Cannabis News
Cannabis Use Disorder Rhetoric is Bordering on Lunacy at This Point
Cannabis Use Disorder Rhetoric is BS – and this is why!
A short while ago, I wrote an article talking about what a healthy relationship with cannabis looks like. I argued that the current definition for Cannabis Use Disorder is inaccurate and fails to reflect the average consumption rates of normal users in legal states.
In this article, I’ll show you exactly how the establishment utilizes arbitrary and outdated rules to wrongly designate regular cannabis consumers as having CUD. This contradicts the market trends we’re seeing as legalization spreads.
Let’s look at how a recent study in JAMA Network Open utilized the official CUD criteria. First, they define CUD as having just two symptoms like increased tolerance, cravings, or using more cannabis than intended originally. Two symptoms and you’ve got a “disorder”!
But this simplistic binary approach doesn’t match reality. Yes, some people develop unhealthy attachments to cannabis. But the majority of frequent users aren’t addicts – they’re just regular consumers who enjoy enhancing activities with cannabis.
Tolerance building is a normal biological process with any substance. Needing a bit more over time to achieve desired effects does not indicate addiction. It’s just how our bodies work. Yet this normal adaptation could get you diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder!
Some days you may crave cannabis more than others – like desperately wanting a beer at the end of a long work week. But anticipating enjoyment isn’t pathological. It’s simply having favorite ways to unwind and connect with friends. Yet by the study’s standards, this makes you disordered.
Perhaps you planned to save a new cannabis purchase for a special occasion, but ending up dipping into it earlier. Or you got extra high before a concert but used more than intended. By the researchers’ criteria, this minor lack of self-control means you’re addicted!
Do you see how questionable this all is? The disorder standards clearly don’t distinguish normal consumer behavior from actual addiction. They take reasonable enjoyment and medical use and falsely twist it into a psychiatric pathology. This isn’t science – it’s propaganda.
Now let’s talk about how these studies ignore critical market context. Daily or near-daily cannabis use is common among consumers integrating it into their lifestyle intentionally. This product exists legally for adult enjoyment – of course people are going to use it more than when it was prohibited!
With the incredible diversity of cannabis products and strains available today, it’s perfectly normal to experiment until you find your favorites. Yet the researchers call this “problems in life due to use” rather than a legitimate process of preferences emerging.
What it comes down to is the study shoehorning all use patterns into a disease paradigm developed for truly dangerous drugs like opioids. Cannabis carries risks, but is generally benign compared to say alcohol which kills over 3 million people annually. 91% of cannabis users never develop problematic use.
Medical patients using cannabis daily aren’t addicts – they’re treating their conditions and improving quality of life. The authors ignore that cannabis has genuine therapeutic benefits and acts as if any frequent use is disordered.
Now, some people certainly use cannabis irresponsibly or in unhealthy ways. Those folks should receive help through education and harm reduction. But we must enact this nuanced approach while rejecting the drug warriors’ goal of stigmatizing all frequent cannabis consumers.
In an environment of potent products and normalization, increased intense use by some is predictable. But most people self-regulate their enjoyment responsibly. So we should see frequent use as reasonable not disordered.
Blanket application of CUD criteria medicalizes and pathologizes patterns of use that are in fact normal and benign in the context of legal access. More nuanced analysis is required to accurately distinguish problematic use from typical enjoyment.
Well-intentioned harm reduction advocates must take care not to enable prohibitionists. Exaggerated scaremongering about “cannabis addiction” serves those who wish to roll back our hard-won legalization victories through misinformation.
What the data shows is the need for realistic cannabis education and prevention so that people make informed choices. Most adult consumers use moderately without issue. Disease rhetoric attempts to pathologize their reasonable enjoyment of a legal substance. We must push back against bad science.
Rising normalized cannabis use in legal states is not an epidemic. Prohibitionists manipulate statistics to claim typical consumer behavior is addiction. Don’t fall for it. We must defend cannabis culture against agenda-driven disease paradigms. The future of legalization depends on exposing this propaganda.
If There’s No Research, How Did The DSM Decide What’s “Normal” Cannabis Use?
In my last article, I broke down how statistics on “cannabis use disorder” are exaggerated propaganda. The disease rhetoric misrepresents normal consumer behavior as pathological.
