Cannabis & Driving

[joshcowin]

FezOnYourHeadFezOnMyDrive said:

I take your point, but in Prof. David Nutt's book titled 'Drink' he states that you decision making abilities, reactions and coordination are definitely diminished the next day as a result of alcohol consumption. He relays the arrest of a presenter (Georgie Thompsom? Someone at Sky from a few years back, anyway). Of course that may depend on just how much has been consumed.

My point - which I don't think I've explained well enough - is rather that the current drug driving law and limits regarding cannabis, are set arbitrarily low. I'm not advocating for drug driving and impaired driving at all - I just wish it could be studied further to determine a much more realistic dosing/limit approach so that regular users don't end up losing their licence, jobs, etc. over a massively low limit. I can't see how it is fair for someone to lose their licence for being drug tested on a Tuesday morning, if their last consumption of cannabis was the Friday night previously. Can you honestly say that is correct?

If alcohol was detectable for 5 days after - but you were not impaired after 24 hours - would you avoid driving altogether? Would you agree with that limit? Why or why not?

Re: mental health: it certainly can excascerbate mental health issues, especially if you're genetically predisposed to psychosis. However, for such a versatile medicine, it is very impressive how much relief people are finding with it compared to typical opioid medications; my point regarding it being much safer than tobacco and alcohol, is the fact you cannot die if you take an huge amount of THC and it doesn't kill you years down the line, much like alcoholics after a decade or two of heavy drinking.

If I legally couldn't drive for 3-5 days after drinking alcohol then I wouldn't (I would probably knock the booze on the head tbh). The medication you have been prescribed and have agreed to take means that you cant drive for days after taking it, I am not sure why that's an issue.

THC does have side effects and it does impact your health, abusing alcohol also does, as does eating too much food ... Don't think you are taking some harmless drug. (I am sure you have looked into it far more than I have and know the risks)

"In conclusion, despite methodological limitations, research in the past decades has broadened our knowledge on the association between cannabis use and depression from epidemiological, neurological, genetic, and pharmacological perspectives."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33332004/

[Durzel]

FezOnYourHeadFezOnMyDrive said:

I take your point, but in Prof. David Nutt's book titled 'Drink' he states that you decision making abilities, reactions and coordination are definitely diminished the next day as a result of alcohol consumption. He relays the arrest of a presenter (Georgie Thompsom? Someone at Sky from a few years back, anyway). Of course that may depend on just how much has been consumed.

My point - which I don't think I've explained well enough - is rather that the current drug driving law and limits regarding cannabis, are set arbitrarily low. I'm not advocating for drug driving and impaired driving at all - I just wish it could be studied further to determine a much more realistic dosing/limit approach so that regular users don't end up losing their licence, jobs, etc. over a massively low limit. I can't see how it is fair for someone to lose their licence for being drug tested on a Tuesday morning, if their last consumption of cannabis was the Friday night previously. Can you honestly say that is correct?

If alcohol was detectable for 5 days after - but you were not impaired after 24 hours - would you avoid driving altogether? Would you agree with that limit? Why or why not?

Re: mental health: it certainly can excascerbate mental health issues, especially if you're genetically predisposed to psychosis. However, for such a versatile medicine, it is very impressive how much relief people are finding with it compared to typical opioid medications; my point regarding it being much safer than tobacco and alcohol, is the fact you cannot die if you take an huge amount of THC and it doesn't kill you years down the line, much like alcoholics after a decade or two of heavy drinking.

You're an outlier though, statistically. What percentage of the UK driving population is being prescribed medical cannabis? I'd be surprised if it was even 1%.

Laws typically have to work for the majority. The vast majority of people over the limit due to drink or drugs have taken it recreationally and not bothered, or not cared, to stop themselves driving too soon after consumption.

I have a tiny measure of sympathy for people who get lashed and then go to bed, wake up feeling ok and get on with their day, including driving, because it doesn't occur to them that their physical and mental state is still compromised. Maybe not for making beans and toast, but certainly for driving/riding a vehicle on the public road.

