Smoking Cannabis Associated with Dopamine Deficits in the Brain(iflscience.com)
iflscience.com
Smoking Cannabis Associated with Dopamine Deficits in the Brain
http://www.iflscience.com/brain/smoking-too-much-dope-causes-dopamine-deficits-brain
62 comments
> Uh, reading the study, smoking cannabis then taking amphetamine causes dopamine deficits, and they don't explore whether this is transient or permanent.
Yes, the title is extremely sensationalized, as is sadly the norm with science reporting [1]. However, the results are important when you consider the number of teenagers on ADHD medication (generally amphetamines) who might be trying cannabis.
[1] http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?n=1174
Yes, the title is extremely sensationalized, as is sadly the norm with science reporting [1]. However, the results are important when you consider the number of teenagers on ADHD medication (generally amphetamines) who might be trying cannabis.
[1] http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?n=1174
> Yes, the title is extremely sensationalized,
Yes, the original title is sensaionalized and didn't actually agree or align with the contents of the article which is why when I submitted this story I changed the title for HN to be what it is above "Smoking Cannabis Associated with Dopamine Deficits in the Brain". I suppose I could have used correlated instead of associated but the article seemed to link the two fairly poorly and I felt associated is a lower threshold of a link than correlation. I was more interested in the discussion this would invoke from HNers. Thank you HNers for your thoughts and insights.
Yes, the original title is sensaionalized and didn't actually agree or align with the contents of the article which is why when I submitted this story I changed the title for HN to be what it is above "Smoking Cannabis Associated with Dopamine Deficits in the Brain". I suppose I could have used correlated instead of associated but the article seemed to link the two fairly poorly and I felt associated is a lower threshold of a link than correlation. I was more interested in the discussion this would invoke from HNers. Thank you HNers for your thoughts and insights.
To be fair, amphetamines causing dopamine deficits seems pretty obvious. Anyone that has ever gone on a speed binge (and yes, that time you took adderall for 3 days straight to get some shit done counts) knows that the next days afterwards can be pretty blah. There's dopamine precursors that help, but as with all substances -- what goes up, must come down. Everything in moderation, including moderation.
In this case though, it seems like the amphetamines had reduced dopaminergenic effects for chronic cannabis users. Again - lack of motivation is a pretty common anecdotal report of heavy and chronic cannabis use. Moderation.
Lack of motivation is a pretty common reason for prescribing amphetimines as well.
Also, I know plenty of counter-examples to the "lazy stoner" stereotype. You just didn't know that the CEO of your company has a stealth grow op in his basement because that's not the kind of thing you advertise. Anecdotally, I would say that regular and heavy cannabis use very common among management consultants and software developers -- and it's hard to remain in those jobs long if you're unable to motivate yourself. But if work is stressful, a few bong rips at the end of the day can be a nice way to relax.
Also, I know plenty of counter-examples to the "lazy stoner" stereotype. You just didn't know that the CEO of your company has a stealth grow op in his basement because that's not the kind of thing you advertise. Anecdotally, I would say that regular and heavy cannabis use very common among management consultants and software developers -- and it's hard to remain in those jobs long if you're unable to motivate yourself. But if work is stressful, a few bong rips at the end of the day can be a nice way to relax.
Well using amphetamines will certainly motivate one to do /something/ :P The rampant use of prescription amphetamines while speed and meth remain much maligned is another issue entirely.
I also know many counter-examples, but most people I know that have used cannabis regularly for years or decades seem to sort of auto-regulate their use. It waxes and wanes - sometimes daily, sometimes monthly.
I don't suspect that it has extremely negative effects, but it wouldn't surprise me if their were a mix of effects that occur with heavy and regular use that don't occur with more moderate use.
To each their own -- I also know highly functional regular opiate users, and some who have fallen off the functional boat hard. I'm all about harm reduction and personal freedom when it comes to altering ones consciousness.
Also, of course we know that probably the most toxic substance to use heavily and regularly is alcohol. I expect many orders of magnitude more harmful for both the brain and body than cannabis will ever be shown to be.
I also know many counter-examples, but most people I know that have used cannabis regularly for years or decades seem to sort of auto-regulate their use. It waxes and wanes - sometimes daily, sometimes monthly.
