E. g.,
https://www.acc.org/Latest-in-Cardiology/Journal-Scans/2025/...
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/cannabis-use-cardiova...
As is established tradition, the scientists did a meta-analysis of studies that did not control for method of administration. (Your second link - healthline - notes that: "There was no delineation in the analysis, however, on the risks of smoking cannabis compared to ingesting it."). I have yet to see any evidence that edibles or dry-herb vaporisers have the same harms as smoking.
I have absolutely no problem with believing that smoking cannabis is harmful. There is clearly value in warning people about smoking cannabis. However, I would like to see some nuance around method of administration. I will continue to treat my health issues with oil-based tinctures and the occasional bit of dry-herb vaped flower.
They seemed to discuss reducing as much of the plant as possible to make something less variable, but smoking has gotten so many improvements what about edibles?
Just make a THC capsule that works whenever I take it, cumulatively if possible.
Not lousy gummies that I can only take once in a 24 hour cycle as my tolerance skyrockets. Followed by a hangover effect caused by as little as 10 mg.
Those current gummies, if my dosage isn’t enough and I take more later (low and slow), the second dose never quite catches up to the first one. It’s just one big non euphoric haze.
I’ve tried sublingual RSO, tinctures, and edibles. The current world of non smokable weed needs a lot of fundamental changes. It’s almost like edibles are stuck in the 70’s era of pot brownies but they reduced it down to a gummy.
There needs to be research done so we can do away with smoking. People who take opioids don’t need a pipe, why do we?
We have vaporisers, if you want a safe reliable non-pipe solution for self administration.
It’s nothing about a personal treat, it’s about a reliable product that works with as minimal physical damage as possible. Vaping and smoking just don’t meet that criteria.
Think of something like Vicodin, you just take the sugarless pill and it just works. Maybe quicker and harder depending on how empty your stomach is, but far less unpredictable. I don’t think we’re ever gonna get there with THC without the research funding currently only found by major pharmaceutical companies.
I should probably try oil based tinctures. I’d imagine they’re the same deal as gummies, but I’d have to see.
I tried ethanol tinctures sublingually. Not only did they burn like hell but they were leaving cuts under my tongue.
I get chest pains from car exhaust,cig smoke, high fume cooking, cleaning products etc. so yeah…that’s why I seem so adamant on edibles.
I only did sublingual rso which didn’t feel very euphoric. It does seem promising to people with Parkinson’s or anyone who wants medicinal benefits with minimal impairment.
I don't know how economical they are these days (or how loaded with sugar they might be) but the thc-infused drinks were nice when I gave them a go.
Maybe the sublinguals were just too much cbd? I really liked rso capsules.
The sublinguals actually had no cbd and they were medical grade.
No. I don't even know what this means.
> The world of weed isn’t that new and exciting anymore, c’mon guys…
I think it is. In my country it's illegal.
Growers aren't really worried about them. They worried about the deadly HLVd virus. https://ceainsight.com/research-hop-latent-viroid-cannabis/
Weather is irrelevant, it's all in hightech greenhouses, with strong LED lighting, automatic watering, climate control, no insects.
> it remains to be seen whether that’s even possible with a plant as complex as cannabis
Cannabis doesn't work like this. It has been tried and the end result was Sativex. It doesn't work as well as actual cannabis. It's like trying to replace coffee with caffeine. There's something like ~1000 compounds in coffee. The effects are not the same.
There's an entourage effect going on in cannabis that's extremely hard to replicate. Even buds on different parts of the same plant will have different profiles.
Also the sativa vs indica classification is almost completely meaningless nonsense these days. Does it have high THCV? Then maybe it's what was once called sativa. Was it an indica harvested before there were any amber trichomes? Maybe it has 'sativa' effects etc.
Sure, the alcohol chemical is the same everywhere, but so is THC/CBD when you want to reduce it like that. Watered down ethanol is probably a thing but few people drink it like that.
It's a list of some molecules considered alcohols, not things you'd find in an alcoholic beverage.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fermentation#Byprodu...
Still, there is the information inside, that not just ethanol gets produced by fermentation, but also other alcohols and the main point was, alcohol is not the same as ethanol.
Edit: I’m wrong! That’s the term for the part that evaporates during aging.
But this article explains what happens to the methanol at distillers and it’s pretty fascinating: https://www.whiskyandwisdom.com/bringing-balance-to-the-fore...
Given how many people drink artificially caffeinated beverages this feels like a poor example
If you asked me to describe the coffee I buy in 1.5 pound tubs from Folgers, predictable (or a synonym) would probably be in the first 10 adjectives I'd use.
If you are brewing with french press, not so much.
I wish i could buy coffee so consistent that id never need to adjust the grind setting or pick out bad beans as i weigh my shots out for the week. Have tried about 30 roasters, none are THAT consistent because it probably isnt practical to be.
On the other hand, the tried and true traditional strains have and always been excellent. But they are scarce due to demand, so at least half of what you see is filler crap. And you can't even smell it and certainly not try it like a shop in Amsterdam.
Amber trichomes indicate the THC degrading into CBN.
If you harvest when the trichomes are milky or clear but not amber you'll have higher THC vs CBN.
But this earlier harvest comes at the expense of yield as you sacrifice time that would be spent with the buds increasing in size as they become ever more sexually frustrated.
Black market cannabis tends to optimise for this.
He says they are 0.4ml live resin, 0.5ml THC distillate and 0.1ml terpenes. They weigh so much heavier on my brain, and have little euphoria, compared to live resin or regular old nugs.
I remember when toilet engineers were called plumbers!
NYTimes sent a journalist to Denver, who bought a chocolate bar at a dispensary, went back to their hotel room and ate it. Then, started seeing kaleidoscopes and curled up into the fetal position until it all wore off. No long term harm of course, but one freaked out New Yorker.
Turned out, the chocolate bar was 8 doses! and the journalist had NEVER used any cannabis in their life prior to ingesting.
This is one reason I'm not an advocate of edibles, or extracted products in general.
So, that's the context of this article. NYT and NY in general are fighting cannabis all the way. The east coast of the US really is 50 years behind, and not just regarding cannabis.
I also agree with your criticism of the news hype of "cannabis scientists".
As I say in my article comment, just smoke the plant, stop trying to turn it into jet fuel...
That was none other than Maureen Dowd, famous as a warmonger and booster of Trump's foreign policy in his first term: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/04/opinion/dowd-dont-harsh-o...
Not surprised that reading and decision making aren't her strong skills.
Grow a plant, Smoke it, Enjoy...
All of the extracts, derivatives, and edibles ARE the problem. Stop concentrating the "active ingredients", and use a minimally selected variety of the plant.
As usual, all the effort going into making a shit ton of money for some rich asshole are f_cking up the original item for everyone else.
NOTE: maybe you're also familiar with a similar course of events on this thing called "the internet"?
Traubenfuchs•7mo ago
Michiolet•7mo ago