A key example is the DSM-V’s arbitrary threshold for “disordered” use. It says using cannabis more than twice per week makes you an addict. But how did they arrive at this standard with no statistical basis?
The DSM criteria were created in the era of prohibition. There was minimal research on patterns of use in legal environments. So where did this mythical “two times weekly” cutoff come from? It seems totally random.
Some sources claim it was based on the mean frequency from limited surveys many decades ago. But applying dated statistics from prohibition to our current legal market makes no sense. Policymakers are using mismatched data to make sweeping claims about “addiction.”
This contradiction highlights theweak foundation underlying cannabis use disorder science. If there aren’t accurate large-scale surveys on usage patterns, how can researchers possibly determine normal from disordered behavior? Yet questionable standards like the DSM’s are used to craft policies and misinform the public.
Anecdotal experience suggests far more than twice weekly use is common among healthy consumers. Responsible people integrate cannabis into their lifestyle for wellness, recreation, spirituality, or medical relief. Why should frequencies exceeding some random historical artifact automatically mean you’re addicted?
A more reasonable assessment might define disordered use as consuming over 3-7 grams weekly on average. That allows substantial daily or near-daily use without stigma. Setting reasonable standards requires sociological and anthropological data on how average people integrate cannabis in legal climates, not outdated statistics.
Yet prohibitionists cling to arbitrary thresholds like the DSM’s to pathologize higher but still moderate use. They manipulate the lack of formal research to spread fear. Without scientific evidence, any limits slapped on “acceptable” use are ideological, not empirical.
Calling typical consumers addicts is rhetoric, not science. But it powerfully influences perceptions. This creates stigma against medical patients and breeds confusion about what healthy cannabis use really looks like.
So we must ask critically: Why should statistically unsupported standards be permitted to define “normal” use? Where is the data demonstrating that exceeding these random cutoffs predicts addiction or life problems? The scientific basis is non-existent.
For a substance used ritually for millennia with low harm, flat standards make little sense. We don’t designate “normal” drinking frequencies because moderate alcohol use depends on context. Cannabis requires a similarly nuanced approach based on lived experience, not abstract numbers.
If the DSM’s architects want to classify lifestyle consumers as disordered, they should provide the research. Until then, these arbitrary criteria only enable propaganda attacking legalization. We must advocate for realistic standards that distinguish actual addiction from prohibitionist hype.
With no statistical foundation, calling typical use pathological is unethical. The DSM criteria attempt to codify Drug War stigma without data. In the era of legalization, we need a new marijuana science free from historical bias. Anything less is intellectual dishonesty.
Can We Do Anything About The DSM-V’s Faulty Cannabis Criteria?
In short – not really. The DSM is published by the American Psychiatric Association, an influential organization of psychiatrists. Many of its members maintain antiquated views on substances shaped by the Drug War.
Further, the APA receives extensive funding from pharmaceutical companies. Unsurprisingly, these backers are not thrilled about cannabis disrupting their profits. This contributes to the DSM stigmatizing cannabis consumers.
As the quintessential psychiatric handbook, the DSM carries an air of infallible authority. In reality, as we’ve seen, its cannabis criteria lack empirical basis and ignore real-world consumer patterns. But questioning the psychiatry establishment’s wisdom is heresy in policy circles. So faulty standards like “disordered after using twice weekly” endure.
Rather than hoping for top-down reform from biased institutions, the solution comes through grassroots advocacy. We spread awareness that the DSM’s cannabis content is political propaganda, not objective science. Despite claims of expertise, these prohibitionist standards do not reflect moderate cannabis use.
You know yourself and your relationship with cannabis better than any manual written by prohibitionists. If you use frequently but remain responsible and happy, don’t let the DSM’s arbitrary thresholds make you feel disordered.
We change the narrative through confidently modeling healthy cannabis lifestyles beyond outdated disease paradigms. The truth emerges not from dusty policy manuals, but living consciously. Never forget: the power lies with us, the people. We will reform these delusional cannabis criteria from the ground up.
MORE ON CANNABIS USE DISORDER, READ ON..
Is kratom addictive? Discover the potential for dependence on Kratom, the risks involved with its use, and how to approach its consumption responsibly.