People who take cannabis recreationally choose to do so. If they choose to do so then they forgo their right to drive for a period of time afterwards. If they choose to ride or drive anyway, then that's on them and if they get caught it's their fault. There's no "fairness" to debate in it, the law is well known. As was mentioned above it holds about as much water as complaining about losing ones licence due to being caught speeding, as if speeding is something people are forced to do.

[franki68]

Mark-insert old BMW said:

ttps://www.vice.com/en/article/ypvne5/can-weed-make-you-a-better-driver-an-expert-debunks-the-myth

So it’s debatable . I’d also suggest a more reputable reference than vice which is a pile of steaming dung generally .

[siremoon]

Durzel said:

People who take cannabis recreationally choose to do so. If they choose to do so then they forgo their right to drive for a period of time afterwards. If they choose to ride or drive anyway, then that's on them and if they get caught it's their fault. There's no "fairness" to debate in it, the law is well known. As was mentioned above it holds about as much water as complaining about losing ones licence due to being caught speeding, as if speeding is something people are forced to do.

Well said. The rules are the rules and everybody knows what they are. If you don't like them then move somewhere else where the rules are more to your liking, or don't drive, or suck it up if you get caught breaking them - after all for most people the number of times they break the rules is orders of magnitude greater than the number of times they get caught. There should be a huge extra fine for stupidity if you get caught by a fixed speed camera in this day and age of waze, cars with built-in camera alerts (like mine) etc etc. And a double extra large fine for someone caught by a Hadecs 3 above 78 mph and then whining that they didn't think it was active at the NSL. If you're going to speed then at least do some basic research into what you're dealing with.

Edited by siremoon on Friday 10th November 07:50

[kerplunk]

The last several posts have talked past this point by Fez'

"My point - which I don't think I've explained well enough - is rather that the current drug driving law and limits regarding cannabis, are set arbitrarily low. I'm not advocating for drug driving and impaired driving at all - I just wish it could be studied further to determine a much more realistic dosing/limit approach so that regular users don't end up losing their licence, jobs, etc. over a massively low limit. I can't see how it is fair for someone to lose their licence for being drug tested on a Tuesday morning, if their last consumption of cannabis was the Friday night previously. Can you honestly say that is correct?"

Clearly it was decided to 'send a message' about cannabis usage which is different to the memo about alcohol consumption.

?

[cashmax]

Bathroom_Security said:

bhstewie said:

Dynion Araf Uchaf said:

if your son is smoking cannabis, and then potentially driving whilst under the influence can I suggest you buy him a bus pass.

I'm glad it's not just me thinking that.

Bloody remarkable.

Yep. What an absolute idiot.

I would never at any age have drink/drug driven.

Always knew to keep the two well away from each other.

• sigh*

I thought I made this clear. My son is 17, (has has now passed his test, but at the time of my original post had not) and spends lots of time with his mates from school and college. I don't know about everyone, but at that age for me it was all about experimenting and it I would be naive as a parent to just assume that my son won't at sometime try cannabis.

I could of course had taken the approach of telling him to never, ever touch drink or drugs, which would likely have the effect removing the ability to ever discuss this openly.

Instead I sought to educate him about the risks of driving if he ever does try cannabis and I realised that times (and ergo the law) have changed and I needed to educate myself before trying to educate him.

So I explained to him that even after one puff of a joint or even if he allowed others to smoke in a confined space around him, he would be over the drug drive limit. I further explained that this could be the case for upto 72 hours after the event. I then went on the explain that the implications would be catastrophic and potentially life changing, including but not limited to -

12 month driving ban
Retake theory and practical test
Almost impossible to insure another car for a long time
criminal record
Automatic blame if he had an accident and worse if someone was injured or killed
Possible problems with travel (due to his record)
Problems with getting a job

I then told him that if he is ever faced with a situation where he has drunk alcohol or smoked drugs and is stranded, he can call us at anytime of the day or night and we will help him find a solution that does risk the implications above. Although we won't be happy, he won't be hung, drawn and quartered for it.

In my son's case he suffers from ADHD and is often impulsive, which is why I think he is at higher risk of making these kind of mistakes.

