More unpleasant news for edibles..

[homebrew420]

http://mmjbusinessdaily.com/denver-food-regulators-inspect-edibles-companies-issue-product-recalls/

Personally I don't really get it. The edibles thing that is. I will start off with the fact that I enjoy an edible now and again. I know my dosage and never overdue it. This is with personal supply and made in house. Different, I know, than what is going on in theses kitchens.

My question is what is the point of edibles if not in a regulated dose in a pill form? Say made with hash and coconut oil? Why the need to bake into foods?

Thoughts?

Peace

 

[Aladeen OG]

hey man! you're killing my hopes for the banana K'pins to come back! haha!

is interesting to think about. as far as a "recreational lets get high" vibe yeah cook it into some munchies, but as far as medicine, i see your point. its like if pfizer started making coconut muffins with valluum in it. lmao

 

[homebrew420]

I think in would eat a few of those muffins. Hahaha

Peace

 

[squiggly]

If they made ativan muffins I would smash them shits.

I think medibles should be restricted to medical patients to be honest. It makes sense for some people to do the delivery this way (some folks have trouble swallowing pills) if that's how they want it. Moreover, if they're doing it for a legit medical reasoning they're more likely to follow instructions and to be careful with their dosages.

Someone who just wants to get high can definitely take way too much.

You can't overdose in terms of toxicity without getting crazy--but you definitely can take so much that it causes systems of your body to fail via secondary effects (like tachycardia). The stuff also is psychoactive and your brain can only handle so much at a time before it starts getting all wonky.

As we concentrate this stuff more and more, and move towards higher dosages, you're going to see more dangerous reactions that people have not less.

It won't be more than 5 years till someone goes into cardiac arrest secondarily to intoxication. Strictly speaking this isn't an overdose, but you'll die all the same.

 

[LocalGrowGuy]

If they made ativan muffins I would smash them shits.

I think medibles should be restricted to medical patients to be honest. It makes sense for some people to do the delivery this way (some folks have trouble swallowing pills) if that's how they want it. Moreover, if they're doing it for a legit medical reasoning they're more likely to follow instructions and to be careful with their dosages.

Someone who just wants to get high can definitely take way too much.

You can't overdose in terms of toxicity without getting crazy--but you definitely can take so much that it causes systems of your body to fail via secondary effects (like tachycardia). The stuff also is psychoactive and your brain can only handle so much at a time before it starts getting all wonky.

As we concentrate this stuff more and more, and move towards higher dosages, you're going to see more dangerous reactions that people have not less.

It won't be more than 5 years till someone goes into cardiac arrest secondarily to intoxication. Strictly speaking this isn't an overdose, but you'll die all the same.

Oh, it will be covered as an overdose assuming the mass hysteria going on now. It's crazy to me that every news story that has any element of marijuana in it, puts total blame on the marijuana but not the booze or pills or anything else. Holy shit I hate politics.

 

[squiggly]

Oh, it will be covered as an overdose assuming the mass hysteria going on now. It's crazy to me that every news story that has any element of marijuana in it, puts total blame on the marijuana but not the booze or pills or anything else. Holy shit I hate politics.

It's quite possible that it *is* an overdose, it's just that we've only recently discovered the endocannabinoid system in the first place (by scientific standards)--so it's tough to nail down what is/isn't toxicity relative to that system. We're not even sure on how the damn thing works just yet, but we're getting there.

It's easier to tease out toxicity in some of these other substances (opiates, alcohol, methamphetamines) because the ranges for acute toxicity are much lower and the effects are well understood.

50 years from now we'll probably have a value for acute toxicity of cannabinoids and there will be range where a THC overdose can be declared if someone dies. Right now, all we can say is they had the stuff in their system. Part of what prevents us knowing what the range is now is:

1. Doses until very recently almost certainly never reached the ranges required for acute cannabinoid toxicity in the general case. (Ranges would be much lower in susceptible individuals--the same way someone with a heart defect would be more susceptible to a cocaine overdose).
2. We don't understand the way the endocannabinoid system is reacting to particular cannabinoids.
3. We scarcely understand the endocannabinoid system at all.

As time goes on, #2 and #3 will come off the list. As potency and dosages go up, so likely will #1.

Our failure in understanding is largely a byproduct of prohibition. We'd likely be in a similar spot with heroin, for instance, if we didn't have such extensive testing of legal opiates (and such wide use of them even before heroin was illicit).

 

[LocalGrowGuy]

It's quite possible that it *is* an overdose, it's just that we've only recently discovered the endocannabinoid system in the first place (by scientific standards)--so it's tough to nail down what is/isn't toxicity relative to that system. We're not even sure on how the damn thing works just yet, but we're getting there.

It's easier to tease out toxicity in some of these other substances (opiates, alcohol, methamphetamines) because the ranges for acute toxicity are much lower and the effects are well understood.