I don't suspect that it has extremely negative effects, but it wouldn't surprise me if their were a mix of effects that occur with heavy and regular use that don't occur with more moderate use.
To each their own -- I also know highly functional regular opiate users, and some who have fallen off the functional boat hard. I'm all about harm reduction and personal freedom when it comes to altering ones consciousness.
Also, of course we know that probably the most toxic substance to use heavily and regularly is alcohol. I expect many orders of magnitude more harmful for both the brain and body than cannabis will ever be shown to be.
No, the study said that the subjects (who were either dependent on marijuana or non users) were given the amphetamine to elicit a dopamine response. The users did not smoke for a week prior to the experiment, so you would expect that if there were no dopamine deficits than they would have similar response to the amphetamine. I'm no brain scientist but it seems like a reasonable experiment.
Sure, but the half life of cannabinoid metabolites is weeks, so this is possibly still an active combinatory effect rather than a residual one.
I do notice that if I smoke crazy amounts (ounces per week) then I do end up with latent cognitive deficits, such as substituting homophones in my writing and losing my train of thought mid-sentence, but they vanish with a few weeks of abstinence.
I'm not ruling out the possibly of cumulative, long term effects, and I'll vouch that massively overdoing it over a long period will make you REALLY ill (read up on Cannabis Hyperemesis Syndrome... It's worse than death), but from my idiopathic stance I'm not seeing long term cognitive effects. I started as an adult, my only childhood vice was drink.
I do notice that if I smoke crazy amounts (ounces per week) then I do end up with latent cognitive deficits, such as substituting homophones in my writing and losing my train of thought mid-sentence, but they vanish with a few weeks of abstinence.
I'm not ruling out the possibly of cumulative, long term effects, and I'll vouch that massively overdoing it over a long period will make you REALLY ill (read up on Cannabis Hyperemesis Syndrome... It's worse than death), but from my idiopathic stance I'm not seeing long term cognitive effects. I started as an adult, my only childhood vice was drink.
Yeah I'm not commenting on the results. The sample size was way too small to be a reasonable study and yeah, weeks is not enough to talk about long term results. But the basic principle of the experiment is sound I think.
[deleted]
All known drugs of abuse increase dopamine and likewise cause decrease in dopamine during drug withdrawal [1]. Since the participants in the study in question were chronic cannabis users who stayed abstinent 5-7 days before the brain scans [2], it is plausible to attribute the results to the cannabis withdrawal. It would be interesting to see the results of a similar experiment where the subjects were given enough time for their brains to normalize the dopamine receptors (let's say at least a month). My hypotesis is that their dopamine levels would be closer to normal.
1. http://perspectivesinmedicine.cshlp.org/content/2/8/a012229....
2. http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp201621...
1. http://perspectivesinmedicine.cshlp.org/content/2/8/a012229....
2. http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp201621...
Link to abstract:http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp201621...
The abstract doesn't really state if they attempted to test the effect of cannabis on dopamine with ongoning chronic use or after abstinence. It seems to be the latter, though, since the users stayed abstinent for 5-7 days before the brain scans. That's a rater short time for the brain to "recover" from chronic cannabis use.
It is also worth nothing that they measured dopamine binding by administrating amphetamine.
The abstract doesn't really state if they attempted to test the effect of cannabis on dopamine with ongoning chronic use or after abstinence. It seems to be the latter, though, since the users stayed abstinent for 5-7 days before the brain scans. That's a rater short time for the brain to "recover" from chronic cannabis use.
It is also worth nothing that they measured dopamine binding by administrating amphetamine.
Also, I'm having trouble finding what satisfies the condition of 'severe dependence'. Did anyone catch it?
It's rather interesting to me, that every time one of these studies or articles is published, people crawl out of the woodwork shouting denials and rejection.
People, for some reason, want to cling to this naive idea that cannabis consumption has zero negative effects.
Can't we all just accept that it is indeed harmful to your body and brain, especially if used habitually? Continue to use it as you wish, but understand it very well is causing long term harm, just as any other sin-of-choice! Is that really so rejectionable?
People, for some reason, want to cling to this naive idea that cannabis consumption has zero negative effects.
Can't we all just accept that it is indeed harmful to your body and brain, especially if used habitually? Continue to use it as you wish, but understand it very well is causing long term harm, just as any other sin-of-choice! Is that really so rejectionable?