From 2011 to 2017, over 1,800 calls to poison centers involved kratom in the U.S. This significant number highlights the concern regarding kratom addiction.
However, without Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversight, and due to various consumption methods like teas and capsules, there are significant health risks. Safe use of kratom is now in question due to these issues.
Research debates how dependence develops, outlining signs like loss of control and withdrawal symptoms. These signs are seen in regular kratom users. Ironically, some people switch from drugs like heroin to kratom, looking for a legal alternative.
Understanding Kratom: Origins and Prevalence
Kratom comes from the Mitragyna speciosa tree in Southeast Asia. It can act like a stimulant or like opioids, based on how much you take. People use it in different ways, for a small energy boost or stronger effects at higher doses.
The legal status of kratom in the U.S. is complicated and changing. It’s a hot topic because some worry about its misuse. It’s still legal in several states. This shows how different places handle drug rules. The National Institute on Drug Abuse is looking into its medical benefits. But, the FDA hasn’t approved it for medical use yet. The DEA calls it a “drug of concern,” which means policies might change.
-
From 2011 to 2017, poison control centers in the U.S. got over 1,800 reports about kratom. This shows it’s widely used and might pose health risks.
-
Kratom’s main ingredients bind to opioid receptors very strongly, stronger than morphine even. This fact is key to understanding its effects.
-
As more people use kratom, more are reporting serious health problems. These include liver and heart issues, and tough withdrawal symptoms, particularly in those already sick.
The statistics show mounting worries about kratom in the U.S. As its use grows, it’s becoming more important to health policies and laws. What happens next will depend on further research and legal decisions.
Is Kratom Addictive: Investigating the Substance’s Nature
The question of kratom’s addictiveness focuses on how it affects brain receptors and its long-term health implications. The ongoing debate highlights concerns about dependence and the risk of addiction. Scientists are closely looking at these issues.
How Kratom Works in the Brain
Kratom’s main alkaloids, mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine, bind to the brain’s opioid receptors, similar to painkillers and narcotics. This connection suggests a potential risk of dependence. These alkaloids are key to kratom’s pain relief but also point to possible addiction concerns, especially with frequent, high-dose usage.
Patterns and Consequences of Long-term Use
-
Using kratom often, especially in large doses, can increase the risk of dependence and intense withdrawal symptoms, similar to opioid withdrawal.
-
Although some use it for pain or to improve mood, long-term kratom users might see serious health problems, like liver damage and mental health issues.
-
Withdrawal symptoms, including irritability, nausea, and sleep problems, show kratom’s impact on one’s physical and mental health.
Assessment of Addiction Risks
Studies indicate a significant risk of addiction to kratom, especially with high doses or frequent use. Dependence develops as the body gets used to kratom, leading to tolerance and a need for more to feel its effects. Withdrawal symptoms emphasize this risk, as highlighted by health experts.
Physiological Effects: Kratom’s Impact on the Body
There is a lot of debate about the safety and use of kratom. This herbal extract comes from the Mitragyna speciosa plant. It has drawn attention for its possible harmful effects on the body. The FDA has issued many warnings about kratom, raising safety concerns.
-
Kratom Adverse Effects: Kratom users have reported side effects like nausea, vomiting, and confusion. More serious issues include high blood pressure and liver damage. These problems highlight the risks of using kratom.
-
Herbal Extract Safety: Some kratom products contain heavy metals and pathogens. These can cause severe health issues, including death. This shows the importance of safety in herbal products.
-
FDA Warnings and Regulations: The FDA has linked kratom to over 35 deaths and warns against using it. They point out the lack of medical uses and the risk of addiction.
-
Physiological Impact: Kratom’s effects depend on the dose and the user’s body. Yet, it can lead to dangerous outcomes like liver damage and seizures.
-
Safety Concerns from Authorities: Federal agencies like the DEA are worried about kratom’s safety. Although not a controlled substance, monitoring suggests users should be careful.
Kratom might offer temporary relief for some ailments, but it comes with significant risks. The FDA’s warnings should make people think twice. If considering kratom, it’s crucial to talk to a doctor first. Experts stress the need for safety and caution with herbal extracts.