50 years from now we'll probably have a value for acute toxicity of cannabinoids and there will be range where a THC overdose can be declared if someone dies. Right now, all we can say is they had the stuff in their system. Part of what prevents us knowing what the range is now is:

1. Doses until very recently almost certainly never reached the ranges required for acute cannabinoid toxicity in the general case. (Ranges would be much lower in susceptible individuals--the same way someone with a heart defect would be more susceptible to a cocaine overdose).
2. We don't understand the way the endocannabinoid system is reacting to particular cannabinoids.
3. We scarcely understand the endocannabinoid system at all.

As time goes on, #2 and #3 will come off the list. As potency and dosages go up, so likely will #1.

Our failure in understanding is largely a byproduct of prohibition. We'd likely be in a similar spot with heroin, for instance, if we didn't have such extensive testing of legal opiates (and such wide use of them even before heroin was illicit).

That would be well and great, except that our government does not allow medical testing, clinical trials, etc, of any schedule 1 substances. Marijuana is schedule 1, opiates are not, therefore we have the testing on opiates.

Marijuana would have to be re-scheduled, which means 'they', whoever that is, would have to allow marijuana to be treated like any other class 2 or lower drug. There's just too much money in it being illegal. It's also a convenient excuse for the law enforcement complex in that they can say there is no medical data etc etc.

Here are the schedules and drugs. There is no reason that marijuana should be anywhere on this list.

 

[squiggly]

I'd honestly be surprised as shit if marijuana hasn't already caused the death of a multitude of smokers.

People often say that marijuana has never caused a single overdose, but they take that statement further than it's meant to go.

An overdose has to do with acute toxicity. Because we do not KNOW the level of cannabinoids required to cause acute toxicity--a medical examiner cannot put cannabinoids down as a cause of death. Therefore, there have been no "overdoses".

That doesn't mean that people haven't smoked, experienced the predictable tachycardia that it causes and keeled over due to an unknown (or ignored) heart defect, blood pressure issue, or any other number of issues related to the cardiovascular system.

The stuff kicks your heart into high gear and does REALLY weird shit to a few systems of your body that we don't even fully understand yet.

There is a difference between saying something can't kill you and saying that a medical examiner can't legally say that it killed you. A huge difference.

That doesn't mean pot isn't safer than alcohol or what-have-you. There's a lot of evidence that it is.

A person who would be at risk at relatively small doses for a cannabis "overdose" would be equally if not more susceptible to risk from drinking alcohol.

Unfortunately these untrue and overall confusing statements that people go around saying are nothing but an effect of the lack of research, and of confusion about the reality of ingesting foreign substances into the body.

THC has marked effects on the cardiovascular system--often negative ones. That is something we DO know (its one of the few things that we know quite well about THC--there have been plenty of human trials even). It stands to reason between that and the its widespread use that people have died from smoking pot. I hate to burst everyone's bubble but that's the truth.

Too much of anything can kill you, as can just the right amount of something if you're at risk for effects it causes.

 

[chickenman]

I'd honestly be surprised as shit if marijuana hasn't already caused the death of a multitude of smokers.

People often say that marijuana has never caused a single overdose, but they take that statement further than it's meant to go.

An overdose has to do with acute toxicity. Because we do not KNOW the level of cannabinoids required to cause acute toxicity--a medical examiner cannot put cannabinoids down as a cause of death. Therefore, there have been no "overdoses".

That doesn't mean that people haven't smoked, experienced the predictable tachycardia that it causes and keeled over due to an unknown (or ignored) heart defect, blood pressure issue, or any other number of issues related to the cardiovascular system.

The stuff kicks your heart into high gear and does REALLY weird shit to a few systems of your body that we don't even fully understand yet.

There is a difference between saying something can't kill you and saying that a medical examiner can't legally say that it killed you. A huge difference.

That doesn't mean pot isn't safer than alcohol or what-have-you. There's a lot of evidence that it is.

A person who would be at risk at relatively small doses for a cannabis "overdose" would be equally if not more susceptible to risk from drinking alcohol.

Unfortunately these untrue and overall confusing statements that people go around saying are nothing but an effect of the lack of research, and of confusion about the reality of ingesting foreign substances into the body.

THC has marked effects on the cardiovascular system--often negative ones. That is something we DO know (its one of the few things that we know quite well about THC--there have been plenty of human trials even). It stands to reason between that and the its widespread use that people have died from smoking pot. I hate to burst everyone's bubble but that's the truth.

Too much of anything can kill you, as can just the right amount of something if you're at risk for effects it causes.

Come on Squig, Too much of everything is just enough LOL....
Sometimes I get a intense head rush with a throbbing effect, pass out briefly hands tingle. My Blood pressure is perfect but I wonder wtf is going on, happens not to often mostly on new different strains get ripped for a second or two then fine...
Had lots of edibles really don't get me baked much at all....