There exists a political climate where any negative effects are seized upon as evidence that cannabis should remain banned, however inapplicable (for example because they are a small study of chronic users after a week's withdrawal). In such circumstances it is often couterproductive to hold nuanced views.
> In such circumstances it is often couterproductive to hold nuanced views.
That's what parent poster is asking for.
Any time I post about cannabis on HN i have to include the line "I am strongly in favour of drug legalisation" or tediously predictable replies accusing me of shilling for the government appear.
And my position - that for some people smoking large amounts of cannabis is probably a bad idea (especially if they've young; have a history of psychosis; or have a family history of psychosis) - doesn't feel particularly un-nuanced.
That's what parent poster is asking for.
Any time I post about cannabis on HN i have to include the line "I am strongly in favour of drug legalisation" or tediously predictable replies accusing me of shilling for the government appear.
And my position - that for some people smoking large amounts of cannabis is probably a bad idea (especially if they've young; have a history of psychosis; or have a family history of psychosis) - doesn't feel particularly un-nuanced.
pc86(2)
It's almost as if the government had been lying about it for decades and people became suspect of any claims being made.
But you're right, I'm really interested in learning the actual science around it so I'm happy that work is being done. I suppose that perspective doesn't lead to the need to comment.
And it's not only the "sins-of-choice" that cause long term harm. Life itself has quite a few negative effects and is the leading cause of death, after all.
But you're right, I'm really interested in learning the actual science around it so I'm happy that work is being done. I suppose that perspective doesn't lead to the need to comment.
And it's not only the "sins-of-choice" that cause long term harm. Life itself has quite a few negative effects and is the leading cause of death, after all.
I guess you missed the articles that say marijuana has positive effects?
There are positive and negative aspects. You ask why people are biased towards the positive and, similarly, I ask why are you focused on the negative?
There is much research to be done. Let's wait and see how it turns out. :)
There are positive and negative aspects. You ask why people are biased towards the positive and, similarly, I ask why are you focused on the negative?
There is much research to be done. Let's wait and see how it turns out. :)
> I ask why are you focused on the negative?
Well, I'm not. Of course there can be, and there are positive medical effects. The issue is, most users aren't using for real bona fide medical purposes.
These are the same users who reject any notion that their favorite pastime may indeed be causing them long term harm. I ask, why reject it? Alcohol can have good effects in moderation, but when abused it causes long term harm as well. Why treat it any different?
> There is much research to be done. Let's wait and see how it turns out.
Indeed there is. Most of the claims of harmlessness are based on bad science conducted decades ago! Unfortunately, no matter how many studies are published since then, people cling to the old invalidated data which furthers the narrative they desire most.
Well, I'm not. Of course there can be, and there are positive medical effects. The issue is, most users aren't using for real bona fide medical purposes.
These are the same users who reject any notion that their favorite pastime may indeed be causing them long term harm. I ask, why reject it? Alcohol can have good effects in moderation, but when abused it causes long term harm as well. Why treat it any different?
> There is much research to be done. Let's wait and see how it turns out.
Indeed there is. Most of the claims of harmlessness are based on bad science conducted decades ago! Unfortunately, no matter how many studies are published since then, people cling to the old invalidated data which furthers the narrative they desire most.
You are being too absolutist. Nothing is "harmless".
I agree with you... as with any choice, an individual should try to compare the pros & cons of any decision.
My argument would be, if a group happens to be "self-medicating" or simply "getting high", is marijuana not one of the better drugs for that purpose?
Yes, drugs (the kind that make you feel good) are probably not something we should encourage, but if it must happen, marijuana is perhaps the best choice. Let's assume abstinence is impossible.
I agree with you... as with any choice, an individual should try to compare the pros & cons of any decision.
My argument would be, if a group happens to be "self-medicating" or simply "getting high", is marijuana not one of the better drugs for that purpose?
Yes, drugs (the kind that make you feel good) are probably not something we should encourage, but if it must happen, marijuana is perhaps the best choice. Let's assume abstinence is impossible.
One group that self-medicates is people with psychosis.
People with psychosis smoke cigarettes; more of them smoke than the general population and they smoke more than the general population.
Hydrocarbons from cigarettes interact with, and reduce the efficacy of, antipsychotic medication.
That means people who have psychosis and smoke need more meds.