Edited to add that he is also the first in his friends group to pass his test and have a car and this new found independence will take a fair while to wear off. This puts him in the position of always picking his friends up, always being the designated driver etc, which again in my view, elevates his exposure and risk to this kind of thing for all sorts of reasons.

So in short, we put the fear of God into him and have given him no excuse that could ever justify him driving whilst either impaired or not impaired but still over the limit.

It is my view as a parent and knowing my son, that this approach is the right one, rather than just assuming that because I didn't do it, he won't do it and making the whole subject a closed topic for discussion.

I would say to the folks posting the comments above, you have clearly led a very sheltered life, are unable to interpret what I wrote correctly and perhaps don't have kids, or you would understand how rife casual drug use is amongst youngsters nowadays.

Edited by cashmax on Friday 10th November 11:40

Edited by cashmax on Friday 10th November 11:45

Edited by cashmax on Friday 10th November 11:49

[8IKERDAVE]

cashmax said:

• sigh*

I thought I made this clear. My son is 17, (has has now passed his test, but at the time of my original post had not) and spends lots of time with his mates from school and college. I don't know about everyone, but at that age for me it was all about experimenting and it I would be naive as a parent to just assume that my son won't at sometime try cannabis.

I could of course had taken the approach of telling him to never, ever touch drink or drugs, which would likely have the effect removing the ability to ever discuss this openly.

Instead I sought to educate him about the risks of driving if he ever does try cannabis and I realised that times (and ergo the law) have changed and I needed to educate myself before trying to educate him.

So I explained to him that even after one puff of a joint or even if he allowed others to smoke in a confined space around him, he would be over the drug drive limit. I further explained that this could be the case for upto 72 hours after the event. I then went on the explain that the implications would be catastrophic and potentially life changing, including but not limited to -

12 month driving ban
Retake theory and practical test
Almost impossible to insure another car for a long time
criminal record
Automatic blame if he had an accident and worse if someone was injured or killed
Possible problems with travel (due to his record)
Problems with getting a job

I then told him that if he is ever faced with a situation where he has drunk alcohol or smoked drugs and is stranded, he can call us at anytime of the day or night and we will help him find a solution that does risk the implications above. Although we won't be happy, he won't be hung, drawn and quartered for it.

In my son's case he suffers from ADHD and is often impulsive, which is why I think he is at higher risk of making these kind of mistakes.

Edited to add that he is also the first in his friends group to pass his test and have a car and this new found independence will take a fair while to wear off. This puts him in the position of always picking his friends up, always being the designated driver etc, which again in my view, elevates his exposure and risk to this kind of thing for all sorts of reasons.

So in short, we put the fear of God into him and have given him no excuse that could ever justify him driving whilst either impaired or not impaired but still over the limit.

It is my view as a parent and knowing my son, that this approach is the right one, rather than just assuming that because I didn't do it, he won't do it and making the whole subject a closed topic for discussion.

I would say to the folks posting the comments above, you have clearly led a very sheltered life, are unable to interpret what I wrote correctly and perhaps don't have kids, or you would understand how rife casual drug use is amongst youngsters nowadays.

Edited by cashmax on Friday 10th November 11:40

Edited by cashmax on Friday 10th November 11:45

Edited by cashmax on Friday 10th November 11:49

A very sensible approach to parenting right there. There are definitely people on here that don't live in the real world and it's refreshing to hear of someone that does. My boys are only 7 & 10 but I will take a similar approach. Even more so as I do occasionally smoke it myself although not in the house so it would be very hypocritical of me to chastise them especially as I know personally it isn't as much of a big deal as the media / govt / members of pistonheads like to assume.

From experience, when I went to uni, the people who had been parented under an iron fist when it came to drugs were the absolute worst! They wanted to try everything as if they had been finally let off the leash. A good friend of mine caught him smoking weed and told him if he wanted to do that he had to do it at home and not walking around the streets. Said friend is now very successful!