 

[LocalGrowGuy]

THC has marked effects on the cardiovascular system--often negative ones. That is something we DO know (its one of the few things that we know quite well about THC--there have been plenty of human trials even). It stands to reason between that and the its widespread use that people have died from smoking pot. I hate to burst everyone's bubble but that's the truth.

Too much of anything can kill you, as can just the right amount of something if you're at risk for effects it causes.

I am not aware of any human trials on cannabis due to it's schedule 1 status - no recognized medical benefits. Do you have a source to cite? Was it outside the US?

 

[squiggly]

I am not aware of any human trials on cannabis due to it's schedule 1 status - no recognized medical benefits. Do you have a source to cite? Was it outside the US?

Unfortunately I could only give you abstracts right now--and they're not the ones that I looked at. I don't currently have at-home access to the university servers which is where I found most of this info.

What I can tell you:

1. I'm not blowing smoke up your ass.
2. There have been plenty of human trials.
3. Recent ones have been out of country for the most part (but not all)
4. These were effects well understood as early as the 60's and 70's during which there were quite a few human trials performed here in the US.

Most of the new research builds off the research from the 70's and simply added in various drugs to see what what was antagonizing the cardiovascular effects. IE, are they alleviated by atropine/propranolol/etc. This gives them an idea of what receptor is being acted on by the stuff.

Furthermore, again I can't find them right now, but there are a myriad of effects on lipid synthesis, lipid storage and transport, and other lipid-y stuff--which also have implications for cardiovascular health (and might be a mediating factor in some of the observed BP issues).

Here's an example of a 1979 article which covered human trials:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00426733

You'll notice it discusses "characteristic tachycardia" in the abstract. As I've said this is a well understood and established effect of the drug in humans--this language echoes that. The data would do the same if we had access to the article.

It's a pretty marked effect, so it's not some tiny percentage fraction. We're talking taking resting heart rate from 70 to above 100. Not a statistically tiny result by any stretch.

Here's a more recent study covering some effects relating to abrupt cessation that are pretty striking:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3045206/

Here's an example of US human trials taking place in 1992:




What you commonly hear is that there is no research being done because it's schedule 1. That's not precisely true. There isn't a great deal of research being done to determine medically beneficial effects--but there's actually quite a lot of data out there on the ill effects.

A case study:



A meta analysis published in 2007:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167527306007789

and so on. This is just what I can find in google--which is a really terrible tool for doing this type of research. If I had access to the university I could literally pull up journal after journal after journal.

Ultimately what is clear is that there are serious and lasting physiological effects related to smoking.

That certainly doesn't mean the stuff should be illegal, but we should also not be willfully ignorant of this. It's also not proper to discuss cannabis as though there are no ill effects. It's just not true.

There are no particularly acute ill effects at typical dosages--but that's a far stretch from it can never hurt you ever, and that's what most people are walking around saying to people and believing themselves. Hell I'm currently dealing with a lot of cardiovascular issues myself, and the doctors can't figure it out.

I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised to find out it has something to do with me smoking pot all day every day since the age of 13. Not even slightly surprised. I love my pot, though, so I probably won't let that sway me still :)

Obviously this ignorance hurts the legitimacy of the movement--because in essence the people carrying the flag don't know what the hell they're talking about. If you want to be taken seriously you must protect your credibility like it's all that you have (because it is).

Our "lobby" if we can call it that has been bleeding this credibility for most of the push for legalization over the last 15ish years--almost totally unbenknownst to them unfortunately.

 

[LocalGrowGuy]

Fantastic post. I appreciate the follow up. I guess I was more thinking about people boasting about the medical benefits, without being able to point to any published evidence. I don't think our government would ever consider the info you just posted to be accurate.

There is too much money in our prison industrial complex, and too much money supplied by Big Pharma, to ever get totally legal. I think some of the new regs make sense, such as suggested dosing. I think a lot of people who have never had edibles take too high of a dose, and combine that with the time it takes to set in, and I can see how it would be an issue for new folks trying them. I also don't think the actual product is consistent either. My brother and I are roughly the same height and weight, same tolerance etc. We shared a dabba, 50 mg apiece. Within a half hour he appeared to be drunk, slurring speech, red eyes, shortness of breath. I was fine.

 

[growchick421]

Even though the USA does not preform many tests on cannabis, other countries do want to know and do preform extensive testing on the subject. What is it... I think it's the Netherlands that does the most extensive research. So to say that there is no research being done from it being a class 1 is not true.

The FBI, I believe, has something to do with where marijuana stands in the toxicity rating ( weather it be class 1,2 or 3). I kinda remember reading that they r thinking about changing their policies on pot smokers... but this could be a bunch of bonk :D.