This - the side effects of strong medication, and the smoking - causes people with psychosis to die on average 20 years earlier than the general population.
It also causes a distressing number of house fires. (People smoking while sedated). People with psychosis are over represented in stats for death by home fire.
So smoking tobacco is probably a bad idea for that group of people.
When you add a psychoactive component that may[1] make psychosis worse it just seems like a terrible idea.
People with psychosis should probably have access to good quality early intervention teams rather than access to cannabis.
[1] one of the frustrating things of criminalisation is that it's really hard to do any research; and cannabis strains have moved onto strains that focus on THC rather than a more balanced mix of THC and CBD.
People with psychosis smoke cigarettes; more of them smoke than the general population and they smoke more than the general population.
Hydrocarbons from cigarettes interact with, and reduce the efficacy of, antipsychotic medication.
That means people who have psychosis and smoke need more meds.
This - the side effects of strong medication, and the smoking - causes people with psychosis to die on average 20 years earlier than the general population.
It also causes a distressing number of house fires. (People smoking while sedated). People with psychosis are over represented in stats for death by home fire.
So smoking tobacco is probably a bad idea for that group of people.
When you add a psychoactive component that may[1] make psychosis worse it just seems like a terrible idea.
People with psychosis should probably have access to good quality early intervention teams rather than access to cannabis.
[1] one of the frustrating things of criminalisation is that it's really hard to do any research; and cannabis strains have moved onto strains that focus on THC rather than a more balanced mix of THC and CBD.
The claims of harmlessness are based on decades of widespread use without even silly overblown anecdotal stories of people being harmed (he took a giant hit and jumped out the window!)
I think the evidence that's out there shows cannabis consumption has negative effects for developing minds. And there is some evidence to indicate that burning plant material inhalation is bad (although this is far from as factual as with cigarettes, for example).
Generally, the studies that indicate long term negative effects use a limited population or confounders (such as amphetamines in this case). Those studies indicate one method/combination is harmful, but (AFAICT) are not generalizable to most users.
I am happy to be shown wrong, but have yet to come across a generalizable study that shows long term negative health effects of cannabis consumption.
Generally, the studies that indicate long term negative effects use a limited population or confounders (such as amphetamines in this case). Those studies indicate one method/combination is harmful, but (AFAICT) are not generalizable to most users.
I am happy to be shown wrong, but have yet to come across a generalizable study that shows long term negative health effects of cannabis consumption.
I don't think anybody is shouting "denials and rejection."
Usually what I see is people pointing out that whatever new negative result is no worse than other substances and activities that are legal.
Usually what I see is people pointing out that whatever new negative result is no worse than other substances and activities that are legal.
I don't think it is really that "harmful" if you eat/vaporize it. That being said, it certainly does reduce motivation/focus when used to excess.
> I don't think it is really that "harmful" if you eat/vaporize it.
This is exactly the responses I was talking about.
The study clearly says THC causes the harmful cognition effects. You're still getting THC by eating/vaporizing it! (otherwise it'd be a pointless activity).
Consumption method is pretty irrelevant, other than less carcinogens when not smoking it (the only appreciable difference between consumption methods).
This is exactly the responses I was talking about.
The study clearly says THC causes the harmful cognition effects. You're still getting THC by eating/vaporizing it! (otherwise it'd be a pointless activity).
Consumption method is pretty irrelevant, other than less carcinogens when not smoking it (the only appreciable difference between consumption methods).
You misunderstand. A reduction in motivation isn't inherently harmful - it's only society's value system that causes you to view it a "harm". A society where people valued relaxed socializing more might view a reduction in compulsive need to be "doing stuff" as a benefit.
Lung cancer, on the other hand, doesn't have a positive reference frame.
Lung cancer, on the other hand, doesn't have a positive reference frame.
> The study clearly says THC causes the harmful cognition effects.
This is also just a single study with some questionable methods. It's just as ignorant to blindly dismiss this study as it is to blindly accept it.
This is also just a single study with some questionable methods. It's just as ignorant to blindly dismiss this study as it is to blindly accept it.
> This is also just a single study with some questionable methods
How many studies need to come out before folks start to accept that maybe their favorite pastime isn't so harmless after all?
It's fairly obvious introducing chemicals to your body long term will have undesirable side effects.