[VSKeith]

cashmax said:

• sigh*

I thought I made this clear. My son is 17, (has has now passed his test, but at the time of my original post had not) and spends lots of time with his mates from school and college. I don't know about everyone, but at that age for me it was all about experimenting and it I would be naive as a parent to just assume that my son won't at sometime try cannabis.

I could of course had taken the approach of telling him to never, ever touch drink or drugs, which would likely have the effect removing the ability to ever discuss this openly.

Instead I sought to educate him about the risks of driving if he ever does try cannabis and I realised that times (and ergo the law) have changed and I needed to educate myself before trying to educate him.

So I explained to him that even after one puff of a joint or even if he allowed others to smoke in a confined space around him, he would be over the drug drive limit. I further explained that this could be the case for upto 72 hours after the event. I then went on the explain that the implications would be catastrophic and potentially life changing, including but not limited to -

12 month driving ban
Retake theory and practical test
Almost impossible to insure another car for a long time
criminal record
Automatic blame if he had an accident and worse if someone was injured or killed
Possible problems with travel (due to his record)
Problems with getting a job

I then told him that if he is ever faced with a situation where he has drunk alcohol or smoked drugs and is stranded, he can call us at anytime of the day or night and we will help him find a solution that does risk the implications above. Although we won't be happy, he won't be hung, drawn and quartered for it.

In my son's case he suffers from ADHD and is often impulsive, which is why I think he is at higher risk of making these kind of mistakes.

Edited to add that he is also the first in his friends group to pass his test and have a car and this new found independence will take a fair while to wear off. This puts him in the position of always picking his friends up, always being the designated driver etc, which again in my view, elevates his exposure and risk to this kind of thing for all sorts of reasons.

So in short, we put the fear of God into him and have given him no excuse that could ever justify him driving whilst either impaired or not impaired but still over the limit.

It is my view as a parent and knowing my son, that this approach is the right one, rather than just assuming that because I didn't do it, he won't do it and making the whole subject a closed topic for discussion.

I would say to the folks posting the comments above, you have clearly led a very sheltered life, are unable to interpret what I wrote correctly and perhaps don't have kids, or you would understand how rife casual drug use is amongst youngsters nowadays.

Edited by cashmax on Friday 10th November 11:40

Edited by cashmax on Friday 10th November 11:45

Edited by cashmax on Friday 10th November 11:49

Well said OP - I've been meaning to post something along the same lines.

The law is indeed the law; it was others who were bringing the judgemental/moral angle and willing to throw their teenager out on the street.

Hope your son takes your advice on board.

[agtlaw]

agtlaw said:

FezOnYourHeadFezOnMyDrive said:

As far as I understand it, 2mg of THC per 100ml of blood, is absurdly low. The alcohol equivalent is approximately 1 drop (5ml? 10ml?) of alcohol and you'd be over the limit.

?

Where did you see that?

Awaiting reply.

In the meantime, I've seen a document which suggests that 3ug/litre THC is comparable to 50ug/100ml BAC - which is, coincidentally, the drink drive limit in Scotland.

[FezOnYourHeadFezOnMyDrive]

Durzel said:

FezOnYourHeadFezOnMyDrive said:

I take your point, but in Prof. David Nutt's book titled 'Drink' he states that you decision making abilities, reactions and coordination are definitely diminished the next day as a result of alcohol consumption. He relays the arrest of a presenter (Georgie Thompsom? Someone at Sky from a few years back, anyway). Of course that may depend on just how much has been consumed.

My point - which I don't think I've explained well enough - is rather that the current drug driving law and limits regarding cannabis, are set arbitrarily low. I'm not advocating for drug driving and impaired driving at all - I just wish it could be studied further to determine a much more realistic dosing/limit approach so that regular users don't end up losing their licence, jobs, etc. over a massively low limit. I can't see how it is fair for someone to lose their licence for being drug tested on a Tuesday morning, if their last consumption of cannabis was the Friday night previously. Can you honestly say that is correct?

If alcohol was detectable for 5 days after - but you were not impaired after 24 hours - would you avoid driving altogether? Would you agree with that limit? Why or why not?

