Rather than spend time working out common sense regulation this is the sort of thing that Australians call cannabis research
If Monty Python were still around this would be perfect fodder for a sketch
As the article points out
A) ‘These metrics do not account for variations in the quantity or potency of cannabis and may poorly estimate the potential harms of cannabis use.’
So what exactly is the value of this ?
B) The researchers asked 31 people who had smoked weed within the last 30 days to roll their usual joints, spliffs or cones, except with oregano rather than cannabis.
SERIOUSLY 31 PEOPLE AND THEN THE REAL KICKER – PLEASE USE OREGANO NOT CANNABIS
C) The results were incredibly varied.
REALLY YOU DON’T SAY
Unbelievable – did these people get paid for this?
Wiley should remove this garbage proporting to be research from their library
APSAD should quite simply be ashamed of publishing this – which ever review board approved this should be told to go home and not come back to work.. ever.
It is name and shame time. How do these people even have jobs? We also note, 4 of them areemployed by the University of Queensland an institution that loves to publish so called cannabis research which is always skewed in a way so anti change types can quote their nauseous “research” on commercial TV and in Murdoch publications.
The other individual works at the Australian Catholic University so we know what their thinking is going to be.
The offenders are
So just to quickly precis this momentous piece of work.
5 individuals did research with 31 “smokers” and asked them to put some oregano in some rollling papers to give us this word salad of a conclusion.
The amount of cannabis used in common modes of administration may be highly variable. Daily use may be associated using larger quantities of cannabis. Titration attempts based on potency were not proportional or consistent across modes of administration. The results indicate people may adjust the quantity of cannabis based on perceived potency, however, not proportional to THC concentration. Inconsistency in the amount of cannabis used based on potency and within different modes of administration may represent a problem for self-report metrics which ask participants to report cannabis use in joints.
The Echo reports
How much weed is in that joint? A team of Australian researchers has found that it is quite varied, which could have implications for public health policy.
‘The majority of Australian studies of cannabis use have assessed individual use by self-reported frequency of use and crude quantification as a proxy for cannabis exposure,’ the researchers write in their new paper, published in Drug and Alcohol Review. They use the example of ‘the number of joints or cones smoked per day’ on questionnaires.
‘These metrics do not account for variations in the quantity or potency of cannabis and may poorly estimate the potential harms of cannabis use.’
The researchers asked 31 people who had smoked weed within the last 30 days to roll their usual joints, spliffs or cones, except with oregano rather than cannabis.
The results were incredibly varied. In joints – that is a purely cannabis cigarette – the amount went from 0.10 – 1.25 grams. In spliffs – that’s cannabis and tobacco – the range was 0.12 to 1.21 grams. In cones – that’s the section of a bong where the weed is packed – the range was 0.03 – 0.41 grams.
The researchers also point to previous research that between 81.6% and 85.7% of all cannabis in Australia is consumed by people who use it daily.
When the team asked the smokers to adjust the amount for a higher or lower potency, they did not do so in proportion to the THC concentration.
THC or Tetrahydrocannabinol is the compound in weed that makes you ‘high’. While they couldn’t measure THC concentration directly using oregano, when they told the smokers to roll as if the product was much stronger, the participants weren’t able to adjust enough to adequately reflect that change.
‘The variability in quantities prepared shows that the THC exposure from one joint, cone or spliff varies based on individual differences in the preparation of these most common routes of administration,’ the researchers write.
‘Importantly, it underscores the limitations of the current self-report metrics of only asking participants to report the number of joints or cones smoked per day in standard Australian national surveys.’