Conclusion
Kratom’s role in health and regulation is complex, with views and research findings widely varied. Some people use kratom for its claimed health benefits, but it’s a hot topic. Experts advise caution and suggest consulting a doctor before using kratom due to the unclear effects.
Clinical studies using scores like SOWS and COWS haven’t confirmed withdrawal symptoms from kratom. This adds to the debate, especially when some users report withdrawal. This makes kratom a controversial subject among different findings and user experiences.
When it comes to treating opioid addiction, kratom can be both helpful and harmful. Some have used it successfully to fight addiction. Yet, some states have banned it. This highlights the need for regulations and consistent product quality. It also raises questions about kratom’s legal status due to mixed actions by authorities.
The situation shows how complex kratom is in the realm of substance use and law. Without clear evidence supporting either its benefits or risks, it poses a challenge. More research is needed to guide regulations and health advice. For now, anyone thinking of using kratom should be careful, seek medical advice, and keep up with laws and health guidelines.
WHAT IS KRATOM ANYWAY? READ ON…
Cannabis News
New Rule, December 5: Oregon Cannabis Retailers, Processors and Labor Peace Agreements
As the popularity of CBD (cannabidiol) continues to rise, many pet owners are exploring its potential benefits for their furry companions. CBD is derived from the hemp plant and is known for its therapeutic properties, which may help alleviate anxiety, pain, inflammation, and other health issues in dogs. However, when considering CBD treats for your dog, it’s crucial to understand the ingredients that go into these products. This article will delve into the essential ingredients to look for in CBD treats, their benefits, potential risks, and how to choose the right product for your canine friend.
Understanding CBD and Its Benefits for Dogs
Before we dive into the ingredients, it’s important to understand what CBD is and how it can benefit dogs. CBD is a non-psychoactive compound found in cannabis plants. Unlike THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), which can produce a “high,” CBD does not have intoxicating effects. Instead, it interacts with the endocannabinoid system (ECS) in both humans and animals, which plays a crucial role in regulating various physiological processes.
Potential Benefits of CBD for Dogs
-
Anxiety Relief: Many dogs experience anxiety due to various factors such as loud noises, separation from their owners, or changes in their environment. CBD may help reduce anxiety levels by promoting a sense of calm.
Choosing the Right CBD Treats
When selecting CBD treats for your dog, it’s essential to look beyond just the CBD content. The overall quality of the treat is equally important. Here are some key ingredients you should be aware of:
1. High-Quality CBD Oil
The foundation of any good CBD treat is the quality of the CBD oil used. Look for treats that contain:
-
Full-Spectrum or Broad-Spectrum CBD: Full-spectrum products contain all cannabinoids found in the hemp plant, including trace amounts of THC (below 0.3% as per legal standards). Broad-spectrum products contain multiple cannabinoids but no THC. Both types can provide an “entourage effect,” enhancing the therapeutic benefits.
2. Natural Ingredients
Just like human food, the ingredients in your dog’s treats matter significantly. Look for treats made with natural ingredients rather than artificial additives or preservatives. Here are some beneficial components:
Whole grains like oat flour or brown rice flour provide essential nutrients and fiber that support digestive health. They are also a good source of energy for active dogs.
Healthy fats are vital for maintaining your dog’s coat and skin health. Ingredients like coconut oil or peanut butter not only enhance flavor but also provide beneficial fatty acids that support overall well-being.
Incorporating fruits and vegetables into your dog’s treats can boost their nutritional value:
To make treats more appealing without resorting to artificial flavors, look for natural flavorings like chicken broth or carob (a chocolate substitute safe for dogs). These ingredients can enhance taste while keeping the treat healthy.
3. Functional Ingredients
Some treats may include additional functional ingredients designed to address specific health concerns:
These compounds are often included in joint support treats to help maintain joint health and mobility, especially in older dogs or those with arthritis.
Probiotics can promote gut health by supporting a healthy balance of bacteria in your dog’s digestive system.
Certain herbs like chamomile or ginger may offer calming effects or aid digestion. Always ensure these herbs are safe for canine consumption before choosing treats containing them.