In the end, it doesn't matter how harmful or harmless this substance is. People will continue to use and abuse it regardless. But we should not reject modern studies simply because we want to believe old data.
How many studies need to come out before folks start to accept that maybe their favorite pastime isn't so harmless after all?
It's fairly obvious introducing chemicals to your body long term will have undesirable side effects.
In the end, it doesn't matter how harmful or harmless this substance is. People will continue to use and abuse it regardless. But we should not reject modern studies simply because we want to believe old data.
No, that's not fairly obvious! "Chemical" in this context is meaningless... so you're basically claiming that eating anything is harmful to the pristine state of the body uncontaminated by "chemicals" (aka molecules).
I don't think consumption method is irrelevant, cannabis contains more cannabinoids than just THC. Methods that concentrate for THC in oils will have less of these. Vaporizors that heat the cannabis to specific temperatures will release a different subset of them and your body will metabolize them differently and at different rates when consumed. I notice a range of mental and physical differences when I consume marijuana that are dependant on the preparation and method of consumption.
I've noticed similar crawling out of the woodwork when the harmful effects of coffee, sugar, and other sinful addictive drugs are discussed.
"Can't we all just accept"—why? Because it's a "sin"?
> "Can't we all just accept"—why? Because it's a "sin"?
You willingly cause harm to your body and brain daily. I choose to drink too many energy drinks, knowing full well all the chemicals and additives are not good for me.
The point is, I don't go around claiming energy drinks are totally harmless simply because I enjoy them. Of course they're not good for me.
Accept cannabis causes harm, and then make an educated choice to continue using or not. I just ask that we be realistic about this - it's a foreign chemical being introduced to your body.
You willingly cause harm to your body and brain daily. I choose to drink too many energy drinks, knowing full well all the chemicals and additives are not good for me.
The point is, I don't go around claiming energy drinks are totally harmless simply because I enjoy them. Of course they're not good for me.
Accept cannabis causes harm, and then make an educated choice to continue using or not. I just ask that we be realistic about this - it's a foreign chemical being introduced to your body.
But you can't base an argument on "please accept my claim as fact," is what I mean.
I'm not aware of a clear scientific consensus that cannabis is harmful.
I'm not aware of a clear scientific consensus that cannabis is harmful.
Sort of off topic... but why is everyone still "smoking" cannabis? Why not vape, edible, etc? I'm fairly certain putting any kind of smoke in your lungs cannot be healthy!
There's a taste to the smoke that some people like and the highs are very different. I have all options available to me (water pipe, vape, edibles, joint) and I rotate around to keep things interesting.
A water pipe (bong) is a great high for about 20mins, then you pretty much fall asleep. Vape takes a long time to get high, it's not as strong, and you fall asleep after 20mins. Edibles take a really long time to hit you, like 2 hours, it comes on very quickly and fades very quickly, but doesn't really knock you out. Joints hit you pretty quick, the high is average, and doesn't really knock you out.
So it depends on what you're feeling! Joints are very social, good for smoking with friends. Vapes and bongs get dirty quickly, I don't like using them socially. Edibles are great for novices or when you're going to the movies or something.
A water pipe (bong) is a great high for about 20mins, then you pretty much fall asleep. Vape takes a long time to get high, it's not as strong, and you fall asleep after 20mins. Edibles take a really long time to hit you, like 2 hours, it comes on very quickly and fades very quickly, but doesn't really knock you out. Joints hit you pretty quick, the high is average, and doesn't really knock you out.
So it depends on what you're feeling! Joints are very social, good for smoking with friends. Vapes and bongs get dirty quickly, I don't like using them socially. Edibles are great for novices or when you're going to the movies or something.
You know, if something makes you fall asleep after 20 minutes... then maybe this is your brain's way of telling you -- ever so gently (for now, at least) -- that you're pushing it well past its normal, safe operating parameters? And that perhaps you should start cutting back a bit -- perhaps way back?
Being as, if you keep ignoring these signals, and pushing that envelope, eventually your brain will start letting you know in ways that aren't so gentle - or as forgiving.
Being as, if you keep ignoring these signals, and pushing that envelope, eventually your brain will start letting you know in ways that aren't so gentle - or as forgiving.
Well, the article/study are asserting the mere consumption of cannabis is the issue, not the method of consumption.