Re: mental health: it certainly can excascerbate mental health issues, especially if you're genetically predisposed to psychosis. However, for such a versatile medicine, it is very impressive how much relief people are finding with it compared to typical opioid medications; my point regarding it being much safer than tobacco and alcohol, is the fact you cannot die if you take an huge amount of THC and it doesn't kill you years down the line, much like alcoholics after a decade or two of heavy drinking.

You're an outlier though, statistically. What percentage of the UK driving population is being prescribed medical cannabis? I'd be surprised if it was even 1%.

Laws typically have to work for the majority. The vast majority of people over the limit due to drink or drugs have taken it recreationally and not bothered, or not cared, to stop themselves driving too soon after consumption.

I have a tiny measure of sympathy for people who get lashed and then go to bed, wake up feeling ok and get on with their day, including driving, because it doesn't occur to them that their physical and mental state is still compromised. Maybe not for making beans and toast, but certainly for driving/riding a vehicle on the public road.

People who take cannabis recreationally choose to do so. If they choose to do so then they forgo their right to drive for a period of time afterwards. If they choose to ride or drive anyway, then that's on them and if they get caught it's their fault. There's no "fairness" to debate in it, the law is well known. As was mentioned above it holds about as much water as complaining about losing ones licence due to being caught speeding, as if speeding is something people are forced to do.

Latest figures show there are approximately 32k patients prescribed cannabis, as of a few days ago. My GP has told me there are approximately 2m people consuming cannabis on a daily basis in the UK - so all in all, a small number of us who are able to legally consume, and drive - so long as not impaired - while being over the driving limit.

I have absolutely no doubt that there are people who will consume drugs of any kind, and then get behind the wheel while impaired - I am not defending this, and would not do it myself. Again, my point is that the current limit for THC levels are arbitrarily low, and can be detected days after last use, and therefore failing a roadside drug wipe/blood test at the station - yes, the law is the law, but when the law is not based on science with regards to impairment, then how can you apply the enforcement of it with a blanket approach, when that has not been done for many other drugs - whether prescribed opioids, or alcohol?

Interestingly, I have seen an article being posted on social media showing the number of drink driving incidents, and collisions have dropped in Canada, with a number of people having forgone alcohol for cannabis instead.

[FezOnYourHeadFezOnMyDrive]

kerplunk said:

The last several posts have talked past this point by Fez'

"My point - which I don't think I've explained well enough - is rather that the current drug driving law and limits regarding cannabis, are set arbitrarily low. I'm not advocating for drug driving and impaired driving at all - I just wish it could be studied further to determine a much more realistic dosing/limit approach so that regular users don't end up losing their licence, jobs, etc. over a massively low limit. I can't see how it is fair for someone to lose their licence for being drug tested on a Tuesday morning, if their last consumption of cannabis was the Friday night previously. Can you honestly say that is correct?"

Clearly it was decided to 'send a message' about cannabis usage which is different to the memo about alcohol consumption.

?

Thank you!

[FezOnYourHeadFezOnMyDrive]

cashmax said:

Bathroom_Security said:

bhstewie said:

Dynion Araf Uchaf said:

if your son is smoking cannabis, and then potentially driving whilst under the influence can I suggest you buy him a bus pass.

I'm glad it's not just me thinking that.

Bloody remarkable.

Yep. What an absolute idiot.

I would never at any age have drink/drug driven.

Always knew to keep the two well away from each other.

• sigh*

I thought I made this clear. My son is 17, (has has now passed his test, but at the time of my original post had not) and spends lots of time with his mates from school and college. I don't know about everyone, but at that age for me it was all about experimenting and it I would be naive as a parent to just assume that my son won't at sometime try cannabis.

I could of course had taken the approach of telling him to never, ever touch drink or drugs, which would likely have the effect removing the ability to ever discuss this openly.

Instead I sought to educate him about the risks of driving if he ever does try cannabis and I realised that times (and ergo the law) have changed and I needed to educate myself before trying to educate him.