Ingredients to Avoid
While there are many beneficial ingredients to seek out, it’s equally important to know which ones to avoid:
1. Artificial Additives
Many commercial pet treats contain artificial colors, flavors, and preservatives that can be harmful to your dog’s health. These additives may lead to allergic reactions or other health issues over time.
2. High Sugar Content
Just like humans, dogs do not need excessive sugar in their diets. Treats high in sugar can lead to obesity and dental problems.
3. Low-Quality Fillers
Avoid treats with low-quality fillers such as corn syrup or by-products that do not provide any nutritional value.
Always ensure that any CBD product you choose contains less than 0.3% THC to avoid any psychoactive effects on your dog.
How to Introduce CBD Treats Safely
When introducing any new treat into your dog’s diet—especially one containing CBD—it’s essential to do so gradually:
-
Start Small: Begin with a small amount of the treat to see how your dog reacts.
-
Monitor Your Dog: Observe your dog for any adverse reactions such as changes in behavior or gastrointestinal upset.
-
Adjust Dosage as Needed: Depending on your dog’s size and needs, you may need to adjust the dosage over time.
-
Consult Your Veterinarian: Before starting any new supplement regimen, including CBD treats, consult with your veterinarian—especially if your dog has existing health conditions or is taking other medications.
Conclusion
CBD treats can be a beneficial addition to your dog’s diet when chosen carefully with attention to ingredient quality and safety. By understanding what goes into these treats—such as high-quality CBD oil, natural ingredients, functional additives—and knowing what to avoid, you can make informed decisions that support your dog’s health and well-being.
Always prioritize transparency from manufacturers regarding ingredient sourcing and product testing; this will ensure you’re providing your furry friend with safe and effective options tailored to their needs. With proper research and guidance from a veterinarian, you can confidently explore the potential benefits of CBD treats for your beloved pet while ensuring they enjoy a tasty snack that’s good for them too!
CBD OIL FOR DOGS, READ ON…
Get some rest on Modified Grapes—November’s Leafly HighLight
Is Kratom Addictive? Understanding Dependence, Risks, and Safe Usage
New Rule, December 5: Oregon Cannabis Retailers, Processors and Labor Peace Agreements
The CBD Dog Treat Guide
Trippin’ Golf Balls – Can Magic Mushrooms Help Your Golf Game?
Australian Broadcasting Corp Alleges Military Veterans Have Been Targeted By Medicinal Cannabis Companies Via Social Media & Offered Free “Product”
Medical Marijuana Passed in 106 out of 106 Counties and Cities in What State? A. Florida B. Kentucky C. Ohio D. North Dakota
Green Dragon founders fired up to “get back to where we were” with new joint
Trump 2.0 Cannabis Reform? – What to Expect When Republicans Control Washington
Two men convicted in robbery-murder of marijuana dispensary employee in Santa Ana
Distressed Cannabis Business Takeaways – Canna Law Blog™
United States: Alex Malyshev And Melinda Fellner Discuss The Intersection Of Tax And Cannabis In New Video Series – Part VI: Licensing (Video)
What you Need to Know
Drug Testing for Marijuana – The Joint Blog
NCIA Write About Their Equity Scholarship Program
It has been a wild news week – here’s how CBD and weed can help you relax
Cannabis, alcohol firm SNDL loses CA$372.4 million in 2022
A new April 20 cannabis contest includes a $40,000 purse
Your Go-To Source for Cannabis Logos and Designs
City Of Oakland Issues RFP For Employee Training Programs
-
Cannabis News2 years agoDistressed Cannabis Business Takeaways – Canna Law Blog™
-
One-Hit Wonders2 years agoUnited States: Alex Malyshev And Melinda Fellner Discuss The Intersection Of Tax And Cannabis In New Video Series – Part VI: Licensing (Video)
-
Cannabis 1012 years agoWhat you Need to Know
-
drug testing11 months agoDrug Testing for Marijuana – The Joint Blog
-
Education2 years agoNCIA Write About Their Equity Scholarship Program
-
Cannabis2 years agoIt has been a wild news week – here’s how CBD and weed can help you relax
-
Marijuana Business Daily2 years agoCannabis, alcohol firm SNDL loses CA$372.4 million in 2022
-
California2 years agoA new April 20 cannabis contest includes a $40,000 purse