Dopamine is a neurotransmitter that plays a key role in the
brain’s so-called reward center, and is released in response
to pleasurable stimuli like eating cake, having sex, and taking
drugs. This is what makes many drugs so addictive (and cake
so irresistible), although research suggests that excessive use
of these substances causes a dopamine imbalance, with lower
concentrations of the chemical being released in parts of the
brain such as the striatum.
Importantly, dopamine deficits in the striatum have been associated with
reduced cognitive performance. Given that THC – the active ingredient in
cannabis – is known to stimulate dopamine neurons throughout the brain,
lead researcher Anissa Abi-Dargham explained that “it is important to look
more closely at the potentially addictive effects of cannabis on key
regions of the brain.”
Because that is expensive compared to just buying the plant, grinding it, rolling it up and smoking it?
nope, vaping and edibles are much more economical - your cannabis goes a lot further
But the market can change that. In Seattle, for example, when edibles were first legal they were ridiculously priced because of the licensing requirements, and they haven't gotten much better.
You can buy the oil and bake your own, but that requires more money and effort up front ($50-$100).
Vaping using concentrate is likewise not cheap.
You can buy the oil and bake your own, but that requires more money and effort up front ($50-$100).
Vaping using concentrate is likewise not cheap.
It's also incredibly easy to grow your own. It's called "weed" for a reason; if you threw some seeds in your back garden, in a few months you'd end up with something that would get you high for almost zero effort.
And if you grow your own, you end up with plenty of "trim" (plant parts that aren't suited for smoking but still have lots of psychoactive ingredients). Most home growers will cook their trim with butter for a few hours, strain off the plant material, and use that to make edibles. It's not as scientific or consistent as the commercial methods, but it's easy and completely safe.
And if you grow your own, you end up with plenty of "trim" (plant parts that aren't suited for smoking but still have lots of psychoactive ingredients). Most home growers will cook their trim with butter for a few hours, strain off the plant material, and use that to make edibles. It's not as scientific or consistent as the commercial methods, but it's easy and completely safe.
> You can buy the oil and bake your own, but that requires more money and effort up front ($50-$100)
It doesn't require much money or effort at all. I regularly make small batches of oil using as little as 0.5g of kief.
I melt a little coconut oil, dump in the kief (would work with weed too, of course) and cover with tinfoil. Then I bake it at 115C/240F for 27 minutes - cannaoil, done!
THC is metabolised into a stronger form, THC-9-COOH, so edibles really make it go further. Plus the effects last several hours instead of the 1-2 when smoking or vaping.
> Vaping using concentrate is likewise not cheap.
Erm.. you don't have to use concentrates.
It doesn't require much money or effort at all. I regularly make small batches of oil using as little as 0.5g of kief.
I melt a little coconut oil, dump in the kief (would work with weed too, of course) and cover with tinfoil. Then I bake it at 115C/240F for 27 minutes - cannaoil, done!
THC is metabolised into a stronger form, THC-9-COOH, so edibles really make it go further. Plus the effects last several hours instead of the 1-2 when smoking or vaping.
> Vaping using concentrate is likewise not cheap.
Erm.. you don't have to use concentrates.
In places where marijuana is illegal, it's tough to cook your own oil because your neighbors will smell it. There's no access to vaporizer liquid, and the vaporizers that do not need it and actually work are pretty expensive.
Different reasons for different users, but here's a few possible ones: dosage control is really hard with edibles (and they take a while to take effect), vapes are more expensive/slower, can be less portable, and I think the biggest one may be tradition/ritual that people enjoy around smoking. Humans aren't known for making the best decisions for their health :)
Edibles kind of suck TBH. Everyone's body digests and metabolizes things at a different rate, so while one brownie may get me absolutely stoned for 4 hours, my friend may need to eat 3 to get the same effect. Also, edibles take anywhere from 30 to 90 minutes to kick in -- you don't get the immediate effect you get from inhaling it.
Vapes are better, but the quality varies widely. THC is not water-soluble, so you need a hydrocarbon solvent (usually butane) to extract it and dilute it into enough of a liquid that it won't separate. Those vapes are actually pretty good and hit almost like smoking a pipe, but then again you're breathing in solvents along with it. Also, this type of liquid is close to impossible to make yourself -- at least safely (since it requires subjecting volatile solvents to high pressures and temperature).
