hyperstimulation of CB1 receptors in the absence of cannabidiol which are better understood because of synthetics.

---

Great. I never touch it and tell others to avoid it. It isn't marijuana. Linking the two is completely dishonest.

From your own link:

quote:

---

There has been considerable debate regarding the causal relationship between chronic cannabis abuse and psychiatric disorders. Clinicians agree that cannabis use can cause acute adverse mental effects that mimic psychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Although there is good evidence to support this, the connections are complex and not fully understood.

---

I quote this because it's the basic crux of what I think you're saying, the theme of Obama's retraction of his statement, and the leading, vague argument by opponents. "We just don't fully understand it yet." Opponents will say the same thing 1000 years from now, or as long as they can get away with it.

quote:

---

Everything can be concentrated to deadly levels. How many of them are concentrated with intent for recreational use?

---

Any and all of them that can be. In Africa, people huff their own fermented shite.

quote:

---

pretty good science

---

Not as good as it used to be.

quote:

---

The question I have is best put like this: are all 60ish cannabinoids separated equally? Or do any dominate in the extraction? 

---

I would assume basically equal. All it does is knock the little crystals off the plant.

quote:

---

They make a new penicillin. People who used to take penicillin just fine are now allergic to the new stuff at a rate of 15%.

---

I get that. What I'm trying to explain is "wax" is not something new. It's just weed with a scary name and a propagandists spin. Literally no different at all except concentrated. Like the difference between a beer and a shot of everclear.

quote:

---

I would assume basically equal. All it does is knock the little crystals off the plant.

---

The point is that if its only increasing THC levels and not CBD levels (which it sounds like) then the psych issues could come into play

quote:

---

I quote this because it's the basic crux of what I think you're saying, the theme of Obama's retraction of his statement, and the leading, vague argument by opponents. "We just don't fully understand it yet." Opponents will say the same thing 1000 years from now, or as long as they can get away with it.

---

I insist that providing a casual relationship isn't necessary. Here is why. Some people have a schizophrenic mom or dad. They go smoke for a weekend and get brought in with symptoms of schizophrenia. You admit them. Upon learning the whole history, instead of starting them on meds, you wait. You give them time. They come back to normal. They don't require treatment after the fact. They never show schizophrenic signs other than while smoking. Do you or I need a causal link rather than casual association (don't go dyslexic on me there) to determine the best way to treat them?

From here, I say that this number isn't that big. It's also not that concerning. What IS concerning is the notion that, instead of this happening to the current percentage of the population that number expands and includes people that aren't identifiable (called "normal").

So I will agree with your point that not knowing whether the at-risk group expands or not and saying "we don't fully understand" will be gotten away with for as long as it can (or until widespread use is achieved, looked at, and documented as more, less, or no change in current side effect profile from current trends and strains.

quote:

---

Any and all of them that can be. In Africa, people huff their own fermented shite.

---

I'll concede the point, but I will also leave you with a "you know damn well that more people use more highly concentrated toxic versions of drugs for recreational use to the point that they're putting themselves at risk than those that take the super-powered drano and ingest or shoot it up," even if I can't prove it.

quote:

---

The way I understand the plant, all of the thc and cbd ate contained in these crystals which manifest prominently on the buds of the plant. They are basically inseparable without some kind of advanced scientific process.

---

Here's the science-side/based fear:
We don't know their individual polar/non polar solubilities of the molecules involved. If it comes out in regular proportions, basically all is fine and dandy. If CBD (and again, there are around 60 identified unique molecules, this is thought the be THE antagonist of the bunch , but there easily could be others at play) falls off at a slower rate, psych issues are a concern. If it falls off at a faster rate, you'll actually lose efficacy by concentration as opposed to volume- consuming (assuming yield doesn't reach 100%).

quote:

---

I like how you are basically agreeing with everyone but they keep thinking you are attacking them.

---

I chalk it up to the original knee-jerk "HE SAID POT ISNT THE BEST THING IN THE WORLD HE IS DUM" reaction usually given to those who are anti-marijuana and in general have zero real reason for being so. Once the few posters that started reading what I was saying a little more in depth, this got a lot more enjoyable and has been a pretty interesting discussion on the topic.

Doc, I'm on the same page.

What exactly are the psch concerns. Doesn't weed psychosis only last a few hours? Isnt it basically someone getting to high and freaking out?