So I explained to him that even after one puff of a joint or even if he allowed others to smoke in a confined space around him, he would be over the drug drive limit. I further explained that this could be the case for upto 72 hours after the event. I then went on the explain that the implications would be catastrophic and potentially life changing, including but not limited to -

12 month driving ban
Retake theory and practical test
Almost impossible to insure another car for a long time
criminal record
Automatic blame if he had an accident and worse if someone was injured or killed
Possible problems with travel (due to his record)
Problems with getting a job

I then told him that if he is ever faced with a situation where he has drunk alcohol or smoked drugs and is stranded, he can call us at anytime of the day or night and we will help him find a solution that does risk the implications above. Although we won't be happy, he won't be hung, drawn and quartered for it.

In my son's case he suffers from ADHD and is often impulsive, which is why I think he is at higher risk of making these kind of mistakes.

Edited to add that he is also the first in his friends group to pass his test and have a car and this new found independence will take a fair while to wear off. This puts him in the position of always picking his friends up, always being the designated driver etc, which again in my view, elevates his exposure and risk to this kind of thing for all sorts of reasons.

So in short, we put the fear of God into him and have given him no excuse that could ever justify him driving whilst either impaired or not impaired but still over the limit.

It is my view as a parent and knowing my son, that this approach is the right one, rather than just assuming that because I didn't do it, he won't do it and making the whole subject a closed topic for discussion.

I would say to the folks posting the comments above, you have clearly led a very sheltered life, are unable to interpret what I wrote correctly and perhaps don't have kids, or you would understand how rife casual drug use is amongst youngsters nowadays.

Edited by cashmax on Friday 10th November 11:40

Edited by cashmax on Friday 10th November 11:45

Edited by cashmax on Friday 10th November 11:49

OP, that is eminently sensible. At the very least, he knows he can count on you and your wife should anything go wrong when he's out with his mates. And he knows he can trust you with sensitive information without being shamed - very good.

[crofty1984]

Dynion Araf Uchaf said:

if your son is smoking cannabis, and then potentially driving whilst under the influence can I suggest you buy him a bus pass.

Surely the whole point of the OP is to STOP him driving under the influence. There's lots of knowledge about regarding how long it takes to get alcohol out of your system, less so for cannabis.

[FezOnYourHeadFezOnMyDrive]

agtlaw said:

agtlaw said:

FezOnYourHeadFezOnMyDrive said:

As far as I understand it, 2mg of THC per 100ml of blood, is absurdly low. The alcohol equivalent is approximately 1 drop (5ml? 10ml?) of alcohol and you'd be over the limit.

?

Where did you see that?

Awaiting reply.

In the meantime, I've seen a document which suggests that 3ug/litre THC is comparable to 50ug/100ml BAC - which is, coincidentally, the drink drive limit in Scotland.

I'm still trying to find where I read it - although I have just stumbled upon this link:

https://www.majlaw.co.uk/offences/drug-driving/can...

[agtlaw]

FezOnYourHeadFezOnMyDrive said:

I'm still trying to find where I read it - although I have just stumbled upon this link:

Let me know when / if you find it.

[FezOnYourHeadFezOnMyDrive]

agtlaw said:

FezOnYourHeadFezOnMyDrive said:

I'm still trying to find where I read it - although I have just stumbled upon this link:

Let me know when / if you find it.

Will do - I'm still trying to find it.

I have found this study, published in Jan 2023: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC99406...

I think the findings are quite interesting - anyone else?

TLDR: Effects of cannabis worn off after 4 hours; driving impairment drops to baseline by 5-6 hours post-consumption; both are dependant on the individuals tolerance, dose, route of consumption (smoked/vaped/eaten).

I wonder why the government didn't listen to their scientific and medical teams when coming up with the current limits? At a glance, it is fairly similar to the Labour government asking their Drugs Czar at the time (2007?) - Prof David Nutt - to produce a report on all drugs and their effects on individuals, their immediate families and friends, local communities and the wider public. He did this, and was promptly sacked when he provided evidence that playing polo was more dangerous than consuming MDMA.

Another link to another study: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fu...

What are peoples thoughts on this?