There are "solvent free" blends that use things like coconut oil, but IMO those vapes don't work nearly as well and give a very thin vapor that is very hard to draw on. For this reason, some people prefer "dabbing" which is basically taking refined THC (in either solid or paste form) and burning it at very high temperatures, then inhaling the smoke. That way you get high without solvents or the majority of the burnt plant material, but a dabbing setup is expensive and it's really only feasible in places where you can easily buy the "wax" (i.e. Colorado).
If you mean the hot air vaporizers... they tend to be expensive and use twice as much material as smoking it, plus they don't "hit" like a pipe or bong (you have to inhale for a much longer time to get the same effect).
Vapes are better, but the quality varies widely. THC is not water-soluble, so you need a hydrocarbon solvent (usually butane) to extract it and dilute it into enough of a liquid that it won't separate. Those vapes are actually pretty good and hit almost like smoking a pipe, but then again you're breathing in solvents along with it. Also, this type of liquid is close to impossible to make yourself -- at least safely (since it requires subjecting volatile solvents to high pressures and temperature).
There are "solvent free" blends that use things like coconut oil, but IMO those vapes don't work nearly as well and give a very thin vapor that is very hard to draw on. For this reason, some people prefer "dabbing" which is basically taking refined THC (in either solid or paste form) and burning it at very high temperatures, then inhaling the smoke. That way you get high without solvents or the majority of the burnt plant material, but a dabbing setup is expensive and it's really only feasible in places where you can easily buy the "wax" (i.e. Colorado).
If you mean the hot air vaporizers... they tend to be expensive and use twice as much material as smoking it, plus they don't "hit" like a pipe or bong (you have to inhale for a much longer time to get the same effect).
> Also, this type of liquid is close to impossible to make yourself -- at least safely (since it requires subjecting volatile solvents to high pressures and temperature).
I built a closed loop (butane retaining) essential oils extractor for around $1500 and I never felt unsafe operating it. There are no high pressures involved, I pull the system to a slight vacuum then flood it with butane to around 15 psi (all my valves, ports, and joints are rated to 300 psi). There are no high temperatures involved either, butane boils at 30.2°F so I just leave the system at room temperature with the gas reclaimer running till all my solvent is back in the cylinder. The largest risk is actually developing a butane leak and flooding the area with an odorless flammable gas, but basic precautions can protect against this.
I built a closed loop (butane retaining) essential oils extractor for around $1500 and I never felt unsafe operating it. There are no high pressures involved, I pull the system to a slight vacuum then flood it with butane to around 15 psi (all my valves, ports, and joints are rated to 300 psi). There are no high temperatures involved either, butane boils at 30.2°F so I just leave the system at room temperature with the gas reclaimer running till all my solvent is back in the cylinder. The largest risk is actually developing a butane leak and flooding the area with an odorless flammable gas, but basic precautions can protect against this.
Then you are far beyond the skills of your average garage mechanic, my friend.
Really? Cause I just sourced appropriately rated threaded components from the internet and screwed them together with thread sealant from the auto shop. The hardest part was probably modding a minifridge to run on its back so I could fit my receiving tank in it for faster retrieval. The craziest mechanicals are probably inside the appion g5 refrigerant reclaimer and bargain basement vacuum pump I got off ebay.
In fact, if I think about it this was probably my first real project as a "maker", my design document was literally a single sheet of graph paper. Since then I've embarked on much more ambitious projects (frame-up electric bicycle, cnc plasma cutter, modular light up dance floor...) and I feel like my skills have probably increased many-fold over where I was at the time. If I were to build another one today I'd probably introduce considerably more complexity (electronically actuated valves with process automation for example, perhaps co2 as a solvent which would require cooling with liquid nitrogen). Shit, at the time I think my toolbag consisted of a screwdriver and an adjustable spanner.
In fact, if I think about it this was probably my first real project as a "maker", my design document was literally a single sheet of graph paper. Since then I've embarked on much more ambitious projects (frame-up electric bicycle, cnc plasma cutter, modular light up dance floor...) and I feel like my skills have probably increased many-fold over where I was at the time. If I were to build another one today I'd probably introduce considerably more complexity (electronically actuated valves with process automation for example, perhaps co2 as a solvent which would require cooling with liquid nitrogen). Shit, at the time I think my toolbag consisted of a screwdriver and an adjustable spanner.