[agtlaw]

FezOnYourHeadFezOnMyDrive said:

I wonder why the government didn't listen to their scientific and medical teams when coming up with the current limits? ?

Good question. The expert advisory panel recommended a THC limit of 5ug/litre blood. The government set the limit at 2.

[aproctor1]

Mark-insert old BMW said:

The types of weed being smoked today are also very different (in potency) to the type of weed available 20 years ago. Another aspect being synthetic cannabis like Spice.

The only way for people to be sure they won't fall foul is to abstain all together.

Strong weed has been around for ages, do you think the 50s was 20 years ago?

[Mark-insert old BMW]

aproctor1 said:

Mark-insert old BMW said:

The types of weed being smoked today are also very different (in potency) to the type of weed available 20 years ago. Another aspect being synthetic cannabis like Spice.

The only way for people to be sure they won't fall foul is to abstain all together.

Strong weed has been around for ages, do you think the 50s was 20 years ago?

2023 - 20 = 2003.

''Cannabis potency has doubled across Europe in the past decade, according to the first study to track changes in the drug across the continent.

The study, published on Sunday in the journal Addiction and conducted by researchers from the University of Bath and King’s College London, finds that both cannabis resin and herbal cannabis have increased in strength and price with potentially harmful consequences for users.

In herbal cannabis, concentrations of THC – the main psychoactive constituent of cannabis which has been linked to psychosis – increased from 5% in 2006 to 10% in 2016.

For cannabis resin, THC concentrations remained relatively stable between 2006 and 2011 before increasing rapidly from 10% to 17% between 2011 and 2016.''

[FezOnYourHeadFezOnMyDrive]

Mark-insert old BMW said:

aproctor1 said:

Mark-insert old BMW said:

The types of weed being smoked today are also very different (in potency) to the type of weed available 20 years ago. Another aspect being synthetic cannabis like Spice.

The only way for people to be sure they won't fall foul is to abstain all together.

Strong weed has been around for ages, do you think the 50s was 20 years ago?

2023 - 20 = 2003.

''Cannabis potency has doubled across Europe in the past decade, according to the first study to track changes in the drug across the continent.

The study, published on Sunday in the journal Addiction and conducted by researchers from the University of Bath and King’s College London, finds that both cannabis resin and herbal cannabis have increased in strength and price with potentially harmful consequences for users.

In herbal cannabis, concentrations of THC – the main psychoactive constituent of cannabis which has been linked to psychosis – increased from 5% in 2006 to 10% in 2016.

For cannabis resin, THC concentrations remained relatively stable between 2006 and 2011 before increasing rapidly from 10% to 17% between 2011 and 2016.''

Hypothetically, of course it would be best if everyone abstained from all drugs then nobody would see any benefits nor harms of drug usage - but we don't live in a hypothetical world. Humans have used drugs for millenia - and more people use drugs than ever before, and it's only going one way.

Should we abstain from sports and exercise, because of injuries and in rare occurrences, death?

The ONS website has some interesting statistics on drug usage, poisonings and death. We can see that drug consumption is increasing overall, and deaths due to drug poisonings are increasing too. What's the solution? Ban it? Oh, illegal drugs are already banned. Outright banning always works, doesn't it? Let's ban crime, ban poverty, ban drugs. Oh wait. OR we could legalise, tax and regulate (and therefore restrict what drugs and in what concentrations they get into people's hands).

Should we ban caffeine? Alcohol? Water polo? Drinking hand sanitiser? All are vastly more hazardous for your health than cannabis, regardless of THC strength.


"In herbal cannabis, concentrations of THC – the main psychoactive constituent of cannabis which has been linked to psychosis – increased from 5% in 2006 to 10% in 2016." - this is an interesting sentence to me. Interesting in that whomever wrote it, didn't add a qualifying statement that studies have supported recently, that psychosis symptoms and onset are triggered in those who are genetically predisposed to psychosis. Plus, I would imagine the availability of cannabis has contributed to the increase in number of people experiencing psychosis symptoms. So shall we devise ways to test for psychosis? I don't know whether that is feasible or not.