> edibles take anywhere from 30 to 90 minutes to kick in
For me it's generally 120 minutes for the effects to start, then another 60 or so before the peak.
> THC is not water-soluble, so you need a hydrocarbon solvent (usually butane) to extract it and dilute it into enough of a liquid that it won't separate
While it does seem to be very fashionable in the US just now - you don't have to vape concentrates. There are lots of 'dry herb' vaporisers that are capable of vaping weed and hash.
A good alternative to edible is a cannabis tincture which is used sublingually. The onset is rapid, and so it's much easier to dose.
For me it's generally 120 minutes for the effects to start, then another 60 or so before the peak.
> THC is not water-soluble, so you need a hydrocarbon solvent (usually butane) to extract it and dilute it into enough of a liquid that it won't separate
While it does seem to be very fashionable in the US just now - you don't have to vape concentrates. There are lots of 'dry herb' vaporisers that are capable of vaping weed and hash.
A good alternative to edible is a cannabis tincture which is used sublingually. The onset is rapid, and so it's much easier to dose.
> While it does seem to be very fashionable in the US just now - you don't have to vape concentrates. There are lots of 'dry herb' vaporisers that are capable of vaping weed and hash.
Yeah, I personally think these vaporizers don't provide a very "satisfying" experience; and you have to draw on them a whole lot to get the same effect. They also use far more "herb" than many are willing to commit to consuming at a single time (most use at least half a gram, when you'd probably load a pipe with less than a quarter gram).
I've used a "Volcano" (uber high-quality German vaporizer) and while it actually works quite well, it's a novelty and it's basically a freaking $600 electronic bong. And it still has the problem where it requires a whole lot of material to adequately fill the chamber.
I've seen the tinctures, but never tried them. Too many new products these days... :)
Yeah, I personally think these vaporizers don't provide a very "satisfying" experience; and you have to draw on them a whole lot to get the same effect. They also use far more "herb" than many are willing to commit to consuming at a single time (most use at least half a gram, when you'd probably load a pipe with less than a quarter gram).
I've used a "Volcano" (uber high-quality German vaporizer) and while it actually works quite well, it's a novelty and it's basically a freaking $600 electronic bong. And it still has the problem where it requires a whole lot of material to adequately fill the chamber.
I've seen the tinctures, but never tried them. Too many new products these days... :)
I've never used a 'desktop' vape like the Volcano, but portable vapes only use 0.1 - 0.15g (you couldn't fit in any more if you tried).
With some you do need to draw on them a lot, but they definately make your herb go a lot further, which more than makes it worth it, I think :)
Tinctures are actually an 'old' product that's sort of becoming more popular again.
With some you do need to draw on them a lot, but they definately make your herb go a lot further, which more than makes it worth it, I think :)
Tinctures are actually an 'old' product that's sort of becoming more popular again.
The article and the title are wayyy out of parallel. The title says "There is a definite link between cannabis and dopamine levels, and too much will cause a deficit!!"
Whereas, in the article it clearly says "Nope, we didn't see any causal effect. The patients could have had a deficit already and we wouldn't know." Are the title, copy, and image editors all different people?
Whereas, in the article it clearly says "Nope, we didn't see any causal effect. The patients could have had a deficit already and we wouldn't know." Are the title, copy, and image editors all different people?
Let them eat cake!
"However, the researchers also point out that they “cannot show a causal relationship” between cannabis use and dopamine deficit, explaining that they can’t be sure"
Ok thanks bye.
Ok thanks bye.
Please don't post unsubstantive comments to Hacker News. Glib dismissals (like this one) are among the worst forms of this, so please avoid those in particular.
[deleted]
I smoke more weed than I probably should, but I had a screwed up dopamine system to start with - the genes don't lie.
Actually, on that note, perhaps people with preexisting dopamine deficits are more likely to become heavy cannabis users because it's the only way that they can experience dopamine - going through life with people going "what an achievement! Aren't you proud??" and only being able to reply "meh, I should've done better than first place" or whatever sucks. I can only reflect upon and feel good about what I've done with my life when stoned. I don't have a reward cycle, otherwise - I learned to motivate myself with a punishment cycle instead, and only now am I slowly unlearning it.